|
The frame of reference I was taught (and how my group plays) is to use IQ as a reference to Intelligence scores.
A 70 IQ = a 7 intelligence. Anything less than 70 IQ is mentally retarded, however the normal range of IQ goes from 80 to 120. There is a difference between someone with an 80 and 120, but they all fall into the "normal" range.
This is a hold-over from 2nd Ed when your stats *were* your character. We used to play that way as well. However, When 3rd Ed jumped to a stat-and-skill-based system, stats became secondary and your total for a skill was the true measure of your ability. It's a function of being able to overcome a limitation.
So, you don't RP a stat anymore. If you have a 15 diplomacy, how you got there is irrelevant. You're still going to succeed at most situations by taking 10 and throwing that 25 out there unless the DM has a house-rules "Circumstance Modifier" for how well you RP an encounter. Unless the RP is relevant to the story line, you roll your die or take your ten and you're off.
Int no more corresponds to your IQ than Con does your immune system. They are only abstracts in d20. In fact, Con has more of a correlation because it directly affects one of your saves.
--JD
citation needed
|
|
So about 2% are under 70, and only .05% fall into your 5 or less range.Good luck getting a 70 on 3d6. I don't think anyone is going to claim the standard deviation of 3d6 is equivalent to the the standard deviation of the Welchsler IQ test results.
If you want to draw conclusions to you IQ test, everyone who has a Wechsler IQ score of roughly 77.5 or less, has a D&D 3d6 IQ of 5 or less.
The dice reflect adventurers, the most exceptional members of society.
So you are arguing that if I cast a spell that supernaturally enhances my intelligence and as a result I can then cast another spell of a higher level, while under the effects of the spell making me supernaturally smart, that is the same as being smart.Got it...
Also, Eagles Splendor makes you more charismatic.
For the purposes of casting higher level spells. Correct.
|
|
For the purposes of casting higher level spells. Correct.
So you are arguing that if I cast a spell that supernaturally enhances my intelligence and as a result I can then cast another spell of a higher level, while under the effects of the spell making me supernaturally smart, that is the same as being smart.Got it...
Also, Eagles Splendor makes you more charismatic.
My point being that a person who must cast a spell to become smart enough to cast another spell isn't as smart as someone who can just cast the spell because they are that smart.
In much the same way someone using a pulley system to lift a weight isn't as strong as someone who can lift the same weight without having to have a pulley system.
For the purposes of casting higher level spells. Correct.
So you are arguing that if I cast a spell that supernaturally enhances my intelligence and as a result I can then cast another spell of a higher level, while under the effects of the spell making me supernaturally smart, that is the same as being smart.Got it...
Also, Eagles Splendor makes you more charismatic.
My point being that a person who must cast a spell to become smart enough to cast another spell isn't as smart as someone who can just cast the spell because they are that smart.
In much the same way someone using a pulley system to lift a weight isn't as strong as someone who can lift the same weight without having to have a pulley system.
The difference is you can't see the pulley nor is the pulley built into the mans arms. In this case the spell is builtinto their minds they only need flip the switch.
You can also see this as smart people turning into absolute geniuses.
|
|
For the purposes of casting higher level spells. Correct.
So you are arguing that if I cast a spell that supernaturally enhances my intelligence and as a result I can then cast another spell of a higher level, while under the effects of the spell making me supernaturally smart, that is the same as being smart.Got it...
Also, Eagles Splendor makes you more charismatic.
My point being that a person who must cast a spell to become smart enough to cast another spell isn't as smart as someone who can just cast the spell because they are that smart.
In much the same way someone using a pulley system to lift a weight isn't as strong as someone who can lift the same weight without having to have a pulley system.
The difference is you can't see the pulley nor is the pulley built into the mans arms. In this case the spell is builtinto their minds they only need flip the switch.
You can also see this as smart people turning into absolute geniuses.
But a potion of bull's strength...
The fact is you must make yourself into an absolute genius to cast high level spells. The methodology isn't as relevant as that fact, although putting more thought into it how are you memorizing the 9th level spells considering the duration...
For the purposes of casting higher level spells. Correct.
So you are arguing that if I cast a spell that supernaturally enhances my intelligence and as a result I can then cast another spell of a higher level, while under the effects of the spell making me supernaturally smart, that is the same as being smart.Got it...
