Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hydryh 10-10-06, 08:11 PM	This is a silly beginner's question, I'm sure, but it's been on my mind lately: How do the ability scores compare to each other? How much better is a 14 than a 10, in game-world terms? Is a person with INT 6 just a bit slow, or are they mentally handicapped? If I have an NPC with scores of 18, 12, 5, 9, 17, and 13, are they a well-rounded person, or a statistical idiot savant? If 3 is the human minimum and 18 the human maximum (at level 1), what are those like, especially in terms of rp-potrayal but also in general? 18 STR is Olympian-bodybuilder type, while 3 is closer to Stephen Hawking, I understand, but how would you potray various scores in INT, WIS, and CHA? I used to run BESM, with their scores from 1 to 12 (iirc), and they had a handy-if-slightly-vague chart in their book to show how each numbar compared to Joe Average. I suppose I'm basically asking for that, or at least hints to that, from the friendly forum folks. (Say that five times fast!) Thanks in advance. :)
silvergamgee 10-10-06, 08:23 PM	3 is the normal minimum for a human, Stephen Hawkings is not in the normal range. I'm not sure how to address that comparison without feeling really uncomfortable, so I won't. Look at the load limits in the PHB p 162 and that gives you an idea as to what the strength limits are. The average is always ten. So a person with 10 strength would be significantly encumbered (to the point of being significantly slowed at around 70 lbs (32 kg or so), but can easily handle about 30 lbs (14kg). That may seem a bit high, but remember that we are generally physically weaker in todays society but more intelligent. I hope that helps.
wrecan 10-10-06, 09:02 PM	Hawkings is a total min-maxer
Mitchell 10-10-06, 11:23 PM	They have example tables showing what different ability scores translate into. Granted, it doesn't give you any real-world comparisons, but it can give you a clue (as strong as an ogre, and almost as smart, for example). It's just too difficult to quantify some things... How wise is an 18? How charismatic is a 17? Especially since the attributes encompass different things. Someone with an 11 charisma could be quite unattractive, but have strong leadership abilities, or vice-versa, but since charisma has both of these as components of the total score, it's hard to define precisely. A third person with the same score could be average all the way around.
Feriin 10-10-06, 11:34 PM	18 strength is a little low for an olympic athlete in weight-lifting, they are closer to 20 to 21. Also the worlds strongest man, on record, has lifted over 1100 lbs over his head. That puts him at a 28 strength. As for this statement.. Hawkings is a total min-maxer So his dump stats were Strength and Dexterity then? The thought of this did make me laugh. (If Steven Hawkings is reading this. I would like to apologize.)
Celestine_AutumnStar 10-11-06, 01:48 AM	Stephen Hawking (with respect) Human Expert 20 Speed 10' Str 0 (-5) Dex 0 (-5) Con 8 (-1) Int 30 (+10) Wis 20 (+5) Cha 14 (+2)
Keevo_Darkwood 10-11-06, 03:12 AM	18 strength is a little low for an olympic athlete in weight-lifting, they are closer to 20 to 21. Also the worlds strongest man, on record, has lifted over 1100 lbs over his head. That puts him at a 28 strength. 23, actually. The upper limit of a character's Heavy Load is the amount s/he can lift and carry. If you want the amount that can simply be lifted overhead (and perhaps, take a step in doing so), that's double the maximum Heavy Load. (Say that five times fast!) "Thatthatthatthatthat!!" (Sorry, couldn't resist.) :D Personally, I'd put the esteemed Mr. Hawking's STR and DEX scores at 1 each. A being with a STR and/or DEX of 0 can't move under its own power at all; since Hawking can move his head and fingers (even if only a wee bit), he technically doesn't qualify for a 0. EDIT:After a closer reading of the precise wording of the text pertaining to carrying capacity, it appears that you're right, Feriin. 28, it is (23 could dead-lift 1,100 pounds, but not clean-and-jerk it like the guy you mentioned). However, I stand by my appraisal of Stephen Hawking's attributes.
Roivas 10-11-06, 04:24 AM	Strength is easy to understand, it can be translated directly into pounds, and converted to kilos if you want, so this concept is easy to get. Dexterity is a tricky one. How quick is an 18? Very I guess, just put the average person at a 10, scale up until you have ninjas who can dodge a bullet they shoot at their own head from an inch away at 18 [not really]. The best way to describe dexterity is to just imagine a person who is light on their feet, quick to action, and seems to naturally move around trouble. Contitution is a bit harder than Strength, but not as abstract as Dexteritiy. It determines a persons overall toughness, a person with a Con of 18 could be hit in the head with a lead pipe and stay up for another. It is hard to notice how tough a person is but it can be seen in extreme conditions cold weather, running a mile, or recovering from surgery are all good ways to guage bodily health. Intelligence can be measured through IQ, but this might not be the best method. A 10 in D&D stats is an average, but most NPCs in game will be uneducated [I mean mojority of the of the world's population] and most likely can't read or write. So the intelligence score measures a persons ability to learn and understand new information. A high intelligence character would be able to learn any skill in a matter of weeks [high skills], a person with an intelligence of 6 isn't any less capable of learning new things but it would take longer to do so. Wisdom is one of the more neubulous of the six it measures a persons overall wits and their ability to percieve the world around them. A low wisdom indicates abscent mindedness, inability to focus, and a lack of perception to the world at large. A high wisdom character might not be smart enough to identify the gray skinned creature as a doppleganger, but they would see it coming [spot, listen] and also likely percieve it as a threat [sense motive]. Charisma is without a doubt the most indefineable of all the six stats, yet I shall attempt it. A person with a high charisma a force of personality that makes them hard to ignore, they are very adept at steering conversations into advantagous avenues, and can adapt their own personality to fit any situation. Most people see an attractive person as having a high charisma, this assumption is quite patently false. While appearance helps as a lure for social niceities it does not preclude proficeincy of such. A person with a low charisma will say the wrong things, become tounge tied, and can be led around by the nose in conversations. Charisma is one of the most under vauled stats in D&D, though to me it defines how the character interacts with the world. A hero without such benifits won't be as able to tell his deeds and may need to hire a bard to carry his memory past his evenutual death. That's the stats. Now that you know them don't question them.
Feriin 10-11-06, 10:10 AM	Stephen Hawking (with respect) Human Expert 20 Speed 10' Str 0 (-5) Dex 0 (-5) Con 8 (-1) Int 30 (+10) Wis 20 (+5) Cha 14 (+2) Close but not quite, remember he can breath on his own, and he can move his head and fingures slightly .. so.. Str 1 Dex 1 Con 8 Int 38 Wis 18 Cha 16 I don't recall off hand where I read it but there was a proposed Int=IQ thread that better translates it than what WotC says.. I think MR.Hawkings IQ is close to 240. Pretty much the scale is every 10 points equals 1 int until 10 int is reached, then each point of int is 5 points of IQ.
Lawless 10-11-06, 10:44 AM	Ability scores are hard to gauge but if you want to get an idea of what how to perceive a character based of numbers, cook up numbers for actual people and/or what you perceive them to be. It’s subjective but you can build up your perception of a character. If you use famous people like Hawkins you have to think of just their attributes not necessarily they’re skill. So while Hawkins maybe Stephen Hawkins Expert 15 STR 1 DEX 1 CON 8 INT 24 Wis 18 Cha 16 Then you could have- Arnold Schwartznegger Expert 17 STR 19 DEX 14 CON 16 INT 14 WIS 14 CHA 16
Feriin 10-11-06, 10:56 AM	Are you talking about Arnold now as governer of california or the arnold back when he was Mr. Universe? Arnold as Governer I would put is strength at 18 to 19. Arnold as Mr.Universe I would put his strength at 22 to 23. The other stats seem about right though. Maybe a little more intelligent now then when he was Mr. Universe, about a 16 now. (he swapped some ability scores around ...)
Lawless 10-11-06, 11:09 AM	I was thinking of govenor Arnold, I agree with the Mr Universe stats but I figured since he still excerises etc he stays pretty close to peak health for his age, so I didn't penalize him too much on Strength but I could see a 19. Intelligence I don't know, he's certainly smarter than the average bear but I think of 16 as gifted which I don't think he qualifies for, yet anyways.
Feriin 10-11-06, 11:12 AM	Arnold is smarter than most people give him credit for, well atleast sneaky or decietful. To pull that off you have to be charismatic and intelligent, I'll stick with the 16 int I put him at.
Lawless 10-11-06, 11:16 AM	True but Bush is sneaky and deceitful too ;), I wouldn't call him a mental giant.
OneWinged4ngel 10-11-06, 11:18 AM	Wow, you guys hand out the super-high ability scores like candy. You know, 14 is considered pretty good too :rolleyes:
CryoSilver 10-11-06, 11:22 AM	Scaling IQ by IQ=19*Int^(1.14^-1): Int IQ 3 41.6 4 51.1 5 60.0 6 68.3 7 76.3 8 83.9 9 91.3 10 98.4 11 105.3 12 112.1 13 118.7 14 125.1 15 131.5 16 137.7 17 143.8 18 149.8 19 155.6 20 161.5 21 167.2 22 172.8 23 178.4 24 183.9 25 189.4 26 194.7 27 200.1 28 205.3 29 210.5 30 215.7 31 220.8 http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c294/cryosilver/Untitled.gif By this model, the increase to IQ gained by a high Int steadily decreases. The derivative of the above equation is: 50/(3x^(7/57))
Lawless 10-11-06, 11:25 AM	That's too much math ;), I just take IQ and divide by 10.
Feriin 10-11-06, 11:35 AM	True but Bush is sneaky and deceitful too ;), I wouldn't call him a mental giant. I don't think I would call bush really sneaky or deceitful. He would have int of about 14 though and a charisma of about 15. Yes I think arnold is both smarter and more charismatic than bush is.
Lawless 10-11-06, 11:38 AM	Wow, you guys hand out the super-high ability scores like candy. You know, 14 is considered pretty good too :rolleyes: OK what kind of scores would you give?
Lawless 10-11-06, 11:39 AM	I don't think I would call bush really sneaky or deceitful. He would have int of about 14 though and a charisma of about 15. Yes I think arnold is both smarter and more charismatic than bush is. I think Arnold has more ranks in Perform and Bluff than Bush.
Feriin 10-11-06, 11:45 AM	I think Arnold has more ranks in Perform and Bluff than Bush. Most definatly he would be maxxed out in those. As should the president be maxxed out in bluff and sense motive. I however was refering to some things Arnold did before he was even an actor. He really is smarter than alot of people give him creadit for.
Lawless 10-11-06, 12:03 PM	I don't think Arnold has max ranks as is acting is subpar but definitely more than Bush and certainly more charismatic. Wouldn't it be funny, slightly, if he got the Amendment passed so he could be president, like in the movie Demolition Man. Scary huh?!?
kainpendragon 10-11-06, 12:03 PM	Are you talking about Arnold now as governer of california or the arnold back when he was Mr. Universe? Arnold as Governer I would put is strength at 18 to 19. Arnold as Mr.Universe I would put his strength at 22 to 23. The other stats seem about right though. Maybe a little more intelligent now then when he was Mr. Universe, about a 16 now. (he swapped some ability scores around ...) yeah he middle aged almost old now as the Governer so you have to take human aging chart in effect with his scores. hehehe
Solik 10-11-06, 01:02 PM	Yep, you guys are going way too high for Arnold. Not dissing him or anything, but keep in mind the elite array has a max stat of 15, and only one of those -- and it comes with an 8. Arnold is probably a little better than elite, but not by a whole lot. Int is really hard to gauge for someone that doesn't have their IQ tested and isn't directly involved in research / academics. Take Bush, for instance. You could point out his problems with words, and then you can point to his higher-than-Kerry Yale GPA. Where does it fall? No idea. So, it's probably best to avoid real-life comparisons with people if you can't accurately judge their attributes. Hawking is easy (except for Wis). The Governator is not.
Arganis 10-11-06, 01:16 PM	Yep, you guys are going way too high for Arnold. Not dissing him or anything, but keep in mind the elite array has a max stat of 15, and only one of those -- and it comes with an 8. Arnold is probably a little better than elite, but not by a whole lot. I knew this guy in school who is currently working high-end R&D for big bucks, hanging out with his million friends, and kicking ass at every sport known to man. Not only does he photograph it all with exceptional skill and artistry, he's also really nice. Unlike in a game where people can point buy their abilities or assign from some kind of array, whereby sacrifices in one arena reward you in another, and some form of balance between individuals is maintained... ...many people in this world are blessed/cursed with extremes. I'm not saying Arnold is one of them... I'm just saying.
