Phantarch
First Post
So, let me start by saying that I'm not firmly in either camp of more or less intelligence checks. I think there are a lot of valid points on both sides. I do lean heavily to the camp that all of your ability scores should be taken into consideration when roleplaying your character. If somebody has an 8 intelligence and continually acts like Einstein, I'm going to take issue with it. That being said, I also believe that there's a range of believability that falls within acceptable standards.
What your intelligence score means:
I have always been in the camp that your intelligence score is roughly equivalent to your IQ divided by 10. One person (sorry, can't remember who and too lazy to look it up, but credit!) suggested something like your modifier times 10 plus 100. I have to say I'm finding a certain appeal to that process since it would allow my to personally justify a larger range of intelligence scores being in the "normal" range.
Regardless, an 8 intelligence would put somebody between 80-90 IQ. This is certainly on the low end of normal spectrum, but (as I jokingly said in an earlier post) this is almost quintessentially what is represented by Forrest Gump. He was undeniably slow-witted, but at the same time was quite functional, even brilliant at times. Sometimes it was dumb luck, sometimes it was because the simplest path actually ended up being the most intelligent path.
As another point, I actually know somebody who is quite brilliant. She can grasp puzzles well, follows logical reasoning, quickly catches nuance and innuendo, etc. But she is math DUMB. You put numbers in front of her, and her brain shuts down. I'm not entirely sure why. On an unofficial IQ test, she comes out at about 110. If separated into components, she'd probably score about 130 in most areas, but 70 in math. As another example, I work with a lot of nurses who are near retirement age (this is not an assessment of all nurses or any such thing, just the ones I work with). They are quite knowledgeable and intelligent in the medical field, fully capable of analyzing medical situations and making logical and intelligent decisions. However, when you put a computer in front of them, they are complete idiots. Completely incapable of filling out the most simple of forms or understanding the very basics of computing. The point of these examples is that intelligence is more nuanced than a simple score, and it is entirely justifiable for a low intelligence character to have areas of brilliance and areas of stupidity.
Given this, I'm not sure restricting thoughts or ideas is actually helping to encourage roleplaying a low intelligence. In my current group, when somebody does something that other players or the DM feel is out of character (for stats, background, alignment, etc.), we usually simply just ask, "Wow, really? That seems out of character for your...character." Sometimes, that makes the player think, "Oh, right. Yeah, I might actually do this." Other times, the player says, "Yeah, that's totally what he would do!", and we leave it at that. I think it's important that people consider their stats when representing their actual character, and they should probably express to the DM how they intend to represent them in play. However, there are plenty of ways to represent ALL of your scores in character that are acceptable, so long as they are represented.
The mechanics of Intelligence:
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about where 5th edition is on the functional representation of intelligence. What I do know is that I think it got too much importance in 3.5 (the only other D&D edition I've actually played regularly). Skill points were very valuable, so playing a low to average intelligence character was actively discouraged by the edition, which to me limits the spectrum of roleplaying potential and creates a pool of unusually intelligent characters that for story purposes probably shouldn't be THAT intelligent. I mean, for one, there should probably be a CAP on intelligence for being an adventurer. You gotta be a little stupid to take that up as your occupation.
I keep thinking of my current 3.5 campaign. EVERY character has a minimum of a 14 intelligence. In 3.5 point-buy, this is the cut off point where it is still cheap (1:1 ratio) and gives you 2 extra skill points per level (and everyone wants more skills). The player at the table who is probably the least intelligent IRL has a 20 intelligence because his class (Warblade) gives lots of extra bonuses for intelligence score. To me, having every group of adventurers always being in the top 10% of the general population's IQ strains credulity. Having a person who has difficulty representing above average, let alone extreme, intelligence encouraged to play a 20 intelligence character because of mechanical benefit also (frequently) strains credulity.
For this reason, I really appreciated that the mechanical advantage of intelligence has been deemphasized. They actually added intelligence saving throws (which 3.5 didn't have), and I think that's a good addition, so it's not useless. But playing a character with average intelligence is no longer severely penalized, and I think that's a good thing. It allows for adventurers to be a more realistic sample of (demi)humanity, and also allows for intelligent characters to stand out from the pack. Could there be more mechanical usefulness to intelligence? Probably, and I'd be interested to see what may officially come out over time. Should there be some reward for somebody wanting to play an intelligent character that isn't typically intelligent? I think that would probably be nice. However, I have no desire to go back to a situation that penalizes characters for playing average intelligence.
Sidepoint: That player who plays the 20 intelligence Warblade? A perfect example of somebody who generally isn't as intelligent as the rest of the players, but sometimes the guy just comes out of left field with a brilliant idea, or catches something that the rest of us completely missed. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that a genius moment can come from a character with a 6 or 8 intelligence. Idiot savants...just saying.
