What Intelligence Scores Represent

mosaic

Explorer
Greetings all-

I've never liked the fact that animals have an intelligence of 1-2 and anything with an intelligence of 3 or above can speak Common. It seems like a whole lot of variation is squeezed into those bottom two points. Besides, I remember way back in 1E when a 10 in Intelligence was supposed to represent an IQ of 100. (The probabilities for that never quite worked right - way too many geniuses walkin' around - but at least it was a reference).

So I came up with an alternate table of what different Intelligence scores represent. Most of the detail is down at the bottom. I'd like to know what folks think of it. Thanks!

score / description
0 no reaction to stimuli. [rocks, furniture, clothing]

1 no thinking, no problem solving, only reaction to stimuli. unaware of self. unafraid of death. un-trainable (but possibly “programmable”). [plants, oozes, constructs, animated objects, mindless undead, computers]

2 operate almost entirely on instincts, limited problem solving abilities, dimly aware of self, minimally trainable (1 task). [dumb animals (most mollusks, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds), predatory plants]

3 rely mostly on instincts but can adapt, simple problem solving abilities, aware of self, somewhat trainable (2-3 tasks). [average animals (most mammals, predatory mollusks, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds)]

4 guided by instincts, well developed problem solving abilities, aware of self and somewhat aware of others, trainable (4-6 tasks). [smart or cunning animals (predatory and working mammals, primates, cetaceans), severely retarded human beings]

5 able to operate counter to instincts, capable of short- and medium-range planning, fully aware of self and others, occasional ethical leaps, highly trainable (7-12 tasks). [exceptionally smart animals (predatory and working primates and cetaceans), moderately retarded humans]

6 capable learning, long-term planning, and making moral and ethical choices (but still not particularly 'smart'). [“awakened” plants and animals, mildly retarded humans]

7 slow, dim-witted
8-9 below average
10-11 average
12-13 above average
14-15 bright, quick-witted, gifted
16-17 exceptionally gifted
18-19 genius
20-21 super genius
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

oops

oops, meant to start a new thread

Not a bad idea btw. It has a more clearly delineated heirarchy for Intelligence. I don't really see a need for it though. Mechanically, I don't think there should be much difference between an Int 1 and an Int 2 creature. Although I do like the idea of 0 Intelligence meaning no response to stimuli. A creature should have a minimal Intelligence if it is able to compute things on a mundane level. I think golems should have Intelligence scores, though they should probably be 1 in most cases.
 
Last edited:

mosaic said:
Greetings all-

I've never liked the fact that animals have an intelligence of 1-2 and anything with an intelligence of 3 or above can speak Common. It seems like a whole lot of variation is squeezed into those bottom two points. Besides, I remember way back in 1E when a 10 in Intelligence was supposed to represent an IQ of 100. (The probabilities for that never quite worked right - way too many geniuses walkin' around - but at least it was a reference).

So I came up with an alternate table of what different Intelligence scores represent. Most of the detail is down at the bottom. I'd like to know what folks think of it. Thanks!

score / description
0 no reaction to stimuli. [rocks, furniture, clothing]

1 no thinking, no problem solving, only reaction to stimuli. unaware of self. unafraid of death. un-trainable (but possibly “programmable”). [plants, oozes, constructs, animated objects, mindless undead, computers]

2 operate almost entirely on instincts, limited problem solving abilities, dimly aware of self, minimally trainable (1 task). [dumb animals (most mollusks, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds), predatory plants]

3 rely mostly on instincts but can adapt, simple problem solving abilities, aware of self, somewhat trainable (2-3 tasks). [average animals (most mammals, predatory mollusks, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds)]

4 guided by instincts, well developed problem solving abilities, aware of self and somewhat aware of others, trainable (4-6 tasks). [smart or cunning animals (predatory and working mammals, primates, cetaceans), severely retarded human beings]

5 able to operate counter to instincts, capable of short- and medium-range planning, fully aware of self and others, occasional ethical leaps, highly trainable (7-12 tasks). [exceptionally smart animals (predatory and working primates and cetaceans), moderately retarded humans]

6 capable learning, long-term planning, and making moral and ethical choices (but still not particularly 'smart'). [“awakened” plants and animals, mildly retarded humans]

7 slow, dim-witted
8-9 below average
10-11 average
12-13 above average
14-15 bright, quick-witted, gifted
16-17 exceptionally gifted
18-19 genius
20-21 super genius


Not bad :)

I always thought of INT score equal to an IQ score (can't remember which test scale though, and there are many, and different) where an average humans IQ is about 100 (10) but floats between 80 (8) to 120 (12)

btw I scored 187 so I guess that makes me a genius, LoL ;)
 

mosaic said:
Greetings all-

I've never liked the fact that animals have an intelligence of 1-2 and anything with an intelligence of 3 or above can speak Common. It seems like a whole lot of variation is squeezed into those bottom two points. Besides, I remember way back in 1E when a 10 in Intelligence was supposed to represent an IQ of 100. (The probabilities for that never quite worked right - way too many geniuses walkin' around - but at least it was a reference).

I've had the very same thought! Though I haven't messed with the Int rules of 3.x, I'm changing them for my system revamp. Human range is 6-14, so animals are 0 to 5. I think I'm going to use 0 for animals that have no learning capability or self awareness, like worms that don't even actually have brains. 5 will be gorillas, chimps and bonobos. Within that range, I'll use your guidelines.

P.S. does anyone know why 2nd edition referred to 18+ Int as 'supra' genius? I don't know what supra means, but it sounds latin for 'Superman'.
 

Tequila Sunrise said:
P.S. does anyone know why 2nd edition referred to 18+ Int as 'supra' genius? I don't know what supra means, but it sounds latin for 'Superman'.

http://www.answers.com/supra
1. Above; over; on top of: suprarenal.
2. Greater than; transcending: supramolecular.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=supra-
prefix meaning "above, over, beyond," from L. supra "above, before, beyond," in supera (parte), lit. "on the upper (side)," from old fem. ablative singular of superus (adj.) "above," related to super "above, over" (see super-).


Superman is just a calque for the German Übermensch.
 
Last edited:

Every few months a thread like this pops up. To reply to such I eventually took a portion of a prior thread of mine on a similar topic and set it aside. Here is my view on the Intellect and what various levels of it represent. I focus more on the -- to 10 score, I will admit, as anything beyond that tends to be somewhat subjective in RL scenarios, due to the abstract nature of the INT score in the rarely wholely realistic RPGs. Note that my view differs from the typical views of 'no animals can have 3+ Int' and 'Int 3 characters are playable.'

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/


I don't consider someone with an Int of 3 playable, and I do not allow such characters in my games as it is arguable how such a creature should be played. Actually, I don't even allow an Int of 5, but that's a minor issue since I use Point Buy 32 or 4d6 drop the lowest (reroll all if total bonus less than +2 or any ability rolled is 5 or less).

The reason Animals are Int 1 or 2 is due to rolling 3d6 for all abilities. Even with 4d6 drop the lowest you are still (in the end) taking the numbers from only three dice. The lowest possible is result is 3, and I think the developers worried that if they granted animals more than Int 2 some players might have seen them as playable creatures - even if not awakened - causing all sorts of potential problems.

As for animals and intelligence, I too see it as a continuum, but I house ruled it into a broader spectrum so that the division between sapient and sentient was less certain, less obvious. The prior guidelines I stated in my prior post (about a clever subtype) is more or less my original idea from a few years ago. It eventually developed into the following:

- - - - - -

Int --: The creature is mindless, an automaton reacting to stimuli, incapable of learning 'tricks'. Most worms, insects, and other invertabrets fall into this category. Some do not, but they tend to be the exception. As mindless creatures they are immune to mind affecting effects that seek to charm, although specific spells might seek to 'override' their instinctive reactions, dominating them like a puppet. Illusions that affect their senses / perceptions affect them normally, as it is Wisdom that deals with such. Enchantments have no effect unless both highly specific and directly seeking to control the body irregardless of presense of the mind (or lack thereof). A 'Dominate Insects' spell would be an example of such. Due to their mindless nature, these creatures recieve a +8 bonus against such attempts to dominate. Most fully minded individuals find little for their spells to work upon in the ganglia of such creatures that lack even the most rudiment of a brain.

Int 1: The creature is capable of learning, of reacting in a similar manner to similar stimulus at a later period (such as octopi learning to open jars and later applying the skill to a newly found jar). They do not understand the concept of time, however, having no memory of the past or ability to imagine the future. They exist without shaped thought in the extreme now of the present moment. Distracted for a moment, they readily forget what they were doing / perceiving even a few seconds ago unless it is also part of the new moment (such as escaping a predator, following a scent, etc). Except for their ability to learn in the most basic sense of the word they are little beyond the automatons of Int -. Due to this, they receive a +4 bonus against attempts to use Enchantment against them. Examples of such creatures include advanced mollusks such as octopi and squids (but not less advanced ones, such as slugs and snails). It also includes most fish (including sharks) and amphibeans (frogs, newts), many reptiles (lizards, snakes) and earlier dinosaurs, and some few birds and mammals. Base desires form at this level (territoriality, fight or flight, propogation of the species, etc).

Int 2: A faint degree of memory begins to percolate through the creature's 'thoughts' - if they could be called such. Such 'thoughts' are little more than recalled images and sensations. No reason is affixed to such. They tend to learn basic patterns while in their youth - such as bird song. They are vaguely aware of the passing of the seasons and may react 'ahead of time' due to an intuition of the future - as they continue to lack the ability to fully conceptualize the idea of a future. The creature is more readily affected by most enchantments, and so receives only a +2 benefit against such - as much due to an alien mindset (compared with sapient beings) as due to a notable lack of mind. Most creatures not included in Int 1 are found to have Int 2, but some notable exceptions exist. Basic emotions form at this level (such as the attachment of imprinting, 'loyalty' in the sense that pack animals that work together have, etc, but not more complex ones such as grief, anxiety, compassion, pity, pride, etc).

Int 3: The creature can recall - fuzzily - the past and consider the future. It cannot yet fully imagine the future. Rather it is in the inbetween state beyond merely being intuitively aware of it yet not yet able to fully imagine it. Squirrels, dogs, pigs, whales, and other 'clever' creatures fall into this category. They are readily able to learn from their experiences, readily able to realize when the current methods are not working - and consider slightly different ones. Entirely new methods, however, are likely encountered by chance rather than planning. Thus few squirrels cannot eventually reach the bird feeder, few pigs cannot eventually find a way out of their pen, and wolves can readily develop basic tactics against larger - and perhaps more clever - foes. A faint degree of language is possible - more than mere territorial or courting calls.

Cultural concepts may occasionally arise, but only uncommonly do they pass on to the following generation. Thus almost never do any cultural developments last more than a couple generations - if that. Instead creatures with this communal level of complex thought patterns tend to be in a state of continuously forming and losing culture in the form of a multitude of individual life-time traditions that rarely pass on - to others of the same generation or to following generations. Complex emotions form at this level - and can sometimes be conveyed via a form of 'speech' (howls, barks, squeeks, etc, but usually a large part of this is body language). The creature is readily charmed or otherwise compelled by enchantments compared to their more mindless kin. They receive only a +1 bonus against such. Rare is the animal that advances beyond this level.

Int 4: The creature can fully conceptualize the ideas of past and future, can recall past memories, and can imagine actions not yet taken - ie: consider future actions. Basic tool use is typically found at this level - sticks to poke, to act as clubs or supporting cane, rocks to strike nuts or foes, etc. With continuous direction, one of this Intellect may potentially follow basic orders entirely on their own (after some training). Basic language patterns begin to arise - 'food', 'home', 'danger', 'leaf', 'forest', 'ground', 'good', 'bad', etc. The creature does not understand abstract concepts, but it can understand what is pleasing / useful to it (good) and displeasing / harmful to it (bad). It can recognize itself in a mirror and react to the image presented. Most primates and some cetacians fall into this category. Basic cultural concepts are readily developed and passed on to following generations. Their ability to form basic language patterns removes the last constraint working against enchantments cast by more intellectual beings. Thus they receive no bonus against such magic. Note that self-awareness has arisen upon this level of intellect.

Creatures such as apes (chimps, gorillas) often - but not always - fall into this category, as they can be taught sign language. They are as commonly found with Int 4 as humans are found with Int 11 or 12. Some dolphins might also fall into this category, as some evidence exists that they can be taught to an almost similar level. Many if not most dolphins, however, likely fall under Int 3.

Int 5: Even if raised in isolation, the creature will innately develop its own language. It readily comprehends basic patterns and can imagine concepts not yet encountered. Abstract thought is still somewhat beyond it, however. It has a mind akin to that of a very young human child - a toddler, or perhaps a year or two older. An adult creature with such a level of awareness can understand general commands / tasks - and carry them out - with little or no supervision. They can convey basic messages through gestures if not words (or sound patterns). The creature is fully self-conscious. What is noteworthy is that the creatures of this level of intellect are also others-conscious. They are aware that others are more than objects with which they interact. This does not necessarily mean that they care about the desires of others, but they are aware of such. Thus, this is the level of intellect where a conscious develops - the ability to understand that one's actions may negatively or positively affect another - and then act on such. The most complex emotions exist at this level - the ones that require an awareness and possibly and empathy towards others: agape, compassion, obligation, pity, contempt, spite, etc.

Int 6: This is typically the level that differentiates beings from creatures. This is the typical minimum level at which complex socities become possible. Prior to this one may find highly advanced bands of chimps, but only upon this level may one find creatures capable of learning complex tasks (crafting basic stone tools [handax, scraper, etc], fire-making, etc) or learning complex - and even abstract - concepts. However, in a 'normal' Int 10 society such beings are seen as little better than children. While young this may be tolerated - even found cute - but among the adult members of an Int 10 society a being with only Int 6 is considered severely mentally retarded, incapable of living on their own or performing most tasks without supervision, often looked upon with a trace of pity or contempt. Simple tasks can be performed with ease once they are learned, but complex tasks - particularly ones involving abstract concepts - are difficult. Basic math (2 + 11, 14 - 6) is about the best one of this Int is likely to achieve. Reading is rarely possible except at the most minimum level (see spot run). They can converse as normal, but it is unlikely that they will understand (or possibly even know) complex words, and their speech patterns likely use a simple grammar and include few words of more than one or two syllables.

Societies composed entire of such individuals, however, can readily exist in the wilderness - where the intellect grants a minor but significant boon over most other creatures, and complex abstract concepts are not necessarily needed. The ability to utilize basic math and reading may allow it to trade almost as normal with nearby towns (of those with higher Int). Note that Sense Motive and Bluff - the skills used most often when haggling over prices - are not affected by this level of Intellect. Thus the tribal man assigned the task of interaction with the townfolk may still bargain well while trading their furs and other items to the townsfolk. Note that it is around this level that simple views of the afterlife and basic arts and crafts - intended for other than tools - are first developed.

Int 7: Beings with this level of Intellect typically are in need of guardianship. Among a 'normal' Int 10 society such a being is seen as so severely lacking as to be incapable of making decisions on its own. Typically such beings remain under the control of a parent, relative, or other guardian for most of their life. However, with time and experience they may eventually rise beyond this need - which is what truely separates them from those of the prior level of Int.

Societies composed entire of this level of Intellect tend to vascillate between a level that seems almost brutishly barbaric to townsfolk and rural settlers and an almost 'normal' style of life. It is around this level that arts and crafts made not as tools but perhaps for symbolism or shear enjoyment of crafting develop. It is around this level that complex views of the afterlife begin to form, although it is not until the next level that such views become a common part of the culture (rather than only the perview of the shaman and his chosen apprentices).

Int 8: This level of intellect is typically the least at which a being can get by without supervision or guardianship in a typical human society. They can find a job, keep to a schedule, perfom simple tasks with ease (particularly repetitious ones - if they are not prone to absentminded behavior [low Wis]). They have trouble with complex abstract ideas, but they can readily grasp the simple ones (the abstract concepts of good, evil, etc). They are typically regarded as 'slow' or 'lacking' by others in their community (presuming a 'normal' Int 10 society). Societies made entirely of such are typically very simple in structure (chief with his band, etc) and are characteristic of the stereotype 'barbarian', 'orc', etc tribe (as seen by townsfolk of 'normal' Int 10). Literacy and complex arts and crafts are uncommon but not unknown among such societies. They can readily plan years in advance, but such plans tend to be simple - often 'continue what we have always done'. Complex views of the afterlife exist, and the concept of deities begins to form (as opposed to mere spirits and sprites / fae).

Int 9: In basic tasks one cannot readily distinguish whether this being is 'normal' or 'sub-normal'. They may speak a little slow, perhaps have some difficulty with complex abstract ideas that are new to it, and may need light monitoring when performing a long and complex non-repetitious tasks entirely on their own, but otherwise they are indistinguishable from 'normal'.

Int 10: Human normal intellect.

Int 11: In complex tasks they occationally are noted for the somewhat greater ease with which they perform, but otherwise they are rarely differentiated from 'normal'.

Int 12: Readily recognized by others in their society as 'clever'. Those that meet the being only briefly, however, are unlikely to notice this. Societies that do not value high intellect - seeing the occational new ideas that arise as against traditions, etc - may view the individual negatively, but most of such Intellect (supposing normal or better Wis) readily see this and hide views that may otherwise cause waves. In organizations where intellectual merit may lead to advancement they tend to hold higher ranking positions.

After this it tends to be more of the same. "A" is more clever than "B" who is more clever than normal "C." So "A" is 'very' clever. And so on. Around Int 14 the individual may be viewed as a 'clever' or 'precotious' child by those that value Int and as 'asking too many questions' and being 'too curious' by those that do not. Around 16 the difference is more acute. The individual is regarded as highly clever / intelligent even by those that meet them only briefly. Around 18 they are local legends - the types pre-supposed (in societies that value Int) as 'destined' for a high position (in the church, in the college, as an advisor to some high ranking lord, etc).

Int 20 is beyond human norm and rarely encountered. They are almost as beyond the typical Int 10 individual as the Int 10 individual is beyond the most advanced creature (Int 5). They likely look with confusion upon many choices and views of their 'normal' counterparts - as they can readily see holes in the arguments, gaps in the views, generalities in the statements, and lack of foresight or consideration in the choices. They may choose to live somewhat apart (if possible) simply to distance themselves from a community of individuals they do not readily understand - and who rarely understand them. The more evil of such beings may, around this time, stop viewing most other individuals as true beings, for they see themselves as something 'beyond' those they typically encounter. In a certain narrow minded sense they may even be partly right, for they are twice beyond the Int 10 being - which itself is twice beyond the typical Int 5 creature.

- - - - - -

Thus, animals - mere creatures - are ranged from -- to 5, with beings existing from 6 onward. A character with a 6 or 7 Int would be difficult to play, but is considered possible.
 

Remove ads

Top