Search results

Strictly speaking my claim wasn’t that you’ll win 100% of the time either way so it doesn’t matter. There’s obviously some effect. The question is how much. In a typical encounter where you already have a very high win rate (whatever the number) it matters very little to your win rate. In the...

IMO totally unrealistic examples don’t show anything except that in totally non-realistic circumstances it could do something.

Why you wasting time on an example that cant actually show what you want to show?

Explain this? Why is pointing out that players are overwhelmingly favored to win 5e combat mean that rules and math don’t matter?

Single player isn’t how d&d is played either. It must be 1 PC in the group context to match with your point. If it’s really that impactful, why the hesitation to show it in that context?

Not when most combats have you winning 99% of the time. Having a better stat mod might up that to 99.5%.

Which won’t prove your claim that 1 mod is that important… It’s more realistic perhaps, but doesn’t align with your claim.

The test needs to be set up fairly and properly to demonstrate your point. I think that kind of proves my point…

I think you are using two different measures of effectiveness.

Oh god. That’s not how that works at all. Statistical significance is about testing a hypothesis and finding that there’s only a 5% chance or 1% chance for your actual data results to have happened by random chance (or whatever you’ve chosen as your critical value).

I think you only should be replacing 1 of the original 4 fighters to see the true effect of a single pc taking 1 lower str and con mod.

@FitzTheRuke How do you forecast how many books you initially try to obtain?

+1 mod is usually about a +20% increase after damage and accuracy are factored in. But I still agree that it’s mostly inconsequential. It’s only maybe 5% of party output. And combats aren’t calibrated that closely and so 5% more output is basically never going to be the difference in winning...

I asked Chat GPT to categorize the books. I did a spot check and it appeared to be correct. Starter sets were listed as other (not shown). Age is in Months. A few interesting points: He's sold more non-core books than core books. That's surprising. I wasn't expecting that result. Non-core...

You can't there. It's just to get a view of the trends. Trying to list 100+ items out in a chart wouldn't be readable ;) Obviously the big spikes at the start are the Core 2014 books and the ones about 19 months ago are the 2024. Though, I may split them 5-6 categories and color code those...

I graphed sales by product vs age in months. I'll post some thoughts later. Maybe some additional graphs as well. Note: The issue was corrected.

That's some spin. You should be a politician ;)