@waxeagle: Heya, how's it going?

all right

@Khashir you wanted to talk d6 rerolls?

Heya,

Yes

if not too much trouble

First and foremost, definitely not denying that rerolling 5s is a bad idea.

What I'm saying is the rerolling 1-5 results in a higher average than just rolling the dice straight up.

You mean having the option?

To reroll?

no, always rerolling.

Hmm

If you reroll anything that is not a 6, you will do better than not rerolling

You will do worse than rerolling 1-3 only

Can you explain the 6*1/6 + 3.5 * 5/6 = 3.92 part? Maybe I'm not understanding it. or rather, let me try to explain what I understand, and you can point out my error. The first term in the expression is just 6 (the number 'we want'), weighed by its probability. the second is the average roll, times the probability of the remaining rolls. Is this correct?

Sure. Let me expand it a bit so you can see what I'm doing

nvm

1/6 * (6)/1 + 5/6 * (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 1/6 * 6 + 5/6 * 3.5 = 3.92

@Khashir that's right

basically, all we're doing is shifting the average to account for the higher possibility of a 6

Right.

Basically, the only reason I included rerolling <=4 and <=5 was to show that reroll <=3 is a sweet spot

I would be the last to advocate rerolling those. You beat the average, don't bother rerolling.

But it seems that the calculation is not taking into account that, when rerolling a five, 4/6 of the rolls are lower... i.e., there is an even higher probability of rolling much less than 6

@Khashir it's factored in

Hmm

see how that is lower than rerolling 1-4?

Hmm, true

that's because you've taken certainty out of the equation.

this is why rerolling 4s is word than 1-3, and why 5s is even worse

(and it's symetrical, keeping 2s and 3s leads to the same outcomes)

What about the 5/6 probability? is that accounting for rolling 1-5?

@Khashir yes.

becuse 5/6 times you're rerolling

and you have even odds to roll anything 1-6 on that die (hence 3.5 average result)

this comes out negative because rerolling above 3 is bad idea

and comes out positive when rerolling below 3

(typing up some excel stuff, to see what comes out for all rolls)

yes. that's expected value for the reroll of any one die. Different from the average based on arbitrary reroll rules

(yeah rerolling a 5 leads to a -1.5 because the average on the reroll is 3.5

so with this you can actually do these in your head, because we have a known initial value, and a known average. So your expectation changes are as follows:

(but the expected value of a random variable is the average...)

Oh well.. I think we cleared things up a bit more

I see where you're coming from. let me show you how my math arrives based on these expected values though :)

jajaja, thanks for the patience

:)

If you reroll 1-5, the sum of the expected value changes is 2.5+1.5+.5--.5-1.5 = 2.5/6 = .416

Which is exactly what I said it was :)

Hmm

but this way of going about it shows why my math works the way it does, which is cool, and helpful to me

Ok. I have to say, I'm not so convinced of the mathematical interpretation of taking the average of the average

=P

But I haven't done prob and stats in 7 years

so, I'll leave it at that ;)

been a bit for me as well. Let me figure out why that works.

AH! because there's a missing term, expected change on a 6 is 0 in this case, because we keep a 6

(Since you're already taking weighted averages to get the 2.5, 1.5, etc., taking the simple mean of that is odd)...

(or something. Let's do teh whole equation

ok. 1/6 of our result is a 6

yep

 1/6 * 0 + 1/6 * (-1.5) + 1/6 * (-.5) + 1/6 * (+.5) + 1/6 * (+1.5) + 1/6 * (+2.5)

that's why you can divide by 6

hang on, that's not quite right, there is a missing factor in there

oh, this is expected change. the first factor is 0, it's not changing

wait, let me type out the thought

@Khashir what do you mean?

8)

:)

because the -1.5 already have the 1/6 probability built-in

@Khashir doesn't have the 1/6 built in though

hmm, the way i got those numbers in excel was with the weighted average i mentioned

(1/6)*(1-D9) +(1/6)*(2-D9) +(1/6)*(3-D9) +(1/6)*(4-D9) + (1/6)*(5-D9) +(1/6)*(6-D9)

they're added up though to make a whole

so, the D column refers to the column with the rolls 1-6

the top factor becomes a 6, and they cancel

so, any operation performed on those [-2.5, 2.5] values already incorporates the range of probabilities

And the most important part, I think, is that it captures something we know to be true: rerolling anything that's above the average is a bad idea

Right, but only for that roll. You still have the odds of rolling that and needing to reroll it

@Khashir Right. My only argument is that rerolling 1-5 is better than average. Not that it's a good idea

and by bad idea, i mean, you get a worse result, on average

LOL

oh well

it seems we are at an intellectual impasse 8)

it's ok, the bottom line: ≤3, reroll, otherwise, no

and we're all happy campers

(or we could always take it to Math SE, ask someone to clear this up 8))

(is there a math SE?)

there are 2, and a stats.se

maybe even 3...might be a math educators now

ah, sweet

@Khashir yes, we agree there

If I reroll a 1, my expected change is +2.5. I'm going to reroll a 1 1/6 of the time. I'm going to reroll a 2 1/6 of the time for an expected change of +1.5 so on an so forth. I'm not going to reroll a 6 and I'm going to get one 1/6 of the time so there is no expected change on this roll. This is how my math is coming out. This results in an expected change of +.416

This is captured in the following: I'm going to reroll anything but a 6, so I'm going to reroll 5/6 of the time with an expected result of 3.5. I'm not going to reroll a 6 1/6 of the time for an expected result of 6. The expected result of this roll is 3.916 Which is my initial equation.

Fair enough. I see that, I guess my worry is still that the math doesn't reflect as strongly what we know is a pretty convincing conclusion (the bottom line described above)

At this point, I'll review my math, cause I really need to make sense of it

k

Thanks so much for the time

and patience

:)

no prob, helps me to have to explain it

I understand why my math works much better now

8)

Sweet!

on another note, re: meta magic/bonus action casting, I've been wondering whether there's an ambiguity in the rule that should be cleared up. In other words, it seems unreasonably restrictive that you can quicken Hold Monster and then Shocking Grasp, but not the other way around.

@Khashir I think it's to prevent the scenario you described. To prevent you from using a different meta magic effect on Hold Monster

Hmm... yes, it's powerful, but it's a heavy investment in one turn/char dev, no? I've picked 2 features, spent 5 SP, and a L5 spell slot...

Agree, it would be a hefty investment, but your net result is also an auto critted 4d8 spell.

(at L20), and at L20 that's not very many SP :)

(and man my your you're and there they're their is bad today

(well, not net result... still subject to them failing Wis saving throw, and me not missing my attacks)

Yes, they have disadvantage on their save, and I would have advantage on my attack

still not guaranteed... given the heavy investment

true

Hmm, well, L17 ;).

and the monster remains held :)

right, 17

Yep. Monsters at that level can often choose to save anyway...

only legendaries

Ah.

that's reserved for bossish types

though there aren't many CR 17 monsters that aren't legendary....

I'm kind of interested to see how high level play works. Hopefully RoT will have a solid taste

I'm really happy with how fast campaigns move in 5e though. the starter seems like its going to take about ~10 sessions

:)

and my PCs will be about L6

We haven't had that much luck in moving quickly through the campaign

though I have made liberal use of random encounters

(just because the party didn't move Stealthily to the keep, and the ended up rolling 3 encounters)

yeah, I haven't. We've had 1. And I may do one or two more in the cave if they take rests in bad places

That's largely out of interest of time. I'd rather get stuff done than spend time killing randoms

but this has been good because it's helping set the pace (our previous sessions were usually very slow, mostly because of ADD + excessive over the top sand-boxy RPing

group would get distracted, lose focus

start looking at birds

@Khashir gotcha, and in that case, a random encounter can bring you back to focus on the game

yeah. they were surprised that we got through 3 encounters in 2 hours, which is a record for us...

my guys here have done a great job of staying on task and getting stuff done

@Khashir I love how fast combat moves. We did the first 1/3 to half of WEC in like 3.5 hours the other week. And that was 4-5 combat encounters

(i'm basically defibrillating the group, so we can get into the adventure at good pace)

WEC?

Wave Echo Cave

Ahh

I haven't looked at the starter

well, I haven't even looked past greenest in flames

I'm hoping proper GM takes charge at the end of this

8P

I'll be starting HOTDQ sometime either late this month or early next depending on when this current adventure ends

:)

Sweet. If there's a spot available, let me know :).

Would be awesome (and very instructive) to see how someone else runs it, esp. someone much more experienced.

Will do (please don't take me for experienced at this point...I've been playing D&D for about 4 years and only DM occasionally)

any one of the players in my current group have probably twice as much experience as I do

(well, but you've run more 5E than I have ;))

and been more in touch with the RPG community

at large

fair enough. i've run 10 sesions now :) (plus a few play test sessions)

;)

I'm just realising how taking 1 Level in Life Cleric can be a sweet deal for a sorcerer, given Twinned Spell and Quicken Spell.

So does the 5e Player's Handbook offer optional combat rules, like armor as damage resistance or giving players a defense bonus as they level up, as 3.5 ed did?

@RobertF Not that I recall

Hmm, I bet it wouldn't be too hard to use those optional rules in 5e w/out breaking the combat system.

Hmm... I think that feature might be taken up by higher-level equipment

so, magical armor with resist 5/

or something

So the 5e PH offers magical armor with +5 damage resistance?

Oh no--most magical equipment will be in the DMG, it seems. And the feature you're describing sounds like it could be filled by such equipment

Rather than being given passively to players or non-magical equipment--that would run counter to bounded accuracy.

Ah, got it. Something else that could be tweaked in 5e is to allow advantage dice to be stacked. The average die roll when rolling 2d20 & taking max roll is 13.825, vs. 10.5 for 1d20, equivalent to a +3.325 modifier. Doing a little math, the average die rolls when you have two advantage dice is 15.4875 (= +4.9875 modifier), and for three advantage dice it's 16.4833375 (= +5.9833375 modifier). So the modifier effect flattens out as you roll more advantage dice, which is a nice mechanic I think.

I think advantage dice could be expanded to cover more combat modifiers. Especially if playing a gridless campaign, give +1 advantage die to a combatant with longer weapon (spear vs sword, or sword vs, dagger), or mounted on a horse, or wielding a shield.

Hmm, no comment =P, seems like a lot of changes... not to mention that, while the average might be a 3.325, I vaguely recall someone commenting on how much more likely you are to crit with adv

and if you combine that with features that expand critical range...

or multi attacking

I'm still wrapping my head around many subtleties of the current mechanics, so, I really can't say much of substance re: drastic changes like the ones you propose

8)

Though I can say, re: longer weapons... you'd have to offer something of value/impose a penalty to players who want to wield short weapons/long weapons. Otherwise, everyone would be wielding a 10"pole with a scythe tied to one end.

Wonder if you could mitigate critical hit inflation w/ mutliple advantage dice by letting any 1's cancel out a 20 as a crit hit. Would have to do the math.

I quite like the elegance and nuanced simplicity of the current system.

Historically, the spear was a kickass weapon. Spear + shield was a really effective combo. If everyone fought with spears and shields (including the Orcs), then the advantage dice would cancel out.

But that doesn't sound like fun =p

everyone fighting with the same weapon. I'm not particularly fond of spears; at least not all the time.

Anyway, I'm heading out

Take it easy man,

The problem is that spears don't inflict a lot of damage compared with heavier weapons (only 1d6 piercing). So even when your opponent has a reach advantage, if you're wearing plate armour you could walk right in.

Wasn't Faerie Dragons used as familiars before? Noticed that it doesn't have a familiar variant box in the new 5e monster manual.

@Chryckan it is not in the list for Find Familiar, so not in this edition

@RobertF Really the only optional rules in the PHB are a very quick note about gridded play, and feats. All the rest of the optional stuff seems like it's going to be in the DMG or future supplements

Just learned the functional difference (on a grid) between a cube and a cylinder

(Though I'm still working on the difference between a spehere and a cylinder re: grid)

well, one difference actually is important there.

interesting all of these can be the exact same area on a grid

(At least in my games)

30' cube , 15' radius cylinder (and 30' high), 15' radius sphere, and 30' cone are all 6x6x6 (or so) on a grid.

@waxeagle - I have a feeling WotC didn't want to recreate combat mechanisms from the 3.5 rules, which many see as too fiddly.

well, they haven't said what spell effects look like on a grid yet. I'm really hoping they do what they did for 4e, and just use square measures. I'm guessing they'll go with something more complicated and more verisimilitudinous though

Origin is the square occupied by the spellcaster?

depends. Some spells yes, other spells no. Cone spells yes. Other spells maybe.

Also, 5e uses the terminology point (it stays away from square, but does use space). Cubes can ignore their point of origin, but it's unclear how exactly that happens, was reaiding some WOTC forum discussion on that. It may be because they can project a cube, that they don't have to be in it of they don't want to, or it may be that they can stand in the blast and not be affected. I honestly can't tell.

Do the sphere & cylinder spells extend below as well as above the spellcaster?

sphere yes. Cylinder no, it can either go up or down from the origin point (as hte origin is one of the flat faces)

the origin of a sphere is the center. The origin of the cylinder is the center of the top or bottom

@waxeagle No but I meant in earlier editions. Could you use faerie dragons in those as familars?

no clue before 4th. 4th had a dragonling familiar

Dragonling was that like a pseudodragon?

So, I think I found a combo that's likely to get the nerf bat asap... Sorcerer with 1-2 'lock levels basically gets the Sorc capstone feature.

dem casters

I was so excited when I realised that I could recover 6 SP after each short rest

only to realise that it's so good, it's broken

(well, you give up 2 SP by dipping 2 levels, so, net 4 SP... which is the capstone)

@Chryckan In 3.5 a faerie dragon was avilable as an Improved Familiar

@Khashir You can use the Warlock spell slots to cast Sorcerer spells, but can they be traded for SP?

it is the ultimate leveler for D&D

I thought that feature said sorcerer spell slots specifically (try saying that 5x)

hah

NA, it doesn't

it just says spell slots

you could tweet mearls for an off the cuff adjucation

well, i don't think any sane GM would allow it

but 5e is ultimately "whatever you want it to be"

i wonder if my twitter account is still active

Oh I'd allow it but it would be clearly telegraphed that news of your spell slinging exploits had won you renown, enough renown that powerful forces wanted to control/destroy you

basically you would get a capstone as early as level 3, PLUS the benefits of dipping

also that PC becames the meta focus of all combat enemies

well, that's 'soft prohibition'

in-game, there's no way enemies have a way to know that you're recovering spells on short rests

im not saying this in a rocks fall everyone dies way

lol

not for awhile no, but enemies in 5e will quite often be spell casters

they will know the ins and outs of magic and figure out your secret sauce

what I am saying is, on a meta level, the challenge of the game will rise to meet the aptitude of the party'

sorry, net glitch

it's not like I'm casting Meteor Swarm at L3; , there's very little sensory 'leak' such that enemies could find out that this is going on.

ah, fair enough. i'm down with that, increased challenges sound fun

im envisioning a recurring villian or recurring antagonist organization figuring it out

though if i were gming, not sure how i could handle that

trial and error i guess

balance is a fickle lady

(btw, did you see my post about Wall of Fire? We got it wrong =P)

thats my biggest negative to 5e, balancing is trial and error and very table dependant

yeah, when there's so much looseness, it takes a while

still, one thing i learnt after fudging, err, improvising like a madman in the last sessions

is that, as long as people are having fun, feeling the challenge/excitement

it's good

(gonna try to log into twitter)

I wish I could force my followers to unfollow me

All these acquaintances added me over the years, and today is my first tweet

They must be so excited.

Anyway, tweet is off

I'll report back

I only follow my favourite Gelato place in Vancouver, so I know when they have Mojito Gelato.

Hmm, what's considered proper etiquette when tweeting Mearls? If I have two questions, should I ask 1 first and wait a while, or can I ask 2 right away?

@Khashir Ask it on twitter.SE, obviously!

oh crap

How do I do that?

That was a joke

ahhh

sorry

8)

I gets it

I think there might be an etiquette.SE you could try, or you could just go ahead and ask Mearls your questions

I don't think he's too hypersenitive :P

ty

just did