|
7 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 5:51PM
#291
|
|
|
Building the entire system on a 1d20 is a huge flaw. It provides no average.
Agreed. This is a meaningful criticism. The d20 system results in linear statistics, which create very wild results that are difficult to predict. I also find the consequences frustrating.
What would you think of 3d6 instead of 1d20? This would still allow a basic, 50/50 chance DC of 10 (actually slightly better than 50% in the players' favor). The ability bonuses/penalties then scale identically to the DCs.
As you've pointed out, every result has an equal chance of occurring when you roll a single die. In that scenario, any ability bonus or penalty's significance is reduced. And the results of the rolls are much less predictable/scalable. But with 3d6, almost half of the rolls fall in the 9-12 range. This might not be as "exciting", in that the extremes are much less likely to happen. But it certainly makes ability bonuses more meaningful and in my opinion fixes many mechanical issues of balance.
Although it's exciting to level up, collect lots of skill points, etc., I prefer a tighter game with fewer extremes of power. I don't enjoy the thought of uber-PCs going toe-to-toe with major monsters. I don't care how bad-ass or epic a hero is, without divinity-level magic no PC should be able to singlehandedly put down the tarrasque. The D&D novels and other materials give an impression of a much deadlier world as well. I would also enjoy a system where a 1st level character could adventure with a party of 6th level. Even though the 1st level PC might be in high danger of dying, with a 3d6 system they would at least have a shot and would even be a meaningful contributor to the group.
Unfortunately, I get the feeling that the majority of players don't really want a balanced and workable system. Many of them want incredulous acts, ranging from extraordinary feats to catastrophic failures. While I understand this is a fantasy game and players should get to experience doing amazing things, the impact of this is minimized if every power is "ultra" and simply surviving a dungeon of kobolds gives you enough experience to suddenly make you more powerful than 95% of the warriors in the world. :P
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 6:01PM
#292
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
The skill challenge introduced an analogous delay factor for more complex skill use.. so that they too are not linear... but rather a composite of multiple d20s.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 9:44PM
#293
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Only serious design flaw I see with DnD is at it's core, the 1d20 system. EVERYTHING has to be built on it. There is no getting around it. From Charactor builds, Race Bonuses, Skill Checks, Combat Mechanics, it affects the entire design of the game.
The 1d20 system to determine success/failure is not a completely terrible system. As I'm sure you're aware, it's basically just a pure percentile system that's cut to 5% resolution (which is completely fair, if you consider anything smaller than a 5% chance to be not worth tracking). Presenting it in this format merely makes it easier to allow for anything other than the default DC 21, because saying that something is DC 28 is easier than accounting for your base percentile chance with a 35% penalty. It's easier to add small single-digit numbers than to subtract two-digit numbers.
The real problem, in my opinion, lies with the size of modifiers. Under the current system, a "hard" check (DC 16) is something that the weakest possible character (with a -4 modifier) could succeed at 5% of the time, while the strongest possible human (with a +5 modifier) could succeed only 50% of the time. The difference between the most and least talented individuals should be greater than +9, is what I'm saying.
If ability checks used the whole modifier, so you could get anywhere from a +3 to a +20 on that check, and check DCs ranged from 10 - 35, then that would go a long way toward solving the problem (in my opinion). Let the ability modifier contribute to accuracy rolls and skill checks, or anywhere else where the major contribution is from some other source, so the total modifier can stay in the 2-20 range.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 9:51PM
#294
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
If ability checks used the whole modifier, so you could get anywhere from a +3 to a +20 on that check, and check DCs ranged from 10 - 35, then that would go a long way toward solving the problem (in my opinion).
Its a problem only because attributes have been made the whole of the answer how good you are at it.
When you have skill rankings or 4e's ( unskilled,skilled,focused,racially boosted and variously empowered), the d20 is a much smaller impact and attributes dont need to be so broadly impactful.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 11:32PM
#295
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Only serious design flaw I see with DnD is at it's core, the 1d20 system.
Since a combat isnt one die roll, its actually many d20s which rather naturally result in a bell curve of results without embeding it in every sub-result roll. Hit points are in one sense a delay factor that helps ensure that happens even further. View the bigger picture.
Assuming combat (read HPs) lasts long enough for that to happen.
Another point of address (out of combat) is taking 10... is that still in?
Also, the contentious idea of results less than a certain number are considered at least a certain number in a class that is a hot topic pulls it in tighter.
That Hit points and not going down easily with one shot and tasks requiring iterations like in a skill challenges creates a more predictable middle ground seems lost on the people asking for bell curves in their performance.
You are right taking 10 or taking 20 for that matter are other examples where contextual reliability can be added.
|
|
|
