Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="radferth" data-source="post: 2636340" data-attributes="member: 5791">stop the algorithmsThis problem does not call for iterations.  It is a discrete probability question with a discrete answer.  Borlon is right for the probablity that it will take x number of rolls for a 1 to come up (for d20 5% for one roll, 5(100-5)% for two rolls, etc.).  If one takes this all the way out, you end up with the median number of rolls needed to get a 1 and just a bit over half the number of sides on the die. This means that for the d20-d12-d10-d8 method, the average would be a bit over 25 (probably 30-35, I'll do the real math at home tonight).  However, their would be a decent chance that it could last much longer than average, especially if that 1/20 takes a long time to come up.  I think the progessive wand degridation is quite cool, but I would suggest five rounds of d10, which would give a similar mean, but a bit less of a chance of very few or very many charges.  The original way causes much of the wand's logevity to depend on when that d20 comes up one.  Once it does, you probably have only about 15 charges left.  Of course, if you want a campaign where wands just work and work for a while, but then degrade quickly once they start to go, use the original degradation progression.BTW, the title of this thread inspired the following magic item:Staff of PopielPurify Food and Drink (1 charge) [Its the perfect kitchen tool]Grease (1 charge) [It even waxes the floor]Blade Barrier (3 charges) [But remains sharp enough to make mounds and mounds of julien fries]</blockquote>

Verification