Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rageheart 09-21-06, 09:28 AM	This may be an old topic, but I just read the article here (http://www.frontiernet.net/~jamesstarlight/LinearVsNonLinear.html) about substututing 2d10 for all d20 rolls such as combat and skill rolls. What is the concensus on this houserule? I am looking at possibly using it on my next campaign.
Paxar 09-21-06, 09:45 AM	It all depends on how you want your game to go. If you want the standard chance for critical hits and failures stick with 1d20. But, if you want the criticals to be a little rarer go with 2d10. The more dice you roll, the more the result ends up toward the middle of the curve. So you're going to be getting more 10s and 11s with 2d10 than you are 19s and 20s.
KJW 09-21-06, 09:51 AM	I do agree with the article that a d20 is less realistic than 2d10 for the results it generates. Personally, I have thought about this same house rule, but with D&D you sometimes are in situations where you need a high roll to get past SR, hit a target, or when really need a crit, and so forth, thus I figure I might as well leave it as a d20. If the system was tighter 2d10 would be fine and an improvement, but as it is this would probably penalize the players, but since I haven't tried it I don't know how would actually work out. Still I would be interested how it turns out if you do try this and am curious if anyone has tried it.
Millennium 09-21-06, 10:00 AM	For more concrete statistical systems, where a roll actually determines exactly how well you do, rather than a simple pass/fail, then bell-curve rolls are good. The d20 system, however, is a more abstract system, where the roll only determines whether or not you pass or fail: "how well you do" is strictly flavor. In order to keep the same odds of passing or failure under a bell-curve system, you would have to readjust almost every DC in the entire game, which is a lot more work than most DMs are willing to do. They just want the aesthetics of a bell curve, despite the havoc that it wreaks on the balance of a game system that wasn't designed for a bell curve. Bell-curve rolls are a very good tool for many different things. But bolting them onto d20 without doing anything else is like using a hammer to drive a screw: they're both perfectly valid tools, but they just weren't designed to work together.
otomik 09-21-06, 10:26 AM	Bell-curve rolls are a very good tool for many different things. But bolting them onto d20 without doing anything else is like using a hammer to drive a screw: they're both perfectly valid tools, but they just weren't designed to work together.my thoughts exactly
Feriin 09-21-06, 10:31 AM	Lets just switch it to 5d4...
LCD2YOU 09-21-06, 10:35 AM	I give my PCs a choice. 2d10 or 1d20. I show them the bell curve and for most mundane things, it's 2d10. I've let a person roll 4d6 - 4 (0 to 20) because he really wanted to roll a 10. Wouldn't you know the little ***** rolled a 20, after the -4! :mad: But I will roll 2d10 for almost every NPC out there as well, unless it is a "do or die" (ie daddy needs a new pair of shoes) time for said NPC.
OravennasBrother 09-21-06, 10:42 AM	A serious issue with 2d10 is the balance between Critical Threat Range and average damage. Suddenly the Scimitar with Improved Critical (or Keen) is VERY attractive. The 15-20 critical threat is then 21% of the rolls rather than the 1% of a natural 20 or the 3% of a 19-20. In some systems multiple dice and a bell curve may work, but D20 is not one of them.
Cornbread 09-21-06, 10:44 AM	The article presumes that the authors wrote the book with the assumption that you would be rolling 10-11 on average. Whether this is true or not, that is the skew of the article and so the fact that you won't as easily reach the high numbers is considered to be already factored into the game, no adjustment needed.
Rageheart 09-21-06, 10:44 AM	Actually a Natural 20 occurs 5% of the time as does a natural 1. A roll of 15-20 occurs 25% of the time on a d20. (15 being 3/4 of 20)
twentythree 09-21-06, 10:48 AM	Actually, to nitpick further, 15-20 is 6 numbers. Which makes it 30% ;)
Rageheart 09-21-06, 10:51 AM	true, sorry I neglected to include the 15 itself.... so the point is a Keen Scimitar crits 9% less if using 2d10 instead of 1d20.
OravennasBrother 09-21-06, 12:53 PM	true, sorry I neglected to include the 15 itself.... so the point is a Keen Scimitar crits 9% less if using 2d10 instead of 1d20. Perhaps I was not clear. Using 2d10 a keen scimitar threatens crits 21% of the time, but an Axe threatens only 1% of the time and a Keen Axe threatens only 3% of the time. This is a large shift in the effectiveness of an Axe for creating criticals relative to the Scimitar; using 1d20 a scimitar threatens crits 3 times as often as an Axe, using 2d10 is threatens at least 6 times as often (not considering the Keen Axe vs normal scimitar).
Alac Luin 09-21-06, 01:02 PM	That article was silly. "I'm going to rant becouse you cant have two numbers as an average, and you can't roll a 10.5 on a d20" I wouldn't consider useing 2d10. But, if it works for you go for it.
crowclub 09-21-06, 01:16 PM	How about using 2d10 for Skill checks if you have Ranks in them and 1d20 if not? Also, You could allow 2d10 if you have Weapon Focus or something more balanced with a weapon but 1d20 if not? Neither idea addresses the "Critical" problem thou.
lears_fool 09-21-06, 01:20 PM	It's not a bad idea actually The only thing you have to watch is the crit range, and it's not TOO hard to come up with ways to fix that up. Let's see, you get a 18, 19, or a 20 about 6% of the time, a 17, 18, 19, or 20 10% of the time, a 16+ 15% of the time, and a 15+ 21% of the time. So equate 18+ to a natural 20, 17+ a 19, 16+ an 18, and 15+ a 17 when it comes to crits. .and if someone actually crits on more just do the math. There ARE good reasons for a curved system, as it mediates luck a bit and makes those high rolls even more exciting.
Rageheart 09-21-06, 01:26 PM	Well, the article does suggest that for Criticals you should ensure that at least one D10 is a natural 10. thus: an Axe would crit 1% of the time, a Longsword would crit 3% of the time, a Scimitar would crit 5% of the time, a Keen Longsword would crit 7% of the time, and a Keen Scimitar would crit 11% of the time.
Rageheart 09-21-06, 01:35 PM	That article was silly. "I'm going to rant becouse you cant have two numbers as an average, and you can't roll a 10.5 on a d20" The premise of the article was that rolling one die you cannot a find "most frequently occurring" roll (a Mode) because all results occur with the same frequency. I thought it was a well thought out and mathematically accurate article. (...or maybe I just didn't see the part where he ranted that rolling a d20 was silly.)
ashcat_lt 09-21-06, 01:57 PM	I was thinking about letting my players roll 3d6 for skill checks. This would be for instances where you're not allowed to "take 10." I was thinking it might still increase the time necessary to complete the task. Maybe like: free>swift>move>standard>full round. Anything that already takes a full round probably wouldn't change.
BlaineTog 09-21-06, 01:57 PM	MI-STAKE. Pass.
Rageheart 09-21-06, 02:10 PM	MI-STAKE. Pass. ok, ... why is it a mistake? I would like to know your your reasoning and rational. or is it just not for you... an equally valid statement. Don't get me wrong, I am not an advocate for this system. I simply wanted to know what my peers thought of the idea.
Archtyrant Terevoth 09-21-06, 02:24 PM	The problem with a bell curve is that it rewards specialization even more so than usual. On 2d10, the chances of a 'natural 20' is 1 out of 100 as opposed to 1 out of 20. This means that people who upgrade their ACs (or any number really) gain a much larger benefit than normal. It also screws with the skill system dynamic of 'taking 20' as well.
Alac Luin 09-21-06, 02:39 PM	The premise of the article was that rolling one die you cannot a find "most frequently occurring" roll (a Mode) because all results occur with the same frequency. I thought it was a well thought out and mathematically accurate article. (...or maybe I just didn't see the part where he ranted that rolling a d20 was silly.) I don't now, when someone starts an article by pointing at something and claiming it is false counts as rant. Am I ranting? possibly, I'm commenting that my feeling is his reasoning is flawed and irrelevant. Who cares what roll will come up most often by rolling one die? The article starts basically by saying 10 or 11 is not the average roll on a d20, and then provides mathematical terms that are beyond the game to try to prove his point. He himself showed that the average role on a d20 would be 10.5. Well, the only realistic role you can get on a d20 would be to take the idea of being 10 or 11. So, his first argument has no merit, by the facts he supplied and applying some common sense. Sure, his math looks good, and yes relatively well thought out, well written, but its still mainly a rant.
RobbyPants 09-21-06, 03:16 PM	Interesting idea, if you want to tone down some of the random extremes. One issue that could come up is opposed rolls. Picture an opposed Hide / Spot check. Lets say the person's Hide mod is 4 points higher than the other's Spot. With a normal d20 roll, the person hiding would have an advantage, but a good or bad roll on either side still leaves things up in the air. With 2d10, it becomes much more difficult for the spotter to overcome the hider. But, perhaps this is what you want. It places much more empahsis on skill, talent, and circumstance, and much less on luck. You'll really have to make sure that the encounters are geared for the PC's levels and abilities. Even when using a d20 system, this could become good for raw opposed ability checks (like a tug of war, or a chess game). Puts more emphasis on the ability, and less on luck.
NightBreeze 09-21-06, 03:39 PM	I like it :) I'm not saying that I will use 2d10 for attacks, but I found that most of the time 1d20 for skill checks (or survival cheks, and so on), is too random and razes down even a +3, +4 bonus.
Rageheart 09-21-06, 03:48 PM	He himself showed that the average role on a d20 would be 10.5. No, the Mathematical Mean(sum of 1-20 divided by 20) is 10.5 but that does not imply that you will roll a 10 or 11 more often than any other number. The Mode (the most frequently occurring result) is all results, 1 through 20. It appears that he was more concerned with the statements in the PHB and DMG about characters rolling 10 or 11 on average on 1d20, when statistically that is false. This may have been an oversight in the book and completely detached from the way the game is intended to be played, but he focused on it and ran with it. My initial question is what are the concerns with this approach, like Terevoth's observations on AC or RobbyPants observation on skill.
lears_fool 09-21-06, 03:53 PM	I really like the 2d10 for opposed skill checks idea. I mean, isn't your skill SUPPOSED to be very important? When someone notices someone with a +10 point advantage on them, it should be because they're very lucky or the hider's very unlucky. As for the crits, you just need to change the numbers For an axe, crit on 18-20, that's 6% of the time instead of 5% For a longsword, crit on 17-20, that's 10% of the time For a scimitar, crit on 16-20, that's 15% of the time For a keen longsword crit on 15-20, that's 21% of the time instead of 20% and for a keen scimitar, crit on 14-20, that's 28% instead of 25% It's not perfect, but it's not hard to get close. And you can have 18-20 count as a natural 20 still (same percentage as it was before), keeping AC from being overwhelming.
The_Ditto 09-21-06, 04:22 PM	But, perhaps this is what you want. It places much more empahsis on skill, talent, and circumstance, and much less on luck. This is my feelings towards this 100% ... if I have a +5 to hit ... somebody .. or +5 skill modifier, or +5 save modifier, or +5 modifier in general ... it pales in comparison to the actual d20 roll ... (most of the time ...) That d20 roll doesn't even start to become "less important" ... since even if my modifier is +15 ... that d20 can still skew it alot ... DC 20? Well, I bad roll and I could still screw it up ... and yet, the other guy with +2 makes it with a good rolll .. WTF??? No best system I've ever seen is Heroes - Champions. They use base 3d6 for such things as "to hit" .. gives a nice bell curve .. Yes, it does but more emphasis on skill .. Yes, if my AC is high enough, you'll probably never hit .. (good) .. The fact is, it places MUCH more emphasis on the difference between the skills. So somebody with a +15 vs one with a +5 is alot less likely to be beaten by a "lucky roll" ... Personally, I think it's more realistic ... ... and yes, you'd have to be very careful about how you introduced things into the game. The game, as written, currently, accounts for a huge skew of luck on the party's part ... (DC 25 at 5th level .. that's ok, somebody'll have a +10 about, and a good chance to pull it off ...) :uh-huh: You may find yourself needing to adjust DCs a bit ... (or not .. not sure, try it ..) I might try this in my next home game .. see how it works ... ;)
TwistedPuppy 09-21-06, 04:32 PM	I really like the 2d10 for opposed skill checks idea. I mean, isn't your skill SUPPOSED to be very important? When someone notices someone with a +10 point advantage on them, it should be because they're very lucky or the hider's very unlucky. As for the crits, you just need to change the numbers For an axe, crit on 18-20, that's 6% of the time instead of 5% For a longsword, crit on 17-20, that's 10% of the time For a scimitar, crit on 16-20, that's 15% of the time For a keen longsword crit on 15-20, that's 21% of the time instead of 20% and for a keen scimitar, crit on 14-20, that's 28% instead of 25% It's not perfect, but it's not hard to get close. And you can have 18-20 count as a natural 20 still (same percentage as it was before), keeping AC from being overwhelming. I see no point in making a bunch of changes to keep things the same. That's just me, though. I've got to say that I don't like the idea of using 2d10 in lieu of a d20. The odds are fine the way they are. Changing to 2d10 skews the odds throughout the system and will change the system balance on everything from skill checks to saves to attacks. Games are much more enjoyable (IMO) when the players can talk about how they scraped past an encounter with a lucky crit instead of rather than just shrugging their shoulders and saying, "the numbers made it inevitable that we'd win." Chance is part of fun of the game, and I personally wouldn't want to make blind chance less of a factor. But then, I'm not a statistician or a math major.
lears_fool 09-21-06, 04:43 PM	I see no point in making a bunch of changes to keep things the same. That's just me, though. I've got to say that I don't like the idea of using 2d10 in lieu of a d20. The odds are fine the way they are. Changing to 2d10 skews the odds throughout the system and will change the system balance on everything from skill checks to saves to attacks. Actually, the only change was to preserve the critical hit system, as that's part of the pre-defined weapon balance system as well as the 'natural 20' ratio So you don't lose those things while at the same time you get the advantage of having skills and abilities GENERALLY meaning more. There still will be exceptions, but they'll be rarer and more rational Games are much more enjoyable (IMO) when the players can talk about how they scraped past an encounter with a lucky crit instead of rather than just shrugging their shoulders and saying, "the numbers made it inevitable that we'd win." Chance is part of fun of the game, and I personally wouldn't want to make blind chance less of a factor. Lots of games (LOTS of them) have multi-die systems, and everything you're talking about here happens with them too.
NightBreeze 09-21-06, 04:53 PM	Mhh...I think there's no need to use the 3d6 or 2d10 rolls for attacks. I mean, a combat is very chaotic. Now, you could say that it's not very realistic that a 1st level fighter hits a good one with a lucky roll, but consider that: in a normal battle between low-level fighters, the equipment matters A LOT: a full plate gives you an ac of 18, so a first level fighter with a +2 to hit has 20% of chances to hit....let him rely on his luck... As for skills....for example, consider a running contest between 2 first level commoners with con 10. So, they run for a minute, then they start making con checks. The first one has a +4, and yes...if you make the experiment multiple times the first one will win 70% of the cases....but then you do it for 3 times and the second one wins. Not very realistic.....
lears_fool 09-21-06, 05:04 PM	Agreed that skills definitely are the most obvious benificiary of a more bell-curve based system. As for Combat, really it can range anywhere from the amazingly random D100s used in the old spycraft to the current D20 system through 2d10, 3d6, and even diceless systems. I wouldn't be a proponent of either extreme for D&D. But D20, 2d10, and 3d6 are all workable without major changes to the game. And it's just as arguable that a more curved system is a GOOD thing as it is arguable that it's not
Lokathor 09-21-06, 05:29 PM	The problem with the article is that it ignores to some extent that DnD is pass fail. If you need to roll an 11, you do infact have a 50% chance to make it; Every number above 11 is just as good as the 11 itself. So when you make 11 a required roll (such as for a CL check to beat equivalent SR) they'll pass about 50% of the time.
Rageheart 09-21-06, 05:36 PM	But that is still true using 2d10, you have the same chance of rolling better than 11 as you do less than. 50/50... pass/fail * granted not so with a DC of say 15 or 20.
BlaineTog 09-21-06, 06:15 PM	ok, ... why is it a mistake? I would like to know your your reasoning and rational. or is it just not for you... an equally valid statement. Don't get me wrong, I am not an advocate for this system. I simply wanted to know what my peers thought of the idea.To give my opinions on this matter would be to repeat prominent points already put forth. I didn't want to do that (instead, to merely vote), but here we go: The system is based off the d20 roll in all its completeness, including that you have the same chance of rolling a 20 as a 19 as an 18 as a 3 as a 1. The change to 2d10 totally changes all of the probabilities off which every d20 roll (which is most of them) was based. While it might be a more desirable way to do business (I'm getting to that), it also requires the rework of the entier game. As for desirability, rolling 2d10 is much slower than rolling 1d20. Adding two numbers less than ten isn't difficult, but it slows down the game when you have to do it for nearly every roll. Plus, 20s will almost never come up, which sucks.
aotrscommander 09-21-06, 06:28 PM	For combat (I.e attack rolls, casting checks etc etc): no. Bad. For the various reasons everyine has already said; plus a half-way passable mechnically minded player could easily break the system (say Psychic Warrior AC buffer) just with normal character generation. Plus as any soldier will tell you, combat is not a bell curve! (Except maybe, just maybe at a strategic level far above D&D). For skills: Workable, in some cases perhaps even desirable. They are usually done against a static number, not a variable, so you could use 2D10 or 3D6 without making any changes. This would be much more realistic. Not something I would do myself, but I would quite happily play under such a system.
tharivol266 09-21-06, 06:36 PM	since it hasnt been posted yet and i want to feel spacial (yes i spelled it like that on purpose) on 100 rolls 1=0 2=1 3=2 4=3 5=4 6=5 7=6 8=7 9=8 10=9 11=10 12=9 13=8 14=7 15=6 16=5 17=4 18=3 19=2 20=1 21=0 if you have critical failures on ones your players would love this at high levels when all they need is a 2. i dont think ill adopt the 2d10
Cifer 09-21-06, 07:22 PM	Plus as any soldier will tell you, combat is not a bell curve! (Except maybe, just maybe at a strategic level far above D&D). Well... if you hit someone hard enough with a bell his head migh acquire a nice curve... I'm sceptic towards 2D10 exactly because it decreases randomness. While increased randomness is generally bad for PCs, the D20 is a randomness I'd prefer to keep, exactly because of the "Hooray, a 20!" moments everyone of us knows - and because adding up numbers indeed gets tedious.
aotrscommander 09-21-06, 07:28 PM	Well... if you hit someone hard enough with a bell his head migh acquire a nice curve... Touche.
lears_fool 09-21-06, 07:41 PM	Wow. . Okay, first and foremost, while the original article was iffy in ways, the argument that D20 offers what many gamers consider a questionable amount of randomness is hard to argue. However, that doesn't mean it's a better system, but some of the arguments against we're seeing have either already been addressed or else are somewhat silly. To the observation that combat is not fought on a bell curve, I must observe that real combat isn't fought with DICE. However, in a hand-to-hand fight the superior combatant will have a very consistent edge (which actually favors a bell curve system) However, in a real fight the guy with the crossbow standing ten feet away also wins. . so much for realism To the observation about 'critical fails on twos' being bad. . one logically would just use the same mathematical logic and go for a 5% rule if you want things to be the same as they were (i.e. 2, 3, or 4) or else less if you want them more 'special' And lastly, to the fact that it might slow things down by rolling 2d10 and adding them. .having played in plenty of 3d6 systems, I've yet to consider that a problem . .in fact it's generally faster than squinting to read a d20 or chasing it because it rolled off the table. Not that a 2d10 system is inherently superior to a d20 one. . but it doesn't take much thinking to resolve most common issues (with the only legitimate remaining argument being the AC one) and while I don't plan on using it myself I CERTAINLY can see how a 2d10 system is actually potentially a lot more realistic for skill checks and opposed rolls at the very least. I'll happily say 'I won't change my players' combat rolls, but the skill idea's interesting' while freely admitting that there's quite a bit of intelligence behind those who favor curved systems and I can admit the d20 might be TOO random in some ways.
Thubby 09-21-06, 09:26 PM	2d10 will decrease your odds of a "20" but will increase your average roll, d20=10, 2d10=11 not a big + for teh crit kill
Alac Luin 09-21-06, 11:54 PM	No, the Mathematical Mean(sum of 1-20 divided by 20) is 10.5 but that does not imply that you will roll a 10 or 11 more often than any other number. And if you look at the "Mathematical Mean" line it is also known as an "average", says so right there in the article. I did not see anything in the article that leads me to believe I should consern myself with what the most "common roll" is, or why it would be better to role 10 or 11 more often.
BlaineTog 09-22-06, 03:12 AM	While increased randomness is generally bad for PCs, the D20 is a randomness I'd prefer to keep, exactly because of the "Hooray, a 20!" moments everyone of us knows - and because adding up numbers indeed gets tedious.Indeed. Like the time my first level fighter rolled a 20 with his greatsword and cut a halfling rogue in half. And then the next round, when her enraged twin charged in, and he told her that she would die just like her sister, he rolled another 20, and again rolled excessivelly well for damage. 20s are fun.
The_Ditto 09-22-06, 08:52 AM	Games are much more enjoyable (IMO) when the players can talk about how they scraped past an encounter with a lucky crit instead of rather than just shrugging their shoulders and saying, "the numbers made it inevitable that we'd win." Chance is part of fun of the game, and I personally wouldn't want to make blind chance less of a factor. . ... and when their character gets creamed by a lucky critical from a monster ... nah, seen too many good characters taken out by pure bad luck .. 1 lucky critical and a PC dies ... period. Happens too often, if you ask me ... a d20, when rolled by a DM for every critter out there means the DM rollls a lot more than the players ... this means he hits criticals a lot more often .. Something to help slow that down would help - IMHO ... Using 2d10 instead of d20 doesn't remove the "PCs scrape by with some lucky streak" ... it just means it may happen less often - simple economy suggests that this increases the value/worth of those occurances ... hence, Players will tend to enjoy and relish them more often!! And it's just as arguable that a more curved system is a GOOD thing as it is arguable that it's not Agreed .. :tiphat: 2d10 will decrease your odds of a "20" but will increase your average roll, d20=10, 2d10=11 not a big + for teh crit kill d20=10.5, 2d10=11 .. :tiphat: .5 shift ... insignificant ... 20s are fun. 20s become more fun with 2d10 .. because they become rarer and more precious ... again .. some subtle changes can increase this for you if you wanted ... but if it does bother you too much, then yeah, stick with d20 ... no worries ... :D
Mirage_1 09-22-06, 10:36 AM	hmm...lots of speculation. Our group actually uses 2d10, and it works wonderfully. Reasons: 1. We use wound/vitality, and crits are much, much, much more deadly, so the 2d10 reduces those events 2. d20 was just too random. On a simple long jump (in real life you are relatively constant) with a +5 mod, you could jump anywhere between 5 and 25 feet We have crits happen, and they mean much more being less common. But of course, what works for us won't necessarily work for everyone.
RobbyPants 09-22-06, 10:54 AM	Like I said in my earlier post, the 2d10 system takes a lot of the randomness out of the equation, placing more emphasis on skill, talent, and circumstance, and less on luck. If I were to adopt this rule, I wouldn't use it for attacks and saves (I'd continue using d20). It seems more viable for skill checks and particularly for ability checks, which would focus more on raw ability more than luck. Combat (and all the rolls associated therein) is much more chaotic. Small things can have big impacts on the success of one side or the other (foot slips in the mud, sweat in the eye, etc...). Another option with skills is to allow 2d10 when they have time to focus and concentrate, but force a d20 in times of distraction (like combat). So you could climb a wall liesurly with 2d10, but you'd have to roll d20 to climb the same wall with goblins shooting at you. Just an idea.
Syrias 09-22-06, 10:56 AM	Lets just switch it to 5d4... "Arson, thievery, murder, torture, break and entry, arson, vandalism, public drunkenness, arson, public urination, assault, summoning of beings from the lower planes in crowded areas, dog-kicking, grand theft auto/ship/horse, necrophilia (don't ask), kidnapping, Regicide, grave robbing, arson, heresy, pimping/prostitution, soliciting, conspiracy, mischief, and arson. Never rape." Necrophilia... because it's not rape if they're too dead to say "no."
Yami 09-22-06, 11:14 AM	The AC issue is an interesting one, and I think a significant one for D&D. I was actually thinking of using this in a d20 Modern game I'm starting. I'm playing in another, my first play experience with d20 Modern, and the lack of healing and high weapon damage combined with the massive damage rules are pretty brutal. As my game is probably going to be ruled quite heavily by skills, I'm thinking switching to a 2d10 playstyle may be just what the doctor ordered. I think AC may be less of an issue in that game...but I will definitely want to take a look at it! I was calculating out some of the percentages for opposed skill checks for a post in my game's forum - in an opposed skill check where one character has a 4 point advantage over another, the weaker character has a 30% chance to beat the stronger in d20, 17.81% chance to beat the stronger in a 2d10. Just to give you a couple numbers. :)
CharlieRock 09-22-06, 11:20 AM	I wouldnt want to use 2d10 for 1d20. Because that chances of getting a "20" go from being 1 in 20, to 1 in 100. And besides ,everyone already has their favorite "lucky" d20.:w00t: I would think if you use 2d10 your more likely to get the mid-numbers.And who wants a mediocre game. :cool: For skill checks (especially at a crucial point),sometimes i make multiples of the check.Like ; roll for three security/lockpick checks at DC 20. If the map the players need is on the other side of the door, i cant just give it to them. But, i can let them try an "average" of what they are capable of.
calvinNhobbes 09-22-06, 11:38 AM	If I were to adopt this rule, I wouldn't use it for attacks and saves (I'd continue using d20). It seems more viable for skill checks and particularly for ability checks, which would focus more on raw ability more than luck. Maybe I'm missing some part of the argument, but isn't that the whole point of the take 10 and take 20 rules for skills? So if the characters are not threatened and have plenty of time then the can show their raw ability. Maybe you should just try implementing the take 10 and 20 rules more first and see how that goes.
RecycledDM 09-22-06, 11:48 AM	The 2d10 proposal, in my opinion, is an example of a "solution in search of a problem." Using 2d10 (or any other bell curve method) for attack rolls and skill rolls, rather than using a d20, nerfs any PC who needs an above average (i.e., better than a 10) roll to succeed at a task (the pass/fail model mentioned by earlier poster(s)). When the party is up against appropriate challenges--and especially during those times when facing tougher-then-usual challenges--this will most frequently harm melee (fighter) types and skill monkey (rogue) types relative to casters using (non-attack roll) spells. Assuming the extension of 2d10 to saving throws, this further nerfs all PC's by boosting the power of spells, traps, etc. requiring a higher-than-average roll on a saving throw. As other posters have pointed out, these issues (and more) can be ironed out by adjusting every DC, AC, attack bonus, critical hit mechanic, saving throw, etc. in the game...but then, aren't you just right back where you started? So, to recap: 2d10 will have one or more of the following effects on your game: nerf fighters and rogues potentially boost casters and traps make all characters' attempts at heroic, "above average" deeds more difficult make alot of work for the DM, with no net benefit This is just not for me. However, after having said all of that, I would--lenient DM that I am--consider the use of 2d10 for one purpose only: attack rolls for traps and for minion-level and/or wandering monsters. This would tend to make these less important, "attrition type" encounters less deadly for the PC's--and I actually like that.
calvinNhobbes 09-22-06, 12:13 PM	2. d20 was just too random. On a simple long jump (in real life you are relatively constant) with a +5 mod, you could jump anywhere between 5 and 25 feet I think the problem with the Jump skill is not the d20, but the linear DC progression. It really should be more exponential.
RobbyPants 09-22-06, 12:30 PM	I think the problem with the Jump skill is not the d20, but the linear DC progression. It really should be more exponential. Exponential or logrithmic? If you use an exponential system, people could be making huge jumps with a high roll, which makes the problem worse. Maybe I'm missing some part of the argument, but isn't that the whole point of the take 10 and take 20 rules for skills? So if the characters are not threatened and have plenty of time then the can show their raw ability. Maybe you should just try implementing the take 10 and 20 rules more first and see how that goes. You're right on that for the most part. My reasoning was twofold: Many, but not all skills can have a take 10 or take 20. The 2d10 rule I was suggesting was for all of them. Someone I talked to suggested using this 2d10 rule in place of taking 10 (although it works more out to taking 11), for a bit of variation. I didn't mention that in the post, so its origin was confusing.
Dragonmann 09-22-06, 12:34 PM	How do you rewrite the natural 1 = failure rule? 2d10 doesn't even have a natural 1, and if you follow the same pattern as critical hits, you end up with 2-4 as auto failures, but 4+a decent skill level could succeed on lots of very common DC 15 stuff.
Echodork 09-22-06, 12:53 PM	I'm starting to lean more heavily toward 2d10 for skill checks. I'd never use it for combat, combat is supposed to be random and chaotic. However, using an even-distribution system for skills like Jump is ridiculous. So on one attempt I can jump 4', and on the next attempt where nothing has changed, I jump 21'? That doesn't make sense.
calvinNhobbes 09-22-06, 01:11 PM	Exponential or logrithmic? If you use an exponential system, people could be making huge jumps with a high roll, which makes the problem worse. I mean DC increases faster than distance. Ex. DC 40 for a 30 foot jump. It is a little more realistic, but not much. Another idea I just thought of was using some method to calculate an average jumping distance. Perhaps: 5ft+ jump ranks+ strength mod + (size mod?) is you average jump distance with a DC 10. Then +/- 5 DC per 2 ft from you average. So say your average jump is 10 ft (4 jump ranks and str 12) and DC 10. You'd need DC 0 for 6ft or less, DC 5 to make a 8 foot jump, DC 15 for 12 ft, DC 20 for 14 ft, DC 25 for 16 ft. Not sure if this could work, and I haven't playtested anything, just throwing it out there. It's true that realism doesn't necessarily belong in a fantasy game, but it does suck if your hero dies by rolling a 1 when jumping that 10 foot gorge.
RobbyPants 09-22-06, 01:54 PM	How do you rewrite the natural 1 = failure rule? 2d10 doesn't even have a natural 1, and if you follow the same pattern as critical hits, you end up with 2-4 as auto failures, but 4+a decent skill level could succeed on lots of very common DC 15 stuff. That could be an issue for saves & attacks, but not for skill checks & ability checks (as there is to auto-success/auto-fail rule for them).
bitnine 09-22-06, 02:44 PM	I don't like bell-curve rolling for many things, in particular items like saves, attack rolls, and spell penetration checks. Particularly it's that weighting towards the middle greatly expands "go home" situations for these cases, which is something that I'd try to avoid in gameplay. By narrowing the edge cases, pushing extreme stat differences is emphasized, and the ease at which a character's primary modes of action can be rendered greatly irrelevent is increased. (A bit similar to the reason 30/+3 DRs were cut, come to think about it.) [And even for just skills, it does actually give an extra punch to stealth characters, or other opposed skill areas with a focused party.]
dizfactor 09-22-06, 04:03 PM	Another option with skills is to allow 2d10 when they have time to focus and concentrate, but force a d20 in times of distraction (like combat). So you could climb a wall liesurly with 2d10, but you'd have to roll d20 to climb the same wall with goblins shooting at you. Just an idea. That's what taking 10 is for. Using 2d10 instead of d20 doesn't remove the "PCs scrape by with some lucky streak" ... it just means it may happen less often - simple economy suggests that this increases the value/worth of those occurances ... hence, Players will tend to enjoy and relish them more often!! I don't think that's true. There's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to scarcity and enjoyment. Make something too common, and it becomes less valuable, but make something too rare, and people stop caring. Crits should be rare enough to be meaningful, but common enough that the game's still fun.
Shwepie 09-22-06, 04:17 PM	Most of his complaints about a d20 seems to be that it doesn't represent real life's averageness and those few passages in the book. This sounds alot like a rant. Even goes on to complain about taking 10/20, "The d20 roll is so bad for most skills, in fact, they have to invent ways around it, such as taking 10 or taking 20". To me the D20 always represented chaos and the numerous +'s and -'s that come with it. Say a Rogue has to pick a DC 30 lock and has a total modifer of +20, normally you could take 10 if you weren't distracted or take 20 if you had plenty of time. But our Rogue isn't in a peacful enviorment, her and her party are trying to escape through the only exit (which is locked). She's trying to pick it while the party fends of their persures, arrows are flying, metal is clanging, people are shouting, people are yelling at her to hurry up. All of these things can represent Circumstance bonuses (dumb luck) and penalties (the arrow that just nicked her cheek and got stuck in the door less then a inch from her hand causing her to drop the tool). Basicly, the d20 is an easy way to represent the effects of chaos on a skill check, attack roll or what have you. As for dumb luck, it happens, I've seen a guy toss a baseball cap over thirty feat just generally aiming at someone else and have it land perfectly on their target's head. As for combat, I could see using 2d10 there if you really wanna make fumbles and crits more special. But you'll have to adjust AC for alot of things or raise the CR. Ofcorse, even in combat dumb luck happens. Nat 1 means something bad, from your perspective, happens that prevents you from landing a blow. Nat 20 means something good happened: The Kobold tripped and his Crossbow accidently went off and the bolt went right through the eye slit in the Fighter's helmet for a critical hit. Chaos, it's so beautiful. But I do agree with The Ditto that 2d10 makes Nat 1's (2 on 2d10) and Nat 20's more enjoyable.
malignor 09-22-06, 04:55 PM	I had a houserule for a game as follows: The person can roll any dice, as long as the dice combo they choose has the same expected value, and no negative values can result. They must also not be under any notable threat. For example, 1d20 Expected value is 10.5 Other dice combos that have an expected value are... 1d2+9, 3d2+6, 5d2+3, 7d2, 9d2-3, 11d2-6, 13d2-9 1d4+8, 3d4+3, 5d4-2, 7d4-7 1d6+7, 3d6 1d8+6 1d10+5 1d12+4 The reasoning or "explanation" for this was similar to the notion of taking 10 in skills. In essence, a character can, if they keep it cool, aim for something closer to average.
BlaineTog 09-22-06, 05:36 PM	2. d20 was just too random. On a simple long jump (in real life you are relatively constant) with a +5 mod, you could jump anywhere between 5 and 25 feetNo, you would jump 15 feet pretty much every time. Unless some goblins start chasing you, in which case you have alot more to worry about than the jump, and anything can happen.
The_Ditto 09-22-06, 11:31 PM	I had a houserule for a game as follows: The person can roll any dice, as long as the dice combo they choose has the same expected value, and no negative values can result. They must also not be under any notable threat. For example, 1d20 Expected value is 10.5 Other dice combos that have an expected value are... 1d2+9, 3d2+6, 5d2+3, 7d2, 9d2-3, 11d2-6, 13d2-9 1d4+8, 3d4+3, 5d4-2, 7d4-7 1d6+7, 3d6 1d8+6 1d10+5 1d12+4 %d / 5 :D (ok ... I know .. that was silly ... ) :uh-huh: Yeah, and? :rolleye2:
The_Ditto 09-22-06, 11:33 PM	That's what taking 10 is for. I don't think that's true. There's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to scarcity and enjoyment. Make something too common, and it becomes less valuable, but make something too rare, and people stop caring. Crits should be rare enough to be meaningful, but common enough that the game's still fun. I might agree with you for 3 or more dice ... but for 2 dice? Nah ... doesn't cut it back enough to be "too rare" ... :tiphat:
Nom 09-23-06, 08:23 AM	d20 is easy for the game designer. As pointed out previously, D&D usually doesn't make a big deal out of margins of success. Rather, the d20 roll is a simple way of saying "I have x% chance of succeeding on this check". Every +1 makes it 5% more likely, every -1 makes it 5% less likely. Switch to a triangular distribution (2dX is a poor approximation of a bell curve), and suddenly everything changes. The effect of stacking bonuses is powerfully magnified. +/- 1 or 2 from the middle isn't much, but once you get much above that it rapidly approaches "forget it" territory. Since the value of a bonus is inherently dependent on the current target number, a designer can only figure the effect of a bonus when he has a relatively complete model of the situation. The net result is massively increasing the complexity of the game for designers in exchange for a poor approximation to an abstract aesthetic ideal.
CharlieRock 09-23-06, 09:53 AM	I might agree with you for 3 or more dice ... but for 2 dice? Nah ... doesn't cut it back enough to be "too rare" ... :tiphat: Well, we are going from hitting 20 ,5% of the time. To hitting 20, 1% of the time. Considering every point of a bonus is 5% ; we just made everyone take a -1 as far as criticals go. I know what this is about ! You lost your d20 and are too embarrased to borrow someone elses, didnt you? :embarrass
The_Ditto 09-23-06, 11:25 AM	I know what this is about ! You lost your d20 and are too embarrased to borrow someone elses, didnt you? :embarrass Uh, no ... :mymy: it's around here somewhere ... :thinks: uh ... maybe I stored it with my socks ... :blink: .. uh ... no .. really .. it's right here! :allalone:
CharlieRock 09-23-06, 11:52 AM	*slides Ditto a d20 under the table* ;)
Cifer 09-24-06, 05:34 PM	I'm starting to lean more heavily toward 2d10 for skill checks. I'd never use it for combat, combat is supposed to be random and chaotic. However, using an even-distribution system for skills like Jump is ridiculous. So on one attempt I can jump 4', and on the next attempt where nothing has changed, I jump 21'? That doesn't make sense. As others have already said, that's what take 10 represents: You can deliver a solid, not-outstanding performance when not stressed. If you try to be as good as possible, perfectly using every bit of running start available - there is the chance you slip and botch your jump. Same problem happens when you are threatened in combat and don't know the skill well enough (usually through a class feature) to still remain calm.