Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="haiiro" data-source="post: 889992" data-attributes="member: 1891">One heck of a bump. <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=":)" />cptg1481's thread in GD about rolling, point buys and fairness (here: <a href="http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&amp;threadid=50541" target="_blank">http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&amp;threadid=50541</a>) got me thinking about this issue again.When I looked at the 56 point 1:1 point buy system, I looked at it from the perspective of how many high stats one can purchase. Like so: 18/18/14/8/8/8, with a net bonus of +10. Compared to WotC's 32 point buy: 18/18/8/8/8/8, with a net bonus of +8. At first glance, it looks unequivocally better than 32 point buy.When trying to model more uniform stats, however, 32 point buy can turn out the following: 14/14/14/14/12/12, with a net bonus of +10. 56 point buy (1:1) can only generate 14/12/12/12/12/12, with a net bonus of +7 -- clearly worse, and not even as good as WotC's 28 point buy (which can produce 14/14/12/12/12/12, with a net +8 bonus).I understand that the original intent of the 56 point 1:1 system was to model the &quot;4d6, drop the lowest&quot; method -- which it does, and does well -- and that it isn't really intended to be compared to WotC's weighted/scaling point buy system. Nonetheless, I think that's the benchmark most detail-minded players (and DMs like me) will use for comparison -- and the inconsistency of the results of this comparison make me scratch my head.Can anyone sort this out for me and explain it in layman's terms? Also, is there a number of points that makes a 1:1 point buy system consistently slightly better than WotC's 32 point buy -- or is that mathematically impossible?Thanks in advance. <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=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="haiiro, post: 889992, member: 1891"] One heck of a bump. :) cptg1481's thread in GD about rolling, point buys and fairness (here: [url]http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50541[/url]) got me thinking about this issue again. When I looked at the 56 point 1:1 point buy system, I looked at it from the perspective of how many high stats one can purchase. Like so: 18/18/14/8/8/8, with a net bonus of +10. Compared to WotC's 32 point buy: 18/18/8/8/8/8, with a net bonus of +8. At first glance, it looks unequivocally better than 32 point buy. When trying to model more uniform stats, however, 32 point buy can turn out the following: 14/14/14/14/12/12, with a net bonus of +10. 56 point buy (1:1) can only generate 14/12/12/12/12/12, with a net bonus of +7 -- clearly worse, and not even as good as WotC's 28 point buy (which can produce 14/14/12/12/12/12, with a net +8 bonus). I understand that the original intent of the 56 point 1:1 system was to model the "4d6, drop the lowest" method -- which it does, and does well -- and that it isn't really intended to be compared to WotC's weighted/scaling point buy system. Nonetheless, I think that's the benchmark most detail-minded players (and DMs like me) will use for comparison -- and the inconsistency of the results of this comparison make me scratch my head. Can anyone sort this out for me and explain it in layman's terms? Also, is there a number of points that makes a 1:1 point buy system consistently slightly better than WotC's 32 point buy -- or is that mathematically impossible? Thanks in advance. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification