Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seasong" data-source="post: 765692" data-attributes="member: 5137">This looks convuluted. I'm not sure what inspired me to do it. But it works pretty good.Proposed variant (you can skip all the explanation following):9 - 1 pts10 - 2 pts11 - 3 pts12 - 4 pts13 - 6 pts (WotC 5)14 - 8 pts (WotC 6)15 - 10 pts (WotC 8)16 - 12 pts (WotC 10)17 - 15 pts (WotC 13)18 - 18 pts (WotC 16)Use 27 points as your base or, if you are replacing 4d6 (drop the lowest) entirely, you might decide to use 28 points. The results are about the same for either.Kobolds n Chickens: less than 12"Average people" dirty-n-gritty campaign: 12-20 points.Low heroic: 21-26 points.Heroic D&D Standard: 27-30 points.High Power Campaign (2d6+6): 31-40 points.1d6+12 campaign: 60 pointsNow for the reasons why I like this point distribution better.I had a few minutes, an Exel program up, and an irritating work day, so I worked out the probabilities for 4d6, drop the lowest. They are (chance to roll a particular total):3 - 0.08%4 - 0.31%5 - 0.77%6 - 1.62%7 - 2.93%8 - 4.78%9 - 7.02%10 - 9.41%11 - 11.42%12 - 12.89%13 - 13.27%14 - 12.35%15 - 10.11%16 - 7.25%17 - 4.17%18 - 1.62%Stacked, the percentage of people you are better than or equal to at any ability score is:3 - 0.08%4 - 0.39%5 - 1.16%6 - 2.78%7 - 5.71%8 - 10.49%9 - 17.52%10 - 26.93%11 - 38.35%12 - 51.23%13 - 64.51%14 - 76.85%15 - 86.96%16 - 94.21%17 - 98.38%18 - 100.00%If you divide the % of the people you are better than at 4 by the % at 3, you get 5. At 5:4, you get 3. Continuing this trend (the proportion of the population you gain that you are now better than or equal to) looks like this:4 - 55 - 36 - 2.47 - 2.0555555568 - 1.8378378389 - 1.66911764710 - 1.53744493411 - 1.42406876812 - 1.33601609713 - 1.25903614514 - 1.1913875615 - 1.13152610416 - 1.08340727617 - 1.04422604418 - 1.016470588If you assume that shifting from an ability score of 3 to an ability score of 4 is "worth" 1 point of advantage, you get the following costs:4 - 1 (total cost 1)5 - 3 (total cost 4)6 - 7.2 (total cost 11.2)7 - 14.8 (total cost 26)8 - 27.2 (total cost 53.2)9 - 45.4 (total cost 98.6)10 - 69.8 (total cost 168.4)11 - 99.4 (total cost 267.8)12 - 132.8 (total cost 400.6)13 - 167.2 (total cost 567.8)14 - 199.2 (total cost 767)15 - 225.4 (total cost 992.4)16 - 244.2 (total cost 1236.6)17 - 255 (total cost 1491.6)18 - 259.2 (total cost 1750.8)If you divide those point costs by 100, and round to the nearest, you get the following (ignoring costs of 0):9 - 1 pts10 - 2 pts11 - 3 pts12 - 4 pts13 - 6 pts (WotC 5)14 - 8 pts (WotC 6)15 - 10 pts (WotC 8)16 - 12 pts (WotC 10)17 - 15 pts (WotC 13)18 - 18 pts (WotC 16)Eh? Ehhhh? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />If you decide to use these costs instead of WotC's, you will need to set the default points to 28 instead of 25, in order to keep the proportion to the maximum the same. This will also result in a higher average if someone bought 12s across the board (avg 12.33 instead of 12.16; the average 4d6/drop lowest roll is 12.24). So... you might drop it to 27 points.</blockquote>

Verification