D&D 5E Damage Die Steps

[Laurefindel]

I’m pretty sure I remember seeing in MM or DMG that 1d12 and 2d6 are equivalent and that the step up is 2d8 (then 2d10).

At one point it goes up to 3d something

 

[Charlaquin]

There’s no straightforward way to up the damage die by one step from 1d12, unless you’re willing to get d14s (which do exist, but are obscure). Anything you do involving multiple dice is going to change your probability distribution. For example, if you want to continue the pattern of increasing the average result by +1 per damage die step, then you’d want to go up from 1d12 to 3d4. However, with 3d4 you’re much more likely to get that average result (which is 7.5) than you are with 1d12, and much less likely to get the extremes of a 3 or a 12, not to mention being unable to get a 1, 2, 13, or 14.

Probably the closest you’ll be able to get to 1d14 by using the standard polyhedrals would be 1d10+1d4. That has the right maximum and the flattest curve you’re going to get while rolling two dice. The next step up from that should be 1d12+1d4, followed by 1d12+1d6, then 1d20.

 

[NotAYakk]

I disagree, somewhat, particularly in 5e. I think 5e should have skill (particularly for fighters) measured to some degree by adding damage. Like how 4e's basic attacks scaled similar to cantrips. This indicates how the fighter has become more proficient with their attacks. So a fighter does 1d8 with damage with as sword, then 2d8 at 10th level and 3d8 at 20th (though I could just follow the cantrip path too).

However, I am all for adding more damage to magical weapons. Magic weapons in our game do not typically give to hit bonus, but extra damage instead. So a +3 sword might deal 3d8 more damage, not +3 to hit and +3 to damage.

Sure, but I'm saying that the fiddlyness of upgrading dice isn't a great way to do it.

Ways you can do it without modifying the die:

1. When you hit with an odd roll, you add an extra set of weapon damage dice.
(This is worth almost, but not quite, +50% damage die size).
2. When your damage die is odd, change it to maximum value on the die.
(1d4: +1, 1d6: +1.5, 1d8: +2.0, 1d10: +2.5, 1d12: +3 (damage per die), 2d6: +3 (damage per roll)).
(It adds 1/4 of the max roll to the roll on average).

 

[aco175]

I see a lot of what I was thinking for the boost of 2 points max. But, what is the whole point of the feat or ability? Is the cost of the tax worth the +1 damage, or taken twice to get a possible +2. I would think players would like to get something meaningful and have larger boosts the more you take the tax. I might think going from 1d12 to 3d6 to 4d6.

 

[clearstream]

There’s no straightforward way to up the damage die by one step from 1d12, unless you’re willing to get d14s (which do exist, but are obscure). Anything you do involving multiple dice is going to change your probability distribution. For example, if you want to continue the pattern of increasing the average result by +1 per damage die step, then you’d want to go up from 1d12 to 3d4. However, with 3d4 you’re much more likely to get that average result (which is 7.5) than you are with 1d12, and much less likely to get the extremes of a 3 or a 12, not to mention being unable to get a 1, 2, 13, or 14.

Probably the closest you’ll be able to get to 1d14 by using the standard polyhedrals would be 1d10+1d4. That has the right maximum and the flattest curve you’re going to get while rolling two dice. The next step up from that should be 1d12+1d4, followed by 1d12+1d6, then 1d20.

Another plus for making one die the largest size that works at each step (with mixed dice) it that it is more beneficial for features that let you reroll one die, like the racial trait of half-orcs. (One reason for half-orcs to take greataxe over greatsword.)

Rerolls are of course another way to step up the die. Making the assumption that the wielder rerolls anything below average, it's straightforward to calculate the "step". Some examples

3.5 = 1d6 = (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6
4.25 = 1d6 reroll = (3.5+3.5+3.5+4+5+6)/6
1, 2, and 3 are replaced with 3.5 because they are discared and replaced with the average of the die rerolled.

6.5 = 1d12 = (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12)
8 = 1d12 = (6.5+6.5+6.5+6.5+6.5+6.5+7+8+9+10+11+12)
A quick way to calculate it is (5.5+4.5+3.5+2.5+1.5+0.5) = 18/12 = +1.5 i.e. change the average by the differences between the replacements.

I feel rerolling can represent the fighter's skill quite well. It's not that their weapon outright deals more damage, but because they wield it skillfully, they consistently get more damage out of it (or less, if say they just want to caution a foe.) As an aside, the Fantasy Grounds VTT has a reroll function built in. Maybe others do also.

 

[clearstream]

If it was strictly steps it would be:

1d4
1d6
1d8
1d10
1d12
1d20

However that is a big jump from 1d12 to 1d20. So you want to emulate a 1d14 or 7.5 average.

2d6 = 7 average
2d8 = 9 average.

So normally I would go with 2d6 and follow the same step process

If one doesn't mind mixing dice, Earthdawn has a freely available Quickstart that shows steps 3-20.

 

[dave2008]

Sure, but I'm saying that the fiddlyness of upgrading dice isn't a great way to do it.

Ways you can do it without modifying the die:

1. When you hit with an odd roll, you add an extra set of weapon damage dice.
(This is worth almost, but not quite, +50% damage die size).
2. When your damage die is odd, change it to maximum value on the die.
(1d4: +1, 1d6: +1.5, 1d8: +2.0, 1d10: +2.5, 1d12: +3 (damage per die), 2d6: +3 (damage per roll)).
(It adds 1/4 of the max roll to the roll on average).

Everyone has their own perspective. Not opposed to adding more dice, but how is that any less fiddly than increasing the step? And how is a dynamic add (adding dice based on the die roll) less fiddly than a static die step. I'm not understanding your idea based on reducing "fiddlyness."

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would do:

4: 1d4 (2.5)
6: 1d6 (3.5)
8: 1d8 (4.5)
10: 1d10 (5.5)
12: 1d12 (6.5)
14: 1d10+1d4 (8.0)
16: 1d12+1d4 (9.0)
18: 1d12+1d6 (10.0)
20: 1d12+1d8 (11.0)
22: 1d12+1d10 (12.0)
24: 2d12 (13.0)
26: 2d10+1d6 (14.5)
28: 2d12+1d4 (15.5)
30: 2d12+1d6 (16.5)
Etc.

The idea is to always use the largest die type as the base and adding the smallest die to go with it. This creates a flatter distribution in the center, giving a more "linear" spread.

For example:
1d12+1d4 vs. 2d8

Here's the chart showing min, avg., and max of each dice combination:

 

[clearstream]

I would do:

4: 1d4
6: 1d6
8: 1d8
10: 1d10
12: 1d12
14: 1d10+1d4
16: 1d12+1d4
18: 1d12+1d6
20: 1d12+1d8
22: 1d12+1d10
24: 2d12
26: 2d10+1d6
28: 2d12+1d4
30: 2d12+1d6
Etc.

The idea is to always use the largest die type as the base and adding the smallest die to go with it. This creates a flatter distribution in the center, giving a more "linear" spread.

For example:
1d12+1d4 vs. 2d8

View attachment 257805View attachment 257807

Any reason for omitting d20?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Any reason for omitting d20?

Because you've established 2 as a minimum beforehand, and I would not want to go back to 1.

You could do 1d20 and then do

1d20+1d4
1d20+1d6
etc.

if you wanted to, but I don't like using a d20 for damage and prefer to keep with d12s as the base.

No other reason, really, just preference.