Spells with more static damage values

[infected slut princess]

dys·cal·cu·li·a
ˌdiskalˈkyo͞olēə/
nounPsychiatry
noun: dyscalculia

severe difficulty in making arithmetical calculations, as a result of brain disorder.


It's like dyslexia, only less popular. I have it.

EDIT: On further thought, the definition does say "severe" but in my case it was just enough to make Trig and Algebra in high school extremely difficult, and Calculus impossible.
While it wouldn't take five minutes to count 10d6, I have been yelled at and fingers have been snapped by less couth players (hasty?) for taking too long.

I hear ya man. Tho' I bet you're probably still faster than a couple of dudes in my group who have no brain disorders but they are freakin' slow as hell when counting up a 10d6 roll.

Like I said earlier, I think part of why D&D is successful is because it's _fun_ to roll for both the hit and the damage. But to accommodate some people with unusual situations, I think using a dice roller app would be ok (whereas normally people who use dice roller apps should be banned from D&D and ostracized from nerd society). Even the dreaded dice roller app is better than static damage!

[JonSetanta]

OK I did some simulations between 10d6 and 2d6+32 (I think that's correct) on a phone app recently and the latter was more satisfactory.

I agree with PL's statement earlier about being a more reliable method of taking down a 45 HP foe, I'd rather blast them twice for sure rather than roll 1 and 2 on all d6s, one fistful at a time, until my slots run out.

[erik]

Phone Lobster, look out. The person claiming dyscalculia sides with your math.

If the margins are super thin such that a 12.5% difference is going to sway the result, then it is going to take 2 hits either way probably. The only real difference is on the scale of winning in 1 round, the static is GUARANTEED to fail, and 2 hits rolled is LIKELY to fail.

The odds of 20d6 summing to less than 45 are about 0.02%. I'll take a 3% chance of success with a 0.02% chance of sadfail over a 0% chance of success with 0% chance of sadfail.

Of course you'd rather blast twice rather than attempt succeeding with 1. You don't understand probability.

[PhoneLobster]

If the margins are super thin such that a 12.5% difference is going to sway the result, then it is going to take 2 hits either way probably. The only real difference is on the scale of winning in 1 round, the static is GUARANTEED to fail, and 2 hits rolled is LIKELY to fail.

Hey look. It's pretty much that thing I just said. Only reworded into part of an accusation that I was wrong.

Everything I said, including outlining the additional context your edge case required to be at least somewhat valid, still holds. Offering the choice between 10d6 and 40 punishes the player who picks the dice option and is a stupid mechanic if it's supposed to be equal or supposed to be motivating dice rolling. Even a common edge case doesn't change this, and a rare and highly specific one that required extra provisos that you needed someone else to provide definitely doesn't.

[erik]

I'm sorry PL, I was mostly rewording your explanation so that Jon might understand, since I did lay out a scenario in which it is flatly superior to roll despite it being unlikely to matter. It's like in Bridge where if there is only one possible lay of the cards for you to make your contract, then you ought as well play as though that possibility is reality. What Jon was gobbling up was a resignation to play to lose.

I do agree that the choice between taking the average rounded up versus rolling does motivate against dice rolling. My main point was that there are still scenarios where it would behoove someone to roll (against their typical interest), and overall the difference is significant but not staggering.

I wasn't trying to argue that rounding up was no incentive to not roll. It is obviously an incentive to not roll. I didn't see the point in arguing the intended purpose of the mechanic since Emerald never said that mechanic was supposed to motivate dice rolling anyway. I was politely ignoring that you were putting that claim to Emerald on your own accord, and hoping Emerald might abolish that misconception.

Now, a better version of Emerald's proposed mechanic would obviously be the choice to turn your dice into 3.5's, rounded down if an odd number of dice. So your 10d6 becomes 35. 11d6 becomes 38.

That said, I would still approve of rounding all dice individually (to either 3 or 4, say on a d6) than the horrible, horrible idea of making it entirely flat except for 1 or 2 dice. That idea is simply the worst. You gain nothing in time since you still have to roll. You gain nothing in randomness because the amount of dice is pitiful compared to the static amount.

[PhoneLobster]

since Emerald never said that mechanic was supposed to motivate dice rolling anyway.

