I feel like arguing over whether 2d6 or 1d12 is better or worse is kind of missing the forest for the trees. The issue is scaling by 1 point of average damage at level 17 isn't worth the ink used to print it. It's a DPT increase of like... 1-2% at that level. You probably won't feel the difference.
Yeah, the cantrip as a whole doesn't make much sense. It's not going to be good for a Druid past T1, but they can't make it too powerful for fear of other classes using it. I suppose just giving Druids the new true strike might be the answer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The core problem with shillelagh is that it can be boosted by abilities that boost weapon attacks, which means you can't make it good for druids without making it overpowered for a different class taking it as a feat or dip. By far the easiest way to resolve that is to make it not synergize with extra attack (add a "once per turn" restriction, for example) and then boost the base effect to something like a d8 per tier.
So you make one melee attack per turn, but that attack uses your spell mod and deals bonus damage based on cantrip scaling. . .. ...exactly the same as nuTrueStrike. Which everybody apparently hates.
So you make one melee attack per turn, but that attack uses your spell mod and deals bonus damage based on cantrip scaling. . .. ...exactly the same as nuTrueStrike. Which everybody apparently hates.
How's that work, again?
I don't hate true strike. Its only problem is that it's better than every other attack cantrip (unless you warlock dip), which is a fixable issue.
We really don't know though, do we. After all, until we see monster design, who is to say if resistance to Mutiple damage types is the norm. What if only force damage is reliable? We may need to wait until we see UA regarding monster stat blocks to know for sure.
... A monster with 1 hp or 7 hp highly likely is dying to the next attack regardless and is equally as dangerous ...
Unstated is the issue of what happens when your greataxe rolls low multiple times. Which it very much can.
Your attack rolls a 1, reduces the monster to 7 HP. Your next attack also rolls a 1, reduces the monster to 1 HP. Perfectly normal, if somewhat unlikely, with the greataxe. Impossible with 2d6, and even if the 1 isn't the only failure number, having edge cases where rolling low enough multiple times eats more total attacks is as commonas edge cases where maxing damage just so happens to remove an enemy early. 2d6 dramatically reduces the chances of multiple consecutive lowbie rolls.
IS 2d6 strictly better? No, and it's weird scaling. They don't really have any other option though, they wedged themselves in a corner with over-standardized weapon dice. So this is what we get if we want it to scale at all. Suppose as a DM I'd let the player choose to roll a d12 instead if they wanted, no harm to it, but eh.
Rolling 1's twice in a row with a d12 is a 1/144 or slightly more then 0.5%
Saying that there is a 0.5% chance the d12 is worse is not a convincing argument when i say there is a 11% higher chance it's significantly better.
Sorry but avarages don't work well to calculate damage when you are dealing with different die types. It's quite literally comparing apples to oranges.
It's not as simple as "this number is higher so it's certainly better"
The core problem with shillelagh is that it can be boosted by abilities that boost weapon attacks, which means you can't make it good for druids without making it overpowered for a different class taking it as a feat or dip. By far the easiest way to resolve that is to make it not synergize with extra attack (add a "once per turn" restriction, for example) and then boost the base effect to something like a d8 per tier.
Wouldn't that just make it a worse primal savagery?
Who actually thinks a d12 is better than 2d6... madness. With a d12 you can still get a 1! Which you can not with 2d6. This is to say, the majority of the time a 1d12 will likely do LESS damage than a 2d6. Additionally 2d6 is more consistent which makes it more reliable and predictable in turn.
Now is 1d12 to 2d6 a good upgrade? Probably not, it is lackluster 3d4 would have been better, in my opinion. I don't think anybody thinks 1d12 to 2d6 is great upgrade. But at 3d4, it raises other issues... would be more damage than any other weapon, so would need some other caveat, like only once per turn or something like that.
Rolling 1's twice in a row with a d12 is a 1/144 or slightly more then 0.5%
Saying that there is a 0.5% chance the d12 is worse is not a convincing argument when i say there is a 11% higher chance it's significantly better.
Sorry but avarages don't work well to calculate damage when you are dealing with different die types. It's quite literally comparing apples to oranges.
It's not as simple as "this number is higher so it's certainly better"
It isn't a 0.5% it's worse tho, since a 1 and a 2 is also worse and the chances of getting a double a double 2 (two 1s, twice) with 2d6 is significantly lower than your chance of getting a double 1 with a d12
With a D12, it's easy to figure out the chance of getting each number, it is 1/12 each or roughly 8.33%, that is an 8.33% chance to get a result so bad you can't even get it with 2d6. Now to get a 2 with a d12 is a 1 in 36 chance, or roughly 2.77% chance, the difference in the chances of getting a 2 is 5.55% higher with a D12. As for a 3, it is 2.77% higher to get a 3 with a d12 then a 2d6.
Basically, if you work it all out, and go over every number, you find out that the D12, is in fact a much MUCH inferior choice. Yes with a D12 you can hit the higher numbers more often but the probability is hitting a lower number more often, which makes the D12 just straight up worse. Mix this, with predictably, in most RNG systems, more consistent numbers are more predictable and thus usually more reliably, a D12 can hit any number equally, a 2D6 has a bias towards 7, meaning middling numbers are expected much more often.
If you run up to an Orc you know has 8 HP left with +3 strength/dexterity, your chances of not killing that orc with your 1d12 is on a 1 to 4 of which you have a 4/12 (or 1/3) chance of hitting while with the 2d6 it is a 2-4 of which you have a 6/36 chance of hitting (or 1/6), this is a difference of 1/3rd.
If you run up to an Orc you know has 12 HP left with +3 strength/+3 dexterity, you need a 9-12 to kill that orc which is the same 4/12 chance. Meanwhile for your 2d6 that is also a 9-12, which there is a 10/36 chance of hitting (or 5/18).
In the first example, you're 33.33% more likely to kill the orc with the 2d6, in the latter example you're only 5.55% more likely to kill the orc with the d12, this is because the average result of the 1d12 is just fundamentally lower.
And encase you wonder why I choose THESE numbers of 9-12, it is because the results of getting an 8+ is actually even, here is the table showing that:
Orc Health
roll needed
d12 chance to kill
2d6 chance to kill
difference
4
1
100.00%
100.00%
0.00%
5
2
91.67%
100.00%
-8.33%
6
3
83.33%
97.22%
-13.89%
7
4
75.00%
91.67%
-16.67%
8
5
66.67%
83.33%
-16.67%
9
6
58.33%
72.22%
-13.89%
10
7
50.00%
58.33%
-8.33%
11
8
41.67%
41.67%
0.00%
12
9
33.33%
27.78%
5.56%
13
10
25.00%
16.67%
8.33%
14
11
16.67%
8.33%
8.33%
15
12
8.33%
2.78%
5.56%
Total
-50.00%
As we can see, the chances of killing orcs are all these different health values definitely favours the 2d6.
Scaling is not bad as it is a potential damage improvement each upgrade level. And don't forget, with this you can be using a shield. That means you get plus 2 to AC as well as dealing two-handed weapon dice damage at level 5 and up. Don't forget about multi-classing or taking the magic initiate feet. That means you can have a warrior with a shield and plate mail doing greatsword/greataxe damage with a sword and board combo.
Cantrips are supposed to be a fallback option. So if you're using it at level17, you're either multi-classing, are you have burned all your spell slots.
Who actually thinks a d12 is better than 2d6... madness. With a d12 you can still get a 1! Which you can not with 2d6. This is to say, the majority of the time a 1d12 will likely do LESS damage than a 2d6. Additionally 2d6 is more consistent which makes it more reliable and predictable in turn.
Now is 1d12 to 2d6 a good upgrade? Probably not, it is lackluster 3d4 would have been better, in my opinion. I don't think anybody thinks 1d12 to 2d6 is great upgrade. But at 3d4, it raises other issues... would be more damage than any other weapon, so would need some other caveat, like only once per turn or something like that.
Neither is better
Both have situations where they are better. Overall they are pretty even
That so many people cling so hard to avarages where they think a half a point of avarage damage has any real meaning and don't bother to think more about the details is the real madness here
The damage should be d8s for scaling if it's going to be in line with booming blade and green flame blade and was only melee. It also works for range attacks so it should be a d6 so it doesn't out-scale the melee ones mentioned above. But yes, I like the new true strike as well.
Who actually thinks a d12 is better than 2d6... madness. With a d12 you can still get a 1! Which you can not with 2d6. This is to say, the majority of the time a 1d12 will likely do LESS damage than a 2d6. Additionally 2d6 is more consistent which makes it more reliable and predictable in turn.
Now is 1d12 to 2d6 a good upgrade? Probably not, it is lackluster 3d4 would have been better, in my opinion. I don't think anybody thinks 1d12 to 2d6 is great upgrade. But at 3d4, it raises other issues... would be more damage than any other weapon, so would need some other caveat, like only once per turn or something like that.
Neither is better
Both have situations where they are better. Overall they are pretty even
That so many people cling so hard to avarages where they think a half a point of avarage damage has any real meaning and don't bother to think more about the details is the real madness here
The madness is that you began your argument by trying to use math to prove your point. Once the 2nd grade math proved you wrong, you decided to move the goalposts and change the argument to something else. Just take the L and move on. If WotC wanted the same progression, they could have gone 3d4 and gotten a 7.5 average.
There are zero situations where the additional d10 of a firebolt lessens your chance of a kill.
This is false. If you're fighting an iron golem, then that extra d10 will increase the golem's health. If you're casting fire bolt against such a golem, it would be strictly better to be a lower level character. By your own logic, this is a travesty and should be remedied immediately.
0% to kill a iron golem with 4d10 fire bolt is not less then 0% to kill a iron golem with 3d10 firebolt. So no what i said isn't false. nice try though
Pulling out these hyperspecific scenarios in a desperate attempt to prove me wrong just convinces me more that i am right.
You get what I mean. The point was that, in a certain scenario, the "upgrade" to fire bolt is actually a downgrade, and yet you don't seem to take any issue with the upgrade in question despite it going against your ideal of upgrades being upgrades in every scenario.
Yes, it's hyperspecific. I use extreme examples with undeniable outcomes and conclusions that everyone can agree with, and then translate that agreement to less extreme examples by questioning where the difference is. In this case, I'm using the extreme example of fire bolt's upgrade being good despite not always being a strict improvement, which you've outright stated you agree to, and then I'm trying to translate that agreement to the less extreme example of 2d6 being better than 1d12 despite the few situations where 1d12 is superior. The point is this question: why is the one different from the other?
Rhetoric. It's not a desperate attempt to prove you wrong, it's a logical argument.
Don't you want it to change into something that is always better? The entire point of this whole thing is that we leave feedback so they can improve it. Why should i not bring up that the upgrade in certain situations is actually a downgrade.
Because there are more, just-as-likely circumstances where it's an upgrade, just like with fire bolt (though with fire bolt the point is much clearer). It's not a matter of personal preference, as you said, because just about everybody is going to run into a greater or equal number of situations where they need to roll a 7 on the dice compared to the number of situations where they need to roll a 12 on the dice. In a few, specific instances, it is technically worse, but over the course of a campaign it will always simply be better. Just like with fire bolt's upgrade.
The problem with your extreme example is that it's quite... extreme. You have to bring out a single monster out of the what? ... 2000+ we have now? While my criteria is highest chance to do high damage per blow... That isn't exactly specific. Most people would want that i think.
I disagree with 2d6 over the campaign being better then 1d12. That 0.5 difference in avarage damage just doesn't compare to be able to hit hard more often. DnD is all about action economy and having a higher chance to do high damage means a higher chance to remove enemy actions with as little actions on your part. Having a chance to take someone out in one blow is imo better then a certainty to take them out in 2
Most people just lean into avarages cause they heard about it, it's easy to calculate and they never bothered to actually put thought into it if it actually really represents how effective certain things are. They are a guideline, not a rule
On a side note I don't actually like that iron golem thing. But nothing i say can change that. Shill is still open to change
the thing is you don't actually have a higher chance to do more damage.
you also have the false idea that you are more likely to kill things faster with d12s, thats not true unless something has hp a lot closer to the maximum damage you can do per turn, and that becomes less likely the higher the enemy HP is.
lets say you have 4 rounds of 2 attacks, since the average fight lasts 4 rounds. and you have a spell casting mod of 4.
if you needed to contribute anything less than 96hp in 4 rounds to kill it, 2d6 is more likely to kill it
if you needed to contribute anything between. 97 and 106, (after which the both have a less than 1/200 chance of killing in 4 rounds)
its way more likely that the damage you need to do to kill the enemy will fall into the 96 or lower situation, than the 97-106 situation.
Also, the whole premise is weird, because you don't really get to pick what stats any weapon gets. A greatsword is 2d6, a greataxe is d12. its the nature of the weapon. They are essentially saying the way the magic works shillegah makes your wood more like a maul than a greataxe, There doesnt actually need to be a reason.
Who actually thinks a d12 is better than 2d6... madness. With a d12 you can still get a 1! Which you can not with 2d6. This is to say, the majority of the time a 1d12 will likely do LESS damage than a 2d6. Additionally 2d6 is more consistent which makes it more reliable and predictable in turn.
Now is 1d12 to 2d6 a good upgrade? Probably not, it is lackluster 3d4 would have been better, in my opinion. I don't think anybody thinks 1d12 to 2d6 is great upgrade. But at 3d4, it raises other issues... would be more damage than any other weapon, so would need some other caveat, like only once per turn or something like that.
Neither is better
Both have situations where they are better. Overall they are pretty even
That so many people cling so hard to avarages where they think a half a point of avarage damage has any real meaning and don't bother to think more about the details is the real madness here
mathematically they are not pretty even, even by your standard. in terms of rounds to kill 2d6+4 will kill the monster faster for a higher % of monster HP. the amount of cases where the enemy HP is in the sweetspot for d12s is noticeably rarer.
Who actually thinks a d12 is better than 2d6... madness. With a d12 you can still get a 1! Which you can not with 2d6. This is to say, the majority of the time a 1d12 will likely do LESS damage than a 2d6. Additionally 2d6 is more consistent which makes it more reliable and predictable in turn.
Now is 1d12 to 2d6 a good upgrade? Probably not, it is lackluster 3d4 would have been better, in my opinion. I don't think anybody thinks 1d12 to 2d6 is great upgrade. But at 3d4, it raises other issues... would be more damage than any other weapon, so would need some other caveat, like only once per turn or something like that.
Neither is better
Both have situations where they are better. Overall they are pretty even
That so many people cling so hard to avarages where they think a half a point of avarage damage has any real meaning and don't bother to think more about the details is the real madness here
Ugh, how stubborn.
A lot of people have already explained it to you, but anyway, let's try it one more time. 2D6 is better than 1D12 because throughout the day you will get statistically greater results.
I'm going to put it like this: Rolling a 2 on the dice is 2.77% Rolling a 3 on the dice is 5.54% Rolling a 4 on the dice is 8.31% Rolling a 5 on the dice is 11.11% Rolling a 6 on the dice is 13.88% Rolling a 7 on the dice is 16.66% Rolling an 8 on the dice is 13.88% Rolling a 9 on the dice is 11.11% Rolling a 10 on the dice is 8.31% Rolling an 11 on the dice is 5.54% Rolling a 12 on dice is 2.77%
Rolling more than 2 on 2d6 is 97.23% Rolling more than 3 on 2d6 is 91.69% Rolling more than 4 on 2d6 is 83.38% Rolling more than 5 on 2d6 is 72.27% Rolling more than 6 on 2d6 is 58.39% Rolling more than 7 on 2d6 is 41.73% Rolling more than 8 on 2d6 is 27.85% Rolling more than 9 on 2d6 is 16.74% Rolling more than 10 on 2d6 is 8.43% Rolling more than 11 on 2d6 is 2.77%
(And vice versa the percentages of getting less, obviously)
On the other hand, rolling any result on a 1d12 is 8.33%.
Rolling more than 1 on 1d12 is 91.66% Rolling more than 2 in 1d12 is 83.33% Rolling more than 3 on 1d12 is 75% Rolling more than 4 on 1d12 is 66.66% Rolling more than 5 on 1d12 is 58.33% Rolling more than 6 on 1d12 is 50% Rolling more than 7 on 1d12 is 41.66% Rolling more than 8 on 1d12 is 33.33% Rolling more than 9 on 1d12 is 25% Rolling more than 10 on 1d12 is 16.66% Rolling more than 11 on 1d12 is 8.33%
You see it? The odds of rolling a low number on 1d12 are higher than rolling it on 2d6. But also, the odds of rolling an average result (say, between 4 and 8) are significantly better on 2d6. Only the statistical hope of rolling a result of 9 or more is superior on 1d12.
Who actually thinks a d12 is better than 2d6... madness. With a d12 you can still get a 1! Which you can not with 2d6. This is to say, the majority of the time a 1d12 will likely do LESS damage than a 2d6. Additionally 2d6 is more consistent which makes it more reliable and predictable in turn.
Now is 1d12 to 2d6 a good upgrade? Probably not, it is lackluster 3d4 would have been better, in my opinion. I don't think anybody thinks 1d12 to 2d6 is great upgrade. But at 3d4, it raises other issues... would be more damage than any other weapon, so would need some other caveat, like only once per turn or something like that.
Neither is better
Both have situations where they are better. Overall they are pretty even
That so many people cling so hard to avarages where they think a half a point of avarage damage has any real meaning and don't bother to think more about the details is the real madness here
I edited in the below table earlier, but just reposting it for the sake of being clear
Orc Health
roll needed
d12 chance to kill
2d6 chance to kill
difference
4
1
100.00%
100.00%
0.00%
5
2
91.67%
100.00%
-8.33%
6
3
83.33%
97.22%
-13.89%
7
4
75.00%
91.67%
-16.67%
8
5
66.67%
83.33%
-16.67%
9
6
58.33%
72.22%
-13.89%
10
7
50.00%
58.33%
-8.33%
11
8
41.67%
41.67%
0.00%
12
9
33.33%
27.78%
5.56%
13
10
25.00%
16.67%
8.33%
14
11
16.67%
8.33%
8.33%
15
12
8.33%
2.78%
5.56%
Total
-50.00%
It shows that 2d6 in these scenarios gets more final(/killing) blows than 1d12
But even this is only arguing against a weak point because this is only going for the final blow, anything but the final blow, the highest average DPR is always best and the average DPR of 2d6 is 7 while the average DPR for 1d12 is 6.5, these two numbers already have 2d6 doing better, the rest is an edge case scenario where the dice roll is the deciding factor on if the target lives or dies and the 2d6 still kills more often overall.
You are, Empirically incorrect, it is beyond any reasonable logic. These aren't by the way, hard numbers to get, all I did was use openoffice calc, went down one column doing "=sum(12/12)", "=sum(11/12)", "=sum(10/12)" for greataxe, while doing "=sum(36/36)", "=sum(35/36)", "=sum(33/36)", etc based on number of possible results that meet the target. Of course I used a bit of copy and pasting to save time and I was able to put this together in about 5 to 10 minutes.... the maths here is that simple.
