7 int, Playing Dumb

[Chalkarts]

I'm trying to find the right level of dumb for a 7int.

Woody from Cheers?
A forgetful Alzheimers patient?
Bull from Night Court?
(I'm dating myself here)

He's a semi labotomized former wizard.

[KorvinStarmast]

Bull from Night Court?
You nailed it, I think. :smallcool::smallsmile:

[Sigreid]

IMO that 7 Int doesn't actually have to mean you're really that dumb. It could represent you thinking/realizing things a lot slower than others. It could represent a complete disinterest in the ideas behind things. It could represent a poor memory for facts that you haven't experienced.

But for fun, I'd go with Bull. :D

[Demonslayer666]

Think uneducated. You struggle with recalling any knowledge of arcana, history, nature, religion, and you do not investigate well. You can roleplay this by auto-failing these checks when asked.

This does not mean you are unobservant (low wisdom) or unlikable (low charisma).

We often overlap these in real life definitions of intelligence, but D&D separates them.

[Unoriginal]

Floon Blagmaar from Waterdeep: Dragonheist has 7 INT.

[Frogreaver]

I'm trying to find the right level of dumb for a 7int.

Woody from Cheers?
A forgetful Alzheimers patient?
Bull from Night Court?
(I'm dating myself here)

He's a semi labotomized former wizard.

I find if playing a dumb character the key is telegraphing your dumb actions and allowing the party to sometimes talk you out of them - albeit not necessarily instantly.

Other than that any of the descriptions above work. Just pick fun dumbness instead of annoying dumbness or life threatening dumbness.

[Chalkarts]

Think uneducated. You struggle with recalling any knowledge of arcana, history, nature, religion, and you do not investigate well. You can roleplay this by auto-failing these checks when asked.

This does not mean you are unobservant (low wisdom) or unlikable (low charisma).

We often overlap these in real life definitions of intelligence, but D&D separates them.

I was thinking a kind of slow to put the pieces together, unable to get the joke, kind of guy with a lot of misremembered information.

He's going to have a good Wis and a Great Cha, I'm making him as a Warlock. The Illithids scooped out brains enough to take his magic away then let him live with the memories of being powerful. He made a deal with a Demon he had summoned several times in the past to be his patron and help him get revenge.

[Kurt Kurageous]

7 is merely below average (1st standard deviation below the mean).

Those with less education tend to respond emotionally, hold superstitions, and generally keep their mouths shut and ask questions of their friends later. Unless they don't and like being corrected in public.

A lot of things come as a surprise to an INT7 character. They are happy when the goal is clear, simple, and directly in front of them, and will get easily frustrated doing complicated things that they don't know by doing it routinely.

Don't start every sentence with, "duh, I dunno, but..." Talk less, exclaim more, be exited about knowing the answer to a problem. In short, more childlike, less serious.

[quindraco]

7 is merely below average (1st standard deviation below the mean).

Those with less education tend to respond emotionally, hold superstitions, and generally keep their mouths shut and ask questions of their friends later. Unless they don't and like being corrected in public.

A lot of things come as a surprise to an INT7 character. They are happy when the goal is clear, simple, and directly in front of them, and will get easily frustrated doing complicated things that they don't know by doing it routinely.

Don't start every sentence with, "duh, I dunno, but..." Talk less, exclaim more, be exited about knowing the answer to a problem. In short, more childlike, less serious.

7 is two steps below average, not one, in terms of modifier (average is +0). But you're right about being childlike. Forrest Gump was INT 8; INT 7 is one step dumber than him - also, 5E Gorillas are INT 6, and INT 7 is the same modifier.

I'd clock an INT 7 creature as being about as mentally competent as an average someone in the 4-7th grade range. Imagine maximum blunder years.

[Frogreaver]

7 is two steps below average, not one, in terms of modifier (average is +0). But you're right about being childlike. Forrest Gump was INT 8; INT 7 is one step dumber than him - also, 5E Gorillas are INT 6, and INT 7 is the same modifier.

I'd clock an INT 7 creature as being about as mentally competent as an average someone in the 4-7th grade range. Imagine maximum blunder years.

Who says forest gump is int 8?

[Elbeyon]

7 is barely dumb. Is 14 int a genius? I don't think so. They're slightly better or worse at int skills. Play it however you want.

[Kurt Kurageous]

7 is two steps below average, not one, in terms of modifier (average is +0). But you're right about being childlike. Forrest Gump was INT 8; INT 7 is one step dumber than him - also, 5E Gorillas are INT 6, and INT 7 is the same modifier.

I'd clock an INT 7 creature as being about as mentally competent as an average someone in the 4-7th grade range. Imagine maximum blunder years.

I was using the normal distribution for 3d6, which places seven below the mean of 10.5, close to but less than one standard deviation below the mean. Another way, max mod is +/-5 so each deviation is two mod points wide, creating 3 standard deviations above and below the mean, which covers nearly 100% of all the population.

I completely agree with your conclusion about a middle school education level. See all the 5e half orc illustrations? They are always scratching their chin or head when complex matters are at hand.

[OldTrees1]

For a better example, please mention Int/Wis/Cha. Low Int can be different on a High Wis vs on a Low Wis.

[RogueJK]

I played my 7 INT/16 WIS Monk as street smart and full of common sense, but uneducated and a bit superstitious/folksy, being especially wary of overt magic and preferring simple, tangible things.

[micahaphone]

I played 8 int as having little/no formal education, even if he was good with animals and survival skills. A very slow reader, who preferred to have his party mates do the reading for him.

