The anydice website is a good resource for exploring dice probabilities and averages (mean).
Davedamon's (low + high)/2 is a correct shortcut for figuring out what the average roll of a die is with an even number of sides. 1d4: 4 total possibilities: 1, 2, 3, 4. The average of a 1d4 is then (1+2+3+4)/4 = 10/4 = 2.5 on average 1d8: 8 total possibilities: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The average of a 1d4 is then (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8)/8 = 36/8 = 4.5 on average
If we write the numbers as low/high pairs working from the ends, you will see that each pair sums to the same value. d4: 4 possibilities: 1,4 2,3 = (5 + 5) / 4 d6: 6 possibilities: 1,6 2,5 3,4 = (7 + 7 + 7) / 6 d8: 8 possibilities: 1,8 2,7 3,6 4,5 = (9 + 9 + 9 + 9) / 8 Each time we increase the die sides (by 2) it adds another pair of values to the sum of all possibilities while also increasing the divisor by 2. Hopefully you can see the pattern emerging here.
When rolling multiple dice, the same holds true, since the value on each die is independent of any other die 2d4: 16 total possibilities Die 1: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4 Die 2: 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4 Sum: 2, 3, 4, 5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6, 7, 5, 6, 7, 8 (2+3+4+5+3+4+5+6+4+5+6+7+5+6+7+8)/16 = 80/16 = 5. Which is the same as if we took the single 1d4 average and multiplied by 2 for rolling 2d4 instead of 1d4.
There is another statistic called Standard Deviation that starts to come up once you have multiple dice. Basically, its how far from the average value you can expect something to be. The deviation of 2d4 is 1.58, while 1d8 is 2.44 So rolling 2d4 vs 1d8, you will end up at the extremes more often with 1d8, while the 2d4 will be more consistently around 7.
Of course all of this is just covering damage values, but since with both the DBS and Longsword you are making two attacks, and those attacks will all have the same hit chance, hit chance can be ignored when comparing damage, or just factored in at the end Just as an example (assuming a strength of 16) main bonus = expected damage LS: (4.5 + 3) + (4.5) = 12 expected damage DBS: (5 + 3) + (2.5 + 3) = 13.5 expected damage 1.5 more damage for the DBS
main bonus = expected damage LS: (4.5 + 3) * 0.6 + (4.5) * 0.6 = 7.2 expected damage DBS: (5 + 3) * 0.6 + (2.5 + 3) * 0.6 = 8.1 expected damage 0.9 more damage for the DBS, the same as if we just multiplied the 1.5 damage difference from above by the 0.6 hit chance
Actually, no, because on the first you have a 50% chance of doing 6 damage on average. On the second you have a 25% chance of doing 6 on average, 25% of 2, and 25% of 4.
Your premise is right, but your conclusion is wrong. Lets go through this 1 step at a time. (Sorry it is so long, calculating average damage 25% probabilities at a time is needlessly tedious).
We need a damage mod lets say 2.5 (14-17 STR stat average. Reasonable for level 1). And we will assume the enemy has 15 AC, with our +4.5 attack mod, 50% hit chance.
DBS makes 2 attacks. Attack A1 does 7.5 (2d4+2.5) damage, attack BA2 does 5 (1d4+2.5) damage. So 25% of the time only A1 will hit (7.5÷4=1.875), 25% of the time only BA2 will hit (5÷4=1.25), 25% of the time both A1 and BA2 will hit ((7.5+5)÷4=3.125), and 25% of the time both will miss. So the weighted average of all probabilities for DBS is 6.25 (1.875+1.25+3.125) using the method you require to be accurate. The method everyone else is using is to take the total damage (12.5 (3d4+5)) and then factor the hit chance (50%) which gives us 6.25 (12.5÷2), the same answer. Number of attacks doesn't matter to math if you take the average damage and the average hit chance.
Greatsword makes 1 attack for 9 (2d6+2.5) and will hit 50% of the time. Giving us a weighted average damage of 4.5 (9÷2).
6.25 is greater than 4.5. Double bladed Scimitar does more damage on average than greatsword. And that is not even factoring fighting styles, feats, or features/spells that add more damage per hit (like smite/rage/hex/Hunter's mark), all of which benefit DBS more than GS.
Also, everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that revenant blade makes the bonus action attack of DBS do 2d4 damage (not that it needs the extra d4 to do more damage than 2 weapons or greatsword, but when comparing how much better it is, use the full damage). Also, also, Revenant Blade can be taken by any elf, not just Valenar Elves.
[Edit]I could have sworn... I just read it... Did it used to? Whatever, my mistake.
Where in Revenant Blade does it say it increases the bonus action to 2d4? Obviously I agree with the general point of your post, but I’m not seeing that part anywhere.
Lets also calculate great weapon fighting style. This lets you reroll 1s and 2s on damage and use the reroll.
So for 1d4, if the result is 3 or 4 we keep it and if it is 1 or 2 we reroll which can result in a 1, 2, 3, or 4. To find average, add all possibilities and divide by number of possibilities (including the average of each reroll): ((1+2+3+4)÷4+(1+2+3+4)÷4+3+4)÷4=3, and 2d4 is 6 plus 3 from BA. That is where I was getting the average damage for DBS when comparing fighting styles earlier.
Meanwhile greatsword with great weapon fighting style is ((1+2+3+4+5+6)÷6+(1+2+3+4+5+6)÷6+3+4+5+6)÷6=4.16~, so 2d6 is 8.3~.
And that doesn't even include the fact that DBS uses damage modifier twice.
Where in Revenant Blade does it say it increases the bonus action to 2d4? Obviously I agree with the general point of your post, but I’m not seeing that part anywhere.
I could have sworn it did... Well, I also said it didn't need it at least...
Where in Revenant Blade does it say it increases the bonus action to 2d4? Obviously I agree with the general point of your post, but I’m not seeing that part anywhere.
I could have sworn it did... Well, I also said it didn't need it at least...
To clarify, the original version of Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron did include a final bullet point in the Revenant Blade feat that increased the double-bladed scimitar's bonus-action attack from 1d4 damage back to 2d4 damage. That benefit was removed in the final version of the feat as it appeared in Eberron: Rising from the Last War and the final/updated version of Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron.
Where in Revenant Blade does it say it increases the bonus action to 2d4? Obviously I agree with the general point of your post, but I’m not seeing that part anywhere.
I could have sworn it did... Well, I also said it didn't need it at least...
To clarify, the original version of Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron did include a final bullet point in the Revenant Blade feat that increased the double-bladed scimitar's bonus-action attack from 1d4 damage back to 2d4 damage. That benefit was removed in the final version of the feat as it appeared in Eberron: Rising from the Last War and the final/updated version of Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron.
Thank god. I thought I was losing my mind. Not yet at least.
Well. I'm going to miss that feature. It helped set DBS apart from pole arm master.
Dave is correct. Why on earth are you halving the hit chance from 50 to 25%?
Because the first and second attack are separate attack rolls.
You have a 25% chance of succeeding on both rolls, a 25% chance of succeeding on the first roll, 25% chance of succeeding on the second roll, and 25% chance of failing both.
On the other hand, for a straight 2d6, you have 50% chance of succeeding the one attack roll and 50% chance of failure.
When you do the bonus attack on DBS, or you do the second attack on DW, you do two attack rolls.
Firstly, you don't have a 50% chance of succeeding on the attack, the probability varies based on to hit modifier and AC. But that aside, say your modifier vs their AC did mean you had a 50% to hit chance on each attack.
You'd have a 50% chance on the first attack and a 50% chance on the second attack, yes, that does mean you have a 25% chance of hitting with both, but we don't care about hitting with both for calculating average damage. What we care about is how each hit probability affects the average damage.
A 50% chance to hit on 8 damage yields an average of 4 damage, and a 50% chance on 4 damage yields an average of 2 damage. You can work this out to see it's true:
You make 200 attacks with the first attack and 200 with the second
100 hit with the first, giving a total damage of 800, and 100 hit with the second, giving a total damage of 400
You then work at the averages by dividing the total damage by total number of attacks made; 800/200 = 4 and 400/200 = 2
You can then add these averages together to get a total average damage of 6
Now, for a weapon that makes 1 attack doing 12 damage with a 50% chance
You make 200 attacks with the 1 attack
100 hit, giving you a total damage of 12
The average is 1200/200 = 6
See, if multiple attacks have the same probability of hitting as one attack, you can sum the averages to work out total average.
This also shows that expectation value works; average damage is the damage per action multiplied by the probability to hit. Averages also combine this way, so you can multiple the average result on a die, which is (N+1)/2, by the probability to hit, to get the average dice factoring in chance to hit.
Dave is correct. Why on earth are you halving the hit chance from 50 to 25%?
Because the first and second attack are separate attack rolls.
Yes, they’re separate attack rolls, and they’re completely independent of one another. The second attack doesn’t affect the first at all. If we’re talking greatswords, making a second attack on the next round doesn't magically make me miss more on this round.
You have a 25% chance of succeeding on both rolls, a 25% chance of succeeding on the first roll, 25% chance of succeeding on the second roll, and 25% chance of failing both.
This is correct, and you’ll notice that each attack hits 50% of the time (25% when they both hit and 25% when each hits alone, 0.25 + 0.25 = 0.5).
When you accused Dave of making a mistake, you were straight-up ignoring the case where both attacks hit. The actual math is (0.25 * (3.5 + 3.5)) + (0.25 * 3.5) + (0.25 * 3.5) + (0.25 * 0). Since multiplication is distributive that can be rearranged as follows:
0.25 * (3.5 + 3.5) + 0.25 * (3.5 + 3.5) + 0.25 * 0 (this zero term is just zero so we’ll ignore it from now on)
And since, again, multiplication is distributive, this in turn can be rearranged as:
(0.25 + 0.25) * (3.5 + 3.5), or 0.5 * (3.5 + 3.5)
which you’ll notice is exactly the same as the calculation for 2d6 on a single attack.
Dave is correct. Why on earth are you halving the hit chance from 50 to 25%?
Because the first and second attack are separate attack rolls.
You have a 25% chance of succeeding on both rolls, a 25% chance of succeeding on the first roll, 25% chance of succeeding on the second roll, and 25% chance of failing both.
On the other hand, for a straight 2d6, you have 50% chance of succeeding the one attack roll and 50% chance of failure.
When you do the bonus attack on DBS, or you do the second attack on DW, you do two attack rolls.
I concede that early game, DBS is fine and even outdoes other weapons, but I still believe that at endgame it's subpar. GWM lets you, potentially, do +10 extra damage twice on greatsword. And the math has already been done on 2LS vs non-RB DBS.
But my original point in the post, which seems to have been drowned out by all the damage calculation, is that other weapons are more dynamic and overall more useful to most characters. DBS is great for Small characters but Small characters can't get RB, and making DBS versatile wouldn't hurt at all - you couldn't DW with it (since it's still a two-handed weapon, just versatile) but you could at least shield with it if needed. If we're talking pure damage, and RB is added in, then DBS is great, but that was never really the point; the point was that DBS is designed purely for raw damage and at endgame without RB it struggles to even do that.
I concede that early game, DBS is fine and even outdoes other weapons, but I still believe that at endgame it's subpar. GWM lets you, potentially, do +10 extra damage twice on greatsword. And the math has already been done on 2LS vs non-RB DBS.
But my original point in the post, which seems to have been drowned out by all the damage calculation, is that other weapons are more dynamic and overall more useful to most characters. DBS is great for Small characters but Small characters can't get RB, and making DBS versatile wouldn't hurt at all - you couldn't DW with it (since it's still a two-handed weapon, just versatile) but you could at least shield with it if needed. If we're talking pure damage, and RB is added in, then DBS is great, but that was never really the point; the point was that DBS is designed purely for raw damage and at endgame without RB it struggles to even do that.
I mentioned in an earlier post that I've seen a build done with DBS that is pretty much max damage a melee rogue can do (crossbow expert+sharpshooter might be more, have to do the math on this again) and is strong levels 1-20. It does require that you start valenar elf from WGtE, and take the RB feat right at level 4. Credit goes to treantmonk for this build, and if you search his name and double bladed scimitar on youtube the video where he outlines this build shows up. The fact that you need the feat and the you need to start valenar elf is limiting, but this weapon is supposed to be the specialty of those elves, and as davedamon said earlier in this thread, DBS is mostly a flavor weapon, it isn't supposed to compete with the OP stuff in every circumstance. but the build I will outline below is a way to build a valenar elf in a way that uses the DBS as an effective damage option throughout the game. here is the build on a DND beyond charactersheet that treantmonk made: https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/21522401/ygUJZd
ranger levels 1-20 (going scout, fits well flavor-wise) and wood valenar elf, point buy 10 str, 15dex (+2 racial), 14 con, 10 int, 13 wis (+1 racial), 10 cha
level 1-3 you will do you best damage by dual wielding 2 scimitars or short swords. you can flavor the 2 scims as a dbs if you like
at level 4 grab RB feat and boost dex to 18 and start using dbs
at level 8 boost dex to 20
the rest of the ASIs don't matter a lot, but sentinel gives you a chance to deal sneak attack twice in one round using the reaction attack so it is good to grab at level 10, elven accuracy at level 12 gives you the super advantage for better chance at sneak attack crits (boost wis +1), resilient con at level 16 rounds out your saving throws, and the last asi at level 19 to add another point into both wis and con to round out those scores.
he goes over the way the damage maps out against some other options in the video and I highly suggest you watch it. he also has a really good video on calculating average damage per round which might help you understand what everyone here was arguing about (called how to calculate average damage per round) but I will copy paste his answers for levels 5-17 using the DBS vs two scimitars vs rapier +booming blade
LVL DBS 2 Scims Rapier+booming blade
5 19.2 16.5 17.8
7 22.4 19.7 20.1
9 26.8 23.5 22.9
11 30.0 26.7 29.5
13 33.1 29.8 31.0
15 36.3 33.0 34.0
17 39.5 36.2 40.6
basically until booming blade scales at level 17, dbs is the way to go and even then it is only doing 1.1 damage less every round, and with scout, you get an ability to do sneak attack damage twice during your turn which you cannot do with booming blade (have to take the attack action, and BB counts as a cast a spell action) which actually swings things back into the DBS favor. so yeah, DBS can be good useful in very specific builds.
I concede that early game, DBS is fine and even outdoes other weapons, but I still believe that at endgame it's subpar. GWM lets you, potentially, do +10 extra damage twice on greatsword. And the math has already been done on 2LS vs non-RB DBS.
But my original point in the post, which seems to have been drowned out by all the damage calculation, is that other weapons are more dynamic and overall more useful to most characters. DBS is great for Small characters but Small characters can't get RB, and making DBS versatile wouldn't hurt at all - you couldn't DW with it (since it's still a two-handed weapon, just versatile) but you could at least shield with it if needed. If we're talking pure damage, and RB is added in, then DBS is great, but that was never really the point; the point was that DBS is designed purely for raw damage and at endgame without RB it struggles to even do that.
The Revenant Blade feat doesn't add any damage to the weapon. The math has already been done on 2 longswords vs. non-RB DBS; DBS is almost certainly better without fighting styles (longswords only win if your ability modifier is +1 or less), and they're dead even with fighting styles. And a DBS will give you slightly more damage on average on the first hit, so it's better than longswords if you want to use your bonus action for something else.
GWM is better than anything else for damage if you can comfortably take that -5 to your attack roll. As one of the very first comments in this thread mentioned, saying that "this weapon isn't as good as the very best set-up in the game" means that it "struggles" and is "subpar," when it's at worst as good as literally anything else is a little bit absurd, you have to admit.
I concede that early game, DBS is fine and even outdoes other weapons, but I still believe that at endgame it's subpar. GWM lets you, potentially, do +10 extra damage twice on greatsword. And the math has already been done on 2LS vs non-RB DBS.
But my original point in the post, which seems to have been drowned out by all the damage calculation, is that other weapons are more dynamic and overall more useful to most characters. DBS is great for Small characters but Small characters can't get RB, and making DBS versatile wouldn't hurt at all - you couldn't DW with it (since it's still a two-handed weapon, just versatile) but you could at least shield with it if needed. If we're talking pure damage, and RB is added in, then DBS is great, but that was never really the point; the point was that DBS is designed purely for raw damage and at endgame without RB it struggles to even do that.
Using your 50% hit example from earlier (and +5 ability mod, because why not), GWM brings greatsword damage up from 6 ((2d6+5)×50%) to 5.5 ((2d6+15)×25%). Actually, you need to be able to hit on a 9 or higher (60%) normally for the -5 to break even and that is only if you have no other means of increasing the damage of a hit. But you will have a fighting style and probably an extra attack by then and we will swap the 50% for 95% (2 or higher hits) which brings weighted average damage to 25.33 without GWM and 32.67 with GWM. Using same stats, DBS has a weighted average of 28.5. So yes, the second most damaging melee weapon, with the most damaging feat, in optimal conditions, without factoring other damage bonuses, does 4 more damage per a turn on average than DBS (all it takes is +3 or more damage per hit and DBS is dealing more damage, so barbarian, sword bard, martial clerics, battle master, paladin, ranger, or hexblade would be better off with DBS over greatsword).
You keep saying give DBS the versatile property. The versatile property increases the size of damage dice of a 1 handed weapon when wielded with 2 hands. That would make the DBS the same as dual wielding a Greatsword and Scimitar (2d6 attack, 1d6 bonus attack), that doesn't need the 2WFS to add modifier to BA attack, or have the heavy property, and be able to draw the weapon and make both attacks in 1 turn without a feat. Versatile would make DBS overpowered. It is already the strongest melee weapon in the game, it doesn't need a buff.
I don't know what your "designed purely for damage" comment even means. It is a weapon. The net is the only weapon designed to do something other than damage.
1. The Revenant Blade feat doesn't add any damage to the weapon.
2. The math has already been done on 2 longswords vs. non-RB DBS; DBS is almost certainly better without fighting styles (longswords only win if your ability modifier is +1 or less), and they're dead even with fighting styles. And a DBS will give you slightly more damage on average on the first hit, so it's better than longswords if you want to use your bonus action for something else.
3. GWM is better than anything else for damage if you can comfortably take that -5 to your attack roll. As one of the very first comments in this thread mentioned, saying that "this weapon isn't as good as the very best set-up in the game" means that it "struggles" and is "subpar," when it's at worst as good as literally anything else is a little bit absurd, you have to admit.
1. Yes, it does. It gives +1 STR/DEX, which means more damage on both hits.
2. Once again, I said that at endgame DBS can't contend, but at the beginning it can. Endgame = feats and styles.
3. It struggles to contend damage-wise in combat at endgame without RB, and it is not as useful as other weapons with equal or greater damage potential. 2LS has more options, and GS can get more damage, at endgame. DBS has excellent consistent damage with RB; but RB is racial.
1. The versatile property increases the size of damage dice of a 1 handed weapon when wielded with 2 hands. That would make the DBS the same as dual wielding a Greatsword and Scimitar (2d6 attack, 1d6 bonus attack), that doesn't need the 2WFS to add modifier to BA attack, or have the heavy property, and be able to draw the weapon and make both attacks in 1 turn without a feat. Versatile would make DBS overpowered. It is already the strongest melee weapon in the game, it doesn't need a buff.
2. I don't know what your "designed purely for damage" comment even means. It is a weapon. The net is the only weapon designed to do something other than damage.
1. The versatile property allows you to use a one-handed weapon as two-handed, or two-handed as one-handed. The damage it deals depends on the weapon description. It does not have to increase the damage of the weapon. Using DBS with one hand could be the same damage-wise as a scimitar - 1d6.
