I'm working on my own heavy homebrew. Here's a dice concept idea.
Basically, a core die is rolled, usually a d12 for elite characters like PCs but normal characters would be a d10 and weak creatures like goblins might even be only a d8. Likewise, powerful beings might use larger dice.
Then the core die is rolled along with two additional dice, each based on an ability score instead of the normal flat modifier. The pair of ability scores used are not preset, and are intended to change based on the context around what the check is made for. For example, intimidation via imposing figure might roll with cha and str, while intimidation by implying you are about to see the baron and could ruin someone's reputation could be int and wis. This gives greater flexibility to each skill. It also works with other checks. Imagine a reflex save when failing a climb check, dex and str to find and grab a handhold with your fingertips, vs a reflex save vs a trap which would be dex and wis to notice the trap and it's nature fast enough to tumble away in the right direction to avoid the worst effects.
Thus the core roll is a d12+two ability score dice.
Now, this does require a slight alteration to ability scores, which I prefer anyways since I never liked negative modifiers from abilities. The modifier/die from an ability score improves every four points, each multiple of four plus one.
1-4 is no die.
5-8 is a d2.
9-12 is a d4 (the average score)
13-16 is a d6
17-20 is a d8
21-24 is a d10
25-28 is a d12
...
This means an average NPC character with all average scores rolls 1d10+2d4.
I've got plenty of other alterations, but I'd like to focus on this one for now and get everyone's feedback on it.
If going this far, you may as well just divide all ability scores by 4. So 0 to 3 just becomes 0. 4 to 7 just becomes 1. And so on.
If going this far, you may as well just divide all ability scores by 4. So 0 to 3 just becomes 0. 4 to 7 just becomes 1. And so on.
Nope. I understand the popular kids don't really like the depth of the secondary mechanics but I love them, and thus I find the scores very helpful. Additionally, it eases the load of converting all the existing d20 material, and making conversion easy is the primary reason I'm not just jumping straight to my 3d12 dice rolls.
Edit: In fact, ideally existing material should be at least usable without converting anything beyond figuring out the ability modifiers and even that shouldn't be strictly necessary, less accurate but close enough to use.
Converting to this system seems pretty intensive regardless, unless you are implying standard monsters will be under standard d20
The numbers from this system match up really well to standard d20. With just what I mentioned so far, ability score modifiers is the only numbers that actually should be adjusted and that's only for rolling (though keep in mind the "players roll all the dice" mechanics for all the hidden rolls). That's it, and this keeps all those numbers in line. You could use a monster stat block as-is aside from that. Even then though, if you didn't want to adjust all the numbers for ability modifiers, you really don't need to as the base value of ten still matches the expected base value of ten in my mechanics and the standard mechanics.
You could even have monsters roll d20 plus stat block values if you wanted against the players using the above mechanics.
math wise you are seriously futzing with the dice statistics and adding complexity for no good reason. Given your rule you can determine the new statistics as it is a serial combination.
IMO the point buy system is the "fairest" or most consistent. It wasn't used for monster generation as that was cribbed from DnD 3.0/3.5.
It is far easier to just use your GM Powers to change things as needed. Just remember to adjust the CR.
Actually I have three reasons for changing things (not including my desire to use a d12).
First, no penalties. I find ability score penalties are vastly more off putting than bonuses are appealing. No one wants a score with a penalty because it just feels bad. Changing it to zero or better means having a 6 or 7 score is much more acceptable because while it is clearly less than average, you aren't getting a penalty at all, in fact, you still get a +1. I find there has been a significant power creep as people want to avoid scores with penalties, making superior stats feel like normal everyday stats which leads to people seeking above average stats needing very high stats to simply feel merely above average. Changing the math to remove penalties should fix that (though admittedly fighting the tide here).
Second, bell curve. I much prefer bell curve and find it much better than flat percentages like a straight d20.
Third, descriptive power. This obviously applies more to the first option, but rolling high on some dice but not others gives a good cue and inspiration for describing the results. One of the things I appreciate about dnd 3.x is that checks results are not purely pass/fail, but have an objective descriptive meaning as well which can add to the narrative if used. Using dice for the ability score modifiers gives much more potential to this facet.
Also, point buy is not anymore fair than rolling. It just adds control, which also greatly encourages minmaxing, which misses the whole point.
Lastly, good mechanics act like the grid on graphpaper, making it easier to make changes that are consistent and fair with less deliberation and note taking.
so basically a change for your emotional reasons.
How is this purely emotional reasons? I discounted the emotional attachments and described the objective goals behind the changes. Going for particular outcomes.
I don't think it's practical as RAW.
How is this impractical? It's no more complicated than Savage Worlds, in fact, it's quite simple, especially the 3d12 version.
A GM's descriptive power rests with his dramatic and acting ability, needless to say imagination within his descriptive setting.
This argument was gone over a bunch with 4e. Having no rules supporting description is not superior. Maybe not every GM can handle it and fall into the golden handcuffs problems. I have a word for them. Noobs. Unskilled GMs who need practice and perhaps even training. Nothing good comes from a GM that feels bound by the words in a book. Such GMs have always been the bane of my existence and I absolutely can not support treating mechanics as golden handcuffs as okay, neither in following such mechanics rigidly nor in avoiding mechanics entirely as the solution to avoiding feeling bound.
Gygax said that there is a difference between playing the game and playing the mechanics. I wholeheartedly agree, except that I see playing the mechanics as an acceptable playstyle, it's just not the playstyle for my table and I hate the idea of people seeing "playing the mechanics" as the only kind of play.
Therefore,
How you get there via dice isn't all that important for this particular element.
It is important because it's one of the biggest reasons to even have mechanics and the lack of this is why I hate 4e, 5e, and pf2. Heck pf1 diminished this aspect hence my disappointment with it despite it's other improvements.
I used the term '"fairest" or most consistent', that's important. It is also a rather bounded system which prevents too much min-maxing. Gaming the system is just what humans do to try to gain an advantage or success... so not a bad thing. Just something that needs to be managed.
First, point buy is not more consistent than rolling. 3d6 is always a number between 3-18.
Second, precise control enables minmaxing and detaches players from the idea of making use of what's given and encourages minmaxing instead as it puts players in the mindset of carefully selecting every +1 and focusing on mechanics over and above the world it all takes place in.
Third, I want players to game the system in-world, using environment, preparation, wit, and smarts. Mechanics should play a tangential role in that, not the spotlight role. Because that's my goal for play, minmaxing is a bad thing as it is directly contrary to the gameplay I want.
Many would say to go for rules light. I feel maybe I'm in a minority, but I'm perfectly capable of using mechanics and getting a lot of use out of them without them being the central role in the game. They are supporting tools and nothing more.