Playing an 8 in INT,WIS,CHA

[Whit]

DM. How do you let players with dump stats in int wis cha play their characters with out of character personal intelligence charisma wisdom

[MaxWilson]

DM. How do you let players with dump stats in int wis cha play their characters with out of character personal intelligence charisma wisdom

Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8? You're Biff Tanner from Back To the Future.

I wouldn't force a player to play any particular way, but that's basically how NPCs would view him.

[Whit]

What does an 8 in Intelligence mean to the player and DM in regards to a players character in game during adventure.
Same for Wisdom
Same for charisma.

[Tanarii]

By having Int, Wis and Cha checks and class features.

If something doesn't involve Int, Wis or Cha, then by definition it doesn't involve Int, Wis or Cha. There's no out of character or in character consideration here. Either it involves the stat and the player considers that when making decisions, or it's not and they don't.

[mgshamster]

Think of the kid back in high school who wasn't very popular and didn't do all that well in class.

Not the obvious R-tard, or the blatant anti social types not doing homework to rebel against the man, but the kid who was just slightly below average in all his academic programs and didn't have that many friends.

That's your 8 across the mental board.

Just slightly below average.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think of Jayne Cobb as an example of someone with no really redeemable mental stars should be played. Needs things explained to him, occasionally makes some pretty bone-headed decisions, acts in a very short-sighted manner, is pretty crass and occasionally repulsive in behavior. Does he have difficulty putting one arm in each sleeve? Does he seem to lack a basic self-preservation instinct? Is he completely unlikeable as a person? No, but people with merely below-average Int/Wis/Cha (respectively) also don’t have those qualities.

[Worden]

Just remember that this is a spectrum. People tend to think 8 is very dumb/impulsive/weak but it is a single modifier below the population mean. It has whole 4 more points to go till it hits rock bottom. You probably know people in real life with an intelligence of "8" and they are perfectly fine.

[Lunali]

I think of Jayne Cobb as an example of someone with no really redeemable mental stars should be played. Needs things explained to him, occasionally makes some pretty bone-headed decisions, acts in a very short-sighted manner, is pretty crass and occasionally repulsive in behavior. Does he have difficulty putting one arm in each sleeve? Does he seem to lack a basic self-preservation instinct? Is he completely unlikeable as a person? No, but people with merely below-average Int/Wis/Cha (respectively) also don’t have those qualities.

I'd put him more at a 6 or 7, 8 isn't far enough from average for most people to even really notice without extended contact.

[Unoriginal]

What does an 8 in Intelligence mean to the player and DM in regards to a players character in game during adventure.
Same for Wisdom
Same for charisma.

It means nothing.

[MaxWilson]

Just remember that this is a spectrum. People tend to think 8 is very dumb/impulsive/weak but it is a single modifier below the population mean. It has whole 4 more points to go till it hits rock bottom. You probably know people in real life with an intelligence of "8" and they are perfectly fine.

You probably think they are as dumb as a box of rocks. Think about all the people you know who graduated college and are still pretty dim. Now consider the fact that 65-70% of Americans are not college graduates. Even the average (50th percentile) American is dumber than the people you think are dim; and Int 8 is more like the 30th percentile. These are the people you can't stand to have a deep conversation with because they always miss the obvious and say obviously stupid things. If you ever have a conversation with one of them you try to confine it to smalltalk and meaningless pleasantries. The intellectual gap is just too great to be worth the bother.*

* I'm assuming here that if you're reading this you're reasonably bright. If not, well, sorry for overestimating you.

As I said, Biff Tanner. Jayne Cobb is another great example. Neither of them is a mental cripple per se, but dumb as a box of rocks, yes indeed.

Edit:

For comparison: Int 6 is edging more towards Charlie Gordon/mental cripple territory--same Int as a gorilla. By the time you hit Int 3 you are barely brighter than a lizard. I have an aunt who is approximately at the Int 5-6 level (she couldn't really speak in complete sentences until she made a mental breakthrough in her late 50's: shocked her parents one day by spontaneously using a complete sentence along the lines of "Let's pack our bags and get out of this dump [hotel]"), but she's way brighter than an Int 3 lizard, and Jayne Cobb is way brighter than her, comparatively speaking.

There was a guy in my infantry platoon in Basic Training who comes to mind as somewhere around Int 8 Wis 6 Cha 6. He almost shot the First Sergeant with a negligent discharge during an exercise, and he was infamous for wetting the bed and then lying about it. He wasn't as foolish as it is humanly possible to be (Wis 3) nor as disliked as it is possible to be (Cha 3), but he was unusually foolish and disliked (and arrogant). I figure an Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 8 guy will be about halfway between average and That Guy, which is definitely enough to get noticed.

[SLOTHRPG95]

You probably think they are as dumb as a box of rocks. Think about all the people you know who graduated college and are still pretty dim. Now consider the fact that 65-70% of Americans are not college graduates. Even the average (50th percentile) American is dumber than the people you think are dim; and Int 8 is more like the 30th percentile. These are the people you can't stand to have a deep conversation with because they always miss the obvious and say obviously stupid things. If you ever have a conversation with one of them you try to confine it to smalltalk and meaningless pleasantries. The intellectual gap is just too great to be worth the bother.*

* I'm assuming here that if you're reading this you're reasonably bright. If not, well, sorry for overestimating you.

As I said, Biff Tanner. Jayne Cobb is another great example. Neither of them is a mental cripple per se, but dumb as a box of rocks, yes indeed.

I think this is an underestimation of the mental faculties average individual (American or not, college-educated or not). I don't think they're so weak as to have any small deviation below result in an individual being "as dumb as a box of rocks." If we assume the vast majority of individuals are non-heroic and hence distributed via 3d6, then an 8 is just barely enough to keep you out of the bottom quartile, resp. 12 just short of putting you at the bottom of the top quartile. Note that this holds for mental and non-mental stats, but OP was discussing mentals so we'll focus on those. Using your examples, then, about a quarter of the population can't match Biff Tannen in the intelligence department. It's fine to have a bleak view of humanity, I guess. But that's beyond bleak, that's just unrealistic.

[NaughtyTiger]

6 Int is minimum for sentient.
10 is uneducated commoner.
8 is illiterate, dumb. Frogs Come from rain drops

8 Cha is boorish, thinks he is clever, witty, or intimidating.

8 Wis has no common sense. Will touch things that looks dangerous to figure out how it works
Most beasts have 12 wis.

[Unoriginal]

6 Int is minimum for sentient.


No, not at all.

5e has sentient/sapient beings with 5 INT or even lower.



10 is uneducated commoner.

10 is average human.



8 is illiterate, dumb. Frogs Come from rain drops

8 is on the lower end of average, but still average.

[NaughtyTiger]

5e has sentient/sapient beings with 5 INT or even lower.
10 is average human.
8 is on the lower end of average, but still average.

Perhaps sentient was the wrong word. But 5int, not independent mount.
-Many spells don't work on him.-
Most humans don't go to school. Uneducated.
Average is a number, not a range. By definition

I am surprised that you and tanarii are just blowing off the roleplay aspects...

[BreaktheStatue]

I think this is an underestimation of the mental faculties average individual (American or not, college-educated or not). I don't think they're so weak as to have any small deviation below result in an individual being "as dumb as a box of rocks." If we assume the vast majority of individuals are non-heroic and hence distributed via 3d6, then an 8 is just barely enough to keep you out of the bottom quartile, resp. 12 just short of putting you at the bottom of the top quartile. Note that this holds for mental and non-mental stats, but OP was discussing mentals so we'll focus on those. Using your examples, then, about a quarter of the population can't match Biff Tannen in the intelligence department. It's fine to have a bleak view of humanity, I guess. But that's beyond bleak, that's just unrealistic.

I feel like Biff-level dumb people aren't really that uncommon. They're not all as boorish as he is, and they're not all bad people, but work at any blue collar or minimum wage job and they're all over the place.

I'm talking people who have never read a book, people who fall for multi-level marketing scams, people who buy into extreme conspiracy theories constantly, etc. Dudes I was in the Army with that would marry the first stripper to look at them, and spend 3/4 of their paycheck on a brand new car they couldn't afford. This happened constantly.

I'm not trying to gloat or belittle them - I am from "humble stock" myself, and have a lot of sympathy - but still, this is a thing.

[Unoriginal]

Perhaps sentient was the wrong word. But 5int, not independent mount. Many spells don't work on him.

This is 100% wrong.

Ogres have 5 INT, and they're not immune to any spell because of that. And even with 5 INT they're capable of using tools and war engines, tame animals, speak several languages, and other tasks like that without issues.



Most humans don't go to school. Uneducated.

Your assumption is not supported by anything.



Average is a number, not a range. By definition


So according to you when people say "this person is of average height", it means said person is a precise height tall rather than more or less in the range of said height?



I am surprised that you and tanarii are just blowing off the roleplay aspects...

[Worden]

My mental model of stats of the general populace, is that they are distributed by 3d6. That'll keep the average at 10 and it makes sense due to rpg history. That would mean 57% percent of population is around 8-12. This corresponds to a lower bound of IQ higher than 85. There was an AMA on reddit by a fellow with an IQ of 85 and they seemed totally fine.

Of course dnd intelligence doesn't only represent intelligence. You can also add in education, traits like curiosity in there but most people seem to play it of as intelligence so this is a way to look at it.

And about collage graduates and dimness, not all smart people go to collage, not everyone who goes to collage has to be smart. Especially in USA where collage is an expensive luxury

[Oramac]

negligent discharge

Apologies for being off topic. As a firearms enthusiast, thank you for not saying "accidental discharge". There's no such thing.

===================================

To the OP: play it how you feel is right.

