Let's Calculate Our Stats!

[Crow]

Ya know, the funny thing about ye olde combat gear? It's not the 32 pound chain shirt that gets you at the end of the day...it's that 4 pound sword on your hip. Totally tweaks your back to the left.

Damn true. I've had to switch my AR mags from my vest to my left hip to counterbalance the glock and pepper spray on my right hip. The sling over my right shoulder is a whole 'nother beast. Can't do much about that! All told, gear is about 33 pounds for 12 hours a day.

No end of back problems.

[hamishspence]

which is at the Light to Medium load borderline for St 10. Hmm, maybe not entirely coincidence?

[Darkmatter]

It seems that a number of posters do not know how IQ is constructed. It is in fact the best basis of an INT score (not necessarily of real-world "intelligence" - that is up for debate due to the flexibility of that definition) that we have available because it is actually fit to a bell curve. The 3d6 roll is supposed to be a bell curve representing the spread of scores for an average human. The Wechsler IQ is a Gaussian centered at 100 with a standard deviation of 15. The Stanford-Binet IQ is a Gaussian centered at 100 with a standard deviation of 16. 3d6 forms a coarse grained Gaussian centered at 10.5 with a standard deviation of 3. It is thus easy to fit the curves together, and you wind up with the following formula (for the more modern Wechsler IQ test):

(IQ - 100)/5 +10.5 = INT

INT is bounded by 3 and 18, and then age modifiers are added (since your IQ is normalized to your age.)

Thus an IQ of 102 traslates to an INT of 11, while an IQ of 98 translates to an INT of 10. Anyone with an IQ of 140 or (classified as "genius or near genius") higher would be capped at an INT of 18, and anyone with an IQ of 60 or lower (below "definite feeble-mindedness") would be capped at INT 3.

The only thing that would defeat this analysis is statistical misrepresentation due to "level advancement" in the real world (a bit asinine, I know). This would skew the average slightly higher, meaning that a high IQ is worth slightly less INT.

This having been said, these scores are only valid with a psycologist-administered test. Internet tests routinely give abnormally high scores, and also do not test short-term memory, spatial intelligence, or any of a host of other subtests. Also, IQ is only a series of tests which is made to be well normalized and is not at all universally accepted as a measure of the ephemeral quality of intelligence that modern society so esteems.

Also, my scores...

STR 9 (estimated from carrying capacity)
DEX 14 (estimated from statistical analysis of hitting a Fine target with improvised ranged weapons)
CON 10 (no real way to measure this - holding your breath gives scores that are ridiculously low or high. Online tests gave numbers that seemed too high.)
INT 18 (Multiple IQ tests)
WIS 13 (Based on online tests - seems accurate)
CHA 15 (Based on online tests - seems accurate)

Regarding higher than average INT among posters, I'd say it's not to be unexpected due to the nature of the hobby. Of course, INT is likely exaggerated as well, also due to the nature of the hobby.

[Nefarion Xid]

Damn true. I've had to switch my AR mags from my vest to my left hip to counterbalance the glock and pepper spray on my right hip. The sling over my right shoulder is a whole 'nother beast. Can't do much about that! All told, gear is about 33 pounds for 12 hours a day.

No end of back problems.

And there you have it. Even modern tactical gear is a biiitch. Thanks for that, sir.

33 pounds is damn tiring. And I'll bet our friend here isn't just in "average" shape either. I'll buy a hat and eat it if he can't bench more than 140!

The rules on carrying are simplified and overblown - because rules about sore backs are even less fun than calculating your encumbrance in the first place.

Strength scores should be easy to figure out. Any given person either can or cannot lift Y weight off the ground. If he can, then he must have a strength of X or greater.

Edit: (Fixed nasty logic error. Modus Typons.)

[Deepblue706]

The rules on carrying are simplified and overblown - because rules about sore backs are even less fun than calculating your encumbrance in the first place.

I dunno, I think some rolling to determine if whether or not I pulled something would be highly entertaining.

Sounds like something that should be in Hackmaster...

Aw man, now I wanna play Hackmaster. I've got a maimed, albino Gnome Titan Knight Errant with a psychotic aversion towards halflings that I've been wanting to play.

Anyhow, yeah - the stats are way too vague and a little broad to really assign directly to a real human being. GURPS has a good way of helping one to determine one's own stats: among the four attributes of Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence and Health, assign a 12, 11, 10 and 9, based on what you feel you are good/bad/etc at. Which, may as well be a 14, 12, 10 and 8 in D&D. With the two additional stats, you could be a little generous and perhaps grant yourself a 15 and 13 - and thus you have the elite array. Assign in order of your strengths, and I think you'll have as fair a game-based assessment as any other. The only exception may be STR, as you point out the necessity of having a certain score to be able to lift weight X.

[Nefarion Xid]

"Ah ha! I have just lifted X pounds."
"Oh, only a person with a Strength of Q could do that."
"Well then, my Strength must be Q!"

Now, honestly I've got lousy technique on my cleans, so I might not be able to put 260 overhead. Deadlift was 520 on the dot. Squat was 505 and Bench was 315. I'd have to mark that up as a 17 Strength in 3.5 standards.

Of course, according to the bell curve on a roll of 3d6...1/72 people would be able to do that kind of stuff. I'm inclined to totallyd discount the notion that everyone in the D&D world is cobbled together with 6 rolls of 3d6 - otherwise, in any given hamlet of 100 people, there would be some exceptionally strong and smart individuals.

[hamishspence]

which is what I've been saying- that its more than just the Lift.

same with not everyone being 3d6. Going by Cityscape, Heroes of Battle, Arms and Equipment Guide, DMG2, etc most people are commoners with non-elite array or standard array, most of remainder are experts, warriors, etc with non-elite array, and only a small proportion of NPC class people have the Elite array.

with cityscape, we get suggestion that a hefty chunk of the Fighters and Rogues in cities (PC classes) in fact have non-elite array rather than elite one.

that leaves PC classes (apart from some fighters and rogues) generally with elite array, and a very few Named Characters with randomly generated stats.

Mapping such to real world may be something of a presumption, but I do think its warranted- that only a small proportion of people are "elite" and only a small proportion of that would use, say, 4d6 take highest. These are the people who, many years on, are really famous.

but then, thats my way of looking at it- it may be a little harsh.

[Nefarion Xid]

There's no other way to determine Strength besides going on what you can lift, because the carrying tables are total bunk. It's just silly to think that anybody, even a "Hero", could march all day with a 200 pound load, let alone fight with it.

Matter of fact, the most important facet to Strength seems to be upper body strength (that's what makes you swing a sword harded, eh?). So, I'd venture to say that Bench Press is the most important factor to your Strength.

My Strength Chart

Bench (in pounds)...Your Score
40+...3
50+...4
60+...5
70+...6
80+...7
90+...8
100+...9
115+...10
130+...11
150+...12
175+...13
200+...14
230+...15
260+...16
300+...17
350+...18
400+...19
460+...20

[Kiero]

sounds exactly like all round Str-building activities.

I do think, howver, if you want to compare high Str adventurers to historical counterparts, legionaries are better than weightlifters for this.

I think there was a society that tested this sort of thing- they said the marches with heavy wargear weren't implausible.

True enough. Same way if you wanted to find someone who was the peak of physical fitness now, you wouldn't be looking for a bodybuilder. You could do worse than an infantryman.

[hamishspence]

hundred plus pound loads though, certainly. Dragon mag chose to use upper limit of Medium rather than Heavy load for long-term carrying, which is why the legionary was assumed to be Str 14.

and what about those scenes where a soldier is carried slumped over the shoulders of the guy rescuing him?

carrying limits should be looked at carefully, but I wouldn't say discard them.

[Deepblue706]

There's no other way to determine Strength besides going on what you can lift, because the carrying tables are total bunk. It's just silly to think that anybody, even a "Hero", could march all day with a 200 pound load, let alone fight with it.

Matter of fact, the most important facet to Strength seems to be upper body strength (that's what makes you swing a sword harded, eh?). So, I'd venture to say that Bench Press is the most important factor to your Strength.

My Strength Chart

Bench (in pounds)...Your Score
40+...3
50+...4
60+...5
70+...6
80+...7
90+...8
100+...9
115+...10
130+...11
150+...12
175+...13
200+...14
230+...15
260+...16
300+...17
350+...18
400+...19
460+...20

Hmm.

Makes sense, I suppose.

[Kiero]

Matter of fact, the most important facet to Strength seems to be upper body strength (that's what makes you swing a sword harded, eh?). So, I'd venture to say that Bench Press is the most important factor to your Strength.


No. Swinging a weapon, or a fist for that matter requires explosive power, not merely raw strength to lift things. Furthermore, it's technique - about transmitting power from your legs, through your hips, into your core and through your shoulders into your arms.

[dwagiebard]

No. Swinging a weapon, or a fist for that matter requires explosive power, not merely raw strength to lift things. Furthermore, it's technique - about transmitting power from your legs, through your hips, into your core and through your shoulders into your arms.

I'll second this-- in Aikido, which was developed by the samurai, and uses many techniques for swords, the thing that is stressed the most is that the power comes from your legs, and particularly the hips. You can't swing a sword very well with just your upper body.

This is also true for punching.

[Nefarion Xid]

This is not reflected in D&D, since a Level 5 Fighter with only 14 Strength does less base damage than a level 1 Fighter with 20 Strength.

Though, the more experienced fighter can mitigate and exceeded this with Power Attack and Weapon Specialization which would more properly reflect technique and training.

Without training...the orc warrior can swing a greatsword way harder than Joe the Farmer.

[OverdrivePrime]

I'll second this-- in Aikido, which was developed by the samurai, and uses many techniques for swords, the thing that is stressed the most is that the power comes from your legs, and particularly the hips. You can't swing a sword very well with just your upper body.

This is also true for punching.

It certainly doesn't hurt (you, not the target) to have tremendous upper body strength, but yes, almost all fighting hand-to-hand fighting styles derive the most power from the practitioner's hips.

And there is such a thing as too much beef. The Austrian Oak himself had to actually lose some muscle mass in his chest and arms when training for Conan the Barbarian - in his previous Mr. Olympia state he had difficulty bringing his hands together for fluid two-handed sword use.

I'm also kind of amazed that I have a 16 in Str and Int if I were to build my D&D character off of the methods of by Darkmatter and Nefarion Xid. And it's looking more and more like I've used Dex and Wisdom as my dump stats. So long Ranger, I'm goin' Warblade!

[Nefarion Xid]

Bah! Ah-nold was a body builder, not a competitive lifter or an athlete of any appreciable sort. Body builders are all about bulk and tone, not power. If you want to imagine what happens when a guy with 18-19 Strength swings something your way? Just think "Mark McGuire" not Conan.

[OverdrivePrime]

Bah! Ah-nold was a body builder, not a competitive lifter or an athlete of any appreciable sort. Body builders are all about bulk and tone, not power. If you want to imagine what happens when a guy with 18-19 Strength swings something your way? Just think "Mark McGuire" not Conan.
Eh, body builder vs weightlifter is a whole different thread (though I certainly agree). Suffice to say that at their 'roid-fueled prime, either had the strength to cleave through me and any three other large men if given a sufficiently sharp sword.

[dwagiebard]

Eh, body builder vs weightlifter is a whole different thread (though I certainly agree). Suffice to say that at their 'roid-fueled prime, either had the strength to cleave through me and any three other large men if given a sufficiently sharp sword.

But, as has also already been mentioned, skill with a sword isn't just strength, it's also training. Against a trained swordsmen, they would take that -4 penalty for not being proficient with the weapon, thus putting them on even ground.

[Bonecrusher Doc]

I dig the Bench Press --> STR conversion table. Yes, it's imperfect, but it's easy and readily available. I'm not about to go see how many pounds I can carry around for 8 hours and not drop of exhaustion, but I can estimate fairly easily what my 1-rep max is on the bench... which puts me at a 12 these days, right in line with my Easydamus STR score.

How about this for a similarly easy, if imperfect, Constitution score chart?

Start at 10.

Health
Subtract the number of times you have been sick enough to miss half a day or more of work or school in the past 12 months. (-1 point for each time you got that sick, not each day you missed). Does not include injuries, only illnesses.

Cardiovascular Endurance - yes, it would be nice to have VO2max scores, but this is easy:
Add 1 point if, in the past 12 months, you have run 2 miles without stopping (or bike or row or swim equivalent)
2 for 5 miles
3 for 10 miles
4 for 1/2 marathon
5 for marathon
6 for anything longer (ultra-marathon, Ironman triathlon, etc)

Pain Tolerance
-1 "I'm a big sissy when it comes to pain."
0 "I have a high tolerance for pain." (Trust me, I'm a physical therapist, everybody says this.)
+1 "Pain is weakness leaving the body!"
+2 "Pain... I love it... bring it on! <twitch, twitch>"

Toxin Processing Ability
-1 point if you are a "lightweight"
+1 point if you drink others under the table

[Weiser_Cain]

There's no other way to determine Strength besides going on what you can lift, because the carrying tables are total bunk. It's just silly to think that anybody, even a "Hero", could march all day with a 200 pound load, let alone fight with it.

Matter of fact, the most important facet to Strength seems to be upper body strength (that's what makes you swing a sword harded, eh?). So, I'd venture to say that Bench Press is the most important factor to your Strength.

My Strength Chart

Bench (in pounds)...Your Score
40+...3
50+...4
60+...5
70+...6
80+...7
90+...8
100+...9
115+...10
130+...11
150+...12
175+...13
200+...14
230+...15
260+...16
300+...17
350+...18
400+...19
460+...20

Yeah but when I swing a sword it's more my arms, core, and back working than my chest.

I don't even know my max bench actually...

[OverdrivePrime]

Quick and easy, Bonecrusher Doc. I like it.

[lisiecki]

Wow, thanks for saying that. I really appriciate it when people dissagree without getting mad at each other.

I think we're mostly just arguing about the terminology of "average", so it really depends upon your point of view. I think I'm right, you think you're right, and I don't think we're going to change each other's minds.

Not a worry, While i do believe that I am right, Your arguments have reasons behind them, and internal logic, unlike some of the other posters in this thread, who's reasons are "because i say so"

my reasoning really comes down to two things
A) IQ's are plotted on a bell curve, so it would make scene to me that the average would be far larger than the out lying areas.
A.1. Honestly, it really covers the 18 points that a character can have pretty darn well, the formula capping out at 175...

But HEY maybe one of the 4 people in this thread with an IQ of ABOVE 200 can work out a better formula. I would but im to busy getting my car to go 299,792,459 meters per second, and getting my freezer down to −460 degrees F

I have decided that my IQ is Apple Sigma Blue, after all its just as real an IQ score as any thing over 199


B) While yes, 85-99 are on the Lower end of average, I cant see why people would be losing skill points for being well with in the margin of error for the test.


Thus an IQ of 102 traslates to an INT of 11, while an IQ of 98 translates to an INT of 9.

So, you lose skill points for being 2 points below the median?

[Nefarion Xid]

Yeah but when I swing a sword it's more my arms, core, and back working than my chest.

I don't even know my max bench actually...

Hopefully you'd use the same things when benching. Cuz if you're just using your chest, you probably want to bring your hands in a little. (Yes, that's a joke)

[dwagiebard]

B) While yes, 85-99 are on the Lower end of average, I cant see why people would be losing skill points for being well with in the margin of error for the test.

So, you lose skill points for being 2 points below the median?

First, I never said that "IQ of 102 traslates to an INT of 11, while an IQ of 98 translates to an INT of 9.". I don't think that makes any sense.


Okay, here's where our views are slightly different.
I think:
On the IQ bellcurve, IQ90 and IQ110 are slightly different, and only merit a slight difference in Int bonus. This is reflected in my D&D table, where 90 gets 9, a -1 bonus, and 110 is 11 which gets 0.

You think:
On the IQ bellcurve IQ90 and IQ110 are only slightly different, and should therefore be exactly the same with a score of 10, a bonus of 0.

I appologize if I have misunderstood and misrepresented your views.



But HEY maybe one of the 4 people in this thread with an IQ of ABOVE 200 can work out a better formula. I would but im to busy getting my car to go 299,792,459 meters per second, and getting my freezer down to −460 degrees F

lol. Nobody here has an IQ above 200 as far as I know.

[lisiecki]

First, I never said that "IQ of 102 traslates to an INT of 11, while an IQ of 98 translates to an INT of 9.". I don't think that makes any sense.

yes

And at an INT 9, you lose skill points each time you level up

[dwagiebard]

yes

And at an INT 9, you lose skill points each time you level up

I said, I never said that IQ 98 deserved a penalty.

[lisiecki]

I said, I never said that IQ 98 deserved a penalty.

Im sorry, i thought you had been advocating for IQ/10

Sorry

Brain Fart

[dwagiebard]

Im sorry, i thought you had been advocating for IQ/10

Sorry

Brain Fart

With rounding to the nearest multiple of ten. See my table. IQ85-95 would be Int 9.

I just sent you a private message, can we take this off the thread so that we don't flood it with our nonsense?

[Shadic]

Hrm.. This seems to be about right, for me. I'm typically a "Jack of all trades" type, so...

Str: 12
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Int: 13
Wis: 16
Chr: 14

For Charisma, I was going to give myself a 12, as I can typically get what I want from people, and get along with them rather well... My girlfriend told me that I was wrong, and deserved a 15... So I settled.

[lisiecki]

With rounding to the nearest multiple of ten. See my table. IQ85-95 would be Int 9.

I just sent you a private message, can we take this off the thread so that we don't flood it with our nonsense?

Ok, a penility at -5 from from the the center

[Darkmatter]

Dwagiebard, the quote in question highlights a typo in my post. As a clarification, a penalty would not arise until an IQ of 92-93, 1/2 of a standard deviation below the norm.

[Weiser_Cain]

I really don't think we can calculate intelligence. I mean do my non math related skills just not count? Does imagination?

[OverdrivePrime]

Just went to the gym to see what my max is on bench. Holy smoke! I managed to impress myself. :smalleek:

Apparently you can really do a lot over a mildly dedicated year of exercise.

Anyway, it seems like we have fairly solid (if shifting by tiny bits) metrics for scoring Strength, Constitution and Intelligence. I'm pretty skeptical of finding a good measure for Dexterity, and Charisma seems nearly impossible to quantify. What were people's thoughts on measuring Wisdom? Is the NYT test a fairly good measure? Is anything better out there?

[The Minx]

Just went to the gym to see what my max is on bench. Holy smoke! I managed to impress myself. :smalleek:

Apparently you can really do a lot over a mildly dedicated year of exercise.

Anyway, it seems like we have fairly solid (if shifting by tiny bits) metrics for scoring Strength, Constitution and Intelligence. I'm pretty skeptical of finding a good measure for Dexterity, and Charisma seems nearly impossible to quantify. What were people's thoughts on measuring Wisdom? Is the NYT test a fairly good measure? Is anything better out there?

So what was your Strength, then?

The NYT test is questionable. I mean, I got 4.1 on it, which according to the OP translates to Wis 16, and there is no way that I'm that good.

[OverdrivePrime]

So what was your Strength, then?

The NYT test is questionable. I mean, I got 4.1 on it, which according to the OP translates to Wis 16, and there is no way that I'm that good.

Ah, if I use the Nefarion Xid scale, it's 17, and closing in on 18. It seems I'm stronger than I look.

Anyway, I agree about the wisdom test. With a lot of these tests, particularly the online ones, I suspect my scores may be inflated simply because I'm good at taking tests. The NYT one was a little different, and I think in most regards it's a fairly decent metric. However, it's got no questions to gauge willpower, which is pegged to Wisdom in the D&D universe. I pulled a 3.9 on the NYT test, for a 15 Wisdom, but my willpower is not one of my great strengths. With that taken into account, I'd peg my wisdom more around a 12.

[Crow]

Nef: I actually think Clean & Jerk (As one, not separate. So clean from the ground, to a jerk overhead.) would be a better indicator of strength as D&D defines it.

[Nefarion Xid]

Cleans are all about technique though. I remember some small-but-wirey guys who could clean 250-280...and it was just because their form was so good and they were freaking crazy (wouldn't take "no" for an answer from the weights). I was always afraid I was gonna hurt myself on that damn lift.

We didn't even do clean-and-jerks in high school...probably because some crazy redneck would have cracked his skull.

[Crow]

Cleans are all about technique though. I remember some small-but-wirey guys who could clean 250-280...and it was just because their form was so good and they were freaking crazy (wouldn't take "no" for an answer from the weights). I was always afraid I was gonna hurt myself on that damn lift.

We didn't even do clean-and-jerks in high school...probably because some crazy redneck would have cracked his skull.

Form is important, but it is also important in any other lift you do that isn't on a machine. To say that cleans are "all technique" is absolutely false. While proper technique is going to help, if you don't have the power (power is strength divided by time) required to get the weight to critical stages of the movement, all the technique in the world isn't going to help you.

The clean is a highly explosive movement that really has few peers when it comes to measuring power. The rapid opening and closing of the hips while lifting and balancing a heavy load is such an extremely athletic movement. Perfect for measuring Strength as the D&D game uses the stat.

[hamishspence]

I see Strongmen, and Competitors in World's Strongest Man competitions, as a bit closer- its not just what you can lift- its what you can lift, and move with.

though fiction books probably exaggerate somewhat- in Circus by Alistair Maclean, the strongman lifts 10 "circus girls" on one support and walks around with them- slowly.

The lightest female humans in D&D are 89 pounds- and a Str 21 person (12th level expert starting with 18 Str, for example) could do it.

[The Mormegil]

Hahahahahahahahahha!

Con: -34
Dex: 0.0456
Str: 5 (probable...)

[Celeres]

The clean is a highly explosive movement that really has few peers when it comes to measuring power. The rapid opening and closing of the hips while lifting and balancing a heavy load is such an extremely athletic movement. Perfect for measuring Strength as the D&D game uses the stat.

unless my weight training teacher in high school was lying, the clean uses 100% of the muscles in your body.

[OverdrivePrime]

unless my weight training teacher in high school was lying, the clean uses 100% of the muscles in your body.

Twitching your ears while pressing your tongue into the roof of your mouth is the secret to getting an extra tenth of a pound into your clean. :smalltongue:

[lisiecki]

Con and Dex are INCREDIBLY easy to figure out.

Humans are d4 hit dice creatures.
give an average person a dagger.
Have them try there best to stab you
if you doge 50% of the time your Dex is 10, add 2 for each 10% over 50 your able to doge.
If it takes one stab to drop you to the floor, then you have a con of 10,
Add 2 to your con score for each every stab it takes.




The scores in DandD are are used in an incredibly limited number of situations
And not very practical in the real world.
At least not the real world i live in.

[Crow]

Twitching your ears while pressing your tongue into the roof of your mouth is the secret to getting an extra tenth of a pound into your clean. :smalltongue:

It helps if you crap your pants in the process too. :smallbiggrin:

[John Campbell]

Con and Dex are INCREDIBLY easy to figure out.

Humans are d4 hit dice creatures.
give an average person a dagger.
Have them try there best to stab you
if you doge 50% of the time your Dex is 10, add 2 for each 10% over 50 your able to doge.
If it takes one stab to drop you to the floor, then you have a con of 10,
Add 2 to your con score for each every stab it takes.
This doesn't work at all, because the D&D combat system has a lot of bizarre and poorly implemented abstractions in it. In particular, misses aren't necessarily misses, hits aren't necessarily hits, and lost hit points don't necessarily represent actual injury.

See, in the real world, if you train at hand-to-hand combat, one of the effects of this is that your defense gets better; you get harder to hit. In D&D, however, training doesn't improve your AC; increased ability to defend yourself doesn't make you harder to roll a hit against. A 20th level Fighter's AC is no better than a 1st level Commoner's. What the 20th level Fighter has is lots more hit points, and those represent his improved defense. Most of those "hits" aren't actually injuring the 20th level Fighter... they're somehow whittling away the huge pool of hit points that abstractly represent the Fighter's ability to avoid blows.

The upshot of this is that, if someone slashes at you with a knife, and the knife doesn't cut you, it's possible that they simply rolled a miss. It's also possible that they rolled a hit, and did hit point damage to you without actually doing you any injury. There's no real way to tell. Without armor, the opposite - a rolled miss that actually hits you, but just doesn't do hit point damage (or probably actual injury either, in that case) - is going to be rare, but not impossible. And it's even possible for an attack that actually draws blood to be insignificant enough that it's not doing hit point damage.

And the assumption that all of us are 1st level Commoners with a single d4 HD is a bad one. I've got actual training at this kind of thing, as do a lot of other people... soldiers, martial artists, brawlers. I've got class levels. Based on the combat feats that I must have to do things that I can demonstrably do, I've got quite a few class levels, and almost certainly in Fighter (need those bonus feats... and this is another problem with the D&D system, because the number of feats I can have is small and strongly linked to my level, and so the number that I've demonstrably got necessarily puts my BAB and HD well above where I think they probably should be).

So in the real world, because I actually know how to defend myself against someone coming at me with a blade, I'm going to be a lot harder to get a knife into than someone who isn't similarly trained. However, in D&D terms, this isn't represented in my AC, it's represented in my HP, and it's not obvious whether a missed attack is an actual miss or a "hit" that does HP damage without doing actual injury, so there's no real way to tell whether the number of stabs that it takes to drop me are the result of my Dex, the result of my Con, or just the result of the size and quantity of my HD. Or even the result of feats like Dodge that would affect my AC, that it's possible that I have, but can't prove either way.

And that's all ignoring that you'd have to repeat this test many, many times to smooth out all the random factors involved.


Also, your math is wrong.

[lisiecki]

This doesn't work at all, because the D&D combat system has a lot of bizarre and poorly implemented abstractions in it. In particular, misses aren't necessarily misses, hits aren't necessarily hits, and lost hit points don't necessarily represent actual injury.
And that's all ignoring that you'd have to repeat this test many, many times to smooth out all the random factors involved.
Also, your math is wrong.

Yes, but the 6 stats in D&D have nothing to do with real people and the way real life works.
From other games in the D20 line, I'm taking the 4 humanonid hit points to represent the abiltiy that the flesh and bone of the human body to handle physical damage, and hit points ans training to avoid damage.

The PHB Spells out EXACTLY what each stat means, and represents.
Trying to take what the numbers in a cinematic, action biased RPG, and trying to apply them to the real world, isnt going to work well

It boggles my mind that people are looking at the numbers of the stats, and coming up with there own way to define the stats "In the real world".
The PHB clearly says what each and every mechanic in the game means, exactly.

There was some one earlier in the thread who mentioned "Picking a lock" as a way to measure his dexterity.

However, if the world were governed by D&D rules, then there is no way, that any one who has not been trained to pic locks, can ever pick a lock in any situation

"Untrained You cannot pick locks untrained, but you might successfully force them open. "


Ah your right, hit points are given at the con modifier.




Im sorry, but if im going to beleve that you have class levels then i also have to beleve that guy from before who said that he's Paladin2/Cleric2.

Meaning that he has Aura of good, detect evil, smite evil Divine grace, lay on hands. as well as the ability to heal the wounds of others at least twice per day.
and he can turn the undead
In order for him to be able to turn the undead
the undead have to exist.
So assuming that hes telling me the truth, I live in a world with the undead in it.

[Nefarion Xid]

You cannot pick a lock without training (in any reasonable span of time)...of course a million monkeys with typewriters and infinite time...and you know how that goes.

As a person who owns a set of lock picks and knows a thing of three about picking AND trying to pick a lock with little/no training...I'd just like to confirm this PHB prognosis.

Possible exclusions could be made for any number of locks with only one or two pins - like the sort you'd see on high school lockers etc. Any moron could pop one of those suckers open with a paper clip.

Back to Strength...The Clean-and-jerk may be the most awesome display of power and grace and dedication to physical perfection that a human being could ever aspire to. After all, that's why they do it at the Olympics. But, it's also dangerous. So, I sure don't recommend running off to the local gym and trying to attempt this to figure out what your Strength score is. They'll probably throw you out.

Conversely, almost everyone can get access to a bench and figure out what they can press. And, there's very little chance of serious injury here.

[lisiecki]

You cannot pick a lock without training (in any reasonable span of time)...of course a million monkeys with typewriters and infinite time...and you know how that goes.
As a person who owns a set of lock picks and knows a thing of three about picking AND trying to pick a lock with little/no training...I'd just like to confirm this PHB prognosis.
Possible exclusions could be made for any number of locks with only one or two pins - like the sort you'd see on high school lockers etc. Any moron could pop one of those suckers open with a paper clip.


Yes, this is completely and utterly true in the real world.
However, if the real world were governed by the rules of the d20 system, then no lock would ever be able to be be picked by some one whos untrained at it, as the PHB dose not allow for exceptions.


Its a good thing that we live in a real world, where that's not based on cinematic fantasy action ;)

[OverdrivePrime]

Back to Strength...The Clean-and-jerk may be the most awesome display of power and grace and dedication to physical perfection that a human being could ever aspire to. After all, that's why they do it at the Olympics. But, it's also dangerous. So, I sure don't recommend running off to the local gym and trying to attempt this to figure out what your Strength score is. They'll probably throw you out.

Conversely, almost everyone can get access to a bench and figure out what they can press. And, there's very little chance of serious injury here.

Amen. Clean and jerk is incredibly impressive, but I think you need ranks in 'lifting' to attempt it properly. I'm steering well clear of trying a serious clean and jerk until I practice a lot, and actually get taught how to do it. I'm no weightlifter - just a guy who lifts weights after work.

[Bonecrusher Doc]

Yeah, I have never tried the clean and jerk myself, but I've treated several patients who injured their backs pretty badly attempting it.

I think we're all agreed that it's silly to try to find direct parallels to D&D stats in real life, but we're trying anyway. Let's not take it too seriously.
-Seems like we've got a few ways to measure STR. Bench press is easy.
-As far as DEX that computer test is kinda lousy but it's the best we've got so far, unless I missed a couple posts in there.
-For CON you might try holding your breath, or we can base it off several factors like my questionnaire.
-While psychologists have been attempting to measure different kinds of intelligence for decades, it seems that a majority of people here agree we can roughly base INT on either IQ scores or education level, at least for grins.
-I couldn't get that online Wisdom test to open but it seems to be working for some people - though whether it is relevant to the WIS stat is a matter of debate.
...which leaves that fiendishly difficult CHA score! I guess there's a reason why people call it je ne sais quoi, if I'm using that expression correctly. Does anybody have an idea?


Charisma measures a character's force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.

Personally I think it will have to be some sort of composite of several scores... after all, there are plenty of people who are not physically attractive but still very able leaders, and even more people vice versa! But perhaps somebody can come up with an out-of-the-box solution...

[Nefarion Xid]

4E excludes "physical attractiveness" as a facet of Charisma. So, for those of us lacking the ability to burn things with our mind (warlocks), we really only have Cha based skills to go by; Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate (without accounts for all around being inspiriting and Leader-like). Maybe drive 80 MPH on the highway in 20 different counties and count up how many times you manage to talk your way out of a speeding ticket.

I'm inclined to think that poker may be one of the best indicators of Wisdom+Charisma. Because, I know guys who can eyeball a situation and give you the over/under to a 2% margin of error...but I'll beat the pants off of them every single week.

The Myers-Briggs personality inventory might shed some light on all the mental scores. Introverted people might get a +1 Intelligence while Extroverted folks would get +1 Charisma. Sensing +1 Wisdom, Intuition +1 Charisma. Thinking +1 Int, Feeling +1 Wisdom. And then no modifiers on the Judging/Perceiving dimension.

[lisiecki]

Except for Bono
Bono gets to be a level 20 bard
Inspire competence
Suggestion
Inspire courage
Inspire greatness
Song of freedom
Inspire courage
Inspire heroics
Mass suggestion
Inspire courage

He seems to have all of those

Im still looking for some one to clear up how a human being, living on the same planet i do, has turn undead

[lisiecki]

Wow, I've finally found it, the ONLY time i have EVER seen an IQ score listed in a d20 game.
Although even they know that IQ scores top out at 200...

Above average (+1 to +2)
IQ 120-130/140-150
You are bright, intelligent, well read, clever, and smart. You probably went to college or you are just naturally
clever. Most professionals and graduates may be of this level.

Gifted (+3 to +4)
IQ 160-170/180-190, MENSA genius levels
You are very intelligent and you could excel in your chosen fields. You might have a Master’s degree or a PhD – or
you could try for one.

Human peak levels (+5 to +6)
Peak human intelligence IQ 200 / IQ 200+
You rank as one of the finest minds around. You could be a leading Professor with a good reputation.

Enhanced human (+7 to +8)
At this point IQ becomes irrelevant as sheer genius, unconventional, or unique thought patterns defy most academic
forms of measurement.

10-11 +0 Average adult
12-13 +1 Above average
14-15 +2 Well above average
16-17 +3 Gifted
18-19 +4 Highly gifted
20-21 +5 Best in a nation
22-23 +6 Best in the world
24-25 +7 Best ever; peak of human achievement


So yes, I would like to apologize to all those people on this board with the +7 and up scores.
I know the only reason that you make us live in a world with AIDS is because we don't deserve to be happy.

[Battleship789]

Although even they know that IQ scores top out at 200...

This depends on the type of IQ test you take. If we use a WAIS-style IQ test, a score above 200 is technically possible though it is several standard deviations above the mean (5 or more), which, though ridiculous, is statistically possible (just as a person having a negative IQ is statistically possible). Remember, just because "logic" demands that there is no below zero score doesn't mean that this same "logic" demands no score over 200.

With ratio IQ tests, which are considered highly erroneous, it is relatively easy to get a 200+ score if you are younger than the age of 10 with an above average intelligence. E.G. Actual age: 4 years old. Mental age: 8 years old. Result: 200 IQ. Once a person ages to 25, almost everyone is in the 95-105 range because it is hard to track "intelligence" on people over that age with a ratio test. The ratio test formula is: (Mental age/actual age)*100.

Still, I think intelligence is more of a natural born thing, not necessarily learned book knowledge. Most people could achieve a college degree in a specialized field if they really applied themselves. However, a person with natural aptitude for said field will do well enough to succeed, even without applying themself. When these people apply themselves they become truly extraordinary. The person sitting behind someone in a math class who never has to study while still managing to pull A's and B's, while another student studies deep into the night for the same score, is generally considered the more intelligent one, even though both got the same score on a test. A good test taker (or guesser, if the test was multiple choice) would throw off this statement, though we will assume for this argument that they are both equally adept at taking tests and that the test is not multiple choice. Additionally, I would say that speed also plays a role in intelligence. An intelligent person is not only able to understand and utililize an idea, but is able to do so quickly.

Stating myself out, I'd say(using no formulas, just my opinion):

Str: 10 (Meh, average. Though I haven't lifted any weights for a while, somehow I've gained muscle since going to college, so it could be higher.)

Dex: 13 (fairly good hand-eye coordination, if I accidently drop something I can generally catch it before it hits the floor)

Con: 8 (I get sick almost every winter, *whimper* :smallfrown:, though that could just be my allergies.)

Int: 16-17 (Tooting my horn a bit here, though I think it is fairly deserved. I pick up on concepts from advanced topics pretty fast (few minutes tops, some examples are multivariable calculus (I had to learn this to do physics problems even though I am only in a single-variable integration class. :smalleek: Bad scheduling on my part ftw.), and single dimension quantum mechanics and I can think my way out of most problems.)

Wis: 13 (One of those stats that is hard to quantify, though I would think my Wis is around here. I don't always make the best decisions though they are usually sound, as shown above.)

Cha: 12 (I'm slightly above average with people, though my friends might suggest otherwise. If someone sticks around me for a short time they will generally come to like me. I can make friends with almost anyone, though there have been a few exceptions.)


Gifted (+3 to +4)
IQ 160-170/180-190, MENSA genius levels
You are very intelligent and you could excel in your chosen fields. You might have a Master’s degree or a PhD – or
you could try for one.

For a correction, MENSA accepts individuals with a percentile score of 98+. This corresponds to an IQ of 132 on the Stanford-Binet, a 148 on the CFIT, and around a 135 on the WAIS.

[Brainfart]

I got a score of 19.1 seconds for the Dex game on the first try. That can't be right. :smallbiggrin:

[Eldariel]

I got a score of 19.1 seconds for the Dex game on the first try. That can't be right. :smallbiggrin:

You're just good. Don't bother taking that away from yourself. How much did you get your third try?

[lisiecki]

You're just good. Don't bother taking that away from yourself. How much did you get your third try?

Yep, your just that good...

Peak Human Agility (+5 to +6)
You are one of the finest examples of honed reflexes, reaction times and superb motor skill. You could be a record setting Olympic gymnast.

[lisiecki]

For a correction, MENSA accepts individuals with a percentile score of 98+. This corresponds to an IQ of 132 on the Stanford-Binet, a 148 on the CFIT, and around a 135 on the WAIS.

Hmmmmm?

Nope, sorry, that is actually what the book says.
I have, in fact retyped what it said correctly.
If you'd like for it to be corrected, then let Green Ronin Games know.
When they update the book, ill be sure to recopy it correctly.

[Immutep]

I've seen this around, and I'm sure it's been done before, but let's try it. The other systems I've seen for calculating stats didn't work out so well, so let's make one. The base things I've gathered and figured out myself are as follows, please don't hesitate in revising and suggesting new methods of finding your stats!

STR: You'll have to help me figure out how to calculate this one. You can't just use consecutive push-ups divided by 3, because people of different weights have different results with push-ups. EDIT: Look at the lifting tables in the PHB, and equate how much you can lift over your head, to your strength.

DEX: Play this game (http://members.iinet.net.au/~pontipak/redsquare.html) three times, then pick your highest score, and divide it by 1.15 .

CON: 18 minus the times you've been sick in the past 3 years.

INT: Your IQ, minus 100, times 2, plus 100, divided by 10.
((Your IQ - 100)2 +100)/10

WIS: I was thinking of taking your score from this test (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/magazine/20070430_WISDOM.html) and multiplying it by 3, to a maximum of 18. EDIT: Multiply by 3.9, not 3

CHA: You're going to have to help me with this too. There's some problems with this. You could be the nicest person in the world, but if you're ugly, many shallow people would be less apt to being influenced by you, which is what charisma is. And vice versa. EDIT: Judge for yourself, are you popular? Not popular? Do you have lots of varied friends (that is friends from different social groups)? And give yourself a score.

Let's do this, people! :smallbiggrin:

The strength equates to 12 i think. The heaviest thing i know that i've lifted above my head was 40kg (89-ish pounds) but that was about 6 years ago and maybe that'd be easier/harder now.

My Dex score worked out at 4 (think i need to readjust mouse sensitivety) :smallfrown: EDIT; I've tweaked the mouse seetings and am now getting a score of 11 for Dex.

Con (not sure here, does a cold you can ignore count as being ill? also what about broken bones?) If the answer is no to both these then my score is 15, If broken bones do count then 14, if sniffles count then roughly -12!

Wisdom= the link just showed up as html, don't know if that WAS the test as i never learned to read raw html code or if it just failed to work.

Int (based on an IQ test taken when i was 12, which is almost 15 years ago now) 17.8 are we rounding fractions off, or down like in D&D?

Cha . . . . . tricky to say what the score would be really, I'm fairly well liked across a range of different people. And i've never struggled getting girlfriends or casual flings with women (and if i liked men too then there would be lots more choice). But on the flip side of this i have no idea how to reference this in a score form. I'd like to think it was at least above average but maybe i'm wrong. Other people should ideally give you a rating for charisma.

Lets say 14 (i worked this out on number of facebook friends i had that i actually new and weren't related, then plus one for every girl i'd @@@@@@@ that was still on speaking terms Divided by five). in case somebody wants to reference this method and let us know if it's way off the mark.

[lisiecki]

Int (based on an IQ test taken when i was 12, which is almost 15 years ago now) 17.8 are we rounding fractions off, or down like in D&D?


WOW 170 at age 12

Hey,

Ummmmm Could you get around to curing AIDS for us?
I mean since you in the upper 1% of human minds to have ever existed, it really would be nice of you

[Immutep]

WOW 170 at age 12

139 -100=39
39x2=78
78+100=178
178/10=17.8

Don't know what test this was, would have to go to my mothers and fish out the paperwork. to find out but it wasn't 170.

[Immutep]

You know, i don't think these guides are satcking up right at all. The PHB clearly state that an average human score would be 10 for all stats, It also says that PC's traditionally are the one's with score that go higher than this in any significant way are adventurers so logically, we're all too powerful by these definitions (for example i could agree with the strength score i got . . . at a push, but for me to get above 10 on Dex?) I have spouts of clumsiness that defy belief hence the broken bone i mentioned.

[Eldariel]

Yep, your just that good...

Peak Human Agility (+5 to +6)
You are one of the finest examples of honed reflexes, reaction times and superb motor skill. You could be a record setting Olympic gymnast.

Well duh, nobody said the tests are accurate. 19.1 on the first try is still pretty insane though. Mostly, the game just shows how much RTS-games you've played. Anyone with over 200 average APM in Starcraft should pull over 20 in that.

[lisiecki]

139 -100=39
39x2=78
78+100=178
178/10=17.8

Don't know what test this was, would have to go to my mothers and fish out the paperwork. to find out but it wasn't 170.

Damn... Here i go once again basing the things that im talking about on the rules and information given in the rule books that say things like

Gifted (+3 to +4)
IQ 160-170/180-190, MENSA genius levels
You are very intelligent and you could excel in your chosen fields. You might have a Master’s degree or a PhD – or
you could try for one.

[hamishspence]

I tended to favour the elite array as guideline- 15 Int is Elite- you are a specialist- you've made a career out of your intelligence- you have a degree (or two)

so, the Ordinary PHD Candidate- is Int 15, and through Levelling may have boosted it some- 17 is Level 10 Elite Expert- pretty capable in that field chosen.

To me, Int 18 (at first level) is future Big Name Scientist territory.

Same could apply to anything- Cha 15 is good actor, Cah 17 is good actor at the height of his career, Cha 18 at first level is one of the best in his generation.

And so on.

[lisiecki]

I tended to favour the elite array as guideline- 15 Int is Elite- you are a specialist- you've made a career out of your intelligence- you have a degree (or two)
o, the Ordinary PHD Candidate- is Int 15, and through Levelling may have boosted it some- 17 is Level 10 Elite Expert- pretty capable in that field chosen.
To me, Int 18 (at first level) is future Big Name Scientist territory.
Same could apply to anything- Cha 15 is good actor, Cah 17 is good actor at the height of his career, Cha 18 at first level is one of the best in his generation.nd so on.


I...I...
I love you.
there is some one else on this board who dosnt think that every single person on this board is a demigod!

[hamishspence]

i've been saying that since about page 5 or so. But I use the books a lot- big collection. You can make a quite capable career in Cityscape at Best Stat 13- a "typical thief" "typical expert" "typical warrior" will start out like this.

For Str, I tended to insist you have to be able to Move with the weight- like in Britains Strongest Man competitions. Pick up 300 pounds and raise it above your head. But then, move along at 30 ft per 6 seconds, without tiring fast, or lift 600 pounds off the ground, supported very carefully, and move at a pace of 5 ft every 6 seconds- for a short time like a minute or so- Thats Str 18.

[Immutep]

Damn... Here i go once again basing the things that im talking about on the rules and information given in the rule books that say things like

Gifted (+3 to +4)
IQ 160-170/180-190, MENSA genius levels
You are very intelligent and you could excel in your chosen fields. You might have a Master’s degree or a PhD – or
you could try for one.

If i worked it out on the books and what i belive ny stats are based on those guidlines, then it might work out more like this:

Str=11
Dex=9(8?)
Con=13
Wis=12
Int=12
Cha=??11-13??

But who knows, it's very hard to judge these things since they are relative at best.

[Eldariel]

Who actually thinks so? Most of these results are in accordance to the methods in the first page, which of course result in ridiculously high numbers. I don't think anyone is taking them seriously. Alternatively, we could just assume your average human f*cking sucks. That said, the average IQ of these boards would be something like 160 going by these posts, which would pretty much mean that we'd all be MENSA geniuses (someone offered the explanation that we're wasting our capacity on games, which is why we haven't done anything major - I somehow find it hard to believe that someone here would let their studies be hindered by a past-time game).

[Nefarion Xid]

I'm willing to believe that 12-13 passes for average intelligence, at least as far as people with the capability and desire to browse these sort of forums go. A) You have access to a computer and that's indicative of you...not living with a tribe in the rainforest. B) You're literate. Both good signs that you stack up better than the global average and are certainly better off than the dirt farming Commoner in D&DLand.

For everything else, I'd go for the following guidelines...

Physical Scores
At least one score 14-16. About the level of a high school athlete.
At least one score 17-19. College athlete; we're talking Big 12 linemen who might bench 400 pounds or Olympic hopeful gymnasts.
At least one score 19-21. Major League athletes. Some Olympians.
At least one score 21-23 (the peak of human achievement in some systems). Olympic greats. Real world heroes and legends

Intelligence
14-16. Not strictly related to academic performance. If not the top of your high school class, then certainly one of the very brightest. Some undergraduate work.
17-18. Post grad work. Either absolutely exceptional in a field or profoundly well rounded. The Frasier Cranes of the world.
19-21. Doctorate almost required. Working on the bleeding edge of your field. Possibly just a local game store owner who just happens to know everything about everything.
22-23. True revolutionaries and geniuses for the ages.

Charisma
14-16. Theatre professionals, favorite teachers, "That guy/girl from high school".
17-18. State representative and senators. Any number of movie stars.
19-21. Presidents, A-List stars.
22-23. Oprah, JFK, Churchhill, Hitler, Socrates

[Immutep]

Who actually thinks so? Most of these results are in accordance to the methods in the first page, which of course result in ridiculously high numbers. I don't think anyone is taking them seriously. Alternatively, we could just assume your average human f*cking sucks. That said, the average IQ of these boards would be something like 160 going by these posts, which would pretty much mean that we'd all be MENSA geniuses (someone offered the explanation that we're wasting our capacity on games, which is why we haven't done anything major - I somehow find it hard to believe that someone here would let their studies be hindered by a past-time game).

You've obviously not met me by that comment!:smallsmile:

Although i don't think you can say it is a waste to play these sorts of games. Going on the fact that nintendo are selling brain training and other such things that i've heard second hand, any past-time that encourages use of brain activity is like a form of excercise for the brain. D&D in it's very nature is complex, through the DM you get all kinds of mental challenges thrown at you, and it inspires the imagination.

[Deepblue706]

You've obviously not met me by that comment!:smallsmile:

Although i don't think you can say it is a waste to play these sorts of games. Going on the fact that nintendo are selling brain training and other such things that i've heard second hand, any past-time that encourages use of brain activity is like a form of excercise for the brain. D&D in it's very nature is complex, through the DM you get all kinds of mental challenges thrown at you, and it inspires the imagination.

Although I believe brain-training can work if properly done, nintendo has commented on whether-or-not their games actually work. Their response was basically, "We're in the entertainment business". Brain Age and Big Brain Academy might do you some good, but it's not as significant as simply living a healthier and more productive lifestyle.

And D&D isn't very complex. To be honest, I find its simplicity is the only reason it has any appeal to me. It's something I can just jump into and go have fun with.

[Immutep]

Although I believe brain-training can work if properly done, nintendo has commented on whether-or-not their games actually work. Their response was basically, "We're in the entertainment business". Brain Age and Big Brain Academy might do you some good, but it's not as significant as simply living a healthier and more productive lifestyle.

And D&D isn't very complex. To be honest, I find its simplicity is the only reason it has any appeal to me. It's something I can just jump into and go have fun with.


Maybe, for people who play it (therefore are clever enough to play it, and also found an apeal in it). but if you actually took the rulebooks down to the local supermarket (assuming you don't live near Oxford University or some such place, where freak chance could cause an inbalance) and asked everyone there if they thought the rule sets are simple, then i doubt you'd hit 50% of the answers being yes. Which by that you could quite fairly judge that you need a certain mental aptitude for this sort of game.

[lisiecki]

Maybe, for people who play it (therefore are clever enough to play it, and also found an apeal in it). but if you actually took the rulebooks down to the local supermarket (assuming you don't live near Oxford University or some such place, where freak chance could cause an inbalance) and asked everyone there if they thought the rule sets are simple, then i doubt you'd hit 50% of the answers being yes. Which by that you could quite fairly judge that you need a certain mental aptitude for this sort of game.

Really?

So just walk up to some one at the store, show them the book, and ask them if they get it or not?


WOW...

I mean i must be a moron, I still dont understand at least 30% of Mutants and masterminds...

[XAnansiX]

If i believed in God I'd make a decent Cloistered cleric!

I'd put my self at around...
9-10 str
14 dex (pretty agile and I've done lots of sparing etc)
8-9 con
13-14 int (135 i.q on the one out of 180)
16 wisdom (i got this on your test and it sounds about right)
11-12 cha

Your dex test is way too hard (that or my screwed up table and crappy mouse scewed my scores a bunch :p)

[lisiecki]

If i believed in God I'd make a decent Cloistered cleric!

I'd put my self at around...
9-10 str
14 dex (pretty agile and I've done lots of sparing etc)
8-9 con
13-14 int (135 i.q on the one out of 180)
16 wisdom (i got this on your test and it sounds about right)
11-12 cha

Your dex test is way too hard (that or my screwed up table and crappy mouse scewed my scores a bunch :p)

Wow...
so having te same dex score as a gymnast is to low for you?
wow...
Damn

I still find it AMAZING that the mental l33t of this world dont understand that there is a book that lists these things in comparison to real people...
I posted them above in red and blue...

[Deepblue706]

Maybe, for people who play it (therefore are clever enough to play it, and also found an apeal in it). but if you actually took the rulebooks down to the local supermarket (assuming you don't live near Oxford University or some such place, where freak chance could cause an inbalance) and asked everyone there if they thought the rule sets are simple, then i doubt you'd hit 50% of the answers being yes. Which by that you could quite fairly judge that you need a certain mental aptitude for this sort of game.

If it was the supermarket, I'd probably encounter a lot of middle-aged adults who go through stressful days and are too tired to go through reading some crappy book about a silly Role-Playing game. They'd probably tell me "I've already got a role to play, as a worker, spouse and parent". I think interest is a more critical factor than raw intelligence, here.

[ForzaFiori]

lets see...
str: 12 or 13. for my size 'm pretty strong
dex: 11 - 13. I'm pretty flexible, and have had people try to get me to be a gymnist, and have several sparring medals.
con: 10 ish. I can hold my breath good, and take alot of punishment, but i get sick alot
int:16-17. my IQ is around 160 or 170, and i'm a member of MENSA. I plan on getting a doctorate in History.
wis: 10, if not lower. I lack common sense.
cha: 11 or 12. I'm fairly well liked.

[Grail]

using the methods in the original post:

STR 13
DEX 17
CON 10
INT ?
WIS 15
CHA 14

Now, using my unbiased take on me:

STR 13
DEX 12
CON 10
INT 15
WIS 13
CHA 13

[golentan]

STR 8, DEX 10, CON 10, INT 18, WIS 14, CHA 3, by the methods listed here. (Wowzers on the INT. I wouldn't put myself that high.)

I decided on the CHA based on the following: I have spent half an hour trying to interject a single comment into a conversation on numerous occasions, people distrust me even after I prove myself repeatedly. And I have trouble distinguishing between myself and things I read or hear about, both ways (The number of false memories I have is truly staggering, and I've frequently attributed things to others that reliable witnesses pointed out I did).

I think the DEX is off. I critically failed that test twice, then tracked the patterns to figure out where to move when rather than doing reaction time. I have slow reflexes and shaky hands.

I think I'd have to go with wizard for my class with these stats.

Edit: On the subject of the IQ debates, May I point out that an 18 on a 3d6 (Standard for NPCs) is roughly 99.587th percentile? Which is just under an IQ of 145 on the Deviation IQ scale, almost exactly aligning with the OP. Think of it as 1 in 216, I think the deviations work out roughly evenly, and fit the data fairly. Yes, you get high scores if you're in the top 1% of 1% (Which is what 160 actually MEANS), but it's not that unreasonable.

And as for the Ivory Tower comments: AARRGGHH!!!!!!! If I had a nickel for every time some ignoramus dismissed the practical implications of the work of myself or a colleague on the grounds that it was "Non-applicable Ivory Tower thinking that wouldn't work on the ground," I'd be set to retire 40 years early. Which is especially ironic given the number of times that field tests support the "Ivory Tower crazy ideas" over the "Practical, REAL knowledge" of the people who commissioned and dismissed the work in the first place.

