Community

Nov 19, 2012 -- 2:00PM, Cyber-Dave wrote:

So, after a lot of conversation, a lot of math, and the like, a few things have become apparent: Sneak Attack and Deadly Strike feel too alike; all the martial classes feel underpowered compared to the fighter. Now, almost everyone still wants the fighter to be the single target DPR king. As a result of all this discussion a lot of ideas have been bandied about. I think one deserves its own thread, because numerically speaking it works pretty well (and helps to deflate instead of inflate some of the damage numbers we have been seeing).

Leave Sneak Attack as is.
Leave Flurry of Blows as is.
Change Deadly Strike to read: Any time you hit with an attack, you may roll any Expertise Dice you have and add the highest result to your damage roll. 

As a fighter gets multiple attacks, and you can add at least one die of deadly strike to each attack, the fighter's DPR will still be higher than the Monk or Rogue. At level 10, assuming an 80% hit rate, a Monk will have a DPR of 25 with his fists. A fighter with a greatsword will have a DPR of 32. A rogue (with a hit rate of only 75% due to its lower attack bonus) will have a DPR of 17. (All those numbers are rounded off.) The rogue still seems a little low. However, the rogue will be dealing the single largest numbers when he hits. So, at least his pattern is more spikey, and Sneak Attack will feel unique; one of the biggest problems right now is that it does not feel unique. The monk vs. fighter numbers seem fair (considering what the monk gets and the fighter does not). 

I think that is a great start. We still need to find some other way to give the rogue a minor boost. I would suggest that whenever the rogue hits with a Sneak Attack the target hit grants advantage to anyone attacking it until the start of the Rogue's next turn. That way the rogue will have the spikiest damage, the lowest DPR, and he will make up for his low DPR by adding a status effect that helps the group. Meanwhile, the status effect will encourage the group to attack the target, which will tend to keep them adjecent to the target, which in turn will allow the rogue to sneak attack again the following round; this means that he is really helping the group in order to help himself and that feels pretty rogue-like to me. This will keep the rogue feeling useful despite having the lowest DPR mathematically... and let us not forget Skill Mastery!

 

Much better, the current deadly strike is a little too deadly in my opinion, it really be-littles strength and weapon choice at high levels and shifts the balance between classes and maneuvers.

Pure mathimatical computations are nice and all. They don't show reality during play though.

Fighter damage is unconditional. You hit, you damage. Resistances may play a role in reducing overall damage. Resistances are overcome by materials. These defenses are more uncommon as well.

Monk damage is unconditional. You just have to make more attack rolls. Monk seems to be able to overcome physical type resistances with Ki. So it's built into the class.

Rogue damage is conditional. You have to be in the right position or right combat situation or prepare the situation to deal sneak attack damage. Even then, it's always lower than fighter. Conditional damage typically is equal or higher than unconditional damage.  This formula does not apply. Damage is also resistable in some cases, overcome the same way as fighter.

Wizard damage is conditional but also diverse. Many common effects can prevent, modify or negate specific spell damage but they are often just as vulnerable to others.

As a GM, I would feel irresponsible if I let you dominate every encounter with Magic Missile for 10 levels. For instance. 300 damage of magic missile in 11 rounds can be completely negated with a level 1 shield spell or brooch of shielding. High level enemies typically have this kind of protection readily available. If you were to think an army of level 1 wizards could defeat a powerful enemy by casting 1000 magic missiles I wouldn't want to play in your campaign. Now minor enemies/minions typically don't have maximum protection and magic missile is great for them. I'm just saying being diverse and well prepared for situations is what makes a good wizard good most of the time and bad wizards good half the time.

Wizards should prepare spells based on a situation to maximize their potential against a specific enemy. If they're going against a spell caster, a wizard is better off having dispel magics and protection spells of their own to maximize a party's effectiveness. Or fire spells against frost creatures and vice versa. Wizards can and will dominate damage in certain situations if prepared. A magic missile shooter is going to get ruined. Your example of "maximum potential" is silly and would happen once in 100 game sessions.