PDA

View Full Version : Objective(ish) measures for stats?

randomhero00
2010-01-28, 03:04 PM
The "DnD Yourself theory" thread got me thinking about stats in DnD. I know there are set weight capacities for strength, but what about the rest of the stats? Obviously there can't really be a numerical value for constitution in real life, but has anyone ever done a % system? Like for instance a con 16 in real life would be the top 5% percentile of the population? Do 18s exist in real life? What would stephen hawking's intelligence be?

hamishspence
2010-01-28, 04:42 PM
Hmm- Con is used in things like holding breath, endurance marches, etc. Maybe these sort of things could be used as a basis for the tests?

For example, it's a DC 10 Con check to walk for more than 8 hours in a day without taking "nonlethal damage"- might represent blisters, muscle exhaustion, etc. And the check goes up by +2 every hour.

Similarly, a running character must make a DC 10 check (+1 per extra round) to run for each round after the first X rounds. Where X is their Con score.

Once you're "fully fit" but haven't actually boosted your upper body strength enough to qualify for a Str increase, you could be said to be "using your normal Con score to full effect" without penalties for being unfit.

Thus, a person's "optimal endurance" could be used as a basis for guesstimating their Con.

(The person should be able to run at about 12 mph, and this speed should be used for the tests, unless the person is so good at it, that it could be suggested that they have the Run and/or Endurance feats- in which case, the higher speed is used, and/or the Endurance modifiers added)

Tyndmyr
2010-01-28, 04:44 PM
I could fairly easily design tests for Str and Con. They're linked to things like carrying capacity, run speed, etc. Dex has less objective links, but it still is physical, and thus, they can be arranged.

It's the mental stats that are hard to measure objectively. It's not as if it's trivial to determine someone's wisdom.

hamishspence
2010-01-28, 04:47 PM
The tricky part is determining what level the person has, as a base to start from :smallamused:

For Dex, seeing how good a person is at "ranged attacks" might be a place to start- but you'd need to know ahead of time that they were, say, Level 1, so to speak.

randomhero00
2010-01-28, 05:04 PM
The tricky part is determining what level the person has, as a base to start from :smallamused:

For Dex, seeing how good a person is at "ranged attacks" might be a place to start- but you'd need to know ahead of time that they were, say, Level 1, so to speak.

And proficiencies. Hmmm. What about that test that measures your response time? Like a light flashes and you hit a button as soon as you see it. The closer you are to the base neuron speed (max dex) the higher your dex is, perhaps? Max dex I'd think would be 18 (or 20?) since none of us are super hero types.

Wis- is also used for willpower. A simple test for how long you can keep your hand in ice water might suffice. But not the whole experience thing.

Int- I guess would be closest to IQ tests, but we're learning IQ is only one part of the equation and we haven't created non biased tests yet for the rest.

But besides all that, has it ever said in DnD if a normal person can have a score of 18? Or what's the max in other words for "normal?" I know average is 10-12, but I mean, non adventurer "normal" to the extreme, such as stephen hawking's intelligence?

hamishspence
2010-01-28, 05:17 PM
The elite array, seems to be the norm for NPC specialists, in DMG2.

So, if you went to someone who has made "knowledge: X" their career, you'd expect them to have had an Int of 15 at 1st level.

And so on. 15 for Best Stat is something that, while unusual, is not "adventurer-level unusual"

The Arms and Equipment Guide, however, suggests most hirelings will use the "standard ability score array" with 13 as their best stat. And includes sages on that list.

So, it might work like this.

Int 15 is your typical doctorate candidate.

In this case, a person specializing in Knowledge X, might reasonably be seen as the D&D equivalent of a degree student.

It might be interesting to think about what proportion of people in a D&D setting get:

the standard array (11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10)
the nonelite array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8), called the standard array in A&EG
the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8)
rolled stats (whatever the dice say)

and whether it could be applied to this question.

Cityscape, for some of the sample generic NPCs, appears to take the nonelite array as a basis, but all except the best stat are averaged-
(13, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10)

Or, 11 and 9 are replaced with 10 and 10, so-
(13, 12, 10, 10, 10, 8)

Glass Mouse
2010-01-28, 05:43 PM
Wis- is also used for willpower. A simple test for how long you can keep your hand in ice water might suffice. But not the whole experience thing.

Wouldn't that measure con?

hamishspence
2010-01-28, 05:50 PM
How long you can immerse you whole self in ice-water and not get hypothermia is Con-related- you make Con checks with increasing difficulty.

But ability checks are very luck-based- one guy with Con 18 might get unlucky and fail his check early, on guy with Con 10 might not fail his check for a while.

Plus, its a risky sort of way to estimate a stat.

2010-01-28, 05:51 PM
There are none. D&D stats are a simplification of one's real-life abilities.

Riffington
2010-01-28, 05:52 PM

Int 15 is your typical doctorate candidate.

I'm not sure these are quite fair.
Int 15 isn't just a doctorate candidate - it's the guy the other PhD students look up to.

There's actually a big issue with Strength as well: we "test" it via lifting, but that only applies to people have no actual skill in lifting (which adds to bench press without adding as much to usable strength). Mike Tyson may have deserved an 18, but he was never a great lifter.

hamishspence
2010-01-28, 05:55 PM
There are none. D&D stats are a simplification of one's real-life abilities.

True- but if a real world person, can do everything Str-based that a Level 1 D&D character with Str 18 can, you could say that their strength is roughly equivalent to D&D Str 18.

While some people suggest relying solely on the Lift, I think Carrying as well should be involved- can you run, with a Light Load for your suggested Strength? Walk for 8 hours? Hustle for 1 hour?

On Int- I might be oversimplifying slightly. But, a person who makes a career out of what would be an Int based skill, shouldn't really be less intelligent than a D&D hireling.

Similarly, a person who is fairly "top of the line" so to speak, in that career, a professor then, not just a doctor, or a research scientist, I think should be Int 15- they don't have to be the Einstein of their generation.

This will be very much a generalization, but I think it would work something like this, for "real world stat equivalents".

Int 13- average BSc
Int 15- average PhD or Professorship

(This is their Int just as they reach adulthood, not after "levelling up in Expert" so to speak)

I'm not sure if this would apply to other degrees, some might work a bit differently.

SexyPlantLover
2010-01-29, 01:16 AM
Our group goes over this every so often too.

for STR is carrying capacity table
for DEX is the ruler drop test (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ruler+drop+test)
for CON, how long you can hold your breath, how often you get sick

mental scores are more difficult
INT: 10 is ave high school grad, 13-14 is 4yr degree, 16-18 is multiple PhD
WIS we've never really agreed on, but I like to guess it's based on gullibilty, street smarts, ability to find waldo, and see through optical illusions
CHA: I think it is a combo of attractiveness (are you a 7 or a 10) and if you are a leader or talkative person

Swordgleam
2010-01-29, 01:18 AM
Str has a measurement - the carrying capacities. So why not base everything else off that?

For example, let's say someone can carry enough to have 12 str. They're tougher than they are strong, but less agile, so they have 14 con and 10 dex. They're much, much smarter than they are strong, so maybe they have 16 int. Etc.

It's not perfect, but I think it's the only way you'll have a chance at the mental stats. You could use something like IQ or standardized test scores for Int, but Wis and Cha?

Tengu_temp
2010-01-29, 01:23 AM
I'm not sure these are quite fair.
Int 15 isn't just a doctorate candidate - it's the guy the other PhD students look up to.

I don't see any sense in linking intelligence with education. Education is represented by the academic skills you have.

term1nally s1ck
2010-01-29, 02:00 AM
Education = ranks in knowledge. Or maybe profession/craft.

It's easy to check INT, you just figure out how many bonus spells/day they get.

Gralamin
2010-01-29, 02:07 AM
Trying to measure any of the mental stats isn't going to work. They are much too complicated and nuanced for us to get anything close to a fair test (See: IQ Test Controversy). Education doesn't work: Thats essentially skills.

frogspawner
2010-01-29, 03:16 AM

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 03:47 AM
I don't see any sense in linking intelligence with education. Education is represented by the academic skills you have.

True- but in D&D at least, people specializing in a skill, tend to have a best stat which is the one associated with that skill.

So an "ordinary sage" with Knowledge X as their "career skill" would probably have started out with Int 13, and taken the Skill Focus feat, and maxed-out ranks in Knowledge history. And be the equivalent of an "ordinary scientist"

But an "elite specialist" would have all this, and Int 15 as starting stat, and be a "great scientist", or at the very least, a "talented scientist" (probably professorship, postdoctorate, etc)

And the same combination of Skill Focus, maxed ranks, but with Int 18 starting stat, would be associated with a prodigy, not just a "great scientist"- but one of the greatest of their generation.

That is, their stat just as they reach adulthood, would be Int 18. At the peak of their career, they would have "leveled up" enough to have a lot of Int boosts, so to speak. :smallamused:

Education is skills- but people who make a career out of those skills, tend to have a "natural aptitude" for them- a high base stat, in short.

Riffington
2010-01-29, 08:20 AM
I don't see any sense in linking intelligence with education. Education is represented by the academic skills you have.

Yes, absolutely. But those academic skills require some intelligence to acquire.
It's really hard to get through college with an IQ below 90. So the average college student IQ is higher as a result (cut out all the 85 IQ people and most of the 90s; keep all the 120s and 180s).
Similarly, it's hard to get a doctorate degree (except in the soft sciences) with an IQ below 115 or so. So the average PhD is going to have an Int of 13 or so.
You can absolutely have an uneducated farmer with an IQ of 180. But if you're looking for people with Int 18, you'll have better luck at Yale or MIT than if you look at random.

True- but in D&D at least, people specializing in a skill, tend to have a best stat which is the one associated with that skill.

So an "ordinary sage" with Knowledge X as their "career skill" would probably have started out with Int 13, and taken the Skill Focus feat, and maxed-out ranks in Knowledge history. And be the equivalent of an "ordinary scientist"

But an "elite specialist" would have all this, and Int 15 as starting stat, and be a "great scientist", or at the very least, a "talented scientist" (probably professorship, postdoctorate, etc)

So, I agree with this except your definition of "ordinary" or "talented". A professor is your "ordinary sage".
Your elite specialist shouldn't be just a prof or postdoc. He should be the prof or postdoc or auto mechanic or locksmith that all the other profs (or whoemever) look up to.
A random hireling doesn't get the elite array. A random hireling gets the standard array, with the attributes not necessarily optimized. An elite hireling (the kind you have to seek out by reputation) gets the elite array.

Iku Rex
2010-01-29, 08:39 AM
I believe the average person in DnD has 3d6 stats. So you want to start with this: http://www.thedarkfortress.co.uk/tech_reports/3_dice_rolls.htm .

One implication of the 3d6 assumption is that "extraordinary" ability scores aren't that extraordinary.

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 08:39 AM
Might be interesting to look at proportions.

What proportion of the adult population of a country have, or are working toward- professorship level?

If "professor-level intelligence" is one in a thousand, or even one in a million, then saying that this is "equivalent to Int 13" seems like a bit of a stretch.

Being a post-doctorate scientist at all, is quite a way from "ordinary intelligence"

Hence, I see Int 15 as merely "likely to turn out to be a scientist of some note"

Or, some other Int-related career- not all Knowledge skills are science, after all.

Professor might count as being a few steps above Doctor- with Int 13 being "capable of passing a PhD" and Int 15 "capable of getting tenure at a prestigious university"

(Note that these all refer to their Int before they've had all that training.)

If, say, 1 in 10 people study science at university, 1 in 10 of those study for a PhD, 1 in 10 of those study for a professorship, that makes a professor very much a rarity.

I believe the average person in DnD has 3d6 stats. So you want to start with this: http://www.thedarkfortress.co.uk/tech_reports/3_dice_rolls.htm .

One implication of the 3d6 assumption is that "extraordinary" ability scores aren't that extraordinary.

Problem with that is, in 3.0 and 3.5, most NPCs don't roll stats, but get an array, such as the standard array, or the elite array.

"Rolling them up" is the exception now, rather than the rule.

Implying that the vast majority of bad stats, are no worse than 8.

Riffington
2010-01-29, 08:50 AM
Few people are professors but then few try

There are plenty of iq150 plumbers

Nobody is 4th level so no stat boosts
On Earth aging gives an int penalty

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 09:01 AM
"Nobody is 4th level"- where's that come from?

D&D NPCs, even ones who never, or almost never fight, seem to go up to pretty high level, 10 or more.

I see a university student as a 1st level expert, a PhD student as a 5th level expert, an "average professor" as a 10th level expert, and the rare big-name scientists, as maybe about 15th level or so.

Similarly, we don't know that aging gives an Int penalty big enough to matter.

As to "plenty of IQ 150 plumbers" what is the source for this, and how many is "plenty"?

The point about few trying, is few are talented enough to try, and most are aware of this.

Frozen_Feet
2010-01-29, 09:05 AM
I believe the average person in DnD has 3d6 stats. So you want to start with this: http://www.thedarkfortress.co.uk/tech_reports/3_dice_rolls.htm .

One implication of the 3d6 assumption is that "extraordinary" ability scores aren't that extraordinary.

Also, nowadays extraordinarity of PCs is usually accomplished with "4d6, drop the worst die", giving them a higher average. Arrays are a tool to simplify DM's task, and they're still based around the average of 3d6 roll, so working with the basis that people in D&D land are random isn't unjustified.

To the above poster Riffington: Why do you think no-one is lvl 4 in our world?

PS: Thank you for posting those delicious propabilities. Now I don't need to count them again.

Riffington
2010-01-29, 09:15 AM
Those who can do.
Those who cannot, teach
It's a mistake to think that those who lack interest in the ivory tower are dumb
They just have different priorities.
Don't you know some profs dumber than you?
If you have level above 3 you can not die from a knife crit

frogspawner
2010-01-29, 09:40 AM
"Nobody is 4th level"- where's that come from?
...Reality?

Frozen_Feet
2010-01-29, 09:50 AM
If you have level above 3 you can not die from a knife crit
...an NPC class with average CON can legitimately have 1 HP per level. It's even encouraged. So even at level 5, an ordinary Joe stabbing you has a very real chance of sending you to negatives and bleeding to death. Besides, hitpoints aren't just health anyway.

On the other side of the spectrum, reality has people falling from mile high and crashing an airplane to a mountainside and having a block of iron shot trough their head... and still living to tell about it.

So you'll need a better argument than just hitpoints.

Riffington
2010-01-29, 09:50 AM
A level in expert gives 6 or 8 ranks as much knowledge as two professions ie law school with 4 years practice plus another such trade

A level in warrior gives overall accuracy better toughness sufficient horsemanship to ride into battle in platemail ability to run in plate competent swordsmanship competent archery polearms training knife fighting etc etc

Tyndmyr
2010-01-29, 09:58 AM
Those who can do.
Those who cannot, teach
It's a mistake to think that those who lack interest in the ivory tower are dumb
They just have different priorities.
Don't you know some profs dumber than you?

That's probably why he said average professor.

The average professor is reasonably intelligent. They have to be. This does not presuppose other mental attributes like, say, charisma, but your anti-intellectualism has little ground here.

Riffington
2010-01-29, 10:24 AM
That's probably why he said average professor.

The average professor is reasonably intelligent. They have to be. This does not presuppose other mental attributes like, say, charisma, but your anti-intellectualism has little ground here.

I'm hardly antiintellectual. I'm anti assuming nonacademics are dumb.
But if you have iq 130 as some of you do you probably know as many professors you know are dumber than you as you know smarter than you

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 12:28 PM
The problem is that the IQ/10 = Int formula, suggested as a general rule-of-thumb for 2nd ed, may not be correct for 3rd ed.