[Ozymandias]

Wow...
so having te same dex score as a gymnast is to low for you?
wow...
Damn

I still find it AMAZING that the mental l33t of this world dont understand that there is a book that lists these things in comparison to real people...
I posted them above in red and blue...

Could you please stop that? It's one book in a horribly inconsistent rule-set that more or less ignores analytical statistics and therefore doesn't really lend itself to one, unified analysis.

Interpretation does not mean finding one thing and throwing everything else away, then repeatedly deprecating other's opinions ad nauseam. (Leave that to literary critics.)

You clearly disagree with a model that conforms to a normal distribution of scores. That's fine, but stop bringing it up constantly.

[lisiecki]

Could you please stop that? It's one book in a horribly inconsistent rule-set that more or less ignores analytical statistics and therefore doesn't really lend itself to one, unified analysis.

As opposed to a set of rules that were completely and utterly put togher by some one at the start of this thread?



Interpretation does not mean finding one thing and throwing everything else away, then repeatedly deprecating other's opinions ad nauseam. (Leave that to literary critics.)

Oh i was disagreeing with these scores LONG before i happened upon benchmarks, as, the VAST majority of the people in this thread have multiple scores that are 15+ and typically INT scores that are no lower than 16



You clearly disagree with a model that conforms to a normal distribution of scores. That's fine, but stop bringing it up constantly.

As soon as people start giving scores that are practical i will, where on what our tenth person that has an IQ of 180 or above?

Im still trying to figure out some one in rhe world i live in, has the turn undead class ability...

[hamishspence]

CoC d20 has a few- acrobat, weightlifter, guru, and corresponding stats. While not D&D, it is convertable to it, same dice mechanic, and the stats equivalents are a good starting point.

in an Alisdair Maclean book, Circus, the strongman lifted ten small women "Cirus girls" and paraded around the ring with them. I worked out that, assuming this was staggering equivalent, 5 ft per round movement, and the people were arund the lower limit weight for D&D characters- 89 pounds, this equated to Str 21, which could be achieved by a high level commoner starting with Str 18.

[Ronan]

I would not cap the stats at 18. I believe there are people that pratice their stats. An athlete can have very high physical stats. Extreme can be applied. Wrestlers/Weigh lifters, Dancers or Runners can have extreme Str/Dex/Con.

Forgive me for the wording, but nerds can have lots of wisdom or intelligence(that order) - the ones who spend their time only studying

[hamishspence]

remember D&D charcters start around 15 years old. D20 Modern ones can start being "adult" adventurers as young as 10.

a 15 year old with Str 18 who can lift 300 pounds above his head is one impressive kid.

All that training, studying, expertise, etc is represented by levelling.

if you are Int 15 you are Elite specialist in Int- I.E. on track to qualify for PhD or similar. Which can be represented by about 5 levels in Expert, Skill Focus- Knowledge, etc. Postdoctorate might be in the level 10 range.

[Moechi_Vill]

Great idea. :)

STR: 8 (possibly lower, but I have a pretty strong grip so I didn't)
DEX: Very innacurate imo... I went from 0,4 Dex to 3 on my fourth try then 18 on my fifth then over 20 on the sixth. It relied heavily on intelligence (prediction). I'd say I have good dexterity only my Asbergers keeps me to 10-11.
CON: 12 (might be lower)
INT: 19 (might be 18)
WIS: 15 (might be lower or higher)
CHA: 8 (I'd put down 12-15, but I have Asbergers and ADHD)

[lisiecki]

Great idea. :)

STR: 8
DEX: Completely unscientific... I went from 0,4 Dex to 3 on my fourth try then 18 on my fifth then over 20 on the sixth. It relied heavily on intelligence (prediction). I'd say I have good dexterity only my Asbergers keeps me to 10-11.
CON: 12
INT: 19
WIS: 15
CHA: 8 (I'd put down 12-15, but I have Asbergers and ADHD)

:O

Ya...
19...
I live in a world that has AIDS and Poverty, and every person who posts on this thread is in the top 5% of human intellect...

Also, INT 19 and CHA 12-15?
Really?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99083

I mean with INT 19, CHA 15 and WIS 15 i guess i should believe EVERY LINE of how women are different from men...

[hamishspence]

Remember there is Levelling Up which gives you stat boosts :smallbiggrin: A person who is old and has spent a long time in a career that requires a lot of brainpower will have a high Int, even if he wasn't more than a "typical" PhD student:

15, + 2 for being 10th level (typical for a Master in any discipline) +2 aging- Int 19, despite being not a "genius" child.

[lisiecki]

Remember there is Levelling Up which gives you stat boosts :smallbiggrin: A person who is old and has spent a long time in a career that requires a lot of brainpower will have a high Int, even if he wasn't more than a "typical" PhD student:

15, + 2 for being 10th level (typical for a Master in any discipline) +2 aging- Int 19, despite being not a "genius" child.

please see my twitchy rant about classes in real life.
the ONLY human being i will accept as having class levels is Bono
as he basically has all the powers of a level 20 bard

[hamishspence]

I see Cityscape as an okay rough guide- Experts, Warriors, Fighters, Rogues, Aristocrats- these aren't too exotic in capabilites (rogue is woryingly good at surviving explosions, but I can live with that)

1st level is trainee, 5th level Journeyman, 10th level Master, levels above that tend to be Big Name famous characters.

D&D aging rule may be over-generous in certain ways- a Venerable guy who was only Int 13 at start is now brighter than a Int 15 youngster, no levelling taken into account, but combined with levelling it does give characters room to "Improve themselves"

[lisiecki]

I see Cityscape as an okay rough guide- Experts, Warriors, Fighters, Rogues, Aristocrats- these aren't too exotic in capabilites (rogue is woryingly good at surviving explosions, but I can live with that)

1st level is trainee, 5th level Journeyman, 10th level Master, levels above that tend to be Big Name famous characters.

D&D aging rule may be over-generous in certain ways- a Venerable guy who was only Int 13 at start is now brighter than a Int 15 youngster, no levelling taken into account, but combined with levelling it does give characters room to "Improve themselves"

City scape?

Ill give it a look. The thing is IRL and on tese message boards you have next to no rogues or aristocrats.
So you have a bunch of people who sit infront of keyboards saying there warriors, fighters and experts...

The Cleric guy still BOGGLES MY MIND

[hamishspence]

There are "exorcists" out there who actually claim to have "turned Demons" basically, so, in that sense- some people might claim to have cleric-ish powers. Or, for that matter, adept, or very weak wizard. whether this is true or not is too tricky to debate right now.

Warriors, Experts, Commoners, Aristocrats, Fighters, Rogues, as a baseline.

[lisiecki]

There are "exorcists" out there who actually claim to have "turned Demons" basically, so, in that sense- some people might claim to have cleric-ish powers. Or, for that matter, adept, or very weak wizard. whether this is true or not is too tricky to debate right now.

Warriors, Experts, Commoners, Aristocrats, Fighters, Rogues, as a baseline.

See, Demonic Possession I'm willing to give up, for the sake of argument...
its the fact that baseline clerics have the ability to turn undead multiple times a day, so, that means that there are enough undead around there for it to be needed, multiple times a day.
I'm not sure what the criteria for "Warriors" is but I'm checking drive through RPG for a .PDF.
The basic thing for me, is that D20 rules have nothing what so ever to do with real life, so I'm willing to accept the Stat argument in a just for fun way, until people start ripping out the "I really have this class in real life" argument.
I fully believe that the average human being is, well, average. And that the average person on here is not a genius who's potential has been crippled by there love of RPGS.

Str 18---- As what you can do with each rank of strength is very, verry well documented, I don't know

Stamina 18---- No idea, who knows, perhaps a member of RPG.net
~snickers~

Dex 18---- Nastia Liukin, Margot Fonteyn.

Int 18---- Einstein,Edison, Galileo, people who fundamentally advanced science.

Wisdom 18... Various religious figures, Lama's who have dedicated there lives to the understanding of humanity's place in the world

Char 18---Bono, Giacomo Casanova,

[hamishspence]

Difference between a warrior and a fighter is basically feats. Note that "watchmen" are warriors but "elite guards" are fighters.

Cha: people who are really inspiring. Don't have to be attractive.

also, I make allowances for levelling and aging- Str 18 is a strongman or great athlete at the beginning of his career- toward end it might be 21 or more.

Same for Int- great mathematician or scientist at beginning of career might be Str 18 (and head and shoulders above others) at the peak it might be rather higher.

and so on.

Now if it was 2nd ed, might fit- less stat increases there, but in 3rd ed to 3.5, stat increases are expected.

[lisiecki]

Difference between a warrior and a fighter is basically feats. Note that "watchmen" are warriors but "elite guards" are fighters.Cha: people who are really inspiring. Don't have to be attractive.
also, I make allowances for levelling and aging- Str 18 is a strongman or great athlete at the beginning of his career- toward end it might be 21 or more.
Same for Int- great mathematician or scientist at beginning of career might be Str 18 (and head and shoulders above others) at the peak it might be rather higher.and so on.Now if it was 2nd ed, might fit- less stat increases there, but in 3rd ed to 3.5, stat increases are expected.

See my issue then becomes how do you level?
What "class" is Edison?
what class is Nastia Liukin?

[hamishspence]

Mostly, Expert will do. The main disparity between the capabilities of a high level Expert and a Big Name Person is toughness and good base attack. Which can be handwaved. Most specialists, in DMG2, have the Expert class anyway.

as for how you level- while killing things for XP works in D&D, training very hard, spending years theorising and researching, can do in real world, and for D&D civilians (how else do we get a high level sage specializing in Knowledge?)

[Nefarion Xid]

Oh, I like to suppose that I get XP for defeating exams and research papers; possibly even a few points for just attending lecture or reading. I dunno, what's a senior level psych course worth? CR 2, 3? Of course, it was a solo fight, so I get all the XP.

Now, the only people who might honestly qualify as fighters, rangers and rogues would probably limited to special forces soldiers, sharp shooters, CIA operatives...that fellow who lives with wolves. Maybe 5-6 years of martial arts training would qualify your for 1 level in Monk. But, again, what sets heroic classes apart from everyone else on the planet is their level of dedication and willingness to do things the rest of us aren't. A great many of us are certainly qualified to go into these sorts of fields...but we didn't.

Of course, if the university offered a degree in Burn Things With Your Mind...sign me up! But, alas, I'm probably just a level 3 expert with most of my feats relegated to skill focus.

[hamishspence]

yup- I put myself as level 4 expert, nonelite array (so Int 14 from working and reading for years after uni)

[Nefarion Xid]

1: People, such as high school athletes, are capable of reaching physical scores in the range of 15-17 (and I do suppose they are, since a football player may easily be twice or three times as strong as the "average" human by age 17-18. And scores of 12-13 are NOT enough to account for being twice as strong as 10.)

2: Other ability scores must be awarded with the same frequency.


Since have high school students with scores of at least 15 (even if you'd like to suppose that being able to life three times the amount of a normal healthy human only warrants a score of 15) in Strength, then we must also have high school students with similar scores in Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma.

A bachelor's degree is probably enough to warrant 4 levels in Expert. After all, that's some 17+ years of schooling. That will spot you an extra 1 point in Intelligence. So, college grads with Int scores in the 15-18 range should be par for the course.

Reaching an 18 in an ability score is most certainly not something exclusive to Olympians and revolutionary minds. With age modifiers and lots of levels in Expert, you can presume Einstein had an Int score of 24+.

[hamishspence]

Like I said- its just starting off with the 18 thats pretty spectacular.

The guys starting with Str 15, while rarer than those with Str 13, aren't super-rare. you'd expect a specialist athlete to have that at start of career.

degreewise, depends on the degree. and how much vocational training it is. Might be more equivalent to maxing out a skill and taking Skill Focus, but 4-5 levels as well seems more for high-end degrees.

and its closer to 8 years than 17; a "school leaver" of 15 is closer equivalent to 1st level character.

[Nefarion Xid]

High school dropouts and people living in areas without access to proper schooling. Level 1 Commoners with 10-11 Intelligence - Agreed.

Back to raw statistics though. If we were all created with a roll of 3d6-and-keep-em...then an 18 really isn't very special at all. If you graduated with 216 people...odds are that 1 had an Int of 18, 3 had an Int of 17 and so on.

Correction: The above example doesn't include dropouts or the global average.

EDIT: By "High school dropouts" I mean "...and people who haven't yet furthered their education or gone into a specialized field"

After all, my own father never finished high school, but he has the equivalence of multiple Master's Degrees in electrical engineering and mathematics.

[hamishspence]

yes, but I prefer to keep that one rare- a big chunk of population is Standard array (10s and 11s) a smaller chunk is nonelite (maxing out at 13- those with Int are typical BSc graduates with lower grades) a small proportion with Elite array (Int 15 maxers tend to be going on to PhD level) and a very, very small proportion with random rolls.

I don't expect real population to be exactly like that, but this is closest to what D&D appears to do, going by books like Cityscape, DMG2, Arms and Equipment Guide, etc)

and Skill Focus and ranks can account partially- person with Int 13 and 10 levels, and skill focus in fields, will be Int 15 and very good at job.

also, while degree isn't necessary- the learning capabilities needed are part of Int. Degree equivalencies can substitute.

[Moechi_Vill]

:O

Ya...
19...
I live in a world that has AIDS and Poverty, and every person who posts on this thread is in the top 5% of human intellect...

Also, INT 19 and CHA 12-15?
Really?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99083

I mean with INT 19, CHA 15 and WIS 15 i guess i should believe EVERY LINE of how women are different from men...

I wrote 8 Charisma, and I do have a 145 IQ, tested and true. I don't see what your problem is. I'll just report your flame I guess. (EDIT: Had a few bad days, thus not tolerant to provocations, situation resolved. Nevermind this, please.)
And ca. 140 IQ and above are actually top 1% of human intellect.
Though I suspect I'm closer to 18 as being in the top 1% is like 1/216 which is roughly 0.5%.
And if Einstein and those other people you mentioned were characters in D&D they'd have way more than 18 INT.

Also, this is irrelevant, but I had a positive net modifier a short while ago. I'm really surprised people can be this pissed just because one has changed one's mind based on different information. My behavior was decent, honest and open so I expect other's to be too. That of course precludes personal attack.

[lisiecki]

I wrote 8 Charisma, and I do have a 145 IQ, tested and true. I don't see what your problem is. I'll just report your flame I guess.
And ca. 140 IQ and above are actually top 1% of human intellect.

And if Einstein and those other people you mentioned were characters in D&D they'd have way more than 18 INT.

ok 145, but how do you get 19?

The method i gave for IQs would put you at a 12
Above average (+1 to +2)
IQ 120-130/140-150

Im sorry i think your are bright, intelligent, well read, clever, and smart. You probably went to college or you are just naturally clever?

[Moechi_Vill]

INT: Your IQ, minus 100, times 2, plus 100, divided by 10.

145-100 = 45

*2 = 90

90+100 = 190

/10 = 19

Answer: I have significant problems in life, though I am naturally smart. Half-ways well read. Apology accepted, though I'm afraid I already pushed the button.

[lisiecki]

INT: Your IQ, minus 100, times 2, plus 100, divided by 10.

145-100 = 45

*2 = 90

90+100 = 190

/10 = 19

Hm, well yes according to the OP you are in fact correct...
I just think that method is INCREDIBLY flawed
I was hoping that people had moved to the bell curve score, or the measurements listed in Benchmarks


Dont worry, ill never say i think your are bright, intelligent, well read, clever, and smart. You probably went to college or you are just naturally clever again ;)

[Moechi_Vill]

Well, I don't think I have above 18 (top 1% for an average of top 0,5%, 1/216 is roughly 0,005)... besides IQ tests aren't perfect. And as I mentioned I have significant problems in life. *shrug*

I guess maybe I got to a point where I thought 'accentuate the positive'? But then that doesn't inform people that I am self-aware of bad sides, so naturally some will assume 'high int. posted it there -> arrogance'.
maybe I should tag that for a 6 or 7 charisma.

And I'm having problems in college, but nevermind, just personal trouble (not related to int., but discipline). Gotta go, bye... I'll ask them not to warn u, eh, I've had a few bad days. Sorry... I guess. :)

cheerio!

[lisiecki]

Oh, I like to suppose that I get XP for defeating exams and research papers; possibly even a few points for just attending lecture or reading. I dunno, what's a senior level psych course worth? CR 2, 3? Of course, it was a solo fight, so I get all the XP.

Now, the only people who might honestly qualify as fighters, rangers and rogues would probably limited to special forces soldiers, sharp shooters, CIA operatives...that fellow who lives with wolves. Maybe 5-6 years of martial arts training would qualify your for 1 level in Monk. But, again, what sets heroic classes apart from everyone else on the planet is their level of dedication and willingness to do things the rest of us aren't. A great many of us are certainly qualified to go into these sorts of fields...but we didn't.

V00T see i aggre with this mostly.

I have no idea what army training is like in the real world, but fighter could do it, maybe.
There are plenty of Rogues out there in the real world, thieves and confidence men.
Ranger i dont know about, I would assume that any one IRL would lose many of the bonus that are a rangers bread and butter.
Frankly I just REALLY dont think that a class system works well at all for emulating real life.

Except for Bono

[Moechi_Vill]

Actually, it was more that I realized there's no point in hustling my good points to feel equal and that equality stems from the heart and spirit (or the inherant equal value of a soul to be specific), and besides I had enough negative flaws to not need bother with it.

[lisiecki]

And I'm having problems in college, but nevermind, just personal trouble (not related to int., but discipline). Gotta go bye... I'll ask them not to warn u, eh, I've had a few bad days. Sorry... I guess. :)
cheerio!

Hey its all good...
Frankly for the way ive behaved in this thread i should have people showing up at my house with pitchforkes and torches
Im kinda supprised they havent...

But its all good, I would hope that a Mod would see that I was really just trying to have a bit of harmless fun with you

If not Que Sera, Sera

[Moechi_Vill]

Thanks. I'm sorry... bad days, and I'm bad at telling 'harmless' fun apart from 'dead serious' 'mocking' or any vague generalities. Emotionally colorblind to a lesser extent.
Plus positive facts don't include negative, etc. etc.
And then there's the bit about sexism and other sensitive stuff, their definitions ranging from simple interpretation of value to promotion of stereotypes (which I might be guilty of by definition of defining research though not intent or thought). And I didn't take much time writing it and I'm not surprised people disagreed, and I agree with some of their criticisms/ideas (though not most as I will readily admit as I know agreeing with people quickly or completely is not a necessity to be objective and unbiased, it's important to seperate hearing people/good communication with intellectual agreement)... though some people seem to think it's wrong not to agree completely.

But I am derailing and being self-centered.

You're right. Bono is great! Don't agree with him on a LOT, but he's a nice guy.

[lisiecki]

Thanks. I'm sorry... bad days, and I'm bad at telling 'harmless' fun apart from 'dead serious' 'mocking' or any vague generalities. Emotionally colorblind I guess.
Plus positive facts don't include negative, etc. etc.
But I am derailing and being self-centered.
You're right. Bono is great! Don't agree with him on a LOT, but he's a nice guy.

its all good, Im usually just playing, life is to harsh to have to deal with it on a message board.
Im going to take you at your word with aspergers, I have had many, many clients who have had it. (and lord do i feel sorry for most of them) The problem is on the interweb ALOT of people clame to have it, so its hard to tell people who really do, from those who are just saying it, so i do apologize for that.
(oddy enough a lot of people also think there psycopaths, I my self, just think im a jerk :P)

Bono is the one human being i can think of who acually fits the things the PHB says you get as a Bard levels up

Inspire Courage (Su)
Inspire Competence (Su)
Suggestion (Sp)
Inspire Greatness (Su)
Song of Freedom (Sp)
Inspire Heroics (Su)
Mass Suggestion (Sp)

Love him or hate him I think he displays pretty much all of those

[mroozee]

For humans, which most of us are, an 18 stat means that you are in the top 1/2 % of the population (approximately). If the distribution really is normal, you are talking about someone who is approximately 2.6 standard deviations above the mean. For gaming purposes, there is no NATURAL advantage beyond 2.6 standard deviations so there is a cap. There may be SUPER-NATURAL advantages for higher stats, but these do not map to a greater number of standard deviations above the mean. For example:

INTELLIGENCE:
MENSA has a standard of "the top 2%" which is in the middle of 16. The Triple Nine Society has a standard of "the top 0.1%" which would be above 18 on a normal distribution. The MEGA Society requires an IQ that is "one in a million" or more than 4.7 standard deviations past the mean. But the score for a member of TNS or MEGA would not be 19 or 24... it would be 18. Any advantage that a member of MEGA has in IQ test performance simply would not translate to any in-game benefit. A person who has a magically enhanced 22 INT, however, WOULD enjoy in-game benefits.

This would also seem to match reality where the greatest contributors to [pick your favorite intellectual field] are not normally the same people who scored the highest on a particular IQ test.

It makes a lot more sense to say "Einstein had an 18 INT and spent all of his Skill Points in Math / Physics along with the associated Skill Focus feats." With this, even as a 2nd level Academician, he could have 4 (INT) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 8 (Skill Points) + 2 (Synergy) + 2 (Favorable Conditions such as working at a University) + 2 (Aided by Others) = +21 to Math and Physics checks. If a single Nearly Impossible "big idea" check takes 20 years, you'll find that most people with these stats get zero "big ideas" while a rare and lucky few can get 2 or more - as in Einstein's case.

[golentan]

I just think that method is INCREDIBLY flawed
I was hoping that people had moved to the bell curve score, or the measurements listed in Benchmarks


AHEM! Sorry to repeat myself, but the OP post is REMARKABLY close to the bell curve. Approximately 50 percent of 3d6 will be within 8 and 12: an IQ of 90-110 in the OP: Roughly the percentage of that IQ in the population. 0.135% of the population will be at 145 or above: this works out to a 19 in the OP. Meanwhile, 3d6 gives an 18 1 time in 216, which turns out to be in roughly the 99.587th percentile. That puts an INT of 18 at just a little more likely than an IQ of 145, say, maybe about the level of an IQ of 140? And COMMONERS roll 3d6 for INT, I think you can expect bonuses from somewhere (Maybe the T20 system, where going to higher education teaches you to think more in depth, and gives you +1-2 on INT, EACH TIME)

And maybe people are inflating their scores as an ego boost.

Of course, this is all ignoring that IQ is incredibly flawed as a system, and I as low genius level regularly run mental victory laps around those with IQs 10-20 points higher than me. And I would NEVER want to go against Feynman in a battle of wits, who scored a measly 124 (If I remember aright) on the IQ test. I know people higher than that who beat the pants off me.

In short: Crunch the numbers, do the research, and take self-reporting with a grain of salt before doing your wild accusations.

[The Minx]

Hm, well yes according to the OP you are in fact correct...
I just think that method is INCREDIBLY flawed
I was hoping that people had moved to the bell curve score, or the measurements listed in Benchmarks

The OP method is a good method that provides results close to what it should. The point is that you need to consider two things when you match two bell curves: one is the mean (average) and the standard deviation is the other. Standard deviation is a measure of the overall "spread" of the curve.

The standard deviation for IQ is 15 points.

For a 3d6 roll, it is 2.965.

Here's why: standard deviation for a string of numbers can be calculated as the square root of the number "sum of squares of differences between the numbers and the mean, divided by the number of elements minus one"

For a 3d6 roll with all permutations being equally probable, you have a list of 6*6*6 = 216 numbers.

These will be divided between the values they produce as follows:

3: 1 permutation (i.e. 1+1+1)
4: 3 permutations (1+1+2, 1+2+1, 2+1+1)
5: 6 permutations
6: 10 permutations
7: 15 permutations
8: 21 permutations
9: 25 permutations
10: 27 permutations
11: 27 permutations
12: 25 permutations
13: 21 permutations
14: 15 permutations
15: 10 permutations
16: 6 permutations
17: 3 permutations
18: 1 permutation (6+6+6)

The mean score is 10.5 (as opposed to 10).

The deviations, their squares and the total deviations are as follows:

1x -7.5; 56.25; 56.25
3x -6.5; 42.25; 126.75
6x -5.5; 30.25; 181.50
10x -4.5; 20.25; 202.50
15x -3.5; 12.25; 183.75
21x -2.5; 6.25; 131.25
25x -1.5; 2.25; 56.25
27x -0.5; 0.25; 6.75
27x 0.5; 0.25; 6.75
25x 1.5; 2.25; 56.25
21x 2.5; 6.25; 131.25
15x 3.5; 12.25; 183.75
10x 4.5; 20.25; 202.50
6x 5.5; 30.25; 181.50
3x 6.5; 42.25; 126.75
1x 7.5; 56.25; 56.25

SUM Of SQUARES of DEVIATIONS = 1890
SUM of SQUARES / N-1 = ca. 8.791
STANDARD DEVIATION = Sqrt(8.791) = ca. 2.965

Thus, the OP method can be amended as follows:

(((IQ - 100) * 1.977) + 105) / 10

Round 0.50 up, and round 0.49 down.

[lisiecki]

Hmmm
Oh, Ok Sorry about all that
I meant the IQ score divided by 10 method some people use.
My bad
Late night
Full apologies

[hamishspence]

I thought Commoners tend to have either then Non-elite array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8) or the standard array (11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10) with the Average array (3d6) being the exception rather than the rule.

Hirelings in the Arms and Equipment Guide use 13 12 11 10 9 8, and they include commoners in their number.

Point is, Int 18 at age 15 odd wouldn't be 1/216, it would be a much smaller percentage- same with othr stats.

[TSGames]

*sigh*
These threads never go well, and they always end badly.
Maybe we should back up the "why do monks suck", or
"why are wizards overpowered" threads...

[The Minx]

I thought Commoners tend to have either then Non-elite array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8) or the standard array (11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10) with the Average array (3d6) being the exception rather than the rule.

Hirelings in the Arms and Equipment Guide use 13 12 11 10 9 8, and they include commoners in their number.

Point is, Int 18 at age 15 odd wouldn't be 1/216, it would be a much smaller percentage- same with othr stats.

It would be 1/216 if you use 3d6 to determine the stats, which is ostensibly what you do to get randomized "average" scores. If you want heroic scores, you roll 4d6, skip the lowest or something like that.

The "standard" and "non-elite" arrays are merely for convenience. Not all "average" people have exactly one of each score from 8-13 or exactly three each of 10 or 11, they come with far greater variation.

[hamishspence]

true, but if a hefty proportion are statted that way (or with elite array) it significantly reduces the proportion with high stats.

[The Minx]

true, but if a hefty proportion are statted that way (or with elite array) it significantly reduces the proportion with high stats.

They are statted that way because they are specifically representative of the average of the population, as opposed to the variance in the population.

If you want to measure the standard deviation of a population, you must take a randomized sample, not a sample which is explicitly designed to reflect the mean; otherwise you mess up your statistics.

[hamishspence]

ah. I figure that, for convenience, the vast majority of people really were statted with the non-elite array, the way Arms and Equipment, or Cityscape, does.

the other reason was- I figure that top 1/2% of population, in Int, really weren't in the 18 range- more likely starting at 15, and being represented in D&D generally by the Elite Array, with a much smaller proportution starting at18- The Feynmans and Maxwells of this world.

[The Minx]

ah. I figure that, for convenience, the vast majority of people really were statted with the non-elite array, the way Arms and Equipment, or Cityscape, does.

the other reason was- I figure that top 1/2% of population, in Int, really weren't in the 18 range- more likely starting at 15, and being represented in D&D generally by the Elite Array, with a much smaller proportution starting at18- The Feynmans and Maxwells of this world.

To be fair, the real problem is twofold:

One, the extreme ends of the bell curve are clipped off when you roll 3d6. It is not truly a bell curve, but only an approximation.

The other is that the things you can do with your stats is not representative of what would be expected, since the mechanic is d20+modifier, and the modifier is (Stat-10)/2. In this system, Pee Wee Herman (Str 8) stands a reasonable chance of beating Lennox Lewis (max Str at 18, presumably raised to 19 at level 4) in a fair arm wrestling match! So "statting ourselves" is an exercise which should be taken with a grain of salt, since the game mechanic itself is unrealistic to begin with. :smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

True. on the plus side, mechanism enables one to stat out fiction charcters and the rules (sometimes) work: I worked out stats for a circus strongman and with Str 22 (which is within the range of a high level character starting at Str 18) he can actually do whather the fiction charcter can- lift 10 small normal people and walk (slowly) with them.

However, I see Str 18 teenager as more 1 in a million than 1 in 216.

[The Minx]

True. on the plus side, mechanism enables one to stat out fiction charcters and the rules (sometimes) work: I worked out stats for a circus strongman and with Str 22 (which is within the range of a high level character starting at Str 18) he can actually do whather the fiction charcter can- lift 10 small normal people and walk (slowly) with them.

However, I see Str 18 teenager as more 1 in a million than 1 in 216.

Well, come to think of it, a teenager should probably have caps on his stats, or possibly a multiplier.


As for the mechanism sometimes working, it has to do with what kind of task you're undertaking. Some tasks are inherently more random than others (for instance "draw one poker hand, no discards" versus "play several rounds of Bridge").

Going with more realism, we should change the size of the die depending on the "randomness" of the task. Something as clear cut as "arm wrestling" would only be d2.

Alternatively, if you want to keep the d20 (due to convenience and nostalgia), multiply the score modifier depending on how "talent-demanding" (read: non-random) the task is. Thus the victor of a contest such as "draw one poker hand, no discards" would be "x0" since it is purely random while "arm wrestling" might be "x10", such that a modifier difference of +2 makes all the difference in the world.

[hamishspence]

the game design starts characters quite young- 15-16 odd, for humans. So, in that sense, Int 18 at the age of 16 is (probably) "Future Big Name Scientist" level, whereas Int 15 is more "Future PhD level" since sages, specialists in Knowledge, are, like most Specialists, assumed to have a 15 in their best stat.

(I also see Int 13 as "Future BSc, fairly low marks, but still pass- Third to Lower Second") Or equivalents, if the person don't go don't University route.

whether the +3 for aging and the +5 for levelling are at all realistic is a different question.

[Weiser_Cain]

Sadly I don't feel I've gotten any smarter than when I was 16.... I draw the same too.

[The Minx]

the game design starts characters quite young- 15-16 odd, for humans. So, in that sense, Int 18 at the age of 16 is (probably) "Future Big Name Scientist" level, whereas Int 15 is more "Future PhD level" since sages, specialists in Knowledge, are, like most Specialists, assumed to have a 15 in their best stat.

(I also see Int 13 as "Future BSc, fairly low marks, but still pass- Third to Lower Second") Or equivalents, if the person don't go don't University route.

whether the +3 for aging and the +5 for levelling are at all realistic is a different question.

That's not consistent with the standard deviation.

The problem you cite has not to do with the spread of the stats, but the age category modifiers. 15-year olds should have a penalty to their Str (and probably other things too) compared with 21 year olds.

[hamishspence]

21 year old who has spent 6 years training as an athlete will have a higher Str, represented by levelling. And probably the Elite array anyway.

Pure 3d6 for everyone leads to over-wide distribution.

And, the stats I use are consistant with the various sourcebooks- Arms and Equipment for ordinary people in a career, DMG2 for Specialists, Cityscape for ordinary experts, fighters, rogues and warriors, and so on.

Int 13 is what an "ordinary" apprentice Sage will have. Int 15 is what the better kid sages in the class get. But Int 18 is special.

[The Minx]

21 year old who has spent 6 years training as an athlete will have a higher Str, represented by levelling. And probably the Elite array anyway.

You only gain leveling bonuses every 4 levels.


Pure 3d6 for everyone leads to over-wide distribution.

Um no? I just proved otherwise mathematically. :smallconfused:


And, the stats I use are consistant with the various sourcebooks- Arms and Equipment for ordinary people in a career, DMG2 for Specialists, Cityscape for ordinary experts, fighters, rogues and warriors, and so on.

Int 13 is what an "ordinary" apprentice Sage will have. Int 15 is what the better kid sages in the class get. But Int 18 is special.

:smallsigh: I have already covered this.

[hamishspence]

I was focussing more on "the rules as written. The assumption made in Arms and Equipment, Cityscape, etc is Int 13 is good enough to make an Int-based career out of, and Int 15 is the highest you are likely to find a PC class with.

In DMG it points out the vast majority of NPCs with PC class levels, will use the Elite array- random roll is rare. so, does that mean a medium-sized proportion of Commoners will have better Str than the fighters/barbarians who make a career out of their Str? Seems odd.

[The Minx]

I was focussing more on "the rules as written. The assumption made in Arms and Equipment, Cityscape, etc is Int 13 is good enough to make an Int-based career out of, and Int 15 is the highest you are likely to find a PC class with.

In DMG it points out the vast majority of NPCs with PC class levels, will use the Elite array- random roll is rare. so, does that mean a medium-sized proportion of Commoners will have better Str than the fighters/barbarians who make a career out of their Str? Seems odd.

No, it means that people with good stats will be qualified to take PC classes.

As opposed to people who have yet to take classes are somehow destined for them and this affects their stat generation somehow.

If you are figuring the stats of a character given that he has PC classes, they will be higher than for a random member of the population.

[hamishspence]

and even then, there are exceptions- the fighters and rogues in Cityscape use a roughly non-elite array (stats like 13, 12, 10, 10, 10, 8) for example, despite having PC classes.

[The Minx]

and even then, there are exceptions- the fighters and rogues in Cityscape use a roughly non-elite array (stats like 13, 12, 10, 10, 10, 8) for example, despite having PC classes.

I think this was supposed to be a follow-up to your previous post, not a rebuttal to my answer to it (since it does not rebut my answer). Correct?

[hamishspence]

the point I was trying to make is- Where does it say that the default statblock for ordinary people is 3d6 random rolls? From the way most of the books write it, I get the impression that any random rolling of stats is the exception rather than the rule.

and on the standard deviation proof- it would apply if every normal person is assumed to be 3d6 rolls, but I don't know that that's the case.

[hamishspence]

also, Int 18 was, in earlier editions, assumed to be roughly equivalent to IQ 180. Since that is much rarer than 1/216, that would suggest that only a small proportion of the population gets to roll randomly, rather than nearly all of them.

[The Minx]

the point I was trying to make is- Where does it say that the default statblock for ordinary people is 3d6 random rolls? From the way most of the books write it, I get the impression that any random rolling of stats is the exception rather than the rule.

In the DMG: "customized average characters": roll 3d6. As I said before, people generally do not have one of each stat from 8-13, nor three of each 10-11, there are more permutations than that.

Random rolling is the exception because it is time-consuming and pointless, since most NPCs are only there for a scene or two anyway.


and on the standard deviation proof- it would apply if every normal person is assumed to be 3d6 rolls, but I don't know that that's the case.

"Normal person" is defined as one who has received non-exceptional scores. You are placing the cart in front of the horse.


also, Int 18 was, in earlier editions, assumed to be roughly equivalent to IQ 180. Since that is much rarer than 1/216, that would suggest that only a small proportion of the population gets to roll randomly, rather than nearly all of them.

If this is true, then Wizards don't know their mathematics.

[hamishspence]

if a normal person is 3d6, then 1/216 of "normal people" will have one very good stat. by simple statistics. 1/216 will have Str 18, or Dex 18, or Int 18, and so on.

though the variety of permutations can exist, Str 3, Int 3, etc should be rarer than statistics would have it. Hence, making about 10% of population have Elite array, most of the remainder, standard, or non-elite, and only a small proportion, true random stats.

EDIT: Or, they were assuming that only a small proportion of the population would benefit from random roll.

[The Minx]

if a normal person is 3d6, then 1/216 of "normal people" will have one very good stat. by simple statistics. 1/216 will have Str 18, or Dex 18, or Int 18, and so on.

This depends on what you mean by "normal". If you mean "selected randomly from the population", then sure. And why would that be a problem?

If you mean "average", then you are mistaken: "normal" in that sense simply means those who did not receive exceptional scores, i.e. those who were unlucky.


though the variety of permutations can exist, Str 3, Int 3, etc should be rarer than statistics would have it.

Why?


EDIT: Or, they were assuming that only a small proportion of the population would benefit from random roll.

A random roll produces a pseudo bell curve, as might be expected in a proper population.

[Moechi_Vill]

For humans, which most of us are, an 18 stat means that you are in the top 1/2 % of the population (approximately). If the distribution really is normal, you are talking about someone who is approximately 2.6 standard deviations above the mean. For gaming purposes, there is no NATURAL advantage beyond 2.6 standard deviations so there is a cap. There may be SUPER-NATURAL advantages for higher stats, but these do not map to a greater number of standard deviations above the mean. For example:

INTELLIGENCE:
MENSA has a standard of "the top 2%" which is in the middle of 16. The Triple Nine Society has a standard of "the top 0.1%" which would be above 18 on a normal distribution. The MEGA Society requires an IQ that is "one in a million" or more than 4.7 standard deviations past the mean. But the score for a member of TNS or MEGA would not be 19 or 24... it would be 18. Any advantage that a member of MEGA has in IQ test performance simply would not translate to any in-game benefit. A person who has a magically enhanced 22 INT, however, WOULD enjoy in-game benefits.

This would also seem to match reality where the greatest contributors to [pick your favorite intellectual field] are not normally the same people who scored the highest on a particular IQ test.

It makes a lot more sense to say "Einstein had an 18 INT and spent all of his Skill Points in Math / Physics along with the associated Skill Focus feats." With this, even as a 2nd level Academician, he could have 4 (INT) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 8 (Skill Points) + 2 (Synergy) + 2 (Favorable Conditions such as working at a University) + 2 (Aided by Others) = +21 to Math and Physics checks. If a single Nearly Impossible "big idea" check takes 20 years, you'll find that most people with these stats get zero "big ideas" while a rare and lucky few can get 2 or more - as in Einstein's case.

Great point, knowledge and hard work is by far more important.

I don't agree completely though, since it'd make Einstein crap at other things. As long as we're making homebrew (I assume we are?) why not just raise the roof?




The OP method is a good method that provides results close to what it should. The point is that you need to consider two things when you match two bell curves: one is the mean (average) and the standard deviation is the other. Standard deviation is a measure of the overall "spread" of the curve.

The standard deviation for IQ is 15 points.

For a 3d6 roll, it is 2.965.

Here's why: standard deviation for a string of numbers can be calculated as the square root of the number "sum of squares of differences between the numbers and the mean, divided by the number of elements minus one"

For a 3d6 roll with all permutations being equally probable, you have a list of 6*6*6 = 216 numbers.

These will be divided between the values they produce as follows:

3: 1 permutation (i.e. 1+1+1)
4: 3 permutations (1+1+2, 1+2+1, 2+1+1)
5: 6 permutations
6: 10 permutations
7: 15 permutations
8: 21 permutations
9: 25 permutations
10: 27 permutations
11: 27 permutations
12: 25 permutations
13: 21 permutations
14: 15 permutations
15: 10 permutations
16: 6 permutations
17: 3 permutations
18: 1 permutation (6+6+6)

The mean score is 10.5 (as opposed to 10).

The deviations, their squares and the total deviations are as follows:

1x -7.5; 56.25; 56.25
3x -6.5; 42.25; 126.75
6x -5.5; 30.25; 181.50
10x -4.5; 20.25; 202.50
15x -3.5; 12.25; 183.75
21x -2.5; 6.25; 131.25
25x -1.5; 2.25; 56.25
27x -0.5; 0.25; 6.75
27x 0.5; 0.25; 6.75
25x 1.5; 2.25; 56.25
21x 2.5; 6.25; 131.25
15x 3.5; 12.25; 183.75
10x 4.5; 20.25; 202.50
6x 5.5; 30.25; 181.50
3x 6.5; 42.25; 126.75
1x 7.5; 56.25; 56.25

SUM Of SQUARES of DEVIATIONS = 1890
SUM of SQUARES / N-1 = ca. 8.791
STANDARD DEVIATION = Sqrt(8.791) = ca. 2.965

Thus, the OP method can be amended as follows:

(((IQ - 100) * 1.977) + 105) / 10

Round 0.50 up, and round 0.49 down.

I think I get the gist of what you're proving, but could you simplify it for me in layman's terms, please? I wasn't able to focus properly in math class after the middle of junior and senior high, so I don't understand your more complicated wording/mathematical concepts though I'm sure they're simple at your level (whatever it is).

Question about MENSA and the even more elite clubs:
(I've heard some bad rumours, but am just curious in general.)

Anyway, this might be treading dangerous territory, but is what I hear about MENSA (in particular) and all those even more elite clubs true? I hear they're like really elitist and that could be right, but I dunno, could just be anti-intellectual rumours floating around.
What is it they actually do? I heard MENSA wants to 'help' people. That's nice of them of course, but most people are going to be offended.
... And then there's the fact that knowledge and such is more important than raw processing power a lot of the time, but they don't acknowledge that and thus largely (but not completely as one can raise it to a certain degree) blanket barr the majority of the population from joining (which of course breeds natural resentment among some people... but it's still their organization and I don't feel like criticising someone because they want to be exclusive in a way to which people can't accede (not that I do, because I don't, I just do not see an ethical problem with someone wanting to make a club and not letting others people join for some reason unless it's regarding privileges and without ill intent, even if the club itself is weird).

[The Minx]

I think I get the gist of what you're proving, but could you simplify it for me in layman's terms, please? I wasn't able to focus properly in math class after the middle of junior and senior high, so I don't understand your more complicated wording/mathematical concepts though I'm sure they're simple at your level (whatever it is).

This is a calculation of Standard Deviation, which is a measurement of how "spread out" a curve is. For instance, the numbers 10, 10, 10, 11, 11 and 11 have an average 10.5. So do the numbers 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18. However, it is clear that the latter group are more "spread out", i.e. if you pick one of the numbers at random and see how far it is from the overall average, you are likely to get a much greater distance in the latter group. The standard deviation for that group is much greater.

Since we want to compare IQ and Int, it is not enough to say that the average IQ of 100 corresponds to the average Int of 10.5. For instance, we don't know whether an increase in IQ by +10 points represents +1 to Int or +2 or some other conversion, we need to know what the frequency of higher and lower scores are in both systems. Then we can determine how many IQ points correspond to one Int point increase.

Now, since 68.1% of the population has an IQ in the range 85-115, and 67.6% of the population has Int in the range 8-13, we can reasonably say that IQ +15 corresponds to Int +3. With standard deviation, we are doing the same thing, only using the "overall spread" of the curve.

The idea is that once we have a conversion formula, then if we have the fact that X% of a population has Int so-and-so, then we can be reasonably certain that X% will have the corresponding IQ. The conversion will preserve the rarity of the given scores.

[lisiecki]

I think I get the gist of what you're proving, but could you simplify it for me in layman's terms, please? I wasn't able to focus properly in math class after the middle of junior and senior high, so I don't understand your more complicated wording/mathematical concepts though I'm sure they're simple at your level (whatever it is).

Aww, see that's what bugs me about these threads
I'm on a genius :(

I have an INT of 7 :(

[The Minx]

Aww, see that's what bugs me about these threads
I'm on a genius :(

I have an INT of 7 :(

No reason to be down. Int is only one out of three mental stats, and anyway :elan: is a far better person than http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2008/eugeneia1.gif

:smallsmile:

[mroozee]

Great point, knowledge and hard work is by far more important.

I don't agree completely though, since it'd make Einstein crap at other things. As long as we're making homebrew (I assume we are?) why not just raise the roof?


I should've said "maxed out his skill point buys in math and physics". A second level human Academician should have 55 skill points - the same as an Expert. In our example, only 16 had been spent meaning Einstein would have an additional 39 skill points to pour into other fields; for example: three additional languages (6), philosophy (6), chemistry (6), engineering (6), computer science (5), religion (5), history (5).

[mroozee]

Question about MENSA and the even more elite clubs:
(I've heard some bad rumours, but am just curious in general.)

Anyway, this might be treading dangerous territory, but is what I hear about MENSA (in particular) and all those even more elite clubs true? I hear they're like really elitist and that could be right, but I dunno, could just be anti-intellectual rumours floating around.
What is it they actually do? I heard MENSA wants to 'help' people. That's nice of them of course, but most people are going to be offended.
... And then there's the fact that knowledge and such is more important than raw processing power a lot of the time, but they don't acknowledge that and thus largely (but not completely as one can raise it to a certain degree) blanket barr the majority of the population from joining (which of course breeds natural resentment among some people... but it's still their organization and I don't feel like criticising someone because they want to be exclusive in a way to which people can't accede (not that I do, because I don't, I just do not see an ethical problem with someone wanting to make a club and not letting others people join for some reason unless it's regarding privileges and without ill intent, even if the club itself is weird).

My personal experience with high-IQ societies is mixed. The idea behind them is that they are a place for sharp people to get together with other sharp people in a friendly atmosphere. Having a tough time finding people who want to play a high-level game of Scrabble? Go to a MENSA meeting on Scrabble night. Family and friends aren't into Kierkegaard? You'll find lots of people to talk with at a MENSA gathering. There are also those who join just to put their membership on their resume's but they're mostly harmless.

The down side for me has been the "my kung-fu is better than your kung-fu" mindset of a significant minority of members (maybe one in ten). The top 2% means that you were probably at or near the top of your class (or you could argue that you SHOULD'VE been at or near the top) for much of your life. Well, 50% of MENSA members will be in the bottom half, intellectually, at any MENSA meeting. This is a paradigm shift that is hard for less mature members to deal with. But weirdest and rarest of all are those who want to associate with other smart folk as some kind of "us against them": "This is so cool... we're talking about quantum physics... my girlfriend's not bright enough, so I can't talk to her about stuff like this... in fact most people have no idea what it is and wouldn't be able to handle it if they did." Ugh.

So in my experience, MENSA has lots of good, interesting, people and some tools.

[Nefarion Xid]

I'd just like to affirm that 1 in every 216 people is most certainly not capable of lifting 350 pounds over head. And, if people really were created with the 3d6 method...that leaves me to believe that the lifting table presented in 3.5 is just not compatible. Perhaps if everyone in the real world were created with a roll of 5d6 and you dropped the highest and lowest dice. That'd make an 18 in anything a 1:7,776 shot, which seems more in keeping with most people's conceptions of what an 18 means, though still not distinctly Olympian/Einsteinian.

Another real problem with this whole mess with the simple fact that scores like Strength and Constitution can easily be raised/lowered with just a few months of training/recovering from serious injury/illness. Just a month hitting the weights is enough to improve a lift by about 20 pounds if you weren't already in intensive training. That means someone at 10 Strength could just buy some dumbbells and they could be at 12, even 13 Strength in a matter of weeks. Endurance goes up even faster. Running a mile would damn near kill most Americans...yet they could be trained up for it in a really short time.

Side note: I'm fully willing to believe people around these parts really do come with IQs in the 130+ range. But, what makes me giggle is that the justification for Constitution scores above 10 is usually something like "I never get sick" or "I haven't broken a bone in my life"...and not "I jog 3 times a week". I'd also accept an answer like "I'm a boxer". And, frankly it seems like MORE broken bones would be a better indicator of a high Constitution since it meant you'd been in fights or were part of a sport where that sort of thing happens. Me? I've got a glass jaw.

All of this makes me like 4E a little more, since Ability scores increase early and often. I'm still not too keen on their simplified lifting table though.

[mroozee]

I'd just like to affirm that 1 in every 216 people is most certainly not capable of lifting 350 pounds over head. And, if people really were created with the 3d6 method...that leaves me to believe that the lifting table presented in 3.5 is just not compatible. Perhaps if everyone in the real world were created with a roll of 5d6 and you dropped the highest and lowest dice. That'd make an 18 in anything a 1:7,776 shot, which seems more in keeping with most people's conceptions of what an 18 means, though still not distinctly Olympian/Einsteinian.


I think you mean 5d6 drop any two other than the lowest to get 1:7,776 (so that you need five 6's to score 18). 5d6 dropping the high and low gives 26:7,776 chances to get an 18 or about 1 in 299. There is the case where each die is a 6 and then 5 cases each where four dice are 6's and the other (low die) is 1-5 for 25+1 = 26 possible ways to get 18.

[Nefarion Xid]

Yes, well...that'll teach me to eyeball probability first thing in the...afternoon.

[DrakebloodIV]

My interpretation of Con is more mind-over-matter than it is physical endurance. I do collegiate wrestling and find that my physical strength is a lot less important than my willpower when fighting out of a pin or sprawling against a take down. If I had to sum up Con for a character it wouldn't be 'I can jog 5 miles' it would be 'After 5 miles, I keep on jogging. So I figured I'd write up a list of things that boost/kill your con

{table=head]Boost
I can go without sleep and not be angry/lazy the next day
I can go out in the snow in my undergarments
I can power through exhaustion/pain to continue what I was doing
I have broken limbs and been able to operate normally for hours/days until seeing the doctor
I do not bruise easily
My BP is low
I recover quickly from disease
I can resist burns and cuts
I have no chronic/recurring diseases
[/table]

[Moechi_Vill]

This is a calculation of Standard Deviation, which is a measurement of how "spread out" a curve is. For instance, the numbers 10, 10, 10, 11, 11 and 11 have an average 10.5. So do the numbers 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18. However, it is clear that the latter group are more "spread out", i.e. if you pick one of the numbers at random and see how far it is from the overall average, you are likely to get a much greater distance in the latter group. The standard deviation for that group is much greater.

Since we want to compare IQ and Int, it is not enough to say that the average IQ of 100 corresponds to the average Int of 10.5. For instance, we don't know whether an increase in IQ by +10 points represents +1 to Int or +2 or some other conversion, we need to know what the frequency of higher and lower scores are in both systems. Then we can determine how many IQ points correspond to one Int point increase.

Now, since 68.1% of the population has an IQ in the range 85-115, and 67.6% of the population has Int in the range 8-13, we can reasonably say that IQ +15 corresponds to Int +3. With standard deviation, we are doing the same thing, only using the "overall spread" of the curve.

The idea is that once we have a conversion formula, then if we have the fact that X% of a population has Int so-and-so, then we can be reasonably certain that X% will have the corresponding IQ. The conversion will preserve the rarity of the given scores.

Thank you!


My personal experience with high-IQ societies is mixed. The idea behind them is that they are a place for sharp people to get together with other sharp people in a friendly atmosphere. Having a tough time finding people who want to play a high-level game of Scrabble? Go to a MENSA meeting on Scrabble night. Family and friends aren't into Kierkegaard? You'll find lots of people to talk with at a MENSA gathering. There are also those who join just to put their membership on their resume's but they're mostly harmless.

The down side for me has been the "my kung-fu is better than your kung-fu" mindset of a significant minority of members (maybe one in ten). The top 2% means that you were probably at or near the top of your class (or you could argue that you SHOULD'VE been at or near the top) for much of your life. Well, 50% of MENSA members will be in the bottom half, intellectually, at any MENSA meeting. This is a paradigm shift that is hard for less mature members to deal with. But weirdest and rarest of all are those who want to associate with other smart folk as some kind of "us against them": "This is so cool... we're talking about quantum physics... my girlfriend's not bright enough, so I can't talk to her about stuff like this... in fact most people have no idea what it is and wouldn't be able to handle it if they did." Ugh.

So in my experience, MENSA has lots of good, interesting, people and some tools.

And thank you too! Btw., is that literal tools or figurative tools (people used as tools)?

On the subject of the last category of people though:
Note: Please read the whole thing and know me for a few years before you make up an opinion on me (and I will try to do the same thing for you). ;)

It doesn't excuse them, but it goes a far way to understanding their behavior that many people grow up in anti-intellectual environments. These hostile and/or competitive attitudes are often fostered by negative environments, much as people in some physically oriented careers might be looked down upon as dumb and develop, with a push, hostile attitudes towards higher education types.
Two out of three times when I used my IQ as a defense on the internet when people off-hand threw nasty 'idiot' comments at me it ended up in much evil nastiness (on their side) and general contempt or assumptions that I was a lot of bad things. Its my Asbergers that I think in such direct terms and partly ignore and partly don't understand that people will react badly.
Personally I accused a few people of anti-intellectualism by PM after my most recent thread, ironically this was largely (though there was some general name-calling and sinful description) because they told me to shut up since they didn't like my ideas or my way of gathering information (though there was also a strong vein of (which I partly agree with) of thinking I hadn't done a proper enough job (which was why I started the thread in the first place) which in one way is diametric.
Mostly I remember school was hard I suppose, but that had more to do with partial charisma problems than topping off in class.

So while I think it is a disgusting thing, I could see why it might happen in some people out of spite and anger. Plus people WANT things and maybe they feel insecure. It's just mhmmm, I don't like to judge people until they hurt me.