Sage Advice - 10/2016

[JumboWheat01]

So Sage Advice (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-answers-and-errata-october-2016) for the month came out. Also includes the latest PHB Errata. I'm going to be so confused now, I have an original printing book...

[RickAllison]

The Sage Advice seems pretty tame, nothing weird. Any major changes in the errata?

EDIT: So they have clarified that EKs get to replace their out-of-school spells with other out-of-school spells. High jumps have a minimum now (0 feet), so negative jumps and someone with horrible strength can't high jump at all.

Oh my, they errata'd Glyph of Warding!!!


The first
sentence clarifies that the magical effect
needn’t be harmful. The final two sentences
of the first paragraph now read as
follows: “The glyph can cover an area no
larger than 10 feet in diameter. If the surface
or object is moved more than 10 feet
from where you cast this spell, the glyph is
broken, and the spell ends without being
triggered”

So they fixed the hole allowing for transporting the glyphs, but they added permission for non-harmful effects. The Demiplane of Buffing is now rules-legal!!!

[Nicrosil]

Well, with the new ruling on greatsword critical hits, greataxes are useless; a greatsword apparently deals 4d6 damage. I think this went against previous rulings too...

As for the errata, I can't find anything weird, but I only skimmed.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Well, with the new ruling on greatsword critical hits, greataxes are useless; a greatsword apparently deals 4d6 damage.

That's how it's been played at every table I've played at since 5e came out.

[Xetheral]

Alert's third benefit now actually does something. Darkvision for Deep Stalkers and Darkvision granted by the spell now works in dim light just like race-granted darkvision. Minor conjuration is now somewhat restricted in terms of making damaging substances. (So conjuring chlorine triflouride is now less useful than before, not that any DM ever would actually have let you do so in the first place.)

[tieren]

I like for tome locks they clarified the extra cantrips don't all have to come from one class' spell list

[Sicarius Victis]

Well, with the new ruling on greatsword critical hits, greataxes are useless; a greatsword apparently deals 4d6 damage. I think this went against previous rulings too...

As for the errata, I can't find anything weird, but I only skimmed.

Greataxe is still more useful for Half-Orcs and Barbarians.

[Sabeta]

Nothing seemed super out of place, and I'm not sure if this was there before but two-handed now only counts for attacking. Which means you have a hand free when you cast or reload.

It's definitely a little longer though.

[RickAllison]

Well, with the new ruling on greatsword critical hits, greataxes are useless; a greatsword apparently deals 4d6 damage. I think this went against previous rulings too...

As for the errata, I can't find anything weird, but I only skimmed.


That's how it's been played at every table I've played at since 5e came out.

That's because that has always been the rule, criticals double the damage dice. Greataxes are for people who want to roll big dice (there is a visceral pleasure in rolling several d12s and for those who want to use abilities like Brutal Critical.

[Chaosvii7]

That's how it's been played at every table I've played at since 5e came out.

I'm actually unsure how others could think otherwise - the rules say a critical hit means you roll all of the attack's damage dice twice. This clarification seems like it's coming from a table where that's houseruled. Not that it's a bad houserule - greatswords are pretty, well, great. But I've also never heard anyone cry foul at it.

[Kane0]

If only they had some way of PDFing the whole book instead of just the errata.

[Sabeta]

4d6 versus 2d12. Not really a substantial difference unless you throw in GWF Style. Like everyone else, that's how it's always been.

[Nicrosil]

Huh. I was mistaken then. Thanks for the clarification!

[RickAllison]

Okay, so we have for errata:


EKs get to switch spells (possibly extended to Arcane Tricksters? Maybe EK-exclusive?)
Damage from Minor Conjuration makes it disappear
Alert gets the wonderful ability to make unseen opponents not gain advantage (a blow to rogues and many others)
Minimum high jump of 0 ft
Clarification (was it necessary?) that everyone can take rests, not just adventurers (so enemies left alone heal as expected)
Glyph of Warding losing transportation if it was a surface (limit used to only be on closed objects), but officially backing buffing and healing as a viable use
Moonbeam now moves "up to" 60 ft
Only the violet layer of Prismatic Wall is vulnerable to Dispel Magic


Dandy.

[MeeposFire]

Well, with the new ruling on greatsword critical hits, greataxes are useless; a greatsword apparently deals 4d6 damage. I think this went against previous rulings too...

As for the errata, I can't find anything weird, but I only skimmed.

I think you are confusing the standard critical hit damage rule with the many abilities that improve criticals like brutal critical. Most of those say you get one additional die which means the great axe is better for those abilities but standard critical damage is double all dice so this is no change in that regard.

[Gwendol]

So standing up from prone is not moving, but cost movement? That's clear as pea soup.

EDIT: Read the errata. Interesting note about true resurrection restoring the creature to its non-undead state. I'm sure that can be abused somehow.

[Saggo]

EDIT: So they have clarified that EKs get to replace their out-of-school spells with other out-of-school spells. High jumps have a minimum now (0 feet), so negative jumps and someone with horrible strength can't high jump at all.

EKs could always do that, they just finally added the 3rd level pick to the list.

[TripleD]

So standing up from prone is not moving, but cost movement? That's clear as pea soup.


I get what they were going for: there is a time penalty of some kind involved in standing up. I think it would have been simpler to have gone with something like "to stand up you must give up your action or movement". It could be a bonus action, but then I think it makes it barely worth your time to knock someone prone.

[Wondermndjr]

I noticed that it was clarified that cantrips scale with character, rather than class, level. I suppose this validates the infamous Warlock 2 dip, and it will never be removed by RAW.

[Saggo]

I noticed that it was clarified that cantrips scale with character, rather than class, level. I suppose this validates the infamous Warlock 2 dip, and it will never be removed by RAW.

They could always move Eldritch Blast back to being a class feature as with previous editions without invalidating cantrip scaling. Unlikely to actually happen, though.

[Sabeta]

I noticed that it was clarified that cantrips scale with character, rather than class, level. I suppose this validates the infamous Warlock 2 dip, and it will never be removed by RAW.

You still can't do silly things like learn level 12 Invocations at Character Level 12, Warlock level 2. Warlock 2/3 is really good for Charisma Casters, but not anything so would call OP.

[Socratov]

That's because that has always been the rule, criticals double the damage dice. Greataxes are for people who want to roll big dice (there is a visceral pleasure in rolling several d12s and for those who want to use abilities like Brutal Critical.


I think you are confusing the standard critical hit damage rule with the many abilities that improve criticals like brutal critical. Most of those say you get one additional die which means the great axe is better for those abilities but standard critical damage is double all dice so this is no change in that regard.

I did the math a while back and found that only for a Halforc, with a Great axe and every instance of Brutal Critical (that is all 3 of them) does he get ahead with a greataxe over a greatsowrd, and even then only marginally. The Greatsword is plain better then the axe, if less cool then the great axe (because big dice are cooler and don't let anybody tell you different)

[SharkForce]

I noticed that it was clarified that cantrips scale with character, rather than class, level. I suppose this validates the infamous Warlock 2 dip, and it will never be removed by RAW.

that's because they already validated it months ago. maybe even over a year ago. and the warlock 2 dip has a cost anyways.

[Shining Wrath]

I get what they were going for: there is a time penalty of some kind involved in standing up. I think it would have been simpler to have gone with something like "to stand up you must give up your action or movement". It could be a bonus action, but then I think it makes it barely worth your time to knock someone prone.

If you have a foe with a monk, a fighter, and a TWF ranger next to them, and the monk goes first and knocks the foe prone with the first attack, the monk gets two more attacks and the fighter and the ranger each get two attacks - all with Advantage against the prone target. That's worth doing IMNHO.

[Willie the Duck]

that's because they already validated it months ago. maybe even over a year ago. and the warlock 2 dip has a cost anyways.

It has a cost, but it's still such a quick and easy dip that it makes people feel that going full warlock is disincentivized. But then we've been over this a year ago, as you said.

[Asmotherion]

that's because they already validated it months ago. maybe even over a year ago. and the warlock 2 dip has a cost anyways.

I think the actual and official validation that the Warlock 2 dips was both RAW and RAI was validated by the time the developers ereta-ed the Dragon Sorcerer and Evocation Wizard abilities to add their spellcasting ability to dammage, wile nothing was (purposelly) mentioned for the Warlock Invocation "Agonising Blast". The developers actually WANT the warlock 2 dips to exist, and I am glad they do, because TBH I love the ability to make all my characters be (secretly or not) also warlocks :3

[Saggo]

I did the math a while back and found that only for a Halforc, with a Great axe and every instance of Brutal Critical (that is all 3 of them) does he get ahead with a greataxe over a greatsowrd, and even then only marginally. The Greatsword is plain better then the axe, if less cool then the great axe (because big dice are cooler and don't let anybody tell you different)

Was that with 1d6 or 2d6 per Brutal Critical/Savage Attacks?

[Dr.Samurai]

I believe he is saying that if you use 1d6 as the additional die for a Greatsword, the Greataxe only barely beats the Greatsword,and even then you need all bumps from Brutal Critical.

I'm guessing the rarity of critical hits means that it just isn't much of a difference.

[Tanarii]

Also includes the latest PHB Errata. I'm going to be so confused now, I have an original printing book...6th printing errata has been out for months, hasn't it?

[MrStabby]

So somehow I missed the change in the timings of the saves for a bunch of spell. This makes some terrible spells not quite so bad... maybe some more of my themed characters might be warranted.

[Socratov]

Was that with 1d6 or 2d6 per Brutal Critical/Savage Attacks?
1d6 per brutal critical/savage attacks

I believe he is saying that if you use 1d6 as the additional die for a Greatsword, the Greataxe only barely beats the Greatsword,and even then you need all bumps from Brutal Critical.

I'm guessing the rarity of critical hits means that it just isn't much of a difference.

(emphasis mine)

The extra damage triggers on a 5% chance, so the expected value (which will give you a mean damage on your attacks) is only minutely impacted.

Mind you, as AC values go up it's effects are stronger. Back then I made an AC assumption (it was long ago, so I don't exactly remember the details anymore) but it once again demonstrated that barbs get shafted with features that seem awesome, but in reality are lackluster, along the mostly fluff 2nd totem and some other stuff. Sure, it's a great class and really fun to play, but it could have had a bit more love.

[RedGeomancer]

EKs get to switch spells (possibly extended to Arcane Tricksters? Maybe EK-exclusive?)



EKs could always do that, they just finally added the 3rd level pick to the list.

This always seemed like an oversight, and I had already house-ruled that Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters could replace their one unrestricted pick at 3rd level (in addition to the existing 8, 14, & 20). Bet that the clarification comes for Arcane Tricksters in the next errata.

[SharkForce]

So somehow I missed the change in the timings of the saves for a bunch of spell. This makes some terrible spells not quite so bad... maybe some more of my themed characters might be warranted.

if you're talking about the phantasmal killer and weird spells, they're still crap. slightly less so than before, but still bad.

(they'd probably be decent if they targeted intelligence though. you know, kinda like every other illusion spell does. not that it would make them good, but at least there would be one redeeming feature for the spells).

[MrStabby]

if you're talking about the phantasmal killer and weird spells, they're still crap. slightly less so than before, but still bad.

(they'd probably be decent if they targeted intelligence though. you know, kinda like every other illusion spell does. not that it would make them good, but at least there would be one redeeming feature for the spells).

Yeah, I agree - not good, but for themed characters they are just about good enough to not make you feel like a complete fool for playing with them.

I agree targeting Int would help (and be consistent).

[MaxWilson]

So Sage Advice (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-answers-and-errata-october-2016) for the month came out. Also includes the latest PHB Errata. I'm going to be so confused now, I have an original printing book...

Oh, good, they clarified Alert. I've been running it this way all along (seems obvious) but it's nice to have the text fixed.

Shadow Monk w/ Darkness + Alert is a really fun off-tank.

-Max

===========================


If you have a foe with a monk, a fighter, and a TWF ranger next to them, and the monk goes first and knocks the foe prone with the first attack, the monk gets two more attacks and the fighter and the ranger each get two attacks - all with Advantage against the prone target. That's worth doing IMNHO.

In addition, if the monk, the fighter, and the TWF ranger each back up 30' at the end of their attacks, the target will get only a single opportunity attack (probably against the monk) instead of a full Multi/Attack sequence against whoever has the lowest AC (probably the ranger), because he can't get back into melee range without Dashing.

On the other side of things, going prone voluntarily at the end of your turn can sometimes be a good defense against missile fire, especially for monks, bladesingers, and anyone with access to the Shield spell.

[EKruze]

This always seemed like an oversight, and I had already house-ruled that Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters could replace their one unrestricted pick at 3rd level (in addition to the existing 8, 14, & 20). Bet that the clarification comes for Arcane Tricksters in the next errata.

Already clarified: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/790769412068380673

"Like an Eldritch Knight, an Arcane Trickster can retrain their 1st-level spell from any school. (An unintended omission.) #DnD" --JC

[Tanarii]

The extra damage triggers on a 5% chance, so the expected value (which will give you a mean damage on your attacks) is only minutely impacted.

Mind you, as AC values go up it's effects are stronger. Back then I made an AC assumption (it was long ago, so I don't exactly remember the details anymore) but it once again demonstrated that barbs get shafted with features that seem awesome, but in reality are lackluster, along the mostly fluff 2nd totem and some other stuff. Sure, it's a great class and really fun to play, but it could have had a bit more love.
Barbarians crit 9.75% of the time starting at 2nd level. 19% if they multiclass Champion 3.

A Barbarian with a hit chance of 65% (5% crit) before Reckless:

No Bonus to Crit Damage:
Greataxe: .78*(6.5+S) + .0975*(13+S) = 6.3375 + .8775*S
Greatsword: .78*(7+S) + .0975*(10.5+S) = 6.48375 + .8775*S

Brutal I or Savage Attacks (1/2 Orc):
Greataxe: .78*(6.5+S) + .0975*(19.5+S) = 6.97125 + .8775*S
Greatsword: .78*(7+S) + .0975*(14+S) = 6.825 + .8775*S

So any Half-orc Babarian is ahead of the game from the get go. A non-half orc is as soon as they get Brutal I. All other things being equal. (In other words, I can't remember if there are any other Barb features that affect this calculation off the top of my head.)

Edit: Numbers were slightly off, fixed, but it's still the case that Brutal I puts the Barb ahead.

[Hrugner]

Minor conjuration could have used some more clarification, but at least it means I can ignore the possibility of summoning most weapons(just nets, bows, slings, crossbows). Can you create a consumable object like a healing kit? Does the damage to the object required to make it disappear need to be literal damage, or does the wear and tear from regular use count? What about consuming one use of a multi use object? The object needs to have been seen, but does it need to have been real, do you need to have seen it correctly or handled it from all sides? If it fits into a 3ft cube, but blows up or unfolds without damaging the object, what happens then?


The world may never know, but DM may tire of my questions.

[Grixis]

Best part of this (and one of the only actual changes) is Glyph of Warding. Now I can set up an emergency healing station with cure spells.

[PeteNutButter]

1d6 per brutal critical/savage attacks

(emphasis mine)

The extra damage triggers on a 5% chance, so the expected value (which will give you a mean damage on your attacks) is only minutely impacted.

Mind you, as AC values go up it's effects are stronger. Back then I made an AC assumption (it was long ago, so I don't exactly remember the details anymore) but it once again demonstrated that barbs get shafted with features that seem awesome, but in reality are lackluster, along the mostly fluff 2nd totem and some other stuff. Sure, it's a great class and really fun to play, but it could have had a bit more love.

I believe you are referencing when we discussed this here:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?478485-Put-Down-The-Greataxe!-Brutal-Critical-Discussion

Barbarians crit 9.75% of the time starting at 2nd level. 19% if they multiclass Champion 3.

A Barbarian with a hit chance of 65% (5% crit) before Reckless:

No Bonus to Crit Damage:
Greataxe: .78*(6.5+S) + .0975*(13+S) = 6.3375 + .8775*S
Greatsword: .78*(7+S) + .0975*(10.5+S) = 6.48375 + .8775*S

Brutal I or Savage Attacks (1/2 Orc):
Greataxe: .78*(6.5+S) + .0975*(19.5+S) = 6.97125 + .8775*S
Greatsword: .78*(7+S) + .0975*(14+S) = 6.825 + .8775*S

So any Half-orc Babarian is ahead of the game from the get go. A non-half orc is as soon as they get Brutal I. All other things being equal. (In other words, I can't remember if there are any other Barb features that affect this calculation off the top of my head.)

Edit: Numbers were slightly off, fixed, but it's still the case that Brutal I puts the Barb ahead.

Your math is assuming Savage Attacks/Brutal Critical but you are only giving the benefit of it to the greataxe...
It should be 17.5*.0975, because the greatsword is doing 5d6. Crunch the numbers again without shorting the greatsword its bonus crit damage, and you'll see it comes out ahead (~7.16).

Or just save yourself the time and read the linked thread. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

Your math is assuming Savage Attacks/Brutal Critical but you are only giving the benefit of it to the greataxe...
It should be 17.5*.0975, because the greatsword is doing 5d6. Crunch the numbers again without shorting the greatsword its bonus crit damage, and you'll see it comes out ahead (~7.16).Oh damn. I shorted it to both, but yeah, you're right, totally messed up the numbers. /facepalm

Edit - okay I didn't short both. I see what your saying now. Fixed Numbers:

No Bonus to Crit Damage:
Greataxe: .78*(6.5+S) + .0975*(13+S) = 6.3375 + .8775*S
Greatsword: .78*(7+S) + .0975*(14+S) = 6.825 + .8775*S

Brutal I or Savage Attacks (1/2 Orc):
Greataxe: .78*(6.5+S) + .0975*(19.5+S) = 6.97125 + .8775*S
Greatsword: .78*(7+S) + .0975*(17.5+S) = 7.16625 + .8775*S

Lets jump to the one I see most commonly:
Brutal & SA & GWM:
Greataxe: .53*(16.5+S) + .0975*(36+S) = 12.255 + .6275*S
Greatsword: .53*(17+S) + .0975*(31+S) = 12.0325 + .6275*S

Takes the lead finally! Of course, the real difference between Greatsword and Greataxe isn't average damage. It's swingyness.

[PeteNutButter]

Oh damn. I shorted it to both, but yeah, you're right, totally messed up the numbers. /facepalm

Edit - okay I didn't short both. I see what your saying now. Fixed Numbers:

No Bonus to Crit Damage:
Greataxe: .78*(6.5+S) + .0975*(13+S) = 6.3375 + .8775*S
Greatsword: .78*(7+S) + .0975*(14+S) = 6.825 + .8775*S

Brutal I or Savage Attacks (1/2 Orc):
Greataxe: .78*(6.5+S) + .0975*(19.5+S) = 6.97125 + .8775*S
Greatsword: .78*(7+S) + .0975*(17.5+S) = 7.16625 + .8775*S

Lets jump to the one I see most commonly:
Brutal & SA & GWM:
Greataxe: .53*(16.5+S) + .0975*(36+S) = 12.255 + .6275*S
Greatsword: .53*(17+S) + .0975*(31+S) = 12.0325 + .6275*S

Takes the lead finally! Of course, the real difference between Greatsword and Greataxe isn't average damage. It's swingyness.

So after two stacks of increased crit and advantage and GWM, you still need to sandbag the opponents AC up to get Greataxe to win. 65% is standard hit chance. Dropping it to 40% with GWM means with advantage you should have 63.9% hit chance... making greatsword win.

The greataxe only wins if you have 3 instances of increased crit, GWM, and advantage OR you have a foe with an unusually high AC. Also if your ever blessed it goes back in the sword's favor. Or if you have some other bonus to hit, or if you factor in the fighting style...

The great axe just doesn't have enough love to make it through all those ifs and still be optimal. Now if you just like big dice...

[Tanarii]

So after two stacks of increased crit and advantage and GWM, you still need to sandbag the opponents AC up to get Greataxe to win. 65% is standard hit chance. Dropping it to 40% with GWM means with advantage you should have 63.9% hit chance... making greatsword win.For someone who's good at math, I'm not having a very good day. :smallbiggrin:

However, like I said the main point of the difference between Greataxe & Greatsword usually isn't the difference in damage. It's the difference in swingy-ness. Which isn't something quantifiable as which one is better ... it comes down to player preference. I know that sounds like moving the goalposts ... and it kind of is. I concede I was off on the math. But most times I see players choose the weapons depending on what kind of swingy-ness they prefer.

[Socratov]

For someone who's good at math, I'm not having a very good day. :smallbiggrin:

However, like I said the main point of the difference between Greataxe & Greatsword usually isn't the difference in damage. It's the difference in swingy-ness. Which isn't something quantifiable as which one is better ... it comes down to player preference. I know that sounds like moving the goalposts ... and it kind of is. I concede I was off on the math. But most times I see players choose the weapons depending on what kind of swingy-ness they prefer.

The optimiser in me wants the greatsword, but the roleplayer in me vastly prefers the greataxe since axes are massively cooler then swords.

Overall, the effect is not as noticable, especially in play when you have other worries on your mind.

Also, when it comes to TTRPG players, dice and math, I find the following applies heavily:

http://www.hyperbear.com/blogpics/cognitive-dissonance.jpg

Don't sell yourself short :smallwink:

[JumboWheat01]

http://www.hyperbear.com/blogpics/cognitive-dissonance.jpg

Don't sell yourself short :smallwink:

Well it's pretty much impossible to have a truly 100% balanced die, so yeah, it's a good idea to play the field and find one that likes you. Unlike my d10, which loves to give me 3s and 4s. At least my d12 likes me.

[Socratov]

Well it's pretty much impossible to have a truly 100% balanced die, so yeah, it's a good idea to play the field and find one that likes you. Unlike my d10, which loves to give me 3s and 4s. At least my d12 likes me.

While it is indeed impossible to obtain a perfectly balanced die, I think that most dice are close enough that 5 times rolling and then imposing connection of a lifeless object to you as a person is stupidly superstitious compared statistical logic.

However, we gamers would rather find meaning and superstition then allow ourselves to become emotionally disinvested and rely on pure statistics instead and just contribute the average dpr where you only determine in a random manner wether you may and how much you may deviate from that.

[Tanarii]

However, we gamers would rather find meaning and superstition then allow ourselves to become emotionally disinvested and rely on pure statistics instead and just contribute the average dpr where you only determine in a random manner wether you may and how much you may deviate from that.
Except that DPR is only meaningful over a significant number of rolls. If you're doing 4d6 short sword sneak attacks every other round, that's fine to think in terms of DPR. If you're rolling 1d12 every other round (and 3d12 every 10th) then it's a different matter. Variance matters when you're only rolling the dice 10-12 times total in a adventuring day / session, so it's important to decide if you prefer wide variance of a single die vs a basic bell curve.

Edit: That's the same reason why Savage Attacker (or whatever the Feat is called), while definitely a thoroughly underpowered feat, is undervalued even more by people who look at strict DPR.

[Doug Lampert]

While it is indeed impossible to obtain a perfectly balanced die, I think that most dice are close enough that 5 times rolling and then imposing connection of a lifeless object to you as a person is stupidly superstitious compared statistical logic.

However, we gamers would rather find meaning and superstition then allow ourselves to become emotionally disinvested and rely on pure statistics instead and just contribute the average dpr where you only determine in a random manner wether you may and how much you may deviate from that.

If you care about die balance you "float" the die. Fill a long transparent tube that you can seal at both ends with a transparent fluid somewhat less dense than the die, water will do nicely in most cases, drop the die in and see if one side is "up" most of the way to the bottom. Then flip the tube and see if the same side is "up" again. Do this even a handful of times and you'll see if the die is biased via weight.

I'm not aware of any equivalent test for the effects of differences in the rounding and size of the edges. Not that Vagas dice are of transparent plastic (so you can see any cavities), with sharp edges, and the markings on the surface rather than indentations into the die. This is because that's what you do if you really care about having fair dice.

All that said, people are REALLY good at spotting perceived patterns in random noise. Even with a fair die you'll likely think it rolls high or low or that you're lucky or unlucky. Even with a biased die you may well think you have "spotted" a pattern that's the opposite of the actual bias.

[N810]

I believe he is saying that if you use 1d6 as the additional die for a Greatsword, the Greataxe only barely beats the Greatsword,and even then you need all bumps from Brutal Critical.

I'm guessing the rarity of critical hits means that it just isn't much of a difference.

Unless you build around it,
My half-ork Barb berserker, with a great ax
through a combination of feats and weapon,
rolls 5D12's with a reroll on a 19-20 crit.
(reckless attack for advantage, and 3 attacks when frenzied)
so rolling 6 d20's with a 1:10 chance of criting,
Seems like a 60% of criting every round.

[PeteNutButter]

Perhaps it's because every die rolls like sh** for me, but I put no stock in the smallest sample space of my dice. Of all my dice, I consistently use the same 3 sets simply because they are the purdiest. I fortunately manage to refrain from rolling my eyes at my fellow PCs when they say things like, "This die isn't rolling well today." To me it's like letting them believe in Santa.

Now as for making decisions based on perceived feelings instead of "white room" theories... that's all we have. If you have any respect for game theory or math than that's what you go on. Situational things are easy to justify, but comparing feats like Savage Attacker is pure math.

If you are the CEO of a company and you presented with two options. Option A gives 3% more profit than option B. All other things being equal and the data all indisputably correct... if you choose option B because you like the feel and the stockholders won't notice 3%... You're fired!

Now the analogy is a bit stretched since we are talking damage not dollars and D&D is about fun. The point is math is what we have. Any good gamer of any game knows that chance is bad for winning. Minimizing chance, maximizes your success so long as you have more skill than your opponent.

As always if you just like rolling big dice or rerolling one attack a round, go for it, if for no other reason than to give optimizers at your table a nervous tick.

I fooled around with a great axe for "fun" one week. I rolled two ones on damage dealing 4 damage for each of my first two attacks. When later in the combat it became clear the foes only had 5 hit points. I think it dealt me physical pain. I would have burned that axe in a pyre if it didn't sell for half gold.

Anecdotal, yes. But when you know mathematically something is weaker AND it performs anecdotally weaker you can't forgive yourself. It's a game design problem really. Subpar options need homebrew fixes to be comparable so we can all do what we want or what is appropriate for the character without sacrificing optimization.

[Tanarii]

Now as for making decisions based on perceived feelings instead of "white room" theories... that's all we have.Right. And Greataxe is weaker than Greatsword in terms of DPR. But as I said, DPR isn't always king mathematically. Variance is thing. (Edit: and it's a thing that can be bad or good, depending on the specifics of the value needed and the actual value rolled.)

And your anecdote is seeing the bad side of variance. It has nothing to do with DPR. Edit2: If you had needed to roll a 12 to one shot the thing, and rolled a 12 on a Greataxe, which is 3x more likely than on a Greatsword, you'd be seeing a conflict between what you know based on DPR math and your anecdote, as opposed to it appearing to (but not actually) backing up the math.

[N810]

This sums it up rather well...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--mNqcAk79y4/TrnBluwxHPI/AAAAAAAAABg/MIKCDY08-A8/s1600/2d6versus1d12.gif

Oh and this dice probity calculator: http://rumkin.com/reference/dnd/diestats.php

[MaxWilson]

Best part of this (and one of the only actual changes) is Glyph of Warding. Now I can set up an emergency healing station with cure spells.

Oh, good point! I tend to stress about parties with only one healer, because obviously a Feebleminded or dead Bard cannot heal himself, but with Glyph of Warding the healer can make it possible for his buddies to Raise/Greater Restoration him.

This spell just became a must-learn for me.

[Xetheral]

I'm not aware of any equivalent test for the effects of differences in the rounding and size of the edges. Not that Vagas dice are of transparent plastic (so you can see any cavities), with sharp edges, and the markings on the surface rather than indentations into the die. This is because that's what you do if you really care about having fair dice.

To detect process-level errors introduced by the manufacturer, you can take some number of ostensibly-identical dice and stack them into two columns. In one column, the dice should all be oriented with the same number on top. In the other column, arrange them with a different number on top. If the rounding and edges are fair (or the errors are randomly distributed from one die to the next) the two columns will be the same height. The more dice you use, the smaller the discrepancy its possible to notice.

[Socratov]

Except that DPR is only meaningful over a significant number of rolls. If you're doing 4d6 short sword sneak attacks every other round, that's fine to think in terms of DPR. If you're rolling 1d12 every other round (and 3d12 every 10th) then it's a different matter. Variance matters when you're only rolling the dice 10-12 times total in a adventuring day / session, so it's important to decide if you prefer wide variance of a single die vs a basic bell curve.

Edit: That's the same reason why Savage Attacker (or whatever the Feat is called), while definitely a thoroughly underpowered feat, is undervalued even more by people who look at strict DPR.


If you care about die balance you "float" the die. Fill a long transparent tube that you can seal at both ends with a transparent fluid somewhat less dense than the die, water will do nicely in most cases, drop the die in and see if one side is "up" most of the way to the bottom. Then flip the tube and see if the same side is "up" again. Do this even a handful of times and you'll see if the die is biased via weight.

I'm not aware of any equivalent test for the effects of differences in the rounding and size of the edges. Not that Vagas dice are of transparent plastic (so you can see any cavities), with sharp edges, and the markings on the surface rather than indentations into the die. This is because that's what you do if you really care about having fair dice.

All that said, people are REALLY good at spotting perceived patterns in random noise. Even with a fair die you'll likely think it rolls high or low or that you're lucky or unlucky. Even with a biased die you may well think you have "spotted" a pattern that's the opposite of the actual bias.
(emphasis mine)
To be perfectly frank, I like rolling dice, and I think my dice are close enough that I won't see the difference. My point was that, as gamers, the results of dice make us do funny things, even assume stuff which we know if bull****. Wether an effect of the bolded section above or the fact that we gamers have a romantic streak I cannot tell you.

[CaptainSarathai]

If you want to check your dice, float them in salt-water, like a golf ball. The side floating on top is the bias. So if your 20 is floating up more often, you're more likely to roll a 20.

The good news is that dice have the numbers scattered. So if your 20 is the bias, it's not just the 20. You are also more likely to roll the adjacent numbers (2, 8, 14). Anything higher than 15 has lower numbers adjacent.

This is not the case on a Spin-Down die from M:tG, where the numbers are arranged for ease of use. So 20, 19, 18, 17 are all grouped together. Spin-Downs should be banned at tables, because it's too easy to weight them or just throw them to land favorably.

If you're buying dice, always buy the most transparent die you can. This lets you see any bubbles inside. Ideally, there will be no bubbles. However, if there are bubbles, then the die will float with that side up.

Also, dice towers are a gimmick. If you're really worried about how people palm and throw, then roll out of a cup. Clear is better, so you can make sure the die jiggles. Or just don't play with suspected cheats.

I really do wish they'd rule that Cantrips scale on class level...

[pwykersotz]

If you want to check your dice, float them in salt-water, like a golf ball. The side floating on top is the bias. So if your 20 is floating up more often, you're more likely to roll a 20.

The good news is that dice have the numbers scattered. So if your 20 is the bias, it's not just the 20. You are also more likely to roll the adjacent numbers (2, 8, 14). Anything higher than 15 has lower numbers adjacent.

This is not the case on a Spin-Down die from M:tG, where the numbers are arranged for ease of use. So 20, 19, 18, 17 are all grouped together. Spin-Downs should be banned at tables, because it's too easy to weight them or just throw them to land favorably.

If you're buying dice, always buy the most transparent die you can. This lets you see any bubbles inside. Ideally, there will be no bubbles. However, if there are bubbles, then the die will float with that side up.

Also, dice towers are a gimmick. If you're really worried about how people palm and throw, then roll out of a cup. Clear is better, so you can make sure the die jiggles. Or just don't play with suspected cheats.

I really do wish they'd rule that Cantrips scale on class level...

Pfft...I just rolled my primary 15 d20's 1200 times and recorded the results and chose the one with the best variance. Floating them in water is the CHEATERS way out. :smalltongue:

(I actually did that. Don't judge me.)

[JumboWheat01]

All this dice talk is reminding me that I need to pick up another couple sets of dice. I just have the one, and rolling the same dice several times does slow things down some.

[MaxWilson]

All this dice talk is reminding me that I need to pick up another couple sets of dice. I just have the one, and rolling the same dice several times does slow things down some.

Yeah, having lots of dice for parallel rolling is the single most important tip for DMs running larger combats. It's sooooo much faster to simply roll X d20s and count all the ones above Y, then multiple the number of hits by Z to get damage ("Bob, you are hit by 14 goblin arrows for 70 points of damage!") than it is to do the same operation sequentially with one d20.

[xanderh]

Unless you build around it,
My half-ork Barb berserker, with a great ax
through a combination of feats and weapon,
rolls 5D12's with a reroll on a 19-20 crit.
(reckless attack for advantage, and 3 attacks when frenzied)
so rolling 6 d20's with a 1:10 chance of criting,
Seems like a 60% of criting every round.

In case you're interested, the chance is 46.9 %.
The easiest way to calculate is to find the odds of not critting once, and subtracting from 100. You do that by multiplying the chance of not critting on each die together.
So, 0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.6=0.9^6=0.531, or 53.1 % chance of not getting a crit on your turn.

[Zalabim]

Late, but FWIW, it takes 2 extra crit damage dice and either advantage or a low chance to hit (as with GWM) for the greataxe's average to pull ahead, without the fighting style. The fighting style makes the greatsword better again.

[N810]

@xanderh


Close enough for barbarian math. :redcloak:

So yea looking like roughly a crit every other round. :thog:
(when frenzied, otherwise every third round)

[RickAllison]

All this dice talk is reminding me that I need to pick up another couple sets of dice. I just have the one, and rolling the same dice several times does slow things down some.

I recommend the Bag of Holding or Bag of Devouring from Wizard(?) Dice. Lots of dice, beautiful patterns, and a nice bat for them too.

