D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Eric V]

Holmes is known as the best by the people within the narrative, yes? It's not an otherwise objective measure; it's purely in the narrative.

Why do people in the narrative think he's the best? Because he successfully solves great mysteries, usually with his powers of induction and observation.

5e represents this (somewhat poorly) with the Investigation skill.

So, in a 5e game, Holmes is the best by overcoming the most challenges with the Investigation skill.

HOW his Investigation skill is so high, no one in the narrative can know; they only know the results.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure what you mean by "true meaning."

I take it to mean "measures some really existing, determinable property that occurs in determinate quantities to which real-number values can be assigned" - such as mass, length, charge, etc.

Or something like that.

I'm not 100% certain, because I'm having trouble working out what the real objection is. The whole issues seems fairly straightforward to me: a given IQ score occurs, more-or-less (and depending how well the test design actually satisfies the theoretical desiderata that govern its construction), at a particular frequency across a population; and a given INT score occurs, more-or-less (assuming that 3d6 is applied on a gameworld-wide basis), at a particular frequency across a population; so if you want INT to correspond to IQ, you would match up the 3d6 frequencies with the IQ frequencies.

One point of objection might be someone who wants to tackle the equation of likelihoods (via randomisation) with frequencies; but no one seems to be pushing that particular point in the philosophy of probability.

Another point of objection might be that, at least in 1st ed AD&D, many NPCs are meant to have scores determined using "averaging" dice (treat 1s as 3s and 6s as 4s); but I think I'm the only posters to have pointed that out.

But I'm baffled as to why it is meant to matter to this issue whether or not intelligence or IQ is a real property that occurs in quantities that are capable of being measured.

 

[pemerton]

Holmes is known as the best by the people within the narrative, yes? It's not an otherwise objective measure; it's purely in the narrative.

Why do people in the narrative think he's the best? Because he successfully solves great mysteries, usually with his powers of induction and observation.

5e represents this (somewhat poorly) with the Investigation skill.

So, in a 5e game, Holmes is the best by overcoming the most challenges with the Investigation skill.

HOW his Investigation skill is so high, no one in the narrative can know; they only know the results.

What I would add to this: in play, we don't even know the value of Holmes' skill. We just know the outcomes of the checks, and these are determined not just by the skill but also the d20 rolls (which are in turn determined, eg, by the use of Inspiration - and its certainly plausible that, in the stories, Holmes flaws and inclinations are being engaged more often then any other character's).

 

[Guest 6801328]

What I would add to this: in play, we don't even know the value of Holmes' skill. We just know the outcomes of the checks, and these are determined not just by the skill but also the d20 rolls (which are in turn determined, eg, by the use of Inspiration - and its certainly plausible that, in the stories, Holmes flaws and inclinations are being engaged more often then any other character's).

Oooh....interesting hypothesis. One reason for Holmes' success (as 'modeled' by 5e) is that he plays his flaws and bonds and traits so well that he is constantly getting Inspiration, which in turn increases his Investigation successes. I like it.

I gotta hand it to the guy: for a bloke with 5 Int he sure is a good investigator.

 

[Maxperson]

"Whoooosh."

That's the sound of you and the point passing right by each other.

Not me. You.

The point, however, is that there is no single number at which you can rationally say "This is the Line of Death. The character concept is viable above this number, and non-viable below this number." I mean you can say it if you want, but it's not defensible mathematically. If you can roleplay a genius with Int 20, you can roleplay the genius with Int 18. And if you can do it with 18 you can do it with 16. And so on. At no point do the statistics of the game suddenly plunge off a cliff where it no longer works; it's a consistent step function the whole way down.

That argument is literally... A genius has a 140 IQ, but that's indistinguishable from a 138, which is indistinguishable from 136 and so on down to, a 42 is indistinguishable from a 40, so a 40 IQ can be considered a genius.

If that doesn't demonstrate to you how absurd your Slippery Slope is, there isn't much more I can do to help you.

Your problem is that you keep trying to spin this discussion as +1, when it's not +1. It's +2 to +8.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree with this. Remember that I did not introduce the idea of comparing Intelligence with IQ. That was [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]. I was merely pointing out that if you're going to do that, you might as well take into account what IQ actually is. Because IQ has a fixed standard deviation, that means that the proportion of the population who have IQs in a particular range is theoretically fixed. This would apply to an IQ-tested fantasy world population just as much as a real world one.

There is no reason to take into account real world IQ. None. Zero. This game isn't about mirroring reality, so my adding a bit of realism with int x 10 = IQ, in now way indicates that we should suddenly turn 5e into a simulation of reality and use real IQ.

You can do that for your game if you want to take that effort, but there is no "we might as well" with it.

 

[Maxperson]

Unless you can point out exactly where that line is, then there is no such line (or more accurately, such a line is useless because no one can actually see it even if they think they know which side of it they are on).

I guess you missed the half dozen or so times I pointed it out.

 

[Maxperson]

5e represents this (somewhat poorly) with the Investigation skill.

So, in a 5e game, Holmes is the best by overcoming the most challenges with the Investigation skill.

HOW his Investigation skill is so high, no one in the narrative can know; they only know the results.

Right, and to be the best and overcome the most challenges, you need to have a 20 int with all the other bells and whistles. Anything less and you won't solve the most.

 

[Eric V]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. To solve the most, by definition, you just need to solve more than anyone else.

 

[Hriston]

There is no reason to take into account real world IQ. None. Zero.

Then why did you bring it up?