STR is way too high, INT is presumably too low, and for a typical Cute Baby, the CHA is way too low.Equally unsurprisingly, I can't help but continue the spiral of geekiness. Or at least, it inspires me to reconsider ability scores and what they mean. And to argue. Which is probably a given.
- STR too high: if I had to guess, I'd say these are ye olde Edition of the First stats, where 3 is the minimum. But assuming that a modern baby would be at least 3.5ed, a more appropriate STR would be 1 (same as a toad or bat), 2 at the outside (According the PH, equivalent to a...rat swarm? How am I supposed to interpret that?) Dammit, this whole "arguing with Jacob" plan seems to be falling apart.
- INT too low: ah, now the argument will begin in earnest! D&D INT is sometimes described as "IQ", but it's not potential for learning, reasoning and knowledge. How many languages does a baby speak? What bonus should they get for Knowledge checks? The obvious answers to these questions suggest INT of 6 is far too high, not too low. Animals have INT scores of 1 or 2 (Camels, 1; dog, tiger, horse, 2. Apparently some game designer had a bad camel experience and is exacting retribution.) When the kid's old enough to learn tricks like smiling or the cute waving/fist clenching thing, you can proudly proclaim them to have a 2 INT. Don't fret: it'll go up like a point every 6 months. Then they'll be smarter than you, but don't fret about that either: puberty'll hit and dumb 'em down to your level again. And that's my point -- a little more on that in a sec.
- CHA way too low: regardless of ye olde "18 max" rules (you could argue that babyhood is some sort of demigod status), this cuts to the complicated heart of what CHA is supposed to represent. Are babies charismatic? Well, heck yeah: they're fascinating, everyone can't keep their eyes off them, and their powers of persuasion and influence are legendary. But (except family members -- huge circumstance bonus!) do they attract followers? Do they inspire morale in those they lead? Do they lead at all? If I were forced, I'd say CHA of 18 is justifiable (not least because being cute is basically the only thing babies have going for them, and that's half the point of the joke), but more is just going down the "No, you've got a Charisma of a million zillion billion, yes you do!" path of treacly silliness.
From this we derive two observations of possible worth. The first is that the D&D ability system is really designed with the short term in mind -- ability scores would dramatically change over a character's whole lifetime, but we generally only see them for a snapshot of a few years or less, and typically the ones whose ability scores matter are in young adulthood, when score changes would be slower than youth or old age. Although the DMG of my youth did have a piece about score changes as one advances through age categories, it almost never got referred to...unless I was trying to abuse the system to generate unreasonable ability scores.
The second is that ability scores are couched in terms that suggest they represent some weird amalgam of many different features, but in game terms are used to represent a relatively small number of effects. "Strength" is supposed to represent how much ya bench, but its greatest game effect is on battle prowess, which presumably involves more than just literal strength. And it's the clearest one. INT, WIS, and CHA are all representations of a host of features, often overlapping: is the ability to present a well-reasoned argument because of INT or CHA? Moreover, all the abilities encompass properties that don't have much correlation: an excellent lockpicker can easily be clumsy or slow, a person's field of knowledge can be deep but narrow, and as has been pointed out a thousand times, ugly people can be powerful leaders.
A fair bit of the time, this "fuzziness" of what the abilities really mean is fine in game terms - we just need a little plus or minus to dice rolls, and the player can describe the source of that little bonus or penalty however they like, whenever it comes up. But every once in a while it exposes the "gaminess" of the rules. It can be hard to countenance when PC A fails at a strength check that NPC B succeeds at due to the luck of the dice, when A is "stronger" than B.
