Spells with more static damage values

[GnomeWorks]

...So now we have a random weakling

Again, you assume that everyone at level X will be doing Y damage.

That's dumb.

And all that's ignoring the fact that you literally just added a character whose static damage isn't large compared to their variable aspect in order to justify the existence of randomizing an average 7 on top of a static 40.

Yep, I did an ass-pull for the second damage code... primarily because I don't think I have one for "40+2d6," (so couldn't really find an actual code to compare it with) and was more working towards the point of "yes the variability can matter."

Closest I've got at the same level is 1d3+8 and... I've got a 1d8+43, which is close-ish. If you want precise numbers. It's entirely reasonable for characters of the same level to have abilities that do damage of both of those values.

I don't think the game would benefit from characters of a particular level being forced into a very narrow range for damage output.

Spoiler alert, we had come up with non HP systems in 2008. Also, while you are at it......... Literally no part of this thread was about getting rid of HP until right now when you realized everything said before especially by you, was fucking stupid.

I never said anything about getting rid of HP, but thanks for playing.

[momothefiddler]

So if you are hitting a dude with 47 hp with a thing that does 40+2d6, you have a ~50% chance of dropping him and a ~50% chance of not (obviously those percentages aren't exactly because normal distribution, but you get the idea). That is valuable IMO.

FWIW 1d2*1,000,000,000-1,000,000,000 gets you exactly 50%. I think we should consider that as a base mechanic next. It does have the downside of letting the combat potentially reach three rounds, but it would be foolish of us to dismiss something out of hand. For instance, if we have someone else who wears a blue hat.

Closest I've got at the same level is 1d3+8 and... I've got a 1d8+43, which is close-ish. If you want precise numbers. It's entirely reasonable for characters of the same level to have abilities that do damage of both of those values.

Look, if the 1d3+8 person has other useful things they can do (I'm absolute shit for damage in my current game, but I buff people real good), then the reason that disparity is ok is because it never comes up. If that's their contribution to combat, well... do you allow people to take 1 on those rolls? Barring someone with 10 or 11 hp (at which point I'd give a weary sigh and feel obligated to roll) I'd rather just do 9 damage than roll a d3 for an average 10. Fuck that. I'm not even against rolling dice, I'm just offended by the theatrics. And that's before I'm offended that you bothered giving me a damage code at all when it could easily be less than a fifth of that done by the dude who just went. Unless I have something else to do with my actions, I'm annoyed that you held up the combat that I don't get to play in to make me roll to not play in the combat. At the very least just leave me out and streamline the thing so I can go back to whatever it is that I can do. Because it's not damage.

[deaddmwalking]

I happened to pick '45 damage' because that is much more likely to be a 'static value' than 47. But yes, 47 would be the median value of 40+2d6.

If you're going with 'fixed hit points', I seriously doubt you'll have anyone with 47 hit points. It is a prime number, so no multiplicative value will result in that hit point total. Possibly some x + (y * z) could (ie, 7 + 8x5), but you'd be really reaching for that.

IF THIS IS ABOUT DROPPING SOMEONE IN ONE OR TWO HITS, as you now seem to claim, it would certainly be easier to have every hit result in a 'save' with approximately 50% chance of success. The likelihood of going to 5 hits would be about 3%.

[Kaelik]

I never said anything about getting rid of HP, but thanks for playing.

So now we are back to pretending that everyone has the same HP, and that fireballs do 40+2d6, and that someone does 1d3+8, and we are supposed to care about that person?

It's a fighter in your head isn't it? That's the only possible way I can see that being justified.

[DSMatticus]

It's a mathematical truism that when the variance is low the roll matters less. That is literally what it fucking means to say that the variance is low - the roll affects the outcome less often. You can pick numbers out of your ass in order to create specific situations where the roll matters. You can even justify some of those situations in not stupid ways, though one character hurling out 47 damage while another taps people for 9.5 certainly triggers my skepticism. But regardless of all that bullshit, when you actually roll 40+2d6 against some arbitrary target, the 42 you are guaranteed is more than four times as likely to make you hit that arbitrary target as the 1-10 you'll get from possibly rolling better than the minimum. Because math.

Also, I think it's kind of interesting that the second example you gave was 6+1d6. 40+2d6 has a relative standard deviation* of 5.15%, while 6+1d6 has a relative standard deviation of 18.00% - way fucking higher. Do you want to know what a better match for 40+2d6 would be? 8+1d2; relative standard deviation of 5.26%. Yes, you are defending the high level equivalent of 8+1d2. Yes, that's absurd. Determining the difference between 9 or 10 damage is not worth it - and really, neither is determining the difference between 42 and 52.

*Relative standard deviation is just standard deviation divided by mean given as a percent, and is just a way of measuring how large the standard deviation is relative to the size of the results you're expecting. 1+1d20 and 1000+1d20 both have the same standard deviation, but the former has a much higher relative standard deviation because the 1d20 is a much larger component of the individual results than when you're already adding 1000 and the 1d20 basically doesn't matter.

[JonSetanta]

While you were sparring with words and numbers, I put up some poll options to get a clear consensus on the matter.

Carry on.

[GnomeWorks]

Look, if the 1d3+8 person has other useful things they can do (I'm absolute shit for damage in my current game, but I buff people real good), then the reason that disparity is ok is because it never comes up.

So I'm definitely still hammering out the kinks in this approach, but in general most attacks don't do the lowest damage code possible, or if they do they have some significant other effect (like throwing on a status ailment or something). The only place I've used it so far is in a few lower-level DoTs, and I think one low-level mage spell that hits an AoE that also knocks everyone in the area prone. I think plain-ass unarmed attacks as someone who doesn't do that for a living also do the lowest amount of damage possible (so "monks" get a significant boost, etc).

If that's their contribution to combat, well... do you allow people to take 1 on those rolls?

I've been running games on roll20 for a couple years now, and I started doing this on there; I just wrote up a script so players can just enter their level and the damage code lookup, and it'll automatically spit out the damage value.

I fully admit that actually physically rolling a 1d3 would be a pain in the ass.

I'm not even against rolling dice, I'm just offended by the theatrics.

At what point do they stop being "theatrics," then? Is that a quantifiable point, or is it all about feels?

Purely static damage still feels off, to me, and I'm not sure I could sell the idea.

If you're going with 'fixed hit points', I seriously doubt you'll have anyone with 47 hit points. It is a prime number, so no multiplicative value will result in that hit point total. Possibly some x + (y * z) could (ie, 7 + 8x5), but you'd be really reaching for that.

I ran some numbers on my spreadsheet that I initially used to math-hammer all the hit points and shit, and yes, 47 is a totally reasonable number of hit points to have in a number of cases in my hit point setup.

A 4th-level fighter with a 12 con; a 2nd-level fighter with a 20 con; and a 6th-level fighter with an 8 con would all have 47 hit points. (keeping in mind that "fighter" is in this case a bit disingenuous: I have no "fighter" class, but I'm using the closest thing to what would be recognized as a classic d&d fighter)

IF THIS IS ABOUT DROPPING SOMEONE IN ONE OR TWO HITS, as you now seem to claim, it would certainly be easier to have every hit result in a 'save' with approximately 50% chance of success. The likelihood of going to 5 hits would be about 3%.

Again, not everyone and everything is doing the exact same amount of damage.

While your idea would be significantly more elegant if that were the case, it isn't the case, so...

So now we are back to pretending that everyone has the same HP and that fireballs do 40+2d6, and that someone does 1d3+8, and we are supposed to care about that person?

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

That's kind of the point of having a random small variable attached to a large static one. My goal was to give the damage codes about a 50% chance of dropping someone with hp in the range that was equivalent to that given damage code, because that was sensible to me.

Like I said earlier in this post, I'm still not entirely comfortable with the idea of static damage.

Do you want to know what a better match for 40+2d6 would be? 8+1d2

Yes, and as I admitted earlier, the 1d6+6 was an ass-pull because I didn't have a precise match for the 40+2d6 on my charts. And I noted that the closest thing I had to 1d6+6 was 1d3+8, which - honestly - is probably what I should have gone with to begin with.

[JonSetanta]

I think plain-ass unarmed attacks as someone who doesn't do that for a living also do the lowest amount of damage possible (so "monks" get a significant boost, etc).

I've shattered two jaws, fractured an ankle, broken many ribs, and punched someone's punch so hard all his fingers broke. Not me, them. But then again I have two black belts and years of street boxing experience.

So whenever I see a new D&D edition neglect Monks I get butthurt raging filthy mad.
It's as if the designers never got into a sanctioned brawl in their life.

It's easy to cause physical damage in real life, but only against equal or weaker opponents.
Against someone better than you, they will either dodge, grab your limb, block, or just take it with solid muscle. Either way, yo ain't doin shit.
Conversely, if a pro fighter punches a scrub in the face, something's going to break and it's not going to be them.
The game should reflect that. Every time.

I fully admit that actually physically rolling a 1d3 would be a pain in the ass.

You can make a d3 with a blank d6.
Put • twice, •• twice, and ••• twice. Done.

[erik]

I think plain-ass unarmed attacks as someone who doesn't do that for a living also do the lowest amount of damage possible (so "monks" get a significant boost, etc).

I've shattered two jaws, fractured an ankle, broken many ribs, and punched someone's punch so hard all his fingers broke. Not me, them. But then again I have two black belts and years of street boxing experience.

I'll file this under your grandiose delusions tag I already ascribe to anything you claim about your real life since your dubious humblebrag thread and musings about buying Scarlet Johansson a 10,000 dollar ring on a whim while hanging out.

[edit: and my reason for bringing this up is that game design should largely ignore the raelizms of people claiming to be experts about shit. I don't care what your background is, real or imaginary. The things you want to do and the manner in which you want to do them are terrible.

[Grek]

I prefer 1d6 x 10 to 35 and 35 to 10d6. 40 is right out because that's not even the same average value.

[Username17]

While you were sparring with words and numbers, I put up some poll options to get a clear consensus on the matter.

Carry on.

Your poll options are bullshit. 10d6 averages 35, while 40 averages 40. So if you ask people which they'd prefer, you are not getting an answer to the question of whether more or less randomness is desired as it is gummed up with people answering your stupid question with the correct min/max answerr of "I would prefer to have the bigger one."

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

Your poll options are bullshit. 10d6 averages 35, while 40 averages 40. So if you ask people which they'd prefer, you are not getting an answer to the question of whether more or less randomness is desired as it is gummed up with people answering your stupid question with the correct min/max answerr of "I would prefer to have the bigger one."

-Username17

Then you work out the math, list the options, and I'll adjust the poll.


erik, I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...
As for my "things" in the "manner" I do them it's none of your concern. Believe or not, it's no new accusation to be called delusional.
And it wasn't a ring. It was a pair of earrings.

[deaddmwalking]

It's a meaningless question. Damage amount could be situational. And GnomeWorks has insisted that hit points 'totes can be different, guys', so there are a lot of unanswered questions.

[JonSetanta]

It's a meaningless question. Damage amount could be situational. And GnomeWorks has insisted that hit points 'totes can be different, guys', so there are a lot of unanswered questions.

On the contrary, I see we've addressed all sides of this debate and it's down to opinion over fact now.

[deaddmwalking]

...So now we have a random weakling

Again, you assume that everyone at level X will be doing Y damage.

That's dumb.

You see, situational.

The fundamental question is relative determinism of your actions, but the opposing side hasn't argued for less determinism, just more obscurity. As you add more dice, extreme results become less likely. Rolling 1d6 you may have an extreme (max) result. 200d6 is never going to resultin 1200 damage even if it theoretically could.

[erik]

Your poll options are bullshit. 10d6 averages 35, while 40 averages 40. So if you ask people which they'd prefer, you are not getting an answer to the question of whether more or less randomness is desired as it is gummed up with people answering your stupid question with the correct min/max answerr of "I would prefer to have the bigger one."

-Username17

Then you work out the math, list the options, and I'll adjust the poll

erik
As for my "things" in the "manner" I do them it's none of your concern

The things are terrible game design goals and the manner is, if anything, even worse game design methodology (not care about math, and do polling? A perfect recipe for garbage). But I can see nothing I could say will be of benefit so we can write each other off as lost causes and I'll move on for my part.

[Kaelik]

...So now we have a random weakling

Again, you assume that everyone at level X will be doing Y damage.

That's dumb.

You see, situational.

The fundamental question is relative determinism of your actions, but the opposing side hasn't argued for less determinism, just more obscurity. As you add more dice, extreme results become less likely. Rolling 1d6 you may have an extreme (max) result. 200d6 is never going to resultin 1200 damage even if it theoretically could.

I'm pretty sure I argued for more determinism.

[deaddmwalking]

I'm pretty sure I argued for more determinism.

Yes. There is one side with sane people that has argued that 35 is 'better' than 10d6 because it is faster at the table and there are only rare edge cases where the static value won't matter.

The other side has conceded thr point and said 'but what if we roll 2d6 so it is just as deterministic but it doesn't seem like it'. And most people are saying that's worse than static values OR rolling thr entire amount.

[Kaelik]

I'm pretty sure I argued for more determinism.

Yes. There is one side with sane people that has argued that 35 is 'better' than 10d6 because it is faster at the table and there are only rare edge cases where the static value won't matter.

The other side has conceded thr point and said 'but what if we roll 2d6 so it is just as deterministic but it doesn't seem like it'. And most people are saying that's worse than static values OR rolling thr entire amount.

I mean... yes because it is? But that doesn't mean we are arguing for less determinism, just recognition that pointless rolls are bad, so making the roll even more pointless is a (small) negative.

[PhoneLobster]

And most people are saying that's worse than static values OR rolling thr entire amount.

It's a glass half empty/full thing.

Is it a (slightly) better mechanic because it has less pointless rolling than all the pointless rolling? Like a glass that contains SOME Chinotto, the soft drink whose unpleasant flavor you can never entirely forget.

Or is is a (slightly) worse mechanic because it has more pointless rolling than none of the pointless rolling? Like a glass that contains ANY Chinotto, the soft drink that makes standing around being thirsty a viable life choice.

[CapnTthePirateG]

I think plain-ass unarmed attacks as someone who doesn't do that for a living also do the lowest amount of damage possible (so "monks" get a significant boost, etc).

I've shattered two jaws, fractured an ankle, broken many ribs, and punched someone's punch so hard all his fingers broke. Not me, them. But then again I have two black belts and years of street boxing experience.

So whenever I see a new D&D edition neglect Monks I get butthurt raging filthy mad.
It's as if the designers never got into a sanctioned brawl in their life.

It's easy to cause physical damage in real life, but only against equal or weaker opponents.
Against someone better than you, they will either dodge, grab your limb, block, or just take it with solid muscle. Either way, yo ain't doin shit.
Conversely, if a pro fighter punches a scrub in the face, something's going to break and it's not going to be them.
The game should reflect that. Every time.
.

And how well does this work vs a man encased in metal with a sword?

[JonSetanta]

And how well does this work vs a man encased in metal with a sword?

Suppose I am a real man with martial arts experience, doing serious injury with my bare hands, versus someone wrapped in steel in a fantasy setting.

Whatever powerups to damage resistance or deflection they get, one might assume I also get supersecret Monk powers of Chi and Training that could puncture steel.
The damage I deal would scale according to the iron I need to break. Ideally.

My example was more of a scaling rant about experienced vs. unexperienced, but if you want to throw D&D physics into this, how does reading a book allow you to bend reality anyway?

[maglag]

And how well does this work vs a man encased in metal with a sword?

Suppose I am a real man with martial arts experience, doing serious injury with my bare hands, versus someone wrapped in steel in a fantasy setting.

Whatever powerups to damage resistance or deflection they get, one might assume I also get supersecret Monk powers of Chi and Training that could puncture steel.
The damage I deal would scale according to the iron I need to break. Ideally.

Thing is, D&D is heavily equipment based. And equipment can be found/lost/sundered/disjointed/disarmed.

Fists and feet remain out of the above scenarios however.

If a monk's fists are hard and sharp as magic steel, then why would any martial choose to need to rely on puny equipment that can be disabled in a myriad of ways?

Even if you add limb crippling/ripping rules, those also fully affect sworddude who needs both an arm and a sword to do his job, while the monk only needs an arm.

My example was more of a scaling rant about experienced vs. unexperienced, but if you want to throw D&D physics into this, how does reading a book allow you to bend reality anyway?

It doesn't. Wizards get powers from magic scrolls (or even magic stones in Eberron). And with spell mastery they don't even need that.