Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steady Vane" data-source="post: 9846535" data-attributes="member: 7051331">Yes. If accuracy is 65%, then with a +1 sword accuracy rises to 70%. Magic weapons are assumed in 5e, just not hard level-locked as they were in 4e.I have those numbers, at least on the PC side. That said, there are some hard assumptions in the numbers that 5e only somewhat supports RAW. After all, saying +4 items are assumed is nice, but WOTC never printed any, did they? It's hard for the numbers to ever match when the expected state of play is simply never supported. Maybe if more people made their own magic items with the extensive tables in the DMG and followed its instructions I suppose!Average PC health is a d8 hit die with +2 Constitution. Simply because while there are d10 classes and d6 classes, on average the hit size of a party will be d8 in size.Average PC damage is modeled quite closely by spell damage for AoE spells. Or more specifically, in 5e, Aoe save-for-half spell damage is modeled on the average damage a weapon character deals in a round against a monster of the same CR as the character's level.This is important: every class in the game does the same damage on average, and that damage matches spell damage.Part of the reason I am so adamant about magic weapons, and their accuracy increases, being assumed, is the math doesn't work unless they are there.To prove this, simply try four different regular 5e (2014) classes at level 5 with +1 weapons:a fighter with a polearm and the polearm master feat (or any weapon feat and its associated fighting style, they all work)a dual-wielding rogue who gets advantage and sneak attack, but has no weapon feat until level 10a ranger using a longbow and hunter's mark, no weapon feata monk with a staff, who flurry of blows once per three rounds of combat and has the damage averagedReally, go try it.[URL unfurl="true"]https://rpgbot.net/dnd5/tools/dpr-calculator/[/URL]No way they all deal the same damage, right? Turns out they do! At level 5, they all do an average of 21 damage per turn. At level 11 with a +2 weapon, they all deal 38.5 damage. (Ranger and Monk match at 5, but don't at 11 without a 3rd attack. WOTC screwed up the attack progression on them)Spells you get at 5th level deal 21 damage, and spells at 11th level 38.5 damage. Barring the "outlier" spells such as Fireball.The expected damage, after accounting for accuracy, weapon feats, and +1 to +4 magic weapons at levels 2, 7, 12, and 17, matches spell damage pretty much exactly. (Spell damage gets squirrely above spell level ~6, because there are simply fewer AoE for half spells at all printed at those levels)Character level REAL DPS based on fighting against average equivalent CR monster. +X items at 2, 7, 12, 17lvl 1-   7 (10)lvl 3-   14 (+1)lvl 5-   21lvl 7-   24.5 (+2)lvl 9-   28lvl 11-   38.5lvl 13-   45.5  (+3)lvl 15-   52.5  (2nd Feat)lvl 17-   59.5   (+4)lvl 19-   66.5Spell AoE/half damage by character level, from the DMGlvl 1-   7 (10)lvl 3-   14lvl 5-   21lvl 7-   24.5lvl 9-   28lvl 11-   38.5lvl 13-   45.5 (42)       --> spell damage chart in DMG starts being wrong this level, parentheses is DMG value, Actual value is 4.285 TTK as the other levels are. DMG value is with only one Feat and only +2 magic weapons.lvl 15-   52.5  (45.5)lvl 17-   59.5   (49)lvl 19-   66.5   (-)lvl 20-   70Side note, the spell damage charts in both DMGs are mostly correct but also lie for no reason. 1st level spell damage is average 10, not 7. PCs with weapons do about 7, unless they have a Bonus Action attack, in which case at level 1 they do about 10 average damage per round. Also, the 2024 DMG lies about level 2 spell damage, claiming it is lowered when not a single spell actually got its damage nerfed. I just assume it's policy at this point.The average time to kill (TTK) of a PC against an on-level CR monster in 5e is ~4.285 to 4.6 turns</blockquote>

Verification