What would your D&D stats be?

[Evie]

While I'm fine wiht assuming lower-than-average strength, I think assuming lower-than-average dex and con is unfair. For every clumsy CFCer, we have artists, ace reflex video gamers and sports players. Heck, one could argue that speed typing takes a great deal of dexterity. And we do have a fair number of very high speed typers. Average sems right. Dex is not limited to acrobatics and whatnot. (It does, after all, fuel lockpicking and the ilk)

Likewise with con. The idea that we tend to average to couch potato is unfair, and the distinction between overweight and out of shape is also relevant here. An overweight person who has a heart and muscles that can keep up with most long-term physical activity and who rarely get sick is above-average constitution. I'd estimate, again,that the average CfC member is probably around a 9, wiht the more physically capable members making up for the more frail ones.

I'd probably have it at
7-8 STR
9-10 DEX
9-10 CON

The rest sounds right.

 

[Harv]

If eschewing the standard 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 or 27-point buy from base 8, my favorite rolling method is 4d4 with lowest die replaced by 4 - so 7 min, 16 max.

Interesting. The first system gives an average of 12.5. Your system gives an average of 12.74.

As a DM, I'd assign roughly the following to the average CFC user:

Strength- 7
Dexterity- 8
Constitution- 8
Intelligence- 13
Wisdom- 11
Charisma- 9

This is probably based on the assumption that they are posting on CFC rather than in a dungeon out there killing monsters. Fireball. Different targets. Same thing. I was going to argue about the intelligence score, but I averaged the probability of rolling 11 to 18 and got the exact same number, 13.

After criticizing your measure of Strength based on 1RM PR Deadlift, I actually like it. What kind of guidelines do you have for the other scores?

 

[Zelig]

Hey, I'm already giving CFC more credit for physical health than I would to the population at large.

I just have a really low opinion of the physical shape of people in the western world, well over 80% of the population doesn't meet the minimum physical activity requirements for long-term health.

Interesting. The first system gives an average of 12.5. Your system gives an average of 12.74.

Well I prefer taking the assigned stats, but some groups insist on rolling, in which case I try to push towards minimizing randomness in the resulting rolls.

After criticizing your measure of Strength based on 1RM PR Deadlift, I actually like it. What kind of guidelines do you have for the other scores?

1RM PR deadlift isn't "mine", it's an official 5e rule. (Well, 1RM deadlift being by interpretation of "maximum lift".)

I can't recall if any of the other stats have anything similar - I'm at work now but I can check the PHB when I get home.

 

[onejayhawk]

My dice seem to be stuck on 6. Is that bad?

J

 

[Evie]

Hey, I'm already giving CFC more credit for physical health than I would to the population at large.

I just have a really low opinion of the physical shape of people in the western world, well over 80% of the population doesn't meet the minimum physical activity requirements for long-term health.

While there's definitely such a thing as a relation between physical activity and long-term health, I think it's a bad mistake to assume it's a one-size-fits-all ratio where how much exercise you do directly govern how healthy a person is. Some people need more exercise to maintain health at an equal level, others less ; plus constitution in this capacity should probably more reflect short- to mid-term health than long-to-very-long term. It should be about how healthy a person is now, and for this year and the next ; not how healthy they're going to be at 50 or 60. So minimum exercise for long-term health doesn't strike me as a useful ratio in defining constitution.

Besides which, since when do we expect RP systems to reflect aging?

 

[Zelig]

While there's definitely such a thing as a relation between physical activity and long-term health, I think it's a bad mistake to assume it's a one-size-fits-all ratio where how much exercise you do directly govern how healthy a person is. Some people need more exercise to maintain health at an equal level, others less ; plus constitution in this capacity should probably more reflect short- to mid-term health than long-to-very-long term. It should be about how healthy a person is now, and for this year and the next ; not how healthy they're going to be at 50 or 60. So minimum exercise for long-term health doesn't strike me as a useful ratio in defining constitution.

Besides which, since when do we expect RP systems to reflect aging?

In the short-term, I doubt much more than 10% of the population could get minimum passing scores on a typical military or police fitness test.

And exercise helps short-term health by pretty much any measure anyway:

Relation between exercise and sick leave

"Strenuous physical activity at least three times a week reduces the amount of time spent on sick leave, a study in the Netherlands has found, but moderate exercise had no noticeable effect."

Acute xercise stimulates macrophage function: possible role of NF-kappaB pathways.

"Moderate physical activity when performed on a regular basis presents a number of benefits to the whole organism, especially regarding immune system function, such as augmenting resistance to infections and to cancer growth."

 

[Evie]

I doubt police and military fitness test should be considered anywhere even close to "average" physical fitness. They're especially fit people, not representative of what normal human fitness should be.

"Strenuous physical activity at least three times a week reduces the amount of time spent on sick leave, a study in the Netherlands has found, but moderate exercise had no noticeable effect."

You're talking averages again. Some people don't exercise (or at least, not strenuously) but are rarely if ever sick ; some people exercise a lot but are sick a lot. In general what you said remain true, but ultimately, it's a person's actual physical condition and capabilities, not how much they exercise to get there that make up constitution.

 

[Antilogic]

My dice seem to be stuck on 6. Is that bad?

J

Only if you are trying to space cards in Twilight Struggle. But you would be killin' it on the coups, so it'll work out for ya.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Based on the test posted a couple of pages ago, I got:

STR:7
INT:14
WIS:13
DEX:8
CON:10
CHR:9

While doing the test if there was something ambiguous/uncertain I generally chose the worse option, so I suppose I might be underestimating myself in some respects. I think though INT and WIS are definitely overestimated, and possibly STR and CON depending on how bad an effect my Crohn's would have in the context of D&D. My CHA is really difficult to ascertain... while I'm generally not good with some folks with other folks I'm pretty, er, charismatic even if I'm quiet and shy at first.

If I were to do something a bit more subjective, I suppose something more like...

STR:6
INT:12
WIS:11
DEX:9
CON:5
CHR:9

 

[Zelig]

I doubt police and military fitness test should be considered anywhere even close to "average" physical fitness. They're especially fit people, not representative of what normal human fitness should be.

I disagree, they're only above average because the average North American is fat and lazy. Remember, I'm talking minimum grades for the physical tests.

You're talking averages again. Some people don't exercise (or at least, not strenuously) but are rarely if ever sick ; some people exercise a lot but are sick a lot. In general what you said remain true, but ultimately, it's a person's actual physical condition and capabilities, not how much they exercise to get there that make up constitution.

I don't know about much evidence of naturally good immune systems - you'd need to run a study to see how past sickness correlates to future sickness, while controlling for other variables.

On the other hand, given the correct probability curve for random sicknesses, the observed data for exercise could result in exactly the results we get in reality.

In the context of D&D, I'm assuming everyone is pretty much optimally training, given time constraints for their role. If wizard wants to give up some of his book learnin' to focus on health, I'd let him take -4 int/+4 con, probably scaled to -1/+1 change every couple months.

D&D characters are typically immune to smoking effects, but I'd give -3 con for heavy smoking if I was playing that.

CON depending on how bad an effect my Crohn's would have in the context of D&D.

I'd say none, I'd just have you roll at disadvantage (roll d20 twice and take the lower roll) in situations where the Crohn's is relevant.

 

[Harv]

Hey, I'm already giving CFC more credit for physical health than I would to the population at large.

I just have a really low opinion of the physical shape of people in the western world, well over 80% of the population doesn't meet the minimum physical activity requirements for long-term health.

This. He is trying to say that the typical Fighter from a D&D Fantasy setting is far more active than the typical CFC user. This will be reflected in the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution score. Therefore it is more valid to compare these average scores with average scores from people who are physically active.

The scores he gave might reflect a magic user who spends much more time studying books than in physical training. Strength would be reduced in order to increase the Intelligence roll. So the average score for Strength might be more like 9 instead of 10.5.

1RM PR deadlift isn't "mine", it's an official 5e rule. (Well, 1RM deadlift being by interpretation of "maximum lift".)

I do not have the rulebook, so I do not specifically know what it says. A deadlift is set up to optimize the weight that could be lifted. Say somebody can deadlift 300 pounds and there is a rock on the ground that weighs 300 pounds. Can he lift it? Does the rulebook say anything about how high this lift is? Is it a lift to the hips or to the shoulders?

At a county strongman competition, there was an event (Atlas Stones) where the person lifted progressively heavier stones to a platform about chest high. The stones ranged from 200 to 220 to 250 to 300 to 330. Most of the guys looked at the 330 pounder and shook his head. One guy lifted the 300 pounder and just used the 330 pounder as a stepping stone to jump up onto the platform to celebrate: He won the contest.

Would a Strength 10 D&D character be able to accomplish the same feat? How would a Strength 9 Magic-User do?

I can't recall if any of the other stats have anything similar - I'm at work now but I can check the PHB when I get home.

You would probably have to look up stat checks and skills and stuff like that. The questionnaires I saw tended to be way to subjective and yield numbers that are way too high. (Hopefully arguing about all of this is helping your skills as a DM - You probably have to have arguments like this all the time.)

Dexterity: List 5 simple feats, 5 challenging feats, and 5 amazing feats. Start at 3 and claim 1 point for each feat. Simple might be a somersault or a cartwheel. Amazing might be to stand at the top of a stairwell and do a back flip onto the next stair. Maybe the back flip is good enough. Incorporate agility, balance, coordination, handwork, footwork, stability and stuff like that.

There is a lot more to dexterity than shooting them up in a video game. If somebody swings at you, are you able to get out of the way in time? Are you able to make him look like a fool while you are at it? Do you win finesse games like fencing? If you are throwing a ball, are you able to replicate that same throw every time?

Constitution: I put too much weight into mass before, but the questionnaires put way too much weight into general health. 3d6, 1d6 for general health, 1d6 for body mass, (durability) and 1d6 for endurance. You can measure mass and put a number on endurance. Now we are left with a somewhat healthy scale. Maybe start with 6 and subtract 1 per health issue.

So similar to the scenario above, say you just hit somebody with a solid strike. What determines if that person is still standing or conscious?

Well, those are the physical characteristics. Pretty soon we will have a CFC Questionnaire for RPG stats.

 

[Evie]

This. He is trying to say that the typical Fighter from a D&D Fantasy setting is far more active than the typical CFC user. This will be reflected in the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution score. Therefore it is more valid to compare these average scores with average scores from people who are physically active.

The typical fighter is going to have STR-DEX-CON way above 9 or average - 15-14-13 or the ilk (using the 15-14-13-12-11-8 spread presented earlier). I agree the average modern human is below those stats.

I disagree, they're only above average because the average North American is fat and lazy. Remember, I'm talking minimum grades for the physical tests.

And I'm talking the fact that you're talking passing grade for the exam for some of the most physical performance-intensive (with lives depending on your physical performance in many cases) and treating them as if they should describe what average humans are capable of. No ; these are not average capabilities.

That said...

I can sort of agree that STR-wise, the average westerners is somewhat below the historical average, though I may not agree precisely on how much below average. I think you're a little extra-cycnical toward the physical condition of westerners (right in general, but perhaps not magnitude-wise).

Constitution, I think we,re much closer to historical average, because there's more of a trade-off factor. After all, I don't think you can maintain with a straight face that the average modern westerner is less healthy than the average medieval peasant. Less enduring, yes (by a fair margin), but not less healthy, and both of these factors here. I could see a -1 compared to medieval, maybe, but in my opinion the improvements in living conditions over the past 200 years or so have left us well ahead of the historical average. Sure, it may not be "natural" constitution, but calculated vitamin intake, vaccinations and the ilk pretty much amount to pumping ourselves full of manuals of bodily health (plural) for those juicy +1 CON bonuses. I think it's probably best to assume we're very close to the historical average. One could argue we're ahead of it, I think. It depends how much you rate stamina vs healthiness.

And dexterity...you're wrong. Sorry, but you'r ewrong. We live in a world where we charge at the speed of a small hurricane (okay, a large tropical storm to be very accurate) in steel monsters without scratching their paints. We live in a world where we learn to put together sequences of finger gestures that involve hitting precise areas in specific orders without looking, and many of us can carry out 4, 5 of those gestures in a single second without mistakes (and some of us can go up to 8 or 10 or more in a second, again with minimal to no mistakes. And we live in a world where those are commonplace. Heck, one of them is basically a *rite of passage* into adulthood that the overwhelming majority of westerners have to go through.

We're at the very, very least average in terms of dexterity. I'd argue for above.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If you want to take a long quiz, try What D&D Character Would You Be?

According to them, I'm a 5th-level Chaotic Neutral Human Wizard.

Strength- 10
Dexterity- 12
Constitution- 10
Intelligence- 14
Wisdom- 13
Charisma- 11

Human is fine, and if I had to shoehorn myself into the D&D character classes, Wizard is probably a reasonable choice. I also scored well for Bard and Sorcerer. The ability scores seem alright.

Chaotic Neutral is not how I think of myself. I came close to True Neutral too, and scored a zero for Evil of any kind. So if your definition of Neutral is "some Good and some Evil" then I don't fit the bill. I guess this judges me "sometimes selfish, sometimes altruistic, but not malevolent"?

My results:

Chaotic Neutral Elf Druid/Sorcerer (3rd/2nd Level)

Alignment:
Chaotic Neutral- A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal. However, chaotic neutral can be a dangerous alignment when it seeks to eliminate all authority, harmony, and order in society.

Race:
Elves are known for their poetry, song, and magical arts, but when danger threatens they show great skill with weapons and strategy. Elves can live to be over 700 years old and, by human standards, are slow to make friends and enemies, and even slower to forget them. Elves are slim and stand 4.5 to 5.5 feet tall. They have no facial or body hair, prefer comfortable clothes, and possess unearthly grace. Many others races find them hauntingly beautiful.

Primary Class:
Druids- Druids gain power not by ruling nature but by being at one with it. They hate the unnatural, including aberrations or undead, and destroy them where possible. Druids receive divine spells from nature, not the gods, and can gain an array of powers as they gain experience, including the ability to take the shapes of animals. The weapons and armor of a druid are restricted by their traditional oaths, not simply training. A druid's Wisdom score should be high, as this determines the maximum spell level that they can cast.

Secondary Class:
Sorcerers- Sorcerers are arcane spellcasters who manipulate magic energy with imagination and talent rather than studious discipline. They have no books, no mentors, no theories just raw power that they direct at will. Sorcerers know fewer spells than wizards do and acquire them more slowly, but they can cast individual spells more often and have no need to prepare their incantations ahead of time. Also unlike wizards, sorcerers cannot specialize in a school of magic. Since sorcerers gain their powers without undergoing the years of rigorous study that wizards go through, they have more time to learn fighting skills and are proficient with simple weapons. Charisma is very important for sorcerers; the higher their value in this ability, the higher the spell level they can cast.


Some of the questions were ridiculous and I couldn't give an honest answer. It's also US-centric (ie. the question about assassination). Some questions depend on variables not included in the question. Some questions are impossible for an atheist to answer accurately.

Most of the D&D characters I've played have been magic-users. I played a cleric once because nobody else wanted to, and we needed one.

If I understand AD&D correctly, you are usually rolling a specific class and there were alternate rules to get you a higher score. This is reflecting that your character is more likely to be exceptional.

There are alternate methods of character generation where you can roll for a specific class, and an additional trait called 'Comeliness'.

This is probably based on the assumption that they are posting on CFC rather than in a dungeon out there killing monsters. Fireball. Different targets. Same thing. I was going to argue about the intelligence score, but I averaged the probability of rolling 11 to 18 and got the exact same number, 13.

One of the benefits of a higher Intelligence score is the ability to read/speak more than one language. That's a trait that quite a few of us here on CFC have in common - at least some fluency with a second language besides the one we learned first.

 

[Zelig]

And I'm talking the fact that you're talking passing grade for the exam for some of the most physical performance-intensive (with lives depending on your physical performance in many cases) and treating them as if they should describe what average humans are capable of. No ; these are not average capabilities.

That said...

I can sort of agree that STR-wise, the average westerners is somewhat below the historical average, though I may not agree precisely on how much below average. I think you're a little extra-cycnical toward the physical condition of westerners (right in general, but perhaps not magnitude-wise).

Constitution, I think we,re much closer to historical average, because there's more of a trade-off factor. After all, I don't think you can maintain with a straight face that the average modern westerner is less healthy than the average medieval peasant. Less enduring, yes (by a fair margin), but not less healthy, and both of these factors here. I could see a -1 compared to medieval, maybe, but in my opinion the improvements in living conditions over the past 200 years or so have left us well ahead of the historical average. Sure, it may not be "natural" constitution, but calculated vitamin intake, vaccinations and the ilk pretty much amount to pumping ourselves full of manuals of bodily health (plural) for those juicy +1 CON bonuses. I think it's probably best to assume we're very close to the historical average. One could argue we're ahead of it, I think. It depends how much you rate stamina vs healthiness.

And dexterity...you're wrong. Sorry, but you'r ewrong. We live in a world where we charge at the speed of a small hurricane (okay, a large tropical storm to be very accurate) in steel monsters without scratching their paints. We live in a world where we learn to put together sequences of finger gestures that involve hitting precise areas in specific orders without looking, and many of us can carry out 4, 5 of those gestures in a single second without mistakes (and some of us can go up to 8 or 10 or more in a second, again with minimal to no mistakes. And we live in a world where those are commonplace. Heck, one of them is basically a *rite of passage* into adulthood that the overwhelming majority of westerners have to go through.

We're at the very, very least average in terms of dexterity. I'd argue for above.

Military/police fitness standards really aren't all that difficult to reach. Of course they don't represent an average, that's because they're tailored to get enough recruits from a sedentary population. Anyone non-elderly can trivially pass them by cutting out crap food until they're at a good weight and then moderate jogging and pushups for a few months until they meet the standards.

The accessibility of driving alone can explain it away as not having much of an impact on average dex. Per typical d20 rules, regular driving doesn't require any skill checks once trained, regardless of dex. Under d&d rules I'd probably make calculating odds for long-term driving safety based on wisdom, since accidents are typically because of poor driver decisions, not lack of technical ability. Something like percentile dice, add/subtract 10*wisdom modifier from 20 with max 50, min 5. Failing represents an at-fault accident within the next 10 years, keep rerolling for more accidents until you pass.

 

[Commodore]

Military/police fitness standards really aren't all that difficult to reach. Of course they don't represent an average, that's because they're tailored to get enough recruits from a sedentary population. Anyone non-elderly can trivially pass them by cutting out crap food until they're at a good weight and then moderate jogging and pushups for a few months until they meet the standards.

This is true, which is why most combat units set their own unit standards much higher than the Army standard. The cavalry unit I was with had a PT standard of 280 points on the PT test. For reference, the PT test maxes out at 300 points and the Army minimum passing standard is 180 points. I don't remember the exact numbers, but to get that 180 points one only had to do like 30-40 pushups in 2 minutes, 40-50 situps in 2 minutes, and do a 2-mile run in 16 minutes. So it really isn't all that demanding of a test to meet the bare minimum Army standard.

 

[Harv]

This is true, which is why most combat units set their own unit standards much higher than the Army standard. The cavalry unit I was with had a PT standard of 280 points on the PT test. For reference, the PT test maxes out at 300 points and the Army minimum passing standard is 180 points. I don't remember the exact numbers, but to get that 180 points one only had to do like 30-40 pushups in 2 minutes, 40-50 situps in 2 minutes, and do a 2-mile run in 16 minutes. So it really isn't all that demanding of a test to meet the bare minimum Army standard.

When I am feeling less lazy, I might look up what this PT test might be. It looks representative of "bare minimum" Constitution. All I have seen so far is the pull-up contests.

Without knowing what is involved in the PT test, and based on earlier posts in other threads, I would speculate that you are seriously under-representing your Constitution score.

Is the 180 points the passing standard to get in the Army? Or is it to stay? I am guessing this is representative of:

Strength 10: They don't care how strong you are once you are at a bare minimum.
Dexterity 10: Pretty much the same.
Constitution 12, leaning towards 14. Military cares about endurance, right? Constitution. Prime Requisite for Soldiers.

and do a 2-mile run in 16 minutes

This is directly testing your VO2 Max. What does this translate to? 45 mL/kg/min?

 

[Evie]

The accessibility of driving alone can explain it away as not having much of an impact on average dex. Per typical d20 rules, regular driving doesn't require any skill checks once trained, regardless of dex. Under d&d rules I'd probably make calculating odds for long-term driving safety based on wisdom, since accidents are typically because of poor driver decisions, not lack of technical ability. Something like percentile dice, add/subtract 10*wisdom modifier from 20 with max 50, min 5. Failing represents an at-fault accident within the next 10 years, keep rerolling for more accidents until you pass.

And that'S pretty much my point. it'S so commonplace that in a modern-setting game you basically can't have it require high scores and still have a realistic game, but it still demand pretty good reflexes and hands-eyes coordination.

We don'T even think about those things as dexterity activity because they're so commonplace we forget what kind of requirements they have. Resulting in us selling ourselves short, while we fawn all over people who did commonplace medieval activity because they'Re not commonplace anymore in our modern world, even though there was a time when they were.

 

[Antilogic]

...do a 2-mile run in 16 minutes. So it really isn't all that demanding of a test to meet the bare minimum Army standard.

That is a bit more challenging if you are short and don't have a long stride length, my good sir.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Or if you feel like your lungs are tar only after 100 meters.

 

[Zelig]

And that'S pretty much my point. it'S so commonplace that in a modern-setting game you basically can't have it require high scores and still have a realistic game, but it still demand pretty good reflexes and hands-eyes coordination.

We don'T even think about those things as dexterity activity because they're so commonplace we forget what kind of requirements they have. Resulting in us selling ourselves short, while we fawn all over people who did commonplace medieval activity because they'Re not commonplace anymore in our modern world, even though there was a time when they were.

There are no skill checks for horseback riding either, which I'd rank as comparable in magnitude of difficulty as driving a car.

That is a bit more challenging if you are short and don't have a long stride length, my good sir.

I could do that in 12 minutes when I was 11 and short.