Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 7133651" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Could you quote which stats you refer to which &quot;people have been using&quot;? You entered this thread in post #3 IMMEDIATELY griping about the statistical improbability of the OP's experiences, and that the OP is &quot;either ignoring low rolls, or cheating&quot;.OP mentions specific rolled arrays twice AFAICT:(1) &quot;you kind of want 4 stats 14 or higher or a 14 dex with medium armor or 15 strength in heavy armor&quot;(2) &quot;our Bladedancer rolls 3 scores over 16&quot;(He also says &quot;With point buy you can get 20 dex by level 6 or 8&quot; and &quot;A 20 strength is nice for a strength based fighter but 18 strength+ feat is a great option&quot; but that has nothing to do with rolled stats since he's talking about point buy in one, and in the other he's just talking about 20 Strength, however you get it.)In (1), there is no mention of &quot;two stats higher than 16 but none lower than 10&quot;. There's no mention of a specific character at all, in fact, just a list of goals: either 14+, 14+, 14+, 14+; or [some other criterion I don't quite understand but which might be 14+, 14+, 14+, 15+ or perhaps 14+, 14+, 15+. Zardnaar would have to clarify.]Of the rows on your spreadsheet, I see 7 rows which can achieve 14+, 14+, 14+, 14+ after racial modifiers: #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, #12, #15, just under half. The Bladesinger is clearly exceptional, but nothing else in the OP is. When you posted in this thread saying, &quot;So you're preferring 4d6 because you're ignoring the lower rolls and only taking the higher ones over an array? Big shocker there. I say ignoring, because almost all of your examples are dependent on statistically higher than normal rolls,&quot; what did you mean by &quot;almost all your examples?&quot; Did you mean &quot;that one Bladesinger you mentioned in the fifth paragraph&quot;?For now, I just want you to look at the math and realize that there's a reason why &quot;statistically you would have the majority of your PCs having stats be higher than array or point buy&quot;, and it has nothing to do with cheating. It's because of math.I'll steal this table from <a href="http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/" target="_blank">http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/</a> to illustrate:Highest at least&nbsp; &nbsp; One&nbsp; &nbsp; Two&nbsp; &nbsp; Three18&nbsp; &nbsp; 9.34%&nbsp; &nbsp; 0.38%&nbsp; &nbsp; 0.01%17&nbsp; &nbsp; 30.07%&nbsp; &nbsp; 4.03%&nbsp; &nbsp; 0.34%16&nbsp; &nbsp; 56.76%&nbsp; &nbsp; 17.85%&nbsp; &nbsp; 3.26%15&nbsp; &nbsp; 79.40%&nbsp; &nbsp; 42.16%&nbsp; &nbsp; 14.13%14&nbsp; &nbsp; 92.80%&nbsp; &nbsp; 69.01%&nbsp; &nbsp; 36.29%One in thirty PCs will roll three 16s or higher. It's uncommon by the standard of &quot;things that happen at the table&quot;, and such a PC will no doubt be memorable--but it isn't uncommon by the standards of &quot;things that get talked about on the Internet.&quot;I'll readily concede that some people do cheat or ignore low rolls. But the fact that your very first post in this thread, in response to the OP, was to accuse him of cheating or statistical hijinks... well, that wasn't supported by the text of the OP. Clearly you have a pet peeve, and you were responding primarily to your own bias (i.e. Bayesian prior) and not to the evidence in the post.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 7133651, member: 6787650"] Could you quote which stats you refer to which "people have been using"? You entered this thread in post #3 IMMEDIATELY griping about the statistical improbability of the OP's experiences, and that the OP is "either ignoring low rolls, or cheating". OP mentions specific rolled arrays twice AFAICT: (1) "you kind of want 4 stats 14 or higher or a 14 dex with medium armor or 15 strength in heavy armor" (2) "our Bladedancer rolls 3 scores over 16" (He also says "With point buy you can get 20 dex by level 6 or 8" and "A 20 strength is nice for a strength based fighter but 18 strength+ feat is a great option" but that has nothing to do with rolled stats since he's talking about point buy in one, and in the other he's just talking about 20 Strength, however you get it.) In (1), there is no mention of "two stats higher than 16 but none lower than 10". There's no mention of a specific character at all, in fact, just a list of goals: either 14+, 14+, 14+, 14+; or [some other criterion I don't quite understand but which might be 14+, 14+, 14+, 15+ or perhaps 14+, 14+, 15+. Zardnaar would have to clarify.] Of the rows on your spreadsheet, I see 7 rows which can achieve 14+, 14+, 14+, 14+ after racial modifiers: #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, #12, #15, just under half. The Bladesinger is clearly exceptional, but nothing else in the OP is. When you posted in this thread saying, "So you're preferring 4d6 because you're ignoring the lower rolls and only taking the higher ones over an array? Big shocker there. I say ignoring, because almost all of your examples are dependent on statistically higher than normal rolls," what did you mean by "almost all your examples?" Did you mean "that one Bladesinger you mentioned in the fifth paragraph"? For now, I just want you to look at the math and realize that there's a reason why "statistically you would have the majority of your PCs having stats be higher than array or point buy", and it has nothing to do with cheating. It's because of math. I'll steal this table from [url]http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/[/url] to illustrate: Highest at least One Two Three 18 9.34% 0.38% 0.01% 17 30.07% 4.03% 0.34% 16 56.76% 17.85% 3.26% 15 79.40% 42.16% 14.13% 14 92.80% 69.01% 36.29% One in thirty PCs will roll three 16s or higher. It's uncommon by the standard of "things that happen at the table", and such a PC will no doubt be memorable--but it isn't uncommon by the standards of "things that get talked about on the Internet." I'll readily concede that some people do cheat or ignore low rolls. But the fact that your very first post in this thread, in response to the OP, was to accuse him of cheating or statistical hijinks... well, that wasn't supported by the text of the OP. Clearly you have a pet peeve, and you were responding primarily to your own bias (i.e. Bayesian prior) and not to the evidence in the post. [/QUOTE]

Verification