PDA

View Full Version : 12-14 Inteligence...how "above average" is it?



Giegue
2010-01-16, 10:02 AM
I have heard a lot of mixed things about intelligence in my days playing D&D. I know that anything above 10 intelligence is "above average," but exactly how above average would a character with 12 or 14 intelligence be? The reason I ask is because I have found conflicting opinions on this. On one forum, people where saying that the majority of people on there, who where quite smart, would be in the 12-14 range. Likewise, I have heard that the 12-14 range is rather dumb despite being "above average." So my question is where is whether or not a character in the 12-14 int range is smart or not. I don't mean rocket scientist level or super genius or anything like that. I mean smart like enough to score good grades if they tried and be able to plan and be strategic.

Sucrose
2010-01-16, 10:14 AM
They are easily smart enough to get good grades and plan well (heck, people down to an 8 Int can do it if they apply themselves enough. 6 is where it begins to get a bit sketchy.). A person with 14 Intelligence could, with sufficient training, be a rather good rocket scientist, if not a leader in his field.

bosssmiley
2010-01-16, 11:17 AM
The old thumbnail equivalent back in AD&D days (when stats more closely followed the 3d6 bell curve, and were hard-capped at 25) used to be "Int score x 10 = IQ".

deuxhero
2010-01-16, 11:19 AM
Which breaks down when
1.You got scores over 20
2.You realize the system was invented in the 1900s and is very out of place in almost any setting.

That said, note that a +2 int bonus means you have acess to a slightly wider portfolio of know:skills.

Soranar
2010-01-16, 11:23 AM
Actually, DnD is pretty accurate in it's description of Intelligence

natural intelligence helps you learn quickly (more skillpoints) but you're still restricted by your experience (how long you spend learning/using that particular field) and sometimes your wisdom also affects a particular skill (in DnD they kept skills from using multiple mental stats to simplify things but in real life you usually use a combination of them)

yet your bonus also gives you insight someone with similar experience wouldn't have (INT bonus applied to skill)

so the result

say a doctor is average in INT (10) yet has 20 years of experience (level 20 doctor) he is still way better at it than a genius who just started to learn about it

INT 18 guy, say level 4, and medical knowledge is a cross class skill as he never went to medical school, his skill result is much much lower despite the fact that technically he's "dumber" than the genius

add that to the fact that Intelligence is a multifaceted trait (INT/WIS) and you can see how complicated it is to apply

but yeah, truly high INT (like 18 and up) should be really rare, something like 1-2% of the population if you trust IQ tests

juggalotis
2010-01-16, 11:24 AM
on the occasions when i dm i put it to my players as 10 is "average for the time" with the fantasy medieval time frame i assume the common folk have no formal education and are only world wise. so a 10 intelligence would be an average person who has recieved no education. i find this usually works out quite well.

Eldariel
2010-01-16, 12:11 PM
Which breaks down when
1.You got scores over 20

While the measurement is an issue, ratio IQ is effectively uncapped so scores over 20 are not a problem.

Tengu_temp
2010-01-16, 12:16 PM
There is no correlation between IQ and DND Intelligence - it makes no sense that tactical feats require you to have 130 IQ, or that your IQ increases with age.

Blas_de_Lezo
2010-01-16, 12:25 PM
I was always taught that Int was the better stat to transform into "real life", as the average Int in D&D (10-11) matches the average IQ between Earth humans (100-110). So Int 12-14 would be a rather clever person with an IQ of 120-140. And Int 18 would be the maximun possible to a "normal person" in D&D, as in the Earth (IQ 180 it's supposed to be maximum).

Of course, it happens that a bunch of people in history had an IQ of more than 180, but that's because they leveled up and increased Int as their favored stat. :smallwink:

[EDIT: I also doubt anyone with an Int of 18 / 180 IQ spends so much time here discussing about it :smallbiggrin:]

Dr_S
2010-01-16, 12:26 PM
IQ relates SOLELY to your ability to reason and work out problems...
My understanding is that IQ in real life is more like wisdom and knowledge in real life is int. (Intelligence and Knowledge are far from the same thing)

ericgrau
2010-01-16, 12:35 PM
I don't think every average Joe is 10 on the dot. I'd say 12 is still "average". It's slightly better but not noticeably so unless you carefully test him. 14 is "smart", like a scientist or nerd or gifted student or so on. Many heroes might even have 14 as their high stat, and be noticeably better than a commoner. You don't have to roll that low on 4d6 drop 1 for this to happen. Other stat generating methods are a bit more powerful though.

Flickerdart
2010-01-16, 12:51 PM
I don't think every average Joe is 10 on the dot. I'd say 12 is still "average". It's slightly better but not noticeably so unless you carefully test him. 14 is "smart", like a scientist or nerd or gifted student or so on. Many heroes might even have 14 as their high stat, and be noticeably better than a commoner. You don't have to roll that low on 4d6 drop 1 for this to happen. Other stat generating methods are a bit more powerful though.
"Average joe" stats are 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11 for all species, in any order, per MM. 12 is the second highest stat of the nonelite array that's given to people with NPC class levels. Joe Commoner with the average array is going to be dumber by 5% than Jim Expert who took a 12 in INT. Is that noticeable? Only in the long run. Does it mean that Jim can hit results that Joe never could? Yes, and that makes all the difference. A 14 is a 10% increase, and so noticeably better, the difference between an A and a B on a test. That 5% might not make a difference that's immediately apparent, yes.


Actually, DnD is pretty accurate in it's description of Intelligence

natural intelligence helps you learn quickly (more skillpoints) but you're still restricted by your experience (how long you spend learning/using that particular field) and sometimes your wisdom also affects a particular skill (in DnD they kept skills from using multiple mental stats to simplify things but in real life you usually use a combination of them)

yet your bonus also gives you insight someone with similar experience wouldn't have (INT bonus applied to skill)

so the result

say a doctor is average in INT (10) yet has 20 years of experience (level 20 doctor) he is still way better at it than a genius who just started to learn about it

INT 18 guy, say level 4, and medical knowledge is a cross class skill as he never went to medical school, his skill result is much much lower despite the fact that technically he's "dumber" than the genius

add that to the fact that Intelligence is a multifaceted trait (INT/WIS) and you can see how complicated it is to apply

but yeah, truly high INT (like 18 and up) should be really rare, something like 1-2% of the population if you trust IQ tests
A doctor with 20 years of experience isn't a lvl 20 doctor. He's, at best, level 5. A level 20 doctor would find cures for cancer behind his couch on a daily basis, and wouldn't bother using an elevator because he could just jump out of his window. Besides, WIS affects the Heal skill, not INT.

Douglas
2010-01-16, 12:59 PM
If you insist on trying to equate D&D intelligence with real life IQ, the appropriate distribution mapping (assuming the general population gets 3d6) is 10.5 int = 100 IQ, and +1 int = +5 IQ. Thus, a 12 int person would have about 110 IQ, and a 14 int person would have about 120 IQ.

Without bringing IQ into it specifically, if the general population has an intelligence distribution reasonably simulated by 3d6 then a person with 12-14 intelligence is smarter than about 5/6 of the population and less smart than the remaining 1/6.

ericgrau
2010-01-16, 01:04 PM
...the difference between an A and a B on a test. That 5% might not make a difference that's immediately apparent, yes.

Which is exactly what I said. You'd have to test to notice the difference. Otherwise an int of 12 appears average in most situations. 14 OTOH is noticeably smart, "heroic" by the concept behind normally rolled stats.

EDIT: Oh, btw, 12 is the 4th stat in an elite array. If you roll slightly low so that 14 is your high stat, then 12 might be your 3rd stat.

Soranar
2010-01-16, 01:34 PM
A doctor with 20 years of experience isn't a lvl 20 doctor. He's, at best, level 5. A level 20 doctor would find cures for cancer behind his couch on a daily basis, and wouldn't bother using an elevator because he could just jump out of his window. Besides, WIS affects the Heal skill, not INT.

if you answer a particular post, you should read all of it (like when I mention real life has a mesh of INT and WIS,possibly even CHA) for any skill

besides, doctor would be a commoner class with only skill progressions (cause outside Chuck Norris and a few other exceptions I don't think many people have more than 10 hitpoints)

There's also the fact that in real life you don't get smarter from beating people up (or killing them)

Harperfan7
2010-01-16, 01:40 PM
If you insist on trying to equate D&D intelligence with real life IQ, the appropriate distribution mapping (assuming the general population gets 3d6) is 10.5 int = 100 IQ, and +1 int = +5 IQ. Thus, a 12 int person would have about 110 IQ, and a 14 int person would have about 120 IQ.

Without bringing IQ into it specifically, if the general population has an intelligence distribution reasonably simulated by 3d6 then a person with 12-14 intelligence is smarter than about 5/6 of the population and less smart than the remaining 1/6.

This is how I always saw it. Because really, an 18 isn't supposed to be the best ever, it's just the best a completely unexperienced normal person is capable of being naturally. It also allows for people like Goethe with their 30ish int to still realistically possible with the IQ curve.

Deepblue706
2010-01-16, 01:44 PM
As a general rule of thumb for 3e, I rule every +1 to INT modifier as approximately one standard deviation in IQ above the norm.

As such, you'll notice some people are a little brighter, others a little more dull, but in the end anyone between 8 and 13 turns out to be well within the norm.

I'd say 14 is the baseline for those who stand out for high intelligence.

taltamir
2010-01-16, 01:46 PM
The old thumbnail equivalent back in AD&D days (when stats more closely followed the 3d6 bell curve, and were hard-capped at 25) used to be "Int score x 10 = IQ".

that is explicitly NOT how it works...
int 3 is smart enough to know how to read, write, and speak fluently in common, and are describe as not very intelligent, but still of humanlike intelligence.

Int 3 is about 80IQ (above the mental retardation line). Int 10 is average intelligence and thus must be 100IQ.

IF you extrapolate that. int 17 would be 120IQ...
problem with that is that there are incongruities, for example going from int 3 to int2 is a HUGE jump in intelligence level.

There is also the problem that the difference between int 9 and int 10 is more then the difference between int 10 and 11...

IQ = intelligence quotient. It is calculated by taking your academic capabilities, assigning them the "age" of the average human at achieving such a level, and then dividing by your real age and multiplying by 100.
So a 20 year old with an IQ of 80 means that they have 80% of the academic achievements someone their age should have.
A 10 year old with academic capabilities equal to that of a 17 year old has an IQ of 170.

For an IQ120 person, they would be at the level of a 6th grade student (age 12) at 4th grade (age 10).

IQ was developed for finding problem students and giving them remedial classes, NOT for finding genius; there have been 6 versions of the IQ tests, and all the people who worked on it all were very explicit about it NOT being an indication of how smart you are, or how stupid, but only a useful tool for finding people who have fallen behind academically for assignment of remedial courses.
IQ has no meaning at all once you have finished school.

Deepblue706
2010-01-16, 01:52 PM
That's an interesting perspective, taltamir. I think I like that viewpoint more than the alternatives...

ericgrau
2010-01-16, 02:01 PM
A 3 int is only technically able to learn how to read and write, and technically can speak. That doesn't mean he doesn't suck at it, or that he actually will learn to read and write if he's not an adventurer.

taltamir
2010-01-16, 02:05 PM
A 3 int is only technically able to learn how to read and write, and technically can speak. That doesn't mean he doesn't suck at it, or that he actually will learn to read and write if he's not an adventurer.

by the raw every CREATURE with an int3 knows how to read and write in common unless he is a barbarian :)

besides which, people with 80 IQ are "kinda bad at it"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#IQ_below_70

Class IQ
Profound mental retardation Below 20
Severe mental retardation 20–34
Moderate mental retardation 35–49
Mild mental retardation 50–69
Borderline intellectual functioning 70–80

ericgrau
2010-01-16, 02:07 PM
Every PC. Saying every commoner can read and write falls under "rulee unspecified", and I find it to be a bit dubious of a claim. Even with PCs it's a bit of a corner case. Specifying an int for free literacy would have added another near-pointless rule.

Mando Knight
2010-01-16, 02:12 PM
int 3 is smart enough to know how to read, write, and speak fluently in common, and are describe as not very intelligent, but still of humanlike intelligence.

Int 3 is about 80IQ (above the mental retardation line). Int 10 is average intelligence and thus must be 100IQ.

