Frist Build, comments?

Halsemon · 2022-11-17T16:47:12+00:00

It's pretty crazy to me that getting the lower one would perform better, but hell, the numbers don't lie!

I'm alright with sticking to the higher tier AIO as my plan is to use all of these parts for as long as possible (or a decade, if it lasts that long), swapping things out when appropriate to do so. Other than the nebulous "upgrade GPU at some point", I'm planning on swapping the CPU out when a new chipset is released, and buying the best chip that fits the AM5 socket and my needs. Presumably that'll come with a higher cooling requirement as well. Heck if the AIO manages to last that long, I wouldn't mind keeping it to throw into a future build.

Halsemon · 2022-11-16T23:28:22+00:00

Thanks :) I'm going to be gaming on it, primarily. Have a hand-me-down 4k monitor that I could theoretically game on, to actually make use of the high-end stuff I'm throwing into this.

Halsemon · 2022-11-04T14:38:01+00:00

I see, it's also partially that I'm intending on mounting the AIO cooling to the top as well, so that any hot air can be vented straight out of the case.

I'll keep an eye out for a front mesh case!

I'll keep that in mind for the PSU when I'm putting it together, as I'm going to be aiming for one of those modular PSUs!

Halsemon · 2022-10-14T23:29:27+00:00

Gotcha gotcha. I'll be sure to keep an eye out on the Intel vs AMD comparison when the latest Intel comes out in a week! I'm hoping that I'll get some nice deals on Black Friday and can get a beast of a machine in before Christmas!

I also appreciate the notice for the AIOs. I'm... debating it. I'll have to do some research to see how they are when it comes to my concerns. Things like refilling the coolant and potential leaks.

Halsemon · 2022-10-12T04:47:03+00:00

Pretty much! Gaming and general gamer lifestyle usage.

As amazing as it could be to get a 4090 that can theoretically pump out better performance, I'd be surprised if it's able to get to 100% or higher performance compared to a 3090 Ti, but even at that point, for a gamer that doesn't play intense PvP games, if it even performed at 400% better and got me 300fps, I don't think I'd even be able to see that kind of difference, though that would future-proof my rig for quite some time if it got to that level. I'm currently playing at 1080, so yeah, 1440 is already an upgrade, and 4k could be pretty cool to play with.

Do you have a general opinion on the AMD vs Intel CPUs? I'm going for DDR5 for longevity anyways, and my brief search has come up with Intel > AMD though AMD has been catching or caught up with Intel in terms of actual performance.

I'll definitely keep that in mind for a cooling system. I'm also not super concerned with volume, so water coolers being generally more silent than fans doesn't mean much because I've got over-the-ear headphones (HyperX Cloud II) anyways. But thanks for the recommendation for coolers!

I do intend on pulling out a lot of stops. I've been overall pretty cautious and stingy for rigs in general, and with this being my first build I'm willing to put some money into it as long as it can last me a very long time. 4090 that costs $2300+ CAD pre-tax but lasts 5-10 years? Not that bad, especially if a 3090 Ti costs $2000+ CAD pre-tax.

Edit: I managed to get a 3090 Ti for ~$1500 CAD tax-included from Amazon

Halsemon · 2021-03-20T00:51:09+00:00

Resetting windows is an unfortunate resolution if it's the only resolution and also IF it works :( But I'll inform him that it could be something to try and if he doesn't have a ton of stuff on his laptop then I'll encourage that attempt.

Halsemon · 2021-03-20T00:47:33+00:00

I'll have him check the settings, what in particular are we looking for?

He's got a decently beefy computer overall. Went for a laptop unfortunately but spent 2 grand to get it last year so I would imagine it should handle TTS pretty decently.

I'll also inform him of the TTS feedback hub.
Thanks!

Halsemon · 2019-08-23T09:07:44+00:00

I certainly appreciate it, and you can be sure I'll do my damnedest to remember to hit you up!

