Dealing with a Low Stat character

[Edgerunner]

A character in my new campaign has no stats below a 13 except for a 4 in Wis. He went Barb.

How do I deal with this character fairly and in an interesting manner? I consider Wis to be Common Sense and gathering information with the clues provided around you.... Is this correct?

[hymer]

Common sense, yes, to a degree at least. But that will mostly be up to the player to portray. Gathering information, well, depends what you mean by that. Generally gathering information will be more int or cha. But wis is a matter of interpreting what your senses tell you about the world you inhabit. This too will be mostly portrayed by the player.
I don't think you need to do a whole lot with it. Call for those Perception (wis) checks to avoid surprise as you would to any other character, and target him with spells and effects as appropriate for the NPC doing it. If they know he's weak in the mind department, they're likely to target him more, but most encounters wouldn't give them much chance to realize this.
This is all assuming that the player knows what they're doing. If he doesn't you can start to worry about it when you know there is a problem.

[Darth Ultron]

Ignore it, except for game mechanics.

[Sir cryosin]

What are his/her stats because your thread title and what you put in the message are contradicting each other.

[Ninja_Prawn]

that will mostly be up to the player to portray.

This is the core of the issue. It's usually best to just leave them to it, even if you feel like they're being 'too wise'.

Which they probably will, because 4 is extremely low. That would indicate a complete lack of intuition, a crippling inability to read other people and a marked lack of attention to detail. They'll be easy to trick, charm and Hold. Zombies (Wis 6) and Slaad Tadpoles (Wis 5) are wiser than this barbarian. I don't know if there even are any monsters with less Wisdom.

But still, the PC belongs to the player. Not really much for you to do.

[MrStabby]

Yeah, Wisdom 4 is Very Low.

I am not even sure how I would portray this - maybe as an Autistic person? I am not sure what alternative examples there are out there for people with no ability to read people, apply intuitive sense and not take things at face value. I don't know at what level a low stat should be considered pathological though.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I don't know at what level a low stat should be considered pathological though.

Well classically, D&D Intelligence is said to map to IQ at Int*10=IQ. An IQ of 70 or lower is considered to indicate a 'severe learning disability'. So I'd say less than 7 in a stat is potentially pathological. I think it's notable that point buy doesn't let you have anything lower than 8 as well.

As a rough guide, I'd imagine it something like...
7: some abnormalities, but minimal impact on quality of life.
5-6: moderate disability, has a significant impact on life.
3-4: severe disability, probably requires care or support from someone else.

So with 4 in Wisdom, you might be so bad at reading people that you can't communicate at all, or so foolish that you'd be constantly getting into trouble if your friends didn't watch out for you. It's a very hard thing to roleplay.

[hymer]

Yeah, Wisdom 4 is Very Low.

I am not even sure how I would portray this - maybe as an Autistic person? I am not sure what alternative examples there are out there for people with no ability to read people, apply intuitive sense and not take things at face value. I don't know at what level a low stat should be considered pathological though.

I don't think autism is easily shown in abiltiy stats. One of the problems of autism is that the brain needs to filter out most of the information sent by the senses. One symptom of autism is an inability to do this. As a consequence, autistic people could well be said to be more perceptively acute as a result of their autism. But real life isn't a simple as that, because an inability to understand non-verbal cues is another symptom of autism. But Wis is used for both.


Well classically, D&D Intelligence is said to map to IQ at Int*10=IQ. An IQ of 70 or lower is considered to indicate a 'severe learning disability'. So I'd say less than 7 in a stat is potentially pathological. I think it's notable that point buy doesn't let you have anything lower than 8 as well.

Here's another way of looking at it: 4 is as far below average as 16 is above it. Or this: Getting a DC 12 spell cast at them, the -3 person has 30% chance of making it; average people have 45% chance; while the +3 person has 60%. So they're half as likely to resist the spell as the wise guy, but only 50% less likely than the average person. Doesn't sound pathologically different. Compare it to, say, test scores, it's noticeably below average, but not hopelessly out of touch with reality.

[Tanarii]

In situations like this, I find it helpful to read the rules about what the ability score means, and what kind of checks it applies to. As opposed to going off of what is often a misunderstanding of what the normal english word means.

So pulled from the basic rules http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PlayerBasicRulesV03.pdf

Wisdom
Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition.

(Note there's nothing about common sense involved with D&D Wisdom.)

