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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="haiiro" data-source="post: 692310" data-attributes="member: 1891">I think I finally understand what several of you are getting at: the max-1 method really skews things in favor of the higher die types. Math is not my strong point. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Here's how I see this breaking down (rounding to the nearest % in all cases):d4 --> 3 --> 75%d6 --> 5 --> 83%d8 --> 7 --> 88%d10 --> 9 --> 90%d12 --> 11 --> 92%Which is a pretty dramatic difference, and definitely not evident to me until the numbers had been crunched a bit.Thus far, then, the approach that hews most closely to the existing average rolls and average differences between die types is the 50%+1 method. Here's how this breaks down (again rounded to the nearest % in all cases):d4 --> 3 --> 75%d6 --> 4 --> 67%d8 --> 5 --> 63%d10 --> 6 --> 60%d12 --> 7 --> 58%...so instead of ascending benefits to the higher die types, you get descending benefits instead. This seems just as problematic to me, as it removes some of the fun factor from the martial/high die type classes. IMO, wizards expect to have very few HP, while barbarians expect to have quite a lot of HP -- and as the player of barbarian PC, I think I'd be miffed if my DM told me I was getting less HP/level than a cleric with a good roll under the default system.Trying to maintain a fixed percentage seems like a good fix for this problem. 75% and 80% have both come up, and they're really quite similar:d4 --> 3 --> 75%d6 --> 5 --> 83%d8 --> 6 --> 75%d10 --> 8 --> 80%d12 --> 9 --> 75%Using the 80%/level approach (with standard rounding rules), only the d12 result changes, becoming a 10. This throws off the difference between the average rolls under the default system (d4 = 2.5, d12 = 6.5 -- difference of 4, vs. d4 = 3, d12 = 9 -- difference of 6), but stays fairly consistent percentage-wise. I think this is my favorite approach overall, at least so far.The potential problem with cure and damage spells hadn't even crossed my mind (thanks, FreeTheSlaves), and I'm still considering it. At first glance, I think giving the PCs higher than average HP will have pretty straightforward effects on both cures (it takes more to fill back up to max HP, but you have HP before you croak) and damage spells (it takes more damage to wipe them out, which is fine by me).As far as the fixed+random approaches that have come up (from Guilt Puppy and evildmguy), I'm not really sure where to start in terms of breaking them down. I do think I'd change the d4 = d4 element to d4 = 2 + 1d2. Beyond that, I think evildmguy's method would average out to be essentially the same as my 3/5/7/9/11 proposal, and Guilt Puppy's method would average out to be basically identical to Elder-Basilisk's and Destil's 3/4/5/6/7 progressions. Whew.I am thoroughly enjoying this thread -- thanks to all who have responded so far. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification