3d6 [Archive] - Wizards Community - Pages Merged by Solauren

3d6 [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Sigma34561
02-20-04, 02:00 PM My favorite section in UA was the section on alternative dice rolls. Specifically the 3d6 section. It's my favorite because for some reason I can roll six 2's in one night, out of 15 rolls (the rest of which are low). I can garuntee a failure if I use power attack by exactly how much i took off my base attack. Monster AC 12, Bonus to attack +10. Ill use power attack for a -2 to hit. Guess what i roll??? Freakin 3. Never fails. Anyway the idea that every number on the dice is an equal chance is ridiculous. I think there should be much more use of the 3d6 attack roll system. Its not as usefull outside of combat because then you have to change DCs for everything. A fighter for example when he swings his sword is going to do about the same every time, he isnt going to swing his sword wildly around hoping for a good hit and hoping not to get a bad hit. He is going to do what he knows. This would seem to make combat more of a battle of skill and not luck. Sure you get lucky so thats why there are the 14-18 that you could roll occasionally, and the opposite is true where you could roll 3-9 and have a bad swing. The idea that you have a 5% chance to automatically hit and a 5% chance to automatically miss is a little ridiculous. Go to your local bar and play darts for a while. The best players dont miss every 20 or so shots do they? The worst players dont get a bullseye every 20 or so throws do they? its the D20 system but its time for a chance revolution!!!!
Salla
02-20-04, 02:23 PM As a long-time Hero System player, I like 3d6. I'm not sure it's right for D&D somehow, but I can't put my finger on it.
stilleon
02-20-04, 04:36 PM I actaully like 2d10 rolls instead. I think 3d6 is a little to harsh of a bell curve (good for games like GURPS), but I have always had a problem with strictly linear rolls (d20)

2d10 is a good medium. To use it consider these the normal "natural 20" and "natural 1" rolls. Here are conversions from d20 threat to 2d10 threat ranges:

20==>19-20
19-20==>18-20
18-20==>17-20
17-20==>16-20
15-20==>14-20

As for the 3d6 roll automatic success and failure is too much of a long shot. Automatic successes should be 17-18 and automatic failures on 3-4. For 2d6 it would be 19-20 and 2-3.

++++++++++++++++
http://d20-options.blogspot.com/
stone_dog
02-20-04, 04:53 PM That actually brings up some good ideas for making skill ranks really count.

If you are unskilled in something you can only crit on an 18, but your chance for critical failure would be 3-5.

If your skill is ranked from 1-8 then critical failures or success could be 3-4 for failures and 17-18 for successes.

For skills ranging in the 9-13 range crits are 3s for failures and 16-18 for successes.

For masters of a skill (13+ranks) a critical failure must be verified by failing a second test at the same DC (rolling a three again auto fails), but the crit success stays at 16-18.

I'll have to think on that one. On one hand it would encourage the players to specialize their skills and not be so damn generic like they are. My group want to be able to do a bit of everything and so they aren't really good at anything, but at least they are having fun with it. This might knock them out of that rut though.
On the other hand it means I would have to use 3d6 for all the rolls. I am not entirely sure THAT is a great idea for my game.

I am hungry. I want tacos.
bolobaby
02-20-04, 10:02 PM Sigma,

The bell curve is BAD for two reasons.

1. It places waaaaaaay to much emphasis on the high-AC build. Think about it. First of all, your to-hits are capped at 18 - two less than what you can get with d20. Second of all, the only automatic hit is an 18 - which happens less than 1/2% of the time. As a player, it becomes too easy to create a build that can keep ahead of 17+(attack bonus of monsters you'll be facing). That means that you'll almost never get hit. Imagine if your DM started putting you up against creatures like this! Yikes! That'd be "rich". ;) Or, think about how long a battle could drag out if everyone started fighting defensively.

2. Against most monsters, a roll of 10 or 11 gets you a hit. The new threat ranges were adjusted to make threats occur at roughly the same rate, but if you can hit with that 10 or 11, the confirmation roll will happen much more often. That means a lot more crits in many situations. What's a troll - +9 to hit? Hmmm... 10+9 = AC 19. Looks like a lot more crits on Griswold from that troll!

Agree?
stone_dog
02-20-04, 11:05 PM No, I disagree with your reasons.

If I were to put this rule into play I would definatly use the Armor as DR rule to keep ACs lower, but armor still effective. That easily helps out the high AC problem.

Also I don't know if you have ever played any 3d6 games, but 18's and three's are rare enough that people tend to freak out when they get them. Not like 20's and 1s that crop up more often than I'd care to count.

You are right in that the confirmation for a high attack bonus thing is almost automatic, but the 18 itself is much much rarer to get than a 20. Even a 17-18 is rarer.
bolobaby
02-20-04, 11:31 PM Stone_dog,

Many high-AC builds don't necessarily rely on big bulky armor. Therefore, armor-as-DR doesn't completely address the problem.

You can build a high-AC monk or sorceror, for example. If my campaign was using 3d6 (and I was a min/maxer) I would LOOK for the high-AC build. It would make me virtually unstoppable in melee.
stone_dog
02-20-04, 11:56 PM True, but there are ways about that I am certain. Using any of these rules takes a completely different outlook than we are used to with standard D&D and should not be decided upon lightly or without full understanding between the GM and the players.

Lots to think about, lots to digest...
stilleon
02-20-04, 11:58 PM I played GURPS for years, where you roll a 3-4 for a crit, and I'll tell you, I feel like there were far less criticals in that games than in d20, even with the verification roll.

Here is a way for anyone who does like how a 3d6 roll averages against a static AC... roll a defense roll in place of the AC. Your modifier is your AC minus 10.
bolobaby
02-21-04, 12:00 AM I must admit this: placing such a heavy emphasis on AC makes shields much more valuable. That's a stick in the eye to all those greatsword wielding fighters out there! :D

(But not necessarily enough to sway my opinion of using 3d6!)
Illithidbix
02-21-04, 12:38 AM Originally posted by stilleon
I played GURPS for years, where you roll a 3-4 for a crit, and I'll tell you, I feel like there were far less criticals in that games than in d20, even with the verification roll.

Here is a way for anyone who does like how a 3d6 roll averages against a static AC... roll a defense roll in place of the AC. Your modifier is your AC minus 10.

Umm yes, that due to probability... there is only a 1/216 chance of rolling a 3 with 3d6 (1,1,1), and 3/216 chance of rolling a 4 (1,1,2), (1,2,1),(2,1,1), for a total of 4/216 = 1/54 = 1.9%
Compared to the 1/20 (5%) chance of a threat in D&D.

I like the idea of the defence roll, I liked the active parrying/dodging in gurps (makes combat make more sense conceptually), although it may slow down play a bit.
I suppose 3d6 would work well at low levels as it would make skills and abilities count for more rather than the constant random factor (which becomes less important at higher levels)
Sigma34561
02-21-04, 08:58 AM Well the thing with the High AC is that it you Min/Maxers get your ac up to 30 something at 4th level anyway so even in a regular d20 game you still arent getting hit. Thats when Dispel Magic, Antimagic Field, Poison, Traps, and other things that could screw up those plans come into play. 2d10 does sound like an inviting proposition.
bolobaby
02-21-04, 12:16 PM Originally posted by Sigma34561
Well the thing with the High AC is that it you Min/Maxers get your ac up to 30 something at 4th level anyway so even in a regular d20 game you still arent getting hit. Thats when Dispel Magic, Antimagic Field, Poison, Traps, and other things that could screw up those plans come into play. 2d10 does sound like an inviting proposition.

1. The minimum AC that requires an automatic hit roll is reduced by 2 under 3d6 because rolls max at 18 instead of 20. This makes it easier to min/max AC if you don't change anything else in the system.

2. Under d20, the chance to auto-hit is 5%. Under 3d6 it is 0.463%. You are 10.8 times MORE likely to auto-hit under d20, so the AC min/maxer isn't as well off under d20. Let's put that in perspective: it takes roughly 20 attacks to hit the AC min/maxer under d20. It takes 216 attacks to hit the AC min/maxer under 3d6. That's a HUGE difference when you consider the number of attacks that take place in a normal battle.
Uruush
02-28-04, 03:02 AM I'm planning to implement 3d6 in my next campaign, but 16,17,18 will be equivalent to a auto-hit and a critical threat. There's a 4.6% chance of that, relative to the 5% chance of a 20 on a d20 - negligible difference. I like the idea because it makes skill ranks actually mean something. It's in a Midnight campaign where few of the characters will have armor, and I'll be using armor as DR with lowered AC in conjunction with this. We'll see how it goes...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sigma34561 02-20-04, 02:00 PM	My favorite section in UA was the section on alternative dice rolls. Specifically the 3d6 section. It's my favorite because for some reason I can roll six 2's in one night, out of 15 rolls (the rest of which are low). I can garuntee a failure if I use power attack by exactly how much i took off my base attack. Monster AC 12, Bonus to attack +10. Ill use power attack for a -2 to hit. Guess what i roll??? Freakin 3. Never fails. Anyway the idea that every number on the dice is an equal chance is ridiculous. I think there should be much more use of the 3d6 attack roll system. Its not as usefull outside of combat because then you have to change DCs for everything. A fighter for example when he swings his sword is going to do about the same every time, he isnt going to swing his sword wildly around hoping for a good hit and hoping not to get a bad hit. He is going to do what he knows. This would seem to make combat more of a battle of skill and not luck. Sure you get lucky so thats why there are the 14-18 that you could roll occasionally, and the opposite is true where you could roll 3-9 and have a bad swing. The idea that you have a 5% chance to automatically hit and a 5% chance to automatically miss is a little ridiculous. Go to your local bar and play darts for a while. The best players dont miss every 20 or so shots do they? The worst players dont get a bullseye every 20 or so throws do they? its the D20 system but its time for a chance revolution!!!!
Salla 02-20-04, 02:23 PM	As a long-time Hero System player, I like 3d6. I'm not sure it's right for D&D somehow, but I can't put my finger on it.
stilleon 02-20-04, 04:36 PM	I actaully like 2d10 rolls instead. I think 3d6 is a little to harsh of a bell curve (good for games like GURPS), but I have always had a problem with strictly linear rolls (d20) 2d10 is a good medium. To use it consider these the normal "natural 20" and "natural 1" rolls. Here are conversions from d20 threat to 2d10 threat ranges: 20==>19-20 19-20==>18-20 18-20==>17-20 17-20==>16-20 15-20==>14-20 As for the 3d6 roll automatic success and failure is too much of a long shot. Automatic successes should be 17-18 and automatic failures on 3-4. For 2d6 it would be 19-20 and 2-3. ++++++++++++++++ http://d20-options.blogspot.com/
stone_dog 02-20-04, 04:53 PM	That actually brings up some good ideas for making skill ranks really count. If you are unskilled in something you can only crit on an 18, but your chance for critical failure would be 3-5. If your skill is ranked from 1-8 then critical failures or success could be 3-4 for failures and 17-18 for successes. For skills ranging in the 9-13 range crits are 3s for failures and 16-18 for successes. For masters of a skill (13+ranks) a critical failure must be verified by failing a second test at the same DC (rolling a three again auto fails), but the crit success stays at 16-18. I'll have to think on that one. On one hand it would encourage the players to specialize their skills and not be so damn generic like they are. My group want to be able to do a bit of everything and so they aren't really good at anything, but at least they are having fun with it. This might knock them out of that rut though. On the other hand it means I would have to use 3d6 for all the rolls. I am not entirely sure THAT is a great idea for my game. I am hungry. I want tacos.
bolobaby 02-20-04, 10:02 PM	Sigma, The bell curve is BAD for two reasons. 1. It places waaaaaaay to much emphasis on the high-AC build. Think about it. First of all, your to-hits are capped at 18 - two less than what you can get with d20. Second of all, the only automatic hit is an 18 - which happens less than 1/2% of the time. As a player, it becomes too easy to create a build that can keep ahead of 17+(attack bonus of monsters you'll be facing). That means that you'll almost never get hit. Imagine if your DM started putting you up against creatures like this! Yikes! That'd be "rich". ;) Or, think about how long a battle could drag out if everyone started fighting defensively. 2. Against most monsters, a roll of 10 or 11 gets you a hit. The new threat ranges were adjusted to make threats occur at roughly the same rate, but if you can hit with that 10 or 11, the confirmation roll will happen much more often. That means a lot more crits in many situations. What's a troll - +9 to hit? Hmmm... 10+9 = AC 19. Looks like a lot more crits on Griswold from that troll! Agree?
stone_dog 02-20-04, 11:05 PM	No, I disagree with your reasons. If I were to put this rule into play I would definatly use the Armor as DR rule to keep ACs lower, but armor still effective. That easily helps out the high AC problem. Also I don't know if you have ever played any 3d6 games, but 18's and three's are rare enough that people tend to freak out when they get them. Not like 20's and 1s that crop up more often than I'd care to count. You are right in that the confirmation for a high attack bonus thing is almost automatic, but the 18 itself is much much rarer to get than a 20. Even a 17-18 is rarer.
bolobaby 02-20-04, 11:31 PM	Stone_dog, Many high-AC builds don't necessarily rely on big bulky armor. Therefore, armor-as-DR doesn't completely address the problem. You can build a high-AC monk or sorceror, for example. If my campaign was using 3d6 (and I was a min/maxer) I would LOOK for the high-AC build. It would make me virtually unstoppable in melee.
stone_dog 02-20-04, 11:56 PM	True, but there are ways about that I am certain. Using any of these rules takes a completely different outlook than we are used to with standard D&D and should not be decided upon lightly or without full understanding between the GM and the players. Lots to think about, lots to digest...
stilleon 02-20-04, 11:58 PM	I played GURPS for years, where you roll a 3-4 for a crit, and I'll tell you, I feel like there were far less criticals in that games than in d20, even with the verification roll. Here is a way for anyone who does like how a 3d6 roll averages against a static AC... roll a defense roll in place of the AC. Your modifier is your AC minus 10.
bolobaby 02-21-04, 12:00 AM	I must admit this: placing such a heavy emphasis on AC makes shields much more valuable. That's a stick in the eye to all those greatsword wielding fighters out there! :D (But not necessarily enough to sway my opinion of using 3d6!)
Illithidbix 02-21-04, 12:38 AM	Originally posted by stilleon I played GURPS for years, where you roll a 3-4 for a crit, and I'll tell you, I feel like there were far less criticals in that games than in d20, even with the verification roll. Here is a way for anyone who does like how a 3d6 roll averages against a static AC... roll a defense roll in place of the AC. Your modifier is your AC minus 10. Umm yes, that due to probability... there is only a 1/216 chance of rolling a 3 with 3d6 (1,1,1), and 3/216 chance of rolling a 4 (1,1,2), (1,2,1),(2,1,1), for a total of 4/216 = 1/54 = 1.9% Compared to the 1/20 (5%) chance of a threat in D&D. I like the idea of the defence roll, I liked the active parrying/dodging in gurps (makes combat make more sense conceptually), although it may slow down play a bit. I suppose 3d6 would work well at low levels as it would make skills and abilities count for more rather than the constant random factor (which becomes less important at higher levels)
Sigma34561 02-21-04, 08:58 AM	Well the thing with the High AC is that it you Min/Maxers get your ac up to 30 something at 4th level anyway so even in a regular d20 game you still arent getting hit. Thats when Dispel Magic, Antimagic Field, Poison, Traps, and other things that could screw up those plans come into play. 2d10 does sound like an inviting proposition.
bolobaby 02-21-04, 12:16 PM	Originally posted by Sigma34561 Well the thing with the High AC is that it you Min/Maxers get your ac up to 30 something at 4th level anyway so even in a regular d20 game you still arent getting hit. Thats when Dispel Magic, Antimagic Field, Poison, Traps, and other things that could screw up those plans come into play. 2d10 does sound like an inviting proposition. 1. The minimum AC that requires an automatic hit roll is reduced by 2 under 3d6 because rolls max at 18 instead of 20. This makes it easier to min/max AC if you don't change anything else in the system. 2. Under d20, the chance to auto-hit is 5%. Under 3d6 it is 0.463%. You are 10.8 times MORE likely to auto-hit under d20, so the AC min/maxer isn't as well off under d20. Let's put that in perspective: it takes roughly 20 attacks to hit the AC min/maxer under d20. It takes 216 attacks to hit the AC min/maxer under 3d6. That's a HUGE difference when you consider the number of attacks that take place in a normal battle.
Uruush 02-28-04, 03:02 AM	I'm planning to implement 3d6 in my next campaign, but 16,17,18 will be equivalent to a auto-hit and a critical threat. There's a 4.6% chance of that, relative to the 5% chance of a 20 on a d20 - negligible difference. I like the idea because it makes skill ranks actually mean something. It's in a Midnight campaign where few of the characters will have armor, and I'll be using armor as DR with lowered AC in conjunction with this. We'll see how it goes...