Other checks:
• Get a gut feeling about what course of action to follow
• Discern whether a seemingly dead or living creature is undead


(Note these are similar to, but not quite the same as, intuition and

And of course there the categories of tasks you can get a prof bonus to if you select them during character creation (aka skills):
Animal Handling
Insight
Medicine
Perception
Surivival

So ... as far as roleplaying goes, you're less attuned to the world around you, less perceptive, less intuitive. Mechanically you're worse at anthing which involves a Wis check, which at the least includes things that involve relying on your gut feelings, and of course the things that fall under skills.

Playing someone that can't trust himself to do what 'feels right' might be kind of interesting. She'd have to reason it out all the time, because otherwise she'd potentially screw up. If that's what you mean by 'common sense' then yeah, it'd cover common sense. :smallamused:

[Tanarii]

Well classically, D&D Intelligence is said to map to IQ at Int*10=IQ. An IQ of 70 or lower is considered to indicate a 'severe learning disability'. So I'd say less than 7 in a stat is potentially pathological. I think it's notable that point buy doesn't let you have anything lower than 8 as well.Yes, but that classical method is really stupid, and was only used because people (especially kids) suck at understanding math and probabilities. Because 3d6 (which is what the array often was when this classical method was used) creates a bell curve. And IQ is also a bell curve, not linear.

A much better way to make 3d6 to IQ is to use matching standard deviations from the average. For example, IQ 85 & 115 are about 34% away from the average of 100. Rougly meaning Int 8 ~= IQ 85 and Int 13 ~= IQ 115. Likewise, Int 5 ~= IQ 70 & Int 17 ~= IQ 130, and Int 3 ~= IQ 55 & Int 18 ~= IQ 145.

Edit: Point being that an ability of 5 is only borderline retarded. Int 3 & 4 are only midly retarded. Correspondingly for the other stats too. Mechanically that works out as up to -20% chance of success, which fits the idea it's bad, but not extreme. And can be countered by focusing on getting better at something related to the ability (ie proficiency) and experience.

[NecroDancer]

Portray the character as having no attention span. The character gets distracted by the smallest things imaginable. Your character isn't stupid but even if he knows what the "ancient magical text" says he'll get distracted and fail to finish his explanation.

[Friv]

Force the player to play a phone game at the session, and whenever he asks what he missed just say, "Iunno." :smalltongue:


In all seriousness, the real question is, "do you trust the player to roleplay this okay?" It doesn't have to be perfect; a lot of people roleplay characters who don't quite match their stats. But this is someone who doesn't really get gut intuitions, who is frequently distracted to the point of zoning out, and who probably just takes people at their word. Depending on his Intelligence, he's a classic absent-minded professor, but the really broad stereotype version who's so excited by a new flower he saw that he doesn't notice his hair is on fire.

[CursedRhubarb]

Man, ahaving a Wisdom score that low I'd play them as a space cadet with absolutely terrible ADD. Middle of combat, swinging away at the enemy and.....ooooh shiiiiiny.

Or perhaps extremely OCD. Think of Jack's character in "As Good as it Gets".

That the rest of the stats being 13 or higher makes it even better because they would actually be smart and likeable, they just need a lot of help to focus.

Maybe have apothecaries carry a D&D equivalent to an ADD or OCD medicine that they can buy to let them focus for 24 hours.

[JNAProductions]

I'd ask your DM to let you shuffle stats around a little bit to not have a mental stat be so dang low.

Physical stats are fine being low, but see if you can skim some points off Intelligence or something to get Wisdom to at least around 6.

[N810]

Let them find some nice equipment, to balance things out.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I'd ask your DM to let you shuffle stats around

Or, in the case of the OP, you could offer to let your player shuffle their stats. :smalltongue:

[JNAProductions]

Or, in the case of the OP, you could offer to let your player shuffle their stats. :smalltongue:

Derp. My bad.

The issue is, Barbarians really need all physical stats to be good. They're kinda MAD that way. (You could dump Strength, but I imagine your player wants to be a big strong Barbarian, not a lithe, agile type.)

So I'd let them take 2 points off the top stat and add to their bottom stat. That's literally what I just did for Villagers of Oakenleaf for a player who got Intelligence of 4.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Honestly, I'd just say "that's too low" and bump the 4 up to, oh, a 7 with no strings attached. That way you can play your foolish/distracted berserker without having to worry about portraying a borderline-insensate creature.

