Violating #1 may be the only viable solution.
This is possible. Gnome and halfling melee characters are not going to be thrilled by that, though. They may rather have the current confusing exception-filled minefield than a coherent system that lowers their favorite weapon's damage.
If anyone has their own elegant (elegant meaning no byzantine exceptions) solution that fits the following two criteria, I'm open to listen and think about how it relates to everything I have so far.
#1) Does not decrease the damage of size small weapons based off medium weapons that deal d10 or d12/2d6 damage.
#2) Does not decrease the damage of size large weapons based off medium weapons that deal d8 or d10 damage.
What I have so far are numerous formulas and explanations of dice increases, which have allowed me to create a fairly elegant solution that fully explains all damage dice increases and decreases in the game, so long as we violate #1. I do not particular want to violate #1, however.
Only looked at CRB, but it looks like there's a mathematical discontinuity between Medium and Large.
Essentially, with the exception of the greatsword, everything follows a straight line 1>1d2>1d3>1d4>1d6>1d8>1d10>1d12 progression.
However, when moving up to size Large, a discontinuity occurs for medium-sized weapons that do 1d8 or more, in that they actually increase in damage twice, but only at this boundary.
Explain that discontinuity, and some (not all!) of the problems can be solved.
If anyone has their own elegant (elegant meaning no byzantine exceptions) solution that fits the following two criteria, I'm open to listen and think about how it relates to everything I have so far.
#1) Does not decrease the damage of size small weapons based off medium weapons that deal d10 or d12/2d6 damage.
#2) Does not decrease the damage of size large weapons based off medium weapons that deal d8 or d10 damage.
What I have so far are numerous formulas and explanations of dice increases, which have allowed me to create a fairly elegant solution that fully explains all damage dice increases and decreases in the game, so long as we violate #1. I do not particular want to violate #1, however.
Only looked at CRB, but it looks like there's a mathematical discontinuity between Medium and Large.
Essentially, with the exception of the greatsword, everything follows a straight line 1>1d2>1d3>1d4>1d6>1d8>1d10>1d12 progression.
However, when moving up to size Large, a discontinuity occurs for medium-sized weapons that do 1d8 or more, in that they actually increase in damage twice, but only at this boundary.
Explain that discontinuity, and some (not all!) of the problems can be solved.
I've found, when looking over more sources, that it's rather the reverse. The discontinuity is between several size Small and Medium manufactured weapons, as d8 -> 2d6 -> 3d6 or d8 -> d10 -> 2d8 are ubiquitous elsewhere, and each have multiple progressions that source them. In fact, deal with the Small to Medium manufactured weapon thing (or "#1") and I can propose to the rest of the PDT an elegant and concise solution that covers all cases in the rules and changes more-or-less nothing else.
As long as my Allosaurus Druid/Monk still does 12d8 damage with his claws, I say screw the demi-folk! :)
prototype00
I've found, when looking over more sources, that it's rather the reverse. The discontinuity is between several size Small and Medium manufactured weapons, as d8 -> 2d6 -> 3d6 or d8 -> d10 -> 2d8 are ubiquitous elsewhere, and each have multiple progressions that source them. In fact, deal with the Small to Medium manufactured weapon thing (or "#1") and I can propose to the rest of the PDT an elegant and concise solution that covers all cases in the rules and changes more-or-less nothing else.If anyone has their own elegant (elegant meaning no byzantine exceptions) solution that fits the following two criteria, I'm open to listen and think about how it relates to everything I have so far.
#1) Does not decrease the damage of size small weapons based off medium weapons that deal d10 or d12/2d6 damage.
#2) Does not decrease the damage of size large weapons based off medium weapons that deal d8 or d10 damage.
What I have so far are numerous formulas and explanations of dice increases, which have allowed me to create a fairly elegant solution that fully explains all damage dice increases and decreases in the game, so long as we violate #1. I do not particular want to violate #1, however.
Only looked at CRB, but it looks like there's a mathematical discontinuity between Medium and Large.
Essentially, with the exception of the greatsword, everything follows a straight line 1>1d2>1d3>1d4>1d6>1d8>1d10>1d12 progression.
However, when moving up to size Large, a discontinuity occurs for medium-sized weapons that do 1d8 or more, in that they actually increase in damage twice, but only at this boundary.
Explain that discontinuity, and some (not all!) of the problems can be solved.
I'm not sure if we're talking at cross-purposes, here, Mark.
I just scrolled through the entire weapon list in Ultimate Equipment, and, with the exception of the greatsword, every single 1d8 small weapon does 1d10 damage for a medium weapon. There is a problem with the 1d10 small weapons in that there doesn't seem to be a common factor that triggers moving up to 1d12 or 2d6 (I must admit, I didn't parse by B/P/S). Studying the Tiny and Large weapons table, specifically the Large column, is where I get my discontinuity: a 1d8 medium weapon doesn't go up tidily to 1d10, but instead goes a step further to the 1d12/2d6 problem. Likewise, a 1d10 weapon doesn't go to 1d12, but to 2d8 (which is two steps up). Similarly, a 2d6 weapon doesn't hit the 2d8 step, it jumps to 3d6. So does the 1d12.
It's almost as if the rule says "if weapon is medium, and if weapon does 1d8 or higher, the first size increase is two steps".
I doubt there's an elegant "do this, here are the two exceptions" solution, and my examination of this has led me to believe that the bastard sword is the two-handed version of the longsword, with the greatsword being the really big brother (since it hits the discontinuity between small/medium and medium/large).
|
The hiccup is between small and medium, not medium and large.
But only for the higher damage weapons, right, Mark? The 1d8-1d12 range?
A small Glaive (1d8) going to medium (1d10) is the problem, but not the small Dagger (1d3) going to medium (1d4).
Can you just simply have an exception for those specific weapons?
Actually, could you post your "rough draft"? And have us look it over?
|
|
The following weapons from the CRB don't line up with the traditional damage progressions of other weapons:
Crossbow, Heavy (1d8 => 1d10)
Falchion (1d6 => 2d4*)
Glaive (1d8 => 1d10)
Greataxe (1d10 => 1d12)
Greatclub (1d8 => 1d10)
Flail, Heavy (1d8 => 1d10)
Greatsword (1d10 => 2d6)
Guisarme (1d6 => 2d4*)
Halberd (1d8 => 1d10)
Ranseur (1d6 => 2d4*)
Scythe (1d6 => 2d4*)
Sword, Bastard (1d8 => 1d10)
Waraxe, Dwarven (1d8 => 1d10)
Chain, Spiked (1d6 => 2d4*)
Curve Blade (1d8 => 1d10)
*
That's not really a big list.
What are the possibilities of just issuing errata for these weapons?
(legitimately asking)
Cons include:
1) lowering average damage by 1 (and not just for small folk, but tiny as well)
2) upsetting players of small folk
3) many years of publications that (may?) need errata as well (or could this not be retroactive?)
Pros include:
1) finally universalizing damage progressions
2) ...I'm sure there have to be others...
Yeah, ignore the ones with asterisks. The others (and some more from non-core) are the problem children. But errataing all of those would change tons of adventures with small NPCs (Ledford is one that immediately jumps to mind) as well as weakening size smalls characters playing with those weapons. It'd make a shiny set of two progressions possible, one main progression for almost everything, and a side progression for weapons that begin with their dice in some number of d10s or multiple d8s, with no discontinuities or weirdnesses. But that's a lot to sacrifice too.
|
|
It's only 1 average damage, really, though.
I know that's technically "weakening small characters", but most martials are going to be finding ways to increase their damage dice anyways, and if they do, their damage doesn't get impacted at all (since the larger dice aren't changing).
And I'm thinking a quick blurb could be added to the FAQ to just run previously published material as written, and that going forward these changes will be what's used.
It's only 1 average damage, really, though.
I know that's technically "weakening small characters", but most martials are going to be finding ways to increase their damage dice anyways, and if they do, their damage doesn't get impacted at all (since the larger dice aren't changing).
And I'm thinking a quick blurb could be added to the FAQ to just run previously published material as written, and that going forward these changes will be what's used.
That does lend its own confusion to the mix though.
Bob: "Isn't that published statblock wrong with d10 small greatsword damage?"
Jane: "Nope, it's from before October 2014, it's right to have d10 unless it's after then."
Bob: "What about this one that has d10 from December 2014 then?"
Jane: "Probably someone just forgot. It's been d10 since 2000."
Bob: "Yeah. Wait, it's d8 right?"
Jane: "Yeah, let me check again. Yeah d8 now."
EDIT: Also, while 1 damage might seem like not so much, players never want to have their character decrease by even 1 damage. There is no weakening so small that people won't mind it.
|
It's only 1 average damage, really, though.
I know that's technically "weakening small characters", but most martials are going to be finding ways to increase their damage dice anyways, and if they do, their damage doesn't get impacted at all (since the larger dice aren't changing).
And I'm thinking a quick blurb could be added to the FAQ to just run previously published material as written, and that going forward these changes will be what's used.
That does lend its own confusion to the mix though.
Bob: "Isn't that published statblock wrong with d10 small greatsword damage?"
Jane: "Nope, it's from before October 2014, it's right to have d10 unless it's after then."
Bob: "What about this one that has d10 from December 2014 then?"
Jane: "Probably someone just forgot. It's been d10 since 2000."
Bob: "Yeah. Wait, it's d8 right?"
Jane: "Yeah, let me check again. Yeah d8 now."EDIT: Also, while 1 damage might seem like not so much, players never want to have their character decrease by even 1 damage. There is no weakening so small that people won't mind it.
Then how come most optimization guides talk about the static damage additions, rather than the weapon damage dice, after the first few levels?
And, to be honest, Ledford's main bonus is not the d10, but the +7 that he gets while h's Raging, and the x3 crit that makes it difficult to survive.
Alright, so that's out.
What about making an exception for the weapons that break the new rules? Call them out at the end of the FAQ.
Will that be more, or less, confusing than changing them all?
It's a tough call. Ultimately it may wind up needing to be that. I've been weighing all the options we've been discussing, so it's not that there is no progress on this front but rather that it's a difficult decision. Just know that we're looking into it, and it's a priority among the "challenging to solve FAQs", though with the playtest on the horizon, I wouldn't expect this FAQ too soon.
|
|
Here's another possibility:
PROGRESSION #1
1 => 1d2 => 1d3 => 1d4 => 1d6 => 1d8 => 2d6 => 2d8 => 4d6=> 4d8 => 8d6 => 8d8 => 16d6
(where 2d4 is equivalent to 1d8, and 1d12 is equivalent to 2d6)
PROGRESSION #2 (for weapons whose base medium damage is 1d10)
1 => 1d2 => 1d3 => 1d4 => 1d6 => 1d8 => 1d10 => 2d8 => 2d10 => 4d8 => 4d10 => 8d8 => 8d10
Which leaves the Greataxe and Greatsword as the only 2 problem children.
Then how come most optimization guides talk about the static damage additions, rather than the weapon damage dice, after the first few levels?
I wrote some of those optimization guides. I agree static bonuses are important. That said, I have also learned not to underestimate how upset someone might be about a small decrease, particularly when the build (such as a size small Strength-based two-hander) wasn't that strong to begin with. That doesn't mean we definitely won't give small decreases to anyone ever, of course, in the course of FAQs and errata, but it does mean it isn't something that we can overlook as insignificant.
I'll try to explain it another way. Suppose there was a new FAQ that streamlined combat in an elegant way so that all combats would automatically run 10% faster, and in exchange, the only side effect other than the increase of time for more RP or more combats would be that all monks got -1 to damage. Trust me, the players of monks would not be pleased.
Here's another possibility:
PROGRESSION #1
1 => 1d2 => 1d3 => 1d4 => 1d6 => 1d8 => 2d6 => 2d8 => 4d6=> 4d8 => 8d6 => 8d8 => 16d6
(where 2d4 is equivalent to 1d8, and 1d12 is equivalent to 2d6)
PROGRESSION #2 (for weapons whose base medium damage is 1d10)
1 => 1d2 => 1d3 => 1d4 => 1d6 => 1d8 => 1d10 => 2d8 => 2d10 => 4d8 => 4d10 => 8d8 => 8d10
Which leaves the Greataxe and Greatsword as the only 2 problem children.
