How Dumb is Dumb? Intelligence Penalties and Roleplaying

[tonberrian]

How smart, in a general sort of sense, is someone at 8 Intelligence? 6? 4?

[DegenPaladin]

I believe that every point in Int is roughly 10 IQ, so 8 is an 80 IQ so on and so forth.

[Eldan]

Well, the complicated approach would be fitting the bell curve of 3d6 to the bell curve of the IQ, then see what maps to what.

Apart from that, I'd say it's about like this: a 6 is as stupid as a 14 is smart. :smallwink:

I'ts interesting, though: a lot of people I've played with seem to think everything below about 14 is a bad stat.

[Divide by Zero]

But keep in mind that IQ is a poor measure of intelligence that no professional takes seriously, and it gets even more ridiculous if you try to apply it to non-humans.

[Moriato]

It's often said that 1 point of INT is approximately equal to 10 points of IQ. Arguments can be made as to how true that is, but it's still a good guideline to determine around how smart/dumb a character should be. INT 8 / ~IQ 80 would be the very low end of "normal". Somewhat below average, so yeah, pretty dumb. INT 6 / ~IQ 60 would be onsidered mentally handicapped. INT 4 / ~IQ40 would be only slightly smarter than an animal. Barely able to form a sentence.

[tyckspoon]

The only thing that will make any sense is purely descriptive, in a uselessly vague way- as in, "Int 8 is a little less intelligent than the average human, Int 6 is notably less intelligent than the average human." It's up to you to figure out what "a little" and "notably" mean.. so, hey, good luck with that. :smallamused: Any attempt to map it straight to IQ is going to fail at some point.

Personally: The entire range from 8-12 is not especially distinguishable unless you can find some way to test for the mechanical effects (in D&D, for example, you might find a way to determine if somebody can cast wizard cantrips at all, thus telling you they have at least Int 10.) 6 and 14 show their effects; they are respectively "hey, have some patience with him, he's slow" and "huh, that's a really tough one, go ask him. He's good at figuring stuff out." 4 and 16 gets beyond easy qualification, because they're going outside the normal range of experience for most people. I'd say 4 is probably below the point of functioning unassisted in normal society, but it could just as well be represented in half a dozen ways.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I prefer to map the bell curve. 10.5 is the mean IQ of 100 and every 2.5 points of Intelligence translates to 15 points of IQ.

An Intelligence of 8 is thus an IQ of 85, on the slow end of normal, and an Intelligence of 5 is 70, the cut-off for borderline mental retardation.

Going the other way, an Intelligence of 13 is the bright end of normal, a 16 is qualified for Mensa, and the point at which the notoriously unreliable IQ model becomes entirely useless is a 19.

[Lapak]

I'm not sure if it answers the question directly, but in my games I have found that it simplifies both gameplay and roleplay enormously if you treat Intelligence as 'general amount of information known' rather than as 'mental agility.'

It still makes sense that high-Int characters and monsters get the advantages they do mechanically. The more you know, the more connections and conclusion you can draw: it's easier to learn your fifth language than your first, it's easier to kill things if you have some idea of anatomy, and so on - while eliminating the perpetual problem of trying to accurately represent superhuman intelligence. It also makes sub-average Intelligence a mechanical penalty like low Strength is rather than the character penalty it becomes if Int 5 indicates a barely-functional idiot.

So a low-Intelligence person has little-to-no background of knowledge. She doesn't know how to decipher unfamiliar languages. At really low levels, he might be a rural recluse that doesn't have any knowledge of how cities work or even that they exist and has never learned anything but the specific skills he invested points in. But it doesn't mean that he or she can't figure out how to operate a door latch after a moment's consideration or that massive claw-gouges in solid rock could indicate trouble.

[Ravens_cry]

It really depends on how you play it. 7 could be a pretentious idiot who likes big words </hypocrisy> or it could be someone just a little bit slow but still gets things, eventually. It also depends on other ability scores. High wisdom and low intelligence is often, though by no means always, portrayed as the Gump, Forrest Gump that is, someone who has a keen understanding of the world, but not much aptitude for book learning. High Charisma and Low Intelligence is possibly someone who is able to convince others of doing things, but they don't always think through the consequences of those actions.
Low across the board is someone who is just dull.
They don't react well to changing circumstances, people find them oafish and stubborn over the wrong things and they are just ignorant. Or not, but that's how I would generally role play it.

[Doug Lampert]

Well, the complicated approach would be fitting the bell curve of 3d6 to the bell curve of the IQ, then see what maps to what.

That's not complicated. They're both bell curves (within the limits of both systems), and the standard deviation is 15 on IQ and roughly 3 on 3d6.

Ergo, 5 IQ ~= 1 Int.
Mean on 3d6 is exactly 10.5.
Mean IQ is supposed to be 100, but on actual tests it actually averages higher than that.

So treating IQ = 5*Int + 50 is about as good as you can do. And it's simple.

Int 3 ~= IQ 65, and is still quite functional in the real world.


I prefer to map the bell curve. 10.5 is the mean IQ of 100 and every 2.5 points of Intelligence translates to 15 points of IQ.

Why use 2.5? Standard deviation of 3d6 is 2.958039892. Which is MUCH closer to 3, and 3 is easier to work with.

DougL

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Why use 2.5? Standard deviation of 3d6 is 2.958039892. Which is MUCH closer to 3, and 3 is easier to work with.

I don't understand anything but the most rudimentary mathematics. The last time I had this discussion, someone claimed that the stdev of 3d6 was ~2.43 and it fit my argument so I took his word for it.

Three works just as well. Count upward from 10 and it's 13, 16 19. Downward from 11 and it's 8, 5, 2. Gives a little bit more numerical wiggle-room between the cutoff for MR and the inability to function.

[Winds]

10 in any stat is average human for the setting. (IE, d20 modern's INT 10 would mean something very different than DnD INT 10, though the stat is no different.) Someone with 8 INT would be slightly dim, 6 INT would be mentally handicapped. I seem to recall 6 is the lowest at which you can control them, which would imply 5 or below would represent someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what they're doing.

As to the IQ question, both the stat as used and IQ itself are fairly subjective, and only really useful as a guideline. Trying to use x value of one to mean y value of the other is madness, even before factoring what normal IQ in a DnD setting would be. That said, I realize that having a rough guideline would be useful to pin down what it means in your game. Just bear in mind that there's no way to make it perfectly accurate.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

1I seem to recall 6 is the lowest at which you can control them, which would imply 5 or below would represent someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what they're doing.

You can play a character all the way down to 3, which has the same ability modifier as an Intelligence 2 animal. Personally, I think the rules don't give certain animals enough credit; most of the great apes are capable of running in the 5-6 range.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You can play a character all the way down to 3, which has the same ability modifier as an Intelligence 2 animal. Personally, I think the rules don't give certain animals enough credit; most of the great apes are capable of running in the 5-6 range.

No, animals have a high wisdom score, they're very cunning.

[Gamer Girl]

You can look at it like this:

Baby: Intelligence 1
Toddler: Intelligence 2-3
Child: Intelligence 4-5
Tween: Intelligence 6-7
Teen: Intelligence 8-9
Adult: Intelligence 10


So an orc with an Intelligence of 7 is at the same level as a tween.

Note that a lot of folks don't even have 'average' Intelligence. Most peasants, serfs or such will be below 10. But also note that just as your someone important, like a king, does not make you smart, as a king can still have an Intelligence of less then 10.

[HappyBlanket]

100 IQ is, by definition, average intellect... But IQ testing is silly, so it's no go.

Doing it by age is iffy; INT would be influenced by education more than it would physical maturity, but by that measure you're effectively working without numbers.

Honestly? You're working blindly and subjectively no matter what you do, so unless your group wants to spend the time making a chart, I'd play the stat to your discretion. You'll have as much success qualifying INT as you would CHA.

[Gamer Girl]

Doing it by age is iffy; INT would be influenced by education more than it would physical maturity, but by that measure you're effectively working without numbers.


Not too much though. First in a typical fantasy setting, most people are uneducated in the modern sense. Second, knowledge and information is rare to the extreme. They don't have simple things like books or an internet. And third, no matter how much you attempt to educate someone, you are limited by their age. You can not just flat out teach a child(age 6) trigonometry, they have to learn a lot of math before they get to that point(plus they have to learn numbers too).

[ericgrau]

3-4 slow, I hit things with a big stick
5-7 kinda dumb, below average, explain that to me again in English
8-12 average
13-15 kinda smart, clever, stick Bob in the portable hole and slip it underneath the door, then use the twine tied there and there to unfurl the portable hole and let him out
16-18 brilliant, genius, shhh you'll interrupt my research

I hate it when people "dump stat" to 8 and play bad stereotypes btw.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

No, animals have a high wisdom score, they're very cunning.

Gorillas and chimpanzees in captivity have been instructed in sign language and demonstrated remarkable language skills, including spontaneous expression. When I say they're capable of reaching Intelligence 5 or 6, I mean that they are capable of registering measurable scores on human intelligence tests.

[Eldan]

Chimps, at least, are entirely able to do that, yes. They've shown planning, an understanding of the future, the ability to distinguish themselves from other chimps, and the ability to lie and take back their lies and apologize when threatened with punishment.

