D&D Blog : Dice Tricks

[Kingreaper]

Many valid points already made.

Very often D20 isn't about degree of result but is a hit target number / missed target number issue. Aside from the simple math being done wrong, it was the wrong math to be doing.

Umm, no.

The logical conclusion isn't:
"Their simple math was wrong, and they were doing the wrong math anyway, which just happened to result in them getting the right answer by coincidence"

It's:
"They were doing the right math, not the simple math at all, and got the right answer"

 

[Transformer]

Are far as I can see, 'dice tricks' are wonderful for keeping class abilities and such from all feeling samey. Reroll anything less than a 5, roll 2 dice and take the better, roll an extra die and drop lowest for damage, roll an extra d8 for damage. All those things add variety and interest, provide a broader range of possible mechanics to better reflect the fluff of different abilities, and discourage min-maxing by making the math less transparent to the average end-user (but still possible to nail down for homebrew purposes). Way, way better than having every single ability give a modifier between +1 and +5. Boooooring, to me at least.

I wanted to be able to say on the last question that I don't want them in core, I do want them in the game (as a module), and I like both Dice Tricks as appropriate in different situations ("Both" was not an option).

I'm having trouble seeing how dice tricks could be limited to a totally optional, self-contained module. I mean, what would to module do? I mean, I guess if it was just a little thing like action points that let you do 2d20 take the higher. But to have dice tricks come up often, I would think they'd have to be integrated into various class abilities, feats, and the like.

 

[FireLance]

It is not a good way of replacing a static bonus. If I'm trying to roll a 24 with my measly +2 bonus, I would much rather have a +5 to the roll instead of two chances. Maybe in the cases of "20 always hits" it works out somewhat, but I suspect in most cases it doesn't.

Hopefully, if the underlying math works out, you won't be expected to hit a target number that is higher than 20+bonus*. The DM might choose to include particularly tough challenges occasionally, but it shouldn't happen regularly.

* In fact, my personal preference is that no target number should be higher than 15+bonus.

 

[am181d]

I'm not a fan of re-roll mechanics. If I'm rolling extra dice, I want it to be for damage rolls.

 

[BryonD]

Umm, no.

The logical conclusion isn't:
"Their simple math was wrong, and they were doing the wrong math anyway, which just happened to result in them getting the right answer by coincidence"

It's:
"They were doing the right math, not the simple math at all, and got the right answer"

Hmm....

The actual quote just says " Or, you might roll 2d20 and take the highest roll. This dice trick equates to about a +4.5 bonus (so call it +5)."

It follows that with a correct example of an extra d6 being +3.5.

Now, you can simply read that and conclude that the math is wrong.

Or you can start adding in some text that isn't anywhere in the blog (need a 10 to hit) and also ingore that they were rounding a 4.5 to 5 rathet than just saying 5.

I'm sticking with the former.

At best it was stated in an insanely poor manner.

 

[Kingreaper]

Hmm....

The actual quote just says " Or, you might roll 2d20 and take the highest roll. This dice trick equates to about a +4.5 bonus (so call it +5)."

It follows that with a correct example of an extra d6 being +3.5.

Now, you can simply read that and conclude that the math is wrong.

Only if, you, yourself, automatically assume they're using the wrong math.

They got the right answer. Which pretty much shows they used the right math*. They just didn't feel the need to explain statistics to everyone reading
*the other possibility being the highly implausible "They used the wrong maths, and then got their maths wrong, which resulted in them getting the right answer"

This allows people such as yourself to assume the worst, if you so choose, but makes it easier for everyone else to read.

As anyone who wants to assume the worst will always find something to complain about, I think it's reasonable not to care about such people.

 

[BryonD]

Only if, you, yourself, automatically assume they're using the wrong math.

They got the right answer. Which pretty much proves they used the right math. They just didn't feel the need to explain statistics to everyone reading

This allows people such as yourself to assume the worst, if you so choose, but makes it easier for everyone else to read.

As anyone who wants to assume the worst will always find something to complain about, I think it's reasonable not to care about such people.

This is circular logic.

You are only correct IF you assume they got it correct.
If you assume NOTHING and just read what is actually written, they got it wrong.

 

[Kingreaper]

This is circular logic.

You are only correct IF you assume they got it correct.
If you assume NOTHING and just read what is actually written, they got it wrong.

Umm, no.

No it's not.

Look, there are two ways they could plausibly have calculated it:

1) Take the average value. This is clearly the wrong way to do it.
The answer they got disagrees with the answer from this method.

2) Look at the chance to achieve a standard challenge. This is clearly the right way to do it.
The answer they got agrees with the answer from this method (and does so for a significant range of possible DCs)

The only logical conclusion is they used 2) and did the maths right.

In order to conclude that they did 1) and got the maths wrong, and then miraculously happened to randomly get the same answer as they would have by doing method 2) correctly you'd need a very strong bias towards them being wrong.

Which you apparently have.


EDIT: It's reasonable enough to think they got the math wrong IFF you don't know that option 2 exists.

 

[BryonD]

Umm, no.

No it's not.

Look, there are two ways they could plausibly have calculated it:

1) Take the average value. This is clearly the wrong way to do it.
The answer they got disagrees with the answer from this method.

2) Look at the chance to achieve a standard challenge. This is clearly the right way to do it.
The answer they got agrees with the answer from this method (and does so for a significant range of possible DCs)

The only logical conclusion is they used 2) and did the maths right.

In order to conclude that they did 1) and got the maths wrong, and then miraculously happened to randomly get the same answer as they would have by doing method 2) correctly you'd need a very strong bias towards them being wrong.

Which you apparently have.

Why do you say there are two ways? Couldn't there be three? How about four?

In the other examples actually given in the text there is one CLEAR and exact way. They took the average.

Now, you have offered a different way that is CLOSE to what they wrote. But, again, NOTHING in that post suggests anything about suddenly ignoring that average values are used in the other examples and NOTHING in that post says anything about "standard challenge". It doesn't even say anything about oresuming 4E, much less a specific rule within 4E.

Again, you are obligated to ignore what is said and bring in things that weren't said. shrug

 

[LostSoul]

Dice tricks that obscure probability remove the player's ability to make informed decisions.

I come down on the side that informed decisions are usually better, so no dice tricks that spoil it.