Is there some kind of level by level damage per round over time scale that people use? Is everyone just making up what is "good" or "bad" damage when theory crafting builds?
How about a minimum "good damage" threshold? And not just one turn perfect setup nova damage either. But like total damage over a typical 3, 4, or 5 round combat encounter?
I always figure the minimum amount to be doing "good damage" is a fighter with a longsword, the dueling fighting style, and a maxed attack and damage ability modifier ((1d8 + 2 + x)*x).
And then do people make full charts for each possible armor class, assume an average armor class per character level, or assume an average to-hit for simplicity sake?
There are a number of such charts online with comparisons of classes by level and effects against bounded accuracy. (For example, Fireball versus Vitriolic Sphere plotted against Saving Throw) However, it can be difficult to do accurately, since the Adventuring Day can change depending on the number of Encounters/Rests that a party can expect, as well as the composition of the encounters. (e.g. A Fireball against a dozen wolves, versus against a single BBEG) Also, damage resistances by monster type...
As usual, non-magical classes can usually keep up their DPR continuously, but casters eventually exhaust themselves. However, Warlocks refresh on a Short Rest, which is what spawned the "CoffeeLock", which can avoid sleep to continue casting spells 24/7.
Those who invest that kind of time into optimization tend to focus one one set of metrics or another for practicality. A smaller subset of averaged comparisons is usually enough to get the bigger picture. When a chart starts caring about ±1~3 points of damage at 10th level, it's not really statistically relevant.
Something objective and fair to measure against would be so useful, if the community could get behind a single accepted metric. But, there are so many variables that it's hard to imagine we'll ever be able to come to terms on the base assumptions. 4th Edition was very into projecting damage onto predictable charts scaled to tiers, so this was doable. In 5th edition... not so much.
I'd suggest that the "baseline" of damage for weapon attacks should be a d10 martial weapon, used by a character who has a proficiency bonus for that weapon, and who applies tier-appropriate ability score modifiers (+3 in T1, +5 in T2, T3, and T4) to attacks and damage, and who makes two attacks per round in T2, and probably three attacks in T3 and four attacks in T4. Not all classes get Extra Attack, and in fact only the Fighter can get to four attacks... but those that don't and who use weapons will pretty much always either make a Bonus Action Attack, or have other dice and damage modifiers that would approximate additional attacks (like Sneak Attack, using Booming Blade, Fighting styles, or whatever). There are no shortages of ways to do better than 1d10+5 (call it 11) damage per hit, but I doubt there's many builds that accept doing less without a good reason.
9 damage per round in T1, 22 damage per round in T2, 33 damage per round in T3, 44 damage per round in T4... that seems like a good martial class baseline of "average damage" I'd think? But again, once you start factoring in variables like "against what AC? against how many opponents with what HP totals? reachable in melee? subject to conditions or environments that make attacking difficult? with what resistances?".... man it goes of the rails quickly.
Is there some kind of level by level damage per round over time scale that people use? Is everyone just making up what is "good" or "bad" damage when theory crafting builds?
How about a minimum "good damage" threshold? And not just one turn perfect setup nova damage either. But like total damage over a typical 3, 4, or 5 round combat encounter?
I always figure the minimum amount to be doing "good damage" is a fighter with a longsword, the dueling fighting style, and a maxed attack and damage ability modifier ((1d8 + 2 + x)*x).
And then do people make full charts for each possible armor class, assume an average armor class per character level, or assume an average to-hit for simplicity sake?
There are a number of such charts online with comparisons of classes by level and effects against bounded accuracy. (For example, Fireball versus Vitriolic Sphere plotted against Saving Throw) However, it can be difficult to do accurately, since the Adventuring Day can change depending on the number of Encounters/Rests that a party can expect, as well as the composition of the encounters. (e.g. A Fireball against a dozen wolves, versus against a single BBEG) Also, damage resistances by monster type...
As usual, non-magical classes can usually keep up their DPR continuously, but casters eventually exhaust themselves. However, Warlocks refresh on a Short Rest, which is what spawned the "CoffeeLock", which can avoid sleep to continue casting spells 24/7.
Those who invest that kind of time into optimization tend to focus one one set of metrics or another for practicality. A smaller subset of averaged comparisons is usually enough to get the bigger picture. When a chart starts caring about ±1~3 points of damage at 10th level, it's not really statistically relevant.
Something objective and fair to measure against would be so useful, if the community could get behind a single accepted metric. But, there are so many variables that it's hard to imagine we'll ever be able to come to terms on the base assumptions. 4th Edition was very into projecting damage onto predictable charts scaled to tiers, so this was doable. In 5th edition... not so much.
I'd suggest that the "baseline" of damage for weapon attacks should be a d10 martial weapon, used by a character who has a proficiency bonus for that weapon, and who applies tier-appropriate ability score modifiers (+3 in T1, +5 in T2, T3, and T4) to attacks and damage, and who makes two attacks per round in T2, and probably three attacks in T3 and four attacks in T4. Not all classes get Extra Attack, and in fact only the Fighter can get to four attacks... but those that don't and who use weapons will pretty much always either make a Bonus Action Attack, or have other dice and damage modifiers that would approximate additional attacks (like Sneak Attack, using Booming Blade, Fighting styles, or whatever). There are no shortages of ways to do better than 1d10+5 (call it 11) damage per hit, but I doubt there's many builds that accept doing less without a good reason.
9 damage per round in T1, 22 damage per round in T2, 33 damage per round in T3, 44 damage per round in T4... that seems like a good martial class baseline of "average damage" I'd think? But again, once you start factoring in variables like "against what AC? against how many opponents with what HP totals? reachable in melee? subject to conditions or environments that make attacking difficult? with what resistances?".... man it goes of the rails quickly.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.