Novem5er said:
I don't think the Intelligence score has anything to do with it. Is a PC Fighter with an Int of 8 any LESS capable on the battlefield than a Rogue with an Int of 14?
Depends on the tactical ability of the player.
The difficult question is, "Should a dumb fighter be less capable than a smart rogue in game terms to the extent that intelligence effects the ability to use complex tactics?"
D&D Intelligence really measures book learning and cognitive reasoning, something that battlefield tactics COULD be measured by, but not necessarily.
Yes, but like all the attributes, intelligence measures a variaty of related but not necessarily identical things. People who are 'strong' can have different dead lifts and punching power because 'power' isn't quite the same thing as 'strength'. But sense D&D simplifies things by having only one score for strength, all game people of equal strength have equal punching power (barring feats and the like).
You have the same problem with intelligence. Actually though, you have less of a problem with intelligence than before because with the intelligence based skill system its easier to conceptually separate mental apptitude from education.
Yes, maybe a Wizard would be a better commanding general than the brutish Barbarian with 8 Int, based on an understanding of logistics, historical contexts, and any number of minute factors that go into planning a battle.
Perhaps. This is assuming that things like logistics, knowledge (Strategy & Warfare), and tactics shouldn't in fact be skills with the low Int Barbarian excells at to a greater degree than the Wizard by virtue of greater practice and experience. In fact, 'Tactics' is a skill in my system, with specific active abilities. It's not available as a class skill to either Barbarians or Wizards, though. Or rogues for that matter.
Sometimes being fast, strong, and tough is more than enough to win the fight. There is such a thing as 'having smart hands'.
In the US Army, General Infantry is one of the easiest jobs to qualify for (not THE easiest, mind you). Anyone scoring an above-average score on the aptitude test is usually offered a "better" position. Are you telling me that a signals analyst has better combat tactics than an Infantryman?
I think you might be surprised at the quality of modern volunteer infantry. Most people who are in the infantry now are thier because they want to be. The combat arms tend to be highly educated, highly motivated individuals, and the people who are thier because they need the money or want to change thier socio-economic status tend to go after lower risk mos.
In any event, I know that during the battle of the bulge, American combat engineers proved to be extremely tough units when thrown into an infantry role.
Recruits who are physically fit and score modestly on the ASVAB are often directed towards Infantry. Of course, many more people volunteer for the job out of a sense of excitement... but no recruiter ever finds a high-scorer and says "Damn! You'd be a hell of an Infantryman!" Now... Special Forces is another matter.
