Hi,
You know I never used to dump INT in DND or PF. That was largely because I'd played tabletop with groups that used 25 pt buy or even Total Mod +8 (only one negative) arrange as you like.
In the last few months I have joined 6 pbp's and am finding the 20point buys brutal for fighters and clerics. Mathmatically it seems more advantagess to dump INT to 7 and play a human with favored point going to skills. Still get 3sp. and frees points for Str or wis.
Click on the Avatar to see what mean. (This build is a twf going for Eldritch Heritage Orc Bloodline: +6 to Str, Touch of Rage (usable on self with Quicken SLA).
So with an INT this low, do you think a char that 'dumb' would talk like Thog. I prefer to think more along the lines of Caramon, talk normal but a slow thinker.
|
So with an INT this low, do you think a char that 'dumb' would talk like Thog. I prefer to think more along the lines of Caramon, talk normal but a slow thinker.
That is how I prefer to see it too. Your character would not catch on to ideas as quickly and may come to wrong conclusions at times. if you view it like (INTx10=IQ), then 7 is just slow. It not a severe mental disability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are so many ways to estimate intelligence from attribute scores, ranging from comparison of bonus or penalty to statistical analysis using things like standard deviations...
The straightforward way to do it is to say that if 10 is average, then a 7 is 30% below average. That means if a 10 is a "C" student, a 7 is an "F" student, but not a low grade moron, just someone who has trouble scraping together enough credits to advance year to year in school.
With a decent wisdom such a character could easily be played as not very bright, but canny, like a street tough.
But there's really no "right" answer. I would say a "Thog" (from the Linear Guild, I assume) character would be more like a 5 or even a 4 int.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a movie reference, think Rocky Balboa.
They are just more straight forward then most characters and don't hold knowledge as well as other characters. Well that's how I play 7 int characters.
One thing that worked for me last time I rolled low Int was:
(3.5 ed, archery based fighter. had 8 Int, 14 Wis)
his thought process was basically "I'm good at filling things full of arrows. But that's not always the best thing to do (wis). I wonder if I should be attacking (int)? Hmm, this guy used to be an officer in the military, and he always has the right tool for the job. He must be pretty smart, I'll wait and see what he does (Wis)."
"this guy" was a maneuver-based Rogue with several bags of holding full of just about every mundane item in the books. And the player is one of the most brilliant diabolical geniuses I know.
If you view it like (INTx10=IQ), then 7 is just slow. It not a severe mental disability.
70 IQ would be right on the borderline of Borderline Intellectual Functioning and Mild Mental Retardation (according to wikipedia at least, I am no expert).
The example from movies I think would best exemplify this would be Forest Gump.
Here is the description the wikipedia entry gives... and remember you are on the low end of this:
Persons who fall into this categorization have a relatively normal expression of affect for their age, though their ability to think abstractly is rather limited. Reasoning displays a preference for concrete thinking. They are usually able to function day to day without assistance, including holding down a simple job and the basic responsibilities of maintaining a dwelling.
That's why 7 int does not equal an IQ of 70. That's people confusing scaling.
Playing an int 7 character as in IQ of 70 is as reasonable an interpretation as any other. Saying it "does not equal an IQ of 70" is no more supportable than saying that it does. As I said a few posts above, there are multiple completing means of interpreting int attribute scores, and it's not likely that everyone is going to agree on the "right" one, because there is no "right" one.
That's why 7 int does not equal an IQ of 70. That's people confusing scaling.Playing an int 7 character as in IQ of 70 is as reasonable an interpretation as any other. Saying it "does not equal an IQ of 70" is no more supportable than saying that it does. As I said a few posts above, there are multiple completing means of interpreting int attribute scores, and it's not likely that everyone is going to agree on the "right" one, because there is no "right" one.
Agreed.
