Discourage stat dumping

[cjcaesar]

I read a lot about valorize the abilities that the players are likely to dump during character creation: INT first, then STR and CHA and in some builds I also see WIS as the dump stat. I never seen CON or DEX dumped because they are too valuables and if someone wants to dump one of these two, I think he's already fairly penalized. I didn't find a way to valorize the remaining 4 abilities in a build that put them as the dump stat but maybe I can try to discourage players to dump them before all:
1. INT or WIS: apply the malus to character initiative;
2. STR: apply the malus to bonus HP derived from CON every level;
3. CHA: apply the malus to charisma skill check of every member of the party if the character is in the same room and if you roll for a random character to attack count that character as two (if you have 3 party members don't roll a 1d3, roll instead a 1d4).

You can use the malus only to mitigate the bonus to a minimum of 0 (a character with 10 DEX and 8 INT has Initiative 0) or you can choose to go all out and use the malus to impose a negative modifier (a character with 10 DEX and 8 INT has initiative -1).
What you think?

[Millstone85]

I think that knowledge and social checks are too rare. Making those important would help rebalance the stats.

[Contrast]

If you're rolling stats it feels a little unfair to further penalise them for something out of their control.

If you're using point buy and you don't like PCs having scores of under 10, just tell them that 10 is the floor and to spend their points accordingly.


In terms of your suggestions - I think the Cha one in particular is a bad idea as you'll encourage the party to literally leave the player outside whenever there's talking to do, excluding them from the game. Plus you'll potentially be causing some resentment.

The Cha and Str ones are sufficiently bad I likely would not choose to have a negative. The Int/Wis ones I wouldn't care about particularly on most characters.

[Greywander]

I think you might be looking at this wrong. It's more interesting to have a character with both strengths and weaknesses. A well-balanced party should have a decent score for each ability somewhere in the party, otherwise it could be used against them to great effect if they all have the same weakness. But it should be encouraged that a player gives their character flaws, which can be represented in ability scores.

The way to handle this is through roleplay. Got a character who dumped INT? Put them in a situation where they need to make an INT check for something. Maybe someone asks for directions, and they have to make a History check to see if they know where someplace is. Failure isn't really bad for them, but it might lead to an interesting narrative consequence, like the other person getting disgusted and making a rude comment about their intellect. Maybe the character is sensitive about not getting a formal education, so it really affects them when they're made to feel stupid.

Got a character who dumped STR to maximize CHA? Put them in situations where they need to (or want to) perform feats of strength to impress the ladies. Again, failure isn't serious, it just has funny and interesting roleplay consequences.

Throw the party into a situation where they need to engage in negotiations, but the only person that took the necessary language is the one who dumped CHA. Some awkward bumbling later, and some sort of agreement is reached, but it's perhaps not as good as it could have been, and it's clear the other party isn't too pleased about having to deal with you.

Don't punish them. Just put them in situations where their flaws actually matter. Failing at things can be fun, too, as long as the consequences aren't too bad. Talk to the players as well, they might be able to come up with ideas for awkward situations you could put their PCs in, and what the consequences could be for failure that they would be okay with.

[DeTess]

I read a lot about valorize the abilities that the players are likely to dump during character creation: INT first, then STR and CHA and in some builds I also see WIS as the dump stat. I never seen CON or DEX dumped because they are too valuables and if someone wants to dump one of these two, I think he's already fairly penalized. I didn't find a way to valorize the remaining 4 abilities in a build that put them as the dump stat but maybe I can try to discourage players to dump them before all:
1. INT or WIS: apply the malus to character initiative;
2. STR: apply the malus to bonus HP derived from CON every level;
3. CHA: apply the malus to charisma skill check of every member of the party if the character is in the same room and if you roll for a random character to attack count that character as two (if you have 3 party members don't roll a 1d3, roll instead a 1d4).

You can use the malus only to mitigate the bonus to a minimum of 0 (a character with 10 DEX and 8 INT has Initiative 0) or you can choose to go all out and use the malus to impose a negative modifier (a character with 10 DEX and 8 INT has initiative -1).
What you think?

I don't think dumping is necessarily bad, and for everything except int, there's ways to already penalize people in game. In my recent campaign in particular there are quite some moments where having raw physical strength is a very useful tool for bypassing obstacles and carrying loot, so you can already penalize that by making use of the carrying capacity and lifting values, as well as using enemies that grapple.

WIS is penalized with a lot of saves that you don't want to fail against. If you want to discourage WIS dumping, just use someone throwing around crowd control spells every other encounter.

CHA either isn't going to be an issue dumped if the players never do social encounters, but f they do, chances are the low CHA dude will have to roll a check at one point or another, especially for stuff like deception.

That just leaves INT, which is sued for the knowledge skills, which you can pawn off on the team wizard, and investigation, which is a skill that should be rolled almost as often as perception. Just remember that if a character is actively searching a room for stuff, its investigation, not perception, and people will soon realize that dumping INT does have a cost.

All that having been said, if you're dead-set on using an additional penalty system, I'd say that the system as you've currently set it up is somewhat unbalanced. The first penalty is fine, but the penalty for a dumped STR is far more severe. To get it more in line with the rest I'd apply it to health recovery from HD instead. The last option only penalizes those that did not dump CHA, as they're made worse by having people around with bad CHA, and that just encourages forgoing CHA altogether and just kill everything. Instead, I'd apply that penalty to also affect WIS saves or something like that.

[Reynaert]

I've seen the opinion float around that because int is underused and dex is overused, a simple fix would be to have initiative bonus work off int. Which, as an avid wizard player who really likes the alert feat, I'm all for ^_^

[zockeros]

I don't think dumping is necessarily bad, and for everything except int, there's ways to already penalize people in game.
The biggest issue with Int is how easy it can be substituted by the players intelligence. Besides Wis no other stat comes even close to this.

[Kintar]

I just adhere to strict encumbrance rules for str. I even apply it to myself as I made an arcane trickster and often remind the DM that I don't wear armor because I only have 8str and don't want to use up that much weight on a a couple ac.

For int, a couple of intellect devourers gets the point accross.

[Bjarkmundur]

Wait, we're looking at ways to make stat-dumping have more of an impact on the narrative, whilst at the same time increasing enjoyment and immersion?

When penalising players, I always make sure it's either a choice, or a trade-off. For example, when introducing Lingering Injuries, it was met with opposition at first. When I suggested Lingering injury could be taken as a reaction to take 0 damage from an attack, the players were willing to have the discussion.

You could do the same here. Use point buy, leave the floor at 10, a d reduce the points accordingly. Now, instead of dumping a stat, he can take a flaw, and gain two extra point for his point buy. Make sure the flaws are entertaining, come up at least 1/session, and are mostly contained within the narrative.

Bad Memory
Prerequisites: 11 or lower Intelligence score.
Special: You can choose this flaw at character creation to gain two extra points for buying stats using the point-buy method.
Flaw: You have disadvantage on Intelligence ability checks. You always misremembered the names of characters, locations and factions, and seem to constantly wander off and get lost.

All thumbs
Prerequisites: 11 or lower Dexterity score.
Special: You can choose this flaw at character creation to gain two extra points for buying stats using the point-buy method.
Flaw: Whenever you roll 5 or less on an attack roll, roll once on the fumble table, or lose the grip on your weapon or implement and accidentally throw it 10 feet in a random direction.

I don't know, I'm just making up stuff. But if you put some thought into it, you could have something that makes dumping stats pretty interesting.

[elyktsorb]

I don't think people would dump stats if they had to mean them. Like, would you realistically want to play an 8 Int character that has problems doing basic math? I wouldn't, but most people who dump a stat don't ever use the stat Mechanically or RP wise.

[Sparky McDibben]

Why are we penalizing (further!) valuable roleplaying characteristics? Dump stats are an RP gift!

[JNAProductions]

I don't think people would dump stats if they had to mean them. Like, would you realistically want to play an 8 Int character that has problems doing basic math? I wouldn't, but most people who dump a stat don't ever use the stat Mechanically or RP wise.

8 Int is not rock-bottom stupid.

It's a little slow. Assuming the character had an education, they probably know their entire times table (up to 12*12), it just takes them a few moments to remember. Now, if they have a low Int AND no education, they'll probably have issues with multiplication and division, but that's more than just a low Int at play.

[Lunali]

8 Int is not rock-bottom stupid.

It's a little slow. Assuming the character had an education, they probably know their entire times table (up to 12*12), it just takes them a few moments to remember. Now, if they have a low Int AND no education, they'll probably have issues with multiplication and division, but that's more than just a low Int at play.

Something odd just occurred to me, since int affects your knowledge skills it would only make sense to say it also includes your level of education. This means that an educated person with low int is a little slow, while an uneducated person with low int is average intelligence but hasn't had the chance to learn as much. Therefore, education makes you stupider.

[Constructman]

So the new "standard" array would be 15 14 13 10 10 10?

As well, if I'm building a character and I need 15 14 14 for whatever reason -- say i'm building a Ranger or a Monk and I want good Dex of course, but also good Con and Wis but I didn't pick a race that increases one of those -- I'll have to take the 8 somewhere. Which usually goes into either Str or Cha, as I still want Int for Nature checks.

I kind of feel like what you're advocating for qill lead to characters who are good at once specific thing and mediocre at everything else, instead of what we have now with characters good at a couple of things and bad at one thing. It's perfectly possible to build 15 12 12 12 12 10 in the array. A Dex Fighter could work with thoe stats I guess. Anything else? Eh, they want at least a 14 in one or maybe even two secondary stats. Even Rogues usually want 14 in one of Int or Wis if they're on trap checking duty.

[Tanarii]

IMX Heavy armor wearers (Fighters, Paladins, HA Clerics) regularly dump Dex to 8 or 10.


Something odd just occurred to me, since int affects your knowledge skills it would only make sense to say it also includes your level of education. This means that an educated person with low int is a little slow, while an uneducated person with low int is average intelligence but hasn't had the chance to learn as much. Therefore, education makes you stupider.
All ability score explicitly include natural ability and training, per the PHB. So yeah, Int includes education.

Personally I like the idea of an Int 8 character with Investigation to represent an uneducated character who's above average at deductive thinking.

[sophontteks]

Stat dumping is just how the game was designed. An easy solution is to just put less weight in their meaning. Adding penalties to lower stats will punish MAD classes, which isn't conductive to good gameplay IMO. This is just encouraging everyone to have the same or very similar stats.

Intelligence isn't about being smart or dumb. A person's real intellect really takes shape in charisma, wisdom, and intelligence pretty equally. Its not how intelligent you are, but how your intelligence takes shape.

Having a low intelligence really just means you never went to school, or performed really badly in your studies.
Having a low wisdom just means you don't pay attention to your surroundings.
Having a low charisma just means you haven't dealt with people, or struggle to not be awkward in social situations.

Conversely high score in any of these three skills can be a sign of a sharp mind. I've met engineering students who can handle mathematical equations far beyond anything I'm capable of who can barely take care of themselves IRL. Is that high intelligence? Yes. What is its significance though, really? How should the game represent this?

[LudicSavant]

Stat dumping is just how the game was designed.

This. Unless you just rolled an incredibly lucky set, something has to be your bad stat.

[qube]

My favorite statistic: did you know that about half the people in the world have below average intelligence?

And with a 10 (or maybe 11 in 5e?) represents the human average ... it certainly isn't strange to have an 8 in a stat. The perspective of us is just twisted because players have so many points to buy

So, while LudicSavant notes


Unless you just rolled an incredibly lucky set, something has to be your bad stat.

I'd like to note unlike all your stats are the same ...something has to be your bad stat.

D&D doesn't make make gods (OK, 5e doesn't ;) ) - it makes heros. And while heros have a lot of good aspects, most of them aren't good at everything.

-----------

Wanna discourage stat dumping? Simply say characters have to be created with the standard array.

[Laserlight]

A character's weaknesses are as important in defining him as his strengths. If you want to avoid anyone being below average in a stat, are you also going to require them to have at least AC 15, d8 hit dice, a good melee attack, the ability to cast spells, and fluency in all local languages?

[Tanarii]

-----------

Wanna discourage stat dumping? Simply say characters have to be created with the standard array.
Yeah. At the least, it'll stop 2-3 8 attribute characters. Which is definitely a point buy thing in some circles.

[Âmesang]

I actually did dump Con once for a point-buy drow antipaladin/assassin due to how MAD she ended up being (even after being allowed to use the D&DNext playtest katana — two-handed finesse for 1d10 slashing). Granted, it felt thematically appropriate in a way, due to her slight build (I recall drow being, on average, smaller than surface elves) and as a callback to the elves' Con penalty in 3e.

Also a number of my characters are based on ones I've made in other games or used to draw, so dump statting was often appropriate; one such character turned into a Pathfinder ranger had Cha dumped due to being the "silent, unassuming, lost-in-the-crowd" type — hard to be personable if you're alone in the wilderness for months at a time. I had fun with a below-average Int/above-average Wis paladin as the "country bumpkin" type — not much for book learning, but friendly and with good common sense… who eventually died a heroic death (that she didn't need to, as it turned out). Then a sorceress of mine dumped Str as a result of never needing it due to her noble, pampered upbringing (isn't that what servants are for?), and a poor Wis combined with her high Int and Cha made her as the type to exclaim how she had "the most scathingly brilliant idea."

(Also my own Wis is poor, so if I misunderstood something or lacked awareness, it made it easier to play it off as being "in character." :smalltongue:)

Honestly the only time the concept felt cheesy was for my minotaur barbarian with his below average Int and Wis — I maxed out Str and Con ASAP, with his next highest stats being Cha and Dex, respectively.

[MaxWilson]

If you want to discourage stat dumping... roll stats 3d6 in order. (Or 4d6k3 in order, or whatever suits your fancy.)

The game is still fun that way, as long as the players buy in to this method, and you'll see characters you otherwise wouldn't see, like the strong-but-fragile wizard or the highly intelligent Sharpshooter fighter.

[Constructman]

If you want to discourage stat dumping... roll stats 3d6 in order. (Or 4d6k3 in order, or whatever suits your fancy.)

The game is still fun that way, as long as the players buy in to this method, and you'll see characters you otherwise wouldn't see, like the strong-but-fragile wizard or the highly intelligent Sharpshooter fighter.

And then that Wizard keeps failing his concentration checks, and the Fighter misses half the time due to having a 7 Dex, and the party Cleric has no stat above 12...

[MaxWilson]

And then that Wizard keeps failing his concentration checks, and the Fighter misses half the time due to having a 7 Dex, and the party Cleric has no stat above 12...

And the strong, fat, fragile (Str 14 Con 7 Int 15) wizard learns to stay behind the big stupid fighter, who uses a greatsword instead of a rapier (because Str 16 Dex 7), and the jolly but not-all-that-disciplined (Wis 12) Friar Tuck cleric Blesses the party and heals them when they're turned to stone or something, but also sometimes sneaks off to have a roaring drunk with his old buddies from the seminary (whereas a Wis 18 cleric would act more responsibly).

That's why it's still fun if all of the players buy in, but clearly you wouldn't buy in, so your DM obviously isn't going to be doing this kind of campaign. Keep on dumping those same old stats the same way you always do.

[Spore]

You won't get munchkins, optimizers and "tabletop players" to RP more if you restrict their freedom in building characters.

Also take the odd challenge and make the fighter do the intelligence check because his background allows him to make the int check, and no one else. Give the wizard advantage for climbing while being helped by the fighter but refuse the fighter to pull him up in a stressful situation (if he doesn't want advantage on attacks against him).

Give the indexterous dwarven cleric a reason to use sleight of hand to signal his friends. Let the uncharismatic butthole wizard do the talking because the archmage of the academy thinks his friends are morons.

This is DM 101. Target the character's weaknesses for once. There will be characters that have no weaknesses (either by bardic syndrome of being equally meh at everything or because the player cleverly set up his character), then you have to adjust the situations. A trapper ranger from the north might have difficulty finding his way in the desert (higher DCs), a bard might be the best mundane healer by virtue of jack of all trades and good wisdom but this doesn't mean he knows what he is doing here (two middlish DCs, one for identifying the situation, one for solving it, and if you mistreat a patient, his condition worsens if you botch the second roll).

[sophontteks]

And the strong, fat, fragile (Str 14 Con 7 Int 15) wizard learns to stay behind the big stupid fighter, who uses a greatsword instead of a rapier (because Str 16 Dex 7), and the jolly but not-all-that-disciplined (Wis 12) Friar Tuck cleric Blesses the party and heals them when they're turned to stone or something, but also sometimes sneaks off to have a roaring drunk with his old buddies from the seminary (whereas a Wis 18 cleric would act more responsibly).

That's why it's still fun if all of the players buy in, but clearly you wouldn't buy in, so your DM obviously isn't going to be doing this kind of campaign. Keep on dumping those same old stats the same way you always do.
Lets hope they never run into an enemy smart enough to run past the fighter, or worse, ambush the party from behind.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Dump stats are the reason 5E has six saving throws. No matter which stat you decided not to prioritize, eventually you'll pay for it, somehow.

[Corran]

3. CHA: apply the malus to charisma skill check of every member of the party if the character is in the same room and if you roll for a random character to attack count that character as two (if you have 3 party members don't roll a 1d3, roll instead a 1d4).

This one, although interesting as an idea, wont work well imo. It encourages players to have their low-charisma characters stay out of social situations so that the party face wont get a penalty on any roll that might come up. I get that the idea is to tempt players to not plan for negative modifiers, but this solution can cause more harm than good.

[Damon_Tor]

I roleplay NPCs based on the PCs' stats all the time. If you have an int of 8, people are going to treat you like a dumbass. If you have a cha of 8 people are going to treat you like an *******. This stuff isn't likely to affect the story much, but it seems to be enough that my players don't dump their stats without being prepared for the fallout.

[Lunali]

This one, although interesting as an idea, wont work well imo. It encourages players to have their low-charisma characters stay out of social situations so that the party face wont get a penalty on any roll that might come up. I get that the idea is to tempt players to not plan for negative modifiers, but this solution can cause more harm than good.

I think that was intended for combat, making low chr characters more likely to be targetted by enemies that choose their targets randomly.

[Damon_Tor]

Dump stats are the reason 5E has six saving throws. No matter which stat you decided not to prioritize, eventually you'll pay for it, somehow.

Yeah, okay, but not all dump stats are equal. You dump Str and you get knocked over. You dump Int and you get your brain erased and a Krang living in your head.

[Corran]

I think that was intended for combat, making low chr characters more likely to be targetted by enemies that choose their targets randomly.
Ah... I completely missed the point. Thanks.

[MaxWilson]

Lets hope they never run into an enemy smart enough to run past the fighter, or worse, ambush the party from behind.

Because then Friar Tuck might have to actually cast Revivify (300 gp of diamonds), which would impact his party budget! (And then the fat wizard changes his play style to avoid getting killed the same way next time.)

The worst case is that PCs with poor survival rates die and get replaced by other PCs with higher survival rates. But 5E sets the survivability bar pretty low.

[sophontteks]

Because then Friar Tuck might have to actually cast Revivify (300 gp of diamonds), which would impact his party budget! (And then the fat wizard changes his play style to avoid getting killed the same way next time.)

The worst case is that PCs with poor survival rates die and get replaced by other PCs with higher survival rates. But 5E sets the survivability bar pretty low.
Unless this causes a TPK. There is only so much the party can do to protect someone. There are very few ways to actively draw agro, and very little stopping them from running past other players.

[Mellack]

I roleplay NPCs based on the PCs' stats all the time. If you have an int of 8, people are going to treat you like a dumbass. If you have a cha of 8 people are going to treat you like an *******. This stuff isn't likely to affect the story much, but it seems to be enough that my players don't dump their stats without being prepared for the fallout.

Except a person with an 8 Int isn't dumb. They are just 5% worse than the average person. Most of the time you wouldn't even notice that. Same with other stats like charisma, a person with an 8 Chr might be a bit shy or awkward. The natural difference in stats is only half of starting proficiency. So that 8 Int "dumbass" with proficiency is better than the commoner who doesn't.

[MaxWilson]

Unless this causes a TPK. There is only so much the party can do to protect someone. There are very few ways to actively draw agro, and very little stopping them from running past other players.

If this happens a lot (IME it doesn't and shouldn't but maybe IYE it does), then the fat wizard will either adapt and keep his distance/start wearing armor/take the Mobile feat/find some other tactic appropriate to whatever keeps happening, or he'll die and get replaced.

Working as intended.

[NatureKing]

Find a different game to play.

People make their characters to be good at something. This means with a finite amount of resources available, these resources inherently mean some things don't get as invested as much in. These inherently undervalued areas should ideally be picked up or mitigated elsewhere, either within the party as a whole, or substituted elsewhere: say by buying a cart rather than involving strength for example, or casting Charm Person in place of taking Persuasion.

If this penalty is not mitigated by a party member, the penalty is a higher chance of failure.

All your idea does is make a character who wants to be good at something now be less capable of doing something, becuase the guy who didn't want to do the thing can now no longer do the thing.

This is a frankly awful idea.
Surely you mean 20%?

No, Int 8 is a -1 to checks, which in a system granulated to a 20 point dice variance, is a net 5% average.

