Abilities, Lore-wise?

MurrayConfederacy

I am trying to do a roleplay playthrough but I can't find any reference to what the average ability scores are for anything in the forgotten realms...

Can anyone help? Much appreciated.

guston

Probably somewere around 10-12. Also I've read somewere that an intelligence of less than 9 means that your character is illiterate.

Cheesebelly

So basically you can roll 3-18, correct? Does that mean that there's nearly 50 percent chance that your character is a dumb idiot from a correct roleplaying aspect? XD

I mean, I just rolled my dice on my calculator : four out of six times I got lower than nine from three dice rolls XD

Kouga

The ability score roller for the commoner class is probably different than that of the adventurer class, they probably have max 13 intelligence and minimally 9? In some special cases maybe different?:b

Darkcloud

The stat system is pretty illogical anyway. Some stats are things you can improve on like strenght and wisdom. Then there is stuff you can partly improve on like dextery and constitution and then there is stuff where it is hard to improve on like intelligence and charisma.
So the only thing that really makes sense from how the system works is for intelligence and charisma.

I would just throw the dice once and set the stats around a bit. This would give a somewhat fitting character. Or use the cheat to set everything to max and set the points down while using the system 3e or 3.5e games use.

ZanathKariashi

10 in everything is a typical peasant.

18 is basically olympic/genius level ability at the peak of human ability. Except that warrior-types can go a little bit further up strength-wise to equal to an average ogre in strength at the extreme end.

It's kind of annoying though because in 2nd edition, stats between 10-14 have little or no benefit combat benefit, and they don't get much better till you get to the 17-18. Where as in 3rd edition, you at least got some benefit for low end stats (and could grow slightly over time).

On the other hand, items that set an ability to a higher score while worn are reasonably common in 2nd edition, where as most items in 3rd only give a +1-4 non-stacking bonus in most cases.

Wish in 3rd edition has a max of +5 stat increases per ability (stat increasing books also count for this limit), while 2nd allowed for unlimited increases up to the max possible of 25, but above 14, it required exponentially more wishes to raise a single point (the books on the other hand always gave 1 point, but are supposed to be EXTREMELY rare and expensive), and the Wish spell shortened the lifespan of the caster by ...I think 5 years every time it was cast.... (the haste spell also shortens life by 1-2 years, that was one of the perks of Improved haste, it didn't shorten your life).

MurrayConfederacy

ZanathKariashi said:

It's kind of annoying though because in 2nd edition, stats between 10-14 have little or no benefit combat benefit, and they don't get much better till you get to the 17-18. Where as in 3rd edition, you at least got some benefit for low end stats (and could grow slightly over time).

I agree, I was rolling a character the other day and needed some more points free, so I changed 14 con to 11. No hit point change, just a slightly worse save.

atcDave

10.5 is strictly average. Whoever said 9 or less Intelligence is illiterate is just wrong, that's only a little below average. General rule of thumb, don't expect a lot of bonuses from all your scores, but be sure you raise your prime requisites up to 17 or 18. Dexterity and Constitution can be of help to any class, and provide bonuses starting at 15. But don't go trading your non-prime requisites too low, there are a variety of game play issues that are affected by scores. Charisma matters, maybe not a lot, but it matters. Ditto Intelligence. Ditto Wisdom.
It's worth rolling many times to get a good point total. I throw out any initial roll that includes a single digit score. I will sometimes shift something down to a 8 or 9, but never lower.

Just remember, 17 or 18 in your prime requisite. 15+ in dexterity and constitution (usually, I sometimes like playing clumsy or fragile characters. But don't try it for your first game!).

Madhax

ZanathKariashi said:

It's kind of annoying though because in 2nd edition, stats between 10-14 have little or no benefit combat benefit, and they don't get much better till you get to the 17-18. Where as in 3rd edition, you at least got some benefit for low end stats (and could grow slightly over time).

I agree, this bothers me. A fighter with 14/14/14 str/dex/con should be much more effective in combat than one with 9/9/9, but the differences between the two are practically nonexistent. It was nice in Icewind Dale 2 to roll a character who could have comfortably above-average stats and actually benefit from them.

atcDave

"Should be" is mostly a matter of what you're used to. To an old fogey like me, 2E looks like I expect it to. A 13 or 14 strength can still be a big deal, it affects your carry weight and what sorts of armor you can wear. But as I said, you want a 17+ in your prime requisites. It may not look right to you 3E guys, but there's no reason to do anything else in 2E.

ZanathKariashi

Then they need to stop being A-holes and implement all the other stuff the stats are supposed to give. Str is the only one that retains all it's bonues. The rest barely have any use at all except at very high levels.

Dex is supposed decrease the thac0 penalty for dual-wielding slightly as it improves (up to 17 for no main-hand and a small off-hand or 21 for no penalty at all). As well as give additional save bonus (or penalty) vs spells like Fireball or lightning bolt, just like 3rd edition uses for reflexive saves.

Con should give save bonuses (or penalty) vs poison (though it's so high it wouldn't make much difference). As well as raising the chance of surviving resurrection or shapeshifting attempts (neither penalty being implemented, which is quite sad, since it makes con useless between 7-14).

Intelligence is supposed to start granting immunity to some illusion spells at higher levels (19+), and is supposed to be required for spell casting.

Wisdom is supposed to boost (or penalize) your saves vs enchantment spells, as well as grant immunities to certain spells at higher skill amounts. As well as prevent divine spell failure (only occurs at 12 or lower wisdom)

Charisma is supposed affect the maximum number of NPCs you can recruit. You'd need at least 12 charisma to have a full party (since BG limits you to a max of 6 people in the party, in multiplayer of course you can have as many PC created characters as you want).

I mean sure, with exception to the Dual-wielding thing (which is a MASSIVE nerf to bards/theives, especially, technically also warriors, except rangers who aren't supposed to have a penalty at all), these are actually pretty minor things since you need fairly extreme highs or lows for a noticeable effects. And most enemies are just as gimp'd as you are, so it generally balances out.

You don't actually NEED awesome scores either, I'd made a character with 10 in everything and beat the game just fine (of course class minimums make such a build impossible, I did it more to see if I could).

atcDave

I'm sure if BG were a new game today we'd see a much more thorough implementation of the PNP rules. But it's a 14 year old game. Every score does matter in some way, just maybe not as much as in the PNP version.

It's a game. Have fun with it, or go do something else.

Madhax

atcDave said:

I'm sure if BG were a new game today we'd see a much more thorough implementation of the PNP rules. But it's a 14 year old game. Every score does matter in some way, just maybe not as much as in the PNP version.

It's a game. Have fun with it, or go do something else.

True, but we just got an enhanced edition. What @ZanathKariashi pointed out are just different ways to calculate stats, it probably wouldn't have been too hard to implement them. Now, trying to give a thief the ability to scale walls wouldn't work, but fleshing out int/wis/cha should be simple.

Dalis918

Just remember that only fighters benefit from a constitution over 16. Mages, rogues, priests etc only get +2 hitpoints max regardless of their constitution.

The_Cheeseman

I fail to understand why you would want to play an "average" character in a heroic fantasy game. Especially a Monty-haul campaign like Baldur's Gate. If you're just trying to avoid power gaming, simply roll your ability scores and don't alter them. A 3d6 roll is weighted toward the 9-11 range naturally, with more extreme scores being progressively less common, so if you want an authentic AD&D 2E role playing experience, just let the dice fall as they may!

MurrayConfederacy

@The_Cheeseman, I never said I wanted to play an average character - I was just wondering what the lore behind ability points were (i.e, just how intelligent is having an intelligence of x, etc).

atcDave

I enjoy trying to beat the various challenges with characters that don't just steamroll over everything. It requires more careful planning and use of your resources.
Of course sometimes it's fun to have outrageously over powered characters too.

In fact, I think the contrast makes both groups more interesting and satisfying.

MurrayConfederacy

@atcDave, thanks for all the help already - but if you don't mind me asking: What descriptions would you give ability score levels?

atcDave

Murray I'm happy to help. I am not exactly sure how to answer your question, but I think what you're getting at is what scores are average or good?
So I'd start with just the math. The scores are generated on 3d6; so 10.5 is strictly average. But its a bell curve so middle scores are much more likely than the extremes. An 18 or 3 is a one in 216 chance.
Broadly speaking that means 7-14 is pretty average and won't offer either advantage or penalty. The extremes would be notable characteristics, either good or bad (strong/weak, smart/stupid, agile/clumsy, hardy/frail, wise/foolish, charming/repulsive).
I think the most fun characters have some degree of randomness to them. I mean sure everyone wants their fighter to have an 18/00 strength. But what happens if they are only a little strong (16?), but very hardy, charming and clumsy? I mean you'd never really choose to do that. If you're just adjusting points at will you'll probably move some of that charisma over to dexterity. So I really like an honestly rolled character. And I like this better than point allocation, but that's another story...
Now to be honest, I do use Shadow Keeper aggressively. But its rarely to give a fighter an 18/00 strength. What interests me most is recreating characters from when I was gaming and DMing a lot in the 80s and 90s. I have folders full of hundreds of characters, and I love bringing them back to life on the computer. Sometimes it takes some creativity because we often used non-standard rules, but it brings a smile to my face every time.
The other thing I love doing is re-creating favorite characters from fiction. Puzzling out Sarah Walker's scores and character class kept me busy for several hours. But again, that is what's most fun to me.

Anyway, sorry if I strayed some there. Hopefully I answered your question early on? If not I'm happy to try again...

MurrayConfederacy

@atcDave, you were helpful with my question and I really appreciate that. I was also wondering since you have extensive experience with the DMing and gaming how you would describe a character's ability scores without telling their numbers: for example what would you call a strength score of 17? strong? very strong? etc.

Thanks for your help.

Prince_of_Lies

If you don't mind me interjecting...

As someone pointed out earlier, 18 is the peak of human ability (hence why all Human ability scores cap at 18), and anything thereafter is considered super human. So a strength of 18/00 would be like an Olympic weight lifter, 18 dexterity would be like a master sniper, etc..

Roleplaying-wise, this explains just how accurate an Elven archer with 19 dexterity would be, or how strong a half-Orc with 19 strength would be; which is above and beyond the skill of normal humans.

-Prince_of_Lies

raywind

9int is same as president Bush, 15+int is same as Obama

atcDave

Prince I think your adjectives exaggerate it a little. As I said, there's a 1 in 216 chance of rolling an 18. So, top 99.5% percentile bracket; but that means there would be about 1.5 million people in the US, or 90 million people worldwide with an 18 intelligence. The percentile roll on strength complicates the math of it, but I would agree with saying world class athlete for an 18/00.
However, there are many ways of adding points, even above 18. So I wouldn't call that super-human; how about extraordinary. I would say 19s are extremely rare, but they can happen.

So back to Murray's question; for adjectives I think I like just "strong" for a 15-16, "very" is a good word for 17, how about "extremely" for an 18. And the descriptors I use for the scores are as I said above...

Strength - strong/weak

Dexterity - agile/clumsy

Constitution - hardy/frail

Intelligence - smart/stupid

Wisdom - wise/foolish

Charisma - charming/repulsive

MurrayConfederacy

@atcDave thankyou very much for the information. I'll probably go by your descriptors in the future.

Time4Tiddy

Since the original question was about role-playing - I would note that there may be in-game lore that leans your character towards having higher than average stats in most, if not all, areas, from a role-playing perspective. Just saying.

When I was first messing around the PnP 25 years ago, I always thought of it sort of like IQ:

an 11 intelligence would be roughly a 110 IQ. A smart person is 140-150 (14-15) and a genius would be 16+

MurrayConfederacy

@Time4Tiddy, this kind of makes sense, however Having an IQ of 150 in real life puts you at the 99.9th percentile which would put you at a greater percentage than what the chances of getting a 18 on a 3d6 roll. Sure some people have over 150 IQ and that would probably mean 19 or higher. Just remember though that IQ is determined by a test - a test that some in the past have excelled at due to training and hence achieved ludicrously high IQs.

I agree totally with your first statement, since

CHARNAME is *coughgcoughgcough*.

guston

atcDave said:

Whoever said 9 or less Intelligence is illiterate is just wrong, that's only a little below average.

... At 8 intelligence your character can't read from scrolls. Try making a cleric with 8 int and buy a scroll of protection. Your guy won't be able to use it. Because he can't read.

MurrayConfederacy

@guston, @atcDave was referring to the fact that 9 intelligence is a little below average which is truth - however lore-wise, the forgotten realms is a medieval fantasy realm (kind of...) and most people back then couldn't read, so average intelligence in that setting is probably lower than what the average 3d6 roll for intelligence is. This is why I asked my question in the first place.

atcDave

Reading magic scrolls is not the same as literacy. In PNP, literacy is determined by a separate skill, and skill points are determined by intelligence. But reading magic is a completely different thing.
At any rate, 7 and 8 are well within the mathematical average, and people with well below average intelligence can typically read if trained to do so. Just because its a game does not mean it can't be viewed logically, and calling someone illiterate just because they can't read one particular, probably very complex sort of writing makes no sense. If that was really the intent, the game wouldn't let you read bounty notices or journal entries with a below average intelligence either.

atcDave

Murray I'm not sure any comparisons to the medieval world really apply. The magic is such a major presence, I think "fantasy" is a far more important descriptor than medieval.
And don't forget, the protagonist grew up in a library surrounded by monks. In real medieval times, monasteries were havens of learning, literacy and all the knowledge of civilization.
Through out the Dark Ages, monasteries are THE major source of written history (via various "Chronicles" and Easter Calenders).
If we consider the Forgotten Realms are far more developed and sophisticated than medieval Europe actually was, literacy is likely far more widespread.

My point in all this is just that I would not draw any conclusions about a character's literacy based purely on intelligence or reading magical scrolls. I think its highly likely your character is well educated and well read; and in fact, I think the game assumes you are regardless of your intelligence (various notes and books you're expected to read).

Prince_of_Lies

@atcDave it depends on the DM.

The way it was originally described to me was that anything between 9-11 was an average human being. Adventurers, as stated in the Player's Handbook, are exceptionally talented/gifted and cannot be compared to average peasants.

In the end, it depends on the DM to give a description for the numerical value of an ability score; although ten is almost always considered average.

-Prince_of_Lies