How Low is Too Low

[Victim]

According to the Wizards Optimisation forums for 4e:

"What I've observed is: 14 DPR(1st), 20 DPR(6th), 40 DPR(12th), 60 DPR(16th), 100 DPR (24th), 150 DPR(30th)"

DPR meaning damage per round.

If you're going to go "that's not possible", one of many character builds that accomplish it is here, and it's not even a particularly munched out or complex one to do. There are also builds that do more damage.

Even at first level, though, you can expect to take out a guy every two rounds with a decently-made striker, and damage increases ten-fold from there to level 30.

Actually, my understanding was that CO considered 20 DPR per tier to be a reasonably good figure, with things like 60 DPR at 16 being more in the DPR records.

 

[Shin Okada]

Maybe off-topic but..

DPR= Damage per Round right?

Do you guys assuming that all the attacks hit or including to-hit rate in calculation?

 

[Stalker0]

Depends on the monster type.

For artillery, I've used monsters 3 or 4 levels lower and they still do alright.

For most monsters, no more than 1 or 2 generally.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Maybe off-topic but..

DPR= Damage per Round right?

Do you guys assuming that all the attacks hit or including to-hit rate in calculation?

Yup, a full DPR calculation is DPH(damage per hit)*Hit Chance(where you generally assume level+12 for NAD or level+14 for AC of target and an equal level target). You have to figure in a few things like additional crit damage as well, though for lower level PCs that usually is about the same as a +1 to-hit. For a higher level PC that is built to crit fish it can be substantially more.

Of course DPR is a pretty rough calculation of actual combat performance. High DPR characters generally are the most effective at attacking the enemy but it really only applies to strikers and some defender builds. Its pretty hard to really nail down the raw effectiveness of a controller or leader though obviously any increases in damage they can get with their attacks helps if it doesn't come at the expense of other aspects of the character.

I probably shouldn't call Gort's example striker 'cheesy' either. Its heavily damage optimized but basically a solid build. I'd even say that as a ranger its not even all that crazy (I mean rangers really are all about kicking out massive damage). Still, in most actual games the player would probably have to pick up a few items and feats for things besides combat. Being able to track and a few things like that probably aren't all that optional except in a heavily hack-n-slash oriented game. Its probably most fair to say that party damage outputs vary a lot from game to game.

 

[Gort]

It's just an example to show that if people are finding that monsters take a while to kill (note the neverending "grind" accusations 4e seems to attract) it may well not be that the monsters have too many hitpoints, it's that you're not doing enough damage to them.

And as you we both agree, the example I posted wasn't some extreme pun-pun-esque monstrosity requiring exploitation of obscure rules and an extremely specific character type. It was more or less just some guy taking fairly obvious items and feats to make his character do more damage.

I guess I just over-react these days, after you've seen a lot of posts about "grind" and "monsters take a long time to kill" from people with parties of three defense-focused defenders, a leader and a controller. It's not that hard, people!

PS: Byronic, Warlocks are terrible and shouldn't enter any real discussion about anything.

 

[Nifft]

Depends on the monster type.

For artillery, I've used monsters 3 or 4 levels lower and they still do alright.

For most monsters, no more than 1 or 2 generally.

I was experimenting with minion types a while back, and Artillery Minions do great even at and below PC level. Their ability to focus fire is brutal, especially if they're spread out.

Makes the PCs very glad to use cover, and they get a lot of satisfaction from dropping the annoying archers in one hit.

Cheers, -- N

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's just an example to show that if people are finding that monsters take a while to kill (note the neverending "grind" accusations 4e seems to attract) it may well not be that the monsters have too many hitpoints, it's that you're not doing enough damage to them.

And as you we both agree, the example I posted wasn't some extreme pun-pun-esque monstrosity requiring exploitation of obscure rules and an extremely specific character type. It was more or less just some guy taking fairly obvious items and feats to make his character do more damage.

I guess I just over-react these days, after you've seen a lot of posts about "grind" and "monsters take a long time to kill" from people with parties of three defense-focused defenders, a leader and a controller. It's not that hard, people!

PS: Byronic, Warlocks are terrible and shouldn't enter any real discussion about anything.

See, I think MANY, if not most, players overvalue raw damage output. The group I run for from which that rogue is derived has a Dwarf GWT fighter, the rogue, a starlock, a STR cleric, and the fifth position has variously been a wizard, a sorcerer, etc. They do fine with encounters. Now and then I've dropped one on them that was a bit grindy for various reasons, but it was never the fault of the PCs doing insufficient damage. They're average built characters but they play fairly aggressively and go after the monsters. The challenges they face are exciting for them and they have fun. Few combats run over 6 rounds and even fighting with a solo dragon plus its (non-minion) allies was fun and reasonably quick.

I don't think the character you put forth is terribly obscure to US who probably spend a good bit of time with the rules, but its different for 95% of players, they'll be playing once a week and MAYBE they've read all the feats in a couple of the books, but probably not.

So for those groups a level - 4 monster is still definitely going to take a round or two to get past depending on how many PCs whack it.