Back to Crafty Games Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2014, 07:57:57 PM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Welcome to the Crafty Games Forums!

Note to New Members: To combat spam, we have instituted new rules: you must post 5 replies to existing threads before you can create new threads.

+  Crafty Games Forum
|-+  Community
| |-+  License to Improvise
| | |-+  [Notebook] Reworking Action Dice
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Go Down Print
Author Topic: [Notebook] Reworking Action Dice  (Read 3544 times)
Morgenstern
Control
******
Posts: 5317



View Profile
« Reply #90 on: November 09, 2012, 09:36:57 AM »

Except they're so long and involved that they end up giving squat.

I tend to update the rules text in the original post as the conversation moves along, so if you're just looking for the finished product from my perspective you rarely have to read past post 1. I haven't done that much in this case because I haven't made tremendous progress in identifying changes I'd strongly support. My big take aways form this which I have incorperated elsewhere are~

1. The revised Refresh generally goes over well in concept if not in precise rates of recovery. While giving everyone everywhere vitality regeneration makes me a little nervous, its a concept easy to grasp in light of how most folks experience first and third person shooters - break contact for a while and your damage buffer is restored.

2. My desire to see players suck up the occasional guilt-free critical hit can be achieved by adding a roll to confirm while retaining the 1 action die auto-crit. With the roll to confirm calling for a second threat to confirm for free, that's a mere 1 in 400 chance of a random crit on a threat range 20 attack, 1 in 100 on a 19-20, and 1 in 44 on an 18-20. Pretty rare, but enough to put it out there in the hearts and minds of players everywhere. It also give players that remote chance of critting without spending (or even having) an action die. Not feeling powerless when you've emptied you dice pool is a major plus to me - one that might slightly reduce the burnig need to horde dice.

3. Having lethal damage crits deal an additional 1d6 damage directly to wounds instead of transfering the entire damage roll directly to wounds feels like its got bite without allowing high base damage dealers to one shot important foes. I can see the die type changing or some other bonus being applied, but seperating the direct-to-wounds value from every twist and combo players pile up to maximize single hit damage seems like a really good idea.

Locking dice at d6s wasn't roundly rejected, but doesn't address any problem severe enough to merit overturning the offical structure to make it happen. Likewise, one explosion only isn't a blight on the face of the universe, but it's not shutting down anything terribly heinous. With the idea of only a limited blow against wounds on a crit hit, the worst excess of multiple explosions - massively pumping a damage roll that is also going bypass vitality - is gone anyway.
Logged

At your own pace: Do. It. Now.
How about some pie? - Heroes of the Expanse
Regularguy
Recruit
*
Posts: 30


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: November 10, 2012, 09:08:51 PM »

Quote
My desire to see players suck up the occasional guilt-free critical hit can be achieved by adding a roll to confirm while retaining the 1 action die auto-crit. With the roll to confirm calling for a second threat to confirm for free, that's a mere 1 in 400 chance of a random crit on a threat range 20 attack, 1 in 100 on a 19-20, and 1 in 44 on an 18-20. Pretty rare, but enough to put it out there in the hearts and minds of players everywhere. It also give players that remote chance of critting without spending (or even having) an action die. Not feeling powerless when you've emptied you dice pool is a major plus to me - one that might slightly reduce the burnig need to horde dice.

Out of curiosity, what happens if you simply reverse the basic mechanic?

What if "a threat-range 20 attack" automatically becomes a crit unless the target spends an action die to stop it?  So our heroes would have the chance to crit without spending (or even having) action dice -- and while there's still a burning need to hoard dice (to be the Big Damn Heroes against mooks who more easily gun down non-dice-having normals), the burning might be a slightly different amount.

It'd also help with the following...

Quote
3. Having lethal damage crits deal an additional 1d6 damage directly to wounds instead of transfering the entire damage roll directly to wounds feels like its got bite without allowing high base damage dealers to one shot important foes.

...because if you can't go direct-to-wounds as long as the important foe has action dice left, then the bite comes in by chewing up said guy's dice, prompting him to run for dear life or try something desperate or whatever.
Logged
Sletchman
Control
******
Posts: 4108


Gentleman Scholar.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #92 on: November 10, 2012, 09:36:02 PM »

I suspect that this would make certain weapons become extremely well represented at the table (disproportionately so).  18+ Threat with free crits is awful tasty, after all (and a good way to make the GM spend all his dice).
Logged
spinningdice
Control
******
Posts: 1455


The power of the Dice compels you!


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: November 11, 2012, 05:09:45 AM »

One of the best things D&D3E did was bring in the confirmation roll, most 2e groups I play with just flat out ignore crits, and that's using a standard hp system where you're just looking at double damage.
Logged
Bill Whitmore
Mastermind
Control
*****
Posts: 2359


Woot, I got a new hat! :P


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: November 11, 2012, 05:14:57 AM »

One of the best things D&D3E did was bring in the confirmation roll, most 2e groups I play with just flat out ignore crits, and that's using a standard hp system where you're just looking at double damage.

This reminds me of one other aspect of critical hits that I found to be a minor annoyance a while back but I had forgotten about it until now.  One of the reasons I actually preferred the confirmation roll for critical hits.


When PCs are faced with fighting a foe who has bucket loads of vitality, such as the aforementioned 500 vitality enemy, it seems a character's attack bonus becomes pretty superfluous.  In a fight like this, everything comes down to doing wounds.  Doing wounds means rolling a natural number on the die within a certain range irrespective of attack bonus.

Lets say a Courtier and a Soldier are in a fight against some sort of Vitality God.  The Courtier needs to roll a 19 to hit while the Soldier needs to roll a 9 to hit.  Assuming they both use weapons with 19-20 critical ranges, the fact that the Soldier is hitting 6 times more often, it doesn't really matter.  Both characters are waiting to roll a 19-20 just so they can land a critical on the enemy and cause critical hits and wounds at the same rate.

Now, this is mitigated somewhat by the fact that most characters with high attack rolls will likely pick up a higher critical range from somewhere, but it isn't a given.  But it does bug me that a guy who can only hit on a 20 can have a 100% critical rate whenever he hits.
Logged

Don't follow your passion.  Take it with you.

ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!   Ramen.
ludomastro
Control
******
Posts: 1683



View Profile
« Reply #95 on: November 11, 2012, 04:11:49 PM »

I prefer the expenditure of AD for critical hits.

Here's why:
Most of the d20 products I had been exposed to were mostly combat simulation with some larceny thrown in for good measure.  Granted, given d20's origin as an outgrowth of tabletop war games, I shouldn't be surprised.  However, I've always had more fun when there was a great story going on at the table.  My most memorable characters (as a player) were those that did things OUTSIDE of combat that created the stories that I still tell (and that others still occasionally tell).  While Magdar the orc was a terror in combat, he is fondly remembered for the things he did outside of combat - such as stopping the team from defiling an altar because of his profound respect for the spirits.

Thus, having a non-combat resource be available to tell the story of combat has always struck me as beneficial.  Even the scientist gets a lucky (or planned) shot in from time to time.  And, IMNSHO, that's a good thing.

EDIT: Despite English being my native language, I still find that I make plenty of grammatical errors.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 05:09:22 PM by ludomastro » Logged

Elvith Gent
Recruit
*
Posts: 22


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: November 11, 2012, 05:00:48 PM »

Humů

I've done some nerdy computations this week-end about exploding (?) dice. One of the interesting conclusions is that +2 to an AD is always, in mean, better than being able to explode on the maximum -1. So one well-known feat is actually underpowered.

For the moment, the thing is only in French, right here. Would anyone be interested in a translation ?  Wink
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 07:28:31 PM by Elvith Gent » Logged
Bill Whitmore
Mastermind
Control
*****
Posts: 2359


Woot, I got a new hat! :P


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: November 11, 2012, 06:25:24 PM »

First, my apologies to math haters...

Humů

I've done some nerdy computations this week-end about exploding (?) dice. One of the interesting conclusions is that +2 to an AD is always, in mean, better than being able to explode on the maximum -1. So one well-known feat is actually underpowered.

This is true if the maximum value on the die is the only other exploding value.  If the 1s also explode, either from the Bold Heroes campaign quality or the Tales of the Rascal feat, it does not hold true for the d4.

I derived the formula a while back for determining the mean value of a die with x sides that explodes on y results as f(x, y) = (x + 1) / (2 * ( 1 - (y / x)))

f(4, 1) = 3 1/3
f(4, 2) = 5
f(4, 3) = 10

As you can see, going from 1 exploding face to 2 exploding faces adds 1 2/3 while going from 2 exploding faces to 3 exploding faces increases the mean from 5 to 10.

