Would it be wise to replace the random intervals for some breath weapons (dragons especially, but also things like Hellhounds) with a recharge chance? The odds change slightly, but they can also increase the drama and fluidity of combat somehwat.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Would it be wise to replace the random intervals for some breath weapons (dragons especially, but also things like Hellhounds) with a recharge chance? The odds change slightly, but they can also increase the drama and fluidity of combat somehwat.
How would this increase the drama and fluidity of combat? The PCs won't know how long the breath weapon will take to recharge either way - from their perspective, each round could be the one where the breath weapon is coming next. Also, a random interval requires a single die roll, while a recharge chance each round requires one roll each round, and thus adds more die rolling, which would actually slow combat.
I think the problem with a recharge chance is that is a 4e mechanism - I would speculate that they would have to use a percentage chance mechanism if they even bother to initiate such a revision.
Naturally, for your home game you can pillage stuff you like and shoehorn it in! ^_^
The PCs won't know how long the breath weapon will take to recharge either way - from their perspective, each round could be the one where the breath weapon is coming next.
Not really. They know it isn't the first round, for instance (1d4+1). They also know that if it is the fifth round and the dragon hasn't breathed on them, its because it doesn't want to, not because it can't.
I also like the idea that the dragon also doesn't know when it'll get its breath back.
|
I also like the idea that the dragon also doesn't know when it'll get its breath back.
I dislike this idea for that exact reason. A dragon, ho is hundreds or years old, doesn't know even an estimate on when he's getting his biggest weapon back? Thats like telling a tank that the main gun might have a shell in it after the normal reload time... but it might be 3x the normal reload time. The crew of the tank knows how long it takes them to reload the weapon, and plan their location accordingly. So Should the dragon.
If anything I would think about just a flat recharge time with the creature having the possibility of using a lower powered breath weapon if they choose not to wait.
So a breath weapon takes 4 rounds to be reused, but if you try to use it 1 round later it only works at 1/4 strength.
The 1d4+1 thing always struck me more as a 1e die-rolling tactics type thing (i.e. 'A dragon uses its breath weapon every 1d4+1 rounds' as opposed to 'A dragon can only use its breath weapon every 1d4+1 rounds'.)
If anything I would think about just a flat recharge time with the creature having the possibility of using a lower powered breath weapon if they choose not to wait.
So a breath weapon takes 4 rounds to be reused, but if you try to use it 1 round later it only works at 1/4 strength.
That's a neat idea, but it fails in play.
I actually implemented this exact rule back when 3.0 was fairly new. I rolled the die for the breath weapon to recharge but allowed the dragon (et. al.) to use it sooner at a prorated lower damage.
Net effect: when using it sooner, the player characters' damage reductions were more effective.
Example: If the dragon can breath next round for 100 HP and you can resist 20 HP, you will take 80 HP damage. But if he breathes this round for 50 and next round for 50, you will resist 20 from each round, meaning you only take 60 HP instead of 80.
Then I reasoned that dragons are smart enough to know better, they know that people crazy enough to go dragon hunting are usually clever enough to bring along the appropriate resistance, so they wait til their breath is fully charged.
In which case, they had no real use for the houserule.
Then I also reasoned that low-intelligence creatures with recharging breath weapons would not know this, and would blast their breath willy nilly, even if it makes them weaker in combat.
In which chase, this houserule made these monsters weaker, without a compensating reduction of their CR.
In both cases, it wasn't worth the effort or the consequences.
The 1d4+1 thing always struck me more as a 1e die-rolling tactics type thing (i.e. 'A dragon uses its breath weapon every 1d4+1 rounds' as opposed to 'A dragon can only use its breath weapon every 1d4+1 rounds'.)
Maybe.
But if you were a dragon, defending your hoard and your life against a group of impertinent adventurers who are doing their best to kill you, wouldn't you use your best attack every chance you could?
Sure, maybe sometimes there is a reason to get medieval, go claw/claw/bite/tail/wing on one of them.
Sure, maybe sometimes you decide that your breath weapon will ruin all that magic and coin those adventurers are carrying, so you won't breathe on them because you want to loot their corpses later.
Sure, maybe we can come up with some more reasons not to breathe on the adventurers even though the dragon's breath weapon is ready and fully charged.
But...
I can just as easily come up with reasons to disregard those other reasons.
Maybe you can go medieval, but blasting several of them at once would make more sense.
Maybe you want to loot the adventurers later, but if they are hurting you, maybe winning the fight, and even if not, they're chopping you up so bad that if more adventurers come by tomorrow you can't possibly win, so let's just wipe them out and live, rather than get overly greedy and possibly die. Even a greedy dragon cares more about its own life than about its hoard.
No, I don't think the recharge rate is all about a dragon just being whimsical and not wanting to breathe.
If it is, then drop the recharge rate entirely and print some dragon tactics in the Bestiary that DMs can follow to decide for themselves, situationally, whether the dragon wants to breathe or not.
I don't know if I would classify it as a failure. I would say a Hell Hound with an Int 6 is smart enough to not fire off willy nilly, but not necessarily smart enough to grasp the whole energy resistance damage threshold concept.
Plus, the party may not always have enough energy resistance to go around. Honestly I like the idea of a dragon or similar creature having the ability to squeeze an extra one out if need be.
I don't know if I would classify it as a failure. I would say a Hell Hound with an Int 6 is smart enough to not fire off willy nilly, but not necessarily smart enough to grasp the whole energy resistance damage threshold concept.
Plus, the party may not always have enough energy resistance to go around. Honestly I like the idea of a dragon or similar creature having the ability to squeeze an extra one out if need be.
Jsut remember to adjust your CRs.
That hellhound will be crippling its breath weapon if the party has any fire resistance, and as you point out, it won't be smart enough to know this. Which means it's nifty breath weapon will be (or should be, if you play the HH according to its INT) "nerfed" by this house rule, so "nerf" the CR too.
I really never saw the dragons breath weapon as it "major" attack. Yeah it's nasty but it's not that nasty (especially with a save throw possibly cancelling it out if evasion is present) and energy resistance to reduce the damage. For me what makes a dragon nasty is those wonderful save throws, good (normal) AC and plenty of HD, on a highly intelligent creature. If you are attacking a dragon in its lair it's probably not a great idea... after all the dragon's got lots of wealth, lots of brain power, lots of time, and lots of minions to make sure everything is set just right. Generally such a combination is down right deadly (especially for the "higher" dragons that can also choose clerical spells... contingency true resurrection anyone?).
|
|
Would it be wise to replace the random intervals for some breath weapons (dragons especially, but also things like Hellhounds) with a recharge chance? The odds change slightly, but they can also increase the drama and fluidity of combat somehwat.
I would say the odds change more than slightly, with the very critical addition of a chance that a breath weapon does not recharge at all.
That chance is the critical flaw with the recharge system, even if you accept the general variations in the probability as a simple handwave of a different system.
Would it be wise to replace the random intervals for some breath weapons (dragons especially, but also things like Hellhounds) with a recharge chance? The odds change slightly, but they can also increase the drama and fluidity of combat somehwat.I would say the odds change more than slightly, with the very critical addition of a chance that a breath weapon does not recharge at all.
That chance is the critical flaw with the recharge system, even if you accept the general variations in the probability as a simple handwave of a different system.
That's a good point, and well-worth emphasizing.
I did several playtests in the early days of 4e before release. Each of them involved a fight against a baby dragon.
I do remember one where the dragon was flying around, mainly out of reach of the PCs, trying to breathe on them, and went something like 8 rounds before it managed to recharge its breath weapon.
Had the fight been at closer quarters, those PCs would have carved that dragon up like a holiday turkey.
8 rounds is a loooong time in battle, especially for a defining ability of a creature like a dragon.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Would it be wise to replace the random intervals for some breath weapons (dragons especially, but also things like Hellhounds) with a recharge chance? The odds change slightly, but they can also increase the drama and fluidity of combat somehwat.
Curious about this, I've just run a brief analysis.
I'm assuming a stable chance-of-recharge per round,designated r. For each r, I was interested in: the average time till a recharge, the median and quartiles, and the 95th percentile (the number of rounds that need to go by until there's a 95% chance the dragon's breath is recharged).
So:
r = 60%
- Average = 1.667 rounds
- 1st Quartile = 1 round
- Median = 1 round
- 3rd Quartile = 2 rounds
- 95th Percentile = 4 rounds
r = 50%
- Average = 2.000 rounds
- 1st Quartile = 1 round
- Median = 1.5 rounds
- 3rd Quartile = 3 rounds
- 95th Percentile = 5 rounds
r = 40%
- Average = 2.500 rounds
- 1st Quartile = 1 round
- Median = 2 rounds
- 3rd Quartile = 3 rounds
- 95th Percentile = 6 rounds
r = 30%
- Average = 3.333 rounds
- 1st Quartile = 1 round
- Median = 2 rounds
- 3rd Quartile = 4 rounds
- 95th Percentile = 9 rounds
r = 20%
- Average = 5.000 rounds
- 1st Quartile = 2 rounds
- Median = 4 rounds
- 3rd Quartile = 7 rounds
- 95th Percentile = 14 rounds
If we want an average recharge time of 3.5 rounds (the same as 1d4 + 1), then r should equal 28.5%
For simplicity, a 25% (16+ on d20 or 4 on 1d4) chance means an average of 4 rounds. The chance that it takes more than 5 rounds is offset by the fact that it can also take 1 round.
|
|
For simplicity, a 25% (16+ on d20 or 4 on 1d4) chance means an average of 4 rounds. The chance that it takes more than 5 rounds is offset by the fact that it can also take 1 round.
It can also take 1 round rolling 1d4.
The possibility that it can take more than 4 rounds is what makes a static recharge rate flawed in terms of overall probability.Instead you would need, to match the WotC theory of player perception probability, is to use say a d12. On the first round the power recharges on a 1-3 (25%), on the second round it recharges on a 1-4 (33-1/3%), on the third round it recharges on a 1-6 (50%), and on the fourth round it recharges on a 1-12 (100%). At that rate you may as well just roll the d4 and be done with it.
It can also take 1 round rolling 1d4.
The possibility that it can take more than 4 rounds is what makes a static recharge rate flawed in terms of overall probability.
Instead you would need, to match the WotC theory of player perception probability, is to use say a d12. On the first round the power recharges on a 1-3 (25%), on the second round it recharges on a 1-4 (33-1/3%), on the third round it recharges on a 1-6 (50%), and on the fourth round it recharges on a 1-12 (100%). At that rate you may as well just roll the d4 and be done with it.
Except that Dragons recharge on 1d4+1, which has a minimum of 2 rounds. Otherwise the average rounds would be 2.5 and I'd be advocating a 30% or 35% recharge chance.
And I'm not familiar with the idea of 'player perception probability'.
|
|
Except that Dragons recharge on 1d4+1, which has a minimum of 2 rounds.
My Monster Manual says 1d4 rounds.
Even if it were 1d4+1, the "+1 is functionally irrelevant to a recharge, as it means you have a complete null for the first round, and simply do not roll.And I'm not familiar with the idea of 'player perception probability'.
The way the WotC designers describe it, the probability is based on the perceptions of the players using Game Theory and an unifrmed observer, not on the actual probability using the straight distribution of 1d4.
There is NOT a 25% chance on the first round, a 33% chance on the second round, a 50% chance on the third round, and a 100% chance on the fourth round. The duration is determined once, and is absolute.
Only by expressing this as based on the perceptions of the player looking at the actions of the dragon, and making tactical placement decisions, or any other observer who cannot know the exact chance until the effect is resolved, do you have those pseudo-probabilities.
As a player, I watch the dragon breathe.
I say to myself "Next round, the dragon has a 25% chance of breathing." Why? Because out of four possible results, only one of them will let the dragon breathe.
If, and only if, the dragon does not breathe on that round, I then say to myself, "Next round, the dragon has a 33-1/3% chance of breathing." How does that happen? Because there are three remaining results.
This repeats with 50% the third round with two remaning results, and 100% the fourth round with only one remaining result.
From the perspective of the DM, no such variable probability exists. The DM rolls 1d4, looks at the result, and knows exactly which round the dragon will breathe again. Each round from his perspective there is either an absolute 0% chance or an absolute 100% chance that the dragon can breathe.
From a straight probability perspective, that is someone observing the rule, noting that 1d4 is used, the probability of the dragon breathing on any subsequent round is 25% for each round in a four round set period, resetting immediately after it breathes.
From an extended distributive probability perspective, which it seems WotC forgot about, and which contains the possibility of a breath weapon never recharging for 5, 10, 20, or more rounds, the specific probability changes every round based on how many rounds have elapsed, how many total times the dragon has breathed, how many rounds the combat will last, how many rounds of combat with a recharge you ever run in your entire gaming career, and a bunch of other factors I am not doubt forgetting.
That is where all the problems arise. By using a game theory analysis, the recharge system presumes that the 1d4 system allows some sort of rerolling because it is unknown to the players. It does not. Just because the dragon could not breathe on the first round does not mean the chance it can breathe on the second round changes. The probability has already been determined, and is an absolute fact, whether it is known to the players or not.
Ah. I actually had a post discussing that phenomenon, but hte messageboard ate it, and since Mortika was kind enough to crunch some numbers for me I neglected to recreate it.
I simply called it 'conditional probability given previous negatives'. One of the things I like about a recharge system is that the 'perception probability' never changes.
Oh, and you were correct about dragon breath being 1d4. I don't know where I recalled 1d4+1 from.
|
|
Ah. I actually had a post discussing that phenomenon, but hte messageboard ate it, and since Mortika was kind enough to crunch some numbers for me I neglected to recreate it.
It is not so much a phenomenom as simply different varieties of probability analysis, and thus the problems that arise when you switch between them and get different results.
Sidebar Obligatory Gaming Story
Way back when, GDW put out a game series called The Third World War, a happy little boardgame focusing on a potential NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict in the late 80s to early 90s. The combat tables were basic wargame odds, from 1-10 up to 10-1. Right in the middle, around 4-1 to 7-1, a die roll of 6 would result in an exchange, eliminate all of the defending troops, then eliminate an amount of attacking troops whose attack strengths equaled the defense strengths of the defending troops. The countermix reflected the general analysis of the opposing forces, with the Warsaw Pact divisions being weak but incredibly numerous, and the u.S. divisions begin incredibly powerful but very few. Other NATO divisions were about the same strength, but had higher troop quality. As a result, an exchange would always massively favor the Warsaw Pact player.
So one afternoon we were playing, and one of the people playing NATO made an attack that was within the range where an exchange could occur, and promptly rolled a 6. The result effectively destroyed the defense line, making a Warsaw Pact victory pretty much guaranteed. When we asked him why he would even risk an attack in that range, he said that the "bell curve" meant he had a really low chance of getting an exchange, and so he figured he could do it. Mind you, this was a 1d6 roll, not multiple d6s.
Now yes, technically, averaging out a dozen or so attacks will give you a bell curve distribution of the results. Unfortunately, for the specific result of that specific combat, there was only a linear distribution.
Thus an object lesson in mixing modes of probability analysis.
(The further object lesson of making such an error among gamers and getting taunted about it for eternity afterwards is incidental at the moment.)
I simply called it 'conditional probability given previous negatives'. One of the things I like about a recharge system is that the 'perception probability' never changes.
I am sure it has some specific technical term, but I do not have a clue what it is either, I am just pretty sure it involves the factors I mentioned.
While a recharge system is "maintenance light", it still retains the problem of individual, non-cumulative checks, and thus the disruption of long term balance because of simple variations in population distribution in large sample sizes.
I really never saw the dragons breath weapon as it "major" attack. Yeah it's nasty but it's not that nasty (especially with a save throw possibly cancelling it out if evasion is present) and energy resistance to reduce the damage.
Those saves tend to be quite high, and not everyone will have evasion (and those who do will have a whole lot of different problems with a dragon - him closing in for the kill, for example)
And energy resistance alwas presumes that you're prepared.
It might not be their prime attack, but it's not bad, either. Great for softening enemies up.
Speaking of preparation: That can mean the world in a fight against a dragon. If you stumble over each other, it's a relatively level field (not counting a dragon's many inherent strengths), but if you know he's coming and can prepare, you can make things a lot easier for you (though some of that assumes that you know what type of dragon you're dealing with, and maybe know it early enough to change your spell list and stock up on gear accordingly)
If the dragon gets the drop on you, you're in trouble. They're passable spellcasters - they usually won't be able to obliterate you with their spells (since their caster level is way below their CR), but they know that and will usually choose spells that enhance their other strengths (i.e. combat prowess) or diminish their weaknesses. Hope you have a dispel magic and get to use it.
Regarding the original topic:
No recharge powers for me. I prefer the old-fashioned way, since it's a when, not an if.
I know the technical term is some sort of conditional probability. I'm not sure if I articulated the second half properly, though. Anyway, I'm going to use 'perception probability' from here on out: It's a lot easier to grok than the way I had been putting it.
I'm still not sure what your objection is, though, Sam. Players have been misunderstanding odds ever since there were dice. I don't think long term balance would be affected overmuch: The average in practice will be lower than the theory, since it can't take longer than combat. Also, the odds for an immediate reuse increase.
And I don't see how it is any more damning over a large distribution than the chances of the PCs suddenly rolling a large number of 20s or the dragon itself suddenly rolling 1s.
Oh, and you were correct about dragon breath being 1d4. I don't know where I recalled 1d4+1 from.
Thanks Samuel, now my pbp DM will get to breathe on us more often!
That said, 40% would give an average of 2.5 rounds
I'm still not sure what your objection is, though, Sam. Players have been misunderstanding odds ever since there were dice. I don't think long term balance would be affected overmuch: The average in practice will be lower than the theory, since it can't take longer than combat. Also, the odds for an immediate reuse increase.
And actually for battles with dragons that last shorter than a recharge duration (4 rounds), a % recharge would average out to even higher.
My biggest reason for keeping the d4 is the DM/Dragon perspective. Assuming its breath is useful, that chance of using it *every single round*, means that it would tend to want to be in breath range/position every round, on the chance that it gets to breathe. Whether you let the dragon know the d4 result or not, it has much less motivation to be "ready to breathe" every round.
Also, when the breath *is* effective, getting it 3 rounds in a row (16% chance) could be very devastating - making those combats far too deadly.
I definitely prefer the current recharge mechanics, such as rolling a d4 for dragon breath weapons, to making it probabilistic. For one thin, it involves less rolling, which is a good thing. Secondly, it allows me, as the DM to know when the next possibility for using the ability is coming - a dragon is experienced enough that he should know when he will be able to use a breath weapon again. Thirdly, the probabilistic recharge mechanic makes less simulationist sense (because it is highly dichotomous without foreknowledge that could be used to relate it to flavor). Fourthly, the probabilistic mechanic reminds me too much of the 4E's 'saving throw' mechanic that I am not particularly enamored with and just gives me a bad vibe. Fifth, there is no real reason for the change so it is best to default to using the old, fully backward-compatible rule - I haven't heard of people having any real problems with the current mechanic in practice.
|
|
Sort of sidebars but relevant:
And energy resistance alwas presumes that you're prepared.
It also, to a considerable degree, involves a difference between PHB spells and splat book spells.
If the dragon gets the drop on you, you're in trouble. They're passable spellcasters - they usually won't be able to obliterate you with their spells (since their caster level is way below their CR), but they know that and will usually choose spells that enhance their other strengths (i.e. combat prowess) or diminish their weaknesses. Hope you have a dispel magic and get to use it.
I have regularly found that the most devastating spellcasting from a dragon is the very simple mage armor and shield combo, that for some reason players routinely assume they cannot dispel because the dragon must have some awesome caster level.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Changing the dragon's recharge from "after 1d4 rounds" to "has a 40% chance to recharge each round" has some ramifications, which several people have noted.
Ross likes these ramifications (and, truth be told, so do I) whereas others don't like them.
Happily, neither side has to convince the other. We play in a twisty maze of little house rules, all different.
One consequence that hasn't ben mentioned: the r chance of recharge per round is now a variable that can be altered according to the events of a round. For example, a dragon could devote a move action to "attempting to regain its breath weapon," which would increase r to 60% that round. Or a particular type of energy damage taken by the dragon (say, fire damage to a white dragon) might reduce its chances of recharge.
|
|
I know the technical term is some sort of conditional probability. I'm not sure if I articulated the second half properly, though. Anyway, I'm going to use 'perception probability' from here on out: It's a lot easier to grok than the way I had been putting it.
Heh. Indeed. ;)
I'm still not sure what your objection is, though, Sam. Players have been misunderstanding odds ever since there were dice. I don't think long term balance would be affected overmuch: The average in practice will be lower than the theory, since it can't take longer than combat. Also, the odds for an immediate reuse increase.
Well, theoretically we are talking about numerical game design theory and not psychological game design theory. Otherwise we might as well just skip right to this. Amusing in its own way, but not really what people want.
This is the same reason I object to critical hits not requiring confirmation when the number of enemies equals or exceeds the number of PCs. Simple probability tells us each player will perceive more critical hits against him than critical hits he scores because each will compare the number rolled by the DM as one person to the number he rolls as one person. Add in critical hits "wasted" on minions, as well as differences in hit point and damage done, and the balance goes even further out of whack.And I don't see how it is any more damning over a large distribution than the chances of the PCs suddenly rolling a large number of 20s or the dragon itself suddenly rolling 1s.
Run a dragon with a 1d4 duration, and a player will be shocked and demand a new die if you roll four 1s in a row.
Run a dragon with a 1-2 on 1d6 recharge, and a player will get upset because you roll "half-orc assassin charisma" (four dice, total of 4-8, 1st ed baby!) all the time.
Well, theoretically we are talking about numerical game design theory and not psychological game design theory. Otherwise we might as well just skip right to this. Amusing in its own way, but not really what people want.
This is the same reason I object to critical hits not requiring confirmation when the number of enemies equals or exceeds the number of PCs. Simple probability tells us each player will perceive more critical hits against him than critical hits he scores because each will compare the number rolled by the DM as one person to the number he rolls as one person. Add in critical hits "wasted" on minions, as well as differences in hit point and damage done, and the balance goes even further out of whack.
Can you elaborate, please? (Classic OotS, BTW.)
Run a dragon with a 1d4 duration, and a player will be shocked and demand a new die if you roll four 1s in a row.
Run a dragon with a 1-2 on 1d6 recharge, and a player will get upset because you roll "half-orc assassin charisma" (four dice, total of 4-8, 1st ed baby!) all the time.
What is the meaningful difference between these two cases?
|
|
Fourthly, the probabilistic mechanic reminds me too much of the 4E's 'saving throw' mechanic that I am not particularly enamored with and just gives me a bad vibe.
It suffers from the same problem.
Gambler's Fallacy tells us the individual chance of making any save never changes.Population Distribution Analysis suggests that the chance of making subsequent saves increases.
Unfortunately that same distribution means that there is no effective upper limit on the damage. Ongoing effects can end instantly, or they can last the entire combat.
Game Theory suggests radically different decisions based on the change in immediate probability and ongoing uncertainty.
In a very real way, it is a completely different game because of that one minor change.
|
|
Can you elaborate, please? (Classic OotS, BTW.)
This might be confusing, as it is based heavily on a combination of psychology and probability, but let me try:
In a typical combat, at some unspecified level, your characters need to be hit about 20 times to be killed.
Assuming equal hit points for monsters of the same level, a monster will need to be hit 20 times to be killed.
Assuming equal damage potential for all characters, a party of five will need each character to hit the monster 4 times each to kill it.
You attack the monster, and over 4 hit, do not gain any critical hits.
For a balanced encounter, the DM needs 5 monsters.
The combat begins, and each player goes through the 4 hits needed to kill a monster.
Out of those 20 hits, 1 is a critical hit.
The monsters meanwhile attack, getting 20 hits during that time, 1 of which is a critical hit.
Repeat this for the other monsters, with the monsters getting fewer total hits because of fewer monsters, but still getting critical hits.
By the end of the combat, an individual player has, perhaps, scored a single critical hit.
Meanwhile the DM has scored 3-5 critical hits.
From a player's point of view, the DM is scoring critical hits much more often than he is.
Project this through multiple combats.
Add in monsters that are killed by a single hit, no matter the damage, but that do damage equal to a normal monster. (That is, a 4E minion.) Any critical hit on such a creature is functionally wasted, since even minimum damage on the follow-up roll would have killed it.
From a player's point of view, he is now "losing" critical hits he could have scored against more dangerous monsters.
