Buying 2d10 instead of 1d20

[zeek0]

I'm toying with an idea for my upcoming D&D 3.5 game. I would let players spend a skill point so that they have the choice to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20 on that skill.

This would lower the average (to 10 instead of 10.5) but would also cause more reliability in the dice roll.

Now, from here I have a choice. I can make a roll of 2 still create a critical failure (on a 2), or not. As I see it, if a character sacrifices skill power for reliability, then there is a possibility that they eliminate the possibility for a critical failure in their work. Keep in mind that on 2d10 the possibility of critical success or failure is only 1%.

So, do I remove the possibility of critical failures on 2d10?

[as a small side note, I could make the cost 2 skill points instead of 1]

[AtlanteanTroll]

I'd just remove it.

[squiggit]

Remove the possibility for critical failure altogether.

It's a system that punishes the wrong people and is very rarely ever done in an interesting way

[Fouredged Sword]

I would let them spend a skill point to become "Practiced" in a skill they have at least 5 ranks in. This would allow them to perform an action by "Rote", where they roll 2d10. This would be a choice they can do or not do, much like taking 10, but it works with any skill and does not need to be in a situation that you are not threatened.

[Techwarrior]

I'm toying with an idea for my upcoming D&D 3.5 game. I would let players spend a skill point so that they have the choice to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20 on that skill.

This would lower the average (to 10 instead of 10.5) but would also cause more reliability in the dice roll.

Now, from here I have a choice. I can make a roll of 2 still create a critical failure (on a 2), or not. As I see it, if a character sacrifices skill power for reliability, then there is a possibility that they eliminate the possibility for a critical failure in their work. Keep in mind that on 2d10 the possibility of critical success or failure is only 1%.

So, do I remove the possibility of critical failures on 2d10?

[as a small side note, I could make the cost 2 skill points instead of 1]

Skills don't naturally have Critical Failure rules. Only Saving Throws and Attack Rolls have those rules.

[Kurald Galain]

Now, from here I have a choice. I can make a roll of 2 still create a critical failure (on a 2), or not. As I see it, if a character sacrifices skill power for reliability, then there is a possibility that they eliminate the possibility for a critical failure in their work. Keep in mind that on 2d10 the possibility of critical success or failure is only 1%.

So, do I remove the possibility of critical failures on 2d10?

That depends on two things. First, how often do you expect people to roll for skills? And second, what do you use as consequences for critical failures?

For example, I had a DM once that let us roll perception checks (and stealth, if we wanted) for every five foot tile of dungeon that we entered. If you do that, expect lots of fumbles to be rolled regardless of the dice method (and this is why fumbles on attack rolls are a really bad idea). I also have had several DMs who believe that on a fumble, your character has now grievously injured himself. If you do either of that, well, you should probably not to that on a 2 on 2d10.

On the other hand, if you rule along the lines of "on a 1, something unexpected happens", then yes, it's fine to do that on a 2 on 2d10 as well.

[Cloud]

...The average of 2d10 is 11, not 10, so there is that. (1+2...+10=55 , 55/10 = 5.5 , 5.5*2=11)

Also skills do NOT fail on a natural one. (That's only Attack Rolls and Saves. You can't critically fail to kick open a door or roll initiative, anymore than you can decide some impossible task and keep rolling until you get a 20, for example deciding you're going to jump to the moon.)
"To make a skill check, roll 1d20 and add your character’s skill modifier for that skill. The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the better. Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm

So ah, definitely don't make something that's meant to make you more reliable able to actually fail when before you couldn't. As for the cost I'd totally pay 1 or 2 skill points to be even more certain I'm not going to flop my use magic device check. XD

[Eldest]

I'm toying with an idea for my upcoming D&D 3.5 game. I would let players spend a skill point so that they have the choice to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20 on that skill.

This would lower the average (to 10 instead of 10.5) but would also cause more reliability in the dice roll.

