How High do ability scores need to be to be considered certain things?

[Masakan]

Like for example
16 or Higher is considered Genius
14-16 is above average I think
and 12-14 is considered competent.
I'm probably way off can someone give me an exact description of
Ratings between ability scores of 1-20?

[ComaVision]

18 is the height of humanity

10/11 is average

Everything else is shades in between. With regards to intelligence, I always figured the score * 10 = IQ as a rough figure. By this logic, the minimum Int score for a genius would be 14.

All these estimates break down if you look at them too closely though. For example, an 18 strength human's max carrying capacity is less than the real world strength records.

[Masakan]

18 is the height of humanity

10/11 is average

Everything else is shades in between. With regards to intelligence, I always figured the score * 10 = IQ as a rough figure. By this logic, the minimum Int score for a genius would be 14.

All these estimates break down if you look at them too closely though. For example, an 18 strength human's max carrying capacity is less than the real world strength records.

So a 14 would be not quite spectacular but certainly more than competent yes?

so would that for example make an 18 in wisdom a borderline sage?

[ComaVision]

So a 14 would be not quite spectacular but certainly more than competent yes?

so would that for example make an 18 in wisdom a borderline sage?

Yeah, 14's quite good but probably wouldn't blow anyone's mind.

I think an 18 Wis would be past borderline sage. I think that would make the person comparable to famous philosophers.

[Solaris]

In AD&D, Adolph Hitler was given as an example for an 18 Charisma. That suggests the level of persuasiveness an 18 Cha should have held in that edition.

[Enran]

In AD&D, Adolph Hitler was given as an example for an 18 Charisma. That suggests the level of persuasiveness an 18 Cha should have held in that edition.
Wait, are you serious? That's hilarious. And terrible, but mostly hilarious. Oh, AD&D, you never disappoint.

[Draconium]

In addition, any score over 20 should be effectively superhuman, or more accurately, beyond what is normally considered humanly possible. Scores of nine and below, on the other hand, are below human average.

[ExLibrisMortis]

IQ tests are designed to have a normal distribution of scores, with an average of 100, and a 15 point difference corresponding to one standard deviation. Two standard deviations on either side adds up to 95(.45)% of the population, with the remaining 4.55% scoring under 70 or over 130. Let's assume 2.27% of the population scores over 130 - what is that in D&D? There's a 1/36 chance of getting at least one 18, any 18, out of six scores, or 1/216 for a specific 18, if you roll 3d6 in order. About 1 in 44 people score over 130 IQ - less likely than having a single 18, but more likely than having a specific 18, such as intelligence.

On the other hand, under .2% score 145 points or higher, making it less likely than an 18 in a specific score. So the percentage of people with an 18 intelligence, if randomly rolled using 3d6, is in the same ballpark as the number of people with IQ scores around 135-140 and up?

Of course, this amounts to very little, because IQ tests do not measure 'intelligence'. Intelligence means a lot of different things to different people, that's why psychologists prefer to use a technical term, like IQ, which is defined by the test you use. There's a trend that people with higher IQ scores tend to do well at things that 'intelligent' people do well at, but the two are not equivalent. Map an 18 in intelligence to 180 IQ if you want - it's your world, you get to decide.

Intelligence is particularly weird, because 1 and 2 are not possible for humans, even though statistically, some people score that low (you can't roll below 3, obviously, but there are people who score lower on IQ tests than the people who would have a 3).



There are some bits in some D&D books about prodigies, who have higher than 18 as base score, because they're just that great (and rare, very rare). I can't remember which book and where. I want to say DMGII, but don't pin me down on that.

[Eldan]

Wait, are you serious? That's hilarious. And terrible, but mostly hilarious. Oh, AD&D, you never disappoint.

I think the text in question said something like "A high charisma is like these famously charismatic people, but could also be an influential demagogue, like Hitler."

[smcmike]

18 is the height of humanity

10/11 is average

Everything else is shades in between. With regards to intelligence, I always figured the score * 10 = IQ as a rough figure. By this logic, the minimum Int score for a genius would be 14.

All these estimates break down if you look at them too closely though. For example, an 18 strength human's max carrying capacity is less than the real world strength records.

These estimates break down in other ways, too. The overall range is obviously not specific enough for anything measurable in the real world, but this is most apparent on the top end. Assuming the general population rolls 3d6 for stats, an 18 just is not that rare. An 18 intelligence is actually the smartest kid in a high school graduating class (depending on the size of the school, of course). Representing the true extremes requires more specificity.

[Vhaidara]

It also depends on who is considering you to be the certain thing. A 16 Int is pretty damn impressive to a human. Significantly less so to a race with +4 Int.

Honestly though, ability scores don't mean ****. What matters is what is derived from them. All the Int in the world won't make you smart, if you don't invest in knowledge skills. And there comes a point where that training is FAR more important than the actual ability score.

[smcmike]

It also depends on who is considering you to be the certain thing. A 16 Int is pretty damn impressive to a human. Significantly less so to a race with +4 Int.