As a GM, I would just be happy if the player came up with an interpretation that took the low Int into account and called things good. I am not going to get after him unless he starts consistently acting smart.
|
Well I can see why people say 7 int = an IQ of 70. It's because they both have a 7 in them. It's a fallacy to assume they're equal to each other, however. Keeping in mind that we don't know the exact scale, we can look at percentages. A scholar trained in Knowledge (History) with a 7 intellect knows on average 10% less than a scholar with a 10 intellect. 10% of the time, assuming equal rolls, one scholar has retained his stuff while the other has not. So my interpretation is it's a factor of 10%, or an IQ of approximately 90 for a 6-7 int.
That's just my opinion though.
Well I can see why people say 7 int = an IQ of 70. It's because they both have a 7 in them. It's a fallacy to assume they're equal to each other, however. Keeping in mind that we don't know the exact scale, we can look at percentages. A scholar trained in Knowledge (History) with a 7 intellect knows on average 10% less than a scholar with a 10 intellect. 10% of the time, assuming equal rolls, one scholar has retained his stuff while the other has not. So my interpretation is it's a factor of 10%, or an IQ of approximately 90 for a 6-7 int.
That's just my opinion though.
Yes this is another way to interpret intelligence. This way doesn't take into account that the difference in intelligence of the 7 vs 10 int score is bigger than the single knowledge skill being addressed. The 10 int character has MORE knowledge skills to invest in as well, which is a sort of "force multiplier" for intelligence since it means the 10 int character is not only a little smarter in one area (the difference of 10%) but is a LOT smarter in another area since the 10 int dude has more skills they can invest in, and therefore exploit the class bonus of 3 additional skill points from investing just the one point.
But as I said, nobody is ever going to agree on this... I agree that just seeing a character actually play their 7 int character as something less than a tactical and riddle solving genius would usually make my day as a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just play him the way you think he should be played. One thing that a higher Intelligence gives you is skill points. Your character just isn't as skilled. And that's fine. It will come out during the game. I know some people who speak well but are some of the dumbest people I've ever met. Intelligence is hard to quantify. The only real thing that we have in Pathfinder is the number of skill points to measure it by. It's not much, but it is something to consider.
Over the years, I never liked hearing the (IQ = intelligence * 10) theory, but I didn't know enough to disprove it, aside from the fact that wizards at later levels have such a high Int that their psyche would shatter from sheer thinking.
I've taken a number of psychology college classes (currently finished with that part of my major, though I'm still a junior), and I realized I could come up with an explanation of sorts, a scale to fit.
Not too long after my research into this, I found this: http://simantics.blogspot.com/2011/01/d-and-iq.html
It's accurate but not comprehensive - he only covers a few styles of stat generation. But it does apply, and is a much better way of tackling the IQ issue than simple multiplication.
It was outright stated in one of the earlier editions of the game that INT x 10 was the character's IQ. I can't remember the specific place, and it has been a while. I don't think that's an accurate way to do it, however.
Blankbeard talks about a better method, and that's probably what you'd want to go with if you're trying to determine your character's IQ in order to compare it to real-world examples:
For 3d6, the mean value is 10.5 and the SD is 2.96. So, subtract 10.5 from your INT score, then divide by 2.96 to get your INT Z score. To apply the IQ scale to it, multiply your Z score by 15 and then add 100.
Under that system, the IQ of someone with INT 7 is 82 - they won't be winning any nobel prizes, and probably won't get into college, but they can certainly dress and feed themselves like everybody else.
Over the years, I never liked hearing the (IQ = intelligence * 10) theory, but I didn't know enough to disprove it, aside from the fact that wizards at later levels have such a high Int that their psyche would shatter from sheer thinking.
I've taken a number of psychology college classes (currently finished with that part of my major, though I'm still a junior), and I realized I could come up with an explanation of sorts, a scale to fit.
Not too long after my research into this, I found this: http://simantics.blogspot.com/2011/01/d-and-iq.html
It's accurate but not comprehensive - he only covers a few styles of stat generation. But it does apply, and is a much better way of tackling the IQ issue than simple multiplication.
Yes, it's yet another way to approach the same problem. But it is no more "accurate" than any other, because the relative power of different int scores in PF is no more defined than IQ itself. There is no agreed upon method of measuring human intelligence in the real world. People who think IQ does that are fooling themselves. So what you have is an undefined game mechanic being compared to a hotly debated real world technique that nobody agrees actually measures what it is supposed to measure.
