Working out your D+D stats?

[Lolzords]

A few stats I know how to work out. 1 point of int for each 10 IQ you have. For example, my IQ is 127 so my int would be 13.

Str is easy also, you look in the players handbook and check out the maximum weights. Then you go to the gym and see how much you can lift, compare how much you can lift to the lists in the book.

How would I go about working out the other stats?

[factotum]

I think most of the others are too woolly for you to be able to do that (and I'm not sure why you'd want to anyway). Charisma is a largely subjective assessment of you by the people around you, Constitution would really come down to how likely you are to survive injury or recover from nasty diseases (both of which would be a little dangerous to test!) and Wisdom is another thing that it's difficult to put a finger on exactly what it means in the real world. Dexterity you might have a chance at, but I'm not sure how!

[Lolzords]

I think most of the others are too woolly for you to be able to do that (and I'm not sure why you'd want to anyway). Charisma is a largely subjective assessment of you by the people around you, Constitution would really come down to how likely you are to survive injury or recover from nasty diseases (both of which would be a little dangerous to test!) and Wisdom is another thing that it's difficult to put a finger on exactly what it means in the real world. Dexterity you might have a chance at, but I'm not sure how!

I guess I'd have quite high constitution, about 16 or 17 because I''ve only missed about 2 days in the past 5 years due to illness. Not sure about the rest though.

[Delaney Gale]

A few stats I know how to work out. 1 point of int for each 10 IQ you have. For example, my IQ is 127 so my int would be 13.


That seems like it needs to go on a sliding scale- higher more extreme IQ scores being worth more towards INT. IQ is a bell-curve interpretation... that would mean that any high-level wizard worth his salt is running around with more brainpower than Stephen Hawking. ... damn. No pun intended. I'm going to hell, not for any real sin, but because I involuntarily make Stephen Hawking jokes.

I know my DEX, but only because I'm a proficient historical fencer and know I'd qualify for some of the two-weapon feats (putting me at least DEX 15, possibly 17).

CON? I'd guess that would have something to do with an endurance run... or holding your breath? There are rules for that in the DM's Guide.

EDIT: I'm taking it on myself to calculate a better method for INT based on probability distributions. ... stop looking at me like that. I'm a combinatorics geek.

[Zaeron]

I guess I'd have quite high constitution, about 16 or 17 because I''ve only missed about 2 days in the past 5 years due to illness. Not sure about the rest though.

16-18 is 'olympic level'. The people who run 200 mile marathons are 16-18 CON. 'I don't get sick much' is probably a 12 or 13. At least in my opinion.

[TheOOB]

D&D Stats are an abstraction that have little to do with reality. Most of the stats (especially the mental ones) are really poorly defined, and a persons apitude in an attribute can't be represented by a number alone.

For example, you may have someone who can deadlift a lot of weight, but can't bench press very much at all, so what do you put their strength at because it would determine both of those.

[Delaney Gale]

D&D Stats are an abstraction that have little to do with reality. Most of the stats (especially the mental ones) are really poorly defined, and a persons apitude in an attribute can't be represented by a number alone.

Yes... but it's FUN. You must realize the value of doing stuff that has little to do with reality because it's fun. After all, you're here. :D

[TheLogman]

Strength: Not that strong, but it's not like I'm weak either. Probably 10 (I am justa teenager)

Dexterity: See Strength probably 10

Constitution: I heal fast-ish, and not sick often, good immune system, probably 11.

Wisdom: I read into people well, I can notice things pretty well, but sometimes the simplest things pass me by. I estimate 11

Intelligence: I took the SAT in 7th grade, did better than 79% of the Seniors taking the same test. I'm in honors classes, but then again it's not like I'm a genius. Let's give me 13?

Charisma: I can relate to anyone, seriously. I have a personality that allows me to relate to people. However, if I need to, I can read into you enough to pry out those things that really bother you. I'm on the Mock Trial and Forensics teams, I do quite well with public speaking (As a Freshman, I am first alternate in the state to go to nationals in a category that I only practiced with for a week, highest scoring totals of any Freshman in the history of my school). Lets put that at 14.

[Deepblue706]

I have the following stats:

STR 23
DEX 19
CON 1
INT 99
WIS 8
CHA 13 or 19

23 STR because I'm strong.

19 DEX because I'm awesome at beer-pong. And, I did fencing in high-school and I beat this polish exchange student taught by an olympian.

1 CON because I get sick a lot and suffer from migraines. Maybe it's a little higher, because I can run two miles in about 15 minutes.

My INT would be super good 99 is a good number and I'm smart with many IQs. I once scored a 733 on the Coin-Parison (hard) game in Big Brain Academy.

My WIS IS TERRIBLEFOREVERER! I'm so absent minded and I'm horrible in school and I have no common sense and I can't do anything right, but somehow it all means low WIS, and I'm still smart, because I refuse to accept that I am lacking in intelligence because that'd make me feel sad.

My CHA is either good or SUPER DUPER AMAZING. There's NO WAY there could have been outside factors to play a role into when I've made great success in CHA-related stuff.

...

Sorry, I had to. SOMEONE was going to do it eventually, and probably with a slightly more serious tone.

I'm probably average across the board, maybe a slightly high CHA because I'm very popular at work, More people remember me than I do them (no, it's not because I'm often in a drunken stupor :smallbiggrin: ), I get along great with all kinds of people, and chicks dig me.

I might have some points in INT, but it's hard to say. MENSA qualification might get me something, but I'm not about to declare I'm a genius.

[CrazedGoblin]

you could test out what your dex is by trying to dodge a bus i guess :smalltongue:

[Skjaldbakka]

My assessment of my stats:

Probably level 2 or 3, probably bard because I know a lot of random stuff

Str 13 with power attack, or 15
Con 13 or 14
Dex 10
Cha 12
Int 14 or 15
Wis 13 or 14

I have combat expertise and power attack (from my experience sparring).

[kjones]

I guess I'd have quite high constitution, about 16 or 17 because I''ve only missed about 2 days in the past 5 years due to illness. Not sure about the rest though.

Not sure it's quite that simple. This could be because you live/work in an environment where you don't come into contact with germs. The real test would be to deliberately expose yourself to the flu virus and see how well you do.

Alternately, if you know your class (let's assume you're a commoner) and your level (first), and we assume that the Great DM In The Sky grants max HP at first level, then your HP = 4 + con modifier. Then, find a baby (Strength mod ?-3), give him a dagger (damage 1d4) and have him stab you until you pass out. Since each hit does 1d4-3 damage, and there's a minimum damage of 1, each stab takes off 1 HP. Now you know how many hit points you have, and from there you can calculate your constitution modifier, and hence your constitution score.

In 2nd edition, Charisma affected how many henchmen you could have, both ever and at any given moment. Count how many friends you have that would give your life for you. If it hovers around a certain maximum, you can figure out your Charisma score.

Dexterity is also easy. Give a crossbow to a medical student (almost certain to be a 1st level expert, and thus have SWP) and have him shoot at you 100 times. Since you'll be unarmored, your AC will be 10 + Dex mod, without any other modifiers. His total attack bonus will be +0. Thus, he should hit you with the crossbow 50% of the time, which is 50 times out of 100. (This is the other reason to use a medical student; you'll be taking 50d8 damage, or 50d10 if you give him a heavy crossbow for some reason.) If he hits you more often, say, 60 times, then you probably have a -1 Dexterity modifier to AC. If he hits you less often, you probably have a positive modifier. To be more accurate, he should probably shoot you ~1000 times. Can't hurt to be sure!

You covered Intelligence, but I'm not sure it correlates so neatly. People with an IQ of 30 are essentially incapable of doing much besides breathing, but a character with an Intelligence of 3 is still perfectly functional in society, albeit dumb as a box of rocks. The only way I can think of working this out is through untrained Knowledge checks. See how often you can figure out "common knowledge" things about areas in which you have no training. Since the DC is 10, a person with average intelligence should be able to do it about half the time; as with the crossbow experiment, if it's more often, you have a positive modifier and vice versa. Alternately, if you know your class as assumed above, you can count how many things you're good at doing, and from there figure out your skill points per level and how it compares to a person of that class with Int 10.

Wisdom is tricky, and involves invoking the variant rules for Sanity Points, described fully in the SRD. Assuming you have lived a life free of horrific, maddening occurences, you should have a Sanity score of 5 * Wisdom. We are also assuming that one is aware when one fails a Sanity check. Then, all you have to do is repeatedly have your friends (you do have friends, right? From your high Charisma and all?) surprise you with mutilated animal corpses. Each time you fail your check, you lose 1d2 Sanity Points, for an average loss of 1.5 points lost per check. Thus, for a person of average Wisdom 10, after exposure to ~26 mutilated animal corpses, you will go completely insane. Since this is only an average, you will need to do this several times. Who said determining real-life stats was supposed to be easy?

I've deliberately saved Strength for last, because I think 3.5's rules for Strength scores are crap. According to the RAW, for a person of average strength, a load of <33 lbs. is a light load. The RAW also states that a person with a light load can cover 24 miles in a full day of walking. Now, I know that I have a strength of at least 10, because I can pick up 100 lbs. and hoist it over my head. Not easily, but it doesn't have to be easy. I recently went backpacking with a 30 lb. pack (I weighed it) and I had to struggle to cover 10 miles in a day. Granted, I was walking through mountains (along the Appalachian Trail), but again per the RAW, that should multiply my movement rate by .75, making it 18 miles in a day. Not impossible, but not doable for somebody of "average" strength. It certainly is doable, but they need to change the definition of "average" in that case.

So, determining your real-world Strength is impossible. Don't even bother.

-kjones.

[Delaney Gale]

Ok, so during the presentation I was supposed to be paying attention to (presearch telling me everything I needed to know FTW!), I devised a better system for determining INT.

You see, 3-dice rolls take on a rough bell-curve probability distribution. It just so happens that this is the very definition used to calibrate IQs. Given that I was in an auditorium with foggy memories of high school probability (was that five years ago now!?) and mental math, I did a few (reasonable) approximations to come up with this system.

INT Score/IQ:
3/55
4/60
5/65
6/70 (below here formally called "Educable Mentally Retarded")
7/78
8/85
9/91
10/97
11/103
12/109
13/115
14/123
15/130
16/135
17/140
18/145

How I did it:
The basic assumption in an IQ test is that 68% of all people will be between 85 and 115 (one standard devation), 95% of all people will be between 70 and 130 (two standard deviations) and 99% of all people will be between 55 and 145 (three standard deviations).

Since we don't get a chance to optimize our own stats, and because it's an easier back-of-the-envelope calculation, I assumed we were rolling three dice and taking that number. Hence, 216 (6 cubed) possible results. Multiplying the above percentages, I found that the middle 147 would be the 68%, 205 would be the 95%, and 214 would be the 99%. This seemed to say to me that the 2 that should be outside the 99% should be 3 and 18 (only one way to roll each- 1-1-1 and 6-6-6), and I set them at the edge of the third standard deviation (55 and 145). By similar token, the edges of the 95% were 6 and 15, and the edges of the 68% were 8 and 13. Coincidentally or not, the edges of each section mark the edges of each ability modifer (i.e. 4/17 are the edges of -3/+3 modifiers and are the edges of the third standard deviation).

From there on out, since I didn't have the formulae for fitting a Gaussian anywhere near memorized (or known at all), I did a straight line approximation between each of the known reference points.

The only weakness I see is in fitting IQs >145. They don't fit into the "normal" human realm, so they aren't really accounted for by this model. Perhaps +1 INT for every 10 pts of IQ beyond 145? That would put say, Leibnitz (famous math guy, invented a bit of calculus) or Stephen Hawking up at INT 24 or thereabouts, which would be reasonable- a lot of "intellectual elite" wizards are up in that region.

At any rate, here's my stats as I figure them:

STR: 7 I'm weak and admit it freely.
DEX: 16 I make up for it by being agile. I have two-weapon feats, which backs me up here.
CON: 10 I don't get sick much, but I'm not that great at endurance. However, I can hold my breath a long time, and can scuba dive approximately forever. Ok. Until my tank runs out.
INT: 23 No, this is not a typo. See explanation below.
WIS: 12 I have excellent reasoning skillz, but I can be way too brash for my own good.
CHA: 14 I'm pretty damn charming when I want to be.

[Omnipotent_One]

Ok, so during the presentation I was supposed to be paying attention to (presearch telling me everything I needed to know FTW!), I devised a better system for determining INT.

You see, 3-dice rolls take on a rough bell-curve probability distribution. It just so happens that this is the very definition used to calibrate IQs. Given that I was in an auditorium with foggy memories of high school probability (was that five years ago now!?) and mental math, I did a few (reasonable) approximations to come up with this system.

INT Score/IQ:
3/55
4/60
5/65
7/78
8/85
9/91
10/97
11/103
12/109
13/115
14/123
15/130
16/135
17/140
18/145

How I did it:
The basic assumption in an IQ test is that 68% of all people will be between 85 and 115 (one standard devation), 95% of all people will be between 70 and 130 (two standard deviations) and 99% of all people will be between 55 and 145 (three standard deviations).

Since we don't get a chance to optimize our own stats, and because it's an easier back-of-the-envelope calculation, I assumed we were rolling three dice and taking that number. Hence, 216 (6 cubed) possible results. Multiplying the above percentages, I found that the middle 147 would be the 68%, 205 would be the 95%, and 214 would be the 99%. This seemed to say to me that the 2 that should be outside the 99% should be 3 and 18 (only one way to roll each- 1-1-1 and 6-6-6), and I set them at the edge of the third standard deviation (55 and 145). By similar token, the edges of the 95% were 6 and 15, and the edges of the 68% were 8 and 13. Coincidentally or not, the edges of each section mark the edges of each ability modifer (i.e. 4/17 are the edges of -3/+3 modifiers and are the edges of the third standard deviation).

