How bad is an 8 in an ability score?

[Saeviomagy]

An 8 in an attribute is not that bad.

Why do some people thing it IS that bad? Because in the point-buy or standard array, it's the lowest that a stat can be before racial modifiers.

That's it. In any group using a non-random stat generation system, 8 is as bad as most people get.

If the point buy system was a little more sensible, then even lower attributes would be possible, and 8 wouldn't seem that bad.

 

[Utrecht]

The reason that 8 is percieved as potentailly bad is that 3ed has defined 10 as the average for humans.

So an 8 is 20% less than the average human and a 20% hit is a fairly sizable reduction.

 

[Sixchan]

The reason that 8 is percieved as potentailly bad is that 3ed has defined 10 as the average for humans.

So an 8 is 20% less than the average human and a 20% hit is a fairly sizable reduction.

Hmm...*tries to recall relavant points from a similar argument*

Oh yeah, if you use a bell curve for the 3d6, then it's not a 20% hit, it only seems that way. It would only be a 20% hit if you use point buy (and thus have a linear system).

 

[Utrecht]

Hmm...*tries to recall relavant points from a similar argument*

Oh yeah, if you use a bell curve for the 3d6, then it's not a 20% hit, it only seems that way. It would only be a 20% hit if you use point buy (and thus have a linear system).

Actually, if I recall my statistics correctly - for a 3d6 generation the 1st standard deviation is around 2 (IIRC 1.7) making a 8 fall outside of what we would cosider the "norm"

But you are correct is saying that the skill impact of an 8 is a 5% depreciation in any skill based off of that stat. - extending that implication means that a 2 in a skill has a 20% reduction is skill - which I think we can dismiss as ludicrous. In my book a 2 intelligence gives you 0% chance to accurately appraise an item - no matter how much skill you have. You have the intelligence of a rabbit at that point.

 

[Cyrik Skylark]

Check the site in my sig

Hmm... interesting thing... was pretty accurate, except for Intel...

In order to get an Intel of 18, using the IQ score and a PH.D, you need an IQ of 300... and even with that, you only get a 17. An IQ of 300, for reference, has happened maybe once in the past 100 years... for a statistical probability of about 1/10000000000. Them dice are nice... getting a 17 by the dice has a statistical probability of 1/72. D&D must be populated by super-geniuses... it's a wonder they haven't invented cold fusion yet. =b Hell, with people that smart, why are they still stuck in the medieval era? =b

 

[Desdichado]

Naw, I'd have to be at 6 or less before I started really playing a stat as a serious drawback. An 8 is no whiz at that particular stat, but if you think that 10 is average, then you can assume that plenty of fully functional folks have 8 or even lower in that stat in order to arrive at that average. (Reminds me of a guy in one of my MBA classes -- his comment about average starting salaries: "Yeah, but does anyone actually get lower than average?" Didn't make me feel too proud to be part of that particular class...)

I kinda like to use the default array of ability scores and then give folks three more points to distribute as they want. They can get rid of that 8 with those 3 points if they want, but that means they are average almost across the board and only pretty good without being absolutely exceptional at anything. Some low(ish) scores can be interesting. Heck, I even like to take a crocked score now and again for a change of pace. If the game becomes a power escalation excersise where anything less than a 14 sucks, then I get bored with it very quickly.

 

[mmu1]

Check the site in my sig

That thing comes up periodically, it's completely messed up for everything besides Strength, and even there it's not terribly accurate.

And I see they still hadn't fixed the rudimentary bug in the INT section. Having an IQ of 160 and a college degree works out to an 11. Yeah...

 

[Chun-tzu]

In TV terms, an 8 in INT is the dumb guy on the sitcom who gets all the "dumb guy" lines. Chrissy, from Three's Company. Kelso, from That 70's Show. Joey, from Friends. Woody, from Cheers.

They do dumb stuff, they say dumb stuff, but they're not really handicapped in any way.

 

[LostSoul]

In TV terms, an 8 in INT is the dumb guy on the sitcom who gets all the "dumb guy" lines. Chrissy, from Three's Company. Kelso, from That 70's Show. Joey, from Friends. Woody, from Cheers.

No, the way those guys act is a lot worse than an 8. Maybe a 6 at best.

Somebody with an 8 Int would probably have struggled in school but nobody would really notice outside of class. Not often, at least.

An 8 Cha probably means that either you hang out with the "dorky" crowd, but you still have the bigger freaks to look down on.

An 8 Wis would either mean poor observational skills (such as not being able to tell when a woman is trying to come on to you) or you do things without thinking them through first.

I don't think that an 8 would really be noticeable to someone at first glance.

 

[Grendel]

8 str = the little guy is gets picked last on most team sports.

8 dex = the kid that never figured out how to ride a bike before getting a drivers license.

8 con = the guy who gets a note from his mom to get out of gym class.

8 int = the guy who barely got by in remedial english and math.

8 wis = the kid who will eat whatever you hand him for a quarter.

8 chr = the kid who gets picked all the time.