I'm of the opinion that the Unearthed Arcana is not a well thought as it should've been.
One of the variants that initially sounds appealing to me, but ends up rubbing me wrong, is the "bell curve" variant that uses 3d6 to replace all d20 rolls. But why 3d6? To me, that's going from one extreme to another. Wouldn't 2d10 be a better alternative than 3d6?
First of all, there are many good reasons for going with the bell curve roll, rather than a single, linear die roll, for saving throws, skill rolls, etc. On the following webpage, a guy explains those reasons well with his "Linear vs Non-Linear Dice" essay...
http://www.frontiernet.net/~jamesstarlight/LinearVsNonLinear.html
Myself, I've long since come to the conclusion that "non-linear" is the better way to go. But, 3d6... ?! No, if you're going to go non-linear, then using 2d10 is better than using 3d6.
For one thing, with 2d10 you get almost the same range of numbers as you do with a d20; i.e. 2-20 with 2d10, compared to 1-20 with a d20; whereas with 3d6, you get a range of only 3-18.
For another thing, the bell curve created by using 2d10 is less extreme than the one created by using 3d6; i.e. with 2d10 you have better chances of rolling the numbers on each end of the range than you do with 3d6. So, although you are still making an impact on the game system by using 2d10, it's less than it would be with 3d6.
BTW: With the 3d6 bell curve variant, the threat ranges of criticals are increased by 1, right? But with the extreme bell curve created by using 3d6, increasing the threat ranges by 1 does not suffice, because you are still getting much less a chance for rolling within a weapon's increased threat range than you would be with a d20 rolling within the original threat range. However, with a 2d10 bell curve, increasing the threat ranges by 1 is adequate, because this way you are close enough to getting the same chance for rolling within a weapon's increased threat range as you would be with a d20 within the original threat range.
One of the variants that initially sounds appealing to me, but ends up rubbing me wrong, is the "bell curve" variant that uses 3d6 to replace all d20 rolls. But why 3d6? To me, that's going from one extreme to another. Wouldn't 2d10 be a better alternative than 3d6?
First of all, there are many good reasons for going with the bell curve roll, rather than a single, linear die roll, for saving throws, skill rolls, etc. On the following webpage, a guy explains those reasons well with his "Linear vs Non-Linear Dice" essay...
http://www.frontiernet.net/~jamesstarlight/LinearVsNonLinear.html
Myself, I've long since come to the conclusion that "non-linear" is the better way to go. But, 3d6... ?! No, if you're going to go non-linear, then using 2d10 is better than using 3d6.
For one thing, with 2d10 you get almost the same range of numbers as you do with a d20; i.e. 2-20 with 2d10, compared to 1-20 with a d20; whereas with 3d6, you get a range of only 3-18.
For another thing, the bell curve created by using 2d10 is less extreme than the one created by using 3d6; i.e. with 2d10 you have better chances of rolling the numbers on each end of the range than you do with 3d6. So, although you are still making an impact on the game system by using 2d10, it's less than it would be with 3d6.
BTW: With the 3d6 bell curve variant, the threat ranges of criticals are increased by 1, right? But with the extreme bell curve created by using 3d6, increasing the threat ranges by 1 does not suffice, because you are still getting much less a chance for rolling within a weapon's increased threat range than you would be with a d20 rolling within the original threat range. However, with a 2d10 bell curve, increasing the threat ranges by 1 is adequate, because this way you are close enough to getting the same chance for rolling within a weapon's increased threat range as you would be with a d20 within the original threat range.
Last edited:
.
