Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6414219" data-attributes="member: 42582">With all due respect, my maths is fine. The 5% you refer to is a measure of an increment. On it's own, it tells you nothing about effectivenss. If my chance of hitting is 1%, and yours is 6%, then you enjoy an incremental increase, compared to me, of 5%, but your effectiveness is 500% greater than mine (ie you are 6x as effective).Whereas if my chance of success is 50%, and yours is 55%, then the incremental step-up of 5% confers an increase in effectiveness of only 10%.I didn't cherry pick any numbers. I used the target numbers that    [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] stated in the post to which I replied.This is nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity.There is not a 5% incease in effectiveness. In fact, when success is determined on a d20 it is impossible to have an increase in effectivenss as small as 5%, because the smallest possible increase in effectiveness - from 19 in 20 to 20 in 20 - is a 1 in 19 increase in effectiveness, which is greater than a 5% increase.But it is true that the likelihood of succeeding increases by a 5% increment.At 1st level, prof bonus is +2. What is a typical target number? Let's say that it ranges from 10 to 15.So, with a stat bonus of +2 the roll needed for success ranges from 6 to 11. Hence the chance of success ranges from 15 in 20 to 10 in 20.With a stat bonus of +3, the roll needed ranges from 5 to 10. Hence the chance of success ranges from 16 in 20 to 11 in 20. That is an increase in effectiveness of 1 in 15 (more than 6%) to 1 in 10 (exactly 10%). Is that neglibible? Over the course of play I don't think that it is. After all, profiency bonuses of +1 are regarded as non-neglible. Magic swords +1  are regarded as rewards. Rings of Protection that confer +1 to AC and to saving throws are valued items.If the stat bonus is +4, the roll needed ranges from 4 (17 in 20) to 9 (12 in 20). That is an increase in chance of success, compared to +2, of over 13%, and 20%, respectively. I think that is obviously non-neglible.No.As I explained in the post to which you replied, I am not concerned with expected values. Expected values are useful for predicting outcomes for repeated trials. And they can help us anticiate outcomes in circumstances of uncertainty. But they tell us nothing about the actual stat distribution in this particular game, here and now.My whole point is that rolling permits higher values, or lower values, depending on what is rolled, and in certain RPGing contexts that is an unfair consequence, because leading to arbitrary but significant differences in character effectiveness.If you want random generation of stats but want to avoid the sort of unfairness I am talking about, the solution is fairly simple: use the point buy rules to generate 6 or 10 or 12 or 20 or however many arrays, and then have players roll a die of the appropriate size to determine which array they use for their stats. This way there is randomness rather than the uniformity that    [MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION] and others have expressed concerns about, but there is not the arbitrary difference in character effectiveness, which for my preferred approach to RPGing is an unfairness.</blockquote>

Verification