OK, I understand the problems of stacking the critical threat range from feats, abilities, and spells. I am not against limiting stacking but I don't like a total nerf like they did so long ago.
For a while I had modified the feat improve critical in which it lowered the threat range of a weapon by two points and you could take it a second time for the same weapon but that was it.
It worked for a while and it really leveled the playing field until a player of mine came in with a Warhammer X3 multiplier and was doing insane amounts of damage.
So what I am thinking is of returning the feats and spells back to their normal RAW but with the exception that they can stack on each other. However, while I am going to allow them to stack I am putting a cap that I think would satisfy my love for things that stack, variety and the chance for awesomeness but at the same time maintain balance while leveling the field for critting with weapons.
- Improving Critical Threat Range Cap: Feats or spells that improve critical threat range can all stack but they are subject to a cap as to how much a weapon’s threat range can be lowered based on it’s critical hit multiplier. A weapon with a X2 critical multiplier cannot be lowered more than 4 points from it’s natural threat range. A weapon with a X3 critical multiplier cannot be lowered more than 3 points from it’s natural threat range. Lastly a weapon with a X4 critical multiplier cannot be lowered more than 2 points from it’s natural threat range.
So what do you all think before I implement this house rule? Any potential problems?
OK, I understand the problems of stacking the critical threat range from feats, abilities, and spells. I am not against limiting stacking but I don't like a total nerf like they did so long ago.
For a while I had modified the feat improve critical in which it lowered the threat range of a weapon by two points and you could take it a second time for the same weapon but that was it.
It worked for a while and it really leveled the playing field until a player of mine came in with a Warhammer X3 multiplier and was doing insane amounts of damage.
So what I am thinking is of returning the feats and spells back to their normal RAW but with the exception that they can stack on each other. However, while I am going to allow them to stack I am putting a cap that I think would satisfy my love for things that stack, variety and the chance for awesomeness but at the same time maintain balance while leveling the field for critting with weapons.
- Improving Critical Threat Range Cap: Feats or spells that improve critical threat range can all stack but they are subject to a cap as to how much a weapon’s threat range can be lowered based on it’s critical hit multiplier. A weapon with a X2 critical multiplier cannot be lowered more than 4 points from it’s natural threat range. A weapon with a X3 critical multiplier cannot be lowered more than 3 points from it’s natural threat range. Lastly a weapon with a X4 critical multiplier cannot be lowered more than 2 points from it’s natural threat range.So what do you all think before I implement this house rule? Any potential problems?
Actually ... I kind of like this.
Scimitar is 18-20, right (and big crit-range weapons in general), so -4 from there puts it to 14 *at most* w/Keen and the feat (really, only sources, no?), so it's pretty good, IMO.
On the shy end (ie: 20's only) you can go w/2 sources and *at least* end up with an 18-20 crit range. *maybe* more if there's a 3rd source I'm not aware of somewhere.
Cool idea overall.
Actually ... I kind of like this.Scimitar is 18-20, right (and big crit-range weapons in general), so -4 from there puts it to 14 *at most* w/Keen and the feat (really, only sources, no?), so it's pretty good, IMO.
On the shy end (ie: 20's only) you can go w/2 sources and *at least* end up with an 18-20 crit range. *maybe* more if there's a 3rd source I'm not aware of...
I think a third source can come from some prestige classes in the form of class abilities. I am also allowing Improved Critical to be taken at least twice for the same weapon which is the equivalent of Keen anyways.
Yup, you nailed how I pictured it and that is exactly how I see it working. For big damage X4 weapons you would only see a 18-20 threat range but that is from two sources: two improved crits, a improved crit and keen or whatever combo.
I think it makes playing with the big weapons like Scythes a little more fun.
2d4 damage for medium size with a range of 18-20 if you want it badly enough but it might be worth it because if you have at least a 18 strength you would do 8d4+24 points of damage when you made a critical hit that 1 1/2 strength thing is awesome especially for criticals.
It also means those weak weapons that only have a 20 X2 crit range but they have a lot of flavor makes them more viable to play with.
It worked for a while and it really leveled the playing field until a player of mine came in with a Warhammer X3 multiplier and was doing insane amounts of damage.
Sounds like I didn't ever actually work, since you never really tested it with the full gamut of weapon types. This is exactly why those don't stack anymore.
