Can we please get an FAQ posted for damage dice increases?

[Nefreet]

Alright, I'm totally aware that it is frowned upon to actually ASK for an FAQ in the title of the thread, but this particular question has now come up 6 times in the last 8 days, as shown here:

damage Q
Damage dice for huge great sword
Weapon Damage at Increased Size
big punches... gargantuan sized weapon question
Half Giant double hackbutt with enlare person
Eidolons and slam attacks

A quick search in this forum and others will show that this is definitely a "Frequently Asked Question". What I'm hoping for is one FAQ post that shows all the different damage dice increases in one area for easy reference, and an explanation that "for every other size increase the general rule is to double the dice damage".

There's the chart in the Bestiary, which tops out at 4d6:
1 => 1d2 => 1d3 => 1d4 => 1d6 => 1d8 => 2d6 => 2d8 => 4d6 => 4d8 => 8d6 => 8d8 => 16d6 => 16d8

There's the Improved Natural Attack feat:
1d2 => 1d3 => 1d4 => 1d6 => 1d8 => 2d6 => 3d6 => 4d6 => 6d6 => 8d6 => 12d6 => 16d6 => 24d6
A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10 => 2d8 => 3d8 => 4d8 => 6d8 => 8d8 => 12d8 => 16d8 => 24d8

There's the Tiny and Large Weapon Damage chart in the Core Rulebook:
Medium / Tiny / Large
1d2 / — / 1d3
1d3 / 1 / 1d4
1d4 / 1d2 / 1d6
1d6 / 1d3 / 1d8
1d8 / 1d4 / 2d6
1d10 / 1d6 / 2d8
1d12 / 1d8 / 3d6
2d4 / 1d4 / 2d6
2d6 / 1d8 / 3d6
2d8 / 1d10 / 3d8
2d10 / 2d6 / 4d8

Which, for the most part, also doubles every other size increase:
1 => 1d2 => 1d3 => 1d4 => 1d6 => 1d8 => 2d6 => 3d6 => 4d6 => 6d6
...with a few outliers...
tiny 1d6 => (small 1d8?) => medium 1d10 => large 2d8
tiny 2d6 => (small 2d8?) => medium 2d10 => large 4d8

And there's the spell Strong Jaw, which I believe sets the precedent that damage dice double every other size increase:

Strong Jaw wrote:

Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is. If the creature is already Gargantuan or Colossal-sized, double the amount of damage dealt by each of its natural attacks instead. This spell does not actually change the creature's size; all of its statistics except the amount of damage dealt by its natural attacks remain unchanged.

Who else feels that this question qualifies for an FAQ?

[anthonydido]

I do. FAQ'd.

[James Risner]

Wait. I misunderstood the question.

You use the INA chart.

You can't use the weapon chart in the Bestiary as it is simply "default" weapon damage dice for various weapons.

You can't use the small/large chart in the core because that is just for things like Monk Unarmed and is the same data as INA.

The basic formula is 33% to 50% increase per step.

I thought this question was "how do you handle multiple 'as if X sizes larger' effects" like Strong Jaw with INA.

[anthonydido]

He posted a lot of different charts because they are all "unfinished" and there is no rule or guideline printed to help you determine what comes next in the series.

[Ikonoclast]

FAQ'd

I've been curious what happens when a Dire Tiger takes Improved Natural Attack (Claw); 2d4 becomes ? Do I use the weapon chart? It's what I would default to.

[BigDTBone]

Faq'd

[Nefreet]

Exactly.

There are quite a few outliers, like the Dire Tiger, or what happens when a Druid Shaman applies the Young Template to their summons.

I'd like an FAQ with a few different damage progressions, so when a GM gives a Titan an inappropriately sized Bastard Sword, he/she knows what the damage dice are.

Right now we have:
1) normal Bestiary progression (that tops out at 4d6)
2) two different INA progressions
3) the CRB chart
4) examples in the Bestiary that are outliers
5) examples in the CRB chart that don't fit any other existing progression
6) the text of Strong Jaw

If all these could be lumped in one FAQ we'd have one comprehensive location we could link to.

I think that would be incredibly useful for players and GMs alike.