I don't think so. Int 3 is explicitly the lowest possible intelligence to be considered "human-like." The fluency and literacy in common is an artifact of the game requiring player characters to be able to communicate somehow. Note that only a Barbarian is illiterate without taking the "illiterate" flaw.

taltamir
2010-01-16, 02:18 PM
Every PC. Saying every commoner can read and write falls under "rulee unspecified", and I find it to be a bit dubious of a claim. Even with PCs it's a bit of a corner case. Specifying an int for free literacy would have added another near-pointless rule.

Allow me to quoteth the SRD


Originally Posted by SRD
Intelligence
A creature can speak all the languages mentioned in its description, plus one additional language per point of Intelligence bonus. Any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language (Common, unless noted otherwise).
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm

Tinydwarfman
2010-01-16, 04:02 PM
3 can speak fluently? I seem to remember anyone below 9 cannot communicate properly... and besides, don't horses and other animal have an IQ of 2? if there is a scale, it is certainly only linear to a point.

Geddoe
2010-01-16, 04:05 PM
12-14 would be clever enough that things come easily to them but it is easy for them to overestimate themselves. They may not see why they aren't as clever as the 16-18 int people of the world. I used to see myself as exceptionally clever, but I now realize that I am not as above average as I thought in intelligence. I'm not sure I would even qualify for Combat Expertise.

Almost anybody who would give themselves above a 15 for Int on a stat yourself topic(because of IQ, grades, education or whatever) is probably in the 12-14 range most of the time.

Ormur
2010-01-16, 04:07 PM
Does it say commoners can automatically read and write?

Flickerdart
2010-01-16, 04:12 PM
Does it say commoners can automatically read and write?
"A literate character (anyone but a barbarian who has not spent skill points to become literate) can read and write any language she speaks. Each language has an alphabet, though sometimes several spoken languages share a single alphabet."
A literate "character", not a PC. An NPC is still a non-player "character". Commoners speak Common, and thus can read and write in Common.

hamishspence
2010-01-16, 04:21 PM
In Faerun, its very dependant on how civilized the group is. Sun Elves, for example, have everything except barbarians be literate. At the other end of the scale, mountain orcs have only PC classes other than barbarian be literate.

So whether commoners are literate or not can depend on the setting (generally, in Races of Faerun, most commoners are not literate, and often, the other NPC classes aren't either).

TheCountAlucard
2010-01-16, 04:23 PM
...A literate character (anyone but a barbarian who has not spent skill points to become literate) can read and write any language she speaks...Wow, so as statted out, horses are literate? (They just don't have a language that they speak to actually read/write.)

That is awesome.

taltamir
2010-01-16, 04:24 PM
thats fluff, by crunch every MONSTER with an int3 or more is literate.

drengnikrafe
2010-01-16, 04:31 PM
I recall a statistical discussion about the INT curves. It was suggested that 10.5 was average, and it had a Standard Deviation of 3. This is to suggest that 34% of people will have an INT of between 10.5 and 13.5, 11% will have between 13.5 and 16.5, and 4.5% will have between 16.5 and 19.5. The remaining .5% of that side is above 19.5. On the flipside, 34% will fall between 10.5 and 7.5, 11% between 7.5 and 4.5, 4.5% between 4.5 and 1.5, and the remaining .5% of that side will be below 1.5. (Some people are incapable of functioning in today's society, and could be considered to have intelligence that low. It's mean to phrase it like that, but...)

I could give you an exact breakdown by each percent, but I don't have the appropriate statistical tools.

In any case, this statement suggests that someone with a 14 intelligence will be in the top 15% of the world (possibly closer to 12%). Someone with 12 intelligence will be in the top 31% (I found part of a table). Keep in mind, someone with 10 intelligence is in the top 50%.

Dr_S
2010-01-16, 04:32 PM
Kindergartners and first graders know how to read...

That wiki link states regarding mental retardation...

"As individuals with mild mental retardation reach adulthood, many learn to live independently and maintain gainful employment."
This is for IQ's as low as 50.

The next Category down (getting as low as 35) says that they generally get by in a supportive environment but may do their own finances or have limited responsibilities such as that and be able to function...

So it's possible for staggeringly low IQ's to still be able to read and write.

The rules don't say that they "read and write at a middle school level" so some one with a IQ of 40 may read and write as well as a kindergartner.

hamishspence
2010-01-16, 04:44 PM
thats fluff, by crunch every MONSTER with an int3 or more is literate.

Given that the tarrasque's intelligence is 3, that's a distinct oddity.

