Conan D10?

[Clovenhoof]

This is a very late night thought, which occured to me as I was delaying going to bed and instead reading up on some of this summer's threads. Anyway:

In the D20 system, small modifiers don't mean very much. It doesn't really matter much if you make a given check at -1 or +1 modifier. Especially at low levels, stat checks are just a game of chance, and those onesie-twosie modifiers you can get won't help you save your check if you roll a 5.
For attribute checks, it actually stays this way throughout the game, except maybe for a "pump stat" (as opposed to dump stat) which you may get up to a +8/+9 modifier.

So, I'm just wondering if it wouldn't make sense to replace all D20 checks with a D10. And of course, reduce all difficulties classes, target numbers and whatnot also by 10. This would lend more importance to attributes and also make skill checks etc. more predictable.

Although for skill checks, I've also been considering using 2D10 instead of D20, to get a bit of a bell distribution instead of a linear one, also to make the checks more predictable.

But for attribute checks, combat checks, magic attacks and saves, and whatever else there may be - how about using a D10 instead of a D20. That way, a Str 18 character would really be a mighty strong person, not just someone with a 20% better chance to unhinge a door, compared to the average Tom, Dick or Harry.

Special case: Defense. Normally it is 10 + Class + Attribute + Size mod, and by strict application of "substract 10" this would nix the Base 10 Defense. Which in turn would mean your Flat-Footed Defense is Zero. That's a bit low.
However, since Defense is generally and overall too low in Conan, just set the Base Defense to 5 and be done with it. This might in fact help belance Defense better than now.

Weapon Threat Ranges would be effectively doubled: 20 becomes 10, 19-20 becomes 9-10 and so forth. Yes, this means we'll get twice as many crits. But we've also established that especially small weapons should crit more often in order to be worthwhile, while large weapons do enough damage with or without crits, so this also might improve the overall balance.

What do you think?

 

[Trodax]

Well, randomness will certainly be smaller. The problem I foresee is that you will very quickly hit the "borders" of the probability curve, so that many checks would only succeed on a 10, or only fail on a 1. BTW, I'm assuming you would still automatically succeed on attack rolls and saves on a natural 10, and fail on a natural 1 (10% chance as compared to the 5% with d20)?

For example, someone with an attack bonus of +8 would hit an opponent with a defense bonus of +5 on everything except a natural 1. With d20, this guy would still have a 30% miss-chance. So, in this example, if the attackers bonus was even higher than +8, he could pump every extra point into Power Attack and still hit on a 2 or more. (You eventually get to the same point with d20, but the level/bonus disparity needs to be much larger.)

And of course, reduce all difficulties classes, target numbers and whatnot also by 10.

Nah, you should reduce them by 5, as the mean difference between d20 and d10 is 5 (10,5 compared to 5,5). The same would apply to defense, so you wouldn't need your "special case".

 

[Sutek]

How about...

...oh, nevermind.

:lol:

 

[Hervé]

2D10 don't seem so bad, as it would tend to reduce the randomness inherent to the D20 system, especially at low levels were bonuses are rather small compared to the D20 range.

 

[Trodax]

With 2d10 you will probably want to expand the threat range of weapons a bit, or critical hits will become very uncommon. That's done easily enough, though; a threat of 20 could be expanded to 18-20 (6% chance) and a threat of 19-20 could be expanded to 17-20 (10% chance).

Other than that, 2d10 would probably work, although you might have to adjust the opponents your PC's face so that they are a little bit more of equal level (equal to the PC's, that is). Otherwise you might end up with mooks that basically never hit and are therefore not a threat, or Big Bad Guys that are pretty much unhittable and hit your PC's very easily.

 

[The King]

Concerning the probability curve, may be a 3-18 system (3D6) would be better, that is the Gurps system which, incidentally, happens to have a conversion for Conan.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Yeah well, Gurps as such is way too dry for my taste. I like "juicy" systems with a certain mixture of simulationism and "kewl powerz", like the special abilities offered by class progressions. Anyway.

Thanks for the feedback and the valid objections you brought forward. As I said, it was very late last night when I posted this without thinking it through myself.

Let's forget about D10 and talk about other die combinations a bit. Luckily, I have a spreadsheet to compute all the probabilities for rolls of two and three dice of all sized up to D20.

3D6: produces a pretty pronounced Gaussian curve with rather low probabilities on the extreme values and high expectancy for an average result. This might be particularly suited for skill checks, where extreme rolls do not mean automatic failure or success anyway.

If you want to stick as close as possible to 5% increments, make the following check result conversions:
Natural 1: 3-5 (4,63%)
Natural 20: 16-18 (ditto)
19-20: 15-18 (9,26%)
18-20: 14-18 (16,20%)
16-20: 13-18 (25%) and here you see how the probabilities change; there is no simple way to simulate 20%(17-20) with 3D6. The next step (12-18) is already at 37%.

2D10: goes all the way up to 20 and has the probabilities less cramped towards the centre:
Natural 1: either 2-3 (3%) or 2-4 (6%)
Natural 20: 19-20 or 18-20, ditto
19-20: 17-20 (10%)
18-20: 16-20 (15%)
17-20: 15-20 (21%)
15-20: 14-20 (28%)
[13-20: 13-20 (36%)]
12-20: 12-20 (45%).

So the only actual gaps would be at D20:14-20 and 16-20, but a quick look tells us that there is no way to get any standard weapon to those values by the normal rules anyway. A Triple-Threat Sword has 15-18, just like a Double-Threat Sabre, and a Triple-Theat Sabre immediately jumps to 12-20.

 

[rabindranath72]

You might want to check the d20 Unearthed Arcana book, which has options for using 3d6 instead of d20.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Thanks for the tip, but I'm not going to buy a decidedly magic-heavy book whose contents I'm _never_ gonna use in my games (because I dislike high magic) just for what's probably a half page of die rolling instructions. And I just checked, as usual the die rolling stuff is not included in the UA SRD. Anyway, thanks for the well-intentioned tip.

 

[Death-in-shadizar]

d10? yeah i think that's cool...one of the things i really dislike from d20 is exctly that..+1or even +3 means nothing in 20 sided die.Just imagine you have a initiative +4 and your foe only has +1...you can easily loose the roll when you´re 4 times better ..it really sucks in my opinion.The system begans to rock in 4th or 5th level...but in the first level..buff.So if you use d10..
what about open rolls? a "0"=reroll
what about active defense? d10+perry/dodge vs d10+attack
Anyway the system is pretty good but in high levels...just look at the nomads or a scholars in level one..
just an opinon
Hello to everyone from Zingara..mmm i mean Spain :wink:
(Sorry about my english)

 

[The King]

3D6: produces a pretty pronounced Gaussian curve with rather low probabilities on the extreme values and high expectancy for an average result. This might be particularly suited for skill checks, where extreme rolls do not mean automatic failure or success anyway.

Personaly I think the best skill check system is provided by The Dark Eye (Das Schwarze Auge) where skill checks are based both on the level of proficiency and on 3 characteristics (instead of only one). This brings much fun and suspense.

 

[Clovenhoof]

The concept of using 3 characteristics as base is indeed quite orginal and has certain merit, but as everything in TDE/DSA, a good idea is wrecked by crappy realization.

For the rest of you who don't know what King and I are talking about: in DSA, every skill ("talent") is tied to three attributes (of which there are 8 in the latest edition). Your skill modifier starts at 0 (or even negative in older editions) and can rise to about 18.
Attributes are typically between 8 and 18, and the basic system is "roll under" as in older (A)D&D versions.

