Average dice? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Average dice? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
PwnageLlama
12-24-06, 12:54 PM One of my players, who is a cleric, complains about the randomness of the 1d8+1 of a cure light wounds spell. Could I change that to a 1d4 +3 or a 1d6+2?

Second, does the bonus for the domainaffect all spells, or just the domain one?
SillyRobot
12-24-06, 12:58 PM 1) The variable component remains steady while the non-variant component grows as the cleric levels. It generally isn't a problem past 3rd level or so. There is no real harm in converting it to the dirolls you describe, but there is also little benefit.

2) Domain bonuses such as provided by Good (+1 caster level when casting [Good] spells) applies to such spells regardless of spell slot used to prepare them.
Edymnion
12-24-06, 01:05 PM Mathematically speaking, each step up in die size is equivolent to a +1.
This is because the mathematical average roll for any die will be half the maximum plus .5, so a d8's average roll is 4.5. You can do the math yourself, add up all possible outcomes of the die roll and divide by the number of sides (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8=36, 36/8=4.5).

If you step down one size, from a d8 to a d6, the average roll is 3.5, meaning that a d6+1 is 3.5+1=4.5, which is the same average score as the d8.

So, 1d8 = 1d6+1 = 1d4+2.
memberZ
12-24-06, 01:25 PM Though the average stays the same each step down in dice size is stripping a point of the top although it is adding it to the bottom. You will have a more average outcome at the price of potency.

The average is 5.5 but
1d8+1 is a range of 2-9
1d6 +2 is a range of 3-8
1d4 +3 is a range of 4-7

A step up the ladder to 3d8 + 5 that is an average of 18.5 and a range of 8-29.
The 3d6 + 8 would have a range of 11-26, and the 3d4 + 11 would net 14-23.
maurezen
12-24-06, 01:26 PM The conversion to a lower die means that the rolls become more stable, but the maximum amount of healing decreases. If the player complains about randomness... okay, do the conversion and he'll complain about low maximum))
BTW, why doesn't he complain about the attack rolls where d20 is used? ))
Edymnion
12-24-06, 02:01 PM Exactly.
He can have random and high max healing, or structured and less healing.
He can't have it both ways.
Man in the Funny Hat
12-24-06, 02:17 PM One of my players, who is a cleric, complains about the randomness of the 1d8+1 of a cure light wounds spell. Could I change that to a 1d4 +3 or a 1d6+2?YES! Don't ever let anyone convince you otherwise.
Stuntman
12-24-06, 09:52 PM In general, the less random things are, the more it benefits PC's. Changing the d8 dice for the cure spells and replacing them with d6+1 is on average the same, but the fact that it is less random will benefit the player. Rolling a 1 on a d8 usually hurts the PC more than rolling an 8 on a d8 will benefit the PC.

If I had the option of using d8 or d2+3 (an extreme example, but will demonstrate my point well) for cure spells, I'd always choose the d2+3 because it is more deterministic. I can plan out my healing better because I know I will get at least 4 hp of healing. If a character with 10 hp is down to 1, I'd rather use 2 cure spells to guarantee he'll be healed completely than have the possibility I will need more than 2 if I keep rolling 1's. Sure, I may roll an 8 and save a spell, but if I roll 1's, I may die (later and more easily). I do not want to risk dying to save a spell.
revnk
12-24-06, 10:46 PM In general, the less random things are, the more it benefits PC's....

In general that's true, but one of the things the OP will need to decide here is whether he's revising the spell or simply giving the players a slight "cheat" to make the game easier for them. If it's the former, than the Cure and Inflict spells used by villainous NPCs and monsters will use the same dice--the player might want to think about that. As for the latter--handicapping the game in the players' favor--there's not exactly anything wrong with it, but it's also not the kind of thing that's usually done or even recommended. Nor, for that matter, is it the kind of thing players usually enjoy.

Anyway, those are some things to think about. Good luck!
UAMDB
12-25-06, 12:48 AM When I am looking at the effectiveness of my characters, I am not looking at the Ma amount of damage i can do/heal. I look at the average, and more importantly the minimal. I will chose a set that will allow me to roll a minimal of 4 over a set that allows a max of 9. This way i know how much I am guaranteed to do, not how much I hope to do.

Answer do what every you want to do. It will not break the system either way.
mkill
12-25-06, 05:08 AM One of my players, who is a cleric, complains about the randomness of the 1d8+1 of a cure light wounds spell. Could I change that to a 1d4 +3 or a 1d6+2?

Yes, you could, but a good DM should have a policy of not giving in to player whining. So just smile and ignore him.
Pegasos989
12-25-06, 09:59 AM You could, but I wouldn't recommend on it as if you give in to player whining there, you will start giving in other places too.

Also, metamagic (such as maximize) starts working diffrently if it is d4 than d8...
McSlugger
12-25-06, 12:12 PM One of my players, who is a cleric, complains about the randomness of the 1d8+1 of a cure light wounds spell. Could I change that to a 1d4 +3 or a 1d6+2?

Second, does the bonus for the domainaffect all spells, or just the domain one?

WE allow the player to take 8 on a cure light if he spends thirty minutes to cast it.
SillyRobot
12-25-06, 12:16 PM In general, the less random things are, the more it benefits PC's. Changing the d8 dice for the cure spells and replacing them with d6+1 is on average the same, but the fact that it is less random will benefit the player. Rolling a 1 on a d8 usually hurts the PC more than rolling an 8 on a d8 will benefit the PC.

If I had the option of using d8 or d2+3 (an extreme example, but will demonstrate my point well) for cure spells, I'd always choose the d2+3 because it is more deterministic. I can plan out my healing better because I know I will get at least 4 hp of healing. If a character with 10 hp is down to 1, I'd rather use 2 cure spells to guarantee he'll be healed completely than have the possibility I will need more than 2 if I keep rolling 1's. Sure, I may roll an 8 and save a spell, but if I roll 1's, I may die (later and more easily). I do not want to risk dying to save a spell.

Higher levels of predicability help resource management in non-stressful situations since results must be closer to the expected outcome. It also helps the favourites in contests. The lower the variability, the less chance the underdog will be able to pull off an upset. If the PCs are fighting beneath their level, they want low variability.

Higher variability benefits the underdogs in stressful situations because since their expected outcome is failure, a higher variability increases their chance of success. If the PCs are fighting above their level, they want high variability.

As a DM, I prefer low variability since the chances of a sharp deviation from the expected outcome is reduced.

That said, the variability of 1d8 + n versus 1d6 + 1 + n or 1d4 + 2 + n is minimal and generally insignificant. I wouldn't make the change in a campaign I ran to assuage a player's feelings because I wouldn't want to set the precedent of changing game rules for the sake of change; the actual effect on game play will be minimal especially as n grows. At 5th level, the variation (6-13 versus 7-12 versus 8-11) is not meaningful.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
PwnageLlama 12-24-06, 12:54 PM	One of my players, who is a cleric, complains about the randomness of the 1d8+1 of a cure light wounds spell. Could I change that to a 1d4 +3 or a 1d6+2? Second, does the bonus for the domainaffect all spells, or just the domain one?
SillyRobot 12-24-06, 12:58 PM	1) The variable component remains steady while the non-variant component grows as the cleric levels. It generally isn't a problem past 3rd level or so. There is no real harm in converting it to the dirolls you describe, but there is also little benefit. 2) Domain bonuses such as provided by Good (+1 caster level when casting [Good] spells) applies to such spells regardless of spell slot used to prepare them.
Edymnion 12-24-06, 01:05 PM	Mathematically speaking, each step up in die size is equivolent to a +1. This is because the mathematical average roll for any die will be half the maximum plus .5, so a d8's average roll is 4.5. You can do the math yourself, add up all possible outcomes of the die roll and divide by the number of sides (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8=36, 36/8=4.5). If you step down one size, from a d8 to a d6, the average roll is 3.5, meaning that a d6+1 is 3.5+1=4.5, which is the same average score as the d8. So, 1d8 = 1d6+1 = 1d4+2.
memberZ 12-24-06, 01:25 PM	Though the average stays the same each step down in dice size is stripping a point of the top although it is adding it to the bottom. You will have a more average outcome at the price of potency. The average is 5.5 but 1d8+1 is a range of 2-9 1d6 +2 is a range of 3-8 1d4 +3 is a range of 4-7 A step up the ladder to 3d8 + 5 that is an average of 18.5 and a range of 8-29. The 3d6 + 8 would have a range of 11-26, and the 3d4 + 11 would net 14-23.
maurezen 12-24-06, 01:26 PM	The conversion to a lower die means that the rolls become more stable, but the maximum amount of healing decreases. If the player complains about randomness... okay, do the conversion and he'll complain about low maximum)) BTW, why doesn't he complain about the attack rolls where d20 is used? ))
Edymnion 12-24-06, 02:01 PM	Exactly. He can have random and high max healing, or structured and less healing. He can't have it both ways.
Man in the Funny Hat 12-24-06, 02:17 PM	One of my players, who is a cleric, complains about the randomness of the 1d8+1 of a cure light wounds spell. Could I change that to a 1d4 +3 or a 1d6+2?YES! Don't ever let anyone convince you otherwise.
Stuntman 12-24-06, 09:52 PM	In general, the less random things are, the more it benefits PC's. Changing the d8 dice for the cure spells and replacing them with d6+1 is on average the same, but the fact that it is less random will benefit the player. Rolling a 1 on a d8 usually hurts the PC more than rolling an 8 on a d8 will benefit the PC. If I had the option of using d8 or d2+3 (an extreme example, but will demonstrate my point well) for cure spells, I'd always choose the d2+3 because it is more deterministic. I can plan out my healing better because I know I will get at least 4 hp of healing. If a character with 10 hp is down to 1, I'd rather use 2 cure spells to guarantee he'll be healed completely than have the possibility I will need more than 2 if I keep rolling 1's. Sure, I may roll an 8 and save a spell, but if I roll 1's, I may die (later and more easily). I do not want to risk dying to save a spell.
revnk 12-24-06, 10:46 PM	In general, the less random things are, the more it benefits PC's.... In general that's true, but one of the things the OP will need to decide here is whether he's revising the spell or simply giving the players a slight "cheat" to make the game easier for them. If it's the former, than the Cure and Inflict spells used by villainous NPCs and monsters will use the same dice--the player might want to think about that. As for the latter--handicapping the game in the players' favor--there's not exactly anything wrong with it, but it's also not the kind of thing that's usually done or even recommended. Nor, for that matter, is it the kind of thing players usually enjoy. Anyway, those are some things to think about. Good luck!
UAMDB 12-25-06, 12:48 AM	When I am looking at the effectiveness of my characters, I am not looking at the Ma amount of damage i can do/heal. I look at the average, and more importantly the minimal. I will chose a set that will allow me to roll a minimal of 4 over a set that allows a max of 9. This way i know how much I am guaranteed to do, not how much I hope to do. Answer do what every you want to do. It will not break the system either way.
mkill 12-25-06, 05:08 AM	One of my players, who is a cleric, complains about the randomness of the 1d8+1 of a cure light wounds spell. Could I change that to a 1d4 +3 or a 1d6+2? Yes, you could, but a good DM should have a policy of not giving in to player whining. So just smile and ignore him.
Pegasos989 12-25-06, 09:59 AM	You could, but I wouldn't recommend on it as if you give in to player whining there, you will start giving in other places too. Also, metamagic (such as maximize) starts working diffrently if it is d4 than d8...
McSlugger 12-25-06, 12:12 PM	One of my players, who is a cleric, complains about the randomness of the 1d8+1 of a cure light wounds spell. Could I change that to a 1d4 +3 or a 1d6+2? Second, does the bonus for the domainaffect all spells, or just the domain one? WE allow the player to take 8 on a cure light if he spends thirty minutes to cast it.
SillyRobot 12-25-06, 12:16 PM	In general, the less random things are, the more it benefits PC's. Changing the d8 dice for the cure spells and replacing them with d6+1 is on average the same, but the fact that it is less random will benefit the player. Rolling a 1 on a d8 usually hurts the PC more than rolling an 8 on a d8 will benefit the PC. If I had the option of using d8 or d2+3 (an extreme example, but will demonstrate my point well) for cure spells, I'd always choose the d2+3 because it is more deterministic. I can plan out my healing better because I know I will get at least 4 hp of healing. If a character with 10 hp is down to 1, I'd rather use 2 cure spells to guarantee he'll be healed completely than have the possibility I will need more than 2 if I keep rolling 1's. Sure, I may roll an 8 and save a spell, but if I roll 1's, I may die (later and more easily). I do not want to risk dying to save a spell. Higher levels of predicability help resource management in non-stressful situations since results must be closer to the expected outcome. It also helps the favourites in contests. The lower the variability, the less chance the underdog will be able to pull off an upset. If the PCs are fighting beneath their level, they want low variability. Higher variability benefits the underdogs in stressful situations because since their expected outcome is failure, a higher variability increases their chance of success. If the PCs are fighting above their level, they want high variability. As a DM, I prefer low variability since the chances of a sharp deviation from the expected outcome is reduced. That said, the variability of 1d8 + n versus 1d6 + 1 + n or 1d4 + 2 + n is minimal and generally insignificant. I wouldn't make the change in a campaign I ran to assuage a player's feelings because I wouldn't want to set the precedent of changing game rules for the sake of change; the actual effect on game play will be minimal especially as n grows. At 5th level, the variation (6-13 versus 7-12 versus 8-11) is not meaningful.