Papapeperoni 10-11-06, 01:16 PM	As far as I understood it, an 18 is nearly superhuman, so the strongest man in the world has 18 Str, Hawkings has 18 Int, Hitler had 18 Cha, and it goes on like that. Humans cannot have stats higher than 18 in our society, and even if you give them lots of class levels, they can never have more than a 23 (unless you are making epic real-life humans, but please don't go there). And about the 10 IQ per point of Int, it probably works on humans, but it would be incorrect in the low scale. The lowest you can score on an IQ test (yes there is a minimum) is 60, so no 3, 4 or 5 Int on humans. If used on animals, a monkey could have as much as 8 Int, but since d20 caps them at 2, so be it. Hope that helps Greetings, --Papapeperoni
Lawless 10-11-06, 01:21 PM	Yep, you guys are going way too high for Arnold. Not dissing him or anything, but keep in mind the elite array has a max stat of 15, and only one of those -- and it comes with an 8. Arnold is probably a little better than elite, but not by a whole lot. Int is really hard to gauge for someone that doesn't have their IQ tested and isn't directly involved in research / academics. Take Bush, for instance. You could point out his problems with words, and then you can point to his higher-than-Kerry Yale GPA. Where does it fall? No idea. So, it's probably best to avoid real-life comparisons with people if you can't accurately judge their attributes. Hawking is easy (except for Wis). The Governator is not. Game mechanics based off the 28 point buy system I'd agree The average person has average scores, however there are exceptional individuals that a 28 point buy cannot 'account' for. A individual using 28 point buy could not start out with 18 stat without being severely deficient elsewhere, karma wise that maybe fair, real world says otherwise. Using Arnold as the example physicaly he is obviously exceptional, one almost couldn't argue against giving him an 18 Str, especially when he was in his prime, its also a safe bet that his CON and DEX are/were above average, in biopics I've seen of him he was never described as clumsy and/or sickly. He has also be described as intelligent ans savvy, and he obviously has some charisma, of course these things can't be accurately measured, but I hope we can agree that to accomplish all that he has would take some mental and social prowess that the average guy would not possess. It's only my opinion I'll just admit but the man is not average, by the same account there are individuals that are below average. Not to make light of anyone at all but there are disabled individuals in the world would rate as below average across the board as well that a 28 point buy would be generous to them.
calvinNhobbes 10-11-06, 01:55 PM	Also the worlds strongest man, on record, has lifted over 1100 lbs over his head. That puts him at a 28 strength. Please quote your source for this. I find this completely unbelievable. All I could find for the current world record in the clean and jerk is 580.9 lbs. I have read of people bench pressing over 1000 lbs but never, ever being able to military press, shoulder press, push press, or jerk 1000+ lbs over their head. Also (although this is just my own personal view of the lifting limits outlined in the PHB), I feel the max lift amount is equal to someones shoulder press, not push press or jerk amount. A military or shoulder press is more a measure of pure muscle strength, as opposed to something like a clean and jerk which also has alot of technique associated with it (in game terms modeled by skills and feats). As far as relating ability scores to real life. Remember that 3d6 forms a bell-like curve of distribution. An 18 is 1 in 216, or basically the top 0.5% of the population. I like to think of 19 as the upper limit of "normal" human achievement, but this is reserved for exceptional people who have changed the course of history like Leonardo, Newton, and Einstein.
BW0222 10-11-06, 02:40 PM	Hydryh, >How do the ability scores compare to each other? Remember a commoner would use a 22 point buy - or a highly averaged 3d6. Someone with a 3 would be a 1 in 216, as would an 18. Thus, given a large town of a thousand people, you would expect three or four folks to have an 18 in a statistic. Maybe 1 in 5 are outside the 8-12 range. Maybe 1 in 20 are outside the 6-14 range. >How much better is a 14 than a 10, in game-world terms? That person would be in the top 10% of population. Thus, someone with a 14 strength would likely be in the 10% of jobs requiring a heavy strength. If 10% of the population of a town went to a school, praticed a skilled trade, etc. -- changes are that is where those with a 14+ intelligence are. 3. Terrible. Crippled, idiot, etc. 4-5. Truely poor. Slow or disabled to the point you are having serious issues working around it. 6-7. Below average. Noticably poor at some things, but likely not in a field requiring that stat. 8-12. Average range. 13-14. Above average. In a skilled position 15-16. Well above average. 17+. Exceptional. Amongst the very best at their craft. Top 5% of their specialized class, destined for an olympic training camp, approached by the clergy, etc.
Celestine_AutumnStar 10-11-06, 02:55 PM	By giving examples of max weight capacities we can clearly see that humans are capable of Str scores above 18. Using the Int = IQ/10 we are also capable of Int scores above 18. The rest of the stats are rather hard to define and thus cannot be argued as to whether humans are capable of scores over 18 in them, but using Str and Int as examples it could very well be possible that we are in fact capable of just that. So 3 is not the lowest any human can have. 18 is not the highest any human can have. And for the record, the real world doesn't use Point Buy or any kind of array, elite or otherwise. In the real world people can have vastly varied stats. Oh its true. Its damn true.
Solik 10-11-06, 02:59 PM	Right, but I was talking about the elite array. Not the average array. Average people don't get the elite array, and they don't get the 28-point buy. Your average A student probably doesn't have an Int score above a 13, and a lot of them are just hard-working 12s or even 11s. The valedictorian of your high school might have had a 14, but most likely, he or she just worked harder. Someone with a 15 or 16 is an absolute leader in their field, and someone with a 17 or 18 is probably making historic discoveries or inventions. The reasons numbers for PCs go so much higher in D&D (which tends to skew our concept of "average" if we forget these) are because of magical augmentation and high levels. The potential of individuals in D&D worlds is much greater, and access to magical augmentation is readily available (feats like the fey-based CHA bonus in BoED, or any class that offers stat bonuses). Not to mention racial bonuses. They're also expected to do a lot more, like kill demons with swords.
CryoSilver 10-11-06, 03:03 PM	By the 3d6 method, one in 216 people has an 18 in any given ability. In a high school of 800, roughly 4 students will have 18s for their Int; they'd be the exceptional kids, valedictorian/salutitorian; the kids getting into Ivy League schools and yawning at it.
Celestine_AutumnStar 10-11-06, 03:13 PM	Thats a very skewed perception. Lots of intelligent people aren't A students and a lot of A students aren't that intelligent, they just work harder than others. All of that aside, yes 18 Int is rare, but that doesn't preclude the ability for someone to have an even higher Int than that. Human capabilities can be measured and using the systems own charts on weight lifting as it compares to Str score, humans can and do have scores higher than 18. Point Buy and this notion of balance, as well as some inaccuracies as to human capabilities has lead some to believe that a human couldn't possibly be able to have anything above a 15 and if they do they are like the worlds strongest man. Proffesional Weight Lifters easily clear the low 20's in Str scores. The most elite IQ's are near 20+. It's not hard to imagine that people can clear 18 in Cha. So why is it so hard to accept that someone like Jet Li might have Str 17-19 Dex 20 Con 15 Int 15 Wis 17 Cha 16?
calvinNhobbes 10-11-06, 03:22 PM	By the 3d6 method, one in 216 people has an 18 in any given ability. In a high school of 800, roughly 4 students will have 18s for their Int; they'd be the exceptional kids, valedictorian/salutitorian; the kids getting into Ivy League schools and yawning at it. I was in fact valedictorian of my high school class and went to MIT where I graduated top 10% of my class while spending 20+ hours a week practicing and playing division III football (yes, MIT has a football team, crazy I know, sometimes we actually win!). I turned down Cornell and Columbia (Didn't offer as much money as MIT). I guess that means I have an 18 intelligence, woot! Back to the game. I see nothing wrong with 4 kids in a school of 800 having 18 int. The thing is, odds are they also don't have a high wisdom or a high charisma. Also, just because someone has a high intelligence does not mean they are a good student or will even be succcesful in life. I had two roommates at MIT flunk out because they were high all the time (high intelligence, low wisdom). For someone to truly be a mental giant they need raw intelligence, common sense to keep them on a successful path, and charisma to be confident in their ideas and communicate them to other people. 18 Int + high wisdom + high charisma are one in a million kind of stats. So I think the 3d6 curve does a decent, but not perfect job of modeling attribute distribution. EDIT: Also reiterating what I said before and Autumnstar, 18 is not a hard limit. 18 is the limit of a normal distribution, but in any population there are out liers (world record holding athletes, nobel prize winners, etc.). These kind of people are the elite in one area (19+ ability) and exist as exceptions that push the limits of humanity.
Solik 10-11-06, 03:23 PM	D&D's stat generation method is not designed to produce an accurate curve of abilities for people. This is why they use arrays for the mobs of generic NPCs; elite for exceptional ones, and common for everyone else (11 11 11 10 10 10). Similarly, it's true that the weight ability values for something like Strength don't match up particularly well with some things like real-life records and such. This is for a couple reasons. One, game balance. That one speaks for itself; from beginning to end, it's stressed above realism and accurate modeling in D&D. However, that doesn't change what the ability scores are supposed to represent, flavor-wise. Two, specialization. Yeah, there's people who can weight-lift values that reflect exceptionally high Strength scores -- but can they make the Jump checks that an untrained person with that kind of Str should be able to make? Probably not. How about climb checks? Yeah, I'm betting no. Even something that seems as straightforward as Strength is a lot more complicated in real life than just a single number you put down on your character sheet. The ranges of values and the meanings associated with them that I'm talking about come from the tables of creatures that possess scores that high, along with evidence from stat texts and from usage of arrays. You can derive more from sample NPC stats in published adventures, but anything past level 3 probably wouldn't be too relevant (since it's generally the exceptional that get levels anyways). Also, I do believe I stressed the working hard thing in reference to scholastic achievements :)
CryoSilver 10-11-06, 03:36 PM	Odds of having 2 18s: 1 in 46,656 Odds of having 3: 1 in 10,077,696
calvinNhobbes 10-11-06, 03:38 PM	Also, one more tid bit about strength. The world record for unassisted bench press is only just above 700 lbs. The crazy records set over 1000 lbs are when the lifters get to use special denim jackets that help support the weight. Also, at many of these "record" setting bench presses, drug use was not tested for.
Lawless 10-11-06, 03:45 PM	The point buy system is made to create a group/party of PCs that are fair/equal because the creations would all have the same overall numeric value. It makes sure that one player doesn't create a 'better' character than someone else. To me the 28 point buy creates average people not average 'heroes' but that my opinion. Anyway the real world doesn't hold to the 28 point buy or the even the 32 point buy. Most people fall within tthe 28-32 but there are opposite ends of that spectrum some people might only reat a 20 point buy while other may rate 36. However that's not how things really are even rolling dice you can create a superb or sub-par character even though numerically they should be more balanced; I once rolled a character using 3d6 with 18,18,17, 16, 15, & 12.
calvinNhobbes 10-11-06, 03:47 PM	Odds of having 2 18s: 1 in 46,656 Odds of having 3: 1 in 10,077,696 Odds of being born with a birth defect 1 in 33 Odds of being born with Down's syndrome 1 in 1000 Odds of being born with Autism 1 in 500 Odds of being born with cystic fibrosis 1 in 10,000 What's your point?
Tyler Do'Urden 10-11-06, 03:49 PM	Also, at many of these "record" setting bench presses, drug use was not tested for. Alchemical bonus!
calvinNhobbes 10-11-06, 03:52 PM	To me the 28 point buy creates average people not average 'heroes' but that my opinion. I completely disagree. Even a 25 point system is supposed to represent a hero. A 25 point buy is used to create the "elite" array. Last time I checked "average" did not equal "elite". An average person is a 15 point buy, the average value of rolling 3d6.
