Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Search Members Calendar FAQ General Forum Guidelines Portal
  • >
  • Kismet's Gamer Gathering: A Place for Roleplayers
  • →
  • Gaming
  • →
  • Running the Game
  • →
  • How Smart Is IQ 3?
{Add Reply}
How Smart Is IQ 3?; Serious Question Seeks Serious Answer
Tweet Topic Started: Nov 14 2007, 08:19 PM (449 Views)
Fenris Wulf Nov 14 2007, 08:19 PM Post #1
Member Avatar
Ritual Partaker
Posts:
162
Group:
The Council
Member
#161
Joined:
September 25, 2007
According to D&D3.5, an intelligence score of 1 or 2 indicates animal intelligence, while all characters of human intelligence have a score of at least 3. A few monsters are given as examples, but I'm not really referring to monsters.

We all understand an intelligence score of 18. That's the Professor on Gilligan's Island. But what about 3? Is that Gilligan? Or would he be at least a 6?

The question comes up because I was thinking about my old days playing T&T, which uses a modified 3-18 scale (humans start there, but may increase past it). In that game, a 10 minimum is required to cast first level spells, and as spell levels increase, higher intelligence is needed.

There is a spell in the spellbook that can reduce a character's intelligence to 3, and as a GM in the game, I have used that spell to effectively stop spellcasters from being able to cast spells, for example when captured. There's no way to jail a character who can turn the dungeon wall into sludge or teleport right out, and "magic-damping" is fine for "good guy" jails, but it's unlikely an evil jailer would go to that much trouble when he could just blast magic ability right out of you with a few words, and leave you so befuddled you couldn't think of a way out, anyway.

My players have always been pretty cool about being blasted to IQ 3, because by the episode's end I've always allowed them to return back to normal (if they want), but it's been played a variety of ways, from "Total Moron" to "Confused, like there's a black cloud in my mind."

What would need to be considered, I suppose, is what the full range implies. Is it the full range of intelligence of all people in the world, or just the range of functional intelligence? If it's the intelligence of people all over the world, then I suppose it would mean that a 3 is basically unintelligent, and functional intelligence would start a bit higher (like about 6?). In this case, you couldn't really have a character with an intelligence of 3, because they would need to be looked after at all times, like a senile person. If it is functional intelligence, then the entire range could be used in a game, but how would such a character act? What would they understand? What would confuse them? Is this the intelligence of a child? (Which really wouldn't be considered "functional" in a roleplaying game). Or the comedy relief who always says stupid things for a laugh? Is it the intelligence of Joey on friends? Or is he even more than 3?

Opinions, ideas and perspectives needed and appreciated!
{Offline} {Profile} {Quote} ^
 
kismetrose Nov 15 2007, 09:45 AM Post #2
Member Avatar

Admin
Posts:
3,205
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 6, 2005
Quote:
 
We all understand an intelligence score of 18. That's the Professor on Gilligan's Island. But what about 3? Is that Gilligan? Or would he be at least a 6?

The PHB lists your average half-orc at Intelligence 8 - 9, I believe. I'd probably stick Gilligan somewhere around that, but the key point is that I would give him a low Wisdom, as well. It's not just that he doesn't know things but that he doesn't make wise decisions (at least as far as I recall).
Quote:
 
The question comes up because I was thinking about my old days playing T&T, which uses a modified 3-18 scale (humans start there, but may increase past it). In that game, a 10 minimum is required to cast first level spells, and as spell levels increase, higher intelligence is needed.

Same as recent D&D.
Quote:
 
Is it the full range of intelligence of all people in the world, or just the range of functional intelligence?

I'm not sure, honestly. I mean, they list a hydra as having an Intelligence of 3 and your average hydra is a pretty straightforward creature: attack, defend, eat. You don't really talk to a hydra or try to reason with it because there'd be little point. I also notice that they don't start listing humanoid creatures until farther up the Intelligence tree; they leave animalistic creatures at the bottom. This implies, at least to me, that the lower levels of Intelligence would mean much simpler creatures with limited paths of thought and limited means of communication.

An Intelligence of 3 would give a character a -4 modifier to any skill involving that trait. A -4 is steep but not the end of the world. But the -4 is the least of someone's worries, when it comes to Intelligence. I would imagine that such a character would have very limited modes of thought and tactics. This should get them into trouble, especially during combat, and will probably contribute to their downfall. They're just not quick enough to be adventurers. It should also be more difficult to keep up communication with other characters.
Quote:
 
My players have always been pretty cool about being blasted to IQ 3, because by the episode's end I've always allowed them to return back to normal (if they want), but it's been played a variety of ways, from "Total Moron" to "Confused, like there's a black cloud in my mind."

If the spell didn't last long, then my players would just be irked. If it lasted for a while, or gods forbid days, I imagine they would be downright pissed - at least as players. It would have a major affect on how they play their characters and on their options. On the other hand, if they thought about it from a practical perspective, they might see how such a spell would make sense. The thing is, if I just used that spell in jails, I'd have to have a VERY good reason that such a spell was not in common use. Think about it - an instant way to disable any damned wizard? That spell should be EVERYWHERE unless there's a very good reason, and even then, you'd see it sporadically outside of the prison system.

As it is, when the PCs in my main campaign had to take a noble prisoner, they knew they couldn't kill him because of his connections. So they cast a Polymorph spell and poof! He was a turtle. Dashing escape as a turtle? Probably not gonna happen. :D
Kismet's D&D - WoD - SG-1 - FB
{Offline} {Profile} {Quote} ^
 
Fenris Wulf Nov 15 2007, 09:57 AM Post #3
Member Avatar
Ritual Partaker
Posts:
162
Group:
The Council
Member
#161
Joined:
September 25, 2007
Thanks for the comments, Kismet. I'm at work, and very busy, so watch this space later for a reply (I'll edit this post). EDIT: Eh, never mind on the editing this post... I didn't expect this many replies, and all of them so damn good!

I did want to answer your one question, though, about why the lowered intelligence spell is not in more common use. Answer: Because if the spell fails for any reason, the Caster's Intelligence stat is reduced to 3, instead! (A harsh penalty for failure, but well deserved, considering!).

There is no Saving Throw required to cast the spell (although I've put one in and taken it out, repeatedly), so it won't fail based on a simple die roll (at least not per the rulebook), but for all the Wizard knows, there could be any number of magical wards or protections on the character that would block the spell from working.

And yes, I did allow one of my bad guys to get knocked down to Intelligence 3 that way! (Although the scene was a bit contrived... I chose to use the spell because as DM I knew that the PC was wearing a spell-blocking necklace (how do you think she got it!). But it seemed a fair and fun ending to the episode).
{Offline} {Profile} {Quote} ^
 
Lord_Iames_Osari Nov 15 2007, 02:14 PM Post #4
Member Avatar
Dabbler
Posts:
40
Group:
The Council
Member
#110
Joined:
May 7, 2007
Int 3 is the minimum needed to speak, and anything lower is considered purely animal. So I would say an Int 3 character would retain enough speech to communicate basic concepts, and would otherwise be primarily focused on their basic needs. Food, shelter, friends, sex, in roughly that order.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Monsters in the Playground
{Offline} {Profile} {Quote} ^
 
Fenris Wulf Nov 15 2007, 03:00 PM Post #5
Member Avatar
Ritual Partaker
Posts:
162
Group:
The Council
Member
#161
Joined:
September 25, 2007
Lord_Iames_Osari
Nov 15 2007, 01:14 PM
Int 3 is the minimum needed to speak, and anything lower is considered purely animal. So I would say an Int 3 character would retain enough speech to communicate basic concepts, and would otherwise be primarily focused on their basic needs. Food, shelter, friends, sex, in roughly that order.

So then a character with IQ 3 wouldn't really be a playable character then? At what level would you consider a character functional enough to be playable?

As a side note, would these "alternate minimums" apply to other stats, as well? Perhaps instead of a 3-18 range, the scale should be on a 7-18 range (2d6+6), to more accurately reflect functional humans. Scores of 6 or lower would indicate abilities hampered for some reason (for example, young or old age, or physical or mental handicap).
{Offline} {Profile} {Quote} ^
 
kismetrose Nov 15 2007, 03:46 PM Post #6
Member Avatar

Admin
Posts:
3,205
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 6, 2005
Quote:
 
As a side note, would these "alternate minimums" apply to other stats, as well? Perhaps instead of a 3-18 range, the scale should be on a 7-18 range (2d6+6), to more accurately reflect functional humans. Scores of 6 or lower would indicate abilities hampered for some reason (for example, young or old age, or physical or mental handicap).

