D20 to 3d6 dice rules from Unearth Arcana

[jaz0nj4ckal]

Folks,
I am trying to understand the rule set from the Unearth Arcana. I do not own a copy; however, I am using the following link

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm

I am not sure, and the text has me a little confused.

Do I just roll 3d6 and apply bonuses and penalties and everything as normal? Do I keep DC the same? I know the link I provided says to do just that, but the math on percentile chance doesn’t add up or match the percentage on a D20, so I am very unsure.

Any suggestions and insight is greatly appreciated.

 

[Greenfield]

Because the range is smaller, trying to equate to a percentile roll gets harder, or just flat becomes impossible.

The purpose of this randomizing method is, ironically, to reduce or remove the random factor. It's as if they're trying to turn every dice roll into a "Take 10.5".

You want a method with this same kind of result, but a range that more closely approximates the 1-20 range? Roll 4 D6 -4. Your range is now 0-20, and once more begins to resemble the "1 point equals 5%" you're used to. Criticals become incredibly rare, of course, but if you're pursuing this approach in the first place then you probably don't like extremes of luck in the first place.

Like the bell curve, but want it gentler? Roll 2 D10. Mathematically, the more dice you roll, the steeper the bell curve. 2 D10 gives a 2-20 range, so crits still work, and 2 is now the auto-failure roll.

Want an even steeper bell curve? 10 D3 - 10 works.

3 D8 -4 is a close approximation as well, though now you can actually roll a -1 result. If you like the idea of truly critical failures, this is the system for you.

Or, speaking of critical failures, you could play Arcana Evolved (the Unearthed Arcana's mutant brother.)

 

[jaz0nj4ckal]

Because the range is smaller, trying to equate to a percentile roll gets harder, or just flat becomes impossible.

The purpose of this randomizing method is, ironically, to reduce or remove the random factor. It's as if they're trying to turn every dice roll into a "Take 10.5".

You want a method with this same kind of result, but a range that more closely approximates the 1-20 range? Roll 4 D6 -4. Your range is now 0-20, and once more begins to resemble the "1 point equals 5%" you're used to. Criticals become incredibly rare, of course, but if you're pursuing this approach in the first place then you probably don't like extremes of luck in the first place.

Like the bell curve, but want it gentler? Roll 2 D10. Mathematically, the more dice you roll, the steeper the bell curve. 2 D10 gives a 2-20 range, so crits still work, and 2 is now the auto-failure roll.

Want an even steeper bell curve? 10 D3 - 10 works.

3 D8 -4 is a close approximation as well, though now you can actually roll a -1 result. If you like the idea of truly critical failures, this is the system for you.

Or, speaking of critical failures, you could play Arcana Evolved (the Unearthed Arcana's mutant brother.)

I have been toying with the idea of 2d10 for a nice bell curve. Thanks for all the insight.

cheers!!!

 

[Greenfield]

I'd like to apologize for my bad mood, and the amount of snark it inspired in my last post.

I'm sure there are a lot of good, intelligent gamers who have played Arcana Evolved and enjoyed it. I don't happen to like it, but this wasn't the time or place to take cheap shots at it, or the players who like it.

Back on topic (and probably right back off again), the bell curve dice topic in many ways resembles the "roll for stats" v "point buy" debate.

Each has it's advocates, and their arguments are similar: "Making random factors too big a part of the game belittles skill", v "Timely but unlikely events are the stuff that high fantasy is made of".

I know that, at higher levels and higher skill/ability levels, it irks some players that their min/maxed PC demigod is still going to miss 5% of the time, no matter what, and that a mob of unskilled commoners is going to hit their Epic AC 5% of the time, regardless of how "epic" it is.

I've seen the counter argument played to the humorous extreme as well. One player in our game had his character use a dagger and nothing but a dagger, all the time. Why? The average damage is only 2 points less than a longsword, and at a certain point in the game the bonus damage so far outstrips the random portion that 2 points difference just doesn't matter. But he can use the dagger when grappled, swallowed whole or entangled in a net or webbing, so in his mind the advantage went to the dagger.

And it's hard to disagree with him. Lacking in heroic imagery as it might be, mathematically it makes sense. Until, that is, someone mentiones Power Attack. (You can't Power Attack with a light weapon.)

 

[jaz0nj4ckal]

I'd like to apologize for my bad mood, and the amount of snark it inspired in my last post.

I'm sure there are a lot of good, intelligent gamers who have played Arcana Evolved and enjoyed it. I don't happen to like it, but this wasn't the time or place to take cheap shots at it, or the players who like it.

Back on topic (and probably right back off again), the bell curve dice topic in many ways resembles the "roll for stats" v "point buy" debate.

Each has it's advocates, and their arguments are similar: "Making random factors too big a part of the game belittles skill", v "Timely but unlikely events are the stuff that high fantasy is made of".

I know that, at higher levels and higher skill/ability levels, it irks some players that their min/maxed PC demigod is still going to miss 5% of the time, no matter what, and that a mob of unskilled commoners is going to hit their Epic AC 5% of the time, regardless of how "epic" it is.

I've seen the counter argument played to the humorous extreme as well. One player in our game had his character use a dagger and nothing but a dagger, all the time. Why? The average damage is only 2 points less than a longsword, and at a certain point in the game the bonus damage so far outstrips the random portion that 2 points difference just doesn't matter. But he can use the dagger when grappled, swallowed whole or entangled in a net or webbing, so in his mind the advantage went to the dagger.

And it's hard to disagree with him. Lacking in heroic imagery as it might be, mathematically it makes sense. Until, that is, someone mentiones Power Attack. (You can't Power Attack with a light weapon.)

I see your point about the 5% argument, and thank you for sharing the story about the dagger. That is very humorous...I havn't played much D20, but the same could be said for me with AD&D 2nd edition. I always played with daggers and darts. Characters witha high strength are just down right nasty with darts...So nasty that house rules had to be drafted to limit the attack bonus and damage with darts.

 

[Greenfield]

The original Darts of the Hornet's Nest, when used by a high strength Ranger of any level, were insane. First, you got to throw several darts as a single attack. Second, the Ranger could throw with both hands and have a good chance of hitting. Third, at levels he got multiple attacks, which meant multiples of these multiples of multiples of darts that then multiplied in the air.

Killing deities was not out of the question.

But we wander off topic again. All the way back to AD&D, in fact.

Pick the dice system that suits your needs.

On a related tangent, for character creation consider a, well "hybrid" is the polite term, system: Roll three dice straight for every stat and arrange as you choose. Then roll a 7th set of 3 D6 and use them as bonus points you can spread among the stats.

Mathematically the result is nearly identical to rolling 4 D6 minus the lowest die, but blends the random factor of dice rolling with the control factor of point buy. You can get lucky *and* fine tune the numbers as well.

The silliest complaint I ever got about point buy v dice rolling was in a supers game we played (home brew). The point buy gave exactly the average of the dice system the game called for, and the players complained that "That means half the guys out there are better than me.", completely ignoring the fact that it also meant that half of them were worse. Something about super-hero games brings out the power-gamer in people, which in turn seems to suppress any understanding of what "average" actually means.

 

[jaz0nj4ckal]

So very true...yes let us stay on topic.

Funny, but when i play D&D I want my NPC and PC to be supers, but when playing GURPS or Traveller I like to a have a grittier game - one that no punch is pulled against the NPC and PC.

 

[Li Shenron]

Like the bell curve, but want it gentler? Roll 2 D10. Mathematically, the more dice you roll, the steeper the bell curve. 2 D10 gives a 2-20 range, so crits still work, and 2 is now the auto-failure roll.

That's the best solution IMHO. It gives a "triangular" probability shape, and I think this is already enough to significantly reduce the number of extreme results (a "natural 10+10" is now only 1% instead of 5%).

I also second the idea of using "natural 1+1" as automatic miss / critical failure (whatever you use in your game). It might seem odd since the result is 2, but this is again only 1% i.e. less common than normal.

 

[Zireael]

Folks,
I am trying to understand the rule set from the Unearth Arcana. I do not own a copy; however, I am using the following link

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm

I am not sure, and the text has me a little confused.

Do I just roll 3d6 and apply bonuses and penalties and everything as normal? Do I keep DC the same? I know the link I provided says to do just that, but the math on percentile chance doesn’t add up or match the percentage on a D20, so I am very unsure.

Any suggestions and insight is greatly appreciated.

I've been toying with the same idea. What happens to the DCs and bonuses if I use 3d6 instead of d20?

 

[Li Shenron]

I've been toying with the same idea. What happens to the DCs and bonuses if I use 3d6 instead of d20?

I wouldn't change the DC at all, even if a range or 3-18 now means some things that had a chance now will be automatic and others will become impossible.

If that bothers you, you can consider treating a "natural 1+1+1" as equal to 1 instead of 3, and a "natural 6+6+6" as equal to 20 instead of 18. Each of those result has a 1/216 however, less than 0.5%, which doesn't mean impossible but pretty rare still.