D&D General You Were Rolling Up a New Character, and Just Rolled a 3. What Is Your Reaction?

[Lanefan]

Some of us want the stats to matter in who the character is and a 3 is effectively disabled. In D&D a 3 intelligence is animal intelligence, not just a -4. When I play I want to play a hero, not someone who would have a hard time putting together a coherent sentence.

YMMV of course and if your 3 intelligence is played like they're a genius it's up to you. Just explaining why I wouldn't want it as a character and it has nothing to do with "sportsmanship" or lack therein.

So play 3 Charisma then, or 3 Wisdom, or 3 Dexterity.

I haven't had any true 3's played in my game but did have a couple of 4's - rolled up simultaneously, as fate would have it, and both put into Intelligence - and they workd out OK for both amusement and (in one case) longevity: one of them is still going (though retired from play) after a decent career in the field.

 

[Lanefan]

To be honest, I don't think ability scores have much impact on how players roleplay. Nor should they, for the most part.

For me, if you're not at least trying to play to your stats (particularly the low ones) you're cheating.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This past summer in a 1e game, my fighter ended up with a 6 for intelligence. It opened the door for a lot of role play opportunities. For example, he wanted to be a knight—help the oppressed, fight with honor, etc. well, the half orc assassin had basically convinced him that he was a true friend and ally, so my pc ended up finding himself in…tricky situations without understanding how or why lol. But it was fun. And a role play path that wouldn’t have happened otherwise.

 

[Lanefan]

What’s wrong with playing a disabled character? Though I disagree a three is disabled.

In fairness, if 18 is supra-genius then 3 is (in modern terms) disabled.

Even more so given that anything less than 3 is essentially non-functional.

Again, I reject the premise. Disabled characters can be heroes.

Indeed.

They’re not mutually exclusive categories. And there’s nothing saying a three INT means a PC can’t put together a coherent sentence.

For me, a 3 Int means coherent sentences are out the window but that 3-Int character can still be a hero.

The lack of sportsmanship comes in when a player’s a-okay with rolling the dice on their stats right up until that three shows up. If you’re willing to gamble as long as you win, you’re not willing to gamble. That’s bad sportsmanship.

Agreed completely.

 

[Clint_L]

For me, if you're not at least trying to play to your stats (particularly the low ones) you're cheating.

And why is that? Is there a rule that you have to RP to your stats?

Also, plenty of dumb people think they’re smart, bores think they’re charismatic, wimps think they’re tough, fools think they’re wise, and so on. The rolls will be what the rolls will be.

 

[Lanefan]

QFT

For those who are on about the "animal level reasoning":
If you have a character with a -4 in an ability, at least in 5e, you are 20% less capable than average.

This is the problem when assigning linear bonuses to bell-curve stats.

A 3 is the extreme low end of the bell-curve. In real life, you'll never see someone with 3 in anything on the street as that person is either incapable of getting there or incapable of functioning there. In the game, allowances will have to be made for that 3-stat person to be able to function in the field, though if done right this can greatly enhance your game.

That's the extent it. There is absolutely nothing in the 5e DMG or PHB that forces a player to roleplay a 3 INT, for example, as if they have "animal level reasoning".

Another mark against the 5e PHB.

The player gets to choose how they want to portray their character.

And that choice IMO absolutely has to be informed by the character's stats, otherwise the player is cheating.

 

[Lanefan]

And why is that? Is there a rule that you have to RP to your stats?

If there isn't, there 100% should be...or at least an extremely strong suggestion.

Also, plenty of dumb people think they’re smart, bores think they’re charismatic, wimps think they’re tough, fools think they’re wise, and so on. The rolls will be what the rolls will be.

And IMO the role-playing needs to suggest the bolded.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

I do love the idea that animals are secretly just 20% less intelligent than your average human. Animal Farm, Charlotte's Web, Secret of NIMH, the Great Mouse Detective... all true!

 

[Distracted DM]

I had a 2e character with 4 charisma, I think it was a ranger (did they have a charisma requirement?)- the GM and I decided his family was killed by demons, he got horribly burned, and he was a coarse jerk. I guess I looked at it as an opportunity, but I also knew I wouldn't be making social checks.

I've done similar with osr characters, though I haven't had rolls that low- I let the stats decide certain aspects of the character.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

QFT

For those who are on about the "animal level reasoning":
If you have a character with a -4 in an ability, at least in 5e, you are 20% less capable than average. That's the extent it. There is absolutely nothing in the 5e DMG or PHB that forces a player to roleplay a 3 INT, for example, as if they have "animal level reasoning". The player gets to choose how they want to portray their character.

sure, technically there's nothing FORCING you to act a 3 int in a specific way...but like...cats in dnd have 3 int. as do foxes, elephants, tigers, sperm whales, walruses...

so it's perfectly accurate to say a 3 intelligence is "animal level reasoning" when multiple animals literally have that level of intelligence.