EDIT: And without irritating the rest of the party, which seems... quite likely, based on a lot of these suggestions. Like playing a Kender.

[Sigreid]

I would have fun with this. I'd say whatever pops into my head, no matter who the party is talking to. Not insane stuff, just unfiltered. I'd demonstrate for the party that I have no concept of my own limitations and a contempt for the danger the party is facing. I'd voluntarily fall for every attempt at manipulation by women who bat their eyelashes. If the party wants discretion to be shown, they'll have to have someone help me with that.

It could be a full on riot to play. :smallbiggrin:

[Vogonjeltz]

This is the core of the issue. It's usually best to just leave them to it, even if you feel like they're being 'too wise'.

Which they probably will, because 4 is extremely low. That would indicate a complete lack of common sense, a crippling inability to read other people and a marked lack of attention to detail. They'll be easy to trick, charm and Hold. Zombies (Wis 6) and Slaad Tadpoles (Wis 5) are wiser than this barbarian. I don't know if there even are any monsters with less Wisdom.

But still, the PC belongs to the player. Not really much for you to do.

I think you don't really have to worry about trying to portray anything, the basic mechanics of the game will take care of it for you.

With such low Wisdom the character probably will fail basic Foraging and Navigation attempts, so they're pretty much dead weight in the Exploration portion of the game and the Social portion, with their combat contribution crippled for surprise/traps.

So yeah, very low Wisdom is fairly crippling in the adventuring profession even if you don't intentionally roleplay the character as lacking awaresness of their situations.


Portray the character as having no attention span. The character gets distracted by the smallest things imaginable. Your character isn't stupid but even if he knows what the "ancient magical text" says he'll get distracted and fail to finish his explanation.

I don't agree that lack of Wisdom reflects attention span so much as the inability to notice things, a lack of situational awareness.

So, it's entirely possible for the character to be very well versed in a particular topic (ancient magical text) and if you ask them about it, they'll go off discussing, effectively with themselves, the entirety of their knowledge, maybe not even noticing that you've stopped listening/reading at this point, yet continuing anyway, going on and on and on and on about the most insane minutiae, even while that Goblin Horde is pounding on the door, they're still focused on the true foundational importance that the Empire of the Seven Stars had in sculpting and the development of basket weaving. And....wait were those arrows? <---This could be an example of someone who isn't aware.

[Naanomi]

It depends a *lot* on his other mental stats. A 4 wisdom character with low Charisma can be the impulsive social idiot described above... but if they are rocking a high Charisma then it doesn't work the same way. Intelligence plays a role in there as well.

Assuming they have good better in those other stats... I would play the character as hopelessly naive and possibility-blind... always assume the other person is telling the truth, always assume the situation is exactly as it appear. No need to look deeper into anything, of course there isn't a trap, of course no one is hiding there! Such a person could know a lot (book smart high INT) and even be charming in a way (high CHA) but would have abysmal perception (only looks at what is right in front of them) and could have a mind very easy to fool with magic with such a limited scope of their world-view

[Tanarii]

I think you don't really have to worry about trying to portray anything, the basic mechanics of the game will take care of it for you.

With such low Wisdom the character probably will fail basic Foraging and Navigation attempts, so they're pretty much dead weight in the Exploration portion of the game and the Social portion, with their combat contribution crippled for surprise/traps.

So yeah, very low Wisdom is fairly crippling in the adventuring profession even if you don't intentionally roleplay the character as lacking awaresness of their situations.This is somewhat mitigated by the fact he's a Barbarian. Eventually he'll get advantage on dex saves vs appropriate traps, as well as not be surprised if he spends a Rage. He can also slect proficiency in appropriate Wis skills if he wants to mitigate the effects of certain areas of his deficiency.

But yeah, he will be bad at dealing with animals, determining the intention of creatures, spotting things, foraging, not getting lost, tracking, making gut calls, and suceptible to a lot of mind magic. The mechanics already make him bad at a lot of things, in ways that says a lot of things about him.

[furby076]

Why overthink this. Let the player keep the 4, with all the penalties. This will impact skills and saves. Then they can rp their character however they want.

Put it this way: we have characters with 18+ int and wis but most of us are not 18 so we cant come up with those genius ideas. But the DM helps out with tips. Having charisma 18 doesnt mean you are gorgeous. Heck you can have charisma 4 and be hot (paris hilton anyone).

If the player tries to RP something, requiring wisdom, just have him roll a check (using his wis penalty) vs some check. If he beats great (every dog has their day), if he fails then there are consequences.

I play a paladin with 8 int. In game play he is not the brightest, but he has his moments (combat strategy). I make sure not to chime in with other genius topics. Its more fun for me, and lets our smart characters to come up with good ideas

[The Shadowdove]

Slightly above average in booksmarts.

However, doesn't know how to apply their skills in a social context and has little spacial awareness.

Doesn't bother themselves with the more obscure details if it isn't relevant to their goals and ambitious. Yet, may be swayed into believing something they previously didn't is now important to their cause.

It may even be tough for people to tell whether they're either incredibly dense or just abnormally introspective. Whether the player is sometimes neglectfully vacant toward certain topics or occurrences, or they sincerely just don't care about the subjects / outcomes

Player options are to actually make them have a low attention span, or simply no interest in a variety of things; while still maintaining strong interest in particular things.

Perhaps their failed efforts to understand others on a similar thought process or level of perception has caused them to develop a habit of no longer bothering to follow things they believe to be a waste of their efforts.

That they don't do things unknowingly, but instead choose to ignore certain kinds of triggers in regards to social interactions or events around them.

Are they passively thick and difficult to keep on task, or do they actually just think in such a different way that they cannot see things as others would normally perceive them. That they rely on their learned truths of such things to understand situations, because other people don't explain them in a way that makes sense to the character.

[hymer]

Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you[...]

(Note there's nothing about common sense involved with D&D Wisdom.)

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider 'common sense' if not being attuned to the world around you?

[Ninja_Prawn]

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider 'common sense' if not being attuned to the world around you?

Common sense is that ephemeral thing that you only hear about when people don't have it. Like 'political correctness'. Most of the time, when I hear it, it's being used as a lazy insult against intelligent/educated people - or an excuse to cut corners and ignore inconvenient rules (usually Health and Safety).

So actually, D&D is probably right not to use the term.

[Socratov]

I think that in this case he might be extremely oblivious and naive, which would fit someone's arrival form a rural area into a city well. The PC in question will be competent at what he does, but when it comes to roleplaying he won't notice things, have plans with clear oversights, be generally trusting to those he meets and oblivious to innuendo.

[Tanarii]

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider 'common sense' if not being attuned to the world around you?
I don't consider common sense to mean anything. I've never understood what common sense is supposed to be, because it's undefined. Like the way 'logical' is commonly used now, it seems to mean "the way I personally prefer to do things and think about things, which I am justifying as global or superior with this label".

That's why I turned to something more specific and defined instead.

[90sMusic]

I would imagine someone with 4 wis being EXTREMELY gullible, believing basically anything anyone says to them. They'd also be very aloof and not notice virtually anything in the world around them.

[Socratov]

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider 'common sense' if not being attuned to the world around you?

I would define common sense as the logic reasoning and decision making based on generally available and/or memetic information.

it could very well be handled by wisdom (how well you perceive and interpret the situation), but also by intelligence (how well you remember the right bit of information/experiences and how well you use logic to compare them).

[90sMusic]

I don't really see common sense as being related to wisdom really.

Common sense is a round-about way of saying experience. People who lack common sense are people that usually grow up in pretty isolated circumstances and haven't been exposed to much. It doesn't mean they are stupid or unwise, they'd just never had an opportunity to be exposed to such things.

If you wanted to eat soup for example, you'd most likely use a spoon because that is just common sense. But what if you had never seen a spoon or equivalent implement before? It doesn't mean you can't understand how it works or wouldn't eventually try using it that way on your own, you simply don't know how it works initially because you lack the experience to come to that conclusion.

You could be an extremely wise old person full of amazing insights into the world around you and characteristics and behaviors of people and animals, but still have no idea how to change a flat tire. Changing a flat tire is pretty common sense. You might even think less of someone for not knowing how to do that, or how to check the oil in their car or check the pressure in their tires.

But it doesn't mean they are stupid, they are just inexperienced. It would only correlate to wisdom if they had actually watched someone perform one of these tasks and still couldn't figure it out. That is the difference. A really wise person may not know how something works, but they can quickly find out through observation and/or experimentation.

Thats my take anyway. I've known plenty of people who were intelligent and/or wise but lacked all common sense because of the way they were raised. They never had to worry about the practical things most people learn naturally and take for granted because they never had to do or worry about any of it. Just boiling an egg is pretty common sense but some people don't even know how to do that.

[Naanomi]

The high/low stat dichotomy that is always hard for me is very low intelligence coupled with very high Charisma, the 4 INT 20 CHA sorcerers of the world. How can they be so pursuasive?

[Ninja_Prawn]

I disagree with several points in here... *reaches for tin hat*


But it doesn't mean they are stupid, they are just inexperienced.

This assumes that there is a common corpus of 'life experience' that everyone is expected to have, which strikes me as arbitrary, unrealistic and exclusionary. Who decides which pieces of 'experience' fall under the umbrella of 'common sense'? I've never learned how to change a tyre, for example, and I'm a mechanical engineer! I assume I'd be able to figure it out with appropriate instructions - maybe even intuit it from looking at the tools - but it would be unfair to say I lack common sense because of that.


It would only correlate to wisdom if they had actually watched someone perform one of these tasks and still couldn't figure it out. That is the difference. A really wise person may not know how something works, but they can quickly find out through observation and/or experimentation.

Learning things by observing, experimenting and puzzling them out is an Intelligence skill, not Wisdom.


Just boiling an egg is pretty common sense

How is that in any way common sense? There's no way you could just know how to boil an egg unless someone else told you, or you spent the time to experiment with it.

[Tanarii]

This assumes that there is a common corpus of 'life experience' that everyone is expected to have, which strikes me as arbitrary, unrealistic and exclusionary.Yes, but that's actually one of the meanings of common sense. Which is why the term is now effectively worthless. The original definition is pointless, and no one uses it anyway so there's no real definition any more. Although it's commonly used to mean 'good judgement' that's a meaningless phrase.


How is that in any way common sense? There's no way you could just know how to boil an egg unless someone else told you, or you spent the time to experiment with it.Because it's something commonly expected to be known in current society. That's why he used examples like using a spoon, changing a tire, checking oil & tire pressure. In many western countries, and especially in the U.S., knowing how to drive a car is common sense.

[The Shadowdove]

A country bumpkin who managed to graduate highschool, with more thanks to the textbooks than help from peers.

[Naanomi]

I'm a special ed teacher and in the context of ASD instruction we generally define common sense as a combination of 'awareness of different options available to you', 'flexibility in being willing to choose something different if your choice isn't working, including abandoning an idea of no solution works', and 'ability to judge likely outcomes of choices and make decisions based on those likely outcomes'

I wouldn't tie to any DnD stat explicitly but is in line with a more classic definition of the word 'wisdom'

[Jormengand]

I am not even sure how I would portray this - maybe as an Autistic person?

If autism was low anything, it would be low charisma. Still, there certainly exist autistic people with all-positive mental stats (and I know one particularly scary individual who is probably autistic and also probably has every stat positive). Autistic people aren't stupid or foolish, or even necessarily unable to convey themselves easily. They're autistic. And trying to portray mental disorders in D&D will end up going down the stereotype rabbit-hole quickly.

[Pex]

I'm guessing you allowed rolling for stats.

DM fiat the roll to 8 if only just to have verisimilitude. Not that the player was likely to anyway, but the cost of the fiat is the player can never use an ASI to increase Wisdom nor can he take any feat that would do so including Resilient (Wis). Resilient (any other stat) is ok. He also may never become proficient with Insight.

[Naanomi]

If autism was low anything, it would be low charisma. Still, there certainly exist autistic people with all-positive mental stats (and I know one particularly scary individual who is probably autistic and also probably has every stat positive). Autistic people aren't stupid or foolish, or even necessarily unable to convey themselves easily. They're autistic. And trying to portray mental disorders in D&D will end up going down the stereotype rabbit-hole quickly.
Diagnostically Insight would be the most affected stat I'd guess, but you are right that attempting to replicate a particular disorder in an RPG rarely ends well

[Tanarii]

I'm guessing you allowed rolling for stats.

DM fiat the roll to 8 if only just to have verisimilitude. Not that the player was likely to anyway, but the cost of the fiat is the player can never use an ASI to increase Wisdom nor can he take any feat that would do so including Resilient (Wis). Resilient (any other stat) is ok. He also may never become proficient with Insight.I'm curious why? This isn't just directed at you, but at the several people that have suggested allowing the player to raise the stat. The player's next lowest stat is a 13. It's not like having this one low stat is going to make an unplayable character.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm curious why? This isn't just directed at you, but at the several people that have suggested allowing the player to raise the stat. The player's next lowest stat is a 13. It's not like having this one low stat is going to make an unplayable character.
Not mechanically unplayable, but-- perhaps-- roleplaying-wise. Look at the discussion we've been having here, about just how dysfunctional the character will be with a Wis that low. My impression is that you'll either wind up with the standard "slightly impulsive" low-Wis character, or some sort of horribly irritating idiot who is at best a burden, and at worst an actively disruptive presence to the other players. With that being the case, I suggest increasing the stat to the point where you can justify acting like a normal person.

[Tanarii]

Not mechanically unplayable, but-- perhaps-- roleplaying-wise. Look at the discussion we've been having here, about just how dysfunctional the character will be with a Wis that low. My impression is that you'll either wind up with the standard "slightly impulsive" low-Wis character, or some sort of horribly irritating idiot who is at best a burden, and at worst an actively disruptive presence to the other players. With that being the case, I suggest increasing the stat to the point where you can justify acting like a normal person.If someone is making in-character decisions (aka roleplaying) due to a mechanical penalty of 10% less effectiveness than an 8 that extremely, then that's a problem with their in-character decision making regarding that ability score. Ditto for storytelling presentation of the resulting personality (ie what people sometimes mistakenly refer to as roleplaying).

Unless it's done well of course. After all, Raistlin actually had a Constitution of 10, so no penalty at all. And yet the storytelling presentation of his poor health (which per urban legend happened during play testing), and the resulting presentation in the books, is riveting.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If someone is making in-character decisions (aka roleplaying) due to a mechanical penalty of 10% less effectiveness than an 8 that extremely, then that's a problem with their in-character decision making regarding that ability score. Ditto for storytelling presentation of the resulting personality (ie what people sometimes mistakenly refer to as roleplaying).
That's what I'm worried about, is the thing; look at the people here deciding that the character should have developmental disorders and/or nearly unable to communicate at all.

[Tanarii]

That's what I'm worried about, is the thing; look at the people here deciding that the character should have developmental disorders and/or nearly unable to communicate at all.Gotcha. Yeah, given that some people will try and play a character with an Int or Wis or Cha score as low as 8 as developmentally disabled, I guess I can see your point. :smallyuk:

[MBControl]

That's a tough one, unless the character is really good at RPing the low WIS, some people enjoy it. I always find it tough to play dumb, not that I'm brilliant, I just enjoy taking part in planning, and I want to make good game decisions. My solution is to avoid super low INT characters.

When the stat is that low it's hard to ignore. I would offer the player the chance to re-roll the stat, or I would allow it, but remind the player that they are going to have limited abilities.

Down the road, you as a DM, can offer a "magical" way of propping up that stat, with buffs or magic items.

[Pex]

I'm curious why? This isn't just directed at you, but at the several people that have suggested allowing the player to raise the stat. The player's next lowest stat is a 13. It's not like having this one low stat is going to make an unplayable character.


Not mechanically unplayable, but-- perhaps-- roleplaying-wise. Look at the discussion we've been having here, about just how dysfunctional the character will be with a Wis that low. My impression is that you'll either wind up with the standard "slightly impulsive" low-Wis character, or some sort of horribly irritating idiot who is at best a burden, and at worst an actively disruptive presence to the other players. With that being the case, I suggest increasing the stat to the point where you can justify acting like a normal person.

This.

My suggested restrictions was to reflect the original circumstance of the Wisdom having been a 4. It is to ensure the fiat is only meant for ease of play not a boost.

[Digimike]

As long as the player recklessly charges into combat a lot, and gets distracted by shiny things...i really don't see an issue.

[Edgerunner]

I have decided to have the character play as Autistic. the player has no damage to Int but has trouble articulating. The character also has a Talent for written words or symbols. IE: he can reproduce any written text he has seen flawlessly and can also help with Ritual spells ( to replicate the symbols needed). he will also need to be Instructed how to act in many social situations.

Does this seem reasonable?

[Jormengand]

I have decided to have the character play as Autistic.

Does this seem reasonable?

No, as previously discussed. Low wisdom and autism are entirely unrelated, and playing a low wisdom character as an autistic charicature is nothing but offensive.