Honestly, I've always played by such a system. Sometimes it can be fun to try a low score on a character, but most of the time it doesn't seem worth it. And most of the time, I've seen people reduce scores to very low levels during character creation so that they can put the points elsewhere. Sometimes they don't care that their character has a low rating, they just want to deal with the high rating.
Kismet's D&D - WoD - SG-1 - FB
{Offline} {Profile} {Quote} ^
 
HollowDes Nov 15 2007, 04:05 PM Post #7
Big Koala
Posts:
283
Group:
The Council
Member
#12
Joined:
August 19, 2005
This is a pretty interesting thread, and it's something that constantly comes up during my sporradic play. That is, trying to figure out how ability scores translate to reality. "What do you think Arnold Schwarzenaeger's strength is? How much dexterity does a gymnast have?"

I realize that this has become one of my biggest gripes with D&D. There are simply too many abstractions that the core books fail to explain in great enough detail to help DMs and players alike understand how those translate into reality. Everything is a mechanic that you're just supposed to accept at face value and you shrugg off the "difficult questions" because "it's just a game."

Now for "war gamers" who approach D&D like a board game, this works fine. But even then, I can recall several occasions where I'm stretching my imagination and my players' trying to describe something ridiculous that happened in combat.

If I spend enough time thinking about these awkward situations, I can eventually come up with a coherent explanation, but that doesn't exactly make for smooth play.

With many of the ranges, there is a logical "sweet spot." We can understand intelligences in the 6-18 range, but as you move to the extremes, the explanations become more outlandish and harder to accept. I guess in defense of this, it IS a fantasy world, and no one will ever be able to explain what magic "feels" like because no one in known history has cast a spell the way D&D casters do.

Enough hijacking, back to the thread...

I agree with Lord_Iames' assessment of 3 INT. If 1-2 is reserved for animals, 3 is just a notch above that.

However, this reminds me of a short story I read my freshman year of high school, think it was called "A Dangerous Game." Basically, some wacko kidnaps hunters, traps them on an island, then hunts them. The short story focuses on a specific incident of this where the wacko and the prey have a lot of dialogue. A recurring theme is the difference between human intelligence and animal intelligence. In the end, the wacko reveals that he enjoys hunting humans more than animals because humans can rationalize, animals cannot.

The other big difference between animal intelligence and human-animal intelligence (hell, I'd go as far as to say prime-animal-intelligence), is memory. Most animals don't really use cognition to remember other animals, they rely on their highly developed scent-organs. I know for a fact this is true with dogs, because my brother and I tested it on our own ;P

So, I'd argue that the intelligence scale is applied to different creatures differently. If INT 3 is the minimum to communicate, why don't hydras try to communicate? Well it's not the same. They don't have a concept of language and they probably don't have vocal cords sophisticated enough to develop a very complex language if they did. But a humanoid with INT 3 is expected to be able to communicate at a very basic level. I'd expect a great deal of random noises, squeals and whines, much like a toddler who is discovering they can make noise. Their vocabulary could probably be counted on one hand.

Then you end up getting into the interesting debate about what exactly is intelligence? People who are autistic can memorize volumes of information in seconds. College students world-wide would kill for that ability, but most would not agree that this qualifies autistic individuals as highly intelligent. Einstein was mentally retarded according to aptitude tests, yet he unraveled some of the most profound secrets of our universe.

Fenris' example is further complicated, because a creature with a natural INT of 3 is assumed to have lived a very primitive life with no exposure to formal education. But what happens when a creature with a normally high INT is suddenly stupified? Are they unable to problem solve? Does their vocabulary shrink? Do they forget how to speak? Do they lose the ability to reason? Does their behavior depend on how far they fell? If a player goes from 20 to 3 and another goes from 10 to 3, are they now peers even though one is normally twice as smart as the other?

I don't have an answer to any of these. I imagine an answer from Wizards would be something like, "It's up to the DM, the PC, and what everyone else at the table agrees to." That's a nice "safe" answer :P
Sleep...oh, how I loathe those little slices of death. - Longfellow
{Offline} {Profile} {Quote} ^
 
Fenris Wulf Nov 15 2007, 07:22 PM Post #8
Member Avatar
Ritual Partaker
Posts:
162
Group:
The Council
Member
#161
Joined:
September 25, 2007
HollowDes
Nov 15 2007, 03:05 PM
This is a pretty interesting thread, and it's something that constantly comes up during my sporradic play.  That is, trying to figure out how ability scores translate to reality.  "What do you think Arnold Schwarzenaeger's strength is?  How much dexterity does a gymnast have?" 

Damn, Hollow, take my thread and run with it! :rock: There is way too much there for me to reply off the top of my head.... I'll need to think about it before I can reply properly.

However, I do have answers for your two first questions. :lol: If Kismet disagrees with these answers, hopefully she'll let us know.

Ah-nuld's Strength in D&D3.5 terms? Well, if I could find a site that told me the maximum he's lifted, then I could tell you, because the lift chart is on page 162 of the Player's Handbook. Assuming 500 lbs, that would put him at about Strength 22.

How much Dexterity does a gymnast have? It can be any Dexterity score; it's her skill in Gymnastics/Acrobatics that is at issue. Presumably, two gymnasts with Gymnast skill of 10 each would be equally good, but the one with Dex 12 might be slightly better than one with Dex 11 (when compared to each other). But either is a far greater gymnast (by leaps and bounds!) than someone with no gymnastic skill but a Dex of 18.

HollowDes
 
The other big difference between animal intelligence and human-animal intelligence (hell, I'd go as far as to say prime-animal-intelligence), is memory. Most animals don't really use cognition to remember other animals, they rely on their highly developed scent-organs. I know for a fact this is true with dogs, because my brother and I tested it on our own ;P

HollowDes! What did you do to those poor dogs??? :blink:

Now that I've got my dumb comments out of the way, presumably everything else I have to say to the rest of your post will be intelligent. Unlikely, however. ;)
{Offline} {Profile} {Quote} ^
 
kismetrose Nov 16 2007, 03:06 PM Post #9
Member Avatar

Admin
Posts:
3,205
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 6, 2005
Quote:
 
With many of the ranges, there is a logical "sweet spot." We can understand intelligences in the 6-18 range, but as you move to the extremes, the explanations become more outlandish and harder to accept.

One of the problems that I see is that players usually want the best bonus they can squeeze out of the DM, so they'll arrange for their character to have 16s or better in the most important stats for their class. And it's difficult to blame them, really. The stats add bonuses to important stuff - attacking, saves, skills. It's normal to want to perform well without being decked out in magical gear, giving you bonuses to shore up your weak stats. Hell, if you want the full range of spells in D&D, you have to have a high enough rating in the appropriate stat. You can only cast spells if your stat equals or exceeds 10 + spell level.

So it's not always the case that players want to depict someone with an Intelligence or Wisdom of 18 - they just really want the mechanical bonuses.
Quote:
 
How much Dexterity does a gymnast have? It can be any Dexterity score; it's her skill in Gymnastics/Acrobatics that is at issue. Presumably, two gymnasts with Gymnast skill of 10 each would be equally good, but the one with Dex 12 might be slightly better than one with Dex 11 (when compared to each other). But either is a far greater gymnast (by leaps and bounds!) than someone with no gymnastic skill but a Dex of 18.

Natural ability gives you a slight edge in D&D. Let's say two gymnasts have the acrobatics skill (which doesn't exist in official D&D) at 16. But if one has a Dex of 18, their final score will be 20, which will edge out someone with a Dex of 12 (who'll have a final score of 17). This becomes more pronounced with spellcasters. A high level wizard with a middling Intelligence score (say, 14) isn't going to be able to cast spells higher than 4th level.
Kismet's D&D - WoD - SG-1 - FB
{Offline} {Profile} {Quote} ^
 
Mordien Nov 17 2007, 01:41 AM Post #10
Member Avatar
Old
Posts:
341
Group:
The Council
Member
#8
Joined:
May 26, 2005
How about if you have 18 Int and 3 Wis ?

Not much creativity or How du you see this
All warfare is based on Deception


MORDIEN
{Offline} {Profile} {Quote} ^
 
kismetrose Nov 17 2007, 04:00 AM Post #11
Member Avatar

Admin
Posts:
3,205
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 6, 2005
Mordien
Nov 17 2007, 01:41 AM
How about if you have 18 Int and 3 Wis ?

Not much creativity or How du you see this

Yeah, this is a tricky distinction to make.

I'd probably say that a person with a low Wisdom but encyclopedic knowledge would have poor impulse control. They might speak out of hand, do things before they think about their actions, or even have tantrums. They wouldn't always know what to do with their knowledge, either. They might have a great memory for facts, but when asked to create something or troubleshoot, they won't know where to begin.
Kismet's D&D - WoD - SG-1 - FB
{Offline} {Profile} {Quote} ^
 
Mordien Nov 17 2007, 10:23 AM Post #12
Member Avatar
Old
Posts:
341
Group:
The Council
Member
#8
Joined:
May 26, 2005
Maybe somthing like Dustin hoffman i Rainman very high Iq but not able to use it
All warfare is based on Deception


MORDIEN
{Offline} {Profile} {Quote} ^
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Running the Game · Next Topic »
{Add Reply}

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 1:25 AM Jul 11
Scroll and Ink theme created by Canimia of Zathyus Networks Resources
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy