Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7891876" data-attributes="member: 16814">I haven't insulted you, I've been emphatic that what you're doing is wrong, mathematically.&nbsp; Here's the full graph for 2*3d6-10 against d20:[ATTACH=full]117421[/ATTACH]Perhaps you might not the missing data now?Wait, you presented data on two different x-axis scales with a single label?&nbsp; This didn't ring any alarm bells for you?&nbsp; Your graph shows that the odds of rolling a 16 on 3d6 is similar to the odds of rolling a 22 on d20 by putting both points on the 16? Also, how, exactly, do you roll a 22 on d20?&nbsp; That's a 0 percent chance.&nbsp; How did that not ring an alarm bell for you?This doesn't change the odds of rolling any single value, though.&nbsp; Again, you've just reshaped the distribution and then pretended it's the same thing -- it's not the same thing.&nbsp; You've just acknowledged that you're limiting the d20 roll to between 5 and 15 in half step increments against the same DC as the 3d6 to get a partial match in shape.&nbsp; But, AGAIN, the lines looking the similar with your do mathemagic doesn't actually make them the same thing -- you've lost any ability to compare and are just fooling yourself.The OP method doesn't do what's advertised, it, instead, limits the effective range of the d20 versus the new DC schema and pretends the limited scope means a d20 roll isn't much different from a 3d6 roll.&nbsp; It's bunk mathematically and bunk logically.I recreated your graph exactly above, to the extend that you agreed that my assessment of the d20 slope is TRUE.&nbsp; How you can claim I don't understand your points is beyond me -- I very much grasp what you're putting down.&nbsp; It's just WRONG.&nbsp; I've tried multiple times to show that what you're doing is fooling yourself with an improper analysis -- it's you that isn't following.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7891876, member: 16814"] I haven't insulted you, I've been emphatic that what you're doing is wrong, mathematically. Here's the full graph for 2*3d6-10 against d20: [ATTACH type="full"]117421[/ATTACH] Perhaps you might not the missing data now? Wait, you presented data on two different x-axis scales with a single label? This didn't ring any alarm bells for you? Your graph shows that the odds of rolling a 16 on 3d6 is similar to the odds of rolling a 22 on d20 by putting both points on the 16? Also, how, exactly, do you roll a 22 on d20? That's a 0 percent chance. How did that not ring an alarm bell for you? This doesn't change the odds of rolling any single value, though. Again, you've just reshaped the distribution and then pretended it's the same thing -- it's not the same thing. You've just acknowledged that you're limiting the d20 roll to between 5 and 15 in half step increments against the same DC as the 3d6 to get a partial match in shape. But, AGAIN, the lines looking the similar with your do mathemagic doesn't actually make them the same thing -- you've lost any ability to compare and are just fooling yourself. The OP method doesn't do what's advertised, it, instead, limits the effective range of the d20 versus the new DC schema and pretends the limited scope means a d20 roll isn't much different from a 3d6 roll. It's bunk mathematically and bunk logically. I recreated your graph exactly above, to the extend that you agreed that my assessment of the d20 slope is TRUE. How you can claim I don't understand your points is beyond me -- I very much grasp what you're putting down. It's just WRONG. I've tried multiple times to show that what you're doing is fooling yourself with an improper analysis -- it's you that isn't following. [/QUOTE]

Verification