Combining different dice? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Combining different dice? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Alcalientre
03-19-06, 01:07 PM Is there something sacred about always using the same type of dice for things like damage rolls? I don't know why there should be. I've found that you can do some interesting things by combining two dice.
For instance, a d10 d2 combination has the same average damage as a greatsword, but is less consistent. You can get lots of variations in the consistency of weapons with the same average damage by combining different dice rolls.
Also, and probably more importantly, you can get damage rolls that couldn't be gotten otherwise, like something with a max of 14.
ShinAkuma2
03-19-06, 03:34 PM I'm not sure what you're getting at. One greatsword is going to hurt as much as the next, so there's no reason for them to be using different dice.

If you're just noting that multiple dice are always the same, then it's just a matter of convience. If you have 1d6, you can do a club, a greatsword, a large 7th level Monk, and a caster level 17th Delayed Blast Fireball with that single die. If you start mixing up dice, you force players to keep track of dice that they might otherwise not need.
supernerd8916
03-19-06, 03:40 PM a bastard sword and a short sword is the approxamate equivelent of 2longswords, but you dont take more than a -2 penalty (with TWF)
Thelon Fairblade
03-19-06, 03:51 PM If you really wanted to make subclassifications and distinctions between otherwise-mechanically-identical weapons, I suppose that's one method. Like the old 1st Edition Longsword (1d8) vs. Broadsword (2d4)...
Alcalientre
03-19-06, 05:11 PM The longsword/broadsword isn't what I'm saying, because in that situation the broadsword has better average damage than the longsword. What I'm saying is that you can get variations in consistency with the same average damage. For instance, if you like the idea of a greataxe being more random than the greatsword, but don't like the fact that a greatsword does .5 extra average damage, then you can make the GA do d10 d2 damage instead, and keep most of the randomness and balance the damage out.

But mostly this would be used for creating damage rolls like max 14 or 18 or 19 or 17 or others, that could not be gotten otherwise.

I was simply wondering if there was some idea that damage rolls should always be made up of the same die. If I were to create a weapon with damage like this, would experienced Dnd players look at it and say "That's dumb, it uses two different dice."
Pandaemoni
03-19-06, 05:42 PM To the extent you're saying that d10 + d2 is the same as 2d6, they are not. The probability distribution on d10 +d2 is much much flatter that that of 2d6.

As a result 2d6 should provide you with at or near average damage on a far more consistent basis, though the averages are the save for both systems. In fact the odds of rolling 6,7, or 8, (numbers around the average of 7) on 2d6 is 16 in 36 (or about 44.44%). The odds of getting a 6, 7 or 8 on d10 + d2 are 6 in 20 (or 30%)

The odds of getting 5-9 are
2d6 = 66.67%
d10+d2 = 50%.

The odds of rolling a 12 (or a 2, for that matter) are
2d6 = 1 in 36 (2.77%)
d10+d2 = 1 in 20 (5%)

The d10 +d2 method are more likely to provide your with results at the high or low end of the spectrum.

There's nothing inherently wrong with using a high variance dice roll as opposed to the traditional system (in fact any single die roll will have, say 1d12, inherently have more variance to it than your d10+d2 system), but they are not exactly mathematically equivalent.
Jaid
03-19-06, 06:32 PM i think that's his point. that is to say, his point is that you could have a greataxe do the same average damage as a greatsword, but still be more random, by having the greataxe do d10+d2 damage, and keeping the greatsword at 2d6, as opposed to the current system where the greatsword, on average, does .5 more damage per hit than the axe (assuming no criticals etc).

personally, i don't see any problem with it. certainly, sneak attack dice (or skirmish, etc) are not at all guaranteed to be the same kind of dice as the weapon you use to sneak attack (or skirmish) with. neither is the flaming, flaming burst, (and other elemental enchantments) based on the type of dice your weapon deals. so i would say it's not really a problem. it's not quite as pretty or clean, but so long as you don't care about that, go ahead. it's your game, not mine.
Thelon Fairblade
03-21-06, 09:09 AM I once played in a variant combat system where (a) all characters started with CON as base hp, and (b) all attacks did +1d6. So your average 1st level wizard had 16hp (12 con, +4 on d4). and a dagger strike did d6+d4, while a greatsword strike was d6+2d6 = 3d6. The idea was to make all weapons and attacks deadly (10 base damage with a dagger, 20 on a crit!), but allow the benefits of Armor as DR, and make really weak races as well. (Goblins remained 1d8 hp = 4hp, for example, but orcs were 10 + 1d8 = 14hp.)

So, the point of explaining all that was to say that I played a game where different dice were used for every attack -- it's not a big deal, if your players don't mind. Some players IMC still have to figure out what damage their weapon does after 4 years of playing; others have memorized all the rules and don't think a game is worth playing until you have changed the rules. YMMV.
Dalthbar
03-21-06, 09:29 AM Roll your 1d12 and count how many rolls it takes to get a 1.

Then, roll your 1d10 + 1d2 and count how many times it takes until you get a 1.

Get back to us when you're still convinced that it's the same.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Alcalientre 03-19-06, 01:07 PM	Is there something sacred about always using the same type of dice for things like damage rolls? I don't know why there should be. I've found that you can do some interesting things by combining two dice. For instance, a d10 d2 combination has the same average damage as a greatsword, but is less consistent. You can get lots of variations in the consistency of weapons with the same average damage by combining different dice rolls. Also, and probably more importantly, you can get damage rolls that couldn't be gotten otherwise, like something with a max of 14.
ShinAkuma2 03-19-06, 03:34 PM	I'm not sure what you're getting at. One greatsword is going to hurt as much as the next, so there's no reason for them to be using different dice. If you're just noting that multiple dice are always the same, then it's just a matter of convience. If you have 1d6, you can do a club, a greatsword, a large 7th level Monk, and a caster level 17th Delayed Blast Fireball with that single die. If you start mixing up dice, you force players to keep track of dice that they might otherwise not need.
supernerd8916 03-19-06, 03:40 PM	a bastard sword and a short sword is the approxamate equivelent of 2longswords, but you dont take more than a -2 penalty (with TWF)
Thelon Fairblade 03-19-06, 03:51 PM	If you really wanted to make subclassifications and distinctions between otherwise-mechanically-identical weapons, I suppose that's one method. Like the old 1st Edition Longsword (1d8) vs. Broadsword (2d4)...
Alcalientre 03-19-06, 05:11 PM	The longsword/broadsword isn't what I'm saying, because in that situation the broadsword has better average damage than the longsword. What I'm saying is that you can get variations in consistency with the same average damage. For instance, if you like the idea of a greataxe being more random than the greatsword, but don't like the fact that a greatsword does .5 extra average damage, then you can make the GA do d10 d2 damage instead, and keep most of the randomness and balance the damage out. But mostly this would be used for creating damage rolls like max 14 or 18 or 19 or 17 or others, that could not be gotten otherwise. I was simply wondering if there was some idea that damage rolls should always be made up of the same die. If I were to create a weapon with damage like this, would experienced Dnd players look at it and say "That's dumb, it uses two different dice."
Pandaemoni 03-19-06, 05:42 PM	To the extent you're saying that d10 + d2 is the same as 2d6, they are not. The probability distribution on d10 +d2 is much much flatter that that of 2d6. As a result 2d6 should provide you with at or near average damage on a far more consistent basis, though the averages are the save for both systems. In fact the odds of rolling 6,7, or 8, (numbers around the average of 7) on 2d6 is 16 in 36 (or about 44.44%). The odds of getting a 6, 7 or 8 on d10 + d2 are 6 in 20 (or 30%) The odds of getting 5-9 are 2d6 = 66.67% d10+d2 = 50%. The odds of rolling a 12 (or a 2, for that matter) are 2d6 = 1 in 36 (2.77%) d10+d2 = 1 in 20 (5%) The d10 +d2 method are more likely to provide your with results at the high or low end of the spectrum. There's nothing inherently wrong with using a high variance dice roll as opposed to the traditional system (in fact any single die roll will have, say 1d12, inherently have more variance to it than your d10+d2 system), but they are not exactly mathematically equivalent.
Jaid 03-19-06, 06:32 PM	i think that's his point. that is to say, his point is that you could have a greataxe do the same average damage as a greatsword, but still be more random, by having the greataxe do d10+d2 damage, and keeping the greatsword at 2d6, as opposed to the current system where the greatsword, on average, does .5 more damage per hit than the axe (assuming no criticals etc). personally, i don't see any problem with it. certainly, sneak attack dice (or skirmish, etc) are not at all guaranteed to be the same kind of dice as the weapon you use to sneak attack (or skirmish) with. neither is the flaming, flaming burst, (and other elemental enchantments) based on the type of dice your weapon deals. so i would say it's not really a problem. it's not quite as pretty or clean, but so long as you don't care about that, go ahead. it's your game, not mine.
Thelon Fairblade 03-21-06, 09:09 AM	I once played in a variant combat system where (a) all characters started with CON as base hp, and (b) all attacks did +1d6. So your average 1st level wizard had 16hp (12 con, +4 on d4). and a dagger strike did d6+d4, while a greatsword strike was d6+2d6 = 3d6. The idea was to make all weapons and attacks deadly (10 base damage with a dagger, 20 on a crit!), but allow the benefits of Armor as DR, and make really weak races as well. (Goblins remained 1d8 hp = 4hp, for example, but orcs were 10 + 1d8 = 14hp.) So, the point of explaining all that was to say that I played a game where different dice were used for every attack -- it's not a big deal, if your players don't mind. Some players IMC still have to figure out what damage their weapon does after 4 years of playing; others have memorized all the rules and don't think a game is worth playing until you have changed the rules. YMMV.
Dalthbar 03-21-06, 09:29 AM	Roll your 1d12 and count how many rolls it takes to get a 1. Then, roll your 1d10 + 1d2 and count how many times it takes until you get a 1. Get back to us when you're still convinced that it's the same.