I've seen quite a few Build videos and I keep hearing content creators talking about 'baseline damage' and then comparing it to a Warlock using Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast.
Um...why? Why compare a D10+ Stat Mod attack that you can wield in one hand when most one-handed weapons do 1D8 tops? Shouldn't we be using the most common attack for the baseline? The Human Fighter is the most common race/class combo by a good margin. Why aren't we using THAT as the baseline?
Most people don't use that "baseline" damage. From what I've seen, it's really only Treantmonk that uses that standard. (In my experience, most people don't even have a baseline DPR standard, especially not on website forums.)
And, to address the issue of most one-handed weapons dealing 1d8 + Stat Mod damage, the Dueling Fighting Style adds 2 damage to each attack, which will make it be on-par in damage with a 1d10 + Stat Mod damaging effect (not in range, just purely DPR). So, yeah, if you use a Human Fighter with the Dueling Fighting Style and a 1d8 damaging weapon, you get the same resulting baseline.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Why not? Any choice of baseline is going to be subjective, but Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast is as good a choice as any other I can think of. If you're going to compare against a Fighter, which Fighting Style are you comparing against? Are feats on the table? Did they pick one at 1st level? Are you assuming the Fighter prioritized STR or DEX? If so, why is that a better baseline than a Fighter that prioritized CON? Do you assume they have a magic weapon? How do you account for Action Surge? What if they're using the grapple + shove prone strategy? How do you account for subclass features past 3rd level?
Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast only requires making 3 really conservative, easy to justify options (Eldritch Blast, Agonizing Blast, and CHA is the highest ability score). It works more or less the same for pretty much every Warlock, with no significant interactions with any feat, subclass, or enemy type. That makes it a pretty simple and useful model to work with.
Why not? Any choice of baseline is going to be subjective, but Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast is as good a choice as any other I can think of. If you're going to compare against a Fighter, which Fighting Style are you comparing against? Are feats on the table? Did they pick one at 1st level? Are you assuming the Fighter prioritized STR or DEX? If so, why is that a better baseline than a Fighter that prioritized CON? Do you assume they have a magic weapon? How do you account for Action Surge? What if they're using the grapple + shove prone strategy? How do you account for subclass features past 3rd level?
Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast only requires making 3 really conservative, easy to justify options (Eldritch Blast, Agonizing Blast, and CHA is the highest ability score). It works more or less the same for pretty much every Warlock, with no significant interactions with any feat, subclass, or enemy type. That makes it a pretty simple and useful model to work with.
Is this why I keep seeing so many builds that talk about a Warlock base plus Multiclassing into other stuff? Three choices, one primary stat, and a couple of levels?
That's part of it, I'm sure, but warlock just has a lot going for it when it comes to multiclassing. Even if you only invest 1 level, you're getting access to:
The strongest offensive cantrip in the game.
CHA spellcasting plays nice with sorcerers and bards and paladins.
It's a pretty safe bet that you'll get 2 or 3 first-level spells out of that Pact Magic slot, which is a much bigger jump in spell slots than a level in other spellcasting classes at low levels. It also doesn't nerf your spell slots if you're a partial caster (e.g. a paladin), unlike becoming a true multiclass spellcaster.
Hexblade patron gives access to medium armor, shields, martial weapons, Shield and the ability to make weapon attacks with CHA (making it an incredibly strong 1 level dip for paladins.)
Great Old One patron gives access to telepathy and Dissonant Whispers to force opportunity attacks.
If you go 2 levels in not only are you getting invocations, you're also doubling your Pact Magic slots.
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.
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.
As much as I hate the concepts of baseline DPR and true optimization builds, GWM is often beat by Eldritch Blast + Agonizing(doesn't count Hex) because of it's pure reliability. Plus it can be done at level 2 without ASI spends, whereas Polearm Master + GWM at the very least requires a variant human and level 4 and the loss of an ASI. When you include Hex, it becomes very good damage. At level 5 with a +7(maybe +8) its 2D10 + 2d6 + 8(possibly 10 depending on builds, rolled stats etc). GWM/PAM is a +2(maybe +3) of, 2d10(glaive) + 8/10 +20 with a separate 1d4+4/5 assuming you hit. The loss of a -5 to hit is a huge calculation in DPR because now you have to roll a 9/10 to hit a kobold wiht an AC of 12. Goblins have 15! Now you are MISSING more often than you are hitting, which means lost DPR.
