Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 XtheHunter Dec 19, 2014 19:41:34	Hey people, i've been wondering: When you make a character that is not focused in melee, but you want it to do relevant melee damage even at level 20, how much DPR should you aim for, as a benchmark to call your build "melee viable"? I'm not talking about defense or survivability here, altough a separate benchmark for those would be helpful. I'll start the theorycrafting: Since feats are labeled as "optional", I'm leaving them out of the calculation. I'm also leaving out things like Sneak Attack since they tend to be dependable-but-not-so-dependable. To-Hit is pretty much the same across the board, so I'll assume attacks always hit for the sake of comparison. The least melee-DPR oriented of all the gish classes is the Valor Bard. It lacks simple "boost my melee DPR" spells, and the only feature that increases it's own DPR is the Extra Attack it gets at level 6. Since the Valor Bard is marketed to us as a perfectly functional - tough not specialized - melee warrior, it seems that WotC is implying that one Extra Attack is all you really need. Let's make some simple calculations based on that (please correct them if I'm wrong): Regular character damage (no feats, no fighting styles as the Bard doesn't get them):   Two-Handed: 1d12 (6.5) + ability mod (5) = 11.5; Duelist (Dex): 1d8 (4.5) + ability mod (5) = 9.5; Dual Wielder*: 2d6 (7) + ability mod (5) = 12*;   Dual Wielder DPR is highly dubious since it uses your bonus action, thus forcing you to decrease your DPR to 8.5 whenever you have something better to do. Now with one Extra Attack:   Two-Handed: 1d12 (6.5) + ability mod (5) = 11.5 ---> 11.5 * 2 = 23; Duelist (Dex): 1d8 (4.5) + ability mod (5) = 9.5 --> 9.5 * 2 = 19;  Dual Wielder*: 2d6 (7) + ability mod (5) = 12 -----> 12 * 2 = 24;   Honestly, I don't think those damages are viable at level 20. Is there something I'm missing?   Yeah grapling, I get it. Yeah smite spells, too. Whatever.   So, if 19 isn't a good benchmark (it isn't), what benchmark would you suggest?       EDIT: To clarify, what I'm asking is for melee DRP benchmarks, AKA target numbers to reach when making a build, regardless of how they are achieved. The things I left out when I calculated the Valor Bard's DPR were only things I left out for that particular calculation.    EDIT 2: Yet another clarification: The benckmark I seek is to know if a build will still be useful and relevant to a level 20 party when it decides to go melee or if it will end up stuck in the back row due to it's melee damage not being very helpful. It's "build vs monsters", not "build vs other builds".  Whoa, I need to get better at communication I guess.
#2 CCS Dec 19, 2014 19:54:08	Well, since you can't assume you'll have +x from items, and you may/may not have access to feats.... that only leaves you in control of two variables - what weapon you choose & which stat you choose to increase.... so about 10 pts average of weapon damage per round is about what you'll end up with.
(Reply to #2) XtheHunter	CCS wrote:
#4 DaveDash Dec 19, 2014 20:04:41	19 DPR is a bit lacklustre but it seems about right to me for a character who wants to do melee but isn't focused on it. Higher level melee builds like the Fighter do about 1.5 that DPR per round excluding action surges and feats. My level 17 Battlemaster hit for about 30-35 per round on average, which includes battle dice and such (but not action surge). Paladin does similar damage using divine smites. I'd have to look at roll20 to give you exact numbers.
(Reply to #4) XtheHunter	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #5) DaveDash	XtheHunter wrote:
#7 Zardnaar Dec 19, 2014 21:55:57	Looks like you have got it more or less covered. The Valor bard may be one of the weakest melee DPR types as the extra attack is similar in damage to the 2 extra dice of damage some clerics get.I would probably teart the sword and board+duelist style as about "average" for DPR with things like clerics and valor bards being treated as low damage.
(Reply to #7) XtheHunter	Zardnaar wrote:
#9 Stormborn20 Dec 20, 2014 5:09:33	A Ranger with Whirlwind Attack and Horde Breaker can make 27 melee weapon attacks per action versus small/medium targets (assuming three large spatial dimensions).  More versus tiny targets.
#10 shpelley Dec 20, 2014 9:57:28	Personally, evaluating "viable" melee damage should be based on Percentage of Total Health of Target. Simplest way to do it would be to calculate average health amongst various CRs and determine a Target Percentage you want to achieve. Personall y, I'd like to see "average" per turn damage of each class. Then you could have a grid that shows who is doing what percentage of damage by going into melee vs various CRs. Things like Resistances and such change percentages as well on a creature by creature basis.
#11 mellored Dec 20, 2014 10:13:16	Valor bards at 20 should be doing a DPR boosting spell (fairy fire, hold person, forsight, crusader's manantle). Or a cantrip + 1 attack. you should look at clerics for low end damage. 4d8+mod. or about 20.
(Reply to #11) XtheHunter	mellored wrote:
#13 mellored Dec 21, 2014 10:55:14	XtheHunter wrote:
#14 Zardnaar Dec 21, 2014 12:49:58	I ended up with blinding smite and destructive wave as my valor bard spells and gave up trying to heal everyone. They were fun I suppose but you burn throough the spell slots very fast. Paladin 6/Lore Bard 14 might be a better plan than pure valor bard IDK.
#15 XtheHunter Dec 21, 2014 17:25:15	shpelley wrote:
#16 Zardnaar Dec 21, 2014 18:25:17	You probably want to aim for something around 15 damage per hit for an "average" damage indication depending on the class. High damage builds will be adding 15 damage per hit.
(Reply to #16) XtheHunter	Zardnaar wrote:
#18 Stormborn20 Dec 21, 2014 18:47:52	XtheHunter wrote:
#19 Zardnaar Dec 21, 2014 19:17:42	XtheHunter wrote:
#20 Ashrym Dec 21, 2014 20:00:09	I think any direct damage is a bonus for clerics or bards because their main function is support. If the OP is just looking for average damage with no feats, spells, or magical equipment for ball park estimates we don't have any real context for contributing to combat. Fighters with greatswords and fighting style break 50 per round averages before accuracy, Paladins, barbarians, rangers, monks, and blade warlocks break 30's per round. Rogues break 40 because sneak attack is easy to achieve. Clerics and bards hit 20's per round. For comparison, warlocks with agonizing eldritch blasts and evokers overchannelling cantrips are in the 40's and most other cantrip use is hitting 20's. Rough estimates. Magical weapons, additional spells and abilities, and feats alters numbers a lot, however, and weapons tend to advance damage earlier than cantrips in most cases. Battle magic cantrips plus an attack bumps valor bards into the 30's. I suppose 32 could be a baseline for QDC (quality damage contributor), a bit arbitrarily.
(Reply to #20) XtheHunter	Ashrym wrote: