D&D General DPR Calculations Wut?

[SkidAce]

Of course I can figure out average damage per round (1 attack, 1d6+2, average 5.5).

But I see people with equations like : 65% chance to hit.

Where's that coming from? I feel like there are some assumptions I am missing. The % to hit would come from the AC of the target right?

Spell out DPR and explain it for me as a process, like I was in high school. (I do have a degree but somethings not clicking)

 

[Maxperson]

Of course I can figure out average damage per round (1 attack, 1d6+2, average 5.5).

But I see people with equations like : 65% chance to hit.

Where's that coming from? I feel like there are some assumptions I am missing. The % to hit would come from the AC of the target right?

Spell out DPR and explain it for me as a process, like I was in high school. (I do have a degree but somethings not clicking)

It's an assumption based on average armor classes and assumed starting primary stat numbers. It's also white room theory crafting, since it can't take into account all the variables like creature abilities, battlefield situations, spells, etc. that end up being used in combats.

 

[TwoSix]

Of course I can figure out average damage per round (1 attack, 1d6+2, average 5.5).

But I see people with equations like : 65% chance to hit.

Where's that coming from? I feel like there are some assumptions I am missing. The % to hit would come from the AC of the target right?

Spell out DPR and explain it for me as a process, like I was in high school. (I do have a degree but somethings not clicking)

Bog standard 5e design is that players will be successful roughly 2 out of 3 times, which makes 65% the closest approximation that actually occurs in normal play. If you look at monsters with a CR commiserate to an appropriate level character, the average AC is basically right around that range. (Although there is a lot of variance.)

Using pure damage expressions (like 1d6+2, avg 5.5) in discussions of character damage is almost always a bad idea, precisely because boosts to accuracy (like bonuses to hit, and advantage) are so important to determine how much overall damage a character actually does.

So as a default, discussion will assume that one of the characters being compared (the "control" character, basically) is attacking an enemy with an AC such that their overall hit chance is 65%. Other characters with differing accuracy bonuses will then move up and down from that 1st character's 65% baseline.

 

[SkidAce]

Okay, the 65% assumption makes sense. In your opinions, is that already with prof and attributes? So things like fighting styles or magical weapons not included.

 

[SkidAce]

I have a system for balancing encounters (sorta, lol), I just want to be able to follow some folks math's and maybe understand their point.

 

[TwoSix]

Okay, the 65% assumption makes sense. In your opinions, is that already with prof and attributes? So things like fighting styles or magical weapons not included.

For baseline character comparisons, it's generally assumed to be with prof and attributes added. People who are doing their comparisons properly will spell out their calculations, of course, although shorthanding/assuming those calculations becomes commonplace as the conversation gets longer.

 

[TwoSix]

It's also crucial to have a relatively moderate baseline because the relative value of accuracy versus damage expression changes if the target has a low or high AC. For enemies with high AC, every point of accuracy becomes crucial. If you only started with a 10% chance to hit, then getting a +2 to hit will double your overall damage.

If the enemy has low AC, that same +2 might only boost your 80% chance to hit to 90% hit, which is only a 12.5% increase in damage. If you have a lot of accuracy, boosting your damage expression might become the better choice.

This was a major factor in discussions around 3.X Power Attack, and 5e 2014 Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master.

 

[SkidAce]

It's an assumption based on average armor classes and assumed starting primary stat numbers. It's also white room theory crafting, since it can't take into account all the variables like creature abilities, battlefield situations, spells, etc. that end up being used in combats.

Usually what I do is eyeball it, just to get an idea. X BBG does xx damage per round, PCs do xx damage per round, who wins the hp race. PCs could roll well or poorly, but its a starting line.

 

[Zardnaar]

5.0 the NM had an average AC of 14.5.

DPR calculations generally use a 65% assumption.

I ro not i use average damage potential.

Eg 2d6+4 is 13.

To many variables in an actual game.

Theyre somewhat useful s a guideline for strikers if you want to know who does the most damage. Or if its complicated (chromatic orb, 5.0 -5/+10).

They're fairly useless for a real life game due to variables.

I value damage less than the internet for example. Its a bit more objective however.

At levels that matter the Berzerker Barbarian generally wins all DPR scenarios. Its not the best Barbarian let alone striker though. Ymmv of course.

 

[Maxperson]

Usually what I do is eyeball it, just to get an idea. X BBG does xx damage per round, PCs do xx damage per round, who wins the hp race. PCs could roll well or poorly, but its a starting line.

I also look at class make-up and monster abilities. If the wizard is partial to fire spells, a fire resistant creature will be more of a challenge than a cold resistant creature. If the party has 2 or 3 PCs with low wisdom and/or non-proficient in wisdom saves, a monster with higher than average wisdom save abilities will hit harder than it normally would. And so on.