I'm unhappy with the swingy D20. For example with small modifiers like a Dex save with 13 Dex is just D20 with +1 so it's basically a coin flip wether you dodge the dragon breath the problem that the designers don't seem to understand is that the D20 system (which is great in 3.5 and PF) is designed with higher modifiers like + 5 to +15 and so on.
I'm unhappy with the swingy D20. For example with small modifiers like a Dex save with 13 Dex is just D20 with +1 so it's basically a coin flip wether you dodge the dragon breath the problem that the designers don't seem to understand is that the D20
+1, +5, +15 it doesn't matter, the numbers are an optical illusion. If the DCs are set at 11, 16, 25 respectively, you still only have a 50/50 chance at succeeding.
+1, +5, +15 it doesn't matter, the numbers are an optical illusion. If the DCs are set at 11, 16, 25 respectively, you still only have a 50/50 chance at succeeding.
The flaw of the d20 was always the size.The father the character's modifier is from the target DC, the more the roll is based of pure dumb luck.
But all is not lost.
DM Advice:
The key is the DC. You cannot put high DCs for stuff you describe as easy. If basic skill training in next is +3, then a DC13 is 50/50 for a skilled character. So you cannot place a DC 13 on something you expect an expert to be able to do regularly. No DCs 13+ for identifying berries because it makes unrealistic results for a Nature lore or Survaval expert.
The flaw of the d20 was always the size.The father the character's modifier is from the target DC, the more the roll is based of pure dumb luck.But all is not lost.DM Advice:The key is the DC.You cannot put high DCs for stuff you describe as easy.If
The D20 system is congruent with the old AD&D system, which was not designed with +5 or +15 in mind.
The problem with this is that the saving throws used in AD&D had nothing to do with your ability scores. The ability score didn't even modify a saving throw.
These were simply matrixes that improved as your character got more powerful. a 5th level magic user had a much better chance to save vs spells than a fighter of the same level, while that same fighter had an easier time against breath weapons.
It's a fools errand to bring up AD&D systems in comparison to WotC systems since they are apples to mangos.
The problem with this is that the saving throws used in AD&D had nothing to do with your ability scores. The ability score didn't even modify a saving throw.These were simply matrixes that improved as your character got more powerful. a 5th level mag
The problem with this is that the saving throws used in AD&D had nothing to do with your ability scores. The ability score didn't even modify a saving throw.
Yes, they did. Dex in 1E & 2E, and Wis in 2E, with Wis affecting the victim's saves in 1E.
However, exactly when they applied was so esoteric that most groups simply forgot about it.
Yes, they did. Dex in 1E & 2E, and Wis in 2E, with Wis affecting the victim's saves in 1E.However, exactly when they applied was so esoteric that most groups simply forgot about it.
Well.. yes, this is the inherrent flaw of any d20 system and is why most other RPGs use multiple dice... It seems however that there is a hidden rule that says "Not d20, not D&D" so there is nothing to be done.
But, for a less swingy houserule, just replace the d20 with 2d10 and play as usual (and get a bell curve).
Well.. yes, this is the inherrent flaw of any d20 system and is why most other RPGs use multiple dice...It seems however that there is a hidden rule that says "Not d20, not D&D" so there is nothing to be done.But, for a less swingy houserule, just re
I had a similar thought about AC recently... would it not be better to start ACs for unarmored off at something less than 10? It would give more 'effective hit space' especially under bounded accuracy.
I had a similar thought about AC recently... would it not be better to start ACs for unarmored off at something less than 10? It would give more 'effective hit space' especially under bounded accuracy.
I had a similar thought about AC recently... would it not be better to start ACs for unarmored off at something less than 10? It would give more 'effective hit space' especially under bounded accuracy.
That's what the Weapon Attack bonus is trying to do.
That's what the Weapon Attack bonus is trying to do.
By very convenient coincidence, you can achieve a d20 roll with a nice Gaussian distribution by substituting 3d6. Same average. You just have to figure out criticals, and you're good to go.
I think this can make a useful houserule, particularly for trained skill checks: training doesn't just make you better, it lets you achieve greater consistency in your results.
And there's always the "take 10" rule, too.
By very convenient coincidence, you can achieve a d20 roll with a nice Gaussian distribution by substituting 3d6. Same average. You just have to figure out criticals, and you're good to go.I think this can make a useful houserule, particularly for
Really it might be time to drop the d20 coin flip random swingy chance thing. Go with 2d10 with 2 being a critical failure and 20 being a critical success. Most rolls would fall within the 10-11 range and other numbers would get rarer as you approached 2 and 20. It would fix most of the problems of the game.
Really it might be time to drop the d20 coin flip random swingy chance thing. Go with 2d10 with 2 being a critical failure and 20 being a critical success. Most rolls would fall within the 10-11 range and other numbers would get rarer as you approach
I had a similar thought about AC recently... would it not be better to start ACs for unarmored off at something less than 10? It would give more 'effective hit space' especially under bounded accuracy.
The AC isn't just for figuring out if you hit the target, it's to see if you hit and deal damage. Realilistically speaking, you can smack a guy in full plate with your sword but you won't necesarily do damage to them.
The AC isn't just for figuring out if you hit the target, it's to see if you hit and deal damage. Realilistically speaking, you can smack a guy in full plate with your sword but you won't necesarily do damage to them.
The problem with this is that the saving throws used in AD&D had nothing to do with your ability scores. The ability score didn't even modify a saving throw.
Yes, they did. Dex in 1E & 2E, and Wis in 2E, with Wis affecting the victim's saves in 1E.
However, exactly when they applied was so esoteric that most groups simply forgot about it.
Yes I stand corrected. It's been a while.
Still the systems are very different and can't be compared.
I'd actually like to see those saves return or something like them. Basing saves on ability scores means there is no real improvement as you gain levels. It also means everyone is trying to get the highest scores they can. I believe ability scores should be the basis for the character's physical and mental attributes not the means of determining the outcome of assorted challenges.
D&D has always had issues with characters being useless or undesirable because they have low numbers. Using those numbers to determine the outcome of important circumstances only makes this worse, and the reason so many people don't like rolling stats.
If flatter math is desired in Next then those 3e style ability modifiers need to disappear along with the rest of the numbers bloat the system engendered. I'd go as far to include periodic ability score increases.
As for the OP's point, I like the d20.
I'm not one to advocate multiple dice with the armor classes firmly imbedded in the sweet spot. If ACs are going to be meaningful the chance to hit them must be variable. I hear talk about players hitting monsters 55 or 60% of the time. It makes no sense to me when there are ten base ACs and only one attack bonus. Designing monsters by ac and weapons damage is a sure way of bolluxing up the whole works. constantly increasing AC and attacks to maintain a certain progression seems like a sure fire way to make things tedious and boring. The devs then have to keep adding things for the player to do to keep from being bored or losing interest. This seems to be the biggest problem with 4e that I've heard mentioned and it is happening with next already. Too much stuff being piled onto the classes is going against the stated goals of the dev team.
I think they are already losing sight of their statement that simple is better.
Yes, they did. Dex in 1E & 2E, and Wis in 2E, with Wis affecting the victim's saves in 1E.However, exactly when they applied was so esoteric that most groups simply forgot about it.[/quote]Yes I stand corrected. It's been a while. Still the systems
I had a similar thought about AC recently... would it not be better to start ACs for unarmored off at something less than 10? It would give more 'effective hit space' especially under bounded accuracy.
The AC isn't just for figuring out if you hit the target, it's to see if you hit and deal damage. Realilistically speaking, you can smack a guy in full plate with your sword but you won't necesarily do damage to them.
Yes, thats sums up the core of D&D in one sentance. And your point concerning bounded accuracy and the available scale of to-hit vs. AC values is? =P
The AC isn't just for figuring out if you hit the target, it's to see if you hit and deal damage. Realilistically speaking, you can smack a guy in full plate with your sword but you won't necesarily do damage to them. [/quote]Yes, thats sums up the c
+1, +5, +15 it doesn't matter, the numbers are an optical illusion. If the DCs are set at 11, 16, 25 respectively, you still only have a 50/50 chance at succeeding.
There's a key difference though which shows up when you compare two characters, and this is where the minor bonuses fall short. If the strong fighter has only a +3 bonus, and the not so strong rogue has a +0 bonus, the fighter has only a 15% greater chance of success, which is dissatisfying. That's why a it's a little bit nicer to spread the bonuses out to a +5 to +10 and increase the DCs slightly.This allows a PC's stats to pull more weight than the randomness of the D20. It's fine for success to be 50/50 for an individual, but it shouldn't essentially be 50/50 for the entire party.
There's a key difference though which shows up when you compare two characters, and this is where the minor bonuses fall short. If the strong fighter has only a +3 bonus, and the not so strong rogue has a +0 bonus, the fighter has only a 15% greater
The problem with this is that the saving throws used in AD&D had nothing to do with your ability scores. The ability score didn't even modify a saving throw.
Yes, they did. Dex in 1E & 2E, and Wis in 2E, with Wis affecting the victim's saves in 1E.
However, exactly when they applied was so esoteric that most groups simply forgot about it.
I never had a problem figuring out where to apply them.
Yes, they did. Dex in 1E & 2E, and Wis in 2E, with Wis affecting the victim's saves in 1E.However, exactly when they applied was so esoteric that most groups simply forgot about it.[/quote]I never had a problem figuring out where to apply them.
+1, +5, +15 it doesn't matter, the numbers are an optical illusion. If the DCs are set at 11, 16, 25 respectively, you still only have a 50/50 chance at succeeding.
There's a key difference though which shows up when you compare two characters, and this is where the minor bonuses fall short. If the strong fighter has only a +3 bonus, and the not so strong rogue has a +0 bonus, the fighter has only a 15% greater chance of success, which is dissatisfying. That's why a it's a little bit nicer to spread the bonuses out to a +5 to +10 and increase the DCs slightly.This allows a PC's stats to pull more weight than the randomness of the D20. It's fine for success to be 50/50 for an individual, but it shouldn't essentially be 50/50 for the entire party.
Skills, perhaps, but in combat there really shouldn't be more than about a 20% gap between two characters hitting, or one player is going to feel really hosed.
There's a key difference though which shows up when you compare two characters, and this is where the minor bonuses fall short. If the strong fighter has only a +3 bonus, and the not so strong rogue has a +0 bonus, the fighter has only a 15% greater
1d20 attack rolls aren't going anywhere; It's a core D&D element — wherein the term "core" here refers to an iconic element of the game that has existed in every edition from Basic to 4th. Removing it would pretty much be the equivalent of removing Armor Class or Hit Points.
I think it's important to simply accept the fact that at lower levels, combat is going to be a bit "swingy" and that your character's chance of success is going to be largely factored on luck more than skill. As they get more experienced, this dynamic diminishes and you start noticing the effects of skill and experience more. This is not all that far from reality; amateurs depend a great deal on luck in order to succeed. As they become experienced, they can dictate the outcomes of their endeavors with a little more control.
As for non-combat checks and saving throws, the key to avoiding "swingy" random-feeling outcomes is making sure the DC is kept well below 20 (with DCs of 15 or more being considered "extreme"). In most cases, a DC for a save or check shouldn't be more than DC 10. At that difficulty, you really notice the effects of abilities and other modifiers.
I would adjust the DC settings as such for saves and checks:
Trivial: 5 Easy: 7 Moderate: 10 Hard: 13 Very Hard: 16 Formidable: 20 Nearly Impossible: 21 or more
These are the guidelines I use when a check is only 1d20+Ability Mod.
1d20 attack rolls aren't going anywhere; It's a core D&D element — wherein the term "core" here refers to an iconic element of the game that has existed in every edition from Basic to 4th. Removing it would pretty much be the equivalent of remo
+1, +5, +15 it doesn't matter, the numbers are an optical illusion. If the DCs are set at 11, 16, 25 respectively, you still only have a 50/50 chance at succeeding.
There's a key difference though which shows up when you compare two characters, and this is where the minor bonuses fall short. If the strong fighter has only a +3 bonus, and the not so strong rogue has a +0 bonus, the fighter has only a 15% greater chance of success, which is dissatisfying. That's why a it's a little bit nicer to spread the bonuses out to a +5 to +10 and increase the DCs slightly.This allows a PC's stats to pull more weight than the randomness of the D20. It's fine for success to be 50/50 for an individual, but it shouldn't essentially be 50/50 for the entire party.
Skills, perhaps, but in combat there really shouldn't be more than about a 20% gap between two characters hitting, or one player is going to feel really hosed.
I agree when it's between two at-level characters. You make more rolls in combat so it's ok for the gap to be a little smaller on an individual roll. The greater number of rolls in combat will even it out and make the more accurate player feel more accurate. Also, in combat you can kind of assume that all classes are similarly useful or accurate with their primary attacks.
That's why I like a +3 to +7 starting to-hit spread. The gap between the lowest and the highest is only 20%. Again it falls into that sweet spot and helps differentiate adventurers trained with a weapon from a commoner swinging wildly with a sword they just picked up. The +0 to ~+12ish spread they seem to have going for to hit rolls is a good one, I just hope they bring defenses, saving throws, and skill checks in line with that sweet spot as well.
That's why they're going to have to do something about the no skill option. When you use straight ability modifiers, the greatest of the great is still only looking at a 25% greater chance of success than the lamest of the lame. Even when using skills the current playtest has a similar problem becaue the skills are so narrow, and you get so few of them, that most of the time you're effectively playing the no skill option.
If the bonuses are so small that everyone effectively has the same chance, what's the point of even making a character. You could just go through the game saying what you do, and seeing if you roll an 11 or higher on d20. The playtests even goes so fas as to suggest this in the DM's guidelines; telling DM's they don't really need a DC, just look at whether or not the PC rolled a high number. Again, what's the point of making a PC if their stats don't matter? I'm not saying we need ridiculously high bonuses (bounded accuracy is good), I'm just saying that between any two individual PCs, the game would benefit if there was a greater difference in check bonuses.
There's a key difference though which shows up when you compare two characters, and this is where the minor bonuses fall short. If the strong fighter has only a +3 bonus, and the not so strong rogue has a +0 bonus, the fighter has only a 15% greater
I like a system in which missing with an attack is far more frequent. That way the rounds go by quicker and there are more of them.
Currently, the rounds go by quickly and there are very few of them. Increasing AC might be a simple way to correct this issue. That way when someone does get hit it still means something.
I like a system in which missing with an attack is far more frequent. That way the rounds go by quicker and there are more of them. Currently, the rounds go by quickly and there are very few of them. Increasing AC might be a simple way t
I had a similar thought about AC recently... would it not be better to start ACs for unarmored off at something less than 10? It would give more 'effective hit space' especially under bounded accuracy.
The AC isn't just for figuring out if you hit the target, it's to see if you hit and deal damage. Realilistically speaking, you can smack a guy in full plate with your sword but you won't necesarily do damage to them.
And a base 50% "hit and deal damage" rate is still too damn low.
The AC isn't just for figuring out if you hit the target, it's to see if you hit and deal damage. Realilistically speaking, you can smack a guy in full plate with your sword but you won't necesarily do damage to them. [/quote]And a base 50% "hit and
I had a similar thought about AC recently... would it not be better to start ACs for unarmored off at something less than 10? It would give more 'effective hit space' especially under bounded accuracy.
The AC isn't just for figuring out if you hit the target, it's to see if you hit and deal damage. Realilistically speaking, you can smack a guy in full plate with your sword but you won't necesarily do damage to them.
And a base 50% "hit and deal damage" rate is still too damn low.
Wrong. 50% is a resonable baseline for an average combat, with a +/- 45% available for varying difficulties.
The AC isn't just for figuring out if you hit the target, it's to see if you hit and deal damage. Realilistically speaking, you can smack a guy in full plate with your sword but you won't necesarily do damage to them. [/quote]And a base 50% "hit and
I had a similar thought about AC recently... would it not be better to start ACs for unarmored off at something less than 10? It would give more 'effective hit space' especially under bounded accuracy.
The AC isn't just for figuring out if you hit the target, it's to see if you hit and deal damage. Realilistically speaking, you can smack a guy in full plate with your sword but you won't necesarily do damage to them.
And a base 50% "hit and deal damage" rate is still too damn low.
I think it's too high for a game with BA
The AC isn't just for figuring out if you hit the target, it's to see if you hit and deal damage. Realilistically speaking, you can smack a guy in full plate with your sword but you won't necesarily do damage to them. [/quote]And a base 50% "hit and
I think it is too low. If AC started out at 5 + Dex mod the baseline to hit would be 75%
If this is done by dropping the 10 to 5 or by giving +5 to hit bonus does not matter, but in my opinion dropping the 10 to 5 is cleaner (it keeps the +bonuses down).
This has two major benefits: * It is easier for enemies to actually do something in battle, especially if their life-expectancy is just around 1.5 rounds. * it gives a larger hit-space to play with for modifiers, armor and such.
Under the current system, armors and other AC modifiers only deal with the quite cramped 10-20 range. Dropping the baseline to 5 would allow 5-20 variation.
Given that most player characters would stay somewhere between the extremes it would become a 7-18 range or so (in comparison to the current 12-19 range)
I think it is too low. If AC started out at 5 + Dex mod the baseline to hit would be 75%If this is done by dropping the 10 to 5 or by giving +5 to hit bonus does not matter, but in my opinion dropping the 10 to 5 is cleaner (it keeps the +bonuses dow
I think it is too low. If AC started out at 5 + Dex mod the baseline to hit would be 75%
If this is done by dropping the 10 to 5 or by giving +5 to hit bonus does not matter, but in my opinion dropping the 10 to 5 is cleaner (it keeps the +bonuses down).
This has two major benefits: * It is easier for enemies to actually do something in battle, especially if their life-expectancy is just around 1.5 rounds. * it gives a larger hit-space to play with for modifiers, armor and such.
Under the current system, armors and other AC modifiers only deal with the quite cramped 10-20 range. Dropping the baseline to 5 would allow 5-20 variation.
Given that most player characters would stay somewhere between the extremes it would become a 7-18 range or so (in comparison to the current 12-19 range)
I'm for a +5 base attack to start for all characters and then move up from there with a cap at +15 max...
I'm for a +5 base attack to start for all characters and then move up from there with a cap at +15 max...
A system that uses a d20 for resolution works better if the range of modifiers to that roll is also 1-20.
As it stands, if you have a STR 1 kobold and a STR 20 human trapped behind a DC 11 stuck door, then there is a 1/16 chance of the human failing to break down the door followed by the kobold succeeding. I find this unacceptably high. (Note that people will only start paying attention to such a roll after the human fails, at which point the kobold has a 1/4 chance of succeeding.)
If we instead added our full ability scores to such checks, then the human could not possibly fail to knock down the trivial (DC 11) door, for which the kobold would still have a fair (50%) chance. There would also be a range of difficulties where the strongman could possibly fail but where the kobold would have no chance (DC 22 - 40, probably not exceeding DC 35 for fairness).
Since most players will have stats between 8-20, that still leaves all of DC 22-28 where the strongest might fail and the weakest might succeed. That seems more reasonable.
A system that uses a d20 for resolution works better if the range of modifiers to that roll is also 1-20. As it stands, if you have a STR 1 kobold and a STR 20 human trapped behind a DC 11 stuck door, then there is a 1/16 chance of the human failing
Skills, perhaps, but in combat there really shouldn't be more than about a 20% gap between two characters hitting, or one player is going to feel really hosed.
This could be a rationale for removing the attribute assocation from accuracy in combat actions.... skilled actions dont have a damage roll... so this would just be following up on that.
This could be a rationale for removing the attribute assocation from accuracy in combat actions.... skilled actions dont have a damage roll... so this would just be following up on that.
A system that uses a d20 for resolution works better if the range of modifiers to that roll is also 1-20.
As it stands, if you have a STR 1 kobold and a STR 20 human trapped behind a DC 11 stuck door, then there is a 1/16 chance of the human failing to break down the door followed by the kobold succeeding. I find this unacceptably high. (Note that people will only start paying attention to such a roll after the human fails, at which point the kobold has a 1/4 chance of succeeding.)
If we instead added our full ability scores to such checks, then the human could not possibly fail to knock down the trivial (DC 11) door, for which the kobold would still have a fair (50%) chance. There would also be a range of difficulties where the strongman could possibly fail but where the kobold would have no chance (DC 22 - 40, probably not exceeding DC 35 for fairness).
Since most players will have stats between 8-20, that still leaves all of DC 22-28 where the strongest might fail and the weakest might succeed. That seems more reasonable.
Not saying that the relationship between skills, ability scores, DCs and reality doesn't need a lot of work, but as it stands in D&D Next, your STR 1 kobold would have a 25% chance of breaking the door, while the STR 20 human would automatically succeed because his ability score is five or more higher than the DC.
And I don't want to be too critical of you since you are actively trying to find a better way to do things, but bigger numbers would be a huge regression in my opinion. I really hope a way can be found to keep the numbers low while solving the problems those of us participating in this thread see with the d20 skill system.
Not saying that the relationship between skills, ability scores, DCs and reality doesn't need a lot of work, but as it stands in D&D Next, your STR 1 kobold would have a 25% chance of breaking the door, while the STR 20 human would automatically succ
By very convenient coincidence, you can achieve a d20 roll with a nice Gaussian distribution by substituting 3d6. Same average. You just have to figure out criticals, and you're good to go.
I think this can make a useful houserule, particularly for trained skill checks: training doesn't just make you better, it lets you achieve greater consistency in your results.
And there's always the "take 10" rule, too.
The use of normal distributions for cumulative "at least" mechanics is a habit that the entire gaming industry needs to be educated on so that they stop accidentally abusing it.
I am absolutely tired of rebutting the fallacy that Guassian distributions create greater reliability in binary resolution systems. Sure, 3d6 and 1d20 have the same expected value, but the difference in their distributions dramatically alters the granuarity and behavior any "cut-off" game mechanic that they determine. If you substitute 3d6 in place of the uniform d20 with the currently spaced DC's what you really do is make the higher DC's that much less reliable and specialization through the stacking of static bonuses that much more critical.
The use of normal distributions for cumulative "at least" mechanics is a habit that the entire gaming industry needs to be educated on so that they stop accidentally abusing it.I am absolutely tired of rebutting the fallacy that Guassian distribution
If you substitute 3d6 in place of the uniform d20 with the currently spaced DC's what you really do is make the higher DC's that much less reliable and specialization through the stacking of static bonuses that much more critical.
Which would lend itself to favoring characters well trained in skills. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.
Which would lend itself to favoring characters well trained in skills. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.
If you substitute 3d6 in place of the uniform d20 with the currently spaced DC's what you really do is make the higher DC's that much less reliable and specialization through the stacking of static bonuses that much more critical.
Which would lend itself to favoring characters well trained in skills. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.
I think the point being made by Reinhart is that the bell curve that you get from 3d6 will almost 50% likely fall in the region of 9-12 with anything falling outside of these numbers being about 52%. It removes a lot of the randomness out of the d20 roll but greatly favours rolls where you require a 7 or more However, the down side comes when you're needing a 16 or more to succeed. So it doesn't really fix the problem, it just shifts problem to a different area. So I think he is disagreeing with 3d6 being more or less the same as d20.
I agree that mastering a skill (be it weapon skill or otherwise) should take a lot (not all) of the randomness out of the roll but that really means bolstering the static numbers rather than changing the die type. Unfortunately, this has become a criticism of many of the later editions and the proposed fix is keeping the static bonuses to a minimum and relying on advantage/disadvantage to pave the way.
Which would lend itself to favoring characters well trained in skills. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.[/quote] I think the point being made by Reinhart is that the bell curve that you get from 3d6 will almost 50% likely fall in th
If you substitute 3d6 in place of the uniform d20 with the currently spaced DC's what you really do is make the higher DC's that much less reliable and specialization through the stacking of static bonuses that much more critical.
Which would lend itself to favoring characters well trained in skills. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.
Having designed such systems and seen the consequences I can assure you it doesn't work the way you want it to. Your average DM and designer doesn't grasp well that +/-2 to the roll grants one character a +/-25% to succeed, and another only a +/-8%. DM's essentially have to start deriving their DC's from a z-table just to estimate each player's chances of success. What's more, there is simply less control over the probability of success for most of the distribution. You slide very steeply from 90.7% to 16.2% in just seven discrete steps.
Quite simply, there is no advantage to the Gaussian distribution for binary effects.
Which would lend itself to favoring characters well trained in skills. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.[/quote]Having designed such systems and seen the consequences I can assure you it doesn't work the way you want it to. Your ave
What's more, there is simply less control over the probability of success for most of the distribution. You slide very steeply from 90.7% to 16.2% in just seven discrete steps.
I'm not sure how you can categorically say there is no advantage to this system - it depends on what the goals of the system are. If the complaint is that a d20 roll is too "swingy", then making it so that more DCs have either a higher chance of success or a higher chance of failure is an advantage.
I'm not sure how you can categorically say there is no advantage to this system - it depends on what the goals of the system are. If the complaint is that a d20 roll is too "swingy", then making it so that more DCs have either a higher chance of suc
I think it's important to simply accept the fact that at lower levels, combat is going to be a bit "swingy..."
This is the best point made in this thread. If "swingy" (I really hate that term, btw...) offends your "it's over 9000!!!!11!!" sensibilities, then simply start your campaign at a higher level. This way, everybody's happy--those of us who enjoy the "swinginess" of classic low-level play get what we want out of the core system, and the Dragonball types get their superpowered starting characters without breaking the system for the rest of us. How is this a bad plan?
And a base 50% "hit and deal damage" rate is still too damn low.
No it isn't. If anything, it's far too high. If a trained, unarmoured man is menacing you with a sword, and you strike at him with your own sword, your attack is probably much less than 50% likely to hit him because he's probably going to parry your stroke. Unfortunately, D&D has never been all that good at representing a character's skill at defending himself. I enjoyed using a variation of the 3E optional "defense roll" rule to represent this.
In the interest of keeping things simple, though, I'd prefer to see the base unarmoured "hit and deal damage" chance at somewhere around 30-40%. If we have to, however, I guess we can keep the classic 50% hit rate, but I'd like to see it modified by some sort of character base defense bonus...
This is the best point made in this thread. If "swingy" (I really hate that term, btw...) offends your "it's over 9000!!!!11!!" sensibilities, then simply start your campaign at a higher level. This way, everybody's happy--those of us who enjoy the
I think it's important to simply accept the fact that at lower levels, combat is going to be a bit "swingy..."
This is the best point made in this thread. If "swingy" (I really hate that term, btw...) offends your "it's over 9000!!!!11!!" sensibilities, then simply start your campaign at a higher level. This way, everybody's happy--those of us who enjoy the "swinginess" of classic low-level play get what we want out of the core system, and the Dragonball types get their superpowered starting characters.
While I understand and respect your playstyle and point of view here, could you have found a more offensive way to say this?
A little respect for others playstyles goes a long way towards preserving civility.
This is the best point made in this thread. If "swingy" (I really hate that term, btw...) offends your "it's over 9000!!!!11!!" sensibilities, then simply start your campaign at a higher level. This way, everybody's happy--those of us who enjoy the
What's more, there is simply less control over the probability of success for most of the distribution. You slide very steeply from 90.7% to 16.2% in just seven discrete steps.
I'm not sure how you can categorically say there is no advantage to this system - it depends on what the goals of the system are. If the complaint is that a d20 roll is too "swingy", then making it so that more DCs have either a higher chance of success or a higher chance of failure is an advantage.
You're making several incorrect assumptions here. Yes, what is technically superior is defined by whatever your goals are. However, even by the most broad set of goals for every skill resolution system as D&D understands them you'll find no coherent set that makes the normal distribution the better pick. Specifically, if you want to control difficulty in a manner that makes the system "less swingy," that can be done best through the manipulation of modifiers and DC's on a uniform distribution.
What makes a system "swingy" is the slope of the cumulative mass function (CMF) in relation to the range of bonuses and difficulties that player characters experience. The only numbers where 3d6 has a smaller slope are 3-7 and 15-18. That wouldn't be so bad except that those ranges of the distribution cover 100% through 90.7% and 9.26% through 0.46%. The designers, game masters, and players all have objectively less granular control over the probability between 90.7% and 9.26%. So unless your game is only about people who succeed 90-100% or 0-10% of the time you're using a very "swingy" system. Then the other problem is that if you wanted to focus on those probabilities, you could just have used a d20 distribution and restricted all the DC's to 1 to 4 and 17-20. You'll also notice that you're using about the same number of discrete steps with the uniform distribution as you did with the 3d6 distribution, so you really haven't lost any granularity and now you can intuitively know the probability value of each of those steps.
I'm not sure how you can categorically say there is no advantage to this system - it depends on what the goals of the system are. If the complaint is that a d20 roll is too "swingy", then making it so that more DCs have either a higher chance of suc
In the post I wrote above the "swingyness" I'm addressing is the huge difference in effectiveness that crops up from a seemingly small situational penalty or benefit. That's a major problem in systems that use non-uniform distributions.
D&D's "swingyness" is a slightly different problem that I want to address. One of the other traits that make a system seem swingy is where the average difficulty is centered at. In 4e it was centered around 55%. I felt that was too low because it created a relatively steep relationship with effect that encouraged the "Tyranny of Accuracy" as Mearls eloquently named it. In 5e apparently it's shifted to about 60%-65%, but that's not a significant improvement yet.
One of the problems with a location near the mean is the amount of variance in the expected frequency of success. Consequently, this translates to high variance in the number of rounds that any character or monster is effective in a given encounter. This is the other "swingyiness" in D&D that both players and DM's commonly complain about.
In the post I wrote above the "swingyness" I'm addressing is the huge difference in effectiveness that crops up from a seemingly small situational penalty or benefit. That's a major problem in systems that use non-uniform distributions. D&D's "swingy
Quite simply, there is no advantage to the Gaussian distribution for binary effects.
Which is why almost all systems emplying a gaussian distribution is not binary but use graded successes and failures, something that just does not work as well with a flat distribution.
The problem you state lies in the binary effect rather than the gaussian distribution, especially as you speak about game-design in general and not D&D in particular.
Which is why almost all systems emplying a gaussian distribution is not binary but use graded successes and failures, something that just does not work as well with a flat distribution.The problem you state lies in the binary effect rather than the g
What makes a system "swingy" is the slope of the cumulative mass function (CMF) in relation to the range of bonuses and difficulties that player characters experience.
I think we're suffering from a difference of definition here. And of the two of us, you're the first one to articulate your definition, so mea culpa. Let me clarify. When you read "swingy", you take that to mean that a change in the DC of a roll causes a large change (or "swing") in the probability of success on that roll. I'm using "swingy" in a bigger-picture sense: the experience of success or failure in an encounter resting on a roll whose probability falls in the 40-60%, which can result in a player feeling uncertain and out of control, because the encounter "swings" on the result of an effective coin toss. I'm certainly not contesting what you're saying about the effect of a normal distribution on the CMF. What I'm pointing out is that a normal distribution pushes the probability more quickly out of that uncertain middle ground and towards probabilities that players can feel more assured about. In short, it is exactly the feature that you call "swingy" that I say alleviates "swinginess". Weird, huh?
Now, you're right in principle that this same assurance-raising effect can be achieved with a uniform distribution by forcing all the DCs into low and high numbers. But this only works when you're dealing with one character with a known and fixed bonus to their roll. When comparing multiple characters with different bonuses, I don't see how you can make this idea work without the DM massaging the math on a character-by-character basis. With a normal distribution, the DM can take any DC, and the distribution itself will naturally push it into the low- or high-probability range (unless it's very close to the character's bonus). This, again, strikes me as an advantageous feature, if keeping most rolls in those ranges is your goal.
EDIT: I see you ninja'ed me in bringing up this "other swinginess".
I think we're suffering from a difference of definition here. And of the two of us, you're the first one to articulate your definition, so mea culpa. Let me clarify. When you read "swingy", you take that to mean that a change in the DC of a roll c
Quite simply, there is no advantage to the Gaussian distribution for binary effects.
Which is why almost all systems emplying a gaussian distribution is not binary but use graded successes and failures, something that just does not work as well with a flat distribution.
The problem you state lies in the binary effect rather than the gaussian distribution, especially as you speak about game-design in general and not D&D in particular.
Yes, normal distributions are acceptable in systems where there are degree of success without a cut-off chance for failure. That's basically why normal distributions are acceptable as means of generating earnings or damage. But frustratingly the vast majority of all RPG resolution systems really just boil down to a binary outcome. And a huge proportion of RPG's are using Guasian distributions to determine those outcomes.
For instance, FATE actually could have allieviated some of this issue by having it so all difficulties are centered on 0 and have it so that skill determined the number of dice you rolled and difficulty determined the acceptable range of deviance from 0. However, this is not how their system works. My point is this mistake is rampant in the gaming industry. I've yet to encounter a system in the industry that is actually using complex distributions to implement degrees of success in a reasonable manner.
Which is why almost all systems emplying a gaussian distribution is not binary but use graded successes and failures, something that just does not work as well with a flat distribution.The problem you state lies in the binary effect rather than the g
I have read all this conversation and understood all the math, so when I skip talking about what you have been talking, know that it has been on purpose, because I am lazy.
I believe that no level of "swingyness" is universally fair for all types of checks in the D&D game. By "swingyness" I use TheCosmicKid's definition.
Anyway, I think it makes more sense to realize that certain ability scores are more reliable than others, so I'm thinking I will house rule like this:
Attack Rolls-> Use 1d20 Strenght Checks (non-combat, maybe grapple) -> use 3d6 Dexterity, Constitution or Intelligence[knowledge] checks -> use 2d10 Intelligence[not knowledge], Wisdom, Charisma -> use 1d20 Prolonged use of Charisma (extended debate that you want to resume in one roll, for instance) -> Use 3d6
I guess in some cases, 4d4 might even be an acceptable substitution.
I have read all this conversation and understood all the math, so when I skip talking about what you have been talking, know that it has been on purpose, because I am lazy.I believe that no level of "swingyness" is universally fair for all types of c
What makes a system "swingy" is the slope of the cumulative mass function (CMF) in relation to the range of bonuses and difficulties that player characters experience.
I think we're suffering from a difference of definition here. And of the two of us, you're the first one to articulate your definition, so mea culpa. Let me clarify. When you read "swingy", you take that to mean that a change in the DC of a roll causes a large change (or "swing") in the probability of success on that roll. I'm using "swingy" in a bigger-picture sense: the experience of success or failure in an encounter resting on a roll whose probability falls in the 40-60%, which can result in a player feeling uncertain and out of control, because the encounter "swings" on the result of an effective coin toss. I'm certainly not contesting what you're saying about the effect of a normal distribution on the CMF. What I'm pointing out is that a normal distribution pushes the probability more quickly out of that uncertain middle ground and towards probabilities that players can feel more assured about. In short, it is exactly the feature that you call "swingy" that I say alleviates "swinginess". Weird, huh?
Now, you're right in principle that this same assurance-raising effect can be achieved with a uniform distribution by forcing all the DCs into low and high numbers. But this only works when you're dealing with one character with a known and fixed bonus to their roll. When comparing multiple characters with different bonuses, I don't see how you can make this idea work without the DM massaging the math on a character-by-character basis. With a normal distribution, the DM can take any DC, and the distribution itself will naturally push it into the low- or high-probability range (unless it's very close to the character's bonus). This, again, strikes me as an advantageous feature, if keeping most rolls in those ranges is your goal.
EDIT: I see you ninja'ed me in bringing up this "other swinginess".
Yeah, it obviously also occurred to me after I wrote the last post that we might be talking about slightly different issues. Usind 3d6 you'd still have to greatly modify the listed skill DC's. With a uniform distribution I think you could probably create the effect you're looking for by making "training" be about a +15 bonus with the the occasional optional +1 increases. It'd be relatively simple to alter that scale of that initial "training" bonus to find the right balance, instead of re-writing every DC based on a z-table and expected values of PC attributes and advancement rates.
In the past I've created a slightly more diverse version of this effect through an increasing scale in skill advancement. That basically means skills increased in discrete a steps +3, +4(+7), +5(+12), and +6(+18) and then DC's were scattered near 6, 10, 15, and 21. In such a situation, whichever character is "ahead" in skill ranks maintains a significant lead in reliability and the sorts of DC's they can even achieve.
I'd like to point out however that I don't actually prefer skills systems that behave this way. Such systems can act as an obtuse barrier of entry for player participation. It's good for player characters to have varying levels of capability, but too much variance was a common source of annoying design problems and player experiences. These days I tend to use a reverse scale that creates clear diminishing returns so that while specialized characters stand out they do not stand too far over the shoulders of everyone else in the party.
I think we're suffering from a difference of definition here. And of the two of us, you're the first one to articulate your definition, so mea culpa. Let me clarify. When you read "swingy", you take that to mean that a change in the DC of a roll c
I think that the best way is to use the (supposedly forthcoming) rules module for degrees of success. It makes sense really to have things like a glancing blow on AC-2, and a heavy blow on AC+2.
You can have a bunch of tables of effects, such as your character succeeding a skill check at DC-1 but tripping and falling prone. You can put in extreme things like if you miss by more than 10 you grant advantage to that enemy against you.
The idea isn't that you have to use these EVERY time you roll a die, but rather if a character has a string of bad rolls and then just barely fails a check, throw him a bone and give him a minor success. If a character has a string of bad rolls and then makes a really good roll, make him feel extra awesome by making his success an extraordinary one.
You don't have to use it to "cheat" though. You can make it context sensitive, like if the player is trying to do something unusual like grab onto the chandeliers and jump kick the enemy, then use the special effects to make it more cinematic, even in failure.
The point is that instead of players rolling a die and then checking to see if they got the magic number, they should be anticpating the consquences to their actions.
I think that the best way is to use the (supposedly forthcoming) rules module for degrees of success. It makes sense really to have things like a glancing blow on AC-2, and a heavy blow on AC+2. You can have a bunch of tables of effects, such as your
I was wary of the same thing for a while, until I did the math.
Bonus +1, DC 11 = 50% success chance. Bonus +52, DC 62 = 50% success chance.
Bonuses v. DC is a way of tracking characters relative to the world, and they should improve, true, and thanks to the D&DNext number shrink, DCs are not likely to change through the levels (much).
Mostly, though, the bonuses are ways of comparing characters to each other, not the world.
The first example above: one party member has -1, another has +4, another has -2, the fourth has +3. Their average success rate is +1, still about 50/50, but now we know that the third guy is probably Jerry Holkins. So, yeah. Bonuses v. DC is not nearly as important as characters compared, and everybody rolls the same d20s (except Jerry, whose d20s are covered in 1s).
I was wary of the same thing for a while, until I did the math.Bonus +1, DC 11 = 50% success chance.Bonus +52, DC 62 = 50% success chance.Bonuses v. DC is a way of tracking characters relative to the world, and they should improve, true, and thanks t
I personally like the d20 because it's a simple abstraction of percentages in 5% increments. It makes it very easy and logical for the GM to set target numbers because you need only determine a percentage chance relative to player skill and ability.
I find that when bonuses go past +5 they influence the d20 too much and create weird results such as one character almost automatically succeeding while another automatically fails. I personally favor shrinking the bonuses to a high degree. As soon as the bonuses get to about +10 or higher they almost go 'off the die' and require weird things like incredibly high TNs or bonuses.
d100 is usually too complicated (two dice instead of one) and too precise to be useful. d10 is a little too abrupt (I've used both in game designs). Combinations of dice like 2d6 create weird probability curves.
Savage Worlds did 'other dice' pretty well. You get some wonky results, but they're usually in the players' favor so of course they don't mind.
I personally like the d20 because it's a simple abstraction of percentages in 5% increments. It makes it very easy and logical for the GM to set target numbers because you need only determine a percentage chance relative to player skill and ability.I
I was wary of the same thing for a while, until I did the math.
Bonus +1, DC 11 = 50% success chance. Bonus +52, DC 62 = 50% success chance.
Bonuses v. DC is a way of tracking characters relative to the world, and they should improve, true, and thanks to the D&DNext number shrink, DCs are not likely to change through the levels (much).
Mostly, though, the bonuses are ways of comparing characters to each other, not the world.
The first example above: one party member has -1, another has +4, another has -2, the fourth has +3. Their average success rate is +1, still about 50/50, but now we know that the third guy is probably Jerry Holkins. So, yeah. Bonuses v. DC is not nearly as important as characters compared, and everybody rolls the same d20s (except Jerry, whose d20s are covered in 1s).
I'm glad that someone else understands how the comparison between players is the most critical part of any skill system. The nature of PC potency is very much relative from system to system, and an aspect of each system's specific goals and balance. What does always matter is that each player feels that their character's special contributions are respected and well balanced for both their frequency of interaction and over-all utility. While that role's specific abilities can sometimes be protected through systematic gulfs in effectiveness, this strategy actually tends to create greater imbalance between roles because of differing playstyles or even different emphasis from scene to scene. For that reason it's usually more balanced to make character capabilities broadly effective so that players rarely feel their participation is trivialized.
Of course, I'm probably preaching to the choir this time.
I'm glad that someone else understands how the comparison between players is the most critical part of any skill system. The nature of PC potency is very much relative from system to system, and an aspect of each system's specific goals and balance.
I keep saying it: Not all tasks should have the same relation of SkillExpertise VS Chance of Success.
In other words sometimes it makes more sense to use a d20, sometimes 3d6.
I keep saying it: Not all tasks should have the same relation of SkillExpertise VS Chance of Success.In other words sometimes it makes more sense to use a d20, sometimes 3d6.
I was wary of the same thing for a while, until I did the math.
Bonus +1, DC 11 = 50% success chance. Bonus +52, DC 62 = 50% success chance.
Bonuses v. DC is a way of tracking characters relative to the world, and they should improve, true, and thanks to the D&DNext number shrink, DCs are not likely to change through the levels (much).
Mostly, though, the bonuses are ways of comparing characters to each other, not the world.
The first example above: one party member has -1, another has +4, another has -2, the fourth has +3. Their average success rate is +1, still about 50/50, but now we know that the third guy is probably Jerry Holkins. So, yeah. Bonuses v. DC is not nearly as important as characters compared, and everybody rolls the same d20s (except Jerry, whose d20s are covered in 1s).
I'm glad that someone else understands how the comparison between players is the most critical part of any skill system. The nature of PC potency is very much relative from system to system, and an aspect of each system's specific goals and balance. What does always matter is that each player feels that their character's special contributions are respected and well balanced for both their frequency of interaction and over-all utility. While that role's specific abilities can sometimes be protected through systematic gulfs in effectiveness, this strategy actually tends to create greater imbalance between roles because of differing playstyles or even different emphasis from scene to scene. For that reason it's usually more balanced to make character capabilities broadly effective so that players rarely feel their participation is trivialized.
Of course, I'm probably preaching to the choir this time.
Yes, that's a line of reasoning one of my players follows all the time. I know what you mean, and I agree.
From a GM's perspective, I'm much more concerned with successfully designing challenges, implied relative power, and other such concerns as well as keeping the game running soundly from a mechanical standpoint.
However, if I was a player, I'm sure that would be my main concern as well. I know at least one of my players who is of the exact same mind. Thanks for the insightful post!
I'm glad that someone else understands how the comparison between players is the most critical part of any skill system. The nature of PC potency is very much relative from system to system, and an aspect of each system's specific goals and balance.
