View Full Version : [Variant] More stable rolls

2007-11-11, 06:50 PM
I know there is a variant like this in the SRD, but I think rolling 3d6 makes it too normalized. But then again, the frivolous d20 can break a well made character. So a simpler version of this. Roll two d20s and take the average, rounding down.

Sure some of the fun lies in the unpredictability of the icosahedron god, but for the unlucky players who seems to get the short end of the stick, this should even the odds somewhat. Any thoughts?

2007-11-11, 11:39 PM
Yeah, I'd recommend this to a few players. Last session I had, the party warrior, wielding a greataxe, with Bull's Strength, Bless, and Magic Weapon, active (the cleric actually buffed other players first!), with the Bard singing, and with other characters flanking his target, rolled a one to hit every turn for four turns in a row. He got swarmed by half-undead and ended up doing less damage than the NPC ally (a Warrior).

The DM, on the other hand, in the same session, critted on our barbarian no fewer than four times in a row. In one round.

So yes, I'd say a bit more averaged out predictability would be welcome.

2007-11-12, 12:01 AM
Maybe not if you had a RNG, but wouldn't this slow down combat way too much?

2007-11-12, 12:15 AM
Eh, maybe in the forum roller, since it's not equipped to do this, but in real life, it's just rolling two d20s instead of one. The time taken to do the math is almost inconsequential. It really does suck to botch a roll after being all prepared, and with this variant, natural ones and twenties happen much less. Not saying it never happens, just, luck has way too much to do with this.

2007-11-12, 10:31 PM
This is an interesing variant. However, I have a few questions?

How are crit threats handled? Using the system as it stands, there is about a twenty fold reduction in crit threats. Would you compensate for this somehow, or is one of the goals of this variant to reduce the number of crits?

The system is rather math heavy for my taste. Have you considered 2d10 instead?

2007-11-12, 11:14 PM
2d10 wouldn't work. It'd be impossible to get a one. And he's right about the drastically reduced crits. Assuming rounding, rolling a twenty requires you to roll at least one twenty and one nineteen. *does some math* Under this variant, the chance of getting a critical threat (assuming weapon does not have a higher crit range) is 3/400 (.75%). That is a whole lot lower than the current 1/20 (5%). And then you have to roll again to confirm the critical, which may be harder or easier depending on the opponent's AC.

2007-11-12, 11:37 PM
So you treat two as a natural one... that's the point, it's harder to get.

2007-11-13, 12:02 AM
The whole point of this variant was to decrease randomness. Criticals are significantly weaker but it applies to everyone, and is one of the goals anyway. If more crits are wanted, adding 1 to all crit ranges (that is, after multiplied by Improved Crit or keen modifier) would solve this problem. This still gives less than normal number of crits.

I guess 2d10 works, treating 2 as a natural one. This raises the average of the rolls by .5 though, so everyone would be rolling .5 higher, which is alright, since everything is affected. Actually, yeah, this seems faster and more lenient on the percentages.