1d20? 3d6? 2d8?

Sat+skill+d12? I'm confused. Could you clarify?

Here's my list:

>I'm new to RPGs

Honestly? D20 is easy to teach and easy to learn.

>I want realism, good crunch that makes mechanical sense, and meaningful character development

Roll percentile under skill.

>I want big abstractions and storytelling

Dice pool systems. I think the ORE is interesting in this regard (but can drag a bit as you fail, fail, and fail a lot)

You roll 1d12+stat or skill, and have to get 8+. Unskilled? Roll 1d12-2. Would work a bit like Savage Worlds, but I'm not sure if that's a good thing.

Stat *or* Skill?

So, if I'm a kickass sword fighter who has spent his life training, the fact that I'm also this immensely strong barbarian would contribute nothing to my attack roll?

I gotta pick one or the other?

Or, I'm really quick fingered and, given this, I decide to train up my skill at breaking into places. But mr. slow as shit over there has trained the same amount. So his skill level is the same as mine. I get no comparative advantage for being dexterous?

I like how multiple dice make the probabilities feel a little "fuzzier".
With d20 or d100 systems, it's trivial to estimate probabilities in your head. Combat can easily turn into a "board game" where players are just staring at the numbers on their sheet and doing mental math while they take 5 minutes to pick an action every turn.
2d6 or 3d6 makes the math just slightly harder so that most players don't try to calculate all the numbers and min-max their actions. They can still figure out the average roll, and know roughly how far above/below average they are. And eventually they'll gain an intuition for the probability curve. But it's just kind of nice that they won't know the exact % chance to hit the enemy.

The biggest problem is that with 2d6 or 3d6, the numbers are much smaller. A +1 or +2 is a pretty big deal when that means you are 30% more likely to succeed. For a realistic human-scale campaign, you have to be really careful about giving out any kind of numerical bonuses.
You can't do the D&D thing where every character is walking around with a belt that makes them slightly stronger, a necklace that makes them slightly harder to hit, a piece of rope that's slightly easier-to-use than normal rope, etc.
Base stats and skills have to be in a fairly narrow range, as do challenge ratings. A lot of 2d6 and 3d6 systems just have fixed challenge difficulties (roll 8+ for a "easy" task, 10+ "medium", etc.), and those aren't expected to change much as the characters level-up.
Also, a lot of these systems simply minimize or completely remove character progression (see: Traveller). I don't really mind this, but a lot of players coming from D&D or vidya seem to have an instinctive reaction when they hear that you don't get XP every time you wipe your ass!

Some of those problems can be solved by switching to higher dice like 3d10 or 2d20. That doesn't seem like a big deal on paper, but it's actually very inconvenient and can kill the pacing.

>With d20 or d100 systems, it's trivial to estimate probabilities in your head.

This isn't necessarily such a bad thing. I would say that the quite discrete difference between the two is that the d20 allows for rather huge swings in likelihood while the d100 systems allow for some amount of consistency that you actually sort of lose with the 2d6 or 3d6 systems. Yes, you don't have that "standard deviation" but I would actually hazard that standard deviation isn't altogether a fun way of handling likelihood of success (which, let's be honest, is what every system is attempting to do).

And your two problems with the system in general are incredibly salient. But I think your second point is actually most important. GURPs, in an attempt to maximize modularity, sort of robs a player of progression.

It really also doesn't address the binary of success/fail any more elegantly than any other system except in its consistency.

It's also fairly crunchy in an attempt to make the 3d6 system work. Since there is so much swing with only minor bonuses (I mean you can go up full fucking standard deviations, as you point out), they do a lot of arm twisting to explain complicated actions.

Other systems have done it better, in my opinion. I personally think RQ other roll under %ile systems play.

i'm also confused, but really curious.

5d4+5d12.

What don't you like about 2d10? I'm planning a homebrew sytstem that's in its very early stages right now, and I am considering making it a 2d10 system.

Tell us about how checks work

Edge of the Empire (and FFG's upcoming generic system Genesys) has a cool dice mechanic. I won't explain the whole thing here, but here's some of my favorite bits:

>"3 axis" results
every roll gives success/failure, advantage/threat, and (sometimes) triumph/despair.

This makes every roll a little more interesting and meaningful. Works well in combat: fights end fast because people die in 2 or 3 shots instead of being "big bags of meatpoints". But each attack feels more meaningful than a D&D attack because threat/advantage on every roll means people are constantly getting injuries or losing resources on both sides of the conflict.

>skill/stat "dice upgrade" system
Every skill is tied to a stat. The higher number is the size of your dice pool (green dice), and the lower number is how many of those dice get "upgraded" to bigger yellow dice.
The bigger dice have better odds, but they're also the only way to roll crits (triumph).

This is nice because it means there's a real difference between
>skilled lightweight boxer: 3 Melee, 3 Brawn
>3 big dice
and a
>untrained strong dude: 1 Melee, 5 Brawn
>1 big die, 4 small dice
The boxer is more likely to crit, and more likely to roll at least a few successes.
The untrained guy is more likely to fail, but has more potential to roll large success #s. He's also better at rolling advantage even when he fails.

>good dice have extra success icons, bad dice have extra threat icons
This is a pretty subtle difference, and the effect isn't huge.
Basically, it means that in an "even match", the PCs are slightly more likely to succeed, but with some side-effects.

...I haven't gotten that far yet. The reason I wanted to do 2d10 is because I could make weapon special effects like bleed trigger on doubles, which I feel could be a pretty effective mechanic.

I've been thinking about trying to build a homebrew system based on pulling marbles out of bags instead of rolling dice.

Something like:
>green marble = success
>red marlb e= fail
>other colors could have special effects (critical success, crit fail, etc.)
>Each player could has a "super marble" that triggers a special power when it's drawn.

>Draw 5 marbles, if successes > fails then you succeed.

>GM has 4 bags of marbles: Great, Good, Bad, Terrible
>each bag has different ratio of success/fail
>Skills/stats determine which bags you draw from.
>When a bag runs out, you have to draw from the next lower bag.
>Certain skills let you refill bags, or add special marbles to a bag.

A totally different marble-based system:
>each player has their own marble bag.
>marble bags are filled based on your abilities.
>red = str
>green = dex
>blue = int
>yellow = wis
>most scores are between 10-20?

>Skill levels go from 3 to 7. The level determines how many marbles you draw.
>Each skill is tied to a primary and secondary ability.
(Melee = str, dex)
>A marble that matches the primary counts as 2 points
>A marble that matches the secondary counts as 1 point
>Non-matching marbles are count for 0 points
>You need a certain number of points to pass a skill check, harder ones require more points.
>If you pass, you can put choose to put half (rounded up) of the marbles back into the bag.
>If you fail, you lose all the marbles you drew.

Thoughts?

>while the d100 systems allow for some amount of consistency that you actually sort of lose with the 2d6 or 3d6 systems.
What could you possibly mean by this

Uh, actually the untrained guy has better success rates and more advantage in your example. In FFG RPG, more dice > better dice.

Both of those badly punish players for making rolls at all. Being punished for doing things isn't fun.

He might, though I doubt it, be referring to the fact that a +1 in a flat system like 1d20 is a known increase in chance of success while +1 in a curved system like 3d6 isn't a static improvement.

>roll under percentile
>Rolling low is good

yeah nah

>Extremely low IQ
d20
>Extremely high IQ
3d6
>As much games as the one directly above gets t play
2d8

>in an attempt to maximize modularity, sort of robs a player of progression.
If you've played such an unholy amount of D&D your brain has turned into a nice goopey mixture of feces and dragon magazine articles, it does.

If you still work like a normal human, you understand that linear progression isn't progression and that gurps (actual) progression is fine, not the system fault you can't make your guy learn new things instead of yelling and kvetching you're not getting +1% to hit.

I like expanding dice pools, but if we're talking a fixed quantity of dice, I greatly prefer d100.

It has all the simplicity of the d20, with an expanded scale for granularity of successes, and without the average weighting of multiple dice.

The only difficulty is reminding players new to the mechanic that low numbers are better.

Yeah, the first one is definitely punishing, although I think it could work for a game that's focused on punishment (cthulhu, hardcore dungeon crawl, etc.)

The second one might seem like a punishment, but it actually allows you to optimize your bag towards certain types of marbles.

I'm also thinking that the marble bags "reset" fairly regularly. For the second one, it would either be after each fight or "scene", or after a "long rest" or "make camp" or something similar.

Still the best no matter how many grognards lose their shit over the idea of buying new dice.