Speaking mathematically, adding a flat two threat range is actually WAY worse for both balance and anti-powergaming purposes than even double stacking. It favors high multiplier weapons ridiculously. 18-20x4 Is soooooo much better than 16-20 x2 (where x4 and 18-20 x2) are mathematically about the same.
In regards to your newest proposed house rule, it's very much the same, but imbalanced in a different manner. It favors lower threat range weapons, and makes weapons like the scimitar and Falchion comparatively weaker to other weapons.
If you REALLY want to stack these . . . . just let them stack. That would be more balanced than tweaking it the way you're doing.
It also means those weak weapons that only have a 20 X2 crit range but they have a lot of flavor makes them more viable to play with.
It actually makes them *less* viable, since not only are they poorer in general, they scale more poorly, as well.
Sounds like I didn't ever actually work, since you never really tested it with the full gamut of weapon types. This is exactly why those don't stack anymore.Speaking mathematically, adding a flat two threat range is actually WAY worse for both balance and anti-powergaming purposes than even double stacking. It favors high multiplier weapons ridiculously. 18-20x4 Is soooooo much better than 16-20 x2 (where x4 and 18-20 x2) are mathematically about the same.
In regards to your newest proposed house rule, it's very much the same, but imbalanced in a different manner. It favors lower threat range weapons, and makes weapons like the scimitar and Falchion comparatively weaker to other weapons.
If you REALLY want to stack these . . . . just let them stack. That would be more balanced than tweaking it the way you're doing.
I personally don't agree because right now the way the RAW currently states is that it doubles the natural threat range so it already favors the high threat range weapons right now. Most weapons in the book only have a 20 X2 threat range and a lot of them of a lot of flavor but because they don't have high damage, nice critical threat ranges or multipliers then they get glossed over. I want every weapon to be a viable pick and this I want to level the playing field.
Currently:
20 Threat Range/ X2 through X4 weapon becomes a only 19-20
19-20 Threat Range/X2 weapon becomes a 16 to 20
18-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 14 to 20 weapon.
To just allow stacking would really unbalance combat.
However with my system of allowing stacking but with a cap you would see this:
20 Threat Range/X2 weapon becomes 16-20
20 Threat Range/X3 weapon becomes 17-20
20 Threat Range/X4 weapon becomes 18-20
19-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 14 to 20
18-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 14 to 20 weapon.
The balance that comes from this is that the some weapons start out off with an obvious advantage but then everything levels out.
What you suggest is actually horribly unbalanced which is why they stopped allowing threat increasing sources to stack. What you suggest would look like this.
20 Threat Range/X2 weapon becomes 16-20
20 Threat Range/X3 weapon becomes 16-20
20 Threat Range/X4 weapon becomes 16-20 (unbalanced right here!)
19-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 12 to 20
18-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 8 to 20 weapon. (Very unbalanced)
Lastly, I know my first attempt was not a good one and when I asked earlier for advice I didn't get any good advice so I just went with it to see for myself.
|
Currently:
20 Threat Range/ X2 through X4 weapon becomes a only 19-20
19-20 Threat Range/X2 weapon becomes a 16 to 20
18-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 14 to 20 weapon....
19-20 Threat Range/X2 weapon becomes a 17 to 20
18-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 15 to 20 weapon.you have the numbers goin 1 too low by RAW
I personally don't agree because right now the way the RAW currently states is that it doubles the natural threat range so it already favors the high threat range weapons right now. Most weapons in the book only have a 20 X2 threat range and a lot of them of a lot of flavor but because they don't have high damage, nice critical threat ranges or multipliers then they get glossed over. I want every weapon to be a viable pick and this I want to level the playing field.
If, as you say, and I don't doubt you, you want every weapon to be a viable pick, this is the wrong way to go about it. You would be better served by rebalancing those weapons which are poorly balanced. Like the 20 x2s.
When I spoke of balance in the previous context, it was of the comparative balance between existing weapon types. That is, the proportional value and strength. I.e., in 3.5/Pathfinder, a greataxe is mostly equivalent in power to a greatsword, although they have different stats. The same is true with the battle axe and longsword, and other such weapons.
I would advise reading up on one of the weapon point-buy threads to see how weapon power is "purchased" using the point buy so you can see how nearly all weapons are balanced around similar power levels.
Currently:
20 Threat Range/ X2 through X4 weapon becomes a only 19-20
19-20 Threat Range/X2 weapon becomes a 16 to 20
18-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 14 to 20 weapon.
Actually, 20 because 19-20, 19-20 becomes 17-20, 18-20 becomes 15-20. The threat range doubles. That means if it had a threat range of 1, it becomes a threat range of 2. 20 is one in 20 chance. 19-20 is a two in 20 chance. 19-20 is a 2 in 20 chance. 17-20 is a 4 in 20 chance.
To just allow stacking would really unbalance combat.
I rather agree. Which is why I don't allow it. But it's not as bad as what you're suggesting. >.>
However with my system of allowing stacking but with a cap you would see this:
20 Threat Range/X2 weapon becomes 16-20
20 Threat Range/X3 weapon becomes 17-20
20 Threat Range/X4 weapon becomes 18-20
19-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 14 to 20
18-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 14 to 20 weapon.The balance that comes from this is that the some weapons start out off with an obvious advantage but then everything levels out.
...
A x4 weapon is balanced against an 18-20 weapon. Assuming you're not doubling up on the threat range/multiplier, each point of critical multiplier is equivalent to an increase of threat range. 19-20 x2 is the same power wise as x3. 18-20x2 is the same, roughly, as x4. What you are proposing is radically different.
A 19-20 x3 equates in power to a 17-20, or a x5, I believe. You're proposing 18-20 x4. That's ridiculous. As an estimate, I'd say that's somewhere in the neighborhood of a 20x7 to a x9 in terms of power. That's really bad.
Ironically, the changes you are proposing to make "all weapons viable" will do quite the opposite. It will, in fact heavily favor the heavy crit multiplier weapons. Scythes, axes, and anything with a x4 multiplier will be leagues ahead of their paltry threat range couterparts. And I do mean leagues. You're not only stacking multiplier with larger threat range (the two aren't additive, in simplicity, you could consider their values to be multiplicative), you're not allowing the higher threat range weapons to go as far. So you're basically boosting axes and nerfing swords.
Also, the 20x2 weapons you are trying to boost would, under your system, be comparatively worse compared to the 19-20s and the x3s than under the core system.
Anyway . . . TL;DR: The changes you propose destroy the rather delicate balance of a system that's simple, but well thought out. Either rebalance weapons, or simply use RAW, or just use straight double stacking. It's far more balanced than what you propose, both in terms of PC damage potential and weapon balance, I.e., the balance between weapons. Basically, don't add flat bonuses to a multiplication game.
Side note: making any one weapon so much better than any other weapon that it's "always" used is bad, for obvious reasons thematic and mechanical. The system you've outlined endorses that.
You are not being clear to me and it just sounds like you are just making stuff up. Perhaps I am just to thick headed enough or something, but lets just suppose you are correct.
I would like you then to propose something that actually makes all of those other weapons viable, without giving weapons that already have a great threat range more power, and without getting crunchy.
I would test this out on http://dungeonz.com/DiceRoller.aspx but for the last couple of days it has been not responding.
OK, now just to be fair I took samples of weapons from the book with different multipliers but same base damage. Unless I screwed up my math it looks like I did level the playing field. My results came out consistent and I double check each time.
20 Threat Range/X2 weapon becomes 16-20 --------------------------- 20% chance to possibly crit
20 Threat Range/X3 weapon becomes 17-20----------------------------15% chance to possibly crit
20 Threat Range/X4 weapon becomes 18-20----------------------------10% chance to possibly crit
19-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 14 to 20------------------ 30% chance to possibly crit
18-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 14 to 20 weapon.-------30% chance to possibly critThe following are weapons are assumed that they hit 20 times in arrow and with the appropriate number of crits for it’s percentage chance (rounded up). This is with a medium character with only a strength of 10 and the damage inflicted will only be the average of the weapon damage. Each one is effected by my system so assume two stacking feats or a stacking feat and the weapon has the keen enchantment on it.
Light Mace 1d6 20/X2 Normal ( with my system 16-20 X2) 20% chance to possibly crit
A1: 3dmg, A2: 3dmg, A3: 3dmg A4: 3dmg, A5: 3dmg, A6: 3dmg, A7: 3dmg, A8: 3dmg, A9: 3dmg, A10: 3dmg, A11: 3dmg, A12: 3dmg, A13: 3dmg A14: 3dmg, A15: 3dmg, A16: 3dmg, A17: 6dmg, A18: 6dmg, A19: 6dmg, A20: 6dmg = 72 points of damage over 20 attacks
Hand Axe 1d6 20/X3 Normal ( with my system 17-20 X3) 15% chance to possibly crit
A1: 3dmg, A2: 3dmg, A3: 3dmg A4: 3dmg, A5: 3dmg, A6: 3dmg, A7: 3dmg, A8: 3dmg, A9: 3dmg, A10: 3dmg, A11: 3dmg, A12: 3dmg, A13: 3dmg A14: 3dmg, A15: 3dmg, A16: 3dmg, A17: 3dmg, A18: 9dmg, A19: 9dmg, A20: 9dmg = 78 points of damage over 20 attacks
Heavy Pick Axe 1d6 20/X4 Normal ( with my system 18-20 X4) 10% chance to possibly crit
A1: 3dmg, A2: 3dmg, A3: 3dmg A4: 3dmg, A5: 3dmg, A6: 3dmg, A7: 3dmg, A8: 3dmg, A9: 3dmg, A10: 3dmg, A11: 3dmg, A12: 3dmg, A13: 3dmg A14: 3dmg, A15: 3dmg, A16: 3dmg, A17: 3dmg, A18: 3dmg, A19: 12dmg, A20: 12dmg = 78 points of damage over 20 attacks
Falchion 2d4 18-20/X2 Normal ( with my system 14-20 X2) 30% chance to possibly crit
A1: 4dmg, A2: 4dmg, A3: 4dmg A4: 4dmg, A5: 4dmg, A6: 4dmg, A7: 4dmg, A8: 4dmg, A9: 4dmg, A10: 4dmg, A11: 4dmg, A12: 4dmg, A13: 4dmg A14: 4dmg, A15: 8dmg, A16: 8dmg, A17: 8dmg, A18: 8dmg, A19: 8dmg, A20: 8dmg = 100 points of damage over 20 attacks
Ranseur 2d4 20/X3 Normal ( with my system 17-20 X3) 15% chance to possibly crit
A1: 4dmg, A2: 4dmg, A3: 4dmg A4: 4dmg, A5: 4dmg, A6: 4dmg, A7: 4dmg, A8: 4dmg, A9: 4dmg, A10: 4dmg, A11: 4dmg, A12: 4dmg, A13: 4dmg A14: 4dmg, A15: 4dmg, A16: 4dmg, A17: 4dmg, A18: 12dmg, A19: 12dmg, A20: 12dmg = 104 points of damage over 20 attacks
Scythe 2d4 20/X4 Normal ( with my system 18-20 X3) 10% chance to possibly crit
A1: 4dmg, A2: 4dmg, A3: 4dmg A4: 4dmg, A5: 4dmg, A6: 4dmg, A7: 4dmg, A8: 4dmg, A9: 4dmg, A10: 4dmg, A11: 4dmg, A12: 4dmg, A13: 4dmg A14: 4dmg, A15: 4dmg, A16: 4dmg, A17: 4dmg, A18: 4dmg, A19: 16dmg, A20: 16dmg = 104 points of damage over 20 attacks
The only increase in damage between the Scythe and Falchion was a mere 4 points of damage on average. So that is only an increase of of 4% in damage over a total of 20 attack.
Personally I like what I see. What does everyone else think?
You are not being clear to me and it just sounds like you are just making stuff up. Perhaps I am just to thick headed enough or something, but lets just suppose you are correct.
I assure you; I'm not making this up.
I would like you then to propose something that actually makes all of those other weapons viable, without giving weapons that already have a great threat range more power, and without getting crunchy.
OK, this is a bit more complex. The problem with what you're proposing is that it affects ALL weapons, and you're trying to fix individual weapons. What you want to do is actually just fix individual weapons, rather than applying a blanket patch that affects them all and hope it favors the ones that aren't as good right now. The best way to fix those bad weapons is to use the weapon point buy system to make them not suck.
I can't find the weapon balance system online. Honestly, it's been a few years since I've seen it, so it may have fallen out of popularity. Basically, you got 1, 2, or 3 points to spend on weapon stats based on whether your weapon was simple, martial, or exotic. Things like boosting damage or adding critical bonuses costed one point. Essentially, every weapon ability in the equipment section had a set value.
