I don't know if this this has been covered before, but looking at the step up progression they give for dice each one is a step up of 1 if you go by averages.

The average for a d12 is 6.5

The average for a d6 is 3.5

3.5 x2 = 7

As you can see it is only a half a step up.

If you want a full step up you would either need 3d4 which would give you an average of 7.5 or a d12+1 which would do the same.

I prefer the d12+1 as a step up as it not only gives you a full step up and with the posibility to get a 13 you would feel like you have gained extra damage that the 3d4 wouldn't give you.

Thoughts?

The average for a d12 is 6.5

The average for a d6 is 3.5

3.5 x2 = 7

As you can see it is only a half a step up.

If you want a full step up you would either need 3d4 which would give you an average of 7.5 or a d12+1 which would do the same.

I prefer the d12+1 as a step up as it not only gives you a full step up and with the posibility to get a 13 you would feel like you have gained extra damage that the 3d4 wouldn't give you.

Thoughts?

As to your suggestions, 3d4 would increase the minimum to 3 as opposed to 2, and decrease the variance even more. I could see 1d12+1, but it goes against the current view of fewer modifiers.

2d6 has a higher average by .5, and a higher minimum, but since you are rolling two dice it also averages more toward the middle of the spectrum, while 1d12 has an equal probability of rolling any number on it. There's only one way to roll 2, 3, 11, or 12 with 2d6, but 3 ways to roll a 6, 7 or 8.

So I'd say it's not better or worse, just different. That's why I miss the damage die variety of 3E where you could either get a weapon that does 1d8 or 2d4, 1d12 or 2d6, you could choose if you want consistently decent damage or a greater chance of high damage at the cost of having the same chance of low damage.

not quite right:

1 way for 2,12

2 ways for 3,11

3 ways for 4,10

4 ways for 5,9

5 ways for 6,8

6 ways for 7

Use two different coloured dice and you´ll see it.

Oh, I see. It really biases the 7 a lot more than I said it does.

It's 'better' because 'more' is always better. Not to mention that multiple dice are more reliable than a single die. There are more chances of getting 7s because there are two as opposed to a single die, which may have a run of bad luck and never break 5 in three months of gaming.

D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Happy to be back on the best D&D forum on the internet!

Who hasn't thrown the die across the room after the first month of bad rolling?

Just saying!

Yeah, it is better. I guess what I really mean is that it isn't as good as the increase from d8 to d10. I'd be okay with it if the scale had another step less than 1, instead of just the last step, such as: 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d4, 1d10, 1d12, 2d6.

I also don't know how they're even going to work out multiple weapon damage dice if the martial damage dice are now going to be the weapon die.

Why do you assume that it is supposed to be a full point up all the time? There are 6 weapons effected: Handaxe, warhammer, greataxe, maul, battleaxe, and double-axe. Of those 6, two go up half a point 3 go up a full point, and 1 goes up either 1 full point or 2 depending how you read it. You can't argue that some rule is being broken when the "rule" only applies 50% of the time.

Obviously the designers can do basic math. Either they know that one-handed weapons are getting an edge here and they like that or they feel that reducing damage variance is valuable to the player as much as an extra .5 is. But this isn't anything they didn't know from the begenning.

1d3

1d4

1d6

1d8

1d10

1d12

1d10+1d3

1d6+1d6 just means you're rolling a 12 one third as often.

Odds of rolling 12 with 2d6 = 1 in 36 or 0.33 in 12

Odds of rolling 11 with 2d6 = 2 in 36 or 0.66 in 12

Odds of rolling 10 with 2d6 = 3 in 36 or 1.00 in 12

2d6 is simply not good.

1d10+1d3 is even less random, and is thus actually better:

1 in 30 of 13 -- or 0.4 in 12 --\

2 in 30 of 12 -- or 0.8 in 12 -----> 1.2 in 12 of 12 or 13

3 in 30 of 11 -- or 1.2 in 12 -----> 1.2 in 12 of 11

3 in 30 of 10 -- or 1.2 in 12

3 in 30 of 09 -- or 1.2 in 12

3 in 30 of 08 -- or 1.2 in 12\_____> Avg of 7.5

3 in 30 of 07 -- or 1.2 in 12/

3 in 30 of 06 -- or 1.2 in 12

3 in 30 of 05 -- or 1.2 in 12

3 in 30 of 04 -- or 1.2 in 12

2 in 30 of 03 -- or 0.8 in 12-----> 1.2 in 12 of 2 or 3

1 in 30 of 02 -- or 0.4 in 12--/

...

1d10 + 1d3 is definitely the best two-dice solution, actually being a step up from 1d12 versus targets that ignore the first 10 damage or somesuch, unlike 2d6 with only happens to be 12 once every 36 dice rolls, or one third as often as you would with 1d12.

Average:

1d10+1d3 = 5.5avg + 2avg = 7.5 average -- exactly one point up from 1d12's 6.5, following the norm of an average increase of 1.

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

HOWEVER, the d10 and d8 dices are bastard dices like the D14 and D16.

Not quite true... Here's a d20 from about 2000 years ago.

www.metmuseum.org/collections/search-the...

d4 -> d6 -> d8 -> d10 -> d12 -> 2d6

The main reason is that if you then take another step up, it goes to 2d8, then 2d10, etc. It keeps it very easy to remember, without having numerous charts to dicsuss dice progression. So in reality, this is all that would need to be printed:

Xd4 -> Xd6 -> Xd8 -> Xd10 -> Xd12 -> (x+1)d6

Are you saying that after 2d12 would come 3d6? If so, I think you'll have a hard time making the case that it's a step up.

doublethe number of dice and regress back to d6's, not just add 1 to the number of dice.For instance:

...->1d10->1d12->2d6

...->2d10->2d12->4d6

...->4d10->4d12->8d6

So, you ultimately wind up with the same maximum number as the Xd12, but a higher average with the (X*2)d6.

For example, 2d12 average is 13 (6.5x2) whereas 4d6 average is 14 (3.5x4). The 4d12 average is 26 and 8d6 average is 28. In both instances, the maximums are the same for Xd12 and (X*2)d6, but the averages are higher for the (X*2)d6.

My bad, I did mean to double it, as Landale3 pointed out. So 2d12 would go to 4d6.