D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Yardiff]

Here's something from the 2e PHB....

'A semi-intelligent character (int 3 or 4) can speak (with difficulty) and is apt to react instinctively and impulsively. He is not hopeless as a PC but playing such a character is not easy.'

 

[Morinth]

It's easy to roleplay low-Int characters. Use small words, ignore people who use larger words, and don't ask for clarification if you don't understand what people are saying. If you see an opportunity to jump to a wrong conclusion, go for it. If someone asks you to relay a message, get it wrong. Ignore pretty much all written material in the environment. Don't plan. Don't think about the future or goals, live in the moment and satisfy the needs of the moment. Use your Charisma and Wisdom scores as a guide for how your personality plays out in most respects. A low-Int, but high-Cha character is going to be a lovable mascot that everyone feels protective toward. A low-Int, high-Wis character is going to be respected for her cunning and crafty nature.

 

[pemerton]

As to the notion that Intelligence equals IQ/10

<snip>

I think mapping the 3d6 bell curve to the IQ bell curve to be much more accurate, especially when you consider that, in the Monster Manual, Gygax gives an Intelligence of 17 or 18 as corresponding to a genius IQ, which is generally held to begin at a score of 140 to 145.

while some places might equal genius at 140+ IQ the monster manual reference doesn't.

Yardiff, why do you say that?

The whole point of Hriston's post is that IQ = INT*10 is not a rule of the game.

According to this chart, the point at which IQ reaches a bit less than 1 in 200 (which is the approximate incidence of 18 INT score on the 3d6 scale), is around 139 to 142 - more or less as [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] said.

Once INT 17 is factored in also, the incidence on the 3d6 scale is a bit less than 1 in 50, which on the linked chart is IQ 131 to 133.

On the 3d6 scale, the incidence of 5 INT or lower is 10 in 216, or a little less than 5%. On the linked chart that is around IQ 60. IQ 50 has an incidence of less than 1%, which (on the 3d6 scale) is closer to INT 3.

But INT has never been strictly correlative with IQ, as per the AD&D PHB (p 10) and DMG (p 15):

Intelligence is quite similar to what is currently known as intelligence quotient, but it also includes mnemonic ability, reasoning, and learning ability outside those measured by the written word.

The intelligence rating roughly corresponds to our modern "IQ" scores. However, it assumes mnemonic, reasoning, and learning ability skills in additional areas outside the written word.​

Similarity and rough correspondence are not synonyms for uniform correlation!

 

[Yardiff]

Let me as you pemerton, why do you think I said it?

If you tried hard enough you can find a website that will give you any answer you want, so linking a site with a chart of IQ stuff, doesn't prove your way of seeing things as being right, nor disprove the way others see them.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

How useful is an Int-to-IQ function, anyway? Most people don't know their own IQ, much less anybody else's. So a guideline like "Play an Int 5 character as an IQ of 70" is meaningless. Beyond "below average" I don't have any practical idea what that number entails. Is that Jayne Cobb level? Otto West level? Spongebob Squarepants level?

 

[Maxperson]

As to the notion that Intelligence equals IQ/10, it seems to come originally from a humorous article written by Brian Blume in Dragon #8, "So, You Want Realism in D&D?", published in July, 1977. The article humorously suggests alternative methods for generating PC ability scores based on the actual abilities of the players. To calculate Wisdom, for example, Blume suggests taking the number of hours per week spent "playing D&D or working on your D&D Campaign" and subtracting it from 20. For Intelligence, he suggests taking the result of your most recent IQ test and dividing by 10. Following such a method may in fact prevent the metagame and realism issues that some have pointed out in this thread, by preventing players from playing characters that have different cognitive abilities than they themselves do.

Personally, I think mapping the 3d6 bell curve to the IQ bell curve to be much more accurate, especially when you consider that, in the Monster Manual, Gygax gives an Intelligence of 17 or 18 as corresponding to a genius IQ, which is generally held to begin at a score of 140 to 145.

The 1e and 2e PHB/DMG also say that int equates to IQ, but doesn't give the translation. The official 3.5 Q&A says straight out that IQ = int x 10. There are probably other places it is mentioned as well. That one article is not the only place.

 

[Maxperson]

Let me as you pemerton, why do you think I said it?

If you tried hard enough you can find a website that will give you any answer you want, so linking a site with a chart of IQ stuff, doesn't prove your way of seeing things as being right, nor disprove the way others see them.

I'm also pretty sure the IQ ranges themselves have changed over time. In the 70s they were different than they are now.

 

[Hriston]

The 1e and 2e PHB/DMG also say that int equates to IQ, but doesn't give the translation. The official 3.5 Q&A says straight out that IQ = int x 10. There are probably other places it is mentioned as well. That one article is not the only place.

Well, considering that the article I referenced is a joke, it looks like the only official source for this is the 3.5 FAQ, and there it's presented as a "rule of thumb" rather than a precise measurement.

 

[Yardiff]

It was never meant to be a precise measurement.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, considering that the article I referenced is a joke, it looks like the only official source for this is the 3.5 FAQ, and there it's presented as a "rule of thumb" rather than a precise measurement.

A rule of thumb is still a rule. It was never supposed to be a precise measurement anyway. Nobody has ever claimed that the IQ was 144 or anything. A 14 just approximates (note the imprecision in approximates) a 140 IQ.