The Numbers Behind the d20 - What Effect Does It Have on Attack and Ability Rolls? DnD
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- What kind of affect does the d20 have on the game when you're playing Dungeons & Dragons (D&D, DnD)? There has been lots of great discussion on the d20 in my other video, and I wanted to break down the numbers a bit further so we can take a look at its effect. What does it mean for the d20 to be so random, or rather to have such a great variance? Let's dive in.
Visit Heath Robinson's Other Channels:
Heath's Business for Creatives: / @heathsbusinessforcrea...
The Tales of Rabivania: / @rabivania
Theophany: / @theophany_and_the_fall
Connect with Heath Robinson on Instagram and Twitter:
Heath on Instagram: / eheathrobinson
Heath’s Twitter @EHeathRobinson - / eheathrobinson
Music: "Epic" from BenSound.com
I think the d20 is definitely one of the best dice. It has a lot of granularity so there is a lot of room for advancement, and anyone can succeed at any roll, which makes the game feel more heroic.
I think the percentile is my favorite because it allows for so many cool dice tricks. It also has the most transparent math. If I tell anyone that they have a 70% chance they know exactly what I'm talking about.
2d6 is good too, but I hate when people use cards.
Based on your preferences, I think you'd really like the system I'm working on. I'll send you a copy when it's done.
Just to give another perspective here...
I hate the variability of the d20.
It doesn't feel heroic it feels like gambling lol.
I would like to ask though, what do you mean when you say d20 has 'a lot of room for advancement' ?
@@priestesslucy does the dice even matter? In the end it's all just a probability equation isn't it? It's all about how the game sets up the odds I think. d20s feel awful when everything is near a 45% chance to succeed and you spend most of the night failing imo. (looking at you 5e, with your 18 AC and +4 modifiers)
@@hykoru193 that's the thing. With d20 any roll is equally likely every time.
Say you need to roll at least a 6, but you still fail it nine times out of ten over the course of a session.
With a Bell Curve you drastically reduce the odds of that
I'm ambivalent with the percentile dice.
On one hand, I dislike when rolling low is better than rolling high.
On the other hand...
1d100 < X
is equivalent to
1d100 + X > 100
@@priestesslucy it's a granularity thing. I find 2d6 has issues with advancement (in games where it's not an opposed roll) because once the modifier gets high enough you succeed on everything.
I'm actually liking how this was handled by 2e. Your DCs are built into your character and lower in difficulty as you level up.
That's such a valuable thing in an era of adversarial DMs.
Not saying all or even most DMs were adversarial but from what I've heard they were a lot more common back then.
Even today you run into a lot of GMs who just look at a character sheet, see the modifiers and ramp up DCs accordingly rather than allow a character to outgrow an obstacle
The downside to this approach is the loss of granularity. You can't have two uncertain outcomes with different probabilities of success so you end up with all locks being just as difficult to pick, all secrets being just a hard to find, etc.
The game is built around d20 for randomness. The bonuses aren't designed to remove randomness, but affect the success rate.
I'm not sure why you think that's a good thing, especially at higher levels.
@@SavageGreywolf Agree! The d20 is a sucky mechanic when my 5th level Barbarian Dwarf misses almost every swing in combat for four hours. I know, I did it.
I think the bigger problem in 5e (in regards to this conversation), is that there are not many ways for a player to gain bonuses via good tactics. IMO, having most on-level tasks be a coin flip is good, but there should be ways for a player to use good tactics and increase that chance. Pathfinder 2e is the best example I know of a game that does that well. There are many ways that you can give yourself or your companions bonuses to rolls, turning a coin-flip to 60-70% success chance.
I agree with that. I want the game to be predominately about players succeeding by making good decisions, not just succeeding (or failing) by how they roll dice. I am fine with some luck being there, but yes, modifications to the chance of success because of good choices the players make is something that is missing. Its absence is felt.
i Think knave way of thinking is pretty smart, your stat modifier max at 10 and most checks are dc15, that means 1-4 are fails so at max lvl of a stat you have 20% chance to fail or he aims for you to have a %25 chance to succeed early game and 75% success late game
I had to subscribe, after a couple of your videos. Thanks for the approachable math, the insightful analysis, and just generally making this nerdy, wonky work into something fun to watch. I'll go catch up on old videos, while waiting for your next one:)
It is interesting to see the rhetorical tricks people use to convince themselves there's a problem when things are working as intended. For a counterexample, consider a DC 15 acrobatics check to cross a narrow beam. With no modifier, the pc falls on 1-9, stalls on 10-14, and passes on 15-20. With a +5 bonus, the pc falls on 1-4, stalls on 5-9, and passes on 10-20. So now the bonus matters on 50% of the results. It's a meaningless number.
The DC of the check does not matter. A +5 bonus only affects the outcome of a check if your unmodified roll is between 5 less than the DC and 1 less than the DC. In that range, your bonus will turn failure into success. Otherwise, your +5 bonus is either unnecessary to succeed (if your unmodded roll meets or beats the DC) or cannot save you from failure (if you roll more than 5 less than the DC). That's a range of 5 where your bonus affects the result, out of a range of 20 on a d20, resulting in a 25% chance your +5 bonus affects the roll.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of probability. Your modifier always matters. You can't look at the results and pretend they were inevitable.
If the target is 18, you have a 15% chance of succeeding with no modifier. If you have a +3, you now have a 30% chance of succeeding. It _doubles_ your chances. That is a very significant improvement. It is not sheer randomness.
I don't think I ever said a roll with a modifier was "sheer randomness". There must be a misunderstanding of my position.
Very good discussion thanks for this, completely agree
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it!
I can see a fatal error in your logic.
Let's consider that every modifier and DC is increased by 20.
+5 -> +25
+10 -> +30
DC 15 -> DC 35
DC 20 -> DC 40
DC 25 -> DC 45
According to your reasonings, it is now IMPOSSIBLE to succeed without the modifier.
We turned every "Success without modifier" into "Success with modifier".
Yet, the probability of failure/success are EXACTLY the same as before.
We changed NOTHING of how the game would play.
This is a big flaw in how you consider the lack of impact of modifiers.
It only look like this because some DC are between the dice min and max, and the modifiers are close to the average of the dice.
To make it even more jarring, let's now add the case of negative modifiers.
Let's consider that every modifier and DC is reduced by 10.
+5 -> -5
+10 -> +0
DC 15 -> DC 5
DC 20 -> DC 10
DC 25 -> DC 15
With your logic, 100% of the outcome is determined by the dice alone.
The probability of suceeding are still the same as before. We still haven't changed anything.
Here's a thought: you can get a nice bell curve easily by rolling three d20's and removing the highest and lowest. I call this taking a mid3d20. no math to do, but the remaining dice results definitely bell curve nicely.
I think player psychology may factor in unfavorably in that kind of system (at least with any of the players I’ve played with). I could certainly see many of them wanting to take the *highest* roll with the thinking of “Well, I rolled a better roll. I want to use that number and I should be able to.”
Good analysis. With few exceptions the impact of your players proficiency is always just 5% per +1. It only becomes muddy at DC ranges above 20 or below your proficiency bonus.
D20 systems have advantages and disadvantages. It is really important when choosing a system to identify your core goals and values.
For me personally I want things to be very simple, nuanced, and predictable. *edit* and fast
Simple as in fewer dice and numbers to track and perform math on.
Nuanced as in the value you come up with actually matters towards the quality of the result. (Something 5e d20 is egregiously lacking)
And predictable as in players have a good idea up front of their general odds of success and failure and can make meaningful tactical decisions with that knowledge.
*edit* oh yeah and also speed...how fast can you get through combat rounds with multiple players.
Those are my desires for a system, and the one I have been working on provides all of those core values as best as I can figure to do so. It's often give and take. In order to get one thing you have to give up something else.
5e seems to go all in on simplicity...and not having nuance or easily understood odds of success and failure really bother me.
Beware, there is a fatal flaw in the logic used.
So this would probably mean that finding reliable ways of gaining advantage is powerful?
I've read someplace that granting advantage is something like a +4 or +4.5 to the roll on average. I haven't been through the math myself. But, if that is the case, I would say so. A 20% greater chance of accomplishing the task is a large chunk.
Check out the Fantasy Flight Star Wars RPGs. They have a strange dice system, I believe it's referred to as the "Narrative Dice" system, where both the skill and the difficulty are measured in a dice pool so everything is an opposed roll.
The real interesting part is that there are multiple tiers of dice as well as bonus dice, such that if you had an ability of 5 and a skill of 3 for a relevant check, you'd have a pool of 5 dice, and 3 would be the better dice while two would be the regular dice. The regular dice are d8s and the better dice are d12s, but again they don't run 1-8 or 1-12 they have symbols denoting different outcomes. The critical hit symbol for example is only on the better d12 die and does not appear on the standard d8s.
I have that game on my shelf. I haven't been able to get into it yet but I want to.
I'd say +7 is closer to what most 5th level characters have for attacks or skills they are proficient in, but that only changes your math to the dice dictating success 65% of the time so it's kind of a moot point either way.
I have been thinking about your analysis of when your modifier matters. Take, for instance, your example of a +5 modifier vs. a DC 18. A roll of 18 to 20 succeeds... unless you had a negative modifier.(Entirely possible if you are attempting a non-proficient skill with a low stat (or a straight up stat check with a low stat). So you modifier IS important on those numbers because if your modifier was lower (negative) you would have failed. Ergo, your modifier mattered.
As for rolls of 12 or lower, again your modifier mattered because if it was higher you might have succeeded.
