Converting dice+adds?

[Warlockco]

Unless my memory is way off.

This might really come into effect with Weapon Master and Force Swords.
Since if I recall correctly a Force Sword is 8d or 9d and depending on skill level with Weapon Master is +8/+9 or +16/+18 damage. I personally have no problems with the straight up bonus damage.

[Lovewyrm]

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.

Quite a necro from me I realize, but does this warning apply to the Modifying Dice + Adds on B269, or does it apply to the conversion Ultraviolet asked about

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.

Or in other words, is the optional rule on B269 'fine' or does it have that caveat and it was just never added to that rule box?
(I'm a math brainlet so I'm not even trying to suss that one out mathematically, Edit: Because AFAIK the ST damage formula is somewhat arbitrary, or something.)
(Furthermore, I don't know how to search the forum for something and restrict it to a single user...which I did try, but failed)

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Lovewyrm

Quite a necro from me I realize, but does this warning apply to the Modifying Dice + Adds on B269, or does it apply to the conversion Ultraviolet asked about?

I think it applies to B269. GURPS gives you that rule in case you want to use it, but ignoring it is fine.

I have played and GMed Weapon Masters doing damage in the 3d+7 to 3d+10 range, and while it's very effective, it's also somewhat easier to handle than doing 5d or 6d. You have more idea of what the character is likely to achieve.

[tbone]

When flat damage mods, per-die damage mods, and conversion of mods to dice all come into play, a GM can get confused.

In this thread, Kromm offers the rationale behind the official way of doing things, which I'll take the liberty of quoting:

Originally Posted by Kromm

The prohibition against converting adds to dice and then adding per-die adds to the new number of dice is for definiteness, not for stinginess! Suppose I have ST 21 (damage 2d/4d-1) and I use a maul (swing+5), for 4d+4 damage. I'm also a Weapon Master with that maul, and get +2 per die for that. And I'm making an All-Out Attack (Strong), and get +1 per die for that. Is my damage:

1. 4d+4, with the per-die adds making it 4d+16, converted to 8d+2?
2. 4d+4, converted to 5d, with all the per-die adds making it 5d+15, further converted to 9d+1?
3. 4d+4, with the per-die adds for Weapon Master making it 4d+12, converted to 7d+1, then the per-die adds for All-Out Attack making it 7d+8, finally converted to 9d+1?
4. 4d+4, with the per-die adds for All-Out Attack making it 4d+8, converted to 6d+1, then the per-die adds for Weapon Master making it 6d+13, finally converted to 9d+2?
5. 4d+4, converted to 5d, with the per-die adds for All-Out Attack making it 5d+5, converted to 6d+1, then the per-die adds for Weapon Master making it 6d+13, finally converted to 9d+2?
6. 4d+4, converted to 5d, with the per-die adds for Weapon Master making it 5d+10, converted to 7d+3, then the per-die adds for All-Out Attack making it 7d+10, finally converted to 9d+3?
7. Something else I forgot about?

This rule makes 1 the right answer – and, as you can see, the simplest and most intuitive one.

[Rupert]

The whole thing can, I think, be reduced to one simple rule: If you are converting adds to dice (or dice to adds for some reason), do it last.

[Lovewyrm]

I know its best form to quote but the page is still fresh so I'll just address the last posts directly, indirectly:

You all gave me a solution to a problem I failed to properly express.
I think I made it look, or maybe the context did, that I didn't understand the application/usage of that optional rule.

I have found results on that before I posted my question.
The intent of my question was if the warning Lupo cited, was about the modifying dice and adds from B269...
As in, is that optional rule, on page 269 of the fourth edition GURPS basic set 'secretly' problematic.

Or was it some other conversion rule.. like "following the ST table progression" or "the 3e way with 3 being a bonus 1d" or whatever.
But mainly the ST table progression, that's why I added that I'm a math brainlet because checking against that weird pattern to see "if it matches up" would have been too much for me, not impossible but ...quite a bit of work, cause I'm bad at math patterns, lol.
(As well as trying to find that alleged warning of Kromm regarding such a conversion, which, again I thought was the ST damage table progression)

But since noone said anything about that, and just explained the proper usage, it's safe to say that the B269 optional rule is sound, and I must have drawn a wrong conclusion from this thread and what Kromm (and others) warned about and touched on was the wrong way to use that rule, by not applying the per die damage bonuses to the base damage, but after already increasing the die count with the B269 rule and piling it on top of that, which inflates the final output somewhat.

Again, I was mostly concerned if the B269 optional rule was secretly faulty and messes things up, especially since DFRPG seems to not have bothered with it either (but mostly for reasons to avoid maths at the table)
This does not seem to be the case, and the optional rule is okay.

[Varyon]

From previous comments I've seen from Kromm, I believe the interpretation that Kromm warned against using the optional rule from B269 is actually the correct one. Kromm has expressed in the past (if memory serves), using the example t-bone quoted, that 4d+16 was preferable to 8d+2, to make the bonuses involved more reliable (it also avoids confusion about when to convert the adds to dice). But it's ultimately down to what the GM and rest of the group prefer; heck, I don't think you'd break anything if you just opt to decide whether or not to convert the adds just before you roll damage (although adding another decision could slow down play).

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Varyon

(it also avoids confusion about when to convert the adds to dice). ).

If you wonder why anyone would create such a rule with its' possible confusion the Dice +Adds rule is older than Weapon Master and most other adds per die of damage as well. Those are a 4e thing. 3e just added flat amounts of bonus damage.

[tbone]

I don't think any regular forum readers need to be told the following, but while we're on the topic, here are a couple of added points for future newcomers searching the forum for stuff about dice adds:

1. In the same thread I link to above, Kromm clarifies that, for simplicity, DFRPG officially does not use the "Modifying Dice + Adds" optional rule. (A GM is free to use it anyway, of course.)

2. Does 2d-1 damage count as two dice for purposes of "per die" adds? Or does it count as just one dice (as 2d-1 falls short of a full two dice)? I think most people would quickly guess the former, and they'd be correct: xd-y counts as x dice for damage add purposes. But a newcomer could be left wondering; as far as I can see, it's not spelled out in BS or DFRPG. I confirmed the answer for myself only by looking at examples, like pre-gen characters and the Blunt Claws text on B42.

(Speaking of which, I'm not sure how said text's "2d-3" dam could come about; before the -1 for a punch, that would have to be 2d-2 dam, which the Damage Table doesn't offer. Meh, doesn't matter; the example's still sound.)

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by tbone

(Speaking of which, I'm not sure how said text's "2d-3" dam could come about; before the -1 for a punch, that would have to be 2d-2 dam, which the Damage Table doesn't offer. Meh, doesn't matter; the example's still sound.)

Could be another 3e hangover. In 3e Punches were Thrust -2 not -1.