A 16 is likely to be the smartest person in a randomly selected group of 20. Impessive, for sure, but not likely to be the smartest person you've ever met or anything, and in some contexts - an elite academic program in a demanding field - maybe not even enough to get by.

[Vhaidara]

A 16 is likely to be the smartest person in a randomly selected group of 20. Impessive, for sure, but not likely to be the smartest person you've ever met or anything, and in some contexts - an elite academic program in a demanding field - maybe not even enough to get by.

However, if the group judging you has a +4 racial bonus to Int, you're just a little above average, the equivalent of a human with a 12.

Context is VERY important. Is an 18 a high Cha score? Depends. If you're human, sure. If you're a succubus, the hell happened to you?

[Judge_Worm]

I always see 3 and 18 as normal human extremes. 10 being average. For instance a guy with 18 Int is bankrupting Mensa, Einstein would be like a 16, Stephen Hawking a 17, NDT a 24 (probably not that high, but what can I say I like the guy) more seriously Kasparov in his prime would've been an 18, Deep Blue probably about a 22. On the other hand 3 would be someone that could never function independently in society because of mental handicaps. Most of us here are probably an 11-14, I'd qualify myself as a 12 (last time I was at the hospital my ID tested at 123, not genius material, but above average by a significant percent).

,They were nice enough to give us a guide on strength. Dex however, I don't know. 3 would by like having OP with Rheumatoid Arthritis and a hundred broken bones, you can move, just not very well. An 18 would be the contortionist that scratches her chin with her knee, while bent backwards hopping on one foot.

Wish and Cha are both hard to describe in human terms. Wis, near as I can tell has more to do with natural instincts, common sense, and minor problem solving. Your weird friend that can hear dog whistles and smell carbon monoxide probably has 18 Wis, your other friend that keeps walking into walls and still can't figure out how to tie their own shoes would be the closest to a three I can think of. My cellphone I'm typing this on would have 0. Charisma is the mixture of good looks, ability to captivate an audience, and force of personality, mostly the last one. Temujin (Ghenghis Kahn) probably had a 16 or better here (he did unite the mongols). I'd only give Hitler a 14 (same as your average televangelist), he couldn't get the allies to submit to his force of personality, and really in Germany at the time he had like a +10 to his diplomacy checks in opposition to the Weimar Republic. 3 is that weird guy at the bus stop that stares at you while picking his nose (and then he eats it), or a leper.

The only way I can see a human getting 18 in all stats is by being a genius that builds themselves a cyborg body. A three in all stats could be achieved by a syphilitic leper far gone in both diseases (leprosy for Str, Dex, Con, and Cha) (syphilis for Con, Int, Wis, and Cha).

I couldn't come up with anything for Con. In other news I feel like donating to a leprosy charity. It must sucks to be a leper.

[Masakan]

I always see 3 and 18 as normal human extremes. 10 being average. For instance a guy with 18 Int is bankrupting Mensa, Einstein would be like a 16, Stephen Hawking a 17, NDT a 24 (probably not that high, but what can I say I like the guy) more seriously Kasparov in his prime would've been an 18, Deep Blue probably about a 22. On the other hand 3 would be someone that could never function independently in society because of mental handicaps. Most of us here are probably an 11-14, I'd qualify myself as a 12 (last time I was at the hospital my ID tested at 123, not genius material, but above average by a significant percent).

,They were nice enough to give us a guide on strength. Dex however, I don't know. 3 would by like having OP with Rheumatoid Arthritis and a hundred broken bones, you can move, just not very well. An 18 would be the contortionist that scratches her chin with her knee, while bent backwards hopping on one foot.

Wish and Cha are both hard to describe in human terms. Wis, near as I can tell has more to do with natural instincts, common sense, and minor problem solving. Your weird friend that can hear dog whistles and smell carbon monoxide probably has 18 Wis, your other friend that keeps walking into walls and still can't figure out how to tie their own shoes would be the closest to a three I can think of. My cellphone I'm typing this on would have 0. Charisma is the mixture of good looks, ability to captivate an audience, and force of personality, mostly the last one. Temujin (Ghenghis Kahn) probably had a 16 or better here (he did unite the mongols). I'd only give Hitler a 14 (same as your average televangelist), he couldn't get the allies to submit to his force of personality, and really in Germany at the time he had like a +10 to his diplomacy checks in opposition to the Weimar Republic. 3 is that weird guy at the bus stop that stares at you while picking his nose (and then he eats it), or a leper.

The only way I can see a human getting 18 in all stats is by being a genius that builds themselves a cyborg body. A three in all stats could be achieved by a syphilitic leper far gone in both diseases (leprosy for Str, Dex, Con, and Cha) (syphilis for Con, Int, Wis, and Cha).

I couldn't come up with anything for Con. In other news I feel like donating to a leprosy charity. It must sucks to be a leper.

Someone with 18 Con would probably be someone who can live to be 100....while suffering from Coronary Artery Disease

[smcmike]

18 con = ultra marathoner or other extreme endurance athlete. Or, yeah, if they don't develop that knack, just a guy who doesn't get sick and lives a long time.

Any famous genius would be 18 intelligence at least, unless the fame is undeserved. Likely extremely high wisdom and charisma, too.

[Flickerdart]

14 is a +2 modifier.

Aid Another is a +2 modifier.

So someone who has 14 instead of the average (10) in an ability score is as good at a task as if there was someone helping him do it. Someone with an 18 is as good as three people working together.

[smcmike]

14 is a +2 modifier.

Aid Another is a +2 modifier.

So someone who has 14 instead of the average (10) in an ability score is as good at a task as if there was someone helping him do it. Someone with an 18 is as good as three people working together.

This isn't a great way to put it in context, as aid another makes little sense for a lot of tasks. Also, that +2 requires a successful check.

[Judge_Worm]

This isn't a great way to put it in context, as aid another makes little sense for a lot of tasks. Also, that +2 requires a successful check.

I now have the image of someone using aid another in a jump check stuck in my head. http://i.imgur.com/ySYKYMd.gif

[Strigon]

All these estimates break down if you look at them too closely though. For example, an 18 strength human's max carrying capacity is less than the real world strength records.

But maximum carrying capacity is how much you can hike with all day, isn't it?
Sure, some people might be able to lift more, but for how long?

Either way, 18 can be seen as either really good or completely superhuman; if you look at the things a +4 bonus to Fort saves gets you, for example, it's inhuman. Case in point, Arsenic has a save DC of 13; 18 Con means, even without any other bonuses, your chances of being entirely unaffected by a dose of arsenic is > 50%. That's absolutely absurd. Compare this to Charisma, where if you have a +4 bonus, your chance of turning a random stranger friendly is exactly 50%; that's actually quite unimpressive - I know lots of people who can do better than that (clearly they've put skill points into diplomacy...)

[Sredni Vashtar]

Wait, are you serious? That's hilarious. And terrible, but mostly hilarious. Oh, AD&D, you never disappoint.

Hitler was incredibly charismatic. That was part of the problem. Not all ability scores are virtues. Any of them could be twisted to serve negative ends.

[Ruethgar]

Intelligence is particularly weird, because 1 and 2 are not possible for humans, even though statistically, some people score that low (you can't roll below 3, obviously, but there are people who score lower on IQ tests than the people who would have a 3).

There are some bits in some D&D books about prodigies, who have higher than 18 as base score, because they're just that great (and rare, very rare). I can't remember which book and where. I want to say DMGII, but don't pin me down on that.

It was DMG II, Prodigious X Ability allows for a +2 to one score and a +2 to skills and checks with that score, on the low end is the Pathetic flaw for scores below three.

[Solaris]

Someone with 18 Con would probably be someone who can live to be 100....while suffering from Coronary Artery Disease

In AD&D, Rasputin (of "beaten, stabbed, poisoned, drowned, and even then didn't die until he was shot several times" fame) was the canon 18 Con.

A'course, this was back in the day when having an 18 was the pinnacle of human performance. 3.5E factors ability scores drastically differently, with an even slope of improvement as the scores increase rather than an exponential one.

[Chronos]

Quoth Strigon:

Case in point, Arsenic has a save DC of 13; 18 Con means, even without any other bonuses, your chances of being entirely unaffected by a dose of arsenic is > 50%.
That sounds about right, actually. One dose of arsenic never killed anyone. The way you kill someone with arsenic is by giving them a small amount at a time, over the course of months or years.

...huh, arsenic isn't actually listed as a drain poison, so that doesn't actually work in D&D. It should be.

[Strigon]

That sounds about right, actually. One dose of arsenic never killed anyone. The way you kill someone with arsenic is by giving them a small amount at a time, over the course of months or years.

...huh, arsenic isn't actually listed as a drain poison, so that doesn't actually work in D&D. It should be.

Is that a fact? You learn something new every day, I suppose.

Let's try that again; a basilisk has a DC 13 petrifying gaze. That means you can win a staring contest against a basilisk, and have a > 50% chance of living to tell the tale.

[LudicSavant]

Honestly, the real answer is that the attributes don't matter all that much. They are simply one metagame component of various output values that have direct in-world consequences. They are not the in-world consequences themselves. Placing too much importance on attributes commits a similar logical error to the one seen here with classes: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0209.gif

You know who's really persuasive in-world? The guy with a +20 to Diplomacy or Bluff or Intimidate. You know how much of that is going to come from your Charisma stat? Possibly none at all.

What really matters is a character's in-world capabilities, not the names of the components of those numbers on their character sheet. If you have a character with an 8 Charisma and a +20 to Diplomacy, Bluff, Gather Information, and Intimidate, it would be foolish to claim that they are not charismatic. Likewise, a character with 18 Charisma and no skill ranks isn't actually very good at social skills, let alone a "pinnacle of humanity." To say otherwise is simply metagaming, as you are quite literally using out of game information (a component value on a sheet) to draw conclusions that aren't actually represented inside the actual game world.

When thinking about how to classify your character's capabilities, you should look at what actions they can accomplish, not just what their attributes are. Are you tough, resistant to poisons, etc? It's not just your Con that matters for that, it's things like your Fort save bonuses and your hp and so on and so forth. Are you agile? It's not just your Dexterity that matters for that, it's things like your attack bonus, dodge bonus, acrobatic skills, etc. And so on and so forth. You need to look at the whole picture of the character or you're going to get impractical, useless answers.

[Jeff the Green]

That sounds about right, actually. One dose of arsenic never killed anyone. The way you kill someone with arsenic is by giving them a small amount at a time, over the course of months or years.

I don't think this is necessarily the case (http://www.calpoison.org/hcp/2011/callusvol9no3.htm):


Following a large acute oral exposure to inorganic arsenic (arsenite or arsenate), patients will develop gastrointestinal symptoms including severe nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea.... Multi-organ dysfunction may ensue with large exposures.... Encephalopathy, coma, delirium, and seizures may occur over several days following acute exposure due to cerebral edema.... Those that survive the initial acute exposure may subsequently develop a peripheral neuropathy in a stocking-glove distribution... Exposure to arsine gas can cause hemolysis, with subsequent hemoglobinuric renal failure and death.

(Emphasis added.)

Now, granted, this is a very large dose, but it still seems to be possible to kill someone with one large dose of inorganic arsenic. (If you want to get away with killing someone with arsenic, you want to poison them over time, though. Without a tox-screen, it's hard to tell the difference between arsenic poisoning and any number of organic illnesses. On the other hand, a tox-screen can be done decades after death, so you're never safe.)

[Telonius]

21 would be the actual height of human intelligence, wisdom, or charisma. (18 to start, and Venerable age). A person with a score like that would be the guru who's actually attained enlightenment, the rock star who can still fill the stadium at 90 years old (and make them feel better than he did when he was 20), or the scientist who's finally made a world-shattering discovery after a lifetime of being at the top of his field.

[Greenish]

All the Int in the world won't make you smart, if you don't invest in knowledge skills.Wait, what? Of course having high Int makes you smart (or, well, at least intelligent), regardless of where you put your (many, because you're smart) skill points. Knowing things isn't even remotely the same as being smart/intelligent (and in reverse, ignorance doesn't make one stupid).


All the ranks in Knowledge skills, though, won't do you squat if you don't have good Int and need to make an Int check, like the one for escaping a Maze spell.

[ExLibrisMortis]

It was DMG II, Prodigious X Ability allows for a +2 to one score and a +2 to skills and checks with that score, on the low end is the Pathetic flaw for scores below three.
Thanks, that's the one I meant. Pathetic works (except for INT) to emulate extreme weakness, Prodigious works for extreme talent.


I always see 3 and 18 as normal human extremes. 10 being average. For instance a guy with 18 Int is bankrupting Mensa, Einstein would be like a 16, Stephen Hawking a 17, NDT a 24 (probably not that high, but what can I say I like the guy) more seriously Kasparov in his prime would've been an 18, Deep Blue probably about a 22. On the other hand 3 would be someone that could never function independently in society because of mental handicaps. Most of us here are probably an 11-14, I'd qualify myself as a 12 (last time I was at the hospital my ID tested at 123, not genius material, but above average by a significant percent).
Kasparov and Deep Blue don't have massive intelligence scores; they have a very high bonuses (from databases, training, aid another and so on) on Chess checks. Deep Blue couldn't make a DC 5 intelligence check to boil an egg in water instead of milk, mostly because it doesn't know what water, eggs, milk and boiling are. Being good at one thing that's typically associated with high intelligence does not mean you have an 18 in INT.

I think you're underestimating Einstein as well. Using the 18 + 2 metric for a prodigy, Einstein scores a 20, which is, based on what he's achieved, an estimate on the safe side. I don't see why you would think that Hawking or - especially - Kasparov would be more intelligent (not that they don't score high, of course).

[Strigon]

Honestly, the real answer is that the attributes don't matter all that much....
...You know who's really persuasive in-world? The guy with a +20 to Diplomacy or Bluff or Intimidate. You know how much of that is going to come from your Charisma stat? Possibly none at all.

What really matters is a character's in-world capabilities, not the names of the components of those numbers on their character sheet. If you have a character with an 8 Charisma and a +20 to Diplomacy, Bluff, Gather Information, and Intimidate, it would be foolish to claim that they are not charismatic. Likewise, a character with 18 Charisma and no skill ranks isn't actually very good at social skills, let alone a "pinnacle of humanity." To say otherwise is simply metagaming, as you are quite literally using out of game information (a component value on a sheet) to draw conclusions that aren't actually represented inside the actual game world.

I really have to disagree; first of all, because you seem to be assuming that being good at something is either a natural skill, or something you've gotten the hang of over time, when in reality it's both.
The attributes matter an awful lot, both IRL and in D&D. Having a +20 bonus to Diplomacy is masterful, yes, but at some point he decided to master diplomacy, and it was probably because he had a knack for it due to high charisma. This is how an awful lot of things pan out; you discover a natural aptitude for something, you do it more, and that aptitude slowly gives way to your years of experience in the field. Sure, experience is much better than talent in the end, but talent is very, very important when you're starting out. That's what the stats are for; saying "you have a natural ability for these skills - you should consider a career in them."

For example, let's look at Stephen Hawking. He has very high Intelligence; let's call it 18 for the purposes of this thought experiment.
He's had that value his entire (adult) life, so let's take a look at young Mr Hawking at the age of eighteen. At this point, he's in university, and he's doing very well. He doesn't have the skills in knowledge that a Doctor in his field would have, and thus in knowledge (Physics), his rank is helped greatly by his +4 bonus; let's say he has a total bonus of +10. Now, his Professor has, let's say, a total bonus of +16, but only 15 Int, so only +2 comes from his Intelligence.
His professor is more knowledgeable, but Hawking is smarter - and it shows; he can find the answers to questions very quickly, he learns with almost ridiculous ease; he's already showing aptitude far greater than that of anyone else there, even if his skills aren't the highest of the bunch yet.

And it is most certainly not metagaming to behave as your character stats are written down; you might not know the actual number, but you can certainly take notice of the fact that you learn things very easily, for example, or you're particularly susceptible to illness and poisons. It's not metagaming, then, to assume you're fairly smart, but quite fragile. Saying "oh, I have 16 Int, but 7 Con" would be metagaming, but not taking note that you're very smart, but in poor health.
If that's metagaming, then so is nearly everything else you know about yourself; the weight of your sword, for example, is also just a number on your character sheet. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to tell if another sword is heavier or lighter?
Your remaining HP is also another number on your character sheet; should you not be able to tell when you're battered and bloody, and can't take many more hits?

Knowing the exact number, maybe it's metagaming. Playing someone with a +4 bonus to Int as being a genius and he knows it, most certainly is not. Don't sell short your attributes; they're far more important than you seem to realize.
As I said earlier, sure, for an expert in his field, experience is more important than his natural aptitude, but that aptitude is still there, being a tangible, significant bonus. It's a potentially huge bonus when you're a novice, too.

[Morty]

Ability scores are sources of numbers, and it's not worth it to treat them as much more than that. Trying to map ability scores to real-world human ability is likewise far more trouble than it's worth.

[Rubik]

In addition, any score over 20 should be effectively superhuman, or more accurately, beyond what is normally considered humanly possible. Scores of nine and below, on the other hand, are below human average. 18 base
+1 level up at 4
+3 venerable age
-----------------------
Int 22.

[Draconium]

18 base
+1 level up at 4
+3 venerable age
-----------------------
Int 22.

Let me clarify - base 20, prior to age or racial modifiers, is usually considered beyond the normal scope of your race. Age modifiers are like racial modifiers. A venerable human will have average mental scores of 13 to 14, and average physical scores of 4 to 5. This applies to all venerable humans, just as all racial modifiers apply to all members of that race. Of course, below-or-above average scores will change that. A venerable human with 18 base intelligence will have an Int of 21, but the difference is the same between them and an average human of that age as it is with a younger Int 18 human with an average human of that age.

[smcmike]

The rules for aging mental scores don't really make any sense, though. You do not get any smarter as you age. Wiser, sure. More charismatic? Sometimes. But not smarter. Scientists generally do not make world-shattering discoveries in retirement - they make them in their 20s and 30s and 40s.

Similarly, no matter how hard that geriatric rocker continues to rock, he's basically a lame old man compared to his younger self.

[Deadline]

Similarly, no matter how hard that geriatric rocker continues to rock, he's basically a lame old man compared to his younger self.

Unless they are Billy Idol or David Bowie. Then they appear to be basically ageless. :smalltongue:

[Rubik]

Unless they are Billy Idol or David Bowie. Then they appear to be basically ageless. :smalltongue:David Bowie's crotch (specifically from Labyrinth) even has its own fanbase. (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=david%20bowie%27s%20crotch)

[Draconium]

David Bowie's crotch (specifically from Labyrinth) even has its own fanbase.

I remember that. That was a bit... yeah, I really didn't know what to think of that. :smalltongue:

[Fouredged Sword]

Here is how I think of it.

A person with an 18 ability score is naturally as good as a person with specific training but average ability. A person with an 18 charisma is as good as a trained diplomat who isn't particularly charismatic. A person with a 16 int and 1 rank (a smattering of knowledge) is as good as a person with average int who if fully versed in a subject.

[LudicSavant]

The attributes matter an awful lot, both IRL and in D&D.

*Facepalm*



And it is most certainly not metagaming to behave as your character stats are written down

It is not metagaming to behave in the way that the rules (such as your stats) dictate. It is metagaming to insist that your character stats necessarily have roleplaying implications that they do not, in fact, have, due to information that is only available out-of-world. A la http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html

Not a thing in your post refutes the fact that in world the guy with 18 Charisma isn't actually very persuasive, and the guy with a +20 bonus to social skills is. People saying that the most persuasive guy ever must have at least, say, 18 charisma are inaccurately associating "most persuasive guy ever" with "18 Charisma," a mechanic which does not provide that result.

