Let's Calculate Our Stats!

[Greengiant]

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:

[mikeejimbo]

For a quicker estimation, I'd do INT = IQ/10. It's approximate and makes sense. Your method gives higher results, which are supposedly much less likely.

[shadow_archmagi]

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.

Let's do this, people! :smallbiggrin:

But if you're grotesque, the weak minded will be easily terrified! It goes both ways.

[Greengiant]

For a quicker estimation, I'd do INT = IQ/10. It's approximate and makes sense. Your method gives higher results, which are supposedly much less likely.

I don't see that working very well. To get the max starting INT: 18, you'd have to have an IQ of 180. Which is improbable. 145 is gifted, isn't it? I based it on the fact that on average, people have an IQ of 100, which would be 10. My equation scales well, I believe.

[mikeejimbo]

Well yeah, but the rules assume that 10 is the norm, while 18 is practically super-human, don't they? And 18 is for HEROES. I mean, we're pretty much all low-level NPCs, not likely to have stats much higher than, maybe, 15.

[Nefarion Xid]

For 3rd edition, it was easy to determine your strength score based on the lifting table in the PHB. Although, not everyone has access to a set of weights to figure this out (which is probably indicative of having a score 14 or under). Most adult males would safely fall in the 13-15 range.

Edit: Heroes aren't heroes because they're Herculean. By all means, you can find some high school football players with Strength all the way up to 18. Heroes are set apart mostly by their dedication to mastering swordplay or arcana (I suppose shooting fire from your fingers sets you apart by default, doesn't it?)

IE - You may actually benchpress 350 pounds and have a strenght of 18. But you don't take your greatsword out back and practice for 8 hours a day...and then go cut your teeth on some local kobolds. That's what makes a Fighter a Fighter.

[mikeejimbo]

I swear somewhere they said that stats don't tend to get as high as that in non-important NPCs. Like us.

[Gralamin]

I swear somewhere they said that stats don't tend to get as high as that in non-important NPCs. Like us.

Perhaps you mean how important NPCs are supposed to use the Elite Array? (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8)

[Greengiant]

Well yeah, but the rules assume that 10 is the norm, while 18 is practically super-human, don't they? And 18 is for HEROES. I mean, we're pretty much all low-level NPCs, not likely to have stats much higher than, maybe, 15.

Taking a look at this picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/IQ_curve.svg) and this (http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/Definition_of_IQ.html) we can figure that using my equation we would find:

Educability
8th Grade to 12th Grade - INT: 7
8th-Grade to 1-2 years of College - INT: 9
12th-Grade to College Degree - INT: 11
College to Master's Level - INT: 13
College to Non-Technical Ph. D.'s. - INT: 14.4 (14)
Any Ph. D. at 3rd-Tier Schools - INT: 15.9 (16)
No limitations to Einsteins estimated IQ - INT: 16.4 to 24.8

I think this works better than Einstein having an int of 17.

EDIT: Spelling

[Mando Knight]

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.

Using your equation, the upper limit is unachievable, and a "relatively moderate" wisdom ranges from 9 to 12, and the highest ranges from 12 to 15.

[Bonecrusher Doc]

Gotta agree with mikeejimbo - unless you're an Olympic athlete, a contender for a Nobel prize, or a professional motivational speaker, probably shouldn't see to many 18s... if we are being "realistic" with 10 being an average score.

For strength scores, I would say just refer to the PHB for how much weight you can lift over your head. For example, the average person (strength 10) should be able to lift a maximum of 100 pounds over his/her head.

On the other hand, if you are assuming we are already hero material, and we are giving our scores a boost (like going from 3d6 to 4d6b3) then our scores can be higher.

Edit: Man, my wife interrupts me to make me look at photos and I get ninja'd SIX TIMES!

[Greengiant]

Using your equation, the upper limit is unachievable, and a "relatively moderate" wisdom ranges from 9 to 12, and the highest ranges from 12 to 15.

Oops, simple calculation error, lets find another number shall we? uhhh... maybe 3.8? Or 4. Those would work well, but they don't scale. Since each level in wisdom is supposed to be gradually greater than the previous, and not just one up. For example, a person with 13 wisdom shouldn't be only one level higher than 12, and so on. It needs to scale.

But the test is hardly accurate anyway, anyone with a high enough INT ;) can pick the answers that would lead him to a greater score without them actually being wise in a practical situation.

I'd still say that test's results multiplied by 3.9. Unless a better equation can be found.

[Demented]

One problem with your original equation is that it doesn't react well to low IQs.
An IQ of 50 will give you an INT of 0.

Edit: Okay, maybe I skipped a post in this thread or something.
I thought everyone was talking about INT. Bother!

[Greengiant]

Gotta agree with mikeejimbo - unless you're an Olympic athlete, a contender for a Nobel prize, or a professional motivational speaker, probably shouldn't see to many 18s... if we are being "realistic" with 10 being an average score.

For strength scores, I would say just refer to the PHB for how much weight you can lift over your head. For example, the average person (strength 10) should be able to lift a maximum of 100 pounds over his/her head.

On the other hand, if you are assuming we are already hero material, and we are giving our scores a boost (like going from 3d6 to 4d6b3) then our scores can be higher.

Edit: Man, my wife interrupts me to make me look at photos and I get ninja'd SIX TIMES!

For the sake of this thread, let us assume that we are hero material. So we have the starting stats of 12 - 18, depending on the type of person we are.

[Bonecrusher Doc]

I would say that Dexterity is a tough one, because its using one stat to represent Manual Dexterity, Hand-Eye Coordination, Speed, and Agility.

I think this (http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/sampleworkouts/a/shuttlerun.htm) should be part of your dexterity score.

EDIT: also maybe your score on some kind of ring toss game. I would say use your bowling score but it would be confounded by how much you practice bowling.

[Greengiant]

One problem with your equation is that it doesn't react well to low IQs.
An IQ of 50 will give you an INT of 0.

You're totally right. But a person with the IQ of 50 technically shouldn't get past 2nd to 4th grade education level as an adult. We could find another equation for them though. Tell me if you find one.

[Greengiant]

I would say that Dexterity is a tough one, because its using one stat to represent Manual Dexterity, Hand-Eye Coordination, Speed, and Agility.

I think this (http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/sampleworkouts/a/shuttlerun.htm) should be part of your dexterity score.

EDIT: also maybe your score on some kind of ring toss game. I would say use your bowling score but it would be confounded by how much you practice bowling.

If dexterity is Manual Dexterity, Hand-Eye Coordination, Speed, and Agility, then what would shuttle runs judge? Endurance, which would be a mixture of strength and constitution, I guess.

Ring toss would be fine, I guess, but it's the same as bowling in the way that if you practice it enough you'll be better. My nana plays a version ring toss with me, and beats me easily, but if you asked her to juggle, or dodge something thrown at her, things like that, she'd fail hard. (No offense granny).

We could have someone else drop a ruler, and then see how long it takes for you to catch it based on the distance it falls, and work it in there. But that'd only judge reaction time, not how agile you were.

[Bonecrusher Doc]

The ruler drop sounds good to me for a component of the dexterity test. The shuttle run measures speed and agility. Still scratching my head about Charisma though... maybe ask 18 random strangers in the mall to scratch your back for you, and see how many will actually do it.
That could be a combination of eloquence, body language, and attractiveness.

[Saint Nil]

Or how nice a person is.

[Greengiant]

The ruler drop sounds good to me for a component of the dexterity test. The shuttle run measures speed and agility. Still scratching my head about Charisma though... maybe ask 18 random strangers in the mall to scratch your back for you, and see how many will actually do it.
That could be a combination of eloquence, body language, and attractiveness.

Well, the previous method to find your charisma (not made by me) was to just count how many different people you had sex with. But that doesn't work at all... haha, friends on your favorite social network (example: facebook) divided by 20, or something.

Totally ridiculous, but better than nothing for now.

[Greengiant]

For 3rd edition, it was easy to determine your strength score based on the lifting table in the PHB. Although, not everyone has access to a set of weights to figure this out (which is probably indicative of having a score 14 or under). Most adult males would safely fall in the 13-15 range.

Edit: Heroes aren't heroes because they're Herculean. By all means, you can find some high school football players with Strength all the way up to 18. Heroes are set apart mostly by their dedication to mastering swordplay or arcana (I suppose shooting fire from your fingers sets you apart by default, doesn't it?)

IE - You may actually benchpress 350 pounds and have a strenght of 18. But you don't take your greatsword out back and practice for 8 hours a day...and then go cut your teeth on some local kobolds. That's what makes a Fighter a Fighter.

I totally agree with everything you just said. I like you.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Under your system and the carrying capacity chart of the PHB?

Str: 15
Dex: ? (I'm on a trackpad, so my Dex score comes out as 3. I'm not the most coordinated person, but I'm not that bad. I would put myself at 10, personally.)
Con: 16
Int: 26 (I have an IQ of 180 [I've gotten everywhere from 150 to 220, so I just went with a middle value], so uh, yeah, you might want to revise that system.)
Wis: 14
Cha: 8 (Self-evaluation)

[Bonecrusher Doc]

There is this (http://easydamus.com/character.html) quiz, but it's more a questionnaire of how youview yourself subjectively - nothing quantitative.

I've never taken an IQ test and it seems like everyone else has... is it something routinely done in school nowadays, or available on the internet perhaps?

[elliott20]

you can't REALLY estimate strength that well either, as it's application would be uneven. the way you have it right now, lifters would have the highest strength but if you ask me, they are hardly the most efficient people when it comes to muscle application.

I'd say that you really can't measure with precision ANY stat. I mean, rating INT by raw educational degrees? If anything, a degree is a better reflection of skill points and level then actual raw INT score, what with being a reflection of your own time commitment and all. IQ? also problematic. It's based on your age, and your performance vs. your peers. So, it's automatically on a bell curve. but in D&D, there is no upper limit to how smart you can be. There is no bell curve.

all of these things fall apart when you examine them closely.

[Greengiant]

Under your system and the carrying capacity chart of the PHB?

Str: 15
Dex: ? (I'm on a trackpad, so my Dex score comes out as 3. I'm not the most coordinated person, but I'm not that bad. I would put myself at 10, personally.)
Con: 16
Int: 26 (I have an IQ of 180 [I've gotten everywhere from 150 to 220, so I just went with a middle value], so uh, yeah, you might want to revise that system.)
Wis: 14
Cha: 8 (Self-evaluation)

Dude, that's not a right IQ then. Einstein's IQ was 174, and a genius is at 155. 100 is AVERAGE. I guarantee you are not 180.

[elliott20]

IQ past a certain point becomes meaningless anyway.

The thing is, if you took an internet IQ test, I can guarantee that your score was inflated. Guaranteed.

[Greengiant]

you can't REALLY estimate strength that well either, as it's application would be uneven. the way you have it right now, lifters would have the highest strength but if you ask me, they are hardly the most efficient people when it comes to muscle application.

I'd say that you really can't measure with precision ANY stat. I mean, rating INT by raw educational degrees? If anything, a degree is a better reflection of skill points and level then actual raw INT score, what with being a reflection of your own time commitment and all. IQ? also problematic. It's based on your age, and your performance vs. your peers. So, it's automatically on a bell curve. but in D&D, there is no upper limit to how smart you can be. There is no bell curve.

all of these things fall apart when you examine them closely.

Obviously they would. We're taking REAL people with no accurate way of judging them in the real world. And then taking those wrong judgements, and converting them to a totally different system. This is just for fun, as it has no impact on real life. It's to see, for your own curiosity, how you would approximately be in the D&D system.

[elliott20]

Well, the previous method to find your charisma (not made by me) was to just count how many different people you had sex with. But that doesn't work at all... haha, friends on your favorite social network (example: facebook) divided by 20, or something.

Totally ridiculous, but better than nothing for now.

are you saying Tila Tequila has a CHA in the 5 digits?

[CasESenSITItiVE]

does anyone else get a bunch html code when they try to go to the wisdom test? mabye that's supposed to happen?

[Sereg]

When I click on the link for wisdom, I get code rather than a questionairre.

[Glyde]

STR: 11
DEX: 15 (rounded up from 14.9)
CON: 13
INT: 14
WIS: 13
CHA: 16 - I'm a very likable person, is often pigeonholed into leadership roles and am pretty good looking. I must be doing something right XD

[Magnor Criol]

does anyone else get a bunch html code when they try to go to the wisdom test? mabye that's supposed to happen?

Worked fine for me.

Though, really, it seems more like a personality test than a wisdom test. Dunno how it's really supposed to measure wisdom.

[revolver kobold]

Strength: 9
Dexterity: According to the formula the OP gave, mines apparently 27. Which can't be right.:smallconfused:
Constitution: To be honest, mine would probably be about 6 or 7 (I have cystic fibrosis, so I'm not the hardiest of chaps)
Wisdom: 12
Intelligence: Once again, according to the formula the OP gave, 16, which I feel is bit generous.
Charisma: 12? People don't hate me on sight, so it can't be all that bad.

I think i would make a better Contact than an actual Adventurer.

[Greengiant]

Strength: 9
Dexterity: According to the formula the OP gave, mines apparently 27. Which can't be right.:smallconfused:
Constitution: To be honest, mine would probably be about 6 or 7 (I have cystic fibrosis, so I'm not the hardiest of chaps)
Wisdom: 12
Intelligence: Once again, according to the formula the OP gave, 16, which I feel is bit generous.
Charisma: 12? People don't hate me on sight, so it can't be all that bad.

I think i would make a better Contact than an actual Adventurer.

You're not supposed to do that good on the dexterity test :smalltongue: , I just said that because I couldn't get higher than 17 no matter how hard I tried. EDIT: Did you multiply by 1.15 instead of dividing? Did you do more than three tries? And the scores aren't added, they're seperate, you just pick the highest out of three.

[Sereg]

Well besides wisdom for which I just got code:

Strength: 3 (Yes, I'm that pathetic)

Dexterity: 14

Constitution: about 13 if I remember correctly

Intelligence: about 15

Charisma: According to the network method, about 6 (As I'm an aspie this might not be to far off)

[revolver kobold]

I got 32 seconds on the Dex Test. Probably comes from all those video games i play. :smallbiggrin:

[Mr.Bookworm]

Dude, that's not a right IQ then. Einstein's IQ was 174, and a genius is at 155. 100 is AVERAGE. I guarantee you are not 180.

...

I just wanted to impress someone... :smallfrown:

Actually, I've never taken an IQ test, and just pegged myself at whatever I thought suited me. And completely managed to forget how the IQ system works. As well as making an ass out of myself for lying, but that's another thing.

So, yeah, I'd peg myself as 120-140. Somewhere in that range. Which would make my Int score (assuming 130) 16.

Much more reasonable.

[Greengiant]

...

I just wanted to impress someone... :smallfrown:

Actually, I've never taken an IQ test, and just pegged myself at whatever I thought suited me. And completely managed to forget how the IQ system works. As well as making an ass out of myself for lying, but that's another thing.

So, yeah, I'd peg myself as 120-140. Somewhere in that range. Which would make my Int score (assuming 130) 16.

Much more reasonable.

The upper intellectual society could be judged around 120-140 anyway, so you could well fit there. I'm 132, by 4 different tests I've taken, averaged. EDIT: That wasn't a lie on your part, it was an... estimate.

[bue52]

STR: Can someone show me the 3rd edition and the table comparison? I do not have 3rd edition phb.

DEX:15

CON:13

WIS:15

INT:15

CHA: 10

[elliott20]

The upper intellectual society could be judged around 120-140 anyway, so you could well fit there. I'm 132, by 4 different tests I've taken, averaged. EDIT: That wasn't a lie on your part, it was an... estimate.

most IQ tests online will probably inflat your score by about 10-20 points though. Of course, since this is all just fun and games, who cares really.

[The Minx]

STR: I have yet to figure this one out. I'm guessing I've got Str 8 or so.

DEX: According to the OP method, my DEX is 2, though that really can't be right... I may not be special in Dex, but I'm not abysmal. So I object to this method of figuring it out! :smalltongue:

CON: 10 I can't remember how often I have been sick the past 3 years, though I have definitely not been sick the past year and a half. And yet, I'm nothing spectacular in terms of health, being a nerdy type. So I guessed this one. EDIT: I forgot the holding your breath thing. Modified.

INT: 16 This is going by the OP method.

WIS: 16

CHA: I have yet to figure this one out also.


EDIT: you can test your IQ here: http://www.IQTest.com

[Norsesmithy]

I have never found a sensible and accurate test for Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, or Dexterity, but the tests for Constitution and Strength are written right into the rules.

And according to those tests (weight over your head, and still be able to move at ten feet per second, and holding your breath) I have Str 18 and Con 20.

I know I am pretty strong, and pretty tough, but those scores still don't make much sense given that the pre-epic human limit for either is 23.

Perhaps I stumbled across a pair of +5 tomes of stat point adjustment (gainful exercise et al.) in my youth.

I don't think much of it anyways.

[Sereg]

For those who can't take the wisdom test try this link: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/flash/multimedia/20070430_WISDOM/

Which means my wisdom is 14.

Edit: If the IQ test supplied by the Minx is really the most accurate then my Intelligence is actually 17.

[Mikeavelli]

As it stands, the NYtimes Wisdom test measures Empathy and ability to understand other people much better than it does wisdom by the D&D definition. I'd vote taking the "Wisdom" test, and applying it as a Charisma test.

Especially since my internal Charisma is, oddly enough for a D&D guy on a message board, fairly high (Debate nerd in High School \ College, have spoken in front of groups in front of several hundred people, etc.) - while Wisdom is the sort of thing that, by D&D standards, I'd probably have a penalty in (My hearing is going bad prematurely thanks to a love of loud Concerts, I can function without glasses, but need them to legally drive, have a tendency to forget things or do things that have unintended consequences that, in retrospect, I really should have been able to predict, etc). The wisdom test puts me at 15.6, which is about right for Cha.

