What's WotC's reluctance for 2d6 weapons?

[Quasqueton]

Why does the great falchion (Sandstorm) do 1d12 damage instead of 2d6 (up from the normal 2d4)?

Is the greatsword the only WotC weapon that deals 2d6 damage?

Quasqueton

 

[Sejs]

If I had to venture a guess?

It lets the poor, underused 1d12 see some more use, and 2d6 has a marginally higher average (3.5 + 3.5 = 7.0) than the single d12 has (6.5).

 

[IcyCool]

Why does the great falchion (Sandstorm) do 1d12 damage instead of 2d6 (up from the normal 2d4)?

Is the greatsword the only WotC weapon that deals 2d6 damage?

Quasqueton

I'm pretty certain it's because 2d6 has the higher average, as Sejs said. If you take a look at the 3 classes of weapons (simple, martial, exotic), you'll note that there is a general consistency among all the weapons.

Take a look at the 2-handed simple weapon, the Longspear.

It's got reach, does 1d8 damage, and has a x3 crit multiplier.

Compare to the 2-handed martial weapon, the Glaive.

It's got reach, does 1d10 damage, and has a x3 crit multiplier.

So simple to martial is worth roughly one die-step of difference (You'll find the same is essentially true with exotic weapons over martial weapons, although there are several exceptions).

Internally, there are different relationships between die-types and crit multipliers. Take the greatsword and the greataxe.

Greatsword does 2d6 damage, with a 19-20x2 crit.
Greataxe does 1d12 damage, with a 20x3 crit.

You generally trade out higher average damage and higher crit chance for lower avg. damage , lower crit chance, and superior crit damage.

So in a rambling answer to your question, think of die-steps in terms of avg. damage. The avg. damage of a falchion is 5 derived from (2d4). If you are upping a die step, you should get to the two-dice equivalent of 1d10 (2d5, giving 6 avg. damage), but there is no such thing as a d5. So you go to the next best avg. damage, 6.5, from 1d12.

 

[Raduin711]

I would also add that using a d12 suggests a lot of randomness; rolling a 1 on 1d12 is just as likely as rolling a 12. However when multiple dice are involved, the values become a bell curve, where median results are more common.

Using a d12 on a weapon suggests that the damage has a lot of potential, but is not reliable. Using 2d6 suggests a more relaible weapon, but is less likely to do its maximum potential.

2d6
1- impossible
2- 1,1 ; 1,1 (<5%)
3- 2,1 ; 1,2 (<5%)
4- 1,3 ; 3,1 ; 2,2 ; 2,2 (<10%)
5- 1,4 ; 4,1 ; 3,2 ; 2,3 (<10%)
6- 1,5 ; 5,1 ; 2,4 ; 4,2 ; 3,3 ; 3,3 (<10%)
7- 1,6 ; 6,1 ; 5,2 ; 2,5 ; 3,4 ; 4,3 (<10%)
8- 2,6 ; 6,2 ; 5,3 ; 3,5 ; 4,4 ; 4,4 (<10%)
9- 3,6 ; 6,3 ; 5,4 ; 4,5 (<10%)
10- 6,4 ; 4,6 ; 5,5 ; 5,5 (<10%)
11- 6,5 ; 5,6 (<5%)
12- 6,6 ; 6,6 (<5%)

Wheras the chances of rolling a 12 on 1d12 is a little more than 8%. (as there is any other result.)

Because everybody loves this boring statistics crap. =p

 

[Felnar]

I would also add that using a d12 suggests a lot of randomness; rolling a 1 on 1d12 is just as likely as rolling a 12. However when multiple dice are involved, the values become a bell curve, where median results are more common.

Using a d12 on a weapon suggests that the damage has a lot of potential, but is not reliable. Using 2d6 suggests a more relaible weapon, but is less likely to do its maximum potential.

2d6
1- impossible
2- 1,1 ; 1,1 (<5%)
3- 2,1 ; 1,2 (<5%)
4- 1,3 ; 3,1 ; 2,2 ; 2,2 (<10%)
5- 1,4 ; 4,1 ; 3,2 ; 2,3 (<10%)
6- 1,5 ; 5,1 ; 2,4 ; 4,2 ; 3,3 ; 3,3 (<10%)
7- 1,6 ; 6,1 ; 5,2 ; 2,5 ; 3,4 ; 4,3 (<10%)
8- 2,6 ; 6,2 ; 5,3 ; 3,5 ; 4,4 ; 4,4 (<10%)
9- 3,6 ; 6,3 ; 5,4 ; 4,5 (<10%)
10- 6,4 ; 4,6 ; 5,5 ; 5,5 (<10%)
11- 6,5 ; 5,6 (<5%)
12- 6,6 ; 6,6 (<5%)

Wheras the chances of rolling a 12 on 1d12 is a little more than 8%. (as there is any other result.)

Because everybody loves this boring statistics crap. =p

umm... 1,1 the same as 1,1 ...
same for 2,2 : 3,3 : etc

 

[RigaMortus2]

umm... 1,1 the same as 1,1 ...
same for 2,2 : 3,3 : etc

Depends on what die falls first...

 

[FireLance]

Depends on what die falls first...

Nope, go back and count the combinations - there are 42. There should only be 36 (6 x 6). The repeated pairs should be eliminated.

 

[Darkness]

Depends on what die falls first...

Not if the numbers on both dice are identical.

 

[Setanta]

2d6
1- impossible
2- 1,1 ; 1,1 (<5%)
3- 2,1 ; 1,2 (<5%)
4- 1,3 ; 3,1 ; 2,2 ; 2,2 (<10%)
5- 1,4 ; 4,1 ; 3,2 ; 2,3 (<10%)
6- 1,5 ; 5,1 ; 2,4 ; 4,2 ; 3,3 ; 3,3 (<10%)
7- 1,6 ; 6,1 ; 5,2 ; 2,5 ; 3,4 ; 4,3 (<10%)
8- 2,6 ; 6,2 ; 5,3 ; 3,5 ; 4,4 ; 4,4 (<10%)
9- 3,6 ; 6,3 ; 5,4 ; 4,5 (<10%)
10- 6,4 ; 4,6 ; 5,5 ; 5,5 (<10%)
11- 6,5 ; 5,6 (<5%)
12- 6,6 ; 6,6 (<5%)

The percentages here are a bit off. It actually works out to:

2: 1/36
3: 2/36
4: 3/36
5: 4/36
6: 5/36
7: 6/36
8: 5/36
9: 4/36
10: 3/36
11: 2/36
12: 1/36

 

[Arkhandus]

The case with the great scimitar or whatever is certainly odd, considering how the scimitar and other weapons are set up. The only reason I can see for the greatsword having more threat range and average/minimum damage than the greataxe is that the greatsword has a longer, narrower blade. With a greataxe you've got, what, a 1-foot or 2-foot long blade, about half that amount in width and a few millimeters or so in thickness? The greatsword's blade is around 3-5 feet long, roughly twice that of the greataxe, and so the chances of merely grazing an opponent are decreased (you swing a 4-foot length of blade at someone swinging a 2-foot blade at you, and guess which of ya is more likely to hit with a good 1-2 feet of cutting surface! - for example), and the chance of hitting something vital is greater with the sword (the longer, thinner blade is more likely to reach a deeper, more important organ and slip between ribs or something, especially at certain attack angles). The greatsword's also going to be better balanced than the greataxe, giving more control to the swing and making it more likely to hit where you want it to. A faster stroke is also more likely to cleave through stuff.