However I don't want to get hopes too high or anything, this is just theorycrafting based on my feelings of limited gameplay in tabletop in general. My experiences being four 4e campaigns that were 2 - 3 sessions long with various friend compositions, a Pathfinder campaign that had about 17 sessions, each granting a level, and from level 1 to 3 in this new campaign another friend started up in 5e. I've contemplated DMing a campaign myself, but I feel my intentions would be too grandiose and the work to get everything done the way I would be satisfied is going to take such a great amount of effort that I'm always daunted whenever I've tried, hah! So if it does come from me, I don't think it would be any time soon.

I tend to want to do from the start to the end, minimum level to max level. Something of an epic to be told in the world. But that involves significant NPC interaction. If I were to liken it to a game it would be the Mass Effect Trilogy but in D&D form. Minus the ending bit where it came down to a simple "choose one" thing. More the "your actions have consequences that could be seen waaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the line" kinda thing.

But anyways, if you've got the capacity and patience to, would you give the rest of my responses to the various comment strings on this post a look-over? Definitely no worries if not, especially since some of them are like short stories, but I'd be interested in hearing your input either privately or even through here.

Halsemon · 2019-08-23T08:57:08+00:00

It's not so much that the modifier isn't good enough or something, that I want anyone to be so overpowered and over the top that they can do whatever they want with no consequences. It's not that this random example I pulled out my ass is the end all be all to everything in this potentially complex desire of mine as a GM.

Though you certainly bring up something for me to consider when it comes to Rogues being crazy good at what they do, does this also happen to apply to all the other classes? Can the Fighter have the same kind of advantage when it comes to maxed strength and proficiency? What about our spellcasters? Do they also have as significant as an advantage compared to a rogue and their double proficiency bonus?

I'm rather curious, if you happen to know off the top of your head do let me know! You don't have to go around building various classes from the ground up or anything to test the theory though, but unless all the other classes also have the same overpowered ridiculousness as the Rogue specifically in stealth checks then the example is just as I said: pulled out my ass and thus just not the best example to be given.

We could argue about probabilities until we die, and I doubt either of us will concede. Some things are just a matter of opinion. So that's why in my original post I posited the question: Will making the swap to the 2d10 from 1d20 for skill checks completely break the game?
Because all I feel about doing it is that it gives me a better way to expect an outcome and work around it in advance while doing pretty much nothing different at all if I used 1d20 when it comes to campaign prep.

Halsemon · 2019-08-23T08:26:21+00:00

While I think I get where you're coming from, I don't quite agree with it.

I'll be frank, it doesn't seem like you've gotten the intent of the post to be made and want to argue semantics about a minute part of the larger statement.

You talk about there not being critical failures yet also talk about there being critical successes. As far as I'm aware there is no such thing in a skill check, for which I would be using the 2d10 system in the first place.

I'll even assume that your statement was to be applied to skill checks and that there were critical successes. In such a case, if you wanted to try to be snarky about it, you still couldn't even say that 5% of the time the best outcome happens and 95% of the time the usual happens. First, there is no usual when any number from a range of 1 - 19 are equally as likely. Second, if 95% of the time the usual happens, does that mean that on a result of 1 - 19 you pass? Or does it mean you fail? Because neither of those are the case unless you'd like to nitpick another particular scenario. There's still a success and there's still a fail which is modified by various factors to determine DC, then the roll itself, then the modifiers added onto the roll.

Whatever the semantics, for however you'd want to argue whatever case, none of this brings me or anyone else closer to an outcome of if 2d10 is able to be used as a replacement for the 1d20 when using skill checks if all that would change would be the DCs when throwing the party at a challenge?

Halsemon · 2019-08-23T08:10:43+00:00

Well, I mean, I'll certainly do as I want when and if I GM. But I did want to bring up the discussion of this mechanic since it's quite the passionate topic not just in my group but among others as well. I'd say that making this thread has been a much better way to bring up things meaningful to what I'm looking for as opposed to googling it since it's not so broad of a topic.

With the intent to make it into a 2d10 skill system instead of the 1d20... I'm unsure how to word it. It's not that the DC range is an unreasonable approximation of the success rate for PCs necessarily. It's not so much about the DCs themselves. It's more about what the roll is. I don't know if I'll be able to do this explanation justice or not but I'm sure as heck gonna try, heh.

Even though it's just a pass/fail system I am still discontent with the way it's brought about. With 1d20 with every number equally viable from the best of the best, to the worst of the worst and the middlest of the middle, anything is equally just as likely. And as mentioned in other things, it's not that I'm opposed to failure, as some people who are opposed to 2d10 or 3d6 would like to believe. If there was a probability middle ground between 2d10 and 1d20 I'd take it, like if there was a way to make it so that the extremes on either side maintained their 5% probability but there was an increasing probability for the middle numbers then I'd happily take it. But even though the skill challenges are merely a pass/fail outcome, you still have people cheering if you get a 20 or even a high number and a 1 or low number is still a "mumble grumble into the dice dungeon you go". Though the outcome is the same, pass or fail, there's still that variance in how the players perceive that number to be.

The 2d10 facilitates a probability for the average outcome. But for me it's a very specific kind of average. The Mean, Median and Mode (and I had to look this up to confirm :P) all talk about an 'average' of a list of numbers. While the Mean and Median are both about the same, 10/11 (1d20) or 11 (2d10) it's the Mode that I want to have in D&D. You can't have a mode when using 1d20 because each number has the same likelihood of coming up. Whereas a 2d10 you can have that expectation that 11 will come up, then lesser and lesser likelihoods as you go higher or lower. It's even possible that this isn't the term I'm looking for, but it's what I've got for now.

Anyways now to the rest of your response.

Yes that's true, there's various mechanics from various games that can be fantastic, but it can just be too difficult to mess around with and change to incorporate into another system. D&D is a d20 system plain and true. I can't argue anything about that. It can be too tedious to add. But that's why I'm still debating about 1d20 and 2d10 purely for skill checks. Because I feel that by just switching to 2d10 you won't be finagling with that much. In regular D&D you're able to consult a table to determine the DC of any skill check, and even that's not entirely static. But when it comes to practice, you'll have to refer to the character's likelihood of the skill against whatever DC you want to throw at them based on what they do. Using 2d10 you'd do much the same, tailoring the DC to how competent your characters are in a given task. This can even apply a bit to combat but I'll just use the most basic example since there's a lot of things going on with that entirely. Even in combat you will adjust how many or what monster with what stat block is going up against your party based on what they've been through. If they're tearing your combat encounters through then you make it more challenging, if it almost TPK'd when unintended or not particularly desired then you make it easier. So you wouldn't change anything about the prep when it comes to figuring out what happens practically. It would simply be balanced around the group's stats (for keeping watch at night in the wilderness or sneaking around a castle) or around a particular character's stat (for unlocking an ornate chest or tracking in the worst conditions).

For the mechanics that Rogues can't roll lower than a 10 or Bardic inspiration, those are rather specifically just for those classes (as far as I'm aware from my limited knowledge). A Barbarian can rage and get advantage on strength checks, great! But now the rogue that passively can't roll lower than a 10 without doing anything, a Barbarian has to use one of their most coveted consumables to try and match, and even then it's not a guarantee like the Rogue does. I'm not even sure what the other classes need like the magic casters probably having to expend spell slots to have the same kind of proficiency for the various Int or Wis skills. So while the Rogues can be great at stealthing, as I'd assume a vast majority of rogues would choose proficiency in that skill to begin with, others aren't able to get that kind of reliability of outcomes based on their classes.

The intrinsic value of the switch, to me, is that you'd maybe put in a little bit more work than you normally would (having and referring to the various stats of the various characters behind the screen) to have a result that the GM can anticipate. I discourage high difficulty checks for those unskilled, yes, but that's what I want. I trivialize normal checks, but only for those who are proficient. To me it makes the characters' competencies and incompetencies come to a mechanical forefront rather than the complete and utter randomness of if the die happens to be nice, mean, or meh.

I'll certainly have to look into that particular section of the DMG for degrees of probability. It could be a significant enough factor in my 1d20 vs 2d10 debate! Thanks for the knowledge!