[MaxWilson]

No, Int 8 is a -1 to checks, which in a system granulated to a 20 point dice variance, is a net 5% average.

This line of thinking implies that a lobotomized vegetable with Int 1 isn't really very stupid at all, since they're "only 25% worse" than a regular person at passing Int skill checks. I don't agree with that perspective.

[JNAProductions]

This line of thinking implies that a lobotomized vegetable with Int 1 isn't really very stupid at all, since they're "only 25% worse" than a regular person at passing Int skill checks. I don't agree with that perspective.

A better way to look at it is that Intelligence maps to real life pretty dang poorly.

Having it as a linear scale just doesn't make sense-that makes an 8 Int person 80% as smart as a 10 Int person, but the 20 Int super-genius Wizard is only twice as smart as your ordinary 10 Int Commoner.

[Matticusrex]

Why would players want to ever play a system that penalized them like this. They would just find another DM.

[MaxWilson]

A better way to look at it is that Intelligence maps to real life pretty dang poorly.

I think you mean "skill checks model real life very poorly." It's not Int's fault that d20 variance on skill checks swamps ability and proficiency. The same thing happens to Strength checks, and it's the skill check's d20's fault.

But as far as raw intelligence guess, we know that Int 1 = dumber than a lizard = as dumb as you can get, while Int 10 = Commoner = regular.



Having it as a linear scale just doesn't make sense-that makes an 8 Int person 80% as smart as a 10 Int person, but the 20 Int super-genius Wizard is only twice as smart as your ordinary 10 Int Commoner.

Just like real life! IQ 200 is about as smart as anyone ever gets. "Only" twice as smart is very, very smart, von Neumann territory.

But the relative gap between a normal person and a vegetable (10x?) is far more noticeable than the gap between a normal person and von Neumann (2x).

Linear scale (Int = IQ/10) models reality reasonably well.

[NatureKing]

This line of thinking implies that a lobotomized vegetable with Int 1 isn't really very stupid at all, since they're "only 25% worse" than a regular person at passing Int skill checks. I don't agree with that perspective.

DM dictates when a skill check is being made. If the DM dictates that a lobotomized vegetable is capable of making such a check, or articulating it, then that's up to the DM. But then again, we're hardly talking about a system dictating whether coma patients can match a quizmaster in a quickfire questions round, so your point doesn't really hold up.

[MaxWilson]

DM dictates when a skill check is being made. If the DM dictates that a lobotomized vegetable is capable of making such a check, or articulating it, then that's up to the DM. But then again, we're hardly talking about a system dictating whether coma patients can match a quizmaster in a quickfire questions round, so your point doesn't really hold up.

You're missing the point. Int 1 guy is roleplaying his PC all the time, not just when the DM calls for Int ability checks. He might beat the hyperintelligent wizard on an Int contest once in a while due to d20 luck, but he's dumber than a lizard 24 hours a day. (Most lizards in 5E have Int 2, e.g. T Rex, crocodiles, constrictor snakes. )

[NatureKing]

You see, MaxWilson. That is where you are wrong. I am not missing your point, I am saying it's an incorrect one.

Take that on the chin, and come up with a better one.

[MaxWilson]

You see, MaxWilson. That is where you are wrong. I am not missing your point, I am saying it's an incorrect one.

*laughter*

[NatureKing]

*laughter*

*My name's MaxWilson, and if you disagree with me, I'll suggest you're too thick to understand my superior intelligence despite being unable to actually type the words I mean*

Okay mate. Enjoy your night.

[Constructman]

*laughter*
Good. Laugh. Laugh. Forever. Choke on your laughter until you can never speak again.

[Tanarii]

Linear scale (Int = IQ/10) models reality reasonably well.
No it doesn't. IQ is a bell curve. If you map 3d6 to the bell curve you get a better approximation. Something like Int 3 is IQ 55, Int 5 IQ 70, Int 8 is about IQ 90, Int 12 is IQ 110, Int 16 is IQ 130, and Int 18 is IQ 145.

That said, I personally prefer to just treat them as linear mods, and PCs are in the 8-20 range, and leave out IQ. Because The Intelligence score is defined as both natural ability and training. And because if something involves Int, it works off an Int check or modifier. If it doesn't, there's no check and no mod, then it doesn't involve Intelligence. "Roleplaying" your Int means naturally avoiding making decisions that put your character in situations that involve Int checks if you have a low bonus, and looking for them if you have a high mod.

[MaxWilson]

No it doesn't. IQ is a bell curve. If you map 3d6 to the bell curve you get a better approximation. Something like Int 3 is IQ 55, Int 5 IQ 70, Int 8 is about IQ 90, Int 12 is IQ 110, Int 16 is IQ 130, and Int 18 is IQ 145.

There's some tension here between 3d6 (one in 216 will be at the human maximum) and real humanity (one in several billion will be at the human maximum). Your model is not unreasonable but I dislike how it makes real genius impossible to roll up. Different strokes...

[Rynjin]

The best way to discourage stat dumping in 5e is to make more than 3 stats relevant.

The game has a huge issue with its design where most stats don't matter. Everybody needs Con, because HP and Con saves are important/common. Most people need Wis, since Perception is still one of the God Skills and Wis saves are important/common.

Other than that, you have one other stat that's relevant. Archers/finesse users need Dex, most melee fighters need Str, and casters need Int, Wis, or Cha depending. So any given character only actually NEEDS three stats (two if you're a Wis caster and don't feel like using a weapon ever)

Int isn't used for anything but casting, and ditto for Cha, at least not for anything that comes up often, though at least Cha has important skills it keys off of (but nobody except Cha casters gets Proficiency anyway, so *shrugs*). I played two full campaigns (levels 1-12) in 5e and made I think a single Int and Cha save per game.

Literally don't hate the players, hate the game. Reintroduce extra skill points (or Proficiencies in this case) and languages known for high Int as a start.

[Contrast]

Linear scale (Int = IQ/10) models reality reasonably well.


There's some tension here between 3d6 (one in 216 will be at the human maximum) and real humanity (one in several billion will be at the human maximum). Your model is not unreasonable but I dislike how it makes real genius impossible to roll up. Different strokes...

I'm a little confused by your comment that Int=IQ/10 is pretty good but criticism of a 3d6 bell curve on the basis that it doesn't accurately model each person currently alive in terms of intelligence on a scale of 1 to 8 billion. :smallconfused:

[Tanarii]

There's some tension here between 3d6 (one in 216 will be at the human maximum) and real humanity (one in several billion will be at the human maximum). Your model is not unreasonable but I dislike how it makes real genius impossible to roll up. Different strokes...The maximum for rolled human adventurers. Not the human maximum.

Yes, it means you can't roll a 1 in a billion character on your 4d6d1, but I don't see the problem there. You can have that character by hitting level 20. (Count of each level per non-adventuring population will vary depending on your DMs demographics of their world.)


Int isn't used for anything but casting, and ditto for Cha, at least not for anything that comes up often,
Sounds like a DM specific problem to me, not a game problem.

[Rynjin]

Sounds like a DM specific problem to me, not a game problem.

Considering two of the campaigns I was in were Adventure paths (TBF one was only 1-5 instead of 1-12 like the other AP and the homebrew one based on the Icewind Dale games), it sounds like a Wizards problem to me.

[Misterwhisper]

Stat dumping is going to happen as long as certain classes need more stats than others in point. It.

Never once have I seen a successful monk who could afford more than a 10 in str or cha in point buy.

[Damon_Tor]

Except a person with an 8 Int isn't dumb. They are just 5% worse than the average person. Most of the time you wouldn't even notice that. Same with other stats like charisma, a person with an 8 Chr might be a bit shy or awkward. The natural difference in stats is only half of starting proficiency. So that 8 Int "dumbass" with proficiency is better than the commoner who doesn't.

It depends on the task. The more demanding the task the more you'll see the gap in their abilities.

I have two employees at my store performing a task which requires a small amount of intelligence: packing several products of various sizes inside of boxes for shipping. A failed check means the products didn't fit and you have to take them out and start over. The DC of this task is 5. Employee Avril has an intelligence score of 10 (+0). She fails this task 4 out of 20 attempts. Employee Stu has an intelligence score of 8 (-1). He fails this task 5 out of 20 attempts. At the end of 1 hour Avril has packed 48 boxes. Stu has packed 45 boxes, 93.75% as many as Avril.

But let's say Avril and Stu have moved on to the mail room. They have to correctly sort outgoing mail into the correct bin. Same rules, each attempt takes 1 minute, but now the DC is 10. Avril fails 9/20, Stu fails 10/20. At the end of an hour Avril has correctly sorted 33 letters, Stu has sorted 30, 90.91% as many as Avril.

Months later Avril and Stu have moved on to data entry: they're taking technical data from documents and entering them into spreadsheets. The DC of this task is 15. Avril fails 14/20 attempts, Stu fails 15/20 attempts. At the end of an hour Avril has correctly entered 18 documents, Stu has entered only 15, 83.333% of Avril's

As the tasks become more challenging the gap between them grows, until at DC 19 Avril is twice as productive as Stu, and at DC 20 where Stu becomes incapable of performing the work required while Avril can still muddle by.

Now Stu isn't disabled. I wouldn't call him handicapped or sign him up for government assistance or anything. He's not Forest Gump. But he is, by definition, below average.

I'll acknowledge that "dumbass" isn't a kind word for people with below-average intelligence. But then I was sharing how the NPCs are likely to treat such a PC, and it isn't kind. To clarify, I do not call low-intelligence individuals "dumbass". My NPCs, however, do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Best way to discourage stat dumping (not that 8 is too low)? Roll for stats or take the standard array.

Oh, and make it clear that the DM calls for checks (including both who and what), and do so. Make that low-int dwarf roll for Intelligence (History) even you're in dwarf territory. Basically, treat them like characters, real people, not just playing pieces to min-max.

I never have people who dump int for non-character reasons, because who wants to be dumb (unless that's the character you're portraying)? Not my players.

[MaxWilson]

I'm a little confused by your comment that Int=IQ/10 is pretty good but criticism of a 3d6 bell curve on the basis that it doesn't accurately model each person currently alive in terms of intelligence on a scale of 1 to 8 billion. :smallconfused:

They both model it reasonably well. They both have some flaws. Because of the tension in the system you can't have a mapping without flaws. I prefer one of them but recognize that my preference is not objectively better than the other.

[Deathtongue]

The idea of stat-dumping in 5E D&D being a bad thing that warps games more reflects peoples' Gygaxian angst at min-maxing than concern for its impact on play. Seriously, are people that paranoid about players getting one over them that they're coming up ways to punish Fighters for putting an 8 int INT instead of a 10? The difference between an 8 and a 20 is a +6 on a d20 and most players can't start with a wider spread than 17 16 15 8 8 8, settle down.

Like I said, it's Gygaxian. Control-freaky even, but I repeat myself.

[Mellack]

I'll acknowledge that "dumbass" isn't a kind word for people with below-average intelligence. But then I was sharing how the NPCs are likely to treat such a PC, and it isn't kind. To clarify, I do not call low-intelligence individuals "dumbass". My NPCs, however, do.

Note how the difference only becomes noticeable when doing difficult tasks for an extended length of time. That is not something that in general an NPC is going to get to observe. Also, while an 8 Int character is below average, so are half of the people in general. If people are rude and name-call half of the population, they will tend to be ostracized. I would think such an NPC would have to have lower than an 8 Chr to behave in such a manner.
The point is that 8 Int (or any stat) is not that much from the average. It is less than one standard deviation. If that is considered dumb, that requires about a quarter of the population to be labeled dumb.

[Max_Killjoy]

As a GM, I frown on players taking low mental stats and then constantly coming up with the "smart stuff" -- plans, schemes, comprehension of complex things, etc.

If you want to play a smart character, bump those mental stats up. The stats mean something, they're not just "how do I make my spells harder to resist" and whatnot.

[Zhorn]

Considering there is already an active thread around 'discouraging stat dumping', perhaps this would be better served to be posted in there as part of the ongoing conversation rather than starting a whole new thread.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?589333-Discourage-stat-dumping

[D+1]

The way to discourage stat-dumping is for all classes to have viable uses for having good stats in any given ability. So, even if a fighter doesn't need, say, high wisdom or intelligence for anything if you find a use for a fighter to want a higher wisdom or intelligence then it isn't a dump stat.

[sophontteks]

Anyone who didn't receive a formal education should be in the 8-10 int range. It doesn't mean they are stupid. You shouldn't have to roleplay that you are stupid either. Giving your character a low int score is the best way to represent their lack of formal education. Something common among many adventurers.

Has anyone even considered what wisdom means in this? The words are synonyms.

[Deathtongue]

Considering there is already an active thread around 'discouraging stat dumping', perhaps this would be better served to be posted in there as part of the ongoing conversation rather than starting a whole new thread.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?589333-Discourage-stat-dumpingThe purpose of that thread is to come up with ways to encourage players not to stat dump. Stapling this thesis onto that thread is the equivalent of saying 'don't play wisdom-based rangers, play single-classed nature clerics' on a thread that's coming up with ways to squeeze the most utility out of wisdom-based rangers.

[Deathtongue]

The way to discourage stat-dumping is for all classes to have viable uses for having good stats in any given ability. So, even if a fighter doesn't need, say, high wisdom or intelligence for anything if you find a use for a fighter to want a higher wisdom or intelligence then it isn't a dump stat.The range between having a dump stat and a maximum natural stat is a +6 on a d20. For 95% of characters' non-primary stats, it's more like +1 or +2. Your solution would be invisible on most rolls, all it does is just assuage DM anxiety about players being dirty munchkins when, in this case, min-maxing isn't all that more visible from not doing so.

[Max_Killjoy]

Anyone who didn't receive a formal education should be in the 8-10 int range. It doesn't mean they are stupid. You shouldn't have to roleplay that you are stupid either. Giving your character a low int score is the best way to represent their lack of formal education. Something common among many adventurers.


Don't fall into the trap of thinking that formal education and intelligence are more than vaguely overlapping spaces on a Venn diagram.

[Constructman]

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that formal education and intelligence are more than vaguely overlapping spaces on a Venn diagram.

5e Intelligence is definitely biased towards formal education. With the exception of Investigation, all of the Intelligence skills deal with stuff that your character has learned in the past, their ability to remember it on the spot, and their ability to use their existing knowledge base to draw new conclusions on relevant subject matter. It is very much book knowledge. Meanwhile, the Charisma skills deal with your ability to relate to and possibly manipulate others -- social intelligence. And the Wisdom skills govern instincts, heuristics, and your awareness of your environment.

Somebody with low Intelligence but high Wisdom and Charisma could model an otherwise smart person that never received a formal education in matters of history, religion, arcana, etc. He has talents for interacting with people and is aware of his environment with knowledge on how to fend for himself in dangerous situations, but he might not be able to recall a specific piece of trivia about a war that occured 70 years ago, as he never learned that in school. He may be intelligent, but he's not "Intelligent".

[MarkVIIIMarc]

As long as they can roleplay their 2 int Barbarian or 4 dex wizard I'm fine with it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The range between having a dump stat and a maximum natural stat is a +6 on a d20. For 95% of characters' non-primary stats, it's more like +1 or +2. Your solution would be invisible on most rolls, all it does is just assuage DM anxiety about players being dirty munchkins when, in this case, min-maxing isn't all that more visible from not doing so.

I have a friend who tries desperately to never have a negative modifier on his character, even if it ends up costing him a bonus on his primary stat. I don't understand it myself, a penalty doesn't mechanically do a lot but it can be a good talking point for the characters roleplaying aspects.

You don't have to be a flatout simpleton with an intelligence of 8, but if your party's plan of attack starts to get a little more complex than usual, just "forget" a few steps. If you've decided (rather unfortunately) to take a negative to Wisdom, play that up with rash decisions and place your trust in questionable people. Or you don't have to do any of that. Having an 8 compared to a 10 isn't going to be a very noticeable difference over the long term, that -1 is going to dissuade just as many people from making an intelligence based check as the standard +0.

It's when you start dipping down to a -2 penalty that I expect more noticeable character roleplay associated with that ability score. A 6 int character is likely to make frequently illogical decisions, a 6 Wis character is going to be far too open in trusting people and likely very oblivious.

What is more noticeable is when you reach the peak of your strengths sooner. Dumping one stat can mean the difference of an entire ASI. That tends to be a lot more noticeable in the long run, you pick up feats sooner that accentuate your skills rather than having spent some of your precious resources in character creation to shore up a weakness that wouldn't have been very noticeable.

So I agree, dumping stats is not a bad thing. I blame the lack of mechanical uses for Intelligence (or Strength being nonessential for a Dexterity based character) as a cause more than a player being malicious in their optimization.

[Damon_Tor]

5e Intelligence is definitely biased towards formal education. With the exception of Investigation, all of the Intelligence skills deal with stuff that your character has learned in the past, their ability to remember it on the spot, and their ability to use their existing knowledge base to draw new conclusions on relevant subject matter. It is very much book knowledge. Meanwhile, the Charisma skills deal with your ability to relate to and possibly manipulate others -- social intelligence. And the Wisdom skills govern instincts, heuristics, and your awareness of your environment.

Somebody with low Intelligence but high Wisdom and Charisma could model an otherwise smart person that never received a formal education in matters of history, religion, arcana, etc. He has talents for interacting with people and is aware of his environment with knowledge on how to fend for himself in dangerous situations, but he might not be able to recall a specific piece of trivia about a war that occured 70 years ago, as he never learned that in school. He may be intelligent, but he's not "Intelligent".

"Learned it in school" is represented by proficiency.

Avril with her with intelligence score of 10 has proficiency in history, nature and religion: she is well educated but of average intelligence. However, Clive has an intelligence score of 14 but no proficiency in those skills: he is uneducated but is nonetheless just as likely to recall pertinent information about those subjects. He's better at recalling the various bits and bobs of information he's picked up here and there and making reasonable deductions about the facts he's missing, while Avril struggles to recall details from her college courses and never really understood the whys and hows behind the dates and names.

[ProsecutorGodot]

5e Intelligence is definitely biased towards formal education. With the exception of Investigation, all of the Intelligence skills deal with stuff that your character has learned in the past, their ability to remember it on the spot, and their ability to use their existing knowledge base to draw new conclusions on relevant subject matter. It is very much book knowledge. Meanwhile, the Charisma skills deal with your ability to relate to and possibly manipulate others -- social intelligence. And the Wisdom skills govern instincts, heuristics, and your awareness of your environment.

Somebody with low Intelligence but high Wisdom and Charisma could model an otherwise smart person that never received a formal education in matters of history, religion, arcana, etc. He has talents for interacting with people and is aware of his environment with knowledge on how to fend for himself in dangerous situations, but he might not be able to recall a specific piece of trivia about a war that occured 70 years ago, as he never learned that in school. He may be intelligent, but he's not "Intelligent".

The skills mechanical aspect is based around a formal education, sure, but keeping in mind that a Commoner (unlikely to have had any formal education in a fantasy setting) typically sits at a 10 rather than an 8. I believe that the average assumes that you probably didn't have a formal education. Most backgrounds don't make assumptions that you've received any sort of education either, you don't grow up going to school in DND (unless you're one of the privileged few like a Noble, Acolyte or Sage) but instead working. Those backgrounds that do assume you've had a formal education have aspects that reflect your learning separate from your intelligence based skills like History or Religion(Sage and Hermit for example simply give you easy access to information that a normal person has no business ever knowing), or give you proficiency in them.

I would argue that Proficiency in Intelligence based skills is the sign of Formal Education.

[sophontteks]

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that formal education and intelligence are more than vaguely overlapping spaces on a Venn diagram.
They aren't even that. Stupid people can get a degree just fine. They have to work harder, but they can. In game this would be represented as having a high intelligence score just the same.


The skills mechanical aspect is based around a formal education, sure, but keeping in mind that a Commoner (unlikely to have had any formal education in a fantasy setting) typically sits at a 10 rather than an 8. I believe that the average assumes that you probably didn't have a formal education. Most backgrounds don't make assumptions that you've received any sort of education either, you don't grow up going to school in DND (unless you're one of the privileged few like a Noble, Acolyte or Sage) but instead working. Those backgrounds that do assume you've had a formal education have aspects that reflect your learning separate from your intelligence based skills like History or Religion(Sage and Hermit for example simply give you easy access to information that a normal person has no business ever knowing), or give you proficiency in them.

I would argue that Proficiency in Intelligence based skills is the sign of Formal Education.
That is even worse. Many classes can't even access those skills.
And again. What about wisdom? Are all wise people doomed to be morons? Does this even make sense?

[MaxWilson]

As long as they can roleplay their 2 int Barbarian or 4 dex wizard I'm fine with it.

How do you roleplay Dex 4? Phobia of dance floors?


If you've decided (rather unfortunately) to take a negative to Wisdom, play that up with rash decisions and place your trust in questionable people.

I love roleplaying low Wisdom! There's a million ways for low self control to manifest (and I probably have most of them in real life :)). Bad temper, impulsive, lazy, spendthrift, emotional eating, womanizing... anything your brain (Int) says you shouldn't do, but then you went ahead and did it anyway, that's a sign of low Wisdom. Pick one of them for your PC to specialize in and Bob's your uncle.

Wisdom is a great dump stat from an RP angle. Every party needs at least one PC foolish enough to pull that mysterious lever just to see what it does. A party of 100% prudent PCs is less fun to DM. :)

[Mellack]

The skills mechanical aspect is based around a formal education, sure, but keeping in mind that a Commoner (unlikely to have had any formal education in a fantasy setting) typically sits at a 10 rather than an 8. I believe that the average assumes that you probably didn't have a formal education. Most backgrounds don't make assumptions that you've received any sort of education either, you don't grow up going to school in DND (unless you're one of the privileged few like a Noble, Acolyte or Sage) but instead working. Those backgrounds that do assume you've had a formal education have aspects that reflect your learning separate from your intelligence based skills like History or Religion(Sage and Hermit for example simply give you easy access to information that a normal person has no business ever knowing), or give you proficiency in them.

I would argue that Proficiency in Intelligence based skills is the sign of Formal Education.

Except all characters can read and write, most at least two languages. That would suggest that there is some sort of education.

[Zhorn]

How do you roleplay Dex 4? Phobia of dance floors?

Two left feet, clumsy, trips over a lot

[JumboWheat01]

The thing about dumping stats is that with both min-maxing and just common-sense optimizing, it can fit into a character perfectly fine without being a penalty.

Are you playing a class with any social skills? If not, Charisma isn't really going to be a thing for you, and can safely be 8'd. A ranger who spends all their time in the wilds most certainly doesn't have the normal practice socializing with others, nor would a monk cloistered in their monastery. Even a barbarian might rely more on brute physical force than verbal means of intimidation. Or perhaps you're an arcanist who can bend the rules of reality with your power. Certainly all the time spent studying or practicing that hasn't done your Strength any favors, so why would an 8 in there be bad? It makes sense.

Even with the Standard Array, you are going to end with an 8 in a stat, unless you purposely pick a race that boosts the 8 up to 10, in which case you're probably not playing a race to its strengths. I love going against racial norms as much, if not more, than the next person (such as gnome paladins or halfling barbarians,) but why would you take a race with, say, +2 Charisma if you weren't planning on using it with a Charisma based class or with someone with Charisma-based skills, like a Rogue or maybe a Cleric?

Players having to deal with their stat choices is just a part of the game, whether it's through skill use or in combat, but purposefully adding in other penalties seems to be a bit over the top, if you ask me. If you want your players to be more inclined to have at least a positive Intelligence modifier, make knowledge checks more common and useful as part of your DMing, if they have to replace a character or a new campaign starts up, they might be more inclined to have higher Intelligence and maybe even take a knowledge skill or two. Want Strength to not be ignored? Make Strength checks more common. Or just allow players to specialize, let there be the hulk-of-a-man with 20 Strength but low intelligence to deal with any problem that requires muscle, let the book-smart Wizard or Bard be there for the knowledge checks, or the Bard or Rogue to be the face of the party, taking contracts from employers to talking with the locals and learn things. It's a party game, after all, the weakness of one person should probably be covered by another. It's not like, say, Neverwinter Nights, where you're in a very small party and should probably have some higher stats to back you up in doing things that your few allies can't do.

[Tanarii]

The Intelligence attribute, all attributes in fact, reflects both natural talent and training. The PHB is quite clear on that.

Proficiency is 'focus'. That's also how the PHB refers to it. Something your character is better at in one subset of things the ability score covers than the others. How you come about that focus is not specified. It would be divine inspiration, a natural knack, or training.


Additionally, a 'skill check' doesn't exist. Lack of proficiency is the same check without modifier. A character with a total +3 Int mod without has some combination of greater natural talent and training than a Int 10 character with +2 proficiency. The same at a +3 proficiency mod.

(The last is not to say that all characters can do everything. Although they're generally assumed to be capable of common adventuring tasks. For example, if you decide your Int 16 Wizard without Arcana knows nothing about formal magical theory, then he might not even get to make a check the Barbarian with Int 10 and Arcana Prof who studied as a Wizards apprentice makes. Or sub Cleric and Religion for the Wizard, whatever.)

[Kyutaru]

Because then Friar Tuck might have to actually cast Revivify (300 gp of diamonds), which would impact his party budget! (And then the fat wizard changes his play style to avoid getting killed the same way next time.)

The worst case is that PCs with poor survival rates die and get replaced by other PCs with higher survival rates. But 5E sets the survivability bar pretty low.

I actually find 5E survivability to be off the wall. I created a game system using RPGMaker that perfectly mimicked the 5E rules. I intended on releasing it for others to create their own games with. During my experimentation with demonstrating the rules, I developed several encounters pulled straight from the Monster Manual and let me tell you that the characters had a very reasonable chance of defeating even some of the strongest encounters with little more than basic attacks at high levels. Tiamat herself statted and programmed to use legendary actions versus an adventuring party that had NO GEAR other than decently enhanced weapons was effortlessly defeated by only four adventurers about 10% of the time (granted only one survived). The culprit in all of my testing? HP bloat. The most important stat in 5E's bounded accuracy system is your health, in both personal campaign survival and your ability to slaughter foes before they slaughter you. Fireball and the lightning spells are crazy strong in such a system while fighters with multiple attacks can deal tremendous amounts of damage per round with a mere 20 strength and an adequate blade. I've since been disgusted by what I saw from a mechanical standpoint and decided to use the system to test and refine my own custom variations while I correct 5E's combat flaws. It's a decent system for roleplaying just as 2E was but as far as combat balance I would much rather return to the days of Adamantine Golems being virtually indestructible and immune to everything. It says a lot about balance and challenge when roleplay must be married with mechanics to even have a chance at defeating an overpowered juggernaut that is nearly untouchable. Such a feeling simply cannot exist in 5E and the mere illusion of it may so when people don't realize how mathematically superior the party is to the enemies.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Except all characters can read and write, most at least two languages. That would suggest that there is some sort of education.

Someone with the street urchin background might have taught themselves to read and write in the hopes of making a future for themselves, or perhaps had a figure in the past that was a little bit more hands on with them to try and get them moving in a positive direction.

Don't assume that reading and writing means there's a formal education system involved, it's entirely possible (and in many cases, makes much more sense) that they were either self taught or learned it throughout life without an education.

The discussion is about formal education, which I interpreted as schooling. There's no assumption made that everybody capable of reading and writing in DND has been through a formal schooling system.


That is even worse. Many classes can't even access those skills.
And again. What about wisdom? Are all wise people doomed to be morons? Does this even make sense?
Every class can access every skill with a specific background. If you pick a background that has overlapping skills with your class, you also get to choose any skill proficiency you like. That seems like justification enough to say "my character might be an Urchin but his natural aptitude for sneaking around let him spend a lot more time sneaking in libraries and learning".

That's why it makes sense to me that those skills are only automatically available to classes whose training would lend itself to learning them. It makes a lot of sense for a Wizard to be able to choose from all of the intelligence based skills, even Religion, because learning about those things goes hand in hand with the constant studying required of them.

Wisdom isn't synonymous with Intelligence in this system, I don't understand what your point is on this.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Wisdom is a great dump stat from an RP angle. Every party needs at least one PC foolish enough to pull that mysterious lever just to see what it does. A party of 100% prudent PCs is less fun to DM. :)

Absolutely agree here, my own preferences as a player lead me away from taking that plunge very often though.

I once ported my Elder Scrolls character into 5E for a one shot and it only made sense for them to have a poor Wisdom score, what with the no questions asked joining into a Thieves Guild, Dark Brotherhood and accepting the title of Archmage despite being one of the worst spellcasters this side of Windhelm.

[Mellack]

I don't assume there is some sort of school system, although churches may run some. That said, learning to read and write takes a significant amount of time and someone to instruct you. I consider that education. I would expect many are taught by parents or when apprenticed in a trade.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't assume there is some sort of school system, although churches may run some. That said, learning to read and write takes a significant amount of time and someone to instruct you. I consider that education. I would expect many are taught by parents or when apprenticed in a trade.

That's not a formal education then. I'm not denying that characters can be taught things, but it's not the same thing.

[Mellack]

That's not a formal education then. I'm not denying that characters can be taught things, but it's not the same thing.

See I would call that a formal education. Someone specifically choosing things to teach a child. Apprenticeship was also just teaching one or a few kids, and was one of the most common form of education historically. That to me would be a formal education in those skills. I don't think education requires classrooms with groups of kids at desks. Perhaps we are picturing different things.

[ProsecutorGodot]

See I would call that a formal education. Someone specifically choosing things to teach a child. Apprenticeship was also just teaching one or a few kids, and was one of the most common form of education historically. That to me would be a formal education in those skills. I don't think education requires classrooms with groups of kids at desks. Perhaps we are picturing different things.

Formal Education, by its very definition, is teaching done in a systematic way by trained professionals, typically in a classroom or lecture hall. Informal Education is homeschooling, self teaching or other non-structured methods done by those who are likely skilled in the field being taught but not trained to teach.

Apprenticeships are like Trade Schooling, which is a type of formal education, but unrelated to the discussion of intelligence based skills in 5E. They might be taught to read and write but there's no guarantee that they would be because reading and writing aren't integral to learning that trade. A typical formal education (like you commented about in the first place) expects you to be at minimum taught how to read and write. It's one of the very first things that is taught in modern education systems and something that never leaves a curriculum.

Being taught how to read or write by a family member or one of the older Urchin's in your alley is not a formal education. Being taught how to read and write by a professor or tutor that your noble family has paid for is. The latter is a rare exception in 5E, not everyone is afforded the opportunity to have a trained teacher or an education done in an institute of learning. You're going to see a lot of people who learned to read and write out of necessity, usually without a trained supervisor, to manage a small business or keep track of their crop harvests more efficiently.

At the very least, I don't often see mentions of public schools in any 5E books. It's rare to even see a library that is even open to the general public because books are expensive (25gp) and difficult to make.

And just to hit on the topic, so that my position on it is clear, you don't need any sort of formal education to be "intelligent" in 5E. I disagree with an earlier statement made that implies you do. Having a formal education doesn't even guarantee that you'll be intelligent.

[MaxWilson]

I actually find 5E survivability to be off the wall. I created a game system using RPGMaker that perfectly mimicked the 5E rules. I intended on releasing it for others to create their own games with. During my experimentation with demonstrating the rules, I developed several encounters pulled straight from the Monster Manual and let me tell you that the characters had a very reasonable chance of defeating even some of the strongest encounters with little more than basic attacks at high levels. Tiamat herself statted and programmed to use legendary actions versus an adventuring party that had NO GEAR other than decently enhanced weapons was effortlessly defeated by only four adventurers about 10% of the time (granted only one survived). The culprit in all of my testing? HP bloat. The most important stat in 5E's bounded accuracy system is your health, in both personal campaign survival and your ability to slaughter foes before they slaughter you. Fireball and the lightning spells are crazy strong in such a system while fighters with multiple attacks can deal tremendous amounts of damage per round with a mere 20 strength and an adequate blade. I've since been disgusted by what I saw from a mechanical standpoint and decided to use the system to test and refine my own custom variations while I correct 5E's combat flaws. It's a decent system for roleplaying just as 2E was but as far as combat balance I would much rather return to the days of Adamantine Golems being virtually indestructible and immune to everything. It says a lot about balance and challenge when roleplay must be married with mechanics to even have a chance at defeating an overpowered juggernaut that is nearly untouchable. Such a feeling simply cannot exist in 5E and the mere illusion of it may so when people don't realize how mathematically superior the party is to the enemies.

Kyutaru, I think we agree. It's very hard to accidentally kill 5E characters. They often survive situations (typically caused by their own mistakes) that I think are leading straight to TPK. I mean, sometimes they really do TPK, but they have far more defensive depth than is readily apparent.

When I said "the bar for survivability is really low," I meant "almost any 5E character can survive a typical 5E adventure."

[Knaight]

Regarding attributes and character flaws: There are a whole six attributes. Even if we assume each has five reasonable definitions you can only get 30 character flaws out of that, plenty of which aren't really that interesting. The whole low-attributes-means-interesting-flaws paradigm is deeply dubious, and I say that as someone who has played characters (and especially run NPCs) with those flaws and had a lot of fun with them.


I don't think people would dump stats if they had to mean them. Like, would you realistically want to play an 8 Int character that has problems doing basic math? I wouldn't, but most people who dump a stat don't ever use the stat Mechanically or RP wise.

Putting aside that an 8 isn't that bad - yes, absolutely. Sometimes playing a deeply, deeply stupid character is a lot of fun.

[NatureKing]

It depends on the task. The more demanding the task the more you'll see the gap in their abilities.

I have two employees at my store performing a task which requires a small amount of intelligence: packing several products of various sizes inside of boxes for shipping. A failed check means the products didn't fit and you have to take them out and start over. The DC of this task is 5. Employee Avril has an intelligence score of 10 (+0). She fails this task 4 out of 20 attempts. Employee Stu has an intelligence score of 8 (-1). He fails this task 5 out of 20 attempts. At the end of 1 hour Avril has packed 48 boxes. Stu has packed 45 boxes, 93.75% as many as Avril.

But let's say Avril and Stu have moved on to the mail room. They have to correctly sort outgoing mail into the correct bin. Same rules, each attempt takes 1 minute, but now the DC is 10. Avril fails 9/20, Stu fails 10/20. At the end of an hour Avril has correctly sorted 33 letters, Stu has sorted 30, 90.91% as many as Avril.

Months later Avril and Stu have moved on to data entry: they're taking technical data from documents and entering them into spreadsheets. The DC of this task is 15. Avril fails 14/20 attempts, Stu fails 15/20 attempts. At the end of an hour Avril has correctly entered 18 documents, Stu has entered only 15, 83.333% of Avril's

As the tasks become more challenging the gap between them grows, until at DC 19 Avril is twice as productive as Stu, and at DC 20 where Stu becomes incapable of performing the work required while Avril can still muddle by.

Now Stu isn't disabled. I wouldn't call him handicapped or sign him up for government assistance or anything. He's not Forest Gump. But he is, by definition, below average.

I'll acknowledge that "dumbass" isn't a kind word for people with below-average intelligence. But then I was sharing how the NPCs are likely to treat such a PC, and it isn't kind. To clarify, I do not call low-intelligence individuals "dumbass". My NPCs, however, do.

In your store, unless there is a necessity that prevents retries until it is done correct, both of these individuals should either have it handwaived that they succeed or fail based on their stats.

In previous editions, this had a formal rule, called take 10 or 20, and in this edition requires a DM's judgement on whether the reattempt are counted as a passive check. If your staff are not capable of achieving the task as a passive check, then it is a succeed/fail binary result.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Any point based system tends to create scarcity during character creation, which motivates players to prioritize their choices. The points are going to be assigned where they're needed most. End of story.

Random dice rolls don't help at all. Lucky rolls eliminate the need to dump stats; bad rolls necessitate dumping even if the player doesn't want to. End of story.

[GreyBlack]

I dislike stat dumping, but I also dislike point buy, not rolling your stats in order, and non-oracular ways of character creation.

To me, the point of character creation is not to be fair. It's to create a character, complete with flaws and ideals. This extends to their physical attributes.

[GreyBlack]

The only way to discourage stat dumping is to make sure all classes have uses for all stats, and then to force them to roll stats in order.

This is not the design philosophy for 5e with regards to classes. If you want to discourage stat dumping, you first need a full overhaul of the system.

[Nightgaun7]

I dislike stat dumping, but I also dislike point buy, not rolling your stats in order, and non-oracular ways of character creation.

To me, the point of character creation is not to be fair. It's to create a character, complete with flaws and ideals. This extends to their physical attributes.

You roll for class too? What about feat selection?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I dislike stat dumping, but I also dislike point buy, not rolling your stats in order, and non-oracular ways of character creation.

To me, the point of character creation is not to be fair. It's to create a character, complete with flaws and ideals. This extends to their physical attributes.

You're also trying to create an Adventurer so if your attributes aren't at least heroic in one aspect you've failed to do that.

The way I see it, rolling stats in order is only a way to somewhat randomize your party composition, people are going to pick a class to suit what they rolled and if they've rolled below average in a certain stat they're going to create a character that dumps it.

Someone could roll 8/10/12/10/16/12 in order and decide "well I've pretty much got to play a Cleric or Druid with this". All you've done having them roll in order is eliminate the opportunity for them to choose from the other 10 classes without sacrificing their ability to be heroic. That 8 has to go somewhere, all you've done is decide for them where it goes.

I guess I don't understand the complaint then, what makes you dislike the players being given the opportunity to dump a stat as opposed to a low stat being forced upon them?

[Knaight]

It also probably shouldn't be the idea for all classes. If you look at how you'd design the archetypes covered for those classes absent a class system but with the same 6 attributes you'd generally see patterns of high and low stats. If asked to make an academic wizard with the 6 attributes and some powers you'd grab a few familiar spells, crank up intelligence, and probably not have the best charisma or physical stats. If asked to make a warrior familiar with nature you'd probably have decent physical stats along with wisdom, mostly because perception is bundled with it, where intelligence and charisma are likely to fall by the wayside. If asked to make a sneaky, silver tongued thief you'd crank dex and cha up to high levels, with the rest still decent and not a lot of dump stats.

Similarly, were attributes dropped entirely on the basis of classes covering similar stuff you'd pick the wizard, either the ranger or barbarian, and the rogue for those same characters. Looking at those two lists they mostly line up well, with a few odd points - wizards not having use for wisdom is weird, constitution being generally critical for everyone is a whole thing that doesn't fit most characters (it's great for basically any archetype you're pulling the barbarian out for), there's various miscellany around it, but you still concepts represented with particular high and low stats and particular classes. Take the concept out and just look at the mechanics and out comes the idea of dump stats. That's fine.

[GreyBlack]

You roll for class too? What about feat selection?

When playing point buy, I absolutely roll for both class and background. When rolling stats, I personally still roll for background, as I don't believe your character gets to choose what they were born into.

I do not roll for class as the class represents what a character chooses to do after their apprenticeship years. As for feats, they're an optional rule that I may or may not even take. It depends on what my character does in game.


You're also trying to create an Adventurer so if your attributes aren't at least heroic in one aspect you've failed to do that.

The way I see it, rolling stats in order is only a way to somewhat randomize your party composition, people are going to pick a class to suit what they rolled and if they've rolled below average in a certain stat they're going to create a character that dumps it.

Someone could roll 8/10/12/10/16/12 in order and decide "well I've pretty much got to play a Cleric or Druid with this". All you've done having them roll in order is eliminate the opportunity for them to choose from the other 10 classes without sacrificing their ability to be heroic. That 8 has to go somewhere, all you've done is decide for them where it goes.

I guess I don't understand the complaint then, what makes you dislike the players being given the opportunity to dump a stat as opposed to a low stat being forced upon them?

Even in your example, there is still a mechanical choice to be made between two classes. Next time you make a character, maybe you'll roll differently!

That said.... I won't force you guys to play this way. I get that modern gaming standards assume a certain level of parity and equity in their games. I'm simply saying I don't understand the obsession, and prefer a more holistic approach to character generation as opposed to the increasingly gamified approach highlighted in 5e.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Even in your example, there is still a mechanical choice to be made between two classes. Next time you make a character, maybe you'll roll differently!

That said.... I won't force you guys to play this way. I get that modern gaming standards assume a certain level of parity and equity in their games. I'm simply saying I don't understand the obsession, and prefer a more holistic approach to character generation as opposed to the increasingly gamified approach highlighted in 5e.

But what if next time I roll the same, or similar enough to limit my choices in the same way? what if I had an idea for a Rogue that I wanted to play and now it was almost certainly impossible? What if I was more interested in one of the 10 remaining classes? Is it not better to roll stats and have a choice between 12 distinct classes, rather than a limited amount?

I don't understand how you could see rolling in order as any degree less gamified. It's only changing the order of character creation from "Roll stats, pick class, distribute stats" to "Roll stats, find class that fits"

That seems more to me like getting pushed into a certain archetype rather than having the freedom to explore whichever one you'd like. I suppose we'll have to disagree on this, I don't see rolling stats straight down as anything but a restriction on the player. It could be fun a few times and is almost certainly a better way to introduce a new player (less options are generally better for learning) but I wouldn't push that on people once they've found their footing and might want to try branching out.

I still don't understand the complaint. Why is it so much worse to roll stats and allow the player to distribute them by choice? The ability scores will be identical, except in a different order and most players are still going to pick a class that suits those numbers, meaning that in effect the lower rolls have been dumped forcibly rather than by choice.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Like the gnomewizard I dmed for who had 3STR

[GreyBlack]

But what if next time I roll the same, or similar enough to limit my choices in the same way? what if I had an idea for a Rogue that I wanted to play and now it was almost certainly impossible? What if I was more interested in one of the 10 remaining classes? Is it not better to roll stats and have a choice between 12 distinct classes, rather than a limited amount?