Example:
"Climb" is tied to Courage, Agility, and Strength. Let's say you have these attributes at 11, 13 and 10, and your Climb skill is 5. For a normal, unmodified check, you need to roll one test for each attribute, so you have to roll under (or equal) those scores to make it. If you roll over the attribute, you can compensate with skill points, but you don't get any benefit from rolling _far_ under the target value.
Let's say you roll 3, 12, and 16. You make the Courage test (so you dare to tackle the wall). You barely make your Agility check, so you manage to climb up and find footing. But then you botch the Strength check, and 5 points isn't enough to compensate. In the best case, you are stuck and need help, in the worst case, you fall down. If you had rolled a 15 on the last roll, you could have compensated exactly and made the whole climb test.
If you have a negative skill score, or if the penalties outweigh your skill bonus, you have to roll so well under your scores that you can distribute the negative points among your rolls and still make each check.

This means that attributes are very, very important, because each attribute point more is one point less you need in several dozen skills. (Characters are created using a kind of linear point buy in 4th ed., in previous eds the stats were generated randomly between 8 and 13)
If penalties push your total score below 0, your chances are very slim in either case. But once your involved attributes plus skll modifier exceed a total of 57, you can only fail on a critical fumble - you auto-fail when you roll more than one natural 20.

And of course, not all attributes are used in the same amount of skills, and some skills use one attribute twice (Pick Lock for example is Intuition-Dexterity-Dexterity).

I admit the system does have certain strong points, but one should look long and hard at the implications regarding probabilities before porting it to Conan.

 

[Majestic7]

Hmm, that actually sounds a lot like HARN. I have very limited experienced with that system - I've created one character for an upcoming campaign - but I think it would be a good alternative for running Conan. However, the system is rather deadly so it would severely limit what the player characters would be able to achieve.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Hârnmaster is a horrible system. It's something like RoleMaster (aka RuleMonster), squared. I'll just say that it calls itself "The realistic roleplaying game", and that's pretty much all you need to know about it to not want to play it, especially not for a Sword&Sorcery game.

 

[Ichabod]

d10 is something I've considered on a number of occasions, but it runs into the problem that my play group wouldn't want to do it, and I'm sure that there are difficulties converting as can be seen with the example where you hit too easily. It's something I'd be more inclined to use when coming up with my own system. Of course, Unisystem and others already use 1d10 for resolution. I'm not a great fan of Unisystem, it seems anticlimactic as it's a system of degrees of success.

The problem I have, and others seem to find this true too, is that d20 has way too much variance when trying to represent ability. It doesn't do a particularly good job of establishing different skill levels among people who aren't at extremes. For instance, if I put 1 rank in Jump and someone else puts 5, which is significant given how many ranks people get, the 1 ranker still has a good chance of beating the 5 ranker on a key roll. Over a high volume of rolls, the advantage will be born out, but it's just annoying to suck at things you are supposed to be good at (sink 8 ranks in something and roll a 2, reroll and roll a 3 - type scenarios).

d20 isn't the only culprit, World of Darkness has the same issue.

But, the randomness does have some benefits. I'd never (well, 5% only) beat a grapple with my main Conan character against our typical opposition without the massive variance in the game. And, I like extreme results in certain circumstances, like combat. It's the skill rolls in games that drive me nuts because I have mental concepts of how good characters are at noncontested things and the dice fail the concepts, so maybe leave combat alone and come up with something just for skills.

I do despise 3d6, though. It has to be the least interesting dice-rolling mechanic I've ever played. I'd rather keep to d20. 2d10? Maybe a good compromise.

 

[The King]

I admit the system does have certain strong points, but one should look long and hard at the implications regarding probabilities before porting it to Conan.

It brings a lot more thrill than just one roll anyway and that is good that way because a fight lasts for ore than a few rolls. It thus compensate for the massive combat rolls while still having its fun.

 

[Clovenhoof]

The main question would be _how_ to implement a 3D20 skill system in Conan without tossing everything around. Particularly, you shouldn't break with the basic D20 mechanism of rolling high to beat a DC. Skill ranks shouldn't change either so you don't need to convert a character just to try it out. You can, however, fiddle with the DCs to make it work -- I predict they'll have to be a lot lower on average to generate similar success rates.

 

[The King]

This shouldn't be that difficult.
Skills at Conan rarely go beyond 20, especially if you don't use the bonus provided by the attributed because you would now have to roll under those attributes. So you can use skill points exactly the same way as in DSA, that is as a bonus pool to boost the score.
The major part is to figure out which attribute you would use for each skill check.
No really, this part should be the easiest to convert.

Of course considering the DSA rules (3rd edition) each PC usually gain 1 attribute point every level or every 2 levels, while in Conan you only raise one attribute every 4 levels but as skill levels in Conan can go beyond 18 (which is the limit in DSA), this compensates for that.

Again I think 3 rolls are a lot tenser as only one, especially when the health of your PC depends on it. If fights last for more than one roll, why shouldn't this part of gaming also last for more than one roll?

 

[Clovenhoof]

Tying the skills to attributes can be pretty linear, you just have to decide whether Intuition is closer to Intelligence or Wisdom. Courage also should be Wisdom because both have to do with Willpower. So there.

But as I said, "rolling under" is a concept that is not used in D20, and I thnk it's a good idea to use just one basic mechanism throughout the game. Which, in D20, is "rolling over".

 

[Clovenhoof]

*bump*
since the topic came up again in another thread...

For your convenience, here's the probabilities to meet or exceed any given Target Number with 2D10:

2: 100% [i.e. the odds to roll 2 Ones are, of course, 1%]
3: 99%
4: 97%
5: 94%
6: 90%
7: 85%
8: 79%
9: 72%
10: 64%
11: 55%
12: 45%
13: 36%
14: 28%
15: 21%
16: 15%
17: 10%
18: 6%
19: 3%
20: 1%

Of course, with one D20 the odds is 5% for a natural 20 and an iterative 5% for each target number below. This essentially means one thing: if the target number is lower than 12, 2D10 will let you succeed more reliably. But if you have to roll higher than 12, 2D10 gives you a worse chance than D20. Exactly 12 is the break-even point, i.e. equal chance in both systems.

I think this method is especially suitable for Skill checks. When you have ranks in a skill, you are trained in it and are supposed to be able to do what the skill is there for. With 2D10, appropriate tasks for you level become less of a gamble, however difficult tasks get more difficult (unless the GM balances DCs).

But how about Attack rolls and Saving throws? Should 2D10 be used for either or both of these, too? There are implications:
* you have to decide what replaces a Natural 1 and Natural 20. If you've always felt it was silly that a powerful hero and mighty warrior fumbles twice per minute, and makes a complete fool of himself on every 20th Save, you'll want to replace Nat with "Snake Eyes", i.e. two 1s.
On the other hand, a 1%-chance to beat an "impossible Save" may be considered too narrow, so you might want to count results of 18+ or at least 19+ as "Natural 20".

As for Critical Hits, we had that on the first page already - you'll have to decide if you want fewer Crits than normal, or more, or reflect the original odds for each weapon as closely as possible. Also consider what you do with Threat Extenders like Improved Crit -- probably the best bet would be to extend the threat range by a flat 2 rather than doubling it.

Anyway, if you would use 2D10 in combat as well, the same as above would apply: you hit weaker targets (even) more reliably, but it becomes much more difficult to hit a more powerful enemy. Now if in your game, the PCs typically _are_ the more powerful enemy, they'll have an easy time killing off those mooks, while the mooks can't hit the PCs. The players will like that. But if on the other hand your heroes are more interested in battling terrible monsters and demons who have better stats than the PCs, 2D10 is bad for the players and should be avoided.

Experience teaches us that it's generally easy to hit things in Conan, and high-level warriors can afford to sacrifice a lot of their attack bonus for damage (per Power Attack). So for them it probably doesn't really matter which method they use.

In the end you could say: 2D10 favours the Powerful and Confident.

What do you think?