@Heindrich1988, the answer to number 9 is E. The L-shaped arrow is framing the square instead of the circle in that one. The other four are the same diagram (L-shaped arrow framing the circle) rotated four different ways.
The answer to number 10 is A. There are three figures in the diagram moving in sequence. The line is alternating diagonals, and will wind up positioned as in answer A.. The vertical circle is moving right to left, and will wind up at the far left. The horizontal circle is moving top to bottom, and will wind up at the far bottom.
Numbers 11and 12 are the hardest, and I have trouble with them. In principle, you have to mentally rotate the cube and be able to envision which colors are adjacent to all four sides of each face. The answer to number 11 can't be A, because the yellow square is on top in both, but the original box has a green face to the front while A has a yellow face to the front. So, answer A is easy to eliminate, but as you keep going through the choices, it gets harder to eliminate, because some answers appear to match on two or three sides, and you have to mentally realize that a face that isn't showing doesn't match. (The question gives you two angles of the original cube, and you have to be able to mentally rotate the whole cube to get all the information you need to eliminate a lot of the choices.)
I'd have to stare at those cube examples longer than I care to right now to get to what I think are the right answers, and I still might be wrong.
We've had this same thread two or three times before.
Here's what I got when I took the test before:
Here are my stats, based on the angelfire test:
STR 8 DEX 5 CON 10 INT 13/14 (quantitative/analytical) WIS 15 (verbal) CHA 12
It started out with people being asked to self-evaluate, and then I brought up two of these tests, and a lot of people started taking them. We also discussed philosophies of stat and alignment definitions, self-evaluation, and testing methods.
EDIT: @Heindrich1988, I see now you meant to ask about the wisdom test, not the intelligence test. It didn't make sense to me when you said "answers to part two of intelligence", since those were self-evaluation questions, so I answered you as though you meant part one of the int test. Oh well, sorry for the misunderstanding.
About what I expected, but I think my charisma is higher(not because I'm vain, because I have a different definition of charisma.) a maybe better word for charisma is probably presence. It often simplified to how likable of nice you are, but I think it's more than that. Charisma is a measure of the distinctiveness of your personality, whether or not someone remembered you after working on something with them. Do people notice you when you want to be noticed?
Also the wisdom test was just a verbal intelligence test. Wisdom should be common sense and decision making.
About what I expected, but I think my charisma is higher(not because I'm vain, because I have a different definition of charisma.) a maybe better word for charisma is probably presence. It often simplified to how likable of nice you are, but I think it's more than that. Charisma is a measure of the distinctiveness of your personality, whether or not someone remembered you after working on something with them. Do people notice you when you want to be noticed?
Also the wisdom test was just a verbal intelligence test. Wisdom should be common sense and decision making.
Yeah I definitely agree with what you're saying about the wisdom questions, it is hard to judge anyone's actual wisdom score based on that quiz; I don't recall any questions about decision making/common sense or even spirituality/faith questions.
Charisma has a different meaning to different people. I know one DM that I played dnd with back in the day was convinced it was actual physical attractiveness, which is not accurate.
Charisma includes many aspects; presence, personality, memorability, skilled in the arts, leadership, etc. (often many of these aspects are enhanced by being attractive, but it certainly is not a requirement.)
I know for me personally, my 16 in charisma was not a surprise. In my profession I work in a leadership role in which I am supervising over 300 individuals, give speeches, and maintain order. That combined with my skills in the arts (visual and literature), as well as the fact that I am considered to be polite, and likable as I have heard many times throughout my life, provides explanation to the score.
My low strength score didn't bother me... there's always someone else willing and able to do the heavy lifting for me (again attributing to my charisma score lol).
What disappointed me the most was my intelligence score, but I am terrible at math (great at literature, again artsy) and left most of those blank lol.
The wisdom part confused me.. Also, I didnt have the patience for the many of the questions and skipped them. But I guess it isn't too far off reality - tho I think wisdom is too low
Not bad, but I had issues with this test. I'm especially frustrated with the Charisma test, since it seems very subjective. Is there a "right" answer to the age-old question of working on strengths vs. eliminating weaknesses? And how does that tie in to charisma?
I'm also quite sure I answered everything correctly in Wisdom, perhaps 16 is the max?
Not sure how number of friends ties into intelligence, either. Are loners automatically smarter?
