Concepts

Damage math for D&D, Baldur's Gate 3, Pathfinder, Diablo, Path of Exile, and anywhere else dice or weighted-RNG hits land — with a ground-up fundamentals track for readers who want the underlying probability machinery first. Each pillar explains one counterintuitive statistical fact most build guides skip and shows you the worked-out distributions, computed by an exact-rational engine you can drive yourself from the comparison tool.

Fundamentals

  • What's a probability distribution?

    From 1d6 (flat) to 2d6 (a tent) to 3d6 (smoother still). Sample space, PMF, support, and the convolution that takes you from one to the next.

  • Expected value, in dice

    The weighted average. Linearity of expectation — E[X + Y] = E[X] + E[Y], always — and the (M+1)/2 shortcut for fair 1dM dice.

  • Variance and standard deviation

    How spread-out a distribution is. The (M² − 1)/12 closed form for fair dice, and additivity of variance under independence.

  • Independence, sums, and convolutions

    What independence means, why summing dice is convolving PMFs, when the closed-form mean and variance shortcuts apply, and when they don't.

  • When you can use a normal approximation

    The central limit theorem on dice — visible in 1d6 → 2d6 → 4d6 → 8d6 — and four situations where the bell curve quietly lies.

Counterintuitive results

  • Variance and kill probability

    Why 2d6+5 beats 3d4+4 against an 11 HP target — even with nearly identical means. The single most counterintuitive thing in dice math.

  • When crit chance beats base damage

    Two builds with identical expected DPR can have very different per-target kill rates. Where +1 damage wins and where +5% crit chance wins.

  • Reliable vs nuke builds

    Multi-hit cleave vs single-big-swing. Same mean, opposite shapes. Which kills the target in fewer rounds depends on which side of the threshold you're on.

  • Advantage and disadvantage

    Advantage isn't '+5 to hit on average.' It's a curve, peaking at AC ≈ to-hit + 11, falling to roughly +1 at the extremes. Worked out per-AC.

  • Exploding dice and fat tails

    Why 1d6! is more than 1d6 + 0.7. The mean barely moves; the variance and the long right tail do all the work that makes the mechanic feel different at the table.

  • Expected strikes to kill

    When HP grows past your single-strike maximum, the variance lesson flips: mean wins linearly and variance becomes a small constant correction. The elementary renewal theorem, applied to D&D.

  • Split damage and resistance

    A flaming sword's 1d8 slash + 1d4 fire beats a 1d12 slash against a slash-resistant target — same dice budget, hedged across types. Per-component resistance math, worked out for D&D, BG3, and ARPGs.

Tactical questions

  • Great Weapon Master break-even

    When does -5/+10 stop being worth it? Closed-form rule: break-even AC ≈ attack-bonus + 8 for Greataxe-class weapons. Worked tables for D&D 2024.

  • Sharpshooter break-even

    The ranged twin of GWM. Break-even AC ≈ attack-bonus + 7 for Longbow-class weapons. Plus the Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter stack and the long-range disadvantage clause.

  • Great Weapon Fighting vs raw rerolls

    The reroll-on-1-or-2 buys ~0.5–0.7 mean damage on common weapons — and reduces variance, which has knock-on effects on kill probability that the build guides skip.

  • Elven Accuracy

    What does 3d20kh1 actually look like? Closed-form hit-chance curve, exact mean of 1981/120 ≈ 16.51, and the rule of thumb for whether to take it over the +2 ASI.

  • Finishing Strahd

    The Curse of Strahd boss fight worked out. 144 HP vs typical level-10 party DPR. Why high-variance builds matter less here than at the table they feel.

  • Magic Missile vs Scorching Ray

    When does auto-hit beat higher mean? Break-even AC ≈ 16 with +5 spell-attack mod. Plus the variance + resistance angles that keep MM winning more often than expected.

Want one of these for a specific scenario or game? Open / for the comparison tool and edit the expressions directly — engine computes the same exact rationals these articles cite.