I don't understand how you could see rolling in order as any degree less gamified. It's only changing the order of character creation from "Roll stats, pick class, distribute stats" to "Roll stats, find class that fits"

That seems more to me like getting pushed into a certain archetype rather than having the freedom to explore whichever one you'd like. I suppose we'll have to disagree on this, I don't see rolling stats straight down as anything but a restriction on the player. It could be fun a few times and is almost certainly a better way to introduce a new player (less options are generally better for learning) but I wouldn't push that on people once they've found their footing and might want to try branching out.

I still don't understand the complaint. Why is it so much worse to roll stats and allow the player to distribute them by choice? The ability scores will be identical, except in a different order and most players are still going to pick a class that suits those numbers, meaning that in effect the lower rolls have been dumped forcibly rather than by choice.

Find a different game or talk to the DM. Most DM's are more than willing to work with their players. Maybe implement a 1e/OD&D method of stat trading (i.e. trading 2 points for 1 point in a prime requisite to a certain point).

However, no answer I give is ever going to be adequate for you. And that's fine. We're talking about what's fun, and my idea of fun is significantly different from yours.

Now get off my lawn ya [REDACTED] hoodlum.

[Yora]

I'd actually love to see players making characters with diverse stats.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I have it that the pcs stat numbers add up to 75.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Find a different game or talk to the DM. Most DM's are more than willing to work with their players. Maybe implement a 1e/OD&D method of stat trading (i.e. trading 2 points for 1 point in a prime requisite to a certain point).

However, no answer I give is ever going to be adequate for you. And that's fine. We're talking about what's fun, and my idea of fun is significantly different from yours.

Now get off my lawn ya [REDACTED] hoodlum.

I'm not saying it's wrong or that you're not allowed to prefer it this way, I'm just confused how it's different enough that you would dislike intentional stat dumping but advocate for forced stat dumping.

How about if I phrase it this way: Why do you dislike the idea that a player would dump their Str score since the class they want to play doesn't make a lot of use of it, but you prefer a system of ability score generation where a player wants to play a Barbarian or Wizard (the only classes that undeniably need a high primary stat) can have that option taken away from them if they roll low in that stat. Why implement complicated point trading systems to just barely avoid letting them choose their stats flat out?

I don't see a difference between choosing to dump a stat and having a stat end up dumped in order. I could understand your point of view better if you could explain the difference as you see it. I would be satisfied with an explanation on the difference between rolling an 8 and choosing to place it in Str vs Rolling an 8 and having it put into Str for you.

The end result is that you have a character created that has strengths where they should be and weaknesses where they can afford it. Does the method to reach that result really make such a difference?

[GreyBlack]

I'm not saying it's wrong or that you're not allowed to prefer it this way, I'm just confused how it's different enough that you would dislike intentional stat dumping but advocate for forced stat dumping.

How about if I phrase it this way: Why do you dislike the idea that a player would dump their Str score since the class they want to play doesn't make a lot of use of it, but you prefer a system of ability score generation where a player wants to play a Barbarian or Wizard (the only classes that undeniably need a high primary stat) can have that option taken away from them if they roll low in that stat. Why implement complicated point trading systems to just barely avoid letting them choose their stats flat out?

I don't see a difference between choosing to dump a stat and having a stat end up dumped in order. I could understand your point of view better if you could explain the difference as you see it. I would be satisfied with an explanation on the difference between rolling an 8 and choosing to place it in Str vs Rolling an 8 and having it put into Str for you.

Well, it harkens back to my original phrase, "oracular process." Your character is born a certain way and shaped by the fates in some way. You're less building the character than discovering them.

I'm not against the low stats, mind. I'm against the idea of the predetermined hierarchy of stats as dictated by the optimal method of play for a given class. By allowing players that option to choose their stat lines, it really opens the door for that line of thinking, which to my mind is kinda besides the point. The character then is less than the sum of its parts.

It's also worth noting that I don't believe all adventurers need heroic stats, mind. Bilbo Baggins started as a halfling commoner, after all. It only really gets murky when you start applying game math to the stats.

[Chronos]

I think the two threads are talking past each other. You should encourage stat-dumping, which is exactly why you need to make all of the stats matter. As it is now, with Int or Str not mattering at all for certain characters, if you put your lowest score in those stats, you haven't dumped anything. A penalty that never comes up isn't a penalty.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Well, it harkens back to my original phrase, "oracular process." Your character is born a certain way and shaped by the fates in some way. You're less building the character than discovering them.

I'm not against the low stats, mind. I'm against the idea of the predetermined hierarchy of stats as dictated by the optimal method of play for a given class. By allowing players that option to choose their stat lines, it really opens the door for that line of thinking, which to my mind is kinda besides the point. The character then is less than the sum of its parts.

It's also worth noting that I don't believe all adventurers need heroic stats, mind. Bilbo Baggins started as a halfling commoner, after all. It only really gets murky when you start applying game math to the stats.

Bilbo Baggins had one of the most powerful wizards in the land on his side, as well as a small army of skilled fighters with him. Given the circumstances, he started off as more of a sidekick than a main character and could afford to be average, he was a hireling. Throughout his adventure in The Hobbit he was, in effect, able to gain enough experience to develop into his own. You're right though, calling it heroic might have been an exaggeration. At the very least, to be a successful adventurer in 5E you're likely to be well above the common rabble in at least one aspect, it's fair to say that Bilbo Baggins was at least a bit above average.

As for the character discovery process, I suppose I can understand that. I don't exactly relate though, I've got enough character ideas swimming around in my head that all I'd accomplish by rolling them in order is which of the characters I've already been working on will have the pleasure of seeing a real game. I don't need the stats put out in front of me to develop a character, I've got them developed already and then I find a stat distribution that works.

[Asmotherion]

Depends on what you consider discouraging; is it discouraging to target your dump stat with a save every so often or does it imply smart npcs who can adapt to their opponent's weaknesses?

Specifically targeting a player to punish optimisation is childish... Having a player not feel invulnerable in a campain is realism. There is a thin line between them and as long as you don't cross it you're cool.

[Willie the Duck]

Considering there is already an active thread around 'discouraging stat dumping', perhaps this would be better served to be posted in there as part of the ongoing conversation rather than starting a whole new thread.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?589333-Discourage-stat-dumping

The purpose of that thread is to come up with ways to encourage players not to stat dump. Stapling this thesis onto that thread is the equivalent of saying 'don't play wisdom-based rangers, play single-classed nature clerics' on a thread that's coming up with ways to squeeze the most utility out of wisdom-based rangers.

If that is the case, I would suggest editing the original post. As it stands, it makes it look like the purpose of this thread is axe-grinding over the existence of the thread Zhorn mentions.

[GreyBlack]

Bilbo Baggins had one of the most powerful wizards in the land on his side, as well as a small army of skilled fighters with him. Given the circumstances, he started off as more of a sidekick than a main character and could afford to be average, he was a hireling. Throughout his adventure in The Hobbit he was, in effect, able to gain enough experience to develop into his own. You're right though, calling it heroic might have been an exaggeration. At the very least, to be a successful adventurer in 5E you're likely to be well above the common rabble in at least one aspect, it's fair to say that Bilbo Baggins was at least a bit above average.

As for the character discovery process, I suppose I can understand that. I don't exactly relate though, I've got enough character ideas swimming around in my head that all I'd accomplish by rolling them in order is which of the characters I've already been working on will have the pleasure of seeing a real game. I don't need the stats put out in front of me to develop a character, I've got them developed already and then I find a stat distribution that works.

That's great! I have those same multitudes of character ideas bouncing around in my heads. However, a big problem I have is figuring out which one I want to play. So, rather than building the character even though it might not be your one that would be most fun, I instead let the dice decide.

Let's go through an example by me actually rolling some dice and making a character. I use 4d6b3 to determine my stats.

Stats are:
Str: 8
Dex: 13
Con: 13
Int: 15
Wis: 12
Cha: 11

I know you wouldn't believe me, but I actually rolled those stats.

Okay, now looking at these stats, I'm thinking that I really wanna run my Beguiler character concept: a Wizard mind mage spy that's constantly manipulating everyone's perceptions of the world around him. He's a run off the mill Human (not variant!), but still extremely skilled.

See how that works? I rolled my stats, and then I know which character concept I want to use based on that.

[Tanarii]

Putting aside that an 8 isn't that bad - yes, absolutely. Sometimes playing a deeply, deeply stupid character is a lot of fun.Indeed. IMO it's not as fun as playing a foolish or insulting character, but still a lot of fun.

-------

Not directed at Knaight, but jumping off his wording, let's not put aside that an 8 isn't that bad for a second. That an 8 in an attribute is considered bad is an indicator of attribute bloat.

Even with that value and no proficiency, when the metal hits the meat you can still succeed on a 'worst' ability check DC 10 check 50% of the time. That's risky yes, but sometimes you have to take risks. When it becomes a problem is if your DM is one of those that thinks DCs should default to high values, regularly calling for DC 15+ checks. And if you have that kind of DM you're all screwed anyway, and nobody wants to ever roll the dice unless it's their primary score and they're proficient, and even then it's a 50/50 shot at low levels.


The only way to discourage stat dumping is to make sure all classes have uses for all stats, and then to force them to roll stats in order. Rolling in order would discourage stat dumping by itself. So would using standard array, choosing your class, assigning high attribute to the primary stat, and then randomly determining where remaining stats went. You'd still have one 8 score, but it'd be randomly dumped.

[Pex]

The way to discourage stat-dumping is for all classes to have viable uses for having good stats in any given ability. So, even if a fighter doesn't need, say, high wisdom or intelligence for anything if you find a use for a fighter to want a higher wisdom or intelligence then it isn't a dump stat.

If you make every ability score absolutely crucial and needs taken care of then the character becomes mediocre at everything and good at nothing. It's not anyone's job to discourage anything. Let the player create the character he wants to play not what you want him to play.

Colloquial you, not D+1 specifically.

[MaxWilson]

Bilbo Baggins had one of the most powerful wizards in the land on his side, as well as a small army of skilled fighters with him. Given the circumstances, he started off as more of a sidekick than a main character and could afford to be average, he was a hireling. Throughout his adventure in The Hobbit he was, in effect, able to gain enough experience to develop into his own. You're right though, calling it heroic might have been an exaggeration. At the very least, to be a successful adventurer in 5E you're likely to be well above the common rabble in at least one aspect, it's fair to say that Bilbo Baggins was at least a bit above average.

Small army of skilled fighters? I thought the dwarves were a small band of upper-middle-class tradesmen. Did they even do any fighting in the Hobbit? All I remember is them getting mugged by the trolls, running away from the goblins, getting rescued by Beorn, and posturing in armor against the armies of elves and men before the goblin armies showed up.

In any case GreyBlack's suggestion stands: there's absolutely nothing wrong with playing the halfling burglar and riddler, even if everyone else is a combat monster, unless your table's social contract is oriented around combat teamwork.

[Sception]

I always like when characters have a low mental score or two. It helps build personality.

[MaxWilson]

I always like when characters have a low mental score or two. It helps build personality.

I like low scores and high scores. I dislike characters with all average scores. I'd much rather play an Int 9, Wis 7, Cha 4 Necromancer than an Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10 Necromancer.

[Particle_Man]

The default array has a stat of 8, IIRC. Thus the default rules seems to have the iconics all having a dump stat.

[Willie the Duck]

If you want to play a smart character, bump those mental stats up. The stats mean something, they're not just "how do I make my spells harder to resist" and whatnot.


The best way to discourage stat dumping in 5e is to make more than 3 stats relevant.

The game has a huge issue with its design where most stats don't matter. Everybody needs Con, because HP and Con saves are important/common. Most people need Wis, since Perception is still one of the God Skills and Wis saves are important/common.

I think the underlying premise is spot on (stats mean things, and differentially, so of course people will game them differentially). However, I propose a different possible solution: make stats mean less. There were a lot more fighters (non-MU multi- or dual-class) with 9-14 Int scores in AD&D when anything less than ~15 wasn't going to affect how good you were at cleaning out dungeon (and thus no incentive to keep those scores over in Str, Dex and Con). If one were to have stats do less of the mechanical heavy lifting, there would be less dumping. Even moreso with pre-supplement I oD&D, where 3 of 6 stats only* contributed to an experience bonus for 1 specific class.
*plus a language boost for high int

As a (totally un-playtested, and definitely first draft) idea, let's apply that to 5e. Just give every character a 16 or 18 'prime stat' (weapon to-hit/damage determiner, spell DC and number memorized determiner, etc.), a 14 or 16 'Con' (for determining hit points), and 12 or 14 to all the stats for save determination. Now rolls stats normally, but they only count for attribute checks, skills, and character flavor.


Just like real life! IQ 200 is about as smart as anyone ever gets. "Only" twice as smart is very, very smart, von Neumann territory.
But the relative gap between a normal person and a vegetable (10x?) is far more noticeable than the gap between a normal person and von Neumann (2x).

This sounds familiar. Did you once blog about this? I only followed your blog for about a month after you referenced it in a post, but I recall a discussion on von Neumann's relative intelligence.


Has anyone even considered what wisdom means in this? The words are synonyms.

Even if I'm not wholly convinced by the 'D&D Int actually means education' argument, I think the idea that D&D Wisdom ne IRL Wisdom almost has to be assumed. The odd 'willpower plus perception plus other odds and ends that cleric types would be good at' was never a good catchall. Much more than Intelligence, where we at most have arguments on how to model a very bright, no-education character.

[GlenSmash!]

Playing characters with no weaknesses is boring. I'll continue to put that 8 from the Standard Array in an area I want to be weak in.

[MaxWilson]

This sounds familiar. Did you once blog about this? I only followed your blog for about a month after you referenced it in a post, but I recall a discussion on von Neumann's relative intelligence.

I may have quoted something funny Greg Cochran said about von Neumann: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/the-object-of-emulation/


By definition, most people are not in the top 1% of intellect, so books aimed primarily at that top 1% are never going to be best sellers. The question arises, what is the most effective strategy for developing a best seller? Thinking of Dan Brown and Malcolm Gladwell, it looks as if simply being a person of modest intellect may be an effective strategy for writers. I’m not saying that it is the only possible strategy, but it may be easier if one never thinks of anything too complicated in the first place, rather than having to weigh the level of difficulty of every sentence and concept. Probably one would have to be a lot smarter than average to effortlessly simulate normality, particularly in real time. It is said that John von Neumann could do this. In much the same way, emulating an obsolete computer is fairly easy – for machines that are a decade more advanced.

I don't think he's saying that von Neumann actually did this, I assume this is just a hyperbolic joke based on von Neumann's "smarter than Einstein" reputation (among those who knew both Einstein and von Neumann) about how hard real-time emulation actually is.

[Corran]

This line of thinking implies that a lobotomized vegetable with Int 1 isn't really very stupid at all, since they're "only 25% worse" than a regular person at passing Int skill checks. I don't agree with that perspective.
If a fruit or a lizard or a cat, etc, are 25% worse at say, a history check, compared to a human (commoner or adventurer), then yeah, this is unreasonable. But it is not unreasonable because of the comparison, but because the lizard might have a chance to succeed in the check. I do think that it's easier to solve this by having the DM decide when to call for checks (as some other people mentioned I think). The other solution I can think of is abandoning the d20 system for something with less variance where the lizard/cat/vegetable would have no chance to succeed on the check (if you want to solve it with less or no DM interference).

Checks aside, saying that the hypothetical 2 INT lizard is not all that dumber than the average 10 INT humanoid, may not an indefensible position (you weren't explicitly saying that it is), especially once we take into account that we are talking a fantasy setting where there could be deities with an INT of 100 or sth. Here is a bizarre but entertaining take on it: Human Intelligence vs Alien Intelligence - Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhaE3w5QCGg)

[Kyutaru]

Remember that Strength scales and every point placed into it grants more carrying capacity than the last until you reach the soft cap on scaling (where it's identical gains from then on). Intelligence may do the same. So that 45 intelligence diety isn't merely twice as smart as your party's wizard.

[MaxWilson]

Remember that Strength scales and every point placed into it grants more carrying capacity than the last until you reach the soft cap on scaling (where it's identical gains from then on). Intelligence may do the same. So that 45 intelligence diety isn't merely twice as smart as your party's wizard.

To what does this refer? Carrying capacity is linear in Strength: Str x 15 lb., or twice that for dragging/pushing/etc.

[Tanarii]

To what does this refer? Carrying capacity is linear in Strength: Str x 15 lb., or twice that for dragging/pushing/etc.
And like giving animals an Int of 2, Str suffers once you start applying a "human" 3-18 (or 8-20) to non-medium and non-humanoids.

[MaxWilson]

And like giving animals an Int of 2, Str suffers once you start applying a "human" 3-18 (or 8-20) to non-medium and non-humanoids.

Absolutely. There's a reason why GURPS: GULLIVER treats Strength quite differently from all of the other attributes. Being "20x as dextrous" or "100x as smart" as a normal human is gibberish--we don't even know what that means. But we know exactly what being 100x or 1000x Strength means: it just means you can apply 100x or 1000x as much force.

I dislike the way 5E caps attributes at 30, but I can live with it for all of the attributes except Strength. I don't even think grappling should be an opposed d20 ability check, because that method doesn't scale.

[Witty Username]

The idea of stat-dumping in 5E D&D being a bad thing that warps games more reflects peoples' Gygaxian angst at min-maxing than concern for its impact on play. Seriously, are people that paranoid about players getting one over them that they're coming up ways to punish Fighters for putting an 8 int INT instead of a 10? The difference between an 8 and a 20 is a +6 on a d20 and most players can't start with a wider spread than 17 16 15 8 8 8, settle down.

Like I said, it's Gygaxian. Control-freaky even, but I repeat myself.

Technically its 17 17 15 8 8 8 if you are a mountain dwarf and 17 16 16 8 8 8 if you are a half-elf. Carry on.

[Man_Over_Game]

I just implement group-wide saving throws for the same thing.

Roof is falling, Strength Saving Throw.

Group gets teleported/banished, Charisma Saving Throw.

Group's mind is being read, Intelligence Saving Throw.


Those are all simple enough to implement them fairly regularly. To reward those with higher stats, it's better to have multiple checks than it is to have fewer high ones (so 2 DC 10 checks are better than 1 DC 20).

[Pex]

How about players play the characters they want to play, not what you want them to play and punishing them for not?

[Jakinbandw]

I personally enjoy playing character that dump Strength and Constitution while having High mental scores.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Threads merged above. One thread per topic, please. A thread say "do X" and one saying "don't do X" should probably just be a single discussion.

[NatureKing]

How about players play the characters they want to play, not what you want them to play and punishing them for not?

Because the DM has spent a long time fleshing out his relatively boring copy paste world and making it 'totally unique' so you must abide by that if you want to play in 'his' game. And that means abilities always targeting weak spots or bypassing your strengths in random encounters.

[olskool]

Anyone who didn't receive a formal education should be in the 8-10 int range. It doesn't mean they are stupid. You shouldn't have to roleplay that you are stupid either. Giving your character a low int score is the best way to represent their lack of formal education. Something common among many adventurers.

Has anyone even considered what wisdom means in this? The words are synonyms.

Intelligence is a measure of cognitive function in so much as how quickly or how well a person solves a test or performs a task. It can be a result of natural talent/genetics or a product of training. A low INT but well-trained subject performing a specific task that they have "experience with" can often appear to be "better" or "more intelligent" performing a task than someone with "natural talent" but no training. A person with a lower INT will be harder to train to do a task in the first place so they will almost always appear to be performing more poorly than a high INT person with an equal level of training.

Wisdom is a measure of one's "experience" in the world and determines how easily a person can "adapt" to a situation based on their past experiences. Wisdom would represent "a past situation that was similar to the one that the person is undergoing right now." Because the person has "experienced" the situation before, they may have "insight" into how to resolve the current situation with a better outcome. They appear to be WISE because of their experience.

To quote Mark Twain... "Wisdom is a product of Experience, and Experience is often the product of poor choices."

[Tanarii]

Intelligence is a measure of cognitive function in so much as how quickly or how well a person solves a test or performs a task. It can be a result of natural talent/genetics or a product of trainingIntelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason. You're right about it being both natural and trained. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability.


Wisdom is a measure of one's "experience" in the world and determines how easily a person can "adapt" to a situation based on their past experiences.Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition. It has nothing to do with familiarity or experience. Or for that matter, being Wise.

[DarknessEternal]

Alteratively, come to the realization that the DM "wins" when the players have fun. This is probably not when the DM just punishes them for something trivial.

[GreyBlack]

Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason. You're right about it being both natural and trained. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability.

Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition. It has nothing to do with familiarity or experience. Or for that matter, being Wise.

Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put a tomato in a fruit salad.

Charisma is being able to sell a tomato based fruit salad.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put a tomato in a fruit salad.

Charisma is being able to sell a tomato based fruit salad.

charisma is selling the tomatoes as strwberries.

[Teaguethebean]

Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put a tomato in a fruit salad.

Charisma is being able to sell a tomato based fruit salad.

You mean Salsa?

[Wizard_Lizard]

You mean Salsa?

a tomato based dessert.

[MaxWilson]

Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put a tomato in a fruit salad.

Knowing what to do with a tomato is XP, not Wis.

[Tanarii]

Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put a tomato in a fruit salad.

Charisma is being able to sell a tomato based fruit salad.
In 5e, wisdom is noticing some idiot put a tomato in the fruit salad.