I am sure there is some transcendent mathematical proof of all of this, along with some specific reference to Gamer Theory to explain the psychology, but functionally it creates a severe disconnect between the perceived value of the critical hit to a player versus the value to the DM.
I originally encountered this (yes, obligatory gamer story again) about 15-20 years ago during a short lived campaign effort where the players asked for a critical hit rule in a 2nd ed campaign. When they were nearly consumed by a swarm of giant rats inflicting disproportional damage because of the rule, they reconsidered their request.
And indeed, OotS always seems to have an applicable reference. :-P
What is the meaningful difference between these two cases?
Raw math?
1/4*1/4*1/4*1/4 = 1/2561/3*1/3*1/3*1/3 = 1/61
Over 4 times mores likely for the recharge method.
Someone else would have to calculate the actual difference in damage potential.
Also, as I noted, conversely:
Probability of not having used the breath weapon a second time by the fifth round:
0/4*0/4*0/4*0/4 = 0/256
2/3*2/3*2/3*2/3 = 16/61
Functionally infinite, presuming an assigned value of 1/256 for comparison, 70 times more likely or so?
Psychologically?
Take 4d4 and 4d6.
Roll them repeatedly.
Count how many times you have to roll before you get a 4 total on 4d4 and a 4-8 total on 4d6.
Count how many times you roll a 4-8 total on 4d6 before you roll a 4 total on 4d4.
Ask yourself which you expected to be more likely.
Ask yourself which result you find more significant.
Ask a player which result he expects is more likely.
Ask a player which result he finds more significant.
For additional psychological impact:
Set aside 4 sets of 10d6 to represent the breath weapon damage.
For every 1 on 1d4, move 10d6 to a central pile.
For every 1 or 2 on 1d6, move 10d6 to a central pile.
Compare the piles.
Repeat to gain a useful sample. (10 times? More?)
Compare the total sizes of the piles for the entire sample. (Also, consider professional counseling if you have that many d6s. You know who you are!)
Note: The actual results for the 1d4 rolls is not reflected just by counting 1s, as the order has a significant cumulative effect, but the sampling should still be useful.
|
|
Actually, as another psychological survey:
Find someone who plays wizards or sorcerers.
Ask them how many times they have rolled magic missile damage for 5 missiles and gotten minimum damage.
Ask them how many times they have rolled magic missile damage for 5 missiles and not gotten any 1s.
Ask them how many times they have rolled fireball damage for 10th level (and higher) and gotten all 1s and 2s.
Ask them how many times they have rolled fireball damage for 10th level (and higher) and not gotten any 1s and 2s.
Ask them which of the four options above they would find more shocking in terms of probability, and which most unusual.
Also, reverse it.
Ask them how many times they have rolled magic missile damage for 5 missiles and gotten maximum damage.
Ask them how many times they have rolled magic missile damage for 5 missiles and not gotten no 4s.
Ask them how many times they have rolled fireball damage for 10th level (and higher) and gotten all 5s and 6s.
Ask them how many times they have rolled fireball damage for 10th level (and higher) and not gotten any 5s and 6s.
Ask them which of the four options they would most upsetting if a DM did it to them.
(The inverted results are used to model the psychological impact of taking extra damage from a dragon breathing on them repeatedly. The probabilities are identical.)
Regarding critical hits:
It is a well known issue that extra randomness is bad for players, because they live long enough to really suffer for the bad rolls, while monsters die quickly whether they're doing well or poorly.
Unearthed arcana brings this up several times regarding various alternate rules.
As long as the PCs are destined to 'win' (i.e. are stronger than their foes) this is going to be true. (When the PCs are weaker, as in some BBEG fights, is when people begin to complain that randomness is bad for the foes. See any discussion of SoD spells for mentions of anti-climactic kills.)
There is not actually a fix for this problem.
Regarding the odds of 1d4 rounds vs. 40% recharge (40% being chosen because it has the same 'average' recharge time):
I like the fact that the psychological impact is a greater risk of being burned sooner. Shouldn't you be urgently worried about the dragon the very next turn? I shouldn't be thinking 'There's a 75% chance I'm safe for a round'. I should be thinking 'Oh crap the dragon is gonna kill me. I need protection from energy NOW!'.
But your example with the piles of dice is misleading, because you're only counting breathing on the very next round. If you instead simulate, say, 20 rounds of combat, breathing at the first opportunity, the number of dice should average to the same, with the recharge perhaps being a bit less (since it is more likely to be cut off without a recharge at the end.)
I'm trying to manipulate the perception of probability to make the fight more urgent, while not actually changing the dragon's power level. The point isn't to make the perception the same. The point is the keep the power the same.
|
|
Here's a simple solution if you want more breath weapons in a fight: Add more dragons! Muahahahah!
But seriously, aren't the metabreath feats good for stuff like this? I don't have any books with me at the moment, but I think if your goal is to hammer the PCs with breath weapons (and it sounds like it is from the gist of this thread) then just have the monster take something like Maximize or Empower Breath.
|
Note:
All random rolls can be fudged by the DM, They can also be pre-rolled prior to the battle, if you rolls 4 4s for breath weapons, you might want to alter it.
it is 1d4 rounds, per the SRD
Breath Weapon (Su)
Using a breath weapon is a standard action. Once a dragon breathes, it can’t breathe again until 1d4 rounds later. If a dragon has more than one type of breath weapon, it still can breathe only once every 1d4 rounds. A blast from a breath weapon always starts at any intersection adjacent to the dragon and extends in a direction of the dragon’s choice, with an area as noted on the table below. If the breath weapon deals damage, creatures caught in the area can attempt Reflex saves to take half damage; the DC depends on the dragon’s age and variety, and is given in each individual entry. Saves against nondamaging breath weapons use the same DC; the kind of saving throw is noted in the variety descriptions. The save DC against a breath weapon is 10 + ½ dragon’s HD + dragon’s Con modifier.
Breath weapons come in two basic shapes, line and cone, whose areas vary with the dragon’s size.
Here's a simple solution if you want more breath weapons in a fight: Add more dragons! Muahahahah!
But seriously, aren't the metabreath feats good for stuff like this? I don't have any books with me at the moment, but I think if your goal is to hammer the PCs with breath weapons (and it sounds like it is from the gist of this thread) then just have the monster take something like Maximize or Empower Breath.
The point isn't to hammer them with breath weapons. The point is to make them AFRAID you will.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Regarding critical hits:
It is a well known issue that extra randomness is bad for players, because they live long enough to really suffer for the bad rolls, while monsters die quickly whether they're doing well or poorly.
Unearthed arcana brings this up several times regarding various alternate rules.
Hi, Ross. A tangent, if you please.
You're right; in an unequal fight, randomness favors the underdog. That's been a canard, for longer than there's been D&D. (Watch football games or chess matches between mismatched opponents. This won't be the time the heavily-favored side does something wacky and strange.)
But that's not a problem with game design or philosophy. A lot of people like randomness, either in spite of the destabilization, or because of it.
Paizo's sold a lot of "critical Hit" and "Fumble" decks, which increase randomness.
|
|
There is not actually a fix for this problem.
A second roll for confirmation tends to reduce the impact, despite the "cost" of diappointing a player with a failure to confirm.
I like the fact that the psychological impact is a greater risk of being burned sooner. Shouldn't you be urgently worried about the dragon the very next turn? I shouldn't be thinking 'There's a 75% chance I'm safe for a round'. I should be thinking 'Oh crap the dragon is gonna kill me. I need protection from energy NOW!'.
Why are you not worried about that with a secret 1d4 absolute upper limit roll?
And, as I noted, the random recharge brings with it a shift to 'Well the dragon may never breathe again. We can cruise now!' effect.But your example with the piles of dice is misleading, because you're only counting breathing on the very next round. If you instead simulate, say, 20 rounds of combat, breathing at the first opportunity, the number of dice should average to the same, with the recharge perhaps being a bit less (since it is more likely to be cut off without a recharge at the end.)
Those dice reflect the cumulative effect throughout the combat. The problem is, the static upper limit method actually eliminates numerous die rolls, and that is not reflected in the model I presented.
I'm trying to manipulate the perception of probability to make the fight more urgent, while not actually changing the dragon's power level. The point isn't to make the perception the same. The point is the keep the power the same.
That is the thing.
Manipulating perception is relatively easy, you just learn how to "creatively describe incipient actions in a misleading manner". i.e., after the dragon attacks and moves, eyeball the battlemat as if trying to calculate an area of effect without actually dropping a template on the table, while casually muttering about "That will get three of them . . .", then let the player's imaginations do the rest.Conversely, changing the method of rolling dice is changing the actual probability, without necessarily affecting player perception in the manner expected.
Regarding critical hits:
It is a well known issue that extra randomness is bad for players, because they live long enough to really suffer for the bad rolls, while monsters die quickly whether they're doing well or poorly.
Unearthed arcana brings this up several times regarding various alternate rules.
See, it being well known doesn't necessarily make it true. In this case, it depends on your definition of randomness.
Is randomness Confirmation rolls or Critical hits? See Confirmations Rolls *reduce* the random effects of Critical hits. That would mean, by that rule, that they are generally *better* for the players.
But that could be true or untrue, depending on who has the higher chance of confirming.
What has more impact, both actually and psychologically, is what Sam described. In a vast majority of cases critical hits don't particularly help PCs b/c of low hp in minion creatures. Conversely, monster critical hits are almost *always* impactful, whether the PC has lots of hp, or to take them past negatives to completely dead instantly.
Happily, neither side has to convince the other. We play in a twisty maze of little house rules, all different.
Not me, I play in a little twisty maze of house rules, all different.
YMMV.
:)
You're right; in an unequal fight, randomness favors the underdog. That's been a canard, for longer than there's been D&D. (Watch football games or chess matches between mismatched opponents. This won't be the time the heavily-favored side does something wacky and strange.)
Oooh, please clarify for me what randomness you've found in chess matches?
No such thing as random in chess. You either know what you're doing, or you don't. You either make a mistake, or you don't. In all cases, it's your own skill vs. your opponent's skill. There are no dice, no cards, no random number generators.
Do it right and win (or draw if your opponent does it right too), or do it wrong and lose.
Come to think of it, there's no randomness in football either, other than the coin toss to see who starts with the ball.
DM_Blake, what he means is that the underdog is the one incentivized to take risks. The stronger team/player is much more likely to play 'by the books' and avoid taking stupid risks. The weaker team takes risks because if they play 'by the books' a loss is a sure thing.
|
|
You're right; in an unequal fight, randomness favors the underdog. That's been a canard, for longer than there's been D&D. (Watch football games or chess matches between mismatched opponents. This won't be the time the heavily-favored side does something wacky and strange.)
Oooh, please clarify for me what randomness you've found in chess matches?
No such thing as random in chess. You either know what you're doing, or you don't. You either make a mistake, or you don't. In all cases, it's your own skill vs. your opponent's skill. There are no dice, no cards, no random number generators.
Do it right and win (or draw if your opponent does it right too), or do it wrong and lose.
Come to think of it, there's no randomness in football either, other than the coin toss to see who starts with the ball.
Then why can computers not win EVERY match (unless they can now...last I heard they weren't winning every match yet)...randomness of the human player. (Deep Blue type, not the cheapo ones you by at the store)
There are other random factors in Football as well, the bounce a ball takes ont he kick-off, the imperfection of calls by referees, injuries, etc.
The computers win more or less every match now. Even when the human makes a risky play, the computer sees through it. Researchers have moved on to 'Go', since it is a much more complex game than chess.
Oh, and you were correct about dragon breath being 1d4. I don't know where I recalled 1d4+1 from.Thanks Samuel, now my pbp DM will get to breathe on us more often!
Actually, the real answer lies closer on the '1d4+1' side...
A Dragon must WAIT 1d4 rounds before using his Breath Weapon again.
From the SRD:
"BREATH WEAPON
A creature attacking with a breath weapon is actually expelling something from its mouth (rather than conjuring it by means of a spell or some other magical effect). Most creatures with breath weapons are limited to a number of uses per day or by a minimum length of time that must pass between uses. Such creatures are usually smart enough to save their breath weapon until they really need it."
This means that if you roll a 1, this is the number of 'idle' rounds the Dragon cannot breath again.
So, you can either say 'you must wait 1d4 rounds before breathing' or 'you can breathe again after 1d4+1 rounds'...
|
Not really. They know it isn't the first round, for instance (1d4+1). They also know that if it is the fifth round and the dragon hasn't breathed on them, its because it doesn't want to, not because it can't.I also like the idea that the dragon also doesn't know when it'll get its breath back.
The Dragon not knowing when it can take the "next breath" is done simply by having him try to breath on the PCs, but instead of flame, acid, ect. it just coughs up a lot of smoke, tiny bit of gas or a small flame (doing maybe 1d3 or so points of damage to someone real close.
In my campaigns I don't really use the 1D4+ rule that strictly. I have the critter breath upon the PCs (full Strength, 3/4 or even less) when it is convenient (for me as DM) in order to surprise the Group, and to keep the tension up. Has the critter slept for a longer period, thus having his belly (or whatever) fueled up of "Breath-Energy" up to a bursting point, it might even use its breath during two consecutive rounds. (I only do this if he is encountered in his layer, thus having had no exercise and having not spend his energy with flying etc).
A Dragon must WAIT 1d4 rounds before using his Breath Weapon again.
From the SRD:
"BREATH WEAPON
A creature attacking with a breath weapon is actually expelling something from its mouth (rather than conjuring it by means of a spell or some other magical effect). Most creatures with breath weapons are limited to a number of uses per day or by a minimum length of time that must pass between uses. Such creatures are usually smart enough to save their breath weapon until they really need it."This means that if you roll a 1, this is the number of 'idle' rounds the Dragon cannot breath again.
So, you can either say 'you must wait 1d4 rounds before breathing' or 'you can breathe again after 1d4+1 rounds'...
Is this confirmed anywhere by WotC, maybe in some FAQ, or some issue of Dragon Sage Advice or whatever?
Because otherwise I choose to disbelieve ;)
If the dragon breathes this round, then the DM rolls a 1, and the dragon breaths next round, 1 round has passed between uses.
No, not one "idle round".
But the text doesn't say we need to count idle rounds.
It says "a minimum length of time that must pass between uses". and you'll note that my brief example uses the same wording, "1 round has passed between uses".
That satisfies my interpretation of the breath weapon timer.
If I'm wrong, please point to something more compelling than the SRD to back your assertion.
|
|
Is this confirmed anywhere by WotC, maybe in some FAQ, or some issue of Dragon Sage Advice or whatever?
Not that I could find.
The same conflicting interpretations and reasonings you and The Wraith have posted occurred to me, so I went looking.
Nothing in the last FAQ, no specific heading in rules of the game, no clarification or different wording in the Rules Compendium, nothing in the Draconomicon, just the Monster Manual and SRD versions.