(Psi)SeveredHead 10-11-06, 03:58 PM	Strength is weird, of course. IMO, if you roll a natural 10, you lift over your head what your listed "max weight over head" is. If you roll higher or lower, you lift more or less. To lift massive amounts of weight, rolling a natural 20 would make you look really strong. (Furthermore, I'm pretty sure whoever did it was using specific weight lifing moves for a short period of time.) Alternatively, D20 Modern has a series of talents called Extreme Effort that give you bonuses to Strength for some purposes (eg for bull rushing someone, but not for doing damage with a melee weapon). I don't think Arnie needs stats that high. Sure he's not a moron, but he needs an Int of 14? Not likely. Personally I'd give him (starting stats) Str 18, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 15. That's higher than 25 or 28 point buy, but he's "not an opponent to be opposed" nor is he a PC so it's not necessary for him to have balanced stats. (I don't know about him being agile, he's smarter than average, he says dumb things sometimes so the not-so-great Wis, and he's admired by lots of people.) If he were a D20 Modern character I'd give him lots of Strength and Charismatic levels and give him the Renown feat. Maybe levels in Personality, but he's not that good an actor. I wouldn't actually give him great social skill scores, except maybe Diplomacy. He rides on his Rep. Bush would have lots of levels and great skill scores (including Sense Motive), and probably high Wis and Charisma. (No, not great Int, but not necessarily the 7 his critics would give him!)
Feriin 10-11-06, 03:59 PM	Please quote your source for this. I find this completely unbelievable. All I could find for the current world record in the clean and jerk is 580.9 lbs. I have read of people bench pressing over 1000 lbs but never, ever being able to military press, shoulder press, push press, or jerk 1000+ lbs over their head. I'll look for his name, the reason why your searches are not showwing him is because he admitted to using performance enhancing substances. In other words he is disqualified from any official record. Please note that performance enhancing substances could simply mean Caffine, though in his case I dought it. (Yes, Caffine is banned in the olympics).
Feriin 10-11-06, 04:02 PM	Alchemical bonus! LOL
CryoSilver 10-11-06, 04:10 PM	Odds of being born with a birth defect 1 in 33 Odds of being born with Down's syndrome 1 in 1000 Odds of being born with Autism 1 in 500 Odds of being born with cystic fibrosis 1 in 10,000 What's your point? My point is that the odds of having 2 human-max abilities are quite high, so arbitrarily assigning exteremely high scores should take that into account.
Lawless 10-11-06, 04:27 PM	I completely disagree. Even a 25 point system is supposed to represent a hero. A 25 point buy is used to create the "elite" array. Last time I checked "average" did not equal "elite". An average person is a 15 point buy, the average value of rolling 3d6. OK, I'll agree not too average but maybe not allowing for more 'exceptional' individuals, but it makes the potential 18 starting stat person nearly impossible to attain. Using yourself as a an example if you have/had an 18 INT while in MIT, it would be improbable that you also had the physical stats to play division III football, I don't mean to insult or anything like that, I'm just saying that using 25-28 point buy would make yourself above and beyond average. While there nothing wrong with that of course ;), and it is completely possible the logistics in holding to that numeric system is too rigid to account for above average to exceptional individuals. For lack of a better way of putting it, its too average a system. What about Olympic athletes? For the most part whatever the event odds are said athlete has at least one 18 stat. Like Dominic Dawes, she was an Olympic gymnast so we could for poops & giggles give her an DEX 18, speaking as a former gymnast (way former 15+ years), it requires a good CON and STR also as many events require the ability to lift/support ones own body weight and have the stamina to perform many of the routines. I figure she'd have STR 12, she was petite not a lot of weight there and probably a 12-14 CON. She graduated from Towson University so lets say a 10-12 INT, as I don't know her grades but know she graduated. She was cute, well spoken, co-captain of the team during her second time, and didn't appear to get into any trouble that rated a scandal between both Olympics she competed in, she probably rated at least 12s in WIS and CHA. All that before she actually graduated college. Even using a 28 point buy she practically could not exist, it's too rigidly set to account for exceptional. Of course I could be too greedy for higher numbers.
Feriin 10-11-06, 04:32 PM	My point is that the odds of having 2 human-max abilities are quite high, so arbitrarily assigning exteremely high scores should take that into account. Actually the chances are quite low, if they were quite high then everyone would be superhuman.
CryoSilver 10-11-06, 04:33 PM	True; I meant to say "odds against are quite high" See, that's what I get for going to a technical university.
Feriin 10-11-06, 04:37 PM	speaking as a former gymnast (way former 15+ years), it requires a good CON and STR also as many events require the ability to lift/support ones onw body weight and have the stamina to perform many of the routines. . Hey I was a gymnast for about 3 years when I was younger too, about 20 years ago. It was fun, then I decided I would rather work on being a wieght-lifter. I never did like watching people who were to weak to even stand up, unless ofcourse they had a good reason for it like MS or a severed spinal cord.
Feriin 10-11-06, 04:40 PM	True; I meant to say "odds against are quite high" See, that's what I get for going to a technical university. Oops my bad, I reread your post. When I read it the first time I skipped over the most important word in it odds. Sorry for the mistake.
Celestine_AutumnStar 10-11-06, 04:44 PM	My point is that the odds of having 2 human-max abilities are quite low, so arbitrarily assigning extremely high scores should take that into account. I would have to disagree. First there are plenty of examples of real people with 2 very high stats (or more) Jet Li. Bruce Lee. The Klitchko brothers. Everyone in professional sports period. Secondly, I think there is no such thing as "human-max". We constantly set new records and reach new goals in human achievement. Saying that humans have a max score of 18 is ridiculous. Stop judging everything by the rules of a game, especially when those rules are really just guidelines anyways.
Eela6 10-11-06, 04:49 PM	Interestingly enough, in D+D, the human maximum statistic is NOT 18 - it's 23. Inherent bonuses from leveling are ignored a lot.
wrecan 10-11-06, 05:00 PM	That's true. Professional athletes would probably have many, many levels in Expert. They wouldn't be Epic. That would be for the true greats: Michael Jordan, Babe Ruth, Wayne Gretsky. The sports stars who are once in a generation. But I would say the average professional athlete would be 8-12th level and the peak professionals would be 12-16th. That's another 2-4 Ability Points. Schwarzenegger would probably be pretty high level between his weightlifting, acting, real estate business and political career. He's defintiely in the legendary range. Not to mention that in his Mr. Universe years, Schwarzenneger was boosting his Strength with ster-- er, potions of Bull's Strength.
calvinNhobbes 10-11-06, 05:27 PM	OK, I'll agree not too average but maybe not allowing for more 'exceptional' individuals, but it makes the potential 18 starting stat person nearly impossible to attain. The "average" person shouldn't have an 18. They are average. Remember not everyone is average. Some gene pools are stronger than others. Using yourself as a an example if you have/had an 18 INT while in MIT, it would be improbable that you also had the physical stats to play division III football, I don't mean to insult or anything like that, I'm just saying that using 25-28 point buy would make yourself above and beyond average. I am well above average. I have good genes and I've worked hard to do what I can with them. During my peak playing days I had a 16 STR (360lb bench, 225lb military press, 280lb clean and jerk, 450lb squat/dead lift even with a torn ACL), could run a mile at 6:30 and could keep a good 7:30 minute pace for 3-5 miles (I think that deserves a CON bonus), not to mention whenever my single friends want to go out they call me so I can help them pick up girls (gogo CHA bonus). I am not an average person. Most people on these boards are not. D&D tends to attract creative people of above average intelligence usually with additional interests in some form of combat or athletics. What about Olympic athletes? snip. Sounds reasonable. Not everyone is the same. Not everyone is given the same number of points in real life. Real life is not fair. :eek:
calvinNhobbes 10-11-06, 05:36 PM	My point is that the odds of having 2 human-max abilities are quite high, so arbitrarily assigning exteremely high scores should take that into account. Like many have said, they are not "maximum" but the limit of what would be considered normal. Plus as I pointed out 1 in 46,000 is very, very low odds. You have a 40 times better chance of being born with Down's syndrome than having two 18's. A 1 in 46,000 chance means ~6000 people in the US would have two 18's. 6000 out of 300 million people. Sounds special to me. Of course those 18's mean nothing unless the person uses them.
Celestine_AutumnStar 10-11-06, 05:42 PM	But real life doesn't follow the same probabilities of dice. There is no mathmatical equation to figure out your chances of getting two or more 18's in your abilities. Your not actually rolling dice so you can have vastly different abilities from one person to the next.
Lawless 10-11-06, 05:49 PM	The "average" person shouldn't have an 18. They are average. Remember not everyone is average. Some gene pools are stronger than others. That's exactly my point, the 28 point buy is 'average'. Personally I like playing D&D to play 'heroes' who are basicly not average people but exceptional. It's kind of a contradiction to play exceptional with average numbers. I am well above average. I have good genes and I've worked hard to do what I can with them. During my peak playing days I had a 16 STR (360lb bench, 225lb military press, 280lb clean and jerk, 450lb squat/dead lift even with a torn ACL), could run a mile at 6:30 and could keep a good 7:30 minute pace for 3-5 miles (I think that deserves a CON bonus), not to mention whenever my single friends want to go out they call me so I can help them pick up girls (gogo CHA bonus). I am not an average person. Most people on these boards are not. D&D tends to attract creative people of above average intelligence usually with additional interests in some form of combat or athletics. So in keeping with yourself as an example that STR 16, INT 18, CON,WIS, & CHA all at 12+ minimal. Definitely good genes but if you were D&D character you couldn't work as a 28 point buy, which is where I have the problem with that number. Myself back when I was young an indestructible STR 14 (benched 250lbs), DEX 16 (rated capt of the gymnastics team in high school), CON 12+ [had asthma (attack 1/2years) was never sick otherwise and could run a 6 minute mile], INT 14-16 (got 97% on military asvab?!? testing), WIS 12+ CHA 10-12, I didn't stand out but I didn't get in trouble either. And that was all in high school so mostly likely lvl 1 and I don't consider myself as anything special, and that's why I think 28 points is too low/rigid/costly?!?
wrecan 10-11-06, 06:12 PM	Odds of having 2 18s: 1 in 46,656 Odds of having 3: 1 in 10,077,696 People in the United States with two 18's: 6,430 People in the United States with three 18's: 30 That's not an insignificant number of people. And that's people starting with two 18's. I imagine if you included 17's and 18's together, you'd be able to account for every professional athlete and academic luminary born in the US (not including the athletes and academics recruited from other nations) Medieval Paris had about 80,000 people. Your typical medieval city should have a few people with two 18's or more (due to abilities gained from leveling). I suspect most campaigns don't.
calvinNhobbes 10-11-06, 08:00 PM	That's exactly my point, the 28 point buy is 'average'. Personally I like playing D&D to play 'heroes' who are basicly not average people but exceptional. It's kind of a contradiction to play exceptional with average numbers. By the definition of the game AND statistically, 28 point buy is NOT average. 15 point buy is. Anyone above 15 point buy is "better" than average. 28 point buy might be the "average" person who does something with their life and contributes to society. I have a little saying, "The average person is not very smart, and half the population is dumber than them." Another little stat for you. I believe it is something like 1/3 of Americans (the citizens of the sole superpower of the world) do not graduate highschool. Many people can have a skewed view of reality depending on how they grew up. I knew someone once who didn't understand why people drove cars besides Mercedes or BMW. When I tried to explain to him that some people can't afford them he was completely blown away by the idea. Can you say sheltered life.
calvinNhobbes 10-11-06, 08:07 PM	People in the United States with two 18's: 6,430 People in the United States with three 18's: 30 That's not an insignificant number of people. And that's people starting with two 18's. I imagine if you included 17's and 18's together, you'd be able to account for every professional athlete and academic luminary born in the US (not including the athletes and academics recruited from other nations) Medieval Paris had about 80,000 people. Your typical medieval city should have a few people with two 18's or more (due to abilities gained from leveling). I suspect most campaigns don't. Sounds 100% reasonable to me. In my campaigns the most powerful NPCs have awesome stats. It only makes sense they would. I mean he IS the king. Also remember that 18 is NOT the maximum human limit. Many professional athletes don't have 18 STR, they have 19+ STR. A marathon record holder doesn't have 18 CON, he has 19+ CON. A nobel prize winner doesn't have 18 INT, he has 19+ INT. That's just my view. 18 is just another stat, 1/3 rarer than a 17, as common as a 3. Just remember 1 in 46,000 is rarer than almost any known human genetic disease. 6000 people out of 300 million really is an small number of people.
Solik 10-11-06, 11:00 PM	Stop using 3d6 bell curves to get an accurate model. The system doesn't work that way. Again, commoners are assigned the 11 11 11 10 10 10 array generically, with the assumption that that's most people. Professional atheletes, even Michael Jordon, do not have lots of levels in anything, even Expert. This is for the following reasons, among others: 1. Michael Jordon does not take many times the numbers of attacks to kill (Hit Dice) 2. Michael Jordon would not be immune to Cloud Kill's instant-kill effect 3. Michael Jordon does not have enhanced saves 4. Michael Jordon does not have 75 skill ranks Give or take a level or two, Michael Jordon is probably a level 2 Expert with 5 ranks in Perform (Basketball), 5 ranks in Perform (Oratory), 1 rank in Perform (Acting), Skill Focus (Perform: Basketball), and Skill Focus (Perform: Oratory). This compared with most other star basketball players, who would be a level 1 Expert with 3-4 ranks, similar stats, and no Oratory or Acting ranks or focus. Stats would be about a 14 in Dex and a 12 in Str and Con; Jordan would have a 15-16 Cha, probably, MAYBE a 17. High-level experts in fantasy realms represent legendary smiths and other specialists who are heroic themselves even in a realm of heroes. In the mundane world of reality, individuals past level 1 with greater than a 20 point buy are really something. So in keeping with yourself as an example that STR 16, INT 18, CON,WIS, & CHA all at 12+ minimal. Definitely good genes but if you were D&D character you couldn't work as a 28 point buy, which is where I have the problem with that number. Myself back when I was young an indestructible STR 14 (benched 250lbs), DEX 16 (rated capt of the gymnastics team in high school), CON 12+ [had asthma (attack 1/2years) was never sick otherwise and could run a 6 minute mile], INT 14-16 (got 97% on military asvab?!? testing), WIS 12+ CHA 10-12, I didn't stand out but I didn't get in trouble either. And that was all in high school so mostly likely lvl 1 and I don't consider myself as anything special, and that's why I think 28 points is too low/rigid/costly?!? Sorry, but your number assignment is ludicrous. First, while I'm sure Calvin is a smart guy, he does not have an 18 Int. Sorry. If he did, he'd be Einstein or Hawking or Newton -- and he'd know five languages minimum. Second, nothing in his description signifies the need for a WIS bonus, so it's probably 10 or 11 (maybe lower; I have a Wis penalty myself due to absent-mindedness and low perception abilities). Third, his running abilities could very likely be a result of the Endurance feat, but we can toss a 12-13 Con on there for good measure. Charisma? Impossible to judge. The girls might have found him somewhat attractive, but that doesn't mean that he's got enough personality to maintain that (for instance, here, he comes off as arrogant), and I doubt he was a local celebrity due to his looks. You could probably go with Str 16 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 14 Wis 10 Cha 12. That's a 28-point buy base race level 1 build, IF we take him at his word (for example, the Int may or may not be stretching it; you also may be able to swap Con and Int, or put them both at 13; the Cha bonus may not even be necessary, and it's possible his Dex and/or Wis could be below 10). Sounds reasonable, given that he described himself as having been an intelligent person in top shape. But for yours? A 16 Dex because you were gymnastics captain at a high school? Sorry, no. There's a lot of high schools out there, and all of 'em that have gymnastics teams have a captain. Plus, gymnastics doesn't rely purely on Dex, especially male gymnastics; Str is a huge portion of it. If that's your only qualifications, 14 is as high as I'd take it. The asthma thing throws me off; you saying you have one attack every two years? That's sorta odd. So I'll leave Con alone. Charisma, probably 10-11; most people are (even our friend above, but I gave him 12 anyways). 97% on the ASVAB doesn't qualify you for a 15 or 16 Int. I got either a 97 or 98% (I forget which) and I'd be hesitant to give myself over a 13. Oh, and you're still level 1.
Hydryh 10-11-06, 11:46 PM	Thank you all for the replies thus far; I honestly did not expect this much intrest in my little question... :ton: I think I now have a reasonable idea of where the stats go from poor to standard to heroic (1-6/7-13/14+ seems to be the closest thing to a consensus); hopefully this will help me in designing and potraying my npcs... On that note, I would guess my own stats at STR 8 DEX 11-13 CON 8 INT 12-14 WIS 8 CHA 9 Note to Self: if ever ported into a D&D campaign setting, go directly to Wizard's Guild. (though I don't quite meet the requirements to be a PC... :raincloud )
Tytalus 10-11-06, 11:48 PM	Odds of having 2 18s: 1 in 46,656 Odds of having 3: 1 in 10,077,696 This is wrong for two reasons: First, it doesn't take into account that you have 6 stats (and thus 6 chances to get your 2 or 3 18s, and the possible permutations - i.e., there are 15 possibilities to "distribute" the 2 18s over the 6 stats). A correct number would be (for exactly 2 18s out of 6 stats): (1/216)^2 * (215/216)^4 * (6 over 2) = 1 in 3169. Not all that unlikely, actually. To get exactly 2 18s, you have to roll 2 18s (duh), and 4 times something else (chance is 215/216). There are 15 (6 over 2) distinct combinations for which attributes are the 18s, so we need to multiply by that number, too. For 3 18s, it's 1 in 510,949. Second, you don't use 4D6-drop lowest, but straight 3D6 for stat generation. While it's difficult to mathematically describe this generation method, the chances of rolling an 18 with a single roll can be calculated: 1/(6^4) + 1/(6^3) * 5/6 * (4 over 1) = 1 in 61.714 (3.5 times as likely as with straight 3D6). This results in the following probabilities: This is the collective probability that you either roll four sixes or three sixes and something else. In the latter case, we have to multiply with 4 (4 over 1) as the non-6 roll could be the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th of the dice (all separate events). exactly 2 18s: 1 in 271 exactly 3 18s: 1 in 12343 I have too much time on my hands.
Mitchell 10-12-06, 12:32 AM	Tytalus has a 20 int! :) But according to that chart on a previous page, and an IQ test I took, I would be pushing 21 or so. Then again, I "only" got a 98 on my ASVAB, so that should knock me down. Of course, all of my intelligence, however high or low, is not distributed equally. I am not as sharp on some subjects as I am on others. I also got an age modifier in there, too, I think.... It's pointless. You can quantify certain aspects of certain abilities. How much weight can you lift over your head? That gives a number. Thing is, does it translate into climbing ability? Swimming? Jumping? If not, then you need to knock it backdown so that you get the number best reflecting your average ability to perform various feats of strength. It applies to everything. All the willpower in the world doesn't automatically equal a high wisdom if you can't find the glasses on your face. Good looks may get the attention of members of the opposite sex, but that alone is not a reflection of your charisma. Are you a jerk? Do people look to you as a leader? The stats aren't something that you can take a single aspect of and throw a number out. Of course everyone is going to want to say "I can lift X many pounds" and use that, but what about longjumpers, highjumpers, rock climbers? Do they get to ignore that they can't lift as much weight, but since they can jump however far or high, or climb however fast, they get to apply those numbers instead?
calvinNhobbes 10-12-06, 01:02 AM	First, while I'm sure Calvin is a smart guy, he does not have an 18 Int. You could probably go with Str 16 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 14 Wis 10 Cha 12. What if I told you I am currently a student working on both my MD and PhD on a full fellowship from the NIH. Don't be so sure I do not have a 18 INT. I took a full IQ test once and scored in the 99th percentile even after adjusting for education. My current STR is 15 (torn ligament in both the shoulder and the knee slows ya down) DEX 10 or 11 (knee slows me down, but I actually have decent hand eye coordination, its kind of needed for doing surgeries plus I am a pretty decent artist), CON 13 (I've not been sick in years, no allergies, no family history of cancer or heart disease, high pain tolerance, high temperature tolerance), INT 18+ (who knows perhaps some day I will win a nobel prize in medicine), WIS 14 (I am very focused and I am always assessing every situation to reduce risk, don't smoke, eat healthy, limit alchohol consumption, don't talk on the cell phone when driving, get regular dental check ups, physical exams, all those little common sense things most people ignore, I'm all over it), CHA 13 (I'm not a super stud, but I've been asked if I model, I've been told I am intimidating because of the way I carry myself and look people in the eye, I am always asked to hold leadership positions because I can take control of a group easily, I am arrogant which is why I wouldn't give myself a 14+, I do not have nice guy be my friend charisma, I have badass demon charisma :D )
cog_and_taz 10-12-06, 02:36 AM	I'd mark myself at high con, maybe 15(get a cold two-three times a year for an afternoon). low wis(can't concentrate...where was I?). low int(personally I think it's a three...), abysmal dex and str(please PLEASE don't ask how much) and about 13-14 cha(for some bizarre reason, I don't get it).
babysamurai 10-12-06, 03:47 AM	What if I told you I am currently a student working on both my MD and PhD on a full fellowship from the NIH. Don't be so sure I do not have a 18 INT. I took a full IQ test once and scored in the 99th percentile even after adjusting for education. My current STR is 15 (torn ligament in both the shoulder and the knee slows ya down) DEX 10 or 11 (knee slows me down, but I actually have decent hand eye coordination, its kind of needed for doing surgeries plus I am a pretty decent artist), CON 13 (I've not been sick in years, no allergies, no family history of cancer or heart disease, high pain tolerance, high temperature tolerance), INT 18+ (who knows perhaps some day I will win a nobel prize in medicine), WIS 14 (I am very focused and I am always assessing every situation to reduce risk, don't smoke, eat healthy, limit alchohol consumption, don't talk on the cell phone when driving, get regular dental check ups, physical exams, all those little common sense things most people ignore, I'm all over it), CHA 13 (I'm not a super stud, but I've been asked if I model, I've been told I am intimidating because of the way I carry myself and look people in the eye, I am always asked to hold leadership positions because I can take control of a group easily, I am arrogant which is why I wouldn't give myself a 14+, I do not have nice guy be my friend charisma, I have badass demon charisma :D ) …Now this is funny.
wrecan 10-12-06, 05:51 AM	It's a small number of people, but those people will stand out because they are extraordinarily gifted. And professional athletes probably have increased stats because of experience, not merely because they were born with it. Most athletes train very hard. By the time they are professionals, in D&D terms, they are already 6th-8th level, and have had the opportunity to add one or two Ability Points, not to mention sports-related feats.
Tyler Do'Urden 10-12-06, 07:29 AM	So does medicine have the same appeal as adventuring?
cog_and_taz 10-12-06, 07:48 AM	It's just not the same, the doc won't let me use fireballs...:weep:
calvinNhobbes 10-12-06, 09:47 AM	This is even funnier. I think you main “if” someone is smarter than you. It just cracks me up the way people assign themselves these inflated ability scores. Try again, chief. Oh no, the dreaded typo! Some of us think faster than we type. :D Just out of curiosity if someone had the following: Highschool valedictorian Top 10% of class at MIT Competitive full fellowship from NIH for MD/PhD (~170 awarded each year) IQ in 99th percentile What INT score would you give them?
babysamurai 10-12-06, 09:55 AM	Just out of curiosity if someone had the following: Highschool valedictorian Top 10% of class at MIT Competitive full fellowship from NIH for MD/PhD (~170 awarded each year) IQ in 99th percentile What INT score would you give them? I’d have to meet the person.
Lawless 10-12-06, 10:36 AM	Stop using 3d6 bell curves to get an accurate model. The system doesn't work that way. Again, commoners are assigned the 11 11 11 10 10 10 array generically, with the assumption that that's most people. Professional atheletes, even Michael Jordon, do not have lots of levels in anything, even Expert. This is for the following reasons, among others: 1. Michael Jordon does not take many times the numbers of attacks to kill (Hit Dice) 2. Michael Jordon would not be immune to Cloud Kill's instant-kill effect 3. Michael Jordon does not have enhanced saves 4. Michael Jordon does not have 75 skill ranks Give or take a level or two, Michael Jordon is probably a level 2 Expert with 5 ranks in Perform (Basketball), 5 ranks in Perform (Oratory), 1 rank in Perform (Acting), Skill Focus (Perform: Basketball), and Skill Focus (Perform: Oratory). This compared with most other star basketball players, who would be a level 1 Expert with 3-4 ranks, similar stats, and no Oratory or Acting ranks or focus. Stats would be about a 14 in Dex and a 12 in Str and Con; Jordan would have a 15-16 Cha, probably, MAYBE a 17. High-level experts in fantasy realms represent legendary smiths and other specialists who are heroic themselves even in a realm of heroes. In the mundane world of reality, individuals past level 1 with greater than a 20 point buy are really something. You'd put Michael Jordan at only 2nd level?!? I wouldn't call him epic but the man has a career that span more than 2 decades. He's won championships, took part in the Olympics, switched careers, made a comeback, etc, etc. Granted Calvin and I may have inflated self images or what have you but 2nd level for a well traveled and experienced 40+ year old man maybe be a bit on the stingy side. If that's the case who would you consider 10th or even 20th level. He hasn't been seen in a fight, or attacked with a Cloud Kill, so it's pretty hard to gauge his level granted of course a 20 always saves so even a 1st level individual could survive it. My older brother is 40 and so combat in the Persain Gulf and Serbia would he only be level 2 also. Sorry, but your number assignment is ludicrous. First, while I'm sure Calvin is a smart guy, he does not have an 18 Int. Sorry. If he did, he'd be Einstein or Hawking or Newton -- and he'd know five languages minimum. Second, nothing in his description signifies the need for a WIS bonus, so it's probably 10 or 11 (maybe lower; I have a Wis penalty myself due to absent-mindedness and low perception abilities). Third, his running abilities could very likely be a result of the Endurance feat, but we can toss a 12-13 Con on there for good measure. Charisma? Impossible to judge. The girls might have found him somewhat attractive, but that doesn't mean that he's got enough personality to maintain that (for instance, here, he comes off as arrogant), and I doubt he was a local celebrity due to his looks. You could probably go with Str 16 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 14 Wis 10 Cha 12. That's a 28-point buy base race level 1 build, IF we take him at his word (for example, the Int may or may not be stretching it; you also may be able to swap Con and Int, or put them both at 13; the Cha bonus may not even be necessary, and it's possible his Dex and/or Wis could be below 10). Sounds reasonable, given that he described himself as having been an intelligent person in top shape. But for yours? A 16 Dex because you were gymnastics captain at a high school? Sorry, no. There's a lot of high schools out there, and all of 'em that have gymnastics teams have a captain. Plus, gymnastics doesn't rely purely on Dex, especially male gymnastics; Str is a huge portion of it. If that's your only qualifications, 14 is as high as I'd take it. The asthma thing throws me off; you saying you have one attack every two years? That's sorta odd. So I'll leave Con alone. Charisma, probably 10-11; most people are (even our friend above, but I gave him 12 anyways). 97% on the ASVAB doesn't qualify you for a 15 or 16 Int. I got either a 97 or 98% (I forget which) and I'd be hesitant to give myself over a 13. Oh, and you're still level 1. As I said before I could be off or have an over inflated sense of self, however if 18 is recognizeable as an attainable number for humans, than who would have such stats in your estimation. If you out of hand disqualify people you haven't met as being unable to possess such numbers then who would you say could and what would the qualifiers be. MY DEX 16 isn't just because I was capt of gymnastics team its also because I was actually pretty good at it, if you've ever taken part in gymnastics then you'd know that DEX is important attribute for it. I've faster than I am strong which is why I say my strength is lower. I think you underestimate yourself if you only give yourself a 13 INT if that was your score for ASVAB. Being a genius doesn't mean you have to know five languages, how many languages does Hawkins know if he's recognized as the epitome of human intellect. No one would call him stupid for not speaking 5+ languages but that's not his focus, personally I'd say he has max ranks in knowledge (science) because that's his focus, not languages and I give more than few levels in expert. Of course maybe Hawkins isn't that smart but has several levels of Expert and max ranks in science, so is he smart or just skilled. Honestly I think people underestimate themselves (I guess I'm a glass half full type), when it comes to this type of thing. So what's the middle ground if average people have average scores and exceptional people might have exceptional score but only what 2-3 levels in life 20 years? Is everyone on this board stuck with maybe a 14 at best in one score and only legendary people can have anything better? Honest questions no sarcasm intended.
babysamurai 10-12-06, 10:42 AM	If that's the case who would you consider 10th or even 20th level. No one on this planet. I wouldn’t even put any of the Fellowship at 10th level, save Gandalf.
DarthMarasmus 10-12-06, 10:48 AM	Wow, I'm surprised nobody mentioned Barry Bonds and the juice...
Lawless 10-12-06, 10:53 AM	No one on this planet. I wouldn’t even put any of the Fellowship at 10th level, save Gandalf. See that's where i disagree, not about Gandalf that a whole other thread ;), I think the average 30 year old working adult is about 3rd level. Depending on the person and their activities and age varying levels. Like Michael Jordan would at least be 6th, he's done too much to only be 2nd. Heck I give the average soldier that's spent a year in Iraq under combat conditions a level just in surviving, but maybe I'm too generous.
Aurotuli 10-12-06, 11:33 AM	Scaling IQ by IQ=19*Int^(1.14^-1)Just out of curiosity, how / where did you come up with these equations? Why choose ~40 IQ for Int 3, for example? Did you extrapolate from World Records then determine the equivalent equation? What is the source for these tables?
wrecan 10-12-06, 11:52 AM	Stop using 3d6 bell curves to get an accurate model. The system doesn't work that way. Yes, it does. DMG p. 110. It explicitly states that common NPCs are generated using 3d6. The standard array is there for convenience of the DM, not because the default campaign world doesn't have randomly statted characters. Stop writing otherwise. (See, I can be haughty and imperious as well.) Professional atheletes, even Michael Jordon, do not have lots of levels in anything, even Expert. This is for the following reasons, among others: 1. Michael Jordon does not take many times the numbers of attacks to kill (Hit Dice) 2. Michael Jordon would not be immune to Cloud Kill's instant-kill effect 3. Michael Jordon does not have enhanced saves 4. Michael Jordon does not have 75 skill ranks Wow, that's a lot of unfounded assumptions. 1) I've never seen Jordan in a fight. Have you? The number of attacks from using the full attack option does not translate into additional swings of the weapon, but rather additional opportunities to be effective. Given Jordan's general athletic ability, I imagine Jordan will land shots more often than you or I would. (An 11-14th level expert, by the way only gets one additional attack -- not something particularly noticeable.) 2) How do you know he wouldn't be immune?! Cloudkill doesn't exist in the real world and doesn't comply with real-world physics. 3) How do you know he doesn't have enhanced saves? Have you tried to poison him? 4) How do you know he doesn't have 75 skill ranks? I imagine he has plenty of skill ranks in Balance, Jump, Profession (basketball player), Profession (shill), Profession (restauranteur), Diplomacy, Appraise, Intimidate, Perform (oratory), Sense Motive, Tumble, Drive (modern equivalent of Ride), and some ranks in appropriate Knowledges. He is most certainly a legendary expert, making him at least 11th level, even if he were not epic.
Kreistor1 10-12-06, 12:10 PM	Also, you do know that academic achievements have nothing to do with how naturally “bright” someone is? I work in the medical/health service, and I have met many “slow” PHD’s. Who is smarter? The guy that takes 5 minutes to gt the right answer 99% of the time or the guy that takes 1 minute to get the right answer 95% of the time? As much as DnD may want us to think that there is only one type of intelligence, there are many. For instance, not all memories are created equal -- my classmates were stunned when they learned I finished dead last in the class, but my chaotic memory had more to do with that... I don't have control over what it remembers. At least one of my classmates had a near eiditic memory, coupled with high logic capacity, he was stunning (went on to his Ph.D. in Engineering). I, on the other hand, give the impression of great intelligence, because I'm the guy that if he gets the answer, he gets it in one minute. This means I appear smart right now. But in a test, others that take longer can surpass me. Who is smarter? Here's another comparison. In High School, I had two competitors. One was a mathematical genius. No question: he was smarter than me (he went on to incredible marks in what many consider to be Canada's most difficult mathematics course in any university in the country). There was, however, a girl I also viewed somewhat as conpetition. But she asked the stupidest questions in class: I mean, I got the teacher's lesson the first time. She sometimes needed multiple different explanations of even the most basic concepts. But her marks were as good as mine. It took me a while to figure out, but eventually I realized what the difference was. All she had was memory (albeit an incredible one), while all I had was raw mental horsepower. In the end, she was the only person in school I was ever jealous of: I didn't need more horsepower, but if I had her memory, too.... Who was smarter? No one in the school would list her as one of the top three smartest people in the school, while some thought I was the smartest (even over the other guy), but the test results said differently. IQ tests measure one kind of intelligence. They pick an arbitrary set of problems and provide an arbitrary length of time to complete them. Shorten or lengthen the test period and you will change who is deemed smarter. Consider a job where memory is vital, such as medicine. Medicine is more often about remembering symptoms, medicines, and techniques than figuring out how to do something new. Engineering is about invention: you don't need to remember a whole lot of things to be able to invent a new way to solve a problem. Two types of intelligence are required for these two professions. Who is smarter? The doctor that diagnoses his third flu of the day, or the engineer that shaves $20 off the cost of producing a cell phone? Meeting someone personally does not measure Intelligence. The initial impression that someone is arrogant will usually cause people to think someone is not as intelligent as they appear, but arrogance has nothing to do with problem solving. Either you can solve it or you can't. Some can't solve it but are arrogant. Some can, but don't appear to be. Personality quirks will colour a person's determination of who is smart and who is not. Additionally, someone with vast amounts of trivial knowledge may give the impression of being smart, while you'll never know the person sitting beside him can solve a Sudoku 10x faster than him. Which one is more intelligent? Intelligence is just not that simple. Different jobs need different kinds of intelligence, and part of the impression of who is smart and who isn't comes down to who has selected a better job for their type of intelligence.
calvinNhobbes 10-12-06, 12:22 PM	Who is smarter? The guy that takes 5 minutes to gt the right answer 99% of the time or the guy that takes 1 minute to get the right answer 95% of the time? IQ tests measure one kind of intelligence. They pick an arbitrary set of problems and provide an arbitrary length of time to complete them. Shorten or lengthen the test period and you will change who is deemed smarter. I see you've never taken a complete IQ test. You are in fact timed for each and every question. So you are not only scored on if you got it right, but also how long it took you to get that answer. Also, not all of the questions are multiple choice. Some are physical puzzles, while others are defining words. There is a person trained to give the test one on one. It is quite intense.
calvinNhobbes 10-12-06, 12:36 PM	Consider a job where memory is vital, such as medicine. Medicine is more often about remembering symptoms, medicines, and techniques than figuring out how to do something new. Engineering is about invention: you don't need to remember a whole lot of things to be able to invent a new way to solve a problem. Two types of intelligence are required for these two professions. Who is smarter? The doctor that diagnoses his third flu of the day, or the engineer that shaves $20 off the cost of producing a cell phone? As someone who has a bachelor's in chemical engineering and is currently doing both my MD and a PhD in biomedical engineering, I would have to disagree with this assessment. There are physicians and engineers who take both approaches (straight memorizations vs understanding and problem solving). The more intelligent (and more successful) ones are the later. It has been said that the lowest form of intelligence is memorization. I found medical school to be a joke compared to most of my colleagues because I understood the basic science (physics, chemistry, biology) and could spend a tenth of the time studying because I did not have to waste time trying to memorize the mountains of information.
Arganis 10-12-06, 01:11 PM	Consider a job where memory is vital, such as medicine. Medicine is more often about remembering symptoms, medicines, and techniques than figuring out how to do something new. Engineering is about invention: you don't need to remember a whole lot of things to be able to invent a new way to solve a problem. Two types of intelligence are required for these two professions. Who is smarter? The doctor that diagnoses his third flu of the day, or the engineer that shaves $20 off the cost of producing a cell phone? There are physicians and engineers who take both approaches (straight memorizations vs understanding and problem solving). The more intelligent (and more successful) ones are the later. It has been said that the lowest form of intelligence is memorization. This is hardly an either-or situation, gentlemen. These two [so-called] types of intelligence compliment one another perfectly. Being completely lacking in one or the other usually makes you completely ineffective. Oh, and that's a pretty dumb comparison between Engineering and Medicine. Due to the fact that professions are not meaningfully corellated to the type of intelligence required, you could easily turn that rhetorical "who's smarter?" question around and ask: Who is smarter, the doctor who performs a difficult and ground-breaking surgical procedure, or the engineer who designs the exact same bridge for the 20th time, using architectural techniques that were established 200 years ago? Finally, it's not like you need any kind of intelligence to be good at doing something. Granted, some professions are more accepting of intelligent practitioners than others, but still. And hey, while I'm at it, I postulate that super-mathematicians who can't even figure out how to use a fork are not geniuses whose minds are too specialized to focus on trivial things. I postulate that they are complete idiots with a natural ability to perform certain tasks.
calvinNhobbes 10-12-06, 01:46 PM	This is hardly an either-or situation, gentlemen. These two [so-called] types of intelligence compliment one another perfectly. Having both is obviously beneficial, but grunt memorization is the least effective method of understanding a concept and applying that knowledge. Being completely lacking in one or the other usually makes you completely ineffective. I disagree. I had a roommate who was the epitome of "genius". He could memorize anything very quickly, but was almost completely incapable of actually applying any of that knowledge to the real world. Example, he aced biochemistry no problem just by memorizing all the questions of old tests from the past 10 years, but didn't understand why eating only carbohydrates would still make you fat. He thought if he didn't eat any fat then he wouldn't get fat. He is now a neurosurgeon. He will most likely never develop a new breakthrough surgical technique or make any other advancements in the field, but he will memorize every procedure out there and do it very well and save many lives without ever knowing the theory behind any of it. Effective? I'd say so. Really a genius? Obviously not. But that aside, I basically agree with your views. Real intelligence is not copying what others have done, no matter how complicated it is, but developing new methods and theories. However, the ability to retain information gives you the tools you need to do so.
Solik 10-12-06, 03:03 PM	Just out of curiosity if someone had the following: Highschool valedictorian Top 10% of class at MIT Competitive full fellowship from NIH for MD/PhD (~170 awarded each year) IQ in 99th percentile What INT score would you give them? If that's their full list of qualifications? 16, tops, if they were an underachiever. Probably a 14, which is what I said to begin with. A lot of people go to MIT and equivalently prestigious schools, and every last one of them have a "top 10%" score. If you want even a 17, you better make a landmark discovery. If you want to touch an 18, you better be in history books. You'd put Michael Jordan at only 2nd level?!? I wouldn't call him epic but the man has a career that span more than 2 decades. Um... so? Sports careers do not qualify you for high levels! Level 2 characters have twice the HP as level 1 characters on average (NPCs here, remember). Characters who are only level 5 have five times as many HP. Assigning that to a popular basketball player is ludicrous. He was successful and popular because his Perform (basketball) score was a point or two higher than most professionals, and he had a charisma bonus, whereas most of them don't. That's it. That doesn't equate to 10 levels. You do realize that level 10 characters, in D&D worlds that aren't Forgotten Realms, are among the most powerful people in that entire region of the world, right? And you're talking power in a world of genies and demons and magic. No one, I repeat, no one in reality can compare to that. If that's the case who would you consider 10th or even 20th level. No one on earth. Ever. Not a single person on the history of our planet would have been 10th level. 20th is a laugh. My older brother is 40 and so combat in the Persain Gulf and Serbia would he only be level 2 also. Two or three. Depends on whether or not he's an officer, as military leaders tend to have one level on the rest of them. Take a look at D&D conventions. Drafted soldiers are first-level commoners. Career soldiers are first-level warriors. Career minor officers will be 2nd-4th warriors (depending on how prestigious the particular force is). The best of the best, the top leaders and commanders, at least those who didn't do massive amounts of adventuring first, are usually fighter/warriors around level 5-8, and they tend to be famous. Top US generals are probably around level 4, with levels of warrior and expert. if 18 is recognizeable as an attainable number for humans, than who would have such stats in your estimation Well, find a list of the most intelligent people ever known to the world. Probably the top 100 of those. The rest would be people of equal intelligence who were never in a position to make themselves known (i.e. a natural genius who was raised and died on a farm, etc). Is everyone on this board stuck with maybe a 14 at best in one score and only legendary people can have anything better? I wouldn't say "everyone" per say, but if you go by statistics, that's the most likely situation. There could be a few people with a 15 or 16. Which is why complete IQ tests take into account education and socioencomic background, which still puts me in the 99th percentile. IQ tests are also unfortunately biased towards certain culture / upbringing. That sort of limitation will exist with any test, though. Yes, it does. DMG p. 110. It explicitly states that common NPCs are generated using 3d6. I seriously doubt it was the intention of the designers to have the resulting bell curve be a truly accurate model of stat ranges, which we can then apply to real-life to see what the stats mean. If that actually was their intent, then I guess it's just as broken as the silly D&D economy. But I doubt it. The number of attacks from using the full attack option... I wasn't talking about number of attacks, I was talking about hit dice and what that means. How do you know he wouldn't be immune?! Cloudkill doesn't exist in the real world and doesn't comply with real-world physics. How do you know he doesn't have enhanced saves? ...I can't really give these a serious reply. Sorry. How do you know he doesn't have 75 skill ranks? I imagine he has plenty of skill ranks in Balance, Jump, Profession (basketball player), Profession (shill), Profession (restauranteur), Diplomacy, Appraise, Intimidate, Perform (oratory), Sense Motive, Tumble, Drive (modern equivalent of Ride), and some ranks in appropriate Knowledges. Sure. Which he can get at levels 1-2. He doesn't need 10 ranks in a skill to be effective in it (like in D&D...). He is most certainly a legendary expert, making him at least 11th level, even if he were not epic. Okay, here's your mistake. You're rewriting what levels mean by using the same scale in our world. That is, you're saying that there's level 1 people in our world, and level 20 people in our world, and you're placing people where they'd fit on that scale. You can do that if you really want, but that's not helpful to this discussion. The OP was asking about what stats and such meant in the world of D&D. If you want to accurately translate things from real-life world to D&D land, then you have to use the same scale. Take Michael Jordan and put him in Faerun. Do you really think he'd still be level 11? I don't think Michael Jordan would survive the Sunless Citadel -- which any level 11 Expert in D&D could without blinking.
Arganis 10-12-06, 03:09 PM	Having both is obviously beneficial, but grunt memorization is the least effective method of understanding a concept and applying that knowledge. The point that having many facts but being unable to make intuitive leaps with them is inferior has been well-made and well-taken several times in this thread. It is not being argued. You say that "understanding and application" is better than rote memorization, but you cannot understand and apply something you do not remember. Realistically, almost everyone has enough memorization ability to function in normal society, but if that ability were theoretically absent in the same way that you describe "understanding and application" to be absent, then there would be nothing to make logical leaps to or from. I believe you are applying more value to intuition than you do to memorization because you are not considering how useless intuition would be if nothing were remembered. but didn't understand why eating only carbohydrates would still make you fat. Your friend obviously failed to memorize the very simple explanations for things like this, therefore his fault is not in his lack of intuition, but his lack of memorization.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 10-12-06, 03:51 PM	Um... so? Sports careers do not qualify you for high levels! Level 2 characters have twice the HP as level 1 characters on average (NPCs here, remember). Characters who are only level 5 have five times as many HP. Assigning that to a popular basketball player is ludicrous. So you are saying that succesful folk don't have more Hp eh? How about 50 cent then? How many bullets to the chest did that guy take and live?;) But seriously why do you equate an 18 with something superhuman? It's not, one in 36 or so people have one. It's only weird and problematic if you make it so that 18 is the limit on human potential. It's not. An 18 isn't anything special really, it's good, very good in fact but nothing to put you in the history books all by itself. You need more for that.
wrecan 10-12-06, 03:55 PM	I seriously doubt it was the intention of the designers to have the resulting bell curve be a truly accurate model of stat ranges, which we can then apply to real-life to see what the stats mean. If that actually was their intent, then I guess it's just as broken as the silly D&D economy. Regardless of whether you think it "broken" or not, and regardless of your "doubts", the rules are there in black and white. NPC stats are to be determined by rolling 3d6. I wasn't talking about number of attacks, I was talking about hit dice and what that means. It means that hit points are an abstraction for combat purposes and not intended to reflect specific actions in the game world (much less the real world). So your point is meaningless, because there is no meaningful way to determine a person's hp from observation. ...I can't really give these a serious reply. Sorry. Because it was replying to the silly point about cloudkiull you made originally. Sure. Which he can get at levels 1-2. He doesn't need 10 ranks in a skill to be effective in it (like in D&D...). Need is irrelevant. You claimed he didn't possess 75 skill points. I pointed out that he certainly could. Now you say, "Well, he doesn't need 75 skill points ot be effective." So what? Whether he "needs" them or not doesn't have any bearing on whather he might have them. So your argument is still rebutted. Okay, here's your mistake. You're rewriting what levels mean by using the same scale in our world. That is, you're saying that there's level 1 people in our world, and level 20 people in our world, and you're placing people where they'd fit on that scale. That's entirely appropriate in this thread, which is comparing game abilities ot real-life abilities. The game abilities assume that people's abilities increase when people increase in level. So comparing these abilities to real-life people requires us to assume that real-life people also increase in level. The game indicates through the Legend Lore spell description what level represents. 10th and higher level represents "legendary people", and I might add, legendary people who are still alive in the campaign world. If anybody qualifies for this description in the real world, Jordan does. The OP was asking about what stats and such meant in the world of D&D. Wrong. In the original post he writes: "18 STR is Olympian-bodybuilder type, while 3 is closer to Stephen Hawking, I understand" If he were uninterested in comparing in-game Abilities to real-world examples, he would not have used a real-world comparison, such as Olympian athletes and Stephen Hawking. This whole thread has been translating game stats to real-world abilities. You're the only one who seems to think that's not what the thread is about. If you want to accurately translate things from real-life world to D&D land, then you have to use the same scale. Which we are. Take Michael Jordan and put him in Faerun. Do you really think he'd still be level 11? A level 11 Expert? Sure. I don't think Michael Jordan would survive the Sunless Citadel -- which any level 11 Expert in D&D could without blinking. Any level 11 Expert? Really? You think a level 11 gnomish Expert with, say, skills only in Appraise, Knowledge (the Planes), Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty), Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (nature), Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering), Knowledge (history), Decipher Script, Diplomacy, and Speak Language, whose Feats are Skill Focus (Knowledge (history), Negotiator and Run, that this legendary sage would be able to survive the Sunless Citadel? I don't think he would. NPC-class NPCs are not to be treated like PCs. They are not heroic. They aren't supposed to acquit themselves well in a fight. They don't have to be brave. Four 5th level Commoners would get the snot kicked out of them by a CR5 creature. They're just very skilled and famous in their field. Just like MIchael Jordan.
calvinNhobbes 10-12-06, 04:06 PM	If that's their full list of qualifications? 16, tops, if they were an underachiever. Probably a 14, which is what I said to begin with. A lot of people go to MIT and equivalently prestigious schools, and every last one of them have a "top 10%" score. If you want even a 17, you better make a landmark discovery. If you want to touch an 18, you better be in history books. So what you are saying is that in the entire history of mankind only a handful of people out of the BILLIONS of people should have an 18 INT. That means in your game world there should only be one maybe two people on the entire planet that have an 18 INT. An 18 is not that rare. Don't forget that 60 million people in the world are in the 99th IQ percentile. 60 MILLION! You forget the limit of human INT in D&D in NOT 18, is it 23. Alot of people do not go to MIT or the Ivy leagues. It is a fraction of a percent. Here's some 2000 stats for you I just looked up. 20% of americans do not finish high school, only 24.4% of adults have a bachelors or higher. Over 75% of Americans do not have a college degree! There are 15.5 million college students, of which less than 1% of those go to a top 10 university (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, etc). I might be wrong, but less than 1% is not "alot". In addition, can you please tell me how everyone who graduates from MIT is in the top 10% of their graduating class. By definition, 90% of them can not in fact be in the top 10%. You may be referring to the grade inflation of the Ivy Leagues. MIT does not participate in such antics. MIT believes a "C" is average and hands them out liberally. Failing a class freshman year is also quite common (~20%). Odds are I will make a landmark discovery. That's what MD/PhDs are expected to do. I have published my work on numerous occasions and have a patent pending for a medical device. I guess that gives me at least a INT 17 by your definition. I'll take that if an 18 means I would be Einstein (I'm no Einstein, but I believe such icnonic legends are INT19+). IQ tests are also unfortunately biased towards certain culture / upbringing. That sort of limitation will exist with any test, though. Agreed, although effort is taken to account for this bias. Your friend obviously failed to memorize the very simple explanations for things like this, therefore his fault is not in his lack of intuition, but his lack of memorization. Nope, he could recall the entire metabolic pathway of how sugars are converted to fat, but he never ate anything but carbs because he didn't want to get fat. I'm telling ya, weird guy. You say that "understanding and application" is better than rote memorization, but you cannot understand and apply something you do not remember. It is, and I disagree. I took calculus 10+ years ago. There are tricks I do not remember for solving specific problems. Does that mean I am incapable of using it until I memorize all that information again? No, I know the theory behind it and when I encounter a problem I know what tools I need. Then I go and get those tools (ie book). Memorization can be useful for short term gains of random knowledge (alot of what medical school is), but in the long term most of it is forgotten. I have a very good memory (I have been asked if I have a photographic memory because of my ability to easily recall visual images extemely accurately including tables and figures), but memories fade with time, understanding does not.
Arganis 10-12-06, 04:25 PM	Nope, he could recall the entire metabolic pathway of how sugars are converted to fat, but he never ate anything but carbs because he didn't want to get fat. I'm telling ya, weird guy. Weird indeed. It is, and I disagree. I took calculus 10+ years ago. There are tricks I do not remember for solving specific problems. Does that mean I am incapable of using it until I memorize all that information again? No, I know the theory behind it and when I encounter a problem I know what tools I need. Then I go and get those tools (ie book). Memorization can be useful for short term gains of random knowledge (alot of what medical school is), but in the long term most of it is forgotten. I have a very good memory (I have been asked if I have a photographic memory because of my ability to easily recall visual images extemely accurately including tables and figures) To continue previous metaphors, a surgeon does not have time to reference a text he read regarding the appropriate sutures to make. In this circumstance, memory (both mental and muscle) is imperative. If you could figure out differential calculus but had to start from the ground up by refreshing your memory as to which axis was X and which was Y, you would have great intuition and sense, but be completely useless at everything except writing mathematical proofs--which would take you years longer than other more well-rounded mathemeticians since you had to start from scratch every time because you couln't remember the basics. The point I was trying to make is that someone who has NO intuitive ability is just as useful as someone who has NO memory. Fortunately, the latter is far, far less common. but memories fade with time, understanding does not. You can't possibly think that this is true for everyone.
Solik 10-12-06, 04:57 PM	Regardless of whether you think it "broken" or not, and regardless of your "doubts", the rules are there in black and white. NPC stats are to be determined by rolling 3d6. And the rules for making money with Profession checks are in black and white, yet NPCs make different amounts of money for their work (see the section on coinage value). Time and time again, specific rules for doing one thing are NOT meant to be taken to mass scale and used to create statistics in D&D. I don't really know how I can be clearer than that, so I'll just dismiss the entire argument with a cheap rebuttal: Even if you are completely correct in every way, there is absolutely nothing that assumes that D&D NPCs, even humans, follow the same statistical stat ranges as people in real life. In fact, there's plenty of reason to suspect that they do not (magic in the world, commonality of non-purebloods [especially in Faerun -- almost everyone should have a tiny percentage of something non-human], divine empowering, etc). So, the entire 3d6 rule has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on statistical ranges of stat values for real-life people. It means that hit points are an abstraction for combat purposes and not intended to reflect specific actions in the game world (much less the real world). So your point is meaningless, because there is no meaningful way to determine a person's hp from observation. Use common sense man. If you actually believe that Michael Jordan has the equivalent of more than four hit dice, given everything that's supposed to mean in terms of damage and spell immunities (even a level 5 commoner is immune to sleep), then, well, we can really stop this conversation now. I might as well be trying to explain to a blind man that the sky is blue. Because it was replying to the silly point about cloudkiull you made originally. There's nothing silly about it. If you're trying to apply D&D rules to generate real-life people, then put those people in D&D situations. Need is irrelevant. You claimed he didn't possess 75 skill points. I pointed out that he certainly could. Now you say, "Well, he doesn't need 75 skill points ot be effective." So what? Whether he "needs" them or not doesn't have any bearing on whather he might have them. So your argument is still rebutted. If he does have that many ranks, then he is purposefully not using them. You can measure a person's ranks by seeing the very best of their ability (rolling a 20), and giving them the minimum needed to reach that result. That's entirely appropriate in this thread, which is comparing game abilities ot real-life abilities. The game abilities assume that people's abilities increase when people increase in level. So comparing these abilities to real-life people requires us to assume that real-life people also increase in level. That conclusion doesn't follow, if for no other reason than stat modifications don't work in reality like they work in D&D. Even without that, there's nothing that says that real-life people have achieved stat bonuses. and higher level represents "legendary people", and I might add, legendary people who are still alive in the campaign world "Legendary people" in a world of dragons, fairies, dryads, raising the dead, and skeleton armies. You bring a person that can cast just ONE spell, ANY spell, in D&D, and put them in reality, and they're legendary. Wrong. In the original post he writes: "18 STR is Olympian-bodybuilder type, while 3 is closer to Stephen Hawking, I understand" If he were uninterested in comparing in-game Abilities to real-world examples, he would not have used a real-world comparison, such as Olympian athletes and Stephen Hawking. Selective reading is a bad idea. From the OP: How much better is a 14 than a 10, in game-world terms? Which we are. This is not an argument. Any level 11 Expert? Really? You think a level 11 Expert with, say, skills only in Appraise, Knowledge (the Planes), Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty), Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (nature), Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering), Knowledge (history), Decipher Script, Diplomacy, and Speak Language, whose four Feats are Skill Focus (Knowledge (history), Negotiator and Run, that this legendary sage would be able to survive the Sunless Citadel? Yep, from HD and BAB alone, unless you assigned some really awful stats to the guy. NPC-class NPCs are not to be treated like PCs. Correct. They have either half the CR or one less CR, depending on which flavor you prefer. A level 11 expert is, minimum, CR 5. So what you are saying is that in the entire history of mankind only a handful of people out of the BILLIONS of people should have an 18 INT. That means in your game world there should only be one maybe two people on the entire planet that have an 18 INT. Yes to the first (depending on how you quantify "handful"), no to the second. In general, D&D worlds are higher-power. People there can do things that real people can't do. You forget the limit of human INT in D&D in NOT 18, is it 23. No, I don't. I just don't put real-life people at level 20. Ever. In addition, can you please tell me how everyone who graduates from MIT is in the top 10% of their graduating class. Either I rolled a 1 on writing or you rolled a 1 on reading comprehension, so let me just try this again. Every single year, MIT releases a top 10% of that graduating class into the world. That's a lot of people. Statistically, in terms of the total number of people on earth, or even in the US? Of course not. But that's not the angle I was taking it from. Odds are I will make a landmark discovery. That's what MD/PhDs are expected to do. Oi. The company I work for mostly employs PhDs, and I can't think of any of them that made a landmark discovery. Or any of my college professors. Unless you count the one that found a nifty fast way to calculate square roots in BASIC, which is hardly landmark. You putting MD/PhDs on a special level, I suppose? At any rate, it doesn't matter. Think yourself 18 Int if it makes you happy. I couldn't care less.
calvinNhobbes 10-12-06, 05:14 PM	To continue previous metaphors, a surgeon does not have time to reference a text he read regarding the appropriate sutures to make. In this circumstance, memory (both mental and muscle) is imperative. Surgery is not very difficult. I know. I've done it on numerous animals and assisted in the OR on humans. It's like a combination of butcher and seamstress. As long as everything goes according to plan of course. The trick is when something goes wrong. That is what separates a good surgeon from an average one. If you could figure out differential calculus but had to start from the ground up by refreshing your memory as to which axis was X and which was Y, you would have great intuition and sense, but be completely useless at everything except writing mathematical proofs--which would take you years longer than other more well-rounded mathemeticians since you had to start from scratch every time because you couln't remember the basics. Yes there is a basic level of "memorization" someone needs to have to for a given intelligence, like language and 1+1=2. Even animals can remember. I don't consider the ability to remember your own name a great sign of intelligence. The point I was trying to make is that someone who has NO intuitive ability is just as useful as someone who has NO memory. Fortunately, the latter is far, far less common. I think you are taking it to illogical extremes. Once you include pathological conditions it no longer follows the standard distribution.
Lawless 10-12-06, 05:14 PM	Um... so? Sports careers do not qualify you for high levels! Level 2 characters have twice the HP as level 1 characters on average (NPCs here, remember). Characters who are only level 5 have five times as many HP. Assigning that to a popular basketball player is ludicrous. He was successful and popular because his Perform (basketball) score was a point or two higher than most professionals, and he had a charisma bonus, whereas most of them don't. That's it. That doesn't equate to 10 levels. You do realize that level 10 characters, in D&D worlds that aren't Forgotten Realms, are among the most powerful people in that entire region of the world, right? And you're talking power in a world of genies and demons and magic. No one, I repeat, no one in reality can compare to that. I think your assessment is a little on the harsh side, not knocking you just saying tough on scaling, of actually people living their lives. Granted no one on earth is 'epic', except for Chuck Norris:P , in the game sense of the word, especially since we not out slaughtering kobolds, slaying dragons and challenging gods, but what that really means is that we are not gaining experience as quickly as those 'people' would be. So Michael Jordan isn't double digit, but he grew up, trained, hard, graduated college, began his first career; which in sports is either an individual or group efforts to overcome/challenge a goal and/or opposing entity. While sports aren't to the death they are challenges from which people learn from. You don't have to swing a sword or cast a spell to get 'experience'. Why would career military officer who may or may not have seen combat have more experience than someone like Jordan who faced opposition more often for a longer period of time the most career military ever did in any war in recent history. Not take away from any soldier but they not always at war or in combat, versus Jordan was on the court everyday for 10+ years facing opposition. Don't get me wrong surviving a firefight would certainly illicit by far more 'experience' than winning a basketball game, however winning that game so often for such an extended period of time is nothing to be ignored either. No one on earth. Ever. Not a single person on the history of our planet would have been 10th level. 20th is a laugh. Two or three. Depends on whether or not he's an officer, as military leaders tend to have one level on the rest of them. Take a look at D&D conventions. Drafted soldiers are first-level commoners. Career soldiers are first-level warriors. Career minor officers will be 2nd-4th warriors (depending on how prestigious the particular force is). The best of the best, the top leaders and commanders, at least those who didn't do massive amounts of adventuring first, are usually fighter/warriors around level 5-8, and they tend to be famous. Top US generals are probably around level 4, with levels of warrior and expert. Generally people are earning 'experience' daily, even in just doing their 9-5 jobs, debatable as to how much you get for watching a register, or manage a department of 10 people or whatever but it all be some form of experience. I think your judging high level (10+) as something superhuman, same as stats which D&D judges as starting human maximum, not as maximum attainable. Well, find a list of the most intelligent people ever known to the world. Probably the top 100 of those. The rest would be people of equal intelligence who were never in a position to make themselves known (i.e. a natural genius who was raised and died on a farm, etc). Honestly not sure if your say known as in famous or accomplishment, but it appears that you are equating fame/contribution with actually having a high score which I'd have to disagree with. I wouldn't say "everyone" per say, but if you go by statistics, that's the most likely situation. There could be a few people with a 15 or 16. OK but statisticly 18's could be on this board also, though in lower numbers of course. I seriously doubt it was the intention of the designers to have the resulting bell curve be a truly accurate model of stat ranges, which we can then apply to real-life to see what the stats mean. If that actually was their intent, then I guess it's just as broken as the silly D&D economy. But I doubt it. To a degree real-life is a dice roll in how person may turn out. The average person is 'average' with average scores, but not everyone is average. Okay, here's your mistake. You're rewriting what levels mean by using the same scale in our world. That is, you're saying that there's level 1 people in our world, and level 20 people in our world, and you're placing people where they'd fit on that scale. You can do that if you really want, but that's not helpful to this discussion. The OP was asking about what stats and such meant in the world of D&D. If you want to accurately translate things from real-life world to D&D land, then you have to use the same scale. Take Michael Jordan and put him in Faerun. Do you really think he'd still be level 11? I don't think Michael Jordan would survive the Sunless Citadel -- which any level 11 Expert in D&D could without blinking. That's for a group no one person would survive it. Granted I doubt he'd rate as much of a swordsman but as gifted athlete with a halfway decent head on his shoulders he would be without hope.