D&D rules are an abstraction- when back-applying them to the real world, some of the oddities may need to be handwaved.

If an apprentice in any trade is 1st level, a journeyman 5th level, and a Master 10th level, as Cityscape suggests, then the same general rule for levels probably applies to real-world equivalents. Yes, the D&D ones will be tougher- that's an artifact of the D&D rules.

In the same way, if Int 13 (or any Best Stat = 13) is considered "standard", then Int 15 should be considered "elite" not necessarily a 1 in a million person, but more of a 1 in 1000 or so.

Ormur
2010-01-29, 01:22 PM
Both IQ and Int are very iffy as measurements of intelligence but if one wants to go with Int as IQ at all you compare the results of 3d6 to the percentage of people with a certain IQ. If 0,46% of people have an Int of 18 that equals an IQ of about 140+. A little less than 5% have an Int of 16 or above which corresponds to an IQ of about 125+. About 25% get an Int of 13 and above which is an IQ of 110 and above. I think I got this right.
Although the 3d6 system is used in a medieval D&D world and thanks to the Flynn effect IQ has risen since then, whether that's because of inflation, better nutrition or greater complexity of society I don't know.

Maybe that's represented by more people putting the high rolls in Int as Str and Con loose their value. :smalltongue:

2010-01-29, 01:38 PM
STR- This has an easily quantifyable measure, but your best to go off the MAXIMUM as its hard to tell if you're at you low end of medium load or high end of light load. Best bet go with max load a person is able to DRAG as lifting is actually a trainable skill in this day an age.

DEX- I once joked with my friends that if i could shoot them with a nerf gun then they did not have the dodge feat. . . realistically the best way to test a pesons dexterity is with the hand-eye coordination tests. Assume an 18 is perfect within the minimum requisit time, and calibrate from there. 19 and higher would be super human speeds.
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/educators/resources/pmdis/coordination.asp

CON-breath holding. This would caculate out to seconds you can hold your breath during after EXHALING without any chest pain or constriction/6 to calculate your modifyer. Your remainder would determine weather you were on the even or the odd actual number. (greater than .5 odd, less than .5 even)
Subtract from this the number of times in a year that you get sick (on average)

EXAMPLE: You exhale then hold your breath. You can hold your breath for 13 seconds before you start to feel ANY discomfort in your chest. 13/6=2.17Therfore your con would be 14 but you tend to get sick twice a year so youre actual CON is 12.

INT- IQ/10 works pretty well honestly. . . you can argue it all you want but if you actually read IQ classifications its pretty accurate. An INT of 18 would be equivalent to an IQ of 180 which would be an extream super-genius. people tend to forget that MINDFLAYERS are supposed to have an 18 and they invented TIME TRAVEL so they could come back in time and rule all of history. . . if you invent time travel I will belive you have an 18. Steven hawkings has slightly over a 200. . . Mental retardation is classified at 69 (IE INT of 6) and lower so yeah. . . this is realistic and accurate.

WIS-Only way to really work this is on a 2 sided scale.
Side one: how good are your senses, do you have a good sense of smell, hearing, good eyesight.
Side two: How good are you at reading people and understanding the more ephemeral things in life like emotions.
put the two sides on a scale of 1-18 then Average them. . . thats your wisdom score.

CHA-A combination of how pretty others percieve you to be and how influencial your personality. You dont nessicarily have to be liked, but if youre very influencial you'd be pretty charismatic. Like with wisdom put them both on a 1-18 scale and average them.

me personally: on a realistic scale where I accept that I as most actual gamers am not of adventuring quality!
STR-like a 7. . . I is weak
DEX-11
CON-13
INT-13
WIS-10
CHA-12

Riffington
2010-01-29, 01:47 PM
If an apprentice in any trade is 1st level, a journeyman 5th level, and a Master 10th level, as Cityscape suggests, then the same general rule for levels probably applies to real-world equivalents.

I think this is the root of our disagreement. I'd say that a first level character is one who has finished his training, and is now a journeyman or a warrior or a wizard with his own sigil - no longer an apprentice at all.

If it's otherwise, then the whole "adventurer" thing makes no sense: a 1st level fighter is supposed to be a hero who can help save the town from marauding goblins - not an 8 year old kid who needs to be kept away from sharp objects. If you have 10th level blacksmiths running around then Dragons would need to stay far from those dangerous "hamlets". And adventurers would be "those pesky kids" until they're high enough level that magic breaks the game.

If these 1st level characters do nothing of note, they'll become a "master" or a "veteran" without ever gaining another level. If they gain as much experience and wisdom in their field as it would take to master an entirely new field - then they get to 2nd level. Veterans who learn a great deal, or masters who work hard on their art become 2nd level. A 3rd level character is experienced indeed.

And at 4th level, even NPC classes do superhuman feats (toughness, etc). I'm not saying there exist no 4th level characters anywhere on Earth (Rasputin springs to mind), but certainly it shouldn't be assumed of a mere Einstein.

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 02:30 PM
Hit points, BAB, feats, etc are much less important to me, than skills.

And NPCs, especially in cities, can be quite high level- consistant with rating their modern equivalents as quite high level.

I don't see all that much disconnect, with 1st level adventurers being "rookies"- Faerun in particular portrays them that way.

And its worth remembering, that the starting adventurer ages are quite young.

Cityscape:
City Guard Rookie- 1st level warrior
City Guard Soldier- 5th level warrior
City Guard Veteran- 10th level warrior

Apprentice Craftsmaker- 1st level expert
Journeyman Craftsmaker- 5th level expert
Master Craftsmaker- 10th level expert

Young Heir- 1st level aristocrat
City Politician- 5th level aristocrat
Career Statesman- 10th level aristocrat

Sneak Thief- 1st level rogue
Burglar- 5th level rogue
Master Thief- 10th level rogue

In general I'd say, because the modern world is more urban than the D&D one, high levels should not be looked on as "freakishly capable" for NPCs.

randomhero00
2010-01-29, 02:37 PM
Con- You can train yourself to hold your breath too. By quite a bit in fact. It's like a sport. All the true tests I can think of for Con would be too dangerous :D Oh! I just thought of a perfect test! They do this thing for a professional runners, I saw it on PBS with this show on Marathons. They hook you up to a treadmill and air tubes and test how well your lungs process oxygen. IIRC it's pretty objective, as this guy that had never worked out his entire 40 years of his life had the lungs of most Olympians(I'm not explaining it well, it had to do with things on a cellular level IIRC). Combine that, with perhaps, a white blood cell count over the course of a month or two.

Wis- you can't test senses as something like a stigmatism seems to be a lot rarer in DND than real life. The older wise people, would have a much lower wis score than they should if you were testing hearing and seeing. I'd go more with walk through a room test, and tell me what you notice. But even that would be biased against older people who can't see as well anymore. And classifying it to a numerical value would be difficult. I think this test would have to be very long and with multiple avenues. Like one aspect would be talking to 5 different people and picking out the 2 liars. One based on willpower, etc.

Int- basing it off of IQ- what about the creative aspects? Picasso get's crappy stats even though he was extraordinary?

So I think we all agree that an 18 is possible but very unlikely, and that anything higher is super human? And probably hasn't existed? Unless dudes like Merlin or Rasputin really existed.

2010-01-29, 02:38 PM
In general I'd say, because the modern world is more urban than the D&D one, high levels should not be looked on as "freakishly capable" for NPCs.

I agree with this in terms of basic classes like comoner and expert. . . Most modern people who have an education and a job have a number of commoner and expert levels, Those who have been in military service may even have a few warrior levels.

The only problem comes in when people start thinking they have PC class levels. few if any people in the real world have pc levels.
Sorry folks your almost all NPC's

But the question of this thread Was how to determine STATS. . . STR DEC CON INT WIS CHA. . . So class levels are irrelevant as to determine stats you need to specifically think about way that dont involve skils.

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 02:41 PM
They can contribute to maximum stats.

If a world-class athlete is a 10th level Expert, their best stat will be higher than the normal maximum.

or, for any NPC, so to speak.

So, if a really exceptional (not just elite) scientist prodigy starts at 18, levelling will boost their best stat even higher.

Riffington
2010-01-29, 02:53 PM
Hit points, BAB, feats, etc are much less important to me, than skills.
Why given that the skill system modifiers are the most messed up part of D&D?

And even if you do like them: what you're saying is that the difference between a high school athlete climber and a professional mountaineer is so great that even if the professional climber is then crippled (Str 6) while the high school athlete is remarkably strong (Str 15), the professional is better at climbing?

Or that a master safecracker is much better with a paperclip than a mere professional locksmith with proper tools?

If a 1st level adventurer is not merely a "rookie"*, but rather so pitiful that an ordinary police officer can off a whole party of them. Then what gives them the idea to adventure? What would possibly make one think he has any business holding a sword when an ordinary professional soldier can soundly thrash him with a rusty spoon?

*my understanding of "rookie" is that one's rookie year, one may well be a starting player. Not that one warms the bench for the first 20 years of professional play.

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 02:58 PM
Greed, possibly. Adventuring is a high risk, high reward profession- you might strike it lucky if you carefully target low level monsters and run from anything meaner.

And you might die horribly if you misjudge when to run.

Spellfire by Ed Greenwood showed a low level adventuring party quite well- when they picked a fight with the wrong enemy, most of them got slaughtered.

The skill system has its own flaws, but the base assumptions for 3rd/3.5 ed D&D seem to be- 1st level is apprentice, 5th level journeyman, 10th level master.

Hence, I apply these back to modern era.

D20 Modern, in fact, uses similar principles- 2nd level NPCs are the low end of what you'd expect to encounter- say, a police officer, or a scientist, or a lawyer, or any other NPC, just beginning his career, 10th level NPCs are high-end.

So, the bobby on the beat, at the beginning of his career, is 2nd level.
The scarred, badass veteran, who has seen it all, is 10th level.

Though D20 modern does give the elite array to pretty much everyone.

Low level University Scientist: 2nd level
graduate student or research assistant- Int 15

Mid level University Scientist: 6th level
just shy of achieving their tenure- Int 16

High level University Scientist: 10th level
Has reached tenure- often has a government grant as well- Int 17

DarklingPerhaps
2010-01-29, 03:27 PM
So I think we all agree that an 18 is possible but very unlikely, and that anything higher is super human? And probably hasn't existed? Unless dudes like Merlin or Rasputin really existed.

??? Rasputin did exist.

And I'd like to agree with the sentiment that 18's a possible, but I don't think they're too unlikely. I mean, they're rollable unlike 19+, so they're probably like 95th percentile or something. I guess that's still unlikely, but it's still feasible we have a bunch running around.

By that breath test my con should be 14. (20 seconds, I ALWAYS get sick twice a year).

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 03:34 PM
??? Rasputin did exist.

Its possible that the stories about him surviving poison, strangling, shooting, etc may have been overhyped though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputin

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-29, 03:37 PM
I think this is the root of our disagreement. I'd say that a first level character is one who has finished his training, and is now a journeyman or a warrior or a wizard with his own sigil - no longer an apprentice at all.

If it's otherwise, then the whole "adventurer" thing makes no sense: a 1st level fighter is supposed to be a hero who can help save the town from marauding goblins - not an 8 year old kid who needs to be kept away from sharp objects. If you have 10th level blacksmiths running around then Dragons would need to stay far from those dangerous "hamlets". And adventurers would be "those pesky kids" until they're high enough level that magic breaks the game.

If these 1st level characters do nothing of note, they'll become a "master" or a "veteran" without ever gaining another level. If they gain as much experience and wisdom in their field as it would take to master an entirely new field - then they get to 2nd level. Veterans who learn a great deal, or masters who work hard on their art become 2nd level. A 3rd level character is experienced indeed.

And at 4th level, even NPC classes do superhuman feats (toughness, etc). I'm not saying there exist no 4th level characters anywhere on Earth (Rasputin springs to mind), but certainly it shouldn't be assumed of a mere Einstein.

I agree with this sentiment personally, but the Books like to contradict each other. In Complete Mage, it's stated that a Wizard isn't considered a Master until he can cast 1st level spells. In DMG2, you aren't considered a Master until 5th or 6th level. Makes no sense.

frogspawner
2010-01-29, 03:41 PM
So I think we all agree that an 18 is possible but very unlikely, and that anything higher is super human? And probably hasn't existed? Unless dudes like Merlin or Rasputin really existed.
Well, Rasputin did really exist... ...so whatever you're attributing to him should probably define what "18 Con" can do. (Or were you thinking of Cha...? :smallwink:)

frogspawner
2010-01-29, 03:51 PM
Its possible that the stories about him surviving poison, strangling, shooting, etc may have been overhyped though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputin
Wow - and sitting up at his own cremation - fantastic!

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 03:52 PM
I agree with this sentiment personally, but the Books like to contradict each other. In Complete Mage, it's stated that a Wizard isn't considered a Master until he can cast 1st level spells. In DMG2, you aren't considered a Master until 5th or 6th level. Makes no sense.

Mentor, in DMG2, requires 8 ranks in the relavent skills.

The sample "master wizard" is 18th level.

Where in Complete Mage did it say a 1st level wizard is considered a Master?

Telonius
2010-01-29, 03:56 PM
Calibration is a big part of the problem. I think the key questions here are something along these lines...

- What does/should an 18 in (insert stat) actually look like in the real world?
- What is the stat actually measuring?
- How often does/should an 18 happen? Once in a blue moon, 1 in 512, top 1 percentile?

Intelligence is a big sticking point. Einstein is usually held up as the prime example of a super-high Int, and most people on the boards stat him as an 18. I think this is about right. But what is intelligence actually measuring? In my view, it's capacity. Einstein may have benefitted from some odd brain structures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_brain), but otherwise he was a human being like the rest of us. In my opinion, there are probably lots of people with as much intellectual capacity as Einstein. Most of them aren't applying themselves to problems of theoretical physics, don't have government funding or a press agent, and will never be known to anybody outside their immediate friends and family as a really smart person. I'd say an 18 int ought to occur in 1/512 people, to match rolling three sixes - the top fifth of a percentile. In other words, right now there are probably about 9.76 million human beings with 18 Int walking around on planet earth, approximately evenly distributed among populations.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-29, 03:58 PM
Mentor, in DMG2, requires 8 ranks in the relavent skills.

The sample "master wizard" is 18th level.

Where in Complete Mage did it say a 1st level wizard is considered a Master?

Either CArc or CM stated that a Wizard capable of casting 1st level spells has graduated his apprenticeship. I forget where.

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 04:09 PM
"Graduating an apprenticeship" is not quite the same thing as "Is a Master"- given that there are generally 3 categories- apprentice, journeyman, master.

Also, the Apprentice feat in DMG2, must be taken at 1st level.

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 04:11 PM
[QUOTE=SexyPlantLover;7785923]Our group goes over this every so often too.
for STR is carrying capacity table
for DEX is the ruler drop test (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ruler+drop+test)
for CON, how long you can hold your breath, how often you get sick

But not really.

Strength measures Damage. If we assume the average person is a level one commoner and has between 1 and 4 hit points. Take a knife. Stab your friend in the face, if you can take him out with ONE shot, then you have a positive strength modifier.

Ruler test? there's no ruler test in DandD. Dex affects your natural armor save. Take the knife out of that friend you just stabbed in the face, give it to the next person in the room. Tell them to attack you with it, if you doge more often than you get hit, then you have a positive dex modifier.

