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

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.

My issue is the opposite. He assumes too few combats and too many rests. My primary game has about 3 combats per short rest, and almost never any long rests (West marches, so always ends each session back at the base).

As he says himself in his recent video, ever table is different, and he needs to focus on the feedback from the majority of his viewer polls.

I play almost exclusively online, including several multi-DM west marches campaigns, so have seen easily 50+ DMs over the life of 5e. Every single one is a little different when it comes to frequency of combat and rests, but I have never seen any that allow a short rest between every combat (without serious consequences at least).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

My issue is the opposite. He assumes too few combats and too many rests. My primary game has about 3 combats per short rest, and almost never any long rests (West marches, so always ends each session back at the base).

As he says himself in his recent video, ever table is different, and he needs to focus on the feedback from the majority of his viewer polls.

I play almost exclusively online, including several multi-DM west marches campaigns, so have seen easily 50+ DMs over the life of 5e. Every single one is a little different when it comes to frequency of combat and rests, but I have never seen any that allow a short rest between every combat (without serious consequences at least).
this is my main problem with short rest and balancing.
It was a good idea in 4E when you would get nearly 100% chance to get one after battle. I mean it's 5 minutes.

Maybe it would be better to be only 1 minute long with certain limit per Long rest(2 or 3 times, or prof bonus per Long rest).

Or another way is earlier editions. At-will and Long rest only.

Then again, problem is "nova burst" in a single combat and "5min work day".

"short" rest should have solved this, but 1hr short rest is not short. 1 minute could be good way to have short rest abilities certain for every battle and being unable to be "refreshed" in the middle of the battle.
 

this is my main problem with short rest and balancing.
It was a good idea in 4E when you would get nearly 100% chance to get one after battle. I mean it's 5 minutes.

Maybe it would be better to be only 1 minute long with certain limit per Long rest(2 or 3 times, or prof bonus per Long rest).

Or another way is earlier editions. At-will and Long rest only.

Then again, problem is "nova burst" in a single combat and "5min work day".

"short" rest should have solved this, but 1hr short rest is not short. 1 minute could be good way to have short rest abilities certain for every battle and being unable to be "refreshed" in the middle of the battle.

That is literally a variant option in the 2014 core rules called Epic Heroism:
This variant uses a short rest of 5 minutes and a long rest of 1 hour. This change makes combat more routine, since characters can easily recover from every battle. You might want to make combat encounters more difficult to compensate.

I am sure I saw a 2024 variant rule too, but for the life of me I cannot currently find it.
 


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.

I’m all for doing things ‘better’ but I don’t think there’s a clearly better way.

Accuracy matters.
Encounter length matters
#Encounters matters
Proc rates for kill, OA, PAM reaction and cleaves matters
Level matters maybe more than anything
Proc rate for Allies granting advantage matters
How often do you have to rely on ranged damage
What is your actual range
#short rests matter

Then there’s the question of burst/spike damage and not just how much you can spike/burst but how many times you can do it.

In short given some reasonable set of assumptions I can make almost any of the stronger builds come out on top.

If I had to make a suggestion, we need multiple damage calcs per pc. The exact makeup of those let’s discuss. And we won’t cover everything with them but we can at least get a better picture.
 

I’m all for doing things ‘better’ but I don’t think there’s a clearly better way.
The only thing I can think of that would be "better" is combining damage and survival.

Like, how much damage can you do before you die.

But that's going to take more assumptiond.
 

The only thing I can think of that would be "better" is combining damage and survival.

Like, how much damage can you do before you die.

But that's going to take more assumptiond.

I don’t think survivability is a reasonable metric to try to incorporate into damage.
 


Dead PCs deal no damage.

The counterpoint being the invincible pc that does 1 damage a turn forever isn’t particularly effective either.

13AC dealing 21 damage is not better than 20 AC dealing 19 damage.
But it seems that way if we only calculate is DPR.

It’s not that clear cut. Say the enemies mostly attack your 25 ac tank and the 13 ac pc stays back at range and rarely gets targeted.

It gets exponentially complex. It’s not just assumptions about enemy damage and hp, it’s assumptions about party, party tactics, enemy tactics, etc. where even small changes in tactics can yield significantly different results and where that tactical space is exponentially more complex than anything involving changing ac, hp damage and accuracy numbers.

You’re much better off having separate damage and survivability ratings, not trying for 1 metric to rule them all.
 

The counterpoint being the invincible pc that does 1 damage a turn forever isn’t particularly effective either.
Maybe the metric should multiply survivability with damage. That way, if you have one of those factors too low, the metric goes down.
It’s not that clear cut. Say the enemies mostly attack your 25 ac tank and the 13 ac pc stays back at range and rarely gets targeted.
You will never be able to recreate that in a white room.
It gets exponentially complex. It’s not just assumptions about enemy damage and hp, it’s assumptions about party, party tactics, enemy tactics, etc. where even small changes in tactics can yield significantly different results and where that tactical space is exponentially more complex than anything involving changing ac, hp damage and accuracy numbers.

You’re much better off having separate damage and survivability ratings, not trying for 1 metric to rule them all.
Yes. But listing one without the other gives a wrong picture more often than not.

I'd also add mobilitiy as another metric. Bringing your damage where it counts most or retreating if things go sideways is never rated correctly when speaking about damage*, except for ranged builds that kite enemies... which are usually useless in play.

*though treantmonk does value it high.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top