Whole of project topics (across booklets, versions, contributors, etc.)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this. I wanted to inquire on ODDProboards due to its activity in comparison here, but the registration process is too much of a hassle. Nonetheless, I only have a very minor thing to ask. Forgive me if I'm forbidden to ask such questions here.

When a set of number range (Ex: 1-6) is stated, an appropriate number of dice is rolled. Fair enough, but what I don't understand is how a parenthesized (Or better yet, bracketed, to distinguish them from sentences) is omitted to just show the amount of dice and their modifiers you have to roll. I realized how this archaic system of just showing the ranges slowed down the game-play once you stumble upon an unorthodox set of numbers. Like 5-10. Of course, that's 1D6+4, but I had to dedicated 10-15 seconds of thinking to even solve that, due to the many combinations of dice you have to remember.

It's basic math obviously, but at the heat of battle, most people become slow at math when pressured, especially when combing different types of dice and modifiers to get a minimum and maximum result. Is there a reason why the rules (I'm talking specifically about the V4 version) don't just include the amount of dice you have to roll? I don't want the number ranges removed, because there's a certain antique charm to it, but just adding the amount of dice besides it in parenthesis (Or brackets), like this "2-20 (2D10)" (Or "2-20 [2D10]) would save a lot of time and mental energy.

Thanks.

When a set of number range (Ex: 1-6) is stated, an appropriate number of dice is rolled. Fair enough, but what I don't understand is how a parenthesized (Or better yet, bracketed, to distinguish them from sentences) is omitted to just show the amount of dice and their modifiers you have to roll. I realized how this archaic system of just showing the ranges slowed down the game-play once you stumble upon an unorthodox set of numbers. Like 5-10. Of course, that's 1D6+4, but I had to dedicated 10-15 seconds of thinking to even solve that, due to the many combinations of dice you have to remember.

It's basic math obviously, but at the heat of battle, most people become slow at math when pressured, especially when combing different types of dice and modifiers to get a minimum and maximum result. Is there a reason why the rules (I'm talking specifically about the V4 version) don't just include the amount of dice you have to roll? I don't want the number ranges removed, because there's a certain antique charm to it, but just adding the amount of dice besides it in parenthesis (Or brackets), like this "2-20 (2D10)" (Or "2-20 [2D10]) would save a lot of time and mental energy.

Thanks.

I remember Simon talking about the number ranges once a longtime ago. I'll see if I can find that post. (Although hopefully he pop by and answer this)

-Mike

ADDED: Oh now I remember it's at the start of the rules... http://ddo.immersiveink.com/#the-dice_1

So Yes there was assumed knowledge about how to parse the range given. But I'm not sure the layout of the books could handle the additional [1d6+4] notation after each range. But it is a fair point.

-Mike

ADDED: Oh now I remember it's at the start of the rules... http://ddo.immersiveink.com/#the-dice_1

So Yes there was assumed knowledge about how to parse the range given. But I'm not sure the layout of the books could handle the additional [1d6+4] notation after each range. But it is a fair point.

Hi Michael,

Absolutely no problem whatever with asking the question; that's what this forum is for! Also, thanks to Mike for providing an answer and my apologies for not seeing your post sooner. Unfortunately I have been so buried in work I have barely stopped by here in the last few months.

Anyways. Number ranges were the way things were done all the way through to the AD&D MM and PHB. The now well-known "d notation" only began to become the standard with the AD&D DMG (first published in August 1979). So from that perspective, ranges have an OD&D feel to them.

The other side of it is that number ranges are not prescriptive. E.g., 2-10 can be achieved various ways: 1d4+1d6, 1d2+1d8, 1d9+1 (if you have a nine-sided die), 1d10 reroll 1s, and so on are all legitimate throws. There is a (quite enjoyable) sub-game in there figuring out neat/efficient dice combinations that satisfy required ranges.

With V5 "in progress" and my current workload the way it is, I don't hold out much hope of ever revising V4 to include d notation.

Probably not exactly what you wanted to hear, but I hope that is helpful none-the-less.

Simon

p.s. If you encounter a difficult number range the solve all solution is: throw a larger die (d20 or d100) and reroll any result outside the required range. It's "quick and dirty" but it works

Absolutely no problem whatever with asking the question; that's what this forum is for! Also, thanks to Mike for providing an answer and my apologies for not seeing your post sooner. Unfortunately I have been so buried in work I have barely stopped by here in the last few months.

Anyways. Number ranges were the way things were done all the way through to the AD&D MM and PHB. The now well-known "d notation" only began to become the standard with the AD&D DMG (first published in August 1979). So from that perspective, ranges have an OD&D feel to them.

The other side of it is that number ranges are not prescriptive. E.g., 2-10 can be achieved various ways: 1d4+1d6, 1d2+1d8, 1d9+1 (if you have a nine-sided die), 1d10 reroll 1s, and so on are all legitimate throws. There is a (quite enjoyable) sub-game in there figuring out neat/efficient dice combinations that satisfy required ranges.

With V5 "in progress" and my current workload the way it is, I don't hold out much hope of ever revising V4 to include d notation.

Probably not exactly what you wanted to hear, but I hope that is helpful none-the-less.

Simon

p.s. If you encounter a difficult number range the solve all solution is: throw a larger die (d20 or d100) and reroll any result outside the required range. It's "quick and dirty" but it works

[f=32]Golgildir the Elf Medium (MV 12", AC 9, HD 1, hp 1/1, AL N) great cloak, lantern; spells: color spray; scrolls: sleep, sleep, charm person

Hirelings: Georges; torch[/f]

Hirelings: Georges; torch[/f]

You mean... this is a thing? There are other people who also get a small pleasure seeing dice ranges and trying to figure out what dice are implied by them?waysoftheearth wrote:...There is a (quite enjoyable) sub-game in there figuring out neat/efficient dice combinations that satisfy required ranges...

*whew*

Dougal Blackfoot (MV 9", AC 6, Lvl 4, HP 10/10) leather, short sword+main gauche

Why is there no "like" button on this forum?

[f=32]Golgildir the Elf Medium (MV 12", AC 9, HD 1, hp 1/1, AL N) great cloak, lantern; spells: color spray; scrolls: sleep, sleep, charm person

Hirelings: Georges; torch[/f]

Hirelings: Georges; torch[/f]

Dunno. We should ask the site admin.

Dougal Blackfoot (MV 9", AC 6, Lvl 4, HP 10/10) leather, short sword+main gauche

I can attest that after a couple of plays, figuring out dice combinations is a somewhat fun puzzle. One that isn't inherently necessary, and some might say "archaic" in name of nostalgia; yet there's a sense of satisfaction in "solving" it.waysoftheearth wrote:...There is a (quite enjoyable) sub-game in there figuring out neat/efficient dice combinations that satisfy required ranges.

4-24 was the latest puzzle I've solved. In hindsight, It's kinda stupid to not automatically think 4D6. But seeing a pair of two in there made me thought of D4s on reflex. Plus, it's usually written like 4D6, so my mind wandered off into other dice types.

Will do. It's a quick solution indeed, but I reckon there's a chance figuring out the actual dice combination is faster than re-rolling every time a result is out of range.If you encounter a difficult number range the solve all solution is: throw a larger die (d20 or d100) and reroll any result outside the required range. It's "quick and dirty" but it works.

EDIT: I just came here to say that doing the "d20/d100" method, while faster, actually eradicates the bell-curve and probabilities you'd normally get. Whether this is game breaking or not, I have no clue.