D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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

How about pointing them out to me?

 

[Maxperson]

Then why did you bring it up?

I didn't. I only brought up a game version that was int x 10 = IQ.

 

[Maxperson]

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

In a game world with millions of people, there will be a 20 with all the bells and whistles out there, maybe several of them, so you can't solve the most if someone out there is doing more Holmes like deductions than you are. That person will be doing the most.

 

[Maxperson]

How about pointing them out to me?

+2 more than someone else is noticeable in the success/failure ratio. So if the best is 20 int plus all the bells and whistles, then someone with a 17 and all the bells and whistles will be noticeably worse. That discrepancy will become more pronounced with each +1 increased difference. I've just been using 16 since that's where +3 first comes into play, but really the line is at 20/17.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Ok, I have to ask: do you honestly believe that's the argument I'm making? Or are you just trolling? I swear I (and others) have explained it multiple times in multiple ways and you still don't seem to get it.

 

[Hriston]

I didn't. I only brought up a game version that was int x 10 = IQ.

Look up IQ. It actually means something. Your "game version" of IQ is completely meaningless.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, I have to ask: do you honestly believe that's the argument I'm making? I swear I (and others) have explained it multiple times in multiple ways and you still don't seem to get it.

You tell me. You've explained it as +1s going down one at a time from a 20(+5) to a 5 (-3), so a 5 int can be a genius. You've said that 2 or 3 times now. If that's not what you mean, then you are really bad at explaining yourself.

Or are you just trolling?

I don't troll. Nor do I appreciate being called names. So don't do it.

 

[Maxperson]

Look up IQ. It actually means something. Your "game version" of IQ is completely meaningless.

Higher = smarter. I don't bother with exact real world definitions. Heck, it's not even used for anything other than to
give the players a ROUGH analog to help them understand what their stats mean. It's not as if IQ in D&D will be used for anything else, no matter which version you use.

 

[Hriston]

I don't bother with exact real world definitions.

Since your talking to real-world people, you might want to try using real-world definitions for the words you're saying. That way, we don't end up in a pointless conversation only to discover that the words you're saying don't mean the same things to you that they do to everyone else.

 

[Eric V]

In a game world with millions of people, there will be a 20 with all the bells and whistles out there, maybe several of them, so you can't solve the most if someone out there is doing more Holmes like deductions than you are. That person will be doing the most.

But the people who call Holmes the best aren't aware of anyone doing more...that's why they call him the best. Not because there's some sort of empirical evidence with a sample size of millions of people.

Then there's the people with 20 Int who don't bother putting themselves in position to solve crimes...technically, they would be better, but since they never try, we'll never know.

(Then there's [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s point that Holmes is rolling with inspiration more due to the mechanic of bonds/flaws, which is entirely possible, and more than makes up for the fact that his Int might be 17 or 16 or what have you.)

The point is simply that Holmes is referred to as the best only in the fiction, and within the fiction, such proclaimers are only doing so based on the examples they have seen and heard of. That's not proof of a 20 Int for Holmes.