I think you mentioned the greatclub, so we'll start with that. Greatclub is a martial, so it gets two points. It's a two hander, and does 1d10, so that's half a point spent. That's all it gets, so it's quite underpowered as far as a weapon goes. Best way to boost it would be to pump it up to the level of the greatsword or greataxe. If you want to make it a little different from those two, make it a 2d6 x3.
Greatsword, for example, is a 2d6 19-20, so it's running with two points. 1 point to boost its damage from base (1d8 for martial two handers, I think it was), and another to increase its threat range. Please not that you can't make a base threat stat that has high threat range and multiplier.
The other alternative is to make the greatclub a simple weapon, then it's balanced.
The other thing you have to realize is that you can't really make all weapons equal. Some weapons have qualities that make them versatile, so their generic power just can't be increased, like the javelin. Some weapons are too cumbersome to be used how they would be used in D&D. Again, like the javelin. I can't imagine a throwing class carrying around 50 of those.
OK, now just to be fair I took samples of weapons from the book with different multipliers but same base damage. Unless I screwed up my math it looks like I did level the playing field. My results came out consistent and I double check each time.
Alright, there are quite a few things that went wrong here. I'll go over them one at a time.
20 Threat Range/X2 weapon becomes 16-20 --------------------------- 20% chance to possibly crit
20 Threat Range/X3 weapon becomes 17-20----------------------------15% chance to possibly crit
20 Threat Range/X4 weapon becomes 18-20----------------------------10% chance to possibly crit
19-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 14 to 20------------------ 30% chance to possibly crit
18-20 Threat Range/ X2 weapon becomes a 14 to 20 weapon.-------30% chance to possibly crit
16-20 threat range is a 25% chance to crit. 17-20 threat range is a 20% chance to hit. 18-20 threat range is a 15% chance to hit. 14-20 threat range is a 35% chance to crit.
The following are weapons are assumed that they hit 20 times in arrow and with the appropriate number of crits for it’s percentage chance (rounded up). This is with a medium character with only a strength of 10 and the damage inflicted will only be the average of the weapon damage. Each one is effected by my system so assume two stacking feats or a stacking feat and the weapon has the keen enchantment on it.
Your experiment makes several faulty assumptions. Basically, you're testing base weapon stats in a vacuum with all their other normal modifiers and variable accurate. This is not a good way to test balance. First and foremost is no strength bonus. Honestly, this method just doesn't really work for determining comparative weapon balance (a better method would be multiplying using the threat range and critical multiplier to determine base weapon damage increase), but if you're going to use it, you can't omit something so important. A big reason why this is important is because two handed and one handed weapons gain different bonuses from the strength modifier. A falchion with 18 strength versus a light mace with 18 strength . . . big difference.
You would also need to establish a baseline by running these numbers once in their unmodified form and once in their modified form, that way you can calculate the difference in terms of percent change.
It also helps that you not use so low a number as 20 attempts. 100 is more accurate.
Either way, the math you've demonstrated here isn't really helpful. There are too many outstanding variables not accounted for, you didn't do enough trials, your starting assumptions on threat percentage were incorrect, and you have no baseline.
Anyway . . . going back to what I've been saying for a while, either use the system that WOTC spent a fair amount of time developing and just double stack that, or adjust the individual weapons you want to adjust.
EDIT: Interestingly, I just used your test method to run numbers with the light mace and the scythe. Using your test method, the scythe is roughly 57% better than the mace. When your critical houserule is applied, it jumps up to exactly 100% better than the mace. Again, I'm not saying the scythe is 57% or 100% better than the mace, just that that is what your testing method says. So the system you've created has actually done the reverse of what you wanted.
Yes I got my percentages wrong but the ratio was the same. Strength doesn't really matter except when it boils down to two handing a weapon. Also I can't believe you compared a light mace to a scythe because one you can use a shield or another weapon with and the other you cannot because it is a two handed weapon.
Lastly, that point system you are talking about sounds awfully like it was based of the old stats of 3.X and those stats had a lot of legacy from 2nd edition and then from 1st. Those legacies have always been unrealistic and unbalanced. Any system that is based of another flawed system is still flawed.
On a side note you are not really showing your math either. You just spouted numbers at me while saying what I created something that was 9 times more powerful. That seems very exaggerated to me for something that only gives a slightly better chance.
Besides I am not about to unbalance the system by simply allowing stacking which is more unbalancing then my my allowing stacking but with a cap. Honestly I don't know why you keep suggesting it. Also I am not about to go a test each weapon 100 times because I don't have the time because I happen to have a life.
My old system before I came up with the cap actually wasn't that bad. That player I talked about just happened to have very good status. It didn't mess up my game, the sky didn't fall, the dead didn't rise out of the grave and there wasn't 40 years of darkness.
The one thing about me is that you must appeal to my logic and not yours. If you try and explain it in a way that I can understand and perhaps even accept then that is a way to get me to change my mind.
Lastly the true acid test is just to take it to the table and test it there and see what happens. The cap system is better than my old system because it placed more limits then my first and way more than the old stacking of 3.0. If worse comes to worse I can always just revert back to the old rules and not worry about messing with it in the first place. After a few sessions I will come back here and let everyone know what my findings are. If I need to make further adjustments after that then I will.
Edit: Also I think you missed the point of what I wanted in total. Yes I wanted some balance but because it is already based on a flawed system that is a daunting task. The other thing I wanted is to make all weapons look inviting to use.
Yes I got my percentages wrong but the ratio was the same.
But they're not, because the system you're using to double check this is flawed.
Strength doesn't really matter except when it boils down to two handing a weapon.
But it does, because you're dealing with multiplication bonuses. 1d8+4 is different when multiplied by 1, 2, or 3, and when activating in different percentages of situations.
Also I can't believe you compared a light mace to a scythe because one you can use a shield or another weapon with and the other you cannot because it is a two handed weapon.
I was showing you, sorry, attempting to show you, how your system heavily favors large critical multiplier two handers. Those weapons something like double their efficacy with your system, while other weapons gain perhaps a 25% increase in power. You're trying to rebalance weapons properly, but you're only imbalancing them even worse than before.
Lastly, that point system you are talking about sounds awfully like it was based of the old stats of 3.X and those stats had a lot of legacy from 2nd edition and then from 1st. Those legacies have always been unrealistic and unbalanced. Any system that is based of another flawed system is still flawed.
That's . . . a highly amusing statement, given these specific circumstances.
Regardless of whether or not the weapon system is flawed, the weapon point system I'm thinking of showed that most weapons were balanced compared to each other which is the point that I'm trying to get across that you're not quite getting. Adjusting within that system would most definitely help you here, since you are using the Pathfinder/3.5 weapon system, regardless of whether or not you consider it flawed.
It doesn't matter if the system is flawed if you're using it. That's the one you're using, so cope with it the best you can, or fix it.
On a side note you are not really showing your math either. You just spouted numbers at me while saying what I created something that was 9 times more powerful. That seems very exaggerated to me for something that only gives a slightly better chance.
I was in a rush to get moving this morning after having already spent two hours looking up weapon balance systems to help you, so I did the math in my head. Sorry.
Besides I am not about to unbalance the system by simply allowing stacking which is more unbalancing then my my allowing stacking but with a cap.Honestly I don't know why you keep suggesting it. Also I am not about to go a test each weapon 100 times because I don't have the time because I happen to have a life.
. . .
. . .
Seriously? I'm here trying to help you, and you've devolved to personal attacks?
Oi vei.
You know what? I think I'm done helping. No, the sky isn't going to fall if you use a poorly thought out weapon system, but, whatever. I've spent too many hours trying to help you with this, and it's plain out not worth it if you can't understand a simple concept how like, allowing one weapon to quadruple threat range and only letting another weapon double is bad.
My old system before I came up with the cap actually wasn't that bad.
Honestly? It was terrible. Worse than this one. But, no, your game isn't going to explode, and if your version of a bad game is the table exploding, I'd hate to see a good one.
The one thing about me is that you must appeal to my logic and not yours.
This statement makes me sad on levels I can scarcely describe.
Also, for the record, I didn't run 100 trial runs using dice or a die-roller. I used the mathematical average, basic addition, and a small dosage of multiplication. It's more accurate and easier than what you're doing.
Best of luck to your players.
I was not intending a personal attack but I do suppose that some of what I sad came off as passive aggressive so I do apologize for that. I do feel though that tone of mine might have been a knee jerk reaction toward your own passive aggressive tone in what you said. Unlike you however I never made a direct personal attack against you and my statement about that I have a life was about me not you.