All d6 OD&D

[Deleted]

Now I've always been a little slow when it comes to mathematics, but I've always been intrigued by an "All d6" OD&D game mechanic. So here are some of my ideas:

Really, there are only (2) major things to switch over to d6: Attack Rolls & Saving Throws. My theory works on a 3d6 model. I'll start with the Attack Roll:

If you stick with the AC9 to AC2 model as being the high-low range, you could make hitting AC2 possible with a 3d6 roll of (18), adding any applicable modifiers, then just moving backwards (17=AC3, 16=AC4, etc.). Of course, this is modified by PC level. Once again, I don't really know much about probability, so if I'm way off here, let me know.

As for Saving Throws, I would guess you could do the same thing as for combat, starting low to high.

[glow=red,2,300]I like the chart Wothbora posted here:[/glow]
That seems like it would work pretty well for thief abilities.

As for wandering monster/miscellaneous charts, you would have to make your own, but I'm sure we all do anyway, so that's the easy part.

Would any of this make sense in a mechanical way? This is something that I've always been interested in doing, but have yet to put on paper (until right now). Any feedback is helpful!!!

[foster1941]

For attack rolls you can use 2d6 roll-low, target number = target AC (i.e. to hit an AC 9 target you need to roll a 9 or less on 2d6, to hit an AC 2 target you need to roll 2 or less on 2d6). -1 on the roll (or +1 to the target's AC, same difference) for each "step" on the attack charts (i.e. fighters get +1 at levels 4-6, +2 at levels 7-9, etc.). I've both looked at the numbers on this and tested it a bit in play and it works pretty well -- low ACs are harder to hit than in the traditional (d20) system, high ACs are easier to hit, mid-range ACs are about the same. Adjustments count for more (even a simple +1 to hit can make a huge difference if it falls at the right spot on the curve) and magic armor becomes extremely valuable (rendering characters hit-proof against low level characters and monsters unless they can find an offsetting advantage (flanking, height, etc.)). If you use this system you have to rework the monsters' attack chart to advance in the same increments as the character chart (the monster chart has too many columns) and you should probably limit access to plate armor for the first level or two.

[foster1941]

Saving throws are harder to do using 2d6, assuming you want to retain something resembling the percentages of the d20-based charts. I did a rough conversion of the saving throw chart to 2d6 values but I wasn't happy with it -- because of the curved distribution too many of the fine distinctions were lost so that, IIRC, all the classes ended up having the same saves at 1st level -- the flavor element of clerics being better against poison and death, fighters being better against dragon breath, and magic-users bad at pretty much everything were lost.

One way to retain those distinctions is to use the "percentiles on 2d6 emulator" table, which originally appeared in Fight in the Skies (or at least so I understand), was reprinted in The Dragon (and again in Best of The Dragon vol. I) in the article "What To Do When the Dog Eats Your Dice?," and has been posted online at least once by me. This is an inelegant solution to be sure (requiring 2 table look-ups per roll -- at the saving throw chart to see what your target is, and then at the emulator chart to see what you need to roll) but is probably the easiest way to achieve "d6 only" D&D.

The other method is just to rewrite the saving throw tables altogether and not worry about matching the percentages of the d20 table. Anyone serious about doing a d6-only D&D campaign should probably do this. I never did because 1) it seemed like too much work, and 2) I'm concerned about the balance issues of making saves easier or harder (resolving which would require more analysis and playtesting, which would exacerbate issue 1 even further).

[korgoth]

foster1941 said:

For attack rolls you can use 2d6 roll-low, target number = target AC (i.e. to hit an AC 9 target you need to roll a 9 or less on 2d6, to hit an AC 2 target you need to roll 2 or less on 2d6). -1 on the roll (or +1 to the target's AC, same difference) for each "step" on the attack charts (i.e. fighters get +1 at levels 4-6, +2 at levels 7-9, etc.). I've both looked at the numbers on this and tested it a bit in play and it works pretty well -- low ACs are harder to hit than in the traditional (d20) system, high ACs are easier to hit, mid-range ACs are about the same. Adjustments count for more (even a simple +1 to hit can make a huge difference if it falls at the right spot on the curve) and magic armor becomes extremely valuable (rendering characters hit-proof against low level characters and monsters unless they can find an offsetting advantage (flanking, height, etc.)). If you use this system you have to rework the monsters' attack chart to advance in the same increments as the character chart (the monster chart has too many columns) and you should probably limit access to plate armor for the first level or two.

