Just how dumb is a character with int 7?

[The Human Diversion]

Are we talking 1 syllable words only here? Can barely speak? How do you play a really dumb character?

[Bill Kirsch]

I'd say he'd be the kid getting D's and F's in school. Able to maintain conversation, but has trouble with abstract thought or philosophical debate. Barely literate with a basic vocabulary. Maybe has trouble remembering things?
But not at the "Me, Tarzan. You, Jane." stage. I'd put that at Int 5.

[ArgentumLupus]

If I remembered correctly, the average IQ of a person is 100, but this represents both social and book smarts. Could either take character with an Int of 7 as having a 70 IQ, or as I prefer to do, take the average of int and wisdom the multiply by 10.
Hope that helps some.

[BigNorseWolf]

He thinks adventure is like a box of chocholates, you never know what you're gonna get.

[DemonicEgo]

A rule of thumb that I've heard is to multiply the Intelligence score by 10, the example giving you an IQ of 70. According to the Wikipedia article, an IQ of 70 is is the bottom limit of "normal" mental faculties. It is within two standard deviations of the mean of 100. Your character may have some trouble with the finer points of philosophy or what have you, but will speak and function just as well as 95% of the population, according to real-world statistics.

You could just as well play a "really dumb" character if that's what you feel works for you, though. Maybe his social skills leave something to be desired, and people think he's "dumb" simply because of that. A few points in some Knowledge skills could make him an absent-minded professor of sorts, if you'd like to go the other way with it.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Quote:

INT IQ
5 75
6 80
7 85
8 90
9 95
10 100
11 105
12 110
13 115
14 120
15 125
16 131
17 139
18+ 140+

Int 7 can function just fine!

[Darklord Morius]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Quote:

INT IQ
5 75
6 80
7 85
8 90
9 95
10 100
11 105
12 110
13 115
14 120
15 125
16 131
17 139
18+ 140+

Int 7 can function just fine!

And this quote is from...?

[Screaming-Flea]

try looking at it from the reverse point of view. A 7 int is 3 points off of average right? So how smart do you play a 13 int?

[Chris Kenney]

BNW summed it up pretty well, although 7 might be a bit above that. Prone to getting confused, very little 'head for facts and figures', anything more complicated than "Those are the bad guys" is going to take him some time and a lot of small words to get across in a way he'll actually understand. But, this doesn't mean he's unobservant (That's the purview of wisdom) and there's nothing very wrong with his personal memory. As an adventurer, he's likely to simply latch on to party members with better reasoning skills as he notes that when he follows their advice things tend to work out for the best. He's also not dumb enough that he can't learn things, so if he has an area of particular interest he might actually be quite knowledgeable - it's just not going to occur to him to apply it outside his little hobby. At an extreme, if he likes swords, knows all about them, what you can make them out of, the various melting points, all about the alloys, weight and balance...it's STILL not going to occur to him that the chains holding up the drawbridge are a really cheap iron with low melting point and there's plenty of coal to make a hot fire with right next to them.

[Artanthos]

Screaming-Flea wrote:

So how smart do you play a 13 int?

I try to avoid having to play down that far.

<--- Hi int, low wis.

[DrDeth]

So dumb that people come from miles around to stare and gawk. Freak-show stupid. The dumbest peasant has a Int of 8.

[The Human Diversion]

Theoretically, for min-maxing purposes, I could create a level 1 human with the following stats: 20/14/16/7/7/7

Just trying to figure out if I would want to play him, and if so, how.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

DrDeth wrote:

So dumb that people come from miles around to stare and gawk. Freak-show stupid. The dumbest peasant has a Int of 8.

Do people come from miles around to wonder and marvel at the guy with Int 13?

That's the 'smart' equivalent to the 'dumb' Int 7.

[Mr. Hunter]

I always saw someone with a INT 7 as your stereotypical dumb father archetype (Homer Simpson, Peter Griffith, etc.), not too sharp but able to get along just fine in day to day life. Just don't pick them for your Trivial Pursuit team.

[Herbo]

It's interesting how "omg dumbzorz" people get about anything south of 10. Is it the (-) modifier? Sure they aren't the brightest candle in the window at 7, but they are a far cry from people coming from miles around to gawk, or Hodor levels of cognitive deficiency. They are diminished at 7, though. Enough that an average intelligence individual would quickly realize that "oh, that's why you work at the quarry smashing big rocks into little rocks."

:Edit: And what Mr. Hunter wrote. Though I'd put Homer above Peter in the intelligence race :-)

[Turin the Mad]

Mental ability scores of 7 across the board?

Narrow focus - he knows 1 or 2 skills (I suggest a trade skill and Perception or Survival, or a 'pairing' of two complementary skills for a non-intellectual) and that's it. He's introverted, easy to lead around gullible, follows the leader and simply none too bright. He has very basic capability to do arithmetic and can probably read/write very basic Common. Memory is probably pretty bad outside of his field of expertise, so one-syllable nicknames for everyone is how he handles people.

Or he can be a purely physical, "living in the now" - his two skills are Climb and Swim or Acrobatics and Climb.

If you want to get really fun with the shtick, take Fast Learner, Improvisation and Improved Improvisation from the ARG = able to use every skill! (Maybe not WELL, but still able attempt everything.)

Maybe use Fast Learner to be "purely physical" skills-wise: Acrobatics, Climb and Swim. He's a good-looking guy, but way short on the marble count.

[Bill Kirsch]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

So dumb that people come from miles around to stare and gawk. Freak-show stupid. The dumbest peasant has a Int of 8.

Do people come from miles around to wonder and marvel at the guy with Int 13?

That's the 'smart' equivalent to the 'dumb' Int 7.

A 13 is above average, but not a genius.

Modern example: Got mostly A's and B's in school, probably did fairly well on standardized tests. Has a pretty good vocab, does well when watching Jeopardy. Likes word puzzles and sidoko(sp?). Went to college and graduated (but no Masters). Is a good writer. Likes to read (including nonfiction).

[The Human Diversion]

Turin the Mad wrote:

Maybe use Fast Learner to be "purely physical" skills-wise: Acrobatics, Climb and Swim. He's a good-looking guy, but way short on the marble count.

See, now THIS sounds fun.

Forrest Gump level of intelligence, easily distracted level of wisdom, and decent looking but near insane level of charisma.

Also, playing him like Homer Simpson sounds like an interesting idea too ... might mix a little of that in there.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Darklord Morius wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Quote:

INT IQ
5 75
6 80
7 85
8 90
9 95
10 100
11 105
12 110
13 115
14 120
15 125
16 131
17 139
18+ 140+

Int 7 can function just fine!

And this quote is from...?

I stole this particular table from Piccolo, who is a psychiatrist, I believe.

I've seen similar tables a few times on these boards; I've seen Int 5 being IQ 68 in one, 73 in another and 75 in this one.

The principle behind each table is the same. The IQ score is based on a model of the actual distribution of intelligence (as measured a certain way) throughout the population. The intelligence statistic in D&D/PF is based on a bell-shaped probability curve.

It is relatively easy to correlate the different IQ scores with different 3d6 scores. We must assume that the 3d6 distribution matches the distribution of each score (Str, Dex, etc.) in the population. A score of 18 is possessed by one in 316 of the population, a score of 3 is also possessed by one in 316 of the population.

Matching these probabilities with the IQ probabilities is not that difficult. An intelligence score of 5 or less is possessed by six out of 316 of the population, which is one in 36. Simply check out the IQ charts and see where the line is drawn for the lowest 2.8% of the population!

BTW, the 'standard array' of stats does not represent the population! The idea that a score of less than 8 is impossible (on the grounds that the 'standard array' is 15/14/13/12/10/8) is as absurd as saying that there is no such score as a 9.

[Patrick McGrath]

To quote the pod-faded City of Doors, "Don't erase your stat, embrace your stat".

You should be able to function just fine, although math skills and your vocabulary should be somewhat limited. You are not going to be able to come up with ten different words to something , and you probably should not be put in charge of handling dividing the group's loot.

An INT of 7 makes me think of Mongo from Blazing Saddles, although I believe he would also have had a low WILL as well.

- Mongo only Pawn in the game of life.

Other things to make the character fun to play are mispronouncing or using the wrong words. I.e.: I'm so mad, I'm rivid (livid).

You should have fun with your character. As a good rule of thumb, always check with your GM to make sure you are both on same page as to what your character can do and what he will struggle with.

[Turin the Mad]

The Human Diversion wrote:

Turin the Mad wrote:

Maybe use Fast Learner to be "purely physical" skills-wise: Acrobatics, Climb and Swim. He's a good-looking guy, but way short on the marble count.

See, now THIS sounds fun.

Forrest Gump level of intelligence, easily distracted level of wisdom, and decent looking but near insane level of charisma.

Also, playing him like Homer Simpson sounds like an interesting idea too ... might mix a little of that in there.

Forrest Gump meets Homer Simpson sounds like an excellent way to portray the 7/7/7 Int/Wis/Cha combination. I love that trio of feats.

"Whaddya MEAN the dumb guy made a DC 20 Knowledge check?!"

"Mmmmm .... donuuuuts ..." hhrrggrrrlll

"Hey, Homer, back on topic!"

"Oh yeah ... use GOOD silver, not use fire."

[bookrat]

This guideline seems to fit our scale quite nicely:

1 to 24 - Profound mental disability
25 to 39 - Severe mental disability
40 to 54 - Moderate mental disability
55 to 69 - Mild mental disability
70 to 84 - Borderline mental disability
85 to 114 - Average intelligence
115 to 129 - Above average; bright
130 to 144 - Moderately gifted
145 to 159 - Highly gifted
160 to 179 - Exceptionally gifted
180 and up - Profoundly gifted

From here.

[Ciaran Barnes]

With 7 in all mental ability scores, you will not betaken seriously by most people, unless you are close with them. Like a child.

[Turin the Mad]

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

With 7 in all mental ability scores, you will not betaken seriously by most people, unless you are close with them. Like a child.

At a 20 STR & 16 CON - he is taken plenty seriously. ;)

[BigNorseWolf]

"Why'd you take points in handle animal? Your druid took the fire domain?"

"Have you met our Barbarian?"

[Artanthos]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

"Why'd you take points in handle animal? Your druid took the fire domain?"

"Have you met our Barbarian?"

"The guy by the fire sharpening sticks?"

"With his teeth?"

[MendedWall12]

I find it interesting that the rulebook says any intelligence score of 3 or above allows the owner of said score to speak and read their racial language. Obviously the quality and depth of the speaking and reading should be differentiated between the range of scores, but at no point is quality of literacy addressed.

[Kryzbyn]

Forrest Gump had a 75 IQ.

[Ciaran Barnes]

Turin the Mad wrote:

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

With 7 in all mental ability scores, you will not betaken seriously by most people, unless you are close with them. Like a child.

At a 20 STR & 16 CON - he is taken plenty seriously. ;)

"Hodor."

[Yora]

Given a 3d6 ability score creation for common people who are not special and adventurers (which created the whole minimum 3, 10 and 11 are average thing), I get the same result: Int 7 equals an IQ of 84.

Or the most useful way to put it: At Int 7, 86.3% of all people have a higher Int score than you.
And also, at IQ 84, roughly 86% to 85% will score a higher result on an IQ test.

Being among the lowest 16% isn't much, but that's still about 1 in 6 people. Chances are in a primary school class of 24 kids, three or four will be in that range or lower as adults. It may not be great, but still far more than enough to graduate from secondary school.
The amount of people who are classified as having "mild retardation" is about as high as the chance to roll an ability score of 3 or 4. And even these people can manage life without supervision (maybe with some assistance for legal issues and finding work. Giving a character a significant impairment only is neccessary with an Int score of 3. But since it is primarily an issue of learning skills, the way the character was raised would probably even make a bigger difference. A character with an Int score of 3 that has been taken very good care of as a child might speak significantly better than one with a score of 6 that has been neglected.

[BigNorseWolf]

Artanthos wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

"Why'd you take points in handle animal? Your druid took the fire domain?"

"Have you met our Barbarian?"

"The guy by the fire sharpening sticks?"

"With his teeth?"

"no, the one next to him trying to sharpen his teeth with the stick."

[Aranna]

master_marshmallow wrote:

I'd say someone with that int would be comparable to a high school cheerleader in intelligence. Can't use or understand big words and says "uh what" a lot.

Excuse you!

I was a Cheerleader and I was doing mostly straight As in school. Cheerleaders are usually very smart people, every one of us went on to college. The only people using only small words in school were the druggie clique. But then those type usually don't make it through high school.

7 Int IS as smart as the PLAYER wants it to be.
It is literally JUST a -2 to Int skills... nothing more.

[Aranna]

PS: I mean really... master_marshmallow do you believe EVERYTHING Hollywood tells you? Bimbos don't make it as cheerleaders.

Personally I have the player tell me why they have the -2 to Int skills. Let them come up with a creative reason and use it. It only improves player involvement in their character.

[Pippi]

Aranna wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

I'd say someone with that int would be comparable to a high school cheerleader in intelligence. Can't use or understand big words and says "uh what" a lot.

Excuse you!

I was a Cheerleader and I was doing mostly straight As in school. Cheerleaders are usually very smart people, every one of us went on to college. The only people using only small words in school were the druggie clique. But then those type usually don't make it through high school.

7 Int IS as smart as the PLAYER wants it to be.
It is literally JUST a -2 to Int skills... nothing more.

Hee. For further derailment, I knew some pretty smart drug-users in high school as well. I wouldn't vouch for their wisdom, but I suppose that's another story.

(I also knew some pretty smart people who didn't finish high school, too.)

As far as the 7 being only as smart as the player wants him to be, I suppose that's true. I wouldn't want to tell anyone else how to play their game, but for my money, I think it's kind of fun to role-play the stats in a way that indicates they make a difference outside of pure mechanics. My low INT characters don't often contribute much to tactics or planning, even when I might have what I consider to be a good idea. My low WIS characters might make choices that I wouldn't normally consider a "good idea". My low CHR characters are often either awkward or abrasive.

So yeah, it's really up to the player to role-play their character how they want, but as a DM I might look a little askance at a player who played their 7 INT character as super smart.

I suppose I might look at it as a species of abstruse meta-gaming. :P

[Yora]

Int is how you do it, Wis is why you shouldn't.

[Kamelguru]

When Paizo APs portray mentally disabled people, they tend to go south of 5. A 7 would be your average "disadvantaged" person, raised in a place without much access to education. The game mechanically penalizes you adequately without having the GM force you to go full retard.

[The Human Diversion]

Turin the Mad wrote:

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

With 7 in all mental ability scores, you will not betaken seriously by most people, unless you are close with them. Like a child.

At a 20 STR & 16 CON - he is taken plenty seriously. ;)

When he (remember, 1st level here) did 21 points of damage with a raging power attack to the bad guy last night, the other three bad guys sure took him seriously.

I need to give him a vice now. Donuts aren't a bad idea.

Incidentally, last night before I even thought about posting, I decided to name him "Bart." I came up with a bit of a back story and in his mind, everyone calls him "Bart Blahblahblah". Really, everyone calls him BAR(barian).

"But since people call me Bart, I pick name Bart. Don't know why you think my last name is Blahblahblah tho. *picks nose while thinking out loud*"

[GM_Solspiral]

Peter Griffin is actually not too off from average intelligence his real issue is impulse control which is wisdom based.

Homer has a crayon in his brain.

[master_marshmallow]

Aranna wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

I'd say someone with that int would be comparable to a high school cheerleader in intelligence. Can't use or understand big words and says "uh what" a lot.

Excuse you!

I was a Cheerleader and I was doing mostly straight As in school. Cheerleaders are usually very smart people, every one of us went on to college. The only people using only small words in school were the druggie clique. But then those type usually don't make it through high school.

7 Int IS as smart as the PLAYER wants it to be.
It is literally JUST a -2 to Int skills... nothing more.

Meant the stereotypical cheerleaders, meant no offense. I'm not saying that's how cheerleaders actually are, I'm saying that a character with 7 int has comparable int to the stereotypical dumb cheerleader.

[ub3r_n3rd]

I have to agree with everyone else here. 7 intelligence is 1 below the "average." A local peasant farmer has an 8 intelligence, so a 7 would be a little below it making him possibly illiterate, but able to speak his native language just fine if with a few less words in his vocabulary.

[Elrik Winterwolf]

I would imagine such a character a lot like Charlie Kelly.

[Aranna]

master_marshmallow wrote:

Aranna wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

I'd say someone with that int would be comparable to a high school cheerleader in intelligence. Can't use or understand big words and says "uh what" a lot.

Excuse you!

I was a Cheerleader and I was doing mostly straight As in school. Cheerleaders are usually very smart people, every one of us went on to college. The only people using only small words in school were the druggie clique. But then those type usually don't make it through high school.

7 Int IS as smart as the PLAYER wants it to be.
It is literally JUST a -2 to Int skills... nothing more.

Meant the stereotypical cheerleaders, meant no offense. I'm not saying that's how cheerleaders actually are, I'm saying that a character with 7 int has comparable int to the stereotypical dumb cheerleader.

There is NO stereotypical "dumb" cheerleader. The cheerleader stereotype as I researched it involves being pretty, preppy, and snobbish. WELL preppy literally means college prep. They are stereotypically SMART.

Yes I find it offensive. You are trying to foster a harmful statement about a lot of good people.

[SteelDraco]

ub3r_n3rd wrote:

I have to agree with everyone else here. 7 intelligence is 1 below the "average." A local peasant farmer has an 8 intelligence, so a 7 would be a little below it making him possibly illiterate, but able to speak his native language just fine if with a few less words in his vocabulary.

Surprisingly, anyone in PF who can speak any language can read and write it. Just one of those odd things.

[Pippi]

Aranna wrote:

There is NO stereotypical "dumb" cheerleader. The cheerleader stereotype as I researched it involves being pretty, preppy, and snobbish. WELL preppy literally means college prep. They are stereotypically SMART.

Yes I find it offensive. You are trying to foster a harmful statement about a lot of good people.

Actually... it's a pretty popular stereotype. (Warning! Link to TV Tropes: The Cheerleader)

I'm not saying it's even remotely correct, but it's out there.

EDIT: I should probably stop with this now, as the thread isn't really about people being mean to cheerleaders or not.

[Ughbash]

DemonicEgo wrote:

A rule of thumb that I've heard is to multiply the Intelligence score by 10, the example giving you an IQ of 70. According to the Wikipedia article, an IQ of 70 is is the bottom limit of "normal" mental faculties. It is within two standard deviations of the mean of 100. Your character may have some trouble with the finer points of philosophy or what have you, but will speak and function just as well as 95% of the population, according to real-world statistics.

Not quite right.

You are 2 standard deviatiosn down at 70. What it means is that 95 percent of people are between 70 and 130... That does NOT mean you are as good as 95 percent of the people.

With an IQ of 70 there are only 2.5% of the people who are dumber then you.

So in a grup of 40 people you are the second dumbest, which means you need to decide if you are Jim Carrey or Jeff Daniels.

[The Human Diversion]

Ughbash wrote:

So in a grup of 40 people you are the second dumbest, which means you need to decide if you are Jim Carrey or Jeff Daniels.

Or your average failed politician.

[Aranna]

Pippi wrote:

Aranna wrote:

There is NO stereotypical "dumb" cheerleader. The cheerleader stereotype as I researched it involves being pretty, preppy, and snobbish. WELL preppy literally means college prep. They are stereotypically SMART.

Yes I find it offensive. You are trying to foster a harmful statement about a lot of good people.

Actually... it's a pretty popular stereotype. (Warning! Link to TV Tropes: The Cheerleader)

I'm not saying it's even remotely correct, but it's out there.

EDIT: I should probably stop with this now, as the thread isn't really about people being mean to cheerleaders or not.

Ok... I see that now.

But gosh where on earth did Hollywood get THAT stereotype from. Everyone I asked said preppy... not ditzy. And you need minimum grades to qualify for cheerleading.

[Kamelguru]

By rules as written, anyone with int3+ understand language.

A dwarf that somehow manages to have Int 3 still knows Common AND Dwarven.

I fail to see how someone barely smarter than an animal can be bilingual, when most people I know would hardly qualify as proper bilingual.

So here is the breakdown as I interpret the RAW and official example characters:

Int1: The dumbest of animals or vermin, unable to be trained well.

Int2: Most animals, receptive to training.

Int3: Can understand language well enough to understand commands.

Int4: Where Paizo APs typically place "retards" (Auchs from Kingmaker, etc)

Int5: Minimum int of a player character that plays a race that has -2 int. Significant mechanical penalty makes most skills unavailable for you.

Int6: Lower end average of most uncivilized humanoids (-2 int), will make your character end up with a single point for skills if playing 2+int classes.

Int7: Same penalties as 6, minimum starting int for non-penalized races.

Int8-9: Lower average, no discernible mechanical difference. One deviance below average, allows for skill based classes to function if not reliant on Int (such as Ranger, certain rogues, druids etc)

Int10-11: Average. No penalties, no bonuses.

Int12: Naturally bilingual without being demihuman. Higher than average by one deviance (+1).

Int13: Capable of advanced sword-fighting that require an in-depth understanding of physics and a wide array of moves.

Int14-15: Natural trilingual, two deviances over average. Twice as skilled as most basic classes (2+int skillpoints). This is where I start consider what words I use when being "in character", so I portray him as notably above average.

At Int16+, you are inversely as far from average as a "retard", and it is reflected in significant mechanical benefits.

[Bruunwald]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Darklord Morius wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Quote:

INT IQ
5 75
6 80
7 85
8 90
9 95
10 100
11 105
12 110
13 115
14 120
15 125
16 131
17 139
18+ 140+

Int 7 can function just fine!

And this quote is from...?

I stole this particular table from Piccolo, who is a psychiatrist, I believe.

I've seen similar tables a few times on these boards; I've seen Int 5 being IQ 68 in one, 73 in another and 75 in this one.

The principle behind each table is the same. The IQ score is based on a model of the actual distribution of intelligence (as measured a certain way) throughout the population. The intelligence statistic in D&D/PF is based on a bell-shaped probability curve.

It is relatively easy to correlate the different IQ scores with different 3d6 scores. We must assume that the 3d6 distribution matches the distribution of each score (Str, Dex, etc.) in the population. A score of 18 is possessed by one in 316 of the population, a score of 3 is also possessed by one in 316 of the population.

Matching these probabilities with the IQ probabilities is not that difficult. An intelligence score of 5 or less is possessed by six out of 316 of the population, which is one in 36. Simply check out the IQ charts and see where the line is drawn for the lowest 2.8% of the population!

BTW, the 'standard array' of stats does not represent the population! The idea that a score of less than 8 is impossible (on the grounds that the 'standard array' is 15/14/13/12/10/8) is as absurd as saying that there is no such score as a 9.

I get it, but the whole enterprise is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that a score of 18 was supposed to represent a fair swath of the real world population, or part of the average. It doesn't. It's supposed to be something beyond exceptional, something superheroic, representing a percentage of a fantasy world population. The math is simply wrong because the basic premise of what the numbers represent, has been misinterpreted.

Otherwise, seriously, a significantly large percentage of those of us posting on these forums are one step away from world domination.