d20 vs. 3d6 "dice heresy" by Chris Sims

[delericho]

Given that 4e already has problems with combat grind, brought about as a consequence of reducing the swing in combat, I would have thought that the last thing you would want to do would be to reduce that swing even further.

 

[WayneLigon]

I wouldn't mind if D&D went to using the d6 for every single thing. The bell curve provides a vastly better means of managing expectations.

 

[Ourph]

I wouldn't mind if D&D went to using the d6 for every single thing. The bell curve provides a vastly better means of managing expectations.

I think using the 3d6 for skill checks might be a good idea. I'm just not sure it's going to work out well for to-hit rolls.

 

[ggroy]

Wonder if anyone ever tried replacing the d20 with 2d10 for to-hit and skill check rolls in D&D.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I wouldn't mind if D&D went to using the d6 for every single thing. The bell curve provides a vastly better means of managing expectations.

I'd hate it, and for the exact reason you mention here.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I think using the 3d6 for skill checks might be a good idea. I'm just not sure it's going to work out well for to-hit rolls.

Why not just take ten?

That's what you are going to roll anyway. Seriously - it average competency is "good enough" - the game supports that as a default selection out-of-the-box, as it were.

 

[Wik]

I think using the 3d6 for skill checks might be a good idea. I'm just not sure it's going to work out well for to-hit rolls.

as a side note, Rel used a d6 method for skill checks in his 4e campaign, and it seemed to work rather well.

 

[Wik]

I resolved my love-hate affair with the bell curve in the late 80s.

I hate it. Given a choice between a linear curve and a bell curve, I'll take linear. Every. Single. Time.

Why? Because a linear curve is more heroic, that's why. It allows an equal chance for spectacular hits and bad misses far more often at the table than a bell curve does. It's more unpredicatble, allows for more unlikely -- and therefore more heroic results -- and is, therefore, more fun.

While I agree with you regarding the d20 preference, I disagree with your basic premise. The d20 does not make the game more heroic; it makes it more gritty. Using a linear curve, your players CAN be super heroic - but they have just as much chance at flubbing rolls in important situations.

Personally, I like that - it's a feature of the game I enjoy - but it is not 'heroism'. Using the d20 system as written, it is perfectly possible for Hercules to fail a strength check to pop open a door, only to watch gape-mouthed as Woody Allen pops it open with a little bit of elbow grease.

A 3d6 system is, really, MORE heroic - especially if you read the article, which suggest criticals happen on a roll of 16+. In such a system, characters will fail much less often using what they're good at. In 4e terms, this means dailies will seldom miss. It means your warrior will usually pass strength checks in your skill challenge. And it means that any roll you need a 9 or higher on to succeed, you probably WILL succeed - which, to me, is much more "heroic" than failing 40% of the time.

 

[Umbran]

Wonder if anyone ever tried replacing the d20 with 2d10 for to-hit and skill check rolls in D&D.

Dude, people have been experimenting with system modifications since the 1970s. You can be pretty darned sure that most of the easily thought-up possibilities have been tried, several times by various folks. 2d10? Sure. 3d6 is painfully obvious. I've seen d% variants aplenty.

Honestly, the suggestion that this is somehow heresy is to me either a comment on the intolerance of gamers, a variant definition that means "something that's been tried by any number of people, but never caught on as a core mechanic", or a sign the author might not have as complete an experience with house rules as they might think.

 

[Wik]

Dude, people have been experimenting with system modifications since the 1970s. You can be pretty darned sure that most of the easily thought-up possibilities have been tried, several times by various folks. 2d10? Sure. 3d6 is painfully obvious. I've seen d% variants aplenty.

Honestly, the suggestion that this is somehow heresy is to me either a comment on the intolerance of gamers, a variant definition that means "something that's been tried by any number of people, but never caught on as a core mechanic", or a sign the author might not have as complete an experience with house rules as they might think.

Bah. You want hardcore? 5d4, drop lowest, +4. BRING IT ON!