Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aliquid 07-13-04, 03:54 PM	I have noticed that many people who post on these boards are quite.... confident... in their abilities. Actually I am just poking fun, but consider the following: I have come across numerous threads in which people discuss their real life D&D ability scores, threads like "if you were a D&D character" etc. Have you ever noticed that the vast majority of people who make guesses at their abilities guess that *all* of the ablilities are above average? Sometimes you will see someone saying "well I'm not that tough" and that they have a STR of 8, but it never goes lower than that. So, are all the people who post on these boards heroes? Or are they delusional ;)
Big Dawg 07-13-04, 04:06 PM	well I am both ;) No really some people think their **** doesn't stink, but for the most part everyone is cool. Some people know a lot of stuff and maybe they come across the wrong way sometimes plus when reading text on these boards words can easily get twisted by mistake. I know I have made that mistake before. enjoy, chris
Sulaco 07-13-04, 04:23 PM	What I find funnier is "INT creep". Poster X says they have an INT of A. Poster Y, knowing they are smarter than poster X, makes their INT A+1. Poster Z, knowing they are smarter than both poster X and poster Y makes their INT A+1+1, etc… By the end of these threads you get people claiming INTs of 19, 20, 21 and above. It's just ludicrous.
Bacon and Eggs 07-13-04, 04:45 PM	I've got a 12! I won't say where, but rest assured, I have one. What would be better is to have the "rest of the boards" tally up what they percieve to be the mental statistics of any particular person is. Granted they would have to volunteer for for the task. That would be a slight bit of wake up from the grade yourself approach. I still have 7 hitpoints!
Another Gnome 07-13-04, 04:59 PM	I once took an IQ test with a result of 146. Though considering the test was in English - which is not my first language and there were quite a few linguistic questions - that can't be very accurate. I'd better rate my Int at 15, then. :D * * * Now, when it comes to what Big Dawg's referring to, I mostly take the high-and-mighty posts and posters with good humor. As long as it doesn't get offensive to other people, even if one was honestly smarter or more resourceful, a bit of haughtiness isn't that dangerous.
Seeker95 07-13-04, 05:04 PM	I am good at what I am good at. But I doubt any of my stats are higher than 12, and most are as average as you can get.
Lord_Naerik 07-13-04, 07:19 PM	What is even better is that everyone on the boards seems to be a Trauma Surgeon and an Ex-Member of Marine Force Recon. Im sure there are a few (a very few) posters that fit one of those criteria but Im still skeptical of anyone who claims those types of credentials to back up some outlandish post on hamstringing Green Slimes or whatever. Basically, when you exaggerate your own experiences to the point of the ludicrous, don't be surprised when noone believes you. Edit: P.S. Playing Halo for 4 hours a day after Middle School does NOT make you a Marine
Temmogen 07-13-04, 07:27 PM	I am completly in ervery respect. My strength may brelow average, but that is due to hte amount of time spent sitting and not moving around. Every other stat is just average. I am confident I wouldnt survive 5 seconds against a staqndard orc. I dont try and fool myself.
Willie the Duck 07-13-04, 08:03 PM	Well Aliquid, I'm going to first point out that the entire internet seems to be a maelstorm of deception, fabrication and duplicity, and that this board is hardly the worst perpitrators (given that people usually lie to impress strangers, as opposed to taking their money). As you mentioned with the low stats, most people won't rate themselves below 8. That may because it is hard to picture what a stat below 8 is supposed to be. Is a str of 7 a 98 lb weakling, or a near invalid? Is a Con of 6 a 300 lb man, or someone with congestive heart failure? As for high scores, it's mostly that people want to be impressive. Why say you can bench 220 lbs, have an IQ of 128, and dated 6 different members of the opposite sex last year (a truly impressive individual) when you can say you can bench 380, have an IQ of 183, and have a different cutie every night? After all, who can prove you wrong when they never met you? What really bugs me is the impressiveness creep that occurs because of it. I'll use the IQ example. Now, both proficient computer users and roleplayers are stereotyped as being highly intelligent, so this board should theoretically be a little above average. Still, people seem to forget that anything over 110 is quite impressive, and that 120-130 is downright good. Unfortunately, now people here seem to think that 140 is downright shabby. On the internet, it is like that with everything. People are also getting bizaare messages about how much they should be able to bench, how much sex they should get, how combat experienced they should be, and how big certain peices of flesh should be. It is all so askew that the mean is considered horrendous and anything within a standard deviation is considered the low end. p.s. If you want to know how impressive I am, I will list off accomplishments, not stupid numeric representations thereof. I leave the "attributification" of human qualities to roleplaying games.
Urban Hunter 07-13-04, 09:44 PM	All I have to say is that Willie the Duck is completely right. :)
Jongluer 07-13-04, 10:56 PM	People are high of themselves for two reasons both of which were mentioned here, A) The stats are not completely understood in relating it to real-life, B) People want to impress each other...but still the average human would translate as 10s all down the board, with maybe a 12 or 13 in some areas, even people like Steven Hawking (a very smart person of our day) would probably only translate to an Intelligence 17, perhaps 18 on a good day. In the end you just gotta remember that people like to create an image that makes them seem like they are amazing and impressive, of course doing this only makes them look like an idiot, so as I think someone once put up on these boards somewhere "People are idiots and rarely pass up the chance to prove it." So just let them and laugh to yourself when you read those kind of posts with like uber-scores...and just for a laugh how I would rate myself, Str: 7, Dex: 11 (just slightly better than average), Con: 8, Int: 13, Wis: 14, Cha: 12...yes that score of 7 is only there to show that some people post below 8
B Rob 07-13-04, 11:09 PM	I know my scores are relatively average. STR: 8 DEX: 6 CON: 12 INT: 14 WIS: 10 CHA: 12. When I graduate from college in a couple of years, I'll be a 1st level Expert! Hooray!
willy the water-elf 07-13-04, 11:13 PM	Lucky for us comeliness is no longer a viable stat.
Fi'Irdray 07-14-04, 02:45 AM	I still say I score nat 18's on all my stats and I'm stickin' to it.
Nyvinyd 07-14-04, 03:19 AM	I think that the scores I got on the d&d test thingie I did are roughly accurate, but the Dex score is clearly a measurement of my manual dexterity and general balance/agility, not my flexibility. The Constitution score is spot on. I get sick all the time, I have canker sores from got knows what (probably stress), and I scar easily and heal slowly. Whenever I get an ENT-related illness, I usually have lingering bronchitis that tapers off so slowly that it's hard to tell when I'm no longer sick. The Int and Wis scores I'm not really sure about, but it's generally bad to refer to yourself as a wise person. Intelligence tests are dumb anyway though... especially IQ tests. Once you know how IQ test scores are calculated, you should see how biased they are. Anyway... I am tired of these superperson scores that I see every once in a while. I know one person who supposedly had a Charisma score of 16, but succeeded in nearly every post to show himself to be an ass. I don't really understand how people can have 16 Cha and allow themselves to act in such an uncharismatic way...
green_yawgmoth 07-14-04, 04:20 AM	I refer you all to my sig. :D Edit: I'm not a friggin' halfling, I'm 6'1". But the rest is spot-on! http://img30.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Tenzhi 07-14-04, 04:21 AM	I readily admit that my lowest score is Charisma - I tend to be blunt, self-assured, and likely come off as having an "I'm always right" attitude. I'd give myself a 7-8. My Strength is lower than it should be, but I'm trying to work on that. As I recall, figured from the max press I have a Strength of 9. My Dexterity used to be better, but I'm not in the shape I used to be. Eight years ago I would've statted myself as a 13, but now I'd go with 10-11. With diet and exercise, maybe I can get back to the limberness I used to enjoy... Constitution is difficult to gauge. My endurance may not be that high, but I also only get sick once a year at most (and actually, the once a year only started recently (and is likely related to the whole diet/exercise thing ;) ) - from age 18-24 I didn't get sick at all). At my peak moments I would've given myself a 14, but now I'd say about 12. Wisdom is even more difficult to gauge than Constitution. Based on the basic senses, I'd be about average. Based on the more esoteric aspects of wisdom, I'd like to think the score would be higher - but who can truly say? Last time we were statting ourselves around here, my friends and I wrote down stats for ourselves and each other and averaged it out - I averaged a 15 for Wisdom. I would like to think that I merit at least a 14, but perhaps it is an idyllic view... Many people try to score their intelligence from their IQ. I've taken many IQ tests (online and otherwise), and depending on which scale they're using I typically score around 147 or 169. In the aforementioned group-statting session, I averaged out at an Intelligence of 16. I think that's a bit high and would place my score at 14. I wouldn't consider such stats heroic by any measure. Just because one doesn't have stats of 6 does not make one heroic - even a lowly human peasant will average 10 across the board.
Mr. VanderMeer 07-14-04, 04:40 AM	When I give you my stats, should I also mention my stat raises for having 16 character levels?
Count Arioch the 28th 07-14-04, 04:49 AM	According to a recent D&D stat test I've taken, I have the following scores: Str 15 Dex: 7 Con: 14 Int: 14 Wis: 16 Cha: 18 And I came up on the other half as a lawful good dwarf paladin. Somewhow, I find that fitting. I'm actually built like a very tall D&D dwarf in real life.
Nan Lung 07-14-04, 04:50 AM	Beat this; I have an Int score of 8, and a Wis of 13, and a Cha of 9. Am I high on myself in the mental aspect? :p Edit: Oh, also for those of you that don't think IQ test are full of ****, My IQ was 126 when I had a test professionally done, but it was a few years ago.
Lankin the Mad Mage 07-14-04, 07:21 AM	Well, I have a constitution of 5 or 6, if not lower. My asthma and other chonical illnesses pull me down, along with permanent injuries and migraine. My endurance simply sucks. So my con is about as low as you can go witout dying from lack of HP. MY Cha is 7 or 8. I have a very forceful personality, but I have almost no pople skills. Social antennas were burned out a long time ago. OTOH my int is probably 14 or something. I can easily understand math nd logical puzzles. Wis 6. Extremely inattentive, put my foot in my mouth a lot, and generally have the eyesigh of a nearsighted bat, and poor hearing. If I was a PC I'd die within the hour. Especially since all the tests put me as a LG elf bard.
Lankin the Mad Mage 07-14-04, 07:22 AM	[Gaaah, double post! I can't even use boards correctly!]
His Majesty 07-14-04, 07:50 AM	Originally posted by Lankin the Mad Mage [Gaaah, double post! I can't even use boards correctly!] Actually, that because you're mad. Not that there's anything wrong with that. My stats are something like STR 10 - I'm in a pretty bad shape currently. Maybe even 9. DEX 10 - I'm not especially quick, nor exceptionally slow. CON 14 - My endurance is good. INT 14 - I'm pretty good at logical problems, math, etc. CHA 9 - I'm occasionally tactless, and I'm not so communicative with strangers, but I manage most of the time. My wisdom is problematic. I'm nearsighted, but other than that my senses are fine. I'm not very attentive usually, too. That means 8 or something like that. On the other hand, I'm pretty good at literature, art, philosophy, and things like that. That would probably mean a 13 or maybe even 14. So I don't know. I think that's a general problem with D&D stats - most stats (Even the physical ones) cover many different attributes and characteristics.
Kaya Kenobi 07-14-04, 08:02 AM	Originally posted by Aliquid I have noticed that many people who post on these boards are quite.... confident... in their abilities. Actually I am just poking fun, but consider the following: I have come across numerous threads in which people discuss their real life D&D ability scores, threads like "if you were a D&D character" etc. Have you ever noticed that the vast majority of people who make guesses at their abilities guess that *all* of the ablilities are above average? Sometimes you will see someone saying "well I'm not that tough" and that they have a STR of 8, but it never goes lower than that. So, are all the people who post on these boards heroes? Or are they delusional ;) heh... sometimes... ;) Truthfully, I am very intelligent, but not too wise. I am really likeable. And then I get to strength stuff: I got sick once about 6 months ago.. heh... I can do situps all day long, run for a few miles without getting winded (hurt my ankles so I'm getting back into running), very flexible, and I can't benchpress more than 100 pounds (never could anyways). Everything else, I feel I can do reasonably well. Personally, I feel my DnD stats below in my sig describes my athletic abilities fairly well... :D
Aliquid 07-14-04, 11:33 AM	Originally posted by Tenzhi I wouldn't consider such stats heroic by any measure. Just because one doesn't have stats of 6 does not make one heroic - even a lowly human peasant will average 10 across the board. True, I wouldn't expect people to have a stat of 6. I think my main concern was that most people think they have a few stats above 10, yet no stats below 10.... giving them an average of about 12.
quetzyl 07-14-04, 11:52 AM	Much depends on whether you base stat ratings off how they are described, or off how common they are in D&D society. If, for example, you consider that everyone in D&D roles their stats on 3d6, then 1 in 216 will have an 18 intelligence. This is 0.46% of the population, corresponding to an IQ of about 140. If you base the stats of 4d6 drop lowest then 18 corresponds to a much larger % of the population, and hence to a correspondingly lower IQ. So before we try to discuss whether people are over or undereporting their stats, we need to decide how stats are calculated. Cheers, quetzyl
Sulaco 07-14-04, 12:06 PM	I honestly wouldn't know how to stat msyelf. I have done a few of those "What are your stats" tests and they seem to prouce satisfactory results (though a lower DEX than I would have imagined). My IQ has consistently been reported as 143 on numerous tests. Using the IQ/10(round down)=INT formula this gives me an INT of 14. My STR has varied tremendously. I sit for a living now and am out of shape but I'm still a big guy and I naturally put on muscle mass easily when I do any physical excersize. When I was in my 20's I was a serious amateur body builder and could press 300lbs. So where does that leave my STR? WIS is always a hard one. I define WIS as the ability to use common sense to override instinct. WIS is waht prevetns you from touching the wall even though there is a sign that reads Wet Paint. As such, I think most of humanity has a WIS score of 6 or less. DEX is also a tough one. I can't skate but I can juggle. I can pick a lock and am quite flexible, but my balance is for crap and I can't walk a thin rail. Again, where does that leave me? CON is pretty easy. I don't get sick often, I have a decent tolerance for drink, I heal quickly, I rarely scar, I've never broken a bone (even when I got hit by a car) but I have allergies. CHA is almost impossible to self-stat as most people will either go too-high or too-low by a wide margin. I don't consider myself attractive or charismatic but I've had my fair share of romantic attachements, a hadful of solid mates, many casual friends, and a wife who actively pursued me (cos like most men I am a dolt who can't read signals). Where that would place my stats overall, I have no idea. I think I am above average in INT (and STR back in the day), average to high-average in STR (now), CON, and DEX, and average or below in CHA and WIS.
Aliquid 07-14-04, 12:21 PM	Actually people rating themselves high reminds me of an amusing analogy... If you went out and randomly surveyed 1000 car drivers, and asked them "do you think you are an average, above average or below average driver?".... I bet that the results would show 90% of the responses saying that they are average or above average... which is of course statistically impossible. I think Sulaco got it right in his post where he makes comments such as "I can pick a lock and am quite flexible, but my balance is for crap and I can't walk a thin rail" The abilities are so subjective in D&D that anyone could take out a certain aspect of an ability and say "hey I am good at that, therefore I must be high at that ability", where as they conveniently ignore the aspects they are bad at.
Aliquid 07-14-04, 12:30 PM	Originally posted by quetzyl Much depends on whether you base stat ratings off how they are described, or off how common they are in D&D society. If, for example, you consider that everyone in D&D roles their stats on 3d6, then 1 in 216 will have an 18 intelligence. This is 0.46% of the population, corresponding to an IQ of about 140. If you base the stats of 4d6 drop lowest then 18 corresponds to a much larger % of the population, and hence to a correspondingly lower IQ. So before we try to discuss whether people are over or undereporting their stats, we need to decide how stats are calculated. Unless I am remembering wrong... the "average" person would roll their stats on 3d6. The reason D&D characters do the 4d6 trick is that they are "above average" to start with.... simply put, the average stat for an adventurer is higher than the average stat for an "average" person. With adventurers you are working with a subset of the general population... just like if you did an intelligence test at a prestigious University... the average intelligence for that subset of the population will be higher than the overall average. Now considering that people on these boards are likely "normal" humans, not "heroes", I would say we work on the 3d6 system. Although, since there is a high percentage of geeks and nerds on this board (me included ;)) I would say that we would likely be dealing with overall higher intelligences, and lower charisma when compared to the general population.
Kaya Kenobi 07-14-04, 03:06 PM	Originally posted by Aliquid Actually people rating themselves high reminds me of an amusing analogy... If you went out and randomly surveyed 1000 car drivers, and asked them "do you think you are an average, above average or below average driver?".... heh.. I am a bad driver.. No doubts about it.. I keep getting tickets, and that's when I'm caught. :rolleyes:
Fi'Irdray 07-14-04, 05:08 PM	according to the test, I am: Half-Orc, LG Paladin (really doesn't fit me at all... more CG, and Monk-ish since I do martial arts) STR: 14 DEX: 15 CON: 12 INT: 18 WIS: 13 CHA: 8
frisbeet 07-14-04, 06:32 PM	Originally posted by Jongluer ...People want to impress each other...but still the average human would translate as 10s all down the board, with maybe a 12 or 13 in some areas, even people like Steven Hawking (a very smart person of our day) would probably only translate to an Intelligence 17, perhaps 18 on a good day... Nope. the D&D world assumes a 3d6 scored distribution. This means 1 in 216 NPCs will on average have an 18 int. How did I get this number? There are 6^3 = 216 ways of rolling 3d6, but only one such way results in an 18. The probability of rolling an 18 for int is therefore 1/216, which is the same as saying the average frequency is one person among 216 has an 18 intelligence. If we instead asked, how many NPCs are walking around with at least one 18, be it int or str or any attribute, then it turns out 1 in 36 do. Here's why: P(at least one 18 among 6 scores) = 1 - P(no 18s among 6 scores). P(no 18s among 6 scores) = P(int < 18)*P(wis < 18)*P(cha < 18)*P(str < 18)*P(dex < 18)*P(con < 18) There are 215 ways of not rolling an 18, so P(attribute < 18) = 215/216 then P(no 18s among 6 scores) = (215/216)^6 = 0.972541747 1 - this = 0.027458253 The frequency of at least one 18 among 6 scores is 1 over this number, or 36.42. ... My point: 1 in 36 and 1 in 216 are not rare frequencies. One Steven Hawking among the rest of us--that's rare. His int is waayy more than 18. If you can type and followed half of this post you're smarter than you give yourself credit for, probably.
Aliquid 07-14-04, 07:07 PM	Originally posted by frisbeet the D&D world assumes a 3d6 scored distribution. ------- snip ------- This means 1 in 216 NPCs will on average have an 18 int. My point: 1 in 36 and 1 in 216 are not rare frequencies. One Steven Hawking among the rest of us--that's rare. His int is waayy more than 18. Your statistical analysis is valid enough, but I don't fully agree with your premise. The D&D world may assume a 3d6 scored distribution for NPCs, but we are talking about the ability scores of real world people, and of course when you or I were born (or conceived for that matter) our abilites weren't determined by some celestial entity rolling 3d6. The development of our abilities throughout live is far more complicated. So... I think all we can do is assume that if we are using the D&D system, then the average score for any ability is a "10", and drop the rest into a bell curve. Unfortunately the 3.x ruleset makes this complicated. with the old systems, a human couldn't surpass 18 without magical interferance, where as in the 3.x system you can bring it up higher with years of training..... and that throws a few more conditions on the statistical analysis. Not saying I have a better solution for the probability of a real world human obtaining an 18 stat... I just caution the use of your assumptions. Although I would agree that with the 3.x system, Hawking's Int is certainly higher than 18. He should be considered a 20th level Expert afterall, and had multiple chances at ability score increases ;) Originally posted by frisbeet If you can type and followed half of this post you're smarter than you give yourself credit for, probably. Someone with an Int of 6 who has placed 5 ranks in the skill: "Typing" would be able to type as well as most people on these boards. Someone with an Int of 10 who has placed 10 ranks in the skill: "Knowledge - Statistics" would probably be able to follow the entire post.... Don't forget the skills of D&D characters are also from experience, and anyone who has graduated from high-school should have a good handfull of skill points to distribute. University graduates even more.
Zardnaar 07-14-04, 11:24 PM	I'm brutally honest with myself. Although intelligent I doubt in DnD terms I would be much over 12. Con would be 10, Charisma 8 (I offend people easily) Strength would be 13 or 14 maybe (my job is physical) dex 12 maybe and a wisdom of 12. My stats could be lower or higher. I have a fairly low opinion of IQ tests. I'm sure I could find an IQ test that would rate it at 140+- or under 100. I think they're for insecure people who need to feel better than their fellow human beings.
frisbeet 07-15-04, 09:55 AM	Aliquid, You've stated: The D&D world may assume a 3d6 scored distribution for NPCs, but we are talking about the ability scores of real world people, and of course when you or I were born (or conceived for that matter) our abilites weren't determined by some celestial entity rolling 3d6. But some of our ability scores for real world people are already semi-quantified: in terms of IQ, bench press, reaction times, etc. You're asking--indeed, what this thread demands--is a conversion factor for these statistics to D&D gaming mechanics. That's fine if the proverbial you (Jongluer? anyone else?) wants to assign genius IQ levels (>160?) to a 17 or 18. But such a conversion is not reflective of the D&D statistic, because the inverse conversion, in a strictly mathematical sense, is not true. D&D mechanics say that 1 NPC in an average pool of 216 NPCs has 18 intelligence. If you map real world genius --> 18 int, then the inverse maping from D&D to RW requires that 1 in 216 NPCs are geniuses! If instead you make the claim that such mapping is not invertable, then I beg you to explain how the heck your recalibration of IQ to a 3-18 scale is in any way a D&D statistic. It's something else entirely.
Aliquid 07-15-04, 12:13 PM	Frisbeet. First off I want to state that in my opinion, quantifying the D&D ability mechanics to work in a real world situation is likely a futile task.... it is far too subjective of a concept. As such, the following comments are just opinions of mine, and I am certainly not going to argue that they are any better than your opinions. (or in other words, I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to start an argument) Anyway, on to my opinion :) I see the situation as follows: In the D&D world, an NPC has abilitiy scores based on 3d6, which gives him a minimum of 3, and a maximum of 18 for any given ability. I don't have my books with me, but if I remember correctly, a 20th level character gets 5 ability increases, thus in the D&D world the minimum for an ability for a human is 3, and the maximum is 23. If we are asking someone from the real world to quantify one of their real world abilities (take Int for example) to match D&D mechanics, said person would have to respond with a number between 3 and 23. As such I think we can assume the following: Taking IQ as a measure of Intelligence (an easy method, even though not completely accurate), we know that humans range Approximately from IQ 55 to IQ 175. With an average human IQ of 100. If we were to drop this range into the D&D range of 3 - 23, then an IQ of 55 would equal an Int of 3, and an IQ of 175 would equal an INT of 23. and an average IQ of 100 would match an average INT of 10. Do the math to match each INT score to an IQ score: INT 3 = IQ 55, INT 6 = IQ 73, INT 10 = IQ 97, INT 15 = IQ 127, INT 18 = IQ 145.. etc My sources state that in the real world, an IQ over 140 (near genious) = 0.5% of the general population, therefore an INT of 18 would be a bit less frequent than 0.5% Considering 0.5% = 1 in 200.... a bit less frequent than 0.5% (say 0.46%) would equal 1 in 216 :) Ha! now that is funny. oh, and my sources for IQ average, min, max, frequency... etc were from quick internet searches, so they may not be entierly reliable
Sensei Gith 07-15-04, 12:16 PM	I'd guess: Str 6 Dex 9 Con 11 Int 17 Wis 8 Cha 7
bahamut_0 07-15-04, 12:18 PM	I'd guess: Str: 11 Dex: 10 Con: 8 Int: 16 Wis: 13 Cha: 14 I'm not gonna put myself down, this is an honest assumption.
Elzaban the Ethereal 07-15-04, 01:18 PM	You have to figure, though, that the 10's in all scores is an average human in a fantasy medieval setting. Now-a-days, we have public education and the like, so you've got to figure that the average person now is going to be better off than the average NPC in D&D. The means are readily available to make ourselves better, so most of us aren't burdened with straight 10's. Course, I could be wrong, and we're all just a bunch of old windbags around here. Just like everyone else is. In any event, these are the stats I got on my most recent stats test (you know, just for comparison ;)): STR: 8 DEX: 8 CON: 10 INT: 15 WIS: 15 CHA: 14
Lankin the Mad Mage 07-15-04, 03:13 PM	I don't think school gives you higher abilities. School can grant you skill points, yes, since they are learned, but not inherent changes in your physical build.
Aliquid 07-15-04, 04:09 PM	Originally posted by Lankin the Mad Mage I don't think school gives you higher abilities. School can grant you skill points, yes, since they are learned, but not inherent changes in your physical build. In general I would agree, although it is possible that a University grad could have enough "Experience" to be a 4th level expert (at least), and at which point he/she would have an ability score increase... Even so, Elzaban the Ethereal touches on a good point. Ability scores would likely have a higher average for the "common man" in today's society compared to a medieval society. One example would be diet. Far more children get proper nourishment today than in medieval societies. Plenty of studies have shown that a full and nutritious diet for a child would have an impact on the development of their body through adulthood, and have a substantial impact on the adult's Int, Str, Dex, & Con. Of course kids today... are eating junk... which is not good for the society of tomorrow... but that is an off topic rant :)
Mister Mayhem 07-15-04, 04:28 PM	On the other hand, the characters in D&D are not malnourished medieval peasents. Not even the commoners. Plus, in order to survive to adulthood, a medieval peasent must survive, with their constitution alone, all manner of diseases and unpleasentness. We, on the other hand, have penecillin and vaccines. We enable those with low CON to survive. Most of the work done by said peasent would have been physical. Day in, day out, physical toil, starting from a very young age. Wheras the vast majority of modern folks sit behind a desk, and then go home and sit behind a TV. So I don't think we can try to justify higher than average scores based on that. ******* Besides, D20 modern features heroes have the same background as us, and I'll bet people writing themselves up in D20 Modern would still paint themselves as above average.
Willie the Duck 07-15-04, 08:04 PM	well, based on historic nutrition of the medieval era, the height range for humans should max out at about 5'8" too, but we tend to think of our hulking barbarians as being over 6'. too much realism can be a downer.
alexanderwales 07-15-04, 08:56 PM	Let's see ... Str: I'm very weak. I can't do a single pull-up. 7-8. Dex: I can juggle up to four balls or three rings and walk on my hands. 11-12. Con: I don't get sick, I don't sunburn, I walk or bike a lot, and can hold my breath for over two minutes. 13-14 Int: Meh. I got good grades, but that might change in college. Using Aliquids method, I'm about a 16-17 since my I.Q. on three different tests was in the high 130s. That doesn't seem right, so I'd say about 13-14 (which fits, because I have two bonus languages - HTML and QBASIC). Wis: Low. Horribly low. I have a negative modifier for both Spot and Survival. In the past week I've hit my head five times on low doorframes/ceilings/air conditioners/railings. I'm worried that there might be brain damage. I also have no tolerance for scary movies or pain. 5-6 Cha: I have friends, I throw parties, I have a girlfriend (in a manner of speaking; she comes back from France in two days). 15-16. One thing I hate about people stating themselves is anyone who is at all involved in martial arts thinks that they're a fighter or a monk. When looking at D&D populations, how many people have PC class levels? Practically none. If you work as a software engineer and go to a dojo on the weekends, you are an Expert or Commoner. People who fight for a living (gang members, elite armed forces, terrorists) are the ones who have PC levels.
simen_88 07-15-04, 09:47 PM	STR - 10 - I used to be sorta strong half a year ago, worked out a lot and wrestled for 4 years, but now my muscles are mostly leftovers. DEX - 13 - Not very much balance, but I am generally dexterous, and I guess I could juggle balls if I had the patience to do it. CON - 8 - I dont' get sick often, but I am a little ill much of the time. I have constant blackouts and my legs from hips down are in great pain sometimes. I have a decent stamina though. INT - 13/14 - I have good grades, a nice sense of mathematical logic, and I master my second language (english) better than most. Or so I am told. WIS - ? - My general logic is very varying, I don't always catch what people are saying, I have some repetitive patterns (writing with both hands, rythmically backspacing and rewriting the letter until I am satisfied) that strike in when I'm sleepy. CHA - 11 - I often win discussions, although that may be a big WIS issue, and I have a lack of self-esteem at times.
was_fired 07-15-04, 10:29 PM	This thread tends to be showing the initial premise. Oh well might as well join in on the snow balling from the last test I took: Str 7, or so since I'm a weakling. Dex 9, or so since I am fairly clumsy. Con 6, since I rarely get sick but I have no stamina. Int 13, what the last test claimed it it seems to fit. Wis 8, I'm rather unobservant. Cha 3, I'm rude, anti-social, and am not much of a looker. Also I sometimes contemplate the difference between living things and inanimate objects. More than once I have questioned if the self actually exisited and once I even thought it didn't.
Enialis Galadonels 07-16-04, 09:26 AM	I think original poster got a little off... because afaik people are more or less fair and mature in their selfvaluation. Hopefully. I guess, I am: Str: 6 (i can lift relatively heavy things, but no pushups for me, thanks) Dex: 6 (that's life. I better not throw anything. Not extremely bad, but bad) Con: 12 (ill once a year. average-good endurance) Int: 14-16 (hard to value. But since Int basically reflect skills and trainings, then this would be appropriate...) Wis: 8 (bad eyesight, average hearing, and not wise. philospher yes, but not wise :)) Cha: 14 (trying to be objective :). I would put myself 10, but my best friends always tell me otherwise:D)
Kravell 07-16-04, 10:10 AM	I don't know what my stats would be in D&D but here's the D20 Modern version of me. Former paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne. Sharpshooter rating by Army standards. Veteren of the Gulf War version 1.0. Brown belt in karate (hard style, basic blocks and attacks). College degree in English. Published twice in Dragon. President of company's Toastmaster Club. Married for seven years. So my younger version would have a above average Con (lots and lots of running in the airborne) and above average Dex (Sharpshooter is better than Marksman but not as good as Expert and martial arts requires balance). My current self might have decent Int (published) and decent Charisma (to get nominated and elected prez and stay married--wait that might be Con:)). However, some of my abilities could be learned (skills) and simply be overcoming average or low scores. I had to meet basic strength (push ups and hard parachute landings), endurance (sit ups and running), and agility (accuracy with a rifle) tests in the Army which I got better at the more I trained. My writing gets better the more I practice. My public speaking and people skills improve the more speeches I give and the more meetings I facilitate in Toastmasters. Etc.
Incenjucar 07-16-04, 10:42 AM	That method is quite a bit off, Alquid. Above Int 18 is based on -learning-, not nature. 18 is Hawkings-level, or even more (he does, after all, have some flawed theories). Otherwise -I'd- be 18 simply for being more astute than my father with his too-often-mentioned IQ of 147, and I'm fairly certain that I'm not a natural 18. 18=Max human natural Int. 23=Max human natural Int with a doctorate or four in the sciences.
Aliquid 07-16-04, 12:09 PM	Originally posted by Incenjucar That method is quite a bit off, Alquid. Above Int 18 is based on -learning-, not nature. 18 is Hawkings-level, or even more (he does, after all, have some flawed theories). Otherwise -I'd- be 18 simply for being more astute than my father with his too-often-mentioned IQ of 147, and I'm fairly certain that I'm not a natural 18. 18=Max human natural Int. 23=Max human natural Int with a doctorate or four in the sciences. Actually I agree, I don't think anything I said goes against your comments.... I said that the possible range of INT for a human in the D&D world goes from 3 to 23, and you agree. I don't believe I claimed that someone could be born with a 23. I think Hawking's INT would be above 18 because of the excessive years of training that he has had. In an alternate life where he drops out of high school and doesn't do anything to excersise his mind, he would have a much lower IQ and INT. For my original theory to hold, you have to agree that 1. A D&D Character is rolled with a natural INT, and he/she can increase that with training. 2. A real world human has a natural IQ, and he/she can increase that with training. As long as you agree both of those statements are true, then I don't see where the problem is.
frisbeet 07-16-04, 03:48 PM	I liked your 3-23 conversion, Aliquid. That said, I must point out again, to people subscribing as Incenjucar and you do to the 18 = a really outstanding statistic: The inverse converstion means in your D&D worlds your character will be hobnobbing with a pre-graduate-education Steven Hawking in every town, village, & hamlet they traipse across.
Aliquid 07-16-04, 04:02 PM	Originally posted by frisbeet The inverse converstion means in your D&D worlds your character will be hobnobbing with a pre-graduate-education Steven Hawking in every town, village, & hamlet they traipse across. I admit that puts a bit of a flaw in the sytem... Although, someone with that level of intelligence in D&D who lived in a town, village, or hamlet would likely skip town for the closest big city and train to be a Wizard... I mean heck, if you have the Int, and magic exists, why plow a field? So I think there would be a high concentration of natural 18 INT NPCs in places where there are magic schools, and low concentraitons in hamlets... Remember that 1 in 200 people are "near genious" in the real world too... and I would bet there is a higher per capita in university towns, and big cities than in small villages
danielinthewolvesden 07-16-04, 07:35 PM	I have an IQ of 153. That is (based upon the <10> rule) a 15. Or, based upon "you're in the upper 2%" rule, it's a 17 or 18. My Str is maybe 12. True, just a couple of years ago, I spent 4 months pumping iron, and I got my bench press up to 250#. I guess I could do that again, so my potential Str is maybe 14 or even a bit higher. I have a heavy, muscular frame. My Dex is 10, maybe even 9 or even 8. Never been good, getting worse. Wisdom is 12 or a bit higher- but that increased with age- when I was younger I was mildly foolish. Con- hmm. I am never sick, and even tho I am now over 50, my Doc says my physical is that of a much younger man, with good BP, chol count, etc. But I am overwieght, and I have arthritus in my fingers. Let's say 15- used to be 16. CHA- I am not all that good looking, but I do have natural Leadership. (They did make me a Baron & a Peer in the SCA, so...). I'd have to say again- 14 or so. As to my expereinces- hmm, I have been a Fed agent for 20 years, and before that scads of other small jobs. I was a card-carrying SCA heavy weapons fighter. I am a darn good shot. I suppose I am an Expert Bureaucrat, with many levels, plus a level in Fighter, one in Cleric, and maybe even one in Rogue(don't ask :D ). OTOH- the posters here- since they play RP games, and are smart enough to use a computer- do represent the "above average" in INT at least. I'd suppose OUR average INT is at least 12, maybe 13.
The_other 07-16-04, 08:40 PM	i would be about str 8(would be 10 but -2 penalty for being a kid) dex 10 con 11 int 10 wis 8 cha 6
Nyvinyd 07-16-04, 09:10 PM	I for one really hate the whole IQ/10 = Int conversion, because I think IQ tests are bunk. That's just me though. Maybe it's because IQ tests have placed me at 123, and also at 154, and at 183. Knowing how IQ tests work really change your views on them, too. IQ tests don't test your natural intelligence. IQ tests test your ability to answer the questions that are generally found on IQ tests. You can train yourself for an IQ test, and by the simple fact that training can make a difference on the test, they don't test raw intelligence. Oh yeah, a guess at my natural stats- Str: 9 (I have always been rather weak, as I don't really do much. However, I have semi-powerful legs, and I worked out a bit on my arms recently, just to give myself SOME muscle.) Dex: 15 (My balance is pretty good, as I skated for years. I'm also pretty good at dodging, and I am good with my hands when it comes to manual dexterity.) Con: 6-7 (I get sick at least 4 times a year, generally at the turn of each season. Each time, I have lingering symptoms.) Int: 14. Ehh, maybe 15. It's hard to say when it comes to yourself. Wis: I've never heard a wise man say he was wise. Nothing else could be more biased. Cha: I'd say 11 is fine. I'm not ugly at least, because I didn't score less than 7 on hotornot.com! However, my personality is a little weird. Most people either hate me or we become very close friends. I also am bad with first impressions, but I grow on people.
Nan Lung 07-16-04, 10:01 PM	Originally posted by Nyvinyd I for one really hate the whole IQ/10 = Int conversion, because I think IQ tests are bunk. That's just me though. Maybe it's because IQ tests have placed me at 123, and also at 154, and at 183. Knowing how IQ tests work really change your views on them, too. IQ tests don't test your natural intelligence. IQ tests test your ability to answer the questions that are generally found on IQ tests. You can train yourself for an IQ test, and by the simple fact that training can make a difference on the test, they don't test raw intelligence. I love you. You said all the things I wish I had the intellect to say. :)
Nyvinyd 07-17-04, 03:07 AM	Hrmm... After reading your quote, I think I should also explain it a little. To start, I should say that the IQ test is just a standardized test that has a funny grading curve, and all standardized tests are biased. I don't mean to be cliché here, but... Merriam-Webster defines intelligence as- Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) The ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations. Hrmm... that's a funny one. New, trying? Learn? This isn't exactly how IQ tests work. Most questions in IQ tests are logic problems. Some of them are simple trivia, depending on which test you take. The problem is that different tests ask different questions. You can't just say "my IQ is X." Either way though, because of the nature of the questions, the tests are biased. Some people are just better at logic problems. Does this make them smarter than the guy who can't figure out logic problems, but knows how to do his taxes? According to an IQ test, yes. Now that I've established that they're biased in the first place... Here's a basic rundown of how IQ tests function. IQ tests weigh your test score against what your test score should've been, based on your age. For this, a sample group has to be made. The same test is given to everyone who takes the test. You can't use the same test twice with the same person, or you will allow that person to increase his score by memory alone. You also can't change the test from person to person, or you're skew the grade scale. You can't very well just judge the difficulty of an entire test, so your grading will vary if you change even a single question. This sampling is graded as normal for any test, then the average score for each age is taken so it can be used for a comparison. Then, to get your IQ, you take the score you have, and compare it to what age you should be for your score to match. Divide this number by your actual age,and multiply by 100. Example- The average 15 year old score is 600. A 10 year old scores 600. 15/10 = 1.5 1.5x100 = 150. A 10 year old who scores 600 on that test has an IQ of 150. This is all great, but I'll bet that this grading scale is skewed pretty heavily in the teens. If I take the same test as a 50 year old and get the same score, given that I'm 21, I will have an IQ of 238. So who do you trust to make a test like this? MENSA? I dunno about that, myself. I don't see all the brains belonging to guys who pay 400 dollars a year to have a membership card that says they're smart. I'll admit that their IQ test is one of the hardest, if not THE hardest IQ test I've ever taken. That one gave me low 120's. To get into MENSA, you have to score in the genius range (160+ for them, I believe) on their test. So why is it if I take a harder test, it makes me dumber? How can you say that because one test you took gave you a genius level IQ, that you're a genius? If this post has not shown you that IQ tests don't grade your intelligence, then feel free to post your comments, and to do some research.
Incenjucar 07-17-04, 03:35 AM	IQ tests, generally, have two functions: 1) To make whoever wrote them based on their area of experience look really good (an IQ test written by shrinks will make shrinks look really smart). 2) When written with at least some usefulness, to test how quickly you can solve logic problems, mathematical equations, or other knowledge that can generally be measured by age in the general populace. IQ tests will generally show how good you are at proccessing raw information. They don't show how well you can use it, is the trick. Hence why so many people with high IQs are flipping idiots (part of why I refuse to bother with Mensa - I knew one guy who was okay who was in it, and two people who in it who were perverted jerks who should be shot before they hurt a child or an animal)
Patrick Y. 07-17-04, 02:00 PM	To respond to the original post on the thread, I think there are three elements which lead to everyone on the board being Dork Savage, Gamer of Bronze. 1 - A lack of real world examples attached to the ability scores. If the Dexterity descriptor, for example, said "Jackie Chan has a Dexterity of 18, and Stephen Hawking a Dexterity of 3", then people would have a rough gauge of where to put their ability scores, in a semi-real world context. 2 - Ego. Some people really, really think highly of themselves. 3 - Fear of ego creep. As you've said, there's a tendency for abiliity scores to go higher and higher as a thread goes on, as everyone rates themselves to be better than the guy before. Think about it. If someone says "I'm an average guy, 10-11 in everything, maybe a 12 in something", and then everyone else on the thread throws out "14, 16, 13, 17, 14, 18", then the first fellow is stuck with that niggling feeling that everyone else thinks they're better than he is. And who wants that? Patrick Y.
Drasche 07-17-04, 03:18 PM	My initial guess (pre-test) was something like: Lawful Good Human Cleric Str: 9 Dex: 14 Con: 15 Int: 13 Wis: 15 Cha: 11 The reality, however: Lawful Neutral Halfling Bard Str: 13 Dex: 13 Con: 15 Int: 15 Wis: 14 Cha: 8 I hate Halflings! Don't mind being a Bard tho'. :D As for the IQ debate, I agree that tests are bunk. Sure, there are all sorts of brilliant minds in the world, but that doesn't mean that they're exploited to their fullest potential. Only a handful ever appeal to the world through their talents, mostly musicians. Consider the number of extraordinary ideas that just the members of this forum have had, yet either someone beat them to it or they didn't have the ability (typically funds, possibly connections, motivation, etc.) to act upon those ideas, and thus die stillborn. Many atheletes compete, but only one gets the gold. Does that negate the effort put out by the other competitors? Likewise, studying and learning has its place, but in the final analysis what good will it have done if you didn't apply what you read? You can take a test, and have results of epic genius returned to you, but that doesn't really make you much of anything, does it? It's what you eventually do with that brain that will qualify you in the minds of the world. The same goes for the other five stats, not just intelligence. For example: Charisma. The ability to interact with other people and other races. Just because you have such incredible appeal to the rest of humanity does not mean your future is designed. How you interact with people is the qualifying variable. If you do nothing with your affinity for people, then you have wasted the gift. In other words, even if you have a 17 CHA, if you never apply it to your skills it's a waste, and you might as well have 6 CHA. Just my perspective.
Urban Hunter 07-17-04, 05:05 PM	I agree that the I.Q. test are, well, wrong. In my opinion intelligence is the ability to learn something and apply it. Lots of people can learn something, lets say physics and get 100% on a physics test, but can they use this data if they needed to? Well here is what I guess my stats would be (using I.Q. for the INT because i have no other way of doing it :)) STR: 5 I can bench press 110 Lb. DEX: 11 a lot of my Friends say i'm good at dodging stuff and are good at being silent so MAYBE 12. CON: 12-13 I get sick a lot but I have insane endurance and a very large capacity for pain. INT: 14-15 on almost all I.Q. tests i get 140-145. I can use most things I learn Pretty quickly WIS: For being "wise" I get an 8. For perceptions (spot and listen) 11-12, so it averages out to about 9-10 CHA: 10 I make friends easily and can stay friends with them, and I have a girlfriend. I am also good at making people belive almost anything, but that might be ranks in bluff :)
Tauris_Creator 07-18-04, 12:31 AM	before anyone says anything...the thing in my sig is from a test, not how i would rate myself Str: prolly somewhere between 4-8. I can do a few pull-ups, but i cant bench weight if my life depended on it. But if it requires lifting weighta dn moving it around places , i pretty good. Dex: around 12. I can balance on things well, and i can be quiet when i want. I have good hand eye cordination, and the like Con: around 10. I dont get sick too often, but i dont ahve any alergies or frequent illnesses. My stamina is pathetic but is slowly growing Int: around 12-13. I haven't taken an IQ test but i ahve done some other tests that registered me as a few grades above what im in (im only entering high school). being young gives me room to improve in this area tho. Wis: no idea what so ever. i can say some things that make sense in a wise-ish sort of way. But i can't really think of a score for it. Cha: around 8. I get nervous when public speaking comes into play. I get figity and the like. I try to avoid talking to people i dont know. I am an intrevert. and i dont make friends easily (mainly becasue i don't trust people much)
Tauris_Creator 07-18-04, 12:31 AM	Carp my first double post
Xavim 07-19-04, 01:10 AM	What really get's my gall with this whole 'overstating' phenominon is when people grant themselves a tonne of character levels. One poster claimed that based upon his wife's abilities she had to have been at least 15th level. This if over course impossible. At 15th level his wife would have become a reknowned practicioner in her field unless she was prone ot obscurity. So that got me thinking, what would be the average character levels for people? Knowing that during our youth's we are able to learn and experience things much faster, and basing my little idea upon the d20 modern starting ages I came up with this little formula that I think mirrors life rather well. Since a character can start as a level 1 character at 16, which in D&D is generally considered adulthood, and IMO is the age that I would feel comfortable granting a human a single hit die and average ability scores. Then I considered the Gulf of experiences and knowledge between myself and my brothers. My eldest brother has just gratuated college, I had just spent a year in University, my other brother was in his last year of high school and my youngest broth just starting. Comparing what each of us know and have experience and are capable of I came up with the following level range. age16 highschool - lvl1 age18 grad - lvl2 age20 university - lvl3 age23 grad - lvl4 My reasonings for this particular break up was that each of these areas IMO exist as a monumental stage in life. The starting of highschool, the near graduation, the exposure to Post-secondary, to immersion in the work force all exist as dramatic milestones in a person's life. However after this initial rush in the 'formative' years the experiences and milestones start to slow. That and I personally don't believe anyone except incredable heroes should be even remotely close to lvl 15 I came up with this breakdown: Thus: Level = Age 5 = 28 6 = 34 7 = 41 8 = 49 9 = 58 10 = 68 11 = 79 12 = 91 13 = 104 I used a current level +1 in years as my formula. And becuase the excercise of statting one's self if really quite entertaining I stated myself in d20 modern as the following: (note my physical abilities have slackened quite a bit since then) Eric Smart2/Strong1 Strating Occupation:Military (Demolitions, Knowledge(tactics), Bonus Feat: Personal Firearm proficiency) Age:20 STR:12+1 DEX:14+2 (this I based upon the following: I'm combatively fast, my attacks were quick and speedy, I'm an excellent shot, and have strong balance.) CON:10+0 INT:12+1 (above average but definately not markedly) WIS:7-2 (Hooboy... Absent minded, unobservant, forgetful, not the strongest willed around...) CHA:12+1(I like people, can debate effectively, and am generally well liked in return. heh to say nothing about my sense of identity and confidence :D ) Hp:17 BAB:+2 Fort Save:+1 Ref Save:+2 Will Save:+0 Defense Bonus:+2 Reputation Bonus:+1 Wealth Bonus Increase:+1 Skill Points:54 Talents: Savant-Craft(Visual Art) (working on a graphic novel and looking towards animation as a career) Melee Smash-+1 damage (breaking board is fun!) Feats: (Now what is out of sinc here is the order that I gained the feats in. The following arrangement is the only mechanical way I could attain the feats that allowed me to do what I can do. The dispute wasn't over having the feats just when I gained them) 1st:(Smart) Simple Weapon proficiency(B) Personal Firearm Proficiency(B) Creative(visual art, writing) Advanced Firearm Proficiency 2nd: Educated(Knowledge art, Popular Culture) 3rd: Combat Martial Arts Action Points:17 Attacks: unarmed +3; Katana(crap. what I have a crappy $210 sword)-1; Damage: unarmed 1d4+2; Katana(crap)2d6-3(basically a sword shaped club); AC 15 Armour: Leather Jacket All in all it was a fun and thoroughly entertaining excercise. Plus it lead to the creation of that level by age system that has made a permanent place in my campaigns. Anyway, just felt like doing this again. It's good fun.
roguebfl 07-19-04, 01:48 AM	I would Venture the the Hypothiss that Some that's been out with 6+ mebers of the opsite sex magihht actually rate a CHA of 8 or less. it sound like lots of ranks in Bluff, becuse they dont have the CHA to KEEP them ;) proundly clams to have gone out with only 1 person in 4 years. difrenace is I'm still going out with them :love:
Jaxian Redleaf 07-19-04, 06:24 AM	Just by having this conversation should lower CHA a great deal...
Tauris_Creator 07-19-04, 10:46 AM	Ive noticed that a lot of poeple are saying dexterity can be figured by your balance. Well, what about having ranks in balance?
der_gogo 07-19-04, 11:35 AM	Well, if I have a little bit more time I will present a little chart of the Int and Cha scores of all the people here... Would be funny to see :D Things I like best from this topic: "Yada... yada... I have a girlfriend, so my Cha is 14-15...." and "Yada... yada... I made soo many IQ tests and they all say ... blah... was in college also.... yada, yada .... so my Int is 23...." :angel:
Milothethief 07-19-04, 01:44 PM	I make friends easily and can stay friends with them, and I have a girlfriend. I must have at least a 10 CHA. ROFL. WizO_Catoblepas: The best way to know you'e not sounding harsh is to post politely ... ;) CHA encompasses many things lol.
Nyvinyd 07-19-04, 02:12 PM	RAWRRRR! ME WANT BOOOOBIES! *BONK* *drags woman away*
Urban Hunter 07-21-04, 11:14 AM	:bump: :bump: bump
Galeros 07-21-04, 11:36 AM	here is what I think I would be.:) Str: 4 Dex: 6 Con: 5 Int: 7 Wis: 5 Cha: 4 I am not that good, but that is okay.:)
Milothethief 07-21-04, 11:37 AM	Originally posted by Galeros here is what I think I would be.:) Str: 4 Dex: 6 Con: 5 Int: 7 Wis: 5 Cha: 4 I am not that good, but that is okay.:) Finally...A good, honest reply.
Urban Hunter 07-23-04, 03:01 AM	:bump: :bump: I'm going to bump this one last time :)
Aliquid 07-23-04, 01:13 PM	Originally posted by Urban Hunter :bump: :bump: I'm going to bump this one last time :) Hey Urban Hunter, I am honoured that you feel this thread is bump-worthy :) What are you looking for? Further conversation as to why people mis-represent their stats? Further conversation in how stats truly translate into the real world? Something you posted earlier I found interesting: lets say physics and get 100% on a physics test, but can they use this data if they needed to? That reminds me of two very different learning styles I noticed back when I was in high-school. (Lets say person A and B are both good in Physics) Person A: Would get high marks in Physics because they could memorize every formula and procedure with ease, and they could throw off all the important coefficients off the top of their head. The problem would be if they were thrown a theoretical question that didn't exactly match a formula, or procedure they already knew. Person B: Would get high marks in Physics because they understood why and how the formulas worked. They often forgot the exact formula or procedure, since they had a crappy memory for details. Instead they would think of what they are trying to do, and recreate the formula based on their understanding of the theories involved. Questions that didn't match formulas or procedures taught in class weren't a problem. Their problem was when they were writing a test and they can't rember what the acceleration rate of gravity is... I would say that person A would typically get better grades... but person B would find it much easier to apply physics in real life (as long as they had a calculator handy, and a reference book).
CzarGarrett 07-23-04, 01:47 PM	Making myself a character Str: 11 (I'd say I'm about average here) Dex: 9 (I have horrible hand-eye coordination) Con: 13 (I don't get get sick and my pain tolerance is high) Int: 14 (Did well in a difficult school, I'm assuming above average) Wis: 13 (Ditto as above, but different aspect) Cha: 8 (I am cold-hearted and not fair looking) Expert 4/Fighter 1/Bard 1 (4 years of rather specific college, years of street-fighting, and then plenty of writing). Alignment: Chaotic Neutral Good ish
Cantankerous One 07-23-04, 01:53 PM	What is interesting is that the majority of people put their Intelligence over 13. Their justification seems to be that "they are good at solving things" or "they are good at math." Big deal. If you're "good at gymnastics", it doesn't guarantee you a high Dexterity and if you're "good at holding [your] breath", it doesn't guarantee a high Constitution score. Intelligence is highly prized by everyone, and few want to believe that they're a bit dumb, so I imagine this is why a lot of people at least an 11 for their Int.
Urban Hunter 07-23-04, 08:52 PM	Originally posted by Aliquid That reminds me of two very different learning styles I noticed back when I was in high-school. (Lets say person A and B are both good in Physics) Person A: Would get high marks in Physics because they could memorize every formula and procedure with ease, and they could throw off all the important coefficients off the top of their head. The problem would be if they were thrown a theoretical question that didn't exactly match a formula, or procedure they already knew. Person B: Would get high marks in Physics because they understood why and how the formulas worked. They often forgot the exact formula or procedure, since they had a crappy memory for details. Instead they would think of what they are trying to do, and recreate the formula based on their understanding of the theories involved. Questions that didn't match formulas or procedures taught in class weren't a problem. Their problem was when they were writing a test and they can't rember what the acceleration rate of gravity is... I would say that person A would typically get better grades... but person B would find it much easier to apply physics in real life (as long as they had a calculator handy, and a reference book). That is a perfect example. :) And I agree that person B would find it easier to apply physics in real live. I would also like to add that, person B is most likely to be the one to create very innovated ways of handling a problem and they will also think up ideas for things that others would say are useless (has happened with the PC:)) and become things we use everyday.
Aliquid 07-23-04, 09:22 PM	Originally posted by Urban Hunter That is a perfect example. :) And I agree that person B would find it easier to apply physics in real live. I would also like to add that, person B is most likely to be the one to create very innovated ways of handling a problem and they will also think up ideas for things that others would say are useless (has happened with the PC:)) and become things we use everyday. The thing is..... I might be wrong here, but I would suggest that person A would still have a higher INT than person B. The trick is, person B would have a higher WIS than person A. It takes intelligence to know something, it takes wisdom to understand something.
Galeros 07-23-04, 09:26 PM	For me, the knowledge of something only ever comes when I actually need it. Well for some things, others it comes to me when I do not. Even though I suck at math, when it comes to a math problem, if I know the formula it helps. but even then sometimes I can not get it. So I just fiddle around with the numbers and formula until I get something that I think is right.
Vanigo 07-23-04, 10:45 PM	Let's see... Str: 6 or 7, probably. I'm not completely enfeebled, but I'm pretty firmly below average. Dex: Maybe 12 or so? I'm very flexible, and when I used to play dodgeball I was so good at getting out of the way that we finally had to start playing that when only one person (read: me) was left on a team the other team could cross the center line. On the other hand, my hand-eye coordination isn't great, and I can't throw decently to save my life. I figure a bit above average sums it up okay. Con: 10, I guess. I don't get sick that often, but I'm not particularly tough, either. Not really sure about this one. Int: At least 16, probably 17 or 18. I'm very bright. I learn quickly, test well, apply things well, I've understood almost everything I've ever read (including some overviews of quantum mechanics and string theory), read a lot, think quickly, I'm good at logical thinking, and my spelling and grammar are excellent. Wis: 7 at most. I'm a lazy, lazy man, my self-dicipline borders on the nonexistant, I make stupid decisions, forget important dates, sleep through lunch (even though I promise myself I won't), and my ears simply will not stop ringing. Cha: 6, maybe. While I don't actively repulse people, that's about all the good that can be said for my interpersonal skills. I'm shy around people I don't know, I have poor self-confidence (except in regards to my intellect), I haven't had a close friend since I was 10, I've never been on a date, I anger easily, and I'm absolutely horrible at small talk. For the most part, I ignore other people as much as possible, and, at best, other people ignore me.
lugnut71 07-23-04, 11:06 PM	Originally posted by Cantankerous One What is interesting is that the majority of people put their Intelligence over 13. Their justification seems to be that "they are good at solving things" or "they are good at math." Big deal. If you're "good at gymnastics", it doesn't guarantee you a high Dexterity and if you're "good at holding [your] breath", it doesn't guarantee a high Constitution score. Intelligence is highly prized by everyone, and few want to believe that they're a bit dumb, so I imagine this is why a lot of people at least an 11 for their Int. I like this. It is my belief that very few people have a clue what their intelligence is. I would bet everyone's int who posted here was 10. Just like mine probably is. Average. I think this is the most over inflated stat on the broads. I wonder if it is because many of these people are not physically superior that they feel mentally superior. I tend to feel that I am average in all my stats just like 99% of the world. Most of the people here are probably the same. Of course I could be wrong I have been before. Some other points 1. Because you play D&D you are not smarter then a football player. 2. Because you can use the internet you are not any smarter then someone who can't. 3. Because you can understand something that other people can't (physics, math, and chemistry) you are not intelligent. Perhaps you just have an intrest in the subject thus making it easier to understand.
Galeros 07-23-04, 11:12 PM	Originally posted by lugnut71 3. Because you can understand something that other people can't (physics, math, and chemistry) you are not intelligent. Perhaps you just have an intrest in the subject thus making it easier to understand. Like me and Biology. I really like it, so it seems easier for me.:)
lugnut71 07-23-04, 11:35 PM	That is what I was getting at if you show an intrest it is easier. It is also why women traditionally score lower on IQ test. They are not typically intrested in the same things that men are. IQ tests test these intrests. That said I believe my denial mojo is working so lets post some stats for me. Strength 10 (I don't think I'm to strong but I'm not really weak). Dex (You know I have no clue about this one) Con 14 (I never get sick of course that could just mean I have a really good fortitude save.) Int 10 (Don't want to seem hypocritcal) Wis 12 or 4 (Either I am somewhat observant or don't have a clue what is going on) Cha 12 (I'm a nice guy).
diamondjack 07-24-04, 01:25 AM	I work as a professional magician and I am a fairly good pistoleer. here is my character: 4th level rogue hp=15 str:8 int:15 wis:13 dex:14 con:11 cha:8 feats:quick draw,card shark,trick skills:sleight of hand +11, entertain +6,knowledge(history) +7, bluff +6, knowledge(arcana) +8, hide +7, sneak +7, gamble +9, plot boat +6, spot +6, search +6, handle animal +2, ride +5, sense motive +7, gather information +4
Vanigo 07-24-04, 02:01 AM	Originally posted by lugnut71 I like this. It is my belief that very few people have a clue what their intelligence is. I would bet everyone's int who posted here was 10. Just like mine probably is. Average. I think this is the most over inflated stat on the broads. I wonder if it is because many of these people are not physically superior that they feel mentally superior. I tend to feel that I am average in all my stats just like 99% of the world. Most of the people here are probably the same. Of course I could be wrong I have been before. Some other points 1. Because you play D&D you are not smarter then a football player. 2. Because you can use the internet you are not any smarter then someone who can't. 3. Because you can understand something that other people can't (physics, math, and chemistry) you are not intelligent. Perhaps you just have an intrest in the subject thus making it easier to understand. And I suppose you define everyone between five feet and seven feet tall as "of average height?" You can't have 99% of the population be "average." The definition of "average" simply doesn't permit it in anything other than an army of clones. Some other points: 1. True. I won't speculate on how the average gamer compares to the average football player. 2. True, although I suspect the average intelligence of internet users is higher simply because non-internet users includes severely retarded people who drag the average down. 3. And perhaps not. It's definetly a good sign. It might not mean you're smarter, but it certantly doesn't mean you're dumber. Likewise, not understanding math doesn't neccesarily make you dumber, but it definetly doesn't make you smarter. If you were to divide the world into two groups, those who understand math and those who don't, the people who understand math are, on average, going to be smarter. It's just not going to happen any other way. This doesn't say anything about any individual in either group, who may be dumb as a post or a super-genius, but you're going to find fewer of the former and more of the latter in the group that understands math. I have to agree that intelligence is probably the most inflated stat here, but to say that everyone has 10 int is just arrant nonsense.
The Vagrant 07-24-04, 03:09 AM	Assuming that 10-11 is average (hence the +0 modifier), 18 is astounding, and 7 is noticably bad. I'd say my stats are something like this: Strength- The easiest stat to gauge. Look in the PHB, there are sevreal ways to figure it out. Like the carry weight, push/pull, ect. I give myself a standard 11. Not a 10, not an 12. I can do some pull-ups, some push-ups, and am a good help when you need some one to help you move. I am, in most definitions: Average. Dexterity- Not a hard stat to gauge either. Either you got it or you don't, and you know if you got it. I'm probably a 9. I don't stretch as often as I should so can feel the stress in my muscles when I do some semi-common everyday activities. My hand/eye cordination is average, but I have a strange hot/cold relationship with a bow. So, I'm a 9, just a smidge below average. Constitution- I don't get sick, that's the truth. I havn't been even slightly sick in 3-4 years now. When I was in grade school and I did get sick, it didn't last very long, nor got very bad. I'm sensitive to pain (I'm sure more so then most people), but I'm good at ignoring it. I have an unuasual endurance and can push my self to my physical limits as often as I choose. That sounds corny and like an ego trip, but I chalk it up to the fact I don't realy care if I die or get injuried. Aslong as I'm not maimed. My estimated constitution: 17-18. Intelligence- Okay, IQs don't work, let's not bring it up any more. It seems many people here way overestimate themselves here. Just because you went to a college, and don't play sports, doesn't make you smart. In fact, I truly got disgruntled by reading many people's posts in this thread (and I just finished reading them all). When somebody says they have a 16 Int, then spells "though" "tho" I get a bit agitated. When people use "smart" terms like recalibrate, inverse, fluxuation, and deus ex machina in their posts, just so they can later justify their self proclaimed 18 Int, I get a little agitated. When people use on-line 15 minute IQ tests to brag about their geniuseness, I get a little agitated. Intelligence is knowledge (screw D&D terminology at the moment). It's knowing the fourmulas, it's knowing the rates, and memorizing the tables and statistics. It's being able to use big words without thinking of it, and being able to spell them right. Compared to medivel times, the average modern day high school graduate is probably an 19-20. But considering that everyone is then about 19, that raises the norm, and thus everyone becomes 9-10 agian. After all, if stats or not relative, but a fixed based on olde' English, then we're all smart, healthy, and filthy stinking rich. Enough of my opinions on inteligence though and down to my Int stat. I don't have a great memory for formulas, tables, ect. In fact, I had to re-write a bunch of this post because I though 9-10 granted a +0 modifier. I can't spell worth anything, nor is my grammer anything bordering adequit. My vocabulary is average, I honestly believe that people know the words, they just don't use them as much as some of us so we "seem" smart. All in all, I'd say a 10, going on 9. I just simply can't remember stats, or pass a biology class. Wisdom- This is the worst stat. Not only does it contain two completly diffrent traits, but it is named after a word that many people don't understand to begin with. Wisdom in the real world is knowing why things are, and what to do about it. It is not remembering that three right pryamids contain the volume to fill a cube of lengths equale to the right triangles bases, but being able to use that information and know why it works. Intelligence is: The switch is a break in the circut that when flipped up will complete the circut to the lightbulb and the room will brighten. Wisdom is: You should turn a light on in a dark room so you don't trip over somthing. Many people are melodramatic, and flock like mindless sheep to saying such as: A wise man thinks himself a fool, or some other such nonsence. It's clear to me when people have no common sence, that makes me wiser then them. It's sounds arragent of me, but I'm not an ego maniac, I just am confident in my wisdom. Though I have to wear contacts, and my hearing is less then perfect, so that offsets all real widom I have, and so I'd avrage the two stats out. 19 and 8 give me: 13.5, so 13. Charisma- Only a few things I need to bring up here. If you sign the bottem of all your posts, you not as charming as you think. If your sig is longer then a short paragraph, your not as charming as you think. If you think it is all right to use exsesive internet slang (even when it doesn't shorten the phrase down that much), your not as sharmign as you think. If you quote an entire 4 paragraph post just to say "LOL" or "I agree", your not as charming as you think. D&D states that anything that can tell itself apart from the rest of the world has at least 1 point of charisma. I don't belive in self, or even awarness, so technicly I have a 0 charisma. Yay. But I do enjoy giving the charade that everything is real and so I do have charisma, and will play along. I'm not repulsive, nor a beeming hottie. I'm a 5 on hotornot, but that was an old pic before I started working out, and so my charisma is improving. Two days ago I desided to stop expressing opinion, and only stat fact, that goes in effect tomorow (as I have planned) so my charisma will go up a few notches there. So, tommorow I'm gunna say I'll be at a 10 charisma. People just don't seem to notice me, so I'm not hated nor liked, I'm just another tom, dick, or harry. So a 10, but that will go up as I countinue working out (I hope). In all: Str: 11 Dex: 9 (-1) Con: 18 (+4) Int: 9ish (-1ish) Wis: 13 (+1) <Though I object for the record> Cha: 10 I have my highs, and lows. Overall: average. Sorry for the extremly long post, I just get worked up some times.
Azias 07-24-04, 05:25 AM	Well, I'm just going to try to offer another perspective, or at least a perspective (which probably contradicts with itself). D&D ability scores do not come close to comprehending the diversity of a real human being, or even a character. I mean, no character I have ever played or imagined has been played exactly to his skills, abilities, or level, I imagine it would be the same for everyone else (what I mean is if you have an above average wizard with say 14 strength and 14 constitution, do you say that he has bulging muscles?). Not to mention I think the ability scores are relative to the world around you, so a 10 intelligence would represent more in the present than a 10 intelligence in the distant past... If that makes any sense? With these in mind I'm going to talk about the individual attributes, beginning of course with strength. Strength: How strong is everyone? I'm only 15, compared to a 20 year old I would be very weak (I've never been in a fight though... so I wouldn't really know), I do weights (when I'm not too lazy), I do sport ([Australian] football) 6 times a week, as well as PE, that's a lot, but what strength can I say I have on reflection ? 12 compared to other 15 year olds, 8 compared to the rest of the world? Dexterity, I have great reflexes, I can catch, I can touchtype but that all came from practice. But I also have crap balance, terrible flexibility and I was born with something inherently wrong with my feet resulting in a fairly up chuck running style. I really don't know what to give myself for dexterity. Constitution: Last time I missed school because of an illness was about 2 years ago. I never get any bad illnesses but that may just come from both my parents being doctors who work 10 hour days no matter how sick they are. I have great endurance, (I can survive sports training - what an achievement) and good pain endurance as long as I have friends pushing me along. I'll give myself an 11 - just cause I have a gut feeling that's about right.. Wisdom: Mental attributes are a lot harder - I am rebellious (drinking, minor drugs, I'm not a model teenager) so that'd probably result in a lower score. My eyesight and hearing aren't exactly good, I don't have glasses or contacts for one reason - I will not take the test. But I do have an interesting ability to judge what people are thinking - perhaps that's a charisma thing. Maybe a 9 Intelligence: Man, intelligence is just stupid. Sorry I have to be so blunt but I'm in the top 5% for every subject I do in my school (compared to the rest of my year). I don't study, I barely pay attention in class, but I have a great memory and as a result get particularly high scores. Does that result me in having a 16 in intelligence or something similar ? I go to a high fees private school which supposedly have brighter students. On the other hand, I've been known to drink and I'm only 15 - stuuuuupid.... And I submit to peer pressure way too often - stuuuuuupid. Let me take that intelligence down to 14 - still too high I think but it's a nice number. Charisma: I'm pretty good looking I'm told, I dress well - resulting in being called gay at times, a compliment I guess. I have heaps of female friends, but girlfriends rarely last with me (I dump them for "stupid" reasons). My male friends are either geeks and a "popular" group that is about second on the "popular" scale at my school... Lots of people wonder why this is - even I can't say.. I play D&D, but I don't tell many people... that's gotta be a penalty, perhaps I'm ashamed of myself in a way... Oh yeah, and I'm arrogant, stubborn, confident, independent, bright and argumentative. I'll give myself a 12. But after all this I look at the stats Str 8 Dex ? I'll just say 10 Con 11 Wis 9 Int 14 Cha 12 Is that fair? It just seems way too simplified for my liking. and it makes me out to be above average - I'm not to sure I have a right to say that about myself... Oh well - it was a nice first post though, IMHO.
Kakita Yoshi 07-24-04, 05:48 AM	In my sig is what a test gave me. I think I like it better than what I would give myself :D Ok here we go. Str: 6 (if I punch you, you will feel it. Although I can't do push ups.) Dex: 7 (Yes I can juggle 4 items at once. Yes I can catch almost anything thrown at me. Yes I can throw things rather well. Although I can't walk on an flat smooth ground with out falling flat on my face.) Con: 6 (Over waight. Not really prone to illness. Can fall flat on my face with out hurting myself... to much ;), and can take pain well.) Int: 14 (Can speak, and read well in 2 dif. languages. I love history. Did well in school, and doing well in collage.) Wis: 3 (ok two things here. Once while working a band saw I told some one "now don't do this", and moved my hand toward the blade... Well I moved it to close to the blade :eek:. ) Cha: 13 ( I have many close friends. I don't mind public speaking, yes I get nervus everyone does. It is just a matter of convincing others your not ;) ) Anyway as about as good as I can get, and I am so glad the test put me as a wizard as it is my favorite class.
hiryuu 07-24-04, 06:22 AM	I'M HIGH ON LIFE!
lugnut71 07-24-04, 11:44 AM	Originally posted by Vanigo And I suppose you define everyone between five feet and seven feet tall as "of average height?" You can't have 99% of the population be "average." The definition of "average" simply doesn't permit it in anything other than an army of clones. Some other points: 1. True. I won't speculate on how the average gamer compares to the average football player. 2. True, although I suspect the average intelligence of internet users is higher simply because non-internet users includes severely retarded people who drag the average down. 3. And perhaps not. It's definetly a good sign. It might not mean you're smarter, but it certantly doesn't mean you're dumber. Likewise, not understanding math doesn't neccesarily make you dumber, but it definetly doesn't make you smarter. If you were to divide the world into two groups, those who understand math and those who don't, the people who understand math are, on average, going to be smarter. It's just not going to happen any other way. This doesn't say anything about any individual in either group, who may be dumb as a post or a super-genius, but you're going to find fewer of the former and more of the latter in the group that understands math. I have to agree that intelligence is probably the most inflated stat here, but to say that everyone has 10 int is just arrant nonsense. I didn't say everyone I said most. That being said I would never conclude that people who are good at math are on average smarter then I would people who have proper grammer are on average smarter. Math ability just like grammer is a trait that you can increase through practice. It is not a sign at all. I know people who can take forever to add basic numbers yet the gentleman that they based Rainman on do math better then anyone he is someone that I would put at a level 20+ yet he would have cha and wis very low. What does this have to do with the discussion I have no clue. Maybe it just shows I have a short attention span.
Aliquid 07-24-04, 12:25 PM	Originally posted by lugnut71 I didn't say everyone I said most. That being said I would never conclude that people who are good at math are on average smarter then I would people who have proper grammer are on average smarter. Math ability just like grammer is a trait that you can increase through practice. It is not a sign at all. I know people who can take forever to add basic numbers yet the gentleman that they based Rainman on do math better then anyone he is someone that I would put at a level 20+ yet he would have cha and wis very low. What does this have to do with the discussion I have no clue. Maybe it just shows I have a short attention span. I take forever to do basic math in my head... and I never managed to memorize my times-tables.... but at the same time, I have no problem with calculus. Go figure
lugnut71 07-24-04, 12:38 PM	Exactly! Some people have abilities that shouldn't match up but they do. Everyone has different talents.
TheGnomishWizard 07-24-04, 01:04 PM	I don't think people are high on themselves so much as they don't take the thread seriously. I personally think my stats would all be average with one exception.... Str: 11 (I'm on the heavy side so I got a little extra muscle) Dex: 10 (Anyone I know will testify that I'm the most agile guy of my size they've ever seen) Con: 12 (I am really resistent to illness and can take quite a beating) Int: 10 (I could be smarter... I just don't apply myself to it) Wis: 11 (I'm more common sense than booksmart, and I'm very perceptive) Cha: 10 (let me be the first to say I'm not that good looking, but I'm rather charming) At some points it gets really tricky though, dex mainly, I am very acrobatic (not gymnast) but for my size I can tumble and dodge really well, but give me something to throw and I will miss the broad side of a barn.
Vanigo 07-24-04, 08:36 PM	Originally posted by lugnut71 I didn't say everyone I said most. That being said I would never conclude that people who are good at math are on average smarter then I would people who have proper grammer are on average smarter. Math ability just like grammer is a trait that you can increase through practice. It is not a sign at all. I know people who can take forever to add basic numbers yet the gentleman that they based Rainman on do math better then anyone he is someone that I would put at a level 20+ yet he would have cha and wis very low. What does this have to do with the discussion I have no clue. Maybe it just shows I have a short attention span. That doesn't even make sense. First, you say that people who can do math aren't any smarter than people who can't. Then, you say that the guy from Rainman, who (if I recall correctly) could do math but pretty much nothing else, has a 20 int. Make up your mind. Would you please, in your own words, define "intelligence?" If being good at math, physics, chemistry, biology, grammar, spelling, computer use, spatial geometry, logical thinking, memorization, learning, electrical engineering, quantum physics, psychology, linguistics, technobabble, cooking, metallurgy, and taking multiple choice tests aren't signs of high intelligence, what the heck is?
Seeker95 07-24-04, 09:51 PM	I have 18s across the board. Then again, as DM, I get to make the rules. :D Any attempts to rationalize or real-world-compare the stats is as productive as engineering a toilet that spins in the other direction when you flush it. Someone might say Gee whiz. That's neat.. But in the end, it makes neither your D&D game nor your understanding of reality any better. We now return you to your regularly scheduled arguments that begin with words and end with words. :D
lugnut71 07-25-04, 07:10 PM	Originally posted by Vanigo That doesn't even make sense. First, you say that people who can do math aren't any smarter than people who can't. Then, you say that the guy from Rainman, who (if I recall correctly) could do math but pretty much nothing else, has a 20 int. Make up your mind. Would you please, in your own words, define "intelligence?" If being good at math, physics, chemistry, biology, grammar, spelling, computer use, spatial geometry, logical thinking, memorization, learning, electrical engineering, quantum physics, psychology, linguistics, technobabble, cooking, metallurgy, and taking multiple choice tests aren't signs of high intelligence, what the heck is? All and none of them are signs of high intelligence. I was using that as an example. I said by that reckoning yes he would be considered to have high intelligence. He can do math better than any of us. Do you think he has high intelligence? Perhaps that is the answer you are seeking intelligence is relative to the situation at hand. Yes I like that. I think Seeker95 is the one that hit it right on the head.
Vanigo 07-26-04, 02:20 AM	Okay, so you're saying that, to continue using the math example, a guy who can't count on his fingers is just as smart as a guy who can solve complex integrals, but that a guy who is really really really good at math is smarter than either one of them. Now, I find this method of defining intelligence to be bizzare at best, but let's let that slide for a moment. Let's go back to the scenario of sorting the world's population into people who understand math and those who don't. Now, you've already stated that the two groups will have exactly the same average intelligence, right? Now, on the side of the people who understand math, you've got the 20 int idiot savant. On the other side, you've got the guy who was dropped on his head repeatedly as an infant, ate lots of lead-based paint as a child, and had half his brain destroyed in a car crash, and therefore cannot understand math, or anything else more complicated than drooling. (If you say that this person has an average intellect, I will be forced to conclude that you are maniacally insane and ignore you. If you deny that this person exists, well, he probably doesn't, but there certantly are people out there with severe brain damage.) Just suppose that everyone else has an average intelligence. What do you think will happen when you average the intelligences of everyone there? The average of the people who understand math is going to be higher! The difference will be small, but definetly present. But there's not just that one guy on the side of the people who understand math who's smart. And there's not just that one guy on the side of the people who don't who's severely retarded. You also have smart people who don't understand math (and are considered smart because they're really really good at biology or something), but you don't have severely retarded people who do. And you have people who are really really good at biology or whatever and also understand math. In fact, these people will probably outnumber the people who understand biology but not math by a wide margin, since many of the underlying skills involved are the same. This is going to widen the margin, making the difference in the averages more significant. Now apply some rudimentary statistics. When someone who understands math is more likely to be really really smart and less likely to be really really dumb, all of a sudden, understanding math is a significant indicator of intelligence. Now, maybe the people who are good at biology are no likelier to understand math. My argument still stands. In fact, the only way my argument could not stand is if people who understand biology were less likely to understand math, but you're not going to convince many people of that. I mean, in high school, how many people get A's in biology and D's in math? How many people get A's in both? Intelligence is relative to the task at hand? Sure, you could define it that way if we weren't trying to compare real intelligences to D&D statistics. Last time I checked, D&D statistics weren't relative to the task at hand. Skill points are, but you wanna know a little secret about skill points? The higher your intelligence is, the more skill points you get. Try again. Not to mention, even if we were measuring intelligence relative to the task at hand, someone good at math would have a higher intelligence when dealing with something involving math. Now, I don't know about you, but if someone has a high intelligence some of the time, and an average intelligence the rest of the time, I call that above average. Now, could you please explain what you mean by intelligence? All I know so far is: Almost everyone is exactly the same. The guy from Rainman has a very high intelligence. Many skills indicate high intelligence - but not always. (At least, I think that's what you're saying. "All and none of them are signs of high intelligence" is awfully vague.) It's very hard to know what you're talking about when this is all I have to go on. I, for one, like knowing what people are talking about.
TheDarkLord 07-26-04, 03:41 AM	Ability scores, hmn. Str 11- Average Human, no biggie, played as a Defensive end during High school, dropped off the college football squad, My Major was more important. Dex 12- Very good with my manual dexterity, not to limber though, but i have the reaction time to compete with anyone out there. It might should be higher, but truly, not that limber at all. Nor am I very Balanced, i've fallen many a time. Con 16 - At least anyway, i've fallen, been in car-wrecks, been stabbed, never had a bone broken, never been sick for more than 2 day's at a time. All around very healthy I would say. Int 14- I joined Mensa in the 9th grade, my IQ was well, above 170. Outside of Sentance structure's and the like, i'm quick as a whip and came come up with workable things left and right. Heavy background in Computer Engineering, Automobile Repair, IT programming. Math is a very strong point for me. Wis 12- Above average I would say, not much slips past me in my daily struggles through life. I am very perceptive to what goes on around me. Outdoor hunting for big quiet Game such as Whitetail deer has honed my senses for spotting and recognizing. Same with my Career choice, the slightest mistake and an entire project goes Poof. Also I'm relatively good at reading people and being able to decipher what they may be up too. Poker through college and then into Dming several DnD/Very Good Power/Poker players. Heh. Cha 6- I am NOT a people person. I am overly bossy, i tend to get on people's nerves. Few people can really get close to me because of my personality quirks like that. Though I am happily married, it's amazing, even to me, that my wife and kid's put up with me sometimes. Honey, I LOVE YOU (had to do it incase she happened upon this thread). As for that "what character are you test" I was a Neutral Dwarf Rogue. Boo Yeah.
Nyvinyd 07-26-04, 03:42 AM	I don't like knowledge being a measurement of intelligence. There's a reason that knowledges are skills that you can build up ranks for. Intelligence is the ability to use what knowledge you've got. Wisdom... is not the absence of doing stupid things. Wisdom -- at least, to me -- is insight. Wisdom is shown when you do something because it feels right, and it works out for you. Wisdom isn't when you turn on a light so you won't trip over something. Wisdom is sensing that the guy in the corner's tough exterior is just an act, or maybe sensing that it isn't. Personally, I don't like the Wisdom stat because I think it should be up to the player to show wisdom through actions. I would much rather have a Willpower stat.
lugnut71 07-26-04, 11:40 AM	My point is simple people have talents. Some people find numbers easy to comperhand. Some people have an ability to learn langauges with ease. Would you suggest that the one who can do math easily is smarter then the one who can speak in tongues. No the person who eat lead chips is probably not as intelligent as the other. I don't know either though so I won't jump to a split decision. It is possible he might be smarter but incaple of articulating it. As Nyvinyd also pointed out there is the difference between knowledge and intelligence. Some people have learned more math. They are better at it. People with degrees in English should be better at writing. (Of course like all rules there are exceptions).
diaglo 07-26-04, 11:54 AM	if you want to finish your character sheet.... here take the alignment test: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b
Aliquid 07-26-04, 12:06 PM	Originally posted by lugnut71 My point is simple people have talents. Some people find numbers easy to comperhand. Some people have an ability to learn langauges with ease. Would you suggest that the one who can do math easily is smarter then the one who can speak in tongues. No the person who eat lead chips is probably not as intelligent as the other. I don't know either though so I won't jump to a split decision. It is possible he might be smarter but incaple of articulating it. As Nyvinyd also pointed out there is the difference between knowledge and intelligence. Some people have learned more math. They are better at it. People with degrees in English should be better at writing. (Of course like all rules there are exceptions). Agreed, although I would say eating lead chips would show a lack of wisdom, not a lack of intelligence ;) Knowledge is by no means a measure of intelligence. I would consider intelligence (in the D&D sense) a factor of how easy it is for the character to absorb and retain new knowledge. Take two real life students taking a course in university. Both of them end up getting say.. 92% at the end of the course. Do they have the same intelligence because they know the same amount of stuff? Probably not. Imagine that one of them studied hard every single night, where the other one just showed up to class, listened to the lecture, and that was enough. The first person is more dedicated, but the second person appears to absorb knowledge with more ease... and as such would probably have a higher INT in the D&D world. In most cases when someone does something and you respond "wow, that was a stupid thing to do", or "he should have known better".... in most cases the person's behaviour is due to a low Wisdom, not a low Intelligence.... Nyvinyd made a few good points in this regard. Playing a character with a Str, Dex, Con, or Int which is different than your own is easy to do... just roll the dice. Playing a character with a Wis different than your own is challenging (Chr can be tricky too, depending on what sort of game the DM is running) Making a wise decision as to what your next action is... requires the actual player to have wisdom and no amount of rolling dice can help you make a better decision.
Mooshie 07-27-04, 07:06 AM	I'll give it a shot! Before you read further, I'll let you know I am a cop of a national police force and the entry standards are very high. I don't know how in the world they ever let me in. Here we go: Strength: 18 - I Bench Press 500lbs. I am now 26 and started lifting weights religiously since I was twelve. My squats and military presses are equally very high. I don't want to brag too much, I have worked very hard to achieve this. Drug free. A maximum load of 300lbs doesn't seem too daunting. The Player's Handbook awards me an 18 in this. Dexterity: 10 - I am a good shot. I have been awarded the rank of marksman with my 9mm. I can walk a thin line. I drop things frequently and walk with a slight limp due to a broken foot that never healed properly. I trip often enough that it isn't surprising when I do so. Constitution: 16 - I work out and really watch my health. I can take a severe beating and still keep going (seriously, it is a horrible story. Doctor said I should have died - I didn't even lose consciousness :D ) Intelligence: 11 - I held fine grades in university and highschool, uhh, not highschool (was working out when I should have been in class). I can think myself out of some pretty hairy situations. I am by no means a genius. Not even close. Wisdom: 8 - I am thick. I fail to notice finer details (not a good thing in my profession). My Sense Motive would be good, but that is about all I have going for me with this ability. Charisma: 13 - People like me. I am laid back and not "in your face". I can talk someone out of a fight (most of the time - see Constitution). I am not the most charismatic at my posting, but I am not a despised man. Even guys who hate cops usually like me. Feel free to criticise.
Seeker95 07-27-04, 07:28 AM	Originally posted by Mooshie Feel free to criticise. Nice stats, but you spell like a Brit. :D
Sulaco 07-27-04, 09:22 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Nice stats, but you spell like a Brit. :D Nah, he spells like a Canadian. :D
Sulaco 07-27-04, 09:24 AM	Originally posted by Aliquid 1. A D&D Character is rolled with a natural INT, and he/she can increase that with training. They can also increase it by killing monsters. Strange, no?
Seeker95 07-27-04, 11:27 AM	Originally posted by Sulaco Nah, he spells like a Canadian.No. He is a Canadian. He spells like a Brit, eh?
Mooshie 07-27-04, 11:36 AM	Originally posted by Sulaco Nah, he spells like a Canadian. :D Sweet!!!! I got rubbed by Sulaco and Seeker95 in consecutive posts!! Gentlemen, I spell like a guy with a 11 INT and a 8 WIS. Because I am Canadian, I believe I receive a -2 penalty on both abilities while dealing with people from other nations. Wow, man . . . . .consecutive posts. It is a good day.:D :cloud9:
Aliquid 07-27-04, 11:44 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 No. He is a Canadian. He spells like a Brit, eh? To be a Canadaian is to spell like a Brit :) both countries basically have the same dictionary. The thing is many Canadians have forgotten this and spell using American standards.
Nyvinyd 07-27-04, 02:50 PM	Silly Canadians. I don't think I'll ever feel the need to visit Canadia. Too much cold and too many "eh's," eh? What's that aboot anyway?
MadApplejack 07-27-04, 03:52 PM	After reading this thread, and taking the ability scores test, I believe I've come up with a fairly good idea on why people think they have such high ability scores. It seems to me that ability scores are much easier to improve in real life than in Dnd. (This has now become #1 on my very short list, "Why Real Life is better than Dnd.") I'm not ashamed (well, maybe a little ashamed) to admit that I scored pretty low in strength and dexterity. I haven't worked out regulary in quite a while. But, I know that if I put aside a little time each day to work at it, my scores (as far as this test is concerned) would improve dramatically in little time. In Dnd, you get a big boost to start with (rolling your scores), and then you only get 1 point per four levels. Beyond that, your scores change only by aging or by magic. Consider how your DM would react if, say, you're playing a wizard, and you say to him, "after I finish memorizing spells for today, I spend a few minutes doing push-ups so that my strength score will increase." ;) This is true for mental stats as well as physical ones, though these are less easy to measure. If you spend time doing puzzles, you get better at doing puzzles. You can improve your memory. You can increase your awareness of the world around you. You can become better at working with people. (As an aside on this topic, I believe a study was recently released that suggested that working at puzzles and mental challenges may lessen a person's chances of developing alzheimer's.) The more your stat increases, the harder it will become to increase: it's easier to go from 8 to 10 to 12 than from 17 to 18. But, with time and perseverence, it can be done. Of course, you could argue that doing this doesn't really increase your stats, but instead raises your ranks in related skills. You're not really getting smarter or stronger, you're just gaining ranks in Perform (push-ups) or Profession (puzzle-solver) or Knowledge (how to work with people effectively). Even so, it's nice to think that skill ranks are so easily earned.:cool:
Sulaco 07-27-04, 04:49 PM	Originally posted by Mooshie Sweet!!!! I got rubbed by Sulaco and Seeker95 in consecutive posts!! Hardly. Check my location. I was stressing Canadian as a source of pride cos we actually employ the English language properly. Proud Member of the "Colour is spelled with a 'U' dammit" foundation.
Mooshie 07-27-04, 05:27 PM	Originally posted by Sulaco Hardly. Check my location. I was stressing Canadian as a source of pride cos we actually employ the English language properly. Proud Member of the "Colour is spelled with a 'U' dammit" foundation. Yeah, I got that. You and Seeker95 are prolific on these forums. It was kinda cool the two of you responding to my post one right after the other. I am a member of the colour club too. And Criticise is spelled with an "s".
Vanigo 07-27-04, 08:15 PM	Originally posted by lugnut71 My point is simple people have talents. Some people find numbers easy to comperhand. Some people have an ability to learn langauges with ease. Would you suggest that the one who can do math easily is smarter then the one who can speak in tongues. No the person who eat lead chips is probably not as intelligent as the other. I don't know either though so I won't jump to a split decision. It is possible he might be smarter but incaple of articulating it. As Nyvinyd also pointed out there is the difference between knowledge and intelligence. Some people have learned more math. They are better at it. People with degrees in English should be better at writing. (Of course like all rules there are exceptions). Uh, speaking in tongues and speaking lots of languages are two very different things. That aside, I thought that might be what you meant, but you saying that an idiot savant has really high intelligence threw me. Being really really good at one thing and really really bad at everything else seems like it would average out to be pretty bad to me. Anyway, I wouldn't say that a guy who was good at math would be smarter than a guy who learned languages easily, but what about a guy who's good at both? Such people certantly exist. They might not be any good at, say, botany, but there are also people who are good at all three! Now, the way I see it, there's a continuum of ways all this could work out. At one end, each person has a fixed amount of room in his or her brain for skills, and when one skill improves, another has to weaken. In the middle, being good at one thing has absolutely no bearing on being good at any other thing. On the other end, being good at one thing means you're probably just plain smarter than most people, and are therefore more likely to be good at other things. To sketch it out: Fixed space---------------unrelated-------------smarter peopleNow, I don't know where reality lies on this continuum, but consider this: Your view of intelligence is correct if reality is way over on the left. Mine is right if it's anywhere else. Like so: Fixed space---------------unrelated-------------smarter people |---|-------------------------I'm right----------------------| ^ | You're right I like my chances.
lugnut71 07-27-04, 09:54 PM	You know I have no clue what your talking about but sure you can be right if you want. Doesn't much bother me.
frisbeet 09-23-04, 02:20 AM	:bump: Was just rereading. Some of this is really funny. What follows won't be unless you want to laugh at me. I invite it. A word about variance. The standard deviation (sd) of the 3d6 distribution is found to be 2.95803989154981, or 2.96 for short. I'll not show my work unless challenged. Recall that the mean (average) is 10.5 What does this mean? If we pretend that the 3d6 (discrete) distribution is really a Normal (continuous) distribution, here's the population breakdown. The 1st % column is the percent of people in our population who fall between the mean +/- 1 or 2 or 3 sds, while the left-most % column is the percent of people who fall less than the mean + 1 or 2 or 3 sds. attribute between < + benchmark value __ sds __ sd mean + sd 13.46 68% 84.0% mean + 2sd 16.42 95% 97.5% mean + 3sd 19.37 99% 99.5% Which begs the question, is it Normal? Let's now pretend the 3d6 population guy can have any attribute value, not just integers, between and including 3 and 18. All we require is that the sd of the population be the same as the 3d6 discrete distribution. Is it Normal? That is, if I count the # of ways of "rolling" <= 13.46 and divide by the total # of ways of rolling 3d6 (216), do I get 84%? Can't roll 13.46, but I can roll a 13. Turns out that # of ways of rolling 13 or less / 216 = 181/216 = 0.838, or 83.8%. Did I err by rounding 13.46 to 13? If instead I rounded up to 14 I get: # of ways rolling 14 or less / 216 = 90.7%. So the % of 3d6 population which has less than roughly 13.46 for an attribute is somewhere between 83.8 and 90.7%. The Normal distribution 1sd stat of 84% is between these #s; this is pretty close, IMO. How about the 2sd = 97.5th percentile property of the Normal distribution? Does the 3d6 distribution satisfy the same segregation? Mean + 2sd = 16.42. Rolling <= 16 happens 212 out of 216 ways, = 98.1%. Rolling <= 17 = 99.5%. We're a little further from the Normal distribution here. What about 18. 1 in 216 chances of rolling it. 1 in 216 NPCs have 18 Int. Such a person would be smarter than 99.54% of his peers. Normal distribution with average of 10.5 and sd of 2.96 equates to 1 in 200 NPCs walking around with a 19.37 Int. Hmm. What we see is that at the tails of the 3d6 distribution (3-5, 16-18), thinking of it as a Normal distribution overestimates the actual likelyhood of possibilites. If I could pick a real number between and including 3 and 18 from a Normal distribution with an average of 10.5 and sd of 2.96, I'd have a better chance of getting a 16 or better, 17 or better, or 18 or better than if I rolled 3d6. Slightly better. My god, the time I've wasted. I was hoping for something more profound. Returning to the theme of my previous posts, which has largely been completely ignored: While high scores are slightly more unlikely in a 3d6 distribution than a Normal distribution with the same sd, they still happen often enough (1 in 216 for any particular attribute) that your claim of a high score in ___ isn't so improbable. Brag away. BTW, nice message editing changes, WotC Forum Gurus. :)
{SG}Veldrin 09-23-04, 03:22 PM	It is a proven fact of board usage, mostly everyone gets high on themselves on a forum. :D
Korgan26 09-24-04, 06:36 AM	Even strenght which is spelled out in the PHB isn't reliable. For example. I can throw 50lb hay bales all day long, I'm a crazy outdoorsman who loves to backpack, rock climb and mountain climb. I've on more than one occation covered 18-20 miles with a 95-100+ lb pack, I can do 40 pull-ups without stopping (6 years of almost non-stop climbing) I can lat pull 250lbs (I'm 175) I couldn't bench 120 lbs to save my life. so the light load 100 lbs (thats 18 str) max press of 120 thats like 12. stating yourself is beyond difficult because so often if you quantify it in a different manner your stats would change. Although I would say I have a str of 12-13. Z Thoughts??
Asmodeous 09-24-04, 07:59 AM	Nice stats, but you spell like a Brit. :D Hehe! You must be nuts to pick on a poster who claims a bench press of 500lb's and a marksman with a 9mm! :D Seriously. I noticed the number of people who claim a higher than average IQ in this thread. I often thought that the hobby of role playing would appeal to the brainiac's of the world. I would be good to see what the average IQ is of the posters of these boards are. But then again, The numbers mean little and cannot be compared. From the mensa web site; The term "IQ score" is widely used but poorly defined. There are a large number of tests with different scales. The result on one test of 132 can be the same as a score 148 on another test. Some intelligence tests don't use IQ scores at all. Mensa has set a percentile as cutoff to avoid this confusion. Candidates for membership in Mensa must achieve a score at or above the 98th percentile (a score that is greater than or equal to 98 percent of the general population taking the test) on a standard test of intelligence. Maybe that having a dexterity of 15 in one gaming world such as the forgotten worlds, is the same as a dexterity of 13 in Ebberon? :confused:
Fern 09-26-04, 09:20 PM	But then again, The numbers mean little and cannot be compared. Absolutely, I haven't taken an actual intelligence test in a while, but using the ability score quiz (http://www.angelfire.com/dragon/terragf/back/xstattest.html) from earlier in this thread as an example I have 13 intelligence. This despite the fact that I can't do higher math w/out a calculator, and can only speak English (I've taken 4 years of Spanish and 3 of Latin)... whatever. Anyway according to the afformentioned quiz and this character test (http://twinrose.net/dandchar.php) I am a: Chaotic Nuetral Half-Elf Monk/Thief (follower of Beshaba) Str: 10 This is high, not that I'm out of shape, but I'm underweight (5'11 130lbs, up from 110 tho :) ). Dex: 13 Been told I'm incredibly graceful, but I can't dance. Except for ballet, used to be able to do that. Con: 11 Used to be better, chain smoking and so on did me in. umm... make that is doing me in. Anyway I can still walk seven or eight miles without getting winded, but I wouldn't try to run it. Always had a high pain tolerance, and while I can get sick pretty severely, it isn't often and I tend to just ignore it. Int: 13 See above. Wis: 10 Yeah I guess: I can do some exceptionally stupid things, but I'm very aware of whats going on around me (most of the time anyway). People tell me that I'm very understanding and non-judgemental, when I'm not being angsty and cold (that would be split about 50/50). Cha: 11 Pretty boy and anti-social jerk (in a laid back kinda way). I guess this' about right. It seems to me that there are two (or more) sides to any stat, and I'm guessing that some people say "oh this stat measures X, I'm good at that!" without factoring in Y (and possibly Z). Of course some people are bound to exaggerate themselves intentionally, but to be fair alot of internet tests seem to be designed to point out something cool about a person (or at least something that a person likely to be taking the test would think is cool). Anyway, just some thoughts. ~GW