[BigBlueFoot]

I played a game once where the Barbarian had an INT of 3. That was pretty fun. "Gorb Gorb break you face." But he could barely talk. There was absolutely no way we ever left him alone by himself, because he couldn't really do anything by himself, except hit things, and that ends badly when you're by yourself at level 1. He decided to keep the 3 because he got 2 14s, by the way. I mean, dang. He didn't even get anything higher than a 15 in that roll, if I remember right.

Although DM ruled that when he was raging, he had a 20 in INT, and whenever he spoke, and if he rolled a 1 or a 20, he had a 20 INT for about 3 rounds. While ranging he could still not use any intelligence skills, so it was just that he got to talk like he was a genius.

[HalfDragonCube]

I played a game once where the Barbarian had an INT of 3. That was pretty fun. "Gorb Gorb break you face." But he could barely talk. There was absolutely no way we ever left him alone by himself, because he couldn't really do anything by himself, except hit things, and that ends badly when you're by yourself at level 1. He decided to keep the 3 because he got 2 14s, by the way. I mean, dang. He didn't even get anything higher than a 15 in that roll, if I remember right.

Although DM ruled that when he was raging, he had a 20 in INT, and whenever he spoke, and if he rolled a 1 or a 20, he had a 20 INT for about 3 rounds. While ranging he could still not use any intelligence skills, so it was just that he got to talk like he was a genius.

Like the opposite of berserker in 8-bit theatre?

[Tyndmyr]

Whenever someone tries to map int to iq, I have to ask....when does this line up?

Because 100 iq now is not the same as a 100 iq ten years ago. It's continually adjusted.

[super dark33]

IQ is wisdom yknow, a man who dont understand why cant the squere get in the triangle hole, is a man with low wis.

[HalfDragonCube]

IQ is wisdom yknow, a man who dont understand why cant the squere get in the triangle hole, is a man with low wis.

Depends how big the hole is. If it's too small, then a high Str stat deals with that.

[Marnath]

Chimps, at least, are entirely able to do that, yes. They've shown planning, an understanding of the future, the ability to distinguish themselves from other chimps, and the ability to lie and take back their lies and apologize when threatened with punishment.

It goes deeper. My family used to raise cattle, and once we had a calf with a broken leg. We put a cast on it, and babied it. Gave it everything it could want. One day we saw it running up out of the field with the rest of the herd, just fine. Saw us, and immediately slowed to a 3-legged hobble. That freaking thing was playing us for saps! :smallfurious: Come to find out, the leg had healed weeks before, and it was faking to get special treatment.

If something as stupid as a bovine can be devious like that, I'm not going to assume any animal is quite as stupid as they want us to think they are.:smallamused:

[Cog]

Come to find out, the leg had healed weeks before, and it was faking to get special treatment.
To be fair, nothing in that suggests that the calf had any awareness that it was being dishonest. Presumably all it was doing was associating certain behavior with special treatment. It takes a certain level of intelligence and awareness of others to realize that getting special treatment is not fair.

[Eldan]

Yeah. It could just be, basically, a case of conditioning. Associating "walking on three legs = special treatment" does not necessarily mean that there's pre-meditated deception involved.

[Marnath]

Yeah. It could just be, basically, a case of conditioning. Associating "walking on three legs = special treatment" does not necessarily mean that there's pre-meditated deception involved.

Maybe. It could also very well be exactly what it looked like, though. :smallwink:

[HalfDragonCube]

Maybe. It could also very well be exactly what it looked like, though. :smallwink:

Yeah, but the fact that a cow outsmarted a human is altogether a tad creepy.

[Bhaakon]

Maybe. It could also very well be exactly what it looked like, though. :smallwink:

Did you get its leg x-rayed? If it was faking from the start, then that cow's at least a 6.

[Taelas]

Maybe. It could also very well be exactly what it looked like, though. :smallwink:

Quite simply, no. It isn't smart enough. A calf is not capable of thinking ahead. You rewarded it for acting a certain way. Obviously it is not going to stop.

That is how animal training generally works -- you reward the animal for good behavior and punish it for bad.

[Marnath]

Did you get its leg x-rayed? If it was faking from the start, then that cow's at least a 6.

Well, it's mom did kick it, but according to the vet(who we happened to have called for another reason, too expensive for one little calf) it was never a serious injury.:smallwink:


Yeah, but the fact that a cow outsmarted a human is altogether a tad creepy.

That was my point. It was sort of creepy to see it go from a full run, and then see us watching and start limping. I suppose it could be conditioning, but it sure seemed to us like something deliberate.

[Taelas]

Well, it was deliberate -- the animal had no reason to limp when you weren't around to reward it. It just wasn't malicious. ;)

[HalfDragonCube]

Well, it was deliberate -- the animal had no reason to limp when you weren't around to reward it. It just wasn't malicious. ;)

Fear...:smalleek: