Classes and damage

[Yunru]

I use Agonising Eldritch Blast as a baseline.
Not because it's just that good, but because it's a decent baseline to work from, on par with a Fighter with... no features other than Extra Attack and Ability Score Improvements.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because that was the build being proposed as a baseline

Right, because no feats is the baseline for comparing classes and their features, because feats muddy the waters.

 

[Yunru]

Right, because no feats is the baseline for comparing classes and their features, because feats muddy the waters.

Not at all, feats have very specific, accountable, effects.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right, because no feats is the baseline for comparing classes and their features, because feats muddy the waters.

What I am saying is that acceptable damage in a featless game is not necessarily acceptable damage in a game with feats. Is your line of questioning actually useful for the topic of the thread or are you intending to derail the thread into becoming about whether we should make comparisons with feats or without feats?

Personally I think we should make comparison with feats and without feats. Even if we could agree on the featless whiteroom or the feated whiteroom… we can't but even if we could, we would be leaving "half" the ground unexplored. So why are you wanting to fight me about feats vs non-feats?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What I am saying is that acceptable damage in a featless game is not necessarily acceptable damage in a game with feats.

That's pretty much what I was getting at, but the context of this thread is how the forum talks about such topics in general, and it looks like we don't even have a consensus on what the default rules look like.

There is no agreed baseline for what good or bad damage looks like, because it depends heavily on context, which we have to hope is provided by the individual thread under which the discussion takes place.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What I am saying is that acceptable damage in a featless game is not necessarily acceptable damage in a game with feats. Is your line of questioning actually useful for the topic of the thread or are you intending to derail the thread into becoming about whether we should make comparisons with feats or without feats?

Personally I think we should make comparison with feats and without feats. Even if we could agree on the featless whiteroom or the feated whiteroom… we can't but even if we could, we would be leaving "half" the ground unexplored. So why are you wanting to fight me about feats vs non-feats?

I’m not fighting you about anything, my dude. I just asked for clarification.

The baseline is no feats, in large part because the comparison gets weird with feats, unless you assume the same feats, in which case the gap stays the same while the absolute numbers change. The OP asked about baselines for talking about damage dealing.

In either case, the Champion is within normal damage output, and is the “no frills” damage dealer, which makes the math simple, which makes it a good baseline.

If your baseline is something else, I’m all ears.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not at all, feats have very specific, accountable, effects.

Individual feats on a given character, sure. Adding feats to damage dealing comparisons gets weird, because it adds a bunch of options, and also obscures even further the effect of circumstance, mobility, etc, on damage, taking any comparison even further into the white room.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m not fighting you about anything, my dude. I just asked for clarification.

The baseline is no feats, in large part because the comparison gets weird with feats, unless you assume the same feats, in which case the gap stays the same while the absolute numbers change. The OP asked about baselines for talking about damage dealing.

In either case, the Champion is within normal damage output, and is the “no frills” damage dealer, which makes the math simple, which makes it a good baseline.

If your baseline is something else, I’m all ears.

I don’t believe there’s a single baseline that works for featless and feated games. I also don’t believe a single baseline even exists for all classes. This is where most of the differing opinions on what is acceptable damage comes in.

 

[Asmerv]

I don’t believe there’s a single baseline that works for featless and feated games. I also don’t believe a single baseline even exists for all classes. This is where most of the differing opinions on what is acceptable damage comes in.

I agree that featless vs feated games should probably have different baselines. However, establishing one baseline for each would be helpful regardless of class, because then you have a simple benchmark to compare against when you're evaluating any given build focused on sustained damage.

Saying that Wizards don't do much damage but do other useful things is missing the point here a bit, IMO. The question is, what is the amount of damage you need to be doing for it to be a worthwhile contribution on its own. Wizards or Bards have better ways to contribute, so why would they even try to match the damage benchmark?

Anyway, for a featless game I think Hex + Agonizing Blast or Champion fighter with a Greatsword and GWF Style would be decent benchmarks (they're very close).
For a feated game, a longbow-wielding Champion with the Sharpshooter feat would probably be a decent benchmark.

In either case, if you're matching or exceeding the damage of the benchmark, you can probably feel good about having contributed nothing but damage.

As another user mentioned, using the Fighter is neat because you can also have a simple benchmark for evaluating Nova damage, which is just the Action Surge damage (double the benchmark, essentially)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t believe there’s a single baseline that works for featless and feated games. I also don’t believe a single baseline even exists for all classes. This is where most of the differing opinions on what is acceptable damage comes in.

The power band in 5e doesn't swing nearly that wide, at least when it comes to damage dealt by characters who are bulit to do damage. Obviously comparing characters focused on defense or support with character focused on offense won't yield useful results.

Regardless, I'm not that invested in this argument. Most players don't even use feats, and most of those who do don't take one until their 2nd or 3rd ASI, if not later. It's mostly in optimization discussions that feats vs no feats is even being discussed, because at tables people either assume feats or assume ASIs. Still, we can absolutely look at a Champion Fighter or a EB-spam Warlock and get a baseline of what the game expects for balancing classes and encounters.

By definition, the baseline isn't going to be in the top tier. At highest, it will be dead center, which is about where the Champion is.

Also, baselines are more useful the simpler they are, and the less dependent on toggling abilities (-5+10) and circumstances (spells and oddball abilities), because they form the basic model against which such more fiddly options are compared.