Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6841969" data-attributes="member: 42582">No they don't. I had already quoted post passages multiple times upthread. The PHB says that INT is quite similar to IQ, but includes other stuff. The DMG says that INT roughly corresponds to IQ, but includes other stuff. Neither of those things is an assertion that INT = IQ, or is proportionate to IQ. They are assertions of similarity and of rough equality respectively - neither of those things is a version of equality, identity, or uniform correlation.As [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has pointed out, if you take those as a metric for IQ, you discover that there is no *10 correlation, because 17 INT correlates to around 140 IQ.Basic D&D is a version of D&D. It is based on the original game, plus Holmes Basic. It's a better guide to what INT means than a Dragon article by Brian Blume!The question of whether or not a baboon can sit an IQ test has nothing to do with its INT score. Apart from anything else, a baboon cannot speak, read or write, which is sufficient to show that (whatever its INT score) it can't take an IQ test. In 5e (unlike in Moldvay Basic or AD&D) no connection is made between linguistic ability and INT.There is nothing that says that humans can't fly, either. Some things are obvious because of the subject matter.What is the rule that is being read "creatively"? Where is the rule that states that, if a PC has a low INT, then the player is restricted in permissible action declarations?</blockquote>

Verification