Also, Eagles Splendor makes you more charismatic.
My point being that a person who must cast a spell to become smart enough to cast another spell isn't as smart as someone who can just cast the spell because they are that smart.
In much the same way someone using a pulley system to lift a weight isn't as strong as someone who can lift the same weight without having to have a pulley system.
The difference is you can't see the pulley nor is the pulley built into the mans arms. In this case the spell is builtinto their minds they only need flip the switch.
You can also see this as smart people turning into absolute geniuses.
But a potion of bull's strength...
The fact is you must make yourself into an absolute genius to cast high level spells. The methodology isn't as relevant as that fact, although putting more thought into it how are you memorizing the 9th level spells considering the duration...
Multiple Castings of the spell if necessary. Keep in mind the ability score has zero effect on the actual caster level of the spell only on whether or not it can be prepared adn cast at all. A 20th level wizard's fox's cunning lasts just as long whether he has 12 int or 50. If he needs more time then that he can choose to have it metamagicked for extend doubling the duration. Is this optimal? Hell no. Does it work? Yes. We're not even getting into just regular run of the mill headbands of intellect.
It's difficult to find a real world equivalent because these things are literally built into the things mind. It's basically like, I suppose you could say using steroids. The guy who uses steroids as opposed to a guy who jsut trains naturally are both strong, perhaps equally strong and no one really denies either ones strength the difference is how one got to be strong. Some are born with it and work to maintain or develop it some develop other means...
|
|
The dice reflect adventurers, the most exceptional members of society.
Lol. If it makes you feel better more than 9% of the population of 3d6 pathfinder characters, have an Wechsler IQ of 150 or greater by your system which would put them in the top half (99.5%+) percentile in the Wechsler world.
Adventurers are the elite 4d6 drop lowest are far better off.
Again, the dice rolled are the exceptional. Even most of the NPCs are the exceptional, as who wants to bother rolling stats up to interact with joe average farmer.
I'm an avionics maintainer...
Oh, so you're fine with a 2% drop in someone ELSES survival rate. I get you :k
It's also been my experience that the ones who fall into those categories are also terrible maintainers, lacking the desire or drive to ever get better than mediocre. Purely anecdotal, of course.
Also contrary to how it works in the role playing system. Being worse at social interaction DOES tend to make you better at your chosen role because the better die roll/more points went into stats that are more relevant for their job.
Like I said...I can't reconcile dumping a stat, so I don't do it. I don't judge others for it, though...as long as they don't whine when they are terrible at whatever their dumped stat governs.
I have fun playing surly dwarves that were raised by mushrooms.
Again, the dice rolled are the exceptional. Even most of the NPCs are the exceptional, as who wants to bother rolling stats up to interact with joe average farmer.
The dice reflect adventurers, the most exceptional members of society.
Lol. If it makes you feel better more than 9% of the population of 3d6 pathfinder characters, have an Wechsler IQ of 150 or greater by your system which would put them in the top half (99.5%+) percentile in the Wechsler world.
Adventurers are the elite 4d6 drop lowest are far better off.
For some reason I view statting up blacksmiths as fun but I basically give them normal npc stats of about a 3 point buy and give them skill focus and prodigy so they are good at there job.
citation neededInt no more corresponds to your IQ than Con does your immune system. They are only abstracts in d20. In fact, Con has more of a correlation because it directly affects one of your saves.
--JD
Obviously I can't cite something the doesn't exist. However, I can provide an example: Take two characters, one a 15-point-buy Wizard with a starting Int of 16, the other a Basic NPC with an Int of 13, his highest stat.
Assuming no magical gear to augment their attribute, and placing all 5 stat increases in to Int since it controls all the knowledges and crafts, you get an Int of 21 for the wizard and an 18 for the NPC. The Wizard started with a modifier of 3 and ends with a modifier of 5, the NPC starts with a modifier of 1 and ends with a 4.
Placing 20 ranks in an Int-based class skill, the Wizard ends up with a total skill rank of 28, the NPC with a total of 27. Pretty close.
Now, make the NPC an idiot and place his lowest score, an 8, in Int. Now he ends with a 13 Int, a +1 modifier, and his total score in the skill is "only" 24. If that skill is a Craft, there is nothing on the crafting table the idiot can't make. The maximum DC on the table is for an alchemy roll, DC 25 which the sample idiot can now make without picking up the dice. In fact, by taking ten, he's been able to do so for the last nine levels. The wizard got there three levels sooner, but it was just a matter of time and training for the NPC.
As for Knowledge skills, if -- for some very strange reason like, I don't know, an illustrative example -- the idiot took Know (Arcana) as a skill, he'd be able to tell you exactly what 9th level spell was just cast at him by taking 10 on the check at 20th level: DC 25 + the Spell level. The Wizard, by way of contrast, has only been able to do that same take-ten trick since 16th level.
Yes, it's true that the idiot could not cast spells of even 0-level until 8th level and first level spells would have eluded him until 12th. However, that is not a function of IQ, it's a function of a magical aptitude game mechanic. It has nothing to do with his ability to learn any other Int based function in the game.
A clinically retarded person would not be able to do that.
--JD
A clinically retarded person would not be able to do that.
technically I can take an animal companion , raise their int to 3, and have them max out ranks in history and get skill focus: knowledge history and at 14th level it will have a +11 , qualified to teach the subject. The skill and level interactions are wonky, and not meant to model anything but adventuring PC's. Don't think about it too hard, don't worry about the npc's, and you'll be fine.
|
THE BELL CURVE AND POPULATION
Given that when this was created 8 intelligence meant you had trouble reading and writing. I think they made your stats comparable to your IQ - 18 Int being 180 IQ.
I dont see the problem with thinking that the population of any community will conform to the bell curve with regards to stats. about 20% have some minor dificulty with reading and writing, about 4% cant read or write at all and <1/2% are the equivelent of a smart animal.
As Elves required an intelligence minimum of 9 (assumedly they are knocked on the head or abandoned in the wild in their childhood if they dont) I have no problem putting their percentage of the population in the 9 Int or above category putting them in the upper social castes.
table to be posted when repaired
...1/218..................0.46
Shouldn't it be 6^3 = 216 or am I missing something?
|
|
Obviously I can't cite something the doesn't exist.
This
As to the other stuff, let's look at a medium sized city of 1000 people, using the bell curve and the fact there are 6 stats.
In that city of 1000, .05 people will have really high stats in one of the 6 categories, meaning about 30 people out of 1000 have truly exceptional (one of the 6 options)
So in a city of 1000 people, about the size of an average small high school, 30 are really exceptional.
On the flip side, about 30 are really limited.
Now looking at your example, the first problem is of course that 8 isn't an idiot. It is an 80 IQ, which is an average IQ.
Second the "idiot" with a high specific skill is a rain man scenario of someone who is leveling up over a long period of time. But of course gaining XP doesn't just occur, you have to do things to level up.
A 15 point buy wizard is starting out with 15 available points to spend more than the "average" person. The "average" person isn't an adventurer, and for every person who has 15 extra there is a person who has 15 under.
This is where I think you are missing a key part. Adventurers aren't the norm, they are the exception.
|
|
Again, the dice rolled are the exceptional. Even most of the NPCs are the exceptional, as who wants to bother rolling stats up to interact with joe average farmer.
The point behind the thread whether there there is a bell curve for people within normal society. If you believe stats are generated by rolling dice, or along the same principals of rolling dice there is a bell curve.
If 99+% of the persons in the world are stated 10.5, 10.5, 10.5, 10.5, 10.5, 10.5, 10.5. Or if 99+% are built with a 3 point buy. Then there is no bell curve. Even a deviation of plus or minus 1, will fall well outside of the statistical normal.
I don't expect any GM to stat up every character in a town. Just like I don't expect to give them an IQ score. But you don't have to stat up every character to know what percentile a given stat falls into or to draw comparisons between average and exceptional or deficient.
I can fairly easily make Joe the farmer come off as less well spoken/attactive/intelligent/etc then John the judge without bothering roll dice to stat them up.
Even a 3 point buy indicates you are giving someone 3 points more than "average"
The numbers aren't 99% average, 1% special. The numbers are divided into 6 stats, of which you for each stat you have about a 70 % chance of being between 8 and 12 for a given stat.
Adventurers move this range up significantly because of the point buy, on the assumptions adventurers are, by default exceptional.
As I said above, when you consider a 1000 people, half the size of my high school, about 30 of them would have "exceptional" strength or "exceptional" Dex, or "Exceptional" intelligence.
My high school had over 2000 people, so double that to 10 people of each stat as exceptional and over 300 (15 %) would have above average something in one of the stats, and now you have the football team, the basketball team, the national honor society, etc...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As other people have pointed out, an 8 isn't that bad. (check my profile, I have an 8 wisdom ;-) ) Even a seven isn't crippling.
And not all low stats = incompetent. a 5 charisma character may think he's suave and charming, but he just doesn't make an impression. It's not that he's farting and belching, it's that he's bland. A 5 strength character can still make the same DC 17 strength check the 16 strength character can, just a lot less often (think of rolling the 20 as those stories you hear about women lifting cars off their babies). Heck, he might have the burst of strength, but (in game terms) not be able to maintain it long enough to do anything. (occasionally I can be very insightful too. Most of the times it's just- SQUIRREL!)
|
|
Even a 3 point buy indicates you are giving someone 3 points more than "average"Not if the average is 10.5, which is the average you get when rolling 3d6. If you want to use some other bellcurve, you're welcome to it, but the OP appears to be talking about a time when 3d6 was the norm.
As I have said, many times, adventures are better than normal people.
A wd point buy is could mean avearge stats as high as 12.8, meaning a +1 in every area.
Adventurers are better than normal people.
With a 5 Cha, as I understand it, you're in the bottom 5% of all characters ever made, everywhere.
I'm not sure what your point is. I've seen very few characters with 5 Cha, probably 1 out of 100 or less. In my case, would you be complaining that there should be more adventurers with 5 Cha?
|
|
And before they were better than normal people, they rolled 3d6, which indicates that this the norm for normal people. And for an average of 10.5, 3 points is the norm. Therefore, the NPCs with 3 points are not better than average, they're exactly average.Even a 3 point buy indicates you are giving someone 3 points more than "average"Not if the average is 10.5, which is the average you get when rolling 3d6. If you want to use some other bellcurve, you're welcome to it, but the OP appears to be talking about a time when 3d6 was the norm.As I have said, many times, adventures are better than normal people.
A wd point buy is could mean avearge stats as high as 12.8, meaning a +1 in every area.
Adventurers are better than normal people.
"Before adventurers were 3d6" is not equal to "this is the norm for normal people".
You are assuming that the "norm" people is based off dice rolls.
Quite simply the norm is 10. 12 is +1 over the norm, 8 is -1 from the norm and 9 and 11 are close enough to 10 that is is negligible.
Even normal people, on average, will have some abilities better than others. If 70% of people fell into the 8 to 12 range on a given score, that would still mean There is a 30% chance you will be above or below average on any given score.
Dice are rolled to simulate this bell curve, but it a) isn't completely accurate and reflexive of true variance and b) Heroes are more heroic than normal people.
The curve for an adventurer starts higher, probably around 12, meaning it is more likely to see an 18 than a 3, even before taking into account racial traits.
If 99+% of the persons in the world are stated 10.5, 10.5, 10.5, 10.5, 10.5, 10.5, 10.5. Or if 99+% are built with a 3 point buy. Then there is no bell curve. Even a deviation of plus or minus 1, will fall well outside of the statistical normal.
99% of the people are not stat'd with 10.5s. The vast majority are stat'd with the basic PC array of 13/12/11/10/9/8. Yes, it averages to 10.5 but that does not make their stats 10.5. That is a very important distinction. Since Int and Wisdom are probably going to be the top 2 stats for any NPC -- they control Profession, all of the Crafts, Appraise, and most of the "useful" stats a Commoner would care about -- you have to make any comparisons based on a Wis 13/Int 12 or Wis 12/Int 13 for the vast majority of the population. Yes, variances will occur for NPCs specializing in certain skills such as diplomacy or in certain professions such as Warrior. However, 90%+ of the population of a City are Commoners to whom that gross generalization will apply.
IIRC, the original question was about a bell-curve in PF, a 3d6 comparison is irrelevant. The 3d6 system went out somewhere towards the end of AD&D. D&D 3.x and PF have taken "4d6 drop low" as the new standard from the start. Taking a sampling of 10M adventurers (60M stat rolls), here's the break down by percentage of their stats:
Stat [ 3]: 46,485 ( 0.077%)
Stat [ 4]: 185,344 ( 0.309%)
Stat [ 5]: 463,364 ( 0.772%)
Stat [ 6]: 971,594 ( 1.619%)
Stat [ 7]: 1,756,959 ( 2.928%)
Stat [ 8]: 2,871,243 ( 4.785%)
Stat [ 9]: 4,214,058 ( 7.023%)
Stat [10]: 5,648,371 ( 9.414%)
Stat [11]: 6,853,827 (11.423%)
Stat [12]: 7,730,203 (12.884%)
Stat [13]: 7,967,126 (13.279%)
Stat [14]: 7,405,345 (12.342%)
Stat [15]: 6,062,506 (10.104%)
Stat [16]: 4,349,867 ( 7.250%)
Stat [17]: 2,500,116 ( 4.167%)
Stat [18]: 973,592 ( 1.623%)
Because of the drop low variation, you are now as likely to have a 6 in a given stat as an 18 instead of a 3. The norm is around 13 which is a basic NPC's highest stat. Adventurer's start with a leg-up on life due to better genetics -- or whatever.
To do an actual statistical analysis, you'd have to come up with a baseline set of assumptions. One such set might be:
* First and second level Commoners as well as First Level characters with other NPC classes are all stat'd to the Basic NPC array
* Any other character with NPC classes is stat'd with the Elite NPC array
* There's no such thing as a multi-classed character for the purposes of this experiment
* The statistical break down of a city is that given in the D&D 3.5 DM's Guide
* Stats generated would have to be weighted in the direction of those most useful to a given class by percentage of the population
With those criteria in mind, you would be able to get a mean value for Int and then base IQ or other statistic from there. Otherwise there is no basis for comparison and we can keep trying to make points to no effect for a very long time.
--JD
|
Since Int and Wisdom are probably going to be the top 2 stats for any NPC
Not quite. NPC's don't get to put their highest stats where they want. They are born, and the dm assigns. If the dm uses the chart 14-6 for npc ability scores, listed as the alternative for random placement, then we see that basic "skill" npcs such as craftsmen and tradesmen will actually have their two highest stats in intelligence and dexterity. Or wisdom and dexterity, if they're crafting. By no means is it an absolute or even a likelihood that the two highest stats will be mental.
Taken from world perspective, many people end up working in retail. While I have known some smart people that did, I've known far more whose abilities would fall into another stat than either int or wis.
However, given the npc statistics and the supposed rarity of adventurers and high level characters, we can guess that a 13 is the maximum intelligence score the majority of people would have semi-regular contact with. Npcs with 4+ levels in commoner aren't going to be super common, much less heroic npcs or pcs themselves :D
Of course, that's the issue with statistical spreads. Numbers are only valid for the sets they run, and the sets are by no means easily defined to the exact desired range.
|
|
3d6 ability..............spread................%
3........................1/216.................0.46
4........................3/216.................1.38
5........................6/216.................2.77
6........................10/216................4.63
7........................15/216................6.94
8........................21/216................9.72
9........................25/216................11.57
10.......................27/216................12.5
11.......................27/216................12.5
12.......................25/216................11.57
13.......................21/216................9.72
14.......................15/216................6.94
15.......................10/216................4.63
16.......................6/216.................2.77
17.......................3/216.................1.38
18.......................1/216.................0.46
I was just in the mustache thread and I had a question, so I thought I'd ask it in a fresh thread rather than derailing that one.
Question: In the 'old versions' of this game system, you used to get a quick statistics lesson about how 10 was average and above and below that was increasingly rare towards the end of that stat. Is this no longer the case?
It boggles the mind to see people arguing against this stance. It's like something is fundamentally wrong with their grasp of logic.
I've seen an amazingly well-played dwarven monk with a 5 cha. He plays being awful with people really well. He has fun. We have fun with him. He's not overpowering the game and we still have a team effort in our adventure. This is good, despite how much people might rant and rave about the min-maxery of a character having 5 cha.
With a 5 Cha, as I understand it, you're in the bottom 5% of all characters ever made, everywhere. You'd have less charm than the village idiot. Considerably less, per pg 308 in the GMG, that slobbering monstrosity has got a 10! In fact, with a 5, you'd probably have to Take 10 just to say hello without reducing someone's attitude about you. How does your PARTY stand you, let alone stop the local village from burning you at the stake?
By the way, a Cha of 7 makes you less socially able than 84% of the people you meet. That's heroic? Even taking this up to an 8 makes that 75%.
As an aside, I'd wonder what the bell curve looks like for Pathfinder characters.
Back to the question - does the curve still exist and is it supposed to impact how we depict our game worlds?
As a bonus question, aside from impacting skill checks, does Charisma actually do anything at the typical table these days?
Eight is actually standard from traditional days.
Since Int and Wisdom are probably going to be the top 2 stats for any NPCNot quite. NPC's don't get to put their highest stats where they want. They are born, and the dm assigns. If the dm uses the chart 14-6 for npc ability scores, listed as the alternative for random placement, then we see that basic "skill" npcs such as craftsmen and tradesmen will actually have their two highest stats in intelligence and dexterity. Or wisdom and dexterity, if they're crafting. By no means is it an absolute or even a likelihood that the two highest stats will be mental.
Taken from world perspective, many people end up working in retail. While I have known some smart people that did, I've known far more whose abilities would fall into another stat than either int or wis.
However, given the npc statistics and the supposed rarity of adventurers and high level characters, we can guess that a 13 is the maximum intelligence score the majority of people would have semi-regular contact with. Npcs with 4+ levels in commoner aren't going to be super common, much less heroic npcs or pcs themselves :D
Of course, that's the issue with statistical spreads. Numbers are only valid for the sets they run, and the sets are by no means easily defined to the exact desired range.
What about +2 racial bump?
Lowest 5% doesn't mean you're a catastrophy. It means you're in the same group as roughly 1/20. Maybe you're an aspie or just generally socially clumsy.
Think of it, 1/20 is a lot. And compared to other dwarves, he's in the lowest 16% - so about 1/7 is of his social skill.
A score of 5 doesn't mean you're incapable of taking care of yourself. Strength 5 means you're the weakest guy in the class at school, not the weakest in the town. Dexterity 5 means you're the guy that keeps pushing stuff down and people might not put their coffee cups at your table, it doesn't mean you're in a wheelchair. Constitution 5 means you're the person that calls in sick the most often at your office, not that your permanently bed-bound with tubes from your nose. And so on.
P.S.: None of this is meant to be offensive to anyone in a wheelchair, anyone who's an aspie, anyone who's weak or dumb or anything else. I'm quite a retard myself.
EDIT: This got me thinking about my own ability scores. That made me depressed, seeing as how my intelligence is enough to be cynical but my wisdom is so low I'm naive at the same time.
|
|
Lowest 5% doesn't mean you're a catastrophy. It means you're in the same group as roughly 1/20. Maybe you're an aspie or just generally socially clumsy.
Think of it, 1/20 is a lot. And compared to other dwarves, he's in the lowest 16% - so about 1/7 is of his social skill.
A score of 5 doesn't mean you're incapable of taking care of yourself. Strength 5 means you're the weakest guy in the class at school, not the weakest in the town. Dexterity 5 means you're the guy that keeps pushing stuff down and people might not put their coffee cups at your table, it doesn't mean you're in a wheelchair. Constitution 5 means you're the person that calls in sick the most often at your office, not that your permanently bed-bound with tubes from your nose. And so on.
P.S.: None of this is meant to be offensive to anyone in a wheelchair, anyone who's an aspie, anyone who's weak or dumb or anything else. I'm quite a retard myself.
EDIT: This got me thinking about my own ability scores. That made me depressed, seeing as how my intelligence is enough to be cynical but my wisdom is so low I'm naive at the same time.
Yes, but do you want to take that guy into a battle with you?
There are two averages at play. Average "person" and average "adventurer"
As JackDrake pointed out, only about 1% of adventures would have a score of 5 or less in a given area using 4d6 dice.
And those adventurers kind of suck.
It boggles the mind to see people arguing against this stance. It's like something is fundamentally wrong with their grasp of logic.How so?
I don't see where I posted that. Maybe it was deleted. In any case, I don't see what I was saying that in response to, either. Maybe that was deleted, too.
I have no idea what I was responding to, there. I must have said that at some point, but I don't remember.