Damage per round?

Elder-Basilisk · Jun 24, 2003

In all of this discussion about power attack and average damage per round on this thread,

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54055

I'm beginning to wonder whether that is generally the most relevant factor in offensive combat effectiveness.

It certainly is the biggest factor in combats against a single foe. However, the previous analysis of power attack against bugbears demonstrated that optimum effectiveness against multiple opponents (measured in bugbears killed/round in that example--although damage sustained or likely combat duration (which may be a reliable proxy for changes in damage sustained since it doesn't need to figure in ACs or saves) may be better measures effectiveness) does not necessarily correspond to average damage/round (power attacking decreased the damage/round but increased the number of bugbears killed/round).

So, what is your experience? Does average damage/round reliably track combat effectiveness? What experience lead you to believe or disbelieve this?

Mike Sullivan · Jun 24, 2003

The bugbear example could be phrased in an average-damage-per-round way, Elder Basilisk -- as long as you take Cleave into account, you'll see that the PA approach there yielded slightly higher damage per round than the non-PA approach. The weakness of the naive analysis isn't damage per round, but rather that it ignored Cleave.

That said, no, damage-per-round isn't the figure to look at if you're interested in optimizing your character. Actually, what you want to look at for a melee character is "own hit points lost at end of fight."

Because it's rare that you care how long it takes to kill your opponent(s) -- if you could kill them without taking any damage, but it would take 20 rounds, that's certainly very favorable instead of killing them in three rounds and losing half your hit points, in most scenarios.

Damage per round only very roughly approximates "own hit points lost at end of battle," on the assumption that if you kill your opponents quicker, you'll take less damage.

The problem with "own hit points lost at end of battle" is that you have to know a <i>lot</i> about your opponent to make it work. For a purely offensive analysis, all you need to know is your own AB and your opponent's AC. For "own hit points lost at end of battle," you need to know your AC, your opponent's AC, your attack progression/bonus, your opponent's attack progression/bonus, and your opponent's hit points. At that point, we start to rapidly lose generality -- there're just so many combinations that it becomes impossible to gain consensus on what an opponent is.

Just look at the arguments which have raged about what constitutes a common AC opponent for a fighter level whatever, and whether partial attacks or full attacks are more worth looking at, and all that jazz. Imagine expanding those arguments to take into account opponent's hp's, attack rating, attack progression, and your own AC.

DanMcS · Jun 24, 2003

Elder-Basilisk said:
So, what is your experience? Does average damage/round reliably track combat effectiveness? What experience lead you to believe or disbelieve this?

It's better than nothing. In a d20 modern game, we fought a pack of werewolves, we had some kind of machine guns loaded with silver rounds, and they did an insane amount of damage, we could hit several at once if they bunched up, the modern massive damage rules are unforgiving, etc, etc...

Both the DM and we players thought this was a challenging, scary fight, but not a suicide mission. Instead, we found that the werewolves' not-bad reflex saves made it nearly impossible to hurt them with the stupid autofire guns, since our high attack bonuses mattered not a whit, nor did their bad ACs (in modern, you autofire at a square, it's AC 10, your pet bunny could do it). Meanwhile they were closing in, taking AoOs on us as we tried to use those stupid machine guns, their high strength helped both their melee attack rolls and damge... So it nearly turned into a TPK, then the DM started fudging die rolls I think.

I worked out the expected damage per round afterward, based on our attack bonuses, the damage of the guns, and the reflex saves of the enemies, and found it was somewhere around 1.25. The expected damage per round with the revolver I had loaded with silver as a backup was much higher, and those are indeed the weapons we had done the most damage with, even though they were six-shooters and we had to reload them during battle.

Ever since then, I've trusted my eyeball-it method a little less, and especially if I'm running, I'll keep an eye on the damage per round the party and opponents can do to each other.

Rel · Jun 24, 2003

Damage output per round is probably at the top of the list when it comes to combat effectiveness. But I don't think it leaves other factors in the dust. The ability to evade damage and the ability to adapt to difficult combat circumstances (flying opponents, invisible opponents, etc.) are close behind.

In our current campaign (3 character party) for example, I'm playing a Halfling Rogue (currently 6th level) and the other primary combatant is a Sor1/Barb2/Ftr1/Rog1, who is mostly built like a tank (uses a greatsword). At the end of most fights, I've been hit a lot less than he has but I've probably done quite a bit less damage too.

My character has a high AC and is designed to kill you before you do anything (on an early sneak attack while flat footed) or to outlast you while he nickels and dimes you with his dagger. Dargo (the tank) has a fairly crappy AC unless he gets his shield spell up, but he does serious damage with the greatsword and usually downs his foes in 1-2 hits.

When we work together, we are amazing. We both tumble and weave through the combat, readying actions to attack when each other move in to Flanking and tumbling past foes to jockey for position. But if he had to make due without me, he'd probably be fairly ok. If I had to make due without him, I have to stay lucky, fight defensively, feint and generally draw out the combat while I wear my foe down. Against multiple bad guys, I'd be in trouble by myself.

Then again, after the fight is over, we tend to have close to the same hit points. He just started with more. I'm easier on our healing resources. Plus, I've got tons of capabilities that he doesn't have, in the form of skills and things like that.

I will say that, while I think that E-B's question is a valid one, in our campaigns you'd be a fool to try and "combat optimize" your character. We try and "Campaign Optimize" them.

Damage per round?

Elder-Basilisk

First Post

Mike Sullivan

First Post

DanMcS

Explorer

Rel

Liquid Awesome

Similar Threads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Recent & Upcoming Releases