I wonder if anyone has tried to communicate with it by speaking, or holding up big signs?

And Races of Faerun is definitely Crunch- for the player races. If its rules say orc warriors are illiterate, then, in Faerun, that would suggest they are indeed illiterate.

Johel
2010-01-16, 04:47 PM
I wonder if anyone has tried to communicate with it by speaking, or holding up big signs?


All-You-Can-Eat City
Population : 1.000 958
"Last chance for lunch before Deepwater"

TheCountAlucard
2010-01-16, 05:11 PM
thats fluff, by crunch every MONSTER with an int3 or more is literate.It said everybody except barbarians are literate, and can thus read and write any language that they speak; thus, even golems are literate (no levels in barbarian, after all), but since they don't speak a language, it's a moot point.

RS14
2010-01-16, 05:15 PM
Using 4d6, best 3, in order:
64.5% have below a 14
51.2% have below a 13
38.3% have below a 12

Using 3d6, in order:

83.8% have below a 14
74.1% have below a 13
62.5% have below a 12

Darcand
2010-01-16, 05:18 PM
I am certain I am about to commit some great offense in the eyes of the Dark Gods of Math and Logic, but here we go.

A male silverback gorilla is estimated as having roughly the strength of 8average american men (So sayeth the internet). WoTC stats them with a 21 in strength. (According to the SRD entry for an ape) which grants a +5 bonus.

From that we can surmise that an individual with 21 int is 8 times smarter then an average person.

Ernir
2010-01-16, 05:20 PM
One interesting way of handing it that I have seen is to calculate how likely it is, using that particular game's way of randomly generating stats, to get a stat of 14. And that is how common a stat of 14 is in the game. Ta-da.

Of course, it doesn't work if PCs and NPCs use different stat generation rules, but I think this was cool. :smalltongue:

Given that the tarrasque's intelligence is 3, that's a distinct oddity.

I wonder if anyone has tried to communicate with it by speaking, or holding up big signs?

"The tarrasque cannot speak" - d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tarrasque.htm) :smallfrown:


Wow, so as statted out, horses are literate? (They just don't have a language that they speak to actually read/write.)
Nah, they have an Int score of 2.

chiasaur11
2010-01-16, 05:34 PM
"The tarrasque cannot speak" - d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tarrasque.htm) :smallfrown:



So we need to get him a little chalkboard.

Johel
2010-01-16, 05:34 PM
I am certain I am about to commit some great offense in the eyes of the Dark Gods of Math and Logic, but here we go.

A male silverback gorilla is estimated as having roughly the strength of 8average american men (So sayeth the internet). WoTC stats them with a 21 in strength. (According to the SRD entry for an ape) which grants a +5 bonus.

From that we can surmise that an individual with 21 int is 8 times smarter then an average person.

Better way to evaluate the meaning of Strength in DnD would be to look at the carrying capacity of each creature. Going by this, a Str 21 gorilla can carry/lift/drag/ect... around 4,6 times what your average Str 10 human can.

Now, a Str 10 human is maybe not the "average" American man, as he can lift 50kg and walk around unhindered, albeit at a slower pace, and fight effectively while carrying that load. I know very few people IRL who can lift that amount without feeling it... The modern man would rather be somewhere between Str 6 and Str 8, with Str 10 being for the more physically demanding jobs (construction workers,...)

Tequila Sunrise
2010-01-16, 05:37 PM
I have heard a lot of mixed things about intelligence in my days playing D&D. I know that anything above 10 intelligence is "above average," but exactly how above average would a character with 12 or 14 intelligence be?
The difference would be unnoticeable to anyone who doesn't know the character well. Even to close friends and family, it wouldn't be a big difference.

Mental stats are so broad and so vague that it's an exercise in pure geekery to try to figure out what any particular number means.

TheCountAlucard
2010-01-16, 06:49 PM
Nah, they have an Int score of 2.What's that got to do with anything? The game's definition of literate is anybody that isn't a barbarian (and even then, a barbarian who spends skill points can become literate); a horse is not a barbarian, thus it is literate. It doesn't have any languages to speak, but that doesn't affect the game's definition of literacy, now does it? That just means it can't read any of the languages in the game.

Dr_S
2010-01-16, 06:54 PM
no you have to be int 3 to speak, and speaking guarantees literacy.

