Rule-of-Three: 03-27-12

[keterys]

If a rogue does 70 damage regularly... if 140-210 is max hp, then an average party of 5 will averagely kill anything.

If you want your campaign ender dragon or whatever to last 3 rounds, you'd be looking at about... 630 hp - 3/5 of PCs effective per round for 3 rounds.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If a rogue does 70 damage regularly... if 140-210 is max hp, then an average party of 5 will averagely kill anything.

If you want your campaign ender dragon or whatever to last 3 rounds, you'd be looking at about... 630 hp - 3/5 of PCs effective per round for 3 rounds.

In DDN terms that would be a creature vastly above maximum level. Effectively a solo in all but name (unless epic levels are uncapped, in which case it eventually will be a standard mob).

What I was talking about was (in 4e terms) a standard level 20 creature (if the assumed cap is level 20) or level 30 (if the cap is 30) that can be expected to be encountered in a group.

Also, keep in mind that I postulated that because a rogue is a striker, he can kill things in 2/3 the time that a non-striker can. So, whereas a rogue would dish out 70 dpr, a non-striker would deal only about 47 dpr. As such, if the dragon is calibrated to last for 3 rounds you're looking at 705 hp, or 423 hp if the dragon is assumed to keep two PCs out of the fight every round. I don't include the striker's increased damage in that because to do so is to negate the striker's advantage.

The reason I chose a standard mob, rather than a solo-equivalent, was because based on my readings on ENWorld, a lot of those who are against high hp creatures don't have an issue with it if it's the exception rather than the rule (such as for an endgame boss fight).

At the end of a 3.5 campaign, we fought a ten thousand hp monstrosity. The battle took hours and was extremely epic. That said, it isn't something I'd want to see very often, despite that I'm someone who doesn't mind inflated hp (provided they serve a purpose).

 

[Savage Wombat]

In DDN he's not a "striker", he's built so that he does more damage in certain circumstances and less damage in others.

Whether roles are incorporated remains to be seen, but the impression given is that everyone is supposed to do the same damage over time, but fighters do it relatively evenly, and wizards do it to multiple targets, and rogues spike when circumstances allow.

And I still think calculations like DPR somehow violate the spirit of D&D.

 

[Fanaelialae]

In DDN he's not a "striker", he's built so that he does more damage in certain circumstances and less damage in others.

I know that DDN won't actually use the term striker, but they've discussed how the PHB will probably include advice to help newbies build in terms of a particular role, so it seems like while it won't be as overt, the concept will remain in some form. Where I say striker you can substitute "damage-focused character" if you prefer.

Whether roles are incorporated remains to be seen, but the impression given is that everyone is supposed to do the same damage over time, but fighters do it relatively evenly, and wizards do it to multiple targets, and rogues spike when circumstances allow.

That wasn't my impression. Based on the discussions about the three columns (combat/exploration/interaction) and how some characters could be better at some than others, I have the distinct impression that you'll be able to build characters who are able to put out more or less than the average expected damage per round.

From what I understood, it's that although a bard is by default better at interaction and worse at combat, you'll be able to build him to be better at combat but worse at interaction.

And I still think calculations like DPR somehow violate the spirit of D&D.

It's just math, not the dark arts.

 

[keterys]

Given that the rogue is usually one of the better "exploration / interaction" characters, then it seems unlikely they'll also be ahead of the curve in terms of damage. Equal? Sure.

Ditto Wizard, with access to utility spells.

And Fighter, who if anything would have to be better in combat, to make up for a lack in the other two areas. So now the rogue is maybe below average? Hmm...

 

[Sunseeker]

If a rogue does 70 damage regularly... if 140-210 is max hp, then an average party of 5 will averagely kill anything.

If you want your campaign ender dragon or whatever to last 3 rounds, you'd be looking at about... 630 hp - 3/5 of PCs effective per round for 3 rounds.

I dunno, I just think you need a clever dragon. A high-damage party will kill anything pretty fast, sure. Anything that just stands in front of them and bites and claws at them will yeah get cooked pretty fast. Hopefully your dragon isn't that stupid and they might ya know, call in minions, fly into the air, or use some of those magical talents they've learned in their thousands of years of life.

In my current quasi-Pathfinder game, we fight one of two different kinds of monsters because we're so stupidly OP. We either fight giant brutes(which usually go down in 3-4 rounds), or we fight clever powerhouses....which we usually run away from.

 

[keterys]

We're talking about a L20 character. Flight is not a problem. Friends are not a problem.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Given that the rogue is usually one of the better "exploration / interaction" characters, then it seems unlikely they'll also be ahead of the curve in terms of damage. Equal? Sure.

Ditto Wizard, with access to utility spells.

And Fighter, who if anything would have to be better in combat, to make up for a lack in the other two areas. So now the rogue is maybe below average? Hmm...

Based on the post, sneak attack would only be one option for the rogue (it was mentioned that they might be able to choose combat maneuvers or skills instead). After all, in the past two editions the rogue has been a major damage dealer.

It seems to me that choosing the sneak attack option would correlate to specialization in combat, specifically damage. My guess is that maneuvers correspond to combat as well, but might be more control oriented (tripping, immobilizing and so forth), while skills naturally seem oriented toward exploration and possibly interaction.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'd like to note: I'm not stating that DDN will necessarily have level 20 monsters with 140-210 hp. I'm merely stating that within the context of what can be gleaned from the rogue blog, it's a possibility.

 

[GreyICE]

70 extra damage assumes you hit 100% of the time.

If the rogue who goes pure d6s is hitting 50-60% of the time (which is about what I'd expect if you take absolutely no way of boosting your accuracy) it's really only about 35-40 DPR. It might be 70-80 DPR with weapons and all bonuses accounted for.

That would give a level 20 Solo about 500 hp to be at all interesting.