If you really want to up your DPR you have to go practice your rotations, stay on top of your DOTs and watch your cool downs. Got to hit up Icy Veins to make sure you have your best in slot and proper enchants for your spec too. You really don't want to look like a scrub and lose your spot in the raid right? Make sure you have your Add-ons as well.
I guess I really don't understand the need to bring the hardcore raider mentality to D&D. I am sure there are people that enjoy that style of game, but isn't really designed for that kind of optimization. In fact is seems to fall a part the more optimized a party gets. Not saying that people can't or shouldn't play that way, I am just saying that I don't get the appeal.
Incidentally, actual typical monster HP are very close to (CR+1)*15, so PCs are probably supposed to have the same scaling on damage. Though I think 5e messed up their math; they assume a 3 round combat, but (counting hit chance) the actual average damage of a damage-focused PC to a same-CR monster is about 20%, and the total for a party of four, even counting support characters who aren't focused on damage, is likely 50-60% -- which is a two round combat.
Timestamp didn't take. They never do for video embeds. You'll have to let me know when you want me to watch from, going through entire Treantmonk videos is typically not that different from mental torture for me.
Treantmonk's opinion has always been, so far as I can tell: "Play what you like and do what you want. Just be aware that if what you like and want aren't mathematically perfect, you're dragging your party down, boring your DM, and should probably just stop playing D&D altogether." Which, needless to say, sucks. His infinite hateboner for the monk class is super annoying, as is his disgust with anything that can't benefit from Power Whammy feats. He's good at what he does, no doubt. I just wish he could remember that sometimes when a player makes a decision for their character, they're doing it for character and maybe they're not a total dunderhead for daring to do things like...play a monk. Or play a warlock past level 2. or take a feat that isn't Big Stick Master.
No, his opinion is that playing what you want and being effective aren't mutually exclusive. He's not a power-gamer and he doesn't focus on absolute optimization at all costs. If that's what you get from his videos then you formed your opinion based on assumptions of what he was presenting rather than what he actually puts out there.
I'm not sure where you get him having a problem with warlocks. He has a lot of pure warlock builds and did a whole series analyzing invocations and spells from a warlock perspective.
His opinion on monks is because they have a lot of conflicting design choices (ki competing for every feature in both main class and sub-class) which makes trying to play one frustrating and their power level is far below that of other characters. That is a problem because it means that being a monk in a party with other characters can feel lackluster to play which is especially bad for a new, unsuspecting player who is interested in that playstyle. He has a whole video of possible homebrew options to improve them. He doesn't dislike monks, he dislikes that WotC has left such a mechanically poor class in the state that it's in.
I think at this point, the low end bar of anything that can be considered optimization should be PAM + GWM Fighter. It's now too easy to beat baseline; let's raise the bar.
The point of the baseline isn't that it's optimized, it's that it's reliable damage that's stupid easy to achieve. It establishes that with no feats and only a few decisions that are somewhat obvious, this is what you will achieve. If your average damage is less than that you've made a build actively worse, and by doing better damage you've made some level of improvement beyond the "default" (this is assuming your goal is damage, which is the assumption for this comparison).
The truth is you can choose whatever you want for your baseline. If you feel that gwm+pam is your standard to beat, then that works just fine. Treantmonk has said in some videos that he doesn't consider something "optimized" unless it's consistently dealing something like double the baseline he establishes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you really want to up your DPR you have to go practice your rotations, stay on top of your DOTs and watch your cool downs. Got to hit up Icy Veins to make sure you have your best in slot and proper enchants for your spec too. You really don't want to look like a scrub and lose your spot in the raid right? Make sure you have your Add-ons as well.
I guess I really don't understand the need to bring the hardcore raider mentality to D&D. I am sure there are people that enjoy that style of game, but isn't really designed for that kind of optimization. In fact is seems to fall a part the more optimized a party gets. Not saying that people can't or shouldn't play that way, I am just saying that I don't get the appeal.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Incidentally, actual typical monster HP are very close to (CR+1)*15, so PCs are probably supposed to have the same scaling on damage. Though I think 5e messed up their math; they assume a 3 round combat, but (counting hit chance) the actual average damage of a damage-focused PC to a same-CR monster is about 20%, and the total for a party of four, even counting support characters who aren't focused on damage, is likely 50-60% -- which is a two round combat.
No, his opinion is that playing what you want and being effective aren't mutually exclusive. He's not a power-gamer and he doesn't focus on absolute optimization at all costs. If that's what you get from his videos then you formed your opinion based on assumptions of what he was presenting rather than what he actually puts out there.
I'm not sure where you get him having a problem with warlocks. He has a lot of pure warlock builds and did a whole series analyzing invocations and spells from a warlock perspective.
His opinion on monks is because they have a lot of conflicting design choices (ki competing for every feature in both main class and sub-class) which makes trying to play one frustrating and their power level is far below that of other characters. That is a problem because it means that being a monk in a party with other characters can feel lackluster to play which is especially bad for a new, unsuspecting player who is interested in that playstyle. He has a whole video of possible homebrew options to improve them. He doesn't dislike monks, he dislikes that WotC has left such a mechanically poor class in the state that it's in.
Truth
GishLife
The point of the baseline isn't that it's optimized, it's that it's reliable damage that's stupid easy to achieve. It establishes that with no feats and only a few decisions that are somewhat obvious, this is what you will achieve. If your average damage is less than that you've made a build actively worse, and by doing better damage you've made some level of improvement beyond the "default" (this is assuming your goal is damage, which is the assumption for this comparison).
The truth is you can choose whatever you want for your baseline. If you feel that gwm+pam is your standard to beat, then that works just fine. Treantmonk has said in some videos that he doesn't consider something "optimized" unless it's consistently dealing something like double the baseline he establishes.