D&D 5E The Int 8 Party: A Solution?

[Satyrn]

. . . and also drool.

I played with a woman once who told me I had to do that whenever I talked to her paladin.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Well, way back in AD&D Int was specifically stated to be roughly equivalent to IQ (divided by 10). So I guess it might seem natural to keep doing this to those of us who played back then.

I'll take your word for it, though regardless of what they said, that isn't what the math supports. If you figure out the chances of rolling various numbers on 3d6, they can then be correlated with IQ distribution on an approximated bell curve, and you get what (IMO) is a much better way of looking at. (This was discussed and debated extensively on another thread a couple years ago. Summary is that you have to accept the arbitrary distribution of IQ in the first place for this to work. So if you want to get super technical you can object to the methodology, but then again, the other methodology makes even less sense.) Sure, by doing it this way you sacrifice the simple x10 multiplier, but it expands the average range and you have to be like 3 or 4 before you hit what would be considered mental retardation. As far as simplicity goes...it's consulting a simple chart rather than multiplying by 10. Not really an issue.

The biggest reason I can think of not to do it is just that people like their Int 14 character to be a genius, rather than just being bright. IMO that is outweighed by the ability to have lower scores that are still playable.

 

[Werebat]

I'll take your word for it, though regardless of what they said, that isn't what the math supports. If you figure out the chances of rolling various numbers on 3d6, they can then be correlated with IQ distribution on an approximated bell curve, and you get what (IMO) is a much better way of looking at. (This was discussed and debated extensively on another thread a couple years ago. Summary is that you have to accept the arbitrary distribution of IQ in the first place for this to work. So if you want to get super technical you can object to the methodology, but then again, the other methodology makes even less sense.) Sure, by doing it this way you sacrifice the simple x10 multiplier, but it expands the average range and you have to be like 3 or 4 before you hit what would be considered mental retardation. As far as simplicity goes...it's consulting a simple chart rather than multiplying by 10. Not really an issue.

The biggest reason I can think of not to do it is just that people like their Int 14 character to be a genius, rather than just being bright. IMO that is outweighed by the ability to have lower scores that are still playable.

That's actually a good point, Sword. Looking at the actual distribution curve for IQ, an IQ of 140 or above would be MUCH more rare than the roughly 17% of the time you would roll 14 or above on 3d6.

And your Int 18 wizard actually has an IQ of about 140.

 

[Corwin]

My original post had a link to a 1 page, free packet explaining how to determine a character's IQ.

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/208621/IQ-for-the-Adventurer?term=iq+for+&test_epoch=0

Of course an IQ isn't a personality trait, but finding out a character's IQ, and then finding out what types of traits are associated with that type of IQ can help.

For example someone with an IQ around 80 is seen as slow (not mental retardation, but more-so slow to react, get information right away, etc...).
They may be a bit dull, and react before thinking about the consequence (not all the time, mind you).

Those are but some examples.

Being on the DMs Guild does not make it rules. You can like that submission all you want, it don't make D&D use your theory. There is nothing in 5e that suggests a direct correlation between INT and IQ. Sorry.

 

[Corwin]

Double post.

 

[iserith]

The OP was looking for a reasonable solution. Instead of changing the game mechanics, the table could do what one of the core foundations of the game was about, roleplaying. I just supplied a simple to use, easy to understand method for player's to easily come to that conclusion, and maybe put it in their head that, "Oh yeah, my character is kind of slow."

Not playing an Int 8 character as "kind of slow" is still roleplaying.

Well, way back in AD&D Int was specifically stated to be roughly equivalent to IQ (divided by 10). So I guess it might seem natural to keep doing this to those of us who played back then.

Besides, what else would Intelligence really be? Don't say "common sense" or "interpersonal skills" because these are already covered by Wis and Cha, respectively. And if Intelligence were really just a measure of arcane magical aptitude and book learnin' (Education), why not call it that instead?

I just had a read of the AD&D 2e PHB. On Intelligence it offers some suggestions about how different scores can be represented in play. They could be this or that. They're apt to be this way or another. Nothing in there about "must be" or "would be," which is good.

Here's the other bit of note: "However, the true capabilities of a mind lie not in numbers - IQ, Intelligence score, or whatever. Many intelligent, even brilliant, people in the real world fail to apply their minds creatively and usefully, thus falling far below their own potential. Don't rely too heavily on your character's Intelligence score; you must provide your character with the creativity and energy he supposedly possesses!"

So while I don't know why anyone would need to consider how things were done in the 80s and 90s to play D&D 5e in 2017, it seems even Way Back Then, there was some pretty significant wiggle room in how one might play a low-Intelligence character and still be considered a good roleplayer.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I personally tend to view low-int scores as encompassing traits like "stupid", but alternatively also "uneducated", "poor short- or long-term memory", and/or "out-of touch with things not immediately in front of the individual."

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Not playing an Int 8 character as "kind of slow" is still roleplaying.



I just had a read of the AD&D 2e PHB. On Intelligence it offers some suggestions about how different scores can be represented in play. They could be this or that. They're apt to be this way or another. Nothing in there about "must be" or "would be," which is good.

Here's the other bit of note: "However, the true capabilities of a mind lie not in numbers - IQ, Intelligence score, or whatever. Many intelligent, even brilliant, people in the real world fail to apply their minds creatively and usefully, thus falling far below their own potential. Don't rely too heavily on your character's Intelligence score; you must provide your character with the creativity and energy he supposedly possesses!"

So while I don't know why anyone would need to consider how things were done in the 80s and 90s to play D&D 5e in 2017, it seems even Way Back Then, there was some pretty significant wiggle room in how one might play a low-Intelligence character and still be considered a good roleplayer.

True. I personally don't expect a player of a 8 INT pc to intentionally make bad decisions that hamper the group in order to play his PC correctly. He already suffers from mechanical penalties I hate to cut him off form the part of the game that challenges the players at the table as they formulate strategy on how to deal with an obstacle.

 

[Shasarak]

I've just seen too many parties with one brilliant guy who for some reason chooses to travel around and associate with a bunch of stooges.

Makes sense if one of those stooges is incredibly Charismatic because they did not waste their points in Intelligence.

 

[Werebat]

So some great thoughts here. For one, an Int of 8 does not necessarily equate to an IQ of 80. However, another wrinkle here is that if you use relative bell curves, an ape (Int 6) has an IQ of about 80, which is probably not accurate.

On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with wanting to provide players with a reason other than role-playing to want to assign Int scores higher than 8 to their non-wizard (or arcane trickster, or to a lesser degree eldritch knight) PCs.

There are good mechanical reasons to not want a Dex of 8, or a Con of 8, no matter what your class is. Wis is sort of dumpable, but in addition to protecting from a fair number of saves that you really don't want to blow, there's Perception. Str and Cha are dumpable, but both have more mechanical utility than Int, which is only used for Knowledge checks and the rare Int save. I think it needs something, and an extra skill or two in the hands of the PCs (at the cost of tampering with optimization in other areas) might be just the thing.

"But characters with Int 8 get penalized!" can be answered with "But their stats are more optimized than those of the PCs that spent 4 points on Int in order to gain an extra skill."

So far, this is working for me.