What do the numbers in D&D ability scores mean?
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
finarvyn
Explorer
This is actually a somewhat complex issue, dependant upon which edition of the rules you read. In the 1974 edition it went something like this:
3 = lowest value found in a human being
9-12 = average values for a typical human
18 = greatest value found in a human being
So, a person with Strength of 8 would be weaker than average but not so much so. This person would function normally in society but would be more of a paper-pusher than a construction worker.
The "Greyhawk" supplement confused the issue somewhat (as did an article in Dragon) when it brought in 18(xx) percentile values for strength (and the Dragon article did the same for dexterity).
The Basic/Expert version of D&D (put out around 1980-ish) had a nice scale:
3 = minimum = bonus of -3
4-5 = bonus of -2
6-8 = bonus of -1
9-12 = average = bonus of 0
13-15 = bonus of +1
16-17 = bonus of +2
18 = maximum = bonus of +3
This general perception of abilites is nice because we have a large grouping near the center and a decent advantage/disadvantage near the extremes. If you play with probabilites you can see that there is about 0.5% (one in 200) chance of rolling a natural 3 or 18 on 3d6. IN other words, if you got together a group of 200 random people and ranked them, the one person who was best at something would be the 18, whether it be the strongest, smartest, fastest, most charismatic, whatever. The worst one would be the 3.
3E changed all of this. It established 10-11 as "average" and really put no upper limit on stats. In this scale it's harder to interpret. An old 18 intelligence could be Einstein, or the elite genius types of the world. In the new scale with no real upper limit, I'm not sure where to place the best because another could later be better. This non-ending scale is nice for the purposes of character advancement, because the player always has somewhere to improve. It's also great for superhero games like Mutants & Masterminds where superhumans have stats much higher than mundanes.
In a "real world" model it's harder to set in stone because I can't really fit a probability curve if there is no upper limit. I can't say if the person is the best out of 200, the best out of 1,000 or more.
So ... in my mind I default to the older model even if I play the newer game. I think about the scale going from 3-18 with 9-12 being "average" and 13-18 being "above average" and I guess anything above 18 being "truly exceptional and noteworthy".
Does that help at all?
3 = lowest value found in a human being
9-12 = average values for a typical human
18 = greatest value found in a human being
So, a person with Strength of 8 would be weaker than average but not so much so. This person would function normally in society but would be more of a paper-pusher than a construction worker.
The "Greyhawk" supplement confused the issue somewhat (as did an article in Dragon) when it brought in 18(xx) percentile values for strength (and the Dragon article did the same for dexterity).
The Basic/Expert version of D&D (put out around 1980-ish) had a nice scale:
3 = minimum = bonus of -3
4-5 = bonus of -2
6-8 = bonus of -1
9-12 = average = bonus of 0
13-15 = bonus of +1
16-17 = bonus of +2
18 = maximum = bonus of +3
This general perception of abilites is nice because we have a large grouping near the center and a decent advantage/disadvantage near the extremes. If you play with probabilites you can see that there is about 0.5% (one in 200) chance of rolling a natural 3 or 18 on 3d6. IN other words, if you got together a group of 200 random people and ranked them, the one person who was best at something would be the 18, whether it be the strongest, smartest, fastest, most charismatic, whatever. The worst one would be the 3.
3E changed all of this. It established 10-11 as "average" and really put no upper limit on stats. In this scale it's harder to interpret. An old 18 intelligence could be Einstein, or the elite genius types of the world. In the new scale with no real upper limit, I'm not sure where to place the best because another could later be better. This non-ending scale is nice for the purposes of character advancement, because the player always has somewhere to improve. It's also great for superhero games like Mutants & Masterminds where superhumans have stats much higher than mundanes.
In a "real world" model it's harder to set in stone because I can't really fit a probability curve if there is no upper limit. I can't say if the person is the best out of 200, the best out of 1,000 or more.
So ... in my mind I default to the older model even if I play the newer game. I think about the scale going from 3-18 with 9-12 being "average" and 13-18 being "above average" and I guess anything above 18 being "truly exceptional and noteworthy".
Does that help at all?
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Ability scores don't mean anything. It's the ability modifiers you're asking about. You could change out the 3-18 with any descriptor you want and the effect is the same.
3-18 was originally a representative bell curve. It was based on fully grown adult human as norm. So 3 and 18 were the highest and lowest points for a human adult.
3-18 was originally a representative bell curve. It was based on fully grown adult human as norm. So 3 and 18 were the highest and lowest points for a human adult.
Last edited:
pawsplay
Hero
It reflects the in-game probability of doing certain tasks. Out of game, you could be a picture of grace, but unlucky, or you could die because you're a an arrogant cad who exists mainly to get killed by the PCs. How dextrous are you? Well, what level are you? What feats, skills, and class abilities do you have? How are you rolling tonight?
I wouldn't even agree with the proposition that Strength is how physical powerful you are, absolutely, or that your hit points are how tough you are. They correlate with those things but they are not, of themselves, those things.
Superheroes, in D&D terms, would have huge Intelligence scores, simply because superheroes think their way out of so many problems, and have so many skill points, that they would need a 14 or more at the low end. 18 is probably a common Intelligence score for your average teenage superhero. Their Dex is high, too... even if they go up against a kung fu master or a robot assassin, we know a superhero is likely to avoid a few hits. Irrespective of how their physical agility is portrayed, in general... in games terms, they have a high Dex.
I wouldn't even agree with the proposition that Strength is how physical powerful you are, absolutely, or that your hit points are how tough you are. They correlate with those things but they are not, of themselves, those things.
Superheroes, in D&D terms, would have huge Intelligence scores, simply because superheroes think their way out of so many problems, and have so many skill points, that they would need a 14 or more at the low end. 18 is probably a common Intelligence score for your average teenage superhero. Their Dex is high, too... even if they go up against a kung fu master or a robot assassin, we know a superhero is likely to avoid a few hits. Irrespective of how their physical agility is portrayed, in general... in games terms, they have a high Dex.
Thanks for offering your perspectives. This thread was quickly submerged due to the deluge of threads about the 4th edition which appeared almost immediately after the thread's creation, but now that they have all been moved to the 4E forum, I am trying to revive the thread.
Just a note, I am not looking for statistical explanations of how many people would have an ability score of X (although that is not uninteresting), but rather examples of how it would show 'in real life' (which illuminates how a character with such a score might be perceived and act in-game).
Just a note, I am not looking for statistical explanations of how many people would have an ability score of X (although that is not uninteresting), but rather examples of how it would show 'in real life' (which illuminates how a character with such a score might be perceived and act in-game).
Thanael
Explorer
I always found this article about D&D ability scores very good.
EricNoah
Adventurer
Do you know someone who seems to be constantly making poor judgement calls (getting involved with the wrong people, doing something unsafe or stupid and getting hurt, etc.)? Those are the slightly-lower-than-average Wisdom people.
Do you know anyone who isn't necessarily super attractive, physically, but they seem to make others' faces light up when they enter the room? They make you feel special when they acknowledge you? Those are slightly higher than average Charisma people. They don't "charm" or dominate you, but you do go out of your way to please them a little bit more.
I have a DM who is just really sharp about memorizing things and doing math on the fly. He's got a moderately high intelligence.
edit: Oh, by the way, in my experience a moderately high Charisma person who is also a moderately low Wisdom person is a really dangerous combination because he/she has this way of convincing others to also engage in foolish behavior...
Do you know anyone who isn't necessarily super attractive, physically, but they seem to make others' faces light up when they enter the room? They make you feel special when they acknowledge you? Those are slightly higher than average Charisma people. They don't "charm" or dominate you, but you do go out of your way to please them a little bit more.
I have a DM who is just really sharp about memorizing things and doing math on the fly. He's got a moderately high intelligence.
edit: Oh, by the way, in my experience a moderately high Charisma person who is also a moderately low Wisdom person is a really dangerous combination because he/she has this way of convincing others to also engage in foolish behavior...
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
