-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Dice Survivor, Finale: d6 vs. d20
- Thread starter Gez
- Start date
Celebrim
Legend
The D6 is more important to gaming as a whole than the D20, but the D20 is the iconic emblem of a true gamer. When you see someone with a D6, you really can't tell anything about them. Are they a true gamer? Are they clueless? Dare I bother even bring it up? But when you see someone with a D20 you know that they belong to a community which considers gaming to be somewhere between a past time and one's life.
The D6 is your parent's die. The D6 belongs to everybody, gamer and non-gamer alike. Like it or not, we are the D20 generation.
The D6 is your parent's die. The D6 belongs to everybody, gamer and non-gamer alike. Like it or not, we are the D20 generation.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
After meditating on the subject for 10 seconds, I decided to vote the d6 off the message board.
There can only be one.
There can only be one.
Celebrim
Legend
Conaill said:
I admit it. I'm too stupid for the 3d6. I can't compute in my head on the fly what the incremental improvement in the odds of rolling a 16 or better on a 3d6 are between having a +2 bonus on the throw and a +3 bonus on the throw. I'm equally inept at computing on the fly what the average of 5d6 take the best three is, and what is the incremental improvement between 5d6 take the best three and 6d6 take the best three. For that matter, I can't quickly compute in my head what the odds of a failure are on a throw 6d6 that needs to sum to at least 15 either, or even what the chances are that on a throw of 7 d6's that at least 3 will have a 5 or better. I'm too stupid for all that.
So rather than stopping the game to work out what the actual odds are on a peice of scratch paper, or pulling a number completely out of the air with no real deep understanding exactly how difficult the demand I'm making is, I think I'll stick to a 'stupid' linear systems. I guess I'm just stupid enough to think that the important thing about bell curves is that they produce the expected range of results.
That is the whole point, actually. 3d6 just works a lot more *intuitive*. You've obviously gotten used to calculating percentages and figuring out math problems while you're trying to roleplay. Personally, I don't think that's something that should be encouraged in a roleplaying game.Celebrim said:
People using 3d6 typically don't bother with the math, and they don't need to, because it works a lot closer to what intuition will tell you. Sure, the difference in probability you get from using a +2 weapon will depend on your skill level. So what? "Should I use my last +2 arrow on that beastie? (a) Nah, it's probably not going to help anyway. (b) Yeah, that might be just what it takes to put me over the edge. (c) Nah, I'll probably hit it anyway even without the +2." Pretty intuitive, no? Compare that to: "Well, the expected increase in damage output will be independent of the attack bonus to AC difference, except in outlier cases where it is impossible for me to hit or miss anyway. So I should probably use that arrow anyway, regardless of what my intuition tells me about the likelihood of hitting."
See, you only need to use percentages when your dice system is too counterintuitive to understand to begin with. Use a better dice system, and you won't need to worry about calculating the exact probability associated with each action you take...
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
Conaill said:
We clearly have different definitions of 'intuitive'.
You've clearly got this all completely backwards. I don't want to have to figure out match problems while I'm trying to roleplay. Therefore, I don't want to deal with bell curves at all.
You've got it completely wrong. As should have been apparant, I'm arguing from the perspective of the DM. I'm not suggesting that PC's need the exact odds of success. I've famously argued on several occassions that the PC's don't even need to know what the underlying rules are. I'm suggesting that at all times DM's need to have good ideas of how difficult (or not difficult) the hurdle they are demanding to be jumped is. The fact that the example that you provided involving the +2 arrow is in fact wrong only reinforces my opinion that my definition of intuitive is quite different than yours. The absolute increase in expected damage is not nearly as important as the relative increase in expected damage, and the relative increase in expected damage is higher in both cases when the task is harder.
For example, if I need a 17 to hit with a weapon doing d6 damage, my expective damage per arrow under d20 is 0.7, My expected damage with a +2 to hit weapon weapon is 1.05 Since this is 50% greater than my normal expected damage, and hense cuts the time require to defeat the foe by 2/3rds this is a time to use the +2 ammunition. In contrast, if I need a 6 to hit, the expected damage with normal ammunition is 2.62 per arrow. If I use the +2 ammunition, the expected damage is 2.98 per arrow - which is less than a 15% increase in effectiveness. Hense, this won't significantly speed up the encounter, and now is not a good time to use the +2 ammunition (or waste actions trying to gain a tactical advantage). So, your intuition about the numbers was in fact wrong. In D20 its absolutely important to hold your good stuff for when its needed.
So, tell me what the equivalent situation is in a 3d6 system. How much faster can you expect the combat to go when you need a 17 to hit and switch to a +2 to hit weapon? How much faster can you expect to the combat to go when you need a 6 to hit and switch to the +2 to hit ammunition? Can you answer those questions without resorting to a table?
Similar Threads
