D&D Ability Scores Quiz

[cattobates]

Hello. I've made an Ability Scores Quiz, and I wasn't sure where to put it. This seemed the safest place, though I can't be sure. >.>

Anyway, here it is. Feel free to have a conversation. I'll gladly chime in. :)

Catto's D&D Ability Scores Quiz (http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/cattos-dd-ability-scores-quiz)

[Flickerdart]

I'm not sure some of these questions really make sense - almost nobody practices all of the things you talk about several hours a day, and that appears to be the benchmark for 10, the average human score.

[Castaras]

Strength: 7
Dexterity: 9
Constitution: 12
Intelligence: 18
Wisdom: 12
Charisma: 15

I don't think the dex and con are right - Con should be a little lower, Dex should be a little higher. Quite honestly, I would say Charisma was a little high. Rest I agree with +/- 1 point.

Interesting test - would agree with Flicker that some of the physical stuff is a little much. Statistically, if we look at die rolls, 1 in 216 people will have an 18 in an ability score, and there's quite a few less than even 1 in 2160 people who have superhuman strength or dexterity or intelligence and such.

[Mono Vertigo]

Strength: 10
Dexterity: 8
Constitution: 12
Intelligence: 16
Wisdom: 13
Charisma: 11

Honestly, some strength should be transferred to dexterity. I guess the results are otherwise OK.

[grimbold]

STR:10
DEX:7
CON:11
INT:17
WIS:15
CHA:15

i found that the physical stats were a bit too hard and the mental states a bit to easy...

[Haruki-kun]

Strength: 12
Dexterity: 9
Constitution: 9
Intelligence: 11
Wisdom: 10
Charisma: 14

But honestly... I don't actually play much D&D, so I don't know how accurate these are.

[No brains]

When the link said 'For Pony' I stopped. I am an inanimate object.

[Jack Squat]

Strength: 13

Dexterity: 12

Constitution: 15

Intelligence: 17

Wisdom: 15

Charisma: 17

My dex should probably be a fair bit higher, and my charisma a little lower. I would say I probably need a lower intelligence score too, but most people I know would disagree with that one.

I'd say overall it's not too far off, given 10 being "average"

[valadil]

Strength: 15
Dexterity: 10
Constitution: 13
Intelligence: 20
Wisdom: 19
Charisma: 13


Seems low ;-)

I think you're comparing our physical stats to the average adventurer but our mental stats to the average 2011 person. My Master's degree puts me in a high percentile for intelligence, but I can't compare that to a D&D character. My D&D characters can drag animal carcasses all over the place, but my gym just doesn't have the equipment for that so I can't measure up. Stick with modern or fantasy metrics. Personally I'd prefer modern ones.

[cattobates]

Wow, you guys rock. 6 or 7 replies in like... two or three hours. Sweet.

So far, the averages for the physical scores have been right at 10-11.

Strength seems to be the most accurate, honestly.

Intelligence has the highest average, though this is unsurprising, as most D&D players believe that they're smart.

The average for Dex to stay 10 is one to two hours of activities like those per day. Not a whole lot, honestly.

Also, Hand-Eye coordination is probably the biggest thing for gamers, as far as Dex goes.

I'd have to agree that Intelligence stats might be a little bit too easy. They all cap out at 22, though.

Strength, in real life, as in, the strongest man in the world is right at the 22-23 mark. So, I've put everything else at a 22 cap. So, the range is from 2-22.

I'm thinking about making some of the mental answers a bit more difficult.

Valadil: That's basically right. I am pretty much putting the average adventurer at a 10 for physical stats, and the average modern person at a 10-12 for mental stats.

I do note that this places your Intelligence quite high, and I assume that it does that with most people... so... I should probably take that out of the mental part of the quiz. Any suggestions for a suitable replacement?

Let's put that "20" to good use. XD!

[valadil]

I do note that this places your Intelligence quite high, and I assume that it does that with most people... so... I should probably take that out of the mental part of the quiz. Any suggestions for a suitable replacement?

Let's put that "20" to good use. XD!

More questions would average things out better. My Masters in CS ends up accounting for half of the intelligence questions. If you had 2-3 more questions, maybe some of my deficiencies would have a chance to shine through.

[Mikhailangelo]

Strength: 15

Dexterity: 13

Constitution: 17

Intelligence: 21

Wisdom: 13

Charisma: 21


I've never played D&D... And I feel like I have been overly generous, though I answered entirely honestly... How reasonable do these seem? :s

[Dienekes]

15
8
14
15
12
13

Not too bad. My physical attributes seem about right, Intelligence looks accurate as well since I was rather successful in school but that's about all I have to go by. Wisdom and Charisma are probably too high.

[Asta Kask]

Strength: 15

Dexterity: 13

Constitution: 17

Intelligence: 21

Wisdom: 13

Charisma: 21


I've never played D&D... And I feel like I have been overly generous, though I answered entirely honestly... How reasonable do these seem? :s

You are a genius leaving Einstein in the dust. You are the most charismatic person since Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great (and arguably more charismatic than they were). You are vastly above average in all areas known to man.

[cattobates]

I definitely need to change the test around a bit... I believe.

[THAC0]

This tests assumes that people with a masters are more intelligent than people without a masters. Not exactly a valid assessment, IMO.

Some other wonky stuff around too.

[Mikhailangelo]

Well, the intelligence certainly isn't correct, but I have to say the charisma may be semi-accurate... My advocacy style has been compared to Findlay (and the mad Hatter...) and I'm not even out of uni :P

[Aedilred]

Strength: 10
Dexterity: 9
Constitution: 13
Intelligence: 19
Wisdom: 14
Charisma: 13

Strength and Dexterity are probably the wrong way round. The mental stats are possibly a little on the high side, although it depends what you measure them against.

[Aedilred]

Strength: 10
Dexterity: 9
Constitution: 13
Intelligence: 19
Wisdom: 14
Charisma: 13

Strength and Dexterity are probably the wrong way round. The mental stats are possibly a little on the high side, although it depends what you measure them against.

[Mikhailangelo]

Well, the intelligence certainly isn't correct, but I have to say the charisma may be semi-accurate... My advocacy style has been compared to Findlay (and the mad Hatter...) and I'm not even out of uni :P

[Reprimand]

Strength: 13

Dexterity: 17

Constitution: 19

Intelligence: 15

Wisdom: 16

Charisma: 17

My strength should have been higher and my dex far lower. I'm a tae kwon do instructor but I'm not incredibly light on my feet. I teach about 3 session per day but many of my stats are far off the mark, like say my charisma. I mean, my students like me but I'm not very attractive.

[Istari]

Strength: 6
Dexterity: 7
Constitution: 8
Intelligence: 17
Wisdom: 15
Charisma: 17

Mental scores seem about right, strength is probably right too. Constitution is hard to judge for me since my pain tolerance and endurance are low, but my health is extremely good. Dexterity is way to low, I have above average hand-eye coordination and flexibility, but all of the questions were in how often I do physical exercises (not often).

[cattobates]

Actually the questions are about how often you do activities like that and/or how good you are at doing activities like those.

Though I can easily see how you wouldn't realize that.

Thank you, THACO. The test also assumes that people with Masters are more Wise, and Charismatic, as well, though I don't believe anyone realized this before.

EDIT: Istari. Dexterity is basically how agile you are, how good your balance is, and how good your hand eye coordination is.

Reprimand. How high do you believe your Dexterity should have been? How high do you believe your Strength should have been? Is the quiz off by several points, or only 1 or 2? Also, even if you are not attractive, that doesn't mean your Charisma isn't high. Hitler was not a handsome man, but he did make the world rise to war, did he not?

[THAC0]

Actually the questions are about how often you do activities like that and/or how good you are at doing activities like those.



Yeah, that sums up what's been bugging me pretty well.

Time spent on an activity =/= skill in said activity. Sometimes if you're more skilled, you need to spend LESS time, even!

[Reprimand]

Sometimes if you're more skilled, you need to spend LESS time, even!

I honestly have to second that.

[cattobates]

It's quite true. That's why there's an and/or. If you're more skilled, then you just say, "I'm more skilled," if you're less skilled, but you spend more time doing the activity...

Everyone seems to be throwing things at me, but, no real conversation is going on. Y'see? I do need feedback, but, perhaps some input on things that could be changed? Suggestions for what kind of questions should be on the test?

[Morph Bark]

How many questions are there in total?

[onthetown]

Str: 7
Dex: 14
Con: 10
Int: 17
Wis: 14
Cha: 14

The Strength is pretty bang-on for me. Dex ended up being my balance-related activities and my hand-eye coordination, so that seems alright. The Intelligence is a little far fetched... I answered fairly average on most of the mental ones, and my education is only 14 years, so I don't know how I managed to get it that high. So I would say that it's almost too easy to "cheat" on this test to get the answers that you want, even if you don't know you're doing it...

[cattobates]

I believe that there are 23 or 24 questions on the test. I do have a disclaimer at the beginning. You've got to be totally honest, and, it's going to be based on what you believe of yourself. I'm not here to trick you into getting your correct stats. The test is there to work with you, toward getting stats very close to your actual stats.

[cattobates]

Going back to not knowing you're doing it. Yes. You definitely could do that. This test requires a lot of self analysis, and really shouldn't be taken in a speedy manner. However, it's not like some tests, which have over 100 questions, and which force you to take the test in a very slow manner, no matter what... so... yeah.



Catto's New and Improved D&D Ability Scores Quiz (http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/cattos-dd-ability-scores-quiz)

[KuReshtin]

Strength: 12
Dexterity: 11
Constitution: 9
Intelligence: 14
Wisdom: 12
Charisma: 12

Seems pretty much right for me, I'd say. Con goes down because of lack of exercise and physical activity. Dex should possibly drop a point of two as I'm not that agile, but I seem to have a pretty decent hand-eye-coordination, so I guess that bumps the score a bit.

Really weird options on the dragging/pushing a dead animal question, and I'm pretty sure that a giraffe doesn't weight more than a rhino, but I may be thinking of something else. Like a hippo.

CHA may be a bit low, but mostly because I chose the lesser option when it came to the leadership and influence questions, so i might have another point in that.

All in all, I think it's reflected me pretty well.

[cattobates]

Thanks, Kureshtin. That's probably the most kind review I've gotten of my quiz so far.

Not that anyone was mean. Everyone has been very kind, and respectful. Thanks to all of you.

[Starwulf]

Strength: 12

Dexterity: 11

Constitution: 13

Intelligence: 14

Wisdom: 13

Charisma: 13

Average/Slightly above average in most areas. Looks like a fairly accurate representation of myself actually. I think the only thing that saved my Dexterity, was the fact that one of the questions included hand eye coordination, and another mentioned ten finger typing, which I'm quite proficient at(110wpm, no mistakes).

[Orzel]

Strength: 13
Dexterity: 13
Constitution: 15
Intelligence: 15
Wisdom: 13
Charisma: 14

Not bad for my summertime stats. My Dexterity will never be right in D&D. Dexterity measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance. I have great agility and balance (and I am freakishly flexible :smallwink:) but my hand-eye coordination, and reflexes are shot by my poor vision.

[Skeppio]

Strength: 7
Dexterity: 7
Constitution: 7
Intelligence: 10
Wisdom: 8
Charisma: 7

Wow.....that's terrible. Though I can't complain about the test. I did answer honestly, and it's pretty accurate.
Huh, am I the only one who scored that low? That's depressing... .__.
:smallfrown:

[Objection]

One thing I noticed a lot when taking this quiz is you conflate how often I practice an activity with how proficient I am at said activity, which is not always the case. Just because I draw very often doesn't mean I'm any good at it!

Another thing is, whenever you give quantities (eg, question 3 - how much can you lift?), you always have gaps. "I can lift 60-100 pounds", "I can lift up to 50 pounds" ... so what if my maximum lifting capacity is between 50 and 60 pounds? Which one do I select?

Also, @Skeppio, if it makes you feel any better, I got a 5 for Str.

[Mono Vertigo]

Strength: 7
Dexterity: 7
Constitution: 7
Intelligence: 10
Wisdom: 8
Charisma: 7

Wow.....that's terrible. Though I can't complain about the test. I did answer honestly, and it's pretty accurate.
Huh, am I the only one who scored that low? That's depressing... .__.
:smallfrown:
You probably answered more honestly than I (and some of us?) did to the point of underplaying your answers.
C'mon, I don't know about the rest, but I'd have thought you'd get better int/wis than that! :smalleek:

[Skeppio]

You probably answered more honestly than I (and some of us?) did to the point of underplaying your answers.
C'mon, I don't know about the rest, but I'd have thought you'd get better int/wis than that! :smalleek:

I answered totally honestly. :smallfrown: I'm left wondering where the heck people pulled out 18s, 20s or even higher! :smallconfused:

[Morph Bark]

I believe that there are 23 or 24 questions on the test. I do have a disclaimer at the beginning. You've got to be totally honest, and, it's going to be based on what you believe of yourself. I'm not here to trick you into getting your correct stats. The test is there to work with you, toward getting stats very close to your actual stats.

Yeah, that's always to take in mind with quizzes like these.

Though the results make me think I'm a pathological liar. .___.

[cattobates]

The reason the amount of time is so important, is not to say that you're good at something. It's to help balance out the rest, also, it's not just the amount of time, it's how actually proficient you are at something. I even switched it around, so that proficiency comes first, and time comes second.

Just because you draw all the time doesn't mean that you're good at drawing, now, but it does mean that your hand eye coordination is very likely better than the guy who doesn't do anything but read all day, am I right?

[Aedilred]

Well, not necessarily. I think you're making the mistake of confusing "ability" with "skill" and although those definitions probably aren't perfect they are appropriate because they correspond to the ones used in D&D itself.

Someone who draws all day might have dreadful hand-eye coordination. They might gradually get better at drawing through practice but that doesn't mean they're going to be any better at throwing, or catching, or card tricks. I could practise bowling eight hours a day for the rest of my life and never spin the ball as much as Muttiah Muralitharan did on his very first go - my wrists just aren't that bendy. My housemate sings all the time, and it's atrocious despite having been in choirs and so forth; my other housemate has had no training or real experience but is much better.

In some cases, experience does help, and the abilities defined by D&D are, y'know, pretty vague and generic and ill-defined really. You will get stronger if you pump iron consistently. You will get tougher and healthier if you subject yourself to stringent eating and fitness regimes. But those are the most easily-defined abilities. Practising ballet will make you a bit lighter on your feet, but it won't help you shuffle a pack of cards. Equally, studying longer and harder might give you a wider range of application for your intellect, but it doesn't affect your underlying intelligence; there may well be people who dropped out of school early on who are much better at problem-solving.

With most of the attributes I would say that natural ability, and not experience, should indicate the "starting" score, except *perhaps* for some aspects of the physical stats. Experience would then add maybe one or two points on top to account for "level gain". But practice in a given discipline would be better reflected on the character sheet as a skill.

[Warlawk]

A lot of the questions seem a bit off. People have touched on that a lot and I don't want to rehash that too much. One of the biggest things I would say is that most people, even people who work out a lot, are not going to have any idea how much they can drag. Many very strong people, if they don't specifically deadlift will have no idea how much they can lift off the ground to waist level.

Something is really off with the quiz though.

Strength: 15
Dexterity: 15
Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 16
Wisdom: 19
Charisma: 15

Idontthinksotim.jpg
Now if I were to just score myself, keeping in mind 10 being average and considering 15-16 being the stat for people who are top competitors in their spot/field with 17-18+ being people who are legendary for that stat it might look something like this. The above explanation of stats seems to be what was intended within D&D. All of the 18+ stats people think are so common are really the kind of people legends are made of.

Strength: 14 I'm big, strong and work out regularly and I know how to use my strength and body size to really leverage that strength well.
Dexterity: 12 I'm more agile than most people and have a long history of gaming (eye hand coordination) and I've taken/practiced several martial arts starting from age 7 and in my personal training I've focused on speed. For a big guy I'm quick and nimble, but not enough so to be really exceptional.
Constitution: 12 Not sure how to score this one. I'm tough and have worked in the past as a logger, steel fabricator and some time in construction, it takes a lot of pain to bug me much. I rarely get sick and usually not more than a minor cold at the turn of the season. I can work out for hours, but things like running that really punish my lungs just kill me. I'm mildly asthmatic and just have weak lungs.
Intelligence: 12 I'm fairly bright and have a great memory. Pulled a 3.6 all through high school and college without ever studying or reviewing anything, pretty much without trying. Far from genius material though, and if something doesn't click for me I have an awful time with it.
Wisdom: 14 I tend to be very aware of things around me, have good common sense and can read people pretty well. I have a strong (if nontraditional) moral compass and dedication to the things I think are important.
Charisma: 13 Average physical attractiveness. I'm a little lost on trying to score this because in some ways it conflicts with my value system. I very strongly believe that everyone should make their own choices and do not try to influence people, usually actively making a choice to not influence people. I tend to be able to get along well with almost anyone and usually have more people wanting to hang out with me than I know what to do with. I'm a good public speaker, though I don't particularly enjoy it.

I'm not sure my ideas about stat values match up with what you have in mind when you wrote the quiz, but I wanted to put up my results as well as my own thoughts on stats just to give the contrast there.

[Objection]

The reason the amount of time is so important, is not to say that you're good at something. It's to help balance out the rest, also, it's not just the amount of time, it's how actually proficient you are at something. I even switched it around, so that proficiency comes first, and time comes second.

What I was hoping to see was having frequency and proficiency split into separate questions, thereby accounting for all possible combinations of frequency and proficiency rather than assuming they go hand-in-hand.


Just because you draw all the time doesn't mean that you're good at drawing, now, but it does mean that your hand eye coordination is very likely better than the guy who doesn't do anything but read all day, am I right?

Not enough to make more than 1 point of difference surely, and even then I think 1 point would be a bit of a stretch.

[noparlpf]

Strength: 14
Dexterity: 16
Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 18
Wisdom: 16
Charisma: 14

Hmm. I'd put Strength a bit higher (15-16) based on my carrying capacity, Int at 16 based on IQ results (100 is average IQ, 10 is average Int), and Wis well below 10 because even though I have a good deal of common sense I have a greater amount of "uncommon nonsense" and enjoy doing unwise things.
Edit: On the other hand, I am very perceptive and aware of my surroundings, so I guess that would have to boost Wis.

[cattobates]

Thank you, Aedilred.

The only problem with what you're saying is that we're not talking about starting scores. We're talking about current scores. How can someone increase their ability scores without practicing some kind of skill?

Even Muttiah Muralitharan may not have an extremely good Dex, he may just be 5th level or so, with maxed out skill ranks, and feats all aimed towards bowling. That doesn't mean his Dexterity has to be amazing. He could simply have an 18.

Anyway, you're very right to a degree. But most of what you're saying isn't a problem with my test, but a problem with D&D itself. I just did my best to stick to what D&D gave me, instead of doing what I would do if I were to make an RPG, and separate Gross and Fine Motor skills, among other things. However, I worked with what I was given, and it works to a fair level of accuracy.

I'm really looking for some suggestions for improvement. Rather, some suggestions for workable improvement.

I have no idea how to tell "raw" ability scores from the finished product. All I can see, and judge, is the finished product. What someone is capable of, now.

[THAC0]

That's why I don't like the "new" D&D changing ability score thing. I think it's silly. :smallbiggrin:

People are giving you suggestions for workable improvement. You don't like them. That's fine and your call, but I don't see how many of the suggestions made aren't workable.

[cattobates]

I just don't know how to implement them. I guess that's really what I'm looking for. I do like many of the suggestions given. My apologies if it seems otherwise. Just, how do I implement those things into my quiz?

EDIT: Thank you, Warlawk. I very much enjoyed reading what you wrote, but, everyone seems to be thinking that just because someone has a very high stat, such as a 18+ that they are automatically legendary. I simply don't agree.

The strongest man in the world right now is right between 22 and 23 Strength, as a rough guess. Because he can lift 266kg overhead, which is 586lb.

Str Light Load Med Load Heavy Load
22 173 lb. or less 174–346 lb. 347–520 lb.
23 200 lb. or less 201–400 lb. 401–600 lb.

The average guy in compare, is very weak.

10 33 lb. or less 34–66 lb. 67–100 lb.
11 38 lb. or less 39–76 lb. 77–115 lb.

Now, let's take a look at 17-18.

17 86 lb. or less 87–173 lb. 174–260 lb.
18 100 lb. or less 101–200 lb. 201–300 lb.

This, is extremely powerful people. This is not Legendary, however. These Strength scores are not enshrined, by themselves. If someone does something amazing with these Strength scores, they could be enshrined, yes, but for the stat alone? No. That requires something of a bit higher caliber.


Now if I were to just score myself, keeping in mind 10 being average and considering 15-16 being the stat for people who are top competitors in their spot/field with 17-18+ being people who are legendary for that stat it might look something like this. The above explanation of stats seems to be what was intended within D&D. All of the 18+ stats people think are so common are really the kind of people legends are made of.

The way I see it is that 10 is average. 16-17 is stat for people who are strong competitors in their sport/field with 18-20 being people who are top competitors in their sport/field, and 21+ for people who are legendary for that stat alone.

But that's only for people who are actually in a sport/field. There are still people who aren't in sports/fields that have high ability scores. There are people who never use their innate abilities, but are still good at them. Also, I don't believe 18+ stats are extraordinarily common. However, I do see 18+ stats every day on Youtube. You hear about them every day on TV, and yet, these people are not all famous. These people are not all legends.

I do have to agree, however, that stats higher than 18 are what generally make legends, however, there are people with stats lower than that, who have been legendary, as well. George Washington, for instance. Unless someone thinks his Charisma was on par with Hitler, or Julius Caesar, or Jesus.

Explain Muhammad Ali. 18 Strength? Hardly. 18 Dex? Also, hardly. 18 Int? Not likely. 18 Charisma? Not likely. 18 Wisdom? A possibility. 18 Constitution? Almost definitely, because he's a boxer. But that's about the extent of his Constitution.

I concluded quite some time ago that legends aren't made by stats. Legends are made by levels. Please, feel free to read this article.

Calibrating your Expectations (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

I believe that you could have someone who has a 20 Intelligence, but decides to do nothing with it, and never gets past Level 1 or 2, and does nothing more than farm dirt his whole life. Maybe his Wisdom is low, or maybe he just doesn't care about how smart he is. It happens all the time.

[KenderWizard]

Strength: 10
Dexterity: 12
Constitution: 7
Intelligence: 14
Wisdom: 12
Charisma: 14

I think that's broadly about right. Oh, Con. T'were my dump stat.

I do think my Int is a bit low, based on intelligence tests I've taken for academic reasons (I got in the top 5%, which would certainly be higher than 14), but obviously everything measures it differently, etc etc! Problem here is I haven't done postgrad work yet; although I am presenting research at conferences this year, I'm still an undergrad. :smallsmile:

Aside from that, I think it's fairly accurate. I would maybe have given myself
Str 8
Dex 12
Con 8
Int 18
Wis 12
Cha 14

I think they're good questions, although sometimes a bit wordy. Having some description is good, because if you just say "on a scale of 1 to 5 how much weight can you lift?" you'll get people who can lift the same weight ranging wildly in answers. But when there are 6 or 7 options and they're all three sentences long, I found it tricky to decide between similar ones.

[cattobates]

Thank you, KenderWizard. I truly enjoy the simplicity of your feedback, and I will do my best to change my quiz properly to account for this. Quite a few people have said that same thing in real life, but not quite so succinctly as you have. :) Thank you.

[Derjuin]

My biggest problem with the test is that it uses individual activities as a rubric for entire abilities. Most of these questions could be used to score your individual skill ranks, but not your entire score, with the possible exception of Strength (since the rules actually provide us a method of accurately comparing ourselves within the encumbrance rules). Being deft with your hands could mean you have a rank or two in Sleight of Hand; similarly, formal education is much more indicative of Knowledge/Craft/Profession skill ranks than your Int/Wis score. Being able to notice things while doing something else might mean you have Listen/Spot ranks, etc.

Here's my score, for SnG:

Strength: 9

Dexterity: 9

Constitution: 9

Intelligence: 14

Wisdom: 12

Charisma: 11

All but the intelligence and strength sound right. I'm decent in my fields of choice but not really that great elsewhere - my Int is probably closer to 12 or 13. Strength should be lower by probably 1 point, since it's all in my legs and my upper body strength is low.

Oh yeah, also interpretation of scores. Some people believe most people in the world are accurately represented with 42 point buy; others believe the Commoner score array (10/11/10/11/10/11) is more realistic, with deviations being closer to a 1 point change than a 7 or 8 point change. It all depends on how one interprets the D&D abilities.

Apologies if this doesn't help at all. :smallfrown:

[cattobates]

I really am enjoying everyone's feedback. I am grateful that you all are willing to give me feedback in the first place. I also am trying not to be snippy or anything. XD! I hope no one is offended by anything that I'm saying.

Hand-Eye coordination is really the question, though. I guess I should write the question. "How good is your hand-eye coordination, in general," but, I assumed that most people would figure that it was Hand-Eye. And the point of the quiz isn't to give you picture perfect stats. You should definitely use discretion, especially if you're getting stats of 18 or over. Or, if you're getting stats that are nowhere near where you think yours are.

Also, a 14 does not seem unreasonable so far as I know you. Though this isn't very well. It's only a +2 in all knowledge skills. That's not that great.

[Ranger Mattos]

Strength: 7

Dexterity: 13

Constitution: 8

Intelligence: 14

Wisdom: 11

Charisma: 9

I think Str, Dex, and Wis are a little lower than in real life, but Con and Cha are accurate.

I do have a problem with the first Int question, like many other people have already said. Length of education doesn't have anything to do with intelligence (which is also why I got a lower intelligence than I would have liked). By that logic, both Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison would likely have an Int score of less than 12. But as you know, Albert Einstein is one of the smartest people to ever have lived, and Edison is probably up there too.

[cattobates]

XD! Once again. A poor young fellow doesn't realize that Intelligence isn't the only stat affected by the school question. Also, I don't agree with your synopsis... let's break down Einstein.

Einstein did, in fact, have a Doctorate, bringing his Intelligence to a 13, to start with. Surprisingly, it says he didn't have a great memory. He was constantly forgetting things, such as his keys. So, we will give him a "bad memory". This leaves him at a 12

Next question is his level of reasonableness. I assume he was a very reasonable man, according to how he reacted when Hitler came to power. He hated the man, and was vehemently against him. So, this brings him back up, to a 14.

Also, how often did Einstein participate in brain stimulating activities. We'll assume over 6 hours a day. So, this brings him up, once again, 3 points. Leaving our Einstein with a 17 in Intelligence. Wow...

I would have assumed around an 18, but not below. We could put him at an Average memory, and he would be at an 18 Intelligence. Anyway. Point is, the schooling apparently has an impact on Intelligence. No doubt in my mind.

[Mando Knight]

XD! Once again. A poor young fellow doesn't realize that Intelligence isn't the only stat affected by the school question. Also, I don't agree with your synopsis... let's break down Einstein.

Einstein did, in fact, have a Doctorate, bringing his Intelligence to a 13, to start with. Surprisingly, it says he didn't have a great memory. He was constantly forgetting things, such as his keys. So, we will give him a "bad memory". This leaves him at a 12

Next question is his level of reasonableness. I assume he was a very reasonable man, according to how he reacted when Hitler came to power. He hated the man, and was vehemently against him. So, this brings him back up, to a 14.

Also, how often did Einstein participate in brain stimulating activities. We'll assume over 6 hours a day. So, this brings him up, once again, 3 points. Leaving our Einstein with a 17 in Intelligence. Wow...
You're putting a bit too much variance into the last bit, I think. Engaging in an activity doesn't say anything unless you gained something from it, and you can't ascribe everything linear correlations, much less linear correlations with the same weight.

[cattobates]

*nods* How would you go about doing the last part, Mando Knight?

EDIT: Now, let's look at Edison. He had an extensive self education. Yes, I do count that as education. Perhaps that is not readily obvious. This is why I put 20+ years of education. Anyway, since I did not originally specify that, we won't use it. I'll put him, in fact, -1 point, on the education scale. Where he's only got a middle school education, because he was home-schooled for over 5 years.

This starts Edison off at a 9. However, it says that Edison had an "amazing memory" and also kept extensive notes. So, we'll put him with an "extremely good" memory. Not Inhuman, but, extremely good. +3 Which puts him at 12 Intelligence, so far.

Reasonableness. He was obviously a very reasonable man. Based on everything that I've read about him. This gives him a 14.

He was constantly doing things that made his brain work, and would make most people's brains hurt. So, +3 there.

This leaves our Edison, also at a 17 Intelligence. Though he was Self Educated for many more years than that.

Again, that doesn't make my quiz right. It's a rough guess, as I said before.

[Nix Nihila]

Strength: 6

Dexterity: 9

Constitution: 7

Intelligence: 15

Wisdom: 10

Charisma: 11

This is probably fairly accurate. Perhaps with the exception of my Dexterity, which I think is a bit higher than that (probably 10 or 11), and maybe my intelligence. Based on the 4d6-L curve, and assuming intelligence is based off of things such as placement in standardized tests, I would have 16 or 17 intelligence.

I agree that the test is flawed when it comes to intelligence and physical attributes. I think a good marker of intelligence is ability to adapt to new information and come up with creative solutions. The intelligence portion was especially odd for me, as I have not finished high school, but I have taken college classes.

[cattobates]

Then, you should be looking at years of education, rather than diploma achieved. :)

[Ranger Mattos]

XD! Once again. A poor young fellow doesn't realize that Intelligence isn't the only stat affected by the school question. Also, I don't agree with your synopsis... let's break down Einstein.

Einstein did, in fact, have a Doctorate, bringing his Intelligence to a 13, to start with.

Really? I could have sworn he, like Edison, only had a few years of formal education.


*nods* How would you go about doing the last part, Mando Knight?

EDIT: Now, let's look at Edison. He had an extensive self education. Yes, I do count that as education. Perhaps that is not readily obvious. This is why I put 20+ years of education. Anyway, since I did not originally specify that, we won't use it. I'll put him, in fact, -1 point, on the education scale. Where he's only got a middle school education, because he was home-schooled for over 5 years.

Ah, that would explain it. You may want to add on the quiz that self-education counts.

[cattobates]

Certainly, that's a great idea. :) I'll do that quite soon, however, I've got to go, at the moment. I'll be back later, possibly tomorrow. Thanks again, everyone, for your input. :) Please continue to reply, and give me ideas.

[Derjuin]

If you would like a suggestion, I would recommend removing or significantly rewording the education question. Out of all the questions, it is the one I take issue with the most.

Almost all education post-high-school is specialization in a field. That doesn't make you smarter overall, it enhances your skill and knowledge in that specific field. Earlier I attributed this specialization to skill ranks, but after thinking it over, such specialization would result in (if I may use in-game terms here) a competence bonus to related skills.

To put it another way, take two people. Both have equally "good" memories. They both reason well - for our purposes, about the same. However, because Person A has a doctorate in endocrinology, and Person B has a master's in psychology, Person A knows more about quantum physics than Person B. That is the result of having years of education correlate to intelligence.

Another example: One person is studying to be a physics major. 2 college years spent. His memory is terrible, so he keeps a lot of notes and uses mnemonics often. Another person has a doctorate in marketing, which they completed over 40 years ago. Their memory is very good. Somehow, the doctorate-holder knows more about physics than the physics major, by virtue of having an intelligence bonus that much higher due to memory and schooling in a field unrelated to physics.

However, if education instead grants competence bonuses to the selected field, things make a little more sense. The physics major knows more about physics than the marketing major. The endocrinologist would only know more about quantum physics than the psychologist because of inherent intelligence, or additional education in the field (which would grant a competence bonus).

According to the Player's Handbook definition of intelligence, it instead deals with how well your character learns and reasons, not how much they have learned. Number of school years spent studying is not entirely indicative of how well one learns, but rather how much one has learned.

A better question might be: "How easily do you take to new concepts, ideas, and situations?".


Also, a 14 does not seem unreasonable so far as I know you. Though this isn't very well. It's only a +2 in all knowledge skills. That's not that great.

You don't know me at all; a 14 should seem as unreasonable as a 5 or a 23.

[Mando Knight]

If you would like a suggestion, I would recommend removing or significantly rewording the education question. Out of all the questions, it is the one I take issue with the most.

Almost all education post-high-school is specialization in a field. That doesn't make you smarter overall, it enhances your skill and knowledge in that specific field. Earlier I attributed this specialization to skill ranks, but after thinking it over, such specialization would result in (if I may use in-game terms here) a competence bonus to related skills.
At the same time, a higher education correlates relatively well with higher intelligence.

For accuracy and precision, you'd need to take extensive measures to determine realistic functions and distributions for every stat.

Essentially, we're looking at
U = U(V,W,X,...)
V = V(U,W,X,...)
W = W(U,V,X,...)
with known values of U, V, and W, trying to determine X. Initially assuming even a linear relation between the values is unreasonable, especially if after solving for X we get something like
X = log(U³) + cosh(W²)V

[cattobates]

You don't know me at all; a 14 should seem as unreasonable as a 5 or a 23.

Actually, no. Seeing as you have some level of competence in writing, I would assume that you have above average intelligence (12+), however, since you are responding the way that you're responding, I don't see you as having higher than a (16-) So, if we average those together, we get a 14. ;)

Or I could just say that a 14 is a reasonable score, whereas a 5 is not, as you are able to write concisely in English, and a 23 because you very likely would be doing something with your MASSIVE intelligence, if you had a 23, not replying to my relatively unimportant thread. Especially more than once. :)

Also, Mando Knight. You are awesome. :D I also have no idea what you're talking about. I've only put a couple of ranks into Knowledge (Higher Math).

[Mutant Sheep]

I actually did get all elevens. Except for Wis, which was 12. :smallbiggrin: Is that wrong? :smallconfused:

[Skeppio]

Catto, I'm an average person, and I answered it totally honestly. Am I supposed to end up with penalties in every stat apart from Intelligence, in which I have a +0? :smallconfused:

[Derjuin]

Actually, no. Seeing as you have some level of competence in writing, I would assume that you have above average intelligence (12+), however, since you are responding the way that you're responding, I don't see you as having higher than a (16-) So, if we average those together, we get a 14. ;)

Interesting that you only pulled the last line of my post to talk about, without a word of the actual content of the post. :smallwink:

And now I'm curious. What do you mean by "since you are responding the way that you're responding"? I offered my view on your quiz, some examples, and an opinion on how to fix it if you found my view agreeable. Is it because I challenged the higher education = higher intelligence idea that you derived the arbitrary cap of 16? Even if I had 18-20 years of education or more and fit neatly into your categories for high intelligence, I wouldn't agree with it, because I simply do not see education like that. 4 more years of schooling won't change it.

Aside from that, on second look-over the physical scores section seems okay, though like you said, some of the dexterity ones could be cleaned up. Charisma seems fine, it covers all the major areas related to the ability.


I actually did get all elevens. Except for Wis, which was 12. :smallbiggrin: Is that wrong? :smallconfused:

Considering it's just a silly internet quiz, I don't think you can be wrong. :smalltongue:

[cattobates]

Skeppio, I love you. Yes. Average people in America have lower than normal physical stats. The mental stats I can't account for. If you got minuses, you got minuses... I wasn't exceptionally hard on the mental stats.

What were your answers on each question? I will literally walk you through the whole process, if needs be. I really do care that much.

EDIT: I suddenly like Derjuin even more than I did before. What was your Charisma again? :P

[Derjuin]

EDIT: I suddenly like Derjuin even more than I did before. What was your Charisma again? :P

I think it was 12. Though, I do have my Cloak of Charisma +4 on...:smalltongue:

[cattobates]

XD! Perfect. You're showing off your +1 nicely. Bravo! =P

[Skeppio]

Skeppio, I love you. Yes. Average people in America have lower than normal physical stats. The mental stats I can't account for. If you got minuses, you got minuses... I wasn't exceptionally hard on the mental stats.

America? But I'm Australian. :smalltongue:


What were your answers on each question? I will literally walk you through the whole process, if needs be. I really do care that much.

Yikes, I don't remember. :smalleek:
I'll redo the test, see if my results are different. Sorry if I'm making a big deal over nothing. :smallredface:

[cattobates]

XD! Crap, I knew I should have questioned a bit harder about where you're from. You should probably re-take the test, and be a bit more lax on yourself. You seem to be a bit smarter than a +0, and a bit more charismatic than a -2. I could be wrong, I don't know you that well, and things are different over a forum. XD!

Also... Warlawk...



Now if I were to just score myself, keeping in mind 10 being average and considering 15-16 being the stat for people who are top competitors in their spot/field with 17-18+ being people who are legendary for that stat it might look something like this. The above explanation of stats seems to be what was intended within D&D. All of the 18+ stats people think are so common are really the kind of people legends are made of.

Strength: 14 I'm big, strong and work out regularly and I know how to use my strength and body size to really leverage that strength well.
Dexterity: 12 I'm more agile than most people and have a long history of gaming (eye hand coordination) and I've taken/practiced several martial arts starting from age 7 and in my personal training I've focused on speed. For a big guy I'm quick and nimble, but not enough so to be really exceptional.
Constitution: 12 Not sure how to score this one. I'm tough and have worked in the past as a logger, steel fabricator and some time in construction, it takes a lot of pain to bug me much. I rarely get sick and usually not more than a minor cold at the turn of the season. I can work out for hours, but things like running that really punish my lungs just kill me. I'm mildly asthmatic and just have weak lungs.
Intelligence: 12 I'm fairly bright and have a great memory. Pulled a 3.6 all through high school and college without ever studying or reviewing anything, pretty much without trying. Far from genius material though, and if something doesn't click for me I have an awful time with it.
Wisdom: 14 I tend to be very aware of things around me, have good common sense and can read people pretty well. I have a strong (if nontraditional) moral compass and dedication to the things I think are important.
Charisma: 13 Average physical attractiveness. I'm a little lost on trying to score this because in some ways it conflicts with my value system. I very strongly believe that everyone should make their own choices and do not try to influence people, usually actively making a choice to not influence people. I tend to be able to get along well with almost anyone and usually have more people wanting to hang out with me than I know what to do with. I'm a good public speaker, though I don't particularly enjoy it.

I'm not sure my ideas about stat values match up with what you have in mind when you wrote the quiz, but I wanted to put up my results as well as my own thoughts on stats just to give the contrast there.

Warlawk. I forgot to mention you in further detail. I LOVED your post, and how much time and thought you must have put into it. Now, I will tell you my opinion on your stats based on what you said about yourself. :)

Strength: 14 I'm big, strong and work out regularly and I know how to use my strength and body size to really leverage that strength well.

Cool, my test was either not far off, or right on point. I don't think either of us could really be sure, as Strength 14 and 15 both give +2. The only real difference is carrying capacity.

Dexterity: 12 I'm more agile than most people and have a long history of gaming (eye hand coordination) and I've taken/practiced several martial arts starting from age 7 and in my personal training I've focused on speed. For a big guy I'm quick and nimble, but not enough so to be really exceptional.

I quote, "I'm more agile than most people," so, either 11 or 12 to start with, in my opinion. "And have a long history of gaming" So... 12 or 13... "and I've taken/practiced several martial arts starting from AGE 7, and in my personal training I've focused on speed" Um... 14 or 15, for sure. "For a big guy I'm quick and nimble, but not enough so to be really exceptional" Okay, so, 14 or 15... what did my test say? 15. Sounds about right to me. Dexterity 12 seems like an underestimate, for all the Dextrous things you've trained in.

Constitution: 12 Not sure how to score this one. I'm tough and have worked in the past as a logger, steel fabricator and some time in construction, it takes a lot of pain to bug me much. I rarely get sick and usually not more than a minor cold at the turn of the season. I can work out for hours, but things like running that really punish my lungs just kill me. I'm mildly asthmatic and just have weak lungs.

"I'm tough and have worked in the past as a logger, steel fabricator, and some time in construction, it takes a lot of pain to bug me much." Based on this, I'd give you an 11 or 12. "I rarely get sick, and usually not more than a minor cold at the turn of the season," Okay, 12 or 13. "I can work out for HOURS, but things like running that really punish my lungs just kill me. I'm mildly asthmatic, and just have weak lungs," So, +2 for working out for hours, but -1 for being mildly asthmatic, that leaves you with a 13 or 14, in my opinion, which also coincides pretty well with my quiz.

Intelligence: 12 I'm fairly bright and have a great memory. Pulled a 3.6 all through high school and college without ever studying or reviewing anything, pretty much without trying. Far from genius material though, and if something doesn't click for me I have an awful time with it.

"I'm fairly bright and have a great memory." 12, automatically, of someone just gave me that description. "Pulled a 3.6 all through high school and college without ever studying or reviewing anything, pretty much without trying," You think you only have a +1, in Intelligence? I'd say 14, or so, at the bare minimum. Apparently you're a reasonable person as well, which is a big thing with Intelligence. It's one of the two parts of the explanation, actually. You probably delve in mental pursuits quite often, as well, no? I'd say a 16 was quite reasonable for having a "great memory" and for having "pulled a 3.6 all through high school and college without ever studying or reviewing anything, pretty much without trying," sorry, to me, that doesn't constitute a +1 in Intelligence, but, at least a +2, and possibly a +4.

Wisdom: 14 I tend to be very aware of things around me, have good common sense and can read people pretty well. I have a strong (if nontraditional) moral compass and dedication to the things I think are important.

It's hard to judge your Wisdom based on these criteria. However, being "very aware" of things around you, having "good common sense," and being able to "read people pretty well" automatically puts you at around 13, in my opinion. Depending on how strong your moral compass is, and how strictly you adhere to it, you could go as high as a 16 or so, in my book. Then, it all depends on what level of education you've received.

Charisma: 13 Average physical attractiveness. I'm a little lost on trying to score this because in some ways it conflicts with my value system. I very strongly believe that everyone should make their own choices and do not try to influence people, usually actively making a choice to not influence people. I tend to be able to get along well with almost anyone and usually have more people wanting to hang out with me than I know what to do with. I'm a good public speaker, though I don't particularly enjoy it.

"Average physical attractiveness" 10. "I tend to be able to get along well with almost anyone" That puts you up to a 12, at least, in my book, but coupled with "and usually have more people wanting to hang out with me than I know what to do with," I'd put you at a solid 16. Regular people do not have more people than they know what to do with, vying for a position to hang out with them. This indicates to me a higher Charisma than you think you have, and you possibly nerfing your own test questions.

Please tell me the answers you gave for Education, Wisdom, and Charisma? >.>

Feel free to PM them to me.

[Skeppio]

EDIT: Redid the test. :smallsmile:

Strength: 8
Dexterity: 10
Constitution: 9
Intelligence: 12
Wisdom: 12
Charisma: 11

Hey, that's not bad. Musashi, I think you were right about me downplaying my answers. I was in a glum mood yesterday when I gave the test a shot. This set is a fair bit more positive on myself. :smallsmile:

[Abies]

Here is my question-by question assessment of the quiz:

Q1: Meaningless. my 80 year old grandfather had what could be described as a "sedentary lifestyle" his last 15 years, but could still throw me or any of my cousins 10+ feet into a pool (yes this was a tested and proven theory I was a 30 yo/200lb man and he handled me like a bail of hay).

Q2: OK pure D&D Str Question... Except it should be above your head.

Q3: Meaningless question, this is a matter of skill rather than str/dex/whatever

Q4: Dragging is far easier that you think it is, I dragged a full grown bull 45'+ at age 13, no problem.

Q5-7: All of these are far too general to meaningfully answer

Q8-11: Few individuals have the experience to meaningfully answer these questions, those that claim that do: way to go, grats.

Q12: Not a question of anything but financial resources. Anyone can pass undergrad/grad/phd classes. Yeah anyone.

Q13-19: Totally subjective answers, folks will answer in the most positive fashion possible.

Q20-23: Again, totally subjective answers, you know the rest.

Sorry, all D&D stat quizzes are utterly meaningless so long as you allow the respondents to assess their own abilities. They will, without variance, judge themselves to be EXTREMELY HIGHLY Intelligent, VERY Charismatic, and HIGHLY adept at all other attributes.

Amazingly, I judge myself to have about a 12 INT, which is likely more realistic than the value most respondents have judged themselves as. Yeah, I'm smart. Yes, I've been told I'm smart. Yes, I have advanced degrees from significant programs in the USA. Does that mean I'm among the most significant minds ever born? Nope, not remotely.

There have been, perhaps 10 individuals ever with INT at 19 or above. (Dice rolling stats and whotnot, blah blah blah... all meaningless as pertains to real life individuals)

No, you are not one of them. Neither am I. We are average, if we were not we'd be doing meaningful things aside from looking at gaming message boards. If you happen to be "Special" get back to work...

[Deepblue706]

STR 9
DEX 10
CON 11
INT 17
WIS 17
CHA 14

lol I am not that smart.

[Nix Nihila]

Applying D&D stats to RL people is a bit tricky. We need to establish whether or not 1 in 216 people have an 18, or whether an 18 (or in this case, 22, I think) is the zenith of any given stat. If it is, then I agree that my intelligence is going to be lower than I got on the test, if we're looking at everything from the perspective of rolling dice, my intelligence is going to be about where I placed on the test.

I'm curious as to why you say that there have been 10 individuals ever with 19+ intelligence, Abies. What is your reasoning here? Why 19+?