Patrician systems combine rolling under (to hit) with rolling as high as possible (damage) into a single roll

Typically rolling under percentile has a two axis result. If you roll super low you crit. However, in oppositional rolls the goal is to roll under your percentage but get as high a roll as possible.

e.g.

Someone has a 72% chance to spot and another person has a 40% to evade, both players might succeed with a roll... but if the higher roll wins, the likelihood of the spot check winning in opposition is much higher.

I would prefer a good system that does roll under d20 just because the physical die is about as granular as you can get for a single die for quickly rolling results. I end up using electronic dice for d100 rather than he 2d10 style d%.

That dice system is garbage. I played with it for a year and outside of a few shining examples the dice suck at everything.

The d20 system has its flaws, but the main die roll isn't one of them. "1d20 + modifier -> high enough succeeds" is a simple mechanic to understand and can be applied to a wide range of things.

What's the reasoning behind this?

It sounds like the only reason to have this rule is so that in the case of a "tie", the character with the worse roll (and likely, the lower skill/ability) wins?

Dice pools because throwing 30 d6s to dodge an attack makes you feel like a badass.

The 'split currencies' in the roll have been nothing but infuriating in the SWRPGs and I've had far too many frustrating encounters in which I felt like no matter what my stats or training was it was completely random if I'd succeed on a roll. With moderately low chances to score a success and each failure blip being beyond fucking detrimental, double fuck you if you roll a double failure on the challenge die.

I hate the SWRPG dice.

>percentile

percentile is fucking cancer

If you really want to avoid using standard dices or custom dices, I'd first go with custom cards with a similar mechanic. Its easier to store and there are loads of examples where they replaced dices in board games, such as from Fantasy Flight Games, and in some RPGs.

There is a system like that,, it's called Insectopia, I just remember it having a bag from which you pick "blatte", litlle colored bead and each color signify a fail, a sucess and other thing
It's only in french though, I'll probably play it at the next convention there is in my city in october

D6/D10 dice pool

fpbp. i'ma call it a /thread here.

4d3-8

yes, rolling low is good. and the lower, the better.

>D100 because it reflects granular chance of success most others can't.
this. for example in deathwatch, space marines each have a token item that gives them like a +2% to some skill. it rarely makes a difference but when it does, it is extra cool.
d100 > d20

I just get annoyed tracking all the 1 and 2% bonuses.

which is why most d100 systems skip it and go with 5% steps

while still claiming it's better than a d20 somehow

d100 is for faggots who want to be needlessly granular so they can tell people how realistic they are being.

>With d20 or d100 systems, it's trivial to estimate probabilities in your head.
i am of the completely opposite mindset. i want players to be able to run the math in their head as quickly as possible. more importantly the GM can run the math in his head as quickly as possible which makes his task of choosing the right challenge level much easier.

it's basically the only thing in the game that gives such a low bonus. everything else is in 5% increments.

that's rich coming from a guy advocating a die whose most prominent system faces frequent complaints about crit failure ranges being too high and who had to add a second die roll (critical confirmation) because the d20 wasn't granular enough.

d100 >> d20

Eh, I don't use a system with percentage crits so the granularity doesn't really matter there.

Where in the hell did I advocate d20 systems? I just said d100 is even more trash than d20. d20 is also too granular, leading too needing too many bonuses, but at least it's not "we may as well divide everything by 5" granular.

And what does the d20 have to do with the trash systems that use it anyway? It's not the fucking dice's fault that retards add stupid crit mechanics based on arbitrarily chosen numbers instead of, IDK, degrees of success or something.

That said
>rolling 2 dice instead of just one is better than sometimes rolling 2 dice!
>although the second dice literally doesn't matter 90% of the time!

d20 is the best. Small bonuses of +1 are not utterly powerful as they are in dice curve systems, but aren't as insignificant as a +1% or similar for more granular one. Every +1 is a +5% bonus, and is easy to grasp.

Numbers between 1-20 are easy to count up and people use these numbers more commonly then numbers you might see in a d100 or even d50 system.

The more swingy the dice are, the better chances of the underdog winning and the better the story is. There's no reason to even have rolls if your autistic homebrew has 3d6+modifiers+bonuses and you have 0.47% chance to fail; it's fucking dumb.

Easy, sleek, fast, and comes in a single die. d20 is where its at.

>bonuses are bad!
go play fiasco, faggot

>Every +1 is a +5% bonus, and is easy to grasp.
and quite inaccurate at times. your argument boils down to
>not having the option to go more granular if you need it is good, guys!

>Numbers between 1-20 are easy to count up
if you have trouble with numbers between 21 and 100, you should unironically not be in this hobby. consider going to /v/ and staying there.

>The more swingy the dice are, the better chances of the underdog winning and the better the story is.
no, only to a degree. for GM planning, a medium amount of predictability is best.

>Easy, sleek, fast, and comes in a single die. d20 is where its at.
the toilet is where "its" at.

Why is that fairy sad?

>not having the option to go more granular if you need it is good, guys!

Not having to use 5 times larger numbers because of 5% of granularity that you'll never need is better.

How is this even an argument?

Dice pools or 3d6 roll under are the only two alternatives worth considering.

Why would you ever need more granularity then 5%?

>Trouble counting up numbers
Regardless of you being an edgy shithead, yes it is objectively easier for everyone to count up 7+2+3 then 34+7+6 for modifiers and bonuses to rolls. If you use 2d10s for the percentile method then you have to first look at two dice to find your base, then add modifiers where as with a d20 you just roll and look once for your base.
>d20 belongs in the le toilet! grrr D&D is so bad rar look at how controversial I'm being!

Considering you prefer to call people stupid instead of arguing, I'd say this little 'debate' is over, loser.

>that you'll never need
you need it, for example, to make critical failure chances smaller than 5% but greater than 0%. there is other ways that d100 granularity can be leveraged in a clever manner if one is imaginative enough. you, sir, are clearly not.

also, if you make it an issue that using 15 instead of 75 is easier, i'll make it an issue that it is easier to know your success chance when you skill is 65% versus having to roll an 8+ on d20.

and once more d20 BTFO

>you being an edgy shithead,
>7+2+3 then 34+7+6
the equivalent would be 35%+10%+15%. if you consider complaining about
>muh 5%
now, see instead.
also in d20 it wouldnt be 7+2+3, it would be d20+7+2+3 versus DC. versus 60% roll lower.

>If you use 2d10s for the percentile method then you have to first look at two dice to find your base, then add modifiers where as with a d20 you just roll and look once for your base.
in d100 you apply the modifiers to your skill level, not to your roll. -30 to hit due to darkness? your 60% chance is a 30% now, roll under!
and, yeah, if reading off two dice instead of 1 is a noticeable effort to you, you really, really have some serious problems, dude. get help.

>you need it, for example, to make critical failure chances smaller than 5% but greater than 0%

there's a million ways to do that that don't involve using a d%
you also assume even having crits based on arbitrary numbers rolled is a good thing, as if 1% chance to screw up/succeed at anything isn't just as stupid as 5%

>also, if you make it an issue that using 15 instead of 75 is easier, i'll make it an issue that it is easier to know your success chance when you skill is 65% versus having to roll an 8+ on d20.

that is again, up to the system, you could make a roll under d20 system (as, you know, D&D used attribute checks for skills originally, for example) and have the same level of simplicity, except lower numbers

>and once more d20 BTFO

the only thing getting BTFO here is your skills at making a logical argument

People that use d100 instead of percentual d20 have deep mental problems.
For the same reason that most d20 systems would greatly improve using a less swingy dice with a smaller range (3d6, 2d10, etc...), or push on bounded accuracy and just use a single d10.

How am I meant to read these nonsense dice?

Roll them as a pool, with green, yellow, and white being good and purple, red, and black being bad.
Then, argue for a while about how enough minor positives can counteract your major negatives, about how there really should be a way to convert upwards, and how it's bullshit that the caveats to our success diminish the success itself.
Then play some other game.

I mean, traditionally, you want to go high or low in relation to a target, but that means either double ones or double tens would be bad, despite being dubs.
You could go with the difference between dice. Like, a basic test, unmodified, needs both dice to be within 3 numbers of each other (so, a 2 and a 4 would pass, but a 6 and a 10 would fail), with skills and situations modifying the range up or down, and doubles being crits.
You could fluff it as success or failure with higher numbers is because of competence (you pulled a slick maneuver, or he parried expertly), whereas lower numbers are because of incompetence (you stumbled and missed, or he dodged the wrong way).

Cards > Dice

Sounds like your group is really miserable.

>about how there really should be a way to convert upwards
What does this even mean

REIGN isn't dicepool vs. target number though, Shadowrun and WoD are vs. target number, REIGN is matched sets and belongs in a group along with Wulin

So how about this: for most tasks you roll a simple d20 roll under, but in combat or when you're doing some especially difficult task there

The biggest difference is that d100 people like d100 systems, while d20 systems tend to be something entirely different.

Speaking strictly as dice being used to achieve a system's goals d20 offers a lot of advantages compared to d100, even if the d100vsTN systems tend to completely outshine d20+MODvsTN systems.

>Cards > Dice

Specialty cards:
>My character is capable of, at any time and without setup, pulling this bullshit, but only once per [time], then they forget how.

Generic cards, no replacement:
>Well, PC2 drew the Ace of Clubs, so that's one less critical hit in the universe.
>Wait, what special thing did Clubs do?

Generic cards, replacement:
That's a d13. What possible reason could you have for not using a d12?

I have no actual successes, no failures, but 6 minor successes.
By the book, this still means I do not succeed at the thing, but anywhere from one to six minor good things happen, none of which are "I did the thing".
What if, through some dark alchemy, I could convert some amount of minor successes (let's say 5) to one regular success?

Why change the dice system for combat? I like the Mythras/RQ style active defense, both characters roll under and compare results. I don't like converting to-hit to an AC based TN dependent on difficulty.

I'm probably going to make the system roll over, and in that case I'm fine with making snake eyes a bad result. I see what you mean with it being annoying to roll dubs and fail the check anyway. I might include some abilities like restoring health when you roll dubs on an attack roll, whether you hit or miss, so that way it isn't a total loss even if you miss.

They're not minor successes though. They're secondary effects which explicitly have no bearing on whether or not you complete the main goal of the roll. To let them be convertible would defeat the point of the system.

I think you're thinking about how the symbols and how they relate the wrong way. An Advantage isn't a lesser Success, it's a completely different thing to a Success.

>there's a million ways to do that that don't involve using a d%
no doubt. however, the claim was that the d100 granularity offers no use over the 5% steps of the d20. there you go, it's wrong.

>based on arbitrary numbers
everything is based on arbitrary assigned numbers, you stupid oaf. every NPC stat black is just that.

>just as stupid as 5%
you don't like critical failure rules, we get it. plenty of gamer disagree. they increase the tension.

>that is again, up to the system, you could make a roll under d20 system (as, you know, D&D used attribute checks for skills originally, for example) and have the same level of simplicity, except lower numbers
you could and the game I started with in the 80s, DSA/TDE, did just that. still the d100 makes you not have to multiply by 5 in your head, you can comfortably read off your chances on your charsheet.

anyway all those differences are really negligible except for the granualarity of the d100 which CAN be put to good use.

44d4
NO SHOES

d12 is the most a e s t h e t i c

Fite me!

for the skill system - basically you have two-factor success in combat, so you roll under to see if you succeed, but then you add the "skill die" - skill advance in die, so start at d4 (for the most part*) and cap at d12, through d6, d8, d10.

You add the roll from the skill die to the success roll, and if the combined roll is greater than a DC (usually between 5-15) it's a full success, but if the combined is less there's a partial success ("you succeed at what you did, But..." sort of thing).

The other things you can do, is you can link the skill roll to random roll charts for spell effects, and you can also invert the skill die progression and give special effects on hitting the max or minimum on the skill die (basically go from just rolling numbers to focusing on "crits", which are easier to get on smaller dice than larger ones).

Agreed.

Best core roll: 2d12.

First, normal distribution is superior to single roll. It makes high rolls and low rolls much more dramatic.

Second, it provides more opportunities for modification. (Roll 3d12, drop 1, for example, Roll 4d12, drop 2, give more "steps" in bonus situations).

Third, it provides a satisfying physical roll without being stupid and hard to read (like a 1d100). d10s lack the aesthetic beauty. d8s and below do not roll enough. d20s are equal to d12s in this regard, but 2d20s are less visibly readable and more annoying in terms of the arithmetic.

Since they are orthogonal to success/failure they are the biggest fault of the system. When playing, here was most rolls (because the dice are not just gimmicky, the math is awful): I have 12 advantages, no successes so I fail the check. As a GM there is nothing more useless than a situation like that to narrate any sort of event.

