I was debating whether or not to dip my toes in, but anyway here goes.
Theoretically, in a vacuum, I would prefer 2d10 over 1d20 and I have designed my own (post-apocalyptic world frame) system based around using 2d10 + mods as the primary mechanic.
However in context, for DnD, which was a roleplaying system that grew from a wargaming system, I'm happy with the 1d20. But why?
Most of DnD's crunch is based around combat. And more specifically, the combat system is an abstraction. A generic hit point is not a realistic model of physical injury, but that's okay because if I wanted realistic injuries I would use a different system than one that is targeted at heroic fantasy.
By the same token, the <<1d20 + modifiers>> I feel is actually a great way of abstracting away all the complexity of combat and modelling it with a single roll. As someone who has experienced melee combat, 6 seconds is a huge length of time and there's so much going on that you're never going to capture all of that in a TTRPG that is actually playable. But the swinginess of the 1d20 does model that. You roll the dice then decide how to explain the result.
Where <<1d20 + mods>> does fall down a bit is outside of combat, specifically skill tests. The complaint some have is that a skilled expert has far too great a chance of failing the simplest test. But I don't really see a problem (and others above have said similar). As a DM, if you have proficiency and time to perform an action, and it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that without any external pressure you could do that action, then I would simply let you succeed. No roll required.
There is no rule in DnD that says that PCs have to roll every single time they want to do something. Do you make them roll to buy a beer at the tavern? In fact, I would argue that (outside of combat), the opposite is true. The default is (or should be) to not roll, unless the outcome is uncertain. Maybe there's a time limit, maybe there's a distraction, or any number of other external circumstances that mean that there is a chance of failure and a roll is called for.
So assuming that (outside of combat) we are only rolling an ability check when there is a reasonable chance of failure, then 1d20 works just fine so long as you set the DC appropriately. As Pangurjan has said, it's just a number at the end of the day, a % chance of success/failure. And given that the 5e system has been built around the 1d20, I don't feel there is a compelling reason to change it based on these priors. If for some reason you insist on rolling for absolutely everything outside of combat, then yeah of course a bell curve is going to feel more reliable than a straight line. But my response would be that if failing a given test seems so unrealistic, why not just make it a 100% success chance and not roll?
We had a Party of 3. Full Elf, Half Elf, Half Celestial Elf (winged). We were playing 3.5 Gestalted level progression, since our party was so small.
The background was that we had just graduated from Elf College, so we started at level three, as though we had gotten an advanced degree. Two got phds at level three. I started Master's degree with level two, because the half celestial template ate up a level.
For our final exam, we had to do this Survivor/non-fatal Hunger Games styled "one shot"
It started with a long hallway with a door at the end. It was locked.
Player One did Open Locks,, the only character with that skill, and failed on a 1, . Tools broke in the lock.
Player Two essentially cast "knock" but *also* rolled a 1. Basically giving it a magical lock where there wasn't one before.
Player Three (me) finally attempted to bash the door down with a flying sprint down the long hallway.
And promptly rolled a 1. I not only knocked myself out, I "sprained" my wings.
We still managed to graduate, and the GM explained it away by saying that our professors laughed so effin hard that they decided right then and there to graduate us, if anything, just to get us off-campus before we hurt anyone. We needn't have finished the Quest after all, but we didn't know that.
Each of us had a "Detect" spell as a cantrip which we abused the hell out of. Detect Magic, Detect Law/Chaos, Detect Good/Evil.
Our GM flavored it as us being the 3 sisters/fates singing in 3 part harmony. We further flavored ourselves as a trio ala the Supremes, but in drag.
I got our name in week 3 (3 again!) when I went to the grocery store to buy us snacks, and came across a bag of donuts - the brand was Hostess Donettes.
Guess I am a little late on the debate, but if anyone is still reading would be happy to have your thoughts on my propositions. Hope everything will be more or less correctly worded as I am a native french speaker from Belgium.
The context: We are starting a new Ravenloft campaign with a new group end of march. Probably an adventure in Souragne. I have been reading tons of E5 books, extensions etc. I am a player who jumped from E2 (15 years on that version) to E5. made a small stop in E3.
My initial intent was to give more emphase on skills/profiencies. I turn the RAW d20 system in every way and it does not work for me. The d20 range is too big, chaotic. never really liked it. The idea of the advantage/disadvantage is nice in E5 but does not work for me as it is. So I was thinking to move to a 2d10 based system (or why not 2d12). Been looking a little the bell curves etc.
My ideas
Idea one:
regular roll > 2D10 +prof+bonus Advantage roll > 3d10 + prof + bonuses and keep the best 2d10 Disadvantage roll > 3d10 + prof+bonuses and keep the 2 lowest d10
Easy, and I like the idea of rolling 3d10 rather than 2 dices.
Second idea:
This idea came upon me while reading the few pages here. so what if:
regular roll > 2D10 + prof+ bonuses Advantage roll > 1d10 + 1d12 (this dice would represent the advantage) + prof + bonuses. Now perhaps 2d12 would be also nicer? Disadvantage roll > 1D10 + 1D8 ( the disadvantage dice) + prof + bonuses. Now I am not sure that 2D8 would work. I think it could be tough on players?
I am for sure also going to tweak a little the profiencies/skills. Either by starting rather @ +3 Level 1>4 or using what was proposed here but perhaps with a shorter list. I really like what @fromshus proposed.
I was debating whether or not to dip my toes in, but anyway here goes.
Theoretically, in a vacuum, I would prefer 2d10 over 1d20 and I have designed my own (post-apocalyptic world frame) system based around using 2d10 + mods as the primary mechanic.
However in context, for DnD, which was a roleplaying system that grew from a wargaming system, I'm happy with the 1d20. But why?
Most of DnD's crunch is based around combat. And more specifically, the combat system is an abstraction. A generic hit point is not a realistic model of physical injury, but that's okay because if I wanted realistic injuries I would use a different system than one that is targeted at heroic fantasy.
By the same token, the <<1d20 + modifiers>> I feel is actually a great way of abstracting away all the complexity of combat and modelling it with a single roll. As someone who has experienced melee combat, 6 seconds is a huge length of time and there's so much going on that you're never going to capture all of that in a TTRPG that is actually playable. But the swinginess of the 1d20 does model that. You roll the dice then decide how to explain the result.
Where <<1d20 + mods>> does fall down a bit is outside of combat, specifically skill tests. The complaint some have is that a skilled expert has far too great a chance of failing the simplest test. But I don't really see a problem (and others above have said similar). As a DM, if you have proficiency and time to perform an action, and it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that without any external pressure you could do that action, then I would simply let you succeed. No roll required.
There is no rule in DnD that says that PCs have to roll every single time they want to do something. Do you make them roll to buy a beer at the tavern? In fact, I would argue that (outside of combat), the opposite is true. The default is (or should be) to not roll, unless the outcome is uncertain. Maybe there's a time limit, maybe there's a distraction, or any number of other external circumstances that mean that there is a chance of failure and a roll is called for.
So assuming that (outside of combat) we are only rolling an ability check when there is a reasonable chance of failure, then 1d20 works just fine so long as you set the DC appropriately. As Pangurjan has said, it's just a number at the end of the day, a % chance of success/failure. And given that the 5e system has been built around the 1d20, I don't feel there is a compelling reason to change it based on these priors. If for some reason you insist on rolling for absolutely everything outside of combat, then yeah of course a bell curve is going to feel more reliable than a straight line. But my response would be that if failing a given test seems so unrealistic, why not just make it a 100% success chance and not roll?
True story:
We had a Party of 3. Full Elf, Half Elf, Half Celestial Elf (winged). We were playing 3.5 Gestalted level progression, since our party was so small.
The background was that we had just graduated from Elf College, so we started at level three, as though we had gotten an advanced degree. Two got phds at level three. I started Master's degree with level two, because the half celestial template ate up a level.
For our final exam, we had to do this Survivor/non-fatal Hunger Games styled "one shot"
It started with a long hallway with a door at the end. It was locked.
Player One did Open Locks,, the only character with that skill, and failed on a 1, . Tools broke in the lock.
Player Two essentially cast "knock" but *also* rolled a 1. Basically giving it a magical lock where there wasn't one before.
Player Three (me) finally attempted to bash the door down with a flying sprint down the long hallway.
And promptly rolled a 1. I not only knocked myself out, I "sprained" my wings.
We still managed to graduate, and the GM explained it away by saying that our professors laughed so effin hard that they decided right then and there to graduate us, if anything, just to get us off-campus before we hurt anyone. We needn't have finished the Quest after all, but we didn't know that.
Each of us had a "Detect" spell as a cantrip which we abused the hell out of. Detect Magic, Detect Law/Chaos, Detect Good/Evil.
Our GM flavored it as us being the 3 sisters/fates singing in 3 part harmony. We further flavored ourselves as a trio ala the Supremes, but in drag.
I got our name in week 3 (3 again!) when I went to the grocery store to buy us snacks, and came across a bag of donuts - the brand was Hostess Donettes.
We were the Donettes forever on.
Hello community,
Guess I am a little late on the debate, but if anyone is still reading would be happy to have your thoughts on my propositions. Hope everything will be more or less correctly worded as I am a native french speaker from Belgium.
The context: We are starting a new Ravenloft campaign with a new group end of march. Probably an adventure in Souragne. I have been reading tons of E5 books, extensions etc. I am a player who jumped from E2 (15 years on that version) to E5. made a small stop in E3.
My initial intent was to give more emphase on skills/profiencies. I turn the RAW d20 system in every way and it does not work for me. The d20 range is too big, chaotic. never really liked it. The idea of the advantage/disadvantage is nice in E5 but does not work for me as it is. So I was thinking to move to a 2d10 based system (or why not 2d12). Been looking a little the bell curves etc.
My ideas
regular roll > 2D10 +prof+bonus
Advantage roll > 3d10 + prof + bonuses and keep the best 2d10
Disadvantage roll > 3d10 + prof+bonuses and keep the 2 lowest d10
Easy, and I like the idea of rolling 3d10 rather than 2 dices.
This idea came upon me while reading the few pages here. so what if:
regular roll > 2D10 + prof+ bonuses
Advantage roll > 1d10 + 1d12 (this dice would represent the advantage) + prof + bonuses. Now perhaps 2d12 would be also nicer?
Disadvantage roll > 1D10 + 1D8 ( the disadvantage dice) + prof + bonuses. Now I am not sure that 2D8 would work. I think it could be tough on players?
I am for sure also going to tweak a little the profiencies/skills. Either by starting rather @ +3 Level 1>4 or using what was proposed here but perhaps with a shorter list. I really like what @fromshus proposed.
Skill Focuses - The Homebrewery (naturalcrit.com)
Specific skill proficiencies - Homebrew & House Rules - Dungeons & Dragons Discussion - D&D Beyond Forums - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Thanks for reading me.