Discourage stat dumping

[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.

[Moxxmix]

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.)

Hmm. With the 3d6 roll, I get 74.07% getting a 9 or better.

Regardless, treating Int as mapping to an IQ range is not entirely incorrect. (Most of the problem comes from splitting mental stats into Int and Wis.) One standard deviation (equivalent to 85-115 IQ) would be an 8-13 on 3d6. The real-life variation within that range is extremely small, and unlikely to be all that noticeable during daily interactions, and that matches the fact that the mod range is only -1 to +1.

Two standard deviations covers 5-16, so the lower and upper 2% are covered by 3-4 and 17-18.

Realistically, there's nothing wrong with an 8 in a stat. Only being able to jump 8 feet instead of 10 feet shouldn't really matter, except that holes that you have to jump are sized for squares on a map intended for miniatures, and thus always get 5 foot increments. That's a problem with whoever designed the hole, not the stat itself. Having an 8 Int just means not being able to reach a DC 20 if you don't have proficiency in the specific skill, though the real problem is the absolute divide between succeeding and failing.

~~~

For a personal anecdote, I compare myself with a couple of my friends.

I do great with math, programming, and science. I'm also good at writing and editing.
Friend A is mediocre in math, but is an absolute font of trivia, primarily mundane trivia (given he works in a library, this is incredibly useful) and movie actor knowledge. He's also good at crafting and painting.
Friend B is middling at the above stuff, but is fantastic at history and culture, of places all around the world. He's also good at design and editing.

I would guess that there's not more than a +2 mod difference between us, if you translated respective IQs to Int scores (though I'm only guessing on IQs). However if you asked Friend B about who played some role in some movie, he'd know the answer 90% or more of the time, and I'd be lucky to guess correctly more than 5% of the time. If you wanted to know some facet of life in Victorian era, England, Friend B would have an 80% chance or better, while the other two of us would likely just shrug our shoulders. Etc.

If I were to approximate our specialties in game skills, Friend B would be a History major, Friend A might have Streetwise, while I would specialize in Arcana. The thing is, the few points of proficiency, or even including the underlying Int differences, don't reflect the massive differences in capability within those specialties.

I suppose you might say we have Expertise bonuses in our respective fields, which would raise up the total bonus significantly due to the double impact of proficiency. A +4 proficiency with Expertise bonus and, say, +3 from Int would total +11. Compared to a +2 Int with no proficiency at all, and you could see a significant gap open up in performance between the two 'characters'.

~~~

The reason to have dump stats in the first place is to get the points you need to buy high stats somewhere else. That itself is a reflection on the system's dependency on those stats for basic effectiveness. Fundamentally, the "dump stat" has to exist. The problem is, what happens next?

Any stat itself being low is not the problem. The problem is that it carries with it the implication that the character is absolute crap at any skill that falls under that stat, when that really shouldn't be the case. As such, I'd look into a way to boost proficiencies to allow characters to better differentiate themselves. That is, give a free Expertise bonus to all characters, perhaps at 1st level (in which case it automatically grants proficiency), or maybe 5th (in which case you have to already have proficiency), that characters can spend on any Int or Wis skills. (Notably: Not weapon skills, as that's likely to lead more towards trying to game the system. Other skills are iffy. Maybe make it so you can choose any skill based on your two lowest stats?)

(The other change I'd make is to the composition of the stats themselves, which is something I'm exploring in another thread.)

Honestly, you shouldn't be trying to discourage dump stats. You should instead be encouraging people to have competency even when the stat a given skill is based on is low. An 8 Int doesn't mean you're dumb, it just means you're slow. Someone who's slow can still become an expert of history (eg: a kobold lorekeeper); it may just take them a bit longer to reach that level of expertise. A small, low-Str person could still be a great swimmer or climber, leveraging her small form to compensate for a low Str.

The main reason I think this doesn't happen more often is that the dump stat is obviously not the main class stat, and most of the skills you're allowed to buy are often tied to your main class stat. A Wizard will never get skill in Athletics, so treating Str as a dump stat will always carry with it the stigma of a lack of skill in anything within that stat. You might be able to get some skills from a background, but not always. You can only get Athletics from Outlander, Sailor, and Soldier backgrounds. If you make a tomboy noble's daughter who was sent to wizard school, but spent more time exploring the woods than in the library, she still won't have any skill in Athletics.

