2d10 for Skill Checks

I highly prefer 3d6 over other combinations.

It gives real bell-curve and it keeps 10.5 average.

advantage would be 5d6 drop 2 lowest, disadvantage would be5d6 drop 2 highest.

Is is also good for "semi-advantage/disadvantage", where you can use 4d6 drop 1 lowest/highest die.

For flanking or similar situations. Higher ground, attacking in low lights, splitting range weapons, I.E. longbows 150/600 to 100/300/600 ranges

I agree with you 100% on this. And while your solution is a neat and simple one, my brain has been wired into D20 for so long, it almost hurts to accept a change, even a sensible one. But yea, I also found that the limited skill bonuses, especially at low levels, really makes even a decently talented(high relevant stat) character so hit and miss it's hard to call them "trained" in things. I have a 7th lvl fighter with 18 STR that I picked up one level of rogue just to get expertise in Athletics to represent him being a good grappler, seeing as how the Grapple feat doesn't actually make you better at grappling just better at hitting guys you are grappling. With his +10 to the roll, I simply tried to grapple a guy with a mere +2 to his check, failed three times in a row, and it really sorta ruined the whole scene for me. But thems the breaks.

My greatest concern is the extra dice rolling. A single d20 is a faster and easier mechanic to work around IMO. I suppose once players get used to implementing 2d10, 3d6, or whatever, it might go fast enough. For the people not using d20 anymore, what has been your experience in this regard?

Since we only roll 2d10 for skill checks (and thus the rolls can be minutes apart from each other if not more), the extra half second to find the second d10 causes no appreciable delay.

If it was combat and the rolls were more often and right on top of each other, it might be a different story.

True, I forgot you were only doing it currently for skill checks. I'm curious though, then why you think this is needed for skill checks but not attack rolls and saves? The general idea being when you put forth an effort to accomplish something, you normal results are typically the average for what you are capable of.

I mean, really, an attack roll is a skill check. You are proficient in it (hopefully) or not, you modify it with an ability score, and might get another bonus. The DC is the default (10) contested defense of the target, i.e. AC.

Saves are "checks" you are more likely not proficient in (since default characters only get 2 of 6).

Those points are another reason why we just stick with the d20.

dnd4vr said:

I mean, really, an attack roll is a skill check. You are proficient in it (hopefully) or not, you modify it with an ability score, and might get another bonus. The DC is the default (10) contested defense of the target, i.e. AC.

Click to expand...

Well, no. Not in the way the rules work at the table in D&D anyway.

The skill system is binary - you either do it or you don't. An encounter that depends on skill checks often depends on the character making a single skill check - so if you get a bad roll you've outright failed. Trying to pick a pocket or negotiate with a noble or whatever and roll a 1? Well, that's an outright failure and now you have to deal with the consequences.

Individual attacks are also binary - you either hit or you don't. But a combat encounter is a series of rolls where if you get a bad roll it's going to be okay because you'll be making a lot of rolls and over the entire encounter it'll usually average out. The variation doesn't feel as bad in combat because rolling low on an attack doesn't mean that you've failed, it just means that you missed this round and you'll get another turn soon to make up for it. Saves are similar - as long as the "save or die" effects are removed from the game failing one bad save roll just means that you are going to have to make another check.

The swinginess of d20 combat is a feature - I find D&D combat to be more fun than, say, GURPS combat because you get that thrill of rolling a d20 and that despair of rolling a 1 and both of them show up on average 5% of the time. But IMO that same swinginess makes skill encounters somewhat obnoxious because so many skill checks turn into the narrative equivalent of "save or die" checks. (I've "solved" this problem by making more use of the skill challenge mechanic - which turns skill encounters into multiple die roll encounters to succeed/fail and so has better math - and by using "succeed with consequences" as an outcome for not hitting the DC on skill checks instead of just a binary succeed/fail outcome. Works well for my tables, but everyone's mileage varies on stuff like that.)

I just use 1d10+5.

dnd4vr said:

True, I forgot you were only doing it currently for skill checks. I'm curious though, then why you think this is needed for skill checks but not attack rolls and saves? The general idea being when you put forth an effort to accomplish something, you normal results are typically the average for what you are capable of.

I mean, really, an attack roll is a skill check. You are proficient in it (hopefully) or not, you modify it with an ability score, and might get another bonus. The DC is the default (10) contested defense of the target, i.e. AC.

Saves are "checks" you are more likely not proficient in (since default characters only get 2 of 6).

Those points are another reason why we just stick with the d20.

Click to expand...

Main reason is that there is a much wider range of numbers being used in skill checks than there are in attacks.

I mentioned it above, but for my tables (and I imagine for most tables) almost every attack roll whether it be weapons or spells is going to be made with proficiency. Making an attack without being proficient in the attack is so rare that it will really only ever come up if you as a DM have forced the story into a place that the PCs are stuck having to fight with whatever they have available and it just happens to be they aren't proficient in it. On top of that... almost all PCs have their highest ability score in their attack stat, whether that again be weapon or spell... and if its not the highest, then it'll most likely be second highest. As a result, you would be hard-pressed to find many PCs (and none at my tables) that are making attacks whose bonuses at 1st level are not +4 or +5. And if it's not +4 or +5... its because they are +6 or +7 and the player took the Archery Fighting Style.

So because almost every attack bonus at our table is within 1 point of each other (except for the rare Archer fighter or ranger)... there is no real need to make the modifier have more impact in the result. There's only a point of difference between all the PCs... so for us using the d20 is fine.

It's the skill checks when the bonuses can range from -1 all the way to like +7 that I wanted there to be a more obvious success rate for those who are at +7 compared to those at -1. And using a bell-curve/pyramid distribution for these cases is what assists in that. A PC with a -1 goes from a 25% chance of succeeding on a DC 15 check on a d20 down to 15% on 2d10. And the +7 PC goes from failing 35% of the time on a DC 15 check on a d20 down to 21% on 2d10. And from what we've experienced... these percentages do matter when it has come to the perception of success. Sure, we still get the outlier experiences of a -1 succeeding when the +7 fails... but those are much fewer and further between.

Like I said originally... there numbers and percentages might not matter or even be noticeable to some tables and the d20 could be fine. For me it wasn't and my players have gone along with me asking us to try it this new way. And thus far it has been successful (in that it hasn't completely ruined the game.)

Jer said:

Well, no. Not in the way the rules work at the table in D&D anyway.

The skill system is binary - you either do it or you don't. An encounter that depends on skill checks often depends on the character making a single skill check - so if you get a bad roll you've outright failed. Trying to pick a pocket or negotiate with a noble or whatever and roll a 1? Well, that's an outright failure and now you have to deal with the consequences.

Individual attacks are also binary - you either hit or you don't. But a combat encounter is a series of rolls where if you get a bad roll it's going to be okay because you'll be making a lot of rolls and over the entire encounter it'll usually average out. The variation doesn't feel as bad in combat because rolling low on an attack doesn't mean that you've failed, it just means that you missed this round and you'll get another turn soon to make up for it. Saves are similar - as long as the "save or die" effects are removed from the game failing one bad save roll just means that you are going to have to make another check.

The swinginess of d20 combat is a feature - I find D&D combat to be more fun than, say, GURPS combat because you get that thrill of rolling a d20 and that despair of rolling a 1 and both of them show up on average 5% of the time. But IMO that same swinginess makes skill encounters somewhat obnoxious because so many skill checks turn into the narrative equivalent of "save or die" checks. (I've "solved" this problem by making more use of the skill challenge mechanic - which turns skill encounters into multiple die roll encounters to succeed/fail and so has better math - and by using "succeed with consequences" as an outcome for not hitting the DC on skill checks instead of just a binary succeed/fail outcome. Works well for my tables, but everyone's mileage varies on stuff like that.)

Click to expand...

Regarding the bolded portion about skill checks being binary - not according to the core rules for ability checks.

PHN 5e under the double secret hidden title section called Ability Checks

To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success — the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM.

Not that you have not binary pass-fail at all but instead have pass (overcome the challenge), fail (with no progress) and fail (with progress and a setback determined by the GM.)

That is not all that much different from attacks, right, where you can have hit (does enough to kill enemy), hit (does some damage to enemy but not enough to kill it - "makes progress" in other words) and fail (does no damage, makes no progress.)

Sure, the combat system has a lot more detail provided and specced out for the very narrow category of "damage to drop foe" but the core elements put forth as part of the resolution of the challenge in the system are much the same.

if you use a codified "skill challenge" for the "make progress" you are just fleshing out that bit of the ability vcheck resolution but not really adding that. others might do it more on the fly. I myself often use the same three-way race for "extended tasks" - the get to three success before you get to three fails - myself.

But i also make very frequent use of all of the options presented under the ability check system - so thats not binary - not even close cuz "some progress with setback" is a powerful tool for scenarios and challenges. its one of the most dramatic IMX.

Which makes me surprised everytime i see folks so strongly proclaiming how binary the ability check is.

I generally like this system, but there is a difference between a combat roll and a skill roll in general. A 20 is an automatic success / crit in combat but not in a general skill check. So, if you use 2d10 for combat, crits will occur much less often. Now in 3e this wasn't as much of an issue since the threat range could get as large as a 15 or better, depending on feats and weapons. But in 5e, using 2d10 it might be necessary to redefine a crit as hitting by more than x (probably 5), but could vary based upon house rules.