I need a dice rolling formula for damage rolls in my homebrew

>>53392985
3d6 + modifier

>>53393005
You fail.

>>53393005
>average result should be between 1.5x and 2x damage stat
Is the average of 3d6 + 1000 between 1500 and 2000? You should be able to answer this.

>>53392985
How bizarrely difficult. You'll need to multiply your damage stat by a function based off of the result no matter what you do.

So, Roll 1d6
1 = Damage * .5
2 = Damage * 1
3 = Damage * 1.5
4 = Damage * 2
5 = Damage * 2.5
6 = Damage * 3

I feel that this is a very fault die mechanic, as a multiplication step is necessarily slower than addition or subtraction. That could be avoided, however, if the damage stat rarely shifts.

You could also instead use 1d12 in order to do half steps as well:

1 = .25
2 = .5
3 = .75
4 = 1
5 = 1.25
6 = 1.5
7 = 1.75
8 = 2
9 = 2.25
10 = 2.5
11 = 2.75
12 = 3

>>53394573
>I feel this is a very fault die mechanic
I meant 'faulty.'

>>53392985
As an alternative to my post here: >>53394573

2d6
2 = 0
3 = 1
4 = 1.2
5 = 1.4
6 = 1.6
7 = 1.8
8 = 2
9 = 2.2
10 = 2.4
11 = 2.6
12 = 3

>>53392985
How about a 2:1 with d6s? That gives an average of 1.75 for every 1 damage stat, flatly between your 1.5 and 2. Rolling 13 dice for a 27 isn't impossible? But yeah, bizarre restrictions. If you don't allow a ratio system like this one, you basically have to use a multiplication system like >>53394573.

>>53394684
I feel that the multiplication system may be a significant order faster than doing it with multiple dice while still using conventional dice.

>>53394573
What sort of a prospective return would 1d10/damage + damage give?

>>53395647
Given a variable of 27,

1/27+27 = 27.037
2/27+27 = 27.074
3/27+27 = 27.111
4/27+27 = 27.148
...
10/27+27 = 27.37

I don't really understand the point of doing things this way.

>>53395647
Unless you meant a dice pool of 1d10s equal to 27, + 27 in which case the numbers you receive are so whacky as to be retarded.

You have 54-297, with an average roll of 175.5

This seems ridiculous too.

>>53395737
>>53395762
Shit. Sorry, I meant to put 1d10/10 damage + damage. And yes the idea is d10s are dice pool per every increments of 10 damage. The 27 example would be 2d10 + 27, for example.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm going to be test all of these.

File: weird dice, capture..png (49KB, 1410x686px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1410x686px

>>53395819
That's interesting in a very interesting way.

The average would roughly be

(⌊d/10⌋*5.5)+d, d = damage

if d < 10, the average will be a straight value. It would be impossible to deal 0 damage.

10 - 19 = 15.5 - 24.5
20 - 29 = 31 - 40
30 - 39 = 46.5 - 55.5
40 - 49 = 66 - 71
50 - 59 = 77.5 - 86.5
60 - 69 = 93 - 102
70 - 79 = 108.5 - 117.5
80 - 89 = 124 - 133
90 - 99 = 139.5 = 148.5
100 = 155

Every 10 points the damage jumps up by a significant amount, on average 5.5.

I don't recommend this however because you're now performing multiple complex steps in order to find the sum total.

Plus the numbers are too damn high.

>>53392985

Okay, when you say "damage stat has no upper limit", do you mean that it can reach millions? Or do you mean that it TECHNICALLY has no upper limit, but almost every character is going to have a score under 20? Because that's an important distinction. Systems that are technically limitless but in practice limited can be handled with die pool shenanigans without having to resort to time-consuming multipliers.

>>53392985
roll 2d8. subtract small number from big number.
multiply result by damage stat

>>53398279

Rolled 3 and 3.
Is it my opponent's lucky day?

>>53398347
Yes.

>>53397054
I mean technically limitless but 50 should be more than enough. I just can't go with a formula that maxes out at 10 or something.

>>53398279
That gives an average of 2.63x stat, and multiplying double-digit numbers isn't really "minimal math" in this context.
Don't bother reposting that idea with smaller dice, the "multiply result by damage stat" part is definitely not what I want.

>>53392985
1d4 x stat

>>53392985
Roll d6
1-3 = 1 x stat
4-6 = 2 x stat

>>53399007
>>53399636
>>53400226
Oh wait we're doing that thing you told us not to

>>53392985
2dX (probably 10, you can change it up for different weapons or something if you want)

You roll for the SECOND NUMBER, not the last one. Of course for stat under 10, it's only plus the original damage stat.

Your damage stat is 10, the final result is 10+2dX. If your damage stat is 100, your final result is 100 + (2dX x 10).

Starting from the bottom, _ is what you roll.
1+_
1_
1_0
1_00
5_00
1_000
1_0000
and so forth

Scales infinitely, and here's the results. They stay exactly the same throughout. http://anydice.com/program/bc5e

>>53400973
Oh, and if the result is over 10, you raise the first number, obviously.

>>53400973
>>53401013
Shit, that doesn't work for numbers stuff like the 5_00 doesn't it?

Well, then you can just multiply the final die roll by the first number.

Meaning 5000 would mean you roll 5_00, 5000 + (2d6 x 500)

>>53399007
Does >>53400973, >>53401013, >>53401099 have the "multiply by damage stat" too hard when you only multiply by the first digit?

Like, if you do d6s or d8s, the hardest calculation you're gonna have is either 9*12 or 9*16, or if we go by that it only scales to about 50, 5*12 or 5*16.

Theoretically this system of mine is actually better for when shit gets to REALLY high numbers, but you use calculators at that point anyway so who cares at that point.