2d10 for Skill Checks

[Guest 6801328]

I gotta throw in a plug for The One Ring, where just about every roll in the game is d12 + Nd6, where N is your skill. I really love how it plays. The more skill you have the higher your results, of course, but they also tend to cluster around the top of the curve. When you have low skill it's more swingy. Which feels right.

 

[5ekyu]

Actually, once the DC is set, it doesn't matter if you make it by hitting the DC or beating it by 20 points. However, people seem to think that a higher total is better and that "my 24 beats your 18" even though we both only had to make a DC 15 check.

One of the players in our group actually brought this up during our session on Sunday. He proposed something akin to the more you beat the DC or AC the better the result. The DM countered with "Sure, but the more you fail by the worse it will be for you as well. So, you roll a 1 on that poison save and you'll take maximum damage from the poison instead of average, but you roll a 20 and you won't take any. How's that sound?" It wasn't quite so appealing to him then...

That's why 5E stressed that a 20 won't always succeed on a save or skill check, even though many tables still play that way. Some things are simply beyond the characters and a lot of people don't like it so they play a 20 always makes the check or save, but of course then a 1 should always fail. 20 always hitting and 1 always missing is only true for combat, so that nothing is "unhittable" and no one "never misses".

And to DEFCON 1, for us we try to keep things lower key at lower levels. Typically your major "thing" will only be +2, maybe +3, so we do have a lot of +3's and +4's. Now that we are into Tier 2, we have a few +8's due to expertise, but otherwise +6 and +7 is more normal. We use a slightly altered ability score modifier system (9-12 = 0, 13-14 = +1, 15-16 = +2, etc.) so we'll have no +5's ever. Our DM tweaked the proficiency bonus a bit as well. You begin at +1 for first level, then +2 for 2-4, +3 for 5-7, and so on until +8 at 20th. We all agreed to these changes primarily because it seemed lopsided that a 1st-level character with a Str 20 (so +5) could have a +7 attack and damage, but a 20th-level character with Str 11 (+0) could only be +6 attack and no damage. With our changes, the maximum ability score modifier is +4 (at 19 and 20) and maximum prof bonus is +8 at 20th. The prof bonus is twice the best you could do with "raw" talent. It works for us and really doesn't affect the balance of the game any since your maximum adjustment is +12 instead of +11.

this is only partially true - partially misleading. Basically it is true if the Gm decides thats appropriate for the scene.

A room might have a hidden cabinet that is easy to find with a DC 10 due tyo frequent traffic, and older long forgotten safe DC 20 and a picture with hidden glyphs at Dc 30.

The knowledge of "Baronian Military history" may include relatively well recorded "facts" at DC 5, more detailed accounts at DC 15 and the real secret info covered up on the betrayal at the end with DC 25.

There does not have to be "ONE TRUE DC for all of things" in a room, in a subject, etc etc etc etc etc.

So, when looking at a task like searching a room, looking for secret compartments or researching that famous battlefield - it can very clearly matter what DC you rolled and be true that higher rolls get you more info because 5e lets the Gm set the DC and all the DCs as its default methodology for ability checks and more - and, unlike Highlander, it never says "there can only be one (DC)."

Failures *at tasks* are very non-binary in 5e and if the Gm sets multiple DCs for different outcomes by setting up a complex scene - neither are successes *at tasks.*

 

[DND_Reborn]

this is only partially true - partially misleading. Basically it is true if the Gm decides thats appropriate for the scene.

A room might have a hidden cabinet that is easy to find with a DC 10 due tyo frequent traffic, and older long forgotten safe DC 20 and a picture with hidden glyphs at Dc 30.

The knowledge of "Baronian Military history" may include relatively well recorded "facts" at DC 5, more detailed accounts at DC 15 and the real secret info covered up on the betrayal at the end with DC 25.

There does not have to be "ONE TRUE DC for all of things" in a room, in a subject, etc etc etc etc etc.

So, when looking at a task like searching a room, looking for secret compartments or researching that famous battlefield - it can very clearly matter what DC you rolled and be true that higher rolls get you more info because 5e lets the Gm set the DC and all the DCs as its default methodology for ability checks and more - and, unlike Highlander, it never says "there can only be one (DC)."

Failures *at tasks* are very non-binary in 5e and if the Gm sets multiple DCs for different outcomes by setting up a complex scene - neither are successes *at tasks.*

Actually, what I wrote is entirely true. A check doesn't matter how much you make it by at all. You misinterpreted what I wrote and assumed I meant that a situation demanded only a single check. How silly your assumption! There is not one DC for everything in a room, and need not be only a single check is required for everything there might be; to even think I meant those points pretty ridiculous.

Success and failure is binary. You either make the DC or you don't. Sure, some DM's play that the more you make it by, the more you know or whatever, but then they are simply running their table that way. In your example, even if the DM asked for only a single check for an entire room (which we don't do), it would be something like this:

DC 10: Hidden cabinet
DC 15: Forgotten safe
DC 20: Hidden glyphs

If your check resulted in a 18, the results are easy:

Did you roll 10 or higher? Yes, you found the cabinet.
Did you roll 15 or higher? Yes, you found the safe.
Did you roll 20 or higher? No, you don't find anything else.

Each case is binary. If I rolled a 19 the results are the same and it isn't as though I "found those things better than you." You either make it or you don't. Technically, a DM can ask for three checks because there are three things to find. You might roll a 4 and a 12, missing the cabinet and the safe, but a 21 the last time and find the glyphs.

Yet even your knowledge check example is binary. The DM should know what DC is required for certain piece of knowledge. If the character is trying to figure out, learn about, discover the "real secret info covered up blah blah blah" the DM sets the DC at 25. The player makes the check against that number. You can run it with different DC's for a general check if you want or make multiple checks as well.

If you run your game with a single check and set multiple DCs that is fine, but that isn't the way we play and certainly once a DC is set, success or failure remains binary.

 

[5ekyu]

Actually, what I wrote is entirely true. A check doesn't matter how much you make it by at all. You misinterpreted what I wrote and assumed I meant that a situation demanded only a single check. How silly your assumption! There is not one DC for everything in a room, and need not be only a single check is required for everything there might be; to even think I meant those points pretty ridiculous.

Success and failure is binary. You either make the DC or you don't. Sure, some DM's play that the more you make it by, the more you know or whatever, but then they are simply running their table that way. In your example, even if the DM asked for only a single check for an entire room (which we don't do), it would be something like this:

DC 10: Hidden cabinet
DC 15: Forgotten safe
DC 20: Hidden glyphs

If your check resulted in a 18, the results are easy:

Did you roll 10 or higher? Yes, you found the cabinet.
Did you roll 15 or higher? Yes, you found the safe.
Did you roll 20 or higher? No, you don't find anything else.

Each case is binary. If I rolled a 19 the results are the same and it isn't as though I "found those things better than you." You either make it or you don't. Technically, a DM can ask for three checks because there are three things to find. You might roll a 4 and a 12, missing the cabinet and the safe, but a 21 the last time and find the glyphs.

Yet even your knowledge check example is binary. The DM should know what DC is required for certain piece of knowledge. If the character is trying to figure out, learn about, discover the "real secret info covered up blah blah blah" the DM sets the DC at 25. The player makes the check against that number. You can run it with different DC's for a general check if you want or make multiple checks as well.

If you run your game with a single check and set multiple DCs that is fine, but that isn't the way we play and certainly once a DC is set, success or failure remains binary.

Have no interest in or about how you play.

"Success and failure is binary. "

Stated as such for 5e that is simply not true or at best misleading.

For 5e, a GM has more than binary success/fail, do or dont for ability checks used to resolve a task.

A GM can sure choose to not use those - turning it into binary. But 5e does not require it.

The single most explicit example of this is in the very definition of failed ability checks themselves in the core PHB. Failing to meet the DC is allowed to be making no progress *or* making some progress with setback.

So we are already past binary and that is core rule.

But also, as stated before - for a scene or task different elements can have different DCs. Different results can be achieved by different rolls. Nothing requires a different roll for each DC. Nothing requires different declarations for each DC. If a GM wants that, great, but that's a simplification of his own doing.

So, for example "I search the room" does not require the GM to now require an investigation check for every single hidden or inobvious thing... one check can serve the task and reveal the things there that were not as well hidden. It's just not a binary one DC pass/fail.

Similarly, "what do I know about the history of this battlefield" does not require the player to somehow state the most secret betrayal thing in his task statement, not identify the highest DC, anymore than the "I search the room" so you again can wind up with one roll with different results based on how high the roll was - different amounts of info based on how high the roll is.


But sure, some GMs may decide that simple binary pass/fail, no chance of "some progress with setbacks" all or nothing - no different degrees of known info - know everything or know nothing etc- if that's how they say it works in their games.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Have no interest in or about how you play.

"Success and failure is binary. "

Stated as such for 5e that is simply not true or at best misleading.

For 5e, a GM has more than binary success/fail, do or dont for ability checks used to resolve a task.

A GM can sure choose to not use those - turning it into binary. But 5e does not require it.

The single most explicit example of this is in the very definition of failed ability checks themselves in the core PHB. Failing to meet the DC is allowed to be making no progress *or* making some progress with setback.

So we are already past binary and that is core rule.

But also, as stated before - for a scene or task different elements can have different DCs. Different results can be achieved by different rolls. Nothing requires a different roll for each DC. Nothing requires different declarations for each DC. If a GM wants that, great, but that's a simplification of his own doing.

So, for example "I search the room" does not require the GM to now require an investigation check for every single hidden or inobvious thing... one check can serve the task and reveal the things there that were not as well hidden. It's just not a binary one DC pass/fail.

Similarly, "what do I know about the history of this battlefield" does not require the player to somehow state the most secret betrayal thing in his task statement, not identify the highest DC, anymore than the "I search the room" so you again can wind up with one roll with different results based on how high the roll was - different amounts of info based on how high the roll is.


But sure, some GMs may decide that simple binary pass/fail, no chance of "some progress with setbacks" all or nothing - no different degrees of known info - know everything or know nothing etc- if that's how they say it works in their games.

Fine. You do you and I'll do me, but don't say my claim is any more misleading than yours. Regardless of how you want to spin it, you either make a DC for something or you don't: that IS BINARY. Also, I never claimed failure couldn't involve some progress with setbacks. That depends a lot on the situation and how the DM/table plays it.

 

[Blue]

So, basically what you wanted was this...

Original d20 version

A character with a +3 needs 17 or higher for DC 20, or 20% chance of success, a character with +0 needs a 20, only 5%. So, that +3 modifier increases the likelihood of success by 300%.

New 2d10 variant

A character with a +3 needs 17 or higher for DC 20, or 10% chance of success, a character with +0 needs a 20, only 1%. So, that +3 modifier increases the likelihood of success by 900%.

Obviously on the 2d10 variant having a modifier with this DC drastically improves your chances of success over not having a modifier. Of course, since d20 is linear, here you have a better chance of succeeding on the DC just rolling the d20, but that is what you don't want. You want the higher DC's to be harder to make if I followed everything correctly. Now, let's examine the other end of the spectrum...

Original d20 version

A character with a +3 needs 7 or higher for DC 10, or 70% chance of success, a character with +0 needs a 10 or higher, so 55%. So, that +3 modifier increases the likelihood of success by 27.3%.

New 2d10 variant

A character with a +3 needs 7 or higher for DC 10, or 85% chance of success, a character with +0 needs a 10 or higher, so 64%. So, that +3 modifier increases the likelihood of success by 32.8%.

In both situations, the 2d10 variant makes it so the modifier has more impact on the likelihood of success. That was your goal, right?

I don't think these are the best examples.

First, they aren't apples to apples. If you want to see the change, pick your DCs for the first so that both the d20 and 2d10 roll start with the same chance to succeed. Then you can see how they apply. Or at the very least map his DC categories onto default d20 DC categories.

Second, with the DCs given it's more likely that you'll be rolling near the middle. This was a Difficult DC, being made by someone with absolutely no talent (no ability mod, no proficient) and someone likely unskilled but with some natural ability (+3 ability mod) or low level trained but meh suited (+2/+3 proficiency with +1/+0 ability). A difficult DC is more likely to be attempted (intentionally) by someone more suited. All of these will tend toward bringing it towards the middle, where you don't get a 20% to 1% change.

 

[Blue]

I gotta throw in a plug for The One Ring, where just about every roll in the game is d12 + Nd6, where N is your skill. I really love how it plays. The more skill you have the higher your results, of course, but they also tend to cluster around the top of the curve. When you have low skill it's more swingy. Which feels right.

I like the asymmetrical concept of that.

Assuming it's a pass/fall with a DC, here's what it looks like. Can you have no skill? I put in an option for it in black but I'm not sure that's a thing in TOR.



While the high skills do have a long tail of really high and really low, they group tighter and tighter along the "+3.5 over the last" line.

 

[5ekyu]

Fine. You do you and I'll do me, but don't say my claim is any more misleading than yours. Regardless of how you want to spin it, you either make a DC for something or you don't: that IS BINARY. Also, I never claimed failure couldn't involve some progress with setbacks. That depends a lot on the situation and how the DM/table plays it.

As i have said, a gm can play it how they want and thats fine. If a GM chooses to have ability checks be binary, thats on them.

But as far as what 5e puts forth in its core rules, not one of the core 3 is binary by default.

Attack rolls can produce three results - hit, miss, and crit.

Saves can also,produce three results succeed, fail by x, fail by,more than x - as shown in multiple monsters even core - sprite was one iirc.

And ability checks are defined at their core as trinary with the results being overcome obstacle, some progress with setback and no progress at all.

But they even have another ability check, initiative, which is just ascending scale higher first then in order.

And they even has opposed ability checks which have three results - one guy wins, another guy wins and tie goes to status quo which may be neither wins.

So, maybe my saying irs not binary because the rules define more than two outcomes seems to you to be *as misleading* as someone repeating its binary over and over, but aint much i can do about that.

A gm can choose to run a game with binary outcomes. But its not how the rules lay it out for any of the three types of rolls - but certainly it can be in some cases.

Edit To Add

Of course in the DMG section on adjudicating ability checks, under Resolutions snd Consequences- Degrees of Success, they fo give specific call out to using how much you succeed or fail by to give differing results for ability checks. The keep the "by 5" break point, just like the fo for some saves. Iirc there was a social reference and a traps reference (whether it went off during disarm.)

But, hey, it could be called binary cuz each die will toll either odd or even

 

[CleverNickName]

I've had players complain about how "swingy" the d20 roll is for skill checks, even at 13th and 14th level. I might have to give the 2d10 method a swing.

I don't remember where I read it, but a while ago I read a house rule that used "proficiency dice." Instead of a d20, you rolled 3d6 for skill checks, and if you were proficient you rolled 4d6. It also sounded interesting, even though the math gets pretty strange.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yup. I wanted higher modifiers to have more impact on success.

I don't think these are the best examples.

Given the OP's response to that post, I think those were perfectly fine examples.

They illustrate the exact point he wanted to show by going to a 2d10 system over a d20.