From a real-world perspective you don't need intelligence to improve. For a fighter or thief experience is as much about muscle memory or task-based proficiency as anything else.
Anyone play guitar here? Once you learn a chord and repeat it enough times your hand forms it naturally when you think about it. It's not necessarily to do with intellect and processing it mentally, just repetition. Driving is the same, it's a task-based proficiency that improves with practice. Being smart does not make you a good driver, or even mean that you acquire the skill much more rapidly.
I'd say that a lot of tasks that are physically or dextrously demanding (swordfighting or lockpicking for specific examples) might not be that influenced by intelligence or wisdom at all, unless you're so dim you hold the wrong end of the sword/pick. There might be a bit of theory a smart person could advance rapidly in at the very beginning, but once it becomes about exposure & experience it would likely even out.
@corvino it might be even stranger than that. Many psychologists and philosophers believe that cognition itself is "embodied". That is, it's partially configured by the physical and social environment of the agent including the body itself!
but I think d&d is going to stick to an old school (false) dualistic psychology . Heck, it's physics is an amalgam of theories most of which are over 2000 years old!
That said--an earlier post remainded me of this--that earlier editions did give xp bonuses if the character had a high primary ability score. This seems to suggest that the d &d world supports this muscle memory theory.
I'm not really fond of xp bonuses of any kind though as it might be too good and railroad character creation. The idea is to support diversity of character types and I think this world be counter to that goal
Edit: early post.phone
Edit2: (somewhat young in cheek.)d &d probably should have supported xp bonuses for high intelligence though it went a different way. the " classic" difference between pc's and monsters is the former gains levels which might suggest a cartesian distinction between creatures with and without souls. this distinction is both moral and intellectual. for descartes what distinguishes a souled agent from a brute is the capacity for thought-to go beyond the "passions of beasts".
Originally all creatures, demons, etc. were given specific alignments (generally just"chaotic" or "neutral") which was set in stone. Pcs could be neutral or lawful but iirc never chaotic (basically evil). Non humans were either demi-partially souled (?) or subhuman. While demi-humans could gain levels it was only levels in "dwarf" or "elf".
In 2e-the rules for bg-they could gain class levels but only stereotyped classes are available. 3e elevated them almost to human status but the stereotypes persist (weapon profs, scottish accents, half elves to suggest elven sex maidens for adolescent fantasies etc).
If we imagine this cosmology from a roman perspective humans are romans: fully autonomous rational agents that should make full use of their organs. They should get the full bonus for high intelligence. Demi humans are conquered/"civilized" barbarians and should get say half the bonus. Half orcs would probably be the exception and get no bonus (they should feel lucky they can get levels!)
@Grammarsalad I am thinking you are making a mistake here. Creatures of one alignment (lawful, neutral, chaotic) was D&D, not AD&D. AD&D had the traditional nine alignments. Also, in D&D, Elves, Dwarves and halflings didn't have souls, they had spirits and could not be raised or resurrected from the dead. You were also limited to certain classes. Elves were fighter/mages, Dwarves were fighters, and Halflings were thieves, but instead of being called those things, they were a "Level 3 Elf" or whatnot, like you said
However, these classes were based on the races of Tolkien. Halfings were based on Hobbits, but Elven and Dwarven society were much older and more civilized than humans were, so in your example, it would be turned around- humans are the barely civilized barbarians, and Elves and Dwarves are the ones with the long history of civilization and probably helped "tame" the human race. But the humans breed like bunnies, faster than the longer-lived races around them and are pushing them out/back by the virtue of sheer numbers.
When you talk to the beholder in the Sahuagin city, I think having wisdom over 14.. 16? gives you a peaceful resolution option, hope I'm not imagining that. More of the same would be nice, there were bits and bobs in IWD, like being a druid (or possibly ranger too) and pacifying that Ogre in the tower near the start.
Edit - I guess the latter isn't int/wis relevant, other than that implied by being a druid.
Rethinking that earlier post I recall that there are thought to be at least 9 types of intelligence. This is just what I recall from a lecture at Uni years ago btw, someone else can probably give better details.
They include emotional intelligence, spatial cognition, and a couple related to body awareness, linguistics etc. It goes a way to explaining why people who seem really bright in some respects can completely fail to grasp other concepts (eg brilliant writers who can't add up, scientist with no personal skills). AD&D does divide intelligence into INT and WIS but there are more subdivisions.
You have a very good point there. I just figured that having a higher intelligence could of just helped you out a bit instead of being the prime reason to achieve mastery in things. It certainly helps if you know what you're doing in each situation.
AD&D does divide intelligence into INT and WIS but there are more subdivisions
As I see it, skills Like the knowledge, perform and profession fill in these subdivisions in the later editions and that Intelligence and Wisdom influence these abilities. Maybe not totally, but they can definitely help or hurt depending on certain factors.
Comments
Anyone play guitar here? Once you learn a chord and repeat it enough times your hand forms it naturally when you think about it. It's not necessarily to do with intellect and processing it mentally, just repetition. Driving is the same, it's a task-based proficiency that improves with practice. Being smart does not make you a good driver, or even mean that you acquire the skill much more rapidly.
I'd say that a lot of tasks that are physically or dextrously demanding (swordfighting or lockpicking for specific examples) might not be that influenced by intelligence or wisdom at all, unless you're so dim you hold the wrong end of the sword/pick. There might be a bit of theory a smart person could advance rapidly in at the very beginning, but once it becomes about exposure & experience it would likely even out.
but I think d&d is going to stick to an old school (false) dualistic psychology . Heck, it's physics is an amalgam of theories most of which are over 2000 years old!
That said--an earlier post remainded me of this--that earlier editions did give xp bonuses if the character had a high primary ability score. This seems to suggest that the d &d world supports this muscle memory theory.
I'm not really fond of xp bonuses of any kind though as it might be too good and railroad character creation. The idea is to support diversity of character types and I think this world be counter to that goal
Edit: early post.phone
Edit2: (somewhat young in cheek.)d &d probably should have supported xp bonuses for high intelligence though it went a different way. the " classic" difference between pc's and monsters is the former gains levels which might suggest a cartesian distinction between creatures with and without souls. this distinction is both moral and intellectual. for descartes what distinguishes a souled agent from a brute is the capacity for thought-to go beyond the "passions of beasts".
Originally all creatures, demons, etc. were given specific alignments (generally just"chaotic" or "neutral") which was set in stone. Pcs could be neutral or lawful but iirc never chaotic (basically evil). Non humans were either demi-partially souled (?) or subhuman. While demi-humans could gain levels it was only levels in "dwarf" or "elf".
In 2e-the rules for bg-they could gain class levels but only stereotyped classes are available. 3e elevated them almost to human status but the stereotypes persist (weapon profs, scottish accents, half elves to suggest elven sex maidens for adolescent fantasies etc).
If we imagine this cosmology from a roman perspective humans are romans: fully autonomous rational agents that should make full use of their organs. They should get the full bonus for high intelligence. Demi humans are conquered/"civilized" barbarians and should get say half the bonus. Half orcs would probably be the exception and get no bonus (they should feel lucky they can get levels!)
However, these classes were based on the races of Tolkien. Halfings were based on Hobbits, but Elven and Dwarven society were much older and more civilized than humans were, so in your example, it would be turned around- humans are the barely civilized barbarians, and Elves and Dwarves are the ones with the long history of civilization and probably helped "tame" the human race. But the humans breed like bunnies, faster than the longer-lived races around them and are pushing them out/back by the virtue of sheer numbers.
Edit - I guess the latter isn't int/wis relevant, other than that implied by being a druid.
They include emotional intelligence, spatial cognition, and a couple related to body awareness, linguistics etc. It goes a way to explaining why people who seem really bright in some respects can completely fail to grasp other concepts (eg brilliant writers who can't add up, scientist with no personal skills). AD&D does divide intelligence into INT and WIS but there are more subdivisions.
*Edit* Here's a wikipedia link that sort of supports me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
I don't have a religion, but if I did it would be wikipedia.