Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7891971" data-attributes="member: 16814">Your edit doesn't really help as you have some columns without labels at all (like the first 2) and your C&amp;P doesn't make it clear which header goes with which column.&nbsp; I figured it out, though, as I wasn't actually confused as to how you got your data (and got the same data already).For others, header followed by column of data:Target -- column 2P_Success_1d20 -- column 3ScaledTarget -- column 4P_exact_3d6 -- column 5P_at_or_above_3d6 -- column 6P_success_scaled_3d6 -- column 7And, the arithmetic is correct, here.&nbsp; Everyone -- the above numbers are corrected calculated.&nbsp; But, that was never the problem.The problem is that the 2*3d6-10 has a range of [-4,26] and increments in steps of 2.&nbsp; The d20 has a range of [1,20] and increments in steps of 1.&nbsp; You're actually only comparing the data here at 2, 4, 6, ..., 18, and 20.&nbsp; You've tossed half of the possible rolls of the d20 to compare against 2/3rds of the possible rolls of 3d6.&nbsp; When you do this, you not that halving a d20 roll looks a lot like the middle 2/3rds of a 3d6 roll (recentered) between the values of 6 and 16.&nbsp; Does that not make you stop and wonder what you actually did?&nbsp; Because, while I can say that 1+1 times 2 has the same result as 2+2, 1+1 is NOT like 2+2, even if my arithmetic was right.Why do you have negative numbers for the targets of the d20?&nbsp; Why are you comparing impossible results to possible results?&nbsp; This should send up warning flags, but it hasn't, yet.&nbsp; If you do the roll transformation, you don't see these, but you do see that what's you've done here is throw away half the of the d20 results, again.&nbsp; And truncate the data, again.Here's the graph of the above using the roll adjust method (DC adjust just makes no sense).&nbsp; You can see you're only considering half of the d20 rolls in comparison to the 3d6 and you've tossed 6 data points off the 3d6 to do so.[ATTACH=full]117423[/ATTACH]These comparisons are bad math as you're not doing the same things to both sides of the equations and then claiming the results are similar.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7891971, member: 16814"] Your edit doesn't really help as you have some columns without labels at all (like the first 2) and your C&P doesn't make it clear which header goes with which column. I figured it out, though, as I wasn't actually confused as to how you got your data (and got the same data already). For others, header followed by column of data: Target -- column 2 P_Success_1d20 -- column 3 ScaledTarget -- column 4 P_exact_3d6 -- column 5 P_at_or_above_3d6 -- column 6 P_success_scaled_3d6 -- column 7 And, the arithmetic is correct, here. Everyone -- the above numbers are corrected calculated. But, that was never the problem. The problem is that the 2*3d6-10 has a range of [-4,26] and increments in steps of 2. The d20 has a range of [1,20] and increments in steps of 1. You're actually only comparing the data here at 2, 4, 6, ..., 18, and 20. You've tossed half of the possible rolls of the d20 to compare against 2/3rds of the possible rolls of 3d6. When you do this, you not that halving a d20 roll looks a lot like the middle 2/3rds of a 3d6 roll (recentered) between the values of 6 and 16. Does that not make you stop and wonder what you actually did? Because, while I can say that 1+1 times 2 has the same result as 2+2, 1+1 is NOT like 2+2, even if my arithmetic was right. Why do you have negative numbers for the targets of the d20? Why are you comparing impossible results to possible results? This should send up warning flags, but it hasn't, yet. If you do the roll transformation, you don't see these, but you do see that what's you've done here is throw away half the of the d20 results, again. And truncate the data, again. Here's the graph of the above using the roll adjust method (DC adjust just makes no sense). You can see you're only considering half of the d20 rolls in comparison to the 3d6 and you've tossed 6 data points off the 3d6 to do so. [ATTACH type="full"]117423[/ATTACH] These [I]comparisons [/I]are bad math as you're not doing the same things to both sides of the equations and then claiming the results are similar. [/QUOTE]

Verification