I'm currently playing Dak the Barbarian. Speaking with my DM, I used a modified point buy for stats, and before racials ended up with 16, 16, 16, 6, 6, 6. He can't read, barely speaks common, is brash and impulsive, and has no concept of personal space or manners.

And yet, he's one of the most fun characters I've ever played.

[MaxWilson]

I think this is an underestimation of the mental faculties average individual (American or not, college-educated or not). I don't think they're so weak as to have any small deviation below result in an individual being "as dumb as a box of rocks." If we assume the vast majority of individuals are non-heroic and hence distributed via 3d6, then an 8 is just barely enough to keep you out of the bottom quartile, resp. 12 just short of putting you at the bottom of the top quartile. Note that this holds for mental and non-mental stats, but OP was discussing mentals so we'll focus on those. Using your examples, then, about a quarter of the population can't match Biff Tannen in the intelligence department. It's fine to have a bleak view of humanity, I guess. But that's beyond bleak, that's just unrealistic.

Biff made it through high school, apparently. About 25% of high school freshmen fail to graduate on time. Seems to match your prediction.


I feel like Biff-level dumb people aren't really that uncommon. They're not all as boorish as he is, and they're not all bad people, but work at any blue collar or minimum wage job and they're all over the place.

I'm talking people who have never read a book, people who fall for multi-level marketing scams, people who buy into extreme conspiracy theories constantly, etc. Dudes I was in the Army with that would marry the first stripper to look at them, and spend 3/4 of their paycheck on a brand new car they couldn't afford. This happened constantly.

I'm not trying to gloat or belittle them - I am from "humble stock" myself, and have a lot of sympathy - but still, this is a thing.

Seconded. I also have certain Army buddies who are like this (although none that I'm still close to, because it's hard to be close to someone across a huge gap in common interests). Parenthetically I'll say I noticed two types of guys signing up for 11-B (Infantry MOS): really dumb guys who probably didn't qualify for any other MOS, and really patriotic and/or smart guys who scored in the 95th+ percentile on the ASVAB and still wanted to be infantry anyway. Plus some in the middle, but still a surprising number of guys at the extremes.

Anywaya, being unintelligent doesn't make you a bad person, and I wouldn't normally describe them as "dumb as a box of rocks", but for the sake of the OP who is asking how to play such people... they fail to comprehend things that you think should be obvious. And so would Biff.

Int 8 does NOT mean "slightly dumber than I, the player, am." It means "somewhat dumber than the average human being." And the Dunning-Krueger effect prevents smart human beings from usually realizing how bad average human beings are at so many things.

If you're the kind of poster who falls for multilevel marketing scams, buys lottery tickets, isn't sure what the different is between "loose" and "lose", etc., then don't worry about it. What you think of as "average intelligence" is probably pretty close to actual average, and by playing Int 8 as slightly below average you are probably playing it accurately. But if you spend your time hanging out on an Internet forum talking about Dungeons and Dragons, it's likely that your idea of "average intelligence" does not match the actual statistical average. You probably live in a bubble. See Charles Murray for more: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2

[DeTess]

Biff made it through high school, apparently. About 25% of high school freshmen fail to graduate on time. Seems to match your prediction.

How many fail to graduate at all? Its not really a proper comparison, but at my university, a decent number of people don't manage to get their bachelor's degree in 3 years, but will still finish it in 4 or 5. They'd still count towards a 'didn't finish on time' statistic though.

[GreyBlack]

So, while my thinking on the game has begun to shift (D&D is not a roleplaying game, it is a dice, monsters, and dungeon exploration game), it never ceases to bother me that people do think that statistics should not change how characters are represented in roleplaying situations. I mean, if one accepts that D&D is not an RPG, then I get that; a certain amount of metagaming is inherent to every situation. It just bothers me.

However, to the OP: In modern D&D context, I'm personally of the opinion that 8 should be slightly below average, but not overly so. So an 8 in every stat is that kid in the back of the class who maybe didn't quite get held back a grade, but he definitely isn't the best in anything. They're more of a tagalong than an active planner of the schemes. Maybe they're a bit more of the muscle of the group than anything else, but they can understand if it's taught (slowly).

[DeTess]

Right, forgot this bit. To the OP, it seems you're asking this as a DM. I'd be wary of directly telling players how their character is going to act, as that's going to lead to bad blood and a clash of expectations (as you can see in this thread, not everyone even agrees what 8 Wis/int/cha means). Instead use skill checks in the appropriate categories whenever you think they're pushing their character too far (ie: whenever you'd normally be asking for skill checks anyway). That way, you're not directly telling them how to play their character, but instead just showing the consequences of their characters (lack of) skills. Be reasonable in this regard, and don't set the DC higher than for character that hasn't dumped the stat.

[MaxWilson]

How many fail to graduate at all? Its not really a proper comparison, but at my university, a decent number of people don't manage to get their bachelor's degree in 3 years, but will still finish it in 4 or 5. They'd still count towards a 'didn't finish on time' statistic though.

65-70% of Americans do not have a bachelor's degree at all. Those guys who take 4 or 5 years to finish? They're in the top 1/3 of Americans for educational attainment, which isn't a perfect proxy for intelligence but still worth analyzing because the economic benefits of a college degree are so great that almost anyone who can get one will eventually get one unless they are in that small minority of natural entrepreneurs who don't need one.

To answer your question: depending on where you get your numbers and whether or not you count GEDs, somewhere between 12% and 19% fail to finish high school or get a GED at all.

Note BTW that Biff likewise seems to have gotten smarter as he aged. By the time he's an old man he understands that "Make like a tree and get out of here" makes you sound like an idiot. But at age 17ish he didn't.

[Tanarii]

I am surprised that you and tanarii are just blowing off the roleplay aspects...I didn't blow off the roleplay aspects at all. What I said is all about roleplaying.

Roleplaying is making decisions for your character in the fantasy environment. If Int, Wis, or Cha are going to come into play, they affect the decision making of the player. Ergo, they affect roleplaying.

If they aren't going to come into play, they don't affect decision making. Unless! the player chooses to base their decisions off of the raw value, which doesn't have any mechanical impact. That's their decision, but not required in any way. It's optional extra roleplaying (decision making) based on the ability score. Players are free to do so. But it's certainly not required to effectively roleplay the ability score.

[GreyBlack]

Note BTW that Biff likewise seems to have gotten smarter as he aged. By the time he's an old man he understands that "Make like a tree and get out of here" makes you sound like an idiot. But at age 17ish he didn't.

Older editions of D&D had mechanical age penalties in place; maybe Biff's DM house ruled them in?

[hamishspence]

Wouldn't that be, in the case of mental stats, bonuses, not penalties?

5e way to represent Biff growing smarter (if it doesn't have aging bonuses & penalties) would probably be "he put a point or two into INT as he levelled up."

[GreyBlack]

Wouldn't that be, in the case of mental stats, bonuses, not penalties?

5e way to represent Biff growing smarter (if it doesn't have aging bonuses & penalties) would probably be "he put a point or two into INT as he levelled up."

Well, it was actually written that you took some substantial penalties to your physical stats (up to -6 when you were venerable) but got a +1 bonus for each age category. So, in middle age, you got a +1 to all of the mental stats, then again at old age, then again at venerable giving you an overall +3 to Int/Wis/Cha.

[MaxWilson]

Wouldn't that be, in the case of mental stats, bonuses, not penalties?

Yes, in AD&D you got aging penalties to Str/Dex/Con and smaller aging bonuses to Int and especially Wis. That plus the fact that you needed Int 18 to cast 9th level spells explain why archmages are stereotypically geezers--to be a young archmage you'd have to roll a natural 18 on Int and then also kill half a million orcs or the equivalent in the space of only a few decades.

5E of course makes it much, much easier to begins an archmage, which has its pros and cons.

[Demonslayer666]

DM. How do you let players with dump stats in int wis cha play their characters with out of character personal intelligence charisma wisdom

If the player is roleplaying a 20 charisma and talking his way through everything, you need to let them roleplay it out, and then call for a roll, and adjust the description of what happens based on the result. Just because the player is very charismatic, does not mean their character talks like they do.

You can also talk to the player and say, "hey, you aren't roleplaying a lower stat like I would expect, here's what I think would likely happen..."


I'm kinda at a loss for someone who overplays their intelligence/wisdom, unless you giving them complex math problems or riddles.

[MaxWilson]

Well, it was actually written that you took some substantial penalties to your physical stats (up to -6 when you were venerable) but got a +1 bonus for each age category. So, in middle age, you got a +1 to all of the mental stats, then again at old age, then again at venerable giving you an overall +3 to Int/Wis/Cha.

In AD&D 2nd edition, PHB page 24 gives total Venerable mods as Str -4, Dex -3, Con -3, Int +2, Wis +3. No modifier to Charisma.

[NaughtyTiger]

Your assumption is not supported by anything
come on un, you know that free education wasnt a thing prior to 1700ce. People had to work. So my assumption is based on parallels to real world.




So according to you when people say "this person is of average height", it means said person is a precise height tall rather than more or less in the range of said height?
No. The opposite. I am saying that is gibberish. People who use average as a range devalue the meaning.

Someone else in this thread had to define it as 57% of 3d6.
And when I say commoner has 10 int. I mean it
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Commoner#content

I do admit I was wrong about the spell thing. I think I confused beast spells in there (still wrong about that too)

[NaughtyTiger]

I didn't blow off the roleplay aspects at all. What I said is all about roleplaying.


I read your response again. Were you saying limit meta gaming with ability checks?

If you were, then I misunderstood your post.

That said, the mental dump Stat pcs are played by master tactician players. And there is no roll for that. Which is part of the OP issue (if not his, then mine)

[Yuki Akuma]

I'd play such a character as shy and quiet, probably the last in the party to get the joke, and generally easily distracted. Probably gets ripped off more than everyone else.

Depending on his personality he may know he's the slowest in the party mentally and leave the thinking to others, or he might be jealous and angry at the people smarter than him. Probably lean the former rather than the latter for the sake of party cohesion. Either way, probably solve most problems through straightforward force rather than trying to be tricky. I don't necessarily mean violence, just... a tendency to barrel through things.

[hamishspence]

No. The opposite. I am saying that is gibberish. People who use average as a range devalue the meaning.

"Everything within one standard deviation of the median" might be a fairly useful definition in practice. (with a Normal distribution, like rolling 3d6 is, this would cover around 68% of the population).

So, if the median height for an adult man is 70 inches, and the standard deviation is 3 inches, a "man of average height" would be anything from 67 to 73 inches.



I think it's safe to say that when a man is described as being "of average height" by an eyewitness in a report, the witness will not be able to tell if he is exactly 70 inches - they will be approximating.

[MaxWilson]

"Everything within one standard deviation of the median" might be a fairly useful definition in practice. (with a Normal distribution, like rolling 3d6 is, this would cover around 68% of the population).

Perhaps an even better definition of colloquial "average" would be "typical, unsurprising". A person of "average height" is one whose height you didn't really notice. This would be true even if you were a member of a weird species with enough 300' tall outliers to make the mean height around 7' tall despite everyone else being human height. Means are only meaningful in contexts where you could possibly care about aggregates.

Implicitly, "typical, unsurprising" is subjective and context-dependent. If everyone in your family is brilliant, an unsurprising, "average" IQ for your family might be 125-145. That doesn't mean that Int 10 equates to IQ 135, and it doesn't mean that everyone else in your family will perceive "average" the same way you do.

[Lalliman]

The problem with mental stats is that they exist in a relatively narrow range and yet have a rather small impact on your actual performance.

On the one hand, having 8 Int means you have a -1 penalty. You're 5% less likely to successfully solve a math problem than someone with average Int. Not a big deal.

On the other hand, having 8 Int means you're just as close to an ape (Int 6) as you are to an average person. You're also closer in intellect to a horse (Int 2) than to a very smart person (Int 15+). Huge deal.

This lies at the root of why some people will say "8 Int is really dumb" and some will say "8 Int is barely noticeable". It just depends on how you're comparing. The abstractions of the D&D system prevent there from being any true answer to this question.

So in conclusion... just play the character in whatever way seems interesting.

[hamishspence]

Perhaps an even better definition of colloquial "average" would be "typical, unsurprising". A person of "average height" is one whose height you didn't really notice. This would be true even if you were a member of a weird species with enough 300' tall outliers to make the mean height around 7' tall despite everyone else being human height. Means are only meaningful in contexts where you could possibly care about aggregates.

In that particular case, "within one (or two?) standard deviations of the mode" would apply. The point being that they are not far enough away from this "most typical specimen" to really stand out when compared to it.

[GlenSmash!]

Since I would have -1 to Int, Wis, and Cha checks, and presumably a bonus to Str, Dex, and Con checks when presented with a scenario by the DM I would probably come up with a response that relied on my Str, Dex, or Cha both to have a greater chance of success and to be more in tune with what would seem more natural for my character anyway.

[MaxWilson]

In that particular case, "within one (or two?) standard deviations of the mode" would apply. The point being that they are not far enough away from this "most typical specimen" to really stand out when compared to it.

Yes, in that case that might be appropriate. It's easy to construct other examples where even mode is not a good proxy.

[Ganymede]

As others have pointed out, it mostly matters in NPC reactions.

You can't really force players to roleplay a PC in a certain way, nor can you expect them to behave as if they were actually more/less intelligent, wise, and charismatic than they are. What a DM can control is how NPCs perceive and interact with the PCs.

For my players new to the game that are anxious about roleplaying as a hero, I always remind them "Don't worry, what you say gets translated to sound cool and heroic in the game itself." The same token goes for roleplaying a PC's mental traits; unless they make it a point that they are trying to deceive someone, their roleplay automatically gets translated over to be appropriate for the stat to the NPCs ears. For example, if a player roleplays a dumb PC as smart, outside of an attempt to deceive, the NPC hears someone making up and misusing a bunch of obviously wrong words (or something similar).

[NaughtyTiger]

"Everything within one standard deviation of the median" might be a fairly useful definition in practice. (with a Normal distribution, like rolling 3d6 is, this would cover around 68% of the population)

Are we discussing the average intelligence of the population or of ability scores?
PC ability scores are not limited to 3d6. Many are 4d6 or point buy gives from 8 (6 or volo orcs) to 22.
Monster scores are from 2 to 26 (?)
Whereas Commoners being, well, common have 10... and Commoners should outnumber adventurers by a lot... thus skewing the std deviation to much
ess than 2.

So 8 is dumber than your average commoner.

[Yuki Akuma]

Given the Standard Array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, I think it's safe to assume that 8 in any stat is not particularly out there.

[Spore]

For the argument's sake I'd imagine a Variant Human Fighter since normal humans would have 9 each. I assume Variant Humans are paragons of their respective roles as they are not as adaptable but rather focussed on their 'job'.

I further assume that this fighter has 16/15/16/8/8/8 via 27 pb and Resilient (Dex) to go to 16/16/16/8/8/8. Now he would be a great, admirable fighter, potentially a great sneak or pickpocket and could take swings almost as heavy as any dwarf. Still heroic material. He is just....uneducated. He learned to read and write, which in and of itself is an accomplishment in the normal medieval society of D&D. Sadly not much more was possible. He is no scholar, and he often even gets the most basic things wrong. He eats poisonous mushrooms, he overestimates the value of an arcane treatise on how to deal with rats using fire spells, he thinks Pelor is a vengeful sun god that must be evil. His common sense is sometimes lacking. He thinks his friend at the city guard cannot be lying. They're law enforcement. They cannot break it. He stands behind the horse he tries to calm and wonders why he has a big hoof imprint on his face. Looking for elven scouts he completely ignores looking into the tree tops. And he is not charming. He might even be good-looking. But he botches his checks a little more often. When girl he is in love with approaches, maybe he just farts really loudly. When he tries to lie, he just rubs his ears. When tell a joke or story, he forgets vital parts of it, ruining the whole thing.

He is no short-sighted, smelly idiot. He just has other qualities.

[SLOTHRPG95]

In AD&D 2nd edition, PHB page 24 gives total Venerable mods as Str -4, Dex -3, Con -3, Int +2, Wis +3. No modifier to Charisma.

Yes the net -6 to all physicals and +3 to all mentals comes from 3rd edition.

[hamishspence]

Whereas Commoners being, well, common have 10... and Commoners should outnumber adventurers by a lot... thus skewing the std deviation

10s in everything would be a "straight out of the book Commoner" - but that doesn't mean all, or even most Commoners, have exactly that statblock.

Using the same logic as with Height - just because the "typical" adult man is 70 inches tall, doesn't mean that most men are 70 inches tall.

[Angelalex242]

You're Forest Gump.

[Tanarii]

I read your response again. Were you saying limit meta gaming with ability checks?

If you were, then I misunderstood your post.

That said, the mental dump Stat pcs are played by master tactician players. And there is no roll for that. Which is part of the OP issue (if not his, then mine)If squad level tactics (which is what 5e combat is) doesn't require any Int checks or features based on Int, then by definition is doesn't depend on Int. If you want it to depend on Int, then Int needs to be involved somehow.

Players may choose to get it involved by taking ability scores into account when making decisions, outside any required by the rules or set by the DM, but that's their choice. The game doesn't require it.

This has nothing to do with metagaming. It's actually a pretty good example of my position on metagaming: it's not a "problem" unless you choose to make it a problem.

[Xetheral]

High and low stats can be reflective of different traits. For example, one 8-wis PC might plausibly be described as rash and impulsive, whereas another might plausibly be described as overly-cautious to the point of foolishness. Similarly, one 8-int PC might be plausibly described as slow on the uptake, whereas another might be plausibly described as having problems with abstraction.

I ask my players to plausibly describe their character's traits that reflect any low mental stats, and I expect them to then roleplay those traits as they would all their character's traits.

[BreaktheStatue]

If you're dumping ALL the mental stats, and then RPing your character as a normal guy...I'd consider that to be pretty unethical.

It strikes me as someone wanting to downplay the "min" of a "min-max" build - to have their cake and eat it, too.

I'm not saying the PC should go full-on Simple Jack, but if they are always the first to offer solutions to puzzles, or detect some scheme, or something...that's kind of BS.

[BreaktheStatue]

If I had to RP someone with these stats, the first thing that comes to mind is the classic movie caricature redneck.

They're always portrayed as dumb, with almost no charm. They're crude, uneducated, racist, with few higher values or aspirations, but they're not actually retarded because that would be "punching down," (although they're often inbred, which Hollywood is fine with).

Not the only way you could go with those stats, but probably how I'd go.

[NaughtyTiger]

10s in everything would be a "straight out of the book Commoner" - but that doesn't mean all, or even most Commoners, have exactly that statblock.

Using the same logic as with Height - just because the "typical" adult man is 70 inches tall, doesn't mean that most men are 70 inches tall.

Agreed. However, someone who is 62 inches is shorter than the typical adult man.
someone (a specific commoner or adventurer) with int8 is dumber than the typical commoner.
The question is how much dumber...

[hamishspence]

The point we've been trying to make is that INT 8 is to INT 10, as Height 67 inches is to Height 70 inches (for adult men) - not far enough away from "typical" to be considered really out of the ordinary.



People tend to think 8 is very dumb/impulsive/weak but it is a single modifier below the population mean. It has whole 4 more points to go till it hits rock bottom. You probably know people in real life with an intelligence of "8" and they are perfectly fine.

