D&D General Why DPR Sucks: Discussing Whiteroom Theorycrafting

[robus]

@Snarf Zagyg if you have a newsletter, I would like to subscribe! Very fun and convincing read (even with the baseball analogy!). Thanks for posting.

 

[Asisreo]

Why the hate on dpr? I would bet that even the OP does some quick damage calculations is his or head when rolling a character. And the calculation has to be in a white room because otherwise there would be too messy. If you hate dpr then disregard it.

I should make myself clear, it may have given a misconception about how I feel about DPR.

I do not hate DPR. I do not think it should be struck from the tools used by people analyzing a class and determining opportunity costs. And I also believe damage is something of value that should be paid attention to.

What I dislike is when DPR is used to mislead or misguide people coming to these forums for advice on what to play and how to play, because that's really the discussion that matters.

If you like big single-target damage that you can flick on, choose paladin. They do great damage but they aren't the end-all-be-all to damage. Meanwhile, if you want to survive taking the heavy hits, choose barbarian.

Also, damage optimization compared to others usually aren't as optimized as people believe. For example, if you wanted to optimize the monk for damage, it would probably be best to take magic initiate warlock to grab hex. Then grab eldritch blast and toll the dead, basically for range. Also, have a heavy crossbow on you.

The hex is a no-save debuff that has each of your hits apply an extra 1d6 damage. At level 1, your attacks would be doing 4d6+6(20) damage if you cast hex. At level 5, this goes up to 8d6+16(44) DPR. At level 11, your damage is 8d6+20(48) DPR with this combo.

If you're too far away, use your light crossbow.

So, using the setup we have, your DPR as a monk using a light crossbow does 1d8+1d6+3(11) damage at level 1. Much more than being a vanilla monk using a light crossbow 1d8+3(7.5).

If you're at a distance and the creature's resistant/immune to BPS, use eldritch blast if they haven't been hurt and toll the dead if they have.

This is an odd monk, though. You'd have difficulty finding one like this in-play.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What I dislike is when DPR is used to mislead or misguide people coming to these forums for advice on what to play and how to play, because that's really the discussion that matters.

My experience is that people demand we ignore DPR and similar specific and measurable stuff in favour of vague hand-wave-y nonsense and mislead or misguide people are a result.

I mean, in fact DPR is almost the smallest thing that's ignored - action economy is bloody huge, yet loads of people make bizarre recommendations which show a total lack of understanding of action economy, and mislead people massively because they've forgotten the action economy is a thing, or are bizarrely downplaying the fact that something costs an entire Action, but does very little (like, say, grant Advantage to one attack).

 

[Todd Roybark]

action economy is bloody huge

YES!
So how do we develop an useful metric of action economy efficiency?

Also all models involving concentration on spells should include a calculation of how likely it is the character will lose the spell upon taking damage.
Likewise all models with attack rolls need to account for having a critical hit.

So what is the best way to start creating an action economy efficiency metric?

 

[Asisreo]

YES!
So how do we develop an useful metric of action economy efficiency?

Also all models involving concentration on spells should include a calculation of how likely it is the character will lose the spell upon taking damage.
Likewise all models with attack rolls need to account for having a critical hit.

So what is the best way to start creating an action economy efficiency metric?

It would probably be comparing other actions. For instance, every single action you take has the opportunity cost of either casting a spell, having disadvantage on incoming attacks and advantage on dex saves, or making your common attacks. At level 1 as a fighter, the opportunity cost of taking the attack action is the dodge, hide, ready, dash, disengage, or help action. It really depends on the situation but a fighter's abilities makes the attack action more and more lucrative as you level up.

But just like regular economy, action economy is not based on the biggest number, it's based on value placed on what you desire. If you desire to do damage, the dodge action is useless. If you desire to cast a spell you have prepared, the attack action is probably not going to be your pick. If you desire neither, the dodge or ready action is probably more desirable.

Your desires ebb and flow in the face of combat. One turn, you may desire to do as much damage as possible while another turn, your desire may be to incapacitate(not the condition) a target more quickly while the next turn, you desire to get away from the enemy's effective attack range.

 

[renevq]

You’d have to factor in action denial, and not only stuns and incapacitates... for instance if the enemy’s melee-only, a fly spell and plinking away with cantrips and arrows is probably your best bet; hiding with a high stealth mod is also a high value action.

 

[Asisreo]

My experience is that people demand we ignore DPR and similar specific and measurable stuff in favour of vague hand-wave-y nonsense and mislead or misguide people are a result.

If you're referring to me, I'm not demanding that we ignore DPR. I'm suggesting that it isn't meaningful and worthwhile enough to compare classes with. When you're comparing something where everything is equal except damage, and damage is the most desirable feature. Then DPR analysis is appropriate.

It's when all things are not equal when things get muddied. A glaive vs a greatsword is a decision that the player must make depending on what they want their character to do. One maximizes damage and opens heavily damaging feats while the other is unique and the feats that are compatible do more than just damage.

It's different comparing spells on the same spell list to be prepared than comparing spells on separate spell lists.

This difference is expanded greatly when you compare classes with different features, traits, hit dice, etc.

