PDA

View Full Version : a theory on intelligence



grimbold
2010-10-30, 05:13 AM
I've been kickin around a theory lately about intelligence and wanted to know what the playground thought.

Basically 1 intelligence=10 iq points

This actually makes a lot of sense because 10-11 INT is about 100-110 IQ points which is about average.

120-139 IQ points is considered 'Gifted' which is equivalent to 12-13 INT which is above average or +1
140-159 IQ points is considered "Genius" Which corresponds with 14-15 INT and +2
160-179 IQ points (Think Leonard from big bang theory) is considered "Super Genius" which corresponds with 16-17 intelligence
180+ IQ points is basically off the charts and the highest possible for any human which makes sense as it is the highest possible roll to get. 18 INT

thoughts?

WinWin
2010-10-30, 05:38 AM
Intelligence quotient is based on the statistical mean. Once you start moving more than 2 or 3 deviations away from the mean, intelligence becomes more and more difficult to measure accurately via a standardised test. People with a predicted IQ >130 may need extensive testing to find their actual score. A score over 150 is extremely difficult to measure and represents the range of most standardised tests.

Obviously there are methods of testing very high IQ, otherwise people would not know that Marylin Monroe had an IQ greater than Albert Einstien (came up in a pub quiz, could very well be false).

It may be a good ad hoc ruling though, but not perfectly accurate.

Serpentine
2010-10-30, 05:44 AM
Uh... I'm pretty sure this has been very well established as a (very, very rough) approximation. Like, semi-officially, somewhere?

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-30, 05:59 AM
This has been established for a while. It's also patently ridiculous - IQ does not work that way.

Someone with an IQ of 150 is not "twice as smart" as someone with an IQ of 75.

grimbold
2010-10-30, 06:13 AM
yuki i did not say that nor do the D&D rules state that. They just state that someone with 15 INT (or 155 IQ) is significantly smarter than someone with 7 INT (Or 75 IQ points)
i did not realize this was already established

Yora
2010-10-30, 06:25 AM
It works as a reasonable well approximation. And given that Intelligence represents pretty much the same thing IQ-test measure, it makes sense to apply the same scale.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-10-30, 06:56 AM
180+ IQ points is basically off the charts and the highest possible for any human

I'd contest that; even disregarding age (because unlike D&D people, real-life IQ doesn't rise significantly with age. IIRC it decreases, although that's probably just because of perception defects affecting the test-taking). It only takes 3 levels to finish Human Paragon and get a +2 to Intelligence; an additional level can get a +1. Now, IQ does in extreme WTF cases go up to about 200 before being unmeasurable, so one can account for that.

hamishspence
2010-10-30, 06:57 AM
I've seen a lot of arguments saying it doesn't work- however they seem to be based on the assumption that everyone who is not an adventurer rolls 3d6 for Int.

Suggesting that 1/216 of the common population are Int 3- and so would be IQ 30.
And that 1/216 of the common population are Int 18- and so, IQ 180.

Which is nothing like the real statistics.

However- that may be an unwarranted assumption. It's possible that the majority just use a Non-Elite (runs 13 to 8), or an Standard Array (that has 3 10s and 3 11s).

And that the vast majority of NPCs with adventurer classes, use the Elite Array (15 to 8)

As a result, characters with 3s or 18s for Int, would be far rarer than if everybody rolled 3d6 for it.

Thus, the "statistics don't support the Int = IQ/10" argument may not work.


I'd contest that; even disregarding age (because unlike D&D people, real-life IQ doesn't rise significantly with age. IIRC it decreases, although that's probably just because of perception defects affecting the test-taking). It only takes 3 levels to finish Human Paragon and get a +2 to Intelligence; an additional level can get a +1.

There's also the Special Abilities list of templates in DMG2- one is Prodigy- Extraordinary and allows an NPC to start out with +2 to a stat, and a +5 bonus to ability checks with that ability.

So this may account for those really exceptional at 1st level.



140-159 IQ points is considered "Genius" Which corresponds with 14-15 INT and +2
160-179 IQ points (Think Leonard from big bang theory) is considered "Super Genius" which corresponds with 16-17 intelligence

In 2nd ed "Genius" was used for Int 18, and "Supra-genius" for Int 19.

Yora
2010-10-30, 07:03 AM
Also, we're talking about D&D, a franchise that never bothered much with realism.

Prime32
2010-10-30, 07:10 AM
This has been established for a while. It's also patently ridiculous - IQ does not work that way.

Someone with an IQ of 150 is not "twice as smart" as someone with an IQ of 75.Someone with an Int of 15 is twice as smart as someone with an Int of 10.

grimbold
2010-10-30, 07:17 AM
Someone with an Int of 15 is twice as smart as someone with an Int of 10.

not neccessarily there is no proof of this

hamishspence
2010-10-30, 07:20 AM
Someone with an Int of 15 is twice as smart as someone with an Int of 10.

What deduction got this?

Do people with Int 15 solve problems twice as fast by strict reading of the rules?

Or is it based on the probability of passing opposed Int Checks being twice as high?

Lev
2010-10-30, 07:21 AM
Someone tried to do this a while ago, it failed terribly.

Synapse
2010-10-30, 07:23 AM
Also, we're talking about D&D, a franchise that never bothered much with realism.

This coupled with the limited actual uses of IQ leads me to this question: What do you gain by making such a comparison?

Kurald Galain
2010-10-30, 07:23 AM
Here's another reason why it doesn't work: the difference between a +0 and a +1 on skill checks is way too small to account for the difference between 100 IQ and 120 IQ.

For instance, consider a high school math test that is DC 11. It works with any other kind of skill check or knowledge check as well, this is just an example. Now take an average group of high schoolers of average intelligence, which in this case means 100 - 110 IQ. This is a difficult test, in that only half of the high schoolers will pass it.

Now consider another group of highly intelligent people that have IQ 120 - 130. According to D&D rules, 55% of them will pass this test. If you try this in reality, it is much more likely to find that 90-95% of them pass the test. Even funnier, if you take a group of the smartest people ever (IQ 180+, and yes, I know that IQ tests cannot actually measure that), then by D&D rules only 70% of them will pass the high school math test. Wow, math sure is hard!

WinWin
2010-10-30, 07:34 AM
I'd contest that; even disregarding age (because unlike D&D people, real-life IQ doesn't rise significantly with age. IIRC it decreases, although that's probably just because of perception defects affecting the test-taking). It only takes 3 levels to finish Human Paragon and get a +2 to Intelligence; an additional level can get a +1. Now, IQ does in extreme WTF cases go up to about 200 before being unmeasurable, so one can account for that.

Actually...I saw a documentary on the history of IQ tests in Britain. They took a group of Scottish students that were among the first to ever take the tests and then compared their results to tests taken 40 years later.

Those with an IQ >120 all showed an increased in IQ. Those of avarage and below average scores did not show any great improvement or decline.

Not enough data to form any conclusions, but it certainly merits further investigation.

grimbold
2010-10-30, 08:12 AM
Here's another reason why it doesn't work: the difference between a +0 and a +1 on skill checks is way too small to account for the difference between 100 IQ and 120 IQ.

