1d12 or 2d6?

[Dexter]

You find genie, it can provide You with one weapon of your choosing:
- 1d12 damage
- 2d6 damage

Which one will you take?

[Morsk]

2d6 does more damage, and is more consistent. The more dice in the roll, the skinnier the bell curve gets.

[Streeja]

2d6.. all day. The minimum I can roll is a 2 on 2d6 vs a 1 on 1d12. And I have a history of bad rolls.

[Dexter]

Originally posted by Morsk:

2d6 does more damage, and is more consistent. The more dice in the roll, the skinnier the bell curve gets.

False

both do same amount of damage

[Aldain]

Originally posted by Majiin Vegeta:

False

both do same amount of damage

Both theoretically do the same amount of damage.

With 2d6 it is impossible to do less than 2 damage, while 1d12 can still roll a 1, also most combinations of 1-6 added together can match or surpass many of the single results of a d12.

2d6 is statistically more consistent to hit a 6 or greater while a d12 has the same odds for each possible outcome.

[jonnin]

d12 is uniform. 2d6 is belled a lot. d12 has a chance for 1. 2d6 can't roll a 1.
2d6 has a 1 in 36 chance at 12.
d12 has a 1 in 12 chance at 12.
44% of the time, almost half, 2d6 gives you between 6 and 8.
25% of the time, d12 gives you 6 to 8.

every 12 swings the d12 should have hit each number once (over millions of rolls it ends up about like this, in a short fight, of course, not really).
every 36 swings 2d6 hits every number. (as above).

I could go on but my take on it from a math standpoint is this:
2d6 is predictable.
d12 is spastic.
in long fights, the number of rolls favors the d12 getting that megacrit X3 50+ damage roll.
In short fights, the enemy was weak, and the 2d6 is better but who cares -- its trash.
I would get the d12 for a damage dealer. I would get the 2d6 for a caster or support char that sometimes takes a swing or shot.

[desrtfox071]

Originally posted by Aldain:

Originally posted by Majiin Vegeta:

False

both do same amount of damage

Both theoretically do the same amount of damage.

With 2d6 it is impossible to do less than 2 damage, while 1d12 can still roll a 1, also most combinations of 1-6 added together can match or surpass many of the single results of a d12.

2d6 is statistically more consistent to hit a 6 or greater while a d12 has the same odds for each possible outcome.

Average for 1d12 is 6.5, average for 1d6 is 3.5. So, 2d6 average is 7. 2D6 does more damage (slightly) and is much more consistent around the average, so less standard deviation than 1d12.

[Dexter]

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Originally posted by Aldain:

Both theoretically do the same amount of damage.

With 2d6 it is impossible to do less than 2 damage, while 1d12 can still roll a 1, also most combinations of 1-6 added together can match or surpass many of the single results of a d12.

2d6 is statistically more consistent to hit a 6 or greater while a d12 has the same odds for each possible outcome.

Average for 1d12 is 6.5, average for 1d6 is 3.5. So, 2d6 average is 7. 2D6 does more damage (slightly) and is much more consistent around the average, so less standard deviation than 1d12.

You still talk about the average

[desrtfox071]

Originally posted by Majiin Vegeta:

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Average for 1d12 is 6.5, average for 1d6 is 3.5. So, 2d6 average is 7. 2D6 does more damage (slightly) and is much more consistent around the average, so less standard deviation than 1d12.

You still talk about the average

Why wouldn't I? Average and standard deviation tells you all you need to know. I also laid it out without averages - 2D6 does slightly more damage, and is more consistent around the middle damage amounts. 1D12 is more "wild" and does slightly less damage.

[jonnin]

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Originally posted by Majiin Vegeta:

You still talk about the average

Why wouldn't I? Average and standard deviation tells you all you need to know. I also laid it out without averages - 2D6 does slightly more damage, and is more consistent around the middle damage amounts. 1D12 is more "wild" and does slightly less damage.

If you know how to read between the lines it does.
But breaking it down a little more...
1/20 is your natural crit, ignoring confirm which usually happens.
would you rather have a 1/36 shot at max damage on your crit or a 1 in 12, understanding that the same odds also dictate rolling lowest damage? In a game where most people reload if things go horribly wrong, your shot at the big crits goes up even more. The d12 has a better chance to deliver in these scenarios.

This is why early magic is so often underwhelming. Those first fireballs... the ones that do 10 damage to everything.. you don't notice it as much on the fighters where they add +5 to every hit and the enemy can't avoid 50% of it like clockwork.

[desrtfox071]

Originally posted by jonnin:

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Why wouldn't I? Average and standard deviation tells you all you need to know. I also laid it out without averages - 2D6 does slightly more damage, and is more consistent around the middle damage amounts. 1D12 is more "wild" and does slightly less damage.

If you know how to read between the lines it does.
But breaking it down a little more...
1/20 is your natural crit, ignoring confirm which usually happens.
would you rather have a 1/36 shot at max damage on your crit or a 1 in 12, understanding that the same odds also dictate rolling lowest damage? In a game where most people reload if things go horribly wrong, your shot at the big crits goes up even more. The d12 has a better chance to deliver in these scenarios.

This is why I said the 1d12 is more wild. with a 1d12 you have a 1 in 12 chance to get your 12, or a 1 in 12 chance to get a 1. With 2d6 you have a 1 in 36 chance for each of those. As others have already pointed out. So, yeah, 2d6 is "better" because it does slightly more damage and is quite a bit more consistent. 1d12 will get you more crits, and more terrible failures, hence the more "wild". Either way though, 2d6 does more damage overall unless there's a crit bonus, and only if the crit bonus happens more often with 1d12 vs 2d6, and this depends on what the conditions are for a crit. On 1d12, it's probably 12 only, but on 2d6 it may not be. Not sure, there's probably a table for it, and honestly, most table based crit chances (for other dice games) usually take this into consideration and set up the crit chances to be reasonably close. Not all dice games do this because they want a distinction between the two systems, like between two handed weapons and two single handed weapons just as a hypothetical example.

[Alealexi]

Originally posted by Majiin Vegeta:

Originally posted by Morsk:

2d6 does more damage, and is more consistent. The more dice in the roll, the skinnier the bell curve gets.

False

both do same amount of damage

Statistically you will get higher burst in damage rolls with 2d6. So yes 2d6 will do more damage than a 1d12.

[ayrtep]

1xD12 average 6.5, 2xD6 average 7. So obviously 2xD6.

1x12 could be better for the variance. Say if there is 10pt damage resistance.

[Indure]

2d6 is more valuable. Like others said it is slightly more average damage and better consistent damage. Great Weapon Fighting also benefits 2d6 more than 1d12.

[dolby]

i take 3d6 lol

[WereElf]

I think that 2d6 is better. Its chances for 11 and 12 might be lower than those of 1d12, but it has no chance to roll a 1, and chances to roll 2 and 3 are also lower.
I see people here praising the higher chance to hit a 12, but they conveniently forget to mention, that rolling 1 is also possible, and the chances to roll 11, 2 and 3 are also higher.
Even with the critical example, rolling a 9 or 10 can be good enough. And your chances for a 10 are as good with 2d6 as they are with 1d12, while chances for 9 are better.
And as already mentioned, if you're fighting an enemy with 1mil HP, the 2d6 will finish it a bit faster.