Bandw2 wrote: with a build that relies on high AC, you're less likely to take a hit, but the maximum overall damage you can take in combat is higher than a purely offensive build. The maximum damage you can take is 'enough to kill you' in both scenarios, whether you're focused on DPR or AC. If the dice keep going against you, you'll lose.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Matthew Downie wrote: Bandw2 wrote: with a build that relies on high AC, you're less likely to take a hit, but the maximum overall damage you can take in combat is higher than a purely offensive build. The maximum damage you can take is 'enough to kill you' in both scenarios, whether you're focused on DPR or AC. If the dice keep going against you, you'll lose. Which is an argument that can be made for everything involving dice. Seeing as you can't get Assurance to strikes and spells it is a non-argument.
I think an interesting application for DPR is seeing if it is significant enough of a difference between one build and another for example let's say one is doing 80 points and another is doing 70. If the target has 140 hp then the extra 10 is irrelevant. it will still take 2 shots with igther build. So I would be curious what the sweet spot of each level would be.
Vidmaster7 wrote: I think an interesting application for DPR is seeing if it is significant enough of a difference between one build and another for example let's say one is doing 80 points and another is doing 70. If the target has 140 hp then the extra 10 is irrelevant. it will still take 2 shots with igther build. So I would be curious what the sweet spot of each level would be. Well you take it as a ballpark. On average they will take the same amount of rounds, but the 80 dpr build will do so more reliably (sans considering other factors that may or may not adjust the bellcurve of each attack).
Tender Tendrils wrote: To be honest, I don't think DPR matters that much.
You don't need to do the most possible damage, you just need to do enough damage, which most attack focused characters will do regardless of subclass or feats or weapon.
The real stuff that I have found to clinch fights are damage prevention, buffs, debuffs, control and positioning, and teamwork.
Differences in DPR usually come out in the wash, while being in the wrong position or having a nasty debuff from failing an important save generally doesn't come out, and inflicting a nasty debuff will cause your team to do more damage overall.
It is amazing to see how much better DPR becomes when you is subsumed into group.
Malk_Content wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: I think an interesting application for DPR is seeing if it is significant enough of a difference between one build and another for example let's say one is doing 80 points and another is doing 70. If the target has 140 hp then the extra 10 is irrelevant. it will still take 2 shots with igther build. So I would be curious what the sweet spot of each level would be. Well you take it as a ballpark. On average they will take the same amount of rounds, but the 80 dpr build will do so more reliably (sans considering other factors that may or may not adjust the bellcurve of each attack). The 80 DPR is no more reliable then the 70 DPR
Bandw2 wrote: one of my player's is a giant instinct barbarian (it's his first time playing TTRPGs he just liked having a big sword) and the rage damage moves his attacks into territory where he can 1-shot potentials level+2 enemies currently, because he almost did just that, and only needed to roll higher on his damage to have done it.
instead he rolled low and got crit himself and so had to retreat. with animal instinct he'd still have been crit (natural 20) but would have had no chance of ever 1-shotting that particular enemy and saving his HP. it only had 3 hp left, and so was cleaned up with a cantrip from the cleric in the group.
Alpha strike is a very important thing to keep in mind in all forms of combat, because it, in general gives your enemy's less chance to roll the dice against you.
with a build that relies on high AC, you're less likely to take a hit, but the maximum overall damage you can take in combat is higher than a purely offensive build, even if the average is possibly lower(that the offensive build).
Here's the problem, I'm going to guess this is lower levels? Alpha strike won't be a thing at higher levels, as at level 2, you're doing 10-15 damage, and enemies at level have around 30 HP. At level 20, you're doing 40-50 damage, and enemies have around 450 HP.
I don't think this plays out that way at higher levels. Granted, we have literally no higher level gameplay to base this on, but just looking at the straight numbers, 2x average damage vs HP that goes to 10x average damage vs HP is going to be a pretty big swing (pun intended).
Ten10 wrote: The 80 DPR is no more reliable then the 70 DPR In some circumstances maybe, but in most yes it is. The 80 has more leeway in either of its rolls to achieve the same amount. It may not be so much more reliable for you to care, but it is more reliable.
Malk_Content wrote: Ten10 wrote: The 80 DPR is no more reliable then the 70 DPR In some circumstances maybe, but in most yes it is. The 80 has more leeway in either of its rolls to achieve the same amount. It may not be so much more reliable for you to care, but it is more reliable. Except this is an RPG where you have 2 options.
1. hit do 80 points
2. miss do 0 points
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ten10 wrote: Malk_Content wrote: Ten10 wrote: The 80 DPR is no more reliable then the 70 DPR In some circumstances maybe, but in most yes it is. The 80 has more leeway in either of its rolls to achieve the same amount. It may not be so much more reliable for you to care, but it is more reliable. Except this is an RPG where you have 2 options.
1. hit do 80 points
2. miss do 0 points
Wait do you just use average DPR instead of rolling damage? That would explain a lot.
Depending on the dice used there are actually dozens of options. Take the chance to kill in a single blow, a D6 is reliable to kill a 4hp foe than a d4. That is patently obvious I hope. Now both will require two rolls to kill a 7hp enemy (barring crits) but the D6 does so with a 58% chance vs the d4s 19%. The higher dpr attack is more reliable.
I'll be taking animal instinct over giant most times.
I value the ac more than the Fringe benefits more. Like a much less cheesy MC into monk and getting flurry of blows
I wonder if this fallacy hits not just those who optimise, but those who feel they're underperforming in combat. The ones who (at least in 1E) see the barbarian hacking enemies down in blurs of frenzy while thinking they can only plink.
Qaianna wrote: I wonder if this fallacy hits not just those who optimise, but those who feel they're underperforming in combat. The ones who (at least in 1E) see the barbarian hacking enemies down in blurs of frenzy while thinking they can only plink. I think that if they have time to think that a friend of them is doing more damage on the battlefield then the dpr is the last of the issues.
A barbarian smashing a single enemy is no surprise to be honest.
Talking about damage, what concerns me the most is the dragon barbarian because of his aoe.
"Ok, he is dealing with the Big one. So I am going to clear the rest of the troops by throwing a fireball in the middl..."
*dragon's breath*
"Ok nevermind"
What?
Are you not seeing the thread progress?
This is the thread progress
Malk_Content wrote: Ten10 wrote: Malk_Content wrote: Ten10 wrote: Malk_Content wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: I think an interesting application for DPR is seeing if it is significant enough of a difference between one build and another for example let's say one is doing 80 points and another is doing 70. If the target has 140 hp then the extra 10 is irrelevant. it will still take 2 shots with igther build. So I would be curious what the sweet spot of each level would be. Well you take it as a ballpark. On average they will take the same amount of rounds, but the 80 dpr build will do so more reliably (sans considering other factors that may or may not adjust the bellcurve of each attack). The 80 DPR is no more reliable then the 70 DPR In some circumstances maybe, but in most yes it is. The 80 has more leeway in either of its rolls to achieve the same amount. It may not be so much more reliable for you to care, but it is more reliable. Except this is an RPG where you have 2 options.
1. hit do 80 points
2. miss do 0 points Wait do you just use average DPR instead of rolling damage? That would explain a lot.
Depending on the dice used there are actually dozens of options. Take the chance to kill in a single blow, a D6 is reliable to kill a 4hp foe than a d4. That is patently obvious I hope. Now both will require two rolls to kill a 7hp enemy (barring crits) but the D6 does so with a 58% chance vs the d4s 19%. The higher dpr attack is more reliable. Vidmaster7 asked about 140hp vs 80 damage or 70 damage.
You said take the ballpark.
I said 80 is nor more reliable than 70
You said is some circumstances maybe....
I said except in RPGs you either hit do 80 or miss do 0
Now you are asking me if I use average DPR?
No. I used what Vidmaster7 asked about doing 80 or 70 damage vs 140hp.
There is no d6+74 vs d4+66 or anything else.
They asked 80 or 70 vs 140. nothing less nothing more
80 dpr vs 70 dpr, not 80 damage versus 70 damage. Now to be fair I reduced that to dpa but the point still stands, 80 dpr will be more reliable (except in very odd mathematical cases where the 70 dpr somehow has a very tight range.)
Even if vid wasn't talking about dpr, I was and you stated that the 80 dpr is not more reliable over the 70 dpr, which is (for how such numbers are almost guaranteed to arise in pathfinder) just mathematically false.
I reduced it to a smaller scale example purely because working with smaller ranges is easier.
The asking if you just use average raised from the fact you said in rpgs its either a hit for x or a miss. Which isn't the case in the vast majority of rpgs and absolutely isnt the case in pathfinder. In pathfinder you either miss or hit for a variable range of damage.
10% to do 800 damage is 80 DPR
90% to do 78 damage is 70 DPR
Looks like 70 DPR is more reliable than the 80 DPR. Particularly when every creature has no more then 63 hp. I can get math to do whatever I want as well.
You have zero information on how the 80 or 70 number was reached. Saying that the higher number is more reliable is faulty logic.
Sorry, you have two options
1. Hit -> deal damage
2. Miss -> 000000
Which is the case for the vast, vast majority of RPGs including PF2
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ten10 wrote: 10% to do 800 damage is 80 DPR
90% to do 78 damage is 70 DPR
Looks like 70 DPR is more reliable than the 80 DPR. Particularly when every creature has no more then 63 hp. I can get math to do whatever I want as well.
You have zero information on how the 80 or 70 number was reached. Saying that the higher number is more reliable is faulty logic.
Sorry, you have two options
1. Hit -> deal damage
2. Miss -> 000000
Which is the case for the vast, vast majority of RPGs including PF2
Yes those are numbers that "prove" your point. They also arent in the same ballgame let alone park as the kind of numbers that pathfinder generates. I also qualified that there are some circumstances were it wouldn't be the case, but the vast majority of the time in pf2 (with its uniformly constrained set of damage variables) until wilder options are printed it is a guess you can make with 90% certainty. Obviously having the full set of variables is better to inform you.
And no you a reducing a variable set of outcomes to a useless binary. Removing the variable doesn't make your point.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote: Bandw2 wrote: with a build that relies on high AC, you're less likely to take a hit, but the maximum overall damage you can take in combat is higher than a purely offensive build. The maximum damage you can take is 'enough to kill you' in both scenarios, whether you're focused on DPR or AC. If the dice keep going against you, you'll lose. incorrect/misunderstood, if nothing changes but the damage and AC, there's a difference in rounds(potentially, not all cases) that the enemy will be alive.
so say with 1 build assuming each hit(same to hit, both characters rolled a 17+mods to hit the enemy), but one has more damage the other higher AC, the higher damage one might kill the enemy in 2 rounds, the other 3.
so if the enemy has 2d6+6 damage per attack, each attack has a range of 8-18 for possible damage, say the enemy attacks twice per rounds against you.
the higher damage build will only possibly take 32-72 damage, which the higher AC build will possibly take 48-108 damage.
i'm just pointing out alpha strike is very useful in all forms of combat, where it lets you have less chances to take damage, even if you're more easily hit.
Ten10 wrote: 10% to do 800 damage is 80 DPR
90% to do 78 damage is 70 DPR
Can you give me examples of builds that do this?
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ten10 wrote: 10% to do 800 damage is 80 DPR
90% to do 78 damage is 70 DPR
Looks like 70 DPR is more reliable than the 80 DPR. Particularly when every creature has no more then 63 hp. I can get math to do whatever I want as well.
You have zero information on how the 80 or 70 number was reached. Saying that the higher number is more reliable is faulty logic.
Sorry, you have two options
1. Hit -> deal damage
2. Miss -> 000000
Which is the case for the vast, vast majority of RPGs including PF2
right, which is why overkill needs to be included in DPR calculations.
if enemies only have at most X HP, then all the extra damage isn't DPR.
most people who say DPR isn't everything, just don't know how the do extensive DPR calculations.
and we actually have 20 options.
we can roll any number on a d20, and depending on the situation involved each d20 number might do a different thing. sometimes a 7 is a hit, sometimes it isn't sometimes a 17 is a hit, sometimes it's a crit.
DPR takes into account how likely you are to hit or miss and should take into account how likely you are to waste damage as well.
I don't understand how you can be arguing around an obvious misunderstanding: dpr is average damage. Most (all?) abilities in PF2 do damage in a range, not a static one.
Thus, doing 80 average damage in a round could mean something like 4d12+54, or 23d6 (more or less).
Conversely, 70 average damage could be 4d12+44, or 20d6.
Probabilities of killing a 140 HP enemy in two rounds:
98.31% with 4d12+54/round (avg: 80)
96.84% with 23d6/round (avg: 80.5)
52.00% with 4d12+44/round (avg: 70)
51.84% with 20d6/round (avg: 70)
So yes, doing 80 dpr is much more reliable.
So variance does matter, but it's mostly in fairly contrived cases. For a simple example, consider doing 1d10+70 damage vs doing 1d100 damage. Obviously 1d10+70 is better, but if you run into an enemy with 170hp, you've got a shot of killing it in two hits with 1d100, but no shot 1d10+70.
Still, it's not really a useful average, and a fairly contrived example, as guaranteeing how much HP an enemy has in the real world is impossible... In any case, you'll, on average, kill the enemy in the above example faster doing 1d10+70.
All this being said... sigh. I didn't actually want the discussion *again* to devolve into whether or not variance was important or whether or not DPR literally has any meaning. Of course it has meaning... people just prescribe too much meaning to it in PF2.
Also, @HumbleGamer: You're *completely* right about dragon instinct. I think either it or animal instinct are the best because the dragon instinct AoE is just *so* good.
So basically your saying that the 80 dpr is also more likely to hit which yeah got ya makes sense. the extra 10 damage might be from having 1 more + to hit. however it also would work out the same over a large number of examples as long as the target has 140 hp. eventually you'll hit twice for 80 or 70 and either way he will die. However if say your attacks are doing 40 and 40 or 35 and 35 (or since dice it's going to be more varied of course) 40 80 120 160 dead 35 70 105 140 dead. or more likely something like +10 to hit for 2d6+34 ish ver probably just something like +11 being the only difference (No actual math used here just the jest of math)
So basically the DPR formula would be telling us that +1 to hit would be worth 10 more DPR in this example. It's not saying that you will guarantee killing the enemy one attack sooner. On average however you will probably hit a slight bit more often. DPR does have the advantage of letting me know how much of an effect I can expect from getting another +1 to hit, or +x to damage etc. You could even go OK my scorching ray spell does X DPR once but giving the fighter a +2 to hit or the enemy -2 to ac would be worth X DPR or a summoned minion would be worth X dpr (but also add a target etc.) You could really use it for a good number of purposes. You should also take into account other things too however. Like say stunning fist what is my chances of knocking them out then damage wouldn't matter. or just sureing up defenses. like if I hit 65 of the time would I rather have 5 more damage or hit the target 5% more? basically DPR just shortens the math you have to do in your head by a step.
In this edition it seems like really most worries about character effectiveness are already fixed and baked in really. It's hard not to make a effective character. still some people might look at an option and say hmm should I go with the one with higher damage or better mobility. It's going to be super situational. doesn't mean that knowing the DPR isn't useful however.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Megistone wrote: I don't understand how you can be arguing around an obvious misunderstanding: dpr is average damage. Most (all?) abilities in PF2 do damage in a range, not a static one.
Thus, doing 80 average damage in a round could mean something like 4d12+54, or 23d6 (more or less).
Conversely, 70 average damage could be 4d12+44, or 20d6.
Probabilities of killing a 140 HP enemy in two rounds:
98.31% with 4d12+54/round (avg: 80)
96.84% with 23d6/round (avg: 80.5)
52.00% with 4d12+44/round (avg: 70)
51.84% with 20d6/round (avg: 70)
So yes, doing 80 dpr is much more reliable.
You cannot calculate probability of killing if you do not simulate vs probability of being killed. Your DPR is irrelevant when you are downed or you have downed, there is no damage tally being kept - the simulation has an exit condition and resets after each kill. All that matters is who got to who first.
That is where STR is no longer the prime optimization variable, but all the defensive option of the other stats have to be considered as tradeoffs.
When you actually do the tradeoff analysis for rounds to kill(ed) that you find the difference in options is much less than the variance in tables - literally +/-5% for options becomes +/-50% for variation
I agree with you krazmuze.
I was just saying that there was a misunderstanding about what dpr meant, and did some math to show the obvious thing that more average damage means being usually more effective at killing stuff.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Yes that would be true if all you did in this game was try to kill stuff, without stuff trying to kill you.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
krazmuze wrote: Yes that would be true if all you did in this game was try to kill stuff, without stuff trying to kill you.
true but barbarian being an example of someone easier to hit and higher than average damage, they still seem to come out on top a lot.
i feel like this sentence falls apart or at least is inconsistent if you don't think a barbarian isn't a poor choice of class.
Bandw2 wrote: tivadar27 wrote: I brought this up in a previous thread, but I've seen it creeping into discussions both on here as well as on the Facebook Group for PF2. Basically, DPR as a metric for character effectiveness often leads to people misevaluating the effectiveness of their character because they're used to how things worked in PF1.
To bring up a concrete example, this came up in the context of "building the best barbarian", where someone stated that they'd go Giant Instinct, because it did the most damage/had the highest DPR. But let's take a closer look:
well, here's the issue with offense versus defensive builds.
offensive builds will get attacked less, because enemies will die sooner. defensive builds will get attacked more because it'll take longer to end the fight. (not even going into enemy's potentially ignoring you to attack squishier targets)
one of my player's is a giant instinct barbarian (it's his first time playing TTRPGs he just liked having a big sword) and the rage damage moves his attacks into territory where he can 1-shot potentials level+2 enemies currently, because he almost did just that, and only needed to roll higher on his damage to have done it.
instead he rolled low and got crit himself and so had to retreat. with animal instinct he'd still have been crit (natural 20) but would have had no chance of ever 1-shotting that particular enemy and saving his HP. it only had 3 hp left, and so was cleaned up with a cantrip from the cleric in the group.
Alpha strike is a very important thing to keep in mind in all forms of combat, because it, in general gives your enemy's less chance to roll the dice against you.
with a build that relies on high AC, you're less likely to take a hit, but the maximum overall damage you can take in combat is higher than a purely offensive build, even if the average is possibly lower(that the offensive build). That's true in a 1v1 fight, but not true in group fights.
In a group fight, you can have one character specialize in defense, at a small cost to the group's damage. If the party can then control the enemies' movement enough to keep them engaged with the party tank, you dramatically improve party survivability at a small cost to party damage.
tivadar27 wrote: I brought this up in a previous thread, but I've seen it creeping into discussions both on here as well as on the Facebook Group for PF2. Basically, DPR as a metric for character effectiveness often leads to people misevaluating the effectiveness of their character because they're used to how things worked in PF1.
To bring up a concrete example, this came up in the context of "building the best barbarian", where someone stated that they'd go Giant Instinct, because it did the most damage/had the highest DPR. But let's take a closer look:
<snip>
Note: this isn't the only post I've seen that has operated on the assumption that DPR is king. However, there are plenty of people out there as well that realize that this is not actually the case. I'm not saying DPR is worthless, we just should try to do a better job at analyzing other abilities as a community, as well as...
Of course DPR is king.
But that doesn't mean it's the ONLY consideration. I mean, an absurd case should make that abundantly clear: would you take +1 to DPR in return of spontaneously exploding after the fight is won?
I think not.
So. What your post is really saying is "that guy is bad at minmaxing". Not "a good minmaxer doesn't aim for optimal DPR".
Of course DPR is King - just not at any cost. Losing more AC than you gain in average damage per attack is a very raw deal.
(Taking into consideration a 50% hit ratio; you'd pay 2/3rds of a point of AC but only gain half a point on damage)
Have a good day
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp wrote: tivadar27 wrote: I brought this up in a previous thread, but I've seen it creeping into discussions both on here as well as on the Facebook Group for PF2. Basically, DPR as a metric for character effectiveness often leads to people misevaluating the effectiveness of their character because they're used to how things worked in PF1.
To bring up a concrete example, this came up in the context of "building the best barbarian", where someone stated that they'd go Giant Instinct, because it did the most damage/had the highest DPR. But let's take a closer look:
<snip>
Note: this isn't the only post I've seen that has operated on the assumption that DPR is king. However, there are plenty of people out there as well that realize that this is not actually the case. I'm not saying DPR is worthless, we just should try to do a better job at analyzing other abilities as a community, as well as...
would you take +1 to DPR in return of spontaneously exploding after the fight is with Laughs in 1e barbarian
Zapp wrote: tivadar27 wrote: I brought this up in a previous thread, but I've seen it creeping into discussions both on here as well as on the Facebook Group for PF2. Basically, DPR as a metric for character effectiveness often leads to people misevaluating the effectiveness of their character because they're used to how things worked in PF1.
To bring up a concrete example, this came up in the context of "building the best barbarian", where someone stated that they'd go Giant Instinct, because it did the most damage/had the highest DPR. But let's take a closer look:
<snip>
Note: this isn't the only post I've seen that has operated on the assumption that DPR is king. However, there are plenty of people out there as well that realize that this is not actually the case. I'm not saying DPR is worthless, we just should try to do a better job at analyzing other abilities as a community, as well as...
Of course DPR is king.
But that doesn't mean it's the ONLY consideration. I mean, an absurd case should make that abundantly clear: would you take +1 to DPR in return of spontaneously exploding after the fight is won?
... So you'd take +2 damage per hit over +2 AC? Explain to me again the statement "of course DPR is king"? We need a better way to measure things, and DPR, honestly, just isn't very good. The fact is, doing 40 vs 44 damage at high levels (a 10% increase in damage!) is probably not as good as +2 AC (a 10% decrease in your chance to be hit/crit!).
Honestly, we've got good numbers for average damage, AC, and HP at a given level, perhaps looking at the average TTK (time to kill) vs average TTD (time to death) is a better way to look at things. Yeah, you can have healing on your side, but that's wasting your team's actions. You're essentially "safe" until your HP gets low, though.
Note: I don't think barbarians are bad. I've never made that statement. Barbarians, in general, trade -1 AC for +12 (or more) damage. *That's* a good trade-off. However, the further trade-off when comparing animal or dragon instinct to giant instict is what I'm arguing is bad. Where you're looking at -3 AC for +6 damage (assuming bite and shield vs two-handed weapon). Giant instinct adds reach, but animal instinct adds pounce, and dragon instinct adds AoE. Those are likely close to even, though it's hard to compare apples-to-apples there.
As a DM I love confronting enemies with a party which trade off too much AC for damage.
Normally, players tend to learn how armor class and critical hits work during Early levels, and because of that not to throw too much AC for damage, unless they deliberately want to go for a Glass Cannon build ( and have other players helping them with heals and dr ).
But even so is a bet.
HumbleGamer wrote: As a DM I love confronting enemies with a party which trade off too much AC for damage.
Normally, players tend to learn how armor class and critical hits work during Early levels, and because of that not to throw too much AC for damage, unless they deliberately want to go for a Glass Cannon build ( and have other players helping them with heals and dr ).
But even so is a bet.
Agreed :). Though I think glass cannon builds worked better in 1e due to the fact that most combats, particularly at higher levels, lasted around 1 round, maybe 2 if you were unlucky. In 2e, even at high levels it's a push to do more than 50 or so damage with a single attack, and enemies have 400+ HP. Things are going to drag on 4-6 rounds in many cases. This makes exclusively considering DPR even worse.
Whilst you're seeming frustrated with the "more damage is everything" argument, I look at your "But defense matters" argument as frustrating.
Tho I can't complain too much as there is no morale mechanic, and most things that don't figure into those two really just augment them.
Vidmaster7 wrote: In this edition it seems like really most worries about character effectiveness are already fixed and baked in really. It's hard not to make a effective character. still some people might look at an option and say hmm should I go with the one with higher damage or better mobility. It's going to be super situational. doesn't mean that knowing the DPR isn't useful however. Yes it is super situational.
A +1 to hit only comes into play when two people roll the exact same number and one hits the other misses. And what is the odds of two people rolling the exact same number enough times to make that even noteworthy?
It doesn't kick in to around a +3
Again it's a group game. Multiple dice from multiple people the 80DPR vs 70DPR is absorbed by the randomness of the dice.
I can tell you with the utmost assurance the dice never obey the spreadsheet
Ten10 wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: In this edition it seems like really most worries about character effectiveness are already fixed and baked in really. It's hard not to make a effective character. still some people might look at an option and say hmm should I go with the one with higher damage or better mobility. It's going to be super situational. doesn't mean that knowing the DPR isn't useful however. Yes it is super situational.
A +1 to hit only comes into play when two people roll the exact same number and one hits the other misses. And what is the odds of two people rolling the exact same number enough times to make that even noteworthy?
It doesn't kick in to around a +3
Again it's a group game. Multiple dice from multiple people the 80DPR vs 70DPR is absorbed by the randomness of the dice.
I can tell you with the utmost assurance the dice never obey the spreadsheet This isn't correct for a couple reasons. It comes into play any time one person rolls a number that would have hit, but misses because of a +1. Beyond this, due to the way criticals work, for the first attack in a round it actually comes into play for two numbers on the dice (after that you're likely just critting on a natural 20).
Just some quick math, let's assume you're able to make 2 attacks in any given round, a +1 bonus has a 50% chance of changing a hit to a crit or miss to a hit after 5 rounds of combat. A +2 bonus after only 2 rounds of combat... If you want the numbers for a single attack in a round, it's 7 rounds and 3 rounds. Yes, chances to hit actually do come into play for relatively small values.
Ten10 wrote: A +1 to hit only comes into play when two people roll the exact same number and one hits the other misses. +1 to hit is 15% more damage. Which is the equivalent of the damage done by your third attack.
Every time you make a third attack, you acknowledge than +1 to hit is big enough to use an action for it.
SuperBidi wrote: Ten10 wrote: A +1 to hit only comes into play when two people roll the exact same number and one hits the other misses. +1 to hit is 15% more damage. Which is the equivalent of the damage done by your third attack.
Every time you make a third attack, you acknowledge than +1 to hit is big enough to use an action for it. Where are you getting this number from? It's largely dependent on your chance to hit an enemy.
tivadar27 wrote: SuperBidi wrote: Ten10 wrote: A +1 to hit only comes into play when two people roll the exact same number and one hits the other misses. +1 to hit is 15% more damage. Which is the equivalent of the damage done by your third attack.
Every time you make a third attack, you acknowledge than +1 to hit is big enough to use an action for it. Where are you getting this number from? It's largely dependent on your chance to hit an enemy. I have calculated them by myself, against most common ACs. +1 to hit is +15% damage when you hit a bit under 10 on your die, it gets down between 11-13 and then it gets to 15% again and ends up at 33%. It's always at least +12% damage (unless you hit on a 2, which is highly improbable).
The third attack (with -10) hits in general on a 19. So, it deals on average 25% of your first attack damage, 50% of your second, and 15% of your first + second attack.
If I want to be honest, you'll deal a bit more damage with 3 attacks than 2 attacks with a +1. Around 3% more damage, which is not much important anyway, as I don't think Ten10 considers 3% more damage to be anything he cares about.
SuperBidi wrote: tivadar27 wrote: SuperBidi wrote: Ten10 wrote: A +1 to hit only comes into play when two people roll the exact same number and one hits the other misses. +1 to hit is 15% more damage. Which is the equivalent of the damage done by your third attack.
Every time you make a third attack, you acknowledge than +1 to hit is big enough to use an action for it. Where are you getting this number from? It's largely dependent on your chance to hit an enemy. I have calculated them by myself, against most common ACs. +1 to hit is +15% damage when you hit a bit under 10 on your die, it gets down between 11-13 and then it gets to 15% again and ends up at 33%. It's always at least +12% damage (unless you hit on a 2, which is highly improbable).
The third attack (with -10) hits in general on a 19. So, it deals on average 25% of your first attack damage, 50% of your second, and 15% of your first + second attack.
If I want to be honest, you'll deal a bit more damage with 3 attacks than 2 attacks with a +1. Around 3% more damage, which is not much important anyway, as I don't think Ten10 considers 3% more damage to be anything he cares about. Yep, I realize this :). Okay, got it. Thanks for the clarification. The number seemed somewhat out of the blue, but with the explanation it makes sense. I think I had calculated on the order of +25% if you need a 10 to hit regularly.
I kinda like that we came at this from different angles. Knowing the relative damage boost is important, but looking at variance for how often it's likely to affect things is also relevant. Also, I'd agree that a 3% damage boost is likely to be pretty statistically insignificant, especially when it costs a full action.
tivadar27 wrote: Ten10 wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: In this edition it seems like really most worries about character effectiveness are already fixed and baked in really. It's hard not to make a effective character. still some people might look at an option and say hmm should I go with the one with higher damage or better mobility. It's going to be super situational. doesn't mean that knowing the DPR isn't useful however. Yes it is super situational.
A +1 to hit only comes into play when two people roll the exact same number and one hits the other misses. And what is the odds of two people rolling the exact same number enough times to make that even noteworthy?
It doesn't kick in to around a +3
Again it's a group game. Multiple dice from multiple people the 80DPR vs 70DPR is absorbed by the randomness of the dice.
I can tell you with the utmost assurance the dice never obey the spreadsheet This isn't correct for a couple reasons. It comes into play any time one person rolls a number that would have hit, but misses because of a +1. Beyond this, due to the way criticals work, for the first attack in a round it actually comes into play for two numbers on the dice (after that you're likely just critting on a natural 20).
Just some quick math, let's assume you're able to make 2 attacks in any given round, a +1 bonus has a 50% chance of changing a hit to a crit or miss to a hit after 5 rounds of combat. A +2 bonus after only 2 rounds of combat... If you want the numbers for a single attack in a round, it's 7 rounds and 3 rounds. Yes, chances to hit actually do come into play for relatively small values. It's correct. You may not like it but it is correct.
You keep forgetting it is a group game.
See this
just some quick math, let's assume you're able to make 2 attacks in any given round, a +1 bonus has a 50% chance of changing a hit to a crit or miss to a hit after 5 rounds of combat. A +2 bonus after only 2 rounds of combat... If you want the numbers for a single attack in a round, it's 7 rounds and 3 rounds.
is wrong.
The +1 is not building up equity.
I'm currently playing 5e ravenloft game. A player does d6+1 with his mace, but does 22% better with his Magic Stone spell at d6+3. He also has the best Perception.
So his turn consists of being in front,to spot things, when combat start he runs to the back to go ranged. You know cuz his Magic Stone spell does 22% better damage. Seeing as how he is a cleric and started with an 18 AC, he moves behind the Warlock(AC 12) and Bard(AC13).
No matter how many ways I have tried to explain to him, "sure buddy you do 22% better damage at ranged you are, however, giving the enemy a +5 to hit"
I think no one here argues that maximizing offense at the expense of other things (like AC or group synergy) is the way to go to make an effective character.
People sometimes compares dpr for different options that have the same negative impact on your team or defenses (or none at all). Like, you are a fighter in the front line and you want to make a couple attacks before stepping back, or raising your shield. You can totally evaluate the two actions you are spending offensively to choose the most effective ones, that is, the ones that give you the best chances of dropping the opponent you are facing. So, do you go with two plain Strikes, or a Power Attack?
Ten10 wrote:
It's correct. You may not like it but it is correct.
You keep forgetting it is a group game.
See this
just some quick math, let's assume you're able to make 2 attacks in any given round, a +1 bonus has a 50% chance of changing a hit to a crit or miss to a hit after 5 rounds of combat. A +2 bonus after only 2 rounds of combat... If you want the numbers for a single attack in a round, it's 7 rounds and 3 rounds.
is wrong.
The +1 is not building up equity.
...
Listen, I'm not going to get into it with you. The math I presented is correct. It's effectively a "mean time to failure" type metric, where you compute the amount of time it takes, on average, for something with a small chance of happening to happen.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ten10 wrote: No matter how many ways I have tried to explain to him, "sure buddy you do 22% better damage at ranged you are, however, giving the enemy a +5 to hit" So wait... this is a team game, but you try to dictate how other people play their characters? Did this player volunteer to tank? If so there is some merit to the discussion. If not, why assume they would?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
jplukich wrote: Ten10 wrote: No matter how many ways I have tried to explain to him, "sure buddy you do 22% better damage at ranged you are, however, giving the enemy a +5 to hit" So wait... this is a team game, but you try to dictate how other people play their characters? Did this player volunteer to tank? If so there is some merit to the discussion. If not, why assume they would? Um...because it's a team game, and the Cleric's decision is making things slightly better for himself while making it simultaneously far worse for the party, thereby increasing the likelihood that the entire party fails?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Anyway, the whole cleric example is a straw man. Considering that a player behaves badly because of DPR is just crazy. A player behaves badly because of his inability to play properly (or his lack of desire to do so).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Saldiven wrote: jplukich wrote: Ten10 wrote: No matter how many ways I have tried to explain to him, "sure buddy you do 22% better damage at ranged you are, however, giving the enemy a +5 to hit" So wait... this is a team game, but you try to dictate how other people play their characters? Did this player volunteer to tank? If so there is some merit to the discussion. If not, why assume they would? Um...because it's a team game, and the Cleric's decision is making things slightly better for himself while making it simultaneously far worse for the party, thereby increasing the likelihood that the entire party fails? That doesn't answer the question though. If the cleric didn't want to play a tank, trying to impose it on them is ridiculous. The assumption they would tank is the failing (unless they volunteered to and aren't for some reason).
SuperBidi wrote: Anyway, the whole cleric example is a straw man. Considering that a player behaves badly because of DPR is just crazy. A player behaves badly because of his inability to play properly (or his lack of desire to do so). The example isn’t a straw man. A bad example that’s using confirmation bias to conflate a bad player’s decision with a type of mindset? Sure. There are people that actually do those things though; and will use DPR as a scapegoat to justify their bad actions.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pumpkinhead11 wrote: and will use DPR as a scapegoat to justify their bad actions. Yeah, but the implication that these people would become model players if only it weren't for DPR is kind of a dubious one at best.
Even beyond that, again, characterizing someone making suboptimal choices as behaving inappropriately is really treading the line of badwrongfun territory. How much should we really be dictating to people what the 'correct' way to play is?
Squiggit wrote: Pumpkinhead11 wrote: and will use DPR as a scapegoat to justify their bad actions. Yeah, but the implication that these people would become model players if only it weren't for DPR is kind of a dubious one at best.
Even beyond that, again, characterizing someone making suboptimal choices as behaving inappropriately is really treading the line of badwrongfun territory. How much should we really be dictating to people what the 'correct' way to play is? You forgot to quote the part just before where i say that it was a bad example that conflated one player’s bad decisions to an entire mindset. Bad players exist; there’s no denying that; no matter which side of the discussion someone is on. While i do agree on some of Ten10’s points, I also believe their stance is much farther than my own; which is DPR is useful when it promotes a discussion rather than stifles one. The line between stifling and promoting a conversation tends to be somewhat subjective to a degree depending on the person(s) involved.
To those who would suggest it hasn’t been stifling; i would like to point out that a thread, specifically created to critique the idea that some people have found the conversation topic to be stifling at times, have been told that it actually hasn’t been; and have proceeded to turn the conversation into one of DPR. If you feel this isn’t actually the case, then i suggest the takeaway being that some do feel this way.
My answer will be the same as at the beginning of the thread and say that if people want other topics to talk about, it would be best to start said topics. When i find the time i would personally like to start a thread about Healing; since i find great personal interest in the topic.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
jplukich wrote: Saldiven wrote: jplukich wrote: Ten10 wrote: No matter how many ways I have tried to explain to him, "sure buddy you do 22% better damage at ranged you are, however, giving the enemy a +5 to hit" So wait... this is a team game, but you try to dictate how other people play their characters? Did this player volunteer to tank? If so there is some merit to the discussion. If not, why assume they would? Um...because it's a team game, and the Cleric's decision is making things slightly better for himself while making it simultaneously far worse for the party, thereby increasing the likelihood that the entire party fails? That doesn't answer the question though. If the cleric didn't want to play a tank, trying to impose it on them is ridiculous. The assumption they would tank is the failing (unless they volunteered to and aren't for some reason). I have to admit, the fact that you're using "it's a team game" as a justification for an individual player to do whatever he/she wants is kind of funny. Usually, in "team games," individuals make sacrifices of their individual desires for the betterment of the group.
|
