2d10 For Better RNG

[rqwertwylker]

Add an option to swap the d20 for 2d10. Change the range for critical roles to make up for lower odds. I'm a huge fan of RNG but consistent characters are less frustrating to play.

[talemore]

Fighters would benefit by having less random countermeasures. Mages already skipping the dice roll altogheter with their cantrips spells who can't miss

[zero]

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

Like all things, this is easily solved by simply providing the option in the difficulty settings - everyone gets what they want.

diffculty settings don't change mechanics of a game, they only really change supplies/puzzles/enemy stats.

IE, like how PF:KM does, plenty of settings but none changes the core systems, its also a d20 game.

[taylorj15]

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

Like all things, this is easily solved by simply providing the option in the difficulty settings - everyone gets what they want.

From what I can tell this fix wouldn't necessarily make the game easier. It would definitely make it less "swingy" and therefore more predictable but that cuts both ways. In an encounter where you need to roll higher than average (like against higher level opponents) the more stable probability distribution is going to hose you. As such encounters would have to shifted as well to avoid that, and that in and of itself would have fixed the difficulty problem without altering the dice type.
Having player weighted dice as an option though (or definitely a take 10 option for dialog) would probably address the problem better, or at least more directly.

[zero]

Originally posted by taylorj15:

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

Like all things, this is easily solved by simply providing the option in the difficulty settings - everyone gets what they want.

From what I can tell this fix wouldn't necessarily make the game easier. It would definitely make it less "swingy" and therefore more predictable but that cuts both ways. In an encounter where you need to roll higher than average (like against higher level opponents) the more stable probability distribution is going to hose you. As such encounters would have to shifted as well to avoid that, and that in and of itself would have fixed the difficulty problem without altering the dice type.
Having player weighted dice as an option though (or definitely a take 10 option for dialog) would probably address the problem better, or at least more directly.

a thing to note is that is basically punishes anyone with mundane ac, wizards, druids, basically any non martial will have a solid 70% chance of being hit, before mods, so probably 85ish?

this change will ultimately make the game harder without a complete overhaul of mechanics

[wendigo211]

Originally posted by taylorj15:

From what I can tell this fix wouldn't necessarily make the game easier. It would definitely make it less "swingy" and therefore more predictable but that cuts both ways. In an encounter where you need to roll higher than average (like against higher level opponents) the more stable probability distribution is going to hose you. As such encounters would have to shifted as well to avoid that, and that in and of itself would have fixed the difficulty problem without altering the dice type.
Having player weighted dice as an option though (or definitely a take 10 option for dialog) would probably address the problem better, or at least more directly.

The problem is it has the opposite effect, it makes the game much more swingy. Instead of spectrum of likely to hit, might hit, might not hit, unlikely to hit. You basically have likely to hit, unlikely to hit and a couple of points is all that makes the difference between the two extremes. It's honestly a horrible idea.

If they want to rebalance the dice on lower difficulties there are a few options that don't change the mechanics too much. One is to effectively replace the d20 by drawing without replacement from a bag of marbles labelled 1-20. I.e. the game makes a list of the numbers 1-20 in random order and uses those as the dice roll results, once it's finished going through the list it makes a new one. This has the effect of greatly reducing streaks, they can only happen if the same number occurs at the end of the current list and beginning of the next list, and also if there is a sequence of low rolls, you know that high rolls will be coming soon. The result from the dice rolls are no longer IID, but most people find them to be more fair.

Alternatively and what most people posting here seem to want, is to roll 2d20 and take the best result for the player and roll 2d20 and take the worst result for the enemies. I suppose if the player has advantage it would be roll 3d20 at take the best result and for disadvantage it would just be roll 1d20. Obviously, the effect of this is just to make the game easier for the player. Still it might be a good option for story mode or something similar.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by wendigo211:

It's a much bigger deal than you're suggesting:
the D20 has a 5% chance for every outcome from 1-20:
For 2d10 the probability distribution is:

Outcome	Probability
2	1%
3	2%
4	3%
5	4%
6	5%
7	6%
8	7%
9	8%
10	9%
11	10%
12	9%
13	8%
14	7%
15	6%
16	5%
17	4%
18	3%
19	2%
20	1%

Even if you change the critical hit chance to 18-20 and the critical miss chance to 2-4, it's going to mess up hit chances and probabilities. Eg. Say you're attacking a target with a 16 AC and you have a +5 to hit. Rolling 1d20 you have a 50% chance to hit, while rolling 2d10 you would have a 55% chance to hit. If you gain another +1 to hit, with 1d20 you have a 55% chance to hit, while rolling 2d10 you would have a 64% chance to hit. It would fundamentally change the balance of the game.

2 D10 was generally used for a percentage not a sum.
1+1 =11%
0+1=1%
0+0=0%
9+9=99%
This give 0% to 99% each percentage has a 1% chance to happen.

[zero]

Originally posted by Dorok:

Originally posted by wendigo211:

It's a much bigger deal than you're suggesting:
the D20 has a 5% chance for every outcome from 1-20:
For 2d10 the probability distribution is:

Outcome	Probability
2	1%
3	2%
4	3%
5	4%
6	5%
7	6%
8	7%
9	8%
10	9%
11	10%
12	9%
13	8%
14	7%
15	6%
16	5%
17	4%
18	3%
19	2%
20	1%

Even if you change the critical hit chance to 18-20 and the critical miss chance to 2-4, it's going to mess up hit chances and probabilities. Eg. Say you're attacking a target with a 16 AC and you have a +5 to hit. Rolling 1d20 you have a 50% chance to hit, while rolling 2d10 you would have a 55% chance to hit. If you gain another +1 to hit, with 1d20 you have a 55% chance to hit, while rolling 2d10 you would have a 64% chance to hit. It would fundamentally change the balance of the game.

2 D10 was generally used for a percentage not a sum.
1+1 =11%
0+1=1%
0+0=0%
9+9=99%
This give 0% to 99% each percentage has a 1% chance to happen.

? thats a d100.

2d10 is just total sum, in the same way 2d6 is for a maul.

[Sliscus]

But.. that's so dumb

[Dorok]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by Dorok:

2 D10 was generally used for a percentage not a sum.
1+1 =11%
0+1=1%
0+0=0%
9+9=99%
This give 0% to 99% each percentage has a 1% chance to happen.

? thats a d100.

2d10 is just total sum, in the same way 2d6 is for a maul.

Ha that's named d100?

Ok but done with 2d10, the day you'll see a d100 tell me. :-)

But I admit it's not the point of OP, the point was the 2d10 sum to change the chances repartition.

[zero]

Originally posted by Dorok:

Originally posted by zero:

? thats a d100.

2d10 is just total sum, in the same way 2d6 is for a maul.

Ha that's named d100?

Ok but done with 2d10, the day you'll see a d100 tell me. :-)

But I admit it's not the point of OP, the point was the 2d10 sum to change the chances repartition.

d100 for you [images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com]

a difference between 2d10's an a d100 is pretty major: when you roll 2 dice, your numbers value the center, this will make the game harder aganist any high ac creature, which becomes even more commong as you go, especially aganist singular enemy types (types that would have lairs, for example)

[Dorok]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by Dorok:

Ha that's named d100?

Ok but done with 2d10, the day you'll see a d100 tell me. :-)

But I admit it's not the point of OP, the point was the 2d10 sum to change the chances repartition.

d100 for you [images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com]

a difference between 2d10's an a d100 is pretty major: when you roll 2 dice, your numbers value the center, this will make the game harder aganist any high ac creature, which becomes even more commong as you go, especially aganist singular enemy types (types that would have lairs, for example)

Lol what a joke.

If you can't see 2 d10 (of different colors) can do the job fine, ok I won't get a struggle for that.

[Sliscus]

2d10 as d 100 exists if you use one d10 as the 10's and the other as the 1's with an imdividual roll of 10 representing 0 in its respective slot but if you get 10 and 10 it's 100
odds are the same as a D 100

[zero]

Originally posted by Dorok:

Originally posted by zero:

d100 for you [images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com]

a difference between 2d10's an a d100 is pretty major: when you roll 2 dice, your numbers value the center, this will make the game harder aganist any high ac creature, which becomes even more commong as you go, especially aganist singular enemy types (types that would have lairs, for example)

Lol what a joke.

If you can't see 2 d10 (of different colors) can do the job fine, ok I won't get a struggle for that.

i mean they can, but the TC didn't state emulated d100, they just want to use 2d10, take the result.

your response is the joke for not reading the rest of the thread lol.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by Dorok:

Lol what a joke.

If you can't see 2 d10 (of different colors) can do the job fine, ok I won't get a struggle for that.

i mean they can, but the TC didn't state emulated d100, they just want to use 2d10, take the result.

your response is the joke for not reading the rest of the thread lol.

Ok I didn't remind it was read like that so from 1 to 100 not 0 to 99.

Well for OP, I see his point, but why argue, it's not D&D.

[Auburn2]

Of course the balance changes, results shift towards the centerline. A character is less likely to do something miraculous/disastrous, and more likely to be consistent in their skill sets.

It is not miraculous. If your DC is a 3 there is a significant, real chance you fail .... and you should fail frequently in a game with as many checks as BG3. If you are not failing 15% of the time you are not doing it consistent with your skill set.

Same thing if you need a 20 - That is 5%, you are rolling hundreds of times in 3 hour session, it should happen often. The only "miraculous" effect is when you need higher than a 20 to hit something and still manage it because you roll a 20.