Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8977406" data-attributes="member: 7006">I have in fact use 2d10 for Ability Checks in a previous campaign.&nbsp; And I did it for the reason [USER=6925338]@soviet[/USER] gave... rolls tended towards the middle.&nbsp; Which for Ability Checks was something I wanted-- to make having proficiency and/or expertise in a skill have more impact and meaning.&nbsp; With many more rolls on average falling within the 7-13 range, higher modifiers give you more consistent higher rolls.&nbsp; Or at least make it seem and feel to all the players that they are succeeding more often in their ability checks for skills they are proficient in.How did it work?&nbsp; It worked... fine.&nbsp; It did what it was meant to do.&nbsp; Players with higher modifiers tended to succeed on checks for those skills they were proficient/expert in more often than those players who weren't.&nbsp; But overall... that &quot;gain&quot; didn't really end up mattering to the players that much.&nbsp; Because at our particular table and our particular style of playing... &quot;succeeding&quot; rather than &quot;failing&quot; ends up being not that particularly important to us.&nbsp; Failures are often just as interesting and fun to the story as success... which means it ultimately didn't matter to the players that the skills their PCs were supposedly &quot;good at&quot; were more successful more often than they otherwise would have been had we stuck with the d20.&nbsp; Failure is not a problem to overcome, it's just another interesting result.&nbsp; And thus for games since then, I've just gone back to using the d20 since the results of the 2d10 experiment didn't ultimately matter to the players or to me.(In terms of why I didn't use 2d10 for combat and saves?&nbsp; One, the rolling of a '20' for a critical hit is much more ingrained in our psyches as players that I didn't want to lose it.&nbsp; And two... when it came to attack rolls almost every character had close to their maximum bonus on their attacks.&nbsp; Which meant everyone was rolling within like 2 point of attack roll bonus from each other.&nbsp; And thus the need to distinguish the &quot;really great&quot; characters from the &quot;really poor&quot; characters was not there.&nbsp; EVERY character was really good at their attack rolls... and thus giving the modifier bonus more &quot;oomph&quot;-- by using 2d10 rather than 1d20-- was just not necessary.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8977406, member: 7006"] I have in fact use 2d10 for Ability Checks in a previous campaign. And I did it for the reason [USER=6925338]@soviet[/USER] gave... rolls tended towards the middle. Which for Ability Checks was something I wanted-- to make having proficiency and/or expertise in a skill have more impact and meaning. With many more rolls on average falling within the 7-13 range, higher modifiers give you more consistent higher rolls. Or at least make it [I]seem[/I] and [I]feel[/I] to all the players that they are succeeding more often in their ability checks for skills they are proficient in. How did it work? It worked... fine. It did what it was meant to do. Players with higher modifiers tended to succeed on checks for those skills they were proficient/expert in more often than those players who weren't. But overall... that "gain" didn't really end up mattering to the players that much. Because at our particular table and our particular style of playing... "succeeding" rather than "failing" ends up being not that particularly important to us. Failures are often just as interesting and fun to the story as success... which means it ultimately didn't matter to the players that the skills their PCs were supposedly "good at" were more successful more often than they otherwise would have been had we stuck with the d20. Failure is not a problem to overcome, it's just another interesting result. And thus for games since then, I've just gone back to using the d20 since the results of the 2d10 experiment didn't ultimately matter to the players or to me. (In terms of why I didn't use 2d10 for combat and saves? One, the rolling of a '20' for a critical hit is much more ingrained in our psyches as players that I didn't want to lose it. And two... when it came to attack rolls almost every character had close to their maximum bonus on their attacks. Which meant everyone was rolling within like 2 point of attack roll bonus from each other. And thus the need to distinguish the "really great" characters from the "really poor" characters was not there. EVERY character was really good at their attack rolls... and thus giving the modifier bonus more "oomph"-- by using 2d10 rather than 1d20-- was just not necessary.) [/QUOTE]

Verification