Slithas |

Hey all,

Been loving what I've been seeing thus far for 2E, but one thing I have noticed is a sharp increase in the number of dice rolled, especially at later levels. Rolling 2 or 3 dice isn't too bad normally, but if you end up in a situation with more, especially if you crit, that's a lot of maths, and can slow down the game.

This is especially problematic for one of my players who has Dyscalculia (Dyslexia with numbers essentially) so she wouldn't do well with this at all, and to be fair I don't think she'd be alone in struggling to work it out around our table- more numbers mean more likely mistakes.

As an example (and hopefully I get this right from what I've seen), if you crit with a +3 Flaming Greataxe that's Deadly 1d8, and thus roll 8d12+1d8+1d6+8 (consisting of double normal dice for crit, deadly bonus, plus the extra d6 for flaming quality); that's both a lot of maths, and probably more d12s than you have at the table.

What's a viable alternative option for this? Two things come to mind at first: rolling one dice and multiplying it (ie. 1d12x8 instead of 8d12), but this still involves much maths, and can be pathetic or brutal if you roll min or max. The other is to just have a flat damage value, no dice rolled, at half the dice value (ie. the above example would be 33 non-crit and 68 on the crit); this would certainly speed up that aspect of play, but probably take away from that feeling of risk/reward. Players would probably only need to bring d20s to games too.

What are other people's thoughts on trying to help with the mathematically challenged?

Toblakai |

8 people marked this as a favorite. |

Hey all,

Been loving what I've been seeing thus far for 2E, but one thing I have noticed is a sharp increase in the number of dice rolled, especially at later levels. Rolling 2 or 3 dice isn't too bad normally, but if you end up in a situation with more, especially if you crit, that's a lot of maths, and can slow down the game.

This is especially problematic for one of my players who has Dyscalculia (Dyslexia with numbers essentially) so she wouldn't do well with this at all, and to be fair I don't think she'd be alone in struggling to work it out around our table- more numbers mean more likely mistakes.

As an example (and hopefully I get this right from what I've seen), if you crit with a +3 Flaming Greataxe that's Deadly 1d8, and thus roll 8d12+1d8+1d6+8 (consisting of double normal dice for crit, deadly bonus, plus the extra d6 for flaming quality); that's both a lot of maths, and probably more d12s than you have at the table.

What's a viable alternative option for this? Two things come to mind at first: rolling one dice and multiplying it (ie. 1d12x8 instead of 8d12), but this still involves much maths, and can be pathetic or brutal if you roll min or max. The other is to just have a flat damage value, no dice rolled, at half the dice value (ie. the above example would be 33 non-crit and 68 on the crit); this would certainly speed up that aspect of play, but probably take away from that feeling of risk/reward. Players would probably only need to bring d20s to games too.

What are other people's thoughts on trying to help with the mathematically challenged?

Try using a tablet/laptop/phone with a dice rolling app.

Sedoriku |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Slithas wrote:Try using a tablet/laptop/phone with a dice rolling app.

What are other people's thoughts on trying to help with the mathematically challenged?

Frankly just access to these boards would be enough. As a PBPer I can tell you the dice expression on here ([_dice=Possible name here]8d12+1d8+1d6+8[_/dice] Removing the _s) is pretty user friendly.

**For example:** 8d12 + 1d8 + 1d6 + 8 ⇒ (8, 9, 3, 12, 6, 6, 11, 3) + (1) + (1) + 8 = 68

AnimatedPaper |

What's a viable alternative option for this? Two things come to mind at first: rolling one dice and multiplying it (ie. 1d12x8 instead of 8d12), but this still involves much maths, and can be pathetic or brutal if you roll min or max. The other is to just have a flat damage value, no dice rolled, at half the dice value (ie. the above example would be 33 non-crit and 68 on the crit); this would certainly speed up that aspect of play, but probably take away from that feeling of risk/reward. Players would probably only need to bring d20s to games too.

What are other people's thoughts on trying to help with the mathematically challenged?

Converting some of the bonuses to flat damage certainly seems like the way to go. I would eye the +3 quality to just become flat damage increases. That leaves you with 4 die to roll instead of the original 10, and a range of 48-82 rather than 18-118. Another possibility would be to simply maximize the roll (including the bonus deadly die) instead of doubling dice on a crit, making that crit an automatic 70. Possibly a little underwhelming compared to the top end of either, but that creature is going to know it's been kissed.

ENHenry |

3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Hey all,

As an example (and hopefully I get this right from what I've seen), if you crit with a +3 Flaming Greataxe that's Deadly 1d8, and thus roll 8d12+1d8+1d6+8 (consisting of double normal dice for crit, deadly bonus, plus the extra d6 for flaming quality); that's both a lot of maths, and probably more d12s than you have at the table.

What are other people's thoughts on trying to help with the mathematically challenged?

It may seem like more dice at first, but when in comparison to PF1, you are looking at (at high levels) four or five attacks per round, with flaming burst longswords and shortswords, for an equivalent bucketload of dice without even critting, and when critting, you start getting three or four dice per attack. In PF1, most people will likely be making one or two attacks per round on average, with 6 dice or less involved in the damage (more likely three dice or less until you hit level 12 or so).

Basically in PF2 we've traded multiple smaller pools of dice rerolling for one or two bigger pools of rolling. I just don't think we're going to see very many people taking a third attack at -10 penalty, when there are so many other things they can be doing with it, from shields, to power attacks, to double-slices, to throwing up a verbal-only spell, etc.

Slithas |

Frankly just access to these boards would be enough. As a PBPer I can tell you the dice expression on here ([_dice=Possible name here]8d12+1d8+1d6+8[_/dice] Removing the _s) is pretty user friendly.

For example: 8d12 + 1d8 + 1d6 + 8 ⇒ (8, 9, 3, 12, 6, 6, 11, 3) + (1) + (1) + 8 = 68

Ah that's a nice feature to have. I'm also impressed you managed to perfectly roll average there

Converting some of the bonuses to flat damage certainly seems like the way to go. I would eye the +3 quality to just become flat damage increases. That leaves you with 4 die to roll instead of the original 10, and a range of 48-82 rather than 18-118. Another possibility would be to simply maximize the roll (including the bonus deadly die) instead of doubling dice on a crit, making that crit an automatic 70. Possibly a little underwhelming compared to the top end of either, but that creature is going to know it's been kissed.

That seems like a good idea too, lowers maths but still gives rolls. How would that work with spells, ie say a spell does 6d6 damage as its base damage, still roll one and average the rest out, or go with a different option?

Chance Wyvernspur |

Slithas wrote:What are other people's thoughts on trying to help with the mathematically challenged?Try using a tablet/laptop/phone with a dice rolling app.

Yes, automation, perhaps with assistance from the DM or another player when it comes to special cases.

The Hero Lab iPad application tends to apply all of the modifiers and roll the dice for you. For some reason, the Hero Lab Windows/Mac application just has a generic die roller. I've no idea what Hero Lab Online does since it is just Starfinder ATM.

There are also dozens of apps for phones/tablets/laptops that allow you to associate a dice combination with a label, such as "sword."

We have a local player that just isn't very fast with math (no disability) and they tend to get assistance from the player next to the them if Hero Lab/ipad doesn't cover it.

Errant Mercenary |

2 people marked this as a favorite. |

I'll take rolling more dice any time than adding +1 sacred, but does that stack with enhancement, what about this +2 luck is that a circumstance bonus, and wait does your spell give me another +1, what type, oh ok that's +6...does it go through DR? and don't forget you're sickened for a -1.....

That's the kind of finicky maths that makes Pathfinder 1 extremely cluttered.

Darksol the Painbringer |

2 people marked this as a favorite. |

I'll take rolling more dice any time than adding +1 sacred, but does that stack with enhancement, what about this +2 luck is that a circumstance bonus, and wait does your spell give me another +1, what type, oh ok that's +6...does it go through DR? and don't forget you're sickened for a -1.....

That's the kind of finicky maths that makes Pathfinder 1 extremely cluttered.

It might be less, but that will still happen in PF2.

Slithas |

There is something more satisfying about rolling the dice than using an app, but it's certainly more viable with those larger numbers to go with the latter.

I would like to keep some physical dice rolling (and my players like it too which is why they still want to roll over using apps currently), probably go with something akin to AnimatedPaper's suggestion, though we'll have to see what exactly it's all like and how necessary it is when more of the rules are out.

Your input is much appreciated all!

Mistwalker |

4 people marked this as a favorite. |

You might also want to look at how you normally do the math for lots of dice rolled.

I count by 10s.

What I mean by that is:

A crit on longsword with sneak attack dice added could be:

2d8+7d6+6

If you roll:

3, 1, 6, 6, 4, 4, 2, 5, 6 +6

Take the 4, add it to the +6 for the first 10.

Next group the 3, the 2 and the 5 for the 2nd group of 10.

Next group add a 6 and the other 4 for the 3rd group of 10.

Leaving 6, 6 and the 1 - for the odd group of 13.

Makes it easy to get to the total of 43.

I have had 6 and 7 year olds do this quickly, with less difficulty than teens trying to do it all in their heads.

AnimatedPaper |

Sedoriku wrote:Frankly just access to these boards would be enough. As a PBPer I can tell you the dice expression on here ([_dice=Possible name here]8d12+1d8+1d6+8[_/dice] Removing the _s) is pretty user friendly.

For example: 8d12 + 1d8 + 1d6 + 8 ⇒ (8, 9, 3, 12, 6, 6, 11, 3) + (1) + (1) + 8 = 68

Ah that's a nice feature to have. I'm also impressed you managed to perfectly roll average there

AnimatedPaper wrote:Converting some of the bonuses to flat damage certainly seems like the way to go. I would eye the +3 quality to just become flat damage increases. That leaves you with 4 die to roll instead of the original 10, and a range of 48-82 rather than 18-118. Another possibility would be to simply maximize the roll (including the bonus deadly die) instead of doubling dice on a crit, making that crit an automatic 70. Possibly a little underwhelming compared to the top end of either, but that creature is going to know it's been kissed.That seems like a good idea too, lowers maths but still gives rolls. How would that work with spells, ie say a spell does 6d6 damage as its base damage, still roll one and average the rest out, or go with a different option?

I'd probably roll the base damage for spells, but any heightened or crit effects got a flat damage bonus. But you'll need to see if that works for your player. If it's still too much, converting everything to average damage (doubled on a crit) for that player might be reasonable.

Elfteiroh |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

You might also want to look at how you normally do the math for lots of dice rolled.

I count by 10s.

What I mean by that is:

A crit on longsword with sneak attack dice added could be:

2d8+7d6+6If you roll:

3, 1, 6, 6, 4, 4, 2, 5, 6 +6Take the 4, add it to the +6 for the first 10.

Next group the 3, the 2 and the 5 for the 2nd group of 10.

Next group add a 6 and the other 4 for the 3rd group of 10.

Leaving 6, 6 and the 1 - for the odd group of 13.

Makes it easy to get to the total of 43.I have had 6 and 7 year olds do this quickly, with less difficulty than teens trying to do it all in their heads.

Oh! I do the exact same thing! Great to see I'm not the only one. :3

Fuzzypaws |

You might also want to look at how you normally do the math for lots of dice rolled.

I count by 10s.

What I mean by that is:

A crit on longsword with sneak attack dice added could be:

2d8+7d6+6If you roll:

3, 1, 6, 6, 4, 4, 2, 5, 6 +6Take the 4, add it to the +6 for the first 10.

Next group the 3, the 2 and the 5 for the 2nd group of 10.

Next group add a 6 and the other 4 for the 3rd group of 10.

Leaving 6, 6 and the 1 - for the odd group of 13.

Makes it easy to get to the total of 43.I have had 6 and 7 year olds do this quickly, with less difficulty than teens trying to do it all in their heads.

This is exactly what I do, and what I suggest to my players. It's just faster for me :)

AnimatedPaper |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

To add to this, my sister also struggled with Discalcula, although I'm not sure they made the distinction between that and dyslexia when she was in high school.

The combining to 10 method didn't really work with her. I struggle with it as well, even though I run a similar process every day at work (one of my more frequent tasks involves counting something that the computers aren't set up to automate)*. Specifically, when you're apt to confuse numbers or they blur together in either your mind or vision, I tend to either double count or lose track of how many "tens" I'd already counted. For instance, with Mistwalker's example, my first try got me to 33 beause I misplaced one of the 6+4s.

*Even making a spreadsheet is fraught with peril, since what you count is semi-arbitrary depending on context. I also just as frequently lose track when entering it into a calculator, because I'm dyslexic and things blur. I tend to just count it up by hand, which my office finds amusing considering I'll use a spreadsheet for every other task I'm able to get away with.

Chance Wyvernspur |

Grouping dice into 10s as part of counting is a common approach. A practiced person can actually add them up faster without grouping them. In Champions/Hero System, 12d6 damage is common. I've seen Champions players race to see who is faster.

But with Pathfinder, the slow part is usually figuring out what the roll is supposed to be, specially with a player who keeps getting tangled up in all of the various states in which their character can be.

Mewzard |

Keep in mind, 2E's not necessarily an increase in dice rolled. In my longest game ever, I played an Unchained Monk who eventually retrained to gain the Serpent Fire Adept archetype. How many dice did I roll in the end?

Well, I had seven attacks thanks to my level, Flurry of Blows, and an amulet of mighty fists with the speed trait (eight if spending ki). If I was on the seventh Chakra, I got to roll all d20s twice and take the higher number. Any possible crits? More dice rolled.

Each attack had me roll 2d8 for normal damage (unless Strongjaw'd, then my small Monk did 4d8) plus 1d6 lighting and 1d6 acid from items on each of the eight attacks. Of course, that's not factoring any crit rolls (naturally, I took Improved Critical given how often 19s came up).

Thankfully I'm fairly quick at math, but still, those could be incredibly long turns at times just due to how many attacks there were and dice to roll (thanks to Flying Kick and Pummeling Charge as options, I almost never did single attacks, that's for sure).

dragonhunterq |

To add to this, my sister also struggled with Discalcula, although I'm not sure they made the distinction between that and dyslexia when she was in high school.

The combining to 10 method didn't really work with her. I struggle with it as well, even though I run a similar process every day at work (one of my more frequent tasks involves counting something that the computers aren't set up to automate)*. Specifically, when you're apt to confuse numbers or they blur together in either your mind or vision, I tend to either double count or lose track of how many "tens" I'd already counted. For instance, with Mistwalker's example, my first try got me to 33 beause I misplaced one of the 6+4s.

*Even making a spreadsheet is fraught with peril, since what you count is semi-arbitrary depending on context. I also just as frequently lose track when entering it into a calculator, because I'm dyslexic and things blur. I tend to just count it up by hand, which my office finds amusing considering I'll use a spreadsheet for every other task I'm able to get away with.

If you have the physical dice could you physically group them in 10's to help you keep track? or put a dice to one side for every group?

I am not familiar with discalula, so if this is stupid I apologise in advance, but are some numbers easier to process than others - so counting in 8's or 12's is easier?

I am another who finds this method speeds things up greatly.

Mistwalker |

AnimatedPaper wrote:To add to this, my sister also struggled with Discalcula, although I'm not sure they made the distinction between that and dyslexia when she was in high school.

The combining to 10 method didn't really work with her. I struggle with it as well, even though I run a similar process every day at work (one of my more frequent tasks involves counting something that the computers aren't set up to automate)*. Specifically, when you're apt to confuse numbers or they blur together in either your mind or vision, I tend to either double count or lose track of how many "tens" I'd already counted. For instance, with Mistwalker's example, my first try got me to 33 beause I misplaced one of the 6+4s.

*Even making a spreadsheet is fraught with peril, since what you count is semi-arbitrary depending on context. I also just as frequently lose track when entering it into a calculator, because I'm dyslexic and things blur. I tend to just count it up by hand, which my office finds amusing considering I'll use a spreadsheet for every other task I'm able to get away with.

If you have the physical dice could you physically group them in 10's to help you keep track? or put a dice to one side for every group?

I am not familiar with discalula, so if this is stupid I apologise in advance, but are some numbers easier to process than others - so counting in 8's or 12's is easier?

I am another who finds this method speeds things up greatly.

Yes, separating the dice into net piles for each 10, usually allows for easy counting after all the groupings have been done.

Would that help AnimatedPaper?

AnimatedPaper |

That's normally what I do when I have something physical in front of me, yes. As an aside, that's also what I do when I "count by hand", I find the units that add up to ten, twenty, or thirty, and total those.

However, one problem is that you *have* to have something to count and set aside. So, what happens if theres only 5 d12 at the entire table, but the player needs to roll 8? If you have to reroll die, you're going to need to write down the sub-totals or risk it getting confused after the second or third time you roll those dice. That's why I advised the flat damage for additional dice; the player can make sure they're covered for most of their rolls, but critical or heightened effects just give a flat boost and the heck with the bell curve.

AnimatedPaper |

I am not familiar with discalula, so if this is stupid I apologise in advance, but are some numbers easier to process than others - so counting in 8's or 12's is easier?

Depends on what I'm counting. Like I said, my work example is sometimes semi arbitrary. Also, counting in Spanish works easier for some reason. Which is weird, because as far as I know I learned to count in English (my dad is ESL, so it's entirely possible I'm wrong About that).

I should be clear, I've not been diagnosed as suffering from Dyscalcula. I know a little bit because of my sister, and I'm willing to share my own struggles, but I'm not representative.

My sister unfortunately passed a couple years ago, but I'm not sure even she struggled with it towards the end. Once you hit Chief Petty Officer I think you can get other people to do the counting for you.

Dave Justus |

It seems to me that the easiest way to help someone who has trouble with quick addition, is to help them. Just because one player rolls the dice, doesn't mean they have to add it up. Just have them sit near someone who is quick and let them help.

Grand Magus |

... What are other people's thoughts on trying to help with the mathematically challenged?

I love rolling dice and doing math. To assist with gaming development, a good book to memorize is *structure and interpretation of computer programs*. After which you'll find it trivial to implement your own computer code to carry out number crunching.

Furthermore, I've seen some players write programs to assist with their personal decision-tree management, etc.

.

Quandary |

Deciding to role X dice and use average for the rest is obvious solution to me, although certainly that does change game play dynamics to some extent (less than using full average with no dice, but still).

But bigger picture, if you have a player with mental disability re: math, why depend on them to do ANY math operations? Why not add up the damage for them? Why not add up attack bonuses for them? They have no reason to keep their stats secret from GM, so why can't GM do this?

JohnF |

2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Why depend on them to do math operations? Because they might want to; it's not your decision.

If they ask you to help, fine. But they might be using their game playing sessions as an opportunity to practice and improve their numerical skills.

I game in Silicon Valley, and I'm used to seeing everything at the table from players who have difficulty adding their static bonuses to a single die roll all the way up to players who can just about give you the total before the dice stop rolling. I'm pretty quick at that myself (back before checkout displays were all computer driven I used to regularly surprise the cashier by having exact change in hand before they announced the total, although that got a little harder once I moved to a state with sales tax on some, but not all, items), but around here I've run into several folks who are even faster than I am. I've let other players know I'm happy to add up their dice for them (in fact I'm already doing it - I'm just not announcing the result), but I'd no more step in unasked and announce the result while they were still doing the arithmetic than I would presume to roll the dice for them.

Grand Magus |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

If you need a computer to play the game then it's too complicated.

I think the best math for "game play" is *numerical linear algebra*. And honestly recommend learning it.

Because NML can **do** the underlying things people need to do while playing a game (e.g. model, optimize, 'learn') all while leaving alone the dramatic results for us to emotionally enjoy. Isn't the 'drama' of seeing your decisions *put to the test* during a game sessions what ultimately makes the story telling fun and socially enjoyable?

Sometimes the crunch of *how do I compute what is the best, next move to do*, possibly based upon an arbitrary scoring system (e.g. XP, gold, hit points,) is where the brain-drain kicks in and tires most of us out while playing games. Because we have add dice up, then compute things (like averages), or look up table values and adjust our totals, etc.

Some people may choose to augment their decision making skills with an App written and based upon *numerical linear algebra* along with your favorite programming language (like Python), and others not so much.

.

thflame |

I could see an upper limit on the number of dice rolled for a particular effect.

Recently I was playing a sorcerer who cast disintegrate at level 18. 36d6's is fun to roll, until you realize that you started doing this at the end of your last turn in preparation for your next turn and everyone else STILL has to wait for you to count out your dice on your turn.

BTW, I have a math minor, so I'm not one of these people who is bad at math.

I think 1 die per level for a spell effect should be sufficient. After that, increase die size or add a flat number.

There is also the issue of TWFers at high level who have to roll 9 attacks and their damage rolls, plus any crit confirmations and crit damage. (At least the +/- 10 crit system helps a bit here.)

Neriathale |

2 people marked this as a favorite. |

I'm quite good at arithmetic, so can usually do the dice numbers fast (though I have to use an archery cheat sheet), but I know plenty of players who spend ages adding odd +1s and -2s to every roll, and it gets painful to watch. The real killer is always remembering which modifiers are floating around due to other people's effects.

If PF2 reduces the number of small modifiers that you have to remember, and possibly recalculate from round to round, and increases the number of dice where you can see the numbers in front of you, that's a good thing in my book.

Besides, dice are shiny, and come in lots of pretty colours, and any excuse to own more dice is good.

the David |

This isn't really a problem for me, as my group uses roll20. That said, I've always been more upset about the number of rolls you need to cast a spell.

Player: I cast Ray of Enfeeblement.

GM: roll a ranged touch attack.

Player: I rolled 15, is that good enough?

GM: Yes. Hold on, I need to roll a fortitude save. 13, that's not enough, is it?

Player: Nope.

GM: Make a spell resistance check.

Player: I rolled 20.

GM: That's good enough.

Player: Yes! That's a penalty of 5 to its strength!

GM: The stumbling corpse doesn't seem to be affected by your Ray of Enfeeblement.

I know, I'm exaggerating. That's still a lot to keep in mind for a level 1 spell. It's easy for a GM to forget about something when you're playing a complex RPG. I'm not up to date with all the changes announced for 2e, but I think 2e will remove at least a few of these.

Captain Morgan |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

This isn't really a problem for me, as my group uses roll20. That said, I've always been more upset about the number of rolls you need to cast a spell.

Player: I cast Ray of Enfeeblement.

GM: roll a ranged touch attack.

Player: I rolled 15, is that good enough?

GM: Yes. Hold on, I need to roll a fortitude save. 13, that's not enough, is it?

Player: Nope.

GM: Make a spell resistance check.

Player: I rolled 20.

GM: That's good enough.

Player: Yes! That's a penalty of 5 to its strength!

GM: The stumbling corpse doesn't seem to be affected by your Ray of Enfeeblement.I know, I'm exaggerating. That's still a lot to keep in mind for a level 1 spell. It's easy for a GM to forget about something when you're playing a complex RPG. I'm not up to date with all the changes announced for 2e, but I think 2e will remove at least a few of these.

Yeah, the Heal spell used offensively now requires a touch attack OR a save, not both.

SheepishEidolon |

If it's too many dice, you could always replace a good share of them with average values and roll only the remaining two (or so). In average it results in the same, but at the same time some randomness is preserved and the throwing stays handy.

Of course this is a houserule, so everyone at the table would have to agree to it.

Doktor Weasel |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I'm quite good at arithmetic, so can usually do the dice numbers fast (though I have to use an archery cheat sheet), but I know plenty of players who spend ages adding odd +1s and -2s to every roll, and it gets painful to watch. The real killer is always remembering which modifiers are floating around due to other people's effects.

If PF2 reduces the number of small modifiers that you have to remember, and possibly recalculate from round to round, and increases the number of dice where you can see the numbers in front of you, that's a good thing in my book.

For me at least, I think this is the big thing. I find tracking the various numerical bonuses and adding them to be much more complicated than adding up the dice. Especially when you get into crits and such where you double some things but not others. I often find that I tend to avoid buffs because keeping track of all those bonuses floating around is too much of a pain. Passive bonuses are fine, because I can put them in as the base number already added, but it's all the situational ones that I tend to miss.

Besides, dice are shiny, and come in lots of pretty colours, and any excuse to own more dice is good.

Indeed. I like dice, and have already used PF2 as a (thin) excuse for getting two new sets. There's just something about having and rolling a lot of dice which I enjoy. I've also gotten a bit crazy about dice, especially since I started testing all d20s for proper randomness (I have a spreadsheet, and have retired many dice due to it). I've become big on machined aluminum dice. I have 3 d20s and a d12. Unfortunately they're a bit expensive. I could go on, but I should probably take rambling about dice elsewhere. I'm sure there must be a thread talking about the virtues of different dice brands and such, or if not maybe I should make one.