PDA

View Full Version : -2 to int



reorith
2007-07-05, 01:16 AM
so orcs get -2 to intelligence. would it be possible to have weird feral animalistic orcs with one or two intelligence in an orc war band?

Dhavaer
2007-07-05, 01:19 AM
No, there's a minimum cap at 3. I think 1 - 2 Int is limited to certain types, or something.

Emperor Tippy
2007-07-05, 01:19 AM
You can roll up an orc with 1 Int technically. So sure. They are the incredibly stupid ones. But I would still try to stick to a 3 Int minimum so they at least understand what you are saying.

psychoticbarber
2007-07-05, 01:19 AM
A half-orc’s starting Intelligence score is always at least 3.

That's from the d20 SRD, and I've probably been ninjaed by a million folks, but there it is.

reorith
2007-07-05, 01:27 AM
That's from the d20 SRD, and I've probably been ninjaed by a million folks, but there it is.

yeah but that's for half-orcs.

i was thinking about an orc with one int, hit with enlarge person and large blades attached to his arms being pushed into combat like the dude from 300 with huge blades where his hands should have been.

kpenguin
2007-07-05, 01:30 AM
An animal has an Intelligence score of 1 or 2. A creature of humanlike intelligence has a score of at least 3.

Emphasis mine.

Yechezkiel
2007-07-05, 01:31 AM
He'd most likely have to be trained like an animal. Food = compliance, whip = bad, fire = bad. Stuff like that.

kpenguin
2007-07-05, 01:40 AM
The training doesn't matter. Orcs, hill giants, and other creatures that have at least humanlike intelligence (which means within the human range of intelligence) must have an intelligence of at least 3.

psychoticbarber
2007-07-05, 01:43 AM
Emphasis mine.

What he said.

blue chicken
2007-07-05, 01:44 AM
Unless they're born handicapped, or bred to be that way...or damaged to render them that way. That rule doesn't have to be a hard-and-fast limit. It's just saying that anything with intelligence you could classify as "human-like," has to have an Int of at least three. An orc with an Int any lower would be...well, feral and animalistic, incapable of speech or other higher thought.

Tallis
2007-07-05, 01:52 AM
Unless they're born handicapped, or bred to be that way...or damaged to render them that way. That rule doesn't have to be a hard-and-fast limit. It's just saying that anything with intelligence you could classify as "human-like," has to have an Int of at least three. An orc with an Int any lower would be...well, feral and animalistic, incapable of speech or other higher thought.

I'd say having an int of 3 counts as handicapped. I could see breeding or damage reducing the limit below 3 though.

Daracaex
2007-07-05, 01:53 AM
Yes, the SRD does say that any creature of human-like intelligence has an intelligence score of at least 3. But where does it say that Orcs must have human-like intelligence? How smart is any creature going to be if it is raised by animals in the wilderness such as Mogli from The Jungle Book or Tarzan?

Diggorian
2007-07-05, 02:14 AM
so orcs get -2 to intelligence. would it be possible to have weird feral animalistic orcs with one or two intelligence in an orc war band?

You dont need 1 or 2 Int to be feral and animalistic, a 3 or even higher could be fit those descriptors. Barbarians can be portrayed that way.

You could also make some orc-related animal, like chimps are related to humans, that are trained by orcs for war. Take the stats for an ape and give it wild boar like abilities to orcify it, voila the "Chorg" is born.

Aquillion
2007-07-05, 02:25 AM
The training doesn't matter. Orcs, hill giants, and other creatures that have at least humanlike intelligence (which means within the human range of intelligence) must have an intelligence of at least 3.Not all humans have humanlike intelligence, though. There are people with issues even in the real world. I think that the line you quoted is more of a definition of how to interpret intelligence values than a rule restricting what those values can be; it's telling you that if you make an orc with an int below 3 he has strictly animal intelligence, not that orcs with an int below 3 cannot exist.

"Normal" orcs certainly wouldn't have an int of 2, but nothing in the rules seems to forbid the occasional beastial throwback; they just say that such a creature will be no smarter than an animal. (Would such an orc have an alignment? I suspect it wouldn't.)

-Cor-
2007-07-05, 02:50 AM
(Would such an orc have an alignment?)

Neutral?

I know it's not completely accurate, but I've always done the whole Int score x 10 = Aprox. IQ. (And then role played the character that way.)

For reference sake, do some research on what a human(oid) with a 10 or 20 IQ is like.

Scary...

Daracaex
2007-07-05, 03:35 AM
Neutral?

I know it's not completely accurate, but I've always done the whole Int score x 10 = Aprox. IQ. (And then role played the character that way.)

For reference sake, do some research on what a human(oid) with a 10 or 20 IQ is like.

Scary...

Doesn't a plant have about 4 IQ? I think your system needs revising.

Dairun Cates
2007-07-05, 03:56 AM
To be perfectly honest, even if you could lower a stat below 3, even Mogli from the Jungle Book had some intelligence and character. By human intelligence, they are literally insinuating that you have no self-awareness and thereby little personality or the ability to think outside of instinct. We're talking that by definition the only thing your character should thrive on is survival, food, sex, and sometimes shelter.

Technically, something like that could exist, but playing it would be boring as all hell. Since you have no reasonable sentience, your character, by definition would be incapable of creative thought. You'd also, by definition, be incapable of having any form of skills. Badgers don't get use rope checks. Your role-playing and strategic options would literally be limited to:

1. Eat it
2. Kill it
3. Try to mate with it
4. Sleep
5. Howl loudly
6. Play with it
7. Go to the bathroom
8. Run away

That's it. Anything else is breaking your int score. So, while with a GM who doesn't follow the SRD and the "no score below 3" rule might be lenient enough to allow it, there's no reason to do it. As an encounter, it'd be fine, but GM PC's can be classified as monsters and therefore don't need human intelligence.

kpenguin
2007-07-05, 04:01 AM
Alright, let me revise that: no normal self-aware creature can or should have an intelligence score of 1 or 2. Those who have some sort of mental illness or brain damage or exceptions.

An intelligence of 3 is your stupidest mentally retarded person, the most stupid physically healthy human can be. An intelligence of 2 or 1 is that baby that was dropped on the head several times and then liberally shaken.

Lavidor
2007-07-05, 04:16 AM
Don't forget that they would actually have the type Animal (Orc) because of having such low intelligence. Also, their alignment would be limited to Neutral. It would be impossible to play them

Kurald Galain
2007-07-05, 04:35 AM
An intelligence of 2 or 1 is that baby that was dropped on the head several times and then liberally shaken.

You mean Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html)? :smallsmile:

paigeoliver
2007-07-05, 04:37 AM
If you actually want to translate intelligence scores into IQ scores then this system works a little better, and actually mirrors the results one would get if you considered an IQ test to involve taking 10 on an intelligence check.

Int 4 = IQ 60.
Int 6 = IQ 80.
Int 8 = IQ 90.
Int 10 = IQ 100.
Int 12 = IQ 110.
Int 14 = IQ 120.
Int 16 = IQ 130.
Int 18 = IQ 140.
Int 20 = IQ 150.

Of course the D&D scores cannot truly directly translate as they incorporate education and experience as heavily as they do natural intelligence. Hence the reason for age adjustments and the ability to bump your own intelligence score when you level up.

Of course in reality some ability scores would simply be a lot easier to improve than others. Strength and Constitution are easy. Dexterity slightly more difficult, while intelligence and charisma are much more difficult to improve. While wisdom is rather difficult to truly gain by trying, especially the 3.5 D&D kind of wisdom which incorporates a lot of things that are unrelated to the meaning of the word wisdom. Truth be told none of the D&D wisdom skills have anything to do with wisdom, although a mild argument could be made for sense motive, the rest would either be intelligence or shouldn't be stat based at all.

Rasilak
2007-07-05, 05:12 AM
If you want to do the scale right, just compare the probabilities for IQ-Values (IIRC Gauss-Curve with sigma=15-16, centered around 100), and compare them to the probabilites for rolling Int-scores with 3D6 (which is not perfectly Gaussian, but a good approximation). Right now I'm too lazy to do it, but I might later.
You'll get a (approximatively) linear correlation, so the easy way would be to calculate sigma for 3D6 (average is 10,5).

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-05, 05:33 AM
I've always wondered why Orcs get -2 to Int. Wouldn't the bloodthirsty and feral nature be better represented by a hit to Wisdom?

kpenguin
2007-07-05, 05:42 AM
They have -2 to wisdom as well as a -2 to charisma.

new1965
2007-07-05, 06:30 AM
I've always wondered why Orcs get -2 to Int. Wouldn't the bloodthirsty and feral nature be better represented by a hit to Wisdom?

Ive always looked at it as if they are 10 lbs of attitude in a 5 lb bag.. It gives them limited patience and it gets in the way of reasoning things out

Rasilak
2007-07-05, 06:34 AM
K, I did the math and got to a sigma of around 2.97 (~3) for 3D6. So 1 point of Int equals 5 points of IQ (with a sigma of 15). That leads to the following table:
Int ~ IQ
1 ~ 52.5
2 ~ 57.5
(yep, I know that these can't be rolled. I'm extrapolating)
3 ~ 62.5
4 ~ 67.5
5 ~ 72.5
6 ~ 77.5
7 ~ 82.5
8 ~ 87.5
9 ~ 92.5
10 ~ 97.5
11 ~ 102.5
12 ~ 107.5
13 ~ 112.5
14 ~ 117.5
15 ~ 122.5
16 ~ 127.5
17 ~ 132.5
18 ~ 137.5
(same here...)
19 ~ 142.5
20 ~ 147.5

EDIT:
so paigeolivers scale is only off by 2.5 points, which is quite good for a guess - I assume the Int 4 ~ IQ 60 was a typo)
So we can safely use his scale, since it's far easier to remember.

Eldpollard
2007-07-05, 06:54 AM
Don't forget that they would actually have the type Animal (Orc) because of having such low intelligence. Also, their alignment would be limited to Neutral. It would be impossible to play them

It would have no alignment. Animals have no sense of morality and so have no alignment. There will be a quote somewhere.

Inyssius Tor
2007-07-05, 07:01 AM
An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).
* Alignment: Always neutral.

Second, Animal (Orc)? Why would they change type? It doesn't say anything about requiring 3+ Intelligence here:

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They usually are Small or Medium. Every humanoid creature also has a subtype.
Sure, Animals can't have 3+ Int, but that doesn't mean that everything with 2 or less Intelligence is an animal...

kpenguin
2007-07-05, 07:01 AM
mmmmm... Einstein's IQ is said to be just over 160. Even with age modifiers and HD bonuses, that base number must still be pretty high.

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-05, 07:18 AM
Einstein would likely be base 18+3 for age. 17+3 if you're feeling munchky.

So 160 for 20.

kpenguin
2007-07-05, 07:19 AM
Don't forget that he probably had levels in Expert for all those Knowledge (Physics) ranks.

Dhavaer
2007-07-05, 07:22 AM
But where does it say that Orcs must have human-like intelligence?


An animal has an Intelligence score of 1 or 2. A creature of humanlike intelligence has a score of at least 3.

Typical orcs have Intelligence of 8, ergo they have humanlike intelligence.


It would have no alignment. Animals have no sense of morality and so have no alignment. There will be a quote somewhere.


An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
* Low-light vision.
* Alignment: Always neutral.

Thanatos 51-50
2007-07-05, 08:17 AM
Technicaly, If Memory serves, 160 is considered genius-level intellignece, whereas 100 is average.

Just wanted to include that for everyone cominbg up with IQ <-> INT tables, which accoring to the ones here, my INT is anywhere between 13 and 17.
Which I find myself doubting.

Lòkki Gallansbayne
2007-07-05, 08:49 AM
Just wanted to include that for everyone cominbg up with IQ <-> INT tables, which accoring to the ones here, my INT is anywhere between 13 and 17. That's nothing. Mine's at least 16 according to all the tables posted here and over 20 according to two of them.

Someone hand me my spellbook, I've got some batmanning to do.

Alternatively, we could go with the more obvious conclusion that D&D intelligence doesn't model purely IQ but other things that are related to or have an effect on intelligence as well. That or it just isn't a very good model. :smalltongue:

Rasilak
2007-07-05, 09:09 AM
Well, since it's technically ridiculous trying to measure IQs >140, which is already considered genius-level Int (there's just not enough people to compare to, so you can't make any sound statistics for higher values), the cap at 18 for Int is quite sane. However, if you don't use the (more common) statistical definition, but the rule of thumb (intellectual age/physical age)*100 - which obviosly only works for children - , you might get those absurdly high values of ~200 some people claim to have. The accuracy of these claims is, however, highly questionable.
[I'm not an expert in this topic, but this is based on what the psychologist who tested me told me]

Lòkki Gallansbayne
2007-07-05, 09:16 AM
That kinda contradicts what I've been told about IQ, but then the important thing to take into account is that there isn't a single, unified scale of IQ to begin with. Different tests use their own similar but slightly different scales and a single person might even end up with a different score on different tests. As an example of this, if I remember correctly that Test The Nation thing they did in the UK a couple years back typically scored people lower than more rigorous professional tests.*

For instance, under the Cattell B test (the one I've taken) anyone in the 98th percentile (having an IQ of over 148) is considered a genius (by Mensa, at any rate). The 99th percentile is at 155 and I believe it caps out at 161. At least, that was how they did it a few years ago (very late '90s/early 2000s).

*I have only anecdotal evidence for this.

JackMage666
2007-07-05, 09:25 AM
Aside from the amazing IQ debate going on.

If you're the DM, you can have an Orc with 1 or 2 Int in the Orc group, if you'd like. He'd basically be an animal.
Just remember, as DM yo can do anything. Orc with 2 Int - Easy. Orcs working with Great Wyrm Gold Dragon - No problem. Orcs who walk around in clown outfits yodelling dixie - It's you're game.

RAW, you can't. But you're the DM - You defy the rules as much as you want.

Roderick_BR
2007-07-05, 09:42 AM
A int of 3 is already pretty stupid. The character would be able to only obey simple orders, and barely recognize superiors in a group. Not too far from that guy from 300. For a more animal-like creature, add in the back story that it had brain damage (anything with permanent Int damage of 2 points), and since them was trained as some war beast.

Serenity
2007-07-05, 09:44 AM
I've always wondered why Orcs get -2 to Int. Wouldn't the bloodthirsty and feral nature be better represented by a hit to Wisdom?


Absolutely not! Feral and bloodthirsty means you don't have much cognitive ability or book learning, but also at least implies a base cunning and good instincts best represented by Wisdom. If the concept is a feral hunter, any modifier to Wisdom should be positive.

Ranis
2007-07-05, 10:03 AM
I think that you're the DM, and that you should do what you want. It's your game.

Jalor
2007-07-05, 10:14 AM
I don't think these IQ-based intelligence tables are very accurate. I scored 175 on an IQ test. According to most of the tables here, I would have to have an intelligence of, oh, maybe 24. 24?!?! Most D&D wizards don't reach 24 intelligence until Epic levels! The average Mind Flayer only has 19 intelligence! Clearly some revision is necessary, because there's no way I'm smarter than a Mind Flayer. Or Einstein. And didn't Einstein have an IQ in the 200s?

Fax Celestis
2007-07-05, 10:37 AM
I think the main issue that we're running into here is that that "minimum 3" rule is for characters suitable for play by a PC. The DM can do anything he wants.

Ethdred
2007-07-05, 10:45 AM
I think the main issue that we're running into here is that that "minimum 3" rule is for characters suitable for play by a PC. The DM can do anything he wants.


Most people seem to have missed the bit in the OP where he made it clear it's about NPCs. Actually, this sort of orc would be quite good as an NPC. Not just with the sheer animalistic frenzy of its fighting (bladed up and everything) but also because it's NOT an evil killing machine. It's just doing what it's always done and has been beaten/whipped/conditioned into doing. While it would be a fearsome opponent in combat, it could also be touched by kindness or protective of a child (cf Frankenstein's monster etc etc). It would be an interesting challenge for a good aligned party:

"Whaddya mean it doesn't detect evil? It's just gutted half the party!"

Indon
2007-07-05, 10:50 AM
I think this is a job for some form of template!

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-05, 11:00 AM
I think this is a job for some form of template!

...if only there was some sort of template that allowed you to model Feral, animalistic creatures...

The_Werebear
2007-07-05, 11:08 AM
Feral Template from Savage Species. Perfect way to model this.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-05, 11:23 AM
...if only there was some sort of template that allowed you to model Feral, animalistic creatures...

GAH! You broke my sarcasm detector.

JackMage666
2007-07-05, 11:26 AM
We all know Savage Species is just a myth told to scare the younger gamers to keep them from buying every book....

...Right?

Morty
2007-07-05, 11:39 AM
Why should it be?

Yogi
2007-07-05, 11:45 AM
What would happen if you tried to Awaken such an Orc?

SpiderBrigade
2007-07-05, 11:52 AM
What would happen if you tried to Awaken such an Orc?HA!

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure Awaken does require the Animal type, which (unless some change is made) even a sub-human-level-intelligence Orc wouldn't have. It'd still be Humanoid (Orc).

Draz74
2007-07-05, 11:54 AM
Nothing. It's not a valid target for Awaken, because it's not a plant or animal.

Yeah, I see nothing at all wrong with having the rare orc specimen being so dumb and retro-animalistic that it has 1 or 2 Int. It should never be a character, certainly (PC or NPC) -- just a monster -- but I don't think the OP had anything more than that in mind anyway. Just the big demented brute the orc war party brings along as a weapon.

Even though it wouldn't count as an Animal in most ways, I'd probably houserule that you could affect it with Handle Animal and Wild Empathy checks. With a -4 penalty, just as if it were a Magical Beast.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-05, 11:57 AM
GAH! You broke my sarcasm detector.

Take that subtlety!

Aquillion
2007-07-05, 02:00 PM
If you actually want to translate intelligence scores into IQ scores then this system works a little better, and actually mirrors the results one would get if you considered an IQ test to involve taking 10 on an intelligence check.

Int 4 = IQ 60.
Int 6 = IQ 80.
Int 8 = IQ 90.
Int 10 = IQ 100.
Int 12 = IQ 110.
Int 14 = IQ 120.
Int 16 = IQ 130.
Int 18 = IQ 140.
Int 20 = IQ 150.Er.... I think 20 int is higher than that. Remember, a 20 in a stat is superhuman, beyond human scale. You can't start out with a score that high naturally. I'd say 18 should be roughly equivalent to the highest human IQ scores ever recorded in the real world (somewhere around 190, I think?) As tempting as it is to say that we all have 19-20 int, we're just level 1 commoners, so it shouldn't be possible... 150 = 15 is more reasonable. Exemplary and remarkable anywhere in the real world, but not superhuman... being a MENSA member does not make you Professor X.

But anyway, yeah, I don't think players should ever play something with less than 3 int... but it could make an interesting background NPC. If the players are working or negotiating with an orc warband, say, their champion could be a frothing-crazy orc the other orcs have to "handle" because of his purely animal-level intelligence. Have the orcs send two negotiators, one being an unnaturally smart Orc negotiatior, and the other being Bitey McTwoInt.

:redcloak: "An intreguing suggestion! Let us see what my companion thinks of it."

:thog: "GROOOWL"

:redcloak: "Alas, it seems he is being unreasonable. Perhaps if you would throw in..."

(:thog: starts sniffing at one of the female PCs.)

:redcloak: "Oh, my. I do think we should conclude these negotations as quickly as possible. You will agree to our terms, then? Yes, excellent."

KIDS
2007-07-05, 02:05 PM
Of course you can have a 1 int orc if you feel like it. With no likenings to our world, isn't that what falls under more significant mental handicaps? So of course orcs can be like that. The tribe would likely kill them for being useless, but an interesting twist as you said is to transform them into such feral creatures. It's a good idea and fits within rules since orcs are not PCs. If they have an int 2 or 1, the simply don't have humanlike intelligence and that's it.

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-06, 02:30 AM
Er.... I think 20 int is higher than that. Remember, a 20 in a stat is superhuman, beyond human scale. You can't start out with a score that high naturally. I'd say 18 should be roughly equivalent to the highest human IQ scores ever recorded in the real world (somewhere around 190, I think?) As tempting as it is to say that we all have 19-20 int, we're just level 1 commoners, so it shouldn't be possible... 150 = 15 is more reasonable. Exemplary and remarkable anywhere in the real world, but not superhuman... being a MENSA member does not make you Professor X.

You're forgetting 1 point for being level 4, and up to 3 points based on your age(35, 50, 75? Something like that).