Folklore/reference builds? e.g., CBE/SS BM

[x3n0n]

When you think of the "standard" "best" builds, what comes to mind, especially if they're "boring"?

For example, it seems like "everybody" uses something like this as one of their measuring sticks:
VHuman, Crossbow Expert, 16 Dex/16 Con
Fighter (Archery), Battle Master (Precision Attack)
ASIs: Sharpshooter@4, Dex to 18 @6, Dex to 20 @8.

Is this the corresponding "standard" for melee brute damage?
VHuman, Polearm Master, 16 Str/16 Con
Fighter, wield glaive/halberd, Battle Master (Precision Attack)
ASIs: Great Weapon Master @4, Str to 18 @6, Str to 20 @8

I'm aware of https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?583957-An-Eclectic-Collection-of-Fun-and-Effective-Builds, but it seems to avoid the "boring" ones.

[stoutstien]

The boring ones have the advantage of being easy to math out in white rooms so they are used a lot in online theoretical discussions. That's about it.
Trying to create a fixed best melee build is going to lead to the marry go round of ifs and buts that usual ends up right where it started.

[x3n0n]

The boring ones have the advantage of being easy to math out in white rooms so they are used a lot in online theoretical discussions. That's about it.

Understood! Is there an existing repository of "these are those reference builds", just to ease those discussions?

Another one (Treantmonk's "baseline" damage Warlock):
any race, 16 Cha
Warlock (any, with eldritch blast, hex), Agonizing Blast
ASIs: Cha to 18 @4, Cha to 20 @8

[stoutstien]

Hmmm. I would say a smite happy vengeance pally is as close to one as you could find for a str focused melee beat stick. Could even just covert all spell slots into DS for simplicity.
One issue you will run into is while ranged weapon users tend to have an edge melee has a bunch of paths that are similar in output but very different in execution.

[diplomancer]

I think one of the reasons this build exists for ranged but not for melee is because, at least once SS comes around, you're basically 100% guaranteed to have a target each round. Makes it a lot easier to calculate white-room DPR in a way that translates to an actual gaming table.

Melee is not like that; you have to get in melee as fast as possible, or lose a lot of DPR. Now, a class like a Paladin still might, even if he can't reach melee immediately on the first round, still cast Bless or something; his personal DPR for that combat will suffer, but he might end up increasing the party's DPR; but if you're a class like the Barbarian or the Monk, you've GOT to get there as fast as possible; sacrifice mobility for DPR (I'm looking at you, Armored Monk proponents), and though your white room numbers might increase, there will be many combats where your DPR will be considerably lower.

Tldr: there are two many variables for melee; ranged DPR calculation is a lot simpler.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I think one of the reasons this build exists for ranged but not for melee is because, at least once SS comes around, you're basically 100% guaranteed to have a target each round. Makes it a lot easier to calculate white-room DPR in a way that translates to an actual gaming table.

Melee is not like that; you have to get in melee as fast as possible, or lose a lot of DPR. Now, a class like a Paladin still might, even if he can't reach melee immediately on the first round, still cast Bless or something; his personal DPR for that combat will suffer, but he might end up increasing the party's DPR; but if you're a class like the Barbarian or the Monk, you've GOT to get there as fast as possible; sacrifice mobility for DPR (I'm looking at you, Armored Monk proponents), and though your white room numbers might increase, there will be many combats where your DPR will be considerably lower.

Tldr: there are two many variables for melee; ranged DPR calculation is a lot simpler.

To add to this, XBE allows you to just keep firing if you're caught in tight. This is the main reason I find the ranged builds boring; no matter where you're at there often aren't meaningful decisions to be made. You just keep shooting. Pretty much every ranged character I've played with seems 'samey'; rangers, once they get 3rd level spells, are a little less worse.

[Kane0]

Understood! Is there an existing repository of "these are those reference builds", just to ease those discussions?

Another one (Treantmonk's "baseline" damage Warlock):
any race, 16 Cha
Warlock (any, with eldritch blast, hex), Agonizing Blast
ASIs: Cha to 18 @4, Cha to 20 @8

Yep the EB spammer is a popular 'baseline build' for better or for worse. Doubling down on it usually means Hexblade, more hex/EB invocations and an X-touched feat.

Battlemaster Fighter (GWM/PAM for Str, CBE/SS for Dex)
Barbarian/Rogue for grappling
Ranger/Rogue for ambushing
Life cleric for healing
Moon druid for soaking damage
Paladin/warlock for smite spam
Sorcerer/warlock for cheese spam

[Witty Username]

Thankfully, "boring" is difficult to optimize, at least in my opinion. I find most optimized builds tend to have features and decisions that make them interesting and the boring builds are the less optimized ones.

Their are a few options that dominate discussions though which could be irritating to some:
Crossbow expert
Polarm master
Great weapon master
Sharpshooter

Warlock is used as a baseline primarily, because it is reasonably effective and is very easy. I have heard it as something reasonable to recommend to new players because it is very easy to understand and play.

[tiornys]

Two levels of Warlock (or one level and a feat) gets you Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast + Hex (plus other stuff). It's an effective baseline because it's extremely accessible. If your (attempt at optimizing a) build can't out-damage 2 levels of Warlock (and damage is something the build is supposed to be good at), you should seriously consider tossing in 2 levels of Warlock--or scrapping that build.

[Psyren]

The "baseline" TM refers to (EB+AB+Hex) is easy for many builds to match and even exceed. Rather, the rule of thumb he and other theorycrafters employ is something like:

1) If all a build brings to the table is damage, then it should be aiming to exceed this baseline DPR by a certain amount - e.g. ~50% or more.
2) If a build struggles to do (1), then it should be bringing something else to the table - utility, control, healing, "tanking" etc. - that ideally the other party members aren't providing or that adds value present in multiple instances.
3) A build that can do neither (1) nor (2) is generally considered to be suboptimal or weak.
4) A build capable of both (1) and (2) is largely considered to be high-tier.

The important point is that the "baseline" is the beginning of assessing a build, rather than the end.

[Chaos Jackal]

Another commonly referenced ranged build is the CBE+SS+EA elf samurai; high DPR benchmark, easy to build and play (literally does nothing but make attacks at advantage) and also very easy to calculate damage for (no superiority dice, especially the annoyance that is Precision Attack).

Melee, like others have said, is a bit weirder to build and to calculate properly; tougher to be sure you'll be in range at all times, features like Smite coming in if you cross over from pure martial, GWM's bonus action attack... A BM fighter with PAM+GWM isn't a bad reference point, but it's not gonna be brought up as ubiquitously as the ranged alternative.

[Frogreaver]

EB+AB+Hex isn’t just a good baseline - it’s damage that’s optimized enough to outdo all but the most damaging builds.

[Doug Lampert]

I think one of the reasons this build exists for ranged but not for melee is because, at least once SS comes around, you're basically 100% guaranteed to have a target each round. Makes it a lot easier to calculate white-room DPR in a way that translates to an actual gaming table.

Melee is not like that; you have to get in melee as fast as possible, or lose a lot of DPR. Now, a class like a Paladin still might, even if he can't reach melee immediately on the first round, still cast Bless or something; his personal DPR for that combat will suffer, but he might end up increasing the party's DPR; but if you're a class like the Barbarian or the Monk, you've GOT to get there as fast as possible; sacrifice mobility for DPR (I'm looking at you, Armored Monk proponents), and though your white room numbers might increase, there will be many combats where your DPR will be considerably lower.

Tldr: there are two many variables for melee; ranged DPR calculation is a lot simpler.

I agree that melee is harder simply because you can't always do it, but I disagree that a barbarian or monk needs to close as quickly as possible.

If your melee can't get in range early, GOOD! Parties almost always out-damage team monster at range by more than they do up close. If the encounter starts at range and it is out of movement range for melee, then the last thing the melee should usually do is move forward to get in melee. Just stand where you are, ready an attack, make them close to your range, and if they don't close, let the archer or eldritch blast spam kill them all.

For most encounters, keeping the enemy away from the squishies is the melee's main job, and if the enemy is too far away for melee to attack, that's doing their job. If you charge forward, and it's a two part encounter with enemy team two hidden behind you, then your casters are about to investigate how well they do in melee.

[diplomancer]

EB+AB+Hex isn’t just a good baseline - it’s damage that’s optimized enough to outdo all but the most damaging builds.

Not only that; it's theory-crafting at its worst; no problems with cover (a ranged build's bane without SS), no problems with taking damage and losing concentration.

The second problem is specially egregious when you see Treantmonk's (he's, AFAIK, the creator of this baseline) videos where he explains his assumption that there will be about 4 combats/SR, with each combat having an average of 4 rounds. So this "baseline" assumes that a character that had, at best, AC 15 and a +3 to Constitution saves, is going to keep his Hex up for these 16 rounds (if you go specifically V. Human for Res. Con or Warcaster at level 1 it's slightly better, but still very optimistic). It's crazy. I'd say it'd be more acceptable with a more reasonable 2 combats/SR assumption. But that might make Monks look good, and we can't have that :p

[Psyren]

The second problem is specially egregious when you see Treantmonk's (he's, AFAIK, the creator of this baseline) videos where he explains his assumption that there will be about 4 combats/SR, with each combat having an average of 4 rounds. So this "baseline" assumes that a character that had, at best, AC 15 and a +3 to Constitution saves, is going to keep his Hex up for these 16 rounds (if you go specifically V. Human for Res. Con or Warcaster at level 1 it's slightly better, but still very optimistic). It's crazy. I'd say it'd be more acceptable with a more reasonable 2 combats/SR assumption. But that might make Monks look good, and we can't have that :p

I don't know specifically whether he invented it but he's definitely not the only one to use it. Plenty of other big build channels with thousands of subs like d4, Pack Tactics and Bilbron use the same metric.

Maintaining concentration on Hex is honestly not that imperative given that it's a bonus action to cast; even if something causes you to lose it between turns, you can simply reapply it and go right back to AB spam. It saves you a few low-level spell slots at best.

[Frogreaver]

I don't know specifically whether he invented it but he's definitely not the only one to use it. Plenty of other big build channels with thousands of subs like d4, Pack Tactics and Bilbron use the same metric.

Maintaining concentration on Hex is honestly not that imperative given that it's a bonus action to cast; even if something causes you to lose it between turns, you can simply reapply it and go right back to AB spam. It saves you a few low-level spell slots at best.

2 slots per short rest over a 4 encounter and 1 short rest day. If you lose concentration on even 1 hex then you may not have the slot to recast (if this was 2nd encounter). If it was the first encounter then recasting it will take away your slot of it for the next encounter.

The chance of losing concentration on it is a big deal for realistic damage calcs.

[diplomancer]

I don't know specifically whether he invented it but he's definitely not the only one to use it. Plenty of other big build channels with thousands of subs like d4, Pack Tactics and Bilbron use the same metric.

Maintaining concentration on Hex is honestly not that imperative given that it's a bonus action to cast; even if something causes you to lose it between turns, you can simply reapply it and go right back to AB spam. It saves you a few low-level spell slots at best.

I believe he invented it. All those you've mentioned, at least, have started their YouTube channels a long time after Treantmonk had made his first videos discussing this baseline over 3 years ago (here: https://youtu.be/zg0bAl1WPG)

But that's not relevant, anyway.

There's no such thing as "A few low level slots" on a Warlock. And if you're multiclassing, even for just one level, which is probably sub-optimal, you already have to shift the baseline.

[tiornys]

I believe he invented it. All those you've mentioned, at least, have started their YouTube channels a long time after Treantmonk had made his first videos discussing this baseline. But that's not relevant, anyway.

There's no such thing as "A few low level slots" on a Warlock. And if you're multiclassing, even for just one level, which is probably sub-optimal, you already have to shift the baseline.
Why would you have to shift the baseline? One of the biggest strengths of Eldritch Blast is that it scales on character level instead of class level.

Also, I don't think you're really getting the point of the baseline. It's an intentionally simplified, easily slotted piece of a build that generates decent damage regardless of what else you're doing with the character. Trying to poke holes in how "the build" operates is pointless because it isn't a full build. It's just a benchmark for evaluating the potential viability of other builds.

[Frogreaver]

An EB+AB warlock losing hex is a 25% damage reduction

An enemy having cover is a 17% damage reduction. (Assuming 60% chance to hit base).

A realistic EB+AB+Hex warlock can easily do as little as 62.5% of the baseline (both cover and no hex) and often will do 75% (no hex) or 83.33% (cover) of it.

[Psyren]

I believe he invented it. All those you've mentioned, at least, have started their YouTube channels a long time after Treantmonk had made his first videos discussing this baseline over 3 years ago (here: https://youtu.be/zg0bAl1WPG)

But that's not relevant, anyway.

There's no such thing as "A few low level slots" on a Warlock. And if you're multiclassing, even for just one level, which is probably sub-optimal, you already have to shift the baseline.

Point on the slots, but you're still overblowing the importance of concentration for a spell that can be cast from 90ft. away. Will there be some instances where it drops, sure, but there are also going to be instances where the barbarian fails a wis save and loses their rage and things like that. If you try to factor in every single potential negative occurrence then you might as well not have DPR calculations at all.

As for multiclassing, what tiornys said.

[x3n0n]

I feel kind of like we've gotten sidetracked (again :smallsmile:) by Treantmonk's baseline.

Are there any other somewhat-detailed build sketches that people consider to be part of the "folklore": rarely written down in detail, but assumed to be common knowledge when discussing advantages/disadvantages of various builds?

[RogueJK]

Not a detailed build per se, but it seems like most DPR calculations assume that Rogues will always be able to Sneak Attack in every turn. Even for those Rogue builds that don't have baked-in ways to achieve Advantage (or only have the means to do it once or twice a long rest).

The reality is that's not always going to be feasible. Even if the Rogue is a Swashbuckler, thus having even one more way to qualify to Sneak Attack, you can still routinely end up in a situation where they can't Sneak Attack due to having Disadvantage from debuffs and other enemy effects.


Honorable mention to the assumption that Arcane Trickster Rogues will always have Advantage thanks to their Familiar taking the Help action every round... Familiars have ~11 AC and 1 HP. That's squishier than a teddy bear.


Similar would be white room builds that assume that a PC with access to Guidance will be able to cast it before every skill check...

"Hang on, Unexpectedly Crumbling Dungeon Floor... Wait 6 seconds while I chant a prayer to my deity before making this tricky Acrobatics check."
"Worry not, Sentries... Pay no attention to the sneaky shadow that stops every minute to chant a loud prayer to a deity in preparation for potentially having to make another Stealth check."
"Hold up, Pissed Off King, sir... Let me pause after every sentence of these tense diplomatic negotiations to gesticulate wildly and then loudly cry out yet another prayer to my deity to help me continue to Persuade/Deceive you."

[Frogreaver]

I feel kind of like we've gotten sidetracked (again :smallsmile:) by Treantmonk's baseline.

Are there any other somewhat-detailed build sketches that people consider to be part of the "folklore": rarely written down in detail, but assumed to be common knowledge when discussing advantages/disadvantages of various builds?

Cleric using cantrip + spirit guardians + spiritual weapon

Barbarian with GWM and reckless attack

Rogue dual wield/melee cantrip/and/or advantage.

Sorcerer and twin spell (either buffs or cantrips)

Warlock and EB+AB+Hex (high level warlocks often assumed with elven accuracy and foresight).

Shield spell is nearly universally assumed for wizards.

[JLandan]

To add to this, XBE allows you to just keep firing if you're caught in tight. This is the main reason I find the ranged builds boring; no matter where you're at there often aren't meaningful decisions to be made. You just keep shooting. Pretty much every ranged character I've played with seems 'samey'; rangers, once they get 3rd level spells, are a little less worse.

My group gives them the name "twink".

[RogueJK]

To add to this, XBE allows you to just keep firing if you're caught in tight. This is the main reason I find the ranged builds boring; no matter where you're at there often aren't meaningful decisions to be made. You just keep shooting. Pretty much every ranged character I've played with seems 'samey'; rangers, once they get 3rd level spells, are a little less worse.

I started to feel the same way about more run-of-the-mill ranged characters, until I started pairing it with Bonus Action Pet subclasses (Tasha's Beastmaster, Drakewarden, Battle Smith) or forced movement (Warlock Repelling Blast, Swarmkeeper Gathered Swarm).

Those can add quite a bit of variety to a ranged character.

As can a full caster archer like a Swords Bardcher. With those, the archery is often secondary to all your full spellcaster options, but presents a better option than just Vicious Mockery when you don't have something better to do with your Action, plus you have the variety of the Blade Flourishes to toss into the mix too. (And while I haven't played one, I suspect a Hand Crossbow Expert Bladesinger would be the same, with full XBE archery stacked onto a full caster.)

[Witty Username]

Not a detailed build per se, but it seems like most DPR calculations assume that Rogues will always be able to Sneak Attack in every turn. Even for those Rogue builds that don't have baked-in ways to achieve Advantage (or only have the means to do it once or twice a long rest).

The reality is that's not always going to be feasible. Even if the Rogue is a Swashbuckler, thus having even one more way to qualify to Sneak Attack, you can still routinely end up in a situation where they can't Sneak Attack due to having Disadvantage from debuffs and other enemy effects.

That is less of an issue now that steady aim is a factor. Rogue can just have advantage now, if they don't already have a means of hiding.

[Witty Username]

2 slots per short rest over a 4 encounter and 1 short rest day. If you lose concentration on even 1 hex then you may not have the slot to recast (if this was 2nd encounter). If it was the first encounter then recasting it will take away your slot of it for the next encounter.

The chance of losing concentration on it is a big deal for realistic damage calcs.

How high is that chance though? a hexblade with a shield will have a casual AC of 20, so that cuts alot of early game monsters chances to hit to be close to nill, and that is if they overcome things like distance, cover and the rest of the party doing all manner of unopposed shinanigans.
Hex has almost as an advantage that it is hardly the scariest spell a caster can concentrate on.

[Frogreaver]

How high is that chance though? a hexblade with a shield will have a casual AC of 20, so that cuts alot of early game monsters chances to hit to be close to nill, and that is if they overcome things like distance, cover and the rest of the party doing all manner of unopposed shinanigans.
Hex has almost as an advantage that it is hardly the scariest spell a caster can concentrate on.

Hexblade isn't part of that oft cited baseline assumption.

[diplomancer]

How high is that chance though? a hexblade with a shield will have a casual AC of 20, so that cuts alot of early game monsters chances to hit to be close to nill, and that is if they overcome things like distance, cover and the rest of the party doing all manner of unopposed shinanigans.
Hex has almost as an advantage that it is hardly the scariest spell a caster can concentrate on.

So now we're getting the investment of a subclass choice (and if you want to be a blastlock and not a bladelock, there are subclasses now that are at least as good as the Hexblade, so that's a real opportunity cost), an invocation and a concentration spell, for what is supposed to be a baseline.

And it's a bit weird to say "hey, I will have cover", but ignore the fact that so will the enemies...

It's an OK, if very optimistic, baseline, if you're expecting about 2 combats/SR. Anything more than that, and no, that's not reliable all day DPR.


Why would you have to shift the baseline? One of the biggest strengths of Eldritch Blast is that it scales on character level instead of class level.

Shift it along the X axis, not the Y axis (where X is level and Y is damage). If you're multiclassing for n levels, you're going to reach the original baseline n levels later.


Also, I don't think you're really getting the point of the baseline. It's an intentionally simplified, easily slotted piece of a build that generates decent damage regardless of what else you're doing with the character. Trying to poke holes in how "the build" operates is pointless because it isn't a full build. It's just a benchmark for evaluating the potential viability of other builds.

It's supposed to be that, yes. But it doesn't accomplish its job, at least not if the assumption is 4 combats/SR. It's very possible for a build to be "below the baseline" and still do better DPR in actual play than the "basic build" for the baseline (which does exist- it's a Warlock that raises his Cha to 18 at level 4 and to 20 at level 8), because the baseline ignores so much that could happen in actual play to diminish that DPR.

