I get that this is about ranger, but those DPR calculations for fighter are absurd, quite frankly. AC does not keep scaling into higher levels, but your proficiency does. This means that a high level fighter has plenty reason to rarely turn off GWM. +11 goes to +6, and +6 is plenty enough. Even if you miss more frequently, your DPR is higher than if you went without it.
This is why I like treantmonk's DPR calculation, the assumption that you'll miss about 40-30% of the time. If we do what he did, then the fighter's adjusted DPR would be 49.5*.6, or 29.7. If you factor in GWM, that .6 falls down to .35, but even then, it's 99.5* .35= 34.8, thus supporting the notion that you can't just leave GWM out of a fighter's DPR calculation just because they can't reliably use advantage.
Also, by 20th level, true sight or tremor sense becomes a fairly common feature. Why is nature's veil being included as a given in a 20th level calculation? I'd assume this would greatly affect a ranger's damage.
Beast Master: ...................And because of this, they don't need to use Nature's Veil at all, which means their damage actually remains consistent over the course of one round, six rounds, and ten rounds.....................
I find too many New tasha's abilities "sound better" but actually when measured up to real play, PHB and Tashas aren't that far apart.
There are 1,000,000 way to look at all of this. The numbers. The combinations. Damage over time. Burst damage. Etc. An interesting couple of things for me to throw out here are;
1. PAM is less optimal for a ranger than SS for damage comparisons. I get using melee calculations so “everyone can play”, in these number crunch things, but doing the same math with ranged combat completely takes a couple of entire other classes out of the mix, puts one to shame, and still strongly completes with the remaining. The rogue is using a bow because they shut down with a heavy weapon. Paladins and barbarians have zero ability to keep up outside of melee. It’s worth noting
2. Are we also lookin at resource management? Because if a ranger is using almost zero resources in a day, while the paladin is burning literally everything they have that is expendable, and the short rest folks are tapping out during each battle, tactically, that is a HUGE advantage for the ranger class.
3. If other classes are allowed to use class abilities, spell slots, and spells, can the ranger? Conjure animals is argued about all of the time so I won’t talk damage output, but even just having ANY “little buddies” on the battlefield means absorbing damage, adding cover, and the help action, which just the last one alone brings up the entire party’s DPR, and that should not be discounted. If the ranger can do solo damage just about as well or better than all of the other classes, I think they should get some extra credit for being a huge party buff as well.
4. A couple of you mentioned it already, but all of this mostly talks about single target damage. So again, a ranger keeps up, but when you add in more than one target enemy, the ranger again shines. Subclass abilities and spells make rangers the BEST martial class for handling groups of enemies.
I get that this is about ranger, but those DPR calculations for fighter are absurd, quite frankly. AC does not keep scaling into higher levels, but your proficiency does. This means that a high level fighter has plenty reason to rarely turn off GWM. +11 goes to +6, and +6 is plenty enough. Even if you miss more frequently, your DPR is higher than if you went without it.
This is why I like treantmonk's DPR calculation, the assumption that you'll miss about 40-30% of the time. If we do what he did, then the fighter's adjusted DPR would be 49.5*.6, or 29.7. If you factor in GWM, that .6 falls down to .35, but even then, it's 99.5* .35= 34.8, thus supporting the notion that you can't just leave GWM out of a fighter's DPR calculation just because they can't reliably use advantage.
Also, by 20th level, true sight or tremor sense becomes a fairly common feature. Why is nature's veil being included as a given in a 20th level calculation? I'd assume this would greatly affect a ranger's damage.
This is incorrect. AC does in fact increase as you get into Higher Tiers The Average ARmor at low level is somewhere about 13-14. AT tier 2 I believe it rises to the avergae being about 15. It's like 18 for Tier 3. And tier 4 has an Average AC on it's enemies of like 21 or 22. With AC's on official stuff typically topping out between 25 to 27. There are things that you do need more than a +6 to hit things. And To hit does not top out at +11. But actually tops out at more like +16 with GWM and Sharp Shooter only topping out at about +11 Which means That they could end up with about a 25-30% chance to hit the monster instead of a 60-70% chance.
(Note. These numbers may be slightly off but they are just roughly what I can remember without going back through and doing all the math again)
What does that prove? A couple of AC points more for a big monster versus smaller ones? A couple of AC points more at tier 3 than 2, and tier 3 than 4?
That sounds about right. With the scaling proficiency bonus and all, along with bigger monster designed to be harder to kill then smaller ones.
Sorry. I don't think I understand the last to posts.