He's not dumb, it takes intelligence and skill to be good at animal husbandry or be intimidating in nuanced social situations, but he probably doesn't have much knowledge of history or other religions or how magic works, other than what he's overheard of picked up randomly.

[Demonslayer666]

I was thinking a kind of slow to put the pieces together, unable to get the joke, kind of guy with a lot of misremembered information.

He's going to have a good Wis and a Great Cha, I'm making him as a Warlock. The Illithids scooped out brains enough to take his magic away then let him live with the memories of being powerful. He made a deal with a Demon he had summoned several times in the past to be his patron and help him get revenge.

Misremembered information is a great roleplaying tool for low int.

Jokes I would put under Charisma, for both getting them and telling them. You are socially adept with a high cha, so communication should come easily to you, generally speaking of course. Charisma is not just social skills.

[Cls2Edg]

While Tom Cullen from The Stand may have an intelligence lower than a 7, his personality would make for great roleplay. Loyal, funny, considerate, very focused in his own way. M-O-O-N, that spells roleplay!!

[Angelalex242]

Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel.

[Doug Lampert]

As has been said, it's about one standard deviation below average. Comparable IQ is about 85.

Good wis and cha means he's observant, aware of his environment, and good with people.

I'd guess such a character would seem to be of average or above intelligence to most people, because he'd largely keep his mouth shut when academic fields of knowledge come up (which he's bad at, but he knows that), and he's above average in other ways.

[Elbeyon]

Most people probably wouldn't even notice that a person does have 7 int.

[Intregus182]

This is how I've looked at intelligence in dnd

If 10-11 is avereage thats a c -c+ student

8-9 is a d student

7 would be a F level student. So dumb but not an imbecile

[Elbeyon]

Grades are more about effort than they are intelligence. If a 7 int character tried they could manage a's and b's

[quindraco]

As has been said, it's about one standard deviation below average. Comparable IQ is about 85.

Good wis and cha means he's observant, aware of his environment, and good with people.

I'd guess such a character would seem to be of average or above intelligence to most people, because he'd largely keep his mouth shut when academic fields of knowledge come up (which he's bad at, but he knows that), and he's above average in other ways.

Here's the math on applying standard deviation to various ways to roll a statline such that average human intelligence is 10.5:

1d20: (8.5)^(1/2), or about 2.92. Modifier -2 is about IQ 90. Human range is a full 1-20.
3d6: 1.5. You can multiply your modifier by 10 and add it to 100 to get your approximate IQ: modifier -2 is about IQ 80.
5d4-2: (13/8)^(1/2), or about 1.27. Modifier -2 is about IQ 76.
7d2: (1/2)^(1/2), or about 0.74. Modifier -2 is about IQ 58. Human range is 7-14, ensuring everyone is smarter than a gorilla, but geniuses are excluded.

Same math on scores directly, without coercion to modifiers (meaning INT 10 is by definition below IQ 100), listing the IQ for INT 7:

1d20: 91
3d6: 82
5d4-2: 79
7d2: 60

I don't think we have any idea how accurate any of these are for 5E - NPCs don't roll their stats, and unlike in 5E, we lack guidance on things like "intelligence 2 or less is by definition animal-grade".

If you want exactly accurate results based on 5E's monsters, there are exactly three humanoid races whose statblocks list their average as 7: Orcs, Lizardfolk, and Bullywugs are on average INT 7. Not sure if or how that helps. Giant Eels, Giant Apes, and Giant Elk are also INT 7. Giant Elk are the only beast of the three with languages, but Giant Apes have the same int, wis, and cha as lizardfolk and have no language.

Quaggoths, Gnolls, and Troglodytes are INT 6 humanoids - literally the same intelligence as an ape. Sea Spawn humanoids and Yuan-Ti Broodguards are also this INT, but they've had their brains psionically/magically modified.

There are no humanoids in the game with INT 5 or less.

[Mud Puppy]

Just to add another potential example of a "dumb but fun" character, Ricky from Trailer Park Boys is about a 7 INT. Dude can tie his shoes and is almost savantish about certain less than legal activities but didn't get past his "grade 9" and constantly misspeaks, uses the wrong words in the wrong context out of ignorance and a desire to sound more educated than he really is and gets in trouble because of it. If you could pull it off it might be fun to mimic him as a low INT character....

[Unoriginal]

There is no correlation between INT score and IQ.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

If you're a Critical Role fan we have a few options.

From the current Campaign look at Cadeuceus Clay, he's not quite as low Int, only a 9, but still close to what you want. He has a very high Wisdom and tends to play as VERY intuitive and insightful at people's emotional states and truths, but doesn't put pieces together. IE the group figures out that this crime lord they've been working with is almost certainly the father of one of the PCs. His response when they all lay the facts out is "So your mom knows this guy? That's cool."

Kind of a "Know all the facts, don't automatically connect them."

From the previous Campaign Grog was an Int 6 (so same modifier). He was impulsive, didn't focus very hard on details or cleverness and instead was more direct. Rarely was his lack of intelligence a cause for screw ups, but just more that he inherently went with the simplest explanation and logic available.

[Damon_Tor]

There is no correlation between INT score and IQ.

I expect IQ is one of several factors which contributes to the abstraction of "Intelligence" in Dungeons and Dragons, along with memory and education. Its not everything, but I think it's silly to say there is "no correlation".

[Tanarii]

Buzz Lightyear

[benchcoat]

IMO that 7 Int doesn't actually have to mean you're really that dumb. It could represent you thinking/realizing things a lot slower than others. It could represent a complete disinterest in the ideas behind things. It could represent a poor memory for facts that you haven't experienced.

But for fun, I'd go with Bull. :D

I think this is key for figuring out how to RP low Int--I had a DM who pushed us to think about the nuance for low Int/Wis/Cha PCs-- I believe her words were "think about if playing dumb will get boring for you...if it will, maybe your character isn't so much dumb as really naive, extremely sheltered and ignorant of the world, or was raised by hermit parents who were crazy conspiracy theorists."

it's really informed my low Int PCs -- my Int 6 warforged barbarian was traumatized by the Last War, going nearly amnesiac, and so was not dumb but knew very little about how the world worked. my Int 8 paladin loves all mind-altering substances, leaving him a bit disconnected, addled, and easily distracted when it comes to History checks, Investigation rolls, etc.

[Cikomyr2]

Who says forest gump is int 8?

He had his Iq measured, no?

[tomandtish]

Buzz Lightyear

Not sure that works. Buzz seems fairly intelligent, he's just thrust into a situation totally beyond his experience in the first movie. Once he settles in he does fine.

Edith Bunker is a good example of low INT (7 seems about right)/high WIS person.

[Frogreaver]

He had his Iq measured, no?
I wasn’t aware iq was measured with d&d int

[Tanarii]

Not sure that works. Buzz seems fairly intelligent, he's just thrust into a situation totally beyond his experience in the first movie. Once he settles in he does fine. You just have watched a different movie from me. He's clearly fairly below average intelligence.

It's just that he's not blindingly stupid or almost disabled, as some people seem to think an Int 7 or 8 should be played. Which is why I threw the name out. But also because the original post said something about Woody, different reference but it made the below average Buzz jump to mind.

[Pex]

Whatever you do, don't hurt the party doing stupid things on purpose for the lulz. You know your class abilities. You know how to use them. When you cast Fireball don't include party members in the area and say "Oops!". When the party is talking to an NPC don't provoke the NPC to a combat that wasn't going to happen. Don't be disruptive. When the party is planning it's fine you don't come up with a plan. It's fine you agree with everyone's plan even when two are completely opposite. It's fine you don't know the world's trivia, i.e. never make a Knowledge check.

[Damon_Tor]

It's just that he's not blindingly stupid or almost disabled, as some people seem to think an Int 7 or 8 should be played.

I mean, an ape is int 6. So a guy with int 7 is closer to an ape's intelligence than an average human's.

[hamishspence]

5e and 4e bumped up certain animals in intelligence while keeping humans where they are.

Keep in mind that a low INT character in D&D is still functional.

As The Giant put it (regarding 3.5 INT rules)


In D&D terms, anyone who has an Intelligence of 3 or higher is capable of determining right from wrong (because they have an alignment); speak, read, and write a language fluently; and generally looking after themselves on a daily basis while adventuring in a dangerous dungeon. This does not describe most real-world people with mental handicaps (to my knowledge). Which means the bulk of the spectrum of mental handicaps probably sits somewhere below 3 and above 2, because it's a system designed for action-adventure and it doesn't need more granularity than that. It doesn't want to have the conversation, and honestly, in this case, I'm inclined to agree. D&D is a system that only describes people within a certain range of mental ability, and OOTS follows suit.

So maybe 5e apes should not be thought of as gorillas, but as highly intelligent fantasy apes, much smarter than gorillas, whose smartness just doesn't get noticed by adventurers, because they don't talk.

More like the Mangani in Tarzan novels.

[Unoriginal]

Sapience isn't determined by INT score in 5e, either.

Elementals are described as barely sapient and they have between 5 and 6 INT, for example.

An Ape may have more INT than an Ogre, meaning the Ape will probably figure out a puzzle faster than the Ogre, but the Ogre is capable of speaking two languages, of crafting their own tools (and not just greatclubs), and has the self-awareness to make moral choices.

[Morty]

I agree with people who say that you shouldn't go out of the way to play a "dumb" character. It's honestly likely to be really cringy and potentially offensive. An Int 7 character is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed, so they'll be slow on the uptake and ignorant of some some commonly-known or obvious facts. That's about all you need.

[Cikomyr2]

I wasn’t aware iq was measured with d&d int

I think it was something from the old edition. Basically they simplified it to 10 is 100 Iq. 12 is 120, and so forth

[Unoriginal]

I think it was something from the old edition. Basically they simplified it to 10 is 100 Iq. 12 is 120, and so forth

Well whoever simplified that didn't know anything relevant about IQ.

[Sigreid]

Well whoever simplified that didn't know anything relevant about IQ.

Oh, I don't know. According to at least one chart that comes up on google it seems reasonable enough until you get to the extremes:

4-5 (40-54) Severely Challenged and rare
6 (55-69) Challenged
7-8 (70-80) below average
9-11 (85-114) average
12 (115-129) above Average
13-14 (130-144) Gifted
etc.

For a game written by people who weren't psychology experts, that seems like a reasonable way of relaying what the numbers mean in broad terms to people. No fine accuracy or finer point discrimination of course.

[Morty]

"Intelligence is IQ divided by 10" is legitimately one of the worst ideas I have ever heard in the context of a tabletop game. It starts with something of already dubious quality (IQ scores) and tries to apply it somewhere it really doesn't belong.

[Unoriginal]

Oh, I don't know. According to at least one chart that comes up on google it seems reasonable enough until you get to the extremes:

4-5 (40-54) Severely Challenged and rare
6 (55-69) Challenged
7-8 (70-80) below average
9-11 (85-114) average
12 (115-129) above Average
13-14 (130-144) Gifted
etc.


Whoever wrote the chart that come up with google didn't know anything relevant about IQ either, then.

There is at least half a dozen of different IQ tests, and they don't agree with each other. And factors such as nutrition or your parent's background are included in several of the tests.


"Intelligence is IQ divided by 10" is legitimately one of the worst ideas I have ever heard in the context of a tabletop game. It starts with something of already dubious quality (IQ scores) and tries to apply it somewhere it really doesn't belong.

100% agreed.

[hamishspence]

Sapience isn't determined by INT score in 5e, either.

Elementals are described as barely sapient and they have between 5 and 6 INT, for example.

An Ape may have more INT than an Ogre, meaning the Ape will probably figure out a puzzle faster than the Ogre, but the Ogre is capable of speaking two languages, of crafting their own tools (and not just greatclubs), and has the self-awareness to make moral choices.

"D&D apes are sapient and real-world apes are not" is IMO a simpler way to resolve the weirdness of a non-sapient creature having a higher INT than a sapient one.

It wouldn't be the first time D&D made an animal sapient, too. In 1e, dolphins were sapient.

[noob]

I agree that making intelligence unrelated from sapience makes odd results and that adding more creatures to the sapient group of creatures is not absurd: it is an imaginary world so nothing says the varied creatures are even vaguely related to the real life ones.

[Sigreid]

Whoever wrote the chart that come up with google didn't know anything relevant about IQ either, then.

There is at least half a dozen of different IQ tests, and they don't agree with each other. And factors such as nutrition or your parent's background are included in several of the tests.



100% agreed.

As I said, to give someone a rough idea what the number means, it wasn't too bad for some hobbyists in the 1970's. I haven't seen the IQ/10 thing floated for multiple editions now.

And no, I'm not an expert on IQ or IQ tests and never claimed to be.

[Cikomyr2]

"Intelligence is IQ divided by 10" is legitimately one of the worst ideas I have ever heard in the context of a tabletop game. It starts with something of already dubious quality (IQ scores) and tries to apply it somewhere it really doesn't belong.

IQ is a bad measure to assess people in real life.

But IN Fantasy TV Land of Forrest Gump, it's a solid, unbiased and obvious measure to assess intelligence. Don't question TV logic.

And if it works for TV logic, why can't it work for DnD logic

[Doug Lampert]

"Intelligence is IQ divided by 10" is legitimately one of the worst ideas I have ever heard in the context of a tabletop game. It starts with something of already dubious quality (IQ scores) and tries to apply it somewhere it really doesn't belong.
IQ is a bad measure to assess people in real life.

But IN Fantasy TV Land of Forrest Gump, it's a solid, unbiased and obvious measure to assess intelligence. Don't question TV logic.

And if it works for TV logic, why can't it work for DnD logic

Fine, but then we get to the implementation of treating IQ as "a solid, unbiased and obvious measure to assess intelligence."

IQ has a standard deviation of 15, that's part of the modern definition of how the tests are supposed to be calibrated.

Int score has a standard deviation of ~3 (2.9580...), that's how 3d6 WORKS.

IQ is int times 10 gives a deviation double what it "should" be even after you stipulate that IQ measures something meaningful, that Int measures the same something meaningful, and that both measures are good, linear response measures of whatever that thing is.

The formula SHOULD be IQ~=47.5 + 5*Int (use 50 rather than 47.5, it's simpler and real world IQ tests almost always bias high). Even if we stipulate all of the above. IQ = 10*Int is still just wrong.

[Tanarii]

The formula SHOULD be IQ~=47.5 + 5*Int (use 50 rather than 47.5, it's simpler and real world IQ tests almost always bias high). Even if we stipulate all of the above. IQ = 10*Int is still just wrong.
That still doesn't give you a bell curve, as 3d6 and (apparently) IQ tests give.

[Cikomyr2]

Fine, but then we get to the implementation of treating IQ as "a solid, unbiased and obvious measure to assess intelligence."

IQ has a standard deviation of 15, that's part of the modern definition of how the tests are supposed to be calibrated.

Int score has a standard deviation of ~3 (2.9580...), that's how 3d6 WORKS.

IQ is int times 10 gives a deviation double what it "should" be even after you stipulate that IQ measures something meaningful, that Int measures the same something meaningful, and that both measures are good, linear response measures of whatever that thing is.

The formula SHOULD be IQ~=47.5 + 5*Int (use 50 rather than 47.5, it's simpler and real world IQ tests almost always bias high). Even if we stipulate all of the above. IQ = 10*Int is still just wrong.

You are making this way more complicated than it needs

[Tanarii]

You are making this way more complicated than it needs
Depending on where and when you grew up, you've been indoctrinated in the idea that IQ = intelligence. So figuring out a way to convert it makes a certain kind of sense, for those not willing to research the topic. It maps to a mental model they already have.

[Unoriginal]

You are making this way more complicated than it needs

So is anyone trying to make links between IQ and any part of D&D.

[quindraco]

Fine, but then we get to the implementation of treating IQ as "a solid, unbiased and obvious measure to assess intelligence."

IQ has a standard deviation of 15, that's part of the modern definition of how the tests are supposed to be calibrated.

Int score has a standard deviation of ~3 (2.9580...), that's how 3d6 WORKS.

IQ is int times 10 gives a deviation double what it "should" be even after you stipulate that IQ measures something meaningful, that Int measures the same something meaningful, and that both measures are good, linear response measures of whatever that thing is.

The formula SHOULD be IQ~=47.5 + 5*Int (use 50 rather than 47.5, it's simpler and real world IQ tests almost always bias high). Even if we stipulate all of the above. IQ = 10*Int is still just wrong.

I genuinely don't understand why anyone thinks humans have 3d6 intelligence. The Monster Manual Archmage has INT 20 and there's no evidence it used an ASI to get there instead of being naturally gifted.

[Cikomyr2]

So is anyone trying to make links between IQ and any part of D&D.

Forest Gump was used as a measuring stick. We have been stated Forest's IQ. From there, we did a generic rule of thumb.

The point being is to ascertain the difference between a 6, 7 and 8 intelligence.

I mean, it's not that complicated people. Nobody here is saying IQ is a good measure to determine intelligence, we are just trying to get a measuring stick for lower intelligence.

[Drakefall]

Hey there, OP.

INT and WIS (as the stat INT is most often compared to assist in codifying what it do be) aren't really all that analogous with real world intelligence.

I think a good way to get a vague understanding of what INT and WIS mean is to look at the skills associated with them.

For INT we have:

Arcana
History
Investigation
Nature
Religion


Four of these five skills can readily be classified as academic knowledge gained through serious study. The other, Investigation, covers the ability to draw conclusions through prolonged logical effort and data-analysis.

For WIS we have:

Animal Handling
Insight
Medicine
Perception
Survival


WIS is a bit more all-over than INT but mostly fits together. Animal Handling and Insight imply that WIS governs empathy. Insight, and Perception imply that it governs intuition. Animal Handling and Survival imply that it governs practical knowledge of "outdoor" tasks likely gained from prolonged engagement. And all of them imply that it governs more of a "common sense" approach to things.

Medicine is a bit of a weird outlier here. Knowledge of the body of medicine really should be INT based, but field application of medicine in a more medieval context I guess could fall under the practical knowledge WIS seems to hold sway of as opposed to the academic knowledge that INT holds sway over.

So we can assume that someone with less than average INT is likely less skilled at bulk memorisation of content in an academic context. They are likely less educated and not well read, but proficiency in an INT skill would mean that they pushed through and studied hard on a particular subject despite not having the natural talent their peers might possess, and likely had a harder time of it. They're probably not so hot at figuring out puzzles and engaging in research and prefer to think on a micro rather than a macro level, dealing with what's in front of them rather than trying to build a big picture.

An exchange between a less than average INT character with above average WIS with corresponding skill proficiencies (Let's call him Garr), and a less than average WIS Character with average INT and corresponding skill proficiencies (Let's call her Allura) might look something like this.


Garr and Allura are investigating a murder scene where a noble was brutally killed in what seems to be some sort of bloody ritual.

Garr: Gendral's blood's clearly been used to draw this symbol in the ground here while it was still fresh. What in the hells does it mean though?

Allura: That symbol... Its a modified version of the symbol of Aihurn, the ancient god of murder and madness. Remember it was cultists devoted to him we dealt with at the docks last week. It looks like marks used in conjuration rituals have been drawn around it, however. This is most concerning. Why would they have been after Gendral though? We know they're specifically targeting people from the Ellusian bloodline but Lady Margaret said he has nothing to with that family...

Garr: ****, she was lying. I noticed her smirk when she was telling us about Gendral but I thought she was just looking down on him for not being as rich as she was or some noble crap like that... She knew and she was trying to throw us off the trail, but why?

Allura: The scrolls! The ones you noticed tucked away into her bookshelves that you thought looked like they had ***** drawn on them? Those were conjuration symbols! Old ones... like this. She's involved in this somehow. We've got to get out of here and try to figure out what's going on...

Garr: Yeah, that or bust in on her while she still doesn't know we know and... Wait what's that fizzing sound? ****! Get down!

Garr lunges at Allura and sends them both out of the second story window seconds before the house is engulfed in a great explosion!

At least, that's how I grock it.

[Elbeyon]

Most characters (aka npcs) do not even make int checks. All their skill usage would fall into no roll territory. The times that they do have to roll a d20 has such a wide range that -2 is unlikely to make any difference at all. It's more of a matter if they rolled well or have a high proficiency modifier. At the point were a roll is required, the result is mostly luck based rather than int based.

[Mr. Wonderful]

I enjoy playing low intelligence, reasonable wisdom characters. Folks like this "feel their way" to the right decision, usually by trusting the right people to make that decision.

They are especially fun when someone lese plays a high intelligence, poor wisdom characters. (Think of Sancho Panza and Don Quixote.)

You can have a lot of fun roleplaying your way to a good decision.

[Doug Lampert]

That still doesn't give you a bell curve, as 3d6 and (apparently) IQ tests give.

What? It gives you the same bell curve as 3d6. Because it's just a linear transformation of 3d6.

[Tanarii]

What? It gives you the same bell curve as 3d6. Because it's just a linear transformation of 3d6.Oh okay, I get you.


But ... then the transformation is wrong. Because 2% of folks don't have an IQ of 55-60, or 135-140. Of course, I assume that's a problem with one bell curve being narrower and the other broader. (Sorry I don't know the technical terms for that.) But it's pretty close.

[Elbeyon]

Anyone can get +10 Int over the course of their adventure by killing monsters. Anyone could go from an average individual to the highest non-magical int possible for most mortals.

[Cikomyr2]

Oh okay, I get you.


But ... then the transformation is wrong. Because 2% of folks don't have an IQ of 55-60, or 135-140. Of course, I assume that's a problem with one bell curve being narrower and the other broader. (Sorry I don't know the technical terms for that.) But it's pretty close.

That's overthinking it. Again. Forest Gump has an Int of 7 of 8. Pick one, use that as the benchmark, move on.

This isn't some precise brain surgery thing. We just need a media comparison to figure out how unintellecual is int X

[Damon_Tor]

That's overthinking it. Again. Forest Gump has an Int of 7 of 8. Pick one, use that as the benchmark, move on.

This isn't some precise brain surgery thing. We just need a media comparison to figure out how unintellecual is int X

Part of the problem here is because they never show Gump attempting any "Int" tasks as far as I can remember. They don't show him solving a puzzle or trying to figure out what happened from observable evidence or attempting to remember a fact about the world. If they did maybe we could calculate his % of success and deduce his int score from that, but absent that data it's simply a guess.

Humans with learning disabilities are often compared to children: "he has the intellectual development of a 4-year-old" someone might say, or "his reading is at a third-grade level". Maybe that's a more useful place to start, compared to the more abstract "IQ".

[Tanarii]

That's overthinking it. Again. Forest Gump has an Int of 7 of 8. Pick one, use that as the benchmark, move on.

Does he? What was his IQ supposed to be? I'd put him at an Int 3, or about IQ 65 by the transform given.

Certainly I wouldn't put him at an Int 7 or 8 even if we dropped the IQ comparison. Int 3 sounds about right to me by any measure.

Int 7-8 to me is a kinda dumb jock hero. Buzz Lightyear was the name I picked, but yeah any would do.

[Cikomyr2]

Does he? What was his IQ supposed to be? I'd put him at an Int 3, or about IQ 65 by the transform given.

Certainly I wouldn't put him at an Int 7 or 8 even if we dropped the IQ comparison. Int 3 sounds about right to me by any measure.

Int 7-8 to me is a kinda dumb jock hero. Buzz Lightyear was the name I picked, but yeah any would do.

Well... Forest doesn't have a mean bone in his body. If he had been mean, he could have been a dumb jock.

[Damon_Tor]

Well... Forest doesn't have a mean bone in his body. If he had been mean, he could have been a dumb jock.

I mean... MOST jocks are smart enough to be able to tell which way to run, when to run, when to stop running, and have at least a basic understanding of the rules and tactics of the game they're playing. Forest was shown to have a staggering inability to learn even as much as "stop when you get to the end of the field" So whatever your benchmark for "dumb jock" might be, Forrest is below even that.

[noob]

That's overthinking it. Again. Forest Gump has an Int of 7 of 8. Pick one, use that as the benchmark, move on.

This isn't some precise brain surgery thing. We just need a media comparison to figure out how unintellecual is int X
Even int 3 allows to read, write and talk so int 7 or 8 is smart (not as smart as an average person but still it is a lot of intelligence and would not make it a trait strong enough for you to be able to put that much emphasis hence buzz lightyear being used as an example of a character at 7 int).
So no do not use forest gump as a benchmark for int 7 since int 3 which is ridiculously lower already allows to do a lot of things no people with severe mental deficiencies are able to do.

[hamishspence]

5e is weird in that it has hiked up all the animal and vermin INTs (vermin are all now INT 1 instead of INT -, stupid animals are INT 1 or INT 2, smart animals are INT 3, very smart animals (baboons) are INT 4, super-smart animals (apes, dolphins) are INT 6) while still allowing for INT 3 humans. That said, it requires Variant Human rather than "regular" human.

If you're using both Regular Human and rolling for stats instead of using a standard array, your minimum INT is 4, not 3, so the only way to get INT 3 is to both roll for stats and use Variant human, and put your "raise 2 stats by one point each" into stats that are not INT).

Still, when you have INT 4 baboons and INT 3 humans in the game, the fact that the INT 3 humans are sapient (can read, etc) and the INT 4 baboons are not is going to be a bit weird.

Dolphins have been portrayed as sapient in past editions, and apes might be fudgeable as "the Mangani" - but baboons haven't really had "sapient" as a theme in D&D before.

But disconnecting sapience from intelligence is very counterintuitive.

[noob]

5e is weird in that it has hiked up all the animal and vermin INTs (vermin are all now INT 1 instead of INT -, stupid animals are INT 1 or INT 2, smart animals are INT 3, very smart animals (baboons) are INT 4, super-smart animals (apes, dolphins) are INT 6) while still allowing for INT 3 humans. That said, it requires Variant Human rather than "regular" human.

If you're using both Regular Human and rolling for stats instead of using a standard array, your minimum INT is 4, not 3, so the only way to get INT 3 is to both roll for stats and use Variant human, and put your "raise 2 stats by one point each" into stats that are not INT).

Still, when you have INT 4 baboons and INT 3 humans in the game, the fact that the INT 3 humans are sapient (can read, etc) and the INT 4 baboons are not is going to be a bit weird.

Dolphins have been portrayed as sapient in past editions, and apes might be fudgeable as "the Mangani" - but baboons haven't really had "sapient" as a theme in D&D before.

But disconnecting sapience from intelligence is very counterintuitive.

In older editions we also had odd things like sapient leopards(or tigers I forgot which).
It was not something for dolphins only.
5e really wanted to be "older dnd editions but with 3.5 rule heaviness injected directly for no reason at all and some added uniformity"

[Cikomyr2]

In older editions we also had odd things like sapient leopards(or tigers I forgot which).
It was not something for dolphins only.
5e really wanted to be "older dnd editions but with 3.5 rule heaviness injected directly for no reason at all and some added uniformity"

That's true. Maybe the difference between 1 int and 2 int is bigger than the difference between 6 and 8.

I remember rolling a 4 for a stat once (1,1,1,2) and realizing that the only way I could remotely role-play it appropriately was putting in Charisma and acting like the weirdest necromancer ever.

[Unoriginal]

But disconnecting sapience from intelligence is very counterintuitive.

I disagree.

To use a Star Trek example: both Lt. Commander Data and the computer of the Enterprise are amazing AIs capable of calculations and knowledge beyond the scope of most biological beings in the setting, but Data is sapient and the Enterprise computer isn't.

[Cikomyr2]

I disagree.

To use a Star Trek example: both Lt. Commander Data and the computer of the Enterprise are amazing AIs capable of calculations and knowledge beyond the scope of most biological beings in the setting, but Data is sapient and the Enterprise computer isn't.

I would tentatively argue that the Enterprise Computer has no intelligence actually. No initiative, no critical thinking capabilities. It does what the users tell it to do, and that's it.

It's the difference between the computer and, say, holograms like the EMH, Moriarty and Vic Fontaine. All of which have actual initiative and desires

[blackjack50]

I like to look at the chart like the “different types of intelligence.” Mostly from my personal experience with people (and as a teacher). Each one represents a realm of intelligence. So you don’t have to play someone who is an “idiot.” They may just not be very book smart.

I would say? Lean into one of your other categories. Your job wasn’t to be the smart one. What is it? Maybe the wizard can tell you the physics of punching in the face, but you may know how to actually do it. Or maybe you know when you are about to get luncheon and how to avoid it? Or maybe you know how to talk your way out of getting punched?

[Unoriginal]

I would tentatively argue that the Enterprise Computer has no intelligence actually. No initiative, no critical thinking capabilities. It does what the users tell it to do, and that's it.

That's a specific definition of intelligence. Given that 5e gives an INT scores even to constructs that have neither the capacity nor the desire to act unless told what to do, I think it's safe to say it doesn't use this definition.



It's the difference between the computer and, say, holograms like the EMH, Moriarty and Vic Fontaine. All of which have actual initiative and desires

The EMH, Moriarty and Vic Fontaine all have sapience, due to (respectively) being so complex, adaptable and capable of learning he developed it, being the response to when the the ship computer was asked to come up with an holodeck program capable of beating another sapient AI, and deliberate design.

[Stattick]

I had a low-int goblin. He was a shadow monk, shadow sorcerer, fey goblin from the fey wild, who was blue, and a fey cobbler, meaning he could do all kinds of magical crafting with foot ware. And he'd probably introduce himself in much the same fashion, though he'd probably mention his name was Brl, spelled B-R-L, because vowels are for girls, often pronounced Burl, but you can put whatever vowels in it you want, where ever you want, and it's still the same name. Like his mom, her name is spelled A-A-E, because constanents are for boys. And Brl talking was usually just a stream of consciousness with little rhyme or whatever, and sometimes he'd forget things or circle back to something unexpectedly, his mom's name is usually pronounced A'arie. Later, he also became a druid and found out that his father was the Goblin King, and it's kind of weird to have a dad that looks like David Bowie, but that's alright, his mom is a Dryad. The Feywyld only seems weird if you're from a boring world like Faerum or whatever it's called.

To play him, I just fastidiously took no notes, didn't pay much attention when stuff got long, complicated, or verbund. So a lot of times, it was both meta and in-character when I said, "Wait, what's going on? Who are we trying to kill?" Brl didn't know what to say, how to say it, or when to shut up. Like in the middle of one of the other players trying to persuade someone to help us or do something, I might look at the NPC and say, "I have no idea what we're doing here."

Brl liked practical jokes, bad jokes, was self deprecating, I mean, because nobody likes goblins, I mean, goblins are awful. And Brl knew damn well that he was stupid, and not terribly good with people. But there was a genuineness to him. He was usually too stupid to give anything but the unvarnished truth, especially to other party members, and once in a while he'd do something that a child like innocence or lack of sophistication.

[quindraco]

5e is weird in that it has hiked up all the animal and vermin INTs (vermin are all now INT 1 instead of INT -, stupid animals are INT 1 or INT 2, smart animals are INT 3, very smart animals (baboons) are INT 4, super-smart animals (apes, dolphins) are INT 6) while still allowing for INT 3 humans. That said, it requires Variant Human rather than "regular" human.

If you're using both Regular Human and rolling for stats instead of using a standard array, your minimum INT is 4, not 3, so the only way to get INT 3 is to both roll for stats and use Variant human, and put your "raise 2 stats by one point each" into stats that are not INT).

Still, when you have INT 4 baboons and INT 3 humans in the game, the fact that the INT 3 humans are sapient (can read, etc) and the INT 4 baboons are not is going to be a bit weird.

Dolphins have been portrayed as sapient in past editions, and apes might be fudgeable as "the Mangani" - but baboons haven't really had "sapient" as a theme in D&D before.

But disconnecting sapience from intelligence is very counterintuitive.

I've gone over monster INT a fair bit trying to homebrew rules for training pets and mounts. I can tell you with certainty that the only halfway reliable way to determine sapience in 5E is the Languages stat, not the Intelligence stat. There are still some caveats to watch out for, because Languages - is unreliable. It's absolutely possible to have a creature capable of language with Languages -; for example, a creature that relies solely on telepathy. Telepathy is in the stat block, but things can get even weirder, where a creature has no indication in its statblock it can communicate, but if you read its fluff text, it can, e.g. via sign language (there's an evil not-monkey I don't remember the name of like this) or something else (fantastic example: myconids).

The line in the Monster Manual about the definition of "Unaligned" isn't trustworthy at all - there are undeniably sapient Unaligned creatures, so you can't put any stock in the MM claiming that Unaligned implies the creature is incapable of making moral choices. Giant elk are like this, but my favorite example is awakened trees, because the whole purpose of the awaken spell is granting sapience. I generally treat such creatures as true neutral.

[Stattick]

My cat probably has a vocabulary of at least 500 english words it knows. He is very smart.

But we had a freakishly smart cat not too long ago. I once asked my roommate, "Do you know where my shoes are at?" The cat went over to them, and meowed. This was the same cat that once woke me meowing it's head off. As I got up, I realized the house was really cold, but the cat wasn't going to leave me alone, so I followed her to see what the problem was. She led me to a floor vent for the heater. I checked the thermostat. Heater should have been on. It was 40 F in the house. Yeah, heater crapped out on us in the dead of winter. So I turned the (electric) stove up to full blast, opened the door, and went back to bed. Cat calmed right down about 10 minutes later when she realized heat was coming out of the stove.

[noob]

My cat probably has a vocabulary of at least 500 english words it knows. He is very smart.

But we had a freakishly smart cat not too long ago. I once asked my roommate, "Do you know where my shoes are at?" The cat went over to them, and meowed. This was the same cat that once woke me meowing it's head off. As I got up, I realized the house was really cold, but the cat wasn't going to leave me alone, so I followed her to see what the problem was. She led me to a floor vent for the heater. I checked the thermostat. Heater should have been on. It was 40 F in the house. Yeah, heater crapped out on us in the dead of winter. So I turned the (electric) stove up to full blast, opened the door, and went back to bed. Cat calmed right down about 10 minutes later when she realized heat was coming out of the stove.

Here you are evaluating the intelligence of the cat according to its ability to communicate and understand communication which is the kind of intelligence generally associated with sapience when high enough.

[DwarfFighter]

"Playing dumb" can be fun, but I would like to add my up-vote to those that advise not sabotaging the game by doing so.

Bear in mind that even a character with Int 3 isn't massively handicapped. Sure, his Int-based save DCs will suffer, any class resources working off of his Int or Int modifier are going to suffer, though there is usually a "minimum +1" stipulation on even those. He's not barred from making Int-based attack rolls, saving throws or ability checks. He can still gain proficiency in those things too. And he can even (infrequently) beat an Int 20 genius in an opposed ability check. Then there's all the stuff you might associate with intelligence that he still gets to do. He can read, he can write, he can speak multiple languages. He can do math and plan ahead. He knows right from wrong.

It also raises the question: If you are playing dumber than you are at Int 7, are you playing smarter than you are at Int 20?

-DF

[Damon_Tor]

Here you are evaluating the intelligence of the cat according to its ability to communicate and understand communication which is the kind of intelligence generally associated with sapience when high enough.

Problem solving/memory then:

We had two pomeranians, one who was exceptionally clever and one that was a very sweet and wonderful dog of standard intelligence. The clever dog would scarf down his food so that he could try to get at the food of the other dog, so to solve this problem we began to put his food into puzzles to slow him down. These puzzles rely on spinning wooden segments that, when aligned properly, will allow access one of several compartments. The food is divided into each of these compartments so he has to access all of them before his meal is done. At first this slowed him down quite a bit: he would go back to compartments he had emptied already, or he would have trouble aligning one compartment or another. For a while, the more average dog was free to eat his meal in peace.

But within a month our dog had solved the puzzle to the point where it barely slowed him down at all. He had learned a pattern where he was able to access each compartment in turn without repeating. When we would start the puzzle in a different configuration he would correctly identify where in the pattern he should begin. Soon he would finish his meal before the other dog and so we needed a new solution.

So we got a new puzzle. Similar, but with different patterns. He had the new puzzle solved in days this time, applying what he had learned from the other puzzle to this new one. Switching between puzzles would result in him immediately identifying which puzzle he was given and which patterns were required.

We eventually moved on to a "treat ball": not really a puzzle, this was a ball with an opening that expelled several pieces of food whenever he rolled it over, so he would at least have to move it around a bunch to feed. His solution to this: he would pick up the ball, take it up the stairs, and roll it down. Then he would follow it down and eat the food as it spilled all over the stairs. One day apparently by accident he dropped it off the side of the stairs instead of rolling it down them, and when the ball hit the floor from that fall it popped open on impact. He never rolled it again, preferring to drop it to the ground and have all the food erupt in one go.

He was larger and more dominant than our more average dog, and so never had to outsmart him directly. However, my wife's sister lived with us for some time and she had larger, stronger dogs, Boston Terriers. My dog quickly figured out that he couldn't overpower them, and so when they had something like a toy he wanted he had to trick them. His favorite trick was this: he would go to the front door and bark as if someone was there. The Bostons would come running to see who was at the door, while my dog would go to where they had dropped the toy and retrieve it.