I was wondering if there is any guidelines that anyone has posted whats a good amount of damage at any given level. I guess what i'm trying to say is whats the minimum amount of damage at certain levels that would be passable (so say you wanted to work on something else when I hit X my damage is good enough) and what would be well optimized damage at various levels lets say 1 5 10 15 20 to get a good range.
Flagged to move to the advice forum.
As for your question, it depends what you want to do with your character. Are you just about doing damage? (De)Buffing? Battlefield Control?
I usually compare myself to a Fighter with 18 STR, a Greatsword & power attack. If I can keep up with that I'm golden.
Also some characters have a specialty:
If my paladin falls behind said fighter most of the time, but then massively out-paces him when I get my smite on, it's fine.
hmm that does seem like a good starting point thank you. I'm actually working on designing a melee class of sorts.
1 +4 to hit 2d6+9 19-20 x2
5 +8 to hit 2d6+15
10 +17 for 2d6+19
15 +27 (ish)2d6+26 17-20 x2
20 +38 2d6+30 etc.
probably low balling it a bit but fighter has very little aside from attacking so its a good place to get a scale
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/bench-pressing-character-crea tion-by-the-numbers/
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CCxnAb8apicr3fOrSCEFNRwHlzRieMrXm6l d9-uLAFc/edit#gid=0
All the statistics and numbers your little heart can handle, based on average monster statistics by CR tables. The first link is the blog post explaining the numbers in the second post.
In general, remember that you can't kill 'em if you don't hit 'em, so attack bonus is best to focus on before damage bonuses, but the EDV values in blue on the table give the total you'd need to knock 50% of a monster's hp off in one full attack. I'm assuming your a big enough number nerd to know how to calculate your dice averages for damage. Greens are 25%, and that's your good goal to be aiming for if you're not min-maxing.
THANK YOU That is perfect exactly what I was looking for
|
https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/bench-pressing-character-crea tion-by-the-numbers/
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CCxnAb8apicr3fOrSCEFNRwHlzRieMrXm6l d9-uLAFc/edit#gid=0All the statistics and numbers your little heart can handle, based on average monster statistics by CR tables. The first link is the blog post explaining the numbers in the second post.
In general, remember that you can't kill 'em if you don't hit 'em, so attack bonus is best to focus on before damage bonuses, but the EDV values in blue on the table give the total you'd need to knock 50% of a monster's hp off in one full attack. I'm assuming your a big enough number nerd to know how to calculate your dice averages for damage. Greens are 25%, and that's your good goal to be aiming for if you're not min-maxing.
A nifty tool for DPS characters, though it does seem to assume rather straight forward combat, where the enemy doesn't use tactics and just takes turn swinging back and forth with your character.
What amount of damage is right? It depends on if you're dealin' it out or takin' it. :-)
true but its not hard to extrapolate (roughly) how much someone that does X damage would do on one attack instead of a full.
|
|
true but its not hard to extrapolate (roughly) how much someone that does X damage would do on one attack instead of a full.
That's not quite it.
The thing calculates damage based on average AC and attack values, but most PCs and monsters will be constantly subject to contextual modifiers that make much of this meaningless.
So it's useful, if the PC and their enemy are just slapping each other back and forth, waiting to see which will drop first, but it has little merit inside an actual adventure. Especially when the PCs are typically not designed for one-on-one battles, but designed to fight at a team against typically weaker teams of monsters. Not to mention, PCs are typically focused on an objective, rather than combat.
That is true but ill be using the information for theory crafting atm and checking balance on something I'm working on. so if the character I make does around the the green value I know his damage is where it should be provided its his main role, and without outside buffs now i think i know what you mean maybe somehow when hes getting bard buffs and haste and what not there might be a hidden multiplier or something that puts him over the top but I won't be able to find that without play testing. The chart does work for my purposes however!
one thing I am curious of now is how touch attacks (say in the case of the kinesticist) would affect but the formula is there might be able to work that out.
hmm that does seem like a good starting point thank you. I'm actually working on designing a melee class of sorts.
1 +4 to hit 2d6+9 19-20 x2
5 +8 to hit 2d6+15
10 +17 for 2d6+19
15 +27 (ish)2d6+26 17-20 x2
20 +38 2d6+30 etc.probably low balling it a bit but fighter has very little aside from attacking so its a good place to get a scale
with 2d6 base damage on a weapon, you'll be looking at ways to increase the base by level 15. Depending on class, you may be increasing base weapon damage much earlier.
2d6 -> 3d6 -> 4d6
For a level 20 fighter you could be looking at:
- +12(1.5) = +18 str
- +6 weapon training
- +4 weapon specialization
- +5 enhancement
- +18 power attack
= 3d6+51/17-20/x3
Without jumping through any special hoops
It all depends on your group. Your character just needs to be built to thrive in his own story and environment. Before starting a new campaign always talk to the GM about what the expected power level is.
For PFS the gold standard is: is the character better than a pregen?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing calculates damage based on average AC and attack values, but most PCs and monsters will be constantly subject to contextual modifiers that make much of this meaningless.
Variations don't make the baseline meaningless; they're the reason you want to know the baseline in the first place. Knowing the neutral baseline is the only way to figure out how impactful all those "contextual modifiers" actually are, so that you can make informed decisions when they come up. (For example: do you keep full-attacking despite being Shaken, or do you take a round off for a potion of remove fear? If you don't know the baselines, you're just guessing.)
So it's useful, if the PC and their enemy are just slapping each other back and forth, waiting to see which will drop first
That's how Pathfinder martial combat is designed to work (especially once you hit BAB+6 and start full-attacking). It is extremely rare that there's anything a Pathfinder weapon-user can do (other than cast a spell) that's going to be a better tactical choice than simply continuing to full-attack. Pathfinder is designed that way.
Sure, plenty of things come to mind that you could do: tricks you've seen in movies or books, which use terrain or other elements of the environment to tilt a battle in your favor. But if you look at how the Pathfinder game actually implements those things, you discover that they pale in comparison to just full-attacking.
That's among the major issues cited by folks who abandon or heavily houserule Pathfinder: the dynamic, cinematic combat that narrative-minded folks want in their RPG just isn't supported in Pathfinder (past the first few levels).
@Vidmaster7 - If you're using touch attacks you'll hit much more consistently against most enemies. It is pretty easy to do some basic math for this stuff. If you just take your percentage chance to hit and multiply it by your average damage you'll get a reasonable estimate. I guess you could compare that back to the chart JDLPF posted.
@Vidmaster7 - If you're using touch attacks you'll hit much more consistently against most enemies. It is pretty easy to do some basic math for this stuff. If you just take your percentage chance to hit and multiply it by your average damage you'll get a reasonable estimate. I guess you could compare that back to the chart JDLPF posted.
Thank you!
|
I was wondering if there is any guidelines that anyone has posted whats a good amount of damage at any given level. I guess what i'm trying to say is whats the minimum amount of damage at certain levels that would be passable (so say you wanted to work on something else when I hit X my damage is good enough) and what would be well optimized damage at various levels lets say 1 5 10 15 20 to get a good range.
Personally, I find that if you have Power Attack + 2H or 1H with 2h and a decent Str value - That'll last you the entire game or quite a while. So long as you're gaining some extra attacks of course. Works great with TWF or just being an Unchained Monk(flurry).
1 1d8+9(str4,strbonus2,pa3)
5 1d8+12(str4,strbonus2,pa6)
10 1d8+16(str5,2hbonus2,pa9)
15 1d8+19(str5,2hbonus2,pa12)
20 1d8+27(str6,2hbonus3,pa18)
I'd recommend a weapon with 18-20 crit range as a x2 or a 19-20 x3(falcata)
This does not include magical items(ie weapon enhancements or enchantments, belt of strength, ascetic style, spells, bane baldric, augmenting fist damage, etc). As-is, this is GOOD. Not great or supreme like a Monk or Fighter can achieve between feats and class features, but still good and generalized for any Str based class you use.
Keep in mind PA damage goes up every 4 BAB(plus what you get from initial first level) and you get a bonus attribute point every 4 levels.
This thread might be useful
Aha, a link to a link to the link I posted!
As regards utility of the tables, it's certainly flawed in assuming you'll be in a featureless room without any other modifiers trading full attacks against an average monster of a given CR. But by aiming to maintain the recommended levels you can judge whether your investment in your character's abilities is worth neglecting other areas. For example, are you already green in damage but orange in AC? Rather than focus on more damage, perhaps invest in boosting your defences. It's benchmarks, good for a rule of thumb but variable depending on circumstances.
that will do pig that-ell do (sorry if you hear that a lot.)
I understand its limitations but it works fine for what I need it for thanks again.