I think that the real life "thieves" would be both the obvious - larcenous criminals - and, on the legit side, they would be detectives, locksmiths, white hat hackers, and government or military intelligence agents. Spies and scouts, basically.
"Rangers" would include park rangers, and pretty much any outdoors lovers who aren't career environmentalists. They could be trail guides, hunters, archaeologists, or researchers of flora and fauna, like the people who make programs for Discovery and Animal Planet. There's probably a gray area in the division between rangers and "druids". I think of the "druids" as the more proactive and sometimes militant environmental activists, such as Greenpeace or Peta workers.
I hope I'm not getting off-topic a bit. @Lemernis, did you intend for this thread to be for posting game runs that follow the rules set out in your OP, or were we just going to talk about it philosophically, and then have individuals start their own run threads if they want to do the challenge?
No, not off-topic at all. I actually like digressions taking place in threads, as that's what makes conversation and sharing ideas fun and interesting--which is why we're here, right? Anyway, people are welcome to be as freeform as they like in discussing this, following whatever implications and ideas flow from it.
The challenge rules were created just to offer a competition. But as a playthrough each person can find their own style and approach to the core idea of "real you" plus "best liked NPC personalities" that gives them the most satisfaction. So folks can share their own personal experience of the playthrough as well, with any modifications they wish to make.
In that spirit, I'm going to amend the competition rules to include possible three versions: strict no-reload, minimal reload (PC death only)/no res, and minimal reload plus limited resurrections for NPCs. I just want people to have fun with the idea, versus setting stringent rules.
I'm thinking about doing this, but I have one problem.
Skie is pretty high on my NPC list to get- in the top ten, definitely. I find her adorable, enjoy her silly comments, and generally like the rich girl as an adventurer deal. However, to get her, I need Eldoth. Who I find a horrible waste of existence and is probably one of my least favorite NPC's ever.
@Twani I'll ask the question here. Hopefully there is a global variable that we can add to Skie via the CLUA console.
Let's say you go right to the Silvershield estate without Eldoth. You could do the following:
- use the CLUA console to create Eldoth temporarily (which is a copy of him--he will still be in Cloakwood) - add him (to do that you might temporarily have to drop someone else as long as they're a NPC that stays put) - have Skie join (again, to do that you might temporarily have to drop someone else as long as they're a NPC that stays put) - Ctrl+Y Eldoth (the copy of him you created just to accomplish all this) - then if needed add the global variable that pertains to quest completion for Skie, either via the CLUA console or EE Keeper. But this might not even be necessary.
It may sound complicated, but in practice it would really be pretty simple. If you're unfamiliar with the CLUA console, it's easy to use. We could detail exactly what to do in the thread I referenced.
Or better, it may be possible to simply add a variable to Skie and never have any involvement with Eldoth at all.
Well this would be me, and those I'd have around. I'll also ignore the fact that same NPC's don't make it to BG2, as i'd keep them around anyhow.
Me
Fighter/Mage{Necromancer} (Dual Class) Human
I'd start as a fighter, building up my skills while dabbling in magic on the side, eventually gaining the fighting skills I desire, I'd go full on into learning magic, focusing on Necromancy as a means to cheat death.
Str -- 16 Dex -- 10 Con -- 15 Wis -- 13 Int -- 17 Cha -- 13
I'm strong and have a solid stamina, however i'm not very agile, and i'm a tad awkward in movement. I'm a little above average in wisdom, I do tend to see things others don't but that's more a mix of intelligence then straight wisdom alone. I'm very intelligent, able to learn quickly, and handle myself well, even when dealing in things I'm not familiar with, for Charisma physically i'm average at best, the above average score comes from my people skills, and my ability to earn a following of loyal friends.
the five I'd take with me on my travels
Aerie -- There is something about her I find myself very drawn to, she is literally in every group I've ever played.
Viconia -- Same deal as Aerie, except I know why I'm drawn to her, strong, blunt, honest no bullshit, a very valuable person to have around, and her tendencies are most definitely a plus.
Imoen -- Family is family, even if they are annoying as shit.
Neera -- I find her amusing, and fun to be around, though her magic would get bothersome, I could see putting up with it to have her around.
Kivan -- I can see helping him get his revenge, and keeping him along there after, probably the only other male I'd have in the group.
I remembered this morning that in order to dual-class I need Int 17, but that may not be egregiously far from the mark. Anyway, I used EE Keeper to tick Int up by one point. (Alternatively, I guess I could wait to get the Int tome in Chapter 5, but whatever.)
@Lemernis I think IQ-wise (1) < 50 (3)75 (6)85 (9)100 (12)110 (15)122 (17)130 (18)145 (19)160+ But I'm sure people will argue.
According to this measure I would have between 17 and 18 Intelligence. Honestly that sounds a bit high based on the game's description of the stats (I don't feel that I am a genius, just a very intelligent fellow).
I remembered this morning that in order to dual-class I need Int 17, but that may not be egregiously far from the mark. Anyway, I used EE Keeper to tick Int up by one point. (Alternatively, I guess I could wait to get the Int tome in Chapter 5, but whatever.)
@Lemernis I think IQ-wise (1) < 50 (3)75 (6)85 (9)100 (12)110 (15)122 (17)130 (18)145 (19)160+ But I'm sure people will argue.
According to this measure I would have between 17 and 18 Intelligence. Honestly that sounds a bit high based on the game's description of the stats (I don't feel that I am a genius, just a very intelligent fellow).
According to those measures that'll work then. Thanks.
@Lemernis@LordRumfish yeah, it's forgiving, but see it's farther apart at the ends? 17 should be pretty easy to get to(I'm 17 by this measure) but 18 is actually a pretty high, and taking tomes into consideration I think the absolute super geniuses of the world are probably 19-20, not 18. Then again, just looking at this chart: Maybe it isn't to bad. But google images isn't really a reliable source.
So I was modding a different game, and kept trying to type the word 'ballroom' but kept typing 'Bhaalroom' repeatedly and getting confused by the red squiggle in Open Office.
I think that means I need to play this challenge, seriously.
...Interestingly, by that chart, I'd have a very high INT- my IQ score is higher then that chart goes by a fair bit. But I wouldn't rate myself as any higher then 16 (and even then, I'd probably say 14 or 15); I don't think IQ totally measures 'smarts', maybe just processing power. Eh. I mean, I suppose if we believe in a higher being, he or she gave it to me to compromise for the 5 CON stat I was given, but... I think I'm more wise then smart, and I certainly don't think I'm great enough to have bunches of stats higher then 10. I'm no rocket scientist or nasa engineer.
@Twani um, with all due respect, I find it... Difficult to believe you have a 170+ IQ. According to the chart that makes you like, less than 0.001% of the population? It's not personal or anything, just statistically unlikely. You said "higher than the chart goes a fair bit". What's you actual score? IQ tests are said not to be reliable over 150, they're just not intended for supergeniuses. Though I guess on a forum with a bunch of people like this there should be someone int the 99.99th percentile
Well for instance my score would put me between 18 & 19, going by your given ranges. But I'm much more inclined to say I'm around 14-16. IQ is a funny thing, and I'm not sure how directly it relates to intelligence. If anything, 19 Int should represent something a good deal higher than 160+. It's almost superhuman intellect at that point.
"The highest reported standard score for most IQ tests is IQ 160, approximately the 99.997th percentile (leaving aside the issue of the considerable error in measurement at that level of IQ on any IQ test).[2] IQ scores above this level are dubious as there are insufficient normative cases upon which to base a statistically justified rank-ordering.[3][4] High IQ scores are less reliable than IQ scores nearer to the population median.[5]"
Yes - past a certain point, I would say 130- 140, I'd say it's nigh-impossible to properly measure. The closer one scores to perfect, the less accurate the test is going to be in its conclusions. Add to that the few other people who score that high, and you have a recipe for wild inaccuracy.
@megaloth My recorded IQ as of my last IQ test (which was around seven years ago, back when I was in collage- I'm guessing if anything my IQ has probably gone down without enough to stimulate it) is 180 something (I'm thinking it was 6, but I wouldn't quote it). I don't really believe it, either. I mean, I always aced my classes and was in every 'gifted' program: the only time I got anything less then an A was back in 6th grade when I spent the whole period talking to my friend who had the seat next to me, even during collage work when I skipped and partied instead of actually doing coursework. Schoolwork was always a snap for me. But I find difficulty in the real world same as anyone else, and I certainly don't think of myself as that intelligent. Yes, I solve puzzles quickly, but... so what. That means I'm good at puzzles, not that I'm a genius. I'd call myself 'smart', but calling me a genius only makes me laugh.
(On the other hand, my Uncle is a true genius- over 200 IQ, schools fought for him, wrote songs that ended up published and used by others, knows practically every little fact in the world without applying himself at all (which annoys me immensely: he's full of himself). Some say that sort of thing runs in the family. I don't think I believe that, either.)
I don't think that chat is very accurate, though. To be in the gifted program at my middle school, you had to have an IQ over 140+, and there were around ten of us in my grade alone. I don't think my school produced an overwhelming amount of ridiculously smart people. (I'd say it was more likely to produce complete idiots, personally, but my school sucked.)
According to one of those suspicious tests, my stats are:
Yeah, no. My charisma is not that high; I make people happy and people often come to me with problems, but I'd say I'm definitely average in looks (though I'd prefer if you guys didn't say that ), not a natural leader, and tend to be content as a follower. While I would say wisdom is probably my highest attribute, it certainly isn't 19 (that's super-human!). My intelligence is probably 15. My dex might actually be 14/15 (I've taken martial arts for years, and did pretty well in kendo back when I took it), but my CON is more like 6- you cough near me, I'm down for a week, and I have numerous health complications. Considering I can't carry much, I'm not sure I'd put my STR at 9, either.
I'd say something more like STR 8, DEX 14, CON 6, INT 15, WIS 16, CHA 14. And that's probably too generous: it's what I would be in a world that had monsters at the door rather then in a world that's... well, mostly safe. Kinda.
Tests put me as a rogue, bard, or sorcerer. I have never stolen anything in my life, and can't imagine stealing, so I wouldn't say rogue. Bard is an okay fit- my dream life is that of a writer- but I'm also a shy introvert with a fear of strangers, and I have specialized skillset rather then a jack of all trades one. So you know what? I'd say sorcerer fits me.
Quite simply, I've gotten through life relying on talent and skill rather then study and book learning. I've drifted from job to job that I don't technically have the qualifications for but still served adequately in the role anyway. I never study, yet I still pass tests put in front of me (this is a horrible trait for a person to have, I know, but I never 'learned' my way out of it- I tell myself each time that I'm going to apply myself, but then I get by without needing to yet again and I decide it would be a waste and go through the same cycle again). I'm basically the picture of 'someone with natural born talent who gets their way in life through that rather then through hard work and study'.
I don't like myself very much for that, but it's honestly true. (This is sort of hard to admit, as it's shameful.)
Besides, my friends are convinced I have psychic powers due to being good at tarot card and palm reading. I don't believe in the supernatural, personally, but I've had enough people come up to me and go "OMG, that was completely true" "You were so creepy and intense when you did that!" that I suppose it's a trait, and sorcerer is as close as you get to psion.
(Hint: tarot card reading is very easy. Just be vague! Everything comes true then! I don't get it.)
...I don't know. This post feels like bragging, and I don't mean to be: I don't like bragging, and I don't want to be that person. I don't feel like a genius, and I don't think I am a genius. Super-human intelligence is my uncle to me, not me. I just have talent for the test schools and work give you, and a good head for memorizing things after being told about them once. And really, IQ tests just sort of test that: do you know these words, can you do these puzzles, can you solve these problems. I don't think an IQ test is all there is to intelligence.
I'll try getting around to actually reading this thread later, but for now I'll go ahead and toss myself in along with my "best buddies". This is actually a sort of long post, so I'll go ahead and spoiler it for everyone's sake.
CHARNAME: Race: Human or Half-Elf (I'm obviously not a half elf in real life, but I feel my naturally smaller more dexterous frame and generally quick-minded and quick-fingered self would quite suit a half-elf)
Alignment: CG/LN (alignments are a tricky thing. I'm both chaotic and lawful, following all the government's legal laws, yet hating to be constrained and forced to do things. As for Good or Neutral, I go between definitively good and very "I don't care enough to be good, but I don't want to be evil". So that part's a bit tricky to answer)
Class: Bard (I'm a musician, though not in career, knowing how to play multiple instruments and doing a good bit of singing, both in a choir and on my own. I'm also no expert at anything, but I know enough to perform a variety of skills)
Abilities: These are based off of a D&D abilities test. They sound relatively accurate, though I would rate a few things a bit higher. Overall I'm pretty average. STR: 9 (I see no need for change here.) DEX: 13 (No need for change. Perhaps another point, but nothing major) CON: 10 (Yeah. Seems about right) INT: 12 (Yeah. Seems about right) WIS: 10 (Yeah. Seems about right) CHA: 11 (would obviously be 15 due to rules. And I feel at least a 13 is accurate)
BG1 Party: Imoen: My best friend from childhood! Probably would pull a Luke and Leia thing, though... "You're my sister?! ... I liked you..." Alora: Sweetest li'l gal on the Sword Coast Yeslick: Awesome dwarven guy. I could see him being a good not too over-bearing mentor as well. Khalid: I love Khalid. We'd be such pals. Either Branwen or Jaheira. I like Branwen FAR better, but Jaheira is paired with Khalid, and despite hating domineering women, I have a couple of friends who are sort of similar to Jaheira. At first I disliked them immensely, but I got to know them and they're some of my best friends now.
BG2 Party: Imoen: Duh. See above. Yoshimo: This guy's great! Jaheira: I would probably take Jaheira, especially if I had traveled with her in the first game. Wouldn't romance her though. Aerie: I'd probably romance her. She's the kind of girl I usually like IRL anyway. The sweet girl who I can protect and be there for. Jan: I love this guy. He'd keep me in stitches all the time. Mazzy: I respect her desire for justice and I feel like she'd be fun to be around.
Honorable Mentions: Ajantis: A bit too overzealous Coran: Too obnoxiously lustful, though otherwise he'd be fun to hang with. Garrick: Too... Something. I don't know, but I just don't think I'd want to spend the whole game with him. Minsc: He's the type of guy I love to hang with, but he's a little too unstable to be a good friend... Rasaad: I don't really have a reason why he's not in there, other than he's just beaten out by others. Haer'Dalis: A fun guy to hang with, but a little on the morally questionable side. Plus the whole "likes my girl" thing. Keldorn: Too judgemental and fatherly for me to want tagging along the whole time. Sarevok: I'd be too concerned I couldn't change him to the side of good, but I'd want to redeem him.
@Twani, dude, as far as I'm concerned IQ=intelligence. Whatever you're thinking is the squishy invisible stat in between charisma and wisdom. You completely have 18int, or even 19.
I'm kinda going off into my own head cannon for game mechanics here, but I view the tomes as a simulation for a natural progression of stats, not really as just magic books you happen to find, so 19int is achievable, assuming you are born with 18, then you can theoretically learn another point through study and practice. There are few things in this world that seem like they are exclusively innate skills, but can actually be learned. Any of the abilities represented by the dnd stats certainly can be increased well into life.
Going on what you posted there, the online test is probably more accurate than your own version(though I can hardly speak to the physical stats) remember Edwin is 18 int, and imoen, Nalia, Xan, Neera, Quayle, ect. are all 17 int. Now I know adventurers are supposed to be the best and the brightest, but still. I stand by my chart, and I think you are underestimating yourself (or more likely I am overestimating myself)
Also, I stand by my statement that IQ essentially meets a ceiling at ~175. some people might be smarter than what 175 is supposed to represent, I don't think it can really be measured. Beyond that I think instead of a number you can just say "to damn high!" Also I don't think being able to get A's through college without studying is something to be ashamed of. I'm in a similar place, I pretty much don't study, and my memory and interest in science has taken care of the rest. Though I'm only a freshman in high school, and I have work ethic issues, so I suspect things will change. High school is being... Frustrating. And that's all I'm going to say about that. Probably.
I thought about it some more, and I realized I could also make for a very physically weak Ranger. (in comparison to the standard laws for the class) I was a Boy scout, (an Eagle Scout, actually) and learned quite a lot about nature and survival and even traditional combat skills one would associate with a ranger. (such as archery or using axes, both for throwing and chopping) So a ranger or Bard would most fit me.
After FINALLY reading through all of the stuff in the thread (we are an articulate bunch) I've decided to chime in with the IQ=Stats thing. I consider INT to directly reflect IQ more or less. Take off the last digit of one's IQ, and you have your INT. For example: 130 IQ=13 INT. ect. ect. That said, I took a simple approach to it, and I believe it is slightly more in-depth than that. As for people saying there's more to INT than your IQ, I feel WIS encompasses all the non IQ parts that people associate with INT. But that's just my take on it.
Also, I feel IQ is a variable for everyone. You are born with a roughly 30 point difference in "range". That is to say that when you take an IQ test you have a maximum possible result, and a minimum result, and the range between the two is roughly 20-30 points. The result you get on an IQ test is therefore influenced by a number of variables. For instance, I've never taken an official IQ test, but I would rate myself around the 100-130 mark. You'll notice my BG version has a 12 INT, which is pretty accurate to my opinion of myself. Also, the "IQ tests" I have taken in the past rate me around 100-120. But I'm also as lazy as the physical embodiment of the seven deadly sin sloth would be. I just don't care enough to try on IQ tests. If a question requires me to think for more than thirty seconds, I just choose whatever looks right. I accept the result because whether or not I'm smarter doesn't matter, since the amount of effort has a direct influence on the results. Literally everyone I know says I'm very smart, but I don't get the kind of results most people would expect, simply because I'm lazy. In a real situation my results would be on that lower tier as well, even if I'm smarter than that.
Anyway, hopefully my talk of my "possibly 130 IQ" or how "everyone I know thinks I'm smart" thing didn't sound like boasting. It certainly wasn't intended to. Just using evidence to prove my points. Those're just my two cents on the matter.
Personally, I've always subscribed to INT being computing, basically. Basically, INT reflects memory, maths and logic skills, while another stat like WIS represents all that harder to define stuff, like awareness and intuition. So something with a very INT but extremely low WIS would be a computer. Excellent recall, flawless math skills etc. They're not very good at working out how to solve original they've not encountered before or been programmed to deal. They need to be shown how to do everything, but once they have been they don't forget and can repeat it again and again without fail. Like I mentioned earlier, that seems to be close to the main way the INT stat is used in the game. Probably a high WIS but very low INT would be someone like Minsc (even though he's low at both, but he does have Boo); occasional flashes of insight into things, but it never sticks.
I don't know if I'd associate just a high IQ with being a genius either. For one thing, 'genius' is a title we tend to bestow on someone in hindsight, after they've achieved or invented something. I'm sure people like Einstein, Newton etc did have decent IQ's, but I think a lot of their 'genius' came from other personality traits they had. Just been able to visualize things and approach a problem in a different way to what other people were doing at time, or an unusual ability to stay extremely focused on a single problem for a very long time, until it had been solved. I think there are lots of people with high IQ's, myself included, who have an annoying tendency to get bored of things quite quickly and not stick at them, so sadly are destined not to achieve a great deal in this life.
@Elrandir, it doesn't sound like boasting if you're being honest. By the way, reading this thread and other threads I get the impression that the average forum member's IQ is well above 100. There are quite a lot of articulate, astute, clever and carefully formulating people on here, and you are certainly one of them.
I have a different concept of intelligence than you I think. I surely wouldn't measure someone's intelligence by their IQ. In my view, intelligence encompasses not just one's analytical/logical abilities, which is the only thing IQ tests seek to measure, but also practical intelligence (the ability to adapt to one's environment), social intelligence and wit, expressive abilities, unconscious/intuitive modes of thought, creativity and probably even more. Besides IQ can even be trained, which brings it dangerously close to describing WIS rather than INT. Also, what you say, does your laziness make you less intelligent? Of course not, but it does lower your IQ score.
The last time I kind of seriously tested my IQ I scored 144, a couple of years back. I'd probably score lower nowadays because I simply don't care about the type of questions IQ tests pose. Either way if I compare myself to others on here I find that I often speak too soon or err, and I almost always submit sloppily written posts In other words I might have a relatively high IQ but my intelligence is lacking in other aspects.
As to the question how to translate RL INT to the D&D stat? - I don't know. I could agree with your assessment that dividing one's IQ score by ten might be an indication, but I'd like to see other aspects of intelligence, such as those I mentioned above, taken into account as well.
@Blackraven As I believe I said, (I'm not 100% sure I said it this exact way and I'm too lazy to scroll up and try and look through my long post to check. I seem to love proving my points immediately. =p) I do think that there's more to it than simply removing the last digit of your IQ, but I appreciate simplicity a great deal, and so choose that method of explaining it. I'm sure more does go into it, and I would love to hear the original creator of D&D's personal opinion of each attribute.
Also, thank you for the compliment. I do appreciate it. When comparing people on the forums, I don't think you're any worse than the majority of us, and being the first to act can be quite a good thing sometimes! =p
@Blackraven As I believe I said, (I'm not 100% sure I said it this exact way and I'm too lazy to scroll up and try and look through my long post to check.
Hehe, I did check. You´re right you said something like it. So thanks for allowing me to prove my point as well
I think it's probably the case that when people assess themselves it's like Garrison Keillor's fictional town of Lake Wobegone, "where the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."
Theoretically the majority of people are by definition average, such that 68% fall within one standard deviation from the mean. Statistically, two out of every three people are average in any given thing.
Perhaps for the purposes of having fun with a game like this, we can attribute the over-assessments people naturally tend to make as the protagonist being a Bhaalspawn. ;-)
In the case Int we might think of it roughly this way:
Using the above graph of the bell curve that @meagloth posted, when one is a genius I think the 0.1% that supposedly meet that definition are the rare few that make great leaps in insight. Let's take the field of Physics as an example. The top two percentile of the general population can flourish in a world of higher math and advanced theoretical concepts. They can do the math and grasp the concepts. But... only a handful will actually make revolutionary breakthroughs and propose theories that change the theoretical landscape.
So an Int of 18 can hack it in that intellectual world of physics. You're Int 19 if you publish a paper that shakes things up and gets people truly excited. And Int 20 and above is for those that propose a theory that actually alters the field and the direction it's moving.
We can generalize the same basic concept to other fields of knowledge. It's on that basis that I gave myself 16-17, which is the higher end of 14% of the population. My intellectual gifts are strong, but not so prodigious that truly revolutionary thought emerges from this noggin of mine. However, I'd like to think I have fairly high Wis with which to take what I can grasp and apply it well, however. And that to me is almost as valuable, if not more, than the raw brain power to come up with a revolutionary set of ideas.
Edit: Actually, by this definition 0.1% is a whole lotta people, not the mere handful that make manages to make revolutionary leaps in understanding. One tenth of one percent of the U.S. population is actually 3.16 million people! (2013 census = 316 million, although with undocumented aliens it's probably closer to 350 million). So for those actual world-changer intellects we're talking Int 24, I reckon.
Extraordinary intellect doesn't equal being an (over)achiever. Quite the opposite, actually. Highly intelligent people are often plagued by mental conditions which prevent them from being successful, but usually we hear only about the most brilliant and influential ones. Somethimes both happen at once, see: David Foster Wallace. Being constantly told that you're special, gifted and expected to succeed from early years is one of the worst things that can happen to a kid. IQ doesn't measure success, it measures mental capabilities. There's obviously correlation, but correlation doesn't imply causation.
That's a great point, @winters. I agree. Although in some fundamental way capability can only be measured by activity that demonstrates it, right? But I realize you're talking about social achievement, versus internal ability.
In the case Int we might think of it roughly this way:
So an Int of 18 can hack it in that intellectual world of physics. You're Int 19 if you publish a paper that shakes things up and gets people truly excited. And Int 20 and above is for those that propose a theory that actually alters the field and the direction it's moving.
Totally agree. This is what I'm saying, 18 int is great, but not a HUGE deal. And coming up with a "revolutionary idea" as you keep say is not solely dependent on int. While breakthrough is more likely to be made by someone with 20int, it could also be made with 17 or 18 int. Something like that is more a matter of being in the right place at the right time, and in a position where you could actually present your idea.
Probably not even that high; but it takes more than just INT or knowledge, or even being really good at maths, to be that kind of revolutionary breakthrough genius guy. You need to be able to make intuitive leaps, seeing connections between seemingly disparate things that no one had thought were connected before etc... it's more a combination of both high INT + high WIS. At least 15 or 14 in both. And probably other stuff as well, like being in the right place at the right time and being able to publish.
Comments
The challenge rules were created just to offer a competition. But as a playthrough each person can find their own style and approach to the core idea of "real you" plus "best liked NPC personalities" that gives them the most satisfaction. So folks can share their own personal experience of the playthrough as well, with any modifications they wish to make.
In that spirit, I'm going to amend the competition rules to include possible three versions: strict no-reload, minimal reload (PC death only)/no res, and minimal reload plus limited resurrections for NPCs. I just want people to have fun with the idea, versus setting stringent rules.
I'm thinking about doing this, but I have one problem.
Skie is pretty high on my NPC list to get- in the top ten, definitely. I find her adorable, enjoy her silly comments, and generally like the rich girl as an adventurer deal. However, to get her, I need Eldoth. Who I find a horrible waste of existence and is probably one of my least favorite NPC's ever.
What should I do about this?
Let's say you go right to the Silvershield estate without Eldoth. You could do the following:
- use the CLUA console to create Eldoth temporarily (which is a copy of him--he will still be in Cloakwood)
- add him (to do that you might temporarily have to drop someone else as long as they're a NPC that stays put)
- have Skie join (again, to do that you might temporarily have to drop someone else as long as they're a NPC that stays put)
- Ctrl+Y Eldoth (the copy of him you created just to accomplish all this)
- then if needed add the global variable that pertains to quest completion for Skie, either via the CLUA console or EE Keeper. But this might not even be necessary.
It may sound complicated, but in practice it would really be pretty simple. If you're unfamiliar with the CLUA console, it's easy to use. We could detail exactly what to do in the thread I referenced.
Or better, it may be possible to simply add a variable to Skie and never have any involvement with Eldoth at all.
Me
Fighter/Mage{Necromancer} (Dual Class)
Human
I'd start as a fighter, building up my skills while dabbling in magic on the side, eventually gaining the fighting skills I desire, I'd go full on into learning magic, focusing on Necromancy as a means to cheat death.
Str -- 16
Dex -- 10
Con -- 15
Wis -- 13
Int -- 17
Cha -- 13
I'm strong and have a solid stamina, however i'm not very agile, and i'm a tad awkward in movement. I'm a little above average in wisdom, I do tend to see things others don't but that's more a mix of intelligence then straight wisdom alone. I'm very intelligent, able to learn quickly, and handle myself well, even when dealing in things I'm not familiar with, for Charisma physically i'm average at best, the above average score comes from my people skills, and my ability to earn a following of loyal friends.
the five I'd take with me on my travels
Aerie -- There is something about her I find myself very drawn to, she is literally in every group I've ever played.
Viconia -- Same deal as Aerie, except I know why I'm drawn to her, strong, blunt, honest no bullshit, a very valuable person to have around, and her tendencies are most definitely a plus.
Imoen -- Family is family, even if they are annoying as shit.
Neera -- I find her amusing, and fun to be around, though her magic would get bothersome, I could see putting up with it to have her around.
Kivan -- I can see helping him get his revenge, and keeping him along there after, probably the only other male I'd have in the group.
Then again, just looking at this chart:
Maybe it isn't to bad. But google images isn't really a reliable source.
I think that means I need to play this challenge, seriously.
...Interestingly, by that chart, I'd have a very high INT- my IQ score is higher then that chart goes by a fair bit. But I wouldn't rate myself as any higher then 16 (and even then, I'd probably say 14 or 15); I don't think IQ totally measures 'smarts', maybe just processing power. Eh. I mean, I suppose if we believe in a higher being, he or she gave it to me to compromise for the 5 CON stat I was given, but... I think I'm more wise then smart, and I certainly don't think I'm great enough to have bunches of stats higher then 10. I'm no rocket scientist or nasa engineer.
Though I guess on a forum with a bunch of people like this there should be someone int the 99.99th percentile
If anything, 19 Int should represent something a good deal higher than 160+. It's almost superhuman intellect at that point.
"The highest reported standard score for most IQ tests is IQ 160, approximately the 99.997th percentile (leaving aside the issue of the considerable error in measurement at that level of IQ on any IQ test).[2] IQ scores above this level are dubious as there are insufficient normative cases upon which to base a statistically justified rank-ordering.[3][4] High IQ scores are less reliable than IQ scores nearer to the population median.[5]"
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_IQ_society
(On the other hand, my Uncle is a true genius- over 200 IQ, schools fought for him, wrote songs that ended up published and used by others, knows practically every little fact in the world without applying himself at all (which annoys me immensely: he's full of himself). Some say that sort of thing runs in the family. I don't think I believe that, either.)
I don't think that chat is very accurate, though. To be in the gifted program at my middle school, you had to have an IQ over 140+, and there were around ten of us in my grade alone. I don't think my school produced an overwhelming amount of ridiculously smart people. (I'd say it was more likely to produce complete idiots, personally, but my school sucked.)
According to one of those suspicious tests, my stats are:
Strength- 9
Dexterity- 13
Constitution- 11
Intelligence- 17
Wisdom- 19
Charisma- 16
Yeah, no. My charisma is not that high; I make people happy and people often come to me with problems, but I'd say I'm definitely average in looks (though I'd prefer if you guys didn't say that
I'd say something more like STR 8, DEX 14, CON 6, INT 15, WIS 16, CHA 14. And that's probably too generous: it's what I would be in a world that had monsters at the door rather then in a world that's... well, mostly safe. Kinda.
Tests put me as a rogue, bard, or sorcerer. I have never stolen anything in my life, and can't imagine stealing, so I wouldn't say rogue. Bard is an okay fit- my dream life is that of a writer- but I'm also a shy introvert with a fear of strangers, and I have specialized skillset rather then a jack of all trades one. So you know what? I'd say sorcerer fits me.
Quite simply, I've gotten through life relying on talent and skill rather then study and book learning. I've drifted from job to job that I don't technically have the qualifications for but still served adequately in the role anyway. I never study, yet I still pass tests put in front of me (this is a horrible trait for a person to have, I know, but I never 'learned' my way out of it- I tell myself each time that I'm going to apply myself, but then I get by without needing to yet again and I decide it would be a waste and go through the same cycle again). I'm basically the picture of 'someone with natural born talent who gets their way in life through that rather then through hard work and study'.
I don't like myself very much for that, but it's honestly true. (This is sort of hard to admit, as it's shameful.)
Besides, my friends are convinced I have psychic powers due to being good at tarot card and palm reading. I don't believe in the supernatural, personally, but I've had enough people come up to me and go "OMG, that was completely true" "You were so creepy and intense when you did that!" that I suppose it's a trait, and sorcerer is as close as you get to psion.
(Hint: tarot card reading is very easy. Just be vague! Everything comes true then! I don't get it.)
...I don't know. This post feels like bragging, and I don't mean to be: I don't like bragging, and I don't want to be that person. I don't feel like a genius, and I don't think I am a genius. Super-human intelligence is my uncle to me, not me. I just have talent for the test schools and work give you, and a good head for memorizing things after being told about them once. And really, IQ tests just sort of test that: do you know these words, can you do these puzzles, can you solve these problems. I don't think an IQ test is all there is to intelligence.
Race: Human or Half-Elf (I'm obviously not a half elf in real life, but I feel my naturally smaller more dexterous frame and generally quick-minded and quick-fingered self would quite suit a half-elf)
Alignment: CG/LN (alignments are a tricky thing. I'm both chaotic and lawful, following all the government's legal laws, yet hating to be constrained and forced to do things. As for Good or Neutral, I go between definitively good and very "I don't care enough to be good, but I don't want to be evil". So that part's a bit tricky to answer)
Class: Bard (I'm a musician, though not in career, knowing how to play multiple instruments and doing a good bit of singing, both in a choir and on my own. I'm also no expert at anything, but I know enough to perform a variety of skills)
Abilities: These are based off of a D&D abilities test. They sound relatively accurate, though I would rate a few things a bit higher. Overall I'm pretty average.
STR: 9 (I see no need for change here.)
DEX: 13 (No need for change. Perhaps another point, but nothing major)
CON: 10 (Yeah. Seems about right)
INT: 12 (Yeah. Seems about right)
WIS: 10 (Yeah. Seems about right)
CHA: 11 (would obviously be 15 due to rules. And I feel at least a 13 is accurate)
BG1 Party:
Imoen: My best friend from childhood! Probably would pull a Luke and Leia thing, though... "You're my sister?! ... I liked you..."
Alora: Sweetest li'l gal on the Sword Coast
Yeslick: Awesome dwarven guy. I could see him being a good not too over-bearing mentor as well.
Khalid: I love Khalid. We'd be such pals.
Either Branwen or Jaheira. I like Branwen FAR better, but Jaheira is paired with Khalid, and despite hating domineering women, I have a couple of friends who are sort of similar to Jaheira. At first I disliked them immensely, but I got to know them and they're some of my best friends now.
BG2 Party:
Imoen: Duh. See above.
Yoshimo: This guy's great!
Jaheira: I would probably take Jaheira, especially if I had traveled with her in the first game. Wouldn't romance her though.
Aerie: I'd probably romance her. She's the kind of girl I usually like IRL anyway. The sweet girl who I can protect and be there for.
Jan: I love this guy. He'd keep me in stitches all the time.
Mazzy: I respect her desire for justice and I feel like she'd be fun to be around.
Honorable Mentions:
Ajantis: A bit too overzealous
Coran: Too obnoxiously lustful, though otherwise he'd be fun to hang with.
Garrick: Too... Something. I don't know, but I just don't think I'd want to spend the whole game with him.
Minsc: He's the type of guy I love to hang with, but he's a little too unstable to be a good friend...
Rasaad: I don't really have a reason why he's not in there, other than he's just beaten out by others.
Haer'Dalis: A fun guy to hang with, but a little on the morally questionable side. Plus the whole "likes my girl" thing.
Keldorn: Too judgemental and fatherly for me to want tagging along the whole time.
Sarevok: I'd be too concerned I couldn't change him to the side of good, but I'd want to redeem him.
Going on what you posted there, the online test is probably more accurate than your own version(though I can hardly speak to the physical stats) remember Edwin is 18 int, and imoen, Nalia, Xan, Neera, Quayle, ect. are all 17 int. Now I know adventurers are supposed to be the best and the brightest, but still.
I stand by my chart, and I think you are underestimating yourself (or more likely I am overestimating myself)
Also, I stand by my statement that IQ essentially meets a ceiling at ~175. some people might be smarter than what 175 is supposed to represent, I don't think it can really be measured. Beyond that I think instead of a number you can just say "to damn high!"
Also I don't think being able to get A's through college without studying is something to be ashamed of. I'm in a similar place, I pretty much don't study, and my memory and interest in science has taken care of the rest. Though I'm only a freshman in high school, and I have work ethic issues, so I suspect things will change. High school is being... Frustrating. And that's all I'm going to say about that. Probably.
Labor omnia vincit.
(Work conquers everything).
Also, I feel IQ is a variable for everyone. You are born with a roughly 30 point difference in "range". That is to say that when you take an IQ test you have a maximum possible result, and a minimum result, and the range between the two is roughly 20-30 points. The result you get on an IQ test is therefore influenced by a number of variables. For instance, I've never taken an official IQ test, but I would rate myself around the 100-130 mark. You'll notice my BG version has a 12 INT, which is pretty accurate to my opinion of myself. Also, the "IQ tests" I have taken in the past rate me around 100-120. But I'm also as lazy as the physical embodiment of the seven deadly sin sloth would be. I just don't care enough to try on IQ tests. If a question requires me to think for more than thirty seconds, I just choose whatever looks right. I accept the result because whether or not I'm smarter doesn't matter, since the amount of effort has a direct influence on the results. Literally everyone I know says I'm very smart, but I don't get the kind of results most people would expect, simply because I'm lazy. In a real situation my results would be on that lower tier as well, even if I'm smarter than that.
Anyway, hopefully my talk of my "possibly 130 IQ" or how "everyone I know thinks I'm smart" thing didn't sound like boasting. It certainly wasn't intended to. Just using evidence to prove my points. Those're just my two cents on the matter.
I don't know if I'd associate just a high IQ with being a genius either. For one thing, 'genius' is a title we tend to bestow on someone in hindsight, after they've achieved or invented something. I'm sure people like Einstein, Newton etc did have decent IQ's, but I think a lot of their 'genius' came from other personality traits they had. Just been able to visualize things and approach a problem in a different way to what other people were doing at time, or an unusual ability to stay extremely focused on a single problem for a very long time, until it had been solved. I think there are lots of people with high IQ's, myself included, who have an annoying tendency to get bored of things quite quickly and not stick at them, so sadly are destined not to achieve a great deal in this life.
I have a different concept of intelligence than you I think. I surely wouldn't measure someone's intelligence by their IQ. In my view, intelligence encompasses not just one's analytical/logical abilities, which is the only thing IQ tests seek to measure, but also practical intelligence (the ability to adapt to one's environment), social intelligence and wit, expressive abilities, unconscious/intuitive modes of thought, creativity and probably even more. Besides IQ can even be trained, which brings it dangerously close to describing WIS rather than INT. Also, what you say, does your laziness make you less intelligent? Of course not, but it does lower your IQ score.
The last time I kind of seriously tested my IQ I scored 144, a couple of years back. I'd probably score lower nowadays because I simply don't care about the type of questions IQ tests pose. Either way if I compare myself to others on here I find that I often speak too soon or err, and I almost always submit sloppily written posts
As to the question how to translate RL INT to the D&D stat? - I don't know. I could agree with your assessment that dividing one's IQ score by ten might be an indication, but I'd like to see other aspects of intelligence, such as those I mentioned above, taken into account as well.
Also, thank you for the compliment. I do appreciate it.
When comparing people on the forums, I don't think you're any worse than the majority of us, and being the first to act can be quite a good thing sometimes! =p
Theoretically the majority of people are by definition average, such that 68% fall within one standard deviation from the mean. Statistically, two out of every three people are average in any given thing.
Perhaps for the purposes of having fun with a game like this, we can attribute the over-assessments people naturally tend to make as the protagonist being a Bhaalspawn. ;-)
I'm going to get so far in life.
Using the above graph of the bell curve that @meagloth posted, when one is a genius I think the 0.1% that supposedly meet that definition are the rare few that make great leaps in insight. Let's take the field of Physics as an example. The top two percentile of the general population can flourish in a world of higher math and advanced theoretical concepts. They can do the math and grasp the concepts. But... only a handful will actually make revolutionary breakthroughs and propose theories that change the theoretical landscape.
So an Int of 18 can hack it in that intellectual world of physics. You're Int 19 if you publish a paper that shakes things up and gets people truly excited. And Int 20 and above is for those that propose a theory that actually alters the field and the direction it's moving.
We can generalize the same basic concept to other fields of knowledge. It's on that basis that I gave myself 16-17, which is the higher end of 14% of the population. My intellectual gifts are strong, but not so prodigious that truly revolutionary thought emerges from this noggin of mine. However, I'd like to think I have fairly high Wis with which to take what I can grasp and apply it well, however. And that to me is almost as valuable, if not more, than the raw brain power to come up with a revolutionary set of ideas.
Edit: Actually, by this definition 0.1% is a whole lotta people, not the mere handful that make manages to make revolutionary leaps in understanding. One tenth of one percent of the U.S. population is actually 3.16 million people! (2013 census = 316 million, although with undocumented aliens it's probably closer to 350 million). So for those actual world-changer intellects we're talking Int 24, I reckon.
Being constantly told that you're special, gifted and expected to succeed from early years is one of the worst things that can happen to a kid.
IQ doesn't measure success, it measures mental capabilities. There's obviously correlation, but correlation doesn't imply causation.