@scorpiova don't be disappointed by your int score. Average is 8-12, anything above that is pretty good. I put 13-14 int about 120-125, 15-16 is about 126-135, IQ wise. 17is probably 140ish, anything above 150 is hard to measure, so 18 is 150+. I think a lot of us have an exaggerated opinion about stats, because all the npc stats are heavily exaggerated. Even Garrick is pretty exceptional compared to real life. But I guess all int means, in baldurs gate, is how well you can copy a spell into a book. A 1 int half-Orc has the same dialogue options as a 19 int gnome, and your supposed to have to have ~5 int to be able to talk at all.
Also the wisdom test was just a verbal intelligence test. Wisdom should be common sense and decision making.
@meagloth, I believe the author of the testing instrument was looking for a way to objectively test the two "mental" attributes without relying on user self-evaluation.
One of the elements of traditional definitions of "wisdom" is "heuristic, experience-based, wholistic, intuitive, creative thinking." Otherwise known as "thinking outside the box."
So, his little verbal riddles are an admirable attempt to objectively measure wholistic thinking, in my opinion.
How else could you get any measure of wisdom other than self-evaluation?
It's not perfect, but I understand and appreciate what he was trying to do with the wisdom questions.
Yeah, it was a valiant effort, and I wish it was entirely quantitative tests because self evaluations are notoriously unreliable. Like "how long can you do a handstand for?" (Dex) "How many countries can you name in five minutes?" (Wis). "Have you ever been warned on these forums?" (Cha )
The wisdom part confused me.. Also, I didnt have the patience for the many of the questions and skipped them. But I guess it isn't too far off reality - tho I think wisdom is too low
@Aristillius, the mere fact that you would skip questions without even attempting a guess on a standardized test upon which your wisdom and intelligence were being evaluated, confirms for me the score you got on wisdom.
Sorry, please don't take offense, but my own "stats" make it so that I can't resist pointing this out. I guess I should take minus 2 to my own charisma score now. LOL
@Cacophony, those scores are fantastic! They say to me, "thief, mage, or thief-mage." You'd also make a decent fighter-thief, or fighter-mage-thief. You'd also make a great bard, if you don't buy into the fallacious "bards are weak" shibboleth.
Not bad, but I had issues with this test. I'm especially frustrated with the Charisma test, since it seems very subjective. Is there a "right" answer to the age-old question of working on strengths vs. eliminating weaknesses? And how does that tie in to charisma?
I'm also quite sure I answered everything correctly in Wisdom, perhaps 16 is the max?
Not sure how number of friends ties into intelligence, either. Are loners automatically smarter?
@Madhax, were you trying to "play the test"? I'm asking that because of your statement "...sure I answered everything 'correctly' in wisdom"
Any good psychologist will tell you that if you want meaningful results from a test, don't try to "play" it to get results you want. Answer honestly and according to your first impulses. Many psychological instruments designed by professional psychologists even have a "lie scale", where they will design questions meant to measure willingness to lie about traits they consider common to all human beings.
Psychologists are very smart and well-educated test designers, although I don't know just how much training the Angelfire test designer has or doesn't have.
I agree. I've decided to take it for what it is. I won't be defining myself by this or any other test, (for instance, my Wisdom score seems far too high, as does my Charisma), but I am already enjoying my new character. Thank you @SCARY_WIZARD for the inspiration.
I only "played" the test after my original results, out of curiosity to see what changed what. The Wisdom section isn't a psychological assessment, it's a series of factual questions. I'm confident that my answers regarding grammar, common sayings, memory, etc. were all correct. There were, in fact, right and wrong answers. I wasn't confident in the line length test, but I tested various answers, including not answering it at all, and it seemed that the answer isn't actually factored into the final score.
Oh wait, just tested again as I was typing. Answering ALL of the possible boxes for line length bumped me to 17 wisdom. Yeah, that portion of the test is broken.
@scorpiova don't be disappointed by your int score. Average is 8-12, anything above that is pretty good. I put 13-14 int about 120-125, 15-16 is about 126-135, IQ wise. 17is probably 140ish, anything above 150 is hard to measure, so 18 is 150+. I think a lot of us have an exaggerated opinion about stats, because all the npc stats are heavily exaggerated. Even Garrick is pretty exceptional compared to real life. But I guess all int means, in baldurs gate, is how well you can copy a spell into a book. A 1 int half-Orc has the same dialogue options as a 19 int gnome, and your supposed to have to have ~5 int to be able to talk at all.
This is true, hardcore gaming has warped the original concept of dnd stats. I remember when I first played dnd back in the day, dm's were very strict with having only one set of rolls to build your character.
I know when I have DM'd myself in the past few years, my friends playing would be extremely upset if I did not let them re-roll as much as they wanted to pick their best stat set, just like in modern dnd based RPG's.
We've been spoiled. I'd say if Baldur's Gate forced the player to take their first role in the character generator, there would be screams of rage and horror! lol.
@scorpiova don't be disappointed by your int score. Average is 8-12, anything above that is pretty good. I put 13-14 int about 120-125, 15-16 is about 126-135, IQ wise. 17is probably 140ish, anything above 150 is hard to measure, so 18 is 150+. I think a lot of us have an exaggerated opinion about stats, because all the npc stats are heavily exaggerated. Even Garrick is pretty exceptional compared to real life. But I guess all int means, in baldurs gate, is how well you can copy a spell into a book. A 1 int half-Orc has the same dialogue options as a 19 int gnome, and your supposed to have to have ~5 int to be able to talk at all.
This is true, hardcore gaming has warped the original concept of dnd stats. I remember when I first played dnd back in the day, dm's were very strict with having only one set of rolls to build your character.
I know when I have DM'd myself in the past few years, my friends playing would be extremely upset if I did not let them re-roll as much as they wanted to pick their best stat set, just like in modern dnd based RPG's.
We've been spoiled. I'd say if Baldur's Gate forced the player to take their first role in the character generator, there would be screams of rage and horror! lol.
To be fair, with tangible bonuses from stats only being notable at exceptional stat levels, I feel like this game unfairly punishes people of simply slightly above-average attributes. The real-world equivalent of having 14 or 15 in every stat would be an exceptional individual, but in 2nd edition DnD that would make for a very mediocre adventurer.
Combine that with the questionable decision to not allow any stat development outside of magical intervention (unlike in IWD2 and PS:T), and it makes rerolling almost essential to building a good character.
This is true, hardcore gaming has warped the original concept of dnd stats. I remember when I first played dnd back in the day, dm's were very strict with having only one set of rolls to build your character.
I know when I have DM'd myself in the past few years, my friends playing would be extremely upset if I did not let them re-roll as much as they wanted to pick their best stat set, just like in modern dnd based RPG's.
We've been spoiled. I'd say if Baldur's Gate forced the player to take their first role in the character generator, there would be screams of rage and horror! lol.
@scorpiova I remember many years ago, during my school days, glancing through an AD&D rulebook (no idea which edition) owned by a friend of a friend, and looking at rules for character creation, and thinking that the rules were incredibly harsh if implemented faithfully. I mean when I play RPGs, there is usually a very specific character that appeals to me. I’d hate to end up having to roleplay a Gnome, and be forced to adopt a suitable class for whatever stats I happened to roll.
Probably because my conception of Western Fantasy settings has been shaped by Warhammer Fantasy and Middle Earth, I find it impossible to tolerate/accept ‘strange classes’ like a Gnome Barbarian with 15+ Str, or the Berserker/Mage that everyone loves (seems to require totally different personalities for the two classes). I want my Dwarves to be Strong and Tough, and my Elves Fast and Fair etc…
Also as I have made clear on many occasions on this forum, I am no powergamer, but if you weren’t allowed to reallocate stats after a first roll, your average Charname would actually be significantly weaker than many of the NPCs like Imoen, Minsc, Khalid etc… who are all pretty extraordinary individuals if we really think of 9-11 as ‘average’.
@Madhax, okay. Then, kudos to you for being a good psychologist - "testing the test", as it were.
Would you be interested in creating your own psychological test for D&D attributes? At least authors of the other imperfect instruments tried their best.
How *can* you objectively test the D&D attributes, anyway? I thought that bench-press weight, and number of pushups and situps able to be performed, were a pretty good objective indicator of Strength.
Likewise, I thought that tests like "How many miles can you run before you stop the test?", "How many flights of stairs can you climb before you stop the test?", and "How often have you been sick within the past year?", were pretty good objective indicators of Constitution.
Likewise, there are no less than three elements of Dexterity that could be tested objectively:
1) typing speed, ten-key speed, thumbing speed, ability to play musical instruments, and stage magic abilities like palming, misdirection, and juggling or "sword swallowing".
