How much damage is considered average and how much is considered a lot?

[samcifer]

So after last weekend’s session, I’ve come to realize that I don’t know as much about combat as I probably should. To specify, we were playing a module and just as we killed off the last of six constructs that were attacking us, a hag appeared and summoned two lightning-based creatures (some kind of minor lightning elemental) and after the hag was killed, the summoned creatures disappeared. Our cleric player (who has more dnd knowledge and experience than me) expressed surprise that I had targeting one of the elementals rather than the hag. When I told him that it was something I hadn’t known to do, he explained how targeting the summoner is more effective on ending the fight (knowing that I am a strategic player by nature).



This got me thinking about how little actual experience and knowledge I have of the game and as someone who prefers dps over save or suck spells (nothing I hate more than wasting a spell by having everyone save against it and nothing happens, which is why I tend to focus on half-damage on a save kind of spells so that my turn is not fully wasted).



After my comments in another thread on how I felt as of going sharpshooter would be better for damage and how I felt that just spamming Eldritch Blast on my sorlock made me feel as if my damage output was kind of low, it made me wonder:



What, exactly is average damage during a turn and what I considered GOOD damage per turn?



Take monks, for example. To me, they seem incredibly weak as they can, without landing a successful stunning strike, get up to 4 attacks at around 10.5 per hit at level 5 (4 attacks with max dex of +5 + 1d6) which to me, seems kind of weak damage. To me, taking a level in hexblade, Blood Hunter or 2 levels of ranger for added damage seems like it is necessary for better dps. Stunning strike seems too hard to land as it is against a save most enemies would be good at, making it too unreliable to land often without wasting a lot of ki in repeated attempts to land it.



So how wrong is my thinking on this? I’m willing to admit that I’m probably wrong in my thinking and want advice from more experienced players on this. All helpful advice is appreciated. :)

[Wraith]

There is HUGE scope in this question depending on what level you're working at, as various things come into effect as you get higher level - character's wealth, for example, gives access to enchanted weapons and the likes, Extra Attacks come online, PCs start to pick up feats... What level is your party?

For example, at level 1 the average damage for a martial characters is about ~1d8+3. Weapon damage scales from d4 to d12, with 1d8 being the most common, and they add their primary stat (STR or DEX) to the damage roll which is likley to be 16 or 17 (+3). Exceptional damage in this case is 3d12+12 damage - that's a V.Human Fighter who takes a Greataxe, gets to make an Attack of Opportunity and gets to use their Great Weapon Master feat all in the same turn.

At level 20, that same Fighter has a +3 Greataxe, 20STR, Extra Attack x3 and Action Surge which gives them 10 attacks doing a total of 10d12+80 even without their Fighting Style and 5 or 6 more feats to use. Which still doesn't quite match an Empowered Meteor Swarm hitting multiple targets for a combined 40d6 plus feats, class abilities and so on. :smalltongue:

[samcifer]

There is HUGE scope in this question depending on what level you're working at, as various things come into effect as you get higher level - character's wealth, for example, gives access to enchanted weapons and the likes, Extra Attacks come online, PCs start to pick up feats... What level is your party?

For example, at level 1 the average damage for a martial characters is about ~1d8+3. Weapon damage scales from d4 to d12, with 1d8 being the most common, and they add their primary stat (STR or DEX) to the damage roll which is likley to be 16 or 17 (+3). Exceptional damage in this case is 3d12+12 damage - that's a V.Human Fighter who takes a Greataxe, gets to make an Attack of Opportunity and gets to use their Great Weapon Master feat all in the same turn.

At level 20, that same Fighter has a +3 Greataxe, 20STR, Extra Attack x3 and Action Surge which gives them 10 attacks doing a total of 10d12+80 even without their Fighting Style and 5 or 6 more feats to use. Which still doesn't quite match an Empowered Meteor Swarm hitting multiple targets for a combined 40d6 plus feats, class abilities and so on. :smalltongue:

For added clarification, I'm thinking levels 5 through 10 on average. The current campaign I'm in has us at lvl. 11 and I'm playing a sorlock (Clockwork Soul 9/Celestial Pact 2). I swapped out a spell ladt level for Hex for a bit more damage and have the quickened meta-magic as well as Transmuted mm and the damage is okay, but I wonder if I'm expecting too much as far as damage output goes. Others in the party are a ranger with an Thor's Molnir (sp?) typle of axe with a lighting ability, a Warlock (used to be Fiend pact, but I think he got changed to Great Old One), a Grave Domain cleric/Wildfire circle druid, and an Artillerist Artificer. I think I might have unrealistic expectations on damage as I've played with paladins and barbarians in past campaigns and might be making unfair comparisons on damage output.

[BRC]

So after last weekend’s session, I’ve come to realize that I don’t know as much about combat as I probably should. To specify, we were playing a module and just as we killed off the last of six constructs that were attacking us, a hag appeared and summoned two lightning-based creatures (some kind of minor lightning elemental) and after the hag was killed, the summoned creatures disappeared. Our cleric player (who has more dnd knowledge and experience than me) expressed surprise that I had targeting one of the elementals rather than the hag. When I told him that it was something I hadn’t known to do, he explained how targeting the summoner is more effective on ending the fight (knowing that I am a strategic player by nature).



This got me thinking about how little actual experience and knowledge I have of the game and as someone who prefers dps over save or suck spells (nothing I hate more than wasting a spell by having everyone save against it and nothing happens, which is why I tend to focus on half-damage on a save kind of spells so that my turn is not fully wasted).



After my comments in another thread on how I felt as of going sharpshooter would be better for damage and how I felt that just spamming Eldritch Blast on my sorlock made me feel as if my damage output was kind of low, it made me wonder:



What, exactly is average damage during a turn and what I considered GOOD damage per turn?



Take monks, for example. To me, they seem incredibly weak as they can, without landing a successful stunning strike, get up to 4 attacks at around 10.5 per hit at level 5 (4 attacks with max dex of +5 + 1d6) which to me, seems kind of weak damage. To me, taking a level in hexblade, Blood Hunter or 2 levels of ranger for added damage seems like it is necessary for better dps. Stunning strike seems too hard to land as it is against a save most enemies would be good at, making it too unreliable to land often without wasting a lot of ki in repeated attempts to land it.



So how wrong is my thinking on this? I’m willing to admit that I’m probably wrong in my thinking and want advice from more experienced players on this. All helpful advice is appreciated. :)

So, on your Monk Math

A monk with +5 dex can swing 4 times for 1d6+5, this averages out to 8.5 per hit, or 34 damage total if every attack hits. Without spending a ki point to flurry, the monk is hitting only 3 times, for 25.5

A greatsword fighter with +5 strength swings twice for 2d6+5, dealing an average of 13 damage per hit, for an average of 26 damage total if every attack hits, coming in at slightly above the Monk's damage. Both are swinging at +8 to hit.


There's also a lot to be said about how multiple weaker attacks are more reliable than a few powerful attacks, but anyway.

Now, as far as "How much is A Lot"

The DMG's Quick Build A Monster list puts a CR 5 monster (A moderate challenge for 4 Level 5 PCs) at AC 15, with about 140 hit points.
With a +8 to hit, that comes out to a 65% chance for any given attack to connect.

So the average damage per round of a greatsword fighter is 16.9 (26 * .65), assuming the fighter spends zero extra resources (Superiority die, action surge, ect).

Four greatsword fighters will deal 67.6 damage a round to our Statistically Average CR 5 Homunculus, meaning that they kill it in about 2 and a quarter rounds (Roughly).



Every group is going to be different, and you'll drive yourself crazy trying to figure out this math for differentc
lsses. I used Greatsword Fighters because it's simple, but in general, that's what a straightforward round-to-round character is doing without spending resources or any fancy tricks.


For added clarification, I'm thinking levels 5 through 10 on average. The current campaign I'm in has us at lvl. 11 and I'm playing a sorlock (Clockwork Soul 9/Celestial Pact 2). I swapped out a spell ladt level for Hex for a bit more damage and have the quickened meta-magic as well as Transmuted mm and the damage is okay, but I wonder if I'm expecting too much as far as damage output goes. Others in the party are a ranger with an Thor's Molnir (sp?) typle of axe with a lighting ability, a Warlock (used to be Fiend pact, but I think he got changed to Great Old One), a Grave Domain cleric/Wildfire circle druid, and an Artillerist Artificer. I think I might have unrealistic expectations on damage as I've played with paladins and barbarians in past campaigns and might be making unfair comparisons on damage output.

Probably the case. Some classes are better at round-to-round damage, some are good at utility, some are good at burst damage, ect. Magic Items change everything too.

[Gtdead]

I think everyone has their own ideas about the standard dpr progression curve.

I use Agonizing EB+Hex and SS+CE Fighter as low standard and high standard respectively (subclassless). If my build can fall somewhere around these progression curves then I'm mostly fine with it.
For nova damage, I use SS+CE Samurai with Advantage and Action Surge. Most builds can't really beat this one without shenanigans so if it can do at least 80%~ of that, I consider it perfectly fine.

All these calculations assume around 65% basic hit chance with a normal ASI progression based on the Low/High Standard builds. So if for example I choose to not raise STR on my Paladin build compared to the High Standard Fighter build, I will reduce Paladin build's hit chance to 60% for the corresponding levels.

[J-H]

There are a lot of points in 5e where damage output spikes, like a Fighter going from 10 to 11 for a 3rd attack.
There's also a contrast between "can do it all day" like an EB Warlock or a Rogue, versus burst damage from a Fighter Action Surging or a Wizard using his 9th level spell slot.

I think in prior discussions, one generally accepted number was "around" 4-5 points of damage per character level.
Here are some non-burst damage figures, excluding feats and magic items, and assuming a 20 in the main stat, at level 20.

EB w/ Agonizing Blast, 4d10+20 = 42
Monk w/ flurry, 4d10+20 = 42
Rogue 20 with sneak attack, 10d6+5 = 40 [short sword for ease of math]
Fighter 20 with greataxe, 4d12+20 = 46
Paladin 20 w/ longsword 2d10+10+2d8 = 30

With the exception of the paladin or a caster with a cantrip, "all day long" damage of 2.5-3 per level is a good baseline, before magic items.

Hand out a flaming greatsword for +8d6 (+28) on the fighter's damage, or easy access to poison, etc., and the numbers go up.
If you can average 4*level without having to go nova, you're definitely "fine" as far as contributing goes.

[clash]

For average before optimization I generally work off of a fighter with a greatsword and no multiclass or feats. This gives before taking into account chance to hit:

Level 1: 2d6+4 for an average of 11
Level 5: 2d6+5 twice for 24
Level 11: 36

Nothing above Level eleven is usually relevant outside of white room discussions.

As far as good that opens a while different can off worms.

[Gignere]

I think everyone has their own ideas about the standard dpr progression curve.

I use Agonizing EB+Hex and SS+CE Fighter as low standard and high standard respectively (subclassless). If my build can fall somewhere around these progression curves then I'm mostly fine with it.
For nova damage, I use SS+CE Samurai with Advantage and Action Surge. Most builds can't really beat this one without shenanigans so if it can do at least 80%~ of that, I consider it perfectly fine.

SS+CE with AS and Advantage on a samurai is of course on the high end. It’s not even possible to use CE and Fighting spirit on the same turn. To get both advantage and CE with a samurai requires teamwork.

[jas61292]

For average before optimization I generally work off of a fighter with a greatsword and no multiclass or feats. This gives before taking into account chance to hit:

Level 1: 2d6+4 for an average of 11
Level 5: 2d6+5 twice for 24
Level 11: 36

This is generally what I look at as far as average damage (though the damage modifiers are one higher than I would use, since this seems to be assuming an 18 at level 1, which is only possible with good rolling, and totally impossible if you don't use rolling). You could also throw in the great weapon fighting style, but if I'm just looking for an average bar to set, I probably wouldn't if only because that makes it line up more with the average fighter, rather than just the average great weapon using fighter. And while this is a baseline, it is important to note that it is a relatively basic baseline. You generally want to be doing more, because this is not counting action surge or any subclass abilities that a fighter would get. But yeah, if your games are not high combat optimization, then this is a great baseline to use.

[clash]

This is generally what I look at as far as average damage (though the damage modifiers are one higher than I would use, since this seems to be assuming an 18 at level 1, which is only possible with good rolling, and totally impossible if you don't use rolling). You could also throw in the great weapon fighting style, but if I'm just looking for an average bar to set, I probably wouldn't if only because that makes it line up more with the average fighter, rather than just the average great weapon using fighter. And while this is a baseline, it is important to note that it is a relatively basic baseline. You generally want to be doing more, because this is not counting action surge or any subclass abilities that a fighter would get. But yeah, if your games are not high combat optimization, then this is a great baseline to use.

I typically use it more as a baseline for homebrew classes but I think it's useful in other discussions as well. Daily damage can be a better metric than at will though as in can average turns using resources and turns without.

[ff7hero]

This is generally what I look at as far as average damage (though the damage modifiers are one higher than I would use, since this seems to be assuming an 18 at level 1, which is only possible with good rolling, and totally impossible if you don't use rolling). You could also throw in the great weapon fighting style, but if I'm just looking for an average bar to set, I probably wouldn't if only because that makes it line up more with the average fighter, rather than just the average great weapon using fighter. And while this is a baseline, it is important to note that it is a relatively basic baseline. You generally want to be doing more, because this is not counting action surge or any subclass abilities that a fighter would get. But yeah, if your games are not high combat optimization, then this is a great baseline to use.

Minor nitpick, but Custom Lineage can start with an 18 under point buy/array via the right half feat. I don't think it's worth using as a baseline though.

[Crucius]

So, all I have is empirical data, collected from my current campaign.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9e/97/d7/9e97d75e9fa7b15a4dcffb1eab6f3b5d.jpg

I started collecting this data to get a read on who I should buff with magic items. It is my belief that the monk for example should be on par with the warlock, maybe even approach the paladin.


-The Druid is kinda blasty with fireball. Does well in long fights, as well as fights with many enemies.
-The Warlock is Eldritch Blast and CC focused. Uses Spirit Guardians and Spirit Shroud in conjunction with Grasp of Hadar and a homebrew ruling regarding Polarm Master and Warcaster to cast Repelling Blasts as soon as an enemy enters their reach. Their damage depends massively on whether I send my monsters into his deathaura basically.
-The Paladin has everything stacked on smite. Sorcerer spell slots, fighter maneuvers and action surge.
-Artificer is also blasty. Does well in fights with many enemies.
-Monk does monk things, but their average damage was pretty low (and the player felt bad about that), so I gave them a Defender 'tattoo' and a few other sources of d6's and now seems to keep up with the rest.
-Wizard goes all in on CC. Lately they have picked up disintegrate and synaptic static and have been doing better, but before their only damage was cantrips and magic missile, hence the low average damage.


Anyway, damage is soooo swingy. There are massive bumps all over this graph. Crit smites, good AoE fireballs/lightning bolts, roleplaying moments where no damage is dealt, these all create irregularities.
Basically; no rights can be gleaned from this. It is massively flawed: it doesn't take into account CC (either dealt by player, or inflicted on player), it doesn't normalize against number of enemies (I tried implementing that but it was a pain in the ass), and it doesn't take luck or misfortune into account.
If anything can be learned from this is that from levels 5-11 the average damage was around 20-25. After that it was around 30. I was surprised to see that it does not go up as much as I thought.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For average before optimization I generally work off of a fighter with a greatsword and no multiclass or feats. This gives before taking into account chance to hit:

Level 1: 2d6+4 for an average of 11
Level 5: 2d6+5 twice for 24
Level 11: 36

Nothing above Level eleven is usually relevant outside of white room discussions.

As far as good that opens a while different can off worms.

One note: "before optimization" and "has +4 in STR at level 1" are...rather in tension. The system's base assumptions are that you have either a +2 or a +3 in your primary attack stat at level 1, and never need to hit +5.

----to OP----
The problem with asking this question here is that most people here have tremendously inflated notions of what the minimum/expected values are, because their games have strongly deviated from the system's baseline (against which the monsters were designed).

IMO, the best low-end baseline is that of a standard, featless/no-multiclassing ranged (light crossbow) Thief Rogue who gets sneak attack all the time (within rounding errors). Why no feats/multiclassing--because those are optional, and the system's baseline doesn't include them. Why Thief? Because it's a basic-rules subclass. Why rogue? smooth scaling, with the minimum of resources to get in the way. Why ranged? one attack. Makes the math easier =). Basically, this is the lowest the system expects.

Level 1: +3 main stat, 1d8 + 3 + 1d6 = 11 (average, before accuracy)
Level 5: +4 main stat, 1d8 + 4 + 3d6 = 19
Level 11: +5 main stat[0], 1d8 + 5 + 6d6 = 30.5
Level 17: +5 main stat, 1d8 + 5 + 9d6 = 41 [1]
Level 20: +5 main stat, 1d8 + 5 + 10d6 = 44.5 [1]

[0] in a featless game, it's unlikely that you'll not boost this relatively quickly.
[1] not counting the thief capstone, because meh, that'd take effort.

[Contrast]

Kryx on these forums created this (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1629776436) massive spreadsheet outlining average DPR for a lot of common builds.

Its a whole load of numbers but you should hopefully be able to parse some baseline points for reference.

I do also agree with PhoenixPhyre that if we're not looking at more optimised builds, rogue is a good quick comparison as its easily referenceable and scaleable. Rogue is about the baseline low end for OK damage. If you're doing more, great. If you're doing less, you should be sure you're contributing in other ways.

[samcifer]

So a pc at lvl 11 with monk at level 12 with 20 dex and a feat to gain access to hunter's mark could be doing around 48 damage per turn, which would be above average, while a PC that is monk 11 and hexblade warlock 1 could do 68 damage on average via Hex and Hexblade's Curse which would be insanely high damage per turn?

[stoutstien]

So a pc at lvl 11 with monk at level 12 with 20 dex and a feat to gain access to hunter's mark could be doing around 48 damage per turn, which would be above average, while a PC that is monk 11 and hexblade warlock 1 could do 68 damage on average via Hex and Hexblade's Curse which would be insanely high damage per turn?

It would take 2 round before you have both up and running so you'd have to consider that.

[Zhorn]

Also worth considering that while total potential average damage per turn is a useful number for simulations, it should be considered distinct from damage per attack, and number of attacks per round.

Just going off the summoner example, while ending the fight is the overall objective, breaking concentration and removing the summons from the enemy's control is the more immediate goal, where having your damage spread out over multiple hits can be very just as effective in breaking concentration as trying to get in a big hit that is harder to hold concentration against.

Sorry about this tangent, just considering the current thread on concentration and level scaling it seemed a point worth highlighting.

[Dark.Revenant]

At home I have a table with calculated figures per level for "Expected Damage", using DMG guidelines for CR and encounter difficulty. The baseline I set is basically this:

1. Take a generic "Deadly" solo encounter for a 4-person party at your level. Use the DMG table for HP/AC. Round the CR down rather than up/nearest.
2. Divide the monster's average HP by 12.
3. That's the baseline for "good damage" at your level, assuming you're attacking that monster's AC. Basically, if you can deal 1/4 of the monster's HP over 3 rounds, you're "pulling your weight" damage-wise.

This creates a curve from like ~6ish DPR to ~45ish DPR, from level 1 to level 20. Notably, this is more-or-less what a generic sword-and-board Fighter with no feats or subclass will accomplish, in terms of 3-round-average damage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

At home I have a table with calculated figures per level for "Expected Damage", using DMG guidelines for CR and encounter difficulty. The baseline I set is basically this:

1. Take a generic "Deadly" solo encounter for a 4-person party at your level. Use the DMG table for HP/AC. Round the CR down rather than up/nearest.
2. Divide the monster's average HP by 12.
3. That's the baseline for "good damage" at your level, assuming you're attacking that monster's AC. Basically, if you can deal 1/4 of the monster's HP over 3 rounds, you're "pulling your weight" damage-wise.

This creates a curve from like ~6ish DPR to ~45ish DPR, from level 1 to level 20. Notably, this is more-or-less what a generic sword-and-board Fighter with no feats or subclass will accomplish, in terms of 3-round-average damage.

Those numbers map pretty well to my "no-accuracy" calculation for the rogues above. Assuming your DPR is roughly 70% of the flat number (65% accuracy plus crits, rounding heavily), that comes out to

1: 7.7 DPR
20: 31.5 DPR

But the level 20 number is likely quite a bit above that (due to things like subclass features, magic weapons, something other than just standing and shooting a light crossbow, etc), putting it into the ballpark.

Edit: I should note that actual monsters undershoot the DMG's guidance on HP pretty severely. The average CR 20 has 303 HP, when the DMG says 356 - 400 is the range for CR 20. CR 10: 141 HP vs 206-220 HP. Etc. There's not a single CR that (on average) beats the DMG's guidance for HP. That's because many monsters have higher offensive CR than defensive CR.

That puts the "CR 20" expected DPR by this method at 25.25 (303/12 = 25.25). And a CR 24 (a deadly for 4 level 20s) at 36.9 (443/12 = 36.9).

[Gtdead]

SS+CE with AS and Advantage on a samurai is of course on the high end. It’s not even possible to use CE and Fighting spirit on the same turn. To get both advantage and CE with a samurai requires teamwork.

Yes you are right, I can't use CE, I just slap Fighting Spirit on the standard fighter build for advantage generation and calculate action surge because I find some difficulty in simulating Battlemaster's precision strike. It's still high end damage. BM may be able to do more but I feel that slapping a superiority die average on hit chance doesn't really do the build justice and I don't want to do simulations because they are tedious.

[Kane0]

Baselines I use are:
Greataxe barbarian (Rage and Great Weapon Master)
Spearman fighter (PAM and great weapon style)
Longbow ranger (hunters mark and sharpshooter, archery style)
Blaster warlock (agonising blast and hex)

All without subclasses.

Sometimes I will also consider a flurrying monk or dual wielding Rogue as well for an additional data point.

In terms of taking damage however, I assume a con of 14 and no extra HP from sources like race, feat or THP. If i lose 25% of my HP in a turn thats notable, 33% is worrying, 50% is change-of-plans

[Frogreaver]

Damage levels.

1. Basic Cantrip levels (say firebolt or EB without agonizing blast)
2. Weapon + Mod Levels (or EB and agonizing blast)
3. SS Fighter or reckless attacking GWM Barbarian (no subclass abilities)
4. SS+CBE Fighter or reckless attacking GWM+PAM Barbarian (no subclass abilities)
5. SS+CBE Battlemaster (precision attack) Fighter or reckless attacking GWM+PAM Zealot Barbarian
6. Same builds but with appropriate +2 magic weapons

1 is low damage
2 is baseline damage
3 is average damage
4 is good damage
5 is great damage
6 is epic damage

Seems like a good makeshift scale to me.

[Dark.Revenant]

Alright, here are the promised tables:

Baseline "Good Single-Target DPR" (true 3-round DPR, with accuracy and crits counted):
Level 1: 6.5 DPR vs AC 13
Level 2: 9 DPR vs AC 13
Level 3: 10.25 DPR vs AC 14
Level 4: 11.5 DPR vs AC 15
Level 5: 15.25 DPR vs AC 16
Level 6: 16.5 DPR vs AC 16
Level 7: 17.75 DPR vs AC 17
Level 8: 20.25 DPR vs AC 17
Level 9: 20.25 DPR vs AC 17
Level 10: 21.5 DPR vs AC 18
Level 11: 24 DPR vs AC 18
Level 12: 26.5 DPR vs AC 19
Level 13: 27.75 DPR vs AC 19
Level 14: 29 DPR vs AC 19
Level 15: 31.5 DPR vs AC 19
Level 16: 31.5 DPR vs AC 19
Level 17: 35.25 DPR vs AC 19
Level 18: 35.25 DPR vs AC 19
Level 19: 39 DPR vs AC 19
Level 20: 42.75 DPR vs AC 19
This is the DPR that you'd need to deal 1/4 of the damage necessary to kill a deadly solo encounter for a 4-person party within 3 rounds. with the CR rounded down, rather than up.

Baseline "Good Dual-Target DPR" (true 3-round DPR per target, with accuracy and crits counted):
Level 1: 5 DPR vs AC 13
Level 2: 6.5 DPR vs AC 13
Level 3: 7.75 DPR vs AC 13
Level 4: 7.75 DPR vs AC 13
Level 5: 10.25 DPR vs AC 14
Level 6: 11.5 DPR vs AC 15
Level 7: 11.5 DPR vs AC 15
Level 8: 12.75 DPR vs AC 15
Level 9: 14 DPR vs AC 15
Level 10: 14 DPR vs AC 15
Level 11: 15.25 DPR vs AC 16
Level 12: 17.75 DPR vs AC 17
Level 13: 17.75 DPR vs AC 17
Level 14: 19 DPR vs AC 17
Level 15: 20.25 DPR vs AC 17
Level 16: 20.25 DPR vs AC 17
Level 17: 22.75 DPR vs AC 18
Level 18: 22.75 DPR vs AC 18
Level 19: 24 DPR vs AC 18
Level 20: 25.25 DPR vs AC 18
As above, but with 2 weaker enemies rather than 1 strong one.

Baseline "Good Multi-Target DPR" (true 3-round DPR per target, with accuracy and crits counted):
Level 1: 3.54 DPR vs AC 13
Level 2: 5 DPR vs AC 13
Level 3: 6.5 DPR vs AC 13
Level 4: 6.5 DPR vs AC 13
Level 5: 7.75 DPR vs AC 13
Level 6: 9 DPR vs AC 13
Level 7: 9 DPR vs AC 13
Level 8: 9 DPR vs AC 13
Level 9: 10.25 DPR vs AC 14
Level 10: 10.25 DPR vs AC 14
Level 11: 11.5 DPR vs AC 15
Level 12: 11.5 DPR vs AC 15
Level 13: 12.75 DPR vs AC 15
Level 14: 12.75 DPR vs AC 15
Level 15: 14 DPR vs AC 15
Level 16: 14 DPR vs AC 15
Level 17: 15.25 DPR vs AC 16
Level 18: 15.25 DPR vs AC 16
Level 19: 16.5 DPR vs AC 16
Level 20: 17.75 DPR vs AC 17
As above, but with 4 weaker enemies rather than 1 strong one.

[Kurt Kurageous]

My first impression is to say average damage is around 8 (one max hit die d8)+ enemy CON worth per level. Getting more specific? That way leads to mathness!

Buried under layers of editions is the concept that a hit die is a monster level. Consider orc CR2 with 15 HP. And behold, it has two hit dice. This is not a hard and fast rule for monster HP, but it is part of the code that makes up the mess that is CR. Consider a solo fight with simultaneous damage for a 2nd level fighter. Roughly equal HP, orc AC is lower, but damage output is higher. Fighter AC higher but damage output lower. The fight will likely be over after the second round, and nearly certainly after the third.

To answer the OP, I conclude that one member of a party of four pulls it's weight when it does no less than 1/12 of the monster's HP per round. This is why most monster fights last 2-3 rounds. There are some inefficiencies that occur when more than one monster appears, but the total HP thing is the general case.

And anything beyond that general case is leaning over the mathbyss.

[heavyfuel]

I like Treantmonk's approach. A Warlock that starts with 16 Cha and takes Agonizing Blast at level 2, and gets 20 Cha at level 8 is dealing low damage (I think he calls it 'baseline damage')

If you're dealing damage below this baseline, you better be doing some extraordinary, which is where most full casters stand.

This is super general, and doesn't take novas into account, and nova abilities are super powerful in D&D because you might not care about dealing low damage on an Easy encounter, if it means you're super strong on a Deadly encounter. So a Paladin might deal damage pretty close to the baseline, but the ability to Smite still makes them excellent damage dealers.

[Hael]

I like Treantmonk's approach. A Warlock that starts with 16 Cha and takes Agonizing Blast at level 2, and gets 20 Cha at level 8 is dealing low damage (I think he calls it 'baseline damage')

If you're dealing damage below this baseline, you better be doing some extraordinary, which is where most full casters stand.


The EB agonizing blast combo requires exactly 2 lvls of investment, and scales throughout the game, so its a pretty good damage comparison. Of course its important to realize that it is NOT on the low end. It outscales most rogues and monks for instance.

We often track total damage done statistics in our campaign, and they tend to favor classes that dont do as well in the pure whiteroom context, but that do really well in practice. So for instance Clerics in dungeons romps often outdamage the entire rest of the party combined (including the raging barbarian and the battlemaster). Druid summons are the same way.. Often b/c they are disposable so they're getting several more rounds of combat before we are even exposed to the threats.

Often wizards look weak, but those two fireballs hit 9-10 enemies each, and then their total damage starts shooting up the charts.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My first impression is to say average damage is around 8 (one max hit die d8)+ enemy CON worth per level. Getting more specific? That way leads to mathness!

Buried under layers of editions is the concept that a hit die is a monster level. Consider orc CR2 with 15 HP. And behold, it has two hit dice. This is not a hard and fast rule for monster HP, but it is part of the code that makes up the mess that is CR. Consider a solo fight with simultaneous damage for a 2nd level fighter. Roughly equal HP, orc AC is lower, but damage output is higher. Fighter AC higher but damage output lower. The fight will likely be over after the second round, and nearly certainly after the third.

To answer the OP, I conclude that one member of a party of four pulls it's weight when it does no less than 1/12 of the monster's HP per round. This is why most monster fights last 2-3 rounds. There are some inefficiencies that occur when more than one monster appears, but the total HP thing is the general case.

And anything beyond that general case is leaning over the mathbyss.

HD and monster CR are completely, totally, unrelated in this edition except by accident. That was a 3e-ism that died there. That orc with 15 HP and 2 HD? Isn't CR 2. He's CR 1/2. Making that assumption is a really good way to get yourself thoroughly screwed up as far as expectations.

[Man_Over_Game]

Alright, here are the promised tables:


Amazing work!




So my idea for a loose rule that's easier to remember:

Single Target Damage = 4 + (2 * Level)

AoE Damage = 3 + (0.7 * Level)

Which really just tells me that AoE damage is pretty OP and we don't really need more than 1 AoE mage at a time.

[Rukelnikov]

HD and monster CR are completely, totally, unrelated in this edition except by accident. That was a 3e-ism that died there. That orc with 15 HP and 2 HD? Isn't CR 2. He's CR 1/2. Making that assumption is a really good way to get yourself thoroughly screwed up as far as expectations.

That's completely false, more HD means more HP, which means higher Defensive CR which means higher CR.

Also, in 3.x a CR1 creature could have 1 HD or 4, there were many variables in the mix, you are probably confusing with ECL.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's completely false, more HD means more HP, which means higher Defensive CR which means higher CR.

Also, in 3.x a CR1 creature could have 1 HD or 4, there were many variables in the mix, you are probably confusing with ECL.

Hd correlate weakly with hp (because of size and con) between monsters--a creature with 10d4 hd and 0 con is lower HP than one with 5d12 hd and 0 con. So the connection is weak to functionally nonexistent. Hd, in particular, are a derived stat that is set by deciding how much HP something should have, the size, and the con bonus. An output, not an input.

3e had more of a connection, especially for humanoids. A 2HD half-orc would, unless something really strange was going on, be CR 2. And creatures got feats based on HD as if it were level (modified by hd type, something we've thankfully discarded). Where that broke down was monsters like undead, due to HD bloat due to not having con at all.

[PhantomSoul]

That's completely false, more HD means more HP, which means higher Defensive CR which means higher CR.

Also, in 3.x a CR1 creature could have 1 HD or 4, there were many variables in the mix, you are probably confusing with ECL.

It's not actually completely false, for the very reason you give: CR isn't just HP, so number of hit dice is only correlated to HP (CON mod comes in), and HP is what matters (not HD).

For an illustration (917 monsters):

https://i.ibb.co/kKPx4vn/Dn-D5e-bestiary-HD.png

If it were perfect, (a) the hit dice size wouldn't matter, and (b) it would be a line with no dots outside of that line.

(Quick & dirty parsing, so as you can see there are imperfections, but they're rare enough and factored separately so it doesn't really affect the visualisation.)

[Dark.Revenant]

Amazing work!

So my idea for a loose rule that's easier to remember:

Single Target Damage = 4 + (2 * Level)

AoE Damage = 3 + (0.7 * Level)

Which really just tells me that AoE damage is pretty OP and we don't really need more than 1 AoE mage at a time.

Thank you!

I would agree that only one AOE specialist is needed, but that isn’t to say having more than one is superfluous. Sure, a Fireball round one and then cantrips for the remaining rounds will “pull your weight” from levels 5 to 9 or so, but it’s not like that’s enough to singlehandedly solve the encounter.

As a general rule, when evaluating builds along these damage lines, I would allow using all Short Rest and half (rounding down, min 1) Long Rest resources, according to the idea that you’re expected to be able to handle at least two Deadly encounters in a day. That means a 9th level evoker could theoretically drop a Cone of Cold and two Fireballs (one upcast) for the AOE damage calculation, which—if you’re hitting four enemies each time and they have a 40% chance to save—totals close to 30 AOE DPR. In that case, yeah, you’re pulling thrice your weight, but you’re committing all your resources and actions to blasting. Having multiple blasters can split the workload and make each caster more flexible.

[MaxWilson]

That's completely false, more HD means more HP, which means higher Defensive CR which means higher CR.

Or it just means smaller HD (i.e. from being Medium instead of Large/Huge/Gargantuan), or a lower Con bonus. Consider the Meazle. It has 10 hit dice (10d8-10) but is only CR 1.

You're not wrong that there's a correlation, but it's not a simple one.

[Gignere]

Amazing work!




So my idea for a loose rule that's easier to remember:

Single Target Damage = 4 + (2 * Level)

AoE Damage = 3 + (0.7 * Level)

Which really just tells me that AoE damage is pretty OP and we don't really need more than 1 AoE mage at a time.

Yes and you really feel it when your party has no AoE. There are just some challenges, even if you have monstrous single target DPR within the party, you just struggle with because of the lack of AoE.

[PhantomSoul]

Yes and you really feel it when your party has no AoE. There are just some challenges, even if you have monstrous single target DPR within the party, you just struggle with because of the lack of AoE.

Mhm, and it doesn't even need to be AoE damage; AoE control is huge, whereas single-target control has a very different feel and effect. (Not nothing, but oh boy the potential for AoE control might even feel more significant than the potential for AoE damage, even if AoE damage is "more expected" in a party.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes and you really feel it when your party has no AoE. There are just some challenges, even if you have monstrous single target DPR within the party, you just struggle with because of the lack of AoE.

Yeah. I absolutely agree with this. AoE blasting has its place, especially in the mid levels when facing off against a horde of CR 1/2 or smaller creatures is meaningful--single-targeting them down means heavy overkill or just one or two per round; a fireball can wipe a bunch. Despite not being super efficient against a single creature[1]. It's almost like different classes have different default roles--weapon users tend to focus on hitting single (or a couple) targets pretty hard, while caster-based blasting[2] is generally more diffuse. Both are needed as long as you're not stuck in a "we only fight big super solos" rut. Or, and this is much less frequent from what I see, "we only fight hordes of mooks". Variety is the spice of adventuring.

[1] not that you could convince one player I had of that--fireball was his first, last, and pretty much only resort. I took to adding in groups of tiny mooks (not even considering them in difficulty calculations) for him to nuke and feel good about.
[2] with a few exceptions, just like there are some weapon-users who can more or less handle small groups ok.

[MaxWilson]

Mhm, and it doesn't even need to be AoE damage; AoE control is huge, whereas single-target control has a very different feel and effect. (Not nothing, but oh boy the potential for AoE control might even feel more significant than the potential for AoE damage, even if AoE damage is "more expected" in a party.)

Agreed, but (opinion alert!) AoE damage is expected partly because it doesn't take concentration. AoE control can be awkward if you can only cover a minority of the threats in a single cast, but with blasting you just blast repeatedly. (Or control some and blast the leftovers.)


Or, and this is much less frequent from what I see, "we only fight hordes of mooks".

Really, you think that's frequent?

Forum talk gives me the impression that plenty of people expect to fight only high-CR solos at high levels (e.g. look at discussions on DPR, or how many adventuring days it takes to level up; CR = PC level is a very common assumption).

I can't think of anyone who's ever said the opposite, that they fight only hordes of mooks.

Interesting that you feel it's common.

[PhantomSoul]

Agreed, but (opinion alert!) AoE damage is expected partly because it doesn't take concentration. AoE control can be awkward if you can only cover a minority of the threats in a single cast, but with blasting you just blast repeatedly. (Or control some and blast the leftovers.)

Agreed! It's also more widespread and less all-or-nothing, so it feels more reliable. (Plus, numbers are fun and AoE damage speeds up the fight, while AoE control often "just" makes it safer.)

[Cheesegear]

This is the DPR that you'd need to deal 1/4 of the damage necessary to kill a deadly solo encounter for a 4-person party within 3 rounds.


So my idea for a loose rule that's easier to remember:

Single Target Damage = 4 + (2 * Level)

AoE Damage = 3 + (0.7 * Level)

Of course, that's reliant on the fact that every other member in the party is also dealing damage on their turn. Which just isn't true a lot of the time.

If your party role is to deal damage, you'd want to be doing enough damage to account for at least one - if not two - of your party members dealing 0 damage on their turns, means that you'll likely be wanting to output around double or triple those numbers if your role, again, is to be the primary damage dealer.


Forum talk gives me the impression that plenty of people expect to fight only high-CR solos at high levels

Mostly I feel this might be that a DM running a game with Level 12 characters doesn't want to run Goblins, and players who are Level 12, don't want to be fighting Goblins again.


(CR = PC level is a very common assumption).

Xanathar's gives for 4 Players vs. a solo hostile:
Level 1-4 = CR should be equal to party level.
Level 5-11 = [CR = party Level+2]
Level 12-16 = [CR = party Level +3]
Level 17+ = [CR = party level +2]

e.g
x4 Level 6 players equals a CR 8
x4 Level 12 players equals a CR 15.
Depending on your table, that might not be true. But it is what Xanathar's has.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Really, you think that's frequent?

Forum talk gives me the impression that plenty of people expect to fight only high-CR solos at high levels (e.g. look at discussions on DPR, or how many adventuring days it takes to level up; CR = PC level is a very common assumption).

I can't think of anyone who's ever said the opposite, that they fight only hordes of mooks.

Interesting that you feel it's common.

Maybe I just worded that parenthetical badly. We're in agreement. The "we only fight hordes" is the uncommon position. Included entirely for the sake of symmetry[1], not because I believe it's really a common pathology at all.

[1] I have a sometimes-crippling obsession with symmetry and covering all my bases. It's a problem.

[samcifer]

The EB agonizing blast combo requires exactly 2 lvls of investment, and scales throughout the game, so its a pretty good damage comparison. Of course its important to realize that it is NOT on the low end. It outscales most rogues and monks for instance.

We often track total damage done statistics in our campaign, and they tend to favor classes that dont do as well in the pure whiteroom context, but that do really well in practice. So for instance Clerics in dungeons romps often outdamage the entire rest of the party combined (including the raging barbarian and the battlemaster). Druid summons are the same way.. Often b/c they are disposable so they're getting several more rounds of combat before we are even exposed to the threats.

Often wizards look weak, but those two fireballs hit 9-10 enemies each, and then their total damage starts shooting up the charts.

So I did some mental math and a player at total level 17 with EB, AG, a +3 item such as a Rod of the Pact Keeper and max CHA at 20 can do an average of 54 damage per turn of all 4 beams hit (88 damage with Hex, or 92 per turn if they can activate both Hexand Hexblade's Cure if they are a Hexblade), whereas a lvl 9 Fireball can do an average of 49 damage per target (I know, I know, there's much better uses of a 9th lvl spell slot).

Meanwhile, a lvl 20 fighter with a +3 longsword and the Duelist fighting style could do up to 62 damage on 4 attacks per turn (without AS), which seems to be average damage per turn?

So at max level, 50-60 damage per turn is average per turn?

[DwarfFighter]

For added clarification, I'm thinking levels 5 through 10 on average.

25 damage per round at level 10 seems fine.

There's usually a lot more in the first two rounds when the magic users fire off their big spells, then there is a drop as they fall back on cantrips.

-DF

[Dark.Revenant]

Of course, that's reliant on the fact that every other member in the party is also dealing damage on their turn. Which just isn't true a lot of the time.

If your party role is to deal damage, you'd want to be doing enough damage to account for at least one - if not two - of your party members dealing 0 damage on their turns, means that you'll likely be wanting to output around double or triple those numbers if your role, again, is to be the primary damage dealer.

I thought that was clear by the fact that I'm calling it "baseline damage" and "pulling your weight". If you need to carry the damage burden of multiple party members, then of course you'll have to pick up the slack and do more than the baseline.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I thought that was clear by the fact that I'm calling it "baseline damage" and "pulling your weight". If you need to carry the damage burden of multiple party members, then of course you'll have to pick up the slack and do more than the baseline.

And note on the other side that not all fights are deadly. Or at least not all have to be deadly. The variation here is large.

[MaxWilson]

Maybe I just worded that parenthetical badly. We're in agreement. The "we only fight hordes" is the uncommon position. Included entirely for the sake of symmetry[1], not because I believe it's really a common pathology at all.

[1] I have a sometimes-crippling obsession with symmetry and covering all my bases. It's a problem.

Yeah, I see now the source of my confusion: apparently I don't know the difference between "less frequent" and "more frequent". LOL.

My bad.

[Cheesegear]

And note on the other side that not all fights are deadly. Or at least not all have to be deadly. The variation here is large.

How does the fight being Easy or Deadly change how much damage the game expects you to be able to deal?

Per Xanathar's: A Four 6th Levels is equivalent to a single CR8.
Per DMG: A CR8 has 176-190 HPs
/3 rounds
/4 characters
= ~15 damage per round.

If four Level 6s are equivalent to a single CR8...It doesn't matter if the party fights Goblins. A 15-damage hit will splat a Goblin.
Do you need to deal 15 damage to a Goblin? No. Absolutely not. But the game expects you to deal 15 damage to a Goblin because you're Level 6 and you're expected to do 15 damage regardless of what you're attacking.

To be clear: Dealing 15 damage per round at Level 6 is not particularly difficult (i.e; D&D is not hard, power-gaming is kind of pointless in practice). But if you have party members not dealing any damage (e.g; Casting a spell and the target just succeeding on their save, effectively doing nothing), then you need to be dealing 30, or 45. That's a little bit more difficult. But certainly doable if you're Level 6 with at least Extra Attack.

[MaxWilson]

Mostly I feel this might be that a DM running a game with Level 12 characters doesn't want to run Goblins, and players who are Level 12, don't want to be fighting Goblins again.

Maybe, but I think it has more to do with the fact that (for whatever reason) many DMs seem not to like running large numbers of monsters.

Xanathar's will tell you that it's completely fair game for four level 12 PCs to fight 8 Stirges, 3 Goblins, 1 Orog, and 1 Giant Constrictor Snake; or 8 Stirges and a Young White Dragon. Both of these scenarios keep AoEs relevant.

[Contrast]

Which really just tells me that AoE damage is pretty OP and we don't really need more than 1 AoE mage at a time.

In fairness, for a lot of builds (some exceptions do exist such as Evocation Wizards or Glamour Bards, Clerics and Spirit Guardians) AoE is substantially more effective if you manage to win initiative. So the benfit in having multiple people with AoE often isn't that you can cast 2 Fireballs, its that you get two attempts to make sure 1 Fireball is cast first, decimating the enemy before they get to act/the lines of engagement get all messy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How does the fight being Easy or Deadly change how much damage the game expects you to be able to deal?

Per Xanathar's: A Four 6th Levels is equivalent to a single CR8.
Per DMG: A CR8 has 176-190 HPs
/3 rounds
/4 characters
= ~15 damage per round.

If four Level 6s are equivalent to a single CR8...It doesn't matter if the party fights Goblins. A 15-damage hit will splat a Goblin.
Do you need to deal 15 damage to a Goblin? No. Absolutely not. But the game expects you to deal 15 damage to a Goblin because you're Level 6 and you're expected to do 15 damage regardless of what you're attacking.

To be clear: Dealing 15 damage per round at Level 6 is not particularly difficult (i.e; D&D is not hard, power-gaming is kind of pointless in practice). But if you have party members not dealing any damage (e.g; Casting a spell and the target just succeeding on their save, effectively doing nothing), then you need to be dealing 30, or 45. That's a little bit more difficult. But certainly doable if you're Level 6 with at least Extra Attack.

The bold part isn't quite right. A single CR 8 is expected to be a Deadly fight, but "you kill it in 3 rounds" and "Deadly is the baseline" isn't necessarily a system expectation--that's a manufactured expectation. And most fights are not against deadly ones; a single CR 6 is a Medium encounter for that same party, with a (book) average of 146 - 160 HP (13 DPR at most). 10 CR 1/2 creatures is also Medium for that group, with an average (book value) total HP of 600(!). The point being that using Deadly solos as your measuring stick leaves out a lot of the variation of real games.

Basically, baselines have to be actual baselines, where falling below that means something is drastically wrong. Not dealing damage for a turn is not "doing something drastically wrong" by the game's estimation. So using that as your baseline is not in keeping with system expectations.

Not only that, using the book values for HP drastically overstates things. Real CR 8 creatures average 114 HP. Which would average out to 9.5 DPR. Real CR 6 creatures average 94 HP, or 7.8 DPR. Those 10 CR 1/2's? 190 HP total, not 600.

The book values are way off from real monsters, mostly because they assume that defensive CR == offensive CR == CR. Which...they don't for real monsters. In fact, they're all over the place in both directions. Zariel has a final defensive CR of 30 and a final offensive CR of 23. On the other hand, the venom troll (book CR 7) has a defensive CR of 4 and an offensive CR of 9.

[samcifer]

In fairness, for a lot of builds (some exceptions do exist such as Evocation Wizards or Glamour Bards, Clerics and Spirit Guardians) AoE is substantially more effective if you manage to win initiative. So the benfit in having multiple people with AoE often isn't that you can cast 2 Fireballs, its that you get two attempts to make sure 1 Fireball is cast first, decimating the enemy before they get to act/the lines of engagement get all messy.

On a related note, can a lvl 5+ sorc take 2 levels of evocation wizard and use Sculpt Spell (where you make safe spaces with an AoE), and use that effect to use a lvl 3 sorc spell slot to cast fireball (as a sorc spell) and still get those safe spaces for allies? Is such a tactic legal?

[Contrast]

On a related note, can a lvl 5+ sorc take 2 levels of evocation wizard and use Sculpt Spell (where you make safe spaces with an AoE), and use that effect to use a lvl 3 sorc spell slot to cast fireball (as a sorc spell) and still get those safe spaces for allies? Is such a tactic legal?

Yep!

Though the more normal sorc approach would be to just take Careful metamagic and the party just have to suck up taking half damage :smallwink:

[Cheesegear]

The bold part isn't quite right. A single CR 8 is expected to be a Deadly fight, but "you kill it in 3 rounds" and "Deadly is the baseline" isn't necessarily a system expectation--that's a manufactured expectation.

Again, whatever personal label you want to give it, I'm getting my information from Xanathar's. Xanathar's is a published book in wide circulation that is well regarded by almost everyone who reads it:


Xanathar's, pg 88
The Solo Monster Challenge Rating table shows you which challenge rating (CR) to use for a legendary creature opposing a party of four to six characters, creating a satisfying but difficult battle. For example, for a party of five 9th-level characters, a CR 12 legendary creature makes an optimal encounter. For a more perilous battle, match up the characters with a legendary creature whose challenge rating is 1 or 2 higher than optimal. For an easy fight, use a legendary creature whose challenge rating is 3 or more lower than the challenge rating for an optimal encounter.

I've bolded some keywords I find interesting. The repeated use of the word 'optimal' is very...Direct. This is what the game expects.


a single CR 6 is a Medium encounter for that same party, with a (book) average of 146 - 160 HP (13 DPR at most).

Right. If you can deal 15 damage per round, and you're up against a creature that only requires 13 DPR...Maybe that's the reason why it's a Medium encounter. Against the Medium encounter, you should still be able to do 15 DPR, because you are expected to be able to hit 15 DPR If you only 'need to' hit a target of 13 DPR, what does that represent? You are not burning resources in that encounter. That's why it's Medium. When you hit those Deadly encounters, you are expected to burn those resources to hit those benchmarks. When you aren't in a Deadly encounter, hitting those benchmarks for those hostiles is literally meant to be easier. Hence why the difficulties are named the way they are.

A Paladin hits with a Longsword; 1d8+3+2 [STR 16 + Dueling]. For 9 average damage. Fairly respectable. You're in an Easy encounter. They are doing enough expected damage for the encounter. They are not burning resources. Now, if you know anything about Paladins, you know that just attacking is not their repertoire.

When it counts? When the Paladin is in a Hard or Deadly encounter? You'd better be busting out those 2d8 Smites for 18 average damage per hit or round. A Paladin can bust that out when required. When it's not required, the Paladin doesn't have to do that. Funny, that. A Paladin could hit a Kobold for 18 damage, if they chose to, though.


The point being that using Deadly solos as your measuring stick leaves out a lot of the variation of real games.

It's one measuring stick, and it's the easiest stick to measure with. But you are correct.

But if you're dealing with multiple hostiles?
- How many hostiles?
- How many HPs do they have each?
- What is the average DPR for that hostile, and how many can you hit at once over a single round?

You have 2 hostiles, each with 3 expected Rounds worth of hit points. In order for the combat to end in three turns, you need to deal DPR to both of them.
You have 8 hostiles, each with 3 expected Rounds worth of hit points. In order for the combat to end in three turns, you need to deal DPR to all eight.
etc.

Now, I could make that XYZ graph. Where the goal isn't so much DPR, but damage per hit (DPH). Previous posters have detailed that you do not need two AoE nukers. But you certainly could if you wanted to.

DPR and DPH are similar. But not entirely unrelated. Get you a character who can do both, I guess? :smallwink:


Not dealing damage for a turn is not "doing something drastically wrong" by the game's estimation.

For the purposes of the thread, it is.
How much damage is average? That's calculable.
How much damage is a lot? ...IMO, 'a lot' of damage, is when you deal so much damage that you can actually cover the 'cost' of one or more others in your not dealing damage. When multiple characters in the same party can do this, in the same round, it turns a 3-round Deadly encounter into a 1-round nuke-fest. Multiple characters in a single round do the 'equivalent' of two characters' worth of damage, each. (i.e; Four characters do eight characters' worth of damage, which would largely project that the encounter only takes 1.5 rounds, rather than 3).

That's my answer, to the thread, based on Xanathar's.


Real CR 8 creatures average 114 HP. Which would average out to 9.5 DPR.

In that case; D&D is not hard. Power-gaming is a waste of time.

[Zuras]

In general, I consider Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast at a given level the baseline for solid, optimized damage. Substantially more than that is very high damage, while less damage means your build either isn't combat focused or should have compensating defensive features or burst damage to be considered “reasonably optimized”.

[stoutstien]

I personally prefer looking at the ratio of incoming and outgoing damage and effects. Some parties have very low damage but because they can effectively cancel out incoming damage or at least reduce it to a point where it's not a threat so there effective damage is much higher than a party trading it. Some parties pull this off with sheer Nova power just removing damage the old fashion way but there is returns as you go into higher levels as HP inflates.

[Cheesegear]

Source:
Xanathar's, pg 88. Optimal Solo Hostile CR per Party Level
DMG, pg 274. HPs per CR, High and Low

https://i.imgur.com/DGjtKTo.png

If you can deal between the blue and red line, you're doing just fine. Those represent the recommended CR for your Level. If your DM throws something less than that at you...Easy.
If you're dealing above the red line, easily, for three whole rounds, and you feel like you can still keep going for a few more rounds? You might be in an arms race with your DM. Some classes can go above the red line, fairly easily, fairly regularly. Especially when multi-classing and feats are involved. That's arguably one of the reasons that those class combos and feats might be considered 'really good'.

Getting above that red line isn't really that hard, and is arguably strongly recommended at times, when your other party members fail to hit, or the hostile passes their saving throw. Effectively a party member has wasted their turn by effectively doing nothing. But again, doing double - even triple - the red line for your level, is often pretty easy if you haven't made obvious mistakes (e.g; Playing a ranged Paladin when Divine Smite only works with melee attacks; Making your primary attack stat, a 12; etc.).

D&D is not hard. You do not need to power-game to beat combats unless your DM is blatantly making things difficult.

[heavyfuel]

The EB agonizing blast combo requires exactly 2 lvls of investment, and scales throughout the game, so its a pretty good damage comparison. Of course its important to realize that it is NOT on the low end. It outscales most rogues and monks for instance.

We often track total damage done statistics in our campaign, and they tend to favor classes that dont do as well in the pure whiteroom context, but that do really well in practice. So for instance Clerics in dungeons romps often outdamage the entire rest of the party combined (including the raging barbarian and the battlemaster). Druid summons are the same way.. Often b/c they are disposable so they're getting several more rounds of combat before we are even exposed to the threats.

Often wizards look weak, but those two fireballs hit 9-10 enemies each, and then their total damage starts shooting up the charts.

If, throughout your whole career as a a damage dealer, you cannot outdamage a 2 level dip, then it only means that build sucks as damage dealer (which is not to say it "sucks, period" just that it sucks at dealing damage)

However, Rogues are usually much better than the baseline, because they can so reliably gain advantage (last campaign someone played a Rogue we went from level 3 to 11, and I think they rolled without advantage maybe like 10 times), which drastically increases DPR. More so if they pick Elven Accuracy.

So, level 5, against AC 16 enemy, a Rogue with EA and a Crossbow has an average DPR of 19. The baseline Warlock has an average DPR of 9.

Rogues are perfectly fine at DPR if you know what you're doing. It's just that monks deal so little damage AND they don't do extraordinary things (don't even come at me with Stunning Fist, which is unreliable to the point of irrelevance)

I really like the idea of tracking total damage in a campaign. That's really nice (if laborious)! But it does come with a "problem" for controllers. If a character only hits because they were granted Advantage by a controller, is the damage counted towards the guy who was swinging the sword, or towards the Wizard that put enemies to sleep?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I really like the idea of tracking total damage in a campaign. That's really nice (if laborious)! But it does come with a "problem" for controllers. If a character only hits because they were granted Advantage by a controller, is the damage counted towards the guy who was swinging the sword, or towards the Wizard that put enemies to sleep?

MMO damage meters have long struggled with this. Which makes supporty characters look way worse in theorycrafting. Some of the better ones include factors such as aDPS (adjusted DPS), which attributes the damage done as a result of the buffing abilities to the buffer. Of course, that's relatively simple to do when you're after-the-fact parsing logs and everything is nice and neat. Much much much harder to do in this context.

[Cheesegear]

Rogues are perfectly fine at DPR if you know what you're doing. It's just that monks deal so little damage AND they don't do extraordinary things (don't even come at me with Stunning Fist, which is unreliable to the point of irrelevance)

Also compare the Barbarian. Whose damage output remains very relevant until low Tier 3 without ASIs, Feats or Magic Items.

Cool. Barbarians deal a lot of damage. What else do they do? ...Oh. Okay.

[stoutstien]

Also compare the Barbarian. Whose damage output remains very relevant until low Tier 3 without ASIs, Feats or Magic Items.

Cool. Barbarians deal a lot of damage. What else do they do? ...Oh. Okay.

I wouldn't even give them the benefit of saying they do a lot of damage. Between Adequate and good is where I see them perform if the encounter counts aren't above rages and they always have something to hit.

[Cheesegear]

I wouldn't even give them the benefit of saying they do a lot of damage.

I've got a graph in Post #55.

A Level 1 Barbarian with a Greatsword, 16 STR and Rage = 12 [7+3+2], which is more than enough DPR. At Level 5, when characters and hostiles spike, a Barbarian has Extra Attack, for 24 DPR, which serves well into Level 10 and a little bit further. No ASIs, no Feats. Their damage is well above what I consider 'good' (especially specifically at Levels 1 and 5), for most players' adventures. I can count the number of times on one hand I've had a campaign go beyond level 12 since 5e started. So personally, I'm fine with Barbarians dropping off after Level 12 because I don't really play beyond that, and I'm not a theorycrafter that compares Level 20 builds because again - I don't play that way, and probably never will.

[Gtdead]

MMO damage meters have long struggled with this. Which makes supporty characters look way worse in theorycrafting. Some of the better ones include factors such as aDPS (adjusted DPS), which attributes the damage done as a result of the buffing abilities to the buffer. Of course, that's relatively simple to do when you're after-the-fact parsing logs and everything is nice and neat. Much much much harder to do in this context.

While I agree that meter figures can give the wrong idea about the usefulness of certain classes and their actual purpose is to troubleshoot a fight, I've never ever seen any sane raid leader (including myself) choose the composition by comparing theoretical dps. And for a game like WoW, this is extremely easy. Just load your armory profile on simulationcraft and voila. On the contrary, the composition was mostly based on utility and tactics.

Can you give me an example of such a game? I've played WoW, SWToR, Warhammer:AoR, Lineage 2, Wildstar, all to high end content, having done a lot of raid leading, and I don't think that this has ever been a problem in organized play. Perhaps in PUGs you may see something like that but PUGs are just for flexing and passing time.

Except for Lineage 2, where it had an extremely wacky balance at the time I was playing (and buffers were increasing dps output up to 20x the class baseline), I haven't really played any game where there is some potent form of "offensive style" support other than control and mobility buffs. There may exist some time limited abilities here and there (like bloodlust/heroism in WoW) but no significant passive buffs as far as I'm aware. And in the case of bloodlust/heroism, the classes (Shaman and Paladin), did not do reduced dps or healing (or tanking) compared to other classes, on account of providing the buff.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I agree that meter figures can give the wrong idea about the usefulness of certain classes and their actual purpose is to troubleshoot a fight, I've never ever seen any sane raid leader (including myself) choose the composition by comparing theoretical dps. And for a game like WoW, this is extremely easy. Just load your armory profile on simulationcraft and voila. On the contrary, the composition was mostly based on utility and tactics.

Can you give me an example of such a game? I've played WoW, SWToR, Warhammer:AoR, Lineage 2, Wildstar, all to high end content, having done a lot of raid leading, and I don't think that this has ever been a problem in organized play. Perhaps in PUGs you may see something like that but PUGs are just for flexing and passing time.

Except for Lineage 2, where it had an extremely wacky balance at the time I was playing (and buffers were increasing dps output up to 20x the class baseline), I haven't really played any game where there is some potent form of "offensive style" support other than control and mobility buffs. There may exist some time limited abilities here and there (like bloodlust/heroism in WoW) but no significant passive buffs as far as I'm aware. And in the case of bloodlust/heroism, the classes (Shaman and Paladin), did not do reduced dps or healing (or tanking) compared to other classes, on account of providing the buff.

Not as much the raid leaders (because they understand it), but there's a lot of "buff me!/nerf him!" discussion both in WoW and FFXIV (the two where I've been involved) citing bare rDPS or theorycrafted white-room numbers while leaving out the other things. Or over-valuing utility. You hear a lot about "gold parses" (cases where the player was in the top X% of all parsed runs on a particular boss), leaving out the fact that the rest of the raid went out of their way to feed that person buffs and let them "stand in fires" for greater uptime.

FFXIV has clear "support jobs"--dancer and bard, for example. And they intentionally do less rDPS, because they give substantial raid or targeted DPS benefits. Which makes their aDPS pretty decent (but lower than the high-DPS "selfish" jobs). Ninjas do less rDPS, but contribute a 10s/minute 5% raid-wide damage boost. And most of the healers have ways to boost DPS--cf the astrologian's cards, which are 3% boosts to individual people or their divination, which is a 4% raid-wide boost. And there's a strong suspicion that red mages have intentionally lower rDPS because they can combat rez functionally at will and instantly (unlike most other classes).

There's also balancing around pieces of the tanking job, but that's more standardized.

[Gtdead]

Not as much the raid leaders (because they understand it), but there's a lot of "buff me!/nerf him!" discussion both in WoW and FFXIV (the two where I've been involved) citing bare rDPS or theorycrafted white-room numbers while leaving out the other things. Or over-valuing utility. You hear a lot about "gold parses" (cases where the player was in the top X% of all parsed runs on a particular boss), leaving out the fact that the rest of the raid went out of their way to feed that person buffs and let them "stand in fires" for greater uptime.

FFXIV has clear "support jobs"--dancer and bard, for example. And they intentionally do less rDPS, because they give substantial raid or targeted DPS benefits. Which makes their aDPS pretty decent (but lower than the high-DPS "selfish" jobs). Ninjas do less rDPS, but contribute a 10s/minute 5% raid-wide damage boost. And most of the healers have ways to boost DPS--cf the astrologian's cards, which are 3% boosts to individual people or their divination, which is a 4% raid-wide boost. And there's a strong suspicion that red mages have intentionally lower rDPS because they can combat rez functionally at will and instantly (unlike most other classes).

There's also balancing around pieces of the tanking job, but that's more standardized.

Ah, FFXIV sounds interesting. I guess asian rpgs do things differently. I've played Aion, Tera and Lineage 2. Can't speak for the end game content in the first two because I never reached it but they tend to have way more pronounced roles than western ones.

As for the forum balance talk.. yea I get it. Tried to partake in the past to no avail. Especially PvP balance..

[stoutstien]

I've got a graph in Post #55.

A Level 1 Barbarian with a Greatsword, 16 STR and Rage = 12 [7+3+2], which is more than enough DPR. At Level 5, when characters and hostiles spike, a Barbarian has Extra Attack, for 24 DPR, which serves well into Level 10 and a little bit further. No ASIs, no Feats. Their damage is well above what I consider 'good' (especially specifically at Levels 1 and 5), for most players' adventures. I can count the number of times on one hand I've had a campaign go beyond level 12 since 5e started. So personally, I'm fine with Barbarians dropping off after Level 12 because I don't really play beyond that, and I'm not a theorycrafter that compares Level 20 builds because again - I don't play that way, and probably never will.

Issue I run with barbarian is their reliant on rage to maintain that damage. I can see a level 5 character running out of resources by the 5th or 6th encounter but the Barb only have half of that at lv 5. Even reckless becomes... well reckless to use when you don't have rage going so even their at will boost has a cost attached to it.
The class that is supposedly the toughest doesn't have the energy to make it through a long day nor do they have the ability to spike their damage when necessary for the shorter days. That means if your table varies between long short and medium adventure days they only hold up 1/3 of the time.
That's why I consider them only adequate.

[Hael]

Issue I run with barbarian is their reliant on rage to maintain that damage. I can see a level 5 character running out of resources by the 5th or 6th encounter but the Barb only have half of that at lv 5. Even reckless becomes... well reckless to use when you don't have rage going so even their at will boost has a cost attached to it.
The class that is supposedly the toughest doesn't have the energy to make it through a long day nor do they have the ability to spike their damage when necessary for the shorter days. That means if your table varies between long short and medium adventure days they only hold up 1/3 of the time.
That's why I consider them only adequate.

The other issue with Barbarians is they are melee only. The amount of dead rounds they get is amongst the highest in the game. That's a stat that isn't tracked enough when you assume that someone is always in range, always raging, always with high hp (so they're not hiding), always with the movement necessary to track down the next enemy etc etc.

Anecdotally speaking, comparable ranged builds (eg SS vs GWM, 2 attacks etc) might outdamage melee only by factors of 2 over the course of a day, but that never shows up in the white room.

But of course, they look really good during those important hallway fights.

[MaxWilson]

Issue I run with barbarian is their reliant on rage to maintain that damage. I can see a level 5 character running out of resources by the 5th or 6th encounter but the Barb only have half of that at lv 5. Even reckless becomes... well reckless to use when you don't have rage going so even their at will boost has a cost attached to it.
The class that is supposedly the toughest doesn't have the energy to make it through a long day nor do they have the ability to spike their damage when necessary for the shorter days. That means if your table varies between long short and medium adventure days they only hold up 1/3 of the time.
That's why I consider them only adequate.

Reckless isn't THAT Reckless to use if you're skirmishing. For example, say you're playing a GWM PAM Barbarian at level 5, and the combat is too small to justify Raging, so you Recklessly attack three times from 10' away and then withdraw behind other PCs for now. Or if there are no other melee PCs then you use your Barb speed (40') and eat an opportunity attack, at advantage, instead of a full Multiattack.

Barbs are okay in Tier 1 and low Tier 2. Later on they fizzle.

Hmmm, idea for a simple Barb fix: turn all the Brutal Critical levels into ASI levels instead (no feats allowed). Having high stats but not a lot of special weapon training (feats, Extra Attacks) seems like it fits the Cimmerian motif maybe: physical specimen, generalist, good at everything but not a specialist. Would probably satisfy those players who love having Str 20 Dex 18 Con 20, and makes things like Unarmored Defense less of a ribbon.

I think I like this idea. Might have to tweak the numbers but I like the basic idea.

[Hael]

However, Rogues are usually much better than the baseline, because they can so reliably gain advantage (last campaign someone played a Rogue we went from level 3 to 11, and I think they rolled without advantage maybe like 10 times), which drastically increases DPR. More so if they pick Elven Accuracy.


Yea, I mean it depends the build, level and the subclass. You can make pretty decent striker rogue builds (swashbuckler, arcane trickster), but there are a number of builds (see eg the mastermind) that will systematically fall behind at certain lvls. Also in my experience a lot of people tend to build them for utility, and less as primary damage dealers.

non ranged Rogues (and monks) also had (pre Tashas) some of the same issues as Barbarians, albeit for different reasons in that they often had issues engaging. Often when everything is clumped together, you can't just pop out of hiding to go after your target, or you will be out of position and get smashed on the next round. So there are a lot of turns where you have to ready an action while hidden or something like that. Meanwhile the seemingly low dpr bard is hitting vicious mockery turn after turn. Of course being ranged changes all that, but then that might not fit the character concept so much.

[Cheesegear]

Issue I run with barbarian is their reliant on rage to maintain that damage.

Here's where I agree with PhoenixPyre. You shouldn't have to maintain that damage every encounter. The graph I posted is near-explicitly dealing with solo Deadly-level hostiles, if your DM is playing by the book. If the Barbarian can hit the damage thresholds in the fights that matter...That's all they need to do. It doesn't matter if the Barbarian has a lower damage output against a Medium-level hostile because the Medium-level hostile has less HPs.


I can see a level 5 character running out of resources by the 5th or 6th encounter but the Barb only have half of that at lv 5.

As I said, if your DM is running you through 5-6 Hard-to-Deadly encounters in a row, that might be true. But your DM shouldn't be doing that with regularity unless they're explicitly looking to start an arms runs.


The class that is supposedly the toughest doesn't have the energy to make it through a long day nor do they have the ability to spike their damage when necessary for the shorter days.

I agree that a Barbarian is not a tank, nor necessarily a primary damage dealer. But they do do (heh, do do) enough DPR to justify their existence through Tier 2 and into T3 - but not much further - and as I've pointed out, without Feats, ASIs and magic weapons. If you do have Feats, ASIs and magic weapons (because by Level 12 how do you not?) the Barbarian can push their single-class DPR a little bit further than that.

Can a Barbarian deal at least one quarter of the party's recommended DPR for the party's level? Yes. Can they spike their damage (e.g; Like a Paladin) if another party-member isn't doing damage that round? No. Probably not. But as I said, a Barbarian isn't really a primary damage dealer, and that's partly because it can't spike its damage like a Rogue (Sneak Attack) or Paladin (Divine Smite) can. But a Barbarian deals enough damage, and that's all it needs to do.


That's why I consider them only adequate.

I posted a graph. I've got numbers. I can objectively prove that a Barbarian is more than good enough to justify itself for the majority of most 4-player campaigns (Level<12). The only way that that isn't true, is if your DM is running you through needlessly hard encounters and not doing what the book(s) more or less recommend.

[samcifer]

Here's where I agree with PhoenixPyre. You shouldn't have to maintain that damage every encounter. The graph I posted is near-explicitly dealing with solo Deadly-level hostiles, if your DM is playing by the book. If the Barbarian can hit the damage thresholds in the fights that matter...That's all they need to do. It doesn't matter if the Barbarian has a lower damage output against a Medium-level hostile because the Medium-level hostile has less HPs.



As I said, if your DM is running you through 5-6 Hard-to-Deadly encounters in a row, that might be true. But your DM shouldn't be doing that with regularity unless they're explicitly looking to start an arms runs.



I agree that a Barbarian is not a tank, nor necessarily a primary damage dealer. But they do do (heh, do do) enough DPR to justify their existence through Tier 2 and into T3 - but not much further - and as I've pointed out, without Feats, ASIs and magic weapons. If you do have Feats, ASIs and magic weapons (because by Level 12 how do you not?) the Barbarian can push their single-class DPR a little bit further than that.

Can a Barbarian deal at least one quarter of the party's recommended DPR for the party's level? Yes. Can they spike their damage (e.g; Like a Paladin) if another party-member isn't doing damage that round? No. Probably not. But as I said, a Barbarian isn't really a primary damage dealer, and that's partly because it can't spike its damage like a Rogue (Sneak Attack) or Paladin (Divine Smite) can. But a Barbarian deals enough damage, and that's all it needs to do.



I posted a graph. I've got numbers. I can objectively prove that a Barbarian is more than good enough to justify itself for the majority of most 4-player campaigns (Level<12). The only way that that isn't true, is if your DM is running you through needlessly hard encounters and not doing what the book(s) more or less recommend.

I've toyed around with a barbadin by mc-ing a barb into paladin for reckless smiting, which sounds like an interesting build, but I've ever actually tried to make one before for any actual play.

[stoutstien]

I've toyed around with a barbadin by mc-ing a barb into paladin for reckless smiting, which sounds like an interesting build, but I've ever actually tried to make one before for any actual play.

I've had 2 at my tables. Works ok like most concepts with dips into barb for the low level treats. Multiclassing both allows players to avoid the upper level mess of the class but it also allows cheap access to the bulk of the chassis for other with a a few levels of investment.

[Asisreo1]

As far as pure monks go, Elemonks have the highest NOVA capacity through the elemonk's Fist of Unbroken Air/Water Whip. And they are almost as good as Fighters/Paladins, excluding feats.

At level 10, for example, they can expend all of their ki points to do 12d10 magical bludgeoning damage.

Alot of people say monks are weak. Well, that's true in the DPR side of things but they have very valuable defensive options.

First, they have deflect missiles which increases DPR and reduces incoming damage so long as a monk can avoid melee range. Second, they share evasion with rogues which is extremely useful for the majority of damage spells. Third, they get Stillness of Mind which covers a large weakness in typical melee fighters. Fourth, diamond soul.

Diamond soul is the greatest defensive buff in the game, contesting with a Paladin's Aura except it doesn't turn off even when incapacitated plus it allows rerolls. Its basically equivalent to an always-on 9th level spell.

Empty Body basically casts Greater Invisibility and Doubles your health at the same time for about 1/5th of your short rest resources. This is technically an offensive buff.

By level 11, I think its fine to imagine most monks won't have 11 turns before a short rest considering most battles last for roughly 3. Unless they're NOVA'ing hard, monks should be able to flurry every turn, outpacing warlock's dips.

By level 17, its the same damage as Warlock's EB/AB combo but the subclasses give massive damage boosts. Open Hand does a minimum of 55 necrotic on their next turn while maintaining the 4d10+20 expected damage from the previous turn. They have a chance to instakill, its nonmagical so magic resistance doesn't help, and its really cheap (1/6th of your Ki) to do.

Shadow Monks gain Opportunist which basically gives them a 5th free attack. Doing 5d10+25=52.5 DPR.

Elemonks are best with NOVA damage but they have massive AoEs and they have a great DoT option that lasts even when they're invisible at level 18.

I think monks are just fine, even if they don't impress like GWM Paladin or SS fighter in terms of damage.

Edit: I said monks had the highest NOVA potential of all pure martials, this is false as Fighters' Action Surge and Battlemaster's manuevers outdamage them.

Elemonks do add NOVA options to a monk's diverse kit, though, and makes it a valuable pick-up.

[Chaos Theory]

Alright, here are the promised tables:

Baseline "Good Single-Target DPR" (true 3-round DPR, with accuracy and crits counted):
Level 1: 6.5 DPR vs AC 13
Level 2: 9 DPR vs AC 13
Level 3: 10.25 DPR vs AC 14
Level 4: 11.5 DPR vs AC 15
Level 5: 15.25 DPR vs AC 16
Level 6: 16.5 DPR vs AC 16
Level 7: 17.75 DPR vs AC 17
Level 8: 20.25 DPR vs AC 17
Level 9: 20.25 DPR vs AC 17
Level 10: 21.5 DPR vs AC 18
Level 11: 24 DPR vs AC 18
Level 12: 26.5 DPR vs AC 19
Level 13: 27.75 DPR vs AC 19
Level 14: 29 DPR vs AC 19
Level 15: 31.5 DPR vs AC 19
Level 16: 31.5 DPR vs AC 19
Level 17: 35.25 DPR vs AC 19
Level 18: 35.25 DPR vs AC 19
Level 19: 39 DPR vs AC 19
Level 20: 42.75 DPR vs AC 19
This is the DPR that you'd need to deal 1/4 of the damage necessary to kill a deadly solo encounter for a 4-person party within 3 rounds. with the CR rounded down, rather than up.



I like the true 3-round DPR standard. I have been running Monte Carlo simulations using true 3-round dpr with several builds and similar assumptions on AC and saves. This simulation put each build through 10000 "typical" adventuring days consisting of 4 encounters and 2 short rests against an average Deadly challenge for each level from 1 to 20.

This simulation found that most damage-focused builds fall somewhere in between a CBE+SS fighter at the high end and an AB spamming fiend warlock at the low end. To keep things simple, I'll look at the average true 3-round DPR at levels 1,5,11,17, and 20:



Level
AB Fiendlock (GOOD)
CBE+SS Fighter (GREAT)


Level 1
4
9


Level 5
20
34


Level 11
33
72


Level 17
52
92 78


Level 20
50
123 113



The fiend warlock is a good standard for damage. Open hand monk and arcana cleric are around this level as are most non-optimized martials. However, if you want to optimize for damage output, there are builds that will dish out a lot more than the baseline.

EDIT: Realized that the Fighter's numbers were for a multiclass Fighter/Ranger/Rogue. Fixed it to show the pure fighter's numbers instead.

[Hael]

Is the fiendlock doing anything other than hex+EB spam? No hurl through hell, no crown of stars, spiritshroud or foresight? Why do the numbers drop at lvl20?

Also the fighters numbers seem high. Are you action surging and burning SD?

[stoutstien]

Reckless isn't THAT Reckless to use if you're skirmishing. For example, say you're playing a GWM PAM Barbarian at level 5, and the combat is too small to justify Raging, so you Recklessly attack three times from 10' away and then withdraw behind other PCs for now. Or if there are no other melee PCs then you use your Barb speed (40') and eat an opportunity attack, at advantage, instead of a full Multiattack.

Barbs are okay in Tier 1 and low Tier 2. Later on they fizzle.

Hmmm, idea for a simple Barb fix: turn all the Brutal Critical levels into ASI levels instead (no feats allowed). Having high stats but not a lot of special weapon training (feats, Extra Attacks) seems like it fits the Cimmerian motif maybe: physical specimen, generalist, good at everything but not a specialist. Would probably satisfy those players who love having Str 20 Dex 18 Con 20, and makes things like Unarmored Defense less of a ribbon.

I think I like this idea. Might have to tweak the numbers but I like the basic idea.
Aye a mobile (goblin) or extended reach(bugbear) barbarian function well enough to utilize RA and tempt enemies to try to reach them as they float around the field.

I've been really tempted to bring back stat bonuses during rage to replace brutal critical. It maps out pretty well where I feel they should be at that point. Also added a free rage per encounter at 11 much like the samurai gets and replaced unlimited rages at 20 with *idea pending*.

[Zuras]

Is the fiendlock doing anything other than hex+EB spam? No hurl through hell, no crown of stars, spiritshroud or foresight? Why do the numbers drop at lvl20?

Also the fighters numbers seem high. Are you action surging and burning SD?


I’d like more details on this as well. Presumably the fighter is using 3 to 6 action surges per adventuring day depending on their level, so that’s averaging 1/2 an action surge per 3 round fight for levels 2-16 and 1 per fight above that. I’d be interested in how easily the numbers get warped by small improvements in accuracy as well, which is a major factor with SS/GWM—how much more damage if you assume they have Bless active in every fight, how much does a +1 weapon shift things, for example?

[samcifer]

As far as pure martials go, monks have the highest NOVA capacity through the elemonk's Fist of Unbroken Air/Water Whip.

At level 10, for example, they can expend all of their ki points to do 12d10 magical bludgeoning damage.

Alot of people say monks are weak. Well, that's true in the DPR side of things but they have very valuable defensive options.

First, they have deflect missiles which increases DPR and reduces incoming damage so long as a monk can avoid melee range. Second, they share evasion with rogues which is extremely useful for the majority of damage spells. Third, they get Stillness of Mind which covers a large weakness in typical melee fighters. Fourth, diamond soul.

Diamond soul is the greatest defensive buff in the game, contesting with a Paladin's Aura except it doesn't turn off even when incapacitated plus it allows rerolls. Its basically equivalent to an always-on 9th level spell.

Empty Body basically casts Greater Invisibility and Doubles your health at the same time for about 1/5th of your short rest resources. This is technically an offensive buff.

By level 11, I think its fine to imagine most monks won't have 11 turns before a short rest considering most battles last for roughly 3. Unless they're NOVA'ing hard, monks should be able to flurry every turn, outpacing warlock's dips.

By level 17, its the same damage as Warlock's EB/AB combo but the subclasses give massive damage boosts. Open Hand does a minimum of 55 necrotic on their next turn while maintaining the 4d10+20 expected damage from the previous turn. They have a chance to instakill, its nonmagical so magic resistance doesn't help, and its really cheap (1/6th of your Ki) to do.

Shadow Monks gain Opportunist which basically gives them a 5th free attack. Doing 5d10+25=52.5 DPR.

Elemonks are best with NOVA damage but they have massive AoEs and they have a great DoT option that lasts even when they're invisible at level 18.

I think monks are just fine, even if they don't impress like GWM Paladin or SS fighter in terms of damage.

True, but it takes many ki pts to do the FoUAir or W. Whip that you can't do a nova nearly as often as other classes can. It's a fun subclass, but you get to make so little use of it that it hardly seems feasible.

I've played Sun Soul and Astral Self monks and have enjoyed them, but the overall damage of the base class feels rather underwhelming to me, although not nearly as much so as before I first wrote this thread.

[Asisreo1]

True, but it takes many ki pts to do the FoUAir or W. Whip that you can't do a nova nearly as often as other classes can. It's a fun subclass, but you get to make so little use of it that it hardly seems feasible.

I've played Sun Soul and Astral Self monks and have enjoyed them, but the overall damage of the base class feels rather underwhelming to me, although not nearly as much so as before I first wrote this thread.
Yeah, that strategy of blowing all your Ki isn't the best if you're expecting more encounters or the enemy might be able to shrug it off and continue the fight.

But when the DM might be foolish enough to introduce a single target enemy or the minions have all been dealt with, there's nothing like doing 66 (12d10) unresistable damage in your one action.

My Kit for Elemonks always attempts to cover weaknesses or bolster strengths of the innate monk class.

Tier 1: Elemental Attunement, Fangs of the Fire Snake
No need to rush into huge damage, monks in this tier are actually already above average in terms of damage. FotFS makes it easier to kite enemies without getting into melee, its cheap, and it bypasses nonmagical resistances early.

Tier 2: Shatter, FoUA, FotFS
Shatter adds depth to your options, making it possible to deal AoE from a distance if the need arises. FoUA is both good at pushing enemies back and dealing decent ranged damage, but its not as powerful as your non-ki melee attacks, though.

Tier 3: Fly, Fireball, FoUA, FotFS
Fly solves most melee problems of flying enemies plus FoUA works with it by proning flying enemies and it synergizes well with Diamond Soul. Fireball is just a shatter upgrade.

Tier 4: Wall of Fire, Fireball, FoUA, Fly, Wall of Stone
Wall of Fire does DoT for very little Ki. It also stacks with Invisibility and synergizes with Diamond Soul as Concentration. Fireball does more damage. FoUA is now a NOVA move. Fly synergizes with unarmored movement, meaning you can basically flyby melee enemies and deflect ranged attacks. Wall of Stone is great for battlefield control but also for utility. Make your own buildings!

[Man_Over_Game]

Yeah, that strategy of blowing all your Ki isn't the best if you're expecting more encounters or the enemy might be able to shrug it off and continue the fight.

I'd like to see how EleMonk novas vs. per-turn damage compares to Fighters and their Action Surge. Ki points refresh on the same rate as Action Surge does (with a silly meditation requirement) so it'd be interesting to see exactly how important Ki points are for Monks to leverage in order to be equals to Fighters.

[Asisreo1]

I'd like to see how EleMonk novas vs. per-turn damage compares to Fighters and their Action Surge. Ki points refresh on the same rate as Action Surge does (with a silly meditation requirement) so it'd be interesting to see exactly how important Ki points are for Monks to leverage in order to be equals to Fighters.
My setup is a bit complicated.

At high levels, when Wall of Fire becomes available, monks can do DoT, effectively increasing their DPR.

But if we were to ignore that, or, better yet, land at level 11 for the comparison (I remove feats from the discussion purely because its an obvious skew and doesn't actually help martials):

Let's start with no-resource damage (clearly fighters win):

36 (6d6+15) damage from the fighter

28.5 (3d8+15) monk damage

Now, with NOVA options:

72 (12d6+30) damage for AS fighter

66 (12d10) damage for FoUA monk*

*important to keep in mind that this damage is half-on-success and applies a rider on failure.

The comparison isn't amazing, though, because monks are not competing with fighters. Elemonks are good because they give the monk a NOVA option when they wouldn't otherwise have one. But monks still have superior defensive features to fighters by a large margin, ignoring AC and HP because they aren't features.

If you want to optimize damage, being a monk is not a good choice however being an Elemonk gives your martial more utility options to fight with. Flight, Non-conc invisibility, All save prof., AoE, and decent NOVA. Its not trying to beat other characters at anything but the ability to push a needed button when necessary on their own turn is what makes an Elemonk shine.

Elemonks are the friend of optimizers and the enemy of Min/Maxers.

[stoutstien]

My setup is a bit complicated.

At high levels, when Wall of Fire becomes available, monks can do DoT, effectively increasing their DPR.

But if we were to ignore that, or, better yet, land at level 11 for the comparison (I remove feats from the discussion purely because its an obvious skew and doesn't actually help martials):

Let's start with no-resource damage (clearly fighters win):

36 (6d6+15) damage from the fighter

28.5 (3d8+15) monk damage

Now, with NOVA options:

72 (12d6+30) damage for AS fighter

66 (12d10) damage for FoUA monk*

*important to keep in mind that this damage is half-on-success and applies a rider on failure.

The comparison isn't amazing, though, because monks are not competing with fighters. Elemonks are good because they give the monk a NOVA option when they wouldn't otherwise have one. But monks still have superior defensive features to fighters by a large margin, ignoring AC and HP because they aren't features.

If you want to optimize damage, being a monk is not a good choice however being an Elemonk gives your martial more utility options to fight with. Flight, Non-conc invisibility, All save prof., AoE, and decent NOVA. Its not trying to beat other characters at anything but the ability to push a needed button when necessary on their own turn is what makes an Elemonk shine.

Elemonks are the friend of optimizers and the enemy of Min/Maxers.

Does this include the new Tasha's optional class features? Being able to completely utilize the bonus action when they spend ki really does help.

[Chaos Theory]

I’d like more details on this as well. Presumably the fighter is using 3 to 6 action surges per adventuring day depending on their level, so that’s averaging 1/2 an action surge per 3 round fight for levels 2-16 and 1 per fight above that. I’d be interested in how easily the numbers get warped by small improvements in accuracy as well, which is a major factor with SS/GWM—how much more damage if you assume they have Bless active in every fight, how much does a +1 weapon shift things, for example?

The CBE+SS Fighter is using action surges. It also uses SD to precision strike if it misses by 3 or less.

Small improvements in accuracy make a big difference. I don't have buff numbers for the CBE+SS fighter but the similar Vengeance Paladin at level 20 with a true 3-round DPR of 102 gains 16 DPS from Bless, 10 DPS from permanent advantage (e.g. Greater Invisibility), and 25 DPS from Haste.

I used a magic weapon progression that assumed a +1 weapon at level 6, a +2 weapon at level 8, and a +3 weapon at level 12.


Is the fiendlock doing anything other than hex+EB spam? No hurl through hell, no crown of stars, spiritshroud or foresight? Why do the numbers drop at lvl20?

Also the fighters numbers seem high. Are you action surging and burning SD?

The AB Fiendlock casts Scorching Ray if it has pact magic slots available. It will either use Hex or Darkness + Devil Sight depending on which is better at that level. After level 17, it uses Foresight. It uses Hurl through Hell but not Crown of Stars. This was done pre-Tasha's so no Spirit Shroud.

The DPS loss for the Fiendlock from 17 to 20 comes from the target AC increasing from 19 to 20.

[Asisreo1]

Does this include the new Tasha's optional class features? Being able to completely utilize the bonus action when they spend ki really does help.
No. I don't use Tasha's options in general as I think they are unnecessary. Honestly I avoid all optional things until I know the group I'm playing with can handle it.

But, if we used Tasha's options, we'd have a total of 75.5 (12d10+1d8+5) damage, exceeding the fighter's action surge damage.

Again, I don't consider optional rules most times because now I'd have to consider feats, then possibly multiclassing, and 5e wasn't designed as compactly with optional books as it is with just the base PHB. It has its issues but it feels like each book removes one problem and adds three more.

[Chaos Theory]

Let's start with no-resource damage (clearly fighters win):

36 (6d6+15) damage from the fighter

28.5 (3d8+15) monk damage

Now, with NOVA options:

72 (12d6+30) damage for AS fighter

66 (12d10) damage for FoUA monk*

*important to keep in mind that this damage is half-on-success and applies a rider on failure.


I think you're missing a few things on that fighter nova. At level 11, a CBE+SS Fighter attacks 7 times on action surge. Average damage per hit is 3.5 (1d6) + 5 (DEX) + 10 (SS) + 2 (+2 weapon) = 20.5. It has a +8 to hit vs AC 17. Simulation shows a 74% hit rate with a 5% crit rate and average damage of 21.5. Average true 1-round damage comes out to 112.

The melee version: PAM+GWM Fighter is actually worse despite having better damage dice of 8.4 (2d6 reroll 2 or less)6.3 (1d10 reroll 2 or less) + 5 (STR) + 10 (GWM) + 2 (+2 Weapon) = 25.4 23.3 and the ability to occasionally generate its own advantage from trip attack. The difference is that it is missing the +2 to-hit from Archery fighting style so it only has +6 to hit instead of +8. This made a huge difference bringing its hit rate down from 74% to 63% for average true 1-round damage of 102.

The four elements monk using water whip has an average damage per hit of 66 with an average damage per save of 33. Simulation shows an average failed save rate of 60% (+4 DEX vs DC 17) for an average true 1-round damage of 53.

This puts it between the Fiend Warlock (46) and Vengeance Paladin (63) for 1-round nova damage which looks respectable but see below for the cost this has on 3-round dpr.


I'd like to see how EleMonk novas vs. per-turn damage compares to Fighters and their Action Surge. Ki points refresh on the same rate as Action Surge does (with a silly meditation requirement) so it'd be interesting to see exactly how important Ki points are for Monks to leverage in order to be equals to Fighters.

Thankfully it wasn't hard to set up some monks for the true 3-round dpr simulation.



Level
Open Hand Monk
Four Elements Monk


Level 1
4
3


Level 5
17
11


Level 11
26
18


Level 17
52
29


Level 20
53
32



The Open Hand Monk took Magic Initiate: Warlock at level 1 for Hex and prioritized having enough ki to flurry every round and using the rest to generate advantage with Stunning Strike. After level 17, it got a big damage boost from Quivering Palm which I counted as dealing the target's full HP in damage if the save failed. It is just a bit below the fiend warlock which means it still carries its weight but is no damage monster.

The Four Elements Monk did not take Magic Initiate: Warlock and instead focused its ASIs on maxing out WIS instead of DEX. It burns all of its ki on round 1 for Water Whip. As you can see, it's a net dpr loss over 3 rounds and doesn't quite meet the bar for damage output.

There is no way any monk comes close to an optimized fighter's action surge nova in any game that allows feats. SS and GWM have amazing synergy with action surge if you can find a way to counter the to-hit penalty (e.g. with Battle Master precise strike or Samurai fighting spirit). See the above analysis of the fighter nova. Even other optimized martials like paladin and hexblade don't come close. There are few builds that can exceed a pure fighter's nova and those will usually have 2 levels of fighter for action surge.

EDIT: Fixed incorrect base damage for PAM+GWM fighter from 2d6r2 to 1d10r2.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I personally prefer looking at the ratio of incoming and outgoing damage and effects. Some parties have very low damage but because they can effectively cancel out incoming damage or at least reduce it to a point where it's not a threat so there effective damage is much higher than a party trading it. Some parties pull this off with sheer Nova power just removing damage the old fashion way but there is returns as you go into higher levels as HP inflates.

I'd add stealth to this list. Some of our most deadly characters and groups have achieved surprise regularly, done a lot of damage (sometimes with buffs), and not got hit a bunch. I had a Gloomstalker multiclass (Sharp Shooter) and a Paladin with a dash of Rogue that were both pretty good at hitting hard and first. The Paladin was Sword and Board, so in theory not really built to deal out max, but could regularly get the upper hand with Shield Master shove and pick his spots to nova. The Gloomstalker just flat out did a lot of damage when you start adding in the power attack, extra attack in round 1 with extra damage, Hunter's mark (or precast Lightning arrow for attack 1, bonus action Hunter's mark for remaining attacks if you really needed a boost), sneak attack damage from Rogue levels, magic bow damage, and generally not missing with Archery style + Precision attack from Battlemaster... and I've probably missed some. Honestly Dex based ranged characters feel OP to me; they don't often take near the same risks as melee martials and get some really good perks around initiative, stealth, and saves. Then they pile on comparable damage with the benefit of missing less with Archery style.

[Asisreo1]

I think you're missing a few things on that fighter nova. At level 11, a CBE+SS Fighter attacks 7 times on action surge. Average damage per hit is 3.5 (1d6) + 5 (DEX) + 10 (SS) + 2 (+2 weapon) = 20.5. It has a +8 to hit vs AC 17. Simulation shows a 74% hit rate with a 5% crit rate and average damage of 21.5. Average true 1-round damage comes out to 112.

The melee version: PAM+GWM Fighter is actually worse despite having better damage dice of 8.4 (2d6 reroll 2 or less)6.3 (1d10 reroll 2 or less) + 5 (STR) + 10 (GWM) + 2 (+2 Weapon) = 25.4 23.3 and the ability to occasionally generate its own advantage from trip attack. The difference is that it is missing the +2 to-hit from Archery fighting style so it only has +6 to hit instead of +8. This made a huge difference bringing its hit rate down from 74% to 63% for average true 1-round damage of 102.

The four elements monk using water whip has an average damage per hit of 66 with an average damage per save of 33. Simulation shows an average failed save rate of 60% (+4 DEX vs DC 17) for an average true 1-round damage of 53.

This puts it between the Fiend Warlock (46) and Vengeance Paladin (63) for 1-round nova damage which looks respectable but see below for the cost this has on 3-round dpr.

Not arguing with the math but it further displays why optional rules kinda suck in 5e. Feats, multiclassing, and optional races/classes/features have a complete "the rich gets richer" effect on the game.

Spellcasters have few but important weaknesses, but feats remove them.

Classes are more compatible with multiclassing than others.

Optional features actively remove the benefits other classes have over another. Making the class design homogenize with the already "stronger" classes. Twilight clerics should never have been printed.



Thankfully it wasn't hard to set up some monks for the true 3-round dpr simulation.



Level
Open Hand Monk
Four Elements Monk


Level 1
4
3


Level 5
17
11


Level 11
26
18


Level 17
52
29


Level 20
53
32



The Open Hand Monk took Magic Initiate: Warlock at level 1 for Hex and prioritized having enough ki to flurry every round and using the rest to generate advantage with Stunning Strike. After level 17, it got a big damage boost from Quivering Palm which I counted as dealing the target's full HP in damage if the save failed. It is just a bit below the fiend warlock which means it still carries its weight but is no damage monster.

The Four Elements Monk did not take Magic Initiate: Warlock and instead focused its ASIs on maxing out WIS instead of DEX. It burns all of its ki on round 1 for Water Whip. As you can see, it's a net dpr loss over 3 rounds and doesn't quite meet the bar for damage output.

There is no way any monk comes close to an optimized fighter's action surge nova in any game that allows feats. SS and GWM have amazing synergy with action surge if you can find a way to counter the to-hit penalty (e.g. with Battle Master precise strike or Samurai fighting spirit). See the above analysis of the fighter nova. Even other optimized martials like paladin and hexblade don't come close. There are few builds that can exceed a pure fighter's nova and those will usually have 2 levels of fighter for action surge.

EDIT: Fixed incorrect base damage for PAM+GWM fighter from 2d6r2 to 1d10r2.
If they burn all of their Ki, and even if the creature guarantees a save, how does 115.5 (21d10) NOVA damage at level 20 equal 32 in your calculations?

[Frogreaver]

As far as pure martials go, monks have the highest NOVA capacity through the elemonk's Fist of Unbroken Air/Water Whip.

At level 10, for example, they can expend all of their ki points to do 12d10 magical bludgeoning damage.

Alot of people say monks are weak. Well, that's true in the DPR side of things but they have very valuable defensive options.

First, they have deflect missiles which increases DPR and reduces incoming damage so long as a monk can avoid melee range. Second, they share evasion with rogues which is extremely useful for the majority of damage spells. Third, they get Stillness of Mind which covers a large weakness in typical melee fighters. Fourth, diamond soul.

Diamond soul is the greatest defensive buff in the game, contesting with a Paladin's Aura except it doesn't turn off even when incapacitated plus it allows rerolls. Its basically equivalent to an always-on 9th level spell.

Empty Body basically casts Greater Invisibility and Doubles your health at the same time for about 1/5th of your short rest resources. This is technically an offensive buff.

By level 11, I think its fine to imagine most monks won't have 11 turns before a short rest considering most battles last for roughly 3. Unless they're NOVA'ing hard, monks should be able to flurry every turn, outpacing warlock's dips.

By level 17, its the same damage as Warlock's EB/AB combo but the subclasses give massive damage boosts. Open Hand does a minimum of 55 necrotic on their next turn while maintaining the 4d10+20 expected damage from the previous turn. They have a chance to instakill, its nonmagical so magic resistance doesn't help, and its really cheap (1/6th of your Ki) to do.

Shadow Monks gain Opportunist which basically gives them a 5th free attack. Doing 5d10+25=52.5 DPR.

Elemonks are best with NOVA damage but they have massive AoEs and they have a great DoT option that lasts even when they're invisible at level 18.

I think monks are just fine, even if they don't impress like GWM Paladin or SS fighter in terms of damage.

You are actually on to something I find really interesting.

Stunning Strike can cause for automatic failing of str and dex saves. If one attacks as normal, uses stunning strike and then water whip. That's potentially 9d10 damage going through at level 10. On top of the regular 2d8+1d6+15 damage from attacks You don't get regular attacks with water whip. I'm getting about 49.5 damage in the average round assuming you used stunning strike and had it land on the previous turn on your first attempt (damage likely plummets pretty fast if it doesn't).

Of course I've got a level 6 variant human fighter that can hit for 78 on average with GWM (doesn't assume trip attack lands on first attack either). So it's not nearly the highest i've seen, but it's still impressive. I've also got a featless half orc Fighter that hits 67 (similar setup but no feats incase there's a complaint that using GWM makes it too unfair).

[JNAProductions]

You are actually on to something I find really interesting.

Stunning Strike can cause for automatic failing of str and dex saves. If one attacks as normal, uses stunning strike and then water whip. That's potentially 9d10 damage going through at level 10. On top of the regular 2d8+1d6+15 damage from attacks You don't get regular attacks with water whip. I'm getting about 49.5 damage in the average round assuming you used stunning strike and had it land on the previous turn on your first attempt (damage likely plummets pretty fast if it doesn't).

Of course I've got a level 6 variant human fighter that can hit for 78 on average with GWM (doesn't assume trip attack lands on first attack either). So it's not nearly the highest i've seen, but it's still impressive. I've also got a featless half orc Fighter that hits 67 (similar setup but no feats incase there's a complaint that using GWM makes it too unfair).

Can you show these builds? Is the half-orc one also level 6? Since the level of that was not mentioned.

[Frogreaver]

Can you show these builds? Is the half-orc one also level 6? Since the level of that was not mentioned.

Yes.

Level 6 Half Orc Battle Master Fighter + GWF+ 20Str (Boosts Str from level 4 and 6 ASI) + Precision + Trip (No feats) + Greatsword

Nova Tactic: Will use Action Surge. Will use Trip attack when hitting even if enemy is already prone for the +4.5 damage boost. Will use precision attack when missing by anything 8 or less. The PC is estimated to have a 65% base chance to hit the enemy.

The other build is similar except is a variant human with GWM.

*I guess I should add that I'm talking about Nova Damage and not DPR.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Yes.

Level 6 Half Orc Battle Master Fighter + GWF+ 20Str (Boosts Str from level 4 and 6 ASI) + Precision + Trip (No feats) + Greatsword

Nova Tactic: Will use Action Surge. Will use Trip attack when hitting even if enemy is already prone for the +4.5 damage boost. Will use precision attack when missing by anything 8 or less. The PC is estimated to have a 65% base chance to hit the enemy.

The other build is similar except is a variant human with GWM.

*I guess I should add that I'm talking about Nova Damage and not DPR.

Chuck a Bless and a magic weapon on top of that and it starts to get really clear why I'm throwing out monsters way beyond what is recommended. At least the Strength based martials nearly never get 2 rounds of attacks off before the bad guys can act.

[Frogreaver]

Chuck a Bless and a magic weapon on top of that and it starts to get really clear why I'm throwing out monsters way beyond what is recommended.

Unless the whole party is optimized in that fashion it doesn't make sense to me. A single GWM+PAM Fighter/Barbarian or SS+CBE Fighter does alot more damage than their featless counterparts, but in context of party damage, it's not nearly that big of an increase.



At least the Strength based martials nearly never get 2 rounds of attacks off before the bad guys can act.

In my experience the ranged ones nearly never get that either.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Unless the whole party is optimized in that fashion it doesn't make sense to me. A single GWM+PAM Fighter/Barbarian or SS+CBE Fighter does alot more damage than their featless counterparts, but in context of party damage, it's not nearly that big of an increase.




In my experience the ranged ones nearly never get that either.

It's not just your example; it's a game that was already leaning towards the party before all the power creep came along. And in a game based on bounded accuracy it doesn't take much to throw the whole thing off. When the Druid is a Shepherd, the martials do as you suggested, and the casters are smart players I'm not finding published content close to challenging.

Ranged characters at your table nearly never gain surprise and win initiative?

[Frogreaver]

It's not just your example; it's a game that was already leaning towards the party before all the power creep came along. And in a game based on bounded accuracy it doesn't take much to throw the whole thing off. When the Druid is a Shepherd, the martials do as you suggested, and the casters are smart players I'm not finding published content close to challenging.

What you originally said was "Chuck a Bless and a magic weapon on top of that and it starts to get really clear why I'm throwing out monsters way beyond what is recommended."

Since when did that start including Shepherd Druids and smart casters?


Ranged characters at your table nearly never gain surprise and win initiative?

What I said was: "in my experience the ranged ones nearly never get that either."

Obviously, the way that does happen when it occurs is surprise and winning initiative. Obviously that means characters in my games either don't win initiative (can be ruled out as extremely implausible) or characters in my games rarely get surprise - quite plausible given stealth and surprise rules.

[Chaos Theory]

If they burn all of their Ki, and even if the creature guarantees a save, how does 115.5 (21d10) NOVA damage at level 20 equal 32 in your calculations?

In order to do an apples-to-apples comparison across all builds, the simulations I run are for 4 3-round encounters per day with 2 short rests each day. The dpr is averaged over all 12 rounds. This means that the elements monk gets 3 novas in 12 rounds of combat. On the other rounds, we have to attack normally since we're out of ki. Even that 115.5 nova has a only 55% chance to deal full damage while regular attacks only have a 60% chance to hit without advantage or to-hit bonuses. In T4, it falls far behind open hand monk and any other damage build.

Even with the true 1-round nova calculation, elements monk only deals 90 damage on average due to saves. For comparison, the fiend lock at level 20 has a true 1-round nova of 123 damage with Scorching Ray and Hurl through Hell.

As mentioned, this was my first attempt at elements monk and there are tactical optimizations we can apply such as saving the nova for the round after a successful Stunning Strike. However, since we can only make the nova attack on round 2, it no longer counts as a 1-round nova. Given that at level 20, nova damage is not up to par with a level 20 fiendlock, I won't hold out much hope for elements monk being a damage contender in T4.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

What you originally said was "Chuck a Bless and a magic weapon on top of that and it starts to get really clear why I'm throwing out monsters way beyond what is recommended."

Since when did that start including Shepherd Druids and smart casters?



What I said was: "in my experience the ranged ones nearly never get that either."

Obviously, the way that does happen when it occurs is surprise and winning initiative. Obviously that means characters in my games either don't win initiative (can be ruled out as extremely implausible) or characters in my games rarely get surprise - quite plausible given stealth and surprise rules.

I'm not really sure we are disagreeing on anything at this point, so not sure what more to say beyond that intelligent play and optimization by the larger party positively impacts all characters and in my experience starts to act as a multiplier effect for martials. For example, good use of a summoning, buff, or AOE spell can free up martials to do what they do best.

[Asisreo1]

In order to do an apples-to-apples comparison across all builds, the simulations I run are for 4 3-round encounters per day with 2 short rests each day. The dpr is averaged over all 12 rounds. This means that the elements monk gets 3 novas in 12 rounds of combat. On the other rounds, we have to attack normally since we're out of ki. Even that 115.5 nova has a only 55% chance to deal full damage while regular attacks only have a 60% chance to hit without advantage or to-hit bonuses. In T4, it falls far behind open hand monk and any other damage build.

Even with the true 1-round nova calculation, elements monk only deals 90 damage on average due to saves. For comparison, the fiend lock at level 20 has a true 1-round nova of 123 damage with Scorching Ray and Hurl through Hell.

As mentioned, this was my first attempt at elements monk and there are tactical optimizations we can apply such as saving the nova for the round after a successful Stunning Strike. However, since we can only make the nova attack on round 2, it no longer counts as a 1-round nova. Given that at level 20, nova damage is not up to par with a level 20 fiendlock, I won't hold out much hope for elements monk being a damage contender in T4.
DPR is different from NOVA by a large margin because NOVA's are not concerned with averages (beyond dice roll averages).

The distinction is important because if you could do 70 damage this round and 10 damage the next 3 rounds, it would be more ideal than doing 25 damage for all 4 rounds due to damage having a psuedo-interest since big damage early can be better than good damage consistently, depending on the exact situation.

So I understand where you're coming from, but the point of the NOVA gets lost when using DPR calculations and simulations. It would be better for the monk to not use the FoUA at all, unless its on the edge of the short rest and has Ki left over to dump (still might be better to do a different action or just flurry).

I also ignored saves not because it makes them look better, but because a tactical monk isn't going to use his Ki on a creature with a high save in its STR, DEX, or CON without careful consideration. Because if the creature resists, it would have been better to just attack with flurry. So the damage is targeted on creatures likely to fail the save.

Also, the problem with comparing Quivering Palm's "damage increase" is that it isn't actually an add-on to the damage they do on that round, its a whole other action on their next round. Meaning it takes 2 rounds to activate the effect and the DPR is technically split across the two actions.

So on round 1 at level 17, it would be 42 (4d10+20). On round 2, it would be 55 (10d10). For an average of 48.5 damage. For the elemonk, the average between the two turns would be 99 (18d10) and 31.5 (3d10+15) to equal 65.25. This is assuming the Con save succeeds and the Strength save fails. I think its more likely that a Con save succeeds than a Strength save.

If saves are a concern, FotFS can be a good substitute as they can essentially be thought of as expensive additions to your attacks. Not as much instant NOVA but it bypasses the whole save vs attack deal.

With FotFS and Flurry of Blows, you can do 64 (8d10+20) damage on a single turn and have Ki to spare for a few more FotFS flurries before the short rest.

[samcifer]

I came up with a high damage build today. Valor bard with 10+ levels, 1 or 2 hand crossbows, archery fighting style (via feat or multiclassing), crossbow expert, sharpshooting, and the Haste spell. 4 attacks per turn with not a bad chance for +10 damage per hit.

Alternately, Battle Smith artificer with the same feats and archery gets Haste and extra attack by level 9 and infusions to boost accuracy and damage higher.

[samcifer]

I wanted to thank everyone who helped. I had been assuming that my sorlock (clockwork soul 9/celestial 2) was doing very little damage, but with all of this new info, I played icewind dale last night and felt much more satisfied with my damage output even though it was the same.

As a funny story, we went up against a large (blue?) Sload. Our ranger cast Spike Growth, then between I and our full warlock (both of us with repelling blast and EB) and our artillery artificer with his Cannon (the summonable bonus action attack one that can push a target 5 feet on a hit) we basically treated him like cheese on a grater as he kept trying to reach us across the thorns while we watched the DM died inside slowly. In the DM's favor, our warlock got infected by the sload and was at 2 hp. If he died, he would become a sload himself -oh, and he was already under the effects of a curse of immortality so that he can never fully die (his soul would be trapped inside his dead body if he fails all his death saves), so he would've become an immortal sload. Fortunately, our cleric was able to cure the disease on his next turn. After the fight, the artificer asked of he could skin the Sloan to make hide armor.

DM: roll Nature.

Artificer gets a critical.

DM (dying inside even more): sure! You can make hide armor that grants resistance to (5 elemental damage types).