Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8037196" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Rolling 2d20 for "disadvantage" is not "a whole lot slower." It only takes an eye-blink to compare two numbers and pick the lower one. It is certainly faster than adding 2d10 or 3d6.Yes, hitting all the time (or close to it) is boring and there is no challenge in it. People have mentioned how some of my ideas will make things auto-successes and such, well 5E is designed around a 60+% success rate. If you do something and it is easy to do, there is little challenge. We have (I am completely serious about this!) had players get more excited because they MISSED since it is the uncommon result. So, in talking it over with our other DM and all the players, only one felt this might not work out while everyone else is totally onboard.Now, quick aside, yes the early items all revolve around the "larger" issue of proficiency, and the later ones around "combat/hit points" as they are obviously related.Our group is combat heavy, so a lot more attack rolls are made more than ability/skill checks. The "large" proficiency bonus I am suggesting is not that large and is offset by the capped 18 ability score. If I do decide to go with the "basic D&D" model, 18's would only be +3 and thus my total bonus would be +11 (instead of a current +12) vs. the RAW +11. Also, but making expertise "advantage" I am actually making the higher DCs harder since no one would be +17 like they can be in RAW. So, success isn't much more likely and it simply makes sense because non-proficient vs. proficient removes the swinginess of the flat d20 some (since the non-proficient has "disadvantage").The downside also of using 2d10 or 3d6 is for the proficient, it penalizes them for trying to reach higher numbers, which is not a goal. Success in ability checks is hardly automatic anyway, and I don't want to make the harder things even harder since they don't happen as often.A lot of this came about from the idea of a non-proficient low ability score PC beating a proficient high ability score PC on checks.For example. If a total -1 and a total +6 both roll a DC 15 check, there is a 10% chance the -1 will succeed while the +6 fails. 10% might not sound like a lot, but when you factor in the other alternatives it is to me. If this was a contested roll, the -1 will WIN 19.5% of the time! Nearly 1 out of 5 times someone with low ability and no proficiency is beating a PC with proficiency and high ability (or max proficiency in RAW). No, thank you, that is not realistic or making much sense to me.If we take the same totals but apply "disadvantage" to the non-proficient, the chance of them winning a contested check drops to 8.125% or less than 1 in 12 times. I am okay with that. If they are both making an ability DC 15 check, the change of the -1 making it while the +6 fails is only 2.5% (1/4th of the RAW system). So, that makes sense. Someone with low ability and no proficiency should not likely succeed where the other fails.I know this is a lot of derivation from the 5E design, and a lot of people won't like that, but it makes more sense to me as to how things work.Thanks for your post!</blockquote>

Verification