Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8388780" data-attributes="member: 6801228">And this is why the "justifications" matter. Because of course you are going to say "but it is cheating in my game" or "but those are the rules of my game".  That was the entire point of using an example as extreme as taking two classes and treating them as one level, which would be cheating in any game, because of course no one would allow that in their game. And if I'm okay with one thing not being allowed, then to be consistent I have to be okay with other things not being allowed. But, it is a false comparison. One isn't even a rule, the game never even tells you you can't take more than one class as a single level, but we all know that you can't because it would be far too powerful and break the intent of the game. The "rule" exists to prevent abuses of power and keep the game from devolving. Your rule exists because you personally find the thought of using the Standard Array unappealing, so no one at your table is allowed to use it. There is no one on this forum who would find a player taking two simultaneous classes acceptable. But there are plenty who use the standard array. These things are not the same.And there shouldn't be an imbalance (overall) between the Ranger and Wizard, and if they were better designed it wouldn't exist. Numbers are far easier to design around though.Yeah, almost like if you have a 90% to 94 % chance of no issues occuring . Like, it only happens to 6% to  10% of customers.... weird that.No, the middle number absolutely matters. That is the baseline of the powercurve. See, this is what I was saying before. You think that the baseline means that anything below it isn't effective. That is not what that phrase means. It means that the option is weaker than average. And a 14 is weaker than average. The Average is 16, the middle number. And being weaker than average doesn't make your character unplayable or ineffective. It just makes you weaker than average. And, anything within a standard deviation of the baseline, is still fine. It is powerful, but not too powerful. It is weak, but not too weak. But knowing where tehConsidering how many of these people who analyze to determine the flat earth are disproven by better analysis, I think this is a very poor argument. Many Flat Earthers reject understood principles and poorly use explained phenomenon to sow confusion, such as how perspective shifts make things seem smaller, and light refraction can cause false sunsets. These claims can be disproven by a better analysis. You have not provided a better analysis. You have provided "The designers wouldn't do that"  and attacked non-claims like claiming that a 14 isn't broken in terms of weakness, therefore it must be the balance point.IF you flip a coin 10 times and 7 of them are heads does that prove that a coin flip isn't 50/50? You made 10 randomized arrays. Mathematically, the standard array is 72. You had two arrays that were 74 and one that was 75. Are they perfect matches? No, they aren't meant to be and if rolling dice always perfectly matched the array then everything we know about probability and statistics would be proven false. And, getting three results that close from such a small sample set using whichever RNG process the app used, shows how close to that average the standard array is. All you are doing is strengthening my position.</blockquote>

Verification