PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] How would you explain the significance of a certain stat score, or class level?



newbDM
2008-10-31, 01:13 AM
This questions was brought on by a number of things.

The stat scores part of it came from when a while ago a DM and his group told me that having an 18 Strength score for a character in D&D means that a person is so muscular and huge that he/she would not be able to touch both it's index fingers together. I also remember someone online suggesting that Arnold Schwarzenegger at his peak IRL would equal to about a 14 Str score.


The classes part came from a conversation I had at a local store last week with a player I used to play with, who is big into arcane magic. He started talking about the Arch Mage from Faerun, and told me that they are basically "what all casters strive to be". That got me curious, so I asked a bit more. Supposedly they are the highest level/kind/order/whatever of casters. I looked in the book to see what the starting level for that PrC was, and if I remember correctly it was level 13. This surprised me, because that meant that the highest level of a class type (or at least for magic) in a society/world was 13, or a bit higher if the 13th mark is like the entry position. So what exactly does that mean in designing a city/town or even a world? And what implications would that have for a PC who reaches 13th level or higher? Are they basically walking gods?


I also remember hearing a few times that there is a theory or something about 6th level characters equaling super heroes IRL.


So, after thinking about all of this for a good while I want to make a list/table/graph/whatever (I am not sure what to use rally) for my houserules document to show players what it means in-game to have a certain stat score, and a similar one to show what it means powerwise and socialwise to be of a certain level (and by "level" I mean experience and power). I also want the classes chart to showcase how much of said level individuals would probably exist in a single material plane/world.


What are your thoughts on all this?

Has something like this already been put together?



p.s. How should I divide the classes part? Into the core classes as examples, or into groups such as Divine Casters, Arcane Caster, Melee characters, rouge-like/crime/underground characters, etc.

Bassikpoet
2008-10-31, 01:26 AM
Well, on the stat side, lets look at strength. The world record for snatch (its a weightlifting term, don't blame me) is 480lbs. If we look at the maximum weight that can be lifted over your head in d&d, it corresponds to about a str score of about 21. Therefore one of the strongest men in the world only has a str score of 21. Plus that man is only holding the bar up for about 2 or 3 seconds.

newbDM
2008-10-31, 01:36 AM
Well, on the stat side, lets look at strength. The world record for snatch (its a weightlifting term, don't blame me) is 480lbs. If we look at the maximum weight that can be lifted over your head in d&d, it corresponds to about a str score of about 21. Therefore one of the strongest men in the world only has a str score of 21. Plus that man is only holding the bar up for about 2 or 3 seconds.

Hmm. That is a very clever idea of how to compare Str Bassikpoet.

And does anyone have an image of said record holder, preferably when he was making this record? It would be perfect to represent where the 21 Str mark would be.


edit:
And now that I think about it, if I can do the same comparison to the Str rules in the core books I can figure out what Arnold was, which would make an easy and familiar comparison that nearly everyone can relate to.


edit #2:
And I also need to show what low scores reflect. This would be especially needed when it comes to low Intelligence and Wisdom scores.

A great immediate use I could personally get from this is knowing what my elf psion's 5 Str score means, and how I should reflect it in his role-playing.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-31, 01:43 AM
Hmm. That is a very clever idea of how to compare Str Bassikpoet.

And does anyone have an image of said record holder, preferably when he was making this record? It would be perfect to represent where the 21 Str mark would be.Actually, even that's not enough. Weight-lifting is a highly trained sport requiring a certain body motion to lift the weight for a couple seconds. It's more reasonable to consider it a skill than an attribute.

The "level 6 is the best possible" school of thought has problems. It's not liked by many, and has a bunch of issues, though it does have math behind it(it depends a lot on certain environmental factors), and the randomness of D&D's skill system is partly at fault(if it is possible to hit the world record for long jump at level 6, then that's a good line, except that a high-school long-jumper can beat the Olympian in that case a good percentage of the time).

newbDM
2008-10-31, 02:03 AM
Actually, even that's not enough. Weight-lifting is a highly trained sport requiring a certain body motion to lift the weight for a couple seconds. It's more reasonable to consider it a skill than an attribute.

I see.

Damn, nothing is ever easy is it?

So although it is not straight forward, is there anyway of getting a good basis for a table to show players.


And I just had a new thought. What if I added an additional column to represent what a certain stat score would equal to in the animal kingdom? For example, a Str 27 character could wrestle a Polar Bear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bearPolar.htm) to the ground as an even match, while a character with a Dex 15 is as dexterous and nimble as a house cat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/cat.htm). I would also include matching real world images as examples.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-31, 02:36 AM
Weight-lifters and bodybuilders are two entirely different animals.

Arnie may look stronger (http://www.ifbb.com/halloffame/1999/ArnoldSchwarzenegger2.jpg)... (If you don't know what strong really looks like.)

But Magnus is stronger (http://www.kraftsport-attack.de/magnusson.jpg).

The DM and group you mention were idjits, though. Statistically, Str 14 is barely over 1 standard deviation away from the average. Maybe 10% or even 15% of people would have attributes over 14.


Strength is the only attribute you can even try to compare to the real world, though, and that runs into a little problem: IRL, all feats of strength are learned skills.

All the others lack any and all correspondence and relation to the real world. You could try to compare Intelligence to IQ by comparing their Normal Distributions, but that assumes Intelligence (the D&D stat; or the real concept, for that matter) and IQ correspond to each other, which they absolutely do not.

Edit: Wrestling is more a function of base attack than anything else. If your BAB is +0, you need a Strength of 46 to have an even wrestling match with a polar bear. If your BAB is +20, you can do it with a Strength of 6.

And Dexterity... the average human is far more dextrous than a housecat. Show me a housecat that can work a set of keys. A set of lockpicks? Type on a keyboard? Play a guitar? Now, agility... that I'll grant to the cat.

It's impossible to find meaningful equivalencies. Even if you used animal comparisons, you're assuming that the ability scores of animals accurately represent them, which they certainly do not do in all cases. And you're assuming that the ability scores themselves represent anything accurately, which they certainly do not do in all cases.

Peregrine
2008-10-31, 06:14 AM
Yeah, I've made this sort of effort in the past. And I've seen the attempts to match real-world achievements (usually from sports, like weightlifting) to game stats. And sure, you're never going to get a perfect match, but I find it's fun to try. :smallsmile:

Ahh, here it is: D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). A very good article, though I don't entirely agree with all the conclusions therein -- primarily the ones about level. So let me focus on how I calibrate my expectations of different levels ('cause I don't have the statistics to really do a good job of explaining different ability score values).

Disclaimer: This is all my opinion, and how I find I like to imagine things and run them in-game. This is not how the game "has to" or "should" work, nor is it necessarily always going to fit perfectly neatly with all the rules -- 'cause different writers at different times have written game material with their expectations calibrated differently. :smallsmile:

First, a word on XP. Experience, in the game and real-world senses, is gained from anything that would literally "build character". Life's trials and triumphs, challenges and hard times, great accomplishments, and even hard-fought defeats all provide the opportunity to grow and gain experience. Adventurers, of course, face peril and hardship much more frequently than ordinary folk, and level up much faster; but even ordinary NPCs can gain XP and levels without having to go kill goblins, simply by going through the ups and downs of life.

1st-3rd: Ordinary

1st level characters are inexperienced in a very literal sense. They may be competent and well-trained at what they do, but they're green and untested. Or maybe they've been pampered or otherwise sheltered from life. Either way, a character at this level has faced few hardships and accomplished precious little.

2nd level characters have been through a few trials in their lives. 3rd level characters would be considered well-seasoned. At this level you'd probably make a good life as one of the most respected people in your village, and well known in your locality. It's within the grasp of most common folk to reach at least 2nd or 3rd level within the span of a human lifetime.

4th-6th: Noteworthy

Characters of this level are a cut above the normal, worthy of attention beyond just the local area. A 3rd or 4th level character might be notable on a district scale; at 5th or 6th level, a character is definitely important on a district scale and would be starting to make an impact on a national level. They're not the chief people in the kingdom, but they're the people that the chief people deal with every day.

7th-10th: Extraordinary

Characters at this level are doing deeds and garnering fame on a scale that spans kingdoms. 7th or 8th level characters are up with the best and mightiest in their kingdom or among their neighbours; 9th or 10th level characters are almost certainly the greatest, most accomplished people in the whole land.

These levels are the apex of what might be called 'normal' human achievement (and, because this is D&D, non-human too :smallwink: -- though an elf has more time to reach this level of noteworthiness than a half-orc does). Not everyone can reach these levels, although most people can expect to meet one some time in their life.

11th+: Legendary

A character of 11th level is legendary in the in-game sense that he or she starts to register on legend lore spells; and more than that, the fame of such a character is spread to many parts of the world and even starts to become known on other planes of existence.

I always find it hard to rank the levels above 11th as I do those below, because you're comparing different degrees of 'legendary'. It might help to think of an 11th level character being a peasant among legends, compared to the 20th level paragon -- who may not be sparring with gods, but is certainly known to them and plays a large part in their designs. Such a character strides across the world and the planes; they can't be compared to anyone in our world, except in stories. (Even an 11th level character would be hard to find on Earth.)

Fortunately, D&D is larger than life, and you can have adventures which throw fistfuls of legendary characters together like the Argonauts. :smallsmile:


A final word: Comments on noteworthiness apply to characters who don't have any particular advantages or impediments to fame. A boy king may be only 1st level, served by a nobleman of 8th level who worked his way to that level of national fame. A spymaster, on the other hand, may have an impact on an international level worthy of a 10th-level character, but not the fame to go with it.

magellan
2008-10-31, 06:44 AM
But of course a housecat can type! they do it all the time! Only problem is that their language is unknown to us. But there is no doubt that their short messages hold deep and profound wisdom

Thank you. now continue with your thread.

Starsinger
2008-10-31, 06:52 AM
How would I? I... I wouldn't. First of all, it's not like D&D was designed with the writers thinking, "Okay, a strength of 18 means this in real life."

Second, different stats mean different things to different people. While some think of Intelligence as your book learning, others prefer to think of it as how fast you pick something up, or your raw smartitude-ocity.

Third, there are enough contention points in D&D, making another certainly isn't helping things.

And, what I believe to be the quintessential reason why I wouldn't do such a thing? It would lead me to have to explain how come perception is Wisdom based.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-31, 07:05 AM
D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations. A very good article,
I'd call it a very poorly researched article, written by someone who lacks a good notion of how statistics work. Aside from the circular reasonings in there, he conveniently overlooks such gems as that his Kasparov routinely loses chess against an average teenage n00b.

WOTC has an article about statting out olympic athletes in D&D (say, how many monk levels you'd need to break the marathon record, or what your BAB should be to compete in archery contests). I'll see if I can locate the link.

Wulfram
2008-10-31, 07:08 AM
I'd have thought the easiest way to give an idea of how powerful characters are is by looking at monsters challenge ratings.

At low levels, there are even real creatures to compare against - a Brown bear is CR4, an Elephant CR7 and a Tyrannosaurus CR8. At high levels you can use more well known mythical monsters - adult fire breathing dragons are CR15, for example

Kurald Galain
2008-10-31, 07:10 AM
And, what I believe to be the quintessential reason why I wouldn't do such a thing? It would lead me to have to explain how come perception is Wisdom based.

That one's easy. This is a change made in 3E. Perception was not based on anything in 2E, or sometimes on int-based skills, or a houseruled 7th attribute. Then the 3E design team (correctly) inferred that wisdom was useless for anybody who was not a divine caster.

And going back a bit further, the only reason D&D has a wisdom stat to begin with (as opposed to, oh, every single other RPG I can think of, not counting spinoffs), is because they needed some stat to base the cleric class on.

D&D design has a number of such chains of illogic, if you know where to look.

Starsinger
2008-10-31, 07:14 AM
D&D design has a number of such chains of illogic, if you know where to look.

I revel in the idiocy of others, got any more good chains of illogic to share?

Demented
2008-10-31, 07:47 AM
WOTC has an article about statting out olympic athletes in D&D (say, how many monk levels you'd need to break the marathon record, or what your BAB should be to compete in archery contests). I'll see if I can locate the link.

The problem with reaching the current marathon record is that the obvious way to do it (3.5) is by hustling for two hours with a base speed of 60 feet (a level 10 Monk), because you cannot use your run speed for long distances. That yields 24 miles in two hours. The record for marathon is two hours, 26 miles.)

The fastest recorded 100 meter dash can be met in D&D with a base speed of only 40 feet (achievable by a Barbarian or 3rd-level Monk), provided you have the Run feat.

Ergo, in converting these to D&D, a marathon runner is faster than a dash runner, but needs 7 more levels to do it. :smallyuk:

Kurald Galain
2008-10-31, 07:55 AM
I revel in the idiocy of others, got any more good chains of illogic to share?

Let me think... ah, here's one that's also skill related.

2E had proficiencies (rather than skills) that you either did or did not have - you either have Balance skill, or you don't. Problem: this doesn't address the fact that some characters may be better in a skill than others.

Solution: skill points. New problem: it's a good strategy to, say, put all your 40 ranks in bluff at level one, thus achieving ludicrous results.

Solution: level-dependent skill caps. New problem: since NPCs are expected to be low-level, they are now no longer capable of performing any skill well.

Solution: add extra classes, that can do the same thing as regular classes only suck at them. Now claim that the city guards aren't 3rd level fighters, but 6th level warriors, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to have enough ranks in knowledge: local.

New problem: 20th-level commoners. Don't tell me that makes sense.

Kris Strife
2008-10-31, 09:40 AM
20th level commoner: You by the end of a Harvest Moon game.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-31, 10:02 AM
A 20th-level commoner is just a commoner who's almost as tough as a 5th or 6th-level fighter. He may have one score of 18 (if he put all his increases in his best score; if it's a physical score, it's probably reduced by age), he'll have a BAB of +10, 50+ hit points... He's the toughest guy (or she's the toughest gal) in the village, probably a veteran of countless hunts, brawls, raids, and robberies.

It is a little silly (a much lower-level PC class would model such a character better, probably), but it's not like being 20th-level automatically makes you a superhuman.

snoopy13a
2008-10-31, 10:06 AM
If one uses the chances of getting an 18 by rolling 3D6 then 1/216 of people have a strength of 18. So, the strongest person in a village would have 18 strength. It would be noteworthy but not necessarily special.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-31, 10:09 AM
A 20th-level commoner is just a commoner who's almost as tough as a 5th or 6th-level fighter. He may have one score of 18 (if he put all his increases in his best score; if it's a physical score, it's probably reduced by age), he'll have a BAB of +10, 50+ hit points... He's the toughest guy (or she's the toughest gal) in the village, probably a veteran of countless hunts, brawls, raids, and robberies.

It is a little silly (a much lower-level PC class would model such a character better, probably), but it's not like being 20th-level automatically makes you a superhuman.

And a lot of ranks in Profession (Farmer)!

Note: I personally think that any degree of health care and education is enough to turn a commoner into an expert, and otherwise the class is reserved for small kids. Therefore, if real life was DND, there probably aren't any commoners around here on these forums.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-31, 10:10 AM
It is a little silly (a much lower-level PC class would model such a character better, probably),
Yes, that is precisely my point. It is often argued that the Samurai class (apart from being badly written) is pointless because that's what fighters are for and the fighter can easily be refluffed to anything from a knight to a circus strongman. By that reasoning, there is entirely zero point in any of the NPC classes.


Therefore, if real life was DND, there probably aren't any commoners around here on these forums.
No, we'd all be member of the "Geek" prestige class...

