2d6 or 1d12?

[ima donkey]

My question is simple do you prefer using 2d6 or 1d12 and why?

In my experiance I find the 1d12 to be better because you tend to roll higher and lower numbers but with 2d6 your rolls are usually somewhere in the middle. You have a much better chance to roll a 12 than 2 sixes.

[eggs]

2d6. It's bigger.
7>6.5

[Amphetryon]

2d6 gets a marginally higher expected mean, and I've yet to roll a 1 for damage with 2d6.

[Lord Tyger]

12d1.

Or .5d24.

[LadyLexi]

2d6 because I'd rather do 2-12 than 1-12, additionally I'd rather have more damage on average than have to deal with the suckage that is 1 damage on a roll. Though if we are talking weapons then my precious Fullblade for the 2d8.

[INoKnowNames]

You are half as likely to get a low roll on 2d6 as you are 1d12. Not to mention, as was mentioned, that it is impossible to get a 1 on a 2d6. Statistically, the results are expected to be more rounded, which is usually safer. It's not just winning as it is not losing.

[ima donkey]

You forgot to factor in
Axes > Swords

[Logic]

My question is simple do you prefer using 2d6 or 1d12 and why?

In my experiance I find the 1d12 to be better because you tend to roll higher and lower numbers but with 2d6 your rolls are usually somewhere in the middle. You have a much better chance to roll a 12 than 2 sixes.


2d6 gets a marginally higher expected mean, and I've yet to roll a 1 for damage with 2d6.
Two factors: Odds favor the 2d6 for higher numbers than the 1d12. And the minimum possible of 2d6 is higher than the minimum possible than 1d12. Unless your d12 has been modified to roll differently, statistics indicate the favorable dice are the 2d6. Amphetryon summed it up pretty well.

[eggs]

You forgot to factor in
Axes > Swords
If x2 crits aren't making things dead, base damage is too low.
High multipliers are only useful for jabbing your buddy and saying "guess how much I just rolled."

[ima donkey]

Well which critical do you prefer 19-20×2 or ×3?

[Logic]

You forgot to factor in
Axes > Swords
Personal preference I take it, but Axes in history were a tool first, a weapon second. A sword was designed as a weapon. It has no use as a tool, other than as a maimer/killer of living things.

Well which critical do you prefer 19-20×2 or ×3?
As for gaming statistics, axes, even with the critical multiplier, are not as good as a sword. Swords have a better average damage overall.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Depends on what you want. If you want stability in your weapon damage, go with the (I'm guessing) greatsword. If you want that chance at a monstrous crit, should the Laughing Rogue smile, go with the greataxe. Be aware though, that increases in random chance tend to favor the character dieing sooner, rather than later. I really wouldn't consider the .5 point of average damage to be a factor worth noting, since ultimately the damage dice of your weapon is generally going to end up the least important factor in how much damage you do.

Weapon choice should be based on the fact that one-hand/two-hand/light > critical stats > damage dice.

Personally, I'd pick whichever one suited the character concept better. If my martial character is prone to taking chances, I'll probably pick the axe as an extension of that, while a character that was more cautious and deliberate in his actions and outlook would favor the sword.

[erikun]

I'm kind of bored with d6s, and prefer rolling a d12 instead.

That said, my luck is notoriously terrible, and anything that will keep me from rolling a 1 on the damage die helps.

[Bhaakon]

For the reasons mentioned above, 2d6 is better on the whole.

However, if you're in a situation where the odds are already stacked against you, you can't afford to exchange blows in a battle of attrition, and your only chance is to get lucky and deal as much damage as possible as quickly as possible, then you'll want the 1d12. Your average damage output will be less in the long run, but you'll have a greater chance of dealing max damage (1 in 12 per roll vs. 1 in 36).

[ima donkey]

Well i usually just use the great falchion anyway 1d12 18-20×2 then at 8th level get improved critical for a 15-20×2. But i doubt that .5 extra average damage is a matter of life and death.

[Wookie-ranger]

2d6
Basically because I know what I will get. with 1d12 I have an equal chance for 1 and for 12, but with 2d6 i have a higher chance of being somewhere in between, as you said.
Expectancy is a big thing! NEVER underestimate that! If you know exactly how much damage you will do next round it can be worth as much as knowing exactly what will happen next round.
If you have 2d6, and the BBEG has 2 hp left and you only have one hit, you will win. 100% of the time the BBEG will die and you will walk away in glory.
If you have 1d12, that may not be that case. There is a 1/12 chance that the BBEG will make it to another round cast flash-to-stone and you will not be walking anywhere for a long time.

I would rather know what will happen next round then have an equal chance of win or fail. Because if I would know that I would/could fail I would probably use some other strategy that had a higher chance of victory; but might use limited resources.


Basically knowing what will happen is better that having an equal hit or miss chance.This is not only true in D&D but also in IRL, investments, real-estate prices, stock market,... you get the idea.
What is better:
going shopping, you have a 50/50 chance that your groceries will cost 20% less and you can buy something else, or 20% more and you cannot aford most of them.
Or that all your groceries cost (more or less) what your payed last time, you can afford all of them, but nothing more.

[Lord Tyger]

If you know precisely how many hitpoints your opponent has left, there's some serious metagaming going on.

[ima donkey]

2d6
Basically because I know what I will get. with 1d12 I have an equal chance for 1 and for 12, but with 2d6 i have a higher chance of being somewhere in between, as you said.
Expectancy is a big thing! NEVER underestimate that! If you know exactly how much damage you will do next round it can be worth as much as knowing exactly what will happen next round.
If you have 2d6, and the BBEG has 2 hp left and you only have one hit, you will win. 100% of the time the BBEG will die and you will walk away in glory.
If you have 1d12, that may not be that case. There is a 1/12 chance that the BBEG will make it to another round cast flash-to-stone and you will not be walking anywhere for a long time.

I would rather know what will happen next round then have an equal chance of win or fail. Because if I would know that I would/could fail I would probably use some other strategy that had a higher chance of victory; but might use limited resources.


Basically knowing what will happen is better that having an equal hit or miss chance.This is not only true in D&D but also in IRL, investments, real-estate prices, stock market,... you get the idea.
What is better:
going shopping, you have a 50/50 chance that your groceries will cost 20% less and you can buy something else, or 20% more and you cannot aford most of them.
Or that all your groceries cost (more or less) what your payed last time, you can afford all of them, but nothing more.

While that is an absurdly unlikely scenario I see your point but what if he has 12 health left? What then? Besides I usually have enough strength to do alright on even a 1.

[dascarletm]

If you know precisely how many hitpoints your opponent has left, there's some serious metagaming going on.

Or Combat Awareness!:smallwink:

[GenghisDon]

2d6. It's bigger.
7>6.5

Pretty much the only logical answer.

HOWEVER, I hate that the poor d12 is so unused, and in pretty much every version of D&D or even other game systems!

The upsize damage charts REALLY ought have used d12 & not 2d6. I guess I can always change the rules a bit to replace 2d6 with d12 in places.

[ima donkey]

1d12 is also more exciting because it has a bigger "jackpot". I'm fine with slightly lower damage as long as I get the awesomeness of when i get a critical and roll well. Its just so much more rewarding.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Just in case this very important point was lost in my last response:

The weapon's damage die is the least important aspect of the weapon.

Since it seems you've already decided on a two-hander, It'd be a safe bet that either your str and power attack will be making up the bulk of your damage, or you're not going to be contributing much damage. Critical damage is mostly a flavor choice, unless you're going for a crit fisher; in which case you wouldn't be asking about damage dice, you'd be asking which weapon is the best for crit fishing.

Pick whichever one you think makes your character look cooler, and don't worry about it.

[grarrrg]

My question is simple do you prefer using 2d6 or 1d12 and why?

In my experiance I find the 1d12 to be better because you tend to roll higher and lower numbers but with 2d6 your rolls are usually somewhere in the middle. You have a much better chance to roll a 12 than 2 sixes.

I prefer 12d10 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245496) :smallbiggrin:


12d1.

Or .5d24.

While your .5d24 is somewhat humorous, you mis-calculated your 12d1.
12d1 does 12 damage, every time.
6d1 or 7d1 would have been more accurate.



Also worth noting that the 1d12 does slightly better damage if you are fighting an opponent with DR 5* or higher.

*Effectively DR 5 after factoring STR mods and such. So if your STR mod is +4, then the DR would have to be 9 or more.

[The Redwolf]

Personal preference is 2d6 because it ends up more consistent, you may not get the high numbers quite as often, but you also get the low ones less often so it feels like the consistency gives me about the damage I need when I need it. I use that principle for basically all cases like this where it's multiple of one or one of another, like 2d4 vs 1d8 and such.

[ima donkey]

Personal preference is 2d6 because it ends up more consistent, you may not get the high numbers quite as often, but you also get the low ones less often so it feels like the consistency gives me about the damage I need when I need it. I use that principle for basically all cases like this where it's multiple of one or one of another, like 2d4 vs 1d8 and such.

Ughhh I hate d4s they roll so weird.

[The Redwolf]

Ughhh I hate d4s they roll so weird.

That's why I love them though! :smallbiggrin:

[Popertop]

I like 1d12 more.

I also like Battleaxes and Greataxes more than I like Greatswords,
and I think its stupid that a Greatsword is the "best" weapon.

That said, I like the feel of 1d12 more. Rolling 9 and higher is just the best feeling in the world to me. Less consistency, more explosiveness.

Like everyone and their mom would use a greatsword. You're no William Wallace you metagaming dirtbag.

Also, Hector is my favorite fire emblem character, so yeah. Any time I get a chance to bear a giant axe into battle I take it.

[Dimers]

I'm bothered by the idea of "wasted" damage, so I don't care a lot about getting hyooooge amounts all in one blow. If you've been hacking at an enemy for a couple rounds already, it doesn't matter if you do 40 damage or 60. So I go for more frequent crits rather than bigger multipliers. The same feeling means that I lean toward 2d6 rather than d12.

I also know which of my d6s roll high, and I don't know my d12s well. :smallamused:

Of course, the whole thing is pretty much beside the point for me. I find critfishing so useless in so many situations (undead, constructs, plants, elementals, fortification, high AC, etc.) that the weapon's stats hardly matter. Which is yet another reason to squeeze the best possible damage out of the base dice, again preferring 2d6 over d12. I go for bonus damage types and lots of strikes. Hardly optimized for 3.5, but then, I don't need to be for the groups I play with.

[Mythestopheles]

I've always getting more random results, so I prefer d12s. On the other hand, I also prefer high crit range over high crit modifiers, as it means more criticals.

[Ravens_cry]

Ughhh I hate d4s they roll so weird.
Just cup in both hands and shake for a few seconds.
On topic, I like the bigger average, and more common average of 2d6.

[White_Drake]

If you really hate them, Crystal Caste makes ones shaped sorta like quartz crystals, with four long sides and little pyramidal ends.

[whibla]

Also worth noting that the 1d12 does slightly better damage if you are fighting an opponent with DR 5* or higher.

*Effectively DR 5 after factoring STR mods and such. So if your STR mod is +4, then the DR would have to be 9 or more.

I looked at this and thought, that can't be right...

But, damn, it is. The D12 has less chance, on any single hit, of doing damage than the 2D6, but the average damage done is higher.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Of course this only applies to things with a DR 5 points higher than your damage bonus, so pretty much never.

[Fitz10019]

I have d12s that are d4s because the sides are only numbered 1-4, 3 times over, in Roman numerals.

[mattie_p]

If, for some reason, a character is fighting something that only scores a hit on a natural 20, then the axe is probably better.

[kestrel404]

While your .5d24 is somewhat humorous, you mis-calculated your 12d1.
12d1 does 12 damage, every time.
6d1 or 7d1 would have been more accurate.


Nah, he's got it right, it's just taking the 1d12 vs 2d6 to it's logical extreme.
If you're allowed 3d4 instead, that's ALSO better (3-12).
If you're allowed 6d2 instead, that's MUCH better (6-12).
Thus, choosing 12d1 becomes the ideal (12-12).
...
.5d24 is just kind of odd, as I can't picture how that actually works.

[Killer Angel]

Well which critical do you prefer 19-20×2 or ×3?

Again, if we're going for statistic (and keeping in mind that the crit. roll must be confirmed, and damage in excess is wasted, yadda yadda), I believe that 19-20x2 in the long run will be more useful than 20x3.

[ManInOrange]

So, for the benefit of anyone nerdy enough to care, I C#ed some stats with 2d6 vs 1d12 at various DR. More accurately, it's how much higher the DR is than your bonus damage from STR, Wep. Spec., etc. These are the average damage rolls for those DR values.

EDIT
Awww.... no HTML? Sad pixie is sad...:smallfrown:

{table]DR|2d6|1d12
0|7.0|6.5
1|6.0|5.5
2|5.0|4.5833
3|4.0278|3.75
4|3.1111|3.0
5|2.2888|2.3333
6|1.5556|1.75
7|0.9722|1.25
8|0.5556|0.8333
9|0.2778|0.5
10|0.1111|0.25
11|0.0278|0.0833
12|0.0|0.0[/table]

/EDIT

As you can see, 1d12 outpaces 2d6 at DR 5, and it only leaps ahead from there, peaking at 3 times the damage (exactly) at DR 11.
...Then again, if DR is 11 higher than your STR mod ± 0.5(STR mod) + power attack + other, I think there is a more pressing issue than which weapon you should be using.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Only if your damage bonus is at least 4. The battleaxe won't crit less than the greatsword but on the other 19 hits (19 out of 20 nat twenty hits won't be confirmed by another nat 20) that aren't crits the greatsword will average .5 more damage so that extra multiple needs to be worth at least 10 damage.

A niche case, perhaps but 8 strength commoners taking non proficiency penalties while attacking an armored opponent are probably more common than most adventurers biting of more than they can chew this hard.

[Mandrake]

To chew down what ManInOrange tried to explain, in a way that can be seen in plain sight with some little probability math:

ON AVERAGE
2d6 beats 1d12 in a supposed million rolls, as others said, with an average of 7 that beats 6.5

HIGH DAMAGE
Now, a factor that has been tackled through the DR example. On average, 2d6 are better, yes. But if you like to risk it and go for high damage (as a frenzied dwarf maybe :smallwink:) 1d12 is actually better. Why? Because it has a uniform distribution. Each of the twelve points of damage that can be dealt have a 1 in 12 chance of to occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_distribution_%28discrete%29
But, with 2d6 you have a much less chance to get the 12 damage output, singular. There are total of 36 possible combinations of 2d6 being rolled, making it a 1 in 36 chance to get that (sometimes much needed) 12. It's a hell of a lot easier to get a seven, though, because many combination of numbers add up to 7. This all makes 2d6 rolls look a lot more like the bell curve or the normal distribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

PLAIN PERCENT OF HIGHEST DAMAGE
2d6 to get a twelve is 2,8%.
1d12 to get a twelve is 8,3%.

TO SUM UP
So, when you want a tad more damage over time, when you just want to be sure to deal plenty, with little risk of flunking, go for 2d6. But, when you are in the chill of the thrill and you need that one heroic effort - 1d12 is the better bet, since it has a higher chance of going for the maximum, even though it means a minimum comes more often. All of this, of course, when you set all other factors aside, such as critical chance, for example.

[ManInOrange]

To chew down what ManInOrange tried to explain, in a way that can be seen in plain sight with some little probability math:
...
But, with 2d6 you have a much less chance to get the 12 damage output, singular. There are total of 36 possible combinations of 2d6 being rolled, making it a 1 in 36 chance to get that (sometimes much needed) 12. It's a hell of a lot easier to get a seven, though, because many combination of numbers add up to 7.
...

Well-said. I just want to add that the reason this is so important once we factor in DR is the "sometimes much needed" 12, or even 11, 10, or 9. As DR goes up, the consistency of the average rapidly becomes more and more painful.

[Knaight]

Also worth noting that the 1d12 does slightly better damage if you are fighting an opponent with DR 5* or higher.

*Effectively DR 5 after factoring STR mods and such. So if your STR mod is +4, then the DR would have to be 9 or more.

It does slightly better damage at DR 5. At DR 10 the d12 does an average of 1/4 damage, 2d6 does an average of 1/9 damage. At DR 11, d12 does an average of 1/12 damage, 2d6 does an average of 1/36 damage. That is over double and exactly triple damage, which is more than slightly better.
EDIT: Apparently several people beat me to this, so all this post actually provides is a fractional representation.

[Occasional Sage]

I hate that the poor d12 is so unused, and in pretty much every version of D&D or even other game systems!


Clearly, you want to play the tactical minis game Leviathans.

[grarrrg]

That is over double and exactly triple damage, which is more than slightly better.

Careful there.
While "double" and "triple" are huge sounding words, they don't mean all that much, and the damage is still only 'slightly' better.
You need to look at the actual values.

At DR 11 the 2d6 is doing .0278 damage, on average per hit.
The 1d12 is doing .0833 damage, on average per hit.

Triple or not, both of those numbers are VERY below _1_ damage per hit.
You need an average of 12 swings with the d12 before you even deal _1_ damage.
Whereas you need roughly 36 swings with the d6's to deal _1_ damage.


I stand by my original statement of "slightly" better damage.

[pendell]

My answer is: It depends on what you are trying to model.

On 1d12, there is an equal probability of rolling any number in the range 1 - 12.

On 2d6 there are ...

1 way to roll 2
2 ways to roll 3
3 ways to roll 4
4 ways to roll 5
5 ways to roll 6
6 ways to roll 7 (1/6, 2/5, 3/4, 4/3, 5/2, 6/1).
5 ways to roll 8
4 ways to roll 9
3 ways to roll 10
2 ways to roll 11
1 way to roll 12.

Graph that out, and you can see 2 d6 is a histogram centered around the number 7. Most of the results center around 7 and the more the result varies from the expected mean of 7, the less likely you are to see that result. You will see very few 2s or 12, but you'll see plenty of 6s, 7s, and 8s.

So 2d6 reduces the number of critical fumbles (snake-eyes) and the number of critical successes (natural 12) while greatly increasing an average result. By contrast, with 1d12 all rolls are equally likely.

What this means is that if you have two opponents making opposed die rolls, the one with the higher die modifier is going to win much more often with 2d6 than with 1d12. So if 'high roll wins' and 1 player has a +1 modifier, with 2d6 the battle is still going to be close , because the players are mostly rolling sixes through eights. If 1 player has a +3 modifier, he's going to win almost all the time.

2d6 should give you a more consistent, predicatable set of results. Ergo, it is for those who trust in skill over luck, and optimize character building. 1d12, by contrast, is for those who want to 'go for broke' and trust in luck , as they have a greater chance both of critical success and of critical fumble.

From a modeling weapons perspective, I personally believe that 2d6 is more accurate, because you would expect most hits to do average damage with a very few lucky ones being much better or much worse. Since 2d6 greatly increases the likelihood of an average hit -- consistent with a trained person doing the same task over and over -- I think it better models weapon action than 1d12.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Knaight]

Careful there.
While "double" and "triple" are huge sounding words, they don't mean all that much, and the damage is still only 'slightly' better.
You need to look at the actual values.

The proportional values are far more important. Tripling the damage means that it takes 1/3 as long to win, and as such is more significant than the actual damage values. Going from 50 to 100 is more significant than 100 to 160, despite the latter having a higher difference.

[demigodus]

The proportional values are far more important. Tripling the damage means that it takes 1/3 as long to win, and as such is more significant than the actual damage values. Going from 50 to 100 is more significant than 100 to 160, despite the latter having a higher difference.

Once you are down to needing 12 hits or 36 hits to deal 1 damage, unless you are facing 4e style minions (1hp each), or have optimized your attacks per round up the wazoo and are making a few hundred attacks a round, that "triple" really doesn't matter. You might as well just sit back and hope someone else on your team can handle it for you.

Although honestly, at this point the only thing that actually matters are crits. Since your crit is likelier to happen then a non-crit actually doing damage, and the crit may have orders of magnitude more average damage.

