?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

gacked from thewronghands...

...what my stats would be as a D & D character.



Well, given this dexterity and strength, probably not an adventurer actually. Though I am annoyed that the only strength data point seemed to be about how much you can bench press. Ah well. And intelligence seemed only to measure your SAT score/IQ, so I'm fairly sure that I'm not "olympic-level" intelligent. But it's nice to be told it, anyway, I suppose. My wisdom also feels rather inflated.

You scored 6 Strength, 11 Constitution, and 10 Dexterity!
All stats are based on the original D&D system of 3-18. 3 being tragically weak and 18 being olympic level ability.




You scored 18 Intelligence, 13 Wisdom, and 12 Charisma!


Obviously, the real me ought to be some sort of stay-out-of-the-melee magic-user. That would actually be quite satisfactory.



For amusement's sake, get your own stats - mental and physical.

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
ravenblack
Feb. 24th, 2006 02:20 pm (UTC)
I say bah to the intelligence questions; being non-American I couldn't use SAT scores which would surely have got me 18, and was stuck with IQ which I'm pretty sure doesn't correspond as given at all. (And then I went with an average-IQ-test score, resulting in 16, that various IQ tests could put me anywhere from 14 to a high-18. Holly proves this, by having approximately the same IQ as me but having a percentile score she can convert to SAT and thus easily claim 18.)

And bah to the strength rating, that I don't remember what I bench-pressed the one time I did a weights thing, but I *think* it was 120lb, but that was for repetitions anyway and also 8-10 years ago, so I have no idea at all what my do-it-once maximum benchpress is now.

And bah to all the others too, of course. I am highly constitutional and dexterous (14), mehly wise and charismatic (11). Which is fair enough what with wisdom being measured as D&D cleric-goo rather than as anything worthwhile, and charisma half being measured on results rather than potential. (If you never leave the house, you are not charismatic.)
thewronghands
Feb. 24th, 2006 08:52 pm (UTC)
Also, I think people lie. They took one IQ test that's on the higher scale (there's a test that tops out at about 140, and a test that tops out at about 200, and comparing the results between them without knowing that is meaningless). I bet a lot of people have gotten varying IQ results, and took the highest. (I must admit that I did that. I doubt I am alone.)

Mehly is a great word.

What would my stats make me? Besides lame.
ravenblack
Feb. 25th, 2006 01:40 am (UTC)
Mm, that's why I mentioned going with an average. At the low end, I've IQ'd at one-twenty-some, on IQ tests where the average and standard deviation were taken from people who were taking an IQ test for their own amusement on a website (thus obviously a skewed baseline). At the high end, I've scored "170+" on a test that didn't go beyond that. But the going-with-highest-option effect doesn't annoy me as much as the SAT/IQ non-parallel.

I do wonder whether they *should* be parallel though - both are supposed to score by percentiles, and it's possible the person did the math and matched them up to theoretical equivalent boundaries.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Owl Side
jalenstrix
Jalen Strix

Latest Month

May 2011
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Ideacodes