[Nefreet]

And, wow, 25 FAQ clicks in one hour.

You guys rock.

[Vritra]

This is a frustrating piece of annoyance...

We do need a universal damage dice progression, with clear text on what to do if we pass the boundaries of it. (rather than 3 different ones that end at different points...)

[James Risner]

Nefreet wrote:

2) two different INA progressions

We do?

[Azten]

Yup.

From Improved Natural Attack

Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

[James Risner]

Azten wrote:

Yup.

From Improved Natural Attack

I see.

That isn't two progressions as much as it is two tracks. There are no deviations on the tracks. You don't have 2d6 going to 3d6 or 2d8.

I've always seen us use the INA tracks unless an ability told you to use the other info.

[Pirate Rob]

A fried asked me this awhile ago

Alex wrote:

Hi Rob,

Hey it's Alex and I have a question.

Say I'm a large unicorn with a d8 horn attack. I get enlarged somehow to huge size that's 2d6? Then I get the strong jaw spell cast on me raising two sizes more, that's 4d6? And I have the improved natural attack feat, that's 6d6 right?

Or is it 1d8< 2d6 < 2d8 < 4d6 < 6D6? or 4D8?

Thanks

Here was my response:

There are 2 damage by size charts. There is the one that determines base damage for natural attacks which goes

1>1d2>1d3>1d4>1d6>1d8>2d6>2d8>4d6

There is also the weapon damage size chart which goes 1d8>2d6>3d6>4d6>6d6>8d6 (or 1d10>2d8>3d8>4d8>6d8

Both Enlarge Person and Improved Natural Attack feat specifically say to use the weapon sizing chart. Meaning damage would go from d8>2d6>3d6.

Strong Jaw doesn't say which chart to use however 3d6 doesn't exist on the natural chart, so it makes sense to use the weapon sizing chart and go 3d6>4d6>6d6

Just out of curiosity I tried applying strong jaw first and using the natural attack sizing chart for it and went d8>2d6>2d8 and then applied enlarge and improved natural attack and went 2d8>3d8>4d8

One could also decide that huge + improved natural attack counts as gargantuan for triggering the double dice clause of strong jaw, which should mean 3d6 doubles to 6d6.

I think the 6d6 is the more reasonable of the two answers and involves using the same chart for strong jaw as for everything else.

(The order doesn't matter as long as you use the weapon sizing chart for everything, you can just get a weird result by using the natural attacks chart for strong jaw and applying in a weird order.)

tldr: It's probably 6d6, and it's the easier and more common answer to get to.

PS. Improved Natural Attack is not legal in PFS without a specific source granting it.
---

tl;dr; The answer is complicated and inconsistent. FAQ please.

[seebs]

"Every other" is confusing, because it could be interpreted as "damage should double every two size increases" or as "if the size increase isn't one of these, you should double the damage". I'm pretty sure you mean the former.

[James Risner]

Pirate Rob wrote:

large unicorn d8 horn ... enlarged huge ... strong jaw ... improved natural attack feat

Assumptions:

1) Strong Jaw works with Improved Natural Attack.

Facts:
The Tiny/Large chart only has one thing on size increases that isn't on the INA chart:
1d12->3d6 and you can do that logic by using 2d6 instead of 1d12.

The Tiny/Large chart is mostly to handle the reductions (Medium to Tiny) than to handle the increases (Medium to Large.)

So using that knowledge, and giving the assumption:
1d8-> 2d6(Enlarged)-> 4d6 (Strong Jaw)-> 6d6 (INA)

[Nefreet]

Pirate Rob wrote:

tl;dr; The answer is complicated and inconsistent. FAQ please.

^ this.

When someone asks what their Monk fists deal when enlarged, or what a Young Ankylosaur's tail damage is, or an Eidolon with Improved Natural Attack, it would be nice to say:

"HERE is the FAQ, it has every possible progression, and goes all the way past Colossal."

[blahpers]

52 FAQs in under 6 hours in the middle of a Seattle work day. Yeah, this could use some clarification.

Better yet, errata the charts so that they all follow one rule set. (Not necessarily the same progression, but the rule for figuring out the changes should be memorable.)

[anthonydido]

An "all-in-one" FAQ would be nice but in the end I would rather an equation or formula for being able to progress a chart without needing it all written out for me. That may be difficult though come to think of it.

[Nefreet]

James Risner wrote:

I thought this question was "how do you handle multiple 'as if X sizes larger' effects" like Strong Jaw with INA.

That would also be a good one to have FAQ'd.

Or make an addendum to the current FAQ on Lead Blades and Impact.

Also, 65 FAQ clicks in less than 24 hours. I have hope =D

[starwed]

I remember yet another related issue a while back: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ls6q?APG-Eidolons-and-natural-attack-damage

Note that the chart in the bestiary has very suspect math: 2d6 => 2d8 => 4d6

The average damage of that progression is: 7 => 9 => 14

[Nefreet]

I'm not asking to change any of the existing progressions.

2d6 => 2d8 => 4d6 is a valid progression (notice that 14 is double 7).

I'm simply asking that they all be listed in one place for easy reference, and the tables expanded, since this is such a frequently asked question.

[James Risner]

Nefreet wrote:

2d6 => 2d8 => 4d6 is a valid progression (notice that 14 is double 7).

Are we certain 2d6->2d8->4d6 is the right progression and not the INA 2d6->3d6->4d6? The INA progression maintains the general rule of thumb that all increases are between 33% and 50% better in average damage.

2d6 = 7, 3d6 = 10.5, 4d6 = 14. Notice that (7+14)/2 = 10.5
If anything the 2d6->2d8 is wrong.

[Ross Byers]

James Risner wrote:

2d6 = 7, 3d6 = 10.5, 4d6 = 14. Notice that (7+14)/2 = 10.5

7+14/2 = 10.5 isn't a special meaning: The average of 2d6 and 4d6 is 3d6 for the same reason the average of 2 and 4 is 3.

If you're increasing by a fixed proportion, the middle value will be closer to the smaller one. Frex, a perfect 30% increase from 100 is 100, 130, 169. 100 + 169 / 2 = 134.5.

[Nefreet]

2d6 => 2d8 => 4d6 isn't "wrong".

In fact it actually fits the model better than 1d8 => 2d6 => 3d6

It's just "different".

So, what I'd like included together is a progression for:

1) non-INA natural attacks (the Bestiary chart)
2) INA natural attacks
3) manufactured weapons
4) what the damage dice will increase to beyond what the charts currently list
5) a general rule for outliers, like a Dire Tiger's 2d4 claws, or a Young Crocodile's tail slap.

If anyone else has any suggestions, feel free to add them.

What I want to avoid is errataing everything in existence.

[EvilPaladin]

Wonderful Question Nefreet! FAQ'd.

[Nefreet]

90 FAQ clicks since yesterday! Wow.

[blackbloodtroll]

FAQ'd.

This is actually something that is a frequently asked question, that could use some clarification.

At least, some hint at the formula.

[seebs]

The general reason that at least some things migrate to bigger dice instead of towards more dice is that the choice of dice has impacts beyond just average value.

Consider, if you will, the 18-51 range (which comes up only because it's used for some items in 1E). You can roll this as 3d12+15, or as 11d4+7. Same average either way (34.5). But the curve for 3d12+15 is relatively flat; you're about 4x as likely to get a 34 as a 24, and 108x as likely to get a 34 as an 18. With 11d4+7, you're about 60x as likely to get a 34 as a 24, and 440,484x as likely to get a 34 as an 18.

So 2d6->2d8 may be a better fit than 2d6->3d6. In principle, if we're aiming for "double every two steps", we want the average to increase by a factor of sqrt(2) every step (about 1.41). So from 7, we want 9.9 or so. 2d8 gets us an average of exactly 9, 3d6 10.5. So 3d6 is *slightly* closer, but does it at the cost of being a narrower distribution. (The best approximation, I think, would be 1d8+1d10, but I bet that's going to be unpopular with people who actually have to roll dice.)

The general principle seems to be to, whenever it's easily possible to do so, keep the number of dice the same and increase or decrease one step in number of sides. So larger(2d6)->2d6, smaller(1d10)->1d8. I think the next step past 1d12 would ideally be about 1d16, but that's not an option, and 3d6 isn't actually horrible there; it's a little higher than it should be, but not much.

[Sindalla]

FAQ'd as well. I've been curious about this myself. Although, keep in mind guys, the number of FAQ clicks does not increase the chance of a question getting answered directly. I'll have to find the response from the Dev that said so, but we just need to be patient. Keep FAQ'ing, but don't let it get out of hand like a few other posts have.

[Sindalla]

Found it.

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Is a question with more FAQ-clicks more likely to be answered?

No. The staff can see that some posts have a lot of FAQ flags, but the staff also evaluates the complexity of the question, how much impact the answer has on player characters, and other factors. Just because someone managed to rally a lot of support about a particular question doesn't mean it's the most important, urgent, or relevant question.
In other words, sometimes it’s better or more efficient for the staff to answer a question with fewer FAQ flags than one with many FAQ flags.

Link to above quote

[Nefreet]

I'd hope that reaching 100 clicks (which we just did) in under 30 hours means that this is an "urgent, important, or relevant question" ;-)

But I'm also conveying my appreciation, too.

[Andrew Phillips]

FAQ'ed. At our table different values will get used due to the conflicting sources.

[lantzkev]

funny how different ways (or people) presenting the same idea get different responses...

[Nefreet]

This thread likely wouldn't be here if you and I didn't have such a lively discussion ;-)

[Nefreet]

Also, if it helps the Design Team at all, HERE is the "Larger and Smaller Weapon Damage" table from 3.5 (it tops out at 8d6).

[BobtheSamurai]

Don't forget, the design team likes FAQ questions to be as clear and concise as possible.

So here's my take on it.

With the number of size changing methods in the game, can we get a clear chart for damage progression that has an easily discernable pattern to continue the chart past it's stopping point?

[FrodoOf9Fingers]

I haven't seen an FAQ request get up to 115 in a long, long time...

[Aziraya Zhwan]

*Looks at 118 FAQ clicks*
"Yep, I might as well add mine as well"

[ArmouredMonk13]

Anyone else get the feeling that this thread might be deserving of a bump?

[Nefreet]

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

I haven't seen an FAQ request get up to 115 in a long, long time...

I don't think I've ever seen a question get this much attention before.

And without pages of debate, either. Seems the consensus just is, "we want this in print".

[FrodoOf9Fingers]

132 FAQ requests...

Just don't show that number in binary using your fingers..

[thebigragu]

That's the thing. There's not too much to argue about. It's just a conspicuously absent feature.

[Imbicatus]

146 now. This is something that is needed.

[FrodoOf9Fingers]

Hehe, we can turn this into a game!

I posted at 150!

[Lifat]

Honestly this is probably the most confusing and broken piece of rules that is being discussed on the rules forum at the moment. If there ever was a piece of the rules where I wanted a FAQ or errata, then it was this!

Not that I've ever used anything outside the weapon size change table, because I never needed to. But I see the potential for the situation to come up.

[Cevah]

I am FAQ 162.

/cevah

[reyyvin]

Azten wrote:

Yup.

From Improved Natural Attack

Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

^^ This. I'm pretty sure that INA is the most recent.

additionally, if you add the information from the tiny/medium/large weapon chart, for smaller creatures, a medium base D10 damage breaks down like:

1>d2>d3>d4>d6>d8>d10 .... but this would ONLY apply to something like a Pixie using a bastard sword

For the base 2d4... looking at the weapon chart, it effectively converts to a d8, giving... d4/d6/2d4/2d6 ... just slot that into the normal (non d10) progression.

a d12 converts to 2d6 in the chart.

Monks with 2d8 are a little odd. With (2d6/2d8/3d8), it looks like they would follow the d10 chart

Monks with 2d10 also easily convert (based on 2d8/2d10/4d8), just double the dice from the d10 progression.

From my reading, with the exception of the Bestiary chart, which was supplanted by the INA chart, the other charts follow INA. Strong Jaw (when added to the INA chart) clearly doubles every other step.

I still FAQ'd it.

[Vritra]

182 FAQs...

Pls?

[christos gurd]

I just want clarification on what to do for giant and dragon monks.

[Titania, the Summer Queen]

FAQ'ed