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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6235996" data-attributes="member: 3192">I didn't think we would get into valuing modifiers within the variance of a d20 roll. That's more difficult to explain. I was hoping we could just agree on little stuff like base AC is different. Do you at least agree with the 45%, 50%, 55%?For the rest, basically we are doing trig not algebra. The valuation of modifiers to a roll or to a target number are measured in relation to the starting odds, not percentage points. There's a big difference. I think the D&D Next designers know this is part of why they are using what they call "bounded accuracy". I haven't looked at that design for awhile, but OD&D puts the whole infinite number of outcomes within the 20-point spread of the randomizing die. It is also bounded in its way, but doesn't shift it from there like D&D Next which has target numbers higher than 20. Now 3e uses the infinite natural number line as its base and then moves the dice's 20-point set up and down it, as well as the target number. AC or attack mod, either could be infinite. But to be meaningful they needed to be within the 20 point variance of the die roll. Further benefits/penalties don't affect the odds. 1 always hits, 20 always misses. Unfortunately this design coupled with a large number of stacking modifiers allowed optimizers to hit that 5% plateau frequently. Now OD&D has its faults too. Sometimes you could be change your odds, but not significantly enough to reach the next 5 percentage point plateau. The die was rolled the same with the same odds as if you didn't have that extra bit. But it wasn't a total drawback. You knew, maybe next time you find a way to build on your previous strategy and catch another face of that die to mean success for you.</blockquote>

Verification