For instance, consider a high school math test that is DC 11. It works with any other kind of skill check or knowledge check as well, this is just an example. Now take an average group of high schoolers of average intelligence, which in this case means 100 - 110 IQ. This is a difficult test, in that only half of the high schoolers will pass it.

Now consider another group of highly intelligent people that have IQ 120 - 130. According to D&D rules, 55% of them will pass this test. If you try this in reality, it is much more likely to find that 90-95% of them pass the test. Even funnier, if you take a group of the smartest people ever (IQ 180+, and yes, I know that IQ tests cannot actually measure that), then by D&D rules only 70% of them will pass the high school math test. Wow, math sure is hard

this is the reason why i try not to think to hard about D&D logical fallacies :(

Foryn Gilnith
2010-10-30, 08:43 AM
this is the reason why i try not to think to hard about D&D logical fallacies :(

It's also why the Player's Handbook says

In some cases, an action is a straight test of one’s ability with no luck involved. Just as you wouldn’t make a height check to see who is taller, you don’t make a Strength check to see who is stronger. When two characters arm wrestle, for example, the stronger character simply wins.

It's not a perfect patch (it arguably doesn't even apply to the obvious example of a math/IQ test), but I think that the designers were vaguely considering it in some corner of their heads.

Ormur
2010-10-30, 08:48 AM
If Int equaled IQ I'd think it made much more sense presuming people rolled a 3d6 (the average array could just be an abstraction for non-important characters and monsters) which would give you much lover IQ's. It's much more likely for someone to roll an 18 on Int than to have an IQ of 180. Int 18 is closer to IQ 140+.

Of course this all breaks down whatever method you use because Int can go higher than 18, races have bonuses, age categories add to it as well as stat increases (although they hardly kick in until the superhuman levels). IQ however is based on standard deviation so it's a statistical measurement.

They also represent some mechanical bonuses and attributes that aren't necessarily linked to IQ as they are described. D&D really isn't a good simulation of realty.

Crow
2010-10-30, 11:32 AM
Intelligence in D&D is more a person's ability to learn and retain information.

Problem solving ability and logic are better represented in D&D by wisdom.

Godskook
2010-10-30, 11:41 AM
Also, we're talking about D&D, a franchise that never bothered much with realism.

Huh? Are you talking about 3.5? (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

Urpriest
2010-10-30, 12:30 PM
Intelligence in D&D is more a person's ability to learn and retain information.

Problem solving ability and logic are better represented in D&D by wisdom.

I'd contest that. Every D&D logic puzzle or problem solving activity in every published module I've ever seen was an Int check if it was a check at all. I've never seen one based on a Wis check.

World Eater
2010-10-30, 12:56 PM
Here's another reason why it doesn't work: the difference between a +0 and a +1 on skill checks is way too small to account for the difference between 100 IQ and 120 IQ.

For instance, consider a high school math test that is DC 11. It works with any other kind of skill check or knowledge check as well, this is just an example. Now take an average group of high schoolers of average intelligence, which in this case means 100 - 110 IQ. This is a difficult test, in that only half of the high schoolers will pass it.

Now consider another group of highly intelligent people that have IQ 120 - 130. According to D&D rules, 55% of them will pass this test. If you try this in reality, it is much more likely to find that 90-95% of them pass the test. Even funnier, if you take a group of the smartest people ever (IQ 180+, and yes, I know that IQ tests cannot actually measure that), then by D&D rules only 70% of them will pass the high school math test. Wow, math sure is hard!

INT 10 people usually just roll the die.
Higher INT people remember to pile on modifiers and take 10.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-30, 01:07 PM
INT 10 people usually just roll the die.
Higher INT people remember to pile on modifiers and take 10.
That's funny, but it still doesn't work.

Let's look at an opposite example: a first-year university test in quantum physics. Suppose the university students have int 14, two ranks in the relevant knowledge skill, and +2 circumstance bonus for masterwork textbooks. As you say, these people pile on modifiers and take 10, and therefore have no problem taking a DC 16 exam.

There are two problems here. First, every student passes the test, which is unlikely. Second, if you give this test to a bunch of average high schoolers who've never heard of quantum physics before, then 20% of them will pass the test anyway.

shadow_archmagi
2010-10-30, 01:18 PM
Only adventurers roll for stats

As such, if you meet anyone that's significantly dumber than average, you should be nice to them, as they're probably a PC. murderous millionaire hobo.

Urpriest
2010-10-30, 01:20 PM
That's funny, but it still doesn't work.

Let's look at an opposite example: a first-year university test in quantum physics. Suppose the university students have int 14, two ranks in the relevant knowledge skill, and +2 circumstance bonus for masterwork textbooks. As you say, these people pile on modifiers and take 10, and therefore have no problem taking a DC 16 exam.

There are two problems here. First, every student passes the test, which is unlikely. Second, if you give this test to a bunch of average high schoolers who've never heard of quantum physics before, then 20% of them will pass the test anyway.

Knowledge is trained-only.

Otherwise valid point.

Prime32
2010-10-30, 01:46 PM
Huh? Are you talking about 3.5?You, uh, have to put in a URL first. :smalltongue:

jebob
2010-10-30, 01:57 PM
WARNING: maths buffs only :smalltongue:
INT 18 happens 1 in 216 times, so about 0.5% of the time. Three standard deviations is 99.9% (good enough). The SD for IQ is defined to be 15, so an INT 18 character will have about 145 IQ. INT 3 is 55 IQ.

Wow, A-level maths turned out to be useful :smallbiggrin:

crimson77
2010-10-30, 02:27 PM
I wrote a blog post recently on this very topic (http://psychologydnd.blogspot.com/2010/10/on-theory-of-gaming-intellegence.html).

hamishspence
2010-10-30, 02:33 PM
INT 18 happens 1 in 216 times, so about 0.5% of the time. Three standard deviations is 99.9% (good enough). The SD for IQ is defined to be 15, so an INT 18 character will have about 145 IQ. INT 3 is 55 IQ.

I already brought this up in a previous post, and went on to say:



However- that may be an unwarranted assumption. It's possible that the majority just use a Non-Elite (runs 13 to 8), or an Standard Array (that has 3 10s and 3 11s).

And that the vast majority of NPCs with adventurer classes, use the Elite Array (15 to 8)

As a result, characters with 3s or 18s for Int, would be far rarer than if everybody rolled 3d6 for it.

herrhauptmann
2010-10-30, 02:38 PM
Only adventurers roll for stats

As such, if you meet anyone that's significantly dumber than average, you should be nice to them, as they're probably a PC. murderous millionaire hobo.

Good to know :)

There's other problems with the whole IQ test thing. Not in comparing IQ to Int, but in the IQ tests themselves.
The tests themselves are all biased in one direction or another. ie: They're made so that certain demographics will do better.
Ex 1: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Intelligence_Test_of_Cultural_Homogeneity) I might look at a bureau, and know it's a bureau. You might look at the same bureau and know it as a dresser, because that's what our parents called it while we were kids. Now if a question asked about a bureau, I would get the question right and you'd have to guess. Actually had this exact issue with an old roommate, and it's not just a matter of middle vs upper class. He grew up far closer to what I would refer to as 'rich' than I did.


ex 2: I don't have a link for this one though... In WW1, the US army started issuing intelligence tests. And quickly despaired when it seemed most recruits were total morons. The test would show them a lightbulb without a filament (that wire in the middle), and require them to know it's missing not just the wire, but the name of that wire.
Upperclass boys who wrote the test, ended up writing a test that gauged their own intelligence. Rather than one which gauged the test of the average recruit (farmers, low income people, who didn't have regular exposure to the things featured in the test)

ex 3: The modern military test. Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). When I took the test, it was on paper, with black and white drawings that were incredibly difficult to discern. So someone who took it via computer would have done better in certain sections (worse in others, apparently it was almost impossible to read the basic math section of the computer test in 2001).

Sergeantbrother
2010-10-30, 03:53 PM
Good to know :)

There's other problems with the whole IQ test thing. Not in comparing IQ to Int, but in the IQ tests themselves.
The tests themselves are all biased in one direction or another. ie: They're made so that certain demographics will do better.
Ex 1: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Intelligence_Test_of_Cultural_Homogeneity) I might look at a bureau, and know it's a bureau. You might look at the same bureau and know it as a dresser, because that's what our parents called it while we were kids. Now if a question asked about a bureau, I would get the question right and you'd have to guess. Actually had this exact issue with an old roommate, and it's not just a matter of middle vs upper class. He grew up far closer to what I would refer to as 'rich' than I did.


ex 2: I don't have a link for this one though... In WW1, the US army started issuing intelligence tests. And quickly despaired when it seemed most recruits were total morons. The test would show them a lightbulb without a filament (that wire in the middle), and require them to know it's missing not just the wire, but the name of that wire.
Upperclass boys who wrote the test, ended up writing a test that gauged their own intelligence. Rather than one which gauged the test of the average recruit (farmers, low income people, who didn't have regular exposure to the things featured in the test)

ex 3: The modern military test. Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). When I took the test, it was on paper, with black and white drawings that were incredibly difficult to discern. So someone who took it via computer would have done better in certain sections (worse in others, apparently it was almost impossible to read the basic math section of the computer test in 2001).

That's ridiculous. Just because you don't like the results of IQ tests doesn't mean that they are biased. There have been countless efforts over the years to make IQ tests less biased or to discredit them, but time and time again meta-analysis has shown that not only are they unbiased by that the tests are excellent indicators of what most people would call intelligence - having a high correlation with all sorts of aspects of life such as financial success, academic performance, avoiding criminality, etc.

IQ isn't the end all and be all of intelligence, but it is certainly shows quite a bit about the intellectual capability of those tested.



Here's another reason why it doesn't work: the difference between a +0 and a +1 on skill checks is way too small to account for the difference between 100 IQ and 120 IQ.

For instance, consider a high school math test that is DC 11. It works with any other kind of skill check or knowledge check as well, this is just an example. Now take an average group of high schoolers of average intelligence, which in this case means 100 - 110 IQ. This is a difficult test, in that only half of the high schoolers will pass it.

Now consider another group of highly intelligent people that have IQ 120 - 130. According to D&D rules, 55% of them will pass this test. If you try this in reality, it is much more likely to find that 90-95% of them pass the test. Even funnier, if you take a group of the smartest people ever (IQ 180+, and yes, I know that IQ tests cannot actually measure that), then by D&D rules only 70% of them will pass the high school math test. Wow, math sure is hard!

I think that is a good point, but it applies to much more than just IQ and Intelligence. It has to do with all attributes in D&D. If you take the average person, Strength 10, and someone at the peak of natural human strength, Strength 18, and have them arm wrestle - opposed Strength checks - then the average person has a good chance of winning that arm wrestling match. That's fairly preposterous, as the strongman should always win. Likewise, two untrained people playing chess (both of which have recently learned) one at peak Intelligence and another at average levels will be d20 vs d20+4.

It seems as though in D&D that the bonuses based on attributes are too small for the 1-20 scale that results from a d20.

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-30, 04:52 PM
The PHB actually says you don't roll for arm wrestling. Specifically. Stronger guy wins.

Cogidubnus
2010-10-30, 04:57 PM
yuki i did not say that nor do the D&D rules state that. They just state that someone with 15 INT (or 155 IQ) is significantly smarter than someone with 7 INT (Or 75 IQ points)
i did not realize this was already established

In fact, some with 7 Int (a -2 modifier) is much less intelligent than someone with 15 Int, (a +2 modifier). They are four steps more intelligent, rather than twice as intelligent.

Sergeantbrother
2010-10-30, 05:02 PM
The PHB actually says you don't roll for arm wrestling. Specifically. Stronger guy wins.

That is good and makes sense, though I do think that the idea still applies to other contests that are essentially attribute vs attribute.

grarrrg
2010-10-30, 05:05 PM
This just came up for me in a different thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9654485&posted=1#post9658557).

As has been pointed out, trying to apply real world theory to abstract game rules is flawed from the start (unless those rules were based on real world theory and not just arbitrarily chosen).
But everyone likes to assume! First, A BELL CURVE!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/FaxCelestis/bellCurve3d6.png
Thank You (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7374863&highlight=chances+charts%3A+bell#post7374863) Fax Celestis

First, we assume that everyone in the world has rolled 3d6 for their stats, as Gary intended. (none of this 4d6b3 nonsense, that was invented so that the 'adventurers' were better than normal).
Now, Mental Retardation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_disability) is "significantly impaired cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors that appears before adulthood. It has historically been defined as an Intelligence Quotient score under 70"
Going by the theory of "Int*10=IQ" that means that anyone with a score of 6 or lower would be Mentally Retarded. Rolling 3d6 will give you a 6 or less 20/216-th of the time. This works out to 9.25%, or roughly 1 in every 11 people.
1 in every 11 people DO NOT have "significantly impaired cognitive functioning".
Heck, depending on who you argue with, a score of 3-Int wouldn't be retarded (and probably isn't)

Godskook
2010-10-30, 05:17 PM
That's funny, but it still doesn't work.

Let's look at an opposite example: a first-year university test in quantum physics. Suppose the university students have int 14, two ranks in the relevant knowledge skill, and +2 circumstance bonus for masterwork textbooks. As you say, these people pile on modifiers and take 10, and therefore have no problem taking a DC 16 exam.

There are two problems here. First, every student passes the test, which is unlikely. Second, if you give this test to a bunch of average high schoolers who've never heard of quantum physics before, then 20% of them will pass the test anyway.

You can't take 10 on a test. The time-demanding and pressure-focused nature of the activity prevents you from doing so.


You, uh, have to put in a URL first. :smalltongue:

That's not the post you're looking for [/jedi mindtrick]

herrhauptmann
2010-10-30, 05:19 PM
That's ridiculous. Just because you don't like the results of IQ tests doesn't mean that they are biased. There have been countless efforts over the years to make IQ tests less biased or to discredit them, but time and time again meta-analysis has shown that not only are they unbiased by that the tests are excellent indicators of what most people would call intelligence - having a high correlation with all sorts of aspects of life such as financial success, academic performance, avoiding criminality, etc.

IQ isn't the end all and be all of intelligence, but it is certainly shows quite a bit about the intellectual capability of those tested.


Which part are you calling ridiculous? I gave 3 examples where an intelligence test gave results that weren't 'good'. Plus the BITCH test.

How is it not a biased test, if the test only measures very specific subsets of the population, and anyone without the required exposure is doomed to failure. In the WW1 test example, the test was written by a very specific subset of people, and applied to the entire population. The lightbulb example seems foolish now, almost a century later. But in modern terms, it's like me showing a random person a diagram for a reactor and its primary system components, and expecting them to know that the purification system hasn't been included.

Or that a test can be biased due to the medium in which it's administered? Like the ASVAB? For the computer version of the test, the screen resolution was bad enough that a plus sign and a division sign looked identical. Or my print version, the basic mechanical section had me say what direction gear A turned, based on the direction arrow for G. And I had to follow it through various gears and chains. Not too difficult except that the arrow was just a fuzzy line.

Callista
2010-10-30, 05:21 PM
If you match up probabilities on IQ tests and probabilities of 3d6, then you get the following:

INT IQ
18 140+
17 139
16 131
15 125
14 119
13 114
12 109
11 104
10 100
9 95
8 90
7 85
6 80
5 74
4 68
3 60

This is with standard deviation of 15 on the IQ test.

The IQ=INT*10 method has the advantage of being very easy, but it also changes the fantasy world a great deal because of the high number of people now located at the very high or very low end. One in six would be gifted (130+)--in our world, somebody capable of becoming a doctor or a research scientist--and one in twenty would be profoundly gifted, along the lines of Newton or Edison. One in six would be mentally retarded; and about one in twenty (at <50) would not be able to live on their own or do more than very simple work. Needless to say, there's no way this kind of thing is realistic.

Sergeantbrother
2010-10-30, 05:21 PM
This just came up for me in a different thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9654485&posted=1#post9658557).

As has been pointed out, trying to apply real world theory to abstract game rules is flawed from the start (unless those rules were based on real world theory and not just arbitrarily chosen).
But everyone likes to assume! First, A BELL CURVE!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/FaxCelestis/bellCurve3d6.png
Thank You (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7374863&highlight=chances+charts%3A+bell#post7374863) Fax Celestis

First, we assume that everyone in the world has rolled 3d6 for their stats, as Gary intended. (none of this 4d6b3 nonsense, that was invented so that the 'adventurers' were better than normal).
Now, Mental Retardation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_disability) is "significantly impaired cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors that appears before adulthood. It has historically been defined as an Intelligence Quotient score under 70"
Going by the theory of "Int*10=IQ" that means that anyone with a score of 6 or lower would be Mentally Retarded. Rolling 3d6 will give you a 6 or less 20/216-th of the time. This works out to 9.25%, or roughly 1 in every 11 people.
1 in every 11 people DO NOT have "significantly impaired cognitive functioning".
Heck, depending on who you argue with, a score of 3-Int wouldn't be retarded (and probably isn't)

I don't agree with the assumption that the statistical distribution of the entire human (and demi-human) population is defined by the bell curve created by 3d6. I think that 3d6 is a method used to generate adventurers, people not only of exceptional ability but with interesting quirks or flaws. While the population as a whole varies less. If 3d6 did define the abilities of the populace, then 1/216 would have peak ability - something quite different than what we see with real human populations.

Callista
2010-10-30, 05:26 PM
Actually, 18 isn't peak ability. It's the highest score you can have as a 1st level human of Adult age. If you're older, or if you have more than 4 levels under your belt, your INT can be higher.

3d6 doesn't cover the full range of human ability because it isn't a true Bell curve; it's only a very rough approximation of one, and it isn't continuous. There are no numbers you can roll on 3d6 that are as rare as having an IQ below 60 or above 140. The best you can get with 3d6 is something that covers maybe 98-99% of the possibilities.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-10-30, 06:00 PM
I think that 3d6 is a method used to generate adventurers, people not only of exceptional ability but with interesting quirks or flaws.

All PCs and all the NPCs described in this section are “elite,” a cut above the average. Elite characters (whether they are PCs or not) have above-average ability scores and automatically get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die. Average characters, on the other hand, have average abilities (rolled on 3d6) and don’t get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die.
It doesn't directly refute your point, but it impinges on it somewhat and is relevant to the discussion as a whole.


I gave 3 examples where an intelligence test gave results that weren't 'good'.
Intelligence tests can be flawed. Painfully, obviously flawed, if we're to take your examples as representative of the field; mistakes of that magnitude (as opposed to the numerous smaller ones BITCH was supposed to highlight) make me seriously question the intelligence of the test makers. And if the intelligence test is flawed, the results will be.


How is it not a biased test, if the test only measures very specific subsets of the population, and anyone without the required exposure is doomed to failure.
Hypothetically, an intelligence test without flaws (or with minor flaws) will produce results with no/minor flaws. People nowadays know not to ask about filaments (you say the lightbulb example seems foolish, and I'd call it exactly the same type of foolish even today as asking about the reactor). People (though apparently not all people) realize that the test medium affects scoring (I read about a study for the last one of these threads comparing older people to young adults whose perception had been impaired to the level of the older people). People know of the BITCH test and its implications and try to account for that.
Naturally, there will be problems, but the most egregious example you listed (World War I) occurred merely a few years after IQ tests were made and came from a system derided at the time for being culturally biased, understaffed, and unverified. It's ridiculous to compare modern IQ tests with something like that.

grarrrg
2010-10-30, 06:17 PM
Actually, 18 isn't peak ability.....

On a related note, 3 isn't "worst possible".
Think of someone with severe brain damage, or someone who is a "vegetable".
The person with severe brain damage may very well have a score of 1 or 2, and the vegetable may very well count as having 0 or null Int.

Moving away from Int for a second. What about Con?
An adventurer or average townsman can very well have a Con of 3 and function perfectly normal (they just have a perpetual cold maybe?). People with NO immune system however would have a score of 1, possibly even less than 1, in DnD rules a Con of 0 means you're dead. And in real life, it is only recently that we can keep 'bubble' people alive (although they are still extreme risk), prior to say, 100 years ago, having no immune system WOULD be instant death.

So yes, there are people with scores higher than 18 and lower than 3, but they are fairly rare.

HidaTsuzua
2010-10-30, 07:51 PM
I've seen the whole INT equals IQ/10 repeated many times. Is there a source for this? Is it mentioned the 3rd edition PHB that I've missed? Or does it date back to an older edition? Or is it just someone's Word of Dante (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfDante) that became popular?

crimson77
2010-10-30, 08:50 PM
I've seen the whole INT equals IQ/10 repeated many times. Is there a source for this?
IQ/10 is an incorrect way to examine two constructs that have normal distributions. Here is the correct way. (http://psychologydnd.blogspot.com/2010/10/on-theory-of-gaming-intellegence.html)

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-30, 09:28 PM
If you match up probabilities on IQ tests and probabilities of 3d6, then you get the following:

INT IQ
18 140+
17 139
16 131
15 125
14 119
13 114
12 109
11 104
10 100
9 95
8 90
7 85
6 80
5 74
4 68
3 60

This is with standard deviation of 15 on the IQ test.

The IQ=INT*10 method has the advantage of being very easy, but it also changes the fantasy world a great deal because of the high number of people now located at the very high or very low end. One in six would be gifted (130+)--in our world, somebody capable of becoming a doctor or a research scientist--and one in twenty would be profoundly gifted, along the lines of Newton or Edison. One in six would be mentally retarded; and about one in twenty (at <50) would not be able to live on their own or do more than very simple work. Needless to say, there's no way this kind of thing is realistic.

That puts me even more firmly in the 18+ range than the original "theory." Whee.

Anyways, I don't think about it in terms of some test or other, let alone in terms of some metagame factor that may as well not apply universally to NPCs at all like die roll odds. The thing is, in D&D, whether character X can outmuscle or outsmart or otherwise surpass someone else at a given task is dependent on much more than just attributes. There are all kinds of skills and abilities that influence whether, say, you can punch through a steel wall (generally something real people cannot do). I derive a character's capabilities from what the finished character's capabilities are, not one isolated number on their sheet. In fantasyland people can do things like think at you so hard your brains come out your ears.

Off the top of my head, the only case where your precise Int score really directly matters in an IC way is when someone with less than X-10 intelligence casts Detect Thoughts on someone with X intelligence when X > 26. Which is way over the 18 range anyways. Of course, I'm probably forgetting some case or other.

In most cases, the difference between a piddly 10 Int and the fully invested 18 int is a mere 20% extra chance of success on an int check on the RNG.


I've seen the whole INT equals IQ/10 repeated many times. Is there a source for this? Wild fancy, I'd guess.

Callista
2010-10-31, 12:27 AM
Yes, but all those Take 10s and occasionally Take 20s mean that an 18 INT character's performance will reliably and noticeably be quite a good deal better than his INT 10 buddy's. 20% better is actually quite a lot, especially considering that it tends to build up rather than averaging out--you have a high INT so you're a successful wizard so you can find better scrolls so you're even a more successful wizard so your INT goes even higher, etc. That +4 bonus means you're performing as well in terms of skill as a character four levels ahead of you, which is not exactly something to sneeze at.

ffone
2010-10-31, 03:45 AM
I've been kickin around a theory lately about intelligence and wanted to know what the playground thought.

Basically 1 intelligence=10 iq points

This actually makes a lot of sense because 10-11 INT is about 100-110 IQ points which is about average.

120-139 IQ points is considered 'Gifted' which is equivalent to 12-13 INT which is above average or +1
140-159 IQ points is considered "Genius" Which corresponds with 14-15 INT and +2
160-179 IQ points (Think Leonard from big bang theory) is considered "Super Genius" which corresponds with 16-17 intelligence
180+ IQ points is basically off the charts and the highest possible for any human which makes sense as it is the highest possible roll to get. 18 INT

thoughts?

Simple. Just match the mean and standard dev, using 3d6:

Mean of IQ is 100
Mean of Int is 10.5
St.Dev of IQ I think is 15
Figure out what the st. dev of 3d6 is

Now just linearly translate. (IQ - mean IQ) / st.dev.IQ = (Int - mean Int)/st.dev.Int

This is identical (up to rounding/binning error) to what some people earlier in the thread have done; matching up the percentiles.

The existence of the elite array, adventurers with X-point buy, etc. doesn't contradict 3d6. They're by definition a nonrandom subset of the population. If V is someone's ability score array and P(V) is the probability that a randomly chosen person with scores V is an adventurer, you can choose the P(V) function so that the distribution of P given P(V)=1 is 4d6b1 or whatever you want. P just has to be proportionate to the ratio of the probabilities of getting V under 4d6b1 vs 3d6.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-31, 05:32 AM
It seems as though in D&D that the bonuses based on attributes are too small for the 1-20 scale that results from a d20.

Precisely.

Heck, even the writers are aware of this: anything from "taking 10" to "don't roll for arm wrestling" to "trained only skills" is basically a kludge to parch the problem with having small modifiers and a large random spread.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-31, 05:37 AM
You can't take 10 on a test. The time-demanding and pressure-focused nature of the activity prevents you from doing so.
Yes. Note that somebody else was suggesting "taking 10" as the solution, and I was disagreeing with that approach.


I've seen the whole INT equals IQ/10 repeated many times. Is there a source for this?
It's an easy-to-remember meme. And, like most easy-to-remember memes, it is completely wrong. Other such common and wrong memes include that chaotic neutral characters are all completely whacked-out crazy (this one's from the 2E PHB), or that IRL humans can accurately be modeled as no more than level 5 (watching the Olympic games quickly disproves this one) or that the Class That Shall Not Be Named is a credible threat to a moderate level wizard (we have a weekly thread about that, I think).

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-31, 02:03 PM
That +4 bonus means you're performing as well in terms of skill as a character four levels ahead of you, which is not exactly something to sneeze at.

I disagree. As you go up in levels, you get more than just "an extra skill rank each level." You get synergies, you get skill tricks, you get abilities, you get feats, you get class features. Going up that level in Warblade might have netted you the ability to dig your way out of an adamantine cage with a spoon. A Cloistered Cleric wanting to get the most out of Knowledge Devotion might boost up their Knowledge check to identify monsters to a +27 at level 4, not to mention having Bardic Knowledge. And so forth.

This reminds me about the things people say about "not dumping Cha." Well, the difference between a dumped Cha and a non-main-stat-investment Cha is -1 and +1. That's the difference of a Synergy bonus. By contrast, if the -1 person had "different class skills" or "more skill points" or "class features" they could have something like +15 and talk you out of your shoes and tell you that down is up with a straight face. That's the charismatic person.

Callista
2010-10-31, 04:26 PM
Not always as well as a character four levels ahead; but generally--yes. Especially in untrained skills.

Dilb
2010-10-31, 04:58 PM
or that IRL humans can accurately be modeled as no more than level 5 (watching the Olympic games quickly disproves this one)

Where do you need more than 5 levels to exceed Olympic performance?

Kurald Galain
2010-10-31, 05:15 PM
Where do you need more than 5 levels to exceed Olympic performance?
Any feat that an Olympian should be able to do reliably and that at the same time Joe Average should not have a 5% chance at. There's simply not enough leeway in the skill ranks to compensate for the random rolls.

WOTC states (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a) that an Olympic level archer is 7th level, and an Olympic weightlifter has 23 strength (which requires 20th level, or magical items that don't exist IRL, or being a half-orc which doesn't exist IRL either).

Obviously, any claim that tries to match every real-world feat to an arbitrary level or skill value in D&D rules is dead wrong.

HidaTsuzua
2010-10-31, 05:16 PM
It's an easy-to-remember meme. And, like most easy-to-remember memes, it is completely wrong. Other such common and wrong memes include that chaotic neutral characters are all completely whacked-out crazy (this one's from the 2E PHB), or that IRL humans can accurately be modeled as no more than level 5 (watching the Olympic games quickly disproves this one) or that the Class That Shall Not Be Named is a credible threat to a moderate level wizard (we have a weekly thread about that, I think).

I knew that and that's why it persists. But I'm curious if it's like the Chaotic Neutral is crazy idea where at one point it was in the rule book and has lived on, or the humans in real life don't go beyond level 5 (while not the originiator, this post on the Alexandrian popularized it) (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). There's a long series of threads about the classes and wizards and some that started it all. I'm trying to figure out if this meme has a singular source (it does sound like something from an old 1st edition book somewhere), or is it just independently grown from the observation "if 10 is the average INT score and 100 is the average IQ level, then INT = IQ/10" repeatedly. I think it's the latter, but if someone knew more about its history, it'll save me some trouble researching.

Godskook
2010-10-31, 05:48 PM
or that IRL humans can accurately be modeled as no more than level 5 (watching the Olympic games quickly disproves this one)

Such as which record, exactly? I can get lvl 5 character to run faster. Fastest man alive can run ~328 feet in about 10 seconds(a round), while a level 1 human can, with a regional feat fleet of foot(+10'), barbarian(+10'), and the run feat can get 250 feet in a round. At level 1. By level 3, you can pick up Martial Study(Wind Stride) (+10') and Dash(+5') for 325' in a round. If I replace Dash with Speed of Thought(+10' instead of +5') and become psionically focused, I can hit 350' in a round, which is *more* than the fastest man alive, all without using blatant magic, such as expeditious retreat.

Article I linked to earlier discussed the long jump(or was it the high?).

RebelRogue
2010-10-31, 06:11 PM
Such as which record, exactly? I can get lvl 5 character to run faster. Fastest man alive can run ~328 feet in about 10 seconds(a round), while a level 1 human can, with a regional feat fleet of foot(+10'), barbarian(+10'), and the run feat can get 250 feet in a round. At level 1. By level 3, you can pick up Martial Study(Wind Stride) (+10') and Dash(+5') for 325' in a round. If I replace Dash with Speed of Thought(+10' instead of +5') and become psionically focused, I can hit 350' in a round, which is *more* than the fastest man alive, all without using blatant magic, such as expeditious retreat.
Since a round is 6 seconds not 10, you'd only need about 200' per. round to top it.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-31, 06:15 PM
If I replace Dash with Speed of Thought(+10' instead of +5') and become psionically focused, I can hit 350' in a round, which is *more* than the fastest man alive, all without using blatant magic,

Yes, surely all real-world athletes are actually psions. That is why astral travel, flame control, and entangling ectoplasm are commonly seen in sports on TV.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-10-31, 06:34 PM
Yes, surely all real-world athletes are actually psions.

Hey, you never know, right? How else do they "get in the zone"? It's obviously a psionic focus; the only reason we haven't realized it is because the DM of real life banned anything that would interact with the (psionic) subtype.

Godskook
2010-10-31, 06:41 PM
Yes, surely all real-world athletes are actually psions. That is why astral travel, flame control, and entangling ectoplasm are commonly seen in sports on TV.

Given that I keep forgetting that a round is 6 seconds instead of 10(I get dyslexic at times, and forget if its 10 seconds per round and 6 rounds per minute or vice versa), my numbers were *way* overkill.

With just dash, fleet-of-foot, fast movement and the run feat, I'm doing 55' land speed, or 275 feat per round on a run, or 458 feat in 10 seconds. And that's without any 'psionics' or 'initiators' or any other non-mundane mechanics

And what's up with the straw man argument, Kurald, really? I specifically stuck to mundane and psuedo-mundane feats(wind stride and speed of thought will both function in an AMF or NPF without any exceptions needing to be made), and unwittingly over-shot modern athletics even without the psuedo-mundane feats.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-10-31, 06:52 PM
WOTC states (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a) that an Olympic level archer is 7th level
I'm sure optimizers (and Olympic archers are probably optimized) could knock that level requirement down a peg.


and an Olympic weightlifter has 23 strength (which requires 20th level, or magical items that don't exist IRL, or being a half-orc which doesn't exist IRL either).
Using the Natural Heavyweight feat (which represents favorable genetics), your carrying capacity is doubled, meaning you'd only need Strength 18 to lift what a generic 23 Strength fellow would lift. What with Human Paragon and the 4th-level bonus, you can get to Strength 21 before 5th level, making the absolute limit about 920 lb of overhead lift. Although this admittedly doesn't match up with real-world possibilities, it's close enough, and closer than it initially seemed.


Obviously, any claim that tries to match every real-world feat to an arbitrary level or skill value in D&D rules is dead wrong.
I've always understood the 5th-level thing to be an approximation, subject to the limits of the combat-focused D&D system (The alexandrian had to finagle circumstance modifiers like referencing journals and peer review to make Einstein's Knowledge (physics) check). If people stated it as an absolute generalization that's just a tendency of human expression.

hamishspence
2010-10-31, 07:12 PM
Mustn't forget "prodigy" which is a DMG2 template with LA, rather than something that increases hit dice.

So, you could have a 5 Hit Dice character (but with a higher ECL) with a higher Strength.

Godskook
2010-10-31, 07:16 PM
Any feat that an Olympian should be able to do reliably and that at the same time Joe Average should not have a 5% chance at. There's simply not enough leeway in the skill ranks to compensate for the random rolls.

The DC for a world record long jump is DC 30. Joe average probably has no more than a +5 in jump(between 8-12 strength, and no training, I'm giving Joe a *HUGE* benefit of the doubt on that one). Joe Average just simply can't make that jump.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-31, 09:50 PM
WOTC states (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a) that an Olympic level archer is 7th level, and an Olympic weightlifter has 23 strength (which requires 20th level, or magical items that don't exist IRL, or being a half-orc which doesn't exist IRL either).

Good for WotC? :smallconfused:

Horses do bug me, though.

Amiel
2010-11-01, 12:57 AM
I've been kickin around a theory lately about intelligence and wanted to know what the playground thought.

Basically 1 intelligence=10 iq points

This actually makes a lot of sense because 10-11 INT is about 100-110 IQ points which is about average.

Actually, based on academic research, average intelligence falls upon a variable numerical range of IQ 90-110.
Unfortunately, if you take IQ 90 and derive an Int score, you'll get a negative modifier (specifically -1) which does not reflect average intelligence (Int 10 is 0).

ffone
2010-11-01, 03:46 AM
Actually, based on academic research, average intelligence falls upon a variable numerical range of IQ 90-110.
Unfortunately, if you take IQ 90 and derive an Int score, you'll get a negative modifier (specifically -1) which does not reflect average intelligence (Int 10 is 0).

90-110 is I believe -2/3 to +2/3 standard deviations about the mean (100). 90 is a little below average. And remember the average is 3d6 is 10.5 not 10.

I'd suggest not attaching any great import to the breakpoints of the modifiers or even to the 3-18 numbers.....since IQ is finer grained and the underlying concept is continuous valued, rounding/bucketing is necessary.

Almost everything in DnD is a 'discrete' (integer-valued) abstraction of a continuous reality...I suppose you could do DnD with floating-point arithmetic if you liked (but a Vancian spell system is also discrete...).

Psyx
2010-11-01, 06:16 AM
Basically 1 intelligence=10 iq points


This does not work. Only something like 0.25% of the population have a 140+ IQ. So 18 INT is actually more like a 135 IQ.

(145+ Can't be accurately measured on standard tests, as you'd need to get pretty much everything right, which doesn't give enough statistical variation for measurement. If you're a genius, you need to do a different test to the standard one and have a proper assessment.)

hamishspence
2010-11-01, 06:26 AM
This does not work. Only something like 0.25% of the population have a 140+ IQ. So 18 INT is actually more like a 135 IQ.

As has previously been mentioned, it's possible that most of the population of a D&D world don't roll 3d6.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-01, 06:33 AM
The DC for a world record long jump is DC 30. Joe average probably has no more than a +5 in jump(between 8-12 strength, and no training, I'm giving Joe a *HUGE* benefit of the doubt on that one). Joe Average just simply can't make that jump.
That's not what I'm talking about: I explicitly said "Any feat that an Olympian should be able to do reliably".

Making the world record probably means "rolling a 20". Doing something reliably either requires taking 10, or having a skill mod so high you'll make the check even on a 1.

Suppose our expert on whatever skill has a +10 skill mod. That means he can reliably make DC 20 by taking 10, and reliably make DC 11 if he cannot take 10. However, A complete rookie without any training or talent can do the former 5% of the time, and the latter 45% of the time. That is absolutely not true in real life.

And, of course, stressful situations tend to disallow taking 10. Now take whatever contest we like (playing chess against a grandmaster, running a marathon, crafting, doing a sudoko, whatever you like). It is possible that the expert rolls a 1, and a complete rookie with no talent rolls a 20. In real life, the expert would nevertheless win. In D&D, he would need a +20 skill modifier or he'd lose.

You need either a lot of levels or a lot of handwaving to end up with that +20 skill modifier. This is the problem, in a nutshell: in reality, you do not win against Kasparov 5% of the time or even 1/400 of the time. You do not win a marathon with a lucky roll if you don't have any training or stamina.

hamishspence
2010-11-01, 06:39 AM
This is the problem, in a nutshell: in reality, you do not win against Kasparov 5% of the time or even 1/400 of the time. You do not win a marathon with a lucky roll if you don't have any training or stamina.

True- ordinary people do beat grandmasters in simultaneous exhibitions though, when a grandmaster has a few seconds to make each move, and is playing against a hundred or so players at once.

This might be "unfavorable circumstances."

prufock
2010-11-01, 07:23 AM
Ex 1: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Intelligence_Test_of_Cultural_Homogeneity) I might look at a bureau, and know it's a bureau. You might look at the same bureau and know it as a dresser, because that's what our parents called it while we were kids.

The test would show them a lightbulb without a filament (that wire in the middle), and require them to know it's missing not just the wire, but the name of that wire.
ANY test with language in it is going to depend on your understanding of the language. But language dependencies are only really relevant to particular types of tests - those that make use of "uncommon" vocabulary. It isn't as important in test of visual, abstract, arithmetic, spatial, or memory tests.
One interesting point of note is that in tests which are "culture-balanced" the gap can actually increase between the groups of interest. If the difference was due to language we would expect it to decrease.


Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). When I took the test, it was on paper, with black and white drawings that were incredibly difficult to discern. So someone who took it via computer would have done better in certain sections (worse in others, apparently it was almost impossible to read the basic math section of the computer test in 2001).
This isn't really a criticism of the test itself, more a criticism of the administration of the test. Do you know if this hypothesis ran true? That is, were there actual differences in the results on these sections?

A couple points to remember:
A. IQ is what is measured by IQ tests. IQ represents intelligence, it is not intelligence itself.
B. IQ is correlated with many things we would intuitively expect it to be correlated with: school performance, career success, health, other standardized tests, income, violent crime (negative correlation), etc. There may be mediating or moderating factors (education, family background), but keep in mind point A.

Lapak
2010-11-01, 10:44 AM
To put another view of Intelligence out there, I credit James Raggi (http://lotfp.blogspot.com/) with throwing the question of 'mental ability' out the window entirely. His game treats Intelligence as a measure of general knowledge that isn't related to any particular skill. It measures not how nimble your mind is, but rather how much is in it. He's working in an old-school environment, but I find it translates pretty well to 3.x; assuming higher INT = a broader base of general information works for me. The more time you have put into 'learning,' the easier learning new things can become (more skill points at level-up.) It gives you more background data to draw on when working on a particular problem (skill checks.) And it eliminates the RPG problem of 'playing someone smarter than you,' especially for the poor GM who is expected to play the role of multiple super-genius monsters. Letting an ancient dragon be no more intuitive or analytical than a person - but having a huge wealth of experience and information to draw on - is easier, I think, than making them a mega-brain. It's certainly easier mechanically: 'do I know relevant fact X' is a yes-no question a skill check can answer, while 'can I come up with complicated multi-stage plan Y' is not.

So an 18 Intelligence doesn't mean a 180 (or 140) IQ; it means a PhD - or at least the equivalent level of learning. And that doesn't match up too badly percentage-wise with the modern US, incidentally.

Kondziu
2010-11-01, 11:24 AM
assuming higher INT = a broader base of general information works for me.
That's assuming intelligence = wisdom. And talking D&D only, it makes wisdom stat redundant.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-01, 11:27 AM
That's assuming intelligence = wisdom. And talking D&D only, it makes wisdom stat redundant.

Wisdom is not "a broader base of general information"; if it were, then wisdom would give a bonus to knowledge checks.

Wisdom is perception and willpower, not knowledge.

Gamgee
2010-11-01, 11:27 AM
I think a greater debate is what IQ actually measures and if that is the definitive measure of mans thought. So sure if you want it to "work" go ahead, but take it with a grain of salt.

Kondziu
2010-11-01, 11:32 AM
Wisdom is not "a broader base of general information"; if it were, then wisdom would give a bonus to knowledge checks.
Well, it should!
Still, I was wrong on the D&D aspect.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-01, 11:33 AM
I was under the impression that IQ corresponded to pattern recognition, logical ability, short-term memory, spatial reasoning, et cetera, which aren't necessarily the definitive measures of anything.

grimbold
2010-11-04, 12:41 PM
a note on the test taking.
It should also be considered that the college students in this hypothetical quantum physics tests probably now have levels in expert and ranks in Knowledge (Quantum Physics) and Knowledge (Math) in addition to their intelligence bonuses.
The final for a quantum physics course is probably above a DC 30 test. So in reality if the final is maybe DC 30. Now this is assuming that there are no limits to skill ranks in the real world (i figure this to be true). The students who i think we can assume all have INT scores of 16+ have modifiers of +3 to INt based skill challenges.
As experts the would get 42 skill points at first level and if they put 20 in quantum physics they would have a 50% chance of passing a DC 30 test!

Callista
2010-11-04, 01:48 PM
They'd not be allowed to put more than four ranks in any given skill, though. Of course, the test could be a combination of skill checks--Knowledge(Physics), Knowledge(Math), and Profession(Writer), for example.

Knowledge skill checks go like this:
DC 10--really easy questions. ("If a car is accelerating at 10 meters per second and starts from rest, how fast will it be going in 60 seconds?")
DC 15--basic questions. ("What is Newton's second law?")

DC 20 and 30 start up the questions that most people can't answer without training.

Example of a DC 20 question: "Calculate how long it takes 99% of a sample of Carbon-14 to undergo radioactive decay." Someone with INT 10 has a 5% chance of answering this off the top of his head, and could research the information for himself to solve the problem (the Internet gives him a +2 circumstance bonus, if he can use a computer), or learn how to do so from someone else (Aid Another--which is how study groups work).

A 5th level Expert with INT 16 (typical for college students in science classes) would have 8 ranks in the relevant Knowledge skill and INT bonus of +3, for a total of +11. He has a better than even chance of answering the question on the spot. Given access to a library, a professor, and a study group, his bonus goes up to near-certainty. Depending on the ruling for taking 10 on Knowledge checks (I say you can, but some DMs don't), he may just take 10 and answer the question by using good problem-solving strategies he's learned in class.

At DC 30, you're looking at questions that are probably graduate-level--things like, "Derive a mathematical model of blood flow in the aorta." The average person can't do this without training, and it's not trivial even to a college professor. The average college professor is probably a 7th to 9th level Expert, and the average graduate student 6th or 7th level, which allows them--with synergy bonuses from related Knowledge skills and an INT that has been increased to 18--answer questions that nobody has answered before when they submit original work.

The level 6 graduate student: +4 INT, +9 ranks, +2 equipment (Library), +6 (Aid Another in a four-person study group). Total, +21 on the check, and he can answer a DC 30 question if he takes 10. There are also likely synergy bonuses in play from related Knowledge skills and from an advisor's Profession(Teacher) skill.

His professor, at level 9, has three more ranks of Knowledge than his student, which actually isn't a huge gap as far as those things go; his range for Take 10 is simply higher--he can answer a wider range of questions without risking being incorrect.

Oh, and students in universities need a new feat:
Research
You may take 20 on a Knowledge check. This requires access to a library or similar, and requires at least four hours of study per day for one week.

grimbold
2010-11-04, 02:20 PM
can someone link us to the alexandrian?

IMO the only reason there is skill limits in D&D is to stop OPing, which i get. But in the real world no one gets past level 5 and you can put ranks in stuff more than you could in D&D given the appropriate training

on an unrelated note (sorta)-If i was running a d20 modern campaign i think the internet may even be worth +4 but requiring a DC 11 will save every hour not to get distracted :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2010-11-04, 02:25 PM
IMO the only reason there is skill limits in D&D is to stop OPing, which i get. But in the real world no one gets past level 5 and you can put ranks in stuff more than you could in D&D given the appropriate training
Wrong. As Callista just pointed out, a university teacher can easily be level nine.

grimbold
2010-11-04, 02:34 PM
actually i am saying that IRL there is no cap on skill points
that makes more sense for me
otherwise callista is right

Callista
2010-11-04, 02:50 PM
I think you can definitely get high-level experts, but only if you ignore the combat stats; obviously, my professor isn't any better than fighting than I am unless he's trained for it. Physical stats don't transfer all that well from D&D to the real world.

Of course, if you think about the possibilities afforded by magic and the possibilities we can get through technology, we might draw some parallels between engineers and scientists and wizards or clerics. For example, a nuclear weapon is probably roughly equivalent to an epic-level spell, and a conventional bomb equivalent to something like Meteor Swarm. A flamethrower might duplicate Fireball; a sniper and his specialized equipment could be as good as a Magic Missile. As far as power levels go, science is actually a relatively powerful thing, though that doesn't really mean that anyone who can push the button to deploy a nuke has to be Epic (though the people who developed nuclear weapons were probably epic-level Experts).

If you want to go by the DMG rules for communities, look at the stats for a Metropolis, which in D&D has 25000 adults. There are hundreds of cities that are larger than that in the United States alone, to say nothing of the rest of the world. A metropolis has something like a 97% chance of including at least one 20th-level NPC, so in the US alone there should be a few hundred at 20th-level or higher. (I didn't get world stats, but multiply by twenty and you get the point.) I don't know where the "nobody's level 5 or higher" rule came from, but unless you're talking about using things like Jump checks to gauge people's levels, I don't get it at all.

RS14
2010-11-04, 04:13 PM
That's funny, but it still doesn't work.

Let's look at an opposite example: a first-year university test in quantum physics. Suppose the university students have int 14, two ranks in the relevant knowledge skill, and +2 circumstance bonus for masterwork textbooks. As you say, these people pile on modifiers and take 10, and therefore have no problem taking a DC 16 exam.

There are two problems here. First, every student passes the test, which is unlikely. Second, if you give this test to a bunch of average high schoolers who've never heard of quantum physics before, then 20% of them will pass the test anyway.

A better model of a test would be of n questions of DC x. Most people would get most questions, and x and n can be calibrated to adjust of almost arbitrary mean and standard deviation.

Edit: Serves me right for not reading the whole thread.

grimbold
2010-11-05, 11:00 AM
I FOUND IT! (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)
callista check this out, it explains a lot

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-05, 11:37 AM
I FOUND IT! (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)
callista check this out, it explains a lot

It has already been cited and Kurald Galain clearly disagrees with its assertions; Justin Alexander isn't the most definitive source in this context.

Godskook
2010-11-05, 01:57 PM
You need either a lot of levels or a lot of handwaving to end up with that +20 skill modifier.

Elite array (15 in stat, or +2)
level 4 stat bonus(16 in stat, +3 total)
Ability focus(+3)
ranks(+8)
Masterwork items(+2)

That's +16 right there. Which already boils down to a 2.5% chance that a commoner will beat someone of this caliber.

With human paragon, and a 17 or 18 starting stat, and we've got +18.

That leaves a +2 bonus to find, between Synergy, Marshall minor Aura, the "+2 to 2 skills" feats, and whatever else I'm missing. For most skills, +20 at level 5 requires no hand-waving at all, and isn't even the limit on what they can get, with purely mundane resources. For those few that would absolutely require the marshal dip, a homebrewed "+2 to 2 skills" feat is quite legitimate, since while not every skill has a feat like that, there's so many of them, its logical to argue that more could be brewed to cover skills not previously covered.

grimbold
2010-11-05, 02:47 PM
yes, if you consider it most people who pass such a gruelling course as quantum physics they are probably pretty well optimized.