TOPIC: VTD going to switch to 1d20

Endgame wrote: I would think 2d10 would give an appropriate curve while also providing the appx 1% crit area as measured by Fiddy. That would be fewer Crits than I normally see on my runs, but at the same time it would be dramatically fewer instances of the puck going off the back or falling way short.

I agree it does board coverage better but like he said it doesn't handle slide skill, which is what I would rather see a distribution scale.

We might not agree one what that scale would look like but I think we can all agree that sliding 2 is less like than sliding a 10.

There are bowling apps, and one is even a shuffleboard type of game. I have no clue how to code apps but maybe something similar could be created?

I am with Fiddy on this one. Use the sq inches values to determine. I made some assumptions and calculated a method. It is fairly simple to put together a random number with a vlookup in excel to test this.

Here is the pseudo code that I propose:

The total square inches of the “scoring zone” is about 24x36—864 Sq inches...round it to 1000 for easy calculations

The scoring zone for 20 is about 8 sq inches
The scoring zone for 19 is about 20 sq inches
The scoring zone for 18 is about 40sq in
17...40 sq in
16...50 sq in
15...70 sq in
14...80 sq in
13...90
12...90
11...90
10...90
8...100
6...100



Remember the “rounding” above...make all of those 132 sq inch a miss...

All these total 1000. To implement...
Have the developer Random number from 1-1000.
Then do a series of if statements (Or a vlookup) to figure out what the 1000 is

For example R=1D1000
If R>992 then hit=20
Else if R>972 then hit=19
Else if R>932 then hit=18
Else if R>892 then hit=17
Else if R>842 then hit=16
Else if R>772 then hit=15
Else if R>692 then hit=14
Else if R>602 then hit=13
Else if R>512 then hit=12
Else if R>422 then hit=11
Else if R>332 then hit=10
Else if R>232 then hit=8
Else if R>132 then hit=6
Else hit = 1


I will build the excel and attach momentarily

Dave Autzen wrote: There are bowling apps, and one is even a shuffleboard type of game. I have no clue how to code apps but maybe something similar could be created?

Building an app that plays the skill in the timeframe is tough to do before v2a. I actually think the notion that fiddy mentioned as well as maybe the “knight rider” light to get to center to add a bit of “accuracy” dynamic is a way to go. There is plenty of free routines on this on github. That may work...by November.

Dave Autzen wrote: There are bowling apps, and one is even a shuffleboard type of game. I have no clue how to code apps but maybe something similar could be created?

Dave I am quoting you here but its not addressed directly at you but anyone with this idea. Apps are hard work Cranton and myself put in countless hours just to get what we have today and its not a paid labor. Plus I really have to ask is playing shuffle board on a app really all that much more exciting compared to a dice roller? Looking at time investment vs reward, And true dungeon isnt about the shuffle board that just the way combat ended up being represented.

Plus quick history lesson the whole sliding thing came out of another creation of Jeffs Reagent. now if that were a cell game I would play that all on its own. (I have considered making it a couple of times but my god the amount of work)

This is the code bit...

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E-wUY3IFIVTLz4eq5NtgCGXspN06vxcYXrBI_jUgmhk/edit?usp=sharing

If I have the language, I will gladly write this...also note, that with the sq inches column, there could be IN THE LONG FUTURE, the option for Jeff to provide new sq inches coverages on a per monster basis...BUT LETS NOT GET AHEAD OF OURSELVES.

Endgame wrote: I would think 2d10 would give an appropriate curve while also providing the appx 1% crit area as measured by Fiddy. That would be fewer Crits than I normally see on my runs, but at the same time it would be dramatically fewer instances of the puck going off the back or falling way short.

This was what I was going to suggest. It creates a hill at 10/11, while providing no 1s and few 20s, and gives a pretty good shot at the "meat" of the enemy, with the right bonus-to-AC balance.

Other things you could try are 5d4, or something that is like a d20 +5 but that rotates 21-25 back into, say, 10-15

Singsalot wrote:

Endgame wrote: I would think 2d10 would give an appropriate curve while also providing the appx 1% crit area as measured by Fiddy. That would be fewer Crits than I normally see on my runs, but at the same time it would be dramatically fewer instances of the puck going off the back or falling way short.

This was what I was going to suggest. It creates a hill at 10/11, while providing no 1s and few 20s, and gives a pretty good shot at the "meat" of the enemy, with the right bonus-to-AC balance.

Other things you could try are 5d4, or something that is like a d20 +5 but that rotates 21-25 back into, say, 10-15

If we're talking about simplifying the process to make it easier to implement in a short time frame and to (perhaps) accomodate for some sliding skill, what about 3D10 and drop the lowest value?

Singsalot wrote:

Endgame wrote: I would think 2d10 would give an appropriate curve while also providing the appx 1% crit area as measured by Fiddy. That would be fewer Crits than I normally see on my runs, but at the same time it would be dramatically fewer instances of the puck going off the back or falling way short.

This was what I was going to suggest. It creates a hill at 10/11, while providing no 1s and few 20s, and gives a pretty good shot at the "meat" of the enemy, with the right bonus-to-AC balance.

Other things you could try are 5d4, or something that is like a d20 +5 but that rotates 21-25 back into, say, 10-15

Any system involving summing multiple dice, is going to HEAVILY center the outcomes around the middle, and the effect becomes more pronounced the more dice you are rolling and summing.

d10+d10 makes it impossible to auto-miss, or gives a 1% chance on a double 1 if you count that as a miss. That is far, far too low.

It would give a 1% chance of a natural 20 crit, which is also too low.

It would give a 28% chance for rolling one of 10, 11, or 12 which is, in my opinion, far too high.

anydice.com/program/28b

Adding more dice compounds the issue. 5d4 gives you less than a 1/1000 chance of scoring a 20 crit, and over a 30% chance of scoring a 12 or 13.

anydice.com/program/1406

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Singsalot wrote:

Endgame wrote: I would think 2d10 would give an appropriate curve while also providing the appx 1% crit area as measured by Fiddy. That would be fewer Crits than I normally see on my runs, but at the same time it would be dramatically fewer instances of the puck going off the back or falling way short.

This was what I was going to suggest. It creates a hill at 10/11, while providing no 1s and few 20s, and gives a pretty good shot at the "meat" of the enemy, with the right bonus-to-AC balance.

Other things you could try are 5d4, or something that is like a d20 +5 but that rotates 21-25 back into, say, 10-15

Any system involving summing multiple dice, is going to HEAVILY center the outcomes around the middle, and the effect becomes more pronounced the more dice you are rolling and summing.

d10+d10 makes it impossible to auto-miss, or gives a 1% chance on a double 1 if you count that as a miss. That is far, far too low.

It would give a 1% chance of a natural 20 crit, which is also too low.

It would give a 28% chance for rolling one of 10, 11, or 12 which is, in my opinion, far too high.

anydice.com/program/28b

Adding more dice compounds the issue. 5d4 gives you less than a 1/1000 chance of scoring a 20 crit, and over a 30% chance of scoring a 12 or 13.

anydice.com/program/1406

You are mathematically correct, but 1s are far less likely than 1/20 to a seasoned slider (more likely for a brand new slider, who might back-bump or short the entire board), and on some boards there might only be room for 1 puck to land on a 20, so multiple crits in a round ought not be allowed, so 1/10 or even 1/20 crits is possibly too high, when the real estate of a 20 might be 1/100th of the board. Unfortunately we can't account for a) differences in player ability or b) differences in monster vulnerability, except with AC, and immunity to crits/20s (or limiting 20s to the first person who rolls it in a round).

Now, short of changing the rolling system, we could just make ACs much higher for HC, NM, and Epic, and shore up the HP of lower-HP monsters (not the higher ones, just for time constraints).

Singsalot wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Singsalot wrote:

Endgame wrote: I would think 2d10 would give an appropriate curve while also providing the appx 1% crit area as measured by Fiddy. That would be fewer Crits than I normally see on my runs, but at the same time it would be dramatically fewer instances of the puck going off the back or falling way short.

This was what I was going to suggest. It creates a hill at 10/11, while providing no 1s and few 20s, and gives a pretty good shot at the "meat" of the enemy, with the right bonus-to-AC balance.

Other things you could try are 5d4, or something that is like a d20 +5 but that rotates 21-25 back into, say, 10-15

Any system involving summing multiple dice, is going to HEAVILY center the outcomes around the middle, and the effect becomes more pronounced the more dice you are rolling and summing.

d10+d10 makes it impossible to auto-miss, or gives a 1% chance on a double 1 if you count that as a miss. That is far, far too low.

It would give a 1% chance of a natural 20 crit, which is also too low.

It would give a 28% chance for rolling one of 10, 11, or 12 which is, in my opinion, far too high.

anydice.com/program/28b

Adding more dice compounds the issue. 5d4 gives you less than a 1/1000 chance of scoring a 20 crit, and over a 30% chance of scoring a 12 or 13.

anydice.com/program/1406

You are mathematically correct, but 1s are far less likely than 1/20 to a seasoned slider (more likely for a brand new slider, who might back-bump or short the entire board), and on some boards there might only be room for 1 puck to land on a 20, so multiple crits in a round ought not be allowed, so 1/10 or even 1/20 crits is possibly too high, when the real estate of a 20 might be 1/100th of the board. Unfortunately we can't account for a) differences in player ability or b) differences in monster vulnerability, except with AC, and immunity to crits/20s (or limiting 20s to the first person who rolls it in a round).

Now, short of changing the rolling system, we could just make ACs much higher for HC, NM, and Epic, and shore up the HP of lower-HP monsters (not the higher ones, just for time constraints).

How "far less" likely is it to slide a crit than 5% exactly?

I feel like my super-casual-except-the-ranger group routinely scores a 20 on about 2 rounds in 3, with about 10 pucks slid per round. That gives ~2 crits per 30 slides, or around 6% to slide a 20.

I keep seeing people saying "oh it's so unlikely to score a crit!" How many crits do you see in a dungeon? Over how many rounds. Do the math yourself. If crits were 1% likely you'd see maybe 1 a dungeon. I see a lot more than 1 crit per dungeon.

Singsalot wrote: on some boards there might only be room for 1 puck to land on a 20, so multiple crits in a round ought not be allowed,

I have never seen a 20 (not saying they don't exist just I haven't seen one) where you hand to hand on the 20 to crit. You just have to be partial over so therefore multiple crits are possible. You also cannot eliminate multiple crits without the apps linked together to prevent them.