2) ability to dodge. You don't need to rely on self-reporting for this. Just throw balls and swing objects at the test subject, and record how often the objects hit.
3) eye-hand coordination. Easily testable through target practice of any kind, as well as any sports test in a sport that has "ball" in the title (other than American "football", which has heavy elements of strength and constitution mixed in, as well as intelligence/wisdom of the coach) - basketball, baseball, softball, and tennis. If you can hit any kind of ball with any kind of stick, or "shoot" a ball or puck into any kind of goal, you score high here.
The Angelfire test author was on the right track with Intelligence testing, I thought. Standard IQ tests would probably be a good measure.
Wisdom is tricky. The best way I can think of to objectively measure "wisdom", would be to measure the subject's performance in any number of classical, standard psychological experiments looking for the subject's ability to say "stop this ridiculous test immediately." Examples abound. Ask them to fake-shock a dupe fellow subject. Ask them to evaluate the truth of a dupe phenomenon after being exposed to the opinions of dupe fellow subjects. Academic psychological literature is filled with experiments of this nature.
Other objective measures of Wisdom: How much debt are you in, to the dollar, compared to your income, and what are the sources of that debt (a mortgage loan or a car loan are not the same as credit card debt - all debt is not equal.)? How many automobile accidents have you had during the past 10 years? How many speeding tickets? Have you ever been arrested for drinking while driving? Have you ever been fired from a job for any form of personal fault (according to the employer who fired you, not your own opinion)?
The one attribute that cannot be tested objectively, in my opinion, would be Charisma. If we limit it to its "Comeliness" element, then, we could objectively test it by showing *other people* your photo at age 25 among a large sample of photos of people of the same gender at the same age.
We could also get a somewhat "objective" measure by asking *other people* what they think of you, without your being present.
Absent the ability to get reactions from others besides the test subject, I don't see how to get any objective measurement of Charisma.
Wisdom is tricky. The best way I can think of to objectively measure "wisdom", would be to measure the subject's performance in any number of classical, standard psychological experiments looking for the subject's ability to say "stop this ridiculous test immediately." Examples abound. Ask them to fake-shock a dupe fellow subject. Ask them to evaluate the truth of a dupe phenomenon after being exposed to the opinions of dupe fellow subjects. Academic psychological literature is filled with experiments of this nature.
Other objective measures of wisdom: How much debt are you in, to the dollar, compared to your income, and what are the sources of that debt (a mortgage loan or a car loan are not the same as credit card debt - all debt is not equal.) How many automobile accidents have you had during the past 10 years? How many speeding tickets? Have you ever been arrested for drinking while driving? Have you ever been fired from a job for any form of personal fault (according to the employer who fired you, not your own opinion)?
The one attribute that cannot be tested objectively, in my opinion, would be Charisma. If we limit it to its "Comeliness" element, then, we could objectively test it by showing *other people* your photo at age 25 among a large sample of photos of people of the same gender at the same age.
We could also get a somewhat "objective" measure by asking *other people* what they think of you, without your being present.
Absent the ability to get reactions from others besides the test subject, I don't see how to get any objective measurement of Charisma.
I was thinking about how I could make my own version of the test with objective measurements like these... but I'm starting to realize that this is more than I want to know about myself.
The test has a higher opinion of me (on average) than I have of me. Is that odd, I wonder? Anyway, with the first set of stats I would probably build for a fighter/mage multiclass (because clearly I'm a half-elf?), with the second set... is that good enough to be a bard? Because bard is probably the closest "adventurer" analog I would have in real life.
EDIT: You think I should've listed my maximum benchpress rather than a multi-rep number? That might've pushed it up to 9 Str.
@belgarathmth Hehe, no offense taken I should probably have made it more clear that I didnt take the test seriously at all. And that is not a self - defense for low wisfom scores, maybe I have low wisdom, but I am not going to pretend that the test is a good representation of my abilities. It is much more thorough than some other tests but it is still only able to measure a portion of your total abilities - also, as you havd noted, the interpretation of wisdom in the test is debatable. Still, as I said, I dont think the test is too far off reality in my case.
I agree. I've decided to take it for what it is. I won't be defining myself by this or any other test, (for instance, my Wisdom score seems far too high, as does my Charisma), but I am already enjoying my new character. Thank you @SCARY_WIZARD for the inspiration.
Yay! Yeah, I had a buddy who took his scores waaay too seriously, and uh...well, he was already so full of himself he'd make a Goa'uld from Stargate look like a sweet little puppy, but yeah.
@scorpiova don't be disappointed by your int score. Average is 8-12, anything above that is pretty good. I put 13-14 int about 120-125, 15-16 is about 126-135, IQ wise. 17is probably 140ish, anything above 150 is hard to measure, so 18 is 150+. I think a lot of us have an exaggerated opinion about stats, because all the npc stats are heavily exaggerated. Even Garrick is pretty exceptional compared to real life. But I guess all int means, in baldurs gate, is how well you can copy a spell into a book. A 1 int half-Orc has the same dialogue options as a 19 int gnome, and your supposed to have to have ~5 int to be able to talk at all.
Close! Here's what Monster Manual II () has to say... 0 - Non-intelligent or intelligence not ratable 1 - Animal intelligence 2-4 - Semi-intelligent 5-7 - Low intelligence 8-10 - Average (human) intelligence) 11-12 - Very intelligent 13-14 - Highly intelligent 15-16 - Exceptionally intelligent 17 - 18 - Genius-level intelligence 19-20 - Supra-genius* 21+ - Godlike intelligence
* - I'd like to say that Stephen Hawking has a 20 Intelligence. And Grigori Rasputin having an 18 Constitution is a load of bull, he clearly had at least a 20. Bahgtru (son of Gruumsh) was given a 6 Intelligence. Idjit.
Oh god. Imoen is a genius! That's adorable! She is the most adorable genius ever! !
Comments
DEX: 7
CON: 10
INT(pt1/pt2): 15/6
INT: 11
WIS: 11
CHA: 8
damn I fail at everything
The answer to number 10 is A. There are three figures in the diagram moving in sequence. The line is alternating diagonals, and will wind up positioned as in answer A.. The vertical circle is moving right to left, and will wind up at the far left. The horizontal circle is moving top to bottom, and will wind up at the far bottom.
Numbers 11and 12 are the hardest, and I have trouble with them. In principle, you have to mentally rotate the cube and be able to envision which colors are adjacent to all four sides of each face. The answer to number 11 can't be A, because the yellow square is on top in both, but the original box has a green face to the front while A has a yellow face to the front. So, answer A is easy to eliminate, but as you keep going through the choices, it gets harder to eliminate, because some answers appear to match on two or three sides, and you have to mentally realize that a face that isn't showing doesn't match. (The question gives you two angles of the original cube, and you have to be able to mentally rotate the whole cube to get all the information you need to eliminate a lot of the choices.)
I'd have to stare at those cube examples longer than I care to right now to get to what I think are the right answers, and I still might be wrong.
We've had this same thread two or three times before.
Here's what I got when I took the test before:
Here are my stats, based on the angelfire test:
STR 8
DEX 5
CON 10
INT 13/14 (quantitative/analytical)
WIS 15 (verbal)
CHA 12
Here's one of the old threads.
https://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/4532/what-are-your-irl-stats/p2
It started out with people being asked to self-evaluate, and then I brought up two of these tests, and a lot of people started taking them. We also discussed philosophies of stat and alignment definitions, self-evaluation, and testing methods.
EDIT: @Heindrich1988, I see now you meant to ask about the wisdom test, not the intelligence test. It didn't make sense to me when you said "answers to part two of intelligence", since those were self-evaluation questions, so I answered you as though you meant part one of the int test. Oh well, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Dex 13
Con 15
Int 14
Wis 11
Cha 16
Total: 75
Oh god, I would be a bard of all things!
EDIT: Oh wait, I could be a sorcerer! SWEET!
Dex: 14
Con: 11
Int (pt1/pt2) 12/15
Int: 14
Wis:12
Cha:10
About what I expected, but I think my charisma is higher(not because I'm vain, because I have a different definition of charisma.) a maybe better word for charisma is probably presence. It often simplified to how likable of nice you are, but I think it's more than that. Charisma is a measure of the distinctiveness of your personality, whether or not someone remembered you after working on something with them. Do people notice you when you want to be noticed?
Also the wisdom test was just a verbal intelligence test. Wisdom should be common sense and decision making.
Charisma has a different meaning to different people. I know one DM that I played dnd with back in the day was convinced it was actual physical attractiveness, which is not accurate.
Charisma includes many aspects; presence, personality, memorability, skilled in the arts, leadership, etc. (often many of these aspects are enhanced by being attractive, but it certainly is not a requirement.)