For my next dice set, I'm holding out for next May or June for the next set of PolyHero Dice to come out. They are dice sets made to look like equipment of heroes. The one set out now has the Warrior, featuring a d100 as a pair of gauntlets, a d8 mace, a d12 helmet, d6 sword, d4 dagger, and a d20 shield.

I'm holding out for the wizard set. The d20 is disappointing (just a crystal ball, so it is a regular d20; they are offering a d20 spinning hat in their individual purchases, so I may grab that). D4 Magic Missile, d6 fireball, d% potions, just so great.

[pwykersotz]

I recommend the Bag of Holding or Bag of Devouring from Wizard(?) Dice. Lots of dice, beautiful patterns, and a nice bat for them too.

For my next dice set, I'm holding out for next May or June for the next set of PolyHero Dice to come out. They are dice sets made to look like equipment of heroes. The one set out now has the Warrior, featuring a d100 as a pair of gauntlets, a d8 mace, a d12 helmet, d6 sword, d4 dagger, and a d20 shield.

I'm holding out for the wizard set. The d20 is disappointing (just a crystal ball, so it is a regular d20; they are offering a d20 spinning hat in their individual purchases, so I may grab that). D4 Magic Missile, d6 fireball, d% potions, just so great.

Thank you so very much for telling us about these. I'm definitely purchasing them.

[RickAllison]

Thank you so very much for telling us about these. I'm definitely purchasing them.

I found them on Reddit and fell in love. Massive Kickstarter success apparently.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I recommend the Bag of Holding or Bag of Devouring from Wizard(?) Dice. Lots of dice, beautiful patterns, and a nice bat for them too.

The dice bat swooping in and dropping dice on the table on command is just the cutest.

[CaptainSarathai]

The easiest way to calculate is to find the odds of not critting once, and subtracting from 100. You do that by multiplying the chance of not critting on each die together.
So, 0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.6=0.9^6=0.531, or 53.1 % chance of not getting a crit on your turn.
Mmmm, binomial distribution so sexxxy, lol.


Yeah, having lots of dice for parallel rolling is the single most important tip for DMs running larger combats. It's sooooo much faster

Dude, tell me about it. We run 4hr sessions with a party of seven at a game store. I'm just a player at the table right now, but I go so tired of waiting 10 minutes for my turn (no joke, not helped by the DM being too lazy to bring his mat/minis) so I taught everyone how to roll quickly.

1. Roll both d20s when you have Advantage.
2. Roll attacks and damage at the same time.
3. Roll color-coded sets for MultiAttack if there is only 1 target or the DM has indicated that the target can potentially survive a number of hits (eg fighting a Dragon)

I've run several games at local conventions and 1-shot "learner sessions" at stores. I'm pretty good at running turns as quickly as possible and keeping order at large tables. It's most noticeable with large groups like ours, but if you shaving even a few seconds per activation is a great way to not only do more with your time, but also keep players engaged in the action.

There are so many little tricks you can do to make your game nights run faster and more smoothly. I feel like nobody uses them - when I play at other tables, and when new people come play with me - I only ever see the slow, grognard methods. I hate it.

[Zorku]

The optimiser in me wants the greatsword, but the roleplayer in me vastly prefers the greataxe since axes are massively cooler then swords.

Overall, the effect is not as noticable, especially in play when you have other worries on your mind.

Also, when it comes to TTRPG players, dice and math, I find the following applies heavily:

http://www.hyperbear.com/blogpics/cognitive-dissonance.jpg

Don't sell yourself short :smallwink:
When I bought my first dice I knew that I'd need to roll a thousand times to get any result distinguishable from noise, but the friend getting me into this declared it a ritual that I should just go along with, so I did, and the superstition of it is kind of fun in the moment, much as I know that I still wouldn't know about how weighted most of my dice are after this long.


Edit: That's the same reason why Savage Attacker (or whatever the Feat is called), while definitely a thoroughly underpowered feat, is undervalued even more by people who look at strict DPR.
Every time I see this argument it feels like the person making it is trying to convince me something to the tune of "because I'm not rolling the dice enough to hit statistical significance, I'm gonna get the really high rolls in before the average kicks in and drags my numbers down."

Are you excited to roll less than the average damage of a great sword, especially in those moments where a high roll would have been cool? You get this result more than half of the time, so you'd better be good at hogging the spotlight when you do actually get those chances to shine.


In case you're interested, the chance is 46.9 %.
The easiest way to calculate is to find the odds of not critting once, and subtracting from 100. You do that by multiplying the chance of not critting on each die together.
So, 0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.6=0.9^6=0.531, or 53.1 % chance of not getting a crit on your turn.Very useful math to know. I'm continually surprised (and I'm not being all that hyperbolic when I say that,) that less than every-single-person doing theory crafting in dice games knows how to calculate that. I learned it for some genetics course, but saw the obvious application really quick when my brother in law started trying to work out probabilities for fate dice.

[N810]

Savage Attacker works better with dice larger than D6.
(d10's and D12's)
helps to get rid of those terrible 1-6 results on damage die.

[SharkForce]

Savage Attacker works better with dice larger than D6.
(d10's and D12's)
helps to get rid of those terrible 1-6 results on damage die.

attempting to smash a door down by kicking it probably works better than attempting to smash a door down with your face (to be fair, i've never tried, so i could be wrong). certainly one is better than the other, at any rate. that does not make it a recommended course of action.

savage attacker just isn't very good, unless you're rolling d100s for damage or something like that.

[N810]

Sigh...

you completely missed the point.

http://rumkin.com/reference/dnd/diestats.php
calculate it yourself.

savage only rerolls one of the 2d6 from great sword,
I am comparing it rerolling a d12.

[Zorku]

Sigh...

you completely missed the point.

http://rumkin.com/reference/dnd/diestats.php
calculate it yourself.

savage only rerolls one of the 2d6 from great sword,
I am comparing it rerolling a d12.

Did you miss this link?
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?478485-Put-Down-The-Greataxe!-Brutal-Critical-Discussion

[SharkForce]

Sigh...

you completely missed the point.

http://rumkin.com/reference/dnd/diestats.php
calculate it yourself.

savage only rerolls one of the 2d6 from great sword,
I am comparing it rerolling a d12.

i didn't miss the point, for 2 reasons:

1) savage lets you "...reroll the weapon's damage dice..." and dice is plural. die is singular. if your weapon hits for 2d6 damage, you reroll both. regardless, variability is greater on a d12 than it is for 2d6, so savage will be useful more often on the d12, because it has a lower minimum, and a greater chance of rolling the lower values.

2) even on a d12, the feat is awful. i get that it's better on a large die. but better than really bad is still not the same thing as good.

[Pex]

Savage Attacker might be okish with Great Weapon Style.

1d12, rolled 3 and 1. Take the 1 and roll for a third time hoping for something better than 3.

2d6, rolled 3 & 4 and 1 & 6. Take the 1 & 6 and reroll the 1.

[odigity]

For my next dice set, I'm holding out for next May or June for the next set of PolyHero Dice to come out. They are dice sets made to look like equipment of heroes. The one set out now has the Warrior, featuring a d100 as a pair of gauntlets, a d8 mace, a d12 helmet, d6 sword, d4 dagger, and a d20 shield.

I'm holding out for the wizard set. The d20 is disappointing (just a crystal ball, so it is a regular d20; they are offering a d20 spinning hat in their individual purchases, so I may grab that). D4 Magic Missile, d6 fireball, d% potions, just so great.


Thank you so very much for telling us about these. I'm definitely purchasing them.


I found them on Reddit and fell in love. Massive Kickstarter success apparently.

Guys, this is the internet. You're supposed to link to things you talk about:

http://www.polyhero.com/

[RickAllison]

Guys, this is the internet. You're supposed to link to things you talk about:

http://www.polyhero.com/

I follow the standard for linking as I do for citing websites in bibliographies. If I supply sufficient information that someone can Google it and easily find it, including the URL shouldn't be necessary.

I also don't like putting in links because those who really want it will Google it and those who don't won't click the link anyway. And for people who browse the site on their phones, links have an inordinate tendency to get touched while scrolling down, pulling people off the site who otherwise wouldn't want to follow the link.

Just my wanted 2 cp, and why I chose not to link it.

[N810]

i didn't miss the point, for 2 reasons:

1) savage lets you "...reroll the weapon's damage dice..." and dice is plural. die is singular. if your weapon hits for 2d6 damage, you reroll both. regardless, variability is greater on a d12 than it is for 2d6, so savage will be useful more often on the d12, because it has a lower minimum, and a greater chance of rolling the lower values.

2) even on a d12, the feat is awful. i get that it's better on a large die. but better than really bad is still not the same thing as good.

Well I don't have a rule book, I only have My DM's ruling,
So I assumed rolling one die was the rule.

[INDYSTAR188]

Guys, this is the internet. You're supposed to link to things you talk about:

http://www.polyhero.com/

^This guy gets it. Thanks for being an internet hero Odigity. It's like holding open a door for someone, it's the polite thing to do these days. :smallsmile: I now feel compelled to throw money at these people; the question is which bag do I like better!? Rolling d12's feel's more effective awesome for some reason than 2d6's but our Barbarian thinks swords are cooler than axes so there we are.

[metaridley18]

Rolling d12's feel's more effective awesome for some reason than 2d6's but our Barbarian thinks swords are cooler than axes so there we are.

I've been using a greatsword on my barb because I just got some craps dice in Vegas and it feels more awesome to roll those than my boring 'ol d12 that I've used in countless campaigns. Plus I give the d12 some love on short rests anyway, so may as well spread it around.

[MaxWilson]

I follow the standard for linking as I do for citing websites in bibliographies. If I supply sufficient information that someone can Google it and easily find it, including the URL shouldn't be necessary.

I also don't like putting in links because those who really want it will Google it and those who don't won't click the link anyway. And for people who browse the site on their phones, links have an inordinate tendency to get touched while scrolling down, pulling people off the site who otherwise wouldn't want to follow the link.

FWIW: I didn't Google it, but did click the link when it was posted. I'm not going to buy any (dice don't excite me).

So I suppose that puts me in the category of "those who [don't] really want it."

[Lombra]

PHB errata, deflect missiles: so monks have to spend both a reaction AND a ki point only to use a ranged attack with the same range of a throwing knife? This is ridiculous. It was one of the best features of the monk (which is a class with not many good features) and now it's cut in half.

[MeeposFire]

PHB errata, deflect missiles: so monks have to spend both a reaction AND a ki point only to use a ranged attack with the same range of a throwing knife? This is ridiculous. It was one of the best features of the monk (which is a class with not many good features) and now it's cut in half.

UM that has always been true as I recall and that is not one of its better abilities honestly.

[JumboWheat01]

I remember a tweet saying it also had to be something that could be caught with one hand. That boulder being thrown at you by a giant sized thing? No deflect missile on that. Rule of Cool/Funny be damned!

[Lombra]

UM that has always been true as I recall and that is not one of its better abilities honestly.

I've never seen that applied, I guess it's reasonable, but specially at early levels where the ki isn't much, not being able to respond to a properly spaced crossbow can make a difference. At least the damage mitigation (the core of the ability) works.

Edit: the high mobility of the monk helps anyways.

[Lombra]

I remember a tweet saying it also had to be something that could be caught with one hand. That boulder being thrown at you by a giant sized thing? No deflect missile on that. Rule of Cool/Funny be damned!

Yes the book states that you have to be able to keep it in one hand. It would be cool if the size of the object scales with the monk level, like at 20th level you could be able to throw up to lage-sized objects back at giants!