Herores of the Fallen Lands - Are Slayers underpowered?

[Uller]

Since we tried out the slayer, I decided to help the party Rogue modify his PHB rogue to an Essentials Thief. I'm seeing a pattern...and while it is kewl from a player PC perspective (weee....we get 1st level characters dishing out 20 dmg per round) I'm not sure I like the dynamic.

I'm new to 4e, though...so maybe I'm missing something.

Rogues, Theives, Assassins..."Strikers" if you will...have been dealing out large amounts of damage since 1e. But mostly (not always) it was under some specific circumstance that more often than not required some careful planning on the part of the player, teamwork on the part of the party and substantial risk on the part of the PC...

Backstabs, etc always required something...

With the slayer, it's just his basic attack...Swing, hit about 2/3s of the time and do 1d12+9 (or +11 with the right stance) damage while others are doing 1d8+5...once per encounter, boost that to 2d12+11...

Now that I look at the Thief, he has 4 fairly easy ways to gain combat advantage (Tactical Trick and Ambush Trick...I think...I don't have my book here) and at first level do around 3d6+9 damage once per round (once per encounter boost that to 4d6+9. If he attacks first at the start of the encounter (which is likely), if he flanks and now if he uses one of two tricks that just require a foe with none of its allies adjacent (pretty likely in many fights) or has at least one of the Thief's allies next to it (again, very likely).

I guess what I'm saying is that I always thought the point of the striker was to require teamwork from others. Now it seems not so much. The other two strikers in essentials are Scout and Warlock...I have no idea how they fair compared to Slayer and Thief, but it looks about the same. Why not just have a party made entirely of those four?...maybe have a cleric for healing...It seems like they would be killing two opponents per turn fairly easily.

I'm still a fan of 4e and essentials...just noticing, that's all...

 

[Klaus]

Nah, Rangers and Warlocks have been striking with little regard for teamwork since day 1. Hunter's Quarry and Warlock's Curse were never teamwork-related, and the Ranger's damage spike was always Twin Strike, anyway.

The spike in striker damage seems to be a counter to combat grind. Anything that brings the opponent down faster helps the game move along.

 

[KarinsDad]

The spike in striker damage seems to be a counter to combat grind. Anything that brings the opponent down faster helps the game move along.

That could have been solved by lowering monster hit points.

By having Strikers average more than twice as much damage as non-Strikers, it really changes the game balance. For example, we have a group of 5 PCs where 2.5 of them are now Strikers and the 2 single class Strikers are Essential PCs.

The Arms Race is alive and well, and doing better than ever. Watch it grow over the next few years.

 

[Uller]

The spike in striker damage seems to be a counter to combat grind. Anything that brings the opponent down faster helps the game move along.

Sure. Grind is always a factor...but seems to me that is best dealt with by the DM playing the monsters realistically (monsters have a survival instinct too). If the fight is decided, one side invariably attempts to disengage.

one of my players is playing a Ranger - Hunter. Clevershot (knock prone) is his bread and butter. His Hidden Sniper feat and Lurking Spider aspect combine to give him +2 atk and dam so he deals moderate damage very reliably. More importantly he has a lot of fun timing his attack to be right before the party (PHB) rogue goes, giving him a good chance at sneak attack damage by knocking the foe prone or maneuvering him to where he can be flanked. The two players have a great time working together, being sneaky etc. and then rapidly taking down moderately tough foes...generally combining for about 35 damage each round leaving the cleric or wizard to finish off badly wounded foes from a distance while they move on to the next greatest threat.

The Rogue player would like to rebuild as an Essentials Thief. This will change this dynamic and not for the better I believe (they'll still be working together...but the Ranger's role will be more to protect the Thief by slowing, immobilizing, etc enemies that are away from the thief or finishing those the thief has badly wounded.

It's not unbalanced I think...but it definitely plays differently in a way that I think is a bit less fun.

 

[MrMyth]

By having Strikers average more than twice as much damage as non-Strikers, it really changes the game balance. For example, we have a group of 5 PCs where 2.5 of them are now Strikers and the 2 single class Strikers are Essential PCs.

The Arms Race is alive and well, and doing better than ever. Watch it grow over the next few years.

Average Level 1 Non-Striker: Probably deals between 1d6+3 to 1d8+4 damage.
Level 1 Rogue: Between 1d4+2d6+3 to 1d4+2d8+6.
Level 1 Ranger: Between 2d10+1d6 to 2d12+1d6+2.
Level 1 Thief: Between 3d6+5 to 1d6+2d8+6.
Level 1 Slayer: Between 1d10+7 to 1d12+9.

