The 20/40/60 striker DPR benchmark is how much damage they should be doing on a hit right?

75 posts / 0 new
Last post
Also, while I realize those are heroic/paragon/epic numbers, what level should they be reached by? Because if those numbers are real dpr (avg damage*chance to hit), then I'm having a hard time making any striker that can reach those levels. I've been playing around with options for 11th level starting characters using standard wealth, and regardless of the combination, everything I make gets stuck at around dice +20 or so for static damage...combining item/feat/power/untyped bonuses even. Am I missing something?
Also, while I realize those are heroic/paragon/epic numbers, what level should they be reached by? Because if those numbers are real dpr (avg damage*chance to hit), then I'm having a hard time making any striker that can reach those levels. I've been playing around with options for 11th level starting characters using standard wealth, and regardless of the combination, everything I make gets stuck at around dice +20 or so for static damage...combining item/feat/power/untyped bonuses even. Am I missing something?



Those numbers are end-of-tier, average damage per round numbers. IE, average damage (factoring hits, misses, crits, etc) produced at levels 10, 20, and 30.

As time has gone on, I think most of us have come to agree that 15, 40, 60 is more of a true representation of what should be expected. Hitting 20 by 10 isn't easy or likely for many Strikers.
Except Rangers.  Rangers have a pretty easy time of it.
On the CO IRC, generally as TorpedoFish.
Vain? Me? NEVER.
57223408 wrote:
You're the straightest shooter I know on these boards. You don't mince words about your opinions, and I respect that about you. The whole fiasco you described in the last State of the CO Forum was particularly enlightening (and kind of disappointing with regards to how they see us).
56868168 wrote:
Ah, Tsuyo. When your post isn't one sentence long full of asterisks, you have much wisdom to share with us .
From the IRC:
(19:52) RuinsFate: You know, I was gonna agree with something PalOn said... but I think I'm just gonna through my lot in with tsuyo's sudden train-wreck grade interjection. (01:45) Nausicaa: yes your rage is a righteous rage :D (01:45) Nausicaa: righteous rage of torpedo
My sci-fi writing.
If you're having a hard time reaching those numbers, perhaps the DPR king candidates could be of some help.  You'll find many others that reach those numbers easy w/o breaking a sweat.  If you're trying to make a druid into a striker and you have a PP open, I'm sure there are plenty there that could help you dual major.
Most of the kings of each tier will break most campaigns, so take them with a grain of salt.  Most were made in the vacuum of space with only the candidate and the CharOp block of tofutm .

But to answer the post's title, no.  That's how much damage each round they should be expecting to do over the course of an encounter if they've used up all their daily powers, encounter powers and are running on fumes.  at level 1 a sword and board paladin is doing 6 DPR, a sorcerer is around 14, a ranger about 16, and a tweaked out longtooth avenger or ranger can top 20 on a good day.  
at level 6 the lightweights are getting 20 DPR and the heavyweights are sitting at a lovely 40.
Once Paragon feats are an option 40 are the light weights and 60 are the heavy weights at level 12.
If you introduce level 16 PP features 60-100 DPR is the range.  This is where morninglord has come into the scene to taint all other candidates with its presence.  Radiant teams really take off here and can utterly destroy encounters (I testify of this fact).
Once you hit epic feats 100 DPR shouldn't be that hard if you've been doing your homework in paragon.  Most rangers are sitting with the rest of the crowd with a lovely 150 DPR sticker on their badge.  With the exception of the  Executioner, by SongNSilence which has withstood errata after errata and not taken major hits, and the Marilith Summoner, by Nelphine, no one can compete with the campaign-smashing eat-gods-for-breakfast slashers and radiant godfathers.

The trick isn't getting the biggest boost to damage and getting the biggest weapon and using 5[w] powers, but in multi-attacks, and trying to administer vulnerabilities (stormwarden (cold vulnerability), slasher(radiant vulnerability), Marilith(cold).  Imposing no-win situations (aegis of assault + white lotus riposte) and using all your actions also help against a block of tofu, but have a harder time when the tires hit the pavement.  You got a much bigger problem now that you're dazed than the party tank is.  He is still doing what he was doing, "hulk smash with 4[w] power."  You, on the other hand, got reduced to not being able to take free actions to swap weapons, sustain the dancing fullblade, and only get 1 of your 5 attacks / round.

DPR King Candidates 3.0
How much damage should I shoot for?
You're fired : 1 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .2 KPR Fair Striker : 2 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .4 KPR Highly Optimized : 3 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .6 KPR Nerfbat please : 4 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .8 KPR It's OVER 9000!!!!!: 5 Kills Per 5 Rounds = 1+ KPR
DPR? KPR? KP4R? Bless you
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage = DPR/(8*level+24) KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?
If you're having a hard time reaching those numbers, perhaps the DPR king candidates could be of some help.  You'll find many others that reach those numbers easy w/o breaking a sweat.  If you're trying to make a druid into a striker and you have a PP open, I'm sure there are plenty there that could help you dual major.
Most of the kings of each tier will break most campaigns, so take them with a grain of salt.  Most were made in the vacuum of space with only the candidate and the CharOp block of tofutm .

But to answer the post's title, no.  That's how much damage each round they should be expecting to do over the course of an encounter if they've used up all their daily powers, encounter powers and are running on fumes.  at level 1 a sword and board paladin is doing 6 DPR, a sorcerer is around 14, a ranger about 16, and a tweaked out longtooth avenger or ranger can top 20 on a good day.  
at level 6 the lightweights are getting 20 DPR and the heavyweights are sitting at a lovely 40.
Once Paragon feats are an option 40 are the light weights and 60 are the heavy weights at level 12.
If you introduce level 16 PP features 60-100 DPR is the range.  This is where morninglord has come into the scene to taint all other candidates with its presence.  Radiant teams really take off here and can utterly destroy encounters (I testify of this fact).
Once you hit epic feats 100 DPR shouldn't be that hard if you've been doing your homework in paragon.  Most rangers are sitting with the rest of the crowd with a lovely 150 DPR sticker on their badge.  With the exception of the  Executioner, by SongNSilence which has withstood errata after errata and not taken major hits, and the Marilith Summoner, by Nelphine, no one can compete with the campaign-smashing eat-gods-for-breakfast slashers and radiant godfathers.

The trick isn't getting the biggest boost to damage and getting the biggest weapon and using 5[w] powers, but in multi-attacks, and trying to administer vulnerabilities (stormwarden (cold vulnerability), slasher(radiant vulnerability), Marilith(cold).  Imposing no-win situations (aegis of assault + white lotus riposte) and using all your actions also help against a block of tofu, but have a harder time when the tires hit the pavement.  You got a much bigger problem now that you're dazed than the party tank is.  He is still doing what he was doing, "hulk smash with 4[w] power."  You, on the other hand, got reduced to not being able to take free actions to swap weapons, sustain the dancing fullblade, and only get 1 of your 5 attacks / round.




I always thought DPR should be measured with something you can always do every round. If it's an average of what you can be expected to do over a battle like you say, I feel summoner druids have the best DPR then, Some Rings of Free time and they can get 5+ attacks every round and with 4 daily summons they can keep it up 'all day.' I think it's wiser to measure at-will spam
My forum good deeds. Fortunately, left unpunished:
Show
"Incidentally, everytime you post in of these (mine or anyone else's) you have really great advice." -Tigerguy786 "Thanks Stop-Whining, your suggestions have been gold." -RedRollinS "You are probably the best person who has explained a certain concept to me so far, thank you VERY much for the information, it helps me out a ton. I can't wait to play this deck and use some cards for a deck of my own. Cheers!" -SpaceLincoln "In short, you good sir, are made of win advice. And I am actually going to be taking pretty much all of it." -jeremyc13
They're seriously that low? Wow.
Also, while I realize those are heroic/paragon/epic numbers, what level should they be reached by? Because if those numbers are real dpr (avg damage*chance to hit), then I'm having a hard time making any striker that can reach those levels. I've been playing around with options for 11th level starting characters using standard wealth, and regardless of the combination, everything I make gets stuck at around dice +20 or so for static damage...combining item/feat/power/untyped bonuses even. Am I missing something?




Those numbers are end-of-tier, average damage per round numbers. IE, average damage (factoring hits, misses, crits, etc) produced at levels 10, 20, and 30.

As time has gone on, I think most of us have come to agree that 15, 40, 60 is more of a true representation of what should be expected. Hitting 20 by 10 isn't easy or likely for many Strikers.



Ah ok. That makes sense being end of tier numbers. Seems I'm more or less in the ball park with my 11th level stuff then.
The answer is that the 20/40/60 "benchmarks" are an arbitrary fiction with no basis in actual play.

If your DM follows the DMG guidelines and throws 4 or 5 at-level or level+1 encounters per day at you, you will be able to win those encounters without too much trouble without hitting them.

If, instead, your group is highly optimized and your DM tailors his encounters to fit that, then 20/40/60 can easily be insufficient, especially at high levels.

Moreover, generally for ease of calculation, most people ignore encounters, dailies and action points when calculating dpr. Considering that most players (not counting at-will cheesers or rangers) will spend over half a fight using encounter powers, plus maybe a daily or action point, their at-will dpr will in fact comprise a relatively small percentage of their total dpr. That's not even considering what a combat-buffing leader like a taclord can do for your dpr.

In short, don't get hung up on them. There is no such thing as an "average" game which requires that you hit them. By-the-book play certainly doesn't, and high-end optimized play often requires much more, and besides, most of the calculations done on this board will not reflect how you actually play. If you show up to play and find that you're underperforming, this board is full of useful advice for doing more. But if you're concerned about hitting some arbitrary theoretical benchmark for a game you haven't even played in yet, don't be. There's a good chance they won't require the level of performance this board suggests.
@Awesomeocalypse: I agree with most of what you say, but find it interesting that you say:-
Moreover, generally for ease of calculation, most people ignore encounters, dailies and action points when calculating dpr. Considering that most players (not counting at-will cheesers or rangers) will spend over half a fight using encounter powers, plus maybe a daily or action point, their at-will dpr will in fact comprise a relatively small percentage of their total dpr.



Most encounters that I've played in last between 4 and 8 rounds on average.

Depending upon what section you play in heroic/paragon/epic limits the number of dailies and encounter powers you have available. and thus I've found that in heroic you'll be using you @will a lot more, and as you go up levels you move to encounters and dailies, but you still have a finite amount of dailies and encounters.



Most encounters that I've played in last between 4 and 8 rounds on average.

Once I hit Paragon in LFR I noticed I rarely used at-wills.  LFR is "by the book" in terms of authors constructing combats, xp, etc.  Most fights are over in 3-4 rounds... of course that's with a good group.  There's very little that can survive massive AoE for instance.  Of course this is build dependent -- some classes will still use their at-wills.
The answer is that the 20/40/60 "benchmarks" are an arbitrary fiction with no basis in actual play.

If your DM follows the DMG guidelines and throws 4 or 5 at-level or level+1 encounters per day at you, you will be able to win those encounters without too much trouble without hitting them.

If, instead, your group is highly optimized and your DM tailors his encounters to fit that, then 20/40/60 can easily be insufficient, especially at high levels.

Moreover, generally for ease of calculation, most people ignore encounters, dailies and action points when calculating dpr. Considering that most players (not counting at-will cheesers or rangers) will spend over half a fight using encounter powers, plus maybe a daily or action point, their at-will dpr will in fact comprise a relatively small percentage of their total dpr. That's not even considering what a combat-buffing leader like a taclord can do for your dpr.

In short, don't get hung up on them. There is no such thing as an "average" game which requires that you hit them. By-the-book play certainly doesn't, and high-end optimized play often requires much more, and besides, most of the calculations done on this board will not reflect how you actually play. If you show up to play and find that you're underperforming, this board is full of useful advice for doing more. But if you're concerned about hitting some arbitrary theoretical benchmark for a game you haven't even played in yet, don't be. There's a good chance they won't require the level of performance this board suggests.



Those marks aren't optimized marks or CharOp guidelines. They're a benchmark for determining if a Striker is able to produce enough At-Will DPR to outpace a typical non-Striker in that regard.

That's all they're ever used for.

And again, they really should be 15/40/60, anyway. Warlocks, Sorcs, and Assassins aren't hitting 20 with vanilla builds by L10.

While it's not mandatory to observe them, I should point out that failing to hit those marks as a Striker means... you may as well play something else, instead. 15/40/60 is easy to do.
Those marks aren't optimized marks or CharOp guidelines. They're a  benchmark for determining if a Striker is able to produce enough At-Will  DPR to outpace a typical non-Striker in that regard.

That's all  they're ever used for.

And again, they really should be  15/40/60, anyway. Warlocks, Sorcs, and Assassins aren't hitting 20 with  vanilla builds by L10.

While it's not mandatory to observe them,  I should point out that failing to hit those marks as a Striker  means... you may as well play something else, instead. 15/40/60 is easy  to do.




Except...this really isn't true. Maybe certain high-damage non-strikers, if built specifically for damage, will hit or exceed these benchmarks (some fighter builds, blaster wizards and some wrath invokers, some bards). But the vast, vast majority will not. If you put an unoptimized sorcerer (by most accounts the least damaging striker) in a party with a cleric, a psion, and a paladin (or an artificer, illusionist, and defending swordmage, or any one of a million of other combos that aren't fighters and blasters), he is going to be outdamaging them regardless of whether he hits those benchmarks.

And 20/40/60 is easy for certain classes, like rangers or rogues. For a sorcerer who doesn't use dragonfrost or cheese out an at-will with arcane admixture, or for a feylock who isn't cheesing out slashing wake damage, they can be downright difficult to hit.
Those marks aren't optimized marks or CharOp guidelines. They're a  benchmark for determining if a Striker is able to produce enough At-Will  DPR to outpace a typical non-Striker in that regard.

That's all  they're ever used for.

And again, they really should be  15/40/60, anyway. Warlocks, Sorcs, and Assassins aren't hitting 20 with  vanilla builds by L10.

While it's not mandatory to observe them,  I should point out that failing to hit those marks as a Striker  means... you may as well play something else, instead. 15/40/60 is easy  to do.





Except...this really isn't true. Maybe certain high-damage non-strikers, if built specifically for damage, will hit or exceed these benchmarks (some fighter builds, blaster wizards and some wrath invokers, some bards). But the vast, vast majority will not. If you put an unoptimized sorcerer (by most accounts the least damaging striker) in a party with a cleric, a psion, and a paladin (or an artificer, illusionist, and defending swordmage, or any one of a million of other combos that aren't fighters and blasters), he is going to be outdamaging them regardless of whether he hits those benchmarks.

And 20/40/60 is easy for certain classes, like rangers or rogues. For a sorcerer who doesn't use dragonfrost or cheese out an at-will with arcane admixture, or for a feylock who isn't cheesing out slashing wake damage, they can be downright difficult to hit.



Of course the majority of non-Strikers won't. That's not what I said. What I was getting at is this:

If you aren't hitting those benchmarks, you may as well play a non-Striker class and build it for damage, because you should be able to wind up in the same range.


And, one more time, I would like to say that I think 15/40/60 is more accurate. 20 at 10th is by far the hardest of those marks to hit, with vanilla Warlocks and Sorcs usually shaking out to around 14.5-16 DPR at 10th.



Of course, these numbers aren't law. People can disregard them, and happily play a 40 DPR Warlock at Level 30 if they want. D&D is a game, and the entire point of it is to have fun. Some people are just less likely to enjoy the game if they realize that their Warlock is being outpaced by the party's Defender at Level 10. THAT is why those numbers are out there.
And, one more time, I would like to say that I think 15/40/60 is more accurate. 20 at 10th is by far the hardest of those marks to hit, with vanilla Warlocks and Sorcs usually shaking out to around 14.5-16 DPR at 10th.

Depends on your definition of vanilla I guess, but hitting 20 DPR by level 10 is not too terribly difficult if damage is all you're going for. You just start to fall short of the target when you try to diversify, maybe trying to pay a little attention to your defenses or skills, or if you try to increase your nova potential, you may be sacrificing at-will DPR to do it.

Here is a quick build for what i'd call a vanilla warlock that does 20 DPR:

Show
Fey pact warlock 10 (because it's the hardest to optimize for damage at heroic)
Race: Irrelevant, so long as it gets +2 Cha.
Stats: Cha 22, Dex 13

Feats:
Arcane Implement Staff
Superior Implement Accurate Staff
Versatile Expertise (staff, rod)
Dual Implement Spellcaster
Weapon Focus (Staff)
Killing Curse

Equipment:
Staff +3
Rod +2
Bracers of the Perfect Shot
Eagle Eye Goggles

Eldritch Blast: +17 vs Reflex, 1d10+1d8+14 damage.
DPR = 20.125


So, he hits the benchmark easy enough, but he sucks at everything else. But I guess that's not too far from other builds that optimize for at-will DPR.
This being the character optimization forum, a focus on DPR targets by tier is to be expected. Assuming decent battle tactics (say 50% of attacks gaining combat advantage, or 20% chance per round of an opportunity attack, etc.) then hitting those targets isn't difficult. If you assume nothing and go with a straight chance to hit against a standard level+14 armor class, some classes are going to find those numbers require a very specific set of feats to achieve. Even rangers and rogues will find themselves with most of their feats determined by the need to boost at-will DPR.

My level 12 ranger using just non-crit at-wills and assuming no combat advantage or opportunity attacks, and utilizing no feat bonuses gets 21.7 damage per round using a spiked chain.

If, however, I make some reasonable assumptions about tactical benefits which exploit some of his feats, his DPR using at-wills gets to 40+ DPR without much effort. If I throw crits in there, it goes even higher. And my ranger is not an optimized DPR build. He is built to provide both melee and ranged effectiveness. If I wanted to add frost cheese or some other optimization tricks, I'm pretty sure he could hit 50+ DPR with at-wills alone, but I see no point to it.

I'm not sure how much value the "at-will baseline" has anyway since my ranger is built for specific tactical objectives. A fight which boils down to an at-will grind is not a fun fight anyway, except in rare cases. Optimizing for at-will DPR sort of misses the point in my opinion.

Rangers should be designed to focus damage on a single target to neutralize them as quickly as possible. Usually the best way to neutralize an opponent is to kill it, so rangers tend towards nova round damage at the expense of long-term at will damage. If a DM insists on having long, drawn out battles which require long periods of spamming at-wills, most strikers are going to find those encounters to be frustrating and boring. But so will the rest of the group.

In our latest campaign session our entire five and a half hour session was made up of one encounter. That encounter lasted roughly a dozen rounds. My ranger was still using encounter and daily powers through the end of the fight, so probably used twin strike in 1/3 of the rounds, usually when he was finishing off a target and didn't want to waste an encounter or daily power to do so, or was using magic ammunition where twin strike was just the most effective way to deliver the desired effect.

At will DPR is just a benchmark, and not a greatly valuable one for many character concepts even within the striker family. A low at will DPR ranger could still excel at single round nova damage, or could excel at a secondary controller using non-damage effects (sliding, dazing, slowing, immobilizing, etc.) and be a far more effective team player than a high at will DPR striker.
Hm, my level 9 sorc has a +16 static mod. 5 from Cha, 5 from Dex, 2 from a +2 Staff, 2 (Item bonus) from the Staff of Ruin, 1 off Weapon Focus, and 1 off the dragonshard.

1d10+16 Acid Orbs for 21.5, 1d4+16 Blazing Starfall for 18.5. +13 vs 21 Ref on average, so a 65% hit rate.

Ignoring crits (because I'm lazy):
AO does 14.0
BS does 24.1 with 2 targets
BS does 36.1 with 3 targets

Which is as expected, as Sorcs are AoE strikers. I dunno, Sorcs seem easy to me.
Hm, my level 9 sorc has a +16 static mod. 5 from Cha, 5 from Dex, 2 from a +2 Staff, 2 (Item bonus) from the Staff of Ruin, 1 off Weapon Focus, and 1 off the dragonshard.

1d10+16 Acid Orbs for 21.5, 1d4+16 Blazing Starfall for 18.5. +13 vs 21 Ref on average, so a 65% hit rate.

Ignoring crits (because I'm lazy):
AO does 14.0
BS does 24.1 with 2 targets
BS does 36.1 with 3 targets

Which is as expected, as Sorcs are AoE strikers. I dunno, Sorcs seem easy to me.


Generally, those DPR numbers are for single targets because Focus Fire is considered the most important.  The way most people who calculate DPR deal with multiple targets is by treating the second target as worth 50%, the third 25%, the fourth 12.5%, etc..

In that case, your DPR is closer to:

BS vs. 2 targets: 18.0375
BS vs. 3 targets: 21.04375

In otherwords, they are not easy, and you only just barely get the 20 when you hit 3 enemies.  The 20 is almost mythical, though.  Only the real heavy hitters like Rangers, Barbarians, and well played Rogues (well, ok, and gimmick builds) can hit that.  Like others have said, 15 is really what you look for, especially when using one of the weak strikers (Warlock, Assassin, Sorcerer, non-Half-Elf Avenger).

I also highly suggest that in the future, you look at playing a Genasi Wizard rather than a Sorcerer.  They're basically Sorcerer+.
Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic - A guide to removing magic item dependency and smoothing out advancement. Reinventing the Workday: A Shift Towards Encounter-Based Resources - A guide to abandoning daily resources
Eh, both characters I'm playing at the moment are actually suboptimal for the sake of amusement. The only reason I'm a sorcerer is I wanted someone talky (Cha) and arcane (Warlock or Sorc). And as our party needed strikers, Sorc>Lock.

We went from 2 defender, 2 leader, 1 controller
to 1 defender, 1 leader, 1 controller, 2 strikers
to 2 defender, 1 leader, 2 strikers.

Given that I consider the role of Sorcerers to be hitting multiple targets, I'm not sure I'm that concerned with single target damage, hm. That said though, this campaign was stated to be undead heavy, which is another pro for Blazing Starfall.
Sorcerer 10, DPR of 20 is possible, but not with a vanilla build, need more of an optimized build, though you don't need any tricks or assumptions for it. I got a tiefling up to that mark for Acid Orb, and close to it, with Burning Spray.

Show
Tiefling Dragon Sorcerer 10
Str 18, Dex 13, Cha 20

Feats:
Superior Implement Incendiary Dagger
Hellfire Blood
Versatile Expertise (Light Blade, and whatever)
Weapon Focus (Light Blade)
Dual Implement Spellcaster
Two Weapon Fighting

Items:
Magic Incendiary Dagger +3 w/ Siberys Shard of Mage (heroic)
Flaming Incendiary Dagger +2 w/ Khyber Shard of the Fiery Depth (heroic)
Bracers of the Perfect Shot (Heroic)
Eagle Eye Goggles (Heroic)

Acid Orb with +2 flaming dagger: +5 Cha +5 level +2 enhancement +1 expertise +1 incendiary + 1 goggles +1 hellfire = +16 vs Reflex
Damage: 1d10 +5 cha +2 enhancement +3 dual impl +4 str +1 twf +1 focus +2 bracers +1 shard +2 incendiary +1 hellfire = 1d10+22
DPR = 21.2

Burning Spray +3 magic dagger: I won't bore you with the details = +16 vs Reflex
Damage: 1d8+20
DPR = 19.075


I wouldn't say Sorcerers are out of the race for just being a point or two off the top line. They have a pseudo avenger/ranger mechanic for hitting things. When you're attacking two creatures, the odds of hitting at least one of them, is pretty high. The odds of getting a critical hit, is similarly high. Play a sorcerer as the person who opens up on the enemy because they don't have a lot of control over where the damage will go. Let the avenger or ranger or rogue be the finisher. You're still doing your job as a damage dealer, making encounters shorter and easier.
although it almost never happens, its worth noting that multiple sorcs (or a sorc or two and a blaster wizard) in one party can be so devastating its kinda messed up. hitting 3 guys for a third of their health isn't that amazing...but if you have 3 casters hitting 3 guys for a third of their health each, things start to get a little more fun. its an old trick from MMO's--one AOE guy isn't a huge threat, a whole party of a AOE guys simply ends any fight just as it begins.

of course, any DM faced with this is simply going to avoid bunching like the plague. one disadvantage of attacking creatures controlled by a person rather than a dumb AI. ;)
Hm, my level 9 sorc has a +16 static mod. 5 from Cha, 5 from Dex, 2 from a +2 Staff, 2 (Item bonus) from the Staff of Ruin, 1 off Weapon Focus, and 1 off the dragonshard.

1d10+16 Acid Orbs for 21.5, 1d4+16 Blazing Starfall for 18.5. +13 vs 21 Ref on average, so a 65% hit rate.

Ignoring crits (because I'm lazy):
AO does 14.0
BS does 24.1 with 2 targets
BS does 36.1 with 3 targets

Which is as expected, as Sorcs are AoE strikers. I dunno, Sorcs seem easy to me.



Generally, those DPR numbers are for single targets because Focus Fire is considered the most important.  The way most people who calculate DPR deal with multiple targets is by treating the second target as worth 50%, the third 25%, the fourth 12.5%, etc..

In that case, your DPR is closer to:

BS vs. 2 targets: 18.0375
BS vs. 3 targets: 21.04375

In otherwords, they are not easy, and you only just barely get the 20 when you hit 3 enemies.  The 20 is almost mythical, though.  Only the real heavy hitters like Rangers, Barbarians, and well played Rogues (well, ok, and gimmick builds) can hit that.  Like others have said, 15 is really what you look for, especially when using one of the weak strikers (Warlock, Assassin, Sorcerer, non-Half-Elf Avenger).

I also highly suggest that in the future, you look at playing a Genasi Wizard rather than a Sorcerer.  They're basically Sorcerer+.




non-Half Elf Avengers actually beat Half Elf Avengers most of the time through Heroic, and aren't that weak in general, any more. Feat support has gotten considerably better over the past few months. A vanilla Avenger with Vicious Fullblade +2 (L7 item) and Iron Armbands of Power (heroic tier) (L6 item) makes 17-18 DPR (depending on race) by 10th. If you throw in Power of Strength or Deadly Draw, you're at or above 20.


Also... Rogues actually tend to beat out Rangers by 10th. Their mechanics give them a big boost while statics are lower, but they get overtaken quickly during Paragon.
non-Half Elf Avengers actually beat Half Elf Avengers most of the time through Heroic, and aren't that weak in general, any more. Feat support has gotten considerably better over the past few months. A vanilla Avenger with Vicious Fullblade +2 (L7 item) and Iron Armbands of Power (heroic tier) (L6 item) makes 17-18 DPR (depending on race) by 10th. If you throw in Power of Strength or Deadly Draw, you're at or above 20.



Semi-optimized Githzerai Avenger is at about 18 DPR at level 10 if you hit on a 10, 19.5 or so with Deadly Draw.  You hit 20 w/DD if you hit melee on a 9 normally (possible with starting 20 in wisdom, I think?).
For Avenger 10, can hit 20 DPR without Deadly Draw, with just vanilla stuff for a Githzerai. All you need is starting 20 Wis, Githzerai Blademaster, Expertise, Avenging Resolution, +3 Fullblade, and Iron Armbands.

+18 vs AC, 1d12+13 damage, yields:

DPR =  0.0975 * 42.75 + 0.84 * 19.75 = 20.71
Most encounters that I've played in last between 4 and 8 rounds on average.




Once I hit Paragon in LFR I noticed I rarely used at-wills.  LFR is "by the book" in terms of authors constructing combats, xp, etc.  Most fights are over in 3-4 rounds... of course that's with a good group.  There's very little that can survive massive AoE for instance.  Of course this is build dependent -- some classes will still use their at-wills.





Just to interrupt here, I'd like to point out that LFR isn't really "by the book" in terms of encounter design. It matches the recommendations in most respects, but the requirements of timed convention slots keep LFR from exceeding 2-3 combats (with maybe a lightweight 4th one now and then) except on very rare occasions...typically 2-round modules or ADAPs.

The 3 encounter per day model prevents meaningful resource depletion for characters after level 7-11 or so, and the players frequently spend almost the entire module in nova-mode. This in turn makes LFR modules overly easy (sometimes) even for mildly optimized parties (your mileage may vary greatly) and encourages the old, tired arms race between authors and players as both seek a real challenge.

If you look at the DMG, I don't think that WotC has ever advocated the 3-encounter working day for 4th edition. It's one option among many, but not the baseline standard. At the very least, my personal experience in my home game has taught me that you can't pressure PCs without going into a constant series of difficult fights (including the option of cheesing the XP budget with heavy off-budget environmental effects or freaky monster design) or extending the working day well beyond three encounters.
D&D rules were never meant to exist without the presence of a DM. RAW is a lie.
non-Half Elf Avengers actually beat Half Elf Avengers most of the time through Heroic, and aren't that weak in general, any more. Feat support has gotten considerably better over the past few months. A vanilla Avenger with Vicious Fullblade +2 (L7 item) and Iron Armbands of Power (heroic tier) (L6 item) makes 17-18 DPR (depending on race) by 10th. If you throw in Power of Strength or Deadly Draw, you're at or above 20.




Semi-optimized Githzerai Avenger is at about 18 DPR at level 10 if you hit on a 10, 19.5 or so with Deadly Draw.  You hit 20 w/DD if you hit melee on a 9 normally (possible with starting 20 in wisdom, I think?).



I think I wind up doing this about every 2 or 3 weeks on average.

L10 Avenger DPR fun

Githzerai with 18 starting Wis, Iron Armbands of Power (heroic tier), Expertise, GBM, Vicious Fullblade +2:

Overwhelming Strike: 17.82-- vanilla.
Overwhelming Strike + Power of Strength: 19.57
Overwhelming Strike + Power of Strength + Deadly Draw: 20.74

Swap out the weapon for a generic Magic Fullblade +3...

OS: 19.04-- this is vanilla.
OS + PoS: 20.86
OS + PoS + DD: 21.89


Of course, if you wanted to press the raw DPR issue, you could just go 16 Dex/Int and 20 Wis at L1.


Just for kicks... L10 Dwarf Avenger, DWT, Expertise, Iron Armbands of Power (heroic tier), Magic Mordenkrad +3.

OS: 18.98-- this is vanilla.
OS + PoS + Deadly Draw: 22.06


Human, vanilla, Magic Exe Axe +3, IAoP (heroic). 18.45. Arbitrary weapon pick. Fullblade makes it: 18.13. Mordenkrad makes it: 18.10. My personal favorite flavor here is Fullblade + Power of Strength, which makes 19.95 without adding Deadly Draw.

I think these benchmarks also rely a bit on gear, at least in Paragon. I built a large group of characters from levels 1-30, and I found that the 40 damage benchmark for Paragon is a little difficult without optimal gear. Epic was actually a little easier to hit 60 without optimal gear. I was building these characters using only enhancement bonuses, though I was only measuring At-Will damage.
...whatever
I think these benchmarks also rely a bit on gear, at least in Paragon. I built a large group of characters from levels 1-30, and I found that the 40 damage benchmark for Paragon is a little difficult without optimal gear. Epic was actually a little easier to hit 60 without optimal gear. I was building these characters using only enhancement bonuses, though I was only measuring At-Will damage.

This largely depends on the build. For some builds, all they lose is 3-5 points of DPR. Some lose a lot more. Prime example is the ranger using frost cheese, who will lose about 25 DPR by the loss of frost weapon, gloves, shard, armbands, lasting frost, and wintertouched. I don't think anyone else gets hit that hard.
Also it depends on how you count things. If my level-8 Warlord (after a setup earlier in the encounter) does an at-will attack at +13 that does 1d12+6 damage and on a hit triggers my ally Swordmage's MBA at +12 for 1d8+12 (including a +4 bonus from me), what's my average damage?


"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Also it depends on how you count things. If my level-8 Warlord (after a setup earlier in the encounter) does an at-will attack at +13 that does 1d12+6 damage and on a hit triggers my ally Swordmage's MBA at +12 for 1d8+12 (including a +4 bonus from me), what's my average damage?






Well, you're level 8, so the tofu block AC is 22.  I'll assume you have +2 weapons with no special crit optimization.

(.55 * 12.5) + (.05 * 25) + (.6 * .5 * 16.5) + (.6 * .05 * 27) = 13.885, assuming the swordmage hits the same target you did.

(Chance to hit * average damage) + (chance to crit * average crit damage) + (chance to not miss * swordmage's chance to hit * swordmage's average damage) + (chance to not miss * swordmage's chance to crit * swordmage's average crit damage).
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Eh, both characters I'm playing at the moment are actually suboptimal for the sake of amusement. The only reason I'm a sorcerer is I wanted someone talky (Cha) and arcane (Warlock or Sorc). And as our party needed strikers, Sorc>Lock.

We went from 2 defender, 2 leader, 1 controller
to 1 defender, 1 leader, 1 controller, 2 strikers
to 2 defender, 1 leader, 2 strikers.

Given that I consider the role of Sorcerers to be hitting multiple targets, I'm not sure I'm that concerned with single target damage, hm. That said though, this campaign was stated to be undead heavy, which is another pro for Blazing Starfall.




Yeah, Borg's warlock build is exactly what's wrong with this 20/40/60 nonsense, and the CO board's fixation on it in general. Not that the build is bad (far from it); it's a philosophical difference. Somehow the same people that can hypothesize a block of tofu sitting on a featureless battlefield have a brain hemorrage when you suggest there might actually be two blocks of tofu on average in a 3x3 zone (which is pretty fair, really). Not saying Borg is this way, just generalizing from comments on these boards.

Besides, a A dragonfrost or acid orb sorcerer will be dealing around the same DPR as the warlock, but a blazing starfall sorcerer with identical equipment will be dealing -3 damage (from 1d10->1d4, loss), +0.5 damage (from 1d8->5 from Str gain, and a free feat), loses -2 to hit/-2 to damage (Eagle Eyes and Bracers of the Perfect Shot, and a lower starting Cha, but gains two free item slots) but gains +5 to damage when people leave the zone. I think the feat and item slots nearly make up the deficit, and is dealing radiant damage in an AOE, meaning in practice he'll be outdamaging the warlock by about 200%, with around 38 DPR if I'm eyeballing it right.

But people will bash on the sorcerer, which I really don't get. IMO, Sorcerers are the best all round strikers in the game.

Yeah, Borg's warlock build is exactly what's wrong with this 20/40/60 nonsense, and the CO board's fixation on it in general. Not that the build is bad (far from it); it's a philosophical difference. Somehow the same people that can hypothesize a block of tofu sitting on a featureless battlefield have a brain hemorrage when you suggest there might actually be two blocks of tofu on average in a 3x3 zone (which is pretty fair, really). Not saying Borg is this way, just generalizing from comments on these boards.

Besides, a A dragonfrost or acid orb sorcerer will be dealing around the same DPR as the warlock, but a blazing starfall sorcerer with identical equipment will be dealing -3 damage (from 1d10->1d4, loss), +0.5 damage (from 1d8->5 from Str gain, and a free feat), loses -2 to hit/-2 to damage (Eagle Eyes and Bracers of the Perfect Shot, and a lower starting Cha, but gains two free item slots) but gains +5 to damage when people leave the zone. I think the feat and item slots nearly make up the deficit, and is dealing radiant damage in an AOE, meaning in practice he'll be outdamaging the warlock by about 200%, with around 38 DPR if I'm eyeballing it right.

But people will bash on the sorcerer, which I really don't get. IMO, Sorcerers are the best all round strikers in the game.



Sadly Mengu74 and I have the same avatar.  I did not create that warlock.  I agree with you that there are strong proponents of single target DPR.  I can accept it and but also want that people like you and I can recognize area effect superiority, thus my qualifier on the DPR king candidates of (3x3) for area effects.  But in the end, the 2 are very different values.  In my group we have a pre-errata divine feycharger that always targets the one with the most HP, not because she can kill it in 1 turn, but because she wants to feel that every drop of damage is being used.  I would prefer that she focus on bloodied foes as they are still damaging us even at 1 HP.  There have been so many battles that it's turn 4 and all enemies are at 10% health and they are fighting just as hard as when we first encountered them.  area effects help out tremendously here, but can also cause this phenomenon.
DPR King Candidates 3.0
How much damage should I shoot for?
You're fired : 1 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .2 KPR Fair Striker : 2 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .4 KPR Highly Optimized : 3 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .6 KPR Nerfbat please : 4 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .8 KPR It's OVER 9000!!!!!: 5 Kills Per 5 Rounds = 1+ KPR
DPR? KPR? KP4R? Bless you
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage = DPR/(8*level+24) KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?
Yeah, Borg's warlock build is exactly what's wrong with this 20/40/60 nonsense, and the CO board's fixation on it in general. Not that the build is bad (far from it); it's a philosophical difference. Somehow the same people that can hypothesize a block of tofu sitting on a featureless battlefield have a brain hemorrage when you suggest there might actually be two blocks of tofu on average in a 3x3 zone (which is pretty fair, really). Not saying Borg is this way, just generalizing from comments on these boards.

I agree. I find multi-target damage as valuable as single target. They both have their place. I like the Monk as an example. You can attack multiple things, if you take one down, you do your striker damage to the other, with little wasted damage. It's like flex-DPR.

I was just trying to show, it's possible to hit that 20 DPR by level 10 with pretty much any striker class, if that's the criteria to count a striker worthy. But it is by far not the only way to go about building a striker. Feats that increase defense, mobility, utility, etc. are often ignored in maximum DPR builds, and that's really no way to play a character in a campaign, when you are already dealing 20-25 damage on a hit, there is nearly always a better feat than something that gives +1 damage. Accuracy boosting is the only thing I can't find fault in because hitting is that important.

Besides, a A dragonfrost or acid orb sorcerer will be dealing around the same DPR as the warlock, but a blazing starfall sorcerer with identical equipment will be dealing -3 damage (from 1d10->1d4, loss), +0.5 damage (from 1d8->5 from Str gain, and a free feat), loses -2 to hit/-2 to damage (Eagle Eyes and Bracers of the Perfect Shot, and a lower starting Cha, but gains two free item slots) but gains +5 to damage when people leave the zone. I think the feat and item slots nearly make up the deficit, and is dealing radiant damage in an AOE, meaning in practice he'll be outdamaging the warlock by about 200%, with around 38 DPR if I'm eyeballing it right.



Not only that, but you're talking about a playstyle--at-will spamming--which had almost nothing to do with how the game is largely played by the majority of characters. In most combats, you'll spend at best a couple of rounds using at-wills. 20 dpr vs. 15 dpr over 3 rounds is 15 damage--an almost trivial number at paragon that will have next to no impact on most combats. IMO, any serious analysis of a build's damage output requires evaluating, not just at-wills, but also encounter powers (at least--dailies are important, but trickier to account for because you can't assume they'll be used in each combat). The problem being that calculating dpr for every single encounter power and then averaging out over the length of an average combat is simply too much work, hence the myopic fixation on the most easily measurable component, at-will dpr.

It is, in a way, the same reason why both AOE and status effects are consistently undervalued--they are much, much harder to boil down to one number which quantifies their effectiveness in all situations. AOE can be like a watered-down and harder to use single target in some fights, or it can hit a bunch of guys and be far, far more devastating than single target. Forced movement can be fairly useless, or it can win a fight. Since there's no simple equation to account for these things, they tend to be discounted and ignored in favor of what is most easily measurable.
The problem being that calculating dpr for every single encounter power and then averaging out over the length of an average combat is simply too much work, hence the myopic fixation on the most easily measurable component, at-will dpr.

I think there's another valid reason too: At-Will DPR is what you have when things have gone pear-shaped and everything else didn't work.

It is, in a way, the same reason why both AOE and status effects are consistently undervalued--they are much, much harder to boil down to one number which quantifies their effectiveness in all situations. [...]they tend to be discounted and ignored in favor of what is most easily measurable.

No argument there.


"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

I think there's another valid reason too: At-Will DPR is what you have when things have gone pear-shaped and everything else didn't work.



This is true. I'm not saying at-will dpr is useless or irrelevant. Obviously it is one part of what a character can do, and it is obviously to be better at it than not. But it is also not even close to being the only thing a character can do, or even the primary thing a character can do (rangers and at-will cheesers aside). I'm just pointing out that most of the time it is actually a relatively minor component of most characters' damage output in a fight, and pretending otherwise and evaluating all builds on what they can simply do at-will is therefore an odd and myopic way of judging characters. If one build has slightly higher at-will dpr, but another has more damaging encounter powers, better aoe and better status effects, I'll take the second every time.
I think there's another valid reason too: At-Will DPR is what you have when things have gone pear-shaped and everything else didn't work.




This is true. I'm not saying at-will dpr is useless or irrelevant. Obviously it is one part of what a character can do, and it is obviously to be better at it than not. But it is also not even close to being the only thing a character can do, or even the primary thing a character can do (rangers and at-will cheesers aside). I'm just pointing out that most of the time it is actually a relatively minor component of most characters' damage output in a fight, and pretending otherwise and evaluating all builds on what they can simply do at-will is therefore an odd and myopic way of judging characters. If one build has slightly higher at-will dpr, but another has more damaging encounter powers, better aoe and better status effects, I'll take the second every time.



I, in general, agree with you.  However, at-will DPR is the best baseline we have available to us.  Restricting at-will dpr to single targets only is something I don't really get, especially when you have party friendly AoEs, like monks and invokers.  Status effects and other methods of control also aren't taken into account, which penalizes class with a lot of it, like warlocks and rogues. 

I also wanted to point out that at-will DPR is a lot closer approximation of actual DPR for some classes (e.g., Warlock, Avenger, and most Rogues) than for others (e.g, Barbarian, Sorcerer, Monk).  Typically, if at-will dpr isn't very close to actual dpr, it's because at-will dpr is significantly under your actual dpr.  Warlocks and Avengers are seen as poorer strikers, not because their at-will DPR is poor, but because they lack significant nova (in the case of Avengers), lack of effective striker dailies (Avengers and Warlocks), and lack encounter powers that add significant DPR (e.g, Warlocks).   

With that said, all striker classes at this point can be made into effective strikers, especially if you unshackle them from a focus on at-will DPR and take into account control and other features. 
Eh, both characters I'm playing at the moment are actually suboptimal for the sake of amusement. The only reason I'm a sorcerer is I wanted someone talky (Cha) and arcane (Warlock or Sorc). And as our party needed strikers, Sorc>Lock.

We went from 2 defender, 2 leader, 1 controller
to 1 defender, 1 leader, 1 controller, 2 strikers
to 2 defender, 1 leader, 2 strikers.

Given that I consider the role of Sorcerers to be hitting multiple targets, I'm not sure I'm that concerned with single target damage, hm. That said though, this campaign was stated to be undead heavy, which is another pro for Blazing Starfall.





Yeah, Borg's warlock build is exactly what's wrong with this 20/40/60 nonsense, and the CO board's fixation on it in general. Not that the build is bad (far from it); it's a philosophical difference. Somehow the same people that can hypothesize a block of tofu sitting on a featureless battlefield have a brain hemorrage when you suggest there might actually be two blocks of tofu on average in a 3x3 zone (which is pretty fair, really). Not saying Borg is this way, just generalizing from comments on these boards.

Besides, a A dragonfrost or acid orb sorcerer will be dealing around the same DPR as the warlock, but a blazing starfall sorcerer with identical equipment will be dealing -3 damage (from 1d10->1d4, loss), +0.5 damage (from 1d8->5 from Str gain, and a free feat), loses -2 to hit/-2 to damage (Eagle Eyes and Bracers of the Perfect Shot, and a lower starting Cha, but gains two free item slots) but gains +5 to damage when people leave the zone. I think the feat and item slots nearly make up the deficit, and is dealing radiant damage in an AOE, meaning in practice he'll be outdamaging the warlock by about 200%, with around 38 DPR if I'm eyeballing it right.

But people will bash on the sorcerer, which I really don't get. IMO, Sorcerers are the best all round strikers in the game.



ShakaUVM--


1. Your habit of conveying an aggressive stance when you post often detracts from what you're saying. When you come off with the combination of arrogance and attitude which is becoming your calling card, people are less likely to consider whether your comments have merit. Some of your build posts are among my favorite, and your post-style when presenting builds is fantastic. It's a bummer that you tend to alienate people by presenting yourself the way you do.

2. Nobody is 'fixating' on 20/40/60-- and again, 15/40/60 is a more realistic measure for what those numbers are generally used for, anyway. You don't fixate on an easy-to-hit baseline, any more than you fixate on driving more than 50 miles per hour on the freeway. You only think about that number when you realize you're not doing what you want to do, and want a point of reference. That is the only way in which I've heard people using them. This is also why 15 is a more real number than 20. The numbers should be things you exceed with a Striker without having to think about them, but which separate you from non-Strikers.

3. Re: The bolded segment of your post--

a) refer to 1.
b) Are you suggesting that it's as easy to apply At-Will damage to multiple targets (without Hand of Radiance) as it is to apply consistent At-Will damage to a single target, in a live game?

Now, understand something-- when I and many people talk about At-Will DPR, we aren't using that as a "you WILL deal this much damage" number. To do so would be silly, because everyone knows that there are a million variables which can and will change the real number in play. Daze, Stun, Dominate, Slow, Prone, monster Speed, variable defenses, monster resistances & immunities, Blind, flat penalties, auras, terrain factors, etc-- we all KNOW these things can and will come into play. DPR values are thrown out there with specific sets of assumptions in place, for a reason. That reason is expressly to provide an 'all things being equal' set of conditions that allows one build to compare to another on even footing.

You know this. I've never seen anyone, ever, make a hard 'this is how much damage you WILL deal, no matter what' statement. I suspect you haven't, either.

All of this relates to question 'b', because the same variables exist for the multi-target hitter, as well as the addition of a new, and more prevalent condition, which is monster willingness to remain in the area of effect. While some powers obviously encourage targets to stay within them, it's up to the DM whether or not he wants to subject them to spam until they die, and many will obviously move monsters around.


As for your opinion that Sorcs are the best all around Strikers in the game...

I respect any individual's right to have their own opinion. In this particular case, I might even agree if Sorcs had an Arcane version of Hand of Radiance. The ability to apply multi-target damage to mobile enemies would be a huge asset for them.

As things stand for Sorcs right now, I wouldn't say that I consider them a premier Striker. When they get to apply multi-target damage, they are clearly awesome. When they don't, they aren't as good. When you compare that to an Archer Ranger, who is more consistent from fight to fight, it's hard to say that Sorcs are the best.


my .02.
2. Nobody is 'fixating' on 20/40/60-- and again, 15/40/60 is a more  realistic measure for what those numbers are generally used for, anyway.

Not picking on you necessarily, but I saw this 15 thrown around a bit. Is this really enough for a primary striker? I can get a fighter or paladin with secondary striker role to dish that almost trivially. Wizards, Druid Chargers, and even Invokers and Wardens can all reach that benchmark and surpass it. What's supposed to be the difference between a primary role striker and a secondary role striker?

2. Nobody is 'fixating' on 20/40/60-- and again, 15/40/60 is a more  realistic measure for what those numbers are generally used for, anyway.


Not picking on you necessarily, but I saw this 15 thrown around a bit. Is this really enough for a primary striker? I can get a fighter or paladin with secondary striker role to dish that almost trivially. Wizards, Druid Chargers, and even Invokers and Wardens can all reach that benchmark and surpass it. What's supposed to be the difference between a primary role striker and a secondary role striker?




I agree. I know my artificer has 16.16 at-will DPR at 10, and Githzerai Blade Master is his only damage boosting feat.  If a non-striker can meet the striker guidelines without really trying, it seems like the bar is being set too low.   
2. Nobody is 'fixating' on 20/40/60-- and again, 15/40/60 is a more  realistic measure for what those numbers are generally used for, anyway.


Not picking on you necessarily, but I saw this 15 thrown around a bit. Is this really enough for a primary striker? I can get a fighter or paladin with secondary striker role to dish that almost trivially. Wizards, Druid Chargers, and even Invokers and Wardens can all reach that benchmark and surpass it. What's supposed to be the difference between a primary role striker and a secondary role striker?




In a casual/non-Op game, I think it's a realistic minimum expectation for At-Will damage output. For a more Op-minded group, 20 is definitely a better benchmark.

I also agree entirely with your assessment of what a bunch of those non-Strikers are able to do. You can spend 4 feats on a Str/Wis Paladin and break 17 DPR without putting your shield down. This is part of why I find it interesting when people take issue with the idea of an expected minimum value for a Striker. It's also why I've said, "if you're doing less than this much, you may as well play a non-Striker"-- because that Str/Wis Paladin is able to put out about 17.5 DPR while also filling the Defender role.
I also agree entirely with your assessment of what a bunch of those non-Strikers are able to do. You can spend 4 feats on a Str/Wis Paladin and break 17 DPR without putting your shield down. This is part of why I find it interesting when people take issue with the idea of an expected minimum value for a Striker. It's also why I've said, "if you're doing less than this much, you may as well play a non-Striker"-- because that Str/Wis Paladin is able to put out about 17.5 DPR while also filling the Defender role.



Its funny that this is never applied in reverse. Nobody ever benchmarks, say, a wizard's level of control and says, "well, if you're not laying down this many status effects or forced movement or save penalties, you might as well play a warlock or rogue, because they'll be doing your job just as well", even though, clearly some strikers built for control (like Feylocks) can lay down just as much control as many controller builds, especially if you're talking about a controller who builds for damage like a blaster or summoner wizard, or charging druid. Is this because its hard to reduce control to a quantifiable number?