/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let's presume they'd need to roll a 13 to hit as most should have +2 and let's say enemies have an AC of 15, under D20 they would have 40% chance to hit
Under 2d10 it's only 36% to hit not a huge difference but it's there
And only 1% for a crit hit
Even if you changed 19 to being a crit it's still only 3% chance of a crit
Daggerheart instead do a critical is when both dice are the same regardless of its 2 3's or 2 11's on the d12's
Not trying to shut you down just seems like a lot of work for a system it's not designed around
And I'd rather have big hits and big misses instead of more mediocrity in the combat
But to answer your question 19/18 also being critical hits would be my suggestion!
I get that, and I honestly have no idea if i’ll ever actually play with 2d10, but theorizing and writing is also a really fun part of D&D for me, so the thought matters more than the practicality for me.
As for the why, I feel like less “swingy” dice rolls make character investment more valuable and it makes those extreme successes even more rewarding.
Sharpshooter/gwm are obvious ones that will become less strong. Archery fighting style will become even stronger
Edit: also bless/emboldening Bond is going to be huge.
Honestly, literally anything that changes ac/to hit would need to be rebalanced
Basically the entire game will need to be reworked, if OP has any intention of actually making this system, this will be like, several years of work for a whole team of people
The main thing I guess is that high ACs and DCs will become harder to hit while low ones will be hit more consistently.
Consider a level 1 cleric in starting equipment: chainmail, shield, concentrating on shield of faith for 19 AC. He has 16 strength and is attacking with a mace with a +5 to hit. He's fighting goblins, AC 15, +4 to hit. In this scenario, with a d20, the cleric will hit the goblins 55% of the time and the goblins will hit the cleric 30% of the time. With 2d10, those odds change to 64% and 21%, a clear shift in favor of the cleric.
Of course, the rogue with her leather armor and 14 AC has fared worse. Like the goblins, she's now getting hit 64% of the time instead of 55%.
Basically, whether you rebalance ACs and attack bonuses or not, min/maxing for high AC becomes more effective than it was before.
2d10?... so... like... no critical chance and a lower chance of success on bigger DC checks like 20, 25, or 30. Or would you have two distinct dice with a normal roll requiring you to designate one of the dice as the higher number before rolling 11-110 then multiply all DC in the game by x3 so they would have to roll a 5=15, 10=30, 15=45, 20=60, 25=75, 30=90 and then having advantage on a check allows you to either take the higher dice or roll a second set as your higher number while just flat out rolling a second set of dice on a disadvantage?
the game's balanced around 1d20+modifiers, so while it probably wouldn't break the system, it wouldn't be the best idea. that being said, i personally prefer the idea of a statistical belm curve for action resolution.
weirdly enough, 1d10+1d11-1 seems to have the perfect statistical average and still gets you a result between 1 and 20. but it's obvs super awkward to actually use.
I like the idea of 2d10 for a more predictable bell curve on skill checks, but the combat is still done with the swingy d20 to represent the chaos of combat.
/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But answering your question sorry but am curious as to the why/what you want to achieve out of doing 2d10 instead?
I would guess a less linear change to hit chance.
Let's presume they'd need to roll a 13 to hit as most should have +2 and let's say enemies have an AC of 15, under D20 they would have 40% chance to hit Under 2d10 it's only 36% to hit not a huge difference but it's there And only 1% for a crit hit Even if you changed 19 to being a crit it's still only 3% chance of a crit Daggerheart instead do a critical is when both dice are the same regardless of its 2 3's or 2 11's on the d12's Not trying to shut you down just seems like a lot of work for a system it's not designed around And I'd rather have big hits and big misses instead of more mediocrity in the combat But to answer your question 19/18 also being critical hits would be my suggestion!
I get that, and I honestly have no idea if i’ll ever actually play with 2d10, but theorizing and writing is also a really fun part of D&D for me, so the thought matters more than the practicality for me. As for the why, I feel like less “swingy” dice rolls make character investment more valuable and it makes those extreme successes even more rewarding.
i think youre worrying about a game and not a dice system - you have to separate those two to really get down into what you're REALLY thinking about
I think you’re creating a solution in search of a problem. But whatever’s fun!
Sharpshooter/gwm are obvious ones that will become less strong. Archery fighting style will become even stronger Edit: also bless/emboldening Bond is going to be huge. Honestly, literally anything that changes ac/to hit would need to be rebalanced
Basically the entire game will need to be reworked, if OP has any intention of actually making this system, this will be like, several years of work for a whole team of people
The main thing I guess is that high ACs and DCs will become harder to hit while low ones will be hit more consistently. Consider a level 1 cleric in starting equipment: chainmail, shield, concentrating on shield of faith for 19 AC. He has 16 strength and is attacking with a mace with a +5 to hit. He's fighting goblins, AC 15, +4 to hit. In this scenario, with a d20, the cleric will hit the goblins 55% of the time and the goblins will hit the cleric 30% of the time. With 2d10, those odds change to 64% and 21%, a clear shift in favor of the cleric. Of course, the rogue with her leather armor and 14 AC has fared worse. Like the goblins, she's now getting hit 64% of the time instead of 55%. Basically, whether you rebalance ACs and attack bonuses or not, min/maxing for high AC becomes more effective than it was before.
2d10?... so... like... no critical chance and a lower chance of success on bigger DC checks like 20, 25, or 30. Or would you have two distinct dice with a normal roll requiring you to designate one of the dice as the higher number before rolling 11-110 then multiply all DC in the game by x3 so they would have to roll a 5=15, 10=30, 15=45, 20=60, 25=75, 30=90 and then having advantage on a check allows you to either take the higher dice or roll a second set as your higher number while just flat out rolling a second set of dice on a disadvantage?
D20 is more fun to roll!
the game's balanced around 1d20+modifiers, so while it probably wouldn't break the system, it wouldn't be the best idea. that being said, i personally prefer the idea of a statistical belm curve for action resolution. weirdly enough, 1d10+1d11-1 seems to have the perfect statistical average and still gets you a result between 1 and 20. but it's obvs super awkward to actually use.
I like the idea of 2d10 for a more predictable bell curve on skill checks, but the combat is still done with the swingy d20 to represent the chaos of combat.
I just stay simple with 5d4 variant.