|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 7:24AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2001
|
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?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 8:57AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Mar 11, 2008
|
I would consider the step up to be the point of diminishing returns. As there is no d14, the "step up" to 2d6 includes the increased minimum, but also reduces variance in the rolls, leading to more consistant results. Not everyone considers that last part a positive, as it also means you are less likely to have really high results too.
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 9:29AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
I've posted about this before and everyone insisted that 2d6 is better somehow.
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 9:42AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2011
|
1d12+2 seems to be a better step-up compared to 2d8 for example. The next step-up could then be 2d8 followed by 2d8+2 and then either 1d20 or 2d10 depending on what is being done.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 12:29PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2007
|
In situations where you can reroll damage, higher variance is generally better. However, when the outcome cannot be controlled, then the only worthwhile metric is the average over the longterm, in which case 2d6 is certainly a step up from 1d12.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 3:54PM
#6
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 11:11PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 11:58PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
I've posted about this before and everyone insisted that 2d6 is better somehow.
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 1:36AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
the benefit is in the fact that it raises the minimum roll by 1.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 6:43AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2001
|
I've posted about this before and everyone insisted that 2d6 is better somehow.
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.
Who hasn't thrown the die across the room after the first month of bad rolling?
Just saying! 
|
|
|
