D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[dennis_johnjoe]

The ability scores are divided in half, physical (Str,Dex,con) and mental (int,wis,cha). So, the game makes physical checks easy to roleplay as they stand.

"Bob the Str 6 bard kicks the door down" (rolls 10) ...er no he doesn't.

But... Bob might have rolled 20 - success! A lucky punt under stress and Bob finds it within him to take out the door, no one argues with this outcome? And bob's entitled to have a go at the door.

And physical abilities don't exist round the table. You can't give Bob any help with the door from where your sitting.

Mental abilities are different. You and your character overlap completely in a role playing sense. The question is 'what is my character entitled to do?'

I get Iseriths point of view - whatever I decide to do - with the appropriate modifier eg. Bob's door.

Also, I get the other view that you shouldn't 'help' your character with your own real world intelligence.

Personally, I'd still play an int 5 character as slow but I wouldn't sit dumb with other PLAYERS when discussing what's going on. Having said that, if someone roleplays it another way and I buy it, it's cool.

But frogs are still frogs and they don't sit exams.

 

[Hriston]

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.

Yes, I understand the concept. My point is that it only appeared officially once, in an FAQ for a single edition (or part of one really). You have been claiming that it somehow applies to all of D&D since the early editions, and that just isn't true.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, I understand the concept. My point is that it only appeared officially once, in an FAQ for a single edition (or part of one really). You have been claiming that it somehow applies to all of D&D since the early editions, and that just isn't true.

It is an absolute fact that since 1e, int has equated to real world IQ. In 1e and 2e it says so in the PHB and DMG. The hard cover books may not have been IQ = int x 10, but it was close. The chart in the MM giving the IQ categories for int scores is pretty close to those numbers. The statement in the 1e PHB and DMG that int is roughly equal to modern IQ strongly suggests the x 10 ratio or something very, very close to it.

Arguing that 3e is the only edition to have IQ officially equate to int is disingenuous at best.

 

[Hriston]

It is an absolute fact that since 1e, int has equated to real world IQ. In 1e and 2e it says so in the PHB and DMG. The hard cover books may not have been IQ = int x 10, but it was close. The chart in the MM giving the IQ categories for int scores is pretty close to those numbers. The statement in the 1e PHB and DMG that int is roughly equal to modern IQ strongly suggests the x 10 ratio or something very, very close to it.

Arguing that 3e is the only edition to have IQ officially equate to int is disingenuous at best.

Pretending like I wasn't just talking about Int x 10 is disingenuous. And no, the MM chart doesn't equate to Int x 10. If you accept that Gygax is using terms such as 'genius' as they relate to IQ, then his scheme actually maps much more closely to the frequency of certain IQ scores within the population.

 

[Maxperson]

Pretending like I wasn't just talking about Int x 10 is disingenuous. And no, the MM chart doesn't equate to Int x 10. If you accept that Gygax is using terms such as 'genius' as they relate to IQ, then his scheme actually maps much more closely to the frequency of certain IQ scores within the population.

Int x 10 is a good approximation. That fact is, int equating to IQ has been around for the majority of D&D. There's no other way to see it.

 

[Hriston]

Int x 10 is a good approximation.

If you want to call being off by 40 points a good approximation, go ahead.

 

[Hriston]

int equating to IQ has been around for the majority of D&D.

No one has argued that this wasn't the case.

 

[Maxperson]

If you want to call being off by 40 points a good approximation, go ahead.

They aren't off by 40 points. The IQ charts of the 1e days were different that the modern ones. If you're going to apply today's charts to 1e, then you have to alter the 1e numbers to compensate.

 

[Yardiff]

They aren't off by 40 points. The IQ charts of the 1e days were different that the modern ones. If you're going to apply today's charts to 1e, then you have to alter the 1e numbers to compensate.

Correct, in 1e 18 int was human MAXIMUM.

 

[pemerton]

The 1e and 2e PHB/DMG also say that int equates to IQ

It is an absolute fact that since 1e, int has equated to real world IQ. In 1e and 2e it says so in the PHB and DMG.

This is false for the 1st ed AD&D PHB and DMG. I've quoted the relevant paragraphs upthread.

They say that INT "is quite similar to" or "roughly corresponds to" IQ, but (i) they don't give any metric for that similarity or rough correspondence, and (ii) they both say that INT also includes/assumes things that IQ doesn't. Similarity to and roughly corresponding to are not identical to or synonyms of equals or even uniformly correlates with.

The hard cover books may not have been IQ = int x 10, but it was close. The chart in the MM giving the IQ categories for int scores is pretty close to those numbers. The statement in the 1e PHB and DMG that int is roughly equal to modern IQ strongly suggests the x 10 ratio or something very, very close to it.

It doesn't suggest anything of that sort. For all we know, the relevant function could be 50 + INT *5. The only suggestion of *10 is the mention of 80 IQ in the discussion of languages.

And you still haven't addressed Moldvay Basic, which has an INT chart which has nothing to say about IQ and is all about literacy and language use.

D&D animals with their D&D stats do not appear in the real world. The addition of AC, hit points and stats renders them entirely game constructs. Only the name and basic appearance remain from the real world.

<snip>

There is no difference between a baboon with a 5 int and a PC with a 5 int. The rules do not support treating int differently for animals

No one is treating INT differently for animals - as for humans, so for them it confers certain bonuses or penalties on checks that involve reasoning, memory etc.

But INT doesn't exhaust cognitive, linguistic etc abilities in 5e. Sufficient proof of this is that (unlike Moldvay Basic and AD&D) language learning is completely divorced from INT.

And the most fundamental issue is this: where, in 1st ed AD&D, do the rules say that having a particular INT score must serve as a limit on a player's action declaration for his/her PC? I don't see that written anywhere. And in the only discussion of roleplaying in the book - which is the closing section on SUCCESSFUL ADVENTURES - Gygax assumes that each player will do his/her best to bring his/her own intelligence to bear upon the game. The notion that playing a character means pretending to have the mental abilities of that character is nowhere to be found in the 1st ed AD&D core rules. (Of course the DMG mentions that principle in many places as applying to the GM, but the GM is not playing NPCs/monsters in the way that players are playing their PCs.)