June 20, 2010, 17:22  #1 
Prophet
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,830

Reduce variance on dispel* spells
The priest's Dispel Undead and Dispel Evil spells deal 1d(clvl * 3) damage. Could we maybe make that 3d(clvl) instead? 1dX damage has incredibly high variance which means there's good odds that the spell will deal basically no damage.
I always hated D&D's 1d20 rolls too...flat distributions are a pain. 
June 20, 2010, 17:47  #2 
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,068

Maybe the variance is part of the balance on the spell? Making it a bit unpredictable makes it a bit less uber.
__________________
A(3.1.0b) CWS "Fyren_V" NEW L:50 DL:127 A++ R+++ Sp+ w:The Great Axe of Eonwe A/FA W H D c !f PV+++ s? d P++ M+ C S+ I !So B ac++ GHB? SQ? !RQ V F: 
June 20, 2010, 18:17  #3  
Angband Devteam member

Quote:


June 20, 2010, 22:03  #4  
Prophet
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,324
Donated: $40

Quote:
60 damage kills all the young dragons in 4 turns, and all the mature dragons in 7. That doesn't leave a lot to mop up. 

June 20, 2010, 23:24  #5  
Prophet
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,712

Quote:
Dragon pits do not require immunity. Double resistance is typically enough. That isn't completely safe, but it's a decent risk/reward if you are willing to take risks. 

June 22, 2010, 00:07  #6  
Swordsman
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 405

Quote:
Note that 3d50 is still wildly swingy. The variance for NdS == N * (S^21)/12; the standard deviation is the square root. Given the size of S, we can basically drop the 1, and say the standard dev == (sqrt(N) * S) / sqrt(12) ). For 1d150, the standard deviation is simply 150/sqrt(12), or about 45. For 3d50, it's sqrt(3) *50 / sqrt(12) or 1.7 * 50 / 3.4...or about 25. And note that this also means you're much less likely to get a really *good* roll. A good roll may well be more useful than a bad roll is damaging. And IMO, the balance is fundamentally the fact that the damage is so low. Fine, it's hitting a boatload of critters...but you have to hit them over, and over, and over...or their natural healing will kick in to some degree. 

June 22, 2010, 00:16  #7 
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,068

I'm not saying that changing the variance would change the balance, but giving the spell a chance to do 1 damage is almost like giving it a chance to be worthless (or considered "failed"). It would just change when and how often some mid level priests and pallies use the spell since it's expense when you first get it.
__________________
A(3.1.0b) CWS "Fyren_V" NEW L:50 DL:127 A++ R+++ Sp+ w:The Great Axe of Eonwe A/FA W H D c !f PV+++ s? d P++ M+ C S+ I !So B ac++ GHB? SQ? !RQ V F: 
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)  
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Ball spells  dhegler  Vanilla  1  October 19, 2009 21:58 
Can't learn spells  jgauthier  Vanilla  1  May 2, 2009 18:07 
On less used spells  bebo  Vanilla  8  February 4, 2009 22:21 
Max amount of spells?  steeg1234321  Vanilla  11  April 4, 2008 14:28 
Max hitpoint variance  Conker  Vanilla  5  August 12, 2007 00:55 