clearstream
(He, Him)
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: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
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.