Spells with more static damage values

[JonSetanta]

Let's pretend that math is complex, which it is, and rolling 10d6 damage per Fireball is arduous.

Pretend for a moment that the game instead took an average of 4 damage per d6 (half, round up) except for one die, tacked on top like a cherry on ice cream.
If you want, roll 2d6 and take off another 4.

So you have 36 + 1d6 Fire damage, which provides much faster math calculations reliably.

This can scale upward very easily and quickly. Great for DMs.

[PhoneLobster]

I'd suggest most damage randomization is more of an unthinking tradition all too few game designers actually think about than an actual good thing for the game.

You could take most of the HP and damage totals from say 3.x D&D, fix them to non random amounts instead of dice rolls and divide the lot by what? About 10? And lose pretty much nothing and make some notable inroads on time and math costs, not to mention transparency and predictability.

Fuck it, you can even keep critical hit damage multiplying and keep your now limited damage randomization on your original attack roll. Then what did your game lose? Compared to what it gained?

Fireball, a damage roll that simultaneously involves a larger than usual amount of dice management and a less variable probable outcome is just the most immediately obvious offending time waster. It's the tip of a goddamn iceberg.

[JonSetanta]

I think it all started with players wanting that gratifying fistful of dice (d6) rolled onto the table, the scatter effect, the sound, the rattle, the suspense.

But I don't want any of that.

[tussock]

10d6 was very cool when fairly big monsters had 30-40 hit points in large and dangerous groups, because as you added up the total you either killed them or you didn't based on the result.

10d6 is just stupid when the same monsters have 100-150 hit points but there's only four of them and they don't even fit in a fireball any more. But the stupid bit is mostly where the monster has 100+ hit points and isn't even a god. Exemplified in 4th edition with it's 1000+ hit point epic solo dragons, and PCs doing 4[W]+Str+ OMFG-will-it-never-end damage.

Be careful that you're attacking the right end of the problem, and that at the end you can still represent ordinary people not instantly dying when stabbed by a mook.

[RobbyPants]

Tussock, he wasn't talking about making the spells deal more damage (well, more than half a point per d6 because of rounding); he was talking about speeding up the resolution of the damage roll.

[JonSetanta]

Tussock, he wasn't talking about making the spells deal more damage (well, more than half a point per d6 because of rounding); he was talking about speeding up the resolution of the damage roll.

Yep.

[spongeknight]

You guys realize that static damage tends to be boring as fuck, right? People want the roll to matter.

[GnomeWorks]

You guys realize that static damage tends to be boring as fuck, right? People want the roll to matter.

Yes, but you want to balance out the players' desire for the roll to matter with how much variance the mechanics can reasonably tolerate.

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?

If not (and I'm personally in the camp that says that's the case), I'd argue you'd be better off saying that the damage is something like 2d6+28; players get to roll some dice, but the expected output variance is significanly lower.

[PhoneLobster]

You guys realize that static damage tends to be boring as fuck, right? People want the roll to matter.

I thought that might be the case so I tried it out to see...

...it was so well accepted I never went back.

edit: ...and if you rely on damage rolls to keep your game interesting... you have other issues...

[OgreBattle]

The tactile sensation of rolling a handful of dice is a plus for a fair amount of people. There's also the gambling aspect of not being guaranteed a number and instead rolling for it.

So your idea is a mechanically sound one that makes efficient use of tabletop time, but there's other folks who like the dice rolling for the sake of rolling dice, or strongly associate it with certain aspects of the game like 6d6 fireballs

[virgil]

If not (and I'm personally in the camp that says that's the case), I'd argue you'd be better off saying that the damage is something like 2d6+28; players get to roll some dice, but the expected output variance is significanly lower.

The problem with tightening the variance is how big the bonus is. That example is borderline pointless because your damage variance is +/-14%, and is the same reason that base weapon damage becomes meaningless past the low levels.

[Mechalich]

I think Tussock's point though was that the variability in fireball damage was more relevant back when the spell's damage was a much greater proportion of the overall health of an enemy. In 2e AD&D the difference between rolling 20 damage and rolling 45 damage on 10d6 was fucking significant in a way it simply isn't for a 10th level character in 3.X.

Going to static damage is useful if the variance in the damage rolls is unlikely to be meaningful. In 3.X this is generally the case - either the bonus damage overwhelms the variant component or you're making so many rolls that it'll average out anyway - static damage has a lot of appeal.

[tussock]

Yep, adding up more dice is more work and it has to produce a result you care about.

3e Evocations don't do enough damage to care about, so adding up a lot of dice is bad.

Though given that the poor bloody DM still might have to roll a fist full of saving throws, giving the Wizard something to do for a minute or two isn't that bad for the game as a whole. It would just be much better if the result of the fireball addition mini-game was of interest to the players.

[Slade]

You guys realize that static damage tends to be boring as fuck, right? People want the roll to matter.

Yes, but you want to balance out the players' desire for the roll to matter with how much variance the mechanics can reasonably tolerate.

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?

If not (and I'm personally in the camp that says that's the case), I'd argue you'd be better off saying that the damage is something like 2d6+28; players get to roll some dice, but the expected output variance is significanly lower.

So with the new rules: Fireball does what at caster 10: 4x9 (36) +1d6 fire=37 to 42 damage less than a maximized fireball, but better than average (35).

[JonSetanta]

After these discussions, I think 2d6 + number is best.

[Emerald]

If not (and I'm personally in the camp that says that's the case), I'd argue you'd be better off saying that the damage is something like 2d6+28; players get to roll some dice, but the expected output variance is significanly lower.

The problem with tightening the variance is how big the bonus is. That example is borderline pointless because your damage variance is +/-14%, and is the same reason that base weapon damage becomes meaningless past the low levels.

Agreed. Far from having players of blaster PCs in my group complain that rolling 10d6 takes too long and is pointless due to regression to the mean, instead the players of beatstick PCs in my group complain that they never get to roll lots of dice and they might as well be wielding feathers instead of greatswords for all the difference base weapon damage makes.

I'd personally convert the large static modifiers over to the handfuls-of-d6s standard somehow and then allow people to trade d6s for 4s as desired. Players who want to play conservatively and take 40 damage on a 10d6 fireball can do so, players who want to roll everything and hope for 60 damage on that fireball can do so, players who want to roll 5d6+20 or 2d6+32 or whatever for the thrill of rolling but without the risk of rolling really badly can do so.

[erik]

This is terrible and would never use it. (Edit: caveat, Emerald has good ideas, the rest of this is rubbish)

Might as well make it a flat number because the relevance of 1 or 2 d6 is irrelevant and you'll save much more time if adding and rolling more dice was already a trial.

If you want to shave dice rolled then just go 1d6 X # of dice. So 10d6 gives you 10-60 but in increments of 10. It is wildly swingy but that is better than almost completely flat.

[PhoneLobster]

Players who want to play conservatively and take 40 damage on a 10d6 fireball can do so, players who want to roll everything and hope for 60 damage on that fireball can do so

OK, so the guy on the other thread saying he is running a game tracking thousands of numbers with excel sheets and scripts as a regular part of play picks THAT choice? THAT number for 10d6?

There is only about a what? Less than 16% chance that anyone would roll over 40 if they opted to roll. Hell only a bit more than 5% chance they'll even get over 43? Instead about 80% of the time they will roll lower, mostly by about 5-10 points. 35 would be a close enough to approximately neutral choice, 40 is just punishing people who "like rolling dice" by making their fireballs objectively inferior.

And considering your stated goal is to encourage the rolling of dice? What the hell?

[erik]

it is punishing people for rolling/gambling but even when dealing with big piles like 10d6 that is only a 5 hp penalty on average for rolling. Big whup. I could still see reason to roll if you needed to deal more than 40 to make a difference (enemy has 45 hp and you have 0% chance of winning that round with a static amount).

Edit: forgot to add. It is a power up for direct damage but they could use it even if it is only a very minor power up.

[infected slut princess]

Rolling a fistful of dice is fun! Hooray!

Especially when you cast VENGEFUL GAZE OF GOD, which is totally the most awesome spell EVER in D&D history.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/v ... eOfGod.htm

It's true that some people really fail at life and it takes them five minutes to add up the damage from a 10d6 fireball... but whether you are dumb or not, it seems like that should be about the biggest fistful people roll at a time. More dice just means it's more likely that your roll results will cluster around the average result so eventually the act of rolling becomes mostly unimportant anyway. Even at 10d6 the average result dominates.

One of the reasons people like D&D so much is because rolling TO HIT and rolling TO DAMAGE is fun!

Let's pretend that math is complex, which it is, and rolling 10d6 damage per Fireball is arduous.

COMPLEX? ARDUOUS? Wow.

Pretend for a moment that the game instead took an average of 4 damage per d6 (half, round up) except for one die, tacked on top like a cherry on ice cream.
If you want, roll 2d6 and take off another 4.

So you have 36 + 1d6 Fire damage, which provides much faster math calculations reliably.

Why bother rolling? No one cares about the result of the extra 1d6 at that point. Goodness gracious.

[PhoneLobster]

(enemy has 45 hp and you have 0% chance of winning that round with a static amount)

So... you take an 80% chance of less damage for a 3% chance of getting enough damage?

"Winning that round" had better be important. But also had really better not be very important at the same time.

[erik]

(enemy has 45 hp and you have 0% chance of winning that round with a static amount)

So... you take an 80% chance of less damage for a 3% chance of getting enough damage?

"Winning that round" had better be important. But also had really better not be very important at the same time.

It's an edge case, but yes, if I am the only remaining person to go before the enemy's turn and I know they have 45 HP and they can deal enough harm that I would much rather end them before they get another turn, then it is an obvious choice to go for the roll for the chance of stopping him versus the no-roll, no chance of stopping him. Don't say it never happens, because that kind of situation has happened to me and probably plenty of people. The only reason it doesn't come up as often is because it requires knowledge of HP remaining (sometimes we have multiple identical foes and we track damage taken to put them down, being little metagamers that we are).

It's like power attacking to the point where you are lowering your average damage thanks to decreased hit percentage, but you need to swing for the fences for it to matter on *that* round. Early on examples of this are when you don't have a proper weapon to penetrate DR so the only way to be useful is maximum effort. Ditto if you're sporting 5d6 fireball and the foe has 20 Fire Resistance. Ideally you'd use something else, but if that's all you got then it's better to roll than take the 20 damage.

[PhoneLobster]

Don't say it never happens

It isn't so much the case that it never happens, it's more that at 3% success rate it pretty much never succeeds.

But anyway, let me make explicit the extra implied bit of information your edge case needs "if I fail to do remove the opponent with this one attack this round, then there will be more than enough otherwise unused collective damage floating around to make up for any shortfall in my damage output this round".

It's just unfortunate that if finishing that round did matter you have a 97% chance that the opponent just eliminated a PC or something in the interim.

In the mean time, edge cases don't justify punishing players for picking the dice rolling option in both the vast majority of outcomes to that edge case and the vast majority of most other cases when your design intent was that "rolling more dice is cool" in all cases.

[GnomeWorks]

The problem with tightening the variance is how big the bonus is. That example is borderline pointless because your damage variance is +/-14%, and is the same reason that base weapon damage becomes meaningless past the low levels.

I normally shoot for about 10% variance when I do my damage codes.

I'm looking mostly for static damage with a little variation, not fistfuls of dice with random numbers attached to put them in an acceptable range.

[JonSetanta]

It's true that some people really fail at life and it takes them five minutes to add up the damage from a 10d6 fireball...

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.