It works better on a Greataxe which means you get 3d12 which is 19.5 damage on average while the greatsword would give you 17.5 damage on average.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asmodeus often tells me that I am wasting my time with you mortals. He does not see the fun we can find with such pitiful ones. It seems that my time in the Nine Hells has done me well. Once a mortal myself, lich-dom gets boring quickly and one does run out of souls. Oh well, while the Demon Princes are gone, I thought I might just rummage about on their Abyss and have myself a little snack alongside some amusement. Now, where was I? Oh yes, designing more tools for your demise. TTFN.
Understood, but the crux of the question really had to do with the 2d6 of the great sword and the Savage Attacks only allowing you to roll an additional damage die, not all the damage dice a third time. I get it though, it's a balance thing and you are penalized for having a minimum damage of 2 on the dice vs. a 1 on a d12.
What is is logic behind just one die? A dagger 1d4 gives a ave damage of 2.5. A two handed sword 2d6 gives an ave of 7. I would think a savage critical with a two handed sword is much more savage than a dagger. So why only 3.5 (1d6 ave vs 2.5) with a dagger? The half orc should get the full weapon die for a crit on two handed sword or maul. And why would a great axe give more (7.5 ave for 1d12)? Give the half orc the full weapon damage for savage. All the 2dx means is the average damage happens more often (bell curve)...
I think it's a way of directing the half-orc toward the weapons with the larger damage die, particularly if they are also barbarians that get brutal critical. The overall damage isn't going to be that significant that going 2d6 over 1d12 or vice versa will gimp you long run. These traits plus the fighter extended critical range really favor the 1d12 with bigger numbers (offset by smaller numbers), while great weapon fighting style favors the 2d6 for even more consistently high damage.
I understand. But how is a maul not a cool half orc weapon. I think this interpretation is not at all logical, and should just be the additional weapon damage. It doesn't make sense any other way. Why should the half orc savage rule gimp particular weapons so that a savage dagger crit is about the same as a maul? Nonsense and not well thought out. It doesn't work this way with the Fighter ability, shouldn't work this way with the Savage ability. A two handed weapon with a Savage crit gives ONE additional damage than a dagger?? Really? I guess D&D wants a bunch of dual wielding short sword half orcs by this logic... Silly. That is if they hadn't gimped dual wield so severely.
I don't think that having the savage attacks makes the maul not a cool half-orc weapon. He's still dealing a lot of damage all of the time and needs to either specialize in criticals or be so enamored with the really big rolls to make the d12 be the obvious better choice. If you want that flat damage, go great weapon master, tack on great weapon fighting, and enjoy smashing things. Find something to do with the bonus action to bump it up even more. Or you can try your hand at dual wielding daggers and try your luck to get that 6d4 savage attack critical off the 0.25% chance to roll a 20 on two attack rolls (all the way up to1% with 19-20 critical range!). Upgrade to handaxes and you're up to the 6d6 you want. Or talk your DM into giving the 2d6 for the savage attacks. You have options available to you. If you don't like the way that the rules are setup, WotC is hiring right now (just not in my field). You can help them realize why it's illogical that an orc can do more damage with a great axe than a maul if the conditions are right.
Savage added ONE. ONE point more on average with a maul! 2.5 vs 3.5.
If greataxe is the historic choice for orcs, give half orcs +1 attack using greataxes. Or give them +1 damage when using a greataxe? Why the weird ruling for Savage? I don't recall a historic reason for burst damage. I don't really care, but the rule seems not logical. A Savage greataxe over a dagger is 4 ave "burst" damage and a maul is 1. I guess that's a historic axe advantage.. I guess there's some historic reason they are way more savage with a lance as well. Don't remember reading that.
Greataxe in example above added 6.5 for Savage. As for your average per hit, 7 for maul, 6.5 for greataxe. So please explain why Savage for maul should gimped because its ave damage is slightly more than greataxe? Why does that make sense to you??
If you want to use a "maul" with the stats of a greataxe (or vice versa), and your DM approves, go ahead. That's your group's choice.
If you want to swing around a huge tree trunk with 18d12 damage, **ck it, you do you.
If you want a weapon that has the highest possible sustained damage AND the highest possible critical damage by RAW, it ain't gonna happen.
A feature that gives you extra damage on ALL of your critical hits, with ALL weapons, that is exclusive to your race, is in no way gimped. By the very definition of the word itself, it literally cannot be "gimped". It is providing you a benefit. It is not a benefit available to everyone. There is no downside. There is no outrage.
Just ask your DM if they'll allow what you want. If they will, cool, problem solved for you. If they won't, them's the breaks, kid.