Oh come on, his entire post was "My players like rolling lots of dice, I like rolling lots of dice, if I had my way I'd turn all the static bonuses into d6s, then if players felt like it I guess they could turn the d6s into 4s...[insert fireball example]"

It's pretty clear he either intended to motivate the rolls over the no roll choice, or at the very least cut it close enough to even.

There are plenty of times you can have an argument about vague implications. But seriously. Come on.

As for converting 10d6 into a flat bonus with just one or two dice. I'm largely against it because I actually prefer genuinely flat damage with NO roll, but I'd accept it as an improvement on the basis of being significantly closer to the benefits of roll free damage. At least it's quicker than more dice.

And the argument that it doesn't vary all that much compared to the scale of the flat bonus doesn't really hold great merit when considering rolls like 10d6 considering how little THOSE vary from an average result. Both rolls are next to pointless. But one is a bit quicker. Anyway, with the right numbers of dice and size of bonus a bonus+less dice alternative is not just faster and largely equivalent on average, if you care about variation it is actually significantly more likely to generate the extremes of its variation than the other is likely to even match or exceed those extremes.

[hogarth]

Fireballs doing 10d6 means that it could be as much as 60 and as little as 10, though it's going to fall pretty regularly in the 30-40 range. Is there any advantage to it being able to fall outside that very likely range?

Personally, I think it's exciting to occasionally (like 5%-10% of the time) do much better or much worse than anticipated.

I really disliked the static damage amounts used in the original Marvel Super Heroes RPG.

[Username17]

We actually have an example of how it works when you roll 2d6 and add 28. That is life as a high level fighter in d&d. It's awful. You're rolling dice but it's fucking meaningless because the static damage portion is so high. There are things you can do to improve the damage dealing step, but 4e's plan of making everyone a differently skinned fighter was the worst.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

Personally, I think it's exciting to occasionally (like 5%-10% of the time) do much better or much worse than anticipated.

The question is does 10d6 deliver that? The answer is pretty much no it basically gives you 30-40 damage, not 6-60, not even 10-50, mostly just 30-40.

The actual impressive extremes of 10d6 are wildly rarer than "5-10% of the time". Because the drop off in chance of results is so extreme 30 and 40 actually ARE the 5% chance extremes, the drop off after that is steep indeed, and 24 and 46 are mere 1 in a hundred chances and the rest of the extremes are so unlikely aren't even worth mentioning.

Even if you cumulatively combine the "extremes" into collective amorphous masses the 5% cut off is only something like 27-43.

So, if you like "extremes" and you like them "5-10% of the time" you are going to have to decide that 30-40 is pretty "extreme" or 10d6 basically isn't delivering for you.

[OgreBattle]

how 'bout the RIFTS system of "4d6x10"

[Kaelik]

I just want to know why you fucks want to nerf my psychoactive skin of power damping.

[JonSetanta]

how 'bout the RIFTS system of "4d6x10"

How bout dem MDC? Yuck.

It's the same swinging as 10d6 Fireballs. Up, down, too much, not enough.

[hyzmarca]

If you want swingy, make your dice rolls multiplicitive.

1d6 * 1d10 gives you a 1-60 range, but the distribution is a lot more even.

http://anydice.com/program/94d6

1d8 * 1d8 is similar, with a 1-64 range

http://anydice.com/program/49de

[virgil]

how 'bout the RIFTS system of "4d6x10"

How bout dem MDC? Yuck.

It's the same swinging as 10d6 Fireballs. Up, down, too much, not enough.

Rifts uses that 4d6*10 method for MDC weapons as well. Now, if you don't like the swing rate of 1d6*10 because it to closely matches that of 10d6 - then you've answered your question and should stick to 2d6+28; and several of us will wonder why you don't just go with "it does 35 damage on a failed save" and be done with it, with the swing being so tiny.

I will say that rolling two dice and multiplying them is a terrible idea; objectively worse than just rolling ten dice.

[JonSetanta]

Why add the tiny bit of dice on top of static damage?

So that it's different every time. Gives the player something to roll, but not too much.

[momothefiddler]

So that it's different every time.

Yeah, but not meaningfully different.

I don't know. I acknowledge that some players will prefer this to no dice at all, but at this point I see the die rolling as a complete waste and would be annoyed if I had to when it clearly makes no difference at all. Almost exactly like I get annoyed about rolling and adding 10d6, when it clearly makes no difference at all.

[hyzmarca]

I will say that rolling two dice and multiplying them is a terrible idea; objectively worse than just rolling ten dice.

Is that because multiplying is too difficult, or because the distribution curve is too flat?

[momothefiddler]

I will say that rolling two dice and multiplying them is a terrible idea; objectively worse than just rolling ten dice.

Is that because multiplying is too difficult, or because the distribution curve is too flat?

It's because the distribution is not a curve. Sure, our 10d6 is technically discrete in that it only includes integers, but a multiplication doesnt even have even consistent distances between points, the probabilities don't scale in any intuitive way... Nobody is gonna be able to have a 'feel' for what the result is or could be at all. The fact that 35 has half the chance of 36 is already funky, but add on the fact that 37, 38, and 39 are impossible, and people are not gonna be happy. The low end may be 1 and your high 60, but you only have 32 possible results, and those have different probabilities without being any sort of intuitive curve. For god's sake, consider the fact that on this 1-60 range, your halfway point is when you need to roll 16 or more! If you want 30+, that's only 25%. And that's because you're spending a bunch of your probability on multiple ways to make every number from 1-10 and zero ways to make anything between 54 and 60! And none of that is anything I could have told you without either sitting down and working it out or looking at the anydice calcs (which is obviously what I did) because it's just a counterintuitive mess!

Look, I'm sorry for getting too upset about numbers and ranting, but it's Bad. Don't do it.

(Unless you're intentionally going for a mechanic that the players don't understand? Idk "roll 3d6 and multiply them together" could be a pretty good starting point for Doubt haha. But also your designer isn't gonna make the math work because THEY aren't gonna have a sense of it EITHER.)

[Pixels]

Even if you cumulatively combine the "extremes" into collective amorphous masses the 5% cut off is only something like 27-43.

On 10d6, 25-45 is just shy of 95% and 22-48 is just shy of 99%. 18-52 is 99.9%, so if you really need 53+ on a particular roll you're going to need your lucky sneakers.

[Ice9]

It's because the distribution is not a curve. Sure, our 10d6 is technically discrete in that it only includes integers, but a multiplication doesnt even have even consistent distances between points, the probabilities don't scale in any intuitive way... Nobody is gonna be able to have a 'feel' for what the result is or could be at all. The fact that 35 has half the chance of 36 is already funky, but add on the fact that 37, 38, and 39 are impossible, and people are not gonna be happy. The low end may be 1 and your high 60, but you only have 32 possible results, and those have different probabilities without being any sort of intuitive curve. For god's sake, consider the fact that on this 1-60 range, your halfway point is when you need to roll 16 or more! If you want 30+, that's only 25%. And that's because you're spending a bunch of your probability on multiple ways to make every number from 1-10 and zero ways to make anything between 54 and 60! And none of that is anything I could have told you without either sitting down and working it out or looking at the anydice calcs (which is obviously what I did) because it's just a counterintuitive mess!

Multiplying by some numbers is difficult; multiplying by 10 certainly isn't, and it's pretty damn intuitive. What is the average of 2d6x10? It's the average of 2d6 with an extra zero on the end. The fact that you can't roll exactly a 63 doesn't matter, because people aren't thinking about the beauty of the mathematical curve, they either:
A) Want to know the average, which is equally easy as with 20d6.
B) Want to know the odds of getting at least X, which is easier than with 20d6.

[momothefiddler]

It's because the distribution is not a curve. Sure, our 10d6 is technically discrete in that it only includes integers, but a multiplication doesnt even have even consistent distances between points, the probabilities don't scale in any intuitive way... Nobody is gonna be able to have a 'feel' for what the result is or could be at all. The fact that 35 has half the chance of 36 is already funky, but add on the fact that 37, 38, and 39 are impossible, and people are not gonna be happy. The low end may be 1 and your high 60, but you only have 32 possible results, and those have different probabilities without being any sort of intuitive curve. For god's sake, consider the fact that on this 1-60 range, your halfway point is when you need to roll 16 or more! If you want 30+, that's only 25%. And that's because you're spending a bunch of your probability on multiple ways to make every number from 1-10 and zero ways to make anything between 54 and 60! And none of that is anything I could have told you without either sitting down and working it out or looking at the anydice calcs (which is obviously what I did) because it's just a counterintuitive mess!

Multiplying by some numbers is difficult; multiplying by 10 certainly isn't, and it's pretty damn intuitive. What is the average of 2d6x10? It's the average of 2d6 with an extra zero on the end. The fact that you can't roll exactly a 63 doesn't matter, because people aren't thinking about the beauty of the mathematical curve, they either:
A) Want to know the average, which is equally easy as with 20d6.
B) Want to know the odds of getting at least X, which is easier than with 20d6.

I don't know why you're quoting me here, because I am completely fine with 2d6*10. That entire thing was about 1d6*1d10, which is fucked. up.

[Ice9]

Oh; I thought you mean multiplying multiple dice by anything, not by each-other. Yeah, I don't see much advantage to the latter either; aside from having wonky probabilities, multiplying by arbitrary numbers is slower.

Also:

We actually have an example of how it works when you roll 2d6 and add 28. That is life as a high level fighter in d&d. It's awful. You're rolling dice but it's fucking meaningless because the static damage portion is so high. There are things you can do to improve the damage dealing step, but 4e's plan of making everyone a differently skinned fighter was the worst.

Yeah, and that's why casting Maximized Fireball is such a shitty unrewarding experience compared to regular Fireball. Oh wait, no it isn't.

This is a bizarre rant. Among the things that suck about being a high-level 3.x Fighter, mostly-static damage is not one of them. When you're hitting like 4x a round, it would end up close to the average 99% of the time anyway. It's not like changing 2d6+56 to 18d6 and rolling a bucket of dice each round would make "all full-attack all the time" more exciting.

If you meant that since the 2d6 is such a minor part, it should just be "63 damage" with no dice involved, I'm not sure. It would speed things up a little, at the cost of making damage perfectly predictable, which changes tactics in some cases.

[Ice9]

Proposed solution, for high volatility with less rolling:
All damage of 35+ becomes Xd6*10+Y

To convert existing damage:
1) For every 10d6, turn them into 1d6*10
2) Average any remaining dice and add them to Y
3) For every 35 in Y, turn it into 1d6*10

15d6 -> 1d6*10+18
2d6+85 -> 2d6*10+22

[Kaelik]

We actually have an example of how it works when you roll 2d6 and add 28. That is life as a high level fighter in d&d. It's awful. You're rolling dice but it's fucking meaningless because the static damage portion is so high. There are things you can do to improve the damage dealing step, but 4e's plan of making everyone a differently skinned fighter was the worst.

Yeah, and that's why casting Maximized Fireball is such a shitty unrewarding experience compared to regular Fireball. Oh wait, no it isn't.

This is a bizarre rant. Among the things that suck about being a high-level 3.x Fighter, mostly-static damage is not one of them. When you're hitting like 4x a round, it would end up close to the average 99% of the time anyway. It's not like changing 2d6+56 to 18d6 and rolling a bucket of dice each round would make "all full-attack all the time" more exciting.

If you meant that since the 2d6 is such a minor part, it should just be "63 damage" with no dice involved, I'm not sure. It would speed things up a little, at the cost of making damage perfectly predictable, which changes tactics in some cases.

Wholly shit, he obviously meant the rolling 2d6 at all part is garbage, because it wastes time for no gain. At least 10d6 your roll "matters" even if it is always going to be almost the same range.

If you are a fighter power attacking for 10 and with a high strength, you just flat don't give a fuck about your 2d6 from the Greatsword because the amount is either X or Y and both are basically equally as good.

You can either have Maximized Fireball where you do the damage and it feels good, or you can have regular fireball where you roll dice and you care what they say. I personally have a strong preference for one, but fucking hell I don't ever want to do 40+2d6 damage.

[GnomeWorks]

So... what, it's impossible to envision a system for which the 2d6 in "40+2d6" is meaningful, so fuck the entire notion?

I get that it's largely pointless in 3.5. But surely it isn't absurd to contemplate the idea further and what sort of system it could potentially reside in without feeling like it does in existing systems.