Likewise, the barbarian with the crappy Cha can still be hella intimidating. Some say that you need to use a different base stat, such as Str, but I believe the above could be a better approach.

~~~

I think I like that as a potential solution.

All characters: At 1st level you may choose a skill from the skills available under the stats in which you have your two lowest scores. You gain proficiency and Expertise with that skill.

[Sigreid]

I guess I don't understand the premise of the OP. Whether you roll, point buy or standard array, one of your stats is going to be the lowest. That's just the way it works.

[GlenSmash!]

I guess I don't understand the premise of the OP. Whether you roll, point buy or standard array, one of your stats is going to be the lowest. That's just the way it works.

I once point bought a 13,13,13,12,12,12 Variant Human with half feat for 14,14,14,12,12,12. So I guess you don't have to have a lowest stat.

But I did like 14,14,13,13,11,8 for 14,14,14,14,12,8 better so I'll still take that dump stat.

[Sigreid]

I once point bought a 13,13,13,12,12,12 Variant Human with half feat for 14,14,14,12,12,12. So I guess you don't have to have a lowest stat.

But I did like 14,14,13,13,11,8 for 14,14,14,14,12,8 better so I'll still take that dump stat.

Fair enough, but the main point is that pretty much any character is going to have a lowest stat, and any rational player is going to put it in the stat they depend on least. For a fighter that's likely to be either Intelligence or maybe Dexterity if they're a heavy armor guy.

[GlenSmash!]

Fair enough, but the main point is that pretty much any character is going to have a lowest stat, and any rational player is going to put it in the stat they depend on least. For a fighter that's likely to be either Intelligence or maybe Dexterity if they're a heavy armor guy.

I dump Cha before Int personally. I'm not interested in winning friends and influencing people in my D&D escapism.

But I'd rather not have my brain scooped out by an Intellect Devourer if I can avoid it.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Spoiler: Roleplaying

Show

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.

I don't see those as being equivalent. "You know that thing you told me to buy? Well, my character is stoopid, so he didn't! Hah, what shenanigans." That doesn't sound insignificant to me...or plausible, even for a stupid character.

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.

D&D for a live audience is different than D&D with friends. In the former, your main goal is to tell a story entertaining to the audience; in the latter, your main goal is some combination of having fun and helping the rest of the group have fun. Elan, Belkar, and Grog fit well into the former category; screwing up plans is entertaining for the audience. They don't fit so well into the latter, because deliberately messing up your friends' plans is a good way to make them less friendly.

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

Three points.
First, who cares? If you have three party faces because character-as-character, cool, you have two more than you need. I said "you only need one," not "you can't have more than one" or whatever you're trying to misinterpret my statement as.
Second, why are those mutually-exclusive? I've built many characters by first figuring out their role and class, then using the handful of bones that gives me as part of the skeleton I build for my character concept.
Third, what do you even mean, "make your character as a character"? That sounds like the kind of phrase that's vague enough to be used as a bludgeon against anyone who isn't roleplaying the way you like. Does it mean not considering the mechanical side of the game at all? Creating a character without worrying about the constraints of the game is nice and all, but that's not really creating "a D&D character"; that's creating a character and squeezing them into a D&D game.

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.

How? Wisdom is easy, Perception and a ton of saves. How are you going to find an Int/Cha challenge that the barbarian won't just let the wizard/paladin handle without a first thought, without making it contrived? Are you planning to spam both of the spells which require an Intelligence or Charisma saving throw?

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.

It bugs me even though I've barely played any of those systems. A bit of GURPS, a bit more of Shadowrun (which in some editions has a limited version of that flaw/perk system), tons of D&D and Pathfinder. I'd introduce my current group to GURPS if I wasn't elbow-deep in Rise of the Runelords.

Spoiler: Related Issues

Show

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).

Which only matters if every PC has reason to participate in negotiation to resolve conflicts.
In combat, everyone needs to pull their weight; a party member who's incompetent at combat holds the party back. In social situations (and most exploratory situations), you only need one party member be good at socializing (or exploring) to bring the whole party along.
It's basically impossible to change that without A. bringing social situations into the kind of focus implied by putting that pillar on the same level as the combat pillar and B. overhauling how social situations are resolved. But that's probably a matter for another thread...

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.

