So, what's the best method for countering the lack of wacky

>>51255155
Isn't there a guide (maybe in the book?) how to simulate wacky dice with non-wacky ones?

>>51255216

It does? Do they retain the same probabilities?

Yes, I am that much of an autist.

>>51255293
I think so. I'm not sure. I remember not using any special dice when we played anyway.

You can use most of them with normal dice.
D3 is just half a d6
D5 is a d6 reroll 6 or half a d10
D7 is a d8 reroll 8
D14 is either a d20 reroll 15+ or D8 reroll 8s and a coin to see if you add 7 or 0
D24 is a d12 and a coin to see if you add 12 or 0

And separately I feel like you could have googled this before asking or it should have been self evident. If you are as much of an aurtist as you say you should also actually have a good grasp of probability

>>51255341

Hm, thanks. Those sound fiddly as hell, like we'll be doing a lot of re-rolls at the table, but I guess it's the only way.

>>51255341
>>51255410
If it's just for damage, and you're not rolling on a random result table or something, you can merely halve a maximum result rather than rerolling it. This will give you the same average result.

d3 -- d4, 4 = 2
d5 -- d6, 6 = 3
d7 -- d8, 8 = 4
d9 -- d10, 10 = 5

For dice over d12 but below d20, simply roll a d20 and subtract 10 if the result is higher than the dice size. This will give you the same average result.

Thus, if you're emulating a d16, roll a d20 and take 1-16 at face value, 17 becomes 7, 18 becomes 8, 19 becomes 9, and 20 becomes 10.

>>51255445
>For dice over d12 but below d20, simply roll a d20 and subtract 10 if the result is higher than the dice size. This will give you the same average result.
>Thus, if you're emulating a d16, roll a d20 and take 1-16 at face value, 17 becomes 7, 18 becomes 8, 19 becomes 9, and 20 becomes 10.


I'm not getting it. First, how can you have an average result on a single die roll? That's a linear progression. And it seems to me that that would clearly mess up the probabilities, since you'd be twice as likely to roll 7-9, and you could even roll a 0.

>>51255503
What's the average of 1-16? 8.5.

What's the average of 7-10? 8.5.

What's the average of 8.5 and 8.5? 8.5.*

Now, the standard deviation is a bit different due to some of the numbers doubling up in the middle of the d20-as-d16 (4.15 standard deviation rather than 4.61), but the average is still the same.

*Granted, the first 8.5 has greater weight, so it's (1/5 * 8.5) + (4/5 * 8.5) = 8.5.

File: ##d16 using d20.png (31KB, 766x400px)

31KB, 766x400px

>>51255604
Here's your chance to roll a given number or over on the d20-as-d16 vs. a real d16.

>>51255653
>>51255604

Thanks. I guess it works, but I'd probably prefer rerolling if over die size to maintain a complete progression fidelity.

Either way, thanks for taking the time to explain it.

Imma start reading up on some modules to run the game ASAP.

>>51255707
Basically, if you're really wanting to roll, say, at least 11 damage in a single roll, you're better off with an actual d16 than a d20-as-d16. Or, if you need to roll at least 7 damage, you're better off with the d20-as-d16. But the percentages aren't drastically different, and since their average results are the same, the should be about as useful as one another over the long haul. Sometimes you're gonna need to roll a 7 or over; sometimes you're gonna need to roll an 11 or over. It all evens out.

>>51255758

When you say d20-as-d16 you mean using the "-10 if over dice size" rule, right?

It was my understanding that the reroll if higher mechanic made the chances literally the same as rolling a d16.

>>51255794
>When you say d20-as-d16 you mean using the "-10 if over dice size" rule, right?
Correct.

>It was my understanding that the reroll if higher mechanic made the chances literally the same as rolling a d16.
That's right. Since you keep rerolling until you end up in the 1-16, the 17-20 results can be disregarding, yielding a the exact same distribution of results as an actual d16. The only problem is that you have to reroll a quarter of the time. And a quarter of the time you need to reroll, you'll need to reroll yet again. And things are even worse if you're simulating a d14. There, your chance of having to reroll twice is greater than your chance to get any specific d14 result (say, a 9).

>>51255854
Let me try that again, with hopefully better grammar...

That's right. Since you keep rerolling until you end up in the 1-16 range, results in the 17-20 range can be disregarded, yielding the exact same final distribution of results as an actual d16. The only problem is that you have to reroll a quarter of the time. And a quarter of the time you reroll, you'll end up having to reroll yet again. And things are even worse if you're simulating a d14. There, your chance of having to reroll at least twice is greater than your chance to get any specific final result (say, a 9).

>>51255903
>>51255854

Heh, I got it the first time, but thanks. I've been trying out all the methods you suggested with my a dice set, and honestly none of them are as annoying as I thought they'd. It's pretty easy and fast to read the results on the methods with a control die, and re-rolling is pretty fast too. I guess the most annoying part of it will be taking note every timeof which d20 is the d1X and which is the actual d20, kek.

You could also just downsize dice and do things like roll d10 and add +2 to simulate a d14. Same average.