• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 4E 4E: Resolution & Statistical Curves

What roll/resolution mechanic would you like to see in 4th Edition of D&D?


Roman

First Post
I am just wondering whether people think the d20 resolution (by resolution I mean level of granularity of mechanics - how detailed they are in terms of gradation of power/success, etc.) is optimal also for the next edition of D&D, or whether it should be increased (or decreased).

Also, I wonder whether people would prefer to have rolls with bell curves instead of the current linear rolls. I think I would prefer such - perhaps by replacing the d20 mechanic with a 2d10 mechanic or if we are increasing granularity as well than perhaps another mechanic (such as 2d20 - could be called a d40 system :) ).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

S'mon

Legend
d20 gives sufficient (but not excessive) granularity, and for most purposes - combat rolls, saving throws, most skill checks - it's a good die to use. However as a 'unified mechanic' it kinda sucks. There are times when you want more granularity because of the large number of factors & the importance of the single roll - a good example is the BXD&D War Machine rules, which use 2 d% rolls to resolve a single battle. It could be done with d20 but d% allows a far larger number of modifiers to be applied. There are times when a linear roll vs a static DC just doesn't feel right - one example I've noticed is Morale rolls. Morale rules model group psychology and the 'cascade point' where a group of soldiers go from determinedly resisting to retreating running away. Will saves I find don't model this at all well (for one thing the Will save was never intended to represent bravery - compare avg Wizard to avg Fighter!). I use the BXD&D 2d6 roll vs a morale score of 2-12, I find this works very well (I never used 1e AD&D's d% morale rules, they never felt right), though 2e's 2d10 system works ok also. For monster tables I find d% a bit clunky & hard to set up, later 2e's d8+d12, or any multiple dice bell curve, allows monsters to be easily plugged in at desired points on the curve. Finally, there are times when d20 just gives too much randomness compared to the underlying modifiers - STR check to open doors is an obvious one. This is an area dice pool systems inherently handle better, but just rolling a smaller die helps a lot, especially if you add the result to the _full_ stat - so full STR score + d6 to open door gives far more believable results than STR mod + d20.
 



Turanil

First Post
Another voice here, for not seeing a 4E ever!!

That said, it's easy to implement 2d10 into the current system. Now, I don't see a need for it: characters still have the oportunity to take 10 or take 20 rather than rolling a d20, so what?
 

Rystil Arden

First Post
hero4hire said:
personally I dont want to see a 4e...at least not for a long time...
Agreed. I'm frankly upset by the number of 4E threads that I see here. Each one makes me cringe in the gut like a physical blow, since they could well be giving Wizards the idea that people are really itching for a new edition. I think that the current edition, with all its quirks and faults, is excellent, and it deserves to live for years to come and grow, rather than cataclysmically be replaced so soon.
 



sunbeam60

First Post
Like many others before me, let me just add my voice to the pool against a 4th edition any time soon.

{thread highjack risk}
The time between 3.0 and 3.5 was short enough for some of my gamer friends to decide not to switch, causing all sorts of annoying discussions when we mingle: "3.0? No, not 3.5! Oh man, get with the times! I don't like different damage for different sizes? etc. etc.". 3.5 is a rock solid system, and deserves 10 years before anyone go about creating 4th edition.
{end thread highjack risk}

That said, keep the d20 :D
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top