heptat
Explorer
You mean as an option any time they want it? Interesting. You could extend this and offer 3d6 instead of d20. *Much* more likely to be around the middle, but *impossible* to get 20 (or 1). Thanks for the suggestion!
D&D 5E *Finally* read playtest 2 - 2d10 time!
You mean as an option any time they want it? Interesting. You could extend this and offer 3d6 instead of d20. *Much* more likely to be around the middle, but *impossible* to get 20 (or 1). Thanks for the suggestion!
You mean as an option any time they want it? Interesting. You could extend this and offer 3d6 instead of d20. *Much* more likely to be around the middle, but *impossible* to get 20 (or 1). Thanks for the suggestion!
If allowed to choose which roll to take when they know the target number, I expect quite a few players will simply maximise their chances and pick 1d20 when the target number is 11+ or 3d6 otherwise. Giving up the chance of a critical in D&D Next is not that meaningful.
dd.stevenson
Super KY
True--I hadn't thought of that. This variant would probably be a lot more interesting if coupled with some swingier crit/fumble rules.
Steely_Dan
First Post
Totally cool way to go, there was also a roll 3d6 instead of d20 variant in the 3rd Ed Unearthed Arcana.
I like the wild swing of the d20, and the way if feels to roll (everyone loves that feeling when you see that 20 come up).
I like the wild swing of the d20, and the way if feels to roll (everyone loves that feeling when you see that 20 come up).
Crazy Jerome
First Post
As a long time player of Fantasy Hero (3d6 for most checks) and a FH/D&D-ish homebrew (2d10), I can attest that the biggest changes when switching dice resolution in this manner are the changes to the "whiff factor" and effects on criticals (and auto misses). The criticals wouldn't be felt nearly so strongly in Next as currently provided, because the criticals themselves aren't that impressive. In 3E, switching to 2d10 would be a much bigger change to criticals.
However, you want to adjust the "whiff factor" globally, not tweak around the edges. That is, if PCs hit to easy compared to monsters in Next, then you want to fix that independent of any "whiff" changes caused by switching resolution methods.
So let's say that giving monsters a blanket +2 to hit is a good change for monster/PC imbalance. You want to do that whether you keep d20 or switch to 2d10. Then if you switch to 2d10, you want to examine how this changes the odds for all of the (now "balanced") characters, decide if the change is bug or feature, and then adjust as necessary.
For example, given my preferences for a relatively low "whiff" game, but still some real chance of missing, if converting the current Next to 2d10, I'd give everyone a blanket +1 to hit (in addition to whatever adjustments were made to make monsters work better).
BTW, if you don't want to do the +1 to hit, but want the adjustment, using d10+d12 is a fun little variant. And using d8+d12 is an interesting replacement for 2d10 when you want to flatten the odds on those middle numbers.
However, you want to adjust the "whiff factor" globally, not tweak around the edges. That is, if PCs hit to easy compared to monsters in Next, then you want to fix that independent of any "whiff" changes caused by switching resolution methods.
So let's say that giving monsters a blanket +2 to hit is a good change for monster/PC imbalance. You want to do that whether you keep d20 or switch to 2d10. Then if you switch to 2d10, you want to examine how this changes the odds for all of the (now "balanced") characters, decide if the change is bug or feature, and then adjust as necessary.
For example, given my preferences for a relatively low "whiff" game, but still some real chance of missing, if converting the current Next to 2d10, I'd give everyone a blanket +1 to hit (in addition to whatever adjustments were made to make monsters work better).
BTW, if you don't want to do the +1 to hit, but want the adjustment, using d10+d12 is a fun little variant. And using d8+d12 is an interesting replacement for 2d10 when you want to flatten the odds on those middle numbers.
Last edited:
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
Conceptually, I always liked the 3d6 method from Unearthed Arcana, partly because of the bell curve (I've never liked the unpredictability of the d20), and partly because it matches classic character generation.
Going with something like 3d6 also works well when skills have diminishing returns. For example, if skills had three ranks, at +3, +5, and +6 total bonus, then it's still worth getting that final +1 bonus because the dice so rarely climb that high.
Additionally, having critical failures with disastrous effects on a roll of 3 is acceptable because it happens very rarely. On the flip side, critical hits on an 18 should be phenomenal. Perhaps equivalent to a coup de grace.
But, as I said, I like this, conceptually, because I prefer predictability in my resolution systems. It's also very non-traditional.
Going with something like 3d6 also works well when skills have diminishing returns. For example, if skills had three ranks, at +3, +5, and +6 total bonus, then it's still worth getting that final +1 bonus because the dice so rarely climb that high.
Additionally, having critical failures with disastrous effects on a roll of 3 is acceptable because it happens very rarely. On the flip side, critical hits on an 18 should be phenomenal. Perhaps equivalent to a coup de grace.
But, as I said, I like this, conceptually, because I prefer predictability in my resolution systems. It's also very non-traditional.
Similar Threads
