Just finished reading the new UA and noticed something odd about the new scaling given to shillelagg.

It now scales it's damage die with lvl to a d10 at 5th lvl, a d12 at 11th lvl and a 2d6 at 17th lvl

See to me going from a d12 to 2d6 is a downgrade

Let me explain why 2d6 is not strickly a upgrade over a d12

Because you roll 2 dice your results will look like a bell curve. Which bassically means you are much more likely to roll avarages and less likely to roll extremes. That includes the higher end of the extremes

For example the change to roll a 12 on a d12 is 1/12, the change to do that with 2d6 is 1/36. That's 3 times less likely! Rolling 10 or higher with a d12 is 25% chance and with 2d6 it's 5/36 or slightly less then 14%

And with DnD being a game where most monsters with 1 hp are just as dangerous as monsters with any other amount, the increased chance to roll higher burst damage feels better to me then the slightly more consistant 2d6.

I personally would always choose a d12 over 2d6 because of this. Now i can understand why some would prefer more concistant damage and i can respect that.

But in the end a d12 vs 2d6 or burst vs concistancy is a matter of preference and it feels really wrong to be forced out or into it cause of a mandatory "upgrade"

1d12 averages 6.5. 2d6 averages 7. It's an upgrade.

Avarages like that are to determine concistancy, not overall efectiveness

They are a horrible way to calculate effectiveness because they throw so many variables out of the window. Once you start looking even a little deeper they more often then not fall flat on their face

I already explained how much more likely you are able to roll the higher end of the damage range with a d12.

Take this scenario, a 16th level druid with 20 wisdom attacks a monster that has 15 hp left with a shill staff

With the +5 damage bonus they need to roll atleast 10 with their d12 to kill it, which means 3/12 or 25% of the time they will succeed.

Now suddenly that druid levels to 17th midswing. They still need to roll atleast a 10 on 2d6. That's 5/36 or ~14% they will succeed.

Why does the higher level druid suddenly have less chance to kill?

They are more likely to roll around 7 where the d12 can roll 1 but wether that monster has 3hp after the attack or 9hp rarely matters. Only by how much you overkill it next attack, if that attack even hits which wouldn't be a issue if you'd  just killed it in one hit.

I'm sorry, i know a lot of youtubers learn how to calculate avarages and think they are math experts but that's not how avarages work.

No other cantrip scalling has situations where you're less likely to kill what you are trying to kill

You're only looking at cases where rolling on the high end of the bell curve matters and ignoring the other side, which is equal in size.  What happens is the standard deviation of the curve gets lower and it shift right resulting in higher average rolls over time.   If you only look at one piece of the curve you can also make the case that the switch is an infinitely large upgrade because with 1d12 you have an 8.3% chance of rolling a 1 and not killing something but with 2d6 you have 0% chance.

You have that first sentence flipped.

Averages don't determine consistency -- that would be under the bell curve you mention. THey determine an average (and not a mean, which is a more effective measure). for damage in this case, so its used to determine overall effectiveness.

WHich is not to d=say I disagree with you regarding the statistical spread (variable of 1.3 versus no variable), however, I note that the likely reason is that the "standard dice set" doesn't include the expected die chain bump (a d14). If you put a d14 into that, suddenly the scaling is more uniform.

d14's are available, they just aren't found in most normal D&D dice sets, and as a result tend to be more expensive and slightly more onerous to acquire. Speaking as someone who has every even die from 4 to 30, I know this first hand, lol.

I will likely use a d14 in that slot. Rules wise, It should be a 2d6+2 roll, but they can't do that because the curve on it pushes the damage up and out over the average target, and creates too high a base damage, one would presume. 

Should be 2d8 anyway. It's double what the initial value is so it just makes sense and by level 17 who cares.

Regardless of 2d6 or 1d12 being preferable, I think most people can agree that its not a very exciting upgrade.

Quote from Quar1on >>

1d12 averages 6.5. 2d6 averages 7. It's an upgrade.

 
The minimum roll on 1d12 is a 1, the minimum on 2d6 is 2, that’s also an upgrade.

Quote from Kaynadin >>

You're only looking at cases where rolling on the high end of the bell curve matters and ignoring the other side, which is equal in size.  What happens is the standard deviation of the curve gets lower and it shift right resulting in higher average rolls over time.   If you only look at one piece of the curve you can also make the case that the switch is an infinitely large upgrade because with 1d12 you have an 8.3% chance of rolling a 1 and not killing something but with 2d6 you have 0% chance.

 a 8.3% chance to fail in the hyperspecific scenario where only a 1 screws vs 3 of the higher end of damage ranges being much more likely doesn't exactly measure up.

avarages are good for WoW bosses that have huge healthpools that you need to dwindle down over 10 minutes. In the action economy game that dnd is i feel it's better to have the higher chance of high damage per attack cause that leads to the highest chance of removing actions with minimal actions on your part. low rolling often doesn't matter that much. A monster with 1 hp or 7 hp highly likely is dying to the next attack regardless and is equally as dangerous

But that doesn't honestly matter. I'm not trying to convince people that the d12 is better then 2d6 cause that's mostly preference.
What i am saying is that it's not strictly better. Which is what cantrip scaling should be.

I gave a example earlier where you had more chance to kill something with the d12 then you could after the upgrade with the 2d6. There are zero situations where the additional d10 of a firebolt lessens your chance of a kill. Cantrip scaling should be strictly better. not only sometimes

I feel like it would be better to keep the d8 but add a +1/2/3 bonus to damage+hit with a clarification that it doesn't stack with preexisting bonuses . Would make it slightly more relevant at lvl 17 without the need of just having a +3 piece of wood lying around

Quote from KiallVunMyeret>>

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.

Quote from Quar1on >>

Quote from KiallVunMyeret>>

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.

Also not really sure why you are so salty about it. I have proven that the upgrade shill gets at lvl17 doesn't always make it better.

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.

Quote from KiallVunMyeret>>

Quote from Quar1on>>

Quote from KiallVunMyeret>>

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.

Let’s be honest the scaling is bad. It would have been better to just add a +1 to damage rolls at each upgrade. I would have just added 1d2 at every upgrade. So a 1d8+1d2 at 5th up to +3d2  at 17th then it always scales up without a doubt. 

Quote from Quar1on >>

 

Quote from KiallVunMyeret>>

Quote from Quar1on>>

Quote from KiallVunMyeret>>

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

d12 is better when you need to roll a 12 to kill, 2d6 is better when you need to roll a 7 to kill. It's also significantly better when you need to roll a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, and it's just as good at rolling 8s. There are just as many situations where a d12 makes you take 2 turns to kill a monster as there are situations where 2d6 does so. Your understanding of the math is selective.

Quote from Quar1on >>

1d12 averages 6.5. 2d6 averages 7. It's an upgrade.

Clear and concise. It can't be explained better.

Statistically it is always better to roll more dice. The only exception is with features like Brutal Critical, but that has already been solved in the barbarian revision.

The new scaling suffers from the same problem as the old scaling: it's a druid cantrip that (after tier 1) is only useful to non-druids.

Quote from KiallVunMyeret >>

...
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.

Quote from KiallVunMyeret >>

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

Actually that can also apply to your explanation that D12 is better, which statistically is not true by the way.

In any case, what is certain is that the average damage should be taken as a guide and not as a rule. For example, what is better, doing 5 more points of damage on average or applying a negative condition?

In this case, however, we are simply comparing damage. And there, the answer that Quar1on gave you is the correct one. The average damage of 2D6 is slightly higher than that of D12. It is not that it is a very exciting gain, but it certainly cannot be said to be a downgrade.

Anyway, what someone else said above is also true. Being a lvl17 upgrade, it should be 2D8.

d8 is a 4.5.

d10 is a 5.5.

d12 is a 6.5.

2d6 is a 7.

So there is a peak damage and then a drop off. Not uncommon in typical systems, although, as I noted, the normative progression would be a d14 for 7.5 -- that just isn't a "standard die", so won't be used (though in introducing a new edition, they could introduce new die types, but whatever).

it also shifts the damage spread out -- "light hits" are ore likely to be more damaging from a higher level person than a lower, but the catch comes in the maximum damage, which is no greater than the previous, and gives that heavy feel of reduced impact -- the drop off.

Query: Do any other spells have this kind of drop off at highest level?

That is, maximum damage stays the same, then minimal average bump, with double damage at base?

I can't think of any, so I am asking.