Sneak Attack--Help me stop my DM from banishing it!

[Prestidigitalis]

Guys, the OP needed an ethical and conceptual basis for understanding striker damage and its place and application within the 4e framework. 3/4 of this thread is striker mechanics and comparisons, which wont really help the OP at all. Start a new thread if you need

I had the impression that the OP had all the help he needed after the first page or so. The digressions aren't ideal, but that's the way forums work, even here in the blissful tranquility of ENWorld, where topics like ******** and ***** are understood by all to be off limits.

 

[dvvega]

The very first game/group I DMmed in 4th had a Rogue striker played by my wife (not that it makes a difference to the situation). She was outputting the damage equivalent of 2 of the other characters. Given that the warlord was always giving her the extra attacks as well.

However on balance she had the lowest hit points, and worst Second Wind. Good AC and Reflex didn't save her from the Will attacks and Fort attacks either. On balance she scored a lot of damage since she was "up close and personal" a lot of the time.

If your DM has issues simply attacking you with these kinds of encounters then you should not be the one paying the penalty. Of course if he is using a lot of low-level unintelligent undead then sure - they attack AC most of the time. He needs to start using the DMG templates and adding in artillery and leader types to the mix. Suddenly your Rogue is going to be in pain.

There is no need to neuter you ... you will run into a wall at some stage ... just ask a 3rd level rogue what it feels like to have a pair of guard drakes flanking it with some goblin minions nearby (basic encounter in H1 IIRC. She was hurting after that encounter and spent 3 healing surges to continue on.

D

 

[Gort]

There is no need to neuter you ... you will run into a wall at some stage ... just ask a 3rd level rogue what it feels like to have a pair of guard drakes flanking it with some goblin minions nearby (basic encounter in H1 IIRC. She was hurting after that encounter and spent 3 healing surges to continue on.

D

Guard drakes are ridiculous monsters. +6 damage for being near a friend? In a game where enemies tend to come in packs of five or greater? At level two?! If you want a TPK, just stick a group of five guard drakes together, and presto.

 

[KarinsDad]

Numbers may help clarify the picture, here. Compare second level non-crit damage potential (not expected DPR - we're looking at spike damage, and it's cold outside and I don't feel like performing that degree of number crunching) with other striker classes. Assume best possible race/stat spread, a relevant focus feat, and +1 weapons or inherent bonuses used with an at-will attack. Other feats and conditions are called out in the analysis.

Ranger: Twin Strike w/ Greatbow, target is quarried: 1d12+2 + 1d12+2 + 1d6 = 34.
Rogue: Sly Flourish w/ Dagger, Backstabber feat. Target is granting combat advantage: 1d4+10 + 2d8 = 30.
Slayer: Duelist's Assault stance w/ Fullblade, target is isolated: 1d12+14 = 26.
Warlock: Eldritch Blast w/ Killing Curse, target is cursed: 1d10+6 +1d8 = 24.

Now assume, for whatever reason, the conditional circumstances aren't met.

Ranger: 1d12+2 + 1d12+2 = 28
Slayer: 1d12+10 = 22
Warlock: 1d10+6 = 16
Rogue: 1d4+10 = 14

With conditionals in place, the Rogue still has a lower at-will damage potential than the Ranger. If the Rogue can't get combat advantage, it looks very sad indeed.

This is misleading.

First off, with the Essentials rules (or with Cunning Sneak or Flank or Cloud of Darkness, etc.), it's extremely rare that a Rogue (and especially a Thief) doesn't get CA.

In your first analysis there, the Ranger automatically hits twice (and I'm not quite sure how he gets an extra +1 damage, it should be +1 total for magic bow). And the Rogue is not using a short sword.

With a 50% chance to hit with quarry, the Ranger's dpr (+1 to the d12) is 10.675.

With a 60% chance to hit with CA, the Rogue's dpr (+8 to the d6, 4 for dex, 3 for cha, +1 for magic weapon) is 12.775. This increases to 13.1 if he uses Rogue Weapon Talent and a dagger.

So although the Ranger can hit twice in a single round (for an average of 18.5 damage when that occurs), the Rogue hitting once averages 20.5 damage. The Ranger would get more if he maxxed damage compared to the Rogue maxxing damage (32 vs. 30), but that is extremely rare and not worth considering. Most rounds, the Rogue outshines the Ranger.

If they do not have their conditions, then the Ranger does indeed get the edge.

8.05 vs. 5.875 or 5.85

But, looking at max damage if the attacks all hit is not a good way to look at it because the attacks are not always going to hit and they are definitely not going to be max damage too often.


And Essential Thieves blow the doors off of Rogues. They are a real DM nightmare to challenge the party without a TPK at low levels because they can often hit a foe for ~70% or more damage per successful hit.

The first level Thief in our game has almost single handedly wiped out all of the opposition in 3 rounds (4 on 4, plus action point, hitting every round) one encounter. The rest of the party helped, but he easily did 80% of the damage.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

First off, with the Essentials rules (or with Cunning Sneak or Flank or Cloud of Darkness, etc.), it's extremely rare that a Rogue (and especially a Thief) doesn't get CA.

True, but with a few well-chosen feats (Aggressive Advantage, Cunning Stalker, Hidden Sniper, Terrain Advantage, Vicious Advantage), just about any character can get CA most of the time. Granted, not as often as the Thief, and with less marginal advantage.

And Essential Thieves blow the doors off of Rogues. They are a real DM nightmare to challenge the party without a TPK at low levels because they can often hit a foe for ~70% or more damage per successful hit.

I have seen that myself, but Thieves don't have the Controller-secondary effects that most Rogues have. I suspect that at high levels and with the right equipment (Armor of Dark Deeds, Shadowband, other rings) the Thief becomes a well-nigh unhittable damage machine, but that might just result in a lot of ATPKs (Almost TPKs) with the Thief being the only one to walk away.

Don't get me wrong -- I love the Thief. But it's kind of a one-trick pony in combat. Much of my love comes from the skill bonuses and extra skill training.

 

[sigfile]

This is misleading.

It's a spike damage analysis, not a DPR analysis. Yes, DPR is generally a more useful metric, but it's the spike damage that triggers the sort of reaction that would prompt a DM to consider banning or seriously nerfing a striker's entire damage mechanic.

In your first analysis there, the Ranger automatically hits twice (and I'm not quite sure how he gets an extra +1 damage, it should be +1 total for magic bow).

The ranger is using a magic bow and has the weapon focus feat ("relevant focus feat"). Both bonuses get added to each attack.

The first level Thief in our game has almost single handedly wiped out all of the opposition in 3 rounds (4 on 4, plus action point, hitting every round) one encounter. The rest of the party helped, but he easily did 80% of the damage.

He's the striker. Damage is what he does. Small groups of enemies relative to the party (like in the 4on4 scenario) probably will get smoked by a high-damage single-target striker, assuming the rest of the party can keep the enemies off the little glass cannon or keep him alive long enough to do his thing. If the party can grant the striker extra actions, it's going to skew even further in their favor.

Larger groups of enemies (minions, even) suck a lot of the power out of a single target striker. A high-damage rogue is going to deliver a fair amount of overdamage (damage past HP value), which really goes to waste. The battle is significantly more balanced if the enemy force only loses 1/8 of its force in the first round of combat instead of 1/4.

OT: I suspect I know the build on that first level Thief. Human with Backstabber and Slaying Action? My gut says that Slaying Action really ought to be paragon tier - an extra 2d8 damage in a round is absolutely huge, especially at low heroic.

 

[MrMyth]

True, but with a few well-chosen feats (Aggressive Advantage, Cunning Stalker, Hidden Sniper, Terrain Advantage, Vicious Advantage), just about any character can get CA most of the time. Granted, not as often as the Thief, and with less marginal advantage.

His point may have been that the Rogue's conditional requirement (having Combat Advantage) can be easier to arrange than the Ranger's (having a minor action available and having the enemy you want to kill be the closest enemy to you.) All it takes is a few minions to shut down the Ranger's ability to quarry.

I don't know if that is necessarily true, myself. I think the points about accuracy are a good one, though. The ranger's two attacks will help to have some consistent damage, sure, but assuming the same hit chances for both of them is definitely faulty. The rogue is probably +2 to hit higher, at least, and possibly targeting reflex as well.

At later levels, the ranger becomes truly devestating, because of all the damage bonuses they get to multiply. Early on they are certainly still good, but not necessarily automatically as far ahead of the rogue as the biased comparison indicated upthread.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

His point may have been that the Rogue's conditional requirement (having Combat Advantage) can be easier to arrange than the Ranger's (having a minor action available and having the enemy you want to kill be the closest enemy to you.) All it takes is a few minions to shut down the Ranger's ability to quarry.

In that case, my comment was misguided. Sometimes it can be hard to follow the flow of threads that go so long.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's a spike damage analysis, not a DPR analysis. Yes, DPR is generally a more useful metric, but it's the spike damage that triggers the sort of reaction that would prompt a DM to consider banning or seriously nerfing a striker's entire damage mechanic.

Maybe in your game, not in mine.

Spike damage is rare. The odds of your Ranger doing the max 34 damage is one chance in 864 for a normal attack, 1 in 240 for a critical. With ~600 rounds per tier (without taking into account skill challenges or other XP gains), a player might never see that at heroic level at all.

Rogue or Thief mega-damage nearly every round is common. A DM might knee jerk react to spike damage, but mostly, it's the trend that is noticed.

I am currently trying to figure out what to do with the first level Thief in our group because he often does 20+ points of damage (I think his average is 20.5, but I don't have his sheet in front of me) most rounds versus foes that have 25 or so hit points.

The ranger is using a magic bow and has the weapon focus feat ("relevant focus feat"). Both bonuses get added to each attack.

Got it. The Rogue still wins out.

He's the striker. Damage is what he does. Small groups of enemies relative to the party (like in the 4on4 scenario) probably will get smoked by a high-damage single-target striker, assuming the rest of the party can keep the enemies off the little glass cannon or keep him alive long enough to do his thing. If the party can grant the striker extra actions, it's going to skew even further in their favor.

Larger groups of enemies (minions, even) suck a lot of the power out of a single target striker. A high-damage rogue is going to deliver a fair amount of overdamage (damage past HP value), which really goes to waste. The battle is significantly more balanced if the enemy force only loses 1/8 of its force in the first round of combat instead of 1/4.

Yup. Doesn't matter. The Rogue (or Thief) is still taking out a foe most rounds (either directly by targeting an NPC that was wounded previously, or by seriously wounding a foe for the next attack to take out). Minions don't do enough damage to be a threat, so the fact that the Rogue is only taking out 2/3rds minion per round doesn't really matter.

For minion fights, the Psion is wiping them with 2 "enemy only area effect" augments.

Minion fights are mostly irrelevant in 4E.

No doubt, the low level Ranger too is doing some serious damage. Just not as much as the Rogue or the Thief because the Ranger only does real serious damage if he hits with both bow attacks and that typically only occurs 2 rounds during an encounter. The Rogue or Thief typically gets CA more than 2 rounds out of an encounter.

OT: I suspect I know the build on that first level Thief. Human with Backstabber and Slaying Action? My gut says that Slaying Action really ought to be paragon tier - an extra 2d8 damage in a round is absolutely huge, especially at low heroic.

I forget if he has Slaying Action or not, but you are essentially correct.

Essentials is 4E on crack.

 

[sigfile]

Early on they are certainly still good, but not necessarily automatically as far ahead of the rogue as the biased comparison indicated upthread.

"Biased" is an ugly word. "Lazy" is more accurate.

Fine. It's a slow day. Let's factor in DPR. My apologies to those that hate the math stuff.

Characters are second level with a 20 in the primary stat and a post-racial 16 in whatever secondary stat. They are assumed to have combat advantage and quarry, if applicable. Enemy has an AC of 16 (14+Level).

Ranger: Twin Strike w/ Greatbow and Weapon Focus: 16.71 DPR.
Rogue: Sly Flourish w/ Dagger (Backstabber and Expertise feats): 18.70 DPR.

The rogue's extra +1 to hit trumps the larger damage die of the short sword. Similarly, expertise trumps weapon focus for damage for the rogue, but not for the ranger.

So an optimized rogue does just shy of two more points of damage on average than the ranger, but the ranger has a higher single-round damage capacity. Again, I don't see cause to nerf sneak attack, here.