Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9494612" data-attributes="member: 7037866">But that doesn't jive with the probability of getting a roll of 6 using 3d6.You're imposing a linear system on a bell-shaped distribution--generally a no-no IMO.Even in AD&amp;D, Gygax et al. recognized an INT 17+ as genius, which is IQ 145 or higher. That doesn't work with your method.As I stated above, IQ 60 would be an INT 3, not 6, basically at the bottom of sentient intelligence.FWIW, there is nothing &quot;wrong&quot; with using the scale you are considering scores range from 1-20 in 5E, but it doesn't work well with the probabilities of rolling 3d6. Doing this, you're going to get more geniuses (INT 15 or higher using your concept) and more dim-witted people on the low end.I would recommend changing the bonuses also, making 9-11 +0, and for the negative values do the following:[ATTACH=full]384317[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ezo, post: 9494612, member: 7037866"] But that doesn't jive with the probability of getting a roll of 6 using 3d6. You're imposing a linear system on a bell-shaped distribution--generally a no-no IMO. Even in AD&D, Gygax et al. recognized an INT 17+ as genius, which is IQ 145 or higher. That doesn't work with your method. As I stated above, IQ 60 would be an INT 3, not 6, basically at the bottom of sentient intelligence. FWIW, there is nothing "wrong" with using the scale you are considering scores range from 1-20 in 5E, but it doesn't work well with the probabilities of rolling 3d6. Doing this, you're going to get more geniuses (INT 15 or higher using your concept) and more dim-witted people on the low end. I would recommend changing the bonuses also, making 9-11 +0, and for the negative values do the following: [ATTACH type="full" width="149px"]384317[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Verification