What a great idea! Thanks (and Exalt).

I really like the idea of d6 OD&D. The d20 is cool and useful, but at least as a thought experiment it's quite fun. There's a certain purity about an all-d6 game.

[korgoth]

foster1941 said:

Saving throws are harder to do using 2d6, assuming you want to retain something resembling the percentages of the d20-based charts. I did a rough conversion of the saving throw chart to 2d6 values but I wasn't happy with it -- because of the curved distribution too many of the fine distinctions were lost so that, IIRC, all the classes ended up having the same saves at 1st level -- the flavor element of clerics being better against poison and death, fighters being better against dragon breath, and magic-users bad at pretty much everything were lost.

Here's a question for the math-savvy:
We're all familiar with the method of generating inflated stats by rolling "4d6 drop the (1) lowest".

Is it possible to get a roughly similar distribution to a d20 roll by rolling "xd6 drop the y lowest"?

I'm not about to try to figure the percentages the "brute force" method, and I don't know the sneaky math-savvy method for doing so.

[Wothbora]

foster1941 said:

For attack rolls you can use 2d6 roll-low, target number = target AC (i.e. to hit an AC 9 target you need to roll a 9 or less on 2d6, to hit an AC 2 target you need to roll 2 or less on 2d6). -1 on the roll (or +1 to the target's AC, same difference) for each "step" on the attack charts (i.e. fighters get +1 at levels 4-6, +2 at levels 7-9, etc.). I've both looked at the numbers on this and tested it a bit in play and it works pretty well -- low ACs are harder to hit than in the traditional (d20) system, high ACs are easier to hit, mid-range ACs are about the same. Adjustments count for more (even a simple +1 to hit can make a huge difference if it falls at the right spot on the curve) and magic armor becomes extremely valuable (rendering characters hit-proof against low level characters and monsters unless they can find an offsetting advantage (flanking, height, etc.)). If you use this system you have to rework the monsters' attack chart to advance in the same increments as the character chart (the monster chart has too many columns) and you should probably limit access to plate armor for the first level or two.

Oh Foster1941 that is probably the best approach I have ever seen!!! Exalt!!!

For those interested, here are the probabilities side-by-side... Yes, it changes things (making AC harder to hit from about AC4 and extremely difficult for AC2, but makes Magic Weapons of +1 even greater finds). I definitely like this a lot and will try it out next time we play.

2d6 Roll Result	Chance to Roll Result or Less	1d20 Roll Result	Chance to Roll Result or More
2	2.78%	18	15.00%
3	8.33%	17	20.00%
4	16.67%	16	25.00%
5	27.78%	15	30.00%
6	41.67%	14	35.00%
7	58.33%	13	40.00%
8	72.22%	12	45.00%
9	83.33%	11	50.00%
10	91.67%	10	55.00%
11	97.22%	9	60.00%
12	100.00%	8	65.00%

BTW, I am no math expert, just a librarian. I use the following link to "do my math" for me.

Math:
www.ogmiosproject.org/articles/3d6results.html

Tables:
www.bagism.com/tablemaker/

[Deleted]

You fellas are great! An EXALT to you all. ;D


Now to try this out...



Fin's Edit: Changed EXLAT to EXALT

[EDIT]: Tanks!!!

[Finarvyn]

foster1941 said:

For attack rolls you can use 2d6 roll-low, target number = target AC (i.e. to hit an AC 9 target you need to roll a 9 or less on 2d6, to hit an AC 2 target you need to roll 2 or less on 2d6).

Yeah, I've used a system like this for years and it plays well except for the fact that low plusses become so significant. If you do this, stay with the M&M magic charts instead of Greyhawk.

I've held this theory for years that this is what caused AC to be numbered the way it is with low numbers better than high numbers, but have been unable to get confirmation so maybe one of the early Blackmoor players can tell me if it sounds at all familliar.

[Deleted]

I believe one of the reasons why the authors suggested using the Chainmail rules was for wargamers that did not possess polyhedra die. Chainmail does not require anything but a D6. Unfortunately, this did not help with Saving Throws or anything that required generating a percentage number.

For other dice, it is easy enough to generate random numbers:
D4 = 1D6
D8 = 2D6
D12 = 2D6
D20 = 4D6
D% = 4D6

In each case but the first you must consider the results separately. To simulate a D4, you roll a D6 and keep rolling until you get 1-4 pips. For other rolls you should have different colored die.

On the D8 you have a red die and a blue die. Each time you roll you one color gives the number. Red gives the lower digits, 1-6; blue gives the higher digits, 7-8 (1-2 pips). If the blue gives 1, 2 or 3 pips, you will have a 7, if 4, 5 or 6 pips, an 8.

On the D12 you have a red die and a blue die. Red gives 1-6, blue gives 7-12.

D20 is handled like D8. You have a red, blue, green and white die. Red gives 1-6, blue gives 7-12, green gives 13-18, white gives 19 on 1, 2 or 3; 20 on 4, 5 or 6.

D% is like using D6s to simulate rolling two D10s. You have a red, blue, green and white die. Red gives 10-60, blue gives 70-00, green gives 1-6, white gives 7-0. If the blue or white gives a 5 or a 6, you reroll it until it gives you a 1, 2, 3 or 4.

Each time you roll a different color is picked from the last roll. Red, blue, red, blue... etc. This should simulate random number generation reasonably well for the penurious role player.

[coffee]

I came looking for this thread and couldn't find it.

I put my table for 2d6 saving throws over on Men & Magic, in case anybody's interested.

[Thorulfr]

Mar 21, 2008 11:43:17 GMT -6 korgoth said:

Here's a question for the math-savvy:
We're all familiar with the method of generating inflated stats by rolling "4d6 drop the (1) lowest".

Is it possible to get a roughly similar distribution to a d20 roll by rolling "xd6 drop the y lowest"?

Well, yes and no. Yes, you could, but it would look like the d20 chart in the What to Do When the Dog Eats Your Dice article from Dragon, only uglier. The reason for doing the "Roll 4d6 and drop the lowest" is that it skews the curve toward the top - a result of 3 only occurs when all 4 dice come up '1' (1 in 1296 times), while an 18 only requires that at least three of the four dice roll '6'

I have to ask the question: why?
On the 'Fear the Boot' podcast, they discussed system vs. the feel of the setting, and came to the conclusion that d20 mechanics are better suited for grand, heroic games because the natural 20s and 1s come up far more frequently than in systems with 2d6 or 3d6, so the action is filled with the sudden, dramatic turns of fortune.
While a natural 20 comes up 5% of the time, 'boxcars' only happens one time in 36, almost half as often. 18 comes up once in 216 rolls. You could go several games without rolling one.
2d6 and 3d6 systems are (in their opinion) better for grittier, more 'realistic' games.

On a more practical level, I find it a heck of a lot easier to read one number off of a d20 than it is to quickly add up three numbers. 2d6 is not as much of a problem (but then I've played far more Traveller than either Melee or GURPS)

Finally - I don't know about the rest of you, but one of the neat things for me was those weird dice in the Holmes-edition box - D&D has always meant polyhedral dice.

(OK, totally out of left field, but imagine a game system where as the method of randomization, you generated an I Ching hexagram...sort of a d64 system. I guess a critical hit would be hexagram 28, the "Great Exeeding")

[coffee]

May 2, 2008 15:07:58 GMT -6 Thorulfr said:

I have to ask the question: why?

> snip <

I don't know about the rest of you, but one of the neat things for me was those weird dice in the Holmes-edition box - D&D has always meant polyhedral dice.

For me, it's a "what if?" kind of thing.

Using Chainmail combat system, you only need d6's. So the only thing you need d20's for in OD&D is Saving Throws. Sure, there are other tables that use other polyhedra, but Gygax threw them in because it was easier than going through all those plastic pouches of dice and taking out the d20's for the customers (and throwing the rest away).

So for me, if there was a 2d6 method of doing saving throws, one wouldn't have needed d20's at all -- it would have been a different game.

I'm not at all advocating not using polyhedrae; I'm just seeing if it could be done.

Others might have a different idea, of course...

And to me, too, D&D has always been about the "funny dice." It does make the game stand out.

[Thorulfr]

May 2, 2008 15:07:58 GMT -6 Thorulfr said:

(OK, totally out of left field, but imagine a game system where as the method of randomization, you generated an I Ching hexagram...sort of a d64 system. I guess a critical hit would be hexagram 28, the "Great Exeeding")

OK maybe not completely out of left field - Lace and Steel had the players draw a tarot card at the beginning of character creation and use it for inspiration. The referee could also draw several cards and use them as fast inspiration for an adventure.
Twilight:2000 also used standard playing cards as a way to determine NPC personality and motivations. The numbered cards were pretty straight forward, but the court cards got a little clunky.

[coffee]

May 5, 2008 11:19:27 GMT -6 Thorulfr said:

Twilight:2000 also used standard playing cards as a way to determine NPC personality and motivations. The numbered cards were pretty straight forward, but the court cards got a little clunky.

I don't remember this at all.

Was this the first edition, or something later? (I'm hoping you say 'later' and not that I was so dim that I totally missed this...)

[jrients]

May 5, 2008 11:23:54 GMT -6 coffee said:

May 5, 2008 11:19:27 GMT -6 Thorulfr said:

Twilight:2000 also used standard playing cards as a way to determine NPC personality and motivations. The numbered cards were pretty straight forward, but the court cards got a little clunky.

I don't remember this at all.

Was this the first edition, or something later? (I'm hoping you say 'later' and not that I was so dim that I totally missed this...)

I remember that stuff in Traveller:2300, but not in Twilight:2000.

[coffee]

May 5, 2008 11:26:34 GMT -6 jrients said:

I remember that stuff in Traveller:2300, but not in Twilight:2000.

Okay, that makes me feel better.

I was the first person to run Twilight: 2000 in my old group. I had never been so popular! I had something like 12 players for my first game, it was ridiculous.

[calithena]

Another way to use Foster's system is to have bonus and penalty dice.

So for example: your 2nd level fighter is knocked prone but trying to keep going against his AC 5 foe. He rolls 3 dice and takes the highest 2, 1 die penalty for the tactical disadvantage.

Or, an eighth level fighter with a +2 sword is fighting an AC 3 iron golem with 3 dice bonus defense from its magic-iron construction. So you get:

2 base dice
+2 dice for 8th level fighter (2 steps)
+2 dice for magic sword
-3 dice for iron golem's magic defense

so roll 3 dice, the lowest two of which have to be 3 or less.

Then you don't have any modifiers, just figure out how many dice you need and roll.

[miked]

May 5, 2008 11:29:00 GMT -6 coffee said:

May 5, 2008 11:26:34 GMT -6 jrients said:

I remember that stuff in Traveller:2300, but not in Twilight:2000.

Okay, that makes me feel better.

I was the first person to run Twilight: 2000 in my old group. I had never been so popular! I had something like 12 players for my first game, it was ridiculous.

I have bad news for you, it was in 1st Ed T2K as well. Check out page 15 of the Referee's manual.

To stay on topic here. I love the idea of using d6's for OD&D too. I really like the 2d6 combat roll under idea. I may have to give that a shot at the table.

--Mike D.

[coffee]

May 20, 2008 7:56:06 GMT -6 miked said:

I have bad news for you, it was in 1st Ed T2K as well. Check out page 15 of the Referee's manual.

--Mike D.

I would, but my copy went MIA about 20 years ago. I saw a later edition just the other day at Half Price Books, in paperback. I opened it up to browse through, but it looked way to complicated for my OD&D formatted brain. Ah, well.

[Deleted]

I was re-reading old threads and when I hit this statement...

May 2, 2008 9:50:24 GMT -6 coffee said:

I came looking for this thread and couldn't find it.

I was in the middle of drinking orange juice when I read it. I laughed hard enough to snort juice through my nose. Funny!

(Coffee, my lawyers will contact you regarding orange juice on my keyboard and potential damages...) ;D

[coffee]

Jul 20, 2008 6:20:11 GMT -6 dilvish said:

(Coffee, my lawyers will contact you regarding orange juice on my keyboard and potential damages...) ;D

Sorry; I'm not liable for orange juice.

There's only one beverage that I accept responsibility for, and it ain't orange juice...