This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Dnd probabilities.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
80642
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Kristopher
Luck (and life) aren't fair. There will always be failure in life (Rolling a 1), and there always be achievements. (Rolling a 20).
In D&D, almost all of our actions are decided by the outcome d20 roll.
Some DMs, a roll of a 1 is automatically a failure, no accounting for modifiers. (There is even an optional rule to add a DC 10 dexterity check to see if the character drops their weapon if they roll a 1 whilst attacking)
Some DMs, a roll of 1 is merely a roll, and it can succeed or fail depending on the characters modifiers. (If you wanted to be fair I would choose this optional rule)
The DMs guide (3.5 at least) says that as a DM, you can decide which set of rules you wish to play by (Hell, in D&D you don't even
have
to use the rule books, it just takes a major part of the burden out)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
With 3 8-sided dice you've now got a 1 in 22 chance to get any number from 3 to 24 (roughly 4.5% chance)
Not quite.
The more dice you roll the more of a bell-curve you get.
Think about it. There is only one possible combination that will get you a 3 while there are several dozen ways to roll a 12.
That's part of the reason I've always been a fan of 1d12 weapons as opposed to 2d6 ones.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
With 3 8-sided dice you've now got a 1 in 22 chance to get any number from 3 to 24 (roughly 4.5% chance)
Not quite.
The more dice you roll the more of a bell-curve you get.
Think about it. There is only one possible combination that will get you a 3 while there are several dozen ways to roll a 12.
That's part of the reason I've always been a fan of 1d12 weapons as opposed to 2d6 ones.
I would think as a player a 2d6 weapon would be better because A) It does more damage and B) You get more reliable results from a 2d6 weapon.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
With 3 8-sided dice you've now got a 1 in 22 chance to get any number from 3 to 24 (roughly 4.5% chance)
Not quite.
The more dice you roll the more of a bell-curve you get.
Think about it. There is only one possible combination that will get you a 3 while there are several dozen ways to roll a 12.
That's part of the reason I've always been a fan of 1d12 weapons as opposed to 2d6 ones.
I would think as a player a 2d6 weapon would be better because A) It does more damage and B) You get more reliable results from a 2d6 weapon.
Yeah, it entirely depends what purpose you're using it for.
I used to play Dragon Warriors, and they had hit rolls on a d20, and spell cast / saving roles on 2d10. If you have an average 'must roll over' target of about 8, then if the attacker gains 3 levels, he'd get an extra 15% chance to hit as a fighter, but significantly more as a spellcaster. Any modifiers make a much bigger difference in the middle of the bell curve than nearer to the ends. Spell crits were much more unlikely, for example (1% vs 5%). If you have a crit on 18-20, then you're going from 15% (1d20) to 6% (2d10).
Interestingly, the game also had an armour bypass roll, to see if a hit actually did damage. Plate armour was a 5, chainmail was 4, ringmail was 3. A sword would need to roll over the armour rating on 1d8, whereas a spear would need 2d4. This quite accurately (for a game) portrayed the difference between the armour penetration ability of stabbing weapons and other weapons - you get a higher penetration rate on weaker armours, but it tails off more quickly as you get to more solid ones (without holes for ventilation).
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I would think as a player a 2d6 weapon would be better because A) It does more damage and B) You get more reliable results from a 2d6 weapon.
A) No, 2d6 and 1d12 would theoretically do the exact same amount of damage. As Squish noted, in practice it really depends.
B) Not if you're built around crits.
Keep in mind I haven't played actual DnD or any table-top game, only crpgs built on the DnD system...so it's roughly the same.
Post by
Squishalot
'Have' or 'haven't' played, Hyper?
2d6 does on average 7 points of damage. 1d12 on average does 6.5 points of damage. Not sure how you're coming to it doing exactly the same amount?
Edit: For the record, I've played a fair amount of tabletop RPGs (not all fantasy ones either), but not DnD specifically, though I have played a few CRPGs based on the DnD system (eg, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, etc)
Here's a question. Would you prefer 10d6, or 1d6x10?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
2d6 does on average 7 points of damage. 1d12 on average does 6.5 points of damage. Not sure how you're coming to it doing exactly the same amount?
Yeah, I added wrong. You're right
Here's a question. Would you prefer 10d6, or 1d6x10?
Usually (in the games I've played) the 1d-whatever weapons have higher crit multipliers, which I'm guessing is to make up for the loss in average damage. So I guess it would depend.
Post by
Squishalot
Here's a question. Would you prefer 10d6, or 1d6x10?
Usually (in the games I've played) the 1d-whatever weapons have higher crit multipliers, which I'm guessing is to make up for the loss in average damage. So I guess it would depend.
It's a question that comes up in the Palladium RPG series. Generally, small arms weaponry would often do 3d6 or 4d6 damage, for example. But for whatever reason, you might have a weapon that does 10-11d6. In this situation, they suggest that you use 1d6x10 or 1d6x10 + 1d6 instead, presumably for convenience. (The same applies for larger orders also - 10d6x10 should be represented as 1d6x100.)
Considering that the average damage is the same, and that the only change is in the distribution of damage (crit modifiers and so forth are unchanged), which would you choose, if you had to make this choice at the start of your campaign, and not tailor it for particular rolls? (Yeah, he's got 21 health left, so I'll use 10d6. Oh, this guy has 59 health, I'd better use 1d6x10. Yeah, different ammo, that's right... *cough*)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
In that case I'd just for 1d6x10 for convenience's sake (or is it "convenience' sake?").
Post by
Squishalot
Fair enough. (I would use "for the sake of convenience", but I think that's technically passive voice, and I'm supposed to be trying not to use passive voice too much. Technically, I suppose, it'd be "convenience's" sake, in the same way that it's a "nurse's" job. The rule is on the spelling, not the sound, I think. Yet another sidetrack ftw ;))
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Fair enough. (I would use "for the sake of convenience", but I think that's technically passive voice, and I'm supposed to be trying not to use passive voice too much. Technically, I suppose, it'd be "convenience's" sake, in the same way that it's a "nurse's" job. The rule is on the spelling, not the sound, I think. Yet another sidetrack ftw ;))
Well, in the case of "nurse's" you actually say it as 2 syllables (I do at least).
Post by
Squishalot
Fair enough. (I would use "for the sake of convenience", but I think that's technically passive voice, and I'm supposed to be trying not to use passive voice too much. Technically, I suppose, it'd be "convenience's" sake, in the same way that it's a "nurse's" job. The rule is on the spelling, not the sound, I think. Yet another sidetrack ftw ;))
Well, in the case of "nurse's" you actually say it as 2 syllables (I do at least).
Wouldn't it be the same?
Con-ve-ni-ence (4 syllables)
Con-ve-ni-enc-e's (5 syllables, split is crude, but just there to highlight)
Edit: Could just be a difference in American vs Australian pronounciation. Pronouncing it as 'convenience' seems like a short-cut (as opposed to 'conventional') to me.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Fair enough. (I would use "for the sake of convenience", but I think that's technically passive voice, and I'm supposed to be trying not to use passive voice too much. Technically, I suppose, it'd be "convenience's" sake, in the same way that it's a "nurse's" job. The rule is on the spelling, not the sound, I think. Yet another sidetrack ftw ;))
Well, in the case of "nurse's" you actually say it as 2 syllables (I do at least).
Wouldn't it be the same?
Con-ve-ni-ence (4 syllables)
Con-ve-ni-enc-e's (5 syllables, split is crude, but just there to highlight)
Edit: Could just be a difference in American vs Australian pronounciation. Pronouncing it as 'convenience' seems like a short-cut (as opposed to 'conventional') to me.
I've always said '
con-ven-yence
(3 syllables) sake' ...probably an accent thing. But then that raises the question, should accent have any bearing on how things are written (assuming both a have sufficient reason behind them)?
Edit: I scoured the OED and found no rule, but this example:
I shall call..the populations..Tartars, for convenience-sake
Now obviously that is outdated, but I think it might explain my pronunciation along with my gut-feeling to leave out the "s."
Post by
Squishalot
Interesting, but fair enough.
On the question of accents determining how things are written, I'd say it's a byproduct of language evolution. As more and more people start to use a particular spelling of a word, it slowly takes over and becomes 'correct'. So if the population as a whole shifts from 'convenience-sake' to 'convenience's sake', then the latter will become 'correct'.
There's nothing terribly wrong with two populations having two different spellings of a word. What you would call 'jail' is what the Poms would call 'gaol'. Australians technically spell it as 'gaol', in line with our more recent English heritage, but for all practical purposes, the layman spells it as 'jail', due to a more predominant American influence. Eventually, the linguists in Australia will give up and spell it the American way, because everybody does it.
(And there isn't even a difference in pronounciation!)
Probably, a better example would be the use of 'ass' and 'arse' (will Wowhead let me say that?). Two pronounciations, two spellings, one meaning.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.