Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thought_riot 01-01-06, 08:32 AM	Last week, my group decided to try out the 3d6 bell curve method of rolling, as in Unearthed Arcana. We decided over the week to switch that to 2d10. For 3d6, crit ranges need to be editted. Does anyone using 2d10 think that the crit ranges need to be slightly changed? I'm leaning towards no, but wanted to get others opinions.
Sigurd van Norhusen 01-01-06, 08:37 AM	I wouldn't, just out of personal preference and experience with other game systems that worked like that. Criticals are still about as rare as before (maybe even a bit more rare), so there shouldn't be really any need to.
SodaGuy 01-01-06, 08:53 AM	Doesn't seem too bad to me. The possible rolls become 2-20, the average is 11.5 instead of 10.5. The biggest problem would be that crits only happen 1 in 100 instead of 1 in 20.
thought_riot 01-01-06, 01:57 PM	Does seem too bad to me. The possible rolls become 2-20, the average is 11.5 instead of 10.5. The biggest problem would be that crits only happen 1 in 100 instead of 1 in 20. The average is still about 10, because theres more possible combinations that add to 10 than any other number, so the chances of 10 showing up are a lot higher.
Fargren 01-01-06, 02:37 PM	The average is still about 10, because theres more possible combinations that add to 10 than any other number, so the chances of 10 showing up are a lot higher. Yes, but the average IS 11.5. If you want to bother, sum up all posible dice rolls, and divide the unmber by the number of pssibilities. You'll get 11.5. However, it's more likely to get 10, because there are more combinations tht get that number(maybe I'm wrong). Weird, isn't it?
The Amazing Dancing Bear 01-01-06, 03:27 PM	The biggest problem is with specialists. Let's say Glorg Bloodaxe has +20 to hit. In the d20 system, he has one trip-up: the natural one. A paltry 10 fails to crush anything, and it happens once every 20 swings. Now let's look at his brother, D'yeargh Garbagebarge, who also has +20 to hit, but D'yeargh lives in the 2d10 system, so he only crit fails once in 100 times (on a natural 2). See the problem? Specialist character are drastically powered up. Don't mess with the basic roll of D&D. The game is kind of balanced right now.
thought_riot 01-01-06, 04:37 PM	The biggest problem is with specialists. Let's say Glorg Bloodaxe has +20 to hit. In the d20 system, he has one trip-up: the natural one. A paltry 10 fails to crush anything, and it happens once every 20 swings. Now let's look at his brother, D'yeargh Garbagebarge, who also has +20 to hit, but D'yeargh lives in the 2d10 system, so he only crit fails once in 100 times (on a natural 2). See the problem? Specialist character are drastically powered up. Don't mess with the basic roll of D&D. The game is kind of balanced right now. Why should Glorg Bloodaxe have an equal chance to fail as Joe Commoner, with +0 to hit, has to succeed? The 2d10 or 3d6 roll lends more to the character's skill than to pure luck. I think it makes it more realistic.
sdragon1984 01-01-06, 05:02 PM	Why should Glorg Bloodaxe have an equal chance to fail as Joe Commoner, with +0 to hit, has to succeed? The 2d10 or 3d6 roll lends more to the character's skill than to pure luck. I think it makes it more realistic. isnt "pure luck" the point to having a random element in the game? glrog has just as much chance to a crit as joe, but he has a higher BAB, so his to-hit is higher. if im not mistakin, (not about to get my PHB and then search through it to look this up, but im pretty sure its there) crits are actually described as hits that happen to be lucky. 2d10 would be great if youre trying to add emphasis to more consistent average rolls, and emphasis on the luck needed for crits, with the tradeoff of a random element being that much less random. i say its six of one, half a dozen of the other, but my personal preference goes towards d20.
Crimson_Concerto 01-01-06, 05:04 PM	Yes, but the average IS 11.5. If you want to bother, sum up all posible dice rolls, and divide the unmber by the number of pssibilities. You'll get 11.5. However, it's more likely to get 10, because there are more combinations tht get that number(maybe I'm wrong). Weird, isn't it?Actually with 2D10, the average roll will be 11, which you would get 1/10 of the time according to probability. You would get a 10 or 12 only 9/100 times each, which is slightly less. You would get a 9 or 13 only 8/100 times each, an 8 or 14 only 7/100 times each, a 7 or 15 only 6/100 times each, a 6 or 16 only 5/100 times each, a 5 or 17 only 4/100 times each, a 4 or 18 only 3/100 times each, a 3 or 19 only 2/100 times each, and a 2 or 20 only 1/100 times each.
Fargren 01-01-06, 05:42 PM	My bad. I probably should have done the math before posting about the results :P
Loren Pechtel 01-01-06, 05:49 PM	Last week, my group decided to try out the 3d6 bell curve method of rolling, as in Unearthed Arcana. We decided over the week to switch that to 2d10. For 3d6, crit ranges need to be editted. Does anyone using 2d10 think that the crit ranges need to be slightly changed? I'm leaning towards no, but wanted to get others opinions. 2d10 crit on 20 gives a 1 in 100 instead of 1 in 20.
Loren Pechtel 01-01-06, 05:51 PM	Does seem too bad to me. The possible rolls become 2-20, the average is 11.5 instead of 10.5. The biggest problem would be that crits only happen 1 in 100 instead of 1 in 20. It can't be. The average of an even die must end in .5. .5 + .5 = 1.0. Therefore the average of two dice must end in .0.
thought_riot 01-01-06, 11:31 PM	isnt "pure luck" the point to having a random element in the game? glrog has just as much chance to a crit as joe, but he has a higher BAB, so his to-hit is higher. if im not mistakin, (not about to get my PHB and then search through it to look this up, but im pretty sure its there) crits are actually described as hits that happen to be lucky. 2d10 is still random, just less than the d20. Crits are supposed to be lucky, but with a d20, it's as "lucky" as every other roll, as theres just as much of a chance. With 2d10 or similar, crits are more rare, and thus, more "lucky" and feel more "special".
Lord Schpungus 01-02-06, 02:08 AM	I say no to multiple dice, because of the decreased critical chance. I'm not playing a fantasy game about mediocrity, I want my success to be against all odds, and my failures to be comically devastating. I want them to happen quite often, and multiple dice brings out the blahness in every instance of chance.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-02-06, 02:15 AM	You can't natty 1 on 2d10 :( That said, making things less random is bad for the game, its just like letting people take 10 more often than not.
Solaris 01-02-06, 02:38 AM	Summing multiple dice does not make the outcome less random; it makes it differently random, changing the dstribution of the results from uniform to (more or less) approximately normal. Those considering the use of nonuniform distributions in roleplaying might enjoy this article: http://ptgptb.org/0009/simon.html
Gilean 01-02-06, 02:56 AM	For bell curve, using 3d20, take the middle one is better. Saves the range of results and doesn't require addition. For example, if rolls are 3, 14 and 18, 14 is taken. 1, 1, and 6, 1 is taken. 1, 20 and 20, 20 is taken. Quite simple. I could do the maths, but it might take a while.
TLomon 01-02-06, 03:24 AM	3d20, take middle seems screwy as well. Let's review the probability. There are three dice. Each with 20 sides. To get a natural 20, the odds are: 20 on first die= 0.05 20 on second die = 0.05 Odds on getting a 20 on two dice are .0025, or 1 in 400. Now, because there is a chance of getting a 20 on the third die (0.05 to be exact), we need to add that in the equation as well. Odds of getting a third 20 in a row are 0.000125. Add that to the total, and you get .002625. Giving you a total of 1 in 380.9524. The odds are now even worse.
Solaris 01-02-06, 03:27 AM	[deleted]
Solaris 01-02-06, 03:57 AM	3d20, take middle seems screwy as well. Let's review the probability. There are three dice. Each with 20 sides. To get a natural 20, the odds are:0.00725, or about 1 in 138. If you're wondering where you went wrong, you should have been computing the probability of getting two 20s and one non-20, and then adding the probability of getting three 20s. That gives 0.05^2 * 0.95 * C(3,2) + 0.05^3 = 0.00725. Or you could just count and get (1 + 3 * 19) / 8000 = 0.00725. The odds are now even worse.It also doesn't approximate a bell curve; with no inflection points, and hence no tails, it just gets steeper and steeper toward the ends instead of leveling off.
Gil Gwath 01-02-06, 04:12 AM	3d20, take middle seems screwy as well. Let's review the probability. There are three dice. Each with 20 sides. To get a natural 20, the odds are: 20 on first die= 0.05 20 on second die = 0.05 Odds on getting a 20 on two dice are .0025, or 1 in 400. Now, because there is a chance of getting a 20 on the third die (0.05 to be exact), we need to add that in the equation as well. Odds of getting a third 20 in a row are 0.000125. Add that to the total, and you get .002625. Giving you a total of 1 in 380.9524. The odds are now even worse. According to me your math is wrong. If we think of having two 20s throwing three 20 sided dices, we should have 3/400 chance: first and second die (1/400) first and third die (1/400) and second and third die (1/400). 3/400 = 1/133 more similar to the 1/100 chance that you can have with 2d10
Solaris 01-02-06, 04:50 AM	According to me your math is wrong. If we think of having two 20s throwing three 20 sided dices, we should have 3/400 chance: first and second die (1/400) first and third die (1/400) and second and third die (1/400). 3/400 = 1/133 more similar to the 1/100 chance that you can have with 2d10 That's incorrect also, though the result is closer to the correct value. You've made a similar mistake, in that you're forgetting to allow for the third die not being 20, but you also forgot to add the outcome where three 20s are rolled.
TLomon 01-02-06, 05:09 AM	Beautifully done, Solaris. I'm a bit rusty calculating probability. Haven't felt a need to do it for awhile. I double checked my figures and found where I made the mistake. Thank you for the math lesson. So, in summary. Standard 0.05 for a crit. 0.00725 for the take the middle die. (That's 1/20 compared to 1/137.9 for you fraction people) Middle die == Bad. Me doing math == Bad Let's just stick to d20s, people.
Gil Gwath 01-02-06, 05:10 AM	That's incorrect also, though the result is closer to the correct value. You've made a similar mistake, in that you're forgetting to allow for the third die not being 20, but you also forgot to add the outcome where three 20s are rolled. Yoo are totally right, i was going to simplify. exact chance are, as you pointed out: 1/8000 + 3*19/20*1/400 chance to have all 3 20s + chance that only 2 are 20s
Gilean 01-02-06, 05:17 AM	It also doesn't approximate a bell curve; with no inflection points, and hence no tails, it just gets steeper and steeper toward the ends instead of leveling off.Might be, I haven't checked it out. The point is that when you change the dice, criticals and such must be changed, if they are to remain as frequent. But taking the median is more elegant than doing a sum of three numbers, and arguably faster than adding two numbers.
Sigurd van Norhusen 01-02-06, 09:36 AM	You can't natty 1 on 2d10 :( That said, making things less random is bad for the game, its just like letting people take 10 more often than not. You can natty 2 on 2d10. Which is great, in my opinion: less critical failures, less critical successes. More power for those who really put their energy into becoming good at something (either misc skill or combat in DnD, d'oh), less absurd fickleness.
sirdrault 01-02-06, 05:03 PM	lol, Im truly enjoying this discussion, and dont wish to add my opinion, however, what happens when you have a longbow or rapier or other weapon with a crit threat greater than natural 20? Or even better, a keen rapier (15-20 X2). If you change to 2d10, then the 19-20 crit range is 3 times as likely as the natural twenty, the 18-20 crit range 6 times, a crit range of 17-20 (keen longbow) 10 times as likely, 16-20 15 times, and a crit range of 15-20 (keen rapier, keen falchion, etc) 21 times more likely than rolling than rolling a natural twenty on 2d10. Compare this to the 19-20 being twice as likely, the 18-20 three times... four... five times as likely for a crit range of 15-20 on 1d10. In short, youve changed a linear pattern into something... quadratic? You've totally screwed over the critical system, in short. Hehehe. If I ever play with you remind me to buy a keen weapon. the high school freshman.
thought_riot 01-02-06, 05:43 PM	lol, Im truly enjoying this discussion, and dont wish to add my opinion, however, what happens when you have a longbow or rapier or other weapon with a crit threat greater than natural 20? Or even better, a keen rapier (15-20 X2). If you change to 2d10, then the 19-20 crit range is 3 times as likely as the natural twenty, the 18-20 crit range 6 times, a crit range of 17-20 (keen longbow) 10 times as likely, 16-20 15 times, and a crit range of 15-20 (keen rapier, keen falchion, etc) 21 times more likely than rolling than rolling a natural twenty on 2d10. Compare this to the 19-20 being twice as likely, the 18-20 three times... four... five times as likely for a crit range of 15-20 on 1d10. In short, youve changed a linear pattern into something... quadratic? You've totally screwed over the critical system, in short. Hehehe. If I ever play with you remind me to buy a keen weapon. the high school freshman. true i guess. but i just think that the complete randomnes of the d20 doesnt lend well to realism. i dunno.
Solaris 01-02-06, 06:18 PM	true i guess. but i just think that the complete randomnes of the d20 doesnt lend well to realism. i dunno. If you want realism, use bell curves. If you want heroic successes and failures, use the other thing. It comes down to what you want, and what the best model for that is.
sdragon1984 01-02-06, 08:43 PM	true i guess. but i just think that the complete randomnes of the d20 doesnt lend well to realism. i dunno. any form of random element doesnt lend well towards realism, whether its the bell-curve 2d10 or the flat-rate d20. theres several games on the market that are completely diceless, and IMHO opinion, they lend the most towards realism. instead of random elements, they have a sort of "effort level" system. natural "resting" (any period of time, with an assumed average level of inactivity) will increase your resevoir of effort levels, which you can later spend when youre trying to overcome a DC. with a random element, the strongest of PCs can take a crud roll on something relatively simple, and then have the weakest PC "roll a 20" (or whatever your system allows). dice can take out quite a bit of realism, but then again, when elves are firing magical blasts of offensive energy.............
thought_riot 01-02-06, 09:24 PM	any form of random element doesnt lend well towards realism, whether its the bell-curve 2d10 or the flat-rate d20. theres several games on the market that are completely diceless, and IMHO opinion, they lend the most towards realism. instead of random elements, they have a sort of "effort level" system. natural "resting" (any period of time, with an assumed average level of inactivity) will increase your resevoir of effort levels, which you can later spend when youre trying to overcome a DC. with a random element, the strongest of PCs can take a crud roll on something relatively simple, and then have the weakest PC "roll a 20" (or whatever your system allows). dice can take out quite a bit of realism, but then again, when elves are firing magical blasts of offensive energy............. I don't want exact realism, as I like the dice system, but I think 2d10 is more realistic than d20, but my group is probably going to stay with the d20 after much talk.
Sigurd van Norhusen 01-03-06, 02:17 AM	If you want realism, use bell curves. If you want heroic successes and failures, use the other thing. It comes down to what you want, and what the best model for that is. I think I should sig that. You must use the very random D20, because otherwise it is not heroic? Or am I totally misunderstanding what you are saying here?
Gil Gwath 01-03-06, 03:59 AM	in UA where the 3d6 bell curve is proposed there is a table for changing the threat range of weapons: 20 ----> 16-18 19-20 ----> 15-18 18-20 ----> 14-18 17-20 ----> 14-18 15-20 ----> 13-18 No table entry for 16-20 cuase no combo provides it (at least is what Andy Collins and the aothers say). I think i didn't violate any copyright cause UA is open content. If by chance i misread, please let me know and i'll delete this post.
Solaris 01-03-06, 06:44 AM	I think I should sig that. You must use the very random D20, because otherwise it is not heroic? Or am I totally misunderstanding what you are saying here? Real-life skill tests are better modelled by a normal distribution, where most outcomes are clustered around the mean of the character's ability, than by a uniform distribution, where all outcomes are equally likely. With a normal distribution, extreme (i.e., critical) successes and failures are far less likely. Using 3d6, the odds of getting the maximum value are 1 in 216; with a d20, the odds are 1 in 20 -- more than ten times better. So one method is good for modelling real-life skill tests, and the other makes heroic extremes more likely. I can't imagine why you'd want to sig it -- it's basically that last simple statement of probability along with a suggestion that the appropriate distribution be used for the desired style of play. It's hardly profound. It's like someone said earlier in the thread: I say no to multiple dice, because of the decreased critical chance. I'm not playing a fantasy game about mediocrity, I want my success to be against all odds, and my failures to be comically devastating. I want them to happen quite often, and multiple dice brings out the blahness in every instance of chance.It's just a matter of what you want. The table someone posted above, for converting critical threat ranges, does mostly fix the problem, however.
thought_riot 01-03-06, 07:01 AM	in UA where the 3d6 bell curve is proposed there is a table for changing the threat range of weapons: 20 ----> 16-18 19-20 ----> 15-18 18-20 ----> 14-18 17-20 ----> 14-18 15-20 ----> 13-18 No table entry for 16-20 cuase no combo provides it (at least is what Andy Collins and the aothers say). I think i didn't violate any copyright cause UA is open content. If by chance i misread, please let me know and i'll delete this post. Yes, for 3d6. My original question was about 2d10.
Solaris 01-03-06, 07:11 AM	My original question was about 2d10. Here are the critical ranges for 2d10. The individual intervals occur with almost the same frequency, only being out by 2% in the worst case, and being exact in the best case. d20 | 2d10 roll | roll ------+---------------------- 20 | 18-20 1% more likely 19-20 | 17-20 exact 18-20 | 16-20 exact 17-20 | 15-20 1% more likely 15-20 | 14-20 2% less likely (The 3d6 ranges are slightly out too, though).
starfire311 01-03-06, 06:18 PM	Here are the critical ranges for 2d10. The individual intervals occur with almost the same frequency, only being out by 2% in the worst case, and being exact in the best case. d20 | 2d10 roll | roll ------+---------------------- 20 | 18-20 1% more likely 19-20 | 17-20 exact 18-20 | 16-20 exact 17-20 | 15-20 1% more likely 15-20 | 14-20 2% less likely (The 3d6 ranges are slightly out too, though). Inversely would it be a good idea to say that fumbles happen on a 2-4 instead of a nat 1 to allow for a similar aproximation, this would allow you to even introduce feats to reduce your chance to fumble.
lonegunmantete 01-11-06, 12:37 PM	:D I'd go with 2d10 only make the threat range the crit range. So now rather than rolling 1d20 twice your rolling 2d10 once. Yes this makes threat range more important but I think its an acceptable change.
Loren Pechtel 01-11-06, 10:12 PM	:D I'd go with 2d10 only make the threat range the crit range. So now rather than rolling 1d20 twice your rolling 2d10 once. Yes this makes threat range more important but I think its an acceptable change. This is going to *RADICALLY* change the nature of crits. The current system makes 1 in 20 hits a crit (for a -20 threat weapon) independant of your chances to hit. (You can model it differently if you want--roll to hit and roll a second die against the threat range. You get exactly the same results, simpler but with more die rolling.) Under your system the guy who hits on a 3 scores a crit only 1 in 99 hits whereas the guy who hits on a 20 always crits. If you want to keep the crits the same when using d20 replacements there's a simple solution: Note the equivalent approach I stated above. Use whatever you want for the main roll, roll a d20 against the threat to decide if it's a crit.
Horatio Hornblower 01-11-06, 10:47 PM	Last week, my group decided to try out the 3d6 bell curve method of rolling, as in Unearthed Arcana. We decided over the week to switch that to 2d10. For 3d6, crit ranges need to be editted. Does anyone using 2d10 think that the crit ranges need to be slightly changed? I'm leaning towards no, but wanted to get others opinions. Going from the linear rolls to a 2d10 bell curve is a drastic change in probabilities. I wouldn't worry about crit ranges. Characters will be failing saves left and right. Skill checks too. Bonuses will be out of wack. You'll have to change DCs to compensate. Bonuses will have to be scaled back or characters with high stats will dominate. Once you rescale all the numbers to get the same probability then it's really no different than rolling d20! Years of playtesting have gone into the probabilities in D&D. There are a lot of areas you can customize the game, but I would advise you leave the basic rolls alone.
Fargren 01-12-06, 05:29 PM	Going from the linear rolls to a 2d10 bell curve is a drastic change in probabilities. I wouldn't worry about crit ranges. Characters will be failing saves left and right. Skill checks too. Bonuses will be out of wack. You'll have to change DCs to compensate. Bonuses will have to be scaled back or characters with high stats will dominate. Once you rescale all the numbers to get the same probability then it's really no different than rolling d20! Years of playtesting have gone into the probabilities in D&D. There are a lot of areas you can customize the game, but I would advise you leave the basic rolls alone. I think the idea is to change the pdds, making things that are liekly to happen more likely, and things that are exceptional more rare
Emir 01-12-06, 06:30 PM	I cannot image that people would actually argue whetever they'll roll d20 or 2d10 :rolleyes: anyway, 2d10 is more powerful that d20, as the 2d10's average is 11, while d20 has an average of 10.5 -- or u could use the Arcana Unearthed version to roll 3d6 insted of d20.
GeeBee 01-12-06, 07:40 PM	I find it amusing that, when playing a fantasy game with "Dragons" in the title, that so many of us (myself included :embarrass ) go out of our way to inject more realism into the hobby. And you know what? I didn't start doing this until I was older. When I was 13, I would happily accept that tank armor could stop a nuke (Shadowrun), a superhero could fail in using his most basic power (GURPS Supers), or that a trained warrior would LOP OFF HIS OWN FOOT a good amount of the time (D&D 2.5). Good lordy, I had fun. Then I got older and wiser, and suddenly my play time involved justification...much the same as work did. My advice about the dice? Just leave them be. Slay the demons with single crits, miss horribly against the maimed Kobolds, and enjoy the ridiculous stories you'll tell. [/old man reminiscing rant]
Koga:The ninja trick 01-13-06, 01:07 PM	2d10 is logicaly better (Which is why The Koga wouldn't do it, it's overpowerd) then 1d20. The chance of critical is still the same. 1 in 20 chance. Because 2d10 you need 2 10s inorder to make critical. Mathamaticaly it's the same crap. The only differance is you're garanteed never to make a critical fumble (unless you count both being 1s) because you'll always get atleast a total roll of 2.
sdragon1984 01-13-06, 02:57 PM	I find it amusing that, when playing a fantasy game with "Dragons" in the title, that so many of us (myself included :embarrass ) go out of our way to inject more realism into the hobby. And you know what? I didn't start doing this until I was older. When I was 13, I would happily accept that tank armor could stop a nuke (Shadowrun), a superhero could fail in using his most basic power (GURPS Supers), or that a trained warrior would LOP OFF HIS OWN FOOT a good amount of the time (D&D 2.5). Good lordy, I had fun. Then I got older and wiser, and suddenly my play time involved justification...much the same as work did. My advice about the dice? Just leave them be. Slay the demons with single crits, miss horribly against the maimed Kobolds, and enjoy the ridiculous stories you'll tell. [/old man reminiscing rant] dunno how old you are now, but......... im 21, well aware of the absurdities that come up in gaming, and i honestly dont care. like you said, the game has "dragons" in the title, realism isnt something im going to worry too much about.
Solaris 01-13-06, 03:46 PM	The chance of critical is still the same. 1 in 20 chance. Because 2d10 you need 2 10s inorder to make critical. Mathamaticaly it's the same crap. So you basically missed the whole rest of the thread, then?
Loren Pechtel 01-13-06, 04:00 PM	Going from the linear rolls to a 2d10 bell curve is a drastic change in probabilities. I wouldn't worry about crit ranges. Characters will be failing saves left and right. Skill checks too. Bonuses will be out of wack. You'll have to change DCs to compensate. Bonuses will have to be scaled back or characters with high stats will dominate. Once you rescale all the numbers to get the same probability then it's really no different than rolling d20! Years of playtesting have gone into the probabilities in D&D. There are a lot of areas you can customize the game, but I would advise you leave the basic rolls alone. Yes, you need to rescale all the numbers, that's the big pain with such an approach. However the result is *NOT* the same as d20. The more dice used in the roll the less variability there will be in the outcome. It will change the balance between skill and chance. It's my big gripe with the d20 system--it so downplays skill, especially for skill checks. Model any sort of competition and what happens? I've played on the high school chess team. There were players that I would expect to lose to and players I would expect to beat. The only way I ever even drew against someone say 150 points above me was to get them in time trouble. 150 points below and the result was the exact opposite--my only draw was an accidental stalemate (I had a queen + 3 pawns, he had *NOTHING*.) In other words, 150 points of chess rating must correspond to 19 points on the skill roll. Between the best and worst players in the district (and remember, this is only those on the chess teams, most of the students would have been well below this) there was 600 points in rating difference--in other words, 76 points of skill difference. How did the district champion get a skill of greater than 76?
Eksem 01-15-06, 11:10 AM	I do like the more bell-curve dicerolling, but I have not decided to change to 2D10 yet. One thing on crits. Im not very good with math or game design, but what would happen if you got a crit on rolling doubles? Like, if you roll 2D10 and get two 6s or two 4s and so on. How often would you get a crit then? 1 in 10 rolls or something? I have no idea myself, but if it's not too many crits I would think it a nice idea.
Loren Pechtel 01-15-06, 05:14 PM	I do like the more bell-curve dicerolling, but I have not decided to change to 2D10 yet. One thing on crits. Im not very good with math or game design, but what would happen if you got a crit on rolling doubles? Like, if you roll 2D10 and get two 6s or two 4s and so on. How often would you get a crit then? 1 in 10 rolls or something? I have no idea myself, but if it's not too many crits I would think it a nice idea. 1 in 10--and it woudn't be based on the threat range of the weapon. Either do the math to remap the crit ranges or simply roll a separate d20 against the threat range.