Caster-Martial Disparity.
Christmas Tree Effect.
Rocket Tag.
There are also tons of other issues in the game that people are always looking to mitigate or ameliorate with errata, FAQs, and houserules.
When you are trying to solve problems, you can't start at the halfway point. You have to go back to the source. So, I ask myself (and you):
How many of the problems in the Pathfinder RPG start with the d20?
Base Attack Bonus, Skills, and Saves are all balanced against the roll of a twenty-sided die. Damage and Skill/Save DC's are built off of expected BAB/Skill/Save Bonuses. Classes are balanced against one another (in part) based on a sliding scale of Full, Three Quarters, or Half BAB; Good and Bad Saves; Class Skills and skill ranks per level. Many things, like traps, poisons, diseases, and natural hazards, but most importantly Spells, Spell-Like Abilities, Supernatural Abilities, and other special abilities, are balanced against anticipated Saves, Save DC's and Attack Bonuses. Everything down the line: Damage, hp, unique powers, in-game loot, CR, Wealth-By-Level, etc., are determined (at least in part) from this foundation.
Gameplay is this weird combination of Embracing and Mitigating, Challenging and Marginalizing, Utilizing and Distrusting, Championing and Forsaking the Twenty-Sided Die.
But, is there a better option? I would never choose to eliminate the element of chance from the game. It would not be worth playing. But, I know there are game systems out there that use d6, 2d6, and d100... and probably others that use other systems I don't know about.
If Pathfinder 2.0 were a reality... and you were building it from the very ground up... would you start with the d20?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love my d20s. All 20 or more of them.
At a glance, I don't see how changing the d20 to something else like d100-roll-under (the system the 40k RPGs use) would solve any of those problems. You make a ton of work for yourself by having to reinvent the wheel and all the internal math, while players have to learn a new system.
As long as things scale properly the d20 is just fine. Higher-level players should be able to push lower-level challenges (such as fighting obviously inferior opponents) right off the RNG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3d6 for me. A nice bell curve, doesn't change the actual math all that much.
Yes. Because a 5% chance for something miraculous occurring is just about right for a fantasy game. Any larger range allows for even lower chances, and smaller ranges get unwieldy much faster (with all but auto-success and failure even more common).
3d6 for me. A nice bell curve, doesn't change the actual math all that much.
2d6 or 3d6 is sort of along the lines of what I imagined, too. Either adjusts the probability in interesting ways and allow you to create character/class base stats that play with that probability, rather than rely upon it.
I'm not sure it doesn't have its own problems, though.
|
d20 is fine, incredible success or majestic failures, are a lot of fun. I played games with d100, d10, d6, some that mixed all kind of dice.
d100 never turned out to be very fair, most of the time.
d10, mixed feeling about it, since most of the d10 games involve successes (roll 7 or higher for a success), not sure how to compare it to d20.
d6 played little of it and most of the times, it wasn't too bad but would need to try it more.
So far d20 is still my favorite.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like 3d6... in Gurps. The entire game is centered around skills instead of class levels, and combat defenses are active instead of passive (for the most part. there is passive defense, but it wont save you.) The problem with this is because attacks and parrys are both pretty much auto hit at a certain level of skill, combat becomes who can get a crit first because crits cannot be defended against. It's a more realistic approach to combat, but it's also far more lethal.
For a game that has classes as an integral part of it's design like pathfinder, the d20 is preferred.
Have you ever played a game with a bell curve for resolution? FATE and FUDGE come to mind.
It's... nothing special. More variability in outcomes is actually good for the story. If you have resolution working on a bell curve, people routinely perform routinely. It's predictable.
It may be realistic, but predictability is actually not a part of my recipe for fun, and NO storyteller in any medium aims to be predictable. FATE and FUDGE both include a lot of rules and options, some of them very RP focused, which allows the players to exert their will on the otherwise predictable results. Pathfinder doesn't really include anything on that scale -- the optional hero points are closest.
20 points of flat variability has worked for dozens of games, I don't think there's some intrinsic flaw there. I do think there are flaws in the structures built on that, but most of them are manageable.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The d20 isn't the problem, it is the DC range used with the d20. Once a DC or AC gets in the high 20s and above the d20 becomes more and more meaningless.
