Technical question for the devs on die rolls

[Lorien_the_First_One]

When an item says, 2d6, you you actually generate 2 six digit random numbers and add them or do you just generate a rnd(max 12, min 2)?

It's a serious question. We've all been saying in the other threads that the 2d6 was important both for tradition and accuracy, but I'm beginning to wonder if the 2-12 is actually what you are doing. I could see some non-D&D programmer deciding that approach was more efficient (especially for 30d6 or something like that) and not thinking through the difference. If so, the new notation is correct and we need to rethink our assumptions about items/spells with the understanding that it is an even distribution and not a nominal distribution.

Since no one wants to roll 2000 times for a random sample that's accurate 95/100 times, dev clarification on this would be very welcome.

[Chai]

I think anyone smart enough to write code would understand the difference that 2d6 has versus just generating a random number for 2 to 12. Probabilities and how they work are elementary for someone of that mindset.

[Antheal]

Why are things like 2d6 even stated when it's just not true to begin with?

Seriously, if you're using loaded dice in your die rolls when that means any time you state "2d6" you're deliberately lying about the mechanics you use.

It's not the fact that you're using loaded dice that annoys me, I think it's great. It's that fact that you're LYING in your very own descriptions that really, really, ****es me off.

I know traditional D&D uses 1d6 but if that's not what's actually happening in the game then don't say it. Even if traditional D&D uses 1d6 but the game uses 1d3+3, then for the love of player respect, JUST SAY 1d3+3 in the descriptions regardless of what pen&paper D&D uses!

[jazztromboneguy]

If so, the new notation is correct and we need to rethink our assumptions about items/spells with the understanding that it is an even distribution and not a nominal distribution.

Since no one wants to roll 2000 times for a random sample that's accurate 95/100 times, dev clarification on this would be very welcome.

I think this is one of the most valid talking points in this discussion regarding the recent "dice rolling" changes. On one side you have the "keep it in the tradition of D&D" and the other side you have the devs trying to simplify the process of understanding (a side that I do not see a whole lot of supporters. This could be due to the fact that the people who are ok with this are just not posting anything.)

So regarding the quote above: Which does our DDO system currently use and do the new descriptive changes better represent it? If the new changes better represent how things actually work, then we have to chalk the change up to the classic "this is not the turn based PnP DnD, but rather a hybrid system" reasoning that has been in discussion on the forums since Module 1.

By the way, I do not condone anyone who says the devs are doing this to "help the dumb ex-WoW players." As a long time PnP D&D player and a long time DDO player, I welcome anyone into the game that likes the feel and social aspects of D&D that make this MMO special. I just beg the devs to keep striving that when they make changes to the system, that they always keep in mind the feel of D&D.

[kaelis]

Why are things like 2d6 even stated when it's just not true to begin with?

Seriously, if you're using loaded dice in your die rolls when that means any time you state "2d6" you're deliberately lying about the mechanics you use.

It's not the fact that you're using loaded dice that annoys me, I think it's great. It's that fact that you're LYING in your very own descriptions that really, really, ****es me off.

I know traditional D&D uses 1d6 but if that's not what's actually happening in the game then don't say it. Even if traditional D&D uses 1d6 but the game uses 1d3+3, then for the love of player respect, JUST SAY 1d3+3 in the descriptions regardless of what pen&paper D&D uses!

I see a fair number of "1's" from weapon special affect proc's suggesting that at least some die rolls are what they state despite the conspiracies that all rolls are "1d3+3 or 20d3+60"...


And many DM's will "fudge" dice rolls in some situations to save a PC from certain death without letting them know. Simply to keep the game rolling. Think of it the same way and you may now get so upset.

[Rumbaar]

If both sides are using weighted dice then it doesn't mater really? But having accurate item descriptions should be a number 1 priority, than making it easier for uneducated users to understand damage rolls.

[Rice]

Obscure and inaccurate in-game descriptions is one of the game's biggest trademarks

[SisAmethyst]

As the Base Damage value you can see in a Weapon description is actualy a calculated valued based on the given dice description and the fact that 2d6 is statistically totaly different then rnd(12)+1, the /roll command is implemented and works as expected (so the functionality is already implemented) and the DPS calculation spreadsheets are not that far of from the reality it is to assume they really use the dices.

The other point is that (as already commented by the Devs) in some places they use loaded dices, especialy in places where you have small dices like 1d4 (actualy 1d3+1) but that is probably something what could be added to the description that loaded dices are used, but it should not mean to throw the whole dice description overboard.

One should not forget one point: For a single 2d6 dice a 2-12 notation is already not perfect, but for each dice that is added for additional effects like, fire, icy burst, holy, maiming, etc. the cumulated value start to get far off. Also the dice notation is probably the more easy part of the description, far more complicated is how to fit in the critical multiplier or things what does stack and what not.

[phillymiket]

/signed

I assume the silence from the development team on this issue is because they are debating the change at this moment and will soon have a response.

It's crucial to any game that the rules and structure of the game are clear and accurate.

Nothing is more frustrating in PnP than to come to the realization that the DM is fudging dice roles or changing/disregarding rules arbitrarily. If the dice are "loaded" than just list the "loaded" probabilities as they are.
If the roles are a single random generation rather than multiple random numbers ( rnd(2,12) rather than rnd(1,6)+rnd(1,6) ) just say so. Trust and clarity between the DM and the players is essential to good game play. I can live with "house rules" but "make up as you go" DMs need to pass the screen along and roll up a character.

Turbine, if you haven't decided which way to go could you please log on to the forums and at least say "we are looking into the issue now"?
The silence on this issue is deafening.

Thank you.

[TechNoFear]

I'm beginning to wonder if the 2-12 is actually what you are doing.

Try watching the good/Holy/Holyburst damage numbers on Shroud portal. Do they look evenly distributed?

I think sometimes D6+2 is used instead of D8 (ie CLW wands).

I could see some non-D&D programmer deciding that approach was more efficient (especially for 30d6 or something like that) and not thinking through the difference.

I doubt anyone capable of getting a job creating game systems would not know the difference.

Also anyone who has spent years getting an IT degree has probably been unable to avoid exposure to some form of DnD...

If so, the new notation is correct and we need to rethink our assumptions about items/spells with the understanding that it is an even distribution and not a nominal distribution.

I assume that some feedback pointed to people not understanding 2D6 (and so prompting the change to 2-12).

PnP DnD players understand both notations, but non DnD players may find 2-12 easier to understand.

I don't think this is a change to the underlying game system, simply a change to try and make the descriptions more comprehendible.

[FluffyCalico]

I assume that some feedback pointed to people not understanding 2D6 (and so prompting the change to 2-12).

PnP DnD players understand both notations, but non DnD players may find 2-12 easier to understand.

But what you are missing is one is a straight even chance per # and the other is a bell curve.

In 2-12 1 way in 11 to get each #
2d6 1 way to get 2 and 1 way to get 12 but you can get 6 with 1+5 or 5+1 or 4+2 or 2+4 or 3+3 making rolling a 6 x5 more likely that 2 or 12. So they have very different results. They are NOT the same thing. The more dice you roll the bigger steeper belly your bell curve gets. IE 30d6 for example.

[sirgog]

I see a fair number of "1's" from weapon special affect proc's suggesting that at least some die rolls are what they state despite the conspiracies that all rolls are "1d3+3 or 20d3+60"...


And many DM's will "fudge" dice rolls in some situations to save a PC from certain death without letting them know. Simply to keep the game rolling. Think of it the same way and you may now get so upset.

Weapon procs are rolled as what they say they are (so Pure Good is 1d6, easily tested although hard to prove that the dice are actually fair). Holy seldom shows a 2 or 12, making it pretty likely that 2d6 is done properly.

Spells are deliberately adjusted - the bottom half of the die cannot be rolled (by us or by foes) when casting spells. This is a buff (much needed) to one-shot damage spells in particular, and easily tested - take a level 5 Wizard with no enhancements, feats or items boosting Acid Blast, and cast the spell over and over. You will see results from 20 to 30 (5d3+15), mostly clustered around 23-27. If the dice were not fudged, you'd see 50% of your rolls be 17 or lower.

[TechNoFear]

Looking at the new items on Lama thread...

Weapons still use 1d6 etc in the damage description.

The only example of a spells was '1 to 4 fire damage per caster level (max of 20 at caster level 5)'.

[Meriadeuc]

I could see some non-D&D programmer deciding that approach was more efficient (especially for 30d6 or something like that) and not thinking through the difference.

I'd be amazed (and appalled, given what they've been saying about calculations and DPS lag) if they actually generated 30 random numbers to get such a result. You can generate the correct distribution just about as efficiently as you can generate a uniform 30-180.

[Rasczak]

The only example of a spells was '1 to 4 fire damage per caster level (max of 20 at caster level 5)'.

That's even more confusing than before.

Is it a max of 20 damage altogether ie is it a max of 5d4, or is it a max of 1d20 at lvl 5?

I know the answer but a new player doesn't.

Why they don't just go "1d4 (1 to 4) fire damage per caster level (max of 5d4 (5 to 20) at caster level 5)" beats me....

[TechNoFear]

That's even more confusing than before.

Is it a max of 20 damage altogether ie is it a max of 5d4, or is it a max of 1d20 at lvl 5?

I know the answer but a new player doesn't.

Why they don't just go "1d4 (1 to 4) fire damage per caster level (max of 5d4 (5 to 20) at caster level 5)" beats me....

I dont think it is confusing.

[Rasczak]

I dont think it is confusing.

That's different to your original post But on that description it gives no hint to how many times that damage gets taken. It reads as though it's once off which is the problem with current descriptions so all they have done is make the description longer.

And on topic, they still have the D&D dice at the bottom of the description so I'm no to put out, but not many people read beyond "What's it do?" So soon we will have loads of players asking, "what's the d thingy you keep mentioning?"

[Lorien_the_First_One]

/sigh

I thought this might be an easy one for them to answer....

[Qindark]

My guess would be some kind of table lookup (no I didn't do the whole table right, get over it):
2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 12

Pick a number 1 to x and look it up in the table. If I remember my programming from many years ago, this tends to be more efficient then rnd(6) + rnd (6) or worse for 20d6, and still gives the same random chance of getting 2 or 12 only once.

[Seikojin]

/sigh

I thought this might be an easy one for them to answer....

It reveals too much on the mechanics of the game. They could easilly answer it, but then people who do watch the forums for ways to make exploits and tools to hack the game would digest and abuse such knowledge.