Converting dice+adds?

[Ultraviolet]

When calculating damage from say melee weapons, how should the dice+adds be converted, if at all?

Do you convert each +3 as 1 die?
Back in 3rd ed it was so, and a +7 was 2d. So if I calculated a damage of 1d+6 it wouldn't quite be 3d, but 2d+3.

Or one could follow the steps of the Damage table from ST, where the steps are 1d+1, 1d+2, 2d-1, 2d, 2d+1, 2d+2, 3d-1 etc.

Which is it?

Because it makes a difference.

Example a ST 11 man (Swing dam 1d+1) with a Mace (swing+3).
Is is 1d+4?
Or converted to 2d+1 (because one "unit" of +3 becomes +1d)
Or (counting 3 "steps" up the ladder on the damage table) to 2d?

I know "counting steps up the dam ladder" makes more sense for swing damage, because it rises 1 step per point raise in ST. But thrust could easily follow the same logic, since this damage rises in the same steps - although at a rate of one per 2 points of ST raise.

I see pros and cons with all solutions.

Consider a ST 12 man with a Mace and a ST 13 man with a Light Mace. The secondhas ST 1 higher, but a weapon with swing dam 1 lower than the other, This should even out.

With +3 converting to 1d:
The ST 12 (sw 1d+2) and Mace (sw+3) is 1d+5=2d+2
And the ST 13 man (sw 2d-1) and Light Mace (Sw+2) is only 2d+1
So it doesn't even out!

With stepping up the damage ladder:
ST 12 + Mace is 3 steps ud from 1d+2 to 2d+1
ST 13 + Light Mace is 2 steps up from 2d-1 to 2d+1
This *does* even out

Lets try thrusting damage, using a Spear used 2-handed for thr+3

ST 10, thr 1d-2 becomes 1d+1
ST 11, thr 1d-1 becomes 1d+2
ST 12 as ST 11
ST 13, thr 1d becomes 2d (using +3=1d) or 2d-1 (stepping 3 steps up the progression of damage)
and so on

What to do?

[DukeofDellot]

Check out B269.

[SCAR]

Originally Posted by DukeofDellot

Check out B269.

Basically +4 becomes +1d, and +7 becomes +2d!

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

When calculating damage from say melee weapons, how should the dice+adds be converted, if at all?

Do you convert each +3 as 1 die?
Back in 3rd ed it was so, and a +7 was 2d. So if I calculated a damage of 1d+6 it wouldn't quite be 3d, but 2d+3.

Or 3d-1 (1d+7 -1) which is probably how I'd call it, since the goal is to get the fixed part as small as you can. It's really +3.5 => 1d, since the average roll of 1d is 3.5. The difference you are seeing is the 1 point of difference based on which way you round the 0.5. Personally I don't think it matters, if you are comfortable with a modification that keeps the average damage the same but extends the range in the first place, you can't be too fixated on the exact values or you'd be screaming about the way 2d+3 can sometimes get through DR 12 armor the guy with 1d+6 can't scratch.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Or one could follow the steps of the Damage table from ST, where the steps are 1d+1, 1d+2, 2d-1, 2d, 2d+1, 2d+2, 3d-1 etc.

This one seems right; it's more or less equivalent to converting each +4 to 1d. When I converted dice+adds, I used that approach.

Note, however, that Kromm advised against the conversion, saying that converting dice+adds can mess up with some rules (such as Weapon Master, Karate, All-out attack and other things who grant a bonus "per die").
He also said that, if you don't convert dice+adds, weapon masters and big weapons have a more predictable damage and a higher minimum damage, and this is only fair.

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by Lupo

This one seems right; it's more or less equivalent to converting each +4 to 1d. When I converted dice+adds, I used that approach.

Note, however, that Kromm advised against the conversion, saying that converting dice+adds can mess up with some rules (such as Weapon Master, Karate, All-out attack and other things who grant a bonus "per die").
He also said that, if you don't convert dice+adds, weapon masters and big weapons have a more predictable damage and a higher minimum damage, and this is only fair.

Aha, so the official ruling is more or less to not convert, in order to have the "bonus/reduction per die" function as intended.
But how about weapons dealing damage as swing minus something? Results of a ST 13 man with a knife doing swing damage of 2d-3??? Or this point to be disregarded, since very few weapons do sw-x damage, almost all are at sw or sw+x?

The only way an attack (swung most likely) becomes several dice, is if the base damage, based on ST is several dice. E.g. a ST 12 man has swing dam 1d+2, no swung weapon of his will ever roll more than 1d, but with huge adds. While the ST 13 guy has swing 2d-1, all his swung weapons will deal 2d+something.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Aha, so the official ruling is more or less to not convert, in order to have the "bonus/reduction per die" function as intended.

IIRC, yes.

But how about weapons dealing damage as swing minus something? Results of a ST 13 man with a knife doing swing damage of 2d-3???

I think the same reasoning applies... a ST 13 man with a knife gets a lousy damage (-3) possibly dealing none at all.

The only way an attack (swung most likely) becomes several dice, is if the base damage, based on ST is several dice. E.g. a ST 12 man has swing dam 1d+2, no swung weapon of his will ever roll more than 1d, but with huge adds. While the ST 13 guy has swing 2d-1, all his swung weapons will deal 2d+something.

Yes, exactly.

[PhoenixPaw]

Originally Posted by Lupo

I think the same reasoning applies... a ST 13 man with a knife gets a lousy damage (-3) possibly dealing none at all.

Doesn't the rule states that the minimum damage one can do when attacking with a weapon is one point of damage, and only natural (and innate?) attacks can do zero damage?
Or am I clinging to an old 3ed remnant?

[Dinadon]

Originally Posted by PhoenixPaw

Doesn't the rule states that the minimum damage one can do when attacking with a weapon is one point of damage, and only natural (and innate?) attacks can do zero damage?
Or am I clinging to an old 3ed remnant?

Possibly, in 4th this depends on damage type: crushing has min zero, everything else min one.

[PhoenixPaw]

I personally keep all dice+adds through all modifications relevant to the end, and only if I end up with adds over +5 do I look at converting.
IF I convert, I use the +7 => 2d guideline.

A Weapon Master of Greatswords that have ST 13 (sw 2d-1) and skill DX+2 (+2/die dmg) with a fine quality Greatsword (sw+4), I feel him entitled to his 2d+7 damage OR 4d as he choose. That's either a minimum of 9 points of damage with a maximum of 19, or 4 to 24 damage. I find it only fair that such a character could deal Major Wounds whenever he strikes (Ok, with plate armour and lots of HP you can avoid major wounds ... but then you're designed to be a tank) or get chancy with his attacks.

A ST12 (swing 1d+2) guy with a fine great axe (sw+4) with punissence +2 wouldn't get that option of rolling 1d+8 or 3d+1, but be forced to roll at 3d+1, since while he could do a lot of damage, there's nothing to assure it.