This is very, very much like the age old arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There is no basis for the argument to be adjudicated. There is no agreement on what int in the game measures and no agreement on whether IQ is a valid measurement for human intelligence in the real world. It's about as pointless an endeavor as you could possibly conceive of.
Play the dude like he's not very smart, but not like he's a literal idiot. That's the best advice you're going to get.
Yes, it's yet another way to approach the same problem. But it is no more "accurate" than any other, both because the relative power of different int scores in PF is no more defined than IQ itself. There is no agreed upon method of measuring human intelligence in the real world. People who think IQ does that are fooling themselves. So what you have is an undefined game mechanic being compared to a hotly debated real world technique that nobody agrees actually measures what it is supposed to measure.
That's just arguing that IQ is a bad measure of intelligence, not that the conversion method is inaccurate. I've found that the majority of the people who take major exception to IQ as a measure are people outside the fields of psychology/psychiatry.
Look at it this way - IQ, as a measure, correlates highly and significantly with various agreed-upon measures we'd expect to see in people who are intelligent. If that's not clear: when you check the measure of IQ against measures of accomplishment in areas the majority of people agree are related to the intellect, they tend to move in similar directions. While that may not mean IQ is the perfect measure of a person's intellect, the statistics support that it certainly correlates very strongly with whatever measure might ever be found to do so.
And yes, IQ is a fairly well agreed-upon method, contrary to what you've said. Doesn't mean everyone, without exception, agrees with it, but it's not fringe science... which is why everyone knows what it is.
And yes, IQ is a fairly well agreed-upon method, contrary to what you've said. Doesn't mean everyone, without exception, agrees with it, but it's not fringe science... which is why everyone knows what it is.
Only within a very narrow academic area. Take those results and apply them to scores and see what sort of cultural, gender or racial differences you get and watch the fur fly.
IQ is not even well defined. IQ tests are routinely challenged for having cultural, racial or language bias. People taking two different IQ tests from two different sources can score well outside a standard deviation on them.
OK, I'm done with this, as I said it's as pointless as arguing about angels on a pin head. The best advice remains "play him as not very smart, but not a literal idiot."
All the rest is just arguing.
Intelligence encompasses a bunch of different things that, while they might be more or less tightly correlated with each other, aren't absolutely shackled together. How many real adults (or heck, even kids) do you know that talk like Thog/Cookie Monster? Probably close to none, and that sort of speech is more likely to be the result of some sort of specific communication disorder than simple lack of intelligence. A very unintelligent human with even average-ish wisdom and charisma scores is probably difficult to immediately identify, unless the conversation is decidedly academic in nature.
The OP's character is really dim, but note that assuming that positives and negatives scale at the same rate, his Strength, Dexterity and Charisma all are more worthy of attention than his intelligence. A character with those stats might be something like the "popular jock" stock character type (as a hero, more likely to resemble the Golden Boy version of the type than the Bully version) - he might have trouble focusing on intellectual things, and he might sometimes say stupid stuff, and he probably doesn't get the joke some of the time, but why should he care? He's good at what he's good at and he's able to take out the bad guy and get the love interest. Just as a character might have low strength because they have very little motivation or incentive to apply their strength and thus improve it, a character with low intelligence might simply be one who - in addition to not being particularly gifted to begin with - has always been able to get away with not thinking particularly hard or paying much attention to boring book-learning nonsense.
Only within a very narrow academic area. Take those results and apply them to scores and see what sort of cultural, gender or racial differences you get and watch the fur fly.
It has never been particularly difficult to standardize IQ around any given demographic - look at how the number is generated (the numeric scale is arbitrary, and is related to the individual's Z score as related to the demographic mean). Certainly there are political concerns related to the idea that we need to consider everyone equal, but that is, as I said, a political concern not a legitimate fact. Surely you see how ironic it is to accept that there is variation within a population, but to hold fast to the idea that there is no variation between populations.
IQ is not even well defined. IQ tests are routinely challenged for having cultural, racial or language bias. People taking two different IQ tests from two different sources can score well outside a standard deviation on them.
Challenged on a political level, certainly. Likewise, nobody will consider the outcome on a test to be legitimate if the testee doesn't speak the language. There also aren't 90 different accepted IQ tests.. for the most part all you'll ever run into is WAIS.
OK, I'm done with this, as I said it's as pointless as arguing about angels on a pin head.
Oh, in this case I agree - something about playing chess with a pigeon, I suspect.
this
i have no more to say.
Intelligence encompasses a bunch of different things that, while they might be more or less tightly correlated with each other, aren't absolutely shackled together. How many real adults (or heck, even kids) do you know that talk like Thog/Cookie Monster? Probably close to none, and that sort of speech is more likely to be the result of some sort of specific communication disorder than simple lack of intelligence. A very unintelligent human with even average-ish wisdom and charisma scores is probably difficult to immediately identify, unless the conversation is decidedly academic in nature.
The OP's character is really dim, but note that assuming that positives and negatives scale at the same rate, his Strength, Dexterity and Charisma all are more worthy of attention than his intelligence. A character with those stats might be something like the "popular jock" stock character type (as a hero, more likely to resemble the Golden Boy version of the type than the Bully version) - he might have trouble focusing on intellectual things, and he might sometimes say stupid stuff, and he probably doesn't get the joke some of the time, but why should he care? He's good at what he's good at and he's able to take out the bad guy and get the love interest. Just as a character might have low strength because they have very little motivation or incentive to apply their strength and thus improve it, a character with low intelligence might simply be one who - in addition to not being particularly gifted to begin with - has always been able to get away with not thinking particularly hard or paying much attention to boring book-learning nonsense.
This is basically what i was thinking.
It was outright stated in one of the earlier editions of the the game.
Gygax's Player's Handbook second edition. AD&D.
I think. In the stat descriptions.That version of the game capped Int at 18 for humans. And put an upper limit of like 25 as a maximum on stats I think. So the X*10 model wasn't as out of whack as today's unlimited model.
Usually when I find myself with such stats (damn DM that still wants to roll 4d6 drop lowest :-) )
I have a look at humanoid monsters in the bestiary with similar int and try to figure how "smart" they are... good references are:
orcs, trolls, ogres, ...
They won't use brilliant strategy (lines of infantry and archery or protecting that shaman from being overrun), but they are smart enough to know what flanking is. They would live in crude dwellings but nothing elaborate or something one would consider architectural. They wouldn't know the importance of hygiene (smell, fleas, illness, etc), but they would figure out that leftover food in their dwelling will attract unwanted visitors. However using traps will not occur to them unless taught (Kobolds are the traps specialist and have an int of 10)
For practicality they will favor big clubs to fine weapons and mostly favor brute strength over finesse and agility.
Well, thats my pov... :-)
Well I can see why people say 7 int = an IQ of 70. It's because they both have a 7 in them. It's a fallacy to assume they're equal to each other, however.
Its a bit more than both having a 7.
The average person has an iq of 100, and the "average" intelligence is 10. So the formula definitely works there. 200 is about where IQ tops out, and thats the maximum starting intelligence of a human, so it works there.
Its not solid proof, but it does make for an ok guideline.
He's gump, he's gump, whats in his head.
He's gump, he's gump, he's gump, he kills undead...
Small piece of data that often get's overlooked,
An average is not a median. It's an average.
For example, if you have 10 IQ scores, and they are 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, then your average IQ is 10. Even though you have more IQ's on the high end than the low end. By the same token, you can have 4, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 24 and the average is 10.
The point being, people keep imagining a bell curve when they talk about 10 being the 'average' but it doesn't have to be a symmetrical bell curve. Most of the time, it's not, especially in D&D. Here's the reason...
Even looking at the maximum of 20 starting out (18 + 2 racial), it's not a bell curve. It's because the minimum int is not 0, but 3. That means it's already a skewed bell curve.
The absolute minimum intelligence a character can have and still be sentient is 3. That's someone who's barely sentient (animals are 2). So if we equate that to say, 20 IQ (profound mental retardation, can't care for themselves, but sentient) and 100 IQ being average, then we get the following :
Range of IQ from Minimum IQ to average : 80 pts
Range of Int from Minimum to average : 7 pts
80/7 = 11.42
So an Int 7 is about 34 pts below average, or 66 IQ, yeah, Forest Gump is a good example.
The scale above the IQ zone is different for Int, the maximum is about 200IQ, so it works at 10 per point.
The issue comes from making 3 the minimum but 20 the max. We're having to map a skewed bell curve (3 to 20) against a standard bell curve (IQ is designed to be a strict symmetrical bell curve from 0 to 200 with 100 being average, and each standard deviation being 15 IQ points).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a number of low-INT characters over the years, and the way I play the character depends on the other mental stats, the character's role, and the campaign's requirements.
I've had a low-INT cleric who was just very simple (but filled with wisdom in the simplicity). He talked more like Lenny from Of Mice And Men, or like a cartoon oaf from old Warner Brothers cartoons ("I will call him George and love him and squeeze him...") but was always friendly, dedicated, and deceptively hard to fool.
I presently have a low-INT, low-WIS, high-CHA aberrant sorcerer who is just plain nuts. His speech shows no impediment, he has fantastic explanations for whatever happens around him, he sounds like a visionary... but in truth he's got no idea what's going on. His style is bombastic, like a cult leader, but is filled with odd quirks and leaps of illogic.
So there are plenty of ways to demonstrate low intelligence without being Thog. Consider Titus Pullo from Rome, for example. He's no great thinker, but cunning and charismatic in his own way. He's another low-INT character.
Exact method for determining IQ to Int aside, I think if you just play the character like most of the people here have suggested, your DM will be just fine with it. You do, after all, have stat penalties to help the character be more "realistic".
I would personally play such a character that is capable of dealing with what is immediately in front of him, but lacks the memory and logic skills needed to comprehend the bigger picture. If the wisdom is decent, he understands this limitation, and will follow orders given by a more qualified party member; otherwise, he will generally charge into any situation, going with the first obvious solution, and likely get himself into a lot of trouble because of it.
As many concepts of 3.+ ed were inspired by Ars Magica (great system btw) I sometime look to it for my own inspiration. In it the normal human range along the bell curve is -3 to +3 with -5 to +5 representing the extreme outliers. As in you have to get a extra flaws or merits to be allowed to buy that high or low.
Anywho! I see is something like this.
-5 (0-1) Subhuman (Animal Intelligence, physical invalid, etc.)
-4 (2-3) Abysmal (Severely physically or mentally handicapped.)
-3 (4-5) Feeble (Lowest end of what is typically seen in humans.)
-2 (6-7) Poor (Noticeably below average but still functional.)
-1 (8-9) Low Average (A little bit slower, more frail, etc but nothing major.)
0 (10-11) Average (Totally average. Not noteworthy. Just some guy.)
+1 (12-13) High Average (Slightly brighter, stronger, etc but nothing major.)
+2 (14-15) Good (Noticeably above average but nothing too extreme.)
+3 (16-17) Exceptional (Highest end of what is typically seen in humans.)
+4 (18-19) Outstanding (Olympic athlete, quantum physicist, etc.)
+5 (20-21) Mythic (The absolute limits of human potential.)
So at a 7 Int you'd be a bit on the stupid side but not mentally retarded or a complete dunce or anything. If you apply yourself you could pass high school classes with a solid D average.
Yes, it's yet another way to approach the same problem. But it is no more "accurate" than any other, because the relative power of different int scores in PF is no more defined than IQ itself. There is no agreed upon method of measuring human intelligence in the real world. People who think IQ does that are fooling themselves. So what you have is an undefined game mechanic being compared to a hotly debated real world technique that nobody agrees actually measures what it is supposed to measure.
This is very, very much like the age old arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There is no basis for the argument to be adjudicated. There is no agreement on what int in the game measures and no agreement on whether IQ is a valid measurement for human intelligence in the real world. It's about as pointless an endeavor as you could possibly conceive of.
Play the dude like he's not very smart, but not like he's a literal idiot. That's the best advice you're going to get.
I am not too sure you know what you're talking about. I don't want to come across as offensive here, and I know that statement sounds like it, but honestly, IQ as a measurement is pretty well received, especially with the WIAS. It is not a comprehensive test of intelligence - there are much more specific tests for things like that, but it is a good measure of IQ (which -has- been defined properly by psychologists).
IQ and the tests to determine it aren't perfect, and probably never will be (there's even measurements of tests to denote validity), but it is relatively accurate in terms of correlation to mental abilities.
Again, I am not trying to attack you, I just don't want you to be misinformed on something and furthering that misinformation with posts like these. It's not overly important to D&D.PF, but this specific debate on Int -> IQ is pretty relevant.
|
|
In game you only need an int of 3 to function perfectly well as a character.
The issues come with point buy and what people see as a suitable penalty for having a dump stat and an extra 4 points to spend. This is dependent upon opinion.
In game it represents -2 on certain skills, never being able to multiclass as a wizard, alchemist or witch and having fewer skills. As far as the game goes they are the only penalties you have to deal with.
The rest is up to you and your group. If the GM wants you to act like creatures of a similar int, you fit exactly with an orc warrior. However, you would also fit exactly with an orc adept if it used the divine caster stat array. You are cleverer than an ogre, but not as intelligent as a gnoll.
In games terms Int represents "How well your character learns and reasons."
If you have a class skill bonus in a knowledge and take a point in it you will still have a +2 bonus, so you will know as much as someone with an average intelligence who is at least 2nd level and focused their learning.
It really comes back to you, your gm and what you feel those 4 points of stat buy are worth...
@Glendwyr Sounds about right. Fits nicely with the 82 VoodooMike calculated. :)
IQ and the tests to determine it aren't perfect, and probably never will be (there's even measurements of tests to denote validity), but it is relatively accurate in terms of correlation to mental abilities.Again, I am not trying to attack you, I just don't want you to be misinformed on something and furthering that misinformation with posts like these. It's not overly important to D&D.PF, but this specific debate on Int -> IQ is pretty relevant.
Look, I'm not saying that IQ tests are worthless. I'm saying that IQ tests are not accurate enough to use as a standard to map an undefined scale in a game to.
IQ results have been shown to have a strong correlation to many success in life measures including income, education and even health. So yes, IQ tests have merit.
But when you can take three different IQ tests and score a spread of fifteen points between them, and that's considered acceptable, don't pretend to tell me they are accurate. They are a reasonable approximation of ability and the best thing we have to do it, but they lack precision. And when you are trying to do some sort of conversion of metrics, precision is necessary.
So you have an undefined scale on one side (the game mechanic) and an imprecise scale on the other. Trying to map one to the other is a waste of time.
As this thread has clearly demonstrated.
can do attitude
I'll agree to disagree.
IQ is quantified in a realistic and mostly accurate way. And it is a very specific thing: a lot of people have a hyped up version of IQ, because of a lack of in-depth information about it, but for what it is accepted as in the psychological community, the true intent of it is perfectly fine. Even a ruler is only so accurate.
And there's a reason why the WAIS is commonly accepted - it is simply well put together.
And all of the stats in almost any game are imprecise, yet the designers themselves assign characteristics to each one. It's not a bad thing to try to make correlations between the two, because the scores are broad representatives of certain aspects of a person.
It's really no different from Strength marking carrying load. Ever seen people who focus on one group of muscles a bit too much, like this? What would be his Strength score? I'd say pretty high. But those biceps are only going to do so much in terms of carrying a backpack full of stuff (we're speaking relative here, naturally) - but we don't have a specific score to put on that. And wouldn't you say a guy like that probably has a higher Lift capacity? Probably. But the game is only designed with so much thought in mind, and it's intentional.
If the stat scores -weren't- imprecise, then we would see all sorts of problems popping up in places.
-wrote some good stuff-
If the stat scores -weren't- imprecise, then we would see all sorts of problems popping up in places.
I don't think you get what I'm saying. But that's fine. Both the int score and the IQ score are means of attempting to apply some measurable value to intelligence. IQ at least has some scientific rigor behind it, but still lacks precision. But the int score lacks definition. It literally can mean anything the reader wants it to.. Unless int is defined in some meaningful way, then mapping it into anything, much less an imprecise thing, is pointless. Even if you come up with some number it still won't mean anything. It'll just be another number people will argue over.
You know? I changed my mind. Forget all that stuff about undefined and imprecise...
You guys are fighting the good fight. I should be rooting for you. I am perfectly fine with mapping a 7 int into an 83 IQ, it's as good a number as any. Let's do it.
Now, when someone has a 7 int and their character is a riddle-solving tactical genius, will the GM be able to say "Waitaminute... you've got an IQ of 83! You can't do that!"
I'm behind you all the way dudes!
There is a school of thought that says there are 9 different forms of intelligence. All can be represented with the current system. It's called The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.
First, the forms:
1) Logical-mathematical: This area has to do with logic, abstractions, reasoning and numbers. While it is often assumed that those with this intelligence naturally excel in mathematics, chess, computer programming and other logical or numerical activities, a more accurate definition places less emphasis on traditional mathematical ability and more on reasoning capabilities, recognizing abstract patterns, scientific thinking and investigation and the ability to perform complex calculations. Logical reasoning is closely linked to fluid intelligence and to general ability
2) Spatial: This area deals with spatial judgment and the ability to visualize with the mind's eye. Careers which suit those with this type of intelligence include artists, designers and architects. A spatial person is also good with puzzles. Spatial ability is one of the three factors beneath g in the hierarchical model of intelligence.
3) Linguistic: This area has to do with words, spoken or written. People with high verbal-linguistic intelligence display a facility with words and languages. They are typically good at reading, writing, telling stories and memorizing words along with dates. They tend to learn best by reading, taking notes, listening to lectures, and by discussing and debating about what they have learned. Those with verbal-linguistic intelligence learn foreign languages very easily as they have high verbal memory and recall, and an ability to understand and manipulate syntax and structure. Verbal ability is one of the most g-loaded abilities.
4) Bodily-kinesthetic: The core elements of the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence are control of one's bodily motions and the capacity to handle objects skilfully (206). Gardner elaborates to say that this intelligence also includes a sense of timing, a clear sense of the goal of a physical action, along with the ability to train responses so they become like reflexes. In theory, people who have bodily-kinesthetic intelligence should learn better by involving muscular movement (e.g. getting up and moving around into the learning experience), and are generally good at physical activities such as sports or dance. They may enjoy acting or performing, and in general they are good at building and making things. They often learn best by doing something physically, rather than by reading or hearing about it. Those with strong bodily-kinesthetic intelligence seem to use what might be termed "muscle memory," drawing on it to supplement or in extreme cases even substitute for other skills such as verbal memory.
5) Musical: This area has to do with sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, and music. People with a high musical intelligence normally have good pitch and may even have absolute pitch, and are able to sing, play musical instruments, and compose music. Since there is a strong auditory component to this intelligence, those who are strongest in it may learn best via lecture. Language skills are typically highly developed in those whose base intelligence is musical. In addition, they will sometimes use songs or rhythms to learn. They have sensitivity to rhythm, pitch, meter, tone, melody or timbre.
6) Interpersonal: This area has to do with interaction with others. In theory, people who have a high interpersonal intelligence tend to be extroverts, characterized by their sensitivity to others' moods, feelings, temperaments and motivations, and their ability to cooperate in order to work as part of a group. They communicate effectively and empathize easily with others, and may be either leaders or followers. They typically learn best by working with others and often enjoy discussion and debate.
7) Intrapersonal: This area has to do with introspective and self-reflective capacities. This refers to having a deep understanding of the self; what your strengths/ weaknesses are, what makes you unique, being able to predict your own reactions/emotions. Philosophical and critical thinking is common with this intelligence.
8) Naturalistic: This area has to do with nurturing and relating information to one’s natural surroundings. Examples include classifying natural forms such as animal and plant species and rocks and mountain types; and the applied knowledge of nature in farming, mining, etc.
9) Existential: Some proponents of multiple intelligence theory proposed spiritual or religious intelligence as a possible additional type. Gardner did not want to commit to a spiritual intelligence, but suggested that an "existential" intelligence may be a useful construct. The hypothesis of an existential intelligence has been further explored by educational researchers. Ability to contemplate phenomena or questions beyond sensory data, such as the infinite and infinitesimal.
What does all this mean? Let's take each skill and place it where it should go:
Acrobatics: 4
Appraise: 8
Bluff: 6, 7
Climb: 4, 8
Craft: 1, 2, 8
Diplomacy: 6, 7
Disable Device: 1, 2
Disguise: 3, 6, 7
Escape Artist: 4
Fly: 4, 9
Handle Animal: 8
Intimidate: 6, 7
Knowledge: 8, 9
Linguistics: 3
Perception: 2, 8, 9
Perform: 2, 4, 5, 6
Profession: Any appropriate
Ride: 8
Sense Motive: 6
Sleight of Hand: 3, 4, 6
Spellcraft: 9
Stealth: 4, 8
Survival: 8
Swim: 4, 8
Use Magic Device: 9
This isn't perfect, but it should be able to help someone place their skill points into the areas they want to be smarter in than others.
I'm not fine with saying "your character is an idiot, he can't do that," of course. But the ability scores mean something, nebulous though that something may sometimes seem to be. And I firmly believe that if you choose to make a character who is, mechanically, one step away from a turnip, portraying that character as being a brilliant, insightful genius is just bad roleplaying.
I submit that a "definition" that "nebulous" is no definition at all.
I have for a long time been contemplating changing the skill system so that skill bonuses are based on which attribute the skill is based on.
So instead of getting blanket skill bonuses from intelligence, your intelligence would only grant you bonuses to int-based skills. Your strength would give you bonuses to str-based skills. And dex, wis, cha and con.
It really doesn't make much sense to me that a character with a high intelligence and a low dexterity somehow manages to learn more dexterity based skills than a character with an average intelligence and a high dexterity. That just seems weird.
The notion that a concept which is not clearly defined is not a concept that is defined at all is prima facie false, and fortunately, all the scare quotes in the world don't change that.
LOL, bandy words all you like. A "definition" that has no practical meaning is no definition in my book. And thus deserves scare quotes.
Or I suppose you could say it's a definition that happens to lack... "definition." lol
I'm no expert, but:
IQ is a good measure of a trait that is something like the man-made concept of g. There's no dismissing g conceptually; it represents the trait that accounts for positive correlation among performance levels on a variety of otherwise unrelated intellectual tasks. As such, it's a pretty good match for what we think of as "intelligence"... for the purposes of research and measurement.
In an RPG, though, we're not interested in the underlying realities about the character, such as his or her neurological capacity for processing speed. We're interested in modifiers to dice rolls, and thus interested in generating outcomes in a practical setting. A character with great genetics for intelligence who suspends his reasoning to act on faith could have a great IQ but a low INT. Likewise, a character of only moderate intellectual prowess who studies diligently to make up for his middling intelligence might have a mediocre IQ (depending on the test) but a high INT, since INT is concerned with what you know and remember, not how hard you had to study to remember it.
In short, I agree that INT and IQ measure fundamentally different (though related) things. Precisely mapping one to the other seems arbitrary (not to say totally pointless).
No.
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.
Intelligence (INT) is not about just how much you learned, but also how well you can reason. IQ is a combination of knowledge and reasoning capability. Theoretically, it's supposed to measure more of the ability to reason than just raw book learning, but the latter helps. There's arguments whether that's because intensive learning stretches the brain and makes it more capable of reason, or whether higher reason leads to greater learning.