Con? that mesures your hit points. You have between 1 and 4 hitpoints. How that friend that we had attack you with the knife, are they a healthy, fit individual? did oyu survive getting stabbed more than 4 times? congrats, you have a positive con bonus

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 04:24 PM
Slightly less risky methods are preferable. :smallamused:

Complete Arcane does mention the Arcane Order- 1st-2nd level members are "novices" 5th level or higher are often "instructors"

Silver Marches has the Lady's College, which trains student wizards, sorcerers, and bards, up to 7th level. 8th level wizards may not join the college as students, only as "fellows"

Riffington
2010-01-29, 04:26 PM
"Graduating an apprenticeship" is not quite the same thing as "Is a Master"- given that there are generally 3 categories- apprentice, journeyman, master.

Also, the Apprentice feat in DMG2, must be taken at 1st level.

DMG2 and Cityscape are from the "power creep"days. Nuff said.
Note that all Regional feats have to be taken at 1st level. If you hadn't figured out who you were as a person by 1st level, you could just take those at 5th.

When talking about PC organizations all bets are off. Wizards and fighters presumably do all kinds of advanced training above the skills of NPC classes. There's just no reason for an "ultimate smith" even if there's a point to superhuman fighters trading war tips.

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 04:30 PM
The problem is that the IQ/10 = Int formula, suggested as a general rule-of-thumb for 2nd ed, may not be correct for 3rd ed.

From the AD&D players guide, typos included

intelligence: Intelligence is quite similar to what is currently known as
intelligence quotient, but it also includes mnemanic ability, reasoning,
and learning ability outside those measured by the written word.
Intelligence dictates the number of languages in which the character is
able to converse.*

So according the handbook you INT is found ONLY by the number of languages you can speak, and your bonus spells

Furthermore, the Players Option book says that Int is
This becomes the subabilities of Reason, which shows a general level of education

So if the collage student that was being spoken of is getting there first BS or BA and are being taught by some one with there doctorate in teh filed, then the student can not have an Int higher than the professor, given AD&D rules.

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 04:33 PM
In a metropolis (going by DMG), you will have a minimum of 4 Experts of at least 15th level. And given it's 12 +3d4, they are likely to be even higher than that. Though they are assumed in the DMG to max-out at 20th level.

Most cities in the modern world have a population on a par with a Planar Metropolis from Epic Handbook.

Suddenly high level characters don't look quite so rare.

Maybe I'm thinking of 1st ed? I'm sure it was mentioned somewhere.

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 04:38 PM
Maybe I'm thinking of 1st ed? I'm sure it was mentioned somewhere.

Its not in the 7th printing of 1st ED

We can also assume that William Stern dose not exist in any planet in the prime material plane, and that pretty much any one in D&D would horribly fail an IQ test, as IQ tests are designed to test intelligence in 20/1st century earth, so any character who took one would fail horribly.

INT has nothing to do with IQ, it just shows who speaks more languages, and who knows more than who/hasa better education

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-29, 04:41 PM
Its not in the 7th printing of 1st ED

One of the WotC articles mentioned it actually.

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 04:45 PM
One of the WotC articles mentioned it actually.

Maybe I'm thinking of 1st ed? I'm sure it was mentioned somewhere.

WotC didn't publish 1st Ed AD&D, the product that was being talked about

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 04:50 PM
This site has some references to it- suggesting that it was very early in Dragon Magazine that the subject came up:

http://www.superdan.net/dndmisc/int_iq.html

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 04:53 PM
The Score so far

Does the 1st Edition AD&D players handbook say that INT=IQ/10: No
Does the 2nd Edition AD&D players handbook say that INT=IQ/10: No
Does the 2nd Edition Players Option book say that INT=IQ/10
Does the 3rd Edition D&D players handbook say that INT=IQ/10: No
Does the 3.5 Edition D&D players handbook say that INT=IQ/10: No
Does the 4 Edition D&D players handbook say that INT=IQ/10: No

Does a webartical say that INT=IQ/10: Maybe?
Does a copy of dragon magazine say that it is? Yes

Was that incorporated in to ANY of the Players handbooks made in the next 30 years: No

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 04:59 PM
True- it appears that some of the early player's books simply suggested that it was equivalent to IQ, without giving an actual ratio. And, that Int 18 was "genius"

Which could mean IQ 140, or IQ 180, or might not use the IQ system at all, but the "popular conception" of a genius.

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 05:05 PM
hamishspence: I'm not even trying to be a jerk here, but that's not implyed anywhere other than the artical you linked me to.

1st and 2nd ed in no way mention IQ, and ONLY list the effects INT has as being languages known, and bonus spells, and chance of learning a spell.

So Even if some one here has an IQ of 100,000,000, if they can't speak more than one language, can't cast higher than 5th level spells, they have an Int of 10

EDIT

In the interest of full disclosure. it DOES say

Intelligence is quite similar to what is currently known as
intelligence quotient So an INT score is quite close to the intelligance quotient, but not "An IQ score is close to an INT score" so both an IQ score and an INT Score are both ways of quantifying intelligence

but at NO point dose it give a ratio of fromula of any type

True- it appears that some of the early player's books simply suggested that it was equivalent to IQ, without giving an actual ratio. And, that Int 18 was "genius"

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 05:13 PM
Monsters books then- it does cite page number, as well.

Though the Int/languages issue can be accounted for by lack of education. Int is about mental skill- and apparently, we in the real world, do not make nearly as much use of our aptitude for languages, as we could.

Thus, being only able to speak one language is not proof of Int 10 or less, merely evidence that D&D settings have better language education on average. :smallamused:

Come to think of it- there are some serious polyglots out there- are they all Int 20 and above? Or is it simply that "can speak multiple languages" is not really that important to Intelligence?

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 05:17 PM
Though the Int/languages issue can be accounted for by lack of education. Int is about mental skill- and apparently, we in the real world, do not make nearly as much use of our aptitude for languages, as we could.

No, it can't the book tells us EXACTLY what an INT score covers. This can be accounted for, by the fact that fictional attribute scores, are abstractions given for a game, not an attempt at hard science

Thus, being only able to speak one language is not proof of Int 10 or less, merely evidence that D&D settings have better language education on average.

No, being able to speak only one language IS proof of an Int 10 or less, because that is exactly what the book tells us it means. Int scores do not exist outside of D&D, so the issues they quantify, are always accurate.

Not being able to speak more than one language, does not however, reflect on a persons IQ score in anyway.

Just as if a person can not drag a 1,500 pound object they have a strenght score of less than 18

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 05:26 PM
PHB: "Int determines how well your character learns and reasons"

When trying to translate from "real world intelligence" to "the D&D Intelligence stat" it makes more sense, to simply handwave the oddities.

For example

"My character never found the opportunity to learn other languages- thus, he only knows 1 language instead of the normal number. However, for all other purposes, he is equivalent to a D&D character with Int 13"

When discussing "approximate equivalents" this is the basic line.

In the same way, if a real world polyglot was to try and "stat themselves" they would pay attention to more things, than just the languages they speak- if they are not so good at problem solving in general, they'd say "The number of languages I speak is misleading- for most purposes, my Int would really come out lower."

term1nally s1ck
2010-01-29, 05:29 PM
you can put skill points into getting more languages.

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 05:36 PM
PHB: "Int determines how well your character learns and reasons"

Yep yep, that dosn't give a ratio of Int to IQ

When trying to translate from "real world intelligence" to "the D&D Intelligence stat" it makes more sense, to simply handwave the oddities.

So... from the 2 pages dedicated to talking about the intelligence stat, were going to keep one sentence, that doesn't give a direct formula of INT to IQ, as a way to prove your idea that IQ=Int/10. And were going to disregard the REST of the entry?

"My character never found the opportunity to learn other languages- thus, he only knows 1 language instead of the normal number. However, for all other purposes, he is equivalent to a D&D character with Int 13"

O.K. So he has bonus spells per day?
He's better at learning spells?

the rules of AD&D arn't made to quantify the real world. there made to quantify the reality, of a world where an OWL can have sex with a BEAR and produce offspring

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 05:38 PM
you can put skill points into getting more languages.

hamishspence and I are talkin AD&D friend. Back in my day, we didn't get skill points, and you couldn't buy languages with non-weapon proficiencys.

Although my basic statement remains true. if you speak ONE language then you have an INT of 10, if you speak 2 languages you have an INT of 10 or higher

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 05:45 PM
Actually, I dislike the Int = IQ/10 theory.

But nor does "if you can't speak more than one language, you must be Int 10" make sense, either-

since the fact that present-day people don't, in many cultures, train people to speak as many languages as they can manage in childhood, has no bearing on their potential ability to do this if they had been trained.

Call it "unfulfilled potential". Or maybe a unique Flaw, a la Unearthed Arcana: Poor Language Education :smallamused:

And it's not just AD&D- its D&D systems from Mentzer D&D, to 3.5, possibly including D20 modern, since there are rules for D&D to D20 Modern crossovers, especially in Urban Arcana.

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 05:47 PM
Actually, I dislike the Int = IQ/10 theory.

I know, I think we actually aggreed on this in the thread like this 14 months ago

But nor does "if you can't speak more than one language, you must be Int 10" make sense, either-

The rules are full of TONS of crap that makes no sence, but there the rules of that world, not ours

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 06:04 PM
If its AD&D, and Int 18 = Genius (for monsters and, its implied, for players) then what happens when you have a Genius who knows only one language?

Stat them out as Int 10?
Or just waive the "knows more languages than that" principle, in the interests of running an enjoyable crossover game?

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 06:09 PM
If its AD&D, and Int 18 = Genius (for monsters and, its implied, for players) then what happens when you have a Genius who knows only one language?

You don't have a genius if they only speak one language.
Its D&D its a flawed system, but hell, what isnt?

Or just waive the "knows more languages than that" principle, in the interests of running an enjoyable crossover game?

Cross over game with what?
Real life?

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 06:13 PM
Example- you're running a D&D campaign where a few 20th century people have accidentally stumbled through a portal into the D&D world.

Or vice versa, for that matter- D&D rules, some D&D characters, but the world is the 20th century- Unearthed Arcana Urban Arcana is based around this sort of thing.

Hence- what stats do you give them?
Obviously, the stats, levels, etc will only be approximations, abstractions, etc.

But you'd want to get as close as possible, within reason- hence, if there is a major logic break (the genius who knows only one language being deemed Int 10, for example) you might want to simply leave them at the higher Int and create a Flaw to represent this, rather than have them take all Intelligence checks, Int-based skill checks, and so on, based on Int 10.

Rules as Intended for the crossover, rather than Rules As Written (given the number of problems that tend to crop up, I suspect very few people play everything as Rules as Written anyway)

randomhero00
2010-01-29, 06:15 PM
Its possible that the stories about him surviving poison, strangling, shooting, etc may have been overhyped though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputin

That's what I meant. Yeah, he was real, so was Merlin and King Arthur, but the question is of how real were their legends. Probably not real.

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 06:23 PM
Example- you're running a D&D campaign where a few 20th century people have accidentally stumbled through a portal into the D&D world.

Are we talking AD&D or 3.X?

In both I would give 20th century people low INT scores despite there possibly high IQ's.

In AD&D, well they would not know languages or have at this point learned any spells.

In 3.X where your Int effects skill points... well for G-ds sake man. I fancy my self a fairly intelligent human being, but if I woke up in Sigle tomorrow, I wouldn't know ANYTHING about the world, or anything on the character sheet.
I MAY have a few ranks in perform, but who knows what singing in an Earth language sounds like, for all we know ava maria may sound like a bag of kittens getting set on fire.
3.X has the advantage that every 4 levels, I would be able to bump my INT score.

Or vice versa, for that matter- D&D rules, some D&D characters, but the world is the 20th century- Unearthed Arcana is based around this sort of thing.

Never Read Unearthed Arcana, I would have to see the INT rules for it, are they exactly the same as 3.X?

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 06:28 PM
Sorry- that should have been Urban Arcana- a campaign setting for D20 modern, which uses rules very similar to 3.0 in most ways- both are very much D20 System games.

D20 modern gives all heroes 1 language as their starting language- and know extra languages for high Int.

Also- regardless of high Int, no-one in AD&D knows any spells without levels in a spellcasting class- so that bit is irrelavent. A Fighter with Int 18 (possible but unlikely) will know no spells.

A person "translated" to the D&D world, would probably have no ranks in relavent skills- but their Int would not necessarily be automatically counted as low- because, as mentioned, Int is about how easily you learn things, not what you know.

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 06:32 PM
Sorry- that should have been Urban Arcana- a campaign setting for D20 modern, which uses rules very similar to 3.0 in most ways- both are very much D20 System games.

D20 modern gives all heroes 1 language as their starting language- and know extra languages for high Int.

Also, and I'm being quite searious here. Take an average D&D character. Sit him down, give him an IQ test. Teach him enough english (Or whatever language) to take that IQ test, watch him fail horribly even if his INT is 22, because while Im sure he could get the motor fucnctions part of the test done well, questions with ANY cultural context are going to be lost on them.

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 06:34 PM
Maths? Logic puzzles? Lateral thinking?

lisiecki
2010-01-29, 06:38 PM
Maths?

Yes, is the character from a reality that uses Arabic numerals?

A base 10 system?

Are they from a rome theamed world that dosn't have 0?

Logic puzzles?

Possibly, Im assuming that the DandD character would have an Iq of 100, you know, average

Lateral thinking?

Possibly, Im assuming that the DandD character would have an Iq of 100, you know, average

hamishspence
2010-01-29, 06:50 PM
The FRCS shows letters of the alphabet, and base 10 numerals- including 0- in the section showing what the various scripts look like.

Apparently, in the realms, several cultures were transplanted there via portals- so, for example the Mulhorandi and Untheric peoples, were Ancient Egyptians and Sumerians, before being brought to Faerun by the Imaskari.

So, in Faerun at least, there is a lot of common ground.

lisiecki
2010-01-30, 04:17 AM
The FRCS shows letters of the alphabet, and base 10 numerals- including 0- in the section showing what the various scripts look like.

Apparently, in the realms, several cultures were transplanted there via portals- so, for example the Mulhorandi and Untheric peoples, were Ancient Egyptians and Sumerians, before being brought to Faerun by the Imaskari.

So, in Faerun at least, there is a lot of common ground.

Yes, with the past. So any questions about science discovered since X date will be lost on an individual.

I'm also going to state: An Ancient Egyptian taken out of there world, and directly given an IQ test, is going to fail, as the knowledge needed to do well, comes from after that period of time.

If an individual is taken directly from Faerun, and uses a translation device to take an Iq test, there going to do horribly.

Also, questions relating to the world around them, will be answered in a context of a person from that world.

So, the second they say any thing about a wizard, an owlbear, ect there going to fail.

Question: "How many planets orbit the sun, name them"
Answer: "Eight planets orbit the sun. Anadia, Coliar, Toril, Karpri, Chandos, Glyth, H'Catha. Karpri Station orbits Karpai."

"How many days are there in a week?"

"There are 10 days in a week"

If they attempt to solve logical problems biased on magic, clerical worship, knowledge of the planes, ect, there going to fail.

Iq tests are so dependent on cultural knowledge, that people from rural and urban settings at times score lower than the suburban standered that the test is designed for. (this was a concern in the late 90s, no idea if its still one today)

Frozen_Feet
2010-01-30, 09:13 AM
I think people are needlessly putting the bar for high intelligence much further than say, high strenght. Like someone pointed out in 'D&D yourself' thread, current world recorder would have 22 strenght. Based on this, I hold that 18 shouldn't be considered 'pinnacle of humanity' in mental scores either.

I also re-iterate my opinions that real life goes as far as level 5, even 10 in expectional cases, and that 18 can't be the top of human ability because it's available to every level 1 chump. The real top is 19, or some other score only achievable with both high initial score and training.

As such, I again advocate this IQ conversion: 100 IQ = 10 INT, and 5 points of IQ to either direction equals 1 point of INT. According to this conversion, IQ 130 would be INT 16; people with with 130 IQ or higher make up 10% of human population. Judging from statistics of 3d6 roll, people with 15+ INT would be that 10%, so it's reasonably accurate. People with 18 INT would be 99.5 percentile or some such.

This conversion also has the benefit that it doesn't grossly overshoot the mark of what IQ is supposed to measure. IQ of 140 still has some meaning in the system, where as IQ 180+ seizes to tell us anything usefull.

Riffington
2010-01-30, 11:02 AM
Iq tests are so dependent on cultural knowledge, that people from rural and urban settings at times score lower than the suburban standered that the test is designed for. (this was a concern in the late 90s, no idea if its still one today)

That was a "concern", but was not a problem with the test. IQ tests are indeed going to pose problems for people that must take the test in translation. There would indeed be cultural issues for people without a concept of zero.
As for rural or urban Westerners, there is no cultural issue. There is a statistical tendency for less intelligent people to be unable to afford to live in the suburbs, but that's not a testing problem. It's a socioeconomic issue.

I think people are needlessly putting the bar for high intelligence much further than say, high strenght. Like someone pointed out in 'D&D yourself' thread, current world recorder would have 22 strenght. Based on this, I hold that 18 shouldn't be considered 'pinnacle of humanity' in mental scores either.
But they wouldn't have 22 strength. They would have 22 strength if they were lifting that kind of weight without any weight training. They aren't. They have years of practice with very specific lifts, and improve those lifts without improving their ability to punch or swing a sword. That's reflected in skill ranks in a special "weighlifting" skill (that is Str based, of course) that wasn't invented in the Middle Ages. It's not reflective of a high strength score.

Frozen_Feet
2010-01-30, 11:26 AM
I agree with you that there likely is a weightlifting skill that skews the picture. Still, I hold that many feats of strenght are just that - explaining them with anything else than high strenght score is pushing it. That 22 was extrapolated from dead lift world record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlift), and while skill is a factor, it's not so big one that it invalidates the conclusion.

Besides, weightlifting is hardly a modern invention. In the middle-ages, warriors were testing their prowess with turkish get-up (http://athletics.wikia.com/wiki/Turkish_Get-Up).

2010-01-30, 11:30 AM
My argument in this is that whatever you use to determine stats CAN NOT involve anything that you can put skill points into and cannot involve hitpoints because irregardless of your level you can only do what you can do. You cannot say " oh i only scored a 15 on that but i'm 9th level so i would have put my two points into it so i'd really have a 17. You scored a 15 that means maybe you had a 13 before but at this point in time you scored a 15 you have a 15.

As for the language. . . its easy, leave unselected language slots. . . You have the capacity to learn more, you just havent gotten around to it. Go buy rosestta stone if that bothers you.

As for ratios to dice rolls. I dont think it should have anything to do with the odds of rolling a number because adventures are SUPPOSED to be better than the average joe. When you roll and adventurer your not rolling an ordinary person up, you're rolling a character who right from the start was destined for a grand adventure and is inherently BETTER. Thats why commoners are given different stat options.

Riffington
2010-01-30, 12:08 PM
I agree with you that there likely is a weightlifting skill that skews the picture. Still, I hold that many feats of strenght are just that - explaining them with anything else than high strenght score is pushing it. That 22 was extrapolated from dead lift world record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlift), and while skill is a factor, it's not so big one that it invalidates the conclusion.

Besides, weightlifting is hardly a modern invention. In the middle-ages, warriors were testing their prowess with turkish get-up (http://athletics.wikia.com/wiki/Turkish_Get-Up).

If you want to convince me that the ancients could actually take weightlifting skill, that's fine. But you are hardly going to convince me that a champion weight lifter hits harder in a boxing ring than Tyson could in his prime. And his bench press was about half of a world record.

lisiecki
2010-01-30, 12:27 PM
That was a "concern", but was not a problem with the test. IQ tests are indeed going to pose problems for people that must take the test in translation. There would indeed be cultural issues for people without a concept of zero.

I know, thats why I said it ;)

As for rural or urban Westerners, there is no cultural issue. There is a statistical tendency for less intelligent people to be unable to afford to live in the suburbs, but that's not a testing problem. It's a socioeconomic issue.

Sorry, I misspoke then. However, test takers from the Relms are still going to have some fairly major problems when there asked the planets of the solar system, how many days in a week there are, ect.

Test takers from Athas are going to have problems when identifying what a "forest" "lake" or "river" is. Or naming any type of government other than a Wizard Kingdom.

This would result, in test takers from these worlds, getting low scores, despite the fact they may have scores of 18 on there charactersheets

Frozen_Feet
2010-01-30, 12:28 PM
My argument in this is that whatever you use to determine stats CAN NOT involve anything that you can put skill points into and cannot involve hitpoints because irregardless of your level you can only do what you can do.

...in which case we're stranded on a beach, because within D&D, there's almost nothing governed solely by stats, and in real world there's almost nothing you can't become better in by training.

As for ratios to dice rolls. I dont think it should have anything to do with the odds of rolling a number because adventures are SUPPOSED to be better than the average joe. When you roll and adventurer your not rolling an ordinary person up, you're rolling a character who right from the start was destined for a grand adventure and is inherently BETTER. Thats why commoners are given different stat options.
Uberness of PCs in modern rules is reflected by '4d6, drop worst die'. 3d6, the 'original' stat roll, gives a lower average, and that average is the basis for the John Doe array. I stand by the claim that using roll statistics as guidelines for determining what stats stand for is justified, even if only for the lack of anything better.

But you are hardly going to convince me that a champion weight lifter hits harder in a boxing ring than Tyson could in his prime.
Strenght isn't only factor of damage, in either D&D or real life. A boxer hits harder than lifter because the former has Power Attack and latter has Increased lifting capacity. My view only requires for a weighlifter hit harder than average joe. Can I convince you of that?

randomhero00
2010-01-30, 02:22 PM
Part of the problem is that DND doesn't define dex and str very well. Does dex = speed? After all it doesn't add to your move speed, yet it does make you more agile and lets you dodge attacks...Str is physical power and lets you hit opponents easier (i.e. speeds up your attacks)...but it mentions nothing specifically on speed, only adds it mechanically.

The reason why this is important is because in real life striking power is about 45% technique (skill) 35% speed (which is still muscle but represented partially by dex) and only about 20% strength as we'd normally think of it. Which makes extrapolating stats difficult. i.e. Mike Tyson may have only had a strength of 16 but a dex of 18 if dex is considered the "speed" stat whereas that dead lifter might have had a strength of 22 but a dex of 10 and no striking training.

Unless I'm wrong in interpreting dex, and that it doesn't actually add any physical speed, but it sure seems to imply it does.

Chrono22
2010-01-30, 02:26 PM
Mike Tyson may have only had a strength of 16 but a dex of 18 if dex is considered the "speed" stat whereas that dead lifter might have had a strength of 22 but a dex of 10 and no striking training.
You can't define me.

On a related note, D&D's adherence to "bonus = (ability score - 10)/2" is overly complicated.

randomhero00
2010-01-30, 02:32 PM
You can't define me.

On a related note, D&D's adherence to "bonus = (ability score - 10)/2" is overly complicated.

lol
ok, stating Mike Tyson, WHAT? Yeah, I just defined you Mike!
(assuming conservative stats, he's still a commoner, really tough, but not a wtfadventuerer)
str-16
dex-14
con-15
int-7
wis-6
cha-7

edit lol i keep dropping his int as i watch that vid

chiasaur11
2010-01-30, 02:50 PM
May I say, for the record, that I really hate the attitude derived from the Alexandrian of "Well, since DnD sometimes ignores physics (ignoring that this happens every level) all real world people must be commoners with no stats above 12. Unless they're like Einstein (Never Tesla, or Feynman, or even Leonardo DeVinci) in which case they have one 14."

It's not based on facts. Its based on wanting 3.5 to work with real physics rather than being a totally game based system where a man in a dress shoots fireballs by flinging bat turds around. Any counter arguments are dismissed with the skill system, ignoring the kind of levels a commoner would need to have any real skill points, and adding every bonus possible to discredit the idea of higher raw ability scores. It's a bizarre kind of mental self-flagellation, an insistence on irrelevance on any kind of cosmic stage straight out of Lovecraft. Weirdly, you see it most in DnD discussions. You don't see people saying "Well, Tesla was no Reed Richards, so all Marvel scientists are smarter than any real ones."

And it just bugs me. It's attempting to discredit all real arts, all progress in science, all of the wonders and marvels on this little sphere that make our world a place worth living in, just to lend a tiny bit of, I dunno, celestial glory to rolling dice.

So, uh, yeah. Sorry for ranting, not saying anything against people who hold with the alternative system.

randomhero00
2010-01-30, 04:10 PM
huh? I don't think anyone has said no one has an ability score above a 12. At least I've never heard that. It's just 10-12 is common/average, which implies that there are above average people as well. And we aren't adventurers ourselves with epic destinies. Sorry but joe smoe couch potatoe doesn't have the potential in him to say, become a level 20 something and slay a dragon if it were real world.

If 10-12 were common then an 18 would be quite above the norm, so Tesla would be quite smart with an int 18. And so far I think everyone has agreed an 18 is possible. Some even think that they can go higher with training and several think that class levels exist in some form in real life.

2010-01-30, 04:21 PM
May I say, for the record, that I really hate the attitude derived from the Alexandrian of "Well, since DnD sometimes ignores physics (ignoring that this happens every level) all real world people must be commoners with no stats above 12. Unless they're like Einstein (Never Tesla, or Feynman, or even Leonardo DeVinci) in which case they have one 14."

It's not based on facts. Its based on wanting 3.5 to work with real physics rather than being a totally game based system where a man in a dress shoots fireballs by flinging bat turds around. Any counter arguments are dismissed with the skill system, ignoring the kind of levels a commoner would need to have any real skill points, and adding every bonus possible to discredit the idea of higher raw ability scores. It's a bizarre kind of mental self-flagellation, an insistence on irrelevance on any kind of cosmic stage straight out of Lovecraft. Weirdly, you see it most in DnD discussions. You don't see people saying "Well, Tesla was no Reed Richards, so all Marvel scientists are smarter than any real ones."

And it just bugs me. It's attempting to discredit all real arts, all progress in science, all of the wonders and marvels on this little sphere that make our world a place worth living in, just to lend a tiny bit of, I dunno, celestial glory to rolling dice.

So, uh, yeah. Sorry for ranting, not saying anything against people who hold with the alternative system.

I belive that anyone who has made enough of a name for themselves that they are household names like nicola tesla, einstien, hawkings, etc. are by that very capacity more than the average joe and therfore should not be restricted to the rules of everybody else. These are the kinds of people we should look as as examples of above an beyond the normal spectrum. . .

I say IQ/10 is equivalent to INT because Hawkings has a 220ish IQ and I belive he'd have a 22 INT if we tried to stat him out. likewise someone with an IQ of 50 is mentally impaired and i'd say that about sums up a 5 INT.

I think the problem comes in when people try to stretch the bell curve becaue they want more people to have stats that would seem exceptional when in reality most people just arent that exceptional. Thats not an insult its just a fact. if everyone had high stats like that, these people wouldn't be household names.

I suppose one could think of it in terms of this, if someone is a knwon for somthing enough that they are a hourse hold name for it, they're probably the equivalent of a high level adventurer in terms of stats. . . If you're an average joe then guess what, you have average joe stats even if your really good at one or two things.

SexyPlantLover
2010-01-30, 06:02 PM
But not really.

Strength measures Damage. If we assume the average person is a level one commoner and has between 1 and 4 hit points. Take a knife. Stab your friend in the face, if you can take him out with ONE shot, then you have a positive strength modifier.

Ruler test? there's no ruler test in DandD. Dex affects your natural armor save. Take the knife out of that friend you just stabbed in the face, give it to the next person in the room. Tell them to attack you with it, if you doge more often than you get hit, then you have a positive dex modifier.

Con? that mesures your hit points. You have between 1 and 4 hitpoints. How that friend that we had attack you with the knife, are they a healthy, fit individual? did oyu survive getting stabbed more than 4 times? congrats, you have a positive con bonus

I must disagree with your reply. All of your examples add a level of randomness in the form of dice rolls in a game and therefore in this thought exercise.
Strength doesn't measure damage, it adds to damage. So if you stab that so called friend in the face and don't kill him/her, then you could only extrapolate damamge from a rolled 1d4+str mod, based on their supposed hp rolls earlier in life. the carrying capacity table directly relates to a str score.
Your stabby dex example only compares the next person's BAB+str+atk roll to your ac not just str vs dex. the ruler test does however test reflexes which directly corespond to initiative and contribute to reflex saves and therefore dex.
finally con adds to hp, but is not hp alone, there is still a rolled factor.

Riffington
2010-01-30, 07:42 PM
And it just bugs me. It's attempting to discredit all real arts, all progress in science, all of the wonders and marvels on this little sphere that make our world a place worth living in, just to lend a tiny bit of, I dunno, celestial glory to rolling dice.

I don't think I understand this at all. Why does "I want the uber heroes to be 5th level rather than 15th" discredit any of Earth's science or progress? All it does is let you play a mighty hero without having to give the characters gamebreaking spells like Teleport.

Strenght isn't only factor of damage, in either D&D or real life. A boxer hits harder than lifter because the former has Power Attack and latter has Increased lifting capacity. My view only requires for a weighlifter hit harder than average joe. Can I convince you of that?

You can't really power attack much in boxing because it's so hard to land a proper punch - any minus to hit is going to lose the match for you. Certainly you are right a weightlifter is going to have some benefit in strength. A champion weightlifter has a very high strength. It's just my position that that "high strength" means 16 or possibly 18; they can lift more than a 16 or 18 strength could lift by the D&D tables because of their training.

con-15

You want to give con 15 to an asthmatic who needed to finish his fights quickly because he would lose any prolonged match?

hamishspence
2010-01-31, 04:08 PM
On the IQ one, I'd say (if the rating of Genius of IQ 140 is used)

a possible option would be to start at 100 (Int 10 = IQ 100) and use:
1 point of Int reduction = 5 points of IQ reduction.
Or, 1 point of Int increase = 5 points of IQ increase.

As a result, Int 18 = IQ 140, which is one possible measure of genius IQ.

And Int 3 = IQ 65. Which is low, but still "functional" Thus, an Int 3 adventurer, would not be disastrously low in intelligence.

How does this sound?

(Yes- I know there is cultural bias- this is based on a hypothetical universal test, that could test D&D characters and real people equally well.)

lisiecki
2010-01-31, 05:56 PM
(Yes- I know there is cultural bias- this is based on a hypothetical universal test, that could test D&D characters and real people equally well.)

...

Oh, ok, that's odd because before you were pointing out how the "shared knowledge" of Relmspsace and Earth would give those people an advantage

lisiecki
2010-01-31, 07:03 PM
You know what, I don't want to seem like a jerk, so I'll assume your right about EVERYTHING.

A perfect IQ test with NO cultural bias.
A perfect IQ test will have a PERFECT bell curve.

With an IQ of 100 being the most common score, and the bell curve extending perfectly.

Now this test has no cultural bias, and 100 is the most common score.

as well as the rule

1 point of Int reduction = 5 points of IQ reduction.
Or, 1 point of Int increase = 5 points of IQ increase.

In the blood wars, an infinite number of tanar'ri fight an infinite number of lemure.

The basic Tanar'ri has an Int of 8, the Lemure 6, so we can say that 7 is the average, as these are the most frequently occurring beings in the multiverse, they will have the most common score. (and being Devils, they could likely sit down long enough to take it)

Now, the AVERAGE human has an IQ of 115-120 by your chart.

This means that the AVERAGE human no longer has AVERAGE intelligence, they in fact, have significantly above average intelligence (Higher than 91% of the population of the planes)

if we go by IQ/100= Int score, then the average human has an IQ of 130-140, adjusted for the norms of the multivariate. higher than 98% of all beings in reality.

Objectively speaking the term Genius apply to people who are 3 stranded deviations above the norm.

According to this processes EVERY human being is a Genius.

So you win your initial argument of "How do you play a Genius with out bonus languages." Now, you can play an average human and he will be a genius.

Riffington
2010-01-31, 07:30 PM
A perfect IQ test with NO cultural bias.
Necessary.

A perfect IQ test will have a PERFECT bell curve.

Unnecessary, both by D&D and by real life. The IQ test is often drawn with a "long tail" and any attribute system whose midpoint is 10 is going to also have a "long tail".

With an IQ of 100 being the most common score
For humans. The most common organism on Earth is a one-celled one without a 100 IQ.

The basic Tanar'ri has an Int of 8, the Lemure 6, so we can say that 7 is the average, as these are the most frequently occurring beings in the multiverse,
No they aren't. The most frequently-occurring beings in the multiverse will almost assuredly have the Plant subtype and an Int of 0.

This means that the AVERAGE human no longer has AVERAGE intelligence
All averages are averages-for-human. You think the average nonhuman's strength is 10?

lisiecki
2010-01-31, 07:40 PM
Necessary.

Aggred.

Unnecessary, both by D&D and by real life. The IQ test is often drawn with a "long tail" and any attribute system whose midpoint is 10 is going to also have a "long tail".

For humans. The most common organism on Earth is a one-celled one without a 100 IQ.

Yes, but to the best of my knowledge, human beings are the only intelligent, sapient, self-aware life form

No they aren't. The most frequently-occurring beings in the multiverse will almost assuredly have the Plant subtype and an Int of 0.

The bloodwar material says that there are an infinite number of demons and devils, I agree that there are a whole damn lot of plants (but are they creatures with the plant subtype or just plants?) and could you toss me a reference to them being infinite.

All averages are averages-for-human. You think the average nonhuman's strength is 10?

The Strength score means something very specific, defined in the rules.

The Intelligence score dose as well. hamishspence, as well as others have been saying that the intelligence score has some direct relation to an IQ score.

He went on to say, that what one needs is a non-culture biased score, and that if one could take one, then every 5 Iq points above 100 would be a +1 to the Int score.

I don't want to seem like a jerk, so I'm applying his rules, objectively, to the source material

Sweet G-d no. Thats what I've been saying this entire time.

I think that the PHB and MM give the average Int score for a verity of creatures, but not the average IQ score

Temotei
2010-01-31, 10:22 PM
5 Iq points above 100 would be a +1 to the Int score

I'm glad you don't believe this. That's a bunch of crap.

A genius (assuming around 150 IQ) would have an Intelligence of 20. That's not right...a super-genius (200?) would have 30. You'd rule the world of D&D with wizardry up the...yeah.

The IQ/10 theory doesn't really work either, in my opinion.

John Campbell
2010-02-01, 01:33 AM
Sorry, I misspoke then. However, test takers from the Relms are still going to have some fairly major problems when there asked the planets of the solar system, how many days in a week there are, ect.

Test takers from Athas are going to have problems when identifying what a "forest" "lake" or "river" is. Or naming any type of government other than a Wizard Kingdom.

This would result, in test takers from these worlds, getting low scores, despite the fact they may have scores of 18 on there charactersheets

What the hell kind of IQ tests have you been looking at?

I got IQ-tested more than once during my school career, and not one of those tests included that kind of general knowledge question. Spatial manipulation problems, pattern identification and completion, ordering sequences of events, stupid memory tricks like being read a sequence of numbers and repeating them back in reverse order, and the like. Not much that required any cultural context, no actual math more advanced than basic arithmetic, and certainly no trivia questions at all. Trivia questions test knowledge, not intelligence, and knowledge is not what IQ tests are trying to test, or what the Int score is trying to measure.

A typical Faerûnian under the influence of tongues or the like, to deal with the language issue, wouldn't have any problem with most of it. The event-ordering stuff would be the biggest problem... I recall one of those problems, for example, that required knowing what a car was and did, which is pretty basic knowledge here but could be a mystery to someone from a different Prime.

lisiecki
2010-02-01, 02:35 AM
What the hell kind of IQ tests have you been looking at?
A typical Faerûnian under the influence of tongues or the like, to deal with the language issue, wouldn't have any problem with most of it. The event-ordering stuff would be the biggest problem... I recall one of those problems, for example, that required knowing what a car was and did, which is pretty basic knowledge here but could be a mystery to someone from a different Prime.

Stern's Binet. what the hell kind of IQ tests have you been looking at?

At no point in the test were you asked to give definitions for words?

Its INTERESTING that you took a test that completely lacked the 5 subtests of the The VIQ portion

I'm not talking about words and common definitions.
I'm talking about words that define concepts that don't exist in the settings.

I was talking about a human from Athas being able to talk about MOST kinds of natural environments.

Its not the lack of understanding the translations of words. Rather I doubt that whatever language they speak on Athas has a word for "lake"

Or the idea how light in our world is a partial/wave, however with in D&D settings Light is transmitted directly form a sun to a planet via aether.

or that gunpowder is no combustible in Oerth or Abeir-Toril

The VAST difference in between not only the culture, but also the physical laws of there worlds and ours, would prevent them from scoring to highly.

But were past that now.

I accept the idea of a perfectly culture neutral test that i described above.

Riffington
2010-02-01, 05:44 AM
I just want to re-emphasize (dunno if there's disagreement or not quite) that a culture-neutral test can still be centered at "100 is the average IQ of an Earth US Citizen in 2000" or whatever. You just need to pick some midpoint, and it doesn't need to be the "midpoint of infinity" or even the midpoint of "all humans". If decreased alcohol consumption during pregnancy raises the average intelligence, one *could* recenter the score, but one need not do so. The exact position of the 100 is arbitrary.

Frozen_Feet
2010-02-01, 05:54 AM
A genius (assuming around 150 IQ) would have an Intelligence of 20. That's not right...a super-genius (200?) would have 30. You'd rule the world of D&D with wizardry up the...yeah.

And what, exactly, is your problem with those scores? And where to do you get the idea that a super-genius has or needs 200 IQ?

Temotei
2010-02-01, 06:00 AM
And what, exactly, is your problem with those scores? And where to do you get the idea that a super-genius has or needs 200 IQ?

In D&D, 30 Intelligence means you need (barring magical items) to be level 48.

IQ is seriously messed up. I should be clear about that. A super-genius could have an IQ below average, if they're a special thinker (comes up with a new way to look at a problem, thereby creating more solutions to many problems in the world, etc.).

That said, IQ is messed up, and therefore, judging D&D Intelligence by IQ is messed up.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-01, 09:33 AM
I belive that anyone who has made enough of a name for themselves that they are household names like nicola tesla, einstien, hawkings, etc. are by that very capacity more than the average joe and therfore should not be restricted to the rules of everybody else. These are the kinds of people we should look as as examples of above an beyond the normal spectrum. . .

I say IQ/10 is equivalent to INT because Hawkings has a 220ish IQ and I belive he'd have a 22 INT if we tried to stat him out. likewise someone with an IQ of 50 is mentally impaired and i'd say that about sums up a 5 INT.

That doesn't work, because that's not how IQ works. Or at least, how it's tested for. IQ is used predominantly to test children, and due to the structure of the test and the way it's age adjusted, it's much more probable for children to stretch the curve. In short, it's not at all unlikely for a child to start out with a great IQ, and as he gets older, have it decrease to a good IQ. This doesn't actually represent him getting dumber, merely closer to average for his age.

In D&D, intelligence is supposedly more or less objective with older people knowing more.

They are simply measuring two different things, so no meaningful comparison can be drawn between them.

lisiecki
2010-02-01, 02:42 PM
That doesn't work, because that's not how IQ works. Or at least, how it's tested for. IQ is used predominantly to test children, and due to the structure of the test and the way it's age adjusted, it's much more probable for children to stretch the curve. In short, it's not at all unlikely for a child to start out with a great IQ, and as he gets older, have it decrease to a good IQ. This doesn't actually represent him getting dumber, merely closer to average for his age.

wOw we were going for "culture netural" what about cultures, that dont have "Childhood" persay. Those that are vomited in to the world knowing everything there going to.

were not testing Mind Flayers, Beholders, Demons, Devils ECT ECT ECT?

Tyndmyr
2010-02-01, 02:44 PM
Oh, hell, it doesn't even work for humans. Im pretty sure IQ breaks down and cries when faced with measuring otherworldly abberations.

lisiecki
2010-02-01, 02:51 PM
Oh, hell, it doesn't even work for humans. Im pretty sure IQ breaks down and cries when faced with measuring otherworldly abberations.

You would THINK so, but I haven't been able to convince hamishspence of that. s/he was SO insistent that I've just given in. HAmaishpence wouldn't lie to me, so Im playing this game by his rules

He said NO cultural bias, so NO cultural bias

hamishspence
2010-02-01, 03:34 PM
No cultural bias as in- a Faerunian human of average intelligence is considered as intelligent as a human from Earth, and so on?

Or- an elf with Int 10, a dwarf with Int 10, an orc with Int 10, all are of roughly the same "intellectual capacity"?

lisiecki
2010-02-01, 03:40 PM
No cultural bias as in- a Faerunian human of average intelligence is considered as intelligent as a human from Earth, and so on?

Or- an elf with Int 10, a dwarf with Int 10, an orc with Int 10, all are of roughly the same "intellectual capacity"?

Ok, so no cultural bias for SOME cultures, but not for others.

Gee, to think I didn't figure out that by "No cultural bias in this test" you meant "No cultural bias, for some cultures"

Searisouly, if were going to keep talking about this, would you mind laying out all the ever-shifting ground rules you want to use?

Riffington
2010-02-01, 03:46 PM
The Strength score means something very specific, defined in the rules.

Something that makes no sense when applied to nonhumans (or even to standardize between men and women of the same species). The relationship between carrying capacity, maximum drag, and maximum lift (not to mention damage output) is hardly standard across sex or culture. The notion of "strength" testing is at least as problematic as the notion of IQ and intelligence.

No cultural bias as in- a Faerunian human of average intelligence is considered as intelligent as a human from Earth, and so on?
This would be useless if picked that definition. You'd want a Faerunian human with equal intelligence to an Earth human to have an equal IQ score. If they weren't of equal intelligence, you'd be adding bias to try to give them equal IQ scores.

Or- an elf with Int 10, a dwarf with Int 10, an orc with Int 10, all are of roughly the same "intellectual capacity"?
That, on the other hand, would be useful.

Benejeseret
2010-02-01, 04:25 PM
There are plenty of iq150 plumbers

I'm hardly antiintellectual. I'm anti assuming nonacademics are dumb.
But if you have iq 130 as some of you do you probably know as many professors you know are dumber than you as you know smarter than you

I started a thread a little while about statements like these a little while ago...so I'll leave the unfounded nature of such claims to some other place/time.

But, there is one big aspect of real world higher education that is lacking from DnD and thus does not translate well.

Education raises your intelligence, or should, if you are really learning.

Thus a graduate degree is more like a DnD Ritual - increasing your Int. This may be only temporary (say 5 years) as after that you start forgetting etc.

This is because is does teach you facts (skill=knowledge (X) ) but higher education also teaches you HOW to think, reason, communicate and forces you to actually produce proof that you are learning (grades).

as many professors you know are dumber than you as you know smarter than you

It is statements like this that prompt me to further propose the following: Education level is an indicator of WISDOM.

This is because staying in school requires you to be able to look far into the future and realize that the investment is worth it overall. It also directly influences you Skill=Profession(career).

How many times do you think the average graduate student considers quitting? Pondering why you toil away for next to nothing, watching your friends and siblings get jobs, families, kids, LIVES!! I don't know, but I'll bet it's a lot.

And every time I convinced myself to keep going that was another high DC will save that I just made to WILL myself to continue. And every year those DC's keep raising.

Finally, every time we are grading or teaching and come across the arrogant little snips like those of the poster above we need to pass a major will save against failing him.

Knaight
2010-02-01, 04:34 PM
This is because is does teach you facts (skill=knowledge (X) ) but higher education also teaches you HOW to think, reason, communicate and forces you to actually produce proof that you are learning (grades).

Most of this is true, but grades are not a good measure of intelligence, let alone learning. Test anxiety alone will completely screw it up, and if homework is introduced, then things get even worse. The person who does an assignment and doesn't turn it in learns just as much as the person who turns it in, with feedback making a difference only in a few subjects. Grades don't reflect that.

Similarly, most school programs, particularly lower school programs, reward cheating. With grades as an indicator of homework and test quality, people who copy other peoples homework and tests, making tweaks, get grades just as good as people who actually do the work. They don't learn the material, and they don't really learn methodologies of thought.

hamishspence
2010-02-01, 04:38 PM
If we were to speak of a Faerunian human and an Earth human as being "equally intelligent" what would we be meaning?

Not "knowledge" since much of the knowledge of on would be incorrect on the other's home territory- and vice versa.

But, if there was such a thing as a "universal, non-culturally biased intelligence test" it would ping them as being equally intelligent- otherwise it wouldn't be non-biased in the first place.

But what would it be measuring?

Possibly ability to learn and absorb? Basic ingenuity? Problem-solving ability?

You could apply the same question to a modern scientist and a Renaissance natural philosopher- the scientist isn't necessarily more intelligent, they may simply be better informed.

Riffington
2010-02-01, 04:53 PM
Education raises your intelligence, or should, if you are really learning.
Absolutely, up to about age 4. It's almost impossible to improve intelligence past that point - education helps you use your intelligence, but doesn't add any. Every day, you get more experienced but dumber. In some fields, such as mathematics, intelligence is far more useful than experience - hence, a mathematician has done his best work at 34-40 (meaning he had the inspirational ideas still earlier). In other fields, such as medicine or chess, experience is more important - hence, a doctor's prime may be closer to 50.

A graduate degree will therefore cost you a few bits of intelligence over the time, but will give you skills and tricks that (in some fields at least) may make up for that. It is true that some of those skills include "how to study" or "how to think about X" where X may be broad - but I assure you that the skills learned in medical school (for instance) do not translate into better creative writing or improved mathematical prowess.

This is because staying in school requires you to be able to look far into the future and realize that the investment is worth it overall. It also directly influences you Skill=Profession(career).
To be sure, some people choose to leave school for instant gratification. Others remain in school because it's the path of least resistance (at least socially/emotionally). Staying in school is only sometimes worth it. And only sometimes requires an act of will. It may be a tougher act to admit that the three years squandered are a sunk cost, and that it is not worth even 6 more months to obtain that paper that says MD (or whatever).

Finally, every time we are grading or teaching and come across the arrogant little snips like those of the poster above we need to pass a major will save against failing him.
Really? Surely you have met some professors smarter and some dumber than yourself. If you know your IQ and know that the percentage smarter than you and the percentage dumber than you are the same, you know your IQ is about average for a college professor.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-01, 05:01 PM
Absolutely, up to about age 4. It's almost impossible to improve intelligence past that point - education helps you use your intelligence, but doesn't add any. Every day, you get more experienced but dumber.

So, you're saying that in real life, spending a few months stabbing things with a sword can't raise your intelligence?

In D&D this is completely normal. You also gain Int from aging, so class isn't the only offender here.

It's pretty clear that whatever it is that D&D intelligence is representing, it isn't just an IQ score.

lisiecki
2010-02-01, 05:05 PM
If we were to speak of a Faerunian human and an Earth human as being "equally intelligent" what would we be meaning?
Not "knowledge" since much of the knowledge of on would be incorrect on the other's home territory- and vice versa.But, if there was such a thing as a "universal, non-culturally biased intelligence test" it would ping them as being equally intelligent- otherwise it wouldn't be non-biased in the first place.But what would it be measuring?Possibly ability to learn and absorb? Basic ngenuity? Problem-solving ability?You could apply the same question to a modern scientist and a Renaissance natural philosopher- the scientist isn't necessarily more intelligent, they may simply be better informed.

what about Kara-Turin, Zakharan, or Mazticans? Faerunian Abeir-Toril is the worlds name, Faerûn is the country :P

What I'm curious about, is do ONLY humans get to take the IQ test?
Demihumans? Caus Drow and Gnomes are going to throw that off.
Do we include Mind Flayers?

Remember an IQ test ONLY measures an individuals intelligence in comparison to the rest of the population.

So, Im going to say that in an IQ test that is culturally neutral to Abeir-trolians, humans are going to get crappy scores, as they are one of the least intelligent races on the planet (not the LEAST, but far from the most impressive)

Riffington
2010-02-01, 06:41 PM
So, you're saying that in real life, spending a few months stabbing things with a sword can't raise your intelligence?

In D&D this is completely normal. You also gain Int from aging, so class isn't the only offender here.

It's pretty clear that whatever it is that D&D intelligence is representing, it isn't just an IQ score.

Actually, I (and many others) believe that it is representing IQ. It is just doing so poorly. The game is improved from a realism point of view (perhaps from others as well) by replacing the aging tables with alternate ones that lack any bonuses.

Ormur
2010-02-01, 06:41 PM
Really? Surely you have met some professors smarter and some dumber than yourself. If you know your IQ and know that the percentage smarter than you and the percentage dumber than you are the same, you know your IQ is about average for a college professor.

Sure if you're sufficiently smart there will probably be other smart people that still aren't as smart as you but why is that relevant. You'll have no idea how high your professors IQ us based on your interaction with him. He's probably above average but he has spent decades specializing in his field so in most fields he'll be better than his smartest students.

I'm of course on thing ice with no references but studies show that mastering some field requires mostly time. IQ has also been suggested to have decreasing marginal value as well as being important for most jobs, meaning that on average whatever you do it's better to have enough IQ but that anything higher will not benefit you as much.

I might be forgetting the context of your original quote but in most instances it won't matter whether your professor has a higher or lower IQ than you. His experience and teaching skills are going to be far more important.

Riffington
2010-02-01, 07:17 PM
Sure if you're sufficiently smart there will probably be other smart people that still aren't as smart as you but why is that relevant. You'll have no idea how high your professors IQ us based on your interaction with him. He's probably above average but he has spent decades specializing in his field so in most fields he'll be better than his smartest students.

I'm of course on thing ice with no references but studies show that mastering some field requires mostly time. IQ has also been suggested to have decreasing marginal value as well as being important for most jobs, meaning that on average whatever you do it's better to have enough IQ but that anything higher will not benefit you as much.

I might be forgetting the context of your original quote but in most instances it won't matter whether your professor has a higher or lower IQ than you. His experience and teaching skills are going to be far more important.

I agree with most of this: the best professors are not necessarily the smartest ones. Experience, kindness, etc may be far more important. I was using it as a reason to suppose that the average professor's Int should be 13. (incidentally, the average professor IQ appears to be 115 (http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2007-08/iq-range-occupations.jpg)). But yeah - for the reasons you've mentioned, it's also very common to overestimate a professor's IQ. If you do want to, look at their ability to work with information outside their field.

Benejeseret
2010-02-01, 08:15 PM
Which is why (when you boil down my post) I am suggesting that higher education/graduate work is an indicator for high Wisdom.

If you go simple off of IQ=INT sort of mentality then I suppose I can see your point about the 4 year old cap off since IQ is a measurement against age and speed.

In a greater sense of the world I personally believe that is utter hogwash.

I am proud to say that I can look back to my earlier graduate years and be perfectly aware of what an idiot I was those years ago. In turn, in those graduate years it became apparent what a fool I was during undergraduate. Not just in WHAT I thought, but literally in how I thought, processed, noticed, deconstructed and synthesized ideas.

Am I as fast as I was 10 years ago?...maybe slightly slower (IQ really=speed).

But if my intellect in high school was a drag racer, it was fast but it was nearly unable to turn or maneuver. In Undergraduate it became a speedy little dirt-bike with a slightly slower top speed but the ability to overcome obstacles and go around/over problems, and by Graduate work it was becoming a large helicopter, able to work in entire AXIS unimaginable before. I can go directly from one intellectual hilltop to another without even needing to enter twisting path between.

And maybe that intellectual helicopter is slower maxed out then the drag racer of the high school me... and in a straight drag like a multiplication tables test the high schooler might win...but given a complex intellectual topography with hills, turns, and the big questions of science and life at stake...I can fly circles around that fast but unwieldy little high schooler.

So next time you're staring at your prof thinking what an idiot they are try to remember the following few items:
1. If they are at a research institution, they are researchers, and thus teaching an often an unfortunate byproduct they have to put up with. The amount an care, thought, and focus they give students is at times a fraction of themselves which they have focused elsewhere and split between multiple classes, research, mentoring grad students, and writing grants/papers.

2. Whether cultural and language barriers are skewing your interaction with them (common at universities)

3. No one ever teaches Profs to teach. Seriously. You just spent the last 10+ years of your life hiding from society in a lab and then BAM! They hand you 200+ students and expect you to magically know what to do with them. Since researches likely choose research because of introverted personality traits then nerves become a huge factor when stuck in front of people, and nervous thinking is never representative of clear-headed thinking.

4. I am so sorry for how this one sounds - but sometimes it is so hard to bring oneself down to a first year undergrad level of thinking that the transition itself actually screws us up.

Riffington
2010-02-01, 08:44 PM
Which is why (when you boil down my post) I am suggesting that higher education/graduate work is an indicator for high Wisdom.

If you go simple off of IQ=INT sort of mentality then I suppose I can see your point about the 4 year old cap off since IQ is a measurement against age and speed.

In a greater sense of the world I personally believe that is utter hogwash.

I am proud to say that I can look back to my earlier graduate years and be perfectly aware of what an idiot I was those years ago. In turn, in those graduate years it became apparent what a fool I was during undergraduate. Not just in WHAT I thought, but literally in how I thought, processed, noticed, deconstructed and synthesized ideas.

Am I as fast as I was 10 years ago?...maybe slightly slower (IQ really=speed).

But if my intellect in high school was a drag racer, it was fast but it was nearly unable to turn or maneuver. In Undergraduate it became a speedy little dirt-bike with a slightly slower top speed but the ability to overcome obstacles and go around/over problems, and by Graduate work it was becoming a large helicopter, able to work in entire AXIS unimaginable before. I can go directly from one intellectual hilltop to another without even needing to enter twisting path between.

And maybe that intellectual helicopter is slower maxed out then the drag racer of the high school me... and in a straight drag like a multiplication tables test the high schooler might win...but given a complex intellectual topography with hills, turns, and the big questions of science and life at stake...I can fly circles around that fast but unwieldy little high schooler.

Can you give some concrete examples of this? Are you better able to navigate terrain that you've seen only once? Faster or more accurate in calculating a tip? Understand the value of friendship better? Are able to read Feynman's lectures and understand more of what he's talking about?

hamishspence
2010-02-02, 05:28 AM
Isn't IQ primarily about how "advanced" a child is compared to other children of their age?

Might be interesting to look at various fictional characters, and ask what their IQ, and/or their Int, "ought" to be.

Ender Wiggin, Professor Moriarty, and so on.

If 10 is "normal" 13 is "above average" 15 "elite" and 18 "very close to human upper limit before levelling"- would Ender be Int 18?

Similarly, would a "normal Battle School candidate" be Int 13, or Int 15?

(D20 Modern gives 10 as the youngest a starting character can be- how intelligent was Ender at age 10?)

Benejeseret
2010-02-02, 01:40 PM
Can you give some concrete examples of this? Are you better able to navigate terrain that you've seen only once? Faster or more accurate in calculating a tip? Understand the value of friendship better? Are able to read Feynman's lectures and understand more of what he's talking about?

Navigating terrain - yes, likely much better as I've learned how paths and rivers are formed, how they change the land, and thus what to likely expect. The old me could chart his course faster, but I now might be able to chart a more optimal course.

Faster/Accurate calculations - Nope. Flat out slower at that and questionably slightly less accurate. If however someone asked to be tipped half in Yen and half in Canadian Nickels I might now actually have a better time adapting to that odd/new mode.

Understand the value of friendship better - possibly a better read out of Wisdom. Essentially Sense Motive.

Deeper understanding from lectures - In a way. Let me offer a visual representation of what I was talking about.

The concept is Bloom's Taxonomy with image linked here:
http://uwf.edu/cutla/images/bloom_taxonomy.jpg

The basic premise is that first you need to remember/know the concepts. The next step is the ability to understand and explain said information. This on its own is essentially the first two years of an undergraduate degree - memorize like crazy and be able to regurgitate it onto exam papers.

But by your third/fourth years of undergraduate they ask you to advance your cognitive ability and not only take in the info, but find ways to apply and analyze the knowledge.

And by graduate programs students are fully needing to evaluate the quality of the knowledge itself and learn to generate/synthesize new knowledge effectively.

So what I was saying is that an high school or undergraduate student (even a bright one) might be really really fast at absorbing and processing facts and calculations. But their ability to do more with the same data (deconstruct/synthesize) is limited.

On the flip-side, a prof or grad student spending all their time evaluating and creating eventually slows down on the speed at which they can process/memorize/regurgitate despite that they are working with that knowledge at a higher cognitive plane.

To see it in action, I would take those who disagree with me and apply how they do so to this chart:

For fun skip over to my old thread on Int

And apply people's responses to my challenge onto that chart. Very few where able to climb that cognitive pyramid.

A great example was Person_Man's response to that thread as he really stood out as being able to take knowledge, back it up (apply) with facts, evaluate how it might be used to my challenge and synthesized new tangents and extrapolated how it might in turn be applied. Thus within his response I would judge him as among the more intelligent of the responders (no disrespect to the other posters) and among the better schooled based on his ability to reason.

hamishspence
2010-02-02, 01:57 PM
Would that be the difference between "being quick-thinking" and "being good at thinking" so to speak?

I think that was a common complaint about education systems- they teach people how to pass tests, but not how to "really think"

The question is, how valid is this complaint?

lisiecki
2010-02-02, 02:52 PM
Isn't IQ primarily about how "advanced" a child is compared to other children of their age?Might be interesting to look at various fictional characters and ask what their IQ, and/or their Int, "ought" to be.Ender Wiggin, Professor Moriarty, and so on. 10 is "normal" 13 is "above average" 15 "elite" and 18 "very close to human upper limit before levelling"- would Ender be Int 18?Similarly, would a "normal Battle School candidate" be Int 13, or Int 15?(D20 Modern gives 10 as the youngest a starting character can be- how intelligent was Ender at age 10?)

well SOME of us are still trying to play according to the rules you perposed earlier according to a culturally neutral IQ test.

That being said while Ender would have a high Int score, the primary advantage he had was his insane Wisdom score

hamishspence
2010-02-02, 03:04 PM
If an "objective" IQ test could exist- it would be showing people whose abilities are far ahead of those that would be expected for their age, as high IQ, whatever those abilities actually are.

The harder question would be- which of the many things people attribute as being done "better" by people of high intelligence, are actually important?

And how would one avoid biasing it in favour of the things one's own culture considers most important?

If a test that would be valid for humans could be devised, the next step would be to apply it to other races, in such as way as to ensure an Int 10 dwarf, or demon, or mind flayer, or whatever, is "as intelligent" as an Int 10 "human of any kind"- much harder.

A "mind-flayer specific IQ test" would have IQ 10 as normal- but seeing as this is Int 18, and humans are assumed to average as Int 10, IQ 10 for a mind-flayer-only test, would mean something very different from IQ 10 for a human-only test.

So getting from "IQ test" to "intelligence test" could be tricky.

Interesting to imagine though.

lisiecki
2010-02-02, 03:30 PM
If an "objective" IQ test could exist- it would be showing people whose abilities are far ahead of those that would be expected for their age, as high IQ, whatever those abilities actually are.

Thats what IQ tests do already.

The harder question would be- which of the many things people attribute as being done "better" by people of high intelligence, are actually important?

No Idea, you're the one that took us down this road

And how would one avoid biasing it in favour of the things one's own culture considers most important?

If a test that would be valid for humans could be devised, the next step would be to apply it to other races, in such as way as to ensure an Int 10 dwarf, or demon, or mind flayer, or whatever, is "as intelligent" as an Int 10 "human of any kind"- much harder.

OHHHHHHHHHHH so you didn't want it unique to the world, or the nation. How specific would you like to get?

we COULD make it so that each individual has an IQ test thats tailored for them and them a lone, but then, well were back to EVERYONE getting a 100 on there test.

A "mind-flayer specific IQ test" would have IQ 10 as normal- but seeing as this is Int 18, and humans are assumed to average as Int 10, IQ 10 for a mind-flayer-only test, would mean something very different from IQ 10 for a human-only test.

So getting from "IQ test" to "intelligence test" could be tricky.

Interesting to imagine though.

Well not really, you moved right past it to the Ender test

Then again I can see how this would be boring for most people, after all Im still trying to figure out "What the hell kind of IQ tests" John Campbell was looking at. (in his so charming words)

2010-02-02, 03:44 PM
I gave up on this style of measuring years ago. The way I look at stats is based on their modifiers. Each point in the modifier buys that character an aspect of the stat.

Charisma for instance can buy you good looks, charm, oratory ability, and bluffing. A stereotypical scoundrel would have all those, for a +4 charisma mod. Someone with +1 might just be a good liar, but not particularly good looking. A -1 would be butt ugly, but otherwise reasonable to be around.

I like this method of stat analysis because it allows for otherwise contradictory qualities to form a stat. I, for instance, have good alcohol tolerance and can take a bit of pain. I'm hardly immune to disease though and can't run for more than a minute without getting out of breath. This would put me at a +1 or +2 con, depending on if the breathing thing counts negative.

I should point out that this system is probably best for 4d6 keep highest as opposed to 3d6. It assumes that +1s are not uncommon. If you wanted to calibrate it for lower stats, I'd suggest starting at 8 and letting each quality increase a stat instead of its modifier. So for an 18 you'd need 10 positive traits in that stat.

Of course the problem with this is that you'd have to quantify what counts as a positive trait.

hamishspence
2010-02-02, 03:57 PM
I wonder what the Int-based bonuses and penalties would be?

Possibly "Mathematically talented" and "Learns rapidly" could be among the sort of things that would be bonuses- penalties might be harder to define.

Dexterity- bonus could be "really accurate distance judgement"- penalties could include "fumble-fingered"

Strength- bonus could be "strong arms"- penalty could be "Bad back"

it is an interesting thought.

I think 1st edition might have an example of high charisma being "inspirational speaker" and the reason it was 17 instead of 18 "not very good-looking".

lisiecki
2010-02-02, 04:02 PM
I think 1st edition might have an example of high charisma being "inspirational speaker" and the reason it was 17 instead of 18 "not very good-looking".

Dude I HAVE TO get my hands on these versions of 1st and 2nd ED you have.
there completely different than mine.

hamishspence
2010-02-02, 04:06 PM
See Wikipedia, on D&D controversies-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_controversies

Taken from there:

For example the book states that, "the Dungeon Master's Guide gives the celebrated Adolf Hitler as an example of a real historical person that exhibited D&D charisma!" While this is technically true, the book never suggests that Hitler is "celebrated", nor that he is a model of an acceptable D&D character. The passage in the book (the 1st edition Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 15) is intended to distinguish the D&D attribute of Charisma from physical beauty. It cites Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler as examples of individuals who were not notably attractive, but were notably high in persuasiveness and personal magnetism, and thus would have high Charisma in the D&D sense. There is no connection in D&D between Charisma and whether a character is good or evil (good and evil are part of a separate attribute, Alignment).

it's been about 3 years since I've read that DMG- so I'm not sure if it actually said that's why it wasn't maximum. Still- the point is made- that good looks might contribute to Charisma, but its possible to have a high Charisma without them.

2010-02-02, 04:36 PM
I wonder what the Int-based bonuses and penalties would be?

Mathematically inclined and fast learner both sound good to me. Maybe linguistic ability could go here as well? There should be something for artistic ability too. Not sure if that would be one bundle for all art or if painting and music would be separated (music might end up as a charisma trait anyway). More positives: quick witted, magical aptitude, good memory, knowledgable, and observant.

Now I'm wondering if one could make a system based on doing stats this way. Hrmm.

Riffington
2010-02-02, 04:40 PM
That being said while Ender would have a high Int score, the primary advantage he had was his insane Wisdom score

Why do you say his genius is best represented by Wisdom?

A "mind-flayer specific IQ test" would have IQ 10 as normal

It is a mistake to go down this road. Int 10 is not "whatever the human average is". It is a set intelligence that just so happens to be average for humans. A mind-flayer specific IQ test would have an Int much higher than 10.

You can recalibrate the average IQ of a new test to whatever you want it to be. There is nothing sacred about 100. After all, the Fahrenheit scale was designed so that the average human body temperature was 96. It was later discovered to be 98.6 (and still later 98.2); this doesn't ruin the scale's utility.

If however someone asked to be tipped half in Yen and half in Canadian Nickels I might now actually have a better time adapting to that odd/new mode.
This is surprising.

Understand the value of friendship better - possibly a better read out of Wisdom.
Agreed - just trying to figure out what you were calling Int.

Bloom's Taxonomy
But isn't Bloom's Taxonomy field-specific? I.e. yes, if you want to evaluate microeconomics you first have to work on the knowledge/memory portion. But that doesn't translate to macroeconomics, calculus, or chess; you'd have to start again from Knowledge in each of those fields. So maybe what you're calling an increase in Intelligence is really just an increase in the Knowledge you have in the specific fields you've learned?

This on its own is essentially the first two years of an undergraduate degree - memorize like crazy and be able to regurgitate it onto exam papers.

And by graduate programs students are fully needing to evaluate the quality of the knowledge itself and learn to generate/synthesize new knowledge effectively.

So what I was saying is that an high school or undergraduate student (even a bright one) might be really really fast at absorbing and processing facts and calculations. But their ability to do more with the same data (deconstruct/synthesize) is limited.

I guess my claim is, compare the high school student to herself after math grad school, and she'll be better at math (lots of new skill more than offsetting the tiny Int loss), but worse at literature.

hamishspence
2010-02-02, 04:46 PM
It is a mistake to go down this road. Int 10 is not "whatever the human average is". It is a set intelligence that just so happens to be average for humans. A mind-flayer specific IQ test would have an Int much higher than 10.

You can recalibrate the average IQ of a new test to whatever you want it to be. There is nothing sacred about 100. After all, the Fahrenheit scale was designed so that the average human body temperature was 96. It was later discovered to be 98.6 (and still later 98.2); this doesn't ruin the scale's utility.

Good point.

While there was that site I cited earlier:

http://www.superdan.net/dndmisc/int_iq.html

suggesting that Gygax meant a D&D human with Int 10 to be roughly equivalent to a generic 20th century human with IQ 100, its not clear if this is a good place to start.

Should we dismiss "IQ 100" altogether as a red herring?

I wonder if Ender might be a possible example of a "typical Int 18 fictional character"- with Bean being Int 19 or 20 before levelling- that is, superhuman intelligence, due to his being genetically engineered?

The heroine of Roald Dahl's Matilda might be another possible example.

Defining high Int- hard, but "you know it when you see it" so to speak :smallamused:

lisiecki
2010-02-02, 05:03 PM
Why do you say his genius is best represented by Wisdom?

Perhaps charisma. Ender became both the Xenocide and the Speaker of the Dead, with wisdom (or perhaps charisma)

He defeated the Buggers by being able to emphases with them. His victory didn't come because he was a tactical genius (although he was) but by being able to exploit his connection to the buggers

You can recalibrate the average IQ of a new test to whatever you want it to be. There is nothing sacred about 100. After all, the Fahrenheit scale was designed so that the average human body temperature was 96. It was later discovered to be 98.6 (and still later 98.2); this doesn't ruin the scale's utility.

No, you can't. part of the makeup of the test, is that 98% of all people will fall in to the first standard deviation.

This is surprising.

Good point.

No, not really

hamishspence
2010-02-02, 05:08 PM
The point he appeared to be making, was that the number used, was arbitrary. You could have a test that works in a similar way, standard deviations and all, but the chosen "marker point" is 80. Or 300. Or some other number.

He defeated the Buggers by being able to emphases with them. His victory didn't come because he was a tactical genius (although he was) but by being able to exploit his connection to the buggers

There is also that scene with him and Mazer examining the records, and him spotting the hive ship- which looks like any other ship- but there is a very subtle pattern that he and Mazer can spot.

"You see it. I see it. That makes two people out of all of those who have seen this video. But it's true, isn't it."

Int, or Wisdom?

Riffington
2010-02-02, 05:17 PM
No, you can't. part of the makeup of the test, is that 98% of all people will fall in to the first standard deviation.

False on two accounts.
First, the tests are hand-scored. You don't need to average it in with all the other tests to score it. There is no rule in the test about what percentage of people get what score. The committees that make the tests may alter the grading of future tests based on past results, but that's a question about the committee not the test.

Second, that would be closer to 68. But it's not part of the definition of the test. It's just a habit of the testwriters.

lisiecki
2010-02-02, 05:27 PM
False on two accounts.
First, the tests are hand-scored. You don't need to average it in with all the other tests to score it. There is no rule in the test about what percentage of people get what score. The committees that make the tests may alter the grading of future tests based on past results, but that's a question about the committee not the test.

Second, that would be closer to 68. But it's not part of the definition of the test. It's just a habit of the testwriters.

...

wow, ok I actually have nothing to say any more. An IQ test, test an individual participant, and then there results are compared to the general population. as that is what the test does, it seems that it would be hard to change this, and still have it be an Iq test.

What other parts of the test would you change, and still call it an Iq test?

hamishspence
2010-02-02, 05:27 PM
So- Riffington- who would you cite as:

"typical fictional characters who would begin with Int 18, if statted in a D20 system"?

I've cited Ender and Matilda- do you think they are good examples?

And if not, what starting Int would you give them?

lisiecki
2010-02-02, 05:28 PM
So- Riffingto- who would you cite as:
"typical fictional characters who would begin with Int 18, if statted in a D20 system"?I've cited Ender and Matilda- do you think they are good examples?
And if not, what starting Int would you give them?

If this is just going to be between you and Riffington, wouldn't it be more productive in PM?

hamishspence
2010-02-02, 05:30 PM
sure- anyone can drop in their opinions if they like- I was just addressing the question to him because he replied to my post.

Riffington
2010-02-02, 05:39 PM
...

wow, ok I actually have nothing to say any more. An IQ test, test an individual participant, and then there results are compared to the general population. as that is what the test does, it seems that it would be hard to change this, and still have it be an Iq test.

What other parts of the test would you change, and still call it an Iq test?

That's not what the test does at all. If you take a test tomorrow it compares you to a scoring table. That test and that scoring table can be retained for use a decade later, regardless of what happens to the population in that decade. I am not changing anything about the test, you are inventing a new special requirement that the test be recentered every time it's taken.

So- Riffington- who would you cite as:

"typical fictional characters who would begin with Int 18, if statted in a D20 system"?

I've cited Ender and Matilda- do you think they are good examples?

And if not, what starting Int would you give them?

I would give Ender a 20 or 22. Battle school picks out the absolute best of the best - from a population of billions they get the best [100?] a year. Many battle school candidates are so legendarily intelligent that any of them can make a material difference to any organization's success after just a few days preparation. Even the dropouts. His sister can write a few blog posts as a kid and start a war. So those people have a 20 - well above what a run-of-the-mill genius can do. They're like parodies of geniuses.

Ender astounds even those guys with his keen insights, so he is probably smarter than them (though he could alternatively have a 20 like them but be charismatic enough that they overestimate his genius).

hamishspence
2010-02-02, 05:45 PM
Hmm- maybe the Enderverse is closer to 4th ed in that humans can choose a +2 to any stat? :smallamused:

Which would allow for Int 20 at 1st level.

"Insight" is a Wisdom-based skill, so maybe he combines high Int, Wis and Charisma, but with Int being the highest.

Sometimes the 3-18 stat range can struggle a bit to adequately represent characters.

lisiecki
2010-02-02, 05:50 PM
Hmm- maybe the Enderverse is closer to 4th ed in that humans can choose a +2 to any stat? :smallamused:

Which would allow for Int 20 at 1st level.

"Insight" is a Wisdom-based skill, so maybe he combines high Int, Wis and Charisma, but with Int being the highest.

Sometimes the 3-18 stat range can struggle a bit to adequately represent characters.

O.k. So you actually have moved on to activly ignroing me?

Like i said, better for PM than to have a private conversation in a thread, to a matter unrelated to the thread

This has gone from what, giving ways to objectively measure stats, to you giving stats for fictional characters?

hamishspence
2010-02-02, 05:56 PM
I'm trying to get a baseline for Int 18. Is it 1 in 6 billion? 1 in a million? or what?

The thread was about stats- went off-track into the validity of IQ tests- and I am trying to get it back onto "what exactly do most people think of, when they think of Int 18"- and lower numbers.

Your elite specialist shouldn't be just a prof or postdoc. He should be the prof or postdoc or auto mechanic or locksmith that all the other profs (or whoemever) look up to.

was the comment suggesting that Int 15 should be the sort of Int that the guy all the other professors look up to, begins with.

so, what's Int 18, if Battle Schoolers are Int 20?

Even if "mental stats" are hard, or impossible, to objectively define, getting a baseline can help to ensure I understand what various people might think of, as "maximum playable starting Int".

Riffington
2010-02-02, 09:45 PM
I'm trying to get a baseline for Int 18. Is it 1 in 6 billion? 1 in a million? or what?
...
was the comment suggesting that Int 15 should be the sort of Int that the guy all the other professors look up to, begins with.

Right. So I'd claim: a Battle schooler is Int 20 - these are the fantastically smart people that aren't really "possible", but happen anyway. Your Einstein, etc. Not that you couldn't have some who're stoned all the time and make hemp bracelets, who have a quiet life fishing, etc... but you just can't tell the difference between an Int 20 and an Int 14 in those people. But it's someone you can just say "hey, go be the President of GM" and suddenly GM is raking in money. And the only reason they took the job is to provide cover for their affair with the President of Argentina.

So I really do like the "Int = IQ/10" thing. The only thing is, it'd require a test capable of measuring as accurately at the extremes as the current ones do near the center. The current tests aren't well designed to look at IQs above 130 or so (and nor is there any good reason for them to do so). So the numbers I give assume a normal distribution with standard deviation 15.

Int 10 would be an average person. You need to be at least this smart to do well in college, unless you work really hard. Only 50% of the population is this smart.

Int 12 would be a "bright" person. You need to be at least this smart to get through a graduate school (other than certain social sciences). Only 9% of the population is this smart. A person this smart with rudimentary training is as good at an intelligence-based skill as an average person with months of training.

Int 14 would be an extremely bright person. At this point, we're talking 0.4% of the population. In a grad school program, a guy with an Int of 14 is likely one of the brighter people in the program.

Int 16+ is 31 in a million. Such a person probably knows nobody smarter than her. At this point, she can master difficult material effortlessly. With rudimentary training at an intelligence-based skill she is as good as an average person who's got a lifetime of competence. (1 rank + 3 from int is as good as 4 ranks, and plenty of professionals don't even have 4 ranks in their profession).

Int 18 is the highest IQ that a person can reasonably have. There are like 300 of these people in the world today unless the curve skews a bit (and of those - who knows how many bother to apply themselves). The kind of person who could have won the Netflix Prize by himself after just a few days puzzling things out.

Hmm- maybe the Enderverse is closer to 4th ed in that humans can choose a +2 to any stat? :smallamused:

Which would allow for Int 20 at 1st level.

"Insight" is a Wisdom-based skill, so maybe he combines high Int, Wis and Charisma, but with Int being the highest.

Sometimes the 3-18 stat range can struggle a bit to adequately represent characters.

Well, Ender shouldn't be a character in a game. If he were, he'd be that super annoying DMPC who requires plot explanation every time he goes for a walk. He's a wonderful book character, but can't really work in most other artistic media.

hamishspence
2010-02-03, 03:40 AM
It might be a case of the difficulties of writing very smart characters well.

Thrawn, in the Timothy Zahn Star Wars books, could be another example for high Int- incredible analytical skills, the youngest person ever to hold the position of Force Commander in his home military, and so on.

Matilda- speaking fluently at one, taught herself to read at three, reading adult books at five, and so on.

Moriarty from the Sherlock Holmes books, maybe- "the most formidable mind in London" from Holmes's perspective- and capable of ground-breaking scientific works as well.

At this point, she can master difficult material effortlessly. With rudimentary training at an intelligence-based skill she is as good as an average person who's got a lifetime of competence. (1 rank + 3 from int is as good as 4 ranks, and plenty of professionals don't even have 4 ranks in their profession).

Going by the Arms & Equipment guide, the vast majority of professionals have Most Important Stat 13, 4 ranks, and Skill Focus.

However, this may not represent "real world professionals" perfectly.

Maybe in D&D, these Experts are a small part of the population, with most being Commoners, whereas in the real world, most people are more like Experts?

Riffington
2010-02-03, 05:15 AM
Going by the Arms & Equipment guide, the vast majority of professionals have Most Important Stat 13, 4 ranks, and Skill Focus.

So I do think that most Westerners these days get to count as Aristocrats (or a modern equivalent) instead of Commoners. The amount of leisure is mind-boggling. Expert is also more common these days.

But skill focus as one of your feats would be surprising. So many people have other feats instead, first off. Second, look how successful people often are who switch fields. And third, look how easy it is in most fields to compete with seasoned pros. If everyone in a field had skill focus, you wouldn't really see a desire for certain types of unions or Licenses or other barriers to entry: the requirement to have such a skill focus would be barrier enough.
It's possible that classical musicians need skill focus to succeed: in that field, you pretty much need to start by age 7 if you want a shot at the top. That would be sort of a marker in my mind for a field where skill focus is needed. Gymnastics doesn't count because of course you have to start early - your career ends at puberty.

As to highest score: well, many people will gravitate to a field they're naturally good at, sure. But plenty of healthy or dextrous people go into fields requiring Int or Wis these days. That's just the way our economy has gone.

hamishspence
2010-02-03, 06:00 AM
true- some of them might even have the Elite Array, so to speak, and have their best stat be not the one they are making a career of.

The IQ 150 plumber, for example. His best stat might be Int- but he's made a career out of Profession (plumber)- a Wis based skill :smallamused:

Lacking skill focus wouldn't necessarily bar a person's ability to succeed, if they are both "naturally talented" and have been doing it for a very long time- lots of experience.

Maybe a PhD might correspond, very approximately, to Skill Focus (relevent knowledge skill)- with the Masters representing the ranks in Knowledge?

Only a very basic approximation, but it helps to have an idea of what could be used to represent what.

Frozen_Feet
2010-02-03, 06:13 AM
Sometimes the 3-18 stat range can struggle a bit to adequately represent characters.
...that's why we have class levels, skillpoints, feats and what have you. Attempting to find a baseline by thinking "what score did character X have in ability Y" is good way to go about this, but remember to calibrate your expections. When you come across a hard situation, consider what else would X need in addition to high Y, within the rules, to do such thing.

Before you start yelling at me that this is a step back, I remind you that many feats etc. have requirements. If doing something within the rules requires feat Z, and Z requires high Y, we're making progress.

Now, here's my view of INT scores:

10 - 11: Average joe. As I base my view on 3d6 roll probabilities, only 25% of people have these scores. Remember folks, it's entirely possible to have an average of X without anyone in the example having a score of X. I see no reason why mean should represent majority of population. If choosing a scientific career, these people become laboratory assistants - necessary to get the work done, but not the ones to come up with new theories or innovations.

12 - 13: Has some qualities*) higher than the average. For example, might learn new languages a bit faster, or get higher scores in math tests, but the difference is only apparent in places where their natural tendencies get to shine. ~20% of the population. If choosing a scientific career, they'll become cookie-cutter researchers - respectable within their own field, but more at home working with stuff already there instead of thinking up new stuff.

14 - 15: Has many qualities higher than the average, or one quality much higher. In shool, is ahead of the rest of the class in most academic studies. Difference is apparent in intellectual environments, but rarely in everyday life. ~12% of the population. If choosing a scientific career, they'll become notable within one field and might dabble in some others - likely to come up with small innovations that nudge things forward, but nothing groundbreaking.

16 - 17: Most qualities higher than average, or few qualities much higher. Is ahead of his peers in all academic studies, will get bored if not given extra challenge. Difference clear-cut in intellectual environments, and manifests itself in everyday life as, for example, as a greater amount or more complex hobbies. ~4% of the population. If choosing a scientific career, they'll become notable on few fields, or a great name in one. These people are main source of crackpot theories previous groups try to falsify.

18: All qualities higher than average and several qualities much higher, or few qualities especially high. Will need special schooling to realize all of their potential. Difference in intellectual environments clear-cut, but hard to distinquish from the previous group. Manifests in everyday life as esoteric behaviour and a wide range of skills and hobbies. ~0.5% of the population. If choosing a scientific career will surely become great name on one field, maybe even several. Likely to make serious improvements on previous theories or come up with notable new ones.

19 - 20: Someone with luck of being born with high potential and into an environment where he/she can realize it. Will become an expert in several fields and is likely to be universally remembered long after their death. Pioneer and potential founder of new scientific fields. One comes along every few centuries, if we are lucky.

*) qualities refers to different aspects of intelligence: spatial measuring, linguistic capacity, arithmetical prowess, speed of learning etc.

hamishspence
2010-02-03, 06:21 AM
Seems workable. I suppose that Int 10-11, if they did do science, probably wouldn't progress past BSc- which is why they would be more likely to spend their lives as lab assistants.

Int 11 + PhD seems less plausible- though it could represent the person who lacks natural talent, but is massively hardworking to compensate- spent most of their spare time revising, etc. Probably got in, via a Upper Second at bachelor's level, rather than a First class, or a Masters, and so on.

Riffington
2010-02-03, 03:04 PM
true- some of them might even have the Elite Array, so to speak, and have their best stat be not the one they are making a career of.

The IQ 150 plumber, for example. His best stat might be Int- but he's made a career out of Profession (plumber)- a Wis based skill :smallamused:

Lacking skill focus wouldn't necessarily bar a person's ability to succeed, if they are both "naturally talented" and have been doing it for a very long time- lots of experience.

Maybe a PhD might correspond, very approximately, to Skill Focus (relevent knowledge skill)- with the Masters representing the ranks in Knowledge?

Only a very basic approximation, but it helps to have an idea of what could be used to represent what.

I think that the vast minority of people have Skill Focus.
If you see someone who is great at one thing, far out of proportion to their skill at everything else that they work hard at, you may consider that they have Skill Focus. For instance, Chomsky might have Skill Focus: Linguistics. He was great at that one particular thing. He then spent years trying to apply his intellect to analyzing other fields (history, etc), with much more modest success. Bob Dylan's brilliant music (despite a lack of charisma or even the ability to sing) points to him having such a skill focus.

But most people: if they're competent at one thing, they're competent at a broad range of things. Take a physics PhD and put him on Wall Street; in a few months he's picked that up and done marvelous things with it (intellectually at least - Wisdom is a different question). Take a surgeon and give him a few months of training in writing/speaking; soon he's a world-class journalist. This means there's not many people with Skill Focus in journalism or business. There are a rare few here and there, and many more with a Skill Focus in music.

Now as to a PhD: if you have a Master's in Electrical Engineering, you probably have 3+ ranks in it. If you get a PhD, that probably doesn't translate into any more ranks, and certainly doesn't translate into a Skill Focus. That PhD isn't any better than the guy with the Masters if you put a circuit board in front of them. Instead, it translates into a couple ranks in Education and a few in Research. In other words, a PhD is learning a totally different field (teaching/research) from the subject itself.

There are a rare few exceptions, primarily clinical ones. Some skills are really harder than others (Latin is harder than swimming), and a PhD clinical psychologist learns to do better therapy (on average) than a person with a Masters in Psychology or Social Work. But in most fields, the extra training isn't in practicing in the field (or knowledge of the field) - it's in how to produce and transmit information.

hamishspence
2010-02-03, 03:13 PM
In which case, how come the A&EG suggests that anyone you hire, can be expected to be 1st level, have 4 ranks, and Skill focus, by default?

That book strongly suggests 4 ranks and Skill Focus are the norm, not the exception, for professionals.

I suppose it might be biased in favor of making hirelings as good as a person with the average array can be- but even those who are suggested as having Commoner as their base class, rather than Expert, are given these 3 traits:

(Stat for career skill is 13, 4 ranks in it, Skill Focus in it)

said source also describes an artisan with less than 7 ranks in their primary skill as an "apprentice" one with 7-11 ranks as a "journeyman" and one with 12 ranks, as a "master"

In general, for most hirelings for whom Profession is not the listed skill, get it as a secondary skill.

So an armorer would have Craft (armorsmithing) as a primary skill, but Profession (armorer) as a secondary skill, for knowledge of the field, types of armor, and so on.

Riffington
2010-02-03, 03:44 PM
In which case, how come the A&EG suggests that anyone you hire, can be expected to be 1st level, have 4 ranks, and Skill focus, by default?

That book strongly suggests 4 ranks and Skill Focus are the norm, not the exception, for professionals.

Because it's trying to reverse the basic conceit of the D20 system, which is problematic.

The modifiers as initially written are small numbers. -2 for picking a lock with a toothpick instead of lockpicks. -4 to Climb for having a 45 lb shield as tall as you are in one hand. +2 to disguise for actually having inks, dyes, putty, clothes, etc. +2 to "guessing the weight of some gold" for having a set of accurate scales to use.

In other words, a +2 is *huge*. Such modifiers make sense with a bell-shaped curve. But the D20 system wouldn't work across 10 levels if you did that. If your rogue could scale a house wall at level 1, by level 5 he'd be running up it like Wuxia. By level 10 he'd be running on the ceiling. Besides, the writers wanted to challenge both the rogue and the wizard with the same cliff-face. So they flattened every probabilities. They made it a D20 and said "ok, this insurmountable advantage gives you a +10% to succeed". That allows you to play the same game at level 6 as at level 2: a wall is still an obstacle for you, it's just the goblins have turned into trolls.

But now, players complain "dammit, my rogue keeps getting overheard by random children". So they say "well, level yourself up enough and it'll stop happening like that". Ok, great: that flat system makes it so a 3rd level thief can't actually sneak very consistently.

So to fix the D20 flattening, certain later books such as A&EG just decided that everyone's high level or has skill focus. Helps fix the problem of the D20 system, but creates a host of new problems that those writers didn't understand. For instance, if enough people are high level that Create Food and Water can supply a forbidable armed force, then castles are obsolete. This is a huge problem but A&EG doesn't deal with it.

Fundamentally, the DC modifiers are written for a 3d6 system. It's fine to use a D20 instead because it's easy and lets characters without skill participate as near-equals of those with the skills, but that's a play thing. Not a realism thing.

ericgrau
2010-02-03, 03:59 PM
The "DnD Yourself theory" thread got me thinking about stats in DnD. I know there are set weight capacities for strength, but what about the rest of the stats? Obviously there can't really be a numerical value for constitution in real life, but has anyone ever done a % system? Like for instance a con 16 in real life would be the top 5% percentile of the population? Do 18s exist in real life? What would stephen hawking's intelligence be?

Yeah, shouldn't be too hard to find a frequency table since commoners roll 3d6.

{table]stat|frequency|top X%
3 | 0.5% | 100.0%
4 | 1.4% | 99.5%
5 | 2.8% | 98.1%
6 | 4.6% | 95.4%
7 | 6.9% | 90.7%
8 | 9.7% | 83.8%
9 | 11.6% | 74.1%
10 | 12.5% | 62.5%
11 | 12.5% | 50.0%
12 | 11.6% | 37.5%
13 | 9.7% | 25.9%
14 | 6.9% | 16.2%
15 | 4.6% | 9.3%
16 | 2.8% | 4.6%
17 | 1.4% | 1.9%
18 | 0.5% | 0.5%
[/table]

Levels confuse the matter, since you can get +1 every 4 levels. But level 5 is already heroic, leaders, etc., so anyone with more than a +1 is rare. Level 11+ is legendary. 1 in 200 people have 18's and 1 every several hundred might rise to level 5. That might make the chance of a 19 1 in several 10,000's, except those with 18's are much more likely to rise in level. So maybe 1 in every couple thousand or so has a 19. A few rare individuals might reach 20, and anyone who has a 21 is probably so legendary he isn't alive anymore or else holds the record or prize in something.

hamishspence
2010-02-03, 04:40 PM
A&EG isn't that much later- it's still a 3.0 book.

On the issue of "super-intelligent" people, there is DMG2's "Unusual NPCs" system- one of these unusual properties is Prodigy: +2 to one stat, and on top of that, a +4 untyped bonus to all checks relating to that stat- skill checks, ability checks, etc.

Might be a good way to represent those "one every century" people- the people whose names echo down through the ages, so to speak.

Riffington
2010-02-03, 04:47 PM
But then do you massively increase situational modifiers?

hamishspence
2010-02-03, 04:51 PM
Under what cisrcumstances would it make sense to start increasing them?

Is having a +7 modifier at 1st level, horribly unbalancing, for a 1st level NPC? (+1 for 13 base stat, +3 for Skill focus, +4 for 4 Ranks)

Riffington
2010-02-03, 05:02 PM
Under what cisrcumstances would it make sense to start increasing them?

Is having a +7 modifier at 1st level, horribly unbalancing, for a 1st level NPC? (+1 for 13 base stat, +3 for Skill focus, +4 for 4 Ranks)

First, it's not unbalancing per se. It just means that your PCs don't get to be competent until 5th level.
Second, it means NPCs never switch professions. This kinda sucks in the modern world but it's actually totally fine in a medieval one.
Third, you just have to ask which is stealthier: a random college student in bare feet or a cat burglar wearing rusty plate. If the cat burglar has a +8, then he's the sneaky one :(
So I'd double most modifiers.

hamishspence
2010-02-03, 05:09 PM
First, it's not unbalancing per se. It just means that your PCs don't get to be competent until 5th level.
Second, it means NPCs never switch professions. This kinda sucks in the modern world but it's actually totally fine in a medieval one.

I suspect switching professions is more less common in the medieval world than the modern one.

I can live with PCs not being especially competant at, say, Profession, compared to an NPC who has dedicated their life to it. PCs are adventurers- do they really need to outshine the NPCs at NPC stuff at 1st level, too?

I like the notion that, even if you have very good stats at first level, if you are untrained, the 1st level NPC who has specialized in that skill- will be beating you.

For example- Dex 22, 0 ranks in Sleight of Hand, vs Dex 13, 4 Ranks, Skill focus- the NPC will be just a little better at it.

Riffington
2010-02-04, 05:02 AM
I suspect switching professions is more common in the medieval world than the modern one.

I can live with PCs not being especially competant at, say, Profession, compared to an NPC who has dedicated their life to it. PCs are adventurers- do they really need to outshine the NPCs at NPC stuff at 1st level, too?

I'm very surprised to hear you say switching professions was more common in the medieval world than the modern one.

Anyway, it depends what you think is a good backstory.
If all your characters' backstory should be "but he was a pretty crummy shepherd, so he went off to seek his fortune", then cool.
But I kinda like the idea of being able to make my character "the best bartender for hundreds of miles around, and then he met that masked stranger" without having to waste a feat just for flavor.

hamishspence
2010-02-04, 05:16 AM
Sorry- I wasn't paying attention when I originally wrote that.

As to Skill focus- I suppose having a high Wisdom might replace it, when the character is a PC.

Backstory is an interesting thing- but "downgrading" the NPCs of the world by making Skill focus extremely rare, so your character can be "the best bartender for miles around" seems a bit like bending the world to fit the PC.

Maybe when they say that, they come from a very isolated region of mostly hamlets and the like?

If they are a 1st level PC and want to be "the best bartender in the city" without taking Skill Focus- it seems a bit overambitious to me.

Come to think of it- great bartenders in Faerun are commonly portrayed as ex-adventurers of medium level- maybe they start putting ranks in Profession (bartender) after they've given up adventuring?

Riffington
2010-02-04, 09:21 AM
Backstory is an interesting thing- but "downgrading" the NPCs of the world by making Skill focus extremely rare, so your character can be "the best bartender for miles around" seems a bit like bending the world to fit the PC.

I guess I don't see my interpretation as downgrading NPCs. I see your interpretation as downgrading NPCs.

Consider: If +4 is a competent professional, then NPC experts can be competent professionals in more than one area, while having some useful skills to spare. They also have an extra feat left to represent their boxing hobby, running prowess, or whatever special talent an individual may have.
If, on the other hand, +8 is a competent professional, then NPC experts can only have one field they're good at; all their other skills are mediocre at best.

Come to think of it- great bartenders in Faerun are commonly portrayed as ex-adventurers of medium level- maybe they start putting ranks in Profession (bartender) after they've given up adventuring?
I will actually grant that a great bartender should have a lot of stories and have known a lot of interesting people. It is therefore probably the case that a great bartender must be older than 30. But that was just a bad example on my part. I really don't see why I need to spend a feat to have been an extremely talented blacksmith, who then chose to pick up a bow to defend his nation against the kobolds.

hamishspence
2010-02-04, 10:10 AM
Not everybody has to have Skill focus- but it shouldn't be rare, either.

+5 (4 ranks and a best stat) is listed for some of the possible "castle staff" in the Stronghold Builders Guide, others, such as the Librarian, have +7.

so we have a scale: from +5 in a skill at 1st level, to +8 in a skill at 1st level (before any masterwork tools and the like).

So if you have +5 modifier, you could say this is "competent for 1st level", and +8 is "excellent for 1st level"