D&D 5E Intelligence Ratings

[Hriston]

Intelligence is a funny beast. I've had people (not just one) seriously argue that the INT 6 and understanding a language steed from the paladin Find Steed was still non-intelligent, because there was no definition of "intelligent" in 5e and a INT 3 human (minimum roll) was intelligent but an INT 6 beast was not. This came up because of the section in the PHB about intelligent vs. controlled mounts.

I'd say 4 was the minimum INT to be considered an intelligent creature for mounted combat purposes. So you would only have the option to control a non-intelligent (INT 1) mount or a mount with animal intelligence (INT 2-3), provided it has had the required training of course. As for the paladin's steed, the spell itself describes it as intelligent.

I bring this up not to say this endeavor is doomed (DOOMED!), but to think about if your ratings still make sense when applied around, both withing the normal ranges for humanoids and also when applied to non-humanoids. For instance, if generic people follow the 3d6 bell curve, then about 1 in 8 is INT 7 or less and about 1 in 20 is INT 5 or less. I don't think we'd say 1 in 20 people are best described as "semi-intelligent".

As I mentioned in my OP, my ratings don't assume a general population that follows a 3d6 distribution of scores. The 'averaging' method of ability score generation is assumed for the general human population, i.e. 3d{2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5}. Under that distribution, less than 0.5%, or 1 in 200, have an INT of 7 or less after the human ability score increase is applied.

 

[Blue]

I'd say 4 was the minimum INT to be considered an intelligent creature for mounted combat purposes.

And this is why INT is a funny beast. A INT 3 character of any race that doesn't have a INT bonus is considered intelligent enough to be a playable character , but something else with the same INT is not.

As I mentioned in my OP, my ratings don't assume a general population that follows a 3d6 distribution of scores. The 'averaging' method of ability score generation is assumed for the general human population, i.e. 3d{2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5}. Under that distribution, less than 0.5%, or 1 in 200, have an INT of 7 or less after the human ability score increase is applied.

You're welcome to make up your own distribution, but that does not mean that they apply to the rest of people playing D&D who aren't using your house rule.

 

[Hriston]

And this is why INT is a funny beast. A INT 3 character of any race that doesn't have a INT bonus is considered intelligent enough to be a playable character , but something else with the same INT is not.

A creature of any INT is considered playable. An 'unintelligent' mount can act independently. You just have the option to control it if you want to, whereas with intelligent creatures you do not.

You're welcome to make up your own distribution, but that does not mean that they apply to the rest of people playing D&D who aren't using your house rule.

I didn't make it up. Gary Gygax did. Assuming a 3d6 distribution for the general population is equally a house-rule. D&D only ever used 3d6 for exceptional characters.

 

[Kithas]

I would agree that the usefulness of IQ test numbers when conceptualizing how a character of x int would act is not super helpful. Describing more stereo types would be more useful. Some examples from how I see the stats.
The kid who never studies or does his homework but still can get b's on tests; likely a high wisdom. Can make inferences based on the questions and make enough connections to figure it out.
Contrast that with a student that gets straight A's but when given new material, from an unfamiliar subject, doesn't know where to begin and cannot move forward.
The reason that training(proficiency) in skills can replace higher overall knowledge is because it is a specific area of expertise. A very intelligent mathmetician with an int of 18, would not know as much as a less capable engineer, int 16, in the field of engineering. The former would likely be able to figure it out but obviously would be at a disadvantage.

Anothec way I look at it; int answers the questions 'what?' while wisdom answers the question 'why?'

 

[Blue]

A creature of any INT is considered playable. An 'unintelligent' mount can act independently. You just have the option to control it if you want to, whereas with intelligent creatures you do not.

And we're back to the exact same issue I mentioned earlier in the thread.

A character using the official roll method can end up with a 3 INT and be considered intelligent, but YOU wouldn't consider an animal with that INT to be intelligent (as per the Intelligent Mount section).

Let's try this - do you consider an INT 3 intelligent without knowing the source, such as a rolled PC or an animal? Or does the source change what the number means to you?

I didn't make it up. Gary Gygax did. Assuming a 3d6 distribution for the general population is equally a house-rule. D&D only ever used 3d6 for exceptional characters.

True, but Gary made up THAC0 as well, and it doesn't mean that it can be used to make rulings in 5e.

 

[Oofta]

A character using the official roll method can end up with a 3 INT and be considered intelligent, but YOU wouldn't consider an animal with that INT to be intelligent (as per the Intelligent Mount section).

Let's try this - do you consider an INT 3 intelligent without knowing the source, such as a rolled PC or an animal? Or does the source change what the number means to you?

Assuming that the range of 3-18 covers the span of normal human capability, getting below a 3 would require illness/disease and above 18 is truly exceptional.

Where is it ever stated that rolling 3d6 "guarantees" a playable character?

In the real world we know what extremely low intelligence means. There are some unfortunate individuals with extremely low intelligence who simply cannot function independently, much less be bright enough to be effective in such a dynamic environment as adventurers face.

 

[Blue]

Where is it ever stated that rolling 3d6 "guarantees" a playable character?

In the real world we know what extremely low intelligence means. There are some unfortunate individuals with extremely low intelligence who simply cannot function independently, much less be bright enough to be effective in such a dynamic environment as adventurers face.

First of all, I did not say "playable", I said "Intelligent". As in can make their own decisions. Are you saying that if anyone rolled a INT that 5e does not allow them to play the character because they are not intelligent?

Also, on 3d6 (everyone but the heros), a "3" happens 1 in 216. That's not all that uncommon, and that's still readily function-able in society. At the 0.5% end of the "real world" intelligence curve is mild mental retardation, not even moderate much less severe or profound. Feel free to look at my other post for the math breakdown: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?562175-Intelligence-Ratings&p=7156961#post7156961

 

[Oofta]

First of all, I did not say "playable", I said "Intelligent". As in can make their own decisions. Are you saying that if anyone rolled a INT that 5e does not allow them to play the character because they are not intelligent?

Also, on 3d6 (everyone but the heros), a "3" happens 1 in 216. That's not all that uncommon, and that's still readily function-able in society. At the 0.5% end of the "real world" intelligence curve is mild mental retardation, not even moderate much less severe or profound. Feel free to look at my other post for the math breakdown: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?562175-Intelligence-Ratings&p=7156961#post7156961

I never claimed 3d6 was a good way of generating ability scores, the resulting distribution doesn't match well with reality. I agree that low numbers are far too common.

All we can say is that in D&D the normal range of human intelligence for non-heroes varies between 3 and 18 with an average of 10.5. Beyond that? Trying to fit a square peg (3d6) into a round hole (IQ).

That doesn't mean we can't infer what the designers think low intelligence means by looking at creatures such as ogres or mastiffs from the Monster Manual.

 

[Hriston]

A character using the official roll method can end up with a 3 INT and be considered intelligent, but YOU wouldn't consider an animal with that INT to be intelligent (as per the Intelligent Mount section).

On second thought, considering the only examples given of controllable mounts all have an INT 2, I think INT 3 creatures ought to be considered intelligent for mounted combat. I think it helps distinguish animals like lions, tigers, and wolves, which I don't imagine as accepting training as mounts very well, from the easier to control horses and mules. I said 4 earlier because I mis-remembered the chimera as having an INT 4 and being the lowest intelligence creature I know of that understands a language. It has a 3, however, which is what I now consider intelligent for mounted combat purposes. I have no trouble labeling it as the high end of "animal intelligence", however, and equating the intelligence of INT 3 PCs with that of other INT 3 creatures.

Let's try this - do you consider an INT 3 intelligent without knowing the source, such as a rolled PC or an animal?

Yes, I do.

Or does the source change what the number means to you?

No, it doesn't.

True, but Gary made up THAC0 as well, and it doesn't mean that it can be used to make rulings in 5e.

I don't know what rulings you mean, but I'm not trying to tell anyone how to run their games. I posted merely for the consideration of anyone that's interested.

 

[Hriston]

Score (frequency using 'averaging' dice +1)	Bonus	Range of Deviation IQ	Fantasy Rating
1 (0.00%)	-5	1-10	'Non'-intelligent or not ratable
2-3 (0.00%)	-4	10-28	'Animal' intelligence
4-5 (0.00%)	-3	28-46	Semi-intelligent
6-7 (0.46%)	-2	46-64	Low intelligence
8-9 (11.11%)	-1	64-82	Dull-witted
10-13 (76.84%)	+0 / +1	82-118	Average (human) intelligence
14-15 (11.11%)	+2	118-136	Highly intelligent
16-17 (0.46%)	+3	136-154	Genius intelligence
18-19 (0.00%)	+4	154-172	Supra-genius intelligence
20+ (0.00%)	+5 or more	172+	Godlike intelligence

I edited the OP to clarify that the table is not compatible with an assumption of a 3d6 distribution of scores in the general human population.