I agree that dex builds have a lot more going for them than they once did, and it certainly seems to be the case that where there's dex there's int. That said, while int obviously yields skill mastery soon and there's something to be said for that, it's no where near the factor that str or dex are in actual game mechanics outside of niche scenarios like STSF.

32% of the top 40 PKers of all time were low int and relatively low dex builds. That figure jumps to 52% if we only look at the top 25 warriors (again, all time). And in the case of all classes, that 32% would be higher if it weren't for builds like shapeshifters, for example, which probably aren't drawing their actual killing power from their stats directly.

I also disagree with the premise that just because we've (quite deliberately) made stats that were less mechanically interesting int he past more relevant now that int shouldn't continue to play a major part in learning rates.

At the end of the day it sounds like you prefer higher int builds and that works for you while a lot of other people seem to be content enough with their lower int builds to continue to play them and be very, very successful with them as well. I'm satisfied with that balance.

I'll also point out that while nobody has to be a domain expert in a particular subject or have a lot of first hand experience with something to pitch a good idea and be right, when it comes to game mechanics like this it does build credibility to have (recently) played the things one chooses to assert need changing because they are bad/broken/confusing/etc. Likewise, if the only thing someone plays is CE conjurer or very similar ranger builds, I'm much less likely to take their word for it that their go-to build(s) need more juice. Perspective helps.