Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

D&D 5e Starter Pack questions

Easysk

Barely Literate
Joined
Jan 28, 2022
Messages
4
I have experience as a warrior in D&D 3.5 Dragonlance, now I'm going to try the cleric class in D&D 5 Starter Pack. But I'm put off by the spell slot mechanic. Why not just spend mana on spells? Maybe it would be inconvenient to write it down on paper, I can also understand those who refuse Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, Discord, in the end an ordinary smartphone in favor of paper. But the calculator was invented in 1957. I think calculator is pretty old school stuff.

It also confused me that the Starter Pack has a balance issue. According to the difficulty calculation on page 82 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, the 400 total difficulty points of a fight against four goblins exactly matches the difficulty, which is completely lethal for all four first-level PC's. I know that usually people take the third level for the Starter Pack, but the kit comes with character blanks of the first level, not the third. The adventure was originally designed for the first level. I don't understand how a developer with half a century of experience managed to make such a stupid and ridiculous balance mistake in a beginner adventure.
 

deuxhero

Arcane
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
11,326
Location
Flowery Land
Welcome!

The answer is actually really simple: While low level combat is disproportionately lethal in almost any edition, 5E is an inherently broken and shitty system where the very fundamental math is totally non-functional. Until level 17, the random factor (D20's average is 10.5, and the randomness can add or subtract something between 0 and 9.5 to that range) matters more to rolls than your character's skills (+5 at start, +7 at level 5, +9 at level 9, +10 at level 13, +11 at level 17). A DC 15 using your main stat at level 1 is a ~50/50, and at level 5 it's only improved to 60/40. Literally everything in the system comes down to dice roll and a trio of novices will always beat an expert. The caps on attributes and AC actually make this worse and the bad math just totally implodes once you try double digit levels.

Also the mass produced calculator goes back to 1800s (They'd destroy themselves if you tried to divide by zero and didn't manually shut it off) with some artifacts believed to have once been examples going back even further. It's electronic calculators that are much newer.
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,759
I have experience as a warrior in D&D 3.5 Dragonlance, now I'm going to try the cleric class in D&D 5 Starter Pack. But I'm put off by the spell slot mechanic. Why not just spend mana on spells?
I suggest you read Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories.

951749._SY475_.jpg

459.%20Cugal's%20Saga-Frontis.81109cd0-9f16-4c0b-9cd7-80877909cf7d.jpg
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,178
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
I have experience as a warrior in D&D 3.5 Dragonlance, now I'm going to try the cleric class in D&D 5 Starter Pack. But I'm put off by the spell slot mechanic. Why not just spend mana on spells? Maybe it would be inconvenient to write it down on paper, I can also understand those who refuse Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, Discord, in the end an ordinary smartphone in favor of paper. But the calculator was invented in 1957. I think calculator is pretty old school stuff.

It also confused me that the Starter Pack has a balance issue. According to the difficulty calculation on page 82 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, the 400 total difficulty points of a fight against four goblins exactly matches the difficulty, which is completely lethal for all four first-level PC's. I know that usually people take the third level for the Starter Pack, but the kit comes with character blanks of the first level, not the third. The adventure was originally designed for the first level. I don't understand how a developer with half a century of experience managed to make such a stupid and ridiculous balance mistake in a beginner adventure.

You never would have lasted with real D&D then since it's been the mechanic from day 1. Certain editions did introduce a mana system that allowed mages and clerics to cast two to three more spells per day.
 

Morblot

Aberrant Member | Star Trek V Apologist
Patron
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
2,288
Location
Finland
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Certain editions did introduce a mana system that allowed mages and clerics to cast two to three more spells per day.

Yeah, 3.5 (or was it 3e?) for example offered a variant spell point system in some splatbook that made the clerics, wizards etc. function very much like the 3.5 psions did. Seemed ok, although IIRC it screwed over the sorcerers somewhat, never tried it though.

And yes, I know 3e & 3.5 aren't real D&D, let's not have that argument again, brother JamesDixon. ;)
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,178
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Certain editions did introduce a mana system that allowed mages and clerics to cast two to three more spells per day.

Yeah, 3.5 (or was it 3e?) for example offered a variant spell point system in some splatbook that made the clerics, wizards etc. function very much like the 3.5 psions did. Seemed ok, although IIRC it screwed over the sorcerers somewhat, never tried it though.

And yes, I know 3e & 3.5 aren't real D&D, let's not have that argument again, brother JamesDixon. ;)

The Spell Point System for clerics and wizards was in AD&D 2E Player's Options - Spells & Magic. It may have started in an issue of Dragon before that. Psionics was there as well.

Why would I want to argue with you over a point you acquiesced on? We're cool.

:love:
 

Mortmal

Arcane
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
9,158
I have experience as a warrior in D&D 3.5 Dragonlance, now I'm going to try the cleric class in D&D 5 Starter Pack. But I'm put off by the spell slot mechanic. Why not just spend mana on spells? Maybe it would be inconvenient to write it down on paper, I can also understand those who refuse Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, Discord, in the end an ordinary smartphone in favor of paper. But the calculator was invented in 1957. I think calculator is pretty old school stuff.

It also confused me that the Starter Pack has a balance issue. According to the difficulty calculation on page 82 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, the 400 total difficulty points of a fight against four goblins exactly matches the difficulty, which is completely lethal for all four first-level PC's. I know that usually people take the third level for the Starter Pack, but the kit comes with character blanks of the first level, not the third. The adventure was originally designed for the first level. I don't understand how a developer with half a century of experience managed to make such a stupid and ridiculous balance mistake in a beginner adventure.
4 cr 1/4 goblins, makes a 400XP cr 1 encounter. This is rated as deadly, however in this day and age deadly do not means complete party wipe, no you have to preserve the player fragile ego at all cost. In 5E deadly means a character MAY die, most likely because the player is retarded, rarely by bad luck. The 1-3 levels are the "deadliest" as an ogre with a 2H greatsword crit can outright kill a character. Of course there's a few monsters with wrong cr and much harder than they should be, but in overall its rather well balanced.
A deadly encounter when at full ressources is in fact trivial , in 5E you are not supposed to isolate encounters , its more like 2 medium short rest, 2 medium short , 1 hard then long rest for exemple. For veterans, 3X deadly is most often needed to offer a mininum of challenge. No crpg is doing it right neither BG3 nor solasta, thats why people complain about the encounters while in fact they should complain about unlimited rests.
 

Morblot

Aberrant Member | Star Trek V Apologist
Patron
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
2,288
Location
Finland
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
The 5e spell slot system btw is already different and more flexible from the older editions in that you don't prepare multiple copies of spells anymore; you can e.g. prepare charm person, magic missile and sleep, and still end up casting sleep thrice, etc. I like it in play, but it does feel very sacrilegious. Dunno if it was like that in 4e already, though.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,178
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
I have experience as a warrior in D&D 3.5 Dragonlance, now I'm going to try the cleric class in D&D 5 Starter Pack. But I'm put off by the spell slot mechanic. Why not just spend mana on spells? Maybe it would be inconvenient to write it down on paper, I can also understand those who refuse Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, Discord, in the end an ordinary smartphone in favor of paper. But the calculator was invented in 1957. I think calculator is pretty old school stuff.

It also confused me that the Starter Pack has a balance issue. According to the difficulty calculation on page 82 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, the 400 total difficulty points of a fight against four goblins exactly matches the difficulty, which is completely lethal for all four first-level PC's. I know that usually people take the third level for the Starter Pack, but the kit comes with character blanks of the first level, not the third. The adventure was originally designed for the first level. I don't understand how a developer with half a century of experience managed to make such a stupid and ridiculous balance mistake in a beginner adventure.
4 cr 1/4 goblins, makes a 400XP cr 1 encounter. This is rated as deadly, however in this day and age deadly do not means complete party wipe, no you have to preserve the player fragile ego at all cost. In 5E deadly means a character MAY die, most likely because the player is retarded, rarely by bad luck. The 1-3 levels are the "deadliest" as an ogre with a 2H greatsword crit can outright kill a character. Of course there's a few monsters with wrong cr and much harder than they should be, but in overall its rather well balanced.
A deadly encounter when at full ressources is in fact trivial , in 5E you are not supposed to isolate encounters , its more like 2 medium short rest, 2 medium short , 1 hard then long rest for exemple. For veterans, 3X deadly is most often needed to offer a mininum of challenge. No crpg is doing it right neither BG3 nor solasta, thats why people complain about the encounters while in fact they should complain about unlimited rests.

I love the thinking that you have to kill the monsters without any thought to other resolutions in order to gain the XP. It only highlights how inferior Not-D&D is to real D&D.
 

Mortmal

Arcane
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
9,158
I have experience as a warrior in D&D 3.5 Dragonlance, now I'm going to try the cleric class in D&D 5 Starter Pack. But I'm put off by the spell slot mechanic. Why not just spend mana on spells? Maybe it would be inconvenient to write it down on paper, I can also understand those who refuse Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, Discord, in the end an ordinary smartphone in favor of paper. But the calculator was invented in 1957. I think calculator is pretty old school stuff.

It also confused me that the Starter Pack has a balance issue. According to the difficulty calculation on page 82 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, the 400 total difficulty points of a fight against four goblins exactly matches the difficulty, which is completely lethal for all four first-level PC's. I know that usually people take the third level for the Starter Pack, but the kit comes with character blanks of the first level, not the third. The adventure was originally designed for the first level. I don't understand how a developer with half a century of experience managed to make such a stupid and ridiculous balance mistake in a beginner adventure.
4 cr 1/4 goblins, makes a 400XP cr 1 encounter. This is rated as deadly, however in this day and age deadly do not means complete party wipe, no you have to preserve the player fragile ego at all cost. In 5E deadly means a character MAY die, most likely because the player is retarded, rarely by bad luck. The 1-3 levels are the "deadliest" as an ogre with a 2H greatsword crit can outright kill a character. Of course there's a few monsters with wrong cr and much harder than they should be, but in overall its rather well balanced.
A deadly encounter when at full ressources is in fact trivial , in 5E you are not supposed to isolate encounters , its more like 2 medium short rest, 2 medium short , 1 hard then long rest for exemple. For veterans, 3X deadly is most often needed to offer a mininum of challenge. No crpg is doing it right neither BG3 nor solasta, thats why people complain about the encounters while in fact they should complain about unlimited rests.

I love the thinking that you have to kill the monsters without any thought to other resolutions in order to gain the XP. It only highlights how inferior Not-D&D is to real D&D.
You are not wrong on this, thats why i use milestones . Every 2 dungeon levels, serious dungeon crawling, or when you reach some point in the story you automatically gain your level. Xp only for combat is retarded, and ancient editions gave at least xp for treasure and at least advised xp for social interactions.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,178
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
You are not wrong on this, thats why i use milestones . Every 2 dungeon levels, serious dungeon crawling, or when you reach some point in the story you automatically gain your level. Xp only for combat is retarded, and ancient editions gave at least xp for treasure and at least advised xp for social interactions.

You mean real D&D used that. AD&D used all types of experience with 2E further expanding it out. You got your experience based upon what you contributed to the game and there wasn't milestones at all. If you survived to the end of the adventure you got the experience. If you died you didn't. If you were incapacitated you got the experience that your character was awake for. That would be a correct assessment on your part.

Real D&D assumed the players were smart and could figure out ways to defeat the obstacles in front of them. That could range from using hirelings with 10 foot poles to move ahead of the party to find any traps in the way to parlaying with the monsters to come to an agreement to get a peaceful resolution. Scouting was also encouraged with the use of hirelings under a Ranger or a Rogue that moved ahead of the party. That was to avoid the encounter entirely. No matter the resolution you still got the xp for it.

Wizards of the Woke really destroyed the You Can Try attitude to the You Can't Do It Because of X.
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,759
The Spell Point System for clerics and wizards was in AD&D 2E Player's Options - Spells & Magic. It may have started in an issue of Dragon before that. Psionics was there as well.
Gary Gygax explicitly condemned spell point systems in Dragon Magazine #16 (July 1978) "From the Sorceror's Scroll":
Spell point systems are also currently in vogue amongst the fringe group which haunt the pages of “Amateur Press Association” publications. Now APAs are generally beneath contempt, for they typify the lowest form of vanity press. There one finds pages and pages of banal chatter and inept writing from persons incapable of creating anything which is publishable elsewhere. Therefore, they pay money to tout their sophomoric ideas, criticise those who are able to write and design, and generally make themselves obnoxious. * While there are notable exceptions, they are far too few to give any merit to the vehicles they appear in. From this morass rose the notion that a spell point system should be inserted into D&D. Strangely enough, “realism” was used as one of the principal reasons for use of spell points. These mutterings are not as widespread as the few proponents of such a system imagine. The D&D magic system is drawn directly from CHAINMAIL. It, in turn, was inspired by the superb writing of Jack Vance. This “Vancian” magic system works splendidly in the game. If it has any fault, it is towards making characters who are magic-users too powerful. This sort of fault is better corrected within the existing framework of the game — by requiring more time to cast spells, by making magic-users progress more slowly in experience levels. Spell points add nothing to D&D except more complication, more record keeping, more wasted time, and a precept which is totally foreign to the rest of the game.

One player (Glen Blacow) at the D&D tournament held at the Origins convention in 1977 has left a reference that they played with spell-casting rules that limited the magic-user (and cleric?) to the number of spells in a spell level prescribed by the standard D&D rules but that it was assumed the magic-user would have access to all spells, which is similar, if not identical, to the rules in "D&D 5th edition" today. This was considered "a cross between straight Gygax and the Mahler system".

4jrx4k.jpg


The "Mahler system" was the creation of Princeton graduate student Howard Mahler, who allotted magic-users a number of spell points equal to their intelligence and assigned spells a number of spell points that increased with spell level but diminished with the level of the caster, e.g. a 1st level spell would cost 8 spell points to cast for a 1st-level magic-user but diminish to 1 point for a magic-user of 8th-level or higher. Magic-users could cast any spell known to them as long as they had sufficient spell points to do so.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,178
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Gary Gygax explicitly condemned spell point systems in Dragon Magazine #16 (July 1978) "From the Sorceror's Scroll":
Spell point systems are also currently in vogue amongst the fringe group which haunt the pages of “Amateur Press Association” publications. Now APAs are generally beneath contempt, for they typify the lowest form of vanity press. There one finds pages and pages of banal chatter and inept writing from persons incapable of creating anything which is publishable elsewhere. Therefore, they pay money to tout their sophomoric ideas, criticise those who are able to write and design, and generally make themselves obnoxious. * While there are notable exceptions, they are far too few to give any merit to the vehicles they appear in. From this morass rose the notion that a spell point system should be inserted into D&D. Strangely enough, “realism” was used as one of the principal reasons for use of spell points. These mutterings are not as widespread as the few proponents of such a system imagine. The D&D magic system is drawn directly from CHAINMAIL. It, in turn, was inspired by the superb writing of Jack Vance. This “Vancian” magic system works splendidly in the game. If it has any fault, it is towards making characters who are magic-users too powerful. This sort of fault is better corrected within the existing framework of the game — by requiring more time to cast spells, by making magic-users progress more slowly in experience levels. Spell points add nothing to D&D except more complication, more record keeping, more wasted time, and a precept which is totally foreign to the rest of the game.

One player (Glen Blacow) at the D&D tournament held at the Origins convention in 1977 has left a reference that they played with spell-casting rules that limited the magic-user (and cleric?) to the number of spells in a spell level prescribed by the standard D&D rules but that it was assumed the magic-user would have access to all spells, which is similar, if not identical, to the rules in "D&D 5th edition" today. This was considered "a cross between straight Gygax and the Mahler system".
4jrx4k.jpg


The "Mahler system" was the creation of Princeton graduate student Howard Mahler, who allotted magic-users a number of spell points equal to their intelligence and assigned spells a number of spell points that increased with spell level but diminished with the level of the caster, e.g. a 1st level spell would cost 8 spell points to cast for a 1st-level magic-user but diminish to 1 point for a magic-user of 8th-level or higher. Magic-users could cast any spell known to them as long as they had sufficient spell points to do so.

Thanks for the information bud. :)

Brave refuses to show images from catbox.moe. Could you please use imagr in the future? :)
 

Easysk

Barely Literate
Joined
Jan 28, 2022
Messages
4
Thanks!

Also the mass produced calculator goes back to 1800s (They'd destroy themselves if you tried to divide by zero and didn't manually shut it off) with some artifacts believed to have once been examples going back even further. It's electronic calculators that are much newer.
I meant electronic calculators, of course. I thought it would be too sarcastic to mention mechanical calculators or things like abacus. :)

The answer is actually really simple: While low level combat is disproportionately lethal in almost any edition, 5E is an inherently broken and shitty system where the very fundamental math is totally non-functional. Until level 17, the random factor (D20's average is 10.5, and the randomness can add or subtract something between 0 and 9.5 to that range) matters more to rolls than your character's skills (+5 at start, +7 at level 5, +9 at level 9, +10 at level 13, +11 at level 17). A DC 15 using your main stat at level 1 is a ~50/50, and at level 5 it's only improved to 60/40. Literally everything in the system comes down to dice roll and a trio of novices will always beat an expert. The caps on attributes and AC actually make this worse and the bad math just totally implodes once you try double digit levels.
Yes, the excessive randomness of the throws also frustrates me. It's a pity that I can't just trust the rules of the most massive TRPG, which, with its history and degree of popularity, seems to be the benchmark of the system.

I suggest you read Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories.
What is meant here? Spells that cost nothing? A system where you have to ask spirits to perform a magical action instead of a magic user can create interesting consequences, especially if you track the relationship of these spirits to the magic user, like hired companions. Interesting.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,178
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Yes, the excessive randomness of the throws also frustrates me. It's a pity that I can't just trust the rules of the most massive TRPG, which, with its history and degree of popularity, seems to be the benchmark of the system.

Wizards of the Woke Not-D&D is not D&D. It has the name, but shares none of what was in OD&D/AD&D. The moment Wizards of the Woke produced Not-D&D 3.x is when D&D died. Monte Cooke who wrote Not-D&D 3.x even stated that his version shared none of what Gary wrote. It's a lot like an apple being called a banana. Just because you call the apple a banana does not make it true.

OD&D/AD&D were always swingy since it's a linear dice mechanic. You have an equal chance to roll any single number on 1d20. One minute you could roll a critical success and the next you got a critical failure. If you want reliability then switch to a bell curve system like GURPS or Hero. That's 3d6 and assumes that your character is competent.

What is meant here? Spells that cost nothing? A system where you have to ask spirits to perform a magical action instead of a magic user can create interesting consequences, especially if you track the relationship of these spirits to the magic user, like hired companions. Interesting.

In Dying Earth, spells are so complex that they take up a good portion of the caster's brain. Once they cast the spell they forget it and have to learn it anew. Hence the name of the Vanican spell system that OD&D/AD&D plus Not-D&D uses.
 

deuxhero

Arcane
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
11,326
Location
Flowery Land
It's not that the dice are linear, it's that 5E's bonuses are so small. In 3E a DC15 the odds for an untrained character with no real knack for the task is 25/75, the odds for some level 1 with basic training and small knack (4 skill points+1 ability mod=+5) is 50/50 but 100% if they aren't under special pressure (take 10), the odds for a level 5 seasoned expert (8 skill points+2 ability mod+3 from skill focus) is 95/5 (and can still take 10 for 100% if not under pressure). 3d6 would actually make 5E worse and the 3E examples better.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,178
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
It's not that the dice are linear, it's that 5E's bonuses are so small. In 3E a DC15 the odds for an untrained character with no real knack for the task is 25/75, the odds for some level 1 with basic training and small knack (4 skill points+1 ability mod=+5) is 50/50 but 100% if they aren't under special pressure (take 10), the odds for a level 5 seasoned expert (8 skill points+2 ability mod+3 from skill focus) is 95/5 (and can still take 10 for 100% if not under pressure). 3d6 would actually make 5E worse and the 3E examples better.

On a 1d20 and the +5 is a 25% chance which is standard going all the way back to OD&D. The dice is 1d20 which makes it linear. The modifiers really do not change that at all. If you want to change it then you need to add more dice.

To show how dumb your argument is using AD&D 2E that the to hit bonus for strength ranged from -5 (Strength 1) up to +7 (Strength 25). Maximum for the standard races is 18 (00) which grants a +3 to hit.
 
Last edited:

deuxhero

Arcane
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
11,326
Location
Flowery Land
That's entirely beside the point. The dice being linear doesn't matter when talking about the final odds on their own, especially not when the linear dice is the same in every example.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,178
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
That's entirely beside the point. The dice being linear doesn't matter when talking about the final odds on their own, especially not when the linear dice is the same in every example.

It actually does. The average roll on 1d20 is 10.5 with a deviation of 5.77. That means that the dice on average can deviate between 4 to 16 with regularity. Each side of the dice is a 5% chance to land on. Anydice backs me up which is an online tool to figure out dice probability.

https://anydice.com/

Maybe you should learn about dice probability before commenting further.
 

deuxhero

Arcane
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
11,326
Location
Flowery Land
That's entirely beside the point. The dice being linear doesn't matter when talking about the final odds on their own, especially not when the linear dice is the same in every example.

It actually does. The average roll on 1d20 is 10.5 with a deviation of 5.77. That means that the dice on average can deviate between 4 to 16 with regularity. Each side of the dice is a 5% chance to land on. Anydice backs me up which is an online tool to figure out dice probability.

https://anydice.com/

Maybe you should learn about dice probability before commenting further.

The thing you're missing is that is 100% irrelevant because the comparison was between 5e and 3e, both of which use 1d20 for everything except damage and very small things (what direction a grenade misses in). It doesn't matter what 3d6 or some other set of dice will do because it's a comparison of two 1d20 based systems.
 

Morblot

Aberrant Member | Star Trek V Apologist
Patron
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
2,288
Location
Finland
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Kevin Crawford's Stars Without Number -- and, I assume, its fantasy spinoff Worlds Without Number -- use a hybrid system where you use the d20 in combat but 2d6 when doing skill checks. AFAIK the point is to make combat more chaotic and unpredictable than engaging in more mundane affairs such as playing doctor or trying to persuade someone. It's a good system, well worth checking out, and there are free versions available on DriveThru.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,178
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
That's entirely beside the point. The dice being linear doesn't matter when talking about the final odds on their own, especially not when the linear dice is the same in every example.

It actually does. The average roll on 1d20 is 10.5 with a deviation of 5.77. That means that the dice on average can deviate between 4 to 16 with regularity. Each side of the dice is a 5% chance to land on. Anydice backs me up which is an online tool to figure out dice probability.

https://anydice.com/

Maybe you should learn about dice probability before commenting further.

The thing you're missing is that is 100% irrelevant because the comparison was between 5e and 3e, both of which use 1d20 for everything except damage and very small things (what direction a grenade misses in). It doesn't matter what 3d6 or some other set of dice will do because it's a comparison of two 1d20 based systems.

deuxhero stop being a moron. Literally just stop. You replied to me that the 1d20 wasn't the problem for the game being swingy. I kicked your ass with actual dice probability that backed up my original statement. The point, retard, with the 3d6 bell curve is that you get less swingyness in the rolls. That's because bell curves have the dice fall within a certain parameter to allow for more successes. That's what my entire statement said. Let me refresh your memory of the statement that you went, "Nuhuh".

OD&D/AD&D were always swingy since it's a linear dice mechanic. You have an equal chance to roll any single number on 1d20. One minute you could roll a critical success and the next you got a critical failure. If you want reliability then switch to a bell curve system like GURPS or Hero. That's 3d6 and assumes that your character is competent.

In GURPS/Hero it's a roll under system with the beginning skills starting a 8 or less for success for familiarity. That translates to success on a 3d6 roll that you will succeed 25.92% of the time. Skills that are trained are Stat/5+9, so a character with Acrobatics and have a Dexterity of 18 will have 18/5 + 9 = 13 or less to succeed. That means that you will succeed 72.21% of the time. As you can see Oh Mighty Dumbfuck Retard that a 3d6 does have better reliability for players to succeed in their rolls as there is less swingyness. That's because the average roll is 10.5 with a deviation of 2.96. That's without any modifiers applied to the roll.

Now 1d20 is a flat 5% to hit any number. You can hit a 1 two times in a row then hit a 19 or any other number at an equal chance. There is no reliability.

Like I said you better know dice probability because you're looking like a total fucking moronic retard here.
 

MartinK

Learned
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
Messages
178
D&D is so shit it causes brain damage. Healthy normal human would never accept the retardation of class and level system. Worried about the rise of LGBT+ SJW genrefluid freaks? They were healthy normal kids once but then they were exposed to D&Disms via CRPGs. The culture wars as well as economic instability, collapse of family and decline of middle class and most other social ills can all be traced to D&D. Gygax was the worst villain in recent history.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom