|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 11:54AM
#401
|
|
|
I think 3.5 and 4th are close enough for comparison.
Sandstorm a comin' Annie.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 11:56AM
#402
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
Okay. I see we aren't going to have any common ground on this issue if you think 75% and 65% are pretty much the same. And I guess 50% vs 0% on the second attack is pretty much the same too.
Would you object if your DM told you that you had a -2 penalty of all of your rolls for the entire campaign?
I know what a bellcurve is but what does "do math . . . on the Bellcurve" even mean?
basically instead of taking statisical probability, and applying it to a die roll.
you are applying it instead to 1000 rolls (For example)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 11:58AM
#403
|
|
|
Than a cleric with no spells, sure. A cleric with spells? Nope. That wasn''t part of the equation, so nothing I said was spoken with spells in mind. I know damn well how good a cleric is 
Edit: Bah. Missed that note you put there. Damn small sized text.
I'm tricksy like that .
I'm not sure who's more at fault for the power difference between a godless cleric and a fighter. I think it's a mix of clerics being too strong and fighters being too weak. Spells should have pushed the cleric to a more appreciable deficit - at least 50% less effective than fighters. Probably more...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 12:05PM
#404
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
basically instead of taking statisical probability, and applying it to a die roll.
you are applying it instead to 1000 rolls (For example)
And over those 1000 rolls, you'll hit more often with that +2 than without it.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 12:08PM
#405
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
I'm tricksy like that .
I'm not sure who's more at fault for the power difference between a godless cleric and a fighter. I think it's a mix of clerics being too strong and fighters being too weak. Spells should have pushed the cleric to a more appreciable deficit - at least 50% less effective than fighters. Probably more...
?? A cleric with spells will always pone a fighter.
And yes the dm should never give players a penalty for in character things. Unless the player agrees to it.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 12:09PM
#406
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I'm tricksy like that .
I'm not sure who's more at fault for the power difference between a godless cleric and a fighter. I think it's a mix of clerics being too strong and fighters being too weak. Spells should have pushed the cleric to a more appreciable deficit - at least 50% less effective than fighters. Probably more...
I agree. 3ed Clerics shouldn't be the melee kings they are. I think that if they were forced to put a very large number of their spells into combat oriented things, they should have been able to equal fighters, but it would take them so long to get there that fighters would still be better by virtue of being able to fight in rounds 1-3.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 12:09PM
#407
|
Date Joined:
Sep 15, 2006
|
basically instead of taking statisical probability, and applying it to a die roll.
you are applying it instead to 1000 rolls (For example)
I still don't see how the 1000 rolls changes the discussion. On average you will roll 6 or higher 100 more time than rolling an 8 or higher. It still looks significant to me.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 12:18PM
#408
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
And yes the dm should never give players a penalty for in character things. Unless the player agrees to it.
I was, at one point, developing my own pen and paper system, and had a group of friends testing what I had so far. One of my friends, playing a dwarf, made it a character trait that he would constantly act without thinking. I made up a status effect on the fly just for him, and every time he did something stupid without thinking, I'd have him get hit with this effect (double vision) which mechanically decreased his chances to hit and perceive things. I punished him for being a moron, but gave him an out. As a dwarf, drinking any sort of alcohol would get rid of double vision, but penalize him if he got too drunk.
I penalized him for something in character. Something he didn't know about or agree to. And you know something? He did more stupid things in-game more often, just so his character would be effected. I was trying to punish him for being stupid and unthinking. He saw it as fun. It wasn't planned that way, but that's how it turned out. And I decided to do it even if he'd have gotten ticked at me because that's what you can do as DM.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition.Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotes
Show
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 12:19PM
#409
|
Date Joined:
Sep 15, 2006
|
I agree. 3ed Clerics shouldn't be the melee kings they are. I think that if they were forced to put a very large number of their spells into combat oriented things, they should have been able to equal fighters, but it would take them so long to get there that fighters would still be better by virtue of being able to fight in rounds 1-3.
If fighters are that much weaker in 3.5 then maybe one possible patch would be to eliminate multiple attacks for non-martial classes and let martial classes have full BAB for their attacks (maybe pushing back when the extra attacks come).
I know you guys aren't looking for ways to fix 3.5 but that was just a thought.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 12:20PM
#410
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2006
|
The bell curve is only relevant to dice rolling when you are talking about summations of dice. For example, in a system where success/failure is determined by rolling 3d6 and trying to roll under a target number, the bell curve is significant as the distribution of probabilities of sums of three dice is closer to a bell curve than the flat line distribution of 1d20. Or when figuring the damage of a single failed-save disintegrate the bell curve is even better approximated by the results of rolling your 40d6.
For d20 system attack rolls, or any other case where you are rolling only one die per data-point, and they are not being added together the bell curve is irrelevant. The probability distribution is assumed to be flat (with any real deviance from this being attributable to modestly weighted dice in most cases).
|
|
|
