In D&D 10 INT is the average for a farmer or barely educated peasant. What would a modern B average high school student be rated comparatively to that?
>>46228710
INT != knowlege
You can be dumb as a brick and get through school
You can be really smart and live a simple farmers life
It's a difference of knowledge and lore checks
>>46228710
10 INT.
Intelligence isn't what you know, it's how well you learn and apply information. An ignorant genius still has higher INT than a Jeopardy savant, because that savant can only apply his knowledge to a single purpose.
>>46228710
>farmer or barely educated peasant
Where did this assumption come from? There's nothing in the rules that says that. IIRC 10 is just for anyone who's not a PC or otherwise important.
>>46228710
Peasants and farmers know a whole lot. It may not be traditional book learning, but it's what they need to know to survive.
I'd say due to better health and more ability to develop intellectual qualities around 11
>>46228835
9-12 is just for anyone, including PCs. It is average. Whatever rules you play by that lead you to believe 10 is below-average for PCs? Those rules are stupid and you play wrong.
>>46228872
I'd bump that to 13-14 due to the massive storehouse of easily accessible information called the Internet. Back then if you wanted to learn something you'd be shit outta luck unless you lived near one of the very rare libraries or someone nearby was an expert on what you wanted to know.
>>46228981
>4d6 drop the lowest is ok
Burn in hell.
3d6, down the line. Your character having one 15+ means it was a great roll.
>>46228955
>Those rules are stupid and you play wrong.
Choke on a dick loser, I'll play however I want.
But yeah, 10s are for everyone. Uneducated peasants would have an 8 or something, wouldn't they?
>>46229046
>I'll play however I want.
There is right and wrong. You are perfectly free to choose wrong.
>>46228838
understimated post
>>46228710
10 Int is the average for an adventure not an NPC. Go read the rulebook properly.
>>46229098
>muh 3d6 straight down" is the only way to go
It's not the "only way to go."\
It's "the correct way to go."
5e is for homos playing Warforged Dragonslayer Warlocks from the Plane of Hurt Feelings. It's lame.
>>46228710
Like all stats and rules: it's an abstraction, not the physics of the gameworld.
>>46229079
There's not though, you're just confusing "wrong" with "thing I don't like."
Playing a tuba very loudly at 4 in the morning in a public park in nothing but a g-string is roleplaying wrong. Letting the PCs have higher than average stats is not. Learn the difference.
>>46229126
But 2E is shit.
>>46229098
Or Point Buy dumbass. Point buy is what a smart GM uses.
>>46229184
>I would jack off at the funeral of every stupid idiot that worked on OD&D and AD&D if I could
Because old men make you horny, homo.
And it's not like your choices are oD&D or furry-shit. There's Basic, AD&D and 2e, all well before it started being a piece of shit.
>>46229184
I agree
It's the same sort as the guys on /k/ saying the 1911 in .45 is the best fighting pistol ever made, and guns need to be made of only wood and steel, not that new fangled polymer crap. They are the fudds of the gaming community.
>>46228710
Historically INT is IQ divided ny 10, rounded out. If you have an IQ of 110 or so, your INT should be 11.
>>46229221
You ever think the reason why no one plays OD&D might be, I dunno, because it's awful?
>>46229254
But IQ is based on the Age of those who take it. You have a different IQ now than you did 5 years ago.
>>46229254
How would you compare what was considered a 110 IQ in 1890 to a 110 IQ today? I distinctly remember going on a second grade field trip to a one-room schoolhouse and learning that I would be out-performing seventh graders of that time period.
>>46229346
Okay. Apparently my IQ is equal to a 16 INT.
>>46228710
I feel like 8-9 int is the average for a peasant. 10-11 is the average for adventurers and city folk, while 12+ is more or less exceptional.
>>46228710
I thought that the average peasant was at Int 8, and the average adventurer was at Int 10, what with them being an adventurer and all. Have I been lied to this whole time?
>>46229330
>>46229330
>>46229421
>Have I been lied to this whole time?
Yes.
Intelligent people do not look at their prosperous, quiet farm and say "Hey, I should grab that sword and go get stabbed by orcs. Fuck this whole bed and three meals thing."
>>46229427
>>46229429
Well he's not wrong. I've seen too many wizards with 10, 16, 10, 10, 18, 10 stats with point buy.
Daily reminder that in d20 Modern, the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) was the standard even for generic NPCs and that there was no "commoner" class.
Modern characters >>>>>>>>>>>> medieval characters.
>>46229486
That's wisdom not intelligence.
>>46229508
Strawmanning and hyperbole IS wrong, regardless of if you can extract a single drop of truth out of the load of horseshit.
>>46228838
That would be Profession (Farmer), which is Wis based.
3d6 is for an 'average people go out into the dangerous world with the packs on their backs'
4d6 drop lowest is for a heroic fantasy.
Point buy is for when you don't trust your players or when they have preexisting character concepts in mind that they don't want to fuck up.
3d6 all the way down is for crazy fun, unless you're theone asshole insisting everyone else does it. Then 3d6 all the way down is for fags.
Back in AD&D 2E, the monstrous manual had a table for intelligence.
0: Non-intelligent or not ratable. Things like animate weapons or insects often fell here.
1: Animal intelligence. While something of a misnomer (there were real-world animals above 1), it did cover the vast spectrum of most animals. Basically: If it was dumber than a feral mutt, but had a functional brain, it was here.
2-4: Semi-Intelligent. Wild dogs, big cats, Elephants, they all fall here.
5-7: Low Intelligence. Many tool-using animals, creatures possessing of some sort of crude language, and so-on fall here. As do things like Mummies.
8-10: Average (human) intelligence. Kinda straightforward.
11-12: Very Intelligent. Rakshasa have this as their average, but then so too do Dolphins. It's Fantasy Flipper-esque Dolphins though, so I give it a pass.
13-14: Highly Intelligent. No real good examples that sprang immediately to mind.
15-16: Exceptionally Intelligent. Leprechauns, a couple dragons, stuff like that go here.
17-18: Genius. Examples of Genius? Well, it's a human-centric table: Look up some historical genius'.
19-20: Supra-Genius. Liches almost universally fall here, though apparently it's not unheard of for Gnomes or Elves.
21+: Godlike Intelligence. Well, not really Godlike, but see above: Human-centric table. No humans - without magical aid or divine intervention / inspiration - reach this level.
Obviously things have changed since then: Liches in 3.5 were well into the 20's (or even 30's), if they've dropped back down come 5E.
>>46229562
>Strawmanning is wrong even if you can extract a metric ton of truth from 1,005 kg of horse shit.
FTFY
>>46229508
>not dropping str and cha to 8
>powergaming
cool story bro
>>46229216
Point buy is for min-maxing fuckhats who want to shit rainbows and turn vampires into lawn chairs.
>>46229662
Nice strawman.
>>46229762
I try, this thread is nothing but bait and shitposting anyways, so who ultimately cares.
>>46229216
Point buy is what a "smart" DM uses post-2E because almost everyone plays until they hit 9th level spells (which means everyone in the party wants to end the campaign with at least 19 Int, Wis, or Cha) and because post-2E has spread bonuses / penalties out further.
Pre-3E, you could play a Con 8 Cha 7 Sorcerer and your only gameplay repercussions would be a shit chance at surviving a "Raise Dead" spell and a Henchman cap of something like two people. The difference between Str 9 and Str 14 on a backstabbing thief was effectively just their carry capacity and chance at bending bars / lifting gates. You could get by with a character who had all their stats between 8 and 11 because there was a negligible difference between them and a character who had all their stats between 12 and 14.
You still wanted a high Intelligence for arcane casters (at least, you did if you were in a Campaign that went past the 9-10 level range), but Divine casters just needed something above 12 as after that point there was no chance of spell failure and there was no Wis requirement for Cleric spells.
>>46229629
Please, if you're going to act childishly, don't expect people to take your ideas seriously.
What strikes you as less balanced: a method that may be abused in certain circumstances, or a method that naturally produces wildly inconsistent results?
While the former may be misused, the latter has a fair chance of being unbalanced regardless of your intentions.
And, then we've got the weird "bland character" accusation.
>>46229085
I agree someone should definitely stimate that post
>>46229378
>>46229856
>Weird "bland character" accusation
That's from people using point buy putting the points into exactly what you know they'd put points into. There's absolutely no variation between character stat lines of the same class with the same point buy allowance. This in turn affects roleplaying similarities as the player tries to play out the expected and cliche shortcomings that a character of their class would have. Sure you can tack on a few insignificant quirks but each character made this way is essentially the "same".
>>46230005
127 IQ for a college student.
>>46229020
>Not getting pure 18's with 3d6 down the line.
Sounds like the dice gods don't favor you faggot.
>>46230010
If your players are lazy enough to just go with the 'expected' cliches of a character based purely on their chosen class, forcing them to roll for their stats won't change a damn thing and you know it.
>>46230096
What else would you do? Put a 12 into your primary ability and a 17 into your tertiary ability to purposely subvert the cliche at a cost of being ineffective?
>>46229615
There was less of a difference for each point of stat until you hit the 18+ levels and it was pretty damn hard to have a stat over 18.
>>46230155
For a start, you might reexamine your DMing style to see if you can find anything that might be discouraging your players from making any actual investments in their characters.
>>46229939
Can't you go above with the book of int?
>>46230203
Or maybe it's the players that are the problem? Or it's the fact that this is a hobby for fun so shoving your "We should be absolutely serious at all times while playing this" attitude into a GAME OF PRETEND is wrong.
>>46230389
>Or maybe it's the players that are the problem?
Yes, that's poss-
>Or it's the fact that this is a hobby for fun so shoving your "We should be absolutely serious at all times while playing this" attitude into a GAME OF PRETEND is wrong.
Oh god, what is wrong with you. This isn't the time to open up your "Someone criticized the way I play and I'm still trying to justify myself in every way except directly" rant.
>>46230389
>Or maybe it's the players that are the problem?
Then stop trying to blame the stat generation method you nigger.
>>46228710
D&D Intelligence looks a lot like IQ, and assuming 3d6 distribution, INT 10 corresponds to about IQ 98-102.
In pic related I've illustrated that, and also highlighted some modern jobs typical for that range.
Sources are
>http://sq.4mg.com/IQbasics.htm
>http://simantics.blogspot.com/2011/01/d-and-iq.html
>>46228710
Contrarily to popular opinion, people have been consistenly getting smarter as time passes. As a consequence, the avergae of 100 IQ today isn't the same it was 40 or 50 years ago, it's actually higher.
Point is, probably your average Joe of today has a 12-14 Int compared to medieval people of a D&D setting.
>>46228710
8-9
>>46229410
>12+ is more or less exceptional.
The probability of a score being over 12 is over 25%. (assuming 3D6). If that's your idea of exceptional then we're not speaking the same language.
I don't think you actually meant that anything over 11 would be exceptional because that's almost 40% probability. Nobody would consider that exceptional, right?
>>46229580
Point buy is good in systems that make every stat (semi-) important for everybody. DnD offers too many dump stats.
>>46230010
>Sure you can tack on a few insignificant quirks but each character made this way is essentially the "same".
The same could be said about characters that rolled their stats, except they have random numbers rather than chosen ones.
>>46230155
To be quite frank, I've never been a fan of random numbers for the stats. My character is a fighter. He's been working out for half his life. He might not have the perfect strength score, but he should at least be somewhere in the vicinity of his own peak. If that peak is around 10, then he is either a dumbass that shouldn't be betting his life on his ability to stick pointy metal objects into the squishy bits of other people or he is plain suicidal.
