Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8054242" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Oh, I agree in general terms, I was more talking about the idea of starting a model with "all else being equal". An economic model assumes a lot of things, and essentially holds them static to focus on the effects they want to focus on. Because it is impossible to build a truly accurate economic model that considers every single variable. Such it is with DnD. We can't possibly talk about every single variable, and DPR is the simplest thing we can talk about, holding all else equal.I know you weren't quoting me, but I am involved in this. Firstly, Treantmonk came in late and left early on that thread. He might have present for around 100 replies at best. And, since that thread involved people supporting him and criticizing his arguments, it was not really him defending himself against a large group of people. In fact, I think we have a fairly even split on that thread between supporting him and criticizing him. So, definitely not 20 to 1But, I think the egregious point here is you acting like we are doing something bad in spreading what he said. If he released a new video tomorrow, recanting some of his points, wouldn't it be relevant to the discussion? Personally, the reason I quoted him over here was because he had explained his methodology better over there, despite his continual arm's length responses. It was over on that thread that I realized how he could possibly claim that every single class was possible of beating his baseline. Because he was counting spells with multi-round durations. This changes the discussion by providing clarity. If you are going to count Animate Objects on ten daggers giving the wizard a bonus action of x10 attacks for 1d4+4 damage... well, no wonder you are saying he can reach the baseline compared to the monk's at-will damage. I wasn't seeking to criticize that choice (though I do think it is innaccurate for a baseline, especially since it is not what most of us thought he meant) but to bring that clarity he provided over there, over here. And, just like if he had tweeted, or if we had trawled through the youtube comments, Treantmonk's lack of response to criticisms of his paradigms and arguments is a fact that has to be considered. Just like if I was reading a Bard optimization by Snarf, whom I've noticed hates bards, I think knowing how Treantmonk is approaching the subject of the discussion, when his analysis is what is at the core of the discussion, is important to the topic at hand.</blockquote>

Verification