2d10 for Fighting and Shooting

[Fencing Frog]

Given the extremes the d20 is subject to I have been considering suggesting a switch to 2d10 for Fighting and shooting.  I think this will make the relative skills of the characters a lot more relevant.  It will also make armor more significant as your more likely to see lower damage results.  I would want to keep the d20 for Spell casting, Will rolls, and initiative. 

Just wondering if anyone else has considered this modification to the rules and if they have tried it what was the result?

[fred]

One of the guys in our group is keen to move to 2d10 for all rolls.

The rest of us aren't too bothered.

I agree that it will make armour more important, and make stat modifiers more important, as the typical dice rolls will be more consistent around the 9-12 levels. But I don't know if this is a good or a bad thing. The riskiness of the current rules does add a certain something to play. Its good if you are worried your characters might get killed, rather than going its only a 1% chance of a 20.

I have noticed that as characters get better, their modifiers get bigger and become more significant. My Templar with a +2 axe, is +4 to hit, and effectively +8 for damage.

[Darkson71]

A new member to our group has a close combat wizard - +5 Fight, sword of +2 F, dagger of +1 fight and the extra +1 for having hand weapon/dagger combo for a total of +9.  Bloody nightmare (along with his Boots of Speed) as you can't fight him nor shoot him.

We are thinking of making the Fight unmodified vs shooting (seems a bit daft to us that having a sword and dagger makes you harder to hit).

[Elbows]

Remember the biggest difference is that you're moving from a standard curve to a bell curve by changing the dice.  That's a big difference, but possibly a good one?

With a D20 (in a perfect world) you have 5% of every result.  You're as likely to roll a 20 as...a seven.

However, with 2D10, your chances are:

(well, I'll be damned, look at this wildly convenient picture from the web...)



Now, is that better or worse for Frostgrave? 

[Vidgrip]

"Now, is that better or worse for Frostgrave? "

If you do campaign play, fighting with 2d10 is going to be worse.  Even with the d20, people are saying that a more successful warband pulls away from the others too quickly.  Using 2d10 would exacerbate that problem.  No, I haven't tried it, but the math seems clear enough.

[monkeylite]

"Now, is that better or worse for Frostgrave? "

If you do campaign play, fighting with 2d10 is going to be worse.  Even with the d20, people are saying that a more successful warband pulls away from the others too quickly.  Using 2d10 would exacerbate that problem.  No, I haven't tried it, but the math seems clear enough.

This is a very good point and worth bearing in mind, imo.

[robh]

This has been discussed a lot here and is a fairly polarising topic, seems you either love or hate the d20.
Moving to 2xd10 was the first of 3 changes we made (turn limit and dump wizard kill xps). One of our Mordheim players wants to go to 3xd6 instead.
I also like the 10xp per level difference modifier that was suggested here before.

[joe5mc]

Darkson - just a quick note, a wizard armed with two magic weapons only receives the bonus for the primary one. So while he would get +1 Fight for fighting with two weapons, he would not receive the extra +1 Fight from the Magic dagger.  I will add that the the errata.

Joe

[Darkson71]

Cheers Joe, I didn't ask that in the FAQ thread as it didn't seem to be against any rules, good to know.

Would that stop a wizard having a magic sword and a magic bow, or is it only forbidding combining having two magic h-t-h weapons?

[Fencing Frog]

If you do campaign play, fighting with 2d10 is going to be worse.  Even with the d20, people are saying that a more successful warband pulls away from the others too quickly.  Using 2d10 would exacerbate that problem.  No, I haven't tried it, but the math seems clear enough.

Sorry but the math your referring to is not at all clear to me could you please expand on it you can.

Please note Magic is still on the D20 so you won't get more XP Because it is easier to cast spells, damage from spells like Elemental bold should be lower since results at the extremes will be fewer that should slow down the the war bands getting more XP due to Wizard kills or that what I think anyway.  2d10 should mean fewer kills especially early on when skill modifiers are lower.

[jon_1066]

Sorry but the math your referring to is not at all clear to me could you please expand on it you can.

Please note Magic is still on the D20 so you won't get more XP Because it is easier to cast spells, damage from spells like Elemental bold should be lower since results at the extremes will be fewer that should slow down the the war bands getting more XP due to Wizard kills or that what I think anyway.  2d10 should mean fewer kills especially early on when skill modifiers are lower.

A more successful warband will be able to recruit better fighters and have more items thus getting more bonuses on their fighting stats.  If you go to 2D10 then it makes bonuses on your fighting stats more important - ie they are more likely to make a difference to the combat. Ergo warbands that get lucky with treasure will have a bigger bonus with 2D10 than with D20.

[joe5mc]

Darkson - basically - you can only get the magical bonus for one weapon in any situation. So magical sword and magical bow would both give their bonuses at the times they are used. Bonuses for magical weapons never stack.

[Fencing Frog]

A more successful warband will be able to recruit better fighters and have more items thus getting more bonuses on their fighting stats.  If you go to 2D10 then it makes bonuses on your fighting stats more important - ie they are more likely to make a difference to the combat. Ergo warbands that get lucky with treasure will have a bigger bonus with 2D10 than with D20.

I don't think the cost of soldiers is high enough that it makes a huge difference... very few of the games I have been in have been a blood bath were both sides had to replace soldiers whole sale. 

[Nooblord]

I think 2d10 combat would make combat a lot more attritional. More tied combats and reduced effectiveness for missile weapons would require a longer game for those who already play with a turn limit in effect I think.

In addition there is the question of how to deal with critical hits. A 1% chance of a crit is not worth bothering with. Maybe a 10 on either die gives and extra 5 damage or something if that attack is successful. That might give you the effect of the bell curve while also allowing for the odd devastating hit without it becoming a grind fest, especially with healing thrown into the mix.

Just thinking aloud though my instinct is to play with d20 unless it turns out to be hugely unpopular.

[markdienekes]

A new member to our group has a close combat wizard - +5 Fight, sword of +2 F, dagger of +1 fight and the extra +1 for having hand weapon/dagger combo for a total of +9.  Bloody nightmare (along with his Boots of Speed) as you can't fight him nor shoot him.

We are thinking of making the Fight unmodified vs shooting (seems a bit daft to us that having a sword and dagger makes you harder to hit).

I thought the split stat for the hand weapon and dagger only counted in hand to hand combat, not vs shooting...