|
Actually, it's not a curve. With 3d6 the results gravitate towards 10.5, while with 2d20 drop the lowest the most common result is 20. This means that it's not a curve (at least not a bell curve like 3d6) but a linear progression where each result is 2/400 more likely than the one before it. Rolling a 1 with this system only happens once out of 400.
Also, the probability of rolling a 2 on 2d20 drop the lowest isn't 2*2 out of 20*20, it's actually 3 out of 20*20. There are three sets on 2d20 drop the lowest which produce an end result of 2, those being (1,2), (2,1) and (2,2).
Once I have time, I'll make a spreadsheet to demonstrate how 2d20 drop the lowest actually works.
Don't bother on my account - I know very well how this all works. If you read what I posted I didn't say there were 2*2 chances of rolling a 2 with 2d20 drop the highest, I said there were 2*2 ways of rolling two or lower.
That's because what we're talking about here isn't the distribution of rolls; we're talking about attack rolls, saving throws and the like, where you're set a target number to make and given some number of dice to roll. What we're interested in is the probability of achieving success or failure for a given target number; how much you beat or miss the roll by doesn't really matter.
Rolling a single d20 the chance of success decreases linearly with increase in the target value - if you plot the chance of success against the target number the graph is a straight line. If, instead, you take the higher of 2d20 you end up with a curve (to be precise, a parabola). And if you take the lower of 2d20 you still end up with basically the same parabola, just flipped.
Ah, sorry, my bad. You're absolutely correct. I missed the "or lower" in your post. :)
Well my two groups to run the sample loved it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'see, Jeff, that's your problem, you have to play with just one of each die for that old school feel. :P
|
Ah, sorry, my bad. You're absolutely correct. I missed the "or lower" in your post. :)Actually, it's not a curve. With 3d6 the results gravitate towards 10.5, while with 2d20 drop the lowest the most common result is 20. This means that it's not a curve (at least not a bell curve like 3d6) but a linear progression where each result is 2/400 more likely than the one before it. Rolling a 1 with this system only happens once out of 400.
Also, the probability of rolling a 2 on 2d20 drop the lowest isn't 2*2 out of 20*20, it's actually 3 out of 20*20. There are three sets on 2d20 drop the lowest which produce an end result of 2, those being (1,2), (2,1) and (2,2).
Once I have time, I'll make a spreadsheet to demonstrate how 2d20 drop the lowest actually works.
Don't bother on my account - I know very well how this all works. If you read what I posted I didn't say there were 2*2 chances of rolling a 2 with 2d20 drop the highest, I said there were 2*2 ways of rolling two or lower.
That's because what we're talking about here isn't the distribution of rolls; we're talking about attack rolls, saving throws and the like, where you're set a target number to make and given some number of dice to roll. What we're interested in is the probability of achieving success or failure for a given target number; how much you beat or miss the roll by doesn't really matter.
Rolling a single d20 the chance of success decreases linearly with increase in the target value - if you plot the chance of success against the target number the graph is a straight line. If, instead, you take the higher of 2d20 you end up with a curve (to be precise, a parabola). And if you take the lower of 2d20 you still end up with basically the same parabola, just flipped.
No problem - it's easy enough to miss things the first (or second, or third ...) time of reading. In fact I've just gone back to the post you quote above and edited a mistake (I should have said keep the highest, not drop the highest).
|
|
No problem - it's easy enough to miss things the first (or second, or third ...) time of reading. In fact I've just gone back to the post you quote above and edited a mistake (I should...
To err is human and all that. :)
Actually, as I might've posted before, one of the interesting implications of advantage is that attacking with advantage also increases your chances of getting a critical hit. On a 1d20 the probability is 5%, while on 2d20 drop the lowest it's 9.75%. Conversely, the probability of a critical miss is as low as 0.25%. This, I feel, is totally awesome and one thing that can't be achieved with a straight 1d20 and modifiers.
|
|
One of the interesting implications of advantage is that attacking with advantage also increases your chances of getting a critical hit. On a 1d20 the probability is 5%, while on 2d20 drop the lowest it's 9.75%. Conversely, the probability of a critical miss is as low as 0.25%. This, I feel, is totally awesome and one thing that can't be achieved with a straight 1d20 and modifiers.
