D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Maxperson]

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

We were also discussing 2e and 4e. Only the advanced versions have been discussed. Basic has nothing to do with those. It is neither and arbitrary or invalid distinction. The advanced versions of the game are where the int = IQ come from.

 

[Maxperson]

WOTC D&D is not AD&D.*

*(except for that little part of second edition)

If that were true, then 3e would have been 1e or something other name. Another edition of a game is another edition of the SAME GAME, and that game was Advanced D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

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

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?

The major flaw there is that those number apply to Earth and Earth only. They don't apply to a D&D world where people at the upper end are far more common.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Just because I learned Battleship before learning and playing Axis and Allies doesn't make Battleship relevant in an Axis and Allies discussion. Basic is a different game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

We were also discussing 2e and 4e.

Is there some reason the word "through" is confusing to you in the phrase "3rd through 5th", or that the phrase "AD&D" doesn't indicate to you I am speaking of AD&D in general, not specifically AD&D 1st edition while excluding 2nd edition?

Only the advanced versions have been discussed.

By you? Maybe. By everyone else? Nope - all of D&D has been discussed. I know that to be the case because it would be impossible for you to have said "Basic has nothing to do with those" as anything but a non sequitor otherwise.

It is neither and arbitrary or invalid distinction.

It is both.

The advanced versions of the game are where the int = IQ come from.

From the quotes I've seen it is the advanced versions of the game where Int ~ IQ; which is distinctly different from Int = IQ.

 

[Hriston]

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?)

I think you've just given [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] a valuable resource to back up his argument. It's a good thing he's also made the argument that only AD&D, 3.x, 4e, and 5e are relevant to the discussion.

Of course, it could be talking about the intelligence of the referee...

 

[Hriston]

If that were true, then 3e would have been 1e or something other name. Another edition of a game is another edition of the SAME GAME, and that game was Advanced D&D.

I can think of a number of other explanations for WotC's decision to call their game 'Dungeons & Dragons'. The 'Basic' game had also gone through two major revisions: Moldvay/Cook (1981), and Mentzer (1983). D&D (2000) could well be considered the third edition of that game.

My preference is to take TSR at its word and see D&D (1974) as developing continuously through the Rules Cyclopedia and Wrath of the Immortals. Meanwhile, AD&D (in both of its 'editions') represented a new, second version of the game. D&D (2000) brought these two threads together in a third version, introducing the unified d20 system mechanic.

 

[Yardiff]

You know that D&D in all its iterations is a game right? Its not the real world. In a game what the numbers means can be vary different from the real world. So in the D&D game an 18 can equal a 180 IQ.

Why don't you try this....

Find one or more developers on Twitter and/or Facebook and ask "So in general how 'smart' is a character with an 18 intelligence?" See what the developers have to say or just understand that the way you play the game is different from the way someone plays the game, is different from the way someone else plays the game, etc.

 

[iserith]

just understand that the way you play the game is different from the way someone plays the game, is different from the way someone else plays the game, etc.

That is not in dispute though. Some folks are saying there's a right and wrong way to play a character with Int 5 and that the rules say so. That is what is being disputed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That is not in dispute though. Some folks are saying there's a right and wrong way to play a character with Int 5 and that the rules say so. That is what is being disputed.

I think that it would be clearly "wrong" to play a 5 INT as a super genius. I'm not sure that doing so would be acceptable at the vast majority of tables. Now, that has the caveats of being played intentionally to represent a super genius, not as a lark or a delusion, and that such play is accepted unconditionally. I'd not allow such at my table*. Also, I'd ask for INT checks far more often that I would for a higher INT for more mundane things. So, in that regard, I suppose Iserth's assertions that there's no rule that says you can't is accurate, if playing it a bit narrowly with reasonable assumptions. However, noting that there exists a theoretical lack of handicap when general practice would indicate otherwise (pretty sure I'm safe in saying most people would have an issue with a super genius with a 5 INT and no massive drawbacks like no short term memory). At that point, you're arguing for a distinction that's essentially meaningless except within a very white room.


* I haven't had this occur, and considered handling it by requiring INT checks for the super genius ideas, or even just having the opposition be especially good at predicting and foiling the "super genius's" plans, but then realized that those are in-game solutions to what is an out-of-game expectation issue, and that I should just address it out of game. If no solution out-of-game can be reached, then the removal of the problem is the warranted option.