[OverLordOcelot]

What is the end result of 'not stat dumping' that people trying to discourage stat dumping want to see? It seems like some people want to push players to pick a 12 12 12 13 13 13 type array, while others are players just use 10 as the floor for stats. And obviously if you use rolls there is no 'stat dumping' to discourage, since you don't pick stats and thus can't choose to dump one. I see an awful lot of people just asserting that stat dumping is a Bad Thing, though no one has said why, or even clearly stated what they want players to do; 'don't stat dump' doesn't actually convey what you want players to do. Most of the suggestions here aren't actually going to discourage stat dumping, they're just tacking penalties onto characters that aren't worth lowering a main stat to avoid or engaging in bizarre worldbuilding where NPCs have magic stat detection abilities.

It seems to me that the real options to deal with whatever exactly 'stat dumping' is is to:
1. Use rolling, where the stat dumping is done by dice and therefore OK since a player didn't do it.
2. Use a fixed array that has no dumped stats in it
3. Use point buy with a lower cap on max ability so players can't 'overspend' on high stats
4. Use point buy with a higher point total so that players have points to slap into low stats.

But this requires actually figuring out what behavior you want instead of calling something that players are essentially forced to do in point buy and literally forced to do in standard array a bad thing.

[dreast]

The way to discourage stat dumping in INT in 5e is the same as it was in AD&D 2e. Mind flayers (and now Intellect Devourers). Lots of ‘em.

[NatureKing]

The way to discourage stat dumping in INT in 5e is the same as it was in AD&D 2e. Mind flayers (and now Intellect Devourers). Lots of ‘em.

How does that discourage dumping stats?

[MaxWilson]

How does that discourage dumping stats?

Natural selection.

[Tanarii]

But this requires actually figuring out what behavior you want instead of calling something that players are essentially forced to do in point buy and literally forced to do in standard array a bad thing.
From what I've seen the desired effect is: stop players from putting 8 in Str, Int and Cha because those stats are all considered meaningless at my table, which has nothing to do with the DMing style in any way.

Sometimes it's phrased as something something cookie cutter builds.

As we all know, all non-GWM/HA chars dump Str, all HA wearers dump Dex instead, and all non-wizards dump Int (including EKs), and all non Cha-casters dump Cha.

[GreyBlack]

You mean Salsa?

We found our bard!


In 5e, wisdom is noticing some idiot put a tomato in the fruit salad.

Nah man! You intuit and perceive that the taste wouldn't mesh well with the other fruit. So you don't put it in! You're using your insight!

[NatureKing]

Natural selection.

Which helps prevent Stat dumping how.

[Wizard_Lizard]

We found our bard!



Nah man! You intuit and perceive that the taste wouldn't mesh well with the other fruit. So you don't put it in! You're using your insight!

INT is just wisdom but less good in 5e.
RIP all of my characters who max INT, even i it s useless to them. (Myself esteem demands they do so...)

[OverLordOcelot]

The way to discourage stat dumping in INT in 5e is the same as it was in AD&D 2e. Mind flayers (and now Intellect Devourers). Lots of ‘em.

If you're having lots of them, the difference between an 8 and 10 int is pretty low. You're talking about being able to take maybe one more hit before you go to zero int. If you're wanting players to have more than 10 in non-major stats, then it seems you should either just require them to use something like a 13-13-13-12-12-12 array in the first place, or increase the number of points so that they can afford the defensive stats.

Again, it looks like people are just saying 'stat dumping is bad! just kill the PCs and it will stop!' without any clear idea of what stats they actually want to see.

[MaxWilson]

Which helps prevent Stat dumping how.

The characters with low Int aren't around any more.


If you're having lots of them, the difference between an 8 and 10 int is pretty low. You're talking about being able to take maybe one more hit before you go to zero int.

In a campaign with lots of Intellect Devourers, Int 13 is probably as low as you should go. 16 is safer so you might wind up with a whole party of wizards. :-P

[ProsecutorGodot]

The characters with low Int aren't around any more.



In a campaign with lots of Intellect Devourers, Int 13 is probably as low as you should go. 16 is safer so you might wind up with a whole party of wizards. :-P

We've started encounting Mind Flayers and our party is suffering with 3/4 members having an int of 10. If it weren't for my Aura of Protection we wouldn't be able to fight them at all.

None of us "dumped" Intelligence and when it mattered for us (being non intelligence casters) the difference between an 8 and 10 was almost entirely non existent.

[noob]

the main dump stats is int.
Most casters are charisma based and most casting classes that have useful dips are charisma based again meaning most people who wants to open potential casting paths will take charisma as a tertiary stat and those who mains in casting will often take charisma as a main stat(a lot of charisma casters).
There is like only three classes that benefits from int significantly: wizards , rogues and fighters(and for fighters only in the case where they decide to take a specific subclass).
If they did put some extra skills in int maybe it would see more use.

[Tanarii]

None of us "dumped" Intelligence and when it mattered for us (being non intelligence casters) the difference between an 8 and 10 was almost entirely non existent.
To some folks, a 10 in a score is also "dumping" the score.



If they did put some extra skills in int maybe it would see more use.
That's a DM problem, not a rules problem. The DM is the one choosing to use Int checks (including ones that get the prof bonus from skills) in a way that they appear less valuable to you than other ability checks in the campaigns you are in.

[Constructman]

What is the end result of 'not stat dumping' that people trying to discourage stat dumping want to see? It seems like some people want to push players to pick a 12 12 12 13 13 13 type array, while others are players just use 10 as the floor for stats. And obviously if you use rolls there is no 'stat dumping' to discourage, since you don't pick stats and thus can't choose to dump one. I see an awful lot of people just asserting that stat dumping is a Bad Thing, though no one has said why, or even clearly stated what they want players to do; 'don't stat dump' doesn't actually convey what you want players to do. Most of the suggestions here aren't actually going to discourage stat dumping, they're just tacking penalties onto characters that aren't worth lowering a main stat to avoid or engaging in bizarre worldbuilding where NPCs have magic stat detection abilities.

If you're having lots of them, the difference between an 8 and 10 int is pretty low. You're talking about being able to take maybe one more hit before you go to zero int. If you're wanting players to have more than 10 in non-major stats, then it seems you should either just require them to use something like a 13-13-13-12-12-12 array in the first place, or increase the number of points so that they can afford the defensive stats.

Again, it looks like people are just saying 'stat dumping is bad! just kill the PCs and it will stop!' without any clear idea of what stats they actually want to see.
Curious about this myself.

[noob]

To some folks, a 10 in a score is also "dumping" the score.


That's a DM problem, not a rules problem. The DM is the one choosing to use Int checks (including ones that get the prof bonus from skills) in a way that they appear less valuable to you than other ability checks in the campaigns you are in.

The problem with knowledge checks for example is that either you succeed or you fail and still get the needed information somewhere else because the plot needs the players to have the crucial information.
For investigation you have a similar problem.
Arcana might have an use during fights however due to the fact the gms wants all their monsters to instantly recognise the spells each caster is casting they make recognising spells during battle not be based on arcana.

[HouseRules]

Measuring Stat Dumping?

Mean / Geomean.

Mean = ( STR + DEX + CON + INT + WIS + CHA ) / 6
Mean is the sum then divide.

Geomean = 6TH-ROOT ( STR * DEX * CON * INT * WIS * CHA )
Geometric Mean is the product then rooted.

Mean / Geomean >= 1 for all positive inputs.

If all inputs are equal, then Mean / Geomean is 1, otherwise it is greater than 1.

[ProsecutorGodot]

To some folks, a 10 in a score is also "dumping" the score.

Heaven forbid I roll stats, which apparently is better to avoid dumping, and manage two 10's. They've got to go somewhere and it's much easier for my paladin to have his "smarts" from his background proficiencies than to sacrifice my hit point max by taking it from CON.

I disagree with those who would label "putting a low number" and "putting nothing (or the lowest possible number)" as equivalent forms of dumping. It's not realistic for a character to have everything.

I guess my 13/18/18/18/18/12 Blood Hunter also "dumped" Charisma and Strength. It couldn't possibly be that he's a finesse weapon user with a personality like sandpaper.

Just poking fun at the notion that dumping can be altogether avoided. You're going to have to put a low stat somewhere, whether you choose it yourself or have it chosen for you.


The problem with knowledge checks for example is that either you succeed or you fail and still get the needed information somewhere else because the plot needs the players to have the crucial information.

I will say it's not always true that the information will be acquired out of necessity, more that acquiring that knowledge with a successful check would have circumvented the time/effort it would have taken to get it otherwise. You're probably right though, more commonly in the adventures I've played through is that history checks are either for fun (essentially a B story that is cool, but altogether unnecessary to the A story) or have little consequence of failure.

[Tanarii]

If all inputs are equal, then Mean / Geomean is 1, otherwise it is greater than 1.
For standard array I get ~1.022

For PB 15 / 15 / 15 / 8 / 8 / 8 I get ~1.050

For PB 13 / 13 / 13 / 12 / 12 / 12 I get ~1.0008

Looks like one effective measure of stat dumping to me. :smallamused:



I disagree with those who would label "putting a low number" and "putting nothing (or the lowest possible number)" as equivalent forms of dumping. It's not realistic for a character to have everything.
I agree they are not equivalent forms of dumping. But as we can see from the formula posited above, some folks mean "below the average score" with the further below the stronger the dumping. And for others (you?) it means using the lowest score possible in point buy.

Like many things in RPGs in general and D&D in particular, there isn't a consensus on what the term means.

[MaxWilson]

Just poking fun at the notion that dumping can be altogether avoided. You're going to have to put a low stat somewhere, whether you choose it yourself or have it chosen for you.

Sure. And yet, in a campaign full of Intellect Devourers, you aren't going to last long if you put it in Int. You will put a high stat in Int instead.

Surely that much is obvious?

Whether or not the DM ought to deliberately run a campaign full of Intellect Devourers... well, I wouldn't do that.

I reward high Int in other ways though, through the initiative system. The higher your Int, the more information you have when declaring your actions in combat. (You have a faster OODA loop.)



I will say it's not always true that the information will be acquired out of necessity, more that acquiring that knowledge with a successful check would have circumvented the time/effort it would have taken to get it otherwise. You're probably right though, more commonly in the adventures I've played through is that history checks are either for fun (essentially a B story that is cool, but altogether unnecessary to the A story) or have little consequence of failure.

In WotC adventures, yes, but then, WotC is bad at adventure writing. But if that history check lets you identify an early clue that subsequently lets you recognize and kill an Intellect Devourer before it can eat your brain, you got real value out of that "optional" information.

[Constructman]

What is the end result of 'not stat dumping' that people trying to discourage stat dumping want to see? It seems like some people want to push players to pick a 12 12 12 13 13 13 type array, while others are players just use 10 as the floor for stats. And obviously if you use rolls there is no 'stat dumping' to discourage, since you don't pick stats and thus can't choose to dump one. I see an awful lot of people just asserting that stat dumping is a Bad Thing, though no one has said why, or even clearly stated what they want players to do; 'don't stat dump' doesn't actually convey what you want players to do. Most of the suggestions here aren't actually going to discourage stat dumping, they're just tacking penalties onto characters that aren't worth lowering a main stat to avoid or engaging in bizarre worldbuilding where NPCs have magic stat detection abilities.

If you're having lots of them, the difference between an 8 and 10 int is pretty low. You're talking about being able to take maybe one more hit before you go to zero int. If you're wanting players to have more than 10 in non-major stats, then it seems you should either just require them to use something like a 13-13-13-12-12-12 array in the first place, or increase the number of points so that they can afford the defensive stats.

Again, it looks like people are just saying 'stat dumping is bad! just kill the PCs and it will stop!' without any clear idea of what stats they actually want to see.
Again, what does everybody really want when they say "discourage stat dumping"? Especially given that the system itself encourages (or mandates) at least 1 low stat, and some stats getting jumped more than others due to which stats each class needs to function optimally?

[MaxWilson]

Again, what does everybody really want when they say "discourage stat dumping"? Especially given that the system itself encourages (or mandates) at least 1 low stat, and some stats getting jumped more than others due to which stats each class needs to function optimally?

I dunno, who is "everybody"? They aren't likely to all want the same things.

For my part, I'm happy that due to the initiative system I'm using, Int is valuable for anyone who likes complex, conditional tactics; and not valuable for anyone who wants to do the same thing in every combat ("I hit it again with my axe"). That feels like it's correctly modeling what intelligence is.

[ZorroGames]

I read a lot about valorize the abilities that the players are likely to dump during character creation: INT first, then STR and CHA and in some builds I also see WIS as the dump stat. I never seen CON or DEX dumped because they are too valuables and if someone wants to dump one of these two, I think he's already fairly penalized. I didn't find a way to valorize the remaining 4 abilities in a build that put them as the dump stat but maybe I can try to discourage players to dump them before all:
1. INT or WIS: apply the malus to character initiative;
2. STR: apply the malus to bonus HP derived from CON every level;
3. CHA: apply the malus to charisma skill check of every member of the party if the character is in the same room and if you roll for a random character to attack count that character as two (if you have 3 party members don't roll a 1d3, roll instead a 1d4).

You can use the malus only to mitigate the bonus to a minimum of 0 (a character with 10 DEX and 8 INT has Initiative 0) or you can choose to go all out and use the malus to impose a negative modifier (a character with 10 DEX and 8 INT has initiative -1).
What you think?

I think this is a bad idea for 5e. Just set minimum at 10 as suggested if it bothers you, my 8 CH ranger role-plays her archaeologist background off the 8.

[Constructman]

I dunno, who is "everybody"? They aren't likely to all want the same things.

For my part, I'm happy that due to the initiative system I'm using, Int is valuable for anyone who likes complex, conditional tactics; and not valuable for anyone who wants to do the same thing in every combat ("I hit it again with my axe"). That feels like it's correctly modeling what intelligence is.

So you're fine with Str and Cha dumps? Since those are also minor saves and not important to characters who don't need them for their class.

Is this thread really a big complaint about the lack of focus on Int?

[MaxWilson]

So you're fine with Str and Cha dumps?

Sure. 21st century humans dump Str all the time, and both Str and Cha have enough mechanical implications that dumping them is still interesting. A Str 6 Sharpshooter can still fight just fine with a rapier, but can't use a Vorpal Longsword very well, can't grapple well, and is subpar are getting out of grapples; a Cha 6 Druid with no social skill proficiencies will probably be unable e.g. to talk the sheriff into letting him have a word with the other PCs when they're in jail. And that's fine! The game is all about meaningful choices, and being bad at certain things is a choice. Besides, watching the druid player roleplay an awkward persuasion attempt is good fun for everybody at the table.


Since those are also minor saves and not important to characters who don't need them for their class.

Is this thread really a big complaint about the lack of focus on Int?

I dunno, I didn't start the thread and I don't really agree with the OP's goals or approach. My only complaint about vanilla PHB rules is that they fail to make high-Int non-wizards sufficiently interesting.

[Tanarii]

The problem with knowledge checks for example is that either you succeed or you fail and still get the needed information somewhere else because the plot needs the players to have the crucial information.
For investigation you have a similar problem.
Again, that's a DM problem, not a rules problem. The rules do not mandate that Int checks be used in a manner of "Knowledge checks" a la previous editions. They do not mandate their only use is gating specific information behind them, let alone that failing the check means they must fail to have consequences because plot.

[NatureKing]

The characters with low Int aren't around any more.
So everyone plays Strength dumping Wizards.

And ignoring the whole 'DM, what enemies will you provide us so that I can choose the optimum stats to counter you' conversation you're expecting to take place.

[Kyutaru]

So everyone plays Strength dumping Wizards.

And ignoring the whole 'DM, what enemies will you provide us so that I can choose the optimum stats to counter you' conversation you're expecting to take place.

Just hope they aren't ignoring encumbrance and thinking they have enough strength for a heavy crossbow and a bunch of magical gear. The crossbow alone is 18 lbs and five times your 8 strength puts your light load at 40 max using the variant encumbrance rule. Strength dumpers get pampered when they don't use this rule.

[Witty Username]

In practice variant encumbrance has little bearing on the strength of wizards. My table doesn't use it but we when through the math, and my strength 5 wizard wouldn't have noticed.
Strength of fighters yes, 65 lbs for full plate is a mess on a str 15 fighter. longsword + shield 9 lbs, greatsword 6 lbs. It makes str characters less good at what they are supposed to be good at.
Dex fighters with str 8-10, light armor is 13 lbs., a rapier and shield is another 8, for a total of 21 lbs. a heavy crossbow is out( if str 8) but it seems there is some agreement that hand crossbow is superior because of the bonus action attack and that is 3 lbs, and a longbow is 2 lbs.
(dex fighter) 24 - 40 = 16
(str fighter) 75 - 71 = 4

Variant Encumbrance isn't really the distribution for discouraging people to dumb str, it messes with the strength builds ability to function without dumping other stats.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Variant Encumbrance isn't really the distribution for discouraging people to dumb str, it messes with the strength builds ability to function without dumping other stats.

And clerics get screwed hard, as do dwarves (they lose a racial feature with no recompense).

Meanwhile, rogues and DEX fighters are laughing all the way to the bank.

[Pex]

If you're having lots of them, the difference between an 8 and 10 int is pretty low. You're talking about being able to take maybe one more hit before you go to zero int. If you're wanting players to have more than 10 in non-major stats, then it seems you should either just require them to use something like a 13-13-13-12-12-12 array in the first place, or increase the number of points so that they can afford the defensive stats.

Again, it looks like people are just saying 'stat dumping is bad! just kill the PCs and it will stop!' without any clear idea of what stats they actually want to see.

It's not about the actual numbers but Stormwind Fallacy. They think those who dump stats only care about how to be the most powerful at whatever and not about the story or roleplay. A DM who doesn't think that doesn't care how a player allocates his ability scores to want to discourage anything.

[Witty Username]

Building on that point, If you think stat dumping is a problem and your player brings up concerns like "my strength based fighter needs high strength to function" making them need other stats to function won't solve that problem.

[GreyBlack]

And clerics get screwed hard, as do dwarves (they lose a racial feature with no recompense).


Soooooo... continuing the D&D tradition on Dwarves, eh?

[NatureKing]

Just hope they aren't ignoring encumbrance and thinking they have enough strength for a heavy crossbow and a bunch of magical gear. The crossbow alone is 18 lbs and five times your 8 strength puts your light load at 40 max using the variant encumbrance rule. Strength dumpers get pampered when they don't use this rule.

What Mind Flayer facing Wizards still use Crossbows, especially when there is variant encumbrance to further penalize investment in strength?

[Witty Username]

I used a light crossbow for levels 1-4, before cantrip damage caught up. Haven't seen a mind flayer though.

[NatureKing]

Yep. A 5lb Crossbow (that doesn't add Str) to damage simply because it takes 12.5% of your light encumbrance (while using a variant rule) , that is useful for only levels 1-4 is definitely a reason to not dump strength.

Next argument.

[Pex]

A minor reason for a wizard or sorcerer not to have 8 strength, though campaign dependent on commonality, is 10 ft pits in dungeons.If you don't have 10 Strength a flavor text becomes an obstacle. The party has to spend real world time thinking of a way to get you across and in game time to do it, which may or may not matter, but both start to become annoying the second time it happens. Alternatively the spellcaster has to cast a spell to get across which is a waste of spell use. 10 Strength you're golden. Any pit larger than 10 ft is meant to be a party obstacle despite the strength warriors can still get across 20 ft pits eventually.

[Tanarii]

A minor reason for a wizard or sorcerer not to have 8 strength, though campaign dependent on commonality, is 10 ft pits in dungeons.If you don't have 10 Strength a flavor text becomes an obstacle.
Especially since now the DM now has to decide how to handle a character that wants to jump 2 extra feet. And no matter what their decision the lack of rules and resulting table variation will drive at least one player at each table insane. :smallwink:

Having Insanity on your hands is a terrible price to pay just because you want an 8 in your Strength score. :smallamused:

[ProsecutorGodot]

A minor reason for a wizard or sorcerer not to have 8 strength, though campaign dependent on commonality, is 10 ft pits in dungeons.If you don't have 10 Strength a flavor text becomes an obstacle. The party has to spend real world time thinking of a way to get you across and in game time to do it, which may or may not matter, but both start to become annoying the second time it happens. Alternatively the spellcaster has to cast a spell to get across which is a waste of spell use. 10 Strength you're golden. Any pit larger than 10 ft is meant to be a party obstacle despite the strength warriors can still get across 20 ft pits eventually.

Thankfully something we've never had to deal with since the pits we find are usually 15ft+ across so only our Fighter and Monk are jumping them in one go anyway. We have them take a piton to the other side and make a tight walk out of rope, climbing to the other side. We've used ladders from our Sorcerer's robe of useful items a few times, they're 24ft long.

Considering how many times we've knocked out a Drow to tie them up for questioning when they regain consciousness, we've always been stocked up on Ropes, Chains and Gags. Sometimes I think they enjoyed it a bit too much.

It takes longer but I'd hardly call it an "obstacle". If your solution is to expend a spell slot you haven't come up with a very creative (we used a rowboat patch to cross a 10ft gap through difficult terrain where we couldn't jump it or anchor a rope) or a resource efficient one (Pitons and Ropes are literally and figuratively a small price to pay).

That said, I can't deny that taking a 10 in Str would have been a lot easier. Definitely a very minor reason though.

[NatureKing]

So the answer to the reason to discourage stat dumping is to have all gaps 2ft wider than the minimum strength in the party, and have Mind Flayers. Mind Flayers all the time.

[dreast]

So the answer to the reason to discourage stat dumping is to have all gaps 2ft wider than the minimum strength in the party, and have Mind Flayers. Mind Flayers all the time.

To be fair, Mind Flayers all the time is my answer to everything.

In actual seriousness, I don't think stat dumping is a problem in 5e. I do think that some stats get undervalued by players and underutilized by DM’s in a kind of self-fulfilling feedback loop. This is why you sometimes see posters around here argue, for example, that mind flayer powers should have Wisdom saves. The fact is that the fundamental dichotomy of D&D is that everything has a story purpose and everything has a mechanics purpose, and if you can’t accept that, this is the wrong system for you. Mind flayers are and always have been, story-wise, Lovecraftian monstrosities that invite madness and terror, and mechanics-wise, Intelligence-based game roadblocks against straight combat-build groups that are otherwise supremely optimized for the system.

In the same way, each stat is both a story element and a mechanics element. Intelligence is, story-wise, a fundamental part of a character’s personality, embodying his or her ability to reason and process the implications of the world around him, and mechanics-wise, a safe dump stat for that dwarven barbarian.

Unless there’s a mind-flayer around, of course.

[JumboWheat01]

Because a dwarven barbarian totally needs a brain, right? :smallwink:

[noob]

Because a dwarven barbarian totally needs a brain, right? :smallwink:

yes that barbarian needs a brain for its brain collection because brain collections are not forbidden for non mi go creatures.

[Willie the Duck]

From what I've seen the desired effect is: stop players from putting 8 in Str, Int and Cha because those stats are all considered meaningless at my table, which has nothing to do with the DMing style in any way.

Sometimes it's phrased as something something cookie cutter builds.

As we all know, all non-GWM/HA chars dump Str, all HA wearers dump Dex instead, and all non-wizards dump Int (including EKs), and all non Cha-casters dump Cha.


If you're having lots of them, the difference between an 8 and 10 int is pretty low. You're talking about being able to take maybe one more hit before you go to zero int. If you're wanting players to have more than 10 in non-major stats, then it seems you should either just require them to use something like a 13-13-13-12-12-12 array in the first place, or increase the number of points so that they can afford the defensive stats.

Again, it looks like people are just saying 'stat dumping is bad! just kill the PCs and it will stop!' without any clear idea of what stats they actually want to see.

I fear we've created a straw opposition here siding the 'pro discouraging state dumping' half of the argument, most people left in the discussion seem to split into the 'why would we want to do that?' and 'if you do want to do that, here's how I'd do it' camps. Regardless, I'm really not sure there's a consensus on why you would dislike stat dumping. Certainly the situation where some stats seem better than others has seen some negative attention (particularly Int, but the overall Wis/Dex/Con> Str/Int/Cha unless specific classes are chosen is grating to some).

I think, to my mind/imo, there are really only two good arguments for why stat dumping is disagreeable --
1) making a well-rounded character ought to have some practical benefits. I mean, not inherently, but it is a reasonable position to take. I could get that idea. It would be nice if making a 12 12 12 13 13 13 (maybe non-variant human, so 13 13 13 14 14 14) character was somehow a rewarding character build. Sadly (for the argument, if nothing else) I think that ship sailed in a number of ways well above and beyond simple stat rewards (medium armor not being great, switch-hitting between Str- and Dex-based weapons isn't really rewarding since str-based ones tend to need feats to have an advantage over rapiers, etc.). Beyond that, the argument is a should statement, and the obvious counter-response is, 'well, no, why should/ought it?'
2) if there is no disadvantage to stat-dumping, and everyone is just going to create the same couple of builds, stat-wise, why have stats at all? Or, at the very least, why have intermediate stats at all? If the former, if the decision point is whether to make a Str-based fighter or Dex-based fighter, get rid of Str- and Dex- and just make two types of fighters. If the latter, and the real decision point is whether your Str-based fighter is going to boost their Str to 20 asap, or leave their Str at 16 and just take GWM, PAM, and Sentinel ASAP, then just start the Str measure at 0 and make 18 and 20 become baseline+2 and baseline+4. There are clearly counterexamples where people have not gone 8 8 8 15 15 15 and/or dumped the obvious stats (some people have even chosen 4-stat builds). However, I find the base premise of the argument a little more valid than #1... it's just kinda asking for a complete rebuild of the system.


So the answer to the reason to discourage stat dumping is to have all gaps 2ft wider than the minimum strength in the party, and have Mind Flayers. Mind Flayers all the time.

And adventure hooks gated behind knowledge checks, druids have to occasionally persuade gaolers to let them talk to their imprisoned party members, enforcing encumbrance, magic weapon drops which do not conform to the party builds, and a whole bunch of other niggling bits I'm sure we could find depending on how wide we cast our net. Some of these are annoying in that they are pretty campaign specific. Others seem like not-useful-merely-vital requirements ('you will never use this Int score during your normal adventuring career, but if you don't have a ___ or higher, you will not be able to pass through the Valley of the Brain Eaters, and so will have to travel through the much more treacherous Pits of Plot Contrivance to reach your goal').

[NatureKing]

DM to players: Guys, what do you want to do? Just want to know, because I'm going to tailor it to target all of your weak points.

This is basically what it boils down to. 'How do you want to have fun? Because I'm not gonna do that'.

Hard pass.

[Max_Killjoy]

I fear we've created a straw opposition here siding the 'pro discouraging state dumping' half of the argument, most people left in the discussion seem to split into the 'why would we want to do that?' and 'if you do want to do that, here's how I'd do it' camps. Regardless, I'm really not sure there's a consensus on why you would dislike stat dumping. Certainly the situation where some stats seem better than others has seen some negative attention (particularly Int, but the overall Wis/Dex/Con> Str/Int/Cha unless specific classes are chosen is grating to some).

I think, to my mind/imo, there are really only two good arguments for why stat dumping is disagreeable --

1) making a well-rounded character ought to have some practical benefits. I mean, not inherently, but it is a reasonable position to take. I could get that idea. It would be nice if making a 12 12 12 13 13 13 (maybe non-variant human, so 13 13 13 14 14 14) character was somehow a rewarding character build. Sadly (for the argument, if nothing else) I think that ship sailed in a number of ways well above and beyond simple stat rewards (medium armor not being great, switch-hitting between Str- and Dex-based weapons isn't really rewarding since str-based ones tend to need feats to have an advantage over rapiers, etc.). Beyond that, the argument is a should statement, and the obvious counter-response is, 'well, no, why should/ought it?'

2) if there is no disadvantage to stat-dumping, and everyone is just going to create the same couple of builds, stat-wise, why have stats at all? Or, at the very least, why have intermediate stats at all? If the former, if the decision point is whether to make a Str-based fighter or Dex-based fighter, get rid of Str- and Dex- and just make two types of fighters. If the latter, and the real decision point is whether your Str-based fighter is going to boost their Str to 20 asap, or leave their Str at 16 and just take GWM, PAM, and Sentinel ASAP, then just start the Str measure at 0 and make 18 and 20 become baseline+2 and baseline+4. There are clearly counterexamples where people have not gone 8 8 8 15 15 15 and/or dumped the obvious stats (some people have even chosen 4-stat builds). However, I find the base premise of the argument a little more valid than #1... it's just kinda asking for a complete rebuild of the system.


My biggest objection to "stat dumping" is when players try to use it as "free tradeoff" by then ignoring the low stat as much as possible in-game. Classic example being the guy who builds a Fighter, puts an 8 in INT and a 10 in WIS... and then plays the character as a shrewd and brilliant tactician.

It would help avoid this, and enable things like smart fighters or buff sorcerers, if there were some way to trade off other stuff to get more points for the Ability scores, so that a character could be more Abilities and Skills based... but D&D steadfastly does not work that way.

[ProsecutorGodot]

My biggest objection to "stat dumping" is when players try to use it as "free tradeoff" by then ignoring the low stat as much as possible in-game. Classic example being the guy who builds a Fighter, puts an 8 in INT and a 10 in WIS... and then plays the character as a shrewd and brilliant tactician.

It would help avoid this, and enable things like smart fighters or buff sorcerers, if there were some way to trade off other stuff to get more points for the Ability scores, so that a character could be more Abilities and Skills based... but D&D steadfastly does not work that way.

Just curious how you would enforce the tactical ability difference between an 8 intelligence fighter and a 14 intelligence fighter, and then perhaps even a 20 intelligence fighter. At what level of intelligence are you going to prevent your player from making a tactical decision because they're too stupid to have thought of it? What decisions are cut off where?

Is a party of 10 intelligence adventurers going to be utterly incapable of planning a successful surprise attack?

I understand that I'm exaggerating the situation a bit but how would you even determine such a thing, it sounds like a lot of work. How could you reasonably draw those cutoff points without them being entirely arbitrary and based off of only your own expectations?

[MaxWilson]

Just curious how you would enforce the tactical ability difference between an 8 intelligence fighter and a 14 intelligence fighter, and then perhaps even a 20 intelligence fighter.

The way I do it is that when you declare actions every round, it's done in order of Intelligence, lowest to highest. (In practice everyone declares when they are ready, but someone with high Intelligence can demand to know first what the monsters with lower Int are doing. This is equivalent to the first way, but faster.) High Int = faster OODA loop = better able to respond to information on short notice.

What this means in practice is that someone with high Int is more likely to realize that e.g. the Hill Giant is getting ready to chuck rocks in his direction, and he might Dodge instead of attacking that round. Or maybe he sees that the Neogi wizard is going to flee, and he can declare that he's going to try to grapple it instead to prevent it from fleeing.

A player with high actual intelligence might be able to guess these things anyway, just based on the tactical situation, and declare these actions anyway; but if the PCs' Int is high then you don't have to guess. The upshot is that high-Int PCs can behave in more complex ways if they want to.

But if you're just planning to "I hit it with my axe again" no matter what the enemy is going to do, there's no benefit to high Int.


At what level of intelligence are you going to prevent your player from making a tactical decision because they're too stupid to have thought of it? What decisions are cut off where?

Not needed. It happens naturally.


I understand that I'm exaggerating the situation a bit but how would you even determine such a thing, it sounds like a lot of work. How could you reasonably draw those cutoff points without them being entirely arbitrary and based off of only your own expectations?

Build it into the game system by giving high-Int PCs more information when they make decisions. Low-Int PCs may also have their players voluntarily impose limitations on themselves for RP reasons (I would). But the system also directly rewards high-Int PCs with more opportunities to use complex tactics.

[OverLordOcelot]

In a campaign with lots of Intellect Devourers, Int 13 is probably as low as you should go. 16 is safer so you might wind up with a whole party of wizards. :-P

If we take that as true, then adding lots of intellect devourers won't discourage stat dumping, as getting an int of 13 requires getting less than 13 of some other stat if you're using point buy or standard array. If int 16 is needed, then you're definitely going to have to dump some stats to get it. So the 'Intellect Devourers' solution actually doesn't do anything to help with the stated thread topic, it's just a way to encourage dumping a different stat, not to discourage the practice in general.


I disagree with those who would label "putting a low number" and "putting nothing (or the lowest possible number)" as equivalent forms of dumping. It's not realistic for a character to have everything.

In the example you gave, you're putting the lowest possible number into your two 10s, as they're your lowest rolls. They're literally equivalent, so I'm not sure how you can claim that putting 'your two 10s' into particular stats is fundamentally different than putting your 8 and 10 in particular stats using point buy/standard array.

I also don't think 'it's not realistic' is remotely relevant, it's not realistic for characters to cast spells, or to teleport through shadows, or to shrug off sword blows with wisdom, or to recover from having their entire brain eaten. Lots of heroic people in history or fiction had an ability set that would have no low stats in D&D terms, and claiming that such people don't exist is certainly unrealistic.

[MaxWilson]

If we take that as true, then adding lots of intellect devourers won't discourage stat dumping

But the person who suggested Intellect Devourers didn't say it was supposed to prevent stat dumping. They said it would prevent Int dumping, which is true.

[KOLE]

I think the more experience a player gets, the less likely they are to dump. For example, after my first character, a Barbarian, got hit with a couple of Hold Persons and a Dominate Person throughout the campaign, I’ve never been able to have less than a 12 in wis since.

[MaxWilson]

I think the more experience a player gets, the less likely they are to dump. For example, after my first character, a Barbarian, got hit with a couple of Hold Persons and a Dominate Person throughout the campaign, I’ve never been able to have less than a 12 in wis since.

Eh, there's not much difference anyway between Wis 8 and Wis 14-16. 80% of the time they give the same saving throw result, because d20 variance dominates. Your real protections from bad effects in 5E are things like Counterspell and being out of range.

Int is a little bit of an exception because of the custom mechanic for Devour Intellect: there's a 3d6 roll involved, and THAT has a bell curve. I guess that's one of the reasons I'd rather dump Wis than Int--there's no Wis-based equivalent of the Intellect Devourer. (Plus, I find low Wis easier to roleplay.)

[Reynaert]

I think the more experience a player gets, the less likely they are to dump. For example, after my first character, a Barbarian, got hit with a couple of Hold Persons and a Dominate Person throughout the campaign, I’ve never been able to have less than a 12 in wis since.

Couldn't disagree more. I kept getting hit on my strong saves and missing them, so my perception is that the D20 randomness vastly outweighs the difference between a +1 or a +2. Still trying to get my DM to look at bell curve systems...

[Max_Killjoy]

Just curious how you would enforce the tactical ability difference between an 8 intelligence fighter and a 14 intelligence fighter, and then perhaps even a 20 intelligence fighter. At what level of intelligence are you going to prevent your player from making a tactical decision because they're too stupid to have thought of it? What decisions are cut off where?

Is a party of 10 intelligence adventurers going to be utterly incapable of planning a successful surprise attack?

I understand that I'm exaggerating the situation a bit but how would you even determine such a thing, it sounds like a lot of work. How could you reasonably draw those cutoff points without them being entirely arbitrary and based off of only your own expectations?


For starters, it's an RP thing.

Don't show up with an 8-INT 8-WIS (or less) Fighter with no knowledge Skills... and then constantly play him as brilliant and knowledgeable by compensating with your own player-level intelligence and knowledge. IMO, a player who does that is trying to game the system and get those "points" in other Ability scores for free while ignoring the drawbacks.

If you make a dumb brick PC, then play a dumb brick.






The way I do it is that when you declare actions every round, it's done in order of Intelligence, lowest to highest. (In practice everyone declares when they are ready, but someone with high Intelligence can demand to know first what the monsters with lower Int are doing. This is equivalent to the first way, but faster.) High Int = faster OODA loop = better able to respond to information on short notice.

What this means in practice is that someone with high Int is more likely to realize that e.g. the Hill Giant is getting ready to chuck rocks in his direction, and he might Dodge instead of attacking that round. Or maybe he sees that the Neogi wizard is going to flee, and he can declare that he's going to try to grapple it instead to prevent it from fleeing.


That's an interesting approach worth exploring more, I think.



Couldn't disagree more. I kept getting hit on my strong saves and missing them, so my perception is that the D20 randomness vastly outweighs the difference between a +1 or a +2. Still trying to get my DM to look at bell curve systems...

Random thought... maybe replace 1d20 with 1d12+1d8... the "mean" only shifts from 10.5 to 11, but you get a curve instead of a linear distribution. Tweak some DCs as needed.

(And yeah, the 1d20 is one of the elements that kills D&D and derivatives for me.)

[NatureKing]

But the person who suggested Intellect Devourers didn't say it was supposed to prevent stat dumping. They said it would prevent Int dumping, which is true.

Found the guy who dumped Int.

[Constructman]

Something's gotta give if you're using standard array, or if you're using point buy and don't want a bunch of 10s. Nobody in their right mind puts the 8 in Constitution, so it becomes a question of if you want your character to be physically weak, clumsy, slow-witted, oblivious, or socially inept.

[Pex]

My biggest objection to "stat dumping" is when players try to use it as "free tradeoff" by then ignoring the low stat as much as possible in-game. Classic example being the guy who builds a Fighter, puts an 8 in INT and a 10 in WIS... and then plays the character as a shrewd and brilliant tactician.

It would help avoid this, and enable things like smart fighters or buff sorcerers, if there were some way to trade off other stuff to get more points for the Ability scores, so that a character could be more Abilities and Skills based... but D&D steadfastly does not work that way.

By the same token how many DMs who hate this won't allow a player of an 18 IN character know all about a particular monster they're facing, its strength and weaknesses to inform the party how best to fight it or refuse to let an 18 WI character player know his plan won't work because of reason or if the 18 CH player says something wrong, too bad the Duke refuses your request and feel fortunate he doesn't throw you in the dungeon.

In any case, a fighter knows how to fight. That's his profession. I don't expect an 8 IN fighter to know which mushrooms are edible and which are poison or the location of the Temple of the Open Mind, but I have no problem believing he knows best when it comes to combat tactics. An 8 Intelligence is not an imbecile knowing absolutely nothing about anything.

[Max_Killjoy]

By the same token how many DMs who hate this won't allow a player of an 18 IN character know all about a particular monster they're facing, its strength and weaknesses to inform the party how best to fight it or refuse to let an 18 WI character player know his plan won't work because of reason or if the 18 CH player says something wrong, too bad the Duke refuses your request and feel fortunate he doesn't throw you in the dungeon.


I have no idea how many DMs might do that.

My approach is to try to work with the player if their character is just blatantly smarter or more charming than they are.

(There is however a limit and I won't let a player abuse my generosity by constantly counting on me to compensate for a lack of effort or other issues. That is, at least TRY to be smart, or TRY to be well-spoken / charming... I'm far more forgiving of player who makes an honest best-effort that comes up short.)




In any case, a fighter knows how to fight. That's his profession. I don't expect an 8 IN fighter to know which mushrooms are edible and which are poison or the location of the Temple of the Open Mind, but I have no problem believing he knows best when it comes to combat tactics. An 8 Intelligence is not an imbecile knowing absolutely nothing about anything.


Skill with weapons and melee techniques is not the same thing as "tactics".

[OverLordOcelot]

For starters, it's an RP thing.

Don't show up with an 8-INT 8-WIS (or less) Fighter with no knowledge Skills... and then constantly play him as brilliant and knowledgeable by compensating with your own player-level intelligence and knowledge. IMO, a player who does that is trying to game the system and get those "points" in other Ability scores for free while ignoring the drawbacks.

If you make a dumb brick PC, then play a dumb brick.

I would have respect for this argument if the people who claim 'it's an RP thing' applied the same standard in the other direction. But I've never seen someone who does actually let a 20-int character act if they're more intelligent than the player. Do you step in and tell a player mechanical information about a monster that their 20-int character would know but the player doesn't? Does their 20-int character solve a riddle, pattern, or other puzzle if the player hasn't figured it out? Do you ever give the 20-INT player tactical advice that their character would easily figure out but the player isn't good at?

[MaxWilson]

I would have respect for this argument if the people who claim 'it's an RP thing' applied the same standard in the other direction. But I've never seen someone who does actually let a 20-int character act if they're more intelligent than the player. Do you step in and tell a player mechanical information about a monster that their 20-int character would know but the player doesn't? Does their 20-int character solve a riddle, pattern, or other puzzle if the player hasn't figured it out? Do you ever give the 20-INT player tactical advice that their character would easily figure out but the player isn't good at?

Like telling the player what action the monster is doing this round, so he can declare his action accordingly? Yes, I do. It has allowed players to play PCs who act smarter (IMO) than the players are.

It doesn't make me jump in and tell the player, "You shouldn't cast Grasping Vine, it's a crummy spell," but that's just because having the DM play your PC for you wouldn't be fun for the player. I guess if the player wanted my tactical advice for a high-Int PC I'd give them whatever advice they were interested in. Meanwhile, at least their Int is letting the PC act in smart ways.

There are similar related benefits to riddle games, etc.--if you want to engage with the challenge through rolling dice instead of roleplaying through a riddle, you can usually do that, although IMO it is less fun.

[Tvtyrant]

I read a lot about valorize the abilities that the players are likely to dump during character creation: INT first, then STR and CHA and in some builds I also see WIS as the dump stat. I never seen CON or DEX dumped because they are too valuables and if someone wants to dump one of these two, I think he's already fairly penalized. I didn't find a way to valorize the remaining 4 abilities in a build that put them as the dump stat but maybe I can try to discourage players to dump them before all:
1. INT or WIS: apply the malus to character initiative;
2. STR: apply the malus to bonus HP derived from CON every level;
3. CHA: apply the malus to charisma skill check of every member of the party if the character is in the same room and if you roll for a random character to attack count that character as two (if you have 3 party members don't roll a 1d3, roll instead a 1d4).

You can use the malus only to mitigate the bonus to a minimum of 0 (a character with 10 DEX and 8 INT has Initiative 0) or you can choose to go all out and use the malus to impose a negative modifier (a character with 10 DEX and 8 INT has initiative -1).
What you think?
Tell the party to write down the stats they feel their character would have. Their upper level stats will be lower and their low stats will be higher because it is no longer a mechanical but a story based decision. Gamifying character design is why you get gamey characters.

[Constructman]

Tell the party to write down the stats they feel their character would have. Their upper level stats will be lower and their low stats will be higher because it is no longer a mechanical but a story based decision. Gamifying character design is why you get gamey characters.

And what if they feel their character should have 18 18 19 18 18 20?

How do you make sure they're acting in good faith if you just let them pick? How do you make sure their highs ar elower and their lows are higher?

[Tvtyrant]

And what if they feel their character should have 18 18 19 18 18 20?

How do you make sure they're acting in good faith if you just let them pick? How do you make sure their highs ar elower and their lows are higher?

You don't have to, that is the nice thing about human interactions. If they feel they are gaming a system they will push the envelope, if they feel they are breaking the social code and are going to be shamed for it they won't. You can spend an entire lifetime trying to make an ungameable system, or a five minute conversation about group expectations.

Look at almost any thread about an exploit in the rules and the response is "that won't fly in any real game but good job." Remove the puzzle aspect to gaming rules and people tend not to do it.

[noob]

Simplest way to discourage stat dumping: remove stats.
They do not really add much of value to the game.

[MaxWilson]

And what if they feel their character should have 18 18 19 18 18 20?

Then you shrug and run the game. What's the problem?

[Max_Killjoy]

I would have respect for this argument if the people who claim 'it's an RP thing' applied the same standard in the other direction. But I've never seen someone who does actually let a 20-int character act if they're more intelligent than the player. Do you step in and tell a player mechanical information about a monster that their 20-int character would know but the player doesn't? Does their 20-int character solve a riddle, pattern, or other puzzle if the player hasn't figured it out? Do you ever give the 20-INT player tactical advice that their character would easily figure out but the player isn't good at?

Asked and answered:



I have no idea how many DMs might do that.

My approach is to try to work with the player if their character is just blatantly smarter or more charming than they are.

(There is however a limit and I won't let a player abuse my generosity by constantly counting on me to compensate for a lack of effort or other issues. That is, at least TRY to be smart, or TRY to be well-spoken / charming... I'm far more forgiving of player who makes an honest best-effort that comes up short.)


If the character is supposed to be a brilliant tactician, then I'd let them roll INT and then pass them notes or point things out in combat... or give them the "bad idea" look before they could finish committing to an action, etc.

As an aside, which Skill if any would reflect a character's knowledge of monster quirks, biology, ecology, etc -- perhaps Nature or Arcana depending on the monster? There's really not a "tactics" Skill at all, is there?

[Yakk]

Less artificial restrictions:

Str: Carrying Capacity. Use a simplified encumbrance system.
Str 1/4 - Unencumbered
Str 1/2 - Lightly Encumbered
Str 3/4 - Encumbered
Str - Heavily Encumbered

Light Armor takes up 2 slots, Medium 4, Heavy 6.

A weapon or implement takes up 1, a versatile weapon 2, a two-handed weapon 3.

Easy to track. And significant until they get a bag of holding (which takes actions to pull things out of tho).

---

Treat Intelligence as "Lore". Have lots of Lore. Make people do checks, even in combat.

Even something as simple as: When a fighter attacks a monster, do a Lore check. On success, the fighter remembers a weak spot, and gets advantage on the attack or damage.

Do "Lore" checks based on character backgrounds. This lets you demand particular characters do the check.

---

Dumping Wisdom, Dex or Con makes your saves suck. So not a problem.

---

Charisma. Steal a page from Strength. Contact points!

A Cohort costs 12, an Ally costs 6, a Friend costs 3 and a Well-Wisher costs 1.

The DM offers these to the party over time. They are like treasure. If you lack Charisma, they are treasure you aren't gonna get.

Cohort: Power scale of a PC. Sometimes willing to adventure with party just to help them out.
Ally: Power scale of a PC. Rarely willing to adventure, but definitely willing to help out; a local cleric who might case restoration for your past services.
Friend: Someone willing to help the PCs out without always getting equal value in return. A merchant who goes the extra mile to do some magic item brokering for the party.
Well-wisher: Someone who won't screw the PCs over, like a Barkeep that wakes the PCs instead of telling the assassins where they are sleeping.

You could also have Enemy points or something. Double the price of friends, and state that you can have at most Charisma Enemy points, and your Contacts are limited by (Charisma+Enemy).

(Low charisma means that even enemies don't think you are worth it).

[crayzz]

For starters, it's an RP thing.

Don't show up with an 8-INT 8-WIS (or less) Fighter with no knowledge Skills... and then constantly play him as brilliant and knowledgeable by compensating with your own player-level intelligence and knowledge. IMO, a player who does that is trying to game the system and get those "points" in other Ability scores for free while ignoring the drawbacks.

If you make a dumb brick PC, then play a dumb brick.

I think a lot of people's expectations for what 8 int should look like are off the mark. The standard deviation of a 3d6 roll is just under 3, and 10.5 is the average. Rounding, everyone from 8 to 13 in any stat falls within one standard deviation of the mean, which means those people are clinically normal. Expecting someone of 8 int to act like a dumb brick doesn't make any sense. That's a C math student, not someone too dumb to tie their own shoes.

A fighter of clinically normal intelligence being an effective tactician (something entirely within their wheelhouse as a fighter) isn't strange or unusual. Chalk it up to experience if you really need an RP reason.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think a lot of people's expectations for what 8 int should look like are off the mark. The standard deviation of a 3d6 roll is just under 3, and 10.5 is the average. Rounding, everyone from 8 to 13 in any stat falls within one standard deviation of the mean, which means those people are clinically normal. Expecting someone of 8 int to act like a dumb brick doesn't make any sense. That's a C math student, not someone too dumb to tie their own shoes.

A fighter of clinically normal intelligence being an effective tactician (something entirely within their wheelhouse as a fighter) isn't strange or unusual. Chalk it up to experience if you really need an RP reason.

If a character's INT score results in a penalty, they're not "average".

8 INT and no INT-related Skills isn't average, it's a touch slow and an education that was limited in some way.

[MaxWilson]

If a character's INT score results in a penalty, they're not "average".

And "at the human mean" != "typical for my social circle."

[Morty]

I don't think dump stats are going anywhere without a very thorough reworking of stats and how they interact with the system at large. Assigning attributes in D&D is mostly a formality, anyway, with some minor variation in what you want to focus on beyond your main attribute.

[Kyutaru]

And "at the human mean" != "typical for my social circle."

To quote George Carlin, "Think about how stupid the average person is then realize that half of them are even dumber than that."

If you need a series of Twitter screenshots to emphasize this point, let me know.

[Tvtyrant]

If a character's INT score results in a penalty, they're not "average".

8 INT and no INT-related Skills isn't average, it's a touch slow and an education that was limited in some way.

It is equivalent to an IQ of 85, they wouldn't stand out as particularly dumb in a conversation.

[MaxWilson]

It is equivalent to an IQ of 85, they wouldn't stand out as particularly dumb in a conversation.

And yet they will rarely or never have original insights into how to run your 5E game. (That's not directed at anyone in particular, it's just an illustration of the difference between being present in a conversation and making people glad you were in that conversation.)

[crayzz]

If a character's INT score results in a penalty, they're not "average".

8 INT and no INT-related Skills isn't average, it's a touch slow and an education that was limited in some way.

Your example was "tactician"; there is no int skill in 5e that corresponds to tactical abilities. There just isn't a way to mechanically pin down someone's tactical competence. It makes sense to use the int score as a loose proxy, but you should keep in mind what 8 int actually means. It's "a touch slow in general", not "bad at literally everything more cerebral than walking while chewing gum" and not "dumb as a brick."

I didn't say they were average. I said 8 int was clinically normal, which is true. A psychologist likely wouldn't find it noteworthy that someone with clinically normal intelligence was moderately effective in a specific field that correlates with intelligence.

[Max_Killjoy]

To quote George Carlin, "Think about how stupid the average person is then realize that half of them are even dumber than that."


The real joke there is all the people who laugh because they don't understand how averages work.

[MaxWilson]

The real joke there is all the people who laugh because they don't understand how averages work.

For a normal-ish distribution like human intelligence there's no appreciable difference between mean and median.

[Max_Killjoy]

For a normal-ish distribution like human intelligence there's no appreciable difference between mean and median.


It's just the assumption that for any average of a set of values, half the values are below and half are above, no matter what, combined with the irony of someone making a bad assumption about averages while looking down on the "average" person, that makes me chuckle. It's trivial to create a range of values for which a majority of the individual values are above the average, thus breaking the "rule" that people assume.

[Kyutaru]

The real joke there is all the people who laugh because they don't understand how averages work.

I thought the real joke was the assumption that they didn't rather than the satire the joker was known for.

In either case, this is the last time I'll have to read your comments. :smallsmile:

[Pex]

I have no idea how many DMs might do that.

My approach is to try to work with the player if their character is just blatantly smarter or more charming than they are.

(There is however a limit and I won't let a player abuse my generosity by constantly counting on me to compensate for a lack of effort or other issues. That is, at least TRY to be smart, or TRY to be well-spoken / charming... I'm far more forgiving of player who makes an honest best-effort that comes up short.)




Skill with weapons and melee techniques is not the same thing as "tactics".

Animals know tactics of fighting in a pack and how to use it to their advantage. They also know how to hunt and be stealthy. I expect Fighters to know more than they do. Fighters do more than Hulk smash. Even Hulk does more than Hulk smash.

[Max_Killjoy]

Animals know tactics of fighting in a pack and how to use it to their advantage. They also know how to hunt and be stealthy. I expect Fighters to know more than they do. Fighters do more than Hulk smash. Even Hulk does more than Hulk smash.


The "tactics" that animals use aren't the tactics -- actual tactics -- at the level being discussed here, and neither is "doing more than hulk smash". Even the Battlemaster's "maneuvers" aren't what's being discussed here.

There's no Tactics Skill in the RAW game, no way to get the proficiency bonus to apply to either in the "mapping the character" sense or to any tactics-focused rolls sense.

So what is there besides INT to actually measure that ability?

[ProsecutorGodot]

In the example you gave, you're putting the lowest possible number into your two 10s, as they're your lowest rolls. They're literally equivalent, so I'm not sure how you can claim that putting 'your two 10s' into particular stats is fundamentally different than putting your 8 and 10 in particular stats using point buy/standard array.

I also don't think 'it's not realistic' is remotely relevant, it's not realistic for characters to cast spells, or to teleport through shadows, or to shrug off sword blows with wisdom, or to recover from having their entire brain eaten. Lots of heroic people in history or fiction had an ability set that would have no low stats in D&D terms, and claiming that such people don't exist is certainly unrealistic.
First, you've misunderstood me when I say "it's not realistic". The mechanics of the game make it unrealistic to expect a character to not prioritize certain stats in a descending order, which will almost always end up with one stat a noticeable degree lower than the rest. This system encourages "dumping" in the sense that most characters will eventually have a (probably low) ability score that is going to fit into a place whether they want it to or not.

It's not realistic to expect your players at the table to not find an ability score that they prioritize beneath all of the rest. Likewise its not realistic to expect a player to always have positive modifiers in anything. It can happen but that doesn't mean it will always happen.

And about the difference between 8 and 10 as a "lowest number" I don't see much or any of a difference in that, but there are many here arguing that its the penalty involved that makes it a dumped stat.


The "tactics" that animals use aren't the tactics -- actual tactics -- at the level being discussed here, and neither is "doing more than hulk smash". Even the Battlemaster's "maneuvers" aren't what's being discussed here.

There's no Tactics Skill in the RAW game, no way to get the proficiency bonus to apply to either in the "mapping the character" sense or to any Tactics-focused rolls.

So what is there besides INT to actually measure that ability?

Off the top of my head, Pack Tactics, which is available to even low intelligences beasts who are recognized as understanding that pack hunting is a good tactical decision. A Rogue with any intelligence score is expected to understand the value of flanking or surprising an opponent from an unseen position to capitalize on Sneak Attack, a class ability that they are deliberately balanced around with an expectation that they are using it as frequently as possible.

The Mastermind Rogue has an ability called "Master of Tactics" which lets them use the help action at range and as a bonus action. Also divorced from their intelligence score in every way. The Inquisitive Rogue has "Insightful Fighting" which lets you "Decipher an opponents tactics through a Wisdom(Insight) check opposed by a Charisma(Deception) check", do we take this as an indication that tactics are a charisma based skill?

If we take non mechanical elements, such as the description of monster tactics in Volo's Guide to Monsters (including Gnolls with their typical intelligence of 6) then it can roughly be described as "battlefield habits developed through consistent use or practice." and Intelligence surely doesn't prevent you from practicing something.

Kobolds also have a base intelligence of 8 (Even their most brilliant minded "Inventors" share this intelligence) and they're described as doing many tactical things, such as:
-Hit and Run tactics
-Ambushing
-Laying tripwire and pit traps
-Flanking
-Attacking Light Sources to fight using their darkvision
-Placing a single defender in a room to lower the attackers guard and ambush them
-Applying poison
-Placing decoy treasure items
-Work together almost wordlessly
-Understand when a fight is too difficult for them

That's quite a lot, I'd wager to say that they show more tactical promise than many adventurers do regardless of their intelligence score. It may be true that we don't have a default number/skill to look at to measure a creature's ability to use tactics in combat but intelligence is definitely not the one.

[crayzz]

The "tactics" that animals use aren't the tactics -- actual tactics -- at the level being discussed here, and neither is "doing more than hulk smash". Even the Battlemaster's "maneuvers" aren't what's being discussed here.

There's no Tactics Skill in the RAW game, no way to get the proficiency bonus to apply to either in the "mapping the character" sense or to any tactics-focused rolls sense.

So what is there besides INT to actually measure that ability?

Can you give examples? What specific tactics do you think are fundamentally out of reach of an 8 int character?

Because so far there isnt a specific "level of tactics" being discussed.

[Max_Killjoy]

First, you've misunderstood me when I say "it's not realistic". The mechanics of the game make it unrealistic to expect a character to not prioritize certain stats in a descending order, which will almost always end up with one stat a noticeable degree lower than the rest. This system encourages "dumping" in the sense that most characters will eventually have a (probably low) ability score that is going to fit into a place whether they want it to or not.

It's not realistic to expect your players at the table to not find an ability score that they prioritize beneath all of the rest. Likewise its not realistic to expect a player to always have positive modifiers in anything. It can happen but that doesn't mean it will always happen.

And about the difference between 8 and 10 as a "lowest number" I don't see much or any of a difference in that, but there are many here arguing that its the penalty involved that makes it a dumped stat.



Off the top of my head, Pack Tactics, which is available to even low intelligences beasts who are recognized as understanding that pack hunting is a good tactical decision. A Rogue with any intelligence score is expected to understand the value of flanking or surprising an opponent from an unseen position to capitalize on Sneak Attack, a class ability that they are deliberately balanced around with an expectation that they are using it as frequently as possible.

The Mastermind Rogue has an ability called "Master of Tactics" which lets them use the help action at range and as a bonus action. Also divorced from their intelligence score in every way. The Inquisitive Rogue has "Insightful Fighting" which lets you "Decipher an opponents tactics through a Wisdom(Insight) check opposed by a Charism(Deception) check"

If we take non mechanical elements, such as the description of monster tactics in Volo's Guide to Monsters (including Gnolls with their typical intelligence of 6) then it can roughly be described as "battlefield habits developed through consistent use or practice." and Intelligence surely doesn't prevent you from practicing something.

Kobolds also have a base intelligence of 8 (Even their most brilliant minded "Inventors" share this intelligence) and they're described as doing many tactical things, such as:
-Hit and Run tactics
-Ambushing
-Laying tripwire and pit traps
-Flanking
-Attacking Light Sources to fight using their darkvision
-Placing a single defender in a room to lower the attackers guard and ambush them
-Applying poison
-Placing decoy treasure items
-Work together almost wordlessly
-Understand when a fight is too difficult for them

That's quite a lot, I'd wager to say that they show more tactical promise than many adventurers do regardless of their intelligence score. It may be true that we don't have a default number/skill to look at to measure a creature's ability to use tactics in combat but intelligence is definitely not the one.

Fair enough, but I also wouldn't count anything instinctive as the sort of tactical acumen being discussed here.

And the point remains, IMO, that the player with a 8-INT, 8-WIS character who ignores those stats in how they roleplay the character is trying to game the system and get something for nothing. If someone doesn't like the tactics example, then pick another.

A player who is very strong or agile in real life can't game the system by giving the character an 8 STR or 8 DEX, and then substituting his own physical ability during play. Why should a s smart player be able to do that with INT?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Fair enough, but I also wouldn't count anything instinctive as the sort of tactical acumen being discussed here.

And the point remains, IMO, that the player with a 8-INT, 8-WIS character who ignores those stats in how they roleplay the character is trying to game the system and get something for nothing.

A player who is very strong or agile in real life can't game the system by giving the character an 8 STR or 8 DEX, and then substituting his own physical ability during play. Why should a s smart player be able to do that with INT?

If we're using real life as a gauge, the difference between a brilliant mind and an average mind stands out. The difference between two average minds is barely noticable. It's inherently difficult to enforce the idea that a player must only act "as intelligent as their character is" without making incredible exaggerations like being an illiterate Barbarian whose answer to the meaning of life is "my axe hasn't killed you yet, so you are alive."

If I had to make it impactful, a variation of the idea that MaxWilson proposed seems like a good starting point. Give the more intelligent characters more information quickly, even if they decide to share it immediately the less intelligent characters are still reacting to and understanding it slower. It's not a lot but it's a start.

[Max_Killjoy]

Can you give examples? What specific tactics do you think are fundamentally out of reach of an 8 int character?

Because so far there isnt a specific "level of tactics" being discussed.


Setting aside the fact that it seems like people are doing that thing where the latch onto the specifics of a single example, evidently do they can ignore the actual point...

Anything from "Orcs are likely to try this sort of trick in this terrain, so we should set up our ambush there to counter" in a small party to "Don't pursue! Their retreat is a trap!" in mass combat to whatever.

(Maybe it could just as easily be WIS as INT in some situations, but since a min-max Fighter is about as likely to dump WIS down to 8 as they are INT... that's largely moot to the actual point.)


I know how this is going to sound, but at this point, *shrug*... there are characters I just don't play because I know I can't pull it off, and because constraining myself to not do things that those characters couldn't do would just make the gaming miserable for me. One is "green" characters who have no idea what's going on, are naive to what threats are out there, etc. And the other low-mental-stats characters who can't justify being analytically astute or recognizing a bad idea or seeing problems before they happen.

[Kyutaru]

If we're using real life as a gauge, the difference between a brilliant mind and an average mind stands out. The difference between two average minds is barely noticable. It's inherently difficult to enforce the idea that a player must only act "as intelligent as their character is" without making incredible exaggerations like being an illiterate Barbarian whose answer to the meaning of life is "my axe hasn't killed you yet, so you are alive."
Quite so seeing as the ability score itself is described as measuring mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason. They have no need to enter full meme territory or be burdened by a mental disability. Perhaps he can't quite remember the details of what was said or done accurately, having only a vague idea of something because he lacks the memory to keep it fresh. Rather than being incompetent, he cannot reason through a problem independently and regularly seeks answers to copy from, identical to core education learning rather than the critical thinking taught later. Sharpness of thought may be lacking to the point that he loses his train of thought or forgets what he was just saying and lumping together multiple concepts may be difficult without someone to break it down into a simple analogy. Many television shows feature less than intelligent characters that don't go around acting like a 3 year old but instead simply have a harder time following the plan and need it explained (for the audience's benefit).

[Max_Killjoy]

Quite so seeing as the ability score itself is described as measuring mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason. They have no need to enter full meme territory or be burdened by a mental disability. Perhaps he can't quite remember the details of what was said or done accurately, having only a vague idea of something because he lacks the memory to keep it fresh. Rather than being incompetent, he cannot reason through a problem independently and regularly seeks answers to copy from, identical to core education learning rather than the critical thinking taught later. Sharpness of thought may be lacking to the point that he loses his train of thought or forgets what he was just saying and lumping together multiple concepts may be difficult without someone to break it down into a simple analogy. Many television shows feature less than intelligent characters that don't go around acting like a 3 year old but instead simply have a harder time following the plan and need it explained (for the audience's benefit).

And there's a reason there are so many tropes about "idiots". A lot of Hollywood characters appear functionally incompetent.

[Nagog]

And the strong, fat, fragile (Str 14 Con 7 Int 15) wizard learns to stay behind the big stupid fighter, who uses a greatsword instead of a rapier (because Str 16 Dex 7), and the jolly but not-all-that-disciplined (Wis 12) Friar Tuck cleric Blesses the party and heals them when they're turned to stone or something, but also sometimes sneaks off to have a roaring drunk with his old buddies from the seminary (whereas a Wis 18 cleric would act more responsibly).

That's why it's still fun if all of the players buy in, but clearly you wouldn't buy in, so your DM obviously isn't going to be doing this kind of campaign. Keep on dumping those same old stats the same way you always do.

