• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Reducing randomness

LostSoul said:
Maybe if it comes down to opposed ability checks, you could let each character reroll a number of times equal to their modifier. In an arm-wrestle, an 18 STR guy can reroll up to 4 times, while a 10 STR guy only once.

Although this wouldn't work with negative ability modifiers. I always thought those didn't work anyways. Oh well.

Perhaps the character with the higher ability score would receive bonus dice equal to the difference.

Then, using a variation of Angramainyu's suggestion, he could roll all at once versus the opponent's roll, keeping the highest value.

For example STR9 (-1) wrestles STR11 (0). STR11 receives 1 bonus die (|-1-0|), and rolls 2d20 (keep highest) versus STR9's 1d20.

STR18 (+4) vs STR9 (-1) would roll 6d20 (keep highest) vs 1d20...
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Thanks for appreaciating my tweak. I wish I could use it in my campaign, but the players might rebel since they are already at third level ...

I like the idea of rolling 2d10 instead of d20, at least for skill checks. Your cautionary words are well taken. What I might do is make it a player option for some skills (like taking 10). Or I might make it mandatory for certain skills, optional for some, and disallowed for others.

My rationale is that some skills might realistically be "more random" (for lack of a better phrase) than others. For instance, JUMP is, in reality, NOT a very random thing. Usually you're going to jump about the same distance, give or take a few inches. But other skills, like OPEN LOCKS, might be considered more random, because every lock is slightly different. (I don't know anything about locks ... but you see my point.) So, it makes more sense to do 2d10 for JUMP, and d20 for OPEN LOCKS -- maybe.

But the best way might be to just to make it a player option in most cases. The advantage of this would be that it allows the player an additional level of strategizing. It would allow the player to decide either to play it safe or gamble more wildly.

As for the idea of rolling three d20s and taking the middle roll, I might use that once in a while, but the thing that makes me cautious about it is that you would practically never get 20 or even 19. I don't know much about statistics, but my hunch is that you would get an even more extreme bell curve effect than with 2d10 (more numbers in the middle range). Might be worth using on occasion though.
 


One of the ways to add a little bit of variation of the "middle of 3d20" system is to assume that if two of the dice are the same, you use the value of the third.

This would make a dandy replacement for the "take 10" system, for those who really don't get what "take 10" is all about.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top