Do stats matter?

[GreyBlack]

So here's a question that I don't have an answer for in my experience. It appears that there is a certain thought process that either a character's statistics do not matter. After all, you can play a character however you would like, and flaws and background are a better determinant for character personality than intelligence, dexterity, or constitution. A character from the charlatan background has certain flaws or ideals might mean more than anything affecting actual play.

So I have to ask. Do you think statistics even matter in terms of actual D&D play? Or do you think that the character is better served by focusing on background and only using stats for the purposes of rolling? Or is there a middle ground?

[Talamare]

Upto you and your table

[GreyBlack]

Upto you and your table

That's what I'm asking. What's your opinion? Do they matter? Or do they not?

No wrong answers, just looking for opinions.

[Dragonexx]

This mostly applies to mental stats (int, wis, cha) for D&D. I'd recommend downplaying them somewhat, as having to gimp yourself for roleplaying isn't really fun for me. (Like playing an impulsive, reckless druid who's prone to assuming everyone else is on the same wavelength as her, despite having very high wis and cha scores).

[Lalliman]

Stats don't define characterisation, but they do enable it. You can refluff your character in whatever ways you want, but a supposedly smart character isn't going to come off that way if you can't pass an Intelligence check. And it's pretty difficult to make a typical low-Strength monk and pass it off convincingly as an Alex Louis Armstrong-type character. It'll work fine when roleplaying... until you have to make an Athletics check.

So there's some degree of flexibility, more so with mental stats than physical ones I think, but to say that they don't matter is folly.

[LeonBH]

That depends on what you mean by if it "matters."

In terms of the experience at the table, yes, stats matter. D&D was built with a reasonably good combat engine, and that engine crunches numbers that ultimately fall on a character's stats.

Even in political intrigue focused campaigns, stats matter. When you want to lie to someone, it matters that your Deception is a +7 at level 1 due to Expertise, than a +5. And when you charm someone, it matters that your save DC is 14 at level 1 instead of 13.

However, you can still have a good time even if all your stats are low. If the DM gave you a commoner PC, one without class levels at all and 10's in every stat, if your DM knows how to carry the game under those circumstances and you're with your friends, you can still have fun. In that sense, stats don't matter.

So, what do you mean by if stats "matter"?

[Unoriginal]

Depends what you mean by "mattering". Strictly speaking, stats only matter mechanically, because it's where they have a direct impact.

Now, I prefer when characters, PCs or NPCs, behave in a way that's consistent with their stats, but there is a lot of different behavior that are consistent with the same stats.

For exemple, it's pretty universally agreed that Ogres aren't the sharpest knaves in the brawl. But it doesn't mean that two Ogres are the same: one could be ridiculously overconfident and foolhardy enough to go challenge a dragon alone, another could just be slow compared to most humanoids, but neither prideful nor ambitious.

On the other hand, you don't expect much tactical ingenuity from Ogres, with prehistoric hunter tactics like "dig a big hole with spikes in them", "use a spear", "use a torch" and the ever popular "run toward a trap so your pursuers get caught by it" as the level of the most elaborate things they could come up with.

On the other end of the scale, beings like Acererak or Tiamat are incredible geniuses beyond the scope of mortals. Both of them are able to create complexe plans and can rivalise in tactics with whole groups of adventurers with no difficulty on their part.Yet Acererak, as one D&D writer put it, is unable to see his opponents as anything but Energy Drinks for him to glup down and dispose of anytime he wants, no matter how much underestimating them cost him in the past. He doesn't lack Wisdom or anything, it's just one of his most prominent flaws.


The same applies to PCs. You can play a Dwarf with high WIS but whose greed might lead to unwise choices. You can play an high CHA person who is a slurry, unwashed, scared veteran from the navy, but who can damn well motivate troops. You can also play an high CHA sorcerer who is too shy and introvert to do public speaking unprompted. And you can play someone with 8 INT who still graduated from their university studies.

What I mean by "behave in a way that's consistent with their stats" is basically "don't make try to roleplay away their stat deficiencies". A low CHA individual and a high CHA individual might both be loud, boisterous party animals, but one of them will be more charming while doing so while the other will probably be seen as more obnoxious. An high CHA sorcerer might be a shy introvert whose past has left scarred, but that doesn't mean that a low CHA Goliath Monk can be a master of rethoric who makes bards weep and can convince kings and conquerors of his rightful cause. If you play that Goliath Monk, I would more expect you to roleplay the low CHA in some ways. He could be stoic and not be able to project emotions well, he could be arrogant and tend to infuriate people, he could be awkward in places with a lot of people, or he could be like your average joe but has some troubles finding the right words to express himself. If you play him intending him to be a super-smooth, super-charming chummy guy that everyone love, it's going to clash with his actual capacities (though you could play someone who see themselves as super-smooth and charming when they're anything but, of course).

You see what I mean?

[Delicious Taffy]

Stats really only reflect what the character is actually capable of, for the most part. You can have all the convictions, flaws, and dreams in the world, but they're not always going to match up with what you can actually do.

For example, maybe Horace the Knight sees himself as a stone wall, physically and mentally. Problem is, Horace doesn't have the physical stats to back that up, and he crumbles in a stiff breeze. He's still an upstanding guy, personality-wise, and maybe he's scrappy enough to stand up to a band of raiders, and has enough Charisma to scare them off. But in a straight fight, Horace is gonna get his ass handed to him on a silver platter.

So, I'd say stats do matter, if you see them as a reflection of a character's capabilities, rather than their personality.

[GreyBlack]

Stats don't define characterisation, but they do enable it. You can refluff your character in whatever ways you want, but a supposedly smart character isn't going to come off that way if you can't pass an Intelligence check. And it's pretty difficult to make a typical low-Strength monk and pass it off convincingly as an Alex Louis Armstrong-type character. It'll work fine when roleplaying... until you have to make an Athletics check.

So there's some degree of flexibility, more so with mental stats than physical ones I think, but to say that they don't matter is folly.

I'm totally going to make a Louis Armstrong style character like that. Thank you for that.


That depends on what you mean by if it "matters."

In terms of the experience at the table, yes, stats matter. D&D was built with a reasonably good combat engine, and that engine crunches numbers that ultimately fall on a character's stats.

Even in political intrigue focused campaigns, stats matter. When you want to lie to someone, it matters that your Deception is a +7 at level 1 due to Expertise, than a +5. And when you charm someone, it matters that your save DC is 14 at level 1 instead of 13.

However, you can still have a good time even if all your stats are low. If the DM gave you a commoner PC, one without class levels at all and 10's in every stat, if your DM knows how to carry the game under those circumstances and you're with your friends, you can still have fun. In that sense, stats don't matter.

So, what do you mean by if stats "matter"?

That's an excellent question! If forced to define it, I would say the question deals more with intended characterization than just by dice, but don't hold me to that because I wrote it intentionally vague.

[War_lord]

So here's a question that I don't have an answer for in my experience. It appears that there is a certain thought process that either a character's statistics do not matter. After all, you can play a character however you would like, and flaws and background are a better determinant for character personality than intelligence, dexterity, or constitution. A character from the charlatan background has certain flaws or ideals might mean more than anything affecting actual play.

So I have to ask. Do you think statistics even matter in terms of actual D&D play? Or do you think that the character is better served by focusing on background and only using stats for the purposes of rolling? Or is there a middle ground?

No, because what each stat represents is purposely vague. The Physical stats (Strength, Dexterity and Constitution) represent tangible physical features. Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma are largely unmeasurable.

[Glorthindel]

I would say that unfortunately they do.

I say unfortunately because it wasn't always the case. Back to AD&D stats did have a mechanical difference, but it was so slight, that compared to the modifiers gained from everything else, it didn't make a lot of difference. Strength wasn't just your bonus to damage, so you could create a fighter with Strength 9 and get along perfectly fine (your specialisation bonus meant you would still hit better and do more damage than a strength 14 of any other class), whereas now you would be deemed a poor fighter if you didn't have at least a 16. I recall that unless you were a Rogue (where it mattered for theif skills) there was literally no mechanical difference between a character with Dex 9 and Dex 13, whereas now with the advent of finesse weapons and having massive AC upgrades from even a middling Dex makes nearly every bonus point you can get a massive thing.

Obviously, you can still roleplay anything you like with whatever stats you like, but the gameplay effect of stats is now so far more pronounced than it was, that having good stats has become a make or break thing for characters where it hadn't been so much before.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think stats matter in a few cases.

* If the difficulty level is high. If the DM is intentionally pushing the boundaries and not adapting for lower scores, then having higher scores is a matter of life and death.
* If there is a large disparity among the party in ability scores. If one person rolled straight 18s, and another rolled straight 6s, it will be harder to find ways for the lower-ability person to feel useful.
** I once played in a game where I rolled the following array: 7, 7, 7, 8, 9, 13. Fortunately after a session that character got mulliganed and "promoted" to bar boy duty at the guild inn (became an NPC).

If everyone has low stats and the DM adjusts, things go on. Yes, the difficulty will be slightly higher using stock enemies, and you might not get as epic of encounters, but you can play just fine.

If everyone has high stats and the DM adjusts, things also go on. It's a bit harder to balance, but not significantly. The CR-equivalent goes up a notch or two, but no big deal.

If the DM doesn't adjust, having high stats is either useless (DM set to low difficulty) or essential (DM set to high difficulty).

[Pelle]

No, or at least, I think that player creativity and initiative is/should be more important than the character stats.

It doesn't matter what the character is capable of, if the player isn't able to make decisions for it to make an impact.

[Max_Killjoy]

IMO, stats do matter, they're part of how you map the character into the mechanics.

Frex, if the character concept includes "smart", "knowledgeable", or similar, don't give them a low INT and then play them to the concept (and counter to the stat).

First, it's dissonant, and second, it's a mild case of cheating (in the "stuff" that would go to INT went somewhere else).

[Mikal]

They do matter both mechanically and thematically.

If someone is playing an 8 Str Dex and Con character they shouldn't be roleplaying as if they were Charles Atlas.

If someone is playing an 8 Int Wis and Cha character they shouldn't be roleplaying as the child of Sun Tzu and Mark Twain.

The mark of a good roleplayer is realizing that the games reality helps to defines that role, and not "fluffing" it away because it doesn't mesh with their personal view of the character. And part of that reality are the stats that make up the character.

[LeonBH]

That's an excellent question! If forced to define it, I would say the question deals more with intended characterization than just by dice, but don't hold me to that because I wrote it intentionally vague.

In that case, no, not really. For example, take a Strength 8 character. We would usually consider that person a physically "weak" character, but they can bench 240 pounds (108 kg)!

Consider a Wizard with 8 CON. At level 1, they have 5 HP, which is 1 HP more than the average commoner! That Wizard with 8 Con is still tougher than your average person.

Dex doesn't really apply itself in measurable ways (initiative and AC are intangible, after all), but consider that a Dex 8 character will dodge/block/parry a regular incoming punch (at a +0 mod), unarmored, with a frequency of 45%. If someone punched you in combat, could you dodge it 45% of the time?

Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom are truly intangible stats and can be interpreted differently. Int 8 can be uneducated, instead of stupid. Cha 8 could be abrasive instead of awkward. Wisdom 8 could be a bad decision maker instead of lacking in empathy.

You could even argue that an Int 8 character is smart (just take proficiencies in the Int skills), just slow to think. Imagine an Int 9 character with Keen Mind -- you could maybe build Rain Man from that. Photographic memory, but unable to form plans and make quick decisions.

Charisma 9 with the Actor feat: an acting savant and born for the theater, but actually in reality, they're an antisocial, head-up-their-butt diva and totally believes the world revolves around them, so people hate them anyway.

Wisdom 9 with Observant: really naturally attentive to the point they can read lips, but if you asked them if they want Chinese or Thai for dinner, you'd end up wasting 3 hours as they can't decide on anything if their life depended on it.

Characterization space is wide and unbounded. You can justify your stats any number of ways.

[Mikal]

In that case, no, not really. For example, take a Strength 8 character. We would usually consider that person a physically "weak" character, but they can bench 240 pounds (180 kg)!

Consider a Wizard with 8 CON. At level 1, they have 5 HP, which is 1 HP more than the average commoner! That Wizard with 8 Con is still tougher than your average person.

Dex doesn't really apply itself in measurable ways (initiative and AC are intangible, after all), but consider that a Dex 8 character will dodge/block/parry a regular incoming punch (at a +0 mod), unarmored, with a frequency of 45%. If someone punched you in combat, could you dodge it 45% of the time?

Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom are truly intangible stats and can be interpreted differently. Int 8 can be uneducated, instead of stupid. Cha 8 could be abrasive instead of awkward. Wisdom 8 could be a bad decision maker instead of lack of empathy.

You could even argue that an Int 8 character is smart (just take proficiencies in the Int skills), just slow to think. Imagine an Int 9 character with Keen Mind -- you could maybe build Rain Man from that. Photographic memory, but unable to form plans and make quick decisions.

Characterization space is wide and unbounded. You can justify your stats any number of ways.

You actually bring up an interesting point... while stats of less than 10 make someone below average... that's below average as an adventurer.

8s are perfectly viable and even potentially above average for the 'rank and file' citizenry and probably reflect the average of a "real world" person more than a 10.

[Lombra]

At my table character personality is much more appreciated then character performance, we all want to play functional characters, and have fun fighting, but we don't focus on numbers, if something fits a chatacter theme but he does not have the stats to support it, he'll try anyways, and we all have a good friendly laugh if it fails and cheer if he succeeds.

[Mikal]

At my table character personality is much more appreciated then character performance, we all want to play functional characters, and have fun fighting, but we don't focus on numbers, if something fits a chatacter theme but he does not have the stats to support it, he'll try anyways, and we all have a good friendly laugh if it fails and cheer if he succeeds.

Personality should be partially defined by the stats though. Unless your personality is "person with delusions of grandeur", "Napoleon complex" or something similar.

[Morty]

They matter far less than it's usually assumed they do. They're just one of several moving pieces that modify your character, mechanically and otherwise. Proficiencies and class features shape a character far more.

[alchahest]

in some weird instances they matter more than they should - Fear being wisdom-based to resist is one of the big red bad points. The wiser someone is, the less scared they are of an ancient red dragon? At level 20, a foolish (wisdom 10 or lower) but brave knight literally cannot help but be scared of ancient red dragons - and the only way to be less afraid of this existential crisis on wings is to spend ASIs becoming wiser rather than being even more foolhardy.

[Mikal]

in some weird instances they matter more than they should - Fear being wisdom-based to resist is one of the big red bad points. The wiser someone is, the less scared they are of an ancient red dragon? At level 20, a foolish (wisdom 10 or lower) but brave knight literally cannot help but be scared of ancient red dragons - and the only way to be less afraid of this existential crisis on wings is to spend ASIs becoming wiser rather than being even more foolhardy.

Eh, the Wisdom example is not about the absence of fear per se, but the ability to override that feat and act normally, IMO.

It's more like '"I'm scared, but I have the will to see this through" *moves forward to face the threat*' as a successful save vs. '"omigawd omigawd we're all gonna die...." *sucks thumb*' as a failure.

[PeteNutButter]

I'd say they matter, but I fall under the bell curve approach meaning that anything -2 to +2 would be common enough that they wouldn't stick out in any odd way.

You can certainly pick your characters personality based on your mental stats, but I think it varies from player to player. If you have an idea going in, but your optimal point buy or rolled stats don't entirely support it, I'm not going to care if you stick with your original idea.

I like to point out that as stats get far from the average low or high, they can be associated with very negative personality traits.
Here are some examples of things I tend to lean towards when I have certain high/low mental stats:

Low Int:
-Not the one to come up with tactical or puzzle solutions
-Might know this, and take a back seat when these things are necessary
-Might try the same solution to every problem

High Int:
-Always solving problems
-Possibly bored by others
-Might feel superior to others
-Might refuse to use the same solution to every problem, even when it's the best solution ("But, I always use fireball." "There are 30 goblins!")

Low Wisdom:
-Not Good At Planning, but comfortable "winging it"
-Impatient
-Low/no Impulse Control
-Messy appearance

High Wisdom:
-Plans EVERYTHING
-Very Disciplined/Conscientious
-Clean, might not handle messes well
-Might be authoritarian on following plans/rules/morals etc.

Low Cha:
-Annoying (please don't RP!)
-Awkard
-Possibly Desperate to fit in
-More likely to follow than lead

High Cha
-Charming or intimidating or both as necessary
-Leader
-potentially narcissistic

[Unoriginal]

You actually bring up an interesting point... while stats of less than 10 make someone below average... that's below average as an adventurer.

8s are perfectly viable and even potentially above average for the 'rank and file' citizenry and probably reflect the average of a "real world" person more than a 10.

Not really, no. 10 is what average people have. 8 is below what your average joe will have, but not dramatically so.


in some weird instances they matter more than they should - Fear being wisdom-based to resist is one of the big red bad points. The wiser someone is, the less scared they are of an ancient red dragon? At level 20, a foolish (wisdom 10 or lower) but brave knight literally cannot help but be scared of ancient red dragons - and the only way to be less afraid of this existential crisis on wings is to spend ASIs becoming wiser rather than being even more foolhardy.

A Dragon's fear aura is more the flying monster trying to crush you with a projection of their might and you resisting with your willpower and capacity to not fall for irrationality. It's not just being intimidating.

A foolhardy knight might not be afraid of common danger, but his mind would be without protection against the Ancient Red Dragon's Aura.

[Mikal]

Not really, no. 10 is what average people have. 8 is below what your average joe will have, but not dramatically so.

Per the post I was responding to an 8 Str can bench press up to 240 lbs. How many Americans do you think can actually do that?
Plus the other stats said poster mentioned.

Personally, 8 sounds a lot more average when it comes to a common person vs. adventurer.

But then again adventurers are meant to have their average be above average.

[Unoriginal]

Per the post I was responding to an 8 Str can bench press up to 240 lbs. How many Americans do you think can actually do that?
Plus the other stats said poster mentioned.

Personally, 8 sounds a lot more average when it comes to a common person vs. adventurer.

But then again adventurers are meant to have their average be above average.


D&D people aren't real life people. But we know for a fact that the average D&D person has 10 in all their stats, slightly more or less. Since we have the statblock for the D&D humanoid average joe, aka the Commoner.



-Might refuse to use the same solution to every problem, even when it's the best solution ("But, I always use fireball." "There are 30 goblins!")

Funny, a very high INT character I've been playing for a while (though not in 5e) is the exact opposite of that. Most of his plans and fights tend to be pretty similar, because he has a systematic and utilitarian mind and think that the best solution is the one that demand the lest cost and the less effort for the maximum efficiency. So far, it worked pretty well for him.

[War_lord]

Per the post I was responding to an 8 Str can bench press up to 240 lbs. How many Americans do you think can actually do that?
Plus the other stats said poster mentioned.

Personally, 8 sounds a lot more average when it comes to a common person vs. adventurer.

But then again adventurers are meant to have their average be above average.

The average commoner has a ten in every stat. 10 is "normal". The problem starts when you try to put any meaning behind the -1 and the +1. You invariably end up with something subjective.

[Specter]

When it comes to mental stats, people surely overthink having an 8. I had a barbarian at the table who refused any kind of puzzle-solving or polite interaction just because he had an 8 in INT. Don't be that guy.

Also, remember that you can be good at some areas of your stat but not in others. An 8 INT may be someone stupid or just someone who lived a sheltered life, for instance.

[Mikal]

The average commoner has a ten in every stat. 10 is "normal". The problem starts when you try to put any meaning behind the -1 and the +1. You invariably end up with something subjective.

Not really, Str allows you to know how much it translates to the real world with the weight allowances and stuff, con is a little harder, but you can try and compare some types of poisons to any real world counterparts, and you can look at AC vs. the attack of someone unarmed and not proficient with the ability to dodge a real world punch... though that one is the hardest.

It's possible to map some of it, though no one would expect you to be able to do so with 100% accuracy.

Still, regardless, they all have an impact and matter from both a mechanical and roleplay perspective, as previously stated.

[alchahest]

Not really, no. 10 is what average people have. 8 is below what your average joe will have, but not dramatically so.



A Dragon's fear aura is more the flying monster trying to crush you with a projection of their might and you resisting with your willpower and capacity to not fall for irrationality. It's not just being intimidating.

A foolhardy knight might not be afraid of common danger, but his mind would be without protection against the Ancient Red Dragon's Aura.

I think it's more the disconnect of the image of a knight in shining armor beating the big bad dragon with just martial prowess. obviously paladins fit the look, but they cheat with magic.

[Unoriginal]

When it comes to mental stats, people surely overthink having an 8. I had a barbarian at the table who refused any kind of puzzle-solving or polite interaction just because he had an 8 in INT. Don't be that guy.

Also, remember that you can be good at some areas of your stat but not in others. An 8 INT may be someone stupid or just someone who lived a sheltered life, for instance.

Yeah, 8 ain't so bad. It's just "not good", not "complete disaster".



Not really, Str allows you to know how much it translates to the real world with the weight allowances and stuff

If you want to go by STR scores, your typical STR 16 lvl 1 adventurer is as strong as an ape and can kill a normal person with one slap.

Trying to compare D&D stats to real life is really not something I advise. I tried that in the past.


the attack of someone unarmed and not proficient

I don't want to sound like I nitpick, but technically speaking everyone is proficient in unarmed attacks (it was errata'd into the new PHB printings).

Also if you want to use punches as measuring data, keep in mind that according to D&D an average person would die from four punches that do hit from a complete combat noob, if they want it to be lethal.

[KorvinStarmast]

If forced to define it, I would say the question deals more with intended characterization than just by dice, but don't hold me to that because I wrote it intentionally vague. Yeah, I noticed that it was a badly written question. You've gotten some pretty good answers, and some good advice.
Here's the deal, as I see it. Stats matter to the extent that you allow them to, in role play, though for some mechanical things that involve rolling the dice, they matter a bit more in terms of your character's prospects for success or failure.

This game in this edition is very much "you can try anything" so even a low int does not preclude investigating something. It's just that if a roll comes up, the prospects for success are a bit less. If needed the DM will set a DC to suit the task(not the character) or will simply say "here's what happens when you do that" and play will continue.

Do you want to make stats matter? A great deal of non mechanical fun is available and stats don't have to matter at your table, but that brings me to the closer: have you discussed this with the people you are playing with? If not, then visit with your fellow players and see how your play group likes to view this (and if any of them care).
Best wishes, and remember to share the loot with your party members. :smallcool:

[Mikal]

If you want to go by STR scores, your typical STR 16 lvl 1 adventurer is as strong as an ape and can kill a normal person with one slap.


I got no problem with that. People at that level of ability are in the realm of mythology anyway, from a real world perspective. See, Achilles, Odysseus, et al.


I don't want to sound like I nitpick, but technically speaking everyone is proficient in unarmed attacks (it was errata'd into the new PHB printings).
Don't be. Picking nits is how we learn.

[Joe the Rat]

Or "I'm scared, and am going to get the hell out of here not in a blind panic." Just because you didn't get panicked doesn't mean retreat shouldn't be an option.

I apologize in advance: this is one of my two soapboxes.

Do not think of attributes as your inherent ability, upon which proficiencies are training. It is your current ability in six clusters of tasks or actions. High Int may be more about an extensive education and many hours of study rather than your ability to process. High Strength means you've spent a lot of time conditioning, or you are simply the biggest and strongest (and don't even exercise). A middle-aged, out of shape guard could sport exceptional Strength and Constitution as part of the Warlock Pact package. You could have anything in your backstory - your stats are what you can do. (Proficiencies are things that you can do better than the other related tasks).

Wisdom has nothing to do with being wise. Wisdom-the-stat is about Awareness (perception, intuition, big-picture pattern-spotting), and Willpower-because-it's-what-Will-saves-were-based-on. The only place Wisdom-the-stat gets close to being like Wisdom-the-trait is in Save-to-stay-level-headed rolls... and that's arguably still a willpower function. A lot of times we use that as our touchstone for how ill-advised we want to play, but there's nothing in the mechanics to require that interpretation. Foolhardy rogues would do well to have high Wisdom, since that improves their ability to find things.

Intelligence barely covers it's name function, in that Investigation (pattern-recognition, induction, causality) and save vs. Puzzles are part of its function. But the majority of the number usage is Knowledge and Memory. Low intelligence (especially paired with Investigation proficiency) could be less about problem-solving and more about lack of education.

Others have said this: Your stats are your capabilities, per the game's mechanics. They do not speak to your personality, or your particular brand of strategy, cunning, caution, or cleverness. Hell, of old, the point was to challenge the players - using their cleverness to resolve situations, or allowing their foolhardiness or impatience to lead them astray. You can use the stats as an inspiration, but "Smart" and "Dumb" are independent of attributes.


In lieu of other information (written personality traits), you can use stats as a stand-in. This is particularly true for mooks and those name-and-job NPCs the party inexplicably falls in love with. But this is not the limit for characters. How you act is what makes sense for the character; the stats are your ability to back up attitude with action.

[Unoriginal]

I think it's more the disconnect of the image of a knight in shining armor beating the big bad dragon with just martial prowess. obviously paladins fit the look, but they cheat with magic.

Well, a Fighter can definitively kill a dragon alone, but the stronger dragons are definitively full-group-issues.

Funnily enough, in the actual stories and myths of the middle age or before about a knight or hero killing a dragon, more often than not, the dragon was either far less impressive than one might think (like, still a very dangerous beast, but more like a lion than an Ancient Red Dragon from D&D), impressive but the knight get some god-granted grace or some sort of magic to allow him to win, impressive and so the hero dies due to the fight, or impressive but the hero used a far from epic trick to win.

For exemple, Sigurd was considered an incredible hero for just hiding in a hole on the path the dragon Fafnir had for habit to take, then shiving Fafnir in the heart sneak-attack style with an incredibly good sword.

[Theodoxus]

Stats are simply a mechanical representation of ephemeral aspects of your character. They literally only show what the absolute minimum and maximum of a d20 result will be.

A "strong" character with an 18 strength and proficiency in Athletics, at 1st level, will automatically succeed any DC of 6 or less, and never succeed any DC of 27 or more. They'll more consistently succeed a DC of 16 than a character with an 8 strength, but can still fail at the task.

That's probably my #1 pet peeve with d20 in general, and the requests for opinion on the subject that invariably arise. I never make my players "play to their stats" because it's meaningless. Unless I'm giving DCs that are impossible for anyone other than those with the highest possible stats, or expertise, anyone, given time and ingenuity, should be able to bypass the difficulty.

Far too often I've had "the spotter" with a 17 or higher passive Perception fail to roll higher than the "unobservant" with a -1 Wis mod and no proficiency. Or the uncouth barbarian make a DC 15 History check that the sagacious historian flubs with a roll of a 3.

If untrained skills were rolled with disadvantage, it would probably be better. If expertise granted advantage, instead of double proficiency, it would be better.

With Bounded Accuracy, actual stat numbers matter only a little - UNLESS! (And this is super duper important) you've allowed for the rolling of stats and there's a disparity between players. (It's why, on the very rare occasion I do allow for rolling, everyone rolls a set, and the group picks the set they want everyone to use. It's like super standard array). Even with Standard Array, a single +1 difference can be noticeable in combat. DC 13 vs 14 doesn't seem like it should matter, but that 5% translation certainly feels a lot higher when you're the one working with a 13 and everything manages to save against you... Multiclassing can make the divide that much worse (I'm playing a stout halfling cleric 1/bard 4 in one campaign - my Cha started at 14, so I was -1 to all my combat stats compared to the other casters with 16s. At 4th level, I was still 1/3, so no Feat/ASI. The other casters were now boasting 18s - so 2 points higher... I knew this going it, and have no qualms about being pure support (I'm the bless-giver, healer, debuffer and front liner (thanks boots of springing and striding!) But if one is not prepared, it can be quite the shock how ineffective you can be - compared to other players.

TL;DR - playing to stats becomes problematic; expectation vs reality in mechanics as well as expectation vs reality in subjective meaning. Let players play the character, not the stat array.

[Beelzebubba]

Someone with high stats acts like a character several levels above in power. We have one character with four stats of 16 or higher, and a few with no stats that reach 16.

The disparity in the game is pretty obvious.

So, yeah, they do.

[CantigThimble]

Many potential character concepts involve the character being exceptional, or at least competent at something. If you have a high stat, then you can make a character based on that concept that reflects it in-game. If your stats are all low or middling, then some character concepts are just not open to you as a result.

For example, if your concept involves being a renowned archer who makes a living by traveling around and winning competitions but the highest dex you can get is a 13, then that character concept is pretty much nonsensical. You might be able to make different character concepts with those stats that are still playable due to bounded accuracy, but that one won't work.

Personally, I don't care at all about power dipairity between players. But even then it's silly to claim that stats can or should have no impact on roleplaying.

[Morty]

If we take a 1st level fighter with 16 dexterity and a 5th level one with 13, the latter will still be better at actually hitting targets with arrows. Even if they have a somewhat smaller chance of making a single roll.

[CantigThimble]

If we take a 1st level fighter with 16 dexterity and a 5th level one with 13, the latter will still be better at actually hitting targets with arrows. Even if they have a somewhat smaller chance of making a single roll.

But you're starting at 1st level. The point remains that if you want your backstory to include your character doing reasonably impressive things and you don't have the stats to back that up then you've basically just added "Delusions of grandeur" to your list of flaws.

If the story is just "I did X thing", you can swing that with low sats. But if its "I did X thing better than other people consistently" then you need a 16 or so to have that make sense. (or at least a 14)

[GlenSmash!]

Stats matter in exactly the way they intend to. The increase the chance of being successful at certain tasks.

That isn't to say a character with bad stat's can't contribute or even have a very good chance of being successful. A character with all 3s could take a spellcasting class and choose spells that don't have attack rolls or DCs.

Sure, it would be less effective than a character with high stats, but I think it can be done.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Even a person that's not a gymnast might have some weird flexibility like double joints.

Even a person that isn't very strong might have a pretty strong grip.

Even a person that isn't very tough might have callused hands.

Even a person that isn't very smart might have areas of expertise.

Even a person that lacks common sense can be cunning when you least expect it.

Even a person that's generally unremarkable can be likable to the right people.

Think of your stats as more of an overall. It might even behoove you to consider ways that you don't exactly match up with what's written, like an 8 intelligence, 8 wisdom barbarian that doesn't have the patience to really sit down and think things through, but is surprisingly capable of grasping concepts quickly and might even have been a genius if they'd only applied themselves.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But you're starting at 1st level. The point remains that if you want your backstory to include your character doing reasonably impressive things and you don't have the stats to back that up then you've basically just added "Delusions of grandeur" to your list of flaws.

If the story is just "I did X thing", you can swing that with low sats. But if its "I did X thing better than other people consistently" then you need a 16 or so to have that make sense. (or at least a 14)

I'm not fond of combining backstories with "I did this impressive thing" (especially if you're routinely doing that impressive thing) and starting at level 1. To me, a level 1 character is a brand-new journeyman, just out of apprenticeship. You may be the best archer in your little town, but you're a small fish in a big pond in the rest of the world.

And in an area where the average is 9-10, a 13-14 DEX (plus proficiency) does make you a lot better (20% is a large margin) than most people.

[CantigThimble]

I'm not fond of combining backstories with "I did this impressive thing" (especially if you're routinely doing that impressive thing) and starting at level 1. To me, a level 1 character is a brand-new journeyman, just out of apprenticeship. You may be the best archer in your little town, but you're a small fish in a big pond in the rest of the world.

And in an area where the average is 9-10, a 13-14 DEX (plus proficiency) does make you a lot better (20% is a large margin) than most people.

What I'm saying is that if you roll an 18 dex for a starting character then the backstory "Archery prodigy of some renown" makes sense, if you have 14 dex then it makes significantly less sense. Backstory is limited by the stats you have. Not every character should be a prodigy, but not every character should be average either.

If you ARE rolling stats and you get an 18, then your backstory should probably have some mention of how you got that good or what you did with your natural talents.

Backstory and stats certainly aren't 100% based on each other, but anything higher than 16 or lower than 6 is probably worth mentioning in your backstory. And the natural converse of that is that the things you write for exceptional starting stats won't fit in well with mediocre stats. While your trait/bond/flaw should play a larger role than stats in characterization, that's doesn't mean they should play NO role.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What I'm saying is that if you roll an 18 dex for a starting character then the backstory "Archery prodigy of some renown" makes sense, if you have 14 dex then it makes significantly less sense. Backstory is limited by the stats you have. Not every character should be a prodigy, but not every character should be average either.

If you ARE rolling stats and you get an 18, then your backstory should probably have some mention of how you got that good or what you did with your natural talents.

Backstory and stats certainly aren't 100% based on each other, but anything higher than 16 or lower than 6 is probably worth mentioning in your backstory. And the natural converse of that is that the things you write for exceptional starting stats won't fit in well with mediocre stats. While your trait/bond/flaw should play a larger role than stats in characterization, that's doesn't mean they should play NO role.

Ah. I'm in the "don't need a backstory more than just a reason to be in <starting location> and a reason to work with the party" camp out of personal preference. I'm a teacher and see lots of highly talented kids who have no backstory other than natural talent. Haven't particularly done anything spectacular by the time they graduate from high school (my touchstone for level 1) but certainly in the INT 16+ range.

Having said that, I made a character with nothing other than "the party doesn't have a melee bruiser, so I'll make a half-orc fighter." But then once I saw that he was short (5'4", randomly rolled) and burly (190 lbs IIRC, also randomly rolled), I knew what his character was. He's bald, touchy about his height, and especially doesn't like being called a dwarf. Also blunt and not the best at people skills (8 CHA). "I leave the talking to others, I'm the muscle." So I certainly think you can draw inspiration from abnormal scores to flavor the character.

[Knaight]

Per the post I was responding to an 8 Str can bench press up to 240 lbs. How many Americans do you think can actually do that?
Two things:
1) The baseline here isn't modern day Americans, it's people in a society where most people are in professions with a fairly high degree of manual labor.
2) There's no indication that the character can bench press up to 240 lbs. The relevant rules are: "You can push, drag, or lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity (or 30 times your Strength score)", and that's a very different case. Bench pressing 240 pounds is impressive. Lifting 240 pounds off the ground when you have access to muscles other than the few used in bench pressing? Not so much. As for pushing and dragging the specifics of contact surfaces are pretty important, but 240 lbs is less than impressive in a lot of cases. Being able to push/drag a 240 pound sled on fresh snow on flat ground is something I'd expect from the typical 12 year old. Being able to pull a 240 pound bag of rocks with no good grip surface through thick mud is a feat of strength.

[LeonBH]

Do you even lift, bro?

See, it's even in that rhetorical statement. Bench press involves lifting. RAW says you can lift 30 times your Strength score.

Not that it matters. Especially when an adventurer at full capacity can walk around easily (the encumbrance rules are only a variant), but such an adventurer plus a crystal arcane focus cannot walk anymore.

[CantigThimble]

Ah. I'm in the "don't need a backstory more than just a reason to be in <starting location> and a reason to work with the party" camp out of personal preference.

That's where I fall as well, but I play with people who like to come in with very strong characterizations already and it really makes a big difference to them if they have the stats to match their plan. In my most recent campaign I swapped another player the 18, 14, 14 array I rolled for his 13, 11, 11 array. He got to play the character he wanted and I got a challenge to work with.

[Beelzebubba]

Do you even lift, bro?

See, it's even in that rhetorical statement. Bench press involves lifting. RAW says you can lift 30 times your Strength score.

Not that it matters. Especially when an adventurer at full capacity can walk around easily (the encumbrance rules are only a variant), but such an adventurer plus a crystal arcane focus cannot walk anymore.

I think you're being simplistic. By that logic 'lift' means 'lift over your head with only your pinky finger'. It means 'get up off the ground in some way'. That's why they said 'drag'.

If 5E was written to cover that sort of logic twisting, it would be 500 pages longer. It requires reading in good faith to function.

[Tanarii]

Stats matter when you roll.

Note that if you carefully read what the stats do and how rolling is recommended to proceed, stats are intentionally designed not to directly affect Roleplaying, or decision making, based on personality.

Roleplaying and resolution works like this:

1. Roleplaying (making decisions) is the player deciding what they want to accomplish, and how they want to accomplish it.
2. Resolution part one is the DM deciding if it succeeds, fails, or requires a die roll.
3. Resolution part two is the DM deciding what the immediate consequences of success/failure are (what it looks like) and what the long term consequences are (if any).

Stats only matter if a die is rolled.

Example:

- Intelligence checks are not designed to determine if you know something, but rather if you recall something you already knew right now. The player in conjunction with the DM still needs to determine what the PC knows or doesn't know in the first place. If there's no question as to if the PC will recall something they need, no die roll is needed.

- Investigation (deduction by Intelligence) is used to find clues, not tell the player what to have the PC do with the information,

- Wisdom doesn't affect common sense, but rather awareness checks of the world around the PC. Wisdom checks don't tell the PC what to do with any information they perceive.

- charismatic checks don't replace the PC deciding what to talk about. The players still needs to determines what the PC is trying to accomplish and how, if not exactly what they are saying. Delivery / skill only matters if a check is required based on the likelihood of the PC succeeding in getting what they want from that NPC.

[Knaight]

Do you even lift, bro?

See, it's even in that rhetorical statement. Bench press involves lifting. RAW says you can lift 30 times your Strength score.

Yes, because obviously one's upper limit in a broad class of activities using the most effective technique is the same as one's upper limit in every other activity of that class. If you can lift 500 pounds, clearly you can do so while balanced on one foot with a fully extended arm.

[LeonBH]

Yes, because obviously one's upper limit in a broad class of activities using the most effective technique is the same as one's upper limit in every other activity of that class. If you can lift 500 pounds, clearly you can do so while balanced on one foot with a fully extended arm.

Really? Thanks, I'll pass this along to my DM.

[LeonBH]

I think you're being simplistic. By that logic 'lift' means 'lift over your head with only your pinky finger'. It means 'get up off the ground in some way'. That's why they said 'drag'.

If 5E was written to cover that sort of logic twisting, it would be 500 pages longer. It requires reading in good faith to function.

The rules are designed simply, and as a result, video game logic can be found in it in several places. "Everyone is strong" being one such flaw, "everyone tracks every non-hidden thing all the time" being another.

Agree it needs a good faith reading to function. I fail to see how benching 240lbs on a Str 8 character can break the game. Unless you game is about bench press contests, of course.

[GreyBlack]

Yes, because obviously one's upper limit in a broad class of activities using the most effective technique is the same as one's upper limit in every other activity of that class. If you can lift 500 pounds, clearly you can do so while balanced on one foot with a fully extended arm.

Hey! Isn't balancing an Acrobatics check? No skill checks are allowed in this discussion!

Seriously, though, a human with a strength of 8 is allowed to carry (not lift) 120 lbs on them without being physically encumbered (we're going to ignore the optional encumbrance rules for a minute). They can drag 240 lbs of stuff. The standard issue modern military pack is between 60 and 100 lbs, and if you've ever carried one, you know that they can be a pain in the [REDACTED] to carry. Either 1) we're not dealing with Earth humans being the average (if we accept 10 as average for all stats) or 2) 10 might not be the best number to consider "average". I'm personally leaning towards option 1.

[Tanarii]

The rules are designed simply, and as a result, video game logic can be found in it in several places. "Everyone is strong" being one such flaw, "everyone tracks every non-hidden thing all the time" being another.Since the later isn't true, I'm not sure you want to extend the logic to the former.

Besides, they added a variant rule that effectively puts encumberance capacity at x10 if the default rule bothers you. Very few characters will intentionally exceed that in a dangerous situation,


Agree it needs a good faith reading to function. I fail to see how benching 240lbs on a Str 8 character can break the game. Unless you game is about bench press contests, of course.Sounds like an opposite Str roll competition to me,

[LeonBH]

Since the later isn't true, I'm not sure you want to extend the logic to the former.

Besides, they added a variant rule that effectively puts encumberance capacity at x10 if the default rule bothers you. Very few characters will intentionally exceed that in a dangerous situation,

Sounds like an opposite Str roll competition to me,

The latter is true. But it's hardly the only example. Falling, raging barbarians above a certain level cannot die regardless of fall distance, so including falling from orbit. You can get by eating one meal every 3 plus [Con mod] days without harming yourself, so a 14 Con adventurer can eat 2 lbs of food once every 5 days and be fine. The fighter beaten half to death and failed 2 death saves before getting healed sleeps 6 hours and does 2 hours of light exercises and is suddenly A-OK.

Video game logic is everywhere already. Why should a Str 8 character suddenly benching 240 lbs, which RAW allows, suddenly be exceptional?

[Tanarii]

Oh yeah, if your argument is basically that characters are far beyond human norm, often for simplicity or abstraction reasons, you're absolutely right.

[LeonBH]

Actually, I'm just saying a Str 8 character can bench 240 lbs.

[Tanarii]

Quick google search, it seems like the average untrained deadlift is 155 lbs. So yeah, lift/carry Str score x30 is unreasonably high, although it's probably fine for dragging. I wonder how they arrived at it.

[Knaight]

Video game logic is everywhere already. Why should a Str 8 character suddenly benching 240 lbs, which RAW allows, suddenly be exceptional?

Again, the part where RAW allows it is extremely questionable.

[djreynolds]

So here's a question that I don't have an answer for in my experience. It appears that there is a certain thought process that either a character's statistics do not matter. After all, you can play a character however you would like, and flaws and background are a better determinant for character personality than intelligence, dexterity, or constitution. A character from the charlatan background has certain flaws or ideals might mean more than anything affecting actual play.

So I have to ask. Do you think statistics even matter in terms of actual D&D play? Or do you think that the character is better served by focusing on background and only using stats for the purposes of rolling? Or is there a middle ground?

If you are using standard array, you are going to be sporting an 8. This can be an issue because the "suspension of disbelief" and players see that -1 as if it is an injury or disease

And people will say I have a -1 in a stat.... how do I roleplay that or do I. Do I have a scar or limp or whatever

IMO, an 8 in whatever is average, because in the AL standard array is used.... its just easier to say an 8 is average score. The real people at the table are probably sporting 8s in all their stats.... DMs "excluded."

A farmer or teacher can live with an 8 con. I mean we get sick, we go to the hospital and we recover

So you and I are probably sporting 8's in most stats. Maybe even in intelligence

This is how I explain it, an 8 is not a flaw..... it is normal

I know we say 10 is normal or average.... well 8 is the new normal

If this doesn't work, right after character creation just make all 8s into 10s

[War_lord]

Don't don't know where you're getting deadlift from. I'm not terribly athletic but I must say, when I have to lift something heavy, I do it from standing or squatting and my whole body goes into it. I don't lie down beside it and try to lift it over my head using upper body muscles, that would be totally useless. Thus I assume the stated carrying weights assume that it's being carried in a practical manner.

[LeonBH]

Again, the part where RAW allows it is extremely questionable.

No reason you can't disallow it in your games.

[djreynolds]

We are playing superheroes

IMO, very humbly, no one IRL has ever sported a 20 in any stat ever, since dinosaurs roamed the planet and we were little hairy goblin cavemen

When you play that archer, you are channeling your inner Legolas, for 2 hours you get to be that guy

[Max_Killjoy]

The latter is true. But it's hardly the only example. Falling, raging barbarians above a certain level cannot die regardless of fall distance, so including falling from orbit. You can get by eating one meal every 3 plus [Con mod] days without harming yourself, so a 14 Con adventurer can eat 2 lbs of food once every 5 days and be fine. The fighter beaten half to death and failed 2 death saves before getting healed sleeps 6 hours and does 2 hours of light exercises and is suddenly A-OK.

Video game logic is everywhere already. Why should a Str 8 character suddenly benching 240 lbs, which RAW allows, suddenly be exceptional?


I wonder if this is deliberate design, or a case of not checking the math against outside benchmarks.

If it's deliberate, do we also see average people NPCs with 8-10 in their scores doing these sorts of remarkable things, and does this have effects on the settings?

[Max_Killjoy]

If you are using standard array, you are going to be sporting an 8. This can be an issue because the "suspension of disbelief" and players see that -1 as if it is an injury or disease

And people will say I have a -1 in a stat.... how do I roleplay that or do I. Do I have a scar or limp or whatever

IMO, an 8 in whatever is average, because in the AL standard array is used.... its just easier to say an 8 is average score. The real people at the table are probably sporting 8s in all their stats.... DMs "excluded."

A farmer or teacher can live with an 8 con. I mean we get sick, we go to the hospital and we recover

So you and I are probably sporting 8's in most stats. Maybe even in intelligence

This is how I explain it, an 8 is not a flaw..... it is normal

I know we say 10 is normal or average.... well 8 is the new normal

If this doesn't work, right after character creation just make all 8s into 10s


So you would say that in the real world most people are walking around with what amounts to a -1 to everything they do or try? First, that's an interesting view of the real world, and second, is that really how you want to define "average" in an RPG system?


(And really, the people I know are far more varied than that.)

[GreyBlack]

So you would say that in the real world most people are walking around with what amounts to a -1 to everything they do or try? First, that's an interesting view of the real world, and second, is that really how you want to define "average" in an RPG system?


(And really, the people I know are far more varied than that.)

If you asked the average person to swing a sword, wouldn't it be awkward for them? When encountering new ideas, isn't it awkward for the average person to grasp? Does so called "common sense" actually stand up to scrutiny? Hel, look at even concepts we're exposed to on a daily basis. Does the average person understand what, for example, E=mc^2 mean? Or do they prefer to persist in their average everyday existence?

The average person is not exceptional. That's exactly what "average" means. Not excelling and within standard deviation. Exceptions are not the rule. I would personally argue that the average person does operate in a statistical deficit in D&D terms. But, in D&D, I would again argue we're not dealing with earth humans.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you asked the average person to swing a sword, wouldn't it be awkward for them? When encountering new ideas, isn't it awkward for the average person to grasp? Does so called "common sense" actually stand up to scrutiny? Hel, look at even concepts we're exposed to on a daily basis. Does the average person understand what, for example, E=mc^2 mean? Or do they prefer to persist in their average everyday existence?


Nascent elitism aside, none of that really answers the question I asked.




The average person is not exceptional. That's exactly what "average" means. Not excelling and within standard deviation. Exceptions are not the rule. I would personally argue that the average person does operate in a statistical deficit in D&D terms. But, in D&D, I would again argue we're not dealing with earth humans.


And yet in 99% of the fiction and fluff, it appears that the humans of a D&D setting are the humans of our real-world "setting", and that the bulk of them are comparable to the bulk of real-world humans.

[mgshamster]

(And really, the people I know are far more varied than that.)

I think "most people" would use the baseline stat generation system of rolling dice, rather than the popular, but optional point buy or array system.

Rolling makes things more random, which more closely aligns with the randomness of real world.

[War_lord]

If you asked the average person to swing a sword, wouldn't it be awkward for them?

The average modern person doesn't do heavy physical labor every day for most of the year, the average modern person isn't going to be called up for militia service to go fight in a battle in the summer. Modern people might have an 8 in every stat (except perhaps intelligence), but in a medieval world most people maintain a basic level of physical fitness from lifestyle alone.

[Tanarii]

Don't don't know where you're getting deadlift from. I'm not terribly athletic but I must say, when I have to lift something heavy, I do it from standing or squatting and my whole body goes into it. I don't lie down beside it and try to lift it over my head using upper body muscles, that would be totally useless. Thus I assume the stated carrying weights assume that it's being carried in a practical manner.Youre describing a deadlift. A bench press is lying on your back pushing with upper body str. That's why I referenced deadlift weight.

Although to be honest I probably should have referenced fireman's carry weight or something.

Regardless, 300 lbs for an 'average' person is fairly excessive for absolute max lifting/carry, apparently by a factor of 2. Even if you assume the average is an 8 (which IMO you shouldn't) it's still too high.

Similarly running jumping 10 ft is WAY too high. Especially when you consider its landing on your feet again without any chance of falling. Long jumping distance should have been Str/2 to do it and land on your feet with no chance of failure.


So you would say that in the real world most people are walking around with what amounts to a -1 to everything they do or try? First, that's an interesting view of the real world, and second, is that really how you want to define "average" in an RPG system?


(And really, the people I know are far more varied than that.)
Agreed. If a system has a +0 point, it's best to assume that's the default average, not the -1 point. Especially when that's what the system explicitly tells you it is.

[GreyBlack]

The average modern person doesn't do heavy physical labor every day for most of the year, the average modern person isn't going to be called up for militia service to go fight in a battle in the summer. Modern people might have an 8 in every stat (except perhaps intelligence), but in a medieval world most people maintain a basic level of physical fitness from lifestyle alone.

Even accounting for poor diet, crippling disease and pestilence, and physical injuries which may have left them weaker than average? We're, on average, taller and in better health than our medieval counterparts. I feel like this is a rather weak argument, personally.


Nascent elitism aside, none of that really answers the question I asked.

And yet in 99% of the fiction and fluff, it appears that the humans of a D&D setting are the humans of our real-world "setting", and that the bulk of them are comparable to the bulk of real-world humans.

Oh, honey, there's nothing nascent about my elitism.

If true, then we can expect the average D&D human to have comparable physical and social capabilities. According to the rules, the below-average D&D human can drag, as previously mentioned, 240 pounds or carry 120 pounds without encumbrance (strength 8). Does this match up with your experience of reality? If it does not, then either we're making a mistake about what constitutes "average" in the D&D settings and should perhaps set out idea of "average" lower or we should accept that these are not necessarily Earth humans. Honestly, whatever works for your campaign setting is great; that's more just me spitballing than giving hard answers.

[CantigThimble]

Encumbrance rules are not set up to model how much a person can carry. They are set up so that no one will ever need to look them up. (Unless they're carrying an absurd amount of stuff or have a really low strength score) Because no one actually wants to look up the encumbrance rules in a game and they definitely don't want to calculate the weight of all their gear, so encumbrance limits are set arbitrarily high, but still in the realm where most people can suspend disbelief.

[djreynolds]

If it is a huge issue, having an 8, pump them to a 10.

Now if someone grabbed 15/15/15/8/8/8... then this is a choice

But if someone has an 8 in intelligence and its just ruining their fantasy fabric.... make it a 10

But because I've played in the AL a lot, I see 8 as average. The farmer has all 8s... maybe a 10 in wisdom and constitution.

But the commoner is common, adventurers are not, and successful adventurers are heroes

I actually roll for the table a standard array everyone uses.... and I make sure there are no 8s

[Tanarii]

But because I've played in the AL a lot, I see 8 as average. The farmer has all 8s... maybe a 10 in wisdom and constitution.

But the commoner is common, adventurers are not, and successful adventurers are heroes

Commoners have all 10s. 11 if they're human.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Encumbrance rules are not set up to model how much a person can carry. They are set up so that no one will ever need to look them up. (Unless they're carrying an absurd amount of stuff or have a really low strength score) Because no one actually wants to look up the encumbrance rules in a game and they definitely don't want to calculate the weight of all their gear, so encumbrance limits are set arbitrarily high, but still in the realm where most people can suspend disbelief.

Agreed. The only cases where the default encumbrance (which isn't really even that) should come up is when the player tries to lift/drag something like an unconscious creature, lift a fallen rock, statue, or in other such situations. You're not worrying about marching with it for long distances--you're carrying it across the room. Gear weight should only rarely be something to worry about. Groups that want to track things more closely should use the variant encumbrance rules. In either case, neither is a simulationist take--they didn't back-calculate from how much real people could lift and set the numbers that way. 5x, 10x, and 15x STR are gamist "in-the-ballpark" numbers chosen (I would argue) for ease of use. It's an abstraction, just like the ability scores themselves are abstractions.

As a real life issue, most people can deadlift much more than they can bench. With help, they can fireman carry more than they can bench--the big muscles and bones of the torso are built for that. Benching is an artificial thing that uses many fewer (and weaker) muscles. Not only that, but how you carry something matters. Armor strapped to you properly (just like a good hiking backpack properly balanced and strapped) is much less encumbering than an equal amount of weight in a sack or held at arms length. None of this matters in-game--the STR score abstracts away all of that.

[Tanarii]

Groups that want to track things more closely should use the variant encumbrance rules.

I was getting all ready to disagree with you, then I got to this. Totally agree.

Although even without variant encumberance, there may be times when the total load of coins in a hoard requires thinking about weight and containers. In tier 2 the typical hoard of coins weights almost 200 lbs including copper and silver, and that's before any potentially heavy art objects. Not every group has a wizard with T. floating Disk ritual or a bag of holding. And it's not like you have time in a dungeon to separate the coins to get out the Gold and Platinum. In Tier 3 that goes up to 315 lbs, but at least it's all gold and platinum.

[Danielqueue1]

For encumberance, consider how in the real world (at least in America) places always ask that nothing in packages, luggage etc. be over 50 Lbs this is because that is the benchmark for what OSHA considers "safe" for the average person to handle without specific training, equipment, or accommodation. this lines up perfectly with the variant encumbrance rules on how much the average person (10 STR) can carry before slowing down. It's designed for simple math, and it is an abstraction. but in common ranges it is not so far flung from reality as to be absurd.

the normal encumbrance rules are designed to only come up with more extreme situations, and consideration should be taken by the DM for such situations. If you are playing the variant rules then a 10 STR character is slowed just by carrying the Fighter's platemail which I consider to be reasonable.

[Unoriginal]

Commoners have all 10s. 11 if they're human.

And most scores at 10 and one or two at 12 or 11 if they're another of the PHB races, if you want to go that far.

I had started a thread calculating whose species had the most dangerous Commoner and the most dangerous Guard, but I gave up due to the futility of the task.

[djreynolds]

Commoners have all 10s. 11 if they're human.

Really, that's weird. Figures

I have never had an issue myself with an 8, but at my table if its an issue.... here's a 10... I could care less

Now obviously a min maxer with 15/15/15/8/8/8.... they made a choice

But in AL play.... you're going to have an 8 in something. Its never ruined a game for our table, but some players just cannot live with it, okay here is a 10.

Tanarii is it that much of an issue at your table or just understood, move on and lets play?

[mgshamster]

Really, that's weird. Figures

I have never had an issue myself with an 8, but at my table if its an issue.... here's a 10... I could care less

Now obviously a min maxer with 15/15/15/8/8/8.... they made a choice

But in AL play.... you're going to have an 8 in something. Its never ruined a game for our table, but some players just cannot live with it, okay here is a 10.

Tanarii is it that much of an issue at your table or just understood, move on and lets play?

Question: if someone can't live with an 8, why don't they just spend the two points to raise it to 10, and drop their other scores appropriately? I mean, point buy is an option for a reason.

[Tanarii]

Is what an issue? Characters having less than a 10? No. It's not a problem having an 8 Int or Wis, outside of them not being able to make DC 20 (Hard) checks with enough time. They certainly don't have to play the character as very stupid or totally oblivious.

It's not a problem if they have a 6 in Str, outside of them having to pay attention to encumberance and having problems with Str attacks and checks. And even then they might get lucky. I had a Str 6 Wizard manage to stop a Gnoll from bull rushing the character out of a doorway (opposed Str check) so it could escape just last session. I described it as the character managing to grasp the door frame just in time to hold himself in place.

[Danielqueue1]

As for how much stats matter, it depends on your game's play-style.

each stat has an effect on the game mechanically, increased chance to hit, more damage, more likely to avoid being noticed etc. in some Dungeon Crawl heavy campaigns the stats do nothing beyond that. however, with bounded accuracy not having a maxed stat is not going to cripple a character. everyone wants higher stats of course but I would categorize stats as Important not critical.

how much should they be considered while role-playing?

again it depends on your game.

just because someone has a low intelligence does not mean they are unintelligent. the skills that it effects are mostly knowledge based. An uneducated individual, no matter how well they process information, would probably do poorly on a history exam.

I believe that stats should play a part in building a character, but one shouldn't take things to the extreme. a -1 doesn't make you disabled, it means you are below average. you still have a 40% chance of beating someone who has a 10. (45% if you count ties) but I prefer characters to at least have some semblance of connection to their stats.

I played a character where I rolled for stats and ended up with some really good numbers and then I had a 5 in one of them. So in my character's backstory (rogue) I had him stealing just to survive and get by. he didn't care about what was going on outside. he never got any form of education, and his only dealings with magic is that it happens. he had a 5 in intelligence. the character isn't any worse at understanding what people are saying, he wasn't a bumbling oaf, but when someone talks about something everyone should know the DM occasionally had my character actually roll. there were some hilarious moments that went something like this. "okay everyone roll to see how much you know about Ilisbruth." "minus two." "I know you have a negative, but-" "no I rolled a nat 1 and I have a minus three so my history check was a negative 2" "oh... Well, You don't even recognize the name. everyone else knows that is the name of the country north of you. [other player] you also know that they have been at war with..." He wasn't an idiot, he just didn't know much. and I roleplayed him as such. he knew that that shield-y thing on someones armor told about where they came from, but had no idea what family that coat of arms was associated with. He knew the glowing circle was magic and probably shouldn't be touched, but had no idea what the sigils actually meant. he grew up in cities, stealing bread to survive, so he had no information about what plants were safe to eat.

when I play characters with low charisma, I usually play them as more straightforward and blunt. choosing to refuse to answer instead of lying. being rather course when it comes to communication. It's not that they don't understand social norms or go against them, but don't expect them to be the life of a party unless there's a tavern brawl.

characters with low wisdom, need not be foolhardy, but being more easily swayed by magic(wisdom saves) and not being the most observant come with the package. but that doesn't mean that having a -1 means you are going to fall for every trick. you might not know that shell game guy is lying to you. but you could suspect that every street gambler is crooked, and so you won't risk it. you could be a noble fighter who isn't going to abandon their friends for anything normal, but you've just never figured out how to fight off that mind magic drivel.

Constitution is a fun one. "I ken drink yer un'er tha table." or "do you have milk?" or anywhere in between how far each goes is entirely up to you. perhaps you've dealt with poisons in your line of work, maybe you are a barbarian with a cast iron stomach. maybe you were sickly as a child. there are countless ways to characterize this stat and if you care about having your stats affect your character this is an easy one to get away with. do you usually drink people under the table but rolled poorly? perhaps you drank on an empty stomach. have you Acclimatized your self to poisons? well that guy is using one you haven't built up a resistance to. were you a sickly character that rolled really well on con saves? "oh I caught that disease when I was 12. I got over it and now I'm immune."

Strength is pretty straight forward. "I was in the army, we exercised." "I grew up in the wilds where only the strong survive." "I was a dock worker and had to lift heavy things." "Well, I'm terribly sorry I spent my extensive lifespan unlocking the means to unravel the universe and reshape it according to my will rather than, say, jogging. It has a tendency to leave one relatively fragile."

Dex is also relatively straight forward, but this post is already rather long and I've run out of energy to come up with one liners.

so in the end, the more your table is into RP the more fun it is to work your stats into your character. but keep in mind that having a +5 in a stat only gives you a 20% better chance of hitting something than a common guard. (assuming same proficiency bonus.) so don't take it too far.

[djreynolds]

For me as a player or DM, it hasn't been an issue

I think for those of us on this forum, we take the game more seriously.

I have a few players who are there for "blood", I play to win

Some players just play and they don't care.

As a player, stats matter to me.

As a DM, I care only that players are enjoying themselves... if I need to fudge something or throw them a bone and the table is fine... whatever.

Have fun

[An Enemy Spy]

RPGs are inherently unrealistic. Real life people don't have ability scores, save bonuses, hit points, or armor classes. These are just simplified systems meant to reduce abstract concepts into a workable reference frame so that you can easily interact with the game world. Trying to compare real people to stat blocks in a fantasy adventure game is a pointless exercise.

[Max_Killjoy]

RPGs are inherently unrealistic. Real life people don't have ability scores, save bonuses, hit points, or armor classes. These are just simplified systems meant to reduce abstract concepts into a workable reference frame so that you can easily interact with the game world. Trying to compare real people to stat blocks in a fantasy adventure game is a pointless exercise.

The problem I see with this approach is that people take it as "all or nothing".

If RPGs can't be perfectly realistic, then they say why bother even trying to be as accurate as practical to the fictional reality?

If stats can't perfectly represent the character, then they say why bother even trying to make them directionally representative? (That is, why bother even saying that if one character is smarter than another, the former's "smarts" stat will be higher than the latter's?)