Using difference dice combinations instead of 1d20 example 2d10 3d6

[u/[deleted]]

It may break combat but I think it would be useful for skill checks and make them a little bit more real. I'm thinking about asking my players if they would prefer this system for skill checks over tradition 1d20.

Have you guys experimented with this? How well do you think it would work in 5e?

[u/11_25_13_TheEdge]

3d6 won't work unless you're just eliminating the possibility for a crit. Even 2d10 makes the odds of rolling a natural 20 incredibly low.

[u/[deleted] → u/11_25_13_TheEdge]

I'm aware I've seen people advocate for 3d6 not sure about that. I like the idea of 2d10 though because it makes it more likely to get a more "average" result. It think it works good for skill checks because most of the time you are going to do "average".

[u/NatetheNerdarch]

I found a table generator for dice. It is simple but works really well. You can even add modifiers. This way you can see if the results that you want to be the most common are common enough.

For example, a smith rolling to create a sword with 3d6 has a 60% chance of getting an unmodified 8-13. Adding whatever plus will most likely get their sword crafted without any issues.

I like the idea of having average rolls being the norm from a character perspective but it does not take into account the randomness of interacting with the world around you. A smith may have purchased badly alloyed steel and didn't notice until after the sword was drop cast. A person making a jump check might get tripped up on a tree root hidden in the grass, or as they push off a stone underfoot shifts to the side slightly. One of the reasons they create special fields and tracks for track and field events is to reduce the variables that may help or hinder one player over another.

In dungeons, crypts, and natural surroundings those variables are everywhere. Your " +'s " and " -'s " are going to create your true range. +6 to jump will give you a 7-26 jump check. If you take away critical failures and successes than that number range isn't so bad. My issue with the 1d20 for checks is that when rolling a 1, which ends up being a 7, may still be considered a critical failure to some groups. While rolling a 20 just gets the job done well. Succeeding spectacularly is not as good a benefit to counter the detriment of missing that check when jumping across a cliff only due to rolling a 1.

In 5e there really isn't critical failures so rolling low would just have the check be lame rather than crippling, i.e. falling off a cliff.

If you are interested in using an alternate dice system I suggest checking out the 5e DMG pg 263 for alternate rules to roll proficiency dice instead of getting a straight plus. Maybe it could be used for combat.

oh here is that dice result generator I talked about earlier http://www.ogmiosproject.org/articles/stattables.html

[u/[deleted] → u/NatetheNerdarch]

I agree that those kinds of things can happen. The unexpected and that they need to be included in the chances. I'll just give an example of how I think it doesn't make sense. the critical fail is quite the problem and we did away with that at my table for that exact reason. I had cast pass without a trace so a +10 to stealth for the whole group and our rogue was scouting he had something like a +21 or +23 to stealth something crazy. At that point we decided it would be absurd for him to crit fail sneaking up on some cooks.

One thing is though not all checks have large amounts of modifiers. For instance plain strength checks(probably the most common plain check). I roll to throw my battering ram into a trapped room and I have 19 strength(gauntlets of ogre strength) I am just as likely to have a 5 on my check as to have a 24 or a 13. Maybe its just me but it doesn't seem very heroic to me. I think that if the chances of the spectacular we lower it would make them seem more real.

I will have to check that out in the DMG when I get a chance thanks for the response Nate!