If a DM complains about someone's minmaxing ruining the fun, and then intentionally tries to ruin that player's fun, then That DM is no better than the person they're criticizing. I'm all for presenting challenge to all players, but displaying anti-social and passive-aggressive behavior towards your fellow players is poor form. Its the same basic idea that AaronOfBarbaria and Suddenly_Light have been talking about. Respect and working with each other, instead of against each other, goes a long way to having success.
I think you make an error to assume its the Dm who is at fault. I'll agree that the min/maxer doesn't want a challenge, but most likely everyone else at the table does. If the min/max player is running all over everything that is likely going to take the fun away from other players. It's not the DM who is giving the majority of the table what they want that is at fault. The min/maxer and his desire to be better always is at fault.
It takes two to tango, as they say - the DM and the player are not isolated events, they are inherently two parts of the equation. The reason I assign fault to the DM is because the player has made their character and the DM has two options what to do with that - one leads to the situation that the game is spoiled for somebody, and the other doesn't.
If the min/maxer doesn't want a challenge, but the rest of the table does, all that is needed of the DM to satisfy everyone is to present challenges for the everyone else potency of characters. In doing that, those players that want a challenge will feel challenged because the min/maxed character cannot possibly do everything for the party, and the player that doesn't want a challenge will see that they don't have one in the area they are min/maxed for, but do have one in areas they aren't.
You imply this hypothetical situation where someone's fun is spoiled because someone else's character performs well. I don't think that actually happens (at least not without a separate "jerk player" element like bragging about how much cooler their own character is, or some manifestation of failing to treat the game as a cooperative experience rather than a competitive one) because no fighter is going to be upset that their friend the rogue doesn't seem to fail at picking locks or finding traps, no wizard is going to be upset that their fighter friend seems nearly invulnerable, and no one is being reasonable if they are upset that their character with a lot of cool utility, healing, and buffing effects can't also match the damage output of someone else's character that doesn't do anything but damage. Plus, it often does matter much at all that one character has X+Y value for some trait when everyone else only has X, because anything X or greater is effectively identical (i.e. a goblin has 7 hp, so any hit that deals at least 7 damage is effectively the same, whether it came from a roll of 1d8+3 or a roll of 2d6+5, or some other number).
The problem is that your examples aren't examples of a min/maxed character, but more examples of a class doing its class things. There is a major difference. Your examples have absolutely nothing to do with min/maxing and therefore are irrelevant to the discussion.
Essentially with min/max the Wizard IS more invulnerable than the fighter. Hence the problem. The Fighter ends up picking locks way better than the rogue could ever dream of doing (Or at least equal to the rogue). Or the Rogue ends up with as many attacks as the fighter, in addition to being great at locks, traps, and social encounters and sneak attack.
Essentially with min/max the Wizard IS more invulnerable than the fighter. Hence the problem. The Fighter ends up picking locks way better than the rogue could ever dream of doing (Or at least equal to the rogue). Or the Rogue ends up with as many attacks as the fighter, in addition to being great at locks, traps, and social encounters and sneak attack.
I think we have gone from practical data and what it tells us into the realm of the hypothetical and untested, or we are talking about a version of the game other than 5th edition, because I don't see any 5th edition wizard that is more invulnerable than the fighter, and no way for a fighter to match (let alone beat) a rogue at picking locks, nor any way for the rogue to match the fighter in attacks. Please show actual builds if I am incorrect.
Essentially with min/max the Wizard IS more invulnerable than the fighter. Hence the problem. The Fighter ends up picking locks way better than the rogue could ever dream of doing (Or at least equal to the rogue). Or the Rogue ends up with as many attacks as the fighter, in addition to being great at locks, traps, and social encounters and sneak attack.
I think we have gone from practical data and what it tells us into the realm of the hypothetical and untested, or we are talking about a version of the game other than 5th edition, because I don't see any 5th edition wizard that is more invulnerable than the fighter, and no way for a fighter to match (let alone beat) a rogue at picking locks, nor any way for the rogue to match the fighter in attacks. Please show actual builds if I am incorrect.
I was basically using your examples. In certain cases it might take the Wizard getting levels in three other classes, a couple of feats, and some clever use of rules, but the result being a wizard who is a better fighter than the fighter. Is this actually possible using 5th edition rules? IDK, I don't have fun min/maxing and don't really care enough to attempt to make a build doing so.