What does that prove? A couple of AC points more for a big monster versus smaller ones? A couple of AC points more at tier 3 than 2, and tier 3 than 4?
That sounds about right. With the scaling proficiency bonus and all, along with bigger monster designed to be harder to kill then smaller ones.
Sorry. I don't think I understand the last to posts.
it's important to note when your really getting into the weeds mathmatically about how much damage something can do because it let's you better calculate your chance to hit.
The Argument that the AC doesn't change at higher levels is a false hood and it's based primarily on the front loaded AC's of PC's which actually start higher on most classes than the actual curve of everything else and actually progress slower through AC advancement usually than the monsters do to catch up to PC's long about mid-tier 3 and into Tier 4. Where it's technically possible for monsters to have higher AC's than PC's usually do because their AC's have only gone up an average of like 5 points compared to the about 10 points of difference in AC that most NPC's will actually have.
For Example. Hitting a 20 AC with a +11 is much easier than it is hitting a 25 AC. With a 20 AC that +11 will do you about 50% of the time. Against a 25 AC it's more like a 25% chance. For the Math of the Game they mostly designed it from the seeming of things for average characters to be able to function without magic items and have about a 55% or so chance on Average to be able to hit anything in the game. With it actually being slightly higher than that in Tier 1 thanks to the Average to hit being more like a +5 instead of a +3. Magic Items can help boost it but they are meant to not be a necessary thing to have until you get into Tier 4. This was something that was built into the design philosophy when they fine tuned the game. This is why much of the Tweaking done in the name of Optimization and Power Gaming is basically overboard and those like Treantmonk that are Focused on Power Gaming Aspects whether they actually admit it or not Make up Silly Rules like Eldritch Blast being the standard for damage done despite the fact that it's not actually doing that much. Or that a PC of X level should be able to beat a monster So many CR above it's level or it sucks.
The Argument that the AC doesn't change at higher levels is a false hood and it's based primarily on the front loaded AC's of PC's which actually start higher on most classes than the actual curve of everything else and actually progress slower through AC advancement usually than the monsters do to catch up to PC's long about mid-tier 3 and into Tier 4. Where it's technically possible for monsters to have higher AC's than PC's usually do because their AC's have only gone up an average of like 5 points compared to the about 10 points of difference in AC that most NPC's will actually have.
Ah. I see now. Thanks!
100% agree. AC for NPCs definitely goes up. Plus BBEG and wizards and such do all kinds of abilities, spells, and lair actions/effects that create disadvantage, cover, blindness, and other stuff to hinder the PCs. If by tiers 3 and 4 PCs are still just fighting bags of hit points tje campaign will be short lived.
What does that prove? A couple of AC points more for a big monster versus smaller ones? A couple of AC points more at tier 3 than 2, and tier 3 than 4?
That sounds about right. With the scaling proficiency bonus and all, along with bigger monster designed to be harder to kill then smaller ones.
Sorry. I don't think I understand the last to posts.
it's important to note when your really getting into the weeds mathmatically about how much damage something can do because it let's you better calculate your chance to hit.
The Argument that the AC doesn't change at higher levels is a false hood and it's based primarily on the front loaded AC's of PC's which actually start higher on most classes than the actual curve of everything else and actually progress slower through AC advancement usually than the monsters do to catch up to PC's long about mid-tier 3 and into Tier 4. Where it's technically possible for monsters to have higher AC's than PC's usually do because their AC's have only gone up an average of like 5 points compared to the about 10 points of difference in AC that most NPC's will actually have.
For Example. Hitting a 20 AC with a +11 is much easier than it is hitting a 25 AC. With a 20 AC that +11 will do you about 50% of the time. Against a 25 AC it's more like a 25% chance. For the Math of the Game they mostly designed it from the seeming of things for average characters to be able to function without magic items and have about a 55% or so chance on Average to be able to hit anything in the game. With it actually being slightly higher than that in Tier 1 thanks to the Average to hit being more like a +5 instead of a +3. Magic Items can help boost it but they are meant to not be a necessary thing to have until you get into Tier 4. This was something that was built into the design philosophy when they fine tuned the game. This is why much of the Tweaking done in the name of Optimization and Power Gaming is basically overboard and those like Treantmonk that are Focused on Power Gaming Aspects whether they actually admit it or not Make up Silly Rules like Eldritch Blast being the standard for damage done despite the fact that it's not actually doing that much. Or that a PC of X level should be able to beat a monster So many CR above it's level or it sucks.
The major issue is that it's really only 18+ that the DPR starts to favor the NON power attacks.
And 90% of campaigns end by level 10 and most level 20 play (in my limited experience) lasts a session or two max
Suppose you're right, and the average in tier 4 is 21 or 22 AC. If we top out at +11 with GWM/SS, we're pretty much hitting about 50% of the time. It's still a DPR increase. Things that top out at 27 to 25 are not the norm, and it would do little to impact the bottom line
But why am I settling on +11/+6? Because that's the baseline. To assume more is to assume magic items. Now, I personally have no issue with that as I'd easily like to assume if a campaign made it that far, your character's got access to things like a +3 weapon at the very least, or in the fighter's case, a high tier belt of giant strength. I've got a fighter like that thanks to AL, complete with a belt of storm giant strength and blackrazor. He's got a +13 to hit even after factoring in GWM (which I essentially leave on capslock and never turn off), and I've played him more than enough in tier 4 to know he doesn't struggle with hitting his enemy any more than others do, with advantage or not. But for the sake of simplicity and fairness, we can't just make that assumption.
Now, I'm not mentioning my fighter's stats to gloat or boast, it's an example of why I take issue with thinking a fighter with access to GWM would simply forgo it because he lacks advantage at any given moment. But even if you miss about as much as you mention with GWM on, it's still a DPR increase! If a fighter's job is to do damage, they'd be doing a disservice to NOT activate it most of the time. Are there instances where you shouldn't? Of course. Do those instances become less common in higher levels? absolutely.
I think that high level AC is going to be more for big lieutenants or bosses. Maybe big brutes. Other NPCs and monsters are going to have ACs more in the 15-19 range. Even at tiers 3 and 4. Depending on how you build your character, a GWM should likely be focused on taking out henchmen and mooks anyway. With the bonus action in a crit or kill. All in all, that is the point of tactics. What should you do or not do in a given turn. In the two later tiers of play melee characters might not even get to the fight for several rounds of combat. So it’s all relative.
I also want to add that I find chasing single target nova damage to be a little silly at a point. I mean, as a DM, adding hit points to a boss or meat bag monster is like DMing 101.
What does that prove? A couple of AC points more for a big monster versus smaller ones? A couple of AC points more at tier 3 than 2, and tier 3 than 4?
That sounds about right. With the scaling proficiency bonus and all, along with bigger monster designed to be harder to kill then smaller ones.
Sorry. I don't think I understand the last to posts.
it's important to note when your really getting into the weeds mathmatically about how much damage something can do because it let's you better calculate your chance to hit.
The Argument that the AC doesn't change at higher levels is a false hood and it's based primarily on the front loaded AC's of PC's which actually start higher on most classes than the actual curve of everything else and actually progress slower through AC advancement usually than the monsters do to catch up to PC's long about mid-tier 3 and into Tier 4. Where it's technically possible for monsters to have higher AC's than PC's usually do because their AC's have only gone up an average of like 5 points compared to the about 10 points of difference in AC that most NPC's will actually have.
For Example. Hitting a 20 AC with a +11 is much easier than it is hitting a 25 AC. With a 20 AC that +11 will do you about 50% of the time. Against a 25 AC it's more like a 25% chance. For the Math of the Game they mostly designed it from the seeming of things for average characters to be able to function without magic items and have about a 55% or so chance on Average to be able to hit anything in the game. With it actually being slightly higher than that in Tier 1 thanks to the Average to hit being more like a +5 instead of a +3. Magic Items can help boost it but they are meant to not be a necessary thing to have until you get into Tier 4. This was something that was built into the design philosophy when they fine tuned the game. This is why much of the Tweaking done in the name of Optimization and Power Gaming is basically overboard and those like Treantmonk that are Focused on Power Gaming Aspects whether they actually admit it or not Make up Silly Rules like Eldritch Blast being the standard for damage done despite the fact that it's not actually doing that much. Or that a PC of X level should be able to beat a monster So many CR above it's level or it sucks.
The major issue is that it's really only 18+ that the DPR starts to favor the NON power attacks.
And 90% of campaigns end by level 10 and most level 20 play (in my limited experience) lasts a session or two max
Except that it doesn't because the "power attacks" like GWM and sharp Shooter come with such large negative modifiers that it wipes out any advantage created by the slightly higher to hit and then some. That Static +10. It's Barely breaking even at best. Your Still needing to roll something like a 14 or so to get a hit if you want to use these abilities. And A single attack without it is averaging 9-10 damage anyway. So the Number Feels nice but without something to mitigate the negative modifier like additional bonuses from class or other places. Your not actually getting increased damage. Non-power attacks still threaten to do more than the "Power attacks".
CBE and Pam Are only doing somewhat better because rather than putting on the Static damage with the negative Modifier it's actually putting on more attacks. But even this extra damage risk being Matched by people not using them just by using other abilities that add on damage from various sources.
The Reality is these power Attack Abilities are most useful at Higher levels but they are always Situational unless you have Some overwhelming Advantage. The Right Kinds of Characters with the Right kinds of equipment and abilities for example have to turn it off less and it becomes less situational. While at low level alternate methods of creating characters can give that kind of advantage, As can min-maxing to some extent. There is always a thresh-hold to how these things help and how much they help. And Part of that Thresh-hold is personal comfort. But part of that thresh-hold is also just the math starts working against you too much.
What does that prove? A couple of AC points more for a big monster versus smaller ones? A couple of AC points more at tier 3 than 2, and tier 3 than 4?
That sounds about right. With the scaling proficiency bonus and all, along with bigger monster designed to be harder to kill then smaller ones.
Sorry. I don't think I understand the last to posts.
it's important to note when your really getting into the weeds mathmatically about how much damage something can do because it let's you better calculate your chance to hit.
The Argument that the AC doesn't change at higher levels is a false hood and it's based primarily on the front loaded AC's of PC's which actually start higher on most classes than the actual curve of everything else and actually progress slower through AC advancement usually than the monsters do to catch up to PC's long about mid-tier 3 and into Tier 4. Where it's technically possible for monsters to have higher AC's than PC's usually do because their AC's have only gone up an average of like 5 points compared to the about 10 points of difference in AC that most NPC's will actually have.
For Example. Hitting a 20 AC with a +11 is much easier than it is hitting a 25 AC. With a 20 AC that +11 will do you about 50% of the time. Against a 25 AC it's more like a 25% chance. For the Math of the Game they mostly designed it from the seeming of things for average characters to be able to function without magic items and have about a 55% or so chance on Average to be able to hit anything in the game. With it actually being slightly higher than that in Tier 1 thanks to the Average to hit being more like a +5 instead of a +3. Magic Items can help boost it but they are meant to not be a necessary thing to have until you get into Tier 4. This was something that was built into the design philosophy when they fine tuned the game. This is why much of the Tweaking done in the name of Optimization and Power Gaming is basically overboard and those like Treantmonk that are Focused on Power Gaming Aspects whether they actually admit it or not Make up Silly Rules like Eldritch Blast being the standard for damage done despite the fact that it's not actually doing that much. Or that a PC of X level should be able to beat a monster So many CR above it's level or it sucks.
The major issue is that it's really only 18+ that the DPR starts to favor the NON power attacks.
And 90% of campaigns end by level 10 and most level 20 play (in my limited experience) lasts a session or two max
Except that it doesn't because the "power attacks" like GWM and sharp Shooter come with such large negative modifiers that it wipes out any advantage created by the slightly higher to hit and then some. That Static +10. It's Barely breaking even at best. Your Still needing to roll something like a 14 or so to get a hit if you want to use these abilities. And A single attack without it is averaging 9-10 damage anyway. So the Number Feels nice but without something to mitigate the negative modifier like additional bonuses from class or other places. Your not actually getting increased damage. Non-power attacks still threaten to do more than the "Power attacks".
CBE and Pam Are only doing somewhat better because rather than putting on the Static damage with the negative Modifier it's actually putting on more attacks. But even this extra damage risk being Matched by people not using them just by using other abilities that add on damage from various sources.
The Reality is these power Attack Abilities are most useful at Higher levels but they are always Situational unless you have Some overwhelming Advantage. The Right Kinds of Characters with the Right kinds of equipment and abilities for example have to turn it off less and it becomes less situational. While at low level alternate methods of creating characters can give that kind of advantage, As can min-maxing to some extent. There is always a thresh-hold to how these things help and how much they help. And Part of that Thresh-hold is personal comfort. But part of that thresh-hold is also just the math starts working against you too much.
The math is simple and has been done to death at this point.
The simple fact that half the penalty is taken away with Archery style is enough to say it's rarely an issue below AC 18.
What does that prove? A couple of AC points more for a big monster versus smaller ones? A couple of AC points more at tier 3 than 2, and tier 3 than 4?
That sounds about right. With the scaling proficiency bonus and all, along with bigger monster designed to be harder to kill then smaller ones.
Sorry. I don't think I understand the last to posts.
it's important to note when your really getting into the weeds mathmatically about how much damage something can do because it let's you better calculate your chance to hit.
The Argument that the AC doesn't change at higher levels is a false hood and it's based primarily on the front loaded AC's of PC's which actually start higher on most classes than the actual curve of everything else and actually progress slower through AC advancement usually than the monsters do to catch up to PC's long about mid-tier 3 and into Tier 4. Where it's technically possible for monsters to have higher AC's than PC's usually do because their AC's have only gone up an average of like 5 points compared to the about 10 points of difference in AC that most NPC's will actually have.
For Example. Hitting a 20 AC with a +11 is much easier than it is hitting a 25 AC. With a 20 AC that +11 will do you about 50% of the time. Against a 25 AC it's more like a 25% chance. For the Math of the Game they mostly designed it from the seeming of things for average characters to be able to function without magic items and have about a 55% or so chance on Average to be able to hit anything in the game. With it actually being slightly higher than that in Tier 1 thanks to the Average to hit being more like a +5 instead of a +3. Magic Items can help boost it but they are meant to not be a necessary thing to have until you get into Tier 4. This was something that was built into the design philosophy when they fine tuned the game. This is why much of the Tweaking done in the name of Optimization and Power Gaming is basically overboard and those like Treantmonk that are Focused on Power Gaming Aspects whether they actually admit it or not Make up Silly Rules like Eldritch Blast being the standard for damage done despite the fact that it's not actually doing that much. Or that a PC of X level should be able to beat a monster So many CR above it's level or it sucks.
The major issue is that it's really only 18+ that the DPR starts to favor the NON power attacks.
And 90% of campaigns end by level 10 and most level 20 play (in my limited experience) lasts a session or two max
Except that it doesn't because the "power attacks" like GWM and sharp Shooter come with such large negative modifiers that it wipes out any advantage created by the slightly higher to hit and then some. That Static +10. It's Barely breaking even at best. Your Still needing to roll something like a 14 or so to get a hit if you want to use these abilities. And A single attack without it is averaging 9-10 damage anyway. So the Number Feels nice but without something to mitigate the negative modifier like additional bonuses from class or other places. Your not actually getting increased damage. Non-power attacks still threaten to do more than the "Power attacks".
CBE and Pam Are only doing somewhat better because rather than putting on the Static damage with the negative Modifier it's actually putting on more attacks. But even this extra damage risk being Matched by people not using them just by using other abilities that add on damage from various sources.
The Reality is these power Attack Abilities are most useful at Higher levels but they are always Situational unless you have Some overwhelming Advantage. The Right Kinds of Characters with the Right kinds of equipment and abilities for example have to turn it off less and it becomes less situational. While at low level alternate methods of creating characters can give that kind of advantage, As can min-maxing to some extent. There is always a thresh-hold to how these things help and how much they help. And Part of that Thresh-hold is personal comfort. But part of that thresh-hold is also just the math starts working against you too much.
The math is simple and has been done to death at this point.
The simple fact that half the penalty is taken away with Archery style is enough to say it's rarely an issue below AC 18.
Archery Style is Fine. For those that Have it. And are using SharpShooter Specifically. That's all of 2 classes of all the things that might use sharp shooter. The rest could take it with an ASI. But that's going to cost them elsewhere.
So no. It's not so simple as you want to make it. Because it doesn't address the discrepency between classes. it doesn't address other costs to do it. And it doesn't Address just how you pick up the Feat to begin with. which has it's own cost. And it doesn't address using the other three feats or the Costs for picking them up.
So it's easy to say it's all basic and all the math has been done. But the Math doesn't cover everything and not everything is answered for all characters that create these issues and thresh-holds. Some of which are entirely personal preference. The Math can never fully address personal preference. Some are more willing to take risks or narrower margins of effect than others are.
What does that prove? A couple of AC points more for a big monster versus smaller ones? A couple of AC points more at tier 3 than 2, and tier 3 than 4?
That sounds about right. With the scaling proficiency bonus and all, along with bigger monster designed to be harder to kill then smaller ones.
Sorry. I don't think I understand the last to posts.
it's important to note when your really getting into the weeds mathmatically about how much damage something can do because it let's you better calculate your chance to hit.
The Argument that the AC doesn't change at higher levels is a false hood and it's based primarily on the front loaded AC's of PC's which actually start higher on most classes than the actual curve of everything else and actually progress slower through AC advancement usually than the monsters do to catch up to PC's long about mid-tier 3 and into Tier 4. Where it's technically possible for monsters to have higher AC's than PC's usually do because their AC's have only gone up an average of like 5 points compared to the about 10 points of difference in AC that most NPC's will actually have.
For Example. Hitting a 20 AC with a +11 is much easier than it is hitting a 25 AC. With a 20 AC that +11 will do you about 50% of the time. Against a 25 AC it's more like a 25% chance. For the Math of the Game they mostly designed it from the seeming of things for average characters to be able to function without magic items and have about a 55% or so chance on Average to be able to hit anything in the game. With it actually being slightly higher than that in Tier 1 thanks to the Average to hit being more like a +5 instead of a +3. Magic Items can help boost it but they are meant to not be a necessary thing to have until you get into Tier 4. This was something that was built into the design philosophy when they fine tuned the game. This is why much of the Tweaking done in the name of Optimization and Power Gaming is basically overboard and those like Treantmonk that are Focused on Power Gaming Aspects whether they actually admit it or not Make up Silly Rules like Eldritch Blast being the standard for damage done despite the fact that it's not actually doing that much. Or that a PC of X level should be able to beat a monster So many CR above it's level or it sucks.
The major issue is that it's really only 18+ that the DPR starts to favor the NON power attacks.
And 90% of campaigns end by level 10 and most level 20 play (in my limited experience) lasts a session or two max
Except that it doesn't because the "power attacks" like GWM and sharp Shooter come with such large negative modifiers that it wipes out any advantage created by the slightly higher to hit and then some. That Static +10. It's Barely breaking even at best. Your Still needing to roll something like a 14 or so to get a hit if you want to use these abilities. And A single attack without it is averaging 9-10 damage anyway. So the Number Feels nice but without something to mitigate the negative modifier like additional bonuses from class or other places. Your not actually getting increased damage. Non-power attacks still threaten to do more than the "Power attacks".
CBE and Pam Are only doing somewhat better because rather than putting on the Static damage with the negative Modifier it's actually putting on more attacks. But even this extra damage risk being Matched by people not using them just by using other abilities that add on damage from various sources.
The Reality is these power Attack Abilities are most useful at Higher levels but they are always Situational unless you have Some overwhelming Advantage. The Right Kinds of Characters with the Right kinds of equipment and abilities for example have to turn it off less and it becomes less situational. While at low level alternate methods of creating characters can give that kind of advantage, As can min-maxing to some extent. There is always a thresh-hold to how these things help and how much they help. And Part of that Thresh-hold is personal comfort. But part of that thresh-hold is also just the math starts working against you too much.
The math is simple and has been done to death at this point.
The simple fact that half the penalty is taken away with Archery style is enough to say it's rarely an issue below AC 18.
Archery Style is Fine. For those that Have it. And are using SharpShooter Specifically. That's all of 2 classes of all the things that might use sharp shooter. The rest could take it with an ASI. But that's going to cost them elsewhere.
So no. It's not so simple as you want to make it. Because it doesn't address the discrepency between classes. it doesn't address other costs to do it. And it doesn't Address just how you pick up the Feat to begin with. which has it's own cost. And it doesn't address using the other three feats or the Costs for picking them up.
So it's easy to say it's all basic and all the math has been done. But the Math doesn't cover everything and not everything is answered for all characters that create these issues and thresh-holds. Some of which are entirely personal preference. The Math can never fully address personal preference. Some are more willing to take risks or narrower margins of effect than others are.
DPR is math... And that's what we are talking about.
I get that this is about ranger, but those DPR calculations for fighter are absurd, quite frankly. AC does not keep scaling into higher levels, but your proficiency does. This means that a high level fighter has plenty reason to rarely turn off GWM. +11 goes to +6, and +6 is plenty enough. Even if you miss more frequently, your DPR is higher than if you went without it.
This is why I like treantmonk's DPR calculation, the assumption that you'll miss about 40-30% of the time. If we do what he did, then the fighter's adjusted DPR would be 49.5*.6, or 29.7. If you factor in GWM, that .6 falls down to .35, but even then, it's 99.5* .35= 34.8, thus supporting the notion that you can't just leave GWM out of a fighter's DPR calculation just because they can't reliably use advantage.
Also, by 20th level, true sight or tremor sense becomes a fairly common feature. Why is nature's veil being included as a given in a 20th level calculation? I'd assume this would greatly affect a ranger's damage.
I find too many New tasha's abilities "sound better" but actually when measured up to real play, PHB and Tashas aren't that far apart.
There are 1,000,000 way to look at all of this. The numbers. The combinations. Damage over time. Burst damage. Etc. An interesting couple of things for me to throw out here are;
1. PAM is less optimal for a ranger than SS for damage comparisons. I get using melee calculations so “everyone can play”, in these number crunch things, but doing the same math with ranged combat completely takes a couple of entire other classes out of the mix, puts one to shame, and still strongly completes with the remaining. The rogue is using a bow because they shut down with a heavy weapon. Paladins and barbarians have zero ability to keep up outside of melee. It’s worth noting
2. Are we also lookin at resource management? Because if a ranger is using almost zero resources in a day, while the paladin is burning literally everything they have that is expendable, and the short rest folks are tapping out during each battle, tactically, that is a HUGE advantage for the ranger class.
3. If other classes are allowed to use class abilities, spell slots, and spells, can the ranger? Conjure animals is argued about all of the time so I won’t talk damage output, but even just having ANY “little buddies” on the battlefield means absorbing damage, adding cover, and the help action, which just the last one alone brings up the entire party’s DPR, and that should not be discounted. If the ranger can do solo damage just about as well or better than all of the other classes, I think they should get some extra credit for being a huge party buff as well.
4. A couple of you mentioned it already, but all of this mostly talks about single target damage. So again, a ranger keeps up, but when you add in more than one target enemy, the ranger again shines. Subclass abilities and spells make rangers the BEST martial class for handling groups of enemies.
This is incorrect. AC does in fact increase as you get into Higher Tiers The Average ARmor at low level is somewhere about 13-14. AT tier 2 I believe it rises to the avergae being about 15. It's like 18 for Tier 3. And tier 4 has an Average AC on it's enemies of like 21 or 22. With AC's on official stuff typically topping out between 25 to 27. There are things that you do need more than a +6 to hit things. And To hit does not top out at +11. But actually tops out at more like +16 with GWM and Sharp Shooter only topping out at about +11 Which means That they could end up with about a 25-30% chance to hit the monster instead of a 60-70% chance.
(Note. These numbers may be slightly off but they are just roughly what I can remember without going back through and doing all the math again)
Not quite but close:
What does that prove? A couple of AC points more for a big monster versus smaller ones? A couple of AC points more at tier 3 than 2, and tier 3 than 4?
That sounds about right. With the scaling proficiency bonus and all, along with bigger monster designed to be harder to kill then smaller ones.
Sorry. I don't think I understand the last to posts.
it's important to note when your really getting into the weeds mathmatically about how much damage something can do because it let's you better calculate your chance to hit.
The Argument that the AC doesn't change at higher levels is a false hood and it's based primarily on the front loaded AC's of PC's which actually start higher on most classes than the actual curve of everything else and actually progress slower through AC advancement usually than the monsters do to catch up to PC's long about mid-tier 3 and into Tier 4. Where it's technically possible for monsters to have higher AC's than PC's usually do because their AC's have only gone up an average of like 5 points compared to the about 10 points of difference in AC that most NPC's will actually have.
For Example. Hitting a 20 AC with a +11 is much easier than it is hitting a 25 AC. With a 20 AC that +11 will do you about 50% of the time. Against a 25 AC it's more like a 25% chance. For the Math of the Game they mostly designed it from the seeming of things for average characters to be able to function without magic items and have about a 55% or so chance on Average to be able to hit anything in the game. With it actually being slightly higher than that in Tier 1 thanks to the Average to hit being more like a +5 instead of a +3. Magic Items can help boost it but they are meant to not be a necessary thing to have until you get into Tier 4. This was something that was built into the design philosophy when they fine tuned the game. This is why much of the Tweaking done in the name of Optimization and Power Gaming is basically overboard and those like Treantmonk that are Focused on Power Gaming Aspects whether they actually admit it or not Make up Silly Rules like Eldritch Blast being the standard for damage done despite the fact that it's not actually doing that much. Or that a PC of X level should be able to beat a monster So many CR above it's level or it sucks.
Ah. I see now. Thanks!
100% agree. AC for NPCs definitely goes up. Plus BBEG and wizards and such do all kinds of abilities, spells, and lair actions/effects that create disadvantage, cover, blindness, and other stuff to hinder the PCs. If by tiers 3 and 4 PCs are still just fighting bags of hit points tje campaign will be short lived.
The major issue is that it's really only 18+ that the DPR starts to favor the NON power attacks.
And 90% of campaigns end by level 10 and most level 20 play (in my limited experience) lasts a session or two max
“Power attackers” being the martials using SS, CBE, GWM, and PAM, yes?
Correct!
Suppose you're right, and the average in tier 4 is 21 or 22 AC. If we top out at +11 with GWM/SS, we're pretty much hitting about 50% of the time. It's still a DPR increase. Things that top out at 27 to 25 are not the norm, and it would do little to impact the bottom line
But why am I settling on +11/+6? Because that's the baseline. To assume more is to assume magic items. Now, I personally have no issue with that as I'd easily like to assume if a campaign made it that far, your character's got access to things like a +3 weapon at the very least, or in the fighter's case, a high tier belt of giant strength. I've got a fighter like that thanks to AL, complete with a belt of storm giant strength and blackrazor. He's got a +13 to hit even after factoring in GWM (which I essentially leave on capslock and never turn off), and I've played him more than enough in tier 4 to know he doesn't struggle with hitting his enemy any more than others do, with advantage or not. But for the sake of simplicity and fairness, we can't just make that assumption.
Now, I'm not mentioning my fighter's stats to gloat or boast, it's an example of why I take issue with thinking a fighter with access to GWM would simply forgo it because he lacks advantage at any given moment. But even if you miss about as much as you mention with GWM on, it's still a DPR increase! If a fighter's job is to do damage, they'd be doing a disservice to NOT activate it most of the time. Are there instances where you shouldn't? Of course. Do those instances become less common in higher levels? absolutely.
I think that high level AC is going to be more for big lieutenants or bosses. Maybe big brutes. Other NPCs and monsters are going to have ACs more in the 15-19 range. Even at tiers 3 and 4. Depending on how you build your character, a GWM should likely be focused on taking out henchmen and mooks anyway. With the bonus action in a crit or kill. All in all, that is the point of tactics. What should you do or not do in a given turn. In the two later tiers of play melee characters might not even get to the fight for several rounds of combat. So it’s all relative.
I also want to add that I find chasing single target nova damage to be a little silly at a point. I mean, as a DM, adding hit points to a boss or meat bag monster is like DMing 101.
Also, this is a great video!
https://youtu.be/OIkwABECfR0
It speaks to a lot of what is discussed on these forums. Great content!
Except that it doesn't because the "power attacks" like GWM and sharp Shooter come with such large negative modifiers that it wipes out any advantage created by the slightly higher to hit and then some. That Static +10. It's Barely breaking even at best. Your Still needing to roll something like a 14 or so to get a hit if you want to use these abilities. And A single attack without it is averaging 9-10 damage anyway. So the Number Feels nice but without something to mitigate the negative modifier like additional bonuses from class or other places. Your not actually getting increased damage. Non-power attacks still threaten to do more than the "Power attacks".
CBE and Pam Are only doing somewhat better because rather than putting on the Static damage with the negative Modifier it's actually putting on more attacks. But even this extra damage risk being Matched by people not using them just by using other abilities that add on damage from various sources.
The Reality is these power Attack Abilities are most useful at Higher levels but they are always Situational unless you have Some overwhelming Advantage. The Right Kinds of Characters with the Right kinds of equipment and abilities for example have to turn it off less and it becomes less situational. While at low level alternate methods of creating characters can give that kind of advantage, As can min-maxing to some extent. There is always a thresh-hold to how these things help and how much they help. And Part of that Thresh-hold is personal comfort. But part of that thresh-hold is also just the math starts working against you too much.
The math is simple and has been done to death at this point.
The simple fact that half the penalty is taken away with Archery style is enough to say it's rarely an issue below AC 18.
Archery Style is Fine. For those that Have it. And are using SharpShooter Specifically. That's all of 2 classes of all the things that might use sharp shooter. The rest could take it with an ASI. But that's going to cost them elsewhere.
So no. It's not so simple as you want to make it. Because it doesn't address the discrepency between classes. it doesn't address other costs to do it. And it doesn't Address just how you pick up the Feat to begin with. which has it's own cost. And it doesn't address using the other three feats or the Costs for picking them up.
So it's easy to say it's all basic and all the math has been done. But the Math doesn't cover everything and not everything is answered for all characters that create these issues and thresh-holds. Some of which are entirely personal preference. The Math can never fully address personal preference. Some are more willing to take risks or narrower margins of effect than others are.
DPR is math... And that's what we are talking about.
DPR is more than just math. It's also the choices that you make.
It's easy to pretend it's just the math and that there is an optimal answer.
It's not and there isn't. Just like there is basically never a perfect situation in actual play as compared to white room theory crafting.
It's not it's math and it's fairly easy to do.
Look here:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?582779-Comprehensive-DPR-Calculator-(v2-0)