Taking the better of two dice drastically reduces your probability of getting a very low number, but you high end result is still capped at 20. Your players will be able to use their skills more reliably. However, getting rid of the +3 reduced the highest result possible... By 3. I think either system has merit. But they are not more or less equal. They are two different, viable options.
One point of note (pun incoming) is your chance of rolling a 1 or 20. Your chances of rolling a 20 have now been doubled and your chances of rolling a 1 have been derastically reduced. I think it is a 1 in 40 chance now (math wiz correct me?) but in reality rolling two 1s in a row is very unlikely but even more so considering it has to be the right set of 1s.
final verdict?
Rolling 2d10 results in a small increase in the average roll while doubling your chance of rolling a natural 20 and almost elimating your chance of rolling a natural 1 entirely. Your maximum cap is reduced by 3.
Also: it takes more effort to roll twice, pick one, then add bonuses then simply rolling and adding. Ymmv.
I kind of like the idea of house-ruling the the 2d20, drop lowest, but there are already some feats/spells which grant access to that ability, and they're usually 1/day. Having it be unlimited would result in a significant power increase for the players, but if everyone's cool with it, it sounds like fun. Stands to reason that if you've trained in something for a long time, you should be really good at avoiding critical failures. Just keep in mind that you'd essentially be allowing Take 10 on all skills, even in combat.
For the second part, the average is not the only thing that matters though. Increasing the number of die reduces the odds of rolling a high or low number. You have a 5% chance to roll a 1 and a 5% chance of rolling a 20 with a d20, but you only have a 1% chance of rolling a 20 with 2d10, and 0% chance of rolling a 1. Unless you WANT to get average results, with as little spread as possible, stick with the biggest die you're allowed.
EDIT: Aw, ninja'd. ;P
Rolling 2d10 results in a small increase in the average roll while doubling your chance of rolling a natural 20 and almost elimating your chance of rolling a natural 1 entirely. Your maximum cap is reduced by 3.
Rolling a natural 20 or a natural 1 on a skill check doesn't really mean anything. Auto-confirms and auto-fails only apply to to-hit rolls and saving throws.
@OP,
Interesting, fun idea! I kinda like it.
Not a fan. It severely limits the upper limit of what the character is capable of...especially when taking '10' or '20'.
I would assume professionals practicing their trade would be taking 10 a lot.
It's a real crotch punt to 'Skill Mastery' as well.
Reducing the variance in the dice also makes rolling less exciting.
|
i'd give it to the rogue in some form
like beginning at level 2 all maxed ranks benefit from 2d20 so long as they stay maxed*
(*this discourages dipping because rogue has 8 skill points and can max the most)
and retain the +3 for all classes
to say nothing of expanding skill uses in general, breaking the Ex/Su boundary...
but personal preferences aside, no, I don't think this'd be a too invasive change, except maybe increasing the time spent rolling dice.
The time spent rolling dice is a bigger issue i will bring up again.
Say you have a climb modifier of +10 before FCB.
Normally you write:
(dice=Climb)1d20+13(/climb)
Then hit preview to see your result. Then post whether you passed or failed.
A 3 step process.
With this you would have to do one of two things:
1: Write:
(dice=climb)2d20(/dice)
Hit preview, choose a number and manually add in +10 and post whether you passed or failed.
2:Write:
(dice=climb)2d20+10(/dice)
Hit preview, choose a number and manually subtract the other, then post whether you passed or failed.
A 6 step process.
The first and original method is quicker, requires less mental math (try adding 32 to everything) and is displayed in a easier-to-read-at-a-glance format.
The second one is just extra work. And its more cluttered to read.
If you are rolling physical dice, then you just doubled the amount of work you have to do
|
It's an interesting idea to be sure, but here's a question-- would you ever have the DISadvantage with this rule? Would the existence of circumstances under which you take the LOWER of 2d20 balance things out? If so, what circumstances should those be?
Perhaps you have disadvantage when you attempt a skill untrained? It would cut down on instances where a player who invested resources in a skill does worse than a player who didn't, but it would also make sure that characters with few skill points to spare (fighters and paladins) are absolutely garbage at skill checks.
Maybe each class has a list of class skills, and a list of "anti-class skills"? Things like Bluff for paladins, Knowledge: Arcane for fighters, Acrobatics for wizards, etc. Rogues would be the one class that never takes such a penalty.
|
|
Silent Saturn,
your proposal is interesting:
using a Class skill Trained: Advantage
using a Class skill Untrained: Normal
using a Cross-Class skill: Disadvantage
greatly increases the importance of class skill lists. I would recommend amending those lists positively rather than negatively in that case (ex: granting Fighter extra class skills like Acrobatics, Diplomacy, Heal, Perception, Sense Motive, etc, rather than compiling lists of 'anti-class skills')...
Thats an interesting idea :)
In that case why not give classes additional class skills inversly proportional to their skills per level?
8 spl get 1
6 spl get 2
4 spl get 3
2 spl get 4
then they get to use these to cherry pick extra class skills that they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please explain your issue with the RAW, and what you'd like to change about the gameplay experience.
At first glance, I don't really see a need for this change myself, not one that would justify the additional complexity.
Class skills are presently something you account for during character creation, but you can pretty much forget about it during the game. Under this system, every player must either memorize or reference their sheet for a skill roll. It's not such a big deal, I guess, but it is a thing.
To say nothing of doubling the math on each skill check.
I'd really have to know what issue you're trying to address before I can gauge whether or not these drawbacks are worth the trouble.
This doesn't "double the math." You roll two dice. You see two numbers. You should immediately know which of those numbers is higher. You don't have to add your bonus to both rolls.
|
|
while it might not "double the time" it might "x1.5 the time" and time lost rolling dice is to many a precious waste because of how hard it is to get the same(ish) group of IRL people to the table month after month, year after year.
the time put into implementing homebrew rules must justify themselves (in my opinion). a lot of ideas are great ideas in theory ("more realistic" or "more cooler" or whatever) but interrupt the flow of a story without enhancing it meaningfully.
not doggin' this alternate rule, if your players like it and/or are dice whizzes by all means let it fly!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This doesn't "double the math." You roll two dice. You see two numbers. You should immediately know which of those numbers is higher. You don't have to add your bonus to both rolls.
Fair enough, but I am still loathe to make a change (or in this case, provide accurate feedback on a change) without knowing the issue it is intended to address.
At face value, there's no reason to do this, because all you'll really accomplish is giving class skills a bit more of a bump. Did they need this for some reason?*
After a long career of house ruling, I've found that my players have no patience for a change in the rules unless there's some need being addressed.
* To clarify: I don't ask this facetiously or hypothetically... I actually want to know if this was the perceived problem!
|
I like Advantage as a concept when trying to avoid figuring out tons of magical and circumstance bonuses. It reduces complexity in those instances.
I would not want to use it on basically every skill roll a player will make, it's additional complexity for no real payoff. Since the bonus from advantage is +3 or thereabouts the existing rule already works.
|
|
Silent Saturn,
your proposal is interesting:using a Class skill Trained: Advantage
using a Class skill Untrained: Normal
using a Cross-Class skill: Disadvantagegreatly increases the importance of class skill lists. I would recommend amending those lists positively rather than negatively in that case (ex: granting Fighter extra class skills like Acrobatics, Diplomacy, Heal, Perception, Sense Motive, etc, rather than compiling lists of 'anti-class skills')...
I think you've misread my post. I was actually making two distinct suggestions.
The first was that you are at a disadvantage when using an untrained skill. If it was a class skill, then that would negate the disadvantage, and you'd roll 1d20. Otherwise, you could put a rank into it to negate the disadvantage. Trained class skills only would get advantage.
The second was that each class gets "anti-class skills" at which he or she is at a disadvantage, regardless of ranks. A paladin with Greater Feint might have max ranks in Bluff and a beastly CHA bonus, but he'd still be taking the lower d20.
Roll twice and take better is worth ~+5
Roll twice and take better is worth ~+5
Agreed. You need to take the mechanics of a d20 system into account in your calculations; PF/D&D attempts to keep average number you need to roll on a d20 to succeed/fail on a DC in the 7 to 14 range with all modifiers considered.
Doing the math, rolling twice and taking the max/min of both dice in our target range (7 to 14) equates to about a +5.225 / -5.775
Your +/- 3 result takes into account the extremes of a d20, but almost never do you need to have a roll of exactly a 1 on the d20 to succeed, and uncommonly do you need to have a roll of exactly a 20 on a d20 to succeed. You usually have some kind of modifier.
I did the math myself to confirm, but this page lays it out pretty simply.