DPR Calculations

This sheet is now available at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Auhe1_YgITaTdDAtTTZMNXJ0VUZ3REtVb0VOTXJIZFE&output=html.  This is the public html viewable version.  Only use the link later in this post if you wish to view the behind the scenes calculations.

 

I wrote up a spreadsheet to help me get a handle on the relative DPR values between the various classes, and how they scale over the lifespan of a character.  Obviously DPR is not the only measure of the effectiveness of a character, but it is an  important one.  I have linked it here:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Auhe1_YgITaTdDAtTTZMNXJ0VUZ3REtVb0VOTXJIZFE&usp=sharing

 

The current target AC I use is 18, the highest listed on any monster in the bestiary.  I've fiddled with that number and the rankings stay fairly consistent.  For all the classes the characters start with a 16 in their attacking stat, which is improved once at level 4, and a second time before level 11.

 

Feats - I chose not to model any feats.  For anyone curious, GWF is stupid good and boosts the damage for anyone who can use it past any other choices.  None of the other DPS feats are worth using by anyone.

 

Barbarian - I modeled: Rage damage, Reckless Attack, Extra Attack, Brutal Critical, Unchecked Fury, and Brutal Rage.  GWF is obviously amazing for Barbarians, as automatic advantage makes you crit more and thus get more extra attacks.  There is 

also a funny thing where Barbarian damage can go down if you increase their attack bonus too much.  This is a result of the interaction of Brutal Critical, advantage, and Unchecked Fury.  Basically, the damage cost of possibly losing a hit is worth the gain of it being critical.  This also helps GWF work even better, since the -5 penalty doesn't actually hinder their damage when they go for extra damage.  It's crazy, I know, but true.

 

Bard - I modeled: Bard Song, and Extra Attack.  Obviously Bards don't do a ton of damage, but they do double a Bear's DPS while taking free help actions and casting spells, all in the same round.

 

Druid - BAREZ LOLZ.  Seriously, it's bad.

 

Fighter - I modeled: Fighting Styles, Extra Attack(s), and Improved/Superior Critical.  The extra attacks heavily favor a great axe even before GWF, which is even better because of the extended crit range Fighters get.  If you want the DPR for an Action Surge round, multiply by 2.

 

Monk - I modeled: Unarmed Strike, Flurry of Blows, Ki Flurry of Blows, Supreme Flurry, Improved Flurry of Blows, and Fist of Four Elements.  Monks are pretty awesome.  They scale well through all levels, they don't rely on a stupid OP feat, they have a lot of defensive abilities, and they have an ability to burst even beyond what I've modeled.  Touch of Stony Doom?  Man, that is golden if you can get them to fail a save.  Monks also have funny scaling points, getting strong damage improvements at levels 8 and 17.

 

Paladin - I modeled: Fighting Style, Divine Favor, Extra Attack, Oath of Emnity, Magic Weapon(2nd and 4th), and Improved Divine Smite.  Paladins put forth some good two-weapon damage as a result of per-hit damage buffs.  GWF probably still puts a great axe over the top, but for my money, I'd go with Shield Master, and rock two weapon fighting.  Gives a traditional Paladin image and a solid mechanical benefit in the form of +2 AC.  More attacks also means more opportunities to crit, and any time you crit, immediately burn a smite for awesome, uncontrollable burst damage.

 

Ranger - I modeled: Fighting Style, Slayer's Momentum, and Extra Attack.  One thing I specifically did not model is Staggering Attack.  While Slayer's Momentum only requires a hit every round to maintain, Staggering Attack triggers after you hit for the first time, and only for the rest of the round.  It is problematic to model, to say the least.  It would help two weapons more, but as has been repeated, GWF is stupid good and probably still pulls ahead in average damage output.  I'd still probably just go dual-wield and have a bow for backup/spell casting.  Rangers need some love, but if you stay versatile you'll contribute fine in a party.

 

Rogue - I modeled: Sneak Attack.  That was a short list.  Rogues don't have a lot of damage mechanics, and honestly, they need something.

 

One final thing I wanted to bring up was break points.  From these numbers and the general layout of class features, there are some key break points to get out of a class, if you don't want the capstone.  Barbarians should drop out at 14 or 16, nothing past there increases damage, and 5 rages is plenty.  Fighters should drop out at 11 or go all the way to 20.  Monks enjoy smooth scaling from 1-20 and get a range of abilities.  Paladins stop scaling at 11-12, but want to continue improving their spellcasting, so multi into another caster.  Rangers don't get extra damage after 11, but Swift Quiver at level 17 is pretty awesome for swapping to a bow.  Rogues, as the class stands, are a 1-2 level dip for a grip of skills, Expertise, and maybe Cunning Sneak, past that they offer nothing to improve your skills or offense.

Heh, one might actually get respectable damage out of wildshape by going circle of moon to 10 for max wildshape benefits, then rogue 2 for cunning action to be able to be triceratops and be able to disengage and charge every round. Tack on the charger feat for a bit more damage, and maybe barb levels for easy advantage. Druid 10/Barb 2/Rogue 8 in triceratops form with charger feat and using reckless attack and sneak attack, the druid gets up to 38 dpr. Plus you get the hilarious concept of the sneak attacking triceratops.

Aramul wrote:
I wrote up a spreadsheet to help me get a handle on the relative DPR values between the various classes, and how they scale over the lifespan of a character.  Obviously DPR is not the only measure of the effectiveness of a character, but it is an  important one.
See, this is as far as I needed to go.

 

I think DPR is about the least important factor in the enjoyment of playing a character; and if enjoyment isn't the scale of effectiveness, then why bother.

 

But, to each their own. I am glad that there are people out there that enjoy going through these exercises, though; for the help it provides to others of a like mind (without the mathematical wherewithal to do it on their own). So, for that, I still give you a hearty: thanks!

lawrencehoy wrote:
See, this is as far as I needed to go.

 

I think DPR is about the least important factor in the enjoyment of playing a character; and if enjoyment isn't the scale of effectiveness, then why bother.

 

But, to each their own. I am glad that there are people out there that enjoy going through these exercises, though; for the help it provides to others of a like mind (without the mathematical wherewithal to do it on their own). So, for that, I still give you a hearty: thanks!

It is not the most important thing, but it is in the runnings.  My enjoyment of a system increases if it is relatively balanced, and I am not forced down specific paths or classes to stay competitive with other characters.  As it stands, D&D Next does not suffer overly from this problem, and, outside a few outliers, the classes have a good balance.  The purpose in creating a document like this is to reveal the flaws in the system before it is released, so they can be corrected (hopefully!).

lawrencehoy wrote:

 

Aramul wrote:
I wrote up a spreadsheet to help me get a handle on the relative DPR values between the various classes, and how they scale over the lifespan of a character.  Obviously DPR is not the only measure of the effectiveness of a character, but it is an  important one.

See, this is as far as I needed to go.

 

I think DPR is about the least important factor in the enjoyment of playing a character; and if enjoyment isn't the scale of effectiveness, then why bother.

 

But, to each their own. I am glad that there are people out there that enjoy going through these exercises, though; for the help it provides to others of a like mind (without the mathematical wherewithal to do it on their own). So, for that, I still give you a hearty: thanks!

I generally agree that DPR doesnt equate to enjoyment, but if your class is meant to be effective in combat, as the listed classes are intended, by and large, then being significantly behind the curve. So I think the thing to note here is how different classes stack up to the curve. Monks are sub-par at low-mid levels, barely outdamaging Druids, and rangers/rogues are fairly subpar, though at least you could argue rogues are less combat-focused. Bards also barely outdamage Druids, but I think this is mitigated in that combat is not their main focus (though it does feed the argument that they should be full casters). Dual-Wielding Fighters could use some love, possibly a flat boost to damage replacing a second action surge or something.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

Thank you very much Aramul! This gives us (me and my group) a good basis to start houseruling classes in order to decrease differences in DPR. 

Some updates: Added the Druid from the last playtest.  Look, he does reasonable damage!  Change the healing from shifting to Temp HP, and mesh the old Moon Circle with the new format of the class and you'll have a playable shapeshifter.  Decent in fights, but doesn't beat out any of the dedicated fighting class.

 

Also added Hunter's Mark as an option for Rangers.  Since Paladins are using Divine Favor, I figured Rangers should use it to, even if it isn't up on every enemy.  I also did a little theorycrafting and modeled a Staggering Attack that lasts until the end of the next turn, thus allowing Rangers to maintain advantage against a single target.  They have competitive, single target damage with that buff.  Definitely something I will houserule in if I get a level 11 Ranger in game.

 

On reviewing the sheet, the biggest concerns I see (other than the 10/14 Druids being awful at melee), are Paladins peak too quickly, and Fighter dual wielding is too weak compared to a great axe.  Paladins need some of their power spread out to later levels, perhaps pushing Improved Divine Smite to level 16.  Fighters need some flat damage buff to make dual wielding competitve, perhaps a until next turn +1d6 after a crit.

 

By the way Jay_Ibero_911, your Sneak Attack Triceratops is hilarious.  Kind of sad the amount of hoops you have to jump through to make it competitive in melee.  Apply that same amount of work to any other class and you'll get a beast that would put it to shame.

When you did bards, did you factor in the effect of the bard's song on the rest of the party? That would increase the bard's DPR by

 

[estimated number of combatants in a party] * [accuracy of a combatant] * [estimated number of attacks per round per combatant] * 1d4, plus a crit factor.

 

With reasonable assumptions, I get about a half to 3/4 extra BAREZ units. More detail below. That would put them in the same league with the other classes for at-will damage.

 

Show
Level 2

BAREZ = 2.58 damage

2 other combatants

1 attack/combatant

35% accuracy (30% normal, 5% crit)

1.9 bonus damage

0.736 BAREZ

 

Level 5

BAREZ = 7.00 damage

2 other combatants

1.5 attacks/combatant (clerics and rogues will pull down the average)

45% accuracy (40% normal, 5% crit)

3.375 bonus damage

0.482 BAREZ

 

Level 11

BAREZ = 10.33 damage

2 other combatants

2 attacks/combatant

60% accuracy (55% normal, 5% crit)

6.3 bonus damage

0.610 BAREZ

 

Level 16

BAREZ = 10.33 damage

2 other combatants

2 attacks/combatant

65% accuracy (60% normal, 5% crit)

6.8 bonus damage

0.658 BAREZ

 

Level 20

BAREZ = 10.33 damage

2 other combatants

2 attacks/combatant (maybe a little low, lots of ways to get extra attacks by now)

70% accuracy (65% normal, 5% crit)

6.925 bonus damage

0.670 BAREZ

 

 

No, this is all personal DPR.  The Paladin is also not using Crusader's Mantle, which grants the whole party +1d8 instead of just to himself with Divine Favor.  Bards also get to take a free help action any time they attack, thus granting advantage on an attack for another party member.  Finally, bards can cast any of their spells as a swift action at level 11.

 

In total, when a Bard attacks, he does the listed DPR, gives out advantage, swift casts one of his spells, and maintains a group buff.  

 

Bards are fine, and DPR only measures one portion of combat effectiveness.

Start using divine power when it becomes available instead of divine favor.  The bonus to hit give a  big DPR increase.  Also, bard 20 can take a damage cantrip as one of the magical secrets spells and use it in addition to the attack action using battle magic.

Bard swift cantrip modeled at 20 makes a big spike, even against the highest dex save in the bestiary.  This does not account for Magic Resistance, it's about a 5 point difference if the monster has it.

 

Paladins on the other hand did not gain a lot.  Divine Power is a detriment when they have advantage, because they already hit so much that the extra hit gives less than the extra damage of Divine Favor.  Without Oath it's a reasonable DPR gain.  I'd rather keep those high level slots open for smites/utility though.

Aramul wrote:

Bard swift cantrip modeled at 20 makes a big spike, even against the highest dex save in the bestiary.  This does not account for Magic Resistance, it's about a 5 point difference if the monster has it.

 

Paladins on the other hand did not gain a lot.  Divine Power is a detriment when they have advantage, because they already hit so much that the extra hit gives less than the extra damage of Divine Favor.  Without Oath it's a reasonable DPR gain.  I'd rather keep those high level slots open for smites/utility though.

 

 

Divine favor is only 4.5 average damage; divine power is +4 hit and +4 damage.  +4 to hit beats out .5 average damage per hit, generally, unless we can get a heck of a lot of hits in.  When the chance to hit is 95% either way crusader's mantle would still be a better choice.  At level 13 when divine power becomes available we're looking at +4 proficiency bonus to attack, +5 stat bonus probably, +1 likely for magic weapon.  With only one channel divinity per short rest and other bonuses to hit requiring concentration the +4 from divine might becomes a great choice, moreso when we're looking at -5 to hit for extra damage or extra attacks applying feats.  The offset from +4 to hit after taking -5 to hit is a big bonus.

 

 

Also, not all cantrips use a save.  Chill touch, ray of frost, fire seeds use to hit rolls so magic resistance won't matter because there is no save on which to take advantage.  I like chill touch because it also prevents healing.

Aramul, as always you did a great job! Thank you.

 

Edit: Sorry Aramul, my english is not that good and I concentrated in write right but make a huge mistake with you. Thanks a lot.

I'm assuming the Bard is assuming his buffs?

 

If so shouldn't we have a with Bard row for each other class since Bards buff everyone.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Ashrym wrote:
Divine favor is only 4.5 average damage; divine power is +4 hit and +4 damage.  +4 to hit beats out .5 average damage per hit, generally, unless we can get a heck of a lot of hits in.  When the chance to hit is 95% either way crusader's mantle would still be a better choice.  At level 13 when divine power becomes available we're looking at +4 proficiency bonus to attack, +5 stat bonus probably, +1 likely for magic weapon.  With only one channel divinity per short rest and other bonuses to hit requiring concentration the +4 from divine might becomes a great choice, moreso when we're looking at -5 to hit for extra damage or extra attacks applying feats.  The offset from +4 to hit after taking -5 to hit is a big bonus.

I did model it, it just doesn't make a big difference.  And yes Channel Divinity is per short rest, but spells like Divine Power are per long rest, and much more restrictive in use.  After 2 Magic Weapon casts, that leaves 3 slots for Divine Power, which leaves nothing in the high-end tank for smites/utility.  And this is also against the highest listed AC in the bestiary, if I lower the Target AC, Divine Powers DPR does not change, while the others do go up.

 

Divine Favor also crits for 8 damage, and uses a much more economical 1st level spell slot.

 

jefersonlucas wrote:

Aramul, as always you did a great job! Thank you.

 

Edit: Sorry Aramul, my english is not that good and I concentrated in write right but make a huge mistake with you. Thanks a lot.

Edit: No problem.  Easy mistake, thanks for the appreciation

 

Valdark wrote:

I'm assuming the Bard is assuming his buffs?

 

If so shouldn't we have a with Bard row for each other class since Bards buff everyone.

Yes Bard is self-buffing, no I don't see the value in adding his buff to other players.  I'm not trying to show how much damage a class can do with every buff, I'm showing a general comparison between the different classes.  Bards also only buff people in a group with a Bard.  Paladins buff a group with Crusader's Mantle, and spell casters of every shape can cast all sorts of buffs.

lawrencehoy wrote:

 

Aramul wrote:
I wrote up a spreadsheet to help me get a handle on the relative DPR values between the various classes, and how they scale over the lifespan of a character.  Obviously DPR is not the only measure of the effectiveness of a character, but it is an  important one.

See, this is as far as I needed to go.

 

I think DPR is about the least important factor in the enjoyment of playing a character; and if enjoyment isn't the scale of effectiveness, then why bother.

 

But, to each their own. I am glad that there are people out there that enjoy going through these exercises, though; for the help it provides to others of a like mind (without the mathematical wherewithal to do it on their own). So, for that, I still give you a hearty: thanks!

Why did you click on the thread? It's not titled "Garl Glittergold's Famous Pie Recipes" or something. There was no surprise inside or anything. I am not saying I disagree or anything, in so far as not feeling DPR is not the biggest factor in effectiveness, but it was pretty clear what the thread's focus would be. If they thought DPR was meaningless or no big deal, it wouldn't have been worth their effort to even make this thread.

 

He also never even said anything close to what you are trying to refute. Effectiveness and enjoyment aren't the same thing. I could probably find a build for the highest damage character possible, or one that is always slinging buffs around, and it might not be my cup of tea at all, but it would be effective. Nothing can measure how fun someone else would find a class or build, so I don't know what approach you'd have preferred for this thread to take.

The Smithy Knew He'd Lost His Groove When Scalding Sparks Left His Chin Too Smooth Dwarvenshave

Aramul wrote:

 

Ashrym wrote:
Divine favor is only 4.5 average damage; divine power is +4 hit and +4 damage.  +4 to hit beats out .5 average damage per hit, generally, unless we can get a heck of a lot of hits in.  When the chance to hit is 95% either way crusader's mantle would still be a better choice.  At level 13 when divine power becomes available we're looking at +4 proficiency bonus to attack, +5 stat bonus probably, +1 likely for magic weapon.  With only one channel divinity per short rest and other bonuses to hit requiring concentration the +4 from divine might becomes a great choice, moreso when we're looking at -5 to hit for extra damage or extra attacks applying feats.  The offset from +4 to hit after taking -5 to hit is a big bonus.

I did model it, it just doesn't make a big difference.  And yes Channel Divinity is per short rest, but spells like Divine Power are per long rest, and much more restrictive in use.  After 2 Magic Weapon casts, that leaves 3 slots for Divine Power, which leaves nothing in the high-end tank for smites/utility.  And this is also against the highest listed AC in the bestiary, if I lower the Target AC, Divine Powers DPR does not change, while the others do go up.

 

Divine Favor also crits for 8 damage, and uses a much more economical 1st level spell slot.

 

 

+1Don't use the high level slots for magic weapon.  It's only +1 hit and damage over a 2nd level slot if a magic weapon isn't actually available compared to +4 to hit and damage and +3 higher than using the higher level magic weapon slot.  That' gives 5 encounters worth of divine power and saves channel divinity in the event a person does need more encounters.  Something like sacred weapon in 1 encounter per short rest isn't very indicative of DPR.  Using the slots on smites would be good for burst damage but when a person looks at 1 fourth level spell slot using divine smite for an additional 22.5 damage compared to 4 damage every hit for up to 10 minutes from divine power that 4th level slot does more damage than the smite.

 

 

For example:

 

 

Great weapon fighting style and feat, great axe, 20 STR, level 20, vs AC 18.  In the first example divine favor and +2 magic weapon, in the second example divine power and +1 magic weapon.

 

 

Divine Favor / Magic Weapon +2

Hit: 2*(6.5+6.5+5+5+4.5+4.5+2+(5.5+5.5+3.5+3.5+6.5)*.05)*.55=38.7475
Miss: 2*5*.45=4.5
Crit bonus attack hit: ((6.5+6.5+5+5+4.5+4.5+2+(5.5+5.5+3.5+3.5+6.5)*.05)*.55)*.0975=1.888940625
Crit bonus attack miss: 2*5*.45*.0975=.43875

Total: 45.575190625

 

 

Divine Power / Magic Weapon +1

Hit: 2*(6.5+6.5+5+5+4.5+4+1+(5.5+5.5+3.5+6.5)*.05)*.70=46.97
Miss: 2*5*.30=3
Crit bonus attack: ((6.5+6.5+5+5+4.5+4+1+(5.5+5.5+3.5+6.5)*.05)*.70)*.0975=2.2897875
Crit bonus attack miss: 2*5*.30*.0975=.2925

Total: 52.5522875

 

 

Difference:  6.977096875

 

 

A fourth level spell burned as a smite does 22.5 damage on average so divine power is the better option for any encounter that lasts more than four rounds if the paladin is burning high level smites for each round.  The paladin still has the option of adding smites but would use lower level spells to few smites instead of higher level spells, so any lower level spells burned as smites intead reduce the number of rounds that difference makes.

 

 

We can build better damage builds, but this should demonstrate the difference that accuracy makes, which in the above example would be about 7DPR before adding in any smites, or about 15.3% increase in damage.

Ashrym wrote:
+1Don't use the high level slots for magic weapon.  It's only +1 hit and damage over a 2nd level slot if a magic weapon isn't actually available compared to +4 to hit and damage and +3 higher than using the higher level magic weapon slot.  That' gives 5 encounters worth of divine power and saves channel divinity in the event a person does need more encounters.  Something like sacred weapon in 1 encounter per short rest isn't very indicative of DPR.  Using the slots on smites would be good for burst damage but when a person looks at 1 fourth level spell slot using divine smite for an additional 22.5 damage compared to 4 damage every hit for up to 10 minutes from divine power that 4th level slot does more damage than the smite.

As I've said, all this is modeled in the spreadsheet I made.  If you are not using Vow of Emnity, Divine Power is approximately a 10% boost to expected damage.  If you are using Vow of Emnity, Divine Power does NOT provide a damage boost over using Divine Favor or Crusader's Mantle.  Also, at no point have i modeled Sacred Weapon, because it only provides a damage boost if you pre-buff immediately before entering combat.

 

Ashrym wrote:
Great weapon fighting style and feat, great axe, 20 STR, level 20, vs AC 18.  In the first example divine favor and +2 magic weapon, in the second example divine power and +1 magic weapon.

Please allow me to quote myself, and explain a little further.

Aramul wrote:

Feats - I chose not to model any feats.  For anyone curious, GWF is stupid good and boosts the damage for anyone who can use it past any other choices.  None of the other DPS feats are worth using by anyone.

When I say that the Great Weapon Fighting feat is stupid good, what I mean, is that it is the single most powerful option for increasing DPR by a significant margin.  I would ballpark a figure at least a 50% improvement to overall damage done.  This feat is absurdly powerful and broken.  If you play a character using this feat with other players choosing other options, you are bringing a gun to a knife fight.

 

I am not modeling combat feats because one of them breaks the game and the rest aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on.  All including it would do is skew the perception of class balance, when the real problem has nothing to do with classes.

 

Breadley wrote:
Why did you click on the thread? It's not titled "Garl Glittergold's Famous Pie Recipes" or something. There was no surprise inside or anything. I am not saying I disagree or anything, in so far as not feeling DPR is not the biggest factor in effectiveness, but it was pretty clear what the thread's focus would be. If they thought DPR was meaningless or no big deal, it wouldn't have been worth their effort to even make this thread.

Funny story, I 100% agree with you.  But DPR is the easiest element of the game to analyze from a mathematical mindset.  Having inclinations toward mathematics, I find it very interesting.  I also find that ensuring combat oriented classes do relatively similar damage goes a long way toward making sure everyone at the table can feel like they are contributing to the party.

Would it be possible to model the inclusion of magic weapons? Except, of course, for the druid and monk.

What about the basic cantrip damage of things like sacred flame and ray of frost?

"Ha! Rock beats scissors!" "Darn it! Rock is overpowered! I'm not playing this again until the next edition is released!" "C'mon, just one more." "Oh, all right..." "Wait, what is that?" "Its 'Dynamite' from the expanded rules." "Just because you can afford to buy every supplement that comes out..." "Hey, it's completely balanced! You're just a bad DM for not accommodating it."
Show
RPGs are getting more popular, and whenever something gets more popular, it inevitably changes, usually becoming more palatable to the masses. Nintendo is the perfect example. In the old days their games coined the term "Nintendo hard" to extend play time, but they knew their fans were dedicated enough to play anyway. Now they mostly make stuff a five year old can master. That's not necessarily bad, though. Most of those old Nintendo games were infuriating. Likewise, a lot of old RPGs were too complex and irritating for the average person to really get into. Rules light systems are going to get more popular as more people enter the hobby, simply because the new people aren't bound by nostalgia, and would rather play something easy and fun than something that takes a huge amount of effort to learn.

I updated and cleaned up the sheet.  A lot of the updates were behind the scenes, but anyone interested can now see the calculations used on the extra sheets.  The levels used for calculations now go from 2 to 20 in increments of 3.  Almost all of the damage increasing abilities fall on these levels.  There were also a couple calculation errors with respect to Bards(big damage bump), Barbarians(minor decrease), and Druids(minor decrease).  These have, of course, all been fixed.

 

I added cantrip damage Mages, Druids, and Clerics, as well as Flame Blade(scaled to level 5) for Druids.  Druids now have a line for Polymorph, based on Ankylosaurus and Ape, Giant Carnivorous.  Like Wild Shaping, Polymorph stops scaling at level 10, but it outperforms in every way except HP bagging.  The ape form provides a nasty ranged attack, and Roc form (also available at 10) allows for pick up/drop tactics.  Druids are also pre-buffing with Elemental Mantle with Flame Blade, Wild Shape, and Polymorph.

 

As far as adding magic weapons, I don't think it would have a large effect on the overall balance of the classes.  Adding magic weapons to every class would involve doubling the number of lines in the main results page, and decrease readability.  Too much work for something that provides very little additional information.

I just double-checked your results for a Fighter wielding a Greataxe with the Great Weapon Fighting style and the Warrior subclass.  I came up with the exact same results, which serves as an independent confirmation for your math.  Thanks!

I hav a couple questions

  1. What do you think about converting to KPR, namely dividing the DPR by 10*level (the growth in HP that most monsters have), this would mean we could compare different levels easier.  KPR represents how much of a normal monster's HP you cut through per round. .25 KPR means 25% of a monster's HP is chipped away because of you attacking.
  2. Now that you've fixed the math for DPR, and possibly converted to KPR, could you try changing the AC to 13, 16 and 18 just to see if the values change any more than they did before?  A high DPR is going to bias your results towards 2 handed weapon users with the fighting style class feature.  
  3. If you wanted to go the extra mile consider calculating the delta DPR due to a +1 to damage, or a +1 to hit to see how sensitive certain classes are to buffs. My bets are on the monk as being the most sensitive.

 

 

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?

borg285 wrote:

I hav a couple questions

  1. What do you think about converting to KPR, namely dividing the DPR by 10*level (the growth in HP that most monsters have), this would mean we could compare different levels easier.  KPR represents how much of a normal monster's HP you cut through per round. .25 KPR means 25% of a monster's HP is chipped away because of you attacking.
  2. Now that you've fixed the math for DPR, and possibly converted to KPR, could you try changing the AC to 13, 16 and 18 just to see if the values change any more than they did before?  A high DPR is going to bias your results towards 2 handed weapon users with the fighting style class feature.  
  3. If you wanted to go the extra mile consider calculating the delta DPR due to a +1 to damage, or a +1 to hit to see how sensitive certain classes are to buffs. My bets are on the monk as being the most sensitive.

1. That wouldn't be difficult.  I could just duplicate the main sheet and have both available.  Is KPR more of a "standard" around here?  Curious which would be more appropriate as the first sheet.

2. So I do have a drop down implemented for AC (and Dex save for), but only I have access privilege on the sheet, so only I can use it.  Not sure how to get around that on Google Docs.  Class balance isn't heavily effected by AC changes, except Paladins and Clerics are already hit capped so get no bonus from lower AC.

3. This would be interesting to implement, I'll have to consider how to add it.  It would probably show up in more extra sheets, but those aren't hard to make.  It would also save me from adding Bard Song and Magic Weapon as above.  Turns out I really don't look forward to adding multiple if statements to every calculation.

 

I'd say +1 damage is going to favor classes that have the highest average number of hits each round (Monks, then Fighters, then anyone with Advantage).  On the other hand, +1 hit will favor classes without advantage that aren't hit capped, and have the highest number of attacks (Fighters).

 

Other additions, fixed Bard cantrip damage (only level 10 CL at level 20, oops), and added Cleric melee, and a seperate Archery section for every class.  Hey look, Rangers are good at something when they burn a 5th level spell slot!

KPR became standard for the DPR king candidates thread when 4e was as its peak.  It just makes comparisons easier and gaining a clearer picture of how long this build will take in combat. 

Regarding the different AC values I would prefer if each level was put up against a different AC. It's not as hard as you imagine. Instead of using a vlookup for hit chance you simply have p=1-.05*(Monst AC - PC to hit - 1)  and 1-(1-p)^2 for advantage. It gets a bit trickier with crits. The difficulty is that monster AC varies so widely for a given level that any model of AC(level) is unreliable.  Here are the models I used for my D&D Next version of the king candidates which I'm trying to get moved to this sub-forum.

 

Monster AC model: 12 + level/4
Monster Dex save model: 13+ level/3
Monster HP Model: 10*level
 

The HP model is accurate, but the other 2 are pretty innacurate (the data has very little correlation to this best fit line) but is at worst as arbitrary as you picking 18 AC and +6 Dex.  I've found with my DPR spreadsheets that having the "static damage" column that gets pulled in for every sub-attack was helpful for things like that.

 

 

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?

Let me try to see what I get for the 11th level ranger, while I also try to bring staggering attack into play. Hence we have:

 

Ranger level 11 (path of the colossus slayer)

STR or DEX : 20 (after the 2 improvements, to a starting score of 16)

Attack bonus: +9 (+4 prof. bonus, +5 str/dex mod)

Weapons: 2 shortswords (finesse, light)

Fighting style: Two Weapon Fighting (+5 damage to the off-hand attack)

Slayer's momentum: I will treat this as an extra d6 damage for every attack, as it is nearly impossible not to get it (especially when using two weapon fighting)

Hunter's mark: an extra d6 damage for every attack (I will assume, due to the purpose of the build of the colossus slayer, that all attacks focus the same target)

 

Target AC is set at 18 (as proposed by the OP).

Chance to hit: 60%

Critical chance: 5%

Number of attacks: 3 (1 with the main hand, one with the off hand, and another one with the main hand gained by the extra attack feature)

Damage of any one of my 3 attacks: d6+5 +d6 +d6 (first d6 from shortsword, the +5 from str/dex modifier, second d6 from slayer's momentum, third d6 from hunter's mark)

Average damage of a single attack: 15.5 (=3.5+5+3.5+3.5)

Critical damage: 23+d6 (=6+5+6+6+d6)

Average critical damage: 26.5 (=23+3.5)

 

 

 

 

Staggering Attack: Here is how I'm thinking of using this. (Let me know if you think I made any mistakes on that)

I will have 3 attacks per round, all dealing the same damage and enjoying the same attack bonus (as I have already shown). So, the first attack of the round, does not benefit at all from the staggering attack feature. What happens with the second attack? If my first attack hits, I roll the second attack with advantage. And if my first attack misses, I roll my second attack normally. Since the events of ''hitting with my first attack'' and ''missing with my first attack'' are disjoint, the same holds for the events of ''rolling with advantage with my second attack'' and ''rolling normally my second attack''. That means, these two events have no intersection. So how do I break down the scenarios for what happens with my second attack? Here is the formula I'll use (without calculating the full extent of the critical for the moment) :  

(chance to hit with first attack)*(chance to hit with second attack with advantage)*(average damage) + (chance to miss with first attack)*(chance to hit with second attack)*(average damage)    (formula 1)

We are still missing some of the extra damage of a possible critical for the second attack. We will use a formula of similar logic, since if we are rolling with advantage we have a better chance of scoring a critical. One important thing to notice, is that I will subtract the average damage of the attack (15.5) from the average critical damage (26.5) in the forthcoming formula, as I already calculated the chance of dealing that amount of damage (15.5) when scoring a critical, since the 5% crit chance is included in the chance to hit (either with, or without advantage). So the formula that gives us the rest of the extra damage from a possible critical, is : 

(chance to hit with first attack)*(crit chance when rolling with advantage)*(26.5 -15.5) + (chance to miss with first attack)*(crit chance)*(26.5 -15.5)    (formula 2)

 

 

Using the same pattern, the two corresponding formulas for the third attack are the following : 

(chance to hit with either the first attack or with the second attack or with both)*(chance to hit with the third attack with advantage)*(average damage) + (chance to miss with both the first and the second attack)*(chance to hit with the third attack)*(average damage)   (formula 3)

 

(chance to hit with either the first attack or with the second attack or with both)*(crit chance when rolling with advantage)*(26.5 -15.5) + (chance to miss with both the first and the second attack)*(crit chance)*(26.5 -15.5)    (formula 4)

 

Now let's calculate these chances I mentioned right above.

chance to hit with first attack = chance to hit with second attack = chance to hit with the third attack = 60%

chance to hit with second attack with advantage = chance to hit with the third attack with advantage = 84%

chance to miss with first attack = 40%

crit chance when rolling with advantage = 9.75%

crit chance = 5%

chance to hit with either the first attack or with the second attack or with both = 84%

chance to miss with both the first and the second attack = 16%

 

 

So now let us calculate the total damage. We will do this in 3 steps, one step for each attack. Here goes:

For the first attack we have: 55%*15.5 + 5%*26.5 = 9.85 damage

For the second attack, adding together the formulas 1 and 2, we have: (60%*84%*15.5 + 40%*60%*15.5) + (60%*9.75%*11 + 40%*5%*11) = 7.812+3.72+0.6435+0.22 = 12.3955 damage

For the third attack, adding together the formulas 3 and 4, we have: (84%*84%*15.5 + 16%*60%*15.5) + (84%*9.75%*11 + 16%*5%*11) = 10.9368+1.488+0.9009+0.088 = 13.4137 damage

 

Adding the damage from all 3 attacks together, we have a total of 9.85+12.3955+13.4137= 35.6592 damage per round.

 

ps: Hmmm, I see in the spreadsheet that you get a corresponding value of 38.85, which is slightly higher than mine. Was that value revised by you to use staggering attack? Did I forget something? The target AC is 18, right? Do I have any assumed bonuses to damage and to hit, that I didn't take into account?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe he simply assumed the ranger would get to apply staggering attack every attack regardless of hitting or not. Calculating true DPR is very complicated. Since the doc is open to comments from anybody, feel free to make a formula yourself and add it as a comment.  Good luck though.  The difference is ~2 DPR, not that much.  I'm hoping that the devs see this class feature as adding too much complexity and make it "if you hit, add no-stacking 1d6 until end of next turn", or even better "add 1d6 to damage rolls"

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?

The target AC varies depending on the level.  If you look at the Calculations sheet, it is listed across the top.  Basically, FLOOR(12+level/4) or 17 at level 20.  Since you're interested, I'd suggest looking through the calculations to see where the discrepancies are.

 

 

Rangers are currently using Slayer's Momentum and Hunter's Mark.  I do assume Slayer's Momentum applies on every attack, since it requires just one hit every other round to keep up.  Staggering Attack however is not modeled at all, as the ability is problematic.  Since it only applies after your first hit, you'll only be able to keep it up for about half of your attacks.  I did, for a while, have a Houseruled Ranger sub-entry that assumed Staggering Attack lasted until the end of the next turn, allowing it to be maintained with consistency.  With this change, the Ranger did fair DPR.  Not top end, but certain in the running.

 
This still is only single target DPR though.  Everything about the Ranger's DPR screeches to a halt if they have to switch targets.  Hunter's Mark no longer applies unless they waste another slot on it, and both Slayer's Momentum and Staggering Attack reset.

 

I'll see about hacking together some sort of model for Staggering Attack, but the ability (and the Ranger class) is in dire need of a buff, and it's in a perfect place on the level chart to make a difference at the right time.

 

What about the self-buffing mage?  He has Haste, Magic Weapon, and Flaming sphere, Polymorph and Mordenkainen’s Sword (spending both 7th, 8th, and 9th level slots on this one for example, not that you'd do it.

 

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?

Aramul wrote:

On reviewing the sheet, the biggest concerns I see (other than the 10/14 Druids being awful at melee), are Paladins peak too quickly, and Fighter dual wielding is too weak compared to a great axe.  Paladins need some of their power spread out to later levels, perhaps pushing Improved Divine Smite to level 16.  Fighters need some flat damage buff to make dual wielding competitve, perhaps a until next turn +1d6 after a crit.

 

For fighters, I'd consider giving them a second offhand attack at level 11 along with their third main hand attack. That would keep them a bit behind greatweapon fighters in raw DPR but make up for it with more attacks per round (great for minion-slaying, etc).

More news!  I broke down and included feats.  They have their own DPR sheet and there is an additional sheet that compares having the feat to not having the feat.  It breaks down like this:

 

Great Weapon Master provides around a 50% increase to damage for everyone.

Dual Wielder provides less than a 10% increase to damage, and is flat out worse than a stat boost if you aren't already at 20.

Archery Master varies a lot by class, but it is only a substantial increase to damage in the hands of characters with very high hit chances.  This is basically just Paladins and Clerics.

 

I had started to model Fencing Master, but was getting negative results across the board.  It's like Archer Master, except you already have a bonus attack from wielding a 2nd weapon, so it actively hurts your overal damage output in most circumstances.

 

Other notes, I am now also modeling Staggering Attack for Rangers.  This does improve their damage to the low-end of competitive, but as I have noted on the sheet, all of their damage is relying on having a single target to hit round after round.  If there is more than one thing they need to hit, their damage will drop significantly.

 

borg285 wrote:

What about the self-buffing mage?  He has Haste, Magic Weapon, and Flaming sphere, Polymorph and Mordenkainen’s Sword (spending both 7th, 8th, and 9th level slots on this one for example, not that you'd do it.

The problem I have with modeling a Mage is that while they may be able to peak highly by burning high level slots, almost every entry* on the list is able to sustain the listed DPR for 4+ encounters a day.  So a level of Flaming Sphere and Magic Weapon need to be determined such that they can last for multiple encounters.  Spells like Mordenkainen's Sword are great, but use a 1/day slot to cast.  If you can make a solid list of spells that can be maintained through several encounters, I will look at modeling it.

 

*Archer Rangers (Swift Quiver 1-2/day), DP Paladins (Divine Power & Magic Weapon both use 4th+ level slots), and Clerics (Divine Power & Magic Weapon use 4th-7th level slots) have issues that don't end by level 20.  Low level Barbarians don't quite have enough Rages, and low level Monks can run out of Ki quickly during fights.

Is there a way to download this table? I want to use it as reference for making houserules in my campaign...

You say you're modeling oath of emnity for paladin dpr.

I don't see that oath in the latest playtest.
Is it in a previous playtest? Previous edition? Or a houserule?

Please let me know where it comes from and/or explain how it works.

Thanks

Valien wrote:

Is there a way to download this table? I want to use it as reference for making houserules in my campaign...

Go to the spreadsheet, File:Download as:[pick your poison]

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?

Thanks for this, I always suspected Dual Wielder was incredibly weak, but this confirms it.  I have a good feeling about the feat now allowing two battleaxes or longswords in the final rules. There are ancillary benefits to having that versatility : namely most magic weapons are one-handed longswords, or some other kind of one-handed weapon. I always felt bad when having to keep extra magic weapons in my backpack.

 

I wonder if Barbarians will ever get a fighting style. It's kind of funny that they're so accurate, that being the guy with the big axe or sword, would only benefit from specializing in using those weapons 6% of the time, compared to 25% of the time for fighters. More bad design. On top of that, weak too. So not only does a 3% damage differential at high levels (.25 * 5 / ~40 DPR = 3%), but works less often for the iconic big-axe wielder. Haha, fail. Such a fake mechanic added in for so little gain in DPR, and no relevance to the iconic class who should be able to use it the most. Talk about trash-worthy.

 

Such a good spreadsheet. Paladins look pretty rockin'. I wonder what you'd get if you MC'ed 2 levels of ranger for their TWF-compatible fighting style, and stacked that up with some other goodies like the barbarian's advantage mechanic, and maybe the fighter's protector feature to cancel out granting advantage due to Reckless Attack.

 

In my game, I will definitely limit multiclassing to two classes, max. There is too much cherry picking to be done here (not that it isn't fun to imagine cool combos though).

-Master List of problems with GWF (currently 25)

 

-Enworld poll of GWF "believability" : 268 polled : 45% not believable, 39% believable, rest don't care.

 

A prima facie self-admission of  trolling on Wotc forums, yet there is no banishment for trolls, ever, they are apparently welcome here :

 

"And as I've said - I'm on these forums to remind myself regularly why I don't play D&D anymore." -Blacksheepcannibal

 

 

TheLastDunedain wrote:

You say you're modeling oath of emnity for paladin dpr.

I don't see that oath in the latest playtest.
Is it in a previous playtest? Previous edition? Or a houserule?

Please let me know where it comes from and/or explain how it works.

Thanks

On 10/14 WotC released an updated class PDF that gives the paladin 2 options for their oath. Oath of Vengance has a Vow of Emnity that grants you advantage against a close foe that just hit yor friend for 1 minute. This emulates the 4e avenger well. The bigest difference is that the avenger sub-classes don't exist, and being able to double-roll now follows the syndrome syndrome

 

When everyone has advantage,

No one has advantage

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?

Aramul wrote:

The target AC varies depending on the level.  If you look at the Calculations sheet, it is listed across the top.  Basically, FLOOR(12+level/4) or 17 at level 20.  Since you're interested, I'd suggest looking through the calculations to see where the discrepancies are.

 

 

Rangers are currently using Slayer's Momentum and Hunter's Mark.  I do assume Slayer's Momentum applies on every attack, since it requires just one hit every other round to keep up.  Staggering Attack however is not modeled at all, as the ability is problematic.  Since it only applies after your first hit, you'll only be able to keep it up for about half of your attacks.  I did, for a while, have a Houseruled Ranger sub-entry that assumed Staggering Attack lasted until the end of the next turn, allowing it to be maintained with consistency.  With this change, the Ranger did fair DPR.  Not top end, but certain in the running.

 
This still is only single target DPR though.  Everything about the Ranger's DPR screeches to a halt if they have to switch targets.  Hunter's Mark no longer applies unless they waste another slot on it, and both Slayer's Momentum and Staggering Attack reset.

 

I'll see about hacking together some sort of model for Staggering Attack, but the ability (and the Ranger class) is in dire need of a buff, and it's in a perfect place on the level chart to make a difference at the right time.

 

 

I'm in favor of simple bonuses, I'd love it if this damage bonus scaled based on ranger level too, to make taking only two levels of ranger less appealing. Same reason I think it's a bad idea to make Reckless Attack work all day long for any class that takes a two level Barbarian dip. I much preferred it when advantage getting was a function of being enraged, which has a built-in scaling by barbarian level, encouraging you to stay single-classed longer.

 

To me, scaling such iconic mechanics by staying in your same class is much better than granting a flat or dice bonus that is ripe for cherry picking. Don't put too much low-hanging fruit on the lowest branches everywhere in the classes, it encourages dipping and not sticking to it. Pathfinder designed archetypes with this in mind (often, not always). If I wanted to play a TWF fighter, my best bet was no longer to take 2 or 6 levels of ranger for their goodies.

-Master List of problems with GWF (currently 25)

 

-Enworld poll of GWF "believability" : 268 polled : 45% not believable, 39% believable, rest don't care.

 

A prima facie self-admission of  trolling on Wotc forums, yet there is no banishment for trolls, ever, they are apparently welcome here :

 

"And as I've said - I'm on these forums to remind myself regularly why I don't play D&D anymore." -Blacksheepcannibal

 

 

For my money, Barbarian 2 is the absolute best multiclass dip for any melee character.  Advantage on initiative and all attacks, and a couple Rages per day to get a nice little damage boost.  Moving this into Rage again (and always have it give enemies advantage), and moving some of the later features out of Rage would help a lot.

 

Gornichex wrote:

Thanks for this, I always suspected Dual Wielder was incredibly weak, but this confirms it.  I have a good feeling about the feat now allowing two battleaxes or longswords in the final rules. There are ancillary benefits to having that versatility : namely most magic weapons are one-handed longswords, or some other kind of one-handed weapon. I always felt bad when having to keep extra magic weapons in my backpack.

Two-weapon fighting is actually really good for most classes.  However, as you mention, Dual Wielder is worthless, as is every other combat feat that isn't Great Weapon Master.

 

Anyone doing houserules for a game should start by nerfing GWM and buffing the other weapon style feats.  Let Dual Wielder give an offhand attack with any action or reaction that attacks instead of just a normal attack action (stacks up with AoOs, charging, Haste, etc.).  Have Archery Master and Fencing Master only impose a -2 penalty if you have Extra Attack.  Don't allow Great Weapon Master to cleave on a crit.

 

GWM would still probably come out ahead with these changes, but not enough so to remove all other options from the game.

I don't mind GWM granting the biggest DPR boost so long as the other options are superior in some other way. For example, Tactical Warrior and Polearm Master both look like great feats to me. I like your changes to Archery Master and Fencing Master, but I'd also be open to something else, since I feel like the "fencing/duelist" style should be more about accuracy than flurries of quick attacks. 

I've made a duplicate of the DPR with Feats sheet and normalized it into KPR if anyone is interested.  Some interesting findings are that it helps the cleric, rogue, and paladin push the suckage point out a few levels. The ranger was unaffected(possibly miscalculation).

The king appears to be the GWM Vow paladin followed close by the archer paladin. Perhaps it's assumming combat advantage somehow.

The barbarian goes up a tier .27 average and .37 while raging to .41 average and .5 KPR while raging.

The fighter gets the same boost as barbarian.

 

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?

I agree, Tactical Warrior and Polearm Master seem like good feats, they just don't directly relate to DPR.  Shield Master also seems very cool, but only if you give the shield the light property so it can be dual-wielded.  None of these have a direct impact on DPR though, they pretty much just use the either the dual short swords or dual wielder entries, with minor variations.

 

GWM Vow Paladin = Great Weapon Master with Vow of Emnity up.  So, yes it has advantage.  Paladin (Vow) for archery is the same thing.  Archery Mastery actually does cause Rangers to lose DPR for the low end of the level range because of the high static bonus to damage they have, and at the high end because Swift Quiver is already giving them 2 extra attacks.  Activating the -5 penalty is only useful from about level 11 to 16.

 

It is perfectly plausible that there are still mistakes in the calcs somewhere, but making the comparison sheets does help pick out the problem areas.  Clerics were dual-wielding great axes for a while, and I know I've fixed a few places where advantage was given out improperly.  As I work and clean up the sheets I fix problems.  There are currently no glaring issues, and I've looked over most of the classes that showed results outside of my expectations.  I would encourage anyone who sees something that seems off to either check out the calculations spreadsheet (if you can read it) or ask me about it.  There might be an issue, or it might be something I've analyzed already that I can explain.

ClockworkNecktie wrote:

I don't mind GWM granting the biggest DPR boost so long as the other options are superior in some other way. For example, Tactical Warrior and Polearm Master both look like great feats to me. I like your changes to Archery Master and Fencing Master, but I'd also be open to something else, since I feel like the "fencing/duelist" style should be more about accuracy than flurries of quick attacks. 

 

 

GWM goes way to far on that DPR boost.  I don't mind some of the feats and combat styles, but they clearly need some adjustments and GWM seems a bit extreme in the what it offers.  I agree that polearm master and tactical warrior look good, and I like fencing master.  It's the attack bonus to AC, not the proficiency bonus, and as long as that continues it's a great use of a reaction.

Sign In to post comments