Scores:

Strength: 14 - I bulked up in the Military, and still go to the Gym a couple times a week.
Con: 14 - I get sick fairly often actually, but can keep going despite it. For example, I was in the Military for a couple years, and showed up to a PT test so sick I got put on quarters later that day. Normally they just make you go home and retake another day if you're that bad, but I'm just stubborn like that. Still managed to get a 91.5/100.
Dex: 10 - I'm playing the game with a touchpad rather than a mouse, making it harder. Still, anything dex-based that I'm good at has been the result of practice, rather than natural ability
Int: 15 - Currently in school going towards an Electrical Engineering degree. Mmmmm, Differential Equations. Yum.
Wis: 8 - as explained above.
Cha: 16 - As explained above.

[chiasaur11]

What do you mean by sick?

Debilitating sick, or a minor cough, or what?

[Deepblue706]

According to the methods of the OP, I have the following:

STR 11
DEX 4
CON 12
INT 18
WIS 15
CHA ???

Let's say CHA 12. I do draw the attention of many ladies.

Seriously though, that DEX is whack. And I'm a decent fencer, darn it. And good at video games. And stuff. I failed to anticipate the speed the first time, slipped on the second, and got trapped in a corner on the third :smallfrown:

Plus, there's no way I'm accepting I have higher than INT 15. To think that I'm that intelligent when compared to so many people is disturbing. People might be stupid, but I'm not that smart.

Too much WIS, too.

And I think I have CON 10.

STR 11 I can accept, however. That makes sense.

[OverdrivePrime]

Well yeah, but the rules assume that 10 is the norm, while 18 is practically super-human, don't they? And 18 is for HEROES. I mean, we're pretty much all low-level NPCs, not likely to have stats much higher than, maybe, 15.

I take offense at your insinuation, sir! I'm a PC character in my life, and work damn hard at it!

Seriously though, these threads always break down into someone coming out to have stats that reflect a 36 point buy or some such, and then a bunch of people who are bitter about their lower stats start slamming people for being egotists and such.

Real life isn't point buy, folks. There are a lot of exceptional people out there. Even to say that an 18 is the exclusive realm of heroes is fairly laughable. We all put points into our stats when we hit level 4 (and for the extremely motivated, levels 8, 12, 16 and 20). College athletes like football players, wrestlers and the like will easily have strength in the 18+ range, with a similar constution, as well as a high dexterity. There are a ton of college athletes in the world, and many of them play RPGs. Some of them will have high mental stats as well.

Just going by my own measure against previous tests designed to "calculate your stats", I'm a pretty tall, fairly strong guy. These days I fall in the 17-18 strength range. 10 years ago, when I was in college, I had a strength more around a 16, and when I was 18, it was more around a 15. My constitution, wisdom, Charisma and (arguably) intelligence have all increased by at least one point since I started my adventuring career 14 years ago. Does that mean I'm somehow closing in on epic level? Probably not.

Unlike our D&D characters, we can boost our own stats through various self-enhancing activities such as exercise, education, and personal interaction. We don't have manuals of gainful exercise +4, but you could spend 4 years going to a gym for 2 hours a day. There are no tomes of clear thought +1, but constantly takling complex problem solving at work for five or six years will definitely groom a mind more equiped to sort through patterns and logic.

Anyway, we're more like white wolf mortals than D&D NPCs.
Here's me, I suppose:

-- oh goodness did this ever bloom into a longer task than I had originally planned! --


MORTALS

Name: ODP Nature: Cavalier Age: 32
Player: no, married Demeanor: Caregiver Sex: <joke goes here>
Chronicle: M'wakee Residence: Farwell Concept: evolving
Attributes
Physical Social Mental
Strength_____••••◦ Charisma_____•••◦◦ Perception____•••◦◦
Dexterity____•••◦◦ Manipulation_••◦◦◦ Intelligence__•••◦◦
Stamina______•••◦◦ Appearance___•••◦◦ Wits__________•••◦◦

Abilities
Talents Skills Knowledges
Alertness____••◦◦◦ Animal Ken___••◦◦◦ Academics_____•••◦◦
Athletics____•••◦◦ Crafts_______••◦◦◦ Computer______••◦◦◦
Brawl________•••◦◦ Drive________•••◦◦ Finance_______••◦◦◦
Dodge________••◦◦◦ Etiquette____••◦◦◦ Investigation_•◦◦◦◦
Empathy______••••◦ Firearms_____◦◦◦◦◦ Law___________•◦◦◦◦
Expression___•••◦◦ Melee________••◦◦◦ Linguistics___••◦◦◦
Intimidation_•◦◦◦◦ Performance__•◦◦◦◦ Medicine______•◦◦◦◦
Leadership___••◦◦◦ Security_____•◦◦◦◦ Occult________••◦◦◦
Streetwise___••◦◦◦ Stealth______•◦◦◦◦ Politics______•••◦◦
Subterfuge___•◦◦◦◦ Survival_____•••◦◦ Science_______•••◦◦

Advantages
Backgrounds Virtues
Allies_______••◦◦◦ Conscience___••••◦
Contacts_____•••◦◦ Courage______••••◦
Resources____•••◦◦ Self Control_••◦◦◦

Merits/Flaws Humanity
Code of Honor •••••••◦◦◦
Calm Heart Willpower
True Love (aww!) ••••◦◦◦◦◦◦
Repusled by Califlower
Allergy: Shellfish
Intolerance: Mimes

[hamishspence]

I think Str ought to be calculated based on evrything you can find, not lifting power alone. How much you can swim without being badly "weighed down" in, assuming normal swimmer, no massive training. How much you can march for 8 hours carrying without being slowed down. How much you can hustle for a hour carrying. How much you can run with, assuming normal Adventurer running speed and Con 10. Etc. The full stuff.

[Zeful]

Let's see by your rules I'm
Str: 13
Dex: 4
Con: 18
Int: 22
Wis: 13
Cha: 15

[JMobius]

Dude, that's not a right IQ then. Einstein's IQ was 174, and a genius is at 155. 100 is AVERAGE. I guarantee you are not 180.

Out of curiosity, where do you get that definition of 'genius'? I always hear many numbers thrown around, but the most reasonable answers I have heard are 130 or 145, multiples of the standard deviation.

[Eloel]

Str 14
Dex 18
Con 15
Int 15 (assuming it's IQ/10, the other method gives 20...)
Wis 12
Cha 9


Hmm, looks nice :)

[Erom]

Your measure for DEX is pretty bad. I have pretty good hand eye coordination on a computer or with a game controller, and by your system I just got a 16 for DEX, but anyone who knows me knows that if anything I should have an average DEX to maybe a small DEX penalty - I can't catch a ball thrown underhand to me, and I trip on my own feet and fall once every few days.

Maybe it's just that I don't model into DnD well since I have very good fine motor control and crappy gross motor control. Maybe I have good DEX and a flaw? Or maybe bad DEX but blew a feat on fine motor control?

[Zeful]

Dude, that's not a right IQ then. Einstein's IQ was 174, and a genius is at 155. 100 is AVERAGE. I guarantee you are not 180.

Dude, at the age of three I scored 180 on an IQ test for five year olds. Which according to the company that made the test is impossible. I guarantee you are wrong.

[Fako]

I'm not trying to be a damper on the subject, but here (http://www.angelfire.com/dragon/terragf/) is the stat test I like. It also has an alignment/race/class test too :smallbiggrin:

Using that test, I have

Lawful Good Human Cleric

STR 8
DEX 11
CON 11
INT 15
WIS 16
CHA 16

I don't believe I have an 11 STR like the test gave, so I simply subtracted 3, as that accounted for what I could lift by the 3rd edition table...

[Eldariel]

Uhm, here's how I'd stat out by the OP guidelines:

Str 13
Dex 19
Con 10 (I'm not sure if you mean seriously ill or some random things that don't really matter - I counted the random things)
Int 18 (you really botched up this one - way, way too high)
Wis 17 (ehh)
Cha 10


Those are really, really high. There's no way my Wis and Int should be that high, and there's no way I'm stronger than average. The Dexterity is probably the only number I agree with (although even it is probably two numbers too high - that test tests your ability to follow and anticipate the movements as much as it tests your reflexes, so Wis impacts it too), and the Cha (since that was assigned by people rather than formulae).

[JMobius]

Dude, at the age of three I scored 180 on an IQ test for five year olds. Which according to the company that made the test is impossible. I guarantee you are wrong.

An IQ test for five year olds sounds like a very dubious prospect...

[Eldariel]

Dude, at the age of three I scored 180 on an IQ test for five year olds. Which according to the company that made the test is impossible. I guarantee you are wrong.

Read this (http://hem.bredband.net/b153434/Index.htm#Note0).

[Zeful]

An IQ test for five year olds sounds like a very dubious prospect...

They are different from adult IQ tests, but they do the same thing. Test the ability to gain and retain knowledge. Due to the lack of formal teaching, tests of these kinds are generally more accurate than tests taken later in life, because you can study for an IQ test.

Eldariel: Your point? None of those numbers can be verified as most of those people were dead before either of those tests were invented.

[Eldariel]

Eldariel: Your point? None of those numbers can be verified as most of those people were dead before either of those tests were invented.

They're still educated guesses, rather than blind guesses. You can place some weight on them.

[Vagnarok]

According to the methods by the OP, I am as follows:

Str-12 (my arm strength isn’t all that great, but I’ve developed my legs pretty well. I can carry quite a bit as well, just not lift it over my head. I am currently practicing to be a martial arts instructor, so maybe I should give myself a higher score?)

Dex-18 (20 some seconds on my first try, I didn’t really feel like trying again)

Con-10 (I’ve only been sick 4 times, but I’m not much of an endurance runner and I have allergies. Considering this, I do have a good pain tolerance)

Int-19 (IQ 146, but IQ isn’t that great at measuring Intelligence. It neglects to mention creativity and many other things. I personally think that the intelligence measured by IQ tests is the weaker aspect of my brain)

Wis-17 (4.3 on the testy thing)

Cha-17 (I’ve been hearing that I should be a model for about 7 years, and I’m probably going to start. I also am quite sociable.)

It’s really hard to not come off as a **** when you’re posting your stats…

[WalkingTarget]

Well, given the methods listed in the OP:

Str: 10 (might be edging on 11, I haven't really tried my maximum lift weight)
Dex: 17 (over 19 seconds on my last try :smallcool:)
Con: 18 (16 if you count getting colds, even if I didn't miss any work over them)
Int: 16 (assuming that an online IQ test I took years ago has any relevancy)
Wis: 13 (3.3 on that test)
Cha: I don't know, let's say 10. Average appearance I guess, little in the way of persuasiveness or bluffing ability, can sing a bit, can be intimidating but it's usually unintentional. I'd say no bonus, but no penalty either.

What class would benefit from those stats? Hmmm...

[Starbuck_II]

STR: PHB Tables

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:


One thing my computer won't play the Wisdom test link flash.
I'm according to your test:

Str around 13 kimda strong, but only so much.

Dex: I got 16.84 seconds/1.15= 14.6 so rounds up to 15.

Con: 16: I've gotten sick twice over last 3 years, but then again when I do get sick it is the big ones.
Wait, does poison ivy count? Not really sickness, but unsure.

Int: Yes, I do have a 180. Now I don't act like a genuis anymore: I've had too many head injuries to do that (IQ test was prior to head injuries). Heck, I'm even starting to lose my memories of my childhood.
I need a Boo so I can at least be like Minsc.

Wis: As I said I can't run flash/test, so I'd guess maybe a 11. I don't have much common sense. Kids my age knew common sense about how world worked way before me. I stay in my own world usually.

Cha: 14, had lots of friends in middle/high school. Not as much in college, but eh. Lots of associates/school chums/Facebook friends, but not many of anyone I'd refer as a real friend.
I only have 3 or 4 of those but they are close ones.

[Sereg]

As it stands, the NYtimes Wisdom test measures Empathy and ability to understand other people much better than it does wisdom by the D&D definition. I'd vote taking the "Wisdom" test, and applying it as a Charisma test.

There's no way my charisma's a 14. I'm an aspie. I can accept a wisdom that's higher than average though.

Oh, and Starbuck_II, try my link on the second page.

[Eldariel]

Funny. Nobody on these forums has "merely" average intelligence and seems like the majority is a genius with a couple of would-be nobel prize winners.

[Tengu_temp]

Funny. Nobody on these forums has "merely" average intelligence and seems like the majority is a genius with a couple of would-be nobel prize winners.

I'd say that a typical RPG player is more intelligent on average than Joe McTelevision.

As for the test the OP suggest, the scores it gives are way too high, except for the dexterity test which scores extremely randomly. Not to mention that most DND stats are connected to more than one real-life ability - you can't make a direct connection between DND intelligence and real life IQ, or DND dexterity and real life hand-eye coordination.

Note that the opposite approach is even worse - each time I hear someone saying stuff like "99% of all people have straight 10 or 11 all across the board, if you're super special awesome you might have the elite array!" I feel like spontaneously developing long-range telekinesis and strangling that person. You do realize that, if we roll 3d6 for each ability score, than roughly 1 in 37 people has at least one 18?

[kamikasei]

You do realize that, if we roll 3d6 for each ability score, than roughly 1 in 37 people has at least one 18?

Supposedly, though, only "heroes" roll for their stats. Most people just have the commoner, NPC, or Elite array.

[Eldariel]

I'd say that a typical RPG player is more intelligent on average than Joe McTelevision.

Typical behaviour on forums like these along with the strength of popular opinions (and the obligatory "anti-popular opinion" guys) seem to contradict this though. I mean, people with IQ on the genius levels should pose the ability to think for themselves, and I find it hard to believe we'd e.g. have Monk-threads if people truly were this intelligent.

Note, with these numbers we're not talking about just above-average intelligence here - we're literally talking about a forum full of geniuses. All from the top 1% of the population.


Also, I'm a tad surprised nobody gave themselves 6 or worse in anything. If we rolled 3d6 for stats, the chance for a 3 is the same as the chance for 18.

[Tengu_temp]

Supposedly, though, only "heroes" roll for their stats. Most people just have the commoner, NPC, or Elite array.

I wouldn't call a system where you have a high chance of rolling one or more attributes too low to function normally suitable for creation of heroes.


stuff

Note that this thread is not "stat yourself as you see fit" - it's "stat yourself using the guidelines the OP provides". Those guidelines result in very high stats - 140 IQ, which is high but not top 1% of the population, translates to 18 int in them.

[Eldariel]

According to Stanford-Binet scale, approximately 1% of the people has an IQ of 135 or higher.

[Sereg]

Typical behaviour on forums like these along with the strength of popular opinions (and the obligatory "anti-popular opinion" guys) seem to contradict this though. I mean, people with IQ on the genius levels should pose the ability to think for themselves, and I find it hard to believe we'd e.g. have Monk-threads if people truly were this intelligent.

Note, with these numbers we're not talking about just above-average intelligence here - we're literally talking about a forum full of geniuses. All from the top 1% of the population.


Also, I'm a tad surprised nobody gave themselves 6 or worse in anything. If we rolled 3d6 for stats, the chance for a 3 is the same as the chance for 18.

Hey, I have a 3 and a 6 listed. Also, I think that you're confusing intelligence and wisdom.

[Eldariel]

Hey, I have a 3 and a 6 listed. Also, I think that you're confusing intelligence and wisdom.

Intelligence governs most cognitive processes, such as the analysis of information you're given in a context. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Other than that, pardon me for missing your post.

[Tengu_temp]

According to Stanford-Binet scale, approximately 1% of the people has an IQ of 135 or higher.

Hmm. In that case the Int = ((IQ-100)/5)+10 equation would make sense... if there was a direct correlation between IQ and DND intelligence. Seeing that intelligence can improve over time and with age, which IQ doesn't, and that many combat-related feats require 13 int, which translates to 115 IQ (or 130, if you use the stupid Int = IQ/10 system), this clearly is not the case.

In general, there are two tendencies in "stat yourself" threads - people either stat themselves as level 5 wizards whose lowest stat (strength) is 14 and highest (intelligence) is 20, or as level 1 commoners with 8-10 in each attribute. Both approaches are equally nonsensical.

If you ask me, most competent real life people have stats that are similar to the elite array, d20 modern classes, and level 2-3.

On a side note, stats in DND matter surprisingly little when compared to real life - if a weakling (strength 8) and a strongman (strength 18) arm-wrestle (opposed strength check), the weakling's chance to win is 26%. I'd like to see this happen one out of four times in real life.

[Trouvere]

I'd say that a typical RPG player is more intelligent on average than Joe McTelevision.And yet, with their 15-18 Int and, oh I don't know, actual interest in the game, still 4 in 10 spell it 'rouge'.

[Starbuck_II]

There's no way my charisma's a 14. I'm an aspie. I can accept a wisdom that's higher than average though.

Oh, and Starbuck_II, try my link on the second page.

I got 3.1 out of 5.
So what number on a 1-18 is that?
5/18= 0.278 so 3.1 x 0.278=0.86. 0.86 x18= 15.5.

So my Wisdom is a 15? I don't know...I guess empathy-wise I fit, but what about common sense?

[OverdrivePrime]

Funny. Nobody on these forums has "merely" average intelligence and seems like the majority is a genius with a couple of would-be nobel prize winners.

