Game News HELL FREEZES OVER! ToEE patch #2 released!

[taks]

most of the disagreements i have with 3.5E stem from the fact that i grew up on 2E but never became an "expert." as a result, i mostly remember the fun i had 20 years ago playing 2E D&D so the 3/3.5E changes seemed an affront to my memory...

taks

 

[Snuffles]

There was a two handed holy hammer in one of the nodes, give it to your strongest paladin, use the rest as bait, let him/her destroy the enemy.

 

[Voss]

There are many things with 3.5 that appears to be a lot better than 2nd ed. I've played 3.5 for a few tabletop sessions and I've found it to be a pretty damn good system. Runs pretty neat. This, I suppose, wasn't always the case with 2nd ed.

If by 'wasn't always' you mean rarely, then I'd agree. 3.5 is a lot cleaner and consistent. Tracking all the potential combat modifiers on the fly can still be a bit of a headache, and the overstress on levels and equipment is still there, but on the whole it works better than it did.

 

[Spazmo]

2nd Ed. was really quite ass. The rules were completely inconsistent and usually unintuitive. People only remember it fondly because they'd have fun playing well written adventures and generally having fun with friends. Third Edition is simply a smoother, better game, even if the heaps of modifiers can be tricky to keep track of.

 

[Elwro]

You guys are talking both about 3,5 and 3rd editions. Is the former an improvement over the latter? I only own the 3rd edition (and I don't plan to buy any new DnD books in a few years) and it is imo really better than the 2nd edition. I got used to THAC0 and stuff, but the new system is just a bit more reasonable and intuitive.

 

[taks]

you can download all the 3.5 upgrades to 3.0 at the WotC site... no need to repurchase any books.

taks

 

[Spazmo]

Well... yeah. 3.5 is essentially a big patch for 3E. The changes it makes are generally good. The only ones I don't like--the changes to damage reduction and weapon sizes, which I feel are unnecessary and even confusing--can be houseruled out.

 

[Voss]

Overall, 3.5 was a good change, I think. The ranger & barbarian got tweaked into full classes in their own right rather than also rans, and the way the monk was changed makes it a hell of a lot simpler. Wizard is still the no brainer choice over sorcerer though, especially when you consider how much item creation can give you. Which is a shame, since sorcerers are neat in concept...

I actually like the changes to DR and weapon size. I was rather 'meh' on the latter until I actually ran a halfling character... have a full range of weapons was nice. DR seems a lot more flavorful. The broad categories allow you to give things a bit more character cold iron & fey, holy vs demons, etc feels a lot better than +2/+3, etc... and scaling the numbers down makes it feel like a disadvantage but not crippling if you don't have the right property on your toys.

It does feel more like a patch than a major change though... much like the change from 1st to 2nd which felt like a consolidation & tidying then a real change to the game.

 

[Elwro]

you can download all the 3.5 upgrades to 3.0 at the WotC site... no need to repurchase any books.

I know. I was hoping someone actually tried to play using them.

Thanks, Spazmo & Voss!

 

[Sol Invictus]

Sorcerers are only good as damage dealers and nothing else. Consider them a viable replacement to any Barbarian you might have in your party. I wouldn't replace a Fighter with a Sorcerer, though, because of the sheer number of things you can do with one, especially at Epic levels.

 

[taks]

i've never gotten used to the idea of a spell caster based on charisma... of all things. "i'm pretty so i get to BLAST YOU TO HELL WITH A FIREBALL!!!" somehow, that just doesn't seem 'right' to me. arcane spell casters are SUPPOSED to be nerdy, wimpy, ugly, never see the sun geeks that can light up a room with their spells, not their charming personalities

taks

 

[suibhne]

i've never gotten used to the idea of a spell caster based on charisma... of all things. "i'm pretty so i get to BLAST YOU TO HELL WITH A FIREBALL!!!" somehow, that just doesn't seem 'right' to me. arcane spell casters are SUPPOSED to be nerdy, wimpy, ugly, never see the sun geeks that can light up a room with their spells, not their charming personalities

I get the incongruity, and I also find it rather amusing. But I don't think it's any less logical than clerical powers relying on CH; in both cases, the emphasis is on the cerebral rather than the physical aspect of CH.

Sean Reynolds' house ruled Sorceror is a big improvement, in my view: he gives the Sorceror an equal number of bonus feats as the Wizard, I think, but dedicates the Sorceror to metamagic feats while the Wizard concentrates on item creation feats.

 

[Ulrich]

Hi taks, it's great seeing other Atari forumers here. Just registered here so I can join in the discussions on DnD.

I believe Charisma is more a Mental Attribute (such as Intelligence and Wisdom) as opposed to a Physical Attribute (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution).Actually charisma is not (simply?) a measure of physical beauty, it (also?) refers to a person's force of personality, personal magnetism...

Charming (Charismatic?) people aren't necessarily pretty or handsome, although it helps. They just have a way wth people, with words, perhaps because they are sure and confident of themselves(?) and hence exert a stronger influence on others, are more convincing, have more friends, able to do thiings with greater gusto?

I don't know if I should continue....just thought I'd say what I know... Hope it helps, unless you were just having fun with your previous post and weren't really asking a question

 

[Dark Elf]

I think the official descriptions describe sorcerors as using the powers within or somesuch, charisma being a measure of "inner power" as well as prettiness, although the emphasis is heavily scaled on the mental bit. Some might think that that lacks logical credibility, but then again, magic has always been intended to oppose logic.

 

[Voss]

Charisma has little to do with looks, anyway.
Consider the memorable leaders of the twentieth century. Most of them could be considered 'plain' at best. It was more their way with people, force of personality, things like that.

And considering that it comes from the Greek word, Kharisma (Divine Gift), it really does fit well.

Its just that hordes of D&D-lings got confused and decided charisma = looks.

 

[taks]

one of the most charismatic speakers of our time was bill clinton and he's by no means good looking...

yeah, i understand all that about charisma coming from some inner power, but i just don't like it. i'm a traditionalist when it comes to my fantasy. sorcerors were just another branch of magicians, no different, really, just concentrated on different type spells (similar to the schools of magic).

oh, the same goes for CH based clerical powers, WTF!!! i'm a little more forgiving for the paladin skills... though i rarely play paladins.

taks

 

[taks]

And considering that it comes from the Greek word, Kharisma (Divine Gift), it really does fit well.

i wonder then, about the term karma (kharma sometimes)...

i'd buy that definition as the reasoning, but divine gift should imply divine spell casting, not arcane... perhaps then, too, that clerics should be based ENTIRELY off of charisma for their spells... hmmm... then wisdom would kinda take a back seat except for maybe druids and rangers?... i could definitely see giving more focus on wisdon to those characters and less to clerics. of course, clerics are supposed to be wise clergy...

really, none of it makes sense other than INT for wizards and STR for fighters... *sigh*

taks

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

You know, 2d6 is really different than a hypothetical 1d11+1 in terms of probability.

I'm not so sure.

The mean of 2d6 is 3.5 * 2 = 7.
The mean of 1d11+1 is 6 + 1 = 7.

The standard deviation for both is the same.

 

[Transcendent One]

2d6 is more likely to generate the more "in the middle" numbers since the resulting number is actually the sum of the values of two die, which means a same number can be generated in more than one way. On the other hand 1d11+1would have the same probability 1/11 for each of the numbers 2-12 unless the die are loaded or something.

 

[Sol Invictus]

The average for 1d11+1 is indeed 7, but you're definitely going to get higher averages with the 2d6 die. I did some calculations with an online die ( http://www.irony.com/igroll.html ) and these were the results:

1d12
Roll 1: 9.
Roll 2: 7.
Roll 3: 8.
Roll 4: 3.
Roll 5: 2.
Roll 6: 5.
Roll 7: 8.
Roll 8: 6.
Roll 9: 3.
Roll 10: 10.

2d6
Roll 1: 5, 3 = 8.
Roll 2: 6, 3 = 9.
Roll 3: 4, 2 = 6.
Roll 4: 3, 2 = 5.
Roll 5: 1, 4 = 5.
Roll 6: 1, 6 = 7.
Roll 7: 3, 1 = 4.
Roll 8: 5, 3 = 8.
Roll 9: 2, 6 = 8.
Roll 10: 4, 3 = 7.

The 1d12 (1d11+1) roll managed to attain the lower scores such as 2, 3 and 3. The 2d6 roll's lowest number was a 4.

Total Scores:
1d12 : 51 after 10 rolls
2d6 : 60 after 10 rolls

Multiply that by 10 more combat encounters and you'll have a gigantic difference.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

2d6 is more likely to generate the more "in the middle" numbers since the resulting number is actually the sum of the values of two die, which means a same number can be generated in more than one way. On the other hand 1d11+1would have the same probability 1/11 for each of the numbers 2-12 unless the die are loaded or something.

You have two even spreads versus one even spread. The odds of rolling a 1 on a d6 are 1/6 each time, so saying it's more likely to generate less distribution isn't accurate, I don't think. After all, if the means are the same, and the set range is the same, the standard deviation is the same.

Total Scores:
1d12 : 51 after 10 rolls
2d6 : 60 after 10 rolls

Multiply that by 10 more combat encounters and you'll have a gigantic difference.

Two replies:

1.) Yeah, ten rolls is a HUGE population, very statistically sound. Good job there, I'm eating so much crow.

2.) The mean of 1d12 is 6.5, so NO SHIT you're going to have lower results. We're talking 1-11 + 1.

 

[taks]

You know, 2d6 is really different than a hypothetical 1d11+1 in terms of probability.

I'm not so sure.

The mean of 2d6 is 3.5 * 2 = 7.
The mean of 1d11+1 is 6 + 1 = 7.

The standard deviation for both is the same.

statistically, here it is S_P.... d11 + 1 is a uniform random variable where EACH roll from 2 to 12 has the same chance of appearing: 1/11. 2d6 actually represents the convolution of two uniform random variables and the probabilities of each are (for the numbers 2 through 12): 1/36 2/36 3/36 4/36 5/36 6/36 5/36 4/36 3/36 2/36 1/36. though both cases have the same mean, and median, it's obvious they don't have a similar distribution (2 and 12 both only have a 1/36 chance of being rolled in the latter while they both have a 1/11 chance in the former case). the latter case, btw, is called a triangle distribution. if you convolve enough uniform distributions together, you end up with a gaussian distribution (12 is a pretty good approximation).

if you'd like a mathematical breakdown... i can provide one.

taks

 

[taks]

ooops... never mind. didn't fully read the post...

taks

 

[taks]

You have two even spreads versus one even spread. The odds of rolling a 1 on a d6 are 1/6 each time, so saying it's more likely to generate less distribution isn't accurate, I don't think. After all, if the means are the same, and the set range is the same, the standard deviation is the same.

no, it's not. you have to weight each sample minus the mean with the probability of it occuring... the std deviation is then...


sqrt(sum from i = 1 to N of ((x_i - mean)*prob_i)^2))

taks

 

[Elwro]

Yeah, that's what I meant. If you need those 12s, go with d12 rather than 2d6. The posibility of rolling 12 is 3 times higher. And in games it usually doesn't matter that the probability of rolling 2 is also 3 times higher.