| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a continuation of what is swiftly threatening to become my day job, I've taken my data from my Average Monster Stats by Level spreadsheet and created another spreadsheet. This time, I'm looking at the average hit rate for each class with every possible starting ability score (8-18 for classes with a STR or DEX bonus and 8-16 for the Alchemist plus spellcasters).
Notes on the Process
All characters are assumed to use one Ability Boost on the ability score they use for attack rolls whenever possible, and purchases items which improve their attack bonus as early as possible. This grants the following bonuses at the listed levels:
- Item Bonus (Weapon Quality) at Levels 3 (Expert) and 8 (Master).
- Item Bonus (Weapon Potency Rune) at Levels 13 (+3), 17 (+4), and 20 (+5).
- Item Bonus (Spell Attacks vs TAC) at Levels 9, 13, 17, and 20 (Spell Duelist's Gloves / Wand)
- Ability Boost at Levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. Starting ability scores of 12 or higher do not benefit from every Ability Boost.
- Ability Boost at Level 15 (Anklets of Alacrity or Belt of Giant Strength).
Clarifications
* When determining the level an item could be accessed, I referred to Table 11-2: Character Wealth on Page 348. Based on this table, items such as high-quality weapons and magic items can only be gained if you are one level higher than the item. For instance, an Expert Weapon is a Level 2 item, but you do not get a Level 2 Permanent Item until Level 3 and cannot afford to purchase one with the currency given.
* Spellcasters have access to spells which target normal AC. For the moment, these are not included in my tables. Such attacks will have a lower hit rate than the attacks listed in the AC table up until Level 12 and start to pull ahead at Level 16.
* The Alchemist, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard have access to attacks that target TAC at all levels. For such attacks I've included a TAC table below the AC table.
* All classes have access to the Fighter Dedication, which can grant Expert Proficiency in a weapon group at Level 12 at the cost of a class feat. However, all non-spellcasters (save for the Alchemist) already get Expert Proficiency, and the only classes that don't have it by Level 12 (Barbarian and Rogue) get it at Level 13, making it a wasted feat for them. Furthermore, spellcasting classes don't get a class feat at Level 12, so they can't access this until Level 14 at the earliest. The only class that can really make use of this feat at the level intended is the Alchemist. I do not include this feat in my numbers, but if your character is a spellcaster or an Alchemist then I definitely suggest picking it up if you plan on making weapon attacks.
Observations
* While at first it seems that the Alchemist has difficulty hitting with their bombs when compared to spellcasters of the same level, their numbers are much closer to those of characters making weapon attacks. This is likely because alchemists are capable of throwing multiple bombs per turn, while most spellcasters can only make a single spell attack per round. That said, I find it odd that the Alchemist's Empower Bombs class feature doesn't stack with the Alchemist's Goggles item, which seems tailor-made for the class.
I may include a DPR sheet at some point, but with the varying weapon damage dice that could get very complicated. Maybe a project for next week. For now, enjoy!
Looking at the weapon attack one it seems like we 5 distinct attack progressions.
Alchemist / bard / cleric / druid / wizard / sorcerer
Barbarian / rogue
Paladin
Ranger / monk
Fighter
What's with the weird, sharp, drop in hit rates at 19th? Almost every class goes down by 15%
probably a combination of classes accessing legendary training in weapons, potential access to +5 weapon, and just one of the strong levels.
What's with the weird, sharp, drop in hit rates at 19th? Almost every class goes down by 15%
At Level 19, monster AC increases by 4 while class attack bonuses only increase by 1. That said, there are only two Level 19 monsters, so the sample size is incredibly small. It's pretty likely that the two we were given just have high AC for their level.
Alchemists definitely fall behind in accuracy vs. every other class (and not in a small way either) based on these results. From what I've seen, they appear to be balanced around drinking a quicksilver mutagen prior to combat or in the first round, granting them an item bonus on ranged attack rolls that lines them up fairly well with anyone else targeting TAC.
Otherwise this lines up with my own analysis.
I also plan on adding four more tables - Hit rates vs creatures of Level-1, Level-2, Level+1, and Level+2. The tables I have now only cover situations where the player is attacking a creature of the same level.
For example, when I eyeball the Fighter's numbers, their hit rate vs Level-1 hovers around 60-70%, and their hit rate vs Level-2 hovers around 75-80%. Add a Bless plus flanking and you're all but guaranteed to hit and very likely to crit as well.
Altogether I feel that buffs and debuffs are going to be more important than they used to be.
What's with the weird, sharp, drop in hit rates at 19th? Almost every class goes down by 15%At Level 19, monster AC increases by 4 while class attack bonuses only increase by 1. That said, there are only two Level 19 monsters, so the sample size is incredibly small. It's pretty likely that the two we were given just have high AC for their level.
Ah ha, that'd do it.
I missed that in the summary and couldn't read the underlying data to parse out a meaning.
What's with the weird, sharp, drop in hit rates at 19th? Almost every class goes down by 15%At Level 19, monster AC increases by 4 while class attack bonuses only increase by 1. That said, there are only two Level 19 monsters, so the sample size is incredibly small. It's pretty likely that the two we were given just have high AC for their level.Ah ha, that'd do it.
I missed that in the summary and couldn't read the underlying data to parse out a meaning.
For the record, Monster AC at Level 16+ is based on a very small sample size and thus may be off by a bit as a result. There are two levels with jumps of +3 AC or more - Levels 16 and 19. The jump at 16 is likely due to the large bump in player attack bonuses at Level 15, but the bump at 19 doesn't appear to relate to a similar increase in player attack bonuses. Hence my suspicion that the small sample size may be throwing that off by a bit.
My Monster AC and TAC stats come from a spreadsheet I posted on the first thread I linked in the OP. Class attack bonuses can be found in this thread's spreadsheet under the tab with that class's name. At some point I'll have to create a masterpost for these things.
Currently working on an update tab for Damage by Class numbers, mostly focusing on melee stuff for now. Ranged numbers will come in slightly later.
These numbers aren't factored for a DPR calculation at the moment - it's simply a table of average damage on a hit. Expect them all to go down by a bit once accuracy is factored in.
Awesome work so far; those charts are pretty handy to have as a reference.
If I could make a request... could you add stats for Animal Form, Dragon Form, Righteous Might, and other such stat-replacing polymorph effects? I know that's quite a bit of extra work, but it'd be interesting to see how such options compare to more typical martials, or even how they compare to the same class using weapons or cantrips. It might also turn up other issues, like whether or not there's "dead levels" for Wild Order Druids between forms where they're better off swinging a weapon rather than using an outdated polymorph form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awesome work so far; those charts are pretty handy to have as a reference.
If I could make a request... could you add stats for Animal Form, Dragon Form, Righteous Might, and other such stat-replacing polymorph effects? I know that's quite a bit of extra work, but it'd be interesting to see how such options compare to more typical martials, or even how they compare to the same class using weapons or cantrips. It might also turn up other issues, like whether or not there's "dead levels" for Wild Order Druids between forms where they're better off swinging a weapon rather than using an outdated polymorph form.
Well gee, how could I refuse a request from someone with a V icon? I'll add polymorphing stuff at some point soon - though Druid will need a separate column for Wild Order stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Turns out, Wild Order Druid doesn't actually do anything special for polymorph abilities and uses the same numbers as everyone else. That made this a lot shorter.
As requested, here's an updated sheet with Polymorph numbers included.
Polymorph spells are weird. The attack bonus is set for almost every spell (except Primal Herd), while the damage bonus is either set to the same number for all forms or a different number for each form/attack. Forms are balanced with low-damage forms providing more utility, but the issue this provides is that actual damage numbers vary from form to form, making average damage numbers very hard. I tend to use the second-highest damage possible, as it's closer to the expected average damage, but some spells have such a large range of damage numbers (Elemental Form in particular) that I include different columns for the second-highest and the highest damage possible. If I get the time, I'll try to make a table for each spell for greater accuracy.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice work. I'm obviously a fan, since I've used bits of your research in my own stuff on AC.
These results are both a better than a lot of people have claimed and worse than I'd personally like it to be. These numbers are fine if they were the middle of the optimization curve, but if this is the far top edge, that means that an "average" character is going to be 5-15% worse off - and that's really not in a fun place to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice work. I'm obviously a fan, since I've used bits of your research in my own stuff on AC.
These results are both a better than a lot of people have claimed and worse than I'd personally like it to be. These numbers are fine if they were the middle of the optimization curve, but if this is the far top edge, that means that an "average" character is going to be 5-15% worse off - and that's really not in a fun place to be.
Honestly, I don't see why they can't just use the +3 attack bonus = +50% damage estimate for reducing the monster AC, and bumping HP accordingly. Now those numbers will look a little different, if set at a different baseline, and I think it's safer to say a -2 to AC corresponds to +25% HP, and a -3 is about +35-40% HP, but I could see that as a solution, probably hewing towards closer to the -2 from their baseline at lower levels and closer to the -3 at higher levels, because it feels like this was based around well-optimized martials, which isn't great either for martials or non-martials, because martials feel like even where they've specialized they're underwhelming, and non-martials feel like even if they spec into a weapon user role, such as through a fighter multiclass, they can't keep up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
New update on First Strike Damage
I have what are possibly the most definitive numbers on the class rankings with regards to damage, and there were a couple surprises. First, Barbarian may lead initially, but Fighter quickly overtakes them and they end up just slightly behind the Ranger and Paladin. Second, the DEX Rogue utilizing Sneak Attack is actually tied with Monk for the third-place damage, although without Sneak Attack the Rogue beaten by the Bard with Inspire Courage active (and only at a +1 bonus, too). Finally, Magical Striker isn't really worth much in raw damage increases over using a weapon with a higher damage dice 2-handed, but I expect that it will depend entirely on what spell is being cast to activate it (I definitely recommend True Strike, as it's a Level 1 spell that costs 1 action and is very good at increasing your hit rate). Other than that, no real surprises here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad more than just two of us are still doing math threads.
I'm also glad we are all getting similar results, it means we're doing something right.
Good stuff here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Important thing I noticed, all class damage numbers go down at Level 12, 16, and 19 (except for bomber alchemists, which still see an increase at 16 and 18 thanks to targeting TAC). These are all also levels where monster AC goes up by 2 or more while player attack bonuses do not.
Additionally, this helps point out the value of a small bonus in these damage numbers. Compare the Fighter and the Ranger - both have the same weapon, strength, and items, and both increase their attack bonus at all the same levels. The only difference is the Fighter starts with an extra +1 that the Ranger can never make up ground for. When compared, the Fighter's damage tends to be between 14% and 17% higher at any given level.
Also, I feel it should be noted that most classes intended for weapon use have about a 50-55% hit rate at most levels. This matters because once your hit rate reaches 60% your critical hit rate also begins to increase - for the best melee classes, all it takes is an effective +1 or +2 to start increasing your critical hit rate, which is fairly easy to accomplish with positioning and buffs/debuffs. Flatfooted alone does the trick in most cases. Consider a Level 11 Ranger (14.7 damage on Strike 1) - a +1 to hit gives a 10% crit chance, increasing Strike 1 damage to 17.15 (17% increase). A +2 to hit grants a 15% crit chance, increasing Strike 1 damage to 19.6 (33% increase). Adding a +3 gives a 20% crit chance with Strike 1 damage of 22.05 (50% increase) - easily accomplished by Bless and Flanking (or Bless and Bottled Lightning if your party has an Alchemist). More numbers would need to be run to get a perfect picture, though, and I'm not getting around to that sort of thing tonight.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
That pretty much just confirms what I already suspected based on my incomplete view: everything is so tightly tuned to needing to roll a 10 or 11 to succeed (on literally everything) that all the +1 bonuses we get from just being ourselves (expert weapon proficiency, +level, stat increases, magic weapons, etc) are pointless.
Well not pointless, but values that you're expected to have and so monsters get that same +1 at the same time and so you never see any increase in your hit rate. THESE +1s have zero effect on your damage output and every -1 you give yourself by taking something else (e.g. not upgrading strength to 20) actively harms you and makes the meaningful +1s harder to acquire.
But the +1s that come from outside of just existing (Bless, Flat Footed, etc) have a sizable impact.
And that's why we call it a treadmill.
That pretty much just confirms what I already suspected based on my incomplete view: everything is so tightly tuned to needing to roll a 10 or 11 to succeed (on literally everything) that all the +1 bonuses we get from just being ourselves (expert weapon proficiency, +level, stat increases, magic weapons, etc) are pointless.
Well not pointless, but values that you're expected to have and so monsters get that same +1 at the same time and so you never see any increase in your hit rate. THESE +1s have zero effect on your damage output and every -1 you give yourself by taking something else (e.g. not upgrading strength to 20) actively harms you and makes the meaningful +1s harder to acquire.
But the +1s that come from outside of just existing (Bless, Flat Footed, etc) have a sizable impact.
And that's why we call it a treadmill.
Accuracy does remain roughly the same, that much is true. A Fighter has accuracy between 50% and 65% against creatures of their level for the entire campaign as long as they boost their attack stat, buy potency runes and their stat-boosting item, and start with an 18 in their STR or DEX score. But I don't think accuracy is the only important factor here - that's why I included damage tables and did a DPR calculation. The results show that there is a large difference in damage between classes - a Fighter deals 17% more damage than a Ranger with all stats and items equal, and compared to the lowest-damage classes on my chart (2H Casters, which start with a 16 and use a d8 weapon) they deal around 100% more damage. Even if I give the casters a d12 weapon (say they take Fighter Dedication at Level 2), Fighters still deal about 60% more damage. The only differences there are the proficiency bonus and the STR score being +1 higher on Fighter's- correcting for that gives them around a 40% damage advantage. (For the record, my next addition will be casters with Fighter Dedication and Weapon Expert)
Now, I'm trying to present this information without taking sides on the "is this design good or bad" debate. While it's fair to say that Proficiency doesn't impact accuracy to a large degree, the math proves that it's actually worth a large percentage of the damage advantage that martial classes have over casters. Whether or not it feels satisfying in game isn't something that numbers can prove or disprove, though.
Additionally, I must stress that these numbers do not account for buffs, debuffs, or class feats that may boost attack or damage values. It should be pretty easy to flank an enemy to make them Flatfooted, and Bless and Magic Weapon are easily-accessible Level 1 buffs that add another +1 (only Druids and Fey Sorcerers can't access either of these). It should be relatively easy to get an effective attack bonus +10% or +15% higher with such effects, which will boost crit chance for every class at almost every level.
Could you comment on how you calculated your Alchemist bomb damage per hit? I don't see how it can be 8.5 at low levels (4.5 base for alchemist's fire +1 persistent), but I must be missing something obvious.
Additionally, I must stress that these numbers do not account for buffs, debuffs, or class feats that may boost attack or damage values. It should be pretty easy to flank an enemy to make them Flatfooted, and Bless and Magic Weapon are easily-accessible Level 1 buffs that add another +1 (only Druids and Fey Sorcerers can't access either of these). It should be relatively easy to get an effective attack bonus +10% or +15% higher with such effects, which will boost crit chance for every class at almost every level.
One thing I think this highlights is ranged effectiveness. As you say, flanking is fairly easy, and there are buffs like bless, but if you're ranged, and not within 30ft of the cleric, you're operating on a -3 relative to those with such easily achievable bonuses (plus a likely -1 due to screening). Can't say just how much of a concern this is, since I haven't done much with ranged characters, but it is something to consider.
Could you comment on how you calculated your Alchemist bomb damage per hit? I don't see how it can be 8.5 at low levels (4.5 base for alchemist's fire +1 persistent), but I must be missing something obvious.
I must have mistakenly remembered them adding +INT to bomb damage, which accounts for the damage difference and makes them far less useful on damage than the charts said. I've fixed the numbers now. Thanks for pointing that out! Also, Persistent damage isn't included in my calculations, since Persistent Fire 1 may tick once or seven times, drastically altering how much a single bomb could deal.
Also, Paizo, please let Alchemists add +INT to bomb damage - without it their damage numbers are abysmal.
Additionally, I must stress that these numbers do not account for buffs, debuffs, or class feats that may boost attack or damage values. It should be pretty easy to flank an enemy to make them Flatfooted, and Bless and Magic Weapon are easily-accessible Level 1 buffs that add another +1 (only Druids and Fey Sorcerers can't access either of these). It should be relatively easy to get an effective attack bonus +10% or +15% higher with such effects, which will boost crit chance for every class at almost every level.One thing I think this highlights is ranged effectiveness. As you say, flanking is fairly easy, and there are buffs like bless, but if you're ranged, and not within 30ft of the cleric, you're operating on a -3 relative to those with such easily achievable bonuses (plus a likely -1 due to screening). Can't say just how much of a concern this is, since I haven't done much with ranged characters, but it is something to consider.
In my experience it's pretty hard to position characters to be more than 30' apart from each other - lots of combats occur in close-quarters, and long-range engagements are less common. More importantly, Magic Weapon is a far better buff for an archer because it doesn't have a range limit and helps increase their damage too. Magic Weapon is also on all non-Primal spell lists, so even Wizards can chip in with buffing duties.
Could you comment on how you calculated your Alchemist bomb damage per hit? I don't see how it can be 8.5 at low levels (4.5 base for alchemist's fire +1 persistent), but I must be missing something obvious.I must have mistakenly remembered them adding +INT to bomb damage, which accounts for the damage difference and makes them far less useful on damage than the charts said. I've fixed the numbers now. Thanks for pointing that out! Also, Persistent damage isn't included in my calculations, since Persistent Fire 1 may tick once or seven times, drastically altering how much a single bomb could deal.
Also, Paizo, please let Alchemists add +INT to bomb damage - without it their damage numbers are abysmal.
At 4th level they can take calculated splash to replace a bomb's splash damage with their INT. Some people on the forums have been claiming that the primary target also takes the splash damage (I'm not sure if this has been clarified). That might be what you're remembering.
At 4th level they can take calculated splash to replace a bomb's splash damage with their INT. Some people on the forums have been claiming that the primary target also takes the splash damage (I'm not sure if this has been clarified). That might be what you're remembering.
This bit:
Most bombs also have the splash trait. When you use a
thrown weapon with the splash trait, you don’t add your
Strength modifier to the damage roll. If an attack with a
splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all
creatures within 5 feet of the target take the listed amount
of splash damage. On a failure (but not a critical failure),
the target of the attack also takes the splash damage. You
don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit.
The target does not take splash, except on a failure. The second bolded sentence would not need to be there if the target was affected by the first (bolded) sentence.
FWIW I agree with you Draco, but I've seen the argument otherwise.
For the record, I remember specifically checking that and noticing that the splash damage only applies to the target on a failed attack roll, then adding the +INT bonus later anyway. I just blanked on it. It was a total traffic jam of lucidity. A real brain freeze of rationality.
Also, the thing about adding splash damage to the target of the attack may have been due to a very early playtest game Paizo published where the GM misremembered how Acid Splash worked, and now that the rules are out people may be misreading that paragraph as confirmation. I personally don't add splash damage to the target since the rules say it only applies on a (non-crit) failed attack roll.
In my experience it's pretty hard to position characters to be more than 30' apart from each other - lots of combats occur in close-quarters, and long-range engagements are less common. More importantly, Magic Weapon is a far better buff for an archer because it doesn't have a range limit and helps increase their damage too. Magic Weapon is also on all non-Primal spell lists, so even Wizards can chip in with buffing duties.Additionally, I must stress that these numbers do not account for buffs, debuffs, or class feats that may boost attack or damage values. It should be pretty easy to flank an enemy to make them Flatfooted, and Bless and Magic Weapon are easily-accessible Level 1 buffs that add another +1 (only Druids and Fey Sorcerers can't access either of these). It should be relatively easy to get an effective attack bonus +10% or +15% higher with such effects, which will boost crit chance for every class at almost every level.One thing I think this highlights is ranged effectiveness. As you say, flanking is fairly easy, and there are buffs like bless, but if you're ranged, and not within 30ft of the cleric, you're operating on a -3 relative to those with such easily achievable bonuses (plus a likely -1 due to screening). Can't say just how much of a concern this is, since I haven't done much with ranged characters, but it is something to consider.
Maybe it's just biased on what I've played of 2e, but I've found it fairly easy to get out of 30ft, with the new action economy/lack of common AoOs encouraging more mobility among front-line characters. And magic weapon only helps at low-ish levels, because it doesn't heighten. It's only a +1, but with Screening, and a lack of flanking, even if they get into 30 feet, and they're low enough level that they can still benefit from magic weapon, it seems at best at a wash, as opposed to any net gain.
Well... I have a Barbarian and a Fighter in one of my playtest groups. The Barbarian was definitely struggling to keep up. I had a Monk in a different group and that was awesome. I haven't had a Ranger in a session yet but I've heard plenty of reports that they struggle as well.
Maybe it's just biased on what I've played of 2e, but I've found it fairly easy to get out of 30ft, with the new action economy/lack of common AoOs encouraging more mobility among front-line characters. And magic weapon only helps at low-ish levels, because it doesn't heighten. It's only a +1, but with Screening, and a lack of flanking, even if they get into 30 feet, and they're low enough level that they can still benefit from magic weapon, it seems at best at a wash, as opposed to any net gain.In my experience it's pretty hard to position characters to be more than 30' apart from each other - lots of combats occur in close-quarters, and long-range engagements are less common. More importantly, Magic Weapon is a far better buff for an archer because it doesn't have a range limit and helps increase their damage too. Magic Weapon is also on all non-Primal spell lists, so even Wizards can chip in with buffing duties.Additionally, I must stress that these numbers do not account for buffs, debuffs, or class feats that may boost attack or damage values. It should be pretty easy to flank an enemy to make them Flatfooted, and Bless and Magic Weapon are easily-accessible Level 1 buffs that add another +1 (only Druids and Fey Sorcerers can't access either of these). It should be relatively easy to get an effective attack bonus +10% or +15% higher with such effects, which will boost crit chance for every class at almost every level.One thing I think this highlights is ranged effectiveness. As you say, flanking is fairly easy, and there are buffs like bless, but if you're ranged, and not within 30ft of the cleric, you're operating on a -3 relative to those with such easily achievable bonuses (plus a likely -1 due to screening). Can't say just how much of a concern this is, since I haven't done much with ranged characters, but it is something to consider.
At higher levels, better buffs would probably be useful, though even with increased mobility I find that most players actively try to remain positioned within the radius to benefit from the bonus. Unlike in PF1, this should be easier since most characters are now more easily mobile (an archer, for instance, won't lose much by spending a move action to reposition into a more favorable range and firing lane).
Additionally, ranged fighters and rangers have the option of taking class feats that spend 2 actions to bypass screening, concealment, and most cover bonuses with the added benefit of granting a +2 bonus if they aren't benefiting from any of those. Seeing as it handily deals with the most common ranged attack penalties while also providing an activity (hate that term btw) that can boost hit and crit chance by +2, I totally recommend that.
This isn't to say I don't think ranged DPS is potentially too low, but I haven't run the numbers yet. My first impression is that they'll be significantly worse on Shortbows and close on Longbows outside the 50' volley range (which IIRC may be removed in favor of granting Shortbows Agile, something I approve of).
I disagree, I'll have to dig the thread up where I did the math, but the math gets fixed if classes start adding in secondary stats to their attack rolls, given an appropriate tax (mine was an action).
I did notice another issue - the DPS sheet uses AC instead of TAC for bombs, which decreases their expected damage. I will fix this shortly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good news, I figured out how to set a formula to return the higher of two values, which means I can automate crit chance now instead of manually entering the crit chance based on the normal accuracy. This means I can more easily post tables with increased or decreased attack bonuses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A bit of a tangent, but I feel the doom and gloom about accuracy is overstated. This is about absolute accuracy, not relative accuracy - I totally trust LuniasM's comparison between classes.
Looking at the encounter design guidelines in the playtest bestiary, a single equal-level creature is a Hard encounter for 4 characters. By this metric, most encounters should be against multiple creatures of lower level. Here, player accuracy will soar, and critical hits will become a regular thing.
Only, none of the scenarios in Doomsday Dawn are done like this - they all go way past hard in encounter difficulty. :o
Now, lets let this thread be about statistics and not rants for/against accuracy. I'll try to not reply if there are replies to this, lets keep that debate in its own threads.
I've fixed the Alchemist accuracy tables - unfortunately I can't figure out how to add a column to one area without adding it to others, but perhaps in the future I can piece that together.
Anyway, here's the updated sheet link. I suspect that the old links still work, but just in case.
This time I've added four new sheets detailing DPS when you have various bonuses to your attack roll (+1 to +4). At a glance it appears that these offer significant damage increases, but I'll have to determine just how much they're worth in a later update.
During a break in class I updated the file with four new sheets for attack penalties between -1 and -4. That should give everyone a better range of data to pull from.
By this metric, most encounters should be against multiple creatures of lower level.
Yeah, it looks like its set for primarily fights against PL-2 creatures most of the time. A PL-1 creature is just about on-match even against a PC (creatures of PL+0 have the same AC as PCs, but have 4 higher attack).
Barbarian damage was lower than it should have been, I mistakenly forgot the increase to Rage bonus damage. As a result Barbarian is now roughly on-par with Paladin's and Ranger's for expected first Strike damage, as long as they're raging anyway.
You may want to include barbarian off-rage numbers as well.