D&D General Normal Distribution Ability Scores

[TwoSix]

yeah, I would rather ax the CON stat alltogether. give everyone +2 HP per level and move all CON saves to STR.
remove 13 from array, or 5 pts from point buy and remove +1 ASI from generation.

it's basically "the 14" stat. then give or take 2.
in what I played 5e, about 80% had 14 CON, 10% 12 CON, 10% 16 CON and rest is probability error.

might see 13 or rarely 15 if caster is planning for Resilient CON ASAP, but that is 14 in the making.

Agreed. I occasionally will do 12 if the character seems more likely to be in the backline, but otherwise it's pretty much always 14.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Because such a score is so debilitating. You are unable to function in society with a 6 INT let alone be an adventurer. Your fellow adventurers would rob you blind and you'd never know. You'd rarely be able to discern even who the bad guys are if facing a mix of foes and allies.

Maybe strength or constitution but you are still very debilitated. You could get by with a super bad Charisma but your group would realistically drop you from the party pretty quick.

I agree with others this is an overly taxing concept of INT 6.

Although antiquated and flawed, such an INT could represent someone with as low as I.Q. 70 (but probably a bit higher), just above the threshold of what was considered disabled. There are many people who function in society with such conditions.

In 5E terms, the -2 penalty associated with scores of 6 or 7 are immediately offset by proficiency in a task, putting such an individal on par with another with scores 10 or 11 but without proficiency.

STR 6 can carry 30 lbs without issue (which many people can do, even my parents in their 80's), even with the variant options.
DEX 6 person would range from very clumsy to poor eyesight or whatever. Again, many individuals function fine with such a score.
CON 6 is only really an issue due to its tie to HP. But really, even that is not impossible to play with. A fighter with CON 6 has basically the same hp as a wizard with CON 10. A ranged fighter with decent AC would play fine IMO. Also, the tough feat can offset the HP loss.
WIS 6 is slow to pick up cue and lacks sense and understanding of the world around them. LOL I know a LOT of people like that!
CHA 6 could range from poor social graces or lack of confidence or such. Again, plenty of people like that in the RPGing world...

Even a score below 6 is not by any means a death sentence to a PC and does emphasize the difference between themselves and an 18 score person.

I will grant you a combination of 6's in scores would make things very difficult, especially if another score is not exceedingly high to allow the PC a focus area. It isn't impossible to make such a character work, but you will more heavily rely on the support of the team--but is that really a bad thing in a team game?

That would be at 8. At 6, they are literally in a special school in today's world. They would be the sort of person sold as a slave in the middle ages. And one super high score and one super low score is incredibly rare in reality.

No, an 8 score is just below average, well above the realm of any sort of mental impairment. You're no Einstein, of course, but you would rarely, if ever, have difficulty living day-to-day.

Even if an INT 6 was the "village blockhead" or something, they would not be "sold as a slave in the middle ages." You're basically Forrest Gump IIRC or possibly a bit smarter. Due to INT scores being discrete, an INT 6 could represent an IQ 80 even.

Rolling 3d6 you would have to roll a 3 to be within the bottom 1st-percentile. In IQ scores, this is around a 60 and finally at the point you're considering an INT 6 in your more extreme statements.

You really are taking that a bit too far IMO. But, I don't intend to convince you, simply inform you that most people IMO will disagree with your assessment.

Finally, Intelligence comprises such a large range of factors (which is why IQ is not a reliable metric!) that someone with an INT 6 might have a very poor memory, forgetting things easily, but be relatively average in other factors of Intelligence, so the score "as a whole" averages to INT 6.

 

[Emerikol]

I've always multiplied the score by 10 to get a basic IQ. So a 6 INT is a 60 IQ. Go look up what a 60 IQ person can do and tell me they are going on harrowing adventures.

 

[TwoSix]

Finally, Intelligence comprises such a large range of factors (which is why IQ is not a reliable metric!) that someone with an INT 6 might have a very poor memory, forgetting things easily, but be relatively average in other factors of Intelligence, so the score "as a whole" averages to INT 6.

And mechanistically, all Int 6 means that you're not talented at wizardry and you have a tendency to fail checks based around knowledge and memory. A lack of education, not capability, could easily be the narrative behind a low Int score.

 

[TwoSix]

I've always multiplied the score by 10 to get a basic IQ. So a 6 INT is a 60 IQ. Go look up what a 60 IQ person can do and tell me they are going on harrowing adventures.

You could, you know, not do that, because it's an absolutely terrible heuristic outside of the middle of the stat bell curve.

18 Int and 3 Int are both a 1 in 216 chance of occurrence, which is just bumping against 3 sigma. +3 sigma in IQ would only be in roughly the mid 140s. (And disregarding the relatively inefficacy of IQ in actually measuring high intellectual capability.)

6 Int is the top of end of the bottom 5% or so. Even if medieval times, society didn't function where 1 person is 20 was incapable of basic life skills.

 

[Guest 7037866]

I've always multiplied the score by 10 to get a basic IQ. So a 6 INT is a 60 IQ.

But that doesn't jive with the probability of getting a roll of 6 using 3d6.

You're imposing a linear system on a bell-shaped distribution--generally a no-no IMO.

Even in AD&D, Gygax et al. recognized an INT 17+ as genius, which is IQ 145 or higher. That doesn't work with your method.

Go look up what a 60 IQ person can do and tell me they are going on harrowing adventures.

As I stated above, IQ 60 would be an INT 3, not 6, basically at the bottom of sentient intelligence.

FWIW, there is nothing "wrong" with using the scale you are considering scores range from 1-20 in 5E, but it doesn't work well with the probabilities of rolling 3d6. Doing this, you're going to get more geniuses (INT 15 or higher using your concept) and more dim-witted people on the low end.

I would recommend changing the bonuses also, making 9-11 +0, and for the negative values do the following:

 

[tetrasodium]

I've always multiplied the score by 10 to get a basic IQ. So a 6 INT is a 60 IQ. Go look up what a 60 IQ person can do and tell me they are going on harrowing adventures.

Which page of the PHB/DMG is that found on first?

 

[Emerikol]

But that doesn't jive with the probability of getting a roll of 6 using 3d6.

You're imposing a linear system on a bell-shaped distribution--generally a no-no IMO.

Even in AD&D, Gygax et al. recognized an INT 17+ as genius, which is IQ 145 or higher. That doesn't work with your method.


As I stated above, IQ 60 would be an INT 3, not 6, basically at the bottom of sentient intelligence.

FWIW, there is nothing "wrong" with using the scale you are considering scores range from 1-20 in 5E, but it doesn't work well with the probabilities of rolling 3d6. Doing this, you're going to get more geniuses (INT 15 or higher using your concept) and more dim-witted people on the low end.

I would recommend changing the bonuses also, making 9-11 +0, and for the negative values do the following:
View attachment 384317

I never imagined the 3d6 system as dictating how every human born got their attributes.

 

[Mannahnin]

I've always multiplied the score by 10 to get a basic IQ. So a 6 INT is a 60 IQ. Go look up what a 60 IQ person can do and tell me they are going on harrowing adventures.

This is an oversimplified and not very useful conversion, and it's pretty clear that Brian Blume didn't mean for it to be taken seriously when he tongue in cheek suggested it in Dragon #8, July 1977.

As folks have pointed out, it's obviously not the case that 16.2% of the population has an IQ of 140 or above (it's .48%).

And single digit ability scores were never intended to be so debilitating. The game rules wouldn't have allowed you to have a 3 Int if a 6 was meant to be non-functional as an adventurer.

Obviously ability scores have gotten more important in later editions, especially as bonuses have become more expected and necessary in the designed math. We're a long way from 1974 when the only ability scores which gave a mathematical bonus to rolls were Dex and Con (missile attacks and HP only), and those capped out at a +1 bonus or -1 penalty. But even still, in most editions a character can still be playable while having one or two very low stats.

 

[Emerikol]

Which page of the PHB/DMG is that found on first?

I am not at home to check my books but I read it somewhere.