D&D 5E 3d20 variant for 3d6/2d10 to replace d20. Thoughts?

[DEFCON 1]

Yeah, I think on further thought I probably wouldn't use it for saves either but I am still debating it. Most saves have a DC of 20 or less (after all DC 8 + modifier caps around 19 for PCs), and rarely in the lower 20's. Still, without proficiency, hitting DCs in the higher teens is already hard.

Yep, the commonness of a low modifier resulting in better than a higher one annoys me as well.

The only skill checks where I still use the d20 are Initiative (because I want a larger swathe of non-duplicate numbers and using the 2d10 would just bunch players and monsters all together more and I'd have to then default to like DEX scores and such to figure out who goes next)... and for grapple and shove checks (because while those are Athletics checks, when you involve monsters the opposition or defenses are often saving throws-- and pitting curved 2d10 skill checks versus flat 1d20 saving throws really messes things up.) So in those cases where combat involves internal skill checks I'll just stick with the 1d20 so the balance between them and saves are still good.

 

[Esker]

LOL if you had asked I could have saved you all the effort since I had most of this in my earlier spreadsheet.

Ok, I didn't know if you'd worked out the formula for your curve or just enumerated all the combinations or what. Figured it could be helpful for others in the discussion to have the formulas if they wanted to play around with this system.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ok, I didn't know if you'd worked out the formula for your curve or just enumerated all the combinations or what. Figured it could be helpful for others in the discussion to have the formulas if they wanted to play around with this system.

Both, and no harm in posting it of course! I'm always happy to see someone check my numbers. But once I had the probability distribution, I didn't really care at that point. I should have mentioned it just for others as you did. Mea culpa!

Ultimately, other than the true extremes (1-3 and 18-20) it isn't adjusting the probability very much off from the flat 5% per number. Sure, 7-14 become more common, but I wonder in actual practice how much I would notice the difference? I would notice the lack of extremes, of course, but otherwise not much I think.

 

[Esker]

Both, and no harm in posting it of course! I'm always happy to see someone check my numbers. But once I had the probability distribution, I didn't really care at that point. I should have mentioned it just for others as you did. Mea culpa!

Ultimately, other than the true extremes (1-3 and 18-20) it isn't adjusting the probability very much off from the flat 5% per number. Sure, 7-14 become more common, but I wonder in actual practice how much I would notice the difference? I would notice the lack of extremes, of course, but otherwise not much I think.

If you're leaving DCs alone, then for a roll where you need a natural 4-7 to succeed, this system basically grants a +2. For a roll where you need a natural 15-18 to succeed, this system grants a -2. I don't know how noticeable that would be, since you're succeeding/failing one time in 10 when you wouldn't have otherwise.

Another relevant comparison is how often the creature with the better bonus winds up succeeding at a contested check. Since one of the main goals of this change is to reduce the likelihood that the creature with a lower bonus wins the contest by sheer luck, an important evaluation of this change is how much difference it makes on this measure.

Here's the comparison between this method, the ordinary 1d20, and the 2d10 method. Your method falls between the other two, but is closer to 2d10 than it is to 1d20. Certainly an improvement over RAW, IMO.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you're leaving DCs alone, then for a roll where you need a natural 4-7 to succeed, this system basically grants a +2. For a roll where you need a natural 15-18 to succeed, this system grants a -2. I don't know how noticeable that would be, since you're succeeding/failing one time in 10 when you wouldn't have otherwise.

Another relevant comparison is how often the creature with the better bonus winds up succeeding at a contested check. Since one of the main goals of this change is to reduce the likelihood that the creature with a lower bonus wins the contest by sheer luck, an important evaluation of this change is how much difference it makes on this measure.

Here's the comparison between this method, the ordinary 1d20, and the 2d10 method. Your method falls between the other two, but is closer to 2d10 than it is to 1d20. Certainly an improvement over RAW, IMO.

Yeah, for me the greatest improvement is really more about someone with high skill losing to someone with low skill. The 2d10 is even better in this regard, but to avoid the math the 3d20 take middle works well enough.

 

[CleverNickName]

what is the goal? Sorry I’m not seeing the point.

I would like to test the differences between rolling a d20 vs. rolling 3d6 side-by-side, and for only a short amount of time. Using a plot device like a "curse" would let me get a better feel for what this change would feel like at my table, given our particular styles of play with our current characters, without making a permanent change. It might shine a light on other things that might need to be changed along with it, too. Best-case scenario, half party fails their save throw against the curse and I get to run 2 or 3 gaming sessions using the change.

Then, if I like the feel of it and it doesn't cause any problems with the mechanics, I might implement it more permanently in my next campaign. If not, well, I won't. In either case, it will let me make a more informed decision. Discussion on the Internet is all fine and good, and it's fun to trade theories and hypotheticals, but I'd also like to test it out.

 

[Esker]

Yeah, for me the greatest improvement is really more about someone with high skill losing to someone with low skill. The 2d10 is even better in this regard, but to avoid the math the 3d20 take middle works well enough.

Another comparison: take a fixed DC 15 skill check, and compare a character at level 9 with a +4 ability mod and proficiency (total mod +8) to a character with a +0 and no proficiency. RAW, the character specializing in that skill has a 70% chance of success, whereas the character with no investment has a 30% chance. With your change, the invested character has about an 80% chance whereas the no investment character has a 20% chance. In other words, out of 10 checks, the number where the investment made a difference goes from 4 to 6. That feels like an improvement to me too.

 

[jmucchiello]

Clever, I suspect the curse aspect will introduce a negative connotation to the players, giving them a predisposition to view the experiment results negatively. You should probably just do a blanket "Tonight we are going to experiment. All (or whatever subset you like) d20 rolls are 3d6 instead. At the end of the night we'll discuss how that made the game feel." That way the players are all in on it together. Rather than it only applying to the cursed player.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Another comparison: take a fixed DC 15 skill check, and compare a character at level 9 with a +4 ability mod and proficiency (total mod +8) to a character with a +0 and no proficiency. RAW, the character specializing in that skill has a 70% chance of success, whereas the character with no investment has a 30% chance. With your change, the invested character has about an 80% chance whereas the no investment character has a 20% chance. In other words, out of 10 checks, the number where the investment made a difference goes from 4 to 6. That feels like an improvement to me too.

Yeah, in all the scenarios I've tried out it seems like a good idea to move to a non-d20 check for skills at least, whether you do 2d10 or 3d20tM. As I said in the OP, if I did 3d20tM, I would probably default to the RAW adv/dis system.

 

[CleverNickName]

Clever, I suspect the curse aspect will introduce a negative connotation to the players, giving them a predisposition to view the experiment results negatively. You should probably just do a blanket "Tonight we are going to experiment. All (or whatever subset you like) d20 rolls are 3d6 instead. At the end of the night we'll discuss how that made the game feel." That way the players are all in on it together. Rather than it only applying to the cursed player.

It went over rather well, I think. The player that ended up getting cursed (the barbarian, the obvious melee build) took it in stride. The cleric in the party was able to break the curse the very next day (he needed a long rest to prepare it), so we got to tinker around with it for a bit. The player didn't mind the change all that much, tbh. Hitting toward the middle of the curve made critical hits more rare (impossible actually, he never rolled triple-sixes), but made overall hits a lot more common since he rarely rolled less than 9 on his attack rolls.

He had some useful suggestions on how to handle Advantage and Disadvantage, too. We tinkered around with adding 1, 2, or even 3 extra d6s to the pool of dice, and having the player choose the higher ones (if rolling with Advantage) or the lower ones (if rolling with Disadvantage). For our little test-run, rolling 4d6 for (Dis)Advantage felt about right, but YMMV.

It would have been interesting to test it out on the rogue or the ranger, but ah well.