The Impact of AOE damage vs Single Target Damage

[Frogreaver]

I often see people estimate how many enemies (N) an AOE hits and then multiply that by its DPR (D) and then conclude that an AOE attack does N*D damage. While true in the most technical sense, damage done that way is not directly comparable to single target damage which is the reason that is being calculated that way to begin with.

So why is it not comparable with single target damage? Let's explore a simple example: Single target damage is X and enemy hp is X. You are facing 4 enemies.

By turn listed below this is how many enemy turns you will take (X or Y depending on your initiative):
1. 4 or 3
2. 3 or 2
3. 2 or 1
4. 1 or 0
5. 0

That's 10 or 6. Average of 8 enemy turns.

Now let's consider an AOE attack that does X/4 damage to each of those 4 enemies. You will do X damage total. The exact same damage the single target PC did. However the enemies will have the following turns.

1. 4
2. 4
3. 4
4. 0 or 4
5. 0

You will take an average of 14 enemy turns.

As can be seen from the example above, single target damage focused from 1 enemy to the next tends to be more effective than equivalent aoe damage.

We can go through numerous examples and some algebraic math and if anyone is interested in seeing that later we can explore it. But the answer is that the best estimate for AOE damage translating into single target damage (in terms of enemy turns) via the following estimate =

(Damage) * (Targets + 1) / (2)

*Note that this is outside the trivial case where the AOE is killing the enemies outright.

[LudicSavant]

While true in the most technical sense, damage done that way is not directly comparable to single target damage

Kind of goes without saying, doesn't it?

[Unoriginal]

Kind of goes without saying, doesn't it?

You'd be surprised by how many don't realize that.

I've seen people go "Wizard killed 10 enemies with 7HPs, that means they dealt 70 damages". And then some try to use that "reasoning" to argue casters always deal much more damage than martials.

[LudicSavant]

You'd be surprised by how many don't realize that.

I've seen people go "Wizard killed 10 enemies with 7HPs, that means they dealt 70 damages". And then some try to use that "reasoning" to argue casters always deal much more damage than martials.

Is this like the people who think GWM is just +10 damage and don't account for accuracy?

[Yakk]

Yes, or (in other words) discount secondary target damage by 50%

That covers greenflame blade type cases better.

Geometrically, that 50% factor comes from the fact that triangles have half the area of squares.

[x3n0n]

*Note that this is outside the trivial case where the AOE is killing the enemies outright.

And an important note it is!

Consider 2 hypothetical encounters:
* 3 40-HP enemies or
* 15 8-HP enemies

The 16 damage-per-target (half on save) AoE (think Fireball) is exceptionally good in the second case, and not great in the first.

The 48-damage single attack (think Sneak Attack or Divine Smite) is great in the first case, and not good in the second.

An attacker with 3 or 4 attacks of 10-12 damage each (think Fighter or Monk or Swift Quiver) is somewhere in between: almost as good as the Smite at stopping the big guys, and able to knock out several little guys per turn.

[Asisreo1]

And an important note it is!

Consider 2 hypothetical encounters:
* 3 40-HP enemies or
* 15 8-HP enemies

The 16 damage-per-target (half on save) AoE (think Fireball) is exceptionally good in the second case, and not great in the first.

The 48-damage single attack (think Sneak Attack or Divine Smite) is great in the first case, and not good in the second.

An attacker with 3 or 4 attacks of 10-12 damage each (think Fighter or Monk or Swift Quiver) is somewhere in between: almost as good as the Smite at stopping the big guys, and able to knock out several little guys per turn.

It's almost like these were taken into account when designing the game.

I won't say which one is objectively better, it kinda depends on how your DM tends to make encounters, but I will say that a party with a more diverse set of attack methods is a better one than one that relies solely on AoE's or ST-damage.

Having a party with an AoE character, a character with a spike (like smite or sneak attack), and a character with multiattacks can cover each one's weaknesses. Even better, a DM can introduce encounters where each combatant can uniquely contribute. Want the AoE to shine? Throw low-hp minions. Want smite to shine? Get a single brute. Want multiattackers to shine? Have multiple mid-HP enemies.

[x3n0n]

It's almost like these were taken into account when designing the game.

:)

Having a party with an AoE character, a character with a spike (like smite or sneak attack), and a character with multiattacks can cover each one's weaknesses. Even better, a DM can introduce encounters where each combatant can uniquely contribute. Want the AoE to shine? Throw low-hp minions. Want smite to shine? Get a single brute. Want multiattackers to shine? Have multiple mid-HP enemies.

A particular favorite is the hybrid encounter with low- or mid-HP minions around the boss. Horribly unpleasant without an AoE, but still plenty to do even after a Fireball.

[Frogreaver]

Kind of goes without saying, doesn't it?

After you watched this very thing happen today in your multiclass wizard thread, why are you in this thread acting like it I'm crazy for bringing it up?

Is this like the people who think GWM is just +10 damage and don't account for accuracy?

Have you ever actually met one such person?

Yes, or (in other words) discount secondary target damage by 50%

That covers greenflame blade type cases better.

Geometrically, that 50% factor comes from the fact that triangles have half the area of squares.

Well said!

[LudicSavant]

Have you ever actually met one such person?

Yes. We have a thread about it like... once every few weeks here.

After you watched this very thing happen today in your multiclass wizard thread

I think you interpreted Skylivedk's words very differently than I did. I am quite certain that he does not, in fact, think that AoE and single target damage are literally equivalent. So if this is supposed to be directed at him, I think you might be arguing past him.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's almost like these were taken into account when designing the game.

I won't say which one is objectively better, it kinda depends on how your DM tends to make encounters, but I will say that a party with a more diverse set of attack methods is a better one than one that relies solely on AoE's or ST-damage.

Having a party with an AoE character, a character with a spike (like smite or sneak attack), and a character with multiattacks can cover each one's weaknesses. Even better, a DM can introduce encounters where each combatant can uniquely contribute. Want the AoE to shine? Throw low-hp minions. Want smite to shine? Get a single brute. Want multiattackers to shine? Have multiple mid-HP enemies.

Very much totally agree with this. It's (one of the reasons) why people who only do one big monster or two big monsters fights are missing out. As well as those who only do million-minion fights (do they exist)? Variety is the spice of life.

I had a player whose only love was fireball. His entire character was built around it. So what did I do? Whenever it made any sense, I included hordes of minions. CR 1/4 when they're level 8-9. Sure, they evaporate to a fireball and the player feels good. But I didn't include them in the difficulty calculation except nominally, so there were still targets for the rest to smack around. Win Win.

[MaxWilson]

And an important note it is!

Consider 2 hypothetical encounters:
* 3 40-HP enemies or
* 15 8-HP enemies

(A) The 16 damage-per-target (half on save) AoE (think Fireball) is exceptionally good in the second case, and not great in the first.

(B) The 48-damage single attack (think Sneak Attack or Divine Smite) is great in the first case, and not good in the second.

An attacker with 3 or 4 attacks of 10-12 damage each (think Fighter or Monk or Swift Quiver) is somewhere in between: almost as good as the Smite at stopping the big guys, and able to knock out several little guys per turn.

Your basic point is well-taken, but the comparison between A and B is flawed because the numbers are pulled from nowhere to make the example neater. In actual play, it's never a choice between N single target damage and N damage split equally between targets. It's more like N single target damage, and 40-80% of N x number of targets, split evenly between targets.

If we look at an actual case like an actual Fireball (28 damage, save for half) vs. a 13th level sneak attack (1d8 + 7d6 + Dex), even encounter A looks pretty decent for Fireball. Instead of bringing one enemy close to death, you're bringing three enemies close to death, although not quite as close.

The game math assumes that you'll have AoEs readily available to you to take down swarms of enemies. If you don't, you'll die messily to B (unless you have other anti-mob defenses like high mobility), and even A is going to hurt you more than it would hurt someone with AoEs.

Of course, the best AoEs inflict conditions instead of damage.

[Crucius]

My biggest issue with AoE's is that while I agree that they have their uses against groups, their damage is so high that they often outdamage a martial even against a single target, making them also not bad on just one target.

A rapier rogue with 20 dex deals 1d8+3d6+5 (avg 20) to a single target. Even a greatsword fighter deals 4d6+10 (avg 24) with two attacks, while fireball goes for 8d6 (avg 28) and only gets better with more targets.

I think that is kinda messed up. An AoE should deal lower damage to more creatures in my opinion, not about the same or more than the single target options and then do that to potentially more targets.

(I know that fireball saves for half so I can't assume that average damage necessarily, but at least it saves for half whereas the attacks do zilch on a miss. I'd love to do the math on this, but it's 2 o clock at night here so it's hard right now :p. I hope my point comes across at least a little bit and if there is math that can disprove my arguments I'd be very open to hear it!)

Edit: I should be sleeping, but...

Assuming a wizard (int 20, spell save dc 16 at level 5) casts fireball, the expected average single target damage on a 10 dex monster is:
0.75x28 (save fail) + 0.25x14 (save success) = 24.5 damage

Let's say a monster's AC is an attack DC: so also 16 to make it comparable to the wizards DC. Then the above mentioned rogue deals:
0.60x20 (hit) + 0.05x35 (crit) = 13.75 damage.

Huh. I was hoping to prove with this that the attack would do more damage (and thereby trying to disprove my own bias against AoE having too high damage) but maybe my math is wrong. The assumption of AC is maybe too high? Also didn't account for advantage which could be a big difference. I'm posting it anyways, even though these are just sleep deprived ramblings at this point. Maybe you can make something of it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My biggest issue with AoE's is that while I agree that they have their uses against groups, their damage is so high that they often outdamage a martial even against a single target, making them also not bad on just one target.

A rapier rogue with 20 dex deals 1d8+3d6+5 (avg 20) to a single target. Even a greatsword fighter deals 4d6+10 (avg 24) with two attacks, while fireball goes for 8d6 (avg 28) and only gets better with more targets.

I think that is kinda messed up. An AoE should deal lower damage to more creatures in my opinion, not about the same or more than the single target options and then do that to potentially more targets.

(I know that fireball saves for half so I can't assume that average damage necessarily, but at least it saves for half whereas the attacks do zilch on a miss. I'd love to do the math on this, but it's 2 o clock at night here so it's hard right now :p. I hope my point comes across at least a little bit and if there is math that can disprove my arguments I'd be very open to hear it!)

Edit: I should be sleeping, but...

Assuming a wizard (int 20, spell save dc 16 at level 5) casts fireball, the expected average single target damage on a 10 dex monster is:
0.75x28 (save fail) + 0.25x14 (save success) = 24.5 damage

Let's say a monster's AC is an attack DC: so also 16 to make it comparable to the wizards DC. Then the above mentioned rogue deals:
0.60x20 (hit) + 0.05x35 (crit) = 13.75 damage.

Huh. I was hoping to prove with this that the attack would do more damage (and thereby trying to disprove my own bias against AoE having too high damage) but maybe my math is wrong. The assumption of AC is maybe too high? Also didn't account for advantage which could be a big difference. I'm posting it anyways, even though these are just sleep deprived ramblings at this point. Maybe you can make something of it.

And at level 5, a wizard can do it twice in a day. Total. A rogue can do it every single round. Of which most fights have at least 2, often 4.

[Ashrym]

My biggest issue with AoE's is that while I agree that they have their uses against groups, their damage is so high that they often outdamage a martial even against a single target, making them also not bad on just one target.

A rapier rogue with 20 dex deals 1d8+3d6+5 (avg 20) to a single target. Even a greatsword fighter deals 4d6+10 (avg 24) with two attacks, while fireball goes for 8d6 (avg 28) and only gets better with more targets.

I think that is kinda messed up. An AoE should deal lower damage to more creatures in my opinion, not about the same or more than the single target options and then do that to potentially more targets.

(I know that fireball saves for half so I can't assume that average damage necessarily, but at least it saves for half whereas the attacks do zilch on a miss. I'd love to do the math on this, but it's 2 o clock at night here so it's hard right now :p. I hope my point comes across at least a little bit and if there is math that can disprove my arguments I'd be very open to hear it!)

Edit: I should be sleeping, but...

Assuming a wizard (int 20, spell save dc 16 at level 5) casts fireball, the expected average single target damage on a 10 dex monster is:
0.75x28 (save fail) + 0.25x14 (save success) = 24.5 damage

Let's say a monster's AC is an attack DC: so also 16 to make it comparable to the wizards DC. Then the above mentioned rogue deals:
0.60x20 (hit) + 0.05x35 (crit) = 13.75 damage.

Huh. I was hoping to prove with this that the attack would do more damage (and thereby trying to disprove my own bias against AoE having too high damage) but maybe my math is wrong. The assumption of AC is maybe too high? Also didn't account for advantage which could be a big difference. I'm posting it anyways, even though these are just sleep deprived ramblings at this point. Maybe you can make something of it.

I didn't check your math, but an average on the spell with the save is overly complicated. The DC is 15 (18 INT, 3 proficiency) at 5th level. With no save bonus that's 2 fireballs saved and 1 failed for 70 damage.

The risk of savings hours up with dex score or save proficiency.

4 hits from the rogue in question matches that in a single encounter, but without needing the short rest to gain that.third fireball. The rogue also increases accuracy by TWF. If the first strike hits apply sneak attack and use cunning action. If the first strike misses use the better option under the circumstances of cunning action or the second weapon attack to try for sneak attack again. That increases the average in your calc due to accuracy with sneak attack.

Assuming no save bonus still lets that rogue apply more single target damage at that level.

AoE damage is useful for large numbers but I am of the opinion that status effects are a better use of the slot either way. Using the slot for status effects tends to drive down the caster damage in game play.

[Asisreo1]

My biggest issue with AoE's is that while I agree that they have their uses against groups, their damage is so high that they often outdamage a martial even against a single target, making them also not bad on just one target.

A rapier rogue with 20 dex deals 1d8+3d6+5 (avg 20) to a single target. Even a greatsword fighter deals 4d6+10 (avg 24) with two attacks, while fireball goes for 8d6 (avg 28) and only gets better with more targets.

I think that is kinda messed up. An AoE should deal lower damage to more creatures in my opinion, not about the same or more than the single target options and then do that to potentially more targets.

(I know that fireball saves for half so I can't assume that average damage necessarily, but at least it saves for half whereas the attacks do zilch on a miss. I'd love to do the math on this, but it's 2 o clock at night here so it's hard right now :p. I hope my point comes across at least a little bit and if there is math that can disprove my arguments I'd be very open to hear it!)

Edit: I should be sleeping, but...

Assuming a wizard (int 20, spell save dc 16 at level 5) casts fireball, the expected average single target damage on a 10 dex monster is:
0.75x28 (save fail) + 0.25x14 (save success) = 24.5 damage

Let's say a monster's AC is an attack DC: so also 16 to make it comparable to the wizards DC. Then the above mentioned rogue deals:
0.60x20 (hit) + 0.05x35 (crit) = 13.75 damage.

Huh. I was hoping to prove with this that the attack would do more damage (and thereby trying to disprove my own bias against AoE having too high damage) but maybe my math is wrong. The assumption of AC is maybe too high? Also didn't account for advantage which could be a big difference. I'm posting it anyways, even though these are just sleep deprived ramblings at this point. Maybe you can make something of it.

Rogues have always been the baseline for damage.

A barbarian that rages does 28 (4d6+14) damage over the entire fight, available for (assuming 5th level, a strange assumption, though).

[Unoriginal]

Is this like the people who think GWM is just +10 damage and don't account for accuracy?

Or the people who think Dark Vision doesn't mean "seeing things as if it was dim light for a short range".

And at level 5, a wizard can do it twice in a day. Total. A rogue can do it every single round. Of which most fights have at least 2, often 4.

Yeah, people tend to overlook that too.

[Skylivedk]

I often see people estimate how many enemies (N) an AOE hits and then multiply that by its DPR (D) and then conclude that an AOE attack does N*D damage. While true in the most technical sense, damage done that way is not directly comparable to single target damage which is the reason that is being calculated that way to begin with.

So why is it not comparable with single target damage? Let's explore a simple example: Single target damage is X and enemy hp is X. You are facing 4 enemies.

By turn listed below this is how many enemy turns you will take (X or Y depending on your initiative):
1. 4 or 3
2. 3 or 2
3. 2 or 1
4. 1 or 0
5. 0

That's 10 or 6. Average of 8 enemy turns.

Now let's consider an AOE attack that does X/4 damage to each of those 4 enemies. You will do X damage total. The exact same damage the single target PC did. However the enemies will have the following turns.

1. 4
2. 4
3. 4
4. 0 or 4
5. 0

You will take an average of 14 enemy turns.

As can be seen from the example above, single target damage focused from 1 enemy to the next tends to be more effective than equivalent aoe damage.

We can go through numerous examples and some algebraic math and if anyone is interested in seeing that later we can explore it. But the answer is that the best estimate for AOE damage translating into single target damage (in terms of enemy turns) via the following estimate =

(Damage) * (Targets + 1) / (2)

*Note that this is outside the trivial case where the AOE is killing the enemies outright.

Where is the proof in this?


A) the scenario is highly hypothetical. Different compositions of monsters and players would lead to different ways of diminishing monster turns.
You could equally well have a scenario where it would take two turns to kill a single mob, and two turns to clear them all with AoEs.
B) it doesn't change that to remove those turns damage had to been dealt and the caster dealt it.
C) I have never denied that single target damage is better for quickly removing turns. Again, it depends on composition. Removing 5 mooks might just save you more hp than taking the BBEG out of play
D) this is whatabouttery (I simulated damage, you go: no uh what about turns)

[Chugger]

I play a lot of adventurer's league, so I have a fairly different take on this - tho the point that one caster's AoE may not be killing the monsters as efficiently as he thinks is something to grasp, yes.

So, with AL you never know who is going to run what character, unless doing a hardcover. So some parties may be AoE heavy, while other parties have zero AoE. And some are balanced, meaning that on round one, the boss and all his minions are caught in the fireball or cone of cold. And then the meleers go after the boss.

But maybe we learn that the minions need to be killed first, because on top of out-putting higher than normal minion damage, they also heal the boss each turn as a bonus action. Very bad. So AoE plus meleers on these minions will vastly speed up their deaths, because most DnD fights are combo things - not soloing.

AoE is _very_ hard to use efficiently in AL because many players forget that you've warned them you want to AoE - you want to fireball - and they run up cuz they won initiative and hack on the boss. Now you can't fireball efficiently or you risk killing a party member. Evoker wizards are exceptions to this, of course.

My shadow sorc picked up a fireball wand and is still tier 2 - and that wand is OP. The other consideration is that we can't AoE willy nilly - party members get in the blast radius but also we have to conserve slots. Except the fireball wand is crazy - six fireballs an adventure.

So I can opt to fireball when I otherwise might have firebolted. The argument made in the OP is stronger in isolation but becomes harder to process in the complexity of an actual party - and even harder in an AL party cuz you might not know all the players.

I summon the dog to impose a disad on the ST (and usually order it not to attack) - then Quicken cast a control spell if this makes sense. Not trying to hijack - just pointing out that damage isn't everything - often control makes great sense and = dividing and conquering. Suggestion, polymorph, other spells - once I've got a badguy neutralized, I can fireball with the wand - or firebolt - or dispel a nasty effect on an ally. Just saying that given the complexity of actual DnD battles, or at least many of them, if the argument still stands or if it becomes at least a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. Probably ymmv - sometimes I'm guessing the comparison is right on and strong - in other battles it's fuzzy. But single target damage usually is not reliant on slots and is very important. My shadow sorc may dip two levels of hexblade so he can do powerful Quickened EB attacks and have a much stronger single target attack.

[Skylivedk]

I play a lot of adventurer's league, so I have a fairly different take on this - tho the point that one caster's AoE may not be killing the monsters as efficiently as he thinks is something to grasp, yes.

So, with AL you never know who is going to run what character, unless doing a hardcover. So some parties may be AoE heavy, while other parties have zero AoE. And some are balanced, meaning that on round one, the boss and all his minions are caught in the fireball or cone of cold. And then the meleers go after the boss.

But maybe we learn that the minions need to be killed first, because on top of out-putting higher than normal minion damage, they also heal the boss each turn as a bonus action. Very bad. So AoE plus meleers on these minions will vastly speed up their deaths, because most DnD fights are combo things - not soloing.

AoE is _very_ hard to use efficiently in AL because many players forget that you've warned them you want to AoE - you want to fireball - and they run up cuz they won initiative and hack on the boss. Now you can't fireball efficiently or you risk killing a party member. Evoker wizards are exceptions to this, of course.

My shadow sorc picked up a fireball wand and is still tier 2 - and that wand is OP. The other consideration is that we can't AoE willy nilly - party members get in the blast radius but also we have to conserve slots. Except the fireball wand is crazy - six fireballs an adventure.

So I can opt to fireball when I otherwise might have firebolted. The argument made in the OP is stronger in isolation but becomes harder to process in the complexity of an actual party - and even harder in an AL party cuz you might not know all the players.

I summon the dog to impose a disad on the ST (and usually order it not to attack) - then Quicken cast a control spell if this makes sense. Not trying to hijack - just pointing out that damage isn't everything - often control makes great sense and = dividing and conquering. Suggestion, polymorph, other spells - once I've got a badguy neutralized, I can fireball with the wand - or firebolt - or dispel a nasty effect on an ally. Just saying that given the complexity of actual DnD battles, or at least many of them, if the argument still stands or if it becomes at least a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. Probably ymmv - sometimes I'm guessing the comparison is right on and strong - in other battles it's fuzzy. But single target damage usually is not reliant on slots and is very important. My shadow sorc may dip two levels of hexblade so he can do powerful Quickened EB attacks and have a much stronger single target attack.

Completely agree on AoE control usually being way better. The original example was with damage because that made the comparison between a Force (Mark of Warding) Cleric 1 / Wizard X and a Barbarian easier.

[Dork_Forge]

D) this is whatabouttery (I simulated damage, you go: no uh what about turns)

Based on your post in said thread, you seemed to imply effectiveness of the character based on DPR (if that isn't the case then apologies, but that is how it came across), so an objection on this basis doesn't seem like whatabouttery.

[Skylivedk]

Based on your post in said thread, you seemed to imply effectiveness of the character based on DPR (if that isn't the case then apologies, but that is how it came across), so an objection on this basis doesn't seem like whatabouttery.

Not at all... I just followed the premise of Frogreaver. I think spamming Shatter is usually a bad use of the slot compared to Web. I wouldn't use that Barbarian build as a counter as a tank either, since Toughness doesn't add nearly enough control/damage/reason to be targeted to be worth it, IMX. My main point in the other thread was that the build presented by Frogreaver was a bad build, overall, but specifically as a tank since it provided no reason to actually be targeted. I used DPR as the simplest way of comparing the two, but overall a Barbarian vHuman taking toughness is just all kinds of bleh IMO (and incredibly boring to play to boot).

[Crucius]

And at level 5, a wizard can do it twice in a day. Total. A rogue can do it every single round. Of which most fights have at least 2, often 4.

Hmm, this a fair point, on paper. In reality I rarely see spellcasters run out of spell slots, especially at level 8+.

But fair point is fair! The fact that they're resources balances things out

[Unoriginal]

Hmm, this a fair point, on paper. In reality I rarely see spellcasters run out of spell slots, especially at level 8+.

Casting a Fireball at lvl 8+ isn't the same as casting it at lvl 5, though.

[Keravath]

AoE tends to do more damage than a comparable melee attacks.

An 8d6 fireball averages 28 damage at level 5

Extra attack from a fighter with an 18 attack stat at level 5 using a great sword is 2x(2d6+4) = 23, using a long sword with dueling it is 2x (d8+4+2) = 21. With a 50% hit rate these become 11.5 and 10.5 respectively.

With a 50% save rate the fireball will do 28 on a failed save and still do 14 when the target passes.

If there are 4 targets within range of the fireball - the fireball does 84 damage total spread over three targets. In the same round the fighter does ~11 damage to one target.

So the example of X and X/4 n numbers in the original example aren't representative for a typical melee attack/AoE comparison.

In the single combat round the fireball essentially does almost 8 combat rounds of average damage from the fighter spread over 4 targets. This is actually why it makes sense for the caster to use a third level slot for the spell. They can only do this a limited number of times each day while a fighter can attack every round indefinitely.

Finally, neither class operates in a vacuum. The AoE weakens a large number of opponents that can then be taken down more quickly by the rest of the characters in the party. The AoE also may have the possibility of immediately eliminating some number of opponents depending on their hit points and the nature of the encounter.

Some may suggest that the melee damage is higher due to GWM and SS ... but both of those involve a significant decrease in accuracy that is important to factor in to any comparison since it becomes a choice between higher damage and ZERO damage ... there is a certain point where the target AC is low enough to make the trade off worthwhile on average (it also depends on whether the attacker has a good way to ensure advantage) but in general the trade off until tier 3 depends strongly on the AC of the opponents in the encounter and constant use does not typically increase average DPR in many cases.

On the other hand, crossbow expert and polearm master both add an extra attack which is a strict increase in DPR.

[Frogreaver]

So the example of X and X/4 n numbers in the original example aren't representative for a typical melee attack/AoE comparison.

This is so far in left field I'm not sure I know what to do with it. It's true but not important.

What you should be doing to compare melee and AOE is:
1. Do you fall in a trivial case or interesting case -> trivial being where monsters die in the aoe.
2. If in the interesting case then convert AOE damage to "equivalent" single target damage.
3. After that is done you can actually compare "apples to apples" how much more equivalent single target damage the aoe provided in that scenario.

So let's take fireball hitting 4 enemies in the interesting case. Fireball DPR is about 22.4. Following the above formula that means it does the equivalent of 56 single target DPR. That's still very good but a far cry different than the 89.6 total AOE DPR that commonly gets compared to single target DPR.

Not at all... I just followed the premise of Frogreaver. I think spamming Shatter is usually a bad use of the slot compared to Web. I wouldn't use that Barbarian build as a counter as a tank either, since Toughness doesn't add nearly enough control/damage/reason to be targeted to be worth it, IMX. My main point in the other thread was that the build presented by Frogreaver was a bad build, overall, but specifically as a tank since it provided no reason to actually be targeted. I used DPR as the simplest way of comparing the two, but overall a Barbarian vHuman taking toughness is just all kinds of bleh IMO (and incredibly boring to play to boot).

Frogreaver never suggested directly comparing AOE damage to single target damage. Frogreaver always suggests applying the proper conversion method to AOE damage before doing that comparison. You cannot compare melee and AOE DPR without accounting for their differences first.

Frogreaver also didn't say a variant human barbarian with toughness and a shield was a particularly good build - just a better comparison point for someone interested in survivability, which is ultimately what we were talking about.

AoE damage is useful for large numbers but I am of the opinion that status effects are a better use of the slot either way. Using the slot for status effects tends to drive down the caster damage in game play.

Agreed, Slot for slot control is better. I think that's more a factor of concentration spells being more powerful than equivalent non-concentration spells.

Also when you have multiple casters in the party there is a case of diminished returns from 2 casters applying something like hypnotic pattern to the same group of enemies. Two Casters using something like fireball on the same group of enemies doesn't have any diminshed returns (at least until the first enemies start dying).

[Asisreo1]

Extra attack from a fighter with an 18 attack stat at level 5 using a great sword is 2x(2d6+4) = 23, using a long sword with dueling it is 2x (d8+4+2) = 21. With a 50% hit rate these become 11.5 and 10.5 respectively.

With a 50% save rate the fireball will do 28 on a failed save and still do 14 when the target passes.

I want to point out how a creature is more likely to have a 50% chance for saves than having a 50% chance of hitting.

Using your assumptions, a fighter has a +7 to-hit amd a wizard has a DC 15 spell save. For a 50% hit-chance for a wizard, the creature needs a +4 to dex (not really that rare). A creature would need an AC 18 for a fighter's +7 to be only 50% hit chance.

Realistically, the hit chances of saves are probably 60-65 while the hit chances for attack rolls would be around 75-80

[Skylivedk]

I want to point out how a creature is more likely to have a 50% chance for saves than having a 50% chance of hitting.

Using your assumptions, a fighter has a +7 to-hit amd a wizard has a DC 15 spell save. For a 50% hit-chance for a wizard, the creature needs a +4 to dex (not really that rare). A creature would need an AC 18 for a fighter's +7 to be only 50% hit chance.

Realistically, the hit chances of saves are probably 60-65 while the hit chances for attack rolls would be around 75-80

But since damage spells are usually save for half, you end up in about the same range.

This is so far in left field I'm not sure I know what to do with it. It's true but not important.

What you should be doing to compare melee and AOE is:
1. Do you fall in a trivial case or interesting case -> trivial being where monsters die in the aoe.
2. If in the interesting case then convert AOE damage to "equivalent" single target damage.
3. After that is done you can actually compare "apples to apples" how much more equivalent single target damage the aoe provided in that scenario.

So let's take fireball hitting 4 enemies in the interesting case. Fireball DPR is about 22.4. Following the above formula that means it does the equivalent of 56 single target DPR. That's still very good but a far cry different than the 89.6 total AOE DPR that commonly gets compared to single target DPR.



Frogreaver never suggested directly comparing AOE damage to single target damage. Frogreaver always suggests applying the proper conversion method to AOE damage before doing that comparison. You cannot compare melee and AOE DPR without accounting for their differences first.

Frogreaver also didn't say a variant human barbarian with toughness and a shield was a particularly good build - just a better comparison point for someone interested in survivability, which is ultimately what we were talking about.



Agreed, Slot for slot control is better. I think that's more a factor of concentration spells being more powerful than equivalent non-concentration spells.

Also when you have multiple casters in the party there is a case of diminished returns from 2 casters applying something like hypnotic pattern to the same group of enemies. Two Casters using something like fireball on the same group of enemies doesn't have any diminshed returns (at least until the first enemies start dying).

I am still interested in seeing the justification for 50% being the right reduction of the usefulness of the damage. For now, it just seems random, based on some assumption about reduction of turn which is utterly abstract. Survivability with no impact on the game world is uninteresting. That just makes you an observer. Anyway, for now, in this thread, I would like to understand why you arrive at that specific conversion from AoE to single target damage. I agree that AoE is not the same and shouldn't necessarily convert one to one. Ideally one would kill/incapacitate the enemy with the highest ratio of offense/defence (both in broad terms) with no overflow damage and while facilitating the continued murdering/incapacitation of enemies rather than spread damage across all enemies.

What I don't get about your conversion is that there's plenty of cases where 2 AoEs (sometimes a strong and a weak) will more easily accomplish the goal of murdering/incapacitation/turn deprival than single target damage which doesn't seem to fit with your formula in the slightest.

[Ashrym]

Also when you have multiple casters in the party there is a case of diminished returns from 2 casters applying something like hypnotic pattern to the same group of enemies. Two Casters using something like fireball on the same group of enemies doesn't have any diminshed returns (at least until the first enemies start dying).

That's only true when duplicating the same spell. Two casters using different spells forces more saves / checks on the targets.

Alternatively, don't cast both hypnotic patterns in the same area to cover more ground, or take turns casting it to avoid blowing through 3rd level slots at 5th level.

It takes poor play by the second caster to make the two hypnotic patterns fail. The caster who lays the first pattern down is pretty obvious. The second caster would just cast something / somewhere else.

Realistically, the hit chances of saves are probably 60-65 while the hit chances for attack rolls would be around 75-80

I find the general lack of save proficiency favors a failed save more often than the weapons hit.

It's more pronounced on a wizard who has the spell variety to target weaker saves more often.

As levels increase, anyway. Repeatable rolls and lower DC's whiff a limited resource a lot at lower levels. ;-)

[Chronos]

Another factor to be considered is that not all enemy turns are equal. Take one of those boss-plus-minions encounters, like a powerful necromancer surrounded by a dozen skeletons. A fireball on the first turn could take out all of the skeletons, and thus turn the next round from 13 enemy actions to 1 enemy action... but the necromancer's one action might be more dangerous than the skeletons' 12 actions combined. Shutting down the enemy caster, if you have a way of doing so, might be more effective than the AoE.

On the other hand, if the boss-plus-minions is a stone giant and a bunch of pixies, the pixies' actions are probably a lot more dangerous than the giant's, but the giant is a lot harder to kill. There, the AoE is going to do a lot of good.