It's numerically pretty close to a straight '-1' to the critical threat range (i.e. making both 19 and 20 potential critical hits, rather than just a natural 20). The difference between 9.75% and 10% (or 0.25% and 0%, for that matter) is probably less than the error from using non-perfect dice.
|
One of the interesting implications of advantage is that attacking with advantage also increases your chances of getting a critical hit. On a 1d20 the probability is 5%, while on 2d20 drop the lowest it's 9.75%. Conversely, the probability of a critical miss is as low as 0.25%. This, I feel, is totally awesome and one thing that can't be achieved with a straight 1d20 and modifiers.It's numerically pretty close to a straight '-1' to the critical threat range (i.e. making both 19 and 20 potential critical hits, rather than just a natural 20). The difference between 9.75% and 10% (or 0.25% and 0%, for that matter) is probably less than the error from using non-perfect dice.
But it's a heck of a lot easier to remember.
|
|
One of the interesting implications of advantage is that attacking with advantage also increases your chances of getting a critical hit. On a 1d20 the probability is 5%, while on 2d20 drop the lowest it's 9.75%. Conversely, the probability of a critical miss is as low as 0.25%. This, I feel, is totally awesome and one thing that can't be achieved with a straight 1d20 and modifiers.It's numerically pretty close to a straight '-1' to the critical threat range (i.e. making both 19 and 20 potential critical hits, rather than just a natural 20). The difference between 9.75% and 10% (or 0.25% and 0%, for that matter) is probably less than the error from using non-perfect dice.
True, but adjusting the critical threat range just for advantageous circumstances would be a bit too fiddly for my tastes. Also, as far as I understand, critical threat ranges and confirming critical hits are apparently not in D&D Next.
I like it simply for the fact that in addition to gravitating your rolls towards the higher end of the d20 scale, it also increases your chances of a critical hit nearly twofold. It really makes advantage feel special.
Also, who uses imperfect dice anyway, what with GameScience dice being so inexpensive?[/sarcasm] (I actually own a set and I refuse to roll with anything but them.)
|
|
But it's a heck of a lot easier to remember.
You'll get no argument from me there. Playing Pathfinder it's hard to keep track of which weapons threaten on what roll, not to mention just what the critical effects are.
Another thing I like about the advantage/disadvantage system is that is of most benefit to the competent (but not expert) character. You need a decent chance of success for that second die roll to be good enough to change the outcome after a failure, but not so good a chance of success that you rarely need the second roll.
My fear is that it's a little too powerful - as I mentioned earlier, it can come very close to a +5 to a 1d20 roll. But any mechanism to scale it back probably increases the complexity more than is warranted.
Things I like about advantage:
-It's kind of a nifty mechanic that feels like a big bonus because you're rolling more dice.
-If you roll the two dice separately, it's a chance to turn a bad roll into something good and maybe inject a bit of drama into the roll.
-It's easier to roll advantage than calculate bonuses.
Things I don't like about advantage:
-If you're dealing with a large group of monsters that all have advantage/disadvantage, that's a lot of rolling since you can't just roll the dice all at once. Basically, what feels cool as a player doesn't work as smoothly as a DM.
-One thing I like about modifiers over advantage is that there's a better chance to do the impossible or screw up the simple. Charging a dragon with a hefty penalty still leaves a 1 in 20 chance of getting a hit and doing something awesome. With disadvantage, your odds of getting that 20 are much slimmer. I like the somewhat swingy and bizarre moments that rolling a nat 1 or a nat 20 can cause in situations that seem to have a foregone conclusion.
Things I don't mind one way or another but which I think are notable:
-If you're going to fight an orc in the dark without darkvision, you might as well do it by shooting a sling from 120 feet away while poisoned, drunk, and standing on your head because the odds of success are exactly the same.
|
|
I was reading the posts in this thread and this jumped at me:
The problem isn't the idea - it's the over-use of the idea. Mixed in with normal modifiers, it would probably be fine (for example, I like the disadvantage die acting as a replacement for miss chances).
I absolutely love this idea. I always detest rolling for miss chance, because it feels like a chance to fail at something that is entirely independent of character skill. If I ever run something with miss chances again, I will definitely use disadvantage to express it.
|
|
True, but if you roll a hit with the first, taking that second roll still feels like you're being cheated, even before you roll to see if you missed.
I'm okay with miss chance, but what bothers me about it is that a character's skill has no bearing on it. Basically, rolling twice and picking the power result means that you can overcome the miss chance to an extent through skill without requiring skills like blindfighting and so on. I know it's very similar, but rolling twice and using the lower result feels like I'm being cheated less than when the miss chance is completely external and beyond my control.
This actually makes me want to throw some incorporeal undead at my players in my campaign so I could utilize it.
Things I don't mind one way or another but which I think are notable:
-If you're going to fight an orc in the dark without darkvision, you might as well do it by shooting a sling from 120 feet away while poisoned, drunk, and standing on your head because the odds of success are exactly the same.
Unless you have one way of gaining advantage, since then it would cancel it out.
I think it's more fun; YMMV.
Yeah, this.
Calculating the odds is missing about half the intension. Rolling a die feels more "organic" than adding/subtracting a number.
The only case in which I would say this backfires is when the GM has to roll for like 20 Goblins with advantage, not that this happens often in my games.
|
|
I think it's more fun; YMMV.Yeah, this.
Calculating the odds is missing about half the intension.
But what if you think that calculating the odds is fun? ;)
I really don't get this sentiment. RPGs in general make heavy use of randomization in their game mechanics. Because of this it's very important to me that the math of the game makes sense. If that means calculating the odds to see whether or not the math makes sense or not, so be it. Also, math is fun. :)
Maths is there no matter what, the tension of rolling is the fun part.
One of the regulars here once posted about house ruling insubstantial back to a fifty percent miss chance, rather than taking half damage. Mathematically, the two are very similar, but rolling to see if you actually hit is more exciting than dividing your damage by two.
I think it's more fun; YMMV.Yeah, this.
Calculating the odds is missing about half the intension.
But what if you think that calculating the odds is fun? ;)
I really don't get this sentiment. RPGs in general make heavy use of randomization in their game mechanics. Because of this it's very important to me that the math of the game makes sense. If that means calculating the odds to see whether or not the math makes sense or not, so be it. Also, math is fun. :)
Math is fun, but like I said failing one roll and getting another makes me more emotionally invested than a simple +/- modifier. Calculating bonuses is what I can only call DM fun; That's not a cut, I DM more often than not, and find the analytical prep work of D&D fun.
I like advantage/disadvantage as a player though. Interestingly, I wouldn't want the a/d system to evolve into a dice pool. IMO requiring 5 successes cheapens the first 4.
Given how the playtests are shaping up, I may well house rule that a/d gives PCs the best/worst of two rolls, but gives npcs a simple +/- modifier. Why? Cause rolling twice is fun for the players but an ass-ache for the DM. (Yes, I'm still grumbling over the giant rats.)
|
|
I think a lot of people are equating math with adding and subtracting modifiers. Yeah, that is math, but calculating the odds of success when you get to roll twice and use one roll is also math.
Thing is, when I say I like math I don't mean I like adding and subtracting modifiers, because that's just tedium. What I like is calculating the math being various subsystems that subtly manipulate the dice.
I like the advantage/disadvantage system because of math. It has a number of mathematical implications on the system that adding and subtracting modifiers can't achieve.
But yeah, I also understand the partneri about emotional investment, but for me understanding the math is part of the emotional side of things, 'cause I'm weird like that.
Different strokes for different folks. I wasn't advocating anything but pointing out that two mathematically very similar options can feel significantly different. (presumably "insubstantial=half damage" isn't something you'd like to rot in hell? Despite being mathematically very similar to a fifty percent miss chance, in the long run).
I prefer the old way of dealing with incorporeal: you can't hit incorporeal creatures unless you have a magic weapon. If you do, you hit them. No half damage, no miss chance, just a very simple rule.
Of course, I also like the idea of those otherwise senseless plusses to weapons actually making a difference. You know, you can't damage this creature unless you have a +1 weapon, or this one unless your weapon is +2, etc. Having a +5 weapon meant nothing was immune to your strikes. It's the way my current game works.
I don't like +x equipment much, but given they exist, I also like this sort of scheme.
|
|
My experience is mostly informed by 3e and 4e, but I really don't like run of the mill +X weapons. Then again, my biggest problem with them stems from the fact that they were an assumed part of the game's math. If they must exist, I think they should be handled like in previous editions, preferably with unique magic weapons rather than a bunch of weapons with an a la carte menu of special abilities to choose from.
What I don't want is "A +1 sword again? Vendor trash."
|
|
Of course, I also like the idea of those otherwise senseless plusses to weapons actually making a difference. You know, you can't damage this creature unless you have a +1 weapon, or this one unless your weapon is +2, etc. Having a +5 weapon meant nothing was immune to your strikes. It's the way my current game works.Note that this also makes the magic weapon spell actually useful beyond a couple of extra points here and there.
I miss the old system as well. Then again, I like for things to be impossible sometimes, rather than the 3.X false promise of DC and DR.
"Oh, don't worry, we can fight the golem we just need an adamantine weapon and some conjuration spells."
T.P.K. instead of run away!
I also enjoyed your post about the draconic power-levels. Very evocative.
What I don't want is "A +1 sword again? Vendor trash."If some monsters are totally immune to damage unless you have a magic weapon, a +1 sword suddenly ceases to be "vendor trash".
3E screwed up the manner in which magic weapons are used. I still use the AD&D treasure tables in my 3E homebrew, and I use the AD&D damage immunities. If you use the system Gygax created in the way it is intended, it works within itself.
Perhaps a little off-topic, but could you tell me more about this system? And where I could get my hands on these treasure tables?
As for the Advantage/Disadvantage there's been a resounding "hey, that sounds cool" among my game group. I like the direction so far, but I'll have to see more than what was in the playtest before I can really make a judgement.
|
|
What I don't want is "A +1 sword again? Vendor trash."If some monsters are totally immune to damage unless you have a magic weapon, a +1 sword suddenly ceases to be "vendor trash".
3E screwed up the manner in which magic weapons are used. I still use the AD&D treasure tables in my 3E homebrew, and I use the AD&D damage immunities. If you use the system Gygax created in the way it is intended, it works within itself.
Perhaps a little off-topic, but could you tell me more about this system? And where I could get my hands on these treasure tables?
As for the Advantage/Disadvantage there's been a resounding "hey, that sounds cool" among my game group. I like the direction so far, but I'll have to see more than what was in the playtest before I can really make a judgement.
You may be able to dig the tables out of Advanced Labyrinth Lord, but I cannot confirm if they are identical.
As for the DR system, it was beautifully simple. Any monster with DR simply listed the required enhancement bonus or damage type (eg. +1 or better weapons to hit). If you did not use the indicated weapon, you could not damage the monster. Note that in the case of enhancement bonuses, it referred to the actual enhancement bonus, not the 3.5 "total equivalent" concept (for example, a +1 flaming longsword is a +2 weapon in 3.5, but such a weapon, if it existed in previous editions, would not bypass a +2 DR).
It makes sense if you think of hit points as individual strikes with a weapon, in which case if you didn't have a magic weapon each strike was useless, it didn't matter the total "damage" of the weapon, since that was just an accumulation of smaller hits.
The reason I find the old way more honest is because when the players encountered a monster with impressive DR, they knew they must flee. In 3.5 and Pathfinder, they are encouraged to stay and fight because some of them can do small amounts of damage. It's an insidious trap, almost like a dragon wrote the new DR rules to sucker adventurers out of treasure!
|
|
3.5e was the nail in the coffin. In 3.5e the only thing that counted was damage output - a very boring, but effective, way to overcome EVERY monster obstacle under 3.5e rules...
3E screwed up the manner in which magic weapons are used.
Yep. It causes me much exasperation every time I think about a bunch of town guardsmen defeating the local werewolf through judicious use of arrows.
Sorry, I want a dragon to level an army with not a care in the world. No magic swords? No problem.
I want a reason for adventurers to exist - the dedicated few who risk life and limb for wealth, experience, and glory.
|
This. I crunched it to see what the percentage of success change was with advantage and it's so OP its retarded.So far I'm not impressed.
Having played all the play tests to date and having used the system we have found that perhaps on paper (theory craft) you can come up with examples of the system being 'broken' that in play it sort of averages out. We still get fails to hit even with the advantage. The thing I like about it is that it shifts the probabilities but not by a set amount. But for us the major 'advantage' is it cuts down on modifiers which under 3.5e/PF get well out of hand.
Do I believe that adding +2 to a hit roll under 3.5e is any more an accurate reflection of actually hitting some with a sword than using the Advantage system - well nope, but in the later case it in play is faster to use and easy to explain to players.
I am really quite taken with the minimisation of modifiers in 5e. PF covers modifiers in buckets, I'm hoping that D&DN isn't just PF-lite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's only really relevant if you think the +2 adjustment is reasonable. Personally, I think D&D does an appalling job of simulating people hitting one another with swords so whether it does that via stacking bonuses or via multiple rolls isnt really relevant. It's still a lousy simulation.
If you want a realistic game, I dont think D&D is a very good choice, no matter what the system.
|
|
The theory craft translates into actual play when the numbers are real and the system is being used as an integral part of the system.
A +2 bonus is an increase of 10% which isn't dramatic..but actually do the math of what advantage or disadvantage does vs. a neutral DC of 10. If I remember correctly its a dramatic shift of 55% chance to like 75% ...25 becomes 33%, 75% becomes like 90%
In game it had a huge impact on the game results and the probabilities reflect that.
Theory crafting is about averages. A single dice roll is a stochastic event. My point being if I have 20%, 40%, 60%, or 80% change of succeeding and at the table the d20 come up a '2' its a failure and that is independent of the 'probabilities'.
Basically however the system provides a scaled system that has at its extremes +/-5 (between 9-12 roughly) and +/-2 at low/high die rolls required. Not too shocking where compared to some of the static bonuses of even low level PF characters can have.
That aside, I think the system does exactly what it promises, an Advantage or a Disadvantage. And these actually matter. We (meaning my personal experience) find them rather exciting in play as they count enough to (as people have commented) swing the probabilities on a scale that modifiers do not. Then again think of PF things like +34 Tumble etc that make the d20 almost irrelevant. The only way to counter such big modifiers is to have large minuses.
What we really like is that Avd./Dis. don't actually change the target number, makes things simple and fast. If I have a target DC of 18 and +4 to my roll, it's very easy to work out I need 14+, either on 1d20 (neutral), 2d20 (highest) or 2d20 (lowest) - in all cases I still need a 14+. From an immersion point of view I have found as DM I can state "You are at a disadvantage" which means something mechanically but is far more in-game to say than "that'll be a -4 to hit".
Still horses for courses, the game ultimately won't suit all but we are having the best fun since 2e. Please note my long in the tooth group thought 3e/3.5e/4e sort of sucked, but for differing reasons. We played them because they were the game in town. D&DN really strikes us as 2e brought screaming and kicking into the 21st century.
S.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I found with adv/dis wasn't realism it's that it's to OP to be given out glibly.
Let's break it down. Lets say there's a difficulty DC of 15. With +4 of modifiers it's a DC 11. This seems like it'd be a pretty common scenario. That means 11-20 succeed so you have a 50% chance to succeed. So if we break it down to a simpler form of probability and break this 50/50 chance to flipping a coin the scenarios are as follows (with heads representing success)
HH
HT
TT
THThat 50% is now a 75% in effect that's a 25% increase which equates to a +5 (equating to a d20)...in effect your +4 is now a +9
That's a pretty extreme difference. Do you see when it's broken down how powerful this mechanic is? You assign one modifier that gives a 25% difference for a +5. Given how strong this is it should be used a lot more carefully than I think it is now.
And if we take a case of needing 18-20 to succeed.
1d20 = 15%
Advantage = 15% + 12.75% = 27.75% or +2.55 bonus.
or if a 20 is required you have a 4.75% bonus or ~+1.
Sliding scale - +5 in the mid ranges turning a 50:50 event into a meaningful Advantage while not making the more difficult tasks too easy. If you are fixated on a linear system then true this is bad by the nature of being different - but I'm seeing a simple elegant solution to cut down on having numerous static dice modifiers.
S.