It seems like little damage to being called a brutal critical, especially when compared to other classes, such as the rogue's sneak attack and cantrip magic attacks (these get an interesting bonus when you crit). We can also say that it is easier to sneak attack than a make a critic attack and the barbarian in rage cannot cast spells. All of this leads me to believe that the barbarian is just the perfect tank, but he is a mediocre fighter at doing damage.
I find it absurd that the barbarian does so little damage ... the barbarian cannot use spells when in rage, so it has no synergy with cantrip-enhanced attacks. The only advantage of him is the brutal critic which is rare and does less damage than a stealth attack, which almost always happens. Even with the extra damage of the rage and the GREATH WEAPON MASTER feat the damage isn't that spectacular. or maybe i can't see something?
I find it absurd that the barbarian does so little damage ... the barbarian cannot use spells when in rage, so it has no synergy with cantrip-enhanced attacks. The only advantage of him is the brutal critic which is rare and does less damage than a stealth attack, which almost always happens. Even with the extra damage of the rage and the GREATH WEAPON MASTER feat the damage isn't that spectacular. or maybe i can't see something?
If you mean Sneak Attack, I would say it only "almost always happens" if you "almost always" manage to engineer the right circumstances: Either having advantage or having at least 1 other party member in melee range. As soon as you are the only one in melee range, you would have to have a very lenient DM to grant you advantage "almost always". (Edit: You could also have some special ability or item, like the Barbarian Reckless Attack)
On the other hand, looking only at damage-causing effects, a Barb on his own with no other party members in melee range:
will normally be using weapons with a higher level of damage dice
get a static modifier to damage of up to +4, equivalent of up to 4 "levels" of damage dice on average
get up to 3 extra of the larger damage dice on crit
can choose to get advantage at will
get more attacks per turn
Basically, a Barb is doing much more damage than a rogue when he is on his own, as well as being able to take huge amounts of damage by comparison (d12 hit dice vs d8, plus resistance to "normal" damage effectively doubling it). Because of this, the squishier members of the party can hold back and attack from range, instead of having to be up close and personal to grant Sneak Attack. To say that the "only advantage of him is the brutal critic" is not exactly the case.
I find it absurd that the barbarian does so little damage ... the barbarian cannot use spells when in rage, so it has no synergy with cantrip-enhanced attacks. The only advantage of him is the brutal critic which is rare and does less damage than a stealth attack, which almost always happens. Even with the extra damage of the rage and the GREATH WEAPON MASTER feat the damage isn't that spectacular. or maybe i can't see something?
The Barbarian does more damage than a fighter. Rage damage is more extra damage than the fighting styles, and they have advantage at will.
Unless you're an archer, baseline fighters start to pull ahead of baseline barbarians at 11th-level. But it's not like barbarians can't keep up and still contribute. And the archer still pulls ahead at 20th-level, but it's tough to beat four attacks.
Unless you're an archer, baseline fighters start to pull ahead of baseline barbarians at 11th-level. But it's not like barbarians can't keep up and still contribute. And the archer still pulls ahead at 20th-level, but it's tough to beat four attacks.
I would need to crunch the numbers, and it would depend on the AC of the target, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the barbarian was still slightly ahead, or at least neck and neck with a Fighter at level 11.
With my barbarian I attack recklessly full-time all the time. I’m rolling four dice to hit instead of two, and a fighter rolls three dice to hit. That’s not a direct comparison because the barbarian can only hit a maximum of two times, regardless of the dice.
One of these days when I’m bored enough I’ll do the calculations against common AC levels for CR 11 creatures.
The baseline barbarian at 20th-level, with 24 strength and a greataxe, averages 32 damage if both attacks land. This goes up to 35.62 if you factor in Brutal Critical and Reckless Attacks; if the latter grants advantage and doesn't just cancel it out. This also assumes both attacks land.
A baseline rogue at 20th-level, with 20 dexterity and a rapier, averages 45.5 damage before calculating for crit chance. Again, this assumes they hit and get to use their Sneak Attack. After crit chance, if they have advantage on the roll, it's 49.35
Contrast all this with a fighter, also 20th-level so they get four attacks, with the Great Weapon Fighting style and 20 strength. They average 53.33 damage with a greatsword or maul before even factoring in crit chance, subclass, or feats. A rogue can only add Sharpshooter once. Any other martial can do it twice and get enough damage to come out on top. A champion is terrifyingly effective for being so simple to play.
