D&D 5E The impact of overkill damage

[renevq]

No doubt, killing monsters is the deal. Overkill really only matters if you're going to use DPR as a metric, because it adjusts DPR downward, universally. DPR isn't interested much in smart tactics, at least, not in any presentation I've seen, only maximizing damage through build choices. What considering overkill does is says that a PC with a lower DPR might be equally as effective, especially over the last few points. Heck, I showed above that there's a range where GWM doesn't actually outperform no GWM with the same build choice. DPR calculations show that the GWM build significantly outpaces the non-GWM build, but it turns out that's not always, or even mostly, true. It mildly outpaces.

If you're not interested in DPR as a metric, though, then overkill doesn't matter either.

The way I see overkill, more than wasted damage, is “what sort of a margin do you have that your next hit will in fact be a killing blow” and the fact that damage beyond a creatures 0hp threshold lowers DPR kind of devalues DPR as a metric in my view. A more probable kill on your next hit should be more valuable that round-to-round damage just from the gains of having one less foe on the battlefield. DPR is a not insignificant metric, I just think it’s waaaaay overvalued.

 

[FrogReaver]

1/4 of attacks are killing blows, according to your assumption. At 2 attacks a round, you make 6 attacks in 3 rounds. That's 1.5 killing blows, which I rounded to 1. I can use 2 and look at the numbers for an f of 3, but it actually makes GWM a tad worse. I explained this in detail above in the monk/rogue comparison.

I can't say i'm following you.

GWM gives you an attack any time you do overkill. That attack more than offsets any overkill you may have done. How do you conclude that's worse?

 

[FrogReaver]

The way I see overkill, more than wasted damage, is “what sort of a margin do you have that your next hit will in fact be a killing blow” and the fact that damage beyond a creatures 0hp threshold lowers DPR kind of devalues DPR as a metric in my view. A more probable kill on your next hit should be more valuable that round-to-round damage just from the gains of having one less foe on the battlefield. DPR is a not insignificant metric, I just think it’s waaaaay overvalued.

DPR is the metric that is used to predict how many rounds it will take an enemy to die. No matter your DPR or how you split it up your average rounds for killing an identical enemy will be identical for equivalent DPR values.

What overkill discussion is about is that rounds are actually a combination of discrete events. When you zoom in and view the discrete events (attacks) you realize that it's possible for you to kill the first enemy in the same number of rounds as an equivalent DPR character while also sometimes being able to damage another enemy in the process.

All that said I think there are other factors being overlooked in this discussion:
1. Chance you are the PC to land the killing blow (your overkill doesn't matter if your not the one killing)

2. Whether there's an underkill factor (due to the higher damage fewer attack PC being more likely to kill an enemy in fewer rounds than average. Though I'm not sure on this one as he is also more likely to take longer than average to kill the enemy)

3. Whether variable damage ranges mitigate some of the effect of overkill in any way.

 

[jgsugden]

….All that said I think there are other factors being overlooked in this discussion:
1. Chance you are the PC to land the killing blow (your overkill doesn't matter if your not the one killing)

That has been addressed over and over, especially in the modeled combat situation I provided.

2. Whether there's an underkill factor (due to the higher damage fewer attack PC being more likely to kill an enemy in fewer rounds than average. Though I'm not sure on this one as he is also more likely to take longer than average to kill the enemy)

As my model showed actual creature death via hp reduction to zero, this was addressed in my model.

3. Whether variable damage ranges mitigate some of the effect of overkill in any way.

That depends upon what you mean by variable damage. My model accounted for the variable damage of a PC by rolling the damage. If you're talking about other PCs dealing different levels of damage mixed in with the PC under analysis - that is a red herring. Unless you get kills every round against foes, you're likely to see enemies that are wounded, and to leave enemies wounded. When I've modeled the stats in isolation, or collected them at the game table, they're very similar.

The truth is ABSOLUTELY THIS: If you focus only on DPR, you're not including all the elements that highly impact efficiency in killing foes. Exchanging some DPR for a greater number of attacks is something that can IMPROVE your effective damage in a round. Obviously, there is a balancing point after which losing DPR for more attacks is a losing proposition. However, when people focus so heavily on DPR, they often overlook how significant overkill as an offsetting efficiency metric. Some of the lower DPR builds that have been slammed for years are actually as efficient, or even more efficient, than some of the higher DPR builds because they distribute their damage into more attacks.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I can't say i'm following you.

GWM gives you an attack any time you do overkill. That attack more than offsets any overkill you may have done. How do you conclude that's worse?

It would be helpful if you read the words I type instead of whatever you read. GWM moderately beats non GWM in the first case because of the extra attack -- the bonus damage makes little difference. In the case I soeak to above, where the f assumption is changed, GWM does worse than it does in the first case, extra attack included.

 

[FrogReaver]

That has been addressed over and over, especially in the modeled combat situation I provided.As my model showed actual creature death via hp reduction to zero, this was addressed in my model. That depends upon what you mean by variable damage. My model accounted for the variable damage of a PC by rolling the damage. If you're talking about other PCs dealing different levels of damage mixed in with the PC under analysis - that is a red herring. Unless you get kills every round against foes, you're likely to see enemies that are wounded, and to leave enemies wounded. When I've modeled the stats in isolation, or collected them at the game table, they're very similar.

The truth is ABSOLUTELY THIS: If you focus only on DPR, you're not including all the elements that highly impact efficiency in killing foes. Exchanging some DPR for a greater number of attacks is something that can IMPROVE your effective damage in a round. Obviously, there is a balancing point after which losing DPR for more attacks is a losing proposition. However, when people focus so heavily on DPR, they often overlook how significant overkill as an offsetting efficiency metric. Some of the lower DPR builds that have been slammed for years are actually as efficient, or even more efficient, than some of the higher DPR builds because they distribute their damage into more attacks.

until the flaws in your simulation are addressed basing any conclusions on it are misguided.

your simulation modeled what it would look like to keep fighting enemy after enemy with no end of encounter state. It used an enemy hp distribution that generated too low of hp enemies too often. It didn’t factor in that allies would take away quite a few kills from you.

 

[FrogReaver]

It would be helpful if you read the words I type instead of whatever you read. GWM moderately beats non GWM in the first case because of the extra attack -- the bonus damage makes little difference. In the case I soeak to above, where the f assumption is changed, GWM does worse than it does in the first case, extra attack included.

I’m still not following. And Please drop the snark.

 

[jgsugden]

until the flaws in your simulation are addressed basing any conclusions on it are misguided.

your simulation modeled what it would look like to keep fighting enemy after enemy with no end of encounter state. It used an enemy hp distribution that generated too low of hp enemies too often. It didn’t factor in that allies would take away quite a few kills from you.

I did address your issues.

On the hp totals - I used 5th level PCs, and the expected HP ranges I used are built around the hp totals you'd expect to see in CR 6 or lower. They were perfectly reasonable hp ranges to focus on, and they covered a broad spectrum due to the randomness.

Also, if the last blow ENDS an encounter, overkill is meaningless, but only a small fraction of attacks end an encounter. By my records, the number can be anywhere from an average of 12 in some parties to 40 in others. Other than that, so long as you can get to another target to complete your attack sequence, you get to use it - and it is incredibly rare that PCs are unable to get to the next target.

These two minor quibbles do not offset the MASSIVE differential I established with the simulation.

You don't like the results because they contradict your position. However, they prove that overkill is a significant factor in the efficiency of a PC.

And, once again, putting the simulations aside - I've recorded combats in 5E quite often and analyzed what went on to evaluate whether certain feats were actually overpowered, to look at how much of an impact overkill has, and for a variety of other reasons. My simulation and the recorded combats at the game table resulted in the same conclusions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I’m still not following. And Please drop the snark.

It's not snark. I've explained quite a few times. Perhaps do the work yourself and go back and read and ask specific questions rather than the offhand, single point dismissals you've been doing -- especially when those points are addressed specifically in the posts. I'll spend more time explaining my points after you've shown you've done some small amount of work in trying to understand them.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not snark. I've explained quite a few times. Perhaps do the work yourself and go back and read and ask specific questions rather than the offhand, single point dismissals you've been doing -- especially when those points are addressed specifically in the posts. I'll spend more time explaining my points after you've shown you've done some small amount of work in trying to understand them.

I’ve tried. Didn’t help.