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

[Swarmkeeper]

It's a flaw in the rules that allows very-low-Intelligence characters to know three languages when in reality they would barely know one.

If you're not willing to roleplay a dumb or clumsy or weak character then don't put the low roll there.

Also, keep in mind we're talking about the extreme-outlier ends of the bell curve here. Further, 3-4-5e with their linear bonus structure suggest a far greater practical difference between a 8 and a 14 in any stat than do the IMO much more reasonable 1-2e setups where the bonus is j-curved at each end to better match the bell curve and has a big +0 region in the middle.

You do realize there's more than one way to play this game we all love, right? (well, maybe not all... but most of us)

 

[AlViking]

To make my position perfectly clear, I am saying that all D&D attributes are is a measure of that character's facility with the specific situations described in the rules, like spellcasting, making attacks, using skills. Things you roll for. That's it. An Int. 3 means that your character is really bad at those specific rolls. It does not means that your character has to be bad at everything that involves thinking or...they'd actually be bad at everything.

So a score only has to coincide with your RP as far as you, the player, prefer. If you want to play your Int. 3 character as briiliant in ways that aren't covered by the rules, then thats fine! It's fun! Go for it! They'll still never be a wizard, but maybe they are a genius at other things. Which mostly won't be relevant to your adventuring day, or they'd be covered in the rules, but might be very impactful on the story.

We have MANY examples of such people in popular culture. How intelligent is Doc Brown? He's obviously a super genius in some ways, but a total idiot in others. And you can say the same for every other attribute. It's all a matter of context. The attribute scores only apply to the context covered, specifically, by the rules.

If you have the intelligence of a standard house pet or a toddler, you should be bad at most things. Doc Brown? His wisdom may have been a bit lower than average but it was in no way a 3. In any case, it's just a matter of how we approach stats, a 3 is as low as humanly possible while still being basically functional. That's not a high bar. Meanwhile a 20 is higher than most mortals could hope to attain.

But it's a game. Play it your way but I disagree and people playing low stats for "humor" in my experience has been quite negative.