________________

Perhaps a longer explanation is in order:

How about a thought experiment? What if I, as a game designer, switched the labels around? What if Charisma had Strength's function, Intelligence had Constitution's, and so forth? So, Charisma would give you a boost to attack rolls and carrying capacity. Would it still be equally valid to say that you have to have high Charisma in order to do things a charismatic person does? Of course not, because it's not the fact that it's labelled "Charisma" that matters. It's what the mechanics empower the character to do that defines the limitations of their flavor. You couldn't rightfully flavor someone as the most charismatic man in the world if they sucked at persuading people. You also couldn't rightfully flavor someone as the least charismatic man in the world when they can make someone fanatically loyal just by talking to them for a minute, or make some of the world's wisest beings buy into absurd lies, and so on and so forth.

What defines a person as charismatic? Is it a label on a sheet, or is it an actual capability your character has, such as being able to befriend the warlike king or con the conman? If you had 14 Charisma, you're not actually gaining a great deal of ability to manipulate people. In fact, the difference between 8 and 10 cha is barely even noticeable in game. The difference between fully investing in Diplomacy or Bluff is very noticeable in game.

I should be clear: it's not that making people RP stats is bad. Quite the opposite. If you have an abysmal bluff and can never convince anyone of anything, you should roleplay that. It's that attributes aren't a final modifier; they don't actually manifest directly in in-game situations. Having a low charisma doesn't actually necessarily mean you're bad at social skills, and there's no reason to assume that a character is bad at social skills just because they have a low Charisma score.

You know what makes your character a great warrior leader? It's not having an extra +1 or +2 to Charisma. It's having things like full social skill investment, Inspire Courage (using rhetoric as your performance skill, even), white raven maneuvers, relevant knowledge skills, having a network of contacts... All of these things and more do far more to model your character as a great leader than moving around a + or -1. By insisting that all of these and other factors are irrelevant in the face of a relatively minor bonus or penalty, I feel that some players are severely limiting their ability to effectively model characters.

To use a different stat as an example, let's take Constitution. How tough are you really? Well, Constitution modifies things like hp and fortitude saves... but so do like 1000 other factors. A guy with 8 Constitution might straight up have fort bonuses that let him take baths in black lotus extract and hp that allows him to survive falling down the Grand Canyon. And yet, I've encountered players who will intuitively conclude that such a character must be described as frail and sickly, because they over-hastily identify the Constitution score as the most important factor in whether a player is allowed to describe their character as tougher than the average Joe and have that be a consistent statement in the game world.

All that I am saying is something very simple (if a bit unintuitive for some): The name of the mechanic doesn't matter. The only things that really matter from your character sheet are the things that directly manifest in-world. All of the words on the character sheet would have exactly as much value if I hid them behind an auto-calculating UI.

___

To put it another way... hmmm...

The purpose of mechanics, from a roleplaying perspective, is to provide a functional model of a character via defining what they can or, equally importantly, cannot do in the game world in line with their characterization. If the mechanics are doing that, they are fulfilling their optimal purpose for roleplaying.

There are two kinds of fluff attached to most abilities that a designer will write up for an RPG. There's inherent flavor (e.g. flavor directly connected to what the mechanic does; you can't remove this flavor without changing what the ability does) and added flavor (e.g. stuff that you can totally just replace without really affecting the way the system works). So, for instance, a bastard sword has inherent flavor in the form of being a weapon that can be used in one or two hands, is suitable for power attacking, and that deals slashing damage and weighs however much. It has added flavor of looking roughly like this: http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/dnd4/images/e/e1/SH2250-920-1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150127215136. You can easily change the added flavor to be whatever you like, as long as it's something that fits the inherent flavor (so, for instance, it would be weird if you said the Bastard Sword was really a quarterstaff, since its inherent flavor doesn't seem to be compatible with modelling how a quarterstaff would work in the game world). The devs actually give an example of this when they suggest that you can change the Bastard Sword's added flavor so that it looks roughly like this: http://www.coldsteel.com/images/products/88K_m.jpg

What I'm trying to say is that a lot of the things that people intuitively associate with attributes aren't really inherent flavor... and by assuming it is, one is limiting the kind of concepts they can model, just as surely as they would be doing so by saying that it would be unacceptable to roleplay that a Bastard Sword's stats really represent a Katana, or that a Monk/Paladin can really represent a samurai.

Added fluff is moldable, and being able to refluff added flavor on a whim does an awful lot to empower you to realize new and interesting character concepts while still being completely faithful to the rules.

So this:



For example, let's look at Stephen Hawking. He has very high Intelligence; let's call it 18 for the purposes of this thought experiment.
He's had that value his entire (adult) life, so let's take a look at young Mr Hawking at the age of eighteen. At this point, he's in university, and he's doing very well. He doesn't have the skills in knowledge that a Doctor in his field would have, and thus in knowledge (Physics), his rank is helped greatly by his +4 bonus; let's say he has a total bonus of +10. Now, his Professor has, let's say, a total bonus of +16, but only 15 Int, so only +2 comes from his Intelligence.
His professor is more knowledgeable, but Hawking is smarter - and it shows; he can find the answers to questions very quickly, he learns with almost ridiculous ease; he's already showing aptitude far greater than that of anyone else there, even if his skills aren't the highest of the bunch yet.

while an acceptable narrative, is also not the only one available, and insisting that it is requires claiming that the mere names of attributes has very important and necessary in-world effects. It doesn't. Only the inherent flavor is immutable without changing the rules.

At the end of the day, being able to re-fluff added flavor is something that empowers you to better realize more diverse character concepts without adding any new rules. Realizing the difference between added and inherent flavor, as well as the ways in which added flavor is mutable, will make you a stronger roleplayer.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Deep Blue probably about a 22.

Deep Blue would be a 1 at most. 1 is the score for the stupid half of the animal kingdom, and all of those critters have figured out how to feed themselves while Deep Blue wouldn't be able to think of plugging himself in even if, you know, he could actually move, or think while not on power. My point is: in any context other than a game of computer chess a mouse or a bee or a squid is way more intelligent, adaptive etc than Deep Blue. Deep Blue literally has the intelligence of a brick outside of its extremely narrow favorite environment. Deep Blue just has an enormous amount of ranks in the skill Play (Chess, Int).

[Morty]

Role-playing your ability scores is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But an ability score does not mean the same thing for every person who has it.

[Seharvepernfan]

18 is the height of humanity

It never fails.

A 4th level commoner can have a 22 in a mental stat if they are venerable.

[Zrak]

In general, I think ability scores are at best guidelines. The abilities described are, themselves, vague enough that trying to tie them to anything concrete is basically a fool's errand, let alone trying to tie vague abstractions of those vague abilities to anything concrete. Even strength, which is probably the most concrete and literal ability score, governs a lot of things that aren't associated with what we would consider or measure as strength, for example accuracy in close combat. I wouldn't have any problem accepting a character with penalties to all mental ability scores as a "genius," given adequate finesse in the explanation; sufficient deficiencies in certain aspects associated with each ability score could justify a penalty to that score without precluding even a relatively standard usage of "genius."


But maximum carrying capacity is how much you can hike with all day, isn't it?
Sure, some people might be able to lift more, but for how long?
There are also limits for things like "lift over head" and such, which indeed fall short of world records. In general, this is part of a broader problem of 3.5 underestimating the capabilities of mundane human beings.



The attributes matter an awful lot, both IRL and in D&D. Having a +20 bonus to Diplomacy is masterful, yes, but at some point he decided to master diplomacy, and it was probably because he had a knack for it due to high charisma.
This is neither how people build D&D characters nor decide to acquire life skills. Plenty of people train in things they don't have a natural aptitude for, sometimes even specifically because they don't have that natural aptitude, and developing skill will allow them to overcome it. For example, I have a poor, or at least no better than average, score in dexterity, but am pretty good at a lot of dexterity-based skills, specifically because I intentionally practiced those skills to compensate for my more limited abilities.


Similarly, no matter how hard that geriatric rocker continues to rock, he's basically a lame old man compared to his younger self.

I dunno, Nick Cave pretty much only gets cooler as he gets older.

[Judge_Worm]

Thanks, that's the one I meant. Pathetic works (except for INT) to emulate extreme weakness, Prodigious works for extreme talent.


Kasparov and Deep Blue don't have massive intelligence scores; they have a very high bonuses (from databases, training, aid another and so on) on Chess checks. Deep Blue couldn't make a DC 5 intelligence check to boil an egg in water instead of milk, mostly because it doesn't know what water, eggs, milk and boiling are. Being good at one thing that's typically associated with high intelligence does not mean you have an 18 in INT.

I think you're underestimating Einstein as well. Using the 18 + 2 metric for a prodigy, Einstein scores a 20, which is, based on what he's achieved, an estimate on the safe side. I don't see why you would think that Hawking or - especially - Kasparov would be more intelligent (not that they don't score high, of course).

I don't qualify Einstein as unusually intelligent (that is to say he's not super intelligent, the guy was still a literal genius). I instead think of him as a guy with +10 (or more) to knowledge (physics) checks. I give Hawking more because of how I equate what D&D intelligence is... continued below


Deep Blue would be a 1 at most. 1 is the score for the stupid half of the animal kingdom, and all of those critters have figured out how to feed themselves while Deep Blue wouldn't be able to think of plugging himself in even if, you know, he could actually move, or think while not on power. My point is: in any context other than a game of computer chess a mouse or a bee or a squid is way more intelligent, adaptive etc than Deep Blue. Deep Blue literally has the intelligence of a brick outside of its extremely narrow favorite environment. Deep Blue just has an enormous amount of ranks in the skill Play (Chess, Int).

I equate D&D Int with logical problem solving skills. The so called "higher" brain functions, abstract thought, mathematics, etc., etc. As opposed to Wis, which is the minor problem solving skills, like using a stick to dig out termites. I always consider machines having high Int because they can solve problems so much quicker than humans, at the same time I consider Wis to be almost all machines' dump stat for the same reasons you mention DB as having an Int of 1.

Int to me is the ability to learn and solve problems with logic. That knowledge base itself is covered by skill checks.

[Zrak]

Machines are very bad at abstract thought, having at present literally no capacity for it.

[Solaris]

Deep Blue would be a 1 at most. 1 is the score for the stupid half of the animal kingdom, and all of those critters have figured out how to feed themselves while Deep Blue wouldn't be able to think of plugging himself in even if, you know, he could actually move, or think while not on power. My point is: in any context other than a game of computer chess a mouse or a bee or a squid is way more intelligent, adaptive etc than Deep Blue. Deep Blue literally has the intelligence of a brick outside of its extremely narrow favorite environment. Deep Blue just has an enormous amount of ranks in the skill Play (Chess, Int).

I agree with this.

I'd rather model Deep Blue as a skill DC than as something that has an Intelligence itself. Perhaps as a non-intelligent object with a pile of skill ranks for an opposed skill check. It's a really good chess program, but it can't think.

[LudicSavant]

I don't qualify Einstein as unusually intelligent

To say that Einstein isn't unusually intelligent devalues the term "unusually intelligent" completely. To use Neil DeGrasse Tyson's words, he is unimpeachably smart.

[hamishspence]

It was DMG II, Prodigious X Ability allows for a +2 to one score and a +2 to skills and checks with that score, on the low end is the Pathetic flaw for scores below three.

Yup - though the bonus to skills and checks is +4, not +2.

[Flickerdart]

Deep Blue would be a 1 at most.
Deep Blue is pretty much the definition of a construct, and therefore appropriately Mindless. Perhaps with a Plays Chess Really damn Well (Ex) racial ability.

[atemu1234]

In AD&D, Adolph Hitler was given as an example for an 18 Charisma. That suggests the level of persuasiveness an 18 Cha should have held in that edition.

Sounds about right.


That sounds about right, actually. One dose of arsenic never killed anyone. The way you kill someone with arsenic is by giving them a small amount at a time, over the course of months or years.

...huh, arsenic isn't actually listed as a drain poison, so that doesn't actually work in D&D. It should be.

Not really. Either way works in real life, just make it a big dose.

[EugeneVoid]

What if D&D was a board game and had no entirely accurate relation of attributes to real life stats.

[atemu1234]

What if D&D was a board game and had no entirely accurate relation of attributes to real life stats.

What if the game was supposed to model certain real life attributes, and failed miserably...

[LudicSavant]

What if the game was supposed to model certain real life attributes, and failed miserably...

I generally find that you'll get a lot farther by taking the game for what it is, rather than speculating about what it was intended to be. And with the game that we have, you have to look at more than just an ability score to meaningfully determine if someone is the most persuasive, the most ingenious, the most physically strong, the most tough, the most agile, or the most wise and perceptive. Or least. Or where they fall anywhere on that spectrum.

Giving an "exact description of ratings between ability scores of 1-20" is pretty much always going to give misleading answers, because the ability score is only one of various potential factors on a character sheet that influence things like strength, intelligence, etc.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I don't qualify Einstein as unusually intelligent (that is to say he's not super intelligent, the guy was still a literal genius). I instead think of him as a guy with +10 (or more) to knowledge (physics) checks. I give Hawking more because of how I equate what D&D intelligence is... continued below
When Einstein made his breakthrough though, did he have that much more knowledge of physics than anyone else? I mean, he wasn't even a full time physicist...


I equate D&D Int with logical problem solving skills. The so called "higher" brain functions, abstract thought, mathematics, etc., etc. As opposed to Wis, which is the minor problem solving skills, like using a stick to dig out termites. I always consider machines having high Int because they can solve problems so much quicker than humans, at the same time I consider Wis to be almost all machines' dump stat for the same reasons you mention DB as having an Int of 1.

Int to me is the ability to learn and solve problems with logic. That knowledge base itself is covered by skill checks.

But do computers do that that well? Learning to solve problems with logic? Chess computers are (generally and as far as I know) programmed for statistical computations on their moves, and during the early and late game they also have a large database that simply says what move they should take in a certain situation. It's a combination of loads and loads of simple calculations (yet way too many of them and too fast for a human to do) and having a large memory full of situations on a chess board. There's no learning involved. And finding the right statistical solution can be called logic, but again they're not really learning by using logic.

If I give Deep Blue a riddle he's not programmed for, even if it's a game of checkers, he's not going to figure out how to do it.

Tool use amongst animals is something I'd very much call intelligence, in D&D as well as in real life. If you've seen some of the video's of New Caledonian crows for instance, that's logical problem solving.


Deep Blue is pretty much the definition of a construct, and therefore appropriately Mindless. Perhaps with a Plays Chess Really damn Well (Ex) racial ability.

It's always good when a system has the perfect solution handy.