D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[iserith]

if as you say a 17 in D&D terms is only equal to a 134 IQ, what is a 180 IQ?

Int 5. It's kind of a circle.

 

[Maxperson]

This is an interesting theory. You seem to be referring to the shift from using "ratio IQ" (mental age divided by chronological age) to using "deviation IQ" (an expression of how far someone deviates from the average of 100). The third edition of the Stanford-Binet IQ test adopted deviation IQ scoring in 1960, well before the publication of the Monster Manual, or Blume's article for that matter, in 1977. But it is quite possible that Gygax was using outdated (at the time) IQ classification schemes as some kind of model for his chart in the Monster Manual. His use of the term 'genius' strongly suggests this, as the last IQ test to use this classification was the original 1916 Stanford-Binet IQ test, which classified a ratio IQ of above 140 as "'near' genius or genius". This translates into a deviation IQ score of above 136, thus my comment that, if you accept Gygax's use of the term 'genius' as referring to an IQ classification and see that is covers an Intelligence score range of 17 to 18, multiplying by 10 will produce a number for the lower end of the range (170) nearly 40 points (34 to be precise) off from where it should be.

It really depends on the chart used. It could be 130, or it could be 175+.

 

[Maxperson]

I prefer to roleplay characters.

Characters have low scores to roleplay. They aren't exclusive of their scores.

 

[Maxperson]

As [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has pointed out, if you take those as a metric for IQ, you discover that there is no *10 correlation, because 17 INT correlates to around 140 IQ.

Or else it's higher if you use different IQ charts.

Basic D&D is a version of D&D. It is based on the original game, plus Holmes Basic. It's a better guide to what INT means than a Dragon article by Brian Blume!

Basic has no place in a discussion of the advanced game and it's editions.

The question of whether or not a baboon can sit an IQ test has nothing to do with its INT score. Apart from anything else, a baboon cannot speak, read or write, which is sufficient to show that (whatever its INT score) it can't take an IQ test. In 5e (unlike in Moldvay Basic or AD&D) no connection is made between linguistic ability and INT.

The ability to read and write is irrelevant. The druid talking to the baboon can read it the questions and write down the answers. Int is int in 5e. There is no rules difference made between a baboon and a human.

 

[Hriston]

It really depends on the chart used. It could be 130, or it could be 175+.

What charts are you using?

 

[Hriston]

if as you say a 17 in D&D terms is only equal to a 134 IQ, what is a 180 IQ?

Keeping in mind that most current tests only give Full Scale IQs between 40 and 160, the mathematical probability of having an IQ of 180 is roughly similar to the probability of rolling a 26 on a 3d6.

 

[iserith]

Keeping in mind that most current tests only give Full Scale IQs between 40 and 160, the mathematical probability of having an IQ of 180 is roughly similar to the probability of rolling a 26 on a 3d6.

[video=youtube;TCKOI24k_UY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCKOI24k_UY[/video]

 

[Maxperson]

What charts are you using?

The Current Wechsler goes up to very superior at 130, so genius and other 1e terms would have to be above 130 on that chart. The same with the Alternate Wechsler.

The Stanford Binet 5e goes up to gifted/advanced at 160, so genius would have to be at least 170 on that chart.

Woodcock-Johnson is similar to the Wechslers. Genius other others above very superior would have to be higher than 130. Ditto for Cognitive Assessment System.

Levine and Marks is probably the closest to 1e. Very superior goes to 174 and precocious at 175, so genius would have to be at least 180 and super genius 190+.

The rest are similar the Wechslers and Woodcock-Johnson.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Basic has no place in a discussion of the advanced game and it's editions.

That is a ridiculous and arbitrary statement which holds no weight at all - you might be discussing "the advanced game and it's editions" (which only includes AD&D 1st and 2nd editions plus their revisions and reprints, not any version that doesn't have the "Advanced" portion of the title), but everyone else here is clearly discussing D&D (all of it).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The Current Wechsler goes up to very superior at 130, so genius and other 1e terms would have to be above 130 on that chart. The same with the Alternate Wechsler.

The Stanford Binet 5e goes up to gifted/advanced at 160, so genius would have to be at least 170 on that chart.

Woodcock-Johnson is similar to the Wechslers. Genius other others above very superior would have to be higher than 130. Ditto for Cognitive Assessment System.

Levine and Marks is probably the closest to 1e. Very superior goes to 174 and precocious at 175, so genius would have to be at least 180 and super genius 190+.

The rest are similar the Wechslers and Woodcock-Johnson.

...are you are saying that you think this information, that you have obviously researched outside D&D game products, is necessary in order for a player to have in order to properly role-play whatever their character's Intelligence score might be, or is this information not at all relevant to that specific activity?