D&D General Replacing 1d20 with 3d6 is nearly pointless

[Umbran]

That is the rub isn't it. I was thinking about dice pools because my group explored a houserule for making crits much more deadly.

Okay, "I want crits to be more rare but more meaningful when they happen" is a reasonable sort of design goal.

However, they happen too often on a 1d20 and my group didn't like how deadly the game became.

Yeah. That's a problem when both the PCs and monsters have access to crits. Deadly crits... tend to kill PCs. I mean, they kill monsters too, but we are expecting monsters to die, so this merely changes how fast that happens.

I've thought about going to a dice pool (2d10) to reduce the chance of crits. but more recently I am thinking of going back to confirming crits.

If the only issue is the crits, I'd go for confirming, ratehr than dice pool. Dice pool will impact all hits, not just crits.

 

[dave2008]

You did ask a question. You didn't expect folks to answer it?

My first comment was a simple statement/observation and my question in a later comment was rhetorical. That doesn't come across will in a post - my bad.

 

[dave2008]

If the only issue is the crits, I'd go for confirming, ratehr than dice pool. Dice pool will impact all hits, not just crits.

That is where I am at too. It is an extra roll, but it works I think.

 

[GlassJaw]

Crits are the only reason to go with a dice pool system IMO. There is no "other than the crits." Crits are everything in this discussion IMO, everything else is just gravy.

Dice pool systems handle degrees of success much better than over/under single roll system. They allow for a LOT more granularity for task resolution.

Crits are a reason too I guess but certainly not a major factor for me.

 

[LordEntrails]

I will add to the opinion that increasing the consequences of crits works against the party and the DM.

It works against the party as mentioned because of action economy and makes the game more swingy for PC death.

It works against the DM when it come to BBEG and solos for the same reason.

 

[dave2008]

Dice pool systems handle degrees of success much better than over/under single roll system. They allow for a LOT more granularity for task resolution.

That can be achieved to some degree under a d20 as well. Look at pathfinder with its +10/-10 crit system and degrees of success/failure.

 

[NotAYakk]

How are "runs" and "doubles" relevant to D&D?
I also want to clarify - I'm not a dice pool guy! I roll 1d20 like most everyone!

Example:
A strong is any hit where you have at least 1 double (about 50:50). Or maybe that gives you a 2nd attack with 1 less die.
A crit is any with a triple (1/36 hits)
A fumble is a triple that misses.
A run on attack dice (456 etc) that hits makes your damage explode, or gives you a bonus attack, or whatever.

This needs playtesting, as evaluation time goes up.

I'm not a stats guy, why would you multiple and then subtract?

So 2d10 has a standard deviation (average distance from the average roll) of about 2/3 1d20. As anydice likes integers, I took 3x 2d10 snd comapred it to 2x 1d20; the result has the same standard deviation. Then I subtracted each of their average so they are centered on 0.

This corresponds to scaling bonuses by 50% more (and DC distances from 10.5) on d20 and comparing that to standard DC/Bonuses on 2d10.

The point is that the math on each roll (adding, slowing play) is really doing the same job as throwing larger DCs and higher bonuses at PCs (which is one-time math, not per-roll).

In other words, if you think skills are too swingy in 5e, double proficiency bonus on attribute checks and add (stat-10) instead of (stat-10)/2. Then scale DCs so a 12 becomes 14, 15 becomes 20, 18 becomes 26, 20 becomes 30 etc.

You'll get the same results as rolling 3d6+standard mods.

 

[dave2008]

Example:
A strong is any hit where you have at least 1 double (about 50:50). Or maybe that gives you a 2nd attack with 1 less die.
A crit is any with a triple (1/36 hits)
A fumble is a triple that misses.
A run on attack dice (456 etc) that hits makes your damage explode, or gives you a bonus attack, or whatever.

This needs playtesting, as evaluation time goes up.

OK, so your not talking about d20 D&D. Not interested in that at all.

So 2d10 has a standard deviation (average distance from the average roll) of about 2/3 1d20. As anydice likes integers, I took 3x 2d10 snd comapred it to 2x 1d20; the result has the same standard deviation. Then I subtracted each of their average so they are centered on 0.

This corresponds to scaling bonuses by 50% more (and DC distances from 10.5) on d20 and comparing that to standard DC/Bonuses on 2d10.

I'm not interesting in scaling bonuses, higher bonuses, or higher DCs though. You are exploring things I am just not interested. Thank you for explaining your reasoning though.

In other words, if you think skills are too swingy in 5e, double proficiency bonus on attribute checks and add (stat-10) instead of (stat-10)/2. Then scale DCs so a 12 becomes 14, 15 becomes 20, 18 becomes 26, 20 becomes 30 etc.

You'll get the same results as rolling 3d6+standard mods.

I don't think anything is to swingy in d20 5e, except maybe the frequency of crits. d20 works fine for me.

 

[Coroc]

It turns out that, in a roll over/under system, replacing 1d20 with 3d6 doesn't do much of what people want.

....

As also 2d10 instead of 1d20. Neither system totally prevents the "weak wizard succeeds in a strength check where strong fighter fails"-dilemma. This favored (but wrong since only probabilities are shifted) argument of the "replace 1d20 for something less swingy"-community is only resolved by introducing thresholds for certain actions, e.g. STR14 and above if you want to try and bend that bar or arcana 5+ if you want to try and decipher that magic runes.
Everything else just causes other problems and takes away one of the aspects I really like about the game, namely critical hits and (houserule of mine) critical failures. Both are big fun for me and my group.

 

[pemerton]

@NotAYakk - at the moment I'm not running any d20 games - my two main systems are Classic Traveller (most rolls are 2d6) and Prince Valiant (all rolls are pools of coins where heads succeed and tails fail, and successes are tallied to determine the outcome).

But I found your analysis very interesting. So thanks!

I'm not interesting in scaling bonuses, higher bonuses, or higher DCs though. You are exploring things I am just not interested. Thank you for explaining your reasoning though.

I no you want out, so sorry to quote you back in - but I just wanted to say a bit more to explain NotAYakk's point (and if you already fully got it and I'm just telling you how to suck eggs, apologies again).

NotAYakk is saying that (with crits to one side) the reduction in randomness that comes from replacing d20 with 3d6 (which I have certainly seen advocated on these boards from time to time) can be achieved to the same extent by sticking to a d20 but doubling all bonuses (or, in the case of AC, doubling the different between the AC and 10). And he is suggesting that the second option is preferable to the first because the maths all happens in prep rather than having to add numbers at the point of resolution.

And his speculation about runs, doubles etc is that that would be a good reason to go to 3d6 rather than d20 because it uses features of a 3d6 roll that can't easily be emulated on a d20 roll.

@NotAYakk, do you know any systems that actually use runs, doubles etc like you're suggesting?