Optimization in D&D: Theoretical vs Practical

[@TheAserghui]

Beware the Druid in metal armor, their mission is of such importance they have chosen to give up their principles.

[@horserage]

Or they, just wanna wear metal armour? Like, oh no, some fae overhang from the older eds is going to cause their magic to not work, I think? Still, cringe.

[@oOPPHOo]

@@horserage It's just nice to give classes some quickly discernible distinction and flavor. The type of armor a person wears is very noticeable. What's to separate a druid in metal armor from a nature domain cleric? You already have an option in the books for wielding both nature magic and metal armor.

[@pranakhan]

Its a wonderful opportunity for designing specialized heavy armors for Druids. The magical chitin or scaled hide from a beast. A special kind of Ironwood gifted by a Nature Lord. Anything is possible; restrictions are points of inspiration.

[@captainpandabear1422]

@@oOPPHOo Strong disagree on that. Flavor should be what the player wants (within bounds of reason), not one of the twelve flavors available in the book. Being constrained to just the flavor on offer directly with no ability to break out and be creative sounds like a nightmare as someone who has already played the vanilla, base assumption for most classes several times.

[@oOPPHOo]

@@captainpandabear1422 The DM is a player too. If you feel creatively restricted by not being able to wear metal, perhaps you're not as creative as you thought. I will buy that, for people like you who've somehow already tried the base assumptions several times, it can of course get tiring. Still, I've played 5e for 7 years now and I have yet to properly conclude a campaign with the rogue I created for my first session. I've played a druid _once_ in a oneshot. That's it.

[@MrDeni23n]

The rope trick trick trick: All the mobs hold their attack until someone peeks out of the hole.

[@S0nyb1ack]

Here is my interpretation as a DM - lowering the rope is an item interaction in my mind and pulling it up as well, so if you want to do it both you will need to use an action since there is 2 item interactions involved. Additionally you will roll any attacks at disadvantage while dangling from a rope, sorry (not really). For spell lets see the components - somatic and or material components will have you make an athletics check to keep yourself up mostly with your feet. And of course al enemies are either readying their attacks or even just going around a corner waiting for the spell to end (potentially preparing, planning, calling in reinforcements). Rope trick is a great spell, but the intent is pretty clear and if players try to "abuse" it this way I think all those rules make sense and discourage that behaviour enough that it is not really a viable tactic 95+% of the time. But if they can maneuvre themself into a situation where they can still use this to their advantage I'll let them have it (and again it probably isn't repeatable at that point)

[@imbetterthanyoubyfar]

the way many people in the server saw that, both extra attack and multiattack rules only allow creatures to make multiple attacks on their own turns, so at the very least it can reduce the offensive effectiveness of enemy creatures. This much, at least, is fully supported by the rules as written.

[@adamkaris]

@@imbetterthanyoubyfar Yea but 7 monsters making 1 attack at the first person peeking out is way more than that 1 person would have dealt with otherwise.

[@Bilbrons-and-Dragons]

You can mitigate these things (I have Alert so tend to make my RT in Heavy Obscurement, so readied attacks are at disadvantage and a slew of sight spells are taken off the table). Also, most of the time if you're just climbing out to cast a cantrip, it's tactically better to just stay in the RT and don't risk losing your concentration spell (you DID cast Hypnotic Pattern/Sleet Storm/Slow/Summon/whatever first, right?).

[@Bilbrons-and-Dragons]

@@S0nyb1ack I use my familiar to complete the IWO sequence... mine to lower, his to raise. If so, I'd just cast Save spells. Readies can be mitigated and also, if noticed as likely, you just don't come out and they waste their actions. The spell is clearly OP, imo. I chose not to use it initially, but have started to carry it because 1. my DM is cool with it and doesn't try to create ways to block me that I would just circumvent anyway since I'm super good at this; and 2. because my DM annoyed me by nerfing Misty Step by telling me I couldn't use it to escape restrainment (just grappling), so I wanted a little power boost to make up for it, so I just started prepping RT instead of MS and now I have essentially invincible cover on demand (yes, I have mitigated Dispel Magic as well as Readies).

[@ChristianW1975]

Being mentioned in Treantmonks videos never gets old 🙂

[@KaelinGoff]

I dont even skip over listening to it. I appreciate the support you give.

[@jaredpuwalski8545]

I see the metal armor taboo for Druids as a chance to introduce unique materials into your world. That being said, I don’t think it would be a huge deal to ignore it. I can also see a circle of Druids, especially Dwarfs, that teach that metal is just earth in a different form similar to how Toph invented metal bending in Avatar.

[@thehermitdruid]

Literally what I did back in 3.5 with dwarf Druid 🫡❤️

[@hairylegg]

If this is the start of chris doing two videos a week again, I’ll be very happy.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

Likely not permanent. Having zero days off a week is something I'm ok with for a temporary amount of time.

[@SmugLookingBarrel]

I really like this video, because it puts into words this vague feeling I've been having about DnD optimization forever. My stance on optimization is "I like optimization, but not too much", but that's not really a satisfying point of view, because that's basically what *everyone's* point of view on optimization is, it's just that people have varying definitions of what "too much" is. I can't say that I don't like Artichron infinite Simulacrum builds because they're too optimized to someone who's talking about optimization, because that's not helpful, but hearing this, this is the distinction. I like Practical optimization.

[@annatheelephant1937]

"The reality is everyone is human. I'm a human, and the people at Wizards of the Coast are human. Jeremy Crawford is human" - This made me laugh.

[@M0ebius]

I’m a tortle.

[@Eduardo-pk9qb]

Yes I thought that we were mind flayers.

[@DidierPilon]

I’m a variant human.

[@Porphyrogenitus1]

I lul'd at the image of the owl-familiar delivering the bag.

[@TheLimalicious]

I'm gonna need a reference on cRAWford :D

[@RPGabe]

As a DM, I place importance on optimization matching the story of the character and that characters in the party are roughly in the same ballpark of optimization. It's not great when a DM has to throw threats at a party that are easy for some but deadly for others, or characters have no way to shine.

[@budington]

Are you going to make an optimancer wizard sub class?

[@annatheelephant1937]

This comment was made for the sole purpose of helping with the algorithm.

[@ethanlocke3604]

Same

[@dajosh6271]

:)

[@JefCollier]

This is the way.

[@Chatedh]

+1

[@BossTripp1]

Lol

[@Zerum69]

The designers don't understand their own rules, "a druid wears leather, STUDDED leather or hide" Studded leather is leather with metal "buttons" studded all over it's surfaces to create this primitive chain mail effect In other words, druids CAN use metal armor, they are just very very very nitpicky about the maximum amount of metal allowed in their armor

[@TreantmonksTemple]

"druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" I think we can agree that studded leather is made of leather, with some metal additions.

[@KaitouKaiju]

I mean, you can still wear rings, use barrier tattoo (metal needle), or wear other metal items which aren't armor. Since more like druids don't want large areas of contact with metal

[@opposumness3107]

Is the Metal Armor for Druids a balance thing? So if Druids started having Heavy Armor, would that break the game?

[@Zerum69]

@@opposumness3107 it honestly won't make a big difference, druids would be ever so slightly stronger early on but nothing out of the ordinary, when you wild form you lose your original AC and ability scores anyways, so at most you'll have 1 or 2 more ac than normal, but only while you're in your "human form" and if you're a moon druid you're never in "human form" Oh and I guess DMs won't be able to say "your wooden shield burned up after that one fire bolt" because you'll use a normal metal shield like the rest of your teammates

[@gustavotriqui]

A spear can have a metal head too

[@daverobinson5462]

I always welcome and reward players who get “creative”. Tricks are fine and I encourage that type of thinking. However, every player at my table knows that what their characters do or pull off for their benefit can be used against them. It’s surprising how fast they really work at being fair. 😈

[@PacmanPizza47]

This helped me from the DM side of the screen, makes me more comfortable saying no to things that players bring up

[@Fodelastico]

The player's handbook, for me, is more of a guide than a rule book

[@theonlymatthew.l]

As it should be! 👍

[@TheMillsAccount]

There's actually a place with some guidance on casting a spell on an enemy's equipment- the Light cantrip. It allows a dexterity save to completely avoid it. I've house-ruled away the 'extradimensional bag of holding explosion' shtick multiple editions ago. If you stuff one inside another, as soon as you let go they pop apart like magnets of the same polarity.

[@ZarHakkar]

At risk of Tolling the Dead, I'm glad you could shed some Light on this with your Guidance, but I'm afraid your Message might be met with some Resistance. People who are not Friends might argue with much Gusto that removing such a property Creates a Bonfire within the local community, and not even the most Prestigitidious argument might help to Control the Flames. Even still, I believe the way you have Encoded your Thoughts has made them Strike True, and I wish you great luck in Mending any bridges that have been broken. ... This was really dumb and all just because you said "guidance" before referring to the light cantrip. I apologize.

[@lucid1934]

From a pure rule-reading standpoint, the fact that the rage rule specifies you can do it as a bonus action means that you can't do it as an action. If it were otherwise, the rule would omit the words "as a bonus action." The interpretive principle is: the inclusion of one (bonus action) is an exclusion of the other (action)--expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.

[@adaml8827]

I loved this very sensible and well thought out description of the different kinds of optimisation. I think a lot of the negativity which is directed towards optimisation is actually people's reaction to theoretical optimisation. There is a false assumption that someone who has optimised their stats and spell list is also the kind of person who would create a game breaking interaction such as the bag of holding bomb or a peasant rail gun. But this video clearly draws a bright line between the two, which is really helpful.

[@RealMertar]

I would let my players do the rope trick trick, but the enemies arent stupid and are all going to prepare attacks for the moment you poke your head out of the safe zone.

[@xthebumpx]

Same with Tiny Hut and the various ways to make it castable as an action. People inside might be safe, but people outside are the ones with all the freedom to strengthen their position.

[@conradkorbol]

We wait them out for several years

[@DidierPilon]

Maybe they’ll tug of war and someone might get stuck in a different plane.

[@roscoeivan8739]

@@xthebumpx or they could get someone to cast dispel magic.

[@imbetterthanyoubyfar]

To be fair, multiattack and extra attack don't work outside of one's own turns, so while this may not be an effective counter to some more dangerous enemies that impose saving throws without spells (which can simply be counterspelled without fear of a counter-counterspell or even waited out so their concentration fizzles) or make a single large attack, it's great against enemy spellcasters and multiattackers.

[@-THE_META]

I hope you cover more of those theoretical builds like coffeelock because I want to have a handy dandy resource and link for an obnoxious player who thinks I am trying to limit their fun for illegitimate reasons.

[@SmugLookingBarrel]

Here's an even simpler example regarding the Immovable Object spell: There are no rules in DnD regarding relativity, or how fast your world is moving through space. Technically, if you fix someone's armor in a single point in space in a place like Earth, they would be crushed into viscera in an instant because their armor isn't moving while they, along with the planet they're on, are rocketing through space at incredible speeds, orbiting a star which is also moving at incredible speeds. But using Immovable Object as an "this enemy is instantly crushed into nothingness" spell is not practical optimization.

[@M0ebius]

Ah... here it is - D&D x real world physics. I both love and hate these lines of reasoning.

[@cmckee42]

You are assuming that the prime material plane of the campaign world behaves according to real world astrophysics, which for most official settings is canonically not true.

[@deltavictor8369]

This is why my house rule on these spell interactions is "what would an average orc think it meant?" Would an average orc assume that the Immovable Object spell would crush someone instantly, or fling them into space? No, obviously not, and so it doesn't. How would an average orc define "an object?" Well, probably more simply than your physics (or philosophy) based attempt at breaking the game defines "an object." It goes in the players' favor as well, when it comes to things like Wish interpretation. This house rule was inspired by gaming with an unusually high concentration of engineers. So far, it has been great at averting the trickier rules shenanigans.

[@jag519]

This is like making your porcupine/armadillo. You straight up told us of the theoretical optimized version and then taught us your practical version

[@adamkaris]

26:00 taking "Replicate magic item: Bag of holding" and "Replicate magic item: Bag of holding" sound a lot like taking two of the same infusion.

[@gustvanlooy3741]

Would it be fun to make an optimised party of the same class? lets say each party with 5 characters of the same class who can fill different roles in the party? I would love to see those builds and how they could be roleplayed. And explore their effectiveness in combat.

[@igku8339]

Excellent video, this truly stated the dilemmas about rules interpretation right and should be a column text on all ttrpg manuals. This video also made me think that it would be proper to DnD Shorts to say "Weird thing you _may_ do in DnD, part x".

[@MarcusVance]

I'd allow the bag of holding bomb. Though they'd need to find two bags or have two artificers. Then an object interaction to throw the first bag and probably either Unseen Servant or Telekinesis to put the other bag in. Mostly because there's a limited level window when it's be useful. You could burn those resources to "kill" a bandit leader, but it takes up a lot of class features. You can use it to "kill" a stronger boss, but it takes up a lot of class features and that boss might be able to come back. Maybe with some astral allies.

[@kaemonbonet4931]

Consider: at 10th level they can make a quiver of elhona, it gets around some of the problems listed in the video and can't be accessed till level 10. I might also add there is no reason to believe they could do this more than once per level up (rather than once a day as I've heard people claim) and I would probably require them to pick different infusions upon level up just because the ability requires them to. Also, of they start doing this more than once there are plenty of nasties that can come out from the other side and sufficiently bad dudes can just come back from the astral plane in a day or so. I seem to remember an older version of the game where putting an ed space of the same type inside another just expanded the space of the first which is a nice and cool thing to surprise your players with if they try this mess.

[@Papa_Mike]

I just smile when players want to do something optimized. Whatever they decide they want to be able to do, there is an NPC that they will eventually meet that can do the same thing.

[@christophergutzeit8827]

This was a great video. I didn't get into dnd until 4e, so I never even knew that the theoretical optimization term existed until you made this video. Thank you!

[@comfortablegrey]

Such an important topic that I overlooked as a child optimizer! It's fun to push the system, just not always for the DM.

[@misterbxiv]

For the bag of holding bomb-you can have an echo knight hold both bags and put them inside of each other, then swap places with his echo after they’re in the astral plane-as the swap doesn’t have any restriction on being on the same plane or distance.

[@PapaSmerf008]

I particularly love the bag of holding bomb since it is something they think works perfectly and may even repeat over an over again... however, in a world of Magic, rifts into the astral plane don’t go unnoticed. I would send some order of individuals that protects the material plane from other planes. And, to top it off... the enemy isn’t killed they are just lost in the astral sea. Where they can mind float to a permanent portal and come searching for you, but this time with more friends.

[@CharlesChaldea]

Thanks for this video, chief. I like this distinction and these commandments make it far easier to tell when I'm thinking too far outside the box. ~

[@borax212]

35:04 describing 99% of Hexblade dips (imo). Great video, I'm glad you're discussing this distinction.

[@M0ebius]

Huh? Hexblade is 99% practical optimization and very easy to flavor.

[@pedrodarosamello64]

The worst part is that I love Hexblades, not Hexbards, not Sorcadins, not Hexadins, pure Warlock, but everytime I mention I wanna play a hexblade the DMs imediate reation is to groan and ask how many levels the dip is going to be.

[@havasimark]

Good to see you back on topics you talk about with passion. Keep going, we're listening.

[@oielvert]

This was of great interest to me. I'm not strictly an optimizer but I like my characters to be competent when they engage into combat. Also, I had a lot of issues with a particular player back when I tried to DM a campaign and this video helped me put a name to many of the situations I found myself in. Thanks for all the effort!

[@brucebrown5434]

I am always constrained by a personal intolerance for cheese. That is why my warlock doesn't carry a bag of rats to buff up her temp HP or hold her hex.

[@gregoriogarcia3085]

Well done, sir! This is RPG PhD.

[@paulfernandez1210]

As a DM you have so many ways of mitigating any of this stuff. You are the author of the story and have a literal infinite degree of control over NPCs. I would allow the community misconceptions to work, but then punish the party in other ways. Do the PCs really think they're the only casters in the universe to think of this stuff? Everyone hides in a rope trick with one person popping out? After 2 rounds, the enemies run away and go get a caster to dispel it, and another caster to heal them + buff them for a much harder encounter. Someone tries the bag of holding bomb? I'd tell the artificer that their mentors warned them never to use this forbidden technique. If they do so anyway, I'd have a Deadly ++ encounter of Gith come from the astral plane and attack the party (very tired of strong enemies getting shunted there), or a group of level 20 artificers (even better a group of Maruts made by level 20 artificers) come and imprison them for violating the laws of artifice. They can use a new character for a few sessions until their sentence expires, or the party could try to break them out by making an agreement with a pit fiend! They also could get a session to escape, with the other party members playing fellow prisoners (or have been imprisoned themselves)! So many ways to make it engaging for everyone at the table, make it feel like a lived-in world where this stuff has been done before, and most importantly let the party know that when the DM warns against something, there will be consequences!!! Immovable object is pretty easy, just say the armor weighs too much, or then have it be done to a pc once and see how the party feels about the interaction after they get restrained and focused in 1 round. As a general rule, if a campaign ever becomes "broken" it's because YOU! YES YOU THE DUNGEON MASTER! messed up. It's your job to balance things, make a story, and help the party navigate the obstacles in their way. Is the Hexblade PAMlock way better than everyone else? Pretend to roll loot and give stuff only good for other party members (bracers of archery for the ranger, bracers of defense for the monk, +2 weapons that aren't polearms for other martials, magic heavy armor, +1-2 shields, bloodwell vial for sorcerer, Instruments of the bard, magic staffs, literally endless options). Any decent party would take the items and happily give the gold to the PAMlock, which could be spent on things that help everyone or have limited use like potions, a bribe to enter somewhere to advance the plot, or anything else that wouldn't upset game balance. THIS DOESN'T EVEN MEAN THE PAMLOCK WILL FEEL SCREWED. Imagine they get sent into a death pit of monsters with a trap, chug a potion of Tenser's Transformation (not 3rd level or less, but remember you literally make the rules), and clear out 2 entire rooms of enemies by themselves before finding the party again. They won't be complaining about the unoptimized paladin's scimitar of speed after that! They'll actually feel like quite a badass. Ideally this would be while the rest of the party is doing a difficult puzzle to avoid boring everyone else (Maybe the PAMlock touched something they shouldn't in the puzzle to get sent into the trap), and the PAMlock could find a clue to help them along in the death pit. You could also give rewards to the PAMlock in other ways, maybe they get a ladyfriend NPC who fights well or a cool pseudo dragon they find in a dungeon just decides to be their familiar (no pact of the chain) because they fight so well or something. You have immense power as a DM! Use your DM screen! Use your power! You have it for a reason!

[@ayokunmiolatunde6932]

i love watching you videos and seeing all of the new builds you have. Could you make a dual wielding gloom stalker ranger. i really curious to see what you will come up with.

[@opposumness3107]

I want to add to the algorithm with this comment, while thanking the Archmage Patrons, you guys rock - and Bloody9 caught my Abercrombie eye. Also, this kind of content is most welcome, and you're more than welcome to do more.

[@Phentari]

When I wrote the Commandments of Practical Optimization, I didn't know they'd have this kind of longevity. Thanks for sharing them! (Oh, one small quibble--"Caelic" is pronounced with a hard "C." :) )

[@TreantmonksTemple]

Hey Caelic with a hard C! It's interesting how the same discussions we had that long ago still happen today in much the same way.

[@Phentari]

@@TreantmonksTemple, it's sort of scary how fast time goes by! It doesn't seem so long ago! But ultimately, the rules change, but the experience of playing is still essentially the same.

[@LumenPlacidum]

This is my favorite D&D video. I appreciate the fact that you're very logically consistent.

[@stranger6822]

This is a useful video. I've never heard the language of theoretical versus practical optimization before, but I think this is needed. This is a set of ideas and attitudes that players generally develop over time, but that can take years. Having it spelled out in this way is immensely helpful, and I hope wizards of the coast sees this and considers putting this in the next edition's PHB. This goes a bit beyond just the blurb about rule 0 and adjudication, and I think this is a more effective way to explain the DM's role.

[@jasonmichaeli1378]

This makes me think of a great skill I learned as staff members for LARPs: knowing when to look at something as RAW or RAI. It may have helped that I was involved in a lot of the rules writing for one game, so I could shut down RAW rules abuse. That game also had a “abilities only do what they say they do”, but STs could allow outside the box uses, they just never created a president to be used that way at another time. A lot of that thinking I bring into my own tabletop games, I just get to be more generous with rewarding creativity in non AL games

[@jamesetheredge1204]

I do think there is a good RAW argument that is also Practical Optimization. The rules state the bags interior space is considerably larger than its exterior. One can use common sense to determine that one bag could fit inside another. It weighs 15 pounds and can hold 500 so definitely written into the rules there too. And...... as I write this I go to look up the actual definition of "similar." Resembling without being identical. Therefore, crushing my argument and swaying it in a different direction. By definition bag of holding does not count for this. Would then make sense that multiple bags of holding might be stored in one though. That might just be theoretical optimization as well though. Think that one has a lot of valid points either direction. Now we need a video about the theoretical optimization of what happens when you turn a bag of holding inside out. :)

[@jefry6782]

Great video. I've never thought about those terms. Anlther great example of Theorical optimization is Ilusion magic, that you always tell is really up o the dm

[@riccardoconti6682]

Hahahaha, the reference for the thumbnail's drawing is clearly Ronnie Coleman XD

[@pocketbomb8081]

I love Friday vids, great way to kick off my weekend shift!

[@MagnificentMelkior]

I think bag of holding is obviously "a similar item." if we use any common sense, as you said we should. As a DM tho, my preferred method for dealing with combos like this are "Sure, you can do that. But so can your enemies." which always rebukes them.

[@TheObsidianWarlock]

This is a huge thing, really. It underscores how dependent familiar builds are: The Sorlock, for example, kind of trucks on being able to trade Pact Magic slots for Sorcery Points, which is not specifically allowed by multiclass rules. Without the DM allowing that, there will be considerably less Eldritch Blasting, and perhaps a heavier reliance on Spiritual Weapon, which seems to be the go-to backup option for bonus actions.

[@Porphyrogenitus1]

I was surprised you didn't mention the Infinite Simulacrum trick, which I maintain is theoretical and not practical, but has come up in past videos as something that exists within the rules (as a problem, sure, but exists - when I think that really isn't the case).

[@M0ebius]

Simulacrum itself is already a gamebreaking spell, and any party with multiple Simulacrum users ought to be theoretical territory.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

I think it is broken for sure, but not sure I would call it Theoretical Optimization. I just think Simulacrum should probably not be used.

[@Porphyrogenitus1]

@@TreantmonksTemple PF2 actually did a good job with revising it, nerfing it so you can't use it to create a battle-buddy but it's a potential disguised substitute for an original. Possibly useful for doing small tasks around a dwelling or something since it's not totally without any abilities, but it's not going to be your sidekick or double. WotC should possibly consider an official revision that makes it something like that: a NSA (No Special Abilities) quasi-copy that can play-act as the original but won't be essentially a henchie.

[@jimmyredd]

"He's right! Ain't no rule says a dog can't cast Fireball!"

[@Maxbeedo2]

As a DM I'm fine with someone optimizing, because it means I can throw more powerful and cooler creatures at the party (focusing fire on those characters if it makes sense), and sometimes the player will change my mind about a class/subclass/ability/spell. Sometimes what seems to be a really powerful combo is just kinda meh in practice, and the DM is in control of a lot of factors. I like finding practical in-world ways of counteracting theoretical combos. For example, with the Bag of Holding trick, maybe I allow the enemies to be sucked into the Astral Plane, but I'm in control of where other portals are (Color pools are a thing), and the enemies can show back up whenever.

[@luketfer]

I honestly hope your audience take this to heart. Remember it's no fun when YOU'RE the only one with a heavy optimized build that essentially just locks everything down and makes encounters a boring chore. Sure YOU'RE having fun playing the uber battlefield control wizard but you're probably not going to be very popular around certain tables because you've just made it boring for the rest of them, including the DM who is just gonna shrug and say "well I guess you win that encounter...congrats" with a sigh and a shrug. When you're the only one at that table with that kind of build the DM is then FORCED to come up with counters that counter your build but will also counter anything else the party will do. Not only this but a lot of uber optimized builds tend to be run by the sort of people who are spotlight hogs (just something I've noticed) and usually involve general asshattery on their part. I know you mean well Mr Monk but considering for a while the whole 'bringing an optimized character to an otherwise non-optimized table and being a dick about it' was going to be labelled the Treantmonk Effect amongst my group because Optimizers like yourself put these builds out there without any sort of advice on whether a player SHOULD bring one of those builds to a table.

[@nathanbrady2704]

I was messing around with some of the new features from recent DnD books and i came up with an interestinf character concept. Take Varient Human, go Fighter at lvl 1 and take the fighting style and feat that gives you battle manuevers and superiority dice. You start with 3 manuevers and 2d6 i think, it might be visa versa, and i think it would be interesting to see where you would take such a character start. I could see it as an interesting start to a Hexblade or Bladesinger. Also an interesting start to an Arcane knight. Or just go pure battlemaster and max out with all the good manuevers

[@henryfleischer404]

My DM suggested I play a coffeelock, and I've been having a great time doing it. There's another DM I play with who I would never play a coffeelock with, as they run a much more grounded game, and the other players are not particularly interested in optimization. I like to tell the DMs the intent behind a choice before I tell them what exactly I'm doing, because it makes the game way better. I'm not trying to thwart their plans, so they should know what I'm doing and why. Also, I really like the options the coffeelock creates. I don't have to focus so much on DPR or even control spells, as the base power of the class is so good.

[@ShadowGeek12]

Imovable object is 1 action and just tells you need to touch something the fact that youd need any rolls is actualy extra rules, and its fine to add rules that make it harder to do, but no need to excuse it

[@felipekopel5118]

Great video. It feels like a good fundamentals concepts class.

[@Similacrest]

This is a very important topic to tackle

[@5Dworld]

I have been working from home since April. After people get vaccinated, we will start playing again in a newly started campaign run by two experienced DMs. I can assure you that my two charachters (everyone has two each) that I have made for that campaign are VERY optimized after 9 months of tinkering and testing builds on DnD Beyond.

[@johnkneeshaw8008]

Theoretical optimizers aren't that hard to deal with at the table. Just use the goose-gander rule. Allow one use of some cheesy rule interaction because these things _are_ fun. But if they use it a second time, it becomes a well understood tactic in the world. "Are you *sure* you want to be able to attack from inside Rope Trick?" "Are you *sure* you want there to be a no-save hold person with a second level spell?"

[@Partimehero36]

I appreciate this video and the clarification it provides.

[@bard.college]

Really enjoyed this

[@Maxwell6535]

What's your opinion on Pathfinder 2 my favorite combomancer? Do you play It as well? Can we expect some video about it someday? Great content as always, dude.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

I've read the rules, but never played the game. I would not have the necessary expertise to make any content on it I'm afraid.

[@brettshull2141]

We played that my Druid wouldn't even wear a helm of Telepathy because it had metal in it. We gave it to an NPC who never coordinates anything in our group, sadly.

[@napoleontheclown]

A short and to the point way to determine practical vs theoretical optimization: If the DM pulls it out of nowhere and uses it *against* the party would your reaction be "Oh, that's a good one. I wish I had thought of that!" or would your reaction is "Bullcrap!"? The former is probably going to land in Practicaltown. The latter is likely to be in the Kingdom of Theoretical. And pulling the latter on your DM could result in the DM giving a lesson in "Any trick you can do I can do better."

[@SuperSpells]

Another theoretical thing that isn't supported in RAW is the Animate Objects + Polymorph trick as there is no statement on the CR of the animated objects. So its up to the DM on how that is determined, if at all.

[@giovannishepard653]

Hey Treankmonk, I just want to point out (as a coffeelock player) that technically the build is almost impossible. Any day you don't take a long rest you accrue a point of exhaustion, and exhaustion is really hard to get rid of without a long rest. The only really reliable way I've found to do it is to play a divine soul sorcerer and use a Greater Restoration on yourself each day, which costs 100gp in diamonds each day. Not only that, but it caps your spellcasting at 5th level all the way through level 20. As far as theoretical builds go I put it in the "actually reasonable" category due to those limitations.

[@propertystuff7221]

Extremely helpful! Thank you so much!

[@BigEd1001]

One key balancing factor is that anything the PC's can do, the bad guys can do as well. Making the players aware of that tends to eliminate the need for house rules in many cases.

[@mal2ksc]

That used to be true. As stated by the Dungeon Dudes in kzbin.info/www/bejne/jZixd2uDYr2EjZo there is no longer an expectation in 5e that the players and the monsters are fighting by the same rules, which was present in 3.5e. (Whether this equivalence existed in 4e, I do not know.)

[@andrewreimann5203]

One of my favorite parts of your builds is that they are not just practical in the sense of being able to play them at every table, but practical in use during every adventuring session. I don't mean to dump on a few other channel's videos, which have fun thought experiments, but having a character that needs to have surprise and three rounds to set up a nova attack never offers the practical fun of most of your builds.

[@Ragatokk]

Rope trick trick to pull rope up would be an action, throw it down an action, attacking an action, and the enemy can hold action to attack you...

[@eliaspatrikis1926]

I absolutely do not understand the point of trying to find some ultra broken trick, bringing it to a game and springing it on the DM. It isnt fun, nobody likes you for doing it, and your DM will hate you for doing it because you just ruined their game. Bringing an optimised character is super fun, bringing a broken character that works more like a glitch in a video game isnt.

[@nerfherder5211]

A great video on optimization philosophy that most forget! When posting a build most ppl will write "but x would give you more maximum dps" without considering flavor nor the practical aspects nor what their DMs rules are. An important point to add here is that if there is risk that some mechanic breaks the game, encounter or adventure it is rules as worded that the DM can (and should in my opinion) intervene and adjudicate how the rules are interpreted. In the end they will, and in my opinion should, have as their goal to keep it exciting and fun. If you were not allowed to make an infinite ammount of spell slots it is probably because it would trivialize the next encounter that you were supposed to struggle with because of the harrying smaller attacks from goblin with gerilla tactics. It's supposed to be fun.

[@bdsean]

I liked this video. I watch your content because of stuff like this.

[@TheShieldsMD]

It's hilarious that you posted this video because I was just on the paizo boards reading old posts on damage optimization, and who should turn up helping the OP do his calculations but Treantmonk, and what should he eventually turn the discussion to but practical optimization (specifically assuming you'll always get a full attack).

[@anykine9375]

First, I love your videos. I appreciate your opinions/guides on the various aspects of 5E and use them often. This is my opinion on this video. I agree with most of it and only disagree with your opinion on the bag of holding (BOH) bomb. You assert that using a BOH in another BOH to trigger the "bomb" affect is not supported by the "rules alone", as you put it. The description states, "...or similar item." Since the haversack and portable hole are both extradimensional spaces and the BOH is an extradimensional space, common sense (commandments 1 & 4) would mandate that a BOH is a "...similar item." Therefore, the rules alone allow for this. Furthermore, your opinion that it's questionable if a BOH will fit into another BOH goes against commandment 1. They're bags. Bags, by definition, are malleable. Common sense says one can be stuffed into another. Now, I wholeheartedly agree that the DM has final say, and can simply deny this "trick" simply because it's game-breaking. But, I do not agree that a DM can deny this because it's not supported by the rules. But in the end, what are rules? Every designer, critic, and DM will agree that the rules can be bent or broken by the DM - so long as it supports the narrative of the game.

[@daylearmstrong4447]

If I am being nice I would say pulling the rope in is a standard action, if I am being realistic, it takes more than six seconds to pull up a 60ft rope, more if you properly coil it. If it isn't coiled I would roll a percentage chance it tangles or something. I would also say casting spells from the rope trick, or shooting arrows or whatever would definitely be disadvantage and also require an acrobatics check, potentially also with disadvantage. Which seems harsh, but it makes more sense as to the reality of the actions tbh

[@tomgymer7719]

Personally I don't mind players asking the DM if something is allowed, as another player or as the DM, so long as they don't then argue with the DM's ruling! It's so annoying whether you're the DM or not to have someone in the group arguing something is allowed by the rules and the DM should allow it, after the DM has made it clear they won't allow it. You can ask, and you can point out the stuff that makes you think this would be fine, but then you accept what the DM says. I'm the kind of person that knows all the little DnD rules, and will tell you them, but importantly, I accept that the DM can dismiss those rules or interpret them differently and that's the end of it.

[@kurga9790]

Great channel, thank you for your quality content.

[@meselfsen]

I love these types of videos. This explains why I enjoy your builds so much. Your position on Flavor vs Optimization works for me because you aren't imagining "really powerful" yet contrived actions for your characters.

[@josiahzimm1]

This is no-joke, one of your best videos you've ever done. It really helped in how I thought about how not just class features interact, but many other rules/spells/items as well.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

Thank you!

[@williamcullen8756]

The "Rule of the Game" were written by Gary Gygax in Lake Geneva Wisc.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

Yes, but few of those rules remain in 5e

[@williamcullen8756]

@@TreantmonksTemple But still nice to pay homage to the memory of the man The "Practical World" still exist ... races, monsters, rolling dice to hit ... Your channel keeps his memory alive with your enthusiasm for the world and game he created.

[@skyler9643]

@@williamcullen8756 Ill pay homage to some of his legacy, but not to him as a person.

[@williamcullen8756]

@@skyler9643 He was a wonderful person.

[@skyler9643]

@@williamcullen8756 Are you unaware of his misogyny or are you a fan of it?

[@taintedtiefling6593]

As a dm I would be way more concerned with an infinite storage problem than the sending an enemy to the astral plane

[@loganricard8713]

I'm surprised you didn't mention the peasant rail gun

[@AnimalCrackers5]

I like the mantra for doing something that may be theoretical in a campaign...would you be ok if the NPCs did that to you? If I do something and the DM allows it, then enemy NPCs can ALSO do those things back in future encounters. Be careful what you wish for.

[@mal2ksc]

There are lots of legal tactics that simply make the game miserable and un-fun for all concerned if the enemies start using them. Most obvious is stunlocking. Having two casters with Counterspell so they can counterspell YOUR counterspell also counts. Nobody wants to play in a game where every time they try to do something, they get shut down and rendered useless or worse. Yet that is EXACTLY what the players want to do to the monsters, because we aren't terribly concerned about the monsters having fun.

[@stranger6822]

You mentioned the coffeelock, and I'm curious where you would say the rules gap is on this one, though I have a hunch. As far as I can tell, the short rest and long rest mechanics combined with Aspect of the Moon are rock solid. Even if taking only the standard number of short rests, one could build up spell slots over time, and there are clearly defined ways to avoid taking a long rest. _However_ the rules don't explicitly say that you can convert _Warlock_ spell slots into _Sorcerer_ sorcery points. Since Warlock spell slots work differently from every other kind of spell slot, we can't necessarily assume that this is possible. That said, this particular issue has been badly confused by Sage Advice, since Jeremy has seemingly been wishy washy on this in the past, once saying he would allow it and later saying otherwise. This trick is interesting to me in that it seems like a rock solid example of something that's technically possible but _practically_ theoretical, in the sense that you wouldn't reasonably expect most DMs to allow it. It's firmly in the territory of discuss with your DM first. I've personally run a game with a coffeelock in it, because I love builds like that. But I told the player which spells she should avoid taking so as not to be overpowered - the list included Shield and all healing spells. I knew I could handle this build simply because, in my experience, the major resource in 5e is action economy. The strongest builds are the ones that maximize their number of actions, do more with a single action, or both. Since the coffeelock is limited to lower level spells, its action economy can be managed so long as the player does not overuse certain spells or heal the party back to full after every fight. In that particular campaign, I also allowed a player to bring a homebrewed Paladin oath that could smite with ranged attacks, and that turned out to be the more disruptive element by far - who would have guessed?

[@TreantmonksTemple]

There are a number of issues. The first one to come to my mind is that the DM determines when you are able to take a short rest and how long that short rest takes. After the party takes a long rest, the player does not have the option to tell the DM "I actually took 8 short rests"

[@stranger6822]

@@TreantmonksTemple Interesting. What I've heard of people doing with the standard warlock-sorcerer combo is to convert unused warlock slots to sorcery points just before a short rest, as a relatively tame way to game the resource. I've heard of similar propositions for coffeelocks, taking advantage of short rests where able and using downtime days to build up slots rather than relying solely on taking multiple short rests during a long rest. But I'm generally a fan of rule zero on this one. I wouldn't bring anything like this to a table unless the DM was firmly on board. At the end of the day, people shouldn't be actively doing things that will decrease other players' enjoyment of the game, and the DM is a player too.

[@DaDunge]

23:00 At the very least one of the rope interactions would be an action.

[@sesimie]

When I run games for strangers online...with different levels of experience in D&D...RAW is WAR! I've been questioned by mainly veterans many many times. I oft have to show them my servers no1. rule. What the DM says goes. For that session learning from previous sessions, we then form a majority rule moving forward. I also love to see my players come up with rule breaking attempts. Shows outside the box thinking. If everyone in my sessions agree to let the attempt continue, i often let the mobs do something comparable...Yup allowing the rules to bend also allows the DM to use it as well.

[@MatthewCampbell765]

With the Coffee-Lock, do you have a video on that?

[@duckshallrule6937]

I mostly agree with this video, but the bag of holding trick is about as close to RAW as being able to walk is. Hell, I'd argue it is even rules as intended, since they designed the interaction in the first place. The only problematic part is how easy it is to replicate, which you admit is fairly ironclad RAW. It's okay to houserule bad rules. You seem to take it as an insult that you would have to homebrew here, but there are plenty of dnd rules that *should* be houseruled.

[@mal2ksc]

I had a player come up with a cheese that, as far as I can tell, _is_ supported by the rules but I had to say no anyhow. Her brilliant plan was to create a Simulacrum, and then tell the Simulacrum to cast Wish. If the Simulacrum then loses the ability to cast Wish again, who cares? It doesn't have any more 9th level spell slots and won't recover any. To me, this seemed like a complete end run around the 1 in 3 chance rule, allowing wizards to avoid ever getting Wishboned when using Wish in a way that doesn't replicate a spell. I ruled that this would work -- ONCE. If the Simulacrum gets Wishboned, then all of that caster's simulacra from that point forward will come into existence already unable to cast Wish. But the wizard herself still can -- but taking on the risk of getting Wishboned herself. In short, I said the exploit was game-breaking, but I rewarded the player by allowing her ONE extra bite at the Wish apple for being clever. The best part is that we worked all this out at the time of character creation, so there were no unpleasant surprises when I had to make the ruling. I can imagine a player being very upset at putting in all the effort to level a wizard up to 17th level, only to be told "no, you can't have unlimited Wishes by using a proxy". As far as I can tell, the rules as written allow this particular cheese, and if I were that player, I'd be pretty peeved about having my master plan blown up by an ad hoc ruling. I also enforce the druid/metal thing by saying that a druid wearing metal armor and/or bearing a metal shield cannot cast spells or Wild Shape until they get rid of that metal. If circumstances force them to put on "illegal" armor (say they are impersonating someone else, and are likely to be captured or killed if they fail, so they don the dead person's armor), they know what the penalties will be. If someone else forcibly fits them with that armor, the penalties still apply. My in-game logic is that the metal gets between them and the natural ley lines and other wellsprings of nature magic that run through the earth, so they can no longer tap into that magical energy. Why this wouldn't also apply to a metal weapon I don't know, but there's no prohibition in the rules on that, so I figure the line is somewhere in the size range between a weapon and a shield. I have never needed to establish exactly where that line is, but generally if you carry it and it's not a shield, then it doesn't matter if it's metal. If you wear it, and it has any physical shielding value (not just a magic amulet or something) then it matters. I'm not even sure I'd bother enforcing it for a metal shield, since there is no mechanical advantage to having one. There was a time when I was keen on house rules, but with the advent of things like Adventurers' League, I feel an obligation to present a game that mostly resembles the standard offering, so as not to cause too much confusion. That means that I practically always accept Sage Advice that supports their position as evidence that a player should get their way, and will equally expect the player to accept "this Sage Advice contradicts you" as a concrete "no". I also allow players to call a (nominal) one minute time-out for a ruling, even in the middle of combat, even in the middle of someone else's turn (so long as it NEEDS to be handled right then). They have that minute to explain why they think my ruling is wrong. If I agree that they have a case, they can have a bit more time to dig up the actual proof. If they can pull up a Sage Advice or something even stronger that proves my ruling runs contrary to official written sources, then I'll reverse it on the spot, even if it runs contrary to the way I want to run my game, because I don't want to veer too far off the expectations of players in general. If I can't deal with the conflict, I have the power to make sure that situation never comes up again. On the other side, if the player has a case but can't come up with documentation in a reasonable amount of time, then they need to shut up and finish the fight (because it's almost always during a fight that this happens) by my ruling. If they can prove later that I screwed the pooch, I'll fix it. That may mean compensating them for losses they shouldn't have taken, or it may mean running an entire combat again from the spot where the ruling went wrong. If the error is in their favor, then the result stands as is. The point is to incentivize "shut up and play it out" since they have nothing to lose. If they're right and I'm wrong and it causes them to lose, then they'll get a do-over and have a lot more information about the enemy to use.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

The rabbit hole goes a lot deeper. The Simulacrum casts wish to simulate another simulacrum spell (1 action/no material components) on you. This creates another simulacrum with wish. Repeat forever.

[@mal2ksc]

@@TreantmonksTemple I personally interpret "If you cast this spell again, any currently active duplicates you created with this spell are instantly destroyed" to mean that if the Simulacrum casts Simulacrum, it disappears and replaces itself. Then the exploit is only that you use one of the simulacrum's spell slots instead of one of your own, and it comes back with full HP and a copy of your current spell slots. It (or you) also has to pony up the 1500 gp of material components. If you're going to cheese like that, then may as well go all the way. Cast Wish with the Simulacrum's 9th level slot, and then use the 8th level slot to cast Simulacrum again. Even though I wouldn't let you have multiple simulacra, you'd still be able to keep duplicating the 8th and 9th level spell slots you HAVEN'T expended, every time you swap out for a new one -- which is clearly allowed by the wording of the spell.

[@MadNitr0]

It's sad that we need a vid like this and that people can't just use common sence anylonger BUT thanks for taking the time

[@mal2ksc]

The fact that 3.5e exists already proved that you cannot rely on common sense being common. That's how it got so damn verbose -- from having to correct all the misunderstandings people were having over more concise rules.

[@dankrue2549]

Great video

[@Duranous.]

Spirit of the law > Letter of the law. Always.

[@M0ebius]

Alas that’s not how actual laws work.

[@Duranous.]

@@M0ebius That is not correct, the law was made to be interpreted this way, that is why we have judges.

[@karifox4980]

Practical Optimization is Moneyball, Theoretical Optimization is Air Bud

[@rockstardeath8558]

Another counter to the Immovable Object trick is *most* spells that target objects exclude those worn or carried by a creature

[@M0ebius]

You can invert that logic and say that BECAUSE most spells that target objects explicitly exclude worn item, the Immovable Object spell is therefore intentionally allowing that interaction.

[@rockstardeath8558]

@@M0ebius guys, I found the theoretical

[@rockstardeath8558]

@@M0ebius but seriously, from a “convention” standpoint, spells that target objects that are worn or carried always make note of it somewhere (usually with a DC save)

[@M0ebius]

@@rockstardeath8558 Not always. For instance - Firebolt.

[@rockstardeath8558]

@@M0ebius fair-to a point, given that the flammability aspect is restricted to objects not worn or carried Meaning it specifically denotes that objects **can** be affected while also clarifying that worn and carried objects are somewhat unaffected Again, this seems theoreticism via technicality as the “convention” of effect is still limited

[@JonathanMandrake]

I think the more powerful and abuseable something is, the more it needs to be directly supported by what the rules say you can do. Can you remove the scales of a dragon and then craft them into an armour using some tool you are proficient in, so that the Druid can wear that armour to increase their AC? Your DM might allow it, he can say what specific rolls and proficiemcies are needed, how long it takes, how much it costs and what type of armour it qualifies as, even though neither removing the scales nor crafting the armour is something the rules allow. But if you killed a dragon, it is reasonable that you might be able to craft that armour, and as long as it follows the rules other types of medium armour have, this is flavourful, and feels great, but a slightly higher AC on the Druid is not even remotely close to game breaking. But if you want to use some sort of ranged weapon to fire a bag of holding into another so that you are unaffected but the enemies get transported to the Astral Sea, your DM probably won't even allow you to roll for it because of how game breaking it is and how little support it has in the rules

[@ajparker7575]

I'm curious what you think what about a Monk with Tavern Brawler & Grappler feat. I feel like it has as much potential as a fighter going a grappler route, if nothing else.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

Generally, when I'm looking for grappling, I'm looking for the shove/grapple option rather than the grappler feat, which seems kind of pointless.

[@nathanito-prine7791]

Would you consider using an empty book, a ring of spell storing (with glyph of warding put in it by team cleric), and summon monsters into the glyph of warding inside of your genie warlock's bottled respite as a way of storing a fuck ton of summons during downtime that you can pull out once per day, practical or theoretical optimization?

[@thecharmer5981]

I don’t think that would work, as the bottle can be moved and would break the glyph if I remember right

[@jeremyhauck960]

heeeeeyyyy optimancers