Undone |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Undone wrote:I don't believe this to actually be true. I've changed some things on my samurai and still just barely meet BigDTBones numbers WHILE challenging. and come out slightly above cheapy's while not.Arbane the Terrible wrote:The latter is more likely.Objection. The builds given here are not 'average'.
Either that, or every single person I've ever played Pathfinder with is ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE at optimization. (Which is admittedly not out of the question.)
Stop using the samuri, rogue, or ninja your DPR will improve.
wraithstrike |
Objection. The builds given here are not 'average'.
Either that, or every single person I've ever played Pathfinder with is ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE at optimization. (Which is admittedly not out of the question.)
You need to be more specific. Which "average" numbers are you not meeting? The average numbers should be 2 rounding.
Deadmanwalking |
Objection. The builds given here are not 'average'.
Either that, or every single person I've ever played Pathfinder with is ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE at optimization. (Which is admittedly not out of the question.)
Bear in mind that BigDTBone's chart is high average damage. Like for a full BAB Class focused on it. For a whole round, not just one attack.
But if even those people aren't managing something like that (maybe only while under Haste at higher levels, though you should always be Hasted for important fights at higher levels)...yeah, people you play with may not be that good at optimization.
Maybe show us a build they use and we can run a DPR calculator over it and see if it's as different as you think.
Marroar Gellantara |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always use "simple fighter" as a DPR metric. A basic two-hander fighter starting 18 strength, using power attack with his main weapon group. I would consider that solid DPR.
For the high end of reasonable I estimate a single weapon hyper focused Fighter with buff spells and ideal gear for DPR. Anything higher than that, I consider cheese and avoid.
Noticeable DPR would be the 10 strength dex rogue that gets one sneak attack per turn, assuming that hits consistently. Anything less and you might as well not be attacking.
Specific numbers depend on the campaign. Sometimes you run into a string of enemies with high AC and low will saves. During those times, your DPR doesn't matter.
Undone |
I always use "simple fighter" as a DPR metric. A basic two-hander fighter starting 18 strength, using power attack with his main weapon group. I would consider that solid DPR.
Statements like this are what lead me to believe people do not play 10+ level games or they fall apart before people get there.
For the high end of reasonable I estimate a single weapon hyper focused Fighter with buff spells and ideal gear for DPR. Anything higher than that, I consider cheese and avoid.
Fighters are far from the high end of reasonable DPR. They do not appear within the top 20 builds for a reason. Fighters rely on feats. Feats mostly suck. You need class features to do good damage. Animal companion classes, archery classes, lancing classes, undead raisers, exct.
Noticeable DPR would be the 10 strength dex rogue that gets one sneak attack per turn, assuming that hits consistently. Anything less and you might as well not be attacking.
A dex based 10 str rogue is the point in which you'd be better served retaining to adept levels.
Specific numbers depend on the campaign. Sometimes you run into a string of enemies with high AC and low will saves. During those times, your DPR doesn't matter.
This is not true if the AC 28 still means you hit on a 3/3/8. The low will saves only matter if you want to expand resources instead of winning init and killing them before they go.
But if even those people aren't managing something like that (maybe only while under Haste at higher levels, though you should always be Hasted for important fights at higher levels)...yeah, people you play with may not be that good at optimization.
I think this is the most contentious point. The DPR I assume is (starting at 5) hasted while full attacking. Obviously not all cases are this but for the sake of benchmark DPR I feel while hasted you should take no more than 1 full attack to kill the target if it's not above your level.
Arbane the Terrible |
Arbane the Terrible wrote:The latter is more likely.Objection. The builds given here are not 'average'.
Either that, or every single person I've ever played Pathfinder with is ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE at optimization. (Which is admittedly not out of the question.)
Okay, edjumacate me, sensei.
Take a character who's NOT a maxxed-out Barbarian with a support buffer, and show me how to get these kind of numbers.
For example, I've got a Battle Oracle who can manage to eke out about 22 DPR (when she hits), going up to about 32 when buffed. This is at LEVEL 6. Obviously, I am a hideous gimp.
(18 strength, power attack, greatsword. Buffs are Enlarge Person, Bull's Strength, Divine Favor, and Prayer.)
What am I doing wrong, aside from not playing a barbarian whith a buffbot?
(And the other members of the party are a witch, a rogue, a ranger, and a monk who tends to be our best hitter. YES, WE ARE SCREWED.)
And nope, nobody in the group can cast Haste. I am counting the XP 'til Blessing of Fervor. :-P
Bear in mind that BigDTBone's chart is high average damage. Like for a full BAB Class focused on it. For a whole round, not just one attack.