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-31, 10:14 AM
And a lot of ranks in Profession (Farmer)!

Note: I personally think that any degree of health care and education is enough to turn a commoner into an expert, and otherwise the class is reserved for small kids. Therefore, if real life was DND, there probably aren't any commoners around here on these forums.

I'm an out-of-practice smart hero 1/fast hero 1, personally.

Dyvim Matt
2008-10-31, 10:20 AM
About Stats

Although they have not been defined enough to compare them to real life, you can think of them as a spectrum of (non-)human capacities. I don't know how DnD works anymore (last time I played the game was Advanced) but take the encumbrance rules as a guideline for Strength for instance. Intelligence might parallel IQ (INT 10 = IQ 100, INT 18 = IQ 180, etc.) As for the other stats, it can be harder, because they can be more nebulous. (how agile is DEX 15? How wise is WIS 13?) Take the rules explicitly for that. (DEX 15 means you can do this and that, and that's it.)

About Classes and Levels

Well, these are the reasons I don't play class-based games anymore, frankly. They don't translate to real-world things, except for broad archetypes. A cleric does not have be a priest: he could just be a very devout farmer. A fighter could be another farmer who is really good with a club, etc. Back when I ran ADnD, I would actually ask my players to think of their character's job first and foremost, and then fit that job into any class they think is appropriate. After all, "Barbarian" is not a job: it's a cultural level, and a somewhat subjective one on top of that. If the class fits the character concept, fine, but if your (lower-case) barbarian is more of a sneaky type, the (Capital B) Barbarian will not fit at all...

Conclusion: many of these things are game abstractions. Trying to define them (especially classes/levels) in RL terms is, perhaps, asking for too much trouble...

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-31, 11:04 AM
Intelligence might parallel IQ (INT 10 = IQ 100, INT 18 = IQ 180, etc.)

I already went into this, but this is absolutely not correct, if for no other reason than that both IQ and Int have a normal distribution (in fact, IQ is defined by it), and IQ 180 and Int 18 are not at the same distance from the midpoint.

Then there's the whole issue of assuming that IQ and the Intelligence ability are even remotely the same thing. Even if Intelligence (the ability score) equated to intelligence, you're assuming intelligence equates to IQ. None of the three are necessarily connected.

Godric
2008-10-31, 12:22 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/sports/photos/2008/08/10/long-qingquan-getty.jpg

Bodybuilding != strength. This guy can lift more than arnold, and he isn't so big. Already covered, but it's an important point. Olympic weightlifters often don't look like they can lift as much as they can.

Prometheus
2008-10-31, 12:56 PM
It's been attempted to be related, but it is never perfect. Different metrics end up with different results.

Mando Knight
2008-10-31, 02:39 PM
Bodybuilding != strength. This guy can lift more than arnold, and he isn't so big. Already covered, but it's an important point. Olympic weightlifters often don't look like they can lift as much as they can.

In other words, Muscles Are Meaningless. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MusclesAreMeaningless)

BTW, d20 Modern would be a slightly better parallel to real-world ability... but I'm not familiar with d20 Modern, so I'd say in SW SAGA I'd be a Noble 1 or 2...

hamishspence
2008-10-31, 02:44 PM
I like D20 Modern and D20 Past, and am somewhat annoyed that none of the gaming shops I've seen stock D20 Future.

Primarily though, I saw it as opportunity to run D&D meets Real World crossovers- what would, say, it be like to have a D&D monster in real world and how good would real weapons be against it.

Of course, neither D20Modern nor D20Cthulhu (which I also have) does it perfectly, but I figure- its a good start. Alternatively, creatures from Menace Manual can be dropped into a D&D game.

EDIT: I figure, for Str, check All the possible Str tests, and pick the lowest. From endurance walks to runs with maximum light load, to lifts.

Dyvim Matt
2008-10-31, 03:48 PM
I already went into this, but this is absolutely not correct, if for no other reason than that both IQ and Int have a normal distribution (in fact, IQ is defined by it), and IQ 180 and Int 18 are not at the same distance from the midpoint.

Then there's the whole issue of assuming that IQ and the Intelligence ability are even remotely the same thing. Even if Intelligence (the ability score) equated to intelligence, you're assuming intelligence equates to IQ. None of the three are necessarily connected.

Oh. :smallredface:

Again, I'm not familiar enough with DnD anymore. And I've never really understood what IQ represented (all I know is mine is 136, but don't ask me what it means.) I just thought that INT 10 is average, IQ 100 is average, therefore I thought INT 13 might mean IQ 130. I just read the part where you went into this, since I missed it the first time. Can you give me a brief explanation of how (or even if) INT correlates to IQ, please?

hamishspence
2008-10-31, 03:57 PM
You can, if you choose, distribute intelligence, with mean intelligence being between 10 and 11, and let percentage that corresponds to chance of getting a certain dice result, be same percentage of population.

Using 3d6 unadjusted.
so, for example, 1/216 of population are int 18, so, top 1/216 of population have IQ X or higher.

Let IQ X be real minimum IQ of top 1/216 of population.

IQ X corresponds to INT 18.

This does not account for adventurers- treat higher INTS as corresponding to higher IQs. Guess. Or try and construct similar formula for high level adventurers.

Dyvim Matt
2008-10-31, 04:12 PM
You can, if you choose, distribute intelligence, with mean intelligence being between 10 and 11, and let percentage that corresponds to chance of getting a certain dice result, be same percentage of population.

Using 3d6 unadjusted.
so, for example, 1/216 of population are int 18, so, top 1/216 of population have IQ X or higher.

Let IQ X be real minimum IQ of top 1/216 of population.

IQ X corresponds to INT 18.

This does not account for adventurers- treat higher INTS as corresponding to higher IQs. Guess. Or try and construct similar formula for high level adventurers.

Thanks! I doubt I will actually make a formula, but guidelines are cool. I don't play DnD but it could be usefull in Call of Cthulhu.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-31, 04:20 PM
Can you give me a brief explanation of how (or even if) INT correlates to IQ, please?

It doesn't.

Intelligence (the ability score) does not correspond to intelligence (the real-world concept). Intelligence (the ability score) is just this odd combined measure of magical prowess and ability at certain skills, like Knowledge checks, and apparently an aptitude for learning or retaining such diverse skills as physical activities/sports, academical knowledge, and any profession. Learning geography and learning how to ride really have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

So, on its face, the Intelligence ability score is just a hugely broad and somewhat nonsensical abstraction, simplified to the point of silliness in order to make playing the game a whole lot easier.

Now, further, IQ does not correspond to intelligence in any meaningful way. First of all, there's no accepted definition for "intelligence." Current cognitive theory (unless I'm out of the loop) leans toward the idea of "intelligences," which really just means "skills" (more emphasis is now put on the fact that they can all be learned and developed, over the old silly idea that they were some sort of in-born variables that determine your abilities in life). What IQ measures is your score in a standardized test (which is, despite all efforts, still culturally biased; the main reason why non-white students scored dramatically lower - averaging in the "retarded" range - in the 70s). IQ defines intelligence as your score in an arbitrary test. You can raise your IQ dramatically just by learning how to take IQ tests, and practicing at them. That hasn't made you smarter - you've just learned a relatively useless skill.

So, there's no solid connection between any of...
IQ and Int
Int and intelligence
IQ and intelligence


However!

If you were to decide that, yes, the Intelligence ability score corresponds to IQ, you could draw the comparisons by taking the standard deviation for the normal distribution of the Intelligence ability score (approximately 3.5, I think?), and comparing it to that of IQ (15). Int 14 and IQ 115 are both 1 standard deviation above average (that's the 15.9% mark; 15.9% of the population have a score higher than 14/115). Int 17.5 and IQ 130 are both 2 standard deviations above average (that's the 2.2% mark; 2.2% of the population have a score higher than 17.5/130). Int 18 would be a bit under IQ 140, I guess. This all gets a bit screwed up by the fact that 10.5 is no longer the average when you factor in ability score increases, though.


Incidentally, I'm always curious where people have had their IQs tested. I wasn't aware it was standard at schools anymore? (Not that it ever was over here.) I've taken several online IQ tests, but they were all invalidated by the simple fact that they didn't show statistics afterwards. If they were properly standardized and applicable, then by testing tens of thousands of discrete visitors, they would get statistics corresponding to the normal distribution of IQ. It's incredibly easy to give such statistics on an online test.

This sort of segues to another problem with IQ tests. You read a lot about how average IQ is rising - test scores, that is. But that just means the tests haven't been calibrated properly. By definition, IQ has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. (Within a certain population. You can't use the same test in, say, Britain and Japan or Japan and South Africa.) If you're getting something else, the test is faulty. (Unfortunately, this would mean that you couldn't compare results over long periods of time if you did update the test constantly and properly; but, then, why the heck would you want to? Aristotle may have been a genius, but he'd come across a right idiot in the here and now.) Because extelligence grows constantly, people are "smarter", in a way; better educated, better at taking tests... people face more and more cerebral challenges in their lives, which makes them better at them.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-31, 04:23 PM
Thanks! I doubt I will actually make a formula, but guidelines are cool. I don't play DnD but it could be usefull in Call of Cthulhu.

Note that it works out differently for BRP. INT is usually 2d6+6, so 1/36 people have INT 18. That's about 3%, so INT 18 is now a bit under IQ 130. Then again, in CoC, INT is a bit clearer and even less to do with IQ; it's a measure of your innovation (Idea roll) and learning (starting skill points).

hamishspence
2008-10-31, 04:25 PM
I figure that, given the vast majority of population are level 1, ability adjustments other than aging ones, don't come into it.

Some allowance should be made for aging. Or maybe, Int is assumed to be teenage Int, since adventurer can start in teens.

So, just cover late teenage population alone?

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-31, 04:40 PM
That reminds me:

If anyone has told you, since the year 1950, something like "IQ is mental age divided by physical age, multiplied by 100", please go and smack them in the face and tell them to please read up on scientific theories before repeating ones from almost a century ago as if they had anything to do with modern understanding.

I actually remember a teacher telling us that in grade school, in the freaking 90s. It's from the 1910s.

Oh, also, the SD is not always 15. This means that you can not even compare IQ to IQ unless you know which scale they are on, and that scale is the same one for both of them.

snoopy13a
2008-10-31, 04:49 PM
Incidentally, I'm always curious where people have had their IQs tested. I wasn't aware it was standard at schools anymore? (Not that it ever was over here.) I've taken several online IQ tests, but they were all invalidated by the simple fact that they didn't show statistics afterwards. If they were properly standardized and applicable, then by testing tens of thousands of discrete visitors, they would get statistics corresponding to the normal distribution of IQ. It's incredibly easy to give such statistics on an online test.



I don't think the online ones mean anything. I think they are supposed to feed people egos and sell them detailed reports about how smart they are. People do take tests like the SATs/ACTs (for college applications), and GREs (graduate school) which are aptitude tests but I'm not sure how well they correlate with IQ tests. One needs to know algebra and geometry for the math portions of those tests, though.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-31, 05:09 PM
One needs to know algebra and geometry for the math portions of those tests, though.

Then they're absolutely not IQ tests, yeah, and have nothing to do with IQ tests. IQ tests have to be knowledge-independent. (This makes the language portions really dodgy.)

Cybren
2008-10-31, 06:11 PM
I don't think the online ones mean anything. I think they are supposed to feed people egos and sell them detailed reports about how smart they are. People do take tests like the SATs/ACTs (for college applications), and GREs (graduate school) which are aptitude tests but I'm not sure how well they correlate with IQ tests. One needs to know algebra and geometry for the math portions of those tests, though.

At the very least, Mensa used to accept ACT scores from before a certain year. I don't know if they still grand father in those scores or not.

horseboy
2008-10-31, 06:59 PM
I already went into this, but this is absolutely not correct, if for no other reason than that both IQ and Int have a normal distribution (in fact, IQ is defined by it), and IQ 180 and Int 18 are not at the same distance from the midpoint.

Then there's the whole issue of assuming that IQ and the Intelligence ability are even remotely the same thing. Even if Intelligence (the ability score) equated to intelligence, you're assuming intelligence equates to IQ. None of the three are necessarily connected.

Tell that to WotC

I’d like to know just how intelligent a human character
with an Intelligence score of 3 is. What is the character’s
approximate IQ? Is the character considered mentally
handicapped or just slow? Can he carry a normal
conversation or does he have problems speaking?
A character with an Intelligence score of 3 is smarter that
most animals, but only barely. Any creature with an
Intelligence score of 3 or higher can understand at least one
language (MM 7). A human with an Intelligence score of 3 can
speak Common but doesn’t have a good vocabulary (perhaps a
few hundred one- and two-syllable words), and the character
doesn’t have a good grasp of syntax and grammar. The
character speaks and understands only simple subject-verb
sentences and probably has problems with things such as past
and future tense.
Intelligence also affects memory and reasoning, so the
example character doesn’t have much of a head for facts, and
the character is not very good at arithmetic.
Ten points of IQ per point of Intelligence is a good rule of
thumb, so your example character has an IQ of about 30. How
others perceive and treat the example character depends on
social conditions in the campaign. Most cultures in a D&D
world are pretty tolerant—they have to be just so they can get
along in a place that contains the wide variety of creatures that
inhabit most D&D worlds. In such cultures, terms such as
“dull” and “slow” probably don’t get much use, at least in
respect to a person’s mental capacity. When your own
Intelligence is about average (10) you’re “slow” compared to a
dragon, beholder, mind flayer, or other creature that might live
right next door or lurk beyond the next valley. Still, elitism and
a sense of superiority can exist just about anywhere.
It is a good bet, however, that the example characters’
associates, relatives, and neighbors know the character’s mental
limitations, and that they adjust

hamishspence
2008-10-31, 07:09 PM
Is "The Sage" the official voice of WOTC? I thought at the time he was employed by Paizo.

horseboy
2008-10-31, 07:13 PM
That reminds me:

If anyone has told you, since the year 1950, something like "IQ is mental age divided by physical age, multiplied by 100", please go and smack them in the face and tell them to please read up on scientific theories before repeating ones from almost a century ago as if they had anything to do with modern understanding.

I actually remember a teacher telling us that in grade school, in the freaking 90s. It's from the 1910s.

Oh, also, the SD is not always 15. This means that you can not even compare IQ to IQ unless you know which scale they are on, and that scale is the same one for both of them.Man, I thought it was bad my 3rd grade text book back in '82 said "Maybe some day we'll put a man on the moon."

Dyvim Matt
2008-11-01, 12:22 AM
@Hamishspence and Tsotha-lanti:

Thanks guys, there's definitely a few things I hadn't taken in consideration. I'm really not a good mathematician beyond basic statistics, and your replies have been a great help!

Tsotha-lanti
2008-11-01, 05:28 AM
Tell that to WotC

They're pretty gigantic idiots. (Granted, the general perception of psychology is always 20 to 30 years behind the field itself, so we're stuck with another 10-20 years of people thinking IQ measures intelligence.) IQ 30 is 4.66 SDs from the mean. Only something like 0.001% to 0.0001% (one in a hundred thousand or one in a million) of values are that far from the mean. This is defined as "severe mental retardation," just one step above IQ 1 and "profound mental retardation."

Fortunately, using the SD-equivalency, Int 3 would be as far from the mean as Int 18 is; it'd be a bit over IQ 60.

Incidentally, those super-smart people with IQs over 200? Testing error of some sort, or a scale with SD=24, for instance. IQ 205 is 7 SDs in the SD=15 scale. Only 0.000000000256% of observations (about one in four trillion!) would be above that. There aren't enough people to even make that likely, assuming anyone should even be able to score that high.