|
Your GM might be referring to the following text from p. 451 in the Core rulebook.
The GM might allow you to roll the dice twice and double the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties instead of doubling the entire result, but this usually works best for singletarget attacks or spells at low levels when you have a small number of damage dice to roll.
As far as I know, the PFS guide does not list any additional rules on critical damage. That means that the default would be doubling of what you rolled. However, the above would work out just as well, in my opinion. The rulebook explicitly gives the option, after all. What seems most important is for the rule to be clear and consistent at the table.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I think it is just a normal rule and not an optional one, and with so many "GM might allow this" situation in PF2, you are boing to have some level of table variation when it comes to things like this.
Frankly speaking, the only things that are optional or alternative (that I can recall right now) are the voluntary flaws on page 26 are allowed and that the alternative method of rolling for ability scores are not used.
The current version of the guide does not seem to include the word optional.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I think the general principle of "no optional rules" still stands in PFS2. The whole goal of organized play after all is portability of characters from one table to another. So something drastic as a different character generation system would certainly not be possible as a "GM's choice" option.
But this particular rule doesn't seem to be in that category, it's more a like a convenient shorthand for when the dice counting is taking long.
|
|
I would tend to go with Gary's interpretation.
If you use the strict definition of optional/alternate (i.e. it has a header naming it such), then you're opening the door for other "the GM may" variations on rules that the CRB presents (e.g. setting different task levels for Earn Income and using alternative skills for Earn Income).
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would tend to go with Gary's interpretation.
If you use the strict definition of optional/alternate (i.e. it has a header naming it such), then you're opening the door for other "the GM may" variations on rules that the CRB presents (e.g. setting different task levels for Earn Income and using alternative skills for Earn Income).
I think the task level is covered in the guide, though using different skills and I suspect much higher DCs is not. Of course, that would be an actual change, the difference between the two ways to deal with critical hits is honestly not huge. I don't have a huge horse in this race, but it felt like the rule is a balancing act:
Some players really enjoy rolling a lot of dice and adding them together, while others would rather minimize this aspect and thus prefer to double a result.
But it sounds like you're flipping it.
The default rule is: roll once and double. This is the faster option.
I would not be surprised if adding up all the various numbers might not be easier for some math-challenged players, I have seen all sorts over the years, some are pretty damn quick adding up 10+ dice but get slow when they to multiply things.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this really something we need to "die on the hill" for? Doubling, from what can be gained by comments from the designers is nothing more than a convenience. Generally speaking, it is quicker to roll once and double, especially if you roll damage dice with the attack dice, again to save time. That being said, why would it be a problem for the GM to use the roll twice method? I believe the difference is only 0.2 better (7.0 vs 6.8) by doubling vs rolling twice. One tends to have more variable effect with the extremes more common, the other limits extreme swings, and focuses on a more average result. Its six of one, half dozen of the other, IMO and certainly not something to get upset about.
I would not be surprised if adding up all the various numbers might not be easier for some math-challenged players, I have seen all sorts over the years, some are pretty damn quick adding up 10+ dice but get slow when they to multiply things.
I have seen this phenomenon myself. Some people are just visual learners and can Mathfinder quicker looking at multiple dice than they can doing multiplication in their head. Heck how many people do you know who lose the ability to do math if you make them sit on their hands? Its just another example of, there is more than one way to play a game.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Unless I'm mistaken, the average is just the same; consider:
(1d6 + 2) + (1d6 + 2) = 5.5 + 5.5 = 11
(1d6 + 2) * 2 = 5.5 * 2 = 11
What changes is the probability distribution, which becomes flatter. When you roll 2d6, the odds of getting all ones or all sixes are 1 in 6*6 = 36. If you roll 1d6 and double the result, the odds of getting 2 or 12 are 1*6 = 6. But the change works the same in both ways; rolling only once increases both your odds of a bad and a great result.
So it won't cause you better or worse damage on average, but it will increase swinginess a bit.
|
|
I admit my statistics is a bit rusty and maybe I am intermixing average/mean/median/etc, but I think the difference comes into play since there there 6 possible outcomes for 1d6x2 vs 11 outcomes for 2d6 so its not quite a 1:2 relationship. I'm not sure if we would refer to the "average" as being 3.5(x2) in both cases or the average of the 2d6 would be based on the 11 possible outcomes which would average(??) 6.8. Either way, I believe the only meaningful difference is you are something like 5.4% more likely to roll average when rolling 2d6 and 2.7% more likely to roll max with 1d6x2.
I'm sure there is a statistical mathematician around here somewhere who can wax poetically on this subject.
[edit]the more I look at it, the more I think my use of average is wrong. If I roll 1d6x2 and 2d6 separately enough times to get an equal data set with both, it would take 66 roles. The total of both data sets is equal (462) so the average has to be the same. Though I am fairly confident some such statistical terminology represents the 0.2 different between the sets because there isn't a 1:2 relationship of outcomes even though the minimum and maximum values are the same.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
You get the average result of a fair (=all outcomes equally likely) die by summing all the faces (=outcomes) and dividing that by the number of faces on the die. For a D6 that's (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6=3.5
The average result of two dice is summing all possible outcomes, so (1,1), (1,2), (1,3), (1,4), (1,5), (1,6), (2,1) and so forth, and dividing that by the number of outcomes. Which is 7.
(1,2) and (2,1) are different outcomes, although they happen to have the same value. It's perhaps easier to visualize if you think of a blue and a red die: blue(1)+red(2) and blue(2)+red(1) are both worth 3, but they're separate outcomes.
So the average result of blue*2 is the same as that of blue+red.
|
|
I could wax philosophically on the subject.
I prefer multiple dice to raw doubling because it tightens the spread around the mean. So, while, yes, the average is the same, your odds of a whopper (and a flopper) are higher by doubling.
The issue is more about managing player expectations at the table than power in the game. Having one rule prevents players with a strong opinion about it from flipping your table when you do it differently than the way “my regular GM always does it.”
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this really something we need to "die on the hill" for?
No I don't see this as THAT hill. When I am GMing, I will have everyone double because I see rolling twice the number of dice as "optional".
Why? Because doubling is listed first in the CRB. To me this is the preferred way the designers wanted it implemented.
I will not lose any sleep or have my enjoyment of playing reduced in anyway if I am asked to roll twice the number of dice.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
The issue is more about managing player expectations at the table than power in the game. Having one rule prevents players with a strong opinion about it from flipping your table when you do it differently than the way “my regular GM always does it.”
In PFS2 you are way more likely to see that with secret rolls, some GMs just let players roll the vast majority of them (with the general understanding that no-one is expected to metagame, it works pretty well for me thus far, but I can always suspend it if players require it) and there are a couple of other issues.
In general, this edition seems to want to give more power into the hands of individual GMs, and while that is sometimes challenging, it seems to be part of the core philosophy in some areas.
Honestly, I am just happy that we ended up getting a list of monster types and recall knowledge checks in the end.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PFS2 you are way more likely to see that with secret rolls, some GMs just let players roll the vast majority of them (with the general understanding that no-one is expected to metagame, it works pretty well for me thus far, but I can always suspend it if players require it) and there are a couple of other issues.
I have to say, as a GM, I am really enjoying the whole secret roll thing. In a recent adventure, I was able to give 3 different players a piece of the puzzle and enjoyed watching the Role-playing happening at the table.
I know some GMs will just let players make their own rolls but using secret rolls I believe enhances the playing experience.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
In PFS2 you are way more likely to see that with secret rolls, some GMs just let players roll the vast majority of them (with the general understanding that no-one is expected to metagame, it works pretty well for me thus far, but I can always suspend it if players require it) and there are a couple of other issues.I have to say, as a GM, I am really enjoying the whole secret roll thing. In a recent adventure, I was able to give 3 different players a piece of the puzzle and enjoyed watching the Role-playing happening at the table.
I know some GMs will just let players make their own rolls but using secret rolls I believe enhances the playing experience.
It is certainly an option, in one game I played, the players had a lot of fun viewing the scenario through the lens of an obviously wrong recall knowledge check ^^
I am pretty happy that those GMs that feel that the secret checks worsen their game do not have to deal with them most of the time, while still having the option as a fallback should they need it.|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PFS2 you are way more likely to see that with secret rolls, some GMs just let players roll the vast majority of them (with the general understanding that no-one is expected to metagame, it works pretty well for me thus far, but I can always suspend it if players require it) and there are a couple of other issues.I have to say, as a GM, I am really enjoying the whole secret roll thing. In a recent adventure, I was able to give 3 different players a piece of the puzzle and enjoyed watching the Role-playing happening at the table.
I know some GMs will just let players make their own rolls but using secret rolls I believe enhances the playing experience.
Secret Rolls add so much more to the game! I love them. The players I GM for are enjoying them too. They and I agree that the secret rolls enhance the game significantly. One of the GMs started putting the information on 3x5 cards to hand out so the player can use what information they learn in whatever manner they want to. The players thought that was really cool and bought into it immediately.
|
Designer
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another reason doubling is the default is that there are some attacks where you roll once for attack and damage and compare to multiple ACs, possibly critting some and not the other, and on the spell side, there are spells where you roll damage and some folks take double or half. If you double with multiple dice on those abilities, you need to do a lot of fussing with dice colors or separated dice to calculate who takes what damage, and the rules language in the book makes it harder to understand what you need to do, especially if you're new, "Roll the extra damage from the critical hit separately and apply it to only the creatures you critically hit" or something like that.
That said, as several have mentioned, the average is the same.
|
|
I like to roll dice. Rolling crits is fun. Judging from the number of dice many people lug around they do too. Just let people do either one, the average is the same. If the only goal is to simplify why not just have a flat damage rate? I would take fun over simple any day.
I don't necessarily like rolling lots of dice, I just like having a choice of dice. That is why I carry so many with me.
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Bellevue
|
Another reason doubling is the default is that there are some attacks where you roll once for attack and damage and compare to multiple ACs, possibly critting some and not the other, and on the spell side, there are spells where you roll damage and some folks take double or half. If you double with multiple dice on those abilities, you need to do a lot of fussing with dice colors or separated dice to calculate who takes what damage, and the rules language in the book makes it harder to understand what you need to do, especially if you're new, "Roll the extra damage from the critical hit separately and apply it to only the creatures you critically hit" or something like that.
That said, as several have mentioned, the average is the same.
That's an excellent reason. I'll pull one more reason from my experience with the playtest. Late in Doomsday Dawn, our cleric tossed a multi-dice damage spell, I think it was spirit blast (still in the game) .... 16d6.
Of course, we had a critical failure, playtest had "roll twice" as the default. So now, 32d6. We didn't have that many d6s at the table. So the player had to roll multiple rounds of dice, adding up each. It was a substantial time sink and not as satisfying as you'd think.
Rolling once and multiplying is a better default for when we get to higher level play.
My humble opinion.
|
Why can't rolling and multiplying both be valid options?
They can be. Just maintain player and/or table consistency and everything will be fine. You do you because, in the end, what you and your table decide has no effect on anyone not at the table. Just be aware that the enthusiastic rules lawyers out there are correct when they say "Technically your supposed to double it, not roll twice".
*shrug* But again, you do you.
|
|
Why can't rolling and multiplying both be valid options?
It is for most people. The only ones who will say otherwise are (1) unaware of the actual 2E rules and are mis-remembering based on prior knowledge of other systems like 1E, or (2) those who believe OPF doesn't allow "optional" rules unless expressly stated in the Guide. Anecdotally, most gameplay I've seen uses both options in varying degrees without much ta-do either way.
|
|
Why can't rolling and multiplying both be valid options?It is for most people. The only ones who will say otherwise are (1) unaware of the actual 2E rules and are mis-remembering based on prior knowledge of other systems like 1E, or (2) those who believe OPF doesn't allow "optional" rules unless expressly stated in the Guide. Anecdotally, most gameplay I've seen uses both options in varying degrees without much ta-do either way.
But do we agree that it is GM option, not player option. I.e. the player doesn't sit down and tell me how they are going to do crits.
