Are you planning on lowering the DCs as well? If so, it just smoothens the curve.
You may want to think about natural 1's and 10's, as they will come up twice as often.
If you are wanting to smooth things out, have players roll 2d10 or 3d6 for skill checks. Adding more, smaller dice smooths the curve. It still gets you to (or close to) 20, so you don't need to adjust written DCs, and it makes checks more predictable without removing some of the luck aspect inherent in skills.
You may want to think about natural 1's and 10's, as they will come up twice as often.
So? A natural 1 or a natural 20 means nothing for skill checks.
So? A natural 1 or a natural 20 means nothing for skill checks.
Per core, they don't, true. But I've seen it as a common houserule to declare automatic or critical failures on a 1 and the opposite on 20s, so I just included this in case of.
|
I tend to make things more simple in my campaigns.
Take critical hits. They have become accepted by practically all gamers so I have altered how I handle critical hits. To lessen the time of excessive rolling and math, I automatically confirm them and have them do maximum damage.
I appreciate the thought nonetheless.
Irrie.
...seriously? You would let my level 3 fighter deal an automatic 108 damage whenever I rolled a natural 20? Because I do indeed have a level 3 fighter whose max damage on a crit is 108 (damage was the same back at level 1, btw), and that sounds both intriguing and very scary.
20 strength oni-spawn tiefling fighter
Swapped spell-like ability for ability to wield large weapons without penalty*
- GM rules that increased handedness counts as a "penalty", thus allowing the fighter to use large 2-handed weapons
Superior Clutch trait gives +1 damage when wielding weapons intended for larger creatures
Large tetsubo power attack deals 2d8+11 damage and has x4 crit modifier
*oh yeah, if you were to rule differently on this, of course you wouldn't be allowing that amount of damage ;) But in that case the build could be easily changed to bastard sword instead of tetsubo and do 54 damage on a 19 or a 20 instead of 108 on a 20.
EDIT: Or alternatively just remove all the oversized stuff, use a regular tetsubo and power attack for 1d10+10 damage, maxing out at 80 damage on a crit. It's your game to do with as you please, but max damage on a high crit modifier weapon gets really nasty really fast.
|
|
Ummm, your character could not exist in my campaign. But, if you are good with numbers, what is the best crit you come up with if you only have the Core Rulebook and these house rules:
https://thepa.obsidianportal.com/wikis/rule-changes
I would appreciate your input as I want to keep the world toned down as much as possible and I am sure I am going to miss something.
Thanks.
Irrie.
20 Str, enlarge person (potion, or friendly caster), wielding a scythe, power attack
=4(5+1+12+3)
=84
Each additional bonus damage is four more points on a crit. That said, this damage is signficantly higher than most enemies' hp at level 3 so it'd be more optimal to pick a wider crit range weapon over the higher multiplier.
At level 1 with a normal scythe he could still do (2d4 x 4) + (str damage of +6 x 4)= 56. That is not 108, but it still kills anything that it crits for the next few levels. At point where you are using x4 crits it really does not matter if it is 56 or 108.
PS: I forgot about power attack. So now it is 68, and that is just basic stuff. no buffs, splat books, or 3pp material.
|
|
Ah, I see what you are talking about. I was only maxxing the base weapon's damage (a scythe would have done 8 damage, no roll necessary, but no multiplier). I will change all criticals to only x2 or simply take the multiplier out. I understand. Thanks for clearing that up for me!
I have not given much thought to taking 10 or 20. In most instances, that is just perception, right?
You would also occasionally take 10 on...
Perform, profession, disable device, knowledge (if you're a bard (also take 20)), acrobatics, climb, disguise, craft... lots of things for take 10, not so many of them will do for take 20.
If you roll a d10 and lower DCs by 10, you would simply replace 'take 10' with 'minimum result'. Take 10 would then be equal to take 20, obviously.
Why not use 3d6? Then you have a bell curve. 1d10 is just as unpredictable as a d20; you have the same odds of every result, it's linear. Using multiple dice actually gives you predictability; you can expect, on 3d6, to roll in the 9-13 range fairly consistently.
I guess if you're really set on making ability score bonuses count more you could try tripling them and rolling a d10. This would have a profound effect on ability checks while allowing somebody with a 20 (a typical maximum starting score) to still achieve a DC25 result with a high roll. I'm not sure if this is really needed, but it always seems a little silly to me when a Barbarian with 18 Str can't open a door after multiple attempts but a halfling Wizard with 7 Str rolls a 19 or 20 and shoves it open. Against a DC16 door under the triple bonus system the Barbarian would roll 1d10+12 and have a good shot of forcing the door. Meanwhile the Wizard would roll 1d10-6 and have no shot at all. A Str of at least 14 (+2) would be required to open the door at all.
The effect on skills at higher levels could be somewhat exaggerated though. For instance, my 14th level PC currently has a +23 Diplomacy with 12 ranks and +8 from a Cha of 27. His average result on such checks is 33. With the triple bonus d10 system his average result would be 44. Back at 2nd level with 2 ranks and a Cha bonus of +4 the skew would be much less, an average result of 19 under the standard system or 22 under the triple bonus system. I guess if you cut it down to a double bonus system that would be 19 vs 18 and the higher level example would be 33 vs 36 - actually pretty close. Based on this very sparse math maybe double ability bonus on skills and triple ability bonus on ability checks (which are in theory all about ability scores) would work with a d10 (or maybe 2d6)
|
|
The door check is the exact thing I want to stay away from, but I do not think doubling the current system would be a good idea. It does not scale correctly.
I honestly feel the only true way to fix it (for my world) is to change the die roll and the DCs. A very good alternative is to use the 3d6 method, but it still allows for an 15 point difference which grants the halfling wizard a chance at knocking a door down. And quite frankly, there are simply some people (most halfling wizards) who cannot physically knock a door down no matter how hard they try.
I wholly believe that skill bonus should play more of a roll in overcoming obstacles. In my campaign, I am trying to make it more realistic and the d20 randomness (something held on to dearly by many AD&D fans) becomes counterproductive.
2d10 over 1d10 sounds like a reasonable variant to me since the rest of the rules are left intact. I don't see the necessity of changing the take 10 or take 20 rules with that variant.
|
|
I like more dice over one large one, but keep in mind the differences in numbers your getting.
For a a d20, every face has a 5% chance so a 11+ is 50%.
However, when you go 2d10, your will get a bell curve for dice. Your average will be 10/11 and that will occur 18% of the time alone. the lower and the highs will be much less. A 2 will only occur 1/100 times while a 20 will also only happen 1/100 times. Food for thought.