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

[Stoutstien]

that rule applies to dpr. Itdoes Not apply to nova damage.

Then aren't we back at square 1? Trying to discern what a standardized rate of DPR is but without a solid way of comparing a feature that gives 3d6 damage now compared to +1 attack/damage over the next unknown number of rounds.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then aren't we back at square 1? Trying to discern what a standardized rate of DPR is but without a solid way of comparing a feature that gives 3d6 damage now compared to +1 attack/damage over the next unknown number of rounds.

square 1 for what?

I think you have a grander And more impossible goal in mind than I do

 

[Stoutstien]

square 1 for what?

I think you have a grander And more impossible goal in mind than I do

What's a good DPR value seems like a simple question but I don't know if there ever will be a concrete answer.

 

[FrogReaver]

What's a good DPR value seems like a simple question but I don't know if there ever will be a concrete answer.

That’s not my goal

 

[Asisreo]

your not clearly thinking through that problem.

The problem is easily solved by having a log of what enemy was being fought against.

Then, we could both categories the frequency of any given race into a campaign as well as average hp, resistances, immunites, features, AC and saves.

With a plethora of data, we could easily organize the likelihood of monsters at, above, or below a character's challenge rating. We could find an average number of monsters in a fight as well as the mode.

It would actually give guidance for how any given DM structures their game, with how many short rests, etc.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

no. If you do 0 round to round damage and have 10 nova damage that’s worse than 9 round to round damage And 0 nova damage.

For a 5-round fight, 10 damage round-to-round and 10 damage you can apply when and how you need it is more valuable than 12 damage round-to-round even though the DPR values are the same.

 

[Seramus]

For a 5-round fight, 10 damage round-to-round and 10 damage you can apply when and how you need it is more valuable than 12 damage round-to-round even though the DPR values are the same.

Nebulous, but a nova that can terminate an enemy 1-2 rounds sooner than straight DPR can reduce incoming damage such that defensive/healing resources are not used, and can instead be used on offense later. A dead enemy also has a higher chance of stabilizing battle lines, or making enemies route (if your DM uses some kind of morale for appropriate foes).

 

[FrogReaver]

Nebulous, but a nova that can terminate an enemy 1-2 rounds sooner than straight DPR and reduce incoming damage such that defensive/healing resources are not used, and can instead be used on offense later. A dead enemy also has a higher chance of stabilizing battle lines, or making enemies route (if your DM uses some kind of morale for appropriate foes).

Sure, it depends on the relative magnitude of the nova to the no-nova damage.

I evaluate the statement as this: 1 point of DPR is greater than 1 point of Nova damage.

To me that means nova damage is less important, but certainly not unimportant.

For example is rather have a character that could do 40 damage a turn and an 80 damage nova 3 times per day than a character that can do 45 damage per turn and a 60 damage nova.

 

[FrogReaver]

For a 5-round fight, 10 damage round-to-round and 10 damage you can apply when and how you need it is more valuable than 12 damage round-to-round even though the DPR values are the same.

Showing that nova damage is sometimes better isn’t something I disagree with.

You made the claim it was more important though. It’s not. It’s only more important when your dpr is sufficiently high to begin with.

 

[Seramus]

I evaluate the statement as this: 1 point of DPR is greater than 1 point of Nova damage.

Given a moderate amount of both, 1 point of Nova damage is greater than 1 point of DPR.

For example is rather have a character that could do 40 damage a turn and an 80 damage nova 3 times per day than a character that can do 45 damage per turn and a 60 damage nova.

I would definitely value 80/40 over 60/45, even if 60/45 generates more damage over a set number of rounds, because monsters are 100% (or more) effective at 1HP compared to a dead monster.

80/40 vs 60/45 takes the following turns to kill monsters: Balor 4/5, Pit Fiend 5/6, Lich 2/3, Solar 4/5, Tarrasque 14/15.

60/40 only catches up around the 14/15 turn mark. While an 'adventuring day' might have more turns of combat total, the resource savings of terminating each of those monsters earlier is quite valuable.