What’s the beef?

[Willowhelm]

Treantmonk's work for 5e is best avoided and ignored, when one is still learning 5e.

It is of dreadful quality, and anything that isn't plainly wrong has been handled better by other guide-makers.

Treantmonk might have been a big name for 3.X, but his skills and mindset did *not* transfer well for 5e.

I cannot emphsizes enough how many false ideas about 5e's rules and builds this man has propagated.

Once you know enough about 5e to run it or play it confidently, sure, take a look to make your own mind about it. But before that it'll just result in you needing to unlearn anything he wrote.

What’s the issue with TM? What are these false ideas that he’s propagated?

I came into dnd with 5e. I’ve got no baggage from previous editions and I’ve found TMs content solid for years. Maybe I’m miss remembering the past when I was less experienced and didn’t know what I was hearing was wrong.

[Skrum]

I can't speak for Unoriginal obviously, but I've quibbled with some of TM's math assumptions. A good example is his breakdown of the One fighter - how much credit he was giving for cleave procs was very generous, by my eye. And also not recognizing that damaging a secondary target probably isn't all that useful? But that's more my opinion.

But still, I want to emphasize the "quibble" part. As in minorly disagree, and don't really expect to get a wildly different outcome if my assumptions were used instead of TM's.

I don't really get the TM hate either TBH.

[Dork_Forge]

I remember noticing some very... niche or straight up incorrect assumptions at times in the limited exposure I've had to his content, but the thing I remember most and truly hate is the damage threshold he uses:

Warlock EB/AB+Hex for at-will.

It is extremely flawed and generous in its assumptions and ends up putting damage expectations arbitrarily high for no good reason.

[Skrum]

I remember noticing some very... niche or straight up incorrect assumptions at times in the limited exposure I've had to his content, but the thing I remember most and truly hate is the damage threshold he uses:

Warlock EB/AB+Hex for at-will.

It is extremely flawed and generous in its assumptions and ends up putting damage expectations arbitrarily high for no good reason.

Why do you hate that? IME warlock blast + hex is like...the absolute bare minimum. If you're doing less than that, you're not really a damage dealer. EB might be the best cantrip, but that doesn't mean it actually does good damage compared to all the ways to do damage. It's still a cantrip.

[Pex]

I saw his videos on ranking spells and disagreed strongly with his premise. He hates spells that do nothing when a monster makes its saving throw. He finds it a waste of a spellcaster's turn to have cast the spell but the monster makes his save. Damage spells, therefore, are supreme since they at least do half damage when the monster makes the save.

That is a terrible attitude to take. Monsters will make saving throws. However, they don't always make saving throws. That's how the game works. The spellcaster's attempt is of prime importance. The spellcaster contributed even when the monster makes the save. It's no different than the warrior attacking with a weapon but missing. Would you say the fighter is a waste of space because he missed with his attack? It's a game. You don't always succeed. You don't always fail. The important thing is you do something to engage the game. Cast Banishment which he loathes with passion. If the monster makes the saving throw oh gosh darn the party will deal with it and try something else. Enjoy with glee those times the monster fails the save and goes away.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Like everyone's opinions I take his with a pound of salt. While I don't agree with all of them, he's pretty good about putting his assumptions up front. For example, in his subclass ranking he made it clear that he was basing them on a mostly tier 1 + 2, mostly combat based game. So when evaluating his rankings I'm able to at least consider what assumptions are being made to come to those conclusions. I can't say that for most people who offer up their opinions on the net.

Agree with TM? Disagree with TM? Despite that I don't always agree with him, I think he gets a bit too much flack. He's clearly not terrible at assessing 5e. Most of the time his opinions have a fair bit of validity and reason behind them.

[Kane0]

There are people that object to his math, but usually its his assumptions. Personally i have no strong feelings one way or another.



-Snip-

Which is to say TM is a risk-averse player and that will sometimes bias his opinions, though i'm not sure to the extent he recognises this.
And to be fair, quite often i'm like that too.

[JNAProductions]

Why do you hate that? IME warlock blast + hex is like...the absolute bare minimum. If you're doing less than that, you're not really a damage dealer. EB might be the best cantrip, but that doesn't mean it actually does good damage compared to all the ways to do damage. It's still a cantrip.

Because that's supposed to be at-will damage.

Hex is not at-will. I think Warlock with Eldritch Blast, Agonizing Blast, 16/18/20 Cha at level 1/4/8 is a good baseline. But including Hex is not.

[Dork_Forge]

Why do you hate that? IME warlock blast + hex is like...the absolute bare minimum. If you're doing less than that, you're not really a damage dealer. EB might be the best cantrip, but that doesn't mean it actually does good damage compared to all the ways to do damage. It's still a cantrip.

Buncha reasons:

- It's meant to be at-will damage, but uses a spell. I don't care about Pact Magic or duration, it isn't at-will damage when a spell slot or other limited resource is used.

- It always assumes that Hex is used. This doesn't account for losing concentration, not having (or wanting) to use a slot on Hex, or (5th level upwards) hitting different targets, like it you killed with the first beam. This isn't all the reasons Hex might not count, but it's the big ones.

- It's a lot of investment (read: choices, I don't want to get into the 'being x class is an investment' argument that sometimes crops up on here) to get that damage (choosing two spells, a spell slot, and an invocation) that will often then get compared to very little investment (being X martial and swinging a sword).

- The baseline is framed as 'okay damage' as far as I can remember, it is not specific to 'damage dealer' it's just a generic threshold to hold all damage up against. That is a problem, because it is a threshold derived from optimising for damage with a lot of investments and assumptions. What's more, it's just out of line with system expectations. A martial with Extra Attack swinging a sword with a relevant modifier is actually 'okay' damage, it is a more realistic baseline.

Also, the 'it's still a cantrip' thought you threw out there is also wonky. Bladetrips are 'just a cantrip' but they're still significant bumps combined with the underlying attacks.



But let's highlight how wonky this baseline is:

Under his assumptions d10 cantrips are rated as terrible damage.

Casting Fire Bolt at a goblin at 2nd level? That's terrible damage!

Even a longsword and Dueling is considered poor damage.

It's just ridiculous.

[Schwann145]

I saw his videos on ranking spells and disagreed strongly with his premise. He hates spells that do nothing when a monster makes its saving throw. He finds it a waste of a spellcaster's turn to have cast the spell but the monster makes his save. Damage spells, therefore, are supreme since they at least do half damage when the monster makes the save.

Are we talking about the same Treantmonk? The guy who hates blasting because it's so unreliable and tends to have bad returns on investment? The guy who promotes "GOD Wizard" casting style (ie: battlefield control) above all else as the superior style for optimization?

[Psyren]

What’s the issue with TM? What are these false ideas that he’s propagated?

I came into dnd with 5e. I’ve got no baggage from previous editions and I’ve found TMs content solid for years. Maybe I’m miss remembering the past when I was less experienced and didn’t know what I was hearing was wrong.

I enjoy Treantmonk's content. I also listen to a wide variety of optimization voices besides his, such as d4 Deep Dives, Dungeon Dudes, Pack Tactics, D&D Daily, Bilbron, Nerdarchy, Arbitrary 20, the_twig, Urge TV, Indestructoboy and many more. The best approach is always to listen for yourself and form your own opinions rather than letting a forum sway you sight unseen.

As for him hating Banishment, Pex is very wrong about that. It's a Charisma save-or-be-removed-from-the-fight, of course it's good.

[Skrum]

Because that's supposed to be at-will damage.

Hex is not at-will. I think Warlock with Eldritch Blast, Agonizing Blast, 16/18/20 Cha at level 1/4/8 is a good baseline. But including Hex is not.

Ok I get the hex part, and that's a fair point. It actually takes up A LOT of resources, especially for a warlock. Sure, "on paper" they get it for 8 hours, but that literally never happens. Idk that I've even even managed to hang on to it for 2 fights, even with Con prof and eldritch mind. I just stopped casting it.

Side note, hex is terrible.

[Kane0]

Side note, hex is terrible.

I'd call it mediocre. Great on a Fighter though!

[Witty Username]

Under his assumptions d10 cantrips are rated as terrible damage.

Casting Fire Bolt at a goblin at 2nd level? That's terrible damage!

Even a longsword and Dueling is considered poor damage.


What would be an example of bad damage in your mind?

Like say for the sake of argument of the lowest damage weapon in the game, d4 weapons (so dagger, whip, dart)
Recall that you get to add your ability mod to damage with these weapons.
+3 is the usual for a primary score
So that would be d4+3, or an average of 5.5 damage (or 6 since you don't like decimals).
That is the same average damage as firebolt.

So, is the weakest weapons in the game, without fighting styles or features, bad damage, or ok damage?

Even without getting into the warlock baseline, cantrips be bad options for damage. They are on par with the weakest weapons, even something simple like a light crossbow will have almost twice the potential damage of a firebolt spell.

But you brought up goblins, a goblin has 7 hp as an average (if you roll monster hp), that means more often than not, a goblin will survive a hit from a firebolt. This is simply not the case for even something like a longsword hit from someone without dueling.
And goblins aren't the only things at low level, zombies are great and have 3 times the hp of a goblin, and more effective hp than that usually due to undead fortitude. Firebolt will be a slog in comparison to a bow or sword.

[Waazraath]

What I don't understand is how fair critcism is somehow 'hate'. I don't watch any videos cause I extremely dislike the fact that they take at least 5 times more the time to get information than when it's presented in writing, but I've seen the discussion on his takes several times on this forum (I think TM participated in the discussion here as well a few time) and afaic both Pex and Dork_Forge make a lot of sense in refuting his takes.

What I personally dislike is what TM did for 3.5. Yeah, he was a big name in handbook writing in that edition, as said by the (quoted) Unoriginal, but his main claim to fame was his wizard handbook ('being GOD') and that was, while funny written and technically correct on a lot of optimization, pretty terrible for the game. The main wizard guide up to then was from LogicNinja (guide to being batman) which was also very good on the optimization part, but was also wise in recommending not to use certain spells in normal games ('yes this is very good no don't use it it is overpowered'). What TM did was writing a guide on how to use the OP stuff to its greatest effect, and combining it with a 'wizard is god and all other characters suck' style of writing. Which was, to be fair to him, mostly tongue in cheek I think, but I can't help seeing a lot of folks taking it (too) seriously. Thus it contributed to the diminishing of the common sense approach ('don't use stuff that's not fun for the game) and the increase of 'yeah this is RAW so I can use it and everybody who does not have 20 ways to break the game just sucks muhahahaha" approach - which is bad for the game imo.

[Arkhios]

I feel that the issue is that TM is strongly opinionated and subjective and gives himself more credit than is due, while ideally one should be as objective as possible, when doing guides and such.

I agree with Waazrath and find it very odd to blame fair criticism as "hate".

[Mastikator]

Are we talking about the same Treantmonk? The guy who hates blasting because it's so unreliable and tends to have bad returns on investment? The guy who promotes "GOD Wizard" casting style (ie: battlefield control) above all else as the superior style for optimization?

Two Treantmonk's whisper in your ears.

One tells you to prevent the enemies attacking you by reducing their HP to zero.

The other tells you to prevent the enemies attacking you by taking away their actions.

Both are wrong because it's the DM who holds all the cards and can always increase or decrease difficulty at will, player optimization is futile.

[Kane0]

Two Treantmonk's whisper in your ears.

One tells you to prevent the enemies attacking you by reducing their HP to zero.

The other tells you to prevent the enemies attacking you by taking away their actions.

That's why I cast Binding Ice!

[Dork_Forge]

What would be an example of bad damage in your mind?

Like say for the sake of argument of the lowest damage weapon in the game, d4 weapons (so dagger, whip, dart)
Recall that you get to add your ability mod to damage with these weapons.
+3 is the usual for a primary score
So that would be d4+3, or an average of 5.5 damage (or 6 since you don't like decimals).
That is the same average damage as firebolt.

So, is the weakest weapons in the game, without fighting styles or features, bad damage, or ok damage?

Even without getting into the warlock baseline, cantrips be bad options for damage. They are on par with the weakest weapons, even something simple like a light crossbow will have almost twice the potential damage of a firebolt spell.

But you brought up goblins, a goblin has 7 hp as an average (if you roll monster hp), that means more often than not, a goblin will survive a hit from a firebolt. This is simply not the case for even something like a longsword hit from someone without dueling.
And goblins aren't the only things at low level, zombies are great and have 3 times the hp of a goblin, and more effective hp than that usually due to undead fortitude. Firebolt will be a slog in comparison to a bow or sword.

You seem to be defending the baseline position, so I'm replying from that stance, I'm also on mobile so instead of breaking your reply up I'll just use titled points.

- What would I call bad? A dagger alone with no riders would be bad/low end meh damage. Vicious mockery is outright bad damage, d6 cantrips are etc. Modifiers do wonders for not just damage averages but also minimums. If you're adding a modifier then the size of a single die becomes mostly irrelevant in comparison.

- I don't like decimals? I'm assuming you're pulling this from other threads, I don't like decimals in general but dont mind the 0.5 in averages. What I detest is accuracy adjusted damage which yields pointless decimals and overall results which are detached from reality, such a DPR that is lower than the minimum from a hit.

- You are missing nuance. The baseline gives grades to damage. Under the grades and example he gives, Firebolt is not bad damage, it is TERRIBLE damage throughout all levels for at will. That is absurd. Conclusions drawn from this baseline are completely out of sync with realities of the game.

- Goblins. I really don't get your point here, you don't need to one shot a mob level monster with a single blow, nor will you realistically be expected to fight an encounter of goblins or whatever alone or in a party of nothing but basic Firebolt casters. Even then, a greater than 40% chance of one-shotting an average HP goblin is in no means terrible for tier 1 at-will and i wouldnt feel good calling it bad either.I also wouldn't get hung up on the goblins thing, it's just the first and most iconic low level monster that came to mind.

- Damage doesn't exist in a vacuum. Firebolt has 120ft range, doesn't care about resistance/immunity to mundane BPS, and can set stuff on fire. Only looking at numbers is an incomplete evaluation of options.

- I believe in grounding expectations in the game. Cantrip damage isn't great, but by what the game wants from you it isn't really that bad whilst deliberately being worse than weapons. The game doesn't not assume comparing PC options against each other like what TM essentially encourages. Doing so will always inflate things because no matter what the numbers are, the lower end will fall to the bottom as flawed optimisation choices rise to the top. For example, if the top damage cantrips shifted to D12s, it wouldn't matter. The baseline just increases along with them.

[Mastikator]

I don't think it's fair to say that just because a firebolt is below baseline that the baseline is bad, or that it is absurd to consider it weak. Of course an at will wizard cantrip won't and shouldn't keep up with the at will damage of a damage focused fighter, or a warlock spending spell slots and focused on eldritch blast.

IMO it makes sense to have some baseline of expected damage from a DPR focused character, and it makes sense that a character with powerful blasts and powerful CC should not also have the at will damage of a character who only has high damage as their primary contribution.

We could create a CC baseline too, maybe it has 80% chance of removing at least one action from the enemy action economy. That's just an arbitrary baseline I made up. Then we can compare a wizard with the slow spell to that baseline and determine how it performs, we can also compare it to a monk using stunning strike once per turn, and compare it to a ranged battlemaster using menacing attacks on melee enemies who are not within striking distance of the party.
If we then look at the rogue and see that it falls *50% below the CC line then it's bad at CC, but that's just one thing the rogue contributes. And it doesn't mean that the concept of a CC baseline is a bad idea, in fact we should have a baseline calculated from a "vanilla" PC who takes the most and universally reliable obvious CC options against the most **average enemy

*again, I'm making up numbers here, it's an example.
**IMO calculating CC baseline might be impossible, but the that doesn't change anything IMO, in theory you can have a baseline for anything, that baseline should be of a character that focuses on it, not a character that doesn't.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't think it's fair to say that just because a firebolt is below baseline that the baseline is bad, or that it is absurd to consider it weak. Of course an at will wizard cantrip won't and shouldn't keep up with the at will damage of a damage focused fighter, or a warlock spending spell slots and focused on eldritch blast.

I agree that a cantrip alone shouldn't keep up with even just a weapon user, never mind someone really focused on damage.

But that's not the point. It's not that Firebolt is just below baseline, it's that it's categorized as terrible at all levels. If the baseline lacked the categorising and was just 'ideally we want baseline or higher' then it would be somewhat less problematic.

[Mastikator]

I agree that a cantrip alone shouldn't keep up with even just a weapon user, never mind someone really focused on damage.

But that's not the point. It's not that Firebolt is just below baseline, it's that it's categorized as terrible at all levels. If the baseline lacked the categorising and was just 'ideally we want baseline or higher' then it would be somewhat less problematic.

Who's categorizing anything? Ideally you want your DPR build to be at baseline or higher for their primary at will attack. Who says anything about other options that aren't? I mean if a wizard casts Web and then on the following turn hits a webbed creature with Mind Sliver to reduce their odds of getting out, they're doing very little damage. But that doesn't matter since they're goal is not to deal damage. A wizard who picks up firebolt as a backup is not going to do competitive damage, that's all the baseline says.

[Dork_Forge]

Who's categorizing anything? Ideally you want your DPR build to be at baseline or higher for their primary at will attack. Who says anything about other options that aren't? I mean if a wizard casts Web and then on the following turn hits a webbed creature with Mind Sliver to reduce their odds of getting out, they're doing very little damage. But that doesn't matter since they're goal is not to deal damage. A wizard who picks up firebolt as a backup is not going to do competitive damage, that's all the baseline says.

What? TM does, that's the entire point of the thread.

He uses the baseline he proposes to create labels for damage. Half or less than the baseline is Terrible. That's why I've been using that word and talking about bare Firebolt, because they're his words and his examples (pretty much).

Here is the full thing he says:

My "Rule of Thumb":

Almost Equal to Baseline - OK

Less Than Baseline - Poor

Higher Than Baseline - Good

1/2 Baseline or Less - Terrible

1 1/2 Baseline - Very Good

2X Baseline - Terrific

He then goes on to use a bare Eldritch Blast compared to the baseline. I swapped it to Firebolt to differentiate it a bit in text, but the numbers are identical.

He even then goes on to say that if all you have to offer damage wise is that amount of damage, then you should just do something else entirely. To paraphrase: 'the Help action might be more damage, Dodge, Dash towards the enemy, buff yourself' if you do a 1/3 to a 1/2 of the baseline damage.

He literally writes off cantrip damage entirely as a contribution. That makes no sense in 5e as a sweeping, general statement.

[KorvinStarmast]

niche or straight up incorrect assumptions Yes. Warlock casting hex and assuming it ports over from fight to fight. That's just one of his hand waves.

He hates spells that do nothing when a monster makes its saving throw. He finds it a waste of a spellcaster's turn to have cast the spell but the monster makes his save. Which is one of many problems with his base line assumptions.


Like everyone's opinions I take his with a pound of salt. As one should.

Which is to say TM is a risk-averse player That's a nice way of saying that.

Hex is not at-will. And when a crowd swarms at you EB attacks are at disadvantage.

- It always assumes that Hex is used. This doesn't account for losing concentration, not having (or wanting) to use a slot on Hex, or (5th level upwards) hitting different targets, like it you killed with the first beam. This isn't all the reasons Hex might not count, but it's the big ones. Amen.

Casting Fire Bolt at a goblin at 2nd level? That's terrible damage! *chuckle*

Even a longsword and Dueling is considered poor damage. And yet I've found it to be fine in actual play. Another down vote for TM.

What I personally dislike is what TM did for 3.5. Yeah, he was a big name in handbook writing in that edition, as said by the (quoted) Unoriginal, but his main claim to fame was his wizard handbook ('being GOD') and that was, while funny written and technically correct on a lot of optimization, pretty terrible for the game. IIRC, he tried to import god wizard into 5e in a guide.

The main wizard guide up to then was from LogicNinja (guide to being batman) which was also very good on the optimization part, but was also wise in recommending not to use certain spells in normal games ('yes this is very good no don't use it it is overpowered').

What TM did was writing a guide on how to use the OP stuff to its greatest effect, and combining it with a 'wizard is god and all other characters suck' style of writing. Which was, to be fair to him, mostly tongue in cheek I think, but I can't help seeing a lot of folks taking it (too) seriously. Thus it contributed to the diminishing of the common sense approach ('don't use stuff that's not fun for the game) and the increase of 'yeah this is RAW so I can use it and everybody who does not have 20 ways to break the game just sucks muhahahaha" approach - which is bad for the game imo. Fair criticism, from where I sit.

gives himself more credit than is due Yes, and his approach doesn't seem to me to work as well for 5e as he thinks it does.

But here's what I liked about some of his guides (written): he walks the multi classed character build from level 1 to 20, identifying good levels to take a level in one class or another.
That is good technique.

[Arkhios]

But here's what I liked about some of his guides (written): he walks the multi classed character build from level 1 to 20, identifying good levels to take a level in one class or another.
That is good technique.

I very much doubt I've seen that guide, but sounds like something I've been doing for years, ever since 3.5, continuing in 4th edition as well as Pathfinder 1e, and now in 5th. :smallbiggrin:

Not to say it's not a good technique, I just think it's not a very remarkable or particularly noteworthy for TM to make a walkthrough of.

[Blatant Beast]

- The baseline is framed as 'okay damage' as far as I can remember, it is not specific to 'damage dealer' it's just a generic threshold to hold all damage up against. That is a problem, because it is a threshold derived from optimising for damage with a lot of investments and assumptions. What's more, it's just out of line with system expectations. A martial with Extra Attack swinging a sword with a relevant modifier is actually 'okay' damage, it is a more realistic baseline.


This is a major quibble of mine as well. If TM's Warlock DPR baseline was for the Striker Role, and not for damage dealing in general, I think it would be fine.

Without that bit of nuance, complaining that "X build does not even reach the Warlock benchmark" is akin to complaining that a F-250 truck is not as quick off the starting line as a Race Car.....the two vehicles are designed with different purposes in mind.

My minivan is not going to beat my Ducati in a race, but I am also not taking my Ducati to Costco to pick up groceries.

My other quibble is "baseline" is a misnomer, what he details is a benchmark.

Overall, I do not watch Treantmonk videos, not because of the content, but due to the lack of organization of his presentations. Perhaps, TM has gotten better, but watching 20 minute videos with at least 7-8 minutes of rambling, train of consciousness presentations, is not an effective use of my time.

[Pex]

Are we talking about the same Treantmonk? The guy who hates blasting because it's so unreliable and tends to have bad returns on investment? The guy who promotes "GOD Wizard" casting style (ie: battlefield control) above all else as the superior style for optimization?

He said so himself in the videos. The spellcaster isn't wasting his turn casting a damage spell because the monster still suffers damage when making the saving throw. Whether he changed his thoughts on the matter before the video to having it or after the video to not having it anymore I don't know and don't really care.




As for him hating Banishment, Pex is very wrong about that. It's a Charisma save-or-be-removed-from-the-fight, of course it's good.

He ranked Banishment as one of the worst spells.

[ZRN]

My biggest objection to TreantMonk is just that he makes lots of (clickbait) claims like "the math PROVES that the new playtest rogue is superior!" when in fact he's just running some very basic damage numbers with a lot of built-in assumptions. Now, to be fair, he generally does explicitly call out the assumptions and limitations of those numbers when he actually presents them, but the end result is that a lot of math-illiterate people take his broad design opinions as gospel because they think those opinions are somehow objectively proven by the math he does in the video.

Clearest example for me was when we was defending the previous players warlock (the half-caster one) by saying the math PROVES that version got at least as many spells. Which was mostly technically true, but incredibly beside the point.

The thing to take away from TM's popularity, I think, is that even among nerdy forum-dwelling D&D players, a ton of people don't understand even very basic statistics, so having someone walk through stuff like damage calculations step-by-step feels very helpful and objective.

Overall I think he's helpful for the community even if I disagree with a lot of his assumptions. He at least generally does a good job of stating and arguing for his points.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the thing I find puzzling is that sometimes the criticism seems like animosity. And given that TM is upfront about his assumptions, and seems thoughtful in his approach to telling everyone what the "best" thing is, I think there's room to not agree with him without the animosity that seems to come through on the forums sometimes.

For my part, unless it's a topic that really interests me, I feel he's too long-winded. Also, everything gets explained as if it's the first time you've been exposed to 5E, so my patience for that is pretty limited. But I think he has good intentions and I don't think he's trying to mislead anyone.

In general though, I prefer D&D Daily's optimization much more than the sort of standard normie optimization to "be the best". D&D Daily accepts challenges from his viewers and mixes things up to create interesting builds. It's not just "pick this best race with this best class with this best subclass with this best weapon and these best spells and feats" cookie cutter stuff from other channels.

[Psyren]

He ranked Banishment as one of the worst spells.

He rated it Green, and that was 4 years ago. How is that "one of the worst spells?" :smallconfused:

[KorvinStarmast]

He ranked Banishment as one of the worst spells. It is in its current form a good spell. In the D&Done version, they messed it up :smallfurious: (rant not engaged in)

[Bobthewizard]

I like Treantmonk's videos. Sometimes I disagree with things he says, but I think he acknowledges that assumptions and tables may yield different results. I don't think he's Uber-optimized, but can step up a player who primarily uses fireball all the way through tier 4. He often has some interesting tips that go beyond DPR, and some creative builds I hadn't considered.

As far as using warlock with EB/AB/Hex as a baseline, I think it's fine. I personally never use hex, but that's ok. The assumption is clear and consistent, EB scales at levels 5 and 11 like most other martials, and AB gives a small boost at 2 and then with ASIs for a clearer comparison to other martials than some other baselines could give. Once you know what his baseline is, you can compare any other two builds DPR by looking at their percent of baseline.

Most importantly, I can stand watching his videos. I struggle to listen to most D&D build you tube videos and find most of them annoying. But that is of course subjective for everyone.

[KorvinStarmast]

Most importantly, I can stand watching his videos. I struggle to listen to most D&D build you tube videos and find most of them annoying. But that is of course subjective for everyone.
I can't stand watching any of them. They pack maybe five minutes of information into 25 minutes of noise, and most of the presenters - TM included - suck at oral delivery of a message. Life is too short to waste it on these amateurs.

[Snowbluff]

I can't speak for Unoriginal obviously, but I've quibbled with some of TM's math assumptions. A good example is his breakdown of the One fighter - how much credit he was giving for cleave procs was very generous, by my eye. And also not recognizing that damaging a secondary target probably isn't all that useful? But that's more my opinion.

But still, I want to emphasize the "quibble" part. As in minorly disagree, and don't really expect to get a wildly different outcome if my assumptions were used instead of TM's.

I don't really get the TM hate either TBH.

I agree with this mostly. I think people tend to throw the baby out with the bath water at times. Someone misspeaks or makes an assumption one disagrees, and so disregard anything they have to say. I find most of TM's advice practical or at least interesting, and I don't think I have to even agree with what he's saying to think so. Where we differ, I use it as an opportunity to see from another perspective.

[Witty Username]

I agree with this mostly. I think people tend to throw the baby out with the bath water at times. Someone misspeaks or makes an assumption one disagrees, and so disregard anything they have to say. I find most of TM's advice practical or at least interesting, and I don't think I have to even agree with what he's saying to think so. Where we differ, I use it as an opportunity to see from another perspective.

And that is true of alot of the optimization crowd to varying degrees, a more local example with LudicSavant, there are things I disagree with them on, but what they have to say is always of value thinking through problems.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I can't stand watching any of them. They pack maybe five minutes of information into 25 minutes of noise, and most of the presenters - TM included - suck at oral delivery of a message. Life is too short to waste it on these amateurs.

Classic example of Youtube incentives making the medium harm the message.

[Psyren]

I like Treantmonk's videos. Sometimes I disagree with things he says, but I think he acknowledges that assumptions and tables may yield different results. I don't think he's Uber-optimized, but can step up a player who primarily uses fireball all the way through tier 4. He often has some interesting tips that go beyond DPR, and some creative builds I hadn't considered.

As far as using warlock with EB/AB/Hex as a baseline, I think it's fine. I personally never use hex, but that's ok. The assumption is clear and consistent, EB scales at levels 5 and 11 like most other martials, and AB gives a small boost at 2 and then with ASIs for a clearer comparison to other martials than some other baselines could give. Once you know what his baseline is, you can compare any other two builds DPR by looking at their percent of baseline.

Most importantly, I can stand watching his videos. I struggle to listen to most D&D build you tube videos and find most of them annoying. But that is of course subjective for everyone.

Agreed on all points. Of the ones I listed, I find his and Colby (d4)'s the most 'listenable' while I'm doing other things, i.e. second-monitor content or even long drives. I'm constantly finding older videos I like to come back to, e.g. "where did he rank Illusionist relative to Enchanter again? (I'm looking forward to his inevitable updated subclass tier list when One drops.)


I can't stand watching any of them. They pack maybe five minutes of information into 25 minutes of noise, and most of the presenters - TM included - suck at oral delivery of a message. Life is too short to waste it on these amateurs.

Honestly, I think the signal to noise ratio is far, far better for a youtube essay than, say, a podcast myself.

Having said that, I do usually listen to these at at least 1.5x speed. If you find the pace too slow I would recommend this.


And that is true of alot of the optimization crowd to varying degrees, a more local example with LudicSavant, there are things I disagree with them on, but what they have to say is always of value thinking through problems.

+100

[Rynjin]

I saw his videos on ranking spells and disagreed strongly with his premise. He hates spells that do nothing when a monster makes its saving throw. He finds it a waste of a spellcaster's turn to have cast the spell but the monster makes his save. Damage spells, therefore, are supreme since they at least do half damage when the monster makes the save.

That is a terrible attitude to take. Monsters will make saving throws. However, they don't always make saving throws. That's how the game works. The spellcaster's attempt is of prime importance. The spellcaster contributed even when the monster makes the save. It's no different than the warrior attacking with a weapon but missing. Would you say the fighter is a waste of space because he missed with his attack? It's a game. You don't always succeed. You don't always fail. The important thing is you do something to engage the game. Cast Banishment which he loathes with passion. If the monster makes the saving throw oh gosh darn the party will deal with it and try something else. Enjoy with glee those times the monster fails the save and goes away.

It's more a matter of percentage of failure and success, combined with actual contribution. Save or Suck gameplay was severely hamstrung in 5e already, and when combined with the flattening of numbers making it harder to actually stick the spells, and important enemies having the ability to just "nope" a saving throw like 3 times a fight, having your entire action hinge on the GM being merciful enough to not waste your entire turn and a spell slot on a whim is a fool's errand.

Like if you're a 15th level character fighting an Adult Bronze Dragon, you're looking to get over a hump of saves that average out to about +8. This is pretty normal for the monsters I've looked at at that CR.

Your save DC is what, DC 18 at that point? So you're looking at a roughly 45% chance of success out of the gate Nothing you can throw out really just ENDS THE FIGHT. All the candidates for this (like Flesh to Stone) are made largely null by being nerfed, and most of the others are nerfed by virtue of Coup de Grace being removed from 5e.

Even if you DO stumble on a spell that can end the fight, you need to pass that 50/50 (let's assume you have SOMETHING that raises your DC by at least 1) a minimum of 4 times (a much less than 1% chance of success) for it to work; the average length of a fight anyway.

So why would I waste an action on Dominate Monster or Flesh to Stone or whatever and have it maybe buy us a turn before the monster passes its followup save, or uses its Resistance to just "nope" the spell when I could upcast Fireball or something to 8th level and donk it for 13d6 (average 45 damage, 22 on a passed save) and contribute a minimum of half its HP in damage across 4 turns? Or buff an ally and increase their effective damage by even more with Haste (that extra action is what, an extra 100 potential damage for a Fighter?); all for no chance of failure and a much lower level spell slot.

Battlefield control is great for slowing down mooks, but it's awful for boss fights in 5e. Even without factoring in LR, the numbers are so flattened and the spells' effectiveness so nerfed that it's horrifically unsatisfying.

For the record, if I had a less than 1% chance of succeeding on an attack roll as a Fighter too, yeah I wouldn't ****ing bother.


Honestly, I think the signal to noise ratio is far, far better for a youtube essay than, say, a podcast myself.

Having said that, I do usually listen to these at at least 1.5x speed. If you find the pace too slow I would recommend this.

Eh. Anything you have to speed up to be palatable is objectively poorly paced. The only content I regularly listen to on fast forward are recordings of meetings. If I'm giving the same treatment to your content as I do for work, your content sucks.

[Psyren]

Eh. Anything you have to speed up to be palatable is objectively poorly paced.

I don't think it's objective at all. Subjectively, my ADHD brain does better with sped up content for the same reason it does better with skimming when reading lengthy text; I view it as an accessibility tool.

[JNAProductions]

Even if you DO stumble on a spell that can end the fight, you need to pass that 50/50 (let's assume you have SOMETHING that raises your DC by at least 1) a minimum of 4 times (a much less than 1% chance of success) for it to work; the average length of a fight anyway.

Quibble: A 1/2 chance, four times, is 1/16. That's 6.25%.
Even a 45% chance, four times, is still 4.1%.

[Rynjin]

Quibble: A 1/2 chance, four times, is 1/16. That's 6.25%.
Even a 45% chance, four times, is still 4.1%.

...Yeah for some reason I did the math for 1/4 four times instead, dunno why.


I don't think it's objective at all. Subjectively, my ADHD brain does better with sped up content for the same reason it does better with skimming when reading lengthy text; I view it as an accessibility tool.

Having the option to speed things up is great, but REQUIRING your work to be sped up ain't. There's always gonna be variance from person to person but if a common criticism is "the pacing is slow, there's not enough content here for this runtime" it's an issue.

[Amechra]

What I personally dislike is what TM did for 3.5. [...]

As someone who got into D&D around the time when 4e came out and optimization culture started to shift... I wouldn't blame TreantMonk for that. It has a lot more to do with the fact that the rest of the hobby moved on from 3.5, leaving behind the people who were drawn to it because of the broken nonsense. Heck, a lot of people who were into 3.5 optimization didn't play 3.5, since building a broken character can be a fun activity in and of itself.

(Also, as a side note on cultural shift: this relatively recent thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?659051-Is-it-wrong-to-limit-races-and-classes-for-a-campaign-setting) would've gotten very confused looks if it'd been asked during the 3.5's heyday.)

[Psyren]

Having the option to speed things up is great, but REQUIRING your work to be sped up ain't. There's always gonna be variance from person to person but if a common criticism is "the pacing is slow, there's not enough content here for this runtime" it's an issue.

Considering his audience is big enough to do what he does as a full time job I'm left questioning how "common" this so-called common criticism is, but to each his own.


As someone who got into D&D around the time when 4e came out and optimization culture started to shift... I wouldn't blame TreantMonk for that. It has a lot more to do with the fact that the rest of the hobby moved on from 3.5, leaving behind the people who were drawn to it because of the broken nonsense. Heck, a lot of people who were into 3.5 optimization didn't play 3.5, since building a broken character can be a fun activity in and of itself.

I'll add that TM's optimization in 5e is way, way more toned down than what he used to push during 3.5. If you compare his stuff/assumptions to that of, say, Pack Tactics and the Tabletop Builds crowd, it's night and day.

[Dalinar]

No beef here, not really. I'm annoyed by slow pacing in Youtube explainers, but that's an incredibly common problem in and out of the D&D sphere. I like d4's content, for instance, but I stopped watching it because a lot of it is explanation of how different abilities work that may or may not be all that relevant to the overall experience of playing that character, which I generally know but newer players might not. Basically every D&D youtuber I've encountered falls for this problem, and I can't really name one offhand even in other hobbies. Likewise I don't really care whether his assumptions are accurate because I don't know what his table is like. I have no complaints about him that matter.

What I am annoyed by is how frequently he gets attention here compared to other people. Why him? There are plenty of people who do good work. Is it that he straddles this space where he's just controversial enough to get people talking and just reasonable enough to be taken seriously? Or is there something else I'm missing?

[Unoriginal]

WhatÂ’s the issue with TM? What are these false ideas that heÂ’s propagated?

I came into dnd with 5e. IÂ’ve got no baggage from previous editions and IÂ’ve found TMs content solid for years. Maybe IÂ’m miss remembering the past when I was less experienced and didnÂ’t know what I was hearing was wrong.

I'm late to the party. Well, let's get going.

Treantmonk's work is not solid. His assumptions have little to no 5e basis, his maths/the reasoning behind his maths are questionable often enough to be a recurring problem, and as pointed out above in this thread he often seems to not understand or willfully misrepresent rules.

Most of his works I've seen have him start with the result he wants and then work backward to justify said result, which is a bad look on many, many levels.

Furthermore, as also pointed out by some in this thread, Treantmonk loves giving grandiose and grandiloquent titles to works that clearly can't cash the checks his mouth is writing. Sometime it's a build that doesn't do what is advertised, sometime it's something that is powerful but entirely obvious (ex: MPMoM Bugbear) presented as if it was a great discovery, sometime it's an interesting but not outlandish rule interaction that gets overhyped to the absurd, and sometime it's just him presenting his opinion as sacrosanct. But he'll make sure to tell people that it's 'just a name'/'make sure to ask your DM'/'my definitive statement isn't actually definitive', using the tactic common to the worst kind of pseudo-optimizers (as anyone who looked in the recent TBB thread can see) of poisoning the well then saying "it's ok, I told people they should only drink from the well if they want to".

He is also a wizard supremacist to a ridiculous degree. I've seen him sabotage his own builds because he couldn't stop himself from adding Wizard levels even if they added nothing to the build's goal/gimmick.

And all of this crystallized when he tried to push his God Wizard concept for 5e, despite it not working, having a well-poising name, etc.

And he succeeded, for a time. You may not remember it, but for *years* after he posted about it, you had some people advocated God Wizard ad nauseum in any threads that remotely talked about the topic. And it was when the subforum was vibrant with life rather than the mostly empty shell it is now.

So that's the beef. Treantmonk is not good at making 5e content. But he is good at speaking/writing with authority, which can make someone who's still learning 5e or who's biased toward what he's peddling believe he is correct.

That's why my advice is that Treantmonk is best avoided and ignored when you're learning 5e.

[Psyren]

What I am annoyed by is how frequently he gets attention here compared to other people. Why him? There are plenty of people who do good work. Is it that he straddles this space where he's just controversial enough to get people talking and just reasonable enough to be taken seriously? Or is there something else I'm missing?

I think it's a combination of:

1) This forum was/is one of the last active bastions of 3.5/PF1 on the web (heck, the titular comic is still based on 3.5 all these years later) and that's where he first achieved fame with stuff like his God Wizard guide, so he was a bit of a known name if not a minor celebrity around here even before 5e took off.

2) As one of the more popular (or at least longest-running) optimization channels, new players looking for 5e builds are likely to stumble across his content, and end up coming here with questions about it. Ergo, his name keeps coming up, and the usual low-stakes battle lines are redrawn.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's why my advice is that Treantmonk is best avoided and ignored when you're learning 5e.

I have no beef for or against Treantmonk himself. I've never read, heard, or watched anything he's made for any edition. But that's because I consume ~0 "build guides". Especially not via video, because I have a deep and abiding dislike of presenting information via video. Give me written text anyday.

That said, I'd say the above sentence is true for all "build advice". When learning the system, any system, the best thing you can do is pick it up, read the material yourself, and start building things. See what sings to you and what doesn't. In the extremely rare cases where optimization actually matters, consult with the people at your table. They'll not only have a better idea of what actually matters for that game, they'll be able to help you actually play, unlike someone in a video.

I've seen many people try to bring "internet" builds to the table (whether his or not I don't know). And in basically none of them have they been able to actually make them work.

[Rynjin]

Considering his audience is big enough to do what he does as a full time job I'm left questioning how "common" this so-called common criticism is, but to each his own.


I dunno if it is or not, I don't watch him. That's just a general rule of thumb I use for Youtube content; if I start feeling like a video is just dragging on I click off of it.

Moist Cr1tikal/Penguinz0 is a very popular figure who I've been watching since around 2012. A lot of his freeform discussion content, as much as I like him, falls under this category. Everybody makes bad content sometimes. =)

[Pex]

He rated it Green, and that was 4 years ago. How is that "one of the worst spells?" :smallconfused:

Take it up with him. He's the one who said he didn't like Banishment in the video I saw. I like the spell.

[Psyren]

Take it up with him. He's the one who said he didn't like Banishment in the video I saw. I like the spell.

I don't need to, he rated it Green (4 stars) in the video I saw. This one. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5RJvoUUSUc) So once again, I think you took a quote out of context / without nuance to prove a poor point.

[Witty Username]

Sorry for not responding to this sooner, I wanted some of this to mull in the brain a bit before responding, and reading long form and responding long form is difficult for me via phone.


You seem to be defending the baseline position, so I'm replying from that stance, I'm also on mobile so instead of breaking your reply up I'll just use titled points.
That’s a fair assessment, I don’t have strong opinions on the specific baseline Treantmonk uses, but I don’t have a problem with it as a point of reference. But it also gets into the thing, if you are against the idea of baselines at all, or is Treantmonk’s simply too high.


- What would I call bad? A dagger alone with no riders would be bad/low end meh damage. Vicious mockery is outright bad damage, d6 cantrips are etc. Modifiers do wonders for not just damage averages but also minimums. If you're adding a modifier then the size of a single die becomes mostly irrelevant in comparison.

So, from this, I cannot tell if dagger alone constitutes the modifier as a rider or not, as that difference does put cantrips like eldritch blast and firebolt as bad damage.
This does get low enough in terms of absolute numbers that the only terrible damage number would be 0, would I be correct on that?


- You are missing nuance. The baseline gives grades to damage. Under the grades and example he gives, Firebolt is not bad damage, it is TERRIBLE damage throughout all levels for at will. That is absurd. Conclusions drawn from this baseline are completely out of sync with realities of the game.

Moving this one forward, as there are separate points here, one that cantrip damage with firebolt, unmodified Eldrich blast, etc. are not bad or terrible damage, and that it is absurd to think so as it is disconnected to the game.


- I believe in grounding expectations in the game. Cantrip damage isn't great, but by what the game wants from you it isn't really that bad whilst deliberately being worse than weapons. The game doesn't not assume comparing PC options against each other like what TM essentially encourages. Doing so will always inflate things because no matter what the numbers are, the lower end will fall to the bottom as flawed optimization choices rise to the top. For example, if the top damage cantrips shifted to D12s, it wouldn't matter. The baseline just increases along with them.
This isn’t a one build vs other build consideration though, all classes have access to weapons, and weapons being superior to cantrips means it is better to not use cantrips. We are talking low level in our examples so this holds generally true, by 5th it gets more complicated, and 11th the consideration is gone as the third dice kills it for characters that don’t have extra attack or a way to incorporate it into a larger turn like Blade singer or Eldrich knight.
But this goes into this point,


He even then goes on to say that if all you have to offer damage wise is that amount of damage, then you should just do something else entirely. To paraphrase: 'the Help action might be more damage, Dodge, Dash towards the enemy, buff yourself' if you do a 1/3 to a 1/2 of the baseline damage.
Since this gets into Treantmonk’s opinions on cantrips, he fairly regularly recommends firebolt, for a few reasons, first for the reasons you outline later where firebolt has the ability to burn objects giving it utility uses, but also because that isn’t the only thing the caster is doing. Using cantrips to conserve spell slots while concentrating on a control spell is fine, because even low damage is still damage if you have nothing more pressing to do. Which is also why he goes into the help action, the dodge action etc. as they can have greater impact than the damage of a cantrip.
Being incensed by the idea that a help or dodge action could be more valuable than casting a cantrip to deal damage seems at least equally devoid of nuance. Damage doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it matters how effective it is in comparison to what can be done elsewhere, helping a rogue land their sneak attack or the paladin their smite, or using dodge to keep your concentration spells safe are all considerations that are warranted during play.
This is part of what I was trying to get at with the goblin example, damage only matters if it does one of two things:
1. Kills something
2. Makes it easier to kill something either by another character or on a future turn
With Goblins, it is safe to say for most characters, one shotting a goblin is definitely in the cards, a barbarian can do this with a minimum damage roll, and most martial characters can do this fairly comfortably with weapons. Heck, even the wizard can have an easier time of it depending on their dex/str considerations. Light crossbows are great options for wizards until 5th level.

This means that second value is insignificant, so we are left with the first, so a characters capacity to one shot a weak enemy is directly relevant to the effectiveness of the action, especially if there are non-damage actions that actually accomplish the second in an effective way, say the help action. Assuming that firebolt isn’t the best option your party has available, in which case, war with the army you have and whatnot.


- I don't like decimals? I'm assuming you're pulling this from other threads, I don't like decimals in general but dont mind the 0.5 in averages. What I detest is accuracy adjusted damage which yields pointless decimals and overall results which are detached from reality, such a DPR that is lower than the minimum from a hit.
Yeah, I am drawing from what I recall from other threads on that, I didn’t know the lower than minimum concern specifically. I personally don’t have that issue as the minimum damage for an attack is always going to be zero in my mind. And the whole point of the number is what the damage one is expected to deal over a long term amount of time.
I do apologize if I went for a joke and got a jab though, no shade meant by it, just want to make it look like I’ve been paying attention and trying to keep the conversation light.

[Rynjin]

Take it up with him. He's the one who said he didn't like Banishment in the video I saw. I like the spell.

You can think something is good but still not like it.

[Vorpalchicken]

I think what he said about Banishment was that it was *overrated* , not that it was bad. And he gave pretty good reasoning as I recall.

Regarding Warlock Hex+Agonizing for a baseline, that's something you can do with a two level dip, providing you have good Charisma. So perhaps the point is that if you can't accomplish that damage output with the investments you are making then why not throw in two measley Warlock levels and then return to your goofy weak build.

As far as Oned&d, I think he is the only one putting any thought into playtest videos. Sometimes the titles sound click-baity but he supports his theses solidly every time.

[Arkhios]

Baseline is what you have without any additional features etc. A "two level dip" is not "baseline". It involves two whole levels with deliberate choices to achieve something other than baseline.

In other words: Baseline would be Eldritch Blast at its core functionalities (charisma as the spellcasting ability, no charisma modifier to damage rolls, nor any other additives like Hex to increase the damage further). Even though Agonizing Blast is a common and very tempting choice as an Eldritch Invocation, the class doesn't force you to take it (or Eldritch Blast for that matter); it's always a choice you have to make.

Claiming this combination as baseline is simply wrong, because it is not.

[Bobthewizard]

I think he uses EB/AB/Hex as a baseline because it's easy to explain. You would get very similar numbers from other martial classes without feats.

Fighter - dueling, action surge, extra attacks, ASIs to STR or DEX
Paladin - dueling, smite, extra attack, ASIs to STR
Ranger - hunters mark, archery, extra attack, ASIs to DEX

But those are all more variable in their uses per day, and their subclasses affect that damage output more. So I like the choice of warlock, even if constant hex is not how I play my warlocks. It's a good communication tool for giving a general idea of what is good but not great damage for a damage-dealing character.

Other cantrips, even firebolt, are terrible damage. Sometimes that terrible damage is still worthwhile, but you aren't showing up a martial character with your cantrips. You probably don't want to build a character where your primary goal is to cast firebolt each round. It's a fine thing to do if you are concentrating on a different spell or just trying to conserve resources in what seems like an easier fight, but you are clearly behind other PCs average damage when you do that for a round, so maybe dodge or help is a better use of your action.

[Mastikator]

Baseline is what you have without any additional features etc. A "two level dip" is not "baseline". It involves two whole levels with deliberate choices to achieve something other than baseline.

In other words: Baseline would be Eldritch Blast at its core functionalities (charisma as the spellcasting ability, no charisma modifier to damage rolls, nor any other additives like Hex to increase the damage further). Even though Agonizing Blast is a common and very tempting choice as an Eldritch Invocation, the class doesn't force you to take it (or Eldritch Blast for that matter); it's always a choice you have to make.

Claiming this combination as baseline is simply wrong, because it is not.

Any baseline is always going to be arbitrary. Changing it to "just eldritch blast" will just change what "level of above baseline is considered good at will DPR". You could set the baseline to some fixed number per level. It's never going to not be arbitrary and based on assumptions that may or may not be possible at any given table.

[Unoriginal]

I think he uses EB/AB/Hex as a baseline because it's easy to explain.

Easily explaining something that is wrong is not a good thing.

If one want to further knowledge, they have to explain what is correct, even if it is difficult. Especially if it's difficult, some would say.


You would get very similar numbers from other martial classes without feats.


But Treantmonk would then have to admit that martials can easily be decent. Which he won't do.



Other cantrips, even firebolt, are terrible damage. Sometimes that terrible damage is still worthwhile, but you aren't showing up a martial character with your cantrips.

Which is another thing that Treantmonk doesn't want to make public knowledge.


Any baseline is always going to be arbitrary. Changing it to "just eldritch blast" will just change what "level of above baseline is considered good at will DPR". You could set the baseline to some fixed number per level. It's never going to not be arbitrary and based on assumptions that may or may not be possible at any given table.

The definition of what a baseline is is not arbitrary (or rather, it's as arbitrary as any other word).

Treantmonk's Eldritch Blast + invocation + Hex numbers are not baseline because they do not meet the definition of baseline.

[Bobthewizard]

Easily explaining something that is wrong is not a good thing.

Treantmonk's Eldritch Blast + invocation + Hex numbers are not baseline because they do not meet the definition of baseline.

It's a communication tool. For his videos, he defines baseline as EB/AB/Hex. It doesn't have to be perfect. It just needs to be simple and easy to compare to other things.

What would you use for baseline damage? Do you have something else that is as simple and easy to quickly explain?

[Rynjin]

The definition of what a baseline is is not arbitrary (or rather, it's as arbitrary as any other word).

Treantmonk's Eldritch Blast + invocation + Hex numbers are not baseline because they do not meet the definition of baseline.

It meets the literal definition of baseline.

"A minimum or starting point used for comparisons."

If the baseline is set at being able to deal roughly 13 damage per turn, that is what the baseline is set at. Baselines are always set by the person doing the comparison.

[Willowhelm]

I'm late to the party. Well, let's get going.

Treantmonk's work is not solid. His assumptions have little to no 5e basis, his maths/the reasoning behind his maths are questionable often enough to be a recurring problem, and as pointed out above in this thread he often seems to not understand or willfully misrepresent rules.

<snip>.

That's why my advice is that Treantmonk is best avoided and ignored when you're learning 5e.

You’ve used a lot of words to say what you already said in one sentence. Do you have some examples? Some objective facts about specific advice that is bad or wrong? Rules errors?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It's a communication tool. For his videos, he defines baseline as EB/AB/Hex. It doesn't have to be perfect. It just needs to be simple and easy to compare to other things.

What would you use for baseline damage? Do you have something else that is as simple and easy to quickly explain?

Personally, light crossbow + ability mod.


Eldritch blast has an above-average damage die.
Eldritch blast is a ranged option.
Agonizing Blast requires being level 2 in warlock and spending an invocation.
Force is the best damage type in 5E.
Hex requires spending a resources then protecting the investment.
Eldritch blast and Agonizing Blast are class-specific options.


A light crossbow is competitive on range, is usable from level 1, requires no special proficiencies, has a standard damage type and die, consumes ammunition but does not require spell slots or other major resources, is usable at-will and does not place any defensive burden on the user, and uses a secondary or tertiary ability mod for most users.

This is a lower benchmark than Agonizing eldritch blast plus hex, but I think it's a better approximation of resource-free damage.

[Mastikator]

The definition of what a baseline is is not arbitrary (or rather, it's as arbitrary as any other word).

Treantmonk's Eldritch Blast + invocation + Hex numbers are not baseline because they do not meet the definition of baseline.

It fits the literal definition of a baseline for a DPR focused character. But he could just as easily picked a champion with a greatsword, 16 str at level 1 and GWF style, 18 at 4, 20 at 6, GWM at 8. That's just a vanilla DPR fighter. And that fighter will drastically out-DRP a wizard flinging firebolts at every level.

Sure you could say that the wizard with firebolt is the baseline, and the fighter is then well above the baseline, and all you would need to change is "if you're not 80%* above baseline then your character is not a DPR focused character".

It is arbitrary, and a very weird thing to beef with TM with.

*the source of my number is I made it up.

[Unoriginal]

It's a communication tool.

Communicating a falsehood is misinformation. Plain and simple.


It doesn't have to be perfect.

It has to fit the definition of what a baseline is.



What would you use for baseline damage? Do you have something else that is as simple and easy to quickly explain?

Baseline damage is the damage that is available to a character without making any other choices or spending any other ressources beside taking the option to do that damage.

For a Warlock with Eldritch Blast, that means Eldritch Blast's damage, no invocation, no additional spell, no subclass feature boosting it.


Also, Treantmonk's explanation only seems simple and easy to quickly explain because he handwaves all the fiddly and inconvenient bits away.


It fits the literal definition of a baseline for a DPR focused character.

No, it isn't. That is not what the literal definition of a baseline is.



But he could just as easily picked a champion with a greatsword, 16 str at level 1 and GWF style, 18 at 4, 20 at 6, GWM at 8. That's just a vanilla DPR fighter. And that fighter will drastically out-DRP a wizard flinging firebolts at every level.

Two things here:

1) if he had done that, it would STILL not be a baseline, since it includes factors beyond the baseline (a subclass and a feat, for starter).

2) He could have, but he didn't, because the man would rather sabotage his own builds rather than give credit to a Fighter.




It is arbitrary, and a very weird thing to beef with TM with.


Let me clarify something here:

The problem isn't that Treantmonk defined X amount of damage as the benchmark for DPR characters to be acceptable.

The problem is that he is calling it baseline when it is not.


If Treantmonk said "if your build is not making as much damage as a Warlock using Eldritch Blast + AB + Hex, it's not a good DPR IMO", then I would respectfully disagree with him.

But to claim something as a baseline when it doesn't meet the criteria is being factually incorrect, and propagating that misconception is actively making things worse for people who wish to know facts about the game.

EDIT:

Let's look at the definition of baseline as "a minimum or starting point used for comparisons". EB + AB + Hex is a *three steps* process at least (again, if you ignore the fiddly and inconvenient parts), so by definition it is not a starting point, and it is not a minimum either.

[KorvinStarmast]

A light crossbow is competitive on range, is usable from level 1, requires no special proficiencies, has a standard damage type and die, consumes ammunition but does not require spell slots or other major resources, is usable at-will and does not place any defensive burden on the user, and uses a secondary or tertiary ability mod for most users.

This is a lower benchmark than Agonizing eldritch blast plus hex, but I think it's a better approximation of resource-free damage. *golf clap* And it's a simple weapon that every class can use (except maybe Druids?)
Druids have a cantrip that does acid damage 1d10.

[Psyren]

It fits the literal definition of a baseline for a DPR focused character. But he could just as easily picked a champion with a greatsword, 16 str at level 1 and GWF style, 18 at 4, 20 at 6, GWM at 8. That's just a vanilla DPR fighter. And that fighter will drastically out-DRP a wizard flinging firebolts at every level.

Sure you could say that the wizard with firebolt is the baseline, and the fighter is then well above the baseline, and all you would need to change is "if you're not 80%* above baseline then your character is not a DPR focused character".

It is arbitrary, and a very weird thing to beef with TM with.

*the source of my number is I made it up.


It meets the literal definition of baseline.

"A minimum or starting point used for comparisons."

If the baseline is set at being able to deal roughly 13 damage per turn, that is what the baseline is set at. Baselines are always set by the person doing the comparison.

^ Correct.

All it is is a tool that can be used to try and discuss builds while minimizing table variation; any judgments based on that (e.g. 50% above {tool} is "good," 70% above {tool} is "great") should be taken with a grain of salt and measured against your own group's optimization level. Because what might be "okay" damage for his table might be great for your yours, and what might be "great" damage for his table might be entirely too much for your own groups to have fun. Or even vice-versa.


You’ve used a lot of words to say what you already said in one sentence. Do you have some examples? Some objective facts about specific advice that is bad or wrong? Rules errors?

Sorry, I have to ask - do you have a specific goal in mind with this thread? By now you should realize that Unoriginal hates TM (or at least his content) and isn't likely to budge on that opinion no matter which tack you try. You've gotten feedback from others that like him, and most posters here don't care that much either way; you've got what you need to form your own opinion on the guy and you seem willing to do so. You can continue to engage of course, but I don't see this going anywhere it hasn't already gone even if these requested citations are able to be provided without cherry-picking.

[Unoriginal]

You’ve used a lot of words to say what you already said in one sentence.

Yes, I went from the general to the specific.



Do you have some examples? Some objective facts about specific advice that is bad or wrong? Rules errors?

Outside of the God Wizard farce I already mentioned? This example of his work jumps to mind:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeTYXJNzbqM

EDIT:

Or, maybe this thread about the above video would be better to get the problems without having to go through 50 minutes:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?585659-Character-Build-The-Eternal-Cockroach

[Damon_Tor]

The problem is that he is calling it baseline when it is not

So it's just semantics? If he used the term "benchmark" instead of "baseline" you wouldn't take issue?

That seems really nitpicky to me.

[Mastikator]

Let me clarify something here:

The problem isn't that Treantmonk defined X amount of damage as the benchmark for DPR characters to be acceptable.

The problem is that he is calling it baseline when it is not.


If Treantmonk said "if your build is not making as much damage as a Warlock using Eldritch Blast + AB + Hex, it's not a good DPR IMO", then I would respectfully disagree with him.

But to claim something as a baseline when it doesn't meet the criteria is being factually incorrect, and propagating that misconception is actively making things worse for people who wish to know facts about the game.

EDIT:

Let's look at the definition of baseline as "a minimum or starting point used for comparisons". EB + AB + Hex is a *three steps* process at least (again, if you ignore the fiddly and inconvenient parts), so by definition it is not a starting point, and it is not a minimum either.
He always explains how he calculates his baseline, says it's just a thing he uses for consistency, and that you can calculate whatever baseline you want.

This thread is so wild, like all he's saying is "this is what I expect from a DPR build based on an extremely simple DPR build, I use it for consistency, you can make your own baseline, here's the math I use" and then we have 3 pages of "How dare he have expectations on what a DPR build is!!!!"

Honestly, any baseline you can invent, I can take your criticism of TM and levy it at you. The baseline is by definition arbitrary. It's like complaining that a meter is too long or short "how dare they define a meter at this length and then declare that a foot is much shorter, those bastards!!"

[Unoriginal]

So it's just semantics? If he used the term "benchmark" instead of "baseline" you wouldn't take issue?


I wouldn't take issue with the term "benchmark" because it would be the correct term.



That seems really nitpicky to me.

Words have meanings.

A nitpick would be to object calling Batman "a brawler" because "he's a formally trained martial artist". It's nitpicky because while the term "brawler" can have the connotation that is at odd with formal martial art training, it's a) a connotation and an inherent antonyme b) Batman is known for participating in what can be qualified as "brawls".

Using the term "baseline" to mean "benchmark" is like saying that Batman is Japanese because he lived in Japan while being trained in martial arts. It's factually incorrect.

[shadowseve]

Wow.. I had no idea my thread about clerics vs wizards and who’s better at the whole undead lord thing was gonna spawn a huge thread on TM. Sooooo in people’s opinion, who are the best people to listen to when learning. So far I’ve learned wizards are better than clerics at necromancy, moon Druid’s are the most popular Druids (and for good reason), assassin rogue is horrible, and twilight domain is viewed as op.

[Rynjin]

I wouldn't take issue with the term "benchmark" because it would be the correct term.



Words have meanings.


Indeed they do, hence why I posted the meaning of the word baseline upthread, given that you seem to have consistently misunderstood what it means.

[Dr.Samurai]

Wow.. I had no idea my thread about clerics vs wizards and who’s better at the whole undead lord thing was gonna spawn a huge thread on TM. Sooooo in people’s opinion, who are the best people to listen to when learning. So far I’ve learned wizards are better than clerics at necromancy, moon Druid’s are the most popular Druids (and for good reason), assassin rogue is horrible, and twilight domain is viewed as op.
I think more important than "who" to listen to, is to understand that EVERYTHING they say is premised on how they and their players run the game at their table, and that not everything they say will be applicable to your own experiences and playgroup.

Just think about how the online commentary is sometimes at odds with the people that DESIGNED THE GAME, and you can see how different perspectives, interpretations, rulings, and interests can change things from one table to another.

So listen to anyone that you find interesting and helpful. But always know that their commentary has baked in assumptions about how to run and play the game.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

He always explains how he calculates his baseline, says it's just a thing he uses for consistency, and that you can calculate whatever baseline you want.

This thread is so wild, like all he's saying is "this is what I expect from a DPR build based on an extremely simple DPR build, I use it for consistency, you can make your own baseline, here's the math I use" and then we have 3 pages of "How dare he have expectations on what a DPR build is!!!!"

Honestly, any baseline you can invent, I can take your criticism of TM and levy it at you. The baseline is by definition arbitrary. It's like complaining that a meter is too long or short "how dare they define a meter at this length and then declare that a foot is much shorter, those bastards!!"

I've never watched a 5E video in my life and I probably never will. I'm simply responding to benchmark selection. In my view, the baseline should be resource-free, at-will and widely available. Taking the Attack action with a simple weapon is comparable to Dodge or Help in a way that casting a cantrip that's supported by an invocation and a spell that requires concentration and a prep round and Bonus Action consumption isn't.

A benchmark is different. It's an evaluation tool that helps sort options into Good and Not-Good. I have no opinion on whether Agonizing eldritch blast plus hex is an acceptable benchmark for a character that exists to provide Damage Per Round.

Basically, it's a definitional issue.

[Unoriginal]

He always explains how he calculates his baseline

Once again, it is NOT a baseline.


and that you can calculate whatever baseline you want.

The fact that he always says that is the *problem*. You *cannot* calculate whatever baseline you want.

THAT is the misinformation I'm speaking about.


" and then we have 3 pages of "How dare he have expectations on what a DPR build is!!!!"

Literally no one said that or anything similar.



Honestly, any baseline you can invent

I cannot invent a baseline.

You cannot invent a baseline.

Treantmonk cannot invent a baseline.

No one can invent a baseline.



Sooooo in people’s opinion, who are the best people to listen to when learning.

Yourself.

Other people's points of views are useful, but ultimately it is you who knows how you have fun, and having fun is the end goal.

If you want a learning tool, then I would say that going to a forum and asking questions as they come is much, much better than to try following a guide, because the guide's writer can only speak for their situation and can't cover all.


Indeed they do, hence why I posted the meaning of the word baseline upthread, given that you seem to have consistently misunderstood what it means.



Let's look at the definition of baseline as "a minimum or starting point used for comparisons". EB + AB + Hex is a *three steps* process at least (again, if you ignore the fiddly and inconvenient parts), so by definition it is not a starting point, and it is not a minimum either.

[Mastikator]

I've never watched a 5E video in my life and I probably never will. I'm simply responding to benchmark selection. In my view, the baseline should be resource-free, at-will and widely available. Taking the Attack action with a simple weapon is comparable to Dodge or Help in a way that casting a cantrip that's supported by an invocation and a spell that requires concentration and a prep round and Bonus Action consumption isn't.

A benchmark is different. It's an evaluation tool that helps sort options into Good and Not-Good. I have no opinion on whether Agonizing eldritch blast plus hex is an acceptable benchmark for a character that exists to provide Damage Per Round.

Basically, it's a definitional issue.

Can you qualify what you mean by "at will" and "widely available"? Because I've run ranged fighters who ran out of arrows. And I've played melee characters that were not able to get within melee range. So your "attack action" falls short in my experience, and thus I levy all of this threads criticism at your baseline.

(in reality I think it's a fine baseline to set, just as I do for EB and as I would for any consistent and "vanilla" option)

[Unoriginal]

Can you qualify what you mean by "at will" and "widely available"? Because I've run ranged fighters who ran out of arrows. And I've played melee characters that were not able to get within melee range. So your "attack action" falls short in my experience, and thus I levy all of this threads criticism at your baseline.

(in reality I think it's a fine baseline to set, just as I do for EB and as I would for any consistent and "vanilla" option)

How likely the attack is to happen successfully does not factor in a baseline damage calculation. Baseline damage is only about the damage itself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think my work has rather conclusively shown (as far as I'm concerned) that the system's baseline[1] for damage is

a) not based on individual characters, but on the group[2]
b) trivially easy to satisfy. A party of two dual-wielding rogues and then two characters who do no DPR at all satisfy it. As does a Champion fighter (GS), shortbow rogue, a wizard casting firebolt, and a cleric casting sacred flame.
c) if you must use an individual character as a reference point (which is is different than a baseline), the best one to use is the shortbow rogue who gets Sneak Attack every turn and/or has advantage enough to make up for the times when he can't sneak attack. That's my "Rogue Equivalent Damage" reference.

The baseline is somewhere around 2.5 RED. For reference, EB+AB is at 0.9 RED (averaged over all the levels) and EB+AB+100% hex is ~1.2 RED. Which is where a GS-wielding (GWF) champion without action surge lands.

[1] ie the number the system was mathed-out around. Based on monster HP. Which is the only one that matters, since all other synthetic benchmarks are vulnerable to VW-style (or Intel, or any number of other groups) manipulation. The number where falling below this means you're going to have a hard time from the system's perspective

[2] which makes sense, as D&D is fundamentally a group game. The fundamental unit of D&D is the party, not the individual. Similarly, monster DPR is scaled around the party's HP pool and defenses, not individuals.

[Damon_Tor]

I wouldn't take issue with the term "benchmark" because it would be the correct term.

Words have meanings.

So, by definition, semantics. I agree you are factually correct about his use of terms if he's calling it a baseline instead of a benchmark. However, I don't think you've justified your stance that his doing so is somehow bad for the hobby generally or new players specifically. It's a very minor error which is unlikely to confuse anyone.

[Unoriginal]

It's a very minor error which is unlikely to confuse anyone.

The fact that several people in this very thread are perpetuating that error is evidence enough that your assessment does not match what is happening, as far as I'm concerned.

[Damon_Tor]

The fact that several people in this very thread are perpetuating that error is evidence enough that your assessment does not match what is happening, as far as I'm concerned.

It's evidence that the word "baseline" is commonly misused. But I don't think there's any evidence that anyone is under the impression that EB+AB+hex is actually a literal baseline. It's a semantic error that perpetuates a semantic error, but insofar as I can tell no actual miscommunication has occurred.

[Willowhelm]

Sorry, I have to ask - do you have a specific goal in mind with this thread? By now you should realize that Unoriginal hates TM (or at least his content) and isn't likely to budge on that opinion no matter which tack you try. You've gotten feedback from others that like him, and most posters here don't care that much either way; you've got what you need to form your own opinion on the guy and you seem willing to do so. You can continue to engage of course, but I don't see this going anywhere it hasn't already gone even if these requested citations are able to be provided without cherry-picking.

I was hoping for some facts. Like his interpretation of rules is wrong because he says x and this has been clarified to be y.

Something that demonstrated that learning from his materials was a bad choice, as opposed to just not to someone’s taste.

I find he is clear on his assumptions, clear on his methods, clear on the limitations, his goals, his approach, his biases…

All in all a good resource. Not something harmful or wrongheaded and leading people down a bad path.

Maybe it is because I actually watch his videos (and read his guides early on when they were relevant) rather than going by second hand interpretations… but I was open to the idea I was actually wrong and misremembering.

That “eternal cockroach” vid linked upthread was actually instrumental in me making my first ever PC and… it played exactly as presented for me. YMMV I guess.

Certainly now, several years and hundreds of hours of play later, I know what I value differently to him for my PCs and what I enjoy at how my tables play style differs from his etc… but none of that is a flaw in what he presents.

[Bobthewizard]

I wouldn't take issue with the term "benchmark" because it would be the correct term.

Merriam Webster says baseline can be "a starting point", or "a usually initial set of critical observations or data used for comparison or a control"

It defines benchmark as "something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged", or "a point of reference from which measurements may be made"

Either word is fine here. There is going to be regional variation in the English language as to which is more commonly used. Where I live, benchmark would be for a more formal business setting, but I would be more likely to use baseline if having a conversation with friends, and benchmark would sound weird in that situation.

[Psyren]

I find he is clear on his assumptions, clear on his methods, clear on the limitations, his goals, his approach, his biases…

All in all a good resource. Not something harmful or wrongheaded and leading people down a bad path.

Maybe it is because I actually watch his videos (and read his guides early on when they were relevant) rather than going by second hand interpretations… but I was open to the idea I was actually wrong and misremembering.

That “eternal cockroach” vid linked upthread was actually instrumental in me making my first ever PC and… it played exactly as presented for me. YMMV I guess.

Well, there you have it then.

I myself usually tweak his builds rather than playing them totally as written, but I still find them valuable as a starting point.


It's evidence that the word "baseline" is commonly misused. But I don't think there's any evidence that anyone is under the impression that EB+AB+hex is actually a literal baseline. It's a semantic error that perpetuates a semantic error, but insofar as I can tell no actual miscommunication has occurred.

The more I see people rending their garments over the word "baseline" the more I'm going to keep using it. The label itself is literally the least important thing about it.


Merriam Webster says baseline can be "a starting point", or "a usually initial set of critical observations or data used for comparison or a control"

It defines benchmark as "something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged", or "a point of reference from which measurements may be made"

Either word is fine here. There is going to be regional variation in the English language as to which is more commonly used. Where I live, benchmark would be for a more formal business setting, but I would be more likely to use baseline if having a conversation with friends.

Also this.

[Rynjin]

Merriam Webster says baseline can be "a starting point", or "a usually initial set of critical observations or data used for comparison or a control"

It defines benchmark as "something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged", or "a point of reference from which measurements may be made"

Either word is fine here. There is going to be regional variation in the English language as to which is more commonly used. Where I live, benchmark would be for a more formal business setting, but I would be more likely to use baseline if having a conversation with friends, and benchmark would sound weird in that situation.

Precisely. Let's say someone is trying to do some kind of exercise study. They take the pulse of 100 people to determine a baseline heartrate for the group. During the study they look for deviations.

This baseline will vary by person, but serves as the "minimum" for each individual.

This is perfectly fine so long as the baseline is kept consistent; i.e. you're not using Test Subject B's baseline heartrate to measure Test Subject A's performance.

If TM says "13 is my baseline DPR I expect a damage focused character to be able to do at 3rd level" that is a perfectly valid statement. The baseline is the minimum he's willing to consider as "good".

[Unoriginal]

It's evidence that the word "baseline" is commonly misused. But I don't think there's any evidence that anyone is under the impression that EB+AB+hex is actually a literal baseline. It's a semantic error that perpetuates a semantic error, but insofar as I can tell no actual miscommunication has occurred.

Including the three people (at least) who looked up the literal definition and still say that Treantmonk is correct?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Can you qualify what you mean by "at will" and "widely available"? Because I've run ranged fighters who ran out of arrows. And I've played melee characters that were not able to get within melee range. So your "attack action" falls short in my experience, and thus I levy all of this threads criticism at your baseline.

(in reality I think it's a fine baseline to set, just as I do for EB and as I would for any consistent and "vanilla" option)

At-will: available with no or minimal resource expenditure absent special circumstances.

While it's possible to play as a ranged fighter who runs out of arrows, I think that's atypical for most characters, encounters and campaigns. Most characters will carry more than one encounter's worth of arrows, and most players will take a moment to salvage arrows after combat. Most encounters will not last long enough for a character to go through 20 arrows -- certainly there aren't any encounters of that length in most published material. And most campaigns will give characters a chance to refill their ammo frequently enough to continue to shoot. This factor is campaign-dependent. In a typical running of Storm King's Thunder, arrow usage is trivial. In the initial escape of Out of the Abyss, it's not, and if I knew the game in question was going to involve gritty survival rules in a low-resource-mid-magic environment I'd propose a different baseline to match that environment. Likewise, eldritch blast is a horrible baseline in a Dark Sun game. My baseline assumptions are based on what's published in official 5E materials and may or may not match a given table; I think that's true for nearly all discussions of D&D. Tables vary widely, we basically work in the generic fantasy environment presented by the PHB unless otherwise indicated.

Widely available: Light crossbows aren't setting- or region-specific. They're in the PHB's equipment section. They're simple weapons, and only Druids aren't proficient with them. They're pretty cheap, too. The investment required to shoot a crossbow, for most classes, is 30gp or less. There aren't any class features or level requirements involved, either.

The opposite of the widely-available light crossbow might be proposing as your baseline a character attacking with a Double-Bladed Scimitar and the Great Weapon Fighting style. The DBS is a setting-, race-, and region-specific weapon. It requires a supplemental book. It requires DM approval and a variant racial feature for proficiency. It's quite expensive. And the build requires hitting a specific level point in a specific kind of class. That might make a good benchmark, but it's not a great baseline.

[Rynjin]

Including the three people (at least) who looked up the literal definition and still say that Treantmonk is correct?

Fascinatingly, words can have more than one definition and usage.

What would you prefer? Setting the damage dealt to the literal "baseline" (0 damage) is utterly meaningless, but feel free to do so in your own comparisons if you wish.

[Psyren]

Fascinatingly, words can have more than one definition and usage.

What would you prefer? Setting the damage dealt to the literal "baseline" (0 damage) is utterly meaningless, but feel free to do so in your own comparisons if you wish.

My baseline is 1 DPR. Therefore 3400% above baseline is okay damage! That's much easier to follow.

[Rynjin]

My baseline is 1 DPR. Therefore 3400% above baseline is okay damage! That's much easier to follow.

Lol.

This actually brings up a question I had, what IS the actual minimum damage in 5e? Is it 1 or is it 0?

In 3.PF, the "minimum damage" is 1 NONLETHAL damage, barring stuff like Damage Reduction; if an attack would deal 0 damage before DR it just dealt a point of nonlethal.

But 5e has neither nonlethal damage nor oldschool DR, so can damage numbers even go to 0? I.e. is there a rule preventing somebody who deals like a d4-4 from hitting true 0 damage?

[Psyren]

Per Sage Advice it is indeed possible to do zero damage, but never negative damage.

Source (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA141)

[Rynjin]

Cool, thanks!

[KorvinStarmast]

So it's just semantics? No. It's misinformation through sloppiness. (But to be clear, I presume no malintent by TM).

I was hoping for some facts. I find that hard to believe, based on how your Opening post was presented. If that was your intention, then perhaps next time spend more and effort time crafting a better opening post to better reflect your intent.
That feedback offered, I am glad that you have found some of TM's stuff helpful. That's goodness.

At-will: available with no or minimal resource expenditure absent special circumstances.

While it's possible to play as a ranged fighter who runs out of arrows, I think that's atypical for most characters, encounters and campaigns. The assertion that was tossed at you, which boils down to "a ranged fighter can be expected to be too dim to carry extra bolts or the DM never allows recovery of bolts" (about half are recoverable one takes the general guidance in PHB as the standard) has low to no credibility. Edge cases do not make for good modeling, which is IMO part of why the EB _ AB_Hex is a poor metric.

If during one particular combat/adventure day someone once ran out of arrows or bolts, that anecdote (while amusing in its own right) does not impinge on your reasonable baseline / benchmark for damage.
Here's another edge case. With EB, and repelling blast, I can do 10d6 damage to the hill giant if I knock him off of the 100' cliff. (And I have done that). It's not useful to this discussion in terms of the DPR comparisons.

[Pex]

I don't need to, he rated it Green (4 stars) in the video I saw. This one. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5RJvoUUSUc) So once again, I think you took a quote out of context / without nuance to prove a poor point.

That's not the video I'm talking about. The one I saw was earlier, so hooray for him if he changed his mind, but even here he says he's not a fan of spells that do nothing if the monster makes the save which is what I said in the first place. I stand by my statement.

[Psyren]

Cool, thanks!

np!


That's not the video I'm talking about. The one I saw was earlier, so hooray for him if he changed his mind, but even here he says he's not a fan of spells that do nothing if the monster makes the save which is what I said in the first place. I stand by my statement.

Without knowing which video you're referring to for a shred of context I can't opine further then. I stand by my statement as well.

[Willowhelm]

What’s the issue with TM? What are these false ideas that he’s propagated?

I came into dnd with 5e. I’ve got no baggage from previous editions and I’ve found TMs content solid for years. Maybe I’m miss remembering the past when I was less experienced and didn’t know what I was hearing was wrong.



I find that hard to believe, based on how your Opening post was presented. If that was your intention, then perhaps next time spend more and effort time crafting a better opening post to better reflect your intent.


I asked for the examples of the false ideas (of rules and builds) that unoriginal was referring to.

How is it hard to believe that i was looking for facts about things that were wrong?!

[Zuras]

Really not understanding why someone would disagree with TM’s rating EB/AB+Hex as baseline acceptable damage.

Chucking Firebolts isn’t necessarily a waste of an action, but it’s not what you should be doing in any combat that’s actually challenging the party.

You can quibble about where you should draw the line, but acceptable damage for a combatant should be somewhere between Rogue Equivalent Damage and minimally optimized Warlock damage. If you can’t manage at least that, you should be contributing in another method besides damage if you’re calling your build optimized.

[Rynjin]

Chucking Firebolts isn’t necessarily a waste of an action, but it’s not what you should be doing in any combat that’s actually challenging the party. You can quibble about where you should draw the line, but acceptable damage for a combatant should be somewhere between Rogue Equivalent Damage and minimally optimized Warlock damage. If you can’t manage at least that, you should be contributing in another method besides damage if you’re calling your build optimized.

And the thing is, they're essentially the same thing.

Assume a Warlock with 16 Cha and a Rogue with 16 Dex. They are both 3rd level.

Eldritch Blast (d10)+Hex(1d6)+3 = 5.5+3.5+3 = 12 damage.
Rapier (1d8)+Sneak Attack(2d6)+3 = 4.5+7+3 = 14.5 damage

It's weird to complain about Hexblast as being a "bad baseline" for damage when it's only minimally different (and slightly LOWER) compared to a Rogue that picks the biggest damage die weapon they can sling and Sneak Attack with. The number here is what matters, not the actual thing being used.

[KorvinStarmast]

Really not understanding why someone would disagree with TM’s rating EB/AB+Hex as baseline acceptable damage.
The word "acceptable" is the problem some folks have.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And the thing is, they're essentially the same thing.

Assume a Warlock with 16 Cha and a Rogue with 16 Dex. They are both 3rd level.

Eldritch Blast (d10)+Hex(1d6)+3 = 5.5+3.5+3 = 12 damage.
Rapier (1d8)+Sneak Attack(2d6)+3 = 4.5+7+3 = 14.5 damage

It's weird to complain about Hexblast as being a "bad baseline" for damage when it's only minimally different (and slightly LOWER) compared to a Rogue that picks the biggest damage die weapon they can sling and Sneak Attack with. The number here is what matters, not the actual thing being used.

My problems with it (EB+AB+Hex) as a baseline are twofold--

1. It's not at will. It's actually a massive resource expenditure and requires concentration.
2. It scales horribly. By that I don't mean the values, but that it's utterly flat except for 4-5 points where it jumps by a lot. That's a horrible baseline for what should be a smooth curve (or set of piecewise continuous curves). Monster HP scales continuously. So at low levels in the tier, the "benchmark" overshoots a lot. By high levels in the tier, it undershoots a lot.
3 (bonus). It has nothing to do with how the system was designed. It's an entirely synthetic benchmark, used not to evaluate and rescale, but to condemn and discard as "bad". That is, it helps no one do anything except be judgmental.

[Mastikator]

2. It scales horribly. By that I don't mean the values, but that it's utterly flat except for 4-5 points where it jumps by a lot. That's a horrible baseline for what should be a smooth curve (or set of piecewise continuous curves). Monster HP scales continuously. So at low levels in the tier, the "benchmark" overshoots a lot. By high levels in the tier, it undershoots a lot.
3 (bonus). It has nothing to do with how the system was designed. It's an entirely synthetic benchmark, used not to evaluate and rescale, but to condemn and discard as "bad". That is, it helps no one do anything except be judgmental.

This is not true. Martials double their damage at level 5. Rogues, with their smooth curve, are the exception. A baseline that takes these massive jumps in damage that exist in the base, vanilla, PHB only game into consideration is a better baseline than an outliner like the rogue.

Though, rogue is still a fine baseline for an optimal character.

[Rynjin]

My problems with it (EB+AB+Hex) as a baseline are twofold--

1. It's not at will. It's actually a massive resource expenditure and requires concentration.
2. It scales horribly. By that I don't mean the values, but that it's utterly flat except for 4-5 points where it jumps by a lot. That's a horrible baseline for what should be a smooth curve (or set of piecewise continuous curves). Monster HP scales continuously. So at low levels in the tier, the "benchmark" overshoots a lot. By high levels in the tier, it undershoots a lot.
3 (bonus). It has nothing to do with how the system was designed. It's an entirely synthetic benchmark, used not to evaluate and rescale, but to condemn and discard as "bad". That is, it helps no one do anything except be judgmental.

1.) Debatable, given how Warlock spell recharges work.
2.) This is how a LOT of damage scales in 5e though. Rogue is really the ONLY class that just incrementally gets +3 damage every two levels like that. If you're tracking a Fighter instead their damage also jumps massively every 5 levels and is mostly stagnant in between.
3.) Meh. I'm not really in the mood for the "optimization bad" argument today.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1.) Debatable, given how Warlock spell recharges work.
2.) This is how a LOT of damage scales in 5e though. Rogue is really the ONLY class that just incrementally gets +3 damage every two levels like that. If you're tracking a Fighter instead their damage also jumps massively every 5 levels and is mostly stagnant in between.
3.) Meh. I'm not really in the mood for the "optimization bad" argument today.

1. Which is it, do warlocks get short rests whenever they want, or do they never get them? And concentration is a huge cost in and of itself.

2. Right. Which is why fighters are bad as baselines too. The whole point of a baseline reference is to have nice steady scaling that mimics the monsters you'd be fighting. Otherwise you get really skewed, variable results just by tweaking a few parameters.

3. I'm not saying optimization is bad. I'm saying that the supposed benchmark is designed to put a thumb on the scale so TM can push his established, very fixed opinion as fact. And that's, to me, a bad thing. Because it removes any point to having a benchmark at all. It's chosen to make his existing favorites look good and those he dislikes look bad.

[Unoriginal]

Really not understanding why someone would disagree with TM’s rating EB/AB+Hex as baseline acceptable damage.


The word "acceptable" is the problem some folks have.

The word "baseline" is the problem.

Even setting aside how the term "baseline" does not actually refers to "this is the expected/acceptable amount of X", saying it's "baseline" implies that it's an always-on thing. Which Hex isn't.

Treantmonk's Warlock fails to meet their own """baseline"""" regularly. For example, if they have to attack anyone but the Hexed creature.



3. I'm not saying optimization is bad. I'm saying that the supposed benchmark is designed to put a thumb on the scale so TM can push his established, very fixed opinion as fact. And that's, to me, a bad thing. Because it removes any point to having a benchmark at all. It's chosen to make his existing favorites look good and those he dislikes look bad.

Exactly.

[JNAProductions]

As I mentioned earlier, I think Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast is a fine baseline, with 16 Cha at level 1, 18 at 4, and 20 at 8.
It's Hex that's the sticky bit. It's not at-will. It requires concentration. It's single target at any given moment. And it competes for one of the Warlock's two slots for a bulk of their career.

[Zuras]

The word "acceptable" is the problem some folks have.
Well sure, but then isn’t your beef with optimizing in general and not Treantmonk in particular?

It doesn’t seem like bad advice at all to tell people “don’t spend limited build resources on improving your damage unless you can get it to at least X”.

For example, Fire Bolt and Poison Spray, despite the higher damage dice, are seldom a better choice than Chill Touch, because the no healing/regen rider is usually far more impactful than a few extra points of damage for a Wizard. On the other hand EB does enough additional damage for a Warlock that it’s their optimal choice in most circumstances.

[Kane0]

As I mentioned earlier, I think Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast is a fine baseline, with 16 Cha at level 1, 18 at 4, and 20 at 8.
It's Hex that's the sticky bit. It's not at-will. It requires concentration. It's single target at any given moment. And it competes for one of the Warlock's two slots for a bulk of their career.

Agreed. And Hex isnt even that great, more that its simple and accessible from the same time you get Agonizing Blast.

[Rynjin]

1. Which is it, do warlocks get short rests whenever they want, or do they never get them? And concentration is a huge cost in and of itself.

Depends on the table.


2. Right. Which is why fighters are bad as baselines too. The whole point of a baseline reference is to have nice steady scaling that mimics the monsters you'd be fighting. Otherwise you get really skewed, variable results just by tweaking a few parameters.

If a vanilla Fighter, the most commonly played class in the game, is a bad baseline for your scale of combat competence, your scale is exceptionally flawed.


3. I'm not saying optimization is bad. I'm saying that the supposed benchmark is designed to put a thumb on the scale so TM can push his established, very fixed opinion as fact. And that's, to me, a bad thing. Because it removes any point to having a benchmark at all. It's chosen to make his existing favorites look good and those he dislikes look bad.

The "thumb on the scale" results in a number that is lower than some other classes with basic optimization. One would think that if the result was to "push" an opinion or favored class, they would pick a more optimized build that actually overperforms, yes?

Instead, a build was chosen that very slightly UNDERperforms, making it an excellent baseline for "if you go lower than this, you suck".

[KorvinStarmast]

As I mentioned earlier, I think Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast is a fine baseline, with 16 Cha at level 1, 18 at 4, and 20 at 8. That's fair; but you have to make the choice to take +2 Cha at level 8 rather than a feat, for example. .
It's Hex that's the sticky bit. It's not at-will. It requires concentration. It's single target at any given moment. And it competes for one of the Warlock's two slots for a bulk of their career. Good point, and the one which illustrates his hand wave and "I hope nobody noticed this detail". (It isn't until level 11 that we get 3 slots per short rest.)

Well sure, but then isn’t your beef with optimizing in general and not Treantmonk in particular?
No. While I have a mild disappointment in the DPR au outrance point of view, and I far prefer efforts at party optimization (not single PC optimization) I understand the desire to get the most bang for one's buck in combat. (I have a mild obsession with getting my save DC as high as I can, but I don't always go for 20 at 8: I also hate losing concentration).
The problem to me is the self-licking ice cream cone methodology that PP and Unoriginal point to.

...saying it's "baseline" implies that it's an always-on thing. Which Hex isn't. Treantmonk's Warlock fails to meet their own """baseline"""" regularly. For example, if they have to attack anyone but the Hexed creature.


3. I'm not saying optimization is bad. I'm saying that the supposed benchmark is designed to put a thumb on the scale so TM can push his established, very fixed opinion as fact. And that's, to me, a bad thing. Because it removes any point to having a benchmark at all. It's chosen to make his existing favorites look good and those he dislikes look bad.
Exactly.

[Dork_Forge]

That’s a fair assessment, I don’t have strong opinions on the specific baseline Treantmonk uses, but I don’t have a problem with it as a point of reference. But it also gets into the thing, if you are against the idea of baselines at all, or is Treantmonk’s simply too high.

I don't mind a frame of reference, I just find TM's too high and flawed. It isn't at-will damage, it requires too many choices/investments to get there, and it results in too high a number.

This would be different if it was meant to be a benchmark for PCs that focus on damage, but it isn't presented that way, it's presented as a general baseline for damage and it just is not appropriate for that.


So, from this, I cannot tell if dagger alone constitutes the modifier as a rider or not, as that difference does put cantrips like eldritch blast and firebolt as bad damage.
This does get low enough in terms of absolute numbers that the only terrible damage number would be 0, would I be correct on that?

By rider I mean something like Sneak, a bladetrip, Dueling etc. not a modifier that is built into the standard attack by default.

I really have no idea why you then jumped to 0 damage as the only terrible number. If this is meant to be applying TM's labels to what I'm saying then please don't, I am not answering in that context and I wouldn't make that kind of reference.


Moving this one forward, as there are separate points here, one that cantrip damage with firebolt, unmodified Eldrich blast, etc. are not bad or terrible damage, and that it is absurd to think so as it is disconnected to the game.

I think this is just you saying you'll reply to this later?


This isn’t a one build vs other build consideration though, all classes have access to weapons, and weapons being superior to cantrips means it is better to not use cantrips. We are talking low level in our examples so this holds generally true, by 5th it gets more complicated, and 11th the consideration is gone as the third dice kills it for characters that don’t have extra attack or a way to incorporate it into a larger turn like Blade singer or Eldrich knight.
But this goes into this point,

Of course it's a build vs build consideration, different classes have different proficiencies, different stat preferences, and cantrips scale. And I'm not sure about the low level thing, is this just because I mentioned goblins?


Since this gets into Treantmonk’s opinions on cantrips, he fairly regularly recommends firebolt, for a few reasons, first for the reasons you outline later where firebolt has the ability to burn objects giving it utility uses, but also because that isn’t the only thing the caster is doing. Using cantrips to conserve spell slots while concentrating on a control spell is fine, because even low damage is still damage if you have nothing more pressing to do. Which is also why he goes into the help action, the dodge action etc. as they can have greater impact than the damage of a cantrip.
Being incensed by the idea that a help or dodge action could be more valuable than casting a cantrip to deal damage seems at least equally devoid of nuance. Damage doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it matters how effective it is in comparison to what can be done elsewhere, helping a rogue land their sneak attack or the paladin their smite, or using dodge to keep your concentration spells safe are all considerations that are warranted during play.
This is part of what I was trying to get at with the goblin example, damage only matters if it does one of two things:
1. Kills something
2. Makes it easier to kill something either by another character or on a future turn
With Goblins, it is safe to say for most characters, one shotting a goblin is definitely in the cards, a barbarian can do this with a minimum damage roll, and most martial characters can do this fairly comfortably with weapons. Heck, even the wizard can have an easier time of it depending on their dex/str considerations. Light crossbows are great options for wizards until 5th level.

This means that second value is insignificant, so we are left with the first, so a characters capacity to one shot a weak enemy is directly relevant to the effectiveness of the action, especially if there are non-damage actions that actually accomplish the second in an effective way, say the help action. Assuming that firebolt isn’t the best option your party has available, in which case, war with the army you have and whatnot.

Bolded for emphasis. This is misrepresenting my reaction, so let me clarify this for you:

I do not watch his content, I am basing this off of the video where he establishes the 'baseline,' if he says contradictory things in other videos, great, but you shouldn't have to have a breadth of knowledge of his content to interact with what should be a fundamental part of his process in a self-contained video.

I am not 'incensed' period, so please keep that hyperbole to yourself. I have no issue with occasionally doing something like Dodge, Help etc. My problem is that in the video he writes off that damage entirely in favour of those things. Making a sweeping statement that basically amounts to 'it's too low to matter.'

The generalisation matters. The sweeping dismissal of cantrip damage in general matters.

As for your numbered points, I don't understand why you're listing that at all. All damage that gets through makes something easier to kill. The only fail state for damage is immunity.

I also don't understand why you're going through talking about one-shotting goblins again, which is possible with a reasonable chance of success with a Firebolt anyway. You're also using a Barbarian that's Raging I assume, which btw would also go against the point of the at-will baseline conversation.

If your point is that 2 is irrelevant when one shotting a low hp monster is possible, that just isn't true. The majority of attack at-will attack options will have a reasonable chance of not one shotting. Any degree of damage, however, will make said hypothetical goblins easier to kill. This matters if the next attack is rolled below the one-shot threshold and allows stuff like non-style TWF to be more likely to finish an enemy. There is no solid case to ignore 2.


Yeah, I am drawing from what I recall from other threads on that, I didn’t know the lower than minimum concern specifically. I personally don’t have that issue as the minimum damage for an attack is always going to be zero in my mind. And the whole point of the number is what the damage one is expected to deal over a long term amount of time.

DPR is largely useless as overapplied by forums/some channels because it relates to a mathematical average that an individual will not experience. This sometimes yields a DPR number that is below the minimum damage a hit would actually do, which is ridiculous and useless to me. Averaging damage you can expect from a hit can be useful, going full DPR, rarely.

Another example of this is then the value of a crit gets described as less than 1, which is so far detached.


I do apologize if I went for a joke and got a jab though, no shade meant by it, just want to make it look like I’ve been paying attention and trying to keep the conversation light.
Eh it's whatever



To the people going 'I don't get it,' well frankly you don't have to, the thread asked for gripes and I presented one of mine.

However to sum up the baseline thing:

- It isn't at-will, that is a problem.

- It involves too many choices and investments to be a baseline, this is a problem.

- It is meant to be generally for damage but is actually more suited for 'primary damage role' comparisons. Aka it's a benchmark, not a baseline.

- It is riddled with wonky assumptions that are handwaved. These include concentration and never having to miss Hex damage due to target death etc.

[Witty Username]

I think this is just you saying you'll reply to this later?


Er yes, at least as I saw it the two points around it cover two halves of this point, so the responses to the later ones are to this point.

[Witty Username]

I really have no idea why you then jumped to 0 damage as the only terrible number. If this is meant to be applying TM's labels to what I'm saying then please don't, I am not answering in that context and I wouldn't make that kind of reference.

I am more just trying to get an idea if there is an unacceptable amount of damage, to qualify as effective. If you have beef with the framework I can drop the terms though. I am more pushing back against the idea that it is absurd to think firebolt damage is ineffective. - I don't think you claimed this, but it is readable from the blue text and the claim that it is out of touch with reality

The goblin example is a just a framing device, you brought it up, and I like using goblins in games, so it seems fair enough, at least if we are talking mob style monsters. We can switch to something like zombies, ogres, or quicklings or whatever else if that is more your speed.



All damage that gets through makes something easier to kill. The only fail state for damage is immunity.


Practically no, statistically possibly, but in a way that is disconnected from actual play at least in my mind.

whether or not damage makes something easier to kill, depends on how much damage is needed and how much each character deals in one sitting.

for example the raging barbarian (assuming a great weapon, because its a barbarian), could easily have a minimum damage of 7 in the goblin scenario, no amount of damage will make a creature with an hp of 7 easier to kill for the barbarian. Sometimes their are other actions that will, help action, knocking prone, it will depend on the character making the decision and the situation of the combat.
Now if you are the raging barbarian, kill it yourself, and there is no problem.

for enemies with more robustness then this, it can still come up, afterall for the above barbarian, that isn't the likely damage they are expected to do, its the bare minimum. an average roll is more like a 13, , which is pretty close to the hp of an orc (as close as firebolt is to a goblin, funnily enough). Firebolt can make this enemy easier to kill, but it will depend on the barbarians rolls a bit, Afterall, as mentioned in the goblin example firebolt still has a reasonable chance of killing a goblin, and the same applies to this example of the barbarian vs the orc. So while firebolt can line up correctly to end this sooner, it can also not, the barbarian could land a killing blow even without it, or you could miss. Now, that could still be worth doing, but we have to get into the help action, dodge action, what other options you have available.
And this is close to the ideal example for firebolt, not a general case where the numbers are less friendly.

Overall, well I can see situations for d10 damage to come up, it is not a particularly ground breaking claim to say it usually won't.

[strangebloke]

I think the point of "baseline" is that you're looking at a build that fundamentally isn't investing very much in dealing damage. Like yes its a cantrip, an invocation, a spell known, and concentration (assuming precast) but you can still be a hellfire warlock mixing in short rest fireballs while also having an imp familiar for utility, getting loads of free THP, and eventually mystic arcanum. Or you can be a million other things. Like sure the 'baseline' here has a handful of options and there is opportunity cost there but warlocks have a high total number of options compared with say a rogue.

If you're playing, say, a barbarian, and your role is damage and nothing else and you're dealing less damage than the guy with short rest fireballs and imp familiar and mystic arcanum, that is kind of sad.

(insert TANKING discourse here)

Also, like. You can argue about what the benchmark should be, but there's nothing wrong with using a benchmark in principle. It's a point of discussion, and the purpose of TM's channel is.... discussion.

I'd disagree with TM's takes on some things (monks) but honestly in the past I was mostly annoyed with not him, but his fans, who had a habit of parachuting into threads, linking a 40 minute video and going "TM answers your points if you watch the whole thing." Since I've actually watched his content I'd say he's knows his stuff pretty well.

[Blatant Beast]

I asked for the examples of the false ideas (of rules and builds) that unoriginal was referring to.

Treantmonk produces a lot of videos, some of his work is bound to be incorrect, statistically, as a consequence of his prodigious output.

I’ve watched three Treantmonk videos in full.
One was his Monks suck take, which I found to be rife with bad assumptions…but I propose we ignore this video…opening the monk topic up for discussion never ends well, anywhere.

I also viewed Treantmonk’s Dancing Light video from around 4 years ago.
I seem to remember that Treantmonk failed to take into account some of the wonkiest interactions between Darkvision Range and Dim Light.

Treantmonk also claimed in part that the Scribe Wizard was the most powerful Wizard subclass, because the stock monsters in the Monster Manual rarely have access to Dispel Magic.

I find this to be an assumption that is fraught with a great likelihood of being flat out wrong. My typical assumption about different gaming tables is:

if the players can pull from any source to make very customized characters, (‘optimized’ to use the parlance of our day), the PCs are more likely than not face foes with an equal amount of customization.

These quibbles do not necessarily invalidate the entirety of the videos…but some aspects, assumptions, and strategies and tactics of Treantmonk videos can certainly be reliant on assumptions that will not fly at your particular game.

Of course this is true for every commentator, including Jeremy Crawford.

[Willowhelm]

Treantmonk produces a lot of videos, some of his work is bound to be incorrect, statistically, as a consequence of his prodigious output.

I’ve watched three Treantmonk videos in full.
One was his Monks suck take, which I found to be rife with bad assumptions…but I propose we ignore this video…opening the monk topic up for discussion never ends well, anywhere.

I also viewed Treantmonk’s Dancing Light video from around 4 years ago.
I seem to remember that Treantmonk failed to take into account some of the wonkiest interactions between Darkvision Range and Dim Light.

Treantmonk also claimed in part that the Scribe Wizard was the most powerful Wizard subclass, because the stock monsters in the Monster Manual rarely have access to Dispel Magic.

I find this to be an assumption that is fraught with a great likelihood of being flat out wrong. My typical assumption about different gaming tables is:

if the players can pull from any source to make very customized characters, (‘optimized’ to use the parlance of our day), the PCs are more likely than not face foes with an equal amount of customization.

These quibbles do not necessarily invalidate the entirety of the videos…but some aspects, assumptions, and strategies and tactics of Treantmonk videos can certainly be reliant on assumptions that will not fly at your particular game.

Of course this is true for every commentator, including Jeremy Crawford.

Thank you.

[Witty Username]

Treantmonk also claimed in part that the Scribe Wizard was the most powerful Wizard subclass, because the stock monsters in the Monster Manual rarely have access to Dispel Magic.

I find this to be an assumption that is fraught with a great likelihood of being flat out wrong. My typical assumption about different gaming tables is:

if the players can pull from any source to make very customized characters, (‘optimized’ to use the parlance of our day), the PCs are more likely than not face foes with an equal amount of customization.


Yeah, I have seen several people have beef with that one, I personally don't have much issue with it, filling a game with dispel magic to prevent a player from getting to play D&D seems unlikely, so it will still be powerful and have value. That being said, I think the things he found cooler was the scribing spells in minutes instead of hours and the spell-hacking damage types, based on what I recall. And I am more inclined to agree with his assessment with those. So, its not a high stakes thing for me for the awakened spellbook to not work as advertised, especially since free scouting is still pretty nice even if it gets wiped by a mage, that now let you know they are a mage.

But that gets into my general assessment with most forum goers and content creators, disagreement happens (different people, complex problems) but that doesn't mean the look isn't helpful. Baseline damage which is mostly a personal measure for Treantmonk's comfort and as a reference point for viewers, eh, it has some utility but does need to be strongly adhered to. The advice on multiclassing on where it can mess up a character, very nice for avoiding a pitfall or several (like say keeping in mind how long the build is going to not have extra attack, and if that is going to hurt for a few levels), even if you don't agree with his conclusions precisely.

[Blatant Beast]

Witty Username, I largely agree with your post.
The Illumination/ Unseen Attackers rules are a hotbed of trouble, so it is not to surprising that some interactions might be missed.

I generally agreed with TM’s assessment on the Scribe Wizard, as well…but the bit of metagaming/motivated reasoning is a small problem for me. Admittedly, with the subsequent release of MPMoM, the number of customizable statblocks might be further reduced from the time of TCoE’s publishing.

My general assumption is: through out the course of a Campaign, every PC will face a scenario in which their ‘Schicht’ is countered, at least once.

If the movie Die Hard has taught me anything, is part of being a hero is adapting to adverse situations, as well losing one’s Shirt, Shoes, and getting really banged up.

Assuming that a Dispel Magic effect is nigh impossible to find in D&D Worlds like Eberron or the Forgotten Realms, is an unforced error, in my opinion.

[Willowhelm]

Assuming that a Dispel Magic effect is nigh impossible to find in D&D Worlds like Eberron or the Forgotten Realms, is an unforced error, in my opinion.

While I agree with this… the scribes wizard I played, after being enthusiastic to do so in part because of TMs views, ended up being in an eberron campaign and never ran into an dispel magic effects before that campaign ended. So in that case… his assumptions held.

The wizard also took heavy inspiration from ludic’s jorasco healer build. And the assumptions there also held true.

Seems like heavy YMMV (which is something TM acknowledges regularly)

[Blatant Beast]

Seems like heavy YMMV (which is something TM acknowledges regularly)

Not just Treantmonk, when it comes to assumptions, YMMV is a safe default position.

I am by no means a Treantmonk hater, which is why the statement he made in regards to the Scribe Wizard was surprising….it lacked the YMMV disclaimer, I expected.

This is a bit of an aside, but one great observation I read in another forum, was someone lamenting that in RAW 5e discussions, a common assumption of the discussion is that the PCs have access to all options, while the creatures are relegated to only using their base statblocks.

Beyond the fact that the 5e Monster Manual openly discusses changing equipment for Humanoids, Giants etc….the assumption that creatures are not customized, flies in the face of most 3e D&D experiences I have had, or read/been told about.

It doesn’t match my 5e experiences, as well…but YMMV.

[Psyren]

Treantmonk also claimed in part that the Scribe Wizard was the most powerful Wizard subclass, because the stock monsters in the Monster Manual rarely have access to Dispel Magic.

I'll ask for a source for this claim too, because his subclass tier list (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slsgHqp1WVQ) puts Chronurgist on top by a pretty wide margin, and I don't think that would be at all controversial around here. His next three are War Magic, Divination, and Enchantment, with Scribes coming in 5th. Still strong, but a far cry from first place.

(For those who find hour-long videos offputting, just skip to the end.)

[Blatant Beast]

I'll ask for a source for this claim too, because his subclass tier list (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slsgHqp1WVQ) puts Chronurgist on top by a pretty wide margin, and I don't think that would be at all controversial around here. His next three are War Magic, Divination, and Enchantment, with Scribes coming in 5th. Still strong, but a far cry from first place.

(For those who find hour-long videos offputting, just skip to the end.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXhK1UDsOsA)

Willowhelm, based off their comments above, also watched the same video, and it would seem their recollection of the video does not substantially differ from my own recollection. At the very least, they haven’t made any claims to that effect.

Edit: In the Video’s Conclusion Treantmonk ranks the Scribe Wizard as the second best subclass behind the Chronurgist. So it might seem that Treantmonk might have changed his mind vis a vis the Scribe Wizard over time, if TM is currently ranking the subclass as the 5th most powerful Wiz subclass.

The exact rank position isn’t the issue that I disagreed with…..it was the assumption that one is safe from Dispel Magic because of the dearth of the spell appearing in the Monster Manual stat blocks.

[Psyren]

I presume all of Treantmonk’s videos are still on YouTube.
To paraphrase the Beatles: You know the video’s name, look up it’s Youtube number😉.

(Here is the link though, couldn’t pass up an oblique Beatles reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXhK1UDsOsA)

Willowhelm, based off their comments above, also watched the same video, and it would seem their recollection of the video does not substantially differ from my own recollection. At the very least, they haven’t made any claims to that effect.

He says it's "actually really good" in your video - but not "the most powerful wizard subclass." In mine he actually ranks them.

[Blatant Beast]

He says it's "actually really good" in your video - but not "the most powerful wizard subclass." In mine he actually ranks them.

That is what he stats in his Intro. In his conclusion section of the video, Chris ranks the subclass just behind the Chrono.

Out of curiosity Psyren, when was the list you were referencing, published?

[Witty Username]

Out of curiosity Psyren, when was the list you were referencing, published?

I can answer that one, Oct 2021, he did ranking videos of all classes and subclasses.

Video title is ranking the subclasses, notably he ranked chonourgist as S tier which he defined as problematic to the point of banworthy or in need of revision so "best" may be imprecise word choice.

[Psyren]

I can answer that one, Oct 2021, he did ranking videos of all classes and subclasses.

Video title is ranking the subclasses, notably he ranked chonourgist as S tier which he defined as problematic to the point of banworthy or in need of revision so "best" may be imprecise word choice.

I didn't say "best" though, I said "most powerful." Which Chronurgist definitely is, unless restrained by gentleman's agreement or houserules. I wasn't (and Treantmonk wasn't) opining on quality.


That is what he stats in his Intro. In his conclusion section of the video, Chris ranks the subclass just behind the Chrono.

Still incorrect, as I mentioned he ranks three other subclasses ahead of Scribes. (The left side of the chart > the right side.)



Out of curiosity Psyren, when was the list you were referencing, published?

Not that it actually matters, because he didn't say what you claim he said in yours anyway - but my video (10/11/2021) is more recent than yours (11/30/2020), if that's what you're asking.

[Willowhelm]

I think the last few posts highlight one of the difficulties. A lot of things are attributed to TM as “his opinion” but, beyond just the usual game of telephone, his got more than 4 years of videos, guides before that, forum lists etc. The game itself has changed significantly in that time, the options available, new mechanics, and the table expectations.

TMs opinions have changed with that time, and a an early analysis video (eg scribes wizard on first reading) might have different statements compared to a later one (all subclasses with a dubious numeric scoring method to create a standard for comparison) and come to different conclusions. Part of that latter series was about how differently things ended up to his expectations.

I would find it a much worse indication of rigour if he still stuck to the same ratings of spells and abilities now as he did all those years ago. That would be madness comparable to holding onto an internet argument over something incredibly minor and rehashing it at every opportunity for 5 years.

[Psyren]

I would find it a much worse indication of rigour if he still stuck to the same ratings of spells and abilities now as he did all those years ago. That would be madness comparable to holding onto an internet argument over something incredibly minor and rehashing it at every opportunity for 5 years.

Look, I have strong opinions about Dragonwrought Kobolds, okay? :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

his got more than 4 years of videos, guides before that, forum lists etc.
Just because a low-quality burger stand puts out lots of burgers does not make their next batch of burgers better.

Quantity of output is no guide to quality.

(Your point on "the game keeps changing" is of course agreed).

[Psyren]

Quantity of output is no guide to quality.


It is however a guide to demand. Doing what he does full time wouldn't be possible if nobody was watching.

[Keravath]

Long thread :)

Personally, I use Agonizing Blast damage by itself as a rule of thumb for what is decent. It is the same as a fighter wielding a glaive or other d10 weapon.

e.g. Average damage ignoring to hit probability (which is the same in each case): Level 5, 18 stat, AB=19 average damage, fighter with a glaive is 19, fighter with a Greatsword is 22, rogue with a rapier is 19. This seems to match the design paradigm for the game. L11 20 stat, AB=31.5, figher with glaive is 31.5, fighter with Greatsword is 36, rogue is 30.5.

The damage numbers don't include the effect of magical weapons which raise most of the other options above the AB base line but honestly they are all still close.

This is also why I think fighters should have received their 4th attack at level 17 and not at level 20. AB should not overtake the baseline fighter damage for levels 17-19 but that is just my opinion. :)

-----

I also wouldn't include hex in any comparison, it requires resources, actions and is too situational. Including hex also sets such a high bar that the only characters that can really keep up are those with GWM or SS which encourages some folks to NOT play a wide range of fun and reasonably effective characters. I'd probably take any analysis that uses such baseline assumptions with quite a bit of salt :)

[Theodoxus]

Treantmonk's Eldritch Blast + invocation + Hex numbers are not baseline because they do not meet the definition of baseline.


It meets the literal definition of baseline.

"A minimum or starting point used for comparisons."


It fits the literal definition of a baseline...

I question Rynjin and Mastikator's definition... if EB + AB + Hex is baseline, in that equation, what is EB alone?

EB could be baseline. Any addition to it, has to be above the line, because you can't have anything below it (else it's not a baseline... as Unoriginal states in typical Unoriginal fashion).

[KorvinStarmast]

This is also why I think fighters should have received their 4th attack at level 17 and not at level 20. AB should not overtake the baseline fighter damage for levels 17-19 but that is just my opinion. :)

-----
Massive agreement, but it's Wizards of the Coast, not Warriors of the coast, and their bias shows.

It is however a guide to demand. Doing what he does full time wouldn't be possible if nobody was watching.
That means little nothing. People tuned into a lot of garbage TV shows over the years; no indication of quality. See also Sturgeon's Law. :smallcool:
(To be clear, some of the guides that he wrote are helpful, even to me).

[Unoriginal]

(else it's not a baseline... as Unoriginal states in typical Unoriginal fashion).

Not sure how I should take this.

[Psyren]

That means little nothing. People tuned into a lot of garbage TV shows over the years; no indication of quality. See also Sturgeon's Law. :smallcool:
(To be clear, some of the guides that he wrote are helpful, even to me).

It's a good reminder that none of us are infallible arbiters of quality. Those people are seeing/hearing something that resonates with them, or at the very least it indicates that his table assumptions are not as fringe as his detractors might believe (or wish) them to be.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not sure how I should take this.
As a compliment.



I think any "optimizer" will appeal to an audience that most closely aligns with their default assumptions (even if they don't know what those assumptions are). Everyone will have their little niches.

[Mastikator]

I question Rynjin and Mastikator's definition... if EB + AB + Hex is baseline, in that equation, what is EB alone?

EB could be baseline. Any addition to it, has to be above the line, because you can't have anything below it (else it's not a baseline... as Unoriginal states in typical Unoriginal fashion).

It could be a baseline, of a non-DPR build.

The thing is he qualifies what he means by a baseline, shows his math, encourages his viewers to make their own baseline if they're unhappy with it. (which some have done in this thread). IMO he's very humble about his stance that his baseline is arbitrary.

[Theodoxus]

As I mentioned earlier, I think Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast is a fine baseline, with 16 Cha at level 1, 18 at 4, and 20 at 8.
It's Hex that's the sticky bit. It's not at-will. It requires concentration. It's single target at any given moment. And it competes for one of the Warlock's two slots for a bulk of their career.

Slight quibble, EB+AB aren't available at level 1, outside a specific build... it still begs the question what is EB then, just subpar?


Not sure how I should take this.


As a compliment.

Pretty much. Unoriginal, you have a penchant of understating your point on first pass, and then expanding on what you meant after being questioned about it. Most of the time, I grok your original (no pun intended) meaning, but sometimes I'm surprised that I misinterpreted your meaning after a follow up explanation. I've found it endearing over the years reading your posts.

[JNAProductions]

Slight quibble, EB+AB aren't available at level 1, outside a specific build... it still begs the question what is EB then, just subpar?

Agonizing Blast is TECHNICALLY available at level one, via Custom Lineage/Variant Human, with the feat that gives you an invocation.
But that's also not what I intended-it is to take AB at level 2.

And Eldritch Blast on its own is subpar for a damage dealer. If your main game plan is to help the party via damage, you should do more than 1d10 per tier.
If your game plan is not to help the party via damage, and instead offer heals, support, mobility, whatever-then having less than Eldritch Blast with Agonizing is fine.

The reason I think EB plus AB is a good baseline is that it's really, really simple. Take the archetypal cantrip for Warlock at level one. Take the most obvious damage buff at level 2. Increase your main stat at levels 4 and 8.
It's the kind of thing you can reasonably expect a new player to not just play, but to build on their own.

[Unoriginal]

Pretty much. Unoriginal, you have a penchant of understating your point on first pass, and then expanding on what you meant after being questioned about it. Most of the time, I grok your original (no pun intended) meaning, but sometimes I'm surprised that I misinterpreted your meaning after a follow up explanation. I've found it endearing over the years reading your posts.

Thank you, Theodoxus.

[Blatant Beast]

Still incorrect, as I mentioned he ranks three other subclasses ahead of Scribes. (The left side of the chart > the right side.)
.

Dude…on the video I posted the link to, the Treantmonk video about Scribe Wizards, at the very end of that particular video, Treantmonk clearly states, that his view at that time was the Scribe was second only to the Chrono Wiz.

Treantmonk changed his opinion, which is exactly what I thought had happened, when I was posting last night.

My opinion, Your ‘Gotcha’ posts are entirely unnecessary, but also entirely expected and predictable.

[Psyren]

Dude…on the video I posted the link to, the Treantmonk video about Scribe Wizards, at the very end of that particular video, Treantmonk clearly states, that his view at that time was the Scribe was second only to the Chrono Wiz.

Treantmonk changed his opinion, which is exactly what I thought had happened, when I was posting last night.

My opinion, Your ‘Gotcha’ posts are entirely unnecessary, but also entirely expected and predictable.

Thank you for finally providing something resembling a timestamp in the 30-minute video you cited. And going to that spot, he very clearly says "Chronurgist took the crown, but Scribes is at least in contention for second best," i.e. not definitive. Which is entirely compatible with the later ranking. Dude.

[Schwann145]

To OP:
The thing is, most people don't care one way or another about TM, but the few who do dislike him do so very vocally, and usually without any actual evidential support they can be bothered to provide.

Just look at this thread: we have complaints of bad math and fundamental misunderstandings of the very core of the 5e system... and the only argument used to back this up is A) personal opinion and B) a link to a full TM video, as if linking to a video alone conclusively supports their accusation(s).

tl;dr - Some people just don't like TM for personal reasons, and many of them are very bad about providing examples to back up their conclusions.

[strangebloke]

Slight quibble, EB+AB aren't available at level 1, outside a specific build... it still begs the question what is EB then, just subpar?
Yeah, obviously.

In the world, there are things that may or may not be true, and there's a lot of debate you can have. However, there are also things that are true by definition. If you define AB+EB+Hex as a baseline, then things below the baseline are subpar, and things above the baseline are above par.

Obviously you could choose firebolt as your baseline, or you could choose a -4 strength unarmed striker, or a rogue with shortbow that gets sneak attack every turn. It really doesn't matter what, you just need to pick something if you want to compare things. Overall, EB+AB+hex is a really intuitive, basic baseline with no moving parts. It's a type of character that shows up in a lot of games, and isn't really that good or optimized. Comparatively something like a sword and board champion could be used as a baseline as well but there's a lot of weird things about such a build, such as critical damage mattering more when fighting high-AC targets, or the factor of magic weapons, or a million other commonly contested things.

And TM's channel, the whole point of it, is to make comparisons. So having a standard point of comparison is... just common sense. I've no idea why this introduces such pushback.

[Dork_Forge]

And TM's channel, the whole point of it, is to make comparisons. So having a standard point of comparison is... just common sense. I've no idea why this introduces such pushback.

The consistent theme of the criticism is not that such a thing should not exist, it's that what he chose and how he applies it is not appropriate to some.

[Blatant Beast]

Overall, EB+AB+hex is a really intuitive, basic baseline with no moving parts. It's a type of character that shows up in a lot of games, and isn't really that good or optimized.

I agree with all of this, for a benchmark.
Champion Fighters, exist. They are also common characters, and as your prior post points out, the class has quite a few externalities that my impact it’s performance, as do all of the other classes.

So if the point of Treantmonk is comparing things, having a baseline at all is not that useful. What is truly important is the performance spectrum, all of it…not just some consideration of does something meet, not meet, or exceeds a certain DPR baseline.

Looking holistically at the spectrum of results, is where the truly insightful observations can be found, in my opinion.

[Jerrykhor]

I dont hate TM, i hate the people that hate TM. They always sound so arrogant and pretentious when they critique him, as if they want to show they are superior to him. Like, they forgot he's just a guy with an opinion.

[Mastikator]

I dont hate TM, i hate the people that hate TM. They always sound so arrogant and pretentious when they critique him, as if they want to show they are superior to him. Like, they forgot he's just a guy with an opinion.

No, no, no you see he says baseline but what he really means is benchmark. That's totally not an insane and weird reason to hate someone.

On the other hand this forum is toxic and hateful so it's not out of character to have 5 pages of this nonsense. :smallsigh:

[Arkhios]

No, no, no you see he says baseline but what he really means is benchmark. That's totally not an insane and weird reason to hate someone.

On the other hand this forum is toxic and hateful so it's not out of character to have 5 pages of this nonsense. :smallsigh:

It seems there's still time to keep on going with that nonsense since we're still at 3rd page.

[KorvinStarmast]

On the other hand this forum is toxic and hateful
Then why do you keep coming back?

[strangebloke]

I agree with all of this, for a benchmark.
Looking holistically at the spectrum of results, is where the truly insightful observations can be found, in my opinion.
Yeah I mean DPR analysis isn't the end-all be-all but that isn't what TM does. It's just something he does sometimes.

I dont hate TM, i hate the people that hate TM. They always sound so arrogant and pretentious when they critique him, as if they want to show they are superior to him. Like, they forgot he's just a guy with an opinion.
Yeah, I mean. He has a personal fanbase many times larger than this entire community, that he built himself by being polite and having interesting things to say. Threads like this are basically the peanut gallery. Buncha people throwing shade with no skin in the game themselves.

No, no, no you see he says baseline but what he really means is benchmark. That's totally not an insane and weird reason to hate someone.

On the other hand this forum is toxic and hateful so it's not out of character to have 5 pages of this nonsense. :smallsigh:
agreed completely.

Then why do you keep coming back?
I think most people on this site are worth talking to.

[Pirate ninja]

Pirate Ninja - thread closed for review