Bell Curve - Ramifications?

[GnomeWorks]

Okay, so. Let's say that, in either 3.5 or 4e (take your pick), you replace the d20 with 3d6 - so we get a bell curve, right?

Don't change anything else.

What are the ramifications of that? What does it mean, mechanically?

As a player, would you mind using 3d6 instead of a d20? As a DM? Regardless of your answer, why do you feel that way?

 

[SSquirrel]

I believe it is covered in Unearthed Arcana. I don't own the book myself so I can't cite a page for you. More middling results, less extreme results in either direction.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I believe it is covered in Unearthed Arcana. I don't own the book myself so I can't cite a page for you. More middling results, less extreme results in either direction.

Is there anything other than that?

And what are your thoughts on it?

How attached to the d20 are you?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Among many other implications, using 3d6 would significantly increase the value of high attack bonuses.

AC 20, I'm +9 to hit, you're +4 to hit.

With a d20, I hit 50 percent of attacks, you hit 25 percent.

With 3d6, I hit slightly less than 50 percent of attacks, you hit slightly less than 2 percent.

 

[Doomhawk]

As Jeff said, small changes in attack bonuses or defenses would become large differences. Similarly, a character would be much less likely to make a more difficult skill check, while they would be much more likely to make an easy one. It's a little like forcing people to take 10 on everything.

You'd also have to figure out what would trigger crits.

I don't know that I'd mind it, but it seems like fixing something that wasn't broken.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I don't know that I'd mind it, but it seems like fixing something that wasn't broken.

I'm not doing this to 3.5 or 4e.

I know what I think this does to a ruleset, but I'm not sure if there's something I'm missing. I'm also interested in getting a feel for how people feel about bell curves, and how they would feel about going from rolling a d20 for everything, to a set of dice and having to deal with a bell curve.

 

[Asmor]

I've heard it said that, in general, making combat more predictable is a statistical advantage for the PCs. Thus using 3d6 should theoretically give the PCs a bit of a boost.

My primary concern with the idea is the amount of time it takes... Not best case scenario, you've got to add 4 numbers together, something I really don't trust a lot of my players to do...

 

[GnomeWorks]

I've heard it said that, in general, making combat more predictable is a statistical advantage for the PCs. Thus using 3d6 should theoretically give the PCs a bit of a boost.

Okay - but why?

My primary concern with the idea is the amount of time it takes... Not best case scenario, you've got to add 4 numbers together, something I really don't trust a lot of my players to do...

But they're usually small numbers, so I don't imagine that the added math is going to cause too much of a problem, on a general scale.

 

[Atzilla]

3d6 make easy tasks easier and hard tasks harder. You gain a boost against weak enemys but lose against difficult ones...
I would like using 3d6 because it makes your modifiers matter more than your rolls (you will most likely roll 8 - 12 with these). But as a DM you have to keep in mind how this influences combat against very easy or very difficult enemys.

 

[Asmor]

Okay - but why?

In a nutshell, randomness favors the "loser," and since most fights are stacked in the PCs' favor, predictability favors them.

But they're usually small numbers, so I don't imagine that the added math is going to cause too much of a problem, on a general scale.

You clearly haven't met my players.