bell curve rolls [Archive] - Wizards Community

bell curve rolls [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
UltimateReality
07-03-07, 08:40 PM You know the variant -- presented in Unearthed Arcana on pages 132 and 133. (Available online here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm).)

Have you used it? What did you think of it? How did it affect your gameplay? Would you recommend it to others?
PenderGrass
07-03-07, 08:44 PM I highly do not recommend use of that alternative.

But, then again, I don't rightly believe in statistical and mathematical mumbo-jumbo that many people try to push on the world.

Why would you want to do this anyways?

Is your town out of d20s?

:dragon:
****
Mock26
07-03-07, 08:51 PM If you want to make things harder by lowering the dice rolls, then this will definitely do it. With the 3d6 variant a critical success (an 18 instead of a 20) will now occur .5% of the time vs. 5% of the time. But, there are other ways to make it more difficult than by altering the dice rolling statistics.

Take care and have a great day....

ciao,
john.
Reddington
07-03-07, 09:04 PM I've never heard of that style of play before but it sounds like it could be pretty interesting.

In the last game I played one of the players had a night-long streak of crappy roles. I think he had three or four critical misses and was trying all night to get even one critical hit (In the game we weren't using conformations). Not only did he never succeed in getting a natural 20 but I think he only hit an enemy once that night because of his crappy attack rolls.

Using the bell curve system would result in much more predictable combat. No more fights in which multiple adventurers fight so poorly they hurl their weapons across the room by accident.
Balseraph
07-03-07, 09:05 PM One could always take note of GURPS (GURPS Lite available for free download, like the SRD I guess) and have a spread of 2-4 numbers as a critical success/failure at each end of the curve.

Just an idea. :)
Salla
07-03-07, 10:05 PM I tried it once, but rapidly realized that my players are horrid tacticians, do not comprehend the concept of teamwork or buffs, and rely solely on lucky rolls to accomplish *anything*.

I've sat and watched them before ... two rogues fighting one guy, and they wind up in an 'L' formation instead of either one five-foot stepping for flanking and sneak attack. The cleric doesn't cast Bless ... the Wizard doesn't cast Bull's Strength or Invisibility ... ugh.
RobbyPants
07-03-07, 11:45 PM The biggest thing that this variant changes is that it makes the players much more favorable to win. As mentioned in the side bar for about any variant that increases randomness: it favors the underdog (which should usually be the monsters). So, as you can probably guess, any variant which reduces randomness benifits the statistical favorite (usually the players).

Thus, the game becomes much more weighted on your modifiers, and less on your rolls. In a game like this, opposed rolls become much less random. Picture what happens if two people are grappling; one with a +4 and one with a +2. The +4 will win many more times than the guy with the +2.

If you want to make things harder by lowering the dice rolls, then this will definitely do it. With the 3d6 variant a critical success (an 18 instead of a 20) will now occur .5% of the time vs. 5% of the time. But, there are other ways to make it more difficult than by altering the dice rolling statistics.
Actually, the variant already has different ranges which correspond pretty closely to the 5% increments of a d20. That part of it isn't much of an issue.
enlightened
07-04-07, 12:27 AM My group has used 3D6 for about a year and a half now, and I only have good things to say about it.

I have always been a big GURPS guy, and so for me 3D6 is very natural. Although, the whole high-roll-is-good thing (as opposed to GURPS where you want to roll low) took a bit to get used to.

When I, as a DM, was testing it out for D&D, I gave the players a choice every time they needed to roll a D20. They could roll either D20 or 3D6, and they could switch back and forth whenever they wanted to, but they themselves just naturally stopped wanting to use the D20.

I don't remember the exact context, but I distinctly remember a player once saying,"No, don't use a D20 now, this roll is too important for that!"

Also, at least in my group, there was a noticable increase in inter-group support in combat (i.e. flanking became a must, aid another, etc.) The extra +2 started to matter more so it was worth getting.
Millennium
07-11-07, 08:56 AM The bell curve system is interesting, but you have to keep in mind that most DCs mean something very different between the two systems. Discounting bonuses for the moment, a DC 10 roll is basically the same, but a DC 5 roll is much easier (95% chance of success instead of 75%) and a DC 15 roll is much harder (5% chance of success instead of 25%).

Honestly, I don't recommend it for a d20-based game. Bell curves work extremely well when the roll actually determines how well you do at a given task. But in a simple binary pass/fail system like most d20-system rolls, it just gets in the way of determining the odds of success.

But if you want to switch back and forth between the rolls, then look at it this way: if you can succeed while rolling under 10, it's to your advantage to use 3d6. If you need more than 10 to succeed, it's to your advantage to use 1d20. The advantages increase the further away from 10 you need to roll.
Roog
07-11-07, 09:04 AM Has anyone tried 2d10, I would have thought that that would fit better with the standard bonuses/penalties, while still giving a centrally weighted distribution.

#edit
Threat ranges
-------------
20..... 18–20 (05% 06%)
19–20 17–20 (10% 10%)
18–20 16–20 (15% 15%)
17–20 15–20 (20% 21%)
15–20 14–20 (30% 28%)
High Octane
07-11-07, 10:42 AM I could see how it would work, but it begs the question, WHY????
Kursk
07-11-07, 12:06 PM You know the variant -- presented in Unearthed Arcana on pages 132 and 133. (Available online here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm).)

Have you used it? What did you think of it? How did it affect your gameplay? Would you recommend it to others?

Well, if you use that, you throw out of kilter the whole D20 rules set and the mechanics that rely on the D20 probability factor. How do you think that will effect your game?
ashcat_lt
07-11-07, 01:37 PM I've considered using it as a sort of half-way step to taking 10. Like if either a) you could normally take 10 but don't want to spend the extra time or, b) you could not normally take 10 but are willing to spend a little more time.
Anaxander
07-11-07, 02:36 PM Has anyone tried 2d10, I would have thought that that would fit better with the standard bonuses/penalties, while still giving a centrally weighted distribution.

I didn't try it, but 2d10 seems much more interesting than 3d6.
The results of a 1d20 check are often too random, especially at lower levels, while a check of 3d6 will produce rolls which are too average to my taste.

Of course, when using a d20 system, 'taking 10' helps to balance the otherwise random rolls.
RobbyPants
07-11-07, 03:57 PM I've considered using it as a sort of half-way step to taking 10. Like if either a) you could normally take 10 but don't want to spend the extra time or, b) you could not normally take 10 but are willing to spend a little more time.
Taking 10 doesn't take extra time. The only limitation is that you cannot do it while distracted, and some skills cannot be used this way. Taking 20, however, does take more time.

(Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#taking10))
Checks Without Rolls
A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions and eliminate the luck factor.

Taking 10
When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.

Taking 20
When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.

Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.
enlightened
07-11-07, 04:56 PM Well, if you use that, you throw out of kilter the whole D20 rules set and the mechanics that rely on the D20 probability factor. How do you think that will effect your game?

We've been using this for a good while now, and I have never felt that my game has been "thrown out of kilter".

This is an over simplification, but, in practice, it just feels as if, instead of having a window of 1-20, you have a window of (roughly) 5-15.

The reason I like it is because it makes things more reliable. I have some experience playing diceless systems, and randomness is something I could easily do away with.
lears_fool
07-11-07, 05:48 PM The reason I like it is because it makes things more reliable. I have some experience playing diceless systems, and randomness is something I could easily do away with.
Agreed.

There are a couple of things it can help to analyze (like the impact on critical hits . .but it's pretty easy to pick out similar 5/10/15% locations on the curve), but other than that I've had really good luck with 3d6 and 2d10 instead of d20s.

It REALLY shifts the feel from luck to skill. You're far less likely to have the fighter fail a fort save on an unlucky roll or a wizard suddenly end up dominated. Tactics become more important but combat seems to flow quicker because you can think ahead with a bit greater likelihood of success.

It takes getting used to, but it definitely adds to the heroic feel of the game. And when you get those really high and really low rolls they suddenly become more special and noteworthy.
Sildatorak
07-11-07, 06:20 PM It seems to me that the 3d6 system will break down sooner than than 1d20. Tasks that are slightly difficult (e.g. a rogue needs a 14 to hit the enemy) become significantly more difficult when the likelyhood of rolling that number drops.

I think that it would be much easier to abuse the system when the range of likely outcomes is 5-15 instead of 1-20. Any mechanic that involves opposed checks becomes much more abusable, jacking up save DC's becomes exceedingly more profitable, and increasing your armor class no longer means that you will unlikely to be hit, it means you'll be damn near impossible to hit.
enlightened
07-11-07, 07:16 PM Tasks that are slightly difficult (e.g. a rogue needs a 14 to hit the enemy) become significantly more difficult when the likelyhood of rolling that number drops..
That's the part that elicits the tactics.

If the character knows that under normal circumstances he has no chance of hitting he will start to think of ways to tip the balance in his favor.

This usually requires teamwork. If he normally needs to roll a 14 to hit (16.2% chance), and someone casts Bull's strength on him, he gets blessed and works with someone to get flanking then he now has to roll only 9 or more (74.1% chance). Teamwork increased his chances by 57.9%. It's beautiful.

I think that it would be much easier to abuse the system when the range of likely outcomes is 5-15 instead of 1-20. Any mechanic that involves opposed checks becomes much more abusable.

If by "abusable" you mean "insures that the one with the higher skill wins more often" then yes! It's highly abusable.

jacking up save DC's becomes exceedingly more profitable, and increasing your armor class no longer means that you will unlikely to be hit, it means you'll be damn near impossible to hit.

I don't really know what to say to this, but in my experience it all comes out in the wash.

I understand your fears, but in actual play, it just doesn't really become a problem. I know that's not an answer that many people will accept, but if you try it I think you will find the same thing. It seems like it would be a problem but it just isn't.
Sildatorak
07-11-07, 10:01 PM If by "abusable" you mean "insures that the one with the higher skill wins more often" then yes! It's highly abusable.I mean that if you take a goliath fighter with improved grapple, you can count on at least 1 humanoid enemy being out of every fight in short order, especially if you throw a PC rogue in there. Disarm, trip, etc. also have potential for abuse. With 1d20, the person who invests in those feats is going to win significantly more often already, but with 3d6 it becomes next to impossible for them to lose.

I don't really know what to say to this, but in my experience it all comes out in the wash.My guess is that you don't have players who are low on the powergaming scale, then. I know my PC's would be reaching for headbands of intellect, taking spell focus and greater spell focus left and right, and pushing toward any class that would increase the DC's of their spells because if the enemy needs a 13 to save, it is most likely dead. Save DC's scale up faster than bad saves, so the situation is already there with 1d20, and 3d6 will exacerbate it.

I think the idea behind the bell curve variant is fine, and it works wonders in low power games, I'm sure. It just seems like the overpowered nature of high level or high power PC's will kick in a lot more strongly.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
UltimateReality 07-03-07, 08:40 PM	You know the variant -- presented in Unearthed Arcana on pages 132 and 133. (Available online here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm).) Have you used it? What did you think of it? How did it affect your gameplay? Would you recommend it to others?
PenderGrass 07-03-07, 08:44 PM	I highly do not recommend use of that alternative. But, then again, I don't rightly believe in statistical and mathematical mumbo-jumbo that many people try to push on the world. Why would you want to do this anyways? Is your town out of d20s? :dragon: ****
Mock26 07-03-07, 08:51 PM	If you want to make things harder by lowering the dice rolls, then this will definitely do it. With the 3d6 variant a critical success (an 18 instead of a 20) will now occur .5% of the time vs. 5% of the time. But, there are other ways to make it more difficult than by altering the dice rolling statistics. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
Reddington 07-03-07, 09:04 PM	I've never heard of that style of play before but it sounds like it could be pretty interesting. In the last game I played one of the players had a night-long streak of crappy roles. I think he had three or four critical misses and was trying all night to get even one critical hit (In the game we weren't using conformations). Not only did he never succeed in getting a natural 20 but I think he only hit an enemy once that night because of his crappy attack rolls. Using the bell curve system would result in much more predictable combat. No more fights in which multiple adventurers fight so poorly they hurl their weapons across the room by accident.
Balseraph 07-03-07, 09:05 PM	One could always take note of GURPS (GURPS Lite available for free download, like the SRD I guess) and have a spread of 2-4 numbers as a critical success/failure at each end of the curve. Just an idea. :)
Salla 07-03-07, 10:05 PM	I tried it once, but rapidly realized that my players are horrid tacticians, do not comprehend the concept of teamwork or buffs, and rely solely on lucky rolls to accomplish anything. I've sat and watched them before ... two rogues fighting one guy, and they wind up in an 'L' formation instead of either one five-foot stepping for flanking and sneak attack. The cleric doesn't cast Bless ... the Wizard doesn't cast Bull's Strength or Invisibility ... ugh.
RobbyPants 07-03-07, 11:45 PM	The biggest thing that this variant changes is that it makes the players much more favorable to win. As mentioned in the side bar for about any variant that increases randomness: it favors the underdog (which should usually be the monsters). So, as you can probably guess, any variant which reduces randomness benifits the statistical favorite (usually the players). Thus, the game becomes much more weighted on your modifiers, and less on your rolls. In a game like this, opposed rolls become much less random. Picture what happens if two people are grappling; one with a +4 and one with a +2. The +4 will win many more times than the guy with the +2. If you want to make things harder by lowering the dice rolls, then this will definitely do it. With the 3d6 variant a critical success (an 18 instead of a 20) will now occur .5% of the time vs. 5% of the time. But, there are other ways to make it more difficult than by altering the dice rolling statistics. Actually, the variant already has different ranges which correspond pretty closely to the 5% increments of a d20. That part of it isn't much of an issue.
enlightened 07-04-07, 12:27 AM	My group has used 3D6 for about a year and a half now, and I only have good things to say about it. I have always been a big GURPS guy, and so for me 3D6 is very natural. Although, the whole high-roll-is-good thing (as opposed to GURPS where you want to roll low) took a bit to get used to. When I, as a DM, was testing it out for D&D, I gave the players a choice every time they needed to roll a D20. They could roll either D20 or 3D6, and they could switch back and forth whenever they wanted to, but they themselves just naturally stopped wanting to use the D20. I don't remember the exact context, but I distinctly remember a player once saying,"No, don't use a D20 now, this roll is too important for that!" Also, at least in my group, there was a noticable increase in inter-group support in combat (i.e. flanking became a must, aid another, etc.) The extra +2 started to matter more so it was worth getting.
Millennium 07-11-07, 08:56 AM	The bell curve system is interesting, but you have to keep in mind that most DCs mean something very different between the two systems. Discounting bonuses for the moment, a DC 10 roll is basically the same, but a DC 5 roll is much easier (95% chance of success instead of 75%) and a DC 15 roll is much harder (5% chance of success instead of 25%). Honestly, I don't recommend it for a d20-based game. Bell curves work extremely well when the roll actually determines how well you do at a given task. But in a simple binary pass/fail system like most d20-system rolls, it just gets in the way of determining the odds of success. But if you want to switch back and forth between the rolls, then look at it this way: if you can succeed while rolling under 10, it's to your advantage to use 3d6. If you need more than 10 to succeed, it's to your advantage to use 1d20. The advantages increase the further away from 10 you need to roll.
Roog 07-11-07, 09:04 AM	Has anyone tried 2d10, I would have thought that that would fit better with the standard bonuses/penalties, while still giving a centrally weighted distribution. #edit Threat ranges ------------- 20..... 18–20 (05% 06%) 19–20 17–20 (10% 10%) 18–20 16–20 (15% 15%) 17–20 15–20 (20% 21%) 15–20 14–20 (30% 28%)
High Octane 07-11-07, 10:42 AM	I could see how it would work, but it begs the question, WHY????
Kursk 07-11-07, 12:06 PM	You know the variant -- presented in Unearthed Arcana on pages 132 and 133. (Available online here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm).) Have you used it? What did you think of it? How did it affect your gameplay? Would you recommend it to others? Well, if you use that, you throw out of kilter the whole D20 rules set and the mechanics that rely on the D20 probability factor. How do you think that will effect your game?
ashcat_lt 07-11-07, 01:37 PM	I've considered using it as a sort of half-way step to taking 10. Like if either a) you could normally take 10 but don't want to spend the extra time or, b) you could not normally take 10 but are willing to spend a little more time.
Anaxander 07-11-07, 02:36 PM	Has anyone tried 2d10, I would have thought that that would fit better with the standard bonuses/penalties, while still giving a centrally weighted distribution. I didn't try it, but 2d10 seems much more interesting than 3d6. The results of a 1d20 check are often too random, especially at lower levels, while a check of 3d6 will produce rolls which are too average to my taste. Of course, when using a d20 system, 'taking 10' helps to balance the otherwise random rolls.
RobbyPants 07-11-07, 03:57 PM	I've considered using it as a sort of half-way step to taking 10. Like if either a) you could normally take 10 but don't want to spend the extra time or, b) you could not normally take 10 but are willing to spend a little more time. Taking 10 doesn't take extra time. The only limitation is that you cannot do it while distracted, and some skills cannot be used this way. Taking 20, however, does take more time. (Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#taking10)) Checks Without Rolls A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions and eliminate the luck factor. Taking 10 When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help. Taking 20 When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20. Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take. Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.
enlightened 07-11-07, 04:56 PM	Well, if you use that, you throw out of kilter the whole D20 rules set and the mechanics that rely on the D20 probability factor. How do you think that will effect your game? We've been using this for a good while now, and I have never felt that my game has been "thrown out of kilter". This is an over simplification, but, in practice, it just feels as if, instead of having a window of 1-20, you have a window of (roughly) 5-15. The reason I like it is because it makes things more reliable. I have some experience playing diceless systems, and randomness is something I could easily do away with.
lears_fool 07-11-07, 05:48 PM	The reason I like it is because it makes things more reliable. I have some experience playing diceless systems, and randomness is something I could easily do away with. Agreed. There are a couple of things it can help to analyze (like the impact on critical hits . .but it's pretty easy to pick out similar 5/10/15% locations on the curve), but other than that I've had really good luck with 3d6 and 2d10 instead of d20s. It REALLY shifts the feel from luck to skill. You're far less likely to have the fighter fail a fort save on an unlucky roll or a wizard suddenly end up dominated. Tactics become more important but combat seems to flow quicker because you can think ahead with a bit greater likelihood of success. It takes getting used to, but it definitely adds to the heroic feel of the game. And when you get those really high and really low rolls they suddenly become more special and noteworthy.
Sildatorak 07-11-07, 06:20 PM	It seems to me that the 3d6 system will break down sooner than than 1d20. Tasks that are slightly difficult (e.g. a rogue needs a 14 to hit the enemy) become significantly more difficult when the likelyhood of rolling that number drops. I think that it would be much easier to abuse the system when the range of likely outcomes is 5-15 instead of 1-20. Any mechanic that involves opposed checks becomes much more abusable, jacking up save DC's becomes exceedingly more profitable, and increasing your armor class no longer means that you will unlikely to be hit, it means you'll be damn near impossible to hit.
enlightened 07-11-07, 07:16 PM	Tasks that are slightly difficult (e.g. a rogue needs a 14 to hit the enemy) become significantly more difficult when the likelyhood of rolling that number drops.. That's the part that elicits the tactics. If the character knows that under normal circumstances he has no chance of hitting he will start to think of ways to tip the balance in his favor. This usually requires teamwork. If he normally needs to roll a 14 to hit (16.2% chance), and someone casts Bull's strength on him, he gets blessed and works with someone to get flanking then he now has to roll only 9 or more (74.1% chance). Teamwork increased his chances by 57.9%. It's beautiful. I think that it would be much easier to abuse the system when the range of likely outcomes is 5-15 instead of 1-20. Any mechanic that involves opposed checks becomes much more abusable. If by "abusable" you mean "insures that the one with the higher skill wins more often" then yes! It's highly abusable. jacking up save DC's becomes exceedingly more profitable, and increasing your armor class no longer means that you will unlikely to be hit, it means you'll be damn near impossible to hit. I don't really know what to say to this, but in my experience it all comes out in the wash. I understand your fears, but in actual play, it just doesn't really become a problem. I know that's not an answer that many people will accept, but if you try it I think you will find the same thing. It seems like it would be a problem but it just isn't.
Sildatorak 07-11-07, 10:01 PM	If by "abusable" you mean "insures that the one with the higher skill wins more often" then yes! It's highly abusable.I mean that if you take a goliath fighter with improved grapple, you can count on at least 1 humanoid enemy being out of every fight in short order, especially if you throw a PC rogue in there. Disarm, trip, etc. also have potential for abuse. With 1d20, the person who invests in those feats is going to win significantly more often already, but with 3d6 it becomes next to impossible for them to lose. I don't really know what to say to this, but in my experience it all comes out in the wash.My guess is that you don't have players who are low on the powergaming scale, then. I know my PC's would be reaching for headbands of intellect, taking spell focus and greater spell focus left and right, and pushing toward any class that would increase the DC's of their spells because if the enemy needs a 13 to save, it is most likely dead. Save DC's scale up faster than bad saves, so the situation is already there with 1d20, and 3d6 will exacerbate it. I think the idea behind the bell curve variant is fine, and it works wonders in low power games, I'm sure. It just seems like the overpowered nature of high level or high power PC's will kick in a lot more strongly.