Classes and damage

[Warpiglet]

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

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think that the standard baseline is a fighter/champion with a greatsword, making its attacks. It's easy to parse, because it grows pretty linearly at each tier, and its burst ability is a flat double damage for one round.

If you do more than that, then your damage is good. If you do less than that, then your damage is not as good (so hopefully you have something else to contribute).

 

[TwoSix]

I think that the standard baseline is a fighter/champion with a greatsword, making its attacks. It's easy to parse, because it grows pretty linearly at each tier, and its burst ability is a flat double damage for one round.

If you do more than that, then your damage is good. If you do less than that, then your damage is not as good (so hopefully you have something else to contribute).

Yea, that's the standard I consider for a solid damage dealer, featless greatsword wielding fighter or a warlock using Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast.

So about 2d6+3 for Tier 1, 2x(2d6+4) for tier 2, and 3x(2d6+5) for tier 3.

 

[FrogReaver]

I tend to consider the vanilla fearless champion fighter as terrible at damage.

 

[Oofta]

I think the comparisons are pretty pointless so I don't bother. There are just too many variables and questions of if it's even a metric worth measuring.

For example, does Bob the Bard do a lot of damage? No, but he's buffing everyone else so maybe it balances out. Is Tim the Mighty a suboptimal wizard? Perhaps. But if he's having fun who cares?

That and I've seen too many arguments about how one combo is spectacularly better than another because at level 12 and higher they do 2.3 points more damage per round according to someone's spreadsheet.

If it's something you enjoy comparing, knock yourself out. In my personal experience, the different builds have different strengths and weakness that over the long term more or less balance out. Even if they don't, I'm not sure they could or should.

 

[Warpiglet]

No, just curious. When someone says some character sucks at damage, I just wondered what that often means. I understand that if you cannot fly or teleport your extra damage won't change that fact.

And frankly I have lived it. In the days of fighters with specialization (1e) the rogue never could compare...but we still liked playing them. Or more accurately, I played clerics with one attack.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I tend to consider the vanilla featless champion fighter as terrible at damage.

What do you consider as your baseline? Where do you draw the line between acceptable damage and "needs improvement"?

 

[TwoSix]

I tend to consider the vanilla fearless champion fighter as terrible at damage.

Nah, I reserve that for cantrip users with no stat mod to damage.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nah, I reserve that for cantrip users with no stat mod to damage.

There's a rating below terrible

 

[FrogReaver]

What do you consider as your baseline? Where do you draw the line between acceptable damage and "needs improvement"?

Consider a class. Take one of the highest damage builds for that class. To be in the acceptable range you should be doing between 60% and 70%. Anything below 60% would need improvement or need a good reason to drop the damage. Anything 70%-85% is good. Anything 85%+ is Exceptional.

Those numbers aren't written in stone but it should get in the ballpark.