[Greyfeld85]

While your .5d24 is somewhat humorous, you mis-calculated your 12d1.
12d1 does 12 damage, every time.
6d1 or 7d1 would have been more accurate.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4tfycD4fR1r5au99.jpg

[Doug Lampert]

The proportional values are far more important. Tripling the damage means that it takes 1/3 as long to win, and as such is more significant than the actual damage values. Going from 50 to 100 is more significant than 100 to 160, despite the latter having a higher difference.

You aren't going to win. You are HITTING 12 times to do ONE damage, if winning depends on your damage you are DEAD!

Just exactly as dead as the guy who needs to hit 36 times to do ONE damage.

The monster's DR is so high that you can hit it, roll an 11 for damage on your d12 and the DM says, "your weapon does no damage at all", that's your cue to run away or surrender. You aren't gonna kill this by weapon damage, not unless the casters have rendered it completely and long term helpless, in which case it doesn't much matter how long it takes to finish off.

DougL

[grarrrg]

You aren't going to win. You are HITTING 12 times to do ONE damage, if winning depends on your damage you are DEAD!

Just exactly as dead as the guy who needs to hit 36 times to do ONE damage.


Exactly.
Doing 3 times "nil" damage is still "nil" damage.


I believe that 19-20x2 in the long run will be more useful than 20x3.

Assuming both weapons have the same base damage, same accuracy, same +damage, no DR, etc...

Basically if EVERYTHING else is equal, they will come out exactly the same.

Why?
Assume 20 attacks, each one landing on each possible result (1, 2, 3, etc...), we'll assume that every Roll 10 and under Misses, and every Roll 11 and higher hits (so 50% accuracy).
19-20/x2: 2 attacks are criticals. Each does twice normal damage. So you have 8 normal hits, and 2 Double hits, each double hit is worth 2 normal hits, so you effectively have 12 normal hits.

20/x3: 1 attack is a critical. It does thrice normal damage. So you have 9 normal hits, and 1 triple hit, the triple is worth 3 normal hits, so you effectively have 12 normal hits.

Heck, even if you add in some DR the results are still the same. At least up until the point that DR exceeds your normal damage, then 20/x3 pulls ahead.


But 19-20/x2 winds up being the better option due to all of the things that can trigger on a Critical.
There are VERY few things that really care about your Crit Multiplier though.

[Blisstake]

And not to mention how often anything higher than x2 crit ends up being overkill.

Unless you have automatic ways to trigger a crit, higher range is usually preferable to crit damage.

[Snowbluff]

Pretty much the only logical answer.

HOWEVER, I hate that the poor d12 is so unused, and in pretty much every version of D&D or even other game systems!

The upsize damage charts REALLY ought have used d12 & not 2d6. I guess I can always change the rules a bit to replace 2d6 with d12 in places.

It get's worse. Whenever I play a Warblade, I use average health. :smalltongue:

2d6 > 1d12
Wide Crit Range > Lousy Axes (Scythes are exception. Same Average crit die as a falchion, 2d4 is good for chaos Crusaders).

Weapons Traits (Trip, reach, etc) > Handedness > Crit Range > damage dice.

[Piggy Knowles]

At low levels, when every point of damage counts, I generally prefer the 2d6 roll.

At higher levels, when it doesn't actually make that much of a difference, I prefer 1d12. Why? Because it ALWAYS feels cool to roll max damage, whereas the knowledge in the back of my head that I'm averaging an extra 0.5 points of damage per successful hit just somehow isn't very satisfying....

[Zetapup]

Since most of the mathematical reasons for choosing d6's over d12's or vice versa have been discussed, I guess I'll talk about some flavor reasons for why I prefer d6's.

I have 12 d6's which I like enough to roll with (They're shiny or easy to read, etc). In comparison, I only have 4 d12's I like enough to roll. This means that if the dice I'm currently using are going through a "bad streak", I can switch dice more easily than with the d12's. D6's also tend to be easier to come by.

However, I'll admit that rolling d12's is more fun than rolling d6's :smallsmile:

[Killer Angel]

Assuming both weapons have the same base damage, same accuracy, same +damage, no DR, etc...

Basically if EVERYTHING else is equal, they will come out exactly the same.

Why?
Assume 20 attacks, each one landing on each possible result (1, 2, 3, etc...), we'll assume that every Roll 10 and under Misses, and every Roll 11 and higher hits (so 50% accuracy).
19-20/x2: 2 attacks are criticals. Each does twice normal damage. So you have 8 normal hits, and 2 Double hits, each double hit is worth 2 normal hits, so you effectively have 12 normal hits.

20/x3: 1 attack is a critical. It does thrice normal damage. So you have 9 normal hits, and 1 triple hit, the triple is worth 3 normal hits, so you effectively have 12 normal hits.


You have a point.



Heck, even if you add in some DR the results are still the same. At least up until the point that DR exceeds your normal damage, then 20/x3 pulls ahead.


20x3 still has a higher percentage of overkill, thus wasting the additional damage.

[Lans]

D12 is better if you can drop them on a roll of 8-12 on one hit, and anything else is going to necessitate two hits, the extra .5 average isn't going to matter and the increased average roll is going to be detrimental.

[Feralventas]

I like swords thematically, but 1d12 over 2d6.

Probability of average damage is better on 2d6, but the probability of 12 is greater than the probability of two 6's.

P(12)=1/12

P(6&6)= (1/6)(1/6)=1/36

I would rather have a better chance of being awesome than a better chance of being average.

[Heatwizard]

You forgot to factor in
Axes > Swords

No, swords beat axes. Lances are the ones that beat swords, and axes beat lances.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, swords beat axes. Lances are the ones that beat swords, and axes beat lances.

And when someone swings any of the above at your head you think, "Geeze. Maybe we should've sticked to rock, paper, and scissors."

[GenghisDon]

You aren't going to win. You are HITTING 12 times to do ONE damage, if winning depends on your damage you are DEAD!

Just exactly as dead as the guy who needs to hit 36 times to do ONE damage.

The monster's DR is so high that you can hit it, roll an 11 for damage on your d12 and the DM says, "your weapon does no damage at all", that's your cue to run away or surrender. You aren't gonna kill this by weapon damage, not unless the casters have rendered it completely and long term helpless, in which case it doesn't much matter how long it takes to finish off.

DougL

maybe at very low level. I think it means "try a different weapon". It could also mean "try a new tactic"

[Tytalus]

20x3 still has a higher percentage of overkill, thus wasting the additional damage.

That isn't easy to quantify. And killing an opponent is much better than almost killing him.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There is no "overkill." There is only "open fire," and "reload."

[Larpus]

Eh...as math has shown, both are pretty similar, unless you're going to absolute best as in, best at every single situation, even when it doesn't matter at all.

So in the end it's between "stability" and "chance".

In the real world, chances rarely work even remotely close to mathematical chances, that's why so many people have miss-streaks and spend their whole RPG lives without seeing a single crit at something that mattered.

Sooo.....people who are or feel innately lucky will most probably prefer a 1d12, since they're much more likely of getting 12 damage when they swing, totally assuming the risk of getting a 1 instead.

While people with poor luck (such as myself) will most probably prefer 2d6, which deal a "consistent" 6-8 damage, and as such may be relied upon to "always deal" 6-8 damage and plan accordingly.

[Knaight]

In the real world, chances rarely work even remotely close to mathematical chances, that's why so many people have miss-streaks and spend their whole RPG lives without seeing a single crit at something that mattered.
The reason for that is not that the rolls don't conform to probability (they usually don't, due to die flaws, but it tends to be minor). The reason is that people are really, really terrible at evaluating data, and have a whole bunch of weird psychological quirks. We count hits and ignore misses, pareidolia shows up everywhere, and then after the flaws in noticing and counting our memory screws it up further.

[Blisstake]

That isn't easy to quantify. And killing an opponent is much better than almost killing him.

Extremely easy to quantify. If an enemy has hp between the damage of one and two attacks, then the extra damage from a x3 multiplier weapon is wasted.

[demigodus]

There is no "overkill." There is only "open fire," and "reload."

going from 19-20/x2 to x3 is like decreasing your rate of fire for bullets that do more damage. When your original ones were killing the target already. So overkill of a single target at the cost of killing more targets.

[Mithril Leaf]

Another interesting thing about this topic is 3d6 vs 1d20. Statistically, they have the same average. Which would you prefer for your, for example, initiative roll? I personally like the more stable roll of the 3d6.

[grarrrg]

Another interesting thing about this topic is 3d6 vs 1d20. Statistically, they have the same average. Which would you prefer for your, for example, initiative roll? I personally like the more stable roll of the 3d6.
3d6 vs 1d20. Statistically, they have the same average. Which would you prefer
they have the same average
same average
YOU FOOL! YOU'LL KILL US ALL!!

[Tytalus]

Extremely easy to quantify. If an enemy has hp between the damage of one and two attacks, then the extra damage from a x3 multiplier weapon is wasted.

That's not a quantification at all. And doesn't allow for any meaningful comparison of the two.

The relevant questions are: how much more "overkill" does a x3 weapon have compared to a 19-20/x2? How likely is it that the x3 critical kills the opponent before the 19-20/x2 weapon does?

[Rickshaw]

why not go with the best of both worlds and get 2d6 at 20x3? Executioner's Mace.

[ima donkey]

Or the greathammer 1d12 19-20×4

[Stegyre]

I personally like the more stable roll of the 3d6.
Off topic, but so very much "+1"!

Related, on 3d6, a high roll really means something: "Wow, I did really good!" On 1d20, it's more, "Meh, I get those 25% of the time anyway."

[BobVosh]

Another interesting thing about this topic is 3d6 vs 1d20. Statistically, they have the same average. Which would you prefer for your, for example, initiative roll? I personally like the more stable roll of the 3d6.

I would rather the higher minimum, and frankly much more consistent medium. Yes both *should* average to the same, but the mode for the 3D6 should be more balanced. Bell curves are always favored for me over any alternative for my rolling.

*except in silly, silly games. Like Changeling*

[Blisstake]

That's not a quantification at all. And doesn't allow for any meaningful comparison of the two.

The relevant questions are: how much more "overkill" does a x3 weapon have compared to a 19-20/x2? How likely is it that the x3 critical kills the opponent before the 19-20/x2 weapon does?

Also easy. The answer is that the amount of overkill doesn't matter; the fact that the 3x amount is more makes it inferior in particular cases. Since 19-20/x2 and 20/x3 have the same average damage, any time overkill would occur from a x3 weapon, but not a x2 weapon (the hp range between 1-2x attack damage), the x2 weapon gains the advantage.

Since there's no possibility of a x2 critical weapon dealing more overkill damage than a x3 crit weapon, when hp is low enough, critical range always becomes preferable. Since average damage is otherwise the same, this means the 19-20 weapon is superior.

So to answer the question, assuming nothing special occurs on a crit (would favor 19-20/x2), and there is no arbitrarily high damage reduction (favors x3), then a 19-20/x2 weapon is always more likely to kill an opponent, unless one attack is enough to kill it in any circumstance, in which case they are equal.

The reason for this is that when the enemy hp range falls in the x1 to x2 average damage dange, the 19-20/x2 weapon becomes superior. In all other ranges, the two weapons are equal. Therefore, the 19-20/x2 crit weapon is better overall, even if not by a significant margin.

When other factors are brought into the equation, it likely still favors the 19-20/x2 crit weapon, since there seems to be a lot more effects that activate on criticals than enemies with ridiculously high DR.

[StreamOfTheSky]

2d6. I'd rather have less chances of rolling low than better chances (very marginal) of rolling max damage.

And higher crit range is much better than high multiplier. x2 is often enough to kill, and even if it isn't, it means the foe will drop soon.
I seldom see x3 or x4 crits where at least half the damage wasn't beyond the "amount you needed to drop him" and thus gone to waste.


I also vastly prefer point buy to rolling, prefer no save or touch / ranged touch no save spells to save-based spells, fixed HD or HD rolls with minimum values by HD size, etc... I like to minimize randomness in general. :smallsmile: