Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CRGreathouse" data-source="post: 835468" data-attributes="member: 474">For the record, I've never played in LG -- it's just shorthand for me, too.I prefer to describe the m than define it, but...Take the percentage by which each HD is over or under the average and graph it.&nbsp; m is the least-square slope of that line.Negative values of m mean that the smaller HD benefit more; positive values mean that larger HD benefit more.&nbsp; I use this along with more estoteric mathematical tests to decide how much it benefits different classes.For example, the maximum method increases a d4 by 60% (that is, (4-2.5)/2.5 = .6).&nbsp; The d6 is increased 71.4%, 77.8% for the d8, 81.8% for the d10, and 84.6% for the d12.&nbsp; The least-square slope (steepness of the average line plotted to match these points) is .842.&nbsp; Taking the better of two rolls also benefits higher HD types, but the m is only .189, so it's not as large a factor as the maximum method.Does that make any sense?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CRGreathouse, post: 835468, member: 474"] For the record, I've never played in LG -- it's just shorthand for me, too. I prefer to describe the m than define it, but... Take the percentage by which each HD is over or under the average and graph it. m is the least-square slope of that line. Negative values of m mean that the smaller HD benefit more; positive values mean that larger HD benefit more. I use this along with more estoteric mathematical tests to decide how much it benefits different classes. For example, the maximum method increases a d4 by 60% (that is, (4-2.5)/2.5 = .6). The d6 is increased 71.4%, 77.8% for the d8, 81.8% for the d10, and 84.6% for the d12. The least-square slope (steepness of the average line plotted to match these points) is .842. Taking the better of two rolls also benefits higher HD types, but the m is only .189, so it's not as large a factor as the maximum method. Does that make any sense? [/QUOTE]

Verification