Yes, Strikers are generally dealing twice the damage of non-Strikers. But that isn't something caused by Essentials - it's been around since the PHB!

It isn't really that the top-end of Strikers has improved, but more than they've beefed up the lower-end of them - we don't have Warlocks who are only doing a few points more than non-Strikers. Instead, most strikers perform well.

Now, it is certainly true some general boosts have developed over the course of the game. But I don't think the overall dynamic has changed that much, nor that we have Strikers that are inherently more self-sufficent than before. The Thief itself is, yes, more independant than the Rogue - but still is at risk due to fragility, and very hindered by certain conditions.

 

[twilsemail]

The Rogue player would like to rebuild as an Essentials Thief. This will change this dynamic and not for the better I believe (they'll still be working together...but the Ranger's role will be more to protect the Thief by slowing, immobilizing, etc enemies that are away from the thief or finishing those the thief has badly wounded.

Alternately, they could keep up this pattern and use any of the other 7 tricks in the book that people seem to forget about. There are more options than just the two "enemies grant CA if..." ones.

 

[KarinsDad]

Average Level 1 Non-Striker: Probably deals between 1d6+3 to 1d8+4 damage.
Level 1 Rogue: Between 1d4+2d6+3 to 1d4+2d8+6.
Level 1 Ranger: Between 2d10+1d6 to 2d12+1d6+2.
Level 1 Thief: Between 3d6+5 to 1d6+2d8+6.
Level 1 Slayer: Between 1d10+7 to 1d12+9.

Yes, Strikers are generally dealing twice the damage of non-Strikers. But that isn't something caused by Essentials - it's been around since the PHB!

While it is true that core strikers were sometimes already at double damage over implement non-strikers, they tended to not quite make double damage over weapon non-strikers. Warlocks do not average twice as much damage as Clerics.

But, Essentials Strikers are higher yet. And a considerable part of that is their improved chances to hit. Players of Essentials PCs do not run into the problem of cold dice as often as players of core PCs.

Average DPR:

4.8 Level 1 Impl Non-Striker: Between 1d6+4 to 1d8+5 damage (could be multi-foe)
5.9 Level 1 Wpn Non-Striker: Between 1d8+4 to 1d8+5 damage (easier to hit than impl)
11.6 Level 1 Rogue: Between 1d4+2d6+4 to 1d6+2d8+6. (if he could get CA, 5.6 if not)
10.4 Level 1 Ranger: Between 2d8+1d6 to 2d12+1d6+2 (both have to hit to get big damage)
8.25 Level 1 Warlock: Between 2d6+4 to 3d6+5

13.1 Level 1 Thief: Between 3d6+6 to 1d6+2d8+8.
11.6 Level 1 Slayer: Between 1d10+8 to 1d12+9.

The Slayer does the same approximate average damage as the Rogue, but he doesn't require CA to hit and he has better hit points and AC.

Granted, 4E PCs have Encounter and Daily powers that really make them strong at late heroic and later, but it's the constant big damage round after round that makes Essentials PCs, especially at low level, constantly stronger. Even a Rogue is not quite in the same class and a Warlock definitely isn't. An extra dice of damage per encounter or two dice of damage per day plus a rider by a core PC doesn't quite match either at first and second level.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

*snip* a bunch of DPR calcs

Please, not another one of these. I don't mind a little math in these conversations, but it tends to go on for PAGES.

Yeah, yeah, I know; nobody is forcing me to read it. That said, it sort of sidelines the rest of the discussion while (usually) two posters back-and-forth a bunch of calculations with banter.

"My math is right, yours is wrong."
"No, yours is wrong, you forgot x!!! Never forget x!"
"x is irrelevant, you should be accounting for y 53% of the time instead, and if you don't it's not realistic!!!"

There, saved you all the trouble.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Yeah, yeah, I know; nobody is forcing me to read it.

Well, exactly. Nobody is forcing you to read it, so just skip over it. If you find that certain people often post things you don't enjoy reading, then put them on ignore.

But please don't presume to tell people what they should and shouldn't be posting, eh?

Thanks

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

It's just a little frustrating that every discussion of classes breaks down into a DPR argument. It would be nice to discuss classes without all that baggage for once.

It's nothing personal against anyone in particular, more of an observation.

Or rather, just an opinion. I'm not presuming to tell anybody anything; just like I am free to ignore DPR arguments, others are free to ignore my opinion (and probably will).