Cut down the DCs and ACs and the math at all levels flattens and the game plays well for a longer range of levels. Also, cut down on the extra actions with various modifiers (BAB for example) and go to less modifiers in general. Cutting magic items out of the math completely helps with this.
As to magic items, instead of having bonuses go from +1 to +5 make +1 the norm. +2 is rare and +3 is the holy avenger of magic items.
As to casters, don't let spells increase by character level but have the spells increase by spell level (so more damage for a fireball requires preparing it at 4th level or higher). Let martial damage have a level range as well (so weapon dice might double at 10th and triple at 20th for example as a class feature in place of high BAB).
Have you ever played a game with a bell curve for resolution? FATE and FUDGE come to mind.
It's... nothing special. More variability in outcomes is actually good for the story. If you have resolution working on a bell curve, people routinely perform routinely. It's predictable.
It may be realistic, but predictability is actually not a part of my recipe for fun, and NO storyteller in any medium aims to be predictable.
This is an interesting counter-argument. The answer to your question is, I have not. So, I believe you.
I guess my assumption is that the bell curve is not used to eliminate variability, but rather to eliminate the uniformity in the game's "bonus structure". But, that may be a little optimistic.
It's not worse, either. But it does change the "feel" of dice rolls.
If you're starting from PF as a point of reference, I don't think changing *just* the distribution would be enough. You need another system to mix it up a bit (like Aspects in FATE... maybe I don't know that system too well).
I guess my assumption is that the bell curve is not used to eliminate variability, but rather to eliminate the uniformity in the game's "bonus structure". But, that may be a little optimistic.But that's totally backward. If anything, what the bell curve does is make those bonuses more critical than ever; since results tend towards a particular middle result, the value of your bonuses increases relative to that most common result.
Except, my experience tells me that at some point between levels 12 and 17, my Barbarian will reach a point where he cannot miss except on a roll of 1, that he will threaten a critical on 20% of those attacks and will confirm 95% of the threats.
That is with a 20 point swing in probability...
I'm suggesting, using the dice to adjust probability, and limiting/hard-capping the potential bonuses to keep the challenge level within that probability range.
I'd rather things like modifiers and other things under the players' control be more important than luck.
There would also be no 'save or die/save or lose' effects, because those just flat suck no matter what system you use. One die roll should not determine whether or not you spend the rest of the encounter twiddling your thumbs.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I'm suggesting, using the dice to adjust probability, and limiting/hard-capping the potential bonuses to keep the challenge level within that probability range.
A danger in what you're suggesting is that it sets up an "advancement treadmill"... you end up with this situation:
Level 1: You need a 12 to hit the goblin. It needs a 13 to hit you. You need an 11 to save vs. its special abilities.
Level 15: You need a 12 to hit the demon. It needs a 13 to hit you. You need an 11 to save vs. its special abilities.
When all bonuses and defenses scale at the same rate, or nothing really scales much at all, it can feel like your high level character isn't any better at doing anything. You just need an 11 to make any roll you try.
There are systems that simple, but they tend to be much less mechanics oriented than Pathfinder. Or they hide it behind a bunch of complicated math that still comes out to the same thing.
Personally, I want high level play to be very different from low levels, and from mid level. Martial/caster disparity and rocket tag aren't actually as big a problem as the conversations on these boards would suggest.
If Pathfinder 2.0 were a reality... and you were building it from the very ground up... would you start with the d20?
No.
To be honest, the system I designed (and a number of systems since, no relation) used the d6. Moreover, it never used more than 3 of them. 1d6 offers sufficient randomization if your modifiers are properly scaled, 2d6 and 3d6 offer increasingly dramatic bell curves of probability, making the median roll more and more likely with the extremes less and less so.
But then again, the system I designed would never fit in well with Pathfinder or similar systems because it takes the [Skill + Attribute vs. Difficulty] to its logical conclusion, doing away with classes and levels entirely and instead incorporating magic and combat into a similar dynamic. One would always be using the appropriate attribute + the appropriate skill + 1d6 either vs. an established difficulty or an opposed check, depending on circumstance. Clears away the vast majority of min/maxing or munchkinization and lets you adopt a flexible, balanced rules system so that you are better able to tell a story.
Of course, telling a good story isn't what everyone who plays RPG's are seeking.
Except, my experience tells me that at some point between levels 12 and 17, my Barbarian will reach a point where he cannot miss except on a roll of 1, that he will threaten a critical on 20% of those attacks and will confirm 95% of the threats.
I can well believe that. But that's why he has iterative attacks at -5, -10 and -15, and those are not guaranteed to hit.
1d20 is generally a very good die to use, as the probabilities are simple to understand and manipulate, the chance of a crit or fail (1) are reasonable, modifiers are in the same sort of range as stats and levels, and you don't need to add multiple dice.
Where it goes wrong is in the obsessive application of the basic d20 game rule, such that success is based on 1d20+attribute mod. For much of the game it's fine (eg add Dex to archery or initiative; add Int to caster DC). OTOH it goes completely wrong is in cases where the RL variability and the die variability don't match the RL and game modifiers. For example:
1) Thor (str 40) and Mrs Average (Str 8) have an arm-wrestling match. Thor rolls 1d20+15. Mrs A rolls 1d20-1. She wins if she beats his raw d20 roll by 17. In that case, the GM should use d20+Str*2 (or more) because the pure Str is overwhelmingly important. Or force both characters to Take 10 or Take 1d6 to reduce the variance.
2) Jumping. It's not written like this, but mathematically it equates to jumping 1d20+(skill mod) feet. This is of course silly. When I do a standing jump in RL I go something from 5-6 feet every time. But to preserve the value of the Acrobatics skill, we need to preserve the modifier as is and reduce the range of the die roll to, say, 1d6+3 or 4d4.
The opposite problem happens with high level characters where a specialist can come up with such an absurd mod (Diplomacy, I'm looking at you. Also Save DCs) that the d20 isn't big enough. But that's not the fault of the d20, more the way that offensive specialism is too easy and over-rewarded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. The d20 is fine. It's various other parts of the game that are broken.
High-level spells, complete and total reliance on magic items, feat taxes/trees, and a few other things that aren't coming to mind.
Changing those works well enough with the d20. Adjusting the monster stat block swhen you nix those in the bud can be a pain in the rump, but it's necessary after switching the above around.
Game becomes much easier to run at all levels at that point.
Caster-Martial Disparity.
Christmas Tree Effect.
Rocket Tag.There are also tons of other issues in the game that people are always looking to mitigate or ameliorate with errata, FAQs, and houserules.
When you are trying to solve problems, you can't start at the halfway point. You have to go back to the source. So, I ask myself (and you):
How many of the problems in the Pathfinder RPG start with the d20?
Base Attack Bonus, Skills, and Saves are all balanced against the roll of a twenty-sided die. Damage and Skill/Save DC's are built off of expected BAB/Skill/Save Bonuses. Classes are balanced against one another (in part) based on a sliding scale of Full, Three Quarters, or Half BAB; Good and Bad Saves; Class Skills and skill ranks per level. Many things, like traps, poisons, diseases, and natural hazards, but most importantly Spells, Spell-Like Abilities, Supernatural Abilities, and other special abilities, are balanced against anticipated Saves, Save DC's and Attack Bonuses. Everything down the line: Damage, hp, unique powers, in-game loot, CR, Wealth-By-Level, etc., are determined (at least in part) from this foundation.
Gameplay is this weird combination of Embracing and Mitigating, Challenging and Marginalizing, Utilizing and Distrusting, Championing and Forsaking the Twenty-Sided Die.
But, is there a better option? I would never choose to eliminate the element of chance from the game. It would not be worth playing. But, I know there are game systems out there that use d6, 2d6, and d100... and probably others that use other systems I don't know about.
If Pathfinder 2.0 were a reality... and you were building it from the very ground up... would you start with the d20?
I see nothing wrong with the d20. It stays. Changing the dice won't change the philosophy behind some of the problems.
Personally I'd keep the d20.
I like d6 actually, but that tends to have its own issues (though they resolved some of them in SR5).
I LOVE d100. I ran fallout and it was amazing. That being said, the math is too complex for a table top. I ran it on a virtual table top that took care of nearly all the math for you. It would be nearly impossible to play without one, and since most people are not going to use a vtt, it doesn't make a lot of business sense.
I played a few 2d6 games as well. They seem fine but they tend to be very simplistic, and while great for one offs and mini campaigns, I couldn't see really getting into it.
I prefer GURPS style 3d6. Tempted to use it in my next Pathfinder campaign, not much really relies on being able to roll a 1,2,19, or 20.
I don't have a problem with the d20 or the math it invokes. That being said I played diceless as a kid. Not a diceless system like Amber but literally just sitting around with my brother and a friend and taking turns telling stories with turn-based conflict resolution.
I've also sat in on game sessions where conflict was resolved with a coin toss. We've used rock-paper-scissors, a single d6 and even one time whoever could light the zippo on the first try with their leg.
Honestly I don't want to reinvent the wheel anymore. D20's provide a fine backdrop for the math of the current version. With bonuses being tacked on there are some instances where you can basically ignore the thing unless you roll a 1; a 5% chance of failure.
I agree with Zhayne. 3d6. Player decision, building, and planning over wild luck any day.
1) Thor (str 40) and Mrs Average (Str 8) have an arm-wrestling match. Thor rolls 1d20+15. Mrs A rolls 1d20-1. She wins if she beats his raw d20 roll by 17. In that case, the GM should use d20+Str*2 (or more) because the pure Str is overwhelmingly important. Or force both characters to Take 10 or Take 1d6 to reduce the variance.
Actually, arm-wrestling is much closer to simply comparing Strength scores than an actual contest, so I'd agree no need for d20 (nor does the game call for one, fyi).
2) Jumping. It's not written like this, but mathematically it equates to jumping 1d20+(skill mod) feet. This is of course silly. When I do a standing jump in RL I go something from 5-6 feet every time. But to preserve the value of the Acrobatics skill, we need to preserve the modifier as is and reduce the range of the die roll to, say, 1d6+3 or 4d4.
5-6 feet? Maybe you're taking 10 every time? (since Standing Jump you divide the roll by 2...) Jumping has always felt like one of the best devised skills IMO. DCs felt a bit more accurate in 3.0 with "5+distance" as the base DC, but it's much faster without that.
But while I disagree with your examples, you're right that strict adherence can sometimes be overboard.
The use of 3d6 for lack of extremes in rolling is starting to sound quite appealing to me, but now I'm wondering how you would implement that without too much fuss in the context of crit ranges, saves, AC, DCs, etc. as you have a different range of numbers you can roll and all. Math, my old enemy, appears again. Anyone here ever mess with or see any fairly simple conversions?
For criticals, thee easiest fix would simply be to slightly modify when weapons threaten a critical.
For a weapon that threatens only on a natural 20, instead make it a rolled 18.
For a weapon that threatens only on a natural 19 or above, instead make it a rolled 17 or above.
For a weapon that threatens only on a natural 18 or above, instead make it a rolled 16 or above.
Basically, remove 2 from the necessary rolled number to threaten with your weapon. It may not be perfect, but it keeps most Pathfinder feats, weapons, and abilities in place. It may change the percentage of you rolling a crit, but I'm okay with that ... as it's off-set by the fact that it's statistically less likely that you'll roll those requisite numbers on three dice on any given die toss.
As for saves, AC, DCs, etc ... not sure what impact it would actually have. I'd think very little.
I'm not much of a math person so for crits what you suggested is what I immediately thought of as well, but with that change I'm wary because I don't know exactly how it compares to the d20 ranges; don't want it slanted too far in either direction.
In regards to saves/DCs/etc., things that start with a base modifier of 10, I wonder how it would be effected by the new minimum roll being 3 and the new max being 18, as it shaves off a pretty decent range of potential rolls.
Actually, using 3d6 is covered in the Unearthed Arcana. I think the rules are even present on www.d20srd.org.
As for how to run a gain and account for the reduced range? I suggest using a lower point-buy/rolling method, for both PCs and NPCs. It can be a more suspenseful game, as something that requires a 17 on the dice is less than half as likely to happen than something that requires a nat 20. So "spells work" a lot of the time.
I'm not much of a math person so for crits what you suggested is what I immediately thought of as well, but with that change I'm wary because I don't know exactly how it compares to the d20 ranges; don't want it slanted too far in either direction.
In regards to saves/DCs/etc., things that start with a base modifier of 10, I wonder how it would be effected by the new minimum roll being 3 and the new max being 18, as it shaves off a pretty decent range of potential rolls.
For any given die roll, instead of having a possible 1-20 on the die (average 10.5), you have a possible 3-18 on the roll (average 10.5). Potentially all that's lost is the ability to roll a 1, 2, 19, or 20. The average roll remains the same. It only shaves off a few options (from both ends) and maintains your general range and median rolls.
I really don't think you'd see much of an issue, though, like has been mentioned, you'll likely see a bit more "in the middle" results from the die. Which, for me, is something I like.
Actually, using 3d6 is covered in the Unearthed Arcana. I think the rules are even present on www.d20srd.org.
As for how to run a gain and account for the reduced range? I suggest using a lower point-buy/rolling method, for both PCs and NPCs. It can be a more suspenseful game, as something that requires a 17 on the dice is less than half as likely to happen than something that requires a nat 20. So "spells work" a lot of the time.
Updated link (which discusses some of the probability changes)
Metagame Analysis: The Bell Curve
In general, this variant leads to a grittier d20 game, because there will be far fewer very good or very bad rolls. Not only can you no longer roll 1, 2, 19 or 20, but most rolls will be clustered around the average of 10.5. With a d20, every result is equally likely; you have a 5% chance of rolling an 18 and a 5% chance of rolling a 10. With 3d6, there’s only one possible combination of dice that results in an 18 (three sixes, obviously), but there are twenty-four combinations that result in a 10. Players used to the thrill of rolling high and the agony of a natural 1 will get that feeling less often—but it may be more meaningful when it does happen. Good die rolls are a fundamental reward of the game, and it changes the character of the game when the rewards are somewhat stronger but less frequent.Game balance shifts subtly when you use the bell curve variant. Rolling 3d6 gives you a lot more average rolls, which favors the stronger side in combat. And in the d20 game, that’s almost always the PCs. Many monsters—especially low-CR monsters encountered in groups—rely heavily on a lucky shot to damage PCs. When rolling 3d6, those lucky shots are fewer and farther between. In a fair fight when everyone rolls a 10, the PCs should win almost every time. The bell curve variant adheres more tightly to that average (which is the reason behind the reduction in CR for monsters encountered in groups).
Another subtle change to the game is that the bell curve variant awards bonuses relatively more and the die roll relatively less, simply because the die roll is almost always within a few points of 10. A character’s skill ranks, ability scores, and gear have a much bigger impact on success and failure than they do in the standard d20 rules.
...
Automatic Successes and Failures
Automatic successes (for attack rolls and saves) happen on a natural 18, and automatic failures on a natural 3. Neither occurs as often as in standard d20 (less than 1/2% of the time as opposed to 5% of the time).Taking 20 and taking 10
You can’t take 20 using the bell curve variant. Instead, you have two new options: You can take 16, which makes the task take ten times as long, or you can take 18, which makes the task take one hundred times as long. As with the rules for taking 20, you can only take 16 and 18 when you have plenty of time, when you aren’t distracted, and when the task carries no consequences for failure. For a check that normally requires a standard action, taking 16 uses up 1 minute and taking 18 uses up 10 minutes.The rules for taking 10 remain unchanged.
Threat Range
Because it’s no longer possible to roll a natural 19 or 20, the threat ranges of weapons change in the bell curve variant. Refer to the following table.Old Threat Range -> New Threat Range
20 -> 16-18
19-20 -> 15-18
18-20 -> 14-18
17-20 -> 14-18
15-20 -> 13-18With the bell curve variant, the narrowest threat range becomes slightly more narrow (4.6% rather than 5%), and the new 14-18 range (16%) falls between the old 18-20 and 17-20 ranges. But because the Improved Critical feat and the keen edge spell double threat ranges, characters still improve their weapons in every case, despite the flat spot on the table.
There’s no table entry for a threat range of 16-20 because no combination weapons, feats, and magic can attain it in the standard d20 rules.
Thanks for the link and the input, guys. I saw the suggestion to use such a method in low power games, but if you were running a high powered game do you think the use of the 3d6 method with its more standardized mid results would be too much of a boost for PCs? Asking because I do like the thought of less wild variation, but yeah, I'm running gestalt so low power it isn't.
Thanks for the link and the input, guys. I saw the suggestion to use such a method in low power games, but if you were running a high powered game do you think the use of the 3d6 method with its more standardized mid results would be too much of a boost for PCs? Asking because I do like the thought of less wild variation, but yeah, I'm running gestalt so low power it isn't.
Well, Gestalt doesn't need to be high stats, but okay, what will it do in high power?
Mostly, it will make PCs a bit more super-hero (matches with Gestalt flavor there). You can sort of think of it as doubling the ease and the deadliness. If an encounter is easy, it will be very easy. If an encounter is hard, it could be very hard, as the PCs could struggle to roll over 12-13 to hit higher DCs on saves and such.
I'd suggest you use those harder encounters sparingly, and focus on the story response to the combats they won't lose (alarms, hostages, destruction of property/lives). Present the harder combats as the Real Dangers. But don't double-down on the difficulty - an 'epic' encounter could spell automatic doom if the vast bulk of rolls will fail against them.
Take as a Dragon encounter - often a dragon will need a 5 or lower to miss the majority of a party (maybe 8-10 if power attacking). 5 and lower on 3d6 is about the same chance as a Nat 1 on d20. That's 20-40% more damage dealt in a round from an already terrifyingly powerful creature. Breath weapon DC? Near impossible for most. That does make the threat/danger very *definable* for the DM - so use that to your advantage.
3d6 is a huge change to the math. Are the results intuitive to you, the way changes in a d20 system are?The game is designed with success rates in mind: Players should hit their enemy x% of the time, players should fail a save y% of the time.
This. The d20 is one of the most understandable methods of introducing random numbers into the game that has been proposed. (The d100 is arguably more understandable, but is too fine-grained, in that you need to keep track of everything that might affect your success chance by as much as a single percent.) An event that should happen about 25% of the time? You need to roll a 16 or better (which means the DC should be 15 plus whatever you expect the bonus to be.) What's 25% of the 3d6 bell curve? 30%? 35%?
With the 3d6 system, a +1 modifier is huge for ordinary tasks and almost irrelevant for hard or easy ones. It would be difficult if not impossible to effectively debuff a skilled swordsman -- the difference between needing a 4 to hit and needing a 5 to hit is is about 2% -- while that same one point difference between a 10 and 11 is more than 10%.
Half the time, the results will be somewhere between 9-12 (inclusive), so a +3 bonus for "normal" people moves you from never hitting to never missing.... or alternatively, a -3 penalty is enough to take a character effectively out of the fight. The effect is that static bonuses become more crucial for success, not less. The bard's +1 from inspire courage becomes a critical and effectively mandatory buff as you claw for every bonus you can get -- and fighting monsters outside of your CR will be a joke. Something below level-appropriate will be trivially dull, and something above your CR will kill out without thinking about it.
I see no benefit whatsoever to this proposal. "Hey, guys.... I've noticed we're having too much fun at this table and the Game Master is in control of the game. Let's fix both of those!"
I think your position may be overstated a bit, but I'll look at the numbers again. I understand that it doesn't simplify the projected math of the game (but instead complicates it), but I have a hard time believing it suddenly makes under-or-over CR opponents cakewalks or OMGWE'RESCREWEDRUN! scenarios respectively.
Like I said, I'll take another look.
The d20 is not the first thing I would change. In fact, it wouldn't even be on the list to change unless I'm converting everything else to a single die type, like using only d6s for everything (all skill checks, attack rolls, damage rolls, and so one).
In my opinion, pretty much everything that needs fixing boils down to a single problem. The magic system - both spellcasting and magic items.
Fix those and, at least in my opinion, you fix 90% of what is broken with the game.
I think your position may be overstated a bit, but I'll look at the numbers again. I understand that it doesn't simplify the projected math of the game (but instead complicates it), but I have a hard time believing it suddenly makes under-or-over CR opponents cakewalks or OMGWE'RESCREWEDRUN! scenarios respectively.
Well, lets do a little bit of math.
According to the Monster Creation Guidelines, a CR 7 monster has about AC 20, so we'll use hitting this as a base. The 7th level iconic fighter has a +15/+10 attack, so he hits 80% of the time with his first attack, 55% with his second using the normal rules.
If he's hit with a -2 debuff, those numbers drop to 70% and 45%, respectively.
With the modified rules, he'll hit 98% of the time with his first attack and 62% of the time with his second. (Already you see an issue -- you've eliminated most of the suspense on the first attack, but whatever....)
The same -2 debuff drops those numbers to 90% and 37%. You can see that his secondary attack is seriously nerfed.
But now let's look at a CR 9 monster, AC 23. To hit, the ordinary fighter hits 65% and 40% (55% and 30% with the debuff). He's still hitting more often than not.
The 3d6 fighter is hitting 83% and 26% of the time. His secondary is close to useless. With the debuff, he's hitting 9% of the time with his second attack.
It gets worse at level 10, when you get a third attack at -10. If you hit on a 5 with your primary attack, you will hit on a 15 with your tertiary attack, which happens less than 10% of the time. Full attacking is essentially a waste, because you never hit with later attacks. Even the secondary attack is questionable under any sort of difficult circumstances. So at this point you've essentially eliminated most of the fighter's ability to tank higher-CR monsters.
Similarly, let's look at saving throws. A typical attack DC at CR 7 is is 17, and at CR 9 is 18. Valero's poor save is a +3, so he has a 16% chance of saving (using 3d6) against a CR 7, 9% against CR 9.
Apply the same -2 debuff and his chances drop to 5% and 2%, respectively. Essentially, anything that targets his poor saves will succeed. A fireball will wipe out the entire party except for the monk.
And now let's look at his companion the 7th level wizard, throwing around DC 19 spells himself. The CR 7 monster's poor save is a 6, and the CR 9's is an 8. With the 3d6 rules this gives them 25% and 50% chance, respectively, to save. A +2 buff to the monsters raises them to 37% and 90% respectively. Poor Ezren might as well not cast against higher CR creatures, especially if they're themselves buffed.
Basically, our level 7 party can't get effective multiple attacks against a CR 9 creature and can't cast spells effectively against a CR 9 creature using the 3d6 rules. They also can't make saves against its spells and can't effectively dodge its attacks.
Sounds like an OMGWE'RESCREWEDRUN! scenario to me.
If Pathfinder 2.0 were a reality... and you were building it from the very ground up... would you start with the d20?
I've actually been playing around with that and the answer is no.
I decided to go with a dice progression like system where bonuses or penalties increased the dice and levels added more dice into a dice pool.So the progression is 0, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 2d6, 2d8, 2d10, 4d6 and so on.
So a level one warrior with 18 strength would have a 2d8 to hit roll. If he had 14 dex and heavy armor then his defense roll would be 2d10, but his maneuver defense would only be 2d8. With 14 con and a favored class bonus his HP would 2d10. EDIT: I'm trying to make setting up a foes with maneuvers and then smacking them the optimal strategy. So this Warrior's flat-footed AC would be 2d6
I've found that there are a lot of different things you can do with this approach and it allows you to get rid of the christmas tree effect, since stacking bonuses would be unbalanced. So a +5 sword would be an artifact while a sword that summons stone walls would a normal magic item.
Without the d20, you can make jumping/skills scale well since level 1 characters can't roll a 20 so you don't have to worry about that value being unrealistic at level 1.
A lot of what I want to address in PF has nothing to do with the d20, but it does start a lot of the problems.
... a lot of good stuff ...
Oof. Yah, I'll look at it some more, but this is pretty compelling stuff. At the very least, thanks for taking the time, Orfamay.
I wouldn't get rid of the d20 without changing the entire system. It causes problems, but the system is built around those problems.
Actually, one thing I've been considering is using the 3d6 bell curve, + the Variable Modifier rules from 3.5 Unearthed Arcana.
Only, mod them to work with every roll instead. Yeah, sure, it's more dice to roll... But, who doesn't like the sound of lots of dice in our hobby when it comes to combat?
Of course, at that point, it's time to totally change the system...
In any case, I'm dying to figure out how that would actually run as-is. Can't seem to find anyone willing to test it in a quick game. Makes me a sad panda.
One day....
In the mean time, I'll keep fiddling around with a couple homebrew systems in my spare time. One that's a little complicated (read: need to be stream lines), and one that's an extraordinarily simple d100 combat system (read: opposed rolls FTW!)...
For PF though... I stick by what I said earlier.