My mental model of stats of the general populace, is that they are distributed by 3d6. That'll keep the average at 10 and it makes sense due to rpg history. That would mean 57% percent of population is around 8-12. This corresponds to a lower bound of IQ higher than 85. There was an AMA on reddit by a fellow with an IQ of 85 and they seemed totally fine.

8 isn't far enough from average for most people to even really notice without extended contact.


8 is on the lower end of average, but still average.

Given the Standard Array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, I think it's safe to assume that 8 in any stat is not particularly out there.

[MaxWilson]

The point we've been trying to make is that INT 8 is to INT 10, as Height 67 inches is to Height 70 inches (for adult men) - not far enough away from "typical" to be considered really out of the ordinary.

...Except in some contexts.

Tom Cruise is notoriously short for a movie star. He's 5'7". Consequently, most of the shots in Mission Impossible: Fallout are taken from a low angle, so that audiences won't perceive Ethan Hunt as unusually short.

If you're a smart person who hangs out with smart people, you probably have no real conception of what an average IQ 100 person is like inside, much less a below-average Int 8. It's simpler just to assign Int 12+ to your fighter and then play THAT... which is why some people hate point buy, because it's a zero sum game which forces you to tank your other stats in order to role play accurately.

/tangent

[Tanarii]

If you're a smart person who hangs out with smart people, you probably have no real conception of what an average IQ 100 person is like inside, much less a below-average Int 8. It's simpler just to assign Int 12+ to your fighter and then play THAT... which is why some people hate point buy, because it's a zero sum game which forces you to tank your other stats in order to role play accurately.

/tangentIf that's the case, you're lacking so much real world experience that it's going to be hard to role play almost any role except "ivory tower egg head" or "tech guy hiding in his own little closed sphere" properly. Or in 5e terms, a Sage, Hermit, or SCAG Cloistered Scholar background.

[NaughtyTiger]

If that's the case, you're lacking so much real world experience that it's going to be hard to role play almost any role except "ivory tower egg head" or "tech guy hiding in his own little closed sphere" properly. Or in 5e terms, a Sage, Hermit, or SCAG Cloistered Scholar background.

Tanarii, i dont understand your post
Are you saying that playing Int 13 is ivory tower or tech guy?

[Tanarii]

Tanarii, i dont understand your post
Are you saying that playing Int 13 is ivory tower or tech guy?
No. That if your experience is exclusively with the 37.5% of the population that is Int 12+ (assuming a bell curve roughly analogous to either IQ or 3d6 applies), you are a somewhat isolated (although probably highly educated) person.

Edit: of course, that's not exactly what MaxWilson said. He said "a smart person that hangs out with smart people".

Personally I hang out with all kinds of people, with my coworkers and old college chums being fairly smart and educated, to buddies I do physical training with that range from fairly sharp but uneducated to definitely not that smart and uneducated. Meanwhile my players are mostly community college kids. Which means generally fairly smart and (getting to be) somewhat educated.

[MaxWilson]

Edit: of course, that's not exactly what MaxWilson said. He said "a smart person that hangs out with smart people".

Personally I hang out with all kinds of people, with my coworkers and old college chums being fairly smart and educated, to buddies I do physical training with that range from fairly sharp but uneducated to definitely not that smart and uneducated. Meanwhile my players are mostly community college kids. Which means generally fairly smart and (getting to be) somewhat educated.

Correct. That's not what I said, and it sounds like you wouldn't have the problem I was talking about. Sounds like you have a diverse enough experience to not be in the bubble, and you could just RP Int 8 Wis 8 as one of your "definitely not that smart" PT buddies. (Who may nevertheless be a fine person. Moral value != IQ.)

You're lucky, congratulations. I mean that sincerely. A diverse experience is a good thing to have.

================================

Final thought on RPing Int/Wis/Cha 8: ignorance is hard to fake. Not just ignorance of e.g. what happens next in an adventure you've already read or played, but Dunning-Krueger ignorance as well. For example, I personally have a hard time RPing someone who is mildly bad at grammar, to the point of not recognizing that he is below average at grammar. (Loose vs. lose, it's vs. its, good vs. well, etc.) It's simpler for me to just make the character (e.g. NPC farmer) either smarter or even dumber (comically bad at grammar, like Ogre bad) so I don't have to deal with it. Thus my Int 8ish PCs and NPCs usually wind up being on the quiet and/or passive side--that's a hard range for me to fake, not just for grammar but for things like tactics too.

For similar reasons I prefer running sophisticated tacticians like drow and hobgoblins or dumb beasts like wolves and bears, but stuff in the middle like orcs is hard for me to do well. In addition to the usual "hit it with an axe"/"throw javelins" tactics in the MM stat block, I give orcs one good trick per tribe like melee kiting (Aggressive approach, axe hit, then normal movement for retreat) or shoving creatures off high places and have them use it simplistically, on the theory that it worked once for one orc and now they overestimate its effectiveness/use it inappropriately, but it's hard to know if I'm overdoing their ignorance.

TLDR; sometimes it's harder to RP "kind of dumb" than "really dumb."

[Darth Ultron]

DM. How do you let players with dump stats in int wis cha play their characters with out of character personal intelligence charisma wisdom

It is easy enough. Most players have INT, WIS and CHA of 8 or lower(or even 10 or lower, or 12 or lower), so they can just play ''themselves" in the game just fine. It's no problem really.

[Beelzebubba]

DM. How do you let players with dump stats in int wis cha play their characters with out of character personal intelligence charisma wisdom

They can RP however they want to, but the dice will tell the truth.

Dumb people think they're smart.
Dim people think they're wise.
Uninspiring people think they're leaders.

You know who's the personification of an 8/8/8 int/wis/cha person?

https://i1.wp.com/dalemcgowan.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Screen-Shot-2018-02-21-at-11.19.50-AM.png

Michael thinks he's amazingly smart, wise, and a great leader, but he's really just on the low end of average. If he didn't try so hard, he'd be a lot more tolerable. But he's not perceptive enough to see how people react because they fake being nice to him and he can't see through it, so he keeps coming up with 'brilliant' thoughts that everyone else just endures.

I think truly role playing an 8/8/8 character who isn't just a boring normal person takes someone with a lot of guts and talent. They have to try to do awesome things, and keep failing dice rolls over and over again, and that's not easy for a lot of people's egos.

[AHF]

Just as a tangent to an earlier point in the thread, most American colleges don’t expect the average student to graduate in 3 years. People who graduate that quickly are graduating “early” relative to the baseline expectation.

[halarin]

Well, Int matches up fairly well with IQ scores. If you multiply the int score by ten, it translates well to an IQ score. Score of ten? Average IQ of 100. Score of eight? Below average at 80. Not considered disable at all, but definitely dull. Since IQ scores are something that people have a decent grasp on now, it can help some people RP.

[Tanarii]

Well, Int matches up fairly well with IQ scores.Not in 5e. That's not what Intelligence is about.

Plus:

If you multiply the int score by ten, it translates well to an IQ score. Score of ten? Average IQ of 100. Score of eight? Below average at 80. Not considered disable at all, but definitely dull. Since IQ scores are something that people have a decent grasp on now, it can help some people RP.
iQ scores follow a bell curve approximately like 3d6. In other words, if you want to map Int to IQ, a x10 rule is a terrible way to do it.

Instead Int 3 would be IQ 55, and Int 18 about IQ 145. Int 4 IQ 70 and Int 17 IQ 130. Int 8 would be an IQ of somewhere around 90-95 iirc.

[Spacehamster]

You probably think they are as dumb as a box of rocks. Think about all the people you know who graduated college and are still pretty dim. Now consider the fact that 65-70% of Americans are not college graduates. Even the average (50th percentile) American is dumber than the people you think are dim; and Int 8 is more like the 30th percentile. These are the people you can't stand to have a deep conversation with because they always miss the obvious and say obviously stupid things. If you ever have a conversation with one of them you try to confine it to smalltalk and meaningless pleasantries. The intellectual gap is just too great to be worth the bother.*

* I'm assuming here that if you're reading this you're reasonably bright. If not, well, sorry for overestimating you.

As I said, Biff Tanner. Jayne Cobb is another great example. Neither of them is a mental cripple per se, but dumb as a box of rocks, yes indeed.

Edit:

For comparison: Int 6 is edging more towards Charlie Gordon/mental cripple territory--same Int as a gorilla. By the time you hit Int 3 you are barely brighter than a lizard. I have an aunt who is approximately at the Int 5-6 level (she couldn't really speak in complete sentences until she made a mental breakthrough in her late 50's: shocked her parents one day by spontaneously using a complete sentence along the lines of "Let's pack our bags and get out of this dump [hotel]"), but she's way brighter than an Int 3 lizard, and Jayne Cobb is way brighter than her, comparatively speaking.

There was a guy in my infantry platoon in Basic Training who comes to mind as somewhere around Int 8 Wis 6 Cha 6. He almost shot the First Sergeant with a negligent discharge during an exercise, and he was infamous for wetting the bed and then lying about it. He wasn't as foolish as it is humanly possible to be (Wis 3) nor as disliked as it is possible to be (Cha 3), but he was unusually foolish and disliked (and arrogant). I figure an Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 8 guy will be about halfway between average and That Guy, which is definitely enough to get noticed.

8 is average intelligence for all races with gnome having an average of 10, and some like humans an average of 9. So box of rocks dumb would be more like 6 or 4.

[NaughtyTiger]

8 is average intelligence for all races.

Source?
Cuz commoner, who is common, is 10.

[Spacehamster]

Source?
Cuz commoner, who is common, is 10.

Ah bad memory on my part then, in any case that is only slightly dumb then since just 1 modifier difference. :) 10 normal, 8 slow, 6 borderline retard, 4 weggie.