Any way to get a weapon that uses a d7?

[aabicus]

I found a d7 at a novelty pawn shop, and I want to use it in D&D. I'm wondering if there's some way to get a weapon, any weapon, that uses a d7, probably for damage, but something else would be okay too.

I'm talking any way at all. Adjusting size categories, making use of typos, obscure source books, any way.

Does anyone know if it's possible?

[VGLordR2]

I don't know about d7's, but there is a whip in Sandstorm that deals 1d43.

[Answerer]

Ask the DM? Seems by far the most reasonable way. It's such a moderate improvement on a 1d6 that it hardly matters (it averages 0.5 damage more); personally I'd just let you have it if it made you happy.

[Agent 451]

I've got several of them. Only ever used them to determine how many days something will take.

[Togath]

One thing I have wondered is why unusual style dice like the d7 were never included in the rules, it seems like 3, 5, 7, 9, and 15 sided dice could have been useful for mechanics.
Is it just because they didn't figure out you can make an any sided die by making rod shaped?
Could also have been useful for the d4, as a four sided shape rolls easier then a pyramid(I often have trouble getting the d4 to actually roll/flip when I use them:smallredface:).

[Malimar]

One thing I have wondered is why unusual style dice like the d7 were never included in the rules, it seems like 3, 5, 7, 9, and 15 sided dice could have been useful for mechanics.
Is it just because they didn't figure out you can make an any sided die by making rod shaped?
Could also have been useful for the d4, as a four sided shape rolls easier then a pyramid(I often have trouble getting the d4 to actually roll/flip when I use them:smallredface:).

Flip, you say?

After some experimentation: astounding! Flipping a d4 like a coin works much better than trying to roll it like a die!


Anyhow, probably they used the Platonic Solids because they're the most aesthetically pleasing solids. And, being regular solids, are probably the easiest to design and manufacture. And the ostensible specialness of the Platonic Solids goes back >2000 years, and who are RPG makers to argue with tradition?

(Also the d10, which is not a Platonic Solid but was presumably included because most Americans think in terms of 10s.)

[doko239]

One thing I have wondered is why unusual style dice like the d7 were never included in the rules, it seems like 3, 5, 7, 9, and 15 sided dice could have been useful for mechanics.
Is it just because they didn't figure out you can make an any sided die by making rod shaped?
Could also have been useful for the d4, as a four sided shape rolls easier then a pyramid(I often have trouble getting the d4 to actually roll/flip when I use them:smallredface:).

Togath, when rolling a pyramid-style d4, grip it by one corner between thumb and index finger, and flick it (not that hard, mind you) up and away from you. Should give a good result.

[aabicus]

So, GM permission is my best bet?

My GM says he'll only allow it if I downgrade a d8 weapon :( I guess I can take the penalty. Sad though...

[KillianHawkeye]

Invent a new type of weapon? The medium sword: bigger than a short sword, but not quite a longsword, either!

[Togath]

Togath, when rolling a pyramid-style d4, grip it by one corner between thumb and index finger, and flick it (not that hard, mind you) up and away from you. Should give a good result.

ah, i'll try that next time i use one, i had been avoiding charactrers using dagger or scythe due to having trouble getting the dice to roll/flip

[TuggyNE]

Invent a new type of weapon? The medium sword: bigger than a short sword, but not quite a longsword, either!

EWP, better crit range, considered a finessible one-handed weapon?

[grarrrg]

(Also the d10, which is not a Platonic Solid but was presumably included because most Americans think in terms of 10s.)

A better reason is that two d10's work together very nicely for Percentages.
A lot easier/simpler than having an actual d100.

[Malimar]

A better reason is that two d10's work together very nicely for Percentages.
A lot easier/simpler than having an actual d100.

I was going to mention that, but figured the relevance of d100s was covered under thinking in terms of 10s.

[KillianHawkeye]

EWP, better crit range, considered a finessible one-handed weapon?

Sounds good to me! :smallamused:

Or lose the expanded crit range (19-20 like other swords ain't bad) and it could even be a martial weapon.

[Duke of URL]

Dunno about a weapon, but for d8 hit dice, if you're re-rolling 1s, you can simply use d7+1 instead and have the same probability distribution.

[WinWin]

You could roll a d7 and add 1 in exchange for 2d4. A Scythe, Falchion and Spiked chain all deal 2d4, as do some polearms.

Not a perfect exchange, but you'll have an even probablility of each number in the 2-8 range appearing.

[Badgerish]

4ed has a weapon called a 'khopesh' which does 1d8 (brutal 1) damage. That means roll a d8 and reroll all '1's. 1d7+1 models that accuratly.

[Novawurmson]

Invent a new type of weapon? The medium sword: bigger than a short sword, but not quite a longsword, either!

Well, we've already got the bastard sword...I guess this is the Red-Headed Stepchild Sword?

[Darrin]

The d7 developed by Lou Zocchi is fairly recent, at least from the standpoint of a rules system developed in the 1970s. (The distribution is also not exactly symmetrical, since "6" and "7" appear on the "edges" rather than two complementary numbers, such as "1" and "7", that would produce a better mean result.)

Zocchi's d5 (the triangular one, developed after the d7) fixed this somewhat by putting "1" and "5" on the edges, but after some experimentation I found that the odds of it landing on a side/edge had a great deal to do with the type of surface you are rolling on (soft surfaces produce weaker bounces, and it's either less/more likely to land on an edge... I forget exactly which). However, Zocchi and/or Gamescience also offers a d10 numbered 1-5 twice, which solves most problems with the triangular d5 (but doesn't look nearly as cool). That d5 has been in his catalog for several decades.

Zocchi's lozenge/shaped d3 came out about the same time as his d5. It also doubles as a Rock/Paper/Scissors die. There are a couple other companies that offer a renumbered d6 as a d3 if you're a purist about platonic solids.

I'm not familiar with a d9, but you could do one as a double-pyramid d18 numbered 1-9 twice. I haven't heard of a d15 either (you may be thinking of the d16?), but you could do one easily as a d30 numbered 1-30 twice. The d30 was developed by the Armory in... late 70's/early 80's, I think? No one patented it so Zocchi/Gamescience still offers sharp-edged d30's and Koplow has a nice smooth-edged d30. When they were offered by the Armory, it came with a little booklet that explained all the different ways you might use a d30 in an old-school D&D-type game.

The d16 was developed by Zocchi and Blake Mobley for an RPG called MetaScape (patented around 1982ish?), which uses it as a "doubling die" (i.e., it's not numbered 1-16). I'm not sure any of these are still around... I don't think Zocchi/Gamescience offers them and I'm not sure MetaScape is still in print. Zocchi/Gamescience does offer a d16 numbered 1-16. Interest sparked in these around 1999, when Cheapass introduced Button Men with a "Swing" die that could be any value from 4 to 20. I think Koplow might offer a smooth-edged version. There's also a "Hex Code" version offered by a couple companies (0-9, A, B, C, D, E, F).

Zocchi came up with the d24 a couple years later, and Gamescience held a contest to come up with a bunch of different uses for it. I'm not sure if they printed up all the responses... but there are probably a few threads out there somewhere with some ideas.

I think the d14 came out a little after that. The Zocchi/Gamescience version includes days of the week along with numbers 1-14.

The last die I saw Zocchi came up with was a big white meatball of a thing (not the d100) with something like 40+ rhomboidal sides and every conceivable smaller die result on there somewhere, so you don't have to fumble around for the "correct" die. Haven't picked one up yet, though.

[Malimar]

[A genuinely fascinating account of the history of funny-shaped dice]

I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Darrin]

I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I am but a pale shadow of the True Master (http://www.dicecollector.com/).

(Kevin's thread can be found here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50601&page=20))

[Larkas]

Well, you could use it with a Bronze Longsword... It would actually be a bit better than using the regular 1d8-1, since you'd have a 1-in-7 chance of rolling a 1 versus the regular 2-in-8, but overall shouldn't make much of a difference. Don't forget to make it masterwork, though, to at least cancel out the -1 to attack. Your DM doesn't seem too open to new ideas, but he already said he would downgrade a d8 weapon, so...

It's still a bad idea, I know, but if you wanted to roll weapon damage directly with unusual dice, you should have picked a d3 :smallfrown: You could always use that d7 to decide in which day your character will bathe this week, I guess :smalltongue:

[robertbevan]

(Also the d10, which is not a Platonic Solid but was presumably included because most Americans think in terms of 10s.)

do you really think this is unique to americans? one of the few countries who still refuse to adopt the metric system?

the metric system is the accepted system of science because humans think in terms of 10s. look at your hands. if that doesn't make sense to you, you've got some kind of deformity.

[MrBanana]

I wonder why the didn't make the d4 a d8 with two of each number. Would make it roll better.

[Malimar]

do you really think this is unique to americans? one of the few countries who still refuse to adopt the metric system?

the metric system is the accepted system of science because humans think in terms of 10s. look at your hands. if that doesn't make sense to you, you've got some kind of deformity.

"Most Americans think in terms of 10s" does not imply "most non-Americans don't think in terms of 10s". You have committed the fallacy of the inverse. :smallsigh:

[Agent 451]

The last die I saw Zocchi came up with was a big white meatball of a thing (not the d100) with something like 40+ rhomboidal sides and every conceivable smaller die result on there somewhere, so you don't have to fumble around for the "correct" die. Haven't picked one up yet, though.

Is the D-Total (http://www.amazon.com/GameScience-Amazing-D-Total-Dice/dp/B001LGDEQ4) the one you are referring to?

[Ravens_cry]

Togath, when rolling a pyramid-style d4, grip it by one corner between thumb and index finger, and flick it (not that hard, mind you) up and away from you. Should give a good result.
I just cup in my hand, shake, and toss.

[Hiro Protagonest]

do you really think this is unique to americans? one of the few countries who still refuse to adopt the metric system?

the metric system is the accepted system of science because humans think in terms of 10s. look at your hands. if that doesn't make sense to you, you've got some kind of deformity.

Actually, we do have the metric system. It's just that books from before that time are still around, as well as stubborn guys who refuse to measure in anything other than feet and inches, lazy guys who refuse to learn it, and their children.

Also, the mods will slap you if they see that picture in your sig. Kids read this site!

[VGLordR2]

Is the D-Total (http://www.amazon.com/GameScience-Amazing-D-Total-Dice/dp/B001LGDEQ4) the one you are referring to?

That die is... disappointing. You might as well roll a d% instead. It's just as efficient, and it's cheaper.

[Agent 451]

Personally I like to have a bunch of dice. I know I'd end up losing the D-Total if I had one. Plus it's hard to make it rain with just one die.

[SSGoW]

do you really think this is unique to americans? one of the few countries who still refuse to adopt the metric system?

the metric system is the accepted system of science because humans think in terms of 10s. look at your hands. if that doesn't make sense to you, you've got some kind of deformity.

Someone else already pointed out the problem in your post but...

Let this sink into your head...

I was brought up in grade school to learn the English system

In college (engineering) I was told I would never use that system and should only know the metric system. Thus I didn't use the English system for 4 years while shoving metric into my head.

During an interview for my first job I was asked "How many fluid oz are in 7 gallons". Needless to say I was pretty pissed. :smallfurious:

Don't blame the people, blame the game.

[Agent 451]

We have odd crossovers between the two systems here. Despite never having lived in America, my dad and his family all think Imperially (Which is probably because they work with vehicles and machinery, metric sockets never seem to fit anything they're fixing. Although it doesn't explain why they use inches and miles). Not only that but many people around here use Imperial volumes, specifically with regards to alcohol. You don't buy a 750ml, you grab a two-six (26oz).

[TuggyNE]

Well, we've already got the bastard sword...I guess this is the Red-Headed Stepchild Sword?

How about a halfsword? Or, is broadsword already taken?


Someone else already pointed out the problem in your post but...

Let this sink into your head...

I was brought up in grade school to learn the English system

In college (engineering) I was told I would never use that system and should only know the metric system. Thus I didn't use the English system for 4 years while shoving metric into my head.

During an interview for my first job I was asked "How many fluid oz are in 7 gallons". Needless to say I was pretty pissed. :smallfurious:

Don't blame the people, blame the game.

Another sad thing (although less egregious, perhaps) is the tendency for people in metric-using countries to use fractions. "Give me half a kilo of X, please."

[robertbevan]

"Most Americans think in terms of 10s" does not imply "most non-Americans don't think in terms of 10s". You have committed the fallacy of the inverse. :smallsigh:

i was this close to saying "you're right. sorry bout that." but then i thought... it's still kind of weird to single out americans for a point that's pretty much universal across the board.

if i were presenting an argument about something else, and said something like "most white people have brains," would that not carry any extra baggage?

i will apologize if my tone seemed hostile or confrontational.



Also, the mods will slap you if they see that picture in your sig. Kids read this site!

you make a good point. image removed until i have time to photoshop the offending word.

[Gurgeh]

Another sad thing (although less egregious, perhaps) is the tendency for people in metric-using countries to use fractions. "Give me half a kilo of X, please."
What? How is that sad at all? Makes perfect sense, especially if you're dealing with quantities greater than one; one-and-a-half kilos rolls off the tongue a lot easier than fifteen hundred grams (let alone one-and-a-half-thousand grams, or one thousand five hundred grams...)

I also don't quite understand why this is supposed to be a metric peculiarity; I've heard far more requests, in life and in literature, for "half a pound" than for "eight ounces".

[Malimar]

i was this close to saying "you're right. sorry bout that." but then i thought... it's still kind of weird to single out americans for a point that's pretty much universal across the board.

if i were presenting an argument about something else, and said something like "most white people have brains," would that not carry any extra baggage?

i will apologize if my tone seemed hostile or confrontational.

Hm, it is perhaps true that my statement carried this unintended connotation, now that you point it out with that particular analogy.

My intention was only to not make any statements I couldn't support. I was going to simply say "most people", then I thought about the ancient Babylonians and their base 13, so I decided to limit my claim rather than make a broader claim and risk running afoul of some other major group whose numerical habits I don't happen to be familiar with. I chose "Americans" because Americans are a group of which I have firsthand knowledge, and my sense is that Americans seemed most likely to have been relevant to the early development of modern funny-shaped dice in general and the d10 in particular.

[VGLordR2]

Base 13? I thought it was base 60 or something like that.

[robertbevan]

Hm, it is perhaps true that my statement carried this unintended connotation, now that you point it out with that particular analogy.

My intention was only to not make any statements I couldn't support. I was going to simply say "most people", then I thought about the ancient Babylonians and their base 13, so I decided to limit my claim rather than make a broader claim and risk running afoul of some other major group whose numerical habits I don't happen to be familiar with. I chose "Americans" because Americans are a group of which I have firsthand knowledge, and my sense is that Americans seemed most likely to have been relevant to the early development of modern funny-shaped dice in general and the d10 in particular.

anyway. i'm sorry dude. i didn't want to start up any crap.

[Malimar]

Base 13? I thought it was base 60 or something like that.

...you are apparently correct! Ancient Babylonian math was base 60. Maybe some other culture that used base 13 and I got the two confused. Or maybe my brain's just completely playing tricks on me, or got crosswired with Douglas Adams's "I may be a sorry case, but I don't write jokes in base 13", or something.


anyway. i'm sorry dude. i didn't want to start up any crap.

No problem. I apologize if I seemed offended or anything.

[TuggyNE]

What? How is that sad at all? Makes perfect sense, especially if you're dealing with quantities greater than one; one-and-a-half kilos rolls off the tongue a lot easier than fifteen hundred grams (let alone one-and-a-half-thousand grams, or one thousand five hundred grams...)

I also don't quite understand why this is supposed to be a metric peculiarity; I've heard far more requests, in life and in literature, for "half a pound" than for "eight ounces".

Because the imperial system is based on fractions, and the metric system is based on decimals. "Half a kilo" is therefore mixing imperial methodology with metric base measures, which is just silly. "Half a pound" is just how imperial rolls. (Or better, compare the full list of bushels/pecks/gallons/quarts/pints, which are basically either half or quarter at each step.)

Edit: also, for your specific example, how about 1.5 kilos?

[georgie_leech]

In point of fact, fractions are a convenient way to denote portions and are used in mathematics world-wide. A right angle is usually denoted as pi/2 radians, not (.5)pi.

[eggs]

As a medium martial 1-handed weapon, the crit range should totally be 18.5-20/x2. Make it happen!

[Ormur]

Because the imperial system is based on fractions, and the metric system is based on decimals. "Half a kilo" is therefore mixing imperial methodology with metric base measures, which is just silly. "Half a pound" is just how imperial rolls. (Or better, compare the full list of bushels/pecks/gallons/quarts/pints, which are basically either half or quarter at each step.)

Edit: also, for your specific example, how about 1.5 kilos?

That's not a case of mixing methodologies, it's just that fractions of 3 and 4 are more awkward in the decimal metric system than in traditional system like the imperial one. People use fraction in every day life because it's convenient. Using the metric system doesn't mean you have to adhere to the scientific rigours of the SI system in every day life. Otherwise people wouldn't even use kilo's at all. Saying half a kilo is much easier than saying 500 gramms (or point five kilogramms) and is understood by everyone.

[Gurgeh]

There's no such thing as "imperial methodology". Fractions are a completely ordinary part of mathematics and human interaction, and there's nothing contradictory about expressing any unit of measurement in fractional terms. Would you honestly ever ask for "one point five kilograms" of steak from a butcher?

[Salanmander]

If prismatic ray wasn't specifically designed to get around the "not having a d7" problem, it would be a great candidate for a d7.

[Zubrowka74]

We have odd crossovers between the two systems here. Despite never having lived in America, my dad and his family all think Imperially (Which is probably because they work with vehicles and machinery, metric sockets never seem to fit anything they're fixing. Although it doesn't explain why they use inches and miles). Not only that but many people around here use Imperial volumes, specifically with regards to alcohol. You don't buy a 750ml, you grab a two-six (26oz).


Even worst here : people from my generation tend to use different systems for different measures. I use metrics for environmental temperature but imperial for body temperature. Kilometers for speed & distance but Feets and inches for body measures. I measure my weight in pounds but buy my meat and other foodstuf in grams. I drink my wine in liter (or fractions of) but my beer in pints. Go figure.

[Devmaar]

The only time I use imperial is at a bar/pub because you get weird looks if you ask for 568.3 ml of beer...

That's converted from UK pints before anyone corrects me

[Salanmander]

The only time I use imperial is at a bar/pub because you get weird looks if you ask for 568.3 ml of beer...


And you should! Seriously, either you're expecting far too much precision from the person serving you, or you have way too many significant figures on that! Now 570 ml, that would be a reasonable order.

It's like someone in the US printing "Net Wt. 2 lb (0.90718474 kg)" on their packaging.

[Agent 451]

Well, in Alberta at least, foodstuffs like meat and fresh produce often ARE sold by the pound. Especially in fliers, the price per pound is often printed above as well as in larger font than the price per kilo. Plus the metric system was not officially introduced into Canada until 1970, and a lot of those people are still kicking around doing stuff.

[RndmNumGen]

You could roll a d7 and add 1 in exchange for 2d4. A Scythe, Falchion and Spiked chain all deal 2d4, as do some polearms.

Not a perfect exchange, but you'll have an even probablility of each number in the 2-8 range appearing.

I like this option the best.

[Ninja PieKing]

Research a spell for the use of d7s

[TuggyNE]

There's no such thing as "imperial methodology". Fractions are a completely ordinary part of mathematics and human interaction, and there's nothing contradictory about expressing any unit of measurement in fractional terms. Would you honestly ever ask for "one point five kilograms" of steak from a butcher?

... Yes? *shrug* Maybe that's just me and my idealism, though :smalltongue:

[Lord.Sorasen]

Even worst here : people from my generation tend to use different systems for different measures. I use metrics for environmental temperature but imperial for body temperature. Kilometers for speed & distance but Feets and inches for body measures. I measure my weight in pounds but buy my meat and other foodstuf in grams. I drink my wine in liter (or fractions of) but my beer in pints. Go figure.

I see how off topic this is so I'll get back on it in a second, but real quick: This isn't necessarily a bad thing, I think. I mean, for instance, we also don't use a base ten system for things like time (which is base 60 and base 24 also). Someone tried to switch us over once, I believe, but the whole thing felt confusing in part because there is a good reason in terms of natural rhythm to work with such a system. A universal system is always a fun idea, but perhaps in certain instances it isn't all that unpopular?

Now, of the D7. I'm going to suggest you take a longsword, and keep your strength at 8. That gives you a longsword roll of 1d8-1. Giving the following

1d7: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1d8-1: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7

Except, of course, with the weapon roll, one is the lowest possible. So you get

1d8-1: 1,1,2,3,4,5,6,7

Which isn't quite the same. But it's so close I don't see any realistic impact.

Hell, past low levels, which dice you roll barely makes a difference at all. I'd just downgrade a d8, maybe.