3d6 for skill checks?

[mattdm]

So, one of my player (rather convincingly, I thought) argues that the random aspect of skill checks, particularly in the case of opposed checks, overshadows the trained/ability portion by more than it should. In combat, you're making lots of attacks, and if a large percentage of them miss, big deal.

If you're sneaking along somewhere that requires three hide and three move silently checks, odds are pretty good that you'll fail relatively frequently — even if you far outclass your opponents.

I'm considering, therefore, allowing 3d6 rolls in place of d20 rolls for skill checks. I know that's heretical in a game based on d20 checks, but the overall average number is the same with a much smaller standard deviation. It's not as consistent as taking 10, but not as random as d20. Of course, the minimum roll is significantly increased from 1 to 3, but then, the top is similarly chopped.

What do you think?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think you can do whatever for opposed checks, since both sides are following the same rules. I've toyed with making opposed skill/ability checks even use a d10 (and taking 10 becomes taking 5), so to me your idea doesn't seem strange or anything. I'd limit it to opposed rolls, at least at first so you can try it out for a while. Set DC's assmue the d20 roll, so your system might not work so well there. In particular, I'm thinking of low level Rogues attempting skills like Disable Device, Open Locks, etc... where the DCs start high, and the game assumes if the "average" Rogue needs an 18+, for example, that's a 15% chance. Under your system, it'd be a 0.463% chance, the odds of rolling a 6 three times in a row (1/6)^3.

 

[Tonguez]

Have you considered 2d10 - its not quite a bell curve but it does preserve the 20 (range 2-20) for the d20 aspects

 

[mattdm]

Have you considered 2d10 - its not quite a bell curve but it does preserve the 20 (range 2-20) for the d20 aspects

Yeah, I thought about it. It's objectively always better than d20, so it'd be the thing to always use rather than an option. (Not only can you not get a 1, but the average roll is 11 rather than 10.5 as with d20 or 3d6.)

 

[Urbannen]

In my game, passive skill checks are all DC 10 + modifier From what I understand, that is also the rule in 4E. I did it because I can't be bothered to roll Listen and Spot checks every time AND because it takes out the variability that the OP complained about. I also let the active character win a tie automatically for the sake of game flow, so the passive check truly is a DC.

If a rogue is sneaking past a creature with Listen +9 and Spot +9, the base DC is 19. The rules for how distance modifies the DC favor the rogue: every 10' lowers the DC by 1. 10'-15' away, the DC is 18, 20'-25', the DC is 17, etc. (And yes, -1 DC for being 10 feet away is wonky, since the sneaker has to be adjacent to get the straight DC.)

These DC's aren't easy, but then again, +9 in a skill is good and should not be easy to get past. If you want to remove the variability in opposed checks, this is an easy way.

Sense Motive is the additional passive skill that falls into this category.


I wouldn't see a need to go to a 3d6 system for non-opposed rolls. If a character wants to take out the variability, he needs to improve his skill. Once the skill check modifier is equal to DC-1, there is no more variability. The game gives you lots of options for improving your skill checks and taking out the variability.

 

[Celebrim]

I think that a d20 works fine for things where wildly varied outcomes are what you'd realisticly expect - that is for things that are really random - but it doesn't work nearly so well for things that aren't nearly so random.

The skill check for which a d20 really bugs me is jump. I'd much rather have a tight bell curve for jump than the linear roll.