As soon as someone says “treatmonk” I tune out, their opinions on monks aren’t really supported by the math, and really undervalue the boost that stunned gives not only to you, but your whole party.
A non-optimizer here asking what all of you consider to be "good" regular (repeatable) damage output for any or all classes that are focusing on dealing damage in a combat scenario.
I'm curious about damage over a given combat, like over 3 rounds, 4 rounds, 5 rounds, etc. And not really interested in single turn nova damage stuff as that is more...well...I'm not interested in that. D&D:O and Treantmonk's Temple are two fairly well known optimizer YouTube channels and I know they do all of their calculations and theorizing differently, as I'm sure we all do, so I guess I'm asking for kind of a range that you use as a player and/or DM as to what is a threshold for "good damage output. Not builds, or the most damage. Just a threshold. I'm also much more interested at the 90% of actual played levels of 1-13, and not so much any level 20 hijinks. Maybe say at levels that surround changes in the tiers of play, like levels 4, 6, 10, and 12.
For example a fighter with a longsword, the dueling fighting style, and a maxed attack/damage ability score, over 3, 4, and 5 round combats, with and without action surge, I would consider that to be a pretty decent target for a character to be doing good damage. (Notice no to-hit chance, critical hit, advantage, or situational calculations as I KNOW we all do that differently based on the tables we frequent.)
Sorry to readdress this thread, but a few people have been in other threads I’ve been in recently and it always brings me back to these thoughts.
Just average damage on a hit, leaving out more thorough math with to-hit chance and such, at levels 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 we have 10.5, 23, 23, 34.5, 34.5, and 34.5 for a fighter with a longsword, 12, 24, 28, 42, 42, and 56 for a warlock with EB, AB, and hex, 4.5, 9, 9, 13.5, 13.5, and 18 for a d8 caster base cantrip, and 14.5, 21.5, 26, 33, 36.5, and 43.5 for a shortbow rogue.
Class and subclass abilities, spells, multiclassing, feats, and magic items can all up those numbers considerable. But wouldn’t these be considered kind of the floor for damage output per turn?
So somewhere between the numbers in the post above and a no holds barred, optimized for damage, multiclassed, perfect feat choice, and ideal class, subclass, and spell selections, there is kind of a pool of good damage output that we can expect everyone to swim around in. Right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As soon as someone says “treatmonk” I tune out, their opinions on monks aren’t really supported by the math, and really undervalue the boost that stunned gives not only to you, but your whole party.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Sorry to readdress this thread, but a few people have been in other threads I’ve been in recently and it always brings me back to these thoughts.
Just average damage on a hit, leaving out more thorough math with to-hit chance and such, at levels 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 we have 10.5, 23, 23, 34.5, 34.5, and 34.5 for a fighter with a longsword, 12, 24, 28, 42, 42, and 56 for a warlock with EB, AB, and hex, 4.5, 9, 9, 13.5, 13.5, and 18 for a d8 caster base cantrip, and 14.5, 21.5, 26, 33, 36.5, and 43.5 for a shortbow rogue.
Class and subclass abilities, spells, multiclassing, feats, and magic items can all up those numbers considerable. But wouldn’t these be considered kind of the floor for damage output per turn?
So somewhere between the numbers in the post above and a no holds barred, optimized for damage, multiclassed, perfect feat choice, and ideal class, subclass, and spell selections, there is kind of a pool of good damage output that we can expect everyone to swim around in. Right?