D&D General A d12 (not d20) D&D System?

[DND_Reborn]

There's an old game. I want to say it was called...3rd edition?...that used larger modifiers to keep the d20 happy.

Tried 3E back in 2005 (or 2007??? I can't recall) and was more impressed with d20 SW based on the same (mostly) mechanics. I found it worked well for SW, but not so much for D&D. I still have a couple books and if this d12 thing doesn't work maybe I'll dig out 3E...

Well, no. There is no roll for very easy tasks. Unless something interesting happens, like the skies rain fire. Then a "very easy" task gets a little more interesting, and the DM can call for a roll.

Well, there are though, since the game includes a DC for Very Easy tasks after all. They aren't used often, but that just begs they point why have them?

I'm pretty sure swapping a d12 for a d20 will solve most of the issues with 5e: players forgetting their Bonds, DMs forgetting to give Inspiration, the whole out-of-sight-but-not-hidden thing. It's great for Bounded Accuracy too - a d12 will keep the numbers lower.

I am hoping so.

Or you'll get a bunch of confused and angry players, thusly resulting in less free pizza. It's a risk I wouldn't take.

LOL, true, but with my diet I am cutting out pizza anyway. And frankly, I am getting tired of it...

 

[DND_Reborn]

d16's are more or less readily available - it might be a worth looking into...

I actually tried 2d8's, but for once I actually think the linear distribution is better. So, I also thought about generated 1-16 using a d6 and d8:

d6 = 1-3 means +0, 4-6 means +8
d8 generates the rest.

But, I am not a fan of such systems in general....

Kinda why I'm interested in an exploding 12 variant, I'd like to know the math for that before I'd consider using it as a mechanic.

It works, but you end up with two "tiers" of results, the 1-11, and then the much less common 13-24. It also makes a result of 12 impossible unless the exploding roll is d12-1 (for +0 to +11). It is easier IMO just to do a roll of 12 always succeeds.

I also tried 2d6, allowing 6's to explode once, for a result of 2-24. This works very well really when you look at the math behind it, and I might go this route if the d12 doesn't work. With this method, you can still get a 12 (for example, roll a 5, 6, and then a 1 on the exploding roll).

Either method will allow rolls above 12, so will work if the d12 capped at 12 is too big of an adjustment.

 

[NotAYakk]

So what is the point of revising how or what you roll and then changing all the modifiers to give you a similar experience? Isn't the point to change the experience?

Well, you can also do the opposite. Keep the d20 and scale the modifiers.

The point is that roll under/over with dice change only makes modifiers different in size.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, you can also do the opposite. Keep the d20 and scale the modifiers.

The point is that roll under/over with dice change only makes modifiers different in size.

Yeah. I am hoping changing the die will be easier. I've tried changing all the modifiers, but it affects virtually everything and is a lot of adjustments. As where going to a smaller die will hopefully have similar impact but with much less work.

 

[dave2008]

Well, you can also do the opposite. Keep the d20 and scale the modifiers.

The point is that roll under/over with dice change only makes modifiers different in size.

Yes, isn't that one of the features of going to the d12? The OP even said do, though in an update pot:

UPDATE:

So, the reason I asked about this was two-fold.

1. To see if it was already out there.
2. Because I am going to make d20 5E into d12 since I find the d20 too broad and swingy. The modifiers are too small for the die size.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah. I am hoping changing the die will be easier. I've tried changing all the modifiers, but it affects virtually everything and is a lot of adjustments. As where going to a smaller die will hopefully have similar impact but with much less work.

Is there a particular reason you are not looking at 2d6? Or even 3d6? Both are less swingy.

PS I have also though of doing something like this, so I would love to hear how it foes for.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Is there a particular reason you are not looking at 2d6? Or even 3d6? Both are less swingy.

Actually I looked at both, even 3d6-2 (for a range of 1-16). And 3d6 is too large maximum at 18, practically 20 from a d20...

Less swingy is actually a bad thing when you get into smaller ranges. It means a single point has more impact.

For example, with d12, if you need a 10 you have a 25% of success. Getting a +2 increases that to 41.7% (a significant increase, 16.7%).
Now, do the same numbers with 2d6. A 10 or better is just 16.7%, but the +2 increase jumps it up to 41.7% (a larger increase of 25%!).

So, a less swinging method causes greater increases. Also with a smaller die I don't want the extremes to be too unlikely, and for that a linear distribution works better IMO. With 2d6 a 12 (the maximum) is only 2.8%, but with d12 it is 8.3%.

 

[GMMichael]

Less swingy is actually a bad thing when you get into smaller ranges. It means a single point has more impact.

You know, I wrote two(ish) rules into Modos 2 that completely eliminate the Swingy Problem. As long as you're writing/homebrewing, you should check them out. Here's the jist:

Rule 003: If a player rolls higher than the GM, he/she gets a favorable outcome. Lower is unfavorable, and a tie is up to the GM. (This leaves room for interpretation, unlike succeed/fail rules.)

Rule 012: A player can choose to take half of the highest result on a die instead of rolling for the result. (The GM can then roll against, or simply adjudicate based on the result.)

Core Rules Module | Modos RPG | Obsidian Portal

Rules Catalog Rule Name Description and Dependencies 000 Rule Zero The Guide of Modos is the player who ultimately decides what happens in the st

modos-rpg.obsidianportal.com

 

[Jaeger]

It works, but you end up with two "tiers" of results, the 1-11, and then the much less common 13-24. It also makes a result of 12 impossible unless the exploding roll is d12-1 (for +0 to +11). It is easier IMO just to do a roll of 12 always succeeds.

Yes, 12-13 will be the same number...

R.tal has used this with d10's since CP2020.

Yet I've never seen the math breakdown even from them of the exploding d10 or d12 stat+skill vs. a variety of TN's.

If someone knows of one I'd like to see it.

I actually tried 2d8's, but for once I actually think the linear distribution is better. So, I also thought about generated 1-16 using a d6 and d8:

Tried a straight-up d16 like this?

You'd have to change how crits work: maybe +10 over DC like PF2 does.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yet I've never seen the math breakdown even from them of the exploding d10 or d12 stat+skill vs. a variety of TN's.

If someone knows of one I'd like to see it.

AnyDice

AnyDice is an advanced dice probability calculator, available online. It is created with roleplaying games in mind.

anydice.com

Click on the Data: At Least (shown below) to see the % to hit different TNs.

Tried a straight-up d16 like this?

You'd have to change how crits work: maybe +10 over DC like PF2 does.

Well, first I don't want to buy dice just to try something when I can do the 1d6 (1-3 on d6 adds nothing, 4-6 adds +8) and 1d8 to get the same results.

Also, we have been doing critical damage (not attacks) for several months now and will never go back. Each new player that has joined us loves it and agrees it is definitely better than critical "hits". So, I don't have to worry about that with the d12 or d16 or whatever we end up using.