Arguing that an edge case of an edge case some how means these are equal is just wrong, one of these choices does more damage (2d6) than the other (1d12) and that same choice (2d6) gets more kills overall than the other (1d12).
How do you all know that math works the same way in these fantasy worlds as it does on Earth, in reality?
Before you respond "because math works the same way everywhere", I remind you that this is fantasy, not reality, and even that rule is subject to change.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
How do you all know that math works the same way in these fantasy worlds as it does on Earth, in reality?
Before you respond "because math works the same way everywhere", I remind you that this is fantasy, not reality, and even that rule is subject to change.
Does a merchant who has no magic in the fantasy world, sell one apple and then sell another apple, sell two apples or not? Obviously the maths is the same, however the maths going on is meta to the game, the rolling of dice doesn't even occur in the fantasy world, it happens in the real world to determine what occurs in said fantasy world, so overall this is a pointless debate. The player rolls the dice to determine the result that is then reflected in the fantasy.
I feel like arguing over whether 2d6 or 1d12 is better or worse is kind of missing the forest for the trees. The issue is scaling by 1 point of average damage at level 17 isn't worth the ink used to print it. It's a DPT increase of like... 1-2% at that level. You probably won't feel the difference.
Yeah, the cantrip as a whole doesn't make much sense. It's not going to be good for a Druid past T1, but they can't make it too powerful for fear of other classes using it. I suppose just giving Druids the new true strike might be the answer.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The core problem with shillelagh is that it can be boosted by abilities that boost weapon attacks, which means you can't make it good for druids without making it overpowered for a different class taking it as a feat or dip. By far the easiest way to resolve that is to make it not synergize with extra attack (add a "once per turn" restriction, for example) and then boost the base effect to something like a d8 per tier.
So you make one melee attack per turn, but that attack uses your spell mod and deals bonus damage based on cantrip scaling.
.
..
...exactly the same as nuTrueStrike. Which everybody apparently hates.
How's that work, again?
Please do not contact or message me.
I like True Strike.
I don't hate true strike. Its only problem is that it's better than every other attack cantrip (unless you warlock dip), which is a fixable issue.
We really don't know though, do we. After all, until we see monster design, who is to say if resistance to Mutiple damage types is the norm. What if only force damage is reliable? We may need to wait until we see UA regarding monster stat blocks to know for sure.
Rolling 1's twice in a row with a d12 is a 1/144 or slightly more then 0.5%
Saying that there is a 0.5% chance the d12 is worse is not a convincing argument when i say there is a 11% higher chance it's significantly better.
Sorry but avarages don't work well to calculate damage when you are dealing with different die types. It's quite literally comparing apples to oranges.
It's not as simple as "this number is higher so it's certainly better"
Wouldn't that just make it a worse primal savagery?
Who actually thinks a d12 is better than 2d6... madness. With a d12 you can still get a 1! Which you can not with 2d6. This is to say, the majority of the time a 1d12 will likely do LESS damage than a 2d6. Additionally 2d6 is more consistent which makes it more reliable and predictable in turn.
Now is 1d12 to 2d6 a good upgrade? Probably not, it is lackluster 3d4 would have been better, in my opinion. I don't think anybody thinks 1d12 to 2d6 is great upgrade. But at 3d4, it raises other issues... would be more damage than any other weapon, so would need some other caveat, like only once per turn or something like that.
EDIT:
It isn't a 0.5% it's worse tho, since a 1 and a 2 is also worse and the chances of getting a double a double 2 (two 1s, twice) with 2d6 is significantly lower than your chance of getting a double 1 with a d12
With a D12, it's easy to figure out the chance of getting each number, it is 1/12 each or roughly 8.33%, that is an 8.33% chance to get a result so bad you can't even get it with 2d6. Now to get a 2 with a d12 is a 1 in 36 chance, or roughly 2.77% chance, the difference in the chances of getting a 2 is 5.55% higher with a D12. As for a 3, it is 2.77% higher to get a 3 with a d12 then a 2d6.
Basically, if you work it all out, and go over every number, you find out that the D12, is in fact a much MUCH inferior choice. Yes with a D12 you can hit the higher numbers more often but the probability is hitting a lower number more often, which makes the D12 just straight up worse. Mix this, with predictably, in most RNG systems, more consistent numbers are more predictable and thus usually more reliably, a D12 can hit any number equally, a 2D6 has a bias towards 7, meaning middling numbers are expected much more often.
If you run up to an Orc you know has 8 HP left with +3 strength/dexterity, your chances of not killing that orc with your 1d12 is on a 1 to 4 of which you have a 4/12 (or 1/3) chance of hitting while with the 2d6 it is a 2-4 of which you have a 6/36 chance of hitting (or 1/6), this is a difference of 1/3rd.
If you run up to an Orc you know has 12 HP left with +3 strength/+3 dexterity, you need a 9-12 to kill that orc which is the same 4/12 chance. Meanwhile for your 2d6 that is also a 9-12, which there is a 10/36 chance of hitting (or 5/18).
In the first example, you're 33.33% more likely to kill the orc with the 2d6, in the latter example you're only 5.55% more likely to kill the orc with the d12, this is because the average result of the 1d12 is just fundamentally lower.
And encase you wonder why I choose THESE numbers of 9-12, it is because the results of getting an 8+ is actually even, here is the table showing that:
As we can see, the chances of killing orcs are all these different health values definitely favours the 2d6.
Scaling is not bad as it is a potential damage improvement each upgrade level. And don't forget, with this you can be using a shield. That means you get plus 2 to AC as well as dealing two-handed weapon dice damage at level 5 and up. Don't forget about multi-classing or taking the magic initiate feet. That means you can have a warrior with a shield and plate mail doing greatsword/greataxe damage with a sword and board combo.
Cantrips are supposed to be a fallback option. So if you're using it at level17, you're either multi-classing, are you have burned all your spell slots.
You can find my published homebrew Spells here.
Neither is better
Both have situations where they are better. Overall they are pretty even
That so many people cling so hard to avarages where they think a half a point of avarage damage has any real meaning and don't bother to think more about the details is the real madness here
The damage should be d8s for scaling if it's going to be in line with booming blade and green flame blade and was only melee. It also works for range attacks so it should be a d6 so it doesn't out-scale the melee ones mentioned above. But yes, I like the new true strike as well.
You can find my published homebrew Spells here.
The madness is that you began your argument by trying to use math to prove your point. Once the 2nd grade math proved you wrong, you decided to move the goalposts and change the argument to something else. Just take the L and move on. If WotC wanted the same progression, they could have gone 3d4 and gotten a 7.5 average.
the thing is you don't actually have a higher chance to do more damage.
you also have the false idea that you are more likely to kill things faster with d12s, thats not true unless something has hp a lot closer to the maximum damage you can do per turn, and that becomes less likely the higher the enemy HP is.
lets say you have 4 rounds of 2 attacks, since the average fight lasts 4 rounds. and you have a spell casting mod of 4.
if you needed to contribute anything less than 96hp in 4 rounds to kill it, 2d6 is more likely to kill it
if you needed to contribute anything between. 97 and 106, (after which the both have a less than 1/200 chance of killing in 4 rounds)
its way more likely that the damage you need to do to kill the enemy will fall into the 96 or lower situation, than the 97-106 situation.
Also, the whole premise is weird, because you don't really get to pick what stats any weapon gets. A greatsword is 2d6, a greataxe is d12. its the nature of the weapon. They are essentially saying the way the magic works shillegah makes your wood more like a maul than a greataxe, There doesnt actually need to be a reason.
mathematically they are not pretty even, even by your standard. in terms of rounds to kill 2d6+4 will kill the monster faster for a higher % of monster HP. the amount of cases where the enemy HP is in the sweetspot for d12s is noticeably rarer.
Ugh, how stubborn.
A lot of people have already explained it to you, but anyway, let's try it one more time. 2D6 is better than 1D12 because throughout the day you will get statistically greater results.
I'm going to put it like this:
Rolling a 2 on the dice is 2.77%
Rolling a 3 on the dice is 5.54%
Rolling a 4 on the dice is 8.31%
Rolling a 5 on the dice is 11.11%
Rolling a 6 on the dice is 13.88%
Rolling a 7 on the dice is 16.66%
Rolling an 8 on the dice is 13.88%
Rolling a 9 on the dice is 11.11%
Rolling a 10 on the dice is 8.31%
Rolling an 11 on the dice is 5.54%
Rolling a 12 on dice is 2.77%
Rolling more than 2 on 2d6 is 97.23%
Rolling more than 3 on 2d6 is 91.69%
Rolling more than 4 on 2d6 is 83.38%
Rolling more than 5 on 2d6 is 72.27%
Rolling more than 6 on 2d6 is 58.39%
Rolling more than 7 on 2d6 is 41.73%
Rolling more than 8 on 2d6 is 27.85%
Rolling more than 9 on 2d6 is 16.74%
Rolling more than 10 on 2d6 is 8.43%
Rolling more than 11 on 2d6 is 2.77%
(And vice versa the percentages of getting less, obviously)
On the other hand, rolling any result on a 1d12 is 8.33%.
Rolling more than 1 on 1d12 is 91.66%
Rolling more than 2 in 1d12 is 83.33%
Rolling more than 3 on 1d12 is 75%
Rolling more than 4 on 1d12 is 66.66%
Rolling more than 5 on 1d12 is 58.33%
Rolling more than 6 on 1d12 is 50%
Rolling more than 7 on 1d12 is 41.66%
Rolling more than 8 on 1d12 is 33.33%
Rolling more than 9 on 1d12 is 25%
Rolling more than 10 on 1d12 is 16.66%
Rolling more than 11 on 1d12 is 8.33%
You see it? The odds of rolling a low number on 1d12 are higher than rolling it on 2d6. But also, the odds of rolling an average result (say, between 4 and 8) are significantly better on 2d6. Only the statistical hope of rolling a result of 9 or more is superior on 1d12.
I edited in the below table earlier, but just reposting it for the sake of being clear
It shows that 2d6 in these scenarios gets more final(/killing) blows than 1d12
But even this is only arguing against a weak point because this is only going for the final blow, anything but the final blow, the highest average DPR is always best and the average DPR of 2d6 is 7 while the average DPR for 1d12 is 6.5, these two numbers already have 2d6 doing better, the rest is an edge case scenario where the dice roll is the deciding factor on if the target lives or dies and the 2d6 still kills more often overall.
You are, Empirically incorrect, it is beyond any reasonable logic. These aren't by the way, hard numbers to get, all I did was use openoffice calc, went down one column doing "=sum(12/12)", "=sum(11/12)", "=sum(10/12)" for greataxe, while doing "=sum(36/36)", "=sum(35/36)", "=sum(33/36)", etc based on number of possible results that meet the target. Of course I used a bit of copy and pasting to save time and I was able to put this together in about 5 to 10 minutes.... the maths here is that simple.
Arguing that an edge case of an edge case some how means these are equal is just wrong, one of these choices does more damage (2d6) than the other (1d12) and that same choice (2d6) gets more kills overall than the other (1d12).
So, just curious...
How do you all know that math works the same way in these fantasy worlds as it does on Earth, in reality?
Before you respond "because math works the same way everywhere", I remind you that this is fantasy, not reality, and even that rule is subject to change.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Does a merchant who has no magic in the fantasy world, sell one apple and then sell another apple, sell two apples or not? Obviously the maths is the same, however the maths going on is meta to the game, the rolling of dice doesn't even occur in the fantasy world, it happens in the real world to determine what occurs in said fantasy world, so overall this is a pointless debate. The player rolls the dice to determine the result that is then reflected in the fantasy.