D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Maxperson]

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).

You might as well include Gamma World, Star Frontiers and Boot Hill. Basic is a separate D&D game, not simply an edition of Advanced D&D which is what 1e-5e are.

 

[Hriston]

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.

You are incorrect in your assumption that because these classifications do not use the term genius, that the equivalent of genius IQ would be somewhere off the scale. In fact what used to be called genius IQ has simply been replaced with other terms.

 

[Maxperson]

...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?

Nope! I think int x 10 = IQ is much simpler and the way to go.

 

[Maxperson]

You are incorrect in your assumption that because these classifications do not use the term genius, that the equivalent of genius IQ would be somewhere off the scale. In fact what used to be called genius IQ has simply been replaced with other terms.

Says who? First, Gygax didn't use terms that line up smoothly to any chart, so if you're going to make the claim that I'm incorrect, you need to prove that Gygax wasn't creating categories higher than precocious. Second, even if 175 is genius, that still lines up to 17-18 x 10 = 170-180 so your argument is moot anyway.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You might as well include Gamma World, Star Frontiers and Boot Hill.

Why would I do that? Not one of those is titled "Dungeons & Dragons."

Basic is a separate D&D game, not simply an edition of Advanced D&D which is what 1e-5e are.

The fact that we are talking about Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition, Dungeons & Dragons v3.5, Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition, and Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition - not one mention of "Advanced" in there - suggests that either it is the AD&D titled versions that are the odd ones out, or that none are.

Your decision to include AD&D as "same game" as D&D 3rd through 5th, but exclude other versions of D&D, is the very definition of arbitrary because there is no valid reason to make that distinction.

 

[Hriston]

Says who? First, Gygax didn't use terms that line up smoothly to any chart, so if you're going to make the claim that I'm incorrect, you need to prove that Gygax wasn't creating categories higher than precocious.

No I don't. Clearly supra-genius and godlike intelligence are categories meant to denote levels of intelligence above those normally attainable by humans.

Second, even if 175 is genius, that still lines up to 17-18 x 10 = 170-180 so your argument is moot anyway.

The Levine and Marks 1928 classification uses a ratio IQ score. A ratio IQ of 175 translates into a deviation IQ of 159.6, very close to what is currently considered to be the upper limit of reliably measurable intelligence.

 

[Hriston]

You might as well include Gamma World, Star Frontiers and Boot Hill. Basic is a separate D&D game, not simply an edition of Advanced D&D which is what 1e-5e are.

WOTC D&D is not AD&D.*

*(except for that little part of second edition)

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Nope! I think int x 10 = IQ is much simpler and the way to go.

So you are saying information researched outside of the D&D game is necessary in order to properly role-play whatever a character's Intelligence score might be, just not that earlier quoted information.

 

[pemerton]

I think int x 10 = IQ is much simpler and the way to go.

To echo [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] - based on which charts?

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

When I Google IQ 180, here is the first thing that comes up:

To give you an idea how rare even an IQ of 160 is--only 3 people out of 100,000 people score that high or would score higher if a valid IQ test could test them. Because the numbers of people with IQs above that level are so tiny, no test can be devised that can accurately test that high and accurately distinguish between people who have an IQ of, say, 170 versus 180.

But to answer your question more precisely, assuming that an IQ of 180 could be tested accurately, the number of people with that IQ or above would be:

One out of 18.46 million people, so that would be rare indeed. (This assumes the usual standard deviation of 15.)​

Given that, in D&D, only slightly fewer than 1 in 200 people have an 18 INT, I think it's safe to say that it can't correlate to an 180 IQ on this sort of contemporary measure.

If you are basing your INT = IQ*10 claim on some older version of IQ which has been rejected or left behind by whatever contemporary persons take IQ seriously, then why should I take it seriously in my D&D game?

And here's another thing I found to throw into the mix:

This article by David Feldman presents the results of the author's follow-up study of those above 180 IQ in Terman's "Genetic Studies of Genius." The author reviewed the Terman files of all the subjects who scored at this level. He provides a short summary of educational and occupational attainments, then presents a qualitative analysis of the data.

Abstract
Although there are numerous studies of gifted students, there have been no studies following up the very high IQ students into adulthood. Using the Terman files, 26 subjects with scores above 180 IQ were compared with 26 randomly selected subjects from Terman's sample. Findings were generally that the extra IQ points made little difference and that extremely high IQ does not seem to indicate "genius" in the commonly understood sense of the word.​

The arithmetical distance between "average" and "genius" on an IQ test is about 40-50 points. A score of 100 is usually interpreted as average, while a score of 140 or above is usually regarded as being in the "genius range." Although there have been numerous studies and follow-ups of high-IQ subjects (Goleman, 1980), including those who have scored 140 and above, there have been almost no studies of those who score still higher on IQ tests.​

What limits or requirement to you put on the roleplaying of high-INT PCs? If the player of an 18 or 20 INT wizard is of only average intelligence, and plays his/her PC to no more than the best of his/her intellectual ability, what do you (as a GM) do? Rag him/her for bad roleplaying? Take over the character, or turn the character into an NPC?

And how do you judge the difference between (say) 14 INT and 18 INT? What if the player is playing his/her PC as if s/he had 140 IQ when, to really be RPing properly, s/he should be playing the PC as having 180 IQ?

 

[pemerton]

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

Says who? A huge chunk of the player base actually learned the game from either Moldvay Basic or its revised Mentzer version. The game is a direct descendant of OD&D, just as AD&D is. AD&D includes the supplements, and Moldvay Basic doesn't, but given that, to the best of my knowledge, the supplements made no changes to the rules around or meaning of the INT score (other than MUs learning spells), that particular difference between AD&D and Moldvay Basic seems irrelevant to me.

As best I can tell, what Moldvay was actually doing with his INT chart was giving low INT some systematic, linguistically-related meaning just as high INT had (in that game, as in AD&D) a systematic, linguistically-related meaning.

And on the topic of INT, language and permissible action declarations, here is the relevant passage from p 10 of Volume 1 Men & Magic:

Intelligence will . . . affect the referees' decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken, and it also allows additional languages to be spoken.​

Page 12 clarifies that this is +1 language per point above 10.
[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]: if you haven't seen this passage in Men & Magic you might find it interesting: it is the first indication I've found in a rulebook that the GM can use the INT score to regulate action declarations. (Or maybe the reference is to NPC intelligence? What do you think?)