Cyber-Dave: Guess what? Harp on and on about what is or isn't a "strawman" and whether it was properly applied rather than the issue of the example in the first place is... wait for it... wait for it... a strawman! But congrats on the effort to keep derailing the point!
And just because X when Y, 1, and Z is worse than X, 2, and Z, doesn't mean that it is unintentional, a bad thing, or - more importantly - far off from each other in value. I keep arguing that the limit on Sneak Attack is minimal. You would rather declare the maneuver "unplayable" or "terribly inferior", or whatever other over-the-top colorful adjectives you want to throw out. None of those drastic labels are accurate to my view. That's just chicken littling. In play, where it matters, over the course of the 3-5 rounds of play a rogue has to do something, they end up using Sneak Attack just fine. To do the same bonus damage as the top dog of fighting: the fighter.
Cyber-Dave: Guess what? Harp on and on about what is or isn't a "strawman" and whether it was properly applied rather than the issue of the example in the first place is... wait for it... wait for it... a strawman! But congrats on the effort to keep derailing the point!
And just because X when Y, 1, and Z is worse than X, 2, and Z, doesn't mean that it is unintentional, a bad thing, or - more importantly - far off from each other in value. I keep arguing that the limit on Sneak Attack is minimal. You would rather declare the maneuver "unplayable" or "terribly inferior", or whatever other over-the-top colorful adjectives you want to throw out. None of those drastic labels are accurate to my view. That's just chicken littling. In play, where it matters, over the course of the 3-5 rounds of play a rogue has to do something, they end up using Sneak Attack just fine. To do the same bonus damage as the top dog of fighting: the fighter.
1) I have already dealt with every issue and example you have put forward. I have already debunked all your claims. Posters can see that for themselves by reading this thread. Some have even responded to my posts with comments like “hammer hit nail with this post.” It is you who have failed to actually engage with the oppositional argument. I have taken your actual examples and shown why they are, mechanically speaking, ludicrous.
2) That is still not an accurate use of the term strawman. Nice try though!
3) Quite frankly, your "view" is utterly invalid; it does not mesh with the actual, mathematical, reality of the game. That has been proven. Objectively you are wrong. I can prove, mathematically, that after 6th level a rogue does about 50% of a fighter's damage per round. I don't really care about your subjective impression, or your desire to ignore mathematically provable reality. Especially since, subjectively speaking, so many of us find the ability to just do a fighter’s damage but with restrictions boring.
4) In the end, what will matter is how playtesters respond to the problems as a group. Even you have realized that this entire thread is largly poised against you. If you think playtesters, as a whole, agree with you are deluding yourself. If you think that at least a sizeable minority is not severely bothered by the current status of the game, you are deluding yourself. So, when this gets fixed, I am going to content myself by saying "I told you so."
...jump around from rooftop to rooftop, drive wagons, get a spooked horse to rear and stop running, swim against a current, intimidate a foe, or break out of some bindings. Hell, even when you need to open doors, the fighter will often be able to kick in the door as effectively as you can pick the lock.
If the party needs to jump roofs, how is the fighter going to help the party? Sure, he can do it. But the wizard? Same with swimming. And how is a big tough fighter better at driving a wagon (using his strength)? Or calm a horse? Some of these examples don't make sense. See below...
If the party only needs one person to do something, then the fighter is as good at it as the rogue. If the party needs one person to figure out a way for the entire group to be able to do it, the rogue isn’t going to be able to help in those situations either. If the party needs every person to try, and those that succeed get a chance to shine, the fighter will get a chance to shine alongside the rogue. And yes, all those examples make sense. See below:
The current rules make it very easy to use mighty exertion while performing a drive, ride, climb, swim, escape artist, or intimidate check (whether a fighter is trained in that check or no).
So drive and ride are strength now? Escape the others, sometimes under the right circumstances. Not always. Whereas the rogue doesn't have to figure out a way to narrowly describe their action within a single stat focus to use Skill Mastery. They are good. Every time.
Unless the rogue is not trained in the skill. In which case the rogue is useless. The fighter doesn’t need to be trained. He just needs to find some way to narrate the activity in a way that uses his Strength.
Escape Artist with strength? Sure, maybe with rope. What if you are shacked in chains? I'm more inclined to think the rogue is going to figure out how to pick the lock than the fighter to burst the cuffs.
What you are more inclined to think is mathematically irrelevant. What if the rogue is also chained up and can’t make pick lock skill checks until they are free? If the fighter is not trained (but he is a Strength based fighter) he will have a 44.9% chance to break free; that is against a DC 25 skill check. If he is also trained in escape artist because of his background he will have a 59.9% chance to break free. The rogue needs to be trained. And, unless for some reason trying to slip out is easier than breaking out, his chance will be the same. Even if slipping out is easier, it is unlikely to be much easier with properly made cuffs. Assuming something like a DC of 22, he has a 74.9% to slip out. Better, it is true. But, it is an all or nothing gambit that relies on him being trained in that skill. There are 36 skills. There is a good chance he won’t be trained in the exact skill he needs (at least in this case). If he is not trained then he has, at best, a 5% chance of success. Let us say the party has been captured. Their things have been removed. They need to break out of jail. If the rogue is trained he has a 74.9% chance to slip free. But, he can't help the rest of the party. He doesn't have his lockpicks on him. If he isn't trained he hasa 5% chance to break free. The fighter has between a 44.9-59.9% chance to break free, and that same chance to break everyone elses chains. The fighter shines, in this instance, out of combat. The rogue is left in the dust. Point is, while the rogue is better overall, the fighter’s unique features in regards to this ability gives him a real chance to shine over the rogue. It won't happen all the time. But, from time to time, even out of combat, the fighter is mechanically equal to, or superior to, the rogue. That is a good thing. The rogue, however, should be able to say the same in combat. Right now, he can't.
Swim? Maybe initially, sure. But a long swim might move to Con. No more Mighty Exertion.
Yet, if a fast swim is required, the fighter will shine. And, if the rogue is not trained in Swim, it will not even have a chance to compete (whether the fighter is trained in swim or not).
Swim He usually won't need to hit really high DCs to swim, climb, etc. Lift an iron portcullis? Sure. Awesome. Fighter with Mighty Exertion to the rescue...
Usually is a fairly big claim in a fantasy adventure setting. Any time you have to swim to keep up with a sea serpent, climb a sea cliff in a squall, or the like, Mighty Exertion is going to be a big help. And yes, fighter to the rescue, in a non combat challenge… when does a rogue get to come to the rescue (on the basis of its mechanics) in a combat challenge, relatively speaking, compared to the fighter? Oh, right… never.
My own personal view is that they should not make it too easy to bump up the damage or all those other manoeuvres could fall by the wayside and monster hp may need to be inflated. Probably best to limit deadly strike to the highest of the dice rolled per attack IMO. With multiple attacks and opportunity attacks, 2-weapon fighting specialties etc fighters could still dish out all of their expertise dice in damage if the circumstances are right but otherwise theiy're encouraged to be creative or waste their dice. You could also halve 2-weapon fighting damage per the last playtest without as many complaints if you could add an expertise die to the result of each attack. Maybe at level 10 you can add together the highest 2 dice to one attack per round etc as progression continues. You would still need an optional rule to allow 'damage only' fighters to add more or all the ED all togther though.
Rogues can then have sneak attack that allows them to add all their damage together or alternatively, if you want to go for versatility again, just limit them to 1 expertise die as well unless they also have have surprise in addition to the other conditions required for sneak attack, in which case they can add all their dice together. Since rogues don't get multiple attacks like fighters, you could also allow the number of dice you can add together for a single attack to increase at a faster rate than the fighter.
Skill mastery and the saving throw boosts are trickier. I suppose you can limit the boost to half the highest die roll but +1 feels like a rubbish use for your ED though. Maybe 1+half your highest ED roll?
1) I have already dealt with every issue and example you have put forward. I have already debunked all your claims. Posters can see that for themselves by reading this thread. Some have even responded to my posts with comments like “hammer hit nail with this post.” It is you who have failed to actually engage with the oppositional argument. I have taken your actual examples and shown why they are, mechanically speaking, ludicrous.
Let me know when you start playtesting this stuff, rather than horsing around with your spreadsheets and calculators.
3) Quite frankly, your "view" is utterly invalid; it does not mesh with the actual, mathematical, reality of the game. That has been proven. Objectively you are wrong. I can prove, mathematically, that after 6th level a rogue does about 50% of a fighter's damage per round. I don't really care about your subjective impression, or your desire to ignore mathematically provable reality. Especially since, subjectively speaking, so many of us find the ability to just do a fighter’s damage but with restrictions boring.
You keep saying the rogue is doing less damage than the fighter like its a bad thing... Weird... Not sure I'm following you.
4) In the end, what will matter is how playtesters respond to the problems as a group. Even you have realized that this entire thread is largly poised against you. If you think playtesters, as a whole, agree with you are deluding yourself. If you think that at least a sizeable minority is not severely bothered by the current status of the game, you are deluding yourself. So, when this gets fixed, I am going to content myself by saying "I told you so."
Fair enough. And when the devs correctly see to it that the rogue does not end up outperform the fighter on damage output, I'll be sure to do the same.
It is clear that Chris Carlson just likes to argue and make others feel stupid. Rogue has always been a DPR in combat while fighters have been the uber DPR since they have very little other story purpose than to bash things. Sneak Attack has always been a Rogues primary purpose in combat. It is a shame if that is no longer their greatest combat purpose. And finally, I don't know what kinds of encounters he plays, but gaining combat advantage is not always easy.
Not before 3.x it wasn't. Before 3.x the Thief, the Rogue analog, was a skill monkey with a Backstab that was very, very, very situational and not very effective overall.
1) I have already dealt with every issue and example you have put forward. I have already debunked all your claims. Posters can see that for themselves by reading this thread. Some have even responded to my posts with comments like “hammer hit nail with this post.” It is you who have failed to actually engage with the oppositional argument. I have taken your actual examples and shown why they are, mechanically speaking, ludicrous.
Let me know when you start playtesting this stuff, rather than horsing around with your spreadsheets and calculators.
Who says I have not? That is a strawman argument. I have chosen to argue from the point of objective math (because you cannot reasonably claim that objective observations are subjectively untrue). But I have not said anything about me playing this game myself one way or the other. Claiming otherwise is to attribute a perspective to my argument that does not actually characterize my argument. You have then proceeded to argue against that strawman instead of dealing with my actual argument (specifically, my math). That is what we call a strawman argument.
3) Quite frankly, your "view" is utterly invalid; it does not mesh with the actual, mathematical, reality of the game. That has been proven. Objectively you are wrong. I can prove, mathematically, that after 6th level a rogue does about 50% of a fighter's damage per round. I don't really care about your subjective impression, or your desire to ignore mathematically provable reality. Especially since, subjectively speaking, so many of us find the ability to just do a fighter’s damage but with restrictions boring.
You keep saying the rogue is doing less damage than the fighter like its a bad thing... Weird... Not sure I'm following you.
I am actually saying that it is doing too little damage compared to the fighter. The statements are similar but not quite the same. We will see why when I get to your next point.
4) In the end, what will matter is how playtesters respond to the problems as a group. Even you have realized that this entire thread is largly poised against you. If you think playtesters, as a whole, agree with you are deluding yourself. If you think that at least a sizeable minority is not severely bothered by the current status of the game, you are deluding yourself. So, when this gets fixed, I am going to content myself by saying "I told you so."
Fair enough. And when the devs correctly see to it that the rogue does not end up outperform the fighter on damage output, I'll be sure to do the same.
Haveanicedaysir.
Except, I don’t want the rogue to outperform the fighter on damage output. In fact, I have explicitly said that I want the rogue to deal about 75-80% of the fighter’s damage output (in terms of both their total outputs per encounter); I also want it to deal that damage in a different pattern—bigger spikes, but less constant output. So, by claiming that I want a rogue to end up outperforming a fighter on damage output you have mischaracterized my argument and then argued against that mischaracterization. My problem is not that the rogue deals less damage overall. I want it to deal less damage overall. My problem is that it deals too little damage overall, and that it deals that damage in the same pattern as the fighter (but worse). By mischaracterizing that problem, and then arguing against that mischaracterization, you have just used another strawman fallacy.
For someone who likes to throw that term around you make very liberal use of the tactic…
My own personal view is that they should not make it too easy to bump up the damage or all those other manoeuvres could fall by the wayside and monster hp may need to be inflated. Probably best to limit deadly strike to the highest of the dice rolled per attack IMO. With multiple attacks and opportunity attacks, 2-weapon fighting specialties etc fighters could still dish out all of their expertise dice in damage if the circumstances are right but otherwise theiy're encouraged to be creative or waste their dice. You could also halve 2-weapon fighting damage per the last playtest without as many complaints if you could add an expertise die to the result of each attack. Maybe at level 10 you can add together the highest 2 dice to one attack per round etc as progression continues. You would still need an optional rule to allow 'damage only' fighters to add more or all the ED all togther though.
Rogues can then have sneak attack that allows them to add all their damage together or alternatively, if you want to go for versatility again, just limit them to 1 expertise die as well unless they also have have surprise in addition to the other conditions required for sneak attack, in which case they can add all their dice together. Since rogues don't get multiple attacks like fighters, you could also allow the number of dice you can add together for a single attack to increase at a faster rate than the fighter.
Skill mastery and the saving throw boosts are trickier. I suppose you can limit the boost to half the highest die roll but +1 feels like a rubbish use for your ED though. Maybe 1+half your highest ED roll?
I actually really like that idea, except for that would create another issue between Flurry of Blows and Deadly strike. Currently, I feel Deadly Strike and Flurry of Blows are fairly balanced. Flurry is more accurate do to multiple attacks, but if I land that first blow I can throw all those dice into that single attack.
While the idea you propose is great for balancing Sneak Attack and Dealy Strike, IMO, it probably would make flurry the most powerful... but the monk does need a slight boost...
I think I will throw this out to the math guy, Cyber-Dave seems to be on a roll. He has a thread on Monk vs Fighter damage that I will copy and paste this on with a request for math... 'cause I'm that lazy
You may be entirely too uptight and serious. You might want to relax before you burst a vessel. The more you rail on against this silly strawman stuff, the more I want to play it up even more. You're making it entirely too easy.
Either way, you got the last word.
Oh, wait. Crap. I just did by posting this. Oops. My bad...
After reading through this thread, and several others like it, I only have one suggestion: stop feeding the troll. Your fine suggestions on fixes could easily get lost in this debate on whether there is something to fix or not. And that wouldn't do, we want this fixed. So please, try to ignore the troll and concentrate on the constructive solutions to this problem instead of useless banter.
