elans int score

[grandpheonix]

So i was thinking (its a new thing ive been doing ) and i was wondering... If elans dump stat was intellegence then what could it be? He doesnt talk like thog, but he has extra skill points to throw into ride? Confusing.

[Kish]

"Extra skill points"?

Elan didn't say he spent points on Ride because he just had so many that after he'd taken all the class skills he wanted he had more skill points left over. He said he had ranks in Ride. If he has an Intelligence of 3 he still has 3 skill points per level, 12 to start with.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Can't really draw conclusions about his Intelligence from which skills he spent points on, unless we knew something about his total skill points, which we don't.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I doubt The Giant has any specific value in mind besides "not terribly high". As rodneyAnonymous said, if we knew Elan's skill points we could work it out, but without specifics we just have a general range.

[Eno Remnant]

I feel I should raise the point that in the second comic http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0002.html Elan talks about his six new skill points. As a Bard, that implies that, despite his dump stat being Intelligence, he has an Intelligence of 10-11.

Of course, he could just have been talking about the six Bards get, and not have actually meant that he actually got six skill points.

[factotum]

Of course, he could just have been talking about the six Bards get, and not have actually meant that he actually got six skill points.

I'm pretty sure the Giant is on record as saying that's what Elan meant.

[snowblizz]

Courtesy of the latest update in the Giant's comments thread the following quote:


Re: Elan singing: Elan is singing about his new number of base skill points per level; bards went from 4 to 6 in 3.5. He is not actually gaining any skill points, because skill point gains aren't retroactive, and he is not taking into account his Intelligence penalty because, as noted, he's bad at simple math.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?5758-The-place-for-over-analysis/page7&p=211493#post211493

[brian 333]

It was Roy who said that Elan's dump stat was Int, and he was being sarcastic at the time. Elan's actions to date don't indicate he's stupid. He is foolish. He is easily misled. He is oblivious to social interactions others find easy to decipher. His true dump stat is wisdom.

The difference between Intelligence and Wisdom was thoroughly explored in the 1970's American sitcom, "All In The Family." The four main characters were dramatically different in these two attributes, and I recommend a viewing of the program from the beginning for those to whom the show is unfamiliar. But here are the four characters:

Archie Bunker: patriarch of the family at a time when the role of the patriarch was dramatically changing in society and within his home as his daughter came of age.

Edith Bunker: housewife and mother whose acceptance of her subservient role is a primary character trait.

Gloria Bunker Stivic: daughter of Archie and Edith who brings new ideas and a new fiancee/husband into the family where the changing mores of the 1970's were examined over dinner, (or whenever!)

Michael Stivic: fiancee/husband of Gloria, college student and political activist.

Their relative Int and Wis stats:
Archie: low/low
Edith: low/high
Gloria: average/average
Michael: high/low

Archie does what he does and says what he says because that was how he was taught to behave and he never critically examined himself. 'That's the way it's supposed to be,' was his answer to all injustice and social disparity. He resents Michael's intelligence and is enraged when Michael exposes some long held truth to be flawed. He is very confrontational and conservative, and opposes change on the general principle that the old ways were the best ways.

Edith does what she does out of love and understanding of the spirits around her. She intuitively knows right from wrong and will not hesitate to denounce wrongs even when it is her domineering husband who is wrong. However, she never wants to hurt feelings, and has empathy with anyone who is in emotional need. She would rather gently guide people to proper action than to confront them, but will not hesitate to confront when their wrong action is harmful to them or to others.

Gloria has the emotional control of a toddler, but is both clever and empathic. She couples Archie's confrontational style with Edith's empathic understanding of the needs of others, but does so while exploring her new-found freedom from the gender stereotypes of the past, (without ever truly breaking free of those stereotypes.)

Michael is the stereotype of the 'modern', (for that time,) liberal who is radically bent on changing all injustice immediately and without a thought to the consequences. For Michael, reason trumps every other consideration, and he is not afraid to demonstrate his superior reasoning skills and his greater knowledge, especially to the unlearned Archie who represents to Michael all that is wrong with the world, (in spite of the fact that Archie was capable of raising Gloria and supporting him while he continued his education.)

Most notably, for this debate's purposes, is the interactions between Edith and Michael, who each deal with the issues at hand in different ways. Michael knows, Edith understands. It is a critical difference in the way they face their challenges, and in the end it can be found that Edith was the true star of the show because it was she who kept the dysfunctional family together.

[Dissection]

I feel I should raise the point that in the second comic http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0002.html Elan talks about his six new skill points. As a Bard, that implies that, despite his dump stat being Intelligence, he has an Intelligence of 10-11.


He would also get one for being human though, so if he got six it would mean his intelligence was 8 or 9

[Xelbiuj]

Well he's not a terrible good musician so a skill point here (ride) and there (comedy) could have came from perform (music).

As for int being his dump stat, I don't think he really has one, int/wis are his lowest but his stats are still average, aside from his cha.

[Keltest]

Well he's not a terrible good musician so a skill point here (ride) and there (comedy) could have came from perform (music).

As for int being his dump stat, I don't think he really has one, int/wis are his lowest but his stats are still average, aside from his cha.

define "good". I don't think anyone has complained that his music makes their ears bleed or anything like that, he's just annoying with it.

[Kish]

He would also get one for being human though, so if he got six it would mean his intelligence was 8 or 9
Both of you are inexplicably acting like Elan had just gained a level, instead of being updated to a new edition.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

define "good". I don't think anyone has complained that his music makes their ears bleed or anything like that, he's just annoying with it.

Yeah, really it's his application of his music that sets people on edge, not the quality.

[Rogar Demonblud]

It should be noted Archie also has a low CHA. But yeah, that was a good show for making you think about stuff in a way I don't anything else has done in the last decade or two. And many of the issues in the show are still around, which means it still bears re-watching.

Although Archie is more sympathetic as a character now, as we know that a lot of the changes Michael was advocating didn't work so well, for the reasons noted above: they weren't thought through.

And now I'm wondering what Carroll O'Connor would look like with a beard and a battleaxe, growling that the old ways are the best way. I think I'll base my next dwarf on him.

[Jay R]

So i was thinking (its a new thing ive been doing ) and i was wondering... If elans dump stat was intellegence then what could it be? He doesnt talk like thog, but he has extra skill points to throw into ride? Confusing.

Your question rests on two premises:
1. Elan has an extremely low intelligence, and therefore relatively few skill points.
2. Elan is presumed to have allocated his skill points intelligently.

I'm not really sure how it can be both.

[Teapot Salty]

I feel I should raise the point that in the second comic http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0002.html Elan talks about his six new skill points. As a Bard, that implies that, despite his dump stat being Intelligence, he has an Intelligence of 10-11.

Of course, he could just have been talking about the six Bards get, and not have actually meant that he actually got six skill points.

Actually the giant said that the whole thing was based on the fact the Elan was bad at math if I remember correctly

[rodneyAnonymous]

Yeah, really it's his application of his music that sets people on edge, not the quality.

I always thought Elan is a very good musician. But not so good at giving inspiring speeches. And there's no way to avoid a kazoo sounding annoying.

[Datguy96]

I feel I should raise the point that in the second comic http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0002.html Elan talks about his six new skill points. As a Bard, that implies that, despite his dump stat being Intelligence, he has an Intelligence of 10-11.

Of course, he could just have been talking about the six Bards get, and not have actually meant that he actually got six skill points.

Humans get +1 skill point per level don't they?

[littlebum2002]

As for int being his dump stat, I don't think he really has one, int/wis are his lowest but his stats are still average, aside from his cha.

According to Belkar, Elan assigning his intelligence was the biggest dump in the history of the comic.




And now I'm wondering what Carroll O'Connor would look like with a beard and a battleaxe, growling that the old ways are the best way. I think I'll base my next dwarf on him.

Please have him call the party wizard Meathead.

[factotum]

According to Belkar, Elan assigning his intelligence was the biggest dump in the history of the comic.

And Belkar's intelligence was once unfavourably compared to that of a table by Vaarsuvius, so I'm really not convinced he's the best source for this information... :smallsmile:

[Alias]

I'm willing to bet his Intelligence and Wisdom combined aren't higher than his charisma - but they could be equal. 9/9/18 at roll up seems likely. I think he's grown in both and stands at 10,10,19 now. My uncle is very mildly retarded, and my sister noticeably so. I've been around the full spectrum of such limitations for a lifetime and Elan doesn't drop down to what I'd consider an 8 or 6 (Thog does).

Another brilliant example of dumb but wise - Forrest Gump. I'd put Gump at an 8 intelligence but a 15 or so wisdom. Elan isn't quite as dumb as Gump, but he's far more foolish.

[Kish]

Looking at Forrest Gump moreso than Elan (but both of them), I don't understand why people look at characters who are written to be comically stupid, and think "this should be numerically represented as just-below-average." If Forrest is an 8 Intelligence, what's a 7, 6, 5, 4, or 3?

[Alias]

Looking at Forrest Gump moreso than Elan (but both of them), I don't understand why people look at characters who are written to be comically stupid, and think "this should be numerically represented as just-below-average." If Forrest is an 8 Intelligence, what's a 7, 6, 5, 4, or 3?

Easy...

10 - Human adult average, reached at around age 16
9 - 12 year old human average (My uncle, Elan likely at the start of the campaign)
8 - 9 year old human average (My sister or Forrest Gump)
7 - 7 year old human average
6 - 5 year old human average (Thog)
5 - 4 year old human average
4 - 3 year old human average
3 - 2 year old human average.

[Kish]

It may be easy, but considering that there's a nonzero chance of a healthy, adult adventurer with no impairments* having an Intelligence of 3, I'd say what it has in ease, it doesn't have in accuracy.

*Restoration restores ability scores reduced by any source, but conspicuously fails to state "if this is cast on a human with an Intelligence below 9, it will increase that human's Intelligence to 9."

[Keltest]

It may be easy, but considering that there's a nonzero chance of a healthy, adult adventurer with no impairments* having an Intelligence of 3, I'd say what it has in ease, it doesn't have in accuracy.

*Restoration restores ability scores reduced by any source, but conspicuously fails to state "if this is cast on a human with an Intelligence below 9, it will increase that human's Intelligence to 9."

Well what are you considering an impairment? Certainly there are plenty of conditions out there that for one reason or another inhibit your learning ability and mental development, yet the body doesn't consider "wrong" enough to correct on its own. I wouldn't consider it any stretch of the imagination that since that inhibited state is considered the norm for that individual, restoration wouldn't improve it any more than it would cure, say, albinism or blue eyes.

[DaggerPen]

I always thought Elan is a very good musician. But not so good at giving inspiring speeches. And there's no way to avoid a kazoo sounding annoying.

I always kind of figured Elan's songs were really catchy but lacking in content. Like a lot of pop songs, or, if you're not the type, "I Am the Walrus" or some other largely meaningless song of your choice. It doesn't inspire any particular deep thought, but it sure is catchy - unless someone is playing it when you're trying to concentrate, of course.

As for the Restoration conversation, I'm just going to say that D&D stats are ill equipped to fully simulate the broad range of human intelligences in varying areas. A low D&D Int score just generally means you are not the studious and knowledgeable sort, and aside from keeping loosely to that, you are free to RP it however you wish, whether it's as an intellectual disability, lack of education, lack of rigorous mental training, lack of focus, or whatever.

[KillianHawkeye]

10 - Human adult average, reached at around age 16
9 - 12 year old human average (My uncle, Elan likely at the start of the campaign)
8 - 9 year old human average (My sister or Forrest Gump)
7 - 7 year old human average
6 - 5 year old human average (Thog)
5 - 4 year old human average
4 - 3 year old human average
3 - 2 year old human average.

This chart would be more useful if it wasn't completely made up.

[brian 333]

Actually, guys, it may come as a surprise to many of you, but G. Gygax chose 3d6 as the standard range of attributes for a reason: it simulates the Bell Curve pattern which IQ tests on groups of humans produce.

It's really simple. Take your character's INT stat and multiply times ten to get your character's IQ, so a stat roll of 10 produces an IQ of 100, or average. You find many 9's to 11's, not quite as many 7-8's and 12-13's, even fewer 6's and 14's, and rarely anything outside that range with 3's and 18's exceptionally rare. (Unless you have dice-fudgers...)

The clever will notice that the bell curve produced by 3d6 is skewed to the high side, meaning that 10.5 is actually the median on character stats. G. Gygax explained that this reflected the fact that characters were above average compared to the non-adventuring base population.

If you don't like the fact that your character is walking around with a 3 INT, (3.5 ed D&D chose to use the optional 4d6, disregarding the lowest die rolled to generate even more above average and fewer below average rolls,) you should compare his wisdom score as well. A very low Int, average WIS character may not be able to speak or assemble a four-piece jigsaw puzzle, but he can function about as well as a trained guard dog. Let's hope he also has a high CHA so the party members will remember to feed him and pet him and take him for walks.

[Jay R]

It's really simple. Take your character's INT stat and multiply times ten to get your character's IQ, so a stat roll of 10 produces an IQ of 100, or average. You find many 9's to 11's, not quite as many 7-8's and 12-13's, even fewer 6's and 14's, and rarely anything outside that range with 3's and 18's exceptionally rare. (Unless you have dice-fudgers...)

Except that you've roughly doubled the standard deviation. It's just not true that 2% of the population have IQs of 170 or greater.

The standard deviation of IQ is roughly 15, while the standard deviation of 3d6 is 2.958.

You'd get a more accurate approach by multiplying the roll by 5, and adding 50.

3d6 IQ (very rough)
3 65
4 70
5 75
6 80
7 85
8 90
9 95
10 100
11 105
12 110
13 115
14 120
15 125
16 130
17 135
18 140

[Kish]

That would put Forrest Gump's Intelligence at 4, which strikes me as a whole lot more accurate than the "if you're even slightly below average Intelligence it means you have a disability which not even the most powerful magic can cure" approach suggested by Alias.

[allenw]

That would put Forrest Gump's Intelligence at 4, which strikes me as a whole lot more accurate than the "if you're even slightly below average Intelligence it means you have a disability which not even the most powerful magic can cure" approach suggested by Alias.

Kish,
So, do you think that Restoration would have improved Forrest's intelligence?
It seems likely (though not certain) that Restoration would have been cast on Elan at some point in his adventuring career; if so, it failed to increase his mental stats to normal, despite the strong implication that his low-stats-compared-to-Nale were due to very early physical trauma (from Nale).

[Alias]

It may be easy, but considering that there's a nonzero chance of a healthy, adult adventurer with no impairments* having an Intelligence of 3, I'd say what it has in ease, it doesn't have in accuracy.

*Restoration restores ability scores reduced by any source, but conspicuously fails to state "if this is cast on a human with an Intelligence below 9, it will increase that human's Intelligence to 9."

Ahem...



Restoration
School conjuration (healing); Level cleric 4, paladin 4
Casting Time 3 rounds
Components V, S, M (diamond dust worth 100 gp or 1,000 gp, see text)
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)

This spell functions like lesser restoration, except that it also dispels temporary negative levels or one permanent negative level. If this spell is used to dispel a permanent negative level, it has a material component of diamond dust worth 1,000 gp. This spell cannot be used to dispel more than one permanent negative level possessed by a target in a 1-week period.

Restoration cures all temporary ability damage, and it restores all points permanently drained from a single ability score (your choice if more than one is drained). It also eliminates any fatigue or exhaustion suffered by the target.


Being born with an intelligence of 3 is not ability damage.

Or, to take your spurious logic to its painful extreme - any character who isn't Pun Pun has a disability because his ability scores are too low, let us "heal" the ability damage with your interpretation on Restoration until our character ability scores are at least 4 digits apiece alright?

Puhlease.

You cannot restore what was never there. You can enhance what is there, but that is in the realm of stat boosting items.


That would put Forrest Gump's Intelligence at 4, which strikes me as a whole lot more accurate than the "if you're even slightly below average Intelligence it means you have a disability which not even the most powerful magic can cure" approach suggested by Alias.

I have personally worked with people who have severe mental retardation, have you? Trust me, Forrest Gump is nowhere near the low end of the scale.

[Alias]

Kish,
So, do you think that Restoration would have improved Forrest's intelligence?
It seems likely (though not certain) that Restoration would have been cast on Elan at some point in his adventuring career;

Would have? It was cast on him as recently as #958 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0958.html)


if so, it failed to increase his mental stats to normal, despite the strong implication that his low-stats-compared-to-Nale were due to very early physical trauma (from Nale).

It didn't restore his mental stats because normal for Elan is low. See my previous post.

[Kish]

Let me be more blunt, then.

A disability is not a low stat. Mental or physical. Low dexterity means clumsiness, not missing or nonfunctional limbs; Dexterity 9 does not translate to "this person is as clumsy as it is possible for someone with four limbs to be," and Dexterity 3 does not translate to "this person is a quadriplegic."

By the same token, Intelligence 9 does not translate to "functional intelligence of a 12-year-old" and Intelligence 3 does not translate to "this person has the mental capacity of a 2-year-old." Half the people in the world have Intelligences equal to or below 10--and not as "40% of the people in the world have Intelligence of exactly 10" either.

I don't know what the precise mechanics of Forrest's disability would be in D&D terms. Elan, by contrast, is explicitly-by-Word-of-the-Author not disabled (early jokes aside), and neither is Thog.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?322562-OotS-and-the-Mentally-Handicapped/page2&p=16701195#post16701195 .

[Alias]

Let me be more blunt, then.

A disability is not a low stat. Mental or physical. Dexterity 9 does not translate to "this person is as clumsy as it is possible for someone with four limbs to be," and Dexterity 3 does not translate to "this person is a quadriplegic."



In your game and we'll leave it at that. From what you've written have little to no understanding of what disability really is and I will not continue this conversation with you because of that.

[Kish]

You have no idea how ironic that assertion is. But if you want to stop proving by repetition that single-digit ability scores equal disabilites in D&D, feel free.

Looking back up at what I said before this unfortunate tangent took place, I do still wonder why people (who aren't conflating below-average and disabled) show this tendency to stat inflation, such that they map "comically low" to the "slightly below average" number.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Low intelligence in D&D terms could simply mean they've grown up in a small isolated community, and/or were never educated enough to be able to read and write. Not that they're suffering from impaired faculties (whether temporary or permanent).

But that's the problem with a simple, 6 stat profile. Although conversely, would we really want a game where they were sub-divided, and you had to stat a characters ability to understand, make logical deductions and/or intuitive leaps, their level of education and so on?

And remember the main comment about Elan's intelligence comes from Belkar - someone who would hesitate to throw out an insult only if he had an idea for a better one.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

3d6 IQ (very rough)
3 65
4 70
5 75
6 80
7 85
8 90
9 95
10 100
11 105
12 110
13 115
14 120
15 125
16 130
17 135
18 140

That's actually a pretty nice chart. I'll have to remember this for later use.

[brian 333]

I still prefer having an INT 3 being equal to animal level intelligence and INT below 6 being incapable of holding a conversation. (Hodor in Song of Ice and Fire.) The +50 pretty much precludes animals from having an INT stat, and the x5 precludes Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking from existing. (An Einstein would have to have INT 26, for example.)

The point of deviation is valid, but G. Gygax was trying to create a game mechanic based on observed phenomenon. Perhaps (6d6)/2 would have more accurately rendered the observed deviation, but it would also have made the exceptional characters on either end of the scale virtually unachievable.

The text of this link was taken directly from the 1st Ed. DMG
http://memexplex.com/meme/2616/

[Kish]

I still prefer having an INT 3 being equal to animal level intelligence and INT below 6 being incapable of holding a conversation. (Hodor in Song of Ice and Fire.) The +50 pretty much precludes animals from having an INT stat,

More precisely, it guarantees they have an Intelligence of 1 or 2. Which is a key part of the definition of animals in (3.5ed) D&D.

Not commenting on the "incapable of holding a conversation" part* because it strikes me as way too close to the "low stat equals disability" territory where I would much prefer not to go again.

*That is, not commenting on it as long as it's about what you prefer and not a claim about what the D&D books state.

[Jay R]

I still prefer having an INT 3 being equal to animal level intelligence and INT below 6 being incapable of holding a conversation.

Assuming the general population is distributed as a 3d6, that puts half of one percent of the population at animal intelligence, and about 1 person in 22 being incapable of holding a conversation.

[Keltest]

Assuming the general population is distributed as a 3d6, that puts half of one percent of the population at animal intelligence, and about 1 person in 22 being incapable of holding a conversation.

The beautiful thing about averages is that it doesn't require equal distribution.

[brian 333]

More precisely, it guarantees they have an Intelligence of 1 or 2. Which is a key part of the definition of animals in (3.5ed) D&D.

Not commenting on the "incapable of holding a conversation" part* because it strikes me as way too close to the "low stat equals disability" territory where I would much prefer not to go again.

*That is, not commenting on it as long as it's about what you prefer and not a claim about what the D&D books state.

I don't care to discuss disabilities, which have little to do with IQ anyway. I care to discuss game mechanics.

When compared to this information:

The U.S. Dеpartment of Education, Institute of Education Sciences has conducted large scale assessment of adult proficiency in 1992 and 2003 using a common methodology from which trends could be measured. The study measures Prose, Document, and Quantitative skills and 19,000 subjects participated in the 2003 survey. There was no significant change in Prose or Document skills and a slight increase in Quantitative attributes. As in 2008, roughly 15% of the sample could function at the highest levels in all three categories. Roughly 40% were at either basic or below basic levels of proficiency in all three categories.[2] The study identifies a class of adults who, although not meeting criteria for functional illiteracy, face reduced job opportunities and life prospects due to inadequate literacy levels relative to the requirements of contemporary society.

The study, the most comprehensive study of literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government, was released in April 2002 and reapplied in 2003 giving trend data. It involved lengthy interviews of over 90,700 adults statistically balanced for age, gender, ethnicity, education level, and location (urban, suburban, or rural) in 12 states across the U.S. and was designed to represent the U.S. population as a whole. This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information." Further, this study showed that 41% to 44% of U.S. adults in the lowest level on the literacy scale (literacy rate of 35 or below) were living in poverty.[2]

A follow-up study by the same group of researchers using a smaller database (19,714 interviewees) was released in 2006 that showed some upward movement of low end (basic and below to intermediate) in U.S. adult literacy levels and a decline in the full proficiency group.[3]

Thus, if this bottom quantile of the study is equated with the functionally illiterate, and these are then removed from those classified as literate, then the resultant literacy rate for the United States would be at most 65-85% depending on where in the basic, minimal competence quantile one sets the cutoff.

The 15% figure for full literacy, equivalent to a university undergraduate level, is consistent with the notion that the "average" American reads at a 7th or 8th grade level which is also consistent with recommendations, guidelines, and norms of readability for medication directions, product information, and popular fiction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States)

it appears that the 3d6 bell curve fits observed phenomenon closely enough for the purposes of game mechanics.

Again, I would like to point out that functionality of sentient beings is not purely derived from intelligence. There are three important stats to consider, and even a very low Int stat does not equate to disability, but it indicates that the being relies upon his other personality stats to function. In the case of a 3 INT, an 18 WIS would create a person incapable of holding a conversation, but fully aware of the difference between right and wrong or safe and dangerous, while a high CHA stat would indicate he is functional within a social context.

[Miriel]

Literacy and ability to hold a conversation are two different things, and both are different to INT.

Otherwise, we'd have to conclude that the average INT score increased dramatically in the last three centuries, which is questionable.

[Kish]

Also, a single-classed barbarian with an Intelligence of 18 is illiterate by default while a character with an Intelligence of 3 and a nonzero levels of fighter (or any class except barbarian) is literate. Explicitly.

Literacy is one thing you absolutely cannot link to Intelligence in D&D rules as written.

[brian 333]

Literacy and ability to hold a conversation are two different things, and both are different to INT.

Otherwise, we'd have to conclude that the average INT score increased dramatically in the last three centuries, which is questionable.

Once again, I am not attempting to discuss real life issues such as literacy, I am simply using real world information to support a game mechanic based on observed phenomenon. Please do not be sidetracked either by the inexactitude of the game mechanic when compared to real life, or the obvious fallacy of creating a simple metric for a complicated phenomenon. In either case you will never arrive at a working game mechanic.

This is not a math quiz, it is story time.

[Jay R]

Once again, I am not attempting to discuss real life issues such as literacy, I am simply using real world information to support a game mechanic based on observed phenomenon. Please do not be sidetracked either by the inexactitude of the game mechanic when compared to real life, or the obvious fallacy of creating a simple metric for a complicated phenomenon. In either case you will never arrive at a working game mechanic.

This is not a math quiz, it is story time.

We're not. We're getting sidetracked by the fact that your definition of the game mechanic is in direct violation of what the books say about the game mechanic.

You said, "I still prefer having an INT 3 being equal to animal level intelligence and INT below 6 being incapable of holding a conversation."

But the rules allow any character, even at INT 3, to speak, and defines animal intelligence as INT 1-2.

[brian 333]

There you go with that precision again! Whatever happened to the days when people could try to make a point and have the actual point contested instead of an argument about the details of the argument?


A character with low intelligence mispronounces and misuses words, has trouble following directions, or fails to get the joke.


The Intelligence rating roughly corresponds to our modern "IQ" scores.

My thesis is supported by the documentation.

[DaggerPen]

For the record, I am absolutely for a D&D universe that allows for a broad variety of abilities to be incorporated. Representation includes disabilities, too. But as for the Int score debate? TBH, I doubt D&D is terribly coherent on what an Int score represents, but I find it likely that the designers did have a general intelligence/IQ correlation in mind. Still, the more I think about it, the more I feel like the D&D Int score should reflect some abstract training/reasoning skills/focus combination than anything. Why? Because it can go up as you level up. Does that sound more like "wow, your adult IQ suddenly increased dramatically" or "wow, you got a lot better at mental tasks. All that Sudoku has really been paying off"? If you want to have a character with an intellectual disability and have the rules reflect it, then it should probably be simulated with a separate Trait or something, just as other disabilities - such as missing an arm, missing an eye, etc. Int is just a reflection of how good you are at working with what you've got.

[YossarianLives]

Well I think Elans int score is probably about 9 (and yes I went off topic by going back to the original topic)

[Keltest]

Ive always thought of Intelligence representing (broadly) the ability of a person to acquire and interpret information. So someone with int of 18 might be able to Sherlock Holmes the identity of a murderer based on a burning tree, while someone with an int of 3 will go "wow, fire is pretty."

[DaggerPen]

Ive always thought of Intelligence representing (broadly) the ability of a person to acquire and interpret information. So someone with int of 18 might be able to Sherlock Holmes the identity of a murderer based on a burning tree, while someone with an int of 3 will go "wow, fire is pretty."

That... is actually a really good abstraction of it. It incorporates both natural talent and training, and allows for sensible fluff re: what int increases mean. I think I'm going to adopt that personal definition of D&D Intelligence from now on.

[Kish]

Well I think Elans int score is probably about 9 (and yes I went off topic by going back to the original topic)
Then maybe you can explain something to me.

Given 1) that Elan is comically stupid, and
2) that 9 Intelligence is barely below average,
Why do you think his Intelligence score is a 9? Do you think (as some people do) that he's actually a lot smarter than everyone around him thinks? Or do you think (as a number of other people seem to) that scores lower than an 8 might as well not exist?

[YossarianLives]

Then maybe you can explain something to me.

Given 1) that Elan is comically stupid, and
2) that 9 Intelligence is barely below average,
Why do you think his Intelligence score is a 9? Do you think (as some people do) that he's actually a lot smarter than everyone around him thinks? Or do you think (as a number of other people seem to) that scores lower than an 8 might as well not exist?
I haven't deeply contemplated his intelligence score but 9 seemed like a good guess. After all as other people have mentioned wisdom seems to be his actual dump stat.

[Kish]

Okay then.

I suspect he rolled really badly for two of his stats and has comparably bad Intelligence and Wisdom, myself.

(Around five or six each, I'd say. Higher Wisdom than Belkar; higher Intelligence than the Empress of Blood, whether or not he actually has higher Intelligence than Thog.)

[KillianHawkeye]

Whatever happened to the days when people could try to make a point and have the actual point contested instead of an argument about the details of the argument?

Well, when somebody tries to make a point based on details which are demonstrably false, their conclusions don't really deserve the effort of a detailed analysis.

The facts are that an Intelligence score of 3 or higher is beyond the reach of animals by definition (in fact, anything that would raise an animal's Int above 2 also changes their creature type), and that there is no in-game relationship between Intelligence and one's ability to hold a conversation (if anything, Charisma would have more to do with it). If you can't come to grips with these realities, then your arguments will continue to exist in their own little world.

[Mastikator]

Let me be more blunt, then.

A disability is not a low stat. Mental or physical. Low dexterity means clumsiness, not missing or nonfunctional limbs; Dexterity 9 does not translate to "this person is as clumsy as it is possible for someone with four limbs to be," and Dexterity 3 does not translate to "this person is a quadriplegic."

By the same token, Intelligence 9 does not translate to "functional intelligence of a 12-year-old" and Intelligence 3 does not translate to "this person has the mental capacity of a 2-year-old." Half the people in the world have Intelligences equal to or below 10--and not as "40% of the people in the world have Intelligence of exactly 10" either.

I don't know what the precise mechanics of Forrest's disability would be in D&D terms. Elan, by contrast, is explicitly-by-Word-of-the-Author not disabled (early jokes aside), and neither is Thog.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?322562-OotS-and-the-Mentally-Handicapped/page2&p=16701195#post16701195 .

Intellectual disability (previously know as mental retardation) was defined as IQ below 70. Forrest Gump had an IQ of 75. Forrest Gump is not disabled. He is low functioning.

I think it's better to use the knowledge skills as a parameter of intelligence. If you have 3 INT then you need to spend 4 skill points in a knowledge to be equal to a normal person who spends nothing. I.E if you study hard you can be equal to someone who doesn't study. And having 18 INT then you are automatically equal to a normal person who does study without studying.

Edit-

And Elan has shown that he's not stupid. He's not smart either. He's on par with his brother. I'd peg him at 10. It's just that he has an annoying personality (just like his brother).

[brian 333]

Again, I would like to point out that functionality of sentient beings is not purely derived from intelligence. There are three important stats to consider, and even a very low Int stat does not equate to disability, but it indicates that the being relies upon his other personality stats to function. In the case of a 3 INT, an 18 WIS would create a person incapable of holding a conversation, but fully aware of the difference between right and wrong or safe and dangerous, while a high CHA stat would indicate he is functional within a social context.

Elan demonstrates great intelligence when he chooses to exercise it. It was his plan to get Julio Scoundrel involved in the first place, which required planning ahead to a degree Roy was never able to accomplish. He is very knowledgeable about drama and apparently skilled as a musician, which could be a reflection of skill points, but could also be a reflection of intelligence.

I'm not arguing he's a genius, but his personality to date does not demonstrate stupidity, it indicates foolishness and lack of awareness. In other words, we are looking at the wrong stat. Low wisdom would generate the issues we see in Elan's behavior. He can think when he wants to, but he generally doesn't know when to think. He is oblivious to social interactions others find obvious, and it took him a long time to figure out Nale and Tarquin were evil, even though he was walking through the evidence of it both times.

[Jay R]

There you go with that precision again! Whatever happened to the days when people could try to make a point and have the actual point contested instead of an argument about the details of the argument?

Well, the classical Greeks invented and codified logic and rhetoric, and from then on, the details of the argument were necessary to support the point.


My thesis is supported by the documentation.

Here's an example. You need to define what you consider your "thesis", and show why these quotations support it.

The point I'm disagreeing with was your contention that INT 3 could, within the rules, represent animal intelligence, which is explicitly against the rules, and that INT below 6 means being incapable of holding a conversation. Rules that do not in fact say these things are not documentation that supports that point.

If that point isn't necessary for your thesis, then your best tactical move is to back off that point gracefully, identify your conclusion, and support it with other premises. If that point is your thesis, or is necessary for your thesis, then you need something that clearly and logically supports it as the argument.

Edit: actually, if that point is your thesis, then your thesis is incorrect, and we will continue arguing against it as long as you keep trying to maintain it. But in general, if people are questioning your thesis, and you are still convinced of its validity, then you need something that clearly and logically supports it as the argument.

[cybishop]

I want to point several things out.


The idea that intelligence can be accurately summarized with one single number, an IQ score, which corresponds to an expected mental age, hasn't been taken seriously in real life in more than 50 years. Even D&D's RAW is more complicated than that, with INT, WIS, and CHA having elements of intelligence despite only one of them being called "intelligence."

The idea that D&D's rules perfectly model mental health and fitness is very unlikely. The idea that they could is quixotic. The same for physical health and fitness, for that matter. Health is complicated. So the effects of a hypothetical restoration spell or skill points don't seem like evidence of much of anything other than stats on a nonexistent character sheet.

This comic has a loose approach to the rules. House rules or homebrews are used here and there, no characters are optimized (and when they are, it tends to backfire on them), characters do lots of things that are difficult to model in the rules, and when the rules are explicitly discussed, it's as a joke more often than not. Even if we saw a deva (or whatever the CG equivalent is) handling Elan's character sheet, anything on it is subject to change with a flimsy justification if it would get in the way of a good plot point or joke.

Belkar is mean, flippant, and stupid, and all characters tend to crack jokes frequently in their own way. While Elan is clearly unusually unintelligent, any statements about the biggest dump stat in the world or whatever the exact wording is should not be taken literally.

The first hundred or so strips were very different from later strips. Both in terms of the characters - they've all had character development - and the tone of the strip itself. More jokes about D&D rules and customs back then, less continuity and plot, everything was more cartoonishly exaggerated. The events in those strips happened in broad strokes, but don't assume that Elan is dumb literally because his evil twin hit him on the head too much when they were babies. Hell, the Giant has actually said that we shouldn't assume that any infants are inherently evil. What does that mean for that (one-panel cutaway gag!) scene showing a cause of Elan's mental problems?


All in all, what's the point of this thread?

[brian 333]

Well, the classical Greeks invented and codified logic and rhetoric, and from then on, the details of the argument were necessary to support the point.



Here's an example. You need to define what you consider your "thesis", and show why these quotations support it.

The point I'm disagreeing with was your contention that INT 3 could, within the rules, represent animal intelligence, which is explicitly against the rules, and that INT below 6 means being incapable of holding a conversation. Rules that do not in fact say these things are not documentation that supports that point.

If that point isn't necessary for your thesis, then your best tactical move is to back off that point gracefully, identify your conclusion, and support it with other premises. If that point is your thesis, or is necessary for your thesis, then you need something that clearly and logically supports it as the argument.

Edit: actually, if that point is your thesis, then your thesis is incorrect, and we will continue arguing against it as long as you keep trying to maintain it. But in general, if people are questioning your thesis, and you are still convinced of its validity, then you need something that clearly and logically supports it as the argument.

The remark about animal intelligence being 3 was not an exact definition of a 3 intelligence, it was a rhetorical demonstration that the bell curve generated by 3d6 begins at an extremely low level, (far below the 65 IQ being proposed as 3 intelligence by Jay R,) and it is supported by the fact that 3 Int is one point above the Int of a dog. (The AD&D DMG quote.)

The remark about 6 INT being below the level of a person capable of holding a conversation is supported by the text of the players handbook on the subject of intelligence. (The D&D 3.0 PHB quote.)

My thesis, to go back to the original argument, is that the range of INT scores as compared to IQ is far broader than that presented in Jay R's chart, and more like that reflected by Mr. G. Gygax's own words on the issue, which is that INT roughly correlates to IQ.

If we follow Jay R's chart:

Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
3d6 IQ (very rough)
3 65
4 70
5 75
6 80
7 85
8 90
9 95
10 100
11 105
12 110
13 115
14 120
15 125
16 130
17 135
18 140

we see that an INT of 2 is equal to an IQ of 60, and an INT stat of 1 equals 55, neither of which are below the level required for conversational speech, but both far above the level of intelligence demonstrated by dogs, even though humans with IQ's in this range would be considered low-functioning. The above chart would place an INT 0 creature at an IQ of 50, certainly far above that demonstrated by slimes, molds, and arguably, zombies.

My thesis, had you bothered to read what I wrote rather than pounce upon one detail intended not for exactitude but for rhetorical purposes, is that if one takes the INT stat and multiplies it by 10, one gets a rough equivalent to IQ, and that this game statistic roughly correlates to the observed bell curve of human IQ in our real world. It is not an exact science, but a game mechanic, and the fact that the curve does not fit exactly is a reflection of the author's attempt to include sub- and super-human intelligence, (and strength, dexterity, etc.) in the range of possible character traits because the PC is an exceptional being, not an average one.

[grandpheonix]

Holy crap im gone for a week and theres 60 posts? Good times yall.

Elans gotta have 14 int and 8 wis. Done.

[Heksefatter]

Elan's intelligence is difficult to assess. Quite simply put, he's comically stupid, not realistically stupid. I honestly can't do much better than to go by intuition and try to guesstimate for fun.

I think Elan's intelligence is 7-8. It used to be lower, like 5-6. He still has extremely weird thought processes, which makes his int appear to be lower sometimes.

Thog has an int of 3-4. Stupid as a brick, through and through. You couldn't be dumber and still sentient in any meaningful sense. But again, this is comical stupidity and not realistic stupidity.

Belkar...I think his int is 9-10. Average or low average. His wis is lower, though, which is the source of at least some of his misanthropy.

[Ettina]

Why is everyone assuming Int = IQ?

If you level up enough, you can increase your Int. You can't increase your IQ. That indicates to me that Int is not intended to be IQ. Maybe something correlated with IQ, but not exactly the same. Plus, children have lower Int than adults, but not lower IQ.

As for 'low stats = disability', an Int of 1 or 2 means animal-level, and the feeblemind (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Feeblemind) spell drops your Int to 1 and makes you unable to speak or understand language, implying that ability to use language requires at least Int 3. There are plenty of cognitively disabled people who can use language. Therefore, in D&D terms, they'd have to have at least 3 Int. So a severely cognitively disabled person could have Int 3, while severe-to-profound cognitive disability would mean Int 1 or 2. Which means slightly higher Int scores could indicate moderate or mild cognitive impairment (I think Thog falls into this range).

Elan, on the other hand, is clearly not cognitively disabled. He's not super-smart, but nothing suggests his Int is below the normal range. (His Wisdom, on the other hand...) Despite Belkar's insults, he and Elan seem roughly on par for Int.

[factotum]

If you level up enough, you can increase your Int. You can't increase your IQ. That indicates to me that Int is not intended to be IQ. Maybe something correlated with IQ, but not exactly the same. Plus, children have lower Int than adults, but not lower IQ.


IQ is an entirely arbitrary rating which requires a very specific type of knowledge on behalf of the person answering the questions, so yes, it is *entirely* possible to increase your IQ by practicing that sort of question. Not only that, it's a relative scale--if you answer an average number of questions correctly *compared to other people in your age group* then your IQ is 100. You might well have answered a completely different number of questions correctly as a child and still got the same IQ. So, using IQ as any sort of determinant of actual intelligence is meaningless, IMHO.

[brian 333]

IQ is an entirely arbitrary rating which requires a very specific type of knowledge on behalf of the person answering the questions, so yes, it is *entirely* possible to increase your IQ by practicing that sort of question. Not only that, it's a relative scale--if you answer an average number of questions correctly *compared to other people in your age group* then your IQ is 100. You might well have answered a completely different number of questions correctly as a child and still got the same IQ. So, using IQ as any sort of determinant of actual intelligence is meaningless, IMHO.

And yet, that is exactly what the creator of the system did.


Intelligence:The intelligence rating roughly corresponds to our modern "IQ" scores. However, it assumes mnemonic, reasoning, and learning ability skills in additional areas outside the written word.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

And yet, that is exactly what the creator of the system did.
About 40 years ago... :smallwink:

[factotum]

And yet, that is exactly what the creator of the system did.

You apparently didn't read your own quote, because it clearly states:

However, it assumes mnemonic, reasoning, and learning ability skills in additional areas outside the written word.

Those are the things I meant when I said that IQ wasn't a good determinant of intelligence--you could have someone highly intelligent who was never taught to read, for example, and they'd do really badly on an IQ test. The D&D concept of intelligence covers *more* than basic IQ.

[137beth]

And yet, that is exactly what the creator of the system did.

So, not the creator of the system, but the creator of a different system with a similar name?
AFAIK Monte Cook never tried to make intelligence scores correspond to real-world IQ.

(Also, Elan doesn't even follow the 3e rules, so he needn't even have an intelligence score).

[Wardog]

The remark about animal intelligence being 3 was not an exact definition of a 3 intelligence, it was a rhetorical demonstration that the bell curve generated by 3d6 begins at an extremely low level, (far below the 65 IQ being proposed as 3 intelligence by Jay R,) and it is supported by the fact that 3 Int is one point above the Int of a dog. (The AD&D DMG quote.)

The remark about 6 INT being below the level of a person capable of holding a conversation is supported by the text of the players handbook on the subject of intelligence. (The D&D 3.0 PHB quote.)

My thesis, to go back to the original argument, is that the range of INT scores as compared to IQ is far broader than that presented in Jay R's chart, and more like that reflected by Mr. G. Gygax's own words on the issue, which is that INT roughly correlates to IQ.

If we follow Jay R's chart:


we see that an INT of 2 is equal to an IQ of 60, and an INT stat of 1 equals 55, neither of which are below the level required for conversational speech, but both far above the level of intelligence demonstrated by dogs, even though humans with IQ's in this range would be considered low-functioning. The above chart would place an INT 0 creature at an IQ of 50, certainly far above that demonstrated by slimes, molds, and arguably, zombies.

My thesis, had you bothered to read what I wrote rather than pounce upon one detail intended not for exactitude but for rhetorical purposes, is that if one takes the INT stat and multiplies it by 10, one gets a rough equivalent to IQ, and that this game statistic roughly correlates to the observed bell curve of human IQ in our real world. It is not an exact science, but a game mechanic, and the fact that the curve does not fit exactly is a reflection of the author's attempt to include sub- and super-human intelligence, (and strength, dexterity, etc.) in the range of possible character traits because the PC is an exceptional being, not an average one.

The relationship between the strength score and carrying-capacity is non-linear. Wouldn't the simplest explanation here to be to assume the relationship is between IQ and Int is similar?

So for the ranges represented by rolling 3d6, IQ approximates 5*INT + 50 (covering the range from border-line mentally disabled to genius), but below 3 the relationship changes to "just animal intelligence".

That way the 3d6 (+ racial and level modifiers) represents the likely range of intelligences that adventurers would likely have to deal with, and the lowest 2 Int levels can then be used to broadly represent the difference in intelligence between various animals (essentially, what you can train them to do). Having to fight/trade/negotiate with people with IQ<65 would be sufficiently rare that its not worth making official rules for, and if it does come up, the DM can wing it.

[Jay R]

Why is everyone assuming Int = IQ?

We're not. On my table I called the relationship "very rough". But I do think that INT is used as a rough, incomplete, over-simplistic measure of the pretty much the same set of related abilities that IQ is a rough incomplete, over-simplistic measure of.

I expect a high-IQ person to have high INT. I expect a low-IQ person to have low INT. They are clearly highly correlated.

But since forty years of debate have made it clear that we don't agree on what INT represents, and a hundred years of debate have made it clear that we don't agree on what IQ represents, then we certainly can't agree on the extent to which IQ and INT are correlated.

[Galen]

So i was thinking (its a new thing ive been doing ) and i was wondering... If elans dump stat was intellegence then what could it be? He doesnt talk like thog, but he has extra skill points to throw into ride? Confusing.Are you going off the comment from Belkar about Elan dumping Int? That comment merely reflects Belkar's opinion of Elan. It doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of Elan's ability scores. Just saying.

[factotum]

Yeah, if anything, Elan likely dumped Wisdom--he's not the brightest candle in the box, but he's a long way ahead of the likes of Thog. Also, note that Bards get 6 + int modifier skill points per level, so they actually get quite a few skill points even without having stellar Int.

[brian 333]

In #2 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0002.html) Elan sings about his six new skill points, which would indicates he does not get a negative Int bonus. It also indicates he does not get a positive Int bonus. This would put Elan's Int in the 10-11 range.

Another possible scenario is that he has a lower Int, with retroactive upgrade of 2 additional skill points per level at level 3. If he were any other level than 3 at the time this would not add up to six new skill points for Elan to love.

[Timy]

In #2 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0002.html) Elan sings about his six new skill points, which would indicates he does not get a negative Int bonus. It also indicates he does not get a positive Int bonus. This would put Elan's Int in the 10-11 range.

Another possible scenario is that he has a lower Int, with retroactive upgrade of 2 additional skill points per level at level 3. If he were any other level than 3 at the time this would not add up to six new skill points for Elan to love.

I think it has been said by the Giant that Elan was just singing about the new base skill point base for bard.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think it has been said by the Giant that Elan was just singing about the new base skill point base for bard.

Yup (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?5758-The-place-for-over-analysis/page7&p=211493#post211493). We discussed this on the first page.

[Deliverance]

My thesis, had you bothered to read what I wrote rather than pounce upon one detail intended not for exactitude but for rhetorical purposes, is that if one takes the INT stat and multiplies it by 10, one gets a rough equivalent to IQ, and that this game statistic roughly correlates to the observed bell curve of human IQ in our real world. It is not an exact science, but a game mechanic, and the fact that the curve does not fit exactly is a reflection of the author's attempt to include sub- and super-human intelligence, (and strength, dexterity, etc.) in the range of possible character traits because the PC is an exceptional being, not an average one.
But if that's your argument, then the alternative proposed, INT*5+50, fits the observed human IQ bell curve MUCH better than your proposed INT*10. Both are poor at it, but yours is so outrageous that it must be discarded out of hand.

The reason is obvious: Both have trouble at the high and low end of the scale, but your chosen INT*10 certainly doesn't roughly correlate to human IQ. That would require a huge percentage of the human population to be geniuses and a huge percentage to be dumb as doornails. With a standard deviation of 15 points for IQ, some 95.5% of the human population has between 70 and 130 IQ by definition and the remaining 4.55% or so is split evenly between higher and lower... With your model some 16% have higher than 130 and likewise lower than 70. If you truly believe that your model "roughly correlates" to the observed bell curve for human IQ in the real world, even if it only models exceptional individuals and not the rest then you run into several geniuses and morons every day unless you are a hermit.

The exceptional individual with respects to intelligence in the real world is not the one rocking a 170 or 180 IQ* or suffering 30 or 40 IQ. 70 or 130 IQ is already quite enough to make you exceptional, somebody that will definitely stand out in a small crowd, with higher or lower rapidly making you stand out even in large crowds. 140 IQ? Then we are beginning to talk genius levels.


* insofar as IQ can be used for measuring intelligence in the first place, which is a whole different can of worms.

[brian 333]

The above is true as far as it goes, but it has also already been addressed earlier in this thread.


I still prefer having an INT 3 being equal to animal level intelligence and INT below 6 being incapable of holding a conversation. (Hodor in Song of Ice and Fire.) The +50 pretty much precludes animals from having an INT stat, and the x5 precludes Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking from existing. (An Einstein would have to have INT 26, for example.)

The point of deviation is valid, but G. Gygax was trying to create a game mechanic based on observed phenomenon. Perhaps (6d6)/2 would have more accurately rendered the observed deviation, but it would also have made the exceptional characters on either end of the scale virtually unachievable.

The text of this link was taken directly from the 1st Ed. DMG
http://memexplex.com/meme/2616/

[KuReshtin]

Quote Originally Posted by From D&D 3.0 PHB page 10:
A character with low intelligence mispronounces and misuses words, has trouble following directions, or fails to get the joke.


Having trouble following directions, misusing words and having trouble pronouncing words doesn't automatically make someone incapable of holding a conversation. It makes it slightly more difficult to get anything of value out of the conversation, and it takes more effort on both parties, but it doesn't mean the low INT person is incapable of holding a conversation.
Hodor, as you gave as an example has a low INT score, but he understands what people are saying to him. He follows directions, but he can't express himself in a way that is easily interpreted by those around him. However, it is shown that Bran and others around Hodor can kind of interpret rough meanings of what he's trying to convey by his inflection of the one word he can utter. I'd probably put Hodor at INT 6, but I disagree that he is incapable of following directions.


Ive always thought of Intelligence representing (broadly) the ability of a person to acquire and interpret information. So someone with int of 18 might be able to Sherlock Holmes the identity of a murderer based on a burning tree, while someone with an int of 3 will go "wow, fire is pretty."

I agree wholeheartedly with this interpretation. INT is the ability to acquire new skills and a representation of how easily said skills are acquired. A low INT character can learn new skills and get good at them, but it will take them a longer time than someone with an aptitude to learning and incorporating new information.
INT is gaining and retaining information. WIS is using the information in an appropriate way.


I still prefer ....

Here's the crux of the matter for me in your continued discussion of this topic. You keep steadfastly holding on to your point of view because 'you prefer' your version more than anyone else's, and therefore seemingly disregards any further information posted.
It has been mentioned several times, that animals can only have an INT score of maximum 2, and that anything below what the dice can roll should not be taken into equation with regards to the table of INT corresponding to an IQ score, but unfortunately, that doesn't agree with your standpoint and is therefore ignored.

[brian 333]

...
Here's the crux of the matter for me in your continued discussion of this topic. You keep steadfastly holding on to your point of view because 'you prefer' your version more than anyone else's, and therefore seemingly disregards any further information posted.
It has been mentioned several times, that animals can only have an INT score of maximum 2, and that anything below what the dice can roll should not be taken into equation with regards to the table of INT corresponding to an IQ score, but unfortunately, that doesn't agree with your standpoint and is therefore ignored.

My point of view is based on the published information regarding the subject. It's not my opinion, it's the information you read when you open the source books.

As regarding animal intelligence, I did say 3 was animal level intelligence, referring to the fact that the lowest intelligence a PC could have was one step above that of a dog or lion. It was not an exact definition of a 3 intelligence, it was a rhetorical comment, as i have previously explained. To use the Hodor example, I have had several dogs over my lifetime who could figure out what I wanted them to do when I spoke to them, and whose wants and needs I could understand through observation of their behavior. Their intelligence was nowhere near an IQ of 60.

You are free to disregard the rules if you like, and hold other 'opinions' on what Intelligence score means. Just as I am free to continue using the information published with the first edition of AD&D, which is the only source to explain why the rules were designed as they were.

[Peelee]

My point of view is based on the published information regarding the subject. It's not my opinion, it's the information you read when you open the source books.... I am free to continue using the information published with the first edition of AD&D, which is the only source to explain why the rules were designed as they were.

....you pull sources from both AD&D and 3.0 for your games, then? That must be confusing. I'd be full-on afraid to play the new version at your table.

[brian 333]

3.0 is based on AD&D, and does not give any explanation of why the stats were designed as they were. D&D has a history and, although it has evolved, even 5e is born of the core design of AD&D from way back in the 1970's. The reason why the abilities were designed as they are has not changed in all of the incarnations of D&D.

[Peelee]

3.0 is based on AD&D, and does not give any explanation of why the stats were designed as they were. D&D has a history and, although it has evolved, even 5e is born of the core design of AD&D from way back in the 1970's. The reason why the abilities were designed as they are has not changed in all of the incarnations of D&D.

"Based on" does not equate to "shares the exact design philosophy by necessity unless explicitly stated otherwise." You are pulling from two different systems to combat a statement from a third system. They are similar, yes, but they also have large differences and are not compatible with each other. I do not understate why you are trying to force them to be.

[Jasdoif]

"Based on" does not equate to "shares the exact design philosophy by necessity unless explicitly stated otherwise." You are pulling from two different systems to combat a statement from a third system. They are similar, yes, but they also have large differences and are not compatible with each other. I do not understate why you are trying to force them to be.Hmm. I wonder if Roy or Thog having Strength scores of 18/00 would help explain anything.

[Keltest]

Hmm. I wonder if Roy or Thog having Strength scores of 18/00 would help explain anything.

Im fairly certain at this point Roy's strength is just a tad bit higher than 18/00.

[brian 333]

"Based on" does not equate to "shares the exact design philosophy by necessity unless explicitly stated otherwise." You are pulling from two different systems to combat a statement from a third system. They are similar, yes, but they also have large differences and are not compatible with each other. I do not understate why you are trying to force them to be.

You are right. After five rewrites which kept the core concept of attributes unchanged from the original D&D, the reason they designed the system this way in the first place has somehow changed, so the explanation of why the system was designed as it was is no longer relevant, even though the system in question is unchanged.

I've still yet to see a convincing explanation for the massive jump from animal intelligence to conversational intelligence between a score of 2 and 3. It's also not supported if you go through the monster manual to see the kinds of creatures with 3 Int. (Gricks, Hydras, the Terrasque, etc.) you find a long list of creatures with not much more intelligence than the average watchdog. When you look through the brutish humanoids and giants you find their intelligence is 6 or better. These creatures are certainly not merely 'below average' on the intelligence scale.

'My thesis' is not mine, it's Mr. Gygax' design notes included with AD&D's DMG. Later editions have confirmed his design decisions over and over again, (even the most recent one.)

[Peelee]

You are right. After five rewrites which kept the core concept of attributes unchanged from the original D&D, the reason they designed the system this way in the first place has somehow changed, so the explanation of why the system was designed as it was is no longer relevant, even though the system in question is unchanged.

I've still yet to see a convincing explanation for the massive jump from animal intelligence to conversational intelligence between a score of 2 and 3. It's also not supported if you go through the monster manual to see the kinds of creatures with 3 Int. (Gricks, Hydras, the Terrasque, etc.) you find a long list of creatures with not much more intelligence than the average watchdog. When you look through the brutish humanoids and giants you find their intelligence is 6 or better. These creatures are certainly not merely 'below average' on the intelligence scale.

'My thesis' is not mine, it's Mr. Gygax' design notes included with AD&D's DMG. Later editions have confirmed his design decisions over and over again, (even the most recent one.)

Ok, let me put it this way. If you go into a court of law and try to debate the first amendment of the constitution by pointing out Voltaire's reasoning, you're never going to win. No matter how much you cover your ears and say "BUT ITS BASED ON THAT SO THATS ALL ANYONE EVER NEEDS TO SAY ON THE MATTER AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG BECAUSE THEY DON'T AGREE WITH ME."

The rulebooks for 3.5 ed state that 2 is animal intelligence, and 3 is a viable humanoid intelligence. Restrictions on speech and conversation are not openly outlined. There is no explanation. It just is. Magic exists in the world, and there's no explanation for that other than "magic exists, just accept it." Do you likewise take issue with magic and demand that it not be allowed?

It does not matter if there is a logical reasoning behind it. It exists, is written, and you are debating against it from other systems that are not made to be combined the way you demand they be.

[Jasdoif]

The rulebooks for 3.5 ed state that 2 is animal intelligence, and 3 is a viable humanoid intelligence. Restrictions on speech and conversation are not openly outlined. There is no explanation. It just is. Magic exists in the world, and there's no explanation for that other than "magic exists, just accept it." Do you likewise take issue with magic and demand that it not be allowed?

It does not matter if there is a logical reasoning behind it. It exists, is written, and you are debating against it from other systems that are not made to be combined the way you demand they be.In other words, the arbitrary meaning of the arbitrary numbers on the arbitrary scale were arbitrarily re-arbitrated. Under an arbitration agreement, because class-action lawsuits are just confusing when classes themselves get involved.

[Peelee]

In other words, the arbitrary meaning of the arbitrary numbers on the arbitrary scale were arbitrarily re-arbitrated. Under an arbitration agreement, because class-action lawsuits are just confusing when classes themselves get involved.

You would make a good arbiter.

[RighteousWarior]

The character of Elan is interesting to me. He's actually a very intelligent person who wants to be a force for good in the world. However, he is very unobservant and unwilling to learn certain things. In fact, I could compare Elan to some autistic people I've met in real life.

But Elan isn't autistic. He's just comically dumb. A further elaboration on a classic stereotype.

Still my favorite character ^^