I'm trying to sort out a DPR benchmark based on CR. The idea is to sort out what would be a DPR Target that you would want to reach with a character build at any given level. That way a player could figure out how competent their particular character build is at any given level compared to an average benchmark for the system as a whole.
The benefit to having this benchmark is that it would help GMs and players get an idea of this one aspect of the game at a greater amount of precision. If a GM notices that the hard core min-maxer Barbarian is making every encounter only last two rounds, ending in red mist, then the DPR could be calculated for the character and then compared. If it is well above the benchmark then there would be a data point to use in a discussion about how to tone down things.
On the flip side, if you've got a hard core roleplayer who's used all of their resources to make a vibrant and interesting, yet sub-optimal character, then this would likewise give a datapoint to discuss ways of dialing up the character's ability to contribute in a fight. It might even be an issue of handing this particular player a very potent weapon compared to their level to fix the math, with the assumption that this player isn't going to take advantage of the situation.
However, I'm not totally satisfied with my methodology so far. First, a look at the average hit points by CR in the game as it currently stands. I took all of the creatures on the online database, broke them up by CR and then averaged their hit points:
CR = HP
0.12 = 2
0.16 = 3
0.25 = 3.83
0.33 = 5
0.5 = 8.03
1 = 12.51
2 = 19.17
3 = 29.59
4 = 40.46
5 = 56.49
6 = 68.28
7 = 83.09
8 = 96.84
9 = 115.83
10 = 127.79
11 = 144.89
12 = 161.37
13 = 173.41
14 = 187.29
15 = 226.29
16 = 245.06
17 = 282.46
18 = 308.9
19 = 316.44
20 = 360
The next part is to define the bechmark. The game, as it was laid down in 3.0/3.5 was built with specific assumptions in mind, and playtested to make a CR system that would fit within those specific assumptions. This was:
four characters + four encounters per day + each encounter is roughly five rounds long
In terms of party composition, if you assume the iconics (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) then you have two classes that specifically are dealing with outputing damage, with another two that might be outputting damage. The cleric could wade into the fight, but depending the level varies on how competent he is in the battle. He could also be healing and buffing. The wizard could be providing direct damage through spells, but could also be doing some kind of battlefield control type of effect.
Because of this, I'm estimating that overall three party members worth of actions are dealing with damage output, with other possible actions outside of DPR issues taking up one party members full time (counting the cleric and wizard as only contributing half effort for damage output).
Onto the rounds per combat. The assumption is roughly five rounds of combat. To try and standardize this I'm estimating that each party member has to spend at least one round dealing with positional movement. It's either a charge, or moving into a flank, or dealing with terrain. So right off I'd drop it down to four rounds worth of actual attacks. Next, not every attack can be considered a full or flanking attack. Either because of a need to reposition, or just the nature of the battlefield, it seems on a broad level another round needs to be removed to compensate for just standard or non-flanking attacks.
Thus we have:
(three characters) x (three rounds) = 9 attacks in an encounter
Going back to the average hit points, and no dividing them by 9 we get:
CR = HP
0.12 = 0.22
0.16 = 0.33
0.25 = 0.43
0.33 = 0.56
0.5 = 0.89
1 = 1.39
2 = 2.13
3 = 3.29
4 = 4.5
5 = 6.28
6 = 7.59
7 = 9.23
8 = 10.76
9 = 12.87
10 = 14.2
11 = 16.1
12 = 17.93
13 = 19.27
14 = 20.81
15 = 25.14
16 = 27.23
17 = 31.38
18 = 34.32
19 = 35.16
20 = 40
The problem is that those numbers just don't look right at all. DPR is supposed to take into account chance to hit. These numbers are meant to be DPR targets, not DPR themselves. But if you go over the the DPR olympics thread, a single character build for DPR is going to drop an average CR 10 creature (127.79 hp) in two or three rounds on their own. If the rest of the party is backing up that DPR outputter, then the creatures barely going to have a chance of looking menacing.
But perhaps that is simply the nature of the DPR olympics, showing how above the power curve those builds are compared to something less optimized.
So what do people think? Where do the estimations need to be tweaked. Remember, this is a benchmark, it's meant to be a grand averaging of the entire system and thus assumes that there is great variation on either side of the mean. There is also the caveat that it is only a DPR Target that is trying to be nailed down, and not taking into account all the other effects and strategies in the game.
The benefit to having this benchmark is that it would help GMs and players get an idea of this one aspect of the game at a greater amount of precision. If a GM notices that the hard core min-maxer Barbarian is making every encounter only last two rounds, ending in red mist, then the DPR could be calculated for the character and then compared. If it is well above the benchmark then there would be a data point to use in a discussion about how to tone down things.
On the flip side, if you've got a hard core roleplayer who's used all of their resources to make a vibrant and interesting, yet sub-optimal character, then this would likewise give a datapoint to discuss ways of dialing up the character's ability to contribute in a fight. It might even be an issue of handing this particular player a very potent weapon compared to their level to fix the math, with the assumption that this player isn't going to take advantage of the situation.
However, I'm not totally satisfied with my methodology so far. First, a look at the average hit points by CR in the game as it currently stands. I took all of the creatures on the online database, broke them up by CR and then averaged their hit points:
CR = HP
0.12 = 2
0.16 = 3
0.25 = 3.83
0.33 = 5
0.5 = 8.03
1 = 12.51
2 = 19.17
3 = 29.59
4 = 40.46
5 = 56.49
6 = 68.28
7 = 83.09
8 = 96.84
9 = 115.83
10 = 127.79
11 = 144.89
12 = 161.37
13 = 173.41
14 = 187.29
15 = 226.29
16 = 245.06
17 = 282.46
18 = 308.9
19 = 316.44
20 = 360
The next part is to define the bechmark. The game, as it was laid down in 3.0/3.5 was built with specific assumptions in mind, and playtested to make a CR system that would fit within those specific assumptions. This was:
four characters + four encounters per day + each encounter is roughly five rounds long
In terms of party composition, if you assume the iconics (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) then you have two classes that specifically are dealing with outputing damage, with another two that might be outputting damage. The cleric could wade into the fight, but depending the level varies on how competent he is in the battle. He could also be healing and buffing. The wizard could be providing direct damage through spells, but could also be doing some kind of battlefield control type of effect.
Because of this, I'm estimating that overall three party members worth of actions are dealing with damage output, with other possible actions outside of DPR issues taking up one party members full time (counting the cleric and wizard as only contributing half effort for damage output).
Onto the rounds per combat. The assumption is roughly five rounds of combat. To try and standardize this I'm estimating that each party member has to spend at least one round dealing with positional movement. It's either a charge, or moving into a flank, or dealing with terrain. So right off I'd drop it down to four rounds worth of actual attacks. Next, not every attack can be considered a full or flanking attack. Either because of a need to reposition, or just the nature of the battlefield, it seems on a broad level another round needs to be removed to compensate for just standard or non-flanking attacks.
Thus we have:
(three characters) x (three rounds) = 9 attacks in an encounter
Going back to the average hit points, and no dividing them by 9 we get:
CR = HP
0.12 = 0.22
0.16 = 0.33
0.25 = 0.43
0.33 = 0.56
0.5 = 0.89
1 = 1.39
2 = 2.13
3 = 3.29
4 = 4.5
5 = 6.28
6 = 7.59
7 = 9.23
8 = 10.76
9 = 12.87
10 = 14.2
11 = 16.1
12 = 17.93
13 = 19.27
14 = 20.81
15 = 25.14
16 = 27.23
17 = 31.38
18 = 34.32
19 = 35.16
20 = 40
The problem is that those numbers just don't look right at all. DPR is supposed to take into account chance to hit. These numbers are meant to be DPR targets, not DPR themselves. But if you go over the the DPR olympics thread, a single character build for DPR is going to drop an average CR 10 creature (127.79 hp) in two or three rounds on their own. If the rest of the party is backing up that DPR outputter, then the creatures barely going to have a chance of looking menacing.
But perhaps that is simply the nature of the DPR olympics, showing how above the power curve those builds are compared to something less optimized.
So what do people think? Where do the estimations need to be tweaked. Remember, this is a benchmark, it's meant to be a grand averaging of the entire system and thus assumes that there is great variation on either side of the mean. There is also the caveat that it is only a DPR Target that is trying to be nailed down, and not taking into account all the other effects and strategies in the game.