Now, from here I have a choice. I can make a roll of 2 still create a critical failure (on a 2), or not. As I see it, if a character sacrifices skill power for reliability, then there is a possibility that they eliminate the possibility for a critical failure in their work. Keep in mind that on 2d10 the possibility of critical success or failure is only 1%.

So, do I remove the possibility of critical failures on 2d10?

[as a small side note, I could make the cost 2 skill points instead of 1]

First, average on 2d10 is 5.5+5.5 or 11. Second, there are no crit fails on skill checks.

[Cruiser1]

I'm toying with an idea for my upcoming D&D 3.5 game. I would let players spend a skill point so that they have the choice to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20 on that skill. This would lower the average (to 10 instead of 10.5) but would also cause more reliability in the dice roll.

The average of 1d10 is 5.5, so the average of 2d10 is 11. However the average is effectively 10 when compared to if the skill point were spent normally (i.e. 2d10 from the old baseline, versus raising all rolls by one). The minimum roll is the same in either case (i.e. 2 from old base line, versus 1 from a one higher baseline).

[zeek0]

First, average on 2d10 is 5.5+5.5 or 11. Second, there are no crit fails on skill checks.

If you spend a skill point to roll 2d10 then it will lower the average result by one. (2d10-1 vs 1d20 = average of 10 vs 10.5)

And thanks for informing me about no crit fails on skill checks, I appreciate it.

Anybody have feedback on the system I have in general?

Thanks!

[John Longarrow]

2d10-1 (MAX 19) OR 1d20? (MAX 20)
Just to be clear, you want people to spend a skill point to be less able to do something if they really need to be able to do it?

2d10 with an average of 11 VS 1d20 with an average of 10.5 would be much better and much more likely to be used.

[Cloud]

I had assumed this was something like skill tricks in which you just...spend the skill points, and they don't count as ranks or whatever.

I'd gladly pay one skill point (even two) to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20 on skills I can't take 10 on (Use Magic Device and Disable Device come to mind), if I can still spend ranks in the skill normally. If I have to spend a skill point invested in the skill in such a way my bonus is lowered by one...eh, I'm all of a sudden really, really not interested as a player, basically what John said.

[zeek0]

2d10-1 (MAX 19) OR 1d20? (MAX 20)
Just to be clear, you want people to spend a skill point to be less able to do something if they really need to be able to do it?

2d10 with an average of 11 VS 1d20 with an average of 10.5 would be much better and much more likely to be used.

Yes, but the upside is that you have more reliability in the dice rolls. Here's a site with the data: http://anydice.com/program/3bda

[Darkweave31]

If you spend a skill point to roll 2d10 then it will lower the average result by one. (2d10-1 vs 1d20 = average of 10 vs 10.5)

And thanks for informing me about no crit fails on skill checks, I appreciate it.

Anybody have feedback on the system I have in general?

Thanks!

I approve of it, then I've always found it sort of silly that rolls didn't fall on more of a bell curve. I think the only reason I use a d20 is for the romance (and because I run light-hearted games where failure and success are both awesome). Anyway bell curve rolls tend to reward the player more for improving a character's stats rather than just hoping for a good roll when their character does need it. With 2d10 there will still be a chance for a really good (or bad) roll, but it will tend more towards average.

I really don't think subtracting 1 from the 2d10 is necessary. If the player spends resources on something it should make their chances better, not worse.

1 skill point seems fine for the cost since it's on average +0.5. When spent normally it's +1.

[zeek0]

I had assumed this was something like skill tricks in which you just...spend the skill points, and they don't count as ranks or whatever.

I'd gladly pay one skill point (even two) to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20 on skills I can't take 10 on (Use Magic Device and Disable Device come to mind), if I can still spend ranks in the skill normally. If I have to spend a skill point invested in the skill in such a way my bonus is lowered by one...eh, I'm all of a sudden really, really not interested as a player, basically what John said.

And, effectively, that is what you are doing. You are giving up 1 (or 2) skill points in that skill in order to roll 2d10 instead. You have a slightly lower max and average, but hopefully you make up for it with reliably average rolls.

[John Longarrow]

Yes, but the upside is that you have more reliability in the dice rolls. Here's a site with the data: http://anydice.com/program/3bda

4d6-4 (0-20) also averages a 10 and does so much more often than 2d10-1. I still wouldn't like to use if I needed a 15 or better though.

That is the biggest down side to a bell curve, especially when you are cutting away at the top end. Not only are you making the players spend points to make their characters more predictable but worse, you are also making it much much more difficult to do anything that is already difficult to pull off.

I will admit it also really messes with how DCs are set. For most players, a DC 25 when you have a +10 isn't considered too bad. With your method it becomes much less attainable.

[Cloud]

I more meant...say I'm a Factotum with 100 or so skill points at level 7, and I'm not maxing all my skills out (lots have one rank because of said classes abilities), so lots of spare skill points.

So, level 7, max skill rank 10, is it;

1) Spend 10 skill points for ranks, can also spend an additional skill point (11 in total) to roll 2d10 with my 10 (max for my HD) ranks.

or

2) Spend 10 skill points for ranks, 1 of those ranks is lost for the ability to roll 2d10 (10 skill points in total, counts as max ranks still).

1 would be awesome, 2 feels kind of meh even if it's more reliable.

[zeek0]

I more meant...say I'm a Factotum with 100 or so skill points at level 7, and I'm not maxing all my skills out (lots have one rank because of said classes abilities), so lots of spare skill points.

So, level 7, max skill rank 10, is it;

1) Spend 10 skill points for ranks, can also spend an additional skill point (11 in total) to roll 2d10 with my 10 (max for my HD) ranks.

or

2) Spend 10 skill points for ranks, 1 of those ranks is lost for the ability to roll 2d10 (10 skill points in total, counts as max ranks still).

1 would be awesome, 2 feels kind of meh even if it's more reliable.

Hmmm... I'll have to consider this. Thanks for the help.

[TheIronGolem]

Instead of swapping the d20 for 2d10, why not just let them take 10 on any check (so basically just letting them buy Skill Mastery for a point)? Seems like it would fit the "reliability of skill use" theme better, the results are equal to the average of (2d10-1), and it speeds up gameplay by eliminating the die roll.

Come to think of it, I'm a little tempted to start adding this ability to the Skill Focus feat.

[ace rooster]

Other than the problem with average being 11 rather than 10, I like this idea. Use 2d10-1 for the lower average, and maintaining the possibility of getting a 1. This also opens up the option of 2d6+d8-2 for even more reliability, but averaging 9.5, and 2d6+2d4-3 for an average of 9, but a 1 in 576 chance of rolling a 1 (or 17).

This is also a possibility for attack rolls as a fighter feat, or even just as an option. It works better if there is some penalty for rolling low on an attack, maybe a penalty to AC for rolls below 5 (representing losing balance from attacking recklessly, could cap at losing your dex bonus). It is a bit of a nerf for mundanes, but makes combat a bit more open.

[Kazudo]

I did 2d10 and simply made a 1 on the dice not happen. Barring exceptional optimization (which my group just doesn't do) a roll of 1 and a roll of 2 don't differ much since there are no automatic skill failures.

It worked ok, the big problem you have is that rather than there being a rolled-outcome bell curve, it's more of a rolled-outcome pyramid.

[zeek0]

Taking your feedback into consideration (especially Cloud), I think that I will allow the players to choose the amount of skill points they get at first level divided by two, and those will be their practiced or rote skills.

This stops players from feeling the sting of a buy-off, and encourages specialization in relation to their role-playing.

Thoughts?

[John Longarrow]

Can they choose to EITHER roll 1d20 OR 2d10 for any given skill check? Or is it always one or the other?

[zeek0]

Can they choose to EITHER roll 1d20 OR 2d10 for any given skill check? Or is it always one or the other?

I'm thinking either one. That way, players can decide whether or not they want to be risky.

So, what do you think?