You cannot dual wield if DBS is in one hand. You can only dual wield with one-handed weapons. The PHB is clear on this. Even with the versatile property, wielding DBS with one hand, you cannot put a weapon in the other hand, because DBS is still a two-handed weapon, even if it's wielding in one hand. In fact, you can wield a two-handed weapon in one hand anyway, you just can't attack with it, unless it has the versatile property.
From the PHB:
"Versatile. This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property-the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack. "
Versatile does not turn a one-handed weapon into two-handed or vice versa.
2. You can have a weapon designed for damage and/or designed for utility. Weapons that can be used as monk weapons for instance have increased utility.
of DBS do 2d4 damage (not that it needs the extra d4 to do more damage than 2 weapons or greatsword, but when comparing how much better it is, use the full damage). Also, also, Revenant Blade can be taken by any elf, not just Valenar Elves.
[Edit]I could have sworn... I just read it... Did it used to? Whatever, my mistake.
The original version of this feat did, it was revised for E:RftLW
1. The versatile property allows you to use a one-handed weapon as two-handed, or two-handed as one-handed. The damage it deals depends on the weapon description. It does not have to increase the damage of the weapon. Using DBS with one hand could be the same damage-wise as a scimitar - 1d6.
You cannot dual wield if DBS is in one hand. You can only dual wield with one-handed weapons. The PHB is clear on this. Even with the versatile property, wielding DBS with one hand, you cannot put a weapon in the other hand, because DBS is still a two-handed weapon, even if it's wielding in one hand. In fact, you can wield a two-handed weapon in one hand anyway, you just can't attack with it, unless it has the versatile property.
There are no weapons - none at all - that have both the Two-handed AND Versatile properties. Versatile is given to one-handed weapons to allow them to be used with two hands. There are no cases of it being the other way around. Basically - there is no precedence for adding Versatile to the DBS.
There are no weapons - none at all - that have both the Two-handed AND Versatile properties. Versatile is given to one-handed weapons to allow them to be used with two hands. There are no cases of it being the other way around. Basically - there is no precedence for adding Versatile to the DBS.
I'm well aware that there's no precedent. But there's also nothing in the rules saying that a two-handed weapon can't be versatile. The ONLY definition of versatile is that it can be used with one or two hands, that's it. However, dual wielding requires one-handed weapons - that is, weapons with the one-handed property. You CAN have a two-handed property weapon with the versatile property, and that does not give it the one-handed property.
Basically you have a 2-8 two-handed weapon - yes, 2-8 - that also lets you consume your bonus action for 1-4 more damage but this is a separate attack roll since it counts as a separate attack. It's only Two-Handed and Special. Its feat can only be obtained if you're of a certain race.
There are no weapons - none at all - that have both the Two-handed AND Versatile properties. Versatile is given to one-handed weapons to allow them to be used with two hands. There are no cases of it being the other way around. Basically - there is no precedence for adding Versatile to the DBS.
I'm well aware that there's no precedent. But there's also nothing in the rules saying that a two-handed weapon can't be versatile. The ONLY definition of versatile is that it can be used with one or two hands, that's it. However, dual wielding requires one-handed weapons - that is, weapons with the one-handed property. You CAN have a two-handed property weapon with the versatile property, and that does not give it the one-handed property.
The Two-Handed property specifically states "This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it." While the Versatile property says "This weapon can be used with one or two hands." I would think the more concrete property of Two-Handed specifically disallowing attacking with less than 2 hands would overrule the choice given with the Versatile property. Not necessarily to say anyone is wrong for ruling otherwise, just wanted to give my two cents.
The anydice website is a good resource for exploring dice probabilities and averages (mean).
Davedamon's (low + high)/2 is a correct shortcut for figuring out what the average roll of a die is with an even number of sides.
1d4: 4 total possibilities: 1, 2, 3, 4. The average of a 1d4 is then (1+2+3+4)/4 = 10/4 = 2.5 on average
1d8: 8 total possibilities: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The average of a 1d4 is then (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8)/8 = 36/8 = 4.5 on average
If we write the numbers as low/high pairs working from the ends, you will see that each pair sums to the same value.
d4: 4 possibilities: 1,4 2,3 = (5 + 5) / 4
d6: 6 possibilities: 1,6 2,5 3,4 = (7 + 7 + 7) / 6
d8: 8 possibilities: 1,8 2,7 3,6 4,5 = (9 + 9 + 9 + 9) / 8
Each time we increase the die sides (by 2) it adds another pair of values to the sum of all possibilities while also increasing the divisor by 2.
Hopefully you can see the pattern emerging here.
When rolling multiple dice, the same holds true, since the value on each die is independent of any other die
2d4: 16 total possibilities
Die 1: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4
Die 2: 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4
Sum: 2, 3, 4, 5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6, 7, 5, 6, 7, 8
(2+3+4+5+3+4+5+6+4+5+6+7+5+6+7+8)/16 = 80/16 = 5.
Which is the same as if we took the single 1d4 average and multiplied by 2 for rolling 2d4 instead of 1d4.
There is another statistic called Standard Deviation that starts to come up once you have multiple dice. Basically, its how far from the average value you can expect something to be.
The deviation of 2d4 is 1.58, while 1d8 is 2.44
So rolling 2d4 vs 1d8, you will end up at the extremes more often with 1d8, while the 2d4 will be more consistently around 7.
Of course all of this is just covering damage values, but since with both the DBS and Longsword you are making two attacks, and those attacks will all have the same hit chance, hit chance can be ignored when comparing damage, or just factored in at the end
Just as an example (assuming a strength of 16)
main bonus = expected damage
LS: (4.5 + 3) + (4.5) = 12 expected damage
DBS: (5 + 3) + (2.5 + 3) = 13.5 expected damage
1.5 more damage for the DBS
main bonus = expected damage
LS: (4.5 + 3) * 0.6 + (4.5) * 0.6 = 7.2 expected damage
DBS: (5 + 3) * 0.6 + (2.5 + 3) * 0.6 = 8.1 expected damage
0.9 more damage for the DBS, the same as if we just multiplied the 1.5 damage difference from above by the 0.6 hit chance
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
Your premise is right, but your conclusion is wrong. Lets go through this 1 step at a time. (Sorry it is so long, calculating average damage 25% probabilities at a time is needlessly tedious).
We need a damage mod lets say 2.5 (14-17 STR stat average. Reasonable for level 1). And we will assume the enemy has 15 AC, with our +4.5 attack mod, 50% hit chance.
DBS makes 2 attacks. Attack A1 does 7.5 (2d4+2.5) damage, attack BA2 does 5 (1d4+2.5) damage. So 25% of the time only A1 will hit (7.5÷4=1.875), 25% of the time only BA2 will hit (5÷4=1.25), 25% of the time both A1 and BA2 will hit ((7.5+5)÷4=3.125), and 25% of the time both will miss. So the weighted average of all probabilities for DBS is 6.25 (1.875+1.25+3.125) using the method you require to be accurate. The method everyone else is using is to take the total damage (12.5 (3d4+5)) and then factor the hit chance (50%) which gives us 6.25 (12.5÷2), the same answer. Number of attacks doesn't matter to math if you take the average damage and the average hit chance.
Greatsword makes 1 attack for 9 (2d6+2.5) and will hit 50% of the time. Giving us a weighted average damage of 4.5 (9÷2).
6.25 is greater than 4.5. Double bladed Scimitar does more damage on average than greatsword. And that is not even factoring fighting styles, feats, or features/spells that add more damage per hit (like smite/rage/hex/Hunter's mark), all of which benefit DBS more than GS.
Also, everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that revenant blade makes the bonus action attack of DBS do 2d4 damage (not that it needs the extra d4 to do more damage than 2 weapons or greatsword, but when comparing how much better it is, use the full damage).Also, also, Revenant Blade can be taken by any elf, not just Valenar Elves.[Edit]I could have sworn... I just read it... Did it used to? Whatever, my mistake.
Where in Revenant Blade does it say it increases the bonus action to 2d4? Obviously I agree with the general point of your post, but I’m not seeing that part anywhere.
Lets also calculate great weapon fighting style. This lets you reroll 1s and 2s on damage and use the reroll.
So for 1d4, if the result is 3 or 4 we keep it and if it is 1 or 2 we reroll which can result in a 1, 2, 3, or 4. To find average, add all possibilities and divide by number of possibilities (including the average of each reroll): ((1+2+3+4)÷4+(1+2+3+4)÷4+3+4)÷4=3, and 2d4 is 6 plus 3 from BA. That is where I was getting the average damage for DBS when comparing fighting styles earlier.
Meanwhile greatsword with great weapon fighting style is ((1+2+3+4+5+6)÷6+(1+2+3+4+5+6)÷6+3+4+5+6)÷6=4.16~, so 2d6 is 8.3~.
And that doesn't even include the fact that DBS uses damage modifier twice.
I could have sworn it did... Well, I also said it didn't need it at least...
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorTo clarify, the original version of Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron did include a final bullet point in the Revenant Blade feat that increased the double-bladed scimitar's bonus-action attack from 1d4 damage back to 2d4 damage. That benefit was removed in the final version of the feat as it appeared in Eberron: Rising from the Last War and the final/updated version of Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron.
Thank god. I thought I was losing my mind. Not yet at least.
Well. I'm going to miss that feature. It helped set DBS apart from pole arm master.
Because the first and second attack are separate attack rolls.
You have a 25% chance of succeeding on both rolls, a 25% chance of succeeding on the first roll, 25% chance of succeeding on the second roll, and 25% chance of failing both.
On the other hand, for a straight 2d6, you have 50% chance of succeeding the one attack roll and 50% chance of failure.
When you do the bonus attack on DBS, or you do the second attack on DW, you do two attack rolls.
Firstly, you don't have a 50% chance of succeeding on the attack, the probability varies based on to hit modifier and AC. But that aside, say your modifier vs their AC did mean you had a 50% to hit chance on each attack.
You'd have a 50% chance on the first attack and a 50% chance on the second attack, yes, that does mean you have a 25% chance of hitting with both, but we don't care about hitting with both for calculating average damage. What we care about is how each hit probability affects the average damage.
A 50% chance to hit on 8 damage yields an average of 4 damage, and a 50% chance on 4 damage yields an average of 2 damage. You can work this out to see it's true:
Now, for a weapon that makes 1 attack doing 12 damage with a 50% chance
See, if multiple attacks have the same probability of hitting as one attack, you can sum the averages to work out total average.
This also shows that expectation value works; average damage is the damage per action multiplied by the probability to hit. Averages also combine this way, so you can multiple the average result on a die, which is (N+1)/2, by the probability to hit, to get the average dice factoring in chance to hit.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Yes, they’re separate attack rolls, and they’re completely independent of one another. The second attack doesn’t affect the first at all. If we’re talking greatswords, making a second attack on the next round doesn't magically make me miss more on this round.
This is correct, and you’ll notice that each attack hits 50% of the time (25% when they both hit and 25% when each hits alone, 0.25 + 0.25 = 0.5).
When you accused Dave of making a mistake, you were straight-up ignoring the case where both attacks hit. The actual math is (0.25 * (3.5 + 3.5)) + (0.25 * 3.5) + (0.25 * 3.5) + (0.25 * 0). Since multiplication is distributive that can be rearranged as follows:
0.25 * (3.5 + 3.5) + 0.25 * (3.5 + 3.5) + 0.25 * 0 (this zero term is just zero so we’ll ignore it from now on)
And since, again, multiplication is distributive, this in turn can be rearranged as:
(0.25 + 0.25) * (3.5 + 3.5), or 0.5 * (3.5 + 3.5)
which you’ll notice is exactly the same as the calculation for 2d6 on a single attack.
Lucky for you, I worked it out using your 25% method and showed that it didn't matter a mere 8 hours before you repeated your incorrect assertion.
I concede that early game, DBS is fine and even outdoes other weapons, but I still believe that at endgame it's subpar. GWM lets you, potentially, do +10 extra damage twice on greatsword. And the math has already been done on 2LS vs non-RB DBS.
But my original point in the post, which seems to have been drowned out by all the damage calculation, is that other weapons are more dynamic and overall more useful to most characters. DBS is great for Small characters but Small characters can't get RB, and making DBS versatile wouldn't hurt at all - you couldn't DW with it (since it's still a two-handed weapon, just versatile) but you could at least shield with it if needed. If we're talking pure damage, and RB is added in, then DBS is great, but that was never really the point; the point was that DBS is designed purely for raw damage and at endgame without RB it struggles to even do that.
I mentioned in an earlier post that I've seen a build done with DBS that is pretty much max damage a melee rogue can do (crossbow expert+sharpshooter might be more, have to do the math on this again) and is strong levels 1-20. It does require that you start valenar elf from WGtE, and take the RB feat right at level 4. Credit goes to treantmonk for this build, and if you search his name and double bladed scimitar on youtube the video where he outlines this build shows up. The fact that you need the feat and the you need to start valenar elf is limiting, but this weapon is supposed to be the specialty of those elves, and as davedamon said earlier in this thread, DBS is mostly a flavor weapon, it isn't supposed to compete with the OP stuff in every circumstance. but the build I will outline below is a way to build a valenar elf in a way that uses the DBS as an effective damage option throughout the game. here is the build on a DND beyond charactersheet that treantmonk made: https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/21522401/ygUJZd
ranger levels 1-20 (going scout, fits well flavor-wise) and wood valenar elf, point buy 10 str, 15dex (+2 racial), 14 con, 10 int, 13 wis (+1 racial), 10 cha
level 1-3 you will do you best damage by dual wielding 2 scimitars or short swords. you can flavor the 2 scims as a dbs if you like
at level 4 grab RB feat and boost dex to 18 and start using dbs
at level 8 boost dex to 20
the rest of the ASIs don't matter a lot, but sentinel gives you a chance to deal sneak attack twice in one round using the reaction attack so it is good to grab at level 10, elven accuracy at level 12 gives you the super advantage for better chance at sneak attack crits (boost wis +1), resilient con at level 16 rounds out your saving throws, and the last asi at level 19 to add another point into both wis and con to round out those scores.
he goes over the way the damage maps out against some other options in the video and I highly suggest you watch it. he also has a really good video on calculating average damage per round which might help you understand what everyone here was arguing about (called how to calculate average damage per round) but I will copy paste his answers for levels 5-17 using the DBS vs two scimitars vs rapier +booming blade
LVL DBS 2 Scims Rapier+booming blade
5 19.2 16.5 17.8
7 22.4 19.7 20.1
9 26.8 23.5 22.9
11 30.0 26.7 29.5
13 33.1 29.8 31.0
15 36.3 33.0 34.0
17 39.5 36.2 40.6
basically until booming blade scales at level 17, dbs is the way to go and even then it is only doing 1.1 damage less every round, and with scout, you get an ability to do sneak attack damage twice during your turn which you cannot do with booming blade (have to take the attack action, and BB counts as a cast a spell action) which actually swings things back into the DBS favor. so yeah, DBS can be good useful in very specific builds.
The Revenant Blade feat doesn't add any damage to the weapon. The math has already been done on 2 longswords vs. non-RB DBS; DBS is almost certainly better without fighting styles (longswords only win if your ability modifier is +1 or less), and they're dead even with fighting styles. And a DBS will give you slightly more damage on average on the first hit, so it's better than longswords if you want to use your bonus action for something else.
GWM is better than anything else for damage if you can comfortably take that -5 to your attack roll. As one of the very first comments in this thread mentioned, saying that "this weapon isn't as good as the very best set-up in the game" means that it "struggles" and is "subpar," when it's at worst as good as literally anything else is a little bit absurd, you have to admit.
Using your 50% hit example from earlier (and +5 ability mod, because why not), GWM brings greatsword damage up from 6 ((2d6+5)×50%) to 5.5 ((2d6+15)×25%). Actually, you need to be able to hit on a 9 or higher (60%) normally for the -5 to break even and that is only if you have no other means of increasing the damage of a hit. But you will have a fighting style and probably an extra attack by then and we will swap the 50% for 95% (2 or higher hits) which brings weighted average damage to 25.33 without GWM and 32.67 with GWM. Using same stats, DBS has a weighted average of 28.5. So yes, the second most damaging melee weapon, with the most damaging feat, in optimal conditions, without factoring other damage bonuses, does 4 more damage per a turn on average than DBS (all it takes is +3 or more damage per hit and DBS is dealing more damage, so barbarian, sword bard, martial clerics, battle master, paladin, ranger, or hexblade would be better off with DBS over greatsword).
You keep saying give DBS the versatile property. The versatile property increases the size of damage dice of a 1 handed weapon when wielded with 2 hands. That would make the DBS the same as dual wielding a Greatsword and Scimitar (2d6 attack, 1d6 bonus attack), that doesn't need the 2WFS to add modifier to BA attack, or have the heavy property, and be able to draw the weapon and make both attacks in 1 turn without a feat. Versatile would make DBS overpowered. It is already the strongest melee weapon in the game, it doesn't need a buff.
I don't know what your "designed purely for damage" comment even means. It is a weapon. The net is the only weapon designed to do something other than damage.
1. Yes, it does. It gives +1 STR/DEX, which means more damage on both hits.
2. Once again, I said that at endgame DBS can't contend, but at the beginning it can. Endgame = feats and styles.
3. It struggles to contend damage-wise in combat at endgame without RB, and it is not as useful as other weapons with equal or greater damage potential. 2LS has more options, and GS can get more damage, at endgame. DBS has excellent consistent damage with RB; but RB is racial.
1. The versatile property allows you to use a one-handed weapon as two-handed, or two-handed as one-handed. The damage it deals depends on the weapon description. It does not have to increase the damage of the weapon. Using DBS with one hand could be the same damage-wise as a scimitar - 1d6.
You cannot dual wield if DBS is in one hand. You can only dual wield with one-handed weapons. The PHB is clear on this. Even with the versatile property, wielding DBS with one hand, you cannot put a weapon in the other hand, because DBS is still a two-handed weapon, even if it's wielding in one hand. In fact, you can wield a two-handed weapon in one hand anyway, you just can't attack with it, unless it has the versatile property.
From the PHB:
"Versatile. This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property-the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack. "
Versatile does not turn a one-handed weapon into two-handed or vice versa.
2. You can have a weapon designed for damage and/or designed for utility. Weapons that can be used as monk weapons for instance have increased utility.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
AlumniThe original version of this feat did, it was revised for E:RftLW
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] - [ Homebrew Rules ] - [ D&D Beyond FAQ ] - [ Homebrew FAQ ] - [ Homebrew Video Tutorials ]
Standard "free" content is restricted to the D&D 5th Edition Basic Rules, SRD, and other free content.
There are no weapons - none at all - that have both the Two-handed AND Versatile properties. Versatile is given to one-handed weapons to allow them to be used with two hands. There are no cases of it being the other way around. Basically - there is no precedence for adding Versatile to the DBS.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I'm well aware that there's no precedent. But there's also nothing in the rules saying that a two-handed weapon can't be versatile. The ONLY definition of versatile is that it can be used with one or two hands, that's it. However, dual wielding requires one-handed weapons - that is, weapons with the one-handed property. You CAN have a two-handed property weapon with the versatile property, and that does not give it the one-handed property.
So what are your grand plans for the Greatclub?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The Two-Handed property specifically states "This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it." While the Versatile property says "This weapon can be used with one or two hands." I would think the more concrete property of Two-Handed specifically disallowing attacking with less than 2 hands would overrule the choice given with the Versatile property. Not necessarily to say anyone is wrong for ruling otherwise, just wanted to give my two cents.
Check out my latest homebrew: Mystic Knight (Fighter) v1.31