PDA

View Full Version : [d20] The Influence of a d20, too much?



Kaihaku
2009-02-06, 05:46 PM
Is the random range 1-20 unbalanced with existing modifiers, is it just right?

The most pressing example would be d20 Modern/3.X skills, particularly unmaxed skills which often effectively seem useless save for requirements and fluff.

As a variant rule how would it affect a game to rule that all skill modifiers, saving throws, DCs, ACs, and attack modifiers were doubled? Would this reward players by making their choices more valuable or would the increased range (effective cutting the value of a d20 roll in half) make it even more difficult for low-to-mid modifiers to have an impact? What are other options?

MammonAzrael
2009-02-06, 05:52 PM
From what I understand d20 skills are fairly unwieldy.

I could be wrong, since I haven't played it, but I think I recall hearing that GURPS has a good skill system.

Also, I believe one popular houserule regarding d20 usage is to substitute 2d10 for certain rolls. Slightly less random as you will more often get the middle results.

AslanCross
2009-02-06, 05:56 PM
The influence of a d20 drops dramatically as modifiers increase. By the time a modifier is in the high teens, the d20 doesn't really do much anymore. The problem with 3.5 is that DCs don't really scale (at least in the same way that they do in 4E, this is one of the few things I like about 4E), so attack bonuses have a huge impact. Due to the way Strength and size work, Large monsters have a massive edge over medium monsters of the same CR.

Even a CR 8 Hill Giant would have an AB of +16. An 8th level NPC human fighter, assuming a strength of 17 (15 from elite array+gauntlets of ogre power) would only have an AB of +11. If either of those is doubled, everybody in your game is going to hit each other all the time, given that it's difficult to get AC over 25 at those levels.

Another thing to consider is Power Attack. It's one of those feats that just gets better and better. If I have a +32 modifier to my attack roll, I can easily burn up 10 of that AB for Power Attack and get an easy, reliable +20 to damage with a 2-handed weapon. That's likely to make for very quick and messy deaths across the board.

Kaihaku
2009-02-06, 06:03 PM
The influence of a d20 drops dramatically as modifiers increase. By the time a modifier is in the high teens, the d20 doesn't really do much anymore. The problem with 3.5 is that DCs don't really scale (at least in the same way that they do in 4E, this is one of the few things I like about 4E), so attack bonuses have a huge impact. Due to the way Strength and size work, Large monsters have a massive edge over medium monsters of the same CR.

Even a CR 8 Hill Giant would have an AB of +16. An 8th level NPC human fighter, assuming a strength of 17 (15 from elite array+gauntlets of ogre power) would only have an AB of +11. If either of those is doubled, everybody in your game is going to hit each other all the time, given that it's difficult to get AC over 25 at those levels.

Another thing to consider is Power Attack. It's one of those feats that just gets better and better. If I have a +32 modifier to my attack roll, I can easily burn up 10 of that AB for Power Attack and get an easy, reliable +20 to damage with a 2-handed weapon. That's likely to make for very quick and messy deaths across the board.

Valid points. The only thing you seem to have missed is that AC would be doubled as well, so it would actually be more difficult to hit an enemy than previously (which is my concern).

Now: 1d20 + mods VS. DC
Variant: 1d20 + 2x(mods) VS. 2x(DC)

The d20 isn't doubled so the range of possible results is decreased by half, which is a problem...

Edge of Dreams
2009-02-06, 06:18 PM
Variant: 1d20 + 2x(mods) VS. 2x(DC)


That amounts to the same thing as 1d10 + mods VS. DC
Your version just has a higher "resolution"

AslanCross
2009-02-06, 06:27 PM
Ah, I missed that. My bad.

It's still only 7 AM here, so my mind is not really in the condition to think of various issues that may arise from this. Nevertheless, even if AC is doubled, it still doesn't scale with level like all the other modifiers do. It's mostly dependent on gear and situational modifiers, so I think the end result would likely hurt low-AB classes severely, while anything that has a high modifier wouldn't really care much.

The 6th level rogue, with her +8 to attack with her rapier (+4 BAB + +4 Dex with Weapon Finesse) would get less mileage than the 6th level warblade with his +10. (+6 BAB + +4 Strength).

Look at it this way:
A character with a +1 AB gets a total of +2.
A character with a +2 AB gets a total of +4. He gets double the AB.
A character with a +3 gets +6. He gets triple the bonus.
And so on. Simply doubling everything skews the discrepancy out a lot.

The only good I can see coming out of this would be touch attacks being a lot harder to land. They're just far too easy to land as is, IMO.

seth4u
2009-02-06, 06:27 PM
You could just aswell substitute a D20 with say, a D6 or D10 or whatever the hell you like.
For DCs it's usually 10 (half the maximum you can score) + modifier.
You can easily make that 3 + modifier for a D6 roll or what have you.
Doesn't change any difficulties at all, just makes for even more number crunching instead of enjoying the game :/

Greg
2009-02-06, 07:20 PM
Valid points. The only thing you seem to have missed is that AC would be doubled as well, so it would actually be more difficult to hit an enemy than previously (which is my concern).

Now: 1d20 + mods VS. DC
Variant: 1d20 + 2x(mods) VS. 2x(DC)

The d20 isn't doubled so the range of possible results is decreased by half, which is a problem...
Isn't one of the intrinsic problems of the d20 system that offensive modifiers increase faster than defensive modifiers?

In that case doubling the modifiers on both sides only exacerbates the differences. Unless your modifiers scale at an equal rate, the imbalances will only be multiplied.

If you're seeking a bell curve arrangement (i.e. mostly average rolls with a few very good and very bad rolls), there is the 3d6 system variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm).

Knaight
2009-02-06, 10:23 PM
The main issue is skills, so if you just double those, your pretty much good. Or play a different system, the d20 is geared towards high variance unrealistic.

Kaihaku
2009-02-07, 09:58 AM
That amounts to the same thing as 1d10 + mods VS. DC
Your version just has a higher "resolution"

For Skill checks, effectively yes. For Attack rolls there is another difference in that a d20 keeps a 5% chance for natural 1s/20s while a d10 would decrease it to 10%.


Isn't one of the intrinsic problems of the d20 system that offensive modifiers increase faster than defensive modifiers?

Possibly.


In that case doubling the modifiers on both sides only exacerbates the differences. Unless your modifiers scale at an equal rate, the imbalances will only be multiplied.

I have other variants in mind for dealing with modifier imbalances, for this I wanted to hear thoughts on the impact of the d20.


If you're seeking a bell curve arrangement (i.e. mostly average rolls with a few very good and very bad rolls), there is the 3d6 system variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm).

It's always struck me as an interesting variant but I've never had a DM use it and I'm not convinced it's needed enough to implement it.


The main issue is skills, so if you just double those, your pretty much good. Or play a different system, the d20 is geared towards high variance unrealistic.

True, Skills are my main concern. I actually don't have much issue with how the d20 influences Attack and Defense that I don't have other ways of handling, but the d20 has a lot of influence on Skill Checks. That is true, the d20 Skill system leaves much to be desired.

Jerthanis
2009-02-07, 10:20 AM
Doesn't change any difficulties at all, just makes for even more number crunching instead of enjoying the game :/

Because no one enjoys number crunching.

Anyway, the solution I'd use is indeed the "2d10 skill checks" instead of the d20. In fact, I'd consider making a universal 2d10 rule if I wanted to emphasize the importance of skill over luck, and present a slightly belled curve. Heck, I might consider playing around with modifiers and use 3d6 or 5d4 for an even more steeply belled curve. I'd only do 5d4 if I wanted to constantly be dropping dice all over the place though.

ericgrau
2009-02-07, 10:25 AM
Is the random range 1-20 unbalanced with existing modifiers, is it just right?

The most pressing example would be d20 Modern/3.X skills, particularly unmaxed skills which often effectively seem useless save for requirements and fluff.

As a variant rule how would it affect a game to rule that all skill modifiers, saving throws, DCs, ACs, and attack modifiers were doubled? Would this reward players by making their choices more valuable or would the increased range (effective cutting the value of a d20 roll in half) make it even more difficult for low-to-mid modifiers to have an impact? What are other options?

I thought the same thing a long time ago, then after a couple years I learned to analyze it a bit better and found that it wasn't so. +1's can really add up, a smart player should value each one he gets, and a few modifiers here and there can quickly make something near-auto-success or near-auto-fail. Anything less than a d20, or increasing the modifiers at all would screw this up, as you'd quickly blow past the die size even at equal ECL. If you want to make the system less counter-intuitive, you could reduce the number of types of +1's available, and then increase the bonus given by each one.