From there on out, since I didn't have the formulae for fitting a Gaussian anywhere near memorized (or known at all), I did a straight line approximation between each of the known reference points.

The only weakness I see is in fitting IQs >145. They don't fit into the "normal" human realm, so they aren't really accounted for by this model. Perhaps +1 INT for every 10 pts of IQ beyond 145? That would put Stephen Hawking up at INT 24 or thereabouts, which would be reasonable- a lot of "intellectual elite" wizards are up in that region.

At any rate, here's my stats as I figure them:

STR: 7 I'm weak and admit it freely.
DEX: 16 I make up for it by being agile. I have two-weapon feats, which backs me up here.
CON: 10 I don't get sick much, but I'm not that great at endurance. However, I can hold my breath a long time, and can scuba dive approximately forever. Ok. Until my tank runs out.
INT: 23
WIS: 12 I have excellent reasoning skillz, but I can be way too brash for my own good.
CHA: 14 I'm pretty damn charming when I want to be.

Wait a minute, so your IQ is 195???

Almost as high as Stephen Hawking, according to you?!?!?

Please tell me that's a typo.

[Delaney Gale]

Wait a minute, so your IQ is 195???

Almost as high as Stephen Hawking, according to you?!?!?

Please tell me that's a typo.

Um... don't like telling people this at first introduction, but hi, I'm Delaney, I'm 18 and a senior in college majoring in physics and math, currently working in gravitational-wave research. IQ estimated at 193 by the child psychologist my parents dragged me to see because they had no idea how to deal with me as a kid and needed some advice.

[TheLogman]

There are a few problems with using the IQ scale to estimate intelligence. Problems are as follows:

1. This is an approximation based on a few tests. If you were only checked once, there is a large chance that that test could be off by a little or a lot.

2. ALL IQ tests have flaws, and misappropriations.

3. IQ tests don't actually test intelligence (This is the funny part, because you guys are acting like they are) they test the ability of someone to learn. Although the two are closely linked, the are not the same. If IQ measured intelligence, then in Dungeons and Dragons, when a person aged, they would not gain Intelligence, because your IQ never changes, because it is your ability to learn.

Seriously

[Deepblue706]

Intelligence in D&D is the "Ability to Learn and Reason"

Intelligence is raw cognitive ability.

Cognition is the process of knowing.

Intelligence basically is IQ.

Delaney, I've done the IQ chart thingy before, myself - yeah, pretty close for approximations.

As far as IQ goes, apparently mine is about 142 (I think, as I child, they said it was 180). If we assume that the 3d6 bell curve directly corresponds to the IQ bell curve, then that puts me pretty "up there" - a 17. Far too "up there" for me to feel comfortable.

I've always found the idea of using standard deviations as equivalent to Int Modifiers to be appealing - this would give me a 15, rounding down. 15 sounds just about right, for me.

[TheLogman]

See, that's the thing, learn AND REASON. If you base your Intelligence of solely your IQ, then you are leaving out at least half of the entire score, effectively giving low scores to people who reason well, but are slow learners, and giving outrageously high scores to people who who have the IQ, but may or may not have the ability to Reason.

[Deepblue706]

Cognition is the process of knowing. It's not just the process of learning. IQ measures Intelligence, or cognitive abilites. Reason is implied in the "process of knowing".

[TheLogman]

Cognition is the process of knowing. It's not just the process of learning.

Exactly, but IQ does not measure anything else than the ability to Learn. If it measured Intelligence, then your IQ could and probably (Hopefully) would change over the course of your life, but it doesn't, which is why IQ tests taken as a Child are still valid at the ripe age of 78.

[Deepblue706]

Um. Yeah, I have to disagree with that. That's why I just restated my point. IQ can change. It just doesn't often, because many people don't know how to improve it, and some don't have the patience for it.

[The_Werebear]

Alright, I'll throw my hat in for the guesstimation.

Str: 15- I did a lot of weightlifting, and I am naturally built strong. However, I haven't been maintaining it and have probably slipped some.
Dex: 13- I am not incredibly agile, but I can dodge and juke when needed. Also, I know I meet the prereqs for dodge, as I am very good at that.
Con: 12- I have low endurance, and get sick fairly often, but I can slog through sickness without letting it hold me back, and I am very tough and can absorb some pretty rough hits.
Int: 17- I am not at the top end of intelligence, but I got a 32 on the ACT, and have done very well in the honors program of both High School and College.
Wis: 8- My abysmal stat. I am non perceptive, and I have had to train myself to read people.
Cha: 14- I am likable, and I have charm, but not huge amounts of compared to the best talkers.

[Caewil]

By that table, I have an int score of around 20. Weird.

STR: 7 I always lose grapples against other guys my age, but I can do more sit-ups, pull-ups, etc. Perhaps this is due to my weight.
DEX: 15? I've perhaps got the first TWF feat. Don't know about the second.
CON: 8. I get sick. Alot. Oddly enough, I'm also a long-distance runner.
INT: 20 ish, by that table.
WIS: 6-8 I am very, very brash, and I say very inappropriate things.
CHA: Impossible to calculate using D&D rules. Too many contradictions.

[Nahal]

I have a hard time taking DnD stats seriously as a means of expressing my attributes. They're a deliberate oversimplification, and as such I just think of it in terms of whether there's a bonus or penalty at the end of the day if I think about it at all. I mean, even dexterity could be broken down into agility, hand-eye coordination and manual dexterity; these aren't necessarily as directly correlated enough to be lumped into one stat. I figure
STR: Above average
DEX: Average
CON: Above average
INT: High
WIS: Above average
CHA: Below average. Charming I ain't.

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

No real way to gague some of them, but if I had to guess, this is what I'd predict.

Str 11
Dex 15
Con 7
Int 15
Wis 10
Cha 20

Con might be lower, I'm really very unhealthy. But lots of people tell me even 20 Cha is an underexaderation.

[TheLogman]

See these scores? We are getting people with 18's and 20's using this table system you guys set up. We're commoners! Every Last one of us! Except if you were in the Army maybe, in which case maybe a level of Warrior or something. Oh, and how in the world can you possibly get a score of 23? Even if you were a legendary, historical figure, you are only level 5. Even getting 3 6's on your intelligence roll, and being a legendary, historical figure and getting 1 stat increase, you still only have an Intelligence of 19. I know you don't have access to stat boosting magic. I think we should really re-format that chart, since it gives people who are level 3 (Talented people), and level 4 (The most extremely talented and gifted person you know) the scores of a level 7 PC or higher.

