D&D General Multiply Die?

[plisnithus8]

Is there a significant mathematical reason not to multiply a single dice roll by the number of dice, such as multiplying one 6-sided die by 5 instead of rolling 5 six-sides dice?

I know it creates quantum jumps in numbers leaving out granularity, but does it unbalance the results?

 

[Morrus]

Just the granularity thing. And it's not as much fun.

And if your'e only using 10, 20, 30, 40 50 and 60, your game system may as well have a scale of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Multiplying everything by 10 doesn't do anything.

 

[commandercrud]

It destroys the bell curve.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Is there a significant mathematical reason not to multiply a single dice roll by the number of dice, such as multiplying one 6-sided die by 5 instead of rolling 5 six-sides dice?

I know it creates quantum jumps in numbers leaving out granularity, but does it unbalance the results?

The most important thing is it generates a linear distribution vs. a bell-shaped one.

Rolling 5d6 has results from 5-30, with each number between possible, but the central numbers are more likely and the end numbers more rare.

Rolling 1d6 x 5 gives the same chance for each result, and only the results 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 would be possible.

Does it unbalance results? No, but most the bell-curve gives moderate results and the extremes less often.

Consider a dragon breathing on your party for 10d10. The bell-curve averages 55 and will have most results around 40-70. Roll 1d10 x10 instead and you have a much better chance of doing the maximum 100 points... generally not good for the party. Sure, you could roll a 1 as well, but do you want to take the chance?

 

[plisnithus8]

Roll 1d10 x10 instead and you have a much better chance of doing the maximum 100 points... generally not good for the party. Sure, you could roll a 1 as well, but do you want to take the chance?

Sometimes, yes, absolutely I do.
But I’m the DM.

 

[CleverNickName]

I let the players decide if they want to roll a full stack of dice, or if they want to roll a single die and multiply it. But there's a catch: once they choose, they have to stick to that choice for the rest of the gaming session.

They almost always choose to roll once and multiply.

 

[Krachek]

It destroys the bell curve.

Still a bell, just a lego bell!

 

[HarbingerX]

If you're looking to speed up your damage rolls, using the average value provided in the stat block is a great way to go.

Rolling d6 x 5 will make extreme results (low or high) in an individual roll much, much more likely. It makes for wild swings of luck that can be really fun for the players when it goes their way, but can just as easily be devastating. There's a huge difference between the effects of 5 damage and 30 damage.

It's ok to have extreme outcomes, but they need to be rare so as not to unbalance the game too much.

 

[Shiroiken]

Back in 1E, where spells gave dice per caster level without a cap, rolling a crapload of dice was annoying, so we did this. Terrible idea, as high level combat often came down to which spellcaster rolled a 5 or 6 on their first AoE. Character death was prevalent (even by 1E standards), and we dropped it.

 

[Horwath]

Is there a significant mathematical reason not to multiply a single dice roll by the number of dice, such as multiplying one 6-sided die by 5 instead of rolling 5 six-sides dice?

I know it creates quantum jumps in numbers leaving out granularity, but does it unbalance the results?

On average, results are the same, but reliability suffers this way.

We once used semi-average damage for attacks with lots of dice.

We rolled only 3 or 4 dice and took average of the rest. Rest must be even number of dice.

I.E. 8d6 fireball would be 4d6+14

7d8 damage roll would be 3d8+18

this way we kept the average result at the center and reduce max amount of dice that are rolled around.