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

Rules Questions

 451 to 500 of 553 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Btw, just for the sake of perspective, I've created a damage progression that more accuratly reflects weapon damages that double with every two size increases in a uniform scale.

The scale the game uses today increases damage by alternating between 50% and 33% by each size increase, and the "bastard" damage in the middle of every size increase also scales in a unproportional manner.

In this progression, every damage that dealt square multiples of d6 (1d6,2d6,4d6,8d6,12d6...) had it's damage unchanged. Every other damage now scales perfectly with these d6 damages while remaining true to the rule that every damage doubles with 2 size increases.

All damages increase by a uniform 0,1892071% with every step increase, including the "bastard" sword step.

DMG: 1d6/8 > 0,5 > 1d4/4 > 1d2/2 > 1d6/4 > 1 > 1d4/2 > 1d2 > 1d6/2 > 1d3 > 1d4 > 1d5 > 1d6 > 2d3 > 2d4 > 1d6+1d4 > 2d6 > 1d6+2d4 > 1d8+1d10 > 1d10+1d12 > 4d6 > 4d6+1d4 > 2d8+2d10 > 4d8+1d10 > 8d6 > 6d8+1d12 > 8d8+1d6 > 8d8+2d10 > 16d6 > 14d8+1d6 > 20d6+2d8 > 18d8+2d12 > 32d6 > 28d8+2d6 > 44d6+1d8 > 39d8+1d12 > 64d6 > 58d8+1d10 > 88d6+2d8 > 106d6+1d10 > 128d6 > 117d8+1d12 > 181d6 > 166d8+1d12 > 256d6 >

Except, that changes a lot of published material.

Great rule for a homegame, but we need something that interferes as little as possible with what's already in print.

Relevant information for the discussion:

"3.5 DMG, page 28: Increasing Weapon Damage by Size wrote:

[The first column is the damage by a medium weapon, each successive column is damage by the number of size categories increased--HangarFlying]

Med / One / Two / Three / Four
1d2 / 1d3 / 1d4 / 1d6 / 1d8
1d3 / 1d4 / 1d8 / 1d8 / 2d6
1d4 / 1d6 / 1d8 / 2d6 / 3d6
1d6 / 1d8 / 2d6 / 3d6 / 4d6
1d8 / 2d6 / 3d6 / 4d6 / 6d6
1d10 / 2d8 / 3d8 / 4d8 / 6d8
1d12 / 3d6 / 4d6 / 6d6 / 8d6
2d4 / 2d6 / 3d6 / 4d6 / 6d6
2d8 / 3d8 / 4d8 / 6d8 / 8d8
2d10 / 4d8 / 6d8 / 8d8 / 12d8

"3.5 DMG, page 28: Decreasing Weapon Damage by Size wrote:

[The first column is the damage by a medium weapon, each successive column is damage by the number of size categories decreased--HangarFlying]

Med / One / Two / Three / Four
1d2 / 1 / -- / -- / --
1d3 / 1d2 / 1 / -- / --
1d4 / 1d3 / 1d2 / 1 / --
1d6 / 1d4 / 1d2 / 1d2 / 1
1d8 / 1d6 / 1d4 / 1d3 / 1d2
1d10 / 1d8 / 1d6 / 1d4 / 1d3
1d12 / 1d10 / 1d8 / 1d6 / 1d4
2d4 / 1d6 / 1d4 / 1d3 / 1d2
2d6 / 1d10 / 1d8 / 1d6 / 1d4
2d8 / 2d6 / 1d10 / 1d8 / 1d6
2d10 / 2d8 / 2d6 / 1d10 / 1d8

EDIT: FWIW, it appears that Hero Lab uses this damage increase/decrease progression.

One critique of that chart would be that Pathfinder's would have to go a little bit higher.

Sure, going by the chart we can see that a Colossal-sized Longsword deals 6d6 damage, but we must infer how much damage a Colossal-sized +1 Impact Longsword would deal.

Two steps more would probably suffice.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Depends if we're only talking about the chart for manufactured weapons, or natural weapons, too. Need to be able to account for INA plus Strong Jaw.

Also... Greatsword? Why doesn't the chart have a 2d6 increasing row?

Chemlak wrote:

Depends if we're only talking about the chart for manufactured weapons, or natural weapons, too. Need to be able to account for INA plus Strong Jaw.

Also... Greatsword? Why doesn't the chart have a 2d6 increasing row?

Well, this list is specific for manufactured weapons. As far as the 2d6, I think that's more of an oversight on my part. I'll go back and check.

EDIT: Yup, it was my mistake. In my haste, I left it off. The 2d6 progression follows the 1d12 progression. DISCLAIMER: There might be other mistakes on there too. ;-)

Nefreet wrote:

One critique of that chart would be that Pathfinder's would have to go a little bit higher.

Sure, going by the chart we can see that a Colossal-sized Longsword deals 6d6 damage, but we must infer how much damage a Colossal-sized +1 Impact Longsword would deal.

Two steps more would probably suffice.

Sure, but adding two extra columns to this chart is much easier than making an entirely new chart.

I just put the two charts together into an excel file and then also added a +5 and +6 size increase column.

Throughout all of the progression it goes 1dx, 2dx, 3dx, 4dx, 6dx, 8dx, 12dx. So 1d2-1d6 is easy, because you can extrapolate the +5 and +6 by that progression based upon other dice that use that progression.

The 1d8 +5 would be 8d6 as extrapolated from the 1d12 and 2d6 progression. It would be reasonable to presume that the 1d8 +6 would be 12d6.

The 1d10 +5 and +6 progression pick up directly from the 2d10 +3 and +4 progression.

The 1d12 +5 would reasonably be 12d6 and the +6 can be extrapolated to reasonably be 16d6. (My premise being that at 4dX, it increases by 2 for each size increase; at 8dX, it increases by 4. This would also fit with the "double dice for every other size increase" that people have been talking about).

The 2d4 and 2d6 progressions follow the 1d8 and 1d12 progressions respectively.

The 2d8 follows the 1d12 except uses d8 instead of d6.

The 2d10 +6 is the real leap of faith, but if you follow the "double ever other size increase" it would be 24d8. The +5 can be reasonably assumed to be 16d8.

Chemlak wrote:
Need to be able to account for INA plus Strong Jaw.

To me, what makes sense for those creatures affected by INA and Strong Jaw is to first adjust the base damage by Strong Jaw, then adjust that by INA.

EDIT: To be quite honest, it really doesn't matter. You end up with the same result in either case. The only difference is those large creatures that have a base 1d8 damage. In that case, you end up with 3d8 vs. 4d6. With a difference of average dice of 0.5, that's close enough to say that they're pretty much the same.

So, if your creature has INA, and it has Strong Jaw cast on it, just use the INA progression and increase it by two more steps. You'll get the exact same result as if you do it in the same way that I first said (with the insignificant exception that I just mentioned).

FAQed.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HangarFlying wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Need to be able to account for INA plus Strong Jaw.

To me, what makes sense for those creatures affected by INA and Strong Jaw is to first adjust the base damage by Strong Jaw, then adjust that by INA.

EDIT: To be quite honest, it really doesn't matter. You end up with the same result in either case. The only difference is those large creatures that have a base 1d8 damage. In that case, you end up with 3d8 vs. 4d6. With a difference of average dice of 0.5, that's close enough to say that they're pretty much the same.

So, if your creature has INA, and it has Strong Jaw cast on it, just use the INA progression and increase it by two more steps. You'll get the exact same result as if you do it in the same way that I first said (with the insignificant exception that I just mentioned).

I meant that the chart needs to go up to +7 size, to cover colossal creature with INA and strong jaw.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:
I meant that the chart needs to go up to +7 size, to cover colossal creature with INA and strong jaw.

Don't need to, it's already there in the INA list.

EDIT: But it wouldn't be too difficult to put in a +7 column.

EDIT3: You mentioned in an earlier post an example about a Terrasque with the young template getting enlarged. Using the chart, you know that the young template means that it is one size smaller than the base size, so go down the -1 column until you get to 1d8, and then you know that it should be 1d10 when enlarged.

There are outliers (someone mentioned a creature that does 7dX dice damage). I think in those cases, you just need to make a best guess based on the chart.

 Owner - D20 Hobbies

HangarFlying wrote:

In other words, how do we handle strange dice amounts not on the ultimate final chart?

Edit: I totally didn't see that HangerFlying just said the same thing.

Every two steps should double, +100%, which is roughly +41%, +41% if each step was proportionally equal. Generally the charts do +50%, +33%.

However, for odd dice amounts, it actually works pretty well:

7d8 -> 10d8 : 43%

10d8 -> 14d8 : 40%

_Ozy_ wrote:

Every two steps should double, +100%, which is roughly +41%, +41% if each step was proportionally equal. Generally the charts do +50%, +33%.

However, for odd dice amounts, it actually works pretty well:

7d8 -> 10d8 : 43%

10d8 -> 14d8 : 40%

Is there a list of creatures that are true outliers like this? I imagine the list is pretty small when compared to the entire list of creatures out there. Perhaps adding a rule of thumb for those few:

"Double the dice for every two size increases. Single increases add 1.5 (round down) [hmmm, .5?] the amount of dice."

That seems to approximate what you're saying.

 Owner - D20 Hobbies

 2 people marked this as a favorite.

I ran a report, this is the list of attack sequences in least to most frequent:

1 12d6
1 14d6
1 15d6
1 16d6
1 20d6
1 20d8
1 4d12
1 4d4
1 5d8
1 7d8
1 8d8
2 1d1
2 2d12
2 3d10
2 3d4
2 5d10
4 6d10
4 7d6
5 6d8
7 10d6
9 8d6
10 5d6
14 1d12
14 4d10
35 6d6
38 2d10
40 3d8
48 4d8
50 1d10
57 2d4
79 1d2
123 3d6
155 4d6
232 1d3
436 2d8
717 1d4
896 2d6
1085 1d8
1149 1d6

What does 20d8?

That's a lot of outliers =\

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I make it 55 odd ones, all the rest fall in standard progressions somewhere.

Edited: I skimmed over 10d6 for some reason.

61 out of 5228 attacks, that's not too bad. It's certainly not enough to scrap the whole concept over. One could argue that with a number of these, you could divide the number of dice by what ever number to get an amount that is already on the chart, then multiply the new amount by that number (certainly not perfect)—20dX divide by 5 to get 4dX, adjust, then multiply by 5. This works for 20d6 and applying strong jaw (I'm assuming that something that does 20d6 is colossal, so the damage dice is doubled). If the 20d6 was INA & Strong Jaw, it would be 60d6—assuming my theory holds true. Certainly more d6 than what I have in my stock.

Let me work through this...let's do the 7d6.

So, the easiest thing to do would be to divide it by 7 and use 1d6.

Applying Strong Jaw and INA, it is essentially a 3 size increase.

A 3 size increase on a d6 makes it a 3d6. Multiply that by 7 to get 21d6.

If it were 8d6, Strong Jaw and INA would make it 24d6, so I guess that 21d6 seems reasonable.

Now, if it were 7d6 with just INA, doing this same thing would be 7d8. Is 7d8 a reasonable increase to 7d6?

If it were just Strong Jaw, the method yields 14d6, which is certainly in line with the "double dice" for two size increases.

 Owner - D20 Hobbies

Mathius wrote:
What does 20d8?

Pleroma

HangarFlying wrote:
Applying Strong Jaw and INA, it is essentially a 3 size increase.

We're still not actually sure if those two effects stack, or whether Strong Jaw overlaps Improved Natural Attack.

That's what THIS FAQ request is for =).

Nefreet wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Applying Strong Jaw and INA, it is essentially a 3 size increase.

We're still not actually sure if those two effects stack, or whether Strong Jaw overlaps Improved Natural Attack.

That's what THIS FAQ request is for =).

According the PFS hunter pregen they do. That's official enough for PFS for me, at least. Don't get me wrong, I know it's not clear enough other than that, but that's good a good enough precedent for me.

Nefreet wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Applying Strong Jaw and INA, it is essentially a 3 size increase.

We're still not actually sure if those two effects stack, or whether Strong Jaw overlaps Improved Natural Attack.

That's what THIS FAQ request is for =).

'For the sake of argument', then. ;-)

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Love the chart, HF. Does the job nicely, but (and I really am being super-picky, here), it doesn't quite address the young Tarrasque enlarged problem.

Scenario: I'm a GM, I'm busy running an adventure, and I preprinted all my monster statblocks. During the encounter, my cunning BBEG who has managed to acquire a young Tarrasque (everybody needs a pet, right?) casts his (custom spell) enlarge magical beast on Fluffy (even baby Tarrasques deserve cute pet names), as well as strong jaw.

The problem: I now need to recalculate all of Fluffy's damage, including his 1d8 gore.

The solution: I open the Bestiary, I look up the Tarrasque, I go to the chart, 1d10, down one step, up two steps, and I get 3d8.

My pipe dream: Get the same answer without having to look in the Bestiary.

It's an extra step to the solution that I could do without, especially since I have a handy-dandy chart that's meant to give me all the answers.

Like I said, pipe dream. I think your chart is probably the best we're going to get.

Chemlak wrote:

Love the chart, HF. Does the job nicely, but (and I really am being super-picky, here), it doesn't quite address the young Tarrasque enlarged problem.

Scenario: I'm a GM, I'm busy running an adventure, and I preprinted all my monster statblocks. During the encounter, my cunning BBEG who has managed to acquire a young Tarrasque (everybody needs a pet, right?) casts his (custom spell) enlarge magical beast on Fluffy (even baby Tarrasques deserve cute pet names), as well as strong jaw.

The problem: I now need to recalculate all of Fluffy's damage, including his 1d8 gore.

The solution: I open the Bestiary, I look up the Tarrasque, I go to the chart, 1d10, down one step, up two steps, and I get 3d8.

My pipe dream: Get the same answer without having to look in the Bestiary.

It's an extra step to the solution that I could do without, especially since I have a handy-dandy chart that's meant to give me all the answers.

Like I said, pipe dream. I think your chart is probably the best we're going to get.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the issue, but the chart provides the answer you seek:

You have a creature with the young template that gives you a damage die of 1d8. You know that the young template is one size smaller than the base creature. Find the -1 column and scroll down until you get to 1d8. Enlarge once to 1d10, and apply strong jaw to get 3d8.

Aannnddd... I am 556 in the FAQ request list. Yay me!

This just came up last week with determining our brawlers damage if he ever got all the enchants and buffs he wants at level 20. I also play a natural attacks based summoner, and getting this clarified would help me immensely with that class.

Thanks for the post, hopefully we'll get an answer sometime soon! :D

This many FAQ requests... I really hope this gets an answer. It's been almost a whole year now since this thing was opened.

It's not that we don't have an answer. It's that it really is not an easy thing to answer.

I guess it's not that we're asking for an answer, as we are asking for a standardized, easy to use reference table that is the "official list" of all these values. The problem (I assume) is that they're going to have to change quite a few of the already stated values in order to match a linear progression model.

I just hope they get it done, this really needs to happen!

I just noticed this: the changes aren't consistent...

A Medium Rocket Launcher (Technology Guide) deals 12d6 points of damage, and 8d6 points for a Small version.

A Medium Vortex Gun deals 10d6 points of damage... and 8d6 points for a Small version...

Huh... yeah...

1d10 and 2d6 get screwed and mixed up heavily...

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HangarFlying wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

Love the chart, HF. Does the job nicely, but (and I really am being super-picky, here), it doesn't quite address the young Tarrasque enlarged problem.

Scenario: I'm a GM, I'm busy running an adventure, and I preprinted all my monster statblocks. During the encounter, my cunning BBEG who has managed to acquire a young Tarrasque (everybody needs a pet, right?) casts his (custom spell) enlarge magical beast on Fluffy (even baby Tarrasques deserve cute pet names), as well as strong jaw.

The problem: I now need to recalculate all of Fluffy's damage, including his 1d8 gore.

The solution: I open the Bestiary, I look up the Tarrasque, I go to the chart, 1d10, down one step, up two steps, and I get 3d8.

My pipe dream: Get the same answer without having to look in the Bestiary.

It's an extra step to the solution that I could do without, especially since I have a handy-dandy chart that's meant to give me all the answers.

Like I said, pipe dream. I think your chart is probably the best we're going to get.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the issue, but the chart provides the answer you seek:

You have a creature with the young template that gives you a damage die of 1d8. You know that the young template is one size smaller than the base creature. Find the -1 column and scroll down until you get to 1d8. Enlarge once to 1d10, and apply strong jaw to get 3d8.

Just noticed I failed to reply to this. Sorry, HF, you're absolutely right. I was misreading and over-complicating things.

I think there might be some weird firearms (not even counting the vortex gun), but I think we have a winner in terms of "most cases covered".

And Mark has hinted that there's a big FAQ coming, which might be this one...

IIRC, Mark even created a die progression that solved 99% of the problems (it's really not that difficult, actually) but because of a few corner cases, it couldn't be implemented (at least not without slightly nerfing 2-handed weapons for Small characters or something like that) and they didn't want those nerfs because they felt that players would complain, even though the nerfs were all but insignificant.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

What is amazing to me is that there are more FAQ requests than posts!

Lemmy wrote:
IIRC, Mark even created a die progression that solved 99% of the problems (it's really not that difficult, actually) but because of a few corner cases, it couldn't be implemented (at least not without slightly nerfing 2-handed weapons for Small characters or something like that) and they didn't want those nerfs because they felt that players would complain, even though the nerfs were all but insignificant.

Thank god. My Vital Strike Halfling Barbarian dodges a bullet.

 Official Rules Response

 41 people marked this as a favorite.

At long last...the PDT is proud to present the most-FAQed FAQ of all the FAQs that ever FAQed:

FAQ wrote:

Size Changes, Effective Size Changes, and Damage Dice Progression: I'm confused by how to increase and decrease manufactured and natural weapon damage dice when the weapon's size or effective size changes. There's a bunch of different charts, and I'm not sure which to use.

When the damage dealt by a creature’s weapons or natural attacks changes due to a change in its size (or the size of its weapon), use the following rules to determine the new damage.

• If the size increases by one step, look up the original damage on the chart and increase the damage by two steps. If the initial size is Small or lower (or is treated as Small or lower) or the initial damage is 1d6 or less, instead increase the damage by one step.
• If the size decreases by one step, look up the original damage on the chart and decrease the damage by two steps. If the initial size is Medium or lower (or is treated as Medium or lower) or the initial damage is 1d8 or less, instead decrease the damage by one step.
• If the exact number of original dice is not found on this chart, apply the following before adjusting the damage dice. If the damage is a number of d6, find the next lowest number of d6 on the chart and use that number of d8 as the original damage value (for example, 10d6 would instead be treated as 8d8). If the damage is a number of d8, find the next highest number of d8 on the chart and use that number of d6 as the original damage value (for example, 5d8 would instead be treated as 6d6). Once you have the new damage value, adjust by the number of steps noted above.
• If the die type is not referenced on this chart, apply the following rules before adjusting the damage dice. 2d4 counts as 1d8 on the chart, 3d4 counts as 2d6 on the chart, and so on for higher numbers of d4. 1d12 counts as 2d6 on the chart, and so on for higher numbers of d12.
• Finally, 2d10 increases to 4d8 and decreases to 2d8, regardless of the initial size, and so on for higher numbers of d10.

Damage Dice Progression Chart
1
1d2
1d3
1d4
1d6
1d8
1d10
2d6
2d8
3d6
3d8
4d6
4d8
6d6
6d8
8d6
8d8
12d6
12d8
16d6

The PDT would like to thank the forum members who posted on this thread, particularly Nefreet and Chemlak, for your thoughts and dialogue throughout the creation of this FAQ.

Horay!

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

WOOHOOOOOOOO!

Hey, that progression and set of rules looks really familiar...

Glad to have been a part of this process, and it's well worth it in the end.

 Designer

Chemlak wrote:

WOOHOOOOOOOO!

Hey, that progression and set of rules looks really familiar...

Glad to have been a part of this process, and it's well worth it in the end.

We had to make a bunch of other hacks to it, but your chassis turned out to be the best one we had in our stable. Hence the PDT thanks!

So does this clear up the questions that people had? I got lost pretty early on in this thread.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

WOOHOOOOOOOO!

Hey, that progression and set of rules looks really familiar...

Glad to have been a part of this process, and it's well worth it in the end.

We had to make a bunch of other hacks to it, but your chassis turned out to be the best one we had in our stable. Hence the PDT thanks!

Yeah, rule 3 looks a bit ugly (and might take some time for everyone to wrap their heads around). But it was my pleasure, and I'm glad my utterly insane idea helped.

Does this table override specific cases? For example, the Shillelagh spell explicitly states that it would do 2d6 damage but the above formula means it does 1d8 (ouch)

As always, specific trumps general.

pauljathome wrote:
Does this table override specific cases? For example, the Shillelagh spell explicitly states that it would do 2d6 damage but the above formula means it does 1d8 (ouch)

Specific overrides the general. The spell puts it to 2d6, not saying increase it as if large or something like that.

@Pauljathome

Shillelagh increases by two sizes, so go up 4 times on the chart. However, since it starts at 1d6, it only goes up 3 times on the chart, landing on 2d6.

 Designer

Chess Pwn wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Does this table override specific cases? For example, the Shillelagh spell explicitly states that it would do 2d6 damage but the above formula means it does 1d8 (ouch)
Specific overrides the general. The spell puts it to 2d6, not saying increase it as if large or something like that.

The spell actually says it increases it by two sizes, which it then extrapolates to be 2d6 for medium. This is also what the FAQ says would happen, so no need for specific and general, it just works. :)

EDIT: Ninjaed by a hobbit!

Ah-ha! I ninja you by 6 seconds!

EDIT: Are you sorcerer applying meta magic to a full round conjure text spell?

Hmm how does Gravity Bow come out on this or lead blades?

 451 to 500 of 553 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>