2d10 will give a result between 2 and 20, just a slightly smaller spread as no way to get a result of 1.

You seem to be thinking I'm rolling 2d20's, that's not it, it's 2d10

Nah, fudging dice rolls always felt wrong to me as a GM, even in players favour. Unless it's correcting a horrendous piece of luck I prefer to just go with the roll.

I know, it feels counter intuitive. But look at it this way. 5 pc's square up to 20 orcs. If all orcs attack then odds are with 20 attack rolls there's pretty much a guarantee of the pc's suffering a critical hit. The players will, by statistical odds, get 1 crit between them every 4 rounds.

The number of attacks coming at pc's compared to attacks made means players will be hit by far more critical hits than they ever dish out

I mean rolling 2d10 for skill checks, attack rolls, saves etc instead of a d20

I understand it's built around the d20, that doesn't mean it can't be changed. I'm running homebrew campaign so the prewritten adventures etc not such a problem.

A double "1" can substitute for Nat 1 easy as double "10" can be grits.

I think im well aware of the purpose of the game. Its not to watch folk fall on their face. Im running the game where 2 of 3 are on the autistic spectrum so random failure for the lols, isn't gonna be taken well, while something more reliable is more fun for them.

And if I banned fumbles I'd ban crits outright as well as they are a penalty for players overall.

Tbh if I had a choice I'd go with another system. I've played many with very interesting mechanics and settings.

The reason I'm going for d&d is my partners friends have played it, so keen for more and partner is curious bout d&d specifically.

I don't think there's any disservice being done by changing one randomiser. If a system is so fragile it can't stand a minor change like this, it needs big overhauls.

Yup, every increment the same, chart it, it's a straight line

There's no holy cows in rpg's the d20 has issues and I'm looking to resolve some.

I'll be honest, reducing the odds of crits isn't a bad thing in my opinion. I've always been dubious as a GM about the crit rules so many players love. When you look at it, critical make the game harder for players. The GM rolls lots more attack dice than players do which means the players will suffer more grits than they deal out. This is gonna be a 3 player game with 2 players with a little experience and 1 with none at all. I think this is a better option.

I understand there's a curve in the 3d6.

What I'm looking for is a curve in the skill rolls, the d20 is a flatline, no curve so it's harder to reliably know the likelihood of success

If you're skilled enough at something then you should be able to be confident in the odds of achieving your intent.

The story lives in the characters, not waiting for someone to fall on their face