D&D 5E Optimization and the +1 Weapon Principle

[MarkB]

Does this really need to be codified as a "principle"? All you really seem to be saying is that DPR is a sufficiently inexact measurement of character effectiveness that it's not worth worrying about minor variations.

 

[MarkB]

4 attacks for 1d10 each is still better against the single 22-hp opponent unless that opponent also has resistance to the damage you’re doing with it. Multiple attacks is always better than a single attack that deals the same total damage because you have a better chance of hitting with at least some of the attacks.

And, in keeping with the subject of the thread, the four attacks will benefit more from a +1 weapon than the single higher-damage attack.

 

[Stalker0]

That's why in my personal calculations I've started listing some form of NOVA damage alongside DPR because it gives a much better picture albeit still not a full picture.

I do think NOVA is an important consideration that reminds us these are humans playing a game not a mathematical simulator.

For example taking a super smiting paladin vs a fighter that focuses on lots of small attacks. Now DPR wise, lets say the fighter is a little ahead. Long rests of course are important considerations to take into account.

But at the table, if the players ever see a 200 damage round from a double crit with double smite with XYZ boosters... their jaws will hit the floor, and they will talk about that for years to come. No one will ever question if a paladin is super strong at that table, even if you show them 100 analysis proving the Fighter's DPR is generally better.

Dnd is about cinematic moments, always has and always will be as long as its human players in a human run game. Nova damage is one way to have a cinematic moment...and so it is absolutely a tool in the arsenal of a class to feel "cool and special".... which is my actual balance metric I measure classes by.

 

[Mistwell]

What we need is a ton more data on D&D stats from played games. We need to see exactly what the mix of PCs are, their feats and such. And we need those stats for hundreds of games in the same adventure, and how quickly they defeat foes, rounds which go by until a party falls out of initiative, damage done, etc... With that information we could compile a sort of "On and Off the Floor" type stat. So for example we can see an average of how much faster a challenge ends when you have a fighter in the group than versus when you do not have a fighter in the group, or two fighters in the group, etc.. And do that for all classes, and then eventually feats and other elements of the game too, like the impact of a stun on how fast a combat completes in rounds.

 

[Seramus]

By the time you can do 4d10 damage in a single attack or do 4 different 1d10 attacks you will be fighting enemies that can easily take the 4d10 hit and still live.

Level 3?

 

[Stalker0]

You could probably argue that Initiative and Perception are actually greatest "combat stats" in dnd.

Initiative means you go before monsters more often (and most importantly are more likely to get to act in any round, as opposed to acting when everything is dead). And Perception gives you more times to act in surprise rounds.

I bet if you were to really crunch the numbers, if you added up all the times the high initiative character got to go in rounds that lower initiative characters didn't, it would add up to way more DPR in the long run.

 

[FrogReaver]

What we need is a ton more data on D&D stats from played games. We need to see exactly what the mix of PCs are, their feats and such. And we need those stats for hundreds of games in the same adventure, and how quickly they defeat foes, rounds which go by until a party falls out of initiative, damage done, etc... With that information we could compile a sort of "On and Off the Floor" type stat. So for example we can see an average of how much faster a challenge ends when you have a fighter in the group than versus when you do not have a fighter in the group, or two fighters in the group, etc.. And do that for all classes, and then eventually feats and other elements of the game too, like the impact of a stun on how fast a combat completes in rounds.

stats in actual games don’t help. Too many variations of tactics, party comp and what you are fighting against. Then there’s also the skill disparity between the classes

 

[Mistwell]

stats in actual games don’t help. Too many variations of tactics, party comp and what you are fighting against. Then there’s also the skill disparity between the classes

Same published adventure with different groups solves for "what you are fighting against" and party composition IS the measuring stick. All that remains is variations of tactics. Which should be something that evens out with averages.

 

[Stoutstien]

I am currently running a published campaign for 3 different groups with entirely different party makeups and tracking all imperial data which I know is not everything but it is a good chunk of information to look at.

I'm only 2 session in so far so it's too soon to tell but I'm generously curious how the group who focuses the majority of their opportunity cost towards optimizing this and that compares to the single classes party who would be more excited over a one that summons a mayonnaise fairy than a staff of power.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The important part of a NOVA is that you can choose when to use it. So I personally wouldn't consider NOVA that relies on crits in that comparison.

Maybe a multiplier to on-demand nova damage when used in DPR calculations?

20% extra?