13 is the most likely number from 4d6 drop lowest. 3 is the least likely (because it requires four 1s).
However, that didn't prevent me from getting three 3s in an array with manually rolled dice. I took the standard array rather than risk annoying the dice deities any further than I must have already did.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Rolling an 18 or higher is more likely on a d20 (15%) yes.
That is the same as the chance of rolling a 1, a 2, or a 3 on 1d20. For every 18+, you will have a 3-, statistically. I can just see the character sheet now... 20-17-1-2-19-4.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
13 is the most likely number from 4d6 drop lowest. 3 is the least likely (because it requires four 1s).
However, that didn't prevent me from getting three 3s in an array with manually rolled dice. I took the standard array rather than risk annoying the dice deities any further than I must have already did.
Manually rolled dice, as normally rolled at a gaming table, aren't actually very random; you need a lot of bouncing after the throw (which, absent a craps table in your gaming room, will probably result in dice all over the floor), a lot of shaking (preferably in a dice cup), or a dice tower to actually get decent randomness.
We were all using the same dice tower and same set of 4d6. I was the only one with 3 sets of four 1s. Can't blame the dice if we're all doing it the same way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
13 is the most likely number from 4d6 drop lowest. 3 is the least likely (because it requires four 1s).
However, that didn't prevent me from getting three 3s in an array with manually rolled dice. I took the standard array rather than risk annoying the dice deities any further than I must have already did.
The chances of doing that rolling 4d6 drop the lowest is astronomically small. You shouldn't have that ever happen in your life again.
rolling a single 3 in a single roll is 0.077% chance or 8 in ten thousand.
rolling a single 3 in six chances is 0.46% chance or 5 in a thousand, which could happen in a few attempts if you played a lot.
rolling three 3s in six chances but not rolling more than 3-3s = 0.00000275% That is less than 3 in a billion.
Fortunately no DM is going to expect you to keep those stats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Rolling an 18 or higher is more likely on a d20 (15%) yes.
That is the same as the chance of rolling a 1, a 2, or a 3 on 1d20. For every 18+, you will have a 3-, statistically. I can just see the character sheet now... 20-17-1-2-19-4.
The funny thing about this is rolling an 18 isn't symmetric to rolling a 3. Using the 4d6 drop lowest you have ...
1.62% chance of rolling an 18 in a single attempt.
8.96% chance of rolling a single 18 but only one in six attempts.
0.37% chance of rolling two 18s but only two in six attempts.
0.0101% chance of rolling 3-18s and only 3-18s in six attempts.
So you have close to the same chances of rolling two 18s in six chances than you do of rolling only a single 3 in six chances.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
We were all using the same dice tower and same set of 4d6. I was the only one with 3 sets of four 1s. Can't blame the dice if we're all doing it the same way.
I suspect a combination of the dice tower being flawed and how you were loading dice into the tower (bad die rollers tend to result in the dice winding up in a consistent position relative to how they started out). While one in a billion chances do happen randomly, it's certainly at the stage of 'worth investigating whether actually random'.
Manually rolled dice, as normally rolled at a gaming table, aren't actually very random; you need a lot of bouncing after the throw (which, absent a craps table in your gaming room, will probably result in dice all over the floor), a lot of shaking (preferably in a dice cup), or a dice tower to actually get decent randomness.
It doesn't matter, you may not be achieving true randomness but the probability is fine unless you're doing a trick roll or have poorly weighted dice. The results of your rolls with be functionally random.
Manually rolled dice, as normally rolled at a gaming table, aren't actually very random; you need a lot of bouncing after the throw (which, absent a craps table in your gaming room, will probably result in dice all over the floor), a lot of shaking (preferably in a dice cup), or a dice tower to actually get decent randomness.
It doesn't matter, you may not be achieving true randomness but the probability is fine unless you're doing a trick roll or have poorly weighted dice. The results of your rolls with be functionally random.
No, it really won't be. I've seen dramatically distorted results from people using bad rolling techniques (the most visible are implausible runs of the same number).
It really depends on the style. Most of the time, it's fine. My wife's throws are really bad - I'd estimate that she has about 40% chance of straight rerolling whatever was rolled the previous round (as opposed to 16.7% on a fair throw) and she's yet to roll the value of the direct opposite side, to my knowledge.
You need to "jingle" the dice at least three times with enough space that the dice can really move around on your hand. That's using two hands, cupped on top of each other to form a rough sphere. If you're doing open handed, you really need to whip your hand as you release them to get them spinning.
If you don't do those, then it's not even approximately random.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It really depends on the style. Most of the time, it's fine. My wife's throws are really bad - I'd estimate that she has about 40% chance of straight rerolling whatever was rolled the previous round (as opposed to 16.7% on a fair throw) and she's yet to roll the value of the direct opposite side, to my knowledge.
You need to "jingle" the dice at least three times with enough space that the dice can really move around on your hand. That's using two hands, cupped on top of each other to form a rough sphere. If you're doing open handed, you really need to whip your hand as you release them to get them spinning.
If you don't do those, then it's not even approximately random.
Yeah it's funny to see how the online rollers tend to be villified for not being truly random but actual die rolls are much less so lol
Yeah it's funny to see how the online rollers tend to be villified for not being truly random but actual die rolls are much less so lol
If you want to actually do a decent job of randomness with dice, look at a craps table or practice table. Unfortunately, that's both inconveniently large and either expensive, a lot of work, or both.
Yeah it's funny to see how the online rollers tend to be villified for not being truly random but actual die rolls are much less so lol
If you want to actually do a decent job of randomness with dice, look at a craps table or practice table. Unfortunately, that's both inconveniently large and either expensive, a lot of work, or both.
They claim the DDB dice do a good job of randomization but I've never had a problem with the other online rollers
They claim the DDB dice do a good job of randomization but I've never had a problem with the other online rollers
I don't have a problem with them either, but I was talking about rolling physical dice. Honestly, you have to try to do a bad job with an online die roller (the best way to do it wrong is to try to write your own randomizer; the RNG built into your programming language or OS may not be adequate for cryptography but it's plenty for gaming).
It exposed table envy and roleplayers, and "roleplayers".
I had a player roll 3 on a stat for two characters, and they ran with it.
I actually considered changing 4d6dl for 2d6+6 to force minimums. The average is still similar.
If you want a higher minimum with a closer average, 5d4 will basically get you what you want, although you'll have a bunch of players with similar scores, due to how bell-shaped the curve is.
Actually the 2d6+6 is a very nice method. I haven't used it, and I am gravitating toward standard array, but 2d6+6 is very reasonable. The average for each stat increases by less than a full point, but it is very simple and does have a floor of 8. For the folks that believe raising the floor to 8 is too crazy, I would share that a very few games have a DM that would force a player to play a character with low stats.
Don't get me wrong ... I wouldn't enjoy a game as much if each player began with an 18 in a stat. I think using your ASIs to increase Attribute Scores is fine. But I'm sure that among the DDB community eschewing feats would not be the popular position to take.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Actually the 2d6+6 is a very nice method. I haven't used it, and I am gravitating toward standard array, but 2d6+6 is very reasonable. The average for each stat increases by less than a full point, but it is very simple and does have a floor of 8. For the folks that believe raising the floor to 8 is too crazy, I would share that a very few games have a DM that would force a player to play a character with low stats.
Don't get me wrong ... I wouldn't enjoy a game as much if each player began with an 18 in a stat. I think using your ASIs to increase Attribute Scores is fine. But I'm sure that among the DDB community eschewing feats would not be the popular position to take.
I am completely fine with a game with a lot of high scores...but at that point wouldn't it just be simpler to use an expanded point buy? You would have an 8 floor and let them pick where they put an 18.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
somewhere in the 1 in 6, to 1 in 7 range, yeah. the nice thing about probabilities... they never turn out exactly.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
13 is the most likely number from 4d6 drop lowest. 3 is the least likely (because it requires four 1s).
However, that didn't prevent me from getting three 3s in an array with manually rolled dice. I took the standard array rather than risk annoying the dice deities any further than I must have already did.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Rolling an 18 or higher is more likely on a d20 (15%) yes.
That is the same as the chance of rolling a 1, a 2, or a 3 on 1d20. For every 18+, you will have a 3-, statistically. I can just see the character sheet now... 20-17-1-2-19-4.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Manually rolled dice, as normally rolled at a gaming table, aren't actually very random; you need a lot of bouncing after the throw (which, absent a craps table in your gaming room, will probably result in dice all over the floor), a lot of shaking (preferably in a dice cup), or a dice tower to actually get decent randomness.
We were all using the same dice tower and same set of 4d6. I was the only one with 3 sets of four 1s. Can't blame the dice if we're all doing it the same way.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
The chances of doing that rolling 4d6 drop the lowest is astronomically small. You shouldn't have that ever happen in your life again.
rolling a single 3 in a single roll is 0.077% chance or 8 in ten thousand.
rolling a single 3 in six chances is 0.46% chance or 5 in a thousand, which could happen in a few attempts if you played a lot.
rolling three 3s in six chances but not rolling more than 3-3s = 0.00000275% That is less than 3 in a billion.
Fortunately no DM is going to expect you to keep those stats.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
The funny thing about this is rolling an 18 isn't symmetric to rolling a 3. Using the 4d6 drop lowest you have ...
1.62% chance of rolling an 18 in a single attempt.
8.96% chance of rolling a single 18 but only one in six attempts.
0.37% chance of rolling two 18s but only two in six attempts.
0.0101% chance of rolling 3-18s and only 3-18s in six attempts.
So you have close to the same chances of rolling two 18s in six chances than you do of rolling only a single 3 in six chances.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I suspect a combination of the dice tower being flawed and how you were loading dice into the tower (bad die rollers tend to result in the dice winding up in a consistent position relative to how they started out). While one in a billion chances do happen randomly, it's certainly at the stage of 'worth investigating whether actually random'.
It doesn't matter, you may not be achieving true randomness but the probability is fine unless you're doing a trick roll or have poorly weighted dice. The results of your rolls with be functionally random.
Life is the game.
No, it really won't be. I've seen dramatically distorted results from people using bad rolling techniques (the most visible are implausible runs of the same number).
It really depends on the style. Most of the time, it's fine. My wife's throws are really bad - I'd estimate that she has about 40% chance of straight rerolling whatever was rolled the previous round (as opposed to 16.7% on a fair throw) and she's yet to roll the value of the direct opposite side, to my knowledge.
You need to "jingle" the dice at least three times with enough space that the dice can really move around on your hand. That's using two hands, cupped on top of each other to form a rough sphere. If you're doing open handed, you really need to whip your hand as you release them to get them spinning.
If you don't do those, then it's not even approximately random.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah it's funny to see how the online rollers tend to be villified for not being truly random but actual die rolls are much less so lol
If you want to actually do a decent job of randomness with dice, look at a craps table or practice table. Unfortunately, that's both inconveniently large and either expensive, a lot of work, or both.
They claim the DDB dice do a good job of randomization but I've never had a problem with the other online rollers
I don't have a problem with them either, but I was talking about rolling physical dice. Honestly, you have to try to do a bad job with an online die roller (the best way to do it wrong is to try to write your own randomizer; the RNG built into your programming language or OS may not be adequate for cryptography but it's plenty for gaming).
It exposed table envy and roleplayers, and "roleplayers".
I had a player roll 3 on a stat for two characters, and they ran with it.
I actually considered changing 4d6dl for 2d6+6 to force minimums. The average is still similar.
It increases average stat total from 73 to 78. That's not particularly similar.
If you want a higher minimum with a closer average, 5d4 will basically get you what you want, although you'll have a bunch of players with similar scores, due to how bell-shaped the curve is.
Actually the 2d6+6 is a very nice method. I haven't used it, and I am gravitating toward standard array, but 2d6+6 is very reasonable. The average for each stat increases by less than a full point, but it is very simple and does have a floor of 8. For the folks that believe raising the floor to 8 is too crazy, I would share that a very few games have a DM that would force a player to play a character with low stats.
Don't get me wrong ... I wouldn't enjoy a game as much if each player began with an 18 in a stat. I think using your ASIs to increase Attribute Scores is fine. But I'm sure that among the DDB community eschewing feats would not be the popular position to take.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I am completely fine with a game with a lot of high scores...but at that point wouldn't it just be simpler to use an expanded point buy? You would have an 8 floor and let them pick where they put an 18.