D&D General Why DPR Sucks: Discussing Whiteroom Theorycrafting

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah, except not always--at least not last year.

It was a little tongue in cheek.

I mean, sometime the team that cheats by banging on garbage cans wins.

(Too soon?)

 

[prabe]

It was a little tongue in cheek.

I mean, sometime the team that cheats by banging on garbage cans wins.

(Too soon?)

Again, not last year.

(Nats fan from when they arrived. And I'm appreciating the humor, honest.)

 

[Mistwell]

A. One stat to rule them all, one stat to find them, one stat to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.

Imagine you were a fan of baseball. I know, it's hard. But just .... imagine. Now someone says, "Look, I have a statistic that accurately measures how good a baseball player is! The better a baseball player is at this single statistic, the better a baseball player is, period. Because the main goal in baseball is to hit the ball, I give unto you .... BATTING AVERAGE!"

Basketball is the sport I follow, though I agree Baseball has gone further down the stats hole than any other sport.

The thing about sports stats, or at least basketball stats, is you can start with a huge amount of historical data, and ask a huge array of experts from players to coaches to general managers to sports casters and journalists and retired players and similar experts in the field, and say "Who do you think was a great player for their era?" and get a fairly universal list of agreement from people on who was great.

And then you can craft a stat which reflects that consensus opinion, and which also functions for current players.

Like for example a basketball stat like Player Efficiency Rating. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. In fact, it lacks for defense, and you need to combine it with a defensive stat tool to get a better picture. But does it function as a decent tool which, when run against historical players and current players, comes out pretty close to consensus of opinions of experts on who is good? Yes, yes it does.

Which means it's a useful measurement tool, even if it isn't perfect.

Much like DPR. It doesn't reflect all aspects of the game, but it doew reflect enough of a very meaningful element of the game that it shouldn't be derided by people as not useful. Yes, of course it does not reflect the contributions of a stun, a bardic inspiration, a charm, and a speed reduction on a foe. But it does reflect a meaningful and measurable aspect of the game and so has it's uses as a tool.

I don't think Treantmonk at all used it as a universal measuring stick in his video, nor did I in the post I made about monks sucking. It was used in one aspect - the offense section. And Stun had it's own section, as did movement, and defense. So I think it's a misrepresentation to imply it was being used as a universal stat improperly. It was correctly applied - to offense, as a measuring stick, without ignoring stunning.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Again, not last year.

(Nats fan from when they arrived. And I'm appreciating the humor, honest.)

Oh, I know.

But:

1. Is there ever a bad time to dump on the Houston Astros? I'm sorry, the Houston Cheaty McCheatfaces?

2. The longer we keep up a conversation about baseball in a D&D thread, the better. Not only do we get that sweet, sweet international audience, but we also get all those D&D players who are like, "I love sports!"

 

[prabe]

Oh, I know.

But:

1. Is there ever a bad time to dump on the Houston Astros? I'm sorry, the Houston Cheaty McCheatfaces?

2. The longer we keep up a conversation about baseball in a D&D thread, the better. Not only do we get that sweet, sweet international audience, but we also get all those D&D players who are like, "I love sports!"

The Houston Asterisks have earned everything they're receiving. Never a bad time to pile on, IMO.

I was genuinely worried it wasn't clear I was appreciating the humor, because you can't see me chuckling ...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Like for example a basketball stat like Player Efficiency Rating. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. In fact, it lacks for defense, and you need to combine it with a defensive stat tool to get a better picture. But does it function as a decent tool which, when run against historical players and current players, comes out pretty close to consensus of opinions of experts on who is good? Yes, yes it does.

Which means it's a useful measurement tool, even if it isn't perfect.

Much like DPR. It doesn't reflect all aspects of the game, but it doew reflect enough of a very meaningful element of the game that it shouldn't be derided by people as not useful.

As I wrote in the overly-long post already, DPR isn't like OPS+, or WARP, or any of those stats .... from baseball. It's like Batting Average. Which means that it's a poor measure; it's not almost completely useless (like RBIs), but it's a very, very limited stat.

More so because unlike baseball, which is arguably a series of one-on-one encounters with specified outcomes, D&D is closer to team sports like basketball and soccer.

Given that these statistical issues have already been extensively documented and discussed in other areas, it's frankly bizarre that they keep getting brought up in D&D as conclusive proof of anything. The only reason I can think of is, as @Kobold Avenger noted, that because "DPS" was used in computer games for similar reasons, people adopted it into D&D without considering the very real differences between the two.

 

[Minigiant]

It's the American pastime; a bunch of people arguing over whether numbers matter, and then the team with the most money wins.

Hey.
Money only gets you in the playoffs. Then people start banging on trash cans and you somehow lose.

As for DPR.

DPR isn't like DPS. A big mistake that came out of 4e was that strikes was all about damage. Everyone dealt damage. The point of strikes is that they had built in escapes. Like Aggro sinks in MMOs. Strikers either stayed at ranged (rangers, rogues, warlocks), got free shifts to run away (avengers, rangers, rogues,, monks), or could tough out a hit to the face (barbarians, monks).

That part could not be quantitated. So folks just used DPR. But an archer has more leeway on DPR due to ranged attacks having the least risk.

 

[cmad1977]

I’ve played with and ran games for lots of people. Covered most of the classes. Lots of us probably have. I can’t for the life of me point to one of the classes in play and say to myself
“That class has been really weak”.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I’ve played with and ran games for lots of people. Covered most of the classes. Lots of us probably have. I can’t for the life of me point to one of the classes in play and say to myself
“That class has been really weak”.

Not to myself.

But to others?

I have often said, "Dude, you're playing a bard? That is so weak."

 

[Xeviat]

DPR analysis is only useful when other things are equal. Comparing the DPR of a fighter using Two-Handed Weapons to a fighter using Two light weapons is useful (two light weapons starts better, and then starts falling at 5th, btw). Comparing a Rogue using a rapier and primarily using their Cunning action bonus action for dash/disengage against a rogue using two short swords and using their bonus action for second attacks when their first attack misses is harder, but still useful.

Comparing the Rogue to the Monk is more difficult, but not unuseful. A Monk's damage starts off very comparably to a rogue using two short swords if the Monk is using a quarterstaff (martial arts is 1d8+Dex, +1d4+Dex; rogue has 1d6+Dex, +1d6 offhand, +1d6 if one hits from sneak attack; rogue is slightly ahead due to miss chances, but their max damage is the same). The Monk has limited use extra attacks, while the rogue's sneak attack keeps scaling (but the extra 1d8+Dex at 5th level is going to be close to the rogue's extra +2d6 sneak attack).

My issue with the Monk is that their damage basically stops scaling here. Sure, they have flurry for an extra attack, and their martial arts die keeps going up, but the rogue's damage continues to scale and the Monk never gets something like an improved flurry to keep up. Past 5th level, the Monk's damage doesn't keep up with the rogue's, when before 5th level it does. The Monk then has to rely on their mobility and stunning fist to continue contributing, which isn't explained well in the class entry.

The barbarian, fighter, paladin, and rogue are simple classes to play. Your class entry explains how to play your class, and if you do the most simple thing you will be okay (rogue slightly harder, you need to use two-weapon fighting or your bonus action hide at range to maximize their damage potential). If you do the simple thing with the Monk, and that's attack and use flurry, you'll feel weaker than the fighter or rogue in your party.

And that's what people are talking about when they say the Monk sucks, in my opinion.