D&D 5E Rolled character stats higher than point buy?

[MostlyDm]

I always assumed that Mongo had 8 in both int and wisdom. He talked slowly but he did talk. His comprehension wasn't great but he did understand people. I always assumed he clothed and fed himself, and was a functioning member of the town.

Forest on the other hand had low int, but a reasonable (if not high) wisdom.




Since average intelligence is 10.5, 9 would be a little slow while an 11 would be barely above average. When you get to the 14-16 range you're starting to talk Mensa, and really, really smart. Anyone above a 16 is a certifiable genius.

The scale isn't perfect of course - while the highest IQs are around or close to 200, the lowest IQs fall below 30. But straight rolls of 3d6 do give you a decent curve that approximate the intelligence bell curve. In addition IQ tests aren't perfect because they don't measure wisdom.

Or maybe Oofta just have soft spot for Mongo (and it has been years since I've seen the movie).

Interesting interpretation.

I've also seen people argue that the 3-20 range shouldn't really be used to represent human ability but rather something like... viable human ability for an adventurer.

So Int 3 is the dumbest an adventurer could reasonably be.

This makes some sense when you do stuff like look at Strength Carry weights, which are higher for 3 strength than you'd get from someone who was literally as weak as humanly possible... Or as weak as 30 IQ is dumb, frankly.

Someone with 3 strength can carry 45 pounds in gear, or lift/push/drag 90 pounds. That's substantially above the "floor" of human strength. So, the argument goes, 3 Int would need to be substantially above the "floor" of human intellect.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Fun story!

I forget what it was supposed to prove.

That stats aren't terribly important, especially compared to player choices? Sure, I'm already convinced of that of course, but this satisfies my confirmation bias nicely at the very least.

Sounds like an entertaining couple of sessions. A little zanier than I tend to prefer playing things, but that's personal preference... And probably makes the story even more entertaining.

Zany stories tend to stick in the mind better. The dungeon crawl was less zany, but the PC who died still died by his own fault and not because of his stats.

(Well, it was also kind of the other PC's fault too. The one who died basically ended up soloing all the monsters until he ran out of resources, and then died to giant rats while trying to rest. If the other PC had helped more they might have both survived.)

 

[Oofta]

Interesting interpretation.

I've also seen people argue that the 3-20 range shouldn't really be used to represent human ability but rather something like... viable human ability for an adventurer.

So Int 3 is the dumbest an adventurer could reasonably be.

This makes some sense when you do stuff like look at Strength Carry weights, which are higher for 3 strength than you'd get from someone who was literally as weak as humanly possible... Or as weak as 30 IQ is dumb, frankly.

Someone with 3 strength can carry 45 pounds in gear, or lift/push/drag 90 pounds. That's substantially above the "floor" of human strength. So, the argument goes, 3 Int would need to be substantially above the "floor" of human intellect.

Welllll ... ok. Let's take a look at the MM for a minute.

Black Bear: int 2
Mastiff: int 3
Baboon: int 4
Ogre, Hill Giants: int 5
Orc: int 7 (but with an 11 wisdom to compensate)

And so on. So an int 3 ... intelligence of a dog. That's not a functional level of intelligence for someone that's expected to actually converse. Understand a few dozen commands with proper training. Lowest level of an int for an adventurer? I would say no. Not really intelligent enough to use tools effectively outside of a few tricks. Certainly not intelligent enough to use weapons effectively in combat.

Baboons at intelligence 4 are able to use the simplest of temporary tools (use a stick to get termites, etc) but are not smart enough to understand language, much less be a functional member of a group.

Intelligence 5 seems to be the cutoff point for how stupid you can be and still have at least minimal language skills. But ogres and hill giants use the absolute simplest weapons (clubs), don't wear armor, use shields or function particularly well in social environments. Well, unless they're the big uglies that will smash the puny uglies if they don't cooperate.

Orcs are an int 7, but make up for it with a higher-than-human-average wisdom of 11. Which kind of makes sense, they're ruled by emotion and feelings instead of logic.

So based on the DMG, minimum int to speak is 5, to use more advanced weapons is 7 (assuming you have a decent wisdom to compensate).

Anyway that's my answer and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Intelligence 5 seems to be the cutoff point for how stupid you can be and still have at least minimal language skills. But ogres and hill giants use the absolute simplest weapons (clubs), don't wear armor, use shields or function particularly well in social environments. Well, unless they're the big uglies that will smash the puny uglies if they don't cooperate.

As an aside: a moron might be able to use a TV remote, but a race of morons would probably not have any TVs. I wouldn't necessarily infer that ogres are incapable of using weapons if someone else supplies them.

In fact, the MM notes that Int 3 zombies will use weapons if someone puts the weapons in their hands.

 

[FrogReaver]

Phb gives all players a language regardless of intelligence. so relating the intelligence stat in and to speech doesn't really work even though intelligence and speech can be related in the real world.

I think we need to step back and ask ourselves what stats actually mean in relation to the game world? Is a character with 16 int definitely more intelligent in the game than a character with 8? i don't think that's what stats tell us. An 8 int fighter can be more intelligent in the game than a 16 int wizard.

 

[Arial Black]

Point buy or array? Sure thing. 6 rolls that I have to live with for months of campaign time, not so much

But...you'll have to live with the array you got out of point-buy for the same period of time! The length of time you play a PC is not a factor in roll vs. point-buy.

....unless you mean you might have to live with BAD rolls for a long time...but that's not true either, because if you roll badly you can, as you yourself note, just 'fudge' or 'cheat' until you get a set that you can live with.

'Fudging' and 'cheating' isn't a bug of rolling, it's a feature!

 

[Maxperson]

As an aside: a moron might be able to use a TV remote, but a race of morons would probably not have any TVs. I wouldn't necessarily infer that ogres are incapable of using weapons if someone else supplies them.

In fact, the MM notes that Int 3 zombies will use weapons if someone puts the weapons in their hands.

Zombies can also follow commands, so they have minimal language skills, even if they can't speak.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

But...you'll have to live with the array you got out of point-buy for the same period of time! The length of time you play a PC is not a factor in roll vs. point-buy.

....unless you mean you might have to live with BAD rolls for a long time...but that's not true either, because if you roll badly you can, as you yourself note, just 'fudge' or 'cheat' until you get a set that you can live with.

'Fudging' and 'cheating' isn't a bug of rolling, it's a feature!

If you look at this thread in its entirety, that isn't exactly clear or in particular universally available.

 

[Maxperson]

I think we need to step back and ask ourselves what stats actually mean in relation to the game world? Is a character with 16 int definitely more intelligent in the game than a character with 8? i don't think that's what stats tell us. An 8 int fighter can be more intelligent in the game than a 16 int wizard.

B u i l d in g B r u e n o r , St e p 3
Bob decides to use the standard set o f scores (15, 14,
13, 12, 10, 8) for Bruenor’s abilities. Since he’s a fighter,
he puts his highest score, 15, in Strength. His next highest,
14, goes in Constitution. Bruenor might be a
brash fighter, but Bob decides he wants the dwarf to
be older, wiser, and a good leader, so he puts decent
scores in Wisdom and Charisma.

Note that he didn't want the dwarf to be wiser and a good leader, so he put his 8 and 10 there. The game thinks that higher is wiser, more charismatic, more intelligent, etc., even if you don't.

Is a character muscle-bound and insightful? Brilliant
and charming? Nimble and hardy? Ability scores
define these qualities—a creature’s assets as well
as weaknesses.

And here the rules flat out tell you that ability scores tell you whether you are brilliant, charming or nimble. How do they do that if the stat number doesn't matter as you suggest? They can't. There's no possible way both you and that paragraph can be correct. Stat number is the only thing that can be used to define a stat in 5e. Note that it says ability score, not ability score modifier. The score defines both the modifier and the descriptive, such as wise, charming, leader, intelligent, dumb, foolish, and so on.

Each of a creature’s abilities has a score, a number that
defines the magnitude of that ability.

Here it is again. The ability defines the magnitude of that ability. So by RAW, an 8 int cannot be as great in magnitude as a 10, let alone greater than a 16 as you suggest.

And again.

A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but
adventurers and many monsters are a cut above average
in most abilities. A score of 18 is the highest that a
person usually reaches.

This says straight out what average is and that higher numbers are better.

In short, your theory is repeatedly refuted by the game, not backed up by it.

 

[Arial Black]

Since average intelligence is 10.5, 9 would be a little slow while an 11 would be barely above average. When you get to the 14-16 range you're starting to talk Mensa, and really, really smart. Anyone above a 16 is a certifiable genius.

The scale isn't perfect of course - while the highest IQs are around or close to 200, the lowest IQs fall below 30. But straight rolls of 3d6 do give you a decent curve that approximate the intelligence bell curve. In addition IQ tests aren't perfect because they don't measure wisdom.

Or maybe Oofta just have soft spot for Mongo (and it has been years since I've seen the movie).

The 3d6 bell curve is assumed to model the general population; any other method of generating ability scores (like 4d6k3, point-buy, etc.) are ways to generate characters that are generally above the norm. If the lowest stat you can get from point-buy is 8, this doesn't mean that the lowest human intelligence score is 8! This means that the lowest score from that method of generating heroes is 8. The lowest score in the general population remains 3.

The bell curve generated by 3d6 may be the same shape(ish) to the bell curve of actual human IQ scores, but the frequency of scores within those curves are different. For the 3d6 curve, if you have a statistically average group of 216 people in a room, one will have an Int of 3, three will have an Int of 4, six will have an Int of 5.....six will have an Int of 16, three will have an Int of 17, and one will have an Int of 18.

Yet if you have 216 real humans in a room, the IQ bell curve does not predict that one of those people has an IQ of 30, three have an IQ of 40, six will have an IQ of 50..... There are far fewer outliers on the IQ curve than on the 3d6 curve.

Since the D&D average population (the population against which our heroes are measured) is based on the 3d6 bell curve, then all you need to say about having an Int of 5 is that, in that room of 216 people, only four are less intelligent than you. Or, that in a room of 54 people, only one is less intelligent than you.

I'm sure that each of you know at least 54 people, even in this Internet age. How many of them cannot dress themselves? If you think that a person with Int 4 or less cannot speak, do you think that one in every 54 people that you know is not intelligent enough to even speak a language? If you think that a person with Int 5 cannot function, how about your school? If there were 1000 pupils at your school, roughly 50 will have Int 5 or less on the 3d6 curve, and 20 were too stupid to be able to speak any language at all! But are hundreds of them less intelligent than Mungo?

And you think Mungo has Int 8?