2d10 for Skill Checks

[DND_Reborn]

I think there might be some confusion, for which I apologize if there was. When I use the term "modifier", I am not referring to ability score modifier, but total modifier to the check (both ability score modifier AND proficiency bonus added together). The minimum is an ability score of 8 (-1) and no proficiency bonus (+0), so total of -1. The maximum is ability score 20 (+5) and proficiency bonus (+6), for a total of +11.

If you understood that to be the case, then certain combinations favor either system depending on what precise low and high modifiers you use, of course, but the overall analysis should include all possible combinations. Using a midpoint of the ranges you suggest (say +2 and + 8 for example), it isn't until the DC is 13 that the 2d10 variant offers a greater relative increase in likelihood of success over the d20 system. This is a perfect example of the critical "DC 12" threshold or swing point I discussed.

Perhaps you are doing different calculations or comparing different things than I am? I don't know, but otherwise your suggestion of the point of differentiation at DC 5 is not correct.

 

[5ekyu]

I think there might be some confusion, for which I apologize if there was. When I use the term "modifier", I am not referring to ability score modifier, but total modifier to the check (both ability score modifier AND proficiency bonus added together). The minimum is an ability score of 8 (-1) and no proficiency bonus (+0), so total of -1. The maximum is ability score 20 (+5) and proficiency bonus (+6), for a total of +11.

If you understood that to be the case, then certain combinations favor either system depending on what precise low and high modifiers you use, of course, but the overall analysis should include all possible combinations. Using a midpoint of the ranges you suggest (say +2 and + 8 for example), it isn't until the DC is 13 that the 2d10 variant offers a greater relative increase in likelihood of success over the d20 system. This is a perfect example of the critical "DC 12" threshold or swing point I discussed.

Perhaps you are doing different calculations or comparing different things than I am? I don't know, but otherwise your suggestion of the point of differentiation at DC 5 is not correct.

It might actually be more helpful to cut to the chase and focus on "die roll needed" and away from DC. 2d10 vs d20 really does not care if its +5 vs DC 20 ( above average and skilled amateur vs hard task) or -1 vs DC 15 (untrained and below average vs moderate task ) or +10 vs DC 25 (exceptional master vs a very difficult task) for each of these cases, the 2d10 is giving your 1× tool a growing value for each + while the d20 keeps z flat bonus for each +. Likely, Meanwhile switch it to really lower chance tasks a or really easier tasks and the 2d10 really doesnt vslue those tools much at all.

But, really with so many ways to get expertise, advantage etc, plus rules for auto-succeed if proficient on easy checks etc etc trying to map this to "DC" or see its actual impact on "rolls that matter" in play is a lot more than is being assessed here by the numbers where some want to toss out a lot by treating (some of) those as special cases.

But, as pointed out, iirc this wasnt a call for discussion, just an announcement or some such, so again, glad it works for them, math notwistanding.

 

[Jahydin]

I too hated how much variation a d20 gave skill checks and have been using 2d10 for years now (with DCs very similar to yours btw) and will never go back. I can totally see how that mechanic would be fine for those that like fun and zany outcomes, but for me it was just frustrating to see competent PCs constantly failing and incompetent PCs succeeding. As for combat and saving throws, I too stick with the d20, because it makes sense for those to be chaotic!

In fact, this last year or so I've even have taken it a step further. In order to cut down on the amount of people making the same skill rolls, I have three categories of proficiency now: untrained, trained, and proficient. Wont bore anyone with all the details, but basically proficient skills are chosen normally (2d10 + Mod + Prof Bonus); skills listed as available for PC's class that weren't chosen are the ones they're "trained" in (2d10 + mod); and everything else is considered "untrained" (1d10 + mod). This is to make the classes a little more distinct in what they are good at.

Finally, for group efforts, one PC is chosen to make the roll. Anyone who is proficient that is helping adds a d10 to the pool; trained helpers add a d6. Pool is rolled and the highest two rolls are used. I like this cause everyone feels like they help and it's done with a single die roll.

 

[Laurefindel]

(...) proficient skills are chosen normally (2d10 + Mod + Prof Bonus); skills listed as available for PC's class that weren't chosen are the ones they're "trained" in (2d10 + mod); and everything else is considered "untrained" (1d10 + mod). This is to make the classes a little more distinct in what they are good at.

Interesting. I'd consider that if I ever go 2d10. Even in a regular d20 skill checks, disadvantage on "untrained" checks could downplay the sudden competency of non-proficient characters and discourage the "I might as well try too, all I need is a lucky roll" effect of 5e skill checks, without artificially raising DCs to prevent random successes.

Finally, for group efforts, one PC is chosen to make the roll. Anyone who is proficient that is helping adds a d10 to the pool; trained helpers add a d6. Pool is rolled and the highest two rolls are used. I like this cause everyone feels like they help and it's done with a single die roll.

That however is pretty cool. Having multitude dice allows a multitude of players to participate in a single roll. I'd also consider...
- Characters roll 2d10 each, each contributing one d10 of their choice to the result. Untrained characters could be forced to select the worse of 2d10.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I too hated how much variation a d20 gave skill checks and have been using 2d10 for years now (with DCs very similar to yours btw) and will never go back. I can totally see how that mechanic would be fine for those that like fun and zany outcomes, but for me it was just frustrating to see competent PCs constantly failing and incompetent PCs succeeding. As for combat and saving throws, I too stick with the d20, because it makes sense for those to be chaotic!

In fact, this last year or so I've even have taken it a step further. In order to cut down on the amount of people making the same skill rolls, I have three categories of proficiency now: untrained, trained, and proficient. Wont bore anyone with all the details, but basically proficient skills are chosen normally (2d10 + Mod + Prof Bonus); skills listed as available for PC's class that weren't chosen are the ones they're "trained" in (2d10 + mod); and everything else is considered "untrained" (1d10 + mod). This is to make the classes a little more distinct in what they are good at.

Finally, for group efforts, one PC is chosen to make the roll. Anyone who is proficient that is helping adds a d10 to the pool; trained helpers add a d6. Pool is rolled and the highest two rolls are used. I like this cause everyone feels like they help and it's done with a single die roll.

I also like some of these ideas, but it smacks too much of a "dice pool" type system. There isn't any problem with those systems, but it is something to think about. Another thing to consider is when someone who is unskilled is trying to help, sometimes they hinder more than they help...