Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grydan" data-source="post: 5162142" data-attributes="member: 79401">I must admit to finding his article confusing.I thought I was following along just fine... then out of nowhere comes "These elements  taken together led me to using a bell-curve determiner for D&D  attack rolls".  Let me see if I have his position correct. Maybe I've misinterpreted somewhere. He feels that the existing to-hit probability in D&D is too low for his group. This is partly due to the time players have to wait between turns. So he wants to adjust the probabilities so that his players hit more often.Okay, that all seems perfectly reasonable.Where is the leap to the bell curve coming from, though?He says that a linear determiner is too swingy, but he's clearly fine with the existing probabilities of critical hits and misses, as he engineered his replacement system to keep the odds as close as he could to the existing ones. He also doesn't care for the random damage roll, but his change doesn't address this in any way.It's the hit rate that he wants to change... but modifying the hit rate, predictably, is one of the simplest things one can do in a system with a linear determiner.If you want your players to hit 75% of the time, rather than 65% of the time... lower all monster defences by 2. Everything else in the system works the same. The only mechanical (rather than personal preference) thing his system actually gains over this, as far as I can tell, is the granularity he added to critical hits and misses, which wasn't his goal in the first place, and could have been added to the existing system in other ways.</blockquote>

Verification