New exclusive The Black Hound info released!

[OSK]

yeah.... yeah... and probably a ton of other shit too.

but i just cant shake the feeling we would have a much bigger and healthier mod scene if those people could actually have a chance of earning ... anything.
(yes...experience, knowledge and all that is good but doesnt hold moders together)

I'm sure he wouldn't turn down donations after the game is completed.

 

[hiver]

Lets stop spamming mr Sawyer thread with unrelated garble.

 

[Hero Protagonist]

longsword 2d5

There's no 5-sided die in D&D!

Use a d10, broseph.

Okay, I am interested... what formula are you using to equate 2d5 with 1d10? It can't be simply 1d10, as that range is 1-10. It can't be 1d10+1, as that range is 2-11. It seems rather silly to create a [complex] formula for this, so I can only assume that you're not... Are you simply ignoring the details and asserting that 2d5 is the same as 1d10?

*Shrugs*

Just something that struck me as an odd throw-away remark.

P.S. I'd probably go with (1d6)+(1d4), I guess.

 

[Crichton]

This has nothing to do with the topic, but I'm pretty sure he meant "use one d10 in place of one d5" as in, roll the d10 and divide by two rounding up. Then use two halved d10 rolls for 2d5; see, not complicated.

 

[Balthamael]

Okay, I am interested... what formula are you using to equate 2d5 with 1d10? It can't be simply 1d10, as that range is 1-10. It can't be 1d10+1, as that range is 2-11. It seems rather silly to create a [complex] formula for this, so I can only assume that you're not... Are you simply ignoring the details and asserting that 2d5 is the same as 1d10?

*Shrugs*

Just something that struck me as an odd throw-away remark.

P.S. I'd probably go with (1d6)+(1d4), I guess.

I think 1d10 will serve as 1d5 if you divide by two and round up.

 

[Pastel]

Okay, I am interested... what formula are you using to equate 2d5 with 1d10? It can't be simply 1d10, as that range is 1-10. It can't be 1d10+1, as that range is 2-11. It seems rather silly to create a [complex] formula for this, so I can only assume that you're not... Are you simply ignoring the details and asserting that 2d5 is the same as 1d10?

ITT we fail at basic algorithms.
Either Crichton's method or x-5 if x>5.

 

[JrK]

Okay, I am interested... what formula are you using to equate 2d5 with 1d10? It can't be simply 1d10, as that range is 1-10. It can't be 1d10+1, as that range is 2-11. It seems rather silly to create a [complex] formula for this, so I can only assume that you're not... Are you simply ignoring the details and asserting that 2d5 is the same as 1d10?

2d(10 / 2 rounded up.)

 

[Hero Protagonist]

How does the math involved in a project not have to do with the project? Nevermind.

Give me whole numbers or give me death. Transparent systems are superior as far as I am concerned.

 

[Hero Protagonist]

Okay, I am interested... what formula are you using to equate 2d5 with 1d10? It can't be simply 1d10, as that range is 1-10. It can't be 1d10+1, as that range is 2-11. It seems rather silly to create a [complex] formula for this, so I can only assume that you're not... Are you simply ignoring the details and asserting that 2d5 is the same as 1d10?

ITT we fail at basic algorithms.
Either Crichton's method or x-5 if x>5.

I'd thought of the division method, I am not a fan of rounding. I was asking how HE would handle it, not what the possible methods are.

However, I didn't think of the the latter method, and I think I would prefer that.

 

[serch]

He is doing this for computers, you can have d5s in these evil machines with equal probabilities for each value, seriously guyz.

 

[Nathaniel Chapman]

Okay, I am interested... what formula are you using to equate 2d5 with 1d10? It can't be simply 1d10, as that range is 1-10. It can't be 1d10+1, as that range is 2-11. It seems rather silly to create a [complex] formula for this, so I can only assume that you're not... Are you simply ignoring the details and asserting that 2d5 is the same as 1d10?

ITT we fail at basic algorithms.
Either Crichton's method or x-5 if x>5.

I'd thought of the division method, I am not a fan of rounding. I was asking how HE would handle it, not what the possible methods are.

However, I didn't think of the the latter method, and I think I would prefer that.

You are not a fan of rounding? Why, did you get rounded off as a child? That seems a bizarre prejudice...

All that matters is that your algorithm generates a value from 1-5 and is equally likely to select any given value.

Really the best way to simulate a dX roll on a die that is Y sides, where Y is a multiple of X, is to take your roll on the dY and modulo by X (eg, on a d10 simulating a d5 divide by five and take the remainder). Add 1. The result is the value you want.

For instance,

roll = rand(10)
value = (roll % 5) + 1

This is exactly the same as dividing a d10 roll by 2 and rounding, or as subtracting 5 if the result is greater than 5. They are all 100% equivalent and give the exact same results.

 

[kris]

I'd thought of the division method, I am not a fan of rounding. I was asking how HE would handle it, not what the possible methods are.

I usually counted 1-5 is that and 6-10 as 1-5 again. 6 is 1 etc... Not that I used D5 much.

 

[Shannow]

So you keep the AC bonus and add a damage reduction bonus? I always agreed with the damage reduction but since AC always stood for difficulty to hit, it never made sense that heavy armour gives any AC bonuses. But then, instead of trying to shoe-horn d&d into something that makes sense, I'd have developed/used an entirely different system...
So don't mind me and carry on

 

[JrK]

since AC always stood for difficulty to hit

Except that it stands for difficulty to get wounded, hence armor giving an AC bonus. (thicker armor = less wounds)

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

So you keep the AC bonus and add a damage reduction bonus?

No. Armor will not grant AC bonuses. Also, the BAB tables will be revised.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

So you keep the AC bonus and add a damage reduction bonus?

No. Armor will not grant AC bonuses. Also, the BAB tables will be revised.

Can we get any details?

 

[Shannow]

since AC always stood for difficulty to hit

Except that it stands for difficulty to get wounded, hence armor giving an AC bonus. (thicker armor = less wounds)

Thicker armour = easier to hit = more damage reduction if hit = smaller wounds

makes more sense than

more dex = better evasion = better AC = better armour = better AC = less chance to get hit != less wounds if hit

I realize that AC granted by armour is supposed to simulate weapons harmlessly glancing off the armour. The "problem" always was that that wasn't the way it worked (it made you harder to hit, not to wound if hit) and that all sources of AC were lumped together thus making even less sense. Now D&D almost in its entirety uses rules that are unrealistic/don't make sense. But it is an easy system for table-top players to handle. I just wish a few more devs used different rules for cRPGs, either for variation's or for realism's sake.
That Josh is changing some of the rules (that bother me the most ) is nice to hear, although it's still the NWN2-engine...
Ah well, you can't have everything.

Good luck

 

[LeStryfe79]

Universal bonuses for gaining levels are horsepussy. This is especially true in 4th edition. When everyone and every challenge gains the same bonuses, they cancel each other out. The only thing universal bonuses do is increase the amount of math involved.

 

[Warden]

No. Armor will not grant AC bonuses. Also, the BAB tables will be revised.

I suggest creatures/players getting +1 dodge bonus for every 2 BAB instead.

 

[1eyedking]

longsword 2d5

There's no 5-sided die in D&D!

Use a d10, broseph.

Okay, I am interested... what formula are you using to equate 2d5 with 1d10? It can't be simply 1d10, as that range is 1-10. It can't be 1d10+1, as that range is 2-11. It seems rather silly to create a [complex] formula for this, so I can only assume that you're not... Are you simply ignoring the details and asserting that 2d5 is the same as 1d10?

*Shrugs*

Just something that struck me as an odd throw-away remark.

P.S. I'd probably go with (1d6)+(1d4), I guess.

ITT we fail at basic algorithms.
Either Crichton's method or x-5 if x>5.

Rather, ITT we fail at basic probability.

A 1d6+1d4 combo has a different probability bell curve (slightly flatter) than a 2d5. For example, the chance of scoring a 10 in the latter is 1/5*1/5=1/25, whereas in the first one the chance is 1/6*1/4=1/24.

The only way to properly emulate a 2d5 is a 1d10 divided by 2, rounded up (or x-5 if x>5 as pointed out), rolled twice and added.

 

[Andrej]

Hümmelgümpf: I wrote a little bit about needing to revise BAB at the development blog. Clicky!

Of course, those aren't details, but perhaps one of the reasons to revise BAB in the DR system.

 

[JrK]

No. Armor will not grant AC bonuses. Also, the BAB tables will be revised.

Now that you're revising stuff, how about adapting single-use abilities to the real time engine? Things like Smite Evil have been useless in NWN2 since you'll be having lots of combats and the ability to do a little more damage and a slightly larger chance at hitting once per rest was kind of redundant. I'm thinking along the lines of changing stuff like Smites, Divine Might, Doomguide's Ghost Touch ability etc into cooldown buttons, once per minute(battle) or so.

 

[Crichton]

Now that you're revising stuff, how about adapting single-use abilities to the real time engine? Things like Smite Evil have been useless in NWN2 since you'll be having lots of combats and the ability to do a little more damage and a slightly larger chance at hitting once per rest was kind of redundant. I'm thinking along the lines of changing stuff like Smites, Divine Might, Doomguide's Ghost Touch ability etc into cooldown buttons, once per minute(battle) or so.

Without putting too fine a point on it; this doesn't make any sense. Real time / Turn Based has absolutely nothing to do with how many times you can use an ability before resting. D&D has loads of abilities like this, including all spell slots and it has them for a reason. It's what makes special abilities, well, special. Unlike say weapon specialization or power attack. If you want more smiting, take the extra smiting feat.

 

[JrK]

I do think it has a difference: turn based battles are more tactical and thus allow for a smart use of abilities when necessary. That doesn't go when you are in real time. Plus the increase in amount of battles in a cRPG compared to pnp (for which those type of abilities are designed!). Because of both reasons people end up never using those type of abilities because they are either not worth it or saved for a battle that doesn't come.

Then again, I imagine if there are fewer battles and those battles are actually challenging, then smiting will be used, but I can't imagine this being the case for a BGIII module.

 

[Andrej]

To be honest, those 3-4 times a day abilities except for turn undead are almost never used by me. To be honest, in BG2, ToB, NWN2 and MotB I've always found myself using at most about a quater of all the abilities and stuff avaliable to me and my party.

If battles were more difficult and turnbased I know I'd end up using them more, but - meh. Knowing I won't get a turnbased game I'll just accept this.