Herores of the Fallen Lands - Are Slayers underpowered?

[KarinsDad]

Damage: 0 (0 x 0.05 = Miss Chance) + 19.35 (21.5 x 0.9 = Hit Chance) + 1.6 (32 x 0.05 = Crit Chance) = 20.95 damage.

...

First, though, I do want to note that the Rogue's damage is, undeniably, still twice what an average non-Striker will do. That was your original claim, remember - that this didn't happen prior to Essentials, and was a new thing. And it isn't true.

Let me get this straight.

Your claim is that average Strikers do twice the damage of average non-Strikers pre-Essentials.

You then pick one of the best first level Strikers in the game and optimize him heavily for damage and then re-iterate your claim that he does twice as much damage as "average" non-strikers.


It takes a little effort to get a non-Striker to do more than 10.5 average half DPR of your uber build, but then again, you are using one of the strongest DPR core builds. Rangers get nowhere near 21 DPR at first level with Twin Strike.

The DPR first level king for a Ranger is 14 DPR. 14. Not 21.

Warlocks are even lower for DPR.


Let's take a Fighter who gets CA from your Brutal Rogue (if the Brutal Rogue gets CA so easily by flanking, so should the Fighter).

Level 1 Dwarf Fighter
Str 20, Con 14
Dwarven Weapon Training plus Weapon Talent Fighter
Brash Strike Mordenkrad with Combat Advantage: +10 vs AC 15: 2d6b1+5+2+2
Damage: 0 (0 x 0.20 = Miss Chance) + 12.75 (17 x 0.75 = Hit Chance) + 1.05 (21 x 0.05 = Crit Chance) = 13.8 damage.

That's solidly more than half (66%) of your optimized Brutal Rogue you created.


Let's take a not too heavily optimized for damage Fighter.

Level 1 Human Fighter
Str 18
Weapon Focus and Weapon Talent Fighter
Reaping Strike Greatsword with Combat Advantage: +10 vs AC 15: d10+4+1
Damage: 0.8 (4 x 0.20 = Miss Chance) + 7.875 (10.5 x 0.75 = Hit Chance) + 0.75 (15 x 0.05 = Crit Chance) = 9.425 damage.

Typical Str. Average two handed weapon. Relatively weak first level damage feat.

And he still averaged almost half as much as your uber core build. He would easily be more than half of the damage of any Ranger. In fact, this average Fighter comes in higher than 75% of an average Ranger.

And what about extra damage for someone ignoring the Fighter's mark?


Even a Cleric with Implement Focus does more than half of the damage of a Ranger with a Superior Bow:

D8+5 * 60% + 13 * 5% = 6.35
D12 * 60% + 12 * 5% + D12 * 60% + 12 * 5% + 80% * 3.5 + 10% * 6 = 12.4


This does not even take into account multi-foe attacks like Controllers.


Yes, my claim is still valid. An average striker in pre-Essentials did not average twice as much damage as an average non-striker.

 

[MrMyth]

You have no idea how I design my own PCs. I give them a lot of versatility.

There is a major difference between designing a DPR champ here to illustrate that MrMyth's claim that I "toss out numbers without anything to back them up", and creating a PC for a game.

I do admit those words were poorly chosen, and my apologies for that. I think what I was trying to say was more that these DPR calculations - by any of us - start to break down because so many assumptions start to get involved that aren't really easy to calculate. Especially with these guys - how often can a rogue get CA? How often will they lack it but a thief get it? How often can a thief charge? How much impact do daily powers have? Etc.

I think the thief is an excellent damage striker, and has some great advantages. Foremost of them are simplicity, independance, and adaptability. It isn't that the thief makes a better ranged striker than the rogue - but he can switch between those roles (ranged vs melee) much more smoothly, and that is a real advantage.

On the other hand, it is really hard to quantify the sheer advantage of versatile encounter/daily powers. Backstab is great at adding raw numbers, but is really hard to compare to the benefits of gaining more attacks, attacking more targets, inflicting conditions, defensive benefits, etc.

My comments about 'not backing it up' weren't really aimed at the raw numbers themselves so much as the context. And that's something that really can't be shown, in an absolute sense, because it does vary so much from game to game and level to level.

 

[MrMyth]

Let me get this straight.

Your claim is that average Strikers do twice the damage of average non-Strikers pre-Essentials.

You then pick one of the best first level Strikers in the game and optimize him heavily for damage and then re-iterate your claim that he does twice as much damage as "average" non-strikers.

...

Yes, my claim is still valid. An average striker in pre-Essentials did not average twice as much damage as an average non-striker.

Er... I think you've misread completely what I'm saying, sorry. Partially because the discussion has probably wandered in some directions, but let me try and make it clearer.

Your claim was that Essentials strikers can deal double the damage of non-strikers, and this represented power creep.

My claim is that this is no more true now than it was when the PHB came out.

Which is to say - some strikers in the PHB could deal double the damage of non-strikers. Other strikers couldn't. Various non-strikers could optimize as well, and if not match the striker damage, they would not be doubled by it.

Same thing now. The thief, yes, deals a lot of damage - just like the rogue did. Others, though, are not as far ahead. And you can build non-Strikers who get up there.

You can't claim that Essentials strikers do double the damage of non-strikers just because one build (the Thief) can do so, while dismissing the fact that the same is true for one class in the PHB (the Rogue). You can't dismiss the rogue's damage as not being double that of optimized non-strikers while ignoring that the same is true for the Thief.

And, as with most of these discussions, all of this keeps taking place in the context of 1st level. The stakes change significantly as character level starts to go up.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The rogue you submitted was not more heavily optimized than the charging thief and not much more difficult to build...

And as we know, don´t believe in a statistic you didn´t bias yourself...^^

 

[KarinsDad]

You can't claim that Essentials strikers do double the damage of non-strikers just because one build (the Thief) can do so, while dismissing the fact that the same is true for one class in the PHB (the Rogue). You can't dismiss the rogue's damage as not being double that of optimized non-strikers while ignoring that the same is true for the Thief.

I think a portion of our disconnect comes from your claim that Rogues do double damage of non-Strikers (in a consistent way).

I disagree. I had a player actually quit the game in frustration 2 years ago because his melee Rogue got the snot kicked out of him encounter after encounter after encounter. He wanted a Rogue that could dash in, attack, do a lot of damage, and Tumble out of trouble.

That really doesn't happen too often or even a majority of the time with a Rogue.

Quite frankly, in every game I have been in, Rogues got the snot kicked out of themselves if they go into combat a lot. If they attack from range, they don't always get CA or they need a "special build" and hence, do not always do "twice the amount of damage of other non-strikers".


The Fighter is doing decent damage round in and round out.

The Wizard is targeting two or more foes most rounds, usually safely at range.

The melee Rogue can do the same thing, but he pays a heavy price for doing so and ends up unconscious as often or more often than most other PCs.

An unconscious Rogue is not doing twice the damage of other non-Strikers.


Now, one could create a hiding Elven bow shot Rogue that gets CA due to hiding. But, not everyone wants that PC design.


That is why I posted cases A, B, and C (which you mostly ignored). The melee Thief can charge into melee and do good damage, he can then get flank CA for one round to take out the foe (just as often as the Rogue), and then he can on the next round run away and throw a dagger at someone else.

No, he cannot charge every round (without the proper footware), but he can do Sneak Attack damage most rounds. If he gets hurt, he can back away and just throw daggers and STILL do sneak attack damage.

The Rogue can rarely do this and only if he has the proper powers (or the proper party makeup and feat).


The power creep is that the Thief can do this round in and round out. In 3 levels of our game, our Thief did not get Sneak Attack damage about 3 times and 2 of those times were Action Points used late in an encounter.

That really is unheard of for an original Rogue because a Rogue does not get CA every round.

I can only remember the Thief in our game missing once. He rolled a 1 and had already used an Action Point for that encounter. In 3 levels, whenever he rolled a 1, he used an Action Point. If he rolled low and it was not a round in which he used Backstab (with which he needed a 1 to miss), he used Heroic Effort. So, he missed once in three levels and almost every attack had Sneak Attack damage.

Yes, Rogues now can get a lot of the same feats and racial features that help out a Thief. But, they cannot get the class features and its the Thief class features that create the power creep. Power creep that it takes quite a few levels of Encounter and Daily powers to overcome.

The player who quit our game 2 years ago would have loved to have a Thief instead of a Rogue.

 

[S'mon]

The player who quit our game 2 years ago would have loved to have a Thief instead of a Rogue.

Yeah, I don't think I'd want to play a PHB Rogue. Playing my Thief, in the first round of the first battle of the campaign, I went into melee - and my 1st level Thief took 20 damage from the first enemy attacks. I was at 8/28 (I have Toughness). I never went into melee again, but with Ambush Trick, Tactical Trick and an occasional stealth check, I don't need to and I've still had Combat Advantage on every attack in 3 sessions of play.

Edit: Thanks to Heroic Effort, I've only missed once so far, and that was fighting an AC 23 foe at 1st level.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have not been able to take down the halfling rogue once. And last time i tried to kill him with 5 equal level skirmishers that flanked him...

Of course, if he were no halfling he would have died a terrible death, but his artful dodging and using opening move and not straying too far away from the defender was the second important fact.

btw: ambush trick is worded like the feat that gives CA when a foe is isolated... so a rogue now should be able to get CA from range easy enough...

 

[S'mon]

btw: ambush trick is worded like the feat that gives CA when a foe is isolated... so a rogue now should be able to get CA from range easy enough...

With Ambush Trick + Tactical Trick, it's rare not to have CA - the target has to be adjacent to an ally of his while not adjacent to an ally of yours. The one time that happened I did a Stealth check then popped out of hiding to CA him anyway.

 

[KarinsDad]

I have not been able to take down the halfling rogue once. And last time i tried to kill him with 5 equal level skirmishers that flanked him...

Of course, if he were no halfling he would have died a terrible death, but his artful dodging and using opening move and not straying too far away from the defender was the second important fact.

And this is where your experience differs from mine.

Halfling or no Halfing, in our games, that Rogue would be on the ground a lot precisely because he is hanging out near the Defender. Second Chance doesn't give a Third Chance. Although Lost in the Crowd might make a difference.


I see it with the Slayer in our game as well. The Slayer rushes in and does a ton of damage. But, she's a melee PC without a Defender's AC (a difference of 3 points of AC on average often means one hit per encounter that wouldn't have landed which in turn often means 1 additional healing surge used). So, she has been unconscious more than any other PC in our group by a wide margin, and is using a minimum of 2 healing surges and often 3 healing surges per encounter most of the time because her low AC means that she gets smacked a lot.

The player for that PC was missing this last session and the DM had me play her. I had her hang back and take on the side foes and she ended up using 1 healing surge in two encounters. The NPCs concentrated on the Defender more because she was too far back for them to easily target. The other players actually commented on the fact that she didn't get the snot kicked out of herself that day. The Bard was able to concentrate his healing on other PCs instead and her excess number of healing surges allowed her to actually go back up front a lot in later encounters without running out of them.


This is an issue for any "soft AC" melee class. It doesn't matter if it is a Rogue, a Cleric, or even a Ranger. It can even be an issue for a Fighter if he uses a two handed weapon (i.e. no Shield) and a power that lowers his defenses like Brash Strike a lot.

Yes, such a PC is balanced (in the case of Strikers, getting hit a lot in exchange for doing a lot of damage), but the PC is typically only balanced because there is a Leader in the group. If there is no Leader or the Leader is busy or stunned or unconscious or something, then this type of PC often is the weakest link because they are forced to be in melee, sometimes with more than one foe, and they no longer have their healing safety net.


So in my experience, the "hard AC" PCs work best holding off the foes in a front line, the "soft AC" melee PCs like Rogues work best handling the foes that get past the front line, and the "really soft AC" PCs work best only getting into melee once in a while in order to suck up a few hits and balance healing surge usage over the entire party. The Thief has a major advantage over the (usually melee) Rogue in that he can be in the second or even third rank and isn't force to often be in the first rank in order to get CA. IME.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Doesn´t differ too much from my experience to be honest. I never said, the halfling was not hit and bloodied in the process... he was.

I don´t deny that a thief can get combat advantage with less risk. But his ranged weapons are not +3/1d8 weapons which you used for your damage analysis.

Your depicted tactic for rogues and slayers however makes a lot of sense. Also classifying the thief as very heavy hitting striker. So neither experience nor your perception of the thief in general differs too much from mine. It is just that I don´t think the thief is breaking the game.
As you said: your realistic thiefs are a little bit more cautious than charging into foes with low AC and low HP.