Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kupursk" data-source="post: 7562238" data-attributes="member: 6986037">Hello,Since I'm still trying to grasp the notion of the numerical values in 5e after so many years playing a different edition of the game, I'd appreciate some help in simulating some expected damage values for mid and high levels. Specifically melee or ranged attacks, not spells.Let's not consider level 20 since that's rather unrealistic for most games, but take a Fighter of something like level 7-ish and level 15-ish, give or take.Overall, 5e seems to have increased damage numbers everywhere (monster damage, spell damage, etc) compared to 2e, and also 3e (if we're not counting any &quot;broken&quot; feat combos and such). But I'm not sure if regular attacks have also increased in damage overall.Take the Champion Fighter as a standard, since that's the most &quot;default&quot; type of warrior there is. Sword and shield.It seems to me that despite gaining more attacks per round, and increasing critical chance a tad, the damage per attack itself doesn't increase much with time. Which is not unlike previous editions. But I may be (and probably am) missing something.<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">At beginner levels he should be doing 1 attack for around 1d8+5 (+3 from Str, +2 from Dueling style).</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mid-levels he could've raised that Str to 20 already so 2 attacks for 1d8+7.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">And at higher levels 3 attacks for the same 1d8+7.</li>
</ul>Is this about right? And if not what else could help increase damage? Feats allowed.Bonus question: How would other fighting classes compare to that (say, Barbarians, Paladins, etc)?--------PS: The purpose of this is not to say X class is good or bad. As mentioned I'm just trying to get a feel of what's an expected low or high damage per attack in the new edition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kupursk, post: 7562238, member: 6986037"] Hello, Since I'm still trying to grasp the notion of the numerical values in 5e after so many years playing a different edition of the game, I'd appreciate some help in simulating some expected damage values for mid and high levels. Specifically melee or ranged attacks, not spells. Let's not consider level 20 since that's rather unrealistic for most games, but take a Fighter of something like level 7-ish and level 15-ish, give or take. Overall, 5e seems to have increased damage numbers everywhere (monster damage, spell damage, etc) compared to 2e, and also 3e (if we're not counting any "broken" feat combos and such). But I'm not sure if regular attacks have also increased in damage overall. Take the Champion Fighter as a standard, since that's the most "default" type of warrior there is. Sword and shield. It seems to me that despite gaining more attacks per round, and increasing critical chance a tad, the damage per attack itself doesn't increase much with time. Which is not unlike previous editions. But I may be (and probably am) missing something. [LIST] [*]At beginner levels he should be doing 1 attack for around 1d8+5 (+3 from Str, +2 from Dueling style). [*]Mid-levels he could've raised that Str to 20 already so 2 attacks for 1d8+7. [*]And at higher levels 3 attacks for the same 1d8+7. [/LIST] Is this about right? And if not what else could help increase damage? Feats allowed. Bonus question: How would other fighting classes compare to that (say, Barbarians, Paladins, etc)? -------- PS: The purpose of this is not to say X class is good or bad. As mentioned I'm just trying to get a feel of what's an expected low or high damage per attack in the new edition. [/QUOTE]

Verification