If you're just here to roll dice, then it doesn't matter...but most people play TRPGs to play a character that is uniquely theirs. It's a big appeal of many VRPGs, especially in the WRPG genre. It doesn't matter if the main storyline of Skyrim or Fallout 4 isn't as vibrant and well-written as a Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest game's, because it's loose enough to fit your Dragonborn or your Vault Dweller. It's perfectly fine to want to play D&D like Dragon Quest, but many people would rather play it as Skyrim.

(If you don't ignore the point of my analogy to argue that D&D shouldn't be taking inspiration from video games, I won't start comparing the quality of storytelling in AAA VRPGs and top-tier adventure paths.)

Spoiler: Asides

Show

Initiative...?

That's just reflexes. It only affects when you act, not how effective those actions are. (Also, it's Dexterity-based.)

[Wizard_Lizard]

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.

That would be... ....Interesting...

[MaxWilson]

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

They're now called Oni.

[crayzz]

They're now called Oni.

I'm still gonna make a really stupid ogre necromancer/transmuter NPC. You don't need any int to raise the dead or turn yourself into a T-Rex.

[Max_Killjoy]

In response to GreatWyrmGold:

Spoiler: Roleplaying

Show

D&D for a live audience is different than D&D with friends. In the former, your main goal is to tell a story entertaining to the audience; in the latter, your main goal is some combination of having fun and helping the rest of the group have fun. Elan, Belkar, and Grog fit well into the former category; screwing up plans is entertaining for the audience. They don't fit so well into the latter, because deliberately messing up your friends' plans is a good way to make them less friendly.

I think at some point we need to start a list of things that work* in authorial fiction but do not work (bordering on objectively) in RPGs.

* Subjectively work... personally I loath the perpetual screw-up character who never grows out of it and never goes away, as if the whole reason for their existence and sole defining trait as a person is "I screw stuff up". It's not funny, it's not entertaining, it's just somewhere between irksome and sad.

Three points.
First, who cares? If you have three party faces because character-as-character, cool, you have two more than you need. I said "you only need one," not "you can't have more than one" or whatever you're trying to misinterpret my statement as.

Second, why are those mutually-exclusive? I've built many characters by first figuring out their role and class, then using the handful of bones that gives me as part of the skeleton I build for my character concept.

Third, what do you even mean, "make your character as a character"? That sounds like the kind of phrase that's vague enough to be used as a bludgeon against anyone who isn't roleplaying the way you like. Does it mean not considering the mechanical side of the game at all? Creating a character without worrying about the constraints of the game is nice and all, but that's not really creating "a D&D character"; that's creating a character and squeezing them into a D&D game.

1. I'm not trying to misinterpret your statement -- really. It's just that to me "the smart guy" or "the face" don't sound like characters-as-people, they sound like characters-as-job-fillers in an RPG, or characters-as-trope-fillers in a work of fiction.

2. As far as I recall, every character I've built role-first or "splat" first -- "I'm going to play a Fighter" or "I'm going to play the face" -- has come out uninspired and flat, even NPCs, even characters for fiction. At most, I have vague notions about those things and then come up with ideas for characters-as-people who might fit those a very broad idea of "the face" or "a monk".

3. As in, a character, as in a "person who could be real". Real people don't fit the Five Man Band trope or whatever trope, meant to fill in a rolle in a game or in a story.

I've almost never played an RPG PC that I didn't spend hours and hours trying to flesh out before the campaign started... the idea of just slapping Race, Background, Class, and a few descriptors down and winging it just does not work for me. Had to do it once for a surprise game, ended up making a vampire with Agent Smith's personality, at least I pulled off the deadpan for 5 hours straight without cracking a single smile or laugh. And had to do it once for a Con, luckily they used the example characters from the RPG's book and I got the one that I kinda liked already.

How? Wisdom is easy, Perception and a ton of saves. How are you going to find an Int/Cha challenge that the barbarian won't just let the wizard/paladin handle without a first thought, without making it contrived? Are you planning to spam both of the spells which require an Intelligence or Charisma saving throw?

Eventually make them have to talk their way in or out of something without the party "face".

Eventually make them have to figure something out without the party "smart guy".

Etc.

It bugs me even though I've barely played any of those systems. A bit of GURPS, a bit more of Shadowrun (which in some editions has a limited version of that flaw/perk system), tons of D&D and Pathfinder. I'd introduce my current group to GURPS if I wasn't elbow-deep in Rise of the Runelords.

It would be great to be able to say "you know, I don't really need that level X class power, it's completely off-concept, how about I just take a Feat or some Ability points or some Skills/Proficiencies or some combo.

[MaxWilson]

