D&D (2024) Treantmonk's Ranger DPS video:

[Minigiant]

The ranger has the best combination of ranged DOR and melee DOR


The Paladin has a terrible ranged attack.
The Barbarian has a terrible ranged attack
The Monk loses tons of damage at range.
The Rogue can only go melee or ranged until they pick up Sharpshooter at high levels
The Fighter is even more feat intensive for both melee and ranged.

The Ranger can have an okay melee attack while optimized strong for ranged.
The Ranged can have a good ranged attack while optimized good for melee.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The ranger has the best combination of ranged DOR and melee DOR


The Paladin has a terrible ranged attack.
The Barbarian has a terrible ranged attack
The Monk loses tons of damage at range.
The Rogue can only go melee or ranged until they pick up Sharpshooter at high levels
The Fighter is even more feat intensive for both melee and ranged.

The Ranger can have an okay melee attack while optimized strong for ranged.
The Ranged can have a good ranged attack while optimized good for melee.

And area damage.

 

[Selas]

Someone made calculations on reddit from Treantmonk's video but taking the Dual Wielder feat, and it looks like it fares better with that. Mind you, I don't know if this is right. Here is the link

 

[Redwizard007]

I am not talking about role play, I am talking about doing calculations being the optimal way to make decisions. It gives credence to looking for the highest number being THE way to play. This video is an example of making players feel like single target damage is very important.

Single target damage is very important. It's just not the only thing to consider when building a PC. The video repeatedly mentions that rangers have good AoEs and ranged attacks. If I want to play a single target melee build I now know that the ranger will not be a good fit. That's all it does. You are reading way too much into this.

The ranger clearly doesn't completely suck. I know you have a personal interest in the ranger, but if the only way you can see that a class deals more damage through careful calculations in a very limited situation, we will be fine at the table.

Math is good for a lot of things. This just happens to be one of them.

The more people do these calculations, the more players will feel like "rangers will not fare well in combat". And that's before picking up a single dice! Before exploring a dungeon or hitting on a barmaid.

Did the video ever state that "rangers will not fare well in combat?" I must have missed that. Do you have a time stamp?

What optimization does is that it looks at the most optimal case in a specific scenario, and then call everything else "worse". Even when that specific scenario never happens at the table!

No. It looks at specific scenarios, and determines what is most optimal in that specific scenario. That's why TM goes through the assumptions he is making, and his goal in theorycrafting, at the beginning of each video.

 

[Sulicius]

Single target damage is very important. It's just not the only thing to consider when building a PC. The video repeatedly mentions that rangers have good AoEs and ranged attacks. If I want to play a single target melee build I now know that the ranger will not be a good fit. That's all it does. You are reading way too much into this.

I don't think it's that important. It's just something people like to spend more time on than being a good player. I don't mind TM, he's a good guy.

Math is good for a lot of things. This just happens to be one of them.

Math is good for math things. My point is I want people to care less about math in D&D.

Did the video ever state that "rangers will not fare well in combat?" I must have missed that. Do you have a time stamp?

Read the comment I replied to.

No. It looks at specific scenarios, and determines what is most optimal in that specific scenario. That's why TM goes through the assumptions he is making, and his goal in theorycrafting, at the beginning of each video.

Look, TM is great at what he does and I appreciate the expertise he has. I like watching some of his videos to get a sense of what I can expect as a DM. He usually has a good sense of what is good in white room combat. Now I almost never play white room combats, so eh.

I'm just sad that my post about player prep gets no engagement, but frantic number crunching gets everyone excited.

 

[Mistwell]

I tend to skip to the conclusions his build videos as I am not interested in however he gets to the final stats. I really dislike how optimization has to first create a very narrow set of parameters to do calculations, and then makes definitive statements that people will take as gospel.

One thing you can say definitively is that Treantmonk does not make definitive statements about his builds.

PARTICULARLY this first set of test builds where he goes out of the way to say he's not even optimizing them in detail, and isn't even picking a species, he's just making some quick basic selections.

I think you're mischaracterizing what Treantmonk said in his two videos about the Ranger.

 

[Sulicius]

One say you can say definitively is that Treantmonk does not make definitive statements about his builds.

PARTICULARLY this first set of test builds where he goes out of the way to say he's not even optimizing them in detail, and isn't even picking a species, he's just making some quick basic selections.

I think you're mischaracterizing what Treantmonk said in his two videos about the Ranger.

Oh, I agree! TM is a good one. He knows what he’s doing. It’s the talk around it that goes into superlatives.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh, I agree! TM is a good one. He knows what he’s doing. It’s the talk around it that goes into superlatives.

Yeah he's fairly straight up about it.

He's not the only bone I use either. As I said he misses combos and interactions. He isn't an all seeing guru. Tbf he also spots stuff I miss.

Gloomstalker got nerfed directly and indirectly. I've always had a soft spot for the hunter. That's your most striker one relative to say beastmaster.

 

[Charlaquin]

Poor EB Warlock; guess it is now one of the worst single target casters?

He hasn’t analyzed any full casters yet, but I don’t expect most will be spectacular in terms of single-target DPR. Moreover, just keeping hex up and casting eldritch blast every turn has never been very effective. It did acceptable damage, but nothing to write home about, which is why Treantmonk used it as a baseline - if your single target DPR is less than that, you’re below par.

 

[Zardnaar]

He hasn’t analyzed any full casters yet, but I don’t expect most will be spectacular in terms of single-target DPR. Moreover, just keeping hex up and casting eldritch blast every turn has never been very effective. It did acceptable damage, but nothing to write home about, which is why Treantmonk used it as a baseline - if your single target DPR is less than that, you’re below par.

1d10+charisma is better than say a bit. Add hex on top and you're beating anything that's not 2014 sharpshooter.

It's also the type of damage. Force and hex. It was similar to pole arm master no feat required.

There's no -5/+10 any more.

New hotness seems to be dual wielding.