Figuring out real life ability scores

[JackRackham]

I was thinking about ability scores today and how real-world abilities could translate. In a system like GURPS, that's mostly straightforward. In d&d, it's anything but, right? So, I'm curious what the forum has to say about how to figure this out. I guess it's an ill-timed exercise in problem solving.

To be clear, I guess I'm wondering if anyone has a good idea of how to figure this out (For funsies).


Strength is comparatively easy. The only real complication here is that the weight one can lift over their head and the weight one can drag are likely to give different results when you try to reverse-engineer it. So, you start by figuring out how much you can lift over your head, how much you can drag, etc. Then you come up with a formula for averaging the results. And maybe it's a weighted average since certain things might translate better to combat and, therefore, be more relevant. If I wanted to invest real thought into this (I don't; I have a paper I should be writing), it wouldn't take long to do.

Dexterity is a tough one to figure out. I mean, how would you measure that in a way that's not impacted by trained skills? I'm sure there's some sort of standardized test for hand-eye coordination and probably another for manual dexterity, and if not, I'm sure one could be created, but I've never seen one, and I imagine finding a quick-and-dirty way to do it would be tough.

Constitution

This would be a measure of how resistant you are to sickness, toxins, and physical damage. It's really straightforward, but have fun testing it. I mean, short of administering doses of different drugs and poisons to random teenagers (level 1), and having a calibrated machine deliver blows to the head and stomach of others, then analyzing their results, I don't know how you would even figure out a standard.

Intelligence Intelligence would be exceptionally easy to measure (in a semi-reliable way) if not for the presence of Wisdom. We've all taken dozens of tests designed to measure intelligence in some way (some are geared more towards attainment). Figure out where you are on the bell curve in each, average them, and compare to a bell curve based on your favorite method of dice rolls or - if you prefer - to that weird curve people always refer to that I can't remember the evidence for. The one where 18 Int was supposed to be borderline unattainable. As-is, you'd have to figure out the difference between Wisdom and Intelligence, and choose tests that measure one, but not the other (probably abstract stuff like IQ tests over more practical applications like humanities stuff).

Wisdom First of all, the line between intelligence and wisdom is really unclear to me. Second, they complicated it by factoring in physical perception. So I guess you figure out which areas of real-world intelligence would equate to wisdom, measure that, then measure vision, willpower and hearing, and created a weighted average of the results? That's the best I can come up with.

Charisma I guess you'd have to do focus groups or surveys with a bunch of peoples' friends and acquaintances, have them rate the person on persuasiveness, force of personality, etc. Use random survey data to determine attractiveness based on pictures taken of the person at random or wearing standardized clothing (etc). Then use that data to create a curve, and apply the same method to test people against that curve? I don't even know.

[erikun]

The problem is that there are all kinds of ways to determine different stats, and different methods give different results. Does 18 Strength mean the top 0.46% of people in the world, because rolling three 6's has a 0.46% chance of happening? Does 18 Strength mean someone who can lift 300 lbs over their head, because that's how much a 18 Strength character can do? Does 18 Strength mean someone who has a 20% improvement over someone with 10 Strength, as 18 Strength has +20% on Strength rolls compared to someone with 10 Strength?

And this is just with numbers that we can cleanly measure.

[JackRackham]

I know. For me, I'd just pick the easiest thing with each score. Lift numbers, IQ/ACT/GRE scores, etc. But I'm curious if anyone can come up with a similarly simple and reasonable method for DEX, CON, WIS, and CHA. That's what I wanna know.

[Reinkai]

I always explained it as:

18 is the best of the best of our world. There may be one or two better people, but it's unlikely. They're Olympic Athlete quality. Going up from there is getting into mythical fantasy realm.

I was having some trouble just the other day explaining what exactly a 24 charisma person would be like. There's just no comparison possible.

[Nettlekid]

I'd use breath-holding as a measure of Con, since that's something that, like Strength and lifting numbers, is measured directly by the score as opposed to the modifier. Namely, being able to hold your breath for 12 seconds gives you a Con score of 1, and you go on from there. But it's a bit tough to gauge. For example, I once held my breath for 2 minutes and 36 seconds, which would correlate to a Con score of 13, except that it was very difficult for me and I usually can't hold my breath nearly that long. I was very surprised that I was able to, that time.

[limejuicepowder]

The other thing that obscures the issue, badly, is learned behavior. It's proven for instance that language is not just the foundation of communication but it affects the way we think - a speaker of one language will see a different picture or hear a different question than someone who speaks a different language. A test could make one person look smart and one look stupid even if they have identical scores (and that's not even considering that some people test well and others don't). This has a huge impact on the mental scores especially.

Consider this: a person with 20 cha is essentially indistinguishable from someone with 10 cha and 5 ranks in bluff, intimidate, and diplomacy. Those ranks could be attained at 2nd level, well within the norm for an educated, experienced modern individual.

To get results that meant anything at all I feel like each person would have to be tested on things that they've never done before. Then the results would somehow have to be normalized. Otherwise, you're really just testing that person's experiences and not their raw scores, or talent.

[limejuicepowder]

I'd use breath-holding as a measure of Con, since that's something that, like Strength and lifting numbers, is measured directly by the score as opposed to the modifier. Namely, being able to hold your breath for 12 seconds gives you a Con score of 1, and you go on from there. But it's a bit tough to gauge. For example, I once held my breath for 2 minutes and 36 seconds, which would correlate to a Con score of 13, except that it was very difficult for me and I usually can't hold my breath nearly that long. I was very surprised that I was able to, that time.

Even this test is pretty wonky. For a person who doesn't hold their breath regularly they are going to get wildly different times each attempt, and probably significantly better successively.

[ericp65]

There was an old article somewhere that discussed this in a gaming mag. All I recall is that, for DEX, you hold a ruler in one hand, at 0, between thumb and index finger, with your other thumb and index finger an inch below the bottom, opened and ready to catch the ruler. Drop it and catch it as quickly as you can, and add eight to get your DEX. I always got a score of 19, but I doubt that's an accurate reflection of my real DEX.

I'd rather have a way to rate dexterity according to accuracy with archery, as that's my best and only "martial" ability. I can hit anything I can see out to 40 m with a double recurve longbow, given six to twelve arrows and an unmoving target. Best shot ever was a bull's eye from 50 m, but I don't trust my accuracy beyond that.

INT might be related to a person's IQ, but I don't know what the calculation for that would be.

[ericp65]

Even this test is pretty wonky. For a person who doesn't hold their breath regularly they are going to get wildly different times each attempt, and probably significantly better successively.

On average, three minutes without oxygen will kill.

[ericp65]

The problem is that there are all kinds of ways to determine different stats, and different methods give different results. Does 18 Strength mean the top 0.46% of people in the world, because rolling three 6's has a 0.46% chance of happening? Does 18 Strength mean someone who can lift 300 lbs over their head, because that's how much a 18 Strength character can do? Does 18 Strength mean someone who has a 20% improvement over someone with 10 Strength, as 18 Strength has +20% on Strength rolls compared to someone with 10 Strength?

And this is just with numbers that we can cleanly measure.

Wasn't it printed in a pre-3.0 edition core rulebook that a person with 18 STR could lift up to 180 lbs.? Or was that for 18/00 STR?

[Jeff the Green]

Intelligence Intelligence would be exceptionally easy to measure (in a semi-reliable way) if not for the presence of Wisdom. We've all taken dozens of tests designed to measure intelligence in some way (some are geared more towards attainment). Figure out where you are on the bell curve in each, average them, and compare to a bell curve based on your favorite method of dice rolls or - if you prefer - to that weird curve people always refer to that I can't remember the evidence for. The one where 18 Int was supposed to be borderline unattainable. As-is, you'd have to figure out the difference between Wisdom and Intelligence, and choose tests that measure one, but not the other (probably abstract stuff like IQ tests over more practical applications like humanities stuff).

Intelligence is pretty easy if you assume that a) it's equivalent to IQ and b) that 3d6 roughly represents the distribution of scores in the D&D universe.

The mean of 3d6 is 10.5 and the standard deviation is 3. The mean of IQ is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. You can therefore convert IQ to Intelligence like this:

Int = (IQ - 100)/5 + 10.5


So if you have an IQ of 135 (2.33333 standard deviations from the mean, or 99th percentile) your Int is (135 - 100)/5 +10.5 = 17.5.

(You can do this with most standardized tests, such as the SATs, but the mean and standard deviation vary year to year and may not correspond as well to Intelligence as to Knowledge skills.)

[prufock]

Constitution This would be a measure of how resistant you are to sickness, toxins, and physical damage. It's really straightforward, but have fun testing it. I mean, short of administering doses of different drugs and poisons to random teenagers (level 1), and having a calibrated machine deliver blows to the head and stomach of others, then analyzing their results, I don't know how you would even figure out a standard.

As others have said, there is the breath-holding measure. You should be able to hold your breath a number of rounds equal to half your constitution score.

You can also measure this by running at top speed (~12 mph) for as long as you possible, and dividing your time into rounds of 6 seconds. If you can run for 9 rounds or less, your constitution score is equal to the number of rounds. At 10 rounds or higher, you should subtract (ability modifier + 1) from the number of rounds you run. So for example, if you run 17 rounds, that's a con score of 14, since 14 is a +2 modifier (17-(2+1))=14.


Charisma I guess you'd have to do focus groups or surveys with a bunch of peoples' friends and acquaintances, have them rate the person on persuasiveness, force of personality, etc. Use random survey data to determine attractiveness based on pictures taken of the person at random or wearing standardized clothing (etc). Then use that data to create a curve, and apply the same method to test people against that curve? I don't even know.

There is a test called the Affective Communication Test which could be compared against population scores. It's a generally reliable and valid test, though it does rely on self-report.

[Chronos]

Quoth Jeff the Green:

Intelligence is pretty easy if you assume that a) it's equivalent to IQ and b) that 3d6 roughly represents the distribution of scores in the D&D universe.

The mean of 3d6 is 10.5 and the standard deviation is 3. The mean of IQ is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. You can therefore convert IQ to Intelligence like this:
Huh, I was about to nitpick that the standard deviation of 3d6 isn't an integer, but I just worked it out and it's about 2.96. Close enough.

(to do it yourself, the variance of 1dx is (x^2 - 1)/12 . If you add (or subtract) multiple dice together, you just add the variances. After you've got the variance for the total, take the square root to find the standard deviation. So the standard deviation of 3d6 is sqrt(35/4).)

And it's widely known that IQ doesn't measure the entirety of thinking ability, but the evidence is clear that it does measure some meaningful quantity. I think it's reasonable to say that Int, in the game, represents the same thing that IQ tests measure.

One caveat, though: It needs to be an actual IQ test, which most people have never had the opportunity to take. No, there are not any IQ tests available for free online. There are some websites that claim to be IQ tests, but none of them are even remotely resembling accurate.

[TuggyNE]

As others have said, there is the breath-holding measure. You should be able to hold your breath a number of rounds equal to half your constitution score.

Well, technically, you can hold your breath without making checks for that many rounds; after that it's Con checks every round with increasing DCs. This efficiently explains the variability observed, but unfortunately means you'll need to do a number of trials. Probably at least ten, maybe considerably more.

[SowZ]

I'll look at myself, first...

For Strength, based on carrying limits, probably 9-10. Pretty simple.

For Dex, I have no idea how to test. So I'll say average? I'm pretty clumsy, though. So maybe lower.

For Con, I just have to ballpark. I'm a very sickly person, so I'd say 6-7.

For Int, based on the only standardized test I have taken, (the ACT,) I was in the top 7% so that's, what, 15? 16?

For Wis/Cha, no clue. I am as good at reading people as the next guy, I guess, though not phenomenal. I get as many dates as the average joe and end up taking some leadership/initiative in friend groups but am fairly average in situations with acquaintances or when showing leadership at work. At most 12, probably more like 11 or so.

Is pain tolerance Will or Fort? It's Will, right? I suppose I don't need high Wis. I should have two feats, after all, so I could grab Iron Will. Maybe I have the trait that gives me -1 Fort/+1 Will. Plucky, is it?

So I end up being around 13-17 Point Buy. Average person is 15 PB, so that makes sense.

As for how to actually get your numbers? Other than Strength and Int, I think you have to do what I did and ballpark it based on your own experiences. If you aren't great at judging yourself, let your friends and such contribute if you have the stomach for it and they are honest.

The problem with individual test of fortitude/reflexes are that they aren't going to give a good general idea of stats like dexterity. I used to LARP and was called Olive Oil for my dodging ability and I could dodgeball like nobodies business in middle school. But can't catch a thrown object worth beans and will trip over my own shoelaces twice a day.

I can hold my breath for a long time, but I know my Con is about as good as a pnemonia ridden ferret. (Don't ask me where I got that analogy. I just went with it.)

[Cirrylius]

18 is the best of the best of our world. There may be one or two better people, but it's unlikely. They're Olympic Athlete quality. Going up from there is getting into mythical fantasy realm.


Maybe in 2nd Ed., but keep in mind 18 is only max human for a 1st through 3rd-level character, which, on average, would be a person at high school or college age; stats continue to go up with time, and there's class abilities that bump it up higher. I seem to remember a discussion a while ago about how high a real-world Da Vinci could bump his Intelligence without magic, and I thiiiink the result was 26 for a Venerable 20th level character who had most of his class levels in Expert. Matt Damon's character from Good Will Hunting would probably have been an 18-19.

[Chronos]

Yeah, your high school probably included a few people with an 18 in any given ability score. Being an Olympic athlete requires a couple of 18s in physical stats (which ones depend on the sport), plus several levels in whatever class is most relevant.

And don't buy into that business about Einstein being a level 5 expert, or whatever. That might be true for a game that only vaguely resembles D&D, but it doesn't match D&D at all.

[SowZ]

Maybe in 2nd Ed., but keep in mind 18 is only max human for a 1st through 3rd-level character, which, on average, would be a person at high school or college age; stats continue to go up with time, and there's class abilities that bump it up higher. I seem to remember a discussion a while ago about how high a real-world Da Vinci could bump his Intelligence without magic, and I thiiiink the result was 26 for a Venerable 20th level character who had most of his class levels in Expert. Matt Damon's character from Good Will Hunting would probably have been an 18-19.

No one is ever 20th level in RL. A level 4 Venerable human with the Intelligence Prodigy template and 3 levels in Human Paragon could get his Intelligence up to 26, though, with a corresponding +4 to one Int based skill. With Skill focus, the right traits, max ranks, and a MW item, (access to internet research and a library on the topic of study applies,) someone could get +26 in an Int based skill.

That same character as a level 5 with the favored and primary contact feats could have +30 in an Int based skill. Proving yet again that anyone can be made as a level 4-6 character.

[PaucaTerrorem]

My only issue with the CON test is this; I can't hold my breath or run for distance, but I can take hits and pain. STR, DEX, and INT are easily tested. CON, WIS, and CHA are harder. To test those aspects of a person you really need to know them on a personal basis. To have seen situations that call for certain skills. Otherwise it's all bunk.

[Soupz]

One caveat, though: It needs to be an actual IQ test, which most people have never had the opportunity to take. No, there are not any IQ tests available for free online. There are some websites that claim to be IQ tests, but none of them are even remotely resembling accurate.

I remember taking one and getting within a couple points of where I was when I was tested as a kid. It was timed logic problems, pretty much the same as before.

If all moops are gurps, but not all gurps are fops, but some fops are dips, and some moops are...

It should be accurate enough to use for PLAYING A GAME.

[MeiLeTeng]

You can also measure this by running at top speed (~12 mph) for as long as you possible, and dividing your time into rounds of 6 seconds. If you can run for 9 rounds or less, your constitution score is equal to the number of rounds. At 10 rounds or higher, you should subtract (ability modifier + 1) from the number of rounds you run. So for example, if you run 17 rounds, that's a con score of 14, since 14 is a +2 modifier (17-(2+1))=14.


Note that you should probably be in at least a light load at the time, since while it may not affect the ability to run in game it really will in real life.

Also again it's rounds equal to your constitution score and then you make progressive checks, so like holding your breath you'd need to do a series of runs to figure it out properly, just subtracting a guess on your score modifier wouldn't necessarily be super accurate since it's only a DC 10 to pass.

[ericp65]

Intelligence is pretty easy if you assume that a) it's equivalent to IQ and b) that 3d6 roughly represents the distribution of scores in the D&D universe.

The mean of 3d6 is 10.5 and the standard deviation is 3. The mean of IQ is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. You can therefore convert IQ to Intelligence like this:

Int = (IQ - 100)/5 + 10.5


So if you have an IQ of 135 (2.33333 standard deviations from the mean, or 99th percentile) your Int is (135 - 100)/5 +10.5 = 17.5.

(You can do this with most standardized tests, such as the SATs, but the mean and standard deviation vary year to year and may not correspond as well to Intelligence as to Knowledge skills.)

That would put my INT at 19.5. Not shabby :)

[Chronos]

Thank you, ericp65, for illustrating my point that online IQ tests are completely meaningless.

[ericp65]

Thank you, ericp65, for illustrating my point that online IQ tests are completely meaningless.

To live is to serve *ROTFL*

[ramrod]

You will always have trouble with something like this. It's a cool concepts but high stats would only be attainable by heroically endowed people, above 18 would be considered mythically high, e.g. Angelic charisma.

There are of course so stats that lend themselves to being measurable e.g. Strength. Others would have to be bell curved, with 10-12 being in the realms of normal.

I think the best way would be to create ranges of ability and give them general descriptions. However this is further complicated by the multifaceted nature of abilities E.g. Constitution would not only be a combination of your ability to withstand toxins but also how long you can stress your body for.. Imagine a navy seal with allergies lol. But... Figure which descriptive category each person would fall into then decide whether you a just about in that category or excelling but not meeting the requisites of the next category. Ability modifiers are useful to help imagine these brackets, if you excel or suck at something. If you fall ill easily and tire quickly, you couldn't put your stat score as anything higher than in the -1 modifier realm.

Virtually everyone would figure between 8-12, Interesting idea though!

[killem2]

lay out a grid to scale, and try to tumble to test your dex score. :smallbiggrin:

[SowZ]

To live is to serve *ROTFL*

My spread on online IQ tests, even taking the most reputable ones, is anywhere from 115 to 137. I'm willing to take the difference, (126,) but I also realize it doesn't work that way at all.


You will always have trouble with something like this. It's a cool concepts but high stats would only be attainable by heroically endowed people, above 18 would be considered mythically high, e.g. Angelic charisma.

There are of course so stats that lend themselves to being measurable e.g. Strength. Others would have to be bell curved, with 10-12 being in the realms of normal.

I think the best way would be to create ranges of ability and give them general descriptions. However this is further complicated by the multifaceted nature of abilities E.g. Constitution would not only be a combination of your ability to withstand toxins but also how long you can stress your body for.. Imagine a navy seal with allergies lol. But... Figure which descriptive category each person would fall into then decide whether you a just about in that category or excelling but not meeting the requisites of the next category. Ability modifiers are useful to help imagine these brackets, if you excel or suck at something. If you fall ill easily and tire quickly, you couldn't put your stat score as anything higher than in the -1 modifier realm.

Virtually everyone would figure between 8-12, Interesting idea though!

I don't know about you, I certainly have at least one stat below 8. Some of my friends would, too, with some having Charisma in the 7 range and some with Strength there, as well.

It's a lot easier to stat yourself up as a WoD character since there are less specific stats.

[Drelua]

The problem with this is that there's a lot of disagreement about what a specific stat actually means, and the only tests I've seen focus on a single aspect. I mean, I can't hold my breath for even close to a minute, but I can run a mile without too much trouble, I can handle pain pretty well, and I rarely get sick.

I think it's a lot easier to come up with your stat priority, especially if you actually wanted to play a character based on yourself. Someone might say "there's no way you have 16 INT!" but no one that doesn't know you is going to tell you that there's no way you're smarter than you are strong. That way no one gets upset when someone else has way better stats than them. Mine would probably be something like WIS > DEX/INT > STR/CON > CHA.

[ramrod]

Oh definitely, there will be plenty of people that have less than average stats in a number of areas.

Lets just take Sheldon Cooper as an example (big band theory for those unfamiliar, sorry) he would have genius level intelligence, say 16-17, maybe 18 if you considered him 'heroically' intelligent, but comes across as significantly more caustic than even the more socially inept people, so would have a charisma at about 6.

However, most people are by the very nature of being human, average. With +/- 1 to their modifiers. +/-2 would be considered exceptional, +/-3 would be considered heroic/abysmal. +/-4 would be unheard of with the exception of hideously ugly, unfortunately disabled, significant learning difficulties etc (sorry to lump disability in with such negatives, I have no discriminatory views against disabled folk, but certain disabilities would definitely affect your ability to pick a lock, tumble or jump up a wall),

In this situation you really would have to appreciate the extreme nature of what a sub 6 or above 15 would represent. Certainly a sub 4 or above 17 would be unheard of and that sub 4s would be more likely than a score above 17 (due to age, illness etc people are more likely to be made imperfect than perfect).

[SowZ]

Oh definitely, there will be plenty of people that have less than average stats in a number of areas.

Lets just take Sheldon Cooper as an example (big band theory for those unfamiliar, sorry) he would have genius level intelligence, say 16-17, maybe 18 if you considered him 'heroically' intelligent, but comes across as significantly more caustic than even the more socially inept people, so would have a charisma at about 6.

However, most people are by the very nature of being human, average. With +/- 1 to their modifiers. +/-2 would be considered exceptional, +/-3 would be considered heroic/abysmal. +/-4 would be unheard of with the exception of hideously ugly, unfortunately disabled, significant learning difficulties etc (sorry to lump disability in with such negatives, I have no discriminatory views against disabled folk, but certain disabilities would definitely affect your ability to pick a lock, tumble or jump up a wall),

In this situation you really would have to appreciate the extreme nature of what a sub 6 or above 15 would represent. Certainly a sub 4 or above 17 would be unheard of and that sub 4s would be more likely than a score above 17 (due to age, illness etc people are more likely to be made imperfect than perfect).

It's not quite as extreme as you think. Nearly 5% of people would have either a 16 or 4 Int. Nearly 5% of people would have either a 16 or 4 Str. Assuming no crossover, (no one is that extreme in more than one stat,) that would mean something around 13% of people would have a 16 in one stat. Of course, there would be some crossover. But probably not a whole lot. So nearly 10% or so of people would have a 16 in SOMETHING.

Not nearly so uncommon.

[Jeff the Green]

My spread on online IQ tests, even taking the most reputable ones, is anywhere from 115 to 137. I'm willing to take the difference, (126,) but I also realize it doesn't work that way at all.

To be perfectly fair to online "IQ tests" (which really don't deserve fairness), real IQ tests have a fairly large variance depending on the particular questions, your mental state, time of day, etc. I can't remember what it is and don't have time to look it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar to your online test results.

[ramrod]

It's not quite as extreme as you think. Nearly 5% of people would have either a 16 or 4 Int. Nearly 5% of people would have either a 16 or 4 Str. Assuming no crossover, (no one is that extreme in more than one stat,) that would mean something around 13% of people would have a 16 in one stat. Of course, there would be some crossover. But probably not a whole lot. So nearly 10% or so of people would have a 16 in SOMETHING.

Not nearly so uncommon.

Are you basing this off of a bell curve? If you are aiming for realism when thinking about what an 18 actually is a bell curve would basically end at 16 due to the heroic nature of 18. This would mean <1% chance of having 16 in a stat. Heroic would imply superhuman, above 18 being supernatural. Up to 16 maybe. But even if you consider 10% of people having a stat above 16, that still makes the average person being nowhere near this.

[Reinkai]

Maybe in 2nd Ed., but keep in mind 18 is only max human for a 1st through 3rd-level character, which, on average, would be a person at high school or college age; stats continue to go up with time, and there's class abilities that bump it up higher. I seem to remember a discussion a while ago about how high a real-world Da Vinci could bump his Intelligence without magic, and I thiiiink the result was 26 for a Venerable 20th level character who had most of his class levels in Expert. Matt Damon's character from Good Will Hunting would probably have been an 18-19.

Keep in mind also that player characters are the exception, not the norm, in the D&D world. You don't see many commoners with an 18.

On a point buy system, an 18 would cost you 17 points (in Pathfinder, too lazy to dig up my 3.5 books). That means you would need to be running a high fantasy world to achieve that. Since our world is decidedly not fantasy, we're talking a point buy limit of 10.

[faircoin]

real IQ tests have a fairly large variance depending on the particular questions, your mental state, time of day, etc

This is untrue, within reasonable frames of "mental state" (obviously sleep deprivation has its effects). There's this dumb idea being sported in popular media that IQ tests are pseudoscience or "bad science". No; this is just handwringing. Psychometricians use IQ tests because they are academically useful. They are academically useful because the scores are useful at predicting important things (not necessarily "intelligence"--whatever that means, but things like financial ability, academic skill, etc).

I can cite, too.

Jones, H. E., and Bayley, N. (1941). The Berkeley Growth Study. Child Development,12,167-173.

Jensen, A. R. (1993). Test validity: g vs. "tacit knowledge." Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 9-10.

[ramrod]

You're approaching it from a gaming point of view whilst I'm approaching it from realism where possible, using average as a homebase, not point buy. The average person doesnt have a low stat because he has a high stat. A high class athlete is not limited in charisma and intelligence because they have high dexterity and strength for example.

Most people might be gifted or slightly hindered in certain areas (+/-1). A particularly strong person can lift more than the average person. Some might even be exceptional at a 2 modifier.

However even in high fantasy, a modifier of 3 would be uncommon and 4 highly exceptional. I doubt even exceptionally strong people could compete with a str 18 character.. Bend bars? However, thisnis also where it falls down, there are plenty of things that a strength 18 character would have in common with heavyweight boxers or weight lifters.

[JackRackham]

lay out a grid to scale, and try to tumble to test your dex score. :smallbiggrin:

Ah, but Tumble is a trained-only skill.


To be perfectly fair to online "IQ tests" (which really don't deserve fairness), real IQ tests have a fairly large variance depending on the particular questions, your mental state, time of day, etc. I can't remember what it is and don't have time to look it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar to your online test results.

Yeah, that's why I've seen qualified opinions to the effect that consistent performance on the far side of the curve is more significant. I remember something that recommended looking at one's place in the curve across IQ tests, SAT/ACTs, GREs, etc.


Keep in mind also that player characters are the exception, not the norm, in the D&D world. You don't see many commoners with an 18.

On a point buy system, an 18 would cost you 17 points (in Pathfinder, too lazy to dig up my 3.5 books). That means you would need to be running a high fantasy world to achieve that. Since our world is decidedly not fantasy, we're talking a point buy limit of 10.

and



Most people might be gifted or slightly hindered in certain areas (+/-1). A particularly strong person can lift more than the average person. Some might even be exceptional at a 2 modifier.

I think you're underestimating how heroic and crazy our world is. Look at Alexander the Great. Look at some of the ridiculous feats of athleticism in the world (top athletes perform more than 20% better than most of us, by a long shot). You take the average NFL linebacker, he's lifting several times normal, running and changing direction at least 30% faster, he can run many times longer than most, and his hand-eye coordination is outstanding. Think about the DEX of a pro soccer player. Look at all the people who've taken mind-boggling amounts of damage and kept fighting (read up on medal of honor winners). Ask yourself if you really believe a guy like Stephen Hawking isn't more than 20% more intelligent than average.

[SowZ]

Are you basing this off of a bell curve? If you are aiming for realism when thinking about what an 18 actually is a bell curve would basically end at 16 due to the heroic nature of 18. This would mean <1% chance of having 16 in a stat. Heroic would imply superhuman, above 18 being supernatural. Up to 16 maybe. But even if you consider 10% of people having a stat above 16, that still makes the average person being nowhere near this.

I'm basing it off of standard deviations. Yeah, 16 is exceptional because it puts you in the top 2.3 percent of people or so. (Actually, factoring in stat bonus from age and level ups probably more like the top 4% or so? hard to say.) That is good, but it isn't superhuman to have a 16. So in a room of 40 people, you are the smartest one in the room IS great. But it isn't super rare.


Keep in mind also that player characters are the exception, not the norm, in the D&D world. You don't see many commoners with an 18.

On a point buy system, an 18 would cost you 17 points (in Pathfinder, too lazy to dig up my 3.5 books). That means you would need to be running a high fantasy world to achieve that. Since our world is decidedly not fantasy, we're talking a point buy limit of 10.

Is your PB limit of ten based on stats starting at 10 or stats starting at 8? If stats start at 8, the average person is point buy is 15.

[ramrod]

I would steer clear of point buy systems for reasons mentioned before I.e. an athlete is not limited in other stats because they have a high str and dex.

Your argument for pro athletes stands up. However, we are talking about the AVERAGE person. The average person cannot do all of those things you mention, what percentage of the human population do these pro athletes make up? Significantly less that a fraction of a percent. Even just taking healthy, well fed populations, they still make up a fraction of a percentage.

Even the average low/sundayleague football player has little more than skill and is unlikely to be that much significantly stronger or faster than than the average healthy person, maybe equal to a +1 or 2 modifier and nowhere near 3 or 4.

I'm also basing the limits of 18 being superhuman from the old ad and d descriptors of stats.

[SowZ]

I would steer clear of point buy systems for reasons mentioned before I.e. an athlete is not limited in other stats because they have a high str and dex.

Your argument for pro athletes stands up. However, we are talking about the AVERAGE person. The average person cannot do all of those things you mention, what percentage of the human population do these pro athletes make up? Significantly less that a fraction of a percent. Even just taking healthy, well fed populations, they still make up a fraction of a percentage.

Even the average low/sundayleague football player has little more than skill and is unlikely to be that much significantly stronger or faster than than the average healthy person, maybe equal to a +1 or 2 modifier and nowhere near 3 or 4.

I'm also basing the limits of 18 being superhuman from the old ad and d descriptors of stats.

Except that even at level 4, you can have 26 in a stat with no magic. That would be 23 without age bonus. 22 at level 3. So a level three human can still be 6 standard deviations above the standard population. THAT'S super human. But it is still possible. You might be on reality TV shows and such, but it is totally doable. 18 is very, very good. But not super human.

When I hear super human, I think 'unique among thousands and thousands of people. You probably don't know anyone this good.' Not, 'One in 250 people, you probably know a couple people like this.'

[ramrod]

All of the examples you gave would be examples of superhumans. Usain bolt would of course be an 18, he is the pinnacle of human speed. Similarly with super humanly charismatic people (Adolf Hitler?) etc.

People that have gone on fighting despite considerable injuries would fall more into lucky save rolls than superhuman constitution, just as feats of strength from emotional mother rescuing children etc does not mean they have super human strength but more along the lines of buffs (rage?) and lucky rolls...

[Rijan_Sai]

Please, and I mean this to everyone with all due respect, read this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) all the way through, then read it again.

With that understanding, IMHO the biggest breakdown of trying to figure "Real World Stats" is skill-point distribution. This has been touched on earlier in the thread, but remember that every +1 modifier in a skill is = to +2 in the relevant stat (i.e. Skill Focus: Knowledge (History) is worth +6 to Inteligence!)

That in mind, what skill do you have? Now, there are some metrics (that have been mentioned) to determining at least physical stats (how much weight can you lift/carry?) But (for the most part,) most stats primary uses is in combat (AC; attack bonus; initiative; etc.) and skill use.

...
...
...
I probably had more to say, but I had a very long night last night, and a long day today, with little sleep in between, so I'm going to end with one final though:
In regards to the person who said to "forget the 'Einstien is a 5th level expert' crap," concider (with mind to the article above) that 5th level is pretty much the pinnacle of HUMAN supremacy! (Emphasis on "human") Level 6 starts to become something beyond what the greatest of us will every achieve in our lifetimes.

Okay, I'm done...

[ramrod]

Except that even at level 4, you can have 26 in a stat with no magic. That would be 23 without age bonus. 22 at level 3. So a level three human can still be 6 standard deviations above the standard population. THAT'S super human. But it is still possible. You might be on reality TV shows and such, but it is totally doable. 18 is very, very good. But not super human.

When I hear super human, I think 'unique among thousands and thousands of people. You probably don't know anyone this good.' Not, 'One in 250 people, you probably know a couple people like this.'

Arghhhh ermergerrd... You keep thinking high fantasy and not reality which is what the topic is about! In d and d above 18 is considered supernatural, ie. out of the realms of human ability. Above 22-24 is demigod ability and certainly only available in high fantasy and not the reality that you can get in a game!!

[SowZ]

Arghhhh ermergerrd... You keep thinking high fantasy and not reality which is what the topic is about! In d and d above 18 is considered supernatural, ie. out of the realms of human ability. Above 22-24 is demigod ability and certainly only available in high fantasy and not the reality that you can get in a game!!

Except that isn't true at all. Every two points in a stat IS a standard deviation. People who are five standard deviations above the average exist. As far as carrying limits, how long people can run without tiring, etc. etc. people can objectively have 20 or higher in a stat. If D&D said, "The most a human can ever lift without supernatural magic powers is 17 ounces," we would have to completely disregard that line when talking about RL ability scores.

Also, no, a level 1 Orc with no magical abilities or templates and an NPC class can have 22 Strength. A level 4 human commoner can have 24 Intelligence. That is hardly demi-god levels. Actually, we have stats for demi-god like beings. Their best stats hover around thirty or so. (10 standard deviations above the average. Which, functionally, IS impossible in the real world.)

[JackRackham]

I would steer clear of point buy systems for reasons mentioned before I.e. an athlete is not limited in other stats because they have a high str and dex.

Your argument for pro athletes stands up. However, we are talking about the AVERAGE person. The average person cannot do all of those things you mention, what percentage of the human population do these pro athletes make up? Significantly less that a fraction of a percent. Even just taking healthy, well fed populations, they still make up a fraction of a percentage.

Even the average low/sundayleague football player has little more than skill and is unlikely to be that much significantly stronger or faster than than the average healthy person, maybe equal to a +1 or 2 modifier and nowhere near 3 or 4.

I'm also basing the limits of 18 being superhuman from the old ad and d descriptors of stats.

Yeah, given what stats do in 3.5, I don't think that holds up. 20% better than average is far from superhuman in most endeavors. And, if 8-12 is average, that's fine, but there's a great deal of variation. I think most people have at least one stat well outside the average range. And the average man is said to be able to bench press around 135; I think even in high school, the average football player benches around 50% more than that.

[ramrod]

Jesus, you are still referring to in-game possibilities.

I am assuming a system where there is a hard cap of human ability of 18 (such as under the old d and d system where without magic 18 was the cap for humans, hence 18/+percentile strength).

We are talking about AVERAGE people. I don't care if you can get a level 4 goblin to 5 million dex. We are trying to translate people into stats within the realms of d and d. Even in d and d, a high fantasy world 18 is considered well above exceptional (regardless of what is possible with point buy, a flawed system for generating idealized characters, a system that we use because we assume that the point buy that we make is what lead them to their current rolls, NOT for creating normal npcs or for translating into real life).

A stat of 18 should encompass all of the abilities that any human could possibly hope to achieve, given perfect genetics, appropriate age and in RL, training.

A stat of 10 would be perfectly average, no better or worse than the average person. At average strength you could lift within a specific range for example.

Above 18 in the system that I keep referring to is not possible, you might wish to go with another system.

[ramrod]

Yeah, given what stats do in 3.5, I don't think that holds up. 20% better than average is far from superhuman in most endeavors. And, if 8-12 is average, that's fine, but there's a great deal of variation. I think most people have at least one stat well outside the average range. And the average man is said to be able to bench press around 135; I think even in high school, the average football player benches around 50% more than that.

I wouldn't say that 18 would only be 20% better than average. Would a dex 18 thief only be 20% better than a dex 10 thief? Would a strength 18 fighter only be 20% better than a strength 10 fighter? As a sum of its parts absolutely not.

[SowZ]

Yeah, given what stats do in 3.5, I don't think that holds up. 20% better than average is far from superhuman in most endeavors. And, if 8-12 is average, that's fine, but there's a great deal of variation. I think most people have at least one stat well outside the average range. And the average man is said to be able to bench press around 135; I think even in high school, the average football player benches around 50% more than that.

Partly this comes from stats being static and very hard to raise in D&D. In RL, yours Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution will vary a lot based on how much you are working out. Someone with 18 Str may, three years later, be at 12.

Mental stats work the same way in real life, but probably on a smaller scale, (they don't jump around 'quite' so drastically, but they still shift around.)

Jesus, you are still referring to in-game possibilities.

I am assuming a system where there is a hard cap of human ability of 18 (such as under the old d and d system where without magic 18 was the cap for humans, hence 18/+percentile strength).

We are talking about AVERAGE people. I don't care if you can get a level 4 goblin to 5 million dex. We are trying to translate people into stats within the realms of d and d. Even in d and d, a high fantasy world 18 is considered well above exceptional (regardless of what is possible with point buy, a flawed system for generating idealized characters, a system that we use because we assume that the point buy that we make is what lead them to their current rolls, NOT for creating normal npcs or for translating into real life).

A stat of 18 should encompass all of the abilities that any human could possibly hope to achieve, given perfect genetics, appropriate age and in RL, training.

A stat of 10 would be perfectly average, no better or worse than the average person. At average strength you could lift within a specific range for example.

Above 18 in the system that I keep referring to is not possible, you might wish to go with another system.

Whether or not a stat of 18 should represent everything a human can do, it doesn't. That is objective and 100% proveable fact with numbers. The max limits of D&D Str 18 are surpassed by RL people with some regularity. People can be, in real life, than four standard deviations above the average in intelligence.

You can say there should be a hard cap, but there isn't in the real world. At least, the hard cap wouldn't be four deviations. Whether or not going above 18 in the system you are talking about is possible or not is irrelevant. The thread starter asked for real life stat approximations. So if the system you use maxes out at 18, that means the system you use is inherently more flawed than some other systems to do what the OP wants.

[JackRackham]

Jesus, you are still referring to in-game possibilities.

I am assuming a system where there is a hard cap of human ability of 18 (such as under the old d and d system where without magic 18 was the cap for humans, hence 18/+percentile strength).

We are talking about AVERAGE people. I don't care if you can get a level 4 goblin to 5 million dex. We are trying to translate people into stats within the realms of d and d. Even in d and d, a high fantasy world 18 is considered well above exceptional (regardless of what is possible with point buy, a flawed system for generating idealized characters, a system that we use because we assume that the point buy that we make is what lead them to their current rolls, NOT for creating normal npcs or for translating into real life).

A stat of 18 should encompass all of the abilities that any human could possibly hope to achieve, given perfect genetics, appropriate age and in RL, training.

A stat of 10 would be perfectly average, no better or worse than the average person. At average strength you could lift within a specific range for example.

Above 18 in the system that I keep referring to is not possible, you might wish to go with another system.

*18 is the hard cap for level one human ability.

But yeah, that's my assumption as well. My point is that using a curve based on the distribution of 3d6 is not terrible. After all, the difference in practical terms between someone with an IQ of 150 and 180 is close to nil. What I mean is, there are very few scenarios where that difference is meaningful. The difference between 150 and 120 is far more important. And the difference between 120 and 90 is more important still. So, it's fine for an 18 to represent a 150 and a 180. And the few people we believe to be above that had a great deal of training (class levels).

[Reinkai]

The reason I brought up point buy is that having an 18 isn't even possible in standard D&D unless you're running a high fantasy game. So saying that you can have a level 1 human with an 18 is dubious at best, which to me suggests that the pinnacle of what a human can do is around 18. There may be the very rare exception, but it's just that... an exception.

It wasn't to say that you can have athletes that are stupidly strong so long as they eat crayons in their off time. It was just to point out the unlikelihood of having any one stat that high, regardless of the other stats.

I think you and I are making the same point and failing at communication.

[ramrod]

Of course there is a hardcap! There is a physical limit on just what a human body is capable of achieving, anything above that is beyond the superhuman of 18 and into the realms of supernatural and demigod. Anything else and your're talking junk.

The 17-18 cap range would encompass the well above exceptional and into well, well into superhuman where anything above would be considered superhuman. You seem to make the assumption that 16 would be a relatively common occurrence, which is exactly what we have been arguing against!

Without a real life cap at or at least close to 18 and saying that humans could attain 24+ str, you are making a friggin ridiculous assumption then that if that character would be put into game could arm wrestle a 13ft tall 5200lb ettin and beat it, jump higher than it, hit harder than it...

really?

You need that superhuman hardcap for any of it to bare any semblance to both real life and and in game ability. Simply put, even exceptional humans are nothing in game without magical or racial enhancement. Even in game there should be a hard cap if you choose to accept a point buy system.

[Reinkai]

Of course there is a hardcap! There is a physical limit on just what a human body is capable of achieving, anything above that is beyond the superhuman of 18 and into the realms of demigod. Anything else and your talking junk.

The 17-18 cap range would encompass the well above exceptional and into well, well into superhuman where anything above would be considered superhuman. You seem to make the assumption that 16 would be a relatively common occurrence, which is exactly what we have been arguing against!

Without a real life cap at or at least close to 18 and saying that humans could attain 24+ str, you are making a friggin ridiculous assumption then that if that character would be put into game could arm wrestle a 13ft tall 5200lb ettin and beat it, jump higher than it, hit harder than it...

really?

You need that superhuman hardcap for any of it to bare any semblance to both real life and and in game ability. Simply put, even exceptional humans are nothing in game without magical or racial enhancement. Even in game there should be a hard cap if you choose to accept a point buy system.

... yup. We've making the exact same point. :)

[ramrod]

Yeh, sorry it wasn't you I was lambasting then, it was SowZ.

I see what you mean about point buy, but it wasn't an all round effective metaphor (I've probably used many in this thread alone myself...lol)

[Reinkai]

Yeah, I should have clarified that I meant in regards to any one stat, not overall.

[SowZ]

Of course there is a hardcap! There is a physical limit on just what a human body is capable of achieving, anything above that is beyond the superhuman of 18 and into the realms of supernatural and demigod. Anything else and your're talking junk.

The 17-18 cap range would encompass the well above exceptional and into well, well into superhuman where anything above would be considered superhuman. You seem to make the assumption that 16 would be a relatively common occurrence, which is exactly what we have been arguing against!

Without a real life cap at or at least close to 18 and saying that humans could attain 24+ str, you are making a friggin ridiculous assumption then that if that character would be put into game could arm wrestle a 13ft tall 5200lb ettin and beat it, jump higher than it, hit harder than it...

really?

You need that superhuman hardcap for any of it to bare any semblance to both real life and and in game ability. Simply put, even exceptional humans are nothing in game without magical or racial enhancement. Even in game there should be a hard cap if you choose to accept a point buy system.

Except I have given you the exact, mathematical probability of someone having a 16 in something. It is 1 in 10 people. Also, you are confusing "hard cap" with "practical cap." Skyrim has no level hard cap. There happens to be a point at which you no longer are able to advance in levels but it is not a hard cap.

Likewise, 18 is not the hard cap for strength. You can argue all day, but numbers disagree. The strongest men in the world, Mark Felix and Hossein Rezazadeh, objectively with real numbers, both have exactly 23 Strength. They are certainly more than 4 standard deviations above the average in what they can do because 1 in 250 men cannot lift what they can. 6 standard deviations, or 1 in 500 million people, would mean there might be around 10 people in the world with that kind of strength.

That makes a lot more sense than putting a hard cap and saying, "18 is the max!" Saying, "Only 1 in half a billion people reach 22-23 in a given stat," making it feasibly impossible but not truly impossible, is a lot more accurate.

So unless you believe Mark Felix is a demi-god, I am not talking junk, because I can point to real life person who is 6 standard deviations above the norm.

[ramrod]

Oh I give up. You don't seem to understand what I (and others above me) are pointing out that there IS a hard cap of 18. Even if you choose to disregard the 18 hardcap for humans in game, we are not for the sake of the model of calculating stats.

You are relying heavily on deviations when that would be largely irrelevant. The assumption is that 18 isn't marginally better than 16 it would encompass those superhuman people. You would need to compress the breadth of average to superhuman ability within a stat score system of 10-18 and those in opposite between 1-9.

This fits in with d and d theory and limits. Not all descriptors will fit of course but it has to bend to fit reality. The worlds strongest man that you mention STILL wouldn't be able to arm wrestle a 13ft tall, 5200lb ettin and win would he? Proving that the descriptors just do not work when discussing reality!

Stop fixating on deviation, or alternatively come up with your own system that fits both real life realms and 3.5 realms.

[ramrod]

Seriously... read what that guy posted up above

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2

[SowZ]

Oh I give up. You don't seem to understand what I (and others above me) are pointing out that there IS a hard cap of 18. Even if you choose to disregard the 18 hardcap for humans in game, we are not for the sake of the model of calculating stats.

You are relying heavily on deviations when that would be largely irrelevant. The assumption is that 18 isn't marginally better than 16 it would encompass those superhuman people. You would need to compress the breadth of average to superhuman ability within a stat score system of 10-18 and those in opposite between 1-9.

This fits in with d and d theory and limits. Not all descriptors will fit of course but it has to bend to fit reality. The worlds strongest man that you mention STILL wouldn't be able to arm wrestle a 13ft tall, 5200lb ettin and win would he? Proving that the descriptors just do not work when discussing reality!

Stop fixating on deviation, or alternatively come up with your own system that fits both real life realms and 3.5 realms.

What you are saying is that 1 in 250 people have the exact same bonus to intelligence skills as Albert Einstien and Stephen Hawking. You are saying that 1 in 250 people have the same bonus to strength based skills as Marcus Felix. Because D&D stats 'are' based on a bell curve whether or no you want them to be. The creators 'did' base them around a 3d6 distribution. 14 Str is supposed to be 2 standard deviations above the average, that is the designer intention.

Rather than say 1 in 250 people have the Int bonus of Stephen Hawking, it is far more consistent and simple to say Stephen Hawking has higher than 18 Int. It is easier and more accurate. No, there is not a hard cap of 18 in D&D 3.5 for mundane characters. Maybe there was in AD&D. Point out where the OP mentioned AD&D, please.

Also, I think I proved with real life people and statistics that AD&D is less accurate than 3.5 in that respect. Unless you have any real life data to prove me wrong.

How does saying "18 represents superhuman people, so superhuman people will have the exact same bonus as people who are demonstrably and significantly inferior than them," more consistent than simply giving those exceptional individuals better stats?

Also, there are real life people who can objectively bench press as much as a D&D troll. Maybe that means trolls are pansies for their size. Regardless, it can be done by non-godlike people.

[JackRackham]

Of course there is a hardcap! There is a physical limit on just what a human body is capable of achieving, anything above that is beyond the superhuman of 18 and into the realms of supernatural and demigod. Anything else and your're talking junk.

The 17-18 cap range would encompass the well above exceptional and into well, well into superhuman where anything above would be considered superhuman. You seem to make the assumption that 16 would be a relatively common occurrence, which is exactly what we have been arguing against!

Without a real life cap at or at least close to 18 and saying that humans could attain 24+ str, you are making a friggin ridiculous assumption then that if that character would be put into game could arm wrestle a 13ft tall 5200lb ettin and beat it, jump higher than it, hit harder than it...

really?

You need that superhuman hardcap for any of it to bare any semblance to both real life and and in game ability. Simply put, even exceptional humans are nothing in game without magical or racial enhancement. Even in game there should be a hard cap if you choose to accept a point buy system.

It sounds like you need a different system, not us. 'Cause neither the odds of rolling an 18, nor its mechanical effect in the game back up your idea of what it should be. Not even close.

[SowZ]

It sounds like you need a different system, not us. 'Cause neither the odds of rolling an 18, nor its mechanical effect in the game back up your idea of what it should be. Not even close.

Yeah, I don't understand saying, "I admit some people will be substantially better than others with 18 in a given stat. But those people still only get 18 in that stat." when you could just, you know, give those hyper rare individuals higher than 18.

[Khatoblepas]

Oh I give up. You don't seem to understand what I (and others above me) are pointing out that there IS a hard cap of 18.

AD&D has a hard cap of 18, above which you get mythical stats that increase exponentially. Strength 19 is significantly stronger than Strength 18, and Strength 12 is not significantly stronger than Strength 10. Strength 25 is the domain of the gods, wherein you become unparallelled. You cannot go above Strength 25.

At Intelligence 20 in AD&D, you become immune to illusions.

At Intelligence 20 in D&D3.5, you gain... a +1 Int bonus.

3.5 has a linear progression of stats, and should not be compared to AD&D's exponential stats. It is totally possible for someone to have a stat above 18, and it is not superhuman, just out of the norm. A particularily gifted Orc has 22 Strength, and in AD&D that would be unthinkable (Half-Orcs in that game had +1 Strength), but in D&D 3.5 the scale is different.

The 3-18 scale is just a formality that carried over from AD&D. It's a way that player characters don't have massively inflated stats at chargen, while in AD&D the stats were crafted so that 18 was the human limit. It doesn't count edge cases (Prodigy, Human Paragon et al do).

[ramrod]

SowZ, have you read that article?

That aside - if you read what I wrote about bell curves, I suggested that the end of the bellcurve should be 16, meaning that less than 1% of people would attain this. 17- 18 would be reserved for the truly heroic/superhuman. Even then, bellcurves are irrelevant.

You HAVE to keep the 18 cap for anything to make useful/logical sense, regardless of bellcurves, point buys etc, none of them matter because 10-18 is not a linear or curved progression.

Read the article and it really helps to put things into perspective. People that you assume to be superskilled are not statted that way, but skilled that way. The article gives the fine example of Albert Einstein still managing to be the mother of all physicists, able to do what he did whilst only having 15 intelligence!!!

18 in any stat is beyond anything imaginable by almost any human being, it is by definition superhuman. We have moved away from this understanding and most players seem to think that 16 Wisdom is a sucky stat for a cleric, or 14 Constitution is sucky for a fighter... by real human considerations 16 Wisdom would make even the Dalai Lama wince.

Read this http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2

[JackRackham]

Well, that explains the discrepancy.

On an unrelated note, I think all of us who've read through the rules can agree this would all be far easier with GURPS. But I was just really curious if anyone had ideas of how to translate stats to 3.5 without all the guesswork.

[ramrod]

AD&D has a hard cap of 18, above which you get mythical stats that increase exponentially. Strength 19 is significantly stronger than Strength 18, and Strength 12 is not significantly stronger than Strength 10. Strength 25 is the domain of the gods, wherein you become unparallelled. You cannot go above Strength 25.

At Intelligence 20 in AD&D, you become immune to illusions.

At Intelligence 20 in D&D3.5, you gain... a +1 Int bonus.

3.5 has a linear progression of stats, and should not be compared to AD&D's exponential stats. It is totally possible for someone to have a stat above 18, and it is not superhuman, just out of the norm. A particularily gifted Orc has 22 Strength, and in AD&D that would be unthinkable (Half-Orcs in that game had +1 Strength), but in D&D 3.5 the scale is different.

The 3-18 scale is just a formality that carried over from AD&D. It's a way that player characters don't have massively inflated stats at chargen, while in AD&D the stats were crafted so that 18 was the human limit. It doesn't count edge cases (Prodigy, Human Paragon et al do).


This cap was not taken from AD&D but put in for practical reasons. 18 should be in REAL LIFE not in high fantasy, a cap for human ability.

[ramrod]

Well, that explains the discrepancy.

On an unrelated note, I think all of us who've read through the rules can agree this would all be far easier with GURPS. But I was just really curious if anyone had ideas of how to translate stats to 3.5 without all the guesswork.


It would have to be guesswork... are you slightly gifted (+1), truly gifted (+2), exceptionally gifted (+3) or superhuman (+4) in an ability?

Equally it works in reverse. Otherwise you are humbly average. Within each bracket work out are you leaning more towards the top or bottom of that bracket? Would you give yourself a C+ for dex? Then it is 11.

For example, I would give myself 12 constitution. I have been hit by a car and walked away, I have been attacked by a group of 8 guys having my head stamped on and walked away, I can eat virtually anything and feel fine (except a slight inability to eat dairy!), just last weekend I stayed awake for 55 hours and partied, drinking way more than the average person could take - I have an above average constitution.... but I am not exceptional.

By the way.... for clarity when I say +1, I mean ability modifer (i.e. 12-13) NOT +1 stat making it 11.

[ramrod]

It would have to be guesswork... are you slightly gifted (+1), truly gifted (+2), exceptionally gifted (+3) or superhuman (+4) in an ability?

Equally it works in reverse. Otherwise you are humbly average. Within each bracket work out are you leaning more towards the top or bottom of that bracket? Would you give yourself a C+ for dex? Then it is 11.

For example, I would give myself 12 constitution. I have been hit by a car and walked away, I have been attacked by a group of 8 guys having my head stamped on and walked away, I can eat virtually anything and feel fine (except a slight inability to eat dairy!), just last weekend I stayed awake for 55 hours and partied, drinking way more than the average person could take - I have an above average constitution.... but I am not exceptional.

Reading that back.... Maaaaaaaaybe 13 lol.

[JackRackham]

Read the article and it really helps to put things into perspective. People that you assume to be superskilled are not statted that way, but skilled that way. The article gives the fine example of Albert Einstein still managing to be the mother of all physicists, able to do what he did whilst only having 15 intelligence!!!http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2

Yeah. That's silly. By the logic of that article, anyone can be a successful physicist with training. No. Not even a little bit. In-born talent plays a huge role in things like academics (or I would not be a graduate student). Those skill ranks are important, but not in the way the article makes it seem. Skill ranks might be useful for explaining how things work. They might be necessary for understanding it yourself. But A. Good luck getting the ranks Einstein had without being incredibly intelligent - way more than 20% above average - and B. Skill plays only a tangential role in creating new knowledge.

If you take 20 Joe Schmoes off the street (by Joe Schmoes, I mean people of average intelligence - ~100 IQ) and magically give them all the knowledge I have about history, they still have very little chance of ever coming to the conclusions I can come to. They simply won't understand it and process it the way I do. They won't be able to think backwards, forwards and sideways at details the way I do, even with training. And that's like 100x as true of someone like Einstein, working in that field.

[SowZ]

I've that article numerous times. Except you just keep repeating that 18 is the hard cap with no justification. You say it is because it is. Why? Is 4 standard deviations above average the most a human can reach? Is 18 Str the most real people can lift? Both of those are objectively falsifiable statements. Both in 3.5 and in D&D people exceed 18 in a stat with zero supernatural help. If you don't like 3.5, that's fine, but it is what we are discussing.

[killem2]

Ah, but Tumble is a trained-only skill.





But balance isn't!
Setup a balance beam, varying widths and inclines, and time people. :smalltongue:

[JackRackham]

But balance isn't!
Setup a balance beam, varying widths and inclines, and time people. :smalltongue:

Aww, yeah, let's use that. I'd win at that. Add that to my awesome INT score and I could make a bad*ss factotum when I figure out how to port myself into a d&d world (and, before you all say it, I'm not completely unrealistic. I know I wouldn't get to choose what classes I have levels in. That's why I've set aside several weeks for retraining.).

[SowZ]

But balance isn't!
Setup a balance beam, varying widths and inclines, and time people. :smalltongue:

No way to know if you have a few ranks in balance, though.

[ramrod]

Ffs. I definitely am giving up now. I have justified the 18 cap many times and explained how it would work.

The article explains how it is possible with levels not just stats. Einstein in my own version I would put down at higher than 15, the article just points out how this is possible WITHOUT high stats, the same could be achieved through higher stat scores. However, levels SHOULD be part of it, as the article explains.

Intelligence is irrelevant, strength is irrelevant unless you know what to do with it. Learn to swing that sword or spend time pondering the mysteries of the universe reading scientific papers/discussing ala Einstein. Otherwise a 6 year old child with no understanding of the universe at all could understand or discover what einstein did or swing a weapon like Aragorn.

Base stats should be capped at 18 for reasons shown in the article it is more than what is required to encompass human ability. If the stat descriptors do not fit, WIDEN them.

18 is an appropriate stat for maximum human ability becuase many of the number stack up and when compared to in game strengths, above 18 for even a heroic almost unnatural human being is extremely high when you look at what that is capable and stand it next to fanstastic or mythic creatures.

You also keep harping on about this like it is the most important part of the ideal it is not. My original point was that 99.99% of people are fairly average or vary little more, fitting between -2/+2. I seriously doubt that the guy that wants to figure this out is going to be close to superhuman, or any of his buddies to go in game. If they are hats of to ya, can I have their signatures please?

You keep picking apart the 18 stat cap but don't put forward your own idea or even say why an 18 stat cap shouldn't exist for reasons other than there are some ver very strong/athletic/intelligent people out there (that would easily be encompassed by an 18 score).

[SowZ]

Ffs. I definitely am giving up now. I have justified the 18 cap many times and explained how it would work.

The article explains how it is possible with levels not just stats. Einstein in my own version I would put down at higher than 15, the article just points out how this is possible WITHOUT high stats, the same could be achieved through higher stat scores. However, levels SHOULD be part of it, as the article explains.

Intelligence is irrelevant, strength is irrelevant unless you know what to do with it. Learn to swing that sword or spend time pondering the mysteries of the universe reading scientific papers/discussing ala Einstein. Otherwise a 6 year old child with no understanding of the universe at all could understand or discover what einstein did or swing a weapon like Aragorn.

Base stats should be capped at 18 for reasons shown in the article it is more than what is required to encompass human ability. If the stat descriptors do not fit, WIDEN them.

18 is an appropriate stat for maximum human ability becuase many of the number stack up and when compared to in game strengths, above 18 for even a heroic almost unnatural human being is extremely high when you look at what that is capable and stand it next to fanstastic or mythic creatures.

You also keep harping on about this like it is the most important part of the ideal it is not. My original point was that 99.99% of people are fairly average, fitting between -2/+2. I seriously doubt that the guy that wants to figure this out is going to be close to superhuman, or any of his buddies to go in game. If they are hats of to ya, can I have their signatures please?

You keep picking apart the 18 stat cap but don't put forward your own idea or even say why an 18 stat cap shouldn't exist for reasons other than there are some ver very strong/athletic/intelligent people out there (that would easily be encompassed by an 18 score).

Except we have proven how objectively they aren't encompassed by an 18 score? Some people aren't encompassed by a 20. Some aren't encompassed by a 22. This is with real life, real world numbers of real life people. Even not arguing the age cases, no, 99.99% of people do not fall within +2/-2. I have pretty close to actual statistic on this. 90% of people fall within +2/-2.

