PDA

View Full Version : Your Real Ability scores



NikolaTesla
2013-06-24, 07:20 PM
I can't possibly be the only one whose wondered what their ability scores in real life are, so here's a thread for bouncing around ideas for how to calculate ability scores in the 3.5/3.75 systems.

I'll set up a post for each ability score to put the best ideas into for easy access for everyone.

NikolaTesla
2013-06-24, 07:21 PM
How to calculate your Strength score:

NikolaTesla
2013-06-24, 07:22 PM
How to calculate your Dexterity score:

NikolaTesla
2013-06-24, 07:23 PM
How to calculate your Constitution score:

NikolaTesla
2013-06-24, 07:26 PM
How to calculate your Intelligence score:

This one can be pretty straight forward, using IQ scores.

An IQ of 100, which is average, is equal to an Intelligence score of 10, which is also average.

An IQ of 140 is commonly accepted as genius level, as is an Intelligence score of 18.

Thus, if we use 100 as our base line, the for every 5 points of IQ you have, your intelligence increases by 1.

[OP idea, still open to discussion]

NikolaTesla
2013-06-24, 07:27 PM
How to calculate your Wisdom score:

NikolaTesla
2013-06-24, 07:28 PM
How to calculate your Charisma score:

Mr. Mask
2013-06-24, 07:43 PM
Well... goes to show that even if your DnD style INT is high, you don't feel (and probably aren't) particularly bright. That is, referring to myself.

Any plans to give us a method for calculating our BaB?

valadil
2013-06-24, 07:50 PM
So here's one idea for how this could work. Ability scores represent a lot of different things. Charisma is your appearance, your ability to influence people, musical talent, sense of humor, etc. The way I look at it is that your ability bonus is basically just counting which of these traits you possess. Someone who is physically durable and can hold their liquor has +2 for their con score. But if they're prone to illness, that -1 brings them down to a +1.

I find choosing a trait for each of those pluses is a lot easier that coming up with a numeric scale for something that may not represent the stat all that well.

TheStranger
2013-06-24, 07:52 PM
Suggestion: do it by percentile, rather than straight scaling. If we're assuming D&D ability scores have any meaning, let's go all out and assume that all normal humans roll 3d6 in order to get their scores. That lets us determine how rare specific ability scores are. For instance, 1 in 216 people will have an 18 in any given ability score. That puts that person around the 99.5th percentile. Conclusion: if you're stronger/quicker/smarter than 99.5% of the population, you can give yourself an 18 in that ability score.

So, step one: somebody more sober than I am should figure out the percentiles for each ability score.

Step two (the hard one): Come up with some measurable achievement for each ability score. For instance IQ probably works for intelligence. Strength might be bench press, or squat, or deadlift, or some combination. The important thing here is that it's a straight ability check - there's no skill involved, so skill ranks and feats can't screw things up.

Step 3: ??????

Step 4: Profit.

Kornaki
2013-06-24, 08:15 PM
What's your IQ? Almost nobody knows, except for the people who take internet IQ tests and get a score of 150 :smallsigh:. So they'll just put what they think they should have. How much can you bench press? Again, most people don't know this, so they'll just put down something that corresponds with how strong they imagine they are. This results in everyone finding out what score they think they have, not what score they actually have.

If you want to administer a useful test, it should be something that people can do in the comfort of their own home. Dexterity test: spin a quarter on its end. How long were you able to make it spin for? Constitution/strength test (hard to say which one): do a plank for as long as you are able to (problem - how do you know they did it correctly? Most people have terrible technique, but this is a problem with most exercises).

Wisdom test: flash pictures with various colored circles , they have to click the one of a specified color. Do it ten times to calculate their score (based on spot)

Make it a 30 minute test, 5 minutes of stuff for each ability score (and you can do each one at a separate time) and you might have something which is actually new and interesting

valadil
2013-06-24, 08:34 PM
Step two (the hard one): Come up with some measurable achievement for each ability score. For instance IQ probably works for intelligence. Strength might be bench press, or squat, or deadlift, or some combination. The important thing here is that it's a straight ability check - there's no skill involved, so skill ranks and feats can't screw things up.


I would start with one of these: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/BenchStandards.html (not necessarily just using bench, that's an example). Base it on that. Elite is 18, Advanced is 16, Intermediate 14, Novice 12, and Untrained 10. You'd probably have to pick a weight to stick to (I'd aim high for this, since we're talking about peak strength, not strength relative to your weight) and maybe average it over a couple different lifts.

This method puts me at a 15 str for bench and deadlift, 14 for overhead press, and 12 for squat. Average that out to a 14 and I'm relatively happy with that. I lift 4 days a week, but I'm not particularly athletic or on steroids.

Jay R
2013-06-24, 11:11 PM
In an early issue of The Dragon or The Strategic Review, there was an article on doing this. The only one I remember is Wisdom.

Your Wisdom score was defined as 20 minus the number of hours a week you spend playing, reading, or thinking about D&D.

(When the article came out, my Wisdom score came in at about negative ten, as I recall.)

Brother Oni
2013-06-25, 03:01 AM
There was a thread on this a while ago on Media Discussions that might be of use - digging through the archive gives me this: link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-269509.html).

I remember doing a far bit of number crunching and for INT at least, doing it by percentiles doesn't really work out. Doing a straight IQ/10 = INT score seems to be more reflective of real life.

Mastikator
2013-06-25, 04:16 AM
You can calculate your Strength with the carrying capacity.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm#weight

Very straightforward.

Can't think of any way to measure Dexterity precisely.

Can't think of any way to measure Constitution precisely.

Intelligence can precisely be measured by how many languages you speak (not counting languages you've gone out of your way to learn in adult life). For each language above 1 you have 2 more int above 10. For instance, I am bilingual so 12 or 13.
IQ is a bad way to measure intelligence, IQ tests only test a limited part of your logic, not your ability to learn. High intelligence in D&D = lots of knowledge, you need to take education into account.

Wisdom is barely even clearly defined, charisma even less so. Both of these tie into mysticism which strictly can't be measured.

Brother Oni
2013-06-25, 04:53 AM
Intelligence can precisely be measured by how many languages you speak (not counting languages you've gone out of your way to learn in adult life). For each language above 1 you have 2 more int above 10. For instance, I am bilingual so 12 or 13.

I don't think that's a very good measure as it doesn't allow for any INT score below 10.
Additionally, you haven't defined what fluency level counts as being able to speak a language and why the arbitrary cut-off limit of adulthood?

In the UK, schools typically teach two of three foreign languages - does that mean everybody has INT 14? I knew a pair of brothers who could speak Italian, Spanish, French and English fluently plus they were learning Japanese and I seriously doubt they were INT 18 (knowing one Romance language makes it surprisingly easy to pick up another).

I personally have varying fluency in about 6 languages/dialects - I am most certainly not 20 INT (I'm either 13 or 17 depending on whether you use the IQ/10 or population percentile method - I lean towards 13).

TuggyNE
2013-06-25, 05:29 AM
YIntelligence can precisely be measured by how many languages you speak (not counting languages you've gone out of your way to learn in adult life). For each language above 1 you have 2 more int above 10. For instance, I am bilingual so 12 or 13.

That has excellent rules support and absolutely no possible basis in reality.

People learn multiple languages when young if and only if they are around multiple languages in their home or similar; there is no connection to intelligence, as all but the most horrifically damaged children can learn any languages that are in use. Similarly, learning languages when an adult is less an exercise of intellect and more an exercise of patience and persistence. Speed of learning language as an adult might be connected to intelligence, or more likely to something a little different, but number known? No.

tensai_oni
2013-06-25, 06:48 AM
Any thread like this is bound to fail as communication breaks down, no one can agree on what stats actually mean or represent in real life, we have the "I am rather bright so I have 16 int and I rarely get sick so I have 18 con" people on one side and "I am an average human so I have 10s across the board, maybe 12 int because I have a PhD" on the other, and overall it's a recipe for a headache.

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

prufock
2013-06-25, 07:10 AM
Strength: Complete an overhead press and a dead lift at your one-rep maximum. Compare these maximums to the Carrying Capacity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm) table. For instance, my OP is around 120 (str 12) and my DL is around 350 (str 14). Averaging these results gives me a Strength score of 13.

Dexterity: Take some online reflex test that aggregates results and gives you a score compared to others. Use the standard deviation (if provided) to determine your score. Mine was average, so I'm a 10 dex.

Constitution: Hold your breath. Divide the seconds by 12, that is your "base" con score. If this is over 2:12, subtract 1 for every additional 12 seconds. Secondly, run at your maximum speed (around 12 mph for most humans) for as long as you can. Divide the seconds by 6. If it's over 1:06, subtract 1 for each additional 6 seconds. Take the average of these two scores.

My Con is 8 (held my breath a max of 96 s, ran max speed for 48 s).

Intelligence: NPC average is 10.5 with a standard deviation of 2.96, while IQ average is 100 with a sd of 15. An IQ of 115, then, should be about 13.46, 130 ("genius") would be 16.42, and 145 would be 19.38. Not a perfect measure, but you aren't far off with the +5 IQ = +1 Int.

I don't know my proper IQ; done online tests (154), but those almost certainly aren't valid. It should be higher than average, since I have a master's degree, but can't be above 11 because I only speak 1 language. Weird, but them's the rules. ALL smart people in D&D learn a second language.

Wisdom: Very difficult to quantify. You could get standard vision and hearing tests done, and compare your result to an average and sd. For example, I have slight tinnitus and I'm nearsighted (but a good sense of smell!) so my Wisdom is probably slightly below average. Let's say 9.

Charisma: Possibly the most difficult to quantify, since there isn't a base use in the rules to which it can be compared. At best, you might be able to judge charisma based on your number of sexual partners (lifetime average is around 6-8) or something, but that isn't an ideal measure. Plus, who's to say any of us have reached our lifetime maximum? Depending on your age and relationship situation you can probably estimate an adjustment. I'd place myself just on the high end of average, 11.

So there I am: Str 13, Dex 10, Con 8, Int 11, Wis 9, Cha 11. That's only 14 points, so I'm 1 shy of an NPC point buy of 15. The standard (non-elite) array would require me to change one of my 11s to a 12; maybe I should learn another language!

valadil
2013-06-25, 08:05 AM
Strength: Complete an overhead press and a dead lift at your one-rep maximum. Compare these maximums to the Carrying Capacity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm) table. For instance, my OP is around 120 (str 12) and my DL is around 350 (str 14). Averaging these results gives me a Strength score of 13.
langua


I get a 14 on this one too. I wonder if WotC consulted the same tables as I did in my earlier suggestion. I wasn't expecting consistency between those two emthods.

Mastikator
2013-06-25, 08:25 AM
That has excellent rules support and absolutely no possible basis in reality.
[snip].

So then there's no possible basis in reality. Because the IQ thing only covers a small portion of what intelligence covers.
Basically strength is the only thing you can measure, because you can measure how much someone can carry and compare to the carrying capacity chart. After that, stop.

Spiryt
2013-06-25, 08:40 AM
So then there's no possible basis in reality. Because the IQ thing only covers a small portion of what intelligence covers.
Basically strength is the only thing you can measure, because you can measure how much someone can carry and compare to the carrying capacity chart. After that, stop.

Save carrying capacity, Strength also governs attack rolls, damage, grapple checks, trip/bull rush etc. checks, with some rather arbitrary and imprecise things numbers like "+3".

All those things are not easy to measure, and while they're generally positively related with sheer free weights achievements, it's pretty weak correlation.

So D&D "Strength" isn't really very measurable either.

JustSomeGuy
2013-06-25, 08:55 AM
I get a 14 on this one too. I wonder if WotC consulted the same tables as I did in my earlier suggestion. I wasn't expecting consistency between those two emthods.

I've only played 2nd ed. is 40 reasonable? (Or is this more of an example of my intelligence score...)

EDIT: wrong column, 19. Put a 3 down for INT too!

prufock
2013-06-25, 09:01 AM
So then there's no possible basis in reality. Because the IQ thing only covers a small portion of what intelligence covers.
Basically strength is the only thing you can measure, because you can measure how much someone can carry and compare to the carrying capacity chart. After that, stop.

Constitution. You can hold your breath for 12 seconds per point of con, and run at top speed for 6 seconds per point of con. You get a DC 10 con check after you reach your max, so mathematically it's pretty easy to model. There's no skill for it or anything, it's a flat equivalency. The only modifier would be if someone has Endurance, but unless you're a professional diver, swimmer, or long-distance runner, you probably don't.

Kurald Galain
2013-06-25, 09:17 AM
I remember doing a far bit of number crunching and for INT at least, doing it by percentiles doesn't really work out. Doing a straight IQ/10 = INT score seems to be more reflective of real life.

No it isn't. IQ scores don't go up to 180.

Mensa is a society that admits only the top 2% smartest people. In D&D terms using a 3d6 spread, that means intelligence 17 or up. In IQ terms, that means 130 and up.

OverdrivePrime
2013-06-25, 09:40 AM
Ah, I love these threads. /dons NBC suit :smallsmile:


Charisma: Possibly the most difficult to quantify, since there isn't a base use in the rules to which it can be compared. At best, you might be able to judge charisma based on your number of sexual partners (lifetime average is around 6-8) or something, but that isn't an ideal measure. Plus, who's to say any of us have reached our lifetime maximum? Depending on your age and relationship situation you can probably estimate an adjustment. I'd place myself just on the high end of average, 11.

I know it's a hard one to quantify (though I'd say wisdom is trickier), but number of sexual partners is a terrible metric. That's a balance of skills (diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, use magic device) and lifestyle choice. Charisma and wisdom definitely factor in, but so do constitution, dexterity and strength. I got married at 24 and am unshakably loyal to my partner. Prior to dating my wife, I was in a 3-year relationship that looked like it was headed for marriage. Regardless of my charisma, I will definitely have fewer sexual partners than the brain-damaged meth-addicts who haunt some of my city's pool halls.

Anyway, as near as I can tell, this would be my character sheet (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=181293).

You may prefer my Pathfinder sheet (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=516246). Those numbers are honed from 6 years of "what would your real ability scores be?" threads on this forum. :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2013-06-25, 09:48 AM
Ah, I love these threads. /dons NBC suit :smallsmile:



I'm curious how you use magical devices to get partners :P

Serpentine
2013-06-25, 09:53 AM
Strength: Pretty weak, though I think I've got a decent back. Probably 8-9ish, I guess, maybe a little lower.
Dexterity: Hard to say. I'm extremely clumsy, but I also do some fairly fine, detailed work on things. I'll take a guess at 11, maybe 12.
Constitution: I think I'm reasonably tough. No allergies, I get sick sometimes but usually not as bad as the person who gave it to me, basically no broken bones, no serious illnesses, ate a lot of dirt as a child, drank the tap water in Bali and just felt a bit queasy a day later. 14 or so, maybe as high as 16 but that's probably pushing it.
Intelligence: I did pretty well in high school, got a double degree with a distinction average, I'm curious and fairly well-read. On the other hand, I think I've let my brain go pretty slack recently. I think my good education and reasonable most-other-things-Intelligence-related makes me 12-13ish, might've been more like 14-15ish a few years ago.
Wisdom: Abysmal. I've run into an open door before, walked straight past a snake no more than a couple of feet away from me, and asked if I should go see where a friend was when she was literally standing a metre or two in front of me. No more than 6, probably less.
Charisma: Ranges all over the place. I think I look awful to okay to pretty decent depending on mood and how prettied up I am, I'm reasonably well liked but incredibly tactless and tend to make a few enemies, outside this forum I'm pretty forgettable, I make friendly acquaintances pretty easily but not so good at the good friends bit, have a reasonably good grasp of social niceties but tend to get flustered when put on the spot... I think I'm gonna go with 12ish, but probably more likely just average.

OverdrivePrime
2013-06-25, 09:59 AM
I'm curious how you use magical devices to get partners :P

http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss42/Crypt19/Foghorn-Leghorn-Thats-a-joke-son-You-missed-it-Flew-right-by-ya.jpg:smallwink:

snoopy13a
2013-06-25, 10:54 AM
I love these threads.

Strength 16
Dexterity: 20
Constitution: 18
Intillgence, Intgeence, Entilligence, Um, "book smarts": 18
Wisdom: 18
Charisma: 18

The strength and dexterity scores are because I'm a hobbit.

Brother Oni
2013-06-25, 12:16 PM
No it isn't. IQ scores don't go up to 180.

Mensa is a society that admits only the top 2% smartest people. In D&D terms using a 3d6 spread, that means intelligence 17 or up. In IQ terms, that means 130 and up.

IQ apparently goes up to 220 as scored by Terence Tao (http://opishposh.com/10-people-with-the-highest-iq-ever-recorded/), but it depends on the test employed.

The problem with using such a spread is the loss of granularity at the extremes. Equating a 3d6 spread to a gaussian distribution of mean 100 and SD 15, 3 INT equates to <60 IQ and 18 INT to >138 IQ.

That means anybody with an IQ of 139 - 220 has INT 18, similarly anybody with an IQ of 20-60 has INT 3 (it gets complicated here as most low scores are due to disease states, thus they're not really a proper representation of a 3d6 spread).

If you're happy with that level of abstraction, then go for it.

prufock
2013-06-25, 12:45 PM
That means anybody with an IQ of 139 - 220 has INT 18, similarly anybody with an IQ of 20-60 has INT 3 (it gets complicated here as most low scores are due to disease states, thus they're not really a proper representation of a 3d6 spread).

Not quite. I'm not sure if it helps or not, but we do have the Pathetic flaw from Unearthed Arcana, which can drop a score by 2 (so it's possible to have a 1 or 2), and scores higher than 18 can be represented by having 4+ class levels, or levels in Human Paragon or something. While it does break down, it maybe doesn't break down as badly as you think.


I know it's a hard one to quantify (though I'd say wisdom is trickier), but number of sexual partners is a terrible metric. That's a balance of skills (diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, use magic device) and lifestyle choice. Charisma and wisdom definitely factor in, but so do constitution, dexterity and strength. I got married at 24 and am unshakably loyal to my partner. Prior to dating my wife, I was in a 3-year relationship that looked like it was headed for marriage. Regardless of my charisma, I will definitely have fewer sexual partners than the brain-damaged meth-addicts who haunt some of my city's pool halls.

I agree with your conclusion - it's a bad measure, and lifestyle choice plays a big role. However, your reasoning at the end here breaks down and doesn't seem relevant. It could simply be that some drug addicts have a higher charisma than you.

OverdrivePrime
2013-06-25, 12:49 PM
That means anybody with an IQ of 139 - 220 has INT 18, similarly anybody with an IQ of 20-60 has INT 3 (it gets complicated here as most low scores are due to disease states, thus they're not really a proper representation of a 3d6 spread).

Keep in mind that you can improve ability scores as you level up. A 20th level human (if you subscribe to such a thing) could have a Charisma of 23.

And then if you want to real-world it, don't forget about chemical augmentation. Even with our not-quite-Shadowrun-yet technology level, you can augment any of the attributes with chemistry (there are drugs to make your pheromones more effective, your thinking more clear, your blood more quick to clot, and steroids and pain suppressors have been around for decades). Most of these are a temporary bonus, but in not too long, it won't have to be.

KnightOfV
2013-06-25, 01:11 PM
Heh. I did one of these a while back. Here is the brutally honest me, Pathfinder Version
"Knight of V" Neutral Good-ish, Human, Level 2, Expert (English Teacher)

STR 10, About average, no weakling but I do not feel that I can expect to overpower any guy with muscle

DEX 8, Tendency to stumble, heavy footfalls, below average flexibility.

CON 13, Can run a 5k at a steady pace. Healthy, enjoy physical activities, and rarely get sick. Tolerate pain well

INT 14, Got through college with mostly B’s- All A’s in my field. Wide variety of knowledge. ‘tested’ as above average throughout school in some areas. Read books, literature, non-fiction, fiction, everything obsessively and am known to be a fast reader and good problem solver.

WIS 8, Bad Will save, especially vs. fear. Judgments are sometimes overly cautious, and I do have a bad sense of direction (low Survival skill), and one crappy perception check.

CHA 8 Wallflower, blend in with crowd rather than stand out. Uncomfortable leading. Social situations can make me anxious. Improvement here, but still very real difficulties in situations with new people.

Skills: put ranks in Craft: Writing, Linguistics, Knowledge: (Literature, Philosophy, Politics) Diplomacy, and Profession: Teacher. Spread points left over into other Knowledges and a single rank in Perform: Dance


Feats:
Skill focus for Profession: Teacher. Good performance reviews on my classes, and constantly complimented by peers and boss!

Iron Will I am living life for myself on my terms. I have overcome panic attacks and and general anxiety through my own willpower and am accomplishing things I once thought were impossible for me- such as teaching abroad in China.

No weapon or armor proficiencies, FLAW: Nearsighted (-4 to perception checks, but penalty is negated by my masterwork contact lenses :D)

Deepbluediver
2013-06-25, 01:30 PM
One of the hardest starting points for this kind of thing is figuring out what the "average" is, because almost everything else is relative to that. I liked the idea for calculating ability scores based on what percentile of the population you fit into; that seemed possibly workable.

The second issue is that the most common metric for measuring relative abilities is "Skill", and deciding what is natural talent and what is practice can be tricky. For example, I might be a total klutz, but if I practice gymnastics 3 hours a day for 10 years, I'll have sunk a lot of points into that and probably be at least decent at it.

I suspect that generating RL ability scores would be half science, and half art; being as objective as we can, and then guestimating the rest.
Each score will probably require multiple metrics for a good determination.


Constitution: How often you get sick and pain-tolerance would probably be the place to start with this one.

Strength: This is is probably the easiest; we get some data on how much weight people can move with various muscles. Find out your max Bench Press, Squat, plus how many sit-ups you can do (that's arms, legs, & Core) and average them.

Dexterity: More physical tests, relating to balance, flexibility, and reaction time. Coordination should also be important, because I wouldn't really associate good Dex with spastic behavior.

Intellect: It's important to seperate education from raw intelligence. You could probably test memory and how quickly some one learns new skills.

Wisdom: Observational skills, both in general, and in social situations. How good are you at picking up on subtle hints, unusual occurences, and Where's Waldo? type puzzles.

Charisma: Physical appearence is not a good measurement in my book, because it changes so much dependent on age, gender, and cultural norms. Leadership skills would probably be better. When you are having a converstaion, does everyone stop and listen to you? Do people defer to you in intense situations? etc etc etc.



Until we get some concrete date, I'd probably pick a range for most of my scores instead of specific numbers.

Average Con, slightly above average Str (mostly due to size), slightly below average Dex. High Intellect, low Wisdom, average Cha.

Con: 10-11
Str: 12-13
Dex: 7-9
Int: 14-16
Wis: 6
Cha: 10

SowZ
2013-06-25, 02:40 PM
Hmm. I'd go with something around;

1st Level Expert

Str: 9-10 (Used to be pretty fit. now I am not.)
Con: 7 (I'm a very sickly person.)
Dex: 10 (I can be pretty clumsy when I'm not paying attention but decently coordinated when I am. Probably average/low-average.0
Int: 13-15? (It's tough to say. I was voted 'biggest nerd' in high school and did well in speech and debate stuff. I scored in the top ten percent on the ACT. Of course, that is knowledge not just raw intelligence but D&D Int. seems to be more knowledge based than IQ Int. People typically say, "Hey, you're smart, right? Can you-" But I think what they mean is they know I spend my time researching things. I don't think they are saying I should try to cure cancer or be a rocket scientist. Anyways, based on my understanding of D&D Int the types of skills Int keys off of are what I think I would be good at in a D&D world. Was in the Honors classes in school if that means anything.)
Wis: 9 (Clumsy. Not very aware of my surroundings. Was pretty reckless as a teen and child.)
Cha: 10 (Average appearance. More outgoing than most so I make friends but certainly don't command most rooms.)

That's like an 11 point Point Buy. Average person is 12, so I think it is reasonable enough.

Skills: If I'm an expert, that is. My level of education would definitely put me as an expert by D&D standards, as would most of us I am sure.
Open Lock-1 [I've picked locks before]
Sleight of Hand-2 [Used to be an amateur magician in high school. Pretty good at gunslinging tricks]
History-1 [Research this more than an average commoner would]
Religion-1 [Same as above]
Perform(Act)-2 [Used to run competitive acting circuits and do theater. Some college education]
Perform(Dance)-1 [I know some ballroom dancing.]
Tumble-1 [High school parkour. Not very good, but picked up some things]
Climb-2 [I boulder sometimes. Used to spend a lot of time in rock gyms]
Balance-1 [bouldering, mostly. Or traversing mountains and such]
Jump-1 [Parkour days. Though I usually biffed pretty hard]
Profession(Writer)-3 [My college and hundreds of hours spent growing up]
Diplomacy-3 [Debating is possibly my best skill]
Sense Motive-2 [At least average, probably a bit more due to poker and telling when people are lying]
Lucid Dreaming-2 [Used to be waaay into this]
Craft (Woodworking)-3 [Was a carpenter for many years]
Craft (Leather)-1 [I can make leather armor and such.]
Survival-2 [Grew up in the woods and hunting a lot]
Handle Animal-1 [Had a looot of pets as a kid]
Profession(Gambler)-2 [Once one a 16 player poker game and 2 8 player poker games. One of my skills I'm actually pretty decent at as opposed to my skills I pick up the basics of and then do very mediocre at]

Feats:
Dodge (I'm pretty good at this. Used to play Belegarth for four years or so and I was pretty good at jumping aside.)
Iron Will? (Situations in my life have given my a pretty high pain tolerance. Would ignoring pain be Will or Fortitude?)