Three observations:
1. I think there's a high likelihood that the pool of respondents to this type of survey or self-analysis is tipped toward a selection of the population who are already fairly confident of themselves, and feel that they stand out from the rest of the population in at least a few areas. Aside from a small percentage of delusional people, most of these people can back up their stats by excelling in several areas in real life.

2. Our hobby generally caters to intelligent, imaginative people who enjoy using creativity to blow off steam or otherwise enjoy their free time. These are people who enjoy logic experiments and conjuring up who new worlds inside their heads. Sure, there are probably a lot of couch monkeys among us, but gamers by and large are no longer the old stereotype of basement-dwelling, ache-ridden sacks of sloth. Many people participate in SCA or martial arts, or wilderness survival events. Most of the people I game with stand out in at least a few ways, and even the dumbest people I've ever gamed with are more intelligent than the baseline IQ of 100. If I had to find a low stat common for RPG folk, I think I'd pick on constitution.

3. Nobel prizes are not awarded for excellence in gaming. That's where many of us have focused a large part of our cognitive resources.

[kamikasei]

I got 3.1 out of 5.
So what number on a 1-18 is that?
5/18= 0.278 so 3.1 x 0.278=0.86. 0.86 x18= 15.5.

No, 3.1/5 = x/18. x = 3.1*18/5, not 3.1*5/18. Your wisdom would come out to just over 11, assuming a range from 0-5 and 0-18. (If both are floored at 1, then it's just under 10.)

[Starbuck_II]

No, 3.1/5 = x/18. x = 3.1*18/5, not 3.1*5/18. Your wisdom would come out to just over 11, assuming a range from 0-5 and 0-18. (If both are floored at 1, then it's just under 10.)

However, the text said moderately above average wisdom. 11 isn't above average (it is average). So it should be 12 or your math is faulty.

And yes, 1-5 and 1-18; you can't roll a 0 in D&D.

[kamikasei]

And yes, 1-5 and 1-18; you can't roll a 0 in D&D.

You can't roll a 3 for stats either unless you have a penalty for some reason. So assuming we're all normal humans without weird subraces or Flaws, it's a 1-5 range mapping on to a 3-18 range, so ((2.1*15)/4)+3, 10.875. So maybe the test is wrong :smallcool:.

[chiasaur11]

Three observations:
1. I think there's a high likelihood that the pool of respondents to this type of survey or self-analysis is tipped toward a selection of the population who are already fairly confident of themselves, and feel that they stand out from the rest of the population in at least a few areas. Aside from a small percentage of delusional people, most of these people can back up their stats by excelling in several areas in real life.

2. Our hobby generally caters to intelligent, imaginative people who enjoy using creativity to blow off steam or otherwise enjoy their free time. These are people who enjoy logic experiments and conjuring up who new worlds inside their heads. Sure, there are probably a lot of couch monkeys among us, but gamers by and large are no longer the old stereotype of basement-dwelling, ache-ridden sacks of sloth. Many people participate in SCA or martial arts, or wilderness survival events. Most of the people I game with stand out in at least a few ways, and even the dumbest people I've ever gamed with are more intelligent than the baseline IQ of 100. If I had to find a low stat common for RPG folk, I think I'd pick on constitution.

3. Nobel prizes are not awarded for excellence in gaming. That's where many of us have focused a large part of our cognitive resources.

Which is too bad. I mean, I can think of several worthy nominees off the top of my head.

[Nefarion Xid]

I went back to have a look a the 4E PHB guidelines for lifting and I was reminded why I immediately trashed those and home-ruled in the 3E lifting table.

Back in high school (which wasn't SO long ago...) I could dead-lift 520 pounds...which translates into a strength score of 26 by 4E standards. So, you can imagine how professional athletes would stack up then. By 3E standards, I had a score of 17, much more believable. Keep in mind the Starting Ages of classes in 3E too. Level 1 Fighters are supposed to be 16-19 years old. And, it just so happens that these kids (football players) would have strength scores from 15 to 18.

BTW - If I were a betting man (and I am), I'd put up good money that says no one in this thread has an IQ over 170. Real IQ tests are lengthy, grueling ordeals administered by nice grad students doing grunt work.

Oh, what's that? You insist that you scored higher than that on an IQ test? Well, my talking artifact Occam's Razor might have a comment about that...

EDIT: Fascinating monkey wrench - If you rolled your stats in ye olde fashione of "roll 3d6 and keep it" you'd have a 1 out of 216 chance of having a Strength score of 18. Now, I can promise you that 1/216 of people cannot bench 350 pounds!



On a side note, stats in DND matter surprisingly little when compared to real life - if a weakling (strength 8) and a strongman (strength 18) arm-wrestle (opposed strength check), the weakling's chance to win is 26%. I'd like to see this happen one out of four times in real life.

Quoted for win. Can't double check the math right now, but the point is totally valid. So, if the issue of arm wrestling ever comes up in your game...just don't roll. Stronger guy wins; the end.

[hamishspence]

Now, using the maximum light load, and various enduring things- the 8 hour march, the 1 hour hustle, the Run, these might be a bit more helpful. Remember, player should be able to move around with the load, perhaps even, for hours. If D&D lift limits are implausibly low, what about light load limits?

[Starbuck_II]

Quoted for win. Can't double check the math right now, but the point is totally valid. So, if the issue of arm wrestling ever comes up in your game...just don't roll. Stronger guy wins; the end.
It could happen:
1) the strong man might sneeze, losing his grip.
2) He could suffer a heart attack
3) He could realize he needs to pee suddenly losing his concentration at the arm wrestling
4) He could be oogling some hot thing while it happens

Any of these might make it possible for the weaker guy to win.

[Nefarion Xid]

Yeah, but that's the same logic behind critical fumbles. The swordmaster MIGHT crack himself in the head with his own katana...but he won't. A 12 year old girl might beat a pro football player at arm wrestling...but she won't.

A human commoner MAY go down to an angry housecat. I've seen it happen, man. That's totally possible...

(Now of course, in attempting to pick up a 500 pound stone, a Fighter with 25 strenght may flinch or have a muscle spasm...and that's why we have Strength Checks)

[hamishspence]

Conan does this on occasion (lift heavy stones to impresse potential enemy)

Point to remember is- CON doesn't much affect the endurance things in 3.5 So, in effect, these sort of things are the minimum level of fitness for an adventurer.

I feel that before saying "I have 18 Str" or "I have 18 Dex" one should check all-round abilities, thoroughly. Str for all circumstances, not just the clean lift.

But then, the fitness of just a Str 10 Adventurer might be pretty impressive- walking for 8 hours with a 33 pound rucksack, and being able to do this for days on end. Running with said rucksack. Hustling. And so on.

[Orzel]

I went 35+ seconds on that dex game then got bored and let myself get hit. I got a Dex of 31 according to the text. But I'm clumsy.



Also my Con would be 16 since I only get 2 non-accidental poisoning based sickness every 3 years.


Really D&D Int is more mental speed and capicity that education or IQ.

[Vagnarok]

Typical behaviour on forums like these along with the strength of popular opinions (and the obligatory "anti-popular opinion" guys) seem to contradict this though. I mean, people with IQ on the genius levels should pose the ability to think for themselves, and I find it hard to believe we'd e.g. have Monk-threads if people truly were this intelligent.

Ok, I'm assuming that you realize the distinction here, but you can't really say that the entire forum is claiming to have genius level IQs when only a fraction of them have posted in this thread. Moving on: having a high IQ does not imply leadership or creativity or originality of any sort. Seriously, do you even know what goes into an IQ test? A real one mind you, not an internet based one?


Hmm. In that case the Int = ((IQ-100)/5)+10 equation would make sense... if there was a direct correlation between IQ and DND intelligence. Seeing that intelligence can improve over time and with age, which IQ doesn't, and that many combat-related feats require 13 int, which translates to 115 IQ (or 130, if you use the stupid Int = IQ/10 system), this clearly is not the case.


Well I think you're touching on the distinction between fluid and crystallized intelligence. Fluid decreases with age, as it is the ability to learn and implement new cognitive processes. Crystallized intelligence is most easily conceptualized as knowledge, which usually increases as we get older ;)

[OverdrivePrime]

Also,

:smalleek: Also what? We must know!

[Istari]

Woot 17 Dexterity

[Vagnarok]

:smalleek: Also what? We must know!

lol I edited another comment out when I discovered that it was unsupportable.

*snip snip*

[Bonecrusher Doc]

"Wisdom" Test - a rough draft at how you might calculate your stats for the composite score that DnD calls Wisdom. Thoughts?

Start with a score of 10.

Contemplation
*Add 1 point if you occasionally spend some time (more than 5 minutes) in purposeful contemplation of some sort (such as prayer or meditation) - 2 points if you do it weekly, 3 points if you do it daily.

Willpower
*Subtract 1 point if you are easily swayed by other people to do things you'd rather not. 2 points if you almost always give in.
*Add 1 point if you seasonally fast/abstain from something you like for the purpose of self-betterment through denial (e.g. Lent, Ramadan - not to start a religious debate or anything). Or instead of seasonally, could be every Friday or something like that. 2 points if this is part of your lifestyle year-round.
*Add 1 point if you have the willpower to wake up early to exercise at least 5 days a week, or something like that.

Perception
Obviously has nothing to do with the traditional definition of wisdom... I am afraid of offending people here -
*Subtract 1 point if you wear glasses/contacts, 2 points if you must wear thick glasses. Add 1 point if you are totally blind - you won't be able to use the Spot skill, but your other senses will likely be heightened.
*Subtract 1 point if you know you have some hearing damage, 2 if you need a hearing aid. Add 1 point if you are totally deaf - you won't be able to use the Listen skill, but your other senses will likely be heightened.

Miscellaneous
*Subtract 1 point for any phobias you have (fears that you cannot overcome).
*Subtract 2 points if you have a reputation for being "absent-minded" or "ditsy."

[Jølly]

Str 9
Dex 20 o.o
Con 12
Int 16
Wis 14
Cha 10?

Strength - I'm not really very strong.
Dexterity - I assumed I'd do good here. 20 dexterity seems a little unrealistic though... :smallamused:
Constitution - Not really sure of how many times exactly. I'd put it around 12 though. I am in fact suffering from the flu right now.
Int - According to OP.
Wis - According to that test thingy.
Cha - I'm extremely shy in social situations with large numbers or new people. Though when I relax I get along with everybody. :smallredface:

Maybe a rogue? I can be pretty sheisty sometimes. :smalltongue:

[Starbuck_II]

Perception
Obviously has nothing to do with the traditional definition of wisdom... I am afraid of offending people here -
*Subtract 1 point if you wear glasses/contacts, 2 points if you must wear thick glasses. Add 1 point if you are totally blind - you won't be able to use the Spot skill, but your other senses will likely be heightened.


Now are we assuming Base Wisdom or current Wisdom?
I had perfect vision till after my several head injuries. Does my Wisdom go down?

Strange method though.

[dwagiebard]

BTW - If I were a betting man (and I am), I'd put up good money that says no one in this thread has an IQ over 170.

...and I'd be willing to bet that if there are, then they'd be a lot more likely to have done the research than those who don't.

Although you have a point: It's unlikely, so on average you'd win the bet.
I don't want to get into a big argument about this, but I'm pretty sure I win that bet. If you really want me to send you the research and confirmation, PM me.

So... anyway...
Intelligence: 25 using origional scoring system, 17/18 using IQ/10.

Dexterity: 18 using that game, but I agree that it's not a very good scoring system. So I'd like to add that I've never raced anyone my age and lost, can ride a unicycle, and juggle.

Constitution: I'm not sure, maybe 13?

Stength: 11? I don't know how much I can lift, but I think I'm above average.

Wisdom: 15 using that nytimes test. My score was 4.2 out of 5, so if you assume 18 to be the maximum in D&D you can take your score times 20 and divide by 5.5555.

Charisma: There isn't really a good way to test this, but I'd say above average.


Also, I agree that this really isn't a good test sample, because anyone who doesn't have good scores isn't likely to tell people.


"
Perception
Obviously has nothing to do with the traditional definition of wisdom... I am afraid of offending people here -
*Subtract 1 point if you wear glasses/contacts, 2 points if you must wear thick glasses. Add 1 point if you are totally blind - you won't be able to use the Spot skill, but your other senses will likely be heightened.


You're seriously taking away wisdom points for wearing glasses? That sounds like a -1 to spot to me.

[Nefarion Xid]

Research? Yeah I've got access to the same psych database as any other slovenly undergrad. Although, I think the wiki provides the perfect bell curve for IQ by population. Population with an IQ over 170? Insignificant. Of the fewer than 50 people posting in this thread, there's a better chance that one is major league athlete.

If someone claims to have an IQ over 170, they are wrong.
If they have test results to confirm it, the test is wrong.
If they have a psychologist to confirm their score on the Weschler Adult Intelligence Test, the good Dr. is wrong.
But...if he's not, then that super genius has just wasted an awful lot of time. Get back to colliding hadron beams! Or trying to catch the roadrunner, or whatever super geniuses do.

[Bonecrusher Doc]

You're seriously taking away wisdom points for wearing glasses? That sounds like a -1 to spot to me.

I know it sounds weird, but it seems to me that vision and hearing are part of D&D 3.5's Wisdom score... "If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom." So Spot check modifiers are how skillfully you look in a crowd for someone (skill ranks) and how good your vision is (Wisdom modifier).
Not that I like this. Au contraire, I think someone with less acuity in the traditional 5 senses may be more likely to have higher intuition/introspectiveness. My understanding is that 4th edition does it slightly differently - I see a block on the character sheet that says "Senses: Passive Insight, Passive Perception" but they still have just the one Wisdom ability score.

I have an old GURPS book which lists only four Basic Attributes: Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Health. ense rolls depend on Intelligence ("a measure of brainpower, alertness, adaptability and general background experience"), with Advantages or Disadvantages like Alertness or Bad Vision as modifiers.

The Serenity RPG has Agility, Strength, Vitality, Alertness, Intelligence, and Willpower. Alertness is a combination of th 5 senses and intuition. Willpower is a combination of Charisma and, well, Willpower.

[hamishspence]

wisdom makes Spot checks better. But in what way? Maybe its instinctive "ITS MOVING!" reaction many animals have when something dangerous is heading in their direction.

Would picking a camoflaged object out, up close, be more Search?

Remember D&D adventurers have very high endurance- its not what you can lift, its that you can march for 8 hours with it. or drag 10 times as much- if surface is forgiving.

300 pounds is the Str 18 lift- meaning- can lift it overhead, can march with it, hustle, etc.

600 pounds is what you can lift, but only stagger 5 ft per round with. But for how long? it doesn't give upper limit for staggering time.

1500 pounds is typical drag load, 3000 pounds, drag load on a good surface. Again, 5 ft per round, but can keep it up for ages.

[Dogmantra]

hmm... I don't have any books (my only experience of D&D comes from NWN2) but I did the pressups/3 to get a rough estimate of my strength, stats are:

STR: 1... yup... one strength = 3 pushups... though I'd say I'm probably about 4 or 5
DEX: 14
CON: About 8
INT: 19
WIS: 10
CHA: Tough one... I'd probably put myself at around 10

STR is my dump stat :smallwink:

[Starbuck_II]

hmm... I don't have any books (my only experience of D&D comes from NWN2) but I did the pressups/3 to get a rough estimate of my strength, stats are:

STR: 1... yup... one strength = 3 pushups... though I'd say I'm probably about 4 or 5
DEX: 14
CON: About 8
INT: 19
WIS: 10
CHA: Tough one... I'd probably put myself at around 10

STR is my dump stat :smallwink:
Dude, you can't roll a 1 on 4d6 drop 1 or 3d6...you a hallfing or a gnome?

[hamishspence]

Pressups/3 is not the best method. Person could do dozens yet still not be able to march 8 hours with a heavy load, or run flat out with a light load.

[Kroy]

Following the method in the first post:

Str: 10
Dex: 15
Con: 11
Wis: 13
Int: 15
Cha: 11

[Fenix_of_Doom]

...

So, yeah, I'd peg myself as 120-140. Somewhere in that range. Which would make my Int score (assuming 130) 16.


:smallconfused: you don't "peg" yourself for these kinds of tests trust me.


An IQ test for five year olds sounds like a very dubious prospect...

Honestly, IQ tests in general are dubious, it has been shown that a 10 point deviation isn't a rare occurrence, translating IQ to intelligence is even more dubious.
That being said, the same goes for the wisdom test, seriously I've never seen so many ambiguous questions in a row, interpretation, honesty and the lot all come in and make the test result worthless. Humans can't be reduced to six stats anyway.

Edit: @Eldariel,

he greatest universal genius together with Leonardo da Vinci
How can you take any website who claims this seriously?

[hamishspence]

the stats are rough guidelines. Str takes many forms- use the lowest, or increase fitness to be consistant with it. D&D adventurers, whether average Str or not, are very fit.

Dex shows widest variety of forms it can take- unless you have a good eye for ranged attacks, and good manual dexterity, your actual Dex shouldn't be fantastically good.

Running is easiest way to measure CON, but needs a good idea of Str as well for even a rough idea. And doesn't cover all aspects of it.

Mental ones are harder to really quantify- and to show its the Stat, not the skill alone, thats high.

and even if you devise really good tests, correlating test results to D&D might be tricky.

To sum up, Rather than say: "I am Str 10," say:

"Having tested myself, I can do pretty much anything a Str 10 adventurer can do."

[kirbsys]

My strength I don't know, but its probably about 10.

My DEX ened up as 10.

My constitution is aproximately 12-14 I can't remember all the times I've been sick.

My intelligence is either 18 or 14 depending on whether I use your method or the second method posted by the person after you.

My wisdom came out as a 14

My charisma is probably about 10. I'm not too popular, but I have plenty of friends.

[hamishspence]

Cityscape provides examples of INT specialists of the basic NPC type- craftspersons (though they could be Knowledge specialists instead of Craft specialists.

INT 13 as apprentice
INT 14 as journeyman
INT 15 as master

So, if we treat ourselves as NPCs rather than PCs, and ordinary Experts, we probably range from INT 13 to INT 15. Maybe with a few higher ones, if there are postdoctorate scientists on here.

I rate myself as INT 13-14. I'm not a Master, and not a genius, just a typical journeyman Expert.

[dwagiebard]

Population with an IQ over 170? Insignificant. Of the fewer than 50 people posting in this thread, there's a better chance that one is major league athlete.

lol. As I said, on average you would win the bet.


Get back to colliding hadron beams! Or trying to catch the roadrunner, or whatever super geniuses do.

I'm going to assume that you're trying to be funny, and not trying to insult me.

[Moff Chumley]

Str: 11, probably. I can beat all of my nerd friends when arm-wrestling, and can do a handful of pull-ups, but not anything special.
Dex: 10, I'm quite average in this field.
Con: 13, I have missed a total of ten days of school, ever.
Int: 14 (((120-100)*2+100)/10)
Wis: 15, as per the test
Cha: 10, also average here.

[hamishspence]

based on ballpark estimates, and much observation of myself:

4th level Human Expert
Int 14
Wis 10
Cha 7
Str 10
Con 12
Dex 9

these are just approximate.

[Genome]

I think calculating Constitution solely on sickness is more like calculating a fortitude save. It ignores the other functions of Constitution, including the most important -- HP!

Granted, hp is such an arbitrary system that it's difficult to find comparisons, so it may be more functional to think of things in a vitality point/wound point system.
Some self-evaluation is then necessary on a 1-5 scale for each:

Vitality Points - How often are you injured (significant injury) when your body is put in dangerous situations (sports or car accidents for example).
1=Very often
2=Somewhat often
3=Neutral, average, in the median
4=Somewhat seldom
5=Almost never

Wound Points - How high is your pain tolerance? When you suffer a significant injury, how much does it affect your capability to think, act, and function overall in the few minutes afterward?
1=Almost total loss of function
2=Great loss of function
3=Average loss of function
4=Minor loss of function
5=Minimal loss of function

Each
One = -2
Two = -1
Three = +0
Four = +1
Five = +2

Now, assuming a starting point of 10, we have the possibility to go from 6-14. We need potential to make scores of 3-18, right? So let's add the immune system. I'd consider "being sick" meaning that you need antibiotics because your body cannot overcome it alone, or taking 5+ days to get over it.

In the last three years, if you've been sick...
0 times = +2
1-2 times = +1
3-4 times = +0
5-6 times = -1
7+ times = -2

-1 if have any, some, or all of the following...
-Mild allergies to at least four things
-Significant allergies to at least one thing
-A chronic physical illness (which may or may not have penalties on its own, such as negatives to dexterity for arthritis)

Alright, now we have 3-16 possible. The remaining two possible points will go by breathing capacity (I would add alcohol tolerance, but that's something that not everybody should be measuring right now, heh). I'm not sure what the standard should really be, but by the DMG, average people will be 60 seconds. Since we've already got the scale dropping to a minimum of three, we'll give bonuses for above average ability but not subtract anything for below average.

If you can hold your breath...
Between 78 and 102 seconds (13 and 17 rounds) = +1
Longer than 102 seconds (18+ rounds) = +2

Going by this measurement,
I have a score of 8, which I find to be a very accurate estimation of my constitutional condition. We'll see how it stands up for others.

[Edit for clarity]

[hamishspence]

D20 Modern Ordinaries seem about right- since theyall use same stat lineup, just varying in what score is allocated to what stat. 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

Heroes can have stats generated randomly. However d20 modern is more generous to ordinary people than D&D, which is more 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10 for most.

So, if feeling generous to self, 3rd level Smart Ordinary,

Int 15
Con 14
Wis 13
Dex 12
Str 10
Cha 8

this is however, based on d20 modern. Which does exaggerate Ordinary people somewhat.

in Saga Edition, would be a pretty similar level 3 Nonheroic.

[Nefarion Xid]

Keeping in mind that IQ can fluctuate as much as 20 points either way based on the test, the tester, the state of the person being tested (emotional, health), age and the weather...it seems to be a very poor indicator of an Intelligence score in D&D. Intelligence only goes up with age in D&D. And, beyond making your fireballs hotter and granting you some sort of combat intuition that lets you dodge arrows and lightning (4E), only boosts your knowledge skills. So, a more accurate test for D&D intelligence might be to sit down in any history class and take the final exam.

In the vein of 3E, you might suppose that speaking more languages equates to intelligence. While intelligent people are certainly better at learning languages faster and more completely...if number of languages spoken was a factor on your Int score, the fellow that mows my lawn has an edge on me there. I'm afraid his English is much better than my Spanish.

It's nearly time for final exams. So, I suggest sneaking into the back of any 1301 History course or Theology (because Religion is an Int based skill) and uh...just see how ya do!

Of course, by the same token, a zoologist would be considered Wise, not Intelligent because Nature is a Wis based skill.

And where does this leave professional poker players? Presumably Poker is a skill challenge requiring multiple successes with Int checks, Insight checks and Bluff checks...

[Starbuck_II]

Vitality Points - How often are you injured (significant injury) when your body is put in dangerous situations (sports or car accidents for example).
1=Very often
2=Somewhat often
3=Neutral, average, in the median
4=Somewhat seldom
5=Almost never

Almost Seldom so 4.5? So +1.5 points.



Wound Points - How high is your pain tolerance? When you suffer a significant injury, how much does it affect your capability to think, act, and function overall in the few minutes afterward?
1=Almost total loss of function, -2
2=Great loss of function, -1
3=Average loss of function, +0
4=Minor loss of function, +1
5=Minimal loss of function, +2

5 and 4 depending on situation.
Like if I'm alone in my room and I don't need to think like stub toe it'd be a 4.
But if I'm walking around and get hurt: I will have no loss of function till I'm able to get to a safe area. My bodies very good at self preservation.

So I'll go with 4.5, giving me a +1.5


Now, assuming a starting point of 10, we have the possibility to go from 6-14. We need potential to make scores of 3-18, right? So let's add the immune system. I'd consider "being sick" meaning that you need antibiotics because your body cannot overcome it alone, or taking 5+ days to get over it.

In the last three years, if you've been sick...
0 times = +2
1-2 times = +1
3-4 times = +0
5-6 times = -1
7+ times = -2

1-2 times, so +1.

My Breath holding is around 55 seconds so no points for me.
So that gives me +1.5, +1.5 +1=3+1= +4 bonus... 18 Con?

[Gardakan]

STR : 10 I'm just normally for my age...

DEX : 18 In every day i'm pretty able to all those game that use coordination en many things like that.

CON : 16 In my life of 16 years i've been sick 1 time

INT : 13 My IQ is of 129

WIS : 5 I never think before doing things

CHA : 14 Maybe i'm not so beautiful but i'm doing speech very very well. For people that i met they said to me that i'm best speeker that they even heard...

[hamishspence]

I wonder if Making Untrained Skill checks might provide clues.

If you can do things with rope, tie good knots, etc, with no training...

Pick a lock with a couple of bent pins, having never done it before...

Juggle reliably within a few minutes of trying for first time...

Hit target close to center on a firing range (arrows or pellets) with unfamiliar weapon, in a few minutes...

Wriggle out of restraints easily, even without practicing...

Balance on a very narrow space... even without gym training...

You might have Good Dexterity.

[hamishspence]

same might apply to others. So Str means everything- arms, legs, fingers. A high Str guy would be able to climb, swim, jump adequately with little or no training.


And must have a certain amount of endurance- while CON determines run and forced march, the 8 hour walk with light load is the minimum all beings need to do to say "Yes, I am this strong"

EDIT: this may be extremely harsh definition of Str, but doing it this way would minimise number of "Hey I can lift 300 Pounds above my head for a few seconds- I'm Str 18" Walk 8 hours with 300 pounds strapped to your back- then you're Str 18.

[Nefarion Xid]

EDIT: this may be extremely harsh definition of Str, but doing it this way would minimise number of "Hey I can lift 300 Pounds above my head for a few seconds- I'm Str 18" Walk 8 hours with 300 pounds strapped to your back- then you're Str 18.

Then again...there's nothing in the rules that ever says you ever need to sleep either. There aren't any rules for being exhausted from labor or lack of sleep or anything like that. But, there are rules that explicitly say what you can and cannot pick up off the ground - even if they fail to mention what happens when you try to sling it over your back and trudge down a country road.

[Spiryt]

EDIT: this may be extremely harsh definition of Str, but doing it this way would minimise number of "Hey I can lift 300 Pounds above my head for a few seconds- I'm Str 18" Walk 8 hours with 300 pounds strapped to your back- then you're Str 18.

And be able to punch someone with + 4/+4 bonuses, whatever that means, and be naturally good at climbing at jumping at the same time, which can be a bit contradictory.

I'm reading this thread, and I can't help but notice that D&D stats really won't be better for describing real human capabilities than " I'm kinda likeable so Charisma 13" level.

[Genome]

Almost Seldom so 4.5? So +1.5 points.


5 and 4 depending on situation.
Like if I'm alone in my room and I don't need to think like stub toe it'd be a 4.
But if I'm walking around and get hurt: I will have no loss of function till I'm able to get to a safe area. My bodies very good at self preservation.

So I'll go with 4.5, giving me a +1.5

1-2 times, so +1.

My Breath holding is around 55 seconds so no points for me.
So that gives me +1.5, +1.5 +1=3+1= +4 bonus... 18 Con?

No. You start at 10. With a +4 bonus you are at 14, however, I maintain that .5's don't count. If I were some kind of authority, I'd tell you to choose one or the other, but they're your stats, make 'em how you want.

[Mordokai]

Based on the first post method...

STR: 10
DEX : 12
CON: 17
INT: 14
WIS: 14
CHA: 12

Perhaps I'm being little generous on charisma :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin: And I could actually kick CON up to 18, but lets call that one time a cold and get it over with.

[Deepblue706]

Research? Yeah I've got access to the same psych database as any other slovenly undergrad. Although, I think the wiki provides the perfect bell curve for IQ by population. Population with an IQ over 170? Insignificant. Of the fewer than 50 people posting in this thread, there's a better chance that one is major league athlete.

If someone claims to have an IQ over 170, they are wrong.
If they have test results to confirm it, the test is wrong.
If they have a psychologist to confirm their score on the Weschler Adult Intelligence Test, the good Dr. is wrong.
But...if he's not, then that super genius has just wasted an awful lot of time. Get back to colliding hadron beams! Or trying to catch the roadrunner, or whatever super geniuses do.

I think I like you.

[Nefarion Xid]

I am to psychology what Gregory House is to diagnostic medicine. I dual wield Occam's Razors and took the Brutal Honesty feat.

I apologize though. I shouldn't presume to know what people with IQs over 170 really spend their time on. Compared to them, I'm a simpleton. Luckily, I've yet to deal with such a person, so my self esteem remains intact.

(BTW Occam's Razor has the Brutal 1 and High Crit traits, +3 Prof and 1d10 damage. It's a Superior Weapon, so you need a feat to wield them...but I don't know why they're not more common considering how good they are.)

And, Deepblue, I like you too...but mostly for your Ultros avatar.

[Alteran]

Str: Estimated 10 or 11
Con: 14
Dex: 5
Int: 18
Wis: 15
Cha: 12

Str: I don't have the right table. Does anyone have a link? I would guess 11.

Con: Seems about right. Maybe a little high. I say 13.

Dex: Way too low. I would estimate an average 10, but that game took many tries for me to get used to.

Int: A bit high, I think. I would have guessed around 14-16. I've never taken an official IQ test where I got the result, but for the program I am in in school, I had to take a test like that. I chose what I believe was the minimum for qualification.

Wis: Seems high. I would have guessed 13.

Cha: My own estimate, as per test requirements. So I agree with this one. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

the rules for walking more than 8 hours, or hstkling more than 1 hour, mean that you can have trouble doing it. I set the 1 hour hustle, 1 minute run, 8 hour walk, as minimums, because the game does.

those competitions- "World's Strongest Men, and the like, do make Str more than just lifting- you actually have to carry the load.

in practice Str 18 is near-inhuman, when all the things a Str 18 chracter must be able to do are accounted for.

For statblocks, from game descriptions, I get the impression the vast majority of ordinary people have the standard array (10 10 10 11 11 11) or the non-elite array (13, 12, 11, 10 9, 8)

Cityscape supports this, with custom versions of non-elite array (13, 10 10 10 10 10) or (13, 12, 10 10 10 8)

NPC adventurers will have elite array ( 15 14 13 12 10 8)

and PC adventurers with randomly generated stats will be incrediably rare. So a 16 year olkd with 18 Str will be onew in a million, or even rarer.

[Genome]

Our stats are neither randomly generated nor built to an array. We calculate them according to things we can do or things we have accomplished. Using a standard array is too constrictive to represent the variation which is present in people.

For the realists who insist that people consider themselves commoners and adhere to a non-elite array, pish posh I say to you. Have a little fun, show more than a point or two of distinction between your strongest and weakest attributes. DnD is about playing a hero, after all.

So what if heroes are one in a million? This doesn't hold true for the number of characters that we have each made, nor should it hold true for GitPers.

[hamishspence]

true- it's more the point that if you think your Str is higher than 15, you might be overestimating somewhat.

this was focusing heavily on Str- I have no idea if the others are more likely to be higher than D&D tends to do them.

In d20 modern, all Ordinaries use the Elite Array, so, in that setting, most strong people will be Str 15 on reaching adulthood, and a few people will be even stronger than that.

my guess fot Int is- if Int 13: you probably have A levels and a bachelors degree, if Int 15, you are probably doctorate or better, if Int 17= you are A Master Scientist at the peak of your career (level 10, elite array, 2 points in Int)

To say you have Int 18 is to say you were probably approaching record-breaker capabilities at some point= Guinness Book of Records= 9 A levels at age 10 : thats Int 18.

And I think Experts rather than Commoners, or Smart Ordinaries, is more what I'm getting at.

[hamishspence]

Call of Cthulhu d20 gives rough figures:

Str 16: Weightlifter
Str 18: Olympic athlete

Dex 12: graceful person
Dex 16: Circus acrobat

Con 12: Healthy person

Int 12: Sharp witted
Int 14: clever person
Int 18: Genius

Wis 18: Guru

Cha 12: Attractive person
Cha 14: Take-charge type
Cha 18: Natural-born leader

[Kiero]

For a quicker estimation, I'd do INT = IQ/10. It's approximate and makes sense. Your method gives higher results, which are supposedly much less likely.

Shame IQ is a complete crock that measures nothing besides how well you can do at IQ tests.

As often seem so to be the case whenever I look over these things, I seem to be a rarity on message-boards in being in shape. According to the doctor performing a scan, I have the internal abdominal muscle tone of an elite athlete.

[Eldariel]

Shame IQ is a complete crock that measures nothing besides how well you can do at IQ tests.

This isn't precisely true. It's true that IQ test isn't perfectly accurate and that IQ doesn't measure all the aspects of a person's mental capacity, but it still is a fairly accurate indicator of the person's logical and computational capabilities. It's for example a fine prediction of how well a person will do in a university.

[hamishspence]

yes- I don't judge by IQ, but by what you can achieve.

Which is why I put BSc or BA as Int 13, PhD or better as Int 15, and the people who have 9 A levels and multiple degrees very young, these and only these, are in the Int 18 range.

Note that if you are certain you are intelligent as these, you can say: I am Int 15.

But the way I see it, the guy in charge of big science experiment- he is Level 10, started with Int 15, has put 2 points in Int, bringing him up to Int 17.

I judge fairly harshly, but better than overestimating oneself.

EDIT:
If your "internal tone" is that good, maybe you are Str 14 or Con 14. But do you have the arm and leg muscles of an elite athlete?

[Kiero]

This isn't precisely true. It's true that IQ test isn't perfectly accurate and that IQ doesn't measure all the aspects of a person's mental capacity, but it still is a fairly accurate indicator of the person's logical and computational capabilities. It's for example a fine prediction of how well a person will do in a university.

It still doesn't do what it's proponents claim it does, measure some relatively fixed property of "intelligence". Not least because there's no accepted definition of it. The fact that a person's apparent IQ improves with practise at the tests undermines any claims to be measuring something fundamental.

It measures educational achievement, and that's about it.

[bue52]

According to the doctor performing a scan, I have the internal abdominal muscle tone of an elite athlete.

So..... that means you have the potential for extreme physical activity? Or you have naturally strong muscles?

[Kiero]

So..... that means you have the potential for extreme physical activity? Or you have naturally strong muscles?

The training I've been doing, and continue to do, have produced results similar to that of proper athletes. I've got good core strength. He sounded rather impressed. Difficult to say what's "natural" I've been active in some form all of my life, and regularly doing formal exercise for almost 15 years.

[hamishspence]

Maybe you are high level and have put a point of two into Str :smallbiggrin:

The fitness level of D&D adventurers seems pretty high. for a Str 10 Con 10person, being able to run 120 ft in six seconds, and keep that pace up for at least a minute, with a 33 pound load on your back (or run 60 ft in six seconds, for a minute, with 100 lb load) is....difficult.

[Kiero]

The fitness level of D&D adventurers seems pretty high. for a Str 10 Con 10person, being able to run 120 ft in six seconds, and keep that pace up for at least a minute, with a 33 pound load on your back (or run 60 ft in six seconds, for a minute, with 100 lb load) is....difficult.

120ft in 6 seconds is 20ft per second and approximately 600cm/s or 6m/s. That's 21.6kph, which is a sprint. I'm not average Str and Con, and while 14kph is a comfortable fast pace to keep up for a few minutes unencumbered, upping that by 50% and with a load is difficult to say the least.

Your average person isn't even going to be able to reach 20kph, never mind sprint it for a minute.

Methinks someone didn't actually test these things out before putting them into the calculations.

[hamishspence]

True, but thats what they put in, for general adventurers.

This isn't counting people with Run feat should be able to do (150 ft in 6 seconds for at least a minute, with a light load)

sure, requirements are hard, but maybe in D&D-land everyone has good wind and strong leg muscles.

[hamishspence]

true Olympic sprinter can do 36 kph+ (hundred metres in 10 seconds)

So, is not quite so implausible.

point is, if you're going to assess Str, you can't do it by one thing only, because then you will overestimate it considerably- it makes more sense to spread it out, even if result puts it quite low.

its not clear whether D&D mile is 6000 ft, or if breaks are included- no non-stop 8 hour walk.

the 8 hour march with heavy load or light, and how far you can go. If you can march 24 miles with 33 pounds, and keep doing it for days on end, or 16 miles with 100 pounds, repeat next morning, for days, you are both Str 10 and As Fit As An Adventurer.

then there is the 1 hour Hustle (6 miles with 33 pounds, 4 miles with 100 pounds)

and this is Basic Fitness, the minimum an adventurer needs to have.

EDIT: in Dragon, it discusses the Roman Legionary "Marius's Mules" and says they need to be able to carry 116 pounds as medium load, giving them Str 14. Gives an example though. Look at historical warriors- legionaries, Shaka Zulu's armies, etc- Fitness is considered very very important.

[Bonecrusher Doc]

As far as strength goes, one thing to consider is that in a medieval society, I think average strength (10) would be that of someone who had worked on a farm without the aid of machinery his whole life. I think this person would be above average in modern society, maybe a 12. I mean, I've never pushed a horse drawn plow through hard land before, but I imagine it gives you huge shoulder muscles.

Another thing to keep in mind about strength is that there are three types of people: "wee, not-so-wee, and frikkin huge!" Back in college I worked out a lot and was one of the fittest people around as the military measured it (pushups, situps, and 2 mile run)... but I was still only 165 pounds soaking wet. I remember doing color guard for the football games and seeing some of the Division I football players who I'm sure could have tossed me around with one hand. With my body type, even if I focused completely on lifting heavy weights and no running, I still don't think I could get a score any higher than a 13 when you consider some of the huge people who would have to be further up on the bell curve than me. Maybe a male Olympic gymnast could have a strength of 14 (and of course, amazing core strength), but when it comes to smashing through armor and locked doors and such, you're gonna want somebody who weighs over 200 lbs wielding the greatsword.

Of course we're probably thinking about this deeper than the guys who originally wrote the source material, but it's a fun intellectual exercise. And there's no way we'll ever reach a point where we are completely true to both the PHB and real-life; after all, PHB assumes there are no physiological differences between males and females (not to start a big debate on that, I think it would derail the thread).

[hamishspence]

which is pretty close to what i've been saying, that vast majority of people will start with St 10 to 13 at best, the elites, the guys who fight for a living- Fighters, not mere Warriors, will be around Str 15 (and thats about whats needed to carry 55 pounds as a light load) and Str 16 to 18 will be the sort of people who enter Briatins's Strongest Man, and similiar competitions.

Endurance, for the SAS, implies you must carry over 55 pounds, 40 miles, in less than 20 hours (which suggests a good Constitution and at least some non-lethal damage afterwards)

In short, I'd say the D&D way, with vast majority of people having Standard array or Non-elite array, a small percentage having Elite Array, and only Heroes being able to start with stats above 15. isn't so bad.

oh, and gymnasts are more likely to have fairly high Dex- acrobats are mentioned as high Dex people in CoC d20.

[dwagiebard]

So, a more accurate test for D&D intelligence might be to sit down in any history class and take the final exam.
It's nearly time for final exams. So, I suggest sneaking into the back of any 1301 History course or Theology (because Religion is an Int based skill) and uh...just see how ya do!

Next time you want to argue off-topic, please grant my request of a personal message so that I don't have to reply to you on the thread.

If you insist on using academic grading to judge intelligence (which isn't reccomended be any research at all, as far as I can tell), I also skipped two grades in school, and that was before I started homeschooling.

Now could you please reply with a PM so that we don't have to take up this topic and so that I don't feel like I'm bragging?

[Kiero]

oh, and gymnasts are more likely to have fairly high Dex- acrobats are mentioned as high Dex people in CoC d20.

Course they're also very strong; there's some bizarre archetypes in RPGs that don't really fit real life people. Most people with "high-Dex" are also quite strong as well, full-body agility needs good overall strength and stamina.

[hamishspence]

stamina is partially accounted for in Con- ability to run with light, medium or heavy load for rather more than 1 min.

Dex represents a variety of things- dexterous (ha ha) fingers, supple body, reflexes, etc.

Con is stamina and also resisance to disease, big lungs, etc.

Str combines endurance (8 hour walk, 1 hour hustle, 1 minute run) with strong arms, legs and fingertips (lift, Jump, Climb, Swim)

[hamishspence]

Putting Dex, Str and Con as best 3 stats fits certain types of athlete. Or maybe adjusting array so 2 high stats instead of 1, but worse Low stats.

[Nefarion Xid]

If scores of 16-18 were exclusive to the most elite of all human begins...then how do you explain scores beyond 18? In 4E, you can start off with a 20 in any ability score and they increase by level. Even in 3E terms, I should hope a linebacker has at least 4 levels in something; there's a +1 to Strength right there.

And I totally disagree with such extreme requirements being placed on level of education for Intelligence. The starting age for a wizard is what in 3E? 17-21 I think? This would indicate that it's possible to have a very high intelligence score without years and years of formal education. And let's keep in mind that 3E mental stats go up with age anyway. So, an 80 year old professor should tack on an extra +3 to his intelligence in addition to the +1s he gained from leveling up in Expert. Heir Professor is looking at a 21-23 easy.

Food for thought: If the average score for a Human in any given ability is a 10.5...this must also include the very lowest scoring human beings as well. For every person who can hoist 300 pounds overhead, there's 100 others who'd hurt themselves attempting the same feat with 50. For every 80 year old professor of philosophy, there's a dozen invalids with an IQ so low that there are special tests just to account for it. By discounting the lowest scores in our population, the 'average' score for someone who survived to 18 and is fit enough and smart enough to have a stroll around the mall and carry on with an interesting conversation.

More food!: 10.5 is STILL the average intelligence score in the default D&D setting - a setting where the overwhelming majority of people do not receive any proper schooling (despite miraculously being literate and probably bilingual!) This either means that intelligence should not be linked to education...or that we should all get some sort of bonus for just having survived middle school.

On Degrees: I would posit that earning a degree is more akin to gaining a Skill Training feat in that field, and post-grad degrees are like Skill Focus. They just don't include Skill Focus: Psychology in the PHB because it's overpowered. Then again...perhaps psychologists are just trained in Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy and Insight, and have the power to substitute their Intelligence modifier for all of these skills.

Conclusion: Am I as strong as a generic level 1 fighter? Sure am. Do I have the testicular fortitude to snatch up that bastard sword on my wall and go exploring some ancient ruins that are guaranteed FULL of vicious intelligent monsters who'd love to gut me and take my stuff? Not unless my very religious friend suddenly develops the ability to repair my skin with her faith. Maybe if my buddy with the CS degree learns how to burn things with his mind...

But, no. I am not a fighter. My dad didn't take me out back and drill me on swordplay every day since I was 7. I haven't spent the last few years chopping up dire rats and kobolds. And I'm sure as hell not going mono-a-dragono just for the promise of a handful of gold.

[Nefarion Xid]

Next time you want to argue off-topic, please grant my request of a personal message so that I don't have to reply to you on the thread.

If you insist on using academic grading to judge intelligence (which isn't reccomended be any research at all, as far as I can tell), I also skipped two grades in school, and that was before I started homeschooling.

Now could you please reply with a PM so that we don't have to take up this topic and so that I don't feel like I'm bragging?

I have not yet addressed you specifically in this thread. Especially not that last comment which was on the general discussion.

[hamishspence]

How good is your endurance though? All 3.5 ed characters have pretty repectable endurance- can run, walk, and hustle, with "a light load" and (slower) even with "a heavy load"

My view is- most NPCs will have either non-elite array or standard one. Low is 8, High is 13. A small proportion will have the elite array (low is 8, high is 15) and a tiny tiny propertion will have PC type stats.

a linebacker might be an expert starting with Str 13, maybe 10th level toward end of career, so Str 15.

An SAS soldier or an Olympic athlete might be an elite: Str 15, Str 17 toward end of career.

a guy starting with Str 18 is like that kid in Guinness book of Records, or his older counterparts- one of the strongest people in a whole generation.

same for Int: 13 is your university student, 15 your exceptional one who goes on to lead major science experiments, 18 is your 9 A levels well before late teens.

[hamishspence]

Sure, its harsh, but trying to be as consistant as possible with the way D&D does cities. Unless DM chooses to do otherwise, the high level wizard, or expert, or whatever, will have, at best, the elite array.

so a 20th level wizard will have Int 23 once he's ancient (not counting Wishes and magic stat-boosting items.

[Nefarion Xid]

But, by RAW 3.5, if a linebacker only had a Strength of 13 or 15, he'd be incapable of benchpressing more than 200 pounds even once.

I know I can't carry 260 pounds for 8 hours straight. And neither could a Fighter with 17 Strength by any stretch of the imagination. The rules simply fail to account for fatigue properly since, by RAW, if you can lift 520 pounds off the ground once...you can do it a hundred times in a row without getting tired.

[dwagiebard]

I have not yet addressed you specifically in this thread. Especially not that last comment which was on the general discussion.

*sigh*

Fine, if you stop telling us your opinions, I'll stop correcting them.

But the "Get back to colliding hadron beams!" post seemed pretty directed, if you ask me.


Also, what is that avatar supposed to be? I'm curious.

[hamishspence]

Way I see it is- rules aren't designed for benchpressing, but for: What you can lift above your head- and walk, at 20 ft per round (or run, at 60 ft per round) with. 300 pounds, for a Str 18 guy.

or, in similar case, what you can lift off ground, and stagger along at 5 ft per round with (though not walk properly with) 600 pounds, in case of 18 str.

this isn't benchpressing, but proper Lifting And Walking.

[Nefarion Xid]

*sigh*

Fine, if you stop telling us your opinions, I'll stop correcting them.

But the "Get back to colliding hadron beams!" post seemed pretty directed, if you ask me.

Also, what is that avatar supposed to be? I'm curious.

Considering my vastly inferior intelligence to someone with an IQ over 170, I don't presume to know what they do and do not occupy their time with.

And "Opinions" are not such a thing that can be corrected since they don't carry a truth value.

Now, most of the people who claim to have an IQ over 130 are misinformed or lying. The vast majority of people with the same claim over 140 are in the same boat. Over 150? Heck, these people don't even know anyone with an IQ over 150. Over 160? I'm not even sure if the WAIS can properly account for scores this high.

If someone would like to claim their IQ is over 170, then I would suggest they not waste their time letting everyone know it and simply sit back with a smug sense of satisfaction that they're smarter than everyone they'll ever meet in life. I'd have an easier time accepting that Chris Rock frequented these forums...and that would be far easier to verify.

[hamishspence]

well, you never know, Guinness book of records does have some pretty high achievement people. And maybe some are OOTS fans. Doubtful though.

I wonder- how much did serious polar explorers carry on their backs? (heavy load) and what's the heaviest that people carry for 8 hours at 3 miles per hour (light load)?

D&D merges the various forms of Str into one- sprint, lift and carry, long march. So, it may result in implausibility. But I figure- applying as many as possible, makes for fairer judge of Str in D&D sense.

[vegetalss4]

If someone would like to claim their IQ is over 170, then I would suggest they not waste their time letting everyone know it and simply sit back with a smug sense of satisfaction that they're smarter than everyone

you know that people with 170 IQ isen't nesesarily smarter than everyone, rigth? just better at the specific kind of logical proplems that they test for in IQ test.

[Nefarion Xid]

Way I see it is- rules aren't designed for benchpressing, but for: What you can lift above your head- and walk, at 20 ft per round (or run, at 60 ft per round) with. 300 pounds, for a Str 18 guy.

or, in similar case, what you can lift off ground, and stagger along at 5 ft per round with (though not walk properly with) 600 pounds, in case of 18 str.

this isn't benchpressing, but proper Lifting And Walking.

The rules just fail to account for any realistic measures for acts of strength over time. If you have a Strength of 17, then you can pick up 520 pounds and "stagger around with it", and that's the absolute most you can lift off the ground. That same person should, by the rules, be able to walk for 8 hours carrying a load of 260 pounds. Plenty of people can dead lift that 520, no problem. I don't want to meet the guy who can sling 260 pounds over his shoulder and walk to the next town.

I think the rules work very well for what you can and cannot lift, but they just fail to address fatigue properly.

I recorded what all of my friends could bench and dead lift back in high school. Very consistently, (all of us being very fit and well trained footballers) if you could dead lift X, then your bench press would be proportional to that. If you know what you can bench, find the maximum load for a given score and subtract 1. So, if you bench 300, or close to it (300 is the max carrying for 18 strength) then you'd have a Strength of 17 and should (if you're all around well trained) be able to dead lift ~500+ pounds.

[hamishspence]

I figure, ignore dead lift- and remember staggering lift- you are moving 5 ft in 6 seconds. For several rounds.

sling 260 pounds and walk 16 miles in 8 hours- pretty impressive. Similar with lifting 260 pounds above head.

lift corresponding 520 pounds above ground and stagger at 5 ft per round- very impressive. Same with dragging a cart with 1300 pound total load at 5 ft per round for 8 hours, or 2600 pounds on a really good surface.

Maybe it does overestimate endurance, but a person's deadlift alone doesn't mean much in the context of D&D.

its arms, and legs, and stamina. I wonder- how loong can a person walk with another big man slung over his shoulders- in war, in rescues, etc? Some people have good arms, some good legs and stamina, D&D expects both.

[Nefarion Xid]

Even if you throw in the stipulation of having to having to pick up a weight and waddle across the room with it, that still leaves us with teenagers in the 14-16 range for Strength, easily. I may only be able to pick up the 520 pounds the one time, but shave 60 pounds off of that and I think I could maneuver it across the room to the tune of 5 feet per 6 seconds. As for hauling 200 or so pounds cross country...I really think that's more of a lack of intensive rules - easy of play VS realism.

I just think you're being too stingy with your ability scores. I don't see any reason that the Fighter is strictly a better engineered human being than the Farmer...the fighter just has a hell of a lot more training and chutzpah.

Edit: Constitution can account for Stamina/Endurance. Which would explain why I can currently bench 315...but the thought of jogging a mile is akin to torture. High Str, average Con. (yeah yeah I know I need some cardio...)

[Bonecrusher Doc]

I'm sure we'll never be able to agree on one system - some of us will want to emphasize lifting more than carrying and vice versa - and I agree with Nefarion that probably some of it was written for ease of play. I mean, really, even wearing a pretty light backpack would interfere with your swordplay in real-life (I assume - can't say I've tried it). But for discussing carrying loads you might use the information below, especially what's in the Spoiler.

Just for a frame of reference, in my mind I picture the average dismounted infantryman as a Level 2 or 3 Fighter (completely subjective).

U.S. Army Doctrine (http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf):

Fighting Load: no more than 48 lbs
Approach March load: no more than 72 lbs
Emergency Approach March load:
Circumstances could require Soldiers to carry loads heavier than 72 pounds such as approach marches through terrain impassable to vehicles or where ground/air transportation resources are not available. Therefore, larger rucksacks must be carried. These Emergency Approach March Loads can be carried easily by well-conditioned Soldiers. When the mission demands that Soldiers be employed as porters, loads of up to 120 pounds can be carried for several days over distances of 20 km a day. Although loads of up to 150 pounds are feasible, the Soldier could become fatigued or even injured. If possible, contact with the enemy should be avoided since march speeds will be slow.

Note: these regulations were published before the current body armor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_body_armor) was added to the Fighting Load. The current body armor weighs between 16.4 to 33.1 lbs, depending on how much of it you wear (throat, shoulder, axillary, groin protection). For comparison, the 3.5 SRD lists Leather armor as 15 lbs and Scale Mail as 30 lbs.

[dwagiebard]

If someone would like to claim their IQ is over 170, then I would suggest they not waste their time letting everyone know it

If I had known that you would be so aggesive, I probably wouldn't've.


So what's the avatar? It looks like water going down a drain.

you know that people with 170 IQ isen't nesesarily smarter than everyone, rigth? just better at the specific kind of logical proplems that they test for in IQ test.

This is true.

That's the difference between Int and Wis.

So why doesn't everyone just use this here? http://easydamus.com/character.html Yeah, it's sort of self-evaluation, but unless you cheat (which you could with any of these) then it's pretty accurate.

[Nefarion Xid]

I'm sure we'll never be able to agree on one system - some of us will want to emphasize lifting more than carrying and vice versa - and I agree with Nefarion that probably some of it was written for ease of play. I mean, really, even wearing a pretty light backpack would interfere with your swordplay in real-life (I assume - can't say I've tried it). But for discussing carrying loads you might use the information below, especially what's in the Spoiler.

Just for a frame of reference, in my mind I picture the average dismounted infantryman as a Level 2 or 3 Fighter (completely subjective).

U.S. Army Doctrine (http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf):

Fighting Load: no more than 48 lbs
Approach March load: no more than 72 lbs
Emergency Approach March load:
Circumstances could require Soldiers to carry loads heavier than 72 pounds such as approach marches through terrain impassable to vehicles or where ground/air transportation resources are not available. Therefore, larger rucksacks must be carried. These Emergency Approach March Loads can be carried easily by well-conditioned Soldiers. When the mission demands that Soldiers be employed as porters, loads of up to 120 pounds can be carried for several days over distances of 20 km a day. Although loads of up to 150 pounds are feasible, the Soldier could become fatigued or even injured. If possible, contact with the enemy should be avoided since march speeds will be slow.

Note: these regulations were published before the current body armor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_body_armor) was added to the Fighting Load. The current body armor weighs between 16.4 to 33.1 lbs, depending on how much of it you wear (throat, shoulder, axillary, groin protection). For comparison, the 3.5 SRD lists Leather armor as 15 lbs and Scale Mail as 30 lbs.

Great info! Thanks for that. And you bring up an interesting point...not only can a fighter carry a 200 pound pack all bloody day, but it doesn't even hamper his ability to fight. I think the old History channel show "Conquest" addressed this by suiting up a bunch of fit guys in full plate armor and testing them on agility and endurance. They did much better than one might expect. None of this nonsense about being lowered onto their horses with cranes. But, they didn't give these guys 100 pound frame backpacks on top of the armor...

Since a Strength score of X enables you to lift Y (and no more) explicitly by RAW, I'm forced to conclude that the rules of carrying are simply insuficient or silly. If one can lift Y, then they must have a Strength score of X because they could not lift Y otherwise.

[Grumbolt]

I'd have to agree with the IQ/10. By your standards I have a 20 Int. Wizards should be fairly rare anyway.

[Bonecrusher Doc]

So why doesn't everyone just use this here? http://easydamus.com/character.html Yeah, it's sort of self-evaluation, but unless you cheat (which you could with any of these) then it's pretty accurate.

I used that test and I thought that it at least got the proportion of my different abilities in relation to each other correct. As far as comparing my scores to another person, however, that could vary depending on your approach to the test - how modest or confident you are, for example.

Interestingly, my wife is more athletic for her body type than I am, but I am bigger and stronger just by virtue of being male. Anyway the test gave her a higher strength score than me, but I think that's fine - it's like making the adjustment for converting to the D&D world where the average man and average woman are both strength 10.

If I recall correctly, this is what I got on the easydamus test:

Paladin2/Cleric2
STR 12
DEX 12
CON 12
INT 16
WIS 10
CHA 12

Not exactly the best choice of classes based on my ability scores - kinda tough being a cleric with your lowest score in Wisdom! I should try creating a character with these stats and see what skills and feats would help him the most.

[Nefarion Xid]

D&D makes no distinctions based on sex because the human average is 10.5. Yes, we are mammals and our males are, on average, bigger (and thus stronger) than females. However, this doesn't mean that a female fighter would be any weaker than a male fighter. They're both fighters after all.

Keep in mind that boy muscle is just as strong as girl muscle. It's a misrepresentation to say that men are stronger.

Also keep in mind that that boy muscle is just as strong as girl muscle. It's a misrepresentation to say that men are stronger. A man and woman with the same age and exact same training regiment, same height and weight (with an extra 5-10% allowance for the woman to compensate for default fatty tissue) should be equally strong; legs, arms, everything. *

* Hormones do account for how men can build muscle quicker. There's a reason that female body builders take supplements.

[Vagnarok]

This isn't precisely true. It's true that IQ test isn't perfectly accurate and that IQ doesn't measure all the aspects of a person's mental capacity, but it still is a fairly accurate indicator of the person's logical and computational capabilities. It's for example a fine prediction of how well a person will do in a university.

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to have the correlation on hand?

[Xyk]

I took that quiz and got this:

Strength- 13
Dexterity- 16
Constitution- 14
Intelligence- 15
Wisdom- 16
Charisma- 14

Chaotic good human bard. Personally, I'd say the charisma is a tad high, as is wisdom and int should be highest. chaotic good makes sense. I also plan to be a musician. I'd rate the quiz a 7/10 but it is damn long. I should have been doing homework...

[bue52]

Hmmm I got:
STR:13
DEX:15
CON:14
INT:16
WIS:15
CHA:12

Well.... I guess that's it, though my dex based on the test suggested in the first post to be higher, and INT seems quite accurate ( i redid the IQ test and improved by 9 points! I think its because of the IQ test that I took did not take into account age). Not too sure about WIS, I think I'm a point lower.

I'm supposed to be a cleric too, would my stats be good?

On a side note, I wonder if there are any pbp games that uses this as an interesting means to decide on the character and their stats. I'd love to try, and the test is most likely used for the 3.5 version right?

[lisiecki]

well, the fun part for INT is, due to the formula used, you can not have an iq of above 200 and that as you get older, the number falls
100*(mental age/physical age)
and the various bias in the test its self.


Honestly, i have to admit, I'm impressed by the fact that if we take the IQ/10 method, we have three of the the smartest people to ever live on this message board, as well as at least one person whos score is so high, it is, quite littoral, a score that can not be achieved on an iq test.

[Kiero]

Also keep in mind that that boy muscle is just as strong as girl muscle. It's a misrepresentation to say that men are stronger. A man and woman with the same age and exact same training regiment, same height and weight (with an extra 5-10% allowance for the woman to compensate for default fatty tissue) should be equally strong; legs, arms, everything. *

* Hormones do account for how men can build muscle quicker. There's a reason that female body builders take supplements.

It's not a misrepresentation that male bodies are designed differently, and tend to have more fast-twitch muscle fibres. The male body is a running, jumping, swimming, climbing, throwing, hitting machine. The female body compromises on that to accomodate childbirth. Men have bigger hearts and lungs proportionate to their body, longer and thicker bones and bigger muscles.

Men have an easier time building muscle than women. Men have a higher maximum potential than women. If you take the "world's strongest people" it's likely none of them are women, because it's simply impossible for an athletic women to get to the same kind of muscle mass as an equally athletic man (even with steroids).

If we're talking ordinary people in the average range, according to Desmond Morris if we lined up a hundred men and women and compared their strength, the weakest seven men would be weaker than the strongest seven women. That's where they overlap in the ordinary population.

It's not represented in D&D stats, because let's face it the system isn't supposed to be a simulation of real life, so it doesn't matter.

But the idea that "girl muscle is as strong as boy muscle" is simply nonsense. There's muscle plain and simple. Different people have different mixes of fast and slow twitch fibres. But either way in general men have an easier time of building muscle than women do, and assuming equal training will tend to be stronger. It's one of the reasons they have seperate events in athletic competitions.

[BardicDuelist]

Just want to point out that Escapa is nearly impossibly with a touchpad (5 seconds is my average), but relatively easy with a mouse (16 seconds is my average).

[Bonecrusher Doc]

Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.

[hamishspence]

yes- even Str 8, and the Non-elite array, aren't exactly wimpy- if you check everything a St 8 Con 10 person should actually be able to do- walk run, hustle, with loads, heavy and light, overhead lift, lift off ground, etc.

I see D&D Str as a combination of many aspects of real-world Str. Sure, it puts a bit too high emphasis on endurance, load carrying, not the straight Lift, but adventurers aren't necessarily built like weightlifters or sprinters- they can lift And sprint And hustle (sometimes in succession)

[lisiecki]

Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.


Hell, your joking right?

The kids are incarnate gods.

I always love these threads,
Its really cool to see how many people who come to message boards
are statically more Charismatic, more Intelligent and more Wise, than 100% of other people on the planet.

And there not running the world, or curing AIDS
Because you know they could
but they don't want to

The only way i could possibly see linking IQ to Ability Score would be to match the ability bonus to the stander ed deviation
115-129 11-12
130-144 13-14
145-159 15-16
160-175 17-18


saying its IQ divided by 10 makes no damn sence as a that point an ability score of 12 would be average
But then again if we did it that way, every one here would have an INT in the mid 40s

you know that people with 170 IQ isen't nesesarily smarter than everyone, rigth? just better at the specific kind of logical proplems that they test for in IQ test.

Sorry, yes they are. Even if were going with how quickly the mind works.
All the sections of an IQ test are timed, and your penalized for taking more than X seconds or min for each section.
This is especially true for the spatial awareness part of the test.
While a low IQ score in no way reflects that some one is uninteligent, an IQ of 170 would include lightning fast reflexes, processing at wits, thats present in > 1% of the population

[hamishspence]

13 is as good as Non-elite people can start off with in D&D

15 is as good as Elite people can start off with

18 is the best of the already really exceptional people who get to roll.

So, I put myself as 14 (non-elite, level 4 at most)

But then, I see degrees as within the reach of non-elite people, post-doctorates as within the reach of elite people, and only total prodigies are Int 18.

[Nefarion Xid]

Perhaps looking at some D&D literature and comparing the stat blocks of famous characters would be useful. The 3.5 FR Setting guide has a The Drow et al stated up, right? Let's take a peek in that book and see if we can't learn anything.

EDIT: Scratch that. A trip to the 4E monster manual is more illuminating. Have a look at the Human Guard entry...

Str 16
Con 15
Dex 14
Int 10
Wis 11
Cha 12

Or the Human Bandit..

Str 12
Con 13
Dex 17
Int 10
Wis 11
Cha 12

Neither of these fellows seem extraordinary or heroic. They're just level 2 and 3 after all. I think I deserve to be about as tough as to Constable Jones on the corner, eh?

[hamishspence]

drizzt was dex 20 at 16th level. as a drow, +2 dex. If he put all 4 points in Dex (reasonable for a dex based build) he might have started out as low as 16 Dex.

Wulfgar, however was Str 19 at 9th level, so probably (though not definitely) Str 17 at start, maybe Str 18 in Streams Of Silver.

EDIT: Heroes of Battle does fighters (but not warriors) as Elite Array.

The later Cityscape, however, has both warriors and "Elite Guards" as non-elite array.

so, unless you're an elite trooper on field of war, you're more likely to be non-elite.

Same with craftsmen (or any typical expert) Specialists in DMG2 are elite, but they are exceptional- most experts in a city will have non-elite array. Arms and Equipment Guide also suggests this.

So, for 3.0 to 3.5 ed, vast majority of members of non-pc classes, and a large proportion of fighters, will be non-elites.

[lisiecki]

Im still baffled as to why some one with an IQ of 220, would think that IQ/10 would make any sence at all.
Ever
Even a little bit.
Average human intelligence is 85-115, translating directly to an ability score of 10-11 (this is just me, i would put 85-100 as 10 and 100-115 as 115)
But hey, if some one who's IQ is so high, its a number that can not be achieved by an IQ test, ill listen to him.

By the By Elminster's int score is 24.
So there are, at least two people on this board, who are only SLIGHTLY less intelligent than a being whos been alive for several hundred years, and has spent most of those reading...


Dude, that's not a right IQ then. Einstein's IQ was 174, and a genius is at 155. 100 is AVERAGE. I guarantee you are not 180.


By the by, according to different groups that archive Einstein's documents, there is no record as to him having ever taken an IQ test

The only mention of such a thing in a letter written to him buy a girl in the 1940s, he told the girl he had an iq of 145

Alice Calaprice Dear Professor Einstein Albert Einstein's letters to and from children New York 2002

[Bonecrusher Doc]

Not to derail the thread, but is it just me or are 4th edition ability scores higher than 3rd edition?

Let's try to play nice, people. If you disagree with somebody, well, that's the whole purpose of this thread, to discuss what the best system would be (right OP?), but some of these posts seem to be bordering on "Only a moron would say XYZ..."

[lisiecki]

Not to derail the thread, but is it just me or are 4th edition ability scores higher than 3rd edition?

Let's try to play nice, people. If you disagree with somebody, well, that's the whole purpose of this thread, to discuss what the best system would be (right OP?), but some of these posts seem to be bordering on "Only a moron would say XYZ..."

Who said that?

All im saying, is that some of the people on here are so smart, that they have developed new ways to resume IQ's that the outside world is unaware of.

[lisiecki]

Not to derail the thread, but is it just me or are 4th edition ability scores higher than 3rd edition?

Let's try to play nice, people. If you disagree with somebody, well, that's the whole purpose of this thread, to discuss what the best system would be (right OP?), but some of these posts seem to be bordering on "Only a moron would say XYZ..."

Who said that?

All im saying, is that some of the people on here are so smart, that they have developed new ways to measure IQ's that the outside world is unaware of.

[Iethloc]

Str - 11 or 12. Most of my strength is in my legs - 200lb was like a feather several years ago, and these days I still do some leg exercises to compensate for all the sitting

Dex - I got pathetically low scores at first (shaky, twitching hands), but then scored 20.41 soon after getting serious, since it was pretty easy to see where the blocks were going and judge my paths instead of just whipping the mouse around relying on reflexes. But this is just my hands. I'm fairly dexterous in real life, too, haven't lost my balance in years (last time I came close I stayed on my feet and instead slid forward in a semi-controlled manner - I was running and didn't notice some ice on the pavement), and can easily walk over any given terrain. I'd say 12-15, with some ranks in balance. I don't walk on tightropes or anything, though.

Con - around 13, though the only illnesses I get are colds. Excluding those, 16, if you count that one night where I got terribly ill...once. Haven't thrown up in years.

Int - around 17. I know I'm gifted, perhaps a genius, but I'm not sure here. The only IQ test I've ever taken was an internet one, and it only went up to 144. I got 136, smarter than ~96% of other people. Other methods posted in this thread suggest 15, which I can accept.

Wis - 16 from that test, but I'd give it a margin of error of around +/-2. Every stat test I've ever taken gave me a wisdom score identical to my intelligence score.

Cha - This is where it's the most difficult. I can easily befriend other people, and I'm a very likeable and funny person, and I'm very good at acting...but I'm very introverted, so I have little to no interest in other people. So somewhere in the neighborhood of 12.


And I took that Easydamus test a couple days ago. These were my results:
Neutral Good Wizard 1/Rogue 1
STR: 13
DEX: 14
CON: 13
INT: 18
WIS: 18
CHA: 15

No, I didn't think those scores were accurate, either.

But on that one test at Druid's Grove (the angelfire one), my scores were thus:
STR: 11
DEX: 15
CON: 12
INT: 15
WIS: 15
CHA: 13

Definitely more accurate, but I won't blame you if you challenge these, either.

[lisiecki]

Str - 11 or 12. Most of my strength is in my legs - 200lb was like a feather several years ago, and these days I still do some leg exercises to compensate for all the sitting

Dex - I got pathetically low scores at first (shaky, twitching hands), but then scored 20.41 soon after getting serious, since it was pretty easy to see where the blocks were going and judge my paths instead of just whipping the mouse around relying on reflexes. But this is just my hands. I'm fairly dexterous in real life, too, haven't lost my balance in years (last time I came close I stayed on my feet and instead slid forward in a semi-controlled manner - I was running and didn't notice some ice on the pavement), and can easily walk over any given terrain. I'd say 12-15, with some ranks in balance. I don't walk on tightropes or anything, though.

Con - around 13, though the only illnesses I get are colds. Excluding those, 16, if you count that one night where I got terribly ill...once. Haven't thrown up in years.

Int - around 17. I know I'm gifted, perhaps a genius, but I'm not sure here. The only IQ test I've ever taken was an internet one, and it only went up to 144. I got 136, smarter than ~96% of other people. Other methods posted in this thread suggest 15, which I can accept.

Wis - 16 from that test, but I'd give it a margin of error of around +/-2. Every stat test I've ever taken gave me a wisdom score identical to my intelligence score.

Cha - This is where it's the most difficult. I can easily befriend other people, and I'm a very likeable and funny person, and I'm very good at acting...but I'm very introverted, so I have little to no interest in other people. So somewhere in the neighborhood of 12.


And I took that Easydamus test a couple days ago. These were my results:
Neutral Good Wizard 1/Rogue 1
STR: 13
DEX: 14
CON: 13
INT: 18
WIS: 18
CHA: 15

No, I didn't think those scores were accurate, either.

But on that one test at Druid's Grove (the angelfire one), my scores were thus:
STR: 11
DEX: 15
CON: 12
INT: 15
WIS: 15
CHA: 13

Definitely more accurate, but I won't blame you if you challenge these, either.

So in a knock down, drag out fight, drizzt's your bitch

[Nefarion Xid]

So in a knock down, drag out fight, drizzt's your bitch

S'why I say it's not raw abilities, but guts and training that makes a hero. Someone may have 15 Dexterity, but there's no way they can do this crazy 2-bladed ranger stuff without training.

Have a look at Regdar from the 3E PHB. This is a big, brawny fellow; probably wouldn't want to pick a fight with him at a bar. But, he doesn't look like an olympic lifter, does he? Nor one of those "Worlds Strongest Men" guys on ESPN? Nah, he looks like a normal brawny 20-something man.

The only thing that makes him special is that he's had that greatsword in his hands since he was 6...

[Greengiant]

Im still baffled as to why some one with an IQ of 220, would think that IQ/10 would make any sence at all.
Ever
Even a little bit.
Average human intelligence is 85-115, translating directly to an ability score of 10-11 (this is just me, i would put 85-100 as 10 and 100-115 as 115)
But hey, if some one who's IQ is so high, its a number that can not be achieved by an IQ test, ill listen to him.

By the By Elminster's int score is 24.
So there are, at least two people on this board, who are only SLIGHTLY less intelligent than a being whos been alive for several hundred years, and has spent most of those reading...




By the by, according to different groups that archive Einstein's documents, there is no record as to him having ever taken an IQ test

The only mention of such a thing in a letter written to him buy a girl in the 1940s, he told the girl he had an iq of 145

Alice Calaprice Dear Professor Einstein Albert Einstein's letters to and from children New York 2002

I got that number from the same site I got the chart of educability of IQs. Sorry if the information was incorrect.

[lisiecki]

I got that number from the same site I got the chart of educability of IQs. Sorry if the information was incorrect.

No No, that's ok

Your IQ is higher than mine, so just like i now understand that the people on this thread have developed newer better IQ tests
I understand that you have found documents that every one else missed

[Bonecrusher Doc]

Somebody have a link to the Druid's Grove test? Or did I miss it?

[Norsesmithy]

I think that it bears mentioning that 18 is not the highest mundane score achievable by humans. 23 is.

Judging simply from the application of the two direct correlation stat tests (drowning rules and carrying capacity) we know that strength and Constitution, in Dungeons and Dragons, have different mean, median, mode numbers than IRL. Statistical analysis of a population will probably show that the distribution of "exceptional" stat scores doesn't fit the theoretical distribution posited by our rules text.

Similarly, Int=IQ/10 is far too simple a function for accurate modeling. A proper mathematical model would be derived from taking the stat points, from 3 to 23, and the percentages of human game world characters that have each, then fitting the stat numbers to the real world IQ curve.

Don't forget the obvious reality that only IQ tests given by certified professionals, face to face, are valid at all. I have seen Online IQ tests deliver average scores in the 150s, when you have a group of 100 students each take the test. Reason being that pages that host those tests depend on advertising dollars to stay up, and people are far more likely to link their friends to a test if they did well, rather than if they did poorly.

[Deepblue706]

I think that it bears mentioning that 18 is not the highest mundane score achievable by humans. 23 is.


No, 26 is. You forgot aging.

[lisiecki]

Wow, People in this forum really are incarnate gods

The average Str is 12
The average dex 14
the average Int is 18

out of the 20 people with the highest stats 12 have physical stats that are better than every ones favorite drow ranger with 16 levels
and 3 have mental stats that are better than a human with 30 character levels

1/4 of these people even have an INT of 20 or above

This means that 3 people have an intellect that is "the best in there nation"
While two have intellect that is the best, ever in all of human existance/

Damn, I feel so completely and utterly inadiquite

[Ozymandias]

Keep in mind that the dungeons and dragons statistics were not conceived by physicians, or physicist, or statisticians, or even mathematicians, but authors. The people who came up with these ideas (all muscle strength is directly related!) may not even know what, say, an rms or Z-score is.

Plus, beyond the fact that the distribution of high and low scores is arbitrary and not mathematical, the scores themselves are abstractions in the extreme, and don't really make any sense. Int, for example, is even worse a measurement of general intellectual ability than IQ is - worse because it doesn't have a real test or clearly defined purpose.

So before you say "People are inflating their scores to feel better about themselves" (possibly true), remember that this is a silly thought exercise and you shouldn't take it.

[dwagiebard]

This means that 3 people have an intellect that is "the best in there nation"
While two have intellect that is the best, ever in all of human existance

Um, no. Statistically insignificant doesn't mean nonexistant. I know other people with Int scores like that.

[lisiecki]

Um, no. Statistically insignificant doesn't mean nonexistant. I know other people with Int scores like that.

wow

Its my own fault for reading d20 products and assuming that there not lying to me

[dwagiebard]

wow

Its my own fault for reading d20 products and assuming that there not lying to me

Well, therein lies the difference between d20 and "real life".


And remember that there're probably lots of people that aren't posting their scores that would probably make the average fall a little bit lower than "incarnate god" :smalltongue:

[lisiecki]

Well, therein lies the difference between d20 and "real life".

So,
In order to extract these ability scores
We're looking at some of the things in the book
but ignoring others?

[dwagiebard]

I guess I missed one of the switches you made between looking at us and looking at D&D. Were you saying that Our D&D score if We were in the D&D world would be the best in the D&D nation or in Ours?

[lisiecki]

I guess I missed one of the switches you made between looking at us and looking at D&D. Were you saying that Our D&D score if We were in the D&D world would be the best in the D&D nation? It sounded like you were talking about Our world.

Various D20 books list stats of 24+ as being "The best ever, in history"
If were using SOME of the definitions in the book, then are we using ALL of the definitions in the book?

If some one dose have a score of 24, then how dose that part of the definition apply, but not the other?

[dwagiebard]

Various D20 books list stats of 24+ as being "The best ever, in history"
If were using SOME of the definitions in the book, then are we using ALL of the definitions in the book?

If some one dose have a score of 24, then how dose that part of the definition apply, but not the other?

Ooh, I hadn't read that. But I don't think that we're using the conversion method that gives you an extra-high Int score. That's rediculous. I think it works perfectly if you just take IQ/10. Then we're not going above a low-level wizard.

[lisiecki]

Ooh, I hadn't read that. But I don't think that we're using the conversion method that gives you an extra-high Int score. That's rediculous. I think it works perfectly if you just take IQ/10. Then we're not going above a low-level wizard.

As i mentioned earlier IQ/10
If you use that formula then you have 8-12 all being average intelligence.
(IQ scores from 85 to 115 are all completely and utterly normal)

[dwagiebard]

As i mentioned earlier IQ/10
If you use that formula then you have 8-12 all being average intelligence.
(IQ scores from 85 to 115 are all completely and utterly normal)

Yeees... and what's the problem with that? In D&D, 10, maybe 10 1/2 is average.

[lisiecki]

Yeees... and what's the problem with that? In D&D, 10, maybe 10 1/2 is average.

yes, yes it is

However an IQ of 85 should be 10, not 8.5 like it would be with your method

[dwagiebard]

yes, yes it is

However an IQ of 85 should be 10, not 8.5 like it would be with your method

I'm not following this logic. If 100 is the average IQ, then shouldn't that make it Int of 10?
Then if 80 is below average IQ by 20%, then shouldn't it be Int 8?

[lisiecki]

I'm not following this logic. If 100 is the average IQ, then shouldn't that make it Int of 10?
Then if 80 is below average IQ by 20%, then shouldn't it be Int 8?

the average IQ is anywhere from 85 to 115

[dwagiebard]

the average IQ is anywhere from 85 to 115

And the average Int score is anywhere from 8 to 12.

[lisiecki]

And the average Int score is anywhere from 8 to 12.

no the average Int score is 10

[dwagiebard]

no the average Int score is 10

And the average IQ is 100.

What's your freaking point?

[lisiecki]

And the average IQ is 100.

What's your freaking point?

No, the average IQ score is any where from 85-115, not 100.

[dwagiebard]

No, the average IQ score is any where from 85-115, not 100.

AAaggh! You're confusing the average with the "80 percent of the population has"!

Most people have an IQ between 85 and 115!

Most commoners in D&D have an INT between 8 and 12!

The average of people's IQ in 100.

The average of commoners in D&D is 10.

The average person has an IQ between 85 and 115.

The average of commoners has between 8 and 12.


So what is the problem with IQ 90 = Int 9?

[lisiecki]

AAaggh! You're confusing the average with the "80 percent of the population has"!
Most people have an IQ between 85 and 115!
Most commoners in D&D have an INT between 8 and 12!
The average of people's IQ in 100.
The average of commoners in D&D is 10.
The average person has an IQ between 85 and 115.
The average of commoners has between 8 and 12.
So what is the problem with IQ 90 = Int 9?

Because an IQ of 90, is in no way below average.
An Int score of 9, is below average

[dwagiebard]

Because an IQ of 90, is in no way below average.
An Int score of 9, is below average

An IQ of 90 is below the average intelligence. 90 < 100.

[lisiecki]

An IQ of 90 is below the average intelligence. 90 < 100.

Reber, A.S. (1995). The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 2nd ed. Toronto: Penguin Books.

I.Q. Range (15SD) Intelligence Classification
1-24 Profound Mental Retardation
25–39 Severe Mental Retardation
40–54 Moderate Mental Retardation
55–69 Mild Mental Retardation
70–84 Borderline Mental Retardation
85-114 Average Intelligence
115-129 Bright
130-144 Moderately Gifted
145-159 Highly Gifted
160-175 Exceptionally Gifted
Over 175 Profoundly Gifted

[dwagiebard]

Reber, A.S. (1995). The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 2nd ed. Toronto: Penguin Books.

I.Q. Range (15SD) Intelligence Classification
1-24 Profound Mental Retardation
25–39 Severe Mental Retardation
40–54 Moderate Mental Retardation
55–69 Mild Mental Retardation
70–84 Borderline Mental Retardation
85-114 Average Intelligence
115-129 Bright
130-144 Moderately Gifted
145-159 Highly Gifted
160-175 Exceptionally Gifted
Over 175 Profoundly Gifted

Okay, if you're talking about the "average range" of IQ, then yes, it is inside 86-114. And 8-12 is the "average range" of Int.

So we're actually arguing about the terminology.

But I need to go to bed, goodnight.

[lisiecki]

Okay, if you're talking about the "average range" of IQ, then yes, it is inside 86-114. And 8-12 is the "average range" of Int.
So we're actually arguing about the terminology.
But I need to go to bed, goodnight.

Yes, were talking about what the term "average IQ" mean's.
Now, the people who define what an average IQ is, say that its any where from 85-114 NOT 100

Its calculated using the Mean score, not the median

The only chart i can think of that makes sence, with out doing heavy math and philosophy is

1-24 0,1 -5
25–39 2,3 -4
40–54 4,5 -3
55–69 6,7 -2
70–84 8,9 -1
85-114 10,11 +0
115-129 12,13 +1
130-144 13,14 +2
145-159 14,15 +3
160-175 16,17 +4
175-199 18,19 +5

And, im not going to get in to stressing out about it, but IQ's of 200+ dont exist, the formula used to reach the number dont alow for numbers over 199

[Weiser_Cain]

STR 17

DEX 8.6...

CON probably 1

INT ...lets just pretend it's 12

WIS 10

CHA 10

[OverdrivePrime]

Yes, were talking about what the term "average IQ" mean's.
Now, the people who define what an average IQ is, say that its any where from 85-114 NOT 100

Its calculated using the Mean score, not the median

The only chart i can think of that makes sence, with out doing heavy math and philosophy is

1-24 0,1 -5
25–39 2,3 -4
40–54 4,5 -3
55–69 6,7 -2
70–84 8,9 -1
85-114 10,11 +0
115-129 12,13 +1
130-144 13,14 +2
145-159 14,15 +3
160-175 16,17 +4
175-199 18,19 +5

And, im not going to get in to stressing out about it, but IQ's of 200+ dont exist, the formula used to reach the number dont alow for numbers over 199

Goodness. I am by no means the most intelligent person I know, but to suggest that a person with a 90 IQ is of 'average' intelligence, simply because they fall into the low end of a fairly wide 'average range' is pretty misleading. I'm trying my best (and probably failing) not to be an elitist here, but carrying on any sort of worldly conversation with someone who has an IQ that low is not an enjoyable experience, for either person. Someone with a 90 IQ is at a fairly strong disadvantage in terms of grasping and using information.

That said, I think your chart is pretty good, though extremely generous to the lower end of the bell curve.

[lisiecki]

Goodness. I am by no means the most intelligent person I know, but to suggest that a person with a 90 IQ is of 'average' intelligence, simply because they fall into the low end of a fairly wide 'average range' is pretty misleading. I'm trying my best (and probably failing) not to be an elitist here, but carrying on any sort of worldly conversation with someone who has an IQ that low is not an enjoyable experience, for either person. Someone with a 90 IQ is at a fairly strong disadvantage in terms of grasping and using information.

That said, I think your chart is pretty good, though extremely generous to the lower end of the bell curve.

Ya...

I'm an 87, so that's kinda harsh ...

[hamishspence]

I figure Forrest Gump was Int 8 Wis 13 (unless he was Elite, not Non-elite)

the aging bit does need to be taken into consideration, but more important is the fact that majority of people in a D&D setting won't be randomly generated, or have elite array, they will have standard array.

I see Int 18 (at age 16 odd, remember) to be- top of the line. The next Newton, maybe. If I was to stat a D&D version of Newton, it would be:

Int 25 20th level expert (18, +5 levelling, +2 aging, I'm not sure if he lived to Venerable)

As for strength, a 10th level Warrior of Fighter with the elite array will be one of the strongest guys in the city. When Wulfgar walkings into one of the meanest bars in Waterdeep, its champion, He would be Str 17 (15, +2 levelling)

Cityscape gives rogues the standard array- a "master thief" will only have Dex 15. the specialist thief will be the one with starting Dex 15. if level 12 or higher, Dex 18, and a very exceptional person.

Maybe it's very harsh, But I do think it's consistent with the setting.

[lisiecki]

the aging bit does need to be taken into consideration, but more important is the fact that majority of people in a D&D setting won't be randomly generated, or have elite array, they will have standard array.


That really dose need to be kept in mind.
Personally i know that my IQ dropped about 10 points between highschool and collage.
I knew ALOT of stuff for a 17 year old, at 23, although i had a larger fact base to draw from, the score had dropped, as knowledge pool i have began to catch up to the societal norm.
And honestly, that chart is just the best way i can think of to do it for people who INSIST that IQ corralates to INT score.
Frankly, I'm working with a cilent who i tested to be at 168.
This woman works as a fry cook at Burger King.

Despite the fact her IQ, according to these people wout give her an INT score of 17, could not, in any way, compare the amount of mental processing that she dose, to a beholder

[hamishspence]

Aging sends your mental stats up- maybe because its not just how fast you think, its how well you think, and that needs experience. But it doesn't kick in till quite late.

I am aware that D&D tends to conflast various aspects of thinking under one stat (and similar for the other stats) but I can live with it- I see adventurers as natural generalists anyway- a person with high dex is supple And quick reflexes And good fingers, high Str is sprinter, lifter, marcher, load carrier, and so on.

[lisiecki]

Aging sends your mental stats up- maybe because its not just how fast you think, its how well you think, and that needs experience. But it doesn't kick in till quite late.



True, one of the reasion's that i beleve that an actual IQ score is a part of a larger whole that would make up an INT score.

Then again the 3 physical stats and 3 mental stats are designed to portray characters in a fantasy setting,

One place to see this is with Con.
Despite how rarely some one may get sick, hit points are coculated from Stamina.

D&D over the years has been very consistent in the fact that hit points arnt just the amount of physical damage you can take.
there a combination of twitching out of the way of a blow, subconscious survival instincts, and a million and one glimmer's adventures have on them selves, in order to stay safe

[xPANCAKEx]

the funniest thing is for all the stat "calculating" going on in this thread, the average user of this forum is probably:

st 9
dx 11
con 9
int 13
wis 10 (knowing the complete dialog to monty python does not make you wise)
cha 8

behold: for i thus i have created the Commoner (forum user) template. Now what class specific features would they have...

[hamishspence]

thing is though, even if you are Con 3, while you can't run very long, or forced march long without non-lethal damage, you still have a certain minimum stamina- tied heavily to Str. As in, the 8 hour walk with light, medium, or heavy load, and the 1 hour hustle.

My guess is that minimum stamina is based on body's limits, and muscles, etc can manage it even if you are very frail for an adventurer.

EDIT:
Yes- this is the Non-elite Array. Note that some people will be experienced enough to be 4th level or above, or old enough to get stat adjustments. :smallbiggrin:

Cityscape sometimes modified it- 9 and 11 replaced with 10 and 10, or 8 and 12 replace with 10 and 10, but otherwise, yes, 13 is a good max stat.

I'm inclined to suspect some of us are Experts though- maybe a few Warriors, Rogues or Fighters :smallbiggrin:

[lisiecki]

thing is though, even if you are Con 3, while you can't run very long, or forced march long without non-lethal damage, you still have a certain minimum stamina- tied heavily to Str. As in, the 8 hour walk with light, medium, or heavy load, and the 1 hour hustle.

My guess is that minimum stamina is based on body's limits, and muscles, etc can manage it even if you are very frail for an adventurer.

True.

IIRC (Im at work, and don't have the books available to me)
the Min Stat of 3 is what is required for
Mental Stats: To understand what is going on outside ones self, to realize that there is indeed a world outside ones head.

Physical: The minum to have a body that can survive and physically manipulate its environment

[hamishspence]

actually, its 1s. There are animals with Str 1, (not sure if any have Con or Dex 1.

Mentally, having Cha 2 Int 2 or Wis 2 would be crippling for a human, but some animals, I think, have them.

heavy use of standard and non-elite arrays does make really low stats very rare, but maybe they should be. Would a person with Con 3 survive to maturity in a D&D world if they didn't have masive stats somewhere else to compensate?

[lisiecki]

actually, its 1s. There are animals with Str 1, (not sure if any have Con or Dex 1.

Mentally, having Cha 2 Int 2 or Wis 2 would be crippling for a human, but some animals, I think, have them.

Really?
I was under the impression for humanoid it was 3, oh well, like i said i dont have the books any where near me

But then again this is just me
Ive never seen how IQ relates directly to INT
Or how any one but Tenzin Gyatso clames to have an wisdom of 18+

[hamishspence]

humanoid- any adventurer- in fact, can't start with stats below 3. Even if they have stat penalties.

Getting drained, or just aging, can lower them though. a St 8 character who reaches Venerable will be Str 2.
I think, it past editions, pre 3.0, IQ/10 may have been given.

I also remember Cha being discussed, two real-world figures we shouldn't name, physically ugly, were described as Cha 17, and it said if they were good looking as well, they might have been Cha 18.
So, statting out real world figures (or at least 1 stat, as estimate of what stat number means) goes back to 1st edition

[lisiecki]

I think, it past editions, pre 3.0, IQ/10 may have been given.


Maybe 1st ed.
I actually have the ADD players guide as a mouse pad in the office



However, the true capabilities of a mind lie not in numbers--I.Q., Intelligence score, or whatever. Many intelligent, even brilliant, people in the real world fail to apply their minds creatively and usefully, thus falling far below their own potential. Don't rely too heavily on your character's Intelligence score; you must provide your character with the creativity and energy he supposedly possesses!

There is no other mention of IQ score in the Intelligence blurb on page 11

[hamishspence]

yes- but there is a balance between that and badly penalizing the character merely because the player is a bit slow. Dragon covered this sort of thing in it's articles.

[lisiecki]

yes- but there is a balance between that and badly penalizing the character merely because the player is a bit slow. Dragon covered this sort of thing in it's articles.

Ya, that sounds like the kinda thing that Dragon would have covered.
Still, that's the opposite problem that we have here.
no matter if you go point buy, array or rolling.
The VAST majority of the players who have posted in this thread must be truly epic actors, there able to suppress there Int's in the mid 20s and there Wisdom's in the high teens, in order to portray a character who is limited to the scores that one can have at character creation

[Weiser_Cain]

the funniest thing is for all the stat "calculating" going on in this thread, the average user of this forum is probably:

st 9
dx 11
con 9
int 13
wis 10 (knowing the complete dialog to monty python does not make you wise)
cha 8

behold: for i thus i have created the Commoner (forum user) template. Now what class specific features would they have...

I can deadlift 300 or so pounds. There's too many people on the interweb for there to be broad generalizations anymore (if ever).

[Ozymandias]

The (or, rather, a) problem with IQ is that it's constantly being reset so as to provide 100 as a mean value (cf. Flynn effect) - the weird faux-medieval world of D&D had a much less intelligent demographic than the one we have now, both due to genetics and society. When INT is measured solely as a comparison between different people, it can retain a semblance of cross-chronological usefulness; as is, a high school graduate easy posesses a much greater knowledge base than, and quite possibly better critical thinking skills, than, say, Newton or Galileo.

And, yes, 90 IQ is generally considered below average (depending on the test). An "average range" does not imply that there is no single, mean value. There is, and it's usually between 100-115.

I refuse to take an IQ test because a) they're terrible measures of anything significant/useful and b) I would still feel bad if I did poorly. Hey, how does intellectual insecurity fit into a stat block? A flaw, maybe?

[Weiser_Cain]

I think you get a Wis dependent skills synergy bonus.

[lisiecki]

The (or, rather, a) problem with IQ is that it's constantly being reset so as to provide 100 as a mean value (cf. Flynn effect) - the weird faux-medieval world of D&D had a much less intelligent demographic than the one we have now, both due to genetics and society. When INT is measured solely as a comparison between different people, it can retain a semblance of cross-chronological usefulness; as is, a high school graduate easy posesses a much greater knowledge base than, and quite possibly better critical thinking skills, than, say, Newton or Galileo.

Honestly. The benefit for people taking IQ tests is for people who score low, offering them governmental services and considerations in court. If your smarter than average, no one cares unless you can apply it.


And, yes, 90 IQ is generally considered below average (depending on the test). An "average range" does not imply that there is no single, mean value. There is, and it's usually between 100-115.

Yes, there is a mean value, its 100. The bell curve of an IQ test is from 1-200
100, is smack dab in the middle. On the other hand, unless the way IQ tests work have been rewritten when i wasn't looking 85-115 are all concidered to be "Average"
(And if they have been, **** am in trouble)



I refuse to take an IQ test because a) they're terrible measures of anything significant/useful and b) I would still feel bad if I did poorly. Hey, how does intellectual insecurity fit into a stat block? A flaw, maybe?

There's no reason for ANY one to take an IQ test unless there applying for governmental services (In Michigan at least). They take the better part of two days to give, and are fairly pricey to take just for the heck of it.


______EDIT______

EDIT 1) I refuse to believe in genetics in a world where a bulette can exist

EDIT 2) I have heard that IQ tests happen in the military fairly often, although, as i have never consulted with them, and have never been in the military, i have no idea

[Ozymandias]

Yes, there is a mean value, its 100. The bell curve of an IQ test is from 1-200
100, is smack dab in the middle. On the other hand, unless the way IQ tests work have been rewritten when i wasn't looking 85-115 are all concidered to be "Average"
(And if they have been, **** am in trouble)

Hey, almost 50% of people are below average on any given measure!

Semantically, you can be "average" in that you are very close to the average value (that's what the range implies) but you are technically "below average" in that you fall, literally, below the absolute mean. It's not really a meaningful distinction, however, and certainly not remarkable.

And, yeah, I know a lot of high-IQ types who've failed out of college - probably more than the lower-IQ types, actually.

[lisiecki]

Hey, almost 50% of people are below average on any given measure!

Semantically, you can be "average" in that you are very close to the average value (that's what the range implies) but you are technically "below average" in that you fall, literally, below the absolute mean. It's not really a meaningful distinction, however, and certainly not remarkable.

Oh ill give you that 85-99 is the lower half of average, just like 101-114 is the higher half of average. However the practical impact it has is small.


And, yeah, I know a lot of high-IQ types who've failed out of college - probably more than the lower-IQ types, actually.

This is just me, and my experience through work. But I have found that the lower functioning an individual is, the harder they work any ANYTHING when given an opportunity to shine. There is, of cores a lower limit to this, but for the most part, ive found it to be true.

[HolderofSecrets]

::Walks in and sits down and wonders how in the 9 Hells ppl ever thought 3.5 D&D rules for stats could be applied to real world ppl.::

2nd edition Revised WoD rules would be a lot more acturate being that we do not gain levels. We simply improve over time physically and mentally. Ppl who don't participate don't get experience and thus don't improve. I mean that sounds a lot more like real life.

D&D stats are meant for game balance but the stat generation methods are completely unrealistic. I mean according to the point buy system to duplicate my score would take a +40 point buy system and according to the OP's original int score formula my INT score at 13 was 21 and that was 11 years ago. Since then I have become wiser do to life experience and learned a great deal that improved my ability to understand everything, and my charisma score would of also gone up because I started playing D&D, WoD and other games.

RPers are very likely to develope mental scores that might be highly unlikely in the rest of the world. We, meaning RPers, are very likely to be above average on mental stats and could still have uncommon physical stats from really low to peak physical stats. This won't happen in game for game balance reasons. Could those who are, stop complaining about what posters who put down as stats, because it is quite possible that some of us aren't lying about are munchkin like stats? Life is random, stats could be inhuman for some posters even if they are human.

[Nefarion Xid]

Despite being grossly skeptical of many claims to exceptional IQs on this thread, I'm willing to believe that the average modern Intelligence score might be a flat 12, with some people pinging in the 13-17 range very easily.

What passes for "average" in D&D is a farmer with no formal education. Now, I may have gone to public school, but even that was a better education than pulling up turnips all day. I'd say that the average Joe in the real world has a comparably better grasp of history and science than the fantasy equivalent of a medieval serf.

Same reasoning may or may not apply to Constitution and Strength. The lot of us obviously have had much better nutrition then the turnip farmer (no offense to modern turnip farmers) and passed into adulthood without our growth being stunted. Have a look at suits of armor from the 14th century, hmm? These were the warriors of the day (AND well fed) and they're sort of shrimpy by modern standards.

Conversely, an awful lot of us lead sedimentary lifestyles. When's the last time you split logs for the fire? I'm willing to believe the modern man has a Strength score of 10 (really, you ought to be able to lift 100 pounds over head or pickup 200 pounds from the ground). And I believe people when they honestly report their own abysmal strength scores.

So, perhaps Cityscape and d20 Modern take into account these changes and stats have been adjusted to reduce this "inflation".

And just how average is average anyway? Because, apparently 10.5 should be the average...yet I don't see any NPC stat blocks that look like 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. I think even the D&D Farmer gets to claim a 14 or 15 in at least one stat.

[lisiecki]

RPers are very likely to develope mental scores that might be highly unlikely in the rest of the world. We, meaning RPers, are very likely to be above average on mental stats and could still have uncommon physical stats from really low to peak physical stats. This won't happen in game for game balance reasons. Could those who are, stop complaining about what posters who put down as stats, because it is quite possible that some of us aren't lying about are munchkin like stats? Life is random, stats could be inhuman for some posters even if they are human.

Naw I'm good.
At least untill people explain to me how there getting there Mental Scores.
And how, quite a few of those mental scores are unpossible given the methods they say they used to attain them


And just how average is average anyway? Because, apparently 10.5 should be the average...yet I don't see any NPC stat blocks that look like 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. I think even the D&D Farmer gets to claim a 14 or 15 in at least one stat.

Average is average a couple of 8's a couple a 10's a 12 a 14 and some others.
What i call in to question is when people list there stats as all being 14 (or 15 or 16) and better.
And any one with an ability score of 18 who i havent heard of

Ill give you your, Starting with top stat's

Worlds strongest men
Your lance armstrongs
your Margot Fonteyn's
Your Steven Hawkings
Your Dali Lamas
and
Your Bill Clinton's

But the fact that all these paragon's of both nature and nurture are all in the same webforum BOGGLES my (apparently) incredibly limited mind

[dwagiebard]

Goodness. I am by no means the most intelligent person I know, but to suggest that a person with a 90 IQ is of 'average' intelligence, simply because they fall into the low end of a fairly wide 'average range' is pretty misleading. I'm trying my best (and probably failing) not to be an elitist here, but carrying on any sort of worldly conversation with someone who has an IQ that low is not an enjoyable experience, for either person. Someone with a 90 IQ is at a fairly strong disadvantage in terms of grasping and using information.

That said, I think your chart is pretty good, though extremely generous to the lower end of the bell curve.

Thank you for continuing the conversation as I would have if I had been awake.


Really?
I was under the impression for humanoid it was 3, oh well, like i said i dont have the books any where near me

You're both right! (Isn't it great when that happens?)
Humanoids can't create characters with a score lower than 3, but monsters and animals can.


As for your chart... as you said, it's done without bothering with math. It's skewed. Below 85, it's stretched out, 86-114 is compressed, and above that it's stretched.

I would suggest:

IQ ..........INT
1-15......... 1
16-25....... 2
26-35....... 3
36-45 .......4
46-55 .......5
56-65 .......6
66-75 .......7
76-85 .......8
86-95 .......9
96-105 .....10
106-115... 11
116-125 ...12
126-135 ...13
136-145 ...14
146-155 ...15
156-165 ...16
166-175 ...17
176-185 ...18
186-195 ...19


As has been already said, IQ to Int cannot possibly work. BOTH are far too abtract and non-inclusive to cover everything! This is just our best attempt so far in a silly exercise in abstraction.

[lisiecki]

Thank you for continuing the conversation as I would have if I had been awake.
You're both right! (Isn't it great when that happens?)
Humanoids can't create characters with a score lower than 3, but monsters and animals can.
As for your chart... as you said, it's done without bothering with math. It's skewed. Below 85, it's stretched out, 86-114 is compressed, and above that it's stretched.
I would suggest:
IQ ..........INT
1-15......... 1
16-25....... 2
26-35....... 3
36-45 .......4
46-55 .......5
56-65 .......6
66-75 .......7
76-85 .......8
86-95 .......9
96-105 .....10
106-115... 11
116-125 ...12
126-135 ...13
136-145 ...14
146-155 ...15
156-165 ...16
166-175 ...17
176-185 ...18
186-195 ...19

Well, ya, its a bell curve...

[dwagiebard]

Well, ya, its a bell curve...

Yes, that's how it works. It's just that it seems like people haven't understood when I said it before. So now I'm writing it out.

I have to go run to the library now, bye.

[lisiecki]

Yes, that's how it works. It's just that it seems like people haven't understood when I said it before. So now I'm writing it out.

I have to go run to the library now, bye.

Take care of your self, and please know, while i dissaggre with you on this, i appreciate that youve been giving very good reasons for disagreeing with me

[hamishspence]

Cityscape and Arms and Equipement guide- experts with any Int based main skill, tend to start with Int 13. Only a tiny proportion will be elites- covered in DMG2 under Specialists.

Commoners may be Int 10, but in 13 is, in the context of the game- nothing to be sniffed at- the vast majority of NPCs for whom Intelligence is essential to their career, will have it.

Yes- blacksmiths being the bright guys may seem odd to our eyes, but smithing is far from trivial- in the context of D&D, Craftsmen are as intelligent as Sages.

the rare Specialist sage (or specialist blacksmith) will start at Int 15.

So, as I said- Int 13 apprentice sage is the D&D equivalent of the typical university student, to me.

Yes- you can improve your Charisma, Int, etc over a long time- In D&D this is represented with levelling.

and as I said- deadlift isn't as important as what you can march, run, hustle, etc with, for Str. Its relavent, but people who have to carry heavy things for long distances- the Roman legionaries- probably had better leg muscles and stamina than arms muscles. The D&D setting is like that, the high Str guy is like the legionary, not the weightlifter.

EDIT: Oh, and D20 Modern, for mysterious reasons, does ALL Ordinaries listed with the Elite Array. I prefer D&D's way- as represented in both Arms and Equipment Guide, and the later Cityscape, the typical hireling at first level has a best stat of 13.

[Kiero]

the Roman legionaries- probably had better leg muscles and stamina than arms muscles. The D&D setting is like that, the high Str guy is like the legionary, not the weightlifter.

Not exactly. They trained as recruits with weapons and shields double the weight of the ones they'd use on campaign. The scutum is not light in any case, and during battle they're expected to keep it aloft and ready most of the time. That takes serious stamina.

[hamishspence]

Exactly. they trained for holding a weight for long periods, not lifting it overhead for a few moments. I suspect a legionary wouldn't match a weightlifter for deadlift, but a weightlifter wouldn't match a legionary for endurance marches with heavy weights.

[dwagiebard]

Take care of your self, and please know, while i dissaggre with you on this, i appreciate that youve been giving very good reasons for disagreeing with me

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.

[Weiser_Cain]

and as I said- deadlift isn't as important as what you can march, run, hustle, etc with, for Str. Its relavent, but people who have to carry heavy things for long distances- the Roman legionaries- probably had better leg muscles and stamina than arms muscles.
Relevant? It's related. I've walked from shortly after sunup to well into the night. Walking with heavy weights? a mile through three feet of snow? I can do that too. My legs never give out on normal tasks because of how strong they are. And I owe most of that to lifting heavy weights. Not one time over my head, but over and over again for hours at a time. And I'm a rank amateur.

[hamishspence]

Good point- this sounds more like the all-round Str needed by adventurer than Str narrowed to doing just one thing.

how about running with a heavy load fastened to the back? Is D&D overgenerous with what counts as a light load to people with high lifting capacities?

I suspect so- running for a minute with 33 pound backpack would be very taxing.

[Weiser_Cain]

Ah, it's not so much the weight as the pack slamming into your lower back (and or the back of your head) that taxes you.

[hamishspence]

hmm, what about 33 pound outfit thats very well distributed?

Heavy Armour is equivalent to a heavy load, and I'm told really good armour could actually be run in.

[Kiero]

Exactly. they trained for holding a weight for long periods, not lifting it overhead for a few moments. I suspect a legionary wouldn't match a weightlifter for deadlift, but a weightlifter wouldn't match a legionary for endurance marches with heavy weights.

They did a lot more besides that. Legionary training was pretty comprehensive, with swimming, lifting stuff and all sorts of other activities besides weapons-training, formation drills and route-marching.

[Nefarion Xid]

Good point- this sounds more like the all-round Str needed by adventurer than Str narrowed to doing just one thing.

how about running with a heavy load fastened to the back? Is D&D overgenerous with what counts as a light load to people with high lifting capacities?

I suspect so- running for a minute with 33 pound backpack would be very taxing.

D&D is overgenerous with all of its accounts of carrying any sort of load. It's silly to think that even heroes could schlep cross-country with an excess of two hundred pounds of gear. And, if they could, it would probably be more owing to extraordinary Constitution than just Strength. It should be mentioned that even carrying 200 pounds of gear you only suffer a -12 check on swimming in 3.5 D&D. So, with just a few skill points in swimming, this fellow could jump in a lake and keep his head above water about 50% of the time.

Strength in D&D equates to...hitting something hard, picking up heavy stuff and hauling it around (with absolutly no account for fatigue from labor or exertion).

BTW - Did some research (if you call google research) and it looks like the average adult male would rank about a 13-14 in Strength according to the 3.5 lifting charts. Average bench press for 20-29 year old men checks in at 180 pounds. 145 for men 20 to 70.

So, even if we want to call benching 145 'average strength' (and chalk it up as a 10 or 11 score)...what does that tell us high school kids benching 300+?

[hamishspence]

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.

[Deepblue706]

hmm, what about 33 pound outfit thats very well distributed?

Heavy Armour is equivalent to a heavy load, and I'm told really good armour could actually be run in.

I've heard there are accounts of men in full-plate doing cartwheels. The distribution is vital to this. While a shirt of chain may rest solely on one's shoulders, a suit of plate is fixed piece-by-piece - thus the lengthy donning time. I think the developers came to realize this, as they greatly lessened the penalties for wearing plate armor in 4E. Or at least, that's what I'd like to think.

Still, marching around in it for lengthy periods of time will tire anyone out - just like anything else.

[Nefarion Xid]

I've heard there are accounts of men in full-plate doing cartwheels. The distribution is vital to this. While a shirt of chain may rest solely on one's shoulders, a suit of plate is fixed piece-by-piece - thus the lengthy donning time. I think the developers came to realize this, as they greatly lessened the penalties for wearing plate armor in 4E. Or at least, that's what I'd like to think.

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.