It's damage per round, literally how much damage the character will be able to do in a single round of combat. There's a lot that goes into it, and the whole maths changes each time you level up and get new features, but for instance at level 1 a Barbarian with a Greataxe will do more DPR than a Ranger with a Longbow because that's the average of 1d12 for the greataxe versus 1d8 for the longbow. Meanwhile a Wizard at level 1 isn't doing a lot of DPR because they've only got low level spells but once they get an area of effect spell like Fireball they can do 8d6 damage and not just to one target but to every target in a 20ft sphere. The reason it comes up so often in relation to Rangers is because they have several class and subclass features that all stack and can lead to them doing more damage than it first appears once you take the basic attack and add on Hunter's Mark, a possible Beast Companion using the bonus action, and other possible buffs
It's just a measure of how much damage you're doing in one round (the time for everyone to take their turn).
It's a better measure than damage you can do on your Turn because there are some characters that can do more damage as a Reaction than others (Rogues and Paladins are good for this), and others like Wizards can do stuff that causes damage outside of their Turn without using Reactions etc.
So really, it's just a way of measuring how much damage you can deal to enemies compared to others. It's not a comprehensive measure of how good your character is (a Wizard casting Hold Monster doesn't do direct damage but opens the monster up to much more damage than merely hitting it with a Fire Bolt), but it's better than "my character can hit you with a Warhammer for X amount of damage" because it accounts for being able to do it multiple times etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
One thing to watch when people start throwing DPR numbers around is what their assumptions are. People are prone to assuming ideal target availability, full resources, and no interference with their setup. (And also often don't average any setup rounds in when figuring their DPR.)
It's also not all that important IMO. Unless the differences get into the level of "one person noticeably dominates combat", it's just not that big a deal in actual play.
(If your hobby is character optimization, sure, it's important, but that's the D&D equivalent of speedrunning video games.)
Looking in the Ranger threads, the term "DPR" is thrown around along with numbers.
What does "DPR" mean? Both literally and figuratively, because it seems like a metric.
Like everyone stated, damage per round. But it’s fairytale make believe (because all based on assumptions). Even though the % chances are mathematically correct but it’s not what really happens because di rolling is unpredictable. I agree with the above OP that this came from online gaming (dps- damage per second) but that can be parsed and given accurate data. I totally ignore dpr because it’s totally bogus based upon “dirty data” - assuming.
It's not based on "dirty data" (whatever that is), it's based on averages. And like all averages, it gets more accurate the larger your sample size is: just looking at a single round by itself won't give you great results, looking at the cumulative data from 100 rounds of combat will give a considerably more accurate results.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It's not based on "dirty data" (whatever that is), it's based on averages. And like all averages, it gets more accurate the larger your sample size is: just looking at a single round by itself won't give you great results, looking at the cumulative data from 100 rounds of combat will give a considerably more accurate results.
This is true.
I suspect the people who do character optimization tend to underrate the importance of variance, especially when making calculations around limited resources. A lot of small attacks is better than one big attack, even if the big swing does more damage on average. (The question of how much more damage it can do before it is better is complicated.) When you're just working in DPR, that distinction can easily get lost.
With due respect to those who use this, I define it as a MMORPG metric that has no business being used in a tabletop RPG.
This is fair but optimization has always existed in TTRPGs, and in that context you need a way to distinguish the ability to deal consistent damage from the ability to deal a pile of dice one time.
Historically, casters have had great "burst damage" with their big spells, but them have to fall back on cantrips or the mighty dagger. Alternately, fighters don't ever get to deal 10d6 damage, but they can get in their two swings all day long.
Video game language has creeped in here because it provides a handy shorthand. There are some terms that are less applicable than others (I think terms like "tank" and "aggro" can be particularly misleading because D&D doesn't really have an equivalent mechanic).
D&D also came from wargames, which as I understand can be very number-crunchy and I believe they use some of these terms too. But I don't know that space enough to comment on it.
Looking in the Ranger threads, the term "DPR" is thrown around along with numbers.
What does "DPR" mean? Both literally and figuratively, because it seems like a metric.
It's just another one of those gamer terms, that mostly multiplayer types tend to bring over in RPG's where it doesn't belong. It means Damage per Round similar to Damage per Second. It doesn't belong in a role playing game any more than "tank", "buff/de-buff" or "no sell". Nerf can be relevant I guess.
Looking in the Ranger threads, the term "DPR" is thrown around along with numbers.
What does "DPR" mean? Both literally and figuratively, because it seems like a metric.
Just it's just another one of those gamer terms, that mostly multiplayer types tend to bring over in RPG's where it doesn't belong. It means Damage per Round similar to Damage per Second. It doesn't belong in a role playing game any more than "tank", "buff/de-buff" or "no sell". Nerf can be relevant I guess.
Just my opinion of course.
Slight derail:
When I was in college (the 90's) I knew people playing a Super Hero RPG at the table who had character archetypes such as "Brick" and "Blaster". They put superhero styles into similar boxes to what would become Tank, DPS, Healer, Crowd Control what would dominate EQ a few decades later. Oddly with WOW, the CC character type faded out to only have the trinity of Tank, Healer, DPS.
Which do derail again, I think was the great tragedy of modern MMO's. I adored playing CC and I really believed that well designed CC characters could reduce the need to have an ideal number of tanks and healers. In more than a few parties, a pair of CC could effectively "tank" for a group if there was good heals and DPS to keep the fight from going too long.
But... that's a lot to say that the generalized "What do you do in combat?" labels are not exclusive to WoW/EQ speak. Nor are they terrible overviews of General roles when the fight starts.
I've never put much stock in the veracity of DPR. For one thing, I play D&D to have fun and to be part of an exciting story. Obsessing over DPR is more akin to doing taxes just for fun. Plus, as others have already stated, it is based on a lot of assumptions. For example, DPR dictates that, on average, a level 1 barbarian with a greataxe will do more damage than a level 1 ranger with a longbow. But.... what if the target is a flying creature? There ya go. DPR flies out the window, just like that creature. I think the people who put stock in DPR are the same people who walk into a casino thinking they've got a system that'll enable them to win.
It's not based on "dirty data" (whatever that is), it's based on averages. And like all averages, it gets more accurate the larger your sample size is: just looking at a single round by itself won't give you great results, looking at the cumulative data from 100 rounds of combat will give a considerably more accurate results.
This is true.
I suspect the people who do character optimization tend to underrate the importance of variance, especially when making calculations around limited resources. A lot of small attacks is better than one big attack, even if the big swing does more damage on average. (The question of how much more damage it can do before it is better is complicated.) When you're just working in DPR, that distinction can easily get lost.
The assumption is the dirty data, everything would have to be exactly played out for the damage to be accurate. Not like parsing in online games it’s exactly what you did. my opinion I play characters based on what I find enjoyable, dpr is not relevant because my di rolls suck anyways.
Looking in the Ranger threads, the term "DPR" is thrown around along with numbers.
What does "DPR" mean? Both literally and figuratively, because it seems like a metric.
Just it's just another one of those gamer terms, that mostly multiplayer types tend to bring over in RPG's where it doesn't belong. It means Damage per Round similar to Damage per Second. It doesn't belong in a role playing game any more than "tank", "buff/de-buff" or "no sell". Nerf can be relevant I guess.
Just my opinion of course.
Every one of those except what I assume to be slang is in dnd though.
tank: certain barbarian, fighter, paladin, or multiclass builds
Back in AD&D, we referred to the "tank" as the meatshield. Different term, same definition.
Are you credited with having coined the term 'meat shield' by any chance? Like 'tank' that term originated in cooperative video games and was not in common use at the time of AD&D.
Back in AD&D, we referred to the "tank" as the meatshield. Different term, same definition.
Are you credited with having coined the term 'meat shield' by any chance? Like 'tank' that term originated in cooperative video games and was not in common use at the time of AD&D.
In the late 70s we used "tank", never heard of meatshield for D&D.
Looking in the Ranger threads, the term "DPR" is thrown around along with numbers.
What does "DPR" mean? Both literally and figuratively, because it seems like a metric.
It's damage per round, literally how much damage the character will be able to do in a single round of combat. There's a lot that goes into it, and the whole maths changes each time you level up and get new features, but for instance at level 1 a Barbarian with a Greataxe will do more DPR than a Ranger with a Longbow because that's the average of 1d12 for the greataxe versus 1d8 for the longbow. Meanwhile a Wizard at level 1 isn't doing a lot of DPR because they've only got low level spells but once they get an area of effect spell like Fireball they can do 8d6 damage and not just to one target but to every target in a 20ft sphere. The reason it comes up so often in relation to Rangers is because they have several class and subclass features that all stack and can lead to them doing more damage than it first appears once you take the basic attack and add on Hunter's Mark, a possible Beast Companion using the bonus action, and other possible buffs
It's just a measure of how much damage you're doing in one round (the time for everyone to take their turn).
It's a better measure than damage you can do on your Turn because there are some characters that can do more damage as a Reaction than others (Rogues and Paladins are good for this), and others like Wizards can do stuff that causes damage outside of their Turn without using Reactions etc.
So really, it's just a way of measuring how much damage you can deal to enemies compared to others. It's not a comprehensive measure of how good your character is (a Wizard casting Hold Monster doesn't do direct damage but opens the monster up to much more damage than merely hitting it with a Fire Bolt), but it's better than "my character can hit you with a Warhammer for X amount of damage" because it accounts for being able to do it multiple times etc.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
One thing to watch when people start throwing DPR numbers around is what their assumptions are. People are prone to assuming ideal target availability, full resources, and no interference with their setup. (And also often don't average any setup rounds in when figuring their DPR.)
It's also not all that important IMO. Unless the differences get into the level of "one person noticeably dominates combat", it's just not that big a deal in actual play.
(If your hobby is character optimization, sure, it's important, but that's the D&D equivalent of speedrunning video games.)
With due respect to those who use this, I define it as a MMORPG metric that has no business being used in a tabletop RPG.
Like everyone stated, damage per round. But it’s fairytale make believe (because all based on assumptions). Even though the % chances are mathematically correct but it’s not what really happens because di rolling is unpredictable.
I agree with the above OP that this came from online gaming (dps- damage per second) but that can be parsed and given accurate data.
I totally ignore dpr because it’s totally bogus based upon “dirty data” - assuming.
It's not based on "dirty data" (whatever that is), it's based on averages. And like all averages, it gets more accurate the larger your sample size is: just looking at a single round by itself won't give you great results, looking at the cumulative data from 100 rounds of combat will give a considerably more accurate results.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This is true.
I suspect the people who do character optimization tend to underrate the importance of variance, especially when making calculations around limited resources. A lot of small attacks is better than one big attack, even if the big swing does more damage on average. (The question of how much more damage it can do before it is better is complicated.) When you're just working in DPR, that distinction can easily get lost.
This is fair but optimization has always existed in TTRPGs, and in that context you need a way to distinguish the ability to deal consistent damage from the ability to deal a pile of dice one time.
Historically, casters have had great "burst damage" with their big spells, but them have to fall back on cantrips or the mighty dagger. Alternately, fighters don't ever get to deal 10d6 damage, but they can get in their two swings all day long.
Video game language has creeped in here because it provides a handy shorthand. There are some terms that are less applicable than others (I think terms like "tank" and "aggro" can be particularly misleading because D&D doesn't really have an equivalent mechanic).
D&D also came from wargames, which as I understand can be very number-crunchy and I believe they use some of these terms too. But I don't know that space enough to comment on it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It's just another one of those gamer terms, that mostly multiplayer types tend to bring over in RPG's where it doesn't belong. It means Damage per Round similar to Damage per Second. It doesn't belong in a role playing game any more than "tank", "buff/de-buff" or "no sell". Nerf can be relevant I guess.
Just my opinion of course.
Slight derail:
When I was in college (the 90's) I knew people playing a Super Hero RPG at the table who had character archetypes such as "Brick" and "Blaster". They put superhero styles into similar boxes to what would become Tank, DPS, Healer, Crowd Control what would dominate EQ a few decades later. Oddly with WOW, the CC character type faded out to only have the trinity of Tank, Healer, DPS.
Which do derail again, I think was the great tragedy of modern MMO's. I adored playing CC and I really believed that well designed CC characters could reduce the need to have an ideal number of tanks and healers. In more than a few parties, a pair of CC could effectively "tank" for a group if there was good heals and DPS to keep the fight from going too long.
But... that's a lot to say that the generalized "What do you do in combat?" labels are not exclusive to WoW/EQ speak. Nor are they terrible overviews of General roles when the fight starts.
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
I've never put much stock in the veracity of DPR. For one thing, I play D&D to have fun and to be part of an exciting story. Obsessing over DPR is more akin to doing taxes just for fun. Plus, as others have already stated, it is based on a lot of assumptions. For example, DPR dictates that, on average, a level 1 barbarian with a greataxe will do more damage than a level 1 ranger with a longbow. But.... what if the target is a flying creature? There ya go. DPR flies out the window, just like that creature. I think the people who put stock in DPR are the same people who walk into a casino thinking they've got a system that'll enable them to win.
It's a game. Just have fun.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
The assumption is the dirty data, everything would have to be exactly played out for the damage to be accurate. Not like parsing in online games it’s exactly what you did.
my opinion I play characters based on what I find enjoyable, dpr is not relevant because my di rolls suck anyways.
Disliking statistics does not somehow disprove the way they work.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That's not how math/physics/statistics works.
Every one of those except what I assume to be slang is in dnd though.
tank: certain barbarian, fighter, paladin, or multiclass builds
buff: haste
de-buff: slow
Back in AD&D, we referred to the "tank" as the meatshield. Different term, same definition.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Are you credited with having coined the term 'meat shield' by any chance? Like 'tank' that term originated in cooperative video games and was not in common use at the time of AD&D.
In the late 70s we used "tank", never heard of meatshield for D&D.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorRedirecting back to the main topic: DPR (damage per round)
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources