The former is/was true in every edition; the latter, I can't vouch for 1/2e as I didn't play them, but both 3e and 4e has a crit fail by failing by 10.
D&D 5E Going for 3d6 instead of d20
- Thread starter Horwath
- Start date
The former is/was true in every edition; the latter, I can't vouch for 1/2e as I didn't play them, but both 3e and 4e has a crit fail by failing by 10.
Greenstone.Walker
Adventurer
That may be my memory failing me. It has been a while.
Zargo Games
First Post
I really like the idea of using 2d10s, though it's not something I think I'd use simply because it means more dice rolling. 3d6 messes up too many numbers for me and the biggest reason I play 5e is because it's simple math-wise, so I don't think it would ever be worth doing for me.
Using 2d10s I'd probably make a critical success a 19-20 and a critical failure a 2-3, but otherwise I don't think it would significantly change the math of what you're rolling.
Using 2d10s I'd probably make a critical success a 19-20 and a critical failure a 2-3, but otherwise I don't think it would significantly change the math of what you're rolling.
The problem with 3D6 or 2D10 is that there are situations where dice rolls can rarely be made (or can almost always be made).
Those pesky Goblins with +4 against the AC 18 of the low level PC fighter:
D20: 35% chance to hit
2D10: 28% chance to hit
3D6: 16.2% (25.9% for 3D6+1 system)
Now we throw a Bane on those Goblins:
D20: 22.5% chance to hit
2D10: ~12% chance to hit
3D6: ~3% chance to hit (~7% chance to hit 3D6+1)
This will throw combat off by a lot because every +1 to AC or a DC in the middle of the curve is larger than with a D20 (5%).
So if your foe needs an 11 to hit (D20:50%, 2D10:55%, and 3D6:50%), Shield of Faith lowers his chance to: D20 40% (10% change), 2D10 36% (a 19% change), and 3D6: 26% (a 24% change).
This is why Champions often got crazy nuts.
Those pesky Goblins with +4 against the AC 18 of the low level PC fighter:
D20: 35% chance to hit
2D10: 28% chance to hit
3D6: 16.2% (25.9% for 3D6+1 system)
Now we throw a Bane on those Goblins:
D20: 22.5% chance to hit
2D10: ~12% chance to hit
3D6: ~3% chance to hit (~7% chance to hit 3D6+1)
This will throw combat off by a lot because every +1 to AC or a DC in the middle of the curve is larger than with a D20 (5%).
So if your foe needs an 11 to hit (D20:50%, 2D10:55%, and 3D6:50%), Shield of Faith lowers his chance to: D20 40% (10% change), 2D10 36% (a 19% change), and 3D6: 26% (a 24% change).
This is why Champions often got crazy nuts.
Horwath
Legend
3.5E Had skill crit fail with some skills when you missed DC by 5 or more.
Open lock; jammed lock.
Disable device; trap triggered.
Climb; free fall
Swim; swept downstream of went underwater.
Use magic device; some spell mishap.
Jump; land prone
If you look at the message I quoted, you'll see we were discussing GURPS, relevant because it is a 3d6 system.
tardigrade
Explorer
While that was a slightly tongue in cheek answer (hence the smiley), honestly I'd say 'balance' is a pretty accurate description of exactly what this does; you gain something, you lose something. You might think it's not a fair trade, but that's a personal opinion; when I'm playing I'd actively prefer my character's abilities to be more reliable, even if it reduced the upper bounds of my ability.
As it is, when there's a genuinely serious consequence of failure the groups I'm in will generally (given a choice) look for another option, even if the task is one that a character should theoretically be excellent at. Since (I'd say) combat is one of the most reliable resolution systems in the game, this means we end up using it as a solution more often than I'd like. A highly skilled character screwing up a basic roll happens at least once per session in most of my groups and is actually the thing that most regularly strikes me as silly.
And obviously, any DM with a reasonable understanding of probability can adjust DCs based on how likely they think success should be - that's what we do anyway, right? If you were going to change the system to 2d10 or 3d6 you could also produce some quick reference tables indicating how likely success is for a given level of expertise at a given DC.
I'd say the main problem with adopting this change would be that Reliable Talent would become a lot less valuable.
As it is, when there's a genuinely serious consequence of failure the groups I'm in will generally (given a choice) look for another option, even if the task is one that a character should theoretically be excellent at. Since (I'd say) combat is one of the most reliable resolution systems in the game, this means we end up using it as a solution more often than I'd like. A highly skilled character screwing up a basic roll happens at least once per session in most of my groups and is actually the thing that most regularly strikes me as silly.
And obviously, any DM with a reasonable understanding of probability can adjust DCs based on how likely they think success should be - that's what we do anyway, right? If you were going to change the system to 2d10 or 3d6 you could also produce some quick reference tables indicating how likely success is for a given level of expertise at a given DC.
I'd say the main problem with adopting this change would be that Reliable Talent would become a lot less valuable.
It's a good idea for checks where the challenge is resolved in a single roll, ie most skill checks. For combat though resolution is via lots of to-hit rolls and the d20 is best there I think, otherwise balance will be thrown way off. Saving throws - traditionally I like d20 for these but there is a case for using 3d6.
Similar Threads