Actually, it is something other than offensive, it's spreading stereotypes and false beliefs which are hurting people.

Please, please, please reconsider.

[Socratov]

I don't really see common sense as being related to wisdom really.

Common sense is a round-about way of saying experience. People who lack common sense are people that usually grow up in pretty isolated circumstances and haven't been exposed to much. It doesn't mean they are stupid or unwise, they'd just never had an opportunity to be exposed to such things.

If you wanted to eat soup for example, you'd most likely use a spoon because that is just common sense. But what if you had never seen a spoon or equivalent implement before? It doesn't mean you can't understand how it works or wouldn't eventually try using it that way on your own, you simply don't know how it works initially because you lack the experience to come to that conclusion.

You could be an extremely wise old person full of amazing insights into the world around you and characteristics and behaviors of people and animals, but still have no idea how to change a flat tire. Changing a flat tire is pretty common sense. You might even think less of someone for not knowing how to do that, or how to check the oil in their car or check the pressure in their tires.

But it doesn't mean they are stupid, they are just inexperienced. It would only correlate to wisdom if they had actually watched someone perform one of these tasks and still couldn't figure it out. That is the difference. A really wise person may not know how something works, but they can quickly find out through observation and/or experimentation.

Thats my take anyway. I've known plenty of people who were intelligent and/or wise but lacked all common sense because of the way they were raised. They never had to worry about the practical things most people learn naturally and take for granted because they never had to do or worry about any of it. Just boiling an egg is pretty common sense but some people don't even know how to do that.
Are you sure that you aren;t confusing common sense with common knowledge?

No, as previously discussed. Low wisdom and autism are entirely unrelated, and playing a low wisdom character as an autistic charicature is nothing but offensive.

Actually, it is something other than offensive, it's spreading stereotypes and false beliefs which are hurting people.

Please, please, please reconsider.
You know, Jorm, I don't frequently fully agree with you, but is one of those times. I too think OP should reconsider before belitteling and spreading false information about autism.

[Herobizkit]

Many early Disney princesses had low Wisdom.

Based on the description of Wisdom and Wisdom checks in the PHB, consider yourself:

* Ignore body language. Someone staring daggers at you might make you laugh and hug them.
* Ignore feelings. Sadness can be visible but you have no empathy; "He's dead, so what?"
* Ignore the environment. Space-cadet/absent-minded professor. In your own headspace.
* Don't try medicine. This is the guy who will amputate at the drop of a hat.

Animal Handling: Maybe you deliberately spook animals or "George" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArNz8U7tgU4) dangerous ones.

Insight: Anything anyone says can be taken at face value and you are SURE it's the truth. Think Drax from Guardians of the Galaxy.

Medicine: Pretty sure this is medicine... *glug glug glug*

Perception: Your reality is your own and the others are just visiting.

Survival: Just... don't, unless you're an Outlander, in which case you have a good memory and can USE it.

Drax the Destroyer is probably the best model for such a character. :)

[Tanarii]

Are you sure that you aren;t confusing common sense with common knowledge?Hes not confusing them. Common knowledge is the original definition of common sense. Edit: oops turns out 'common knowledge' is its own specific thing, which isn't anything like what he's describing. It's more like "the sun revolves around the earth" (which obviously later changed). I'd label what he was describing, and which was originally a large part of what common sense meant, as 'commonly known knowledge' to distinguish it.


You know, Jorm, I don't frequently fully agree with you, but is one of those times. I too think OP should reconsider before belitteling and spreading false information about autism.
yeah, I third this.

[Socratov]

Hes not confusing them. Common knowledge is the original definition of common sense. Edit: oops turns out 'common knowledge' is its own specific thing, which isn't anything like what he's describing. It's more like "the sun revolves around the earth" (which obviously later changed). I'd label what he was describing, and which was originally a large part of what common sense meant, as 'commonly known knowledge' to distinguish it.
Fair enough...


yeah, I third this.
You know, I'm sure the thee of us agreeing here is some sort of cosmis event...

[Tanarii]

You know, I'm sure the thee of us agreeing here is some sort of cosmis event...I didn't even have to overcome my contrary nature, it just happened naturally. Spooky! :smalleek:

[Sir cryosin]

A good example of somebody with a 4 in wisdom is Dory from Finding Nemo. She is intelligent because she can read English and can speak whale. She is charismatic because she easily makes friends and everyone that meet her like and helps here out. But his is not wise because she is also forgetting everything, always putting her self in dangerous situation and not being able to tell they are a danger to her. She's easily manipulated, has no intention span at all.

[CantigThimble]

As far as ways to play this character without being disruptive I would suggest being overly trusting of one party member in particular. To the point where if they said acid was orange juice you'd drink it. And if someone offered you a bag of gold for saving their life you wouldn't be sure if you should take it until that party member told you yes or no. Ideally, this other player should be in on it and interested in screwing with you, at least a little, to make this fun. The advantage here is that it gives you a way to have some interesing roleplaying opportunities but you can always be reeled in very easily if it's getting disruptive or out of hand for the rest of the party.

[Ninja_Prawn]

If someone is making in-character decisions (aka roleplaying) due to a mechanical penalty of 10% less effectiveness than an 8 that extremely, then that's a problem with their in-character decision making regarding that ability score.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass without comment. A 4 is not 10% less effective than an 8. It is 10 percentage points less effective, which is not the same thing. Say you need to hit DC 17 on a Wis save to avoid being dominated. The guy with 8 Wis needs to roll an 18 or higher, while the guy with 4 needs to roll a nat 20 (assuming no proficiencies). The wise guy is 200% - three times - more likely to succeed - it's the difference between 'slim chance' and 'no chance'. If the DC is 5, the wise guy is 15.4% more effective, or the unwise guy 13.3% less effective. Closer to 10, yes, but still not equal to, and that's against a 'trivial' DC.

And 'chance of success in situations where success is somewhat random' is far from the only way to conceptualise a modifier. 4 is 50% less than 8, and -3 is 200% less than -1. So which is it? Are you 10% less wise, 50% or 200%? Personally, I'm inclined towards the 50% figure, because the raw number for a stat represents how much of it you actually have - that's why you need X amount of raw strength to wear heavy armour - and that would represent a major shift in roleplaying attitude. But I don't think anyone can claim any of them to be the definitive 'right answer'.

And again, zombies are Wis 6. 4 is the absolute minimum amount of Wisdom that an adult human can physically have (counting the racial modifier). Surely that would be crippling?

That said, I agree that it's not a good idea to try to roleplay a specific mental/developmental disorder; I would either not let the player keep the 4 or just ignore it if I was the DM.

[Tanarii]

I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass without comment. A 4 is not 10% less effective than an 8. It is 10 percentage points less effective, which is not the same thing. okay. if you want to go down the relative % vs absolute % path to justify BS role playing that the mechanics don't justify, I won't stop you. It's your game.

[borg286]

I actually created a thread that helps with low rolls
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?494873-Why-and-when-you-should-roll-instead-of-buy-points

I'll extract the part that is important for you
14- or 13-

Casters have more options to avoid attack rolls and saves.
Moon druid (Hill Dwarf for +2 con, +1 wis (highest any race gets), Barkskin and wildshape to mitigate low CON. Get warcaster if you want to keep buffs up, advantage does more for you than others. Spell slots for healing. Know your beast forms and leave spell slots open to rely on versatility to be useful)
Unwise Cleric handbook (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?489777-GUIDE-The-Unwise-Cleric-a-guide-to-non-traditional-clerics-in-5e) (Hill Dwarf for Heavy Armor Prof and/or Light domain for Warding Flare (Reaction to impose disadvantage on attacker))
1/2 elf Sorcerer (Spells known isn't tied to cha, Maximize concentration using twin-haste, twin-greater invisibility, and twin-polymorph, sacrificing unused slots as needed. Magic missile, cloud of daggers, wall of fire, cloudkill, and wall of stone. blade ward > dodge)
Rogue (Use underdark options, pick halfling to fire bow and hide behind someone)
Fighter, be Steve Rogers using ASIs as Super Soldier Serum fluff turning you into Captain America Mountain Dwarf(+2 str, +2 con should tie you over till level 4 when you will have 16 Str, 16 Con) or Goliath (1d12+con extra HP + second wind should make you tanky while you spend your ASIs on str)
Barbarian and go down in a blaze of glory earning karma for reincarnation

[Ronnocius]

A character in my campaign only has a 6 Intelligence, not quite as bad as a 4 but still pretty low. The player can improve his score with Ability Score Improvements. You can ignore it in roleplay if you want, but I feel Wisdom is the hardest ability to roleplay being low in, compared to the others.