Your Real Ability scores

[Gwazi Magnum]

Yes.

This doesn't imply they're less intelligent or the one who grasp 3.5 'easily' are more intelligent.

What I was saying was since people due tend to struggle a lot with the game typically, those who can pick it up easily (and go into optimization like many people here do) do probably have some degree of a higher intelligence.

But not picking it up as easily doesn't mean a lack of interest, discipline or intelligence. Simply that those who can grasp onto it that quickly are either naturals in this specific area or have some kind of a higher intelligence for grasping the ideas more easily, especially when you look at all the Optimizers.

[SimonMoon6]

It's funny how people somehow think that it's bold or arrogant for a poster to claim he has above average intelligence. That's not a big deal: half the world's population has above average intelligence.

If you go to a gym and ask around, 90% of the people there will claim to have above average strength and endurance, and they're probably justified in that claim considering what people do at a gym..

Well, one has to be careful because of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I've been guilty of that in some ways in the past. I remember once in a "play yourself" D&D game where I gave myself a 12 CHA (After all, I'm probably above average, right?) and was more or less told (not in so many words) "Whoah, that's WAAAAY too high for you."

[Taet]

Nobody has the charisma to stop this discussion while holding on to what he argued. Nobody has the charisma to change someone else's mind.

And nobody will listen to me because my charisma improved. To 6.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Well, one has to be careful because of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I've been guilty of that in some ways in the past. I remember once in a "play yourself" D&D game where I gave myself a 12 CHA (After all, I'm probably above average, right?) and was more or less told (not in so many words) "Whoah, that's WAAAAY too high for you."

My way of countering that is two ways.

1. Scale
If a 10 is average, 12 is slightly above etc you have a decent measuring scale to begin with.

2. Find your flaws first
In my CS example, I have an INT of 12 and WIS of 14. However my STR, CON and CHA are all 8. If you look at yourself critically and address where you'd be lacking first, you are at least not a perfect does everything character.

Plus after looking at yourself more realistically you're less likely to inflate everything else beyond reason.

However, just because a few people disagree with a self analysis doesn't make you wrong. No one knows you better than you do. At the same time, some people may be overly confident in themselves and this translates to lack of confidence in others.

Also some people may hold a disliking, for example I know several people who regard me as above average intelligence. But there are a few people who dislike me who if they were making me would probably give me 8's or 6's for everything. Although getting second opinions and thoughts is nice when evaluating yourself, it is not final.

No one knows you better than you, and even if they did somehow they are still human with the possibility of being wrong.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Nobody has the charisma to stop this discussion while holding on to what he argued. Nobody has the charisma to change someone else's mind.

And nobody will listen to me because my charisma improved. To 6.

This reminds me, why is no d&d trait that makes charismatic people less charismatic?

I mean, for example look at high school.
You got those popular people who are popular for no real reason. Logically there's no reason, the person is nothing special at all. Yet people love them, obviously this person has a high Charisma.

But that doesn't mean everyone likes them. There are those like me who dislike a person more and more the more they revolve around Charisma to be likable rather than being an actually fun and interesting person.

Why did d&d never make a trait to reflect people who are not are likely to like charismatic people just because they're charismatic?

[Kurald Galain]

Some people are good at computers, some are good at Scrabble and some are good at D&D.

And all of those correlate to having above average intelligence, yes.

Well, one has to be careful because of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

For any individual claims, sure. But my point is that claims like "most D&D players are of above average intelligence" or "I personally know (not am, know) somebody who is in the top percentile of intelligence" are not particularly boastful, nor are they a priori absurd.

[Spiryt]

And all of those correlate to having above average intelligence, yes.

Well, yeah, but that's just it, correlation. Someone realistically pretty dumb can be good at D&D, while someone intelligent will be not.

[OverdrivePrime]

Why did d&d never make a trait to reflect people who are not are likely to like charismatic people just because they're charismatic?

Pathfinder might have a trait like that. I think in the real world we just call those people 'the unpopular high schoolers.' Disliking someone just because they're attractive and have well-developed social skills is a step beyond that though, and seems kind of petty.

It's a hallmark of adolescence to resent the in-group if you're on the outside. After high school the social classes mostly fall away, as people grow up and realize it really doesn't matter who you party with and how you party as long as you're not being a jerk to others. Eventually, the nice people just align with like-minded nice people, and the jerks align with like-minded jerks.

For example, my wife was one of the popular girls when she was in high school. I was a cross-classed geek/jock. We never would have interacted if we went to the same high school.

People still have some tendency to resent the in-groups or the highly successful, if they're not a part of that group, but again that's more of a personal alignment thing. Humans seem to really like being on teams. If you're a nerdfighter, you identify as that and exult your superiority over bros and the useless pretty people of the world. If you're one of the pretty people, you think the angry nerds would be a lot more fun if they just got laid more often.

We're a weird species.

[Narren]

I wonder about this, to be honest. The system can be complex, but I wouldn't say it requires above average intelligence to grasp it. However the people who have a high degree of system mastery, and are interested in things like optimization may be. I think it would be interesting, for example, to see how the educational levels of people on this forum vs D&D players in general vs the population compares. IE, I gave myself an 11 Int because I have a masters degree, but not 12 because I don't have any bonus languages.

D&D is a game that typically attracts people with strong imaginations and good analytical skills. The "geek" and "nerd" stereotypes are seen as intelligent for a reason...they typically are. Being interested in D&D doesn't MAKE you smarter, and it doesn't REQUIRE you to be especially gifted, it just tends to attract people with above average intelligence. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most posters on this forum have above average intelligence.

I believe that education level correlates with intelligence in the same way. Higher education doesn't make you smarter (no more than any other life experience) but the smarter people will tend to gravitate towards it.

The same can be applied to any group that meets for a common purpose. Walk into a football team's locker room and you'll likely find above average strength, dexterity, and constitution. Granted, they cultivate those attributes, but the same can be said for all of us in regards to all ability scores.

[NikolaTesla]

I would have to disagree with the idea that higher learning means you have more intelligence. Higher education is more of a level gaining place, in my opinion, though every 4 levels you would increase a score.

[Narren]

I would have to disagree with the idea that higher learning means you have more intelligence. Higher education is more of a level gaining place, in my opinion, though every 4 levels you would increase a score.

It doesn't automatically mean you have more intelligence, but an accomplished academic is often going to be a relatively smart person. An accomplished sports player is probably going to have relatively higher physical attributes. People tend to play to their strengths, and then cultivate those attributes once they are in their chosen field. And I'm speaking in generalities, individuals will always vary.

Or you can think of it in terms of D&D. You can pretty safely assume that most fighters will have an above average strength, and a wizard will have an above average intelligence.

[Jormengand]

Jormengand, CR 1/3 [Pathfinder]

Spoiler

Show

Human Expert 1

STR 8
DEX 12 (if D&D had separate DEX and AGL, my AGL would be higher than my DEX)
CON 7
INT 19 (By OP's way of measuring - I actually took a proper IQ test, not an internet one. Clearly, I'm a PF character who put his +2 to any in INT)
WIS 16
CHA 8

Skills:
Acrobatics 5 (4)
Bluff 3 (4)
Climb 3 (4)
Craft 8 (4)
Heal 7 (4)
Knowledge (Engineering) 8 (4)
Knowledge (Nature) 8 (4)
Speak language 4 (0) [English, French, German, Spanish, Latin]
Stealth 5 (4)
Swim 3 (4)
Perception 7 (4)

BAB: 0
Feats: Run, Improved Initiative

Yeah, so I calculated the strength with my carrying capacity, did a reflexes test and drawing accuracy test for dexterity (which would have got me a DEX of about 9 and AGL of about 15 if they'd been separate, hence improved initiative), worked out my con by taking my running ability, breath-holding and other things from memory - I was better at running and I'm stupidly fast, so I took run as one of my feats. Int I used your method. I worked out my wisdom with a couple of tests, and guessed my charisma from the fact that I'm autistic, but not desperately so (and people can still abide my presence, after all).

I then grabbed everything I was good at and put ranks in it. For my speak language, those are all the languages I can even construct a sentence in, but I needed them to equal my INT or it's Just Not D&D.

I made myself level 1 because very few people of my age are likely to be higher. I didn't bother with the young template, because it just told me things I already knew.

[hamishspence]

Maybe the mind is like a muscle- if you keep it exercised, it will consistently be able to do more.

[Jay R]

I would have to disagree with the idea that higher learning means you have more intelligence. Higher education is more of a level gaining place, in my opinion, though every 4 levels you would increase a score.

Higher education doesn't increase your intelligence. Higher intelligence allows you to go farther in education. Therefore the average Ph.D. has more intelligence than the average non-Ph.D.

Similarly, successful lock-picking doesn't increase your Dexterity; but people with high Dexterity can do it better.

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to place your bets."
- Pappy Maverick

[Spiryt]

Similarly, successful lock-picking doesn't increase your Dexterity; but people with high Dexterity can do it better.

Dunno what scientist had decided about 'brain training' this week, after all, but this part is certainly not true.

Years of successful lock-picking are pretty much bound to improve different motor, coordination, manipulation etc. functions that we could call "Dexterity".

Person who can pick locks will in general have more coordinated fingers, just as pianist will have, even though they're doing completely different things.

[Jormengand]

Higher education doesn't increase your intelligence.

Incorrect. In the same way that strength <=> lifting weights, it's also the case that intelligence <=> education.

EDIT: Got the wrong word in the wrong place. Oops.

[Kurald Galain]

Maybe the mind is like a muscle- if you keep it exercised, it will consistently be able to do more.

There is actually a lot of evidence for that, yes. It would seem that going to (a good) college or doing lots of brainy puzzles does in fact make you smarter, just like how doing lots of bench presses and similar exercises does in fact make you stronger. You'd be surprised at what you can train if you put yourself up to it.

[Taet]

This reminds me, why is no d&d trait that makes charismatic people less charismatic?

I mean, for example look at high school.
You got those popular people who are popular for no real reason. Logically there's no reason, the person is nothing special at all. Yet people love them, obviously this person has a high Charisma.

But that doesn't mean everyone likes them. There are those like me who dislike a person more and more the more they revolve around Charisma to be likable rather than being an actually fun and interesting person.

Why did d&d never make a trait to reflect people who are not are likely to like charismatic people just because they're charismatic?

I think those irritating people have ranks in a charisma skill and not the bonus in the ability score. Diplomacy I guess. Calling it bluff is rude. It also seems to act like a skill because if the roll fails the listener doesn't think it is a one-time mistake of charisma. All of the person's previous actions are suspect once the roll fails.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I wonder about this, to be honest. The system can be complex, but I wouldn't say it requires above average intelligence to grasp it. However the people who have a high degree of system mastery, and are interested in things like optimization may be. I think it would be interesting, for example, to see how the educational levels of people on this forum vs D&D players in general vs the population compares. IE, I gave myself an 11 Int because I have a masters degree, but not 12 because I don't have any bonus languages.

I think bonus languages from intelligence scores are as reliant on cultural background as they are on intelligence; regardless of her intelligence score, a half-orc can never learn elven without spending skill points to do so. As a result, I've always thought of bonus languages as those one learns by immersion, from being around those who speak them; the enmity between elves and orcs makes it unlikely for a half-orc to live amongst enough elves to simply "pick up" elven, so a half-orc must spend skill points to actively put effort into learning the language. Depending on where/when you grew up, the rules of the "campaign setting" might simply be that a human from that region doesn't receive any bonus languages.

You're arguing that those who aren't good at 3.5 or able to understand are simply not interested in it because it is 'Such easy math an 8 year old could understand'.

Where my point is that for some it may not be as easy as you find it to be and that doesn't mean they suddenly lack the interest or discipline to learn it. They simply are not as good at it as you are.

While it's not really relevant to the overall point, I feel like an inability to comprehend leveling up reflects at least some lack of interest or attention. It's not even that the math is simple, it's that the math is essentially nonexistent; leveling up is copying a number from a table onto another table. What is the number in the BAB box in the PHB? Put that number in the box with the same label on the character sheet. Boom.

I mean, sure, maybe I'm better at copying down numbers from one box to another box with the same label. Maybe the Dunning-Kruger effect is preventing me from realizing the extent of my Hermes Conrad-esque bureaucratic superpowers, but unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say that he "doesn't understand leveling up," I really do think part of that comes down to the interest and attention he's invested in D&D.

[Razanir]

Can we get back to the IQ-Int debate?

My argument for why we should compare bell curves and not the actual CDFs:
If we use the actual probability of rolling X Int or lower to compare to the normal distribution of IQ scores, we are completely limiting our scale to 3-18 Int. By comparing a normal approximation, instead, the scale works for theoretically infinite values on both scales, instead of shoehorning every IQ 140+ into 18 Int. D&D beings aren't restricted to a cap of 18 Int, why should our scale be?

[Emmerask]

Because humans in d&d are restricted to these scores at the beginning and can only advance this score every 4 levels by 1.

So except if you are not a human being this should be the scores used ^^

[Jormengand]

Because humans in d&d are restricted to these scores at the beginning

Unless you're playing PF.

[SowZ]

Even if we agree that IQ=Int, is there anyway to approximate, (with a larger degree of error, obviously,) with other, albeit more knowledge based standardized tests? What would the Int. approximation be based on ACTs or SATs?

[Hecuba]

Can we get back to the IQ-Int debate?

My argument for why we should compare bell curves and not the actual CDFs:
If we use the actual probability of rolling X Int or lower to compare to the normal distribution of IQ scores, we are completely limiting our scale to 3-18 Int. By comparing a normal approximation, instead, the scale works for theoretically infinite values on both scales, instead of shoehorning every IQ 140+ into 18 Int. D&D beings aren't restricted to a cap of 18 Int, why should our scale be?

While I agree in principle, the edge cases are already problematic enough that they should be left alone.

As an example:
We have a known IQ to Int point we can examine at the floor: the Int2-to-Int3 and the IQ20-IQ40 ranges both correspond to separate those capable of language from those who are not. Individuals in that IQ range are capable of living in an group home environment, and thus probably capable of living in a murder-hobo party (if someone will help them put on their armor).

An IQ of 40 is just inside 4σ (0.003% lower).
An IQ of 20 is just inside 5σ (0.000028% lower).

The probability of an INT3 should lie some where between those values. The probability of INT3 on the normal curve that best fits 3d6 is quite conspicuously not in between those values.

By leaving the floor and ceiling for unmodified Into at 3 &a 18 respectively, we neatly sidestep these and other issues. It is certainly an artifact of the generation method, but by dumb luck it happens to be an artifact that excludes that hedges out the places where the IQ to Into model would be weakest.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Pathfinder might have a trait like that. I think in the real world we just call those people 'the unpopular high schoolers.' Disliking someone just because they're attractive and have well-developed social skills is a step beyond that though, and seems kind of petty.

It's a hallmark of adolescence to resent the in-group if you're on the outside. After high school the social classes mostly fall away, as people grow up and realize it really doesn't matter who you party with and how you party as long as you're not being a jerk to others. Eventually, the nice people just align with like-minded nice people, and the jerks align with like-minded jerks.

For example, my wife was one of the popular girls when she was in high school. I was a cross-classed geek/jock. We never would have interacted if we went to the same high school.

People still have some tendency to resent the in-groups or the highly successful, if they're not a part of that group, but again that's more of a personal alignment thing. Humans seem to really like being on teams. If you're a nerdfighter, you identify as that and exult your superiority over bros and the useless pretty people of the world. If you're one of the pretty people, you think the angry nerds would be a lot more fun if they just got laid more often.

We're a weird species.

I don't mean like that though.
It's not so much a "You're not in my group so I dislike you" sort of deal.
I won't say that has no effects, it's probably playing a small role.
But generally it's that I just don't see anything likable or worthwhile in the person.

It's not because they are popular though, but I find it shocking how such people are so popular when they are so shockingly unremarkable. Note, I'm not saying all popular people are uninteresting. Just that I commonly see uninteresting people who seem insanely possible for bizzare reasons which in d&d would be represented by high Charisma.

I think those irritating people have ranks in a charisma skill and not the bonus in the ability score. Diplomacy I guess. Calling it bluff is rude. It also seems to act like a skill because if the roll fails the listener doesn't think it is a one-time mistake of charisma. All of the person's previous actions are suspect once the roll fails.

Possible, but it seems to be more a constant popular/likable aura they have that others seem drawn too rather than one a time thing.

While it's not really relevant to the overall point, I feel like an inability to comprehend leveling up reflects at least some lack of interest or attention. It's not even that the math is simple, it's that the math is essentially nonexistent; leveling up is copying a number from a table onto another table. What is the number in the BAB box in the PHB? Put that number in the box with the same label on the character sheet. Boom.

I mean, sure, maybe I'm better at copying down numbers from one box to another box with the same label. Maybe the Dunning-Kruger effect is preventing me from realizing the extent of my Hermes Conrad-esque bureaucratic superpowers, but unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say that he "doesn't understand leveling up," I really do think part of that comes down to the interest and attention he's invested in D&D.

Perhaps, but you'd be surprised by how confused some people can get by 3.5

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I think the easiest solution is to think about why the person is popular if they aren't charismatic. Arguably, being well-liked regardless of having any likable or worthwhile traits is the essence of charisma; think about the Leadership feat in D&D. A cruel, aloof failure who's probably killed or caused the death of countless henchmen and a few sidekicks is rolling around with a penalty of at least five on his leadership score, meaning every follower he has is a testament to his charisma. Being a bad leader doesn't make him less charismatic any more than being unremarkable makes somebody less charismatic. Charisma is how someone enthralls a crowd with an unremarkable story about her unremarkable life.

I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the idea of a guy who can hack all of the mainframes, yet cannot wrap his head around something with the approximate complexity of the workbooks second-graders use to practice penmanship. I can see other elements of 3.5 being confusing, sure, but leveling up is very little more than just copying a number from one box into another box. If he really is putting all his effort into it, my mind is boggled.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I think the easiest solution is to think about why the person is popular if they aren't charismatic. Arguably, being well-liked regardless of having any likable or worthwhile traits is the essence of charisma; think about the Leadership feat in D&D. A cruel, aloof failure who's probably killed or caused the death of countless henchmen and a few sidekicks is rolling around with a penalty of at least five on his leadership score, meaning every follower he has is a testament to his charisma. Being a bad leader doesn't make him less charismatic any more than being unremarkable makes somebody less charismatic. Charisma is how someone enthralls a crowd with an unremarkable story about her unremarkable life.

I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the idea of a guy who can hack all of the mainframes, yet cannot wrap his head around something with the approximate complexity of the workbooks second-graders use to practice penmanship. I can see other elements of 3.5 being confusing, sure, but leveling up is very little more than just copying a number from one box into another box. If he really is putting all his effort into it, my mind is boggled.

I get how that works for Charisma.
But my point is how in d&d mechanics a high Charisma add's it's modifier also to things like diplomacy.
So you're better at social interactions and getting people to like you.

However, there are some people like me who are easier convinced and more likely to like a person who is not depending on their charisma to get people to like them. Where people who just focus on their Charisma to get people to like them rubs me the wrong way. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person like this so I'm wondering why d&d has nothing to represent someone like this.

As for the hacking, I wouldn't go as far as to say any mainframe :P

It could be one of those things where just has a very strong interest in things like computers.

[Frozen_Feet]

I believe that education level correlates with intelligence in the same way. Higher education doesn't make you smarter (no more than any other life experience) but the smarter people will tend to gravitate towards it.

While people might have tendency to do what they're good at, the phenomenom pointed out by Jay R is more influentiel.

People are actively selected against in things they're not good at.

If you're small and weak, will you get to the school's wrestling team? If you struggle to not trip on your own feet, will you be a favored dance partner in the independence day ball? If you struggle with reading and writing, will you be let into a top gymnasium? If you can't see for **** without eyeglasses, will they let you drive a tank in the army *)? If you can't speak yourself out of a closet, will the company make you their PR person?

The answers are: no, no, no, no and no.

It matters not if you could become good at those things. People only see you for what you are, not your future potential.

Consider what you need to do to get into an university here in Finland. First, you need to get through 9 years of elementary school. Each year, you must get at least passing grades, and last year, you must graduate with good enough scores to be even eligible for the gymnasium or vocational school you want to get into. Then you need to go through another 3 years of education, again getting at least passing grades, and again graduating with good enough scores to be eligible for the university you want to get into. And you might need to pass entrance exams too.

And it's not just you doing this. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people are competing for the same spot. So not only do you need to prove yourself goof on your own, you must be better than the rest of applicants.

University education, in itself, might not be that hard. Someone with, say, IQ 80 might be able to become a succesfull lawyer. But he might not be given even that chance to try! His potential spot as the future of lawyering was already stolen in elementary school, by someone who seemed more fit back then.

This is the real reason why I say "someone who has learned a lot probably is a fast or better learner than someone who hasn't". Education is not given freely even if it doesn't cost you money. In a hierarchical system of education, to get to the next level you must constantly prove yourself, time after time after time, to be capable of rising to the challenge.

This, by the way, is reflected in IQ scores. You are very unlikely to find a Military Captain with IQ below 115, or a lawyer with IQ below 120, or a physicist with a Master's with IQ below 125. This doesn't necessarily prove that such high IQ is necessary for the task, but it does suggest the barrier for entry becomes insurmountable for people who score significantly below that limit.

On the flipside, there is no "maximum" IQ for any task. You could find someone with IQ 121 as a school janitor, or someone with IQ 138 as a trashman. Underachieving is always possible, and vastly easier than overachieving.

*) I'm seriously bitter about this little thing here. I had to suffer a year in an armored division without being let to drive a thing, not even those vehicles I had a civilian license for! Because I had glasses. Yeah.

[Spiryt]

If you're small and weak, will you get to the school's wrestling team?

Well, there are weight classes in wrestling, you know.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

However, there are some people like me who are easier convinced and more likely to like a person who is not depending on their charisma to get people to like them. Where people who just focus on their Charisma to get people to like them rubs me the wrong way. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person like this so I'm wondering why d&d has nothing to represent someone like this.

Well, the DC of a diplomacy check depends on one's initial attitude, and diplomacy checks are modified, not controlled, by charisma; people with a lot of ranks in diplomacy aren't depending on their charisma, they've developed legitimate interpersonal skills which are supplemented by their natural charisma. Someone who is charismatic and charismatic alone won't even have a fifty percent chance of bringing someone up from indifferent to friendly and will have even worse odds of convincing even a friendly person to be actively helpful. Moreover, someone with no ranks in diplomacy, but a relatively high charisma score won't be as adept at convincing others to like them or help them as someone with no natural charisma who's invested a few skill points; a full investment at first level will equal the bonus from the highest possible charisma score, and the divide will only increase with levels, since someone's skill ranks can rise at four times the rate that her charisma score increases. Sure, someone who is charismatic and diplomatic will be higher than either, but eventually diplomacy alone will outshine charisma alone, even if diplomacy is invested in cross-class. So, as you said, someone who might be more socially effective early in "the game" due to a high charisma score will eventually be comparatively less successful in social encounters as skill ranks come to overshadow ability modifiers, mathematically.