Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Odimax 03-20-06, 03:15 PM	I recently saw an article on the website that compared some of the classes and ability scores to Olympic athletes and such. I was very intrigued by this. Has WotC or TSR ever published a chart showing things like "18 Str = Olympic-level strength", etc.? I am currently playing a Rogue who had 18 dexterity, but he was recently killed and reincarnated as a halfling, raising his dex to 20. How superhuman (if at all) do you guys think this is?
Archangel_James 03-20-06, 03:32 PM	People underestimate the value of ability scores. 18 would be superhero strength. 13 or 14 would be olympic. 20 dexterity would be like a human squid. When he moves, he's so agile it seems like he doesn't have bones. His aim is like Robin Hood and he is able to dodge bullets and other hazards with but a moment's thought.
Darkuwa 03-20-06, 03:55 PM	With 4d6 drop the lowest 25/1296 people will have an 18. In stright 3d6 1/216 people have an 18. For the first that mean 115,741,000 have one 18. For the second it means 27,780,000. Now those are without magic therefore: 18 int: Steven Hawking 18 cha: A few of the playboy bunnies 18 wis: the dhali lamma 18 str: World class body builder, someone who can pull a semi 18 dex: World class gymnasts and contortionists 18 con: Anyone who never gets sick and recovers quickly from injury. Using the carrying capacity chart on pg 162 of the players handbook: Somone with 18 strength can lift 300 lbs over they're head, can lift 600 lbs off the ground and stagger around with it, and pull or push 1500 lbs, all of which the guys in the strongest man in the world competitions do regularly.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 03-20-06, 04:12 PM	Charisma is mostly force of personality, not physical attractiveness. Martin Luther King, Jr. would probably have had an 18 Charisma.
joepoe 03-20-06, 04:19 PM	Charisma is mostly force of personality, not physical attractiveness. Martin Luther King, Jr. would probably have had an 18 Charisma. Yes! Is the person likable or not? And how likable....that is cha in my groop. But...a person with 18 in cha would never be ugly!
DDogwood 03-20-06, 04:31 PM	18 cha: A few of the playboy bunnies I agree with most of your assessments, except this one. CHA does not represent the amount of plastic surgery or airbrushing one receives, or even primarily the physical attractiveness of a character. Charisma is: Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting. A-List actors and high ranking politicians are probably good examples of people with high Charisma scores. For example, Bill Clinton and George Bush are both evidently able to inspire great loyalty from people, and have strong personal magnetism.
Rocketboy13 03-20-06, 04:51 PM	Statisticly yes 1/216 people have an 18, but statistical reality and actual reality don't usually coordinate. Very few people have statistics in the 16+ range, fewer than the 3d6 system would suggest have those scores, because in reality we don't role dice, we depend on a genetic lottery that is far less swingy (for the most part). That being said, I believe they estimated some of the statistics of olympic level athletes in a design and developement collumn a while back, with one gold medalist weight lifter hitting the 23 strength mark. I would imagine that it is not so much ability scores that make individuals like Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, Martin Luther King Jr, and Bruce Lee, but class levels, Wizards, Sorcerer, and Monk. :tiphat:
Molitor 03-20-06, 11:16 PM	Don't forget the stat bonuses every 4 levels.
Parker_W 03-20-06, 11:44 PM	This forum should really have a search function... Anywayz, as always, people WAY overestimate ability scors in real life due to statistics. As noted before, 1 out of 216 common people have a 18...think about it..that isnt THAT good. NOWHERE near olympic level, which would be one out of tens of thousands. Strength is a different issue since it can be quantified.
DanjaNinja 03-21-06, 12:18 AM	People underestimate the value of ability scores. 18 would be superhero strength. 13 or 14 would be olympic. Not really; a 14 is only marginally better than a 10, and ability scores are far less indicative of power than total HD. Given that 1 in 216 people would have an 18 somewhere, I'd say Olympic-level is probably a 20 (abnormally good) with bonus ability points from level pumped into to boot.
tpierce104 03-21-06, 12:48 AM	Personally, I think that class levels are more important in measuring a character's ability. My opinion is that ability scores are potential, while class levels are training. For instance, an olympic swimmer (say, a level 5 human athlete with a 16 strength and 8 ranks in Swim, for a total bonus of 11) would consistently be able to outswim a character with 20 strength and no ranks in Swim, having only a +5 to Swim checks. Even a high-school swimmer (let's call that one level two with a 14 strength and 5 ranks in Swim) would have the advantage with his +7. A similar concept applies to martial arts. A level one character with an 18 strength and no combat training will almost always lose to a level 5 character with a 14 strength. The first gets a +4 bonus to his attacks and deals more damage with each attack, but a character trained in unarmed combat, at level 5, would have between a +5 and +7 attack bonus, before the concept of feats or actual chosen levels comes into play. A fighter would have a +7 and a monk a +5, but the monk would most likely have better technique as well as higher damage dice, not to mention the AC bonuses. So more or less, ability scores measure natural talent (a character with a low strength could, but most likely wouldn't, become an olympic swimmer, relying on technique more than physical force), whereas levels represent training. This isn't true in every case. For instance, in real life, a weightlifter actually increases his strength score, whereas in D&D there's no way to do so through such a thing as weightlifting. Weightlifting is more ability-based than skill-based, and it focuses on increasing Strength rather than developing technique. There is technique for such things, but while perfect form in swimming will allow you to swim exceptionally well even if you have "10 strength", it's obvious that no matter how good your weightlifting technique is, if you have 10 strength, you're not lifting 500 pounds. End of story. Wow, that was long-winded of me. Anybody agree with me at all, or am I wrong?
Xeviat-DM 03-21-06, 02:40 AM	And this is one of my reasons I definately advocate a point based class system, where abilities are chosen by classes, or at the very least an "adventurer" class who gains a decent amount of skill points and an ability score boost every level (though this could get very, very out of hand). Perhaps the 3rd edition designers got the carrying/lifting capacities slightly off. Perhaps there needs to be a feat which boosts your maximum carrying capacity (Icewind Dale 2 has one actually). But then again, it has been suggested that Int could equal IQ if you multiplied it by 10. This seems reasonable to me, because as far as I know that IQ "chart" ranges from 0 to 200, with 100 being the mean average. That means there is the capacity for a 200, and even the capacity of being above 200 (no statistician would willingly put in an outlier which would make the highest IQ a 200 and the second highest a 170-something; for instance). It is true that technique should matter more than base abilities. But base abilities are also used as prerequisites for certain techniques. In fact, I think that base abilities are sometimes less important than what they should be. But to pop an earlier stated bubble, I can lift 400 pounds with just my legs, which is probably what I can lift in a squat; thus my strength is at least 15 by d20 standards (I don't think I could lift that much over my head, but I can definately jog with a 250 pound friend on my back). But I could work out to boost this; given a good year of regimented excersize and practice, I could probably lift quite a bit more, not entirely sure. One of the flaws of the skill heavy, stat low system.
Daiben 03-22-06, 09:05 AM	When it comes down to it though the D&D stat system has always been pretty bad and not particularly well thought out. I've been into weight lifting for over 10 years now and have trained with a number of olympic level athletes (judo, wrestling, weight lifting, spriting, gymnastics) and what people don't realise is just how physically superior these people are to your average adult. based on one American study, an average American man in decent shape aged 18-36 can bench press 90% of his bodyweight and squat 120% for single reps. from my own experience these figures are inflated but lets just assume they are accurate for sanity sake. Taking an average inshape man of 165lbs this works out to a bench press of 149lbs and a squat of 198lbs for an average strength of 10. This isn't actually too far from the D&D lifting stats. My current lifting stats using a full range (eg non-cheating) of movement right now are; benchpress 350lbs, deadlift 510lbs, squat 530lbs with no straps, lifting suits or any other extra equipment. Looking at the D&D weight tables that should put me at about 17-18 strength. From my own kickboxing/judo/wrestling experience I know I'm pretty strong but there are guys out there twice as strong as myself. In game turns despite being so amazingly strong their strength score would still only be around 20-22 which doesn't really reflect the advantage in power someone that someone like that really has even over a fairly strong guy like myself. of course its just a game so its not worth thinking too seriously about how the stats don't really realistically depict people. Thats time better spent on real life :D
Tyler Do'Urden 03-22-06, 09:19 AM	I had a long, thought-out reply I was going to post, but it occured to me that there's no point. It's a just game. It's not some kind of life simulator. You're thinking about it too much.
Daiben 03-22-06, 09:23 AM	Is the person likable or not? And how likable....that is cha in my groop. But...a person with 18 in cha would never be ugly! Hitler was the classic (D&D/AD&D) example of someone with 18 charisma. Neither attractive nor likeable yet he could inspire and motivate millions. Charisma reflects peoples ability to influence those around them. Many polititions and actors are far from good looking yet can influence and affect millions with their speech. But to pop an earlier stated bubble, I can lift 400 pounds with just my legs, which is probably what I can lift in a squat this has absolutely nothing to do with this topic but there is a huge difference between squatting and leg pressing. I used to leg press 20x45lbs plates (the most I could fit) + the sled (945lbs together) for 10 reps pretty easily but was really disappointed to find out I could barely squat 350 when I finally started doing squats. Now I can squat 510lbs and the only reason I touch the leg press is when I'm being a dumbass and showing off to girls in the gym ;)
Bruunwald 03-22-06, 12:37 PM	Not really; a 14 is only marginally better than a 10, and ability scores are far less indicative of power than total HD. Only from an in-game angle. We're talking comparitive to reality here. 10 to 14 only seems a small leap from the perspective of your Strength modifier going into battle against a great red wyrm in an RPG. In real life, where people are not measured in hit points and levels, that difference in Strength is enormous. It's the difference between being smacked upside the head for being a dork, or being put into a coma by a bruiser in a bar. WE don't have the benefit of accumulated hit points like our characters do. But we ARE more susceptible to greater damage from stronger attackers. Relatively speaking, that's a very big difference.
abri 03-22-06, 04:07 PM	People underestimate the value of ability scores. 18 would be superhero strength. 13 or 14 would be olympic. No, no, NO! First since this will become important to the discusion one must realize that DnD stats do not fall in the 3-18 category for human but 1-25 (without magic). Checking what these score actually allows show that regular ability is indeed 10 and some peoples are able to do stuff showing an 18 in a stats. Now with strength we have the problem that the lifting rule in DnD are totaly insane and you average peasant can lift over his head what an athlete would have difficulties. Range on thrown weapons are also strange since they don't depend on strength. And don't get me started on the monk...
DanjaNinja 03-22-06, 04:31 PM	Only from an in-game angle. We're talking comparitive to reality here. 10 to 14 only seems a small leap from the perspective of your Strength modifier going into battle against a great red wyrm in an RPG. Precisely. It doesn't make sense to talk about D&D as if it was a good approximation of real life. It really isn't. The "in-game angle" is the only angle from which it works. In real life, where people are not measured in hit points and levels, that difference in Strength is enormous. It's the difference between being smacked upside the head for being a dork, or being put into a coma by a bruiser in a bar. WE don't have the benefit of accumulated hit points like our characters do. But we ARE more susceptible to greater damage from stronger attackers. Relatively speaking, that's a very big difference. You're falling into the trap of trying to use D&D logic on real-life situations. It's possible, but it doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. For example, if that same bruiser tried to hit me with a bar-stool, according to D&D rules his combat effectiveness would considerably diminish (improvised weapon). In real life he would actually become far more deadly. Similarly, even a weakling becomes far more painful when he's swinging a baseball bat around. A high Strength and all that it entails in D&D do not hold true for real-life. A skilled martial-artist might not be able to bench-press as much as some hulk, but he knows how to make you hurt just as much. My own example is just an attempt to translate a real-life Olympian (naturally talented with intensive training) to D&D (high ability score with lots of levels). They're only equivalent in a very abstract sense.
Gallameed 03-22-06, 04:43 PM	At the gym me and my mates worked out our D&D strength by seeing how much (in lbs) we could lift above our head/max load. I had a strength of 11'ish, while my bigger, taller friends had 16 and 18! :D
Edymnion 03-22-06, 05:12 PM	Hitler was the classic (D&D/AD&D) example of someone with 18 charisma. Neither attractive nor likeable yet he could inspire and motivate millions. Charisma reflects peoples ability to influence those around them. Many polititions and actors are far from good looking yet can influence and affect millions with their speech. Just a nitpick, but if you say he was neither attractive nor likeable, and it was just his speeches, then he would not necissarily have a high charisma, he would simply have a very high rank in Preform (Oratory). He would need to be able to inspire people to follow him at all times to qualify for high base charisma.
WhiteHarness 03-22-06, 05:14 PM	You probably know somebody with straight 10s in all attributes. Most people you know will have all their attributes within two or three points of ten. If you live in a very large population center, you might have seen at a distance somebody who had a high score in something, but it's not likely that anybody you personally know has even one attribute over 13. The "Elite Array" of attributes presented in the DMG is so called because it represents somebody who is far above the norm, and its highest attribute is a 15. 18 should represent the very pinnacle of ordinary human achievement, with only a few hundred people on any given world possessing an attribute that high. Anything higher represents something unnatural going on.
Nialo 03-22-06, 05:30 PM	People underestimate the value of ability scores. 18 would be superhero strength. 13 or 14 would be olympic. This I disaggree with. Mathematically, a fair ammount of people have 18's, and as said earlier, there isn't such a massive difference between a 13 and a 10 that it's really notable in game. An olympic athlete doesn't have a mere 10% chance more to complete anything than the average human. And for that matter, individuals are still pretty diverse in terms of what they can do. Saying that 99% of all human beings have a 10 in any given ability score is ludicrous. I'm sure most of us have met unforgettable people who have 14-16 charisma, and I'm sure we've met really insightful people with 14-16 wisdom. Having a high ability score doesn't mean you're going to be a famed genius or professional athlete. It just means you're stronger than the average person in an area.. Furthermore, I think it's really impossible to quantify a real person with six very broad, very general numbers. Someone might be able to juggle very well, and play basketball poorly or vice versa; do they have 8 Dex or 14 Dex? You could argue that each of those is a separate skill, but when it comes down to it, you could make a skill for nearly everything a person can do.
NehpetsTtocs 03-22-06, 06:53 PM	Rocketboy has my vote. We don't roll dice to determine stats in the real world, so statistical analysis of 3d6 to the real world probably has little merit. Heck, I'm not sure it has any merit in many DnD campaigns either. How does the DM determine player stats, and how does she determine commoner or enemy stats? Does she use a point buy for one, dice for the other, or dice for one and simply assign stats for everyone else, or does she use the same method for everyone? I don't think there's an answer to this question.
DanjaNinja 03-22-06, 07:56 PM	Rocketboy has my vote. We don't roll dice to determine stats in the real world, so statistical analysis of 3d6 to the real world probably has little merit. 3d6 is, in theory, how most creatures' ability scores are determined. 3d6 creates an approximation of a normal distribution. In real life, it's not unreasonable to assume that if people's abilities could be quantified that they would approximate a normal distribution. In that regard, assigning stats to real-life people based off of the statistics of a roll seems less arbitrary (stress on less, there) than just out-and-out saying, "Hmmm... He's got a 16 in Intelligence!" When you get down to it, the only ability that explicitly has a correlation to real-life is Strength (carrying capacity). For the other abilities, we only have a vague description and the fact that "average" is 10 for humans.
Archangel_James 03-23-06, 12:31 AM	4d6 drop the lowest is for adventurers. It clearly states in the beginning of the PHB that adventurers are better than normal people. 1 in xxx adventurers has an 18, but adventurers only contribute to <1% of the population. NPCs that you stat out may be 3d6, but Joe Farmer out in the fields that no-one ever talks to still has only 10s and 11s. At least, that's how it is in my world. I stand by my assessment of 18 STR being superhero. In a world full of 10s and 11s, an 18 would be simply unbelievable. EDIT: I'd also like to mention that 18 isn't nessecarilly 80% better than 10. It just so happens that 10 is average and at 0 you die. But you could easily add 1 to make it so you die at 1 and 11 is average. The ratio of 19/11 is only 1.73.
Feor 03-23-06, 12:47 AM	Strength is the only one that such comparisons have any real merit for. Actually, no Strength and Constitution are the only ones we can quantify. Strength we can test easily by seeing how much you can comfortably hold above your head. Divide that by 2 and compare it to the table on page 162 of the PHB and voila, instant strength score for yourself. I've never been terribly strong, I'd guess probably only about 8 or 9 strength for me. Constitution can be calculated even easier. Hold your breath. Stick your head in a bucket or whatever, until you have to start making a serious effort to continue holding your breath. Divide the number of seconds you held your breath by 6, and you get your constitution score. Testing it just now, I would appear to also have a constitution score of 8 or 9. Not a big deal, I always figured myself for a heavy crafting feat based spellcaster anyways. :P
DanjaNinja 03-23-06, 12:58 AM	4d6 drop the lowest is for adventurers. It clearly states in the beginning of the PHB that adventurers are better than normal people. 1 in xxx adventurers has an 18, but adventurers only contribute to <1% of the population. NPCs that you stat out may be 3d6, but Joe Farmer out in the fields that no-one ever talks to still has only 10s and 11s. At least, that's how it is in my world. When I have to stat out Joe Commoner on the fly, I usually go with an array of 13 to 8. That way you get nice organic range; in my mind it's even less believable that everyone would invariably have 10's and 11's than that an 18 would occasionally crop up in a non-adventurer. In fact, mathematically, it is less likely that everyone would have 10's and 11's. For the record, using straight 3d6 a person has a 1/216 chance of having at least one 18, but a (54/216)^6 chance of having all 10's or 11's. That's 0.46% versus 0.02%, or 19 times as likely. I stand by my assessment of 18 STR being superhero. In a world full of 10s and 11s, an 18 would be simply unbelievable. To each his own, I suppose. I my eyes, an 18 is certainly remarkable, but not unbelievable or superheroic. Edit: EDIT: I'd also like to mention that 18 isn't nessecarilly 80% better than 10. It just so happens that 10 is average and at 0 you die. But you could easily add 1 to make it so you die at 1 and 11 is average. The ratio of 19/11 is only 1.73. Huh? :confused: As a side note (for anyone that cares), I calculated the standard deviation for 3d6 and found it to be about 2.958. That means 13 and 8 mark out the bounds for one standard deviation from the mean (the mean being 10.5).
Parker_W 03-23-06, 01:06 AM	An 18 intelligence is statistically equivalent to a deviation IQ of 140 (with standard deviation of 15). The highest possible stat for a character without magic, 25, would correspond to an IQ of 177, which is basically around the highest deviation IQ that is scientifically (but not statistically) possible for an adult. This score would correspond to about 1 out of 7 million people. A stat of 28 would correspond to an IQ of 195, which is the highest IQ score statistically possible because the rarity of this score would be 1 out of 8 billion, which is more than the number of people on the planet. Also, under this analysis, considering that the smartest animal (the chimp) is about as smart as a 2 year old average human, this would mean that the highest possible animal intelligence would be an IQ of 12, which corresponds to an intelligence stat of -6. So animal intelligence scores should actually begin around -6 and go down from there.
DanjaNinja 03-23-06, 01:19 AM	A stat of 28 would correspond to an IQ of 195, which is the highest IQ score statistically possible because the rarity of this score would be 1 out of 8 billion, which is more than the number of people on the planet. Nitpick: The rarity is a general indication, not a requirement. It's perfectly possible for someone to have an IQ that high within any population, just really, really unlikely. In fact, I actually know someone who might have a score that high; my own brother, who was tested in childhood to have an IQ of 180 +/- 15.
Parker_W 03-23-06, 02:27 AM	Nitpick: The rarity is a general indication, not a requirement. It's perfectly possible for someone to have an IQ that high within any population, just really, really unlikely. In fact, I actually know someone who might have a score that high; my own brother, who was tested in childhood to have an IQ of 180 +/- 15. I understand your statistical nitpick. Yes, there is a probability of having someone with an IQ score above 195, but statistically speaking it is virtually impossible in a given population (also, population genetics are not analogous to making a random choice each time someone is born into the population). About your brother's IQ score. I'm not really going to go into IQ because I'm not an expert and I think all adult IQ scores above a certain point are meaningless, BUT...I am talking about deviation IQ and not ratio IQ, which accounts for a lot of huge IQ scores in children. Deviation IQs are a lot lower than ratio IQs at very high IQ scores.
DanjaNinja 03-23-06, 02:56 PM	I am talking about deviation IQ and not ratio IQ, which accounts for a lot of huge IQ scores in children. Deviation IQs are a lot lower than ratio IQs at very high IQ scores. I probably know less about the subtleties of IQ scores than you do; can you explain the distinction here?
was_fired 03-23-06, 03:23 PM	18 isn't superhero... the highest strength scores in the world are in the low 20s. You can find out what your Strength Score would roughly be by taking your squat limit (it seems like the closests to lift over head, but as it is a bit easier I changed the term from 200 to 250). Then you use this number and find: 10 + 10ln(Your Max / 250)/ln(4). World record holders that lift roughly 1,200lbs would have a Strength Score of around 21 using this test.
Solaris 03-23-06, 04:03 PM	I probably know less about the subtleties of IQ scores than you do; can you explain the distinction here? http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5797615&postcount=24
Voran 03-23-06, 04:04 PM	That's why its so funny to see those online results for "What would your attribute scores be" and you see people with all 16+ ratings in their scores.