Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cyber-Dave" data-source="post: 8795109" data-attributes="member: 82132">Again, the only thing you are proving is that you don’t understand the rules or the math of the game you are playing. My argument doesn’t rely on a 19th or 20th level rogue. My phrasing was a shorthand designed to bring attention to the relational growth of what rogues have lost. At any level relative to their threat, they have lost the equivalent of an endgame rogue’s 10d6 potential damage bonus. (I shouldn’t have said ability modifier earlier. That isn’t actually altered. It was a Freudian slip.) The fact that at 1st level the actual number is smaller, as are the HP totals of the foes you face, is immaterial.Bill Zebub has the right of this. What the rogue gains in One is virtually nothing. Everything they can do in One, they could do in 5e. One just makes one specific trick a little easier to pull off. The net effect will be negligible. The two weapon fighting change is nice, but it in no way comes close to mitigating the rogue’s loss of peak performance. What One takes away cannot be replicated by any means. It is gone. Anyone who claims that the two are a wash has zero understanding of the math running this game’s engine.Put another way, if you assume that the rogue will always use its bonus action for cunning action and only two weapon fight if it doesn’t cost a bonus action, you are literally claiming that gaining one extra attack per round with a damage of 1d4 to 1d6 is equal to being able to apply an extra 1d6 to 10d6 damage to an existing attack. You are saying that 1d4-1d6=1d6-10d6. The level of mathematic blindness required to make that claim is stunning, and one shouldn’t need to be called a “power gamer” to realize that.(To be clear, you also don’t gain an increased potential to deal sneak attack damage, for a rogue can use their bonus action to gain advantage every round on their turn and thus have the same probability of dealing sneak attack on their turn as is. In fact, in One, a rogue has a LOWER probability of dealing sneak attack, for assuming that they manage one attack with a reaction—which can be reliably achieved with group support—the rogue has gone from three attack rolls per round that between them can deal up to two sneak attacks to three attack rolls per round that between them can deal one sneak attack, all so that they can deal an extra 1d4 to 1d6 in the face of their loss of 1d6 to 10d6… if they are a melee rogue, as otherwise, it’s just a pure loss with no gain. In case you are not following, in 5e as is, if you miss with both attacks on your turn, you can still potentially manage a sneak attack with your reaction. In One, you can’t. That means that a rogue has a higher probability of landing a sneak attack in 5e than One. Before you try and claim that an attack is better than a melee attack roll gained from reliable advantage, yes, a melee rogue could potentially manage advantage and two attacks for up to four attack rolls, but situationally, it’s virtually impossible to do, and theoretically, a typical 5e rogue could still do it without using cunning action thus gaining 5 attacks with two applications of sneak attack to the One rogue’s 5 attacks with one application. They can only reliably, however, manage the same number of attack rolls as the original 5e rogue—two per turn.)</blockquote>

Verification