Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8389334" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I haven't altered your point. You used an extreme example of cheating to try and make a comparison that does not exist.Which is less appealing to you, yeah, I know what we are talking about.Then it isn't an absolute, not like I intended it as an absolute as much as it was typing 10 minutes before work and not having time to legal-proof my points while you back-pedal and twist around to try and make me out as unreasonable here.And a lack of perfect balance does not mean the same as imbalance, especially when you take one of the classes considered one of the worst because of how poorly designed their abilities and compare it with one generally considered the best. Additionally, asymmetric balance is still balance, not imbalance.Well, you should have been more specific. And when we have a DnD scientific revolution and better tools to analyze the game, I will call you up to try and prove your theories in a peer reviewed journal. But, funnily enough, humans have also gotten a lot of things right. So, saying that the analyzing of knowledge can be flawed, while true, is kind of a moot point unless you can point to why the analysis is flawed. And currently your only argument is "but the designer's wouldn't do that." which is pretty weak in the face "looks like they did, here's the math"You did realize that when I said the 4 and 8 had a total of 74 and 10 had a total of 75 that I had... done this exact same analysis, and gotten these exact same results. Right? Also, coin flips are probabilities. The classic example of a coin being heads or tells is meant to demonstrate the need for a large number of trials. I would think you were aware of that comparison, which is why I didn't go into too much detail. The exact same process is at work here.Yes, because the sheer range of values and how close they got. Rolling 4d6d1 six times produces a mathematical total between 18 (3/3/3/3/3/3) and 108 (18/18/18/18/18/18). This is a massive range of numbers, but the average is close to 72. It isn't exact, the actual mathematical value of the average is 74 (16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9) but, again, the designer wanted to avoid that 16, so they lowered that and the 9 to ensure you'd have a -1 stat. Now, with 10 (miniscule sample size) rolls, you produced 5 results that were within a point or two of the real average, and within 4 points of the Standard array. Again, this is an equivalent of throwing blind at a dartboard and getting in the inner ring. Did you get a bullseye? No, but expecting to get a single exact match when you have so many different possibilities and so few examples? That is ludicrous. It was never going to happen. So, yes, your example strengthens my position, not because I expected an exact result, because it was random rolls. But even with only 10 random rolls we got very close half the time. Because that's the average, that is the place we expect to see the most results landing.</blockquote>

Verification