Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8037602" data-attributes="member: 18">I don't think that means much at all. Enthusiasm is valuable in that it lets people try things, but it's terrible for assessing how well future things are likely to go. I think you know this.So you're forcing Disadvantage and doubling Proficiency, essentially. What that means is people will miss slightly more often at lower levels, and less often at higher ones. Players will have to roll and compare 2d20 every attack, which means you can't do things like roll multiple attacks at once (unless you have matched pairs of d20s) unless you have at least enough Advantage to get "back in the black" as it were.Even with the HP reductions you propose, I suspect this will make combat quite a bit slower, but less swingy, because you're taking the worse of 2d20. Low-AC enemies will get hit more often. High AC enemies will get hit less often (which is actually similar to switching to 3d6).Haha, no, it isn't. I'm pretty sure we could actually demonstrate that with science. Most people who play with dice regularly can instantly add the pips on 3d6. They literally don't have to think about it. You instantly see "13" or "6" or "17" or whatever - this is far faster than an eye-blink even. It's not a hard skill to acquire - even the player in my group who still confuses 1d10 and 1d12 can do it. You know this to be true. And adding is a faster mental function than subtraction, I daresay it's faster than comparison, too. So 3d6 is definitely, unquestionably faster. 2d10 might be closer.I also question your thinking here, because you were using dice-equations involving subtraction. Subtraction is massively slower for pretty much everyone, than addition. 4d6-4 would take significantly longer to calculate than other stuff, and loses WYSWYG. That you were even considering that makes me suggest you reconsider 3d6 (without any -3 nonsense).You wouldn't be "making things even harder". It's entirely unclear why you think you would be. You'd recalibrate the skill target DCs. Maybe you don't want to do that, that's fine, but in practice I suspect you will end up having to do this with your system.Everything you're concerned about here is better solved with using, say, 3d6. You talk about people being "penalized for reaching for higher difficulties", but that's simply not true. You just recalibrate the difficulties appropriately. It sounds from what you're saying that you've dismissed this out of hand and haven't run the numbers at all, but rather ran the numbers for a different scenario with a fundamentally bad idea (4d6-4).By just adding a very large bonus to proficient characters, you simply make it so DC15 is not really a thing anymore. It doesn't really matter if you make it so stats cap at +3. But you're still using 1d20. Things will still be very swingy. Simply increasing the size of the modifier (which is the approach you're taking) doesn't resolve the underlying issue - using a single die is always going to lead to swingy-ness in this kind of situation.Reason I have a lot of (hopefully not useless) criticism here is that I have been looking at solving some of the same issues as you. My conclusion has been that there is no approach that retains the d20 which doesn't either:A) Not actually solve the problems.orB) Merely create a new problem where you just basically always succeed, and in many cases there isn't even any point rolling.Have you considered, if you're very keen to retain a d20, which seems to be the case, re-instating Take 10 and Take 20? And only letting proficient people use them? You'd have to rework Reliable Talent for Rogues, but you'll presumably need to do that anyway (and some other Rogue stuff). Between them they can solve a lot of problems with skills. It's actually kind of outright bad design that 5E threw them overboard and then tried to bring Take 10 back as a class feature.</blockquote>

Verification