Stats Have Suffered From Inflation

[kenobi65]

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)

Yeah, I remember that rule of thumb (Int = IQ/10) from my 1E days...but I've recently discovered that it just doesn't mesh with reality.

On a straight roll of 3d6, one out of 216 people would wind up with an 18 intelligence. (That's roughly 0.5% of the population.) According to that rule of thumb, it means that 0.5% of the population would have an IQ of 180.

However...

I've taken several IQ tests over the years...and consistently get about a 140-145. According to various web sites I've looked at on distribution of IQ scores, that (in theory) puts me somewhere around the 98th to 99+ percentile. But, according to that rule of thumb, I'd only have an INT score of 14 -- and, by the 3d6 bell curve, a 14 or more would be scored by, I think, (31/216) 14% of the population.

 

[wingsandsword]

Yeah, I remember that rule of thumb (Int = IQ/10) from my 1E days...but I've recently discovered that it just doesn't mesh with reality.

On a straight roll of 3d6, one out of 216 people would wind up with an 18 intelligence. (That's roughly 0.5% of the population.) According to that rule of thumb, it means that 0.5% of the population would have an IQ of 180.

I've thought about that myself, and I still stick to Int=IQ/10.

The way I see it is that average folk don't roll 3d6 for their stats, they have 10's and 11's, and might have one be a little above normal, but probably something below normal too. 15 point-buy is a good way to look at an "average" person. Actually rolling for stats is done by people of heroic potential (i.e. PC's) who have a much greater chance of being exceptionally bright/strong/tough ect, and have a chance of being remarkably lacking in some department.

I think of how uncommon high IQ's are and remind myself that high ability scores certainly exist, but they are special, and the people who have them are quite memorable and exceptional. Of course, that's what PC's are, nothing if not exceptional.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

So, a module has character with stats this high so that means that all games of this level need stats this high? :\

No, bu it's the company that produces the game that sets the standards. Since WOTC published that module, most people just picking it up have to assume that is the standard and that anything with stats below that (at the same character level) is simply a low magic game.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Really? You could get by with a 12 Strength in AD&D? Well, sure, if you're playing a campaign where the most dangerous thing you ever face is a declawed kitten and a talking bush...

I' played a dwarven fighter who threw a 17 in con and his next highest stat (I forget what it was exactly, but it was low enough that it granted no bonus to hit) in strength. He did fine and was likely to be the last man (or dwarf) standing. A 12 isn't THAT much different than an 18 (00), not compared to the stratospheric stats of 3e, anyway.

 

[Nathan P. Mahney]

And a belt of giant strength don't give you near as much as it used to.

Tell me about it. My old 2e halfling rogue had a Strength of 23 with his Girdle of Giant Strength, but when he got converted it was a pitiful 19. 19!!! From 1d6+14 damage to 1d6 +8.... Of course, I was getting twice as many attacks a round, so it all evened out...

 

[Testament]

I' played a dwarven fighter who threw a 17 in con and his next highest stat (I forget what it was exactly, but it was low enough that it granted no bonus to hit) in strength. He did fine and was likely to be the last man (or dwarf) standing. A 12 isn't THAT much different than an 18 (00), not compared to the stratospheric stats of 3e, anyway.

Who here remembers that conversion book for 25 to 3E? An 18/00, going by that, is the equivalent to a 25 Str.

Methinks that its not 3.X that has the "stratospheric" stats.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Who here remembers that conversion book for 25 to 3E? An 18/00, going by that, is the equivalent to a 25 Str.

Methinks that its not 3.X that has the "stratospheric" stats.

I don't see how. 18/00 is +3 +6, 25 in 3e is +7/+7,


I didn't mean to insult 3e, I'm just saying that according to the rules, and the standard WOTC themselves set, high level characters in 3e are EXPECTED to have stats in the 30s, while a 1e character never gets much better than what he rolls at character creation.

 

[S'mon]

IQ = INTx10 never made any sense. The various editions of the game have always treated INT 18 as "typical genius" not "1 in a billion". IQ = INTx5+50 gives closer results, so your INT 30 Archmage would be IQ 200 not 300, your INT 3 half-orc IQ 65 not 30 (30 being somewhat dumber than a typical chimpanzee).

 

[Quasqueton]

A 12 isn't THAT much different than an 18 (00), not compared to the stratospheric stats of 3e, anyway.

Wha?! Huh?

AD&D1/2
12 = +0
18/00 = +3 attack, +6 damage
3 and 6 points of difference

D&D3
12 = +1
19 = +4
3 points of difference


Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

So, a module has character with stats this high so that means that all games of this level need stats this high?

Not *all* games, but those pre-generated PCs do represent the "standard", or game baseline.

I point to the pre-gens of old AD&D modules. It is interesting to note that most high-level pre-gens of earlier D&D have very high stats (for AD&D). Look at the characters for Isle of the Ape:

Six Human PCs, levels 14-19
Two 19s
Fourteen 18s
Four 17s
Seven 16s
Five 15s
One 14
Two 13s
One character is missing a constitution score. No ability increasing magic items. And remember, in AD&D, 18 was a hard limit. Other than Strength, 19+ was "godly" ability.

Quasqueton