Okay, that makes slightly more sense, but still... Okay, at level 1, a barbarian can manage about 15 damage on average. That makes sense. Where's the next +5 coming from at level 2?
Bandw2 |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel undone and his friends play a lot of the same builds continuously.
I picked Samruai because it's a martial with several abilities that allow it to simply not die, mixed in with Ronin to make me resist will saves better.
I feel like these builds go all offense and need to kill the enemy before they die kind of shtick.
also, once again talking AVERAGE numbers here, the top 20 builds shouldn't even get mentioned.
Undone |
Undone wrote:Arbane the Terrible wrote:The latter is more likely.Objection. The builds given here are not 'average'.
Either that, or every single person I've ever played Pathfinder with is ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE at optimization. (Which is admittedly not out of the question.)
Okay, edjumacate me, sensei.
Take a character who's NOT a maxxed-out Barbarian with a support buffer, and show me how to get these kind of numbers.
For example, I've got a battle Oracle who can manage to eke out about 22 DPR (when she hits), going up to about 32 when buffed. This is at LEVEL 6. Obviously, I am a hideous gimp.
First off 3/4ths BAB classes who don't have a gimmick be it Animal, swift action spells, fake full BAB (Flurry), exct tend to have very meh to bad DPR. The oracle is a particularly bad combatant because it has utility.
Ok I'm not going to assume a slew of buffs I'm going to assume you personally channel vigor prior to kicking the door in for important rooms.
Assuming you're human with 16 base str 18 post bump and PA and the very reasonable +1 weapon and +2 str belt puts you at +7 damage from STR, and 6 from PA with 1 from your weapon. This with 2d6 places you at 21 average damage with an extremely conservative build and 42 damage while channeled. As damage is basically the worst thing a cleric or oracle can do I don't see this as a problem. Your damage is so low it endangers the party and as you level up it becomes more and more apparent and you should focus on casting spells.
If you had chosen to go with lancing or the nature mystery you would at least scale up better since you could have an over leveled horse. I can definitely make an oracle which reaches the numbers but the battle mystery is a trap because it's not actually good at what it does.
There is a way to drastically surpass these numbers by 6th level though although your GM may not allow you to raise the tough enemies you face.
I feel undone and his friends play a lot of the same builds continuously.
I've built 9 different PFS characters and 4 home game characters. Only 2 are the same and I didn't get to play the PFS one much.
There is exactly 1 copied build besides that in all of our games comboed and that's the wizard because he just likes playing transmuter wizards. His fluff is that he's the nurse jenny/officer joy of pathfinder with 200 identical relatives all over the world.I picked Samruai because it's a martial with several abilities that allow it to simply not die, mixed in with Ronin to make me resist will saves better.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the tier system. There is a reason samuri is ranked only 1 notch above rogue in the tiers.
I feel like these builds go all offense and need to kill the enemy before they die kind of shtick.
As noted the zen archer, summoner, druid, and so on are high on the offense but probably also drastically overshadow such characters defensively.
also, once again talking AVERAGE numbers here, the top 20 builds shouldn't even get mentioned.
The top 20 builds are all over the "2x the DPR needed" marked. Average builds should be at least half as good.
Marroar Gellantara |
There is a difference between DPR and being good at combat.
Fighter full attack damage is good. Fighters actually getting a full attack off at high levels is an entirely different matter.
When I optimize my magus DPR, it is to be better than a fighter's. Fighter is a good base line because the calculation is easy and you can be assured such DPR was taken into consideration during monster design and CR designation.
Undone |
There is a difference between DPR and being good at combat.
Fighter full attack damage is good. Fighters actually getting a full attack off at high levels is an entirely different matter.When I optimize my magus DPR, it is to be better than a fighter's. Fighter is a good base line because the calculation is easy and you can be assured such DPR was taken into consideration during monster design and CR destination.
Except this isn't true as I noted earlier.
The fighter is ONLY the baseline full attack DPR for the FIRST BESTIARY. In all subsequent books the monsters are tougher.
Marroar Gellantara |
I feel like these builds go all offense and need to kill the enemy before they die kind of shtick.
Rocket tag is a big issue in games where the GM trys to make things hard and the party counter optimizes.
The game systematically rewards focusing on offense over defense. You expend less resources to handle harder encounters. Of course take those two terms as generics that do not refer to only damage.
Defensive builds tend to shine more when everyone is just trying to have a good time, or when you need to carry the party a little. Issues crop up when the GM gets mad that he "can't challenge you" so he cranks up the offense until no one's defenses matter.
