The Best Character and Strategy

[Rockstar]

I just looked at the thread titled and laughed asking myself how this got so off topic lol

[Harkoliar]

someone who i assume is a DnD Game Master (GM) made some several interesting points in character generation statistics. He set up a distribution curve on the rolls of people rolling those numbers using the regular Dice. He also took into account the population size (during medival times) and other variables which is too complicated for my poor brain to explain here (or im just lazy to summarize it [img]tongue.gif[/img] ). His website link found below.



link:
http://www.frontiernet.net/~jamessta...tatistics.html

if you look at the N value total is 50% [img]tongue.gif[/img] meaning 10 is average.

[ 04-17-2007, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Harkoliar ]

[Harkoliar]

another post here about another article of the author who made several good points.

link:
http://www.frontiernet.net/~jamessta...stimation.html

First few paragraphs...

Almost without fail, when discussions turn toward our favorite heroes from myth and fantasy, we find what I believe to simply be an over estimation of the abilities and powers of those epic figures of yore. Why, for example, is the Wizard Gandalf always assumed to be such a high level magic user/fighter or druid/fighter, or Sir Lancelot an unbelievably high level paladin? True, a closer read sometimes reveals some justification for this (like Gandalf really being a minor angel of sorts, only constrained by certain oaths not to use his true power rather than actually being relatively weak), but even then we typically find the high estimations were based on what the characters were seen to be doing amongst the masses (rather than some hidden powers). Gandalf, for example, never really did anything a relatively low-level druid/fighter couldn't do. Arthur and his knights were just better than the masses by a mere level or two, and Merlin certainly didn't do things an AD&D arch mage couldn't easily do. So why, then, are they commonly thought to be of such high levels? The reason is simple; they were "relatively" powerful - in fact, far more powerful than those around them. And to keep the same level of awe and admiration, they would have to be of exceedingly high level in comparison to our own PCs. Otherwise, our fighters, clerics, mages, and thieves would all out shine our favorite heroes from literature, and that would be a let down. - Let's face it, these characters have to be weaker. After all, the Lord Of The Rings isn't all that interesting when Gandalf teleports Frodo to the cracks of Doom, has him toss in the one ring, and comes home. But that's exactly what would have happened if he could do such things. - When you consider it, our AD&D heroes actually far surpass these literary characters in most regards. Even Jesus Christ (whom many consider God) never did anything a typical 9th level cleric couldn't do, raising someone from the dead being about the most powerful thing he allegedly did. Gandalf only did what a low-level druid/fighter could do; Sir Lancelot and King Arthur only did things which fighters and paladins of less than 7th level could easily manage. So it's all about "relative" power. Even a 1st level fighter amongst a pack of farmers would be awesome. - But where do we draw the line? It has been almost a sort of standard in AD&D that we draw the relative (not absolute) line at about 10 levels higher than the average level of the community as a whole. At this level, someone could be considered "Godlike!" Thus, Jesus, perhaps a 9th or 10th level cleric, would be considered godlike amongst what is, after all, a community where 99.9+% of the people are 0th level. And this would actually make our literary characters around 10th level as well, which is fitting. However, when you introduce AD&D characters as PCs, and the standard or average seems to start around name level, then the literary characters would have to be 10 levels higher than that to remain as impressive as they are in the books. The next thing you know it, Merlin, Gandalf, Lancelot, Arthur and the like are all around 20th level. And oddly enough, this is where you can find them even in certain AD&D books. Even though real 20th level AD&D characters could do far more than the literary characters ever did or ever could. - But where do we draw the line?.. READ ON [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 04-17-2007, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Harkoliar ]

[Dundee Slaytern]

At times like this, I wish the members with books at hand could come in to weigh in their opinions. [img]tongue.gif[/img] About 10 being the average for a dice roll, that is true for matters of dice-rolling. We are not however, talking about that, but the average number for a mortal in the AD&D world.

In your dice-roll example, the probability number from 3-18 adds up to a nice 100%. What happens then... to the people who have 1-2 INT or 19-25 INT? Did they just mysteriously disappear from the face of Faerun?

Cheers.

[Rockstar]

If we decide to accept the model above and follow the bell curve we can see in percentage of people per intellect level, INT=3 makes up less than half a percent of population, and even though it would warp these stats very slightly, having 1 or 2 INT would mean probably less than 0.25%. I have seen people suggest averages between 8 and 12. If this is the case i believe 1 would be very limited brain capacity and probably mean a short life span in the hard days the medievil had to endure.

I believe that INT between 1-3 would represent the very unacademic and mentally slow people who would not be capable of battle strategies with a sword and especially using mage scrolls.

I believe that 18 in any stat represents extraordinarily gifted and that to go above this requires some supernatural means, ie a potion or magical trinket. Seeing as it is not possible to raise any stat above 18 unless using trinkets (or tombs... which are still unnatural and would make up .0000000000001% of the population anyway lol) it makes sense to exclude 19 and above.

[Harkoliar]

Originally posted by Dundee Slaytern: At times like this, I wish the members with books at hand could come in to weigh in their opinions. [img]tongue.gif[/img] About 10 being the average for a dice roll, that is true for matters of dice-rolling. We are not however, talking about that, but the average number for a mortal in the AD&D world. In your dice-roll example, the probability number from 3-18 adds up to a nice 100%. What happens then... to the people who have 1-2 INT or 19-25 INT? Did they just mysteriously disappear from the face of Faerun? Cheers.

Look at the overestimation link I placed above in regards to 1-2INT and 19-25 INT. [img]tongue.gif[/img] . It is interesting read and makes up valid good points of realism. It depends on your Point of View. Note this is from the research in google (which took 10-15mins to find). If there is any other website stating book facts Ill be glad if someone can point out the way to clear up the confusion.

[Dundee Slaytern]

Originally posted by Harkoliar: Look at the overestimation link I placed above in regards to 1-2INT and 19-25 INT. [img]tongue.gif[/img] . It is interesting read and makes up valid good points of realism. It depends on your Point of View. Note this is from the research in google (which took 10-15mins to find). If there is any other website stating book facts Ill be glad if someone can point out the way to clear up the confusion.

That link actually supports my claim that 10 INT is above average. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Cheers.

[ZFR]

Originally posted by Harkoliar: someone who i assume is a DnD Game Master (GM) made some several interesting points in character generation statistics. He set up a distribution curve on the rolls of people rolling those numbers using the regular Dice. He also took into account the population size (during medival times) and other variables which is too complicated for my poor brain to explain here (or im just lazy to summarize it [img]tongue.gif[/img] ). His website link found below. {Image of table here} link: http://www.frontiernet.net/~jamessta...tatistics.html if you look at the N value total is 50% [img]tongue.gif[/img] meaning 10 is average.

Not really.

The average roll of 1 dice is (max+min)/2 = (6+1)/2 = 3.5

So for three dice it is 10.5

The distribution chart is completely irrelevant. If done that way then no matter what "variables too complicated" are taken into account it will always be symmetrical about 10.5 and the average will always be 10.5. (not 10)

But that doesn't mean that the average of all citizen will be in fact 10.5.


And Rockstar: 0.0000000000001% is not even one person .

[Kyrvias]

[quote]Originally posted by ZFR:

Originally posted by Harkoliar: [qb] But that doesn't mean that the average of all citizen will be in fact 10.5.

Exactly. It'll be 9 After Ctrl'ing commoners into my party, they have every single ability score set to 9. Hell, gaurds, in BG II, have a Strength of 9, and illegally wear Plate mail. Bad Gaurds. BAD.

And, being the Biff the Understudy is about as average/mediocre as you can get, he has an Int. of 9, along with every other stat, proving my point.

9 is the Average ANYTHING in the world of BG II.

My argument also proves Dundee right. Two for one, baby, Bam!

[ 04-17-2007, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Kyrvias ]

[Rockstar]

Harkoliar.

I see what you mean by that quote, but realise, an ordinary person could not do what the protagonists in these games can.

The main character is a Child of Bhaal. Part god and a far more powerful than average being. This power does vary drastically, but the protagonist defeats Sarevok and The Five in BG, and can do so solo, so is fitting for that powerful image if done this way.

Heros are heros because they are looked up upon with respect from their peers, may it be real life (us praising life guards and firemen) or in the D&D world (peasants saluting a powerful paladin).

And to avoid raising any controversy, don't compare Jesus Christ to fantacy AD&D. How many dead people have you resurrected rescently huh? lol