D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

Satyrn · Apr 1, 2016

Yardiff said:
Looks like this thread died.....

And since I was the last to post before death.....

I WIN!!! hahaha

Congratulations indeed. Your trophy is a stuffed Tarrasque head to hang on your wall.

Yardiff · Apr 1, 2016

Satyrn said:
Congratulations indeed. Your trophy is a stuffed Tarrasque head to hang on your wall.

Awesome!!!

Now to find a wall big enough...sigh.

Yardiff · Apr 1, 2016

Maxperson said:
That's okay. I'm sure you could play the corpse as if it were a genius.

Naw corpses aren't geniuses otherwise they wouldn't be corpses.

Yardiff · Apr 1, 2016

Here's how I've seen things thru the years (and 5e still follows this).

An ability score of 10 is average (10-11 since 3e), anything below 10 is not average.

An ability score between 8 and 13 is 'normal', anything below 8 is not 'normal'.

An ability score above 10, now 11, is not average but in a better way.

An ability score above 13 is not 'normal' but also in a better way.

Not sure if 5e follows the other editions in that a 3 int was the minimum needed to be able to understand and speak a language

This is from the Feeblemind spell...

'On a failed save, the creature’s Intelligence and Charisma scores become 1. The creature can’t cast spells, activate magic items, understand language, or communicate in any intelligible way. The creature can, however, identify its friends, follow them, and even protect them.'

So to me what your ability score is matters for RP stuff. Ability modifiers are how the Ability score is used in the mechanics of the game.

Maxperson · Apr 1, 2016

Yardiff said:
Naw corpses aren't geniuses otherwise they wouldn't be corpses.

They're just dead because they were waaaaaaaay too smart to go any further and end up incinerated by the dragon. Easier to raise this way.

pemerton · Apr 2, 2016

Yardiff said:
This is from the Feeblemind spell...

'On a failed save, the creature’s Intelligence and Charisma scores become 1. The creature can’t cast spells, activate magic items, understand language, or communicate in any intelligible way. The creature can, however, identify its friends, follow them, and even protect them.'

So to me what your ability score is matters for RP stuff. Ability modifiers are how the Ability score is used in the mechanics of the game.

Your quote from the Feeblemind spell description looks like a set of restrictions on action declaration - which the GM can and should enforce - not a set of instructions on how to roleplay the character.

Hriston · Apr 2, 2016

pemerton said:
Another point of objection might be that, at least in 1st ed AD&D, many NPCs are meant to have scores determined using "averaging" dice (treat 1s as 3s and 6s as 4s); but I think I'm the only posters to have pointed that out.

This is a good point, and it brings to my attention the fact that, with AD&D, Gygax abandons a straight 3d6 as a score generation method for any type of character and creates a firm distinction between what he calls "general" characters and the exceptional individuals that have a character class. Because an averaging d6 generates the set of numbers {2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5}, instead of {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}, general characters end up with scores between 6 and 15, with a much higher chance of a 10 or 11 (44.44% versus 25%) in a given ability. Furthermore, if we assume this is a clarificaton of Gygax's original intent (as I believe much of AD&D actually is), rather than a revision, then 3d6, as it is used in OD&D (not sure what Basic has to say on this matter), emerges as a method of generating scores for PCs that are more extreme (but not necessarily better) than the average character's, as it continues to do in AD&D for non-prime abilities in NPCs of an exceptional nature.

In fact, this gives me a great idea about doing a zero-level campaign where we roll our stats with averaging dice.

Changing this assumption about the distribution (or likelihood) of ability scores in the general population of a D&D world, of course, changes the relationship between the probability of a given ability score and the probability of a given IQ score. I've worked out the conversions for both methods of score generation, and the formula I've used to describe this relationship is: IQ=100+(Int-10.5)(15/s) where s is the standard deviation of the set of generated values. The standard deviation of 3d6 is about 2.96 whereas the standard deviation of 3 averaging d6 is about 1.66, so it changes the comparison significantly. To be clear, I'm using the definition of IQ that gives it a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. You could, of course, as @Maxperson has done in this thread, posit a type of fantasy IQ that has some other distribution.

I'm sharing the results for a few reasons. I think some might find it interesting, although I realize that @Ovinomancer in particular seems to be rather disapproving of "mathturbation", as he calls it, although he does seem to enjoy talking about it, and the flatulence of certain fantasy creatures, quite a bit. I myself have been won over by the averaging dice method, which comes close enough, at least at the lower end, to @Maxperson's Int x 10 formulation that it seems likely that he'll be as satisfied with the results as I am and may even claim to be vindicated by them. I must point out, however, that while Intelligence 5 does actually equate to an IQ of 50 under this method, as the Intelligence score rises above 11 the divergence from the Int x 10 formulation becomes more and more apparent. Also of note is how using averaging dice comes a little closer to the design ethos behind 5e's Commoner NPC with its straight 10s (or 11s, taking human racial bonuses into consideration) across the board. I've rounded the IQ scores to the nearest whole number, and I've highlighted in green the range of IQ scores that each method of score generation would produce for members of the general population.

Intelligence	IQ if using 3d6	IQ if using 3 avg d6
1	52	14
2	57	23
3	62	32
4	67	41
5	72	50
6	77	59
7	82	68
8	87	77
9	92	86
10	97	95
11	103	105
12	108	114
13	113	123
14	118	132
15	123	141
16	128	150
17	133	159
18	138	168
19	143	177
20	148	186
21	153	195
22	158	204
23	163	213
24	168	222
25	173	231
26	179	240
27	184	249
28	189	258
29	194	267
30	199	276

Hriston · Apr 2, 2016

Ovinomancer said:
Okay, I've no idea where you're veering now. While it's true that 3d6 isn't a normal distribution (it's a near normal distribution, which is a class of things that are often represented by normals because it's very useful and understandable to do so), you did represent earlier that you were matching the "normal' distribution of IQ to that of 3d6, and your justification was that they both had the same kind of distribution. I didn't mistake that.

No, my justification was that a particular IQ score would have the same theoretical probability of existing as a particular Intelligence score, so if the game we're playing is to compare the two things then we should take that into consideration. This has nothing to do with normal distribution per se, and the only reason I brought up normal distribution with reference to IQ was to explain how IQ is defined in terms of probability. The fact that you've responded mostly by challenging the validity of modeling IQ as a normal distribution is why I asked if you had actually read what I wrote. The way IQ itself is defined tells me that a given IQ score theoretically has a given probability. Questioning that assumption doesn't undermine my argument because doing so takes my argument completely out of context. I hope this is all much clearer now.