D&D 4E Kill Mongo! 4E min/max design challenge.

[t3nk3n]

As to your Bloodied Dragonborn question:

Dragonborn Fighter
20 Strength, 14 Constitution
Dragonborn Frenzy
Always Bloodied
Maul

Reaping Strike, +9 vs. AC, 2d6+7
Miss on a 1-7 (5 damage * .35 = 1.75)
Hit on a 8-19 (14 damage * .6 = 8.4)
Crit on a 20 (19 damage * .05 = .95)
Total expected damage per round = 11.1

Reaping Strike w/Flank, +11 vs. AC, 2d6+7
Miss on a 1-5 (5 damage * .25 = 1.25)
Hit on a 6-19 (14 damage * .7 = 9.8)
Crit on a 20 (19 damage * .05 = .95)
Total expected damage per round = 12

Steel Serpent Strike w/Flank +11 vs. AC, 4d6+7
Miss on a 1-5 (0 damage *.25 = 0)
Hit on a 6-19 (21 damage * .7 = 14.7)
Crit on a 20 (31 damage * .05 = 1.55)
Total expected damage per round = 16.25

Dragon Breath, +7 vs. Reflex, 1d6+4
Miss on a 1-6 (0 damage * .3 = 0)
Hit on a 7-19 (7.5 damage * .65 = 4.875)
Crit on a 20 (10 damage * .05 = .5)
Total expected damage per round = 5.375

Round 1: 11.1
Round 2: 16.25; 27.35
Round 3: 11.1; 38.45
Round 4: 12; 50.45
Round 5: 11.1; 61.55
Round 6: 12; 73.55
Round 7: 11.1; 84.65
Round 8: 12; 96.65
Round 9: 11.1; 107.75
Round 10: 17.375; 125.125 - Dead Mongo!

I tried making a rogue or ranger version, but it seems that bloodied dragonborn fighters deal more damage than bloodied dragonborn strikers. Odd.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Ok, did anyone do "damage per round" calculations for 3e? Because I've been trying to defend that 4e is not like an MMO, but this really doesn't help. This seriously looks like a rogue thread on a WoW board, except replace "damage per round" with "damage per second".

 

[Thikket]

Ok, did anyone do "damage per round" calculations for 3e? Because I've been trying to defend that 4e is not like an MMO, but this really doesn't help. This seriously looks like a rogue thread on a WoW board, except replace "damage per round" with "damage per second".

Yes. One of the most popular threads here for a very long time was called "Sultans of Smack", where damage (per round or otherwise) reigned.

I think that all this sort of stuff is now mostly on the Character Optimization Wizards boards.

As to why people do this... Oftentimes quantifying effects (damage or otherwise) helps us define what is "fair" and what is "not fair". Whether it feels this way or not, any competent game designer will go through these sorts of measures at some point in designing their game to fit their own definitions of balance. It doesn't matter if it's an MMO or a Pen & Paper or a new schoolyard sport -- someone will do the "balance", and that almost always (once again, in cases of competent designers) involves a rigorous mathematical or statistical analysis.

Challenges like this are fun, grant enormous insight into the game system, and have been around ever since I can remember with D&D. I started playing around 1995. The fact that WoW has similar challenges is O.K.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Well if it was already going on, then I'm not really worried about it. I hadn't seen it, so to me it looked as though the terminology sprung forth from the new edition. And I guarantee it's going to look that way to those who dislike the new edition.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Hm. How about a Sir Firebelly, Dragonborn paladin, with 20 str, 12 con, 16 wis? He could wield a longsword two-handed, and take Weapon Focus: heavy blade.

It is weird that a longsword held two-handed does almost as much damage on average as a greatsword. But 1d10 is actually slightly better than 1d8+1, since although they both do the same average damage on a hit, the 1d10 does an extra point of damage on a crit.

Thus, a better for Sir Firebelly would seem to be to take a greatsword and Weapon Focus: heavy blade for 1d10+1+str (rather than 1d8+2+str).

Of course, the even BETTER option would be to take Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword. He still gets 1d10+1+str, but now he can take Weapon Focus at level 2 for another +1, and in the meantime he can fight one-handed if he wants to. Heck, maybe he even has a shield strapped to his back just in case he needs to "defend" stuff!

 

[robgmsft]

FWIW in 3rd edition it was trivial to come up with min/max builds that did 5x or 10x what a naive build would dish out. In 4E it's MUCH tighter. Note that feat choices give you +1 expected damage a round if they're great, this is VERY different from the half-orc power-attacking barbarians of 3E, let alone the weird loophole-lover builds.

 

[Thikket]

FWIW in 3rd edition it was trivial to come up with min/max builds that did 5x or 10x what a naive build would dish out. In 4E it's MUCH tighter. Note that feat choices give you +1 expected damage a round if they're great, this is VERY different from the half-orc power-attacking barbarians of 3E, let alone the weird loophole-lover builds.

No joke! It's kind of refreshing.

Doing this contest, I was always excited to find something that just gave average damages of like +1/round.

What's interesting to me is all the party-synergy stuff. It seems like to really "min/max build" in 4e, one needs to design a 4-person party with optimal synergies, rather than a particular character with a great (i.e., exploitative, heh) build.

 

[robgmsft]

Thikket, I completely agree. Working well with the Warlord in my party to achieve flanking will end up being more important than the individual skill choices. I'm also very curious how Eladrin's teleport will work out in game. Even trying to figure out the dps here, I had to make a lot of guesses about what would be happening in combat. So many of the powers and effects have varying efficacy depending on the tactical situation. VERY cool, kind of excited about 4E.

 

[loisel]

All you need to do is send Mongo a "Candygram" and you can win in one round...

Candlejack can take this guy anyd