New Dice notation. Do not like.

[Sarr]

Thanks for the feedback.

For what it's worth, it's not our intention to drain the D&D out of the game. We're proud that we're D&D, that our game is unique amongst the competition, etc.

We're really just trying to make the game more accessible. We had a bit of a snafu with the D&D dice thing in the sense that it was supposed to be an option. I don't believe in forcing anyone to play the way I might want to play, but rather provide a choice. We are not able to revert this change for Update 5.

Speaking of accessibility, this is vital for our business model. I appreciate that most of you don't understand why it's difficult to understand that d6 = 1-6 but we get plenty of feedback from those who don't - or are intimidated by the complexities of D&D. While you might think that they don't deserve to play the game, we respectfully disagree.

I myself look at a spell tooltip that says something to the effect of "2d6+1 per caster level (max n)" and think "This is a computer - why do I need to do the math in the middle of an action game? You know my caster level, just tell me the range. And if I'm running maximize, take that into account!" Sure, I want to have access to the formula too, but mostly I want to know the bottom line.

Anyway, I'm not trying to tell you how you should feel about this. Your opinions and reactions are yours; all I'm trying to say is that we aren't intentionally trying to remove D&D from the game - we're trying to remove any barriers that prevent non-D&D experienced folks from otherwise enjoying an awesome game.

Perfectly fine. I really don't see the reason for complaining about it. I think the real reason was the combat nerf and collectible thing (honestly - I like forcing people to take them, but heck, maybe it really won't make you like it... most collectibles are worthless, that's the real problem imho).
I am experienced Dungeon Master but I like to see damage calculated and always thought it should be. Make the content more PnP-like, and such things won't matter to anyone anymore.

People were made so "mechanics oriented" in DDO that they forgot D&D isn't about it. Every edition had this said at the beginning - it's not rules that make D&D, but "gameplay". So quests, lore, dungeon master, stories, being involved, having options, being able to be rewarded for good ideas and having the feel of "living" in a vibrant, living, ever changing D&D setting.

You can even play D&D without dice at all, and still it could feel like real D&D. Yes, DDO made people too concerned about mechanics, because there was no choice but playing that way. As I said, new adventure pack brought some hope for a change. Just read some of the feedback - isn't that new, having people talking here about the story?

That's a big accomplishment for the devs. Even while I know that those posts will soon be buried under mechanic-oriented ones. I'm still impressed and hope for new audience in DDO.

[HallowedOne]

I'll repeat for emphasis, after reading Mad's feedback:

10d6 is NOT the same as 10 to 60.

..."We got a complaint from an overly religious parent about there being too many demons in the game. As a result we've decided to change Shav to a playground for Fey."...

I lol'ed. Hard

[Eladrin]

maybe the devs don't understand and are really just rolling the range, not the individual die. Just a little D&D dressing on top to fool us.

When we roll 2d6, we roll 2d6, not 1d11+1.

Except for spells, where we tend to roll skewed things like 2d3+6.

This should be easily proven by whacking something with a greatsword and logging your damage per swing.

[Borror0]

Except for spells, where we tend to roll skewed things like 2d3+6.

It has always bothered me: why do you not publish the real dice used for spells?

[phillymiket]

Thanks for the clarification.

and Good Morning!

[Sarr]

I'll repeat for emphasis, after reading Mad's feedback:

10d6 is NOT the same as 10 to 60.



I lol'ed. Hard

And we, D&D players know it for sure. It's a matter of rolling 10 times a dice with 6 sides.

But that's only making us "more elite" . More in depth. Everyone can learn it, just need to play some D&D. But for me it's perfectly fine, that's an optional knowledge that nobody will take away from you.

Besides, D&D is not mechanics, D&D is just D&D. We had tons of optional rules for ages, new editions, etc. And it's still D&D, even though people have sentiments about Ad&d, then now about 3e D&D. When D&D 5e arrives, people will miss D&D 4e and complain. After more than 12 years of experience and being active in D&D community, I know it for sure.

It has always bothered me: why do you not publish the real dice used for spells?

Borror0, are you jesting here?

You can modify all spells to better suit your campaign, or even make up some of them, and it's still the same game. That's how it is in DDO, if more people considered those changes as house rules to better suit the game, there wouldn't be much to complain.

[Melyc'inya]

When we roll 2d6, we roll 2d6, not 1d11+1.

Except for spells, where we tend to roll skewed things like 2d3+6.

This should be easily proven by whacking something with a greatsword and logging your damage per swing.

Thank you so much for that reply, El. I am among those who were beginning to worry about whether or not our rolls fit into the bell curve that they should...

Now that that's settled, what is your take on the suggestions that have been made? I personally think that the "1d6 (1 to 6) damage" is alright, only a teeny bit more wordy than it is now, and gives clarification to those who don't understand what the "xdy" means. A toggle to turn off the text in parenthesis for those of us who already understand dice notation and don't need the extra clutter would also be completely awesome.

On THAT note...what exactly was the "optional toggle" mentioned earlier? I do hope it's not "turn on/off dice notation," with no option to turn off the "x to y" notation. That would make my halflings even sadder than they already are about losing their unique run animation and forgetting how to keep weapons level (and not aimed at your face while you run)...and nobody likes a sad halfling.

[Sarr]

Another suggestion to make texts easier to read:
Get rid of prerequisites in tooltips, when you look at your shortcut bar. I think that's useless there and takes 1/2 of tooltip sometimes.

Well, if you want to use some ability, like Pale Master's "Necrotic Touch", some enhancements or feats, you just need the description of how it works. Prerequisites are good when you look at your character chart.

But maybe it would a technical problem to implement 2 other descriptions? One for character chart and one, shorter, for shortcut bar?

[phillymiket]

You can modify all spells to better suit your campaign, or even make up some of them, and it's still the same game. That's how it is in DDO, if more people considered those changes as house rules to better suit the game, there wouldn't be much to complain.

I think he's referring to listing the damage numbers as they actually play in the game. Sure everyone house rules something. But a DM who wants happy questers would make sure the players knew what the changes were.
DMs who "fudge" rolls and get caught usually end up with some degree of uproar.

[Solmage]

It has always bothered me: why do you not publish the real dice used for spells?

I'd be content with the 'help text' taking this into account and simply writing out the real damage range. For example, 40-60 per ray with current enhancements.

When we roll 2d6, we roll 2d6, not 1d11+1.

Except for spells, where we tend to roll skewed things like 2d3+6.

This should be easily proven by whacking something with a greatsword and logging your damage per swing.

On a related note, any chance of making acid fog and such spells also use skewed dice?

[HallowedOne]

Besides, D&D is not mechanics...

Oh, but it is. You have no idea how much fun I had on the past 8 years playing Neverwinter Nights, trying to figure out a new killer lvl 40 build .

No wonder why they released dozens of complementary books with as manyPrestige Classes as grains of sand on a beach ...

[Borror0]

Borror0, are you jesting here?

I am dead serious: why are they purposely displaying information that is wrong?

Yes, more complaints about things that doesn't make D&D a D&D.

1. I'm complaining about inaccurate descriptions.
2. Keep your definition of what is or is not D&D to yourself. Don't pretend you know what D&D is or is not to others.

[Sarr]

Oh, but it is. You have no idea how much fun I had on the past 8 years playing Neverwinter Nights, trying to figure out a new killer lvl 40 build .

No wonder why they released dozens of complementary books with as manyPrestige Classes as grains of sand on a beach ...

Then tell me what happens when those rules are changed? That's still D&D in my opinion.

If not, only the first, Gygax's D&D would be D&D. Ad&d was different, Ad&d 2e too, 3e too and so on. Yet, we still refer to it as "D&D" . And your builds wouldn't even exist in those other rules of D&D - but still you could play those prestige classes under different mechanics.

For me the only required mechanics is D20 . The rest changes in time, changes from table to table etc.

@phillymiket
Maybe you're right... But still, I could even play if all mechanics was hidden. That would be fun, but of course only when drop rates would be smaller and there was less junk in loot to test out .

I am dead serious: why are they purposely displaying information that is wrong?

1. I'm complaining about inaccurate description.
2. Keep your definition of what is or is not D&D to yourself. Don't pretend you know what D&D is or is not to others.

2. Obviously, what I write is my opinion. I never pretend to have objective opinions, because no such exists in the world. So please, treat all I write as only my own, humble opinion, even if I'm too lazy to add "imho" everywhere . It would look silly too.

1. Inaccurate description is a different thing. But I thought you said that, for example, displaying 10d6 as 10-60 is wrong, which isn't. And having (d6) there would make it 100% accurate imho.

And ok, I can't understand why you're so serious about it. "why are they purposely displaying information that is wrong?"
Sorry, but the first thing I thought was "because it's a conspiracy!". I know, I'm too honest and I'll get many -1's here. But I don't care, to me you're a bit too dead serious sometimes.
And yes, I'm Polish, plus I am only a human. I can understand written English wrong sometimes (sometimes I read too fast), and I can and will make mistakes. But if there's any doubt, it's never on purpose Borror0.

[sephiroth1084]

DDO dice =/= D&D dice. At least not for spells, which are more like 1d3+3 than 1d6.

[Sarr]

DDO dice =/= D&D dice. At least not for spells, which are more like 1d3+3 than 1d6.

Yup. Wasn't it like that for ages?

[sephiroth1084]

Yup. Wasn't it like that for ages?

If you knew this, then why did you say:

1. Inaccurate description is a different thing. But I thought you said that, for example, displaying 10d6 as 10-60 is wrong, which isn't. And having (d6) there would make it 100% accurate imho.

10-60 is not the same thing as 10d6 in DDO. That neither of them actually portrays correct information is for another discussion, but replacing 10d6, an icon of D&D, with false information is kind of stupid. Especially since the 10-60 implies some hard numerics, which no one will ever see, because metamagics and items and enhancements are being applied that aren't being figured in. 10d6 at least still implies variability.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

When we roll 2d6, we roll 2d6, not 1d11+1.

Except for spells, where we tend to roll skewed things like 2d3+6.

This should be easily proven by whacking something with a greatsword and logging your damage per swing.

Thank you Eladrin. You've just made my day. I promise not to say anything bad about Turbine the rest of the month

I do however share Borror0's question:

It has always bothered me: why do you not publish the real dice used for spells?

I can understand why you adjusted the damage die (basically because you scaled mob HP and melee weapon power relative to standard D&D) but the spirit of D&D since Expert edition (Basic told you to hide the manual from players) has been to give as much info to players as possible so that they can make informed decisions.

Please, as you move forward with a new system for displaying damage potential (be it xDx+x format or *shudder* x-x formats) please be honest about what you are doing with damage die so that we can make intelligent decisions about what to use when. Knowing how die are scewed would change some casting decisions.

Thanks again for the honest response

[Sarr]

If you knew this, then why did you say:


10-60 is not the same thing as 10d6 in DDO. That neither of them actually portrays correct information is for another discussion, but replacing 10d6, an icon of D&D, with false information is kind of stupid. Especially since the 10-60 implies some hard numerics, which no one will ever see, because metamagics and items and enhancements are being applied that aren't being figured in. 10d6 at least still implies variability.

What I said wasn't about that specific example. I had the impression some people complained that actually displaying 1-something isn't right, and I don't see the problem.
The only change here is obviously displaying it like "x to y". That dice problem is for another topic then, imho. After all, that's not a change made in Update 5, right?

That's why I understood Borror0 wrong - it was a thread about "New Dice notation" and I came to see feedback about it, not years-old issue.

[Borror0]

1. Inaccurate description is a different thing. But I thought you said that, for example, displaying 10d6 as 10-60 is wrong, which isn't.

I did not claim that "displaying 10d6 as 10-60 is wrong." However, I did claim that displaying 2d6+1 as 3-13 is misleading and inaccurate. When most people read 3-13, they think of a 1d11+2 distribution, not a 2d6 distribution. The two are not the same and, in some cases, can have very different averages.

It's not "wrong" but it's certainly misleading and not as accurate as it can be.

I can't understand why you're so serious about it. "why are they purposely displaying information that is wrong?"

You don't understand the importance of accurate descriptions?

Look, the description of many spells are wrong. For example, Fireball claims to do 3.5 damage per caster level but, actually, it deals 5 damage per caster level. It's off by 43%! How can you expect players to make educated decisions when the descriptions are so way off.

2. Obviously, what I write is my opinion. I never pretend to have objective opinions

You're either lying to me or to yourself. Otherwise, you would making claims such as "Yes, more complaints about things that doesn't make D&D a D&D." Others will disagree about what makes D&D what it is, to them, and being so assertive about them being wrong means you're expressing more than an opinion: you're claiming that they are factually wrong.

[Lorkian]

I hate this in so many ways. I came to this game because it was challenging. I accepted the challenge and have, and continue to, research so I can meet the challenge. That is fun. Giving anything away, be it loot, info, plat, whatever, without making people do anything to get it at all is boring and stupid. Leave it alone, people will research it, learn it and appreciate it. You guys got this right using the d20 system, don't screw it up.