|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 14, 2005 17:45:09 GMT -5
Perhaps because of too much time spent playing Traveller (which I must confess is IMO a much better-designed game than D&D -- give Gary and Dave credit for being first, but IMO the greater experience and professionalism of the GDW staff shines through) but I've always prefered the probability distribution of 2d6 to the flat 1d20 distribution. 1d20 feels too random to me, and adjustments aren't worth enough. So, inspired by this over the weekend I did some fiddling about and came up with some preliminary notes for using 2d6 instead of 1d20 for D&D combat. Basically, characters (and monsters who use weapons) would use the Chainmail Man-to-Man table to determine hits (there would be no ACs below 2 and AC-affecting magics would subtract from the attacker's to hit roll as per pre-supp I). For each 'step' on the D&D combat charts would add +1 (thus a fighter 4-6 (or cleric 5-8 or m-u 6-10) would roll on the Chainmail MtM table and add +1; a fighter 7-9 (or cleric 9-12 or m-u 11-15) would add +2, etc.). Monsters that don't use weapons would use this table: AC....# 9....5 8....6 7....7 6....8 5....9 4....10 3....11 2....12 with additions based on HD (monsters using weapons would have the same adjustments on the MtM tables): HD 1 = no adj., HD 2-4 = +1, HD 5-7 = +2, HD 8-10 = +3, HD 11+ = +4. The obvious ramification of this is that magic-users (or other unarmored characters) will become much more vulnerable, highly-armored characters (especially those with magic armor) will be at a great advantage, and adjustments (including magic -- armor, rings of protection, displacer cloaks -- but also situational adjustments -- +2 for rear attack, +1 for Bless spell, etc. ) will be MUCH more important -- even a +1 adjustment could make a big difference and a +4 adjustment is downright HUGE (this also holds true for the weapon tables -- a weapon with a 6 to hit a certain AC while another weapon has an 8 isn't much using 1d20 (+2, 10%) but on 2d6 is huge (~30% difference in hit probability) -- so proper weapon choice becomes much more important). I suspect this will make combat less random, more tactical, as characters (especially those who can swing an adjustment of +2 or more) will be less likely to have their tactical advantage undone by a fluke die-roll (there's only about half the chance of rolling a 2 or 12 on 2d6 than of rolling a 1 or 20 on 1d20 -- 5.6% vs. 10%). One adjustment is that I suspect I'd have to make plate armor much harder to obtain (perhaps using the price for Field Plate from AD&D -- 2,000 g.p.) and magic armor would have to be extremely rare -- a suit of +2 magic armor (especially when combined with a magic shield) becomes as powerful and desirable as a staff of power! So, has anybody else ever tried anything like this? Did it work? Am I crazy? (I discussed my preference for 2d6 over 1d20 in a leading question to EGG over at ENWorld -- asking him what inspired him to use the latter in D&D instead of the former as in Chainmail -- and he shot me down, essentially saying that my preference was nonsensical and the wide flat distribution of 1d20 is unambiguously better ). (I also converted the D&D saving throw charts to 2d6 but that was just a straight conversion based on percentages (i.e. 13+ on d20 = 40% chance of success, 8+ on 2d6 = 42% chance of success, so 13+ becomes 8+, etc.) and thus not really worth mentioning -- except that I was suprised how regular the results came out -- in most categories the classes have a +1 per chart-level (e.g. magic-users save against magic wands is 8+ at levels 1-5, 7+ at levels 6-10, 6+ at levels 11-15, and 5+ at level 16+).)
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on Feb 14, 2005 21:15:28 GMT -5
I tried playing D&D with 2d10 instead of a d20 about 10 years ago - it does make adjustments mean more. It also made the higher-end armors worth more and median and light armors worth a lot less. At least at low levels.
Using 2d10 also let me use realistic crits and fumble chances. Having a crit or fumble happen on every 1 or 20 was just too common. 1 swing in 10 would be a critical or fumble! Using 2d10, you have 2 to 20 as your results, but your chance of getting a 2 (fumble) or a 20 (crit) is MUCH lower. Which I like. 2d20 also allowed me to use Rolemaster Style Breakage numbers. E.g.: if you roll doubles, there's a chance your weapon might break, ( 1 1) ,(2 2) ,(3 3), ect. Well crafted weapons would have low break check numbers (1,2,3) while cheap or wooden ones would have higher numbers (1,2,3,4,5,6,7). If you were swinging a quarterstaff, for example, your breakage numbers were 1-7. If doubles came up for 1-7 while attacking, your weapon had to make a saving throw. You still might hit, but it could break in the process.
I'm sure similar mechanisms could be used with 2d6, adding a little more flavah' while not increasing die rolls.
;D
|
|
|
Post by blackprinceomuncie on Feb 14, 2005 22:03:55 GMT -5
I've been experimenting with using 3d6 rather than d20 in my B/X games (without changing anything else). It's been working really well. You're absolutely correct that the bell curve makes adjustments much more important and weaker armors much less so.
One of the things I like is that low level combats last longer when attack rolls use a bell curve. Thus, there is more of a chance for low level characters who get in trouble to figure this out and run away.
The only "issue" with the 3d6 I've come across is that only characters with a Str or Dex adjustment to their attack rolls can hit ACs of 0 or below at 1st-3rd level (but that's not really a problem for me).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 15, 2005 0:58:05 GMT -5
I sat down and figured out the average "to hit" score for all of the weapons on the Chainmail Man-to-Man chart (excluding the arquebus and only factoring short range for missile weapons) and the results were interesting:
AC.....# 9.....6.3 8.....6.4 7.....6.6 6.....7 5.....7.2 4.....8 3.....9 2.....10
This is surprisingly compatible with the chart posted earlier for creatures with natural weapons -- they have a better chance against AC 9 and 8 and a worse chance against every other AC -- which is perhaps appropriate considering that the attacks that would use that table are generally claws, teeth, etc.
One good thing about this (the weapon) table is that it's got a shallower curve than the earlier table -- AC 9 and 8 characters aren't quite as vulnerable, AC 2 and 3 characters aren't quite as unhittable -- while still maintaining the advantages of 2d6 (the curve, the importance of modifiers, etc.).
The more I play around with this idea the more I'm liking it.
|
|
|
Post by PapersAndPaychecks on Feb 15, 2005 13:43:52 GMT -5
Would it not be easier to convert if you use 2d10 rather than 2d6?
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 15, 2005 14:16:46 GMT -5
Would it not be easier to convert if you use 2d10 rather than 2d6? Well, the Man-to-Man combat charts in Chainmail are based on 2d6 and I want to use those. Another side-effect of changing combat and saves to 2d6 that I realized this morning in the shower. Since I'm using straight pre-supp I OD&D rules (i.e. all characters roll d6 hit dice, all weapons do d6 damage), if they also roll d6 for combat "to hit" rolls and saves I've pretty much made it so that no one but the DM needs have any dice besides 6-siders. There are a few spell effects that use multi-sided dice (2-16 1HD creatures are affected by Sleep, 1-4 characters are affected by Hold Person, Confusion uses a d12 roll, Teleport and Contact Higher Plane use percentages, possibly one or two more I'm forgetting) but all of those could just as easily be rolled by the DM as the player. Making it so players would only ever need one type of die (and six-sided (i.e. 'normal,' the kind you can buy at a grocery store) dice at that) is intriguing to me. (That's another of my sentimental attachments to Traveller -- the fact that it was one of the only rpgs that didn't require use of 'those funny-shaped dice;' it always made the game seem marginally less geeky and somehow more 'mature' to me than other rpgs (but then they had to go and wreck that by switching to a d20-based system in Traveller: The New Era (1993); and don't even get me started on the abomination that is "d20 Traveller"!))
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Mar 17, 2005 11:38:12 GMT -5
Foster, have you given this anymore thought? While tradition seems to keep me from switching from the 1d20, the practical side has always prefered the bell curve. This is a very interesting idea and would like to hear more about it.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 17, 2005 12:59:29 GMT -5
Foster, have you given this anymore thought? While tradition seems to keep me from switching from the 1d20, the practical side has always prefered the bell curve. This is a very interesting idea and would like to hear more about it. Nah, what's posted is above is all there is to date. I haven't given up on the idea, though, and am still planning to use it when/if I next play D&D. Currently I'm fiddling around with my 'intro dungeon' (see another thread) which is taking up all my D&D-related energies, but when I finish that I plan to do a 'solo run' of some characters through it (to see how tough it is) and I'll probably combine that with a test of this 2d6 system to see how it works in play (if the fighters are too unhittable, if the magic-users go down even faster). In addition to my love for the bell curve (or at least semi-bell-curve -- per my limited understanding you need 3 dice to generate an actual bell-curve) I'm REALLY liking the idea that with this system D&D could be played with only the DM needing anything other than six-sided dice -- it's like D&D meets Tunnels & Trolls!
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Mar 17, 2005 13:19:31 GMT -5
Speaking of 3d6, what do you think of BPOM's method?
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 17, 2005 14:43:36 GMT -5
I played around with some numbers and this is what I came up with for 1st level characters (and 1 HD monsters) using 4 systems: 1d20 (as per the book), 3d6 (using the same target numbers as the book), 2d6 straight (using the target numbers posted above: AC 9=5 to AC 2 = 12) and 2d6 adjusted (using the average target numbers from the Chainmail Man-to-Man chart as posted above): AC...1d20...3d6....2d6....2d6A 9....55.....62.5...83.3...? (~68) 8....50.....50.....72.2...? (~67) 7....45.....37.5...58.3...? (~64) 6....40.....25.9...41.7...58.3 5....35.....16.2...27.8...? (~55) 4....30.....9.3....16.7...41.7 3....25.....4.7....8.3....27.8 2....20.....1.9....2.8....16.7 (If anybody with better math skills than I knows how to accurately calculate a percentage chance of rolling 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, or 7.2 or better on 2d6 please share ) Pretty interesting results. Using 3d6 instead of 1d20 makes characters generally less likely to hit (and WAY less likely to hit very low ACs), using straight 2d6 makes AC much more important (AC 7+ are sitting ducks, AC 3- are virtually invulnerable), and using 2d6 with Chainmail's weapon-vs-armor adjustments actually makes hits generally MORE likely than using 1d20 (but all that's before adjustments -- magical armor and shields would have a much bigger impact using 2d6 or 3d6 than the flat +5% per plus they have when using 1d20). I'm thinking perhaps I should 'flatten' the straight 2d6 progression to bring it more in line with the adjusted one, so that there's not such a huge gulf between the capabilities of characters and monsters using weapons vs. those without. Perhaps something along the lines of AC...#....% 9....6....72.2 8....6....72.2 7....7....58.3 6....7....58.3 5....8....41.7 4....8....41.7 3....9....27.8 2....10...16.7 But then again doing this would make shields (non-magical ones, at least) essentially worthless. Perhaps I could give characters with shields an extra bonus somewhere else (such as increased parry ability -- not that in Chainmail MTM combat characters have a limited parry ability), but then we're perhaps getting into too much complication. This will definitely require some more thought...
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Mar 17, 2005 15:06:19 GMT -5
Forgive me for not having Chainmail to reference.
What if a shield granted a benefit of 2 instead of 1? Would that balance out that chart?
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 17, 2005 15:14:08 GMT -5
OK, looking at the Chainmail parrying rules, I think I came up with a not-too-complicated way that shields could still be useful in non-weapon combat. Chainmail allows characters to parry (-2 on enemy's attack roll) by giving up their own attack, depending on weapon types (I actually posted the full parrying rules from Chainmail over here if anyone wants to see them). Perhaps in combat where the attacker isn't using a weapon only characters with shields have the option to parry (-2 to attacker's dice but no counter-blow allowed)...
|
|
|
Post by Casey777 on Apr 11, 2005 3:37:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jerry Mapes on Apr 11, 2005 6:37:40 GMT -5
BTW Casey....
Glad to see you made it over!
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Apr 11, 2005 8:03:46 GMT -5
Casey, glad to see you made it here. I need to digest your post a little for a while. About saving throws, I proposed an idea that was incorporated into a recent RPG that we will not talk about here. While the concept I provided wasn't exactly executed in the final product as I presented it, it was close. I still think saves should be based upon the ability scores. The question is, "how?" Well, it has been a while since I toyed with this idea. This will be off the top of my head: STR: physical overpowering INT: illusions, magic WIS: confussion DEX: breath weapons, avoidance by agility CON: physical changes to the body or health, poison CHA: fear, charm I would really have to sit down and think about how what catagories would be needed and which abilty score it would correspond to. Then after that, I would have to figure what the number scheme would be, (certainly different if using 2d6 than 1d20.)
|
|