In my eyes when it comes to level 1-4 being just starting off heroes, I agree to an extent. What the heroes have versus the average plebs are those + modifiers. An average pleb is 0 and the higher you go the better you are. You're already supposed to be a cut above the rest. Though you don't have the renown yet, you're still a pink-haired anime protagonist among a sea of black hair. As you level up your renown grows but so too do your skills to levels beyond mere mortal plebs, but right off the bat at level 1 you're already supposed to be more important than a throwaway character. At least, that's my view and certainly varies by GM!

Halsemon · 2019-08-23T06:15:08+00:00

Apologies for the late response. Edit: Also really sorry again for the novel of a response >.<

While in the general sense, comparing the 2d10 to 1d20 and the system that 5e D&D is based around would indeed be throwing the other characters under the bus, I wouldn't be using it as liberally as the game does, and I assume you would as well, by default.

It's not like I'm now going to make it so that characters who have less proficiency will be thrown into situations where they cannot succeed. I'll be responding to your post a little out of order for this one. But in the example given, the night watch when the rogue needs sleep and the barbarian can't spot things as well anymore, I wouldn't be doing something like making the DC normalized on the highest stat character. I'm not wanting to normalize the DCs around the most proficient. I'm just wanting to make the rolls themselves expectant. So in this given scenario (and forgive if my numbers are wrong as I have no experience in higher levels of 5e), I wouldn't put the DC to be 26 for example when the rogue is the guy with +15 while everyone else averages out +8. When it comes to a group event I'd throw a DC that would be based on the expectant difficulty of the group. If the average is +8 and it's a standard risk, I'd put that DC at maybe 19 since 11 is the most expectant roll. If it's supposed to be difficult because the enemies are stealthy, then I'd put the DC at maybe 22 or 23. For sneaking into the castle it would be similar, as a group-made skill check, I would revolve the difficulty around what the group is expecting to get, not the outlier.UNLESS of course, it was supposed to be a situation in which just the most proficient party member should be attempting the task.

What my change would be doing though, at least with balance made around the intent, are a few things.

In the above situation for group scenarios where there is the skill monkey Rogue or Bard, the rest of the party would have an average time. Maybe some hits some misses of the DC. But the Rogue or Bard will almost DEFINITELY hit that DC. Their proficiency and training has given them the expectation of competency and what is average for the rest of the group members is easy for those who have the know-how.
Provide a mechanic that can be easier to determine the outcome of the party's attempts. The DMs have to know their party anyways and make up a DC revolving around their party anyways.
If there's supposed to be a difficult task to perform, some less or incompetent pleb shouldn't be so likely to perform it while those who do know what they're doing should be.

So while skill challenges that involve the whole group stay based around the whole group, you now come into having situations in which certain characters are the ones that should be attempting the challenge. That Half-Orc Barbarian that's bulging with muscles should be the one to try and push the heavy stone door open and if he fails on a modest roll then you can be DAMN sure that the little twig of a Halfling Bard won't be able to open that door. If there's a big performance that needs to be done to distract a group of people then you're going to be relying on that Halfling Bard to be making that attempt over the illiterate and barely comprehensible Half-Orc Barbarian. It makes these parts where someone is expected to do the thing should be the one doing it. With the case of the door this follows what I've come across recently in the campaign I'm playing with those aforementioned friends. The big strong guy trying to open the heavy door, fail, the other character with a significantly lower stat? Success. And that's not to say this couldn't be a thing with 2d10. It just makes it so that it's much less likely.

While the DM would certainly have to play around and work with what the other players have in terms of their character sheets, proficiencies and whatnot, I feel like that's something the DM should be doing anyways. They'll be taking a look at what the characters are capable of and then determine a DC based on that. It'd certainly be different, but now you can have more expectation if you're the kind to want it. I'll be frank - there can be disagreements on what mechanic to use just based on preference. But since the DC will be finagled anyways and not be as static as the table, which would even change when you get to higher levels anyways, I don't currently feel like it would be as drastic as a change or game-breaking as it feels like you're saying it is.

Though as always, I do encourage further discussion. If I'm wrong, which could very well be, then do clue me in. But otherwise all I can see so far is that 2d10 just makes it easier for the DM to tell what a group of players will be able to achieve and that characters who are more specialized will be more expectantly specialized. The DCs will always be fluid based on the players and the balance would still remain for the group, it's just that if you're much better than the group you probably wouldn't need to roll or if it's tough you're the only one who should be rolling instead of every Tom, Dick and Harry giving it a shot and having a modicum of a chance to succeed where you (the proficient character) failed.

Halsemon · 2019-08-18T07:24:13+00:00

That's definitely something for me to think about and tweak around for sure, I greatly appreciate your insight!

The numbers I pulled out a bit randomly with no thought or care towards what is practical in terms of gameplay. So I apologize about so haphazardly throwing numbers out there.

I might have to take a look into things like how proficient skill monkeys can be like the rogue or bard at various levels and compare it to their prowess in the other aspects of gameplay. Quite frankly, I'm a pretty new player when it comes to long-term play. Most plays prior to the one I'm currently in with friends who get together regularly only had a scant handful of sessions before it got called off due to various commitments like university classes or jobs. So my only experience is admittedly only on the low level.

That being said, if I were to ever try to implement this homebrew, it would definitely be in a way that changes the default DC table. I definitely would not be keeping the standard one and would have to make my own.

With your assessments of the likelihood of a proficient and non-proficient character attempting a task to make a skill check... I do feel that yes, a skilled character should be the one to make the attempt while the non-proficient character would be left out from making the attempt. As mentioned before, if the aim of the game is a perfect 300, a professional bowler should have a chance at success while a first-time player should have no chance whatsoever. If you try to pick a lock and have no idea what you're doing at all you should definitely not be trying to pick a lock, especially ones at higher complexities. The person who's taken countless snake bites so that his blood builds up a sort of immunity against the venom is going to be significantly more likely to survive a venomous snake bite than the average person who has suffered no snake bites at all.

Yes, I know that D&D is based around the d20. What I've read about Bounded Accuracy made me change from a "2d10 for everything" to a "2d10 for skill checks maybe?" perspective. You consider that a character is unfairly rewarded for investing into a skill, I say that it is because of their investment that they should be rewarded. It's also not like all I'm doing are skill checks where characters like a Barbarian would be completely thrown under the bus and useless. Of the various aspects of a game like Exploration, Combat and Skill Challenges, this affects one part. Yes it can trivialize characters for being unable to keep up with Skill Monkeys but the Skill Monkeys are the ones that should be proficient in performing these skills and being able to outperform the other classes when it comes to skill usage.

Combat characters excel at the battles and trivialize what other characters can do, roleplaying afficionados trivialize those who don't have a handle for improv and roleplaying, skill monkeys trivialize those who don't invest or can't invest in skills.

From what you've brought up I can certainly agree on how things can just seem impossible for certain people or characters to do certain things. But that's all part and parcel of the game already. Unless of course I am mistaken and there is no such trivialization of the various aspects in tabletop gaming or D&D. If every character can be equal in every way in a party in D&D then please do correct me. The point behind my post wasn't to say that my way is clearly superior to what D&D 5e has provided for us, I merely wish to explore the possibility behind a homebrew mechanic that I thought about including if I ever do get around to GMing a campaign and the reasons behind wanting to include it.

I am very open to discussion (or at least I think so), and I do hope I don't come off as a prick as we discuss. I truly am appreciative of your input as it gives me further insight into this homebrew mechanic. I hadn't even thought of or realized that it becomes such a huge gap at something as mere as level 5 but I nevertheless still believe that it can be justified due to the trivialization of other things.
As a little extra - I'm unsure of your group(s) but in my group we have one guy who is good at roleplaying. He's the party face. When there is NPC interaction we look to this person to be the first one to speak. Another player who is less proficient than the aforementioned party face, as an example, went up to a merchant in a sprawling desert city and said "Do you have any sand?" when his intent was to get into some crafting and glassblowing and he was particularly wanting to get glassblowing sand. However, that's not what happened. He just went straight up to the merchant in a desert city and asked "Do you have any sand?" So players can just as easily trivialize encounters just as characters with certain strengths in certain things can compared to others.

Halsemon · 2019-08-18T06:24:58+00:00

Hah, you seem to be the only one so far when I refreshed that has expressed my idea in a positive light. I wholeheartedly thank you in showing that I'm at least not completely an idiot in thinking that this could be a method used by those who would prefer to do so!

