1d10+5, any problems?

[Yunru]

Can anyone see a problem with replacing the d20 with 1d10+5?
I fancy some steak, and this is a sacred cow that my party's never gotten too attached to.

[Unoriginal]

Can anyone see a problem with replacing the d20 with 1d10+5?

...aside form being unable to roll under 6 or above 15, you mean?

There's the fact the whole game's math is based on d20, so you'd have to rework everything that uses it, including the chances of success for attacks, saving throws, the impact of bonuses granted by spells or similar effects, the crit rules, the change in importance for ability scores and proficiency, many class features, and more.



I fancy some steak, and this is a sacred cow that my party's never gotten too attached to.

You're probably better off playing a different system than D&D, then. All the reworking of the game's math would make it beyond a nightmare. Maybe you'd enjoy GURPS more?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Eh, why stop here? Remove the to-hit roll entirely, apply AC-10 as damage resistance and let damage die explode to account for critical hits. Fights will feel a bit different and certain options become more or less viable than usual, but it's still absolutely playable.

[Yunru]

...aside form being unable to roll under 6 or above 15, you mean?Yes. Asides from the very thing the change seeks to invoke: less swinginess.

mathMaths.

mathMaths.


you'd have to rework everything that uses it [...]
All the reworking of the game's mathWhy? Nothing changes except the range. The average is the same, which is what the system's maths is based on, just the variance is reduced.


Eh, why stop here? Remove the to-hit roll entirely, apply AC-10 as damage resistance and let damage die explode to account for critical hits. Fights will feel a bit different and certain options become more or less viable than usual, but it's still absolutely playable.

Because there has to be some uncertainty, otherwise it just doesn't feel right. A d20 is just too much uncertainty.

[Man_Over_Game]

Can anyone see a problem with replacing the d20 with 1d10+5?
I fancy some steak, and this is a sacred cow that my party's never gotten too attached to.

Critting 10% of the time, to 20% of the time with some kind of crit-enabling effect (Champion).

Or, say you have a +3 modifier and a +2 proficiency. The minimum attack roll you can get is 11. You roll your attack rolls between 11-20, pretty much guaranteed against low level creatures. Mage Armor is useless as a spell.

For something that has a little more consistency, I'd recommend using 2d10, making crits occur on a roll of 18 or more (6%), and allowing crit expanders to push that to 17 (10%) or 16 (15%), and you follow similar crit chances as 1d20. Advantage is 3d10, keep 2.

[Theodoric]

Broke: Roll 2d10 for less swingy results.
Woke: Roll 10+5 for a much smaller margin in possible results.
Bespoke: Simply replace all d20 rolls with the number 11 for ultimate consistency.

[Man_Over_Game]

If you want to compare statistics on all of these, and how Advantage can play a part, you can check out this link: https://anydice.com/program/143c4

It has 1d20, 2d10, 1d10+5, and all variations with Advantage. I recommend using the table view and "At Least", to determine the odds of hitting a particular value (like DC 10 or crit values).

[Waterdeep Merch]

Because there has to be some uncertainty, otherwise it just doesn't feel right. A d20 is just too much uncertainty.
It's still there, it's just that we're rolling armor, dodging, and the lethality of the attack into a single moment instead of two.

Imagine you've got a heavily armored fighter facing off against goblins. Under normal circumstances, the goblins have a tough time breaking the fighter's AC in order to injure the fighter. Under these new circumstances, the goblins have a tough time rolling high enough damage to break the fighter's armor reduction in order to injure the fighter. It's the same thing, really.

Can't really do that for debilitating saving throws, though. Then d10+5 just sort of screws with the caster a bit more due to being more reliably easy to make any moderate or good saves (though you're actually less likely to make hard saves for much the same reason). Could be what you want, though, since it forces a caster to specifically target their opponents' weaknesses if they want to land something.

[Yunru]

If you want to compare statistics on all of these, and how Advantage can play a part, you can check out this link: https://anydice.com/program/143c4

It has 1d20, 2d10, 1d10+5, and all variations with Advantage. I recommend using the table view and "At Least", to determine the odds of hitting a particular value (like DC 10 or crit values).

At least, once I switch:
output [highest 1 of 2d10] named "1d20 Advantage"
To:
output [highest 1 of 2d20] named "1d20 Advantage"
:P

[Unoriginal]

Yes. Asides from the very thing the change seeks to invoke: less swinginess.


Why? Nothing changes except the range. The average is the same, which is what the system's maths is based on, just the variance is reduced.

The game's maths is also based on the variance and swinginess. A monster with AC 19 will go down significantly faster with 1d10+5+attack stat mod+proficiency than with 1d20. An adventurer with leather armor will go down even faster. Meanwhile, spells and other abilities will be resisted more. And so on, so on.

[Man_Over_Game]

At least, once I switch:
output [highest 1 of 2d10] named "1d20 Advantage"
To:
output [highest 1 of 2d20] named "1d20 Advantage"
:P

Yeah, sorry, I realized it shortly after and fixed the link, although you must have beat me to it.

[Yunru]

The game's maths is also based on the variance and swinginess. A monster with AC 19 will go down significantly faster with 1d10+5+attack stat mod+proficiency than with 1d20. An adventurer with leather armor will go down even faster. Meanwhile, spells and other abilities will be resisted more. And so on, so on.

If people think the variance is too low, then we're also open to 1d12+4 and (although we'd have to test this to see if it's too swingy personally) 1d16+2.

[Man_Over_Game]

If people think the variance is too low, then we're also open to 1d12+4 and (although we'd have to test this to see if it's too swingy personally) 1d16+2.

But then you're just making it awkward as hell. Imagine trying to run that with new players. Let's just ignore the fact that you recommended a 1d16 for now.

"So I roll 1d12, right? Is the +4 my proficiency modifier or my attribute modifier? Oh, it's neither? Okay...."
"So I attacked and I deal damage, right? So I deal 1d12 again? Do I add the +4? No? I add my modifier? Alright, which one? So I add my attribute modifier, but I'm also proficient, so do I add my proficiency modifier, too?"

Yeah, screw that noise. Let's just avoid any flat bonuses if we can help it.

[Yunru]

But then you're just making it awkward as hell. Imagine trying to run that with new players. Let's just ignore the fact that you recommended a 1d16 for now.

"So I roll 1d12, right? Is the +4 my proficiency modifier or my attribute modifier? Oh, it's neither? Okay...."
"So now I attack. So I deal 1d12 again? Do I add the +4? I add my modifier? Alright, which one? So I add my attribute modifier, but I'm also proficient, so do I add my proficiency modifier, too?"

Yeah, screw that noise. Let's just avoid any flat bonuses if we can help it.

Oh of course I'd never run it with a new party, but this is an already established party.
The static modifier can also be a static reduction to everything that would be rolled against, it's just less bookwork to have it as a modifier.

[Waterdeep Merch]

But then you're just making it awkward as hell. Imagine trying to run that with new players. Let's just ignore the fact that you recommended a 1d16 for now.

"So I roll 1d12, right? Is the +4 my proficiency modifier or my attribute modifier? Oh, it's neither? Okay...."
"So now I attack. So I deal 1d12 again? Do I add the +4? I add my modifier? Alright, which one? So I add my attribute modifier, but I'm also proficient, so do I add my proficiency modifier, too?"

Yeah, screw that noise. Let's just avoid any flat bonuses if we can help it.
I think 3d6 actually solves the problem better. More fun to throw, more exciting when you hit Yahtzee, easy to explain because everyone's thrown 3d6 at some point in their life, and the math appears fine on paper.

Still makes saving throws easier to reach, but I think simply raising it from 8+prof+ability to 10+prof+ability solves the math.

[Rukelnikov]

If you wanna reduce swinginess and keep variance don't change to another single die, change to a multiple die style.

3.x had a 3d6 variant rule in the Unearthed Arcana. IIRC 3, 4 and 5 were considered fumbles, 16, 17 and 18 were crits.

[Morty]

A case could be made, and has, against 1d20 as a resolution method. But 1d10+5 doesn't strike me as a very good replacement.

[Yunru]

If you wanna reduce swinginess and keep variance don't change to another single die, change to a multiple die style.

3.x had a 3d6 variant rule in the Unearthed Arcana. IIRC 3, 4 and 5 were considered fumbles, 16, 17 and 18 were crits.

We also hate the bell curve. It murdered our family and ate our children.
Or we just prefer the same static probability for each outcome, I always get the two mixed up.

[Man_Over_Game]

The deviation on 3d6 is the same level of deviation on 1d10+5. That is, while it can range between 3-18, it's about as random as 1d10.

Considering the bonus on your attacks can range anywhere from +3 to +11, it will cause a greater power gap between high level and low level characters.


In other words, the less random your game is, the more you throw off the whole "bounded accuracy" thing. Low level mooks are no longer a big deal, low level characters can no longer take on higher level monsters. Armies of weaker units are not nearly as relevant, and saving throws are either too powerful or useless.

I'm not sure I like it. It puts a lot of stress on ensuring the players are fighting creatures exactly designed for their level, which isn't nearly as fun as having CR 10 players taking on armies of goblins, or a bunch of low level characters planning around a Young Dragon.


I personally condone less bounded accuracy (and less randomness) when it comes to skills, but definitely not when it comes to attacks/combat.
Attacks/DCs scale with character level due to a player's damage or spell effect.

However, skills do not scale their effects with level. A DC 15 lock is surpassed by the same skills of a level 1 character as a level 20 character, and so a player's ability to do skills isn't going to have hardly any improvement over the course of their career, unless they manage to gain Expertise. (which is another problem all on its own if you consider using Expertise an upper-bounds for what to expect, and then lower your expectations from any DC 15-20 rolls because someone with Expertise can do more).

The less random things are, the more stats, and level ups, matter. Since spells and attacks already have some means of scaling with level, and skills don't, keep spells and attacks as random, and make skills less random. That way, everything has some means of scaling as players level.

[Waterdeep Merch]

The deviation on 3d6 is the same level of deviation on 1d10+5. That is, while it can range between 3-18, it's about as random as 1d10.

Well, compared to a d20 at least. And assuming my math isn't astronomically wrong (no promises! Feel free to correct me).

The standard deviation on 1d20 is ~5.76. The standard deviation on 3d6 is ~2.95. The standard deviation on 1d10 is ~2.87.

I'd just prefer the 3d6 over 1d10+5 because it's familiar and doesn't involve stacking modifiers.

[Rukelnikov]

The deviation on 3d6 is the same level of deviation on 1d10+5. That is, while it can range between 3-18, it's about as random as 1d10.

No its not.

For starters one is 3-18, the other is 6-15.

Chance to get 15+/7-:

3d6 => 9.26%
1d10+5 => 10%
*Take into account that 15 is a crit in 1d10+5 while its not in 3d6

Chance to get 14+/8-:

3d6 => 16.2%
1d10+5 => 20%

Chance to get 13+/9-:

3d6 => 25.9%
1d10+5 => 30%

Chance to get 12+/10-:

3d6 => 37.5%
1d10+5 => 40%

They are similar, but 3d6 clumps the results closer to 11.

[Waterdeep Merch]

...And assuming my math isn't astronomically wrong (no promises! Feel free to correct me).


Does Math.

Addendum- also assuming that I'm not ignoring other important mathematical factors.

[Kane0]

I'm always for getting extra use out of d12s.

[Rukelnikov]

Addendum- also assuming that I'm not ignoring other important mathematical factors.

Well, I didn't calc the standard deviation (haven't done so in years :P), so you're numbers may be perfectly right. 3d6 and 1d0 are not that far away in their distribution after all.

[Rynjin]

Yes. Asides from the very thing the change seeks to invoke: less swinginess.

"Less swingy" works both ways. You're minimizing the change you're making but it retools the entire CR system and the lethality of the system in general, essentially ensuring A.) Rocket tag comes online earlier for martial characters and B.) Making using any ability that allows a saving throw a fool's gambit, encouraging over-optimizing save DCs or just abusing no save spells altogether.

Your proposal "reduces swinginess" by INCREASING binary-ness.


Maths.

Math.


Maths.

Math.


Why? Nothing changes except the range. The average is the same, which is what the system's math is based on, just the variance is reduced.

The system is not based on assuming everyone rolls average all the time. Monsters and player options alike may be balanced with an average saving throw or something in mind, but it also accounts for variance. Reducing variance shifts the balance point entirely. For example, any ability that adds +1 or more to a d20 roll (now a d10+5 roll) is highly increased in value.

Say a character has a +20 saving throw vs a DC 30 effect. The character passes 50% of the time (on a 10 or higher).

With a d10+5, that character now passes on a 5 or higher, ostensibly the same average percentage.

However, an extra +1 modifier in the first scenario is just a 5% increase in success; in the latter case it's twice as effective. 1d20+21 vs DC 30 is a 55% chance of success, where 1d10+26 is a 60% chance of success. A common buff like Heroism usually affects an outcome by roughly 10%, but is now doubled in effectiveness.

Similarly debuffs are enhanced, and you also end up with an issue where someone with a LOWER than average chance of success is even less likely to pass. Say, someone with a +15 bonus to that roll instead of +20. They would normally have a 25% chance of success (succeed on a 15 or higher). With a d10+5+15 they instead pass only pass when rolling a 10 (a 10% chance of success).

In short if you're trying to make a saving throw against something that targets your poor save, you almost may as well not bother rolling.

Any attempt to change form a d20 to any other single die with a bonus is going to have the same problem to a lesser or greater extent. Some multiple die combination like 3d5+5 or something weird like that could conceivably work, but at that point why not just swap to a system that uses dice pools like that anyway, or something like Savage Worlds?

[Armored Walrus]

Yunru, why are you here asking permission? Just try it and see if you like it...

It doesn't seem like you came to the forum for help with the math, seems like you have a pretty firm idea of what effect it would have on the feel of the game. Go ahead and do it.

[ImproperJustice]

Was gonna add like some others, maybe try savage worlds or dungeon world?

[Snowbluff]

I'd be cautious of any system that increases the odds of a target being unhittable or always hit. What about guys whose AC stats aren't really good? That'll hit all of the time. What if someone's AC is very high and your bonus isn't good? You've probably a fat chance of hitting, aside from crits.

[Man_Over_Game]

The system is not based on assuming everyone rolls average all the time. Monsters and player options alike may be balanced with an average saving throw or something in mind, but it also accounts for variance. Reducing variance shifts the balance point entirely. For example, any ability that adds +1 or more to a d20 roll (now a d10+5 roll) is highly increased in value.

Say a character has a +20 saving throw vs a DC 30 effect. The character passes 50% of the time (on a 10 or higher).

With a d10+5, that character now passes on a 5 or higher, ostensibly the same average percentage.

However, an extra +1 modifier in the first scenario is just a 5% increase in success; in the latter case it's twice as effective. 1d20+21 vs DC 30 is a 55% chance of success, where 1d10+26 is a 60% chance of success. A common buff like Heroism usually affects an outcome by roughly 10%, but is now doubled in effectiveness.

Similarly debuffs are enhanced, and you also end up with an issue where someone with a LOWER than average chance of success is even less likely to pass. Say, someone with a +15 bonus to that roll instead of +20. They would normally have a 25% chance of success (succeed on a 15 or higher). With a d10+5+15 they instead pass only pass when rolling a 10 (a 10% chance of success).

In short if you're trying to make a saving throw against something that targets your poor save, you almost may as well not bother rolling.

Any attempt to change form a d20 to any other single die with a bonus is going to have the same problem to a lesser or greater extent. Some multiple die combination like 3d5+5 or something weird like that could conceivably work, but at that point why not just swap to a system that uses dice pools like that anyway, or something like Savage Worlds?

TLDR: The less random you make the game, the more victory and success is going to be determined by stats alone. In some fights, there may not be any real chance of victory or loss, and builds that abuse this fact will be super-effective. The power difference between a player using a 14 main stat and a 20 will be a massive deal, potentially defining major power levels within the party.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Yunru, why are you here asking permission? Just try it and see if you like it...
I'd assume it's for the same reason I post stupid ideas every now and then- to have someone point out inherent flaws before I waste a weekend on them.

It's certainly a different take, with a lot more certainty on each dice roll. You can make much more concrete plans than usual and combat might feel more tactical as a result, but you're going to suffer the same from your enemies- if they have a certain advantage over you, it's much more absolute. Especially early on, expect regular character deaths.

As a player, I'd shift to a more surgical style of play and would find every loophole imaginable to avoid combat with too many foes. I'd target anything that could get at my weak points first, and I'd curse if some creature/spell showed up that I had no way of accounting for. It becomes a very different style of RPG, likely more fun with a Combat as War party.

[GlenSmash!]

I say try it and tell us how the sacred cow tastes!

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd assume it's for the same reason I post stupid ideas every now and then- to have someone point out inherent flaws before I waste a weekend on them.

It's certainly a different take, with a lot more certainty on each dice roll. You can make much more concrete plans than usual and combat might feel more tactical as a result, but you're going to suffer the same from your enemies- if they have a certain advantage over you, it's much more absolute. Especially early on, expect regular character deaths.

As a player, I'd shift to a more surgical style of play and would find every loophole imaginable to avoid combat with too many foes. I'd target anything that could get at my weak points first, and I'd curse if some creature/spell showed up that I had no way of accounting for. It becomes a very different style of RPG, likely more fun with a Combat as War party.

On the contrary, if you can find a way to jack your AC into the 20's, you can fight as many monsters as you want and they'll barely be able to do anything to you. There's no longer any "lucky shots", but instead they'll do exactly what they'd do on average every turn.

Rather, if an enemy normally has a 30% chance (DC 15), he'll miss more often than not, but you'll still expect to get hit 1/3 of the time. Take the same DC with a 1d10+5 system, and now you're looking at the same creature hitting you 10% of the time. A 3d6 system would have a 9% chance.

Take whatever happens on average, and dramatize that, to the point where nothing BUT the average happens. If you can sway things in your favor, there's no longer a chance to lose. That also means that choice is effectively taken away, as fewer actions can be done to change your situation in combat.

Less game, more statistics, in a way. Less adapting, more planning. But I leave the whole "cast 5 buffs to make one guy invincible and have him fight our battles" concept with 3.5. In fact, the more I look into it, the more and more it starts to fall into trends that 3.5 followed and I hated.

[Waterdeep Merch]

On the contrary, if you can find a way to jack your AC into the 20's, you can fight as many monsters as you want and they'll barely be able to do anything to you. There's no longer any "lucky shots", but instead they'll do exactly what they'd do on average every turn.

Rather, if an enemy normally has a 30% chance (DC 15), he'll miss more often than not, but you'll still expect to get hit 1/3 of the time. Take the same DC with a 1d10+5 system, and now you're looking at the same creature hitting you 10% of the time. Take whatever happens on average, and dramatize that, to the point where nothing but the average happens.
Huh, didn't think of that.

Really, it's more about specializing than usual. If you can't get a good AC, don't bother with it. If you can't get a good to-hit, don't bother with it. Same for spellcasting, skill use, saves, etc.

I'd still really hate running into something that targets a weakness far more than usual. Your chances of getting lucky and not getting petrified by a basilisk as a wizard or charmed by a succubus as a fighter are pretty dire.

[sophontteks]

The advantage system already does a great job reducing swingyness and its easy to attain.

[Rukelnikov]

Fun fact, in a 1d10 system, assuming champion 3 turn critical to 9-10, EA gives you a 49% chance to crit! Crit season ahoy!

[Yunru]

On the contrary, if you can find a way to jack your AC into the 20's, you can fight as many monsters as you want and they'll barely be able to do anything to you. There's no longer any "lucky shots", but instead they'll do exactly what they'd do on average every turn.Well... there kinda are. Critical hits always hit, so in that regard "lucky shots" are now twice as likely per attack.


The advantage system already does a great job reducing swingyness and its easy to attain.
I did consider upping everything by an advantage level, so 1d20 for disadvantage, 2d20k1 for normal, 3d20k1 for advantage, but that was way more work than I was willing to put in right now.

[Man_Over_Game]

Fun fact, in a 1d10 system, assuming champion 3 turn critical to 9-10, EA gives you a 49% chance to crit! Crit season ahoy!

You can get the same thing from 5 Vengeance Paladin, 1 Hexblade by nabbing Elven Accuracy. You have a 27% chance to crit each attack with two attacks. With Paladin Smites and Warlock spell slots, no less!

[Sigreid]

If this were brought up at my table I'd probably roll my eyes, but give it a try if the majority of the table wanted to.

Personally I like the swingy. The less certain the outcome the greater the effect of working the angles, in my opinion. I like having to plan for the what if it all goes horribly wrong due to just plain bad luck.

[Man_Over_Game]

Well... there kinda are. Critical hits always hit, so in that regard "lucky shots" are now twice as likely per attack.

A Crit doesn't quite double all damage, though. Maybe adds 75% in most cases.

Taking that into account, you're changing it from:

100% damage X 30% hit chance + (75% damage X 5% crit chance) = 33.75% damage per turn.

to

100% damage X 10% hit chance + (75% damage X 10% crit chance) = 17.5% damage per turn.

Even if the crit chance is increased, it's not enough to compensate.

[Rukelnikov]

You can get the same thing from 5 Vengeance Paladin, 1 Hexblade by nabbing Elven Accuracy. You have a 27% chance to crit. With Paladin Smites and Warlock spell slots, no less!

Yeah, with devil's sight, hexblades curse, and being Cha based, Hexblades are top notch crit fishers

[Man_Over_Game]

Yeah, with devil's sight, hexblades curse, and being Cha based, Hexblades are top notch crit fishers

Don't even need Devil's Sight or Darkness. Vengeance Paladin can grant Concentration-less Advantage on your primary target each Short Rest.

[djreynolds]

Can anyone see a problem with replacing the d20 with 1d10+5?
I fancy some steak, and this is a sacred cow that my party's never gotten too attached to.

I'm curious just about the idea? Why a 1d10? And why a +5?

It seems interesting. Why not 1d12+4? Or 2d10?

I believe everyone gets bored with the game, D20 games are easy but soon lack complexity.

But I do enjoy the chaos of the D20.

I say go for it, and post results and player opinions. I'm curious.

And I would like to try dexterity to hit.... and strength for damage. Perhaps with some strength requirements for heavy weapons and dexterity requirements for finesse.

[Rukelnikov]

Don't even need Devil's Sight or Darkness. Vengeance Paladin can grant Concentration-less Advantage on your primary target each Short Rest.

I know, but it's Hexblades non MC method for advantage.

[Galithar]

I didn't read the full thread, but thought I'd toss in my try cents. 1d10+5 would have too little variance for my liking, as well as changing the math pretty fundamentally. It becomes much easier for players to attain that 'crit only' AC.

With 1d10+5 a low modifier enemy (say +5) has to crit to hit someone in plate with a shield. That is trivially easy to attain as all it requires is a little gold and bring a Fighter/Paladin/some Clerics at level 1. So it would require some rebalancing for and probably spell saves as well.

My preferred method of reducing variance is 3d6. It gives less variance by increasing/reducing the min and Max roll by 2 each, as well as that using 3 dice means you roll near the average more frequently. It messes with the calculations by actually reducing the average roll slightly, which means everything becomes slightly worse at doing anything and everything. D20 averages 11 but both 1d10+5 and 3d6 average 10.5 so it's not a big difference, but players that track it closely would notice. (I've never met anyone that tracked rolls that closely while playing, but I'm sure they exist)

The difference in rolling attacks against high AC doesn't hit a 'crit wall' quite as fast, but it makes those high rolls rarer so that it feels valuable to have that 21+ AC even when enemies start having +7 or more. I don't have the exact math in front of me but I think it's somewhere around a 10% chance to hit AC 20 with a +5 mod. With a d20 that's a 30% hit chance. And that same AC 20 with a +5 to hit under 1d10+5 is the same 10% chance, but requires the hit to be a crit.

I think it makes the game feel much 'grittier' so if that is a consideration 1d20 would be the least gritty and I think 3d6 is the most. 1d10+5 falls into an area in the middle where if you are relying on letting 'average' rolls hit then it makes things easier I think, but if you put your players in situations where they are pushing the boundaries of bounded accuracy against powerful enemies then they will hit the crit wall quickly. Now because of 5es strong bounding it's not likely this will effect the game in a negative way for players, but players optimize more (or should I say are capable of if that's what they want to do) then Monster Manual enemies and stacking buffs to their AC.

A Paladin in full plate with a shield has AC 20
Add defense fighting style for AC 21
Add Shield of Faith for AC 23
Add Haste from the party wizard/Sorcerer/whoever for AC 25
Add the shield spell (Magic initiate or multiclass) for AC 30

To hit that without a critical requires a bonus to hit of 16 or more, outclassing (I believe) even the Tarasque.

Granted in d20 it still would need a +11 or higher, but that's achievable by a player with no magic weapons at high level. Also I rarely, if ever, see that much teamwork to boost a single players AC that high. I was just trying to illustrate the value of the high AC in a system that reduced the maximum roll value. That number can be even higher with proper multiclassing and application of magic items/armor/shield.

On the flip side saving throws are harder to make. Fewer things boost them, especially for monsters who often need high rolls to succeed as it is. It makes save or sucks into an 'I win' button more often then a DM would probably like (assuming they are trying to present a challenge and not just the joy of smashing faces in, both can be fun but less balance is required for the latter).

Basically I'm trying to illustrate that while the average comes up more it makes the 'extreme' situations less favorable for the roller. Which may or may not be a good thing. It also greatly increases the value of static increases (Cloak of protection, +1 weapon etc) and exponentially (I didn't do the math so I don't actually know if that's correct don't have me Math majors) increases the value of large single use boosts (Shield... And... Wait for anything else do that? Lol)

Edit: I realized after posting that I was very wrong and that all 3 ways of rolling I discussed have the same 10.5 average. Don't know what is wrong with my head today, so ignore everything I said about it changing the average please :P

[Chronos]

(1+20)/2 = 10.5, not 11.

[Galithar]

(1+20)/2 = 10.5, not 11.

Yes, if you see my edit I realized my mistake already. Brains a bit fuzzy. Everything else I said about the methods of rolling stands though. It messes with bounded accuracy the same whether I know how to divide 21 by 2 or not lol

Edit: Didn't mean to sound snotty, you posted within a minute of my edit.

[MoiMagnus]

Can anyone see a problem with replacing the d20 with 1d10+5?
I fancy some steak, and this is a sacred cow that my party's never gotten too attached to.

Yes, it means that you will have ennemies and PCs that cannot be hit, and generally give far too much effects to any bonus to rolls: with 1d10+5, it means that a "+1" to armor is twice as effective as intended. If you make this change, you pretty much have too rebalance EVERYTHING related to fighting.

However, you could kill half of the cow: keep the d20 for everything combat-related, and use 1d10+5 for everything which is skill-related.
You will still preturbe the balance, but since the actual difficulty of skill test is pretty much already up to the DM's mood, you won't have that much problems.

If you really want to kill this cow for D&D5e fighting system, it means that D&D5e fighting system is probably not a good pick. (Which doesn't necessarily mean you will find a better pick, though, but I guess peoples on this forum migh help you)

[Aquillion]

Decreasing the size of the die from d20 to d10 makes every +1 or -1 worth twice as much. This drastically increases the impact of anything that affects rolls in that manner, such as a Bard's inspirations or cutting words.

Anything that interacts with criticals in any way would also be severely impacted by this change.

Other dice-manipulation abilities that affect D20 rolls become weaker (eg. the rogue's reliable talent.)

Some things that are supposed to be possible would become impossible; you might find your players utterly unable to hit high-level monsters, especially if they haven't really optimized their stats.

Similarly, some things that are supposed to be risky now become completely risk-free. Against low-AC opponents, players will often find themselves hitting automatically and just rolling to see if they crit.

If you continue to allow fumbles on the lowest result, I'm not sure you've really made things less swingy at all. Yes, crits and critical fumbles are now more common, which is a form of regularity, but from a practical effect combat will feel more like a coinflip, swinging wildly between auto-misses and brutal criticals based completely on luck.

[Lunali]

If I were to switch dice, I'd probably change to 4dF (4 dice that can go +1, -1 or 0) for all ability checks, keeping the current system for attack rolls and saving throws.

[Aquillion]

Another option is 2d10. This would make results more normalized and would make crits and fumbles far more rare, but would keep the same basic math.

(You could also have crit be 19-20 and fumbles be 2-3, which are actually still more rare than they were before, but the value of stuff that expands your crit range will still be much higher.)

[KorvinStarmast]

We also hate the bell curve. What, you failed first semester probs and stats?
Which sigma are you most comfortable with?

I say try it and tell us how the sacred cow tastes!
With garlic and butter!

[Hytheter]

D10+5 is less swingy than D20 for accuracy, but it's more swingy for damage due to the doubled crit rate - the overall result is basically a wash, so it doesn't really achieve your aim of making things less swingy.

What it does do is mess with everything else. Despite what you claim, the game's mathematics is not just based around the average result - it's also based on the range. On average, players need an 8+ to hit level appropriate enemies, gaining a 65% hit rate. Under your system they only need a 3+ making it 80% instead. Combined with the double crit rate you make players much more effective at dealing damage and they'll very rarely miss. It's made worse if they get bonuses to accuracy - archery style increases accuracy by a massive 40%, for example - or if you roll lots of dice that benefit from crits, like sneak attack and smite.

On the other hand, a typical low CR foe has a +3 attack bonus against the typical player AC of 16, needing 13+ or 40%; If they have a shield it's 30%. In your system, they'd need an 8+ or 30% and can only hit shielded characters on a natural 10. AC roughly holds pace with enemy attack bonus until they reach the cap, so players will probably hold this lead for a good while. In either system, the monsters do eventually start to outpace AC, but the monsters won't catch up to the intended hit rates until very late.

Then there's saves. Again, you generally need an 8+ to pass a save if you have the right ability and proficiency, while under your system it becomes a 3+. Target a player's good save and they'll rarely fail. Target a Paladin or anyone near them and they'll probably laugh in your face. On the flipside, since natural 20s (or 10s) dont auto succeed on a save, any targeted bad save is basically a sure failure, to a much larger extent than usual. Obviously this goes both ways, and players that can target saves will be brutally effective. Any ability checks are basically subject to the same issues as saves - if they're good it's nearly certain (expertise just becomes stupidly good) and if they're not there's no point even trying.

So basically, you either make life much easier for players except when targeting bad saves and skills OR you adjust every monster's AC and attack bonus, every save DC, and every skill DC until things even out. And even then, your rogues and paladins will reign supreme.

Or you can just roll a d20.

[Yunru]

What, you failed first semester probs and stats?
Ironically I am somewhat of a maths prodigy (not to brag :P ). However, despite coasting to and through three years of maths at university, I failed because I have not once in my life passed a statistics exam. They're just anathema for me.

[Slipperychicken]

I haven't seen a GITP thread make me laugh like this in years. Good job, all of you

[Rukelnikov]

Ironically I am somewhat of a maths prodigy (not to brag :P ). However, despite coasting to and through three years of maths at university, I failed because I have not once in my life passed a statistics exam. They're just anathema for me.

I never liked geometry but I learned linear algebra at university :S

Plus if you like Combinatorics the simpler parts of probability (what we need for most of this stuff) are not very hard.

[LudicSavant]

Can anyone see a problem with replacing the d20 with 1d10+5?
I fancy some steak, and this is a sacred cow that my party's never gotten too attached to.

Crits and natural 1s occur more often. Halfling Luck is more valuable, as are things like the Hexblade's Curse. DC 19 saves are just auto-fails for anyone who doesn't have more than a +3 to a save.

[Mordaedil]

Honestly, I've never had a problem with a d20 for most of D&D, with the exception of ability checks, which are so swingy and random I feel like they must be a conceptual mistake in the game design from earliest of D&D to the modern incarnation. Even in earlier D&D, while having a higher strength meant you stood a better chance of opening a barred door, I never felt the odds were particularly in favor of the meaty tanks of the group and more frequently saw the wizards muscle open barriers and lift gates because they rolled better by pure coincidence.

I don't even know how to deal with this aside from applying an exponential increase to chance of success with higher strength, until it gets ridiculous.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Not everyone lives in the USA
But some do, isn't it a bit rude to be constantly correcting people for using their regional form?

Color/Colour or Grey/Gray for example, just seems incredibly pedantic to be doing this when you perfectly understand what they're intending to say regardless.

EDIT: I should probably share my opinion on the topic at hand as well, I generally agree with the camp that this creates situations where +/- to hits become too valuable and you can risk skewing chances to hit outside of an acceptable boundary. With that said, we can't be sure if on paper statistics will perfectly transfer into realistic results so give a try and fill us in on how it went.

[NaughtyTiger]

The deviation on 3d6 is the same level of deviation on 1d10+5.
No its not.

yeah it is. The standard deviation between the 2 is shown below (from the post just before yours)... (Merch, my math agrees with your math. so maybe we are both wrong :) )


Well, compared to a d20 at least. And assuming my math isn't astronomically wrong (no promises! Feel free to correct me).
The standard deviation on 1d20 is ~5.76. The standard deviation on 3d6 is ~2.95. The standard deviation on 1d10 is ~2.87.

[Rukelnikov]

yeah it is. The standard deviation between the 2 is shown below (from the post just before yours)... (Merch, my math agrees with your math. so maybe we are both wrong :) )

And it's shown to be different :S

2.87 vs 2.95

[Vogie]

Another option is 2d10. This would make results more normalized and would make crits and fumbles far more rare, but would keep the same basic math.

(You could also have crit be 19-20 and fumbles be 2-3, which are actually still more rare than they were before, but the value of stuff that expands your crit range will still be much higher.)

Or you could just use 2d10, and there are no fumbles, because of __________ (magic reason), or as a way to emulate things like Halfling luck or the Elemental Adept feat.

It reminds me of that ranger from the Godsfall that is the godling of luck, and uses a d24 instead of a d20 for everything.

[follacchioso]

1D10+5, 3D6, 2D10, etc.. Are much more error prone than a straight 1D20.
Otherwise you will spend most of the time adding up numbers, slowing down combat and play.

3D6 is the worst, I can imagine myself chasing down the three dices that will probably have rolled over three different corners of the table, or maybe even have fallen on the floor.

Math and maths, they're both correct :-)

[Willie the Duck]

Ironically I am somewhat of a maths prodigy (not to brag :P ).

I wouldn't worry about that. Being a math prodigy is hardly brag-worthy here. Math class seems to be the high point for a lot of lives here. Can't swing a dead cat without hitting a math genius (:smalltongue:).


I did consider upping everything by an advantage level, so 1d20 for disadvantage, 2d20k1 for normal, 3d20k1 for advantage, but that was way more work than I was willing to put in right now.

I think that's the thing people are trying to explain. You will be putting work in with your proposed plan. Switching out d20 for d10+5 is simple only in the decision-making part. The downstream consequences, however, will be vast. What happens to your champion crit fishers? What about people with already stratospheric ACs? What about rogues with expertise in stealth (not that it wasn't practical invisibility to begin with)? What is your new threshold for falling when making climbing checks? Pre mathematics and analyzing the variance (or heteroscedasticity, if we treat levels or campaign length as the range) can only tell us so much, the actual specifics of various checks are also going to be important.

I have no opinion on whether or not to try this things. You suggested you have experienced players, so I assume that they will not rage quit or something when issues arise. However, do not fool yourself into thinking that this change won't increase your workload.

[Rukelnikov]

I wouldn't worry about that. Being a math prodigy is hardly brag-worthy here. Math class seems to be the high point for a lot of lives here. Can't swing a dead cat without hitting a math genius (:smalltongue:).

I ended up 4th of my country in Maths Olympics when I was 17 :P (but then the late 20s came...)

[NaughtyTiger]

Ironically I am somewhat of a maths prodigy (not to brag :P ). However, despite coasting to and through three years of maths at university, I failed because I have not once in my life passed a statistics exam. They're just anathema for me.

that explains a lot...

[Galithar]

1D10+5, 3D6, 2D10, etc.. Are much more error prone than a straight 1D20.
Otherwise you will spend most of the time adding up numbers, slowing down combat and play.

3D6 is the worst, I can imagine myself chasing down the three dices that will probably have rolled over three different corners of the table, or maybe even have fallen on the floor.

Math and maths, they're both correct :-)

If your group struggles with 3d6 how much of a nightmare is it when you have a rogue? By level 3 they're usually rolling 3d6 every turn for damage, and it only gets worse from there. I know some people use digital rolling methods, especially for high level rogues, but 3d6 is nothing. Level 20 rogue crit sneak attack with no additional riders is probably going to be 22d6. And most damage spells have you rolling 3 or more damage dice. So while I can completely understand not liking 3d6 for attacks, skill checks, etc it should hardly be because it's difficult to track it or add up 3 dice

[Waterdeep Merch]

If your group struggles with 3d6 how much of a nightmare is it when you have a rogue? By level 3 they're usually rolling 3d6 every turn for damage, and it only gets worse from there. I know some people use digital rolling methods, especially for high level rogues, but 3d6 is nothing. Level 20 rogue crit sneak attack with no additional riders is probably going to be 22d6. And most damage spells have you rolling 3 or more damage dice. So while I can completely understand not liking 3d6 for attacks, skill checks, etc it should hardly be because it's difficult to track it or add up 3 dice
While I'm pretty ambivalent towards the 3d6 method, I get where he's coming from. I have a player that can't do the basic addition required of the game as it is. The other players have essentially forced him to only ever play greataxe barbarians so they can help him do his math at a glance. He's also the only one that needs computer assistance for calculating his HP.

I'd never in a million years use the 3d6 method with him. That sounds horrible.

[Bjarkmundur]

Sometimes the way questions in this forums are answered triggers me.

There's no reason why you shouldn't do this, but we can help you understand what it might affect if you do.

Players usually think in black and white. Either they succeed or fail, hit or miss. How it is calculated shouldn't affect the Fun they have.

Try it, and let us know.

[follacchioso]

If your group struggles with 3d6 how much of a nightmare is it when you have a rogue? By level 3 they're usually rolling 3d6 every turn for damage, and it only gets worse from there. I know some people use digital rolling methods, especially for high level rogues, but 3d6 is nothing. Level 20 rogue crit sneak attack with no additional riders is probably going to be 22d6. And most damage spells have you rolling 3 or more damage dice. So while I can completely understand not liking 3d6 for attacks, skill checks, etc it should hardly be because it's difficult to track it or add up 3 dicethat's exactly my point. Sneak attacks slow the game a bit, as the player has to sum up all the dice all the time. To be fair, it's not a big deal because it is something that happens only once or maybe twice per turn. It may actually be fun, since it's something that doesn't happen frequently and it means that a lot of damage is being done.

Rolling 3D6 for everything, though, would be much worse. Rolling advantage would require at least two sets of three dices of different colors, in order to be able to roll them at the same time. A level 20 fighter with advantage or disadvantage would roll 24 dices every turn, just to determine if they hit. At that point it becomes a game of rolling dices rather than roleplay.

[Kane0]

Sometimes the way questions in this forums are answered triggers me.

There's no reason why you shouldn't do this, but we can help you understand what it might affect if you do.

Players usually think in black and white. Either they succeed or fail, hit or miss. How it is calculated shouldn't affect the Fun they have.

Try it, and let us know.

Indeed. 10char

[Rynjin]

Sometimes the way questions in this forums are answered triggers me.

There's no reason why you shouldn't do this, but we can help you understand what it might affect if you do.

Players usually think in black and white. Either they succeed or fail, hit or miss. How it is calculated shouldn't affect the Fun they have.

Try it, and let us know.

Players notice more than you think. While the average person generally can't ARTICULATE what's wrong with a game unless it's blindingly obvious what the problem is and why it is, players will notice anything abnormal and express it as "I don't like this".

That's the entire premise of game design in a nutshell, making the game fun by hiding the seams. hen you pull the seams out and redo them with a half-assed stitch, people will notice. It'll start off initially as a niggling feeling of "I'm hitting/getting hit more/less than usual aren't I?" (or if you're sadistic enough to pull this on first time players to the system "Wow, defense/offense doesn't really matter at all in this game") and grow worse from there.

The existence of dice superstitions in the hobby alone is enough of an indicator of that. People invent patterns where there are none ("These dice are cursed! They roll nothing above a 9, ever" even when they have the exact same distribution of numbers as everyone else, but you're getting unlucky on WHEN those higher numbers are represented), think how much worse it will be when those patterns are actually true.

[Bjarkmundur]

Players notice more than you think. While the average person generally can't ARTICULATE what's wrong with a game unless it's blindingly obvious what the problem is and why it is, players will notice anything abnormal and express it as "I don't like this".

That's the entire premise of game design in a nutshell, making the game fun by hiding the seams. hen you pull the seams out and redo them with a half-assed stitch, people will notice. It'll start off initially as a niggling feeling of "I'm hitting/getting hit more/less than usual aren't I?" (or if you're sadistic enough to pull this on first time players to the system "Wow, defense/offense doesn't really matter at all in this game") and grow worse from there.

The existence of dice superstitions in the hobby alone is enough of an indicator of that. People invent patterns where there are none ("These dice are cursed! They roll nothing above a 9, ever" even when they have the exact same distribution of numbers as everyone else, but you're getting unlucky on WHEN those higher numbers are represented), think how much worse it will be when those patterns are actually true.

If it were a different user making this thread, I'd say the same. But since I've seen his/her threads all over the forum, I am not worried for the sake of his/her players.

[Torpin]

lets look at not super tanky PC, like a 15-17 armor class
a hill giant is a cr 5 enemy and already has a +8 to hit so we are looking at if the pc has 15 ac or less a 90% chance of it hitting whereas if you keep the d20 its only 70% chance to hit. it also gets 2 attacks
a 5th level caster with mage armor has that 15 ac and can survive 1 but not 2 hits

[Rynjin]

If it were a different user making this thread, I'd say the same. But since I've seen his/her threads all over the forum, I am not worried for the sake of his/her players.

Elaborate? I've never seen the poster before. I generally avoid the 5e subforum.

[Man_Over_Game]

Elaborate? I've never seen the poster before. I generally avoid the 5e subforum.

Here you go:
Threads: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1844251

Lots of homebrew options, including ways of rolling up stats, figuring out how to modify mechanics to fit their own game, and various different class/subclass options.

Posts: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1844257

A bunch of stuff on statistics. Also really likes Warlocks.

Seems like a smart guy, although I vehemently disagree with his recommendation, for reasons I posted earlier in the thread.

[Snails]

A case could be made, and has, against 1d20 as a resolution method. But 1d10+5 doesn't strike me as a very good replacement.

This.

The real question is what is the goal? Is it for PCs to hit more? To hit less? For things to adhere to the average? For mooks to never hit high AC PCs? To have more Crits?

d20 as the primary random factor for resolutions is not intrinsically better or worse that d100(%) or d10 or d6.

If you really want to change things, consider 2d10 or 3d6. I rather hate those for the Attack resolution, while I think they have some merit for Skills -- that is personal taste, however based on goals and reasons I can name.