D&D 5E Which characters are the DPR (damage per round) leaders at your table(s)?

[LordEntrails]

So as you may know/remember, I run my games on FG and over the past months/year or so we have been using an extension (Mad Nomad's Combat Statistics) that records combat statistics. I thought I would include it so you can see what actual numbers we have. (Oh, and we just leveled to 15.) Classes in order of the list are; Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Fighter8/Wizard7, Cleric, Bard14/Warlock1

What type of ranger, If I may ask. I've seen gloomstalker rangers really stack on the damage, but not much experience with the other subclasses.

Not built for damage, he's a Firblog Hunter Ranger.

 

[Mort]

So as you may know/remember, I run my games on FG and over the past months/year or so we have been using an extension (Mad Nomad's Combat Statistics) that records combat statistics. I thought I would include it so you can see what actual numbers we have. (Oh, and we just leveled to 15.) Classes in order of the list are; Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Fighter8/Wizard7, Cleric, Bard14/Warlock1
View attachment 156094



Not built for damage, he's a Firblog Hunter Ranger.

Thanks for the info.

Though that DM guy is really running away with it - maybe he needs to be nerfed

 

[Plaguescarred]

So as you may know/remember, I run my games on FG and over the past months/year or so we have been using an extension (Mad Nomad's Combat Statistics) that records combat statistics. I thought I would include it so you can see what actual numbers we have. (Oh, and we just leveled to 15.) Classes in order of the list are; Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Fighter8/Wizard7, Cleric, Bard14/Warlock1
View attachment 156094



Not built for damage, he's a Firblog Hunter Ranger.

Thanks these are great stats!
Question, is the rogue more melee, ranged or a equal mix of both? Seeing as he took much more damage than the sorcerer, something tells me Its more a melee combattant.

 

[LordEntrails]

He does a lot of melee, assassin rogue. The party really doesn't have multiple tanks, so pretty much everyone but the sorcerer takes a beating.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Also, I was counting indirect damage the PC is responsible for. If we count all available spells and caster abilities, we need to do the same for the other classes as well. Therefore, When I once per short rest redirect damage using the cloud rune, that counts. Not only in preventing damage from an ally, but inflicting it to an enemy. So when that gnome mindflayer made an attack roll inflicting 58 points of damage to the monk, and I redirected it to their buddy mind flayer, that should count towards my overall damage output. IMO anyway.

Likewise, while it is really hard to track, support character contributions should be thought of as well. If the GWM barbarian only hit because of a Bless spell or Bardic inspiration, that damage is the Cleric or Bard's contribution, not the barbarian's. If the Rogue ka-shanked an enemy with a crit (that made them have to borrow dice from the other players) because the sorceror cast Hold Person on the target, half of that damage is from the sorceror, not the rogue. Likewise extra attacks from Haste, BM maneuver etc.
When you get to try to calculate it, this sort of thing leaves the purview of mere mathematics unfortunately. If the cleric casts cure wounds on the barbarian, preventing them from dropping on the next hit, is all of the rest of the damage that combat the cleric's or the barbarian's? How about defensive buffs? And further down the rabbithole we go. . .

 

[Sacrosanct]

Likewise, while it is really hard to track, support character contributions should be thought of as well. If the GWM barbarian only hit because of a Bless spell or Bardic inspiration, that damage is the Cleric or Bard's contribution, not the barbarian's. If the Rogue ka-shanked an enemy with a crit (that made them have to borrow dice from the other players) because the sorceror cast Hold Person on the target, half of that damage is from the sorceror, not the rogue. Likewise extra attacks from Haste, BM maneuver etc.
When you get to try to calculate it, this sort of thing leaves the purview of mere mathematics unfortunately. If the cleric casts cure wounds on the barbarian, preventing them from dropping on the next hit, is all of the rest of the damage that combat the cleric's or the barbarian's? How about defensive buffs? And further down the rabbithole we go. . .

Yep. Especially when considering many classes aren't meant to be damage dealers, so comparing them isn't helpful. It's the age old question that's been happening for decades. I hear a lot of "magic users can do other things and do more damage than a fighter, so the game is broken!"

But the context matters. If you only ever have one encounter, then sure. the MU can blow their entire wad in one get go. But the fighter can do it all day long, as many times as it takes. And they can soak up more damage than the MU. MUs might not have the spell available or prepared, or slots there, or any other number of reasons.

The answer to class balance is gonna vary based on personal playstyle of the table. It's gonna be really hard to evaluate things like this on any sort of objective level

 

[CleverNickName]

The character that deals damage the most reliably is the Hexblade warlock, who gets to make multiple attack rolls per round with the Eldritch Blast cantrip, which means he gets multiple chances to deal 1d10+5 damage and multiple chances at a critical hit. He also carries a Wand of Magic Missiles, so he gets to deal damage without even rolling an attack if he needs them. He doesn't deal the most damage, but he always deals at least some damage every round.

The character that deals the damage in a single attack is our halfling Champion fighter, with his Flametongue sword and the Lucky feat and a suite of other features that allow him to make multiple attacks per round, and keep rerolling them over and again until he gets numbers that he likes. He can't keep it up for long, though, and he's always begging for a rest after each battle. He doesn't deal damage every round, but when he does, it's usually more than everyone else.

 

[Mort]

Likewise, while it is really hard to track, support character contributions should be thought of as well. If the GWM barbarian only hit because of a Bless spell or Bardic inspiration, that damage is the Cleric or Bard's contribution, not the barbarian's. If the Rogue ka-shanked an enemy with a crit (that made them have to borrow dice from the other players) because the sorceror cast Hold Person on the target, half of that damage is from the sorceror, not the rogue. Likewise extra attacks from Haste, BM maneuver etc.
When you get to try to calculate it, this sort of thing leaves the purview of mere mathematics unfortunately. If the cleric casts cure wounds on the barbarian, preventing them from dropping on the next hit, is all of the rest of the damage that combat the cleric's or the barbarian's? How about defensive buffs? And further down the rabbithole we go. . .

It's hard to track sure, but you can see it if you look.

Also IF the caster is doing massive amounts of damage, chances are he's not buffing the other party members all that much (only so many spells and actions after all, so IF the caster is doing massive damage AND buffing, there may be an issue).

So an interesting question becomes, do parties with a blaster caster or a support caster tend to fare better? Of course, that's confounded by sometimes having both and further confounded by adjusted encounters from the DM, and many other confounds. But it's an interesting question to investigate.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's hard to track sure, but you can see it if you look.

Also IF the caster is doing massive amounts of damage, chances are he's not buffing the other party members all that much (only so many spells and actions after all, so IF the caster is doing massive damage AND buffing, there may be an issue).

So an interesting question becomes, do parties with a blaster caster or a support caster tend to fare better? Of course, that's confounded by sometimes having both and further confounded by adjusted encounters from the DM, and many other confounds. But it's an interesting question to investigate.

Interesting observation: In real life games, my casters I play are more support. In computer RPGs, they are almost always blaster casters. Hmm....

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yep. Especially when considering many classes aren't meant to be damage dealers, so comparing them isn't helpful. It's the age old question that's been happening for decades. I hear a lot of "magic users can do other things and do more damage than a fighter, so the game is broken!"

But the context matters. If you only ever have one encounter, then sure. the MU can blow their entire wad in one get go. But the fighter can do it all day long, as many times as it takes. And they can soak up more damage than the MU. MUs might not have the spell available or prepared, or slots there, or any other number of reasons.

The answer to class balance is gonna vary based on personal playstyle of the table. It's gonna be really hard to evaluate things like this on any sort of objective level

It's hard to track sure, but you can see it if you look.

Also IF the caster is doing massive amounts of damage, chances are he's not buffing the other party members all that much (only so many spells and actions after all, so IF the caster is doing massive damage AND buffing, there may be an issue).

So an interesting question becomes, do parties with a blaster caster or a support caster tend to fare better? Of course, that's confounded by sometimes having both and further confounded by adjusted encounters from the DM, and many other confounds. But it's an interesting question to investigate.

Giving support characters credit is not the same issue as the martial/caster divide. The only reason they can be linked is that spells are the best support options, but I included Commander's strike as an example for a reason. Other non-caster support includes Rogue Mastermind help action and Barbarian Wolf Totem giving advantage if a party has a lot of melee character in.