D&D General Hot Take: Uncertainty Makes D&D Better

[Maxperson]

Let us do some math, shall we? The assertment that dump succeed while skilled succeed is less than 20% is true if we look at only a single check situation over very many rolls. The actual chance is just over 11% (0.25*0.45). However the proposition that it might happen 1 in 5 times might still be very reasonable. If the dumper and the skilled is trying some task 5 times, the chances for the dumper succeeding at least once when the skilled fail is 45% (1-0.8875^5).

Moreover the assertion by @Ruin Explorer was not neccessarily tied to a single check situation. If we for instance have a contested situation that only resolves if one fail and the other succeed (both succeed or both fail is rerolled) the chances of the dumper winning actually boosts to 27% ((0.25*0.45)/(0.75*0.55)).

You are correct in that higher DCs skew the math to the benefit of the skilled, but easier checks skew it the other way around. My take is that the proposition that stat is overrated in D&D 3+ is right, and that you should be carefull to try to counter claims about statistics before conferring with the devil first. (It is amazing what statistics can justify depending on how it is spun)

Those numbers are also at 1st level. As soon as proficiency starts going up, the skilled guy gets better and better where the other guy just treads water.

 

[Enrahim2]

Those numbers are also at 1st level. As soon as proficiency starts going up, the skilled guy gets better and better where the other guy just treads water.

In D&D3 skill could indeed make a character superior. In 4e level could make a character superior. In 5ed both are heavily watered down due to bound accuracy. My assessment that stat is less important than some might think still stands in either case.

 

[Maxperson]

In D&D3 skill could indeed make a character superior. In 4e level could make a character superior. In 5ed both are heavily watered down due to bound accuracy. My assessment that stat is less important than some might think still stands in either case.

I totally agree with you there. I've argued the same thing more than once here.

 

[CleverNickName]

Gotta love systems where nothing you do matters to your chances of success!

Yeah, that's frustrating. I still prefer it over the multiple stacking bonuses of 3.5E/Pathfinder, though.

Which TTRPG system would you recommend?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Let us do some math, shall we? The assertment that dump succeed while skilled succeed is less than 20% is true if we look at only a single check situation over very many rolls. The actual chance is just over 11% (0.25*0.45). However the proposition that it might happen 1 in 5 times might still be very reasonable. If the dumper and the skilled is trying some task 5 times, the chances for the dumper succeeding at least once when the skilled fail is 45% (1-0.8875^5).

Moreover the assertion by @Ruin Explorer was not neccessarily tied to a single check situation. If we for instance have a contested situation that only resolves if one fail and the other succeed (both succeed or both fail is rerolled) the chances of the dumper winning actually boosts to 21.4% ((0.25*0.45)/(0.25*0.45 + 0.75*0.55)).

You are correct in that higher DCs skew the math to the benefit of the skilled, but easier checks skew it the other way around. My take is that the proposition that stat is overrated in D&D 3+ is right, and that you should be carefull to try to counter claims about statistics before conferring with the devil first. (It is amazing what statistics can justify depending on how it is spun)

(Edit: corrected the last calculation)

Thank you for doing the math for me, that's genuinely kind, and also you seem to be better at math than me!

Those numbers are also at 1st level. As soon as proficiency starts going up, the skilled guy gets better and better where the other guy just treads water.

I agree, but it's long time before a real distance opens up. Too long imho.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I don't know about "better" or "worse," "good" or "bad," but I can say this much: I have more fun when the game is more random. (And I say this as the DM.)

My experience is that increased randomness generally appeals more to DMs than to players.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My experience is that increased randomness generally appeals more to DMs than to players.

This is my experience too, though I will say a lot of players have a perverse, moth-to-a-flame attraction to highly random "critical fumble" rules which end up absolutely wrecking them.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is my experience too, though I will say a lot of players have a perverse, moth-to-a-flame attraction to highly random "critical fumble" rules which end up absolutely wrecking them.

I don't know if I've mentioned it, but I make them opt in in 5e using the 4e Dark Sun weapon breakage rules. On a natural 1 you may re-roll and if you succeed you succeed and if you fail it's DM's choice and you literally can't say you didn't ask for it (and got the reroll for it). Some players take the gamble on principle.

 

[Remathilis]

My experience is that increased randomness generally appeals more to DMs than to players.

A long time ago...

During the design of Star Wars Saga, there was an article about the failure of the wound/vitality system previous Star Wars d20 had used. A quick recap: vitality worked like HP, and wound was an extra pool equal to your Con score. Vitality healed quickly, wound needed medical treatment and you were fatigued if you had wound damage. The important thing though was that critical hits didn't multiply damage, they bypassed vitality and went straight to wound. That, coupled with blasters that did 3d8 damage and lightsabers that did between 2d8 and 6d8 damage on a hit meant most wound strikes were lethal. Effectively speaking, most fights came down to who rolls a crit first.

The article mentioned this phenomenon, stating that PCs often were the most negatively affected by this. A GM might have a few NPCs or villains die to crit, but PCs were far and above more likely, and the likelihood increased with level as damaged and crit range increased. They figured they in a 1-20 campaign 75% of all PCs would die to crit. And that high lethality was at odds with the Star Wars tone, or at least the tone of the movies. A movie series known for swashbuckling action, epic duels and character drama was not a fit for a system of that kind of one-hit kills.

I bring all this up because it highlights that PCs overbear the brunt of randomness. A DM has less attachments to a random monster or npc than a player has to their PCs (typically). A 1 hit kill is fine to despatch a mook or random encounter, but felt anti-climatic to take out boss monsters and really felt bad when your PC went down to a chump hit on a d20 10+ levels of play.

Again, there might have been games where this play style was important, but it certainly wasn't Star Wars. The fact that as you progressed in level, your character dying to a crit increased (due to higher damage and a longer career of being attacked) is a good example of when randomness gets in the way of good play.

Anyway, Saga used traditional D&D hit points after this.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My experience is that increased randomness generally appeals more to DMs than to players.

Mine is that DMs love things that are simple to use to riff off because it unloads part of the work. Random's a good way to get that and DMs are not short of control. Players love both control (because they are short of it) and to be the centre of attention (because they are short of it with five players to one DM).