Pretty dang close to 10% of people have +3/-3 in a given stat. Whether or not it is possible for a world to function where that is the case is irrelevant. Just because the world doesn't need people with 16 Int is not an argument for them not existing, that is the logical fallacy you keep making. You could actually make a character that passes the Albert Einstien level skill checks for knowledge with a character that rolled 9 Int in D&D 3.5, with no magic. But just because any skill check can feasibly be made with a 9 in that stat does not mean everyone has a 9 in every stat.

Stats in 3.5 represent standard deviations. Maybe they didn't in AD&D, that's fine. You keep asking why we all need stats higher than 18. Why did you pick 18 as the limit? I don't see what makes 18 special. Why not pick 16 or 17 or 284 or 13? If there isn't something statistically important about 18 being the cap, it shouldn't be. And it being the traditional cap in AD&D isn't an argument.

If you try to argue that 18 should be the cap because when you run the numbers of how the books define stats no one in real life can feasibly pass 18 so we may as well cap it there, you will lose that argument. Because real life numbers don't match up. What you are suggesting is that in real life, there are only 9 levels of intelligence that have a substantial difference, (modifiers of -5/+4.)

Actually, if you are going to use a hard cap, you may as well pick 20. It is a lot less arbitrary and statistically closer to realistic, (the number of people outside 5 standard deviations is so absurdly low you may as well not account for them. They exist, but like, a few in a lifetime.) It is very strange to say that in your system you can have a greater negative penalty than a positive one, or that it is possible to be 5 levels below the average but only 4 levels above. That doesn't make much sense.

If you want to gun for a hard cap, make it 20. It's symmetrical and really does account for 99.9999% of people. The only reason to pick 18 is because it is tradition, not because of any real math or probability.

[ramrod]

Yeah. That's silly. By the logic of that article, anyone can be a successful physicist with training. No. Not even a little bit. In-born talent plays a huge role in things like academics (or I would not be a graduate student). Those skill ranks are important, but not in the way the article makes it seem. Skill ranks might be useful for explaining how things work. They might be necessary for understanding it yourself. But A. Good luck getting the ranks Einstein had without being incredibly intelligent - way more than 20% above average - and B. Skill plays only a tangential role in creating new knowledge.

If you take 20 Joe Schmoes off the street (by Joe Schmoes, I mean people of average intelligence - ~100 IQ) and magically give them all the knowledge I have about history, they still have very little chance of ever coming to the conclusions I can come to. They simply won't understand it and process it the way I do. They won't be able to think backwards, forwards and sideways at details the way I do, even with training. And that's like 100x as true of someone like Einstein, working in that field.



What you state as your natural ability to do this would not be stat based, otherwise it would be something that anyone with above average intelligence could achieve. It would be a trained/level based skill. Granted you would need to have a minimum intelligence score, but in a gaming environment where few things could possibly be unique it would either have to be a trained skill or a level ability achieved after reaching a specific level in historian/archivist etc.

You certainly do not require incredible intelligence or wisdom to achieve most feats, just time and ltraining. Another thing that the article briefly touches on is that we do not need to be anywhere near as good in real life to achieve the same ingame feats of knowledge checks, jump checks etc. we are rarely forced to make an on the spot split second decision or react under battle conditions.
Most skill checks that we make, we can essentially take 20 on with she'd loads of bonuses from materials, resources, help etc

Einstein was not neccesarily supernaturally intelligent, he just happened to be significantly intelligent and in the fit places at the right time, with the right materials and focused on particular problems. What Einstein discovered was, at the time almost certainly a scientific inevitability anyway. He spent years studying (levelling up) to achieve what he did.

[ramrod]

And you keep referring to deviations when I'm not using that model at all! Each modifier is descriptive an not increasing at a linear or curved fashion.

If you suggest a hard cap of 20, fine, use 20. 18 is a fine stat purely because it fits with rolling characters. A level 1 human character should not exceed 18 for reasons of either dice rolling or the cap that many/most dms put on increasing stat above 18 on creation.

Additionally it is also what 18 would equate to in game. If you really want to use 20,as your base stat, use it that's fine. Logically it could encompass 18 hard cap and level 1 creation feats/quirks anyway.

However, the point is that trying to create a level 1 human.. Most untrained, unskilled, uneducated people would never be able to achieve the feats that pro athletes, super intellects or models achieve. It must be more than a base stat that does it.

Your approach seems to be more based off of mathematics than practicality or ease. By your calculation still using deviations, when compared in game, heavy weight lifters would be able to beat ridiculous monsters in feats of strength... Just because they are x deviations from the standard human being, instead of having to change all other systems of d and d, monsters etc to make humans actual NOT par with these creatures, just compress all human ability and potential below a reasonable cap of 18. Use 20 if you seriously want, but no one this guy is going touted into a character is ever going to approach that!

Just because deviations work in rl, it does not work so well in game. Most of what pcs achieve in game is through skill, training and then magic/feats that comes from levels, not their base stat. Virtually everything you do is more skill than ability.

Example a 1 level in a fighter class is equivalent to a massive leap of 2 ability points, from just.1 level of bab the fighter has pushed from potentially average to skilled, or skilled to incredible, or incredible to superhuman. From just that 1 level. 2 levels and suddenly ability starts to be come more and more irrelevant.

[ramrod]

Yeah. That's silly. By the logic of that article, anyone can be a successful physicist with training.

You also make the assumption that it requires just 'a little bit of training'. There are 2 issues with this. One, as the article discusses level 5 characters would be legendary, as Einstein would be. Levels are not just a little bit of training, but actually encompass great advances in skills and training. The assumption shouldn't be that just anyone can level up with effort, it requires having the right level of challenge, correct tutelage and opportunities to gain experience. Few people, even with a lifetime of specialisation would approach anything beyond level 2-3.

Two - whilst based as much as possible in reality at level 1. As soon as you drop them into a high fantasy setting they will then be playing by those rules, so training would be possible, anyone could achieve greatness by going out and splatting a lot of orcs, elementals and other nasty beasties/completing quests. The only alternative to this is to create a realm of normal human ability, skill and no high fantasy. But either way, you need to start at a level 1 character and build up, even if you consider yourself, by virtue of your skill to be level 2, the title of the thread is for calculating real life ability scores.

[danzibr]

There was an old article somewhere that discussed this in a gaming mag. All I recall is that, for DEX, you hold a ruler in one hand, at 0, between thumb and index finger, with your other thumb and index finger an inch below the bottom, opened and ready to catch the ruler. Drop it and catch it as quickly as you can, and add eight to get your DEX. I always got a score of 19, but I doubt that's an accurate reflection of my real DEX.

I'd rather have a way to rate dexterity according to accuracy with archery, as that's my best and only "martial" ability. I can hit anything I can see out to 40 m with a double recurve longbow, given six to twelve arrows and an unmoving target. Best shot ever was a bull's eye from 50 m, but I don't trust my accuracy beyond that.

INT might be related to a person's IQ, but I don't know what the calculation for that would be.
I think that test works best if someone else drops it. Otherwise you can just basically grab it as soon as you drop it.

[JackRackham]

What you state as your natural ability to do this would not be stat based, otherwise it would be something that anyone with above average intelligence could achieve. It would be a trained/level based skill. Granted you would need to have a minimum intelligence score, but in a gaming environment where few things could possibly be unique it would either have to be a trained skill or a level ability achieved after reaching a specific level in historian/archivist etc.

You certainly do not require incredible intelligence or wisdom to achieve most feats, just time and ltraining. Another thing that the article briefly touches on is that we do not need to be anywhere near as good in real life to achieve the same ingame feats of knowledge checks, jump checks etc. we are rarely forced to make an on the spot split second decision or react under battle conditions.
Most skill checks that we make, we can essentially take 20 on with she'd loads of bonuses from materials, resources, help etc

Einstein was not neccesarily supernaturally intelligent, he just happened to be significantly intelligent and in the fit places at the right time, with the right materials and focused on particular problems. What Einstein discovered was, at the time almost certainly a scientific inevitability anyway. He spent years studying (levelling up) to achieve what he did.

How can you not understand this? It takes both. And it is natural ability that gives me an edge over others. If it weren't, all those people who work much harder than I, and generally work much smarter than I (taking notes and practicing and whatnot), should outpace me. But they don't. If you pay any attention at all, you'll notice the Bo Jacksons of the world (faster, bigger, stronger than everyone - and never lifted a damn weight). You'll notice people trying their balls off and sucking. Bad.

To become an Einstein, you have to have outrageous talent AND work hard (take levels). To become an academic you have to be well above average AND work hard - or be extraordinarily talented and sort of work hard, when you're not playing d&d or video games, or watching TV, or doing sex stuff or something.

You keep saying we're all within a +2 or -2. But you've not shown one thing that precludes that possibility. We've given you several that show it has to be the case. We've explained in detail how the kind of world you describe doesn't exist. In real life, not everyone can take levels. Levels have prerequisite ability scores. And most of us seem to be playing at low level, since ability scores actually seem to be more important to the most difficult endeavors than trained skill.


No way to know if you have a few ranks in balance, though.
C'mon, chill out man. I'm like *this* close to getting an 18 DEX for myself when I hop dimensions to d20land.

[ramrod]

{scrubbed}

[prufock]

People need to chill the frig out.

A better "hard" cap would be 22-23, since it seems closer to reality. The highest recorded IQ is 230, the highest recorded weightlifting records correspond to a strength of 22-23.

Of course, these aren't starting stats in game terms. You need to take possible levels, feats, and class abilities into account. You can get up near max by level 4ish without too much cheesy nonsense (+2 human paragon, +1 level, etc).

The world record breath-holding calculates out to a Con score of 450. Yep. FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY. Of course, they kind of cheat and get circumstance bonuses out the wazoo, and probably have some pretty focused feats, but still.

[ericp65]

I think that test works best if someone else drops it. Otherwise you can just basically grab it as soon as you drop it.

Now that you mention it, I think a friend and I tried that a couple times. That is indeed a better way.

[SowZ]

People need to chill the frig out.

A better "hard" cap would be 22-23, since it seems closer to reality. The highest recorded IQ is 230, the highest recorded weightlifting records correspond to a strength of 22-23.

Of course, these aren't starting stats in game terms. You need to take possible levels, feats, and class abilities into account. You can get up near max by level 4ish without too much cheesy nonsense (+2 human paragon, +1 level, etc).

The world record breath-holding calculates out to a Con score of 450. Yep. FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY. Of course, they kind of cheat and get circumstance bonuses out the wazoo, and probably have some pretty focused feats, but still.

Did I miss something and people getting all worked up? Most people seem to be fine. Anyways, yeah, the world record dead lift and above your head arm lock lift both correspond to strength scores of 23 exactly. There's a guy who swam the length of the amazon twelve hours a day non stop and never got tired. Some people are just insane and will not .


And you keep referring to deviations when I'm not using that model at all! Each modifier is descriptive an not increasing at a linear or curved fashion.

If you suggest a hard cap of 20, fine, use 20. 18 is a fine stat purely because it fits with rolling characters. A level 1 human character should not exceed 18 for reasons of either dice rolling or the cap that many/most dms put on increasing stat above 18 on creation.

Additionally it is also what 18 would equate to in game. If you really want to use 20,as your base stat, use it that's fine. Logically it could encompass 18 hard cap and level 1 creation feats/quirks anyway.

However, the point is that trying to create a level 1 human.. Most untrained, unskilled, uneducated people would never be able to achieve the feats that pro athletes, super intellects or models achieve. It must be more than a base stat that does it.

Your approach seems to be more based off of mathematics than practicality or ease. By your calculation still using deviations, when compared in game, heavy weight lifters would be able to beat ridiculous monsters in feats of strength... Just because they are x deviations from the standard human being, instead of having to change all other systems of d and d, monsters etc to make humans actual NOT par with these creatures, just compress all human ability and potential below a reasonable cap of 18. Use 20 if you seriously want, but no one this guy is going touted into a character is ever going to approach that!

Just because deviations work in rl, it does not work so well in game. Most of what pcs achieve in game is through skill, training and then magic/feats that comes from levels, not their base stat. Virtually everything you do is more skill than ability.

Example a 1 level in a fighter class is equivalent to a massive leap of 2 ability points, from just.1 level of bab the fighter has pushed from potentially average to skilled, or skilled to incredible, or incredible to superhuman. From just that 1 level. 2 levels and suddenly ability starts to be come more and more irrelevant.

As soon as you bring up monsters, you cease to stay on topic. The topic isn't 'how should we make ability scores work in game to achieve the highest levels of believability/playability.' It's, 'how do we calculate real life people abilities?' Playability in game and monsters are not relevant to this.

Also, your curve is wrong. Assuming 3d6, (which was your reason for picking 18 as you said,) 10% of people will have a 16 in a stat. About 2% of people will have an 18 in one stat. 1 in 50 people having an 18 isn't anywhere near as remarkable as you are making it out, because 1 in 50 people does not showcase the most remarkable humans.

[Optimator]

I like going off the Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition Ability Benchmarks table. It is the exact same scale as D&D. They are essentially the same stats. I think the 3d6 method is limiting as well as abstract (but it's a game so there's no real way around it). I just want to also say that I think about this very subject a LOT but I've come to the conclusion that it's not quite worth it, since someone's genetic potential, environment, and experience/training are all factors. I personally feel real people can and do have stats above 18. Rarely.

Plus, Once you add level bonuses and aging bonuses things get wonky and uncatagorizable (is that a word?). Not to mention someone could be gullible and reckless but have great insight and senses. Or someone could have a fantastic memory but be bad with numbers. Plus, there are things like Dexterity which are half-physical and half-mental stats. Or things like differentiating between speed (strength) and reaction speed (dex).

1 - Completely inept or disabled
2-3 - Weak; Infant
4-5 - Younger Child
6-7 - Child, Elderly, Impaired
8-9 - Below average; Teenager
10-11 - Average Adult
12-13 - Above Average
14-15 - Well Above Average
16-17 - Gifted
18-19 - Highly Gifted
20-21 - Best in Nation
22-23 - Best in the World
24-25 - Best ever; Peak of Human Achievement
26-27 - Low Superhuman
28-29 - Moderate Superhuman
30 - High Superhuman
40 - Very High SUperhuman
50 - Cosmic

[SowZ]

I like going off the Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition Ability Benchmarks table. It is the exact same scale as D&D. They are essentially the same stats. I think the 3d6 method is limiting as well as abstract (but it's a game so there's no real way around it). I just want to also say that I think about this very subject a LOT but I've come to the conclusion that it's not quite worth it, since someone's genetic potential, environment, and experience/training are all factors. I personally feel real people can and do have stats above 18. Rarely.

Plus, Once you add level bonuses and aging bonuses things get wonky and uncatagorizable (is that a word?). Not to mention someone could be gullible and reckless but have great insight and senses. Or someone could have a fantastic memory but be bad with numbers. Plus, there are things like Dexterity which are half-physical and half-mental stats. Or things like differentiating between speed (strength) and reaction speed (dex).

1 - Completely inept or disabled
2-3 - Weak; Infant
4-5 - Younger Child
6-7 - Child, Elderly, Impaired
8-9 - Below average; Teenager
10-11 - Average Adult
12-13 - Above Average
14-15 - Well Above Average
16-17 - Gifted
18-19 - Highly Gifted
20-21 - Best in Nation
22-23 - Best in the World
24-25 - Best ever; Peak of Human Achievement
26-27 - Low Superhuman
28-29 - Moderate Superhuman
30 - High Superhuman
40 - Very High SUperhuman
50 - Cosmic

Then you have characters like Goku and Superman that, in D&D terms, quite literally have strength scores in the hundreds of trillions.

[Optimator]

Well, in M&M there's a separate power called Super Strength which enhances some strength checks and carrying capacity without boosting damage (and in D&D to-hit).

Also, one could carry the observable universe with under 1000 strength.

Carrying a mountain is 225. Moving the earth requires 360.

[SowZ]

Well, in M&M there's a separate power called Super Strength which enhances some strength checks and carrying capacity without boosting damage (and in D&D to-hit).

Also, one could carry the observable universe with under 1000 strength.

Carrying a mountain is 225. Moving the earth requires 360.

In M&M, that's true. In D&D, strength scales exponentially a little bit, but as for object destruction rules you would need dozens of figures to represent Superman/Goku strength since both can completely shatter to dust planets magnitudes, (I'm talking likes thousands of times greater in size,) larger than the Earth with a single punch.

I suppose when you are talking about characters that survive blasts akin to supernovas, you shouldn't try and fit them into D&D. Or if you did, you should give them very high divine ranks rather than try and guess their level/stats.

[Optimator]

OOOORRR one can suppose Goku is doing this kind of stuff with things other than a raw strength score.

And no, they scale the same. I think? I'll recheck. I was 95% sure the carrying capacities are the same.

Edit: They are.

[Optimator]

I suppose when you are talking about characters that survive blasts akin to supernovas, you shouldn't try and fit them into D&D. Or if you did, you should give them very high divine ranks rather than try and guess their level/stats.

I fully agree.

[SowZ]

OOOORRR you can suppose Goku is doing this kind of stuff with things other than a raw strength score.

And no, they scale the same.

In 3.5, 30 Strength doesn't even allow you to lift a ton off the ground. 100 Strength lets you lift about 8,000 tons. 250 Strength lets you lift 35,000,000 megatons. We aren't even in the Supes ballpark yet.

Superman can demonstrably apply 20 undecillion pounds of force. Now, if we assume he is using far more than his strength score to do enough damage to shatter planets, we can ignore how many nonillions of damage it would take to shatter a planet in D&D and look at lifting. So I realize superman doesn't actually have a strength score in the millions. But I would be surprised if it wasn't in the thousands.

But I concede the point. With exponential growth, (assuming we totally ignore how superman gets his damage output because that is why I initially stated he needs trillions of strength, though there are plenty of ways to multiple damage so who knows how he does it,) Supermans strength is probably somewhere around 400-600.

Also, yeah, I guess I was wrong on M&M. I own the book, but have never played it. I remembered strength being more abstract at those high of levels, giving descriptions but not actual pounds. But I will take your word for it since I don't have access to my book right now.

[Optimator]

Max load for a medium two-legged creature with 30 strength is 3200 pounds. Are you perhaps confusing heavy load with max load?

I think we are more or less on the same page, and I am not looking for an argument (not that we were. I just want to make sure you realize I'm not trying to be badgering or anything. THis is all in the name of exploration).

We have to consider strength "surges" (action points, plot, etc.) as well as writer inconsistency. Also, when Superman destroys planets he flies into them at super speed and essentially drills to the center. Not exactly a standard action attack action.

HOpefully this isn't considered thread-derailing. Forgive me!

[SowZ]

Max load for a medium two-legged creature with 30 strength is 3200 pounds. Are you perhaps confusing heavy load with max load?

I think we are more or less on the same page, and I am not looking for an argument (not that we were. I just want to make sure you realize I'm not trying to be badgering or anything. THis is all in the name of exploration).

We have to consider strength "surges" (action points, plot, etc.) as well as writer inconsistency. Also, when Superman destroys planets he flies into them at super speed and essentially drills to the center. Not exactly a standard action attack action.

HOpefully this isn't considered thread-derailing. Forgive me!

Oh, sorry, I'm thinking 'lift over head' not lift off the ground. I might still have failed to carry a zero or multiply a two or something. Yeah, I don't view this as an argument. Superman uses the infinite mass punch which I'm sure is a special epic level maneuver that adds insane damage multipliers, so you have a point.

[MaesterOlorin]

I know. For me, I'd just pick the easiest thing with each score. Lift numbers, IQ/ACT/GRE scores, etc. But I'm curious if anyone can come up with a similarly simple and reasonable method for DEX, CON, WIS, and CHA. That's what I wanna know.

I was looking for an old method I had found that really worked well for str was to old out a gallon of water at arms length and count up the time until you can't. anyone else seen that one somewhere?

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Thread Necromancy.