TOPIC: VTD going to switch to 1d20

Daniel White wrote:

jedibcg Banjo 513 Lover wrote: However if you +hit is a 14, which is a decent number for nightmare then on a d20 model you will miss 50% of the time on a 25AC monster.

I'm ok with that because it means there's more of a point to bardsong, prayer, drinking potions, etc.

Sorry I am including bardsong. If you have +14 to hit (when you slide so that includes any bluffs) you would need to slide an 11 or better in PTD. I think you can do that more than 50% of the time if asked.

What do you think of something like this?
1: 2%
2-10: 3%
11-15: 6%
16-18: 10%
19: 6%
20: 5%

Singsalot wrote: What do you think of something like this?
1: 2%
2-10: 3%
11-15: 6%
16-18: 10%
19: 6%
20: 5%

This is the type of model that I mean, but I think you have weighted 16-18 too high but I understand that is very debatable so would not argue if others thought that was about right. I also don't know if 1's are high enough. but again debatable.

So don't think about +hit or monsters AC.

If you have to slide an 11 or better with others in party sliding as well (so you sometimes get bumped for better or worse) how often do you think you can do it in 20 attempts? If you say more than 50% of them time which I think most will, but maybe I am wrong, then you should now see my issue with just a d20. Because you will only roll 11 or better 50% of the time.

I was just throwing out the first thing I could based on the chatter I've heard. I'm all for a higher number of fumbles, or flattening out the 16-18 bump, just people seemed sure about their ability to nail 15+ and that reduces the 19-20 crit range while rewarding those who have 18 crit range.

Could do 8% 18s and 4% 1s, for instance.

We could do some sort of poll, or just let TPTB determine what they think is best.

Singsalot wrote: I was just throwing out the first thing I could based on the chatter I've heard. I'm all for a higher number of fumbles, or flattening out the 16-18 bump, just people seemed sure about their ability to nail 15+ and that reduces the 19-20 crit range while rewarding those who have 18 crit range.

Could do 8% 18s and 4% 1s, for instance.

We could do some sort of poll, or just let TPTB determine what they think is best.

Yeah like I said I don't know the numbers either but this is the type of model that I think is more accurate than a d20. And number obviously are going to vary player to player so we need ranges that more hand that than specific individuals.

I still think the best solution is likely something like 2d6+8. People already expect a 10 to miss in VTD so it would be a seamless transition. It also makes the most likely slide a 15 which feels about right if maybe a touch low.

anydice.com/program/81c

"output 1",15.000000000005999,2.4152294576985023,10,20
#,%
10,2.77777777778
11,5.55555555556
12,8.33333333333
13,11.1111111111
14,13.8888888889
15,16.6666666667
16,13.8888888889
17,11.1111111111
18,8.33333333333
19,5.55555555556
20,2.77777777778

Singsalot wrote: Maybe we should change our point of view:

From the players' perspective, what is the ideal number of random 20s, random 1s, and 19s, 18s, 11-17s, and 2-10s?

Remember this one formula has to work for all players at all difficulties on all monsters; other changes would presumably only be AC, HP, and immunities.

+1 to this way of thinking. Until/unless someone actually builds a minigame that takes player skill into account, the only alternative is some sort of random distribution, so let's talk about what properties we think it should have.

IMO: there should be some chance of 1 and 20, but nowhere near the 10% we had for V1. 5% doesn't feel crazy to me given our D&D heritage. All possible results from a d20 should appear in the distribution so to-hit bonus matters, but the lower numbers should occur less frequently than a uniform distribution.

Here's a straw man:

1: 5%
2-10: 3% each (subtotal 27%)
11-14: 7% each (subtotal 28%)
15: 8%
16: 8%
17: 7%
18: 6%
19: 6%
20: 5%

OrionW wrote: I still think the best solution is likely something like 2d6+8. People already expect a 10 to miss in VTD so it would be a seamless transition. It also makes the most likely slide a 15 which feels about right if maybe a touch low.

This is exactly what I was going to propose. 5% crit feels a *touch* high, but not by much. 2.78% feels like it's in the ball park, but it all depends on why exactly 1d10+10 needs to change.

Was the 10% crit chance the *only* problem that Jeff wants to correct for, but everything else was fairly reasonable? Were there too many hits in general, and Jeff wants to bring the entire range down?

If it's the former, I'd recommend 2d6+8. The latter, straight d20 sounds good, but there might be something better I haven't considered yet.

Out of curiosity, why do people want to fall back on dice models instead of more intricate hit tables moderated entirely by the app? Is it just that dice are a more common reference point for most of us and we can understand/derive the calculation? An allowance for players who cannot access the apps for one reason or another?

The point being that the app, conceivably, can generate numbers from 1-10 or 1-1,000,000 or anything in between to get hit chances accurate to fractions of a percent, if need be. Then map those to numbers 1-20.

Marc D wrote: Out of curiosity, why do people want to fall back on dice models instead of more intricate hit tables moderated entirely by the app? Is it just that dice are a more common reference point for most of us and we can understand/derive the calculation? An allowance for players who cannot access the apps for one reason or another?

The point being that the app, conceivably, can generate numbers from 1-10 or 1-1,000,000 or anything in between to get hit chances accurate to fractions of a percent, if need be. Then map those to numbers 1-20.

I think a method that approximates dice is likely easier to program and maintain going forward, but there is nothing wrong with a more complex method if the volunteer programers are up to it.

A dice model would be easier for a player to replicate if something were to go wrong with the app/website they are using to play VTD. Not sure how often that happens, but perhaps worth consideration.