D&D 5E Comparing Monk DPR

[auburn2]

All sword and board or great weapon fighters I have seen enter combat without their weapons drawn unless they know the enemies will be close. Round one the fighters move and throw weapons. This will continue until melee is joined and after that it is rarely required to make a ranged attack. And I mean, like, really rare, like hardly ever. And if it is that is why you have ranged characters or a monk with insane speed that can close the distance. Not every character needs to be able to handle every situation.

That would be great, but this is a long thread and early on Chas pointed out that he draws his weapon ahead of time and has the wizard or another character open the door so he can go in with weapon drawn. If the door opens and the enemy is 50 feet away he is either dropping his sword or losing an attack .... but then they are never 50 feet away in his games either.

Oh, and he wore full plate and was capable of casting shield. Combined with a regular shield getting 25AC when he needed it was not an issue.

RAW you can not cast the shield spell while wearing plate and holding a sword unless you have the warcaster feat or subtle spell metamagic and use sorcery points.

Further if you sheath your sword at the end of your turn to allow shield spell then you can't get an AOO with a weapon.

Either way your fighter is giving up a lot to be able to do this - either an ASI or the ability to do effective AOOs.

With Warcaster, this is a viable EK build, the problem I ran into though is he does not have enough slots to rely on that super high AC. He ends up running out of spells, which both means he no longer has the 25 and he doesn't have many other spell options. In my experience bladesinger is better at this because she has a lot more spell slots and spells that give further defensive boosts (prot from good and evil, blur, haste ....).

You also seem to place a great deal of stock on Stealth. This makes sense as you have previously stated that you like to play Rogue characters, but there are a lot of people that don't think very highly of stealth.

I'll buy that, I do place more value in stealth than in AC.

 

[auburn2]

If you can't find Studded Leather armor (12+Dex, same as wearing BoD) before finding a rare magical item, there is something weird going on in your games.

The only rogue with access to Mage Armor is the Arcane Trickster, who at 3rd level had to take Mage Armor as their "any school" spell, and to cast it they had to use half of their spells. Unlikely, since it is only a +1 over wearing studded leather. High Opportunity cost and only a good benefit if they happen to get BoD? Unlikely.

And, basically the same story for the Warlock. Yes, their invocation gets them an at-will Mage Armor, but an invocation is a big opportunity cost. Again, and again the studded leather is almost as good for no real opportunity cost other than finding some cheap armor

Mage armor has a range of touch, not self. If any character in the party has it, any other can benefit from it (up to the limit of slots). You can also use scrolls and if you can buy magic items you can bet a party is going to have a backpack full of them.

Yes a Warlock does need to give up an invocation (if a wizard or sorc can't cast it on him) and that is a tradeoff. Likewise a fighter needs to give up damage to pick up a shield, that too is a tradeoff. You seem to be focused on one of those tradeoffs and not the other.

Further you seem to think every character will obviously spend thousands of gold on a +1 AC boost, even when it comes with disadvantage on stealth and encumberence. If that is true then why would characters not spend a slot or money for scrolls for a +1 AC boost without those limfacs?

If +1 AC is as important as you claim then the Warlock would certainly get a mage armor invocation, and Rogues would certainly have mage Armor through some means.

It is a +1 AC and barbarians don't tend to be "stealthy" people.

Most Barbarians have at least a decent stealth if not in armor due to a good dexterity.

Further the +1 to Rogues and Warlocks mentioned above has no negatives, is a stronger bonus because base AC is lower and was dismissed by you.

Either the +1 is worth it or it is not.

And, while I've seen barbarians go naked, they often are doing so because they haven't even bothered to figure out what wearing armor would mean for their AC. Much of the time, it is the superior option.

It is costiler for sure. Superior has a lot of nuances to it.

Or pull out that second handaxe or javelin. Those are melee weapons you know. And you specifically said "two handaxes or 4/5 Javelins"

Yep, giving up damage for the entire rest of the battle.

Literally never said that, but nice try at a strawman. See, generally, you can't make melee attacks until you are within 5 ft of a target. So, the enemy generally rushes the party to make melee attacks. If they do, we tend to have a whole bunch of enemies who are incentivized to be within 5ft of you (you know, to make melee attacks) so I don't often see enemies who are 35 ft away unless they are ranged enemies. And those generally are the ones being targets by our ranged allies.

Your words "Very rarely do we have a situation where they get stuck halfway with no enemies to attack."

Even if the enemy blindly rushes at you (which I would argue is predictable), you will regularly have too much separation to get in s melee attack in the first turn. Also what do you do when you win initiative? You rush up to them so they can land attacks on the first turn?

Yes, I have said that. And I think I've mostly demonstrated why it would be a waste of their time to do so. There is simply no value in it.

Because the enemies are predictable.

That was not my claim. My claim was that after battle starts and after I have taken my first attack, I generally am still within 30 ft of another enemy I can attack. That has nothing to do with starting combat with the enemy more than 30 ft away. It was all about mid-turn.

If you start more than 30 feet away and you do not use missile weapons you will lose attacks. Period.

And, who says the sorcerer didn't lose initiative? The enemy had to run past the fighter first. The Enemy in my example WON initiative.

Also, congrats, you found a single enemy type who can dash as a bonus action. Do you only fight orcs? Never bugbears, hobgoblins, humans, dwarves, drow, duergar, undead, ect ect ect ect

Of the types you listed, off the top of my head - Duergar can go invisible and Drow can use darkness, which enables both of those races to go right by you without letting you get an AOO on them. Numerous undead have abilities that enable that sort of thing too. I assume your DM doesn't play them like this, which to me sounds like they are "being predictable".

Moreover I think orcs are more common than all these monsters except undead (which is actually a type and not a monster). I also notice youconveniently left off goblins, who can take disengage and do this too.

Well, first of all, I scoffed at the idea of grappling because it seemed like a waste of time. It is giving up the advantage of momentum to basically allow the enemy a free attack on you, because you were too busy grabbing them to hold them tight instead of trying to kill them. I'm not saying it is never the right move, but so very rarely is it better than just trying to finish them off.

Not an extra attack, he can make a normal attack on me and is prevented from making an attack on anyone else at all.

Further if my Barbarian is low on hps he can attack with impunity. He can take reckless attack and get advantage even while he attacks bad guy. Then after he attacks I attack bad guy and I move bad guy away so bad guy can't attack Barbarian back. Barbarion moves and attacks, then I attack bad guy and move bad guy away so he can't attack Barbarian. I am getting SA every turn, Barbarian is getting advantage every turn and bad guy can't attack Barbarian at all.

The only way the enemy can break this cycle is killing me, wasting an action to beat the grapple or taking a ready action to target the Barbarian.

Oil? Dealing fire damage to a creature with oil is 5 damage. I'll assume you get two rounds and make it 10. So, for two actions, over three round, you can deal 10 damage. A fighter with a longsword against a creature resistant to damage can deal 2d8+10 (3+2 from dueling) or an average of 19, which is just shy of 10 damage in two actions in two rounds. Maybe it is the fighter using the oil then the wizard using firebolt? But, breaking the math down the fighter is still just dealing 5 damage a round. And that is just as good as their worst scenario of just attacking a resistant enemy. And oil is an improvised weapon, so no prof to hit. Making it less accurate. So, no, we don't use oil.

I get it. You don't do anything except swing your sword, you made that clear. Why do they even have oil in the game! More importantly, why do many (most) classes start with it?

I use oil all the time, and I don't always attack the enemy with it (although I do that on occasion), usually I pour it on the ground or throw it at the ground below an enemy. These require no attack roll. Then light it the next turn (or that turn if you are a thief) or let your wizard light it with an AOE spell. An extra 10 damage if the enemy stays there and no attack rolls needed. I also use it for traps a lot (along with caltrops). I don't use it all the time, but I do when I want something to reliably do damage. It works great on a high AC target or if I have disadvantage. The fighter can swing his sword with disadvantage if he wants, but he isn't going to reliably do that 19 you mention if he does.

Fighter doesn't have a lot of options, so they tend to be the hammer. They are very good at it though.

They aren't going to be hammering much if they have a shield. Your Rogue is probably averaging more DPR unless the fighter goes nova with things like maneuvers and action surge.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'll be honest man, we are really getting into the territory of "You are either cheating or stupid for how you play" and this is getting a bit tedious. You are trying to argue multiple different points, and then when I reply to those different points, you make it sound like I am arguing a single scenario with multiple different mutually exclusive things going on.

So, how about we go back to this a little bit. I'm still going to respond to your most recent post, because I believe in responding to people, but try and do this one thing.

Break the game with BoD on a Monk. Give me something that is so powerful to justify this attunement. All you've tried to do for days now is show how shields are stupid and people who use them are dumb. Try something different. Show me the power of this item that makes it deserve attunement.

Mage armor has a range of touch, not self. If any character in the party has it, any other can benefit from it (up to the limit of slots). You can also use scrolls and if you can buy magic items you can bet a party is going to have a backpack full of them.

Like who?

There is not a Barbarian, Ranger, Fighter, Paladin, Monk, Cleric, Artificer, Druid, or Bard that is going to ask for someone else to cast Mage Armor on them. And while the rogue might have a reason for Mage Armor, they are going to be costing another player their spell slots. Because remember, the Warlock is a self-only casting.

So, you are going to have a wizard who takes mage armor, only to either cast it twice (taking two slots per day) or cast it only on the rogue? Look, AC boosting is good, but there are a lot of assumptions you are making about either a lot of party cooperation (the wizard casting mage armor on the rogue) or easy access to spell scrolls for an Arcane Trickster. I mean, "The Arcane Trickster likes BoD because they have a backpack full of scrolls of Mage Armor" is a lot of assumptions.

Yes a Warlock does need to give up an invocation (if a wizard or sorc can't cast it on him) and that is a tradeoff. Likewise a fighter needs to give up damage to pick up a shield, that too is a tradeoff. You seem to be focused on one of those tradeoffs and not the other.

Further you seem to think every character will obviously spend thousands of gold on a +1 AC boost, even when it comes with disadvantage on stealth and encumberence. If that is true then why would characters not spend a slot or money for scrolls for a +1 AC boost without those limfacs?

If +1 AC is as important as you claim then the Warlock would certainly get a mage armor invocation, and Rogues would certainly have mage Armor through some means.

Thousands? Are you talking about Plate that is 1500? That isn't Thousands. Also, other than the disadvantage on stealth there is no opportunity cost or downside to plate. And, while I've been trying to avoid talking too much about magic items, since you are wanting to claim a lifetime supply of Mage Armor scrolls...

Mithral Armor. It is only an additional 500 gold (max, it could be less) and it doesn't impose disadvantage on stealth. It is also said to be lighter, though there wasn't anything given about that. So, there you go the biggest drawback you keep pointing out is gone. This is a major boost to the armor surely... oh yeah, it is free. No attunement. Funny how that keeps working.

Also, again, while you are correct that a fighter using a shield is giving up damage in the form of a two-handed weapon, if the fight ends or before the fight begins, they can choose to swap their shield for a bigger sword. This is a loadout cost, while the Warlock can only change their invocations when they gain a level. That is... rather much less common than "do we have 12 seconds?"

Most Barbarians have at least a decent stealth if not in armor due to a good dexterity.

Further the +1 to Rogues and Warlocks mentioned above has no negatives, is a stronger bonus because base AC is lower and was dismissed by you.

Either the +1 is worth it or it is not.

I don't care if a barbarian has a +25 to stealth. It doesn't matter when they charge into the room roaring and swinging their weapons. Sure, Barbarians can be good at stealth, that is fairly obvious, but most people I've encountered who play barbarians aren't playing a character that uses stealth.

There are negatives. Spell slots. Eldritch invocations. Planning on buying dozens or hundreds of scrolls.

You keep acting like there must be one correct answer, and if you can say "but stealth" then it means you are right. But, some groups don't bother with stealth. Or, if they have a rogue, the rogue stealths ahead and the rest follow. But, giving up half your spell slots as a plan for +1 AC... might not be worth it. That is going to be a hard sell unless you don't want to have spells as a subclass built around getting spells.

Yep, giving up damage for the entire rest of the battle.

1 pt of average damage, after I've already killed one enemy and heavily injured a second, in a fight with 4 enemies and I likely have allies who are doing things. (Remember, Phandelver was your call, and they didn't have more than 4 or 6 goblins. Four more likely because the recommended party size is 4)

Yeah, that single round that the combat is going to last is really going to hurt for my losing 1 point of damage.

Your words "Very rarely do we have a situation where they get stuck halfway with no enemies to attack."

Those words are not "So outdoors you players can normally only see 30 feet ahead and the enemy can only see 30 feet?"

Also, the words you are quoting were in reference to you saying "and usually several more turns during the battle if there are multiple foes." Which, referred to your earlier and primary example of having killed one enemy, then not being able to reach a second to use your second attack.

That situation, where the battle has started, we are in melee, I have killed an enemy, and the next closest enemy is more than 30 ft away (which is all required for your "you lose your attack because you wore a shield" argument) doesn't happen very often.

Even if the enemy blindly rushes at you (which I would argue is predictable), you will regularly have too much separation to get in s melee attack in the first turn. Also what do you do when you win initiative? You rush up to them so they can land attacks on the first turn?

It depends on the situation. How we treat each combat is going to depend on what is going on, how close we can get, and what our goals are.

But, I don't think I have seen a first turn, ever, where we did zero attacks and the enemy hit us. Except maybe the occasional hostage crisis.

Because the enemies are predictable.

Because all grappling does is make a melee enemy stay next to you and attack you, which they were likely going to do anyways. You are giving up an attack to guarantee the most likely outcome, and if you were wrong and they were going to run, that is a second attack.

Two potential attacks to draw attacks towards you... not a great trade.

Of the types you listed, off the top of my head - Duergar can go invisible and Drow can use darkness, which enables both of those races to go right by you without letting you get an AOO on them. Numerous undead have abilities that enable that sort of thing too. I assume your DM doesn't play them like this, which to me sounds like they are "being predictable".

Moreover I think orcs are more common than all these monsters except undead (which is actually a type and not a monster). I also notice you conveniently left off goblins, who can take disengage and do this too.

Anyone who has goblins rush in instead of using Guerilla warfare is going easy on their players. You don't need to charge past a fighter to use a bow.

Also, we've never fought Duergar, not once, so the invisibility hasn't come up. Drow could use darkness, but they also can't see through it, and my groups LOVE Devil Sight, so, that isn't a guarantee either. Generally they end up opening with Faerie Fire, potential advantage on all attacks is better than trying to run past us to gank the mage.

I didn't list specific undead because I didn't really see much difference between Ghoul, Zombie, or Skeleton. You are most likely referring to incorporeal undead, which do take damage for staying in walls and floors. Plus, they can't see out of them. Not that we haven't had some harrowing fights against those types of enemies, but again, if the enemy is willing to dive into the floor, take damage and be unable to see or affect us... I'll take that. Ready a spell for when they pop back out and keep moving back. If they stay in the floor, more damage.

Not an extra attack, he can make a normal attack on me and is prevented from making an attack on anyone else at all.

1 attack vs 1 attack
1 attack vs 1 attack
Grapple vs 1 attack

2 attacks vs 3 attacks. It is the same concept as card advantage.

Further if my Barbarian is low on hps he can attack with impunity. He can take reckless attack and get advantage even while he attacks bad guy. Then after he attacks I attack bad guy and I move bad guy away so bad guy can't attack Barbarian back. Barbarion moves and attacks, then I attack bad guy and move bad guy away so he can't attack Barbarian. I am getting SA every turn, Barbarian is getting advantage every turn and bad guy can't attack Barbarian at all.

The only way the enemy can break this cycle is killing me, wasting an action to beat the grapple or taking a ready action to target the Barbarian.

I'm sorry... how is your rogue getting two attacks? Grappling is an action, so you don't get SA any turn that you grapple and pull them away.

So, are you saying you already had them grappled before this cycle even started? Well, that was a wasted SA. Also, how are you guaranteeing that the Barbarian goes, then you go, then the enemy goes? Is this the only enemy on the field? Why is no one else involved? The barbarian is badly hurt, and you are a melee rogue, so shouldn't you be pretty hurt too? You've got far less defense, so killing you is likely a good move. And readying to hit the barbarian if they only have a single attack instead of a multi-attack is a great plan, how do you counter that? Have the barbarian lose his rage?

Sure, it is nice if it happens exactly like you say, but there was a lot of set-up to create this scenario, with the barbarian already injured, a single enemy, you at near full health and already grappling them, and the initiative working in your favor. That is a lot of conditionals.

I get it. You don't do anything except swing your sword, you made that clear. Why do they even have oil in the game! More importantly, why do many (most) classes start with it?

If only there was an item, like a lamp, and it needed oil to create light. So people could see. Maybe... oh that's exactly why oil is in the game. For lighting lamps. Of which they made three varieties.

I use oil all the time, and I don't always attack the enemy with it (although I do that on occasion), usually I pour it on the ground or throw it at the ground below an enemy. These require no attack roll. Then light it the next turn (or that turn if you are a thief) or let your wizard light it with an AOE spell. An extra 10 damage if the enemy stays there and no attack rolls needed. I also use it for traps a lot (along with caltrops). I don't use it all the time, but I do when I want something to reliably do damage. It works great on a high AC target or if I have disadvantage. The fighter can swing his sword with disadvantage if he wants, but he isn't going to reliably do that 19 you mention if he does.

Ah yes, enemies who are too stupid to get out of flammable oil when you are carrying sources of flame. Or have a wizard. Well, at least that initiative is always on your side to allow the flames to be lit before the enemy can move.

They aren't going to be hammering much if they have a shield. Your Rogue is probably averaging more DPR unless the fighter goes nova with things like maneuvers and action surge.

By level 5, a fighter can be reliably dealing 2d8+12 with a longsword. That is 21 damage. With no subclass features and no action surge. (Yes, I'm counting Dueling Style. That is the go to style with Sword and Board. I have seen people take Defensive, but generally less often)

Rogue has 1d8+4+3d6 = 19

Also the rogue is making a single attack, while the fighter is making two. So, if the rogue misses, zero damage. If the fighter misses, then they might hit on the second attack for 10.5 damage.

So, I doubt the rogue averages more DPR.

 

[auburn2]

Try something different. Show me the power of this item that makes it deserve attunement.

Ok as soon as you give me an example where it being an attunement items as it is written breaks the game. You are the one suggesting that we change the rules, you should be the one to point out how it breaks the game as written.

And while we are doing this, I will point out that I gave you an example that breaks the game, you just decided it was too limited in scope and I should instead change the rules for the subclass.

I will wait though, please tell me how it being attunement breaks the game!

There is not a Barbarian, Ranger, Fighter, Paladin, Monk, Cleric, Artificer, Druid, or Bard that is going to ask for someone else to cast Mage Armor on them. And while the rogue might have a reason for Mage Armor, they are going to be costing another player their spell slots. Because remember, the Warlock is a self-only casting.

You are on record saying your players have plenty of money, can buy magic and will always buy plate or half plate at first opportunity for a small increase over other, cheaper armor. Yet for some reason you won't buy scrolls that give an AC bonus that does the same? Heck buy a staff of defense and you can cast it up to 10 times a day and you get an average of 4 to 5 charges back every single day.

Yes they cost a spell slot, but it is a 1st level slot, it lasts 8 hours and it gives a minimum +1 boost over studded. Casting Haste on the Barbarian or fly on the fighter costs spell slots too. Casting bless costs a spell slot. Those things last 10 minutes or less and require concentration (and two of them are a 3rd level slot). Mage armor works all day long unless dispelled.

There is an inconsistency with your position that it is essential and uber important for a character to get the best AC possible through armor, regardless of cost and liabilities .... but there is no priority to get a better boost through another method, even when it comes with no or fewer liabilities.

So, you are going to have a wizard who takes mage armor, only to either cast it twice (taking two slots per day) or cast it only on the rogue? Look, AC boosting is good, but there are a lot of assumptions you are making about either a lot of party cooperation (the wizard casting mage armor on the rogue) or easy access to spell scrolls for an Arcane Trickster. I mean, "The Arcane Trickster likes BoD because they have a backpack full of scrolls of Mage Armor" is a lot of assumptions.

A wizard gets a crap ton of slots and gets half his level in slots back with a short rest. At 9th level a wizard can get 5 slots back through arcane recovery which is almost as many spells as a Warlock can cast all day long. We are talking about 1st level slots here too, once he hits mid level they are not that useful in combat unless he is in melee and using shield regularly and if he gets caught in combat and runs out he can even upcast that if necessary.

Yes, at 1st level that is a huge cost but at 4th not so much and 6th and above it is almost irrelevant (i.e. when characters are starting to be close to affording good armor).

Thousands? Are you talking about Plate that is 1500? That isn't Thousands. Also, other than the disadvantage on stealth there is no opportunity cost or downside to plate.

Disadvantage to stealth is pretty huge, and I will point out that there are no disadvantages at all to Mage Armor.

Also, again, while you are correct that a fighter using a shield is giving up damage in the form of a two-handed weapon, if the fight ends or before the fight begins, they can choose to swap their shield for a bigger sword. This is a loadout cost, while the Warlock can only change their invocations when they gain a level. That is... rather much less common than "do we have 12 seconds?"

There is a higher cost than that because a fighter is usually going to be optimized for specific weapons and/or fighting style. You can build and play a versatile fighter but that guy is not great at anything. When wielding a shield and sword he won't do as much damage as a dueling and won't have as high an AC as a defense guy, when wielding a greatsword he won't do as much damage as a GWF (especially one that takes feats as well). Such a character is giving up more than a 6th level wizard who casts mage armor twice at the start of the day.

To be honest though a gal that is good at a lot but not great at anything is my favorite kind of fighter to play - A human with a 16 strength, GWM feat, archery fighting style, sharpshooter, 14 dexterity in a chain shirt (or breastplate at high levels). I also like playing the arcane archer subclass with this, although to be honest it is strictly inferior to a battlemaster. That character is really versitile, but others regularly beat him out in both damage and in tanking and in terms of power gaming it is not a good choice.. You will run into the same in a guy that regularly swaps between shields and 2-handed or 1-handed weapon weapons.

I don't care if a barbarian has a +25 to stealth. It doesn't matter when they charge into the room roaring and swinging their weapons. Sure, Barbarians can be good at stealth, that is fairly obvious, but most people I've encountered who play barbarians aren't playing a character that uses stealth.

Most people I play with use stealth regardless of class, and regardless of whether they are good at it or not. If the Barbarian used stealth before he gets to the room he can still charge in roaring with surprise. No Barbarians I know skulk through a dungeon roaring the whole time.

There are negatives. Spell slots. Eldritch invocations. Planning on buying dozens or hundreds of scrolls.

Not negatives, tradeoffs. There are no negatives to being in mage armor as compared to studded leather. It is all positives.

You keep acting like there must be one correct answer, and if you can say "but stealth" then it means you are right. But, some groups don't bother with stealth. Or, if they have a rogue, the rogue stealths ahead and the rest follow. But, giving up half your spell slots as a plan for +1 AC... might not be worth it. That is going to be a hard sell unless you don't want to have spells as a subclass built around getting spells.

Half your spell slots? At first level and sendond level it is half his spell slots to use it both on himself and the Rogue. At third level and beyond a wizard can cast this twice at the start of the day and be fully recharged with one short rest.

Because all grappling does is make a melee enemy stay next to you and attack you, which they were likely going to do anyways. You are giving up an attack to guarantee the most likely outcome, and if you were wrong and they were going to run, that is a second attack.

I am giving up an attack to position the enemy where I want.

Two potential attacks to draw attacks towards you... not a great trade.

It is a great trade when you are a Rogue. An AOO is not that valuable, the first attack in a fight isn't either as you often don't have positioning or advantage for Sneak Attack. Grapple more or less garuntees SA going forward because you put the enemy where you want him.

If he breaks the grapple then the action economy is back where it started.

Moreover you don't know that I lost any attacks. If he is going to flee I actually get more attacks now because he has to break the grapple first, meaning he can't take disengage nor dash like he could have if I just attacked in round 1. If I attack on my first turn he takes dash and get one AOO, or he takes disengage and I get none (at least on that turn) and I have to follow him to set one up on the next turn. If he has to break the grapple first I get an AOO that turn and he can't dash or disengage.

Also, we've never fought Duergar, not once, so the invisibility hasn't come up. Drow could use darkness, but they also can't see through it, and my groups LOVE Devil Sight, so, that isn't a guarantee either.

They don't need to see through it. Normally one character attacking another character in darkness is no advantage or disadvantage either way, but it does eliminate AOOs. Yes if you have devil sight niether of those is true, but not manny fighters have devil's sight. As a matter of fact not many players other than Warlock's have it.

1 attack vs 1 attack
1 attack vs 1 attack
Grapple vs 1 attack

2 attacks vs 3 attacks. It is the same concept as card advantage.

He gets one more attack than I do, he does not get an "extra attack" on me. I took a different action that was not a weapon attack. Would you say he gets an "extra attack" if the wizard casts acantrip instead of attacking?

Moreover if wants to ever go where he wants he needs

I'm sorry... how is your rogue getting two attacks? Grappling is an action, so you don't get SA any turn that you grapple and pull them away.

Once you grapple that grappled condition is in effect until it is broken. If I successfully grapple on the first turn of combat, I can move him wherever I want and attack him every turn after that until the end of time unless he incapacitates me or he takes an action to break the grapple and suceeds. I can move him and attack every single turn. I can move him next to an enemy to enable SA, attack him and then drag him away.

Grappling is also a way for a melee rogue to get advantage every single turn by combining it with steady aim. Normally in melee the enemy can move, potentially forcing the Rogue to move to get positioning for SA and denying steady aim. If he is grappled he can't move, so not only can I SA every turn, I can do it with advantage every turn ....until he breaks the grapple.

So, are you saying you already had them grappled before this cycle even started? Well, that was a wasted SA. Also, how are you guaranteeing that the Barbarian goes, then you go, then the enemy goes?

No, grapple them in the first round or when the Barbarian gets low or whenever. As far as the second, if the initiative order is not right then you can't do it exactly like I said. If that is the case the Barbarian needs to use a ready action, which costs him if he has multi attack, but he still is keeping away from the bad guy and can still use reckless with no worry. How it would work is grapple-move-barb Ready attack-bad guy attacks-move bad guy-trigger barb attack-rogue sneak attack-move bad guy away .....

The barbarian is badly hurt, and you are a melee rogue, so shouldn't you be pretty hurt too? You've got far less defense, so killing you is likely a good move. And readying to hit the barbarian if they only have a single attack instead of a multi-attack is a great plan, how do you counter that? Have the barbarian lose his rage?

No of course not. Realistically my AC is close to if not better than the Barbarians to start with, I have uncanny dodge and I am a lot harder to hit because enemies are not swinging at me with advantage most of the time and unless I am grappling, probably are not swinging at me at all.

Sure, it is nice if it happens exactly like you say, but there was a lot of set-up to create this scenario, with the barbarian already injured, a single enemy, you at near full health and already grappling them, and the initiative working in your favor. That is a lot of conditionals.

It was one example. Every fight has conditionals, but one thing that is very common is the barbarian takes a crapload of damage in every battle. He has a crap ton of hps so he can, but it is rare that he escapes unscathed.

If only there was an item, like a lamp, and it needed oil to create light. So people could see. Maybe... oh that's exactly why oil is in the game. For lighting lamps. Of which they made three varieties.

The description of oil lists the damage, it does not list the lanterns and one of the two packs that comes with oil has no lantern.

Ah yes, enemies who are too stupid to get out of flammable oil when you are carrying sources of flame. Or have a wizard. Well, at least that initiative is always on your side to allow the flames to be lit before the enemy can move.

If the enemy moves while in combat he takes an AOO unless he uses disengage and wastes an action ... and he can still be drug or pushed back into the oil unless he moves far from it and the position he presumably wanted to be in.

By level 5, a fighter can be reliably dealing 2d8+12 with a longsword. That is 21 damage. With no subclass features and no action surge. (Yes, I'm counting Dueling Style. That is the go to style with Sword and Board. I have seen people take Defensive, but generally less often)

Against a 15 AC foe a 5th level fighter with an 18 strength and dueling will average (mean) 14.1 DPR, however this is not a uniform distibution and the median is only 13 damage. This means 13 damage is right in the middle half the time he will do 13 or less and half the time he will do 13 or more. That is all far less than "reliably" doing 21 points of damage. Bump that up to 19 AC and the mean damage is 8.9 and median damage is 10.

Rogue has 1d8+4+3d6 = 19

Also the rogue is making a single attack, while the fighter is making two. So, if the rogue misses, zero damage. If the fighter misses, then they might hit on the second attack for 10.5 damage.

Or they might miss on both. This assumes the Rogue gets SA too, which they usually can but it also assumes he does not have advantage, which he often does. Here are the real numbers:

Against a 15AC foe the fighter will miss completely with both attacks 12% of the time and 30% of the time against a 19 AC foe

The Rogue is harder to determine because of advantage. If you assume advantage on 30% of his attacks he misses 24% vs 15AC and 47% vs 19AC.

Note 0 damage is the mode for both the rogue and fighter for both 15 and 19 AC. This means they will do 0 damage in a turn more often than any other number.

So, I doubt the rogue averages more DPR.

Against a 15 AC foe a Rogue with 18 Dexterity who gets SA on 90% of his attacks and advantage on 30% of his attacks does an average (mean) of 13.9 DPR and a median of 17 damage. This is an easy enemy to hit but the Rogue's mean damage is pulled down by not getting SA on 10% of his attacks. Against a 19 AC foe the Rogue is doing a mean of 10.2 and a median of 8.

So there you have it:
vs 15AC
F - 14.1 DPR mean, 13 DPR median
R- 13.9 DPR mean, 17 DPR median

vs 19AC
F - 8.9 mean, 10 median
R - 10.2 mean, 8 median

So who does more? It depends how you count. Assuming a large sample, against most enemies with a mid-level AC a Rogue will do more damage on the majority of turns. The fighter will do more total damage on all turns combined. Against a high AC foe those numbers are reversed.

Note, those numbers do include critical hits and assume the fighter is not a champion. A champion would add .45 mean damage to the fighters numbers but would not change the median values.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ok as soon as you give me an example where it being an attunement items as it is written breaks the game. You are the one suggesting that we change the rules, you should be the one to point out how it breaks the game as written.

And while we are doing this, I will point out that I gave you an example that breaks the game, you just decided it was too limited in scope and I should instead change the rules for the subclass.

I will wait though, please tell me how it being attunement breaks the game!

Bladesinger isn't a monk, that's why I said with the monk, because the Monk existed when this item was created, bladesinger came later and from a different company.

And I think I demonstrated a lot of why this item is so niche, and the effect is one that we have already established doesn't require attunement. The only issue you seem to have is that shields are bad and stupid and no one should ever use them.

You are on record saying your players have plenty of money, can buy magic and will always buy plate or half plate at first opportunity for a small increase over other, cheaper armor. Yet for some reason you won't buy scrolls that give an AC bonus that does the same? Heck buy a staff of defense and you can cast it up to 10 times a day and you get an average of 4 to 5 charges back every single day.

Yes they cost a spell slot, but it is a 1st level slot, it lasts 8 hours and it gives a minimum +1 boost over studded. Casting Haste on the Barbarian or fly on the fighter costs spell slots too. Casting bless costs a spell slot. Those things last 10 minutes or less and require concentration (and two of them are a 3rd level slot). Mage armor works all day long unless dispelled.

There is an inconsistency with your position that it is essential and uber important for a character to get the best AC possible through armor, regardless of cost and liabilities .... but there is no priority to get a better boost through another method, even when it comes with no or fewer liabilities.




A wizard gets a crap ton of slots and gets half his level in slots back with a short rest. At 9th level a wizard can get 5 slots back through arcane recovery which is almost as many spells as a Warlock can cast all day long. We are talking about 1st level slots here too, once he hits mid level they are not that useful in combat unless he is in melee and using shield regularly and if he gets caught in combat and runs out he can even upcast that if necessary.

Yes, at 1st level that is a huge cost but at 4th not so much and 6th and above it is almost irrelevant (i.e. when characters are starting to be close to affording good armor).



Disadvantage to stealth is pretty huge, and I will point out that there are no disadvantages at all to Mage Armor.

Spell slots are more valuable than gold. And while yes, we do generally buy a few items, we don't go and buy hundreds of items. There is a level of scaling here. And it relies on either a specific party composition or the rogue being an Arcane Trickster and getting to the point where they can afford dozens and dozens of scrolls.

Because, again, This trick isn't ideal for a lot of classes. You've basically got Rogue and the arcane casters. And you are creating a consistent and constant resource drain. Spending 1500 gold once is very different from spending 100 gold every single day.

I also notice... complete silence in regards to the Mithral Armor. Seems to me that that is a great investment since Stealth is such a huge concern.

There is a higher cost than that because a fighter is usually going to be optimized for specific weapons and/or fighting style. You can build and play a versatile fighter but that guy is not great at anything. When wielding a shield and sword he won't do as much damage as a dueling and won't have as high an AC as a defense guy, when wielding a greatsword he won't do as much damage as a GWF (especially one that takes feats as well). Such a character is giving up more than a 6th level wizard who casts mage armor twice at the start of the day.

To be honest though a gal that is good at a lot but not great at anything is my favorite kind of fighter to play - A human with a 16 strength, GWM feat, archery fighting style, sharpshooter, 14 dexterity in a chain shirt (or breastplate at high levels). I also like playing the arcane archer subclass with this, although to be honest it is strictly inferior to a battlemaster. That character is really versitile, but others regularly beat him out in both damage and in tanking and in terms of power gaming it is not a good choice.. You will run into the same in a guy that regularly swaps between shields and 2-handed or 1-handed weapon weapons.

If you are doing more damage with your normal loadout, you keep it. If your normal load out is sub-optimal... then moving to a more optimal style that you are less optimized for is either a net zero or a net gain. And if it is a net loss... you don't swap your load out.

Most people I play with use stealth regardless of class, and regardless of whether they are good at it or not. If the Barbarian used stealth before he gets to the room he can still charge in roaring with surprise. No Barbarians I know skulk through a dungeon roaring the whole time.

Most of the ones I know don't skulk. Period.

We sometimes go stealthy groups. We sometimes don't. Depends on what we feel like for that game and how our characters would act.

Not negatives, tradeoffs. There are no negatives to being in mage armor as compared to studded leather. It is all positives.

If you ignore the costs of getting into Mage Armor. You know, the tradeoffs.

Half your spell slots? At first level and second level it is half his spell slots to use it both on himself and the Rogue. At third level and beyond a wizard can cast this twice at the start of the day and be fully recharged with one short rest.

Half for the Rogue. Unless you are saying that you can only use this plan if there is a rogue and a wizard in the party. Seems... kind of specific in that case.

I am giving up an attack to position the enemy where I want.

And generally, just moving yourself is plenty to get the positioning you need.

It is a great trade when you are a Rogue. An AOO is not that valuable, the first attack in a fight isn't either as you often don't have positioning or advantage for Sneak Attack. Grapple more or less garuntees SA going forward because you put the enemy where you want him.

If he breaks the grapple then the action economy is back where it started.

Moreover you don't know that I lost any attacks. If he is going to flee I actually get more attacks now because he has to break the grapple first, meaning he can't take disengage nor dash like he could have if I just attacked in round 1. If I attack on my first turn he takes dash and get one AOO, or he takes disengage and I get none (at least on that turn) and I have to follow him to set one up on the next turn. If he has to break the grapple first I get an AOO that turn and he can't dash or disengage.

AOO are incredibly valuable on a rogue, that is a potential sneak attack you are giving up. And, that first attack may not get sneak attack (depends on initiative I supppose, and if you use your bonus action to hide or take steady aim which grants sneak attack through advantage, or if you are playing an arcane trickster with a familiar, or if you are playing a swachbuckler) but in later turns you are giving up that SA.

And, again, generally just moving is good enough to get where you want him, or any of the strategies I mentioned above. And, you seem to rely an awful lot on the enemy running away to prove no loss here, but if they aren't running away then... you are losing actions and potential damage.

He gets one more attack than I do, he does not get an "extra attack" on me. I took a different action that was not a weapon attack. Would you say he gets an "extra attack" if the wizard casts acantrip instead of attacking?

Moreover if wants to ever go where he wants he needs

Was that cantrip an attack or Light?

Yes, you took a different action. That is the point. If you can only survive three attacks, and he can only survive three attacks, then grappling him means you risk death and he doesn't. This is not a super deep analysis, this is very baseline.

Once you grapple that grappled condition is in effect until it is broken. If I successfully grapple on the first turn of combat, I can move him wherever I want and attack him every turn after that until the end of time unless he incapacitates me or he takes an action to break the grapple and suceeds. I can move him and attack every single turn. I can move him next to an enemy to enable SA, attack him and then drag him away.

Grappling is also a way for a melee rogue to get advantage every single turn by combining it with steady aim. Normally in melee the enemy can move, potentially forcing the Rogue to move to get positioning for SA and denying steady aim. If he is grappled he can't move, so not only can I SA every turn, I can do it with advantage every turn ....until he breaks the grapple.

I am aware of how grappling works. You seem to think that a guy who isn't moving needs to be moved around an awful lot. And, if you are planning on using steady aim... why not just use a crossbow? Same damage as your melee weapon, same advantage and you don't need to grapple them first.

No, grapple them in the first round or when the Barbarian gets low or whenever. As far as the second, if the initiative order is not right then you can't do it exactly like I said. If that is the case the Barbarian needs to use a ready action, which costs him if he has multi attack, but he still is keeping away from the bad guy and can still use reckless with no worry. How it would work is grapple-move-barb Ready attack-bad guy attacks-move bad guy-trigger barb attack-rogue sneak attack-move bad guy away .....

No of course not. Realistically my AC is close to if not better than the Barbarians to start with, I have uncanny dodge and I am a lot harder to hit because enemies are not swinging at me with advantage most of the time and unless I am grappling, probably are not swinging at me at all.

Your AC shouldn't be better than the barbarians. Might be close. You also have much less health and while you can uncanny dodge a single attack, rage halves all attacks.

And if this guy is so scary that it takes both of you, and the barbarian feels like reckless is still good call... how is the rogue really taking that much damage? Especially if this is from turn one and the barbarian is nearly dead from something.

It was one example. Every fight has conditionals, but one thing that is very common is the barbarian takes a crapload of damage in every battle. He has a crap ton of hps so he can, but it is rare that he escapes unscathed.

Not disagreeing with any of this, but just wondering how the rogue is escaping unscathed enough to just casually be grappling and making enemies focus on him.

The description of oil lists the damage, it does not list the lanterns and one of the two packs that comes with oil has no lantern.

If the point of oil was damage, then it would do more damage. Kind of like Alchemist fire. Oil is meant to be used in lamps. It lists the damage first, because when people care about that damage they need to find it quickly.

If the enemy moves while in combat he takes an AOO unless he uses disengage and wastes an action ... and he can still be drug or pushed back into the oil unless he moves far from it and the position he presumably wanted to be in.

Moving in a circle around someone doesn't cause an AOO. The oil covers a single 5 ft square, so unless you have the enemy surrounded so that they cannot move 5ft in any direction without getting an AOO (in which case, why the heck are we bothering with oil, this enemy is locked down HARD with three or more PCs focusing on them)

And sure, if you want to grapple and throw oil and light the oil, then drag them back to the oil... all of that for 10 damage.

4 actions. Minimum 4 attacks. That is a minimum of 16 damage if every single attack rolls minimum damage, and there is no SA or other features. Just attacks.

Against a 15 AC foe a 5th level fighter with an 18 strength and dueling will average (mean) 14.1 DPR, however this is not a uniform distibution and the median is only 13 damage. This means 13 damage is right in the middle half the time he will do 13 or less and half the time he will do 13 or more. That is all far less than "reliably" doing 21 points of damage. Bump that up to 19 AC and the mean damage is 8.9 and median damage is 10.


Or they might miss on both. This assumes the Rogue gets SA too, which they usually can but it also assumes he does not have advantage, which he often does. Here are the real numbers:

Against a 15AC foe the fighter will miss completely with both attacks 12% of the time and 30% of the time against a 19 AC foe

The Rogue is harder to determine because of advantage. If you assume advantage on 30% of his attacks he misses 24% vs 15AC and 47% vs 19AC.

Note 0 damage is the mode for both the rogue and fighter for both 15 and 19 AC. This means they will do 0 damage in a turn more often than any other number.


Against a 15 AC foe a Rogue with 18 Dexterity who gets SA on 90% of his attacks and advantage on 30% of his attacks does an average (mean) of 13.9 DPR and a median of 17 damage. This is an easy enemy to hit but the Rogue's mean damage is pulled down by not getting SA on 10% of his attacks. Against a 19 AC foe the Rogue is doing a mean of 10.2 and a median of 8.

So there you have it:
vs 15AC
F - 14.1 DPR mean, 13 DPR median
R- 13.9 DPR mean, 17 DPR median

vs 19AC
F - 8.9 mean, 10 median
R - 10.2 mean, 8 median

So who does more? It depends how you count. Assuming a large sample, against most enemies with a mid-level AC a Rogue will do more damage on the majority of turns. The fighter will do more total damage on all turns combined. Against a high AC foe those numbers are reversed.

Note, those numbers do include critical hits and assume the fighter is not a champion. A champion would add .45 mean damage to the fighters numbers but would not change the median values.

Wow your numbers make so little sense.

So, first of all, assuming that the Rogue has advantage all the time. You could make the argument that because of Steady Aim that is reasonable. However, it does very clearly give a huge advantage to the rogue to assume that. However, the Fighter then has a potential to use their bonus action. I mean, the rogue is getting it, and there are a lot of ways we could potentially use that bonus action.

But, let me not do that. Let me give the Rogue that massive lead by having advantage and the fighter still using only their action.

Against an AC 19, fighter has a +6 to hit. On two attacks, that is a 64% chance to land at least a single blow, which will average 10.5 damage. Both attack hitting I believe is 16%, which leaves 20% chance of missing entirely. If I am remembering my math correctly.

Advantage gives your rogue a 64% chance to hit... but also a 36% chance to miss entirely.

So, giving the rogue all the advantages... the fighter is still less likely to miss and deal zero damage. That is without a third attack as a bonus action. Without getting Shield Master which could give them advantage. Without anything else.

And even if you are able to show that a vanilla fighter without advantage hits less often than a rogue with advantage... that does nothing except prove that advantage makes you more accurate and that rogues deal spike damage. Obvious facts.

 

[auburn2]

And I think I demonstrated a lot of why this item is so niche, and the effect is one that we have already established doesn't require attunement. The only issue you seem to have is that shields are bad and stupid and no one should ever use them.

You did not demonstrate why it breaks the game as is, you are arguing the rules need to be changed, tell me why it breaks the game being an attune item.

Spell slots are more valuable than gold. And while yes, we do generally buy a few items, we don't go and buy hundreds of items.

Ok like I said, buy a staff of defense. Problem solved. Mage Armor for the Roge at all times!

Because, again, This trick isn't ideal for a lot of classes. You've basically got Rogue and the arcane casters. And you are creating a consistent and constant resource drain. Spending 1500 gold once is very different from spending 100 gold every single day.

Not really. Not if you can afford 1500 gold at 5th level.

I also notice... complete silence in regards to the Mithral Armor. Seems to me that that is a great investment since Stealth is such a huge concern.

I have never had mithral armor in my games. If you have it and can get it that is a great reason for a fighter to wear it.

If you are doing more damage with your normal loadout, you keep it. If your normal load out is sub-optimal... then moving to a more optimal style that you are less optimized for is either a net zero or a net gain. And if it is a net loss... you don't swap your load out.

If you are optimized for one loadout, you wil not be optimized and might be downright awful for another.

Most of the ones I know don't skulk. Period.

Well that is a lot more stupid than using grapple. Let's be loud so everyone hears us and we never get surprise ... even when we don't need to!

If you ignore the costs of getting into Mage Armor. You know, the tradeoffs.

Yes tradeoffs, not limfacs.

Half for the Rogue. Unless you are saying that you can only use this plan if there is a rogue and a wizard in the party. Seems... kind of specific in that case.

Yes, you would normally use this at low level if there was a wizard in the party .....which is often, not all the time but often.

And generally, just moving yourself is plenty to get the positioning you need.

It does not position the enemy where you want HIM.

AOO are incredibly valuable on a rogue, that is a potential sneak attack you are giving up.

Unless the Rogue has advantage or is a swashbuckler an enemy can always deny SA on an AOO. If the rogue has a threatening ally, all the bad guy has to do is pivot away from the ally (drawing an AOO from the ally) before he moves away from the rogue (drawing another AOO without SA).

This assumes he failed at denying it another way, most notably by attacking the Rogue and geting him to use uncanny dodge.

Unless you are playing a swashbuckler there should almost never be an AOO with SA against an intelligent enemy unless there is a condition that gives the Rogue advantage.

And, again, generally just moving is good enough to get where you want him, or any of the strategies I mentioned above.

An intelligent enemy is almost never going to move where you want him to move unless you move him there. Why would he? To turn this around, if you can move the enemy without forcibly moving him, then he can move you without forcibly moving you.

And, you seem to rely an awful lot on the enemy running away to prove no loss here, but if they aren't running away then... you are losing actions and potential damage.

No I don't . I was tresponding to you who said I lost two attacks if the enemy tried to run (one when I grappled, one AOO). I was pointing out I lost nothing if the enemy decides to run.

Was that cantrip an attack or Light?

It was a save cantrip. He lost an atrack to do toll toll of dead and deal more damage than he would have in an attack.

Yes, you took a different action. That is the point. If you can only survive three attacks, and he can only survive three attacks, then grappling him means you risk death and he doesn't. This is not a super deep analysis, this is very baseline.

I can usually survive more than 3 attacks, and if I can't I can always dodge (while grapling him) while my allies kill him.

Your AC shouldn't be better than the barbarians. Might be close. You also have much less health and while you can uncanny dodge a single attack, rage halves all attacks.

I have a higher dexterity. Also rage does not halve all damage - go read the PHB and it doesn't halve any damage at all when he is not raging, while uncanny dodge always works (on one attack).

Not disagreeing with any of this, but just wondering how the rogue is escaping unscathed enough to just casually be grappling and making enemies focus on him.

I never said he is unscathed.

If the point of oil was damage, then it would do more damage. Kind of like Alchemist fire. Oil is meant to be used in lamps. It lists the damage first, because when people care about that damage they need to find it quickly.

Alchemists fire does on average 2.5 damage per turn until the enemy wipes it off. Oil does 5 damage on the first turn and depending on how you use it up to 5 on the second. Most battles do not last 4 turns, which means in general oild does more damage (although you do have to light it).

Moving in a circle around someone doesn't cause an AOO. The oil covers a single 5 ft square, so unless you have the enemy surrounded so that they cannot move 5ft in any direction without getting an AOO (in which case, why the heck are we bothering with oil, this enemy is locked down HARD with three or more PCs focusing on them)

Well yes and if I poured the oil it is safe to say he can't safely move around me, either because I have an ally next to me or there is something else stopping him (a wizards grease, spike growth, a wall ....)

Youa re stating the obvious, if the enemy can just walk around me because of the specific map and positioning then I would not use it .... instead I woudl grapple him and hold him where he is .... and maybe use oil the next turn.

Wow your numbers make so little sense.

So, first of all, assuming that the Rogue has advantage all the time.

No I didn't. Read! I assumed the Rogue had advantage 30% of the time and did NOT have advantage 70% of the time. I further assumed the Rogue did not even have sneak attack 10% of the time. That is what the numbers I posted earlier assume. If you think that is wrong, tell me what numbers I should use. I figured that was roughly representative of the average melee Rogue.

I do need to point out though, if a Rogue grapples successfully in round 1 she can have at will advantage every turn thereafter until the enemy breaks the grapple (wasting an action) and forces her to move to attack him. So I assumed 30%, but if you landed a grapple on round 1 it can be a lot higher than that. Loss of 1 attack is a small price to pay for that, especially if she won initiative and can't use SA in round 1.

Against an AC 19, fighter has a +6 to hit.

A 5th level fighter with an 18 strength has a +7 attack roll. That is what I used.

On two attacks, that is a 64% chance to land at least a single blow, which will average 10.5 damage. Both attack hitting I believe is 16%, which leaves 20% chance of missing entirely. If I am remembering my math correctly.

You are not remembering math correctly. With a +7 against a 19 AC the fighter has:
chance of two misses - 30.25%
chance of one hit without critical and one miss - 44% (ave dmg 10.5)
chance of one miss and one crit is - 5.5% (ave dmg 15)
chance of two hits without critical is - 16% (ave dmg 21)
chance of one normal hit and one crit is - 4% (ave dmg 25.5)
chance of 2 crits - 0.25% (ave dmg 30)

So to reword your sentence, what I put in red corrects or qualifies what you said - that is a 69.75% chance to land at least a single blow, which will average 11.0 damage per hit. Both attack hitting is 20.25%, which leaves 30.25% chance of missing entirely.

This assumes the fighter only crits on a 20. I can do the numbers if he is a champion if you want...but not until Saturday.

Advantage gives your rogue a 64% chance to hit... but also a 36% chance to miss entirely.

Actually with an 18 dexterity at level 5 against a 19AC foe advantage gives him a 69.75% chance to hit and a 30.25% chance to miss.

So, giving the rogue all the advantages... the fighter is still less likely to miss and deal zero damage. That is without a third attack as a bonus action. Without getting Shield Master which could give them advantage. Without anything else.

You can't make a 3rd attack as a bonus action if you have a shield ... although a Rogue with a weapon in 1 hand potentially can.

As for being less likely to miss completely - if the Rogue always gets advantage that is not true.

And even if you are able to show that a vanilla fighter without advantage hits less often than a rogue with advantage... that does nothing except prove that advantage makes you more accurate and that rogues deal spike damage. Obvious facts.

He never hits less often. Even if the Rogue has advantage every single turn (which is not what I posted) he still does not hit less often with his action attacks, if he does not have advantage he hits less often (as I posted above). The difference is the Rogue deals more damage when he does hit. My original statement was that the Rogue is "probably" doing more damage than the sword and board fighter. I think that is an accurate statement. There are enemies and situations that is not true, but overall I think it is.

I am going to be busy tomorrow, but maybe Saturday or Sunday I will post a bar graph showing the breakdown between the two.

Note: There are two small math errors/typos in the earlier post above. I did not edit the post because I did not want you to think I changed the numbers after the fact. First against a 15 AC foe, with the assumptions made above the chance the Rogue misses is 28% (28.175% exactly) not 24%, I think I misstyped that. Second the median damage for a Rogue against a 19 AC foe with the assumptions noted (90% SA, 30% adv) is 9 not 8. I solved this numerically and I did not use a small enough step.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You did not demonstrate why it breaks the game as is, you are arguing the rules need to be changed, tell me why it breaks the game being an attune item.

"Breaks the Game" is usually a phrase used for something being too powerful. It is incredibly difficult to "prove" that something breaks the game by being too weak, especially when that thing is an optional rule that doesn't even necessarily apply.

I have demonstrated why it is too weak, not matching up to the level of similar items, and narrowly useful. Which, were my arguments from the beginning about why it should be changed. This isn't really something I can demonstrate again but differently, and in rebuttal nearly your entire point from beginning to end has been "Using Shields is a terrible idea, and armor is heavy"

Not really. Not if you can afford 1500 gold at 5th level.

Having collected 1500 gold over a series of adventures spanning multiple weeks is very different than spending 100 gold every single day. Even if you are assuming the party is making a lot of money, they aren't doing so every single day, and they are spending it on other things as well.

Here, let me put it another way. Over a 3- month adventuring cycle, Plate Armor costs you 1,500g gp. Buying a scroll of MAge Armor for every day costs 90,000 gp.

Oh, and I know, but just buy a Staff of Defense. A rare item, same value as the Bracers of Defense, also requires attunement. Know what is funny about that? The staff grants +1 AC, mage armor on the Rogue is +1 AC over studded leather. That is +2 AC... the same bonus as the Bracers, and if this is being used by a mage they can also cast mage armor on themselves, that is another +3 AC

So, on one hand we have an item that is granting +2 AC for attunement, and on the other we have an item that is the same rartiy and supposed strength granting +4 AC to the party, and still has 4 castings of Shield. Same Rarity, both require attunement, but it is rather clear which is better isn't it?

I have never had mithral armor in my games. If you have it and can get it that is a great reason for a fighter to wear it.

Just because you haven't had it means nothing.

If you are optimized for one loadout, you wil not be optimized and might be downright awful for another.

If you are optimized for one thing, you might not be optimized for a different thing! Please, tell me more. Are trees made of wood?

But, what you are purposefully missing, is that if you are choosing to swap your loadout before the fight, it is because even being unoptimized for the new loadout, you believe it will still be more effective than your current loadout. That is why you switch loadouts. Additionally, if you would be so terrible at it that it isn't worth switching, then you don't switch.

So, please stop trying to act like this is some terrible trap. It is an option, for free, and takes at most 12 seconds.

Well that is a lot more stupid than using grapple. Let's be loud so everyone hears us and we never get surprise ... even when we don't need to!

People role-play. Not my place to call them stupid for it. It is also stupid to loudly challenge them to honorable combat, doesn't mean I haven't seen people do it.

Yes, you would normally use this at low level if there was a wizard in the party .....which is often, not all the time but often.

Requiring specific party compositions make the position weaker when arguing against a position that requires no specific party composition.

IF you have a wizard and if you have Bracers of Defense then you can have a Rogue with 15+Dex AC

IF you have a Rogue, they can have a 12+Dex AC. Maybe buy some better armor

It does not position the enemy where you want HIM.


Unless the Rogue has advantage or is a swashbuckler an enemy can always deny SA on an AOO. If the rogue has a threatening ally, all the bad guy has to do is pivot away from the ally (drawing an AOO from the ally) before he moves away from the rogue (drawing another AOO without SA).

This assumes he failed at denying it another way, most notably by attacking the Rogue and geting him to use uncanny dodge.

Unless you are playing a swashbuckler there should almost never be an AOO with SA against an intelligent enemy unless there is a condition that gives the Rogue advantage.

Do you notice how these AOOs keep stacking? Now we have an enemy taking two additional attacks. Oh, and look, you got an enemy to attack your rogue (the exact thing you wanted) without needing to grapple them.

Yes, enemies might prevent you from doing what you want, that doesn't make the AOO worthless.

An intelligent enemy is almost never going to move where you want him to move unless you move him there. Why would he? To turn this around, if you can move the enemy without forcibly moving him, then he can move you without forcibly moving you.

And where exactly do you want him?

I guess you are relying on there being a caster, with an AOE effect that you have safely dragged the enemy into to hold them against it. Because with just a Rogue and a Barbarian... there isn't really any difference where the enemy stands without those sort of spell effects in play.

No I don't . I was tresponding to you who said I lost two attacks if the enemy tried to run (one when I grappled, one AOO). I was pointing out I lost nothing if the enemy decides to run.

And I'm pointing out that enemies aren't generally running away. That is why it is called a fight, not a chase.

It was a save cantrip. He lost an atrack to do toll toll of dead and deal more damage than he would have in an attack.

So he "attacked". Sure, he didn't take the attack action, but that is gaming Jargon. He took an offensive action that directly resulted in direct damage. It just had a different rolling schematic instead of him rolling against AC.

I have a higher dexterity. Also rage does not halve all damage - go read the PHB and it doesn't halve any damage at all when he is not raging, while uncanny dodge always works (on one attack).

You have a barbarian at 30% hp, attacking a dangerous enemy that he can't end his turn next to, and he isn't Raging?

Man, no wonder you like grappling so much if you don't use class abilities meant to protect you from damage.

I never said he is unscathed.

In better shape than the barbarian who has used all of their rages and lost more hp than your entire hp pool.... somehow.

Alchemists fire does on average 2.5 damage per turn until the enemy wipes it off. Oil does 5 damage on the first turn and depending on how you use it up to 5 on the second. Most battles do not last 4 turns, which means in general oild does more damage (although you do have to light it).

2.5 damage on the action immediately, unless the enemy wastes an action to wipe it off. So, over 4 turns that does 10 damage.

Oil does 5 damage if the enemy doesn't choose to step 5 ft to the left, and you were able to use a second action to light it.

Do I really need to break this down?

Well yes and if I poured the oil it is safe to say he can't safely move around me, either because I have an ally next to me or there is something else stopping him (a wizards grease, spike growth, a wall ....)

Youa re stating the obvious, if the enemy can just walk around me because of the specific map and positioning then I would not use it .... instead I woudl grapple him and hold him where he is .... and maybe use oil the next turn.

Turn 1 -> Grapple
Turn 2-> Pour Oil
Turn 3 -> Light oil for 5 damage.

Clearly this is superior high level play. I have no idea why I would think that this greatness could be topped by

Turn 1-> Shortsword attack for 1d6+3 (6 damage)
Turn 2-> Shortsword attack for 1d6+3 (6 damage)
Turn 3-> Shortsword attack for 1d6+3 (6 damage)

No I didn't. Read! I assumed the Rogue had advantage 30% of the time and did NOT have advantage 70% of the time. I further assumed the Rogue did not even have sneak attack 10% of the time. That is what the numbers I posted earlier assume. If you think that is wrong, tell me what numbers I should use. I figured that was roughly representative of the average melee Rogue.

I do need to point out though, if a Rogue grapples successfully in round 1 she can have at will advantage every turn thereafter until the enemy breaks the grapple (wasting an action) and forces her to move to attack him. So I assumed 30%, but if you landed a grapple on round 1 it can be a lot higher than that. Loss of 1 attack is a small price to pay for that, especially if she won initiative and can't use SA in round 1.


A 5th level fighter with an 18 strength has a +7 attack roll. That is what I used.



You are not remembering math correctly. With a +7 against a 19 AC the fighter has:
chance of two misses - 30.25%
chance of one hit without critical and one miss - 44% (ave dmg 10.5)
chance of one miss and one crit is - 5.5% (ave dmg 15)
chance of two hits without critical is - 16% (ave dmg 21)
chance of one normal hit and one crit is - 4% (ave dmg 25.5)
chance of 2 crits - 0.25% (ave dmg 30)

So to reword your sentence, what I put in red corrects or qualifies what you said - that is a 69.75% chance to land at least a single blow, which will average 11.0 damage per hit. Both attack hitting is 20.25%, which leaves 30.25% chance of missing entirely.

This assumes the fighter only crits on a 20. I can do the numbers if he is a champion if you want...but not until Saturday.



Actually with an 18 dexterity at level 5 against a 19AC foe advantage gives him a 69.75% chance to hit and a 30.25% chance to miss.



You can't make a 3rd attack as a bonus action if you have a shield ... although a Rogue with a weapon in 1 hand potentially can.

As for being less likely to miss completely - if the Rogue always gets advantage that is not true.


He never hits less often. Even if the Rogue has advantage every single turn (which is not what I posted) he still does not hit less often with his action attacks, if he does not have advantage he hits less often (as I posted above). The difference is the Rogue deals more damage when he does hit. My original statement was that the Rogue is "probably" doing more damage than the sword and board fighter. I think that is an accurate statement. There are enemies and situations that is not true, but overall I think it is.

I am going to be busy tomorrow, but maybe Saturday or Sunday I will post a bar graph showing the breakdown between the two.

Note: There are two small math errors/typos in the earlier post above. I did not edit the post because I did not want you to think I changed the numbers after the fact. First against a 15 AC foe, with the assumptions made above the chance the Rogue misses is 28% (28.175% exactly) not 24%, I think I misstyped that. Second the median damage for a Rogue against a 19 AC foe with the assumptions noted (90% SA, 30% adv) is 9 not 8. I solved this numerically and I did not use a small enough step.

I forgot prof increase, but I want you to stop and think about this.

I was assuming the rogue always had advantage and always had sneak attack. For the rogue, that changes my miss and hit by 5%. So, 31% to miss entirely, with advantage on every single attack. Now, again, I'm not sure where the Fighter math breaks down, it seems like you are assuming both attack hit is a subset within at least one attack hitting, but I'm fairly certain that isn't how that math works. Running late for work, so I can't check that.

But, the rogue with sneak attack is doing the same average damage as a fighter hitting with both attacks. So, the rogue needs to hit every other time, if the fighter is hitting every single attack. But if on the miss turns the fighter is still hitting once... they are pulling ahead.

Edit: I just realized that a flat 5% is inaccurate for the double attack, but seriously, this debate is barely even worth having. It is making a lot of assumptions just to prove that fighters deal less damage, which I again doubt is true and certainly never matches with my experiences

 

[auburn2]

"Breaks the Game" is usually a phrase used for something being too powerful. It is incredibly difficult to "prove" that something breaks the game by being too weak, especially when that thing is an optional rule that doesn't even necessarily apply.

IF it is not breaking the game then you should keep it as is.

Here, let me put it another way. Over a 3- month adventuring cycle, Plate Armor costs you 1,500g gp. Buying a scroll of MAge Armor for every day costs 90,000 gp.

Going by the guidelines in the DMG - 37 adventuring days done "by the book" should get you to 20th level. So that is 37,000gp total spent on mage armor between 1st and 20th level and another $53k spent during days of adventuring at 20th level. I would wager most 20th level characters can afford that. Also since most of this 90 days is spent at 20th level, the wizard should have PLENTY of first level slots to waste on this by this time.

On downtime you would not be casting mage armor, wear your studded leather during that time in case you are ambused or something/

So, on one hand we have an item that is granting +2 AC for attunement, and on the other we have an item that is the same rartiy and supposed strength granting +4 AC to the party, and still has 4 castings of Shield. Same Rarity, both require attunement, but it is rather clear which is better isn't it?

Sure. One is better than the other. That is hardly an argument that the BOD should not be attunement. I mean a staff of Magi is better than either, so then SOD should not be attunement, nor anything less powerful than SOM?

So, please stop trying to act like this is some terrible trap. It is an option, for free, and takes at most 12 seconds.

And stop acting like attuning to BOD is a terrible trap. It is an option.

People role-play. Not my place to call them stupid for it. It is also stupid to loudly challenge them to honorable combat, doesn't mean I haven't seen people do it.

Except you have called it stupid to use grapple. Comparing the two, it is undoubtedly more costly to purposely announce your presence to everyone.

As a matter of fact, we are talking about "wasted" attacks. You claim grapple "wastes an attack". Yelling and screaming as you walk around the dungeon "wastes" a lot more than one attack. It gives every single enemy warning and the opportunity to hide, potentially costing your entire party a full round of attacks (if they all fail perception) and it denies any chance you have of hiding denying, a further potential attack by all your party members. So with a party of five this decision could waste a full 10 entire actions during an encounter for nothing.

Requiring specific party compositions make the position weaker when arguing against a position that requires no specific party composition.

Which is why I said "often but not all the time"

Your concer with BOD only comes up if there is a Monk in the party, that is no less weak.

Do you notice how these AOOs keep stacking? Now we have an enemy taking two additional attacks. Oh, and look, you got an enemy to attack your rogue (the exact thing you wanted) without needing to grapple them.

No they don't. If an enemy is not going to take disengage and flees he will take an AOO from everyone he is within reach of (unless they have already used a reaction). Whether he moves away from both of them at the same time (triggering SA) or pivots triggering the other allied attack first, he still takes TWO AOOs.

Yes, enemies might prevent you from doing what you want, that doesn't make the AOO worthless.

It doesn't make it worthless. It is still an AOO.

And where exactly do you want him?

Whereever I want, that is the point! Heck maybe I want him to give me cover against the archers on the walls.

So he "attacked". Sure, he didn't take the attack action, but that is gaming Jargon. He took an offensive action that directly resulted in direct damage. It just had a different rolling schematic instead of him rolling against AC.

So if he casts haste did he waste his attack? If the cleric casts spirit guardians did he waste his attack? Niether of those examples cause "direct damage".

You have a barbarian at 30% hp, attacking a dangerous enemy that he can't end his turn next to, and he isn't Raging?

"Can't" and "shouldn't" or don't want to are two different things. Maybe he is out of rages (and that is why he is at 30%).

There is no denying the fact that it is easier to hit someone with advantage than without. The Barbarian can take reckless attack and not worry about the repurcussions and that is true at full hps or at 30%hps and the Rogues wasted 1 attack and probably one which did not even qualify for SA.

Man, no wonder you like grappling so much if you don't use class abilities meant to protect you from damage.

Denying attacks with advantage will prevent a lot of damage without requiring rage.

In better shape than the barbarian who has used all of their rages and lost more hp than your entire hp pool.... somehow.

In better shape to be attacked. There is a difference.

2.5 damage on the action immediately, unless the enemy wastes an action to wipe it off. So, over 4 turns that does 10 damage.

4 turns to do the damage oil does in 2 turns.

Oil does 5 damage if the enemy doesn't choose to step 5 ft to the left, and you were able to use a second action to light it.

If he can step to the left. Of course if that was the case I might not have used it.

Do I really need to break this down?



Turn 1 -> Grapple
Turn 2-> Pour Oil
Turn 3 -> Light oil for 5 damage.

Clearly this is superior high level play. I have no idea why I would think that this greatness could be topped by

Where did I ever say I would do that. I use grapple sometimes. I use oil sometimes. I use shove sometimes. I use most of the options listed in the PHB and you can bet when I use them they are better options thaan the alternatives.

I forgot prof increase, but I want you to stop and think about this.

I was assuming the rogue always had advantage and always had sneak attack. For the rogue, that changes my miss and hit by 5%. So, 31% to miss entirely, with advantage on every single attack. Now, again, I'm not sure where the Fighter math breaks down, it seems like you are assuming both attack hit is a subset within at least one attack hitting, but I'm fairly certain that isn't how that math works. Running late for work, so I can't check that.

My math on the fighter is correct. I broke down every explicit case for the fighter (assuming he makes 2 attacks) and the exact probability that each specific case happens. And "2 attacks hitting" is a subset of "at least one hitting". At least means one or more. The chance of exactly one attack hitting is fundamentally different than the chance of at least one hitting. Using the +6 you were using, there is a 48% chance of hitting exactly once, a 16% chance of hitting twice (64% total htting at least once) and a 34% chance of missing twice.

As noted above, the fighter with +7 attack making two attacks against a 19AC foe has exactly a 30.25% chance of missing entirely with both swings, that is not debatable.

If a Rogue gets advantage EVERY attack he has the exact same 30.25% chance of missing completely. If the Rogue has advantage less than 100% of the time he will always miss more often than a fighter. In the example I used (30% advantage, 70% no advantage) the chance the Rogue misses is exactly 47.575%.

The answer who does more is not simple because this is not a function of a single variable. You are trying to base this on damage alone, but damage, AC and for the Rogue ability to qualify for SA and how often he gets advantage are all relevant to this discussion and those variables will drive the amount of damage each does. The numbers I assumed might not be the ones we should use, but without choosing something you can't do this analysis at all.

On a turn a fighter with dueling will do between 0 and 44 damage (but never 1-6). A Rogue will do between 0 and 56 damage (but never 1-4).

What it is safe to say is the Rogue misses completely more often than fighter. What is also true is his hits are more powerful and his critical hits are much more powerful. Without pinning down all the other variables you can not say anything more conclusive than those three things. If you do pin them down this is a straightforward calculation but the results will vary widely based on what you choose.

The other thing you have to decide is what type of average you are comparing because a mean and a median will yield different results.

Finally for the Rogue we are assuming he is not doing TWF, which is probably a safe assumption, but note we are not optimized for damage as a Rogue if this is the case, while the shield fighter is optimized for it given his loadout. If you assume the Rogue is using TWF when he does not have advantage, then in terms of damage he will out do the sword and board fighter in most cases by a significant margin.

Here are graphs showing the distribution of fighter vs Rogue damage against a 19AC foe, Comparison is for a +7 attack bonus, 18 ability, d8 weapon, fighter with dueling, Rogue with SA 90% and advantage 30%. The numbers on the left are tens of thousands of occurrences per million turns, along the bottom the amount of damage. So for example the fighter will get exactly 14 damage (total) about 63,000 times out of a million and Rogue will get exactly 20 damage about 43,000 times out of a million. These represent the respective most common numbers of damage for each class other than 0 damage (zero is off the top of the chart on the left for both)