Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8037706" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Oi... long posts... why so long.... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Sigh, fine. Here we go...Well, that is the whole point isn't it? To try something you think will make the game more enjoyable. If we try this and the players start rebelling, I am fully prepared to drop it as a failed attempt. So, we'll have to see once this is finalized enough to try in an actual campaign instead of just play-testing.I'm not forcing one and doubling the other. That would basically say I am double-dipping but it isn't.Actually, you have it backwards. It means people will miss slightly less oftenWe don't do all attacks at once. We can't because the results of the first hit can impact the situation before the second attack is even made. Now, sure if you color-code your attack dice (this is first, this is second), you can but then you are still using the time scanning for the first color die and it's damage (if you roll that as well). Given the challenge the players have rolling a single attack at a time, I don't think I'd want to try rolling two attacks or even three!No, it won't take longer. I know this because we're already play-testing it. The act of rolling for damage and applying/tracking damage is longer than the misses take. And yes, the result is similar to doing 2d10 or 3d6, but it is faster to scan two dice then add them.Haha yes, it is. A lot of people who play for a long time have acquired that ability (myself included). And I can prove it scientifically if you want. Here:I rolled 2d20 10 times, scanning the results to find the lower number, and it took me 11.25 seconds. Basically the time to pick up the dice and reroll them as I could scan them, see the numbers, and determine the lower by the time I had picked up the dice.When I rolled 3d6 10 times, it took me 14.5 seconds. Mostly the time to pick up the dice because I had three to gather instead of 2, but there was a few times I had to pause to confirm my initial grasp of the number.Try it. 2d20 with disadvantage IS faster than 3d6. I'll have a couple guys in the group do it tomorrow and let you know how they do.You know it to be true. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Of course addition is faster than subtraction, you'll get no argument from me there.It isn't actually subtraction. That is just, mathematically dice-wise, how it works out. We rolled 4d6 (or 3d6), discarding 6's (essentially you treat them as 0). And there are dice out there that are 0-5 and adding them is even faster than normal d6. One of my issues with 3d6 at first as you can't get the full range of 1-20 as you're missing 1,2,19, and 20. I came up with 4d6-4 as a bell-curve for a range of 0-20. Not only do you get the full 1-20 range, but it allows you to treat 0 as a critical fumble (which a lot of tables use).I expanded on that to think of 4d6-4 as proficient, removing a die for disadvantage, another for lack of proficiency, etc. It actually works well and my online group tried it for a few sessions. They actually didn't like going back to flat d20's! Fortunately, the like helping me playtest different ideas.I did consider 3d6, but for the reasons I've stated I prefer "disadvantage". Both accomplish the same goal, so I don't know why you are so dead-set against it.No, I would not adjust DCs at all and I won't need to. Keep in mind you only have "disadvantage" when you lack proficiency. If you have proficiency, it is the same as RAW with a flat d20. I am making things harder for PCs that aren't good a them in that they haven't "trained deeper".Why use 3d6 and have to re-calibrate DCs (I DID look into this BTW) when my way I don't need to? I did it all with 3d6, 2d10, and 4d6-4, FWIW.True, the flat d20 is still swingy, but I don't want to incorporate one system for one thing (attacking) and use another for a different system (ability checks). And the swinginess is reduced in contested checks between proficient and non-proficient or proficient and expert.Here, I'll give you a concrete sample:3d6, DC 15:-1: 4.6%+6: 74.1%"disadvantage" for -1, "flat proficient" for +6, DC 15-1: 6.3%+6: 60%Both methods make the -1 less likely to succeed compared to flat d20, but 3d6 improves the positive modifier, regardless of whether the check is made with proficient or not. 3d6 also puts too much emphasis on the middle rolls. It makes it so even with proficiency you are not as likely to hit the higher DCs, making it harder than it should be for someone with proficiency IMO.5E already has Take 10, doesn't it? I swore I saw it someplace... Allowing only proficient checks to use them would help probably, but it doesn't solve the combat issue. I'll have to think about that some more!Whew! Man, I hate long posts. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />No offense intended, because I appreciate you taking the time to try to help, but can we focus on one thing only next time? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />LOL and thanks! I was so tired from writing I forgot when I finished and posted it.</blockquote>

Verification