On splitting dice:
You want to split dice because:
- You get your skill on both rolls.
- Frequency 6 items of +dice apply to both rolls.
You don't want to split your dice because:
- You have fewer successes to get past any dodges, and either target may dodge.
- Resistance is applied to each hit.
My rule of thumb is that if the damage from the +dice effects is about equal to the expected resistance, or more, it is worthwhile to split your dice. If they dodge, that means someone else's hit didn't get dodged. Because you get to use all your skill both times those extra dice are likely to be successes (assuming "plenty" of skill).
--Ringrose 01:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
But my damage multiplier is cut nearly in half when I split my dice. Plus, ranged attacks don't come with a guaranteed packet of damage the way melee attacks do. Indeed I have plenty of skill, but every time I've done the math it hasn't made sense to split. --HeidiB 02:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. You lose your damage multiplier when you split? I suppose if the x5 comes from something with frequency less than 6, yes. I'd assumed a x5 weapon with frequency 6.
--Ringrose 05:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
According to the version of your character sheet that's linked to your wiki page, you have 9 base dice, 18 bow skill, a schtick in reducing range penalties that's always on, a schtick in +3 dice to archery that's once/action, and a schtick in x5 damage that's once/action. If you don't split your dice at all, you have 12 dice, which rates you 10 successes, or 50 points of damage pre-toughness. If you split your dice evenly, and apply the bonus dice schtick to one, you have, say, 4 and 8 dice against two targets, rating 4 and 7 successes. Assuming you use your x5 multiplier on the larger number of dice (probably clever), you will do 12 damage and 35 damage. Because your multiplier and extra dice schticks aren't frequency 6, and there's no strength bonus for bows, it doesn't make sense to split your dice unevenly (1 die and 8 dice, say). So you're looking at rating 50 points of damage minus one toughness compared to 47 damage minus two toughnesses. Probably not worth it, unless you think one of the targets is at the edge of falling over anyway.
Now, if you spend the 3 extra EPs to upgrade your +3 dice schtick to frequency 6 (always on), you will be rolling 7 and 8 dice against two targets, for 6 and 7 successes, or 18 and 35 damage. Or you can split unevenly, and roll 4 dice and 11 dice, rating 4 successes and 9 successes, for 12 damage and 45 damage. That's 53 or 57 points of damage minus two toughnesses. So then it's a question of how big the second target's toughness is. If it's less than 7, you can split evenly and rate similar damage, just distributed between two targets (sometimes useful, especially if one is close to falling over), or split unevenly and rate more damage (probably useful). If it's more than 7, you'd rate less damage, so it would be more useful to not split your dice unless doing so is likely to knock one (or both) target out.
So as is, your analysis is correct, but if you spend three EPs, the balance shifts some. And if you end up buying your damage multiplier to frequency 6, it will be even more useful to split your dice.
Also, with the +3 dice always on, once/turn you can use your double dice schtick, split them, and use the +3 dice on both parts of the split. So you have 18 dice, you put 15 on one target and 3 on the other, and you then apply the +3 dice to both, giving you 18 dice on one and 6 on the other. Six bonus dice! (Even without upgrading the extra dice schtick, it probably makes sense to split and have 17 on one target and 4 on the other.)
Of course this assumes neither target is dodging. But many enemies don't dodge, and those that do are burning actions-- burning two enemy actions with one of yours is usually a win for the party. So that's another point in favor of splitting your dice.
[Also, I forgot to apply your -1 difficulty always on schtick in this analysis. So you rate one extra success when not splitting your dice, or when splitting your dice unevenly.]
--Justom 01:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC) (who clearly spends too much time thinking about these things)