The baseline barbarian at 20th-level, with 24 strength and a greataxe, averages 32 damage if both attacks land. This goes up to 35.62 if you factor in Brutal Critical and Reckless Attacks; if the latter grants advantage and doesn't just cancel it out. This also assumes both attacks land.
A baseline rogue at 20th-level, with 20 dexterity and a rapier, averages 45.5 damage before calculating for crit chance. Again, this assumes they hit and get to use their Sneak Attack. After crit chance, if they have advantage on the roll, it's 49.35
Contrast all this with a fighter, also 20th-level so they get four attacks, with the Great Weapon Fighting style and 20 strength. They average 53.33 damage with a greatsword or maul before even factoring in crit chance, subclass, or feats. A rogue can only add Sharpshooter once. Any other martial can do it twice and get enough damage to come out on top. A champion is terrifyingly effective for being so simple to play.
I haven't checked any of your numbers, but "if they all land" is a very significant variable. The Barbarian having advantage significantly increase hit chance, which increases average damage per attack.
It's also important to factor in what levels people will actually end up ascending to, and what levels they will spend most of their playing time.
Edit: I just spot checked the first one. Level 20 Barb with 24 strength and a normal greataxe averages 35 damage if both attacks land, not factoring any feats nor factoring in criticals.
I...forgot to raise their Strength up to 24. So, yes, they would be dealing 35 on average. I feel like a ninny. And with that out of the way, I went with the "let's assume every attack hits" for two reasons:
It's how Offensive CR is calculated, so there's precedent.
Without knowing the target's AC, we need to remove as many variables as possible.
You do bring up a good point in assuming which levels players are likely to reach because it can vary from campaign to campaign. Some published modules go as high as 15 while others make the final push around 9. 11th-level seems like a happy middle ground. It's at the very beginning of Tier 3 and makes for a sizable power jump for some classes.
By my math, assuming a +4 to their attack ability, no critical hits, no feats, and no magic items, baseline...
Barbarians are averaging 27 DPR when armed with a greataxes
Fighters (with their accompanying fighting style) are averaging between 25 (Archery) and 34 (GWF) DPR with their three attacks
Paladins are averaging only 19-24 DPR unless they spend spell slots for spells and/or divine smite
Rangers are averaging 30-33 DPR; dependent on their fighting style, hunter's mark and/or their BM companion*
Rogues are averaging 30 DPR with a rapier or longbow (high/wood elf), but it could be 32.5 if they're TWF with shortswords
So while barbarians seem to lag a little, they have defenses nobody else does, and many of their archetypes also grant additional damage. The Path of the Zealot is consistently high DPR; dealing 35 on average at 11th-level. For that matter, so is a Berserker that's cutting loose with Frenzied Rage. Even the maligned Battlerager that's spending an attack to grapple and doesn't let go is averaging 28, and if they just attack outright it's 32. I haven't calculated crit chance for everybody, and I'm a little terrified to.
I should clarify that all of these above averages assume three rounds of combat and the first turn being devoted to activating features like Rage or spells via the Bonus Action.
It's good to look at base numbers for comparison as a starting point, I agree. But if you're trying to assess actual damage output in an actual game, the extra damage from advantage cannot be ignored.
Let's take the Barbarian number, 35 average damage if they both hit. On a regular attack, if you require a natural 13 to hit that actually amounts to 14 average damage per round. With advantage the actual average damage per round is 22.4. That is a 60% increase in damage just going from normal to advantage.
Looking at raw numbers with Barbarians and not factoring in advantage can be very misleading.
This also sets aside the Barbarian's major advantage over all other classes: it's ability to take damage. With more HP per level and resistance to the most common types (looking at the base only), they are difficult to take down. You do zero DPR of you are unconscious and busy making death saving throws..
It's good to look at base numbers for comparison as a starting point, I agree. But if you're trying to assess actual damage output in an actual game, the extra damage from advantage cannot be ignored.
Let's take the Barbarian number, 35 average damage if they both hit. On a regular attack, if you require a natural 13 to hit that actually amounts to 14 average damage per round. With advantage the actual average damage per round is 22.4. That is a 60% increase in damage just going from normal to advantage.
Looking at raw numbers with Barbarians and not factoring in advantage can be very misleading.
The idea is to not be misleading. As I said, we have to remove variables from the equation. The unpredictable AC of the enemy is one of them. Without that information, we can't possibly know the number of fail states to accurately calculate damage. And I really don't feel like doing that for every listed value in the MM. So I kept it simple, which also minimizes the impact of critical hits; for good or for ill. I know it's flawed, but by being honest with the experiment's assumptions we can minimize biases and misleading statements.
We absolutely can, and should, emphatically state that this is not representative of actual combat. Barbarians can give themselves advantage at-will. Fighters and rangers with the archery fighting style might do the least damage, if you assume every attack hits, but they have a bonus to attack rolls that means more attacks will land. And that adds up over time.
Honestly, the obsession over damage is something I'll never understand. But to each their own.
It's good to look at base numbers for comparison as a starting point, I agree. But if you're trying to assess actual damage output in an actual game, the extra damage from advantage cannot be ignored.
Let's take the Barbarian number, 35 average damage if they both hit. On a regular attack, if you require a natural 13 to hit that actually amounts to 14 average damage per round. With advantage the actual average damage per round is 22.4. That is a 60% increase in damage just going from normal to advantage.
Looking at raw numbers with Barbarians and not factoring in advantage can be very misleading.
The idea is to not be misleading. As I said, we have to remove variables from the equation. The unpredictable AC of the enemy is one of them. Without that information, we can't possibly know the number of fail states to accurately calculate damage. And I really don't feel like doing that for every listed value in the MM. So I kept it simple, which also minimizes the impact of critical hits; for good or for ill. I know it's flawed, but by being honest with the experiment's assumptions we can minimize biases and misleading statements.
We absolutely can, and should, emphatically state that this is not representative of actual combat. Barbarians can give themselves advantage at-will. Fighters and rangers with the archery fighting style might do the least damage, if you assume every attack hits, but they have a bonus to attack rolls that means more attacks will land. And that adds up over time.
Honestly, the obsession over damage is something I'll never understand. But to each their own.
"We absolutely can, and should, emphatically state that this is not representative of actual combat."
Yes, this. It all boils down to what you are trying to assess. If you're trying to get an idea for which class does more damage at what levels, you can leave small things out and still make that inference. But advantage at will is a huge thing that dramatically affects the numbers. Most of the other factors (like fighting styles) are very small by comparison. The most impactful fighting style (by a wide margin) is archery, which amounts to a net 10% increase in damage. And even that is considerably less impactful than advantage.
Then you're failing, because ignoring such significant aspects of a class' combat mechanics is incredibly misleading.
That's why you include caveats like I have been doing. Every study or experiment makes assumptions and has to include those in the write-up. You do know that, right?
If you wish to critique the methodology and offer up solutions, I'm all ears.
The baseline barbarian at 20th-level, with 24 strength and a greataxe, averages 32 damage if both attacks land. This goes up to 35.62 if you factor in Brutal Critical and Reckless Attacks; if the latter grants advantage and doesn't just cancel it out. This also assumes both attacks land.
A baseline rogue at 20th-level, with 20 dexterity and a rapier, averages 45.5 damage before calculating for crit chance. Again, this assumes they hit and get to use their Sneak Attack. After crit chance, if they have advantage on the roll, it's 49.35
Contrast all this with a fighter, also 20th-level so they get four attacks, with the Great Weapon Fighting style and 20 strength. They average 53.33 damage with a greatsword or maul before even factoring in crit chance, subclass, or feats. A rogue can only add Sharpshooter once. Any other martial can do it twice and get enough damage to come out on top. A champion is terrifyingly effective for being so simple to play.
The numbers are way off the mark, and if you're already giving numbers that assume they both hit, reckless attack does not affect the value at all.
Here is the percent damage increase Advantage gives over Normal, by the required natural roll on the Die.
When I calculate the critic of the Barbarian do I add this before doubling the dice or after?
Example:
Normal attack in rage: 1d12 + str + (rage)
Critical version 1: (1d12 x 2) + 3d12 (brutal critical lev 17) + str + (rage) = 5d12 + str + (rage)
Critical version 2: [1d12 (weapon) + 3d12 (brutal critical lev 17)] x2 + str + (rage) = 8d12 + str + (rage)
In case the Barbarian was a half orc:
Critical version 1: (1d12 x 2) + 3d12 (brutal critical lev 17) + 1d12 (savace attack half orc) + str + (rage) = 6d12 + str + (rage)
Critical version 2: [1d12 (weapon) + 3d12 (brutal critical lev 17) x2 + str + (rage) + 1d12 (savace attack half orc)] = 9d12 + str + (rage)
Critical version 3: [1d12 (weapon) + 3d12 (brutal critical lev 17) + 1d12 (savace attack half orc) ] x2 + str + (rage) = 10d12 + str + (rage)
The dice from Brutal Critical never gets doubled. They are the bonus on top of your normal critical.
So at level 17 a Barbarian with a Great Axe will be hitting like this:
Normal hit: 1d12 + Str + Rage
Critical hit: 2d12 (Weapon damage doubled) + 3d12 (Brutal Critical) + Str + Rage = 5d12 + Str + Rage
A Critical Hit from a Half Orc would add another 1d12 from Savage Attacks which means you would do: 6d12 + Str + Rage
It seems like little damage to being called a brutal critical, especially when compared to other classes, such as the rogue's sneak attack and cantrip magic attacks (these get an interesting bonus when you crit). We can also say that it is easier to sneak attack than a make a critic attack and the barbarian in rage cannot cast spells. All of this leads me to believe that the barbarian is just the perfect tank, but he is a mediocre fighter at doing damage.
I find it absurd that the barbarian does so little damage ... the barbarian cannot use spells when in rage, so it has no synergy with cantrip-enhanced attacks. The only advantage of him is the brutal critic which is rare and does less damage than a stealth attack, which almost always happens. Even with the extra damage of the rage and the GREATH WEAPON MASTER feat the damage isn't that spectacular. or maybe i can't see something?
If you mean Sneak Attack, I would say it only "almost always happens" if you "almost always" manage to engineer the right circumstances: Either having advantage or having at least 1 other party member in melee range. As soon as you are the only one in melee range, you would have to have a very lenient DM to grant you advantage "almost always". (Edit: You could also have some special ability or item, like the Barbarian Reckless Attack)
On the other hand, looking only at damage-causing effects, a Barb on his own with no other party members in melee range:
Basically, a Barb is doing much more damage than a rogue when he is on his own, as well as being able to take huge amounts of damage by comparison (d12 hit dice vs d8, plus resistance to "normal" damage effectively doubling it). Because of this, the squishier members of the party can hold back and attack from range, instead of having to be up close and personal to grant Sneak Attack. To say that the "only advantage of him is the brutal critic" is not exactly the case.
The Barbarian does more damage than a fighter. Rage damage is more extra damage than the fighting styles, and they have advantage at will.
Unless you're an archer, baseline fighters start to pull ahead of baseline barbarians at 11th-level. But it's not like barbarians can't keep up and still contribute. And the archer still pulls ahead at 20th-level, but it's tough to beat four attacks.
I would need to crunch the numbers, and it would depend on the AC of the target, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the barbarian was still slightly ahead, or at least neck and neck with a Fighter at level 11.
With my barbarian I attack recklessly full-time all the time. I’m rolling four dice to hit instead of two, and a fighter rolls three dice to hit. That’s not a direct comparison because the barbarian can only hit a maximum of two times, regardless of the dice.
One of these days when I’m bored enough I’ll do the calculations against common AC levels for CR 11 creatures.
The baseline barbarian at 20th-level, with 24 strength and a greataxe, averages 32 damage if both attacks land. This goes up to 35.62 if you factor in Brutal Critical and Reckless Attacks; if the latter grants advantage and doesn't just cancel it out. This also assumes both attacks land.
A baseline rogue at 20th-level, with 20 dexterity and a rapier, averages 45.5 damage before calculating for crit chance. Again, this assumes they hit and get to use their Sneak Attack. After crit chance, if they have advantage on the roll, it's 49.35
Contrast all this with a fighter, also 20th-level so they get four attacks, with the Great Weapon Fighting style and 20 strength. They average 53.33 damage with a greatsword or maul before even factoring in crit chance, subclass, or feats. A rogue can only add Sharpshooter once. Any other martial can do it twice and get enough damage to come out on top. A champion is terrifyingly effective for being so simple to play.
I haven't checked any of your numbers, but "if they all land" is a very significant variable. The Barbarian having advantage significantly increase hit chance, which increases average damage per attack.
It's also important to factor in what levels people will actually end up ascending to, and what levels they will spend most of their playing time.
Edit: I just spot checked the first one. Level 20 Barb with 24 strength and a normal greataxe averages 35 damage if both attacks land, not factoring any feats nor factoring in criticals.
I...forgot to raise their Strength up to 24. So, yes, they would be dealing 35 on average. I feel like a ninny. And with that out of the way, I went with the "let's assume every attack hits" for two reasons:
You do bring up a good point in assuming which levels players are likely to reach because it can vary from campaign to campaign. Some published modules go as high as 15 while others make the final push around 9. 11th-level seems like a happy middle ground. It's at the very beginning of Tier 3 and makes for a sizable power jump for some classes.
By my math, assuming a +4 to their attack ability, no critical hits, no feats, and no magic items, baseline...
*Assumes PHB BM with a wolf
So while barbarians seem to lag a little, they have defenses nobody else does, and many of their archetypes also grant additional damage. The Path of the Zealot is consistently high DPR; dealing 35 on average at 11th-level. For that matter, so is a Berserker that's cutting loose with Frenzied Rage. Even the maligned Battlerager that's spending an attack to grapple and doesn't let go is averaging 28, and if they just attack outright it's 32. I haven't calculated crit chance for everybody, and I'm a little terrified to.
I should clarify that all of these above averages assume three rounds of combat and the first turn being devoted to activating features like Rage or spells via the Bonus Action.
It's good to look at base numbers for comparison as a starting point, I agree. But if you're trying to assess actual damage output in an actual game, the extra damage from advantage cannot be ignored.
Let's take the Barbarian number, 35 average damage if they both hit. On a regular attack, if you require a natural 13 to hit that actually amounts to 14 average damage per round. With advantage the actual average damage per round is 22.4. That is a 60% increase in damage just going from normal to advantage.
Looking at raw numbers with Barbarians and not factoring in advantage can be very misleading.
This also sets aside the Barbarian's major advantage over all other classes: it's ability to take damage. With more HP per level and resistance to the most common types (looking at the base only), they are difficult to take down. You do zero DPR of you are unconscious and busy making death saving throws..
The idea is to not be misleading. As I said, we have to remove variables from the equation. The unpredictable AC of the enemy is one of them. Without that information, we can't possibly know the number of fail states to accurately calculate damage. And I really don't feel like doing that for every listed value in the MM. So I kept it simple, which also minimizes the impact of critical hits; for good or for ill. I know it's flawed, but by being honest with the experiment's assumptions we can minimize biases and misleading statements.
We absolutely can, and should, emphatically state that this is not representative of actual combat. Barbarians can give themselves advantage at-will. Fighters and rangers with the archery fighting style might do the least damage, if you assume every attack hits, but they have a bonus to attack rolls that means more attacks will land. And that adds up over time.
Honestly, the obsession over damage is something I'll never understand. But to each their own.
"We absolutely can, and should, emphatically state that this is not representative of actual combat."
"We absolutely can, and should, emphatically state that this is not representative of actual combat."
Yes, this. It all boils down to what you are trying to assess. If you're trying to get an idea for which class does more damage at what levels, you can leave small things out and still make that inference. But advantage at will is a huge thing that dramatically affects the numbers. Most of the other factors (like fighting styles) are very small by comparison. The most impactful fighting style (by a wide margin) is archery, which amounts to a net 10% increase in damage. And even that is considerably less impactful than advantage.
Then you're failing, because ignoring such significant aspects of a class' combat mechanics is incredibly misleading.
That's why you include caveats like I have been doing. Every study or experiment makes assumptions and has to include those in the write-up. You do know that, right?
If you wish to critique the methodology and offer up solutions, I'm all ears.
The numbers are way off the mark, and if you're already giving numbers that assume they both hit, reckless attack does not affect the value at all.
Here is the percent damage increase Advantage gives over Normal, by the required natural roll on the Die.
8 - 35% increase
9 - 40%
10 - 45%
11 - 50%
12 - 55%
13 - 60%
Advantage adds huge damage.
Even if we assume every attack lands, Reckless Attacks still affects the chance of landing a critical hit.
Fair point.