PDA

View Full Version : Reducing Randomness in Combat



Popertop
2011-01-05, 02:35 AM
Has anyone ever tried to do this?

I don't really like how my success has a five percent chance of automatic failure and a five percent chance of automatic success.

What kind of alternate rolling systems have you used?
Maybe a d10, with modified rules for instant success and failure?

Some kind of checked swing or low intensity rule where you have a more comfortable range your character would normally roll (similar to taking 10, but with a wider range and with attack rolls)?

This also includes the save system and dealing with death.

Arutema
2011-01-05, 03:10 AM
Check out this 3d6 variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm) from the SRD.

Eldan
2011-01-05, 03:36 AM
It usually works best if the die you use a die or dice that have about the same range of numbers. The problem with a d10 is that you'd have to also modify all armour classes and saving throws or DCs, otherwise, a lot of things would not work properly anymore. An example would be a poison with a DC of 15: with 1d20+5, you have a better than 50-50 chance of making it, with a d10, the chance is one in ten.

It would probably be best if you used 2d10, the average is 11, a little higher than a d20, but overall, the results should be the same. Critical threat ranges have to be changed a little, but most things should work out.

DukeofDellot
2011-01-05, 03:37 AM
As Arutema stated (or linked), the more dice you roll the less random the result... which seems odd at first glance, but it's mathmatically sound if you care to go that far.

Typically I play GURPS, which uses 3d6, and about eighty percent of the time, I know exactly what's going to happen (as a GM) several turns in advance... but my players are pretty predictable.

Kuma Kode
2011-01-05, 06:03 AM
Check out this 3d6 variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm) from the SRD. I use this when the randomness gets on my nerves.

Gan The Grey
2011-01-05, 07:12 AM
I use 2D10 for 1D20 in my E6 setting, and my players freakin love it. Fumbles and crits are much rarer, and are thus much more special.

WinceRind
2011-01-05, 01:39 PM
Why would you want to do that?

If all your attacks hit, or alternatively, miss, with no epic fumbles or unlikely successes, I think that takes away a lot from the game. The whole "weak underdog that manages to score an unlikely yet fatal hit on the big bad guy" thing is a pretty common trope to fantasy as things go. Or any other type of action story-telling...

But, yeah, 3d6 might work.

If you want to make it atrociously boring, just add 10 to all your to hit bonuses and don't roll at all, and have fun with endless string of hits or misses...

Popertop
2011-01-05, 02:09 PM
That 3d6 variant looks really good.

Does it take an overly long time
to re adjust combat?

I never said I wanted to take away all the random chance from combat,
only that I wanted to reduce the random chance, if even a little bit.
I just think a characters abilities should factor in slightly more.
I can accept the fact that crits would happen less often, really.

2d10 might be enough of a change for me,
or 3d6 if I really feel it's necessary.

Do you think you could mix the two?
3d6 would be incompatible with 1d20 Im sure,
but if you have two players and they get the choice
between 1d20 and 2d10, or you have everyone vote
which one they want to use for each adventure,
that doesn't seem too bad.

Okay so my overall goal with this is probably just a massive houserule,
but I was trying to go with this:
As you start out adventuring, you aren't very good at it yet.
Your abilities are still new and untested and unpredictable.
You roll 1d20
As you gain experience and increase in skill and power,
you can have a happier medium with your abilities.
You roll 2d10
You have reached the pinnacle of adventuring might.
Nothing phases you anymore, you have seen it all.
You have total command over your abilities,
and random luck and chance has much less
of a stranglehold on your life.
You roll 3d6

What I'm trying to go with is the stronger you are, the more average everthing gets, so I'm hoping that the choices you make would have more of an impact rather than just hoping you roll high to hit some ac.
Thoughts?

Pinnacle
2011-01-05, 02:27 PM
3d6 would be incompatible with 1d20 Im sure..

3d6 and 1d20 have the same average, 10.5.

3d6 does have a slightly higher minimum and a slightly lower maximum, but that does contribute to less randomness.


What I'm trying to go with is the stronger you are, the more average everthing gets, so I'm hoping that the choices you make would have more of an impact rather than just hoping you roll high to hit some ac.
Thoughts?

What if the choices you make involve trying to make big crits?
Other than that, seems fine I s'pose.

Morquard
2011-01-05, 02:36 PM
3d6 would be incompatible with 1d20 Im sure,

3d6 is an official variant for d20. Each time you roll a d20 you now roll 3d6.

You can't roll a 19 or 20 but also not a 1 or 2.
Also around 50% of your rolls are between 9-11 or so, while the further you get to the edges the probability gets lower. So the results are more predictable, but the spectacular results (failure or success) are rarer and therefor more meaningful.

Only a 3 is an automatic miss and only an 18 is a auto-hit, bith is like 0.5% or so, instead of 5%.

The only thing you have to watch out for is crit ranges, where rules are provided as to how they work. I think when you crited on a 20 before, you now crit on 16-18 (which is around 5% again) and 19-20 is a 15-18.

You find it in Unearthed Arcana p.132

Popertop
2011-01-05, 02:41 PM
Well then I think that will be fine.

Thanks again playground.

stainboy
2011-01-05, 06:37 PM
2d10 is nice because it still allows a result of 20, so you don't need to change taking 20 or weapons' threat ranges (at least, assuming you're fine with crits being less likely).

Morquard
2011-01-05, 07:06 PM
2d10 is nice because it still allows a result of 20, so you don't need to change taking 20 or weapons' threat ranges (at least, assuming you're fine with crits being less likely).
The one reason thread ranges get changed with 3d6 is so they have aproximately the same probability than before. There wouldn't be a problem in making 20=18, 19-20=17-18 etc, but that messes up probability to much.

Just think about it:
In d20 a 20 is 5%, 19-20 is 10%, and 18-20 is 15% chance to score a threat.
Now if you use 2d10 and don't change the threatrange:
20 is 1% chance, 19-20 is 3% chance and 18-20 is 6% chance (if I didn't make a mistake now)
So, not only have you crippled the crit chance by alot now, 18-20 now is 6 times as likely as a single 20 instead of just 3 times, making 18-20 weapons ALOT more powerful in comparison.

Popertop
2011-01-05, 07:19 PM
how would you adjust the crit ranges to account for 2d10?

molten_dragon
2011-01-05, 07:46 PM
how would you adjust the crit ranges to account for 2d10?

Well, if the point is to reduce randomness, then I wouldn't change them at all. Crits are pretty random (i.e. they can cause what would normally be a survivable hit to kill someone), so if you want less randomness, they should happen less often.

Popertop
2011-01-05, 10:10 PM
well if I didn't want to take them all the way to 2d10,
or if I was compromising with someone that is really
resistant to alternate rules, are there threat ranges
I could use that would be comparable without being
exactly the same chance percentage wise?

Pinnacle
2011-01-06, 12:33 AM
On a d20, chances are pretty easy to figure out since there's only one die.
20 is 5%, 19-20 is 10%, 18-20 is 15% (as said above).

Lessee... on 2d10, 20 is only a 1% chance. 19-20 would be 3%, similar without being quite equal. 18-20 is 6%, 17-20 is 10%, 16-20 is 15%.


If my math is right...

Popertop
2011-01-06, 01:24 AM
yeah thats good, so we would just adjust crit ranges like this:
20 = 18-20 6%
19-20 = 17-20 10%
18-20 = 16-20 15%
17-20 =
15-20 =

So we need corresponding percentages to go with 17-20 and 15-20

or if we wanted less likely crits, but more than 1% chance at the least likely:
20 = 19-20 3%
19-20 = 18-20 6%
18-20 = 17-20 10%
17-20 = 16-20 15%
15-20 =

Kuma Kode
2011-01-06, 01:28 AM
I think making the chance of critical hits the same (and actually increasing the likelihood slightly, in some cases) as it used to be defeats the purpose of making things less random. Why go through the effort of using different die and redoing critical threat ranges when the battle-changing crits are just as likely to happen?

What exactly does this accomplish?

Gan The Grey
2011-01-06, 03:25 AM
So we need corresponding percentages to go with 17-20 and 15-20

or if we wanted less likely crits, but more than 1% chance at the least likely:
20 = 19-20 3%
19-20 = 18-20 6%
18-20 = 17-20 10%
17-20 = 16-20 15%
15-20 =

This is what I did. Yes, it slightly reduces the rate of crits, but this is part of what we're going for here - less randomness. Furthermore, I ruled that all feats and special effects that increase a weapon's threat range do so by an even two steps. Works really well.

Popertop
2011-01-06, 03:49 AM
I think making the chance of critical hits the same (and actually increasing the likelihood slightly, in some cases) as it used to be defeats the purpose of making things less random. Why go through the effort of using different die and redoing critical threat ranges when the battle-changing crits are just as likely to happen?

What exactly does this accomplish?

actually each step is less
20 = 3% instead of 20 = 5%
19-20 = 6% instead of 19-20 = 10%
18-20 = 10% instead of 18-20 = 15%

we decrease the likelihood for a crit on a 20 or 19,
and the next step down is almost back up to speed,
so builds that focus on critting a lot will still get to do that,
and if they get their threat range high enough, they will
actually crit more due to average rolls being more likely

Kuma Kode
2011-01-06, 04:36 AM
actually each step is less
20 = 3% instead of 20 = 5%
19-20 = 6% instead of 19-20 = 10%
18-20 = 10% instead of 18-20 = 15%

we decrease the likelihood for a crit on a 20 or 19,
and the next step down is almost back up to speed,
so builds that focus on critting a lot will still get to do that,
and if they get their threat range high enough, they will
actually crit more due to average rolls being more likely

My post was made before your edit, where the 20 was an 18-20 (6%).

Pinnacle
2011-01-06, 11:10 AM
yeah thats good, so we would just adjust crit ranges like this:
20 = 18-20 6%
19-20 = 17-20 10%
18-20 = 16-20 15%
17-20 =
15-20 =

So we need corresponding percentages to go with 17-20 and 15-20

or if we wanted less likely crits, but more than 1% chance at the least likely:
20 = 19-20 3%
19-20 = 18-20 6%
18-20 = 17-20 10%
17-20 = 16-20 15%
15-20 =

16-20 on d20 is a 25% chance. 15-20 is 30%.
15-20 on 2d10 is a 21% chance. 14-20 is 28%.

Waker
2011-01-06, 11:17 AM
Keep rolling d20s, but on a roll of a 1, reroll and subtract -10 from the second roll. A slight variant of the proposed skill failure/critical (can't remember where it's from) but applied to combat. Depending on the combat, you might still fail, but at least you have a chance of salvaging it.
The original variant read something to the effect of "Roll a 1, reroll -10. Roll a 20, reroll +20". If one the second or subsequent rolls you got a 1 or 20, you'd add or subtract to the previous roll until you got a roll that wasn't 1 or 20 and get your total."