Do any one like all the damage dice


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

A +5 weapon can do 6 D X damage.

From my experience, it takes longer to count and is a lot less consistent then it was in PF 1.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would prefer it came from Trained proficiency and Level.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

People like rolling a lot of dice, apparently.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like that you can't really choose.

In comparison, PF1 had the optional Vital Strike chain that dice-freaks could optimize in order to roll the thunderous dice avalanche of death, which they enjoyed - and even then, only when they chose to actually use Vital Strike.
People who didn't like to roll many dice simply didn't choose the options that would lead them to. There were plenty of viable melee builds based on 1 single die roll + static numbers.
This way, people with different tastes could enjoy playing at the same table together.

In PF2 instead you have no real choice. You either roll lots of dice, or you'll be underperforming.

To me, this is not very good design.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
People like rolling a lot of dice, apparently.

Some.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Not really, since outside of few hyper-specialised builds, Vital Strike was a trap option. So what it actually did was punish people who wanted to roll more dice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't care, they're also saving rolls for Crit Confirms.
Although personally I think Crit Confirms were good mechanically on it's own,
more so the janky mechanic to modify Crit Ranges were somewhat problematic IMHO.

But like I always tell people who don't like rolling lots-of-dice, it's TRIVIAL and not-altering game-average
to decide that you will take average of X number of dice, only rolling as many as you want.
AND/OR, simply say when you have a 2x Crit, say that you just double the normal result.
I often do that myself with 3.x/P1E Crits, it's the same average result (although flatter/less bell curve distribution).

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I love it!

But then, I also play Exalted and Shadowrun, so....


Shisumo wrote:
I love it! But then, I also play Exalted and Shadowrun, so....

B-b-but... ...THAT'S BAD DESIGN!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Not really, since outside of few hyper-specialised builds, Vital Strike was a trap option. So what it actually did was punish people who wanted to roll more dice.

I don't really agree here.

On paper it's a trap option but in real play you can't always land a full attack, especially if the GM plays smart.
Most 2 handed fighters and barbarians can make a very good use of Vital Strike up to lv 9-10 at which point they can simply retrain.

Anyway, back to the topic -

Forcing people to perform repetitive and slow steps in order to do something makes the gameplay feel clunky and is not good design.
This might be enjoyed by some, but forcing it on everyone is definitely a mistake.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
On paper it's a trap option but in real play you can't always land a full attack, especially if the GM plays smart.

Exactly. And if you were Full Attackig and you were half-way decently built, you were almost certainly already performing just fine to beat all the threats you are supposed to. So at that point, it's really more important to ensure your contribution when you for some reason can't Full Attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

I don't like that you can't really choose.

In comparison, PF1 had the optional Vital Strike chain that dice-freaks could optimize in order to roll the thunderous dice avalanche of death, which they enjoyed - and even then, only when they chose to actually use Vital Strike.
People who didn't like to roll many dice simply didn't choose the options that would lead them to. There were plenty of viable melee builds based on 1 single die roll + static numbers.
This way, people with different tastes could enjoy playing at the same table together.

In PF2 instead you have no real choice. You either roll lots of dice, or you'll be underperforming.

To me, this is not very good design.

I'm not sure I'd use Vital Strike given how divided people are about it.

Anyway;

PF1 was all about the bonuses and your own skill with the weapon. Unless you got to large or behind, most your damage would come from flat bonuses. Which meant even rolling low you could easily pump out some stupid damage depending on the build. As an example(And the math might be off but I don't have his sheet) a game I'm in that has a barbarian swings his mighty weapon. 1d10. +22 damage. That is still 23 damage at worst which is still a good amount of HP to chunk off and he gets another swing or two.

PF2 however seems to put more focus on how strong the weapon IS rather than the user. There's a couple ways to boost damage but you're going to always be behind if you don't have a viable magic weapon. Meaning you should trade up as soon as possible or find a way to upgrade.

I will say I need more testing on this front. Most my charcters have been Alchemist to test them, or Monk if only because I'm playing a PF1 Brawler and I'm interested in seeing how you punch things in PF2.


The randomness of it was intentional. Unlike PF1 where most damage came from static modifiers, which of course made it pretty consistent.

Although, which a large dice pool like 6d12, you end up with pretty average rolls for that.

I use electronic dice rollers so I don't have a problem with it. But I do think it's kind of a lot of dice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Not really, since outside of few hyper-specialised builds, Vital Strike was a trap option. So what it actually did was punish people who wanted to roll more dice.

It was a great GM tool. The look on player's faces when a monster rolled a mountain of dice on it's first claw attack. (Granted - it never did that many again! But first impressions are important.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like rolling lots of damage dice. Like I own an incredible number of d10s, so I'm excited for when my glaive wielding giant totem barbarian gets whirlwind strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Not really, since outside of few hyper-specialised builds, Vital Strike was a trap option. So what it actually did was punish people who wanted to roll more dice.
It was a great GM tool. The look on player's faces when a monster rolled a mountain of dice on it's first claw attack. (Granted - it never did that many again! But first impressions are important.)

Especially on mooks you're pretty sure aren't going to last a turn. If they can get a swing in, Vital Strike. Actually if you look at stuff from GM side, a good amount of feats and archetypes are probably better on NPCs than PCs. But that's me.

I liked the idea of Vital strike but needed some polishing. Cause you'd probably be better off doing Power Attack depending on things.

Side note, Humanoids that use weapons that aren't magic are still going to probably have more damage dice because reason is they are enemies. I've had a few players raise an eyebrow about that.


But yes - I like that magic weapons increase damage die in the playtest. It makes magic weapons feel powerful! Which is great. I wish it weren't baked into the game's math...but I like it as compared to Pathfinder First Edition.


^ Exactly, and with offence often the best defence, front-loading damage like that, to focus fire opponents, is easily more important than hypothetical paper DPR assuming Full Attacks. Anyways, I think that gets away from the topic of ...LIKING... lots'a'dice (or not).

I am curious... Why the reticence on part of dice-haters ;-) to consider using averages for portion of dice in one way or another?
I mean, I'm not even convinced you are real dice-haters if you can't even consider such a basic response as that ;-)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And even with this change PF2 never gets remotely close to Exalted/Werewolf level of dice-bucketing. Ah, those buffed Get of Fenris Crinos Garou and their 20 dice for a nice meaty claw attack...

That or a Star Wars D6 Jedi ... those stacks of dice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Off the top of my head, the biggest reason to dislike the dice bukkit is that combining everything for your sneak attacks and fireballs is a pain (which it is honestly, especially if you're doing it all the time). It's not a problem for stuff like Shadowrun and other pool based core mechanics since largely those are just picking out the explosion number, the success numbers, and maybe 1s which is easy to do at a glance and satisfies the lizard part of the brain that enjoys letting fly 10-20 funny shaped dice.


Quandary wrote:
I am curious... Why the reticence on part of dice-haters ;-) to consider using averages for portion of dice in one way or another?

I don't consider myself a "dice-hater" but sometimes I don't want to roll many dice and I resort to using average.

I am not reticent but this is something I can't do alone - I need my GM's consent.
I am not confident that I could get away with it in organized play.


Gorbacz wrote:
And even with this change PF2 never gets remotely close to Exalted/Werewolf level of dice-bucketing. Ah, those buffed Get of Fenris Crinos Garou and their 20 dice for a nice meaty claw attack...

And even that was pretty fun, the problem is how you would have to iterate "roll a pile of d10s" since to hit, to dodge/parry, to soak damage, and to deal damage all involved separate die rolls (though some of these were steps were eliminated in later editions.)

I think the only time I've said "this is too many dice to roll" was in a GURPS Mecha game, which involved a hideous number of d6s since the whole system is designed to scale.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh, I forgot GURPS Mecha. That was fun/horrible in the unique GURPS kind of way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

^ Exactly, and with offence often the best defence, front-loading damage like that, to focus fire opponents, is easily more important than hypothetical paper DPR assuming Full Attacks. Anyways, I think that gets away from the topic of ...LIKING... lots'a'dice (or not).

I am curious... Why the reticence on part of dice-haters ;-) to consider using averages for portion of dice in one way or another?

Now I haven't tried it in PF. Or other table tops. But I have messed around with Average in..., don't laugh, a Pokemon styled table top game.

While using Average was faster than rolling, it didn't feel as... fun I suppose?

I'm all for rolling dice but the issue to me at least is there should be a decent balance between how many dice you get(And thus the randomness of your damage) And the flat damage bonuses.

Too high dice(on weapons) Leads to using just one weapon, having to keep up with the curve so you don't fall behind, and HEAVEN help you if you are disarmed. Not to mention the swingy damage.

Too high bonuses leads to the weapon basically not mattering(Unless you hyper focused), the weapons selected only for the buffs they give, and possibly way more damage than you'd expect.

It's a bit of a balancing act, one I don't know if PF2 does well or not. But again, I haven't really messed with weapons just yet.


4/5 in one of my tables, 3/5 in the other like rolling "lotso'dices!"


gwynfrid wrote:
I really don't like rolling something like 1d8+40 for damage in PF1, it makes the roll pointless. So, I guess I'm in favor of rolling more dice as a better alternative. I can see how it may become tedious, though. In that case, I'd just roll over some app, or roll20.

I can dig it; I feel the same way about d20 rolls, hence why I am not too enthused about the +Level deal. I do not enjoy rolling d20 + 42 and what-have-you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I want to say "I don't mind a few damage dice, because if they ever become overwhelming, I can pull out my phone and have it do the math for me." But unless I'm looking up spell descriptions, I prefer not to have my phone out during games for fear I'll succumb to the temptation to check my e-mail, Facebook, this forum, the Star Wars: The Card Game forum, and...you get the idea.

(Besides, I only got a smart phone recently. Even in the modern era, I don't think they should be assumed.)

That makes me want to say "I'd prefer fewer dice so I don't feel tired at the end of five consecutive combats." But while that may be true in a given session, it'd make character progression feel slow. I may not want to roll six dice for every hit at Level 20 (or 11 dice if I play rogue, before considering runes), but I'm glad I get to roll two dice instead of one at Level 5.

So, do I like dice? No! But yes.


Ah yeah, love the dice. It makes the players excited about high and low rolls, whereas in PF1 after early levels it hardly mattered whether your Greataxe rolled a 1 or a 12. Yeah there was a difference but not enough IMO.

Not to mention it actually makes weapons feel really different, like in PF1 after early levels there was hardly a difference between a dagger and a shortsword, a spear and a Greatsword, etc. now the difference keeps pace across levels which I love.

I know some people don't like how far behind it puts really light weapons but I feel like those weapons are meant for people who want to use their other hand for something else and in the case of weak weapons within a hand bracket they're loaded with traits which tells me they aren't necessarily meant to be a straight beat stick (like whip which I think has like trip, disarm, reach, agile, and finesse. It's a very technical weapon rather than a damaging one. An I'd raise an eyebrow if someone was cutting up people even half as well with a whip as with a Greatsword. XD)

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Merged threads and removed some off-topic posts.


I think the unfamiliarity with how to apply targeted-dice-averaging makes it ripe topic for Paizo to include in 'alternate table dynamics/mechanics' which they often do (e.g. Stat generation). Giving indication of the implications of averaging more or less dice is helpful guide for making those decisions. An adding-the-total lotsa-dice mechanic is very different than a count-the-1's-and-6's mechanic, in being more amenable to some targetted averaging (or other dice-reduction i.e. Crit simplification to 2x dmg)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Not to mention it actually makes weapons feel really different, like in PF1 after early levels there was hardly a difference between a dagger and a shortsword, a spear and a Greatsword, etc. now the difference keeps pace across levels which I love.

Good point. In PF1, after mid-high levels it doesn't matter if you're hitting with a toothpick or a greatsword, as long as you're doing it as a 2-handed Power Attack. I'm glad we're doing away with that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

I don't like that you can't really choose.

In comparison, PF1 had the optional Vital Strike chain that dice-freaks could optimize in order to roll the thunderous dice avalanche of death, which they enjoyed - and even then, only when they chose to actually use Vital Strike.
People who didn't like to roll many dice simply didn't choose the options that would lead them to. There were plenty of viable melee builds based on 1 single die roll + static numbers.
This way, people with different tastes could enjoy playing at the same table together.

In PF2 instead you have no real choice. You either roll lots of dice, or you'll be underperforming.

To me, this is not very good design.

I don't remember the 1d6+29 Fireball option in 1e. ;)

Some things were already rolling tons of dice. Sneak attack, Blasters, the guy with the Shocking Corrosive bow that hit five times in one turn and has Cluster Shot, Channel Energy Healing...

That people with big weapons are now also doing this doesn't change much. You're rolling significantly fewer attacks, so any time lost with more damage dice is gained by not rolling a fourth attack in the turn.

It seems fine to me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Rolling too many dice really slows the game down. This became quite evident during our chapter 5 playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like rolling lots of dice. Dice just have a nice tactile nature to them. Also I oddly find it easier to add up a pile of dice than a smaller number of dice with very huge modifiers. I line them up so that each group equals 10 and the remainder in the last line. It's fairly quick and easy for me. I'm normally fairly slow with PF1 damage rolls.

It also feels nice, like my character is truely heroic to throw a big handful of dice. Especially on a crit. "Woo! 13d12 + 4d6 +7! I am a monster-truck, that walks like a man!"

It also gives me an excuse to buy more dice. I've basically switched to aluminum d20s and Zucati Perfect Plastic for the rest. And when he restarts his next gen kickstarter I'll fill out the collection with a few more complete sets and a set of d6s. It's totally for PF2, not because I've got a weird thing about having lots of dice. Honest.

All that said, I'm not sure the way multiple dice are done is good though. It requires magic weapons of a certain level just to stay on an even playing field. It makes the die type much more important, putting huge gaps between them. And crits get really out of control quickly, and considering how often they happen (usually against PCs), they can be pretty devastating and lead to 1 or 2 hit knockouts. Possibly changing the dice added by magic weapons to standardized numbers (like one handed weapons get d6s and two handed get d10s). It'd make the die type less important, but it would also mean I don't get to use all my d12s. Dodecahedrons need love too you know. (No spell checker, I don't mean rhododendrons. Dodecahedron is a real word! And really fun to say.) Possibly the way critical damage is handled should change too. But I'm not sure in what way. I believe I've heard that 5th ed simply uses the maximum. Maybe something like that, with the possibility of adding more dice with deadly and changing the type with fatal and such.


Gorbacz wrote:

And even with this change PF2 never gets remotely close to Exalted/Werewolf level of dice-bucketing. Ah, those buffed Get of Fenris Crinos Garou and their 20 dice for a nice meaty claw attack...

That or a Star Wars D6 Jedi ... those stacks of dice.

In Exalted 1e, I developed a combo that could do 52 or so dice of damage... after soak.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see any benefit to the large amount of dice and I'd prefer weapon choice not be guided toward the highest die available as levels increase. I'm also not crazy about most of the damage coming from the weapon rather than the character. I don't hate it, but I see many more downsides than upsides.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering I primarily play on Roll 20 nowadays, rolling extra dice isn't a hassle for my table and my players seem to really like the idea of getting more dice as damage. Because honestly, throwing an extra dice just feels powerful in a way that +1s don't.

That said, I'm not enthused about the way extra dice are currently gained via magic weapons and some of the issues that brings up:

MerlinCross wrote:
Side note, Humanoids that use weapons that aren't magic are still going to probably have more damage dice because reason is they are enemies. I've had a few players raise an eyebrow about that.

Yeah, I personally hate PCs/Enemies having separate interactions with basic rules, and think it is a good argument for why extra damage dice should be something linked the character rather than the weapon.

Not to mention that a legendary swordsman who loses his +5 sword and grabs a common sword from a fallen enemy is suddenly incompetent at inflicting damage. I'd rather see the PC's special magic weapon do something magical while their innate skill helps with basic damage. That way a master could pick up any weapon of the same type and still be considered a master with it (not to mention opening up effective backup weapons).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

The only problem I have is finding enough d8s and d12s for my players, particularly on crits.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The only problem I have is finding enough d8s and d12s for my players, particularly on crits.

I don't even have 6d6 (unless I start cannibalizing board games), so I'm used to just batch rolling when fireballs etc. happen.

Like if you need to roll 8d6, just roll 4d6 twice. It's pretty easy to add up five or fewer numbers quickly.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The only problem I have is finding enough d8s and d12s for my players, particularly on crits.

I don't even have 6d6 (unless I start cannibalizing board games), so I'm used to just batch rolling when fireballs etc. happen.

Like if you need to roll 8d6, just roll 4d6 twice. It's pretty easy to add up five or fewer numbers quickly.

I have two sets of 16d6 (a black and a white set) which I bought for playing Fiasco. D6s are fairly easy to find and purchase in bulk.

It's not so easy to find a bucket-o-d8s or a bag of caltrops (d4), or a handbasket of Greataxes (d12s).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The only problem I have is finding enough d8s and d12s for my players, particularly on crits.

Find a way to roll digital dice.

Not as satisfying though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's not being corellated to weapon TYPE that is bad per se (see +5 toothpick power-attack) but tied so much to specific object.

You could have same weapon type:bonus damage die correlation, but tied to character themselves. So ANY dagger or ANY greatsword the 20th level fighter picks up will get appropriate bonus damage dies (with magic weapons still adding item bonus to-hit). You can even have bigger die weapons scale up more smoothly, by adding 1/3 or 1/2 the die at 1/3 or 1/2 the normal die-increase tier (d4's wouldn't bother with this because they are small already). That can map more closely to character ability, instead of Fighter and Wizard getting same +X crossbow and same bonus damage at same level (well, they still could get same +x crossbow at same level, but the damage die increase is tied to their Proficiency/Level).

You still really want magical/high quality weapons for +att bonus also helping crits, and specials, and dealing with Resistance. But switching to your "off weapon" of lesser enchantment isn't SUCH a huge drop anymore, the base damage scaling keeps up with your Level/Proficiency... Although 20th level Fighters losing their magic weapons and forced to use basic Level 1 weapons will still hurt fighting normal opponents for 20th level, they would have significant advantage vs even mid-level Fighters.

1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Do any one like all the damage dice All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.