crit multipliers and ... more multipliers?

[Dr. Zoom]

No problem.

BTW, I love that state motto. Very cool.


"Live Free or Die!"

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'd still rather double the outcome of the roll when it's double damage because of vulnerability - as in the case of a white dragon hit by a fireball. It's easier that way: you roll 10d6: if he saves, half the number you rolled, if he fails, double it.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

Frankly, KaeYoss, I would have no problem if a DM did this in this circumstance only. It does not come up too often and it is easier. I would still roll the dice, though.

The only thing about it is this. When you roll unusually low with this method, it sucks. When you roll unusually high, you destroy your target too fast. Rolling keeps things on the average more often than not. This is the reason why they use this method.

 

[Bobbystopholes]

Dr. Zoom, "Live Free or Die" is a helluva lot better than my old state motto of "Oklahoma is OK!"

I agree with Kae Yass, though. I like the doubling of damage. It is easier and makes more sense. Your attack isn't taking 3 different hits with the great axe, it's one mightly whack. For better or worse, roll a 12, hit for 36. Roll a 1, hit for 3. What is the big deal?

 

[Dr. Zoom]

There is no big deal. You are free to rule 0 anything you want. But to do it by the rules you must roll twice for double damage, three times for triple damage, etc.

 

[Bobbystopholes]

Oops! Didn't realize how harsh my previous post was! Yikes!

I meant, why did WotC do it this way? Just seems to make things harder.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I agree with Kae Yass, though. I like the doubling of damage. It is easier and makes more sense. Your attack isn't taking 3 different hits with the great axe, it's one mightly whack. For better or worse, roll a 12, hit for 36. Roll a 1, hit for 3. What is the big deal?

Kae'Yoss.

Generally, I also like to roll multiple dice - it's just more fun that way (and according to the rules). But in the special case of doulbe damage from a spell cause of vulnerability, it would be a little much: 20d6 instead of 10d6, that sounds not that bad, but imagine you hit that white dragon with your meteor swarm and he fails his save: 48d6! And don't even think of energy admixture with an epic character ("OK, guys, while I roll my 96d6, you can take the cigarette break" )

 

[Christian]

Oops! Didn't realize how harsh my previous post was! Yikes!

I meant, why did WotC do it this way? Just seems to make things harder.

The game-design-theoretical idea is to make sure the high-damage situations get thrust to the ends of steep bell-curves. A lower-level example is the orc's greataxe attack at 1d8+3 base damage with a 20/x3 crit range. The average damages of (1d8+3)*3 and 3d8+9 are the same; but in the first case, the target has a 1 in 8 chance of taking the maximum 33 points of damage, whereas in the second case, the target only has a 1 in 512 chance of eating that 33 hit points. (And the same goes for the minimum 12 points from that crit, BTW.) Over the course of the campaign, the decrease in randomness increases PC survivability ...

And hey, what's the point in my even keeping the Heward's Handy Haversack of d6's that I collected for Champions and Shadowrun if I can't use it once in a while?

 

[Dr. Zoom]

I agree with Christian's evaluation as to why WotC/D&D 3e multiplies by rolling the dice x number of times. One small nitpick, however. Greataxe damage is 1d12.

 

[Darkness]

Don't you have a Sultans of Smack thread you should be managing?

Probably more than one, knowing Jeremy!
Besides, stacking multiple multipliers is one of the things that the Sultans of Smack excel at!