Troll Lord Games

When the Rogue description states the damage on the back attack is "doubled" are you supposed to roll the damage twice? Or do you double the result of a single dice?

Same question when you get to triple and quead, etc. Do you roll one die and multiple it X 2, 3 or 4....or do you roll that many dice for the damage?

If you have a Str mod, do you add that at the end or do you mulitply that as well?

It says that a hit Doubles the normal damage. I take that as X2 the weapon damage roll. (similar to how it was done in AD&D).

YMMV

Arduin wrote:It says that a hit Doubles the normal damage. I take that as X2 the weapon damage roll. (similar to how it was done in AD&D).

YMMV

Yea, that's what we did. Thanks! Anyone do it to where you just roll extra dice?

My group rolls the extra dice. I personally like it that way as you get to toss a bunch of dice like you stabbed them with a Fireball.

I've done it both ways. I just prefer actually multiplying it for the sake of speed and simplicity.

I like rolling more dice. Players like that too. So for double damage, I have double the number of dice rolled.

~O

You know, I may put it to a vote and see what the players like. I'm good either way. I think the "more dice" method may actually work more in thier favor. I mean, you roll low on a "x2" and you're doing "low" overall damage. With more dice, more chance of the average coming up with occasional "highs and lows" (I think anway, lol). Either way it's more damage, heh, heh!

Lobo316 wrote:You know, I may put it to a vote and see what the players like. I'm good either way. I think the "more dice" method may actually work more in thier favor. I mean, you roll low on a "x2" and you're doing "low" overall damage. With more dice, more chance of the average coming up with occasional "highs and lows" (I think anway, lol). Either way it's more damage, heh, heh!

if you are doubling the damage from a d6 the two methods will give you a very different spread

The straight times two method will turn up one of 6 damages all an equal chance of happening; 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12

While the two dice method will give you a bell curve runing from 2 to 12 the peak of the bell centered on 7

Lobo316 wrote:You know, I may put it to a vote and see what the players like. I'm good either way. I think the "more dice" method may actually work more in thier favor. I mean, you roll low on a "x2" and you're doing "low" overall damage. With more dice, more chance of the average coming up with occasional "highs and lows" (I think anway, lol). Either way it's more damage, heh, heh!

I give my players the choice, each time it happens. So one time they can choose to multiply and the next they can choose more dice (before the roll obviously). This is similar to how I run critical hits. I let the player choose. You're right about the downside of multiplying, that if you roll low, you could end up with a low number. But the opposite is also true, if you roll high and x2, it will be fantastic. The choice comes down to how risky you are and how hot your dice feel that night. My players usually choose to multiply the total, but sometimes choose to roll more dice. A third choice I grant on crits is to just take max damage without rolling at all (nor doubling). This is a good option for people who find a way to roll lots of 1s.

I'm assuming everyone here adds any bonus for strength AFTER doubling?

Lobo316 wrote:I'm assuming everyone here adds any bonus for strength AFTER doubling?

I do.

Arduin wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:I'm assuming everyone here adds any bonus for strength AFTER doubling?

I do.

Hmmm...while were on the subject, do you add magic bonuses AFTER doubling (tripling, etc) as well?

OK, thinking on this some more, I don't think I've really considered how we do backstab damage when it comes to bonuses.

Example...There is a rogue in the party with a +1 dagger (giants bane, +3 vs giants). To break down his maximum damage, see the following... (not including strength, which would be tacked onto the total).

Again, this is assuming "max damage on the roll"

Normal backstab damage (no magic weapon): 4x2 = 8 damage

+1 Dagger
If included in the multiplier: 5x2 = 10 damage
If added after the multiplier: 4x2 = 8 +1 = 9 damage

And if fighting giants (+3)
If included in the multiplier: 7x2 = 14 damage
If added after the multiplier: 4x2 = 8 +3 = 11 damage

So, are we supposed to add that magic bonus to the total before or after multiplying? If you add the bonus before, you're going to get greater damage results, and the disparity will get greater, the stronger the bonus (see the 14 damage on the +3 dagger included in the multiplier vs the 11 damage adding it after).

Lobo316 wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:I'm assuming everyone here adds any bonus for strength AFTER doubling?

I do.

Hmmm...while were on the subject, do you add magic bonuses AFTER doubling (tripling, etc) as well?

In 3.X I added before. But, in C&C I add them after due to the overall lower power level of the game.

So the formula I use is: (Weapon dmg X 2) +magic, +attribute bonus = Total

Arduin wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:I'm assuming everyone here adds any bonus for strength AFTER doubling?

I do.

Hmmm...while were on the subject, do you add magic bonuses AFTER doubling (tripling, etc) as well?

In 3.X I added before. But, in C&C I add them after due to the overall lower power level of the game.

So the formula I use is: (Weapon dmg X 2) +magic, +attribute bonus = Total

Argh, this is a really tough call for me as a CK. I'm not sure I really paid much attention to this before, but part of me wants to allow the rogue to add the weapons magic bonus to each die roll on the rogue backstab damage (after all, it's part of the weapons damage, you know) then add the str mod seperate. But I also don't want the damage output to get ridiculous, you know.

Any other opinions or suggestions on the subject?

Lobo316 wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:I'm assuming everyone here adds any bonus for strength AFTER doubling?

I do.

Hmmm...while were on the subject, do you add magic bonuses AFTER doubling (tripling, etc) as well?

In 3.X I added before. But, in C&C I add them after due to the overall lower power level of the game.

So the formula I use is: (Weapon dmg X 2) +magic, +attribute bonus = Total

Argh, this is a really tough call for me as a CK. I'm not sure I really paid much attention to this before, but part of me wants to allow the rogue to add the weapons magic bonus to each die roll on the rogue backstab damage (after all, it's part of the weapons damage, you know) then add the str mod seperate. But I also don't want the damage output to get ridiculous, you know.

Any other opinions or suggestions on the subject?

I think Arduin is probably doing it "correctly" (note: he usually does)if there is such a thing. But I would lean towards multiplying the magic bonus as well at least, and potentially multiplying everything, depending on how hard you make it to use the ability. If your rogue is popping this attack pretty regularly, I'd probably not multiply the ability bonus for example. But if it's rare, like once per game session or something, I'd totally do multply all of it. The extra couple of HP won't be changing many outcomes, and if it does, well, that's pretty darn exciting for the PC.

mbeacom wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:I'm assuming everyone here adds any bonus for strength AFTER doubling?

I do.

Hmmm...while were on the subject, do you add magic bonuses AFTER doubling (tripling, etc) as well?

In 3.X I added before. But, in C&C I add them after due to the overall lower power level of the game.

So the formula I use is: (Weapon dmg X 2) +magic, +attribute bonus = Total

Argh, this is a really tough call for me as a CK. I'm not sure I really paid much attention to this before, but part of me wants to allow the rogue to add the weapons magic bonus to each die roll on the rogue backstab damage (after all, it's part of the weapons damage, you know) then add the str mod seperate. But I also don't want the damage output to get ridiculous, you know.

Any other opinions or suggestions on the subject?

I think Arduin is probably doing it "correctly" (note: he usually does)if there is such a thing. But I would lean towards multiplying the magic bonus as well at least, and potentially multiplying everything, depending on how hard you make it to use the ability. If your rogue is popping this attack pretty regularly, I'd probably not multiply the ability bonus for example. But if it's rare, like once per game session or something, I'd totally do multply all of it. The extra couple of HP won't be changing many outcomes, and if it does, well, that's pretty darn exciting for the PC.

I would probably do it ([total damage derived from the weapon x2] + non-weapon mods such as Str). The book doesn't state specifically, so in truth this is a CK discretionary decision. But, the books does allude to a particular way, in my opinion. The PHB states that the back attack deals "double the normal damage" for that weapon (or later, triple, quadruple, etc.). That statement is important.

If a shortsword does 1d6, it deals twice the amount rolled. The result of my weapon damage roll (1d6) is 3, so I double that to 6. However, the normal damage roll of a shortsword +1 is (1d6 +1). Once again, I roll a 3. But I add one, to make it 4. So, doubling the normal damage derived from my shortsword +1 (1d6+1), comes out to 8 points of damage. The normal damage range for a shortsword +1 is 2-7, not 1-6. No matter who's hands it's in, it'll deal 2-7.

I agree with Arduin that Strength modifier shouldn't get multiplied into the result, nor should any other modifier that is not based on the damage of the weapon. However, I would (and have) add any the magical adjustment intrinsic to the weapon into the back attack result. I truly think this is, as I said earlier, at the CK's discretion and subject to how her or she wants to rule it (as all rulings are, whether printed in the book or not). As always, this is my opinion, and take that for what you will.

I give them maximum damage, including any kind of weapon and strength bonus, and then allow the player to roll the damage die and add that. So if it was a +2 dagger and they had a strength bonus of +1, the damage would be 4+2+1 and then add a 1d4 die roll to it.

Lord Dynel wrote: I would probably do it ([total damage derived from the weapon x2] + non-weapon mods such as Str). The book doesn't state specifically, so in truth this is a CK discretionary decision. But, the books does allude to a particular way, in my opinion. The PHB states that the back attack deals "double the normal damage" for that weapon (or later, triple, quadruple, etc.). That statement is important.

True. I don't know if I'm doing it as per the intent of the authors. Adding weapon pluses before multiplying would be valid also. That might become important as character level (and magic weapon levels) go up. Might be a factor in surviving...

Lord Dynel wrote:
I would probably do it ([total damage derived from the weapon x2] + non-weapon mods such as Str). The book doesn't state specifically, so in truth this is a CK discretionary decision. But, the books does allude to a particular way, in my opinion. The PHB states that the back attack deals "double the normal damage" for that weapon (or later, triple, quadruple, etc.). That statement is important.

If a shortsword does 1d6, it deals twice the amount rolled. The result of my weapon damage roll (1d6) is 3, so I double that to 6. However, the normal damage roll of a shortsword +1 is (1d6 +1). Once again, I roll a 3. But I add one, to make it 4. So, doubling the normal damage derived from my shortsword +1 (1d6+1), comes out to 8 points of damage. The normal damage range for a shortsword +1 is 2-7, not 1-6. No matter who's hands it's in, it'll deal 2-7.

I agree with Arduin that Strength modifier shouldn't get multiplied into the result, nor should any other modifier that is not based on the damage of the weapon. However, I would (and have) add any the magical adjustment intrinsic to the weapon into the back attack result. I truly think this is, as I said earlier, at the CK's discretion and subject to how her or she wants to rule it (as all rulings are, whether printed in the book or not). As always, this is my opinion, and take that for what you will.

Where does it mention "for that weapon"? In the Back Attack descrip, it only mentions "double normal damage". But I feel like that I've seen similar wording, but can't seem to find it now in the C&C books. Perhaps it was in actual D&D? I'm not trying to argue, but I think one could rule that "normal" damage as written in the C&C descrip includes strength/dex modifiers as appropriate, since it's normal to include them in the damage total.

Yea, that's a sticky topic. I think I may actually adopt what snoring rock has...

I give them maximum damage, including any kind of weapon and strength bonus, and then allow the player to roll the damage die and add that. So if it was a +2 dagger and they had a strength bonus of +1, the damage would be 4+2+1 and then add a 1d4 die roll to it.

This guarentees that they at least get max for thier normal damage, then add on top of it. A little more "controlled" than doubling everything.

Lord Dynel wrote:

mbeacom wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:I'm assuming everyone here adds any bonus for strength AFTER doubling?

I do.

Hmmm...while were on the subject, do you add magic bonuses AFTER doubling (tripling, etc) as well?

In 3.X I added before. But, in C&C I add them after due to the overall lower power level of the game.

So the formula I use is: (Weapon dmg X 2) +magic, +attribute bonus = Total

Argh, this is a really tough call for me as a CK. I'm not sure I really paid much attention to this before, but part of me wants to allow the rogue to add the weapons magic bonus to each die roll on the rogue backstab damage (after all, it's part of the weapons damage, you know) then add the str mod seperate. But I also don't want the damage output to get ridiculous, you know.

Any other opinions or suggestions on the subject?

I think Arduin is probably doing it "correctly" (note: he usually does)if there is such a thing. But I would lean towards multiplying the magic bonus as well at least, and potentially multiplying everything, depending on how hard you make it to use the ability. If your rogue is popping this attack pretty regularly, I'd probably not multiply the ability bonus for example. But if it's rare, like once per game session or something, I'd totally do multply all of it. The extra couple of HP won't be changing many outcomes, and if it does, well, that's pretty darn exciting for the PC.

I would probably do it ([total damage derived from the weapon x2] + non-weapon mods such as Str). The book doesn't state specifically, so in truth this is a CK discretionary decision. But, the books does allude to a particular way, in my opinion. The PHB states that the back attack deals "double the normal damage" for that weapon (or later, triple, quadruple, etc.). That statement is important.

If a shortsword does 1d6, it deals twice the amount rolled. The result of my weapon damage roll (1d6) is 3, so I double that to 6. However, the normal damage roll of a shortsword +1 is (1d6 +1). Once again, I roll a 3. But I add one, to make it 4. So, doubling the normal damage derived from my shortsword +1 (1d6+1), comes out to 8 points of damage. The normal damage range for a shortsword +1 is 2-7, not 1-6. No matter who's hands it's in, it'll deal 2-7.

I agree with Arduin that Strength modifier shouldn't get multiplied into the result, nor should any other modifier that is not based on the damage of the weapon. However, I would (and have) add any the magical adjustment intrinsic to the weapon into the back attack result. I truly think this is, as I said earlier, at the CK's discretion and subject to how her or she wants to rule it (as all rulings are, whether printed in the book or not). As always, this is my opinion, and take that for what you will.

I hear what you're saying, but also realize that in regards to weapons that have "additional damage", now dang, your talking about a LOT of potential damage. I believe in rewarding the players, but in this instance, it's a giant's bane dagger. So with your example of including the magic bonus, your' not only doubling the +3, but you're also going to be doubling the +2d6 (again, if you're considering that part of the "weapon damage").

I think that's getting just a bit crazy. I do appreciate the C&C designers keeping a lot of things open and rules light for the players, but I think this is one subject where some more solid guidlines would be much appreciated.

Lobo316 wrote:Yea, that's a sticky topic. I think I may actually adopt what snoring rock has...

I give them maximum damage, including any kind of weapon and strength bonus, and then allow the player to roll the damage die and add that. So if it was a +2 dagger and they had a strength bonus of +1, the damage would be 4+2+1 and then add a 1d4 die roll to it.

This guarentees that they at least get max for thier normal damage, then add on top of it. A little more "controlled" than doubling everything.

This is exactly how they have chosen to handle it in D&D Next for critical hits. You get max damage (including all bonuses) plus 1 weapon die (rolled) added to the total. It's a little boring but it works and keeps the damage in the "appropriate" range.

Lobo316 wrote: I do appreciate the C&C designers keeping a lot of things open and rules light for the players, but I think this is one subject where some more solid guidlines would be much appreciated.

But that's the point of rules light. You can run it how feels best for you and he can run it how best for him and his group. "More guidelines" too often means them choosing which one is better, your way or his. I think both are valid and I love that C&C supports both ways by leaving it somewhat vague.

mbeacom wrote:

Lobo316 wrote: I do appreciate the C&C designers keeping a lot of things open and rules light for the players, but I think this is one subject where some more solid guidlines would be much appreciated.

But that's the point of rules light. You can run it how feels best for you and he can run it how best for him and his group. "More guidelines" too often means them choosing which one is better, your way or his. I think both are valid and I love that C&C supports both ways by leaving it somewhat vague.

I haven't run, or played in any high level C&C games. Any feedback about this subject vis-a-vis what happens at higher level (with higher + weapons vs. higher HD monsters). For all melee type PC's. Good, bad or whatever...

mbeacom wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:Yea, that's a sticky topic. I think I may actually adopt what snoring rock has...

I give them maximum damage, including any kind of weapon and strength bonus, and then allow the player to roll the damage die and add that. So if it was a +2 dagger and they had a strength bonus of +1, the damage would be 4+2+1 and then add a 1d4 die roll to it.

This guarentees that they at least get max for thier normal damage, then add on top of it. A little more "controlled" than doubling everything.

This is exactly how they have chosen to handle it in D&D Next for critical hits. You get max damage (including all bonuses) plus 1 weapon die (rolled) added to the total. It's a little boring but it works and keeps the damage in the "appropriate" range.

Yea, I like this. Pretty doable, but here's a question, what happens when you get to the X3 or X4 multiplier? I suppose I could "max" one of the die, than roll the additional. Something like this...

Do maximum weapon damage, then roll X amount of dice based on the mulitplier (if the multiplier is x2 roll one additonal die, x3 = two additional dice, x4 = three additional dice) add them up, then add any bonuses for magic/strength to get your total.

Hmmm...that may work actually. Guarantees they get thier minimum on at least one die, then they roll addtional based on thier multiplier, than add bonuses from attribue/magic weapon, ect.

mbeacom wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote:
I would probably do it ([total damage derived from the weapon x2] + non-weapon mods such as Str). The book doesn't state specifically, so in truth this is a CK discretionary decision. But, the books does allude to a particular way, in my opinion. The PHB states that the back attack deals "double the normal damage" for that weapon (or later, triple, quadruple, etc.). That statement is important.

If a shortsword does 1d6, it deals twice the amount rolled. The result of my weapon damage roll (1d6) is 3, so I double that to 6. However, the normal damage roll of a shortsword +1 is (1d6 +1). Once again, I roll a 3. But I add one, to make it 4. So, doubling the normal damage derived from my shortsword +1 (1d6+1), comes out to 8 points of damage. The normal damage range for a shortsword +1 is 2-7, not 1-6. No matter who's hands it's in, it'll deal 2-7.

I agree with Arduin that Strength modifier shouldn't get multiplied into the result, nor should any other modifier that is not based on the damage of the weapon. However, I would (and have) add any the magical adjustment intrinsic to the weapon into the back attack result. I truly think this is, as I said earlier, at the CK's discretion and subject to how her or she wants to rule it (as all rulings are, whether printed in the book or not). As always, this is my opinion, and take that for what you will.

Where does it mention "for that weapon"? In the Back Attack descrip, it only mentions "double normal damage". But I feel like that I've seen similar wording, but can't seem to find it now in the C&C books. Perhaps it was in actual D&D? I'm not trying to argue, but I think one could rule that "normal" damage as written in the C&C descrip includes strength/dex modifiers as appropriate, since it's normal to include them in the damage total.

Well, nowhere. Not that I could tell. I hope I didn't confuse by my statement. I tried to only quote the actual text. "For that weapon" (now quoting it from my post ) meant whatever weapon used to back attack. For a shortsword, it's 1d6 damage. For a dagger, it's 1d4. Whatever weapon being used, that weapon's damage range should be doubled, is what I was intending to say.

The main reason I would use the weapon damage and its' magical modifier is because that's a constant. Everything else is not. So a shortsword +1 in the hands of any rogue, whether they have a strength of 8 or 18, will do the same "normal" damage of 1d6+1. Strength modifiers come into play after that. Again, that's me. YMMV, of course.

Lobo316 wrote:I hear what you're saying, but also realize that in regards to weapons that have "additional damage", now dang, your talking about a LOT of potential damage. I believe in rewarding the players, but in this instance, it's a giant's bane dagger. So with your example of including the magic bonus, your' not only doubling the +3, but you're also going to be doubling the +2d6 (again, if you're considering that part of the "weapon damage").

That's true. But also consider the fact that a giant's bane weapon has the potential to do a lot of damage, yes...but in a very small window of opportunity. So yes, you could add the +2d6 to the backstabbing of a giant and consider that damage as "normal" for the purposes of hitting a giant. But also consider that coming up behind a giant and hitting a vital spot might not be as easy as it sounds.

In this case, and looking at the entry on a bane weapon, I would rule that the "extra" damage it deals, is just that...extra. It's not "normal" damage, meaning the normal damage that the given weapon would do against 99% of the rest of the world's foes. But, if you were to rule it that way (that the +2d6 gets multiplied) then I'm sure it's not going to break the game against 1% of the monster population of the world.

I think that's getting just a bit crazy. I do appreciate the C&C designers keeping a lot of things open and rules light for the players, but I think this is one subject where some more solid guidlines would be much appreciated.

Just remember: this way, you can make it how you want and it doesn't contradict with the rules whatsoever. If it was written one way or the other, and you wanted to house rule it contrary to how it's written, then that might possibly be a point of contention. This way, there is no contention.

mbeacom wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:Yea, that's a sticky topic. I think I may actually adopt what snoring rock has...

I give them maximum damage, including any kind of weapon and strength bonus, and then allow the player to roll the damage die and add that. So if it was a +2 dagger and they had a strength bonus of +1, the damage would be 4+2+1 and then add a 1d4 die roll to it.

This guarentees that they at least get max for thier normal damage, then add on top of it. A little more "controlled" than doubling everything.

This is exactly how they have chosen to handle it in D&D Next for critical hits. You get max damage (including all bonuses) plus 1 weapon die (rolled) added to the total. It's a little boring but it works and keeps the damage in the "appropriate" range.

This is nice because you are guaranteed damage but I'm all for making this epic damage lol. It was always a difficult task to do in the games I play in and it is a rather difficult task to accomplish so I'm all for rolling damage adding up all the mods and then doubling it.

Now would you allow a rogue to use two weapons at the same time for the back attack and if so how would you treat the damage

Dracyian wrote:
Now would you allow a rogue to use two weapons at the same time for the back attack ...

Not a chance.

Arduin wrote:

Dracyian wrote:
Now would you allow a rogue to use two weapons at the same time for the back attack ...

Not a chance.

Hmmm...if you are using all the penalties as normal for two-weapon combat, why not? Not saying I disgree with Arduin, I'm just curious as to why not? If a rogue has a pair of daggers and drives them both into an enemies back or kidneys, or slides one accross a victims throat, while jabbing the other between thier ribs, why not?