D&D 5E Which characters are the DPR (damage per round) leaders at your table(s)?

[GMforPowergamers]

Ironicly the 2 of 3 highest DPR characters we have had over the year both were heavy multi classed.

1) a barbarian with a great axe... nothing special just in that game it was awesome he was a half orc as well helping with crit damage

2) a ranger monk (I know I am shocked too) who was a dex based shortsword fighter who would fight multi foes. He didn't have a lot of single target but against groups he was making like a billion attacks (base attack, then either flurry or off hand, then attack an adjacent target...then his second attack

3) another ranger multi. A gloom stalker (I think that is the name of subclass) Assassin owlkin who could move in, make a bunch of attacks (including a free extra one from gloom stalk, an off hand, a main hand, and a 2nd) in first round, all count as crits if he could get surprise (and hey with his stealth and quick thinking he did about 1/3 of the time) and one of these got SA damage added)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That has not been my experience. I've found martials, especially well optimized martials, can and do out damage casters, even with AoE counted in.

for damage the only caster I have seen keep up is one in melee (a hexblade) the spellcaster just do EVERYTHING other then damage better, and even falling behind they are not behind AVERAGE martial damage.

I have found you can optimize anyone for damage, but the melee characters optimize for it best... the same can not be said for movement, exploration, discovery, info gathering, roleplay, battle field control, and damage mitigation (although AC as the specific form of Damage mitigation is also in favor of martial)

My problem I often site as "Casters rule and Martials Drool" comes from the fact that Casters just have 100x more options

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, I was sort of proven wrong. It took more than 5 replies before someone challenged the very premise of the thread. But it still occurred on the first page. I'll call that a draw.

Having tracked some numbers in a couple campaigns: at low levels things are very wonky, but beyond those early levels casters creep up (especially when days are short...and they're usually short) and the mechanics don't so much reverse that trend as slow it down.

 

[Seramus]

I don't generally run modules, so I often build encounters with my players in mind. If one of them is playing a big AOE blaster, then I am more inclined to include some minions specifically for them to blow up big piles of minions! If there are more martials than casters, I lean towards a smaller number of memorable brutes. It's not something that happens every battle, but it does flavor my encounter design.

So, it can be a self fulfilling prophecy. These biases absolutely skew my numbers.

I do find SS to be a pretty beefy percentage of martial damage, even in games run by other DMs.

 

[Plaguescarred]

In my GREYHAWK campaign, among a party consisting of a Human Valor Bard, Human Battlemaster Fighter, Gnome Arcane Rogue and Human Transmuter Wizard, the Rogue is the heavy hitter. When the Wizard deals an area of effect damage, it matches it but in the long run the Rogue remains ahead of everyone over the course of an adventuring day.

 

[Oofta]

Well, I was sort of proven wrong. It took more than 5 replies before someone challenged the very premise of the thread. But it still occurred on the first page. I'll call that a draw.

Having tracked some numbers in a couple campaigns: at low levels things are very wonky, but beyond those early levels casters creep up (especially when days are short...and they're usually short) and the mechanics don't so much reverse that trend as slow it down.

The response also included an answer to the OP's question. Threads almost always go off track now and then. On the other hand, I was counting how many posts there would be before someone whined about the fact that I included something other than the answer to the question without adding anything to the thread, so thanks for that!

 

[Sacrosanct]

It varies. I think in past campaigns (each going to level 12 except for HotDQ which went to 15), it was:

group 1: Gloomstalker ranger (with shadow sorcerer, eldritch knight, assassin, moon druid)
group 2: tempest cleric (this was my PC in HotdQ). had a barbarian, warlock/fighter, rogue, and sorcerer
group 3: rogue swashbucker (with barbarian/druid, monk, necromancer wizard, beastmaster ranger)
group 4, current group level 9: rune knight (me). Other party members are shadow monk, fire druid, bard/rogue, warlock. In this last group, the higher levels we go, the more my RK separates himself as the heavy hitter.

Keep in mind we don't do a lot of short or long rests, for various in-game reasons, so I will admit that spells in our games tend to be more cautiously applied. We are pretty close to 3-4 encounters before short rest, and 6-8 between long rests.

 

[Mort]

It varies. I think in past campaigns (each going to level 12 except for HotDQ which went to 15), it was:

group 1: Gloomstalker ranger (with shadow sorcerer, eldritch knight, assassin, moon druid)
group 2: tempest cleric (this was my PC in HotdQ). had a barbarian, warlock/fighter, rogue, and sorcerer
group 3: rogue swashbucker (with barbarian/druid, monk, necromancer wizard, beastmaster ranger)
group 4, current group level 9: rune knight (me). Other party members are shadow monk, fire druid, bard/rogue, warlock. In this last group, the higher levels we go, the more my RK separates himself as the heavy hitter.

Keep in mind we don't do a lot of short or long rests, for various in-game reasons, so I will admit that spells in our games tend to be more cautiously applied. We are pretty close to 3-4 encounters before short rest, and 6-8 between long rests.

Yes, I think this is a huge factor. The more the party is allowed to dictate the pace of play (eg. being able to rest when they want etc.) the more likely it is that casters will dominate combat (as oppose to reserving big spells for "clutch" situations).

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes, I think this is a huge factor. The more the party is allowed to dictate the pace of play (eg. being able to rest when they want etc.) the more likely it is that casters will dominate combat (as oppose to reserving big spells for "clutch" situations).

Also, I was counting indirect damage the PC is responsible for. If we count all available spells and caster abilities, we need to do the same for the other classes as well. Therefore, When I once per short rest redirect damage using the cloud rune, that counts. Not only in preventing damage from an ally, but inflicting it to an enemy. So when that gnome mindflayer made an attack roll inflicting 58 points of damage to the monk, and I redirected it to their buddy mind flayer, that should count towards my overall damage output. IMO anyway.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The response also included an answer to the OP's question. Threads almost always go off track now and then. On the other hand, I was counting how many posts there would be before someone whined about the fact that I included something other than the answer to the question without adding anything to the thread, so thanks for that!

You get crapped on for "white room theorizing" or people telling you you're a dirty filthy optimizer without telling you you're a dirty filthy optimizer one too many times, and it starts to get under one's skin.

Consider how you might feel if someone asked about what people look for when playing old systems and the 15th post was someone giving an answer, but appending at the end, "Of course, the real motive is usually nostalgia alone."