Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8793241" data-attributes="member: 6799660">And clearly I did have to read the thread. Silly me. Just to make this even simpler -- The argument looks to be: 'DC 10 with a -2 penalty (effectively DC12) on 3d6 is 37% chance of success. DC 10 with a -4 penalty (effectively DC14) on 1d20 is 35% chance of success. The difference is trivial, so why use 3d6 instead of 1d20 with doubled bonus/penalties (or certainly talk about switch dice methods to one approximating a bell curve as though it has a huge change?' Fundamentally, I guess I would say that the OP is right that the difference between the two is minimal, but then why choose one over the other (I doubt highly that mentally adding together 3d6 is significantly different than remembering to double bonuses/penalties). Both methods would have some occasional edge case issues* and maybe are best served for games designed from the start with these assumptions.*when switching back to 3d6+normal bonuses or 1d20+double bonuses instead of the roll-under method we've been using here, which obviously can run off the edges of the possible outcomes quickly, as the DC 3 example showedFundamentally, I just don't see what the OP thinks is such a big deal or what greater point they are showing. There are multiple ways to achieve the same results and some people advocating the 3d6 model may or may not realize this*. What does that show?*Hypothetical people from discussions in the past are always great in that we can assume what we want about what they know or are thinking. </blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 8793241, member: 6799660"] And clearly I did have to read the thread. Silly me. Just to make this even simpler -- The argument looks to be: [I]'DC 10 with a -2 penalty (effectively DC12) on 3d6 is 37% chance of success. DC 10 with a -4 penalty (effectively DC14) on 1d20 is 35% chance of success. The difference is trivial, so why use 3d6 instead of 1d20 with doubled bonus/penalties (or certainly talk about switch dice methods to one approximating a bell curve as though it has a huge change?' [/I] Fundamentally, I guess I would say that the OP is right that the difference between the two is minimal, but then why choose one over the other (I doubt highly that mentally adding together 3d6 is significantly different than remembering to double bonuses/penalties). Both methods would have some occasional edge case issues* and maybe are best served for games designed from the start with these assumptions. [SIZE=1]*when switching back to 3d6+normal bonuses or 1d20+double bonuses instead of the roll-under method we've been using here, which obviously can run off the edges of the possible outcomes quickly, as the DC 3 example showed[/SIZE] Fundamentally, I just don't see what the OP thinks is such a big deal or what greater point they are showing. There are multiple ways to achieve the same results and some people advocating the 3d6 model may or may not realize this*. What does [I]that[/I] show? [SIZE=1]*Hypothetical people from discussions in the past are always great in that we can assume what we want about what they know or are thinking. [/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification