Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

[The Souljourner]

One of the problems I see with Hero is the extremely tight bell curve of all skill and attack rolls. 9-12 comprise 48% of all 3d6 rolls. If you have a 9- to succeed and get a +3 bonus, you just added over 36% to your chance of success.... However, if you already had a 14- to succeed, adding +3 adds just under 9% to your chance of success.

 

One of the things I like about the d20 system is how well it works with bonuses and penalties on rolls... +3 is +15% no matter how hard or easy the task (well, except if you run off the top or bottom of the scale... but that should be rare).

 

What if one were to apply the same logic to hero? Instead of rolling attacks, skill rolls, etc with 3d6, use 1d20. I think that, especially for superheroic campaigns, it would make widely varying abilities less of a problem. For example, say Kung Foo Guy has an OCV of 13, and Brick Guy a DCV of 8. Using 3d6, KFG is almost guaranteed to hit every time... only a 17 or 18 misses, amounting to a measely 2% chance of missing. Now do the same thing except now use 1d20. 17-20 miss, making it a 20% miss chance, which is much more reasonable, given that its only a 5 point difference in CVs, which is not unusual given superheroic characters.

 

And If I Ran the Circusâ„¢, I'd do armor classes the way d20 does them, more or less. 11+ your DCV is your AC. Attacker rolls 1d20 and adds his OCV... if he matches or beats your AC, he hits. It makes for much easier calculations than all this adding and subtracting... and it makes high rolls good, which only makes sense, IMO.

 

Of course, this is coming from a guy who plays a lot more D&D than Hero, and I'm sure most of you die hards will consider this blasphemy, but I really do think it would make for a more balanced game (at least for superheroic campaigns.... heroic campaigns where OCVs and DCVs vary so much less, the 3d6 method is probably fine).

 

-Nate

[Badger]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

Well for me, I just like rolling 6 sided dice better. They look more "even" to me. 20 sides just never felt right for me. Not something I can really explain well per se. More of a feeling/rythm.

 

Course, I dont personally see a problem with using d20. If you are willing to do the rule-tweaking. As far as i can tell HERO isnt one of those rpgs that say any house rules are "destroying the experience" and should be eliminated.

[Greywind]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

The Hero System is fine the way it is. If your preference is D20, there are superhero games on the market that cater to that preference.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

Until I started reading HERO boards, I had thought that the choice of 3d6 was intentional. Having started role-playing with D&D (as in pre AD&D), I was well aware of the bell curve generated by 3d6. It results in greater chances of getting rolls somewhere in the 'middle', which just seemed right to me. I was under the impression that this was done intentionally: it simulates that there is a mean level of ability that can be expected from the bulk of the people with that skill / ability.

 

It also does a nice job of both allowing and controlling advancement. While you can spend that extra point or two to bump up your score by one, it's not a huge advance. It shows that you have more ability than someone with a lower score, but not so much that you can really overshadow someone with only one point less.

 

Restated, it allows you to advance a character-- evolve him-- through play. You spend points as you earn them and improve that character, but he doesn't become unbalancing in a hurry. He's not going to go from passingly familiar to world-class physicist in a year or two of game time (unless he applies himself exclusively to this, which makes sense). If every number had an equal chance of coming up, two more pips of a skill would make him drastically superior to someone else, and he could buy those pips with the experience from a single game session.

 

And it is for that reason that I had always thought that 3d6 was an intentional choice.

 

Whether it was or not, it is certainly my preference, and for all the reasons I've stated.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

Almost forgot--

 

the d20 would allow skill levels an inordinate amount of power, wouldn't they? Have you crunched any numbers on this yet, or is it still in the tinkering stage?

[Stone]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

I see your point, but a single d20 is double edge sword. It's alot easier to roll a 1 or a 20 on a single die than a 3 or 18 on 3 die. I agree that 3d6 lands more in middle on average. I also agree that this simulates a common level of ability from PC's/NPC's, and that PC's & important NPC's can be significantly better in some skills w/out being too over-balancing. To me using OCV/DCV calculations are no more difficult than using a "to hit" matrix from just about any other game.

 

As far as modifing HERO or using House Rules, I have no problem w/that. I do it myslef. There are some areas I absolutely disagree w/the rules. If using a d20 feels right to you, go for it & have fun =)

[radioKAOS]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

One of the problems I see with Hero is the extremely tight bell curve of all skill and attack rolls. 9-12 comprise 48% of all 3d6 rolls. If you have a 9- to succeed and get a +3 bonus, you just added over 36% to your chance of success.... However, if you already had a 14- to succeed, adding +3 adds just under 9% to your chance of success.

 

One of the things I like about the d20 system is how well it works with bonuses and penalties on rolls... +3 is +15% no matter how hard or easy the task (well, except if you run off the top or bottom of the scale... but that should be rare).

 

What if one were to apply the same logic to hero? Instead of rolling attacks, skill rolls, etc with 3d6, use 1d20. I think that, especially for superheroic campaigns, it would make widely varying abilities less of a problem. For example, say Kung Foo Guy has an OCV of 13, and Brick Guy a DCV of 8. Using 3d6, KFG is almost guaranteed to hit every time... only a 17 or 18 misses, amounting to a measely 2% chance of missing. Now do the same thing except now use 1d20. 17-20 miss, making it a 20% miss chance, which is much more reasonable, given that its only a 5 point difference in CVs, which is not unusual given superheroic characters.

 

And If I Ran the Circusâ„¢, I'd do armor classes the way d20 does them, more or less. 11+ your DCV is your AC. Attacker rolls 1d20 and adds his OCV... if he matches or beats your AC, he hits. It makes for much easier calculations than all this adding and subtracting... and it makes high rolls good, which only makes sense, IMO.

 

Of course, this is coming from a guy who plays a lot more D&D than Hero, and I'm sure most of you die hards will consider this blasphemy, but I really do think it would make for a more balanced game (at least for superheroic campaigns.... heroic campaigns where OCVs and DCVs vary so much less, the 3d6 method is probably fine).

 

-Nate

 

 

Nate, this is the way we had been playing from the start. We found that it drives CVs into the stratosphere, and makes having 'lower' skill levels next to useless.

 

Our campaign ended up with one character having a 17OCV and a Tracking skill of 17- [which somehow still ended up failing quite a bit of the time]. His other meager skills were almost never used, the chance of success wasn't worth the time involved.

 

Not to mention the point costs involved. A skill of 17- will generally cost most people 15pts. Now assume you would like your character to have more than one skill in that range [and most of us do]... Hell, you could fly for cheaper than that

 

An OCV of 17, using the cheapest method [+1 OCV with a single attack] and assuming a 23 DEX [OCV 8] will still cost you 18pts on top of what you've already spent on DEX. Ouch.

 

[disclaimer: this was also in the 250pt character days, it's a little easier at 350 to spend points in this way]

 

Could be just my view of it, but a race for CVs and high skills seems to take away from creating a 'character' out of the numbers on the page. It's just a numbers game at that point, and if that's what you want, then fine.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

Speaking as someone who plays d20 and HERO, I *much* prefer the 3d6 curve. The d20 simply leads to too wide of a swing for my taste; such a wide swing of random chance minimizes the importance of skill.

 

Of course, if that's what you want, it's a game and the purpose is to have fun.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

The very idea of switching to a flat curve instead of a bell curve makes me nauseous.

 

With a single D20 (or any single die) you have an equal chance of getting any given "%" point. A 1 has an equal chance of coming up as a 12, or a 20. Forget the fact that on a D20 each pip = 5%, it doesn't work that way. Each pip on the die has a 5% of coming up. You have no real decent way of tracking your ability vs someone elses ability, except through skill levels and for those to start making a difference you'd have to reach the +10 or higher SL range.

 

On a 3D6 you have a percentage chance of any given roll coming up, the average roll falls into the middle, so it's a good guage of the "Average Man's Ability" which is excellent for comaprison systems, such as Skill vs Skill. Something a single die cannot properly emulate.

 

If you want to play with a 1D20 - go for it, I'm not here to stop you - but it's a horrible horrible idea for the Hero system. It barely works for the D20 system.

[Gadodel]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

It's an idea worth experimenting with as it will show the player and those whom they game with a broad range of information.

[Warp9]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

I STRONGLY disagree with the idea of switching to 1d20.

 

I will try to explain my reaction to some of the comments made:

 

One of the problems I see with Hero is the extremely tight bell curve of all skill and attack rolls. 9-12 comprise 48% of all 3d6 rolls. If you have a 9- to succeed and get a +3 bonus, you just added over 36% to your chance of success.... However, if you already had a 14- to succeed, adding +3 adds just under 9% to your chance of success.

 

One of the things I like about the d20 system is how well it works with bonuses and penalties on rolls... +3 is +15% no matter how hard or easy the task (well, except if you run off the top or bottom of the scale... but that should be rare).

You are correct: "if you already had a 14- to succeed, adding +3 adds just under 9% to your chance of success" But what does a straight percentage analysis really tell us?

 

Lets look at a 1% difference. . . .

 

The difference between 50% and 51% seems kind of minimal to me. But IMO the difference between 99% success and 100% success is vast. Especailly if you are dealing with something like de-fusing a bomb where a failure would probably mean death.

 

The actual percantage difference between 16- (98.15% success) and 17- (99.537% success) is small (about 1.39% Difference). However, the pure precentage difference does not tell the whole story. The 16- is FOUR times more likely to fail. And if I am counting on my Missile Deflection alone to block those bullets then 17- seems much better than 16-

 

 

What if one were to apply the same logic to hero? Instead of rolling attacks, skill rolls, etc with 3d6, use 1d20. I think that, especially for superheroic campaigns, it would make widely varying abilities less of a problem. For example, say Kung Foo Guy has an OCV of 13, and Brick Guy a DCV of 8. Using 3d6, KFG is almost guaranteed to hit every time... only a 17 or 18 misses, amounting to a measely 2% chance of missing. Now do the same thing except now use 1d20. 17-20 miss, making it a 20% miss chance, which is much more reasonable, given that its only a 5 point difference in CVs, which is not unusual given superheroic characters.

 

And If I Ran the Circusâ„¢, I'd do armor classes the way d20 does them, more or less. 11+ your DCV is your AC. Attacker rolls 1d20 and adds his OCV... if he matches or beats your AC, he hits. It makes for much easier calculations than all this adding and subtracting... and it makes high rolls good, which only makes sense, IMO.

 

Of course, this is coming from a guy who plays a lot more D&D than Hero, and I'm sure most of you die hards will consider this blasphemy, but I really do think it would make for a more balanced game (at least for superheroic campaigns.... heroic campaigns where OCVs and DCVs vary so much less, the 3d6 method is probably fine).

 

-Nate

This logic applied to HERO will make it so that Spider-Man will no longer be able to count on his DCV to dodge bullets. He will be constently getting hit by every bank robber who gets a slightly lucky shot.

 

But is sounds like this result is what you are actually after. It is not the result that I want, nor IMO is it consistent with the abilities a character of SpiderMan's SuperHuman Agility (someone who can see those bullets coming and just step out of the way).

 

That exact issue came up in Rifts (a system that uses 1d20) when I was playing a Juicer. The game book described a Juicer as seeing the whole world in slow motion, it described Juicers as being so fast that such a character could compose a poem in his head as his sssssllllllooooowwww opponets tried to hit him. But the 1d20 game system just doesn't work like that. A juicer who tries to rely on his speed to stay alive will be a dead juicer!

 

But a system like HERO can actually handle a character like a juicer (or Spiderman).

[Warp9]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

Of course, this is coming from a guy who plays a lot more D&D than Hero, and I'm sure most of you die hards will consider this blasphemy, but I really do think it would make for a more balanced game (at least for superheroic campaigns.... heroic campaigns where OCVs and DCVs vary so much less, the 3d6 method is probably fine).

 

-Nate

I will add something to my previous statement:

 

I do appreciate that you are sharing your ideas with us, even though I strongly disagree with them in this case.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

What do I think?

 

Seriously, the 3d6 bell curve does much better than D20's flat distribution for vastly differing levels of skill. If you are an expert in your field, the chances that you are going to fail a trivial task should be darn near zero. If you are barely versed in building ships, the chance that you are going to be succeed in building a Death Star should be darn near zero. Competitions between characters with different skill levels are truly difficult, and requires the underdog to truly use every advantage at his/her disposal (read: situational modifiers, Complimentary Skills--usually a sign of specialization--underhanded tactics, whatever). I think this is great!

 

The distribution also mimics the real world quite nicely IMO; most distributions wind up having a shape that approaches a normal (bell shaped) distribution.

 

Also, it seems that just about every system other than D20 uses some kind of bell shaped curve these days. Even the per-die type success determination of systems like the World of Darkness system and Silhouette wind up being rougly bell-shaped curves. Maybe it is D20 that needs to grow up and adopt something a little more modern (which would mean their choice for a name was rather unfortunate).

And If I Ran the Circus™' date=' I'd do armor classes the way d20 does them, more or less. 11+ your DCV is your AC. Attacker rolls 1d20 and adds his OCV... if he matches or beats your AC, he hits. It makes for much easier calculations than all this adding and subtracting... and it makes high rolls good, which only makes sense, IMO.[/quote']

Whatever. The order in which you do the arithmatic hardly affects the system. There are even suggestions for using 11+DCV in the beginning of 5ER. A while back I published an alternate view of Hero die rolling (see Flipped Die Rolls), that does not modify the system at all, but may be more appealing to D&D/D20 players. I have refined this a bit since, and I use it some of the time. See the attached document. (NOTE: The document is in Microsoft Word format. I would have exported it as HTML but for the restricted document types allowed in attachments for these boards. It is a very plain document, but for security reasons I would suggest you run it through a virus scanner and disable macros in your application before opening it; in Microsoft Word macros can be disabled under Tools > Macro > Security....)

 

Of course, this is coming from a guy who plays a lot more D&D than Hero, and I'm sure most of you die hards will consider this blasphemy, but I really do think it would make for a more balanced game (at least for superheroic campaigns.... heroic campaigns where OCVs and DCVs vary so much less, the 3d6 method is probably fine).

I play more D20 than Hero too, just not by choice!

[Kristopher]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

Others have pretty much covered the problem with the 1d20 flat curve. That flat curve is one of the major problems with the d20 system.

 

The idea of changing to the bloody THACO system...well, no offense, but if you're looking for a single d20 and THACO, just keep playing D&D or whatever.

[The Souljourner]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

the d20 would allow skill levels an inordinate amount of power' date=' wouldn't they? Have you crunched any numbers on this yet, or is it still in the tinkering stage?[/quote']

 

Actually, the d20 drastically reduces the effectiveness of skill levels, at least near the middle of the spectrum. For example, say you need a 9- to hit... if you add a single skill level, using 3d6 you're adding 12% to hit. On the d20, a single skill level adds 5% to hit.

 

The nice thing about the d20 is that +1 is always +5%... unlike when you use 3d6, when +1 can be anywhere from +12% to +1%.

 

Nate' date=' this is the way we had been playing from the start. We found that it drives CVs into the stratosphere[/quote']

 

I think the problem is that your players are expecting to hit far too often. In Hero, the basic, even up fight has both parties hitting 62% of the time. If you're the tiniest bit better than your opponent, that goes up to 74%. Why even bother HAVING CVs if everyone just always hits or always misses? 75% chance to hit for the tiniest, most minute difference in skill?

 

and makes having 'lower' skill levels next to useless.

 

Our campaign ended up with one character having a 17OCV and a Tracking skill of 17- [which somehow still ended up failing quite a bit of the time]. His other meager skills were almost never used, the chance of success wasn't worth the time involved.

 

I don't understand that at all... an 8- skill on 3d6 is a 25% chance of success... on 1d20 it's 40%. 1d20 is actually far better for people who have lower skill levels (or are you calling anything under 14- low?).

 

It also does a nice job of both allowing and controlling advancement. While you can spend that extra point or two to bump up your score by one' date=' it's not a huge advance. It shows that you have more ability than someone with a lower score, but not so much that you can really overshadow someone with only one point less.[/quote']

 

As I said above, 3d6 actually makes small changes in score into huge changes in ability.

 

This logic applied to HERO will make it so that Spider-Man will no longer be able to count on his DCV to dodge bullets. He will be constently getting hit by every bank robber who gets a slightly lucky shot.

 

I'm not worried about bank robber vs. Spider Man... Spidey doesn't need to deflect the missiles, the bank robber has an almost zero percent chance to hit. Let's assume Spidey has DCV 10 and bank robber has 4 OCV. The bank robber has a 2% chance to hit Spidey. 2%.... and that assumes Spidey's DCV is a mere 10.

 

But is sounds like this result is what you are actually after. It is not the result that I want' date=' nor IMO is it consistent with the abilities a character of SpiderMan's SuperHuman Agility (someone who can see those bullets coming and just step out of the way).

 

Like I pointed out above, spiderman ain't getting hit unless the bank robber get crazy lucky. And as I've been saying, it's not large differences in skill that bother me, it's the small ones. It's BankRobber Vs. SecurityGuard that bothers me. BankRobber has +1 skill level to each of OCV and DCV, 'cause he's pulled a few of these jobs and has learned a little in the process. SecurityGuard has been to the shooting range, but hasn't been in any gun fights. Both have equal dex. BankRobber is just barely better than SecurityGuard... and yet BR hits SG 74% of the time, and SG hits BR 50% of the time. That's a huge difference in ability for just very small difference in skill.

 

That exact issue came up in Rifts (a system that uses 1d20) when I was playing a Juicer. The game book described a Juicer as seeing the whole world in slow motion' date=' it described Juicers as being so fast that such a character could compose a poem in his head as his sssssllllllooooowwww opponets tried to hit him. But the 1d20 game system just doesn't work like that. A juicer [i']who tries to rely on his speed to stay alive[/i] will be a dead juicer!

 

Other system has bad mechanics. Other system has 1d20. 1d20 must be a bad mechanic. Faulty logic. You can easily do a juicer in d20. The problem is that if you do it like it sounds like it should work, you have the unbeatable character. And that doesn't make the game fun for everone else who isn't playing the unbeatable character. Besides, let's see you dodge the shot from my Glitterboy's railgun shot which is mounted on top of his nigh invincible power armor. Rifts should never be used in a discussion of balance

 

I would be fine with a bell curve if it were flatter, but 3d6 is crazy tight.

 

-Nate

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

I so very much like the bell curve. An Extremely Difficult task (-5 Penalty) such as disarming a bomb as it is falling to the ground will make a normal demolitions experts (11- / 12-) highly unlikely to disarm it. But a demolitions expert (16- or higher) is going to have at least a 50% chance.

 

With the bell curve difficult tasks are difficult to the average person in the field. And difficult tasks are routine for experts. You don't get that when you are simply dropping the percentage chance by a whole number.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

I'm not worried about bank robber vs. Spider Man... Spidey doesn't need to deflect the missiles' date=' the bank robber has an almost zero percent chance to hit. Let's assume Spidey has DCV 10 and bank robber has 4 OCV. The bank robber has a 2% chance to hit Spidey. 2%.... and that assumes Spidey's DCV is a mere 10.[/quote']Except it isn't that simple with Hero. First, the Robber can Brace and get a +1 OCV Bonus. Now depending on how Spidey is built (rather, does he have Defensive Maneuver I) he could also be attacking from behind. This halves Spidey to 5 DCV making it an 11- roll or if you prefer 50% chance of hitting.

 

There are ways to bring the hard to hit down to the normal playing field. Another example is give the robber a laser sight focus on the gun (+2 OCV) and with a Brace makes it a 7 OCV vs. a 10 DCV which is at least an 8- roll.

[radioKAOS]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

I think the problem is that your players are expecting to hit far too often. In Hero, the basic, even up fight has both parties hitting 62% of the time. If you're the tiniest bit better than your opponent, that goes up to 74%. Why even bother HAVING CVs if everyone just always hits or always misses? 75% chance to hit for the tiniest, most minute difference in skill?

 

Well, in a game where combat often takes a good portion of the gaming session, you do want to hit as often as possible... Not sure what fun it is in combat if you miss most of the time... *shrug* And as has been pointed out, there are always other modifiers in combat, things that D20 doesn't deal very well with.

 

I don't understand that at all... an 8- skill on 3d6 is a 25% chance of success... on 1d20 it's 40%. 1d20 is actually far better for people who have lower skill levels (or are you calling anything under 14- low?).

 

Considering skills generally start at 11-, yeah, most skills under 14- are considered 'low'ish. 8- is called a familiarity.

 

I wasn't attacking your thought on it, I used to think that way as well. If you'd rather think of OCV vs. DCV as [11+DCV=AC, Roll + OCV to hit], then go right ahead... Of course, since you are using D20, you should probably change it to 10+DCV... but that opens a whole can of worms regarding skills as well... should they only be 8+CHA/5 rather than 9+CHA/5?

 

Above all, have fun, I'll use what I've found tried and true, and you experiment to find what will work for your troupe.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

There's nothing wrong with you using a d20 to replace the 3d6 roll. The average is the same so it isn't going to change the average game dynamic. It wil probably have quite a profound effect on individuals though. It suddenly becomes much more difficult to protect yourself with DEX and skills as the chance of hitting, say, even if you have OCV 5 and the target is OCV 13 is 15% as opposed to the current 1 in 216. Moreover, the game becomes less tactical: on a bell curve, suprise manaouvres and small bomuses beceome important: on a straight line, less so.

 

I don't intend to change, but if you try it I'd be interested to know how it went.

[Warp9]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

I'm not worried about bank robber vs. Spider Man... Spidey doesn't need to deflect the missiles, the bank robber has an almost zero percent chance to hit. Let's assume Spidey has DCV 10 and bank robber has 4 OCV. The bank robber has a 2% chance to hit Spidey. 2%.... and that assumes Spidey's DCV is a mere 10.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Lets stick to looking at what would happen if HERO switched to 1d20.

 

If we switched to 1d20, as you suggest, then "10 DCV vs 4 DCV" is a 6 point (or 30% difference).

 

Assuming 4 DCV vs 4 OCV would be a 50% chance to hit, then the Bank Robber would hit a 10 DCV Spiderman 20% (50% - 30%) of the time, not 2% as you suggest above.

 

I do not think having a 4 OCV Bank Robber hit SpiderMan 20% of the time is acceptable.

 

Are you saying that the 1d20 method would not result in Spider-Man getting hit 20% of the time? Or are you saying that you think Spider-Man should get hit 20% of the time by the 4 OCV Bank Robber?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Lets stick to looking at what would happen if HERO switched to 1d20.

 

If we switched to 1d20, as you suggest, then "10 DCV vs 4 DCV" is a 6 point (or 30% difference).

 

Assuming 4 DCV vs 4 OCV would be a 50% chance to hit, then the Bank Robber would hit a 10 DCV Spiderman 20% (50% - 30%) of the time, not 2% as you suggest above.

 

I do not think having a 4 OCV Bank Robber hit SpiderMan 20% of the time is acceptable.

 

Are you saying that the 1d20 method would not result in Spider-Man getting hit 20% of the time? Or are you saying that you think Spider-Man should get hit 20% of the time by the 4 OCV Bank Robber?

 

11+OCV-DCV will be 11+4-10=5 or less, a 25% chance on 1d20, and, interestingly, the base chance of hitting with 1d20 (at 11-) is less than on 3d6 - 55% with 1d20, 62% with 3d6.

 

If Spidey got hit by 1 in 4 bullets it would have been a short comic book

 

Even if Spidey's DCV is 20 he'll get hit 1 time in 20 though, and even that seems too much to me.

[Warp9]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

11+OCV-DCV will be 11+4-10=5 or less, a 25% chance on 1d20, and, interestingly, the base chance of hitting with 1d20 (at 11-) is less than on 3d6 - 55% with 1d20, 62% with 3d6.

 

If Spidey got hit by 1 in 4 bullets it would have been a short comic book

 

Even if Spidey's DCV is 20 he'll get hit 1 time in 20 though, and even that seems too much to me.

I totally agree!

 

That is exactly why characters like Juicers and SpiderMan do not work in a 1d20 system.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

Considering skills generally start at 11-' date=' yeah, most skills under 14- are considered 'low'ish. 8- is called a familiarity.[/quote']

 

A 25% chance to accomplish a familiarity skill seems pretty good to me. 40% seems pretty ridiculous for "familiarity" when 11- (good enough to do this for a livings) is 55% and 14- (extremely capable) is 70%. 30% chance of success spread between "took a couple of courses on that in college" and "an expert in the field" seems pretty light. Spread from 26% to 91% seems at least a bit more like it.

 

The real concern, however, is when tasks are more or less difficult. Make this a very difficult task, imposing a -3 on the chance of success.

 

d20:

 

Familiar = 25%

Professional = 40%

Expert = 55%

 

vs 3d6:

 

Familiar = 4.63%

Professional = 25.93%

Expert = 62.5%

 

Let's take a routine task, and we'll take some extra time to do it (which is what we commonly do if we do this for a living - a journeyman and an expert get to the same place on a routine task, they just take a lot different time to do it)

 

Let's say the expert in the field can generally spot the typical problem in a phase (no extra time). True with 3d6 (90+% with a 14-) but not with d20 (70%).

 

Our professional (11-) gets up to that 90% chance by taking 5 minutes, and our journeyman by taking 6 hours (ie the whole work day). Probably reasonable for a "no modifiers" task, as that's a pretty tough one when you think most people can successfully practice their trade successfully more than 62.5% of the time.

 

Make the task routine (+3 to +5; say +4).

 

Our expert fails one time in 216 (0.46% chance) in Hero, but 10% of the time in Hero. An acknowledged expert gets a routine task wrong 1 time in 10?? The best he can ever do is be wrong 1 time in 20 (imagine the cost of malpractice insurance!)

 

Our competent character fails less than 5% of the time, but fails 25% of the time in d20. Taking just a bit of extra time and he fails 1.85% (1 notch of time) or .46% (2 steps up the time chart) versus 20% and 15% in d20. Is this guy really qualified to do his job if he screws something routine, with minimal pressure, up one time in 6?

 

The journeyman (12-) will get it right almost 3/4 of the time (60% in d20). Most trainees can get a routine task right fairly regularly, and extra time boosts this guy to 14- (90%+), but only 70% in D&D. Most professions have journeymen doing work for real clients, and I can tell you a 30% failure rate on routine tasks means you won't be around long enough to become a seasoned veteran.

 

Now, that's real life, and games aren't about real life. This question is as much about game style as any sense of reality. But, for me, it's a better progression. That +1 doesn't mean much to an expert attempting a routine task, nor should it. It means a lot to the poor guy who's just familiar with the topic, as it should.

 

Getting back to the Spidey example, at the start of his career, he didn't have any real combat experience, so he relied mainly on natural DEX, but let's give him +3 DCV for SpideySense (basically, he can always sense it coming and get a dodge bonus). His SpideySense generally prevented surprise, so his DCV's never halved. The professional wrestler in Amazing Fantasy first appearance couldn't lay a glove on him. He does this for a living, so a 6 seems reasonable (say an 11-14 DEX and a level or maneuver bonus or 2). He'll pretty much always connect with Joe Six Pack (14- = 90.74% chance) in Hero, and 65% in d20.

 

Give Spidey a 30 DEX, and Wrestler needs a 3 to hit that 13 DCV - only on an extremely lucky shot. To get a remotely similar result with a d20, Spidey needs a 25 DCV, or a 65 DEX. Bit of stat inflation there?

 

For me, the Hero 3d6 bell curve works just fine.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

I favor the 3d6 method for all the reasons stated above.

 

Simply put, an 11- is a 62.5% chance to succeed. In other words, say you just purchased Stealth. You will now succeed at sneaking past people 62.5% of the time, all other conditions being equal -- which is reasonable, you learned and know the skill completely. However, you have not yet mastered it. After a session during which you practiced Stealth, you use experience points to raise your Stealth up to 12-. That's a 74% chance to succeed, all other things being equal -- an increase of +11.5% to your original 62.5%. That's quite a large increase -- because we are still close to the middle of the curve.

 

After several more sessions, your Stealth skill is now bought up to 14-. That's a 90.75% chance to succeed. Even this far along, the next level -- 15- -- increases the percentage chance by almost 5%, to 95.4%. The point at which you start to get less bang for your buck than you do with a 1d20 in the 3d6 system is when approaching a very high or very low level of skill. And that makes sense to me. If you're really good, it takes a lot of work to get even a little bit better -- and as others have pointed out, in Hero, every little bit counts. And if you're really bad, you can only be just SO bad.

 

Still, all Skills, even mere Familiarity ones, start 8-. Well, untrained skills will start quite low, but that's par for the course. An 8- is a 25.9% chance to succeed, all other modifiers being equal -- not bad for passing familiarity with a skill, especially if you have a nice set of tools. Also consider than higher skill levels help to offset negative modifiers, and vice versa. That's why skill levels above 20- make sense in some campaigns (can we say Combat Piloting, say thankya?).

[BigJackBrass]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

From a personal viewpoint I prefer 3d6, or even 2d6 in games built around that roll. Percentage or D20 rolls have a nasty tendency to throw up wildly varying results, and as a GM that usually means more stuff to fudge and paper over because it makes so little sense in the contaxt of the game. Changing HERO to a D20, consequently, does not appeal to me.

 

However, had HERO been written with a D20 roll in mind it might have worked perfectly well, but getting around the quirks of such a flat roll would require far too many tweaks and special mechanics to make retrofitting a viable option, I think. I like the tight bell curve. To me it matches human (and superhuman) performance quite nicely.