For you mathematically able out there ;)

[Shadow]

I'm switching my setting from the use of 3d6 to the use of 3d10 (to offer greater granularity) ... so far I have converted all I wanted to the new dice chance ratio... except the range chart..... since to retain the difficulty ratio of tasks I had to switch the modifiers a bit I need to make a new Range Mod chart as well and I'll appreciate the help of the board in this

 

so the new chart should have an increment of 1 (-1/-2/-3/-4 and so on) and start at -1 at 5" and go all the way to -20 at 256" with -3/-7/-10/-13/-17 at what used to be -2/-4/-6/-8/-10.

 

so the old granular chart would look like this under the new modifiers

 

 Range        old mod=> new mod
Adjacent             
  2-4”             0      =>       0        
  5-6”            -1      =>      -2
  7-8”            -2      =>      -3
  9-12”           -3      =>      -5
 13”-16”          -4      =>      -7
 17”-24”          -5      =>      -8
 25"-32"          -6      =>      -10
 33"-48"          -7      =>      -12
 49"-64"          -8      =>      -13

and so forth...

Thanks in advance,

Shadow.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: For you mathematically able out there

 

How's this:

 Range      new mod
Adjacent             
  2-4”         0        
   5"         -1
   6”         -2
  7-8”        -3
  9-10"       -4
 11-12”       -5
 13”-14"      -6
 15"-17”      -7
 18”-21"      -8
 22"-26"      -9
 27"-32"     -10
 33"-39"     -11
 40"-48"     -12
 49"-60"     -13
 61"-72"     -14
 76"-90"     -15
 91"-110"    -16
 111-135"    -17
 136-165"    -18
 166-205"    -19
 206-256"    -20
and so forth...

It might be a little rough in places, but it's a good start, and easily adjusted.

 

I really like the idea of using bigger dice for increased granularity. I've been advocating it for a while (at least the idea of it - I haven't actually made the conversion in my games yet). I usually recommend 3d12 because it's an easier conversion - just double/halve everything, the standard 8-, 11-, 14-, become the nice, round 15-, 20-, 25-.

[Netzilla]

Re: For you mathematically able out there

 

I really like the idea of using bigger dice for increased granularity. I've been advocating it for a while (at least the idea of it - I haven't actually made the conversion in my games yet). I usually recommend 3d12 because it's an easier conversion - just double/halve everything, the standard 8-, 11-, 14-, become the nice, round 15-, 20-, 25-.

 

Yep, 3d12 would be my preference as well if switching to a larger die type for greater granularity. If you check the various 6e discussion forums, there were a number of posts on converting to 3d12.

 

Of course, if you really wanted greater granularity, you could always convert to 3d30 and just multiply/divide everything by 5. 8-, 10-, 11- and 14- become 35-, 46-, 51- and 66-. Not as pretty (though you could fudge to 35, 45, 50 and 65) and I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but if granularity is what you're after...

[archermoo]

Re: For you mathematically able out there

 

I've always preferred 3d10 for an alternative rolling system, but at least some of that is due to the fact that I've always used it for running Dragaeran Hero, and 3d10 gives you a base "target number" of 17...

[Shadow]

Re: For you mathematically able out there

 

thanks for the chart... and even though I can appreciate the d12 concept I'll stick to d10 (mainly cause I only have like 2d12 and about 20d10s ).

[StGrimblefig]

Re: For you mathematically able out there

 

If you are looking for granularity, and you like d10s, why not just use two of them and roll d%? You lose the bell curve of the 3d(whatever), but you get granularity in spades.

[archermoo]

Re: For you mathematically able out there

 

If you are looking for granularity' date=' and you like d10s, why not just use two of them and roll d%? You lose the bell curve of the 3d(whatever), but you get granularity in spades.[/quote']

 

Because at least as far as I'm concerned the extra possible results from going to a d100 aren't worth losing the bell curve. Not even close.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: For you mathematically able out there

 

Here's a more mathematically "smooth" table. For ranges beyond the table, multiply by 1.23 and drop fractions. The most accurate factor would be slightly less than that, but it's too much of a pain to use 1.227987858.

 Range      new mod
Adjacent             
  2-4”         0        
   5"         -1
   6”         -2
   7"         -3
  8"-9”       -4
 10-11”       -5
 12”-14"      -6
 15"-18”      -7
 19”-22"      -8
 23"-27"      -9
 28"-33"     -10
 34"-41"     -11
 42"-51"     -12
 52"-62"     -13
 63"-77"     -14
 78"-95"     -15
 96"-116"    -16
 117-143"    -17
 144-176"    -18
 177-217"    -19
 218-267"    -20
and so forth...

[ArthurFronz]

Re: For you mathematically able out there

 

I've just begin building a new Fantasy campaign based on Hero 6e. This will be my first Hero campaign and I'm VERY interested in getting any info you'd be willing to share about your 3d10 conversion.

 

I was studying the "average/normal human" baselines (6E1 437) and probability distribution (6E2 280) as prelude to large scale NPC construction. But because my campaign is Heroic (rather than supers) I'd like a bit more granularity in the middle of the bell curve than 3d6 provides.

 

Folks mentioned some 3d12 posts, but I wasn't able to find anything solid using the forum search. Because I'm so new any guidance would be greatly appreciated (e.g. what formula do you use for base CHAR rolls, skill rolls; do published skill/situational modifiers stay the same, does xp spending still yield the same published modifier progressions ... its just a longer path now that your dice are larger?). Very curious.

[prestidigitator]

Re: For you mathematically able out there

 

I've just begin building a new Fantasy campaign based on Hero 6e. This will be my first Hero campaign and I'm VERY interested in getting any info you'd be willing to share about your 3d10 conversion.

 

I was studying the "average/normal human" baselines (6E1 437) and probability distribution (6E2 280) as prelude to large scale NPC construction. But because my campaign is Heroic (rather than supers) I'd like a bit more granularity in the middle of the bell curve than 3d6 provides.

 

Folks mentioned some 3d12 posts, but I wasn't able to find anything solid using the forum search. Because I'm so new any guidance would be greatly appreciated (e.g. what formula do you use for base CHAR rolls, skill rolls; do published skill/situational modifiers stay the same, does xp spending still yield the same published modifier progressions ... its just a longer path now that your dice are larger?). Very curious.

 

The average of a 3d6 roll is 10.5. The average of a 3d12 roll is 19.5. The standard deviation is roughly proportional to the type of dice you are rolling, and the effect of a modifier is really going to be a function of its value relative to the standard deviation. What that means is that the standard deviation of 3d12 is going to be twice as large as that for 3d6, and so a comparable modifier is also going to be twice as large.

 

So the equivalent of the "base" 11- roll in the standard system (just over the mean) will now be 20- on 3d12. The equivalent of the 8- Familiarity roll (just under mean-2 on 3d6) should be about 15- on 3d12 (just under mean-4). CVs should probably be doubled, or could be changed to half-price, Char/2, or whatever. Characteristic rolls could be +2 for each 5 points of Characteristic, with a +1 for an extra 3 points, or maybe just switch it to Char/3 or something.

 

That'd be my approach anyway.

[Sociotard]

Re: For you mathematically able out there

 

Will your damage rolls be in d10 as well, or are you keeping the sixs?

[Shadow]

Re: For you mathematically able out there

 

I'm keeping to d6 for the damage roles.... and as far as what I did to convert from 3d6=>3d10 I'll be posting a link to a wiki that will cover that effect once I'm done writing (it will also cover the campaign setting I'm using the 3d10 in ) so keep posted or PM about it and I'll PM you back with a link once it is ready

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: For you mathematically able out there

 

I'm switching my setting from the use of 3d6 to the use of 3d10 (to offer greater granularity) ... so far I have converted all I wanted to the new dice chance ratio... except the range chart...

 

The obvious thing is to change the range iincrements rather than the modifiers. Since 16*6/10 = 9.6 ~ 10, we get a new range chart:

 

 Range          Mod
Adjacent         0    
   2-5m          0        
   6-7m         -1
  7-10m         -2
 11-14m         -3
 15-20m         -4
 21-28m         -5
 29-40m         -6
 41-56m         -7
 57-80m         -8
and so forth...

You could round the numbers a bit, so you get 15m, 30m, and 60m instead of 14m, 28m, and 56m

 

- Klaus