I mean, in fact DPR is almost the smallest thing that's ignored - action economy is bloody huge, yet loads of people make bizarre recommendations which show a total lack of understanding of action economy, and mislead people massively because they've forgotten the action economy is a thing, or are bizarrely downplaying the fact that something costs an entire Action, but does very little (like, say, grant Advantage to one attack).

You say you've seen loads of people doing that, but I feel you're referring to me.

I want to make clear that I explicitly said in the True Strike thread that I did not think preparing the cantrip was optimal. Nor was I suggesting anyone do so. I was wondering what niche use it does have. The answers are: in extremely low levels where spell slots are rare, certain spells like guiding bolt may be worth true striking. In much higher levels, plane shift would benefit. Rogues can take magic initiate if they see noone on their team wants to be a frontliner.

But I never said true strike was a good choice in your cantrip slot. Nor have I recommended a player use it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You say you've seen loads of people doing that, but I feel you're referring to me.

That True Strike thread reference was actually a joke, or what we call "ribbing", rather than some deadly personal attack I know you weren't saying it was a great plan!

My point is that not only do a lot of people (almost all of them NOT you!) suggest we ignore DPR for really irrational and poorly explained reasons (sometimes even outright perverse ones, or ideological ones), but the same people and arguments frequently ignore even bigger issues, like action economy. I couldn't even count the threads I've read here and elsewhere, where someone is suggesting some incredibly dubious thing as a "great idea", ignoring the fact that they'll have to use a lot of their Actions in some dubious way, or writing as if something costing a Bonus Action is "free", when in fact it can have a rather severe opportunity cost.

for instance if the enemy’s melee-only, a fly spell and plinking away with cantrips and arrows is probably your best bet

I think that's extremely unlikely to be your best bet.

In real-game cases, with things like cavern roofs, your lowered DPS from taking such an approach, greater vulnerability to CC and so on, and the very simple fact that you may well not have such stuff prepared, then it's actually unlikely to be a valid approach at all, let alone "your best bet". My feeling is that most "melee-only" enemies will actually be highly possible to defeat in melee. Sure, you can mess around with a 3rd-level spell (or higher) to try and avoid some attacks (at the risk that the enemy isn't a moron and works out how to mess with you), or you could y'know, use the same spell slot to in some way damage or just straight-up incapacitate the same enemy so that he gets chopped to ribbons in half the number of rounds it'd take to "plink" at them.

The range of situations where "fly n' plink" is your "best bet" (i.e. best strategy) is going to be pretty tiny. Essentially limited to stupid enemies who are out in the open, outdoors, probably in daylight, and have literally no possible way to mess with you. If you do just as good damage from the air as the ground, that helps, or if the melee enemy is actually wildly out of your league, it might be necessary to adopt such a strategy, but it's going to be rare.

 

[Asisreo]

My point is that not only do a lot of people (almost all of them NOT you!) suggest we ignore DPR for really irrational and poorly explained reasons (sometimes even outright perverse ones, or ideological ones), but the same people and arguments frequently ignore even bigger issues, like action economy. I couldn't even count the threads I've read here and elsewhere, where someone is suggesting some incredibly dubious thing as a "great idea", ignoring the fact that they'll have to use a lot of their Actions in some dubious way, or writing as if something costing a Bonus Action is "free", when in fact it can have a rather severe opportunity cost.

Hehe, sorry. I've been stressed irl today.

Anyways, I agree. I think action economy often takes a backburner to what an optimal strategy would be. Most spellcasters want to avoid using bonus action spells unless they have something in mind that they want to use their full action on that isn't a leveled spell. Otherwise, the opportunity cost is that bonus action spell & cantrip vs a full action spell.

Healing word is an example where you'll generally want to cast it as a bonus action since healing is usually reserved for bringing someone back rather than being a damage buffer.

If you have no other use for a bonus action as a martial, it's great. But characters like rogues and barbarians do have to keep in mind how they use their bonus action: DW or their other BA abilities?

 

[renevq]

I think that's extremely unlikely to be your best bet.

In real-game cases, with things like cavern roofs, your lowered DPS from taking such an approach, greater vulnerability to CC and so on, and the very simple fact that you may well not have such stuff prepared, then it's actually unlikely to be a valid approach at all, let alone "your best bet". My feeling is that most "melee-only" enemies will actually be highly possible to defeat in melee. Sure, you can mess around with a 3rd-level spell (or higher) to try and avoid some attacks (at the risk that the enemy isn't a moron and works out how to mess with you), or you could y'know, use the same spell slot to in some way damage or just straight-up incapacitate the same enemy so that he gets chopped to ribbons in half the number of rounds it'd take to "plink" at them.

The range of situations where "fly n' plink" is your "best bet" (i.e. best strategy) is going to be pretty tiny. Essentially limited to stupid enemies who are out in the open, outdoors, probably in daylight, and have literally no possible way to mess with you. If you do just as good damage from the air as the ground, that helps, or if the melee enemy is actually wildly out of your league, it might be necessary to adopt such a strategy, but it's going to be rare.

Well, yeah, it’s entirely situation dependent. If you have melee-only enemies, a third level spell would be, IMO, a good (if boring) resource tradeoff to avoiding HP loss and having to use other resources. If it’s a different kind of enemy,you’d use a different resources. At the end of the day, combat is how you use your resources to get the other guy to 0 hp before he does the same to you.