Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="phloog" data-source="post: 4651340" data-attributes="member: 59219">I'm into math, and this idea of replacing each +20 with a new d20 instead is intriguing to me, because it keeps you rolling dice (which is one of the basic elements of traditional D&amp;D).&nbsp;What I'm wondering, though, is related to the complaint that a +19 is better than a +21 under those rules.&nbsp;Has anyone ever tried replacing each +11 with a d20 roll? or some other method using dice in place of +X?&nbsp;It makes it far more 'swingy' in terms of potential benefits, since your +11 could get you a 20 on the die. But on average you're going to be rolling 10.5.&nbsp;A big issue for me with this approach is not the average, but the fact that each value is equally likely (assuming you aren't using my Player-Hated Golden Die of Mostly 20s).&nbsp;Another idea that seems to appeal to me as an old Shadowrun player, but would take things a bit away from traditional D&amp;D and might be too odd, is to introduce something more tightly distributed into the mix...like each +10 suddenly becomes +3d6...now you still average 10.5...you use +10 just because it's rounder and easier to remember, and it's less likely you get greatly penalized or helped...it's just still possible...there's a 1 in 216 chance of only adding 3, and a 1 in 216 chance of adding 18, but about 60% of the time you'll add 8 to 12.&nbsp;With a +9, you'd get +9, with a +11 you'd get +3d6 +1, and you'd TEND to be better off...you MIGHT be lower than the +9, but you get the added benefit of the POSSIBILITY of much higher (or lower, true).&nbsp;With the +20 =&gt; +d20, 95% of the time you're adding less than 20.&nbsp; That seems to be the INTENT, but it leads to this goofiness...any fix that replaces +X with +1dX will have this &quot;Bonus just over the threshold is worse than just under&quot; issue.&nbsp;With this alternative idea, you still have a lot of the issue of the character 'cannot miss', but it's not as certain.&nbsp;Just some quick Tuesday thoughts - - figured someone has to have tried / refuted this idea already, and was looking for WHY it is bad.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="phloog, post: 4651340, member: 59219"] I'm into math, and this idea of replacing each +20 with a new d20 instead is intriguing to me, because it keeps you rolling dice (which is one of the basic elements of traditional D&D). What I'm wondering, though, is related to the complaint that a +19 is better than a +21 under those rules. Has anyone ever tried replacing each +11 with a d20 roll? or some other method using dice in place of +X? It makes it far more 'swingy' in terms of potential benefits, since your +11 could get you a 20 on the die. But on average you're going to be rolling 10.5. A big issue for me with this approach is not the average, but the fact that each value is equally likely (assuming you aren't using my Player-Hated Golden Die of Mostly 20s). Another idea that seems to appeal to me as an old Shadowrun player, but would take things a bit away from traditional D&D and might be too odd, is to introduce something more tightly distributed into the mix...like each +10 suddenly becomes +3d6...now you still average 10.5...you use +10 just because it's rounder and easier to remember, and it's less likely you get greatly penalized or helped...it's just still possible...there's a 1 in 216 chance of only adding 3, and a 1 in 216 chance of adding 18, but about 60% of the time you'll add 8 to 12. With a +9, you'd get +9, with a +11 you'd get +3d6 +1, and you'd TEND to be better off...you MIGHT be lower than the +9, but you get the added benefit of the POSSIBILITY of much higher (or lower, true). With the +20 => +d20, 95% of the time you're adding less than 20. That seems to be the INTENT, but it leads to this goofiness...any fix that replaces +X with +1dX will have this "Bonus just over the threshold is worse than just under" issue. With this alternative idea, you still have a lot of the issue of the character 'cannot miss', but it's not as certain. Just some quick Tuesday thoughts - - figured someone has to have tried / refuted this idea already, and was looking for WHY it is bad. [/QUOTE]

Verification