Ability scores in practice

Remove all ads!

OK, we all know descriptions from core books. Together with the tables and such. However, the stats aren't numbers for their own sake - they have to reflect some reality, somehow. Saying that a character with 16 DEX is a little bit easier to hit than a character with 18 DEX and doesn't shoot equally well is not quite enough

So, especially DMs and/or experienced players: maybe some transparent examples of stats applied in practice? In any other way than providing a certain amount of bonus to rolled dice?

 

It's important to take in account other modifiers besides ability score modifiers.

For your Dex-AC example, d20 Modern (basically D&D applied to the real world) has all its classes give an AC bonus as one gains levels in that class. So a 10th-level Fast Hero (d20 Modern class) with 18 Dexterity is significantly harder to hit than a 1st-level Smart Hero (d20 Modern class) with 16 Dexterity.

A good D&D example is that a 10th-level Ranger with Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot is a much better archer than a 2nd-level Rogue, even if the Rogue has better Dexterity than the Ranger, since the Ranger has better base attack bonus and archery feats.

 

aye, stats represent the potential abilities of a character. How you train them is up to a lot more factors.

If a person has high int, I might let him make a int check for some intuitive idea to solve a puzzle/riddle. Would be my example.

Charisma would be how the world percieves what the character says, not necessarily what he says.

 

Sure, I made an assumption that the characters are of more or less equal level or whatever. After all, you always have to hit bonus, anyway.

And, as I said, we all know what core books say. What about practical examples?

 

Skill Ranks. Obviously you don't get attack ranks or AC ranks in D&D, but that's because D&D as a game is fairly combat-oriented.

Asides that, you could say that everyone is usually taking 10 in the real world when it comes to skills. You could reason that a clumsy person with 8 Dex might have to try several times on a Use Rope check (DC 15), but a skilled person with 4 ranks and 13 Dex could succeed every time on that same check, since all he would have to do is take 10.

Obviously combat is both distracting and life-threatening, so you can't take 10 on attack rolls and saving throws. I suppose you could when sparring or practicing, though.

 

Right, skills obstruct the view. As well as some check-improving feats. Putting skills and feats aside, though, maybe a little bit of demographics?

Like, maybe, what groups of people (status, occupation, rank, area and level of expertise) possess a given score, what they can typically do (e.g. what you can do with 14 WIS, 12 CHA or 16 DEX, what you can't do with 6 DEX or 8 WIS etc etc) with that score etc etc.

 

So you're looking for a real world example? Like an Olympic-calibre gymnast or figure-skater might have a DEX of 17-18, whereas a high school athlete may have only a 15-16?

 

Something like that. Whatever strikes as valid.

 

If you're saying that there should be more than a +1/-1 modifier between an ability score of X and (X-2), then the only real thing there is are the feats that need an ability score of Y to be taken.

There are plenty of feats with a prerequisite of (ability score) (Y), of course (e.g. Point Blank Shot, Expertise, Power Attack, etc., etc.).

 

Aye, they give some idea. However, taking a feat implies some training focus (like hitting hard or blocking blows), therefore elligibility for a feat means elligibility for training.

 

you could translate ability scores with the term "talent".

It's the amount of training, and the genetic code that makes you who you are from birth to puberty. From then you start to acquire skills and feats from more specialized training. If we were to look at the world in d&d terms. At least that's how I see it.

 

That's more or less like I see it. At some point they become largely irrelevant in classic roleplaying situations, anyway - just as you say. However, on some day to day basis chracters don't typically use certain feats and stats show some importance. Plus, some properties remain untouched by feats and skills. Anyway, if not practical examples, maybe some demographics then?

 

Having started with od&d, where we tried to take the 3d6 stat generation seriously (only rerolling if, for example, all of the requisite stats -- S, I, W, D -- were below 9), I would say: Down with stat inflation!

We did end up modifying this, even for existing characters, as the od&d modules tended to inflate stats as you moved from rule set to rule set (i.e., from basic to expert to companion, etc.) It was sort of annoying to have the heroes so far behind their enemies in competency!

In any case, we assumed the baseline for a healthy young adult to be 10s. 3d6 gives an average of 10.5, which makes the hero slightly above average. We also assumed that the hero had a much greater chance of being either excessively gifted (16-18) or excessively flawed (3-5). So we wouldn't expect that one in 216 of the general population would have a strength of 18, for example. (For those who haven't played od&d, 13-15 is a +1 bonus, 16-17 is +2, and 18 is +3). So in this interpretation of the od&d game world, a character with, say, 13s in Str, Dex, and Con could potentially be considered to be an *exceptional* athlete.

In addition, we considered levels in addition to stats in considering role playing issues, as though stats represented where you had begun, and levels represented how you have developed. It seemed absurd to us, for example that a 10th level fighter with an 11Str would lose in an arm wrestling match to a 0th level peasant with an 18 Str. I mean, all that training, the better THAC0, and all those HPs have to count for something, especially as the 10th level fighter would almost seem to have god-like powers to a room full of 0th level peasants.

I seem to recall some suggestion that Int scores * 10 were loosely equivalent to IQ scores, which would mean an Int of 14 would be an IQ of 140, and hence, technically, a genius. So an ivy-league physicist could have, say an int of 14 or 15. Of course, at the same time, there are all sorts of problems with "intelligence" as measured by IQ or any other tests, as they simply can't approach the complexity of human intelligence, which expresses itself in many different ways. In our games, we would also take into account how a character had been developed in role-playing terms, so that if they were considered experts or incompetant in certain areas, that would be reflected in stat checks.

So for us, finally, the stats ultimately only had a definitive meaning relative to the game mechanics in combat. Otherwise, in terms of roleplaying, they could be far more malleable.

 

Bion brings up some great points - and takes me back to my OD&D days. Geez - I remember those books - the basic was the red one, expert the blue and companion the green and the immortal was bronze - and it's probably been 15 years since I've seen them.

Anyway, to the topic at hand, real life examples are very difficult for most stats. Strength is probably the easiest, and the IQ equating to intelligence makes some sense, but most are difficult if not impossible.

For example, how can you state the difference between someone who has a 12 in wisdom as opposed to a 14? Yes, there must be a difference, but what? Charisma is equally nebulous with small changes.

Finally, and this is a bit but lots of people powergame in CRPG's, but no one ever powergamed in PnP RPG's. I thought nothing of having a character in PnP RPG's that didn't have a single stat in excess of 15 - but in a CRPG, I wouldn't dream of it.

Edit: Spelling

[ March 31, 2004, 21:40: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

@Aldeth- I agree; it seems to me that stats mostly have to do with game mechanics, but that there are many more ways to interpret them otherwise.

Even Str seems to me to be hard to define. In game mechanics, it covers not only how much you can lift, but also how easily you can hit something with a melee weapon, and how much damage you would do. The bonuses to "to hit and damage" would seem to have more to do with what is called "power," which also takes into account the speed with which strength can be brought to bear. So strength would seem to be tied to muscular coordination, and hense, would at least partially overlap with Dex, as well as being tied to endurance (Con). So it's not simply a matter of taking someone to the gym and working up a formula to tabulate how much they can lift in free weights or on machines (and of course, which measures of strength are more important here?). If you talk to serious weightlifters (I once had the privilege of having drinks with the "Pocket Hercules," the Bulgarian-Turkish weightlifter who still holds the record for weightlifting in proportion to his own weight), you realize how much of it is training in addition to raw strength: one trains for a very specific kind of strength, endurance, and coordination having to do with the very specific ways that they lift weights. A simple clean and jerk, when you break it down, is an incredibly complex set of moves. A different kind of strength would be involved in weightlifting that involves a greater number of repetitions. Strength is involved in the explosive start of a sprinter as much as it is in the sustained exertion of a wrestler. And strength is most definitely mental as well as physical; any of the examples one can find of people who have the most "strength" would quickly point out that Intellegence, Will (Wisdom), and Force of Personality (Charisma) were also exceedingly important in developing that strength.

So again, it seems to me that stats only have meaning vis-a-vis game mechanics.

 

Sorry, can't agree. Following that logic, it would be absurd if a 0 level 18 STR peasant were able to carry or lift more than a 10 level 11 STR fighter. The 18 STR character is still stronger and will win any armwrestling much unless some grappling checks make room for the fighter to show skill the peasant can't have.

A 10 level wizard seems even more god-like than a 10 level fighter to a room full of 0 level peasants. Still, no one expects the wizard to win any armwrestling match.

 

@chevalier- I guess I would still stand by the arm-wrestling assertion, tho it was the hardest to defend. Why? I would say that even arm-wrestling can be trained for. In addition (and this is another discussion), I had always thought of *all* classes in DnD as being inherently magical. Though one can partially justify HP increases as reflecting skill in battle (so that the 6pts of damage which would be a mortal blow to a peasant is only a glancing blow to a 10th level fighter), it's hard to justify how any mortal can be set on fire, or fall 100' onto spikes, without being in mortal danger. So I think of all classes in a DnD setting as becoming inherently more "magical" at the same time that they improve their swordsmanship, etc. A high level fighter would be able to employ techniques undreamed of by, say, a RL expert in fencing. This RL expert in fencing would, in a DnD world, simply be a highly skilled 1st level character IMHO. And so, I would argue that the DnD rule set isn't finely tuned enough to model RL combat, and that's fine because RL combat is not the concern of DnD.

Also, tho a 10th level wizard isn't a combat specialist, give one a sword and some armor, and they can tank as well as a 4th level fighter, even without buffing themselves! So tell your peasant soldiers that your wizard is actually a grizzled mercenary sergeant, and have him put them through the paces, and they might not know the difference (tho they might think he's a little odd!)

 

1. No, all classes aren't magical.

2. Techniques not related to ki use are taken from real-life fencing. Here: weapon focus, specialisation, improved criticals, power attack, expertise, dodge, mobility, spring attack, whirlwind. Heck, even cleave.

3. HP is before and above everything else a measure of how easy or difficult it is to kill a given character.

4. No matter your technique, you're not going to win armwrestling against someone almost twice stronger. Even with a good constitution. When the difference in strength is significant, it lasts several minutes if the weaker guy has technique, training or whatever. Otherwise, it's a quick job. Been there, done that.

 

1. I don't agree. I know the rule books don't specifically say that fighters become more magical as they gain levels, it still seems to me to make much more logical sense than the idea that one could gain equivalent skills as DnD fighters in the RL. The justification of HPs that enable fighters to take damage completely unbelievable in RL is one example. DnD worlds are saturated by magics of various kinds, including creatures that are inherently magical. It simply makes sense to me that the fighter would, in the course of her training, tap into that energy. Weapons can be seen almost as a kind of magical component; this perhaps justifies the notion that different kits and classes employ different weapons; each of these is part of the magical discipline the character is pursuing.

2. Just because DnD concepts were taken from RL concepts doesn't mean that they translate to the same thing in the different worlds.

3. The difficulty of killing a character as measured by DnD HPs still seems totally unrealistic to me in RL terms.

4.First, we still don't know exactly what strength is. Everything else being equal, I could imagine, for example, RPing a character with a Str of 13 who could bench press much more that a character with a Str of 16 if the latter character had more "power," that is, the ability to apply more strength over time. And again, there are so many different kinds of strength: do you measure upper body, lower body, some percentage of the two; do you measure how much someone can lift at one rep or at 10 or 100, etc. I still think, for example, that Str would be a requisite for an olympic sprinter (I mean, have you seen these guys and girls), as would Dex and Con, and even to some degree Int, Wis, and Cha as so many personal qualities go into learning, training, willpower, discipline, and the sheer will to win.

So I maintain: stats only really have a meaning relative to DnD game mechanics; otherwise there is alot of flexibility as to how these stats can be roleplayed...

 

I maintain two things: there is a description of fighter in core books and a description of strength.

Fighters are not magical and their training does include any magic, non-magical weapons are as the name suggests: not magical. Plus, in the way you present strength, a character with a higher strength is by no means necessarily stronger than a character with a lower strength, because:

- it can bench press more

- it can carry more (I assume you would find a justification)

- it can hit better

which, essentially, exhausts the subject of strength. Therefore, the STR stat is totally irrelevant and superfluous. Sorry, it makes no sense.