TL;DR: Dum peeples can be smarts, too!
What your intelligence score means:
I have always been in the camp that your intelligence score is roughly equivalent to your IQ divided by 10. One person (sorry, can't remember who and too lazy to look it up, but credit!) suggested something like your modifier times 10 plus 100. I have to say I'm finding a certain appeal to that process since it would allow my to personally justify a larger range of intelligence scores being in the "normal" range.
Regardless, an 8 intelligence would put somebody between 80-90 IQ. This is certainly on the low end of normal spectrum, but (as I jokingly said in an earlier post) this is almost quintessentially what is represented by Forrest Gump. He was undeniably slow-witted, but at the same time was quite functional, even brilliant at times. Sometimes it was dumb luck, sometimes it was because the simplest path actually ended up being the most intelligent path.
As another point, I actually know somebody who is quite brilliant. She can grasp puzzles well, follows logical reasoning, quickly catches nuance and innuendo, etc. But she is math DUMB. You put numbers in front of her, and her brain shuts down. I'm not entirely sure why. On an unofficial IQ test, she comes out at about 110. If separated into components, she'd probably score about 130 in most areas, but 70 in math. As another example, I work with a lot of nurses who are near retirement age (this is not an assessment of all nurses or any such thing, just the ones I work with). They are quite knowledgeable and intelligent in the medical field, fully capable of analyzing medical situations and making logical and intelligent decisions. However, when you put a computer in front of them, they are complete idiots. Completely incapable of filling out the most simple of forms or understanding the very basics of computing. The point of these examples is that intelligence is more nuanced than a simple score, and it is entirely justifiable for a low intelligence character to have areas of brilliance and areas of stupidity.
Given this, I'm not sure restricting thoughts or ideas is actually helping to encourage roleplaying a low intelligence. In my current group, when somebody does something that other players or the DM feel is out of character (for stats, background, alignment, etc.), we usually simply just ask, "Wow, really? That seems out of character for your...character." Sometimes, that makes the player think, "Oh, right. Yeah, I might actually do this." Other times, the player says, "Yeah, that's totally what he would do!", and we leave it at that. I think it's important that people consider their stats when representing their actual character, and they should probably express to the DM how they intend to represent them in play. However, there are plenty of ways to represent ALL of your scores in character that are acceptable, so long as they are represented.
The mechanics of Intelligence:
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about where 5th edition is on the functional representation of intelligence. What I do know is that I think it got too much importance in 3.5 (the only other D&D edition I've actually played regularly). Skill points were very valuable, so playing a low to average intelligence character was actively discouraged by the edition, which to me limits the spectrum of roleplaying potential and creates a pool of unusually intelligent characters that for story purposes probably shouldn't be THAT intelligent. I mean, for one, there should probably be a CAP on intelligence for being an adventurer. You gotta be a little stupid to take that up as your occupation.
I keep thinking of my current 3.5 campaign. EVERY character has a minimum of a 14 intelligence. In 3.5 point-buy, this is the cut off point where it is still cheap (1:1 ratio) and gives you 2 extra skill points per level (and everyone wants more skills). The player at the table who is probably the least intelligent IRL has a 20 intelligence because his class (Warblade) gives lots of extra bonuses for intelligence score. To me, having every group of adventurers always being in the top 10% of the general population's IQ strains credulity. Having a person who has difficulty representing above average, let alone extreme, intelligence encouraged to play a 20 intelligence character because of mechanical benefit also (frequently) strains credulity.
For this reason, I really appreciated that the mechanical advantage of intelligence has been deemphasized. They actually added intelligence saving throws (which 3.5 didn't have), and I think that's a good addition, so it's not useless. But playing a character with average intelligence is no longer severely penalized, and I think that's a good thing. It allows for adventurers to be a more realistic sample of (demi)humanity, and also allows for intelligent characters to stand out from the pack. Could there be more mechanical usefulness to intelligence? Probably, and I'd be interested to see what may officially come out over time. Should there be some reward for somebody wanting to play an intelligent character that isn't typically intelligent? I think that would probably be nice. However, I have no desire to go back to a situation that penalizes characters for playing average intelligence.
Sidepoint: That player who plays the 20 intelligence Warblade? A perfect example of somebody who generally isn't as intelligent as the rest of the players, but sometimes the guy just comes out of left field with a brilliant idea, or catches something that the rest of us completely missed. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that a genius moment can come from a character with a 6 or 8 intelligence. Idiot savants...just saying.
TL;DR: Dum peeples can be smarts, too!