[Cloud]

It's not bad, but it's basically a pure buff to skills where you want to roll reliably (Hide, Move Silently, Disable Device, Use Magic Device...basically any opposed roll or roll you can't take a 10 on). It's basically giving out a mini skill mastery for free.

[Sewercop]

Only worth it for skills you normally can not take ten on. Besides that i reckon it is a waste of points.

btw there are no crtical failures at all in d&d 3.5, only failure.
No dropping of a sword,no random stabbing of friends, no screwing over players unless you are sadistic

[Gadora]

Only worth it for skills you normally can not take ten on. Besides that i reckon it is a waste of points.

btw there are no crtical failures at all in d&d 3.5, only failure.
No dropping of a sword,no random stabbing of friends, no screwing over players unless you are sadistic

That's not quite accurate, although the single instance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingTh row) that I'm aware of generally gets ignored.

[Andreaz]

Remove the possibility for critical failure altogether.

It's a system that punishes the wrong people and is very rarely ever done in an interesting way
Skills don't naturally have Critical Failure rules. Only Saving Throws and Attack Rolls have those rules.There is no such a thing as critical failure.
There is automatic failure. Automatic, not critical. As in you will surely fail, but with no consequences other than those common to any failed roll.
And of course, skills don't have automatic failure in the first place, not automatic success, critical success or any such thing.

[Sewercop]

That's not quite accurate, although the single instance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingTh row) that I'm aware of generally gets ignored.

That is not a critical failure. That is what happens when you roll 1 on a saving throw...

Again not critical failure...

[Feint's End]

Why not roll 3d6 instead? That is actually an not all too uncommon houserule. It also averages to 10.5 like a d20 and has a much higher probability of rolling in the middle of the spectrum.

Also I feel like a 5% chance of auto failure is too high for attack roles. If somebody would hit with a 1 then the difference in skill between the two combatants makes it impossible to miss that often.
In my games I don't have any Form of autofailure ... not even on saves.

[John Longarrow]

I'm thinking either one. That way, players can decide whether or not they want to be risky.

So, what do you think?

For some builds, I'd do it. For others, not so much. For a stealthy build it can make a lot of sense.

[Stegyre]

Why not roll 3d6 instead? That is actually an not all too uncommon houserule. It also averages to 10.5 like a d20 and has a much higher probability of rolling in the middle of the spectrum.
I'm a big fan of using 3d6 in place of 1d20, but if making that change, you need to keep in mind that lots of other things need to be changed too, or the game plays very differently: DCs need to be adjusted, modifiers need to be adjusted, etc., or things get a little wacky.

[Gadora]

That is not a critical failure. That is what happens when you roll 1 on a saving throw...

Again not critical failure...

*shrugs* I would classify that as a crit fail on a saving throw, given how it operates.

EDIT: It's no big deal what it's called, since it operates the same, regardless. I'd be curious as to why you'd not call that a critical failure though.

[Sewercop]

Because it leads people to believe there is a thing like critial fails in 3.5. Look around, how many believe there is crit fails in 3.5? it is a remnant of old crappy houserules. And it influence the industry to this day because people are to lazy to open a book and read basic rules.

That is why I dont call it crit fail, because it encourages the morons to think it exists. Is it critical to fail a save? yes... is it called a crit fail? no.. it is a failed save. thats it

After a decade of 3.0 -3.5 i still have to tell the same idiots in my gaming groups over and over there is no fail fumble or the like. It is frustrating.

[lunar2]

items being damaged on a nat 1 save, or scroll mishaps on a nat 1 UMD are crit fails, though. a critical failure is what happens beyond just failing when you roll a natural 1 on the D20. so yes, critical failures do exist in the actual rules, no matter how much you dislike having them called that.

also, i tend to use the houserule for attacks and saves that a nat 1 is treated as a -10, and a nat 20 is treated as a 30. that way, the first level goblins can't possibly hit the 20th level fighter, even when he's flat footed and flanked. and he can't possibly miss them. because he's just that good.