Your Real Ability scores

[Frozen_Feet]

I know about the pisa studies/tests.
In germany classes specifically learn for the test so that the overall score is significantly higher then it would be ^^ (ie the pisa test is not worth the paper its written on).

If you go to the gym to work out, you're going to be significantly stronger than someone who doesn't. If you then go and test this, does it make the test "a waste of time"?

PISA is an academic test. If the prospect of testing causes the test takers to study more academia, then it's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Your argument only has a leg to stand on if you can demonstrate that PISA questions have nothing to do with what is commonly taught, or commonly expected to be known, by the students.

Similarly any Intelligence test where you can improve pretty significantly (10+ points and more afaik) cant really be counted as an intelligence test imo.

Why? Intelligence is a mutable quality in D&D. In D&D, you can train it. So if we're looking for closest real-life parallel to D&D Intelligence, being trainable would be in favor of IQ.

I also refer you back to what I said of strenght. Physical strenght can be trained - arguing the results of training are "not your real strenght" would be rather ridiculous.

So why are you making an assumption that Intelligence is a set-in-stone quality that can't be trained?

Your argument only works if you assume the same person is taking the same test multiple times in succession (etc.). This is not how real PISA or IQ tests actually work. The training questions are different from the actual test questions.

Also if we would accept IQ tests as an accurate measurement of intelligence... well african americans consistently score lower on avg then white americans....

And South African whites consistently score lower than either white or black americans. If you think measured differences between sub-populations are value statements of said sub-populations, then you have a lot of learning to do on the subject.

Also, IQ does correlate with education, nutrition, climate (etc.), but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that these conditions somehow don't affect your definition of "real" intellect as well. Or would you honestly expect someone malnourished, uneducated and suffering from parasitic infestation to be as intelligent as well-fed and healthy university professor?

Genetics and inheritance do factor into IQ, but ethnicity is only fourth or fifth most notable correlate with IQ.

[Emmerask]

If you count Intelligence as the ability to learn and not as the number of facts you have learned + ability to learn then yes the malnourished parasitic person could very well have more intelligence then the university professor.

He would however score extremely low in an IQ test while the professor might score pretty high or at least avg ^^

Oh and yes IQ depends on all these factors, thats why IQ DOES NOT equal Intelligence

/edit and no I dont think that because for me IQ tests have very little significance on actual intelligence as I stated before

[Spiryt]

I think that the problem with those things is indeed some weird, dunno, intelligence fetish, or whatever.

Like assuming that it's some kind of 'virtue' or measure of person, instead of just another human capability, or potential, this time of ability to process information.

Oh and yes IQ depends on all these factors, thats why IQ DOES NOT equal Intelligence

Why exactly not?

Intelligence, as pretty much any thing about human performance, will be, indeed, going to be heavily influenced by upbringing, genetics, nutrition, general health, especially mental health, your horizons or whatever else.

If someone is naturally frail, ill, with bad diet, awkward etc. all of his 'Strenght', capabilities will be rather low.

Would it mean that those strength results do not equal 'real Strength'?

If you're completely stressed out, malnourished, son of non-intelligent parents, you are not going to be very smart, and there's not much to do about it.

You can get more intelligent, but limits will be always different.

Just as one who cannot dribble a ball without tripping won't be famous athlete.
Someone who cannot present something in class without getting red and mumbling a lot of stupid things between "yyyyy" and "eeee" won't be a leader.

[Emmerask]

simplified:

Intelligence = the ability of your brain to make new connections (how fast how efficient etc) ie how well you can learn

IQ = the number of connections established (mostly) ie how much you have learned

[Spiryt]

simplified:

Intelligence = the ability of your brain to make new connections (how fast how efficient etc)

IQ = the number of connections established (mostly)

That's some rather narrow definition, I would say...

There's plenty of really intelligent people, who nonetheless are not exactly very good at creative thinking. That's probably more connected with models received from parents etc.

And I'm pretty sure that quite a few IQ test out there test quite a few of creative functions out there.

It will of course depend on how familiar one is with certain exercises, but then, it would mean that repeated same IQ tests measure number of 'established connections'.

[Malfunctioned]

Let's see....

I'd probably be somewhere around
Str: 10
Dex: 16/8, dexterity measures both agility, reflexes, coordination stuff like that. I have Dyspraxia which means my coordination is absolutely terrible, same with balance and such. However I am ridiculously flexible and have great reflex. So 16 for those two, 8 for everything else.
Con: 14, I rarely get ill and I'm pretty tough when it comes to pain.
Int: 14 I'm smart, but not overly so.
Wis: 6-8, I'm pretty unobservant, am quite badly long-sighted and pretty oblivious.
Cha: 16, I study performing arts, can sing, play a couple of instruments and I'm adept at public speaking. My looks are probably about average too.

[Frozen_Feet]

simplified:

Intelligence = the ability of your brain to make new connections (how fast how efficient etc) ie how well you can learn

IQ = the number of connections established (mostly) ie how much you have learned

That is not how IQ is defined or tested. You should go and start with Wikipedia's article on IQ if you want to continue this discussion.

Also, reality check: someone who has learned a lot probably is a faster or better learner than someone who hasn't.

Contrast and compare: someone who has lifted a lot of weights probably is stronger than someone who hasn't.

[Emmerask]

Also, reality check: someone who has learned a lot probably is a faster or better learner than someone who hasn't.

That is a completely and utterly baseless assumption.

There could be a million different reason why one person hasnt learned as much as another... lets take an extreme example of what you are saying:

One person was raised in a civil war area... had to fight for his survival every day while the other person was growing up in a wealthy family in the us...
and you are saying that clearly the wealthy guy has learned a lot because he is a faster learner?

You can also use less extreme examples wealthy guy vs low income has to help out with the family guy (less time to learn) etcetc

Sorry but that is just naive to the extreme.

[Spiryt]

That is a completely and utterly baseless assumption.

There could be a million different reason why one person hasnt learned as much as another... lets take an extreme example of what you are saying:

One person was raised in a civil war area... had to fight for his survival every day while the other person was growing up in a wealthy family in the us...
and you are saying that clearly the wealthy guy has learned a lot because he is a faster learner?

You can also use less extreme examples wealthy guy vs low income has to help out with the family guy (less time to learn) etcetc

Sorry but that is just naive to the extreme.

I think that you're using 'learning' in way too limited sense...

If person raised in 'civil war area' was in fact a 'faster learner' then said person could indeed learn a lot - learn what they could learn, and what was useful to them.

And yeah, if someone is living in stressful environment, etc. it's quite probable that he/she has no time or opportunity to 'exercise' properly, for example. Be it mind or body. Dunno what's so weird here.

If someone can't really use mind for abstract thinking, reasoning, etc. from whatever reason, it's obvious that those abilities will be less developed that they could potentially be.

Although there are so many different factors here that it's hard to generalize.

[Emmerask]

We just have different opinions about what constitutes intelligence, so I think we should leave it that

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

In a few threads in the past, I've mentioned that I think the most difficult part of discerning one's "real" ability scores is the fact that it's actually pretty ambiguous what the mental scores are intended to represent. More specifically, there is a great deal of potential overlap and/or contradiction between the mental ability scores; moreover, certain ability score definitions in D&D arguably contradict experimental evidence about cognition and behavior, most prominently with regard to D&D Intelligence representing "reasoning." Thus, even were one to clearly delineate which ability scores represent what, in D&D, it would be difficult to find "real world" metrics for discerning our own ability scores, since the delineations one would make in D&D do not necessarily create sensible real-world definitions.

[SimonMoon6]

In a few threads in the past, I've mentioned that I think the most difficult part of discerning one's "real" ability scores is the fact that it's actually pretty ambiguous what the mental scores are intended to represent. More specifically, there is a great deal of potential overlap and/or contradiction between the mental ability scores;

Especially in 3.x, where Wisdom means three things:

(1) Perception
(2) Strength of will (since it adds to will saves)
(3) The ability to get what you want from deities or other "concepts" that you might worship (which sounds like "force of personality" or "strength of will" to me).

The third can't be measured in the real world. The first and second qualities don't have any relationship. And in addition, none of that really has anything to do with the word "wisdom" as we would use it in the real world.

And then when Charisma shows up, it tends to be "force of personality" which in my mind would overlap with "strength of will."

But then even having three physical ability scores which potentially have no connection can be pretty weird. While I *might* be able to imagine a person with a 3 strength and an 18 constitution, I'm not sure that everyone would agree on what that might be. A delicate female elf who happens to be good at jogging and resisting diseases, but can't lift a rock to save her life? Or a big fat blob of a man who is so heavy he can't even lift himself but has so much flesh that he has tons of extra hit points?


And that's without considering a person with an 18 dex, 3 str, and 3 con. How did this person get enough exercise to become super-agile while getting so little exercise that they are feeble in every other way? Sure, there's the cliche of the ancient martial arts master, but assuming a *young* person... how would this work exactly?

But for intelligence, I'd say in D&D, it mostly measures "book learnin'". And that's the sort of thing that can be tested for in the real world. General abstract creativity is (a) hard to measure and (b) not something that a *character* uses in D&D (though their *player* might).

Sure, a character uses INT to learn more things. And you can't easily test to see if a person in real life can learn more things. But you can test to see how many things they've already learned. And one can extrapolate from that (though obviously without 100% accuracy) and assume that a person who *has* learned a lot of things is the sort of person who would continue to learn a lot of things.

[Amidus Drexel]

Oh, these threads are fun. My own:

LE/NG/CN (my alignment easily depends on who you ask I normally go with TN or LE) Human Expert 1

Str: 10-12. I'm probably a little above average, if at all.
Dex: 13-15. Above average. I've got good reflexes and coordination, and I'm pretty flexible.
Con: 9-12. About average. I rarely get sick, but I don't have particularly good endurance. Holding my breath and watching a clock gives me around these scores.
Int: 12-14. Slightly above average. I know two languages, so that implies a 12 or a 13, although that metric's probably a bit off.
Wis: 7-10. Slightly below average. I'm inattentive and have damaged hearing, and a weak sense of smell.
Cha: 9-12. About average. I'm not particularly attractive, but I'm persuasive and reasonably good at getting people to do what I want them to, when I'm not too shy to talk to them.

Flaws: Inattentive, Shaky Hands
Feats: Iron Will, Skill Focus (Perform: string instruments), Great Fortitude, and Skill Focus (Knowledge: D&D 3.5e)

Skill ranks in various knowledge and perform skills, and in survival. Maybe a few in intimidate and in bluff.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Intelligence/Charisma confusion is as bad as Intelligence/Wisdom confusion, in a lot of ways, since intelligence has nothing to do with verbal skills, by RAW; any metric of intelligence which relies on language production as well as language comprehension is testing charisma as much as intelligence. Of course, since comprehension is as arguably the domain of wisdom as it is intelligence, verbal skills in general may be outside the domain of intelligence. Oh, well, except learning foreign languages or deducing the meaning of exotic or archaic texts without any familiarity, both of which are related to intelligence.

[NikolaTesla]

Despite the varied opinions on the legitimacy of IQ as a measure for intelligence, it is probably the best quantifiable test for it that is readily available (you can find decent ones on the web if you look for them).

Thus, I propose that we move on from the discussion of intelligence and to the other ability scores. Ideas have been tossed around for strength; lets hammer out the numbers so we can get a standardized measuring system.

Just for kicks:

Spoiler

Show

<b>I Am A:</b> Lawful Good Human Cleric (3rd Level)
<br><br><u>Ability Scores:</u><br>
<b>Strength-</b>13<br>
<b>Dexterity-</b>12<br>
<b>Constitution-</b>13<br>
<b>Intelligence-</b>17<br>
<b>Wisdom-</b>16<br>
<b>Charisma-</b>17
<br><br><u>Alignment:</u><br><b>Lawful Good</b> A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. However, lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.<br>
<br><u>Race:</u><br><b>Humans</b> are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.
<br><br><u>Class:</u><br><b>Clerics</b> act as intermediaries between the earthly and the divine (or infernal) worlds. A good cleric helps those in need, while an evil cleric seeks to spread his patron's vision of evil across the world. All clerics can heal wounds and bring people back from the brink of death, and powerful clerics can even raise the dead. Likewise, all clerics have authority over undead creatures, and they can turn away or even destroy these creatures. Clerics are trained in the use of simple weapons, and can use all forms of armor and shields without penalty, since armor does not interfere with the casting of divine spells. In addition to his normal complement of spells, every cleric chooses to focus on two of his deity's domains. These domains grants the cleric special powers, and give him access to spells that he might otherwise never learn. A cleric's Wisdom score should be high, since this determines the maximum spell level that he can cast.
<br><br>Find out <a href='http://www.easydamus.com/character.html' target='mt'>What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?</a>, courtesy of Easydamus <a href='mailto:[email protected]'>(e-mail)</a><br><br>


Detailed Results:

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (31)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (23)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (26)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXX (7)
Chaotic Evil ---- XX (2)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Neutral - XXXXXXX (7)
Chaos --- XX (2)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Evil ---- (0)

Race:
Human ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Dwarf ---- XXXXXXXX (8)
Elf ------ XXXX (4)
Gnome ---- XXXXXX (6)
Halfling - XXXX (4)
Half-Elf - XXXXXXXX (8)
Half-Orc - XXXXXX (6)

Class:
Barbarian - (-23)
Bard ------ (-23)
Cleric ---- XXXXXXXX (8)
Druid ----- (-27)
Fighter --- (-6)
Monk ------ XXXXXX (6)
Paladin --- XXXX (4)
Ranger ---- (0)
Rogue ----- (-8)
Sorcerer -- (0)
Wizard ---- XXXXXX (6)

Admittedly, I feel like I should have a level or two of wizard in there, but, oh well.

[Frozen_Feet]

We just have different opinions about what constitutes intelligence, so I think we should leave it that

I'm not sure you even know what you are disagreeing with. What definition of learning are you using that makes it incompatible with IQ tests? Because the original usage of IQ tests was to sort out school students with learning impediments so they could be given special education. That task is one IQ is fairly succesful in.

I'm repeating myself here, but seriously: IQ correlates with learning ability. Fast learners have a high chance of scoring well in IQ tests. If you define "intelligence" as "ability to learn", then IQ is a valid measure of that ability.

[prufock]

what academia describes intelligence, what the layman describes intelligence, what MENSA describes intelligence and what D&D describe intelligence are all significantly different

Nonsense. The only real difference is that D&D includes "spellcasting ability." IQ tests correlate with performance on other tests, level of education, how fast you learn, your store of knowledge, vocabulary, performance in your career, the type of career you have, the amount of money you make, etc. These are all things that "laymen" identify with intelligence, and also relate decently well to D&D rules - knowledge skills, more skill points, etc.

Then I do not quite understand how you came to the conclusion that iq tests in the school systems are standardized across the world

Each IQ test is standardized. Inter-test reliability is also high. If you do well on IQ Test #1, you are likely to do well on IQ Test #2. They are designed toward measuring the same thing, and thus correlate highly.

Retest reliability is also high. Yes, you may be able to raise your score with practice, but practice raises your score in just about everything.

If you count Intelligence as the ability to learn and not as the number of facts you have learned

Then standardized tests where people are given the same amount of time to learn the material would correlate with IQ. Oh wait, they totally do! Kids with higher IQs retain more of what they are taught than kids with lower IQs.

And hey, guess what? We have ways to statistically separate factors such as motivation and time. Yep, IQ still correlates strongly even if we account for those factors.

As a final note, IQ tests don't just measure what you know, but your ability to problem solve, reason, perceive, visualize, memorize, and work quickly (since they are timed).

[Gwazi Magnum]

But you can be sure of one thing: 95% posters will give themselves at least above average intelligence.

Be be fair, most people can never understand d&d due to it's complexity, even those who are typically very bright/intelligent. So anyone who can successfully learn and play d&d I think is worthy of above average Intelligence, even if only by a small amount.

-----------------

Anyways this was my result on easydamus.

Spoiler

Show

I am A:

Neutral Good Human Wizard (2nd Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 8
Dexterity- 9
Constitution- 10
Intelligence- 12
Wisdom- 14
Charisma- 10

When personally I think I'd be a bit more like this.

Spoiler

Show

Neutral Good Human Commoner (1st Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 8: Normally weak, most people are stronger than me.
Dexterity- 10: Nothing notable here in one way or the other.
Constitution- 8: Not crippling, but I lack much endurance and get sick more often than the typical person does.
Intelligence- 12: Although no genius I tend to know a bit more than the everyday person. Constant Honor's, but nothing too impressive and you'll still lose me in a number of topics.
Wisdom- 14: Save for one two incidents I rarely end up making the same mistake twice. And never feel a need to explore and be curious to things like most teenagers do before learning that it's stupid. I just already know it's stupid and have no desire to test it only to confirm that fact.
Charisma- 8: Generally unpopular/unlikable, appearance is nothing noteworthy, those I do get along with is due to mental compatibility and similar interests. And the typical person I'm around still probably doesn't give a **** about my existence one way or the other. A few close friends, but a much smaller social group/circle than most people tend to have.

Simple Weapon Proficiency: Club

Feats: Iron Will (When my minds made on something you're unlikely to change my mind about it), Skill Focus (Knowledge/Learning & Mental Disabilities), Skill Focus (Geek Games), Toughness (Although not that strong, if in a fight hits normally tend to not phase me as much or I at least don't feel much of it until after the fight is over with)

Skills: Concentration 1, Handle Animal 1 (Have had a few pets), Knowledge (Geek Games) 1 [Magic, D&D, Lots of video games, warhammer etc.], Knowledge (Geography) 1 [I've seen people not recognize Canada on the map, so yea :P], Knowledge (History) 1 [I know a but more on history than what's taught in High School, nothing major though], Knowledge (Religion) 1 [Former Christian, looked into the religion for a time which is why it's now former christian], Knowledge (Learning & Mental Disabilities) 1 [Grew up around it and with it], Profession (Autism Therapy) 1 [Grew up in it and worked as therapist helper before starting college], Sense Motive 1 (Gut feelings usually turn out to be right or at least not far from the truth).

Flaws: Feeble (Am not physically active really at all), Shaky (I can't aim a bow or throw a ball for ****)

Traits: Abrasive (Due to normally being blunt), Honest (Ties in with being Blunt, +I'm a bad liar)

Languages: Common/English & Geek (Not Greek, that is not a typo :p)

[hamishspence]

I've done the easydamus test as well, and wondered about the system behind it. How are the points distributed amongst the answers?

That might depend on how much of it comes from the Hero Builder's Guidebook- which tells you what points are assigned to what answers.

[prufock]

Be be fair, most people can never understand d&d due to it's complexity, even those who are typically very bright/intelligent.

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.

Wisdom- 14: Save for one two incidents I rarely end up making the same mistake twice. And never feel a need to explore and be curious to things like most teenagers due before learning that it's stupid. I just already know it's stupid and have no desire to test it only to confirm that fact.

The bold part has me confuzzled. Being curious and exploring is unwise? Curiosity is a hallmark of scientific inquiry. How do you know something is stupid without investigating (note that I would consider reading and asking people to be "exploring" as well), unless you're assuming your conclusions?

[Gwazi Magnum]

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've ran into many people who understand many things very well like business, art, computers etc. They could handle say d&d 4th edition ok, but when it comes to stuff like 3.5 they get completely stumped and overloaded with all the rules.

Now, they are probably still capable of learning it assuming they invested enough time into it. But seeing how many people have looked at 3.5, been overwhelmed and walked away (and those being intelligent people, not run of the mill groupies or anything), it's fair to say anyone is able to understand play 3.5 has some level of intelligence that many others do not possess.

The bold part has me confuzzled. Being curious and exploring is unwise? Curiosity is a hallmark of scientific inquiry. How do you know something is stupid without investigating (note that I would consider reading and asking people to be "exploring" as well), unless you're assuming your conclusions?

I should of clarified here.
I mean stupid curiosity that is normally only found in young people or immature adult..

Stuff like "I wonder what being wasted feels like", "I wonder what those drugs are like", "I wonder what cigarettes look like", "Can I steal this without being caught?".

Those sort of things I can look at and say "No, I already know that's stupid/dumb to be doing and I have no reason to test it myself". I remember the PHB also mentioned with Intelligence and Wisdom that Intelligence is knowing something as a fact, wisdom is knowing to apply it and not act a certain way.

Example, you're walking in an abandoned building you shouldn't be. Some police see you and call you over, you'll probably just get a slap on the wrist for this anyways. Someone with high Intelligence would probably recognize this, someone will low wisdom as well would just go "**** the Police!" and book it, while someone with a higher wisdom would know that's a stupid thing to be doing.

[Spiryt]

I've ran into many people who understand many things very well like business, art, computers etc. They could handle say d&d 4th edition ok, but when it comes to stuff like 3.5 they get completely stumped and overloaded with all the rules.

Now, they are probably still capable of learning it assuming they invested enough time into it. But seeing how many people have looked at 3.5, been overwhelmed and walked away (and those being intelligent people, not run of the mill groupies or anything), it's fair to say anyone is able to understand play 3.5 has some level of intelligence that many others do not possess.

Uh, sorry, is this serious?

People can grasp and be 'capable' of 3.5 rules if they're interested in it. If they're not, they will walk away.

There's nothing requiring big intelligence in grasping few rules and numbers at all.

It's absolutely basic math plus a bit of different rules and data one needs to be able to move around in, but that's pretty much matter of time and reading invested.

Intelligent people will obviously have easier time, but this doesn't require high intelligence at all...

[prufock]

I mean stupid curiosity that is normally only found in young people or immature adult.

Ah, so you're using it as a sort of tolerance-of-risk analogue. IE "I wonder what lead paint tastes like? It might kill me, but I really need to know!"

[Gwazi Magnum]

Uh, sorry, is this serious?

People can grasp and be 'capable' of 3.5 rules if they're interested in it. If they're not, they will walk away.

There's nothing requiring big intelligence in grasping few rules and numbers at all.

It's absolutely basic math plus a bit of different rules and data one needs to be able to move around in, but that's pretty much matter of time and reading invested.

Intelligent people will obviously have easier time, but this doesn't require high intelligence at all...

It does overwhelm some people with all the stuff to keep track of.
In one of my 3.5 groups for example we have a player whose been playing for over a year now but still doesn't understand how to level up.

Now this is someone who is very skilled with computers, he could hack onto or disables anyone's computer or internet if he wanted. Is constantly tinkering with different operating systems. But 3.5 d&d still confuses the hell out of him.

Ah, so you're using it as a sort of tolerance-of-risk analogue. IE "I wonder what lead paint tastes like? It might kill me, but I really need to know!"

I wouldn't go as far as eating paint :P
But basically yes.

[Spiryt]

It does overwhelm some people with all the stuff to keep track of.
In one of my 3.5 groups for example we have a player whose been playing for over a year now but still doesn't understand how to level up.

Now this is someone who is very skilled with computers, he could hack onto or disables anyone's computer or internet if he wanted. Is constantly tinkering with different operating systems. But 3.5 d&d still confuses the hell out of him.

Then he's not really interested enough in it to really care, and probably isn't really all that much into RPGs and all that imaginary numbers.

Because there's nothing about few numbers during leveling up that any decently bright 8 years old wouldn't grasp if someone explained it to him.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Then he's not really interested enough in it to really care, and probably isn't really all that much into RPGs and all that imaginary numbers.

Because there's nothing about few numbers during leveling up that any decently bright 8 years old wouldn't grasp if someone explained it to him.

Or *shocker* someone just happens to not be good at something that you are?

Shocking, I know.

[Kurald Galain]

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.

Now, claiming to be a genius or a rocket scientist or a Nobel prize winner, that is a bold claim. But claiming to be above average? Wow, color me unimpressed.

[Spiryt]

Or *shocker* someone just happens to not be good at something that you are?

Shocking, I know.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, to be honest, as it was precisely my point...

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

And none of those things in any way indicates any above average intelligence on it's own.

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

Those boards on average probably have somehow above average Intelligence anyway.

Dealing with a lot of abstract thinking, math, history, often in secondary language...

So Int actually may be least likely stat to exaggerate.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, to be honest, as it was precisely my point...

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

And none of those things in any way indicates any above average intelligence on it's own.

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.

[Spiryt]

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.

Yes.

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