Ability Score Representation

[LichPlease]

I need some help and you guys/gals can view it as a sort of game too if you want. I would like your input on what varying scores of an ability mean and how they could relate to real life. The point is to help make it easier to get an idea of how these scores should be played out in a character.

Here is an example using intelligence, as education/academia is the closest thing I have any real world experience with to cover the entire range:

20 = Widely known expert/modern pinnacle of understanding (think Einstein or Hawking)
18 = Master's Degree, PhD, etc.
16 = Bachelor's Degree/Journeyman
14 = Associate's Degree/Apprentice
12 = High School Graduate
10 = High School Freshman/Sophomore
8 = Middle Schooler
6 = Grade Schooler
4 = Kindergartner
2 = Animal Intelligence/Toddler (able to understand/communicate some sort of language)
0 = Brain Death

If you have a better idea for intelligence, go ahead and post that. Also, keep in mind that fantasy settings are often based on medieval feudalism in which the educational experience of commoners or craftsmen was probably equivalent to a middle schooler (8). Yes, a lot of people couldn't even read, but they would have had developed about that much experience in some trade if able. Have fun and thanks in advance.

[SaurOps]

I need some help and you guys/gals can view it as a sort of game too if you want. I would like your input on what varying scores of an ability mean and how they could relate to real life. The point is to help make it easier to get an idea of how these scores should be played out in a character.

Here is an example using intelligence, as education/academia is the closest thing I have any real world experience with to cover the entire range:

20 = Widely known expert/modern pinnacle of understanding (think Einstein or Hawking)
18 = Master's Degree, PhD, etc.
16 = Bachelor's Degree/Journeyman
14 = Associate's Degree/Apprentice
12 = High School Graduate
10 = High School Freshman/Sophomore
8 = Middle Schooler
6 = Grade Schooler
4 = Kindergartner
2 = Animal Intelligence/Toddler (able to understand/communicate some sort of language)
0 = Brain Death

If you have a better idea for intelligence, go ahead and post that. Also, keep in mind that fantasy settings are often based on medieval feudalism in which the educational experience of commoners or craftsmen was probably equivalent to a middle schooler (8). Yes, a lot of people couldn't even read, but they would have had developed about that much experience in some trade if able. Have fun and thanks in advance.

Intelligence, as a broad concept, doesn't actually require literacy or even language to exist. Problem-solving can be done entirely with an internal projection of scenes or pictures of conjecture, in humans and likely in other animals as well. Also, while the first two editions keyed it into knowledge (it was even a distinct subability in an optional, late-2e system), 4e and 5e do not.

Also, as for "equivalent to a middle schooler", the term [CITATION NEEDED] would come to mind, but we can pretty much skip that issue entirely thanks to the game working off of genre conventions. D&D stopped trying to be a model of reality a long time ago, if it ever was trying to be one. Ability scores from 3e on tend to just measure an arbitrary, nigh-unrelatable scale of talent in some sort of fictional archetype. The math is a nightmare, the divisions of said competence are largely nonsensical, and the points don't matter.

[Tanarii]

Given 5e ability scores represent both inherent talent and training (per the PHB), this may be better than the old school Intx10=IQ. Schooling definitely doesnt necessarily mean more natural talent, but given what the majority Int-associated skills are in 5e, its not too shabby a comparison.

Personally when I've wanted to play an less educated but somewhat "smart" charcter, i gice them and 8-10 Int, and take the Investigation skill or the equivilent of a 12-14 Int in deductive thinking.

[JoeJ]

Remember that a character with an intelligence of 3 is still smart enough to be a wizard. I wouldn't consider ability scores to represent anything at all outside of the defined game effects.

[Unoriginal]

Having 18 INT already makes you a genius.

[leogobsin]

I honestly don't think this kind of representation is very useful. Ability scores are abstractions that don't map well to this kind of "X ability score=Y measurable quantity", and I'm not a very big fan of ability scores dictating things about how you RP your character (i.e. "Your character's INT is too low, they wouldn't think of that"). I don't think you really need any more guidance on what ability scores mean other than what the PHB gives: 10 is average, 18 is exceptional, 20 is the absolute limit for a human-like person.

[PeteNutButter]

20 = Widely known expert/modern pinnacle of understanding (think Einstein or Hawking)
18 = Master's Degree, PhD, etc.
16 = Bachelor's Degree/Journeyman
14 = Associate's Degree/Apprentice
12 = High School Graduate
10 = High School Freshman/Sophomore
8 = Middle Schooler
6 = Grade Schooler
4 = Kindergartner
2 = Animal Intelligence/Toddler (able to understand/communicate some sort of language)
0 = Brain Death


It's curious to see that people want to tie education to intelligence.

I put D&D intelligence solidly in IQ territory. That's what IQ is: Intelligence Quotient. Fluid intelligence/the ability to learn new information and solve new problems. IQ actually slowlydecreases after adulthood, so for any given genius that is highly educated, they were probably technically "smarter" when they were in their 20s, not when they achieved notoriety or graduated with their PhD. They just know more things once they are older. In game terms that's where the skills come in.

[Anonymouswizard]

10 is defined as 'average'. Therefore, anybody with INT 10 would be capable of getting Cs or higher in their GCSE maths and English (achieved at 16 here, the equivalent benchmark in the US is 17*).

After that we need to know what distribution we're using. A 3d6 bell curve? Are we assuming 90% of people have 10s? 10IQ points per point of INT?

P.S. IQ is bunk when you're not looking at a large enough population.

* Because you start schooling a year later.

[Morty]

I honestly don't think this kind of representation is very useful. Ability scores are abstractions that don't map well to this kind of "X ability score=Y measurable quantity", and I'm not a very big fan of ability scores dictating things about how you RP your character (i.e. "Your character's INT is too low, they wouldn't think of that"). I don't think you really need any more guidance on what ability scores mean other than what the PHB gives: 10 is average, 18 is exceptional, 20 is the absolute limit for a human-like person.

I agree. Trying to nail down what exactly an ability score means is largely futile and doesn't contribute much. And the approach in the OP conflates intelligence with education, which is problematic in itself.

[DanyBallon]

While looking in my 2e books, I found this in the MM


INTELLIGENCE

1 Nonintelligent or not ratable
2-4 Semi-intelligent
5-7 Low intelligence
8-10 Average (human) intelligence
11-12 Very intelligent
13-14 High intelligence
15-16 Exceptionnal intelligence
17-18 Genius
19-20 Supra-genius
21 + Godlike intelligence

Remember, that these were for AD&D 2nd edition, and characters could hardly go beyond 18 in an ability score.

[LichPlease]

I apologize for comparing intelligence directly to education. I know that is inaccurate but I was simply using it as an example. Like I said, if you have a better example for intelligence, go ahead and post it. I won't be offended.


Intelligence, as a broad concept, doesn't actually require literacy or even language to exist. Problem-solving can be done entirely with an internal projection of scenes or pictures of conjecture, in humans and likely in other animals as well. Also, while the first two editions keyed it into knowledge (it was even a distinct subability in an optional, late-2e system), 4e and 5e do not.

Also, as for "equivalent to a middle schooler", the term [CITATION NEEDED] would come to mind, but we can pretty much skip that issue entirely thanks to the game working off of genre conventions. D&D stopped trying to be a model of reality a long time ago, if it ever was trying to be one. Ability scores from 3e on tend to just measure an arbitrary, nigh-unrelatable scale of talent in some sort of fictional archetype. The math is a nightmare, the divisions of said competence are largely nonsensical, and the points don't matter.

Yes, there are various kinds of intelligence, but I think D&D suggests that its brand of intelligence is more akin to the retention of information and the use of logic and reason. The other abilities may cover all those other forms of intelligence, such as charisma being more than just charm but also as the ability to “know” people.

By language I just meant something even as simple as body language, simple verbal communication (grunts, groans and such) or whatever way animals communicate with each other.

I wasn’t trying to exactly say that our standards of intelligence in the real world translate into the world of D&D. My point was the say something like, how we would see someone like Stephen Hawking as the pinnacle of intelligence based on their expertise and understanding of the sciences, in D&D their equivalent would be someone like Mordenkainen. Of course, he probably wouldn’t have any sort of idea of physics beyond sensory experience, because this world, though still somewhat governed by physical laws, has little use for science when they have magic, something of which Mordenkainen is a master.


Given 5e ability scores represent both inherent talent and training (per the PHB), this may be better than the old school Intx10=IQ. Schooling definitely doesnt necessarily mean more natural talent, but given what the majority Int-associated skills are in 5e, its not too shabby a comparison.

Personally when I've wanted to play an less educated but somewhat "smart" charcter, i gice them and 8-10 Int, and take the Investigation skill or the equivilent of a 12-14 Int in deductive thinking.

I feel that charisma is something that covers “natural talent”. It at least makes more sense than just the ability to charm the pants off anyone as I don’t see the typical spooky Warlock winning over all sorts of crowds, despite their reliance on charisma. I honestly, still don’t get why Warlocks have charisma as a primary stat anyway, but it is what it is….. maybe they’re feeding off the charisma of their patron? Anyway, yes, schooling definitely does not mean more than natural talent. A physicist may be able to calculate the perfect velocity and spin and every other aspect of throwing whatever sports ball you’d like, but a natural athlete doesn’t need that study and just “gets it” and can develop the skill more with practice. These forms of natural talent and practice would probably not even fall under intelligence or maybe even not charisma, but more of dexterity and wisdom.

Yes, around 8 and 10 could be considered “smart” for common human standards, as in this world they are giving stats ranging from things with as little intelligence as simple hive minds (INT 1) to intellects of celestial beings that have the knowledge and experience of multiple planes of existence (INT 20+). I believe a lot of the time in D&D, your standard human commoner, will have experience with anything ranging from an intelligence of 0, to the rare “genius” Wizard of an intelligence of 16. Anything above that will begin to be of legendary quality and very possibly beyond a commoner’s comprehension.


Remember that a character with an intelligence of 3 is still smart enough to be a wizard. I wouldn't consider ability scores to represent anything at all outside of the defined game effects.

I’m guessing this might have been a typo, meaning 13, based of multiclassing rules. That or you somehow know how to get a PC’s base intelligence down to as low as 3. If a “wizard” did have base intelligence of 3, my guess is they are a “Wizard” according to some unaccredited for-profit academy. Yeah, they can maybe cast a few spells but no one would take them seriously. A 13 intelligence would indicate to me that the Wizard grew up around magic or perhaps has had some formal training but hasn’t completed their curriculum.


I honestly don't think this kind of representation is very useful. Ability scores are abstractions that don't map well to this kind of "X ability score=Y measurable quantity", and I'm not a very big fan of ability scores dictating things about how you RP your character (i.e. "Your character's INT is too low, they wouldn't think of that"). I don't think you really need any more guidance on what ability scores mean other than what the PHB gives: 10 is average, 18 is exceptional, 20 is the absolute limit for a human-like person.

I agree that the difference between scores could be very swingy. I just wanted to see if anyone had any ideas, no matter how inaccurate, on how to cover the other abilities. My guess is that everyone else is who has posted might just be about as unathletic and socially awkward as myself. Haha.

I also agree that it can be difficult to deny one of your players the ability to have a great idea when their intelligence or wisdom is abysmal. However, that doesn’t mean that that character can’t have a sudden burst of inspiration from out of no where occasionally. Also, as already discussed, there are other forms of intelligence, but I think they are covered under other abilities, and the ability of intelligence just covers knowledge and reasoning. I feel like, for roleplaying purposes, if a player who is actually highly intelligent in real life has a good idea, but is playing a low intelligence/wisdom character, they should suggest their course of thought to another more intelligent/wiser team member as if it was the other player’s idea. That way, they can take the real life credit, but their Orc Barbarian isn’t suspiciously on point with solving all of the puzzles.


It's curious to see that people want to tie education to intelligence.

I put D&D intelligence solidly in IQ territory. That's what IQ is: Intelligence Quotient. Fluid intelligence/the ability to learn new information and solve new problems. IQ actually slowlydecreases after adulthood, so for any given genius that is highly educated, they were probably technically "smarter" when they were in their 20s, not when they achieved notoriety or graduated with their PhD. They just know more things once they are older. In game terms that's where the skills come in.

I know some others have already brought up IQ already, but as far as 5e goes, “intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.” “An intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning.” So, I’m not saying that IQ doesn’t factor into a large part of what encompasses intelligence in 5e, but I think there is more to that, particularly concerning the amount of knowledge and experience you have in a subject.

Back to my comparison between traditional fantasy and medieval Europe, the life expectancy back then was in the early 30s. The book is sort of ambiguous on Human life expectancy but that’s probably all based on standards of living. I still think this could be a fair comparison as the average human commoner would likely not have easy access to magical healing. So, based on those assumptions, I would agree that, yes, as far as humans go, their peak intellect would be reached around their 20’s, near their maximum life expectancy.

[LichPlease]

Remember that a character with an intelligence of 3 is still smart enough to be a wizard. I wouldn't consider ability scores to represent anything at all outside of the defined game effects.

To correct my previous comment about not knowing how to get a 3 intelligence, I just remembered rolling for stats is a thing.

[LichPlease]

While looking in my 2e books, I found this in the MM



Remember, that these were for AD&D 2nd edition, and characters could hardly go beyond 18 in an ability score.

Thank you. I will go look for this for the other abilities as well.

[JoeJ]

To correct my previous comment about not knowing how to get a 3 intelligence, I just remembered rolling for stats is a thing.

Not only is it a thing, it's the standard, default method of generating ability scores.

A character of any race that doesn't get a bonus to intelligence could potentially start with a 3, and can select any class. Wizard would obviously not be the optimal choice, but it's a possible one.

[Tanarii]

I think you missed my point.

Every ability score represents both natural talent in the area it covers and all related skills, as well as training in the area it covers and all related skills. Proficiency in a skill represents a focus on a subset of an ability score's broader package.

In other words, Intelligence includes both natural talent and training in mental acuity, ability to recall, ability to reason, arcane & historical & natural & religious lore, and deductive thinking.

Charisma included both natural talent and training in confidence, eloquence, being charming and/or commanding, hiding the truth, influencing through threats, delighting an audience, and influencing through tact, social graces or good nature.

Edit: if you think about it, this must be. Otherwise ASIs are a little inexplicable.

Also the Skills With Different Abilities variant rule kinda messes with this concept a bit, by disassociating ability scores and skills.

[LichPlease]

I think you missed my point.

Every ability score represents both natural talent in the area it covers and all related skills, as well as training in the area it covers and all related skills. Proficiency in a skill represents a focus on a subset of an ability score's broader package.

In other words, Intelligence includes both natural talent and training in mental acuity, ability to recall, ability to reason, arcane & historical & natural & religious lore, and deductive thinking.

Charisma included both natural talent and training in confidence, eloquence, being charming and/or commanding, hiding the truth, influencing through threats, delighting an audience, and influencing through tact, social graces or good nature.

Edit: if you think about it, this must be. Otherwise ASIs are a little inexplicable.

Also the Skills With Different Abilities variant rule kinda messes with this concept a bit, by disassociating ability scores and skills.

Gotcha.

I still feel there should be more to charisma than all that social stuff. Yes, all those things would fall under charisma but mechanically, it feels limited and limiting. I understand charisma to be important to Bards, Paladins and Rogues (if the Rogue is trying to be a face) but I feel if charisma is only your ability to influence others, Sorcerer's really should have had their spell casting based off of constitution instead since their magic is almost more of a part of their body than their mind. Yeah, it'd probably be mechanically broken but it makes the most sense to me. I can see charisma for Warlocks but I can see intelligence and maybe wisdom for them just as much.

[Tanarii]

Confidence and a commanding personality are very common reasons for people to be good with other people.

As far as Charisma for warlocks makes more sense if you consider there's really two archetypes for warlocks: the intelligent seeker into forbidden secrets, and the charming cult leader.

But yeah, using Int for Warlocks is a somewhat recurring discussion. Because the "sage" archtype also exists. (Int/Cha Warlocks with the Sage background are somewhat common IMC, despite it not being particularly optimal.)

I agree Sorcs using Con would both make more sense and be a bit mechanically broken. At first glance. But a similar argument can be made that they steer their magic by their self-confidence and commanding personality.

Edit: oh I left out an important bit. I think the point (in the PHB explanation of what Charisma is) was to make it clear that Cha is not about looks, nor solely about having a good tongue to waffle.

[bid]

18 = Master's Degree, PhD, etc.
I'm extremely leery of giving that high a value to a PhD.

First, getting Int18 statistically happens every 200 tries.... amongst heroes. I'd be surprised anyone knows 10 individuals who could become one.

Second, every few individuals have reached level 5. This means that even if PhD is expertise, it's worth a +4. Do you think a very smart sophomore could understand a PhD thesis?

I know quite a few dangerously smart individuals, enough that I'm certain some of them have Int14. Maybe there's an Int16 in the bunch, but I wouldn't count on it.


Ignoring the other reasons the scale is an invalid measurement, your scale is inflated. I'd make Int15 the average PhD requirement, and put Einstein at level 5 with Int18 and expertise, enough for a +10.

[LudicSavant]

I’m guessing this might have been a typo, meaning 13, based of multiclassing rules.

It's not a typo on JoeJ's part. There are no statistical requirements to be single-classed. There are only statistical requirements to multiclass. 3 Int, by the rules, is smart enough to be a Wizard who can read, write, cast 9th level spells, and potentially even be pretty decent at knowledge checks depending on how they're built.

Essentially you're treating ability scores as a far more limiting label than they actually are, kind of like Elan's doing with regards to his conception of samurai here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0209.gif).

[LichPlease]

I guess my overall issue is with how ability scores should be role played and what the point to even having them is if on one hand I have a character with low intelligence that can solve problems that I could easily find the solution for, but another character with low strength can't budge 100 lbs. that I could in real life. I feel like mental scores should be consolidated into something as general as "spell casting ability" and be left at that while every other aspect of mental ability is role played with no mechanical relevance.

[PeteNutButter]

It's not a typo on JoeJ's part. There are no statistical requirements to be single-classed. There are only statistical requirements to multiclass. 3 Int, by the rules, is smart enough to be a Wizard who can read, write, cast 9th level spells, and potentially even be pretty decent at knowledge checks depending on how they're built.

Essentially you're treating ability scores as a far more limiting label than they actually are, kind of like Elan's doing with regards to his conception of samurai here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0209.gif).

While there is nothing in the RAW that says you can’t be a wizard with a 3 int, it would be very reasonable for a DM to limit a PC in this way.

It stands to reason that 3-18 encompasses the range human potential (regardless of being a hero). How else would you stat out a dumb commoner? Given that, a 3 int would be below reading intelligence level. If a player really wanted to play a wizard with a 3 int, I’d probably make his spellbook a picture book.

[LichPlease]

I was surprised that I easily actually found what I was looking for on a google search for ability scores. Since I didn't think it would be so easy to find, I started this thread. My bad.

Anyway, for those interested:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/81cras/dd_ability_score_ranges_described/

[LichPlease]

If a player really wanted to play a wizard with a 3 int, I’d probably make his spellbook a picture book.

Awesome idea. It's too bad I like my characters to be more optimized than not. Otherwise, I would totally run with this idea.

[LudicSavant]

It stands to reason that 3-18 encompasses the range human potential

The notion I take issue with is that I sometimes see people make the assumption that ability scores, in and of themselves, tell the whole picture and represent the entire range of character potential, irrespective of all of the other mechanics in the game which influence things like "susceptibility to disease" or "amount you can lift" or whatever... even counting only those that represent your pure, natural physical ability to do those things. Essentially, these players believe that ability scores, on their own, are a much more freestanding, robust, and complete simulationist range than they actually are. This rarely ends well.

This does not in fact stand to reason, given that ability scores don't tell the whole story on their own. By the rules, two characters with the exact same Strength can potentially have different purely physical abilities to lift weights. Two characters with the exact same Constitution can have very different durability when, say, jumping off a cliff, resisting disease, or imbibing poison. Two characters with the exact same Dexterity can have very different mobility (be it move speeds, difficulty to hit, or pretty much any other measure you could use).

This is where the Elan-style thinking comes in. When someone thinks that Class is the whole story, then you can't be a samurai unless you've got a class with Samurai in the name. If someone thinks that ability scores are the whole story, then you start getting threads claiming that you can't lift the object unless you've got X strength (regardless of factors like your size or features like Powerful Build), can't be persuasive unless you've got X Charisma (regardless of your social skill rolls), and can't be literate unless you have X Int (even if the rules specifically say otherwise). And none of these things are an accurate depiction of how the rule system works.

[PeteNutButter]

The notion I take issue with is that I sometimes see people make the assumption that ability scores, in and of themselves, tell the whole picture and represent the entire range of character potential, irrespective of all of the other mechanics in the game which influence things like "susceptibility to disease" or "amount you can lift" or whatever... even counting only those that represent your pure, natural physical ability to do those things. Essentially, these players believe that ability scores, on their own, are a much more freestanding, robust, and complete simulationist range than they actually are. This rarely ends well.

This does not in fact stand to reason, given that ability scores don't tell the whole story on their own. By the rules, two characters with the exact same Strength can potentially have different purely physical abilities to lift weights. Two characters with the exact same Constitution can have very different durability when, say, jumping off a cliff, resisting disease, or imbibing poison. Two characters with the exact same Dexterity can have very different mobility (be it move speeds, difficulty to hit, or pretty much any other measure you could use).

This is where the Elan-style thinking comes in. When someone thinks that Class is the whole story, then you can't be a samurai unless you've got a class with Samurai in the name. If someone thinks that ability scores are the whole story, then you start getting threads claiming that you can't lift the object unless you've got X strength (regardless of factors like your size or features like Powerful Build), can't be persuasive unless you've got X Charisma (regardless of your social skill rolls), and can't be literate unless you have X Int (even if the rules specifically say otherwise). And none of these things are an accurate depiction of how the rule system works.

I mean nowhere did I say you can't have a 3 str and powerful build or a 3 cha and expertise in persuasion. I'm not limiting characters to their stats, simply pointing out that if you have a metric that measures intelligence (or anything else) than the bottom of that metric should be the bottom of intelligence. Most PCs will have 8s in int which is well within operating as average.

[LudicSavant]

I mean nowhere did I say you can't have a 3 str and powerful build or a 3 cha and expertise in persuasion. Indeed, you were talking about Int and not Str or Cha. And regarding Int, you said that a player with 3 Int would be "below reading intelligence."

Just as one can have expertise in persuasion with 3 Cha or Powerful Build with 3 Str, they can also have literacy with 3 Int.


I'm not limiting characters to their stats, simply pointing out that if you have a metric that measures intelligence (or anything else) than the bottom of that metric should be the bottom of intelligence.
By the flip side of that reasoning, if you have a metric that measures Strength, then the top of that metric should be the top of Strength. But a character with 20 Strength and a character with 20 Strength and Powerful Build are not really equally strong. In other words, the metric is comprised of more variables than just the ability score.

This is why I feel that JoeJ makes an excellent recommendation, here:

I wouldn't consider ability scores to represent anything at all outside of the defined game effects.

[SaurOps]

Yes, there are various kinds of intelligence, but I think D&D suggests that its brand of intelligence is more akin to the retention of information and the use of logic and reason. The other abilities may cover all those other forms of intelligence, such as charisma being more than just charm but also as the ability to “know” people.

By language I just meant something even as simple as body language, simple verbal communication (grunts, groans and such) or whatever way animals communicate with each other.

I wasn’t trying to exactly say that our standards of intelligence in the real world translate into the world of D&D. My point was the say something like, how we would see someone like Stephen Hawking as the pinnacle of intelligence based on their expertise and understanding of the sciences, in D&D their equivalent would be someone like Mordenkainen. Of course, he probably wouldn’t have any sort of idea of physics beyond sensory experience, because this world, though still somewhat governed by physical laws, has little use for science when they have magic, something of which Mordenkainen is a master.

There are a number of Int-related rolls for which this would be a hilariously terrible fit. Disguising yourself, for example, or forging a document. His specialized knowledge of physics would also have not really settled well with appraising gemstones. This is why you should shunt this off into proficiency and expertise. You can only get up to a +5 bonus in Int, but expertise can exceed this by level 5 and vastly exceed it afterward. Ability scores are only what they are in mechanical terms, and the mechanics are that they only make a tremendous difference at lower levels.



Back to my comparison between traditional fantasy and medieval Europe, the life expectancy back then was in the early 30s. The book is sort of ambiguous on Human life expectancy but that’s probably all based on standards of living. I still think this could be a fair comparison as the average human commoner would likely not have easy access to magical healing. So, based on those assumptions, I would agree that, yes, as far as humans go, their peak intellect would be reached around their 20’s, near their maximum life expectancy.

Life expectancy was only set in the 30s if you factored in the outlier of infant mortality. If you survived childhood, you could expect to live about as long as people do now.

[LudicSavant]

So, based on those assumptions, I would agree that, yes, as far as humans go, their peak intellect would be reached around their 20’s, near their maximum life expectancy.

The problem is that those assumptions are wrong, and life expectancies don't work that way.

If the life expectancy is 30 years, that does not mean that 30 is the mode age of adult death. It means that 30 is the number you get when you take everyone's age of death and average it. If you have a high infant mortality rate, that drives your numbers way down, even if the life expectancy of adults remains high.

If you weren't a member of an oppressed underclass living in squalid conditions, and you lived to see 20, you probably weren't expecting to die soon.

To quote one source:

It is important to understand the exact meaning of life expectancy. Life expectancy, and life expectancy at birth in particular, are often misunderstood terms. This method of measurement is often confused with the mode age of adult death. An average life expectancy at birth could be 50 years. This does not mean that an individual will on average only live to be 50. Rather it is a calculation based on all deaths, including those of infants. Averaging the age of mortality over all ages gives the average life expectancy. Life expectancy refers to additional years of predicted life based on this average. A high infant mortality rate can drastically bring down life expectancy even if the average adult life expectancy after infancy remains high. Infant mortality and early child mortality are some of the biggest differences between industrialized and non-industrialized societies.


The modal age of mortality in hunter-gatherers can range from 68 in the Hiwi to 78 in the Tsimane.

There is, as one would expect, a clear trend towards longer life and lower infant mortality rates in industrialized societies. However the lifespan of hunter-gatherers is not as low as commonly thought and in many respects rivals that of the industrialized world . This information may give us a window into the lifespan of early humans.

[Tanarii]

There are a number of Int-related rolls for which this would be a hilariously terrible fit. Disguising yourself, for example, or forging a document. His specialized knowledge of physics would also have not really settled well with appraising gemstones. This is why you should shunt this off into proficiency and expertise. You can only get up to a +5 bonus in Int, but expertise can exceed this by level 5 and vastly exceed it afterward. Ability scores are only what they are in mechanical terms, and the mechanics are that they only make a tremendous difference at lower levels.Expertise is a narrow class feature only really available to 2 classes. Although 2 races (Dwarf & Gnome), one domain (Knowledge), and another class (Ranger) get a limited version of it.

Ability Scores are designed so a "good" score is roughly equal in value to proficiency at all levels. You can be good at all things related to an ability score for your level, good at one aspect by taking a skill proficiency, or very good by stacking the two together.

[SaurOps]

Expertise is a narrow class feature only really available to 2 classes. Although 2 races (Dwarf & Gnome), one domain (Knowledge), and another class (Ranger) get a limited version of it.

Ability Scores are designed so a "good" score is roughly equal in value to proficiency at all levels. You can be good at all things related to an ability score for your level, good at one aspect by taking a skill proficiency, or very good by stacking the two together.

Expertise can be had through huge numbers of skill-based feats, many of which appeared in UA. 5e's slow pace and AL policies have constrained their inclusion, but they are there, and as such, not likely to remain a narrow class feature.

[Tanarii]

Expertise can be had through huge numbers of skill-based feats, many of which appeared in UA. 5e's slow pace and AL policies have constrained their inclusion, but they are there, and as such, not likely to remain a narrow class feature.
"Its in UA" iant a very sloid argument in the face of how the PHB & DMG numbers line up.

[SaurOps]

"Its in UA" iant a very sloid argument in the face of how the PHB & DMG numbers line up.

On the other hand, the person that we're arguing about would have counted as a non-adventuring sage in prior editions, so if you can't play someone like that, well, the game is unlikely to ever give it to you outside of an extremely dry DM's option supplement. In the end, though, it's not like the concept of "a feat can grant expertise for this skill" is broken like either mass combat proposal.

[Unoriginal]

Let's imagine something:

A Commoner drinks a potion and suddenly find themselves with 20 in all stats.

What would this super-commoner be able to do?

-Be 150% harder to hit than a regular commoner (AC 15).

-Have 70% chances to hit a regular commoner with their fist or club (+7 to hit).

-Kill a regular commoner with one punch

-Be over twice as hard to kill as a regular Commoner (9 HPs)

-Lift 60lb above their head without chance of failing.

-Have 25% chances to break a metal chain bare-handed.

-Have 50% chances to accomplish all DC 15 tasks.


If others want to expand the list, feel free.

Point is, that super-commoner looks a bit like a street-level superhero to me, but they'd certainly be in troubles if they even get in a normal adventurer's day.


Expertise can be had through huge numbers of skill-based feats, many of which appeared in UA. 5e's slow pace and AL policies have constrained their inclusion, but they are there, and as such, not likely to remain a narrow class feature.


"Its in UA" iant a very sloid argument in the face of how the PHB & DMG numbers line up.


On the other hand, the person that we're arguing about would have counted as a non-adventuring sage in prior editions, so if you can't play someone like that, well, the game is unlikely to ever give it to you outside of an extremely dry DM's option supplement. In the end, though, it's not like the concept of "a feat can grant expertise for this skill" is broken like either mass combat proposal.


Did you guys forget about Prodigy?

A feat that grants Expertise isn't UA material.

[Tanarii]

On the other hand, the person that we're arguing about would have counted as a non-adventuring sage in prior editions, so if you can't play someone like that, well, the game is unlikely to ever give it to you outside of an extremely dry DM's option supplement. In the end, though, it's not like the concept of "a feat can grant expertise for this skill" is broken like either mass combat proposal.
Yah. Adventurers can do all adventuring tasks. So comparing them to a highly educated Sage specialist in the first place is kinda funky. :smallamused:

[2D8HP]

...Here is an example using intelligence, as education/academia is the closest thing I have any real world experience with to cover the entire range:

20 = Widely known expert/modern pinnacle of understanding (think Einstein or Hawking)
18 = Master's Degree, PhD, etc.
16 = Bachelor's Degree/Journeyman
14 = Associate's Degree/Apprentice
12 = High School Graduate
10 = High School Freshman/Sophomore
8 = Middle Schooler
6 = Grade Schooler
4 = Kindergartner
2 = Animal Intelligence/Toddler (able to understand/communicate some sort of language)
0 = Brain Death

If you have a better idea for intelligence, go ahead and post that....


Wow, so much of that is backwards.

I'm away from my 5e books right now (though I have some 0e and 1e stashed here at work), but from the 5e Basic rules (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop/players-basic-rules)

"Intelligence measures: Mental acuity, information recall, analytical skill, reasoning and memory" as well as education, and that makes what it hard.

Think back to when it was easiest to learn new things, solve puzzles, remember facts, et cetera.

If your like most people probably in your late teens, but if your lucky, and have engaging classes or work that isn't a conga-line of soul destroying rote repetition of enduring petty sadism and boredom that makes you eager for death than you may be part of a privileged elite that has your cognitive peak later, maybe even be in your late 20's.

Congratulations.

9/10th of people will peak at INT 14 at around 18 years old, and then drudgery and toil will drive it down till your at INT 8 at the age of 50 (like me).

A few will keep climbing, with a very small few hitting their peak in their mid to late 20's, but different abilities measured by "INT" peak at different ages (http://www.businessinsider.com/smartest-age-for-everything-math-vocabulary-memory-2017-7?r=UK&IR=T7) (there's also a disparity with what "WIS" measures, sensory acuity is strongest when younger, but one's "intuition" of others emotional states is better older).

And then there's skill (represented in D&D by proficiency).


I apologize for comparing intelligence directly to education. I know that is inaccurate but I was simply using it as an example. Like I said, if you have a better example for intelligence, go ahead and post it. I won't be offended.


Sure.

14 = 18 years old, such hope!

12 = ten years of enduring paid employment, I feel my brain turning to mush, oh geez another meeting, how much longer? I need some coffee now!

6 = New parent. What is this sleep you speak of?

10 = The baby finally is quiet at night. WOO HOO!

8 = Don't hassle me 'bout my gut, I'm working on it! And get off my lawn!


....if a player who is actually highly intelligent in real life has a good idea, but is playing a low intelligence/wisdom character, they should suggest their course of thought to another more intelligent/wiser team member as if it was the other player’s idea. That way, they can take the real life credit, but their Orc Barbarian isn’t suspiciously on point with solving all of the puzzles.....


If we're doing that, then 9/10th of all PC's are capped at an INT of 12 to match players cognitive abilities.

Hey, if players having PC's that are played smarter than their "stats" is a problem, then all the high INT Wizards who rush off into melee like dang fools is a problem as well, right?

Right?


...I wouldn't consider ability scores to represent anything at all outside of the defined game effects.


Now that sounds intelligent to me!


I guess my overall issue is with how ability scores should be role played and what the point to even having them is if on one hand I have a character with low intelligence that can solve problems that I could easily find the solution for, but another character with low strength can't budge 100 lbs. that I could in real life. I feel like mental scores should be consolidated into something as general as "spell casting ability" and be left at that while every other aspect of mental ability is role played with no mechanical relevance.


How 'bout this:

Role-play as much as it's fun to role-play, but no more.