I'll have to check my notes at work, but I am sure there were more problems than just those two. It may involve looking at some of the manufactured weapons that have Tiny and Large sizes listed, influenced by the Small characters and their conspiracy.
But, jokes aside, even if there were a few more problem examples (say, what, 5 total?), wouldn't listing those exceptions in an FAQ be less painful than the list we had earlier? And you wouldn't be upsetting players by lowering their damage, either.
That's why it's currently my top choice. But as far as FAQs go, even the full and thorough explanation of that system, exceptions included, would be fairly confusing in its own right. That's why we're still looking, even though it may be futile, for something better. Unfortunately, that takes time that we're not long on these days, but it's something I have been actively considering.
|
|
Then how come most optimization guides talk about the static damage additions, rather than the weapon damage dice, after the first few levels?
I wrote some of those optimization guides. I agree static bonuses are important. That said, I have also learned not to underestimate how upset someone might be about a small decrease, particularly when the build (such as a size small Strength-based two-hander) wasn't that strong to begin with. That doesn't mean we definitely won't give small decreases to anyone ever, of course, in the course of FAQs and errata, but it does mean it isn't something that we can overlook as insignificant.
I'll try to explain it another way. Suppose there was a new FAQ that streamlined combat in an elegant way so that all combats would automatically run 10% faster, and in exchange, the only side effect other than the increase of time for more RP or more combats would be that all monks got -1 to damage. Trust me, the players of monks would not be pleased.
Heh. I have a PC that was negatively impacted by a "minor" change in a weapon between the CRB version, and the version as printed in Ultimate Equipment.
Used to be, the whip got 1-1/2 damage from strength when wielded in two hands... Now, it no longer does. Then again, on examination, it doesn't look like that much of a damage los, even at higher levels...
The following weapons from the CRB don't line up with the traditional damage progressions of other weapons:
Crossbow, Heavy (1d8 => 1d10)
Falchion (1d6 => 2d4*)
Glaive (1d8 => 1d10)
Greataxe (1d10 => 1d12)
Greatclub (1d8 => 1d10)
Flail, Heavy (1d8 => 1d10)
Greatsword (1d10 => 2d6)
Guisarme (1d6 => 2d4*)
Halberd (1d8 => 1d10)
Ranseur (1d6 => 2d4*)
Scythe (1d6 => 2d4*)
Sword, Bastard (1d8 => 1d10)
Waraxe, Dwarven (1d8 => 1d10)
Chain, Spiked (1d6 => 2d4*)
Curve Blade (1d8 => 1d10)*
I'm pretty sure I'm being exceptionally dense about something.
I'm not sure where you're getting "traditional" from. If you ignore the Tiny and Large weapons table, and just assume that weapons go up a single dice type in the progression 1>1d2>1d3>1d4>1d6>1d8>1d10>1d12>2d8>3d6>3d8 etc, then that list gets a lot shorter. Way shorter if we accept that 2d4 is equivalent to 1d8, and 2d6 is equivalent to 1d12. Zero size, in fact.
I propose that the only reason we think a 1d8 weapon should increase to 2d6 is because that's what the table says happens when a medium weapon becomes large. It's certainly not because that's what happens to small 1d8 weapons becoming medium.
Further, to account for a 1d8 medium weapon becoming a 2d6 large weapon (and a 1d10 going to 2d8, etc), you have to jump an entry in the progression. This is so consistent in the table that I can't see it being an accident.
So, here's my proposal (note that right now I'm only doing weapons, not natural attacks):
1>1d2>1d3>1d4>1d6>1d8>1d10>2d6>2d8>3d6>3d8, but at the boundary between medium and large, if the medium weapon does 1d8 or more, jump a step (I'm sure Mark's checked, but this jump might hold true for increasing sizes beyond large). 1d8 may be replaced by 2d4, and 2d6 with 1d12.
I'm not seeing anything in the CRB or UE that breaks this pattern. I've not checked the bestiaries for the huge and bigger weapon-using creatures.
Edit: just checked the storm giant (huge greatsword). If the progression goes
1>1d2>1d3>1d4>1d6>1d8>1d10>2d6>2d8>3d6>3d8> ;4d6>4d8>6d6>6d8>8d6 etc
Then...
Greatsword (2d6 medium) goes large by skipping a step (3d6), goes huge by missing a step (4d6), which gives the correct outcome.
Rune giant. Gargantuan Longsword. 1d8 medium, goes to 2d6 large, 3d6 huge, 4d6 gargantuan.
I predict that a huge creature using a Shortsword would do 2d6 damage.
But, jokes aside, even if there were a few more problem examples (say, what, 5 total?), wouldn't listing those exceptions in an FAQ be less painful than the list we had earlier? And you wouldn't be upsetting players by lowering their damage, either.That's why it's currently my top choice. But as far as FAQs go, even the full and thorough explanation of that system, exceptions included, would be fairly confusing in its own right. That's why we're still looking, even though it may be futile, for something better. Unfortunately, that takes time that we're not long on these days, but it's something I have been actively considering.
Don't bother listing exceptions, just declare that the weapon stat blocks are right and list how to increase for size when the size cannot be found in the stat block. Thus an Enlarged Gnome will use medium damage and not have to calculate anything.
The basic pattern is supposed to be @50% increase in damage for each size increase.
To do this evenly convert to d6s or d8s as soon as possible (2d4=1d8 and 1d12=2d6). The only real oddball is the d10 which becomes 2d8.
Then for even numbers of dice increase number of dice by 50% (4d6 becomes 6d6)
For odd numbers of dice each d6 becomes a d8, or d8 becomes 2d6.
|
How about the following?
Just checked Improved Natural Attack, and it follows the "once damage is 1d8 or higher, each size increase skips a step" in the progression I posted above.
So, we have three caveats:
Manufactured weapons: once damage increases to 1d8 or higher, and the size after alteration would be large or larger, increase by two steps in the progression for each size increase.
Natural weapons: once damage is 1d8 or higher, increase by two steps for each size increase.
Any: beyond 2d6/2d8, each size increase doubles the number of dice.
For decreases, reverse the calculation. Follow normal rounding rules on unusual dice amounts, until you hit a normal point in the progression, then follow the progression normally.
Just checked Improved Natural Attack, and it follows the "once damage is 1d8 or higher, each size increase skips a step" in the progression I posted above.
So, we have three caveats:
Manufactured weapons: once damage increases to 1d8 or higher, and the size after alteration would be large or larger, increase by two steps in the progression for each size increase.
Natural weapons: once damage is 1d8 or higher, increase by two steps for each size increase.
Any: beyond 2d6/2d8, each size increase doubles the number of dice.
For decreases, reverse the calculation. Follow normal rounding rules on unusual dice amounts, until you hit a normal point in the progression, then follow the progression normally.
Huh, you've combined the two separate progressions together into one, using the two-steps at large or higher rule to keep them separate (I'd at least mod it to, "the weapon is at least medium and is increasing" so that effects that increase the dice of a medium creature without increasing the size or effective size would still work the same). Skipping over can be complicated too, so it isn't a slam dunk, but I will definitely add this to the list of options. Nicely done.
Huh, you've combined the two separate progressions together into one, using the two-steps at large or higher rule to keep them separate (I'd at least mod it to, "the weapon is at least medium and is increasing" so that effects that increase the dice of a medium creature without increasing the size or effective size would still work the same). Skipping over can be complicated too, so it isn't a slam dunk, but I will definitely add this to the list of options. Nicely done.Just checked Improved Natural Attack, and it follows the "once damage is 1d8 or higher, each size increase skips a step" in the progression I posted above.
So, we have three caveats:
Manufactured weapons: once damage increases to 1d8 or higher, and the size after alteration would be large or larger, increase by two steps in the progression for each size increase.
Natural weapons: once damage is 1d8 or higher, increase by two steps for each size increase.
Any: beyond 2d6/2d8, each size increase doubles the number of dice.
For decreases, reverse the calculation. Follow normal rounding rules on unusual dice amounts, until you hit a normal point in the progression, then follow the progression normally.
Hey, you're the professional game designer, I'm just a guy who likes picking apart patterns. It's your job to turn it into rules text. I think it's a solid starting point, and seems to account for every dice expression with a minimum of fuss.
What I'd really like to see is someone finding a flaw in it, actually (there's enough of a scientist still in me to want my theory tested rigorously), by finding a case it doesn't work for.
From a scientific standpoint, I'm not sure it can be used to make a prediction (since anything done from here in would at best be a post facto validation), but I'd love it if someone could find an edge-case in already published works.
Huh, you've combined the two separate progressions together into one, using the two-steps at large or higher rule to keep them separate (I'd at least mod it to, "the weapon is at least medium and is increasing" so that effects that increase the dice of a medium creature without increasing the size or effective size would still work the same). Skipping over can be complicated too, so it isn't a slam dunk, but I will definitely add this to the list of options. Nicely done.Just checked Improved Natural Attack, and it follows the "once damage is 1d8 or higher, each size increase skips a step" in the progression I posted above.
So, we have three caveats:
Manufactured weapons: once damage increases to 1d8 or higher, and the size after alteration would be large or larger, increase by two steps in the progression for each size increase.
Natural weapons: once damage is 1d8 or higher, increase by two steps for each size increase.
Any: beyond 2d6/2d8, each size increase doubles the number of dice.
For decreases, reverse the calculation. Follow normal rounding rules on unusual dice amounts, until you hit a normal point in the progression, then follow the progression normally.
Hey, you're the professional game designer, I'm just a guy who likes picking apart patterns. It's your job to turn it into rules text. I think it's a solid starting point, and seems to account for every dice expression with a minimum of fuss.
What I'd really like to see is someone finding a flaw in it, actually (there's enough of a scientist still in me to want my theory tested rigorously), by finding a case it doesn't work for.
From a scientific standpoint, I'm not sure it can be used to make a prediction (since anything done from here in would at best be a post facto validation), but I'd love it if someone could find an edge-case in already published works.
I believe only the 2d10 (for medium characters) weapon entry would conflict, and how many weapons even do 2d10 at size medium?
I believe only the 2d10 (for medium characters) weapon entry would conflict, and how many weapons even do 2d10 at size medium?
Probably some firearms. However, if 2d10 is just 2 lots of 1d10, which increases to 2 lots of 2d8, becoming 4d8, I think it still works.
Darn. Needs something about multiple dice expressions not already in the progression.
I believe only the 2d10 (for medium characters) weapon entry would conflict, and how many weapons even do 2d10 at size medium?Probably some firearms. However, if 2d10 is just 2 lots of 1d10, which increases to 2 lots of 2d8, becoming 4d8, I think it still works.
Darn. Needs something about multiple dice expressions not already in the progression.
Yep, sorry, it's the small guys again. It works going up but not down.
Yep, sorry, it's the small guys again. It works going up but not down.I believe only the 2d10 (for medium characters) weapon entry would conflict, and how many weapons even do 2d10 at size medium?Probably some firearms. However, if 2d10 is just 2 lots of 1d10, which increases to 2 lots of 2d8, becoming 4d8, I think it still works.
Darn. Needs something about multiple dice expressions not already in the progression.
Curse you, Musket and Double Hackbut!
Or doesn't it...
Since my discontinuity occurs in the transition above medium effective size, and all of the firearms have a small-medium increase of one dice type (though in some cases multiple dice are involved) in the progression, where's the failure point?
Yep, sorry, it's the small guys again. It works going up but not down.I believe only the 2d10 (for medium characters) weapon entry would conflict, and how many weapons even do 2d10 at size medium?Probably some firearms. However, if 2d10 is just 2 lots of 1d10, which increases to 2 lots of 2d8, becoming 4d8, I think it still works.
Darn. Needs something about multiple dice expressions not already in the progression.
Curse you, Musket and Double Hackbut!
Or doesn't it...
Since my discontinuity occurs in the transition above medium effective size, and all of the firearms have a small-medium increase of one dice type (though in some cases multiple dice are involved) in the progression, where's the failure point?
Wouldn't 2d10 (medium) need to go where 3d8 (medium) goes so it can become 4d8 (large)? If so, small would be 3d6 and tiny would be 2d8. But it's actually one lower than that.
Ah, I see.
No.
2d10 medium does exactly what 1d10 medium does, but with twice the number of dice.
Goes large to 2x(2d8) = 4d8.
Ah, I see.
No.
2d10 medium does exactly what 1d10 medium does, but with twice the number of dice.
Goes large to 2x(2d8) = 4d8.
Ah, scaling of the damage progression, creating a sort of second dimension based on scale, for a matrix of results...intriguing. It basically has dimensional discontinuities to cover the exceptions. Now I think only level 20 monks don't fit, and they don't fit anything.
Ah, scaling of the damage progression, creating a sort of second dimension based on scale, for a matrix of results...intriguing. It basically has dimensional discontinuities to cover the exceptions. Now I think only level 20 monks don't fit, and they don't fit anything.Ah, I see.
No.
2d10 medium does exactly what 1d10 medium does, but with twice the number of dice.
Goes large to 2x(2d8) = 4d8.
Haha, I love that I read this and didn't understand many of the words used. It's fun to see people using their large vocab, it's so refreshing. Now I get to learn how to use more words.
Ah, scaling of the damage progression, creating a sort of second dimension based on scale, for a matrix of results...intriguing. It basically has dimensional discontinuities to cover the exceptions. Now I think only level 20 monks don't fit, and they don't fit anything.Ah, I see.
No.
2d10 medium does exactly what 1d10 medium does, but with twice the number of dice.
Goes large to 2x(2d8) = 4d8.
HAX!
Ahem.
Yeah, I think I'll let you explain that one. It's possible to explain the shift up to 2d8 by the lack of an actual size increase meaning that only a single step is taken in the progression, but that 20th level 2d10 should be 3d6.
Capstone special exception? I really can't think of anything else that doesn't involve complex reversion to base of 1d6 at 12th level with multiple dice, and that's even uglier.
3d6 is 10.5 on average. 2d10 is 11. So it's really just another version to approximate roughly the same damage (but with a slightly larger range), akin to 2d6 rather than 1d12. 1d10 bumps to 2d6. 2(2d6) is 4d6. So a size increase for a Medium Monk 20 goes from 2d10 (~3d6) to 4d6 (two steps as proposed above).
Small Monks at 20 have 2d8. A size up from that should be 3d6. Medium Monks have 2d10 which is roughly the same (above).
The issue, obviously, is the Large Monk 20 being 4d8, rather than 4d6. They follow the progression nicely until the level 20 bump (going to 4d8, rather than 4d6).
*shrug*
Frickin' ogres. Never liked 'em.
I largely agree, but if we consider that the Small monk does 2(1d8), the medium does 2(1d10) and the large monk does 2(2d8) at level 20, we're looking at middle of the progression (1d8>1d10>2d6>2d8) with the normal 2-step for moving up from Medium to Large.
It's almost as if the monk's damage expression is:
Base 1d6, increase by int(level/4) steps, until int(level/4)>= 3, then increase by int(level/8) steps but double number of dice.
Which, compared to the normal progression (even with the utterly sideways "if medium weapon is 2d10, then treat as 2(1d10)" expansion needed to cover some of the weirder weapons out there) is utterly b#@&!!$ insane.
I didn't actually find any 2d10 medium weapons in the UE table. The only 2d10 weapon is for small characters.
And it does 2d12 for medium characters, yes? Which is amusing in itself, since the Tiny/Large table doesn't actually include a 2d12 dice expression, and makes zero reference to how small/medium weapons are calculated (hence all this fun).
By my reckoning, a 2d12 (medium) is equivalent 2(1d12) which is equivalent to 2(2d6), which if we size-bump it upwards across the Large boundary would be 2(3d6) or 6d6.
Size Manufactured Natural
F 1d10 ???
D 2d6 1d10
T 2d8 2d8
S 2d10 2d10
M 2d12 2d12
L 6d6 6d6
H 8d6 8d6
G 12d6 12d6
C 16d6 16d6
Ah, good. I broke it. Since the Natural weapon progression with 1d10 in it actually starts at 1d10, and the progression with 1d8 in it automatically bumps up to 2d6, it is indeterminate what the damage of a Fine-sized weapon which does 2d12 when it's Medium-sized is. Talk about your outliers... how many Fine-sized double hackbuts do we all reckon there are out there?
I didn't actually find any 2d10 medium weapons in the UE table. The only 2d10 weapon is for small characters.And it does 2d12 for medium characters, yes? Which is amusing in itself, since the Tiny/Large table doesn't actually include a 2d12 dice expression, and makes zero reference to how small/medium weapons are calculated (hence all this fun).
By my reckoning, a 2d12 (medium) is equivalent 2(1d12) which is equivalent to 2(2d6), which if we size-bump it upwards across the Large boundary would be 2(3d6) or 6d6.
Size Manufactured Natural
F 1d10 ???
D 2d6 1d10
T 2d8 2d8
S 2d10 2d10
M 2d12 2d12
L 6d6 6d6
H 8d6 8d6
G 12d6 12d6
C 16d6 16d6Ah, good. I broke it. Since the Natural weapon progression with 1d10 in it actually starts at 1d10, and the progression with 1d8 in it automatically bumps up to 2d6, it is indeterminate what the damage of a Fine-sized weapon which does 2d12 when it's Medium-sized is. Talk about your outliers... how many Fine-sized double hackbuts do we all reckon there are out there?
My reduced atomie gunslinger (that I just made up right now) uses one!
My reduced atomie gunslinger (that I just made up right now) uses one!I didn't actually find any 2d10 medium weapons in the UE table. The only 2d10 weapon is for small characters.And it does 2d12 for medium characters, yes? Which is amusing in itself, since the Tiny/Large table doesn't actually include a 2d12 dice expression, and makes zero reference to how small/medium weapons are calculated (hence all this fun).
By my reckoning, a 2d12 (medium) is equivalent 2(1d12) which is equivalent to 2(2d6), which if we size-bump it upwards across the Large boundary would be 2(3d6) or 6d6.
Size Manufactured Natural
F 1d10 ???
D 2d6 1d10
T 2d8 2d8
S 2d10 2d10
M 2d12 2d12
L 6d6 6d6
H 8d6 8d6
G 12d6 12d6
C 16d6 16d6Ah, good. I broke it. Since the Natural weapon progression with 1d10 in it actually starts at 1d10, and the progression with 1d8 in it automatically bumps up to 2d6, it is indeterminate what the damage of a Fine-sized weapon which does 2d12 when it's Medium-sized is. Talk about your outliers... how many Fine-sized double hackbuts do we all reckon there are out there?
Well, I screwed up in my ridiculous. Your reduced atomie gunslinger would be using a manufactured weapon and therefore do 1d10 with a double hackbut. Better question from me would be how many medium creatures in the bestiaries have 2d12 natural weapons, because we can't shrink them to Fine without breaking something.
It's that blasted 1d8/1d10 point. Manufactured weapons aren't so bad, but the instant you hit 2d8 damage going downwards in size with natural weapons, you hit a brick wall at 1d10. By rights it should reduce to 1d6 (dice size is above 1d8, therefore two-steps for natural attack), but you can't reverse-reverse-engineer from 1d6 to 1d10 going the other way. Not that I can think of many good reasons to take a creature that does 1d10, reduce its size, then increase its size again (well, maybe young template hit by an enlarge effect?).
Grumble, grumble...
As I mentioned before as to which part of this conversation held my interest, *and mostly because I'm not understanding the exchange between the two of you, never was great at mathematic progression* are you guys saying that a colossal 20th level monk won't get 12d8 damage on his unarmed strikes?
prototype00
