| Mudfoot |
There's no direct example. 3d6 (average 10.5) is very nearly 2d10 (avg 11) so 4d8 (18) is perhaps reasonable, if more generous than anything in the table.
If we compare average damage:
Original Revised Ratio
1d2 = 1.5 1d3 = 2 1.33
1d3 = 2 1d4 = 2.5 1.25
1d4 = 2.5 1d6 = 3.5 1.4
1d6 = 3.5 1d8 = 4.5 1.29
1d8 = 4.5 2d6 = 7 1.56
1d10 = 5.5 2d8 = 9 1.64
1d12 = 6.5 3d6 = 10.5 1.62
2d4 = 5 2d6 = 7 1.4
2d6 = 7 3d6 = 10.5 1.5
2d8 = 9 3d8 = 13.5 1.5
2d10 = 11 4d8 = 18 1.64
which averages 1.47
So 3d6 = 10.5 should become about 15.3, which is not a clean number of dice (except 6d4 which is nightmare to roll). I'd do 2d8+1d10 (15.5) or 3d6+1d8 (15), but YGMMMV. Sticking to one form of dice gives 4d6=14 or 3d10=16.5.
| Mudfoot |
Again, doubling the number of dice every two size increases.
Which amounts to a ratio of sqrt(2)=1.4142, which isn't far off the above table. So though I can't find any evidence for this, it's an entirely reasonable approach. OTOH, it's not as even as it might be; the ratio flips between 1.33 and 1.5 so you could smooth it out a bit.
| Quantum Steve |
Thanks! what's the source you've got for that?
It a compilation from the table in the Equipment Section and the Improved Natural Attack feat. Both seem to use identical progressions.
The bit about doubling every two sizes is just an observation, but it is reinforced by the Strong Jaw spell