D&D 5E D20 or 2D10 should 5e go to Gauss ?

[Aloïsius]

I was thinking about the iconic D20. Could this sacred cow be slaughtered ?
It's so linear, and so random, that, at first levels, your actual abilities seem irrelevant compared to the dice result.
So, what about using 2D10 instead ? It would make the small bonus (IE "elves have +2 spot/listen" and so on) much more meaningful. It would add easily available mechanism (IE "when you roll a double on a magic attack roll, something happens"). It would make challenges easier to assess for the DM, as the dreaded TPK inducing bad rolls will be considerably rarer.

However, since 3e, D&D seems closely associated with the D20. But is it really important ?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

D&D is about funky dice. Don't throw out the d20!

 

[Roxolan]

The D20 is not going away. It's the best-known thing about Dungeons & Dragons apart from the name itself.

Incidentally, while a non-linear probability curve is great to make rare events even rarer, it's also harder on game designers and on the GM at the table (and on power gamers) because bonuses to dice rolls have a less predictable effect. With a D20, a +1 always means +5% chances of success. With 2D10, it can vary between +2% and +10%.

 

[Dausuul]

I've never seen much indication that rolling 2d10 instead of 1d20 improves the game in any way. If you want that +2 modifier to make more of a difference, increase it to +4. Moreover, as Roxolan pointed out, it makes things harder for the designers (who have plenty on their plate as it is), and it adds one more little bit of arithmetic to the heap of number-crunching this game already involves.

That said, if you want to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20 in your own game, nobody's stopping you.

 

[Hassassin]

Personally, I'd rather use 1d8 + 1d12 to give the d12 some much needed love.

But no, I don't think it's a very good idea, for the reasons above.

 

[Jawsh]

I was thinking about the iconic D20. Could this sacred cow be slaughtered ?
It's so linear, and so random, that, at first levels, your actual abilities seem irrelevant compared to the dice result.

This has always been the thing that's most fun at early levels. Later levels can be kind of predictable.

So, what about using 2D10 instead ? It would make the small bonus (IE "elves have +2 spot/listen" and so on) much more meaningful.

I think you're approaching the design backwards. If the designers want to make a bonus more meaningful, all they have to do is increase it. If they wanted to do this, they would have done it by now. So if you do change d20 to 2d10, then the designers might be forced to consider dropping the +2 down to a +1 because now it has too much impact.

It would add easily available mechanism (IE "when you roll a double on a magic attack roll, something happens"). It would make challenges easier to assess for the DM, as the dreaded TPK inducing bad rolls will be considerably rarer.

I relish TPK-inducing bad rolls. However, I have found them to be pretty rare. You can roll a lot of 1s and 20s in a combat in 3E and 4E and still have it come out pretty much the same.

However, since 3e, D&D seems closely associated with the D20. But is it really important ?

It is good to ask the question. One reason I like the d20 is because it's an interesting, quirky, iconic part of D&D.

It's also easy to pick up a d20 and roll. I've played with players who find it a challenge to differentiate between a d12 and a d20. Granted, a d10 is a bit more distinctive in shape. But you're still adding a step of addition to the Core Mechanic of the Game. And that makes it a smidge tougher for new players to pick up and go.