D&D (2024) ENworld Damage Guide Vs Treantmonk's?

Zardnaar

Legend
So I have been watching treantmonks videos and there's 3 issues I have noticed with it.

1. He's not comparing apples to apples. Eg he has compared a greatsword barbarian to a sword and board whatever.

2. His test builds vary in quality. Eg his barbarian build is actually a good one a few of his other builds are fairly janky by comparison. Compare good build to good build it's just kinda obvious with barbarian (stereotypically a great axe or greatsword).

3. Assumptions made on hit rate and number of encounters. This penalizes spike builds. I'm not spiking in a real game unless odds are stacked in my favor more vs a white room. Eg smiting after a crit or using a guiding bolt if you're blessed or have advantage.

So I'm suggesting we do some builds probably focusing on comparing good build to good build, same weapon to weapon. Race not required we don't need to be that specific.

Also I would use average damage potential and put in spike damage. You can supply your own hit % if you feel the need we really only need potential. Bit more nuanced.

Example greatsword 2d6+3 becomes 10 damage. Adding a smite lvl 1 2d8 becomes 19.

GS 10
GS Spike 19.

How often one can spike depends on a lot of variables white room doesn't account for. If required we can add average dame over some number of rounds/encounters.

Zards Dragon Sorcerer Build (for example) lvl 4.

Origin. Guide or Acolyte take faerie fire or bless. If you're using spell spike damage boost that accuracy.
Level 4 feat. Shadow Touched (hex). If you're using scorching ray.......

Just an example.

We don't do it here but create another thread, set some required criteria and have a member submit a build for consideration. Builds don't need to be the best but do need to be compared to similar builds. Eg a heavy weapon barbarian is actually pretty good build and obvious.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

On reddit there is a quite well made ranger great weapon build. I have calculated a similar one.

Great weapon fighting is actually a good feat there, if you ignore the Sage advice 2014 hotfix that is not RAW: only affecting the weapon's inherent damage.
They probably changed the feat to replacing ones and twos with a 3 so they can finally get rid of that ruling.

Ranger with HM and a greatvsword gets +1.5 damage on average per hit. And a big increase in reliability. Also possible is a polearm build with polearm master and either shilelagh or a heavy one and GWM.

-> short calculation:

At level 5 we are speaking of either

2 times 3d6+7 damage +1.5 damage due to great weapon fighting. If you are a hunter, add another 1d8 damage +0.375 due to GWF.
You also do 4 damage on a miss.

This leaves your bonus action free.


Using a quarter staff and shilelagh at that level is a bit worse, but allows you to focus on 1 stat. You can also take GWF as a fighting style feat. Seems worse at first, but using the staff two handed allows to use it on the d4, which gets a damage bump of 0.75.
Sadly you need to use the stat bump for dexterity, so you are still at +3 wis bonus till level 8.

So you get two times 1d8+1d6+3 +0.875 damage and one time 1d4+1d6+3 +1.25 damage. And a d8 +0.375
This is not my favourite.

I think I'd rather do the great sword build and eventually transition to a glaive at level 8.

Assuming you don't immediately raise your str to 20 with the great sword and instead take mage slayer or so, both builds will sit at 19 Str.

So we compare (1d10+1d6+7)*2 + 1d4+1d6 +1d8 and a bit of reach and sometimes a reaction attack, costing you a bonus action against (3d6+7)*2 + 1d8 and an eventual extra 3d6+4 as a bonus action once in a while.

I guess the great sword will keep to be the better damage option, and allows for an easier recast of HM, but the polearm can give you better mobility and safety as you don't have to actually go into OA range when attacking. With longstrider and medium armor and probably even the jump spell, that might allow you to not get hit at all (given other frontliners).
 
Last edited:

Eh I disagree with 2 out of 3 of your points.

1. Damage is Damage. It is neither an orange nor an apple. While you might think "Obviously a Greatsword is for damage and a Longsword is for tanking" It's important to figure out just how much the difference is to see if it's even worth going for a 2 handed weapon instead of using a shield. For instance, if it only gives you one more damage to swing a Greatsword that's nowhere near worth the opportunity cost of having extra AC from a shield.

2. Half of the builds were purposely unfinished characters to establish what the skeleton of the class could accomplish without actually building a character to deal damage. Again, the "Is it even worth doing this?" question being asked here.

3. The point I agree with, the hit rate should be based on what the new Monster Manual uses for monster math, and we have to wait for that to be out to figure that out.
 

I don't really like Treantmonk's calculations, he assumes too many combats, too few short rests, and doesn't really optimize the builds at all. I do really love the way he presents things and shows all his assumptions and math though, many times I'll still learn something

D4 Deep Dive calculations are much better if you want to do optimized builds for damage.
 

Great weapon fighting is actually a good feat there, if you ignore the Sage advice 2014 hotfix that is not RAW: only affecting the weapon's inherent damage.
They probably changed the feat to replacing ones and twos with a 3 so they can finally get rid of that ruling.
If we get to ignore that, my next character is Fighter 1/Rogue X with double bladed scimitar and Revenant blade feat.
what mastery would be nice for that weapon?
Vex? to power it's own extra attack or Nick to have more chance to use it's extra attack(and it's a scimitar so Nick has some logic to it). Nick should be extra worded here as technically is not an offhand weapon attack.
 

I don't really like Treantmonk's calculations, he assumes too many combats, too few short rests, and doesn't really optimize the builds at all. I do really love the way he presents things and shows all his assumptions and math though, many times I'll still learn something

D4 Deep Dive calculations are much better if you want to do optimized builds for damage.
it's hard to make assumptions on Short rest.
simply as Short rest is not really short.

I've been in groups where we took Short rest after every combat, up to 5 or 6 per Long rest and in some we had a Short rest every other Long rest or even fewer.

off topic, we need return of 4E 5min short rest. That IS a SHORT rest.
 


I don't really like Treantmonk's calculations, he assumes too many combats, too few short rests, and doesn't really optimize the builds at all. I do really love the way he presents things and shows all his assumptions and math though, many times I'll still learn something

D4 Deep Dive calculations are much better if you want to do optimized builds for damage.

I'm not to worried about optimized or not as long as you're not comparing optimized to non optimized.

And d4 is interesting to watch as well.
 


It's pretty easy. Assume all abilities that recharge on a Short Rest are available every combat.
you can, that does not mean it happens.

Honestly, if not moving Short rest to 5min, then Short rest should be a 1min meditation that you can do 2 or 3 times per Long rest and you can set the pace of when to use it.
I would say that you can manage to get a minute of a breather in almost all situations that is not in a center of a battle.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top