I'm still gonna make a really stupid ogre necromancer/transmuter NPC. You don't need any int to raise the dead or turn yourself into a T-Rex.

Sure. Low-int Necromancers are also great. You can even wear heavy armor + plate without real penalties--sure, you can't cast spells, but you can Dodge while shrieking to your skeletal archers, "Kill them! Kill them all!"

[Kyutaru]

Sure. Low-int Necromancers are also great. You can even wear heavy armor + plate without real penalties--sure, you can't cast spells, but you can Dodge while shrieking to your skeletal archers, "Kill them! Kill them all!"

I think this character already existed in He-man and the Masters of the Universe.

[Witty Username]

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.

Ogre mage = Oni the editions of dnd apparently have a history of equating the two or replacing one with another.

[OverLordOcelot]

The main reason I think this doesn't happen more often is that the dump stat is obviously not the main class stat, and most of the skills you're allowed to buy are often tied to your main class stat. A Wizard will never get skill in Athletics, so treating Str as a dump stat will always carry with it the stigma of a lack of skill in anything within that stat. You might be able to get some skills from a background, but not always. You can only get Athletics from Outlander, Sailor, and Soldier backgrounds. If you make a tomboy noble's daughter who was sent to wizard school, but spent more time exploring the woods than in the library, she still won't have any skill in Athletics.

That's not true using the standard rules - PHB p125 "To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds." Also on the same page." So unless there's a house rule restricting backgrounds, you can get any two skills you want from your background. The tomboy noble's daughter could just pick the feature of the noble's background, choose athletics and one other skill, and choose two languages or tool proficiencies in RAW 5e or Adventurer's League play.

[Tanarii]

So unless there's a house rule restricting backgrounds, you can get any two skills you want from your background.

This is not true. Customizing the backgrounds is also explicitly is the purview of the DM. The only 'house rule' is to suggest the player can do it without any DM involvement. DMG p286.

[OverLordOcelot]

This is not true. Customizing the backgrounds is also explicitly is the purview of the DM. The only 'house rule' is to suggest the player can do it without any DM involvement. DMG p286.

You are completely wrong, forbidding cusomized backgrounds is a house rule. I quoted the PHB stating that players can customize the background of their characters. It is not listed as an optional rule, and is in the PHB, not the DMG. It is as much the purview of the DM as a player picking their class, background, or subclass in the first place. The only thing in the DMG p286 is creating new background features, which is explicitly the purview of the DM, but creating a new feature is distinct from selecting one, or selecting a skill, which are allowed in the PHB and not under any optional section. Just like adding new classes is the purview of the DM, but using an existing class or selecting a skill for that class is part of the standard rules.

Obviously whoever is running a game can house rule away basic character building features, but they can't magically make a house rule not a house rule.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You are completely wrong, forbidding cusomized backgrounds is a house rule. I quoted the PHB stating that players can customize the background of their characters. It is not listed as an optional rule, and is in the PHB, not the DMG. It is as much the purview of the DM as a player picking their class, background, or subclass in the first place. The only thing in the DMG p286 is creating new background features, which is explicitly the purview of the DM, but creating a new feature is distinct from selecting one, or selecting a skill, which are allowed in the PHB and not under any optional section. Just like adding new classes is the purview of the DM, but using an existing class or selecting a skill for that class is part of the standard rules.

Obviously whoever is running a game can house rule away basic character building features, but they can't magically make a house rule not a house rule.

This is correct. The given backgrounds are explicitly only examples, to be further customized by player, DM, or both.

[Tanarii]

You are completely wrong, forbidding cusomized backgrounds is a house rule.

Afraid not. The PHB lets the player know how to customize, but the DMG makes it clear they're the ones responsible for it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Afraid not. The PHB lets the player know how to customize, but the DMG makes it clear they're the ones responsible for it.

By the phb, the only part needing DM intervention is new features. Choosing new skills is up to the player. Otherwise you couldn't use any other personality traits, which is nonsense. This is all clear from the phb text.

[crayzz]

RAW, the PHB explicitly allows players to create custom backgrounds withing specific limits.

The DMG also has a section on creating backgrounds. That whole section focuses on creating backgrounds specific to the campaign setting, one example being an acolyte of candlekeep, which grants the player easier access to candlekeep.

RAW, custom backgrounds are allowed, and RAI seems to be "players can create custom generic backgrounds, while campaign/setting specific backgrounds fall under the purview of the GM."