However, this is only the case with the d4.  For the larger die types, the mean value is higher after adding +2 than adding a 3rd exploding face to the dice.

But there are other factors to consider.  I suspect, though I have not done the math for it, that the standard deviation will be higher on dice that explode on more sides.  This would mean that you would have a better chance for achieving both higher and lower rolls.  For example, if you need to generate a score of 12 on an exploding d4, your odds may be better if you explode on a 2nd side rather than just add +2 to the final result.  Again, I haven't done the math for the standard deviation calculations, just pointing out it is another factor that needs to be considered.

Quote
Would anyone be interested in a translation ?  Wink

Unfortunately, I don't know French.  (cursed monolingual US Americans)  So, yes please.


Also, the link didn't work for me directly.  There were some extraneous characters in the link that I had to clean up.
Logged

Don't follow your passion.  Take it with you.

ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!   Ramen.
Elvith Gent
Recruit
*
Posts: 22


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: November 12, 2012, 05:44:16 AM »

I derived the formula a while back for determining the mean value of a die with x sides that explodes on y results as f(x, y) = (x + 1) / (2 * ( 1 - (y / x)))
Since it is mostly what I've been looking for, in the single case y=2, and since my formula is much more complicated, I would be really interested in seeing your proof !

But there are other factors to consider.  I suspect, though I have not done the math for it, that the standard deviation will be higher on dice that explode on more sides.  This would mean that you would have a better chance for achieving both higher and lower rolls.  For example, if you need to generate a score of 12 on an exploding d4, your odds may be better if you explode on a 2nd side rather than just add +2 to the final result.  Again, I haven't done the math for the standard deviation calculations, just pointing out it is another factor that needs to be considered.
Of course, a mean result is only a mean result Wink You're right, standard deviation also needs to be considered.

Unfortunately, I don't know French.  (cursed monolingual US Americans)  So, yes please.
Ok, I'll do it as soon as I can.

Also, the link didn't work for me directly.  There were some extraneous characters in the link that I had to clean up.
FTFY Smiley
Logged
MikeS
Operative
****
Posts: 258




View Profile
« Reply #99 on: November 12, 2012, 10:57:02 AM »

I derived the formula a while back for determining the mean value of a die with x sides that explodes on y results as f(x, y) = (x + 1) / (2 * ( 1 - (y / x)))
Since it is mostly what I've been looking for, in the single case y=2, and since my formula is much more complicated, I would be really interested in seeing your proof !

Me too. I've been looking for a good equation to calculate averages and probability curves for open-ended dice rolling since L5R, and I haven't come up with a good solution. I've mostly used tedious excel spreadsheets.
Logged
Krensky
Control
******
Posts: 7126


WWTWD?


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: November 12, 2012, 12:21:17 PM »

Well, Anydice (where I got my expected values from) does also calculate deviations.

The redefined explode function I used is:
Code:
function: explode ROLLEDVALUE:n {
 if ROLLEDVALUE = {1,11,12} { result: ROLLEDVALUE  + [explode d12] }
 result: ROLLEDVALUE
}

output [explode d12]

Where the d12s should be the appropriate size and the sequence in the if test is the list of faces the die explodes on. Due to the default function depth, this stops re-rolling after ten explosions. It lists the deviation of d12 with highest, highest two, lowest and highest two, and highest three explosions as 4.93, 6.33, 6.58, and 7.79.

If I get time I'll run it for all the dice and side combos, or maybe someone else can. Smiley
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 12:25:01 PM by Krensky » Logged

We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
There's no upside in screwing with things you can't explain. - Captain Roy Montgomery
Bill Whitmore
Mastermind
Control
*****
Posts: 2359


Woot, I got a new hat! :P


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: November 12, 2012, 01:57:46 PM »

I derived the formula a while back for determining the mean value of a die with x sides that explodes on y results as f(x, y) = (x + 1) / (2 * ( 1 - (y / x)))
Since it is mostly what I've been looking for, in the single case y=2, and since my formula is much more complicated, I would be really interested in seeing your proof !

Rather than clutter up this topic, I started a new post here to show the formula derivation.
Logged

Don't follow your passion.  Take it with you.

ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!   Ramen.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!