|
Since we have gotten to disassembling all of the mechanics along the way...
Has anybody looked at the idea of switching to 2d10 instead of 1d20?
The change in range is small (2-20 vs 1-20) but the probabilities are very different.
Mathematcally d20 has no mode (every number is equally likely) while 2d10 has a mode of 11.
It does a lot to smooth out the curve of results
the down side is it breaks the critcals system, as well as the natural failure system (ie 1 never happens 2 only happens 1/100 rolls, same with 20, instead of 1/20 for everything)
thoughts, tomatoes?
|
Eh. I'm in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp. I don't have a problem with the d20 mechanic and, using a few house rules, we've overcome the silliness of adventurers failing 5% of any task they attempt (due to natural 1s).
Yeah, me too. Also remember that skills don't auto-fail on a roll of 1. In terms of combat though, the 2d10 can seriously hamper the game. More rolls will be in the "average" area which will make alot more PCs and monsters miss more often, especially at early levels where it is typicl that PCs need a roll of 14-15+ to hit something most of the time, unless they are a full BAB, +6-8 to hit warrior.
Not a good idea IMO for combat, now if you wanted to instill this type of roll into the skill checks I wouldn't see a problem with it. If I am trained in a skill it would make more sense that my usage of those skill would reflect a more refined usage of the skill, instead of one roll being a 2 and the next being an 18. The increased likelihood of rolling in the middle range would be more realistic in this instance.as always, IMO, grain of salt, and all that crap.
FH
Have you checked out Unearthed Arcana's "3d6" resolution mechanic?
|
I'm a fan of the d20 (especially since the d10 isn't a real platonic solid).
Then again, after using the Critical Hit Deck, I bet my players would entertain the idea of using 2d10 (or better yet, 5d4) when the Critical Fumble Deck is released.
Didn't we have a technical discussion of a topic similar to this in the "Cheat Dice" thread?
I would link to that thread, but don't know what it was named exactly, nor how to create the link.. :/
I think modifing the underlying probability distributions makes much more sense. However, a lot of player would not understand it.
But, playing DnD does make you smarter :-) so, give it a try !!
|
|
honestly, i've seen this discussed a time or two on the wizards forums (before i gave that up and came here) and never saw it intelligently discussed.
The only things that really suffer are critical hits.
crit on 20 happens 5/100 times, crit on 20 (2d10) happens 1/100
so you need to use 18+ for a 20 crit to keep the chance relatively the same...
then again, i am an advocate of you get a critical if your to hit roll is 10 or more over their AC
honestly, i've seen this discussed a time or two on the wizards forums (before i gave that up and came here) and never saw it intelligently discussed.
The only things that really suffer are critical hits.
crit on 20 happens 5/100 times, crit on 20 (2d10) happens 1/100
so you need to use 18+ for a 20 crit to keep the chance relatively the same...
then again, i am an advocate of you get a critical if your to hit roll is 10 or more over their AC
It's worth changing if you're into it, but I think most people are fine with the greater unpredictability that comes from using d20. Plus, d20s are iconic. They even have their own logo.
El Skootro
Personally, I think this depends on the players and the mood of the campaign. If you like the "down to earth" thing where everyone is normal and does everything according to ability, then you might want to use 2d10. If you like the high-fantasy where people do more extraordinary things, use d20.
I'd proceed very carefully in this regard. At least in some campaigns your going to notice that some of the players are raising their ACs quite dramatically. Its not that hard to do in a standard campaign. The reality is that a surprising amount of the time the only thing the monsters have going for them is that 5% chance to roll a natural 20. 2d10 reduced the probability of rolling a natural 20 significantly and makes AC even more valuable.
Anything that encourages players to go for extreme AC builds beyond the already very high incentive to do so is a bad idea, IMO.
I am currently running with a group that uses the 2d10 system. There are some things to note to running this way however:
- a. a natural 2 is concidered a critical fumble.
- b. you must have at least 1 natural 10 to have a critical sucess.
- c. we do not confirm criticals (and thus feats and class features that affect confirmation are modified on a as needed basis.)
We have found this system works rather well...
(with the following frequencies if you are intrested):
Roll_d20__d20 confirmed__Flat 2d10__Nat 10
20__5%___0.25%________1%_______1%___an Axe (20/x3)
19__10%__1.00%________3%_______3%___a Longsword (19-20/x2)
18__15%__2.25%________6%_______5%___a Scimitar (18-20/x2)
17__20%__4.00%________10%______7%___a Keen Longsword (17-20/x2)
16__25%__6.25%________15%______9%___
15__30%__9.00%________23%______11%__a Keen Scimitar (15-20/x2)
14__35%__12.25%_______28%______13%__
13__40%__16.00%_______36%______15%__
12__45%__20.25%_______45%______17%__
I was kind of partial to Decipher's 2d6 for the LotR game. One quote, "Everything that 3rd Edition should have been."
|
Contributor
|
My group play with 2d10 instead of d20, and we like it. I looked at the 3d6 option in UA, but it was too much. 2d10 works better.
The reason we like it is that it makes the character's abilities matter more. Especially at low levels, luck is more important than stats with 1d20. When the majority of your rolls fall into 10-12 range it's more important that your skills be up to the task. You cna't count on lucky hits as much.
I've had to make other modifications to make it work though, and there are still flaws. For crits, I made crit increases add one to the range insteas of doubling it. Adding one actually often is better than doubling it in terms of % chance of a crit. But crits are still rarer, which is IMO good. I do allow improved crit to stack with keen as well.
We also use action points (as per Eberron), and I allow action points to add to the 'natural' roll. That way the players can engineer crits if they roll fairly high.
This system does require the players to be more strategic at times, which is good, but perhaps more metagamy, which some of you will tell me is bad. Essentially, the need to think more about when to use power attack etc. or when they should aid another instead. +2 to an attack roll makes a bigger difference depending where on the curve you are for your attack. So basically, the characters have to count their bonuses more carefully.
As a side note, I also use a variant aid another rule; make an attack roll, 10 gives +1, 15 gives +2, 20 gives +3 etc.
The big downside of the system is that CR scales even less well than normal. A group of low level mooks really have NO chance of hitting mis level PCs, not just little chance. I'm running Ptolus and Monte Cook likes to throw in handfuls of low level guys all the time. They barely serve as a distraction. Similarly the other villains need to be pretty tough, or at least well designed, and need to use good group tactics.
I play around a lot with rules, and this is one of our favorite changes. I do suspect it will cause more difficulties as play progresses into higher levels. Basically the disparity they talk about in the Epic level handbook will happen sooner. Some things will only be able to be hit by the best fighters, and the things that the wizard can hit the fighter will never miss. But it happens eventually anyways, and we rarely play high level stuff anyways.
|
|
Has anybody looked at the idea of switching to 2d10 instead of 1d20?
Going to a bell curve* rather than a flat probability breaks the d20 system badly, especially at higher levels. It rapidly becomes apparent that there is no point in taking a skill unless you are going to maximize it unless you only care about fixed DCs. With fixed DCs, the incentive to take any more than is necessary to succeed with a die roll of 7 or 8 is greatly minimized.
In combat, only full-BAB characters can be really effective at higher levels: the effective range of viable attack bonuses drops dramatically. Power Attack is nearly useless in some cases, and essentially cost-free in others.
There's nothing wrong with a bell-curve-based RPG system, but it needs to be designed that way from the beginning. Without massive changes throughout the game, I would strongly suggest that this would be a bad idea.
* Yes, 2d10 is a triangular curve rather than bell-shaped. The effect is less than a more-pronounced bell, but that's a matter of degree, not kind.
Yeah, well, idea sounds nice but would require loads of tweaking...for many skills it would make sense but in combat the effects, especially regarding to AC, would become problematic. Opponent with high AC becomes much more frustrating, regardless of amount of hit points...(well, Magic Missile of course works).
I prefer a curve but I can see how 2d10 could cause some problems. I have to wonder what is really behind this question. My preference for a curve is that I hate pumping up one skill only to fail the one time it is called into action. However, this could be resolved with stealing something like Ultimate Effort and/or Second Chance from Mutants & Masterminds.