Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="seasong" data-source="post: 769147" data-attributes="member: 5137">Or I'm wrong, and their based on an intuitive guess. Without getting them in here, since their numbers don't quite match up, we'll never really be sure <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.Why do you think this will improve on it, for purposes of representing the advantage of having a particular ability score?I assigned an arbitrary value to the advantage of shifting from an ability score of 3 to a 4. All further points were based on the slope of the population %, as mentioned. Once I had all of the points worked out, I divided them by 100, in order to have usable numbers.That your assumption above and my method synchronize on most of the curve is an interesting coincidence <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.With that said, I like the idea of mixing the effects of the % chance of getting a number with the % population you equal/exceed.I'm not sure why you normalized the numbers?To get 12, 12, 12, 12, 13, 13 would cost 62 points (28 old).To get 11, 11, 11, 11, 12, 18 would cost 73 points (34 old).To get 8, 8, 8, 16, 16, 18 would cost 71 points (36 old).Note that all three of these are &quot;average&quot; rolls for 4d6/low.&quot;Old&quot; means the system I put at the beginning of this thread. The new system hovers around &quot;old&quot; x 2 for both middle range and extreme. It seems almost exactly as 'jostly' as mine at the middle range and the extremes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="seasong, post: 769147, member: 5137"] Or I'm wrong, and their based on an intuitive guess. Without getting them in here, since their numbers don't [i]quite[/i] match up, we'll never really be sure :). Why do you think this will improve on it, for purposes of representing the advantage of having a particular ability score? I assigned an arbitrary value to the advantage of shifting from an ability score of 3 to a 4. All further points were based on the slope of the population %, as mentioned. Once I had all of the points worked out, I divided them by 100, in order to have usable numbers. That your assumption above and my method synchronize on most of the curve is an interesting coincidence :). With that said, I like the idea of mixing the effects of the % chance of getting a number with the % population you equal/exceed. I'm not sure why you normalized the numbers? To get 12, 12, 12, 12, 13, 13 would cost 62 points (28 old). To get 11, 11, 11, 11, 12, 18 would cost 73 points (34 old). To get 8, 8, 8, 16, 16, 18 would cost 71 points (36 old). Note that all three of these are "average" rolls for 4d6/low. "Old" means the system I put at the beginning of this thread. The new system hovers around "old" x 2 for both middle range and extreme. It seems almost exactly as 'jostly' as mine at the middle range and the extremes. [/QUOTE]

Verification