Post/Author/DateTime	Post
josephbt 01-18-05, 08:42 AM	which is statisticaly better for rolling critical dmg: 1) rolling your normal dmg and then multiplying it with the multiplyer or, 2) adding all your dmg dice up and then rolling it all eg crit with a long sword is (d8+2)*2 for method 1 and its 2d8+4 for method 2. i really am statisticaly inept so any ansewer would be apreciated.
michael_noah 01-18-05, 08:52 AM	It depends what you mean by that. Neither one is "better" since they both provide the same average damage. The first method has a wider variance, though. You're equally likely to get 20 damage or 6 damage. The second method won't get you either of those as often, you'll be more likely to do 11-15 all the time. I'd probably choose the second method, because then you can better guess how much damage you'll do on each hit. Note: I'd guess that your question doesn't actually matter without some sort of house rule. Option number 2 is the "correct" one - for critical hits, etc.
Sakris 01-18-05, 08:54 AM	The results of variant 1 will be more entropic (further from the average) than variant 2. In the long run it'll be the same.
Arcade 01-18-05, 08:55 AM	Statistically, the average amount of damage you do in both variants is the same. however the variation is different. If you roll (1d8+2)x2 or 2d8 + 4, your average damage will be 13 points of damage. However, in method 1, your odds of causing a certain amount of damage is this: 6 - 1/8 8 - 1/8 10 - 1/8 12- 1/8 14 - 1/8 16 - 1/8 18 - 1/8 20 - 1/8 So you have an equal chance to do very little, normal, or lots of damage. With method 2, your odds of causing damage is: 6 - 1/64 7 - 2/64 8 - 3/64 9 - 4/64 10 - 5/64 11 - 6/64 12 - 7/64 13 - 8/64 14 - 7/64 15 - 6/64 16 - 5/64 17 - 4/64 18 - 3/64 19 - 2/64 20 - 1/64 In this method, you have a higher chance of doing a medium amount of damage and less chance of doing very little or very large amounts of damage. So which is better? If you're the type of player who would rather take the weapon with a x4 critical rather than the 18-20/x2 critical, you would like method 1 better. If you're the opposite, method 2 is for you. Method 1 is more luck based and method 2 is less luck based. In general, characters are better off using a less luck based method. My opinion is to use method 2.
Ander00 01-18-05, 06:18 PM	What has already been said. The specific quote from the SRD: A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together.By the RAW it'd be variant #2. If you're just looking for something to house-rule, I'd say there are other things that'll probably have a bigger impact. As far as which version is better, I'd also prefer variant #2, because it isn't a whole lot of fun to follow up a confirmed critical with minimum damage. cheers
DBoot 01-18-05, 06:46 PM	Like mentioned before, Method 2 is the official way of doing things. However, IF you are the type that specializes in dealing critical hits (usually through an insane archer build or a Weapon Master), most of your real damage comes from things like power attacks, strength, enhancement bonuses and the like. At this point, the extra dice become semi-irrelevant. For speed's sake, rolling then multiplying gets the job done, and has a significantly higher chance of maxed (and min'ed) damage. Again, this is something for the Half-Giant Shocktrooper, Neraph Charging, Leap Attack, Power Attack, Psionic Scythe Master to worry about. After all, what's 10d6 when you're already smashing out 500+ damage in your first hit? An extra 10/20/30/40/60 isn't a bad deal.
josephbt 01-19-05, 04:41 AM	thanks for all the input. my group decided against using method 1 after a battle with 3 grimlocks in which 2 of their criticals went afully wrong(two longbow crits for 3 and 6 dmg). I'm (DM) still gonna keep using it for my monsters. saves time a lot.