[kjones]

Normal people, which I think we pretty much all are here, use the non-elite array, which according to the SRD is


Nonelite Array
The nonelite array is: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. The nonelite array does not necessarily make a monster better than normal, but it does customize the monster as an individual with strengths and weaknesses compared to a typical member of its race. The nonelite array is most appropriate for monsters who add class levels in a NPC class.



This is because ability scores are a drastic oversimplification. Above 18 is, by definition, superhuman. The smartest person you know, unless you regularly hang out with Stephen Hawking, probably has a 13 intelligence. If you are "pretty quick", that probably means you have an 11 Dex - slightly above average. The problem with D&D is that this conveys no modifier, that this is indistinguishable from somebody with a 10 Dex.

In the real world, there's no reason to break stuff down into increments of 20. The real world can handle additional complexity.

[Delaney Gale]

See these scores? We are getting people with 18's and 20's using this table system you guys set up. We're commoners! Every Last one of us! Except if you were in the Army maybe, in which case maybe a level of Warrior or something. Oh, and how in the world can you possibly get a score of 23? Even if you were a legendary, historical figure, you are only level 5. Even getting 3 6's on your intelligence roll, and being a legendary, historical figure and getting 1 stat increase, you still only have an Intelligence of 19. I know you don't have access to stat boosting magic. I think we should really re-format that chart, since it gives people who are level 3 (Talented people), and level 4 (The most extremely talented and gifted person you know) the scores of a level 7 PC or higher.

Some of us are probably experts at least. u,u Or possibly D20 Modern classes. Just because we don't run around killing things with swords doesn't mean we don't gain abilities.

In the real world, we don't all go by neat little rules like that. D+D is designed to create a relatively balanced simulation, and produces a pretty neat little Gaussian fit to do so. In the real world, there are 6.5 billion people running about, hence the 1% above 18 is a pretty large factor. In your campaign world, a large city is probably 100k people. In our world, a large city is a few million. Scale factors do nothing but enhance probablity, so there will be a greater population with anamolously high INT in the real world than in the game world. And you realize that by the nature of this forum (online, in a forum dealing with an often-expensive, creativity-based game) we've self-selected to be of higher intelligence? It doesn't surprise me in the least that we're looking at high INT scores, because we're not a random distribution.

Shouting at people because they don't adhere to a set of rules that don't apply to them and they're just playing with for fun? Teh internets is SERIOUS BUSINESS. D:

[TheLogman]

Okay fine, let's make Steven Hawking a 5th Level (The most historic Person Ever) Expert, and let's also assume that at character creation, he got 3 6's, and put them into intelligence. So, he gets 18 Intelligence, and a +1 to Intelligence for making it to level 4. That isn't 25, that's 19. Plus, I do recognize that we are dealing with mostly above average intelligence people, but to suggest that any of us (Mostly 2nd and 3rd level commoners or Experts) are of the same intelligence as a Wizard of our same level, someone who is elite, who has trained their whole life to be an adventurer, instead of someone who spends a lot of their time arguing about people who train their whole life to be an adventurer, is nothing less than preposterous. And yes, I am adhering to the rules of D&D, simply because we are giving ourselves stats that by their very nature adhere to those rules. By the very nature of this mental exercise, we are choosing to adhere to those "Neat Little Rules" And I'm not shouting, if I was shouting, my text would look like THIS or THIS, if I was getting reallly loud, like THIS

[Delaney Gale]

Okay fine, let's make Steven Hawking a 5th Level (The most historic Person Ever) Expert, and let's also assume that at character creation, he got 3 6's, and put them into intelligence. So, he gets 18 Intelligence, and a +1 to Intelligence for making it to level 4. That isn't 25, that's 19.

Ok, 3-18 ability scores run a Gaussian distribution of three standard deviations. In the real world, that goes out to a 145. An IQ of 200? That's out between six and seven standard deviations. It's EXTREMELY RARE, but it happens. To paraphrase another famous physicist, it seems that "God does not play dice".

Aside: Sorry about the shouting comment- your tone was coming off hostile to me. *shrug* Take that as a Sense Motive penalty for not being able to read body language or tone of voice?

[TheLogman]

The Point I am trying to make here is that the table is flawed.

Rolling straight 6's is extremely Rare, but it happens. An intelligence of 19 at level 5, without any magical help? It happens. But over that, it can never happen, at least without magical help. You are basing your argument of the table, and using it to back you up, but that is the very thing I am trying to disprove.

So finally, I submit to you that either the Table is wrong, the Rules that we are choosing to abide by in this exercise are wrong (making this entire Thread Moot), or You, Steven Hawkings, the last few guys above us that say they have 20+ Int, have either access to Magic, Magic Items, God himself, or some sort or Wish or Wish-like magic that I myself would like to get my hands on.

[Bassetking]

Some of us are probably experts at least. u,u And you realize that by the nature of this forum (online, in a forum dealing with an often-expensive, creativity-based game) we've self-selected to be of higher intelligence? It doesn't surprise me in the least that we're looking at high INT scores.

Shouting at people because they don't adhere to a set of rules that don't apply to them and they're just playing with for fun? Teh internets is SERIOUS BUSINESS. D:

I am intrigued by your postulates, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter, good sir.

As well as providing you with Mansnuggles.

[Delaney Gale]

So finally, I submit to you that either the Table is wrong, the Rules that we are choosing to abide by in this exercise are wrong (making this entire Thread Moot), or You, Steven Hawkings, the last few guys above us that say they have 20+ Int, have either access to Magic, Magic Items, God himself, or some sort or Wish or Wish-like magic that I myself would like to get my hands on.

Ok, going to hell for this...

STEPHEN HAWKING MADE A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL! D: It's draining his Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution and putting it into his Intelligence!

[Piccamo]

Normal people, which I think we pretty much all are here, use the non-elite array, which according to the SRD is



This is because ability scores are a drastic oversimplification. Above 18 is, by definition, superhuman. The smartest person you know, unless you regularly hang out with Stephen Hawking, probably has a 13 intelligence. If you are "pretty quick", that probably means you have an 11 Dex - slightly above average. The problem with D&D is that this conveys no modifier, that this is indistinguishable from somebody with a 10 Dex.

In the real world, there's no reason to break stuff down into increments of 20. The real world can handle additional complexity.

This doesn't explain how I have 37 in every stat, except strength which is only 36.

[TheLogman]

Looking at what is (hopefully) a joke, I realize that although I may have something to say, and I may even believe I am right, I have no right to change what other people believe, and therefore have no right to bother you until you believe what I believe.

I Believe the table is broken.
I Believe Intelligence is more than IQ.
I Believe that you have the right to believe too.

Those who read this, consider my points. (Not in this particular post, but in the above ones.)

[Gavin Sage]

I personally think sorting a real person out into the six base stats is really a dubious notion. To me at least a true genius (someone like say Newton) probably scores above average not simply in Intelligence but with Wisdom and Charisma too. Wis adding perception and Cha adding creativity. Maybe that's just me though. I see intelligence as being like a calculator, you can crunch numbers and do it in your head faster. However someone less intelligent can still work through the problems and get just as good a score, and maybe even has a better grasp of the bigger concepts (like the how to work calculus let's say) even if they can't come up with 6x17=? without writing it down.

Something similar is at work for the physical scores. Someone in shape isn't just stronger, they can move easier, and go longer. Nevermind such inadequacies like you can be an excellent juggler but be an awful dodgeball player, or vice versa. Both would be largely covered under Dex with D&D but are being good on your feet and good with your hands are rather different in the real world.

[The_Werebear]

The one thing wrong with the analysis is that strength can be put to numbers in terms of hauling. This can show relative powers of abilities. For example, according to the chart, in the srd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm), I would have a strength of 20, because I am able to lift that much over my head with no trouble at all. If we go based on the best I have ever done with no regard to how easy it was or how I got it over my head, I would have a strength between 25 and 26. The thing is, I was by no means of the imagination the strongest in the class (at the top end, but not the strongest).

Now, if we go off that as a comparison, my intelligence would be even higher because I feel that I am smarter than I am strong.

Really, we can't determine the scores very well except based on guesswork and the knowledge that 10 is average, and 18 is on the high end of human talent.

[bugsysservant]

First, as a point of interest I would like to point out that the estimated IQs of some of the most intelligent people ever, only account for about an Int. of 22 (I think Da Vinci, who has the highest I have ever seen had about a 220). I find it very hard to believe that nobody has ever risen above a score achievable at 8th level by a grey elf wizard.

Also, you are assuming we are all commoners with the crappy array (or whatever its called). Look at the tables for the random generation of cities in the DMG. A large percentage of the populace should be PCs, which use the Elite array. It really isn't too hard to imagine that we have numerous high scores on the forums.

An INT of 18 is considered a "genius." A genius is frequently defined as someone in the top 2% of the population for intelligence. By fitting that into a Gaussian curve with 10-11 being average, high scores aren't all that hard to achieve.

Intelligence has a lot more to it than just IQ. Richard Feynman, for instance, one of the greatest physicists of the last century, had an IQ of only about 130, above average, but not exceptional. Yet most people with that IQ couldn't contribute to quantum electrodynamics and author sum over paths theory as he did.

Finally...my own estimation of my stats.

Str.-16 I'm a starting varsity lineman. I also haven't been beaten at arm wrestling since I was 6 (and have arm wrestled against two people simultaneously each using both arms agains my one)

Dex.-11 I'm not uncoordinated, but I'm not up there with fighter pilots with my response time.

Con.- 13 I NEVER get sick, and on one of the few times I do I don't get very sick (no vomitting, can use sheer will power to keep going indefinitely)

Wis. - 12 I can be absentminded, but I also have an incredible grasp of philosophy (or is that intelligence, if so I'm probably a 9)

Cha. - 12 I can be quite eloquent, but I'm also slightly schizoid which would put some penalties on many of the relevant skills.

Int. - 18 Yes, I'm arrogant. I also have the most advanced academic course load in the history of my high school and have been certified a genius by the do-it-yourself mensa tests (for what thats worth).

[shaddy_24]

I have no clue how to figure out my own stats, so I'll just try to average it out:
Str, average or a bit below (I'm not that strong)
Dex, above average (I have scared people by reacting to things I didn't even know were coming)
Con, probably below average (I can get pretty sick)
Int, a little above average (I'm very good at picking stuff up and holding onto it, metaphorically of course)
Wis, a little above average (see comment in Dex)
Cha, probably below average (picked on in grade school a lot)

That seems right to me.

[Ulzgoroth]

Ok, 3-18 ability scores run a Gaussian distribution of three standard deviations. In the real world, that goes out to a 145. An IQ of 200? That's out between six and seven standard deviations. It's EXTREMELY RARE, but it happens. To paraphrase another famous physicist, it seems that "God does not play dice".
No, no, still dice. Just more dice.:smallbiggrin:

Str 11-12, probably
Dex 8-10, maybe. Though on a good day my touch AC and ranged attacks are pretty solid.
Con 12-ish
Wis 6-8. I couldn't sense a motive if it were hitting me with a club...
Int high. Not IQ tested that I know about, so I'm afraid to try narrowing that.
Cha low. I think. See Wis...

[bairen]

... your IQ never changes, because it is your ability to learn.

Jones and Bayley's 1941 "Berkeley Growth Study" found that between ages 12 and 17 some individual's IQ score increases by up to 20 points, while average change it around 7. You think you can't learn to learn better?

[Fenix_of_Doom]

I don't consider myself weak, but I'm untrained in the strength department, in a medieval setting life was a lot harder then it is now, so people train their strength by living. assuming D&D is based upon such a setting that would mean that the average now is lower than 10-11.

what bothers me the most in this system is nature vs nurture, these stats within D&D seem to represent mostly nature, but it shouldn't be all that hard to increase your strength and I do believe that with the right exercises anything can be trained.

edit: another problem: you can be un-agile and still have good reflexes, the reversed is also true. stats are too broad and there are simply to many other factors involved to accurately describe your own stats.

edit2:(I love this thread) IQ is actually not accurate enough to describe anything either, between a good a bad day a deviation of 10 points(!!) is possible, although that is an extreme case.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I'm not sure about my stats, but I'd rate my Base Attack Bonus at around +8.

This is based on my ability to hit an untrained, unarmed, unarmoured, unsuspecting opponent, while they are standing right next to me. I'm fairly sure that I could do that at least 95% of the time.

Assuming I'm an Expert, that makes me about eleventh level.

I'm gonna go kill me some orcs!

[Fixer]

you could test out what your dex is by trying to dodge a bus i guess :smalltongue:
Doing so demonstrates your wisdom score as well.

Fixer

{table]Strength|16|I can lift and stagger about 500 pounds.
Dexterity|15|Gymnastics and two-handed fighting training.
Constitution|10|I can easily hold my breath for 60 seconds, after that it starts straining to hold it.
Intelligence|16 or 20|165 IQ [I have scored 186 before, but that was just once. I have been given five formal IQ tests.] If going by the IQ method it is the first number, if going by Delaney's it would be the second.
Wisdom|13-16|Estimate based on how often others tell me I am wise, or at least give very wise advice that actually works. I am also dangerously perceptive.
Charisma|8 |I have the leadership feat and have put 'points' into learning diplomacy but just general charisma I tend to put my foot into my mouth quite often.[/table]

Class Levels Rogue at least 6 (I am no commoner. I have spent a lot of time performing less than savory tasks in my youth and have tried to focus on more the skills side of things. I also know how and where to hit where it counts. I have also never been caught. :) )

I do not find it surprising that there are an uncommonly high number of persons present with a high intelligence score. You must bear in mind the limitations of this forum.

1. We play intellectual games.
2. We know how to use the Internet.
3. We haven't done anything so grossly stupid to get banned from posting.
4. We enjoy mental games, like trying to figure out our ability scores.

EDIT: OH NO! I just realized I am going into the next age category this year! I am losing scores! NOOO!!!!!!

[Quincunx]

I can work around the hyperinflated INT scores (it's central to our collective self-image, it happens; if we were other subcultures we'd lie about STR or CHA), but the variations in CON vs. fortitude are what stump me. There doesn't appear to be much correlation; people are either reporting perfect health with no endurance (high save, low CON) or endurance with poor immune systems (low save, high CON).

[Cyborg Pirate]

DnD scores are just too abstract to work. It doesn't make sense for a lot of things.

For example, DEX in relation to myself: I can not be tripped by kicking at my legs or using a stick on my legs while I'm walking or running. I'm not exaggerating. Many, many have tried, from just grabbing my feet to all out flying tackles. In all other cases, such as accidentally running into low objects, I have never fallen down after hitting my legs or feet against them. Even when ice-skating (which I'm horrible at) I never actually fall down. I slip, do a couple of wierd maneuvres and always end up standing again. Tripping aside, I'm also good at dancing (good enough to draw little crowds and get pictures taken while in action at least) and am good at getting myself out of grapples (much to the frustration of my trainers). My eyes are capable of following extremely fast movement (been tested) and during a reaction test I scored a reaction time of 110 milliseconds (not joking).

So what would my DEX be like in light of this? Should be high no?

But then look at the other side. I have a good ear for music, but extreme trouble at playing any kind of instrument with my fingers. I am incapable of juggling, and I am extremely right handed. Tasks like painting models and such are hell to me because I just can't make precise movements with brushes, and in the process of modeling, I tend to glue myself to whatever I'm glueing constantly. Not to mention my inherent clumsiness of dropping stuff I'm holding and such. And don't get me started on my compleet inability to throw anything with any accuracy (If I've got a tennisball and a barn, I ain't hitting the barn). All these things I can do, perhaps somewwhat properly, after much much practicing. But the moment I stop practicing, I lose all ability to perform.


How can the DEX stat model this properly? Do I have a high DEX or a low DEX? Does the combination make my DEX average? But if it's average, I may not be able to qualify for feats in DnD that I am capable of in RL.


Personally, I think DnD scores are just too abstract to model anything else then DnD characters.

[Wraithy]

perseptions change regularly. at one point in my life i was really philosophical, i thought i had a high wisdom, not understanding that wisdom governs awareness: of wich i have none!
well here goes:
9-10 str
10 dex
14 con
14 int
8 wis
11 cha

on the other hand:

6 str
8 dex
18 con
18 int
2 wis
14 cha

on the other, other hand:

1 str
1 dex
35 con
35 int
0 wis (i have disintegrated)
18 cha

you can't really determine dex, i have dyspraxia (working on getting better), but i'm also ambidextrous (crap with both), and quite a good runner.

strength is also difficult because it depends where the muscle is. example: my biceps and triceps have a combined circumference of 9inches (including bone + skin), but my thigh muscles (don't know the names) have a circuference of 19inches (also including bone etc.)
considering i'm a skinny bloke we can disregard fat as a reason, but we have to remember that it's possible to have a left arm like a gorilla and a right arm like a pygmy marmoset (sorry for mentioning pygmy marmosets again)

[Selv]

Ach, I know this game is silly, but I'm a sucker for it every time.

STR: Stocky but doughy.
DEX: Tanglefoot.
CON: Solid.
WIS: Distracted.
INT: Erudite.
CHA: Timid.

I'm convinced that being English imparts a CHA penalty in that it cripples your ability to complain in restaurants.

[elliott20]

I'm convinced that there I can easily find 216 people that I'm better than, thereby using really crappy probability logic to assume I have an 18 in something.

That or I can be realistic and just admit that I'm a pretty average guy.

[Delaney Gale]

I'm convinced that there I can easily find 216 people that I'm better than, thereby using really crappy probability logic to assume I have an 18 in something.

That or I can be realistic and just admit that I'm a pretty average guy.

I call faulty logic on that one- if you can randomly choose 215 people from the entire set of 6 billion and are better than all of them, you have an 18. :D

[elliott20]

I call faulty logic on that one- if you can randomly choose 215 people from the entire set of 6 billion and are better than all of them, you have an 18. :D
yep, I'm going to start hanging out in special ed classes just for that very reason. Hooray for faulty logic and not giving a damn!

But in all seriousness, by virtue of being raised in a first world country with an education, decent healthcare, etc, etc, I would think MOST of us relatively speaking would already have above average stats, if not exceptional stats, if we compare ourselves to the rest of the world. Of course, that is hinging on the assumption that D&D stats are in fact sliding scales, adjusted to the world population.

I have my suspicions that by virtue of it being possible to reach beyond the normally prescribed "limit", that D&D stats, if they were to be used, would have to be treated as an absolute value.

But what do I know? I wasn't a stat major.

[Dan_Hemmens]

yep, I'm going to start hanging out in special ed classes just for that very reason. Hooray for faulty logic and not giving a damn!


You wouldn't even need 216 people. Just get 17 people, all less good than you, none of whom are exactly as good as each other.

Then whoever's worst is a 1, whoever's above them is a 2, and so on all the way to 18.

[brian c]

Ugh, D&D is not aperfect simulation of human attributes. Just because it can't happen in D&D (such as 25 intelligence for Stephen Hawking) doesn't mean that it can't happen in real life.


yep, I'm going to start hanging out in special ed classes just for that very reason. Hooray for faulty logic and not giving a damn!

that's not random at all. Seriously, if you picked 215 people completely randomly, and you're smarter than all of them, then there's a very high chance that you have "18 intelligence"



Anyway, for the heck of it:

10 str: I can't make up my mind out this. I'm definitely strong for my size, but at 120 pounds that's not saying much. I guess overall I'm about average.

16 dex: I'd like to say even higher than this, but I'll stick to 16. I'm physically very quick, I have good hand-eye coordination, good reflexes.

11 con: above-average but not noticeably. I rarely get sick, but my stamina isn't very good. It used to be better, maybe a couple years ago when I was doing karate I had 13 str and 13 con

16+ int: only "formal" IQ test I've taken (ie something accepted by Mensa for entrance) was when I was in first grade and I got a 135. I'm pretty sure I'm smarter than I was then. I usually score somewhere between 150 and 180 on less scientific "IQ tests" online and stuff

12 wis: I an get philosophical at times, and I have pretty good eyesight and hearing. maybe this should only be 11 or 10

?? cha: I have no idea. I'm average looking, generally quiet and shy, but I get along with many different groups of people, including those who would normally have nothing to do with me. It's a big stretch, but I could say that I have Leadership because that's the best way to model my relationships with various close friends, I'm always the main guy and they're the cohort.

[Indon]

Um. Yeah, I have to disagree with that. That's why I just restated my point. IQ can change. It just doesn't often, because many people don't know how to improve it, and some don't have the patience for it.

Well, most people don't hit level 4. :smallbiggrin:

As for my shot-in-the-dark-guess at my stats:

Str-8. I have difficulty carrying large furniture.
Dex-9. I'm pretty clumsy, and while I'm a good shot, I attribute that to BAB from class levels.
Con-7. I have very poor stamina when running, and while I'm pretty tough, I again attribute that to having more than one HD.
Int-15, in accordance with the standard-deviationized scale proposed earlier in the thread.
Wis-Undeterminable, as I do not know of any Wis-dependent class features I may possess, and I don't know how many ranks I have in Wis-dependent skills. I suspect 12.
Cha-Also undeterminable, for the same reason as Wisdom. Probably 10.

[blackfox]

Using Modern classes (represents 21st-century people better... *eyeroll*) I would probably be something like a Fast 1 or Smart 1 or Fast 1/Smart 1.

As for stats:

Str 10-12. (not sure how much I can lift above my head, I can bench at least 135--more than I weigh, actually...) I rock climb pretty frequently and I work on arm and hand strength at home. I'm certainly stronger than most girls my age, and probably about as strong as some guys my age (most guys my age are 5'10" to my 5'2"...)
Dex 13-15. Good reflexes (although that corresponds to the save, true, which I could have from class levels), good hand-eye coordination, good small motor skills (sleight of hand, etc. I'm one of those crazy kids who spins pencils. :smalltongue: ) Good at many Dex-based skills (could be skill points). Good at games like dodgeball, soccer, etc. Can run pretty fast (average 100m time is 13 seconds) I can also shoot a bow pretty well...
Con 11-13. Hardly ever feel cold or get sick. I have a pretty high pain threshold as well. I don't like holding my breath so I don't know how long I can do it, but I can run distance and I can also keep up a run at about 10 mph for 2 minutes or so.
Int 13-14 by the 10-points-of-IQ=1-point-of-INT model, or 15-17 by Delaney's model. My IQ is somewhere between 130-140 (as a guess. I had an IQ test when I was 7 or so and I never got told the results.)
Wis 13-15 with regards to perception, intuition, and willpower, but 7-9 with regards to common sense and personal safety. (Ooh, a bridge, let's jump off it!)
Cha 10-12. Average looks, good at arguing, good at influencing others' opinions and actions if I need to. Good at Bluff and Diplomacy (probably represented by skill points.)

[The_Werebear]

I call faulty logic on that one- if you can randomly choose 215 people from the entire set of 6 billion and are better than all of them, you have an 18. :D

So...

My Senior Class in high school had 292 other people in it. I graduated 10th (Should have been higher, but the valedictorian was noted for doing the homework of all his close friends, putting several people over me *bitter*). On standardized testing, I usually score in the 90th-98th percentile. Does that register me for a 17-18 Int?

I always wanted to multiclass to Wizard :smallamused:

[elliott20]

Werebear, being in the top 98th percentile... yes, would pretty much make you a high 16 to a low 17. (Not an 18 though. You'd have to be the top 99.6% or above to be that.)

But world wide? You probably are an 18. Education really skews this scale. By virtue of being literate, college educated, and perhaps just a bit more intellectually curious about the world than the next guy, chances are you're already within the top 1% of the world or something. That already places you on a very high scale relative to the world. (with the PHD people or the really brilliant people probably going into the realm of 19-20 or even beyond)

Mensa takes people who are in the top 2% of the population. That's an IQ of 130 to 136. (which includes a 17-18).

Top 5%? IQ of 125 to 126. That's a 16 right there.

That means, most of the people on this board, if their IQ scores are in fact accurate, would probably walk away with a 16 INT, if not higher.

[bugsysservant]

You wouldn't even need 216 people. Just get 17 people, all less good than you, none of whom are exactly as good as each other.

Then whoever's worst is a 1, whoever's above them is a 2, and so on all the way to 18.

I honestly can't tell if you are joking, if so disregard this and chalk it up to an abysmal sense motive.

Scores are distributed along a bell curve, with an average of 10.5. Actually rolling three sixes in a row has a probability of (1/6)^3, roughly .46 percent. Now a basic knowlege of statistics tells us that 1=.0046*x, where x is the number of people that have to be tallied to get a full range of bell curve data. (I know that that was probably slightly wrong, but I'm better at doing math than explaining, please don't get bogged down in semantics.) 1/.0046=217. Thus in a random group including you, there have to be 216 people dumber than you for yo to be an 18 Int.

[Fixer]

using percentiles, an 18 would be 99th percentile in a couple categories. The odds of getting an 18 are 1/216, or 0.46296%. If you are scoring in the 97th-98th percentile, you are probably more of a 16-17. Rough scale using percentages.

3 1
4 2
5 3-4
6 5-7
7 8-12
8 13-21
9 22-34
10 35-50
11 51-66
12 67-79
13 80-88
14 89-93
15 94-97
16 98
17 99
18 Top

[LotharBot]

IQ test results for children can be VERY far off because they scale for age (that is, they compare you to others of the same age.) If you're a little bit ahead in school, you're going to be testing WAY ahead of other kids in IQ score even if you're only actually a little bit smarter than them. My little sister once tested at IQ 196. She's smart, but she's no Paul Erdos. As an adult, she should test in the 150 range. I suggest Delaney Gale should get retested as an adult as well -- at least, if knowing your IQ is important to you.

Also: you computed the distribution by assuming the average population is distributed by dice rolls of 3d6. But most people's stats are given by the standard ability score array (IIRC, it's 13-12-11-10-9-8.) Only a small percentage of the population rolls for stats, so 18's are not a 1/216 phenomenon. They're more like a 1/1000 or 1/10,000, depending on what percentage of the population rolls for stats. Think about strength scores: 18 strength means you can lift 300 pounds over your head, or lift 600 pounds and cover a distance of 5 feet in 6 seconds. I seriously doubt 1 in 216 people can do that!

So, with respect to the OP, I think we need two things when we're testing our stats: first, we need a reliable scale -- a reliable idea how common 18's, 14's, 7's, 3's, and so on really are. The only thing we know for sure is that young adult humans are almost all in the 3-18 range on every score (though some might be "high" or "low" 18's.) Second, we need a test that differentiates between people for any given attribute. Such a test must have multiple parts -- you wouldn't just test someone's INT by how many states they can name, so don't test STR just based on how much they can bench press. Make it comprehensive. I'll propose tests for the second part, but we still need the first scale in order to determine scores reliably.

Proposed tests:
STR - max weights on dead lift, squats, bench press. Weight at which you can complete 3 sets of 10 reps in 60 seconds or less, with 60 seconds rest between sets. Number of pushups and pullups that can be completed within 60 seconds.

DEX - standard reaction-time testing ("click as soon as the light turns on"). Time you can balance on a moving surface. Percentage of thrown balls you can catch. Average number of moves you can make in Jenga, playing by yourself. Time it takes you to thread a hundred needles (given standard thread, needles, and rules.)

CON - time you can hold your breath. Time you can continue working on a predefined task in colder-than-normal or hotter-than-normal conditions. Time you can continue walking without stopping. Time you can continue jogging without stopping. Basic immune-system functionality tests.

INT - ability to memorize a sequence of numbers over the course of 60 seconds. Average number of moves to beat a standard "matching" game over the course of several tries. IQ test results from the same test as everyone else. Ability to solve a series of puzzles, including spatial reasoning puzzles (ring-and-string puzzles or Rubiks Cube types), logic puzzles ("the tallest person does not have green hair. Fred is shorter than the person with Yellow hair."), and pattern recognition puzzles.

WIS - ability to notice details (show someone a scene for a short period of time, and ask a series of questions about the scene -- "what color hat was the guy in the background wearing?" and such.) Hearing tests. Subliminal message / action tests (yawn and see if they yawn, etc.)

CHA - probably the most difficult to test. Give the person a script and have them read it (voice only) to an audience they can't see, and have the audience rate the speaker. Give them a simple set of material to teach to a room full of five-year-olds. Track how often they make eye contact. Uh... this one is really hard.

No post in this thread would be complete without the requisite "my own ability scores", which I'm giving based on my perception of how I'd do on the above STR 9 DEX 11 CON 14 INT 18 WIS 15 CHA 6. Physically, I'm a bit weak, with good balance and reflexes but poor small-scale coordination. I have great stamina and endurance -- I'm usually the last one to take a break when helping someone move or walking up a mountain. I almost never get sick, despite working around kids. I impressed my grad-school professors with my intelligence, and I notice things other people don't (shows up strongly when driving.) I probably have a lesser form of autism or aspergers -- I've finally trained myself to make eye contact, but I still don't generally act according to expected social customs.

[Draz74]

This is wrong on so many levels ...

OK, I'd like to point out that the actual maximum score one can get without magic or racial bonuses is 22 (assuming no one makes it to Level 8). Natural 18 + 1 level boost +3 age. Not that most of us are Venerable.

[Indon]

WIS - ability to notice details (show someone a scene for a short period of time, and ask a series of questions about the scene -- "what color hat was the guy in the background wearing?" and such.) Hearing tests. Subliminal message / action tests (yawn and see if they yawn, etc.)


Tell me, does this test Wisdom, or Wisdom-based abilities such as Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive?

Because abilities are a HD/Class Level-based function. You can't reliably test for someone's character level.

[Skjaldbakka]

I find that WoD has a better stat breakdown. (for breaking down realistic stats)

All stats are scale 1-5. [where I place myself]

Physical

Strength [2]
Dexterity [2]
Stamina [4]

Social

Presence [2]
Manipulation [2]
composure [4]

Mental

Intelligence [3]
Wits [2]
Resolve [2]

[bugsysservant]

DnD scores are just too abstract to work. It doesn't make sense for a lot of things.

For example, DEX in relation to myself: I can not be tripped by kicking at my legs or using a stick on my legs while I'm walking or running. I'm not exaggerating. Many, many have tried, from just grabbing my feet to all out flying tackles. In all other cases, such as accidentally running into low objects, I have never fallen down after hitting my legs or feet against them. Even when ice-skating (which I'm horrible at) I never actually fall down. I slip, do a couple of wierd maneuvres and always end up standing again. Tripping aside, I'm also good at dancing (good enough to draw little crowds and get pictures taken while in action at least) and am good at getting myself out of grapples (much to the frustration of my trainers). My eyes are capable of following extremely fast movement (been tested) and during a reaction test I scored a reaction time of 110 milliseconds (not joking).

So what would my DEX be like in light of this? Should be high no?

But then look at the other side. I have a good ear for music, but extreme trouble at playing any kind of instrument with my fingers. I am incapable of juggling, and I am extremely right handed. Tasks like painting models and such are hell to me because I just can't make precise movements with brushes, and in the process of modeling, I tend to glue myself to whatever I'm glueing constantly. Not to mention my inherent clumsiness of dropping stuff I'm holding and such. And don't get me started on my compleet inability to throw anything with any accuracy (If I've got a tennisball and a barn, I ain't hitting the barn). All these things I can do, perhaps somewwhat properly, after much much practicing. But the moment I stop practicing, I lose all ability to perform.


How can the DEX stat model this properly? Do I have a high DEX or a low DEX? Does the combination make my DEX average? But if it's average, I may not be able to qualify for feats in DnD that I am capable of in RL.


Personally, I think DnD scores are just too abstract to model anything else then DnD characters.

From what you've said you have an exceedingly high DEX. Technically juggling and and the playing of musical instruments require perform checks, which is an aspect of charisma. Also, if you are creating things like paintings or models, thats craft, which is INT. Also, you could chalk the tennis ball up to a low BAB since you're probably low level. The only thing that really counts against you would be the random dropping of objects, which, since it doesn't require an ability check to hold onto an unattended object, could arguably just be weird. (I mean, how do you just drop something without some outside stimulus?) Also, it's as much strength as dexterity.

Thus, while in real life you may not be the perfect marksman, since dexterity can't be represented by a single number, for game mechanics you are very dexterous.

[Anxe]

Here just use this test. Me and my friends were satisfied with it.
http://www.thehaws.org/add_quiz.shtml

[T23]

Interesting article that will help people understand the scale of the AD&D attributes system. (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

Its not exactly a new article or anything, but after seeing someone give themselves a 23 in INT, or claiming that they have power strike after some karate, it is worth reading. It was definately an eyeopener for me.

ETA: Its pretty long article, but its worth the read (IMO).

[Setra]

Ok, so during the presentation I was supposed to be paying attention to (presearch telling me everything I needed to know FTW!), I devised a better system for determining INT.

You see, 3-dice rolls take on a rough bell-curve probability distribution. It just so happens that this is the very definition used to calibrate IQs. Given that I was in an auditorium with foggy memories of high school probability (was that five years ago now!?) and mental math, I did a few (reasonable) approximations to come up with this system.

INT Score/IQ:
3/55
4/60
5/65
6/70 (below here formally called "Educable Mentally Retarded")
7/78
8/85
9/91
10/97
11/103
12/109
13/115
14/123
15/130
16/135
17/140
18/145
So.. my int would be about 20. Awesome.

Str: 12, judging by the table.
Dex: 14, I have good reflexes, and can make small movements with my fingers.
Con: 12, I rarely get sick, and can run for a good while without getting winded.
Int: 20
Wis: 14, just judging by Spot, Search, which I am very good at, and I tend to see through mind games.
Cha: 16, I asked my friends what they though my charisma would be, the general response was "very high", but while I am held high in my friends esteem, I am a bit shy, 16 seems about good.

Maybe wishful thinking. :smalltongue:

Just guesses.