So about that damage scaling, how would one scale an odd sized dice pool, such as the cave ooze deal with its 7D6? Discuss.
"If your value goes beyond this amount, simply add +d[insert dice number here]"
Then that puts the damper on how outrageous those numbers can get too. Especially since theres no good reason for having it that high in any event.
So about that damage scaling, how would one scale an odd sized dice pool, such as the cave ooze deal with its 7D6? Discuss.
I would make it 7d8 and be done with it. With odd dice, I take the base die size )D6), then increase it to the next die size (d8) and multiply it by the original number of dice in the attack (7). Bam, there you go. Quick and easy.
How about tying damage dice to crit ranges? I find 2D4 to be a really fun dice pool for a weapon and would really go for a 3D4 or 4D4 pool. but as far as i understand it the dice progression table immediately brings those kooky weapons into a standard 2D6 --> 3D6 type progression. Like how a D10 jumps to 2D8 instead of 3D6.
I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure it possible to craft progressions that maintain both average value and curve shape relative to their origins.
That is, 2d4 is slightly better, on average, than 1d8 (even if you get an 8 less often). I suppose 3d4 would have a similar outcome compared to 2d6. But the next size up is 3d6, and there isn't a good competitor there. 4d4 is too low, 5d4 is too much (but closer).
It's the same reason 1d12 becomes 3d6, making large-sized greatswords and greataxes very similar: there isn't an 18-sided die.
d6's make sense. It's the most common style of die in many games, and it's easier to lay hands on large quantities of them. Large numbers of d8s I think are an artifact of the scaling rules, but with most one-handed weapons and many classes having a d8 hit die, I think most gamers have a good number of them in their collection.
I'd be less certain that I could lay hands on 10d4 all at once, though. (And larger numbers of smaller dice are less random: the curve is heavily weighted toward the average. 10d4 could be simplified to '25' with a very high level of accuracy. Rolling 40 (or 10) on 10d4 would happen once in a million times.)
For things like this, I find it is important to remember that the game is centered on small groups of medium-sized humanoid combatants, and the further away from that you get, the more of an approximation things are. The scaling tables exist so that you can get a number for an arbitrary weapon in the hands of a Rune Giant or Iron Collossus, and maybe handle a template or enlarging magic, for the five rounds such a monster will be alive.
And I'd love it if those different tables would be made consistent, so that remembering the right answer instead of looking it up would be easier. But I don't think they have to be perfectly consistent with the differences at normal sizes. Because the cases that stress the table are short-lived (colossal monsters) or deliberate corner cases (Giant template repeatedly, stacking Improved Natural Attack with Strong Jaw....)
And you can do that (and if they crit, may Sarenrae help whatever was in the way).
It just will be the same dice as a d8 advanced to that size, instead of something special for 2d4.