Design & Development: Simplifying dice pools

[Haffrung Helleyes]

There have been lots of times in my game that a PC survived because of a lucky far lower than average dice roll by the bad guy...like when the evil wizard rolled 17 damage on his 8d6 fireball.

The whole point of rolling dice is to generate a range, with outliers. when you 'simplify' in the manner proposed, you're actually reducing the number of outliers.

I think this is bad, because it's often the odd rolls that lead to memorable results.

Plus, I can do math (really) fast in my head.

Ken

 

[Piratecat]

The thing is, Ken, it's a lot less likely to get crazy-low damage on 20d6 than on 8d6. I think it's only really useful to me on the huge damage spells; when someone in my group casts a twinned disintegrate, this method would definitely save time.

I see myself using this as a DM more than the players, who generally love dice rolling. I might have ten or so monsters in an encounter, all of whom can cast 10d6 spells against my epic party. Rolling and adding 100d6 is just boring for my players.

 

[SWBaxter]

Hehe. Yes, rolling 20d6 *is* really cool. However, if you then have to wait 5 minutes for someone to add them up... for three rounds in a row...

... it means you're gaming with somebody who hasn't played nearly enough high level D&D, or Champions. Arithmetic isn't some magical gift, it's a learned skill that improves with practice. And it's not too hard to get that practice in if you play the character from 1st level on.

I can see the small roll + big bonus approach working well in something like the Dungeon Delve, where you're handing somebody a 20th level character and expecting them to play right away. But I don't particularly see the point in a campaign game; if I had players who absolutely hated adding up lots of numbers, I wouldn't play a game like D&D with inflationary HP. If they're going to adjust the way damage is calculated at high levels, I'd rather see 'em working on a wholesale replacement for the HP system than a quick bandaid that works OK at conventions but not necessarily in home games.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

... it means you're gaming with somebody who hasn't played nearly enough high level D&D, or Champions.

And in the meantime, your buddy is slowing down the game for everyone. This wasn't suggested as a rule for everyone, but I can certainly see the utility for some groups.

 

[13garth13]

Honestly....

.....myself (the DM) and my players (in three seperate groups) have always gotten a kick out of finally getting a chance to roll all those dice no matter how many times in a row it occurs

That to me (and in my opinion only, obviously) is part of the fun and amusement of higher level combat/spell-casting.

And (parenthetically) it has never taken all that long for us to add up our damages and crunch the numbers, even with the numbing effects of alcohol factored in

Cheers,
Colin

P.S. During a war-game battle between the characters in one game, and the amassed armies of the Temple of Elemental Evil (we had been running a long campaign, and at that point the players had failed to stop the recruitment powers of the Temple, although they had countered with efforts of their own) we used a modified Battle System that essentially used average damage and attack rolls for all actions, just to avoid rolling forty or fifty dice per round of combat.
But that was mass warfare not normal melee...obviously, YMMV...

 

[Crothian]

For me the little time saved is not worth the expression on a players face when they see me rolling all those dice.

 

[13garth13]

For me the little time saved is not worth the expression on a players face when they see me rolling all those dice.

QFT!!

And, let's face it, from the players' perspective, nothing is quite as glorious as when they roll that hideously overpowered sneak attack, empowered fireball, or massive greatsword cirtical and get to completely obliterate a foe (be it mook or BBEG....I know, I know, there can be a huge element of anti-climax depending on the circumstances....but that has to happen once in awhile, especially when the whoops of glee from the other side of the table can't help but bring a grin to your face)

Cheers,
Colin

 

[Archade]

I've got to say I don't like where this is headed.

Simplifying dice rolls because 'math is hard'? What's next, taking out all the cool and sometimes-Vancian vocabulary that made the game so flavorful? How can you talk about simplifying the system when you have 1-3 new books with X feats, and often whole new rule systems (Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic) to learn and add? It doesn't make sense to me. Unless this is ramping up for 4e.

I like my D&D the way it is. I like rolling lots of dice as a player and a DM. If they want to use average damage in D&DM, or put a sidebar in a rulebook about it, that's fine, but don't force us all to change. I might be getting twitchy, but I'm beginning to question some of the directions the designers have been taking the game of late. It's beginning to feel like someone else's D&D that I'm not sure I'd want to play.

(BTW, to get the average dice roll of a single dice, take the total number the dice will roll, divide in half, and add 0.5. So, a d6 rolls on average 3.5, 2d6 on average rolls 7, 3d6 on average rolls 10.5, etc).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Can someone give me the method for determining these simplifications? The calculation isn't entirely clear to my eyes...

 

[iwatt]

Simplifying dice rolls because 'math is hard'?

The math isn't hard. The math is long. For some people, endless repetions of rolling d6 aren't that interesting. For example IMG one of the players has a desintegrate happy sorceror. He should roll 28d6 for damage. Usually rolling 98 damage is enough to put the critter down. I don't have 28d6 on the table. We have about 8d6. Which means he actually ahs to roll, add, roll, add, roll, add, roll, add. Or I can check 98 damage and see if the critter is down. Or have him roll 8d6 and add it to 70. But after a while, picking up the dice again and agaian get's old.