D&D 5E *Finally* read playtest 2 - 2d10 time!

[slobster]

Very good point - we'll see how it goes. I'll start off running it as written, and then see if tweaking is required...thanks

You know I actually thought the attacks were much too low at first, but I sort of came around when I realized how epic and high stakes it was for the PCs to fight off wave after wave of enemy forces, where a string of really good rolls could bring a PC down, but they fought and won despite the risk.

Basically I had a sweet encounter with a lot of enemies that made us feel really heroic and BA.

It'll obviously be different with the different dice scheme, maybe it will tip past some imaginary line that separates "heroic" from "walk in the park". However it goes, I'd be interested to hear about it!

 

[The Shadow]

Yeah, I had a look at the probabilities of 3d20 as well and they match close enough with 2d10.

2d10 is a triangular distribution, 3d20 is a parabolic one, bizarrely enough.

The problem comes when you have advantage/disadvantage. If you use, as you say, 3d20 and take the *highest* (for advantage) then that's much better than the RaW 2d20 and take the highest.

It's better, certainly, but not hugely so. If it's a concern, then if you know you have dis/advantage, just roll two dice instead of three.

 

[heptat]

It's better, certainly, but not hugely so. If it's a concern, then if you know you have dis/advantage, just roll two dice instead of three.

<facepalm> Yeah, obvious, should have thought of that! Thanks

 

[slobo777]

I'll be swapping out d20 for 2d10

What this will do to attacks IMO.

It will have a minor impact on attacks by PCs. A few, with high attack bonuses, will hit more often.

It will have a major impact on attacks by monsters. The D&D Next balances monsters out versus PCs by giving them low chances to hit, at least at low levels. Using 2d10 will, on average halve their chances to hit.

I am actually in a position to run a full Monte Carlo simulation a bunch of Dwarf fighters facing a small range of enemies (Fire Beetles, Bugbears, Hobgoblins and Ogres) on a very simple day's adventure (say 10,000 times) using D20 and 2D10 for comparison if you like?

 

[Li Shenron]

It's better, certainly, but not hugely so.

According to anydice.com, 3d20 gives about 50% of rolling 17 or higher.

It's quite a lot, but then 2d20 gives about 50% of rolling 15 of higher, which is also quite a lot IMHO

 

[slobo777]

Using 2d10 would IMO have a much more positive impact on skill rolls and checks where a difference in bonus should make a difference (arm wrestle using Str, or any skilled job where it seems silly that an untalented person might still get 25% success rate).

 

[heptat]

What this will do to attacks IMO.

It will have a minor impact on attacks by PCs. A few, with high attack bonuses, will hit more often.

It will have a major impact on attacks by monsters. The D&D Next balances monsters out versus PCs by giving them low chances to hit, at least at low levels. Using 2d10 will, on average halve their chances to hit.

I am actually in a position to run a full Monte Carlo simulation a bunch of Dwarf fighters facing a small range of enemies (Fire Beetles, Bugbears, Hobgoblins and Ogres) on a very simple day's adventure (say 10,000 times) using D20 and 2D10 for comparison if you like?

Definitely do it! Thanks...so maybe the solution is keep d20 for combat and just use 2d10 for skills.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I would like to hear about how this works out in play for you, OP. Theorizing is great, but you can't be sure you've captured all the impacts until you've tried it in actual play.

I'm a big fan of bell-curve (okay, triangle, whatever) skill rolls. Every time this topic comes up I seem to hear complaints about opaque probabilities and varying impact of bonuses. Meh, GURPS has been doing this for ages and it's fine. I expect that switching to bell curves when the designers have used flat curves for the design is going to have interesting results though.

 

[heptat]

I would like to hear about how this works out in play for you, OP. Theorizing is great, but you can't be sure you've captured all the impacts until you've tried it in actual play.

I'm a big fan of bell-curve (okay, triangle, whatever) skill rolls. Every time this topic comes up I seem to hear complaints about opaque probabilities and varying impact of bonuses. Meh, GURPS has been doing this for ages and it's fine. I expect that switching to bell curves when the designers have used flat curves for the design is going to have interesting results though.

You're definitely correct, and as one posted said earlier, it would be really interesting for them to *design* it in and offer it as an option (obviously it won't happen).

Will post about how it goes (a couple of weeks away though unfortunately) - probably try a few variations and see what we like. I am conscious that the feedback for playtest 2 has been that monsters are too weak...

 

[slobo777]

I expect that switching to bell curves when the designers have used flat curves for the design is going to have interesting results though.

A bell-curve distribution used for action resolution emphasises distance from the average value. In a game designed to take account of this, low modifiers from -2 to +2 become more important. High modifiers become more like auto-success and auto-fail.

IMO the skill system benefits from this.

Taking some of the Dex check examples from the playtest material, let's see how Klumpy The Clumsy (Dex = 8, no training), Agile Eddie (Dex = 16, no training) and Catwoman (Dex=18, trained in "Acrobatics" - yes I know we don't have that in the playtest . . .) do in terms of chances to achieve things:

A Moderate Check (DC 13): Impress onlookers with an acrobatic performance

Using 1d20, Klumpy has 35% chance of succes, Eddie 55% chance of succes, and Catwoman at +7 has 75% chance of success.

Using 2d10, Klumpy 22%, Eddie 56%, Catwoman 86%.


A Hard Check (DC 16): Cross a Wildly Swaying Rope Bridge

Using 1d20, Klumpy 20%, Eddie 40%, Catwoman 60%.

Using 2d10, Klumpy 7%, Eddie 29%, Catwoman 65%.


A Very Hard Check (DC 19): Somersault over a creature of the same size

Using 1d20, Klumpy 5%, Eddie 25%, Catwoman 45%.

Using 2d10, Klumpy 1%, Eddie 11%, Catwoman 37%.