High Wis Low Int character?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

For what it's worth, I wound up pegging IQ7 the minimum needed to have something recognizable as "civilization." Cats and Dogs are, i believe, IQ4-5. You can have particularly talented animals at IQ6. So I'm with you both that IQ7-8 is good PC "don't do less than this" point.

In the Basic Set, mammals generally have IQ 3 or 4, with dogs and cats being at 4. Apes have IQ 6. The only animal explicitly shown as having IQ 5 is the wild boar, but I would guess that monkeys go there also. We're told that realistically animal IQ is fixed, but that you can allow +1 at GM discretion.

My personal rule of thumb (not official in any way) is that species IQ varies with the square root of the ratio of brain volume to body surface area. Humans have about 8x the mammal average and typical IQ 10; apes about 4x and typical IQ 7; monkeys around 2x and typical IQ (at a guess) 5; that puts typical mammals at IQ 3.5, or 3-4. Smart birds (passerines, and probably parrots) are comparable to monkeys, which puts them at IQ 5; typical birds are about half mammal mass, which would be around IQ 2.5, or 2-3. Of course all of this may have been updated in recent years.

And IQ 1 pretty much represents any animal with any sort of awareness of its environment, however tiny its brain is.

So yes, I'd say that IQ 6 is over the edge of sapience, but probably not enough for anything comparable to human culture.

[Tom H.]

This is good information.

Of course it appears that the scale of reference in this thread started with D&D 5e.

Low D&D Int scores probably represent more ability than the equivalent GURPS IQ score.

For example, a D&D 6 or 7 Int is just a -2 modifier.

I don't think I would classify that as bad as the said GM above did.

I don't have the 5e Monster Manual, but I did a quick check in my 3.5e one.

Many animals get a 2 Int, even monkeys.

And things like vermin (giant insects) get no intelligence (i.e. a dash); they are "mindless."

So yes, it appears that in D&D humans can use more of the low end before becoming animalistic.

P.S. Just saw this in 3.5e Monster Manual: "Any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language," defaulting to Common.

[Tom H.]

Yeah, I guess in D&D an ability score of 3 is the human threshold since it can in theory be rolled.

[tanksoldier]

Originally Posted by Tom H.

Yeah, I guess in D&D an ability score of 3 is the human threshold since it can in theory be rolled.

...and plenty of humans are unable to function in society due to mental insufficiency. They live in state hospitals and assisted care living facilites... not adventuring groups.

[Phantasm]

What I tend to do when converting D&D 3.5 to GURPS is use the attribute modifiers rather than the attributes, so that a D&D Int 8 or 9 with a -1 modifier maps to a GURPS IQ 9, a D&D Int 6 or 7 with a -2 modifier maps to a GURPS IQ 8, and a D&D Int 4 or 5 with a -3 modifier maps to a GURPS IQ 7. This won't work for animals, of course, but for humans and other sapient life it maps fairly well.

Of course, that's D&D 3.X/Pathfinder, not 4e or 5e.

So a half-orc with Int 6 or 7 is of below-average intelligence, but not really a "dumb animal". I'd probably play him with the GURPS traits of Social Stigma (Uneducated), Unfazeable, and either Clueless or Oblivious, but the high Wis (and hence Per and Will) means I'd play up the perceptive - someone like that might notice all sorts of minutia, though not necessarily relevant minutia ("Hey, did you notice their wagon wheels have twelve spokes? Ours are solid.") - and possibly both Stubborn and Indomitable, and possibly with Mind Shield or something similar. Not bright, but knows he's not bright, and may check with someone he trusts (or his god) when he thinks someone might be trying to take advantage of him. If he thinks something doesn't sound right, he's usually right, though he won't know why he's right besides "gut feeling".

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Michael Cule

A Holy Fool.

Doesn't get any of the intellectual stuff but understands right and wrong, people and their needs, situations and what they imply.

Great people skills but no book-larnin'.

A Hollywood Autist: Few people skills, but understands right and wrong and appears curiously childlike. Has superhuman skill in odd areas appropriate to the setting.

[Irish Wolf]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

...and plenty of humans are unable to function in society due to mental insufficiency. They live in state hospitals and assisted care living facilites... not adventuring groups.

But in the pseudomedieval world most D&D games take place in, there are no "state hospitals" or "assisted care living facilities", you're just expected to do what you can with what you have. Someone with good physical stats but low Int might find an adventuring group to be just the ticket - as long as you do what they need you to do, they take care of things like purchasing supplies in town and making sure you don't eat the poisonous berries.

[kdtipa]

I'm having a really difficult time coming up with a fictional character (other than the previously mentioned Forest Gump) who likely fits this.

Others have mentioned book learning as being the weak point, but I have another distinction that might help you play the character. I'm thinking of it as logical versus intuitive. Your character is likely very intuitive, but not good at putting clues together.

For example: your characters are looking at a murder scene with the town guard officer that's showing you what they found. The intelligent friend you are with might notice that some blood stains on the floor define a path out of the room, it means that not all of what happened, happened in that room.

While this information goes over your head, you are observant enough to notice that the guard is super nervous, and might be hiding something.

So when you play the character, try to avoid drawing conclusions from information, but pay a lot of attention to what the GM is saying. Even if you figure out that the blood trail leads to the bedroom where the struggle likely started by the clues, your character didn't figure that out. But if the guard seems like they're hiding something, call it out.

Just a thought.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by kdtipa

I'm having a really difficult time coming up with a fictional character (other than the previously mentioned Forest Gump) who likely fits this.

Sam Gamgee(or is he average int, average wis?), Farmer Maggot?, Aesop? Hesiod(if the last two are fictional)?

Really most non-adventurous Hobbits, who have no vice worse then Gluttony or Sloth have only enough Avarice to service the first two and certainly never heard about Libido Dominandi until Saruman showed up.

In a war story or sea story, the classic salty non-com is uneducated but wise in his trade. In Glory, I'm not sure if Rawlins qualifies; Mulacahy does, for as nasty and possibly racist as he is he knows what is needed to prepare his men even if he is uneducated in other terms. Marmaduke Merry the Midshipman(that is so obscure it would be by chance if you had read it and is certainly not the same as Mr Midshipman Easy) had a bosun that was kind of like that. It's been a long time since I saw Glory or read the other two though. That kind of non-com is going out of style in more modern shows reflecting the more choosy recruiters. The American sonarman on the sub trailing the Red October was an honest-to-goodness nerd and intelligent whether or not he was wise.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

In a war story or sea story, the classic salty non-com is uneducated but wise in his trade. In Glory, I'm not sure if Rawlins qualifies; Mulacahy does, for as nasty and possibly racist as he is he knows what is needed to prepare his men even if he is uneducated in other terms. Marmaduke Merry the Midshipman(that is so obscure it would be by chance if you had read it and is certainly not the same as Mr Midshipman Easy) had a bosun that was kind of like that. It's been a long time since I saw it though. That kind of non-com is going out of style in more modern shows reflecting the more choosy recruiters. The American sonarman on the sub trailing the Red October was an honest-to-goodness nerd and intelligent whether or not he was wise.

When Julius Fabricius, Sub-Prefect of the Weald,
In the days of Diocletian owned our lower river field,
He called to him Hobdenius, a Briton of the clay,
Saying, "What about that river-bit for laying in to hay?"

And the aged Hobden answered, "I remember as a lad
My father told your father that she wanted dreenin' bad,
And the more that you neeglect her the less you'll get her clean.
Hev it jist as you've a mind to, but—if I was you, I'd dreen."

(the first two stanzas of Kipling's "The Land")