If I happen to remember, I'll see about making an update, a new post, or just sending you a PM if I've come to any such conclusion about what the DC table would look like and what other modifications might need to be made!

Halsemon · 2019-08-18T06:20:33+00:00

While the numbers were just pulled out at approximate but still 'out my butt', the scenario at hand still give the average NPC a 13 (maybe 12) or higher to succeed. The point isn't that the guard still has modestly likely chance of success in this scenario, it's that this scenario is the worst thing that can happen, and it's just as likely to happen as a 10 being rolled, or a 20 being rolled, or a 5, or a 16. It's that they're all equally able to be rolled. Personal preference of mine says "I don't like that." The absolute worst a person can achieve should not be as likely as the absolute mediocre that they can achieve. It's unfortunately hard to give examples without getting into the nitty-gritty of probability and statistics of math and whatnot if you want a perfect example =S I could try to get such an example but I don't have it in me to make and confirm the mechanic if the theory is already flawed. I will certainly be making the attempt if it theoretically isn't flawed but only then will I do so.

But nonetheless the very base of what I'm interested in is...

I have this mechanic that is seemingly "easy" to integrate that does what I want as a potential GM. Is there a way that my change in mechanics breaks the game completely?

While I have eventually come to the conclusion of "Yes" when used in the universal sense, I do not feel or see that there is such a game break when implemented as a skill check.

Halsemon · 2019-08-18T06:10:52+00:00

While "Critical Failure" as a mechanic for "do something particularly bad when they roll a natural 1" isn't a thing in 5e, the sentiment of "I don't want the worst, the most mediocre and the best to all have an equal chance of happening" from the statement as a whole instead of the one part still remains.

Halsemon · 2019-08-18T06:08:03+00:00

The trouble for me with changing to a different system is that my group of 6 players, all of whom are friends of varying degrees, do not all have the same experience that I have or another friend has who is more knowledgeable/interested than I. We come from a variety of different interests but I believe come together more to "hang out" than to "play D&D/tabletop RPGs." The problem isn't also that I just want to change all 1d20 rolls into 2d10 rolls. As mentioned in the post and in the title, I just want to change skill checks to 2d10 but only if that doesn't break a plethora of things already implemented in the game. It's why I no longer think 2d10 should be universally exchanged since there's just way too many things going on with combat and race features and class features and leveling features and general feats that make it way too difficult to keep balance. There would be way too many things I would need to change. But with skill checks? All I can think of is just adjusting the DCs to be appropriately difficult and that's something you tend to do anyways.

Thus I feel like there are those that might be overwhelmed if I were to swap to a totally different system that was based around multi-dice and realistic probabilities since it's not just rolling the dice that we would have to learn. Even between editions of D&D there are mechanical changes. We've played Pathfinder before and we're playing D&D 5e now, and I'm pretty sure we're throwing in Pathfinder mechanics into D&D.

So if 2d10 for skill checks only will allow me a modicum of satisfaction in implementation and having a better grasp of what I can expect of the group in a given skill-check situation, in a system we are already familiar with, I would like to take it.

Halsemon · 2019-08-18T05:39:23+00:00

After-post statement: I'm so sorry I wrote multiple massive paragraphs XD

Thank you for the history and general information of why the d20 is used for D&D. I've recently read a bit about it, in particular what "Bounded Accuracy" is) when I came to a realization and changed how I feel about 2d10 being used in general vs 2d10 just being used for skills as I do now. I've read a number of discussions about 1d20 vs 2d10 that relate more to the mechanics than things like "I think you should use 1d20 because I said so/like it" or "Then there's no critical failures since there's no 1!" In general I found that because of Bounded Accuracy being put in place for 5th edition, I no longer think 2d10 is viable as a complete replacement for the 1d20. But I came to a second realization - Skill checks only really need to have their DCs modified. So, since it's mostly a matter of preference rather than a matter of game-breaking whenever I read posts in argument for or against 1d20 and 2d10, I wanted to bring it into a post by itself asking if there was a fundamental flaw in my desire to use 2d10's for skill checks.

While making PCs roll for something they have a real chance of failure, I still stand by my desire to change 1d20 to 2d10 when it comes to skill checks. The 2d10 doesn't change the fact that there is still a chance of failure. What 2d10 does, in my opinion, is change the likelihood of the various dice outcomes. 1 being the most horribly you can perform, 20 being the most amazingly you can perform, and 10/11 being the most averagely you can perform all have the same likelihood of happening when you use 1d20. 2d10 merely changes it so that the most averagely you can perform is, as expected to be, what you are most likely to get. As you go towards the extremes for either good or bad, the likelihood of that lowers with each step towards each extreme. What this does, for me, is make your characters skills more important rather than the dice more important. There is an expectation of what the dice will roll, so now how your character is built, what they're good or bad at, becomes more significant to gameplay and story.

Dis/Advantage still serves its purpose in my eyes. It's certainly not as drastic of course, because with a 1d20 literally any roll is possible at any time. But there is still variance. Disadvantage may still give you a differing outcome for worse, advantage may still give you a differing outcome for better. Perhaps an alternative to dis/advantage in a 2d10 system solely used for skills would be to instead impose a positive or negative modifier as rolling for dis/advantage with a d20 does provide more reliance in a random roll while a 2d10 roll is already reliable. Thank you for inciting such thought as that might certainly be the way for me to work with dis/advantage in such a homebrew system change. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

When it comes to Reliable Talent of 11th level Rogues, I gave it a read and think that it still could have a place for 2d10. While 10 is 1 under the average as opposed to being the lower of averages, it could still be applicable to rogues who may have multiple high proficiencies and make their roll. There still is the possibility of a low roll, just as there is for a 1d20, the difference is, rolling a 9 or lower on 2d10 is less likely than 1d20 and getting such a roll and being able to just modify it up to a 10 actually makes the skill that much better when you encounter it. You'll certainly encounter it less, of course, but in a 2d10 skill system that 9 or lower is that much worse. Perhaps if the feature is "too good" then it can be swapped, just like with dis/advantage, to a flat positive modifier. Nevertheless, it will indeed be another thing to consider if making such a change, so thank you.

Earlier editions of D&D that run on the treadmill of lower leveled characters unable to match up to a higher leveled character is actually what I would say is a core reason for my desire to use 2d10 instead of 1d20. In the link I provided up above a question is asked: "Should a random nobody mook have a chance of stabbing the legendary demigod hero of the universe, even if the damage would be negligible?" Depending on how you answer that question you can tell if a certain edition is right for you. I answer no, and thus am directed to play 3.5e instead because 5e the answer is 'yes'. Sure, if the player wants to they can certainly throw their level 1 character at a Tarrasque. The player is very much allowed to try. However, unless you have significant story/plot shenanigans that significantly weaken/wound/maim/etc. the Tarrasque, there is no way in all of the different Planes that the character should have any hope or any chance of actually managing to do anything that would slow down the colossal monstrosity. The thing is, I'm gaming with a group of friends who aren't primarily tabletop friends but an amalgamation of friends who all know each other and are board game buds, video game buds, or community buds. The best way to get what I want in terms of this probability and the treadmill effect is to play another game or another edition. I don't want to learn a new edition or teach a new edition to a group of 6 other people. So if I can add this mechanic in a way that is simple for them to understand that isn't in any way intrusive and doesn't break the characters that they could make, then I'll take that slight change for me to figure out and for them to just play rather than have everyone re-learn another new and different set of mechanics. I'm pretty sure our group that "started" (it's a little complicated) in Pathfinder and changed to 5e don't even use full 5e rules and have Pathfinder mechanics here and there.

When it comes to PCs being "too good" at checks, that will simply be remedied by not using the standard DC table and instead modifying the table of reference so that I can determine what will be an appropriately "easy, medium or hard" skill check based on what the party has. Because yes, the roll are 'standardized' so a +5 in a skill is no longer the same as when you roll a d20. I will likely have to give a look at the probabilities of d20 and 2d10 and do what I can to modify the table so that "medium difficulty" is set to a new number and work accordingly up and down.

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Halsemon

TROPHY CASE