At the very least, I'd subtract 1 (or maybe even 1.5) for the to-hit probability, to account for both the times when the enemy will have cover, and the times that you won't have Hex (and it's still as simple to calculate as the baseline, it will just be more realistic).

[Frogreaver]

On average it will take 3 hits to knock concentration off a warlock with 14 con and no further investment in concentration saves. For a 15 AC warlock that probably means around 6 attacks.

Seems reasonable to me that a warlock takes 6 attacks if not more in an adventuring day. This implies it's fairly likely that a warlock will lose concentration during most adventuring days.

[Kane0]

Remember that Eldritch Mind and Spell Sniper exist, so the basic blastlock is that much simpler.

[Frogreaver]

Remember that Eldritch Mind and Spell Sniper exist, so the basic blastlock is that much simpler.

And Remember that those aren't included in the baseline.

[Kane0]

And Remember that those aren't included in the baseline.

Well not in TM's version at least. There isn't really a single, universal, complete build as a baseline (especially considering Feats and splatbooks are optional) but rather basic, easily achieved concepts like 'EB-spamming warlock', 'spiritual weapon+guardian cleric' and 'GWM/SS martial + accuracy boost'.

[Witty Username]

And it's a bit weird to say "hey, I will have cover", but ignore the fact that so will the enemies...

Not more so than "hey, enemies will have cover" but ignore the fact that you will have cover as well.
But I am mostly incredulous as a opposed to comited. I have found concentration is not a significant issue for warlocks (at least for hex) in actual play, ranged play is the prime factor in that but also priorities. I have seen it occur multiple times of another character drawing agro from the hexing warlock simply by having concentration on a scarier spell. One of our last combats before we went on hiatus, we had 2 warlocks, 1 using hex and the other Hunger of Hadar. What this amounted to was the warlock casting hex wasn't really a meaningful target as the baddies that could get out of the hunger and attack were going for the Hadar casting warlock and and by the time they could switch from the Hadar caster to the hex caster the combat was essentially over.
Leaving some hex left over for the next combat.
Now, my parties may be a bit odd.
Our last one was 2 warlocks, 2 wizards and an Artificer. The one before that was a Paladin/sorcerer, bard/hexblade, Druid/cleric, and a sun soul monk (that walked into the sunset and was replaced with a Barbarian/fighter). As you can probably tell casters is the norm so maybe that is a consequence of my parties. Where there is a scary spell every fight, and hex is going to be some other monsters problem.



Shift it along the X axis, not the Y axis (where X is level and Y is damage). If you're multiclassing for n levels, you're going to reach the original baseline n levels later.
Not how that works as character level is your class levels added together. There is the issue of ASIs, but that only applies if one of your classes is not in 4 increments.
So a warlock 4/monk n
Will have a 4+n character level. Meaning they will get eldritch blast upgrades 0 levels slower.
Fun fact, warlock 1/ Fighter 6 would actually beat the baseline spamming eldritch blast, as the will get an ASI 1 level earlier. If they could get agonizing blast at level 1.

Unless you mean taking your warlock dip at the end of a class chain? Like say bard X, then, warlock 2, bard Y. Then it does apply in the way you describe until you get your second warlock level. I think getting ones warlock dips early is common though, maybe keep it in mind if your taking paladin or sorcerer first for armor or concentration respectively.

[diplomancer]

Not more so than "hey, enemies will have cover" but ignore the fact that you will have cover as well.

But I'm not doing that. Saying "you might have cover" does not at all mean "so you won't be hit and lose concentration on Hex". But if enemies have cover even in one round, there goes the baseline.




we went on hiatus, we had 2 warlocks, 1 using hex and the other Hunger of Hadar. What this amounted to was the warlock casting hex wasn't really a meaningful target as the baddies that could get out of the hunger and attack were going for the Hadar casting warlock and and by the time they could switch from the Hadar caster to the hex caster the combat was essentially over.
Leaving some hex left over for the next combat.
Now, my parties may be a bit odd.
Our last one was 2 warlocks, 2 wizards and an Artificer. The one before that was a Paladin/sorcerer, bard/hexblade, Druid/cleric, and a sun soul monk (that walked into the sunset and was replaced with a Barbarian/fighter). As you can probably tell casters is the norm so maybe that is a consequence of my parties. Where there is a scary spell every fight, and hex is going to be some other monsters problem.

Saying "Hex is bad, so you won't be targeted" is not the best argument for claiming that Hex should be part of a baseline. How about making a baseline that does not encourage players to use bad tactics to achieve said baseline. And saying "this is not practical advice, it's a theoretical tool" still has to explain WHY choosing such a theoretical tool if that's not how players are expected to play?



Not how that works as character level is your class levels added together. There is the issue of ASIs, but that only applies if one of your classes is not in 4 increments.
So a warlock 4/monk n
Will have a 4+n character level. Meaning they will get eldritch blast upgrades 0 levels slower.
Fun fact, warlock 1/ Fighter 6 would actually beat the baseline spamming eldritch blast, as the will get an ASI 1 level earlier. If they could get agonizing blast at level 1.

Unless you mean taking your warlock dip at the end of a class chain? Like say bard X, then, warlock 2, bard Y. Then it does apply in the way you describe until you get your second warlock level. I think getting ones warlock dips early is common though, maybe keep it in mind if your taking paladin or sorcerer first for armor or concentration respectively.

You're right about that, except I find it unlikely that anyone is going to go Warlock 4 and then change to another class, never again taking another Warlock level (the only way to have many low level slots without shifting the baseline). Still, technically correct.

[Keravath]

I believe he invented it. All those you've mentioned, at least, have started their YouTube channels a long time after Treantmonk had made his first videos discussing this baseline over 3 years ago (here: https://youtu.be/zg0bAl1WPG)

But that's not relevant, anyway.

There's no such thing as "A few low level slots" on a Warlock. And if you're multiclassing, even for just one level, which is probably sub-optimal, you already have to shift the baseline.

I think using the damage output from warlock has been a baseline for most folks who have thought about it since 5e was introduced. The individual in question may or may not have been the first to mention it in an online video but he certainly didn't "invent" it.

Agonizing blast is used as a baseline because it is so easy to get and it scales with character level and not with class level. Two levels of warlock on any character with a decent charisma can use it. One level plus a feat these days also works.

Agonizing blast by itself matches the number of attacks by a fighter - getting 4 at level 17 rather than 20 - does d10+stat on each with a range of 120'. Adding hex damage also isn't necessary to use it as a baseline. It's an easy spell to cast for a warlock and does increase damage but a warlock often has better choices for their spell slots.

[RogueJK]

Adding hex damage also isn't necessary to use it as a baseline. It's an easy spell to cast for a warlock and does increase damage but a warlock often has better choices for their spell slots.

And Concentration.

I've played several Warlocks in extended campaigns, and rarely tie up my Concentration with Hex, in favor of stuff like Darkness, Spike Growth, Hypnotic Pattern, Sleet Storm, Evard’s Black Tentacles, Wall of Fire, Banishment, Bless from Fey Touched, etc. Often times, I won't even take it, or will swap it out at some point. When I do use it, it's most often to pre-cast it when I have a free 3rd/4th/5th level slot just before a Short Rest purely for long duration slot economy reasons, but often find myself ending the Hex Concentration in favor of something better within the next combat.

[diplomancer]

I think using the damage output from warlock has been a baseline for most folks who have thought about it since 5e was introduced. The individual in question may or may not have been the first to mention it in an online video but he certainly didn't "invent" it.

Agonizing blast is used as a baseline because it is so easy to get and it scales with character level and not with class level. Two levels of warlock on any character with a decent charisma can use it. One level plus a feat these days also works.

Agonizing blast by itself matches the number of attacks by a fighter - getting 4 at level 17 rather than 20 - does d10+stat on each with a range of 120'. Adding hex damage also isn't necessary to use it as a baseline. It's an easy spell to cast for a warlock and does increase damage but a warlock often has better choices for their spell slots.

I agree that EB+AB without Hex is a reasonable baseline; sometimes you WILL use Hex, sometimes the enemy willl have cover, maybe those variables "average out"; my criticism here is solely directed to the baseline being EB+AB+Hex (and, from suggestions on this thread alone, + a bunch of low level spells from multiclassing, + Hexblade, + Spell Sniper, + Eldritch Mind, etc...).

[tiornys]

The point of the baseline is to be a reference for comparison. Yes, the standard calculation assumes a lack of unfavorable conditions, but so do the standard DPR calculations for any build. Trying to account for potential unfavorable conditions just complicates the calculations for minimal gain.

[Psyren]

The point of the baseline is to be a reference for comparison. Yes, the standard calculation assumes a lack of unfavorable conditions, but so do the standard DPR calculations for any build. Trying to account for potential unfavorable conditions just complicates the calculations for minimal gain.

Precisely. Arguing for the possibility of the baseline warlock losing concentration on Hex is like arguing for the possibility of an archer ending up in melee or being grappled. Can it happen, sure, but it's unlikely to be a common occurrence so you can put it aside to uncomplicate the numbers.

[diplomancer]

The point of the baseline is to be a reference for comparison. Yes, the standard calculation assumes a lack of unfavorable conditions, but so do the standard DPR calculations for any build. Trying to account for potential unfavorable conditions just complicates the calculations for minimal gain.

The more "unfavourable conditions" you ignore, the more distortions you have on your final outcome (and the more problematic it is to dismiss classes that get to deal with these unfavourable conditions better because they miss the "perfect conditions" DPR benchmark.). So, why not do the baseline without the Hex damage? Then there are less unfavourable conditions to dismiss, and they CAN be dismissed by saying "well, sure, sometimes an enemy will have cover, but sometimes you will have your Hex active; so for simplicity's sake we will ignore both of these possible conditions, one favourable, the other unfavourable"

[tiornys]

The more "unfavourable conditions" you ignore, the more distortions you have on your final outcome (and the more problematic it is to dismiss classes that get to deal with these unfavourable conditions better because they miss the "perfect conditions" DPR benchmark.). So, why not do the baseline without the Hex damage? Then there are less unfavourable conditions to dismiss, and they CAN be dismissed by saying "well, sure, sometimes an enemy will have cover, but sometimes you will have your Hex active; so for simplicity's sake we will ignore both of these possible conditions, one favourable, the other unfavourable"
Because EB + AB + Hex is more comparable to what martials can do than EB + AB alone.

[diplomancer]

Because EB + AB + Hex is more comparable to what martials can do than EB + AB alone.

Martials being considered good!? We can't have that!

Here's the thing; Martials are [i]supposed[i] to be better than non-martials at damage without too much optimization.

[tiornys]

Indeed, thus why a build that is "good" at damage should be exceeding baseline by 50%+.

[x3n0n]

Martials being considered good!? We can't have that!

Here's the thing; Martials are [i]supposed[i] to be better than non-martials at damage without too much optimization.

Precisely--which is why it seems reasonable to reflect that in our expectations: a relatively-unoptimized martial is supposed to be able to deal significantly more than Agonizing eldritch blast, and hex's additional d6 is an attempt to reflect that.

If we just reframed the baseline as "a character that can't reliably deal (tier_number * appropriate_hit_probability * (d10 + d6 + primary_ability_mod)) damage per turn is behind the curve" without reference to the spells, does that make us feel better?

[Psyren]

Martials being considered good!? We can't have that!

Here's the thing; Martials are supposed[i] to be better than non-martials at damage without too much optimization.

The thing though is that a lot of martial builds can already beat the baseline even with Hex added in. Removing it lowers the baseline and provides misleading info around suboptimal builds suddenly looking better than they are.


Indeed, thus why a build that is "good" at damage should be exceeding baseline by 50%+.


Precisely--which is why it seems reasonable to reflect that in our expectations: a relatively-unoptimized martial is [i]supposed to be able to deal significantly more than Agonizing eldritch blast, and hex's additional d6 is an attempt to reflect that.

If we just reframed the baseline as "a character that can't reliably deal (tier_number * appropriate_hit_probability * (d10 + d6 + primary_ability_mod)) damage per turn is behind the curve" without reference to the spells, does that make us feel better?

These.

[Stangler]

I feel kind of like we've gotten sidetracked (again :smallsmile:) by Treantmonk's baseline.

Are there any other somewhat-detailed build sketches that people consider to be part of the "folklore": rarely written down in detail, but assumed to be common knowledge when discussing advantages/disadvantages of various builds?

PAM + Shield + Dueling is also a fairly standard and relatively optimized starting point for a lot of builds. It obviously places importance on AC over GWM and only requires one feat to PAM + GWM needing two so it works well for Paladins.

[Witty Username]

The more "unfavourable conditions" you ignore, the more distortions you have on your final outcome (and the more problematic it is to dismiss classes that get to deal with these unfavourable conditions better because they miss the "perfect conditions" DPR benchmark.). So, why not do the baseline without the Hex damage? Then there are less unfavourable conditions to dismiss, and they CAN be dismissed by saying "well, sure, sometimes an enemy will have cover, but sometimes you will have your Hex active; so for simplicity's sake we will ignore both of these possible conditions, one favourable, the other unfavourable"

This doesn't quite track, since this ignores favorable conditions like advantage. We would need to figure that in as well, and the possibility of magic items like rod of the pact keeper.
We don't tend to assume these things in baselines because they are unreliable. But this logic applies to unfavorable conditions as well.
Baselines will always have some amount of white room, or we would be here all day.

Furthermore, many calculations of damage figure in other volatile sources of damage, like rage, sharpen the blade, imp. Invisibility and various other things. It makes sense to include hex when these things are on the table.

[Frogreaver]

Precisely--which is why it seems reasonable to reflect that in our expectations: a relatively-unoptimized martial is supposed to be able to deal significantly more than Agonizing eldritch blast, and hex's additional d6 is an attempt to reflect that

I think AB+EB+Hex is fine in tier 1 and 2 as a baseline. IMO there's far to many classes that don't meet that baseline in tier 3 or tier 4 (at least without additional feat/spell/subclass support support).

Barbarians
Rangers
Monks
Fighters
Rogues
Paladins

Or perhaps a better way of looking at this is what are some of the simplest builds for these classes such that at level 11 and level 17 they equal or surpass the 'baseline'

For level 17
Barbarian most straight forward possible way is GWM and Zealot subclass to surpass.
Ranger only possibly way at level 17 is Conjure Animals.
Monks I'm not as familiar with some of the post Tasha's monks, but none before would have surpassed that DPR
Fighters will require SS and precision attack.
Rogues don't require much. Booming blade with steady aim.
Paladins require divine smite only in shorter adventuring days, in longer ones they would likely require a feat like PAM as well.

In short, the common martial damage classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin) require both a subclass feature and a feat to match up with the supposed baseline at 17. IMO, that's far to much investment to view that as the baseline for approaching good damage.

[Witty Username]

PAM + Shield + Dueling is also a fairly standard and relatively optimized starting point for a lot of builds. It obviously places importance on AC over GWM and only requires one feat to PAM + GWM needing two so it works well for Paladins.

The quick check, doesn’t that beat the warlock baseline until level 11? I may be off because I punched in the numbers for variant human (free PAM). Would you be assuming ASI for PAM?

Sidenote, Fighter duelist with PAM, seems to do pretty well in comparison to warlock on the quick pass. I think level 11 still warlock edges out with hex (quick math, 1 point before taking miss chance and crit into account).

Either way, I feel like if the goal is to have a less stressful baseline this isn't much more favorable.

[x3n0n]

I think AB+EB+Hex is fine in tier 1 and 2 as a baseline. IMO there's far to many classes that don't meet that baseline in tier 3 or tier 4 (at least without additional feat/spell/subclass support support).


Right. That observation leads to a question that many people find distasteful: "If 2 levels of Warlock (even though it isn't *just* 2 levels of Warlock and requires some resource expenditure) are enough to meet this baseline *plus* provide significant additional utility across all 4 tiers, then why would you play any character that is primarily a damage dealer but *can't* meet the baseline without expending any resources?"

That said, the investment to make that significantly more reliable has gotten a bit easier since Tasha's was released. Something like "Warlock, 16 or 17 Cha, (Gunner or) Crossbow Expert for close-quarters shooting, eldritch blast, Agonizing Blast, Cha 20 by level 8, some damage booster like hex, and some features to protect the (probably concentration-focused) booster, like War Caster, Resilient (Con), and/or the Eldritch Mind invocation".


The quick check, doesn’t that beat the warlock baseline until level 11? I may be off because I punched in the numbers for variant human (free PAM). Would you be assuming ASI for PAM?

Sidenote, Fighter duelist with PAM, seems to do pretty well in comparison to warlock on the quick pass. I think level 11 still warlock edges out with hex (quick math, 1 point before taking miss chance and crit into account).

Either way, I feel like if the goal is to have a less stressful baseline this isn't much more favorable.

I interpreted the cited post as "this (PAM, Duelist, and a shield) is another one of the frequently-cited build concepts that people should be familiar with", not "this is a 'better' baseline than 'Agonizing Blast plus hex'".

[Frogreaver]

Right. That observation leads to a question that many people find distasteful: "If 2 levels of Warlock (even though it isn't *just* 2 levels of Warlock and requires some resource expenditure) are enough to meet this baseline *plus* provide significant additional utility across all 4 tiers, then why would you play any character that is primarily a damage dealer but *can't* meet the baseline without expending any resources?"

Most players focus more on theme than straight mechanics and theme provides plenty of reason. But there are also good mechanical reasons to play other classes as well even if they do less damage (ex: Paladin auras).

[Witty Username]

I interpreted the cited post as "this (PAM, Duelist, and a shield) is another one of the frequently-cited build concepts that people should be familiar with", not "this is a 'better' baseline than 'Agonizing Blast plus hex'".

Ah, I have may have made a false assumption. If that is the case, nvm, sorry arguing against a point that wasn't made in the first place.

[Doug Lampert]

In short, the common martial damage classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin) require both a subclass feature and a feat to match up with the supposed baseline at 17. IMO, that's far to much investment to view that as the baseline for approaching good damage.

At level 17 the warlock gets 4 slots per short rest. When will he NOT have hex or something better up in combat? I could see leaving hex off the baseline at level 1, but at level 17 the warlock can have hex up all the time, and has mystic arcanum and additional slots to go with it.

It's clearly a pretty low op warlock build by that time. If your goal is damage, and you can't match that at 17, then your build has failed to meet your objective.

Now, if you're claiming that by level 17 all martials should have some strong utility other than damage, I'll agree, but in most cases I just don't see that additional utility.

[Psyren]

In short, the common martial damage classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin) require both a subclass feature and a feat to match up with the supposed baseline at 17. IMO, that's far to much investment to view that as the baseline for approaching good damage.

1) EB + AB + Hex doesn't use a subclass either. Nor even any of the Warlock's MA slots.
2) Presumably martials also have at least one (and hopefully more than one) relevant magic item by the time they hit 17, unless your DM is being a bit of a donkey cavity and ignoring the DMG's guidance. In short, exceeding the baseline should be trivial by then, never mind meeting it.

[Frogreaver]

At level 17 the warlock gets 4 slots per short rest. When will he NOT have hex or something better up in combat? I could see leaving hex off the baseline at level 1, but at level 17 the warlock can have hex up all the time, and has mystic arcanum and additional slots to go with it.

It's clearly a pretty low op warlock build by that time. If your goal is damage, and you can't match that at 17, then your build has failed to meet your objective.

Now, if you're claiming that by level 17 all martials should have some strong utility other than damage, I'll agree, but in most cases I just don't see that additional utility.

My post was comparing AB+Hex+EB at level 17 to other classes to see what kind of investment those classes need to compete with that baseline at that level. Based on those comparisons, IMO it’s generally an unreasonable amount of investment - which is why I view ab+eb+hex as a bad level 17 baseline.

It might make for better discussion if you address that point instead of ones not related to the post you quoted.

[x3n0n]

At level 17 the warlock gets 4 slots per short rest. When will he NOT have hex or something better up in combat? I could see leaving hex off the baseline at level 1, but at level 17 the warlock can have hex up all the time, and has mystic arcanum and additional slots to go with it.

It's clearly a pretty low op warlock build by that time. If your goal is damage, and you can't match that at 17, then your build has failed to meet your objective.

Now, if you're claiming that by level 17 all martials should have some strong utility other than damage, I'll agree, but in most cases I just don't see that additional utility.

I think people seem to be in general agreement: a character with 2 levels of "subclass-less" Warlock and 20 Cha deals about as much (ranged) damage as (and maybe slightly more than) a subclass-less, feat-less Fighter/Barb/Paladin/Monk/Rogue with 20 Str/Dex across most of play.

One could pretty easily argue that this highlights a weakness of the system as designed. New players (reasonably) assume that all they need to do is pick Fighter or Barbarian and bump their combat stat at every ASI to be the best single-target damage dealer in their party, and it's not really true.

[Stangler]

Ah, I have may have made a false assumption. If that is the case, nvm, sorry arguing against a point that wasn't made in the first place.

I am mostly comparing Shield/PAM to GWM/PAM builds which requires melee and where AC or other damage mitigation is important.

I would also add that many martial damage builds rely on GWM or SS to exceed the baseline as well as something else on top of that to reduce the impact of the -5 penalty. The Shield PAM combo compares very well to those instances where the -5 is not optimal. In those cases Shield and PAM are simply better than the GWM option due to the large difference in AC.

It is also assumed that more is added to the PAM Shield combo just like with any GWM build that requires more to really beat the baseline.

I also tend to think that GWM is over valued based on white room assumptions. There is no doubt that they are great against low AC enemies but if there are a lot of those low AC enemies it is usually the casters that will far outpace damage output with AOE. So out of all the low AC enemies it is really only the encounters with low AC and high HPs where the GMW is better than Shield PAM.

That said barbarians get reckless which drastically improves the viability of GWM and fighters get enough ASIs that the opportunity cost is less, not to mention the best fighter classes tend to also give some ability that will improve the chance to hit. All of those things that improve to hit will improve GWM more than non GWM builds.

SS on the other hand is far more an obvious improvement over the warlock baseline where you are pretty much always better off having a ranged weapon and AC isn't as much of a consideration. Plus archery fighting style is great.

Overall many builds will end up out performing the warlock baseline in game even if the calculations are somewhat similar. The warlock baseline will likely underperform the calculated baseline. The warlock baseline is also still REALLY good because of the cost is so low. There is no doubt that there are plenty of builds that can leverage it and then spell casting to outperform straight martials on a regular basis.

[Frogreaver]

1) EB + AB + Hex doesn't use a subclass either. Nor even any of the Warlock's MA slots.


Okay, but why is this relevant to my point about other classes needing too much investment to reach the chosen baseline for it to be a good baseline?



2) Presumably martials also have at least one (and hopefully more than one) relevant magic item by the time they hit 17, unless your DM is being a bit of a donkey cavity and ignoring the DMG's guidance. In short, exceeding the baseline should be trivial by then, never mind meeting it.

Get the community to agree on some standard magic item conventions for whiteroom dpr and I’ll be happy to add in magic items. Till then it’s a fool’s errand.

[x3n0n]

Ok, maybe this is starting to get to what I didn't really realize I was asking for in the first place.

What are some small build investments one can make in a Str-/Dex-primary class (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue) that will get "baseline" damage per round over the course of a (say) 6 combat-encounter day with one short rest, assuming each combat encounter runs 3ish rounds? (Maybe something like "3-round encounter; 2-round encounter; 4-round encounter; short rest; 2-round encounter; 3-round encounter; 4-round encounter; long rest". I don't expect this to be particularly relevant except as it relates to features that function once per combat encounter.)

I haven't mathed them all out, but others have, and it seems like any one of these is likely to do it (and some of them combine well with each other):

Polearm Master feat + Dueling fighting style (and/or other per-attack improvements)
Crossbow Expert feat + Archery fighting style (and/or other per-attack improvements)
Sharpshooter feat + some reliable accuracy improver (Archery, Precision Attack maneuver, Focused Aim Monk feature, advantage engine with or without Elven Accuracy)
Great Weapon Master feat + some reliable accuracy improver (Precision Attack, advantage engines including Reckless Attack Barbarian feature)
Paladin in general seems to do ok for most of the career, assuming it can get into melee; benefits from a bonus action attack
Rogue: add Booming Blade and a reliable advantage engine (with or without Elven Accuracy)
happen to already want to play a particularly damage-efficient subclass (e.g., Zealot Barbarian, Samurai Fighter, Mercy Monk, Gloom Stalker Ranger)


Questions:

Does anybody want to propose a way to characterize the "average" target AC for a given character level?
Is there anything on the list that people don't think is enough to meet the baseline by itself?
Are there any other "small" build investments that people think should be on such a list?


My definition of "small" is kind of fuzzy. One feat is definitely small, 2 feats is not. A single-level dip is probably small.

Again, this isn't intended to be "any good thing you can do to a character build"; it's more intended to be "name some minimal 'taxes' that you can pay to get 'good enough' damage to free up the rest of your build to do fun things".

ps. Note that several of these don't combine particularly well with Rogue; most of them implicitly assume Extra Attack at level 5.

[Frogreaver]

Ok, maybe this is starting to get to what I didn't really realize I was asking for in the first place.

What are some small build investments one can make in a Str-/Dex-primary class (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue) that will get "baseline" damage per round over the course of a (say) 6 combat-encounter day with one short rest, assuming each combat encounter runs 3ish rounds? (Maybe something like "3-round encounter; 2-round encounter; 4-round encounter; short rest; 2-round encounter; 3-round encounter; 4-round encounter; long rest". I don't expect this to be particularly relevant except as it relates to features that function once per combat encounter.)

I haven't mathed them all out, but others have, and it seems like any one of these is likely to do it (and some of them combine well with each other):

Polearm Master feat + Dueling fighting style (and/or other per-attack improvements)
Crossbow Expert feat + Archery fighting style (and/or other per-attack improvements)
Sharpshooter feat + some reliable accuracy improver (Archery, Precision Attack maneuver, Focused Aim Monk feature, advantage engine with or without Elven Accuracy)
Great Weapon Master feat + some reliable accuracy improver (Precision Attack, advantage engines including Reckless Attack Barbarian feature)
Paladin in general seems to do ok for most of the career, assuming it can get into melee; benefits from a bonus action attack
Rogue: add Booming Blade and a reliable advantage engine (with or without Elven Accuracy)
happen to already want to play a particularly damage-efficient subclass (e.g., Zealot Barbarian, Samurai Fighter, Mercy Monk, Gloom Stalker Ranger)


Questions:

Does anybody want to propose a way to characterize the "average" target AC for a given character level?
Is there anything on the list that people don't think is enough to meet the baseline by itself?
Are there any other "small" build investments that people think should be on such a list?


My definition of "small" is kind of fuzzy. One feat is definitely small, 2 feats is not. A single-level dip is probably small.

Again, this isn't intended to be "any good thing you can do to a character build"; it's more intended to be "name some minimal 'taxes' that you can pay to get 'good enough' damage to free up the rest of your build to do fun things".

ps. Note that several of these don't combine particularly well with Rogue; most of them implicitly assume Extra Attack at level 5.

The requirements will change per tier and whether variant human was selected. That makes this rather difficult.

[x3n0n]

The requirements will change per tier and whether variant human was selected. That makes this rather difficult.

I'm hoping that most of these are the kinds of things you can choose to do in tier 1 or early in tier 2. For example,
* v.human/custom lineage round 1 feat
* ASI at 4, 6 (Fighter), 8, 10 (Rogue)
* some class feature (e.g. fighting style) or subclass selection

For example, any one of (Crossbow Expert/PAM/Sharpshooter/GWM) can fit in v.human or Fighter 4/6 ASI without breaking combat stat progression, assuming an initial 16/17.

[Psyren]

Questions:

Does anybody want to propose a way to characterize the "average" target AC for a given character level?
Is there anything on the list that people don't think is enough to meet the baseline by itself?
Are there any other "small" build investments that people think should be on such a list?



1) For AC by level / CR I usually use the table on DMG 274.

2) Generally if a martial has at least two attacks that add its key ability score to damage, a bonus action attack that does the same, and then an additional source of damage (e.g. a third attack, rage, sneak attack, smite etc) then it probably meets if not exceeds the baseline.

3) You can plug the "baseline" into any DPR calculator (my preference is LudicSavant's) to math it out and then do the same with any of the other partial builds listed.

[x3n0n]

1) For AC by level / CR I usually use the table on DMG 274.

That makes sense, but my impression is that realistic encounters are a mix of targets with CR below current level ("mooks") and CR at or above current level ("bosses"); shouldn't the "average target AC" take that into account somehow?

As regards the other two bullets, I was trying to crowdsource things worth evaluating (and conversely, things *not* worth evaluating because they obviously do or don't meet the baseline).
Is there anything on the list that people are especially interested to see because they think the result is in doubt?
Anything that should be on the list because it's probably good enough?

My goal is to have easy advice for someone who wants to be able to build a character to carry to someone else's table and be confident that they're not going to be useless: "Build whatever martial character you want: as long as it does one of these things and you bump your combat stat when you can, it should be able to do enough damage to be useful at any table, and you can customize all of the other build decisions to fit your fancy."

[tiornys]

As long as you're in the vicinity of the "correct" AC for a given level/CR it doesn't matter much what AC you use--what matters is that you use the same AC for your baseline and for all builds that you're comparing it with.

[x3n0n]

As long as you're in the vicinity of the "correct" AC for a given level/CR it doesn't matter much what AC you use--what matters is that you use the same AC for your baseline and for all builds that you're comparing it with.

There are a few nuances around advantage and risky strikes. At character level 8, I'd expect to fight a lot of things with ACs around 13 (good targets for an unassisted risky strike) and a few high-value targets with ACs around 16 or 17 (bad targets for an unassisted risky strike), and I suspect that it should be reflected somehow.

[tiornys]

There are a few nuances around advantage and risky strikes. At character level 8, I'd expect to fight a lot of things with ACs around 13 (good targets for an unassisted risky strike) and a few high-value targets with ACs around 16 or 17 (bad targets for an unassisted risky strike), and I suspect that it should be reflected somehow.
Once you start introducing that level of granularity you're better off playtesting than trying to calculate DPR. Also, at CR 8 the target AC is 16, and I suspect you won't see very much difference from advantage/disadvantage whether you use 16 or 17 for the calculations. 13 might see a significant difference, but I don't think your DPR with advantage/disadvantage vs CR 1 creatures is a particularly important part of the analysis at level 8.

[x3n0n]

Once you start introducing that level of granularity you're better off playtesting than trying to calculate DPR. Also, at CR 8 the target AC is 16, and I suspect you won't see very much difference from advantage/disadvantage whether you use 16 or 17 for the calculations. 13 might see a significant difference, but I don't think your DPR with advantage/disadvantage vs CR 1 creatures is a particularly important part of the analysis at level 8.

To be fair, 13 is the recommended AC all the way up through CR 3. So it seems like it might be very normal to have a combat with several CR 3s (AC 13) at party level 8, followed by an encounter with a CR 8 at AC 16. IIRC, AC 16 is one of the common "breakpoints" for whether risky strike is worth it.

[Frogreaver]

To be fair, 13 is the recommended AC all the way up through CR 3. So it seems like it might be very normal to have a combat with several CR 3s (AC 13) at party level 8, followed by an encounter with a CR 8 at AC 16. IIRC, AC 16 is one of the common "breakpoints" for whether risky strike is worth it.

I guess the question should really be how many rounds will you be attacking various CR's at a given level. After that the DMG AC chart seems like a good starting point. For example a level 5 party likely Fights CR 1/2+ to CR 6 or 7 creatures. I'd say a good estimate is alot of CR 2-3. However, CR 2 and 3 creatures also are downed faster than CR 4 and 5. So the total difference in toughness needs accounted for to some degree. As such i'd probably lean more toward whatever AC was common 1-2 levels below the PC's. Large packs are likely fireball fodder (meaning less time actually attacking them).

So a level 8 party, I would probably use CR 6 or maybe 7 AC value.

The only time AC swings really matter is when dealing with characters with substantially different accuracys. That only really matter is -5 from SS or GWM and no way to compensate. Should be a fairly rare occurrence.

[Witty Username]

For rogue, Elven accuracy is probably the feat to take.
extra advantage pairs nicely with sneak attack, and works better than sharpshooter for rogues.

I think it beats baseline for awhile if you have a consistent source of advantage, like steady aim. I know a build came up on treantmonk's channel that was a rogue build with the idea of using steady aim while mounted to attack with advantage without losing movement options.

[Hael]

Regarding the OP. These are not the 'best' builds. They are the simplest 'optimized' baseline builds that are easy to calculate and compare things too.

Multiclassing will trivially change the overall ranking.. Sometimes by very large margins. For instance, instead of a lvl 20 fighter, why not go to 11 instead and then start dipping into clearly superior progressions, like peace cleric dips or barbarian dips (for advantage) or gloomstalker dips.. There are many different ways to hit stratospheric numbers in this game.

There things can get quite complicated. For instance how do you calculate how often one gets the 'surprised' condition when using pass without trace. Certain builds (like gloomstalker/ assassin rogue builds) can do absolutely stupid amounts of damage if you enforce a certain table preference or a certain reading of the rules..

How many rounds of combat? how many combats per sr? How often do you have to change targets or where you might be unable to do damage in a round? etc etc These set of assumptions will change the simulation parameters drastically.