Anyone played with 2d10 rather than 1d20?

[danzibr]

I've seen a couple threads talking about it, but has anyone actually played with using 2d10 for attack rolls and skill checks? What modifications did you make? Did it work better than 1d20? Worse? Merits, demerits?

I assume there'd have to be some fiddling with threat ranges, just get as close as possible as 5% for a 20, 10% for a 19-20, etc.

[Deaxsa]

other than threat ranges it works pretty much straigh out of the box, but remember that it puts more emphasis on modifiers. it's also seen as the "perfect compromise" between 3d6 and 1d20 because it still has enough variance to allow for high and low numbers, and yet it also does pseudo-normalize the rolls.

[Artillery]

That would change the odds of rolling various numbers immensely. It basically would make middle numbers far more common then the rest.

For instance the number of different roll combinations that get a specific value. There are 100 different possible rolls with 2d10, aka d100.
There is a 1% chance of getting a nat20 and a 0% chance of getting a nat1.
You will roll average often, 44% of possible rolls are between 9-13
{table]Dice roll|Percent Chance

1|
0%
2|
1%
3|
2%
4|
3%
5|
4%
6|
5%
7|
6%
8|
7%
9|
8%
10|
9%
11|
10%
12|
9%
13|
8%
14|
7%
15|
6%
16|
5%
17|
4%
18|
3%
19|
2%
20|
1%
[/table]
For adjusting crit ranges using math...

{table]
Normal Crit range|
Crit %|
Nearest Crit Range|
Adjusted Crit %
20|
5%|
18-20|
6%
19-20|
10%|
17-20|
10%
18-20|
15%|
16-20|
15%
17-20|
20%|
15-20|
21%
16-20|
30%|
14-20|
28%
[/table]

Basically rolls are weighted toward "average", which is an 11 for 2d10.

3d6 results in more of a bell curve then 2d10 which is linear.
http://www.thedarkfortress.co.uk/tech_reports/tech_assets/3-dice-charts.gif

[Gimur]

The primary difference you'll see in going from 1d20 to 2d10 would be more consistency from roll to roll.
With 1d20, there's an equal chance every time the die is rolled to get any of the numbers on the die. The chance to roll a 1 is the same as it is to roll a 10, and also the same as to roll a 20. Therefore, the average roll on 1d20 is 10.5. Of course, that's assuming the dice gods aren't feeling generous, or vindictive. :smallamused:
With 2d10, the percentages change. With two dice, the possibility of rolling a 1 is eliminated, which will shift the average up to 11. Additionally, it alters the probability away from the extreme values, since the chances to roll a 2 or a 20 change from a 1 in 20 occurrence each into a 1 in 100 occurrence.

Personally, I haven't run anything this way, so I'm not positive on the total effect it would have. I foresee modifiers being more important, since rolls are more centralized around average. Critical threats would be somewhat rarer. On 2d10 it'd drop 20 crit range weapons to being 1%, 19-20 to 3%, 18-20 to 6%, 17-20 to 10%.. Comparatively, they'd be 5, 10, 15, 20% on 1d20.

The biggest merit to 2d10 is definitely consistency. Much less chance of absolute silliness due to cruel dice!
However, it can also be a bad thing to have more consistency like that. The further away from 11 a goal gets, the less likely it will be passed. Just like the numbers I was displaying just a minute ago. 55% to get 11 or higher, but by the time you get to 14, it dwindles to 28%. It'd usually be 50%, 35%. Not a significant dip in percentage, but just something to keep in mind.

Edit: Bah, swordsage'd. And in a more easily comprehensible format, even.

[Deaxsa]

3d6 results in more of a bell curve then 2d10 which is linear.
http://www.thedarkfortress.co.uk/tech_reports/tech_assets/3-dice-charts.gif

3d6 creates TOO much of a bell curve im(and other's)ho. i mean, that's part of the reason dnd is fun: you can beat that giant in a grapple check if you are simply lucky enough. additionally, 3d6 makes it so that modifiersare king, having 4 above the check pretty much guarantees that you will succeed. i really do not like 3d6.

[Big Fau]

Real men use 5d4. :smallcool:

[Kornaki]

Because your average value is 12.5? I mean that would definitely be a boost :smalltongue:

[Astral Avenger]

Optimizing Statisticians use 10d2 :smallbiggrin:

[Bhaakon]

You haven't lived until you've tried .2d100

[Tulya]

Because your average value is 12.5? I mean that would definitely be a boost :smalltongue:

Ignoring that this is clearly not intended to be serious criticism:
The mean is 11 on 2d10 vs 10.5 on 1d20. The benefit, while concrete, is both marginal and mitigated by its application to enemy rolls alike.


The actual impact of 2d10 on the game depends on the circumstances.
Mooks that rely on sheer numbers and probability to offset their poor attack bonuses will perform much worse. In d20, a mook requiring a 17 to hit would have a 20% chance to hit on a 1d20, but only a 10% chance to hit on a 2d10. In short, they'll hit half as often.
Now, assume players required an 8 to strike the mook. In 1d20, that's a 65% chance to hit. In 2d10, that's a 79% chance to hit. They'll see a reduction in their misses on an average of 40%.

The converse is true with stronger monsters, although players will tend to be better equipped at mitigating the disadvantage with non-roll-based strategies, especially spellcasting.

[gr8artist]

I was actually doing a bit of math for this kind of thing earlier today, working on a homebrew game system with players' choice of roll types.
Humble - 4d4 (this option was dropped for being way too weighted to be interesting)
Dependable - 3d6 (avg 10.5)
Standard - 2d10 (avg 11)
Exciting - 1d20 (avg 10.5)
I have not, however, actually playtested this format in a game, and my information is entirely speculatory. Thanks to Artilery for the modified crit table.
I think I may playtest these alternate rolling methods in an upcoming game. If I do, I'll try and post results here.

Just remember... any method's better than a White Wolf system.

[Tulya]

On the topic of critical conversions, the nature of critical hits in 2d10 is transformed dramatically by the non-uniform distribution.
Reproducing the critical threat ranges alone is greatly complicated. As shown in Artillery's helpful tables, on the matter of probability of achieving threat range alone, most values are off by 1 to 2 percentage points. This can be far more substantial than it may seem: A weapon that crits on a natural 20 in d20 crits will crit 20% more often in 2d10 if you assign a threat range of 18-20. The next nearest value, a threat range of 19-20, causes you to threaten a critical only half as often as in d20.
Additionally, Non-core options can produce threat ranges in d20 that can not really be reproduced in 2d10 as a distinct threat range at all, particularly flat value threat range enhancements. A Kensai wielding a Falchion has a threat range in d20 of 16-20, which produces a 25% chance of occurring. Your best options in 2d10 are 15-20, which has a 21% chance of occurring (which you're probably already using for d20's 17-20 20% chance), or 14-20, which has a 28% chance of occurring (which you're probably already using for d20's 15-20 30% chance). You might choose to shunt d20's 15-20 30% chance off the next nearest 2d10 value, 13-20, which has a 36% chance of occurring, but the problems only get worse from there.

While an expanded threat range can approximate the probability of rolling a value within the threat range, it has the side effect of reducing the probability of a critical hit actually landing due to the tendency of your threatening rolls to be lower. That is, the average attack roll of an attack with a 19-20/x2 weapon that threatens a critical in d20 is 19.5 The average attack roll of an attack with the equivalent in 2d10, a 17-20/x2 weapon, is 18. (Before someone attempts to correct this to 18.5, you've forgotten that you're dealing with a non-uniform distribution.) Thus, you're 7.5 percentage points less likely to progress on to attempting to confirm a critical, which is itself another matter. Due to introducing a second normalized distribution into the critical calculation, the odds of you critically hitting a target you need a high roll to hit are reduced even more significantly.
To give a concrete example using the same values as before (a d20 19-20/x2 weapon), assume you need an 18 to hit. Your odds in d20 of threatening a critical that is capable of hitting at all are 10%, while your odds of confirming the critical are 15%. The ultimate odds of you landing a critical hit on that target are 1.5%. In 2d10, where the threat range is 17-20, your odds of threatening a critical that is capable of hitting at all are 6%, while the odds of confirming the critical are also 6%. The ultimate odds of you landing a critical hit on the target are 0.36%, or about a quarter of the odds in d20.
You're no more likely to threaten a critical hit on easier-to-hit-foes in 2d10, but are slightly more likely to have critical hits confirmed on them. In the most extreme example, an enemy that requires an attack roll of 7 to hit, using the same weapon as above (a d20 19-20/x2 weapon) your chance to successfully threaten a critical hit is 10% in both systems. Your chance to confirm the critical in d20 is 70%, giving ultimate odds of critically striking that foe of 7%. Your chance to confirm the critical in 2d10 is 85%, giving ultimate odds of critically striking that foe of 8.5%. Your odds of critically hitting the target in d20 are only about 18% less.


Bear in mind that none of the above is intended as any kind of value judgment. Some groups may find the results more desirable, while others deem them less desirable.


I made some fun tables for new critical threat ranges and multipliers that are possible under the 2d10 system while maintaining the same average effectiveness as those in the d20 system, but I'll save them for now. This post is long enough as-is.
Plus, I rather doubt people are going to be especially interested in the dreaded 20/x16 Ultra-Scythe, nor its enhanced 20/x31 Keen equivalent. (For those who don't understand why the multipliers are so high, the odds of rolling a 20 in a 2d10 system are 1/100 instead of the 1/20 of the d20 system. The damage bonus for a critical must be five times larger to produce the same average critical damage over time. For those who go on to question why five times x4 is x16, bear in mind that x1 of each of those is base damage. That is, a scythe critical deals +300% damage over base damage. An ultra scythe critical deals +1500% damage over base damage. Converted into a multiple, the ultra scythe deals 100% +1500% = x16 damage.)

[Myou]

I have extensive experience with 3d6, and a little with 2d10.

My group played with 3d6 for several campaigns. I can say categorically that it is not suitable for D&D. With 3d6 rolls are very predictable, and a +2 modifier is magnified to the point that it breaks the game - all those +1's and +2's that you might not even notice in a 1d20 fight suddenly make a character all but untouchable. When you start stacking more than one or two such bonuses the game just falls apart. An encounter balanced for PCs of AC 12 will become trivial with one casting of Mage Armor - but if the PCs don't use it, and you expected they would, suddenly the mooks are hitting them with every roll. Opponents need to be almost the exact same strength as the party for there to be any uncertainty in the outcome either way, and the second you break out a few modifiers the whole thing falls apart. Nothing is ever useable out of the box - you have to restat everything before you can use it, CR goes completely out the window, and encounters invariably end up either cakewalks or death battles, with no middle ground.

2d10 I have less experience with, but I would generally be against using for the same reasons - the game is balanced for 1d20, and using 2d10 will hurt that balance. You'll still have to change opponents significantly, and won't be able to rely on CR at all. Modifiers will still be game breakers too, though to a lesser extent. The biggest problem in changing from 1d20 is that it takes away the danger and potential rewards of combat - players are much less likely to get lucky OR unlucky, making the game dull. 3.5 just isn't designed for anything but 1d20, and making another rolling system work leads to rewriting so much of the game that you may as well just play something else to begin with.

[Bakeru]

Ignoring that this is clearly not intended to be serious criticism:
[stuff]Actually, Kornaki was referring to Big Fau's "Real men use 5d4."-comment.
5d4 does have an average of 12.5.

[Tulya]

Actually, Kornaki was referring to Big Fau's "Real men use 5d4."-comment.
5d4 does have an average of 12.5.

Ah, that would explain it.
Picking up and putting down a thread multiple times over an extended period does not aid in reading comprehension/context establishment!

[limejuicepowder]

2d10 is too much math....I like d20 cause it tells me what it rolled. If someone makes a 2d10 that is less bothersome I might use it.

I like great axes more than great swords

[danzibr]

I have extensive experience with 3d6, and a little with 2d10.

My group played with 3d6 for several campaigns. I can say categorically that it is not suitable for D&D. With 3d6 rolls are very predictable, and a +2 modifier is magnified to the point that it breaks the game - all those +1's and +2's that you might not even notice in a 1d20 fight suddenly make a character all but untouchable. When you start stacking more than one or two such bonuses the game just falls apart. An encounter balanced for PCs of AC 12 will become trivial with one casting of Mage Armor - but if the PCs don't use it, and you expected they would, suddenly the mooks are hitting them with every roll. Opponents need to be almost the exact same strength as the party for there to be any uncertainty in the outcome either way, and the second you break out a few modifiers the whole thing falls apart. Nothing is ever useable out of the box - you have to restat everything before you can use it, CR goes completely out the window, and encounters invariably end up either cakewalks or death battles, with no middle ground.

2d10 I have less experience with, but I would generally be against using for the same reasons - the game is balanced for 1d20, and using 2d10 will hurt that balance. You'll still have to change opponents significantly, and won't be able to rely on CR at all. Modifiers will still be game breakers too, though to a lesser extent. The biggest problem in changing from 1d20 is that it takes away the danger and potential rewards of combat - players are much less likely to get lucky OR unlucky, making the game dull. 3.5 just isn't designed for anything but 1d20, and making another rolling system work leads to rewriting so much of the game that you may as well just play something else to begin with.
This is quite insightful. I'll definitely stay away from 3d6. There being a 1/216 chance of rolling an 18 (reminds me of Nuclear Risk) is not very appealing. I'll probably end up giving my players the option of 1d20 or 2d10.

[Pilo]

I DMed a short campaign using 2d10 instead of a d20, the roll where slower than 1d20, I feel like my players would rather roll a d20.

Maths, even simple, can really slow a game, if you do not trust me, try to play Anima: Beyond Fantasy.

[JusticeZero]

2d10 is not quite as bad as 3d6, but a similar effect happens. Any min-maxing is magnified. Your smart-aleck fighter in full plate with a shield and Expertise goes from "hard to hurt" to "Hey guys, don't worry about me, only eight of them can attack me at once, go cast that spell with a 10 minute casting time. That's just 100 rounds, I don't even need a cure potion for that." A "natural 20" is now the same as a 100 on percentile.

[drax75]

Just remember... any method's better than a White Wolf system.

Disagree, i love the white wolf method. I think it adds a nice flair for the dramatic.

Exploding 10's and critical failures are a interesting part of that game. Also i love rolling like 15d10's the sound it makes is awesome as heck.

[gr8artist]

Have you played Sion? You get two of every attribute score (mundane strength + epic strength) but the epic value is some weird pseudo-exponential scaling number (1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37, 45). Then you're rolling roughly 15+ dice, looking for a 50% return from those, so maybe about 7 more. Pretty soon, epic bonuses alone will completely drown out your dice and make rolls unimportant.
"Oh, you only have 6 epic dex? Well I have 7, so even though I have no points in this skill, I can still do better than you, despite you having a full 5 points in it and a mundane dex 4 points higher than mine."
Starting level characters can fly, throw cars, turn invisible, and swim in lava... Heck, a single character can do all of those without much difficulty.
Birthrights: Moon, fire, sky (3 points/7). Boons/Epics (fire 1, sky 2, moon 2, strength 3) 8/10 points. Heck, throw in 2 epic dex so you can dodge bullets.
I DM'd the game for over 3 years, and it was a nightmare. Granted, WOD is significantly less stupid, but Exalted and Sion are just bad systems. Interesting experiments and good points of reference, but bad systems to play.

[Hikarizu]

"Oh, you only have 6 epic dex? Well I have 7, so even though I have no points in this skill, I can still do better than you, despite you having a full 5 points in it and a mundane dex 4 points higher than mine."
Epic attributes cannot be more than mundane attributes, which can't be higher than Legend. (And max epic attributes are Legend -1 which after demigod is a little redundant)
For whatever you are describing we have two characters:
Alice: 11 legend character, 11 dex, 6 epic dex(minimum legend)
Bob: 8 legend character 7 dex, 7 epic dex(minimum legend)
At these stats:
Alice is a god, not specialized in dexterity.(or unoptimized)
Bob is a lesser god, but pumping most of his points to max his dex for the current Legend.
Well I see nothing wrong here. The system is just made that way. Mundane attributes offer linear progression, epic - exponential.
I still haven't played it, but a friend of mine is going to "DM" next month(hopefully). I am aware things get ridiculous at higher legend. But enemies are getting equally ridiculous as the characters.
As for your starter character, a 7 lvl wizard can do this and so much more.(fly, invisibility, resist energy, polymorph(for str, and more shenanigans))

[Hiro Protagonest]

Have you played Sion? You get two of every attribute score (mundane strength + epic strength) but the epic value is some weird pseudo-exponential scaling number (1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37, 45). Then you're rolling roughly 15+ dice, looking for a 50% return from those, so maybe about 7 more. Pretty soon, epic bonuses alone will completely drown out your dice and make rolls unimportant.
"Oh, you only have 6 epic dex? Well I have 7, so even though I have no points in this skill, I can still do better than you, despite you having a full 5 points in it and a mundane dex 4 points higher than mine."
Starting level characters can fly, throw cars, turn invisible, and swim in lava... Heck, a single character can do all of those without much difficulty.
Birthrights: Moon, fire, sky (3 points/7). Boons/Epics (fire 1, sky 2, moon 2, strength 3) 8/10 points. Heck, throw in 2 epic dex so you can dodge bullets.
I DM'd the game for over 3 years, and it was a nightmare. Granted, WOD is significantly less stupid, but Exalted and Sion are just bad systems. Interesting experiments and good points of reference, but bad systems to play.

Oh yes, because having a completely broken game mechanic in a system makes a different mechanic in that game broken. Obviously.

[gr8artist]

At the risk of de-railing this thread any further, I almost hesitate to respond.
@ Hikarizu: Ok, so my math in the example wasn't quite right. It's been a while, and I forgot about the mundane stat limit = legend. You can still get a bunch of extra dice through virtue/item/boon/specialization routes, and despite all that buffing, still fail a check because the enemy has just one more epic attribute point than you. The system makes it way too easy to be nearly invincible... Starting level characters with just a minor investment into dex can dodge bullets from an entire squadron of soldiers. Because of the exponential values, it doesn't take much to completely ignore anyone with a value less than your own.
Heck, if you're going to start play, take a look at the over-powered BS in the chaos purview. I think it's a 5th level boon that can paralyze and wipe the memory of a whole room of people, or everyone in the country who's watching the victim through TV. Epic manipulation? Everyone believes you, no matter what. Want to mess with your DM? Look up escape velocity. It's frighteningly low. My players resorted to throwing everything they couldn't damage in one round to the moon. Grapple? Broken as all get out.

@ Jade Dragon: I'm not sure what you meant by that. I assume you were commenting sarcastically about something I said? My comments about starting characters' over-poweredness weren't meant to reinforce or support my gripes with the epic attribute system, but were instead provided to represent the ridiculousness of the game as a whole.