So, in a number of the discussions, I see people claiming that certain builds do not put out level appropriate damage. I would like to ask people, what do you consider level appropriate damage at certain levels, say 1, 5, 10, 15, 20. Now, this is not a question of what your max damage should be, not everyone wants to twink. This is a question of how much damage should the melee characters be putting out to be effective at the job of killing enemies, and what should their hit bonuses be.
This comes up because in a Fighter sucks thread I put up a build that averages 50 damage (from 2 attacks) at lvl 10 without weapon spec or weapon focus with +17/+12 to hit using a guisarm. I was told that wasn't level appropriate and wouldn't be combat effective. I disagree, but would like to hear other's thoughts.
So, in a number of the discussions, I see people claiming that certain builds do not put out level appropriate damage. I would like to ask people, what do you consider level appropriate damage at certain levels, say 1, 5, 10, 15, 20. Now, this is not a question of what your max damage should be, not everyone wants to twink. This is a question of how much damage should the melee characters be putting out to be effective at the job of killing enemies, and what should their hit bonuses be.
This comes up because in a Fighter sucks thread I put up a build that averages 50 damage (from 2 attacks) at lvl 10 without weapon spec or weapon focus with +17/+12 to hit using a guisarm. I was told that wasn't level appropriate and wouldn't be combat effective. I disagree, but would like to hear other's thoughts.
I am interested in this thread too.
A fighter/mage/Eldritch knight in my group deals an average of 62 points of damage per round, NOT counting keen edge, enlarge, haste etc. I supposed he could almost double that and it looks quite inappropriate to me in comparison to the other characters.
I typically look at what an unbuffed, fully twinked fighter with a 2-hand weapon can do to a target with CR equal to their level. I like to use fighters because they put out good damage consistantly.
At level 60, the best fighter builds from the DPS thread did around 60 damage per round to a target with an AC of 24.
I figure with buffs like haste, bard song, enlarge, etc the fighter can probably double their damage. If their opponent has time to buff(stone skin, shield, etc), the fighter's damage will probably drop by half.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I would like to know this as well. That way I can play the game correctly.
I would hate to be doing it wrong.
I think I love you for this post. :)
I typically look at what an unbuffed, fully twinked fighter with a 2-hand weapon can do to a target with CR equal to their level. I like to use fighters because they put out good damage consistantly.
At level 60, the best fighter builds from the DPS thread did around 60 damage per round to a target with an AC of 24.
I figure with buffs like haste, bard song, enlarge, etc the fighter can probably double their damage. If their opponent has time to buff(stone skin, shield, etc), the fighter's damage will probably drop by half.
Yes, but the best fully twinked fighter should not be what you consider your base line for what you need to do to stay effective. Its your max that you compare to for what can be done. The point was for non-optimal characters about how much damage should you still be capable of to effectively deal with level appropriate threats.
If I build a character with 10 str and give him a rapier and no other damage bonuses, by lvl 10 he is not really capable of killing the monsters he is facing. He could be amasing out of combat, but the moment you enter combat people would be wondering what he is doing there. Its like the wizard picking up a crossbow at lvl 10.
On the other hand, if I build a fighter with a decent str, power attack, but don't take weapon spec/focus, can I still be a productive memeber of the team. At lvl 10, I'm missing out on 2 to hit and damage, but I have picked up 2 more utility feats. Is this character still capable of dealing with level appropriate foes? I think so, but others commented that he could not.
The question is where is the boundary between those 2. How much do you need to be able to do to deal with appropriate challenges?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are missing the point of this thread so far.
Let's recap:
One response talks about a f/m/ek doing x amount of damage but gives no level at which that damage is done, so this could be a 20th level character for all we know (in which case that damage is clearly sub-par).
One response gives the damage output for a level 60 character. I assume that is a typo because otherwise it's not relevant to any Pathfinder games; at least until Paizo puts out a Pthfinder Epic Level rulebook.
And one response was pure snark.
All in all, not off to a great start... ;)
As for me, I can't really speak to levels 10 or higher since we've been cycling through 3 DMs since Pathfinder came out, and none of our campaigns have reached higher than 8th level yet.
I think there are too many variables, even at level 1, to say something like "a fighter should be hitting for about 10 HP per round". What does that mean? 1 longsword attack at d8+5 per round, hitting three attacks every 4 rounds? 1 greatsword Power Attack at 2d6+10 hitting two attacks every 3 rounds? 2 TWF attacks hitting for d6+4 and d6+2 averaging four hits every 3 rounds? Something else? And what about archery builds?
And by level 5 there are far more variables.
And then we add in the fact that a successful adventuring group should probably have many buffs to go around, increasing the number of attacks, the number of hits, and the damage of those hits.
I think I would define it differently: If the group's fighter (etc.) can take down a typical, average enemy in 2 rounds he's doing well, at 3 rounds he's average, and at 4 rounds he may be behind the curve. But even that is very subjective and entirely depends on whether he's fighting mooks, squishy glass cannons, or tough melee-optimized brutes.
Side note: none of my post helps advance this thread any more than the previous posts did...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The standard I would argue for would be, basically, you need to be doing damage faster than your opponents are. In practice, that means you'd need to be able to reliably do enough damage to a [CR = your level] opponent to drop it in two rounds. If you're not chewing through more that half their hit points each round, you're probably going to die, because they're probably doing at least half to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is probably not going to be useful but I think that a character should put out enough damage each round to keep the players happy. For my group, we like combat to last 3-5 rounds with boss fights lasting up to 6 or 7 rounds. That means they are probably putting out less damage than other groups. My group is having a blast though so I think they are putting out just enough damage to meet our goals.
It should be noted that my groups don't spend a lot of time optimizing. They spend more time working up fun things to do. Sure they do a bit of min/maxing but you have to to survive. If someone has a choice between a feat that gives them an option and a feat that gives them a flat damage bonus, my players tend to go for the option.
So long as they are having fun, I don't really care how much damage they are putting out. They actually tend to use more tactics once they realize the enemy is putting out significant damage. I see in-combat healing, fighting defensively, withdrawing from combat, aid another, etc. For us, that is far more fun.
The standard I would argue for would be, basically, you need to be doing damage faster than your opponents are. In practice, that means you'd need to be able to reliably do enough damage to a [CR = your level] opponent to drop it in two rounds. If you're not chewing through more that half their hit points each round, you're probably going to die, because they're probably doing at least half to you.
Right, something like this, although I think dropping a CR=level creature in two round is pushing it a bit (a party of four fighting three CR=APL levels is an "Epic" encounter by PFRPG rules, so four vs. four would be "Super-Epic", I guess).
A level 10 party of four characters could often be expected to fight four CR 8 creatures (a "Hard" encounter), though, so presumably a level 10 fighter should be expected to take on a behir or stone giant by himself. Those both have 100ish hit points, so 50 hit points per round seems reasonable to me.
|
Not sure what level appropriate would be but will post stats for my current character.
Im playing a 5th Swashbuckler TWF with shortswords.
+10/+10 1d6+4/1d6+4
Each attack having a damage range of 5-10 (not counting crits,haste,etc..)
If both attacks hit that gives a damage range of 10-20 damage per round.Not sure what would be LVL appropriate AC/HP for equal CR opponent.
Is that a 3.5 Swashbuckler ? Because I'm kinda curious how did you manage a +10/+10 attack bonus at 5th level ...
level appropriate should be a function of average hitpoints of CR level -2or-3 monsters/enemies.
Like hogarth said. A level 10 character who is a 'damage dealer' should probably be able to drop a typical opponent for their level in about 2 turns. Considering that if the fighter is the main damage dealer in that fight against 4 Stone giants, he will probably have to drop more then 1.
I would say a damage dealing character should be able to do 2/3 of the damage required to end an ecounter that is appropriate of their level. If its CR on level (level 10 CR 10) or one above encounter, this should happen in 5 rounds. If it is Level + 2 CR then it should be 7-8 rounds. And if its level +3 or +4 CR then 10-12 rounds.
I say this because normal difficulty encounters in my experience last around 5 rounds. If they last longer the party is overexpending resources based on the 4 ecnounter day. Harder fights generally take a couple rounds longer. And the really hard fights generally go on for a long time, and the party would expect to be completely spent after it anyway.
Does that seem reasonable, 2/3 the ecounter's HP in 5 rounds for a damage dealer?
Using the 2/3rds of 4 CR-2 total HP in 5 rounds, using the monster creation chart we come up with:
lvl of character: Total enemy HP: DPR
1 : 20 : 4 (assuming 5 HP, since CR1/2 is the lowest on the chart)
2 : 40 : 8
3 : 60 : 12
4 : 80 : 10.6
5 : 120 : 16
6 : 160 : 21
7 : 220 : 29.3
8 : 280 : 37.3
9 : 340 : 45.3
10 : 400 : 53.3
11 : 460 : 61.3
12 : 520 : 69.3
13 : 580 : 77.3
14 : 640 : 85.3
This seems to follow pretty well with my experience and the numbers do not look off to me.
So, in a number of the discussions, I see people claiming that certain builds do not put out level appropriate damage. I would like to ask people, what do you consider level appropriate damage at certain levels, say 1, 5, 10, 15, 20. Now, this is not a question of what your max damage should be, not everyone wants to twink. This is a question of how much damage should the melee characters be putting out to be effective at the job of killing enemies, and what should their hit bonuses be.
This comes up because in a Fighter sucks thread I put up a build that averages 50 damage (from 2 attacks) at lvl 10 without weapon spec or weapon focus with +17/+12 to hit using a guisarm. I was told that wasn't level appropriate and wouldn't be combat effective. I disagree, but would like to hear other's thoughts.
Basically? To gauge a melee character, just take a few sample melee opponents at CR, duel them, and see how you fare. So, if you have a 7th-level melee character, you can try dueling an elephant, a hill giant, and a huge earth elemental. If you're not relevant against one of those, you're probably behind.
(Note: This factors overall performance, including defense, so it's not really a judge of damage output, but the standards for a turtle's damage aren't likely to be the same as the standards for someone who runs in the nude at a dragon, screaming, holding a sword the size of a support beam overhead. For pure offense, you should generally be able to drop a foe at CR in 1-3 rounds.)
One response gives the damage output for a level 60 character. I assume that is a typo because otherwise it's not relevant to any Pathfinder games; at least until Paizo puts out a Pthfinder Epic Level rulebook.
Yeah, typo, should be level 10. I was referring to the level 10 DPR thread from a while back, the best unbuffed characters topped out at around 60 DPR.
I typically look at what an unbuffed, fully twinked fighter with a 2-hand weapon can do to a target with CR equal to their level. I like to use fighters because they put out good damage consistantly.
At level 60, the best fighter builds from the DPS thread did around 60 damage per round to a target with an AC of 24.
I figure with buffs like haste, bard song, enlarge, etc the fighter can probably double their damage. If their opponent has time to buff(stone skin, shield, etc), the fighter's damage will probably drop by half.
Yes, but the best fully twinked fighter should not be what you consider your base line for what you need to do to stay effective. Its your max that you compare to for what can be done. The point was for non-optimal characters about how much damage should you still be capable of to effectively deal with level appropriate threats.
If I build a character with 10 str and give him a rapier and no other damage bonuses, by lvl 10 he is not really capable of killing the monsters he is facing. He could be amasing out of combat, but the moment you enter combat people would be wondering what he is doing there. Its like the wizard picking up a crossbow at lvl 10.
On the other hand, if I build a fighter with a decent str, power attack, but don't take weapon spec/focus, can I still be a productive memeber of the team. At lvl 10, I'm missing out on 2 to hit and damage, but I have picked up 2 more utility feats. Is this character still capable of dealing with level appropriate foes? I think so, but others commented that he could not.
The question is where is the boundary between those 2. How much do you need to be able to do to deal with appropriate challenges?
Fully twinked, unbuffed fighter.
The unbuffed is important for a baseline, because once you get into a balanced party, there should be some buffs to be had.
So even if you are not twinked to the hilt, with party support you should be able to match what an unbuffed fighter does.
For example, with haste, a 50 DPR fighter build should easily be able to break 60 even 70 DPR.
Using the 2/3rds of 4 CR-2 total HP in 5 rounds, using the monster creation chart we come up with:
** spoiler omitted **This seems to follow pretty well with my experience and the numbers do not look off to me.
You should probably also include the AC of the foe as well.
Level appropriate damage almost certainly varies widely from group to group. For instance, a group that plays low fantasy is likely to have a different sense of level appropriate damage vs. a group that play's high fantasy, just as a group that plays with a 15 point buy may have a different number than one that plays with 25 point buy. I think anyone's best bet in figuring what level appropriate damage is for them is to draw comparisons from Table 1-1: Monster Statistics by CR in the Bestiary.
In your example above
This comes up because in a Fighter sucks thread I put up a build that averages 50 damage (from 2 attacks) at lvl 10 without weapon spec or weapon focus with +17/+12 to hit using a guisarm. I was told that wasn't level appropriate and wouldn't be combat effective. I disagree, but would like to hear other's thoughts.
The average relevant stats for a CR 10 creature is 130hp and AC 24.
Compare your numbers to this baseline and you'll get a good sense of where your PCs lie and whether or not it's level appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is probably not going to be useful but I think that a character should put out enough damage each round to keep the players happy. For my group, we like combat to last 3-5 rounds with boss fights lasting up to 6 or 7 rounds. That means they are probably putting out less damage than other groups. My group is having a blast though so I think they are putting out just enough damage to meet our goals.
It should be noted that my groups don't spend a lot of time optimizing. They spend more time working up fun things to do. Sure they do a bit of min/maxing but you have to to survive. If someone has a choice between a feat that gives them an option and a feat that gives them a flat damage bonus, my players tend to go for the option.
So long as they are having fun, I don't really care how much damage they are putting out. They actually tend to use more tactics once they realize the enemy is putting out significant damage. I see in-combat healing, fighting defensively, withdrawing from combat, aid another, etc. For us, that is far more fun.
I think my players fall into this catagory as well, especially after seeing more comments on others characters avg dam output. Our combats usually last 3-4 rounds on things suited to thier level ( and my players seem to like that ) BBEG's well, eight rounds was the max we have had so far..and it was a fight on the run.
wasgreg
Using the 2/3rds of 4 CR-2 total HP in 5 rounds, using the monster creation chart we come up with:
** spoiler omitted **1 : 20 : 4 (assuming 5 HP, since CR1/2 is the lowest on the chart)
2 : 40 : 8
3 : 60 : 12
4 : 80 : 10.6
5 : 120 : 16
6 : 160 : 21
7 : 220 : 29.3
8 : 280 : 37.3
9 : 340 : 45.3
10 : 400 : 53.3
11 : 460 : 61.3
12 : 520 : 69.3
13 : 580 : 77.3
14 : 640 : 85.3This seems to follow pretty well with my experience and the numbers do not look off to me.
Seems reasonable to me. Assuming a 'normal' powered campaign, with standard challenges, it looks to me like your average damage or 50 per round (average, not how much 1 hit does) seems right around average. Assuming ofcourse that is unbuffed damage. Since the damage that comes from the buff is (in my mind) the part provided by the buffer, not the buffee. Either way you can go back to that fighter sucks thread and give pretty reasonable numbers (this is coming from an optimizer) to say your fighter doesnt suck. He/She/it is average.
One response talks about a f/m/ek doing x amount of damage but gives no level at which that damage is done, so this could be a 20th level character for all we know (in which case that damage is clearly sub-par).
You're right, sorry.
We're playing a Greyhawk campaign which averages 8th-9th level.The characters in the party are all built upon straight story and not minmaxed at all, on the contrary they might be considered highly unbalanced to a technical eye - some characters have very low armor class for instance.
Recently a new player has joined, a really technical player. I somehow tried to contain his mathematical approach but could not completely hack in to pieces. In any case he came up with a 9th level character (f1/w5/ek3) which has been minmaxed to hairsplitting precision. He's got two handed sword, transmuter levels char bonuses he placed into strength (str 20), greater magic weapon extended with a rod, scabbard of keen edges he built himself with metamagic feats, masterwork weapon, power attack, arcane strike plus a score of spells he casts before combat in typical SSL Computer Game stratecy (haste, enlarge, etc.). We and up with something like 3d6+20 and 3 attacks.
He might not be the strongest character in the universe, but compared to the other players which never thought about measuring bonuses and on the contrary went against their own advantage to build a character which is closer to their imagination, this seems unfair.
Just that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One response talks about a f/m/ek doing x amount of damage but gives no level at which that damage is done, so this could be a 20th level character for all we know (in which case that damage is clearly sub-par).
You're right, sorry.
We're playing a Greyhawk campaign which averages 8th-9th level.
The characters in the party are all built upon straight story and not minmaxed at all, on the contrary they might be considered highly unbalanced to a technical eye - some characters have very low armor class for instance.
Recently a new player has joined, a really technical player. I somehow tried to contain his mathematical approach but could not completely hack in to pieces. In any case he came up with a 9th level character (f1/w5/ek3) which has been minmaxed to hairsplitting precision. He's got two handed sword, transmuter levels char bonuses he placed into strength (str 20), greater magic weapon extended with a rod, scabbard of keen edges he built himself with metamagic feats, masterwork weapon, power attack, arcane strike plus a score of spells he casts before combat in typical SSL Computer Game stratecy (haste, enlarge, etc.). We and up with something like 3d6+20 and 3 attacks.
He might not be the strongest character in the universe, but compared to the other players which never thought about measuring bonuses and on the contrary went against their own advantage to build a character which is closer to their imagination, this seems unfair.
Just that.
I think the problem here is that COMBAT-DAMAGE is being used as the measure of success, and while pathfinder is very combat centric, damage is NOT the only form of party contribution. The EK in this scenario has been built to fight. The other players probably have made characters that might be relatively decent combatants, but have diversified skills which dilute their combat prowess but allow them a way to contribute in other roleplaying endeavors. That doesn't make them badly designed, or the EK's combat advantage unfair. The EK is just more focused. His focus will mean that in situations outside of his focus he has less of an impact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
9th level character (f1/w5/ek3) which has been minmaxed ...blah blah blah
Do NONE of your adversaries cast Dispell Magic? One good targeted dispell and the dude is looking a lot less twinky. Sure, he's still swinging a MW sword for X dam/rnd, but it's probably a lot more inline with the other players.
Also, why does he get so much time to buff up? Swarm them with goblins who steal their gear, pull their hair, and generally make it impossible to get off more than one spell before he has to start hitting things. Make him NEED the other characters help, even once, and they will be more supportive of his accomplishments in dealing damage.
And has been noted, yes, he swings good sword, but can he dance? disarm traps? read exotic languages? balance on a greased pole suspended above a pit of crocodiles? There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy :)
I think the problem here is that COMBAT-DAMAGE is being used as the measure of success, and while pathfinder is very combat centric, damage is NOT the only form of party contribution. The EK in this scenario has been built to fight. The other players probably have made characters that might be relatively decent combatants, but have diversified skills which dilute their combat prowess but allow them a way to contribute in other roleplaying endeavors. That doesn't make them badly designed, or the EK's combat advantage unfair. The EK is just more focused. His focus will mean that in situations outside of his focus he has less of an impact.
Part of the reason I started this thread was because I wanted to know how much damage a non-twinked combat character would have to do to remain relevant in the combat by attacking. Yes, there are other things that they can do, and hopefully they designed their character with some leadway. But, sometimes, you get into an encounter where your schtick just doesn't work, like a bard focusing on dazzling display facing undead. He has all mind affecting offensive abilities that the undead are immune to, so he is likely going to be attacking. Can he stay relevant or will he be better off trying to do something else, and where is the breaking point between those 2?
