D&D 5E Rogues are Awesome. Is it the Tasha's Effect?

[Sword of Spirit]

I was recently working on my mass combat system (both doing math and playing out mock battles with normal rules to see how they compare), and realizing that when large numbers are applied, doing smaller amounts of damage with more attacks can be superior to greater amounts of damage with less attacks, even in cases when the total damage damage output from the smaller number of attacks is significantly greater. This happens due to lots of damage potentially being lost to overkill on the smaller number of higher damage attacks.

This made me realize that the Two-Weapon Fighting Style actually scales a lot better than I thought compared to the Great Weapon Fighting Style. Yes, you lose theoretical overall damage, but the TWF damage is divided into a larger number of attacks, so less is potentially lost to overkill. This makes me think that, in practice, you probably won't be losing that full 7 points or so of damage, and might even be dealing more damage overall with TWF Style. This will be campaign dependant to an extent, as you would see no benefit from this if you always attack only one creature per battle, and lots of benefit if you routinely attack multiple opponents per battle. (I'm not including feats, and GWM adds more than Dual Wielder, so it might change the dynamic. Also there is still bonus action economy issues; especially unfortunate for the ranger.)

That was a revelation right there. I think that issue should also apply to some extent to the rogue making an off-hand attack (even without the fighting style) compared to attacking with Advantage. There are times, and they aren't even terribly rare, when having your damage split into two attacks will make a positive difference in overall damage output, and without that taken into account, the math can be a little misleading.

 

[ECMO3]

Why doesn't the rogue with two shortswords get advantage in your comparison?

Because if he uses TWF he can't use steady aim (or any other bonus action) to get advantage. The most common way for Rogues to get advantage in the games I play is through steady aim or bonus action hide.

If you have advantage for one attack, you likely have it for the other. Two weapons are better. It's all about landing that Sneak Attack damage. Every. Round. You. Can. And two weapons gives you two chances to do so.

If he has advantage because the enemy is prone, restrained or stunned or something like that I agree. But usually Rogues get advantage from steady aim, being unseen (hide or invisibility). help action from another creature or an allies' ability (like guiding bolt). Most of these usually only apply for the first attack taken.

Note most of my tables do not use flanking, if yours does then you can perhaps get advantage a lot more and this would make a difference (and make steady aim less relevant).

 

[ECMO3]

What I'm not understanding is how you aren't getting advantage for both of the attacks. Any attack that would give a single attack rogue advantage should also be giving the two-weapon rogue advantage on both attacks.

I find it to be mostly the opposite. Help, guiding bolt, being hidden, invisiblity, true strike (if you are stupid enough to use it), steady aim ..... Most things that impose advantage last for only 1 attack.

More over the discussion centered around steady aim or cunning action hide vs TWF both of which use a bonus action and are there fore exclusive.

 

[ECMO3]

If you crunch the numbers, this isn't at all clear. Two weapon fighting has a significant increase in weapon damage dice applied, while advantage has a slight increase in sneak attack dice applied. This varied by chance to hit, but at a 60% base chance to his, TWF does 1.3 times weapon damage and .84 times sneak attack damage, on average. Advantage does .92 weapon and .88 sneak.

Let's say that weapon is a d8, for 4.5 damage, and sneak is 5 dice, for 17.5 damage. This means that TWF is doing 1.3(4.5)+.84(17.5) or 20.55. Advantage is doing .92(4.5) + .88(17.5) or 19.54.

The advantage of advantaged ranged attacks vs TWF isn't raw damage, it's the other, less mathy benefits of target selection efficiency, mobility, and damage mitigation, with a second order effect of rogue build efficacy (you don't have to prioritize CON for front line soak).

no if you crunch the numbers I am right. Your increase in weapon damage is only if you hit with both attacks and in that case it is only 2.5. If you miss with one of the rolls your weapon damage is always worse and if you miss with the first roll you lose your ability damage too.

Here is the actual average DPR vs a 15 AC foe for various Rogues.

Level 3 (16 Dex)
TWF short swords: 11.9DPR
Rapier/Xbow steady aim: 12.7DPR

Level 7 (18 Dex)
TWF short swords: 20.7DPR
Rapier/Xbow steady aim: 21.5DPR

Level 11 (20 Dex)
TWF short swords: 30.3DPR
Rapier/Xbow steady aim: 31.1DPR

I mentioned the reasons above a crit on the second dice rolled and ability bonus on either dice.

Someone using advantage has a substantially greater chance of landing a crit with his SA than someone using TWF. For example 11th level with TWF vs AC15 if you roll any number between 6-19 on the first roll and a 20 on the second roll you do 9d6+5 (average 36.5) that is 1d6 weapon + 6d6SA+5 on the action and a 2d6 crit on the bonus action. If you roll those same two attack rolls in that order using a Rapier and advantage at 11th level you do 2d8+12d6+5 (average 56). That is a whopping 19.5 point difference every time you hit with the first dice you roll and crit with the second. Against a 15 AC that will happen on average once in every 29 turns meaning you will not get crit SA dice on rougly one out of every three natural 20s you roll.

If you reverse the order (crit on the first roll) the damage is 57.5 vs 56 only slightly higher for the TWF.

If you miss on one of the rolls and hit on the other the Rapier wielder does an average of 3.5 more on a normal hit (1 more because of a d8 weapon, 2.5 more because of ability bonus) or 4.5 more on average if it is a crit. Note I am considering which dice missed random.

These numbers assume no magic and a 15AC. Lower AC and magic weapons will drive it further in favor of the d8 advantage guy. Higher AC will drive it in favor of the TWF.

To sum it up, both characters are rolling 2d20s against a given AC.
When they do the same damage :
If both dice miss they do the same damage (0)

When TWF does more damage:
If both dice hit without a crit TWF will do 2.5DPR more
If 1st dice crits and 2nd dice hits TWF will do 1.5DPR more
If both dice crit TWF will do 5DPR more

When a d8 does more damage:
If 1st dice hits and 2nd dice misses d8 will do 1DPR more
If 1st dice misses and 2nd dice hits d8 will do 4-6DPR more (1 for weapon + 3-5 for dex)
If 1st dice crits and 2nd dice misses d8 will do 2DPR more
If 1st dice hits and 2nd dice crits d8 will do a lot more (3.5 more per SA dice - 1.5)
If 1st dice misses and 2nd dice crits d8 will do 5-7DPR more (2 for weapon, + 3-5 for dex)

 

[jayoungr]

If the Halfling ability works as JC intended they really screwed up as it's a quasi greater invisibility effect.

You keep saying that, and I don't get it. What part of "You have to give up your bonus action and succeed on a stealth check every round to keep it up" doesn't seem like a big deal to you?

 

[Zardnaar]

I was recently working on my mass combat system (both doing math and playing out mock battles with normal rules to see how they compare), and realizing that when large numbers are applied, doing smaller amounts of damage with more attacks can be superior to greater amounts of damage with less attacks, even in cases when the total damage damage output from the smaller number of attacks is significantly greater. This happens due to lots of damage potentially being lost to overkill on the smaller number of higher damage attacks.

This made me realize that the Two-Weapon Fighting Style actually scales a lot better than I thought compared to the Great Weapon Fighting Style. Yes, you lose theoretical overall damage, but the TWF damage is divided into a larger number of attacks, so less is potentially lost to overkill. This makes me think that, in practice, you probably won't be losing that full 7 points or so of damage, and might even be dealing more damage overall with TWF Style. This will be campaign dependant to an extent, as you would see no benefit from this if you always attack only one creature per battle, and lots of benefit if you routinely attack multiple opponents per battle. (I'm not including feats, and GWM adds more than Dual Wielder, so it might change the dynamic. Also there is still bonus action economy issues; especially unfortunate for the ranger.)

That was a revelation right there. I think that issue should also apply to some extent to the rogue making an off-hand attack (even without the fighting style) compared to attacking with Advantage. There are times, and they aren't even terribly rare, when having your damage split into two attacks will make a positive difference in overall damage output, and without that taken into account, the math can be a little misleading.

In practice they're competitive to each other up to level 11.

Sword and board and great weapon kinda suck at range and often miss a turn switching weapons.

Dual wielder dex based with a bow can go around with 1 weapon drawn and switch to bow or two weapons and attack same round.

 

[Ovinomancer]

no if you crunch the numbers I am right. Your increase in weapon damage is only if you hit with both attacks and in that case it is only 2.5 (or 5 if BOTH attacks crit or 1 if 1 attack crits). If you miss with one of the attacks your weapon damage is always worse and if you miss with the first roll you lose your ability damage too.

Here is the actual average DPR vs a 15 AC foe for various Rogues.

Level 3 (16 Dex)
TWF short swords: 11.9DPR
Rapier/Xbow steady aim: 12.7DPR

Level 7 (18 Dex)
TWF short swords: 20.7DPR
Rapier/Xbow steady aim: 21.5DPR

Level 11 (20 Dex)
TWF short swords: 30.3DPR
Rapier/Xbow steady aim: 31.1DPR

I mentioned the reasons above. The big one being crits on the second dice and ability bonus on either dice.

Someone using advantage has a much greater chance of landing a crit with his SA. - for example 11th level with TWF vs AC15 if you roll any number between 6-19 on the first roll and a 20 on the second roll you do 9d6+5 (average 36.5) that is 1d6 weapon + 6d6SA+5+2d6 crit on the bonus action. If you roll those same two attack rolls in that order using a Rapier and advantage at 11th level you do 2d8+12d6+5 (average 56). That is a whopping 19.5 point difference every time you hit with the first dice you roll and crit with the second. Against a 15 AC that will happen on average once in every 29 turns.

If you reverse the order (crit on the first roll) the damage is 57.5 vs 56 only slightly higher for the TWF.

If you miss on one of the rolls and hit on the other the Rapier wielder does an average of 3.5 more on a normal hit (1 more because of a d8 weapon, 2.5 more because of ability bonus) or 4.5 more on average if it is a crit. Note I am considering which dice missed random.

These numbers assume no magic and a 15AC. Lower AC and magic weapons will drive it further in favor of the d8 advantage guy. Higher AC will drive it in favor of the TWF.

Firstly, I had an error in my spreadsheet that was plumping TWF slightly. Thanks for the opportunity to go over my sheet and find that.

That said, I'm getting a different set of numbers than you are. Sanity check -- rapier and advantage (or xbow and advantage) -- d8+3 at AC 15 with +2 prof and +3 ability for a 50% hit chance. From this I get:
Non-Crit hit chance: .45
Crit chance: .05

We have two cases we care about -- chance for a non-crit hit and chance for a critical hit.
CASE 1 (non crit hit) -- .6525 chance
--case 1a -- first non-crit hits, second misses -- .45*.5 = 0.225
--case 1b -- first misses, second non-crit hits -- .5*.45 = 0.225
--case 1c -- both non-crit hit -- .45*.45 = 0.2025

Damage for case 1: 4.5 weapon + 3 DEX + 7 sneak = 14.5
Average damage Case 1: 14.5 * 0.6525 = 9.46125

CASE 2 (critical hit) -- 0.0975
--case 2a -- first crits, second does not -- 0.05*0.95 = 0.0475
--case 2b -- first doesn't crit, second does -- 0.95*0.05 = 0.0475
--case 2c -- both crit -- 0.05^2 = 0.0025

Damage for case 2: 9 weapon + 3 DEX + 14 sneak = 26
Average damage Case 2: 26 * 0.0975 = 2.535

Case 1 + Case 2 average damage: 9.46125 + 2.535 = 11.99625

I did this in excel, and then on paper, and then again in this thread. Point out where I went wrong, please?

I'm also off on the TWF. The cases there are much more complex. You have
Case 1 -- 1st non crit hits, second misses
Case 2 -- 1st misses, second non-crit hits
Case 3 -- 1st crits, second misses
Case 4 -- 1st misses, second crits
Case 5 -- both non-crit hit
Case 6 -- 1st crits, second non-crit hits
Case 7 -- 1st non-crit hits, second crits
Case 8 -- both crit

My calculations for level 3 show TWF coming in at 11.125 DPR. I have that in excel, and used the crit cases chance as a sanity check, because TWF case 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 should have the same overall chance as advantage case 2, and they do.

Not sure where the error is. Double check yours and see if you can spot anywhere I've gone wrong. My intuitive thinking is that TWF should outperform advantage because you get the other weapon's damage in.

My numbers for 7th level are TWF 19.69, ADV 19.96125
My numbers for 11th level are TWF 29.225. ADV 28.61625

To sum it up.
When they do the same damage :
If both dice miss they do the same damage (0)

When TWF does more damage:
If both dice hit without a crit TWF will do 2.5DPR more
If 1st dice crits and 2nd dice hits TWF will do 1.5DPR more
If both dice crit TWF will do 5DPR more

When a d8 does more damage:
If 1st dice hits and 2nd dice misses d8 will do 1DPR more
If 1st dice misses and 2nd dice hits d8 will do 4-6DPR more (1 for weapon + 3-5 for dex)
If 1st dice crits and 2nd dice misses d8 will do 2DPR more
If 1st dice hits and 2nd dice crits d8 will do a lot more (3.5 more per SA dice - 1.5)
If 1st dice misses and 2nd dice crits d8 will do 5-7DPR more (2 for weapon, + 3-5 for dex)

No issues with this, but the relative chances for each change as the levels go up, so the impacts change. Specifically, the crit chances for TWF -- it starts to weight much more heavily towards both hit with one crit. Because the chance of a damaging crit with the additional damage alongside increases here, but doesn't change for advantage, as sneak attack damage increases, this has a greater impact on TWF. Which is why you see the numbers (at least mine) get close to parity by level 5 and then at 11, TWF steps forward. However, in all cases, it appears that the difference in DPR is within 1, even if you extend to 20th (where TWF gets a whopping ~0.8 higher).

 

[FrogReaver]

I was recently working on my mass combat system (both doing math and playing out mock battles with normal rules to see how they compare), and realizing that when large numbers are applied, doing smaller amounts of damage with more attacks can be superior to greater amounts of damage with less attacks, even in cases when the total damage damage output from the smaller number of attacks is significantly greater. This happens due to lots of damage potentially being lost to overkill on the smaller number of higher damage attacks.

This made me realize that the Two-Weapon Fighting Style actually scales a lot better than I thought compared to the Great Weapon Fighting Style. Yes, you lose theoretical overall damage, but the TWF damage is divided into a larger number of attacks, so less is potentially lost to overkill. This makes me think that, in practice, you probably won't be losing that full 7 points or so of damage, and might even be dealing more damage overall with TWF Style. This will be campaign dependant to an extent, as you would see no benefit from this if you always attack only one creature per battle, and lots of benefit if you routinely attack multiple opponents per battle. (I'm not including feats, and GWM adds more than Dual Wielder, so it might change the dynamic. Also there is still bonus action economy issues; especially unfortunate for the ranger.)

That was a revelation right there. I think that issue should also apply to some extent to the rogue making an off-hand attack (even without the fighting style) compared to attacking with Advantage. There are times, and they aren't even terribly rare, when having your damage split into two attacks will make a positive difference in overall damage output, and without that taken into account, the math can be a little misleading.

Sure. But if you are going to take that into account you also need to take into account that higher DPR tends to kill enemies faster (and that when you do and start attacking the enemy before the comparison character then your damage applied to enemies still is much faster). So, in most scenarios the reducing effect of higher overkill isn't enough to actually offset the increased kill speed of higher DPR.

*Of course there is the trivial exception where an enemy is going to take very few hits overall to kill.

 

[ECMO3]

Sanity check -- rapier and advantage (or xbow and advantage) -- d8+3 at AC 15 with +2 prof and +3 ability for a 50% hit chance. From this I get:
Non-Crit hit chance: .45
Crit chance: .05

Your made a small error here. I think at AC16 your numbers for a Rapier would have been correct.

With +3Dex and +2 proficiency vs 15AC you have a 50% non-crit hit chance (10-19 rolled) and a 5% crit chance (20) and a 45% miss (1-9 rolled).

Numbers underlined and bolded below are the difference:

Case1:
CASE 1 (non crit hit) 0.7
--case 1a -- first non-crit hits, second misses -- .5*.45 = 0.225
--case 1b -- first misses, second non-crit hits -- .45*.5 = 0.225
--case 1c -- both non-crit hit -- .5*.5 = 0.25

.225+.225+.25=0.7

Average damage Case 1: 14.5 * 0.7 = 10.15

Case 1 + Case 2 average damage: 10.15 + 2.535 = 12.685

For TWF

Case 1 -- 1st non crit hits, second misses - 13.5*.5*.45=3.0375
Case 2 -- 1st misses, second non-crit hits - 10.5*.45*.5=2.3625
Case 3 -- 1st crits, second misses - 24*.05*.45=0.54
Case 4 -- 1st misses, second crits - 21*.45*.05=0.4725
Case 5 -- both non-crit hit - 17 * .5*.5=4.25
Case 6 -- 1st crits, second non-crit hits 27.5*.05*.5=0.6875
Case 7 -- 1st non-crit hits, second crits 20.5* .5* .05=0.5125 <--- This is where the TWF really loses damage
Case 8 -- both crit 31*.05*.05=0.0775

Total=11.9400

 

[Sword of Spirit]

*Of course there is the trivial exception where an enemy is going to take very few hits overall to kill.

I like combats with lots of weak foes supporting the stronger foes (which 5e shines in), so this is more a case in point than a trivial example for me.