Eldan
2013-06-25, 02:49 PM
Hm. If I calculate it by how long I can hold my breath... after ten seconds I start feeling massively uncomfortable, including slightly woozy.
In fact, I'd say all my ability scores are noticeably below average, so maybe around a 7.

SimonMoon6
2013-06-25, 05:32 PM
I'd guess myself to be:

STR: 8. The typical weakling who gets no exercise.
DEX 12+. Good at video-games (once got to beat 50 people in a row at the arcade).
CON: 10. That may be generous.

INT: 18. When I was a kid, I was put in special classes for people with IQ's above 130. I later went on to get a Ph.D. in math.
WIS: 12. More observant than most friends.
CHA: 8 (though I've been putting my level up points into CHA, so it may be higher now)

NikolaTesla
2013-06-25, 11:23 PM
The percentile idea is a good one, though not as a total solution for all 6 scores. It makes a good baseline.

Something things to keep in mind:

1) Pathfinder/3.5 both assume you are at your best: physically fit, we'll trained, etc.

2) Modern people are generally larger than those of even a 100 years ago, making it so society's average strength and constitution likely higher than 10.

3) Education in our world is generally far superior to that of the DnD world, jumping up the average intelligence score a bit.

4) Strength is not all about how much you can lift (though that does provide a decent guideline). You put two guys of supposedly equal strength, but one of them has a background of farm work, the farmer will wipe the floor with the other guy.

5) Modern society is far more social than that of DnD, jumping up our average Charisma scores a bit. I have to say wisdom might be down a little though...

And finally, I say we leave allergies off of constitution: I have a number of allergies, but I know only a few people who get sick less often.

Jay R
2013-06-25, 11:50 PM
If, in an average group of 200 people, you're the one they all want to listen to, you have charisma 18.

If, in an average group of 50 people, you're the one they all want to listen to, you have charisma 17.

If, in an average group of 20 people, you're the one they all want to listen to, you have charisma 16.

If, in an average group of 11 people, you're the one they all want to listen to, you have charisma 15.

If, in an average group of 6 people, you're the one they all want to listen to, you have charisma 14.

If, in an average group of 4 people, you're the one they all want to listen to, you have charisma 13.

If, in an average group of 3 people, you're the one they all want to listen to, you have charisma 12.

If, in an average group of 2 people, you're the one they all want to listen to, you have charisma 11.

If, in an average group of 2 people, you're the one the other person doesn't listen to, you have charisma 10.

If, in an average group of 3 people, you're the one that nobody listens to, you have charisma 9.

If, in an average group of 4 people, you're the one that nobody listens to, you have charisma 8.

If, in an average group of 6 people, you're the one that nobody listens to, you have charisma 7.

If, in an average group of 11 people, you're the one that nobody listens to, you have charisma 6.

If, in an average group of 20 people, you're the one that nobody listens to, you have charisma 5.

If, in an average group of 50 people, you're the one that nobody listens to, you have charisma 4.

If, in an average group of 200 people, you're the one that nobody listens to, you have charisma 3.

[Typos noted by prufrok have been fixed.]

JustSomeGuy
2013-06-26, 04:20 AM
The percentile idea is a good one, though not as a total solution for all 6 scores. It makes a good baseline.

Something things to keep in mind:

1) Pathfinder/3.5 both assume you are at your best: physically fit, we'll trained, etc.

2) Modern people are generally larger than those of even a 100 years ago, making it so society's average strength and constitution likely higher than 10.

3) Education in our world is generally far superior to that of the DnD world, jumping up the average intelligence score a bit.

4) Strength is not all about how much you can lift (though that does provide a decent guideline). You put two guys of supposedly equal strength, but one of them has a background of farm work, the farmer will wipe the floor with the other guy.

5) Modern society is far more social than that of DnD, jumping up our average Charisma scores a bit. I have to say wisdom might be down a little though...

And finally, I say we leave allergies off of constitution: I have a number of allergies, but I know only a few people who get sick less often.

1) It should be assumed that all people pre 'modern' technological era are at or close to being fit, becasue they led active and demanding lifestyles. Modern humans are not, because of the 'advantages' of technology allowing us to avoid hard physical work, by and large, so we have adapted individually to the imposed physical demands and become progressively weaker and physically less robust as we continue to rely upon inventions to do our physical tasks.

2) I recall that people only grew smaller more recently in history, say 1800's or so onwards, and those preceeding were actually of comparative size, more or less. And the active lifestyles of those who lived way back when, as stated above, easily would negate and probably exceed any potential strength advantage of size.

4) I'm glad you agree! Although to be pedantic, strength (the physical ability, not the ability score) is al all about how much force you can produce against an external resistance, which mostly boils down to how much you can lift.

prufock
2013-06-26, 06:45 AM
If, in an average group of 200 people, you're the one they all want to listen to, you have charisma 18.

If, in an average group of 500 people, you're the one they all want to listen to, you have charisma 17.

If, in an average group of 20 people, you're the one they all want to listen to, you have charisma 18.

Why does the 17 seem more charismatic than the 18? And why do both the "200" and the "20" measures give you a result of 18? Seems out of scale and redundant, respectively.

TuggyNE
2013-06-26, 06:52 AM
Why does the 17 seem more charismatic than the 18? And why do both the "200" and the "20" measures give you a result of 18? Seems out of scale and redundant, respectively.

Typos, presumably; "50"/18, and 20/"16" respectively.

Ashtagon
2013-06-26, 08:24 AM
http://www.easydamus.com/character.html

I tried to answer this honestly...

You Are A:


Chaotic Neutral Human Wizard (6th Level)



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

Alignment:
Chaotic Neutral- A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal. However, chaotic neutral can be a dangerous alignment when it seeks to eliminate all authority, harmony, and order in society.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Class:
Wizards- Wizards are arcane spellcasters who depend on intensive study to create their magic. To wizards, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art. When they are prepared for battle, wizards can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, they are vulnerable. The wizard's strength is her spells, everything else is secondary. She learns new spells as she experiments and grows in experience, and she can also learn them from other wizards. In addition, over time a wizard learns to manipulate her spells so they go farther, work better, or are improved in some other way. A wizard can call a familiar- a small, magical, animal companion that serves her. With a high Intelligence, wizards are capable of casting very high levels of spells.

Detailed Results:

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXX (8)
Neutral - XXXXXXXX (8)
Chaos --- XXXXXXXXXX (10)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXX (7)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Evil ---- XXXX (4)

Race:
Human ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Dwarf ---- XXXX (4)
Elf ------ XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Gnome ---- XXXXXXXX (8)
Halfling - XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Half-Elf - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Half-Orc - XXXX (4)

Class:
Barbarian - (-2)
Bard ------ (-4)
Cleric ---- (-4)
Druid ----- XXXX (4)
Fighter --- (0)
Monk ------ (-21)
Paladin --- (-13)
Ranger ---- (-6)
Rogue ----- (-4)
Sorcerer -- XX (2)
Wizard ---- XXXXXX (6)

Kazyan
2013-06-26, 08:50 AM
I took the above test that can give you scores above 18 but nothing below 8, and I got INT 14, WIS 8, and the rest as 10s. Personally, I think the numbers look roughly like ths:

STR 8: Able-bodied guy, but not a lifter.
DEX 9: Maybe a rank in Balance, but I trip on nothing occasionally, hit my head on stuff, that kinda thing.
CON 11: For how out-of-shape I am, I'm much healthier than I should be.
INT 14: I've been getting dumber, but being the smart guy is sort of my thing, and was my identity for most of my childhood. Non-internet IQ tests gave me really high numbers, but I haven't taken one in forever.
WIS 4: I have a lot of "durr" moments, bad vision/perception, and am very weak-willed.
CHA 8: It's not that people don't like me, but I'm highly introverted and can be a bit abraisive. The rank in Perform (Comedy) helps.

Feats: Skill Focus (Use MagicTechnical Device), some sort of luck feat.

Kurald Galain
2013-06-26, 09:27 AM
Skills: If I'm an expert, that is. My level of education would definitely put me as an expert by D&D standards, as would most of us I am sure.
Yes, but I need at least five levels to get all the skill points I need. See, I don't think that having one skill point in anything means you'd be decent at it; I'd call that only barely better than a rank amateur (and the dice system confirms that). If you're actually good at something, I'd be talking at least 5 ranks, probably 8 - 10.

hamishspence
2013-06-26, 09:36 AM
Not quite. I'm not sure if it helps or not, but we do have the Pathetic flaw from Unearthed Arcana, which can drop a score by 2 (so it's possible to have a 1 or 2), and scores higher than 18 can be represented by having 4+ class levels, or levels in Human Paragon or something. While it does break down, it maybe doesn't break down as badly as you think.

Keep in mind that you can improve ability scores as you level up. A 20th level human (if you subscribe to such a thing) could have a Charisma of 23.

There's the Prodigy mini-template from DMG 2 (+2 bonus to a stat). Also there's aging bonuses.

A Venerable Prodigy with 3 levels in Paragon Human and 1 level in something else, with a rolled mental stat of 18, would have +1 from levelling, +2 from Human Paragon, +2 from Prodigy, and +3 from ageing- that's 26.

OverdrivePrime
2013-06-26, 09:49 AM
Yes, but I need at least five levels to get all the skill points I need. See, I don't think that having one skill point in anything means you'd be decent at it; I'd call that only barely better than a rank amateur (and the dice system confirms that). If you're actually good at something, I'd be talking at least 5 ranks, probably 8 - 10.

Exactly so. There's a huge difference in talent between someone who has learned the basics and can perform a task without wrecking things most of the time, and someone who's an actual leader in their field.

Take a 16 year old kid who's learned woodworking from his grandpa. The kid is going to know his way around the basic tools involved. He'll be able to build simple cabinets and framing, and will know the basics of how to finish wood.
Just that basic knowledge and training puts our Rank 1 craftsman head and shoulders above someone with no training, who is likely to ragequit a basic birdhouse project.
It's a big leap to go from that kid's rank 1 training to someone who can do the job professionally and competently. Someone with rank 4 training in carpentry can probably earn a living at it, (or Pathfinder - rank 1 plus class skill bonus) but still needs to carefully measure twice before cutting once, and isn't doing anything fancy.
Now compare that to a master craftsman who is a true artist who can make the wood do pretty much anything he wants, and is heralded as one of the best there is. They're almost unrecognizable as being from the same vocation. The master craftsman sees the impossible as a fun challenge, and projects that an entry-level professional is 75% likely to botch are almost too easy to undertake. A master of the craft easily has 10 skill ranks, probably more.

Kurald Galain
2013-06-26, 09:51 AM
Just that basic knowledge and training puts our Rank 1 craftsman head and shoulders above someone with no training, who is likely to ragequit a basic birdhouse project.

The point is that, from a rules perspective, a "rank 1" craftsman is absolutely not head and shoulders above anyone. He is only marginally, and not noticeably, better than a rank amateur who's never tried it before.

Eldan
2013-06-26, 10:39 AM
Depends on the skill. There are "trained only" skills and skills in which you can't roll above 10 with no ranks.

Jay R
2013-06-26, 11:10 AM
Why does the 17 seem more charismatic than the 18? And why do both the "200" and the "20" measures give you a result of 18? Seems out of scale and redundant, respectively.

Those were typos, that came out of trying to get it finished to quickly, at around midnight. I'll fix them.

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-26, 12:51 PM
IQ is a bad way to measure intelligence, IQ tests only test a limited part of your logic, not your ability to learn.


This comment shows you know paltry little of IQ and theory of general intellect.

It's been shown, time and again, that your success in a basic logic puzzle (black and white pattern recognition test) correlates strongly with almost all other mental faculties. This is why MENSA, for example, uses a standardized black and white IQ test. It's not 100% accurate assessment of someone's intelligence, but it is a very useful statistical predictor.

Among things IQ (derived from a pattern recognition test) correlates with, are education, literacy, nutrition, spatial awareness, verbal skill and memory. That is, pretty much all the same things Intelligence affects in D&D.

Ergo, testing shows that if you're a fast learner, chances are high you will also do well in a logic puzzle and get high IQ score. Saying "IQ is a bad measure because it only measures logic" is a strawman that ignores decades of study and interpretation of statistics derived from IQ and school testing. Besides, IQ tests commonly include verbal, memory and spatial reasoning puzzles as well. Researches of the theory of g have also worked to eliminate cultural bias from these tests. Theory of g remains as the strongest theory on human intellgence. Sure, it is flawed, but its competitors are even more so. For example, no other theory of intelligence has come up with a metric that doesn't still rely on IQ tests!

What's more, IQ is distributed on a bell curve. 3d6 roll also creates a bell curve. It's dead easy to match these two so that each Int score stands for a range of IQ scores.



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

Of course, that is all arrogance and self-conceit, and has nothing at all to do with subject matter or user base of these forums. :smalltongue:



The problem with using such a spread is the loss of granularity at the extremes. Equating a 3d6 spread to a gaussian distribution of mean 100 and SD 15, 3 INT equates to <60 IQ and 18 INT to >138 IQ.

That means anybody with an IQ of 139 - 220 has INT 18, similarly anybody with an IQ of 20-60 has INT 3 (it gets complicated here as most low scores are due to disease states, thus they're not really a proper representation of a 3d6 spread).

If you're happy with that level of abstraction, then go for it.

The loss of granularity is an illusion. Intelligence at D&D doesn't stop at 18, nor does it stop at 3. As both IQ and 3d6 roll are distributed along a bell curve, it's possible to use standard deviations to extrapolate what IQ score would correspond with, say, Intelligence 19.

Besides, IQ <60 and IQ >138 make up such a tiny portion of population that it doesn't really matter if they just get the "bottom" or "top" scores. Loss of granularity at the extreme ends of the spectrum is a problem with existing IQ tests too. :smallwink:


The point is that, from a rules perspective, a "rank 1" craftsman is absolutely not head and shoulders above anyone. He is only marginally, and not noticeably, better than a rank amateur who's never tried it before.

Actually, the mechanical difference between "amateur" and "good" is a +5 modifier, easily achievable at level 1. A person with +5 modifier will always get a 15 when "Taking 10", allowing for them to succeed in Tough (DC 15) tasks 100% of the time, while amateurs are forced to roll, and succeed only 45% of the time.

You know what they call a craftsman who spoils a billet half the time? Fired. Or unemployed. :smallwink:

As such, level 1 is sufficient to model people who've acquired their first vocation - people between 15 and 25 years of age, corresponding to starting ages of most D&D classes.

As skill check Difficulty classes go up in intervals of 5 (mostly), that is the difference between "tiers" of professionality.

Up to +4 is an amateur or unskilled labor. This is achievable without skill ranks, by ability modifier alone.
+5 to +9 is a beginning worker or skilled labor. This is achievable by level 1. By taking 10, this allows for 100 % success rate in Tough tasks.
+10 to +14 is an expert. This is achievable by level 3. By taking 10, this allows for 100 % success rate in Challenging tasks.
+15 to +19 is a master. This is achievable by level 5. By taking 10, this allows for 100 % success rate in Formidable tasks.
+20 is a phenomenal sonuvabitch. This is roughly achievable between levels 7 and 10. At this point, "Taking 10" allows for 100% success rate in Heroic tier skill checks.
+30 is a frelling superhero.

JustSomeGuy
2013-06-26, 01:18 PM
http://www.easydamus.com/character.html

I think we are destined to a knife fight atop a burning oil rig, i came out pretty much your polar opposite. When would be a good time to pencil this in?



You Are A:


Lawful Good Human Fighter/Sorcerer (3rd/2nd Level)


Ability Scores:
Strength- 16
Dexterity- 12
Constitution- 12
Intelligence- 14
Wisdom- 12
Charisma- 12

Alignment:
Lawful Good- A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. However, lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Primary Class:
Fighters- Fighters can be many things, from soldiers to criminal enforcers. Some see adventure as a way to get rich, while others use their skills to protect the innocent. Fighters have the best all-around fighting capabilities of the PC classes, and they are trained to use all standard weapons and armor. A fighter's rigorous martial training grants him many bonus feats as he progresses, and high-level fighters have access to special melee maneuvers and exotic weapons not available to any other character.

Secondary Class:
Sorcerers- Sorcerers are arcane spellcasters who manipulate magic energy with imagination and talent rather than studious discipline. They have no books, no mentors, no theories just raw power that they direct at will. Sorcerers know fewer spells than wizards do and acquire them more slowly, but they can cast individual spells more often and have no need to prepare their incantations ahead of time. Also unlike wizards, sorcerers cannot specialize in a school of magic. Since sorcerers gain their powers without undergoing the years of rigorous study that wizards go through, they have more time to learn fighting skills and are proficient with simple weapons. Charisma is very important for sorcerers; the higher their value in this ability, the higher the spell level they can cast.



Detailed Results:

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (23)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Neutral - XXXXXXX (7)
Chaos --- XXXXXXX (7)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Evil ---- XXX (3)

Race:
Human ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Dwarf ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Elf ------ XXXXXX (6)
Gnome ---- XX (2)
Halfling - (0)
Half-Elf - XXXXX (5)
Half-Orc - XXXXXXXXXX (10)

Class:
Barbarian - (-19)
Bard ------ (-27)
Cleric ---- (-6)
Druid ----- (-27)
Fighter --- XXXX (4)
Monk ------ XX (2)
Paladin --- XXXX (4)
Ranger ---- XXXX (4)
Rogue ----- (-2)
Sorcerer -- XXXX (4)
Wizard ---- (0)

Hecuba
2013-06-26, 01:37 PM
Mapping INT to IQ is problematic from a statistical standpoint.

Let us presume 3d6 generation

The probability of an INT score of 8 or below to the IQ indicative of general learning/cognitive disability maps well against the whole population of individuals with such disabilities.

It does not, however, map well against the population of all individuals.



The probability of an Int score of 12 or above maps fairly well against the whole population if we use ideal IQ test distributions (at least, as well as can be expected for mapping 3d6 to a population of billions), but test scores have inflated over time. Even in proper clinical settings, most tests no longer average to 100 without significant normalization (cf. Flynn effect).

As such, if we seek to use INT as an absolute measure (which is heavily preferable in the context of racial bonuses combined with the existence of immortal races and characters), we run into the issue of which score of 120 should equate to a 12.

Razanir
2013-06-26, 01:43 PM
From the test at easydamus:

Str 11
Dex 11
Con 12
Int 15
Wis 12
Cha 14

(It also gives me as a LG Wizard/Cleric)

---

That said, I feel like we could do a better job with Int. It's common knowledge that the mean of IQs, µ_IQ, is 100. Unfortunately, the standard deviation for the bell curve varies with the test. However, they tend to be around 15, so we'll set σ_IQ to 15.

Now the mean and standard deviation of ability scores also vary with your generation method. For simplicity, we'll calculate bell curves twice. Once for 3d6 and once for 4d6b3. anydice (http://anydice.com/program/1586)

3d6: µ = 10.5, σ = 2.96. First off, this means an IQ of 100 corresponds not to 10 Int, but to a hypothetical 10.5 Int. Second, if we round σ to 3, every 5 IQ points corresponds to a change of 1 Int. Using that correspondence, we find 10 Int, the usual baseline, to be at 97.5 IQ.

4d6b3: µ = 12.24, σ = 2.85. 2.85 is not quite as appropriate of a number to round, but IQ tests vary enough that I would be willing to use the same 5 IQ/1 Int. The difference is just in the center, where 100 IQ corresponds this time to 12.25 Int. Modify the numbers slightly to match up cleanly with D&D numbers, and you have 12 Int = 99 IQ, and 10 Int = 89 IQ. However, this generation strategy is intended for adventurers, which we are not.

So I suggest we choose 3d6 as our bell curve, both because it's intended for the masses and because it's closer to a bell curve. Fudging the numbers slightly, we find 10 Int = 97 IQ (calculated with σ_IQ = 14), and every 5 IQ points equals 1 point of Int.

{table=head]Int|Minimum IQ
3|62
4|67
5|72
6|77
7|82
8|87
9|92
10|97
11|102
12|107
13|112
14|117
15|122
16|127
17|132
18|137[/table]

A formula version would be:
Int(IQ) = floor(IQ/5 - 9.4), where floor(X) just means round down

---

Example:

Since 1994, Mensa has not considered the SAT and ACT viable IQ tests. However, I'll still use the approximation tables to get a number to work with. An ACT composite of 35 corresponds to about an SAT of 1580 (1600-point scale), which in turn corresponds to an IQ of 150. Plugging this into the formula, we get floor(150/5-9.4)=floor(30-9.4)=floor(20.6)=20

Ashtagon
2013-06-26, 02:50 PM
A formula version would be:
Int(IQ) = floor(IQ/5 - 9.4), where floor(X) just means round down


If we are going to plug IQ into a formula and relate it to Int, then please, use the right formulae. IQ is a standard deviation-based value, with a mean of 100 and one standard deviation set at 15 points. That makes 11 Int about 112 IQ, 18 Int about 144 IQ, and the numbers in-between on a curved line. It is NOT a linear relationship.

Razanir
2013-06-26, 03:20 PM
If we are going to plug IQ into a formula and relate it to Int, then please, use the right formulae. IQ is a standard deviation-based value, with a mean of 100 and one standard deviation set at 15 points. That makes 11 Int about 112 IQ, 18 Int about 144 IQ, and the numbers in-between on a curved line. It is NOT a linear relationship.

I'm not quite sure I follow. Here's my logic for why this should work:

IQ is a bell curve. It is designed this way. For simplicity's sake, we'll assume µ=100 and σ=15. This means an individual's z-score is (IQ-100)/15. This can then be plugged into the CDF for the Standard Normal Distribution to find a percentile.

http://i42.tinypic.com/ot3ct1.png

3d6 is approximately a bell curve, 4d6b3 is not, as evidenced by the following Q-Q plots, generated in R Studio. For non-statisticians here, we can assume something is normal is it follows an approximately straight line from the lower left to upper right. The 4d6b3 Q-Q plot deviates from the theoretical line too much for my trusting.

http://i43.tinypic.com/fntouw.png


> library('dice')
> getTotalProbs(3,6)
> rolls = rep(3:18, c(1,3,6,10,15,21,25,27,27,25,21,15,10,6,3,1))
> getTotalProbs(4,6,3)
> rolls2 = rep(3:18, c(1,4,10,21,38,62,91,122,148,167,172,160,131,94,54 ,21))
> par(mfrow=c(1,2))
> qqnorm(rolls, main="3d6")
> qqnorm(rolls2, main="4d6b3")

As a result, we should be free to approximate the distribution of D&D Int scores (assuming 3d6) as a normal distribution with µ=10.5, σ=2.96. This leads to z-scores of z=(Int-10.5)/2.96.

Equating percentiles, and therefore z-scores, we have (IQ-100)/15=(Int-10.5)/2.96. Simplifying and rounding down, this results in my approximation of Int(IQ) = 1/5 * IQ - 9.4

Ashtagon
2013-06-26, 03:30 PM
They are both non-linear functions, but they aren't teh same non-linear functions.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14714969&postcount=196

That has the calculation you seek.

Razanir
2013-06-26, 03:37 PM
They are both non-linear functions, but they aren't teh same non-linear functions.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14714969&postcount=196

That has the calculation you seek.

I'm not exactly sure I follow. Using 10.5 as the center and 2.96 for the standard deviation, µ+3σ (145 IQ) equals about 19 Int, which follows my math better. Alternatively, 15 Int corresponds to about 123 IQ, just outside your given range of 114-121.

Out of question, how was your math done?

Ashtagon
2013-06-26, 03:45 PM
I'm not exactly sure I follow. Using 10.5 as the center and 2.96 for the standard deviation, µ+3σ (145 IQ) equals about 19 Int, which follows my math better. Alternatively, 15 Int corresponds to about 123 IQ, just outside your given range of 114-121.

Out of question, how was your math done?

For a 3d6 dice roll, 10.5 is indeed the mid-point. But 3d6, while certainly a bell curve, is not a standard deviation curve, so the numbers will work out differently. That's why you can't simply declare 2.96 (or some other value) to be a standard deviation on 3d6; the curve shapes are different.

When I did my maths, I calculated what percentage would have value X or higher on 3d6, and calculated the IQ scored needed to have that same position on a standard deviation curve. In essence, I went back to first principles.

SowZ
2013-06-26, 03:49 PM
This comment shows you know paltry little of IQ and theory of general intellect.

It's been shown, time and again, that your success in a basic logic puzzle (black and white pattern recognition test) correlates strongly with almost all other mental faculties. This is why MENSA, for example, uses a standardized black and white IQ test. It's not 100% accurate assessment of someone's intelligence, but it is a very useful statistical predictor.

Among things IQ (derived from a pattern recognition test) correlates with, are education, literacy, nutrition, spatial awareness, verbal skill and memory. That is, pretty much all the same things Intelligence affects in D&D.

Ergo, testing shows that if you're a fast learner, chances are high you will also do well in a logic puzzle and get high IQ score. Saying "IQ is a bad measure because it only measures logic" is a strawman that ignores decades of study and interpretation of statistics derived from IQ and school testing. Besides, IQ tests commonly include verbal, memory and spatial reasoning puzzles as well. Researches of the theory of g have also worked to eliminate cultural bias from these tests. Theory of g remains as the strongest theory on human intellgence. Sure, it is flawed, but its competitors are even more so. For example, no other theory of intelligence has come up with a metric that doesn't still rely on IQ tests!

What's more, IQ is distributed on a bell curve. 3d6 roll also creates a bell curve. It's dead easy to match these two so that each Int score stands for a range of IQ scores.



Of course, that is all arrogance and self-conceit, and has nothing at all to do with subject matter or user base of these forums. :smalltongue:



The loss of granularity is an illusion. Intelligence at D&D doesn't stop at 18, nor does it stop at 3. As both IQ and 3d6 roll are distributed along a bell curve, it's possible to use standard deviations to extrapolate what IQ score would correspond with, say, Intelligence 19.

Besides, IQ <60 and IQ >138 make up such a tiny portion of population that it doesn't really matter if they just get the "bottom" or "top" scores. Loss of granularity at the extreme ends of the spectrum is a problem with existing IQ tests too. :smallwink:



Actually, the mechanical difference between "amateur" and "good" is a +5 modifier, easily achievable at level 1. A person with +5 modifier will always get a 15 when "Taking 10", allowing for them to succeed in Tough (DC 15) tasks 100% of the time, while amateurs are forced to roll, and succeed only 45% of the time.

You know what they call a craftsman who spoils a billet half the time? Fired. Or unemployed. :smallwink:

As such, level 1 is sufficient to model people who've acquired their first vocation - people between 15 and 25 years of age, corresponding to starting ages of most D&D classes.

As skill check Difficulty classes go up in intervals of 5 (mostly), that is the difference between "tiers" of professionality.

Up to +4 is an amateur or unskilled labor. This is achievable without skill ranks, by ability modifier alone.
+5 to +9 is a beginning worker or skilled labor. This is achievable by level 1. By taking 10, this allows for 100 % success rate in Tough tasks.
+10 to +14 is an expert. This is achievable by level 3. By taking 10, this allows for 100 % success rate in Challenging tasks.
+15 to +19 is a master. This is achievable by level 5. By taking 10, this allows for 100 % success rate in Formidable tasks.
+20 is a phenomenal sonuvabitch. This is roughly achievable between levels 7 and 10. At this point, "Taking 10" allows for 100% success rate in Heroic tier skill checks.
+30 is a frelling superhero.

Even still, while high IQ might correlate towards types of intelligence across the board, it doesn't actually measure all types of intelligence. At most, high IQ increases the odds of being good at any given type of intelligence. But that doesn't mean it measures all of them.

At least not as well as it does logic. Someone can have a lower IQ then someone else and still dance circles around them in a debate because of high verbal intelligence. Or perhaps the lower IQ person might not be capable of thinking as deeply but is quick witted so can think quicker.

Not to mention emotional intelligence. Understanding, predicting, and picking up on other people's emotions is as valid a type of intelligence as any other. Then there is musical or artistic intelligence. Again, genius in these crafts may be more likely to have a high IQ but it isn't necessary.

Some people don't have high IQ, (though the likely have at least average or slightly above,) but have incredible retain-age of information. They can remember things very well and absorb data quickly enough that they need not study for tests and can master skills very quickly.

IQ is still a limited intelligence quotient. The test itself is mostly about pattern recognition. So it is fitting that the test may recognize intelligence patterns among large groups of people but doesn't do quite so well at measuring the various types of intelligence for a specific person who takes it.

Razanir
2013-06-26, 03:53 PM
For a 3d6 dice roll, 10.5 is indeed the mid-point. But 3d6, while certainly a bell curve, is not a standard deviation curve, so the numbers will work out differently. That's why you can't simply declare 2.96 (or some other value) to be a standard deviation on 3d6; the curve shapes are different.

When I did my maths, I calculated what percentage would have value X or higher on 3d6, and calculated the IQ scored needed to have that same position on a standard deviation curve. In essence, I went back to first principles.

I understand now. It seems we both have sound logic and math, just different methodologies. You approached it by means of CDFs, comparing the exact probabilities. Meanwhile, I approximated 3d6 with a normal curve and compared the z-scores. Both are valid distributions for Int-IQ; it just depends on how you want to tackle it. Agree to disagree, I suppose

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-26, 04:07 PM
Even still, while high IQ might correlate towards types of intelligence across the board, it doesn't actually measure all types of intelligence.

Yes, but is it reasonable to ask a person to take multiple specialized tests to get an approximation for a game value?

No, it isn't. Hence, use IQ. It's easily tested and more than accurate enough for exercises like this.

Besides, Intelligence in D&D doesn't cover all cognitive functions anyway. Main function of Int is to give skillpoints, but class (re: education) can eclipse it in importance.

When it comes to "emotional intelligence", that is actually covered by Wis and Cha, two different mental stats entirely in D&D! So it doesn't matter at all if IQ fails to capture those qualities, because they are not included in D&D Intelligence either!

Kurald Galain
2013-06-26, 04:54 PM
Actually, the mechanical difference between "amateur" and "good" is a +5 modifier, easily achievable at level 1.

You're missing some context here. I said rank one, not level one - someone earlier in the thread was demonstrating he was good at numerous skills by putting a single rank in each; I was pointing out that a single rank doesn't mechanically make you good at a skill, that requires about five ranks.

Which, yes, is still achievable at level one; but last time I checked I do need five or six levels of Expert to get enough skill points for myself.

TuggyNE
2013-06-26, 05:13 PM
Even still, while high IQ might correlate towards types of intelligence across the board, it doesn't actually measure all types of intelligence. At most, high IQ increases the odds of being good at any given type of intelligence. But that doesn't mean it measures all of them.
[…]
Not to mention emotional intelligence. Understanding, predicting, and picking up on other people's emotions is as valid a type of intelligence as any other. Then there is musical or artistic intelligence. Again, genius in these crafts may be more likely to have a high IQ but it isn't necessary.

As Frozen_Feet said, D&D Int is an equally flawed and limited measure, and in approximately the same ways; emotional, musical, and artistic intelligence belong primarily to Cha (why do you think it's a mental stat?), and arguably memorization is more Wis (*coughAutohypnosiscough*).

Mastikator
2013-06-26, 05:52 PM
This comment shows you know paltry little of IQ and theory of general intellect.

It's been shown, time and again, that your success in a basic logic puzzle (black and white pattern recognition test) correlates strongly with almost all other mental faculties. This is why MENSA, for example, uses a standardized black and white IQ test. It's not 100% accurate assessment of someone's intelligence, but it is a very useful statistical predictor.[snip]

Nothing is a 100% accurate assessment of anything, ever. Meaningless statement.

Even MENSA doesn't think that being a member of MENSA proves that you're a genius, or that failure proves that you aren't.
http://pb.us.mensa.org/resources/questionofgenius.html

Thirdly, name one MENSA member with a Nobel prize in any science category.

TuggyNE
2013-06-26, 07:49 PM
Nothing is a 100% accurate assessment of anything, ever. Meaningless statement.

Then why did you claim it was horribly inaccurate and useless?


Thirdly, name one MENSA member with a Nobel prize in any science category.

Barbara McClintock, Physiology/Medicine 1983, genetic transposition. :smallwink:

Alejandro
2013-06-26, 09:05 PM
Strength: Pretty measurable with exercises and science.

Dexterity: Can you pick stuff up with your feet? Do you trip on your feet? Can you throw a ball and hit a target? Can you avoid being said target?

Constitution: What is your medical history? How often do you get sick enough to stay in bed? Do you have allergies? Do you get seasick? How much can you drink before you puke? Do you have any addictions? How horrible of a fart smell does it take to bother you?

Intelligence: How fast can you read? How well can you answer questions about what you read? What is the extent of your vocabulary? Do you say 'uh' a lot? Are you awesome or awful at trivia? Do you get mad at Jeopardy, or do you get mad at the Price is Right?

Wisdom: Do your friends ask you for advice, or do you ask them? Do you question what you are told, or just accept it? Have you been royally screwed by anyone in the past? Did you learn anything from it? Do you spend your money now, or save it? Do you wear a motorcycle helmet or a seat belt?

Charisma: How good are you at lying? Do you bathe regularly and wear something other than t-shirts? Can you get someone else to do something for you? Especially if it is something they don't want to do?

snoopy13a
2013-06-26, 09:36 PM
Thirdly, name one MENSA member with a Nobel prize in any science category.

I'd say the vast majority of Nobel prize-winners in a science category would qualify for MENSA. After all, in the U.S. alone, roughly 6 million people are eligible for MENSA. However, few people actually want to join MENSA. Few people take MENSA seriously for this reason.

How many Mayo Clinic physicians are MENSA members? How many Goldman Sachs analysts? How many attorneys at Sullivan and Cromwell? How many professors at Harvard or MIT? Probably very, very, very few. Yet, if you measured their intelligence, I bet 75%+ of these people are in the top 2% of intelligence.

TuggyNE
2013-06-26, 10:31 PM
I'd say the vast majority of Nobel prize-winners in a science category would qualify for MENSA. After all, in the U.S. alone, roughly 6 million people are eligible for MENSA. However, few people actually want to join MENSA. Few people take MENSA seriously for this reason.

Anecdotally, my mother mentioned that some years ago, she was measured as being eligible, but never really bothered joining since MENSA doesn't really do all that much. (Housewife, teacher, homeschooler, linguist/translator.)

Eric Tolle
2013-06-26, 11:56 PM
I had the opportunity to join Mensa, but then I listened to some Mensa members and decided I wanted nothing to do with them. They made the " Fans are Slans" people look like dedicated egalitarians.

Anyway, I think it's unfounded to assume that the general population "rolls" for stats on a 3D6 scale, even if PCs do, and it's a 3-18 range. 6D6/2 will give the same range, as will 9D6/3, but the frequencies will change. Also, I should point out that as of 3.0 that 3-18 scale doesn't apply, since even starting characters can start off with a 20 in a stat.

Mastikator
2013-06-27, 12:44 AM
Then why did you claim it was horribly inaccurate and useless?

Because IQ is more close to 33% accurate assessment than 100% for what D&D describes Intelligence as. Should also be noted that what academia describes intelligence, what the layman describes intelligence, what MENSA describes intelligence and what D&D describe intelligence are all significantly different. None would describe it as intelligent to put an = sign between them.

TuggyNE
2013-06-27, 02:50 AM
Because IQ is more close to 33% accurate assessment than 100% for what D&D describes Intelligence as. Should also be noted that what academia describes intelligence, what the layman describes intelligence, what MENSA describes intelligence and what D&D describe intelligence are all significantly different.

Explain? Your incorrect grammar is not doing you any favors here.

Brother Oni
2013-06-27, 06:18 AM
Food for thought: given the lowest recorded IQ scores are ~20 for individuals with lissencephaly and INT 1 is the lowest you can get without being an catatonic drooling vegetable, would this be a reasonable floor for an IQ=INT conversion?

TuggyNE
2013-06-27, 06:22 AM
Food for thought: given the lowest recorded IQ scores are ~20 for individuals with lissencephaly and INT 1 is the lowest you can get without being an catatonic drooling vegetable, would this be a reasonable floor for an IQ=INT conversion?

Ehhhh, I don't think D&D Int at the low end is very well defined or linear; below 3 gets into special case territory.

Razanir
2013-06-27, 09:35 AM
Anyway, I think it's unfounded to assume that the general population "rolls" for stats on a 3D6 scale, even if PCs do, and it's a 3-18 range. 6D6/2 will give the same range, as will 9D6/3, but the frequencies will change. Also, I should point out that as of 3.0 that 3-18 scale doesn't apply, since even starting characters can start off with a 20 in a stat.

3d6 is the original stat generation method from AD&D. 4d6b3 and 2d6+6 are even described as generating above-average characters. This would have to be compared to something, and I think 3d6 is a reasonable baseline to assume.

And assuming this, AND taking into concern the +2 people get to one score (going with PF rules), my distribution seems better than Ashtagon's. Mine allots for that (as evidenced by me scoring 20 Int), and accounts for higher Int as well

Emmerask
2013-06-27, 09:53 AM
The problem with IQ tests is that they are not standardized...even those you get at schools can vary widely, and that is not even going into the whole other aspects of why iq tests dont measure intelligence but a very specific part of intelligence.

Then on top of that we add d&d intelligence and that everyone has his/her own definition of the baseline, what constitutes the avg and what the conversion rate is.

So we have something that is unreliable at best and then try to convert it to something where everyone has his own definition.
The result is complete and utter rubbish you might as well write
Intelligence: blue minivan potato

This has as much relevance as any number :smallwink:

OverdrivePrime
2013-06-27, 10:09 AM
So, I definitely applaud your efforts to try to put stable footing under the Intelligence attribute. I think we all agree that Strength is easy enough, and Constitution is relatively measurable.
Con 1 - you can stay awake without getting winded, some of the time. You're probably very ill most of the time, and you're likely to explode on impact with anything harder than raw cookie dough.
Con 10 - You're about as tough, hearty, enduring and healthy as the national average. You take an average number of sick days, and do your best to avoid pain. You get winded after running a mile.
Con 20 - You don't get sick. Ever. You have incredible pain tolerance. You get winded after running back-to-back marathons.
Con 30 - You cure cancer by doing crunches. Pain avoids you. The Standard Model does not support you getting winded.
Dexterity is harder because most of the ways it can be tested are actually learned skills that can be improved independently. Still, I think it it can be measured with reasonable certainty.
Those of you with an interest in intelligence testing and math have laid out a couple pretty good measures for Intelligence.
That brings us back to the really hard ones - Wisdom and Charisma.

Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition.The problem there is that all of those are learned traits, and again, often are improved independently of one another. How do we separate that out?
And Charisma seems almost hopelessly culture-based. Someone who Americans find to be tremendously persuasive might be seen as a boorish jerk in other cultures. And someone seen as dangerously beautiful in Saudi Arabia might be seen as handsome, but not unusually so in Orange County.

To paraphrase the president, "This is really hard stuff."

Incanur
2013-06-27, 10:15 AM
Maybe something like this:

Str 8
Dex 10
Con 11
Int 11-16?
Wis 11
Cha 11

Based on bonus languages, my Int is below 12. :smallfrown: Based on standardized tests, it's probably 14-16.

Edenbeast
2013-06-27, 10:26 AM
I think we are destined to a knife fight atop a burning oil rig, i came out pretty much your polar opposite. When would be a good time to pencil this in?

I've done the easydamus test as well, and wondered about the system behind it. How are the points distributed amongst the answers? This was me (I guess we could work along pretty well, but not with the CN guy though :P):

You Are A:

Neutral Good Human Druid (4th Level)


Ability Scores:
Strength- 13
Dexterity- 16
Constitution- 16
Intelligence- 14
Wisdom- 14
Charisma- 10

Alignment:
Neutral Good- A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. However, neutral good can be a dangerous alignment when it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Class:
Druids- Druids gain power not by ruling nature but by being at one with it. They hate the unnatural, including aberrations or undead, and destroy them where possible. Druids receive divine spells from nature, not the gods, and can gain an array of powers as they gain experience, including the ability to take the shapes of animals. The weapons and armor of a druid are restricted by their traditional oaths, not simply training. A druid's Wisdom score should be high, as this determines the maximum spell level that they can cast.

Detailed Results:

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXX (6)
Neutral - XXXXXXX (7)
Chaos --- XXXXX (5)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Neutral - XXXXXXXX (8)
Evil ---- XXXXX (5)

Race:
Human ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Dwarf ---- XXXXXXXX (8)
Elf ------ XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Gnome ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Halfling - XXXXXXXX (8)
Half-Elf - XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Half-Orc - XX (2)

Class:
Barbarian - (-6)
Bard ------ (0)
Cleric ---- (-6)
Druid ----- XXXXXXXX (8)
Fighter --- (0)
Monk ------ (-25)
Paladin --- (-23)
Ranger ---- XXXX (4)
Rogue ----- XX (2)
Sorcerer -- XXXX (4)
Wizard ---- (0)

Razanir
2013-06-27, 10:58 AM
Maybe something like this:

Str 8
Dex 10
Con 11
Int 11-16?
Wis 11
Cha 11

Based on bonus languages, my Int is below 12. :smallfrown: Based on standardized tests, it's probably 14-16.

My Int:
Easydamus– 15
Bonus Languages– 16-17 (4 years of Chinese, a solid grasp of German, and teaching myself Latin)
ACT– 20 (The upper bound on my formula)

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-27, 11:17 AM
Nothing is a 100% accurate assessment of anything, ever. Meaningless statement.

Even MENSA doesn't think that being a member of MENSA proves that you're a genius, or that failure proves that you aren't.

You rather missed the point. IQ is still the best measure for Intelligence for exercises like this. I've read many, many threads like this, and for all criticism of the theory of g I've yet to see anyone suggest a coherent alternative measurement system.

Your latter sentence is way more meaningless as mine, as I've not claimed that either high Int or high IQ makes anyone a genius, let alone that being member of MENSA means that. It's simply a strawman argument.

Off the top of my head, only about 2% of people who theoretically are eligible for membership ever bother participating in MENSA testing, so asking me for Nobel Prize winners is another pointless strawman.

High Intelligence doesn't make anyone a genius in D&D either. A Commoner with Int 18 can be outdone by a level 1 Expert with Int 10. To be a "genius", one needs all of high ability scores, right character class, resources and luck. In real life, these correspond to genetics, education, wealth, nationality and random chance.

No-one is "genius" by intellect alone. There are a lot of high IQ / high Intelligence people who never achieve anything noteworthy. Pointing out this fact is not a good argument against either theory of general intelligence, or using IQ as stand-in for D&D intelligence.

EDIT:

The problem with IQ tests is that they are not standardized...

What decade are you living on? There are multiple standardized IQ tests that give more-or-less the same results between each other.

Besides, there is a rather simple solution. Make everyone do the same test, for example, Raven's Progressive Matrices.

SimonMoon6
2013-06-27, 11:38 AM
According to the easydamus test, I've got:

Strength- 10
Dexterity- 13
Constitution- 12
Intelligence- 19
Wisdom- 16
Charisma- 14

I think they totally overestimated my charisma. But I can live with the rest of those stats. Compare with my personal guesstimates:

I'd guess myself to be:

STR: 8. The typical weakling who gets no exercise.
DEX 12+. Good at video-games (once got to beat 50 people in a row at the arcade).
CON: 10. That may be generous.

INT: 18. When I was a kid, I was put in special classes for people with IQ's above 130. I later went on to get a Ph.D. in math.
WIS: 12. More observant than most friends.
CHA: 8 (though I've been putting my level up points into CHA, so it may be higher now)

And I'm apparently a Neutral Good Elf Wizard (5th Level).

Emmerask
2013-06-27, 11:42 AM
There are two possible ways,
Either make reasonable assumptions about your skills then calculate your modifier. Seeing the amount of knowledge one learns at school this number would be vastly inflated and we would need some conversion system.

The other reasonable thing is bonus languages. Sure there are a ton of intelligent people who are just not good at languages but its the only thing that actually has a basis in the rules other then fluff text.



What decade are you living on? There are multiple standardized IQ tests that give more-or-less the same results between each other.

Besides, there is a rather simple solution. Make everyone do the same test, for example, Raven's Progressive Matrices.

Broaden your horizon and realize there is more then one country in the world :smallwink:
Yes letting everyone take the same test would work (if we assume that IQ ~ Intelligence which is at least arguable) but that would not help with the current situation.

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-27, 12:00 PM
Broaden your horizon and realize there is more then one country in the world :smallwink:

Gee, this totally did not occur to me, a Finnish person, making my argument in English on an American forum. :smalltongue:

Emmerask
2013-06-27, 12:01 PM
Then I do not quite understand how you came to the conclusion that iq tests in the school systems are standardized across the world :smallwink:

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-27, 12:08 PM
That's not what I said. I said there are multiple standardized IQ tests. There also international standardized school tests that are held periodically for the exact purpose of comparing school systems of different countries to each other, such as PISA.

MENSA is also an international organization, and uses standardized testing. Frankly, if you have access to internet and have some pocket change lying about, very little stops you from seeing where the next testing will take place and going there.

Again: if you're worried about fidelity between tests, just make everyone do the same test.

Ashtagon
2013-06-27, 12:14 PM
My Int:
Easydamus– 15
Bonus Languages– 16-17 (4 years of Chinese, a solid grasp of German, and teaching myself Latin)
ACT– 20 (The upper bound on my formula)

I'm always cynical when someone with a high IQ tries to claim that IQ is a true measure of intelligence. And I say that as someone who scored 138 on a supervised IQ test a time long ago (Cattell III B (http://www.mensa.org.uk/iq-levels/)).

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-27, 12:21 PM
I'm always cynical when someone with a high IQ tries to claim that IQ is a true measure of intelligence.

But is that cynicism born out of actual gripes with the theory, or is it caused by people making a value judgment of "intelligent = good" and then using the theory to bolster their egos?

Emmerask
2013-06-27, 12:24 PM
I know about the pisa studies/tests.
In germany classes specifically learn for the test so that the overall score is significantly higher then it would be ^^ (ie the pisa test is not worth the paper its written on).

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

Also if we would accept IQ tests as an accurate measurement of intelligence... well african americans consistently score lower on avg then white americans... the conclusion of that is not something I would like to consider...

So I remain at the stance that IQ is a test for very specific knowledge and your socioeconomic status and only minimally reflects actual intelligence.

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-27, 12:39 PM
I know about the pisa studies/tests.
In germany classes specifically learn for the test so that the overall score is significantly higher then it would be ^^ (ie the pisa test is not worth the paper its written on).

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Emmerask
2013-06-27, 12:43 PM
If you count Intelligence as the ability to learn and not as the number of facts you have learned + ability to learn then yes the malnourished parasitic person could very well have more intelligence then the university professor.

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

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

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

Spiryt
2013-06-27, 12:59 PM
I think that the problem with those things is indeed some weird, dunno, intelligence fetish, or whatever.

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


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


Why exactly not? :smallconfused:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emmerask
2013-06-27, 01:03 PM
simplified:

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

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

Spiryt
2013-06-27, 01:10 PM
simplified:

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

IQ = the number of connections established (mostly)

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

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

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

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

Malfunctioned
2013-06-27, 01:14 PM
Let's see....

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

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-27, 01:49 PM
simplified:

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

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

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

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

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

Emmerask
2013-06-27, 02:19 PM
Also, reality check: someone who has learned a lot probably is a faster or better learner than someone who hasn't.


That is a completely and utterly baseless assumption.

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

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

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

Sorry but that is just naive to the extreme.

Spiryt
2013-06-27, 02:47 PM
That is a completely and utterly baseless assumption.

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

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

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

Sorry but that is just naive to the extreme.

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

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

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

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

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

Emmerask
2013-06-27, 02:52 PM
We just have different opinions about what constitutes intelligence, so I think we should leave it that :smallsmile:

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-06-27, 03:52 PM
In a few threads in the past, I've mentioned that I think the most difficult part of discerning one's "real" ability scores is the fact that it's actually pretty ambiguous what the mental scores are intended to represent. More specifically, there is a great deal of potential overlap and/or contradiction between the mental ability scores; moreover, certain ability score definitions in D&D arguably contradict experimental evidence about cognition and behavior, most prominently with regard to D&D Intelligence representing "reasoning." Thus, even were one to clearly delineate which ability scores represent what, in D&D, it would be difficult to find "real world" metrics for discerning our own ability scores, since the delineations one would make in D&D do not necessarily create sensible real-world definitions.

SimonMoon6
2013-06-27, 04:32 PM
In a few threads in the past, I've mentioned that I think the most difficult part of discerning one's "real" ability scores is the fact that it's actually pretty ambiguous what the mental scores are intended to represent. More specifically, there is a great deal of potential overlap and/or contradiction between the mental ability scores;

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Amidus Drexel
2013-06-27, 06:12 PM
Oh, these threads are fun. My own:

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

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

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

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

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-06-27, 07:00 PM
Intelligence/Charisma confusion is as bad as Intelligence/Wisdom confusion, in a lot of ways, since intelligence has nothing to do with verbal skills, by RAW; any metric of intelligence which relies on language production as well as language comprehension is testing charisma as much as intelligence. Of course, since comprehension is as arguably the domain of wisdom as it is intelligence, verbal skills in general may be outside the domain of intelligence. Oh, well, except learning foreign languages or deducing the meaning of exotic or archaic texts without any familiarity, both of which are related to intelligence.

NikolaTesla
2013-06-27, 09:20 PM
Despite the varied opinions on the legitimacy of IQ as a measure for intelligence, it is probably the best quantifiable test for it that is readily available (you can find decent ones on the web if you look for them).

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

Just for kicks:

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


Detailed Results:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-28, 07:28 AM
We just have different opinions about what constitutes intelligence, so I think we should leave it that :smallsmile:

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

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

prufock
2013-06-28, 08:04 AM
what academia describes intelligence, what the layman describes intelligence, what MENSA describes intelligence and what D&D describe intelligence are all significantly different
Nonsense. The only real difference is that D&D includes "spellcasting ability." IQ tests correlate with performance on other tests, level of education, how fast you learn, your store of knowledge, vocabulary, performance in your career, the type of career you have, the amount of money you make, etc. These are all things that "laymen" identify with intelligence, and also relate decently well to D&D rules - knowledge skills, more skill points, etc.


Then I do not quite understand how you came to the conclusion that iq tests in the school systems are standardized across the world
Each IQ test is standardized. Inter-test reliability is also high. If you do well on IQ Test #1, you are likely to do well on IQ Test #2. They are designed toward measuring the same thing, and thus correlate highly.

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


If you count Intelligence as the ability to learn and not as the number of facts you have learned
Then standardized tests where people are given the same amount of time to learn the material would correlate with IQ. Oh wait, they totally do! Kids with higher IQs retain more of what they are taught than kids with lower IQs.

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

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

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-28, 09:38 AM
But you can be sure of one thing: 95% posters will give themselves at least above average intelligence.

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

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

Anyways this was my result on easydamus.


I am A:

Neutral Good Human Wizard (2nd Level)

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

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


Neutral Good Human Commoner (1st Level)

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

Simple Weapon Proficiency: Club

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

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

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

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

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

hamishspence
2013-06-28, 09:56 AM
I've done the easydamus test as well, and wondered about the system behind it. How are the points distributed amongst the answers?

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

prufock
2013-06-28, 10:09 AM
Be be fair, most people can never understand d&d due to it's complexity, even those who are typically very bright/intelligent.
I wonder about this, to be honest. The system can be complex, but I wouldn't say it requires above average intelligence to grasp it. However the people who have a high degree of system mastery, and are interested in things like optimization may be. I think it would be interesting, for example, to see how the educational levels of people on this forum vs D&D players in general vs the population compares. IE, I gave myself an 11 Int because I have a masters degree, but not 12 because I don't have any bonus languages.


Wisdom- 14: Save for one two incidents I rarely end up making the same mistake twice. And never feel a need to explore and be curious to things like most teenagers due before learning that it's stupid. I just already know it's stupid and have no desire to test it only to confirm that fact.
The bold part has me confuzzled. Being curious and exploring is unwise? Curiosity is a hallmark of scientific inquiry. How do you know something is stupid without investigating (note that I would consider reading and asking people to be "exploring" as well), unless you're assuming your conclusions?

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-28, 10:18 AM
I wonder about this, to be honest. The system can be complex, but I wouldn't say it requires above average intelligence to grasp it. However the people who have a high degree of system mastery, and are interested in things like optimization may be. I think it would be interesting, for example, to see how the educational levels of people on this forum vs D&D players in general vs the population compares. IE, I gave myself an 11 Int because I have a masters degree, but not 12 because I don't have any bonus languages.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Spiryt
2013-06-28, 10:29 AM
I've ran into many people who understand many things very well like business, art, computers etc. They could handle say d&d 4th edition ok, but when it comes to stuff like 3.5 they get completely stumped and overloaded with all the rules.

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



Uh, sorry, is this serious?

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

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

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

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

prufock
2013-06-28, 10:46 AM
I mean stupid curiosity that is normally only found in young people or immature adult.
Ah, so you're using it as a sort of tolerance-of-risk analogue. IE "I wonder what lead paint tastes like? It might kill me, but I really need to know!"

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-28, 10:55 AM
Uh, sorry, is this serious?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Spiryt
2013-06-28, 11:01 AM
It does overwhelm some people with all the stuff to keep track of.
In one of my 3.5 groups for example we have a player whose been playing for over a year now but still doesn't understand how to level up.

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



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

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

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-28, 11:13 AM
Then he's not really interested enough in it to really care, and probably isn't really all that much into RPGs and all that imaginary numbers. :smallwink:

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

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

Shocking, I know.

Kurald Galain
2013-06-28, 11:15 AM
It's funny how people somehow think that it's bold or arrogant for a poster to claim he has above average intelligence. That's not a big deal: half the world's population has above average intelligence.

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

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

Spiryt
2013-06-28, 11:20 AM
Or *shocker* someone just happens to not be good at something that you are?

Shocking, I know.

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

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

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


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

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

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

So Int actually may be least likely stat to exaggerate. :smallbiggrin:

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-28, 11:33 AM
I'm not sure what you're getting at, to be honest, as it was precisely my point...

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

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

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

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

Spiryt
2013-06-28, 11:36 AM
You're arguing that those who aren't good at 3.5 or able to understand are simply not interested in it because it is 'Such easy math an 8 year old could understand'.

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

Yes.

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

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-28, 11:42 AM
Yes.

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

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

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

SimonMoon6
2013-06-28, 11:48 AM
It's funny how people somehow think that it's bold or arrogant for a poster to claim he has above average intelligence. That's not a big deal: half the world's population has above average intelligence.

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

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

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

Taet
2013-06-28, 11:59 AM
Nobody has the charisma to stop this discussion while holding on to what he argued. Nobody has the charisma to change someone else's mind.

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

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-28, 12:00 PM
Well, one has to be careful because of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

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

My way of countering that is two ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-28, 12:03 PM
Nobody has the charisma to stop this discussion while holding on to what he argued. Nobody has the charisma to change someone else's mind.

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

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

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

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

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

Kurald Galain
2013-06-28, 12:04 PM
Some people are good at computers, some are good at Scrabble and some are good at D&D.
And all of those correlate to having above average intelligence, yes.


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

Spiryt
2013-06-28, 12:12 PM
And all of those correlate to having above average intelligence, yes.

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

OverdrivePrime
2013-06-28, 12:17 PM
Why did d&d never make a trait to reflect people who are not are likely to like charismatic people just because they're charismatic?
Pathfinder might have a trait like that. I think in the real world we just call those people 'the unpopular high schoolers.' Disliking someone just because they're attractive and have well-developed social skills is a step beyond that though, and seems kind of petty.

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

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

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

We're a weird species. :smallwink:

Narren
2013-06-28, 12:26 PM
I wonder about this, to be honest. The system can be complex, but I wouldn't say it requires above average intelligence to grasp it. However the people who have a high degree of system mastery, and are interested in things like optimization may be. I think it would be interesting, for example, to see how the educational levels of people on this forum vs D&D players in general vs the population compares. IE, I gave myself an 11 Int because I have a masters degree, but not 12 because I don't have any bonus languages.


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

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

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

NikolaTesla
2013-06-28, 12:46 PM
I would have to disagree with the idea that higher learning means you have more intelligence. Higher education is more of a level gaining place, in my opinion, though every 4 levels you would increase a score.

Narren
2013-06-28, 01:10 PM
I would have to disagree with the idea that higher learning means you have more intelligence. Higher education is more of a level gaining place, in my opinion, though every 4 levels you would increase a score.

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

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

Jormengand
2013-06-28, 01:14 PM
Jormengand, CR 1/3 [Pathfinder]
Human Expert 1

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

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

BAB: 0
Feats: Run, Improved Initiative

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

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

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

hamishspence
2013-06-28, 01:15 PM
Maybe the mind is like a muscle- if you keep it exercised, it will consistently be able to do more.

Jay R
2013-06-28, 03:05 PM
I would have to disagree with the idea that higher learning means you have more intelligence. Higher education is more of a level gaining place, in my opinion, though every 4 levels you would increase a score.

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

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

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

Spiryt
2013-06-28, 03:16 PM
Similarly, successful lock-picking doesn't increase your Dexterity; but people with high Dexterity can do it better.


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

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

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

Jormengand
2013-06-28, 03:17 PM
Higher education doesn't increase your intelligence.

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

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

Kurald Galain
2013-06-28, 03:18 PM
Maybe the mind is like a muscle- if you keep it exercised, it will consistently be able to do more.

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

Taet
2013-06-28, 03:48 PM
This reminds me, why is no d&d trait that makes charismatic people less charismatic?

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

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

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

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

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-06-28, 04:07 PM
I wonder about this, to be honest. The system can be complex, but I wouldn't say it requires above average intelligence to grasp it. However the people who have a high degree of system mastery, and are interested in things like optimization may be. I think it would be interesting, for example, to see how the educational levels of people on this forum vs D&D players in general vs the population compares. IE, I gave myself an 11 Int because I have a masters degree, but not 12 because I don't have any bonus languages.

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


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

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

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

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

Razanir
2013-06-28, 05:56 PM
Can we get back to the IQ-Int debate?

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

Emmerask
2013-06-28, 06:06 PM
Because humans in d&d are restricted to these scores at the beginning and can only advance this score every 4 levels by 1.

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

Jormengand
2013-06-28, 06:10 PM
Because humans in d&d are restricted to these scores at the beginningUnless you're playing PF.

SowZ
2013-06-28, 06:58 PM
Even if we agree that IQ=Int, is there anyway to approximate, (with a larger degree of error, obviously,) with other, albeit more knowledge based standardized tests? What would the Int. approximation be based on ACTs or SATs?

Hecuba
2013-06-28, 08:36 PM
Can we get back to the IQ-Int debate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-28, 10:48 PM
Pathfinder might have a trait like that. I think in the real world we just call those people 'the unpopular high schoolers.' Disliking someone just because they're attractive and have well-developed social skills is a step beyond that though, and seems kind of petty.

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

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

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

We're a weird species. :smallwink:

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-06-29, 02:16 AM
I think the easiest solution is to think about why the person is popular if they aren't charismatic. Arguably, being well-liked regardless of having any likable or worthwhile traits is the essence of charisma; think about the Leadership feat in D&D. A cruel, aloof failure who's probably killed or caused the death of countless henchmen and a few sidekicks is rolling around with a penalty of at least five on his leadership score, meaning every follower he has is a testament to his charisma. Being a bad leader doesn't make him less charismatic any more than being unremarkable makes somebody less charismatic. Charisma is how someone enthralls a crowd with an unremarkable story about her unremarkable life.

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

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-29, 12:40 PM
I think the easiest solution is to think about why the person is popular if they aren't charismatic. Arguably, being well-liked regardless of having any likable or worthwhile traits is the essence of charisma; think about the Leadership feat in D&D. A cruel, aloof failure who's probably killed or caused the death of countless henchmen and a few sidekicks is rolling around with a penalty of at least five on his leadership score, meaning every follower he has is a testament to his charisma. Being a bad leader doesn't make him less charismatic any more than being unremarkable makes somebody less charismatic. Charisma is how someone enthralls a crowd with an unremarkable story about her unremarkable life.

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

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

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

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

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

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-29, 02:43 PM
I believe that education level correlates with intelligence in the same way. Higher education doesn't make you smarter (no more than any other life experience) but the smarter people will tend to gravitate towards it.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spiryt
2013-06-29, 02:55 PM
If you're small and weak, will you get to the school's wrestling team?

Well, there are weight classes in wrestling, you know. :smalltongue::smallwink:

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-06-29, 07:17 PM
However, there are some people like me who are easier convinced and more likely to like a person who is not depending on their charisma to get people to like them. Where people who just focus on their Charisma to get people to like them rubs me the wrong way. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person like this so I'm wondering why d&d has nothing to represent someone like this.

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

Ashtagon
2013-06-30, 01:26 AM
On the flipside, there is no "maximum" IQ for any task. You could find someone with IQ 121 as a school janitor, or someone with IQ 138 as a trashman. Underachieving is always possible, and vastly easier than overachieving.

Agree with everything except this sentence. Some U.S. police departments administer IQ tests on potential recruits, and reject applicants with very high IQs. Presumably this is on the basis that they would not be satisfied with the work and career paths available to a beat officer, and so the training costs would be wasted on them.

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-30, 02:21 AM
Huh? Hadn't heard that one before. That is a pretty odd selection criteria.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-30, 03:41 AM
Well, the DC of a diplomacy check depends on one's initial attitude, and diplomacy checks are modified, not controlled, by charisma; people with a lot of ranks in diplomacy aren't depending on their charisma, they've developed legitimate interpersonal skills which are supplemented by their natural charisma. Someone who is charismatic and charismatic alone won't even have a fifty percent chance of bringing someone up from indifferent to friendly and will have even worse odds of convincing even a friendly person to be actively helpful. Moreover, someone with no ranks in diplomacy, but a relatively high charisma score won't be as adept at convincing others to like them or help them as someone with no natural charisma who's invested a few skill points; a full investment at first level will equal the bonus from the highest possible charisma score, and the divide will only increase with levels, since someone's skill ranks can rise at four times the rate that her charisma score increases. Sure, someone who is charismatic and diplomatic will be higher than either, but eventually diplomacy alone will outshine charisma alone, even if diplomacy is invested in cross-class. So, as you said, someone who might be more socially effective early in "the game" due to a high charisma score will eventually be comparatively less successful in social encounters as skill ranks come to overshadow ability modifiers, mathematically.

This is true and you have a good point here.

Though I should note that in RL most people rarely get past level 1 or 2 in their lives.
But even then Diplomacy would > Charisma.

HuskyBoi
2013-06-30, 03:56 AM
Surely Strength is among the easiest to quantify (I mean, within the fairly abstract parameters DnD works on to begin with), since all you have to do is compare how much you can lift with the maximum carry capacity chart.

Grinner
2013-06-30, 04:09 AM
Huh? Hadn't heard that one before. That is a pretty odd selection criteria.

That actually sounds about right. One Ivy League graduate I read about actually had to appeal to get accepted into the NYPD.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-06-30, 12:15 PM
That actually sounds about right. One Ivy League graduate I read about actually had to appeal to get accepted into the NYPD.

I doubt getting into an Ivy League school has a particularly strong correlation with intelligence, since Princeton is a part of the Ivy League and all. [/hailbrunoniafairestmother]

SimonMoon6
2013-06-30, 12:29 PM
One of my gamer friends (who was the least intelligent member... or one of the least intelligent members... of our gaming group) became a cop, but was told that he was *almost* too smart to be a cop.

He later got fired (in the "you can quit or you can be fired so he quit" way) for being a terrible driver.

Emmerask
2013-06-30, 01:00 PM
The problem with hiring someone overly qualified or "too smart" is that there is a high chance of them getting bored and quitting or finding a better position somewhere else.
Couple that with quite high training costs and the longterm benefits for hiring a "dumber" person over the more intelligent one are enough to do so.

SowZ
2013-06-30, 07:35 PM
That actually sounds about right. One Ivy League graduate I read about actually had to appeal to get accepted into the NYPD.

Why would they do that? Presumably they want detectives as smart as possible and aren't most detectives promoted from beat cops?

prufock
2013-06-30, 11:31 PM
I think bonus languages from intelligence scores are as reliant on cultural background as they are on intelligence
Agreed, but as humans we have bonus languages: any; if we have none, it stands to reason that our intelligence score is 11 or lower by D&D rules.


D&D is a game that typically attracts people with strong imaginations and good analytical skills. The "geek" and "nerd" stereotypes are seen as intelligent for a reason...they typically are.
Is there any actual evidence of this, though, or is it just an assumption reinforcing the stereotype?

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-07-01, 12:21 AM
Agreed, but as humans we have bonus languages: any; if we have none, it stands to reason that our intelligence score is 11 or lower by D&D rules.

Well, in the vanilla rules, sure, but as I said later in the same paragraph, the rules of our "campaign setting" may be different. There is precedent for this in various campaign settings which not only change the automatic and bonus languages available to humans, but even grant different languages based upon a character's region of origin. I could see a similar rule for the humans of Real Life Earth, since the alternative really doesn't stand to reason.

Consider, for instance, that even amongst the humans who speak a wide variety of languages, virtually none of those languages are amongst those ostensibly possible for us to learn (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/speakLanguage.htm). Moreover, no humans in our world speak "Common," despite it being a language supposedly automatic to all humans (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/races.htm#humans), at least in the D&D rules. As a result, regardless of whether or not we accept the premise that language rules change from one campaign setting to another, we arrive at the same conclusion:

If we stick to the vanilla PHB rules on the subject, all Humans from all worlds speak Common, and those with high intelligence scores may select any language as one of their bonus languages. Since no-one on Earth speaks Common, we aren't actually Humans, because all Humans automatically speak Common. Thus, we are a separate creature and must have a separate set of rules that apply to us. Without seeing these rules, we cannot discern the bonus languages available to Non-Human Earth People, meaning we cannot determine a Non-Human Earth Person's intelligence score from the number of languages known to that Non-Human Earth Person.

If we accept that the rules determining automatic and bonus languages are different in our campaign setting, there is no longer a reason to assume all humans have "Bonus languages: Any," and therefore the number of languages known to a human from Real Life Earth is no longer a reliable means of determining his or her intelligence modifier.

SowZ
2013-07-01, 12:49 AM
Agreed, but as humans we have bonus languages: any; if we have none, it stands to reason that our intelligence score is 11 or lower by D&D rules.


Is there any actual evidence of this, though, or is it just an assumption reinforcing the stereotype?

You can't be overly technical with this exercise. Otherwise we all have Wisdom scores in the hundreds to enable us to see the moon.

TuggyNE
2013-07-01, 03:18 AM
You can't be overly technical with this exercise. Otherwise we all have Wisdom scores in the hundreds to enable us to see the moon.

Yeah; basically, ignore any of the rules that are clearly absurd and need houseruling, and stick to only the most basic and reasonable equivalencies. And unfortunately, D&D's handling of language, while indeed basic, is clearly absurd and not at all reasonable for our own world.

EriktheRed
2013-07-01, 04:30 AM
Recently had this discussion with my roommates, and concluded that my stats would be as follows:

ex-Paladin 1/Bard 1
-I grew up in the SCA, so I know how to wear armor, and how to properly wield most forms of medieval weaponry.
-Could just as readily be Fighter or Warrior 1/Bard 1, but I find ex-Paladin 1 more amusing, since I began my adult life preparing to enter Seminary, and then wound up discovering I was an Atheist along the way.
-Most gamers I know are at least Bard 1, because bardic knowledge is the easiest way to represent having large amounts of obscure knowledge, and storytelling is a perform check. I also spent a few years in choir.

Stats -
Strength 13, because I have Power Attack
Dexterity 8, because I have poor reflexes
Constitution 10 - I have a high pain tolerance but can't run very long. High pain tolerance can be from a d10 HD as much as from a high con though, so I figure I have an average con.
Intelligence - 13-15, because I have a better memory than most people I know, and read a lot of material others have problems wrapping their heads around.
Wisdom - 14-16, because I am pretty perceptive, strong-willed, and can reliably hit with ranged attacks in spite of sucking at every other aspect of Dexterity, leading me to the conclusion that I have Zen Archery and a decent Wisdom.
Charisma - 12-14, because people I talk to find me to be generally pleasant to be around until they really get to know me.

Deaxsa
2013-07-01, 10:06 AM
prospective tests

the problem with the physical ability scores is the very simple fact that there are different muscle groups. for instance, i could not do a plank for more than two minutes.. but i could run for a very, very long time straight. i can't lift very much with my arms, but should i get my legs involved, that thing is going up. additionally, i get sick about as often as anyone else, but i have only ever thrown up 3 or 4 times in my entire life. i'm terrible at juking people out in sports such as football/rugby/soccer, but i can throw a frisbee/sling a stone/loose an arrow with a pretty darn good degree of accuracy.

prufock
2013-07-01, 10:23 AM
Well, in the vanilla rules, sure, but as I said later in the same paragraph, the rules of our "campaign setting" may be different.
I agree, but as we have no details on our "campaign setting," we're restricted in what we can assume. In absence of specific rules, we use general. Even if we have a set of specific languages as bonus, having an int bonus should still mean we start with extra languages.


You can't be overly technical with this exercise. Otherwise we all have Wisdom scores in the hundreds to enable us to see the moon.
Not sure what you mean, nothing in the spot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htmhttp://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm) rules suggests you would even need to make a check to see the moon at all.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-07-01, 02:24 PM
I agree, but as we have no details on our "campaign setting," we're restricted in what we can assume. In absence of specific rules, we use general. Even if we have a set of specific languages as bonus, having an int bonus should still mean we start with extra languages.

I think we're restricted in what assumptions we can make to the point that we oughtn't make any. As I said, the amount of guesswork involved will make any metric based on languages known extremely unreliable. Furthermore, in d20 Modern, humans do not receive bonus languages based on their intelligence scores, so we arguably do have more specific rules, or at least general rules more applicable to our situation, which support my contention.

OverdrivePrime
2013-07-01, 03:11 PM
I agree, but as we have no details on our "campaign setting," we're restricted in what we can assume. In absence of specific rules, we use general. Even if we have a set of specific languages as bonus, having an int bonus should still mean we start with extra languages.

Stephen Hawking - who seems be unusually smart - does not appear to be fluent in any languages beyond his native English. Does that mean he only gets an 11 for his Intelligence score?

The Bonus Languages mechanic always struck me as pretty ridiculous. I speak one, maybe two languages beyond my native tongue, and know a smattering of phrases in others. There was nothing automatic about them for me, and according to every other metric we've discussed in this thread, I comfortably merit at least an INT of 14.

My own stumbling, unimpressive linguistic ability is the result of years of study. The only people I've run into who just know additional languages are the people lucky enough to be raised in a bilingual household, or those who went to a bilingual school when they were growing up. Everyone else I've encountered has sunk at least as much intentional learning time into a new language as they have into any other major skill area.

From what I've read on use of and evolution of language, polyglots are the result of culture. Someone who lives at the crossroads of many different cultures (say, Luxembourg around 1750) would likely master 4 or 5 separate languages, while someone who spent their life in a homogeneous culture (arguably not something an intelligent person would do) might only learn one additional language if they were feeling ambitious.

TuggyNE
2013-07-02, 06:30 AM
Stephen Hawking - who seems be unusually smart - does not appear to be fluent in any languages beyond his native English. Does that mean he only gets an 11 for his Intelligence score?

I am amused to note that, as near as I can determine, Albert Einstein spoke two languages (German and English). Not the 5+ you'd expect, eh?

Spiryt
2013-07-02, 06:37 AM
while someone who spent their life in a homogeneous culture (arguably not something an intelligent person would do) might only learn one additional language if they were feeling ambitious.


??

That's even weirder assumption, being intelligent in no way will determine type of culture(s) one spends life in.. Or doesn't, because he's constantly 'on the road' or whatever.

But yeah, determining Intelligence by number of languages known, and vice-versa is rather ridiculous.

Again, works for simple purposes of a game.

prufock
2013-07-02, 07:36 AM
Furthermore, in d20 Modern, humans do not receive bonus languages based on their intelligence scores, so we arguably do have more specific rules, or at least general rules more applicable to our situation, which support my contention.

OP specifies "3.5/3.75 systems" (3.75 generally refers to Pathfinder) so d20 Modern isn't relevant. In the specified systems, you get bonus starting languages based on your Int score. This is true in Greyhawk, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, and all other campaign settings of which I'm aware.

The exercise is modeling real ability scores with D&D rules, which means no bonus languages: Int score < 12. Ridiculous? Sure, but that's the rule.

Kurald Galain
2013-07-02, 07:45 AM
Stephen Hawking - who seems be unusually smart - does not appear to be fluent in any languages beyond his native English. Does that mean he only gets an 11 for his Intelligence score?

I'll just bet he's fluent in C++, Java, and LISP though.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-07-02, 12:18 PM
OP specifies "3.5/3.75 systems" (3.75 generally refers to Pathfinder) so d20 Modern isn't relevant. In the specified systems, you get bonus starting languages based on your Int score. This is true in Greyhawk, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, and all other campaign settings of which I'm aware.

The exercise is modeling real ability scores with D&D rules, which means no bonus languages: Int score < 12. Ridiculous? Sure, but that's the rule.

Humans also automatically know Common in all of those settings. If we make the assumption that their rules may be extrapolated to our world, we can't be humans because we do not speak Common. Ridiculous? Sure, but it has the same amount of rules precedent as your claim.

prufock
2013-07-02, 12:34 PM
Humans also automatically know Common in all of those settings. If we make the assumption that their rules may be extrapolated to our world, we can't be humans because we do not speak Common. Ridiculous? Sure, but it has the same amount of rules precedent as your claim.

You don't speak Common?

Ashtagon
2013-07-02, 03:21 PM
I'll just bet he's fluent in C++, Java, and LISP though.

Why do people always assume that scientists must also know computer languages? He's a theoretical physicist and cosmologist, not a computer programmer.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/publications.html

Looking at his bibliography, I see nothing that says "computer programmer" in there.

Yora
2013-07-02, 03:32 PM
I happen to have a 17 in Intelligence. Which came as a bit of a suprise when it came up in a neurological examination. I always assumed to be at 12 or maybe 13, since I suck at doing calculations in math and physics. (Though I quite enjoy the the theoretical framework and weird concepts.)

Emmerask
2013-07-02, 04:02 PM
Why do people always assume that scientists must also know computer languages? He's a theoretical physicist and cosmologist, not a computer programmer.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/publications.html

Looking at his bibliography, I see nothing that says "computer programmer" in there.


Stephen Hawking
Theoretical Physicist, Cosmologist, and Author
“Whether you want to uncover the secrets of the universe, or you just want to pursue a career in the 21st century, basic computer programming is an essential skill to learn.“

In any case being able to code yourself as a theoretical physicist isnt that useless a skill to write simulations etc :smallwink:

Sure it might not be java but something like Haskell or similar^^

JustSomeGuy
2013-07-02, 07:10 PM
And there i was thinking it was a joke because he has a computer robot voice thingy... i'll let myself out!

Taet
2013-07-02, 11:07 PM
. . .
-Most gamers I know are at least Bard 1, because bardic knowledge is the easiest way to represent having large amounts of obscure knowledge, and storytelling is a perform check. . .

This is a very useful overlooked idea. It would take care of the trivia of many of us without adding to the intelligence score. Countersong would be the common bard effect too, as a model of making internet arguments. :smallsmile: I like it.