Do you accept the flaw in the color purple that it sometimes doesn't predict the stock market?
What do I need to do to convince you to stop using the color purple?
I'm not sure I need convincing of anything, I think I'm just missing your point. Mind explaining it again for my benefit?
More directly you seem to think that better DPR should automatically equal better build. When what is ACTUALLY happening is "all other things being equal, higher DPR will do more damage in a wild-type combat scenario."
That's why you will notice when I posted the two paladin builds I ALSO posted their attribute scores, AC, and saves. Part of arguing with DPR is showing that it isn't artifically inflated by dumping some other key area. So you post the relevant stats. That's why statements like, "I want to keep this simple, other feat not chosen," completely misses the point. DPR is ONE aspect of character creation. It isn't THE ONLY, measuring stick. The biggest advocates of using DPR in balancing discussions for game design will be the first ones to state that.
You are locked up with your fingers in your ears intentionally NOT HEARING what people are telling you. DPR ISNT THE TOOL YOU THINK IT IS! It isn't used that way. Stop saying that it works that way.
I can not be more clear than this:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think DPR is kind of like the last check you make before completing a build to determine if your potential to deal damage is within the ballpark you want for the character you want to play. I wouldn't use it and expect any sort of exact expression of all combats, but I would expect to know that, if I'm engaging something within those expected guidelines, I will be successful more often than not.
"all other things being equal, higher DPR will do more damage in a wild-type combat scenario."
Back to my other point, I think "wild-type combat" would be better simulated using "1 standard attack + 1 full attack" instead of just one full attack (except in the case of archers.)
When what is ACTUALLY happening is "all other things being equal, higher DPR will do more damage in a wild-type combat scenario."
I'm not sure what "wild-type" combat is, but you're saying that DPR should only be used when all else is equal to tell what will do more damage in a "wild-type" encounter? And that it shouldn't be used under any other circumstance?
I think DPR is kind of like the last check you make before completing a build to determine if your potential to deal damage is within the ballpark you want for the character you want to play. I wouldn't use it and expect any sort of exact expression of all combats, but I would expect to know that, if I'm engaging something within those expected guidelines, I will be successful more often than not.
This. +1.
It is just another among many design guideline to create what you need.
Basically if the character is a pair of pants then DPR is just inseam size. You still need a tremendous amount of other measurements and decisions made to actually create a pair of pants.
The reason DPR is used so much is two fold in my opinion.
*It is volatile and can shift drastically.
*It is relatively easy to calculate.
In short DPR is just an easy box to check.
I think DPR is kind of like the last check you make before completing a build to determine if your potential to deal damage is within the ballpark you want for the character you want to play. I wouldn't use it and expect any sort of exact expression of all combats, but I would expect to know that, if I'm engaging something within those expected guidelines, I will be successful more often than not.
See this is what confuses me, what exactly are you hoping to glean from calculating DPR in this case?
When faced with two DPR values that are different, what does that tell you?
What actionable information does it give you, if any?
"all other things being equal, higher DPR will do more damage in a wild-type combat scenario."Back to my other point, I think "wild-type combat" would be better simulated using "1 standard attack + 1 full attack" instead of just one full attack (except in the case of archers.)
It doesn't so that because you break the simplicity of the tool. You can see that even with your simple change you already need a qualifying statement. What about thrown weapon specialist? Should they get two full rounds? Will their numbers look artifically high compared to a melee combatant when in actuality they will pale in comparison? What about vital strike builds? Do they get to chose regular or vital attack? Are you actually giving a full round and a standard action? Or in the case of the archers 2 full round actions? Could I instead use that standard action to cast a self buff that wouldn't be allowed in regular DPR? What about stealth characters? Shouldn't the sneaky guy get 2 full rounds also because he can sneak up on the other guy before combat?
I trust you can see the problem you are advocating for.
When what is ACTUALLY happening is "all other things being equal, higher DPR will do more damage in a wild-type combat scenario."I'm not sure what "wild-type" combat is, but you're saying that DPR should only be used when all else is equal to tell what will do more damage in a "wild-type" encounter? And that it shouldn't be used under any other circumstance?
Do you think that you should only look at your fort save if everything else is equal?
The only value DPR places on accuracy is as its function of likeliness to hit on a given attack. You know THE EXACT SAME VALUE IT HAS WHEN YOU ROLL A D20 AT THE TABLE.
This is wrong.
At the table, one rolls many times, each combat is usually a sequence of attack rolls. DPR considers accuracy (and damage) only insofar as it concerns a single isolated, idealized roll.
Probability theory works differently for different questions and for (perfectly interesting) questions like "how probable is it that I never hit at all during a combat" DPR will tell you nothing. Yet, if it seems to me that that counts towards the value of accuracy at the table, if anything does.
Do you think that you should only look at your fort save if everything else is equal?When what is ACTUALLY happening is "all other things being equal, higher DPR will do more damage in a wild-type combat scenario."I'm not sure what "wild-type" combat is, but you're saying that DPR should only be used when all else is equal to tell what will do more damage in a "wild-type" encounter? And that it shouldn't be used under any other circumstance?
Now I have no idea what you're trying to say. Calculating DPR takes a degree of effort. People presumably do it because it yields value worth the effort. What is the value you see in DPR?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't so that because you break the simplicity of the tool. You can see that even with your simple change you already need a qualifying statement. What about thrown weapon specialist? Should they get two full rounds? Will their numbers look artifically high compared to a melee combatant when in actuality they will pale in comparison? What about vital strike builds? Do they get to chose regular or vital attack? Are you actually giving a full round and a standard action? Or in the case of the archers 2 full round actions? Could I instead use that standard action to cast a self buff that wouldn't be allowed in regular DPR? What about stealth characters? Shouldn't the sneaky guy get 2 full rounds also because he can sneak up on the other guy before combat?
One might include both Damage Per Attack and Damage Per Round if one is interested in the difference. DPA would represent the effect of Vital Strike et al better than DPR. Any measure is valid if it gives you deeper information about the character (and thus the game).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now I have no idea what you're trying to say. Calculating DPR takes a degree of effort. People presumably do it because it yields value worth the effort. What is the value you see in DPR?Do you think that you should only look at your fort save if everything else is equal?When what is ACTUALLY happening is "all other things being equal, higher DPR will do more damage in a wild-type combat scenario."I'm not sure what "wild-type" combat is, but you're saying that DPR should only be used when all else is equal to tell what will do more damage in a "wild-type" encounter? And that it shouldn't be used under any other circumstance?
The value is the same as the value I see in what my fort save is. DPR is more derived, than a fort save because it has more moving parts to account for. It is the only tool that will help you find the difference in damage between a big weapon with a narrow crit threat and a small weapon with a wide crit threat. It can help understand the synergy/relation between class features and feats/archetypes/weapons.
A higher DPR will indicate a likeliness to do more damage in combat. Sometimes that isn't true.
Similarly, a high fort save will generally indicate the likliness to succeed on a fort save. It isn't always true either.
If it's useful then it would describe accurately which option is better than which.
Example using (edit: EXTREME) simplifications to illustrate a point:
Attack Option 1: Hits 100% for a static 10 damage.
Attack Option 2: Hits 5% of the time for a static 10000 damage.That makes:
Attack Option 1 DPR: 10
Attack Option 2 DPR: 500Now say you're fighting someone with 10 hp, which option is better?
DPR would tell me option 2, but it is wrong.
Lets do a similar extreme as you say example.
Attack option 1: Hits 100% for static 10 damage.
Attack option 2: Hits 5% of the time for static 20 damage.That makes:
Attack option 1 DPR: 10
Attack option 2 DPR: 1Now lets say you are fighting someone with 10 HP and 10 DR, which option is better.
DPR tells me option 1, but option 2 is better.
Does this mean DPR is wrong, accuracy is irrelevant and MASSIVE DAMAGE is all that matters? or does it tell me I picked a crappy example :)
It tells me that the set of scenarios where DPR is of use does not include scenarios involving DR.
"all other things being equal, higher DPR will do more damage in a wild-type combat scenario."Back to my other point, I think "wild-type combat" would be better simulated using "1 standard attack + 1 full attack" instead of just one full attack (except in the case of archers.)It doesn't so that because you break the simplicity of the tool. You can see that even with your simple change you already need a qualifying statement. What about thrown weapon specialist? Should they get two full rounds? Will their numbers look artifically high compared to a melee combatant when in actuality they will pale in comparison? What about vital strike builds? Do they get to chose regular or vital attack? Are you actually giving a full round and a standard action? Or in the case of the archers 2 full round actions? Could I instead use that standard action to cast a self buff that wouldn't be allowed in regular DPR? What about stealth characters? Shouldn't the sneaky guy get 2 full rounds also because he can sneak up on the other guy before combat?
I trust you can see the problem you are advocating for.
Thrown weapons have low range increments, so in my experience, you would have to move before attacking, so they would fall in the "standard + full". Same with gunslingers - in my experience, they nearly always have to spend a move action positioning, either to get into range or get out of cover, so like most everyone else they get "standard + full".
Vital Strike builds would get to use Vital Strike the first round, the second round they can either choose to full-attack or Vital Strike. Whatever they consider more favorable.
If someone wants to standard action buff instead of attacking, that is completely fine and reasonable.
My experience with "sneaky characters" is that in real gameplay, they almost never get to initiate combat by being adjacent to the enemy. It might happen on occasion, but is the exception, not the rule. They'd fall into the regular "standard + full" regime.
It's virtually no extra effort, because by the time you've done the "full-attack" DPR calculation you've already tabulated all the relevant numbers. Adding a standard-action attack on is a negligible amount of effort for these "standard" builds, but it grants extra flexibility to show more "ecologically valid" DPR numbers from a build like a blaster wizard or a Vital Strike build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One might include both Damage Per Attack and Damage Per Round if one is interested in the difference. DPA would represent the effect of Vital Strike et al better than DPR. Any measure is valid if it gives you deeper information about the character (and thus the game).It doesn't so that because you break the simplicity of the tool. You can see that even with your simple change you already need a qualifying statement. What about thrown weapon specialist? Should they get two full rounds? Will their numbers look artifically high compared to a melee combatant when in actuality they will pale in comparison? What about vital strike builds? Do they get to chose regular or vital attack? Are you actually giving a full round and a standard action? Or in the case of the archers 2 full round actions? Could I instead use that standard action to cast a self buff that wouldn't be allowed in regular DPR? What about stealth characters? Shouldn't the sneaky guy get 2 full rounds also because he can sneak up on the other guy before combat?
But your DPA will deflate the STR of the archer because he will rarely take a single attack like that. It could be a fine metric if you chose to use it along side DPR, but I would recommend against trying to average them in some way. DPA;DPR - 45.34;132.87 I could get behind that idea.
"all other things being equal, higher DPR will do more damage in a wild-type combat scenario."Back to my other point, I think "wild-type combat" would be better simulated using "1 standard attack + 1 full attack" instead of just one full attack (except in the case of archers.)It doesn't so that because you break the simplicity of the tool. You can see that even with your simple change you already need a qualifying statement. What about thrown weapon specialist? Should they get two full rounds? Will their numbers look artifically high compared to a melee combatant when in actuality they will pale in comparison? What about vital strike builds? Do they get to chose regular or vital attack? Are you actually giving a full round and a standard action? Or in the case of the archers 2 full round actions? Could I instead use that standard action to cast a self buff that wouldn't be allowed in regular DPR? What about stealth characters? Shouldn't the sneaky guy get 2 full rounds also because he can sneak up on the other guy before combat?
I trust you can see the problem you are advocating for.
Thrown weapons have low range increments, so in my experience, you would have to move before attacking, so they would fall in the "standard + full". Same with gunslingers - in my experience, they nearly always have to spend a move action positioning, either to get into range or get out of cover, so like most everyone else they get "standard + full".
Vital Strike builds would get to use Vital Strike the first round, the second round they can either choose to full-attack or Vital Strike. Whatever they consider more favorable.
If someone wants to standard action buff instead of attacking, that is completely fine and reasonable.
My experience with "sneaky characters" is that in real gameplay, they almost never get to initiate combat by being adjacent to the enemy. It might happen on occasion, but is the exception, not the rule....
If you are talking about just using both numbers and not trying to do some kind of average or (even worse) weighted average then I can get behind the idea.
Now I have no idea what you're trying to say. Calculating DPR takes a degree of effort. People presumably do it because it yields value worth the effort. What is the value you see in DPR?Do you think that you should only look at your fort save if everything else is equal?When what is ACTUALLY happening is "all other things being equal, higher DPR will do more damage in a wild-type combat scenario."I'm not sure what "wild-type" combat is, but you're saying that DPR should only be used when all else is equal to tell what will do more damage in a "wild-type" encounter? And that it shouldn't be used under any other circumstance?The value is the same as the value I see in what my fort save is. DPR is more derived, than a fort save because it has more moving parts to account for. It is the only tool that will help you find the difference in damage between a big weapon with a narrow crit threat and a small weapon with a wide crit threat. It can help understand the synergy/relation between class features and feats/archetypes/weapons.
A higher DPR will indicate a likeliness to do more damage in combat. Sometimes that isn't true.
Similarly, a high fort save will generally indicate the likliness to succeed on a fort save. It isn't always true either.
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying that. I completely agree with it being used for everything you mention in your first paragraph.
The only point of dispute is what I've bolded. Otherwise, I'm comfortable with using DPR to help understand the difference between a crits, and synergies, class features, and some feats. I think it is useful there.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
At the table, one rolls many times, each combat is usually a sequence of attack rolls. DPR considers accuracy (and damage) only insofar as it concerns a single isolated, idealized roll.
The DPR formula I've seen accounts for damage done over the course of multiple attacks, not just one. Where are you getting this "DPR considers only a single roll" idea?
At the table, one rolls many times, each combat is usually a sequence of attack rolls. DPR considers accuracy (and damage) only insofar as it concerns a single isolated, idealized roll.The DPR formula I've seen accounts for damage done over the course of multiple attacks, not just one. Where are you getting this "DPR considers only a single roll" idea?
I think there is some confusion between "the likliness to hit on any given roll," and "the likliness to hit on an average roll."
At the table, one rolls many times, each combat is usually a sequence of attack rolls. DPR considers accuracy (and damage) only insofar as it concerns a single isolated, idealized roll.The DPR formula I've seen accounts for damage done over the course of multiple attacks, not just one. Where are you getting this "DPR considers only a single roll" idea?
I think he means you can't expect the average of the range of rolls in a given encounter. Small sample and high variance means you shouldn't expect to be rolling that 10.5.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think he means you can't expect the average of the range of rolls in a given encounter. Small sample and high variance means you shouldn't expect to be rolling that 10.5.At the table, one rolls many times, each combat is usually a sequence of attack rolls. DPR considers accuracy (and damage) only insofar as it concerns a single isolated, idealized roll.The DPR formula I've seen accounts for damage done over the course of multiple attacks, not just one. Where are you getting this "DPR considers only a single roll" idea?
Then where's he getting the "in a given encounter" idea?
I think he means you can't expect the average of the range of rolls in a given encounter. Small sample and high variance means you shouldn't expect to be rolling that 10.5.At the table, one rolls many times, each combat is usually a sequence of attack rolls. DPR considers accuracy (and damage) only insofar as it concerns a single isolated, idealized roll.The DPR formula I've seen accounts for damage done over the course of multiple attacks, not just one. Where are you getting this "DPR considers only a single roll" idea?
I didn't think you were missing this point but this post calls that into question; there is a difference between likeliness to hit on any given roll and the likeliness to hit on the average roll.
Then where's he getting the "in a given encounter" idea?I think he means you can't expect the average of the range of rolls in a given encounter. Small sample and high variance means you shouldn't expect to be rolling that 10.5.At the table, one rolls many times, each combat is usually a sequence of attack rolls. DPR considers accuracy (and damage) only insofar as it concerns a single isolated, idealized roll.The DPR formula I've seen accounts for damage done over the course of multiple attacks, not just one. Where are you getting this "DPR considers only a single roll" idea?
When he covered the chance of doing nothing? I think? I could be wrong.
Edit: I'll stop talking for other people now. Sorry.
I didn't think you were missing this point but this post calls that into question; there is a difference between likeliness to hit on any given roll and the likeliness to hit on the average roll.I think he means you can't expect the average of the range of rolls in a given encounter. Small sample and high variance means you shouldn't expect to be rolling that 10.5.At the table, one rolls many times, each combat is usually a sequence of attack rolls. DPR considers accuracy (and damage) only insofar as it concerns a single isolated, idealized roll.The DPR formula I've seen accounts for damage done over the course of multiple attacks, not just one. Where are you getting this "DPR considers only a single roll" idea?
Sorry BigDTBone, I was speaking for him, which I shouldn't be doing, I could be (and probably am) completely off base. I understand that difference. =p
If you are talking about just using both numbers and not trying to do some kind of average or (even worse) weighted average then I can get behind the idea.
Yeah, I think there's definite value in knowing how much DPR you get in a standard action as well as on a full attack. Really, if you have the time/interest it's worth calculating DPR on all your relevant attack modes just to get some idea of how they all compare to each other. How much each of those values matters depends on the character; obviously standard action attacks matter more to a melee character who has no tricks to help get full attacks than they would to an archer.
If you are talking about just using both numbers and not trying to do some kind of average or (even worse) weighted average then I can get behind the idea.Yeah, I think there's definite value in knowing how much DPR you get in a standard action as well as on a full attack. Really, if you have the time/interest it's worth calculating DPR on all your relevant attack modes just to get some idea of how they all compare to each other. How much each of those values matters depends on the character; obviously standard action attacks matter more to a melee character who has no tricks to help get full attacks than they would to an archer.
I'm totally good with DPSA (damage per standard action) and DPR in the same line. If you have an archer build it should be clear (I generally include fighting style in my character posts with DPR anyway) that the first number isn't terribly important. I think phrasing it as DPSA/DPR is better than a "damage over two rounds, move if you need to, buff 'em if you got 'em" number.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm totally good with DPSA (damage per standard action) and DPR in the same line.
This is an even better idea than what I was thinking. I was thinking just the sum (DPSA+DPR), but just showing both numbers is the best of both worlds.
I'm totally good with DPSA (damage per standard action) and DPR in the same line.This is an even better idea than what I was thinking. I was thinking just the sum (DPSA+DPR), but just showing both numbers is the best of both worlds.
Yes. As has been stated, since ease of access to full attacks varies over builds (and scenarios, but that is neither here nor there), it's pretty hard to come up with a composite value that is still representative of something.
This is valid only if:
1. The two builds have identical non-damage combat capabilities. That is to say, if Build A has less DPR but range, it may still be the superior build.
2. The two builds have identical out of combat options. If Build A can do more damage but Build B can still contribute.
A valid point that has been made regarding point 1 is that accuracy is a legitimate "non-damage" combat ability. For example, for a "mage-killer" being able to hit accurately and disrupt the spell may be more important than doing tons of damage.
Not sure if anyone is disputing this... just thought it's worth another mention. Maybe I should drop it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think DPR is kind of like the last check you make before completing a build to determine if your potential to deal damage is within the ballpark you want for the character you want to play. I wouldn't use it and expect any sort of exact expression of all combats, but I would expect to know that, if I'm engaging something within those expected guidelines, I will be successful more often than not.See this is what confuses me, what exactly are you hoping to glean from calculating DPR in this case?
When faced with two DPR values that are different, what does that tell you?
What actionable information does it give you, if any?
It tells me whether the damage contribution of a character is reasonable for a given role. I check the DPR value against the CR appropriate hit point value and make a judgment call. If I'm making a support character that mixes it up in combat, but isn't focused in that area, then maybe 30% hit point attrition on a full attack is fine. If the character is, instead, a melee focused blender, then 30% on a full attack tells me to go back and look at where I went wrong (because, to me, a full attack from a barb or a fighter should do more than that).
What's reasonable will be subjective to some degree, but the game math will help inform your decision.
I think DPR is kind of like the last check you make before completing a build to determine if your potential to deal damage is within the ballpark you want for the character you want to play. I wouldn't use it and expect any sort of exact expression of all combats, but I would expect to know that, if I'm engaging something within those expected guidelines, I will be successful more often than not.See this is what confuses me, what exactly are you hoping to glean from calculating DPR in this case?
When faced with two DPR values that are different, what does that tell you?
What actionable information does it give you, if any?
It tells me whether the damage contribution of a character is reasonable for a given role. I check the DPR value against the CR appropriate hit point value and make a judgment call. If I'm making a support character that mixes it up in combat, but isn't focused in that area, then maybe 30% hit point attrition on a full attack is fine. If the character is, instead, a melee focused blender, then 30% on a full attack tells me to go back and look at where I went wrong (because, to me, a full attack from a barb or a fighter should do more than that).
What's reasonable will be subjective to some degree, but the game math will help inform your decision.
Pretty much this. In the same way that I look at a lvl 7 fighter and go "eeesh 3 will save?" I know I have more work to do if I'm building that same lvl 7 fighter and see a DPR of 42.