Typo in MM table, 4d20 should be 5d20
Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:47 pm
I think I found a misprint in the MM effects table. Result 00 says to roll 4d20 twice. I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be 5d20.
For one, 4d20 doesn't cover the same range as d%, whereas 5d20 does (excluding 1-4). 4d20 leaves out a fifth of the possibilities, and the ones it leaves out are the "good" ones at the higher ends.
For two, I notice that 41-60 are that the spell manifests as normal. This corresponds very closely to the middle 68% in the bell-curve produced by rolling 5d20 (41-64), which would mean this result has about a 2/3rd chance of putting you at normal, plus whatever your luck is.
This result is if you roll a perfect 00 on a d%. The MM effects are sort of scaled, starting at the awful "someone you know dies" result, then the "cast at -2d", and up to "cast at +2d". The MM effects sort of get better with higher roll. This is the highest roll, so should give at least a decent benefit.
However, if it is 4d20, rolled twice, this gives you a really serious deficit. You average at 42, just inside the "no effect" zone and you have basically 50% of one of the "bad" lower results. Even if you have the pretty extraordinary (all told) luck bonus of +2, that barely gets you out of "no effect". If your luck is the average +0, then the highest you can do is 80, and that's once in 160,000. And you roll this twice.
If it is 5d20, then most of the time you will be somewhere in the "no effect" zone, with about 1/6 above and 1/6 below. This gives you the benefit of basically guaranteeing a normal spell, or at least a spell that doesn't deviate too much from normal.
That all leads me to think this was a mistake. The MM table's "no effect" region just corresponds too well for this to be coincidence.
Was this a misprint, or are the RAWs supposed to be 4d20 here?
For one, 4d20 doesn't cover the same range as d%, whereas 5d20 does (excluding 1-4). 4d20 leaves out a fifth of the possibilities, and the ones it leaves out are the "good" ones at the higher ends.
For two, I notice that 41-60 are that the spell manifests as normal. This corresponds very closely to the middle 68% in the bell-curve produced by rolling 5d20 (41-64), which would mean this result has about a 2/3rd chance of putting you at normal, plus whatever your luck is.
This result is if you roll a perfect 00 on a d%. The MM effects are sort of scaled, starting at the awful "someone you know dies" result, then the "cast at -2d", and up to "cast at +2d". The MM effects sort of get better with higher roll. This is the highest roll, so should give at least a decent benefit.
However, if it is 4d20, rolled twice, this gives you a really serious deficit. You average at 42, just inside the "no effect" zone and you have basically 50% of one of the "bad" lower results. Even if you have the pretty extraordinary (all told) luck bonus of +2, that barely gets you out of "no effect". If your luck is the average +0, then the highest you can do is 80, and that's once in 160,000. And you roll this twice.
If it is 5d20, then most of the time you will be somewhere in the "no effect" zone, with about 1/6 above and 1/6 below. This gives you the benefit of basically guaranteeing a normal spell, or at least a spell that doesn't deviate too much from normal.
That all leads me to think this was a mistake. The MM table's "no effect" region just corresponds too well for this to be coincidence.
Was this a misprint, or are the RAWs supposed to be 4d20 here?