It's also why as a system PbtA is superior to this EotE bullshit dice. You either succeed with advantage (advanced moves), succeed, fail forward, or fail - and the GM rules are actually based around those varying results.

I would play that system.

My personal system would give TNs for skills like a typical d100, but with a d20 rolling high. So you assign your skill values at creation, similar to D&D a number between 6-14 for that value. Then you write the TNs by counting back from 20 (so 19 - the number) for the full value and for a modifier, so a 12 (mod 2) would have a low value of 7 and a high value of 17. When you meet or exceed that number you either partially succeed or succeed in the check, and then the difficulty is added to the roll. 20 is a success, 1 is a failure always.

So an easy check would be 1d20+2 while an extremely hard one would be 1d20-10 or something. Rolls over 20 are critical, rolls under 1 are fumbles.

To track it easier you have 20 small boxes on the character sheet, 1 is filled in in black, 20 is outline only. Your lower target is lightly shaded until the upper target which are left empty. Below the lower target are filled in dark. Improvement can then improve either number.

Just my personal homebrew I have kicked down the road a while. I'm not really interested in completely fleshing it out, but it's what I'd like a game to be like as a GM.

Best is 3000d6. Love me some shadowrun.

Honestly if your GM can't think of an interesting way to spend 12 advantages, he's boring as fuck. Sometimes it can be difficult to justify small advantage amounts in specific situations but I'd say I struggle with it on maybe 1/20 rolls.

people who complain about SR have never played 40K anyway

The point went way over you head.

The game has a failure rate of above 40% even with crazy high level characters, but advantages are handed out like candy. You will fail the check more often than not, but have a bunch of advantages more often than not too. It's literally the most boring result and is the most common.

And the GM guide basically says "let them try again with a boost!"

example?

4d12 with FUDGE distribution

>The more swingy the dice are, the better chances of the underdog winning and the better the story is
Yeah, no, fuck that. That's one of the dumbest fucking things to deal with.

In my opinion, any variety used often spices any game up. I made this system sort of with that in mind since the normal 5e initiative just uses the d20. I know I'm shilling my system, but i need help with it since only one guy critiqued it in /5e/; any advice?

he first page is the basic rule explanation, the second is for an optional DM use of this system for Monsters and NPCs, and the 3rd and 4th pages are proof for concepts and mathematics.

So I notice with ORE that you can choose which set of matching dice you can use, if you have multiple. What's the point of that? Wouldn't players just pick the best rolls every time?

Because you might want the faster but worse result if it's available.

I don't like the physical feeling of rolling 2d10. that's it. Autistic and stupid and irrational, isn't it? But it still is affecting my decisions.

Sometimes you care more about the height than the width - if a monster has an ally in its hand and holding them, but you get 3x9 and 2x4 you'd take 2x4 to make them drop your ally.

Well the chance of rolling a success ranges between 33-75% chance depending on die. You are rolling against a 33-60% chance to roll failures. Meanwhile you have a 50-75% chance to roll advantage, and 33-50% chance to roll disadvantages.

Even considering the double success options, you are significantly more likely to roll with advantages than to roll a success at any level of the game. Since high level play means a *lot* more challenge die it actually means you range between about the same as always at something or terrible at it, and at low level play you don't roll those yellow dice often. Like most FFG games, they either love to constantly play mediocre characters or (more likely) are really bad at math and playtested to a feel.

>I'm planning a homebrew sytstem that's in its very early stages right now, and I am considering making it a 2d10 system.
if you're making your design choices dependent on anecdotal evidence, you better don't get started.

fact is: a fair number of people like d20 because that is the default for them. it's not rational but it's the way it is. D&D and the d20 is where the "sexy spotlight" is in US RPG-ing, for better or for worse.

It works in degrees of success systems so it's not punishing high skill as much as pass/fail does.

Overall, I prefer the simplicity of rolling a single d20, but percentile systems do have advantages. The granularity is nice from the standpoint of advancing skills. Instead of having to have a separate pool of XP, which you spend to buy shit up only occasionally, you can have a skill progress by a single percentile point, making such things unnecessary. Also, while I don't often see this done, you can do interesting things with criticals. You can have something happen on 0's, 5's, doubles, and/or 10% of number needed to succeed (so 5 or under if you skill is in the 50s).

That's weird. I quite like the feel of rolling 2d10, and a d10 is probably the best single die outside of a d20.

My fine compatriots!