[D&D]: Minor Intelligence Downgrade

[Mr. Bambu]

It was brought up recently and it's something I feel worth talking about.

Proposal
Currently, 18 Intelligence is listed as Extraordinary Genius on the basis that it is the highest level a human can achieve from base rolls. This technically varies from edition to edition (for example, in 5e, the highest is really 19, as humans get a +1 stat- this doesn't necessarily apply to non-adventuring humans, but that's besides the point). The fact is, even if 18 is the highest, it probably shouldn't be Extraordinary Genius outright.

If you divide all levels of human intelligence into a dozen "ranks", with the most intelligent people going into the very top, very few of that topmost level are going to be Extraordinary Genius- this level of intelligence is a once or twice in a generation type deal, so simply saying all of the smartest humans are Extraordinary Genius is wrong.

Instead, I would contend that 18 Intelligence probably does encompass these peak minds, but also many of the less-than-peak. Therefore I propose "At least Genius, possibly Extraordinary Genius" for 18 Intelligence creatures; every other intelligence rating is left totally unchanged.

Counterarguments
Let's get them out of the way.

1. There exist numerous creatures with downright superhuman intelligence feats. Two frequently cited instances are the Beholder, who explicitly has prepared countermeasures against practically any offensive strategy used against it, and the Aboleth, who possesses an ancestral knowledge covering all of the memories of their ancestors, dating back to a time before the gods.

Regarding Beholders... yeah, but the plans don't necessarily work all the time. And the depth of the plans are left fairly vague, to my knowledge nothing in D&D has ever laid out anything that would concretely support above human levels of intelligence. Given they spend literally all of their time working on it, and these plans are at least relatively fallible, I don't see this as strong enough evidence to give extraordinary genius (anymore), although it is a good supporting feat for at least possibly, especially since their intelligence score isn't 18. We upscale from their feat.

Regarding Aboleths, I do firmly believe they are Extraordinary Genius by default, but that doesn't change the fact that their intelligence score is 18. So Aboleths just inhabit the upper limit of that score. Failing other feats on this level to establish consistency, I think it's better to say that Aboleths are the smartest 18s rather than say everyone is as intelligent as an Aboleth.

2. The game does not specify any distinction between different members of the ratings. An 18 is mechanically identical to every other 18, there is no subdivision of that number. This one is absolutely true, it's just something you need to form an opinion on, whether we regard every single 18 as being identically intelligent or not. The numbers are abstractions, and I personally believe that they are there for convenience rather than rigid classification. So I think this is a point that can be ignored.

Probably missed some, because I'm doing this on a whim, as whimsy is more or less my modus operandi. Feel free to discuss.

I don't have an exact list of every profile this would change, by the way- there's a lot of pages and before going through them all I'd like to see whether people agree or disagree. Wouldn't want to waste the manpower.

Voting

• Agree (1): Mr. Bambu, Ayewhale, Catbowtie
• Disagree:

 

[Drite77]

Here's a fun fact: A human can start with 20 INT in 5e if you grab any half feat that improves INT

 

[Ayewale]

Good to see that my Kenku OC will lead to a versewide DND nerf. But I support this change; it's ultimately just a more realistic interpretation of the stats.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Here's a fun fact: A human can start with 20 INT in 5e if you grab any half feat that improves INT

Commoners don't have feats, that's a class thing.

 

[Drite77]

Commoners don't have feats, that's a class thing.

So the INT stuff is based solely on Human Commoners? So like, why are the highest rolled stat (18) taken into account if NPCs normally don't roll for stats?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

So the INT stuff is based solely on Human Commoners? So like, why are the highest rolled stat (18) taken into account if NPCs normally don't roll for stats?

No, but feats are only a thing a human gets via V. Human, a side rule that only even existed once, doesn't really make it concrete. Commoners represent a baseline, whereas Adventurers represent a peak.

 

[Catbowtie]

I don't understand why ranking Intelligence off of the scores in Dungeons and Dragons is a thing. Shouldn't scores be backed up by feats?

It is a common occurrence in fiction for authors to give their characters IQ scores, often exceptionally high ones, and while some scientists believe IQ has validity in real life, it makes for a very poor measuring stick in fiction. An author can give a character as ridiculously high of an IQ as they want, whether it be over 200, 314, 5,000, or even 10^30, but without feats, these numbers are meaningless, only acting as confirmation that they are much smarter than normal humans.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't understand why ranking Intelligence off of the scores in Dungeons and Dragons is a thing. Shouldn't scores be backed up by feats?

In this instance, being at or above peak human intelligence is the feat, although the OP does lay out two examples of Intelligence feats in this range.

The thing you're quoting is for like... Alakazam, the Pokemon, having a stated IQ of 5,000, well beyond the scale of what that sort of test was made for. So we can't use just that to justify something like Supergenius, there has to be more substance. We have feats in D&D, but we relate them to D&D's own internal measuring stick for Intelligence.

Characters at 21 can accurately predict the future and possess the knowledge of entire civilizations who could bend time and space, and so we give them "At least Extraordinary Genius, possibly Supergenius". It isn't as arbitrary as you seem to think.

 

[Drite77]

No, but feats are only a thing a human gets via V. Human, a side rule that only even existed once, doesn't really make it concrete. Commoners represent a baseline, whereas Adventurers represent a peak.

Oki, but humans are still the only race taken into account right?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Oki, but humans are still the only race taken into account right?

Hard to compare elves to humans when elves don't exist (so we don't have a 'baseline' intelligence for them), yeah.

 

[Catbowtie]

In this instance, being at or above peak human intelligence is the feat, although the OP does lay out two examples of Intelligence feats in this range.

Gotcha

The thing you're quoting is for like... Alakazam, the Pokemon, having a stated IQ of 5,000, well beyond the scale of what that sort of test was made for. So we can't use just that to justify something like Supergenius, there has to be more substance. We have feats in D&D, but we relate them to D&D's own internal measuring stick for Intelligence.

Gotcha

Characters at 21 can accurately predict the future and possess the knowledge of entire civilizations who could bend time and space, and so we give them "At least Extraordinary Genius, possibly Supergenius". It isn't as arbitrary as you seem to think.

Where did you get that from? I don't think it's arbitrary. I didn't mean to come off that way. I didn't know the method of assigning Intelligence statistics relating to Intelligence scores in Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As in, the source for the statement?

The latter is a lot of things jumbled into one and refers to the Elder Brain of the Mind Flayers, who contains the collective knowledge of their people. The Mind Flayer colonies have built such technologies- the Overmind, Penumbra, whatever the **** the Thoon people were making in their bio-manipulation arc, etc. There's no singular scan that can provide evidence of it, although if you really want I can conjure up the effort to collect it all.

The former can be found stated here. The source is "Player Options: Combat and Tactics, pg 180".

And uh... I didn't mean to say I was taking offense at the insinuation, just that your last statement seemed to imply that you felt this was all just arbitrarily going off the Intelligence score, which it isn't, so I felt the need to correct that.

 

[Catbowtie]

Okay, thanks. Agree with the Content Revision Thread for reasons provided.