Stats Have Suffered From Inflation

[Storminator]

Snatch record 473 pounds.

Clean and Jerk record 580 pounds.

That puts the Olympic record at about STR 23.

PS

 

[Dragonblade]

Also, I remember when this was AAAALLLLLL farm land as far as the eye could see....

...And Old Man Peabody owned all of it. He had this crazy dream...of breeding pine trees...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I remember playing D&D in the 80's and the players freaking out cause the brick of the party had a 17 Str. Now it seems that players are used to 20, 21 or even 22 Str and a fighter type with a 17 Str is merely laughed at for being weak. Is this just my group or is it in other places too?

What level? Are you handing out magic items properly? I'm certainly not seeing 1st-level fighters with a Strength of 17 or 18 if they're not a half-orc...

In any event, point buy prevents ridiculously high stats, IME.

 

[Crothian]

The fault lies with the players and with the DMS. Now that a 12 grants a stat bonus unlike any of the earlier editions lower stats now mean more then they ever did before. But for some reason the players and DMs aren't really seeing this and they encourage and demand high stats.

 

[francisca]

The fault lies with the players and with the DMS. Now that a 12 grants a stat bonus unlike any of the earlier editions lower stats now mean more then they ever did before. But for some reason the players and DMs aren't really seeing this and they encourage and demand high stats.

'cause more is better, right?

I do have one player who whines about the way stats are determined in my game. He constantly whines about everything else in his life as well. As you say, the problem lies with the players and DMs, not so much with the system. I do feel 3e enables more number crunching etc, just by it's nature, but I would stop (just) short of stating that it encourages it, if you take my meaning.

 

[wingsandsword]

That puts the Olympic record at about STR 23.

So, a human who begun with an 18 strength, and put points into it at each level, so at 20th level they reached 23 STR, and set a world record.

Funny how the system works out like that somehow.

Really, above 18 strength is world-class but realistically possible, above 23 is getting into superhuman strength.

By the same token, while there is more controversy over high IQ's (many players and DM's I know generally assume Int = IQ/10, a little crude, but it's popular and generally fits), the current Guinness record holder is Marilyn Vos Savant with 228 (it also depends on the test and such, there is controvery here, but just for the sake of this argument 228 fits well), which when divided by 10 comes to between 22 and 23, again as high as a human character can go without magical aid or going Epic. The standard scores vary between 100 and 110 depending on the test, and that divides to 10 to 11, being human average.

Also, this means that a PC with a 16 intelligence is quite literally a genius, much like somebody with a 16 strength is quite a strong and tough person, and so on.

There is a famous quote (I wish I could find the exact source, either it's from Gygax or a book he wrote) that uses Hitler as an example of an 18 Charisma. Now, that was meant for AD&D, but it also means that the incredibly charismatic dictator who built an entire nation into a cult of personality around him did not have a Charisma in the "superhuman" range.

Only in very high level and high fantasy games (which RAW D&D is by the teen levels) or superhero games would anybody ever think of a 17 or 18 as "low" in something somebody is good at. If you have a 17, you're probably famous for that ability score. The wisest person you know IRL might have a 17, that beloved local politician who everybody seems to like would be lucky to have a 17. A big, tough soldier who's known throughout the base as a big brick of a man who always wins at armwrestling might be a 17 strength.

Don't be ashamed of a 17 in an ability score, it's quite potent.

 

[Victim]

A 17 starting STR is still dang good - in fact, it's probably better than in 2nd since percentile STR created a huge possible advantage for those with 18s. Now stats tend to increase more from their initial values though. Of course, the high ranges of stats are more granular now - Titans go from 25 STR to 43. So each increase means less than before. Besides, the Strength spell in 2nd was pretty handy for boosting stats as well by midlevels: turn 17s into 18s for +2 damage a pop, and those with percentile STR will probably end up in the upper brackets for better attack and damage.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Stats haven't necessarily suffered from inflation as much as they've suffered from being rearranged.

Fighters used to be the only ones who could have % strength and more than a +2 bonus from Con.

Bonuses to stats didn't come in till much higher in the stats.

Strength used to have different numbers to hit and to damage.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Anyone who has ever seen the ability scores for Mordenkainen . . .

Add up the point buy value of early edition characters and you'll see.

Nowadays, you can play a decent paladin with no ability above 14. It used to be that you had to have a 17 just in Charisma -- a true dump stat in earlier editions.

Quasqueton

I never understood using CHA as a dump stat... but then again I'm generally vain. I always used WIS, because unless you're a paladin or a cleric, it doesn't affect you overmuch, and adventurers are always doing stupid things anyway. hehe

As far as stats go, and the desire to want higher ones. I can understand it. I do agree that a 17 Str is still pretty good, but you are going to feel a little bit small if there's a 22 Str half-orc or something in the party. You're still one of the bricks though. But you simply cannot play the "muscle-bound strongman" if you came up with a 13 or a 14, no matter how you RP it, any more than Kevin Spacey could play Caramon no matter how well he acted. So it's not completely "about the Character" as someone said.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Yep -- stats have deflated a bit since 1E/2E. You can now play a character with stats in the 8-12 range and be effective, while that would have been a commoner earlier.

huh? A 9 intelligence wizard in 3e can't cast ANY spells, while a 9 int wizard in AD&D can cast up to 4th level spells. Not very effective for a wizard, but a multiclass wizard could serve very well.

I find it just the opposite. 3e DEMANDS high stats to be effective at higher levels. A 20th level fighter needs a 30 strength, while his AD&D counterpart can get by quite well with a 12.