My DM loves to troll us when ever we have to deal with animals or anybody with an int score of below 10. We hardly ever use talk to animals spells, and always have to resort to buffing NPCs with low int score to try to get them to a reasonable level, because they wont remember, or can't count pass 5, or don't know what colors are, even if they are suppose to actually know a language, or might not know what shapes are, or cant tell if your not the person you say they are since they out right believe everything you say, or if you are the person you say you are, don't believe a word you say. Skill checks have no effect on people this "special".
Maybe he is right for doing so, but seeing how he is laughing the entire time while playing the dumb character, you get the feeling he just enjoy annoying the players.
Is there an actual base line int chart.
I ask this because I know when I give my ape an int score of 3, the ape is going to go from very well trained animal, so $%^# all stupid and will waste turns picking his butt, "from previous experience from NPC characters."
Ok, my dog which technically has an int of 2 did the following on a hot day at the start of summer.
My sister brought up the large air conditioner and started trying to install it herself, taking hours.
The dog repeatedly got my attention and insisted that i walk to the air conditioning unit, looking up at me pleadingly.
This means she remembers
1) What the air conditioner does after not seeing it for 6 months
2) That I'm the one that can make it work.
They're not stupid...
Not to mention that speak to animals should handle some of that stuff. Being magical and all.
The moment people explained to him what int score meant he started giggling like crazy, and it has been down hill from there. Basically, his interpretation of speak to animals is like that dog from the begginstripps commercials, where they will repeat the same word to you over and over again. Makes you wounder why druids even care so much. You wounder how wolves or other predators hunt since they all share the same int score.
I'm not going to try to talk about the works of Dickens with my ape, but I know that my ape will probably act dumb then if he was just a dumb animal.
Are we in combat? Your ape builds a sand castle. "I look over to the other ranger's animal companion, what is he doing?" Its ripping peoples' faces off. "sigh..."
Anything on the level of complete mental retardation (and by complete I mean to the point you cannot function in society) would at best be below 3. The reason being is that 3 Intelligence, since 3E was created, has been the minimum Intelligence for humanoids who can function in society. This includes (but is not limited to) speaking and reading a language and making moral decisions (being able to tell right from wrong, pick up on traditions and laws, etc).
The game is not set to handle mental retardation on a scale of being incapable of functioning. If you were to tie it solely to Intelligence, it would probably be 1, since even animals are able to function socially and even exhibit cunning, teamwork, and problem solving capabilities. However, the handicap that is being described would probably best be described as an Int 1, Wis 1, Cha 1, since they exhibit little in the way of cognitive or influence either. If they cannot understand what colors and shapes are, they are not really smart enough to live (in the sense that there is no way they could take care of themselves, feed themselves, or tend to basic life needs without assistance).
There is no hard and fast method for determining how dumb you are, but when people are acting less intelligent than animals then you have a big problem. Likewise, it's good to remember that characters with a 3 Int not only exist in the game but can actually function perfectly fine in society (a character with a 3 Int and 17 Wisdom for example will actually excel at most professions, but would suck at crafts, etc). They can read, write, might even be pretty charismatic, hold down a stable and lucrative job, go to church and make moral decisions; realize stealing is wrong because it hurts others, etc.
That is how it has been since 3E came out. 3 Int is the lowest that you can have and have a functional human being capable of adventuring. A character who is lacking greatly in Int, Wis, and Cha might be classified as mentally retarded in many ways, since they likely cannot hold down a job of any sort, art socially awkward, and have trouble dealing with creative or contemplative things.
However, no a 3 Int is in fact not so horrendously stupid as your GM is making out, so if they have anything between a 3 and a 10, your GM is just being a fool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Elthbert's right, INT x 10 = IQ is the only guideline that really has existed. There's a few problems with this, though.
IQ is not a measure of your knowledge. An IQ test is designed to test how you analyze problems, ignore unnecessary info, put the right pieces together. In essence, to think critically. And how fast you do it. I have a friend who is incredibly educated, yet speaks slowly and gets stuck on his thoughts all the time. He would have a low IQ as per the test, yet a high intelligence in the game.
IQ does not allow for savants. I have a cousin who is intellectually disabled (that's the new mental retardation as per law- go ahead and change your lingo), yet he reads books in a fraction of the time most do. I've also met a fella who was also mentally handicap, but he could tell you how many matches are in a box of matches by turning the box upside down onto the floor. Before they hit the floor.
Intelligence can be a 20 at first level based on 18 max and +2 racial. A 200 IQ is commonly argued upon. While there are those in today's world that have been "verified" as having that high (I think an Asian physicist has like a 210 is the highest recorded, but I might be wrong), the fact of the matter is there is simply too small a pool of evidence. Anything over 130, and you're already down to 2% of the population to look at. Every point you go up is dropping it more. Because of this, even those who have taken the test and been verified are still the subject of debate among psychologists. And this is before you get magic items and buffs and crap out the ying yang and have a wizard running around with 40 INT or some crap. There would literally not be an IQ scale for it, and if you just said something like, "Well, he's got an IQ of 400," assuming that sort of intelligence doesn't cripple him, he would literally know everything that would happen everywhere. Omniscient. Due to pure logical reasoning.
The above point wraps this up in the best way: IQ shouldn't be tied to intelligence for a simple reason: characters can get intelligence much higher than humanly possible - or even less than that, they can get it too high for the player to control. If a player with an IQ of 120 (exceptionally smart) is playing a wizard with an IQ of 180, he literally cannot perceive the world in the same way and the character is almost unplayable, in terms of consistency.
As far as your situation goes, I would just remember that there are more stats involved in a character's mental abilities than intelligence. Wisdom does a lot for a character or companion. And being trained a trick, such as attacking anything you're attacking, is probably a wisdom thing, not intelligence.
|
let your DM have his fun? Is him joking around with overly stupid NPC's really impacting on your game that much? Being a DM is often a thankless time and can get boring fast for the DM.
He may be taking the INT thing a bit to far but he is obviously having fun with it and if he isn't hurting your game play that much why stop him? You have perfectly good spells your group continues to ignore despite the fact you guys know they will override the problem instantly.
Lets be honest.. dnd/pathfinder is in no way even close to a real world environment. The DM has to make decisions based on what he thinks will help his game and make it fun for all, including him self. Cut him some slack, but at the same time if it bothers you THAT much try talking to him.
What I find to be a better gauge is 100+ 10*Int mod. Or 5 per point above 10. So a 10 would be a 100, a 13 would be 115, and 18 would be 140. Making 18 the approximate cutoff for genius level intelligence, which jibes with my concept of int as an ability score.