calvinNhobbes 10-12-06, 05:33 PM	Yes to the first (depending on how you quantify "handful"), no to the second. In general, D&D worlds are higher-power. People there can do things that real people can't do. D&D worlds are higher-power? That's your argument? Really? Prove it! I can do something no D&D person can do. It's called science. No, I don't. I just don't put real-life people at level 20. Ever. Ok, what about the aging effects in game? that still puts the maximum possible INT score of a level 1 NPC at 21, and level 8 is still 23. So I was actually wrong, the maximum human INT is 26! Every single year, MIT releases a top 10% of that graduating class into the world. That's a lot of people. No, actually it's not. It's about 100 people out of 6 billion. Statistically, in terms of the total number of people on earth, or even in the US? Of course not. But that's not the angle I was taking it from. Well given I can't read your mind, perhaps you should actually explain your angle from hence forth. Oi. The company I work for mostly employs PhDs, and I can't think of any of them that made a landmark discovery. Or any of my college professors. Unless you count the one that found a nifty fast way to calculate square roots in BASIC, which is hardly landmark. You putting MD/PhDs on a special level, I suppose? My college professors were nobel prize winners. I've worked with scientists and professors who have done interviews on national news and magazines because of the impact of their research on medicine and healthcare. These are world famous people in their field. I think my life is something you can't understand. The NIH does not just give away $500,000 fellowships to anyone who shows a sparkle of intellect. At any rate, it doesn't matter. Think yourself 18 Int if it makes you happy. I couldn't care less. We both know that's not true. ;)
Einvaldurinn_mikli 10-12-06, 05:42 PM	So, Solik and the rest that believe that 18 represents a superhuman level of ability, I am going to turn your logic around. According to you logic there is only a handful of people in the history of the world that have had a 3 in an ability score! Any person with a shred of common sense can see that this is not true. Where your reasoning goes wrong is making the ends of the spectrum i.e 18 and 3 so extreme when they really aren't. 18 is very good and represents the top level of raw untrained potential but with training this can rise a bit further. A 3 is crippling but still salvageble. That is someone with Strength 3 or Con 3 could live their lives. It would not be easy but it would be doable.
wrecan 10-12-06, 06:31 PM	And the rules for making money with Profession checks are in black and white, yet NPCs make different amounts of money for their work (see the section on coinage value). Time and time again, specific rules for doing one thing are NOT meant to be taken to mass scale and used to create statistics in D&D. Except that the rules for 3d6-ability generation are expressly for the use of generating NPCs. There's nothing wrong with it, except your gut aversion to it. but you haven't been able to articulate why we should share your aversion. there is absolutely nothing that assumes that D&D NPCs, even humans, follow the same statistical stat ranges as people in real life. Well, except the descriptions of humans as being equivalent to humans in real life. If you actually believe that Michael Jordan has the equivalent of more than four hit dice, given everything that's supposed to mean in terms of damage and spell immunities (even a level 5 commoner is immune to sleep), then, well, we can really stop this conversation now. I might as well be trying to explain to a blind man that the sky is blue. Oh, I can explain to a blind man why a sky is blue. It's just a matter of defining "blue" as a spectrum of light and then explaining how light is refracted in the atmosphere. The difference here is that you are utterly unabel to explain why Jordan should not be immune to cloudkill. There's nothign sacrosanct about the spell. If the aformentioned gnomish sage is immune to cloudkill (and he is), why not Michael Jordan? If you're trying to apply D&D rules to generate real-life people, then put those people in D&D situations. Except you assume that all 11th level characters are "heroes". But there are rules for 11th level commoners. Do you really think those guys are running around slaying minotaurs? No. The 11th level expert sage I described would get his can handed to him by any ogre, and yet is immune to cloudkill and is "legendary" according to the legend lore spell. That sage has a 50% chance of knowing the answer to "really tough questions" (DC 30) in his area of expertise. That's pretty much his claim to fame. And yet cloudkill has no effect on him! If he does have that many ranks, then he is purposefully not using them. You can measure a person's ranks by seeing the very best of their ability (rolling a 20), and giving them the minimum needed to reach that result. Given the amount of wealth he has amassed, I'd say he wisely maxed out ranks in the Profession skills and he seems to be using that just fine. Since he has skills in about ten other skills (some of which are probably cross-class even for an Expert), I think it's entirely feasible that he is 11th-14th level. Even without that, there's nothing that says that real-life people have achieved stat bonuses. People's abilities can improve over time. People work-out and train. They go to charm school. That can translate into Ability increases without translating into Skill increases. "Legendary people" in a world of dragons, fairies, dryads, raising the dead, and skeleton armies. You bring a person that can cast just ONE spell, ANY spell, in D&D, and put them in reality, and they're legendary. Your arguing the wrong direction. Yes, a spellcaster in this world is legendary. But my gnome sage can't fight dragons, fairies or dryads. Heck, he doesn't even have Knowledge of dragons! And yet he, too, is legendary. You keep thinking legendary is reserved for the heroes, but Legend Lore works on 11th level commoners and experts, too. Selective reading is a bad idea. I'm not the one doing the selective reading. He wants to know how to translate these stats into game terms by reference to real-world people You didn't even respond to my point. The OP referenced real-world people as a way to understand game abilities. Thus, real-world people are fair game as much as it may irk you. This is not an argument. Says the man who brags to using "cheap rebuttal". At any rate, it is an argument. You cited hp and HD and claimed Jordan doesn't have it. But you haven't explained why you think he doesn't have high hp and I explained why it is impossible to know if someone has high hp. A level 11 expert is, minimum, CR 5. And yet, the gnome I described would get totally pulverized by a CR4 gargoyle even though by the rules, he should be able to defeat the gargoyle more than 50% of the time. The expert has crappy AC, the same hp as the gargoyle, no weaponry to overcome the gargoyle's DR, and no spells. He spent his entire expected wealth on his library and tomes of books. Likewise, Michael Jordan. He has no combat-feats. his skills aren't helpful. He spent his wealth on cars and homes and Hanes underwear. A gargoyle would take him down in quickly. The books explain that EL and CR are not hard and fact rules and must be adjusted. Michael Jordan would far no better than the 11th level gnomish sage, but he sure wouldn't fare worse! In general, D&D worlds are higher-power. People there can do things that real people can't do. Thanks to their race or class. But we're talking about two Experts. Michael Jordan isn't a wizard (even though he owns the Wizards). He would be a Commoner or an Expert and they don't have remarkable powers. And yet, they can still be legendary and they can still walk through cloudkill at the right level. No, I don't. I just don't put real-life people at level 20. Ever. That's your perogative. But don't come around here expecting that your unfounded announcements are writ in stone.
Arganis 10-12-06, 06:40 PM	Surgery is not very difficult. I know. I've done it on numerous animals and assisted in the OR on humans. It's like a combination of butcher and seamstress. As long as everything goes according to plan of course. The trick is when something goes wrong. That is what separates a good surgeon from an average one. Again you seem to be missing my point. I agree with what you just said completely. What I am saying is, if you remembered next to nothing. Yes there is a basic level of "memorization" someone needs to have to for a given intelligence, like language and 1+1=2. Even animals can remember. I don't consider the ability to remember your own name a great sign of intelligence. Animals remember on a very basic level, and they intuit on a fairly low level too. What would a person be like if they remembered what an animal did but thought like a human? What if they remembered like a human but thought like an animal? This is all rhetorical, especially as the answers to these questions depend highly on the type of animal in question. Still, both these factors weigh in on how smart someone is. We're talking about the scale of intelligence here aren't we? What I am saying is humans have the ability to remember and the ability to intuit. There are people who can remember things just fine but follow the simple way of the animal when it comes to figuring things out. And there are people who wing it their whole life without learning a single useful fact. It's not that having one is "better" than the other. Unfortunately, the "intuitive" ones always seem to take the "memory" ones for granted. Someone is not more or less smart depending on how their mind works. They are merely suited for different things. Whether that is better or worse only depends on the paradigm. If you want to try and make some kind of sociological observation that the best paid individuals have no knowledge but all wits, and declare that being wittier is being better because money is your criteria, I suppose you could do that and get away with it.
Arganis 10-12-06, 06:41 PM	Most of us can also probably agree that Mr. Calvin has a negative charisma modifier from arrogance and trying to brag on D&D message boards ;) "I think my life is something you can't understand" is quite possibly the most elitist thing I've ever seen anyone say when actually being serious :p And we can also agree that Chuck Norris is to Epic what Epic is to level 1. He is the exception. Face it man, he has better stats than we do. It's right there written down. That's what our mommas get for point-buyin'.
Solik 10-12-06, 11:13 PM	Sorry, wrecan. Post got deleted for something very silly, so to repeat the important part: The crux of the disagreement comes down to interpretation of the rules at a maximum of a three point span. That's not really worth debating about. It's subjective, and the spin-off arguments that have resulted from those interpretations, after taking a step back to look at them on their own (Michael Jordon is immune to cloudkill! heh), are downright silly. So, we'll just agree to disagree on that interpretation and move on (I didn't read much of your most recent post in order to resist the temptation to reply to any of your arguments, especially any designed to make me look dumb, heh). Also deleted from the previous post and worth repeating is that we should agree that Chuck Norris is, in fact, epic. And I suppose that does indeed render my previous argument void :p
cog_and_taz 10-13-06, 04:40 AM	Guys, stop inflating your scores, give yourself an 8-11 range for stats, 12 if you're particularly good at it.
ArcTan 10-13-06, 07:51 AM	3 is the normal minimum for a human, Stephen Hawkings is not in the normal range. I'm not sure how to address that comparison without feeling really uncomfortable, so I won't. Stephen Hawking, or anyone else suffering from full-body paralysis, is more or less defined as Str 0. It's not exact -- Hawking, for instance, can still move enough to convey facial expressions and to operate the mechanism of his wheelchair and speech synthesizer device -- but these movements are so slight that Str 0 still makes sense. It's not really an offensive comparison -- I mean, in real life, Hawking is paralyzed, just like many people are paralyzed, and paralysis is a real-life condition that has an analogue in D&D. (In this case not the temporary condition Paralysis that wears off in a matter of rounds but a long-term condition that constitutes ability damage or drain.)
ArcTan 10-13-06, 07:55 AM	Personally, I'd put the esteemed Mr. Hawking's STR and DEX scores at 1 each. A being with a STR and/or DEX of 0 can't move under its own power at all; since Hawking can move his head and fingers (even if only a wee bit), he technically doesn't qualify for a 0. EDIT:After a closer reading of the precise wording of the text pertaining to carrying capacity, it appears that you're right, Feriin. 28, it is (23 could dead-lift 1,100 pounds, but not clean-and-jerk it like the guy you mentioned). However, I stand by my appraisal of Stephen Hawking's attributes. No, Hawking is pretty clearly a 0. (You can call him something like 0.01 if you like, but if you round to the nearest integer, he's a Str 0.) The table says a Str 1 character can lift 10 lbs. above his head. Stephen Hawking can't live *any* amount of weight about his head, much less 10 lbs. (He can pretty much apply maybe half an ounce of force, total, using what muscles he still has voluntary control over in his hands and his face.) That's a Str 0 -- no carrying capacity, cannot move any object any distance, etc. Remeber that 0 scores are approximations. They really mean a score that's very, very low, but still there, as opposed to the -- scores that mean that the concept doesn't exist for that creature. A creature that's truly mindless, inanimate or dead has Int --, but a creature that *is still alive* and *still capable of thought* but has been put into a coma-like state is Int 0. He may still have thoughts, very brief, fleeting ones, but nothing coherent enough to make up what even an Int 1 animal can think. Same logic here with Str. The only score for which this isn't true is Con, and that's because what Con itself represents is the state of being alive.
ArcTan 10-13-06, 08:01 AM	*shrug* If we use d20 Modern, which is designed to simulate characters in our world as opposed to in the fantasy D&D world, I have no problem statting myself up or most of my friends in a 25-point-buy, with no stat lower than 10. I don't see any particular benefit gained from assuming that every single PC in every single D&D game is a superhuman mutant beyond all mortal ken. It makes the game feel silly.
babysamurai 10-13-06, 08:18 AM	Sorry, double-post.
babysamurai 10-13-06, 08:22 AM	Maybe we should let this creepy, ego-massaging thread die?