I really like this idea, as it plays really well into meshing the inhabitants of the world into one big whole, rather than having NPCs with randomized, unbuilt stats and then PCs being the equivalent of Gods by comparison, as well as makes for some good party growth as you learn to rely on each other and get to know one another better.

[Kyutaru]

I really like this idea, as it plays really well into meshing the inhabitants of the world into one big whole, rather than having NPCs with randomized, unbuilt stats and then PCs being the equivalent of Gods by comparison, as well as makes for some good party growth as you learn to rely on each other and get to know one another better.

It helps break some character tropes as well and encourages fun roleplaying. Get out your improvisation skills and start figuring out how to handle your main "fighter" being the kid Taran from Black Cauldron. He might wield a magic sword but his physical skills are in the gutter. I hope you can use the scenery to your advantage like he always does because this is a warrior with a higher intelligence score than strength.

Back when paladins were forced into some pretty difficult to obtain stat requirements it wasn't at all unusual to see the knight in shining armor with a mere 12 strength owing to his mandatory 17 charisma.

[Constructman]

It helps break some character tropes as well and encourages fun roleplaying. Get out your improvisation skills and start figuring out how to handle your main "fighter" being the kid Taran from Black Cauldron. He might wield a magic sword but his physical skills are in the gutter. I hope you can use the scenery to your advantage like he always does because this is a warrior with a higher intelligence score than strength.

Back when paladins were forced into some pretty difficult to obtain stat requirements it wasn't at all unusual to see the knight in shining armor with a mere 12 strength owing to his mandatory 17 charisma.
I mean, how far until it stops being interesting and starts being annoying? AFAIK there aren't really any major ways to use environmental hazards in combat, other than shoving people off cliffs, into pits, or into fires maybe? Otherwise you're a Fighter who can't do their job as the party striker or defender. And not being able to do your job feels bad.

[Kyutaru]

I mean, how far until it stops being interesting and starts being annoying? AFAIK there aren't really any major ways to use environmental hazards in combat, other than shoving people off cliffs, into pits, or into fires maybe? Otherwise you're a Fighter who can't do their job as the party striker or defender. And not being able to do your job feels bad.

Of course you can do your job. It's up to the DM to ensure that the challenges are appropriate, not to ensure that the party is powergamer min-maxed. You can defeat the Tarrasque as a lvl 11 party, it's been done before. It doesn't mean your party needs to be that heavily stat focused to handle an average adventure campaign.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I only read the first half of the thread; hope I didn't miss anything too important or interesting.



I think that knowledge and social checks are too rare. Making those important would help rebalance the stats.
Not much, especially for Charisma. You usually only need one smart guy to pick up most Knowledge skills, and very rarely need more than one party face.



Stat dumping is just how the game was designed.
Yep. Lots of games have this, both tabletop and video. In the good ones, you need to choose which stats you dump based on what risks you're willing to take...but where's the risk in a fighter with the charisma of a dirty mop bucket or a druid dumber than their animal companion?



Dump stats are the reason 5E has six saving throws. No matter which stat you decided not to prioritize, eventually you'll pay for it, somehow.
It's a good idea, but 5e didn't include enough Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma saves for it to work.



It also probably shouldn't be the idea for all classes. If you look at how you'd design the archetypes covered for those classes absent a class system but with the same 6 attributes you'd generally see patterns of high and low stats...

If you make every ability score absolutely crucial and needs taken care of then the character becomes mediocre at everything and good at nothing.
Nobody's saying that breaking archetypes with wizards with bulging pectorals or Nobel-Prize-worthy rangers should be encouraged. But I, at least, think that a wimpy wizard or idiot ranger should be in some meaningful way less capable than a strong wizard or smart ranger...and the wizard being a bad barbarian or the ranger being a bad wizard ain't it.
Sure, the wizard shouldn't value Str as much as Int, nor the ranger Int as much as Str. But in general, in everything from epic stories to cheap Final Fantasy knockoffs, a wimpy or foolish character faces some risks or consequences for not being as capable as most people.



Linear scale (Int = IQ/10) models reality reasonably well.
Not really, unless you start changing how abilities work. According to most tests, somewhere around 2% of people have IQs below 70...but ability scores below 7 come up more than 9% of the time (assuming 3d6 straight down). That's barely touching on how there are multiple IQ scales dictated by different tests, or how IQ kinda sucks as a measurement of anything meaningful.



Considering two of the campaigns I was in were Adventure paths (TBF one was only 1-5 instead of 1-12 like the other AP and the homebrew one based on the Icewind Dale games), it sounds like a Wizards problem to me.
Having played through a whole WotC adventure path and a number of standalone adventures, I can confirm: only one of WotC's alleged "three pillars" sees any significant use in official adventures, and it just so happens to line up with the only one given significant attention in the rulebooks.



And again. What about wisdom? Are all wise people doomed to be morons? Does this even make sense?
No, because characters can have high Intelligence and high Wisdom.



You don't have to be a flatout simpleton with an intelligence of 8, but if your party's plan of attack starts to get a little more complex than usual, just "forget" a few steps. If you've decided (rather unfortunately) to take a negative to Wisdom, play that up with rash decisions and place your trust in questionable people.
Am I the only one who doesn't roleplay characters who in ways that directly threaten the party's goals? That seems like a **** move to me, unless your game is more character-driven than literally any non-PBP traditional RPG I've played.



Two left feet, clumsy, trips over a lot
How often do you roleplay walking down a hallway with more than five words? (Outside more narrative PBP games.)



Regarding attributes and character flaws: There are a whole six attributes. Even if we assume each has five reasonable definitions you can only get 30 character flaws out of that, plenty of which aren't really that interesting. The whole low-attributes-means-interesting-flaws paradigm is deeply dubious, and I say that as someone who has played characters (and especially run NPCs) with those flaws and had a lot of fun with them.
But they're the only flaws that D&D's mechanics allow. Which is one reason I like GURPS; you can make your character, say, greedy or cowardly or dyslexic and have that actually matter to the game. Sure, you can play your character as greedy/cowardly/dyslexic, but it's always better to have things you consider important represented mechanically, and I prefer being able to give a better explanation than "It's what my character would do, don't ask follow-up questions" when my character acts against the party's interests (and "It gave me enough points to buy that healing ability" is a dang good explanation).



The way to discourage stat-dumping is for all classes to have viable uses for having good stats in any given ability. So, even if a fighter doesn't need, say, high wisdom or intelligence for anything if you find a use for a fighter to want a higher wisdom or intelligence then it isn't a dump stat.
It's a shame they can't take cross-class ranks in Knowledge (architecture and engineering) anymore.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Am I the only one who doesn't roleplay characters who in ways that directly threaten the party's goals? That seems like a **** move to me, unless your game is more character-driven than literally any non-PBP traditional RPG I've played.
I don't know if I'd call it outright sabotage to roleplay that way. You don't have to forget steps that would severely hamper the success of a plan and you don't have to unquestionably trust the obvious BBEG lackey in disguise. I'm more advocating for forgetting to buy that extra set of pitons so you either force the party to improvise a set of them or you put your trust in something like a snake oil salesman and waste an insignificant amount of coin buying "hair tonic" that isn't anything more than stinky oil.

Small things that will show that your character is below average in these aspects at times where it isn' inherently threatening to your parties goals. See Grog Strongjaw of Critical Role season 1. He's famous for being an illiterate barbarian who frequently mispronounced words and bumbled up the plans that the group set up. It almost never put the other party members in danger that they wouldn't have already gotten themselves in to.

Roleplay in itself implies that the moments you would be going out of your way to act in line with those ability scores that it would be a character driven moment. You don't have to make excuses in the middle of a life or death fight on why your Barbarian can't attack the wizard who cast disguise self right in front of him because he looks like one of the party members now. He isn't reasonably that stupid and probably wanted to hit that party member anyway.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not much, especially for Charisma. You usually only need one smart guy to pick up most Knowledge skills, and very rarely need more than one party face.


Depends in part on whether you're making your character as a character, or as a filler for a party role.




Yep. Lots of games have this, both tabletop and video. In the good ones, you need to choose which stats you dump based on what risks you're willing to take...but where's the risk in a fighter with the charisma of a dirty mop bucket or a druid dumber than their animal companion?

Nobody's saying that breaking archetypes with wizards with bulging pectorals or Nobel-Prize-worthy rangers should be encouraged. But I, at least, think that a wimpy wizard or idiot ranger should be in some meaningful way less capable than a strong wizard or smart ranger...and the wizard being a bad barbarian or the ranger being a bad wizard ain't it.

Sure, the wizard shouldn't value Str as much as Int, nor the ranger Int as much as Str. But in general, in everything from epic stories to cheap Final Fantasy knockoffs, a wimpy or foolish character faces some risks or consequences for not being as capable as most people.


If I'm the GM, the guy who really actively dumps INT or WIS or CHA is going to face a few situations where they're going to be challenged in those areas.

To me, though, it feels like both the writers of 5e and a lot of players (at least online) are actively discouraging the smart Ranger, or the tough Wizard, or the wise Rogue.




Having played through a whole WotC adventure path and a number of standalone adventures, I can confirm: only one of WotC's alleged "three pillars" sees any significant use in official adventures, and it just so happens to line up with the only one given significant attention in the rulebooks.


Yeah, that's really not shocking.




No, because characters can have high Intelligence and high Wisdom.


You radical! :wink:




Am I the only one who doesn't roleplay characters who in ways that directly threaten the party's goals? That seems like a **** move to me, unless your game is more character-driven than literally any non-PBP traditional RPG I've played.


Depends on the game. The tension is usually there in a White Wolf oWoD game (Vampire, Werewolf, etc), even if you're laughing off the old White Wolf angstburger approach and their foot-stomping pouty/haughty "you're not doing it right" comments. The various supernatural "societies" put a character in internal conflict between cooperation and competition in ways that a lot of RPG settings don't.

But IMO there are usually multiple "in character" decisions/actions, rather than a single "this is what my character would do, and the player can choose a less-contrary or less-disruptive action, or have the character act the choice in a more subtle or delayed manner than immediate "stonewalling".




How often do you roleplay walking down a hallway with more than five words? (Outside more narrative PBP games.)


You mean just the "narration" of walking down a hallway? Not much. I lost the thread of context on this though, so I'm not sure what the points were.




But they're the only flaws that D&D's mechanics allow. Which is one reason I like GURPS; you can make your character, say, greedy or cowardly or dyslexic and have that actually matter to the game. Sure, you can play your character as greedy/cowardly/dyslexic, but it's always better to have things you consider important represented mechanically, and I prefer being able to give a better explanation than "It's what my character would do, don't ask follow-up questions" when my character acts against the party's interests (and "It gave me enough points to buy that healing ability" is a dang good explanation).


Yeah, one of the things about D&D that throws me off after getting used to HERO, oWoD, etc, etc, is the lack of ability to actually attach certain things to the character's mechanics, such as flaws/shortcomings, and the lack of ability to trade off other things to get better Ability scores, or more Skills, or whatever.

[patchyman]

I mean, how far until it stops being interesting and starts being annoying? AFAIK there aren't really any major ways to use environmental hazards in combat, other than shoving people off cliffs, into pits, or into fires maybe? Otherwise you're a Fighter who can't do their job as the party striker or defender. And not being able to do your job feels bad.

IMO, it becomes annoying waaay before then, when you can’t build your Inquisitive Rogue because his mental stats stink, or your charismatic Battlemaster has a 10 Cha.

[Witty Username]

The "tactics" that animals use aren't the tactics -- actual tactics -- at the level being discussed here, and neither is "doing more than hulk smash". Even the Battlemaster's "maneuvers" aren't what's being discussed here.

There's no Tactics Skill in the RAW game, no way to get the proficiency bonus to apply to either in the "mapping the character" sense or to any tactics-focused rolls sense.

So what is there besides INT to actually measure that ability?
Initiative...?


Yep. A 5lb Crossbow (that doesn't add Str) to damage simply because it takes 12.5% of your light encumbrance (while using a variant rule) , that is useful for only levels 1-4 is definitely a reason to not dump strength.

Next argument.
Just to be clear, I agree with you that a crossbow is a not issue when strength is dumped.

[MeimuHakurei]

Small note to dump stats penalizing the character: You don't have to make the character roll with the bad stat for it to take effect. If a Cha 8 character doesn't participate in social challenges, they're already hampered by having the option to use negotation as a resolution tool cut off from them (beyond very basic conversations).

[Max_Killjoy]

Had a thought about this... maybe where some disconnect originates... do you look at 8 in a stat as 20% below "average" because it's 2 lower than 10, or do you look at it as 5% below average because it causes a -1 shift (which is 5%) on a 1d20 result?

[Reynaert]

Had a thought about this... maybe where some disconnect originates... do you look at 8 in a stat as 20% below "average" because it's 2 lower than 10, or do you look at it as 5% below average because it causes a -1 shift (which is 5%) on a 1d20 result?

Neither.
What I look at is 'how many people in the whole population are smarter than you'.
And I guess a lot of others do too, which is why I've heard the 3d6 bell curve mentioned several times in this thread. I guess they assume the average person in D&D-world has a 3d6 in each stat.

[Max_Killjoy]

Neither.
What I look at is 'how many people in the whole population are smarter than you'.
And I guess a lot of others do too, which is why I've heard the 3d6 bell curve mentioned several times in this thread. I guess they assume the average person in D&D-world has a 3d6 in each stat.

A 3d6 bell curve makes an 8 even lower in comparison to the entire population.

On 1d20, 60.00% of the population has a 9 or better INT. https://anydice.com/program/212

On 3d6, 69.38% of the population has a 9 or better INT. https://anydice.com/program/914

(Neither of which I'd assert matches the actual distribution of INT in a typical human population, for that I'd need to go do some refresher reading.)

[MaxWilson]

Had a thought about this... maybe where some disconnect originates... do you look at 8 in a stat as 20% below "average" because it's 2 lower than 10, or do you look at it as 5% below average because it causes a -1 shift (which is 5%) on a 1d20 result?

The former. It's 25% of the way towards the intellect of a lizard, and 20% of the way towards the intellect of a mushroom.

[Constructman]

The former. It's 25% of the way towards the intellect of a lizard, and 20% of the way towards the intellect of a mushroom.

Kobolds have 8 Int, but that ain't stopping Tucker.

[sleepy hedgehog]

I only read through about 1/2 the thread, but...

I never felt the issue is with dump stats.
Nor is the issue with high stats.
Both high and low stats make the character more interesting than 12's across the board.

The primary thing that bothers me is the fact that characters often end up feeling samey.
Like if I went to three different campaigns and looked at the party wizard, often they would all be really close.
And that the characters felt a little too "perfect"

Back in 3.5 I found a solution that my group liked.
Everyone rolled 3d6 (or 4d6d1 if they preferred) in order.
And those were the floor stats of the character.
The players would then point buy, but their stats started at those values, and could be increased from there.
So the better you rolled, the less control you had.

The idea was it represented is that intrinsically, everyone is better and worse at certain things.
But also that they could focus on and improve themselves in certain aspects.
(Also to add some randomness into character creation, without punishing poor rollers)

[crayzz]

Setting aside the fact that it seems like people are doing that thing where the latch onto the specifics of a single example, evidently do they can ignore the actual point...

Anything from "Orcs are likely to try this sort of trick in this terrain, so we should set up our ambush there to counter" in a small party to "Don't pursue! Their retreat is a trap!" in mass combat to whatever.

(Maybe it could just as easily be WIS as INT in some situations, but since a min-max Fighter is about as likely to dump WIS down to 8 as they are INT... that's largely moot to the actual point.)

I mean, I think this disconnect we have just can't be bridged then. I expect children to be able to reason at that level. I've seen children reason at that level when playing games like tag, or paintball, or whatever. Those tactics don't exactly scream "genius tactician" to me, and it would not surprise me if someone with 8 int (i.e. someone kinda slow) and combat experience was able to use them.


A 3d6 bell curve makes an 8 even lower in comparison to the entire population.

On 1d20, 60.00% of the population has a 9 or better INT. https://anydice.com/program/212

On 3d6, 69.38% of the population has a 9 or better INT. https://anydice.com/program/914

(Neither of which I'd assert matches the actual distribution of INT in a typical human population, for that I'd need to go do some refresher reading.)

I think you're confusing the frequency of a value with the actual value. The bell curve (and IQ scale) measures frequency. The frequencies of values above and below a certain value don't tell you anything about what those values actually are or what they mean.

I think it makes sense to roughly tie the 3d6 roll to the bell curve for human intelligence, and if you do that you find that an 8 int roughly matches an IQ of about 85-90 (7.54 would be exactly 85). That isn't a major impediment to reasoning skills, that's just kinda slow. This bears out in the mechanics as well: an 8 int is a -1, it's someone who will beat an int 10 in a contest with considerable frequency. They'll tend to do slightly worse, and they have a lower floor and lower ceiling for what they can do, but it just isn't a major difference.

It doesn't matter if you look map it to a bell curve or consider the game mechanics, an 8 int just isn't hopelessly stupid. If you're in an RP scenario that isn't governed by game mechanics (tactics, or planning in general, or anything else) letting a player RP an 8 int character as moderately competent within their own field makes perfect sense.

[Tanarii]

Small note to dump stats penalizing the character: You don't have to make the character roll with the bad stat for it to take effect. If a Cha 8 character doesn't participate in social challenges, they're already hampered by having the option to use negotation as a resolution tool cut off from them (beyond very basic conversations).
Yes. But for that to be the case, the stat has to apply to rolls in a related situation in the first place.

For example, 5e Intelligence and Wisdom has nothing to do with tactical ability. That's purely player skill. Personally I'm perfectly happy with that. Neither of those things map to tactical and strategic skills in real life either, so its a place where the abstract rules model reality quite well.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The primary thing that bothers me is the fact that characters often end up feeling samey.
Like if I went to three different campaigns and looked at the party wizard, often they would all be really close.

Is this an actual play problem, though? Each character is only played at one table. I can easily imagine a retro game where each class comes with exactly one build: pick the class, get the build, go.

[patchyman]

I tell my players before the game starts that while cooperation with other players that can complement your weaknesses is strongly encouraged, you should never assume that your weakness won’t come up.

Your dwarven barbarian may have dumped Cha, but he is still the party face when dealing with a dwarven warband that doesn’t speak Common. The ranger still makes Int checks to learn about the monster they are tracking, not the wizard with the Acolyte background.

[patchyman]

The primary thing that bothers me is the fact that characters often end up feeling samey.
Like if I went to three different campaigns and looked at the party wizard, often they would all be really close.
And that the characters felt a little too "perfect")

TBH, I think this is more of a wizard problem than a stat problem. I don’t think you get the same problem in 5e with Fighters, Rogues, Warlocks or even Sorcerers.

[noob]

TBH, I think this is more of a wizard problem than a stat problem. I don’t think you get the same problem in 5e with Fighters, Rogues, Warlocks or even Sorcerers.

It is because wizards are encouraged to either supermax int or ignore int entirely.
If a wizard ignore int then it will put a lot in str, dex, con and wisdom(charisma mages are a bad idea)
If a wizard max int then it will complete with points in dex and con.
Meanwhile a fighter have a choice between str and dex and warlocks or sorcerers max charisma and nobody cares or find weird when someone max charisma.

[Constructman]

It is because wizards are encouraged to either supermax int or ignore int entirely.
If a wizard ignore int then it will put a lot in str, dex, con and wisdom(charisma mages are a bad idea)
If a wizard max int then it will complete with points in dex and con.

What sort of spells is the no-Int Wizard taking?

[noob]

What sort of spells is the no-Int Wizard taking?

There is a bunch of threads about those: ideally they either take spells where succeeding the save does not cancels entirely the spell(or which have no save nor attack roll), spells which are useful independently of working on opponents and also some odd spells like whatever was that aoe constant damage spell which worked great when you have someone grappling an opponent on the spot.
The better physical stats allows to manage better with weapons at low level and a huge proportion of the utility spells are ritual cast or stuff you can do in down time.

[MaxWilson]

What sort of spells is the no-Int Wizard taking?

Obvious candidates include Animate Dead, Wall of Force, Haste, Teleport, Misty Step, Polymorph, and even Fireball (save for half = still pretty good damage).

[Kyutaru]

Obvious candidates include Animate Dead, Wall of Force, Haste, Teleport, Misty Step, Polymorph, and even Fireball (save for half = still pretty good damage).

I'm just imagining someone roleplaying the dumbest wizard in the world now. Has an Int of 8 and just doesn't like studying. He only knows magic because he cheats at everything.

[JumboWheat01]

I'm just imagining someone roleplaying the dumbest wizard in the world now. Has an Int of 8 and just doesn't like studying. He only knows magic because he cheats at everything.

...I kinda want to see such a character now. I think they would be somewhat fun to play with.

[crayzz]

After a brief internet search, as far as I can tell, Ogre Mages aren't a thing in 5e?

I wanna make a reoccuring NPC ogre mage that's just so completely dumb. Dumb as a bag of rocks but viciously cunning in combat. Every single one of its 5 int points is focused on two things: meat and murdering whatever is in its way.