Comparitive Math Challenge

[Fwiffo86]

Edited for removal.
Premise not properly defined. I apologize for wasting your time.

[MaxWilson]

It doesn't make sense to measure "40 rounds of combat." Sometimes you can beat the same bad guys by going all-out offense (e.g. 200 points of damage per turn while taking 80 points of damage in return, a la Barbarian) or by playing defensively (inflict 80 points of damage per turn while averaging 20 points of damage taken). The latter will last more rounds of combat but it's still the same foes and thus the same difficulty.

[Easy_Lee]

Another complication is the nature of the damage. If a warlock casting eldritch blast can match a fighter's damage, the warlock would be better for three reasons:

He's using force damage, which hits more targets than mundane (historically)
He has spells as backup
He can do his damage from much longer range

Also, the vast majority of the game is not played at 20. I think it would be more useful to have breakpoints, such as 5, 11, and 17. Calculating damage at those levels for normal builds (champion fighter with greatsword, rogue with shortbow, evocation wizard) would give us some baselines to work with.

[Z3ro]

Also also, ruling out subclasses makes no sense. Subclasses are mandatory parts of each class, their not optional like feats. Running a simulation for each subclass would therefore be the way to go; more complicated, yes, but no one will ever play a base-fighter who isn't also a champion or EK, for example, thus making the comparison useless (especially for classes like the fighter that really heavily on sublcasses for damage).

[Fwiffo86]

I am attempting to measure the baseline output. I want to see how the basis of a class measures up against the other basis of the class. Barring sub-classes/feats/etc. eliminates the possibility of fringe case scenario. These basics are common to all sub-class types of each sub-class of its relevant group. Not individualized to sub-class. It can easily be argued that the sub-class will either enhance or reduce the effectiveness. I'm not worried about that just yet. That comes later.

I am looking for raw damage. Not resisted damage. Not increased critical chance, not damage type.

I chose 40 combat rounds to represent an entire adventuring day.

I'm breaking it down this way because you have to establish a baseline for any argument. This represents what the core4 do, no matter what you select as options. All fighters would do this, because its based on what ALL fighters have access too at all times, as an example.

[MaxWilson]

I assume you are already aware of threads like this one? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?375185-Class-Comparisons-for-Ranged-Damage

[hawklost]

You might have chosen those arbitrary options but that only means that classes that can do burst/sustained damage are better than those who can do only burst or only sustained damage.

Case 1 Arbitrary 40 rounds in a row: If I cast Flaming Sphere, I need to cast 4 of them to keep them up for the entire 40 rounds, that means I get an extra 2d6 for 36 of those rounds because the enemy isn't moving. I can now do other spells to increase my damage and gain those 36 rounds of extra 2d6. If on the other hand I had 6 fights of 6-7 rounds each, I would require 6-7 uses of the spell and only get extra damage 30 rounds of the day (using more spells up and getting less bonus damage). This means I am worse off now using that trick.

Case 2 Completely ignoring defense By completely ignoring anything related to my defense, I can optimize my character for damage. This means those people who have higher defenses in their base class lose out on that benefit. A Barbarian who gets half damage from all attacks is a useless feature. Heavy Armor proficiency is a useless ability.

Case 3 Ignoring Sug-Classes Half the abilities of some classes come from their Sub-Class while others don't gain huge benefits from them. A Fighter gets 5 'enhancements' from his sub-class which increase his power a great deal. a Cleric and Rogue only get 4 'enhancements' but they are not as powerful in increasing their damage potential. A Wizard gets 4-5 but most of those do not increase his power for damaging that greatly at all. So a Fighter get screwed and so would some other non-standard classes while others can shrug off the Sub-class without too much challenge.

Case 4 Using a 'Standard group' The arbitrary use of the F R C W as the group type ignores massive variations that would work far better in the situations. If you wanted them to work together, you should allow people to create their own 4 man damage teams. If you are competing, there is no reason to have a 4 man team.

Not only is your competition having the issues above, but since you ignore any damage to the group and you are not clear if you want the group to work together or to compete with each for most damage, you make it hard for people to write up 'base' damage/

[OldTrees1]

EX] If I know that the Fighter does 38 dpr base, no matter what kind of fighter he is, I don't have to redo that math. We can just do the math for enhanced crit and add it on. Or do the math for tripping your opponent and add it after.

That is all that I am trying to accomplish.

Then you want the answers in DPS formula form(valid to add math on) not final value form(invalid to add math on). Even your assumptions(that particular stat array and the exclusion of feats) will add error if those assumptions are not carried on to that next step.


A Fighter gets 7 stat increases and a 15/14/13/12/10/8 stat array. Their DPS only uses Str OR Dex. Thus they can choose a race with no relevant ability modifiers for this challenge.
Race
Halfling(reroll nat 1s once per d20, small size)<-could be relevant if rerolling 1s is worth disadvantage[depends on target AC] or lower weapon damage
Half Orc(crits add 1 damage die)<-depending on the target AC, Half Orcs might use a 1d12 instead of a 2d6 for Great Weapon Fighting.

They get 4 attacks per round + 8 attacks per (1+short rest) + up to 1 opportunity attack per round (bonus action limited to dual wielders).

Baseline: +6(prof)+5(stat) Attack, +5(stat) damage
Archery would be +2 Attack, +1d8 damage (small:disadvantage or +1d6 damage)
Dueling would be +0 Attack, +2+1d8 damage (on relevant to small)
Great Weapon Fighting would be +0 Attack, +2d6(reroll 1s and 2s once) damage

1d6(reroll 1s and 2s once) is 3.5+4/6=4+1/6 per 1d6
small: disadvantage or 1d10(reroll 1s and 2s)=>5.5+8/10=6.3 damage per 1d10
half orc vs high AC: 1d12(reroll 1s and 2s)=>6.5+10/12=7+1/3 damage per 1d12
Two Weapon Fighting would be +0 Attack, +1d6 damage, +1 attack per round (small:no penalty)

To move on we would need a target AC in order to choose the race/fighting style. Or I can pick arbitrarily.

Let's look at Half Orc vs AC 20
Archery is miss(0)(6/20)+hit(1d8+5=9.5)(13/20)+crit(3d8+5=18.5)(1/20)=7.1 per attack
2d6 GWF is miss(0)(8/20)+hit(2d6+5=13+2/6)(11/20)+crit(5d6+5=25+5/6)(1/20)=8.63 per attack
1d12 GWF is miss(0)(8/20)+hit(1d12+5=12+1/3)(11/20)+crit(3d12+5=26+3/3)(1/20)=8.13 per attack
Two Weapon is miss(0)(8/20)+hit(1d6+5=8.5)(11/20)+crit(3d6+5=15.5)(1/20)=5.45 per attack (but 1 extra attack) 4 GWF attacks = 8.63*4=32.533... vs 5 TWF attacks = 27.25
So even with TWF's extra attack per round(5 vs 4), 2d6GWF is the choice for the Half Orc vs AC 20

If we are assuming 40 rounds with X short rests
So (4 attacks * 40 rounds + 2 attacks + 2 attacks per X short rests + up to 40 AoOs)*(miss(0)(8/20)+hit(2d6+5=13+2/6)(11/20)+crit(5d6+5=25+5/6)(1/20))
=(162+2X+up to 40AoOs)attacks * 8.63 damage/attack
=1397.25 + 17.25X + up to 345