What do you guys think Tony Stark's (Iron Man) Intelligence Score would be?

[Neonchameleon]

Off the scale. Lower odds than one in a billion. Int 18 is only one in two hundred - and Tony doesn't have the level stat boosters yet.

Peter Parker's a natural Int 18. Kid's a genius prodigy who invented web fluid; one in two hundred is being conservative for him but we don't need special rules to cover him. So Int 18 it is.

Hmm.. to baseline Tony we're going to take the smartest human who doesn't blow the curve. I.e. Int 18. Give +3 to Int for ageing. Give another +4 to int for stat boosts. Which means we're up to Int 25 being the top of the scale. Tony's is higher. So I'm going to say Int 26 as Tony, Reed. and Victor von Doom. With each of them having a source of enhancement bonusses to make an effective 32 (Jarvis, rewiring his brain, and magic).

 

[delericho]

Off the scale. Lower odds than one in a billion. Int 18 is only one in two hundred - and Tony doesn't have the level stat boosters yet.

Peter Parker's a natural Int 18. Kid's a genius prodigy who invented web fluid; one in two hundred is being conservative for him but we don't need special rules to cover him. So Int 18 it is.

Hmm.. to baseline Tony we're going to take the smartest human who doesn't blow the curve. I.e. Int 18. Give +3 to Int for ageing. Give another +4 to int for stat boosts. Which means we're up to Int 25 being the top of the scale. Tony's is higher. So I'm going to say Int 26 as Tony, Reed. and Victor von Doom. With each of them having a source of enhancement bonusses to make an effective 32 (Jarvis, rewiring his brain, and magic).

My problem with that sort of approach is that it makes it impossible for a PC to ever match such a character. It doesn't matter what your character does, how long you play, or anything of the sort, you just cannot match up.

Now, this is less of a problem with Tony Stark, because 3e isn't really designed to model superheroes of that sort (what with being a fantasy, not superheroes, game).

But in Star Wars Saga Edition, the stats for Han Solo, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and the rest are pegged so that you cannot create a rules-legal 1st level character, adventure for however long to reach the appropriate level, take all the same advances, and arrive with a comparable set of stats. In order to match those characters, you must cheat. And in a game that is specifically designed to model the adventures of those characters, that's a rather fundamental problem.

And we see the same problem whenever D&D stats are generated for Conan, Elric, or the rest (or even D&D fiction characters such as Drizzt, Elminster, etc) - they're given stats such that it is not possible to match them with a rules-legal PC. Which, given that the game is allegedly designed to model their adventures, is a problem.

Off the scale. Lower odds than one in a billion. Int 18 is only one in two hundred

With regard to this in particular, I would argue that that's a strong indicator that even 3d6-in-order is only an appropriate method for PC generation, not NPCs. Ideally, NPCs should be generated using a method that allows for an 18 as the theoretical maximum, but makes it much less likely to actually happen. That way, that 18 ceases to just be "one in two hundred", but becomes much more uncommon. And making Tony Stark one in two hundred of superheroes and villains in the Marvel universe is much more reasonable.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Razjah]

And we see the same problem whenever D&D stats are generated for Conan, Elric, or the rest (or even D&D fiction characters such as Drizzt, Elminster, etc) - they're given stats such that it is not possible to match them with a rules-legal PC. Which, given that the game is allegedly designed to model their adventures, is a problem.

I recommend this post on The Alexandrian. It is about how the low levels model real life, and how many characters aren't as high leveled was we think (it uses LotR characters) but based on that I wouldn't put Drizzt above something like 10th level.

I used it as my baseline for Stark having a 22 Int with some houserule feats. For NPCs I think only people like Hawking, Einstein, and Newton would have an 18 Int. People who are way beyond the current generation.

 

[delericho]

I recommend this post on The Alexandrian.

Yeah, I've read that. It's an interesting (but flawed) analysis, and certainly ties in with a lot of my thinking (on both the "Tony Stark's Int" and the "What is 1st level" discussions).

It is about how the low levels model real life, and how many characters aren't as high leveled was we think (it uses LotR characters) but based on that I wouldn't put Drizzt above something like 10th level.

My issue is not with the level of the NPCs, though - that's just a matter of racking up the Experience Points. My issue comes when those characters break the game rules so that a rules-legal PC can never match them.

(And I include in that things like Elminster's "Chosen" template, which is little more than an author-fiat way to dodge around the rules constraints. Or an NPC write-up that gives the characters the equivalent of a 40-point stat array when the PCs are expected to start with 25-points.)

 

[Razjah]

(And I include in that things like Elminster's "Chosen" template, which is little more than an author-fiat way to dodge around the rules constraints. Or an NPC write-up that gives the characters the equivalent of a 40-point stat array when the PCs are expected to start with 25-points.)

I think this is problem with people being too focused on "high level means everything" and it's cousin "big numbers mean everything" that plague many right ups.

Settings with multiple authors have even have more problems. Stark built a time machine with his and Doom's suits. But in other stories (by different writers) he is not that capable. The story runs on plot, whereas our games run on mechanics. I think this causes the biggest problem in trying to nail down any character's stats.

 

[delericho]

I think this is problem with people being too focused on "high level means everything" and it's cousin "big numbers mean everything" that plague many right ups.

You're not wrong.

Settings with multiple authors have even have more problems. Stark built a time machine with his and Doom's suits. But in other stories (by different writers) he is not that capable. The story runs on plot, whereas our games run on mechanics. I think this causes the biggest problem in trying to nail down any character's stats.

There's also a lot of truth in this. Back before 4e (which all but killed alignment debates), we had periodic discussions about Batman's alignment. Ultimately, though, the issue seemed to come down to "which Batman?", because so many different writers had different interpretations of the character (not to mention different posters having different interpretations of alignment. Needless to say, they were all wrong except me. ).

So, yeah, as the Alexandrian says in that post you linked, it's kinda important for the game designers to calibrate what they mean by "Int 18", "level 5", and so on, so that there's a sensible basis for discussion. And even then, it's never going to be an exact science. At some point, you just have to pick a number and go for it.

(I still want my "sample NPCs" to be rules-legal, though! )

 

[Neonchameleon]

My problem with that sort of approach is that it makes it impossible for a PC to ever match such a character. It doesn't matter what your character does, how long you play, or anything of the sort, you just cannot match up.

And here I have no problem with such characters existing in a setting. I don't mind a game where there is theoretically Superman out there. Tony Stark is one of the three smartest men in a world with superpowers. His superpower is intelligence - and IIRC Reed Richards can use his stretching to augment his brain while Doom also cheats like there's no tomorrow. Superpowers are a form of cheating - and Stark has at the very least Charles Atlas Superpowers.

I also have no problem with legends in a game. I have no problem with the idea you won't be able to match Superman for sheer power, Stark for brains, or even Gandalf in Middle Earth. Let alone Morgoth or Sauron. These are legends and they shape the world. The Hulk is the Strongest One There Is - not a problem. (Of course you need to get them offstage most of the time). And Elmunchkin is the recipient of direct divine intervention and a DMPC who was sorted into House Sparklepoo.

The problem comes in when we have such characters as almost ubiquitous. You've mentioned examples below. Drizzt is not The Greatest Swordsman Ever. Han isn't off the ability curve. Nor, for that matter, is Obi-Wan (unless you don't have Force access). These characters are not legends that almost define the setting. The PCs should be able to resemble and then surpass them given time and experience. But this doesn't mean the same should be true for everyone - normally not for setting-wide BBEGs.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My problem with that sort of approach is that it makes it impossible for a PC to ever match such a character. It doesn't matter what your character does, how long you play, or anything of the sort, you just cannot match up.

Which is why my original response was, essentially, "the human max in any given RPG"- other human PCs can match him, but they can't exceed him. He's kind of the definition of the pinnacle of human intellect.

And we see the same problem whenever D&D stats are generated for Conan, Elric, or the rest (or even D&D fiction characters such as Drizzt, Elminster, etc) - they're given stats such that it is not possible to match them with a rules-legal PC. Which, given that the game is allegedly designed to model their adventures, is a problem.

One of the reasons I hate "exception-based design"- if it's in the game, I want the players to be able to match it- whatever it is- if they do or acquire the _________ that the NPCs have.

 

[delericho]

And here I have no problem with such characters existing in a setting. I don't mind a game where there is theoretically Superman out there. Tony Stark is one of the three smartest men in a world with superpowers.

Okay, I can agree with that, with the caveat that it's game dependent. If the nature of the game is "you're the Avengers", then I damn well better be able to do Tony Stark in the system.

But, yeah, if the game is "you're Luke Skywalker", then I guess it's fine if Yoda is assumed to be off the scale.

 

[CAFRedblade]

Most D&D systems utilize the idea that average ability scores are either 9 or 10 depending on edition.

I think we can ignore the idea of rolling for NPC stats, most people in the world would fall into the NPC category. Thus the SuperHumans, and Mutants are the PC's or Villains (BBEG's) and have their stats rolled.

We need to then figure out at what scale do the ability score points go up to hit a real world genius like Stephen Hawking..?
Is his Int score 14, 16 or 18? If it's only 14, then Peter Parker could be 16, and Tony Stark and Reed Richards both 18. Before any edition based adjustments.

Due to my 2nd preference, say no ability score adjustments per leveling, only age modifiers and perchance Magic/Item adjustments, through their origins (feats & class features perhaps as well).

But I really like the idea of mapping it to the D20 Modern style of classes, based on stat, that gives boosts to be better at their respective abilities.
Alongside the creation of Stat boosting feats for SuperHumans and Mutants.

Either way, I'd say they've been boosted to at least 20 in Int scores, through various means.