D&D General Lies, Darn Lies, and Statistics: Why DPR Isn't the Stat to Rule them All

[DrJawaPhD]

Nova Damage is what I typically see as the definitive theorycrafting metric to optimize around. Damage Per Round is a good metric if you want to build an OK character who provides solid contributions to the party without outshining other players. But if you want to actually optimize, Nova Damage is the metric to care about.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nova Damage is what I typically see as the definitive theorycrafting metric to optimize around. Damage Per Round is a good metric if you want to build an OK character who provides solid contributions to the party without outshining other players. But if you want to actually optimize, Nova Damage is the metric to care about.

Which version?

 

[Seramus]

Everyone knows real optimizers choose... the Social Pillar!

 

[FrogReaver]

One major flaw in dpr and nova damage comparisons is assumptions. However, this can be mitigated by looking at various scenarios.

However, one thing that cannot be mitigated is the performance differences resulting in being able to respond to harder encounters with more damage and easier encounters with less. Essentially applying that damage where it’s needed. As an Example, Rogues falter here a lot as their dpr is extremely consistent.

All this said if I have one character consistently doing double the dpr of the others across multiple scenarios, there’s enough signal there to conclude he’s a much better damage dealer (as long as his accuracy isn’t too low). That said if a build is 10 or 15% higher dpr, that’s probably well within margin of error.

 

[FrogReaver]

Also, I think comparing by actual combats is 100x worse than comparing by DPR.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Which version?

Oh I guess I mean 5e - seems like that would be true for any version since focus fire is a staple in basically every game ever, but as far as DnD goes I only have firsthand experience with 5e

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh I guess I mean 5e - seems like that would be true for any version since focus fire is a staple in basically every game ever, but as far as DnD goes I only have firsthand experience with 5e

No. Which version of nova calculation you using?

 

[Leatherhead]

I dunno. I sure see Treantmonk's DPR charts quoted as authoritative analysis in a lots of parts of the Internet. That was the entire basis for the loud outcry that UA Blade Pact Warlocks were overpowered.

Let me blow your mind:



That was 3 years ago by the by.

Since then they have been probing Action Economy (how effective your actions are and how to deny the enemy their actions) instead

 

[DrJawaPhD]

No. Which version of nova calculation you using?

Oh oops, there isn't really a calculation you can use since any particular build needs to be evaluated for how well the assumptions would play out at your table with your particular DM

I'd go with Colby's calculations at D4 Deep Dive as the gold standard, but even with the rigor he puts into things he has several builds that I would disqualify as not being relevant at tables I play at. So it's not something that has a one-size-fits-all answer

 

[Mistwell]

I dunno. I sure see Treantmonk's DPR charts quoted as authoritative analysis in a lots of parts of the Internet. That was the entire basis for the loud outcry that UA Blade Pact Warlocks were overpowered.

If you watch Treantmonk, you know he is not all about DPR. He will list DPR as part of his analysis, but he cares a lot more about the ability to control the battlefield than he does about DPR. DPR is there to establish the baseline for that trait. It's why he loves Wizards so much despite them not being the DPR kings.