How much damage should "normal" characters do?

[foobar1969]

The guides and handbooks on here, BrilliantGameologists, etc are aimed at maximum competence, control, and lethality (without Pun-Pun type rules abuse). They are written to produce high-op character builds who will obliterate any level-appropriate encounter (following DMG guidelines).

My group is playing vanilla Tier 3s and partly-op Tier 4s, and we're romping through a published core adventure at a level lower than it suggests.

I'm looking for WoTC's Goldilocks zone: not a cakewalk, not a TPK, just challenging enough to be exciting. How powerful are characters "supposed" to be? Are there quantifiable benchmarks for AB, DpR, movement, detection, etc at various levels?

[Uncle Pine]

I remember a paragraph in MM about weighting the CR of an homebrew monster by making it fight against a group made of a Cleric, a Fighter, a Rogue and a Wizard of appropriate level built using the tables in DMG (the ones with started NPCs from 1st to 20th level), so I guess that "normal" characters should perform as well as those NPCs, but with equipment as per WBL's guidelines? Note that those NPCs lack feats, skills and complete equipment so there's still room for optimisation, but you can draw inspiration from the complete builds below the tables.

[ericgrau]

Here you go:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8888663&postcount=15
Note that the damage listed is per hit, and most likely 3/4 of the attacks hit.

That's an optimized core fighter. Adding on some mild optimization from other books you could do better. Playing core only and not optimizing well you could do worse. Going all out damage you could do a little better but at the expense of other concerns. It's sword-and-board but THF isn't much more damage in core. And with unoptimized power attack you add damage per hit but get less hits so it actually accomplishes almost nothing except in special circumstances. And I assume you aren't including shock trooper if you don't want the crazy damage numbers.

[Ellowryn]

The short answer: No.

The long answer: No, because 'quantifiable' is almost impossible to define in a complex system where there are variables in achieving whatever action you were attempting.

The reasonable answer: No, because defeating an encounter can be done dozens of different ways, exponentially more so out of core. Damage is indeed one way, bu there are also spells and other abilities that can be used to achieve the same results. As has been stated wizards put their encounters into a vacuum and then pitted them against how they view a 'standard' party could be and what they could possibly achieve on any given day. Another thing to take into consideration is the advancement of a given party in a game day, it is generally expected to have 4 actual encounters in any given day and that each fight should have a 1/4 of the parties daily resources devoted to it. But if the players expect to only have 2 encounters that day they can then allocate 1/2 of their resorces to the fight making it much easier then planned.

Overall, what i am getting at is don't worry about walking through published adventures. You will even without optimization. The only way to achieve your goldilocks zone is simply practice. As a group of players learns each-others play styles and skill levels it becomes possible to adjust campaigns to fit everyone's needs, until then expect to either tiptoe through tulips or be repeatably hit by crushing fists of spite.

[Hiro Quester]

I've been trying to figure this out from a player's perspective. I'm not a DM and don't know anything about CR of encounters, and what a DM has to do to balance them and challenge players.

Playing a Druid 7/monk1 in a mostly core game. Right now I'm doing frontline melee striker role, in leopard wildshape form. Plus BFC/utility. Trying to contribute meaningfully without being overpowered in comparison to other party members.

I have no idea how much is too much for AC and Damage per Round. I can get my AC to 28 with a couple of buffs, and can make four attacks/round if I pounce, plus two rakes if I hit with bite. And our DM was "foolish" enough to have a +3 amulet of mighty fists on a villain we defeated recently, which I'm using.

And that's not considering my Animal Companion or summoned nature's allies. And next level I'll get access to large wildshape forms (tiger, for flavor reasons) and will add an additional unarmed strike, plus a chance to rake if any of bite or claws hit.

I don't want to make things too difficult for DM to balance, or overshadow other players. I think perhaps I might need to tone things back a bit. (E.g. Take off the +3 amulet of MF, not get the sorcerer to cast Mage armor on me, use wildshape form with less attacks, etc.)

How much DpR is too much? What AC is unreasonably high? How can I figure out these things?

[Spore]

So my 80+ charge damage paladin 12 IS withing boundaries? That's good to know.

[jiriku]

I generally go with ECLx5 for single-target effects and ECLx3 for area effects when considering a "minimally optimized" baseline. However, I've had many forum-goers challenge those numbers as over-high, so perhaps we tend to favor high DPR at my table. The Monster Manual contains some ECL-based target numbers for AC, attack bonus, and saving throws to use as guidelines when creating a new monster. I generally use those as my guidelines whenever I advance or tweak monsters as well. You won't find benchmarks for movement and detection capabilities -- these things are so situational that there can't really be said to be a standard.

In-game I use a set of benchmarks for players based on the Monster Manual benchmarks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19220283&postcount=31). You may find them useful.

[Drork]

If you feel like you are over shadowing things due to some situations. Discuss it with your DM if they are having issues or seeing issues from their side of the table is normally a good place to start if you feel things should change.
There are little things you can to do share the glory of your abilities, for example every time an attack misses you by 4 thank the sorcerer for casting mage armor if someone gives you flanking throw the credit where it is due.

If you feel the DM has given you something too powerful and think removing it would make things more fun for all discuss it with them. Maybe ask for a foe to target dispel the item in combat and if you think it should get removed it can be stolen from you or you could have an encounter with Disjunction and have the results prerolled.

There are two kinds of reactions to having a character that is more powerful at the table. One is damn that guy they take all my fun, the other is damn Im glad we have that guy else we would really be in trouble. If they players dont have an issue the DM is less likely to have an issue. That being said it could be that the DM could use some skill tuning for how to abuse creatures abilities. If you can not kill a party member with a CR 3/4s of their level you really are not trying to kill them which is how most people want to play.

If you are doing twice your level in damage a round you are contributing if you are doing three times you are significant. Four to five tends to be heavy hitting. More than five times tends to be power dumping. Thats the numbers I find are more common. It doesnt really work at first level but once you get to about 3rd its fairly consistent. Keep in mind that not all damage is 100% done by you, flanking for the extra 10% hit chance can mean that you can get credit for some of the damage the other person is doing specially if they are using a bigger attack because of the bonus.

[Hiro Quester]

I generally go with ECLx5 for single-target effects and ECLx3 for area effects when considering a "minimally optimized" baseline. However, I've had many forum-goers challenge those numbers as over-high, so perhaps we tend to favor high DPR at my table. The Monster Manual contains some ECL-based target numbers for AC, attack bonus, and saving throws to use as guidelines when creating a new monster. I generally use those as my guidelines whenever I advance or tweak monsters as well. You won't find benchmarks for movement and detection capabilities -- these things are so situational that there can't really be said to be a standard.

In-game I use a set of benchmarks for players based on the Monster Manual benchmarks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19220283&postcount=31). You may find them useful.

Thanks, Jiriku. (And ericgrau and Drork.)

By the chart you linked I'm not too excessive.

At level 8, my 24 or 28 AC is about midway between EPL (21) and MPL (31). I'm kinda low on AB (+11/+6), but I make up for that in number of attacks. Perhaps between 2-3xECL damage on average, but the possibility of a rare heavier hitting round, up to 4ECL, if more attacks hit, or if I bite and successfully grapple to rake, or if I roll higher for damage.

I'm going to keep that chart for future reference. It gives a good sense of perspective. Thanks.

[MukkTB]

I think you're actually better off calculating the other way and working back. How long until an encounter would kill a character with average optimization? You can then reverse the interaction. The average (un)optimized party should kill the monsters or somehow disable them within that time period.

[Curmudgeon]

I think you're actually better off calculating the other way and working back. How long until an encounter would kill a character with average optimization? You can then reverse the interaction. The average (un)optimized party should kill the monsters or somehow disable them within that time period.
That's got to assume an average challenge, of course. Not all encounters should be of average difficulty. The DMG says 5% of all encounters should be of "overpowering" difficulty: i.e., run away or die.

[HurinTheCursed]

I don't think the problem is how much damage a character can do, how long can he last against the opposition is better but i'd rather bother about how forgiving the encounters are.
If you know a big misplay or a few little ones can be overcome without a sweat, maybe the group is too optimized. If any single error or unluck has important life or death issues, you can probably push a bit further.

In the module campaign I play, we often had too easy encounters and we are 1-2 levels ahead of where we are supposed to be. Our group is way ahead of your marks regarding damage, but so are monsters. However, once every 3 levels, there are bigger dungeons in which we are seriously challenged, any blunder can be lethal and the TPK risk exists even without misplay. That is the moment where the optimization and level of play matters, because weaker groups or unexperienced players wouldn't make it.