D&D Blog : Dice Tricks

[Kingreaper]

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

Come out with them then?

Number 1 is the naive method. It's the method someone who's never approached the problem before will use, and eventually realise is incorrect.

Number 2 is the correct method. It's the method anyone who's actually thought through the problem thoroughly will use.

I said there are two plausible ways. If you can come up with another plausible way in which they might have done the calculation, do so.

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

Yep, which is the right way to deal with those examples, because of the way the maths works out.

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.

I never mentioned 4E.

Standard challenge isn't a 4E concept.

So, umm, yeah.

On any challenge where a diceroll of between 7 and 15 is required to succeed, their value is correct. To me, that seems like a "standard challenge", as opposed to an "easy challenge" or a "difficult challenge" hence me using the term.


Look, it's quite clear you want to assume they're stupid. So just go on and do that. But don't try and pretend it's the logical conclusion.
Anyone who looks at the facts can see that they clearly calculated it in the logical way and did their maths right.

You, however, are willing to assume that they're incapable of maths that a 12-year old kid can do, simply so that you can call them stupid?

Really?

 

[BryonD]

You, however, are willing to assume that they're incapable of maths that a 12-year old kid can do, simply so that you can call them stupid?

Really?

Actually, I think they are ok at math and suck at writing and editing.

 

[Kingreaper]

Actually, I think they are ok at math and suck at writing and editing.

Then why were you claiming, in your previous posts, that they got the maths wrong?

Remember this:

Aside from the simple math being done wrong, it was the wrong math to be doing.

You made a claim, it was wrong, own it.

 

[Truename]

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)."

This quote is correct. It does equate to "about" a +4.5 for most DC's.

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

Why? It's not wrong. It's not very precise, true, but it's accurate enough for a single sentence.

You say it's poorly written. How would you describe the effect of 2d20 in a single sentence? (And yes, a single sentence is appropriate. The blog is a layman's discussion of a variety of dice tricks, not a detailed discussion of dice probability.)

What's interesting to me is that we might be able to conclude that D&D Next is aiming for hitting an "equal challenge" on a 8 or higher, or 65% of the time... because that's a +4.6 with this dice trick.

 

[Stormonu]

While I like the "dice tricks" I've seen in Savage Worlds, I'm not much for dice tricks in D&D beyond "roll two dice and take the highest".

I'm most especially not fond of rolling 1d20 + another dice as modifiers. That's Alternity's system, not D&D's, and it's a system I pretty much despise.

 

[Kynn]

AAAAAAAAAAAAA GOD NO MAKE THE ALTERNITY FLASHBACKS STOP!!!








(I love Alternity in general but AAAAA THE DICE SYSTEM)

 

[Ratskinner]

I like the idea of player-triggered dice tricks (re-rolls, anyway). As has been mentioned, SWSAGA had these as racial abilities (and some talents, IIRC). In some ways, I like them better than static bonuses, because they don't break out of your normal numerical range but still increase your likelihood of success.

 

[FireLance]

On the subject of dice tricks, it has occured to me that adding a best of two (or more) rolls, in addition to the normal +2 bonus, might be a better way to do Aid Another in a new edition since the +2 bonus seldom seems attractive and often makes the second PC's contribution seem insignificant. So, if two PCs are helping each other to succeed at a task, the one with the better modifier rolls 1d20+modifier, the second PC allows him a second roll with a +2 bonus, and he can pick the better of the two. If a third PC adds his efforts, the first PC gains a third roll with a +4 bonus, and he can pick the best of the three.

 

[Libramarian]

Don't like the sound of this.

Procedure is more important than mechanics.

Spending hours fiddling with "dice tricks" which ultimately barely affect play is a fantasy heartbreaker thing.

It just doesn't matter that much.

In all cases where it doesn't matter that much, go with tradition.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

The 4.5 probably comes from the fact that the probability to make DC 10 with 2d20dl is between the probabilities of making it with 1d20+4 and 1d20+5.

This is only a useful measure for the case where you are aiming for DC10. If you are aiming for DC20 or DC 2, then the highest of 2d20 is more like a +1 bonus. DC 11 is exactly a +5 bonus and frankly, it shocks me that modern game designers can't fully grasp probability distributions and only focus on summary statistics.

Enjoy the graph!