I know for me personally, my 16 in charisma was not a surprise. In my profession I work in a leadership role in which I am supervising over 300 individuals, give speeches, and maintain order. That combined with my skills in the arts (visual and literature), as well as the fact that I am considered to be polite, and likable as I have heard many times throughout my life, provides explanation to the score.
My low strength score didn't bother me... there's always someone else willing and able to do the heavy lifting for me (again attributing to my charisma score lol).
What disappointed me the most was my intelligence score, but I am terrible at math (great at literature, again artsy) and left most of those blank lol.
Str 9
Dex 15
Con 10
Int 15
Wis 9
Cha 14
The wisdom part confused me..
Also, I didnt have the patience for the many of the questions and skipped them. But I guess it isn't too far off reality - tho I think wisdom is too low
DEX 15
CON 10
INT 16
WIS 16
CHA 14
Not bad, but I had issues with this test. I'm especially frustrated with the Charisma test, since it seems very subjective. Is there a "right" answer to the age-old question of working on strengths vs. eliminating weaknesses? And how does that tie in to charisma?
I'm also quite sure I answered everything correctly in Wisdom, perhaps 16 is the max?
Not sure how number of friends ties into intelligence, either. Are loners automatically smarter?
DEX: 14 Well, I'm a good shot with a bow.
CON: 15
INT: 14
WIS: 15
CHA: 11
STR: 14
DEX: 16
CON: 11
INT: 14
WIS: 11
CHA: 15
What class should I be for a no reload run-through?
One of the elements of traditional definitions of "wisdom" is "heuristic, experience-based, wholistic, intuitive, creative thinking." Otherwise known as "thinking outside the box."
So, his little verbal riddles are an admirable attempt to objectively measure wholistic thinking, in my opinion.
How else could you get any measure of wisdom other than self-evaluation?
It's not perfect, but I understand and appreciate what he was trying to do with the wisdom questions.
Sorry, please don't take offense, but my own "stats" make it so that I can't resist pointing this out. I guess I should take minus 2 to my own charisma score now. LOL
Any good psychologist will tell you that if you want meaningful results from a test, don't try to "play" it to get results you want. Answer honestly and according to your first impulses. Many psychological instruments designed by professional psychologists even have a "lie scale", where they will design questions meant to measure willingness to lie about traits they consider common to all human beings.
Psychologists are very smart and well-educated test designers, although I don't know just how much training the Angelfire test designer has or doesn't have.
I only "played" the test after my original results, out of curiosity to see what changed what. The Wisdom section isn't a psychological assessment, it's a series of factual questions. I'm confident that my answers regarding grammar, common sayings, memory, etc. were all correct. There were, in fact, right and wrong answers. I wasn't confident in the line length test, but I tested various answers, including not answering it at all, and it seemed that the answer isn't actually factored into the final score.
Oh wait, just tested again as I was typing. Answering ALL of the possible boxes for line length bumped me to 17 wisdom. Yeah, that portion of the test is broken.
I know when I have DM'd myself in the past few years, my friends playing would be extremely upset if I did not let them re-roll as much as they wanted to pick their best stat set, just like in modern dnd based RPG's.
We've been spoiled. I'd say if Baldur's Gate forced the player to take their first role in the character generator, there would be screams of rage and horror! lol.
Combine that with the questionable decision to not allow any stat development outside of magical intervention (unlike in IWD2 and PS:T), and it makes rerolling almost essential to building a good character.
I remember many years ago, during my school days, glancing through an AD&D rulebook (no idea which edition) owned by a friend of a friend, and looking at rules for character creation, and thinking that the rules were incredibly harsh if implemented faithfully. I mean when I play RPGs, there is usually a very specific character that appeals to me. I’d hate to end up having to roleplay a Gnome, and be forced to adopt a suitable class for whatever stats I happened to roll.
Probably because my conception of Western Fantasy settings has been shaped by Warhammer Fantasy and Middle Earth, I find it impossible to tolerate/accept ‘strange classes’ like a Gnome Barbarian with 15+ Str, or the Berserker/Mage that everyone loves (seems to require totally different personalities for the two classes). I want my Dwarves to be Strong and Tough, and my Elves Fast and Fair etc…
Also as I have made clear on many occasions on this forum, I am no powergamer, but if you weren’t allowed to reallocate stats after a first roll, your average Charname would actually be significantly weaker than many of the NPCs like Imoen, Minsc, Khalid etc… who are all pretty extraordinary individuals if we really think of 9-11 as ‘average’.