The classic TM baseline does include Hex. but later PAM/ GWF should supersede it at high levels, switch over from EB to PAM
Yeah, which is why I personally don't care. Most games are played before 11th level, where the fighter would have a chance to potentially get more out of it assuming they were 12th or higher. There's also the issue that in general, the warlock has 120 feet to work with, more with another invocation. The fighter has 30 in most cases and then their reach weapon. So while the fighter might be able to DO more damage, it's assuming they get to the target. At level 6, they can take Sentinel to get potentially get more uses of their reaction, but that means they get starved for yet another ASI.
The fighter has to worry about their target dying. If the target dies, they have to find another target in their limited range. If the warlocks target dies, they have 120 feet of wiggle room, 30 more if they really have to move.
My point is that it's now too easy to surpass baseline, so the bar should be raised. and I don't care if most people don't enjoy high level play. I love high level play and this is all theoretical anyhow, so all levels are relevant.
My point is that it's now too easy to surpass baseline, so the bar should be raised. and I don't care if most people don't enjoy high level play. I love high level play and this is all theoretical anyhow, so all levels are relevant.
The baseline exists as "This class can get this with zero feat expenditure. It is something every version of this class can do, with zero regard to subclasses". Raising the baseline means that you expect every single martial class to take both of those feats.
That's not what "baseline" means, Gaf. "Baseline" is the minimum something gets to be and still call itself the thing. Treantmonk's scornful dismissal of anything and everything that isn't numerically perfect is absolutely infuriating, but in this case Agonizing Blast warlocks are considered "the baseline" because that's kinda the minimum investment one can make and still be considered a combat-capable class. If your build cannot outdo an Agonizing Doink warlock in terms of white-room DPR, it had best be contributing something else because its damage numbers aren't acceptable. That's what "baseline" means. GWPAM is not baseline, it's an extremely resource-intensive offense-focused build that ignores its own defenses and relies on team set-up to perform optimally, given that it has horrid accuracy without a source of constant advantage. At no point and in no way does it constitute "baseline" anything, save perhaps a baseline for Baby's First Powergaming Character given how obvious and intuitive the combination is.
That's not what "baseline" means, Gaf. "Baseline" is the minimum something gets to be and still call itself the thing. Treantmonk's scornful dismissal of anything and everything that isn't numerically perfect is absolutely infuriating, but in this case Agonizing Blast warlocks are considered "the baseline" because that's kinda the minimum investment one can make and still be considered a combat-capable class. If your build cannot outdo an Agonizing Doink warlock in terms of white-room DPR, it had best be contributing something else because its damage numbers aren't acceptable. That's what "baseline" means. GWPAM is not baseline, it's an extremely resource-intensive offense-focused build that ignores its own defenses and relies on team set-up to perform optimally, given that it has horrid accuracy without a source of constant advantage. At no point and in no way does it constitute "baseline" anything, save perhaps a baseline for Baby's First Powergaming Character given how obvious and intuitive the combination is.
Eh. Video put at the appropriate timestamp for sake of this specific post:
Even he doesn't really like DPR, but he admits it's the only tool to really use sometimes. That being said, he does focus on the pure math a lot.
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.
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.
I'm not saying DPR is a good tool, certainly nova damage isn't. Resilience and versatility are fundamental in a build. That said, IF a player chooses to consider DPR I don't think the baseline, and here I'm using that term as I use it in medicine, to be normal known range of (we hope healthy) function, should be the bottom of the barrel, but something midpoint in the normal range for it's area. ( e.g we don't assume a trauma patient is fine when their blood pressure is 85/60 even though that should theoretically provide enough kidney perfusion [to a theoretical healthy person]). Rather, we look for something more robust to consider normal.) Similarly, I'm suggesting that IF a player chooses to look at DPR the gold standard of comparison should not be what you've already observed to be bottom of the barrel, but should rather be an achievable example of good sustainable function in the realm being considered (DPR here.)
I'm not saying DPR is a good tool, certainly nova damage isn't. Resilience and versatility are fundamental in a build. That said, IF a player chooses to consider DPR I don't think the baseline, and here I'm using that term as I use it in medicine, to be normal known range of (we hope healthy) function, should be the bottom of the barrel, but something midpoint in the normal range for it's area. ( e.g we don't assume a trauma patient is fine when their blood pressure is 85/60 even though that should theoretically provide enough kidney perfusion [to a theoretical healthy person]). Rather, we look for something more robust to consider normal.) Similarly, I'm suggesting that IF a player chooses to look at DPR the gold standard of comparison should not be what you've already observed to be bottom of the barrel, but should rather be an achievable example of good sustainable function in the realm being considered (DPR here.)
Right, but then it isn't baseline. The definition of baseline is a minimum or starting point used for comparisons. That's all DPR is used as a tool when looking at it against EB+AB+Hex. EB+AB+Hex is the starting point. Even in your own example, you are introducing factors that alter the baseline, but D&D doesn't really work like that for theoretical math.
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.
As a DM, if the party is stronger I make the encounters stronger, or they'll be bored and unchallenged.
It's a zero-sum game.
Do people really think the challenge-ramp as you level up is pure coincidence, that the world just happened to give them power-appropriate challenges at every step? Obsessive optimisation is just a baffling attitude outside some really hard pre-made or (dare we say it) people who want to be better than the rest of their party.
It's even worse if the character out-powers the rest of the party since now I need to challenge that player without wiping the floor with the rest.
Be aware of what's good, because otherwise you're a healer that doesn't know that Healing Word is a bonus action. But learning something like your optimal is the sort of rule (like swearing) that you learn so that you can judiciously break it. I actually roll my eyes, a bit, at a character that's perfectly optimised. I don't hate it, it's fine, but c'mon, let the poor bastard who rolled bad stats have some glory too, eh?
You're saying what the baseline has been. I'm saying a baseline should be a realistic middle of the road version of doing a thing well. Therefore the baseline needs to be updated such that "beating baseline" produces tangible play results reliably.
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.
It's even worse if the character out-powers the rest of the party since now I need to challenge that player without wiping the floor with the rest.
Be aware of what's good, because otherwise you're a healer that doesn't know that Healing Word is a bonus action. But learning something like your optimal is the sort of rule (like swearing) that you learn so that you can judiciously break it. I actually roll my eyes, a bit, at a character that's perfectly optimised. I don't hate it, it's fine, but c'mon, let the poor bastard who rolled bad stats have some glory too, eh?
For me, this is the tough part. I'm grateful that my current party has one optimized character and the rest are just in it for the fun. They turn the crossbow expert/sharpshooter with the magic crossbow and magic quiver loose on the biggest target and hope she kills it. If I want to shut her down it's not hard so I don't abuse the privilege and everyone has fun.
However, I'm also playing a Battlesmith Artificer in another game and most of the party can kill bosses with their breath. There's the Paladin/Warlock, the Barbarian with the magic great ax, the fighter with polearm master and his rune stones (I'm not saying Run Knight is broken but DAMN he has some cool abilities and we're only level 7!), the Psy-blade Rogue (who would be much more effective if not for terrible dice luck), another fighter (Dual-Wielder with a pair of mithril shortswords), and me...riding around the fringes of the battle on my Steel Defender, buffing the party, casting Faery Fire, and occasionally shooting someone. My Steel Defender can almost do more damage than I can and if not for the fact that the plot revolves around my background for now I'd be totally outclassed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've seen quite a few Build videos and I keep hearing content creators talking about 'baseline damage' and then comparing it to a Warlock using Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast.
Um...why? Why compare a D10+ Stat Mod attack that you can wield in one hand when most one-handed weapons do 1D8 tops? Shouldn't we be using the most common attack for the baseline? The Human Fighter is the most common race/class combo by a good margin. Why aren't we using THAT as the baseline?
Most people don't use that "baseline" damage. From what I've seen, it's really only Treantmonk that uses that standard. (In my experience, most people don't even have a baseline DPR standard, especially not on website forums.)
And, to address the issue of most one-handed weapons dealing 1d8 + Stat Mod damage, the Dueling Fighting Style adds 2 damage to each attack, which will make it be on-par in damage with a 1d10 + Stat Mod damaging effect (not in range, just purely DPR). So, yeah, if you use a Human Fighter with the Dueling Fighting Style and a 1d8 damaging weapon, you get the same resulting baseline.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Why not? Any choice of baseline is going to be subjective, but Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast is as good a choice as any other I can think of. If you're going to compare against a Fighter, which Fighting Style are you comparing against? Are feats on the table? Did they pick one at 1st level? Are you assuming the Fighter prioritized STR or DEX? If so, why is that a better baseline than a Fighter that prioritized CON? Do you assume they have a magic weapon? How do you account for Action Surge? What if they're using the grapple + shove prone strategy? How do you account for subclass features past 3rd level?
Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast only requires making 3 really conservative, easy to justify options (Eldritch Blast, Agonizing Blast, and CHA is the highest ability score). It works more or less the same for pretty much every Warlock, with no significant interactions with any feat, subclass, or enemy type. That makes it a pretty simple and useful model to work with.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Is this why I keep seeing so many builds that talk about a Warlock base plus Multiclassing into other stuff? Three choices, one primary stat, and a couple of levels?
That's part of it, I'm sure, but warlock just has a lot going for it when it comes to multiclassing. Even if you only invest 1 level, you're getting access to:
If you go 2 levels in not only are you getting invocations, you're also doubling your Pact Magic slots.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
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.
GishLife
As much as I hate the concepts of baseline DPR and true optimization builds, GWM is often beat by Eldritch Blast + Agonizing(doesn't count Hex) because of it's pure reliability. Plus it can be done at level 2 without ASI spends, whereas Polearm Master + GWM at the very least requires a variant human and level 4 and the loss of an ASI. When you include Hex, it becomes very good damage. At level 5 with a +7(maybe +8) its 2D10 + 2d6 + 8(possibly 10 depending on builds, rolled stats etc). GWM/PAM is a +2(maybe +3) of, 2d10(glaive) + 8/10 +20 with a separate 1d4+4/5 assuming you hit. The loss of a -5 to hit is a huge calculation in DPR because now you have to roll a 9/10 to hit a kobold wiht an AC of 12. Goblins have 15! Now you are MISSING more often than you are hitting, which means lost DPR.
The classic TM baseline does include Hex. but later PAM/ GWF should supersede it at high levels, switch over from EB to PAM
GishLife
Yeah, which is why I personally don't care. Most games are played before 11th level, where the fighter would have a chance to potentially get more out of it assuming they were 12th or higher. There's also the issue that in general, the warlock has 120 feet to work with, more with another invocation. The fighter has 30 in most cases and then their reach weapon. So while the fighter might be able to DO more damage, it's assuming they get to the target. At level 6, they can take Sentinel to get potentially get more uses of their reaction, but that means they get starved for yet another ASI.
The fighter has to worry about their target dying. If the target dies, they have to find another target in their limited range. If the warlocks target dies, they have 120 feet of wiggle room, 30 more if they really have to move.
DPR doesn't take any of this into account.
My point is that it's now too easy to surpass baseline, so the bar should be raised. and I don't care if most people don't enjoy high level play. I love high level play and this is all theoretical anyhow, so all levels are relevant.
GishLife
The baseline exists as "This class can get this with zero feat expenditure. It is something every version of this class can do, with zero regard to subclasses". Raising the baseline means that you expect every single martial class to take both of those feats.
That's not what "baseline" means, Gaf. "Baseline" is the minimum something gets to be and still call itself the thing. Treantmonk's scornful dismissal of anything and everything that isn't numerically perfect is absolutely infuriating, but in this case Agonizing Blast warlocks are considered "the baseline" because that's kinda the minimum investment one can make and still be considered a combat-capable class. If your build cannot outdo an Agonizing Doink warlock in terms of white-room DPR, it had best be contributing something else because its damage numbers aren't acceptable. That's what "baseline" means. GWPAM is not baseline, it's an extremely resource-intensive offense-focused build that ignores its own defenses and relies on team set-up to perform optimally, given that it has horrid accuracy without a source of constant advantage. At no point and in no way does it constitute "baseline" anything, save perhaps a baseline for Baby's First Powergaming Character given how obvious and intuitive the combination is.
Please do not contact or message me.
Eh. Video put at the appropriate timestamp for sake of this specific post:
Even he doesn't really like DPR, but he admits it's the only tool to really use sometimes. That being said, he does focus on the pure math a lot.
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.
Please do not contact or message me.
22:07.
I'm not saying DPR is a good tool, certainly nova damage isn't. Resilience and versatility are fundamental in a build. That said, IF a player chooses to consider DPR I don't think the baseline, and here I'm using that term as I use it in medicine, to be normal known range of (we hope healthy) function, should be the bottom of the barrel, but something midpoint in the normal range for it's area. ( e.g we don't assume a trauma patient is fine when their blood pressure is 85/60 even though that should theoretically provide enough kidney perfusion [to a theoretical healthy person]). Rather, we look for something more robust to consider normal.) Similarly, I'm suggesting that IF a player chooses to look at DPR the gold standard of comparison should not be what you've already observed to be bottom of the barrel, but should rather be an achievable example of good sustainable function in the realm being considered (DPR here.)
GishLife
Right, but then it isn't baseline. The definition of baseline is a minimum or starting point used for comparisons. That's all DPR is used as a tool when looking at it against EB+AB+Hex. EB+AB+Hex is the starting point. Even in your own example, you are introducing factors that alter the baseline, but D&D doesn't really work like that for theoretical math.
This is my final post about this though.
As a DM, if the party is stronger I make the encounters stronger, or they'll be bored and unchallenged.
It's a zero-sum game.
Do people really think the challenge-ramp as you level up is pure coincidence, that the world just happened to give them power-appropriate challenges at every step? Obsessive optimisation is just a baffling attitude outside some really hard pre-made or (dare we say it) people who want to be better than the rest of their party.
It's even worse if the character out-powers the rest of the party since now I need to challenge that player without wiping the floor with the rest.
Be aware of what's good, because otherwise you're a healer that doesn't know that Healing Word is a bonus action. But learning something like your optimal is the sort of rule (like swearing) that you learn so that you can judiciously break it. I actually roll my eyes, a bit, at a character that's perfectly optimised. I don't hate it, it's fine, but c'mon, let the poor bastard who rolled bad stats have some glory too, eh?
You're saying what the baseline has been. I'm saying a baseline should be a realistic middle of the road version of doing a thing well. Therefore the baseline needs to be updated such that "beating baseline" produces tangible play results reliably.
GishLife
For me, this is the tough part. I'm grateful that my current party has one optimized character and the rest are just in it for the fun. They turn the crossbow expert/sharpshooter with the magic crossbow and magic quiver loose on the biggest target and hope she kills it. If I want to shut her down it's not hard so I don't abuse the privilege and everyone has fun.
However, I'm also playing a Battlesmith Artificer in another game and most of the party can kill bosses with their breath. There's the Paladin/Warlock, the Barbarian with the magic great ax, the fighter with polearm master and his rune stones (I'm not saying Run Knight is broken but DAMN he has some cool abilities and we're only level 7!), the Psy-blade Rogue (who would be much more effective if not for terrible dice luck), another fighter (Dual-Wielder with a pair of mithril shortswords), and me...riding around the fringes of the battle on my Steel Defender, buffing the party, casting Faery Fire, and occasionally shooting someone. My Steel Defender can almost do more damage than I can and if not for the fact that the plot revolves around my background for now I'd be totally outclassed.