Another issue is that the in-game intended time for fights is very short. The higher levels you go, the more the fight is decided before the initiative roll.
Undone |
Undone wrote:The fighter is ONLY the baseline full attack DPR for the FIRST BESTIARY. In all subsequent books the monsters are tougher.I'll have to disagree here. CR for CR the stats seem to be pretty much in-line with each other.
I disagree and I have examples all over the place.
For example the Nessian war hound vs the witchfire. You'd be hard pressed to find a group where the witch fire wouldn't be much harder. Even with fire resistance it's highly likely to be rolling 12d6 at what is effectively a better to hit bonus vs 4d6+12.
Same with say the Dark Naga and Sarglagon both CR 8 but the latter has better SLA's, better defenses, an aura higher damage and a better poison. This is a running trend.
Bandw2 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so Undone i feel my previous comment was a bit more aggressive than i intended to be. I mostly mean you probably create builds like someone paints by numbers. You simply know this color goes here, that one goes there, and then bam, party that wrecks face.
me? i was like, "i haven't played a samurai yet" then liked it because of it's abilities and then simply not dying. it suffers from what I like to call monkism, great at not dying, but not much else. still you'd think I could beat an average fighter, which looking at numbers I do fairly well against the fighter, and then cover his issues.
the monk is a very good class if you were trying to fight another PC, as you'd make their stuff run out and then slowly take the advantage. except pathfinder want's you to conserve resources as it bases it's game's difficulty on resource attrition. If you instead have a single high CR encounter in a day, then it pays off a lot more, but everyone will sleep with few used spells or class abilities.
Undone |
so Undone i feel my previous comment was a bit more aggressive than i intended to be. I mostly mean you probably create builds like someone paints by numbers. You simply know this color goes here, that one goes there, and then bam, party that wrecks face.
It helps that I type quickly. And it's fine.
me? i was like, "i haven't played a samurai yet" then liked it because of it's abilities and then simply not dying. it suffers from what I like to call monkism, great at not dying, but not much else. still you'd think I could beat an average fighter, which looking at numbers I do fairly well against the fighter, and then cover his issues.
Except after the CRB and definitely by ACG the monk has incredible damage in addition to being really good at not dying. Our group just avoids classes in the tier 5 catagory. Fighter, Base Brawler, Ninja, Rogue, Cavalier, Samurai are all examples of tier 5s which aren't even really good at their jobs. If you just avoid these classes and make your concept with a better class you'll be better off. The fighter is a bad barbarian, the brawler is a bad monk, the ninja and rogue are bad slayers/investigators, the cavalier and samuri are just... bad at doing their jobs and several classes over the top replace them at everything they do.
the monk is a very good class if you were trying to fight another PC, as you'd make their stuff run out and then slowly take the advantage. except pathfinder want's you to conserve resources as it bases it's game's difficulty on resource attrition. If you instead have a single high CR encounter in a day, then it pays off a lot more, but everyone will sleep with few used spells or class abilities.
The current monk (All material to ACG) is actually very good damage wise and kills most things in 1-2 rounds at higher levels.
Uwotm8 |
Objection. The builds given here are not 'average'.
Either that, or every single person I've ever played Pathfinder with is ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE at optimization. (Which is admittedly not out of the question.)
That you're like me and build to concept rather than optimization even if that means actively not optimizing.
Blakmane |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blakmane wrote:DPR exists in a vacuum. It's a benchmark for character building. By design it won't have a direct correlation to a game, but will only give you a base to predict performance compared to another hypothetical.Undone wrote:
If you're going for a 2 round kill any DPR in excess of the above is wasted invest in something else. .This isn't true. Not all monsters have exactly CR equivalent AC and HP. Similarly, there is variance in how much damage you actually do each round (weapon damage early, iteratives later). DPR excess of the above ensures you 2 round more enemies in the book, and do so more consistently (with the possibility of 1 rounding weaker enemies or when you get a lucky set of rolls).
Careful not to theorycraft so much it ends up in a vacuum.
You've missed the point. Models are created in a vacuum, but not applied in a vacuum. Undone has made an applied statement on how to build a character ('in excess of the above is wasted invest in something else') which is simply untrue.
The point is that DPR values aren't breakpoints, which undone's statement heavily implies. If you are aiming for, say, 1 round kills, increasing your DPR past these values is still worthwhile and is not wasted. Rather, the opportunity cost of each point of DPR slowly increases past these points.If you think of a graph with the X axis being DPR and the Y axis being opportunity cost, the data is roughly sigmoidal and the values you and undone have created are the intersect of the two asymptotes.
Arbane the Terrible |
Arbane are you not able to do 11 points of damage at level 1?
Level one, sure. It's the levels AFTER that where I don't see where all the extra damage is supposed to be coming from.
My group's currently level 6 going on 7, and the GM insists on giving all the enemies bonus HP because he thinks we're 'too strong'. :-P
wraithstrike |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wraithstrike wrote:Arbane are you not able to do 11 points of damage at level 1?Level one, sure. It's the levels AFTER that where I don't see where all the extra damage is supposed to be coming from.
My group's currently level 6 going on 7, and the GM insists on giving all the enemies bonus HP because he thinks we're 'too strong'. :-P
DPR tends to jump when you get additional attacks or other abilities come on line and/or improve. Other than that it won't increase too much.
If your party uses buff spells those should be considered also.
Meeting 1-round DPR is not always easy, but 2 rounding an opponent is not that difficult for most build focused on damage.
Deadmanwalking |
Okay, edjumacate me, sensei.
Take a character who's NOT a maxxed-out Barbarian with a support buffer, and show me how to get these kind of numbers.
Sure, 8th level Fighter, has Haste cast on him (but no other buffs), wields a +1 Greatsword, with Str 22 including items, Weapon Focus and Specialization, Power Attack, and Improved Critical. Really standard Fighter load-out.
Expected damage is 57. This guy does 69.6. He does less when not Hasted (a mere 43.5), but Haste (or Blessing of Fervor) is a party-wide buff expected to be available by this point.
And that's a Fighter, a Barbarian or Slayer is gonna do better, and even ignoring Favored Enemy and Smite, Rangers and Paladins not a lot worse (assuming the same Feats sans Improved Critical and Weapon Specialization, they do 52.91...add in Favored Enemy or Smite and they shoot way past the Fighter). And everyone could be significantly boosted with Furious Focus (up to 57.2 for the Ranger or Paladin, for example).
For example, I've got a Battle Oracle who can manage to eke out about 22 DPR (when she hits), going up to about 32 when buffed. This is at LEVEL 6. Obviously, I am a hideous gimp.
(18 strength, power attack, greatsword. Buffs are Enlarge Person, Bull's Strength, Divine Favor, and Prayer.)
What am I doing wrong, aside from not playing a barbarian whith a buffbot?
You're taking a character in isolation at a level where they're not at their best. Specifically, a level where the chart expects multiple attacks (from BAB, Haste, or both) and you lack any.
With Buffs going, that character does indeed have only a 22 DPR or so...but add in Haste and that more than doubles to 47 and well over the 42 expected at that level.
So...basically, that chart expects you to have one more attack. At 8th when you grab Blessing of Fervor expect your DPR to come online at the expected values (when buffed anyway...but that's always a necessary prerequisite for Oracles and Clerics equaling full BAB classes).
(And the other members of the party are a witch, a rogue, a ranger, and a monk who tends to be our best hitter. YES, WE ARE SCREWED.)
And nope, nobody in the group can cast Haste. I am counting the XP 'til Blessing of Fervor. :-P
And there's a lot of your problem right there. A 6th level DPR calculator expects your character to have multiple attacks...and yours does not. That hurts DPR a lot.
Deadmanwalking wrote:Bear in mind that BigDTBone's chart is high average damage. Like for a full BAB Class focused on it. For a whole round, not just one attack.Okay, that makes slightly more sense, but still... Okay, at level 1, a barbarian can manage about 15 damage on average. That makes sense. Where's the next +5 coming from at level 2?
Wrong chart. That's the 'really high' chart, the one I'm talking about is the one that starts at 10 damage at 1st and goes to 15 at 2nd.
The chart that starts at 15 at 1st is the one for really extreme builds (ala 'barbarian with a buffbot').
Undone |
You've missed the point. Models are created in a vacuum, but not applied in a vacuum. Undone has made an applied statement on how to build a character ('in excess of the above is wasted invest in something else') which is simply untrue.
A fair point.
The point is that DPR values aren't breakpoints, which undone's statement heavily implies. If you are aiming for, say, 1 round kills, increasing your DPR past these values is still worthwhile and is not wasted. Rather, the opportunity cost of each point of DPR slowly increases past these points.If you think of a graph with the X axis being DPR and the Y axis being opportunity cost, the data is roughly sigmoidal and the values you and undone have created are the intersect of the two asymptotes.
I disagree here though. DPR values are break points because pathfinder is a binary game when fighting. You're either up or down. The number of rounds needed to go down is a break point. Increasing your damage 1 point when you do 100 DPR to DPR 104 has very little/no real practical value.
DPR tends to jump when you get additional attacks or other abilities come on line and/or improve. Other than that it won't increase too much.
If your party uses buff spells those should be considered also.
Meeting 1-round DPR is not always easy, but 2 rounding an opponent is not that difficult for most build focused on damage.
This. Meeting 2 round DPR is easy if you power attack and have 18 str. Meeting 1 round DPR requires you to consciously build for good damage, and possibly be buffed with haste (Which I should make clear is assumed in monster stat blocks at higher levels.).
The chart that starts at 15 at 1st is the one for really extreme builds (ala 'barbarian with a buffbot')
It's for anyone with
1) Haste + Full BAB
2) Using archery
3) Lancing
4) Using animal companion
5) Using a gimmick (Smite, come and get me, favored enemy, exct)
It's expected you meet those numbers if you are some/any of the above. Every single druid who goes STR based with an animal companion hits every single one of those marks and often exceeds them. It's not hard to exceed the numbers.
Losobal |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the potential for this, if we could hammer down some reasonable guidelines you could then in turn use this to modify effective CR, if you were so inclined. Or give the GM a better sense of what CR threats to actually throw at the PCs. As we see in the various threads, you can stick with Char Level and Wealth By Level and still end up with some ginzu-buzzsaw-tacnukes of doom that hit well above their APL/character level weight.
Celanian |
I disagree here though. DPR values are break points because pathfinder is a binary game when fighting. You're either up or down. The number of rounds needed to go down is a break point. Increasing your damage 1 point when you do 100 DPR to DPR 104 has very little/no real practical value.
Not true. Damage values are very rarely fixed, so break points are fluid. A barbarian at 1st level who does 2d6+9 damage has an expected 1 round kill of a 15 HP foe if you go by simply expected damage, but in reality there is a decent chance of not killing in 1 hit. Adding or dropping any damage at all would significantly change your probability of a kill.
Deadmanwalking |
Bah, I calculated archaeologist bard 14/ shadowdancer 1 DPR to be 67 when using an elven curved blade with improved critical.
At full buffs he could do +23/23/18 for 1d10+29
His edge though was being un-perceptible after full attacks.
Huh. Using the DPR calculator, that comes out as 85.38 for me. Still well below the 'high average' DPR for that level (which is 120), but not too terrible. Especially for a support character (which even Archaeologist Bards are).
Deadmanwalking |
Just one thing to clear up, and someone better at math than I am can confirm. But, I'm pretty sure (Enemy HP / DPR) does not equal expected rounds to kill/defeat a given creature.
Well, it does in theory if you always round up, given one-on-one combat and a lack of intervening variables like DR.
In practice? Oh, dear Gods no. It'll vary widely based on a host of factors.
Ssyvan |
What I mean is say you have a 5% to hit, but do 1000 damage that makes your DPR 50, right?
Assuming you're fighting anything 50 HP or less that metric would get you anything between 1 and 2 rounds to kill. But it's closer to something like:
1 - (.05)^x = y
Where x is expected rounds and y is confidence. So if you wanted to only be 50% sure you'd kill something, you should expect about 13.5 rounds. But like I said, my math is fuzzy at best so I could be wrong.
Undone |
What I mean is say you have a 5% to hit, but do 1000 damage that makes your DPR 50, right?
Such a build does not exist. Builds with extremely high damage naturally have high to hit due to how the game functions. Flat footed would decrease the AC by about 3-4 which would increase your to hit to 20% or more as a side note.
Where x is expected rounds and y is confidence. So if you wanted to only be 50% sure you'd kill something, you should expect about 13.5 rounds. But like I said, my math is fuzzy at best so I could be wrong.
The problem with this is that infinity cannot be greater than the maximum HP + Con score of the target. No matter how much damage you deal if the monster has 50 HP your actual number doesn't matter because you do effectively 50 points of damage.
In practice? Oh, dear Gods no. It'll vary widely based on a host of factors.
I agree. In practice you'll have buffs and won't always get to full attack but trading full attacks needs to be in your favor otherwise it can become difficult at higher levels.
Ssyvan |
Extending that thought a bit further, you can see that Power Attack isn't always a "great thing".
Mind you I'm only inspecting points on this curve, I'm sure there are places where its much better to Power Attack, but given the following:
Say you're building a
Level 1 Fighter:
Str: 16, Shortsword +4 1d6+3 (Keeping things simple, ignoring two-handed and other feats).
Say you're only every going to attack a target with the following stats:
AC: 15, HP: 5
Now lets say you're attempting to decide between taking these two feats, Power Attack and Weapon Focus:
Let's first figure out our baseline:
Expected Rounds to Kill with 75% confidence:
Rounds to Hit: ln(.25)/ln(.5) == 2
Then we know:
Chance a hit is a killing hit: 5/6
Chance a hit is a wounding hit: 1/6
Chance a hit after wounding is a killing hit: 6/6
So we should expect something like (2 * (5/6)) + (4 * (1/6)) == 2.333 rounds.
Now using power attack we have:
A 45% chance to hit, but when we do we'll defeat them which makes that:
Rounds to defeat with 75% confidence: ln(.25)/ln(.55) == 2.318 rounds.
So Power Attack is only 1.006 times better than not using it.
Now with Weapon Focus:
Roughly the same, but the rounds to hit is:
ln(.25)/ln(.45) == 1.736
Which becomes:
(1.736 * (5/6)) + ((1.736*2) * (1/6)) == 2.025 rounds. Which is 1.152 times better.
So in this case you should always take Weapon Focus.
Ssyvan |
Ssyvan wrote:What I mean is say you have a 5% to hit, but do 1000 damage that makes your DPR 50, right?Such a build does not exist. Builds with extremely high damage naturally have high to hit due to how the game functions. Flat footed would decrease the AC by about 3-4 which would increase your to hit to 20% or more as a side note.
Ssyvan wrote:Where x is expected rounds and y is confidence. So if you wanted to only be 50% sure you'd kill something, you should expect about 13.5 rounds. But like I said, my math is fuzzy at best so I could be wrong.The problem with this is that infinity cannot be greater than the maximum HP + Con score of the target. No matter how much damage you deal if the monster has 50 HP your actual number doesn't matter because you do effectively 50 points of damage.
Quote:In practice? Oh, dear Gods no. It'll vary widely based on a host of factors.I agree. In practice you'll have buffs and won't always get to full attack but trading full attacks needs to be in your favor otherwise it can become difficult at higher levels.
I'd have to sit and play with the numbers a lot more, but my gut is telling me that DPR is an okay predictor when you hit 50% of the time, and gets much much worse the further you drift away from that.
I'd expect even needing a 14 to hit (i.e. hit chance of 35%) would throw the expected rounds off substantially.
BigDTBone |
What I mean is say you have a 5% to hit, but do 1000 damage that makes your DPR 50, right?
Assuming you're fighting anything 50 HP or less that metric would get you anything between 1 and 2 rounds to kill. But it's closer to something like:
1 - (.05)^x = y
Where x is expected rounds and y is confidence. So if you wanted to only be 50% sure you'd kill something, you should expect about 13.5 rounds. But like I said, my math is fuzzy at best so I could be wrong.
You're assuming that math hasn't already been worked out by those of us who track DPR consistently.
General DPR formula:
h(d+s)+tchd
h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.
My calculator adds a few more minor variables, including the option to adjust target AC based on CR.
Ssyvan |
Ssyvan wrote:What I mean is say you have a 5% to hit, but do 1000 damage that makes your DPR 50, right?
Assuming you're fighting anything 50 HP or less that metric would get you anything between 1 and 2 rounds to kill. But it's closer to something like:
1 - (.05)^x = y
Where x is expected rounds and y is confidence. So if you wanted to only be 50% sure you'd kill something, you should expect about 13.5 rounds. But like I said, my math is fuzzy at best so I could be wrong.
You're assuming that math hasn't already been worked out by those of us who track DPR consistently.
General DPR formula:
h(d+s)+tchd
h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.My calculator adds a few more minor variables, including the option to adjust target AC based on CR.
Using your DPR Calculator if I put in -10 as Attack Bonus and 1000 as weapon damage it claims to kill an AC 15 HP 12 opponent in 1 round, which is the issue I'm pointing out. In practice the actual rounds to kill will be much much higher. I agree that the DPR is calculated correctly, I just don't think Enemy HP/DPR is an accurate gauge for rounds to kill.
Celanian |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is that average damage isn't a complete indicator of how many rounds it takes to kill a target. For example, 2d6+9 is 16 average damage. Vs a 15 hp target, the expected number of rounds needed to drop it is not 1. It's actually 1.28 since 28% of the time, you'll roll 5 or less on the 2d6 and need a second hit to finish the job.
Undone |
And I thank you for putting that out there it simplifies calculating DPR so much.
That said I'm curious if you agree with me that most PC's should be able to 1 round an average at level target with the assumption of haste or even without it for higher level builds.
Problem is that average damage isn't a complete indicator of how many rounds it takes to kill a target. For example, 2d6+9 is 16 average damage. Vs a 15 hp target, the expected number of rounds needed to drop it is not 1. It's actually 1.28 since 28% of the time, you'll roll 5 or less on the 2d6 and need a second hit to finish the job.
No. If average damage equals HP it never implies a 100% chance to kill. It implies 50% or greater chance to kill the target. This means, ON AVERAGE, it should take 1 round to kill the target. If you roll high the 2 round builds might kill someone in one round but the 1 round takes 2. That's randomness it's not average and if performed 100 times would not become a theme.
BigDTBone |
BigDTBone wrote:Using your DPR Calculator if I put in -10 as Attack Bonus and 1000 as weapon damage it claims to kill an AC 15 HP 12 opponent in 1 round, which is the issue I'm pointing out. In practice the actual rounds to kill will be much much higher. I agree that the DPR is calculated correctly, I just don't think Enemy HP/DPR is an accurate gauge for rounds to kill.Ssyvan wrote:What I mean is say you have a 5% to hit, but do 1000 damage that makes your DPR 50, right?
Assuming you're fighting anything 50 HP or less that metric would get you anything between 1 and 2 rounds to kill. But it's closer to something like:
1 - (.05)^x = y
Where x is expected rounds and y is confidence. So if you wanted to only be 50% sure you'd kill something, you should expect about 13.5 rounds. But like I said, my math is fuzzy at best so I could be wrong.
You're assuming that math hasn't already been worked out by those of us who track DPR consistently.
General DPR formula:
h(d+s)+tchd
h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.My calculator adds a few more minor variables, including the option to adjust target AC based on CR.
You should use numbers that are likely to happen together in a game then. -10 to attack would be pretty rare and would never happen with a 1000 hp damage potential. You can stress the statistical average by using garbage data. GIGO.
That said, the system in intended to provide an average, it is not intended to be a single point predictor but only to allow you to gauge relative damage output between two hypotheticals.
The appropriate damage per level I propose just gives you a "standardized" hypothetical to compare against.
BigDTBone |
Problem is that average damage isn't a complete indicator of how many rounds it takes to kill a target. For example, 2d6+9 is 16 average damage. Vs a 15 hp target, the expected number of rounds needed to drop it is not 1. It's actually 1.28 since 28% of the time, you'll roll 5 or less on the 2d6 and need a second hit to finish the job.
My calculator would not return that as 16 DPR.
Ssyvan |
The problem with this is that infinity cannot be greater than the maximum HP + Con score of the target. No matter how much damage you deal if the monster has 50 HP your actual number doesn't matter because you do effectively 50 points of damage.
I think what you're saying is that your potential damage should be clamped to the enemy's HP so that you can do no more than that? If so that seems to make the numbers play a lot more nicely with what I'd expect.
BigDTBone |
And I thank you for putting that out there it simplifies calculating DPR so much.
That said I'm curious if you agree with me that most PC's should be able to 1 round an average at level target with the assumption of haste or even without it for higher level builds.
Celanian wrote:Problem is that average damage isn't a complete indicator of how many rounds it takes to kill a target. For example, 2d6+9 is 16 average damage. Vs a 15 hp target, the expected number of rounds needed to drop it is not 1. It's actually 1.28 since 28% of the time, you'll roll 5 or less on the 2d6 and need a second hit to finish the job.No. If average damage equals HP it never implies a 100% chance to kill. It implies 50% or greater chance to kill the target. This means, ON AVERAGE, it should take 1 round to kill the target. If you roll high the 2 round builds might kill someone in one round but the 1 round takes 2. That's randomness it's not average and if performed 100 times would not become a theme.
I don't think DPR=HP is needed. My chart is based on .5(APL+1=CR HP)
Edit: I also only use self provided buffs in DPR calculations. In fact, only self provided buffs that can be provided as a swift of quicker action OR buffs with a duration of 10 mins/lvl or longer get included.
Ssyvan |
Ssyvan wrote:BigDTBone wrote:Using your DPR Calculator if I put in -10 as Attack Bonus and 1000 as weapon damage it claims to kill an AC 15 HP 12 opponent in 1 round, which is the issue I'm pointing out. In practice the actual rounds to kill will be much much higher. I agree that the DPR is calculated correctly, I just don't think Enemy HP/DPR is an accurate gauge for rounds to kill.Ssyvan wrote:What I mean is say you have a 5% to hit, but do 1000 damage that makes your DPR 50, right?
Assuming you're fighting anything 50 HP or less that metric would get you anything between 1 and 2 rounds to kill. But it's closer to something like:
1 - (.05)^x = y
Where x is expected rounds and y is confidence. So if you wanted to only be 50% sure you'd kill something, you should expect about 13.5 rounds. But like I said, my math is fuzzy at best so I could be wrong.
You're assuming that math hasn't already been worked out by those of us who track DPR consistently.
General DPR formula:
h(d+s)+tchd
h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.My calculator adds a few more minor variables, including the option to adjust target AC based on CR.
You should use numbers that are likely to happen together in a game then. -10 to attack would be pretty rare and would never happen with a 1000 hp damage potential. You can stress the statistical average by using garbage data. GIGO.
That said, the system in intended to provide an average, it is not intended to be a single point predictor but only to allow you to gauge relative damage output between two hypotheticals.
The...
That's what I was attempting to do with my Power Attack vs. Weapon Focus post.
Using Power Attack your DPR roughly calculated (ignoring crits and what not) is 3.825. Using Weapon Focus your DPR is 3.575.
Using DPR as a metric to make decisions would imply that Power Attack is a better choice than Weapon Focus, when I showed that Power Attack only marginally improves your kill rate, about a half a percent better. Whereas Weapon Focus improves your kill rate by ~15%. Which is a *huge* improvement over Power Attack.
EDIT:
Using your formula the exact DPR using Power Attack DPR is 4.59. Weapon Focus is 4.29. Still implies that Power Attack is better than Weapon Focus when it isn't.
Celanian |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. If average damage equals HP it never implies a 100% chance to kill. It implies 50% or greater chance to kill the target. This means, ON AVERAGE, it should take 1 round to kill the target. If you roll high the 2 round builds might kill someone in one round but the 1 round takes 2. That's randomness it's not average and if performed 100 times would not become a theme.
If you run this 100 times, it would take about 128 hits on average to kill 100 targets. On average, it would take 1.28 hits to kill a target. It is a theme.
That's why saying there is no difference between a 20 DPR and 30 DPR vs a 40 hp target is false. The extra damage is meaningful since it substantially reduces the chances of the target surviving more than 2 rounds.
Deadmanwalking |
Using your DPR Calculator if I put in -10 as Attack Bonus and 1000 as weapon damage it claims to kill an AC 15 HP 12 opponent in 1 round, which is the issue I'm pointing out. In practice the actual rounds to kill will be much much higher. I agree that the DPR is calculated correctly, I just don't think Enemy HP/DPR is an accurate gauge for rounds to kill.
This isn't actually a problem in practice most of the time. Because actual builds inherently have a lot of things boosting attack and damage simultaneously. It's actually really hard to wind up with arbitrarily high damage and terrible to-hit.
It's possible in theory, but you almost have to build for it.
That said, yes, if you have a 50% hit-rate but do double the creature's HP in damage the number of rounds comes out wrong. So...you're right. In a very specific and unusual situation.
Ssyvan |
Alright, going to run this with a better chance to hit:
Using the above example but the fighter has a MW Shortsword:
Fighter 1: +5 d6+3
Enemy: AC 15 HP 5
Baseline Rounds to Kill (borrowed from Weapon Focus Above): 2.025.
Now with Power Attack:
Rounds to Kill: 2.
Now With Weapon Focus:
Rounds to Kill: 1.765.
Still Weapon Focus is better than Power Attack. But it does seem that Power Attack is now relatively less bad than it was before.
Giving the fighter a racial +5 to hit against whatever it is he's fighting:
Fighter 1: +10 d6+3
Enemy: AC 15 HP 5
Baseline: 1.005 rounds to kill
Power Attack: 1 round to kill
Weapon Focus: .853 rounds to kill
Even stil, when its absurdly likely to hit, Weapon Focus is still better.
Ssyvan |
Ssyvan wrote:Using your DPR Calculator if I put in -10 as Attack Bonus and 1000 as weapon damage it claims to kill an AC 15 HP 12 opponent in 1 round, which is the issue I'm pointing out. In practice the actual rounds to kill will be much much higher. I agree that the DPR is calculated correctly, I just don't think Enemy HP/DPR is an accurate gauge for rounds to kill.This isn't actually a problem in practice most of the time. Because actual builds inherently have a lot of things boosting attack and damage simultaneously. It's actually really hard to wind up with arbitrarily high damage and terrible to-hit.
It's possible in theory, but you almost have to build for it.
That said, yes, if you have a 50% hit-rate but do double the creature's HP in damage the number of rounds comes out wrong. So...you're right. In a very specific and unusual situation.
This isn't really a weird case. This is a level 1 fighter against a skeleton.
Derp Edit: Sorry, just realized you were specifically talking about rounds to kill. I'm honestly not sure how it would function with much more reasonable numbers. I'd have to look, but my gut still tells me that it makes a huge difference when full-attacking with your lower to-hit iterative attacks.