What class and Level are you. . . HONESTLY

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

In a mental experiment i started trying to stat out a few of my regular players as close as i could to what i thought they actually were.

Well apparently all my friends think they have WAY more levels than i would give them

I have always been of the opinion that the vast majority of people in the the world to which I am acustomed (modern day united state) have less than 7class levels. Most people just have a few more levels of expert than would typically be found in a medival setting because guess what, we're better educated.

Yay we have skill points we spread around well. . . that does not make us action heroes!

Most commonly I got asnwers like. "but i took 10 years of Karate!" Well buddy you took 10 years of Karate 10 years ago and now live off mountain dew doritoes and hungry man tv dinners. . . Come on, show me a high kick. . . just one. . .

Then take into the fact that most of those monks in DND. . spent the first half of their life learning monk stuff. . . so . . youre 10 years karate=1 monk level. . . GOOD FOR YOU

So i was thinking about it and have decided that to properly estimate levels you have to look at modern living as a de-leveling effect. (IE brain rotting acivities, Fast food, and laziness)

yes most people now-a-days may have done enough that they should be level 15 fighter/factotems(or so they think). . . but they mixed enough Junk that de-leveled them in there to keep themselves down around a level 3 expert level 1 fighter with one level of factotum.

So. Taking into consideration your lifestyle and the things you can actually STILL DO, What level and classes do you think you REALLY are?

I myself think I have a couple ranger levels and a few expert levels between things I keep up on and am still able to do fairy well.

[Dr.Epic]

level 1 rogue...with a PhD in horribleness epicness

[Math_Mage]

Obligatory reference to why fantasy, let alone reality, is much lower-powered in D&D terms than people think. (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

[senrath]

Level 1 or 2 expert. Not sure which.

[awa]

partial ninja
dnd does a lousy job for this kind of stuff because we need so many skills points far more then a dnd character gets. personally i subscribe to the group that says less then level 5.
But if i had to pick Id probably be an expert i know how to do at least a little bit of a lot of things but i do not consider myself particularly good and stabbing people which leaves out the other high skill classes.

[Cadian 9th]

Well, as a fairly young man, my ability scores (I put it as)
Str 6, Dex 13, Con 6, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 13.

Thats only because I have AS.

And as for classes, Commoner 1. Maybe If I'm lucky an expert in DnD :smallbiggrin:

Dante

[aivanther]

I'd say a level 4 or 5 Expert. This is assuming 1 is HS, 2 is under grad, 3 for Masters. Add a level or two for lots of experience in a wide variety of areas.

Actually, level 4 tops seems more accurate.

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

Obligatory reference to why fantasy, let alone reality, is much lower-powered in D&D terms than people think. (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

i completely agree with this article. . .

[awa]

i doubt every undergrad is level 3 i believe some linked to the article which proposed Einstein was level 5

[Tengu_temp]

Level 2 Smart Hero. If you have to stat out RL people in DND, use D20 Modern and its assumptions.


Obligatory reference to why fantasy, let alone reality, is much lower-powered in D&D terms than people think. (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

Obligatory comment about how many facts this article got wrong.

[Milskidasith]

D&D is horrible at statting out real life, or even low power fantasy heroes. You can't accurately gauge real people with the D&D system.

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

i doubt every undergrad is level 3 i believe some linked to the article which proposed Einstein was level 5

i belive undergrads were 2
1 expert for highschool
2 expert for undergrad
3 for masters
4 for doctorate
5 leader/major authority in the field

[arguskos]

Assuming you're actually doing this as the OP intended.
Commoner 1.

Str 11
Dex 9
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 13
Cha 6

Feat: Skill Focus (Profession [Student])

Skill points aligned into nothing of relevance, save the above skill.

No gear of note.

Half HP, as per the NPC rules.

Yaaaaaay. These threads are always depressing.

[Ravens_cry]

Level one expert with a 14 intelligence, 14 dexterity, 7 strength, 8 charisma, 9 wisdom and 10 constitution.
Feat: Toughness.

[Harperfan7]

At my absolute peak (16 years old), I would have claimed...

CG Male human wilderness rogue 1 or scout 1 or WR 1//S1
Str 10, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 17, Wis 8, Cha 12
Agile, Blooded, Iron Will
the skills you would expect from this build, minus disable device and open lock, with a survival of maybe 1 rank.
(All I can say is, if you knew me then, you might not laugh at this)

Nowdays, probably N commoner 1-2/maybe expert 1
Str 10, Dex 13, Con 12, Int 13-14, Wis ?, Cha ?
life is not good

[Traveler]

According to the rules set above, I have one monk level (still active as such). I probably have a level of bard too for being active in music (like actually being in performances outside high school concert band). Wait... I think I broke a rule for alignment.:smallannoyed: :smallamused:

[Moff Chumley]

Poorly-optimized commoner 1. :smallamused:

[Siosilvar]

Honestly? Level 1 Expert.

My Jump check is +2 to +6, assuming I take 10. I think I put a rank in Move Silently somewhere, but I'm not spectacular. The rest of my skill points are in various Knowledge skills.


Translated to high fantasy? Some sort of Archivist/Rogue/Paladin/Duelist conglomeration. Around level 8, probably Gestalt so it all fits.

Ability scores something like S9 D14 C8 I18 W11 C12 in either case.

[DragoonWraith]

Probably a 1st level Commoner, Str 9, Dex 11, Con 10, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 12. Something like that. Working to retrain as a 1st level Expert.


Obligatory comment about how many facts this article got wrong.
Care to elaborate? It looks quite well done to me, and I rather agree with it, at least from a casual reading.

[Math_Mage]

Level 2 Smart Hero. If you have to stat out RL people in DND, use D20 Modern and its assumptions.

Obligatory comment about how many facts this article got wrong.

Obligatory comment about nitpicking facts without undermining the basic point.

But I agree that d20 Modern is a better idea for statting out RL.

[Tyndmyr]

Fighter 1, without amazing stats. To justify this, I have varied martial arts experience, most of a decade in the military, and about the same amount of time involved with various foam fighting organizations.

I predict people's self image as being more awesome than average will quickly lead to ridiculous inflation, though. It always does.

[FMArthur]

Level 20 Wizard

12 STR I'm not that strong, and I don't work out, but I'm not scrawny either.
17 DEX I may not be tough but I could probably win fights with my agility alone (not that I have ever been in a fight in my life or know anything about fighting)
16 CON I'm very resilient. I bet I could take a hit better than half the people here based on my estimations.
22 INT I don't mean to brag, but I may be the smartest man in the history of the world.
18 WIS I consider myself to be astoundingly wise and am known for my good judgement
6 CHA I am not a people person lol


No matter how reasonable you try and force this kind of thread to be in the original post, it just won't work out that way. These threads are about narcissism and geeky types either showing they conform perfectly to the 'smart nerd' stereotypes or attempting to show they defy the sterotypes but in equally formulaic ways.

[Math_Mage]

Str 10, Dex 12, Con 10, Int 15, Wis 8, Cha 10. Commoner 1 or thereabouts. Skill Focus (wasting time on the Internet).

[Greenish]

I predict people's self image as being more awesome than average will quickly lead to ridiculous inflation, though. It always does.
No matter how reasonable you try and force this kind of thread to be in the original post, it just won't work out that way. These threads are about narcissism and geeky types either showing they conform perfectly to the 'smart nerd' stereotypes or attempting to show they defy the sterotypes but in equally formulaic ways.Reading the thread this far seems to disprove these claims.

Oh, and I've got an ability score in double digits! (Con 13 yay!)

[PersonMan]

Str: 9, Dex: 12, Con: 13, Int: 14, Wis: 10, Cha: 14
Levels: Commoner 1, eventually retrained to Expert 1.
Probably no feats just yet, I'm still young.

[Milskidasith]

Another problem with even ability scores is just the fact that what an ability score means can vary wildly. On a 3d6, 18 in a stat is a mere one in 216, but most people treat something like 18 int as a one of a kind, "I'm not sure if Einstein had an 18 because Newton had one and it is just that rare" type of thing. Depending on the scale used, I could easily fit anywhere from 16-18 depending on the test used to a "mere" 12-14 if an 18 is less than once a thousand years.

[Mongoose87]

Level 1 expert, with all my skill points divided into single-rank various knowledges, except for the 2 each in Perform (Guitar), Perform (Bass) and Perform (Oratory).

[Fiery Diamond]

Honestly?

Level 1 Expert. Maybe just level 1 commoner, except I'm well educated.

Stats...something like Str 6, Dex 8, Con 7, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 10

[shadow_archmagi]

On a 3d6, 18 in a stat is a mere one in 216

Keep in mind that only PCs roll for stats, so thats "One in two-hundred super-cool" people has an 18.

[Math_Mage]

Another problem with even ability scores is just the fact that what an ability score means can vary wildly. On a 3d6, 18 in a stat is a mere one in 216, but most people treat something like 18 int as a one of a kind, "I'm not sure if Einstein had an 18 because Newton had one and it is just that rare" type of thing. Depending on the scale used, I could easily fit anywhere from 16-18 depending on the test used to a "mere" 12-14 if an 18 is less than once a thousand years.

'Struth. What an 18 (or a 3) in any given stat is supposed to correspond to is very different from what happens when you roll the dice. All the more so if you roll 4d6b3, where an 18 is 7/432 odds (although a 3 is 1/1296, but that's still over 5 million people in the world).

EDIT:

Keep in mind that only PCs roll for stats, so thats "One in two-hundred super-cool" people has an 18.

That's for bookkeeping convenience more than anything. The Average Array is an average result of 4d6b3, after all.

[Tyndmyr]

Keep in mind that only PCs roll for stats, so thats "One in two-hundred super-cool" people has an 18.

Well, it appears I'm the protaganist. Obviously, I get to roll. The rest of you voices in my computer are screwed, though.

[Greenish]

Maybe just level 1 commoner, except I'm well educated.I should think most people posting here are from first world countries (or USA :smalltongue:) and can claim the Educated feat.

[Claudius Maximus]

Another problem with even ability scores is just the fact that what an ability score means can vary wildly. On a 3d6, 18 in a stat is a mere one in 216, but most people treat something like 18 int as a one of a kind, "I'm not sure if Einstein had an 18 because Newton had one and it is just that rare" type of thing. Depending on the scale used, I could easily fit anywhere from 16-18 depending on the test used to a "mere" 12-14 if an 18 is less than once a thousand years.

This is a problem, yeah. You're more than twice as likely to roll an 18 on 3d6 than you are to have my IQ, but I would never, ever say that I have 18 intelligence.

[Greenish]

That's for bookkeeping convenience more than anything. The Average Array is an average result of 4d6b3, after all.If we believe the article linked (and why shouldn't we?), Elite array is 4d6b3, while Average array is 3d6.

[Natael]

Class/level? Probably commoner/expert 2, as I'm just some guy. Probably something like wis or int as my highest stat at maybe a 13 or 14 on one of them. One of the problems with d20 is that mechanically, a 12 and 13 are exactly the same.

I could probably belt out a fairly accurate GURPS character sheet showing me to be a 45 point character if given a short time. Which would rather sufficiently reflect myself in a gaming environment, just perfect for allowing for me to be well eaten by a zombie in one of those "make yourself for a zombie survival game" ideas I see every now and then.

[Claudius Maximus]

If we believe the article linked (and why shouldn't we?), Elite array is 4d6b3, while Average array is 3d6.

3d6 averages 10.5, six of which will give you 15 point buy. The average array is simply an example of a 15 point buy set. So even if you can't trust the article, at least you know the kind of logic that goes into that claim.

[Meta]

Level 20 Wizard

12 STR I'm not that strong, and I don't work out, but I'm not scrawny either.
17 DEX I may not be tough but I could probably win fights with my agility alone (not that I have ever been in a fight in my life or know anything about fighting)
16 CON I'm very resilient. I bet I could take a hit better than half the people here based on my estimations.
22 INT I don't mean to brag, but I may be the smartest man in the history of the world.
18 WIS I consider myself to be astoundingly wise and am known for my good judgement
6 CHA I am not a people person lol


No matter how reasonable you try and force this kind of thread to be in the original post, it just won't work out that way. These threads are about narcissism and geeky types either showing they conform perfectly to the 'smart nerd' stereotypes or attempting to show they defy the sterotypes but in equally formulaic ways.

22 is impossible. 20 is would be the smartest human being that ever lived. Some consider 18 to be peak human but it's in the 18-20 range. You've just proved you're not a 22.

From what I understand to be a 14-15 you need to be in the top 2%ish of the world's population.

Not a fan of IQ, but it's a good example. If you're in Mensa for instance, you're prob a 14-15 in INT.

Anyways my stats are in the sig based on what 'the test' gave me and what I think they are based on the norm.

STR: I'm not ripped, but highly toned. I can 20+ pull ups at a time, but I don't have a lot of mass, so I'd say they even out to an average score. 10

CON: I handle pain a bit better than others I would guess but it's very difficult to judge this. An example, I once played basketball for hours after a compound fracture in my finger and no big deal. I can run for longer distances than the average person, but I'm no cross country runner. 11

DEX: I'm very agile. Both quick and fast. I have a high degree of control over my body, and am skilled at both large and small scale dexterous acts. Good-hand eye coordination. Pretty athletic and excellent at video games as well. Not clutzy. Comfortable with firearms. 13

INT: I hate using IQ but there aren't a lot of good measure for INT. High IQ. 15

WIS: I'm either trained in perception and insight or have a decent WIS. People come to me for advice. I was quite successful at helping my residents as a first year RA and think WIS was a contributing factor. Still barely above the average I'd say. 12

CHA: Another tough one. I'd say I'm better looking than the average person. I've never had trouble getting attention from the opposite gender. Example: Most sought after female in my hall of 90 girls 45 guys. Probably 90% would have liked to sleep with her but i was the lucky one. Make friends easily. Tricky but I'd say 14.

EDIT: Two other forum goers lived in my hall, so I'll direct their attention to the thread as they will be able to expand on my (imo) fairly accurate benchmarks. Also, I'll let them pick my class as I think it's fairly challenging.

[Math_Mage]

If we believe the article linked (and why shouldn't we?), Elite array is 4d6b3, while Average array is 3d6.

Ah, whoops. Yeah, avg. 4d6b3 comes out to 12, avg. 3d6 comes out to 10.5, so switch it around. :smallyuk:


This is a problem, yeah. You're more than twice as likely to roll an 18 on 3d6 than you are to have my IQ, but I would never, ever say that I have 18 intelligence.

Avg + 3 standard deviations ~ 145?

At least for Int there's the "Int = IQ/10" fudge. Tougher with other stats.


22 is impossible. 20 is would be the smartest human being that ever lived. Some consider 18 to be peak human but it's in the 18-20 range. You've just proved you're not a 22.

:smallconfused: Did you notice the sarcastic disclaimer at the bottom?

[Maeglin_Dubh]

I always heard that your Int should be your IQ/10. Or thereabouts.

[Myshlaevsky]

22 is impossible. 20 is would be the smartest human being that ever lived. Some consider 18 to be peak human but it's in the 18-20 range. You've just proved you're not a 22.

The poster in question is indulging in intentional hyperbole.

[Meta]

The poster in question is indulging in intentional hyperbole.

I figured, but easier to use reason to prove him wrong just in case he was serious but incorrect rather than "omg dumb troll"

Thank you for telling me though :smallsmile:

[Milskidasith]

I always heard that your Int should be your IQ/10. Or thereabouts.

That both assumes IQ is entirely accurate and also makes an Int of 18 so incredibly rare it is unlikely most real life geniuses actually had it.

[nyjastul69]

Judging by what most other people tell me...

I have no class.:smalleek:

[Meta]

That both assumes IQ is entirely accurate and also makes an Int of 18 so incredibly rare it is unlikely most real life geniuses actually had it.

That is the idea. The 18-20 (some debate on the exact number) range should be the absolute best a human can achieve. A 20 in a stat represents characters achieving super human traits

[Greenish]

:smallconfused: Did you notice the sarcastic disclaimer at the bottom?People aren't always so savvy on sarcasm.

Or on statistic. I remember having an argument with someone on whether half of the people on the planet are less intelligent than average. His argument was that "if so many people were dumb, the average would be lower".

[Temotei]

Going by D&D standards, not real life compared to D&D, which skews this...

Commoner 1

Str 10 - 11
Dex 12 - 13
Con 11 - 13
Int 11 - 13
Wis 8 - 13
Cha 11 - 13

Oh, boy. :smallamused:


That is the idea. The 18-20 (some debate on the exact number) range should be the absolute best a human can achieve. A 20 in a stat represents characters achieving super human traits

IQ scores are terrible measurements of human intelligence. Even the creator of the IQ test said so.

IQ tests should be used solely for the purpose of finding out how well a student should do in school. Even that use is shaky.

[Milskidasith]

That is the idea. The 18-20 (some debate on the exact number) range should be the absolute best a human can achieve. A 20 in a stat represents characters achieving super human traits

Except the thing is, it's not. Look at 18 strength; it allows you to dead lift 600 pounds. The world record is 1000, which is around a twenty two.

Dexterity: An 18 is only 20% more accurate than others at throwing things or shooting stuff. That is *far* lower than the kind of differences you'd see between an amateur firing a gun and a trained person in the military firing a gun, and that's not even getting into superhuman shooting ability.

Int: Even int doesn't make sense with an int of 18 being the max, because that's only slightly more likely to actually get knowledge based questions right. A person with 18 int, or IQ 180, would, despite being rare the world over, only be 20% more likely to be able to answer a question right than somebody else.

In short: The system is incredibly horrible at simulating real people, and 18s give far lower benefit than real life greats could actually achieve without tacking on extra hit dice, which has it's own problems (they'd either have to have negative constitution, or every genius would also be superhumanely resistant to being stabbed.)

[okpokalypse]

Here are my "applied" stats in D&D terms...

Str: 16 (I can leg-press and hold >> 500 Lbs and can lift > 250 overhead)
Dex: 16 (I can still throw a baseball, with accuracy, over 70 MpH)
Con: 10 (Average Health, I get sick once or twice a year)
Int: 18 (142 Tested IQ @ 21 YoA, 44 on the Wonderlic Test)
Wis: 14 (I'm somewhat intuitive, and never repeat mistakes)
Cha: 14 (I'm often appointed leader in peer activities)

I've got a PhD in Philosophy and a BS in Computer Science. I've been a professional developer for > 15 years. I'm published in 2 different fields. I'd like to think that, after about 20 years of education I'd be more than a 5th level Expert or some such :).

At my physical peak (Age 24) I should have been...
Str: 20
Dex: 18
Con: 18

I benched over 400 then and could leg-press over 1,000 Lbs. I played independent league football and still did a little baseball (I was a control pitcher, throwing between 80-85 MpH). I also was running 10 miles in the morning 5 days a week in under an hour.

Would I have had more conceptual "class" levels then? Sure. You could easily have given me good 3-5 levels of Fighter having been a 6'3" 245 Lb outside linebacker. Maybe barbarian is actually a better call there :smallwink:. Heh.

But seriously, in terms of life "experience" - I knew nothing then. I was just beefy and rather reckless in my life. But I haven't forgotten anything I learned from then. I could step up and coach a defense or train up a pitcher with my knowledge. I think this is much the same in the concept of the aged (but still level-10+) veteran warriors in the realms of fantasy. They're past their adventuring prime - but they're still very knowledgeable, and quite deadly if pushed to be so...

[Harperfan7]

Naw, there are plenty of people with str scores above 18, unless they are all raging barbarians. I don't think 18 is the highest you can get in a score in real life. I think it's more like 25.

Earlier I said I had 17 Int at 16 years old, that's assuming Einstein had something like 22-23, in which case he is twice as smart as I was (I do think my Int has gone down since, for precisely the OP's reasons). Not to mention him having levels and ranks and feats that made him "smarter" than just his Int score.

A 17 is nothing to stare at in real life unless you either know the person or they are demonstrating it in front of you. If you saw a 17 on youtube performing their ability with that score, it'd be a case of "Why am I watching this?"

I also said I had 15 dex. I was a fast runner, had great balance, was good at athletics, could do backflips and jump from roofs (like 15ft.) with no problem (it'd hurt hours later sometimes, but no real damage) and with no training other than excersing at home or running around outside. I was a pretty damn good shot with guns/bows/baseballs (I used to shoot bumblebees out of the air with a 22 rifle). The only thing I was lacking in dexterity was manual dexterity. People routinely called me a ninja/spider/neo/cat/monkey/other dexterous thing.

I've never won a single dex-related competition. Granted I very rarely compete, but then that is probably connected. Scores are one thing, skill ranks, feats, and class abilities are another.

A real life 1st level rogue with 10 dex and max ranks and the right feats could outdo anything I could do as a 1st level rogue with 15 dex. Doubly so for an expert or wizard with my Int score.

[Alleran]

I'd probably be a NG human Expert 3 / Monk 1 (maybe Expert 2 / Monk 2, but I doubt it). Stats would be STR 13, DEX 15, CON 13, INT 16, WIS 14, CHA 12. Or thereabouts, anyway.

[Jergmo]

I believe that everyone here, myself included, are most likely 1st level Experts. 2nd if we're above average in skills/etc. 3rd if we're really good. But I doubt anyone here is higher level than that.

"But I have X skill and Y ability in real life!"

Real life is E6, only we trade experience for feats at lower levels for less experience.


Obligatory reference to why fantasy, let alone reality, is much lower-powered in D&D terms than people think. (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

Posted before reading on. This is pretty much what I believe, yeah.


No matter how reasonable you try and force this kind of thread to be in the original post, it just won't work out that way. These threads are about narcissism and geeky types either showing they conform perfectly to the 'smart nerd' stereotypes or attempting to show they defy the sterotypes but in equally formulaic ways.

Actually, the results that I have in my sig are rather reasonable, and everyone I've spoken to about it thinks they're on the mark, apart from two people who think I'm borderline on 15 for intelligence. You can't generalize about these things all the time.


From what I understand to be a 14-15 you need to be in the top 2%ish of the world's population.

I think we've gone from overestimating attributes to underestimating them, here. 9-12 = Average, 13-14 = Above average, 15-16 = Exceptional, 17-20 = Genius


At least for Int there's the "Int = IQ/10" fudge. Tougher with other stats.

Again, 13-14 = Above average. IQ/10 = a bit of fail, IMO.

[Milskidasith]

Here are my "applied" stats in D&D terms...

Str: 16 (I can leg-press and hold >> 500 Lbs and can lift > 250 overhead)
Dex: 16 (I can still throw a baseball, with accuracy, over 70 MpH)
Con: 10 (Average Health, I get sick once or twice a year)
Int: 18 (142 Tested IQ @ 21 YoA, 44 on the Wonderlic Test)
Wis: 14 (I'm somewhat intuitive, and never repeat mistakes)
Cha: 14 (I'm often appointed leader in peer activities)

I've got a PhD in Philosophy and a BS in Computer Science. I've been a professional developer for > 15 years. I'm published in 2 different fields. I'd like to think that, after about 20 years of education I'd be more than a 5th level Expert or some such :).

At my physical peak (Age 24) I should have been...
Str: 20
Dex: 18
Con: 18

I benched over 400 then and could leg-press over 1,000 Lbs. I played independent league football and still did a little baseball (I was a control pitcher, throwing between 80-85 MpH). I also was running 10 miles in the morning 5 days a week in under an hour.

Would I have had more conceptual "class" levels then? Sure. You could easily have given me good 3-5 levels of Fighter having been a 6'3" 245 Lb outside linebacker. Maybe barbarian is actually a better call there :smallwink:. Heh.

But seriously, in terms of life "experience" - I knew nothing then. I was just beefy and rather reckless in my life. But I haven't forgotten anything I learned from then. I could step up and coach a defense or train up a pitcher with my knowledge. I think this is much the same in the concept of the aged (but still level-10+) veteran warriors in the realms of fantasy. They're past their adventuring prime - but they're still very knowledgeable, and quite deadly if pushed to be so...

While I'm not one to doubt, I don't think "somewhat intuitive" qualifies you as having well above average wisdom, and a 70 MPH fastball is, while impressive, not that impressive. Certainly better than I could do, but that's barely faster than some of the fastest pitchers in my brother's local baseball teams, and those are U16 or U15 teams. The rest, if true, seems accurate, however.

[mucat]

Expert, Level 2 or 3.

I'm definitely of the "Einstein was a level-6 expert" school (I'll give him 6 rather than 5, so he can grab one more well-deserved feat.)

Feynman and DaVinci were among history's scant few Factotums. Tesla gets Artificer levels, and utterly no one else ever (well, maybe Archimedes.) Uri Geller does not get psion levels. And there are always a few fighters and rogues around...but they're vastly outnumbered by the warriors, experts, and commoners.

[Meta]

Here are my "applied" stats in D&D terms...

Str: 16 (I can leg-press and hold >> 500 Lbs and can lift > 250 overhead)
Dex: 16 (I can still throw a baseball, with accuracy, over 70 MpH)
Con: 10 (Average Health, I get sick once or twice a year)
Int: 18 (142 Tested IQ @ 21 YoA, 44 on the Wonderlic Test)
Wis: 14 (I'm somewhat intuitive, and never repeat mistakes)
Cha: 14 (I'm often appointed leader in peer activities)

I've got a PhD in Philosophy and a BS in Computer Science. I've been a professional developer for > 15 years. I'm published in 2 different fields. I'd like to think that, after about 20 years of education I'd be more than a 5th level Expert or some such :).

At my physical peak (Age 24) I should have been...
Str: 20
Dex: 18
Con: 18

I benched over 400 then and could leg-press over 1,000 Lbs. I played independent league football and still did a little baseball (I was a control pitcher, throwing between 80-85 MpH). I also was running 10 miles in the morning 5 days a week in under an hour.

Would I have had more conceptual "class" levels then? Sure. You could easily have given me good 3-5 levels of Fighter having been a 6'3" 245 Lb outside linebacker. Maybe barbarian is actually a better call there :smallwink:. Heh.

But seriously, in terms of life "experience" - I knew nothing then. I was just beefy and rather reckless in my life. But I haven't forgotten anything I learned from then. I could step up and coach a defense or train up a pitcher with my knowledge. I think this is much the same in the concept of the aged (but still level-10+) veteran warriors in the realms of fantasy. They're past their adventuring prime - but they're still very knowledgeable, and quite deadly if pushed to be so...


My old man can lift more than 250 overhead and he's probably a 13 in STR. Don't use DnD's scale for loads, they're terriblely designed.

If 10 is the average, do you think the average person can drag 500 lbs?

It's more accurate to use percentages based on what stats NPCs should on average throughout a 'realistic' campaign environment that the various DMGs describe.

Your IQ would put you around 14. You're barely in the top 2% of the world.

Scores are a bit inflated.

[Math_Mage]

Dexterity: An 18 is only 20% more accurate than others at throwing things or shooting stuff. That is *far* lower than the kind of differences you'd see between an amateur firing a gun and a trained person in the military firing a gun, and that's not even getting into superhuman shooting ability.

Int: Even int doesn't make sense with an int of 18 being the max, because that's only slightly more likely to actually get knowledge based questions right. A person with 18 int, or IQ 180, would, despite being rare the world over, only be 20% more likely to be able to answer a question right than somebody else.

Without necessarily disagreeing with your general point, I'd like to contest these examples, because a number of other factors start coming into play when you start talking about skill checks or attacks rather than straight ability checks. The military man has proficiency with the gun, possibly Weapon Focus--tack on a Dexterity difference and BAB, and you're looking at a difference of up to 10 in ranged attack bonus, which is huge. Similarly, IQ (or Int) is only one factor in answering knowledge-based questions; consider also skill ranks, the Educated feat, Skill Focus (Know: whatever) and so on, and you end up with a realistically large difference.

[Meta]

Naw, there are plenty of people with str scores above 18, unless they are all raging barbarians. I don't think 18 is the highest you can get in a score in real life. I think it's more like 25.

Earlier I said I had 17 Int at 16 years old, that's assuming Einstein had something like 22-23, in which case he is twice as smart as I was (I do think my Int has gone down since, for precisely the OP's reasons). Not to mention him having levels and ranks and feats that made him "smarter" than just his Int score.

A 17 is nothing to stare at in real life unless you either know the person or they are demonstrating it in front of you. If you saw a 17 on youtube performing their ability with that score, it'd be a case of "Why am I watching this?"

I also said I had 15 dex. I was a fast runner, had great balance, was good at athletics, could do backflips and jump from roofs (like 15ft.) with no problem (it'd hurt hours later sometimes, but no real damage) and with no training other than excersing at home or running around outside. I was a pretty damn good shot with guns/bows/baseballs (I used to shoot bumblebees out of the air with a 22 rifle). The only thing I was lacking in dexterity was manual dexterity. People routinely called me a ninja/spider/neo/cat/monkey/other dexterous thing.

I've never won a single dex-related competition. Granted I very rarely compete, but then that is probably connected. Scores are one thing, skill ranks, feats, and class abilities are another.

A real life 1st level rogue with 10 dex and max ranks and the right feats could outdo anything I could do as a 1st level rogue with 15 dex. Doubly so for an expert or wizard with my Int score.

Nah, you're misusing the numbers. By the fluff, when you hit the 20's in DnD you're accomplishing superhuman feats. Einstein would have had no more than 20, and if Einsten is twice as smart as you based on IQ, you're around a 9 in int.

[Milskidasith]

While I agree with your general point, I'd like to contest these examples, because a number of other factors start coming into play when you start talking about skill checks or attacks rather than straight ability checks. The military man has proficiency in the gun, possibly Weapon Focus--tack on a Dexterity difference and BAB, and you're looking at a difference of up to 10 in ranged attack bonus, which is huge. Similarly, IQ (or Int) is only one factor in answering knowledge-based questions; consider also skill ranks, the Educated feat, Skill Focus (Know: whatever), and you end up with a realistically large difference.

I said an amateur with the gun, which I believed implied proficiency. Weapon Focus and BAB would bring it up to 30% more accurate, which is far lower than normal. In fact, even a 50% difference in accuracy is probably still lower than what you would get between a normal military man and somebody who just picked up a weapon and started firing.

Also, my intelligence example was supposed to be assuming tests such as actual IQ tests or the Wonderlic test, rather than tests based on knowledge skills; it was, again, my poor wording. Assuming you took Einstein, who some are saying is 18, and a normal guy, and put them into a situation where they have absolutely no point of reference to use pre-existing knowledge, and Einstein would only be twenty percent more likely to solve the problem than others.

Potion, you can't both state how hard it is to have an 18 in D&D terms while claiming that D&D terms are unrealistic and that D&D rules for stats lead to overinflated scores. That's rather self-contradictory (not hypocritical, as I recently learned).

EDIT: Also, Potion, if Einstein has a twenty, then somebody who was half as smart as him would have a 10, and that's assuming you use the ridiculously inaccurate "Int = IQ/10" rule, which would be contradictory because it is unlikely Einstein himself even had an IQ above 180, and 200 is literally the point IQ is capped. That also assumes IQ is linear, which is exactly what the IQ test is not meant to be; it's meant to be a bell curve.

[Math_Mage]

Nah, you're misusing the numbers. By the fluff, when you hit the 20's in DnD you're accomplishing superhuman feats. Einstein would have had no more than 20, and if Einsten is twice as smart as you based on IQ, you're around a 9 in int.

:smallconfused: The rather uncharitable result aside, your IQ calculations are misguided. As IQ is not a linear scale, it does not make sense to represent "half as smart as Einstein" as half Einstein's IQ.

[SurlySeraph]

This is a problem, yeah. You're more than twice as likely to roll an 18 on 3d6 than you are to have my IQ, but I would never, ever say that I have 18 intelligence.

I'm at Harvard. I wouldn't put myself above 15 Int, if the smartest people I know have 18s.

Which brings us back to the point that DnD really isn't very good for describing real life, particularly because the ability scores aren't granular enough and there are too few feats and skill points per person. If you want to stat yourself up, try Twilight 2013.

[Meta]

I said an amateur with the gun, which I believed implied proficiency. Weapon Focus and BAB would bring it up to 30% more accurate, which is far lower than normal. In fact, even a 50% difference in accuracy is probably still lower than what you would get between a normal military man and somebody who just picked up a weapon and started firing.

Also, my intelligence example was supposed to be assuming tests such as actual IQ tests or the Wonderlic test, rather than tests based on knowledge skills; it was, again, my poor wording. Assuming you took Einstein, who some are saying is 18, and a normal guy, and put them into a situation where they have absolutely no point of reference to use pre-existing knowledge, and Einstein would only be twenty percent more likely to solve the problem than others.

Potion, you can't both state how hard it is to have an 18 in D&D terms while claiming that D&D terms are unrealistic and that D&D rules for stats lead to overinflated scores. That's rather self-contradictory (not hypocritical, as I recently learned).

EDIT: Also, Potion, if Einstein has a twenty, then somebody who was half as smart as him would have a 10, and that's assuming you use the ridiculously inaccurate "Int = IQ/10" rule, which would be contradictory because it is unlikely Einstein himself even had an IQ above 180, and 200 is literally the point IQ is capped. That also assumes IQ is linear, which is exactly what the IQ test is not meant to be; it's meant to be a bell curve.

The disconnect is really rather simple. It's because PCs are ASSUMED to be superhuman. The scale of balance in the game is set for people beyond normal humans. Hence the double edge sword

[Milskidasith]

I'm at Harvard. I wouldn't put myself above 15 Int, if the smartest people I know have 18s.

Which brings us back to the point that DnD really isn't very good for describing real life, particularly because the ability scores aren't granular enough and there are too few feats and skill points per person. If you want to stat yourself up, try Twilight 2013.

Side note: Harvard law, medical, or other? Just curious.


The disconnect is really rather simple. It's because PCs are ASSUMED to be superhuman. The scale of balance in the game is set for people beyond normal humans. Hence the double edge sword

How does that get rid of the contradiction I listed, at all? Saying "It's balanced for the PCs" might be an excuse for why PCs start with 18s, but not for why you can say "Oh, this rule makes an 18 too easy, so you should change it to fit my view on D&D stats."

[Meta]

:smallconfused: The rather uncharitable result aside, your IQ calculations are misguided. As IQ is not a linear scale, it does not make sense to represent "half as smart as Einstein" as half Einstein's IQ.

It was hyperbole to show why him using "im more than half as smart" wasn't a wise idea :smallsmile:

[Milskidasith]

It was hyperbole to show why him using "im more than half as smart" wasn't a wise idea :smallsmile:

You are misusing the word "hyperbole" greatly here, and that still doesn't make you correct when saying "half as smart" because, IQ wise, that would still be well above average.

[Meta]

Side note: Harvard law, medical, or other? Just curious.



How does that get rid of the contradiction I listed, at all? Saying "It's balanced for the PCs" might be an excuse for why PCs start with 18s, but not for why you can say "Oh, this rule makes an 18 too easy, so you should change it to fit my view on D&D stats."

Ahh I understand. Basically by using the demographics for the average NPC. If you read the DMGs and similar books across editions those numbers solidify a bit.

[Meta]

You are misusing the word "hyperbole" greatly here, and that still doesn't make you correct when saying "half as smart" because, IQ wise, that would still be well above average.

Einstein had around a 170-180 IQ, so a mathematical half would indeed be around a 9 int

[Milskidasith]

Ahh I understand. Basically by using the demographics for the average NPC. If you read the DMGs and similar books across editions those numbers solidify a bit.

You are completely ignoring the point here. You claim that 18s are incredibly rare, but when presented with evidence that proves that an 18, at least in one stat, is, while not easy, still fairly mundane, you say the stats are too easy and should be changed. That's the problem here; you claim the rules say 18s are hard, and then say "change the rules, 18s are too easy" in the next post.



Einstein had around a 170-180 IQ, so a mathematical half would indeed be around a 9 int

No, it would not. Being half as smart (based on IQ scores) as somebody is not the same as having half the IQ of somebody.

[Math_Mage]

I said an amateur with the gun, which I believed implied proficiency. Weapon Focus and BAB would bring it up to 30% more accurate, which is far lower than normal. In fact, even a 50% difference in accuracy is probably still lower than what you would get between a normal military man and somebody who just picked up a weapon and started firing.

This is at least partially a factor of bonuses being overridden by the unrealistic randomness of a d20. Roll 2d10 or 3d8, and the bonuses start mattering a lot more.

I guess it says a lot when I'm complaining that the core mechanic of the game (roll d20, succeed or fail) is broken. But there you have it.


Also, my intelligence example was supposed to be assuming tests such as actual IQ tests or the Wonderlic test, rather than tests based on knowledge skills; it was, again, my poor wording. Assuming you took Einstein, who some are saying is 18, and a normal guy, and put them into a situation where they have absolutely no point of reference to use pre-existing knowledge, and Einstein would only be twenty percent more likely to solve the problem than others.

That is not a skill that D&D really attempts to model, since most puzzles set by the DM are going to be analyzed by the players, not their characters' Int checks. But we can undoubtedly come up with more likely scenarios where this is a problem.

[Meta]

You are completely ignoring the point here. You claim that 18s are incredibly rare, but when presented with evidence that proves that an 18, at least in one stat, is, while not easy, still fairly mundane, you say the stats are too easy and should be changed. That's the problem here; you claim the rules say 18s are hard, and then say "change the rules, 18s are too easy" in the next post.



No, it would not. Being half as smart as somebody is not the same as having half the IQ of somebody.

Again tis not I missing the point. 18s in the NPC DnD world and ours are extremely rare. However among PCs they are common. Hence, the power scale of skills and combat is geared towards these slanted scores


How are you half as smart as anyone anyways? Read my earlier posts, I say IQ is a bad measuring stick but it was the one used by the person I quoted

[SurlySeraph]

Side note: Harvard law, medical, or other? Just curious.

Undergrad, about to start sophomore year. I'm planning to go premed, concentrate in Human Evolutionary Bio and take a secondary in Health Policy.

[Ponderthought]

Expert level 1, warrior level 1. skill points in Profession: Artist and ranks in random useless knowledge skills. Feats: Alertness, Improved Sunder

Expert for the art, warrior because ive been told ive got a hell of a right hook. Alertness because I live way out in the boondocks and have hypersensitive hearing, Improved sunder because ive accidentally broken alot of doors.

[Math_Mage]

Again tis not I missing the point. 18s in the NPC DnD world and ours are extremely rare. However among PCs they are common. Hence, the power scale of skills and combat is geared towards these slanted scores

NPCs roll 3d6 for their ability scores, as illustrated by the fact that the average NPC is represented by the Average Array. An 18 in, say, Int, is 1/216 for a given NPC. The fact that we do not actually roll 3d6 for NPCs is a matter of bookkeeping convenience.

[Yukitsu]

If you go by skills, I'm a level 7 expert who arbitrarily capped my skills at 6 ranks.

If you go by feats, I'm level 9, because some of the more common sense things, I can do. (trip, grapple, run etc.)

If you go by class features, I'm a level 1 rogue, in that I know hitting a person from behind when they don't see it coming hurts more.

If you go by hit points, I'm a level 1 mook, because I would definitely be oneshot by a giant axe being swung at my skull.

[faceroll]

I'm at Harvard. I wouldn't put myself above 15 Int, if the smartest people I know have 18s.

Which brings us back to the point that DnD really isn't very good for describing real life, particularly because the ability scores aren't granular enough and there are too few feats and skill points per person. If you want to stat yourself up, try Twilight 2013.

If you assume that a commoner gets an 18 int in 4 out of a 1000, people, it's safe to assume that just about everyone at Harvard has int scores of 16+. 0.4% of 6 billion people is still a lot of people. As others have said, it's the lack of granularity that makes 18s seem special.

[Milskidasith]

Again tis not I missing the point. 18s in the NPC DnD world and ours are extremely rare. However among PCs they are common. Hence, the power scale of skills and combat is geared towards these slanted scores

OK, perhaps you aren't missing the point, you're just ignoring it. If you claim an 18 is hard to achieve in a system, and then say you have to change the system to make an 18 hard to achieve, you are being self contradictory. That is my point. You say it's based on the PCs, but if that is so, then you should just admit (as I have) that trying to judge real people based on D&D is inherently futile. You can't say D&D is accurate at having only the cream of the crop having an 18 while encouraging rule changes so that an 18 stops becoming relatively easy to obtain.


How are you half as smart as anyone anyways? Read my earlier posts, I say IQ is a bad measuring stick but it was the one used by the person I quoted

You say it's a bad measuring stick, but then use it incorrectly. I would like to stress I would agree with you that IQ is not a good test, but you are still wrong when you say "half an IQ of 170~180 is an IQ of ~90."

Also, as for "half as smart" as somebody, I did not make the statement, nor did I attempt to quantify it. You were the one who quantified it, so asking my definition is trying to pass the issue along.

[Lord Raziere]

honestly?

level 30 sorcerer goblin. I'm all powerful fourth edition natural spellcasting robed guy who draws upon the primal forces of chaos itself to destroy gods and rule all of creation.

cower in fear, mortals.

[/end sarcasm] :smallamused:

[nolispe]

Can people stop using IQ scores as a measure of their Int? They don't mean anything. Wow! I got a (Insert score here) on this test that is accepted to not mean anything about Intelligence! Just because there is not another way to measure it does not actually mean you should fall back of IQ, any more than I should measure my Wis by counting the number of rocks in the nearest wall.
On topic:
Meh. Probably factotum or expert 1. If expert, then able learner. Str 9-10ish (Pretty average, but if anything slightly below), Dex 7-8ish(can't catch balls, etc. Good balance, though, so that pulls me above 6ish.) Con 14ish (I have not been sick in the past six or so years, Ignore going without sleep for one-two nights straight about once a fortnight, and stay awake and active after three nights without too much impairment) Int 13-16ish (Yay! puzzle solving ability puts me in the top ten in my country! (Which is, to be fair, small.)), Wis: Ummmm.... 10? High sense motive, abysmal spot+listen, so I dunno. Cha: Ummm...... Depends, like wisdom, on how you rank the various parts of Cha. 10ish, pending a ranking system on the various parts.

[Meta]

OK, perhaps you aren't missing the point, you're just ignoring it. If you claim an 18 is hard to achieve in a system, and then say you have to change the system to make an 18 hard to achieve, you are being self contradictory. That is my point. You say it's based on the PCs, but if that is so, then you should just admit (as I have) that trying to judge real people based on D&D is inherently futile. You can't say D&D is accurate at having only the cream of the crop having an 18 while encouraging rule changes so that an 18 stops becoming relatively easy to obtain.



You say it's a bad measuring stick, but then use it incorrectly. I would like to stress I would agree with you that IQ is not a good test, but you are still wrong when you say "half an IQ of 170~180 is an IQ of ~90."

Also, as for "half as smart" as somebody, I did not make the statement, nor did I attempt to quantify it. You were the one who quantified it, so asking my definition is trying to pass the issue along.

I'm not changing any system, and I have no idea what you're talking about honestly. And yes half of 180 is definitely 90. I don't feel the need to quote myself in that I said 90 is mathematically half of 180.

[WeeFreeMen]

Hmm. Lets see, to be as brutally honest as possible. Assuming non-hero classes.

Commoner 1 / Expert 1-2*
* - Depends if you count Bachelors as 2. Commoner because everyone has to start somewhere. More to my ECL Id say closer to 2, prolly less if you try the whole "Realism" aspect. For skills sake Id say ECL 3.

Str - 7-9 (I can comfortably bench around 190. Pushing to 220 at the moment)
Con - 6-7 (Weakened from MS, Cancer. Ihave no problem staying awake for 2-3 days tho, so maybe closer to 8?)
Dex - 10-11 (Sick but Quick, as my friends say. Haha, Soccer for 8 years has something to do with this)
Wis - 10-11 (Mostly lethargic, so low Will Save, however my memory is very good. So idk how to label this one)
Int - 11 (Bachelors)
Cha - Realistically 8-9. Hopefully. 10-11 ;] (Assuming Super-Model status is 14, thou I am the social butterfly. Often the one organizing parties and such.)

Feats: lv.1 - Skill Focus (Survival) - I think this fits, I got Eagle Boy Scout, so I know my way around the woods. So to speak.
lv. 3 - Skill Focus (Heal)
Flaw (Lazy): Skill Focus: Profession (Nurse/Student)

No gear of worth really, aside from my trusty Pen and Pencil I keep. Cell Phone, Car Keys, Wallet (Albeit near empty)
Money on Hand: 60$

Hope this serves the purpose for the OP ^_^

[Temotei]

If you go by feats, I'm level 9, because some of the more common sense things, I can do. (trip, grapple, run etc.)

You can do those things without feats.


If you go by class features, I'm a level 1 rogue, in that I know hitting a person from behind when they don't see it coming hurts more.

Getting hit in the back is getting hit in the back, regardless of whether you see it coming. A sneak attack is dealing extra damage by finding a weak spot quickly and exploiting it. It's easier to hit someone in the back of the head when they don't expect it (flat-footed), but it doesn't usually do more damage, from what I've seen.

Eh. That's up for debate, I suppose.

[Milskidasith]

I'm not changing any system, and I have no idea what you're talking about honestly. And yes half of 180 is definitely 90. I don't feel the need to quote myself in that I said 90 is mathematically half of 180.

You said "Don't use DnD's scale for loads, they're terriblely designed." That's what I'm talking about by changing things. You claim 18s are rare, and then encourage changing D&D's stats for a certain score so the 18 stays rare (changing the scale of loads).

Also, yes, half of 180 is 90. Half as smart as somebody with an IQ of 180 is not an IQ of 90. IQ is not linear.

EDIT: Wee, I would think that benching 190-220 pounds is a bit better than a 7. In fact, benching 220 is probably a bit above average.

[DragonBaneDM]

Mmkay, I agree with everything Potion Sale says.

This is partially cause I was one of those residents that he did so well with, and he and I have gone over this topic many, many times.

Here's me:

Strength: 8 Even back when I swam every day I couldn't lift anything and was pretty skinny. Now I'm outta shape and I can feel it.

Constitution: 9. I can run for awhile still, but it's nothing special.

Dexterity: 10. I'm clutzy but I'm REALLY good at hiding. I figure that balances the two out.

Intelligence: 13. I have a 3.7, and I'm a pro researcher. I'd put myself as the third best History major at my school. However, I'm not exceptionally intelligent. I say a 4.0 or above would give me a 15 or MAYBE 16, tops.

Wisdom: 8. Ask any of my friends. I'm gullible. And the kid who's staring off into space half the time during a big conversation.

Charisma: 14. I'm the head lifeguard at my pool, and I'm gonna be an RA next year. I got all of these through getting my nose as brown as possible. I'm good at figuring out what people want, calming people down, and (when I feel like having some fun), ticking people off. A few years ago I'd switch this and Int, but this is where I stand now.

I'm an Ardent. I lack the psychic abilities, but I'm good enough at picking up emotions and...manipulating them if necessary. Don't worry, though. I'm Neutral Good.

[Eloel]

Except the thing is, it's not. Look at 18 strength; it allows you to dead lift 600 pounds. The world record is 1000, which is around a twenty two.

Dexterity: An 18 is only 20% more accurate than others at throwing things or shooting stuff. That is *far* lower than the kind of differences you'd see between an amateur firing a gun and a trained person in the military firing a gun, and that's not even getting into superhuman shooting ability.

Int: Even int doesn't make sense with an int of 18 being the max, because that's only slightly more likely to actually get knowledge based questions right. A person with 18 int, or IQ 180, would, despite being rare the world over, only be 20% more likely to be able to answer a question right than somebody else.

Wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to start.
The guys that can lift lots? They probably have some obscure Packmule feat, they're not as strong as you'd think when it comes to their non-trained area (like fighting, for example)

Guns you say? The guy with higher dex and training probably has a level of warrior (has a point of BAB) and weap focus on his trained weapon. The other guy is probably not proficient. That's a difference of 10 in the modifier.

Questions to the intelligent guy is 5 times as likely to be answered, if neither guy studied (has no skill points, no SF feat) in the area. Above average questions (that can be answered untrained) have DC20. 10 int guy needs a nat20. 18int guy can use anything from a 16. 5x is quite a difference...

[Crossfiyah]

22 is impossible. 20 is would be the smartest human being that ever lived. Some consider 18 to be peak human but it's in the 18-20 range. You've just proved you're not a 22.

From what I understand to be a 14-15 you need to be in the top 2%ish of the world's population.

Not a fan of IQ, but it's a good example. If you're in Mensa for instance, you're prob a 14-15 in INT.

Anyways my stats are in the sig based on what 'the test' gave me and what I think they are based on the norm.

STR: I'm not ripped, but highly toned. I can 20+ pull ups at a time, but I don't have a lot of mass, so I'd say they even out to an average score. 10

CON: I handle pain a bit better than others I would guess but it's very difficult to judge this. An example, I once played basketball for hours after a compound fracture in my finger and no big deal. I can run for longer distances than the average person, but I'm no cross country runner. 11

DEX: I'm very agile. Both quick and fast. I have a high degree of control over my body, and am skilled at both large and small scale dexterous acts. Good-hand eye coordination. Pretty athletic and excellent at video games as well. Not clutzy. Comfortable with firearms. 13

INT: I hate using IQ but there aren't a lot of good measure for INT. High IQ. 15

WIS: I'm either trained in perception and insight or have a decent WIS. People come to me for advice. I was quite successful at helping my residents as a first year RA and think WIS was a contributing factor. Still barely above the average I'd say. 12

CHA: Another tough one. I'd say I'm better looking than the average person. I've never had trouble getting attention from the opposite gender. Example: Most sought after female in my hall of 90 girls 45 guys. Probably 90% would have liked to sleep with her but i was the lucky one. Make friends easily. Tricky but I'd say 14.

EDIT: Two other forum goers lived in my hall, so I'll direct their attention to the thread as they will be able to expand on my (imo) fairly accurate benchmarks. Also, I'll let them pick my class as I think it's fairly challenging.

Oh...you.

I agree. This sort of thing is rather crushing, when properly examined. 90% of people probably top out at a 13, with the remaining 10% finishing at a 15, max. The rest is so small as to be easier to simply round down to 0.

I might have a 14 or 15 in something, but I probably also have an 8 or a 9 in two other stats. There's so much more of a trade-off in real life, usually, than in D&D.

[Harperfan7]

If one guy can lift 100lbs. and another guy can lift 200lbs., the second guy is twice as strong, right?

The first guy has 10 str, the second has 15.

So, assuming 5 points in D&D means being twice as whatever, Eistein (with a 22) is twice as smart as someone with a 17.

[Yukitsu]

You can do those things without feats.

Let me rephrase that. I can do those things to an armed person without getting myself killed, and I can run at the run feat's speed.



Getting hit in the back is getting hit in the back, regardless of whether you see it coming. A sneak attack is dealing extra damage by finding a weak spot quickly and exploiting it. It's easier to hit someone in the back of the head when they don't expect it (flat-footed), but it doesn't usually do more damage, from what I've seen.

Eh. That's up for debate, I suppose.

Actually, get punched in the whatever when you see it coming, then do it again when you don't. The ability to tense your muscles and roll with it a little is instinctive and can really help in a fight compared to total surprise. I can punch people in the kidney when they are looking and when they aren't, so getting them in a weak spot always seemed like shakey reasoning to me.

[Milskidasith]

Wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to start.
The guys that can lift lots? They probably have some obscure Packmule feat, they're not as strong as you'd think when it comes to their non-trained area (like fighting, for example)

So you're saying that they probably have a feat that doesn't exist to justify them having better lifting capability? That's a point in favor of the system.


Guns you say? The guy with higher dex and training probably has a level of warrior (has a point of BAB) and weap focus on his trained weapon. The other guy is probably not proficient. That's a difference of 10 in the modifier.

A 10 difference in the modifier is still not enough to go from somebody totally untrained trying to hit a target and a military shooter aiming at one, assuming D&D stats.


Questions to the intelligent guy is 5 times as likely to be answered, if neither guy studied (has no skill points, no SF feat) in the area. Above average questions (that can be answered untrained) have DC20. 10 int guy needs a nat20. 18int guy can use anything from a 16. 5x is quite a difference...

Yes, if you set up the stats exactly that way. If you set it up so an average guy has a 50% chance (DC 11) then a really smart person only has an slightly higher (20%) chance of understanding. I'm talking objective percents, not specific rolls.

In short: D&D stats are terrible at representing real people as I have been saying. Saying "He has an obscure feat" or "Change the carrying capacities, they are stupid" just to justify D&D stats being incorrect seems a lot worse of an idea than just admitting D&D stats are really bad.

[Meta]

You said "Don't use DnD's scale for loads, they're terriblely designed." That's what I'm talking about by changing things. You claim 18s are rare, and then encourage changing D&D's stats for a certain score so the 18 stays rare (changing the scale of loads).

Also, yes, half of 180 is 90. Half as smart as somebody with an IQ of 180 is not an IQ of 90. IQ is not linear.

EDIT: Wee, I would think that benching 190-220 pounds is a bit better than a 7. In fact, benching 220 is probably a bit above average.

I stated why the load scale was poor. a person with 10 strength in DnD can drag 500 lbs. That's not the average human.

@DragonBane, you're trained in stealth :P.
I'd say 14 int, 10 wis, and 10 con honestly

[Temotei]

Actually, get punched in the whatever when you see it coming, then do it again when you don't. The ability to tense your muscles and roll with it a little is instinctive and can really help in a fight compared to total surprise. I can punch people in the kidney when they are looking and when they aren't, so getting them in a weak spot always seemed like shakey reasoning to me.

Tensing your muscles isn't always a good thing, though.

Still, I see your point.

[Meta]

Oh...you.

I agree. This sort of thing is rather crushing, when properly examined. 90% of people probably top out at a 13, with the remaining 10% finishing at a 15, max. The rest is so small as to be easier to simply round down to 0.

I might have a 14 or 15 in something, but I probably also have an 8 or a 9 in two other stats. There's so much more of a trade-off in real life, usually, than in D&D.

You have prob the same INT as me and a higher WIS I could see too

[DragonBaneDM]

I stated why the load scale was poor. a person with 10 strength in DnD can drag 500 lbs. That's not the average human.

@DragonBane, you're trained in stealth :P.
I'd say 14 int, 10 wis, and 10 con honestly

Ehhhhh...

Potion...
The Int you may have me on. And I'll even buy the Con. For now. But the Wis? C'mon hahaha. You KNOW it's low man. Give me an example.

[Milskidasith]

I stated why the load scale was poor. a person with 10 strength in DnD can drag 500 lbs. That's not the average human.


Dragging 500 pounds is not actually that hard, assuming you have good leverage (I.E. aren't trying to grab by gripping the sides of a cardboard box).

Anyway, again, that doesn't suggest "18s are really rare and smarter people inexplicably have more hit dice despite being just as likely to die by getting stabbed" so much as it suggests "D&D stats are stupid."

[Meta]

Dragging 500 pounds is not actually that hard, assuming you have good leverage (I.E. aren't trying to grab by gripping the sides of a cardboard box).

Anyway, again, that doesn't suggest "18s are really rare and smarter people inexplicably have more hit dice despite being just as likely to die by getting stabbed" so much as it suggests "D&D stats are stupid."

You keep stating using DnD stats is stupid, so I'd suggest look for a new thread

[Meta]

Ehhhhh...

Potion...
The Int you may have me on. And I'll even buy the Con. For now. But the Wis? C'mon hahaha. You KNOW it's low man. Give me an example.

You had a good insight when it came to knowing I was torn up about Allie :smallamused:

[NMBLNG]

Ok, using non-hero classes is pretty boring and kinda depressing.

Besides, I play 4e. There are no non-hero classes.

I'm an unaligned (CG or CN, if you house rule alignment) Eladrin Wizard.
Not sure on the level, though.

[Temotei]

You had a good insight when it came to knowing I was torn up about Allie :smallamused:

Ugh. Double-posting. Editing is nice like that, though I understand that this thread is moving very quickly.

D&D doesn't really work with making us. It's meant for heroes, and you're not supposed to compare to real life, since then the catfolk will die out, for there are no females left. :smallsigh:

Of the PC classes, by the way, I consider myself a swashbuckler, rogue, or bard.

[DragonBaneDM]

You had a good insight when it came to knowing I was torn up about Allie :smallamused:

So. Here's what happened. I looked at your post, expecting a dumb answer, and you got me to cringe and say "expletive, he's got me..."

Never before have I seen the :smallamused: face used so effectively...

[Meta]

Ugh. Double-posting. Editing is nice like that, though I understand that this thread is moving very quickly.

D&D doesn't really work with making us. It's meant for heroes, and you're not supposed to compare to real life, since then the catfolk will die out, for there are no females left. :smallsigh:

Yea, my mistake, keeping an FB chat going with it. And I hope to make up for it by having three people post their stats and some benchmarks and their peers opinions with them :smallsmile:

EDIT: to avoid the double post and prove you're wiser than you think :P.

Or I have a racial negative to bluff

[Eloel]

So you're saying that they probably have a feat that doesn't exist to justify them having better lifting capability? That's a point in favor of the system.
skillpoints in profession: weightlifting


A 10 difference in the modifier is still not enough to go from somebody totally untrained trying to hit a target and a military shooter aiming at one, assuming D&D stats.

10 difference, at minimum, is 2x chance. It can go up to 11x. Good enough for a military guy


Yes, if you set up the stats exactly that way. If you set it up so an average guy has a 50% chance (DC 11) then a really smart person only has an slightly higher (20%) chance of understanding. I'm talking objective percents, not specific rolls.

Get your percentages right. If average Joe has a 50% chance to get something, the guy with 18 has a 70% chance of getting it. 40% difference. And honestly, DC11 is for easy things, (say, learning to use a computer), so it shouldn't be the scale you test a genious



In short: D&D stats are terrible at representing real people as I have been saying. Saying "He has an obscure feat" or "Change the carrying capacities, they are stupid" just to justify D&D stats being incorrect seems a lot worse of an idea than just admitting D&D stats are really bad.

[Dacia Brabant]

Feynman and DaVinci were among history's scant few Factotums. Tesla gets Artificer levels, and utterly no one else ever (well, maybe Archimedes.)

You forgot Leibniz. Dude invented the computer in like 1679.


And I still say I'm a Cloistered Cleric 3 in a campaign setting with no divine spellcasting or undead. When they said "Earth" I clearly heard "Oerth" and thought I was getting in a Greyhawk game. Total ripoff. :smalltongue:

[Milskidasith]

skillpoints in profession: weightlifting

That is a pointless cop-out and you know it.


10 difference, at minimum, is 2x chance. It can go up to 11x. Good enough for a military guy

Not really. Assuming random spray gets you 10% accuracy, then a military marksman would only hit 60% of the time, a poor score.


Get your percentages right. If average Joe has a 50% chance to get something, the guy with 18 has a 70% chance of getting it. 40% difference. And honestly, DC11 is for easy things, (say, learning to use a computer), so it shouldn't be the scale you test a genious

It's an objective 20% difference; I.E. on a dice roll, your chance of success is 20% higher, or to be more precise, correct on four more values of a d20. I am correct, and you are correct, but you are arguing something that I did not state.

[Temotei]

skillpoints in profession: weightlifting

Profession is only used to make money in D&D, unless your DM has implemented some house rules, in which case, your point is moot.

The military vs. average Joe thing is kind of hard to calculate using D&D, since the variables can be: time provided to fire, size of target, gun type, gun accuracy, etc. There are a lot of factors working against figuring this out.

[Ajadea]

My guess for me:

Level 1 Human Expert with skills: Craft, Climb, Diplomacy, Profession, Knowledge (computers), Knowledge (mythology), Knowledge (D&D 3.5), Knowledge (Mathematics), Knowledge (random useless info), Swim

Str 11
Dex 10
Con 10
Int 16-18 (yes really)
Wis 6-8
Cha 8-12

Skill ranks: 4*(6+3+1)=40
Craft (drawings) 4 ranks
Craft (painting) 1 rank
Craft (stories) 4 ranks
Craft (campaign settings) 2 ranks
Climb 2 ranks
Diplomacy 2 ranks
Knowledge (computers) 4 ranks
Knowledge (D&D 3.5) 4 ranks
Knowledge (mathematics) 4 ranks
Knowledge (mythology) 4 ranks
Profession (student) 4 ranks
Swim 1 rank
Tumble 1 rank

If somehow my INT is 18: Knowledge (random bits of useless info) 4 ranks

Feat:
Skill Focus (Knowledge (math))
Human Feat:
Able Learner
Flaw Feats:
Skill Focus (Craft (Lego things))
Skill Focus (Knowledge (mythology))

Traits: Absent-Minded, Focused
Flaws: Shaky, Inattentive variant: Penalty to Search instead of Spot

No artisans tools for anything except the Lego.

[Zovc]

Commoner 1/Expert 1

For all intents and purposes, I'll assume I'm physically average, so between 9 and 11 for all of my physical stats. We'll do 10 for my Strength and 9 for my Constitution, I haven't been exercising lately. Because Open Lock uses Dexterity, I'll assume 'being good with your hands' is a Dexterity thing, I'll boast a bit and give myself a 12.

It's hard for me to tell whether or not a lot of the people I know (in person) are particularly stupid, or whether I am particularly smart. For the sake of fitting myself into the system, I probably have an Intelligence of 11. I'll go ahead and assume my Wisdom is also 11, and my Charisma is 12.

I'll give myself the Nearsighted (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm#nearsighted) and Skinny (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm#skinny) traits. (Although I'm powergaming and using contact lenses to negate the spot penalty--I keep the search bonus.)

Commoner 1
Commoner 1 and take Skilled City-Dweller (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a) (Handle Animal and Ride to Gather Information and Tumble), and because I probably don't have 6+Int*4 skills. The simple weapon I am proficient with from Commoner is the Quarterstaff.

Max of 1d4-1 is 3: 3hp at level 1.

Climb, Craft, Gather Information, Jump, Listen, Profession, Spot, Tumble, and Use Rope ends up as my class skill list as a commoner. I have 8 ranks to spend.
2 Ranks in Climb
1 Rank in Listen
2 Ranks in Profession (IT)
1 Rank in Tumble
2 cross-class points in Bluff (Don't judge me!)
2 cross-class points in Perform (Sing)
2 cross-class points in Perform (Guitar)

My first level feat is Nimble Fingers
My bonus feat from being human is Able Learner

Expert 1
(Max 1d6-1)/2 = +2(.5)hp, 5hp total.

Able Learner lets me carry over my Commoner class skills, so I'll choose 10 skills that aren't on that list: Balance, Bluff, Concentration, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Perform (Sing), Perform (Guitar), Sense Motive, Swim. I get seven skill points (6+0, +1 from being Human).
1 rank in Balance
1 rank in Disable Device
1 rank in Escape Artist
1 rank in Perform (Sing)
1 rank in Perform (Guitar)
1 rank in Sense Motive
1 rank in Swim

If there is some sort of alternate class feature where I can trade light armor for skill points, something like that would be in use. I'd invest more in the skills I choose for Expert.

Yeah, I suck.

[TurtleKing]

Considering all that I have done I would say Expert 2/ Ranger 1. Army- Medical Lab Tech explains Expert 1/ Ranger 1. Going to Full Sail for Game Art (still learning so will increase) explains the other Expert 1. I also have knowledge from time in a volunteer organization so still have some knowledge ranks from that though I don't volunteer anymore.

Skills ranks: (no particular order)
Heal-5, Perform 2D art -3, Perform 3D art -2, Knowledge Nobility (Chain of Command) -2, Survival-2, Handle Animal-1, Escape Artist- 2 (slippery), Knowledge Nature-2, Knowledge Geography-4, Sense Motive-2, Swim- -1 (can't float that well), Listen-1, Move Silently-1, Hide-1, Intimidate- -1 (easygoing unless wielding a Bayonet or some other weapon then raging which adds +8- I did scare my Drill Sergent when training with the bayonet in Basic Training:smallbiggrin:), Use Rope-1, Gather Info-2, Concentration- -1 (ADHD:smallredface:), Balance-2, Diplomacy-3 (tactful), Climb- -1 (don't like heights:smallredface:)

Not sure what my stats are.

[Jergmo]

Commoner 1/Expert 1

For all intents and purposes, I'll assume I'm physically average, so between 9 and 11 for all of my physical stats. We'll do 10 for my Strength and 9 for my Constitution, I haven't been exercising lately. Because Open Lock uses Dexterity, I'll assume 'being good with your hands' is a Dexterity thing, I'll boast a bit and give myself a 12.

It's hard for me to tell whether or not a lot of the people I know (in person) are particularly stupid, or whether I am particularly smart. For the sake of fitting myself into the system, I probably have an Intelligence of 11. I'll go ahead and assume my Wisdom is also 11, and my Charisma is 12.

I'll give myself the Nearsighted (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm#nearsighted) and Skinny (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm#skinny) traits. (Although I'm powergaming and using contact lenses to negate the spot penalty--I keep the search bonus.)

Commoner 1
Commoner 1 and take Skilled City-Dweller (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a) (Handle Animal and Ride to Gather Information and Tumble), and because I probably don't have 6+Int*4 skills. The simple weapon I am proficient with from Commoner is the Quarterstaff.

Max of 1d4-1 is 3: 3hp at level 1.

Climb, Craft, Gather Information, Jump, Listen, Profession, Spot, Tumble, and Use Rope ends up as my class skill list as a commoner. I have 8 ranks to spend.
2 Ranks in Climb
1 Rank in Listen
2 Ranks in Profession (IT)
1 Rank in Tumble
2 cross-class points in Bluff (Don't judge me!)
2 cross-class points in Perform (Sing)
2 cross-class points in Perform (Guitar)

My first level feat is Nimble Fingers
My bonus feat from being human is Able Learner

Expert 1
(Max 1d6-1)/2 = +2(.5)hp, 5hp total.

Able Learner lets me carry over my Commoner class skills, so I'll choose 10 skills that aren't on that list: Balance, Bluff, Concentration, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Perform (Sing), Perform (Guitar), Sense Motive, Swim. I get seven skill points (6+0, +1 from being Human).
1 rank in Balance
1 rank in Disable Device
1 rank in Escape Artist
1 rank in Perform (Sing)
1 rank in Perform (Guitar)
1 rank in Sense Motive
1 rank in Swim

If there is some sort of alternate class feature where I can trade light armor for skill points, something like that would be in use. I'd invest more in the skills I choose for Expert.

Yeah, I suck.

Naw, you probably do have 6+Int skill points. We all likely do! It's just that you haven't spent all of them yet! What with us not leveling at all or not much, those skill points need to last us our entire lives, y'know?

[faceroll]

Not really. Assuming random spray gets you 10% accuracy, then a military marksman would only hit 60% of the time, a poor score.

Military "marksmen" don't random spray. There are very solid stats out there for numbers of rounds fired and numbers of hits. In combat, with an automatic weapon, the number of hits you get compared to the number of rounds fired is actually quite low.


I stated why the load scale was poor. a person with 10 strength in DnD can drag 500 lbs. That's not the average human.

Not the average modern human, you mean. We are of the weakest generation in the history of man.

[Milskidasith]

Military "marksmen" don't random spray. There are very solid stats out there for numbers of rounds fired and numbers of hits. In combat, with an automatic weapon, the number of hits you get compared to the number of rounds fired is actually quite low.

That merely further proves my point that D&D is not an accurate system.

[faceroll]

That merely further proves my point that D&D is not an accurate system.

d20 modern has you making like 1 to 3 attacks per round when in 6 seconds, you can pretty much unload the magazine of virtually any military weapon out there.

If anything, it shows that most people who join the military are trained to take a relatively few number of shots as opposed to being pros with a 6 feat chain that lets them kill ten people in 6 seconds.
[edit]
Ok, so you can't be like pew pew pew, use all my bullets on this SAW, but whatever.

[Zovc]

Naw, you probably do have 6+Int skill points. We all likely do! It's just that you haven't spent all of them yet! What with us not leveling at all or not much, those skill points need to last us our entire lives, y'know?

You're probably right. It just didn't feel right 'in the process' to give myself 28 skill points.

[RndmNumGen]

Based on my best guess (and referencing that D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations article) I would say:

Lv2 Expert

Str 10
Con 8
Dex 11
Int 13
Wis 9
Chr 8


4 Balance
5 Climb
6 Concentration
1 Craft(Blacksmithing)
5 Diplomacy
2 Knowledge(Geography)
2 Knowledge(History)
1 Knowledge(Nobility)
1 Knowledge(Nature)
1 Knowledge(Religion)

7 'Unspent' Skill Points

Feats:
Agile
Something... else. Learning related, probably.

That may seem rather high compared to most of the ones on here with 1st level commoners and such, and who knows this may be above what I actually am. I am in the top 10% of my class and have a passion for learning, so make of that what you will.

[RE:Insanity]

Me? Probably a level one rogue/ level one ranger.

[Prplcheez]

Commoner 1, with stats (from my perspective):

STR: 8
DEX: 8
CON: 8
INT: 15
WIS: 12
CHA: 8

Weak, clumsy, frail, shy, but I'm decently intelligent and have a moderate amount of common sense.

Some flaws and feats
Flaw: Extreme Nuisance
Flaw: Obsessive Compulsive
Feats: Skill Focus (Knowledge: History), Skill Focus (Knowledge: Local), Skill Focus (Knowledge: Nature)

[TurtleKing]

I have experience in the weapons fire since I have served in the Army. You don't try to unload all at once since you get poor accuracy, and overheat the weapon greatly increasing the chance for it to jam. A soldier tries to make each shot count if for no other reason to make him a "hard" target (tactic used in convoys). So contrary to some movies you have to watch how many bullets you fire since there is a finite limit to the bullets, and prolonged use of the weapon with cleaning guarantees a weapons jam.

Marksman accuracy: 60-80% of the time, Sharpshooter: 80-90%, Sniper: 90-100% (each one relativily)

A person must at least be a marksman to become a soldier in the ARMY.

[Chronos Flame]

Human Neutral Good Bard Level two.
STR-11 About average. I'm a pretty big guy and have a bit more than average.
CON-10 I have no more or less endurance than the average person
DEX-12 I am fairly light on my feet
INT-14 Straight A's, though occasionally lazy
WIS-11 Not a huge extensive life experience, but decent common sense and the like
CHA-15 Assuming this is close to the upper end a person can get without being a well liked world leader and such (That would be what? 18-20?)

As far as a feat, maybe skill focus (perform) and Dodge

Skills 5(6+2+1)=45
Balance 2, Bluff 4, Concentration 4, Craft (construction) 3, Craft (art) 2, Diplomacy 5, Disguise 5, Knowledge (the arts) 4, Knowledge (semi-useless general) 2, Knowledge (Arcana) 2, Perform 5, Sense Motive 2, Sleight of hand 2, Spellcraft 1, Tumble 2

[Cahokia]

I agree that if we're going for real people in the real world (as opposed to real people in the D&D world), D20 Modern classes are probably going to model it better. 'Cause that's what it's supposed to do (but it doesn't do jump as well, I know).

In such a case, I'd probably say I'm a 1st level Charismatic Hero, MAYBE 2nd level, but that'd be awfully pretentious. Student background, after all. Not really old enough to be above 2nd level.

I'd likely have either the Charm or Fast-Talk talent, and most of my skill points would be in Perform (Act), Perform (sing), and Craft (writing)--a 4 in all, I'd say, as I've been extensively trained in all 3. I have maybe 1 or 2 skill points in Craft (visual art), and I almost definitely have 2 or 3 in Perform (piano), but no Skill Focus, which is in one of the first 3 skills I mentioned. I'd also have a couple in various knowledge skills (probably 1, and 2 or 3 in knowledge-religion), and probably 2 in drive because, well, I can successfully drive without incident about 95% of the time. The 5% of the time where [expletive] goes down, it's because, well, I rolled a natural 1. Either I wasn't thinking or something out of my control screwed me up. And, as this is a rarity, I've only gotten into a couple minor scrapes my entire life (with the knowledge that eventually I'll really screw up something terrible). 1 skill point in computer use, because I can use one but I'm not really that much better than my techneanderthal parents. 2 is sort of stretching my ability, as my driving is FAR better than my computer use, and I'm pretty much an average driver. I probably have 3 or 4 skill points in Diplomacy, too, and 2 tops in Bluff. I probably have one or two in Handle Animal just because basically all mammals like me because I try to treat them with the same respect I treat human beings. That said, I still treat humans better, so my Diplomacy rank is higher. I'm trying to learn French, but I'm maybe half way there. I probably have a 4 in research, as I've been trained in it for about 10 years and am pretty good at it too. A couple skill points in Intimidate because I've acted enough villains to know what's truly scary. I have pretty good handwriting. And that's basically the extent of my skills.

My ability scores would probably be the following:
STR: 10
DEX: 10
CON: 10
INT: 13-14
WIS: 12
CHA: 14

And yeah, that's me.

With the following flaws to allow for 3 skill focuses: Depression, mild PTSD, mild anxiety.

[Scarey Nerd]

Absolutely honestly:

CN Expert 1/Commoner 1

Stats:
STR: 7 It is generally established that I'm weak.

DEX: 10 I'm quite clumsy, but I'm also quite deft, so I think I average out.

CON: 14 It is incredibly rare for me to get ill, and I can take a punch.

INT: 15 I consider myself fairly intelligent, even if I don't always make the best use of it.

WIS: 15 I am known as the "wise" one, and I can generally give insight into an argument.

CHA: 13 I consider myself to be quite charismatic, I'm hardly the best looking guy in the world but I think I have a strong force of personality.

As far as feats go, I think Iron Will and Skill Focus: Bluff.

[Kurald Galain]

Obligatory comment about how many facts this article got wrong.
This. It is a very badly researched article: it cherry-picks those rules that agree with its premise, and ignores all the rules that do not. No, you cannot accurately create an Einstein or a Beowulf using low-level D&D characters.


Another problem with even ability scores is just the fact that what an ability score means can vary wildly. On a 3d6, 18 in a stat is a mere one in 216, but most people treat something like 18 int as a one of a kind,
This is easy to answer from the rules: how much difference does it really make to have an 18 int instead of a 17? Well, it gives you 4-10 more skill points (depending on level), and a 5% greater chance to succeed at knowledge checks. That's... not... very impressive if you consider this a "once every million people" attribute.


To answer the OP's question, I'm at least a level-8 expert because yes, I do have that many skill points. I'm also an 18 intelligence, in the sense that "one out of every 216 cool people" has that score.

Anyway, you can actually use World of Darkness rules to accurately model real life characters. D&D rules pretty much fail at this task.

[hamishspence]

Except the thing is, it's not. Look at 18 strength; it allows you to dead lift 600 pounds. The world record is 1000, which is around a twenty two.

Dexterity: An 18 is only 20% more accurate than others at throwing things or shooting stuff. That is *far* lower than the kind of differences you'd see between an amateur firing a gun and a trained person in the military firing a gun, and that's not even getting into superhuman shooting ability.

Int: Even int doesn't make sense with an int of 18 being the max, because that's only slightly more likely to actually get knowledge based questions right. A person with 18 int, or IQ 180, would, despite being rare the world over, only be 20% more likely to be able to answer a question right than somebody else.

Maybe draw from DMG2- which allows NPCs to have various traits- which give them an LA adjustment?

"Prodigy" grants +2 to the stat you're a prodigy of. So a character could be a "prodigy of strength" and have a starting Str of 20 at "1st level" though their ECL would be higher.

[Frog Dragon]

I'd be first level, expert or commoner.
Mý str would probably be around 5-8 (I am seriously weak).
Dex 10-12 (I'm not acrobatic, but I have good reflexes, balance and I'm decently agile.)
Con 8-10 (Sick more often that I'd like, but I'm not a total sucker in the "taking hits" department. Not going to give myself a high score on this one.)
Int 10-13 (Can't really judge this. I'm not stupid, and I sometimes confuse people (that isn't high int though) and I have a tendency to get somewhat philosophical at times. I'm still young though.)
Wis 9-13 (The worse stat to judge yourself on is wis. I have a decent grasp of people, but sometimes manage to epically fail sense motive. My spot skill is oddly paradoxical in results. Don't know what to say about this.)
Cha 7-10 (average at the absolute best. I'm unsocial, don't go out much. I push people not in the friend circle away on purpose, so yeah.)
No clue on skills.

[Yora]

1st, maybe 2nd level Expert.
Str 10, Dex 14, Con 8
Int 11, Wis 15, Cha 13.
Skill ranks almost all in some Knowledge skills. ^^

[Morph Bark]

Going out on a random limb just for the sake of the fun of it!

Level 2 with levels in skill monkey classes (starting in Expert probably, though Rogue fits due to tendency of sneaky and somehow hurtful pokings, Cloistered Cleric could help for smatterings of semi-useless knowledge, but with no casting due to Wis below 10 -- even better would be a psionic variant to lose the damn Turn Undead, Cloistered Ardent?). Fairly high Int and Cha, abysmal Wis and bad Con, but a good Fort save against disease. Str and Dex are average. Nearsighted Trait with a nonmagical item that fixes this. Another trait or flaw that impedes some social skills, but does not penalize Bluff. Masterwork tool (internet) to gain +2 bonus on Int-based skill checks. Skill points mainly cover 1 rank in various knowledge skills that are rarely used, some feat or the like for luck rerolls involving Bluff checks.

Of course, DnD doesn't allow for statting yourself perfectly, plus the fact that if anyone would be inserted into DnD, they'd instantly get some boosts and some penalties compared to the real world -- mainly boosts, like to hp. I think it might be nicer to see how people are planning their real-life character builds for themselves for the future, up to level 5. :smallamused:

[OverdrivePrime]

I used to love these "Stat yourself" threads because I am deeply interested in self-assessment as an exercise in understanding myself. Also, the first thing I do to get to know a new system is to attempt to stat myself as realistically as possible in that system and then compare for realism against other such exercises.

Unfortunately, these threads always blow up when someone who's particularly good at life posts in seriousness a character sheet that strikes some people as "too good".

Somehow, there exists the fantastical mindset in certain people that real life is based on point buy, or worse yet, that individual humans should be roughly balanced against one another. Absolutely ridiculous! Some people's parents rolled really well when creating their kids and worked to optimize their new creations. Other parents weren't as active in the character creation process.

Two parents in excellent health, who focus on doing the right things to raise their child and foster a curious, driven mind, will create what seems to most people to be an exceptional human being. Such a child will likely grow up to be well-educated, intelligent, healthy and athletic. A child born to more ordinary parents who smoke or drink through pregnancy, who raise their child with the help of television and don't do much in the way of modeling intellectual curiosity may still manage to be well-educated, intelligent, healthy and athletic, but this will be in spite of their parents, and come from a rough struggle against their environment. The child born to healthy parents is much more likely to accomplish more in their life, being naturally intellectually curious and driven to push their own limits. Most children of the ordinary parents will have the ability to find success, but will likely not accomplish nearly so much as the child of the excellent parents. Exceptions are to be expected, but let's not kid ourselves with the notion that life is remotely fair. I haven't even added social class variables into the mix to make it really ugly.

And then there's the notion that there should be just as many people with low stats as high stats. Again, this is ridiculous. This is an Internet forum dedicated to the very humorous comics about a intellectually stimulating fantasy game. It should be expected that you're going to see a higher skew of scores, particularly in intelligence. Sure, some people may estimate high and give themselves higher scores than they deserve. But overall, there should be a higher average intelligence score than you'd find in a random gathering of people on the street talking about the weather.

And then there's the low scores. Guess what happens to people with stats under 6? They're generally hospitalized or institutionalized. You're not going to find someone with Down Syndrome on a D&D forum, actively engaged in healthy discussion. You're not likely to find someone with a Constitution of 3, period. They probably died in childhood. Sadly, people with a Charisma of 3 seem to be fairly prevalent on the Web.

Anyway, I'll get off my +1 soapbox of ranting and get on with my stats. As others have mentioned, d20 is pretty awful at modeling real humans. For these threads, we should be using the White Wolf mortals rules at the very least. I personally prefer the Shadowrun 4 rules.

You can check out, and pass judgment on, my character sheet by clicking this link. (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=181293) I've honestly tried to be as realistic as possible.

[Zovc]

Some people's parents rolled really well when creating their kids and worked to optimize their new creations. Other parents weren't as active in the character creation process.

Is that where babies come from?

[Maclav]

Level 2 commoner/expert, human, male
Str 12, Dex 11, Con 8, Wis 11, Int, 14, Cha 8

Feats; weap prof unarmoured, bastard sword, dagger, spear and poleaxe, medium armour prof (I practice Western Martial Arts)
Working on heavy armour prof but I don't have the strength and stamina to fight in more than a hauberk and basic steal bits for more than a couple minutes yet.

Skills in various modern knowledges with a point or two in atheltics, ect.

[okpokalypse]

While I'm not one to doubt, I don't think "somewhat intuitive" qualifies you as having well above average wisdom, and a 70 MPH fastball is, while impressive, not that impressive. Certainly better than I could do, but that's barely faster than some of the fastest pitchers in my brother's local baseball teams, and those are U16 or U15 teams. The rest, if true, seems accurate, however.

Yes, but how many people can throw a 70 MpH Fastball from the pitching rubber into the strike zone every time? :smallsmile: Throwing hard is more an effect of stength than Dexterity...

That was more of my point in terms of dexterity - the accuracy. I was definitely more accurate in my prime when I was throwing harder. How would the fact that I can close out the board playing crickets (darts) in 6-7 rounds with regularity score? Best I ever did was 4 rounds, but that was as much luck as skill...

[DragoonWraith]

This. It is a very badly researched article: it cherry-picks those rules that agree with its premise, and ignores all the rules that do not. No, you cannot accurately create an Einstein or a Beowulf using low-level D&D characters.
Care to elaborate? The one you quoted didn't, and I still haven't actually seen what these problems are.

[Telonius]

Real World: Expert 2, maybe 3, with some kind of feat that allows me to emulate Bardic Knowledge. (I think D&D modern is supposed to come closer to reality, but I just don't know enough about that one to say).

D&D personality equivalent: Archivist or Bard.

Stats:
I can carry my 30-pound child plus about 15 pounds of backpack without encumbring my movement, so Strength is 13 minimum.

Dex is harder to measure. I'd suspect around 9-10. I'm terrible at dancing and have two left feet, but my reflexes are pretty good (and getting better thanks to the aforementioned child) and I'm a passable shot. I guess the only way to test it would be to run a bunch of "initiative check" scenarios.

Con is even harder to measure. I consider myself fairly healthy - haven't had a sick day in over a year - but I really don't know how I'd measure this other than repeatedly trying to poison myself. I'd guess 12 or so. (EDIT: Just remembered the drowning rules - timed myself for 2 minutes holding my breath before I needed to breathe. 2 minutes = 20 rounds, so half that is a Con score of 10).

I speak two languages currently and could probably get a third back up to conversant if I practiced a bit, so my Int is a bare minimum 14. (I'm assuming no skill points put into "speak language"). I did score in the top 1% of SAT takers, so there's another objective-ish measure of intelligence (kinda sorta maybe). I'd guess 16-17, just never bothered to take that fourth language.

Wisdom is another hard one to judge. People often come to me for advice, and I seem to have a knack for predicting what's going to happen in an interpersonal situation. I'd guess around 12.

Charisma ... who knows? It's hard enough to define, let alone measure. 12? 10? 14? Might as well pick a number out of a hat.

[RndmNumGen]

It's interesting how many people give themselves 14-16 INT for just getting good grades...

Maybe I should revise my stats to

STR 11
CON 10
DEX 12
WIS 9
INT 16
CHR 8

[Amphetryon]

Stats adjusted for D&D's Middle Age category:
STR 13
DEX 8 (on a good day)
CON 13
INT 16
WIS 12
CHA 17

Expert 2/Bard 1 - some training in theater, singing, and writing.

[Darcy]

Commoner 1/Bard 1
Str 12 Dex 8 Con 10 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 11

I "played along" and went with the non-elite array, but traded a point to increase my Int score. I'm naturally muscular and fairly clever, but not enough to make a career as an athlete or some kind of... clever... person. I was tempted to give myself a little bonus Int & Wis because I was identified as "gifted" as a child, however I realized years ago that this largely meant "awkward and difficult to educate" and should not be taken at face value. If anything it would have been at the expense of Cha points, which I have in spades. Ooh yeah.

I am pretty clumsy, though. This is a matter of public record. So overall, a +1 bonus to unarmed & melee attacks, and -1 penalty to ranged weapons makes sense.

I've played music most of my life, hence the Bard level, with 4 points spent in performance (guitar) and 2 points in performance (singing). I also took points in diplomacy, it's a skill I keep hearing I have so I assume that to be the case. I took 1 extra language, assuming that my poor French, rudimentary Russian and independent study of Old English amount to one extra fluent language (it doesn't, but whatever, I needed to spend skill points). Aside from that my skill points otherwise reflect a childhood spent playing sports and reading a lot, so mostly athletics-oriented skills and knowledge. I was in Boy Scouts so I could probably have spent a point in survival, but... I forgot.

[okpokalypse]

My old man can lift more than 250 overhead and he's probably a 13 in STR. Don't use DnD's scale for loads, they're terriblely designed.

If 10 is the average, do you think the average person can drag 500 lbs?

It's more accurate to use percentages based on what stats NPCs should on average throughout a 'realistic' campaign environment that the various DMGs describe.

Your IQ would put you around 14. You're barely in the top 2% of the world.

Scores are a bit inflated.

Depends on the IQ Test taken where Int is a factor. I took the WAIS IQ Test, which has a floor of 60 and 128+ is top 2.2%. General IQ tests have a much broader range, but also have a lot of critique around them. I've scored from the high 150s to the low 180s on those - and some people have scored as high as the mid 200s on them. They're often more centered on the speed of rational thought as opposed to the ability to reason properly, which I still do fine with - but people who are great academics have struggled with them despite testing very highly on WAIS and SBIT tests.

Considering that 60 is the effective floor in the WAIS test - below which rational thought isn't properly functional - it would corelate to Int 3. The Average is 91-110, corelating to Int 10-11. That would roughly put the IQ #s at a separation of 4 Pts each outside of the base "average" range, and with a sleight extension of the 8, 9, 12 and 13 effective ranges by +1.

60 = 3
64 = 4
68 = 5
72 = 6
76 = 7
80 = 8
85 = 9
90 = 10
110 = 11
115 = 12
120 = 13
124 = 14
128 = 15
132 = 16
136 = 17
140 = 18

As to Strength - well, it just comes down to relating to the encumbrance table. Sorry, but it's printed right there as a scale. As to whether or not the average person can drag 500 Lbs, I think that's right. After all, it specifically relates conditions affecting the situation. Favorable conditions could double that number. When I was a kid I could push a car in neutral on a flat surface, and that was a 2800 Lb car. When I was working out for football I'd push a plow with 2 men on it. That's 500 Lbs in an unfavorable environment for doing so. My wife has moved a loaded bookshelf from one side of the room to the other on a carpet and that thing weighed at least 300+ Lbs loaded up.

[Ormur]

Expert 1

Str: 8
Dex: 11
Con: 11
Int: 17 (I know, I know, but I only have an old IQ test and the distribution of 3d6 rolls to consider, as per the table above)
Wis: 8
Cha: 9

Max ranks in knowledge history and a few in profession historian.
A few ranks in various other knowledge skills. I do have quite a lot of skillpoints if this is true so maybe the occasional cross class ranks other skills, like in swim for the lessons I took. I guess a lot of modern day-to-day activity requires skill ranks too, just in skills that don't exist in D&D.

[OverdrivePrime]

Considering that 60 is the effective floor in the WAIS test - below which rational thought isn't properly functional - it would corelate to Int 3. The Average is 91-110, corelating to Int 10-11. That would roughly put the IQ #s at a separation of 4 Pts each outside of the base "average" range, and with a sleight extension of the 8, 9, 12 and 13 effective ranges by +1.

60 = 3
64 = 4
68 = 5
72 = 6
76 = 7
80 = 8
85 = 9
90 = 10
110 = 11
115 = 12
120 = 13
124 = 14
128 = 15
132 = 16
136 = 17
140 = 18
I don't know about this. I definitely understand your logic here, but I've been tested at what your scale is calling a 17 and I'd say that's a little generous. I'm pretty sharp, but given the sheer number of people I know with far greater intellectual horsepower than me, I feel like the 136-140 range should definitely be more in the neighborhood of 14 or 15. Yes, I understand that this is just anecdotal evidence and may be skewed by the fact that I am much more comfortable in the company of smart people than in the company of... Less smart people. And yes, I'm aware that it is very difficult to test the extremes of intelligence with any accuracy. Still, I'm pretty darn sure that I don't have a 17, if the sharpest people I know have 18s or 19s in their INT score.

[Il_Vec]

Il_Vec

Human Expert 1

Str 12
Dex 10
Con 10
Wis 9
Int 12
Cha 10

Skills: Concentration, Spot, Tumble, Swim, Perform, Knowledge(History-art), Profession(Design), Craft(Art).

Feats: Improved Unarmed Strike, Skill Focus(Craft)

Languages: Portuguese, English

[Coplantor]

I was going to say commoner 1, but I have fought house cats and won, so probably expert 1 and about to hit lvl 2, str 10, dex 11, con 10, int 13, wis 11, cha 12.

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

As the OP i feel the need to state that I NEVER ASKED FOR PEOPLES STATS.

people have many many opinions on what proper stat averages are and i DID NOT want this thread to become a big argument on stat equivalents. . .

My original question

What level and classes do you think you REALLY are?


so for the rest of this thread please ONLY say class and levels. . . DO NOT include stats please.

[Telonius]

As the OP i feel the need to state that I NEVER ASKED FOR PEOPLES STATS.

people have many many opinions on what proper stat averages are and i DID NOT want this thread to become a big argument on stat equivalents. . .

My original question


so for the rest of this thread please ONLY say class and levels. . . DO NOT include stats please.

Good luck on that. :smallbiggrin:

[Choco]

lvl 1-2 expert, just like almost everyone else :smalltongue:

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

Good luck on that. :smallbiggrin:

point taken. . . kind of useless to want people to not argue about something that's already been argued about at least 5 million times on these forums isn't it. . .

[Octopus Jack]

Hexblade 1, slightly above average strength and con, pretty much average everything else maybe dropping a few points of wisdom. Charisma is possibly my best stat, I'm better than most at making friends and manipulating people without them knowing.

Feats: luck feats definetly, I tend to have better luck than others and they tend to have alot worse around me. Possibly improved unarmed strike due to over 7 years of martial arts.

Skills: A couple of random points in various knowledge skills, more so in history than others, bluff would probably be the skill I have the most ranks in.

So thats me, I think.

[Jergmo]

point taken. . . kind of useless to want people to not argue about something that's already been argued about at least 5 million times on these forums isn't it. . .

There isn't really much arguing going on compared to other threads.

[Eldariel]

Expert 1 or UA SS 0: I've got Martial Arts background but it probably amounts to IUS. And yeah, I'm a normal western person so I've easily got enough Knowledges to vindicate Expert.

[okpokalypse]

I don't know about this. I definitely understand your logic here, but I've been tested at what your scale is calling a 17 and I'd say that's a little generous. I'm pretty sharp, but given the sheer number of people I know with far greater intellectual horsepower than me, I feel like the 136-140 range should definitely be more in the neighborhood of 14 or 15. Yes, I understand that this is just anecdotal evidence and may be skewed by the fact that I am much more comfortable in the company of smart people than in the company of...

Well, first and foremost it depends on the test you took. The Gen IQ Tests have a MUCH higher scale. A 140 on the WAIS is the equivalent to a 165+ on the Gen IQ Test.


Less smart people. And yes, I'm aware that it is very difficult to test the extremes of intelligence with any accuracy. Still, I'm pretty darn sure that I don't have a 17, if the sharpest people I know have 18s or 19s in their INT score.

Well, that's going by the assumption that 18-19 is a Max. The strongest human males actually fall into the 22 to 24 Str Categories based on lifting potential. I see no reason why Int (or any stat for that matter) couldn't exceed the 18-19 range.

Also, keep in mind that soceity today is geared more towards intellect than ever before. Any IQ test will state that environmental factors (education being a major one) can yield a significant increase in IQ. The fact is that a High School Graduate today is more educated than 99% of the soceity that D&D is based upon. A College Grad would be among the most learned people in the world.

Comparing to D&D, the average Human Wizard starts out at age 22 being L1. The average General Surgeon is finally done with schooling (and internships, residency, etc..) at what, 30? And like a Wizard, they never stop learning and researching throughout their careers... So it would be safe to say that a modern-day surgeon is far more educated (and thus should be more intelligent) than a fantasy-genre wizard - by a pretty significant margin - within their field. It would be no stretch at all to say that minimal entrance into the specialist field of brain surgery would require an 18 Int, maybe more...

[Morph Bark]

so for the rest of this thread please ONLY say class and levels. . . DO NOT include stats please.

I'm still going for Rogue 1/Cloistered Cleric (Cloistered Ardent) 1. With too low Wisdom to cast spells (manifest powers). :smalltongue:

[Stompy]

Bard 1 (with low CHA >.>)

or, with a more RISUS game system:
Rock Band (the video game) 4
Grad Student 3
Socially Awkward 3

[Moff Chumley]

Judging by what most other people tell me...

I have no class.:smalleek:

I get that one a lot. :smallbiggrin:

[Jergmo]

Bard 1 (with low CHA >.>)

or, with a more RISUS game system:
Rock Band (the video game) 4
Grad Student 3
Socially Awkward 3


Risus is great fun for the whole family. I had a great deal of fun making my first character: Renaldo "El Conquistador" Virgilio Juan Sanches Villa-Lobos Silvestre Rodriguez, Ninja[4], Sorcerer[4], Latin Lover[3], living in 6th century Japan. Flaw for extra die is a crippling fear of puppets in any form.

I was originally going to make a Swashbuckler Gadgeteer Poltergeist, but our GM decided that Gadgeteer was too broad for his liking.

[Escheton]

I know I have dodge, mobility and uncanny dodge. Perhaps even evasion
Maxed out escape artist/tumble and crossclass perform dance. I also seem to have fast movement and had a rage ability as a child before I found my centre. As such I am either a barb 2/monk2 or barb1/rogue4 with a few negative lvls or somesuch.
Stretching it a bit I could add a fallen paladin of freedom lvl with a vow of pacifism in there.
Pumpstat: dex Dumpstat: cha

[Darcy]

point taken. . . kind of useless to want people to not argue about something that's already been argued about at least 5 million times on these forums isn't it. . .

It's also that without stats, skills, etc there won't be much variety of answers... we're all generally level 1 or 2 commoners or experts. A soldier would be a fighter probably, although some, like SAS guys, would be closer to Rangers. A cat burglar or a spy would be a rogue. Most people don't have those professions though, so it's commoners & experts for the rest of us. Leaving it at that is boring.

[OverdrivePrime]

Well, first and foremost it depends on the test you took. The Gen IQ Tests have a MUCH higher scale. A 140 on the WAIS is the equivalent to a 165+ on the Gen IQ Test.



Well, that's going by the assumption that 18-19 is a Max. The strongest human males actually fall into the 22 to 24 Str Categories based on lifting potential. I see no reason why Int (or any stat for that matter) couldn't exceed the 18-19 range.

Also, keep in mind that soceity today is geared more towards intellect than ever before. Any IQ test will state that environmental factors (education being a major one) can yield a significant increase in IQ. The fact is that a High School Graduate today is more educated than 99% of the soceity that D&D is based upon. A College Grad would be among the most learned people in the world.

You make some good points and I wil happily buy into them. IQ is just such a tremendously limited measure for mental ability.

[Darkxarth]

Commoner 1

Skills (Ranks):
Bluff (2 cross-class)
Craft: Writing (1 cc)
Perform: Act (1 cc)
Perform: Brass Wind Instruments (1 cc)
Profession: Editor (1)
Profession: Student (4)
Speak Language: French (1 cc)
Survival (1 cc)
Swim (1)
Use Rope (1)

Feats: Open Mind (Level 1), Negotiator (Human)

Ability Scores:
(Spoilered to prevent unwanted viewing)
Str: 9
Dex: 10
Con: 9
Int: 13
Wis: 10
Cha: 14

I might be underestimating my Strength and Constitution by a point, but I might also be overestimating my Intelligence and Charisma by a point. However, I without a more objective assessment, these would be my best guess.

[Kurald Galain]

Care to elaborate? The one you quoted didn't, and I still haven't actually seen what these problems are.
Well, the thing is that if you model Einstein as a L5 expert, then you somehow have to explain (1) why he has better hit points and BAB than most humans, and (2) why he still has a pretty good chance of scoring less on a physics test than a random high schooler.

The other issue is that if you take human feats of speed or strength or accuracy and compare them to a level-5 whatever, you'll find some that match (which are the ones cherrypicked by Alex) and you'll find plenty that don't. For instance, WOTC claims (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a) that olympic archers are 7th-level rangers, the best real life weight lifters have a D&D strength around 23, and that the world record for a marathon would require a 6th-level monk with a speed bonus. None of that matches with the notion that "everyone is level 1-5".

Aside from that, the D&D skill system has the problem that said str-23 weightlifter has a pretty good chance of losing against you and me in arm wrestling.

See also this insightful post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73839) by Chronos on the topic.

[Siosilvar]

Well, the thing is that if you model Einstein as a L5 expert, then you somehow have to explain (1) why he has better hit points and BAB than most humans, and (2) why he still has a pretty good chance of scoring less on a physics test than a random high schooler.

1) can be fixed with lower physical ability scores due to old age... most people above level 2-3ish are going to be middle-aged or older. Plus, he doesn't have the same combat skill as someone who actually trained for it (took a level of fighter somewhere). Having 5 hit dice doesn't mean much when your highest roll was a 3 and you have a Constitution penalty.

Not to mention that most people don't die from one dagger/knife stab, unless it was a crit or coup de gras that did enough damage to drop you to 0 or less.

2) is a problem with rolling a d20 for most things. Just about everybody (IRL) takes 10 whenever they do anything. This is why the smart kid in the class always has the higher grade than the others (unless the others get a few circumstance bonuses for studying and doing their homework) - all the kids took 10, but the smart kid has a higher Int bonus and a few ranks in Knowledge (physics) or whatever.

It also explains why we don't jump 1 foot then turn around and jump 20 feet back.


Alternately, we got a houserule that we roll 5+2d4 for skill checks. :smallwink:



Not going to argue with the rest of your post; I'm a fan of the maximum real life level being around 9th. Which is coincidentally the point at which you stop getting experience from the EL1 challenges that make up the majority of our lives.

[Telonius]

Well, the thing is that if you model Einstein as a L5 expert, then you somehow have to explain (1) why he has better hit points and BAB than most humans, and (2) why he still has a pretty good chance of scoring less on a physics test than a random high schooler.



1. As a master of physics, he has calculated in his head the precise angle and force needed to hurt you, given your present mass and velocity. Dodging Nazis and things thrown by ex-girlfriends has given him better than average ability to take a hit. :smallbiggrin:

2. I don't see how he does. 8 ranks in know (physics) vs. 2 (max) for a humanoid with no class levels (Knowledge doesn't appear as a class skill for humanoids). Cumulative INT score of 22 (venerable + ability bump at 4) vs. 18 (max) for high schooler. Skill focus Knowledge (physics) for +3. Total bonus, Einstein +17, high schooler +6. If he takes 10, there's no way for the high schooler to exceed his score.

[Tinydwarfman]

Class? Level? I know of no such things.

Me! (30 points)
Age 16; Human; 5' 10"; 125

ST 11 [10]; DX 10 [0]; IQ 12 [40]; HT 11 [10].
Damage 1d-1/1d+1; BL 24 lbs.; HP 9 [-4]; Will 9 [-15]; Per 12 [0]; FP 11 [0].
Basic Speed 5.25 [0]; Basic Move 5 [0]; Block 0; Dodge 8; Parry 8 (Brawling).

Social Background
TL: 8 [0].
CF:
Languages: English, French (Broken)

Advantages
Acute Taste and Smell 1 [2]; Fit [5].

Disadvantages
Laziness [-10]; Pacifism (Cannot Kill) [-15]; Short Attention Span [-10]; Social Stigma (Minor) [-5].

Skills
Aikido Art-9 (DX-1) [2]; Bicycling-11 (DX+1) [2]; Brawling-10 (DX+0) [1]; Climbing-12 (DX+2) [8]; Computer Operation/TL8-13 (IQ+1) [2]; Computer Programming/TL8-10 (IQ-2) [1]; Current Affairs/TL8 (Politics)-12 (IQ+0) [1]; Diplomacy-10 (IQ-2) [1]; Running-10 (HT-1) [1]; Typing-11 (DX+1) [1]; Writing-11 (IQ-1) [1].
Techniques: Breakfall-10 [1].

[Kurald Galain]

1) can be fixed with lower physical ability scores due to old age...
Einstein got his nobel prize age 42. That's not old age.


Plus, he doesn't have the same combat skill as someone who actually trained for it (took a level of fighter somewhere).
Yes, he does. A level-5 expert has a better BAB than a level-1 fighter.


Having 5 hit dice doesn't mean much when your highest roll was a 3 and you have a Constitution penalty.
Whatever makes you think that Einstein had a constitution penalty? He's had several wives and children, and traveled extensively.

Anyway, the problem is this: to support the initial assumption (that Einstein is accurately modeled as a level-5 expert) requires an ever-growing list of further unlikely assumptions, stacked like a house of cards. Occam's Razor suggests an easier explanation, namely that the initial assumption is incorrect. And the cards come falling down.



2) is a problem with rolling a d20 for most things. Just about everybody (IRL) takes 10 whenever they do anything.
Yes, that is because "taking 10" is a better resolution mechanic than "rolling 1d20" is. I'm not convinced that a physics test, or indeed arm wrestling, qualifies as enough routine to allow taking 10 in the first place. Nevertheless, the problem is that the "dumb blonde" from the classroom has a pretty good chance of beating the "smart kid".



2. I don't see how he does. 8 ranks in know (physics) vs. 2 (max) for a humanoid with no class levels (Knowledge doesn't appear as a class skill for humanoids). Cumulative INT score of 22 (venerable + ability bump at 4) vs. 18 (max) for high schooler. Skill focus Knowledge (physics) for +3. Total bonus, Einstein +17, high schooler +6. If he takes 10, there's no way for the high schooler to exceed his score.
Once again, Einstein was not old age for the majority of his work. Also, your math involves a lot of cherrypicking - a bunch of level-1 experts (high school grads, perhaps, or university freshmen) will beat him. Also, if for whatever reason Einstein is not allowed to take 10, he has a problem.

[Telonius]

Also, your math involves a lot of cherrypicking - a bunch of level-1 experts (high school grads, perhaps, or university freshmen) will beat him.

Absolutely - and they should be able to beat him. Several actual experts getting Aid Another versus anybody should be able to figure out a better solution to a problem.

Einstein wouldn't accept a situation where he couldn't take 10 - after all, god doesn't play dice with the universe. :smallbiggrin: But if he had to roll, it would be under stressful conditions. That's exactly the sort of situation that even a super-genius could succumb to stress.

And as to the Venerable issue - so he gets two less. The dumb blonde will beat him if he rolls a 1 and she rolls a 20. That sort of thing can happen even to a genius, and would probably model a situation where he was distracted by the dumb blonde. :smallbiggrin:

[Kurald Galain]

Absolutely - and they should be able to beat him. Several actual experts getting Aid Another versus anybody should be able to figure out a better solution to a problem.
I didn't mean Aid Another - just get enough people together so that one of them will randomly roll a 20. In real life, one out of twenty rookies does not arbitrarily beat the teacher; in D&D, this happens all the time. This is one of the major reasons why any assertion that the D&D skill system models realism accurately, fails.

It gets even funnier with weightlifting competitions. Even if you allow the champion to take ten, odds are pretty good that a low-ranking contestant will roll a 20.

[Math_Mage]

Absolutely - and they should be able to beat him. Several actual experts getting Aid Another versus anybody should be able to figure out a better solution to a problem.

:smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused: Have you been a college freshman recently? I wouldn't wager on my math class vs. the professor on anything math-related. And that was the creme de la creme of our year, math-wise (though from the way things turned out, I was apparently more the crud de la crud in that group...).


And as to the Venerable issue - so he gets two less. The dumb blonde will beat him if he rolls a 1 and she rolls a 20. That sort of thing can happen even to a genius, and would probably model a situation where he was distracted by the dumb blonde. :smallbiggrin:

I still disagree with your assessment, but the last comment reminds me of a joke:

Two math professors go into a restaurant, and get into a discussion about the state of education in the country. One professor, a pessimist on the subject, leaves to go to the bathroom. The other, more optimistic, sees a chance to trick his fellow teacher.

Calling over the waiter--a blonde girl of about seventeen--he says, "The next time I call you over, I'll ask you a question, and the answer will be x squared. Remember that." The first professor comes back, and they resume their discussion.

At some later point, the optimist says, "Well, the only way to settle this is to put it to a test. I'll call the waiter over, give her a question, and we'll see if she answers it. How about it?"

The pessimist agrees, and they call over the waiter. "Waiter," the optimist asks, "what is the integral of 2x?" The girl replies brightly, "X squared."

Then she adds, "Plus a constant."

[Doug Lampert]

In a mental experiment i started trying to stat out a few of my regular players as close as i could to what i thought they actually were.

Well apparently all my friends think they have WAY more levels than i would give them

I have always been of the opinion that the vast majority of people in the the world to which I am acustomed (modern day united state) have less than 7class levels. Most people just have a few more levels of expert than would typically be found in a medival setting because guess what, we're better educated.

Seven? Seriously? WtF makes you think it's that high?

A typical level 7 expert speaks about 12 languages fluently and can convince ANYONE he can talk to that he's their bestest friend in the entire world in less than 6 seconds AND can craft masterwork items with improvised tools.

The reference has already been posted, but:
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

I don't agree with everything in it. But the basic idea is sound.

A level 1 expert human, with 10 Int, has enough intelligence to learn 28 skill points. ONE of those skill points is enough to learn another language as fluently as a native for the rest of your life. (Two skill points if you're taking it cross class.)

Most people want to classify "I spent a few hundred hours studying this" as therefor I have ranks in the skill. CRAP. Based on what it can do, each and every skill point represents thousands of hours of training and/or practice.

Similarly most of these people who think they are skilled combatants have mangaged to get proficiency with the weapon (not a +1 BAB or anything significant, just proficiency).

I have a Ph.D. in mathematics. MAYBE I'm as high as level 3. But I doubt it.

If we use percentile on IQ tests to calculate Int then my Int is 18 (probably 17 in "reality", I test well, it is a trainable skill).

Con is low, my health isn't great, say 8.

Probably most of the other characteristics are in the 8-11 range.


I always heard that your Int should be your IQ/10. Or thereabouts.
Distribution is totally wrong. IQ has a standard deviation of roughly 15 points, 3d6 has a standard deviation of roughly 3. Thus a difference of one in Int is a difference of 5 in IQ if you assume Int and IQ to measure the same thing.

Thus:
INT=IQ/5+97.5 gives about the right distribution till you get to the extreme end scores.


I said an amateur with the gun, which I believed implied proficiency.

Why do you believe that? It sounds insane to me. You can shoot a gun, and even go target shooting without proficiency. Proficiency either comes from a fighting class (i.e. shooting is what you do for a living), or it's one of the total of two feats you get as a low level human.

Mine are probably skill focus mathematics, and skill focus drive car. I can shoot a gun, but it would never occure to me to claim proficiency in the D&D sense.


If you go by skills, I'm a level 7 expert who arbitrarily capped my skills at 6 ranks.

If you go by feats, I'm level 9, because some of the more common sense things, I can do. (trip, grapple, run etc.)

If you go by class features, I'm a level 1 rogue, in that I know hitting a person from behind when they don't see it coming hurts more.

If you go by hit points, I'm a level 1 mook, because I would definitely be oneshot by a giant axe being swung at my skull.

If I go by skills you're using untrained skill checks, most skills allow them.

If I go by feats then tripping, running, grappling can ALL be done without a feat so you don't have any.


Well, the thing is that if you model Einstein as a L5 expert, then you somehow have to explain (1) why he has better hit points and BAB than most humans, and (2) why he still has a pretty good chance of scoring less on a physics test than a random high schooler.

A physics test has about 5 questions, and you check your work. So that's 10 skill rolls, and everyone takes 10 on 5 of them (the check part normally).

So, no, the average highschooler has no chance at all of beating Einstein, and that's quite aside from the fact that there's no way a highschooler has ANY ranks in knowledge physics given how big a skill rank is, so the highschooler can only achieve DC 10 based on common knowledge.

(HINT: What do you call the level of physics knowledge taught in highschool? You call it common knowledge physics.)

As for HP and BAB? Who cares? Seriously, the claim ISN'T that D&D with class and levels is a realistic system, it's that it's more realistic than most people give it credit for, and that it's realistic based on real people topping out at around level 5 for Einstein types.

You can model everything Einstein actually did with a level 5 expert, and guess what, he wasn't killed by a knife and never shot at anyone so we have NO IDEA how good he was in combat. If your objections are the best you can do then we can CORRECTLY claim that the model as a level 5 expert works FINE for EVERYTHING he ever actually did.


The other issue is that if you take human feats of speed or strength or accuracy and compare them to a level-5 whatever, you'll find some that match (which are the ones cherrypicked by Alex) and you'll find plenty that don't. For instance, WOTC claims (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a) that olympic archers are 7th-level rangers, the best real life weight lifters have a D&D strength around 23, and that the world record for a marathon would require a 6th-level monk with a speed bonus. None of that matches with the notion that "everyone is level 1-5".

Marathoners have run and endurance type feats. They can't do ANYTHING else that a 6th level monk can so stating them as such is silly. See the part of the article on claiming someone MUST be high level because they have an ability that only happens in one class at high level and do nothing else that high level characters could.

He deals SPECIFICALLY with that point at the start of the article.

Additionally: The wieght-lifters have massive circumstance bonuses from the wieght being ballanced with a good grip, that table is for use in the dungeons, that's where it gets used after all.

No. D&D doesn't perfectly model real people. But it does a much better job than you're giving it credit for, and it only does a fair job if you keep the people level 1-5.

[Optimator]

Comparing D&D to real life is an exercise in futility. It doesn't work. Levels, stats, HP... none of it translates well.

[Milskidasith]

Why do you believe that? It sounds insane to me. You can shoot a gun, and even go target shooting without proficiency. Proficiency either comes from a fighting class (i.e. shooting is what you do for a living), or it's one of the total of two feats you get as a low level human.

But that's stupid in its own right. Being able to use more than two weapons doesn't make you immune to getting stabbed in the throat while sleeping and dying (6 damage coup de grace, fighter has 8 HP), or incapable of taking knowledge skills, etc.

Also, when I said amateur, I was implying it was, in fact, somebody who knew how to operate a gun. A police officer, for instance. Or just an enthusiast. They're most likely simple weapons anyway, because they're so easy to use, but, in short, the difference between a military sniper and an average hunter, IRL, is far more than the +5~6 on the rolls you'd expect, assuming all hunters have poor dexterity, and all snipers have 18s, and if you start to assume snipers have more hit dice, then you get into the problem with the fact they suddenly become immune to bullets and sword wounds.

In short: The system is bad at modelling real people, and trying to argue it can accurately do so is incredibly misguided.

EDIT:


Thus:
INT=IQ/5+97.5 gives about the right distribution till you get to the extreme end scores.


This makes no sense. Most people do not have an int of 117. I can't even begin to figure out how it would work; if you meant "IQ = Int/5 +97.5" an IQ of 40 would hardly be considered more than average.

[Tiki Snakes]

I'm not a class or level. I'm an unstatted NPC who is very unlikely to interact with the main characters in any meaningful way. :smallwink:

[Kurald Galain]

A typical level 7 expert speaks about 12 languages fluently and can convince ANYONE he can talk to that he's their bestest friend in the entire world in less than 6 seconds AND can craft masterwork items with improvised tools.
Well, being able to learn a language that easily is another big strike against the purported realism of the D&D skill system.

Regardless, an expert is by no means required to spend that many points on languages.

Just using D&D skills, I'm quite good at balance; bluff; concentration; diplomacy; move silently; perform; sense motive; survival; and swim. I'm very good at craft and a large number of knowledge skills. And I speak four languages, and have several skills that simply aren't on the D&D list. A conservative estimate puts me at 70 skill points.

The math is easy. For instance, if playing poker is done by the bluff skill, then someone who consistently wins at poker has significantly more than a +2 or +4 modifier. And a good poker player isn't necessarily good at any other charisma skills. That means he needs four to eight levels simply to be able to accout for his winning rate.



I don't agree with everything in it. But the basic idea is sound.
As this and other threads point out, no, the basic idea is far from sound. It may sound appealing, but it breaks after casual scrutiny.


Comparing D&D to real life is an exercise in futility. It doesn't work. Levels, stats, HP... none of it translates well.
Well said. We should start a thread like this using WOD mechanics.

[Tiki Snakes]

Well said. We should start a thread like this using WOD mechanics.

That could be quite interesting. No idea how well it holds up to scrutiny, but my suspicion is better.

[Kurald Galain]

That could be quite interesting. No idea how well it holds up to scrutiny, but my suspicion is better.

Here you go. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8957290)

[Jergmo]

But that's stupid in its own right. Being able to use more than two weapons doesn't make you immune to getting stabbed in the throat while sleeping and dying (6 damage coup de grace, fighter has 8 HP), or incapable of taking knowledge skills, etc.

The fighter also must make a DC 16 Fort save or die instantly. On an average roll, it's not going to be successful.

[Milskidasith]

The fighter also must make a DC 16 Fort save or die instantly. On an average roll, it's not going to be successful.

Surviving one third of the time you get your throat slit is still very unrealistic.

[LibraryOgre]

Level 3 expert. Rule of thumb: Your level equals your age divided by 10, ignoring decimals. The exception would be people who've done a fair number of dangerous things... I'd put a number of the soldiers who are returning from war zones as being up a level or two on that rule of thumb, with levels in warrior, expert, or aristocrat (while they may not be actual "aristocrats" in world-terms, the balance of physical and skill options does a lot to define today's warriors).

[Milskidasith]

Level 3 expert. Rule of thumb: Your level equals your age divided by 10, ignoring decimals. The exception would be people who've done a fair number of dangerous things... I'd put a number of the soldiers who are returning from war zones as being up a level or two on that rule of thumb, with levels in warrior, expert, or aristocrat (while they may not be actual "aristocrats" in world-terms, the balance of physical and skill options does a lot to define today's warriors).

That ruins the whole "HD" thing. Even as a rule of thumb, it's very inaccurate.

[Aotrs Commander]

Well, as real life doesn't translate well to D&D, I guess the closest I can get is something like

Medium Undead (Augmented Humanoid)
Spirit-Bound Lich Gestalt Epic Wizard//Fighter Maybe 24-30th level?
Lawful Evil
Str 24
Dex 22
Con -
Int 97
Wis 45
Cha 30

As a spirit-bound Lich, of course, I don't have a phylactery, but I regenerate instead (and of course, get the equivilent of Unholy Toughness).

Maybe psion might cover some of my offenseive capabilities better, I guess, mostly being what in D&D mostly be blasting spells; psionics are not good for necromantic abilities; and as I actually created a Maximised Disintegrate spell in homage to D&D... Most of my fighter abilities would be ranged (specialisation in Aotrs-issue SK-series Snake Guided Missile Launchers). The high strength is of course for using said weapon in one hand...

Anyone thinking the mental stats might be too high would be best served by remembering that, as a Lich, my Arrogance stat is approximately infinity. Not that it's not still true, of course.

[Meta]

Well, as real life doesn't translate well to D&D, I guess the closest I can get is something like

Medium Undead (Augmented Humanoid)
Spirit-Bound Lich Gestalt Epic Wizard//Fighter Maybe 24-30th level?
Lawful Evil
Str 24
Dex 22
Con -
Int 97
Wis 45
Cha 30

As a spirit-bound Lich, of course, I don't have a phylactery, but I regenerate instead (and of course, get the equivilent of Unholy Toughness).

Maybe psion might cover some of my offenseive capabilities better, I guess, mostly being what in D&D mostly be blasting spells; psionics are not good for necromantic abilities; and as I actually created a Maximised Disintegrate spell in homage to D&D... Most of my fighter abilities would be ranged (specialisation in Aotrs-issue SK-series Snake Guided Missile Launchers). The high strength is of course for using said weapon in one hand...

Anyone thinking the mental stats might be too high would be best served by remembering that, as a Lich, my Arrogance stat is approximately infinity. Not that it's not still true, of course.

It's wise to know your true stat array. Your wisdom is probably higher, maybe 60?

[JGoldenberg]

Okay I'm currently in 3 campaigns and soon to be in another two or three so I'll run my characters by quick.

Shilmerin Sea Dancer [Human TWF Rogue Level 5] CN for a Non-Good Pathfinder Pirate Campaign

My 4th Edition 5th level Eladrin Wizard who I can't really remember the name to because I haven't played in it for about a month now [GM was in Hawaii for 3 weeks]

My TWF Human Fighter, also level 5, formerly a Level 5 Doppelganger Alchemist but I decided to rebuild because my party was pissed by my bombthrowing nearly killing the melee players.


I don't know why we're at level 5 in all 3 campaigns, considering they all started at different levels, the 4th edition one starting at level 1, And Pathfinder ones starting at 2 and 4.

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

Seven? Seriously? WtF makes you think it's that high?


actually i said less than 7. . . and i was counting 6 as the absoloute best of the best with 7 being those 1 in a million people who are INCREDIBLY awsome and make the news for doing things like climbing mount everest while saving puppies and orphans via cellphone diplomacy. . .or Astronauts who run triathalons and have tripple doctorates. . .

the average joes have 1-4 levels or so

[Serpentine]

Blahdiblah, arguments over he realism of D&D stats, on and on...

Real-world me:
C/NG Human Female Expert 4ish
Str: 8
Dex: 10
Con: 12
Int: 13 (uni student)
Wis: 4-6
Cha: 9-13 (depends on a lot of things)
Ranks in: Knowledge (history), (mythology/religion), (science/zoology/nature). Handle Animal. Craft (mandala), (sewing) - few.

Real-world me in D&D-world:
CG Human Female Wizard 2/Druid 2
As above.

"Me" in D&D-world:
TN Half-elf Female Ranger 2/Druid 2
Str: 8
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Int: 12
Wis: 14
Cha: 11

[lisiecki]

Einstein had around a 170-180 IQ, so a mathematical half would indeed be around a 9 int

Really?

That's impressive, mostly because he went on record in at least one place I can name off the top of my head, that he never had is IQ tested, and in at least a few others that it would take me a while to recall.

[Kurald Galain]

Really?

That's impressive, mostly because he went on record in at least one place I can name off the top of my head, that he never had is IQ tested,

You're probably correct. Einstein is simply known for being very, very smart, and people automatically associate him with any number of tropes indicating intelligence. For instance, when statting him, many forum users assume he was also pretty old, whereas in fact he did most of his important work in his thirties. I'm sure many people picture him with glasses and a pocket protector, too.

[lisiecki]

You're probably correct. Einstein is simply known for being very, very smart.

Oh that part I'm not arguing, he was really, really, really freaking smart.
However, his IQ was never measurement , so, its weird that some one would give a measurement for it.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Well, stats for me... let's see.

Strength = 16
I'm a fairly burly guy. I can go hiking with a 50 lbs. pack and not notice it. I can lift more than 200 lbs over my head, and last I tried it out I could pick up something around 400+ lbs to my knees.

Dexterity = 13-14
I'm a former gymnast, can juggle, and extremely flexible.

Constitution = 15
I can, and have, hiked, without rest, for 10 hours straight before. I can jog, albeit slowly, for over 5 miles. I get sick maybe once a year, if that. I've slammed myself all over the place, falling out of trees, windows, etc and never broken a bone. Seem to be immune to stings, poison ivy, and spoiled food.

Intelligence = 14-17
This I'm really not sure about.

I learned to speak by 4 months, sung my ABC's by 8 months, was reading by 3 years old, and by 7-8 years old I was enjoying Lord of the Rings.

I'm dyslexic and so did somewhat poorly in school, so was homeschooled. Parents weren't much help so I ended up teaching myself everything I know on my own. Out of curiosity I've taken IQ tests and they have ranged everywhere from 130-180, but never less than that. However, as we all know IQ tests are mostly bunk.

I just know I've yet to find anything I can't learn. Went from having never having seen a satellite dish or the innards of a TV to within 4 months being a level 2 technician on them for a satellite cable company.

For those who think I'm bragging, I'm not, I feel so stupid sometimes I can't stand it... just everyone else seems even worse and they don't seem to notice :smallannoyed:


Wisdom - 11-12
This is pure guesswork. I honestly don't know. Two things seem to me it's not too bad. First, I am extremely aware of my surroundings. I could have low wisdom and high spot-listen ranks however.

Second, I see folks doing unwise things around me all day and can't believe anyone would be that foolhardy.

I've been told the same for me, but I know the possibilities. There is foolhardy and then there is A. Calculated Risk or B. Understanding the dangers and not giving a crap.

Charisma - ?
Not a clue. Some think I'm good looking, others not. I'm very stubborn and have a very strong will, but somehow in D&D that's supposed to be Wisdom. I can usually calm folks down and people seem to instinctively trust me, but what score that equals I'm at a loss.

[lisiecki]

Out of curiosity I've taken IQ tests and they have ranged everywhere from 130-180, but never less than that. However, as we all know IQ tests are mostly bunk.

I am ALWAYS curious why it is, that people are willing to take multiple IQ tests.

To spend several hundred dollars, and 2-3 days in a proctors office, because one is bored, is way more than I do when I'm bored.

[Siosilvar]

You're probably correct. Einstein is simply known for being very, very smart, and people automatically associate him with any number of tropes indicating intelligence. For instance, when statting him, many forum users assume he was also pretty old, whereas in fact he did most of his important work in his thirties. I'm sure many people picture him with glasses and a pocket protector, too.

Thirties (okay, mid to late thirties) is old enough to get age modifiers. If Einstein had an odd Intelligence score...


I am ALWAYS curious why it is, that people are willing to take multiple IQ tests.

To spend several hundred dollars, and 2-3 days in a proctors office, because one is board, is way more than I do when I'm bored.

Although likely less accurate, plenty of IQ tests are available for free or cheap. I know I had one when I was younger (as in, 10-12ish) that was about the size of a magazine and had tables based on the amount of questions you got right compared to age; it spent most of its time on the bookcase.

[SilverClawShift]

Chaotic Neutral, Level 1, Binder.

What?

.....What? :smallconfused:

[lisiecki]

Although likely less accurate, plenty of IQ tests are available for free or cheap. I know I had one when I was younger (as in, 10-12ish) that was about the size of a magazine and had tables based on the amount of questions you got right compared to age; it spent most of its time on the bookcase.

Strange, it seems like some one testing there own IQ in a book would run in to some problems. Mostly for Spatial Reasoning Skills or at least the part for object assembly and block design as well as picture completion portion.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Although likely less accurate, plenty of IQ tests are available for free or cheap.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, as well as what I took. Those who are willing to pay hundreds in whatever manner was mentioned I think by definition won't score highly :smallamused:

[lisiecki]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, as well as what I took. Those who are willing to pay hundreds in whatever manner was mentioned I think by definition won't score highly :smallamused:

What test did you take?

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale or Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales

[Kurald Galain]

Thirties (okay, mid to late thirties) is old enough to get age modifiers.
35 gets a +1 for medieval humans, assuming adulthood starts at 15. Einstein was 26 when he wrote special relativity.

That's a very good example of how that Alexandrian article gets the facts dead wrong: it specifically calls Einstein a "little old man" when at the height of his scientific career he was neither.

[lisiecki]

35 gets a +1 for medieval humans, assuming adulthood starts at 15. Einstein was 26 when he wrote special relativity.

That's a very good example of how that Alexandrian article gets the facts dead wrong: it specifically calls Einstein a "little old man" when at the height of his scientific career he was neither.

I dono...

5'9 was pretty short for a guy born 130 years ago

[Goonthegoof]

Well, as a fairly young man, my ability scores (I put it as)
Str 6, Dex 13, Con 6, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 13.

Thats only because I have AS.

And as for classes, Commoner 1. Maybe If I'm lucky an expert in DnD :smallbiggrin:

Dante

As in Asperger's Syndrome? Why would that low your con and str?

[The Vorpal Tribble]

What test did you take?

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale or Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales
This was some three years ago or so, can't recall. The latter sounds very familiar however.

Next level going to go for ranks in Autohypnosis for en eidetic memory.

[Dust]

Level 1 Commoner, Skill Focus: Bluff as a feat and higher-than-average Charisma despite not being notably attractive.

[Kurald Galain]

5'9 was pretty short for a guy born 130 years ago
It's actually the average height in Switzerland in 2000. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height)

[lisiecki]

This was some three years ago or so, can't recall. The latter sounds very familiar however.

Next level going to go for ranks in Autohypnosis for en eidetic memory.

Interesting.

The strange part (to me) that an IQ test for the most part, doesn't have pass fail questions.

The creators of the tests tests used in the first world (WISC-IV, WAIS-III and Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales) believed, and the APA requires they are proctored so that the test giver can interpenetrate the results that are given.

Those really are the only tests who's results determine what the APA considers an IQ to be

EDIT______________________________________________ __________


It's actually the average height in Switzerland in 2000.

I was playing.

I'm fairly sure the average height for an American male is still 5'10ish

[WhiteHarness]

{Scrubbed}

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

{Scrubbed}

[Lhurgyof]

In a mental experiment i started trying to stat out a few of my regular players as close as i could to what i thought they actually were.

Well apparently all my friends think they have WAY more levels than i would give them

I have always been of the opinion that the vast majority of people in the the world to which I am acustomed (modern day united state) have less than 7class levels. Most people just have a few more levels of expert than would typically be found in a medival setting because guess what, we're better educated.

Yay we have skill points we spread around well. . . that does not make us action heroes!

Most commonly I got asnwers like. "but i took 10 years of Karate!" Well buddy you took 10 years of Karate 10 years ago and now live off mountain dew doritoes and hungry man tv dinners. . . Come on, show me a high kick. . . just one. . .

Then take into the fact that most of those monks in DND. . spent the first half of their life learning monk stuff. . . so . . youre 10 years karate=1 monk level. . . GOOD FOR YOU

So i was thinking about it and have decided that to properly estimate levels you have to look at modern living as a de-leveling effect. (IE brain rotting acivities, Fast food, and laziness)

yes most people now-a-days may have done enough that they should be level 15 fighter/factotems(or so they think). . . but they mixed enough Junk that de-leveled them in there to keep themselves down around a level 3 expert level 1 fighter with one level of factotum.

So. Taking into consideration your lifestyle and the things you can actually STILL DO, What level and classes do you think you REALLY are?

I myself think I have a couple ranger levels and a few expert levels between things I keep up on and am still able to do fairy well.

I am a level 1 bard who believes he is a level one monk. :smalltongue:

Stats:
Strength: 9 I'm a bit weak and thin. Although I would debate this, I don't want to give myself more credit than due. I can do a lot of pushups and pull-ups; and withstand a lot of pain, but that's more a con thing.

Dexterity: 14 I'm quite flexible and fast, and also able to deflect thrown things. I'm quite hard to get a hold of and very evasive.

Constitution: 12 Although I get sick a lot and can't run for very long, I can endure an extreme amount of pain. Toughness, I presume? Dunno. But I can do many a pushup or pullup, because even though I can feel the fatigue and pain, I can get myself to keep going for some reason. Endurance?

Wisdom: 8 Okay, this one is getting better. A lot of the time, I am gullible (perhaps I just have the flaw), but I'm also good at figuring things out and knowing what the right thing to say is (the latter is more charisma, bet hey). I have trouble seeing and hearing at times, but again, perhaps flaws? I'm starting to get better with the gullibility and stuff, though. Perhaps I am higher level and put my stat point here?

Intelligence: 14 I'm quite a brain, have an extremely good grasp of math and logic. Even though I've given up being the smarty pants since I came to high school, I still am quite smart.

Charisma: 12 I always seem to know the right thing to say, think before I talk, and am good at lying and arguing. Perhaps a skill focus here?

I'm good with a quarterstaff or other similar weapons.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Strength 8: I'm a thin guy, and don't have a lot of raw physical power.

Dexterity: 15 Fast enough to deflect anything thrown at me (my friends are often annoyed by this), and dexterous enough to fence competitively at a national level, despite not having the best bladework: my speed and timing carry me against almost all my opponents.

Constitution 7-8: I tend to get sick a lot, and can't take much of a beating.

Intelligence 16-17: Intelligence manifests in many ways, but I've seen the test results and I know my own ability to process and retain information, as well as my ability to do logical arguments and abstract problem solving. This is probably fairly accurate.

Wisdom 12: I have decent common sense and attentiveness...when I care to use it.

Charisma ??: I don't know what it is, but it's high. Without knowing scare tactics, I can empty a room when angry. Without knowing anything about people, I can become the center of attention without thinking about it. People naturally put me in charge of things, and defer to my opinion more than I'm honestly comfortable with. My friends and family always remark on my strength of personality and my ability to interact with people. Whatever this is, it's very high.

As for class...I'm most likely a Bard, honestly. Bardic Knack variant: I pick things up incredibly quickly, and sort of fit the Jack-of-all-trades stereotype. Maybe a Bard/Rogue hybrid, although I doubt I'm higher than level 2 or so.

[Serpentine]

{Scrubbed}

[DragonOfUndeath]

level1 rogue
con 15 (i NEVER get sick, EVER!!!)
str 9
cha 15 :smallbiggrin:
dex 13
int 11
wis 9

Acrobatics +6
bluff/diplomacy +4

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

{Scrubbed}

Indeed. Besides, WhiteHarness: what, pray tell, do you know about me? Have you done or watched, for example, enough competitive fencing to tell me that I'm not actually faster and more dexterous than 90+% of my opponents? Have you challenged Vorpal Tribble to enough games of wits and intelligence to comment on his personal stats?

Please...enlighten me as to how you made these judgments.

Also, D&D is a strange and quirky system. A wizened old level 20 Wizard has more health than a study and hale 23 year old farm hand, and is better at melee combat than the same (in terms of ability to hit). Does that seem right to you? Face it...the level system is broken. To represent our abilities, we have to fudge it in other areas...sometimes, this means a higher level. That's just how the system works.

[lisiecki]

Ofcorse the thread was supposed to have nothing what so ever to do with attribute stats

[The Vorpal Tribble]

you make me laugh. . .The Strength you described up there, that's a 13 btw.
(Edit: I am not trying to be insulting or anything)
Naw, but you need to go btw of the SRD.

A strength of 13 you can only lift 150 lbs over your head and 50 lbs is the 'maximum' for a light load. By the SRD mine is actually around 15-16.

Dex ex.
http://i26.tinypic.com/11brorp.jpg

Str ex.
Guess I'm about 200 lbs. That's about it. Don't really take pics of me lifting things.
http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/63/l_82bc37324fa84893aff48b68f93875d9.jpg

Can also see pics from my hikes in my deviantart link below.

Believe or not :smallcool:

[Mr. Mud]

Obligatory reference to why fantasy, let alone reality, is much lower-powered in D&D terms than people think. (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

This was an awesome read.

[Demonix]

Fighter 1/rogue 1

And to mr. poopypants whiteharness upthread, I've survived things that would have broken you so yeah...I am exceptional :P

[Case]

Let's see...

Human (Duh...)

Str: 11 (can't really do much be probably a tiny bit above average)
Dex: 12 (not really agile or quick, but suprisingly bendy almost doulble jointed)
Con: 12 (don't have any endurance for running but do I get sick? NEVER)
Int: 16 (I test in the top 1% nationally but willing to admit there are smarter people ot there)
Wis: 13 (average common sense but strangly good insight from time to time)
Cha: 8 (I give off one hell of a creepy vibe)

As for class...

Level 3 Adept (It just seems right)

Skills: (sadly all of them would probably be weird cross class choices)

Bluff +3 (I'm a pretty good liar)
Diplomacy +3 (I'm incredably charming once you get past my creepy vibe)
Intimidate +3 (There's a reason nobody messed with me to much in high school)
Move Silenty +3 (If you don't see me coming, you won't know I'm there)
Swim +3 (Pretty decent swimmer)
Use Rope +3 (I picked up a thing or two about knots)

Feats:

Greater Fortitude (Like I said I don't get sick)
Improved Grapple (No idea why but when I grapple you, you stay grappled)
Skill Focus: Diplomacy (I'm really charming)

[Vin Robinson]

As far as I'm concerned.. The real world is an "Epic 1" campaign.

[Tetsubo 57]

I figure I'm probably a 2nd level Expert.

[Lioness]

Human commoner 1. If I had to choose a class...bard.

Str: 9 (not horribly weak, but slightly below average)
Dex: 11 (Good reflexes, fairly flexible)
Con: 10 (don't often get sick, but athletic endurance sucks)
Int: 12 (above average intelligence, but not extremely so)
Wis: 11 (About average, but slightly above)
Cha: 11 (People tell me I'm pretty, but I'm not particularly charismatic)

Ranks in Perform (Piano) and Perform (Dance)

Edit: Languages: English and Japanese.

[Ricky S]

Honestly I would probably be level 2, fighter 1 rogue 1. I am currently becoming a police officer and I am getting my degree in Criminology. I have done first year law and got a 5.5 GPA. I have been training extensively to be fit enough for the police force.
My stats
Str 13
Dex 10
Int 11/12
Con 10
Wis 12
Cha 11

My main skills would probably be Climb, Jump, Swim, Bluff and Intimidate

[Eldariel]

You're all level 1 Commoners, and in all likelihood, none of you has an attribute above 15 or so.

Actually, purely on the account of modern education, every one of us is an Expert with lots of Knowledges, most likely. Most of us probably also have some ranks in most physical and social abilities, though most likely not maxed outside certain specialized fields.

[Aotrs Commander]

GURPS is so much better a system for this sort of thing than D&D, but if you must use D&D...

Rolemaster is better for it than GURPS (at least as far as my stats and abilities go), but there you are...


{Scrubbed}

Mph...mmph..bwahahaha! Bwahahahahaha!

Your satirical wit is most amusing! The very idea, of me, ME not being the entire centre of the universe! Oh, that's just priceless! I'm sorry, that's just brilliantly hilarious! Best laugh I've had all day! Thank you!

As they say, take a soggy biscuit and go to the top of the class.

'Course, it is true of everyone else in the universe not being special of course, by definition of not being me, obviously1.

But none of you can help that, can you, you poor, unfortunate people. But don't worry I don't hold it against you.

Well, actually I do, but it probably doesn't matter as I won't ever meet any of you. Until the day I'm allowed to crush the world beneath my boney heel, anyway! (Which, judging by everyone's levels, probably means I don't even need to Aotrs ground forces; I can tackle the planet more-or-less single handed!) But don't worry too much. As fellow gamers, I'll kill you last anyway, y'know! (Unless you annoy me or I'm bored or something.) And if you entertain me enough, I might even let you live. Maaaybe.



1Or not being Lord Death Despoil or any of the other Aotrs high command, obviously.

[LibraryOgre]

Actually, purely on the account of modern education, every one of us is an Expert with lots of Knowledges, most likely. Most of us probably also have some ranks in most physical and social abilities, though most likely not maxed outside certain specialized fields.

I'd argue with the "lots of knowledges" bit, actually.

Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts): Most people don't have a rank in this. I might be able to claim one, because I putzed about with it for years, but I wouldn't say I've got 6 ranks in it.

Architecture and engineering (buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications): Again, most people aren't going to be trained in this. I'd put myself as "able to make checks as if trained" rather than actual ranks, but that's because I'm a dilettante.

Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking): I doubt many would have this at all. They can answer some common-knowledge questions about caves, but not much else.

Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people): A rank or two. Maybe. If they paid attention in school. But, reference Ms. South Carolina... or the fact that a co-worker had trouble identifying the state of Montana on a map of the United States.

History (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities): A rank or two, if that. The level of general ignorance about history is pretty shocking to me. Sure, people can name the first president, but they have trouble with much in-depth... which is really the mark of training in a knowledge skill. Everyone can make the take 10s, barring an Int penalty.

Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids): Lots of folks have this. Really, this would be the most likely to be maxxed out, given our media structure. Law & Order and CSI tell people about laws. Then Entertainment Tonight comes on and they learn about celebrities. Then they watch the news and learn about the inhabitants of the area.

Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin): Assuming this to be a general science (especially biology) skill, I would say a lot of people have a rank or two. We stress the sciences to an extent, a lot of people know about animals from childhood enjoyment and zoos. But identifying plants that are not common? How many people can look at an oak leaf and know it for an Oak (what I'd put as a DC 15), without a reference?

Nobility and royalty (lineages, heraldry, family trees, mottoes, personalities): Some folks have it. Many can take 10 on the basics to identify people like Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles... but how many are going to be able to identify family crests, or leaders from outside of the English-speaking world.

Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead): Again, most people don't really have this. They may have specific bonuses with their religion, but given the huge number of misconceptions that exist about relatively common faiths, or even people's misconceptions about what their own religions require, I'd be hard pressed to argue that a lot of people have this one, especially at any significant level.

The planes (the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, elementals, magic related to the planes): Not sure what I would call this in modern terms. Astronomy?


Of course, I work as a librarian, so I'm kinda biased towards the general public being uneducated. I think most people get by without a lot of knowledge skills, instead making untrained checks. The difference is that a wide variety of reference materials exist and are readily available, giving a bonus to checks AND the ability to make up to Basic (DC 15) checks as if trained.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin): Assuming this to be a general science (especially biology) skill, I would say a lot of people have a rank or two. We stress the sciences to an extent, a lot of people know about animals from childhood enjoyment and zoos. But identifying plants that are not common? How many people can look at an oak leaf and know it for an Oak (what I'd put as a DC 15), without a reference?

I'd not even put it that high. Most of my family can tell not only what an oak is, but what type of oak. We're big on the natural sciences, but still, oaks are fairly common. To recognize an oak, 10, specific oaks, 15.


Not sure what I would call this in modern terms. Astronomy?
I'd lump it in with Knowledge (nature) or Profession (navigation).

[LibraryOgre]

I'd not even put it that high. Most of my family can tell not only what an oak is, but what type of oak. We're big on the natural sciences, but still, oaks are fairly common.

A good portion of my family could, too, but we're all Boy Scouts... it's a level of training and familiarity that a lot of people don't have.

However, I'd argue that identifying a tree as an oak by the leaves isn't going to be something the average, no-intelligence-penalty, person can do half the time, or if they take a moment to think about it (i.e. a DC 10). Sure, they can probably do it from an acorn, but a leaf?

[gbprime]

A good portion of my family could, too, but we're all Boy Scouts... it's a level of training and familiarity that a lot of people don't have.

However, I'd argue that identifying a tree as an oak by the leaves isn't going to be something the average, no-intelligence-penalty, person can do half the time, or if they take a moment to think about it (i.e. a DC 10). Sure, they can probably do it from an acorn, but a leaf?

Ah, but can you identify a tree from the other side of your continent in the same manner? Or a different continent?

I'd argue that Bear Grylls, for example, can routinely hit DC 20. Of course, he also has several derangements or some taint, given what he subjects himself to on camera. =P

As a 41 year old outdoorsman and engineer, I can safely say I've hit Expert 4. I cannot say that I have spent my feats well, however. :smalltongue:

[LibraryOgre]

Ah, but can you identify a tree from the other side of your continent in the same manner? Or a different continent?

Given enough references, yes. ;-) I don't have a huge nature check, just a good skill with research, and Jack of All Trades.


I'd argue that Bear Grylls, for example, can routinely hit DC 20. Of course, he also has several derangements or some taint, given what he subjects himself to on camera. =P

Bear is the sort of person who breaks the "1 level per decade" rule of thumb. He's an adventurer-type, because he regularly subjects himself to extreme and life-threatening situations... instead of just meeting about 1 and a quarter level-appropriate challenges a year, he does it per show.


As a 41 year old outdoorsman and engineer, I can safely say I've hit Expert 4. I cannot say that I have spent my feats well, however. :smalltongue:

Not a number I'd argue with. I'm a 30-something academic; a 3rd level expert fits me.

[Zaydos]

I'm a level 1 commoner. I want to be a Lv 1 expert soon.

Also on the note of oak leaves: I had a Bio class last Fall with people who couldn't recognize oak leaves. Some of the people in my botany class weren't all that much better.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Also on the note of oak leaves: I had a Bio class last Fall with people who couldn't recognize oak leaves. Some of the people in my botany class weren't all that much better.
The difference between book and applied knowledge...

[Flickerdart]

It's interesting how despite the intellect man has evolved, the solution to some problems are still best solved by a swift decapitation.

Blood and the spilling thereof aside, back to biology and oak leaves. Sounds a bit like my Dad whose been a computer programmer for 30 years and hasn't the foggiest idea how to use Facebook :smallwink:
But using Facebook isn't hard at all. You just close the window and go outside.

[lisiecki]

{Scrubbed}

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Locked for review re: flaming and trolling.