Its betted to do2d6 of dmg or 1d12?

The only reason 1d12 would be better is in 5e with a barbarian.

See? Only terrible people use 1d12 instead!

No, seriously, how is this a fucking question? Did you not take a single basic maths course in your life? How old are you? Are you still in school and just haven't learned about probability yet? Are you just a total fucking retard?

What's the point here? Are you expecting people to argue about mathematical facts?

How is this a fucking question?

2D6 has a higher minimum value, of 2 instead of 1

It also has a higher expectation value, of 7 instead of 6.5

However, it's also worth noting that 2d6 is pseudo normal and therefore the result will have central tendency. The chances of getting a result of 9 or greater for 2d6 are less than that of 1d12 (27.777% vs 33.333%). But the same is true for getting a result of 4 or less.

Despite the lower probability of getting maximal damage, I still prefer it, because getting middling damage instead of low damage is better than getting high damage over middling damage.

He's actually right. The odds of rolling 11 or greater with a single d12 are 16.66%. With 2d6, it's only 8.33%

There are reasons why you might prefer 1d12.

If you need to reliably hit the higher end of your damage spectrum (for example, against an opponent who is protected against low damage attacks) you'd be better off with the 1d12.

Napkin math tells me that an opponent with 8 or greater soak would be better fought with the d12.

>it's way more likely to roll an 11 with two dice
It's actually less likely, by about half.

Calm your triggers, tumblr. How can you get so offended by that?

Fair enough. I'm too lazy to actually do the math right now, but I'm pretty sure having enough static damage (equal to or greater than 7 less than whatever the soak is, I think?) would swing things back in favor of the 2d6. Of course, the original question made no mention of static damage, so your point stands.

1d12 because it's more likely that I'll roll high and the chunky dice feels awesome.

2d6 has 2/35 chance of rolling 11 (5.7%)
1d12 has 1/12 for everything (8.33...)
Here's a chart. Percentages come up weird because rounding.

1+1 = 2 (no shit) (2.9% chance of occurring)
1+2, 2+1 = 3 (5.7%)
1+3, 2+2, 3+1 = 4 (8.6%)
1+4, 2+3, 3+2, 4+1 = 5 (11.4%)
1+5, 2+4, 3+3, 4+2, 5+1 = 6 (14.3%)
1+6, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 5+2, 6+1 = 7 (17.1%)
2+6, 3+5, 4+4, 5+3, 6+2 = 8 (14.3%)
3+6, 4+5, 5+4, 6+3 = 9 (11.4%)
4+6, 5+5, 6+4 = 10 (8.6%)
5+6, 6+5 = 11 (5.7%)
6+6 = 12 (2.9%)

And now you know.

Lets see how often results happen
2 = 1,1
3 = 1,2 2,1
4 = 1,3 2,2 3,1
5 = 1,4 2,3 3,2 4,1
6 = 1,5 2,4 3,3 4,2 5,1
7 = 1,6 2,5 3,4 4,3 5,2 6,1
8 = 2,6 3,5 4,4 5,3 6,2
9 = 3,6 4,5 5,4 6,3
10 = 4,6 5,5 6,4
11 = 5,6 6,5
12 = 6,6

so to get 8+ is a 15 out of 36 chance or 41.7%
While getting an 8+ on a 1d12 is a 5 out of 12 chance or 41.7%

wow, it's nothing.

It's nothing if you want an opportunity to do at least 8 damage, but the chance of rolling exactly 12 is higher on a d12 than it is on a 2d6. The chance of rolling exactly 2 is also higher, so it's swingier.
Take the d12 if you want to risk low damage and high damage more often, take the 2d6 if you want to be consistently average.

This seems like a good thread to ask.
Generally, is it better to add +1 to your crit range or +1 to your crit multiplier?

9+ is 10/36, or 27.8% on 2d6.
9+ is 4/12, or 33.3% on d12.
d12 just gets better from there.
I guess he meant 8 is the cutoff for d12 being on par, rather than it being better?

On a d20 roll? I'd take the range increase over the multiplier, unless my range was already obscene (Like 15+).

Critical range, so as to improve effects that trigger on a critical, and so as to avoid the issue of wasted overkill.

If I remember correctly from some mathiness I saw ages ago, it depends on how much damage you're doing. Range is better with lower damage, while multiplier is better with higher damage, I think?

It's the same as far as your overall damage output. In general I'd rather have 19-20/x2 because it's more likely to bring an enemy down and be helpful, the 20/x3 is likely to be overkill. On the flip side if you're against an overwhelming enemy then the x3 guy is probably going to be the only one in the party with a (slight) chance of bringing him down.

Increased range is more powerful if you have effects that go off whenever you crit.

Increased multiplier is much more powerful if you have a power that lets you crit or threaten on command.

The main thing is that increased range and multiplier compliment each other, like suggests. If you can get 19-20/x3, that's actually(with the above caveats) equivalent to a x5 multiplier, or to to 17-20/x2. If you already have range, then you want multiplier, and vice-versa.

>so to get 8+ is a 15 out of 36 chance or 41.7%
>While getting an 8+ on a 1d12 is a 5 out of 12 chance or 41.7%

>wow, it's nothing.
You're failing to factor in how much you beat 8 by.
With 2d6, you're four times more likely to beat 8 by rolling 9 (dealing 1 damage) than by 12 (dealing 4).

The way the math works is, given that the attack does any damage at all, a 2d6 weapon will average 2 damage while a 1d12 weapon will average 2.5 damage.

Holy fuck go back to r9k you literal nerds, why are posting on a bait thread?

Increased range is generally the more useful of the two, especially when you have to confirm your crit. Nothing worse than finally rolling that 20 but not getting to use your x3 multiplier due to a confirm of 3.
Granted, crit multiplier DOES make for epic moments when you DO get that hilarious damage.

Oh yeah, the nerds need to get off the PnP RPG/boardgame board

Fuck you, normie faggot

Increased range becomes more and more useful the shorter the fights are.
If a fight ends in just a few rounds, being more likely to crit round to round is better.
If the fight drags on, having a higher total damage is better and multipliers can exponentially increase damage over time.

Mathematically speaking you should take the range increase since you will have more crits that way.
Realistically speaking (at least in my case) you should take the multiplier since you will always forget the abnormal crit threat range.

>you should take the multiplier since you will always forget the abnormal crit threat range
this is extremely prudent

2d6, counting only rolls of 8+: average damage is 9.33.
1d12, counting only rolls of 8+: average damage is 10.0.

Failure is not very original, Mr. Jones.

Get crit multiplier. It's not always better, but is IS always fun.

>normie

See? You belong in r9k

I think you're in the wrong board, friend.

People were calling you dudebro faggots "normie" long before /r9k/ was a thing.

It's not cool to be retarded.

>People were calling you dudebro faggots "normie" long before /r9k/ was a thing.

They where not,
>dudebro

Lol what?
>being retard inst cool

Them why do you act like it is :)

What is that abomination

Bell curves.

...

>o-oh no! hes rekting me! I better call it bait, it will tottaly invalidate wha she said!

...

Nice arguments, your ebim images sure showed me

They sure as fuck did.

...