I think both the dice and the modifier matter in nearly all cases. The exceptions being attack rolls of nat 1 and nat 20. Since those fail or succeed regardless of modifier, those are strictly reliant on the dice. In the case of tasks that are truly impossible (DC 30 with a +5 modifier, for example), the only reason they are impossible is because your modifier is not high enough.
All that said, I am fond of 2d10 because it makes your results more reliable.
Oh, and here is something to think about: what if you always rolled 3d20 and took the middle result? (Barring Advantage or Disadvantage when you would take the highest or lowest result, respectively.) This actually turns the d20 into a bell curve result. It does also make Advantage and Disadvantage much more powerful.
First it was World of Darkness that showed me how rolling multiple d10 with possibilities of rolling more like with willpower convinced me that the d20 had problems. Then years later I tried Dungeon World with its 2d6 and wow, the middle range simultaneous success and failure is an incredible mechanic. Finally, regardless of how badly it was received, the multi-dice mechanics of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3rd edition is superior to almost all other systems allowing to have critical failures AND critical successes on rolls regardless of that roll success and all sort of minor bonuses and penalties. WFRP3rd even allows to have positive AND negative modifiers dice in the same frickin' roll! Imagine that in D&D, that +2 modifier and that -1 modifiers wouldn't cancel each other! Frankly, when I roll a d20 these days, all I see is the huge limitation of the dice.
I've read through World of Darkness and also Dungeon World, but that was a long time ago. I need to get back to them. I also did an unboxing and initial review of the starter box for Warhammer on this channel. It intrigued me at the time. I should look at it in more detail.
I played a lot of WoD back in the day (mainly Mage) and the system really had a lot going for it. IMO the mechanics are fairly simple & general without feeling too awkward or generic, it’s point-based but char creation doesn’t take too long (or at least doesn’t have to), attribute & skill levels are tied to real-world meanings (e.g., a level 3 stat w/ a 3 skill meant you have a slightly above-average professional knowledge), it’s easy to mix & match attributes with skills for different situations, and it has a nice bell curve. It has _some_ issues-die pools can get large enough that they’re a bit clunky, and the difference between difficulty levels vs # of required successes can be unintuitive-but over all, it’s pretty good.
I’ll have to take a look at WFRP3rd…
… speaking of WoD, a nice feature of it is how naturally it determines degrees of success. Roll 1 success? Your effect is weak & short-lived. 3 successes? It’s solid. 5 successes? It’s exceptional. And the number of success are often fed back into damage rolls, range, duration, etc., which naturally reflects e.g. how a well-placed blow is more damaging than a graze.
@@nw42 An aspect I prefer in the New WoD (requiem) over the old WoD (masquerade) is the fixed value of successes, always 8+, as for difficulty, its more or less dice, it doesn't modify the target number. As for the degree of success, there's no difference between 1 to 4 (took us a long time to understand that, exception being damages of course).
As for exploring WFRP3rd, i suggest watching this great video (skip to 6:30 if you don't want to watch everything) The dude gives a great explanation of the dice.
ua-cam.com/video/6W_ICFuVqcQ/v-deo.html
Your math isn't wrong, but I'm just doubtful that it really matters. I don't think the "randomness" of whether the modifier was the reason someone succeeded is bad. I think in the eyes of most players, the chance of success is what they care about, not whether or not their modifier was the reason for the success.
His maths are not wrong, but he's getting wrong conclusions out of a misunderstanding.
He's not comparing modifiers vs dice randomness, his comparing modifiers to a +0 modifier.
+2 modifier will give you +10% success chance compared to a +0 modifier.
+5 modifier will give you +25% success chance compared to a +0 modifier.
+10 modifier will give you +50% success chance compared to a +0 modifier.
The argument doesn't really check out for me. Rolling a d20 is only a representation of various circumstances - including the enemies skill of defending himself. D&D has no useful defensive skill or check in combat, so the ability to parry or dodge a blow must be represented in the AC / the die roll. Not hitting an AC 18 opponent means for me, said opponent was able to deflect or avoid a blow. Since armor for some strange reason does not reduce the damage you take it must have some other quality - in this case reducing the chance to hit at all (as unrealistic as it may be). I think we have to move away from the pure math here and try to picture the scene more vividly. The d20 system is an extremely unrealistic and and abstract rules mechanic. If you take a different system like Rolemaster or Harnmaster you have a more "realistic" feel to that situation (it's still a rolling the dice system), but at the expense of having to calculate more variables. And looking up results on tables (which can be a lot of fun. I love the rolemaster crit tables....).
When it comes down to skill checks like lock picking etc I have the ruling at my table that you automatically succeed any DC20 or lower test if you have enough time. It's only when you are trying to avoid detection, being afraid or have a certain stress level that you need to roll. Otherwise just skip the roll altogether. A learned plumber should be able to install your loo 100% of the time. It's just a question of when he will be finished. So why roll at all? Rolls are there to promote drama and game situations.
Rolls are indeed there for drama.
But as for my personal tastes, I prefer less random and more character based odds.
Making the character's specialties and faults more meaningful than flat increments of 5% odds
The only problem I have with your video is the claim that only heavily optimized characters can achieve +10 or better modifiers to skills. Rogues and bards straight out of the PHB get the Expertise class feature, which doubles their proficiency bonus to ability checks made with certain selected skills. They just get that. There is no odd rules interpretation or obscure feat at play. A naked rogue with a Deterity of 20 (which they will definitely have ASAP) at level 8th has a +11 modifier to at least Stealth and perhaps Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand. Since the printing of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (official product, not 3rd-party) any character can take the Skill Expert feat, which gives you the equivalent of Expertise in one skill of your choosing. So any character can have at least one extremely high skill modifier as early as level 4, provided feats are allowed (a vanishingly small number of tables don't use feats).
Your mathematics and point about the considerable degree of randomness in the success or failure at a task make good sense and I agree. I just rankled at the above.
I’m not entirely sure I see the problem dive deciding a high percentage of the time. It’s literally the point. Randomly generated numbers. You can take feats to decrease the amount you fair or ASI to decrease it or items to decrease it or look for ways to grant yourself advantage on the check but honestly if it is really affecting your gameplay, maybe your DMs are having you roll to often over more mundane stuff.
It is true. Some players love the randomness and see it as a feature, not a bug. I would prefer to move in the direction of less randomness.
I love looking at statistic and game theory, but we are forgetting the Advantage/disadvantage that players could get through the skill of their role playing/decision making
I don't know what comments you were responding to, but I suspect you are misunderstanding the concern with enemies who have 18 AC. Or maybe I just have a different concern. My concern is specific to DnD 5e.
Look at your character Holgar. They have a +4 to attack. So against an enemy with 18 AC, they need to roll at least a 14 on the dice. That's a 35% chance to hit with a d20, but 28% with 2d10 and only 16.2% with 3d6.
Some people will say, "But you won't be facing 18 AC at level 4". It depends on your DM, but I disagree. Most of the enemies will have an AC closer to 15, but you will probably encounter a few with high AC as well. Ex: Umber Hulks, Driders, and Ropers are all CR 5 or 6 and have AC 18 or higher. Just last month I played in a game where the DM had us fighting NPCs wearing chain mail and using shields, while we were level 4.
Hi Heath, Love your videos.
At the beginning of the video you said when a character gets to level 5 they're about 25% of the way through the game. By this reasoning a level 10 character is 50% through the game, And by level 20 they are at the pinnacle of their respective class. Based on your DC20 probability table, a level 5 character who is a quarter of the way through the game, with a +5 modifier, has a 25% chance of their skills affecting the role. A level 10 character with +10 has a 50% chance of affecting the role, so based on that logic a level 15 PCs +15 modifier is good for 75% chance and, showing that the math works out perfectly, a level 20 PC that has +20 will hit a DC20 100% of the time which is what you would expect.
Unless I've misunderstood your reasoning, the math works out exactly as it should.
So what it ultimately show us is using multiple dice in DnD is for crybabies that don't like losing and want to skew the probability in their favour.
That's called cheating ;-)
“M-m-m-mommy, my fifth level character can only hit the Ancient Brass Dragon (AC20) once every four rolls..... It's just not fair!”
Thank you. Glad you’ve been enjoying the videos! Great to have you. I don’t think the style of play I am advocating for is intended to cheaters or crybabies. Yes, a fifth level character might be about 25% of the way through the game, in terms of reaching the pinnacle of its ability. But, the vast, vast majority of against never make it to level 20. Most D&D games are at low levels. So the lament is not the fifth level fighter can’t take out a mature brass dragon, the lament would be that you rarely (and some players never) get to play a confident character in this game who can fight the big dragons. Most games are played down to low levels, where randomness matters more than character skill.
But what if the d20 got switch out for a 1D100 system for skill checks.
**Critical Success for Skills**
Example: you have perception at 50%.
Basically replacing the 1D20 for skill checks to a 1D100.
The success rates of skill checks based on % 1D100 when rolling within
1/10 of your skill total = Critical Success
1/2 of your skill total = Exceptional Success
3/4 of your skill total = Great Success
1 or on your skill total = Mediocre Success
**Critical Failure for Skills**
Rolling a 90% or higher on skills below 90% are considered a critical fail
100% skills aren't subject to crit failure
When making a % check on 100% skills, any roll of 95% or higher penalize the user
The skill is reduced by D6 permanently, or until the skill is raised back up
A failure of 100% skills still executes at a Mediocre success rate directly following the **Skill Reduction Roll**
Skills that are at 90% or higher, suffer critical failures by rolling 1 or more over your skill %
**Critical Failures on skills 19% or lower**
Rolling a 75% or higher on skills 19% or lower are considered critical fails
Because the user has little knowledge of this skill, the skill is subject to immediate reduction
You must confirm the critical failure before making the **Skill Reduction Roll**
Confirming the failure only requires you to fail within a normal failure rate
Critically failing a second time reduces the skill by 2D4's automatically
**Critical Success Reward System**
Rolling a critical success on any skill has a chance of increasing the skill immediately
You must confirm the success in which the skill will increase
The skill will increase on a **Remarkable Success** or better
Increase said skill by 1D6 upon confirming the skill
**Rolling a 1%**
Rolls of 1% automatically increase the skill by D6 directly following the roll
**Rolling a 100%** -
Rolls of 100% automatically decrease the skill by 1D6 directly following the roll
**Skill Point System**
Skill increases are now subject to confirming the skill before an increase roll is made
A mediocre roll or better will grant access to the increase die
Failing the check will not confirm a skill increase
Rolling a critical success before increasing the skill will up the increase die by 1
Rolling a critical failure will automatically reduce the skill by the appropriate die
Upping a 1D20 on a critical success for skills at 19% or lower add a 1D6 to the increase check
You must confirm the check after each purchase
You must spend the skill points before each check is made
Look at FUDGE system. It focuses more on character skill. The dice can alter it, but not hugely. It's designed so skill rating is more important than dice. And everyone rolls the same dice:4dF. These are 4 fudge dice with a six sided die, 2 sides are -, 2 sides are 0, and 2 sides are +. Minuses cancel plusses and 0's/blanks are nothing. So your range is -4 to +4. But since all of the dice are eqally balanced, typical dice rolls result in +0, making your skill more important.
huh, you right. ran it through anydice, even a +11 (20th level, +5 Modifier +6 proficiency) has 45% of the skill check determined by the dice roll. Gods can still fail half the time. Although, there is an optional rule in the DMG for automatic success if the DC is 5 or more less than the associated stat/skill
anydice program/29316
Crazy, isn't it?
I'm looking forward to how this changes with other systems.
I feel like your statistics are skewed heavily by not accounting for median rolls. If I were to roll a d20 100 times certain numbers will occur more than others, and that difference only grows with the number of rolls you make. So when you say that at +10 mod you are flipping a coin that's not entirely true. In your defense you did say it gets muddy so I think you are clearly aware of that analogy not being 100% accurate. truthfully though the +10 mod with 50% failure is going to fail a lot less than 50% of the time simply because of the random probability of a d20, or a d10 or anything that claims to be random at all. I think adding that into the equation would increase that 80% total success to around 85% or even 90% in practice. Of course I have no idea what it would actually be because I can't be bothered to roll a d20 100 times and graph it lol but I would be interested to see how it affects the statistics you are presenting.
It's going to vary with every d20 but in theory a d20 in good shape with clean edges is going to roll each number 5% of the time.
That's the entire purpose of the d20, to be a 1-20 random number generator.
In the case of faulty d20 (be they worn down or manufacturer error) they're just as likely to be a d20 that favors a low number as a high one.
Sometimes I wonder why we are so attached to dice in our RPG's. We've seen diceless systems, others based on basic playing cards and so on
The system I am working actually opps to use playing cards, but I am working on a dice version of the system as well
I've been reading some diceless systems too. Have not gotten to play them though.
I am working on a system that uses dice for mundane stuff, but playing cards for magic.
You might be interested in a system more like Dragon Strike had, which I have adapted for my Dark World RPG system. Skill levels (and weapons) are represented by dice, ranging from D4 to D14 (the latter, usually only available from DCC dice sets). The most common dice (skill levels/weapons) are d6, d8, d10, and a little more rarely d12 (the greatsword is currently the only weapon that uses a d12 for combat resolution). Enemy AC starts at 4 and increases up to a maximum of 9. What's interesting in this method is that a high enough die result can result in 2 or even 3 successes. Against a target of 4, a roll of 12 would be 3 successes, and a roll of 8-11 would be 2 successes. It still has a level of failure (a roll of 1-3 is a failure in almost all cases), but as the character's skill or ability to wield weapons improves, the chance of failure decreases and having 2 or even 3 successes is a real possibility. If you added exploding maximums to this, you could have even more successes, and less skilled individuals would have an opportunity (however unlikely) to have some effect in more difficult challenges.
Just thought I would break down the numbers a bit for you (kind of like your analysis here).
Low Skill/Poor Weapon: d4 against AC 4: 1-3: Failure, 4: Success and roll again.
d6 against AC 4: 1-3: Failure, 4-5: Success. 6: Success and roll again.
d8 against AC 4: 1-3: Failure, 4-7: Sucess. 8: 2 Successes and roll again.
d10 against AC 4: 1-3: Failure, 4-7: Success. 8-9: 2 Successes. 10. 2 Successes and roll again.
d12 against AC 4: 1-3: Failure, 4-7: Success. 8-11: 2 Successes. 12: 3 Successes and roll again.
Best Skill: d14 against AC 4: 1-3 Failure, 4--7: Success. 8-11: 2 Successes. 12-13: 3 Successes. 14: 3 Successes and roll again.
I remember playing Dragon Strike. I played it and he request simultaneously, although he played a lot more HeroQuest. One of the issues that I had with Dragon Strike was that you could only ever do a maximum of one hit point worth of damage on any attack. HeroQuest attacks could be more threatening because you could lose a chunk of hit points fast. Your system does change that.
@@EHeathRobinson Well I kind of like keeping damage relatively low. Part of what makes D&D seem so unrealistic is the amount of health a person has (unless you address that system as in one of the other videos). But looking back at Dragon Strike, I don't think many monsters had more than 3 hits, so it was possible to gang up on them and take them out in one turn, even with only inflicting 1 hit per attack.
The reason I changed it for Dark World RPG system is because I did want some stronger effects based on randomization, having the number of successes be based on a ratio between the die roll and the target number was one way to do that, as was exploding dice (or roll and add again) when rolling maximum for each die type. The most powerful adversary (so far) in the Dark World RPG system I'm working on is the Dragon (Boss).
Boss Dragon
12 Hits
Speed 12 spaces (flying)
Attack: Claw/Claw/Bite: d10/d10/d14 or Fire Breath
Armor Class: 9
Save vs Magic: 6+/d14
Against an AC of 9, someone attacking with a d4 weapon would need to roll 3 4s in a row, but anyone able to roll 18 or more (through exploding dice) would inflict 2 hits on the monster. A roll of 27 would inflict 3 hits but that would require some great luck there. The more skilled the adventurer, the less luck required, but still the villain was designed to be an almost impossible adversary. I'm hoping to run a few more playtests, because some of the numbers may need tweaking, but it looks and feels right when I'm playing it solo.
@@accessyourinnerlight971 I am with you. I also prefer to keep damage in a tighter range, because I also would like to keep hit points in a tighter range. I'd like to get rid of the inflationary hit point situation.
But I was mainly thinking about Dragon Strike from the perspective of the players. Monsters couldn't inflict more than one hit point of damage on them (for the most part as I remember, there could've been some special cases). So you could put yourself in certain situation's and know you wouldn't die. When heroes went up against monsters, in HeroQuest, they can take a lot more damage in a hit, putting them in more potential peril. Whether or not you think that is a good thing or not depends on your play style.
Your system preserve some simplicity, but also let things not get completely predictable.
@@EHeathRobinson It's true that an attack in HQ could take out anyone but the Barbarian at full health if not defended against. To me, that seems a bit too risky. I'm not sure a character would venture out if death was that much of a certainty. But then again, maybe they had debts to pay. I'm using a combat system similar to HQ in the Savages & Sorcerers game I'm working on. That's the one with the modified d6's. But character creation is based on a point system rather than rolling random stats, so you can at least try to build a character suitable for a world where a 6-die attack could potentially kill you.
You completely ignored having advantage and disadvantage which can also be enabled depending on the skill of the player.
I don't also quite understand why it would matter how much the die determined the outcome. If we look at the total chance of success, a +1 modifier is always a +5% chance to succeed. That should be what you're thinking about, if it's okay for you that a +1 "only" (subjective) nets you a +5% chance to succeed.
You're right. I did not take into account advantage or disadvantage in this video. So this is a look at accomplishing tasks when the situation is neither particularly favorable or unfavorable to the character. The point is that the more the dice determine the outcome of the task, the more random the game is. More randomness will appeal to some players. It will not to others.
@@EHeathRobinson I see. I do agree somewhat. While it is weird that a character with a +0 modifier only succeeds a DC 10 check (considered as "easy") 55% of the time, it is assumed those checks are made because the character is under some kind of stress in the first place. The bell curve probability systems that I believe you have mentioned before (2d10, 3d6) will also reduce the chance for failure relative to the d20 system, which feels like it would reduce tension in a game. Again, it is subjective.
If the issue at hand is making sure that a character's abilities affect the outcome more than the dice, have you tried that instead of reducing the randomness of the dice, increase the influence of modifiers, and see how that feels? With this, you still maintain the chances of a critical success and failure, but still have the character's ability largely affect the outcomes. (And also have +0 modifiers get a 55% success on DC 10 checks lol)
@@SirAdeno Hey! When you ask, "have you tried that instead of reducing the randomness of the dice, increase the influence of modifiers, and see how that feels?" Yes, that is exactly what I am experimenting with and want to come up with the best way to do that. I started looking at using a d10 system here in this video: ua-cam.com/video/EU1Z7cIBem8/v-deo.html That video moves the conversation forward and, but I think there is more work to do.
@@EHeathRobinson Good points on the video. Although I was thinking along the lines of instead of changing the dice, why not change the modifiers? Like x2 modifiers for everything (game breaking?), or add some kind of scaling of modifiers (e.g. 12 STR > +1 mod, 14 STR > +3 mod, 16 STR > +6 mod)
@@SirAdeno changing the modifier is absolutely something you could do. In fact, in other comments and then the next video on the 3d6 (which will come out tomorrow), that's basically the conclusion that you come to. The problem we're having is generated by the fact the random range is so large, and the range of the modifier is so small. Doubling the ability and proficiency bonus would help solve the problem I am trying to solve in these videos, but I am sure that would require other changes within the context of DnD.
I think the unspoken subject overshadowing your thoughts here is "what is dice resolution even meant to do in the first place?"
If you're examining everything from a simulationist lens where we want objective metrics on the character sheet to be compared to objective metrics in difficulty, then dice randomness makes little sense unless it is totally dominated by modifiers. Generally, I still think dice can slip into this as representing factors that aren't totally accounted for preceding the roll. This is without accounting for gamist feelings of tension, interaction, excitement.
But if a character's skills towards any particular task are great enough to "totally be in control of their destiny" then by definition dice shouldn't be used, right? That's why for games with numbers and mechanics like 5e I would de-emphasize simulationism and mostly abandon task resolution through dice for conflict resolution through dice. Games like this would merit more discussion on NOT rolling, e.g. "don't roll because your character would understand they cannot do this; here are alternatives" or "don't roll because your character can just do this" and better tools for making dynamic consequences that aren't just "it does not happen."
Yes. I think understanding what the dice are supposed to represent is an important component of game design.
I also agree with you that "if a character's skills towards any particular task are great enough to "totally be in control of their destiny" then by definition dice shouldn't be used". There are games without dice (or any other randomness generator) that take that approach. That isn't the kind of game I would like to design though. I like having *some* randomness in the game. The question is how much? And then, what system do you use to make sure that amount of randomness is present in the game? That is what took me down the rabbit-hole of this analysis.
This is why I never liked the d20 system. I prefer 3d6 roll under, a dice pool system, or something like fudge.
I played a lot of GURPS with its 3d6 roll under system. I also have played a fair amount of Fate and it is close to the system that I want, but it is not quite there. I am working on it...
@@EHeathRobinson I preferred fudge over fate. Fate is too obtuse and i don't like some of the subsystems in it. It simplifies to the point of making everything the same. Also played a good bit of gurps, but don't want to remember that much stuff for a game anymore.
@@hueysimon2726 Sounds like I will need to check out Fudge then and compare to Fate. I did not know there was that large a difference. I need to check that out. Thank you!
What about using multiple dice? If they're added together, that tends to get more average results.
That's kind of what I prefer. I have been an advocate of rolling 2d10, or possibly 3d6. I'm covering that in the next video. Will be up tomorrow.
@@EHeathRobinson looking forward to seeing your numbers. I am a total stats nerd and love deep diving into system choices and why they make sense for what they are trying to accomplish using math. It seems to me too many systems kind of ignore if the choices they made make logical sense and work well for what they want.
I'm not sure the logic is completely correct when determining whether the modifier "mattered". The logic is correct when deciding wether the modifier mattered as compared to lower non-negative modifiers, but if you were comparing your modifier to all possible moddifiers, your modifier would "matter" more. For example, with rolling a DC15 with a modifier of 5, you could argue your modifier "mattered" with your success at 15 (& maybe 16) because you had a modifier greater than -1 (or -2), you also could say that your modifier "mattered" for failures at 5-9 (or greater), because you didn't have a higher mod such as +10 and therefore aren't as skilled as you could be. All that being said, I agree dnds system were low mods compared to the dice size and uniform roll distribution doesnt highlight character strengths and weaknesses well.
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: how much is the probability of success of an action determined by a person's skill IN REAL LIFE????? EXAMPLE: a random average person engages in a free-throw duel with an NBA player. What percentage of the time will the NBA player win, say first to sync five baskets? The DND version of this would be something like D20 + 10 vs D20 +1, I would think.
I like that thought experiment.
I think in lower DC tasks, the “success because of the dice” in the higher end should not be atributed to luck…
Since this margin should be understood as the “natural skill for being a skillfull adventurer”.
So mathematically including 15-20 to “the roll of the dice” i think is a wrong method of looking at it. Its 6 rolls of “it was easy cause im an adventurer”, 5 rolls of sucess because of my gathered skills over time and so 9 rolls to my unexperience or unluck.
If it is something the character is great at, should be a given. (No roll).
If it is a challenge to need a roll should be close or higher to 40-50% no?
Also in a second note:
If the failure seems unfair shouldnt the solution be lowering DCs? Or giving extra bonuses? I think the change to type of dice rolls to “be able to realiably succeed in higher DC rolls” kinda defeats its purpose.
At stronger lvls shouldnt trivial things become a given? And the rolls be used where unpredictability is the objective? Like “can we even do this? Lets roll!” And them you deal with the consequence?
With linear randomization (1d20) your many examples about randomness vs. character stats are ALWAYS the same (bonus value*5%) … because math. IDK why you don't include difficulty (a.k.a. base chance to succeed) in your calculation? It's basically character competence, not mere random chance. With a DC 15 roll, the unskilled character has enough natural aptitude to succeed 30% of the time. Proficiency and ability bonus can increase this to a max. of 60% (+2 proficiency bonus and +4 ability bonus with custom lineage and point buy). This can be 70% if you are a rogue with expertise. IMO that's quite a bit better than a coin flip IMO … at LEVEL 1 without any buffs or magic items!
I'm still unsure about your fixation on character competence, since the DM can always adjust DC to reflect the difficulty of every given task, or just narrate the outcome (without even have to roll dice). Interpreting the margin of success or failure with the character's competence and background in mind, is a much smoother way to implement proficiency, than hardwiring it into an increasingly complex dice mechanic.
Also, you’re overcomplicating the point your making by changing the dc for checks. The applicability of your modifier will always be 5*the modifier to give you a percentage of applicability. But it shouldn’t matter. Why do you guidance adds a d4. Because even if each increase of a modifier only adds 5% to the importance of the modifier, every increase matters.
I ran the numbers for different DCs because some people thought in the comments that the DC would matter. I wanted to show that it does not. The DC changes the total chance of success, not how much of the outcome is determined by the dice. Some people get that intuitively, others don't.
I normally appreciate your game design philosophies, but I disagree with this one on the merits.
You're only considering successes to come from the player's bonuses. At what point does a failure derive from a lack of a player's bonus?
Even in the tightest math, you'd have to at LEAST count two failure results on that player with a +4 as being "based on what the player brought to the table" or, in this case, what they failed to bring. If the range is +4 to +6, Then any failure that could have been a success if your bonus was different is still a result "determined by you" and not by the dice.
I can see where you're going with this, a 2d10 system would have numbers falling in this middle ground more often, and I'll grant you that point.
But fundamentally, the result is "determined by the dice" 100% of the time, and no lower. What you "bring to the table" is what the odds are going to be.
I don't think he understands what the D20 and Modifers actually represent.
What do they represent to you?
@EHeathRobinson The D20 represents the chaotic nature of the universe. Most players/dm think of it as a random marker of the potential of the PC, similar to attack dice. But it encompasses everything the PC can not control in that situation. This goes the same for modifiers. Modifer do not strictly represent how good a PC is, but how prepared they are for different situations. For example, say someone is locked by picking a DC 15 with a mod +5. Most players/DM will say something along the lines of "You failed to pick the lock". Or if they succeeded, "You successfully picked the lock." In actually, if a player fails to pick the logic, it is because of an unsee circumstance they were not prepared for. The lock was too rusted, and the tumblers inside were specially designed. The gear mechanism was triggered and created a blockage. If they sucess was complete due to their modifers, that meant they were prepared to handle thay situation. If the succeed without the modifer it mean the situation worked in their favor. The inside was so damaged it didn't take any hard effort, there was a flaw in the design causing it spring with little effort, it appears someone tried to pick this lock before you and left when they were nearly there. One reason why this is to prevent players from trying again. If the failed to lock pick a normal lock solely because a lack of random skill proficiency (which doesn't make sense) all they have to do is keep trying. If the lock is rusted, they can no longer keep trying. The D20 system makes the player fight against the randomness of the universe. With systems like 2D10, 3D6, or 5D4, the players are fighting against the most predictable outcome. Even furter a +10 modifer against as a DC 20 is a perfect representation of the amount of control person has against the universe. You can be a skilled surfer in a competition, but you can not predict who you will surfer against, what the water is like, what waves you will hit, etc. This even applies to advantages and disadvantages. When you roll two dice, you are basically rolling the results of two univerese. If you need a DC15 and roll too low on one die, and too high on another die. You are basically faced with the option that in one universe the conditions of the situation prevent you from succeeding, and in the other universe either you are prepared to face the random challenge, or fate allows you to succeed. Technically, difficult checks aren't about the difficulty of the task. The difficulty of the situation presented narratively speaking. When applied to attack roll, this changes a bit, but the D20 still represent randomness. Dust flys in the PC/enemies eyes, the creature is hesitates, the PC steps on uneven ground, the creature is slow to reach, the creature blocks the attack. The thing that the PC has no control over.
Dice are gaming Gods, deal with it
That's one way to play. 🙂 You do you!
@ my favorite way, that is way war-gamers always say “dice hater everyone “.