Quote from: Omega;836955In BX a 3 INT was described as "Has trouble with speaking, cannot read or write." 4-5 was "Cannot read or write" and 6-8 was "Can read simple common words." 9 and up was able to read and write normally.

A 5e dog or cat has an INT of 3.

I see. That sounds more like education than pure intellect. Or at least a mix.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;836951I like it that you showed some actual numbers. It's not very scientific I know, but here's 10 characters rolled up with my method:

14, 13, 11,  9,  9,  7
14, 11, 10, 10,  9,  9
15, 15, 13,  9,  6,  5
14, 14, 12, 11,  8,  4
14, 13, 11,  9,  9,  7
15, 14, 13,  9,  8,  4
13, 13, 12, 12,  7,  6
15, 13, 10, 10,  8,  7
14, 12, 11, 10, 10,  6
18, 12, 11,  8,  8,  6

Anyone fancy doing that for their method?

(and yes, I did get excited when I rolled that 18 for the last one. Yes, sad I know).

What method were you using?

With r4dl we got the following before race bonuses.

Me: 14,  10, 12,  8, 7, 14 which I kept.
Jan: 12, 14, 9, 6, 14, 5. she swapped the 14 and 5 around.
Kefra: 14, 12, 12, 7, 12, 15. Which she shuffled into 12, 14, 12, 7, 15, 12.
Human (feat version), Half Orc, and Wood Elf.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836956I see. That sounds more like education than pure intellect. Or at least a mix.

Yes. A mix. In BX I think it was also the most expedient and least potentially offensive example they could give in a single sentence that got the point across. If you are looking for quantitative hardline definitions of stats. D&D aint it.

Quote from: Omega;836955In BX a 3 INT was described as "Has trouble with speaking, cannot read or write." 4-5 was "Cannot read or write" and 6-8 was "Can read simple common words." 9 and up was able to read and write normally.

A 5e dog or cat has an INT of 3.

So dogs and cats can talk but with difficulty!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836894Yeah if I was going to have players roll for their characters, it would be in order and no dropping the lowest.

But what happens if they get a 1 or something? Do you use a minimum range? Like 4?

When I use rolling there's no minimum score, but if the total array is really bad (eg net negative mods on best of 4 drop lowest) the player has the option to roll again. My current Classic D&D newbie group roll really well though, there is one STR 8 and one WIS 7, nothing below that AFAIK. If someone rolled a 3 (requiring 4 1s on 4d6) for a -3 attribute penalty, but rolled high in other stats so net attribute mods were positive, they would be expected to keep the character.

Quote from: jibbajibba;836943Really it depends on how you interpret and roleplay a character.
If you say these numbers really only represent he things expressely called out in the rules as relating to these numbers then you can play an Int 3 guy as witty, sly and resourceful, just like you could play a guy with 3 Chr as charming funny and likeable.

My view is that you can always roleplay a character however you want, but your mechanical stats may not back you up. For a Gamist game like D&D in partcular you are welcome to do your best with your INT 3 or CHA 3. I have a CHA 8 Cleric PC in a Labyrinth Lord game, Melissa Tyrell, who tries to be a charismatic icon of the Lord of Light - but naturally she struggles, and in consequence is often beset with self doubt. But the self doubt is my decision; I could equally well play her as convinced of her own charisma - and use my own meagre charisma to the best of my ability. I'd still be hit with that -1 Reaction modifier.

Quote from: Matt;836963So dogs and cats can talk but with difficulty!

In D&D? Yes. :cool:

aheh. In BX monsters did not have stats so a a dog or cat could be whatever you wanted it to be really.

In 5e a 3 INT is apparently the threshold between relatively non-intelligent and the greater grasp of the world. An ogre has an INT of 5 and are often depicted at the stone-age level. Lizard men have an INT of 7 and seem to be at the threshold of bronze age if given a chance. Kobolds are an 8 INT, which is the same as a human tribal warrior in the MM. INT 8.

Make of it what you will.

Wisdom is the really interesting one in 5e. Quite a few normal animals in 5e have wisdom scores over 10. A few have scores of 14. Which fits as in 5e Wisdom covers senses and awareness as well as common sense. And really, most animals have more common sense than most humans...

Well except for one of my cats who liked to rub up against lit candles... errrr... :eek:

Quote from: Matt;836954Seems like every character will have at least 1-3 above average scores and very few below average. Wouldn't use it personally but that's a matter of preference in game style.

In that set, yes. But the next 10 are:

14   12   12   10   8   7
12   12   11   11   10   7
16   15   12   8   6   6
17   13   10   9   7   7
14   12   12   10   8   7
17   13   12   8   7   6
15   14   9   9   8   8
14   13   11   11   8   6
15   11   11   10   9   7
15   13   13   10   9   3

So this time over half are below average, and a few 16s  and 17s.

Quote from: S'mon;836967My view is that you can always roleplay a character however you want, but your mechanical stats may not back you up.

This is how I play it (well, DM it).  I prefer random rolls, even as a player.  I have issues with people dump statting charisma, so I warn them ahead of time.  Basically, if you dump stat charisma (you know, your force of personality, self esteem, all that shit), you are choosing to play someone who is unable, unwilling, or afraid to deal with others.  You may think you sound like a badass when you talk (especially in your own mind), but you're closer to a mumbler who doesn't look people in the eyes.

I generally prefer the 4d6-L, arranged how you like.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;836972In that set, yes. But the next 10 are:

14   12   12   10   8   7
12   12   11   11   10   7
16   15   12   8   6   6
17   13   10   9   7   7
14   12   12   10   8   7
17   13   12   8   7   6
15   14   9   9   8   8
14   13   11   11   8   6
15   11   11   10   9   7
15   13   13   10   9   3

So this time over half are below average, and a few 16s  and 17s.

Do you mean the actual 3d6 average roll of 10.5 or "average" per D&D definition = 9? Those guys still look pretty extraordinary to me. Either way less than half those #s are below average.

Quote from: Matt;836974Do you mean the actual 3d6 average roll of 10.5 or "average" per D&D definition = 9? Those guys still look pretty extraordinary to me. Either way less than half those #s are below average.

Each of them averages 10.5, as per 3d6. What D&D average of 9 are you referring to?

30 of the 60 scores are 10 or below, so that's exactly half of them.

You're right about 30/60; I miscounted. In D&D the average attribute was considered to be 9 in the olden days. Maybe that has changed.

Quote from: Matt;836976You're right about 30/60; I miscounted. In D&D the average attribute was considered to be 9 in the olden days. Maybe that has changed.

Average now is 10-11, especially since the standard race stats cap at 20. 9-12 was average in BX and I think AD&D.

Quote from: Omega;836962Yes. A mix. In BX I think it was also the most expedient and least potentially offensive example they could give in a single sentence that got the point across. If you are looking for quantitative hardline definitions of stats. D&D aint it.

What did it say about the other stats? Like low WIS.

Quote from: Matt;836976You're right about 30/60; I miscounted. In D&D the average attribute was considered to be 9 in the olden days.

I know in the 1e AD&D Monster Manual "average" Intelligence is 8-10, AIR human intelligence is "average to high". Where else is 9 given as 'average'?