Bell Curve variant rule

[Helldog]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm
What do you think about this variant? Any experience in-game with it? I'm considering using it, but would like to get some opinions before I make the decision.

[Big Fau]

Rolling 3d6 gives you a lot more average rolls, which favors the stronger side in combat. And in the d20 game, that’s almost always the PCs. Many monsters—especially low-CR monsters encountered in groups—rely heavily on a lucky shot to damage PCs.

That entire line in the variant makes me think they didn't even look at the MM when writing that. The CR system is unreliable at best, swinging back and forth between under ad over-CR'ed enemies. A generic Orc Warrior is supposed to be weaker than a PC, but it is capable of one-shoting a 1st level character regardless of class.

The Bell Curve variant has one major advantage: The PCs only need to get their stats into the "Average is enough" range, instead of "High enough that only a Natural 1 matters". The Bell Curve also helps noncasters be a little more efficient, although it removes the Critical Hit mechanic almost entirely (or requires the DM to modify the Critical ranges).

[Ravens_cry]

it removes the Critical Hit mechanic almost entirely (or requires the DM to modify the Critical ranges).
No it doesn't, keep reading, specifically under Threat Range.

[Big Fau]

No it doesn't, keep reading, specifically under Threat Range.

I did miss that.

[Yora]

Randomnes almost always works against the PCs. Greater predictablity works in their favor. So using 3d6 should make things quite a bit easier.
When you would need a really high roll to succeed, it's best to try something else instead, but when a medium number will do the job, there is a low chance that it will fail. You can plan more and the strength of enemies stays relatively consistend with low chances for a lucky roll that deals tremendous damage to the party. When damage comes at a steady rate, you can prepare better.

[MukkTB]

I tried playing with it. Theoretically it should be better for the players because the randomness has been toned down. Even the DM should be able to make more solid plans.

In practice it feels weird.

[Helldog]

In practice it feels weird.
Yeah. D&D is a d20 System after all. Although it doesn't bother me very much.

[Gotterdammerung]

Get real radical and go with a 5d4 system!

[daemonaetea]

I've been toying with an idea lately for a similar system (making rolls more average). I was thinking of replacing the d20 with the d10 as the basis of the system, and lowering the generic base 10 across the board with a base 5. Anything with a former DC of 5 or less simply becomes an automatic success.

Still not sure how critical's should be handled with this system, though.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Get real radical and go with a 5d4 system!

I use a 14d10 system.

It's called Exalted. :smalltongue:

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I use a 14d10 system.

It's called Exalted. :smalltongue:

Between your avatar and that statement, there's an image macro in the making.:smallbiggrin:

More seriously, I dislike a lot of the bell curve stuffs in DND. They just have the vague sense of "off." Trying to gauge what is and isn't a dangerous encounter can be tricky. If the numbers are slightly off and the averages pan out on the attacks, well, better hope that the damage isn't a lot, or the PCs will face it at every turn.

This may be my PC-induced paranoia kicking in again, but when your job more-or-less swings back and forth between "dangerous hobo" and "The A-Team," it's good to have a plan.

[GoatBoy]

Another result of the bell curve is that small modifiers matter more at mid scores and less at extremely low and high scores. I'm half-assedly working on a 3d6 system of my own, but simply replacing 3.5's d20 with 3d6 doesn't function much past being a curious intellectual exercise.

[sonofzeal]

I've always wanted to try it, but never managed to get around to it. I don't see any reason it couldn't work though.

[Zeta Kai]

1) d6's are almost invariably in greater supply, so everybody can find their dice without issue.

2) As stated before, the rolls are much more predictable, to the point where everyone can rely on certain outcomes. This leads characters to be far more confident about average checks, & far less confident about risky rolls. Overall, players tend to be more conservative with their plans, because they know which things should work, & which will get them killed.

3) Monsters tend to die more quickly, with less danger to the PCs. Everybody hits more consistently, & critical hits are less frequent, which favors the PCs. After all, a monster is in one fight; the PCs are in every fight.

4) The game tends to drift toward a slightly more cerebral, tactical experience, as players strategize how to best use their resources to accomplish their goals, instead of kicking in the door & mowing down the opposition in a frenzy of initiative rolls & poor planning. Some DMs may not be prepared for this subtle-yet-profound shift in game play, as chandelier-swinging & head-smashing gives way to multi-phase planning & map-checking.

[Godskook]

In my experience, 'challenging' monsters have very high attack modifiers, to the point that they miss on like a 5. On a d20 roll, that's 25% of the time. With 3d6, that's more like 3%. So honestly, I find the 'this is much safer for PCs' sentiment to not be taking all things into account. A DM not used to this system will find himself executing a significant number of PCs if he's not careful.

What this will wind up doing, in the end, is narrowing the range of CRs that can be thrown against a party. What amounts to a 'strong' enemy will have to be lowered in order to keep it from being overpowering, while 'mooks' are going to have to be stronger. Its probably a good system for E6, where the power disparity between 'epic' and level 1 is significantly less decisive.

[u-b]

I heard positive report from a group that uses 2d10 (which distribution kind of averages between 1d20 and 3d6). Tends to emphasize buffs, but overall ok.