The Rule of Tens

[Nifft]

@ Kerrik: The thing to realize here is that you shouldn't reduce the average result. You can increase variability if you want (and we'll help with that), but you can't increase variability and keep the maximum result fixed, unless you also lower the expected result. (Or do something really wonky which I don't want to talk about.)

So, basically, you're left with:
- low variance, nice fixed max; or
- high variance, lower minimum, higher maximum.

Personally, I prefer to NOT have a fixed maximum -- if a player tries the impossible, he may sometimes succeed! That's cool IMHO.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Quartz]

The Rule of Tens

The Rule of Tens is fairly simple; it can be used for attack rolls, skill checks, or saves, but not ability bonuses or caster level checks. You roll 1d20 as usual; for each 10 points you have in the skill or attack bonus, you roll 1d10. Anything left over is added as a bonus.

For example: Delana has a +19 bonus in Craft (weaponsmithing). Instead of rolling 1d20+19 for her Craft checks, she would roll 1d20+1d10+9. If her bonus were, say, 31, she would roll 1d20+3d10+1.

Horrible, horrible, horrible. Everyone else has already said why.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Also, replacing d10s with d20s will make the problem worse - a +19 will be a LOT better than a +20.

Not true. Average of 1d20+1d20+9 = 30 (min. 11, max. 49)
Average of 1d20+1d20+1d20 = 31.5 (min. 3, max 60)

Sure, you can fail more disastrously, but you can succeed gloriously - in the average it works out as an effective bonus of +0.5.

Where as... with a 1d10:
1d20+9 = 19.5 (min. 10, max 29)
1d20+1d10 = 16 (min. 3, max 30)

See the difference: Replacing it with 1d20 will give a wider variance, while preserving the average - the increased minimum and the increased maximum cancel out each other.

Your variant is pure nerfing: You lower the average, the minimum without increase of the maximum, therefore:
1) It has only one effect: All characters will become worse, without trade-off.
2) Every math-savy player will stop at +9 bonuses, unless they can get a great jump ahead.
3) Power Attack gets a stupid feat: You lower your attack bonus to the next 9 to get better at attacking AND damage, at least unless you worked out the effective -4.5 penalty.

=> Your rule is akin to a rule: "For every +10 bonus, you get a -5 penalty on your rolls" (the math is close)

If you're going to use this rule (regardless of the size of increments or what ever), replace a number with a close average of a die, using a smaller die, will lead to the effects above.

 

[DreamChaser]

Sure, you can fail more disastrously, but you can succeed gloriously - in the average it works out as an effective bonus of +0.5.

This is the part I have issue with; as you get better, you should not become more likely to fail...

The drop in the minimum means that going from +9 (1d20 + 9, min = 10) to +10 (1d20 +1d20, min = 2) constitutes a sudden increase in danger from random chance.

The only way I see this system being viable is by using the system from UA which converts all bonuses into dice so that there is never this sudden drop off. Or, replace additional d20s with 2d10 to create the 2-20 range with an average of 11, which constitutes a slight increase without substantially changing the chance of failure. (gotta love the bell curve).

Of course both of these options increase the # of dice even further.

DC

 

[Kerrick]

Not true. Average of 1d20+1d20+9 = 30 (min. 11, max. 49)
Average of 1d20+1d20+1d20 = 31.5 (min. 3, max 60)

Oh... I see what you're doing. I was replacing 20 points with a d20, instead of 10. I'm still not sure that you should be able to roll a 60 with only a +20 bonus, but I do see that d20s are better overall.

Your variant is pure nerfing: You lower the average, the minimum without increase of the maximum, therefore:
1) It has only one effect: All characters will become worse, without trade-off.
2) Every math-savy player will stop at +9 bonuses, unless they can get a great jump ahead.
3) Power Attack gets a stupid feat: You lower your attack bonus to the next 9 to get better at attacking AND damage, at least unless you worked out the effective -4.5 penalty.

You have a point here.

But... if you're rolling d20s, how do you take 10? Is it just like the normal take 10, where you roll a 10 on the initial d20 and add it to your full bonus? What about take 20?

 

[Nifft]

Oh... I see what you're doing. I was replacing 20 points with a d20, instead of 10. I'm still not sure that you should be able to roll a 60 with only a +20 bonus, but I do see that d20s are better overall.

It's not even that d20s are better... it's that the expected value of a d20 is 10.5, so if we replace a flat +10 bonus with a d20 roll, we end up with about the same expected result.

You can do the same thing with dice of any size. You just need to replace the expected value of the roll rather than replacing the maximum value of the roll.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Darklone]

Did anyone read my proposal with 2d10? On how many ignore lists am I today ?

 

[Nifft]

Did anyone read my proposal with 2d10? On how many ignore lists am I today ?

Replacing +11 with 2d10 would be better, from a balance perspective. Or replacing +7 with 2d6, etc.

Sure, you have to count a little more, but it's not much more.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Raven Crowking]

Did anyone read my proposal with 2d10? On how many ignore lists am I today ?

I've decided against the idea. Although I initially thought it could solve some problems, I've become convinced that the problems it creates are worse than the problems it solves.

Sorry.

(But not ignored either. )

 

[Kerrick]

It's not even that d20s are better... it's that the expected value of a d20 is 10.5, so if we replace a flat +10 bonus with a d20 roll, we end up with about the same expected result.

I was looking at that list of common gaming terms posted on the front page, and I came across "exploding roll" - when you roll a die and the minimum or maximum result means you roll again. There's a variant rule in the ELH for this; instead of natural 1s/20s being autofail/autosucceed, you can "explode" the roll and instead apply a -20 penalty or +20 bonus to the roll and roll again. If you get another 1 or 20, you do the same thing, etc.

My points is, that a system where you can roll almost twice your normal bonus would help those on the low end of things, especially with attack rolls and saves, and would be overall beneficial at epic levels, where the DCs scale really high in general. That was kind of what they were aiming for with the exploding roll - a chance for someone to make a roll that's normally out of his/her reach. The only sticking point is still all those dice, but with the average roll being 10, you don't HAVE to roll all those extra dice if you don't want to - you're going to get the same result anyway - but you CAN if you want to try getting a really good roll.

I'm still wondering, though, what would be the check result be if you took 10 or 20? Would it apply only to the first d20?