Would you be interested in creating your own psychological test for D&D attributes? At least authors of the other imperfect instruments tried their best.
How *can* you objectively test the D&D attributes, anyway? I thought that bench-press weight, and number of pushups and situps able to be performed, were a pretty good objective indicator of Strength.
Likewise, I thought that tests like "How many miles can you run before you stop the test?", "How many flights of stairs can you climb before you stop the test?", and "How often have you been sick within the past year?", were pretty good objective indicators of Constitution.
Likewise, there are no less than three elements of Dexterity that could be tested objectively:
1) typing speed, ten-key speed, thumbing speed, ability to play musical instruments, and stage magic abilities like palming, misdirection, and juggling or "sword swallowing".
2) ability to dodge. You don't need to rely on self-reporting for this. Just throw balls and swing objects at the test subject, and record how often the objects hit.
3) eye-hand coordination. Easily testable through target practice of any kind, as well as any sports test in a sport that has "ball" in the title (other than American "football", which has heavy elements of strength and constitution mixed in, as well as intelligence/wisdom of the coach) - basketball, baseball, softball, and tennis. If you can hit any kind of ball with any kind of stick, or "shoot" a ball or puck into any kind of goal, you score high here.
The Angelfire test author was on the right track with Intelligence testing, I thought. Standard IQ tests would probably be a good measure.
Wisdom is tricky. The best way I can think of to objectively measure "wisdom", would be to measure the subject's performance in any number of classical, standard psychological experiments looking for the subject's ability to say "stop this ridiculous test immediately." Examples abound. Ask them to fake-shock a dupe fellow subject. Ask them to evaluate the truth of a dupe phenomenon after being exposed to the opinions of dupe fellow subjects. Academic psychological literature is filled with experiments of this nature.
Other objective measures of Wisdom: How much debt are you in, to the dollar, compared to your income, and what are the sources of that debt (a mortgage loan or a car loan are not the same as credit card debt - all debt is not equal.)? How many automobile accidents have you had during the past 10 years? How many speeding tickets? Have you ever been arrested for drinking while driving? Have you ever been fired from a job for any form of personal fault (according to the employer who fired you, not your own opinion)?
The one attribute that cannot be tested objectively, in my opinion, would be Charisma. If we limit it to its "Comeliness" element, then, we could objectively test it by showing *other people* your photo at age 25 among a large sample of photos of people of the same gender at the same age.
We could also get a somewhat "objective" measure by asking *other people* what they think of you, without your being present.
Absent the ability to get reactions from others besides the test subject, I don't see how to get any objective measurement of Charisma.
Str: 9
Dex: 11
Con: 16
Int: 15
Wis: 8
Cha: 13
Now I'll actually take the stupid test and post those results:
Str: 8
Dex: 11
Con: 15
Int: 15/15
Int2?: 15
Wis: 11
Cha: 15
The test has a higher opinion of me (on average) than I have of me. Is that odd, I wonder? Anyway, with the first set of stats I would probably build for a fighter/mage multiclass (because clearly I'm a half-elf?), with the second set... is that good enough to be a bard? Because bard is probably the closest "adventurer" analog I would have in real life.
EDIT: You think I should've listed my maximum benchpress rather than a multi-rep number? That might've pushed it up to 9 Str.
Hehe, no offense taken
Edit - I'll go ahead and post my guesstimates:
Str 12
Dex 15
Con 9
Int 15
Wis 4
Cha 14
Yeah, I had a buddy who took his scores waaay too seriously, and uh...well, he was already so full of himself he'd make a Goa'uld from Stargate look like a sweet little puppy, but yeah.
Close! Here's what Monster Manual II () has to say...
0 - Non-intelligent or intelligence not ratable
1 - Animal intelligence
2-4 - Semi-intelligent
5-7 - Low intelligence
8-10 - Average (human) intelligence)
11-12 - Very intelligent
13-14 - Highly intelligent
15-16 - Exceptionally intelligent
17 - 18 - Genius-level intelligence
19-20 - Supra-genius*
21+ - Godlike intelligence
* - I'd like to say that Stephen Hawking has a 20 Intelligence.
Oh god. Imoen is a genius! That's adorable! She is the most adorable genius ever!