Basically if your idea of a min/max player is someone who sits down and takes the best Rogue options while playing a rogue, then we have a different idea of min/max.
A fighter is actually easy to become better than a rogue at picking locks, because you just need a dex based fighter who takes a single level into rogue. Depending on ability scores, the fighter may end up better than the rogue with a single level of rogue.
Basically my idea of a min/max player is somone who takes classes/feats etc in a way that does outshine other players in areas where their class is suppose to be good at and/or someone who takes such things in some manner that you might as well skip rolling dice because the character never dies and always deals huge numbers of damage compared to everyone else.
I was basically using your examples. In certain cases it might take the Wizard getting levels in three other classes, a couple of feats, and some clever use of rules, but the result being a wizard who is a better fighter than the fighter. Is this actually possible using 5th edition rules? IDK, I don't have fun min/maxing and don't really care enough to attempt to make a build doing so.
Basically if your idea of a min/max player is someone who sits down and takes the best Rogue options while playing a rogue, then we have a different idea of min/max.
A fighter is actually easy to become better than a rogue at picking locks, because you just need a dex based fighter who takes a single level into rogue. Depending on ability scores, the fighter may end up better than the rogue with a single level of rogue.
Basically my idea of a min/max player is somone who takes classes/feats etc in a way that does outshine other players in areas where their class is suppose to be good at and/or someone who takes such things in some manner that you might as well skip rolling dice because the character never dies and always deals huge numbers of damage compared to everyone else.
So you are basically saying that you don't actually know that 5th edition has problematic min/maxing potential, so all of what you said earlier about min/maxing should be read as if you had specified which version(s) of the game your statements actually do apply to?
Because we don't have a different idea of what a min/maxer is - it's someone that takes the best possible mechanical option to accomplish [goal] at every opportunity. In 5th edition, from my experience, there aren't actually all that many opportunities, nor that much of a gap between the best possible option and the worst, even when you incorporate optional elements like feats (better at one specific sort of thing, but less versatile than ability score increases because, for example, the Alert feat doesn't make it easier for you to notice traps, find food, or handle animals, but a boost to your Wisdom score means a lesser degree of ability not to be surprised and does do all those other things too), or multi-classing (because you always have to compare what 1st level of a 2nd class gets you against what a higher level in your first class would get you - like how you would not have 6th level spells in a campaign that ends at 11th level if you weren't a single-class spell-caster, so whatever you get from however many levels of however many classes has to at least be as powerful as 6th-level spells or you can't claim accurately that you've gotten more powerful)
well remember that the min/max player is ruining the fun of everyone at the table nad it would be sucky for the rest of the party if you just carried on with the campaign as if everything was fine in the hope that this one guy sees that min/max made the game less fun
i dont mind powerful characters aslong as they are well rounded aswell
well remember that the min/max player is ruining the fun of everyone at the table nad it would be sucky for the rest of the party
That is a gigantic assumption. If a player is being disruptive and purposefully attempting to ruin the fun of the players, speak with the players (to make sure you aren't assigning emotions that may or may not be true) and if they are not wanted, politely inform them they aren't welcome at your table.
This is true regardless of if they are a min/maxer or anything. Being a jerk is hardly an exclusive domain of players who want to optimize their characters. Many of the horror stories of DnD are based around the general attitudes of players towards teamwork and appropriate behavior at a specific table (different players want different levels of various themes).
I figure I should point out that I would distinguish between optimizing an character and min/max a character.
It's not a helpful distinction without explaining what you think the difference between the two are, since most people use those terms pretty much as synonyms.
I figure I should point out that I would distinguish between optimizing an character and min/max a character.
It's not a helpful distinction without explaining what you think the difference between the two are, since most people use those terms pretty much as synonyms.
I agree with this. People seem to think that a Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Sentinel Paladin or Fighter IS min/maxing. Or is it optimizing since I stick to one class? It's an arbitrary distinction.
Optimising: With the character already decided, based on RP decisions, optimising is then selecting skills/stats/magic to make that useful. Example - I decide I want to play an Elven ranger and my vision is an agile melee warrior, with a pair of swords. Optimising means, taking high dex, a pair of light/finesse weapons and appropriate armour.
Min/maxing starts with the mindset of, "I want to play melee - what does most damage?" and selects everything based on that.
Granted - it can be a subtle difference at times and I'm not judging whether either is "acceptable" or not.
i would say a rogue who takes a feat to get him a familiar so he can sneak attack when a familiar is not fitting for the character or the concept is an example of min/max
min/max people tend to think about themselves only at not take into consideration that they have team to support them
Optimizing, by nature of the word, is shooting for premier performance. Its about selecting the best (optimal) choice for any/every situation. Min/maxing could inherently imply that you'll be sacrificing in some areas to enhance others. Minmaxing, at its core, is then about specialization. You know you'll be adding weaknesses in exchange for power. However, Min/maxing can also be defined as minimizing weaknesses while maximizing strengths. That doesn't sound too far off of Optimizing. Whether or not those definitions hold true across other people is another issue. I can usually bet on many "gaming terms" being defined quite differently by any given person.
Zoulrage brings up an interesting thought we might not have fully explored. Who determines what is fitting for a character? Why couldn't a Rogue player decide that their character wants a familiar? What if its a Swashbuckler and they want a parrot? What if they're an Arcane Trickster? Who gets to make the call on what fits the character?
if feel that if you want a parrot you can probably talk to your DM about it, a familiar is a whole other bag of beans
sure if you are an amazing writer you can make a reason for anything, but i dont see a street urchin rogue swashbuckler sailer having a magical ritual to bind another creature to his bidding, but a parrot would be cool
if you are an arcane trickster you already have access to magic and it would come more naturally to have a familar..
sure if you are an amazing writer you can make a reason for anything,
This single post nullified most of the debate in this thread. You have just established that speaking to one's DM and being creative is cause enough to allow for any possibilities.
There is no reason why different groups can't play in ways they see fit. Ultimately, this is the entire premise of playing with a specific D&D group - the ability to enjoy adventuring in a fantasy setting with those one is happy to play with.
even if you are an amazing writer dont mean im gonna allow anything... going back to the rogue swashbuckler.. i dont see a good enough reason for him to have familiar over a "roleplay" parrot that isnt a part of combat...
even if you are an amazing writer dont mean im gonna allow anything... going back to the rogue swashbuckler.. i dont see a good enough reason for him to have familiar over a "roleplay" parrot that isnt a part of combat...
There's no need for a "but" - it's perfectly fine to run your game in whichever way you see fit. Fortunately, you have perfectly described how individual preference does not determine the legitimacy of play styles or character creation.
I was basically using your examples. In certain cases it might take the Wizard getting levels in three other classes, a couple of feats, and some clever use of rules, but the result being a wizard who is a better fighter than the fighter. Is this actually possible using 5th edition rules? IDK, I don't have fun min/maxing and don't really care enough to attempt to make a build doing so.
Basically if your idea of a min/max player is someone who sits down and takes the best Rogue options while playing a rogue, then we have a different idea of min/max.
A fighter is actually easy to become better than a rogue at picking locks, because you just need a dex based fighter who takes a single level into rogue. Depending on ability scores, the fighter may end up better than the rogue with a single level of rogue.
Basically my idea of a min/max player is somone who takes classes/feats etc in a way that does outshine other players in areas where their class is suppose to be good at and/or someone who takes such things in some manner that you might as well skip rolling dice because the character never dies and always deals huge numbers of damage compared to everyone else.
So you are basically saying that you don't actually know that 5th edition has problematic min/maxing potential, so all of what you said earlier about min/maxing should be read as if you had specified which version(s) of the game your statements actually do apply to?
Because we don't have a different idea of what a min/maxer is - it's someone that takes the best possible mechanical option to accomplish [goal] at every opportunity. In 5th edition, from my experience, there aren't actually all that many opportunities, nor that much of a gap between the best possible option and the worst, even when you incorporate optional elements like feats (better at one specific sort of thing, but less versatile than ability score increases because, for example, the Alert feat doesn't make it easier for you to notice traps, find food, or handle animals, but a boost to your Wisdom score means a lesser degree of ability not to be surprised and does do all those other things too), or multi-classing (because you always have to compare what 1st level of a 2nd class gets you against what a higher level in your first class would get you - like how you would not have 6th level spells in a campaign that ends at 11th level if you weren't a single-class spell-caster, so whatever you get from however many levels of however many classes has to at least be as powerful as 6th-level spells or you can't claim accurately that you've gotten more powerful)
I mean, there's plenty of examples of this. But, we'll use your 11th level campaign to make a Vengeance Paladin 6 + Fiend/Fey Warlock 3, Fighter 2.
Assume Standard Array and put the stats as follows: 13 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 8 Int, 10 Wis, and 15 Cha
Start as a variant human. Put the first point into Charisma and the 2nd point into whatever you want (prob Str so that you'll have a +2 to attack and damage until you can use Cha) and take either the Polearm Master or Dual Wielder feat.
For this purpose we'll start with Fighter to level 2 so we can start with chainmail and two longswords and get Two-Weapon Fighting (if we took Duel Wielder) or a lance + glaive/halberd/pike and Great Weapon Fighting (if we took Polearm Master), Second Wind, and Action Surge.
Next is Warlock to 3 to get rechargeable 2nd level spells, Pact of the Tome, and Devil's Sight and Book of Ancient Secrets invocations (take Shillelagh as one of your Book of Ancient Secrets cantrips so you can use your higher Cha score for melee attacks). Take Darkness and whatever else you want as your spells (Darkness + Devil's Sight means you always get advantage and the enemy always has disadvantage).
Finally is Paladin to 6. Starting at 2nd level, because all of your Warlock spells come back during a short rest you can start blowing through both of your 2nd level Warlock spells for Divine Smites (unless it's a tougher encounter, then I'd suggest one for Darkness and one for smiting). Take the Defense fighting style at level 2 to get a +1 to your AC (you should have a 17-19 AC now) and get 3 attacks per round (5 if you use Action Surge - which you should be using along with your Warlock spell slot smites).
The core idea of the class is to have as many bites as the apple as possible to get a critical hit (make sure you have at least one of your highest level spell slots saved up for this). Since you'll get 5 attacks with Action Surge, that means that you have 5 chances to deal double damage with your weapon die/dice and your smiting dice. The use of Darkness and/or Vow of Emnity means you actually get 10 tries to get a crit in a single round. So, say you crit one out of the 10 rolls you get to make, that means that you get 2x the weapon damage (or the d4 if it happens to be the Polearm Master bonus attack) + 6d8 (or 8d8 if it's a fiend/undead - the 5d8 maximum only covers the initial amount not the total after critical) + your Charisma modifier + any tertiary effects (such as Branding/Searing/Thunderous Smite, which is ALSO doubled, or magical weapon bonuses/extra damage).
So, for two weapon fighting, you are looking at 39 (2d8+6d8+3). For great weapon fighting, you are looking at 41 (2d10+6d8+3) OR 43 [2d12 (for lance)+6d8+3[ OR 35 [2d4 (for haft)+6d8+3]. Also, if you DID take Great Weapon Fighting and Polearm Master. The reroll effect on the damage dice works for the smite dice as well, meaning a higher than average damage output on the rolls.This build gets even better if you can take it to level 12 (level 3 Fighter and take the Champion archetype for 19-20 critical chance).
Now, that's 39 damage IN ADDITION TO, the regular damage dealt by the other 4 attacks and doesn't include the extra damage from the Paladin's smite spells. So, against an Adult White Dragon you're looking at an 18 AC (which is the highest AC in the 11-13 CR). Assuming no bonuses from magical items, feats, or ASI stat boosts (meaning STILL a 16 Charisma and no magical bonuses do attack or damage): you have a +7 to hit at level 11. We'll assume you saved your Vow of Enmity for this fight (it IS a dragon), that means you get advantage on every attack for 10 rounds. Mathematically, the advantage is the equivalent of a +5 to attack rolls and doubles your chance to critically hit (so for math-sake we'll just count it as a critical hit on 19-20). This means you statistically need a 6 or higher to hit the dragon with an attack. If you ONLY use your smite when you crit you are still doing 49.625 damage per round with Lance, 46.225 dpr with any d10 spear weapon, or 43.875 dpr with two d8 weapons when you use Action Surge. Without action surge, you're looking at 28.675 per round with lance, 26.975 dpr for d10 spears, and 26.325 dpr for two d8 weapons (again this IS NOT including any smite spells and ONLY smiting when getting a critical hit).
Since you can only use that once per rest, that would compare to Chain Lightning (the highest damage potential 6th level spell) would be a good equivalent for caster damage. Assuming a 16 stat (as we did above) the spell DC would be 13. Meaning the dragon would take half damage on a roll of 8+. For the purpose of this we'll use an Evocation Wizard (to allow for the highest damage). And, since we're going for maximum damage output, I'm not going to say that the dragon will use its Legendary Resistance on a failure). You're looking at 32.4 dpr for the first round, for the next two rounds after that you can cast Fireball at 5th level twice for 28.35 dpr, for 3 rounds after that you can fireball at 4th level for 25.825 dpr, for 3 rounds after that you can fireball at 3rd level for 23.3
So, even if using the worst option: after the first round the Palalockter is already up by ~11 dpr, for the next 2 rounds the wizard makes up ~3 dpr, bringing the difference to ~8 dpr. Then the Palalockter just starts pulling away at an exponentially higher rate. If we go with a lance, it's even more ridiculous.
Obviously, this isn't perfect math as spells like Chain Lightning and Fireball have AoE potential that increases their damage x-fold (where x is the number of creatures above 1). But the sheer bursty-ness of the Paladin/Fighter combo added into the greater number of smites available (and the ability to focus on Cha) of the Paladin/Warlock combo, when matched with specific feats and selected abilities does MORE than make up for the higher level abilities you get for going pure class. A pure paladin build, even with the correct fighting style, feat, and weapons isn't going to make up for the lack of regenerating spell slots (you'll either be low on your own spell slots or other party resources were spent to get you this far) AND you won't have the benefits of the fighter (including a second fighting style and action surge).
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I figure I should point out that I would distinguish between optimizing an character and min/max a character.
It's not a helpful distinction without explaining what you think the difference between the two are, since most people use those terms pretty much as synonyms.
Sorry, I didn't have time to fully flesh out the distinction, which I believe can be minute in some circumstances. Basically I'd define them this way:
A min/max player minimizes their weaknesses as much as possible, while maximizing their strengths as much as possible. Usually ignore the story, and coming up with a "background reason" for their multiclassing. Multiclassing shouldn't involve a character background, but the current story in the campaign. The reason is that whatever a character learned from their background should be reflected in their starting class/background/skills/etc. not what they learn five, six levels later. Often the Min/Max player will justify their choice by claiming it part of a background, even though the new skills are being learned years later in game.
To further the distinction, a min/max player will take two/three/four classes to minimize their weaknesses and maximize their strengths (regardless of whether or not it makes sense in game or from an rp standpoint). Their attempt is to often break the rules. If they had their option they would have no weaknesses, do the most damage and take the most actions every round.
They tirelessly hunt for loopholes in the rules, find class features/feats that make certain they are the best ever. Ultimately they want to walk all over everything and not face a challenge. Theywill make sure to choose options that give them power and more power and more power. If there is a way to not have a weakness in the game, to take the max. number of attacks possible, with the maximum bonus possible, they will find it and use it.
Their choice of race is purely a choice in which one will make them awesome. Weak races never need to apply. Flight is a bonus. If they find a loophole to do infinite spells they will do so. They will multiclass to fighter just to get an action surge just to do more in combat. The goal at the end is to make their character better than everyone else in the game. Whatever options they choose is going to be infinitely better than the other players at the table, and that's the way they want it. They attempt to break the game, even if they deny that's what they are doing.
Optimizing on the other hand means that a player looks at the abilities in their class and selects features that will make them better, while avoiding "trap" options. They don't tirelessly look for loopholes and won't just select a fighter because of action surge. If they multiclass into fighter it is because within the game world their character has developed and leaned toward being a fighter in the previous story arc(s). They may select elements of fighter to fit with their existing character, even the best option, but they aren't actively trying to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. An optimize character might multiclass, but they aren't looking to select the best class with the best options. They may select a class that works with their current class, but not one that intentionally (intentionally being key here) makes them better than everyone else or breaks the game. They are okay if their character is weak in some aspects of the game. They won't tirelessly find ways to justify their character's multiclass, and they aren't likely to start selecting three or four classes to get awesome abilities. They certainly don't dip into a class to get one level to get an awesome ability. But might take a few levels if the concept really does work with their character idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If a DM complains about someone's minmaxing ruining the fun, and then intentionally tries to ruin that player's fun, then That DM is no better than the person they're criticizing. I'm all for presenting challenge to all players, but displaying anti-social and passive-aggressive behavior towards your fellow players is poor form. Its the same basic idea that AaronOfBarbaria and Suddenly_Light have been talking about. Respect and working with each other, instead of against each other, goes a long way to having success.
well remember that the min/max player is ruining the fun of everyone at the table nad it would be sucky for the rest of the party if you just carried on with the campaign as if everything was fine in the hope that this one guy sees that min/max made the game less fun
i dont mind powerful characters aslong as they are well rounded aswell
I figure I should point out that I would distinguish between optimizing an character and min/max a character.
I agree with this. People seem to think that a Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Sentinel Paladin or Fighter IS min/maxing. Or is it optimizing since I stick to one class? It's an arbitrary distinction.
My friends circle uses both phrases:
Granted - it can be a subtle difference at times and I'm not judging whether either is "acceptable" or not.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
i would say a rogue who takes a feat to get him a familiar so he can sneak attack when a familiar is not fitting for the character or the concept is an example of min/max
min/max people tend to think about themselves only at not take into consideration that they have team to support them
Optimizing, by nature of the word, is shooting for premier performance. Its about selecting the best (optimal) choice for any/every situation. Min/maxing could inherently imply that you'll be sacrificing in some areas to enhance others. Minmaxing, at its core, is then about specialization. You know you'll be adding weaknesses in exchange for power. However, Min/maxing can also be defined as minimizing weaknesses while maximizing strengths. That doesn't sound too far off of Optimizing. Whether or not those definitions hold true across other people is another issue. I can usually bet on many "gaming terms" being defined quite differently by any given person.
Zoulrage brings up an interesting thought we might not have fully explored. Who determines what is fitting for a character? Why couldn't a Rogue player decide that their character wants a familiar? What if its a Swashbuckler and they want a parrot? What if they're an Arcane Trickster? Who gets to make the call on what fits the character?
if feel that if you want a parrot you can probably talk to your DM about it, a familiar is a whole other bag of beans
sure if you are an amazing writer you can make a reason for anything, but i dont see a street urchin rogue swashbuckler sailer having a magical ritual to bind another creature to his bidding, but a parrot would be cool
if you are an arcane trickster you already have access to magic and it would come more naturally to have a familar..
This single post nullified most of the debate in this thread. You have just established that speaking to one's DM and being creative is cause enough to allow for any possibilities.
yes but im never gonna allow a players to min/max
even if you are an amazing writer dont mean im gonna allow anything... going back to the rogue swashbuckler.. i dont see a good enough reason for him to have familiar over a "roleplay" parrot that isnt a part of combat...
Assume Standard Array and put the stats as follows: 13 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 8 Int, 10 Wis, and 15 Cha
Now, that's 39 damage IN ADDITION TO, the regular damage dealt by the other 4 attacks and doesn't include the extra damage from the Paladin's smite spells. So, against an Adult White Dragon you're looking at an 18 AC (which is the highest AC in the 11-13 CR). Assuming no bonuses from magical items, feats, or ASI stat boosts (meaning STILL a 16 Charisma and no magical bonuses do attack or damage): you have a +7 to hit at level 11. We'll assume you saved your Vow of Enmity for this fight (it IS a dragon), that means you get advantage on every attack for 10 rounds. Mathematically, the advantage is the equivalent of a +5 to attack rolls and doubles your chance to critically hit (so for math-sake we'll just count it as a critical hit on 19-20). This means you statistically need a 6 or higher to hit the dragon with an attack. If you ONLY use your smite when you crit you are still doing 49.625 damage per round with Lance, 46.225 dpr with any d10 spear weapon, or 43.875 dpr with two d8 weapons when you use Action Surge. Without action surge, you're looking at 28.675 per round with lance, 26.975 dpr for d10 spears, and 26.325 dpr for two d8 weapons (again this IS NOT including any smite spells and ONLY smiting when getting a critical hit).
Since you can only use that once per rest, that would compare to Chain Lightning (the highest damage potential 6th level spell) would be a good equivalent for caster damage. Assuming a 16 stat (as we did above) the spell DC would be 13. Meaning the dragon would take half damage on a roll of 8+. For the purpose of this we'll use an Evocation Wizard (to allow for the highest damage). And, since we're going for maximum damage output, I'm not going to say that the dragon will use its Legendary Resistance on a failure). You're looking at 32.4 dpr for the first round, for the next two rounds after that you can cast Fireball at 5th level twice for 28.35 dpr, for 3 rounds after that you can fireball at 4th level for 25.825 dpr, for 3 rounds after that you can fireball at 3rd level for 23.3
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Shouldn't Shillelagh work only for club and quarterstaff?