This idea can also help with the EK above durring character design. If the EK player knows about how effective his allies are, he can design his character to be in line with their power, rather than being the most twinked out he can be. Shift the goal posts on him from combat twinked to in line with others. Personally, I find this kind of optimazation more challenging and fun. The DPR Olympics were interesting not because you were trying to max out damage, but because there were limits that prevented you from just focusing on damage and you needed other survivability. If instead of telling me to make someone who hits 70 DPR at lvl 10, you tell me to hit ~50 DPR at lvl 10 and have annother combat and non-combat schtick, you get a more interesting character who will be more in line with what non-combat focused players will make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem here is that COMBAT-DAMAGE is being used as the measure of success, and while pathfinder is very combat centric, damage is NOT the only form of party contribution. The EK in this scenario has been built to fight. The other players probably have made characters that might be relatively decent combatants, but have diversified skills which dilute their combat prowess but allow them a way to contribute in other roleplaying endeavors. That doesn't make them badly designed, or the EK's combat advantage unfair. The EK is just more focused. His focus will mean that in situations outside of his focus he has less of an impact.Part of the reason I started this thread was because I wanted to know how much damage a non-twinked combat character would have to do to remain relevant in the combat by attacking. Yes, there are other things that they can do, and hopefully they designed their character with some leadway. But, sometimes, you get into an encounter where your schtick just doesn't work, like a bard focusing on dazzling display facing undead. He has all mind affecting offensive abilities that the undead are immune to, so he is likely going to be attacking. Can he stay relevant or will he be better off trying to do something else, and where is the breaking point between those 2?
This idea can also help with the EK above durring character design. If the EK player knows about how effective his allies are, he can design his character to be in line with their power, rather than being the most twinked out he can be. Shift the goal posts on him from combat twinked to in line with others. Personally, I find this kind of optimazation more challenging and fun. The DPR Olympics were interesting not because you were trying to max out damage, but because there were limits that prevented you from just focusing on damage and you needed other survivability. If instead of telling me to make someone who hits 70 DPR at lvl 10, you tell me to hit ~50 DPR at lvl 10 and have annother...
well the DPR olympics did mean you had to focus on survivability as well as damage output, but really that's all it required. Consequently you didn't see many resources spent to learn "flower arrangement" or some-such.
steering back towards the topic at hand ...
if there was a type of character to compare for level appropriate damage, its not the fighter. The fighter is supposed to be better than other classes in dealing combat damage on a reliable basis. That's what he does. IMHO You shouldn't make him the baseline and expect everyone else to compete, unless you can quantify their indirect damage contributions, such as buffs, battlefield control, etc.
Your average bard will generally do less damage than a fighter, because he gets out of combat skill use, and other ways to shine. Its good to keep in mind that the fighter's contribution to the party is that he extra capable in combat.
well the DPR olympics did mean you had to focus on survivability as well as damage output, but really that's all it required. Consequently you didn't see many resources spent to learn "flower arrangement" or some-such.
steering back towards the topic at hand ...
if there was a type of character to compare for level appropriate damage, its not the fighter. The fighter is supposed to be better than other classes in dealing combat damage on a reliable basis. That's what he does. IMHO You shouldn't make him the baseline and expect everyone else to compete, unless you can quantify their indirect damage contributions, such as buffs, battlefield control, etc.
Your average bard will generally do less damage than a fighter, because he gets out of combat skill use, and other ways to shine. Its good to keep in mind that the fighter's contribution to the party is that he extra capable in combat.
The fighter is a good baseline for a "primary damage dealer". Rogues, druids, paladins, rangers, blaster sorc/wizard, battle clerics, etc can all fill this role, but fighters are the most reliable.
If you are a bard, you are probably not a primary damage dealer.
A balanced party should bring about 2-3 primary damage dealers worth of damage to the table. This can be 4 characters that all deal 50-75% of what a primary damage dealer should. This can be one character that gets buffed by the rest of the party and does 2.5 times what a primary damage dealer normally does(although it is generally a bad idea to put all your eggs in one basket so to speak). As long as the the party as a whole can put out the damage to drop the creatures in a reasonable amount of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I think that the fighter is a good base line to use.
It's a question of what your PC brings to the table...
My perspective is that using the fighter as a baseline skews the expectations. The fighter should be better than baseline. In my experience fighters in my games out damage everybody. This is in part due to party buffs, but is is also because at the base, they start off doing generally more damage than other classes.
Treating fighters as baseline also contributes to the perception that "fighters can't have nice things". Making them baseline means you expect other classes to surpass the fighter as a matter of course, about as often as they don't quite match the fighter. My experience doesn't match that. On occasion a rogue gets a nice round of sneak attacks, or the paladin faces off against a dragon/demon/undead, but those are special cases.
Now if you are looking for the fighter to be a good idea of what the high-end of level appropriate damage is, then I think the fighter does nicely as a metric. His damage is usually the same from round to round, so its consistent. the fighter's damage is also generally not conditional like sneak attack, or favored enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, rather than using the fighter, I would rather it be a more generic ammount of damage you need to be able to dish out to fill the role in a generic party. It shouldn't be based off of what any one class can do, but what needs to be done to the monsters to eliminate them. Thats why Charrender recommended the "deal 2/3rs of the total enemy HP in 5 rounds for a hard fight of 4 CR-2 monsters." It does not matter what class you compare that too, if you deal that much damage in an average round you can perform as your party's primary damage dealer. Now, if this is a good baseline is annother question, but it does not appear that far off.
A fighter can easily hit those numbers, without even taking weapon focus and spec, and many other classes can do it with minor work. Some classes need to struggle more than others, but you get other bennefits for that.
Actually, rather than using the fighter, I would rather it be a more generic ammount of damage you need to be able to dish out to fill the role in a generic party. It shouldn't be based off of what any one class can do, but what needs to be done to the monsters to eliminate them. Thats why Charrender recommended the "deal 2/3rs of the total enemy HP in 5 rounds for a hard fight of 4 CR-2 monsters." It does not matter what class you compare that too, if you deal that much damage in an average round you can perform as your party's primary damage dealer. Now, if this is a good baseline is annother question, but it does not appear that far off.
A fighter can easily hit those numbers, without even taking weapon focus and spec, and many other classes can do it with minor work. Some classes need to struggle more than others, but you get other bennefits for that.
Or use one to verify the other.
If you look at the damage needed to kill 4 CR 8 opponents. 53 damage per round.
An unbuffed level 10 falchion fighter puts out around 60 DPR.
I would say those are both within a very reasonable margin of error.
Based on both of those numbers, I would say an optimum level 10 party as a whole needs to put out 150 DPR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, rather than using the fighter, I would rather it be a more generic ammount of damage you need to be able to dish out to fill the role in a generic party. It shouldn't be based off of what any one class can do, but what needs to be done to the monsters to eliminate them. Thats why Charrender recommended the "deal 2/3rs of the total enemy HP in 5 rounds for a hard fight of 4 CR-2 monsters." It does not matter what class you compare that too, if you deal that much damage in an average round you can perform as your party's primary damage dealer. Now, if this is a good baseline is annother question, but it does not appear that far off.
A fighter can easily hit those numbers, without even taking weapon focus and spec, and many other classes can do it with minor work. Some classes need to struggle more than others, but you get other bennefits for that.
I agree, i dont think we are looking at how much damage any character should do. Some characters dont do damage and thats fine. I battlefield control wizard might not do any damage and still contribute. A skill monkey bard might also not do much damage but still contribute. The idea here, is how much damage should a damage dealer be doing in combat for his party to be able to be mostly successful. Class has nothing to do with it. If your main damage dealer is an evoker, thats fine as long as he is dishing out enough damage for the party to be able to defeat level appropriate threats.
The idea is to be able to say, character X is looking to be a primary damage dealer for a party. He puts out Y damage against level appropriate foes. Is Y too little? Crazy high? How will this impact X's party and their encounters?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, in a number of the discussions, I see people claiming that certain builds do not put out level appropriate damage. I would like to ask people, what do you consider level appropriate damage at certain levels, say 1, 5, 10, 15, 20. Now, this is not a question of what your max damage should be, not everyone wants to twink. This is a question of how much damage should the melee characters be putting out to be effective at the job of killing enemies, and what should their hit bonuses be.
This comes up because in a Fighter sucks thread I put up a build that averages 50 damage (from 2 attacks) at lvl 10 without weapon spec or weapon focus with +17/+12 to hit using a guisarm. I was told that wasn't level appropriate and wouldn't be combat effective. I disagree, but would like to hear other's thoughts.
If you want to walk tall and do appropriate damage there's only three things you need.
Power attack, Catch off guard, and a big stick.
I made a level 10 black powder inquisitor with a hackbut gun.
2d12+2+3+4+3+3
Bane + judgment + deadly aim + Wrath + Divine favor
Add cyclops helm. Can do a Max of 156+12 damage.
If you add also Flames of the Faithful that will increase it by another max of 36 fire damage.
Very simple way to deal up to 156+12+36= 204 damage bypassing all DR and possibly counting as Good, EVIL, Lawful or Chaotic AND also Adamantine.
and thats not even thinking about what the damage would be when adding rapid reload and rapid fire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
how do you make it count as all thos things? it's still a shot and so is affected by DR.
Also, kudos on necroing a 6 yo thread.
how do you make it count as all thos things? it's still a shot and so is affected by DR.
Also, kudos on necroing a 6 yo thread.
Oh I reread bane. Turns out it doesn't do what I thought. Oh well. the weapon damage can count as Adamantine / Magic / Alignment and if using silver bullet also count as silver or Cold iron depending. It all depends on how well you do at identifying the enemy.
And Danke.
As to how to make it count. These spells last 1 minute to 1/level to 1 round /level which is still 10 rounds.
Setting it up. Roll stealth. Have massive stealth bonus.
Take 3 rounds to set up spells. 1 round to set up Hackbut 5th round final activate bane and Judgment deadly aim. All bonuses are different types so they all stack.
This is assuming the best outcome. Top it all off with cyclops helm and you got a Mega cannon. Shockingly enough a pistol can do crazy damage as well with this set up and it takes 1 round less to prepare.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These benchmarks are my go-to resource for figuring this out. I go for the green numbers, which is ~ 1/4 of an average monster's HP. The orange numbers are perfectly fine for a more laid back game, or for a character where damage is the fallback strategy- but I find even in laid back games, if the GM throws something harder than the party is used to dealing with, if characters don't at least meet orange benchmarks then the party might fall apart. Ignore the blue benchmarks, those simply serve as a good sign you may be optimizing *too* much :)
Beyond that, my rule of thumb is that you want to be able to break through 2 DR consistently at level 1, 5 DR consistently by level 3, and 10 DR as early as level 5. The green benchmarks will serve you well here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem here is that COMBAT-DAMAGE is being used as the measure of success, and while pathfinder is very combat centric, damage is NOT the only form of party contribution. The EK in this scenario has been built to fight. The other players probably have made characters that might be relatively decent combatants, but have diversified skills which dilute their combat prowess but allow them a way to contribute in other roleplaying endeavors. That...
That isn't really true though. It's certainly true of the fighter and a couple others, since they aren't given any non-combat abilities at all, but it isn't even vaguely true of the majority of PF classes, even some of the non-spellcasters. They can do knowledge, trapfinding, wilderness, face shenanigans, and/or other utility stuff while still being built for top fighting ability. And then you get the classes that can do a fair bit of those AND fight AND have other class abilities AND get spells.
Built to fight does not at all mean a lack of diversified skills that contribute in other endeavors. Only a handful of classes are crippled to that degree.
I like the Benchpress thing as well never new what EDV meant though.