Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8389720" data-attributes="member: 6801228">So if I burnt toast in your house that would be a problem? I'm using heat (which is all fire is) and creating smoke. But, burning toast is also very different than catching your house on fire. So, which is the real issue? Damage to your likely expensive home (which could come from fire, water or wind) or fire and the smell of smoke? And hence, my point. You find the lack of realism unappealing. But it isn't just the lack of realism, because if it was, you wouldn't be fine with other things that lack realism. This particular lack of realism though is unappealing.If you reward the things the ranger is good at, sure. I've got no problems with the Ranger in general, I just notice that Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy and Primeval Awareness are horrifically designed messes. An issue the wizard doesn't have, There is no feature the wizard is stuck with that is as actively detrimental to them as the PHB Ranger's Primeval Awareness. And yes, 5e is quite forgiving, but that doesn't change the point that we shouldn't be okay with a class printed with multiple nearly useless abilities and poor design. And if you roll, and get less than a 16, well, you chose to roll. That's the risk that comes with potentially starting with a 20. But the baseline average the game is looking for is a 16. That is the mid-point.You have enough people agreeing with the same math, presenting their math and supporting their math... then yeah, that math is likely a pretty solid foundation to build on. Might not be perfect, but it very very solid.Far fewer? To see the coin flip mathematically and consistently, you need somewhere around 100 coin flips. Again, your position is like flipping a coin six times, getting four heads, and declaring that you have proof that a coin flip is actually 66/44 instead of 50/50. Also, tangent, a firecracker is the same as a bomb in most ways. The main differences are the outer casing and the force of the explosion. You could argue the different chemical catalysts play a role, but that roll is mainly in the force of the explosion.And look at literally the next sentence where I explain why the designers altered the array to not exactly match, and showed the math where they did so. I mean, it almost literally looks like the designers took this average, the took away the 16 and made the lowest number an 8. Wonder why they would have taken the average roll nearly identically then made it the standard, static array. A mystery for the ages, after all, these numbers were just conjured out of thin air and reference nothing. Certainly not the average roll. And, again, matching identically is not the point.Um... yes? That would be expected that if you rolled 10 more times you could have wildly different results. For example, in your 10 rolls, which I'm assuming were either 3d6 or 4d6d1, you only had one array under the average. That is unusual. You's expect to see something closer to a third greatly over, a third greatly under, and a third around the mid point. Well, you would for 3d6 and a bell curve, 4d6d1 does skew flatter so you would likely see a lot more mid range numbers. But, again, this is how statistics and probability work. This is why sample size matters. Because, if you rolled 10,000 times it would show the average. Roll 10 times and you can claim that there is an 80% failure rate in achieving the average, which is silly and just demonstrates how small and inaccurate a small sample size is.Look man, I'm a teacher, but I'm not getting paid to teach you stats 101. If you are really going to go forward claiming that a sample size of 10 is sufficient to disprove the mathematically proven and graphed average, done by multiple websites by statistical analysis software... I can't help you. I don't care that it is "two campaigns worth" of characters. The point is that 10 arrays is no where near enough of a sample size to prove anything. You need hundreds and thousands of arrays to try and prove the average wrong. And since using hundreds of thousands of rolls is exactly how some of these computer programs have proven the math and arrived at the averages... I don't think you would actually disprove them.</blockquote>

Verification