Classes and damage

clearstream · Jan 6, 2019

Warpiglet said:
Hello gang!

i have not posted in a while now...job changes and restricted websites etc.!

Anyway, I have been musing on damage output lately. I often think that a class does fine in this department only to hear someone talk about trap options and all that jazz.

i just wondered what metric we are using when lauding or complaining about damage output. Is it a number? Is it comparing to a fighter or a sorcerer or paladin?

When we say good or poor damage is there a number people use to anchor their judgment?

i of course realize there are MANY more things to consider, but wondered where people are coming from

Thinking about all the above (posts) I want to suggest a practical approach. It starts with an ensemble of standard strategies (character builds) estimated across tiers, with rounds/encounter and encounters/day assumptions. Something like 5 rounds per encounter and 4 encounters per day. Rather than advocating new work, it polls the existing work of multiple authors, acknowledging insights and omissions in each approach. For example, drawing on my own estimates and those of [MENTION=6670944]Kryx[/MENTION], it might lead to a statement like the following:

A DM might use 10/20/30 damage per round as their generic baseline for "fair" damage at tiers 1/2/3, given an off-set of +/-50%.

So a character who deals 10 per round at tier 2 might be indicative of a player with low mechanical awareness or interest, while one that deals 30 per round might indicate a player with high mechanical awareness or interest. An off-set of +/-50% doesn't capture the full range: stronger or weaker characters can be found. It's also important to keep in mind the trade-offs. A defense-style sword-and-shield fighter might well be dealing low damage, while having great resilience in holding the line. An agonizing blast warlock could be dealing merely "fair" damage, while controlling the fight with repelling and lethargy, and their back-up store of pact magic casts. Even so, 30 damage at tier 2 is "good" for quite a range of standard strategies.

Blue · Jan 6, 2019

Cap'n Kobold said:
Where are you getting these statistics from, may I ask?

I was wondering the same. My experience at my FLGS is that half the table takes Variant Human to get a feat at 1st level. Though he does match my experience that those characters often boost their attack/casting ability next before getting a second feat.

For those who don't start with feats, I'd say about 1/3 seem to pick them up with the first ASI. The last character ASI I got was my paladin at 4th, who picked up Inspiring Leader.

All anecdotal, but I'd love to see his sources if he's presenting that as a general trend for the game as a whole. I wonder if FG has a good breakdown.

Mistwell · Jan 6, 2019

Yunru said:
Yeah, the same info that told them the ranger being unpopular was a phantom.

What? No, it did not. I think you're confusing a variety of prior data points with the DNDBeyond data. The Beyond data did not show the Ranger was popular. It ranked middle of the road, even though earlier data showed the class should be ranking at or near the top (Mearls said prior surveys on the classes before the beta showed Ranger was so popular and iconic they considered releasing it with Basic edition along with the classic four). The disparity between class concept popularity, and actual character creation use in DND Beyond, indicated a problem with how they had executed this popular class.

lowkey13 · Jan 6, 2019

*Deleted by user*

clearstream · Jan 6, 2019

Mistwell said:
What? No, it did not. I think you're confusing a variety of prior data points with the DNDBeyond data. The Beyond data did not show the Ranger was popular. It ranked middle of the road, even though earlier data showed the class should be ranking at or near the top (Mearls said prior surveys on the classes before the beta showed Ranger was so popular and iconic they considered releasing it with Basic edition along with the classic four). The disparity between class concept popularity, and actual character creation use in DND Beyond, indicated a problem with how they had executed this popular class.

Do you know if the DnDBeyond data excludes characters who are generated but not played? I know I quite often make human characters on Beyond to look at a build concept, and then never play that character.

Sacrosanct · Jan 6, 2019

If that’s true, then you can’t use any of that data. My whole group will use beyond to create a character, print it out, and never “play” it in beyond. I don’t think we’re alone there.

So it appears there are several things so far that make using that data unreliable.

doctorbadwolf · Jan 6, 2019

clearstream said:
Do you know if the DnDBeyond data excludes characters who are generated but not played? I know I quite often make human characters on Beyond to look at a build concept, and then never play that character.

Yep. They use the data for characters that are being riddled with in ways consistent with actual use, and the team is expert enough in data analysis that I’m pretty willing to trust their conclusions.

Mistwell · Jan 6, 2019

clearstream said:
Do you know if the DnDBeyond data excludes characters who are generated but not played? I know I quite often make human characters on Beyond to look at a build concept, and then never play that character.

How would they know if you play it? It's a PDF you can print out. They're not in your house, watching you play

lowkey13 · Jan 6, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Sacrosanct · Jan 6, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
Yep. They use the data for characters that are being riddled with in ways consistent with actual use, and the team is expert enough in data analysis that I’m pretty willing to trust their conclusions.

I’m an expert in data analysis (it’s literally my day job), and I think people are making assumptions and conclusions about things without the data actually proving it. Innthe industry, we have a saying: garbage in, garbage out. I.e, if you’re starting with incomplete or bad data, no method of analysis will result in a sound conclusion.

So if the DDB team is making a claim that X class is popular IN GENERAL, while not factoring in those people who don’t use DDB, or only use it for chargen, then they are starting with fundamentally flawed data. I suspect they are giving that conclusion based on a much narrower scope, like “among players who use DDB to create and play their characters in the DDB toolset while playing, this is the results.”

So I would strongly caution anyone taking that narrow scope and assuming it applies to a much larger scenario.