A scenario I do not know the outcome of.

[The Inquisition]

Hello, folks. I have issues of my friend about an aspect of wisdom vs intelligence. I am going to deliver it from a 3rd party, and you tell me who you think would win.

A Barbarian, a Rogue, a Ranger, a Monk, and a Wizard are all in a dungeon fighting monsters. They eventually get down to the BBEG and return him to the dust. Now, the BBEG had a peculiar set of boots the Wizard identified as Boots of Speed. He claimed it for his own, but the Monk disagreed, saying he would like it more. Smirking, the wizard suggested the decide who gets it in a battle of wits.

The Monk was very wise, he spent a great deal of time with people and felt he knew everyone better than they knew themselves. The Wizard was a genius, and he was able to come up with the most complex plans in the middle of a battle that almost always worked.


The wizard takes out a chess set and the monk while he secretly smiles, knowing he'll be able to predict every move the Wizard will make, while the Wizard internally laughs, knowing he's able to plan several moves ahead.

Who would win in that chess game assuming they didn't fight over it physically, the Wisdom or the Intelligence? That's what it comes down to. The Wizard will cast no spells, and the Monk isn't going to stunning fist the Wizard.

[Aleolus]

Honestly? I see it coming down to a draw. If the monk understands the Wizard as well as he believes he does, then he will be able to figure out what the wizards tactics are within a few turns, which will allow him to know how to counter them. But, as soon as the monk makes a move that counters the wizards tactics, the wizard will change tactics to something radically different, negating the monks plans. Rinse and repeat.

[DrMartin]

I think the game itself should be based on a (or more) Intelligence check, with the chance of getting a bonus on your roll if you can read your opponent (either two opposed sense motive / bluff checks,with each character having a chance at reading their opponent, or a straight up sense motive contested roll)

the winner of the first rolls gets an edge on the game proper - either a flat bonus, say +3, or a +1 bonus for every 3 points your check exceeds your opponent's, or you get to roll twice and keep the better roll (that averages to a +4/+5 if i remember correctly, but with more fluctuation than a straight roll).

of course the real winner is the rogue that sleights of hands the boots away while the two geniuses have their bout

[The Inquisition]

I think the game itself should be based on a (or more) Intelligence check, with the chance of getting a bonus on your roll if you can read your opponent (either two opposed sense motive / bluff checks,with each character having a chance at reading their opponent, or a straight up sense motive contested roll)

the winner of the first rolls gets an edge on the game proper - either a flat bonus, say +3, or a +1 bonus for every 3 points your check exceeds your opponent's, or you get to roll twice and keep the better roll (that averages to a +4/+5 if i remember correctly, but with more fluctuation than a straight roll).

of course the real winner is the rogue that sleights of hands the boots away while the two geniuses have their bout

:smallwink:

[Inevitability]

Why won't the wizard cast spells? Cheat, Fox's Cunning, and a bunch of other stuff would help greatly here.

[The Inquisition]

Why won't the wizard cast spells? Cheat, Fox's Cunning, and a bunch of other stuff would help greatly here.

It's not about the Wizard or the Monk. It's wisdom vs intelligence in forms of classes that are well known to take them.
In hindsight, I probably should have made the 'Monk' a Cleric.

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, the Rogue wins. Of course, with sufficient skill in Disguise and Bluff, nobody (else) will know that.

[Honest Tiefling]

Rangers usually have decent wisdom and an animal companion and ranks in spot. Without the element of surprise, rogues are usually at disadvantage. Why hasn't he gotten rid of the rogue to get the boots for himself?

If the wizard isn't high enough level to simply threaten the party and get his way, then chances are good he's at the squishier lower levels with less protections on his spell book and for when he sleeps. If the Rogue has diplomacy, he could make an alliance with the Ranger to beat up these two and take all of their stuff. I mean, it doesn't seem like they were consulted about this battle of wits.

[Aleolus]

This would probably have been more clearly put if you hadn't specified any classes and had just said "a group of adventurers discover a pair of magic boots during their adventures" and then gone on to explain how two wanted them, one who was supeer wise and the other hyper intelligent, and they decided to settle the matter with a game of chess

[The Inquisition]

This would probably have been more clearly put if you hadn't specified any classes and had just said "a group of adventurers discover a pair of magic boots during their adventures" and then gone on to explain how two wanted them, one who was supeer wise and the other hyper intelligent, and they decided to settle the matter with a game of chess

Fair enough

[NichG]

The more experienced chess player wins.

If they have equal experience at chess, wisdom dominates for beginners, intelligence for intermediate and master players. The over reliance on opening book memorization is the reason Fischer invented a variant with randomized initial placements.

For Go, it'd be wisdom -> intelligence -> wisdom.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Skill challenge!

Alternately roll opposed intelligence and wisdom checks until one of them wins 5 in a row.

Though, how wise could the monk really be, trying to get an item he gets limited and diminishing benefit from?

[SangoProduction]

Well, this is less a case of intelligence/wisdom, but of skill (chess), and sense motive.

In the end, Sense Motive *helps*, but if he just straight up doesn't know as much about it, his predictions won't be as accurate, and he'll make his own mistakes. Not to mention chess is about analyzing the board, and predicting the best course of action already.

In best case scenario, the wizard is over confident, thus plays granularly, only picking what's best based on the situation, and not a couple moves ahead, and sensing that, the monk moves purposefully to make the wizard move in the "best way" which actually sets up his play.

But...as mentioned....if his play doesn't actually work...

[Strigon]

I would say intelligence.
The monk might be able to predict the Wizard's general strategy, but he'd need intelligence in order to know specifically which pieces were involved in his strategy, and intelligence in order to figure out an appropriate counterresponse. Even if he could identify both of those, he'd need the intelligence to eventually plan an attack on his own; otherwise, the Wizard would just keep planning and planning until one of those plans slipped by.

For example, suppose the wizard was known to be cold and calculating; the Monk might deduce that the Wizard may sacrifice a weaker piece in order to capture one of the monk's more powerful pieces, or open a temporary hole in the defenses.
Even if he were right, Wisdom wouldn't let him know where the trap was, or which piece was meant to fall into the trap. All he could do to avoid it is not capture any pieces whatsoever, in which case the wizard would begin to slowly set up better positions to make a switch to the offensive.

[TheifofZ]

Assuming neither has Skill ranks in Profession (Chessmaster) or something, then it comes down to how the attributes interact with the game board.
According to the listed query:
Wisdom can help the monk understand what moves the wizard will make by allowing him to understand how the wizard thinks.
Intelligence can help the wizard plan further ahead, and understand the plan the monk is making through pattern recognition.

Wisdom might allow a turn by turn advantage, but intelligence will win in the long run. The wizard should be able to recognize counter-plays the monk is making and adapt his strategy much further ahead than the monk can, because no matter how well you know a person, chess is a binary system with predefined limits, systems, and goals. It doesn't matter if you don't know what a person is planning or if you do, there are only so many ways to respond, and if the person with a high Int is playing to their fullest, they should be able to win through a strategy.

The best strategy, after all, is one that your enemy can see coming but has no way to prevent.

[Flickerdart]

If one person is acting and one person is reacting, the reacting person is at a significant disadvantage. As MtG puts it well - there are not bad threats, there are only bad counters.

Everything else being equal, Wisdom loses.

[Mr Adventurer]

The Wizard, because seeing it coming isn't the same as being able to do anything about it.