The D20 needs to go for this system to function


General Discussion

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
John Mechalas wrote:
rknop wrote:
You guys are inventing GURPS.
And that's bad because...? :)

GURPS already exists


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a thought, you could put a lot more impact on proficiency with a "advantage" (from 5th edition) esque mechanism, while preserving the "tight math" idea:

Untrained : Roll 3d10, discard the highest, -1 for proficiency
Trained : Roll 2d10
Expert: Roll 2D10+2
Master: Roll 3d10, discard the lowest, +2 for proficiency
Legendary: Roll 4d10, discard the 2 lowest, +3 for proficiency


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:
And that's bad because...? :)
GURPS already exists

If you can't bring Paizo to GURPS, then your only option...


Now I want to play some GURPS! Never played that one, the name always put me off, sounds like something gastro-intestinally related.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

GURPS is a great system to be a player. It is so fun making characters. So many options. It is also awful to GM. I won't do it and neither will the other guy in my gaming group with lots of familiarity with the system.


Lyee wrote:
As for making them less deadly? Not doubling dice, only doubling dice, max damage, crit effects instead of extra damage, even just multiplying the final damage by 1.5 instead of the current system. I've heard lots of reasonable ideas. The better recovery system we should be getting today might also help.

i think a multiplication by 1.5 is the best... But it should involve 0 computation. Math is hard. :p

At level 1, the solution is simple: roll two damage dice, but add your Str only once; ie, if a fighter deals 1d8+4 damages on normal hit, he inflicts 2d8+4 on crit. That's more or less +50% damages. When the +1 rune comes into play, i don't know how to multiply damages by 1.5 without any actual multiplication. :/


Gaterie wrote:
Lyee wrote:
As for making them less deadly? Not doubling dice, only doubling dice, max damage, crit effects instead of extra damage, even just multiplying the final damage by 1.5 instead of the current system. I've heard lots of reasonable ideas. The better recovery system we should be getting today might also help.

i think a multiplication by 1.5 is the best... But it should involve 0 computation. Math is hard. :p

At level 1, the solution is simple: roll two damage dice, but add your Str only once; ie, if a fighter deals 1d8+4 damages on normal hit, he inflicts 2d8+4 on crit. That's more or less +50% damages.

That's how 5th Ed does it, you double all damage dice, but not modifiers. Can still get out of control with Sneak Attack, Smite, and rider damage (like radiant for angels, etc).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

My memory isn’t so great but weren’t the BECMI/1st/2nd editions full of look up tables to deal with the flat probability of the d20? I remember the 3.0 pitch as being a full rewrite by wizards of the coast to eliminate comparing die rolls to tables, and had linear bonuses that were easy to remember. I thought the numbers looked big back then, but I was too enamored by the feat system to properly understand.

I stopped playing before 3.5 and wasn’t really aware of all the math research available online, so it has only recently occurred to me in the past year that this all started when the system around the d20 was revamped to its current form.

I totally agree that the d20 is too fundamental to the game for me to want to change the dice. That said, it seems like the system should embrace that and change around it to support bell curve results by using a lookup table if need be. It would be better than what we have now, where you are adding and subtracting 3 to 8 numbers to get your result and then rolling a jillion dice for damage and doubling this and that. I like math, but not tedious math. I like skill choices to matter but this tight math makes it seem like nothing really improves.


2D10 doesn't work without some significant other changes to the system. I tried it with 5e and it just got messy. It's also not a great curve, 3d6 or 3d8 would be much better (personally I'd like to see a 3d8 system at some point, it simply sounds interesting).


Syndrous wrote:


The lack of a confirmation roll means that there is a significantly higher chance to crit...

What kind of poorly optimised PFe1 characters are you playing?

From about level 10 onwards crit chance is close to 30 percent. Reduces a bit for later attacks, but there are also a lot more attacks in a round as you level up further.


I'd love 2d10 (crits/fails at the 2,3,4/18,19,20) as a player's option. Kinda like how it's usually the local custom to let the player choose whether to roll for hp or take the average.

But you have to stick with it on a per-session basis at least.


NorthernDruid wrote:
Kinda like how it's usually the local custom to let the player choose whether to roll for hp or take the average.

Yeah, I try to be generous in that department. So, the player can roll for hit points, and if they are not happy, they can take average (round up). I do a similar thing for ability score generation, the players can roll, if not satisfied with their rolls, they can take an array or point buy.

I don't want anyone to get hosed due to bad luck with such important rolls that effect your PC forever.

"Bummer, Hal, that's like the third level in a row you've rolled a 4 for your paladin's hit points..."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’d support reducing crit/crit fail effects.

Maybe doubling only the core weapon/spell damage dice?

So no crit sneak attack insanity.

Maximising the dice could work, but people like rolling dice. I also considered suggesting doubling the non-Weapon modifiers, but figured that suffered from a similar problem to maximising.

Edit: Though it’s also important to point out that crit and crit fail effects on spells, and other actions would also need to be similarly reduced.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ramanujan wrote:
Maximising the dice could work,

That is the best crit system of any edition so far (that is something I thought 4th Ed got right), to me. Though, as you say, some people like the fist full of dice action, that lustre has lost its sheen over the years, for me.


Ramanujan wrote:
Maybe doubling only the core weapon/spell damage dice?

Magic weapon dice seem to be a much higher proportion of the damage than in other similar systems, so this wouldn't reduce critical damage much (for high-level PCs, at least).


Matthew Downie wrote:
Ramanujan wrote:
Maybe doubling only the core weapon/spell damage dice?
Magic weapon dice seem to be a much higher proportion of the damage than in other similar systems, so this wouldn't reduce critical damage much (for high-level PCs, at least).

True.

A set, flat number of extra dice would be a simple rule, but be tricky to balance being fair at low levels and meaningful at high levels.

An extra die of damage is great at level 1, but not very exciting at twenty.

Tieing it to proficiency seems like a good idea, but the simple equation of 1/2/3/4/5 extra dice for u/t/e/m/l, is just as overwhelming as doubling the weapon dice.

Dropping all of those by one to 0/1/2/3/4 (or 1/1/2/3/4), begs the question what would be the right size crit at level 20? ... I guess we are going to have to wait till the end of the playtest to find out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ramanujan wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Ramanujan wrote:
Maybe doubling only the core weapon/spell damage dice?
Magic weapon dice seem to be a much higher proportion of the damage than in other similar systems, so this wouldn't reduce critical damage much (for high-level PCs, at least).

True.

A set, flat number of extra dice would be a simple rule, but be tricky to balance being fair at low levels and meaningful at high levels.

An extra die of damage is great at level 1, but not very exciting at twenty.

Tieing it to proficiency seems like a good idea,

Yes, I would prefer the item bonus and additional weapon damage dice came from Trained proficiency and Level.

Something like:

Trained proficiency bonus/Extra weapon damage dice by Level: Armour Class, Weapon Attacks, Saving Throws, Skills.

Level
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What about making Proficiency AND Magic items increase damage but they don't stack? It would take some tweaking but if you make +1 Prof and a +1 Weapon give +1 to hit and +1d but not stack then you don't have this issue of a level 20 Fighter doing a d8 with a non magic sword but still making the strongest of swords relevant, as you can't get that extra +2/+2d anywhere else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

What about changing the check dice based on proficiency?

  • Untrained: 1d20 ⇒ 16
  • Trained: 2d10 ⇒ (3, 1) = 4
  • Expert: 2d12 - 1 ⇒ (8, 8) - 1 = 15
  • Master: 3d8 - 2 ⇒ (7, 6, 3) - 2 = 14
  • Legendary: 4d6 - 3 ⇒ (1, 6, 2, 2) - 3 = 8


  • Rameth wrote:
    What about making Proficiency AND Magic items increase damage but they don't stack? It would take some tweaking but if you make +1 Prof and a +1 Weapon give +1 to hit and +1d but not stack then you don't have this issue of a level 20 Fighter doing a d8 with a non magic sword but still making the strongest of swords relevant, as you can't get that extra +2/+2d anywhere else.

    A potentially less cluttered solution would be to allow proficiency to take advantage of more potent magic items (i.e. only a "master" can unlock the blades true power)

    Where the quality of the item and proficiency are both contingent on each other:

    So a Master with the weapon can utilize an Expert, and Master level weapon's damage boost, but not the full power of a Legendary weapon.

    This means a level 1 fighter who is an expert doesn't get a damage boost, but if he finds an expert quality item he can immediately take advantage of it.

    This kind of falls in line with 2nd edition DnD that only allowed certain classes to use magic weapons, but not so much so that it was unmerited.

    You could even have different types of proficiency unlock different magic items powers (so a master of Stealth can unlock say a Master quality Dagger's extra damage dice).

    This gives proficiency more bravado in the magic item space, while not totally unbalancing the cost values associated with magic items or tying damage increases directly with the magic item itself.

    You then could mirror this proficiency style "unlocking" to other items outside of magic weapons (I made a cloak of elvenkind example that worked with Stealth proficiency as an example in another thread discussing the idea).


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Vidmaster7 wrote:

    to follow matthew's line of thinking.

    Critical hits could just do the critical effects. It could add as little as an extra die.

    Huh. A few days ago I was pondering how I could change the Critical Hit rule and that is exactly where I ended.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    I like the swinginess of a d20 because it potentially allows a poorly optimized person the hope of succeeding by rolling high and offers a well optimized person the threat of rolling low.

    If those highs and lows are too low a probability, it greatly discourages making the attempt. Indeed, if crit successes are rare enough, it scarcely matters that we roll at all.

    In this regard, I'm in favor of reducing the benefit of crits if they're occurring too much as others have said.

    Where PF2e has a problem is it wants well optimized characters to succeed around 60% of the time, whereas I would much prefer 80% or higher. Their low expected rate of failure has caused them to tune the crit mechanic such that its impact is appropriate for that lower chance.

    Other options mentioned include changing the +10/-10 mechanic to 1,2 or 19,20s on the die. Or adding confirmation die, or adjusting to something like +12/-12. I think these all have some merit and shouldn't be dismissed.

    What definitely should be dismissed is abolishing the d20. All my d20 themed stuff would become silly!

    Some weird, goofy options for thought:

    1. +10/-10 but only if the total result is an even number
    2. +10/-10 and confirm with a coin toss
    3. hit and get a 4 on a d4
    4. +12/-12
    5. 20,19/2,1
    6. +10/-10 and when the opposing party fails a flat d20 check
    7. +15/-15 or on a +10/-10 if you spend a hero point
    8. Revert to PF1e confirmation roll
    9. [+10+n]/[-10-n] where n is an arbitrary GM drama value set per encounter
    10. Before roll guess the number on the die, if you're close you crit
    11. Fill a crit card deck with a bunch of duds and flip a card after every d20 roll
    12. Drop into a dice tower with two outlets and it crits if it comes out the right side
    13. Rock paper scissor with the GM to determine crit
    14. Roll in a magic circle and divine whether its a crit based on standard knuckle bone guidelines.


    Was just thinking about this further. Adding a multiple (e.g. triple) of your level to critical damage might work?

    Adding 3 damage at level one is scary vs a PC, but not one-shot a PC territory.

    Similarly for adding 60 damage at level 20.

    Against a target of the same same level 3x level is a little under half a low hit point character’s total health. (I.e. one who gains 6/level +6 from race.)

    This has the advantage that it is quick and easy to calculate, as well as always being significant but not overpowering.


    Zamfield wrote:

    What about changing the check dice based on proficiency?

  • [dice=Untrained]1d20
  • [dice=Trained]2d10
  • [dice=Expert]2d12 - 1
  • [dice=Master]3d8 - 2
  • [dice=Legendary]4d6 - 3
  • That is going to be really complicated in play to remember.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    It occurs to me that changing a d20 to 2d10 would actually be a good use for something like the Assurance feat.

    Sure, you're less likely to do something stellar (reduced chances of getting a 20), but much more likely to do something middle of the range, and no chance of rolling a 1 and bombing out completely.

    Plus, every time you use that skill, you'll get a visceral sense of the difference spending that feat has made for you.


    the randomness of the D20 is the best part of the game. it makes it feel less deterministic and as a result more interesting. it makes every roll matter. it's just more fun. a perfect bell curve would detract from the system in my opinion.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    I would like to keep the d20 but would there be a way to rework the entire system to use 2d20 for hits and thus greatly widen the range of possibilities?

    We would keep the beloved d20 and just roll 2 of them which is not out of genre for a d20 system.

    Would it be workable?


    larsenex wrote:

    I would like to keep the d20 but would there be a way to rework the entire system to use 2d20 for hits and thus greatly widen the range of possibilities?

    We would keep the beloved d20 and just roll 2 of them which is not out of genre for a d20 system.

    Would it be workable?

    If you made other changes, yes. Namely that +/-10 crits wouldn't work when the dice can give you any value between 2 and 40. It would need to go to a significantly wider range.

    Your character modifiers would also need to grow otherwise they become largely insignificant in the result, similar to how very low level plays in 1e.

    2d20 would create a case of number inflation more than anything else, and I don't think there would be a significant benefit to it.

    5e really has the best way to use 2d20 nailed down: advantage and disadvantage.

    RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

    The problem lies with the math not the dice.

    A discrete Gaussian distribution has its own set of problems.


    larsenex wrote:

    I would like to keep the d20 but would there be a way to rework the entire system to use 2d20 for hits and thus greatly widen the range of possibilities?

    We would keep the beloved d20 and just roll 2 of them which is not out of genre for a d20 system.

    Would it be workable?

    It's been done as a house-rule for PF1. The attacker rolls 1d20 and the defender rolls 1d20. The defender's d20 replaces the base 10 AC everyone gets. (And the same for saving throws.)

    As Tridus points out, this increases variability a lot so you'd get more crits if you did this in PF2.


    WatersLethe wrote:


    Some weird, goofy options for thought:

    1. +10/-10 but only if the total result is an even number
    2. +10/-10 and confirm with a coin toss
    3. hit and get a 4 on a d4
    4. +12/-12
    5. 20,19/2,1
    6. +10/-10 and when the opposing party fails a flat d20 check
    7. +15/-15 or on a +10/-10 if you spend a hero point
    8. Revert to PF1e confirmation roll
    9. [+10+n]/[-10-n] where n is an arbitrary GM drama value set per encounter
    10. Before roll guess the number on the die, if you're close you crit
    11. Fill a crit card deck with a bunch of duds and flip a card after every d20 roll
    12. Drop into a dice tower with two outlets and it crits if it comes out the right side
    13. Rock paper scissor with the GM to determine crit
    14. Roll in a magic circle and divine whether its a crit based on standard knuckle bone guidelines.

    I love that I have no idea if "Magic Circle" is an actual role playing game accessory I don't know about, or if you are making a joke.

    I really like the idea of making Critical success something that requires investment from the PC. Maybe the spell point pool or the resonance pool could be more universally spread across classes and fighters would be able to use theirs to confirm critical hits.


    Matthew Downie wrote:
    larsenex wrote:

    I would like to keep the d20 but would there be a way to rework the entire system to use 2d20 for hits and thus greatly widen the range of possibilities?

    We would keep the beloved d20 and just roll 2 of them which is not out of genre for a d20 system.

    Would it be workable?

    It's been done as a house-rule for PF1. The attacker rolls 1d20 and the defender rolls 1d20. The defender's d20 replaces the base 10 AC everyone gets. (And the same for saving throws.)

    Yeah, and the 3rd Ed Unearthed Arcana has a Players Roll all the Dice variant (saving throws as Defences, defence rolls instead of AC, etc).

    http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm


    Unicore wrote:
    WatersLethe wrote:

    14. Roll in a magic circle and divine whether its a crit based on standard knuckle bone guidelines.

    I love that I have no idea if "Magic Circle" is an actual role playing game accessory I don't know about, or if you are making a joke.

    Judging by the "knuckle bone guidelines" bit I'm guessing they mean a fortune teller's magic circle. The kind they roll bones in to read and tell your fortune.

    51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / The D20 needs to go for this system to function All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion