d20 vs. 3d6 "dice heresy" by Chris Sims

[Ariosto]

A 3d6 system is, really, MORE heroic - especially if you read the article, which suggest criticals happen on a roll of 16+.

That's about 4.63% -- not much different, to my mind, from 5%. It means another critical hit or two per hundred rolls.

Presumably, that "swing" still applies to non-heroic types as well, just as in d20 4e? Ditto a miss on 3-5 for the big shots?

The latter, though, go up from 70% to about 95% for a roll of 6+, while the outclassed fellows go down from 30% to about 9% for 15+.

 

[Hereticus]

At the risk of opening the can of worms even further from recent threads (ie. status effects annoying players, "ego-gamers", why must numbers go up, etc ....), here's an article by Chris Sims which proposes replacing the d20 with 3d6 in the basic rolls of 4E D&D, as a way of increasing the probability to hit.

No more natural 20s or 1s.

This will help you hit if you have less than a 50% chance, and hurt if you have more than a 50% chance.

If you really want a steep bell curve, roll 5d4-2.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The only issue I have with this is the impact of attack roll bonus/penalties. -1/-2 probably aren't serious, but there are a lot of effects that can add or subtract between 4 and 9 from die rolls, and I don't see that meshing well with 3d6.

It isn't exactly plug and play, and I don't feel the need to rewrite the system to accommodate this.

 

[Ariosto]

there are a lot of effects that can add or subtract between 4 and 9 from die rolls, and I don't see that meshing well with 3d6.

Goodness no! From 95% (6+) through 5% (16+), there are only 11 points, as opposed to 19 with d20. I suppose one could halve such factors.

 

[thewok]

I'm not sure the WoW comparison holds up under scrutiny.

In WoW, you can get enough hit rating to ensure that you *never* miss an attack or spell (ignoring expertise). However, in raiding (where reaching the "hit cap" is a requirement), you're going up against mobs that have millions of hit points, while your character has maybe 20-30,000. They can stand up to repeated hits without missing because their health pools are so large.

Monsters in D&D don't conform to that. Their hit points are roughly similar to the PCs' health pools. In such a case, I don't really think that a 60-65% hit chance is all that bad.

Let's turn it around. In WoW, most non-tanks don't have a decent enough avoidance to really make a difference in the amount of damage they take from mobs. For the most part, if a mob throws a punch, you get hit. Solo mobs are weaker than Elites, and Bosses are even tougher. Most bosses can one-shot player characters who stand in the wrong place.

Back in D&D land, monsters have roughly the same chances of hitting as a PC, about 60-65%. The rules apply both ways. Do players want to be hit every round, possibly by multiple monsters? I know I don't. I like that tension when the GM rolls the die, and I try to pierce the veil of his poker face to see what the result was. I like being down to 1 hit point and having the monster miss, only to be downed the next round.

It comes down to predictability. I don't really want combat itself to be predictable, at least not to the extent that such a high hit rate would bring about. And, seriously, at that point, why bother with dice at all? Why bother with the combat at all? What becomes the point of it?

 

[Nifft]

The only issue I have with this is the impact of attack roll bonus/penalties. -1/-2 probably aren't serious, but there are a lot of effects that can add or subtract between 4 and 9 from die rolls, and I don't see that meshing well with 3d6.

It isn't exactly plug and play, and I don't feel the need to rewrite the system to accommodate this.

Even the +1/+2 are of vital importance if they push you over the midpoint of the curve. The difference between hitting on a 9 and hitting on an 11 are huge.

It'd be rather depressing if one's optimal action -- all combat long -- were to Aid Another, so at least one PC had a decent chance of hitting.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Anselyn]

Why? Because a linear curve is more heroic, that's why. It allows an equal chance for spectacular hits and bad misses far more often at the table than a bell curve does. It's more unpredicatble, allows for more unlikely -- and therefore more heroic results -- and is, therefore, more fun.
[...]
I insist that my RPG be heroic and be one where random luck can save the day. I want that opportunity to roll a 20 to happen relatively often during a session - not once or, more likely, "almost never".

This is not a defintion of "heroic" that I recognise. Did you mean slapstick?
Do heroes in myths, or films often have spectacular bad misses?

I think that the narrative flow (editing ..?) of all-action films may make you feel that the hero is repeatedly suceeding at things for which he has a small chance - but actually, really he never fails.

 

[Votan]

Even the +1/+2 are of vital importance if they push you over the midpoint of the curve. The difference between hitting on a 9 and hitting on an 11 are huge.

It'd be rather depressing if one's optimal action -- all combat long -- were to Aid Another, so at least one PC had a decent chance of hitting.

Cheers, -- N

We tried 3d6 in 3.5E D&D. I never really liked it. I found that it tended to accelerate the advantage of bonuses (if you hit on a 6+ then you nearly always hit, if you hit on a 15+ you almost never hit). Some spells got amazingly good (Assay Spell Resistance) and problems with unbreachable defenses became common.

It also accelerated the differences between a midly and fully optimized character. On the margins, +1/+2 can have huge impacts on probabilities and so it accelerated the worst optimization arms race features of the system.

I'd be surprised if it did not do the same in 4E and make feats that grantt o hit bonuses even more of a requirement.

 

[billd91]

This is not a defintion of "heroic" that I recognise. Did you mean slapstick?
Do heroes in myths, or films often have spectacular bad misses?

Watch the early scenes of the 1973 version of The Three Musketeers with Michael York and Oliver Reed. While not about spectacular misses as in combat, there are some good comedic skill failures.

If you take the sort of Greek heroic ideal, then it's not always about exceeding expectations in a positive way. It's about being excessive in general in both bad and good ways. Usually the bad comes from personal behavior, but it's easy enough to read some incidents as poor will saves and, more often, abyssmal diplomacy and sense motive checks.

 

[CleverNickName]

No more natural 20s or 1s.

It took a long time for my table to accept the rules for critical hits, auto-success, auto-fail, and other "dice lottery" mechanics. For the first year or two of playing 3E, we treated natural 1s and 20s like they were just numbers...not instant win/lose coupons.

We eventually got on board with crits and nat-20s when 3.5E came out, but we aren't particularly fond of them. I know that most folks prefer the Hollywood Action Movie style of gaming, and that's cool...we just like our games to be a little more subtle.