As for skill checks, it depends on how closely you play by the rules. If your DM is just fudging things well (1) he isn't gonna use most of them half the time anyway - often focusing on 1 or 2 - and (2) he's gonna fudge DCs to match your level, which makes them way too high for anyone who isn't a dedicated skill-monkey. There are a lot of DC 0, DC 5, DC 10, and DC 15 checks that are useful from levels 1-20, so having a low skill modifier is still helpful. A lower modify gives you less options that you can do reliably, but it isn't totally useless.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-02-07, 10:43 AM
That amounts to the same thing as 1d10 + mods VS. DC
Your version just has a higher "resolution"

It doesn't, since modifiers and DCs would change in increments of two. It'd be the exact same as replacing the d20 with the d10.


GURPS was mentioned. Now, both systems work essentially the same - you have a percentage chance of success. It's just that with d20, you're dealing with 5% chance increments. With GURPS, rolling 3d6 under (X +/- modifiers), you get a standard distribution of roll results, with an average of 10.5, with 10 and 11 the most common results. That means that the higher or lower the number, the lower its odds. What this amounts to is that you hit 95% chance to succeed at an unmodified roll pretty soon. However, unmodified rolls are supposed to be easy for pros - anything more complex or difficult has a negative modifier to the target number, which lowers your odds of success. This means that if your skill is 20, you can take a -4 modifier and only have your odds go down by a few percentile points, while someone with skill 12 would lose dozens of percentile points!

It works out great. 3d6 is my favorite resolution system, because the distribution gives good resolution between amateur, professional, and master - pros aren't failing simple tasks 25% of the time, but masters still have an advantage.

d20 is built around the d20 from the ground up, though, and substituting it with any other dice would usually require messing with ALL bonuses and DCs. It's too complex, to me. Fixing the bonus/DC ratio (including AB/AC) should be easier.

Draz74
2009-02-07, 12:47 PM
If you're going to mess with the d20 at all, I think the change that has the smallest avalanche of consequences is replacing a d20 with a d12+d8. It gives it a bell curve, but a much flatter, less extreme bell curve than 3d6, and slightly flatter and less extreme than 2d10.

Kaihaku
2009-02-08, 03:21 AM
I thought the same thing a long time ago, then after a couple years I learned to analyze it a bit better and found that it wasn't so. +1's can really add up, a smart player should value each one he gets, and a few modifiers here and there can quickly make something near-auto-success or near-auto-fail. Anything less than a d20, or increasing the modifiers at all would screw this up, as you'd quickly blow past the die size even at equal ECL. If you want to make the system less counter-intuitive, you could reduce the number of types of +1's available, and then increase the bonus given by each one.

I understand that but I think it's a problem with the system that unless a character maxes out a skill every level it has very little use. More scaling DCs is one way of addressing that but the influence of the d20 was one gray area that I wanted to think through before fiddling with it. I'd prefer it if unmaxed skills would more impact at low to mid levels.

J.Gellert
2009-02-08, 03:42 AM
For that reason, I have pondered just getting rid of skill checks in the past.

Instead you compare your modifier against DC - 10. Effectively a forced "take 10", with the skill representing simply whether or not you can do something (and if you can do it, you succeed every time).

Obviously won't work with all skills.

endoperez
2009-02-08, 04:14 AM
Speaking of 3d6 bell curves, there was a recent thread on Homebrew that suggested replacing d20 with d8+d12. I couldn't find it again, but this isn't my idea.

Here's the bell curve.


10 on d12: A
11 on d12: B
12 on d12: C

sum: d8/d12
2: 11
3: 12, 21
4: 13, 22, 31
5: 14, 23, 32, 41
6: 15, 24, 33, 42, 51
7: 16, 25, 34, 43, 52, 61
8: 17, 26, 35, 44, 53, 62, 71
9: 18, 27, 36, 45, 54, 63, 72, 81
10: 19, 28, 37, 46, 55, 64, 73, 82
11: 1A, 29, 38, 47, 56, 65, 74, 83
12: 1B, 2A, 39, 48, 57, 66, 75, 84
13: 1C, 2B, 3C, 49, 58, 67, 76, 85
14: 2C, 3B, 4A, 59, 68, 77, 86
15: 3C, 4B, 5A, 69, 78, 88
16: 4C, 5B, 6A, 79, 88
17: 5C, 6B, 7A, 89
18: 6C, 7B, 8A
19: 7C, 8B
20: 8C

Total of different combinations: 12*6 = 96.


I like that very much.

edit: of course, NOW I notice that a pirate-ninja already posted this yesterday. :smallannoyed:

Starscream
2009-02-08, 04:54 AM
I've always really liked the GURPS system. Roll 3d6, if the result is under your rank for that skill you win. Of course, skills in that system are acquired in a totally different manner, so it probably couldn't be adapted to D&D very easily.

Project_Mayhem
2009-02-08, 09:39 AM
Before last Friday I would have raved about the OWoD dicepool system. Then, on 12d10, I managed no successes (six +), and five 1s. This resulted in the column-like island of vital importance I was climbing falling into the sea. Oops.

ericgrau
2009-02-08, 10:13 AM
I understand that but I think it's a problem with the system that unless a character maxes out a skill every level it has very little use. More scaling DCs is one way of addressing that but the influence of the d20 was one gray area that I wanted to think through before fiddling with it. I'd prefer it if unmaxed skills would more impact at low to mid levels.

See 2nd paragraph of previous post, FWIW. You might still disagree, but at least quote that one when talking about skills :smalltongue:.

Riffington
2009-02-08, 10:45 AM
The problem here is that skills are level-based. So, a 3d6 system works well if you don't have levels, because you get a nice bell-shaped curve. Which is wonderful, if you know what ranges of skill modifiers are possible for your characters. But in D&D, the rules are designed for a huge range of levels. You'd like, ideally, for a good liar to be able (at the start of a campaign) to convince the cops that it was an honest mistake for him to be out after curfew, and (at the end of a campaign) to convince them that he has every right to be out after curfew. If your curve is bell-shaped, and his skill modifier goes up 2-3 points over the campaign, that works great. But if his modifier goes up 10 points, he could be telling the cops that three little old ladies just mugged him and stole his three purses. So D&D just flattens the probabilities, says "well, we don't know how much skill you might have, so we will make skill less important". The side effect is that you sometimes have a skilled mountain climber beaten up a sheer rock face by a two year old paraplegic.

RebelRogue
2009-02-08, 12:17 PM
Before last Friday I would have raved about the OWoD dicepool system. Then, on 12d10, I managed no successes (six +), and five 1s. This resulted in the column-like island of vital importance I was climbing falling into the sea. Oops.
As much as I've enjoyed playing oWoD too (specifically Werewolf: The Apocalypse), this is one if its weak points. I've seen plenty of situations where these kind of rolls have made little sense, and more than once killed characters in easy-looking combats. It has some charm (in the "everyone can die... any time!"-sense), but in the context of the thread topic, it's rather bad.

Kaihaku
2009-02-08, 06:05 PM
See 2nd paragraph of previous post, FWIW. You might still disagree, but at least quote that one when talking about skills :smalltongue:.

I read it and didn't think it necessary to respond. No slight intended.


As for skill checks, it depends on how closely you play by the rules. If your DM is just fudging things well (1) he isn't gonna use most of them half the time anyway - often focusing on 1 or 2 - and (2) he's gonna fudge DCs to match your level, which makes them way too high for anyone who isn't a dedicated skill-monkey. There are a lot of DC 0, DC 5, DC 10, and DC 15 checks that are useful from levels 1-20, so having a low skill modifier is still helpful. A lower modify gives you less options that you can do reliably, but it isn't totally useless.

That's true, most skilled Dungeon Masters would find ways of balancing the system in game. I've argued the same in other discussions and I'll reply with the answer I received. That's true but this is about imbalances in the system and the fact that a Dungeon Master can balance out problems on the fly doesn't negate poor design.

The DC 0, DC 5, and DC 15 skill checks are all easily met by a character with no ranks invested in a skill. Yes, investing a handful of ranks does give a character more of a chance of meeting those low DCs and thus it isn't totally useless but the benefits are relatively small. Then after investing a certain number of ranks in a Skill characters are basically guaranteed success 100% of the time. I think there should be a bit more of a progression between you are marginally better than someone completely untrained and you win every time.