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

[Anonymous]

I always prefered 2d6 over 1d12, because 2d6 tends to average out more (cant go below two, but 1d12 can). So with bad luck, you can still squeeze a bit more out with 2d6, I guess. 1d12 has a probablity for doing higher easier, but it can also fall lower easier too? I dunno..

 

[Elwro]

Man, there's no probabilistic difference between one side of a die and another. You can rename "1" with "12" and probabilities stay the same.

 

[Ausir]

The more dice you use, the more average results you get.

 

[MrBrown]

While 1d12 and 2d6 indeed are different, the difference is so minimal that it really doesn't matter which you use...

Now, for the next assignment in your homework, which is better, 2d4 20/x4 or 2d6 19-20/x2 ?


A few replies to various things in this thread:

@ DarkUnderLord doesn't want to learn the rules: I think D&D 3(.5) as a whole is too complicated for CRPGs, which usually have alot less stuff to learn and where combat goes alot faster. One reason I wasn't too fond of the idea of making a CRPG implementation as close as possible to PnP.

@ Bows in ToEE suck: Besides not having Mighty bows, another issue is that there just is no long range in the game. I haven't played it through completely, but did anyone ran into a battle where it took more than 1 round for the enemies to get next to your characters?


Also, haven't tried it myself but if ToEE is any close to other D&D games, just make a party full of Half-Orc Barbarians with maxed out Str (20) and give them 2-handers. Shouldn't have much of problems with that.

 

[suibhne]

@ Bows in ToEE suck: Besides not having Mighty bows, another issue is that there just is no long range in the game. I haven't played it through completely, but did anyone ran into a battle where it took more than 1 round for the enemies to get next to your characters?

Bows don't work well if they're intended to be your first attack before closing to melee range. +3 enchanted bows still work nicely, though, if you're using an archer character to fire into melee once it's already begun (which works pretty well if you have the necessary feats). And archers have much more tactical flexibility - for interrupting spellcasters, e.g., or any other time when you might want to attack someone farther than 5 ft. away.

With 3 attacks/round (using Rapid Shot), you can get good damage - not as much as a barb wading into the fray with greatsword a-swinging, but quite respectable and quite useful.

In other words, it's no longer viable to have everyone in the party doubling as a ranged attacker, a la Baldur's Gate. It's still very viable to build a character dedicated primarily to archery, however.

Also, haven't tried it myself but if ToEE is any close to other D&D games, just make a party full of Half-Orc Barbarians with maxed out Str (20) and give them 2-handers. Shouldn't have much of problems with that.

That party would have pathetically low Will saves. There aren't too many enemy spellcasters in the game, but at least some of them would totally wipe the floor with a party of 5 barbs.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

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.

Nope, no need for further explanation. You multiply the probabilities when you have two sets, even though each one has a linear distribution per each roll, the odds change when you factor them both. You end up with a bell curve for the 2d6 instead of a line.for the 1d11+1.

Never was a huge fan of statistics.

 

[taks]

hehe, my career is 100% based on statistics... fortunately, i think i'm done with statistics based classes...

taks

 

[taks]

While 1d12 and 2d6 indeed are different, the difference is so minimal that it really doesn't matter which you use...

Now, for the next assignment in your homework, which is better, 2d4 20/x4 or 2d6 19-20/x2 ?

not in the short term. in the long term, however, even d11 + 1 BECOMES a normal (gaussian) distribution... it just takes several hit die to start the approximation (nearly 12). you get there after 5 or 6 rolls with the 2d6.

2d6 19-20/x2 is better... larger average damage w/o critical, easier critical AND, once you do score a crit, 4-24 damage as opposed to 8-16...

taks

 

[Elwro]

not in the short term. in the long term, however, even d11 + 1 BECOMES a normal (gaussian) distribution... it just takes several hit die to start the approximation

I don't understand. Are you saying that in the long run the number of 7s rolled on a d12 is really higher than the number of 12s? But suppose someone changed the sides' labels before throwing. The distribution would change a lot - so I must somehow misunderstand you.

Maybe you meant that if we added each score to others, after some time the difference wouldn't be so great?

I meant that if a monster has a DR which is difficult to break through, it's better to take 1dx than 2d(x/2).

 

[taks]

I don't understand. Are you saying that in the long run the number of 7s rolled on a d12 is really higher than the number of 12s? But suppose someone changed the sides' labels before throwing. The distribution would change a lot - so I must somehow misunderstand you.

Maybe you meant that if we added each score to others, after some time the difference wouldn't be so great?

I meant that if a monster has a DR which is difficult to break through, it's better to take 1dx than 2d(x/2).

no, what i'm saying is that after several rolls, d11 + 1 starts to resemble a normal distribution... the difference will always be the +1, however.

the individual die rolls don't really mean anything, it's how likely each # is. for example, after one roll of a d11 + 1 (i know, a d11 is actually an unrealistic die, that's just our example) we have an equal probability of each roll from 2 through 12. HOWEVER, after 2 rolls, things get funny and start to resemble the 2d6 case (though the numbers are a bit different). two rolls of the d11 + 1 is a triangle distribution of values from 4 through 24 (2d6 is triangle from 2 to 12) with probabilities of 1/121, 2/121, ... 10/121, 11/121, 10/121, ... 1/121 (for the values 4, 5,... 13, 14, 15,... 24 respectively). each time you roll a uniform die and add the results (as in the case of hit dice), your outcome gets closer and closer to the normal distribution (a bell curve) as far as probabilities.

i did some plots and after 12 rolls of each, the outcome probabilities look "similar" though not yet equal... in the 2d6 case, you're still much more likely to have a middle of the road value (after 12 rolls, the mean is 84... the odds of getting an 84 in the 2d6 case are 0.047 vs. 0.036 in the d11 + 1 case...)

damn i'm bored...

taks

 

[taks]

I meant that if a monster has a DR which is difficult to break through, it's better to take 1dx than 2d(x/2).

yes, because your minimum roll is possibly guaranteed to break through... i gotcha...

taks

 

[Country_Gravy]

From too many hours at the craps table, I definately know that a seven comes up more often than any other number on 2d6. It has the greatest number of combinations to hit. It seems that with 1d11 +1, the odds of getting any number from 2-12 is the same for every roll of the die, so the odd can't be the same, or even similar to the 2d6, can they?

 

[taks]

read through all my breakdowns... but yes, treating each roll separately, 2d6 favors a 7 and d11+1 favors nothing. it's only in multiple rolls cases added together when the odds start to look similar.

oh, btw, to get percentages from my odds above, multiply by 100, i.e. 0.047 is 4.7%.

taks

 

[Voss]

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

karma is from a different culture and (I think) language family. No relation, just reuses of the limited set of syllables available to the human vocal range. It doesn't have any more meaning than the fact the Welsh, Japanese and Jews use 'Oi!' as an exclamation of surprise/getting someones attention.

As for the second... you're reading too much into it. The point is, check the dictionary- its force of personality more than looks, so it works fine as a stat for innate spellcasting and turning undead.

And for various reasons int for wizards and str for fighters doesn't necessarily 'make sense'. It depends how you're justifying the system and what kind of fighter you're shooting for.

 

[Sol Invictus]

It's the same with Chinese dialects too, Voss. Oi! is used as an exclamation of getting attention.

 

[Elwro]

Thx, taks, I gotcha - if you mean adding the results than of course you're right.

 

[MrBrown]

Bows don't work well if they're intended to be your first attack before closing to melee range. +3 enchanted bows still work nicely, though, if you're using an archer character to fire into melee once it's already begun (which works pretty well if you have the necessary feats). And archers have much more tactical flexibility - for interrupting spellcasters, e.g., or any other time when you might want to attack someone farther than 5 ft. away.

I think my point was more on the lines, not as good as in PnP. I agree with all your points, though.

In other words, it's no longer viable to have everyone in the party doubling as a ranged attacker, a la Baldur's Gate. It's still very viable to build a character dedicated primarily to archery, however.

Weren't they powerful in BG1 because composite longbows were +1 to attack and +2 to damage or something? I've forgotten how it exactly was.

That party would have pathetically low Will saves. There aren't too many enemy spellcasters in the game, but at least some of them would totally wipe the floor with a party of 5 barbs.

Not any more lower than any warrior character, and a few points of Wis over 10 and the Great Will feat take care of it pretty well. The Will saves are the weak point, but unless the enemy mage(s) can deal can deal with the whole party in a few rounds with those spells, it won't help. If you haven't tried it, this kind of party works surprisingly well.

 

[Elwro]

Weren't they powerful in BG1 because composite longbows were +1 to attack and +2 to damage or something? I've forgotten how it exactly was.

Iirc the main factor was that Kivan or another master could fire 3 times a round.

 

[MrBrown]

Now, for the next assignment in your homework, which is better, 2d4 20/x4 or 2d6 19-20/x2 ?

2d6 19-20/x2 is better... larger average damage w/o critical, easier critical AND, once you do score a crit, 4-24 damage as opposed to 8-16...

Actually, it depends on how much your damage bonus is. Because the damage multiplier is higher on 20/x4, the damage bonus over the base damage dice gets multiplied more.... Meaning, at some value of X in 2d4+X 20/x4 and 2d6+X 19-20/x2 the average damage of the first weapon becomes higher. I remember doing the math once, and IIRC at a to-hit chance of 50% X was 19 or so. Critical hit damage and probability improving abilities make the 2d4 weapon better, while non-multipliable bonus damage (sneak attacks, extra damage dice from magical enhancements etc.) makes the 2d6 one better. Of course, there are also crit immune creatures...

Naturally, this is only considering average damage. 1d8 20/x3 and 1d8 19-20/x2 (battleaxe and longsword) have the exact same average damage also when taking criticals into account, unless the to-hit chance is only 5% (at a roll of 20). As such, it's only up to personal preference which to use.

BTW, 2d4 18-20/x2 and 2d4 20/x4 also have the same average damage.

 

[taks]

As for the second... you're reading too much into it. The point is, check the dictionary- its force of personality more than looks, so it works fine as a stat for innate spellcasting and turning undead.

hehe, i don't care too much about the dictionary definition... the "definition" wasn't really my point. i'm basing my opinions on the original D&D which did not have nearly as much emphasis on charisma. particularly arcane spell casting.

And for various reasons int for wizards and str for fighters doesn't necessarily 'make sense'. It depends how you're justifying the system and what kind of fighter you're shooting for.

i don't agree with that at all. wizardry is about intelligence. the old wizards locked away in their laboratory studying, memorizing, learning. the original 'magicians' in the real-world even were nothing more than modern day scientists. they just had to disguise themselves under the cloak of 'magic' since most people didn't understand science.

remember, too, that i've stated countless times (not just in this thread) that i like my fantasy rpg stuff in a truly stereotypical manner. strong, dumb fighters, stealthy quick thieves (rogues, WTF???), intelligent, arrogant wizards, etc... that's just my viewpoint, nothing other than a subjective opinion.

taks

 

[taks]

...

true... i neglected that difference. i suppose if you were (2d4 + 8)*4 = 40-64 vs. (2d6 + 8)*2 = 20-40 you suddenly have a MAJOR advangate with the 2d4 case...

taks

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

hehe, i don't care too much about the dictionary definition... the "definition" wasn't really my point. i'm basing my opinions on the original D&D which did not have nearly as much emphasis on charisma. particularly arcane spell casting.

I think the reason they decided on Charisma is because there's just not a lot of stuff that actually uses that statistic in D&D. There's not a rational reason why they used it for Sorcs, it's just an unused stat for the most part. Really, only Clerics, Paladins, and Bards used it versus what classes rely on the other stats.

 

[taks]

that's what i was thinking... it's a useful stat, just wasn't high on a prime requisite list prior to the sorceror.

i tend to make my clerics chicks, so i don't mind the high charisma + beautiful hotty sticking her hands on me for "healing" anyway...

taks

 

[taks]

ok, waaaaaaaay too much geekiness, but i ran a simulation out of boredom. the results surprised me.

if you take 2d6 rolls compared to d11 + 1 (i can use anything but this was our example) and compare their distributions, they start to equal out when the d11+1 case has 1 roll to 1.7122 rolls for the 2d6 case... the more times you roll, the closer their distributions get to "equal". i expected the rolls ratio to be the other way. for example, if you roll 2d6 1000 times, the distribution of numbers will look just like rolling d11+1 584 times... with one exception... the 2d6 case has more rolls, and therefore more possible outcomes (10001 vs. 5841). these "tails" as they are called, have such a low probability of occurence i just eliminated them in order to make the comparison easy... given the average sum of 7000, the odds of rolling a 4605 are already only 1 in a million... by the time you get to 4000, the odds are on the order of 10^-35... oh, the odds of 7000 even are just over 1/2%...

ok, nuff of the statistics... i just thought it was cool

taks

 

[suibhne]

I think the reason they decided on Charisma is because there's just not a lot of stuff that actually uses that statistic in D&D. There's not a rational reason why they used it for Sorcs, it's just an unused stat for the most part. Really, only Clerics, Paladins, and Bards used it versus what classes rely on the other stats.

I think I disagree with you, Saint, though maybe I haven't quite made up my mind.

Among all D&D stats, CH comes the closest to representing "force of character." It seems to capture physical attractiveness, but also leadership potential, influence, etc. With that in mind, it makes sense (I think) that an intuitive mage - i.e., one with a natural (vs. learned) affinity for magic - would rely more on character than on book-larnin'.

To me, the real problem here is that D&D's stats, though venerable, basically suck. Arcanum's breakdown is much more logical, I think.