D&D 5E Using 3d6 for skill checks

[davep123]

Thanks for all your replies, folks.

Let me start by clarifying that we only use 3d6 for ability/skill checks, and not combat or saving throws. I think the flat distribution of 1d20 works just fine for combat, since combat is supposed to be frenetic and random and everyone rolls dice much more often with the PCs all having similar to hit bonuses.

However, skill/ability checks are made less often and more usually hinges on each individual roll than in combat. Social scenes often turn on a single Charisma check, for instance. We've found that it suits our play style to have the characters reliably be able to shine in their areas of expertise and struggle if they stray outside those areas.

A couple of issues people have raised have been in line with our experience. Firstly, the impact of advantage/disadvantage is reduced mathematically, and that’s something we’ve noticed. This hasn’t been a big deal for us though, since we rarely use advantage/disadvantage for skill checks, but I imagine it could be more of an issue in other games.

Also, as you’d expect, ability/skill checks can become rather predictable. This isn’t to everyone’s tastes, of course, but for us it’s a feature rather than a bug. Outliers can still happen, and to add a bit of further uncertainty to the process, we’ve given results of 3-5 and 16-18 special outcomes (with 3 and 18 being particularly dramatic).

As many of you have pointed out, it would be easy to dial the bell curviness up or down by using 2d10 or 4d4 or whatever. I think 3d6 works well for us, but I would be interested to hear of anyone using something else.

And if anyone has used something other than 1d20 at higher levels I’d be very interested to hear what they have to say.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is one of the things I was thinking about asking this forum about. On one hand, I love the simplicity of simply rolling that d20 to resolve everything, adv/dis is so easy, and new people seem to love that d20. It is exciting to roll, especially as we play with crit success/failure usually.

On the other hand, it is very swingy and although I don't think it hurts the game at all most of the time (success or failure can be just as interesting) I have looked at options and ended up messing around with 2d10.

The 2d10 seems to be much easier to fit into 5e than 3d6, it gives almost the same range of numbers (2-20), as opposed to (3-18) and while it does give a bell curve, it isn't nearly as extreme as 3d6. I found that 2d10 didn't really require any substantial rule changes to function adequately. Snake eyes works good for crit fail, and 20 works great as crit success, the chances are much smaller but they still give that 1in100 chance. Increased crit range can be kept the same numbers, albeit less likely. Obviously if used in combat this will negatively effect multi-attack and increased crit types, though not all players are concerned about that sort of thing.

However, in the end, we still end up going back to the d20

Anyways, always nice to hear other people's views on the subject.

The criticals are exactly the reason why I only used it for skill/ability checks and not for combat. Personally, I don't use "critical success" or "critical failure" on ability checks... so losing more 1s/20s due to using 2d10 will not actually matter.

Really... the biggest reason for me in using a 2d10 bell curve for skill checks is because it puts more emphasis on the ability modifier and proficiency bonus. Those have more impact on whether someone succeeds or fails on a test more often. Between 1st and 4th level... using a d20 means that the two extra points you get for being proficient in a skill will generate in and around 10% more successes. Which is fine. But when using the bell curve... depending on where the DC falls, those two extra points for proficiency can be a much huger deal on whether the PC will or won't succeed.

Not saying it's objectively better that way... far, far, from it. But it does change the dynamics of the game is played. And speaking personally... I want my players in Ravenloft to FEEL the change in game dynamics. I don't want the game to feel like "normal" D&D. And thus using 2d10 might help contribute to that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thanks for all your replies, folks.

Let me start by clarifying that we only use 3d6 for ability/skill checks, and not combat or saving throws. I think the flat distribution of 1d20 works just fine for combat, since combat is supposed to be frenetic and random and everyone rolls dice much more often with the PCs all having similar to hit bonuses.

However, skill/ability checks are made less often and more usually hinges on each individual roll than in combat. Social scenes often turn on a single Charisma check, for instance. We've found that it suits our play style to have the characters reliably be able to shine in their areas of expertise and struggle if they stray outside those areas.

A couple of issues people have raised have been in line with our experience. Firstly, the impact of advantage/disadvantage is reduced mathematically, and that’s something we’ve noticed. This hasn’t been a big deal for us though, since we rarely use advantage/disadvantage for skill checks, but I imagine it could be more of an issue in other games.

Also, as you’d expect, ability/skill checks can become rather predictable. This isn’t to everyone’s tastes, of course, but for us it’s a feature rather than a bug. Outliers can still happen, and to add a bit of further uncertainty to the process, we’ve given results of 3-5 and 16-18 special outcomes (with 3 and 18 being particularly dramatic).

As many of you have pointed out, it would be easy to dial the bell curviness up or down by using 2d10 or 4d4 or whatever. I think 3d6 works well for us, but I would be interested to hear of anyone using something else.

And if anyone has used something other than 1d20 at higher levels I’d be very interested to hear what they have to say.

Suggestion: instead of using a roll 2 pick method for advantage/disadvantage, why not use a straight +/-2 for them when rolling skill checks. This will have the impact you're going for, and you're already including the variance reduction from rolling 2 dice in the 3d6 roll. It would make ad/disad more meaningful on 3d6. YMMV.

 

[RHGreen]

In the case of a weak wizard being able to move a boulder and a strong fighter failing I think what I call a Party Roll would make sense.

With a Party Roll, one roll applies to all members of the party.

A boulder has a 15 DC. The wizard rolls 13 (14 -1 for low strength) and fails to move it. The fighter uses the same roll 14 and adds 3 for high strength for 17 and beats the boulder DC 15 and succeeds.

Something like this would be a good idea in those situations. I think a Party Roll for Stealth would also be a good idea.

Perception DC of enemy 15

Party Roll 15

Rogue +3 = 18
Fighter +2 = 17
Wizard +0 = 15
Cleric -1 = 14

Everyone succeeds at their stealth except for the clumsy cleric that messes it up for the party. They should have got the cleric to hold back and wait. You get the gist.

 

[davep123]

Suggestion: instead of using a roll 2 pick method for advantage/disadvantage, why not use a straight +/-2 for them when rolling skill checks. This will have the impact you're going for, and you're already including the variance reduction from rolling 2 dice in the 3d6 roll. It would make ad/disad more meaningful on 3d6. YMMV.

Funnily enough, we kind of use a bit of both. We don't use advantage/disadvantage much in skill checks, but when it does come up it has significantly affected the outcome on occasion. But we also have "expertises" that the characters can earn – these are a straight +2 bonus to skill checks in specific situations (e.g. high-born etiquette, blending into a crowd, cheating at cards, navigating urban ruins, etc.)

 

[happyhermit]

The criticals are exactly the reason why I only used it for skill/ability checks and not for combat. Personally, I don't use "critical success" or "critical failure" on ability checks... so losing more 1s/20s due to using 2d10 will not actually matter.

To be honest, we often treat them as automatic success or failure as opposed to any sort of boon or penalty and in that regard they don't matter much in 5e anyways because a nat 1/20 is going to fail/succeed regardless. Still, it adds a bit of excitement for some and the occasional in-game cool/funny moment. When tried in combat it definitely made critical hits a bigger deal, but there is definitely more impact on other rules.

Really... the biggest reason for me in using a 2d10 bell curve for skill checks is because it puts more emphasis on the ability modifier and proficiency bonus. Those have more impact on whether someone succeeds or fails on a test more often. Between 1st and 4th level... using a d20 means that the two extra points you get for being proficient in a skill will generate in and around 10% more successes. Which is fine. But when using the bell curve... depending on where the DC falls, those two extra points for proficiency can be a much huger deal on whether the PC will or won't succeed.

Not saying it's objectively better that way... far, far, from it. But it doesn't change the dynamics of the game is played. And speaking personally... I want my players in Ravenloft to FEEL the change in game dynamics. I don't want the game to feel like "normal" D&D. And thus using 2d10 might help contribute to that.

So, have you decided on a way to deal with adv/dis that you like? 2d10 also puts more emphasis on additional bonuses, to the point where in other editions actions like aid and such could really change the game, 5e makes that a bit easier with adv/dis, but rolling 2 sets of d10s seems off and very consistent.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To be honest, we often treat them as automatic success or failure as opposed to any sort of boon or penalty and in that regard they don't matter much in 5e anyways because a nat 1/20 is going to fail/succeed regardless. Still, it adds a bit of excitement for some and the occasional in-game cool/funny moment. When tried in combat it definitely made critical hits a bigger deal, but there is definitely more impact on other rules.



So, have you decided on a way to deal with adv/dis that you like? 2d10 also puts more emphasis on additional bonuses, to the point where in other editions actions like aid and such could really change the game, 5e makes that a bit easier with adv/dis, but rolling 2 sets of d10s seems off and very consistent.

Not sure yet. Haven't decide whether to have them roll 2d10 twice and take the higher or lower set... or having them roll 3d10 and take the highest/lowest two. I'll probably start with them rolling 2d10 twice and see how that works out first.

 

[discosoc]

Seems like too many dice for what D&D needs. Especially when we're talking about checks with advantage or disadvantage, which are fairly key aspects of 5e. Yeah, a single d20 can be a bit swingy, but I think that's where a lot of the fun can come from.

 

[happyhermit]

Not sure yet. Haven't decide whether to have them roll 2d10 twice and take the higher or lower set... or having them roll 3d10 and take the highest/lowest two. I'll probably start with them rolling 2d10 twice and see how that works out first.

I never even thought of that! Just adding one die might work and still have a similar feel.

 

[phantomK9]

Not sure yet. Haven't decide whether to have them roll 2d10 twice and take the higher or lower set... or having them roll 3d10 and take the highest/lowest two. I'll probably start with them rolling 2d10 twice and see how that works out first.

Here is something I came up with a while back...
For 2d10, under advantage, roll 3d10 and pick the two highest; under disadvantage, roll 3d10 and pick the two lowest.