The Dark Fiddler
2010-01-16, 06:57 PM
no you have to be int 3 to speak, and speaking guarantees literacy.

Barbarians.

Dr_S
2010-01-16, 07:01 PM
Barbarians.

I meant in the case of horses...

though I suppose you could roll a horse barbarian if you were able to give it an extra point of int and loosely interpret the rules (potentially ignoring some)

taltamir
2010-01-16, 07:03 PM
I meant in the case of horses...

though I suppose you could roll a horse barbarian if you were able to give it an extra point of int and loosely interpret the rules (potentially ignoring some)

if your horse has a template that guarentees a 3+ int (many many do).
then it can speak and read and write common. if it lacks the equipment it might not be able to speak (but can comprehend) and it might not be able to write (but it can read)
actually, i guess blind creatures cannot read (common that is, they can braille).

TheCountAlucard
2010-01-16, 07:16 PM
no you have to be int 3 to speak, and speaking guarantees literacy.Neither speaking nor intelligence have jack to do with literacy, by the rules; again, the game pretty much defines "literate" as "not a barbarian," and doesn't factor intelligence or speech into it once. The only thing that intelligence and speech have to do with it is determine what languages you can read/write. "None" is apparently an option that still qualifies for literacy.

I should clarify: by the rules, a horse is literate, but can't read any languages.

Flickerdart
2010-01-16, 08:46 PM
A horse is also, arguably, not a character in its own right. You never hear anyone calling animals NPCs, now do you?

TheCountAlucard
2010-01-16, 09:00 PM
A horse is also, arguably, not a character in its own right.You want I should quote the Player's Handbook glossary?


character: A fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting. The words “character” and “creature” are often used synonymously within these rules, since almost any creature could be a character within the game, and every character is a creature (as opposed to an object).

Flickerdart
2010-01-16, 09:03 PM
You want I should quote the book?
It's these oftens, almost alwayses and almost anys that cause some of the stupidest problems. Though a horse isn't really an "anyone" and more of an "anything", thus exempting it from being a literate character.

Drolyt
2010-01-16, 09:19 PM
Trying to determine how D&D Intelligence correlates to real world intelligence by comparing the bell curve of a 3d6 to the bell curve of IQ is rather flawed, since explicitly most humans in D&D do not roll their stats. At least 95% of the population consists of characters with a 10 or 11 in Intelligence. Much of the rest have no more than a 13, as per the Non-elite Array. Only adventurers and important NPCs have higher scores. And no, I have no idea why your Intelligence should be related to how important you are. Fact is, D&D is a bad model for this sort of thing, if for no other reason than any model for this sort of thing will turn out to be bad. That includes IQ tests. I think IQ tests are worthless, and I say this despite the fact that I have taken them and they put me at genius level. The best you can do with D&D Intelligence is figure it this way: 18 is as far away from the average as 3, and 3 is the lowest sentient intelligence. Unless you argue the mentally handicapped aren't sentient, or else that they follow some special rules, we must assume that 3 is mentally handicapped. Therefore 18 is as much smarter than an average person as an average person is smarter than than a mentally handicapped individual. Of course, I'm not sure what that would entail, but I should point out another thing. Intelligence doesn't vary as widely among humans as most people think. Einstein wasn't that much smarter than most gifted individuals, he simply put in a lot of effort and determination and of course he had a bit of luck.

Tiki Snakes
2010-01-16, 09:40 PM
I want a Barbarian Horse. Who speaks Common.

Like Mr Edd with anger management issues.

taltamir
2010-01-16, 09:50 PM
It's these oftens, almost alwayses and almost anys that cause some of the stupidest problems. Though a horse isn't really an "anyone" and more of an "anything", thus exempting it from being a literate character.

WOTC policy requires any rule to be written as vaguely as possible, and include qualifiers such as "almost" and "usually" if there are no exceptions, and use the word "always" if there are exceptions (ex: always chaotic evil does not mean always)... except for when there are exceptions to those policies..

Drolyt
2010-01-16, 09:58 PM
WOTC policy requires any rule to be written as vaguely as possible, and include qualifiers such as "almost" and "usually" if there are no exceptions, and use the word "always" if there are exceptions (ex: always chaotic evil does not mean always)... except for when there are exceptions to those policies..

I thought WotC policy was to make as many fluff rules as possible (how often Red Dragons are evil, what characters can read and write etc.) while making important game mechanics as complicated as possible, assuming there are actually rules for them.

RS14
2010-01-16, 10:13 PM
Trying to determine how D&D Intelligence correlates to real world intelligence by comparing the bell curve of a 3d6 to the bell curve of IQ is rather flawed, since explicitly most humans in D&D do not roll their stats. At least 95% of the population consists of characters with a 10 or 11 in Intelligence. Much of the rest have no more than a 13, as per the Non-elite Array. Only adventurers and important NPCs have higher scores.

I believe the intent was to model a world in which everyone rolls 3d6. Those who roll well are basically the only characters of any significance, so PCs (those of significance) get a bit of a bonus when they roll, and insignificant characters are simply abstracted to the Non-Elite Array, as it's faster.

Drolyt
2010-01-16, 10:19 PM
I believe the intent was to model a world in which everyone rolls 3d6. Those who roll well are basically the only characters of any significance, so PCs (those of significance) get a bit of a bonus when they roll, and insignificant characters are simply abstracted to the Non-Elite Array, as it's faster.

I'll admit, my reasoning wasn't very strong there. However you look at it though that line of reasoning doesn't work. At any rate IQs aren't a good measurement for that kind of thing, they are really more accurate at finding mentally handicapped people than geniuses (the former being easier to quantify), and they become really inaccurate the higher you go (a 300 IQ is technically possible, but what does it mean?). Also how accurately we can measure IQ is limited by how many people we can test, by the very nature of the test itself, and also as a consequence of how the test works it is far more accurate near the average.

taltamir
2010-01-16, 10:21 PM
I thought WotC policy was to make as many fluff rules as possible (how often Red Dragons are evil, what characters can read and write etc.) while making important game mechanics as complicated as possible, assuming there are actually rules for them.

that is an additional policy. They are both existing and in effect company policies.
A third policy is that 2/3 of each book must be useless fluff, and it must be written by different people then the ones who wrote the crunch (to ensure maximum amount of errors)...

oh, and the artists are not allowed to read the fluff before drawing anything, they must draw it based solely on the name (so it can always contradict the fluff description)

DueceEsMachine
2010-01-16, 10:56 PM
I like the point that was made earlier - an individual like Einstein, was yes, amazing - but he toiled and struggled for years before being recognized. The thing that his peers found most amazing about him was his ability to think, and think and think, focusing on nothing but the problem at hand. That kinda sounds like concentration to me. Anways. I digress.

Our current standards of intelligence (IQ tests) do not take a full account of a persons true ability, hence the slow movement of emotional intelligence that has begun to be taught in schools (at least back when I was there).
The idea that while one person "A", is amazingly talented at math, the next, "B", who is equally as intelligent, is crappy at math, but disturbingly talented in musical theory, or with their hands.

As far as the original post goes - how smart is a "14" in intelligence? As smart as you feel would be appropriate for the character you wish to play. It could be entirely possible that your character shines in tactical theories, and history, but has a difficult time with numbers - it's not that he doesn't understand them, they just don't come as easily to him as they might to someone else.

In the end, I feel that a character should be played more on a concept than strictly by the rolls that allow game mechanics to function. I enjoy playing characters between a 13-14 intelligence, because that is where I feel I would fall on the scale. Higher than that is possible, although it takes quite a bit of work, thinking on multiple subjects and different possible outcomes at the same time.

I'm not quite sure if this helps in any ways, but it's my two-bits, and now you've read it!

On a related note:
Talking Barbarian Horse = Awesome
Talking Barbarian Horse with Dancing Shield and Sword, and feats spent on being proficient? Too cool for words.

Harperfan7
2010-01-17, 12:40 AM
Now, a Str 10 human is maybe not the "average" American man, as he can lift 50kg and walk around unhindered, albeit at a slower pace, and fight effectively while carrying that load. I know very few people IRL who can lift that amount without feeling it... The modern man would rather be somewhere between Str 6 and Str 8, with Str 10 being for the more physically demanding jobs (construction workers,...)

A 15-31 year old american male has an average of at least 10 strength. I would bet my life on it. If he's holding a 30 pound box and tries to jump, he's not going to go as far as not, but if he's holding, say, two fifteen pound dumbells in each hand, it probably wouldn't affect his distance much.

The most accurate way to judge strength is by how much dead weight they can lift above their head. Can the average american adult male lift 100 pounds? I think so.

It's not infallible. I know people that can't lift as much as me above their head, but can beat me in arm wrestling, and I know guys who are much stronger than me in upper body strength that don't have near as much leg power as me, so it's rough at best.

Dr_S
2010-01-17, 01:33 AM
I think IQ tests are worthless, and I say this despite because the fact that I have taken them and they put me at genius level.

This may be more accurate... I say this because I too have scored high enough to at least approach this fuzzy area, and agree with the sentiment... however my friends with more average scores (by more average I mean "lower than mine" because I have a lot of friends in the 120s) seem to place a LOT more weight on it.

Most IQ tests (and this is explicitly stated) are designed specifically to find mental retardation, thus once you hit a point too above average it gets all fuzzy and weird.

Drolyt
2010-01-17, 01:33 AM
I agree with Harperfan. I don't really exercise, but I can easily handle the kind of weight a Str 10 character can, assuming it was distributed properly (the PHB explicitly says that it is). The numbers are slightly less realistic for a female that doesn't exercise, but D&D tries to treat genders equally. I've got one question for Harperfan though. You say the best way to judge is what can you lift above your head. What technique are you using to lift it, because if you do it right you can lift more than you normally could, though you wouldn't be able to move with it.

Drolyt
2010-01-17, 01:38 AM
This may be more accurate... I say this because I too have scored high enough to at least approach this fuzzy area, and agree with the sentiment... however my friends with more average scores (by more average I mean "lower than mine" because I have a lot of friends in the 120s) seem to place a LOT more weight on it.

Most IQ tests (and this is explicitly stated) are designed specifically to find mental retardation, thus once you hit a point too above average it gets all fuzzy and weird.

When I say despite I mean simply that I have no bias. I personally think I am very intelligent, but that has nothing to do with the fact that a test told me so, more to do with the fact that all my friends feel a need to remind me of it all the time. Also to elaborate on the fact that the test was designed to find a mental handicap and not geniuses, the general style of the test isn't bad at finding people who are good at the kind of reasoning it tests. The problem is how do you know that just because someone can solve your puzzles that they are "smart". It's obvious that if someone can't handle simple logic, mathematics, or language then they have a problem, but it isn't at all obvious that because someone is really good at solving those problems that they are a genius.

Dr_S
2010-01-17, 01:47 AM
I was just noticing a trend that those who tend to score higher on IQ tests tend to put less stock in it. I too didn't need a test to tell me I was smart, in fact sometimes I wish I'd never taken one.

Forevernade
2010-01-17, 05:17 AM
"A literate character (anyone but a barbarian who has not spent skill points to become literate) can read and write any language she speaks. Each language has an alphabet, though sometimes several spoken languages share a single alphabet."
A literate "character", not a PC. An NPC is still a non-player "character". Commoners speak Common, and thus can read and write in Common.

i can reed and rite and this is still anderstandbl but isnt reely coz it is reely bad spelling. we can asume ther an intel sevn is bout like dis. and like wen it gets wors lik int three u wont be abl to respect ther litracy coz it gets badder and badder. vocabulary wod be mor limeded and comicly boring.

Sliver
2010-01-17, 05:19 AM
i can reed and rite and this is still anderstandbl but isnt reely coz it is reely bad spelling. we can asume ther an intel sevn is bout like dis. and like wen it gets wors lik int three u wont be abl to respect ther litracy coz it gets badder and badder. vocabulary wod be mor limeded and comicly boring.

... Don't do that..

DueceEsMachine
2010-01-17, 03:36 PM
... Don't do that..

I think please is the word you're missing in that sentence. lol.
Headache inducing as the previous statement was, I found it funny.

Drolyt
2010-01-17, 03:38 PM
i can reed and rite and this is still anderstandbl but isnt reely coz it is reely bad spelling. we can asume ther an intel sevn is bout like dis. and like wen it gets wors lik int three u wont be abl to respect ther litracy coz it gets badder and badder. vocabulary wod be mor limeded and comicly boring.

Please don't do that. Not even to make a point. It's really annoying. Thank you.