Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nei 06-05-04, 11:30 AM	...If so, please tell me (and the rest of the community) how it was. What changed? Did the players like it? Was combat longer? etc. Nei
fish_heads 06-05-04, 11:47 PM	I've played the bell curve system in a different RPG (Deadlands), and I found that the main difference is that there are a lot fewer failures in a character's area of expertise. On a d20, a fighter always has a 5% chance to miss. However, with 3d6, that percentage is dropped dramatically. Essentially, if a character's average roll will do something, expect it to be happening more often. If something is generally beyond a character (such as a barbarian with no ranks in bluff trying to feint), then they will almost always fail. All this is only more apparent when paralelling scenarios. If you are running 3d6, it's much less likely characters will do things that they have little chance to succeed at. If a rogue is only hitting a monster on a 19 or 20 on one dice, those chances of hitting are even smaller when it's decreased to 17 or 18 among three dice. If you're planning on playing a game using the bell curve, check with your players, make sure they know what they're getting into, maybe even run a short sample combat so that they can see how it's altered.
Wren AKA Harleaquinn 06-07-04, 10:34 AM	I'm currently playing in a campaign using it. It hasnt been going for too long yet but lemme make some comments. Spells like bless/prayer etc. are very useful, as bonuses drastically help. You will allmost never criticically fail (1/216 chance) nor automatically hit (1/216), though you still have an about equal chance to critically hit (10/216) With only a +3 bonus against an 11 goes from a 40/100 chance in d20 to a 181/216 (about 83-84%). Though the opposite applies also, if normally you need an 11 to hit, and you have a -3 over it, you barely have that 16-17% chance of sucess. It makes bonuses that mucher more precious. It also makes many spells too strong, which my DM is refusing to correct. Examples (Yes, im the druid and im complaining) Entangling line of spells, entangle, web, etc.) Well just my 216 cents.
IMarvinTPA 06-08-04, 02:36 PM	My DM has done something fairly interesting with this. W may switch between d20s and 3d6s, but only between sessions. Also, we have classes of rolls and you can mix the two. I have chosen to use 3d6 on skills, attacks and most random things. I have also elected to take d20 on initiative, saves, and spell penetration. Most of the other players are sticking to straight d20 rolls on everything. I've managed to get 2 "3"s and 1 "18" so far after about two months of playing like this. My dice don't love me, I've gotten a few 4s and 5s too. IMarv
Millennium 06-08-04, 02:54 PM	It's a different statistical model, and it has its flaws and its strengths. However, I would recommend against it unless you have very skilled players. Why? The issue is that flat bonuses, even as little as +1, become much more important in this variant, and it can make things a bit easier to min/max because of that. If you don't have any problem players in your group, this won't be an issue, but munchkins will probably figure this out quickly. That said, there is one other group which might be interested in this: those who opposed 3.5's new DR system. Under that system, the plus-rating of a weapon lost a fair amount of its power, because it is no longer the sole determiner of how to bypass DR. The bell-curve system, with its strong favoring of flat bonuses, gives the plus-rating an extra boost in usefulness, because the rating makes a bigger difference in how often you will hit something. It's not a complete replacement, but it may help alleviate any complaints you may be getting about that.
Magius 08-21-04, 04:47 PM	Though I haven't used bell curves yet, I intend to. I have always been frustrated by the over-dependance of luck that is present in d&d. It's true that skill isn't everything, but from my perspective it seems like a kobold with a lucky roll is better than an epic character who fumbles. I prefer more emphasis on skill, less on luck.
Nazzareth 08-21-04, 07:40 PM	I think that bell curve is better in a low magic game that is heavy on skill use, skills become more important and so do the bonuses to dice rolls. It makes players think more about what they can and can't do, as the game one that is more gritty and deadly. The bell curve system is great if used with the d20 Modern system.
leopardmessiah 08-31-04, 03:56 PM	I was thinking if trying 2d10 as a halfway house between 3d6 and d20, so you have 2-20 (only one less than D&D standard 1-20, compared to 3d6's 3-18) and a slight bias to the middle. But I think that's because changing the range to 3-18 sounds too radical a change to me, although I'm sure I'm being irrational, but I guess it's because I got into the game through computer games, so when I had to think about dice, it was always in terms of weapon damage, therefore changing the range seems like a bigger step than it is.
Magius 08-31-04, 11:04 PM	2d10 is more powerful, moving the average roll to 11. Less randomness also favors the PCs.
Irv 09-01-04, 10:12 AM	The Curve method sounds good to me and I think I may want to use it in one of games. I don't have unearthed Arcana, could sombody tell me the curv rules? It saves me the trouble of mathmaticaly going through and recreating the curve.
Magius 09-03-04, 09:17 AM	Replace all 1d20 rolls with 3d6. Crits turn to 16-18, and several other specific changes. I don't feel like posting them however, and you really should get the book if you want access to the rules. That should be enough.
Amaranthine 09-03-04, 10:11 AM	All crits are 16-18? What is the difference between and axe and a sword?
Drachasor 09-06-04, 04:19 AM	All crits are 16-18? What is the difference between and axe and a sword? Basically they tried to keep all the crits so they were just as common. A Crit of 20 happens 5% of the time. An 18 in a 3d6 system happens 1/216, a 17 3/216, and a 16 happens 6/216. A 16-18 then happens 10/216, or a little less than 5% of the time--about 4.6% (closest you will get to 5% of the time though). That's good for 20s in a d20 system. A 15 happens 10/216, so a 15 or higher is close to 10% (20/216 is roughly 9.26% of the time). Good enough for 19-20s in a d20 system. A 14 happens 15/216, which means a 14 or higher happens 35/216 = 16.2% (again, roughly). Pretty good for 18-20s. Because of how 13 will work, this is what is best for 17-20s too. A 13 happens 21/216, so 13+ is 56/216, roughly 25.92%, which is good for 16s+, but that can never happen in standard D&D rules. This is used for 15-20 threat ranges (the 12+ in a 3d6 system would jump up more than 10% of this). If you were to use a 2d10 system then the threat ranges would be: Old:Frequency New:Frequency 20:5/100 18-20:6/100 (20 is 1/100, 19 is 2/100, 18 is 3/100) 19-20:10/100 17-20:10/100 (17 is 4/100) 18-20:15/100 16-20:15/100 (you see the pattern, right?) 17-20:20/100 15-20:21/100 15-20:30/100 14-20:28/100 (13-20 is 36/100, too high) The pattern with how frequencies with 2d10 works is easier to see (each step away from 2 or 20 towards the center increases the freuquency of a number by 1/100 cumulative). Hence 20 is 1/100, 19 is 2/100, etc (until 11 which is 10/20, and then it starts to go back down). The geometical picture that helps is below. The top row and left column represent the number rolled on one of the dies. If you notice, the total (summing the two numbers where a row and column meet) remains constant along diagnals (/-this way, not \ that way) #/# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1/1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9 1/10 2 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 3 3/1 3/2 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9 3/10 4 4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7 4/8 4/9 4/10 5 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5 5/6 5/7 5/8 5/9 5/10 6 6/1 6/2 6/3 6/4 6/5 6/6 6/7 6/8 6/9 6/10 7 7/1 7/2 7/3 7/4 7/5 7/6 7/7 7/8 7/9 7/10 8 8/1 8/2 8/3 8/4 8/5 8/6 8/7 8/8 8/9 8/10 9 9/1 9/2 9/3 9/4 9/5 9/6 9/7 9/8 9/9 9/10 10 10/1 10/2 10/3 10/4 10/5 10/6 10/7 10/8 10/9 10/10 With 3d6 it is harder to see, because the above table would be in three dimensions (as the above is a square the 3d6 example would be a cube). If you are familiar with triangle numbers, then that is how they work: 18 is 1: * 19 is 3: * * * 18 is 6 * * * * * * And so on, a 17's triangle's base adds 4 more dots so it is 10/216, etc, etc. Hmm, I seemed to ramble on for a bit there. Oh well. -Drachasor
Sebby 09-22-04, 03:04 AM	I don't like non-linear probabilities for determining success/failure of actions in RPGs While I have not used Bell Curve in D&D, I have played other RPGs that have non-linear probabilities, like Shadowrun (buckets of dice!) and, not for long, Alternity (which has a totally silly probability system). While it may look like a cool idea, and might appeal to the players who fear the 1s on their d20, it is more of an hassle to the DM. First, when the DM designs an encounter, it makes probabilities harder to predict, as you do not know every DC modifier in advance. As DM, you will want to design encounters that are either easy, balanced, or harder. When you're a bit off the mark it usually does not matter too much as the difficulty of actions on the d20 only moves in constant increments of 5% either way. Not so with 3d6. Your balanced, 50/50 encounter needs to have DC's that sit pretty close to the bell's peak. Be off, and the encounter rapidly becomes too easy or too hard. Hard encounters might become nigh impossible, and vice versa. By my experience, that forces a DM to constantly fudge the dice behind the screen, adjust NPC stats on the fly, and arbitrarily decide lots of things that should be determined randomly. All this extra trouble, and for what? Second, at game time, it makes thing too predictable. Once you know what you need to roll, there is not as much suspense as with a d20. Depending on which side of the bell you are, it is either way over 50% chance of success, or way below. That gets quickly boring. Lastly, who can tell, of the top of his head, the probability of rolling a 7 or a 13 on 3d6? How about with a d20? There is far better stuff in that book.
Goken100 09-22-04, 06:48 AM	Just about every role playing system I've seen involves the rolling of multiple dice and adding them together. Rolling only 1 die is an artifact of a primitive role playing system, and aught to go the way of the dodo. Any amount of dice more than one will be approximately normally distributed, so 2d10 is my preference. The difference between the average rolls of 10.5 and 11 is negligible, and 3d6 has a much lower variance than 2d10.
bg2soatob 09-22-04, 02:07 PM	The difference between the average rolls of 10.5 and 11 is negligible, and 3d6 has a much lower variance than 2d10. 1) I agree about 3d6, it's too gritty. I'd like abilities to be more important than luck, but only a 10% to get a 15??? Too extreme for me. 2) Even a 0.5 difference cannot be called negligible. However, monsters get it too so it doesn't matter. Can anyone tell me if 2d10 works and that there is no trouble with it before I ruin my campaign using it?
Sebby 09-22-04, 03:24 PM	Just about every role playing system I've seen involves the rolling of multiple dice and adding them together. Rolling only 1 die is an artifact of a primitive role playing system, and aught to go the way of the dodo. Given the amount of d20 System RPGs being released these days, I'd say that, archaic or not, it is seeing a pretty significant revival. What I say is that Bell Curve (and 2d10, to a lesser degree): Makes designing encounters (especially evaluating what level of challenge they present) harder for the DM; Limits the range of CRs a DM can use, as a CR 3 over the party level now becomes much harder that it was under d20; And as a consequence, forces the DM to fudge the dice more frequently (to me it's not a good thing, but that's another debate). To me, those non-linear systems are the obsolete ones. Although some were no doubt designed by people who had knowledge of probabilities and knew what they were doing, I suspect that most of them were designed by people who just wanted their dice throwing to be overly flashy and complicated, to be original for no other reason than being original, games such as Shadowrun and Alternity being the worst examples of that. Great settings, poor rules. Any amount of dice more than one will be approximately normally distributed, so 2d10 is my preference. The difference between the average rolls of 10.5 and 11 is negligible, and 3d6 has a much lower variance than 2d10. But, not to say that normal distributions don't have a use. Damage rolls are a good example. Mass combat would be another one (1st ed. Battlesystem used 2d10 to replace the d20, to simulate the normal distribution of a large number of attacks made by a unit). You could also replace "taking 10" by "throwing 3d6". Or throw 3d6 instead of a d20 when using the "defense roll" (DMG 25) and "spell roll" (DMG 36) variants of the DMG. Or, for even less variance, try 5d4-2. I would not use it for attack rolls, saves and skill checks, though. Because in those cases, I just don't see what the lower variance adds to the game, compared to the difficulties it brings.
Sebby 09-22-04, 03:27 PM	Can anyone tell me if 2d10 works and that there is no trouble with it before I ruin my campaign using it? Even though I am biased against it, all I can say is try it. You can always switch back if you and your players don't like it.