[dehro]

Strength: 13
Dexterity: 8
Constitution: 10
Intelligence: 15
Wisdom: 16
Charisma: 13

dexterity covers too many facets of things...I'm rather good at some, the master of suckage in others. overal I think I'm more a 10 than an 8 though.
I'm not naturally a human wreck but I have not been doing any regular sport in too many years and feel badly out of shape, also, have been in a couple of accidents of various nature, which have affected my endurance to specific tasks...so maybe constitution should be a 9 or even an 8
charisma is a little higher than expected... 11 maybe?
I can live with the other stats.

here follows a point by point wall of text review of the questions that I thought weren't ideally thought out or gave me some pause when I tried answering them
you'll have to pardon me for being hyper critical in places and just uncertain as to what to answer in others, but I hope you realize it's meant in a constructive way.

question 1... I'm a sales rep/key account manager: I alternate days of long traveling (by car, train or airplane, interspersed with days where I walk around once I've left the car behind) to days of sedentary office work. neither activity has any "sporty" feel, but the "not in the office days" are, I feel, preventing me from answering "sedentary"...driving long hours does have a very different feel from sitting behind a desk.
so what do I answer?

question 3... I just happen to know how to bust a door open in a way that does not reflect my relatively poor physical shape. (no, I don't mean by using a lockpick).. so I can do it in 3 rams, but if I had to rely on pure strenght I would probably need more..so..
what do I answer?

question 4 wants me to go shoot some animals and try it....
well no.. it really doesn't...except for those pesky pidgeons who keep nesting above my window
..but it's just not a well structured question.
the ability to drag something vastly depends on it's shape, consistency and what you're dragging it on/through (the ground).. it has much to do with levers, attrition and so on. (power-dragging a truck is a lot easier, I'm told, than to drag an unwieldy but much lighter bag of...flour? through sand) but I've never tried to pull a truck, and I reckon neither have 99% of the forumites.
how did you come up with the parallel between what animal/weight correspond to what kind of truck/weight one would be able to drag with a harness? actual knowledge, or educated guess?
if we're talking pure dragging power of a..block of cement of the given weights over a smooth surface, then again, the question remains: do I GET to use a harness and a rope? having not too long ago almost cut off my thumb with a hedge-trimmer, my left grip isn't as strong as it was anymore (and may never be)..but if I get to use a harness that wouldn't be an issue..if I don't, it is).. so my answers would, I suppose, vary greatly, depending on whether I get to..which I know you cover in a very specific example, but who the crap knows what their answer really is to these things?
unless you actually try it .. how do you know?.... which brings me back to my initial gut reply.
in other words..I don't think this question is a good indication of strenght because the answers just aren't realistic and are hard to relate to.

yes... I overthink things.

question 5... working with a 'puter most days, I'm fairly addept at 10 finger typing yet seriously crap at most video games (console based or otherwise).
having tried my hands, with wildly varying results, at several of the other examples you list (except card tricks), I'm not sure this question "works for me". it would be more relevant if the question asked to perform one of those activities for the first time and then examined the results.
I am fast at typing..but I've been doing it most of my life. I've also done some martial arts and have a good feel for the basics even though a long time has passed since..but my results wouldn't be comparable to typing, and they were a lot better when I was actually training. I'd utterly fail at card tricks, which I've never tried. endless repetition breeds competence and skill. this constitutes a poor indication of one's "natural hand eye coordination".

question 6...same problem..proficiency isn't a true indicator of ability. my grandma never did any of the things you list..or any that can be considered comparable to it, but when my mum was a young kid, she used to ask her mum to show her friends how she was able to basically put her legs around her neck..(when she was in her 30's) my granny was just naturally flexible like that..but would still have to answer "I only rarely do activities like this because I am unable, or unwilling to do them" to the question.

question 12... I've dropped out of uni halfway through, because I was working at the same time and decided to pursue that instead of finishing uni, definitely not because I couldn't cut it. it may be arrogance from my part, but I do consider myself more knowledgeable, smarter and in some subjects more proficient than some of my old school friends who have obtained their degree, sometimes even in those subjects I easily equal or beat them at in a test. how does not having completed my degree reflect on my intelligence (apart from having made an asinine decision back then)?
at school I had a number of subjects where I was easily scoring top marks, first of my class kind of things..and other subjects where I was easily at the bottom of the same ranking. (keep in mind that a tough high school in italy encompasses about a dozen vastly different subjects, from latin to physics, from phylosophy to economics or english/french/etc etc)
I have also flunked one year in high school, which meant I had to repeat the year in it's entirety, and I choose a different education program altogether (meaning different classes and such.. not sure how that compares to the US school system)..so.. does that count against my "nr of years of education" or not? on paper it means I was educated for one year longer than I should've..but that's not a good thing in this case

question 15... mine is a white collar managerial type profession in sales...does that count as brain stimulating activity? (I'm not a banker after all, I actually have to think things trough :smallbiggrin:)..
you have only listed fun and recreational activities..but I'd say that one's profession (or student status of the non "animal house" variety)..should account for something.

question 18... most of your replies imply a conscious effort from our part in observing, noticing and being generally allert. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but I tend to pick up on things and notice most out of the ordinary things in a subconscious manner..or rather, I don't have to ASK my DM if I can throw a spot check...it just happens and he throws it for me unsollicited.
the wording of your replies don't seem to cover "natural allertness" as opposed to making an effort to notice stuff.

question 22... Hitler had a strong personality too. there's nothing cool or awesome about him
I apologize for the easy provocation. what I mean is that having a strong personality seems to be, in your line of questioning, a good thing, whether I believe it should not necessarily be so, in my opinion. being commented on for one's negative qualities doesn't equate to having a weak personality. a very headstrong and self assured individual could easily fall into the strong personality type and still be called by most an obnoxious git.

[Mono Vertigo]

EDIT: Redid the test. :smallsmile:

Strength: 8
Dexterity: 10
Constitution: 9
Intelligence: 12
Wisdom: 12
Charisma: 11

Hey, that's not bad. Musashi, I think you were right about me downplaying my answers. I was in a glum mood yesterday when I gave the test a shot. This set is a fair bit more positive on myself. :smallsmile:
Told you! Glad you got better, both mood-wise and stat-wise. :smallsmile:

[dehro]

Q8-11: Few individuals have the experience to meaningfully answer these questions, those that claim that do: way to go, grats.
you don't know how often you get sick or if you get out of breath after running for 15 minutes or an hour? :smallconfused:
Q12: Not a question of anything but financial resources. Anyone can pass undergrad/grad/phd classes. Yeah anyone.
maybe where you live...I call bullcrap on this. where I live there are unis and degrees that you don't get into unless you first pass a test, and even then, only the top marks pass selection. there are plenty of subjects I know I would fail at..which could severely hamper my chances at attaining a degree in a field that includes that subject..and people make that sort of poor decisions about their life all the time.
Q13-19: Totally subjective answers, folks will answer in the most positive fashion possible.
some of us are actually able to give a mostly objective statement about themselves.
Q20-23: Again, totally subjective answers, you know the rest.
some of us are actually able to give a mostly objective statement about themselves.
Sorry, all D&D stat quizzes are utterly meaningless so long as you allow the respondents to assess their own abilities. They will, without variance, judge themselves to be EXTREMELY HIGHLY Intelligent, VERY Charismatic, and HIGHLY adept at all other attributes.
some of us are actually able to give a mostly objective statement about themselves.

Amazingly, I judge myself to have about a 12 INT, which is likely more realistic than the value most respondents have judged themselves as.
the two underscored sentences contraddict one another. either you're unique in the world in having the ability to score your stats onestly, or you're full of it... or both

as for the rest of the reply, which I have left unquoted...I suggest you take a few deep breaths, relax a little, and rethink the attitude in your reply, or alternatively take your bad mood out on gummy bears. they're tasty and don't fight back... unless of course you eat too many of them..in which case, have a good time on the crapper.

[cattobates]

*sniffles*hugs dehro's leg*

Thank you. (Tears of joy, I swear it)

EDIT:


Here is my question-by question assessment of the quiz:

Q1: Meaningless. my 80 year old grandfather had what could be described as a "sedentary lifestyle" his last 15 years, but could still throw me or any of my cousins 10+ feet into a pool (yes this was a tested and proven theory I was a 30 yo/200lb man and he handled me like a bail of hay).

That's interesting. It's a good thing Sedentary only gives you a 9. In D&D he gets a -2 for being 80, so it looks like we're on the right track.

Q2: OK pure D&D Str Question... Except it should be above your head.

Apparently since your grandpa could lift you like a bail of hay, I would assume he could lift you over his head. This means he could lift double your weight to waist height. That would be 400 pounds. This gives him a +2, that's back up to 11 in Strength.

Q3: Meaningless question, this is a matter of skill rather than str/dex/whatever

According to D&D, it's a purely Strength based activity, which is why it's there. Your grandpa seems like a strong man, I'm sure he could do it in one or two blows. That's +2, which puts him at 13, so far.

Q4: Dragging is far easier that you think it is, I dragged a full grown bull 45'+ at age 13, no problem.

Well, since it's so easy, and your Grandpa is so strong, let's say he can drag a dead dairy cow, like you can, so easily, but we'll assume that he can't drag a Rhinocerous. That's a +3. This puts your Grandpa at 16 Strength, which is actually really accurate...

16 76 lb. or less 77–153 lb. 154–230 lb.

Because someone with a 16 Strength would be tossing you around like a Bale of hay. Someone with a 16 Strength would be able to bust down a door pretty easily. Someone with a 16 Strength would be able to drag a dead horse in almost any situation, and a dead dairy cow in some situations. So, it looks like my test is fairly accurate. At least on Strength. :)

Q5-7: All of these are far too general to meaningfully answer

How proficient are you in activities that require hand-eye coordination and/or how often do you do activities that require a good amount of hand-eye coordination? (Activities include, but are not limited to, drawing, juggling, ten finger typing, martial arts, sports, and video games)

This is basically asking, "How good is your hand-eye coordination," and/or "How often do you do activities that require a good amount of hand-eye coordination," a good amount of hand-eye.

"Are you a professional," such as a football, or basketball player in the NBA or College Leagues? Perhaps a typist who is at 70+ WPMs? Perhaps you're a professional video game player? A sicko juggler who juggles 6 or more balls at once. Perhaps... bla, blah, blah. +3 to Dex

"Could you be a professional if you tried harder," such as an amateur golfer who is thinking about trying to go pro? Perhaps a typist who is stuck in the 50-60 WPM range. Perhaps someone who can juggle four or five balls, but no more than that? Blah de blah, blah. +2 to Dex

"Are you better than most people?" Such as, you beat all your friends and close relatives at most video games. You can ten finger type at 30 or 40 WPM. You're someone who can actually juggle 3 or 4 balls. Someone who can actually play golf decently. Someone who can shoot baskets well.

"Are you average?"

"Are you below average?"

"Do you really, really suck at hand eye activities?"

I'm not going into examples for all of them. Yes, it's not perfect, and it is quite generalized. I have to say, though. You're painting this test, and people in general, worse than they actually are. Especially people who play D&D.

If someone wants to know their D&D stats, and they're told to be as honest as possible, or it won't be close to their actual stats, they're going to try to be as honest as possible. My test even has a disclaimer.

Most people don't read it, mind you, but, it does have a disclaimer.

[Tyndmyr]

Feedback:

Question 1. Your body's ideal muscle building state is not "working out all/most of the day". You actually build muscle while resting after your workout. So, this isn't a very accurate question. MMA fighters, etc don't actually do high intensity stuff all day long. Neither do marathon runners.

Question 2. There are noticeable gaps between the categories. This is a bit awkward for deciding where you fit.

Question 6. You're tying "professional" into lots of hours per day. This is the case for many people, but certainly not all. I certainly knew many martial arts experts that trained daily, taught several classes per week, but still spent less than 30 hrs/week doing it. This also leaves people like me(former martial artist who practiced daily, but no longer participates) a bit confused over what to select. My skill level does not match your assumption of hours/week currently used.

12. Attainment of formal education is an indicator of intelligence, but the absence of it is not a guarantee of lack of intelligence.

14. Everyone tends to think they are reasonable. Advise rephrasing.

Not answering a question results in amusing scores. I managed to pull off 2's.

[cattobates]

Question 1. Your body's ideal muscle building state is not "working out all/most of the day". You actually build muscle while resting after your workout. So, this isn't a very accurate question. MMA fighters, etc don't actually do high intensity stuff all day long. Neither do marathon runners.

The question isn't about high intensity physical activity, but, physical activity at all. MMA fighters do work out for 6+ hours a day, on average, for the big boys.

I give you a quote from Shogun893 on a Bodybuilding forum... Hem, hem.

Shogun893:The elite guys train around 6 hours a day usually 6 days a week, how that is split up varies fighter to fighter, but that should give you a good idea. Watch some UFC All Access shows, they show you some cool stuff, it's pretty intense.

I never said high intensity stuff. Apparently, I did. I will rephrase the answer.

Question 2. There are noticeable gaps between the categories. This is a bit awkward for deciding where you fit.

I put the gap there for a reason. So that people could decide for themselves where they fit. This test is not mindless, people are actually supposed to think for each question, making it different than most tests, which are point and click.

Question 6. You're tying "professional" into lots of hours per day. This is the case for many people, but certainly not all. I certainly knew many martial arts experts that trained daily, taught several classes per week, but still spent less than 30 hrs/week doing it. This also leaves people like me(former martial artist who practiced daily, but no longer participates) a bit confused over what to select. My skill level does not match your assumption of hours/week currently used.

You do not have to choose according to hours/week. The main questions is, "How proficient are you in these activities," So, how proficient are you? Better than the average guy? Not quite professional, but very good? Professional? These are and/or questions. Apparently many people don't know what and/or means.

12. Attainment of formal education is an indicator of intelligence, but the absence of it is not a guarantee of lack of intelligence.

Mujabwe in West Africa, who has no formal education and eats bugs all day, though he is the leader of his clan, and is very smart for someone who hunts things to survive is not going to be as intelligent as me, or you. But if he went to school for ten or twelve years, he might just blow us away. Regardless of this, the most Int points you can lose is 2. The lowest that question brings you is 8, which is not exactly mentally handicapped.

If Mujabwe is in all other ways of average intelligence, he's still going to be far less knowledgeable than the average American, simply because he doesn't have an education. In the end, all Intelligence does is give you skills, or spells, period. What do you think of when you think of a West African tribesman? A witch doctor?

You probably think they've got a max of 12 intelligence, maybe 14, if they're really, really lucky.

14. Everyone tends to think they are reasonable. Advise rephrasing.

I agree. I've been thinking about how to do this question better.

2's means you missed either the Education question, or the Physical activity question. :)

[dehro]

*sniffles*hugs dehro's leg*

Thank you. (Tears of joy, I swear it)



you clearly haven't read my criticisms on the quiz :D:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Objection]

I put the gap there for a reason. So that people could decide for themselves where they fit. This test is not mindless, people are actually supposed to think for each question, making it different than most tests, which are point and click.

If you're concerned about accuracy, this is actually a very, very bad thing.


You do not have to choose according to hours/week. The main questions is, "How proficient are you in these activities," So, how proficient are you? Better than the average guy? Not quite professional, but very good? Professional? These are and/or questions. Apparently many people don't know what and/or means.

As long as you put "I do it X amount of time" and "I am this good" in the same answer, people are going to (maybe wrongly) assume that they have to fulfil both criteria in order to select that answer. People don't like it when they can feasibly disagree with every answer. Solution (and I said it before): split up frequency and proficiency, or if frequency is really so subordinate, remove it altogether.

[cattobates]

I have, actually. I'll be answering to you, now.

question 1... I'm a sales rep/key account manager: I alternate days of long traveling (by car, train or airplane, interspersed with days where I walk around once I've left the car behind) to days of sedentary office work. neither activity has any "sporty" feel, but the "not in the office days" are, I feel, preventing me from answering "sedentary"...driving long hours does have a very different feel from sitting behind a desk.
so what do I answer?

That's up to you. This is a "think outside the box" test. Not point and click. It sounds like you're "Sedentary", to me. You actually do physical activity sometimes, but that doesn't mean you're actually exercising. Do you exercise at all outside of work?

Regardless, with "driving long hours" and "walk[ing] around" you've left the car behind, sometimes with days of sedentary office work, you could realistically choose either, but, it's up to you. No quiz is perfect, as stated at the beginning. I'd say it's closer to Sedentary, however.

question 3... I just happen to know how to bust a door open in a way that does not reflect my relatively poor physical shape. (no, I don't mean by using a lockpick).. so I can do it in 3 rams, but if I had to rely on pure strenght I would probably need more..so..
what do I answer?

Well, 3 rams only gives you a +1. So, mix this with your Sedentary, and you're at a 10, so far. That's average Strength.

question 4 wants me to go shoot some animals and try it.... in other words..I don't think this question is a good indication of strength because the answers just aren't realistic and are hard to relate to.

yes... I overthink things.

Whoa there, sonny. That question has no minuses, only pluses, or no change whatsoever. If you answer, "I can do none of the above," no big deal. Someone with a 10 Strength would be able to drag a light donkey, but not a heavy pony. That would take someone of a 12, or 13. Anyway >.>

No, you don't get a harness for the pony. The only one I'd give you a harness for is the Rhino, or the truck. The truck, however, is just icing on the cake. We're talking about a Semi truck. XD!



question 5... working with a 'puter most days, I'm fairly addept at 10 finger typing yet seriously crap at most video games (console based or otherwise).
having tried my hands, with wildly varying results, at several of the other examples you list (except card tricks), I'm not sure this question "works for me". it would be more relevant if the question asked to perform one of those activities for the first time and then examined the results.
I am fast at typing..but I've been doing it most of my life. I've also done some martial arts and have a good feel for the basics even though a long time has passed since..but my results wouldn't be comparable to typing, and they were a lot better when I was actually training. I'd utterly fail at card tricks, which I've never tried. endless repetition breeds competence and skill. this constitutes a poor indication of one's "natural hand eye coordination".

Card tricks are a very specific skill to start with. I've got very good hand-eye and I can't do any card tricks. Natural hand-eye coordination is a load of hockey. "Natural" meaning you were born with it? All things must be trained, in life. Some people just train certain things better than others.

Even if you are fast at typing, you said you're "fairly adept". Does that mean that you type at around 50 wpm? Then you'd just get a +2 for hand eye. You've also done some martial arts, cool. So, you're a bit better than the average guy, giving you a +1. It really all depends on you. That questions isn't there to test your hand-eye.

That question is there for you to tell me how good your hand-eye coordination is. That's it. It sounds like you've got slightly above average hand-eye to me, or right around average. So, that's what I'd go with, if I were you.

question 6...same problem..proficiency isn't a true indicator of ability. my grandma never did any of the things you list..or any that can be considered comparable to it, but when my mum was a young kid, she used to ask her mum to show her friends how she was able to basically put her legs around her neck..(when she was in her 30's) my granny was just naturally flexible like that..but would still have to answer "I only rarely do activities like this because I am unable, or unwilling to do them" to the question.

Just because someone is naturally flexible doesn't mean her dex score would be higher than an 8. The real question is, how good is she at agility exercises? I'm not asking how often she does them, but when she does do them, how good is she? How good are you? How good is your balance? How good is your hand eye?

These three, together, make up your Dex, and give and take to and from each other.

[Tyndmyr]

The reason the amount of time is so important, is not to say that you're good at something. It's to help balance out the rest, also, it's not just the amount of time, it's how actually proficient you are at something. I even switched it around, so that proficiency comes first, and time comes second.

Just because you draw all the time doesn't mean that you're good at drawing, now, but it does mean that your hand eye coordination is very likely better than the guy who doesn't do anything but read all day, am I right?

Not really, no. It's a poor measurement. Perhaps the guy who reads all day used to juggle professionally. Or perhaps you still have kinda bad hand eye coordination in general, you just have some skill at drawing specifically.

Separate them out if you must have both time and mastery level, since they frequently differ.

I stopped answering questions halfway through because I got frustrated at not knowing which answer was correct.

I would also say that I have absolutely no idea how much I can drag, and I do strength training every other day. Dragging dead animals around is not a skill I ever thought to include in my usual routine.

[cattobates]

I have, actually. I'll be answering to you, now.

question 1... I'm a sales rep/key account manager: I alternate days of long traveling (by car, train or airplane, interspersed with days where I walk around once I've left the car behind) to days of sedentary office work. neither activity has any "sporty" feel, but the "not in the office days" are, I feel, preventing me from answering "sedentary"...driving long hours does have a very different feel from sitting behind a desk.
so what do I answer?

That's up to you. This is a "think outside the box" test. Not point and click. It sounds like you're "Sedentary", to me. You actually do physical activity sometimes, but that doesn't mean you're actually exercising. Do you exercise at all outside of work?

Regardless, with "driving long hours" and "walk[ing] around" you've left the car behind, sometimes with days of sedentary office work, you could realistically choose either, but, it's up to you. No quiz is perfect, as stated at the beginning. I'd say it's closer to Sedentary, however.

question 3... I just happen to know how to bust a door open in a way that does not reflect my relatively poor physical shape. (no, I don't mean by using a lockpick).. so I can do it in 3 rams, but if I had to rely on pure strenght I would probably need more..so..
what do I answer?

Well, 3 rams only gives you a +1. So, mix this with your Sedentary, and you're at a 10, so far. That's average Strength.

question 4 wants me to go shoot some animals and try it.... in other words..I don't think this question is a good indication of strength because the answers just aren't realistic and are hard to relate to.

yes... I overthink things.

Whoa there, sonny. That question has no minuses, only pluses, or no change whatsoever. If you answer, "I can do none of the above," no big deal. Someone with a 10 Strength would be able to drag a light donkey, but not a heavy pony. That would take someone of a 12, or 13. Anyway >.>

No, you don't get a harness for the pony. The only one I'd give you a harness for is the Rhino, or the truck. The truck, however, is just icing on the cake. We're talking about a Semi truck. XD!



question 5... working with a 'puter most days, I'm fairly addept at 10 finger typing yet seriously crap at most video games (console based or otherwise).
having tried my hands, with wildly varying results, at several of the other examples you list (except card tricks), I'm not sure this question "works for me". it would be more relevant if the question asked to perform one of those activities for the first time and then examined the results.
I am fast at typing..but I've been doing it most of my life. I've also done some martial arts and have a good feel for the basics even though a long time has passed since..but my results wouldn't be comparable to typing, and they were a lot better when I was actually training. I'd utterly fail at card tricks, which I've never tried. endless repetition breeds competence and skill. this constitutes a poor indication of one's "natural hand eye coordination".

Card tricks are a very specific skill to start with. I've got very good hand-eye and I can't do any card tricks. Natural hand-eye coordination is a load of hockey. "Natural" meaning you were born with it? All things must be trained, in life. Some people just train certain things better than others.

Even if you are fast at typing, you said you're "fairly adept". Does that mean that you type at around 50 wpm? Then you'd just get a +2 for hand eye. You've also done some martial arts, cool. So, you're a bit better than the average guy, giving you a +1. It really all depends on you. That questions isn't there to test your hand-eye.

That question is there for you to tell me how good your hand-eye coordination is. That's it. It sounds like you've got slightly above average hand-eye to me, or right around average. So, that's what I'd go with, if I were you.

question 6...same problem..proficiency isn't a true indicator of ability. my grandma never did any of the things you list..or any that can be considered comparable to it, but when my mum was a young kid, she used to ask her mum to show her friends how she was able to basically put her legs around her neck..(when she was in her 30's) my granny was just naturally flexible like that..but would still have to answer "I only rarely do activities like this because I am unable, or unwilling to do them" to the question.

Just because someone is naturally flexible doesn't mean her dex score would be higher than an 8. The real question is, how good is she at agility exercises? I'm not asking how often she does them, but when she does do them, how good is she? How good are you? How good is your balance? How good is your hand eye?

These three, together, make up your Dex, and give and take to and from each other.

question 12... I've dropped out of uni halfway through, because I was working at the same time and decided to pursue that instead of finishing uni, definitely not because I couldn't cut it. it may be arrogance from my part, but I do consider myself more knowledgeable, smarter and in some subjects more proficient than some of my old school friends who have obtained their degree, sometimes even in those subjects I easily equal or beat them at in a test. how does not having completed my degree reflect on my intelligence (apart from having made an asinine decision back then)?
at school I had a number of subjects where I was easily scoring top marks, first of my class kind of things..and other subjects where I was easily at the bottom of the same ranking. (keep in mind that a tough high school in italy encompasses about a dozen vastly different subjects, from latin to physics, from phylosophy to economics or english/french/etc etc)
I have also flunked one year in high school, which meant I had to repeat the year in it's entirety, and I choose a different education program altogether (meaning different classes and such.. not sure how that compares to the US school system)..so.. does that count against my "nr of years of education" or not? on paper it means I was educated for one year longer than I should've..but that's not a good thing in this case

That's why there is also, "Years of education," and that's up to you. Do you count it? I would. I dropped out of High School in 10th grade, meaning I got 9 years of education, +2 years of college. But, I still consider myself to have been to school 12-14 years. Why is this? Because I thought outside the box.

You could probably consider yourself to be at 12-14 years of school, yeah? And your friends have their degrees, so they get a +1 on you, but you say you're smarter than them. Then your memory is better? Perhaps you're more reasonable? Perhaps you spend more time stimulating your brain? See what I'm saying?

These questions do not stand alone.

question 15... mine is a white collar managerial type profession in sales...does that count as brain stimulating activity? (I'm not a banker after all, I actually have to think things trough )..
you have only listed fun and recreational activities..but I'd say that one's profession (or student status of the non "animal house" variety)..should account for something.

If it works your brain to your benefit, then, yes, it counts. As I said, think outside the box. You are not limited to my examples. They all say that. "Includes but is not limited to..."

question 18... most of your replies imply a conscious effort from our part in observing, noticing and being generally allert. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but I tend to pick up on things and notice most out of the ordinary things in a subconscious manner..or rather, I don't have to ASK my DM if I can throw a spot check...it just happens and he throws it for me unsollicited.
the wording of your replies don't seem to cover "natural allertness" as opposed to making an effort to notice stuff.

Natural alertness, eh? Kids these days. You mean like, being alert, without actually being alert, right? That's what's called an oxymoron.

People with high spot checks, and high listen checks are almost constantly on the alert, and though it doesn't seem active, it has to be to some extent. The main thing with that is knowing what to listen for. People who keep their head on a swivel are the people with higher Wisdom scores, because they notice more things, more often. It's the only way you can improve your spot and listen checks, anyway, is to make active checks, in real life. Things don't work like they do in D&D, in real life.

question 22... Hitler had a strong personality too. there's nothing cool or awesome about him
I apologize for the easy provocation. what I mean is that having a strong personality seems to be, in your line of questioning, a good thing, whether I believe it should not necessarily be so, in my opinion. being commented on for one's negative qualities doesn't equate to having a weak personality. a very headstrong and self assured individual could easily fall into the strong personality type and still be called by most an obnoxious git.

Hitler had an Extremely Strong Personality. People did describe him, at least at the beginning of his reign, as being, "visionary", and gave him tons of props, and loved what he was saying. They did think he was cool, they did think he was awesome. At first...

As far as having a strong personality being a good thing, it really doesn't matter if it is or not. A strong personality does make you more Charismatic, to more people, than being shy and quiet. As far as the obnoxious git goes...

Yes, he would have a strong personality type, and would thus get a +1 to Charisma, but that doesn't mean he's a good leader. That doesn't mean he's physically attractive, and that doesn't mean he's good at persuading people. All of those things could easily drop him below a 10. Obnoxious gits usually aren't good leaders, and they're rarely good at persuading people.

I have a brother who's a bit of an obnoxious git, but he's got a good Charisma score. He does get what he wants, through bluff, and intimidate, but still, those skills do take Charisma...

[cattobates]

"Not really, no. It's a poor measurement. Perhaps the guy who reads all day used to juggle professionally. Or perhaps you still have kinda bad hand eye coordination in general, you just have some skill at drawing specifically.

Separate them out if you must have both time and mastery level, since they frequently differ.

I stopped answering questions halfway through because I got frustrated at not knowing which answer was correct.

I would also say that I have absolutely no idea how much I can drag, and I do strength training every other day. Dragging dead animals around is not a skill I ever thought to include in my usual routine."

Look, they are separated, within the question. AND/OR.

OR, OR, OR.

And/OR

They are separated. Separate, if you wish, it's up to you. ONE, OR the OTHER, or BOTH. Up to you, entirely.

I thought juggling was just a skill which doesn't improve hand eye coordination, it's just a skill. Just like drawing doesn't improve hand-eye coordination... oh, wait, it does when you do it for hours on end.

Aside from the dead animals, I included weight. 400-800 pounds... 900-1200 pounds... 1400-1800 pounds... 1 ton, 1.5 tons. So on.

I now realize that most people don't drag things, often. So, if in doubt, put that you can't drag any of it, it won't lessen your score, it just won't add to it, either.

[Tyndmyr]

Look, they are separated, within the question. AND/OR.

OR, OR, OR.

And/OR

They are separated. Separate, if you wish, it's up to you. ONE, OR the OTHER, or BOTH. Up to you, entirely.

Which one takes precedence? If it's all entirely up to me, this adds a great deal of subjectivity to the test. I might as well just assign myself numbers. It'll probably be more accurate.


I thought juggling was just a skill which doesn't improve hand eye coordination, it's just a skill. Just like drawing doesn't improve hand-eye coordination... oh, wait, it does when you do it for hours on end.

They're both. But just because a person is highly skilled does not guarantee that they are highly statted.

Consider, finesse refers to both fine control and full body agility. There is not necessarily any correlation between someone's reflexes at say, avoiding a trap, and his ability to draw.

[cattobates]

Which one takes precedence? If it's all entirely up to me, this adds a great deal of subjectivity to the test. I might as well just assign myself numbers. It'll probably be more accurate.

The level of ability you have, in general, is what takes precedence. The amount of hours you do something is pretty much last resort, if you have no idea how good you are.

Also, if you think you can assign yourself numbers, and be more accurate, then go ahead. I will now copy/paste my disclaimer, which is at the beginning of the test, for all to read.


I'm sure that anyone who's taking this test has taken other D&D Stats Quizzes. I'm not going beat around the bush. No test can, in perfect accuracy, portray exactly what your stats are. It is always going to be a rough estimate, based on the perception of the person writing the quiz, and your perception of yourself. I hope that my perception of the world is accurate enough for this quiz to entertain people, and to give them a good idea of what their stats are.



That being stated, you will have to read these questions very thoroughly and give an almost perfectly honest answer to get a fairly accurate result. Otherwise, it will be horribly inaccurate. Anyway, I thank you for reading all of this disclaimer, and I hope you have a wonderful time taking my quiz.

I emphasize the words "read these questions very thoroughly" "almost perfectly honest" "fairly accurate result".


They're both. But just because a person is highly skilled does not guarantee that they are highly statted.

Consider, finesse refers to both fine control and full body agility. There is not necessarily any correlation between someone's reflexes at say, avoiding a trap, and his ability to draw.

Agreed. That's why there are three parts to the Dexterity questions. Two of which generally involve physical activity, and one that both involves physical activity, and graceful hand movements.

Let's say someone draws for 6 hours or more a day. That doesn't leave them a lot of time to work out, does it? Rather, they're not really inclined to work out, it leaves them another six hours or more to work out.

Most people who draw for 6 hours or more, or who are extremely proficient at drawing, do not spend a lot of time doing agility and balance exercises. Also, they don't spend a lot of time doing physical activity in general, most likely.

So, most people who draw 6+ hours a day put down Sedentary starting them at 9, then they get 6+ hours of hand-eye, yes? This brings them up to 12. Then, even if you put them at average for everything else, they stay at 12. Average is doing things for around an hour a day, or a few hours every few days. Or, Average level of agility, or balance. A 12 is a +1 enhancement. That is not a big deal whatsoever, and if someone spends 6+ hours a day drawing, then they very likely have above average hand-eye.


Hand-eye coordination is the ability of the vision system to coordinate the information received through the eyes to control, guide, and direct the hands in the accomplishment of a given task, such as handwriting or catching a ball. Hand-eye coordination uses the eyes to direct...

So, drawing for excessive amounts of time, or being a professional artist does indeed make your hand-eye coordination better. Just like juggling does. It does not ensure that you'll be good at anything, though, just slightly better than the average guy who doesn't do anything that often, but does those things sometimes.

How good is a +1 in D&D? We could break that down, but, to put it basically, +10 is where people become professionally competent at something, and +15-19 is the best people in the world. +1 is very little, and would take many tests to have much a difference than a +0. Plus, the average Jock kind of guy would have a Dex of 14-16, because they are working on their Agility, Balance, and Hand-eye coordination by playing sports. Not just their hand-eye. So someone who draws, or does any kind of art for 6+ hours a day doesn't hold a candle to a jock, of course.

So, anyway, traps. Let's do this.

Average guy, who is moderately active, because plays basketball, for maybe an hour a day, right? He's got a 10.

Artist guy, who is sedentary (9). He draws 6+ hours a day (+3), but he also does yoga for around five hours a week, otherwise he gets minuses, right? He's got a 12.

+0 vs +1

They both are walking down a hall, equal with each other... when suddenly, a pit trap opens up!

Gasp. They must both make a reflex check, DC 20.

The average guy rolls a 7. He falls into the pit.

The artist guy rolls an 18+1=19. He falls into the pit.

So, the artist guy has a 5% better chance not to fall into the pit, a 10% total, versus the average guy, who has a 5% chance not to fall into the pit.

But really, this isn't my quizzes fault. This is D&D's fault, for having a system where hand-eye coordination has something to do with reflexes.

[Objection]

I don't think you've actually explained why you can't separate one question into two.

[cattobates]

The reason I can't separate one question into two is because then the scores would be much more difficult to do. Each question can only be allotted so many points. Both plus, and minus. Anyway, why would I separate them, when they are already separated?

Also, that leads to a problem, what if I give +3 points for being professional proficiency, right?

Then I give +3 points for 30+ hours a week. Then we've got a big problem.

Because there would still be other questions on the test, and that would mean Dexterity could fluctuate from week to week, or day to day. This is not so. Having two points on the same question gives a more solid grounding, if one reads carefully, and weighs his options with each question.

[Abies]

*sniffles*hugs dehro's leg*

Thank you. (Tears of joy, I swear it)

Responses...

Ok, I understand now, all of the criteria are entirely arbitrary and meaningless. I'll discontinue any and all interest in the topic.

On a parting note though I will reiterate my distaste for attempting to equate academic achievement with intelligence. There is no way to correlate these two things.

Your quiz, while entertaining, is based upon several assumptions that are impossible to support, and are often inappropriate. I understand though, that such things are likely unavoidable when attempting to shoehorn real life into a model like D&D. The differences between the physics of real life and D&D as so different that the two are nigh unto impossible to meaningfully compare.

Best of luck in your endeavor.

[Aedilred]

Thank you, Aedilred.

The only problem with what you're saying is that we're not talking about starting scores. We're talking about current scores. How can someone increase their ability scores without practicing some kind of skill?

Even Muttiah Muralitharan may not have an extremely good Dex, he may just be 5th level or so, with maxed out skill ranks, and feats all aimed towards bowling. That doesn't mean his Dexterity has to be amazing. He could simply have an 18.
This is true; however, even a Level 20 character (which few of us on the forum will be) will have only a +5 or so across the board to their stats. As I say, experience will modify the starting score a little, but not as extensively as it seems the quiz does here.

There was a reason I chose Murali as an example, simply because he has a congenital deformity that gives him extra-bendy wrists. That's something that no degree of training will ever be able to replicate. Even if I take more ranks than him in the "bowling" skill, his higher DEX means I'll have to work harder for the same result. (He probably has the "doosra" feat as well, which will give him an extra bonus.)

For what it's worth, I think the questions are a good idea and well worded. I just believe there should be more focus on natural ability and less on experience and training - these should (ideally) determine only which abilities receive bonuses. I do recognise that this is a problem with D&D as a whole, mind. Part of the issue is that the attributes are only a relatively small part of the character - it's the combination of these with feats, skills and special abilities that make a character what he is, whereas quizzes like this inevitably focus on the attributes at the expense of the other characteristics.

[dehro]

I get the feeling that by "careful reading" and "thinking outside the box" you actually mean "read it keeping my explanations and my viewpoint in mind"... several questions aren't as straightforward as you think for those who do not live in your brain.
not even with careful reading.
if people were really to think outside the box, they'd quite possibly be able to max out all of the stats according to their wishes, and have a mouthful of peanut butter on top of it.

you raise valid objections to some of the issues people have with the test, but not to all of them, and even so, most of those issues do leave room for a different interpretation to the texts than the one you give...which leads to answers that are inaccurate or less than truthful.
it's not a case of "you didn't get/interpret the question correctly", but rather a "maybe this question should be explained a little better"
it shouldn't be a "let's guess how we must interpret this" game, but a more consequential series of questions. the principle is sound, but I still mantain that some answers don't become true if you put the lowest one because of not knowing the right answer.
i.e. the dragging question... you suggest we put the lowest number/answer, if we have never dragged an item of otherwise comparable weight. this doesn't make much sense. an elephant may stand still all his life but still have the potential to drag an entire tree, when he starts moving. not knowing his potential doesn't equate to estimating his potential at the lowest.

by saying "or or or" you don't solve the issues either.
I may be really good at the specific task of juggling and really crap at instant hand/eye coordination otherwise..that leaves it entirely up to me to assign myself an awesome score based on juggling (or other specific task) or a crap score because of an overal percetion of my general coordination. either answer would be correct and legitimate.
one can of course try to "enter the spirit of the thing"..but that's again, subjective and entirely depending on knowing your viewpoint and explanation (as author of the test).

I have a friend who is a surgeon and has good coordination, and a friend who luckily does something entirely different and is rather clumsy (to the point of frequently dropping stuff)... no matter how much he may train as a surgeon, I'd rather be cut open by the first guy.
there IS a natural aptitude in these matters..on which the competence, skill and proficiency has to be based, not the other way around, otherwise every stat should be compouded by "stat+education/training/etcetera" and wouldn't be a "pure" stat.
when you estabilish a weightlifting program, FIRST you try and lift your maximum weights and such, and on that base, the trainer sets your goals and regime..you don't get to train for a few weeks first, get some practice in and build up some muscle, THEN take your test and estabilish a regime. defining one's stats should be as close as possible to that method.
otherwise the test just becomes a "how much training have you got in these skills?"


These three, together, make up your Dex, and give and take to and from each other.
if you know how to interpret the questions, not just the answers, then yes..but as I said, not so straightforward.



Natural alertness, eh? Kids these days. You mean like, being alert, without actually being alert, right? That's what's called an oxymoron.
it isn't actually.. it's at the very root of many traditional martial arts.
there's a difference between walking across a crowded room looking for a friend and finding him, and walking across a room to reach the booze but still noticing a friend who's sat in a corner somewhere not in your immediate path or line of sight when you WEREN'T looking for him.
it can mean the difference between noticing a bus swerving and pulling someone from out of its path, and only noticing the bus has swerved when you hear the squelching sound of a brain on the pavement.
it can be "active" and come from training and repetition, which is the case with driving, but it just isn't always so.
with regards, to the charisma thing... my only issue was that you seem to give it a positive-to-negative value..as if assigning it different ethical qualities. purely a question of wording, not of numerical substance.

[cattobates]

There was a reason I chose Murali as an example, simply because he has a congenital deformity that gives him extra-bendy wrists. That's something that no degree of training will ever be able to replicate. Even if I take more ranks than him in the "bowling" skill, his higher DEX means I'll have to work harder for the same result. (He probably has the "doosra" feat as well, which will give him an extra bonus.)

Then he would not have a higher Dex than you at all, the congenital deformity would be some kind of mutation, giving him a Dex bonus to all things wrist related. That doesn't make his Dex higher than you, because Dex, like Strength, isn't just a natural thing. It's partially natural, and partially based on a cap that you are forced to have because of your size, or, certain things that fall within the natural bounds of man. Women, for instance, are naturally more flexible than men, as well as naturally having better aim.

A congenital deformity is what someone would have to consider a mutation, however. This can be accounted for in D20 Modern, and could definitely be implemented homebrew. However, in D&D, it has no equivalent, as far as I know.

EDIT:
Ok, I understand now, all of the criteria are entirely arbitrary and meaningless. I'll discontinue any and all interest in the topic.

On a parting note though I will reiterate my distaste for attempting to equate academic achievement with intelligence. There is no way to correlate these two things.

Your quiz, while entertaining, is based upon several assumptions that are impossible to support, and are often inappropriate. I understand though, that such things are likely unavoidable when attempting to shoehorn real life into a model like D&D. The differences between the physics of real life and D&D as so different that the two are nigh unto impossible to meaningfully compare.

Best of luck in your endeavor.

I don't like you. You're very negative. Also, don't cry just because you got bad stats.

[Tyndmyr]

I don't think you've actually explained why you can't separate one question into two.

This. It would be much neater, and would make the questions a lot more readable.

Note that a naive add/subtract points for each question is probably not ideal, either.

Catt, there is a series of deformity feats. They are, for some reason, evil.

[cattobates]

Naive add/subtract points is probably not ideal... ah. How else are you going to do it, online?


it's not a case of "you didn't get/interpret the question correctly", but rather a "maybe this question should be explained a little better"

I agree. Please help me to word it better.

[Objection]

The reason I can't separate one question into two is because then the scores would be much more difficult to do. Each question can only be allotted so many points. Both plus, and minus. Anyway, why would I separate them, when they are already separated?

It doesn't matter how you write the question. As long as they are both in the same question, they are not separated. You've got to cater to the biggest morons on the planet with these things.


Also, that leads to a problem, what if I give +3 points for being professional proficiency, right?

Then I give +3 points for 30+ hours a week. Then we've got a big problem.

Then halve the number of points you add. Simples!

[cattobates]

This is true; however, even a Level 20 character (which few of us on the forum will be) will have only a +5 or so across the board to their stats. As I say, experience will modify the starting score a little, but not as extensively as it seems the quiz does here.

Few of us on the forum would be, eh? Try no one, in the existence of man, has ever been Level 20, ever. People have, however, had 22+ Strength, in the past, and in modern times, have had 22+ Intelligence, and have certainly had 22 or so Charisma, in the past. How can this be? Because D&D characters, and people are entirely different.

The highest justifiable level for any person who ever existed, is probably right around 5th, or 6th. That's it.

http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

Please, I beg you to read this.


It doesn't matter how you write the question. As long as they are both in the same question, they are not separated. You've got to cater to the biggest morons on the planet with these things.



Then halve the number of points you add. Simples!

OBJECTION!!!



I get the feeling that by "careful reading" and "thinking outside the box" you actually mean "read it keeping my explanations and my viewpoint in mind"... several questions aren't as straightforward as you think for those who do not live in your brain.
not even with careful reading.
if people were really to think outside the box, they'd quite possibly be able to max out all of the stats according to their wishes, and have a mouthful of peanut butter on top of it.

you raise valid objections to some of the issues people have with the test, but not to all of them, and even so, most of those issues do leave room for a different interpretation to the texts than the one you give...which leads to answers that are inaccurate or less than truthful.
it's not a case of "you didn't get/interpret the question correctly", but rather a "maybe this question should be explained a little better"
it shouldn't be a "let's guess how we must interpret this" game, but a more consequential series of questions. the principle is sound, but I still mantain that some answers don't become true if you put the lowest one because of not knowing the right answer.
i.e. the dragging question... you suggest we put the lowest number/answer, if we have never dragged an item of otherwise comparable weight. this doesn't make much sense. an elephant may stand still all his life but still have the potential to drag an entire tree, when he starts moving. not knowing his potential doesn't equate to estimating his potential at the lowest.

by saying "or or or" you don't solve the issues either.
I may be really good at the specific task of juggling and really crap at instant hand/eye coordination otherwise..that leaves it entirely up to me to assign myself an awesome score based on juggling (or other specific task) or a crap score because of an overal percetion of my general coordination. either answer would be correct and legitimate.
one can of course try to "enter the spirit of the thing"..but that's again, subjective and entirely depending on knowing your viewpoint and explanation (as author of the test).

I have a friend who is a surgeon and has good coordination, and a friend who luckily does something entirely different and is rather clumsy (to the point of frequently dropping stuff)... no matter how much he may train as a surgeon, I'd rather be cut open by the first guy.
there IS a natural aptitude in these matters..on which the competence, skill and proficiency has to be based, not the other way around, otherwise every stat should be compouded by "stat+education/training/etcetera" and wouldn't be a "pure" stat.
when you estabilish a weightlifting program, FIRST you try and lift your maximum weights and such, and on that base, the trainer sets your goals and regime..you don't get to train for a few weeks first, get some practice in and build up some muscle, THEN take your test and estabilish a regime. defining one's stats should be as close as possible to that method.
otherwise the test just becomes a "how much training have you got in these skills?"


if you know how to interpret the questions, not just the answers, then yes..but as I said, not so straightforward.


it isn't actually.. it's at the very root of many traditional martial arts.
there's a difference between walking across a crowded room looking for a friend and finding him, and walking across a room to reach the booze but still noticing a friend who's sat in a corner somewhere not in your immediate path or line of sight when you WEREN'T looking for him.
it can mean the difference between noticing a bus swerving and pulling someone from out of its path, and only noticing the bus has swerved when you hear the squelching sound of a brain on the pavement.
it can be "active" and come from training and repetition, which is the case with driving, but it just isn't always so.
with regards, to the charisma thing... my only issue was that you seem to give it a positive-to-negative value..as if assigning it different ethical qualities. purely a question of wording, not of numerical substance.

When you're born, how high are your stats?

Does a weightlifter's Strength not get better from working out, or does his weightlifting skill just get better?

I agree that there is a natural cap that each of us has in each stat, however, I also believe that cap to be relatively high for most of us. Especially when it comes to Strength, Charisma, Wisdom, Constitution, and Dexterity. Intelligence is a bit different, because some people cap out very low, naturally, on Intelligence, and other people cap out very high.

IQ does not equal Intelligence. That's what almost everyone seems to think... it's weird.

[Abies]

{{scrubbed}}

[Objection]

OBJECTION!!!

OVERRULED!!!

Seriously, I pointed out a problem and gave you a perfectly valid solution. Why have you not implemented it?

[Abies]

Because criticism is not welcome.

[dehro]

stuff.

you seem to fail at grasping the difference between offering constructive criticism and smacking people on the back of their head because it's fun to do.
you are no Agent Gibbs, and your attempts at being clever, superior and at the same time intelligently offensive are rather lacking in the first two departments, and a little too enthusiastic in the latter.
yes, cattobates seems to want to defend his reasoning more than he wants to take on board the criticism, shifting the blame on the people who take the test rather than accepting that they may have a few more points than he's willing to concede.
that said, in my post I said more or less the same things you said, minus the venom, spite and misplaced sense of superiority..got a proper and courteous reply, and some of my observations seem to have at least been accepted, if not taken on board completely.. you ...well...got the kind of reply you deserved.
if you treat people the way you're treating him on this thread you can't expect them to actually give anything you say proper consideration, can you?


Child, I did not waste my time actually taking your little quiz, I have no idea what stats it may have generated, nor do I care.
this line speaks volumes really..but I shall add my observations nonetheless.
if you didn't care at least a little..you wouldn't be wasting your time replying to the thread, certainly not more than once, if not for trolling purposes.
as for the rest...well..your tone, attitude and wording is patronizing, unwarranted, deliberately offensive and meanspirited...just as it was in your first post

[cattobates]

OVERRULED!!!

Seriously, I pointed out a problem and gave you a perfectly valid solution. Why have you not implemented it?

I will, actually. I'll implement everything that I can think of that you guys said. Tomorrow.

I've been hanging out with my family, and working since 1:00 PM today. Tomorrow is Thanksgiving, and I will be looking over this board.

I really am interested in making my test as good as I can. Criticism is welcome, but not the kind that Abies brings. I guess I should rephrase.

Constructive Criticism is welcome.

I've been a bit too defensive, today, but, I did have a lot of people giving suggestions, some of them a little too offensively. It's easy to take things offensively from everyone when even just one person attacks you full force...

*coughabiesyouprickcough*

Some of the comments that Abies made didn't even make sense. I agree that my test isn't terribly different than many of the tests out there. I do want it to be, however, even if I have to start over from scratch.

This is actually my second full attempt at making an ability scores quiz. The one before wasn't actually too bad, similar to this one.

The main thing I can't accept in it's entirety is that you can't increase your ability scores, that they are natural. To a degree they are natural, and there are certain minimums and maximums for each individual in each stat. I really do believe that is the main base to the quiz, but, to create a system for that would be extraordinarily tedious, and time consuming.

I would like, very much, one day to do that. That day is not today, though. I will work on implementing many of the things you guys said, though. :)

Sorry if I've offended anyone. Except Abies, perhaps, he's just not nice. I also wasn't trying to offend him, so, if he is offended, that's his own fault, and problem. :)

[Abies]

{{scrubbed}}

[Objection]

I've been a bit too defensive, today, but, I did have a lot of people giving suggestions, some of them a little too offensively. It's easy to take things offensively from everyone when even just one person attacks you full force...

Yeah, I've been there before many times. When you put your heart and soul into something only for people to start picking at it, it's understandable to be more than a little annoyed, even if the criticism is perfectly valid.

[Scarlet Knight]

Strength: 9
Dexterity: 8
Constitution: 10
Intelligence: 15
Wisdom: 13
Charisma: 12

This seems about right, I'm avarage and my stats would have been better 20 years ago, but I still am a playable character. :smallsmile:

[cattobates]

I personally take message board interactions as seriously as I take true social interaction. You're all real people out there somewhere in the wide world. If you don't take it that seriously, it's easy to put yourself in the mindset of a sociopath. You end up enjoying inflicting pain, even if you wouldn't normally in person. It's really weird how not seeing someone's emotional reaction changes things.

Sorry I called you a prick, Abies. It's just, you weren't very nice. You were harshly critical of almost every question on my quiz. You guys don't even really know the scoring system on it. That's the real, main thing. I could have that terribly inaccurate, and that would be worse than how any of my questions were worded.

The quiz does need quite a bit of polishing, however.

EDIT: Definitely still a playable character. :)

[cattobates]

Also, I should have said. I'm starting on it tomorrow. I'll probably have the editing finished by sometime next week. :) Thank you all for your input. ^_^

Please continue to give me (constructive) criticism. But, as you give that criticism, please give me suggestions on how to implement your criticism.

[DeadManSleeping]

inb4 fix :smalltongue:

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

It's not too inaccurate, really. My core competencies are rather spread out, and none of them are too remarkable.

[grimbold]

you seem to fail at grasping the difference between offering constructive criticism and smacking people on the back of their head because it's fun to do.
you are no Agent Gibbs, and your attempts at being clever, superior and at the same time intelligently offensive are rather lacking in the first two departments, and a little too enthusiastic in the latter.
yes, cattobates seems to want to defend his reasoning more than he wants to take on board the criticism, shifting the blame on the people who take the test rather than accepting that they may have a few more points than he's willing to concede.
that said, in my post I said more or less the same things you said, minus the venom, spite and misplaced sense of superiority..got a proper and courteous reply, and some of my observations seem to have at least been accepted, if not taken on board completely.. you ...well...got the kind of reply you deserved.
if you treat people the way you're treating him on this thread you can't expect them to actually give anything you say proper consideration, can you?


this line speaks volumes really..but I shall add my observations nonetheless.
if you didn't care at least a little..you wouldn't be wasting your time replying to the thread, certainly not more than once, if not for trolling purposes.
as for the rest...well..your tone, attitude and wording is patronizing, unwarranted, deliberately offensive and meanspirited...just as it was in your first post

dehro is on point

everything he has said is valid

[cattobates]

I've got to agree, Grimbold. Dehro is the person I'm most likely to listen to. He's also the one who complied to my requests most adequately. As well as Objection!

[grimbold]

I've got to agree, Grimbold. Dehro is the person I'm most likely to listen to. He's also the one who complied to my requests most adequately. As well as Objection!

good for you catto:smallsmile:

[Tyndmyr]

Aright. Ima talk through taking this quiz in full now, post feedback.

1. Moderately active, I guess. I maintain a daily cardio workout and the optimal every other day strength workout. Working out longer would not make me stronger, so I find this question to be a bit odd. Whatever.

2. I'm not sure, and there are gaps between the categories at the relevant levels. Also, everyone's muscles bulge after working out. That's normal. I picked the 250-350 range since I've actually done that, and the gap before the next category above it makes it awkward.

3. Fairly easy, I guess. It depends a great deal on the door, though. Wooden interior doors will go down with a single kick, frequently, since many of the inexpensive interior ones are basically hollow. Exterior doors are a great deal tougher, and I might not be able to break down one of those at all, depending on design.

4. I don't drag around dead animals at all. 400 lbs might be draggable. It certainly seems like it should be. I have absolutely no idea if I can drag a semi, but I would suspect not. Let's stick with the donkey.

5. Going by the previous guidance, I select extremely proficient due to substantial experience playing video games at a competitive level. I highly doubt my counterstrike skills are very representative of overall agility, but whatever.

6. I am very proficient at jumping rope, yes. I feel I could teach this skill to others. I also have other skills such as martial arts, but I don't actually practice any of these things currently. Again, going by previous guidance, I ignored the time stuff.

7. Mountain Hiking? I do mountain climbing and maintain a membership at a climbing gym. That strikes me as notably more demanding than merely hiking. I pick professional since my cardio workout is on a treadmill. I could basically hike all day.

8. Are my reflexes close to the human limit? Gah, it's just a yes or no. I have little idea what the human limit is. I also don't know exactly what my reflexes are. Nor do I know what "close" is defined as. I'm just gonna hit no, because I have no idea how to answer this.

9. Ima go with extremely high. I've survived a car wreck at 70mph without safety restraints of any kind, and I noticed no pain or significant injury. I have no idea about withstanding torture, as I've never gone through that, but my understanding is that everyone breaks eventually, so I'm not sure why it's at all relevant. Regardless, I can take a hit.

10. I chose maximum of two hours. I jog/walk about 5 miles a day. It's a pretty decent workout, but I don't actually enjoy running all that much, and view marathons as something highly destructive to your body that exist mostly for stoking people's egos. I can't imagine why I'd want to do one. I'm also not sure why triathalons are considered to be so great. I mean, I'm a pretty great shot, and can swim quite well, but shooting does pretty much jack all for your endurance. The running happens last for good reason.

11. I do not often get sick. That said, I do have allergies. Nothing horrible, but I feel like that should be a factor somehow.

12. College level education. Years of education are very squishy, and would likely put me in a different and higher category.

13. Memory. Good, I guess. Forgetting things isn't a real problem for me, but it takes a few uses to remember people's names. So, I'll go with dead average.

14. Well, I certainly think I'm quite reasonable. That said, I feel like this question implies that thinking coincides with inaction or slow reactions, and that this is wildly incorrect. The smart people think about situations before they occur so that they CAN react rapidly. Regardless, I'm a coder, so understanding the basic rules of logic is pretty much a required skill. I chose very reasonable and logical.

15. Wait...role playing video games are on here, but regular roleplaying games are not? Ima count them as all together, since P&P games can have puzzles just as easily as video games can. So, I'm gonna choose the top category. Between video game playing and roleplaying, I pretty much crush it on these activities on time alone.

16. My diet is not particularly strict, but my exercise routine is, and I've had it for ages. The combination of these makes it somewhat awkward. That said, I don't need a better diet to manage weight, and I get plenty of protein at the appropriate times. I don't see that there's any particular reason why I should change this. I also have absolutely no problem calling people idiots for doing something I see as a mistake, regardless of popularity. I'll take the top one, despite not being a monk.

17. Common Sense is a made-up label for "stuff we didn't fit into the other categories". It should never be used. There's no good way to describe exactly what items make up common sense, and thus, everyone tends to think it's things THEY learned while growing up. I'll select average, I guess. Still hate the question.

18. I pay attention to things. I don't need to swivel my head around awkwardly to do so. Nor do I feel like I'm particularly stern about it, but that answer seems to be closest since I will generally notice things that are out of place or unusual.

19. Gut Feelings? Really? Those are emotional reactions to things. They are not predictions, and are pretty mutable. This question is sketchy at best. I do frequently have emotional reactions to things, of course. I guess that means I'm alive. These reactions tend to remain fairly constant and not disagree with my logical perceptions since they are trainable. I chose "most always" because this whole trusting thing seems a bit off. This whole question needs to be rephrased to be more about "do you rely on intuition alone for decisions" or something.

20. I'm terrible at judging attractiveness of myself. This is a question about which it's not uncommon for people to be pretty poor judges. I'll select Average on the basis that I'm not a model, nor am I likely to be one, but I'm in decent shape and do rather well with the opposite sex.

21. Sometimes. I can lead quite effectively, but don't demand that I be the leader in any situation. Plenty of times, there's someone else more suited for the role. I feel like this is a poor barometer for charisma. A better one is "can you talk your way into being the leader, regardless of if you're suited for it".

22. Extremely Strong Personality. I have lots of friends, I've been on stage a few times, I've given presentations, and have a reputation as a result. The word "genius" has been used repeatedly, though probably undeservedly. Well, unless it had the "mad" prefix.

23. Often get what I want. I'm persuasive, but not ridiculously so. Nor am I fond of lying to get what I want, etc.

Strength: 13
Dexterity: 18
Constitution: 15
Intelligence: 17
Wisdom: 16
Charisma: 14

Hrm. Questionable. I'm probably a great deal less wise than that, and while I am somewhat above average in dexterity, I highly doubt that I'm at the absolute top end.

[Victoria]

Strength: 12

Dexterity: 15

Constitution: 16

Intelligence: 14

Wisdom: 8

Charisma: 13


Physical stats all seem high and mental stats all seem low. Maybe I overestimated myself on the physical ones; I am a professional soccer referee and I do a lot of physical training, but I'm no David Beckham, and I'm also quite small.

[Flickerdart]

Honestly, the range of ability scores should probably top out at 15, being the highest stat of the Elite Array. Everything beyond that will be skill ranks and suchlike.

[cattobates]

The problem with that, Flickerdart, is that D&D's idea of stats don't mean anything in real life. My perception is starting to change, though. I believe, instead of adding and subtracting from 10, that perhaps I should start from 0 up... which means I'd be asking extremely basic questions to start like... "Can you stand up?"

Get what I'm saying?

[Tyndmyr]

The problem with that, Flickerdart, is that D&D's idea of stats don't mean anything in real life. My perception is starting to change, though. I believe, instead of adding and subtracting from 10, that perhaps I should start from 0 up... which means I'd be asking extremely basic questions to start like... "Can you stand up?"

Get what I'm saying?

Er. You already are adding up, not adding and subtracting. If you just click through it without answering you get...twos, IIRC.

[cattobates]

Actually, that's incorrect, Mr. Tyndmyr. There are two questions, currently, that are worth 8-12 points, and that is the "Physical Activity Level" question, and the "Education" question.

Right now, I am doing a pure adding system. This makes the possibilities from 3-24. If someone can honestly label themselves at 24, for how strenuous I've made this current test... then they're either pricks, or they actually deserve it.

I think the test will be much better, though, in some ways, not much different. Far more easy to understand, though.

[DeadManSleeping]

The problem with that, Flickerdart, is that D&D's idea of stats don't mean anything in real life.

Sort of puts into question the entire point of this quiz, no?

[cattobates]

Honestly, the range of ability scores should probably top out at 15, being the highest stat of the Elite Array. Everything beyond that will be skill ranks and suchlike.

I meant it in relation to this... so, no, not really. Some people do in fact have really, really great stats, that go above 15. So, capping it out at 15 is like slapping a guy with an 18 in the face. If he happens to take this quiz, of course.

[Tyndmyr]

Actually, that's incorrect, Mr. Tyndmyr. There are two questions, currently, that are worth 8-12 points, and that is the "Physical Activity Level" question, and the "Education" question.

Right now, I am doing a pure adding system. This makes the possibilities from 3-24. If someone can honestly label themselves at 24, for how strenuous I've made this current test... then they're either pricks, or they actually deserve it.

I think the test will be much better, though, in some ways, not much different. Far more easy to understand, though.

So, like I said, you ARE adding up.

I don't understand how this can be read as me being incorrect on this point.

[cattobates]

I've told you twice, that right now, I am not only adding up. Right now, I am doing an adding and subtracting system, based around 8-12. It's an inefficient, strange system, that barely adheres to D&D rules style.

What I meant to say is... I'm working on a system that adds up from 0. It's based around 3 questions per Ability Score, with 8 answers a piece, ranging from... (example...)

STRENGTH

1. What is the most weight you are able to lift over your head? (If you fall in between the cracks, always go lower)

A. 30lb or less. (A microwave, a 2 year old child…) (+1 Strength)

to...

H. 520-700lb. (+8 Strength) (A siberian tiger, a pony, a donkey...)

Is it clear to you now? >.>

It'll probably take me another day or two to finish up the new quiz. It's taken me at least an hour per question, two for some of them. I'm on question 13 right now, just started on Wisdom, and will probably finish all three Wisdom questions by tomorrow evening. Hopefully Charisma will be the easiest.

The way I have it set up is similar to the 3d8 system of rolling stats. Only the very, very best of the best will be able to honestly answer each question with +8's on each of the three questions. They would also have to be the very worst of the worst to answer only +1's on each of the questions.

[Tyndmyr]

If you are doing a pure adding system, then...you are not subtracting. You've stated it both ways repeatedly. I'm fairly confused as to what you're saying, but at this point, I don't care, and have mostly given up on this as even vaguely representative of anything.



1. What is the most weight you are able to lift over your head? (If you fall in between the cracks, always go lower)

If you have ranges, the ranges should not have cracks.

[cattobates]

That's how you see it, however, that's not how I see it. If you fall in between the cracks between 30 and 40 pounds, go with 30 pounds. Like, if you can lift something that's 35 pounds, go with 30 or lower. Most people will overshoot how strong they are, especially if they can lift 35 pounds, or 37 pounds, because it's almost 40 pounds.

Anyway, you're obviously just nit-picking at this point. There will always be cracks of some kind, unless you're asking one question with 18-24 answers, each only slightly different than the next, and even then, because the system the quiz is based on HAS CRACKS, that quiz, too, would have cracks. Compromises must be made.

EDIT:

The current quiz that is on the internet has an adding and subtracting system. Period. It ranges from 2-22, and I am no longer working on this system, but am making a new one.

The new system that I'm working on, at my house, in Wordpad, is a purely adding system. It ranges from 3-24.

Is that clear enough for you? If it's not, I don't know what to tell you.

[Objection]

That's how you see it, however, that's not how I see it. If you fall in between the cracks between 30 and 40 pounds, go with 30 pounds. Like, if you can lift something that's 35 pounds, go with 30 or lower.
Why not just change the range to 0-39, or say 0-40 (not including 40)? As far as I know there is no universal system for how to handle "between the cracks" situations.

Anyway, you're obviously just nit-picking at this point. There will always be cracks of some kind, unless you're asking one question with 18-24 answers, each only slightly different than the next, and even then, because the system the quiz is based on HAS CRACKS, that quiz, too, would have cracks. Compromises must be made.

Sample question: How much money do you currently have?
A: Less than $1000
B: At least $1000 but less than $2000
C: $2000 or more

Three answers, no cracks. It might not be possible for the more subjective ones like competency in certain activities, but it is possible for anything that can be objectively quantified like money, height and maximum load.

[Tyndmyr]

That's how you see it, however, that's not how I see it. If you fall in between the cracks between 30 and 40 pounds, go with 30 pounds. Like, if you can lift something that's 35 pounds, go with 30 or lower. Most people will overshoot how strong they are, especially if they can lift 35 pounds, or 37 pounds, because it's almost 40 pounds.

Anyway, you're obviously just nit-picking at this point. There will always be cracks of some kind, unless you're asking one question with 18-24 answers, each only slightly different than the next, and even then, because the system the quiz is based on HAS CRACKS, that quiz, too, would have cracks. Compromises must be made.

That is not nitpicking. There is absolutely no reason to use ranges and still have cracks.

Compare.

How much can you lift?
A. 5-10 lbs
B. 20-50 lbs.
C. 100-200 lbs.

The above question either has lots of ambiguity(undesirable), or lots of confusing details about how to resolve the ambiguity(also undesireable). Or we could use this.

How much can you lift?
A. 0-20 lbs
B. 21-50 lbs.
C. 51+ lbs.

Look. It's shorter, clearer, and vastly more accurate. There is NEVER a reason to use the first example when you have actual numbers. And yes, if possible, you want to use actual numbers.

[cattobates]

*sigh* It does not look more clean when it's

"39 pounds or less"

"40-69 pounds" And if someone is able to lift 69 pounds, they're likely to say that they can lift 70 pounds. It's a common, normal thing that people do.


1. What is the most weight you are able to lift over your head? (If you fall in between the cracks, always go lower)

A. 30lb or less. (A microwave, a 2 year old child…) (+1 Strength)

B. 40-60lb. (A jackhammer, a bale of hay, a small child…) (+2 Strength)

C. 70-90lb. (+3 Strength) (A traditional punching bag, a small underweight woman…)

D. 100-130lb. (+4 Strength) (A heavy punching bag, a small athletic woman…)

E. 150-200lb. (+5 Strength) (A brand new refrigerator, an average, overweight man…)

F. 230-300lb. (+6 Strength) (An old style refrigerator, a large, overweight man…)

G. 350-460lb. (+7 Strength) (An average engine block, a giant log press log …)

H. 520-700lb. (+8 Strength) (A siberian tiger, a pony, a donkey...)

That's the actual question. And, honestly, saying "if you fall in between the cracks, always go lower" is pretty darn straightforward. I'm using D&D numbers, not real life numbers, for this. That's why there are cracks. They will stay, but, it is well explained enough, is it not?

[Siosilvar]

*sigh* It does not look more clean when it's

"39 pounds or less"

"40-69 pounds" And if someone is able to lift 69 pounds, they're likely to say that they can lift 70 pounds. It's a common, normal thing that people do.


1. What is the most weight you are able to lift over your head? (If you fall in between the cracks, always go lower)

A. Less than 40lb. (A microwave, a 2 year old child…) (+1 Strength)

B. 40-70lb. (A jackhammer, a bale of hay, a small child…) (+2 Strength)

C. 70-100lb. (+3 Strength) (A traditional punching bag, a small underweight woman…)

D. 100-150lb. (+4 Strength) (A heavy punching bag, a small athletic woman…)

E. 150-230lb. (+5 Strength) (A brand new refrigerator, an average, overweight man…)

F. 230-350lb. (+6 Strength) (An old style refrigerator, a large, overweight man…)

G. 350-520lb. (+7 Strength) (An average engine block, a giant log press log …)

H. More than 520lb. (+8 Strength) (A siberian tiger, a pony, a donkey...)

That's the actual question. And, honestly, saying "if you fall in between the cracks, always go lower" is pretty darn straightforward.

Then bump up the top numbers to the lowest of the next category, like I've edited the quote to include. It cuts out a whole sentence (your "if you fall...") that, although it might be straightforward, is unnecessary. Fewer lines is easier to understand than more lines, even if the extra line is the most unambiguous line possible.

EDIT: I took the test.

Strength: 7
Dexterity: 13
Constitution: 7
Intelligence: 15
Wisdom: 12
Charisma: 15

Mostly accurate, in my opinion.

[Mando Knight]

I'm with the others on this one. The cracks look sloppier than the 9s by far.

[Objection]

That's the actual question. And, honestly, saying "if you fall in between the cracks, always go lower" is pretty darn straightforward.

You shouldn't have to say that though. Logically, there is nothing at all wrong with including every single possible case. In fact, logically, that is what you should do, regardless of how "clean" it looks.

And by the way, people don't always round off to the nearest ten.


I'm using D&D numbers, not real life numbers, for this. That's why there are cracks. They will stay, but, it is well explained enough, is it not?

Flaws in the system =/= an excuse for flaws in your quiz.

[cattobates]

*cry* I just thought my way was cooler than doing it that way. It makes people think. In purpose, and execution, is the same as having the 9's. Honestly. It still does cover everything. XD! Anyway, obviously, even though you guys are complaining about that, it doesn't seem that there is much, if anything else wrong with it, so far, because you guys are commenting on that so much. Tomorrow, or the next day, the entire quiz will be replaced with the new one, but, I'll save the old one, in case everyone doesn't like the new one, or thinks that it isn't accurate. Anyway, good night, everyone.

P.S. I'm thinking about changing the answers, but, I'm just not sure yet...

P.P.S. We shall see. O_O

[OverdrivePrime]

Weird. That's the lowest strength score I've gotten on any test. Now I wanna go see if I can drag a rhino.

My mental stats seem waaaaaay higher than they should be by several points. I work with numbers and analytics all day and have good common sense, but I'm certainly not a paragon of intelligence and wisdom. My charisma is good but eh... maybe not quite that good.

Strength: 14
Dexterity: 13
Constitution: 16
Intelligence: 18
Wisdom: 16
Charisma: 17


As a comparison, I'd normally rate myself as:
Strength 16 (but since my son was born this year I've definitely been working out a lot less regularly, unless you count baby lifts)
Dexterity: 13
Constitution: 15
Intelligence: 14
Wisdom: 12
Charisma: 15

Aw crap - I forgot. I just turned 35. That might explain why my strength dropped and my mental stats shot up. :)

[Tyndmyr]

*cry* I just thought my way was cooler than doing it that way. It makes people think. In purpose, and execution, is the same as having the 9's. Honestly. It still does cover everything. XD!

It does so poorly. and "making people think" is not the goal of the quiz. The goal of the quiz is to, so far as is possible, accurately assess their stats in a D&D manner.

This "making people think" seems to be "frustrating them by using a non standard method of doing things" as well. It's not as if you're achieving some sort of enlightened philosophical thought by using this method.


Anyway, obviously, even though you guys are complaining about that, it doesn't seem that there is much, if anything else wrong with it, so far, because you guys are commenting on that so much. Tomorrow, or the next day, the entire quiz will be replaced with the new one, but, I'll save the old one, in case everyone doesn't like the new one, or thinks that it isn't accurate. Anyway, good night, everyone.

P.S. I'm thinking about changing the answers, but, I'm just not sure yet...

P.P.S. We shall see. O_O

I gave very detailed, lengthy feedback. We're all commenting on this issue since it's a pretty glaring one that isn't very subjective. There has been a pretty wide array of feedback.

In general, I would advise avoiding ambiguity like the plague. Don't lump multiple questions into one, don't ask people to evaluate things you can test(see also, int questions), don't use vague wording, or allow people to pick a criteria, and don't ask a question with no criteria listed.

[Objection]

cattobates, see this statement here:

It makes people think.
That's the problem. The quiz's job is NOT to make people think. Its job is to get accurate information from those who answer it and produce an accurate-as-possible set of D&D stats for them. Are you aware of the KISS principle? KISS stands for Keep It Simple, Stupid! And that is what you need to do when you are designing ... well, anything that anyone other than you is going to use.

You're not making a puzzle game here.

[cattobates]

Good call, guys. I've taken these things into account. I am nearly done with the quiz, but am having trouble with the Charisma portion. I am able to cover everything, except for persuasion, with the way that I currently have it set up. I'll show you the three questions, and a sample of their answers...


16. How physically attractive are you? (If you are not sure, go with what you feel the most comfortable with.)

A. I am extremely unattractive, physically. I might possibly have leprosy, or hideous burn scars that cover my body, or I am hunchbacked, or have some other horrible deformity. People look upon me in pity, or disgust, if they don’t avert their eyes altogether. My physical appearance has a tendency to cause most people to stay away from me to the best of their ability. (+1 Charisma)

B. I am very unattractive, physically. I could not dream of getting a job based on my physical appearance, unless they were looking for someone exceptionally ugly. I am unpleasant to look at, in general, and never get looks from the opposite sex, unless they are looks of mocking, or possibly pity. My physical attractiveness has a negative impact on the way that people treat me, almost always. (+2 Charisma)

C. I am unattractive, physically. I could definitely not get a job as a model, nor would I want to, based on how I look, and I have few redeeming characteristics when it comes to my physical appearance. I am only mildly unpleasant to look at, and rarely, if ever, get looks from the opposite sex. I would likely be more attractive if I were in better shape, or tried to make myself look better. My physical attractiveness probably hurts me a bit when first meeting new people, but not always. (+3 Charisma)

D. I am physically attractive. It is highly unlikely that I could get a job as a model, though I am what most people would consider physically attractive. I would be more attractive if I were to be in better shape, or did my best to try to look better, but not much more. I get looks of attraction from people of the opposite sex fairly often. My physical attractiveness doesn’t help me very much when I engage other people, but it definitely doesn’t hurt me. (+4 Charisma)

E. I am very physically attractive. It is possible that I could get a job as a model, based on the way that I look, but it is still fairly unlikely. I get looks of attraction from people of the opposite sex very often. My physical attractiveness sometimes helps me when I am engaged with other people. (+5 Charisma)



17. How often do you find yourself in a leadership position? How good of a leader are you when you find yourself in this position?

A. I am never put into a leadership position. I would make a terrible leader. I have the leadership skills of a small infant. (+1 Charisma)

B. I am rarely, if ever put into a leadership position. It’s likely that I wouldn’t make a very good leader in almost any situation. I have the leadership ability of a child. (+2 Charisma)

C. I am sometimes, but not often, put into a leadership position. I would probably make a fairly competent leader in most situations, but, definitely not in a catastrophic event, or a tense business situation. I have the leadership ability of the average labor worker. (+3 Charisma)

D. I am often put into a position of leadership. I make a competent leader most of the time, but, in certain situations, such as catastrophic events, or a tense business situation, I would only lead with a fair level of competence, if competently at all. I have the leadership ability of the average manager of a fast food restaurant. (+4 Charisma)

E. I am very often put into a position of leadership. I make a very competent leader a great majority of the time, and could even lead competently in a catastrophic event, or a tense business situation. I have the leadership ability of the average firefighter, or police officer, or other public servant. (+5 Charisma)



18. How strong would you say that your personality is? Why?

A. Extremely weak. I never stand up for myself, or my beliefs. I get very little, if any respect from anyone but the kindest people. I am possibly abhorrently annoying, extremely shy, or horridly temperamental. I always try my very hardest to avoid conflict. (+1 Charisma)

B. Very weak. I rarely stand up for myself, or my beliefs. I get a small amount of respect from people, but not very much, unless someone is kind. I am possibly greatly annoying, very shy, or profoundly temperamental. I try very hard to avoid conflict. (+2 Charisma)

C. Weak. I do not often stand up for myself, or my beliefs. I get a bit of respect from most people, but there are still many people who show me very little respect. I am possibly annoying, shy, or temperamental. I try hard to avoid conflict, rarely stating my opinion. (+3 Charisma)

D. Strong. I fairly often will stand up for myself, and my beliefs. I get a fair amount of respect from most people, excepting the very disrespectful. I may have some disagreeable traits, but they are overshadowed by my likability, at least most of the time. I will often state my opinion on something, even if it might cause conflict. (+4 Charisma)

E. Very strong. I very often stand up for myself, or my beliefs. I am respected by the majority of people that I meet, and rarely are people disrespectful toward me. I have few disagreeable traits, or I am good at hiding them, and they are very often overshadowed by my likability. I will very often state my opinion on something, even if it will cause conflict. (+5 Charisma)


Now, as I happen to like each of these questions, because I think they will so a good job of figuring out someone's Charisma. Sometimes people with weak personalities are actually quite persuasive. Sometimes people with great leadership skills are not very persuasive. Sometimes people who are very physically attractive, are not persuasive at all...

All three of these together will give you a good idea of how persuasive someone naturally is, but... I don't know if it will be fully accurate. Oh, well, I guess I'll see how it works out.

[cattobates]

The new quiz is officially up and operational. I hope that it conforms to everyone's standards, but, obviously, it will not. XD! I just hope that it's accurate. Anyway, enjoy.


Catto's New and Improved D&D Ability Scores Quiz (http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/cattos-dd-ability-scores-quiz)

[noparlpf]

Original results:
Strength: 14
Dexterity: 16
Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 18
Wisdom: 16
Charisma: 14

New results:
Strength: 14
Dexterity: 16
Constitution: 12
Intelligence: 18
Wisdom: 17
Charisma: 15

Again, I think Str might be a little low, Con might be a little low, Int might be a tad high, Wis is very high. Dex is still reasonable, Cha is about the same as last time and I'm not a good judge of that anyway.

[Objection]

I think the stats I got this time around are more fitting (even the 4 in Strength). Certainly, the questions have been improved greatly.

[THAC0]

Much better. I'm still not a fan of the amount of reading necessary to get through all the possible responses to a question, there are a lot of answers which each have a lot of qualifications associated with it. Definitely a violation of the seven plus or minus two rule. I understand why you have so many qualifications for each answer, but you might want to think about streamlining it a bit more.

[cattobates]

Old Stats.

Str. 13

Dex. 15

Con. 14

Int. 15

Wis. 14

Cha. 16



New Stats:

Strength: 12

Dexterity: 15

Constitution: 14

Intelligence: 14

Wisdom: 12

Charisma: 16


I am quite satisfied with the new quiz, and I won't be able to change it for quite some time. I thank all of you for your suggestions, I appreciate the feedback very much. If there are any problems, I will be making minor "bug fixes" tomorrow, and possibly the next day. After that, I won't be on here for two years, as I'm going on a mission. ^_^

Anyway, I hope all of you enjoy taking the quiz in the future, and once again, thank you for all of your help.


EDIT:

Thank you, THACO. :)

[dehro]

question 10
you go from bad to good, and good is defined as exceptional..which in my dictionary means way better than good..in fact, so good as to be exceptional..
using different grades of exceptionality doesn't sound right.
anyway, the main thing is that there's a gap, at least in the definitions (not so much in the explanations) in the various levels of aptitude to memorisation.

Strength: 14

Dexterity: 11

Constitution: 12

Intelligence: 16

Wisdom: 15

Charisma: 14

[banjo1985]

Strength: 11
Dexterity: 12
Constitution: 13
Intelligence: 16
Wisdom: 10
Charisma: 10

Hmmm, in general reasonably accurate, though I'd have expected my Str to be a few points lower and Wis a few points higher. I'm not strong but I'm working out to get better, and I'm a fairly logical and intuitive person except for the occasion catastrophic lapse in common sense. I see myself as quite bright but otherwise completely unremarkable, so those stats seem to bear that out.

Overall I thought the questions were good, and gave a nice sliding scale without too many gaps (from reading other parts of the thread this seems to have been a problem in earlier versions). Occasionally in the mental questions there seemed to be no middle ground answer to tick though. An example is the physical attractiveness question, where I'd have liked a "I think of myself as completely unremarkable, not ugly but most definitely not attractive" option.

Good stuff overall though, quite pleased to see I don't have a major dump stat. :smallsmile:

[Castaras]

A lot better now.

Strength: 6
Dexterity: 13
Constitution: 12
Intelligence: 16
Wisdom: 9
Charisma: 15

Wis and Strength are probably a little higher - wis around 10/11, strength around 8/9. But otherwise about right. Maybe con a little lower.

[Anxe]

Strength: 11
Dexterity: 13
Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 16
Wisdom: 13
Charisma: 13

Con felt a little high to me. Otherwise it feels pretty accurate.

[Jeff the Green]

Strength: 6

Dexterity: 10

Constitution: 11

Intelligence: 19

Wisdom: 10

Charisma: 18

Whaddayaknow... I'm a squishy wizard.

Though CON should be lower. It's the pain tolerance question that screws it up: my pain tolerance is so high because I've been sick, had surgeries, and have muscle pain every day.

[Tyndmyr]

Revised Results

Strength: 18
Dexterity: 20
Constitution: 20
Intelligence: 21
Wisdom: 14
Charisma: 18

This honestly mostly makes me still suspicious of the scoring. I know I'm above average in a few areas...but having 18+ scores in five traits is statistically fairly improbable if we assume a normal distribution curve for each.

Note that things like the pain tolerance question do skew things. I've walked over a mile on a broken leg, sure, but that doesn't mean that I'm resistant to getting the broken leg in the first place.

I will note that the added description skewed my self evaluation of my leadership ability MUCH higher. Pegging G to "low ranking officer or high ranking enlisted" may be a much, much lower bar than you think it is. It also makes me question what exactly you think is basically the limits of human ability.

For example, I can't imagine many people considering putting on pants while standing on one leg to be at all difficult. Hell, basically anyone can learn to stand steadily on one leg with eyes closed with relatively little effort.

Also, there's a lot of duplication of times in the getting sick question.