Your sample size is to small to be meaningful. Seriously. It is even easily refuted by anyone that has had the opposite experience. The maths of the situation on the other hand is not biased by the circumstances of anyone's personal experience.
Did you not notice that I used math previously as well to show the superior chance to hit?
The math for Karinsdad's analysis was an ideal situation for the wizard. Not a constant standard of combat.
The fact is that if you compare attacking AC to attacking Ref the Rogue has the same relative advantage (maybe slightly better % points at lower defence values) for attacking AC as it does Ref in comaparison to the Wizard. The Rogue and the Wizard are both generally slightly better off attacking the non-AC defences, than attacking AC.
This is not a rogue versus wizard comparison. I was merely showing that the rogue is far better off attacking Reflex while the wizard is generally not better off attacking reflex versus any melee attacking AC.
Even Karinsdad supports this assertion since he found AC and reflex differ by 1.5 on average for low level creatures and proficiency bonuses give +2 to +3 to hit.
Consider a Rogue with +9 (Dex 20, Dagger) and a Wizard with +5 (Int 20), if they are both attacking an AC of 20 the Rogue will hit more often than the Wizard. If they are both attacking a Ref of 15 the Rogue will hit more often than the Wizard. They are both better off attacking the Ref though.
Completely irrelevant to the following statement:
Wizards receive no advantage compared to melee attacking reflex vs A.C.
Rogues attacking Reflex are at an even greater advantage.
All you are doing is stating what I already concluded. That rogues hit easier than wizards, thus they do more damage, especially after minions are dead and the melee is spread out.
If the Wizard was dealing more damage to a single target than the Rogue in most rounds there would be a problem btw - the game's design premises would not be working. Fortunately the Wizard only outstrips the Rogue when the Wizard can repeatedly target multiple targets in a round (and manages to hit 3 of them), which, unsuprisingly, is what is supposed to happen.
I already stated this in my other post. Did you read it?
I said wizards do greater aggregate damage over the long run. I don't dispute this.
But people who complain about wizards are generally those from the 3.5 version of thought. That was when a wizard could deal a huge single target attack as well as AoE.
Now the rogue is hands down the best single target striker in the game no matter what you do with your wizard. He hits easier than the wizard. He does more single target damage. This is all by design. So if a 4E wizard player decides to play one hoping to have the feel of being powerful doing big damage hits, he will be disappointed. He will have to be content adding up his damage spread over targets.
What are you missing?
Are you saying the following isn't true?
1. The rogue hits easier.
2. The rogue does more single target damage by a rather substantial margin.
3. The majority of fights against the big bad evil guy are going to favor the rogue as far as damage goes.
4. Once the minions and side help are dead, the rogue becomes the damage king bar none.
5. This can be disappointing to players used to the 3.5 wizard who could dish alot of single target damage on top of AoE damage.
That is basically what I am asserting and a few of you arguing with me are disputing indisputable truths that are easy to see with the game mechanics.
I'm not saying a wizard doesn't do good AoE damage and that if you add it up it is comparable. That isn't my argument at all.
My argument was simply that I can understand why some wizard players are disappointed playing one. Let's face it, wizards used to be the players dealing death blows. Now rogues and other strikers are dealing death blows and doing huge damage. This is by design.
Let me use an example from last night.
We were fighting gnomes and giants rats. My friend is playing an Eladrin wizard and I'm playing a Drow rogue.
I get surrounded by two gnome skulks. He blasts another two across the room.
Wizard: Hits one gnome skulk for a crit with scorching blast for 12 points and does another 10 points to the other gnome. That's a total of 22 points of damage with very good rolls.
Rogue: I am on the other two skulks. I use minor action encounter power darkness. The gnomes and I were in darkness. I sly flourish sneak attack the gnome with my rapier.
I did 26 points of damage with one hit on a single target. So even his two very nice damage rolls spread out over two targets didn't match my moderately good damage roll against a single target.
So imagine when the wizard is trying to do single target damage and having to watch the rogue tear up a BBEG? Would you feel powerful next to that guy? A guy who is often doubling the damage you do even when you roll well?
Not super fun unless you are happy adding up the aggregate damage you do and watching the strikers land finishing blows.
So I understand some 4E wizard players used to playing old edition wizards feeling disatisfied with the new wizard class. He pales in comparison to the old wizard in terms of doing single target damage and the rogue makes him look rather impotent in situations where single target damage is king like against most Big Bad Evil Guys.