New Dice notation. Do not like.

[SisAmethyst]

...

But your result will always be between 2 and 12. That is what the statement is saying, it's not saying there are only 11 results.

...

Well better say, it is rarely a 2 or 12 but very often in the middle between 2 and 12.

The problem is that it is highly important that it is not a straight line which you can't get by just saying 2-12 especially if you compare something. For example if you have 1d6+6 then you can as well say the maximum is 12, so no big difference to the previous one, but that is unfortunately not the case.

Also the dice notation and the resulting curve can be reproduced, the straight line however will lead to something else.

Take a completely different example:
Each dog is an animal. But you can't turn it around to say 'each animal is a dog'. Context and order of elements have sometimes a huge impact to transfer information and to understand something, and so it is with the dice notation.

[TiranBlade]

Well better say, it is rarely a 2 or 12 but very often in the middle between 2 and 12.

The problem is that it is highly important that it is not a straight line which you can't get by just saying 2-12 especially if you compare something. For example if you have 1d6+6 then you can as well say the maximum is 12, so no big difference to the previous one, but that is unfortunately not the case.

Also the dice notation and the resulting curve can be reproduced, the straight line however will lead to something else.

Take a completely different example:
Each dog is an animal. But you can't turn it around to say 'each animal is a dog'. Context and order of elements have sometimes a huge impact to transfer information and to understand something, and so it is with the dice notation.

This is what I said when I stated,

Your arguement is about reverse equality, but when dealing with random results, you cannot get reverse equality if there are mulitple types of things that can get you to the same result. Especially when the result deals with more than one answer to begin with.

When determining a truth about something think about the statements. And at this point I will agree. The statement used should be,

2d6 can = 2 to 12,
not 2d6 does = 2 to 12 in one result, Because this second statement assumes that 2d6 equals 11 to 36 of the 36 results at the same time.

However 2 to 12 doesn't always equal 2d6, the equation is one directional.
Same as these which also apply the same results.
1 + 1d11 = to being between 2 to 12
1d2 + 1d10 = to being between 2 to 12
1d3 + 1d9 = to being between 2 to 12
1d4 + 1d8 = to being between 2 to 12
1d5 + 1d7 = to being between 2 to 12

And again talking about the Bell Curve, your talking the highest average result, not the range in which all results can fall into.

[SisAmethyst]

This is what I said when I stated,

The thing is that you need to go reverse in case the new notation is the only one given. I agree with you that 2d6 has a maximum outcome of 12 but it is very important to know that this is a value you rarely will get and therefore the new description can lead to false assumptions.

[TiranBlade]

The thing is that you need to go reverse in case the new notation is the only one given. I agree with you that 2d6 has a maximum outcome of 12 but it is very important to know that this is a value you rarely will get and therefore the new description can lead to false assumptions.

And again talking about the Bell Curve, your talking the highest average result, not the range in which all results can fall into. In stating 2 to 12 they are stating that all results can appear between the number 2 and 12, not that the result will more often then not appear as 5,6,7,8,9 over the results of 2 and 12, you are applying a mathmatically calculation to something that is a base statement trying to falsify it when in fact it's a truth.

Your playing on expections and not the facts in general.

I'm not denying that say 7 would be the most common result, based on the bell curve and law of averages, this is true that most of the time 7 will result.

But the overall range that is possible even with the worst possible average of resulting, is still 2 to 12. This is a fact! Even according to the Bell Curve theory!

[SisAmethyst]

And again talking about the Bell Curve, your talking the highest average result, not the range in which all results can fall into.

Well, dunno, it seems we both agree that the new notation is not equal to the old notation... and editing your posts make me a bit fuzzy to need to re-read them all over again

[SisAmethyst]

... you are applying a mathmatically calculation to something that is a base statement trying to falsify it when in fact it's a truth.

Your playing on expections and not the facts in general.

Argh again edited and you miss me...

two points:
1. I not falsify something as I agree that 2d6 has a maximum outcome of 12 which I never ever stated otherwise!
2. It IS in the reality important what the average outcome (bell curve) is

Btw. the Mobs only have finite number of HP so we will not have infinite number of rolls

[TiranBlade]

Well, dunno, it seems we both agree that the new notation is not equal to the old notation... and editing your posts make me a bit fuzzy to need to re-read them all over again

Sorry for the whole of editing, it's just that it seems as I am thinking through my arguement that I have to write more to explain the perspective of this and why in order to get your results even for the curve you have to have a minimum and maximum range to begin with otherwise where are you going to get part of the basis for your average.

You can still result in the mimimum possible result I know this from personal experience for being cursed with rolling ones more than 50% of the time.) and you can still result in the maximum possible result even according to the bell curve, you can't ignore all facts when talking mathmatics, what basically I think if we go through and take in all facts is this,

The range possible is 2 to 12 with a 7 as the average roll.

Also continuing, I state it only as falsifying because of the lack of acceptance of the entirety as a whole, not just because of a part. If you want lets go down to as simple as possible.

If you roll 2d6 and both dice roll a 1.

1+1=2

Therefore 2 is the minimum possible and it can and does happen. Thereby a truth.

[SisAmethyst]

Sorry for the whole of editing, it's just that it seems as I am thinking through my arguement that I have to write more to explain the perspective of this and why in order to get your results even for the curve you have to have a minimum and maximum range to begin with otherwise where are you going to get part of the basis for your average.

hehe, ok, just dazed me a bit

You can still result in the mimimum possible result I know this from personal experience for being cursed with rolling ones more than 50% of the time.) and you can still result in the maximum possible result even according to the bell curve, you can't ignore all facts when talking mathmatics, what basically I think if we go through and take in all facts is this,

The range possible is 2 to 12 with a 7 as the average roll.

Also continuing, I state it only as falsifying because of the lack of acceptance of the entirety as a whole, not just because of a part. If you want lets go down to as simple as possible.

If you roll 2d6 and both dice roll a 1.

1+1=2

Therefore 2 is the minimum possible and it can and does happen. Thereby a truth.

The point is I totally agree with you that the minimum is 2 and the maximum is 12 and both are values that can in the reality happen to be rolled. I never denied that fact and never will

But as monsters have finite numbers of HP and therefore we only have a finite number of rolls the average value of this roles is an important information which gets lost if we only have the minimum and maximum number given.

[TiranBlade]

hehe, ok, just dazed me a bit



The point is I totally agree with you that the minimum is 2 and the maximum is 12 and both are values that can in the reality happen to be rolled. I never denied that fact and never will

But as monsters have finite numbers of HP and therefore we only have a finite number of rolls the average value of this roles is an important information which gets lost if we only have the minimum and maximum number given.

So the argueing about 2d6 not equaling 2 to 12 comes down to DPS calculation and not much else.......

Sigh, I'm done. I'm just trying to give a basis in mathmatical fact that people are making an untrue statement about something when all they care about are common results...

If you don't like it just read the dice notation until thing get fixed.....That's all I have to say on the subject anymore.

PS. I'm not stating your last statement is Untrue just, the start of this seemed that way.

[SINIBYTE]

2d6 =/= 6d2

[Tilliak]

I don't have a problem catering to everyone as long as they don't take away from what we had to being with, that is the issue here. And he has just as much right as you or I to post his opinion here.

It's my opinion that his post is asinine.

[TiranBlade]

It's my opinion that his post is asinine.

Well you are intitled to your opinion.... I don't agree with your opinion, but hey that's mine.

Have fun!
TiranBlade

[TigrisMorte]

What I am asking is when did average become involved?
When they determined to calculate a random number.

When out of infinate results
It is in no way infinite it is very very finite.

of a roll of 2d6 that result would ALWAYS be between 2-12
But that is not what it says.
example;
"Acid Fog ... causes 2 to 12 acid damage every 2 seconds to targets within the cloud.\n\nD&D Dice: Deals 2d6 acid damage every 2 seconds."
It does not say "it causes between 2 and 12" it says "it causes 2 to 12". That is a statement of mathematical probability. Not a generalization of range.


Nor does it say this, "you will never see a result on a roll of 2d6 that will be less than 2 and greater that 12."

..."algebreic form...Which this result equals 2 to 12"
Except it is not Algebra. It is Probability.

However 2 to 12 doesn't always equal 2d6, the equation is one directional.
Same as these which also apply the same results.
1 + 1d11 = to being between 2 to 12
1d2 + 1d10 = to being between 2 to 12
1d3 + 1d9 = to being between 2 to 12
1d4 + 1d8 = to being between 2 to 12
1d5 + 1d7 = to being between 2 to 12

Now your just obfuscating. I specifically stated 2 to 12 was never 2D6.

Basically your complant comes down to 2 to 12 doesn't always mean 2d6.
No, it never means it. They are different statements of probability.

But the reason it is posted as 2 to 12 is because out of infinate die results the number will always roll between 2 and 12 and that is why directionally it equals that, but not in reverse.
And this is why it is so very very bad that they chose to misrepresent the statement of probability. It is not infinite. 2 to 12 has 11 finite results possible and 2D6 has 36 finite possible outcomes. They also have very very different chances of each individual outcome.

It's like combining two balls of clay, this amount combined with this amount will always equal this amount, but any other combinations of this total amount also equal this total amount.
No, it is like combining two exactly the same amounts of clay and claiming it is the same as the two seperate pieces of clay.

Your think law of averages, but when determining results it a matter of results and not averages.
You available for some poker?

...Heart Attacks and Strokes doen't always result in death.
Never said they did. I said even if the outcome can be the same they are still different things.

Your arguement is about reverse equality,
No, my argument is that misrepresenting a statement of probability is bad math.

... The statement used should be,

2d6 can = 2 to 12,
No, the statement (if they wish to use the different method of declaration) should be,
"Acid Fog ... causes between 2 and 12 acid damage every 2 seconds to targets within the cloud."
The "D&D Dice: Deals 2d6 acid damage every 2 seconds." is pure ignorance as unless it is a trade mark on specific products, there is no such thing as "D&D Dice:" only dice. If the probability is actually "2D6" then stating this is is fine but if it is not "2D6" then they should not state that.

Again, this is not a matter of subjective context. It is a matter of misrepresenting a mathematical term and claiming literary license. And the consequences are that readers shall think there are an infinite number of possible outcomes for a very finite probability.

[stoolcannon]

Man some of you folks have taken this to a level far beyond the scope of my imagination. I prefer dice notation simply because that's a big part of what makes DnD DnD. But beyond that it's close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades that I couldn't care less.

[hdogan]

Could we please get better D&D dice notations for every item using dices? Lots of item descriptions are still missing D&D dice notations? So I have to calculate from "X to Y" to "AdB".

Or give us a toggle for notations! (I think this will make all sides happy).

Tags: tolero, devs, dnd, pnp, dice, notation, wow, lame