D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Guest 6801328]

Considering that you just argued that a -3 is indistinguishable from a +5

This gross mischaracterization demonstrates either your complete inability to understand the argument, or your utter unwillingness to acknowledge it.

 

[Maxperson]

This gross mischaracterization demonstrates either your complete inability to understand the argument, or your utter unwillingness to acknowledge it.

It was your Slippery Slope. You argued that because you can't tell the difference between +5 and +4, and +4 and +3, that if you continued like that you could have Sherlock Holmes at -3 with that 5 int. That's arguing that you can't tell the difference between -3 and +5. You didn't frame it like that directly, but that's what your "logic" ends up being.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, I still can't tell whether your odd conclusion demonstrates genuine or feigned lack of understanding, but we'll leave it at that.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I still can't tell whether your odd conclusion demonstrates genuine or feigned lack of understanding, but we'll leave it at that.

So explain it better.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Oh, god.

Ok, once more into the breach.

The impact of a single +1 is only distinguishable with large data sets and statistical analysis; it's not something you will notice in play. You might think you notice it in play, perhaps because you miss that important roll by 1 point, but if you observe the successes & failures of another character, without seeing their rolls, you won't notice a pattern. Or, more accurately, any pattern you think you notice is more likely to be random noise than an actual pattern.

But, as the saying goes, "The existence of dawn does not invalidate the difference between day and night." Just as minute by minute one cannot distinguish the lessening darkness, but the difference between night and day is still apparent, so too with ability bonuses: if your prime stat is a 5 then of course you are going to notice that rolls fail a lot.

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.

If you want to interpret the language in the rule books in a certain way you are free to do so, but there is nothing in the rules that either supports nor contradicts it. It's just something you are allowed to interpret any way you like.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, god.

Ok, once more into the breach.

The impact of a single +1 is only distinguishable with large data sets and statistical analysis; it's not something you will notice in play. You might think you notice it in play, perhaps because you miss that important roll by 1 point, but if you observe the successes & failures of another character, without seeing their rolls, you won't notice a pattern. Or, more accurately, any pattern you think you notice is more likely to be random noise than an actual pattern.

But, as the saying goes, "The existence of dawn does not invalidate the difference between day and night." Just as minute by minute one cannot distinguish the lessening darkness, but the difference between night and day is still apparent, so too with ability bonuses: if your prime stat is a 5 then of course you are going to notice that rolls fail a lot.

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.

There is a line. At some point, the difference between +5 and X will be observable by those around the two detectives. The difference between +5 and +4 is pretty minor. Doubling that difference makes it no longer minor. Now we have a 10% difference in success rates and both participants making dozens and dozens of deductions in short periods of time. While Holmes is rattling off several deductions about the woman he just met, Holmes wannabe is going to mess 1 or 2 up. If not then, then with the next person they do that with. The difference is only going to become more glaring as you approach -3.

Since Holmes is the best at +5 OR second best at +4, depending on where you put Moriarty, there's no way you are ever going to reach -3 and still have a viable Holmes. You won't even reach +2.

 

[Guest 6801328]

"Whoooosh."

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

 

[Hriston]

Being a normal distribution. It cannot be a normal distribution.

It is though, by construction. You can dispute the validity of the model, but that doesn't change what the model is. I also don't see what bearing issues of validity have on this discussion, since what's being compared is a theoretical model and the distribution of ability scores in a fantasy world.

3d6 rolls are rational data. Abilities scores are not. Ability scores are ordinal data, and, after 3.x, sometimes interval data.

Does this mean you are recanting the statements you made up-thread to the effect that someone with an Intelligence score of 15 is three times as intelligent as someone with an Intelligence score of 5?

Then you shouldn't possibly make the mistake of thinking that a comparison between the distribution of 3d6 rolls and IQ has anything other than arbitrary relationships -- that your comparison is as valid as Maxperson's IQ = INT x 10. They are both arbitrary devices with no foundation.

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.

Again, because that's as valid as comparing a rainbow-farting unicorn with the result of 3d6. A made up something doesn't gain validity because you can match shapes to something else.

Validity, in the sense of accurately corresponding to things in the real world, has no bearing on my argument. IQ is what it is, whether valid or not.

The assigned rarity of an IQ score is arbitrary and without true meaning.

No, as I said above, it means that the proportion of the population who have IQs in a particular range is theoretically fixed. I'm not sure what you mean by "true meaning."

The result of a 3d6 roll does* have meaning. Comparing the two is an exercise in mathturbation. It's pleasing, and passes the time, but doesn't do anything.


*This isn't fully correct in the sense that I'm stating, but I don't want to confuse the issue with a discussion about how the 3d6 normal distribution is also bull because that's much more acceptable bull and even more useful. But, in short, a normal distribution is continuous, meaning that it accounts for rolls of 10.2 and 10.19999999999999 and other such things, which are clearly not going to happen in the real world.

First, 3d6 doesn't follow a normal distribution. It has its own set of probabilities. None of what I've said has anything to do with a comparison of normal distributions.

Second, if, as you say, a normal distribution must be continuous, and such continuity never happens in the real world, then any discussion of a normal distribution can be met with the issues of validity you have raised. It really doesn't add much to the discussion.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

There is a line.

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).

 

[jonathonhawke]

Since Holmes is the best at +5 OR second best at +4, depending on where you put Moriarty, there's no way you are ever going to reach -3 and still have a viable Holmes. You won't even reach +2.

Holmes himself admits there is someone (not Moriarty) superior to him, but who does not exercise his abilities.