D&D 5E 5th Edition Intelligence

[BoldItalic]

Again, that's the Real World.

Actually, no it isn't. That's the point I was trying to make. I deliberately projected the dice rolling mechanic onto the real world (albeit in the sense that this forum is "the real world" ) to demonstrate the absurdity of it. You genuinely have a different opinion to me right here, and I respect you for it, and we are debating it to-and-fro, hoping to come to some constructive understanding, but it can't be resolved by rolling dice, can it? If I rolled a d20 right now and rolled a '1', would that mean that I agree you totally? Nope. If I rolled a '20' would that mean you agreed with me totally? Nope. Peoples' thoughts are not probabilistic and debates can't be resolved randomly. (Some AI workers would like them to be, but let's not get into that).

What's wrong with modeling that in the game?

Nothing, except that you aren't. Whereas the in-game physics is a credible simplification of real-world physics in which randomness plays a part, the in-game psychology that assumes that people's thoughts are random is not (to me) a credible simplification or real-world psychology. Partly because I don't accept that my thoughts are random (in the statistical sense) and partly because it leaves out the fun bit, which is the "fun".

But, to be honest, I can't propose a better way to write the game rules. They do seem to satisfy a very large number of people, so I'm content to be a "lone voice crying in the wilderness". (Doesn't mean I'm wrong, just outnumbered )

 

[I'm A Banana]

Actually, no it isn't. That's the point I was trying to make. I deliberately projected the dice rolling mechanic onto the real world (albeit in the sense that this forum is "the real world" ) to demonstrate the absurdity of it. You genuinely have a different opinion to me right here, and I respect you for it, and we are debating it to-and-fro, hoping to come to some constructive understanding, but it can't be resolved by rolling dice, can it? If I rolled a d20 right now and rolled a '1', would that mean that I agree you totally? Nope. If I rolled a '20' would that mean you agreed with me totally? Nope. Peoples' thoughts are not probabilistic and debates can't be resolved randomly. (Some AI workers would like them to be, but let's not get into that).

It's always absurd when you try to apply game mechanics to the real world. I'm not sure I follow the point the metaphor is trying to illuminate.

The game gives you a way to model how your Intelligence can help you resolve a conflict (in the form of a die roll) - why not use it?

Nothing, except that you aren't. Whereas the in-game physics is a credible simplification of real-world physics in which randomness plays a part, the in-game psychology that assumes that people's thoughts are random is not (to me) a credible simplification or real-world psychology. Partly because I don't accept that my thoughts are random (in the statistical sense) and partly because it leaves out the fun bit, which is the "fun".

I mean, thoughts probably aren't statistically random IRL, but neither are attacks with a sword or performances or the ability to move undetected. One of the things you kind of sign up for when you play a game is some level of abstraction and mathematical modeling of the game world. Treating mental things like physical things seems a fine way to consistently model that fiction.

As someone who tends to use checks to guide RP, the fun bit for me is in playing my character as my character would act, which includes failing to put together puzzles and failing to persuade NPC's and such. That the mechanics enforce that helps me to feel in character, and makes my character fail in consistent ways that say something about my character's weaknesses.

 

[Yardiff]

As someone who tends to use checks to guide RP, the fun bit for me is in playing my character as my character would act, which includes failing to put together puzzles and failing to persuade NPC's and such. That the mechanics enforce that helps me to feel in character, and makes my character fail in consistent ways that say something about my character's weaknesses.

This is pretty much how the group I play with does things.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Heh. You probably wouldn't even notice that an IQ 85 was below normal or seemed slow,
unless you were charging them with particular analytical tasks such as a maths test. Gump is more likely an IQ around 60 (edit: apparently 70. Must be that folksy wisdom.)

 

[S'mon]

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.

If I was going to try to equate 3e/Pathfinder or 4e INT to IQ then yes, mod x 10 + 100 looks reasonable, assuming it's modern-US or UK normed, not normed to the general human population of the setting (where the average peasant likely has INT 8-10, but artisans, knights and adventurer types probably average
higher). This helps make sense of starting Wizards with INT 20 (IQ 150), high level Wizards with
INT 25 (IQ 175) before magic buffs.

If you are making OD&D PCs with 3d6 roll in order it might be less of an issue, but IQ 30 or
IQ 180 are both vanishingly rare among functional human beings.

With 5e Point Buy, the range constriction for starting PCs (typically 8-16) makes IQ = INT x 10 look a lot more plausible.

 

[BoldItalic]

...
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.
...

It was actually me who suggested it, post #97 upthread, but I can't believe no-one's thought of it before.

I reckon that if the general population of NPCs is represented by 3d6 (which is an assumption) the standard deviation of their Int scores will be close to 3 (mathematically, it's actually sqrt(35)/2). We want to map that onto an IQ statistic with a standard deviation of 15 or 16, so we need a factor of about 5, then adjust to make the average come out right.

So we could take IQ = Int*5 + 47.5 but that's a bit fiddly and hard to remember. Approximating it as 5*(Int+10) is easier, but as in 5e we already have Int modifiers worked out, 10*IntModifier + 100 is even easier and gives the same result (albeit with less precision).

3d6 is a fair approximation to a normal distribution, although the extremes are chopped off. An Int of 17 or 18 will turn up 4/216 times, or about 2%. That's a Mensa level intelligence - the top 2% of the population, an IQ of 130 or 132 (depending on the IQ test used). Using 5*(Int+10), Int 17 works out as 135, which is pretty close to that.

Point buy skews the PC to have good scores - PCs are supposed to be outstanding individuals and the statistical distribution of their ability scores isn't supposed to be the same as the general population. Even so, you can't get a human above Int 16 with point buy, and on my scale that's IQ 130, or just hovering on Mensa level, which seems fair. To get higher, you need a feat or level advancement and that seems fair too.

Of course, all this begs the question of what Intelligence means