# What do the numbers in D&D ability scores mean?



## Roman (Aug 16, 2007)

I would be interested in reasonable interpretations of what the specific numbers in D&D ability scores mean when translated into real-life examples. 

For example, say a character has a dexterity score of 8. What would he be like in real life?


----------



## EricNoah (Aug 16, 2007)

He woud be pretty average.  Only those who were around him a lot would notice that he was a little klutzy or clumsy or not a great shot with a basketball or whathaveyou.


----------



## finarvyn (Aug 16, 2007)

This is actually a somewhat complex issue, dependant upon which edition of the rules you read. In the 1974 edition it went something like this:

3 = lowest value found in a human being
9-12 = average values for a typical human
18 = greatest value found in a human being

So, a person with Strength of 8 would be weaker than average but not so much so. This person would function normally in society but would be more of a paper-pusher than a construction worker.

The "Greyhawk" supplement confused the issue somewhat (as did an article in *Dragon*) when it brought in 18(xx) percentile values for strength (and the *Dragon* article did the same for dexterity).

The Basic/Expert version of D&D (put out around 1980-ish) had a nice scale:
3 = minimum = bonus of -3
4-5 = bonus of -2
6-8 = bonus of -1
9-12 = average = bonus of 0
13-15 = bonus of +1
16-17 = bonus of +2
18 = maximum = bonus of +3

This general perception of abilites is nice because we have a large grouping near the center and a decent advantage/disadvantage near the extremes. If you play with probabilites you can see that there is about 0.5% (one in 200) chance of rolling a natural 3 or 18 on 3d6. IN other words, if you got together a group of 200 random people and ranked them, the one person who was best at something would be the 18, whether it be the strongest, smartest, fastest, most charismatic, whatever. The worst one would be the 3.

3E changed all of this. It established 10-11 as "average" and really put no upper limit on stats. In this scale it's harder to interpret. An old 18 intelligence could be Einstein, or the elite genius types of the world. In the new scale with no real upper limit, I'm not sure where to place the best because another could later be better. This non-ending scale is nice for the purposes of character advancement, because the player always has somewhere to improve. It's also great for superhero games like *Mutants & Masterminds* where superhumans have stats much higher than mundanes. 

In a "real world" model it's harder to set in stone because I can't really fit a probability curve if there is no upper limit. I can't say if the person is the best out of 200, the best out of 1,000 or more.

So ... in my mind I default to the older model even if I play the newer game. I think about the scale going from 3-18 with 9-12 being "average" and 13-18 being "above average" and I guess anything above 18 being "truly exceptional and noteworthy".

Does that help at all?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Aug 16, 2007)

Ability scores don't mean anything.  It's the ability modifiers you're asking about.  You could change out the 3-18 with any descriptor you want and the effect is the same.

3-18 was originally a representative bell curve.  It was based on fully grown adult human as norm.  So 3 and 18 were the highest and lowest points for a human adult.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 16, 2007)

It reflects the in-game probability of doing certain tasks. Out of game, you could be a picture of grace, but unlucky, or you could die because you're a an arrogant cad who exists mainly to get killed by the PCs. How dextrous are you? Well, what level are you? What feats, skills, and class abilities do you have? How are you rolling tonight?

I wouldn't even agree with the proposition that Strength is how physical powerful you are, absolutely, or that your hit points are how tough you are. They correlate with those things but they are not, of themselves, those things.

Superheroes, in D&D terms, would have huge Intelligence scores, simply because superheroes think their way out of so many problems, and have so many skill points, that they would need a 14 or more at the low end. 18 is probably a common Intelligence score for your average teenage superhero. Their Dex is high, too... even if they go up against a kung fu master or a robot assassin, we know a superhero is likely to avoid a few hits. Irrespective of how their physical agility is portrayed, in general... in games terms, they have a high Dex.


----------



## Roman (Aug 20, 2007)

Thanks for offering your perspectives. This thread was quickly submerged due to the deluge of threads about the 4th edition which appeared almost immediately after the thread's creation, but now that they have all been moved to the 4E forum, I am trying to revive the thread. 

Just a note, I am not looking for statistical explanations of how many people would have an ability score of X (although that is not uninteresting), but rather examples of how it would show 'in real life' (which illuminates how a character with such a score might be perceived and act in-game).


----------



## Thanael (Aug 20, 2007)

I always found this article about D&D ability scores very good.


----------



## Roman (Aug 20, 2007)

Not a bad article - thanks! Any more examples anyone, especially those in the middle of the range (though high and low ones are interesting too)?


----------



## EricNoah (Aug 20, 2007)

Do you know someone who seems to be constantly making poor judgement calls (getting involved with the wrong people, doing something unsafe or stupid and getting hurt, etc.)?  Those are the slightly-lower-than-average Wisdom people. 

Do you know anyone who isn't necessarily super attractive, physically, but they seem to make others' faces light up when they enter the room?  They make you feel special when they acknowledge you?  Those are slightly higher than average Charisma people.  They don't "charm" or dominate you, but you do go out of your way to please them a little bit more.  

I have a DM who is just really sharp about memorizing things and doing math on the fly.  He's got a moderately high intelligence.

edit: Oh, by the way, in my experience a moderately high Charisma person who is also a moderately low Wisdom person is a really dangerous combination because he/she has this way of convincing others to also engage in foolish behavior...


----------



## Len (Aug 20, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> edit: Oh, by the way, in my experience a moderately high Charisma person who is also a moderately low Wisdom person is a really dangerous combination because he/she has this way of convincing others to also engage in foolish behavior...



We have a campaign that's more or less based on that premise.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 20, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Do you know someone who seems to be constantly making poor judgement calls (getting involved with the wrong people, doing something unsafe or stupid and getting hurt, etc.)?  Those are the slightly-lower-than-average Wisdom people.
> 
> Do you know anyone who isn't necessarily super attractive, physically, but they seem to make others' faces light up when they enter the room?  They make you feel special when they acknowledge you?  Those are slightly higher than average Charisma people.  They don't "charm" or dominate you, but you do go out of your way to please them a little bit more.
> 
> ...



 Y'know, 4e should have a new age category:

Teenager: -4 Wis. Alignment shifts one step towards Chaos.


----------



## Roman (Aug 21, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Do you know someone who seems to be constantly making poor judgement calls (getting involved with the wrong people, doing something unsafe or stupid and getting hurt, etc.)?  Those are the slightly-lower-than-average Wisdom people.
> 
> Do you know anyone who isn't necessarily super attractive, physically, but they seem to make others' faces light up when they enter the room?  They make you feel special when they acknowledge you?  Those are slightly higher than average Charisma people.  They don't "charm" or dominate you, but you do go out of your way to please them a little bit more.
> 
> ...





Good ideas!


----------



## rgard (Aug 21, 2007)

Roman said:
			
		

> I would be interested in reasonable interpretations of what the specific numbers in D&D ability scores mean when translated into real-life examples.
> 
> For example, say a character has a dexterity score of 8. What would he be like in real life?




There was an article in the early days of the Dragon magazine that examined this.  The only stat I can remember off the top of my head was Intelligence.   Divide your IQ by ten and that was your intelligence.  I think maybe the Strength score was equivalent to what you could bench press divided by 10 again.


----------



## Roman (Aug 21, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> There was an article in the early days of the Dragon magazine that examined this.  The only stat I can remember off the top of my head was Intelligence.   Divide your IQ by ten and that was your intelligence.  I think maybe the Strength score was equivalent to what you could bench press divided by 10 again.




Do you remember which article it was?


----------



## Roman (Aug 21, 2007)

*bump*


----------



## Roman (Aug 21, 2007)

Did anybody manage to find the article?


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 21, 2007)

It's probably "The six main skills: what AD&D game abilities mean in real terms" from issue #107.

Helpful link: Dragon Magazine Article Index

Self-serving link: my "musing" on ability bonuses in OD&D


----------



## kenobi65 (Aug 21, 2007)

rgard said:
			
		

> The only stat I can remember off the top of my head was Intelligence.   Divide your IQ by ten and that was your intelligence.




Yes, that's the rule-of-thumb I'd often read, esp. in the old days...but it doesn't really map well onto anything like a 3d6 bell curve.

In the real world, an IQ of 140 puts you in the 98th or 99th percentile of scores...but a 14+ Int (on 3d6) comes up (I think) 16% of the time...or, in other words, a 14 Int only puts you in the 85th percentile.  Or something like that.


----------



## rgard (Aug 22, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> It's probably "The six main skills: what AD&D game abilities mean in real terms" from issue #107.
> 
> Helpful link: Dragon Magazine Article Index
> 
> Self-serving link: my "musing" on ability bonuses in OD&D




You know it could be that, but I could swear I saw it earlier than 107.  May have been an OD&D article that was updated for AD&D in issue 107.

I'll look for it tonight.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Roman (Aug 22, 2007)

Thanks!


----------



## Zireael (Feb 6, 2012)

Anyone found the older article?


----------



## Yora (Feb 6, 2012)

Given the subject of this thread, I assume this one is highly relevant:

The Alexandrian - Calibrating Your Expectations

But you have to specify "older article".


----------



## amerigoV (Feb 6, 2012)

rgard said:


> There was an article in the early days of the Dragon magazine that examined this.  The only stat I can remember off the top of my head was Intelligence.   Divide your IQ by ten and that was your intelligence.  I think maybe the Strength score was equivalent to what you could bench press divided by 10 again.





In 1e, Str is based on military press (the lift straight up over your head). Its Military Press/10 (see PHB 1e under Str).

(If it was bench press, I had a 30.5 Str in High School  But I had about 140 lbs Military Press IIRC).


----------



## Zireael (Feb 6, 2012)

> In 1e, Str is based on military press (the lift straight up over your head). Its Military Press/10 (see PHB 1e under Str).




What source is this info from? PHB?


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 6, 2012)

kenobi65 said:


> In the real world, an IQ of 140 puts you in the 98th or 99th percentile of scores...but a 14+ Int (on 3d6) comes up (I think) 16% of the time...or, in other words, a 14 Int only puts you in the 85th percentile.  Or something like that.




85th percentile of adventurers, not normal people. Big difference.

As for the OP, I think as a general rule think in terms of these descriptors:

3 imbecilic
4-5 terrible
6-7 poor
8-9 mediocre/below average
10-11 average
12-13 good
14-15 very good
16-17 excellent
18-19 great
20+ legendary

While older versions of D&D and 3.x and 4E are rather different, with the latter two editions' open-ended ability scores making scores up to 30 possible, this is somewhat reconcilable if we think of 3-20 as the "normal" range of an inexperienced individual after they finish their undergraduate degree or basic training; 21 or above represents some kind of further development. So a math genius might graduate MIT with a 20, go to grad school school and have a 22 by the time they're done, then go on and develop their intelligence through further research, work, theorizing, etc, and peak out in the upper 20s in their 50s.


----------



## Janx (Feb 6, 2012)

Roman said:


> For example, say a character has a dexterity score of 8. What would he be like in real life?




I have a friend, who is able to swordfight, play rugby, and other athletic stuff just fine.

However, he is known as Sir Spillsalot, as he is always knocking cups over and spilling drinks.

I could accept that his DEX is 8.  He is easily able to function and not be tripping over his feet, yet he fumbles simple things like drinking cups often enough to have been noticed and dubbed.


----------



## Corathon (Feb 6, 2012)

Zireael said:


> What source is this info from? PHB?




Its from the first edition DMG. The rule is good up to 18 STR, exceptional STR was capable of pressing much greater weights.


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 7, 2012)

The early article in Dragon was a somewhat tongue in cheek article by Brian Blume. Issue 8



> STRENGTH — To determine strength, go to a gym and military press
> as much weight as you possibly can. Divide the number of pounds
> you lifted by ten; the result is your strength rating.
> ing.
> ...


----------



## wingsandsword (Feb 7, 2012)

finarvyn said:


> 3E changed all of this. It established 10-11 as "average" and really put no upper limit on stats. In this scale it's harder to interpret. An old 18 intelligence could be Einstein, or the elite genius types of the world. In the new scale with no real upper limit, I'm not sure where to place the best because another could later be better. This non-ending scale is nice for the purposes of character advancement, because the player always has somewhere to improve. It's also great for superhero games like *Mutants & Masterminds* where superhumans have stats much higher than mundanes.
> 
> In a "real world" model it's harder to set in stone because I can't really fit a probability curve if there is no upper limit. I can't say if the person is the best out of 200, the best out of 1,000 or more.



18 is still the maximum for a starting human.  That's the upper limit of raw human potential.  Anything above that is augmented by one means or another.

Without becoming Epic Level (which really bends realism so much that modern-day, real world people should NOT be Epic) or magical (or technological) assistance, the highest a human can reach is 23, by starting with an 18 and adding to it every 4th level.  24+ is inherently impossible for a human being without some kind of external assistance through magic or technology.

18 is still the top of "normal" progression, with anything higher being due to magical augmentation, technological augmentation, extensive practice and development (i.e. level based ability raises) or superhuman potential (non-human race ability score bonuses).  

All 3e did was make the scale linear above 18, instead of arbitrary, so if you saw the stats for a Hill Giant, a Stone Giant, an Iron Golem, or a Titan you could look at their strength stat and know just how strong they were and it would be easier math than having to reference a chart in the back of the PHB.


----------

