D&D General Lies, Darn Lies, and Statistics: Why DPR Isn't the Stat to Rule them All

[Kurotowa]

If you watch Treantmonk, you know he is not all about DPR.

I don't watch Treantmonk, if I can help it. It's not my kind of analysis. What I do know is when and how he gets cited as an authoritative source in debates, and it's usually his DPR numbers.

So yeah, maybe some of the video creators are trying to take a more holistic view. That doesn't stop the community from seizing on the simple but misleading numbers and using them as a cudgel in discussion. Which is what Snarf was trying to rebut with this thread, and why it's a fair point to do so.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't watch Treantmonk, if I can help it. It's not my kind of analysis. What I do know is when and how he gets cited as an authoritative source in debates, and it's usually his DPR numbers.

So yeah, maybe some of the video creators are trying to take a more holistic view. That doesn't stop the community from seizing on the simple but misleading numbers and using them as a cudgel in discussion. Which is what Snarf was trying to rebut with this thread, and why it's a fair point to do so.

I don't think it's fair to point the finger at Treantmonk for doing that when he doesn't do that, and when he explicitly points out frequently he doesn't think that about DPR, and then made a video specifically about what Snarf is saying, before Snarf said it. @Leatherhead pointed that out above.

And I think it's telling you don't watch Treantmonk, but then contribute to opposite-day criticism about Treantmonk.

If people take Treant "DPR is nearly useless" Monk's analysis out of context to use the opposite point of what he's doing, it's not fair to point the finger at him for using DPR that way. Particularly when you knew going into it you don't watch him and so don't know what it is he's saying in his videos.

Honestly there is a reason Treantmonk and several others got the PHB in advance, and it's not DPR calculations. They have a really good sense for how the game works "under the hood" because they play the game A WHOLE LOT and were able to quit their day jobs to focus entirely on playing the game, studying and thinking about the game, and making videos about the game that people like and watch. That certainly doesn't mean you need to like them, but it probably means they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand with a false stereotype without actually watching them like Snarf and you seem to be doing.

 

[Maxperson]

Everyone knows real optimizers choose... the Social Pillar!

It's far more powerful.

 

[Maxperson]

DPR analysis is good for comparing similar characters, or for spot checking balance. If build A out damages build B and build B doesn't have any substantive benefits over A, then that tells you something.

Rogue's have lower health and often lower HP than Fighters, but Rogues have skill functions that Fighters don't have: that's a trade off. But a Rogue built for damage should be comparable in DPR to a Fighter built for damage. A Wizard should probably be lower, since they have so much more utility.

It's not the end all be all of balance, but it is something to keep in mind.

I don't agree. The rogue should not be comparable to a fighter built for damage, because that's really all a fighter does. A rogue built for damage is still going to crush a fighter in the skill category. That advantage outside of combat means that combat should be the fighter's thing. The rogue should be good enough to be a decent contributor to the combat, but no more.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think that DPR is often used because it is the easiest comparison to generate, and often the only stat in common that different classes have.

There is no real way to compare the investigative and exploration abilities, or control and enemy shutdown capabilities between fighters and wizards for example. (Beyond "minimal vs superb".) However, since spells can also deal damage, it is possible to compare DPR between the two classes.

This can give important information or highlight potential issues, as Treantmonk did with the blade pact warlock. DPR isn't the only capability of a warlock: they also have a suite of utility spalls and invocations due to DPR being considered the forte of the martial classes.
However, if a warlock can demonstrably beat most martial classes in DPR, as well as having superior capabilities in the other areas of the game, that is a valid cause for concern.

 

[Zardnaar]

DPR really only matters when combined with DPR.

To really break 5E you optimize the party. Eg hold spell+ dpr or zones/control locking down the battlefield.

Most creatures hit hard and healing sucks so locking them down is usually better.

DPR still situationally useful eg BG3 or rolled stats and magic items.

Monster saces are generally terrible so big dopey meatsacks eg giants basically suck.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Everyone knows real optimizers choose... the Social Pillar!

Naw. I like to go galaxy-brained. I optimize for EXPLORATION!

My PC can outmap your PC blindfolded and with both hands tied behind his back.

Also, I think comparing by actual combats is 100x worse than comparing by DPR.

Oh boy. It's time to whip it out.

Sure, it works great in practice, but how does it work in theory?

I'd like to understand why you made this comment, honestly. This is what I wrote in the conclusion-

That's both simple and complicated. The primary problem is that D&D, unlike most sports, doesn't have a large catalog of observed games for statistics. Now that we have twitch, and critical role, and other publicly broadcast games, maybe someone could start compiling that.... but that's neither here nor there. But there is always going to be a difference between "white room" stats and statistics in play. This may change with Beyond and the VTT, but we would need to see it in action.

Other than that, the best way to get useful statistics is to run simulations (Monte Carlo simulations & regression analysis) over and over again with different party compositions and different combats and see the results. There would necessarily be limits to this based upon even more factors (what monsters, how are the PCs making decisions, accounting for spellcasting, accounting for terrain etc.) but it would provide you with more useful information. IMO.

Now, I think that the best way to understand how the various abilities work in terms of play, with different synergies between characters and in different situations and different party compositions should be obvious, at least to me.

By seeing how it actually works in play! If you have a dataset that is large enough, that would be ideal.


Absent that, running simulations (so .... many .... simulations) might be another useful approximation.

Again, the problem with D&D is that there are aspects of the game that are difficult to measure, even for combat, a priori (such as battlefield control, synergies with spells that buff others, different monsters and terrains and distances, and so on), but you can measure them post hoc.

Of course, I don't think we will ever get a very good statistical handle on the other pillars, but given I just started another thread recently about how D&D's rules channel activity toward combat, I'm not sure that's overly important to most people.

 

[Maxperson]

Naw. I like to go galaxy-brained. I optimize for EXPLORATION!

My PC can outmap your PC blindfolded and with both hands tied behind his back.

I think that's going to be my new tactic the next time my party is stuck in a maze. We might get out faster with a person like that leading the group!

 

[Kurotowa]

And I think it's telling you don't watch Treantmonk, but then contribute to opposite-day criticism about Treantmonk.

Telling about what? That I watched a couple of his videos, decided he wasn't for me, and stopped? I personally think that's the normal and sane reaction to a creator that isn't for you. Just because I don't hang around to hatewatch every new video so I can loudly complain about how terrible it is, doesn't means my opinion is invalid.

 

[Mistwell]

Telling about what? That I watched a couple of his videos, decided he wasn't for me, and stopped? I personally think that's the normal and sane reaction to a creator that isn't for you. Just because I don't hang around to hatewatch every new video so I can loudly complain about how terrible it is, doesn't means my opinion is invalid.

I didn't say your opinion in saying he's not for you is invalid. I said your opinion that he's about DPR is invalid, given it's factually incorrect and a fact you'd know is incorrect if you did watch him.

And even once you realized he isn't all about DPR instead of saying, "Ah well I guess I got it wrong on Treantmonk, whoops!" the tactic turned to "But when I see people quote him it's all about DPR so regardless..." which isn't someone acknowledging they made a mistake at all. It isn't like Treantmonk is some fictional influencer personality out there, we all know his real name and he came from this very forum.