Alternate dice mechanic - 3d6?

[Kealios]

I know the d20 roll has been discussed to death...I felt the same way about it when Infinity first came out. Eventually I just dealt with it, but...

I'm such a fan of the HERO System, so I was wondering about using 3d6 on combat rolls. The range of numbers available is similar, but the bell curve offers much more predictability. Other than spellcasting, I dont see a downside.

Thoughts?

[sniperbait]

There are a couple of threads on this forum about this very subject. 2 D10's seems to be a popular suggestion. My main concern is that the 3d6 rolls will give an average or 11 or so and I think it will mean lots of rills which are really close together and given the armour comes off the roll (minimum of 10 on most occasions) fights could take ages.

I've played 3 games so far and will be sticking with the game as is for now.

[Helznicht]

We use D6's, but not just 3d6.   Basically we give every model a base 3d6 to attack, and add a dice for each +1 they have.  For armor, we give the defender 1/2 its armor value in dice to defend.  We only allow attacks when its your turn, and only defend when not your turn.  When attacking 4, 5 & 6s are hits.  When defending 5 & 6s are blocks.  Any extra hits go to health damage.

[Polkovnik]

Other than spellcasting, I dont see a downside.

Unless you make others changes, it will really slow down combat and make well armoured figures virtually impossible to kill.
For example, say you are attacking someone with armour 14. Using a d20 you have a 30% chance of rolling higher than this armour value. With 3d6 you only have a 9% chance of rolling higher.

[gorillacrab]

I was one of those writing about 2 d10s before the rules were even published - but I'm very happy with the d20 as it provides a very "cinematic" feel with any figure capable of getting any foe. Makes you think twice about exposing figures or ramps up the importance of defensive spells such as Fog and Wall.
Also, since campaign rules usually allow figures to retain in a game or two, losing a figure in one game is not a massive event.
- GC

[mcfonz]

Nothing wrong with D20 IMHO.

Although maybe harsh sounding, I think people that find issue with it are not necessarily enjoying the concept of that part of the game.

I like that in one fluid move your character can dispatch an enemy in combat. Close combat is very nasty and very deadly.

I had this chat with someone else the other day when considering writing our own rules set. Compared to shooting, close combat should be brutal. It shouldn't last overly too long. If you shoot someone 20 yards away and they drop, how likely are you to check they are properly downed and not just winded or feigning when in a very fluid and traumatic combat zone?

Unlikely. When you are in close combat, the chances are anything else happening more than 4-5ft around you may as well not exist. I can't speak from experience of actual combat myself but I remember speaking to a WW2 Royal Marine vet for a school project. One of the questions we had to ask was what did you hate the most about the war (bloody stupid questions really)! He didn't hold back. He said 'close combat', having to kill someone with your bare hands and a bayonet. I will never forget him saying that when you are that close you don't take chances, you part only at one of your death's unless your comrades overwhelm their enemies first and decide to take a prisoner.

The d20 bit reflects slowly slicing away at someones energy before landing a serious blow or someone dropping their guard enough for your character to get a shuddering blow in. The only thing I think I will alter is the 'critical hit' rules which seem a bit too powerful IMHO. Otherwise it's fine.

[FionaWhite]

Test games aside I don't have much actual gameplay experience here yet but I've no trouble with d20 either, though the fact that I've been using more of it than I can keep count of thanks to Path- and Ponyfinder may be to thank or to blame for my ease of rolling with it.

[Awesome Adam]

I don't really get what people are trying to accomplish by using more dice. You eliminate the extremes and end up with more median results. So you will tie/miss more often, and do less damage.

 

[Helznicht]

I don't really get what people are trying to accomplish by using more dice. You eliminate the extremes and end up with more median results. So you will tie/miss more often, and do less damage.

I really did it to make a knight 4x the thugs superior since he is 4x the price, and make it predictable in the short term (a couple games instead of the whole campaign).  Right now a Thug vs Knight combat is more 60/40 with the D20 and current bonuses, and I may have to play many games of knights being slaughtered by thugs before  the the D20 averages out long term.

[mcfonz]

I'm a bit confused. You want the knight to be able to take on four thugs at once? Or you don't think he is good value at four times the cost?

I mean a barbarian is the same and in our games, they have slaughtered their way through several thug level characters.

I tend to group my warriors anyway, it makes the most of the group activation and also strength in numbers. Warhounds are for hunting down the characters that have grabbed loot . . . 

[Helznicht]

I'm a bit confused. You want the knight to be able to take on four thugs at once?

Actually the way the current combat rules go, a single thug could take out 4 knights, in a single opponents turn, but I digress.

No.  I want a knight in a 1 on 1 fight to win 3 X out of 4 against the thug.  And I want to see it in a single game  "3 out of 4"  not "30 out of 40", oin other words... I dont want to see a knights killed repeatedly by thugs in 3-4 straight games, only for them to make a huge comeback to catch up. I want some predictability in it so I can devise a plan and measure my risk.  Its feels all so 50/50 that "I PERSONALLY" have a hard time deciding what I should and should not do.   If the knight is outnumbered, the outnumbering bonus throws the advantage into the thugs for sure either way.

IOr you don't think he is good value at four times the cost?

 No he is not a good value.  2 warbands of equal gold value, A wizard/apprentice and all thugs will beat a wizard/apprentice and all knights in a straight up fight.

[mcfonz]

If it is straight gold, that is because you will have more thugs than Knights, which is where the outnumbering comes in . . . .

I'm not really sure where the dice change it overly other than to insure no landslide victories - but isn't that the point?

I like the idea that with lucky rolling a thug can take down a Knight. But you are not just paying for the combat ability, it's the armour and the wounds as well.

In our experience of playing, the knights are better than thugs and tend to be more successful. There is more chance of a Knight taking down a thug than the other way around, and in less combats if more than one is required.

[Helznicht]

If it is straight gold, that is because you will have more thugs than Knights, which is where the outnumbering comes in . . . .

  Agree, I would just like to see the gap closed.

I'm not really sure where the dice change it overly other than to insure no landslide victories - but isn't that the point? 

My group doesnt just use 2d10 or straight 3d6. its more # of dice per stat than stat=bonus to dice value.

I like the idea that with lucky rolling a thug can take down a Knight.

Agree, I would just like it to be more rare.

In our experience of playing, the knights are better than thugs and tend to be more successful. There is more chance of a Knight taking down a thug than the other way around, and in less combats if more than one is required.

  In my experience, not so.  Because the D20 range of possible outcomes is so wide, in only 5 games, 2 people can come away with very different feelings about soldier or spell power effectiveness.  Maybe it all balances out after 10, 15, 20 games, but I don't want to be the guy that invested 10 hours in 5 games while my opponents measly thugs ran over my higher priced soldiers. 

I really think that what the majority of my group wanted from the game was it to be competitive.  Not everybody wants that from Frostgrave, and thats ok.  It took a combat rules re-write to get it back to the table, and thank goodness, cause I really like the core of the game.

[Darkson71]

After seeing the first couple of games in our club I was a little dubious of the D20 mechanic, but after getting to play I came round to it.  I've found that it means that most of the time, the better fighter will win the combat, but occansionally you'll get that "cinematic" moment when the out-numbered and out-gunned fighter will pull it out of his boots and win that unexpected combat (like the time my 1-wound treasure-carrying thief beat both the opposing wizard and knight in combat in one turn).

I also like the "chaos" it brings to the game - yeah, your knight should beat the enemy thug in combat, but you need to plan your turn around both him winning and him losing.

[Awesome Adam]

I think the flaw in the logic is that that one model should be x times better because he costs x times more than another.

Gold Coins in Frostgrave are not like point values for army building in other games.

The Gold Coin values are to prevent you from starting with an elite force. It forces us to make decisions about what to upgrade gradually as we play.

A starting warband is better off with a full roster of cheaper soldiers, but a few games down the line 5 knights are going to mop the floor with the dead bodies of 5 thugs.

In any case, 2d10, 3d6, 1d20, outnumbering bonuses and extra attacks outweigh any difference that the dice type is going to make.