Thief + to hit crazy?

[Prestidigitalis]

The real trouble with thieves and rogues isn't their damage or hitting power, it's the fact that they wear leathers and have low hitpoints and insist on getting stuck into the middle of combat.

But they don't have to get into the middle of combat. The Thief, at least, can almost guarantee CA on ranged attacks with just a few feats and the right Tricks.

 

[KarinsDad]

But they don't have to get into the middle of combat. The Thief, at least, can almost guarantee CA on ranged attacks with just a few feats and the right Tricks.

This. The Thief in our group only moves up in combat to get next to the Spirit Companion.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But they don't have to get into the middle of combat. The Thief, at least, can almost guarantee CA on ranged attacks with just a few feats and the right Tricks.

You missed the point:

"The real trouble with thieves and rogues isn't their damage or hitting power, it's the fact that they wear leathers and have low hitpoints and insist on getting stuck into the middle of combat."

(Added by me: and not taking feats that increase survivability/freedom of choice.)

Many times, especially when you read this forum, you get the impression, that dealing 1 point of damage more is better than increasing anything on the defensive side of the character.
Yes, theoretically in a nontactical combat, offense as dpr is the best defense. But in realistic sitiuations, especially when you can fokus fire and hamper mobility, you may be glad you took disciple of freedom or acrobatics strike instead of weapon fokus or that +charisma mod at will I am too lazy to look up.

Having more options is generally underestimated which will leave the rogue in bad situations on times...

 

[Prestidigitalis]

You missed the point:

"The real trouble with thieves and rogues isn't their damage or hitting power, it's the fact that they wear leathers and have low hitpoints and insist on getting stuck into the middle of combat."

I didn't miss your point. I simply assumed that by "insist on" you meant "must, in order to maximize the utility of their character" as opposed to "because they are always controlled by stupid players, decide to". Because, you see, in the latter case it is not a problem with the class but with the players, and it would be pointless to criticize stupid tactics in a discussion of rules.

 

[MrMyth]

I didn't miss your point. I simply assumed that by "insist on" you meant "must, in order to maximize the utility of their character" as opposed to "because they are always controlled by stupid players, decide to". Because, you see, in the latter case it is not a problem with the class but with the players, and it would be pointless to criticize stupid tactics in a discussion of rules.

But not charging into combat isn't nearly as much fun!

<-- Aforementioned stupid player, whose first 4E character was a bugbear rogue that was totally broken. And by broken, I mean both "did more damage than anyone else at the table" and "was mangled into tiny pieces after always winning initiative, charging into combat first, and then getting destroyed by every enemy in the room."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It was not my point, but i guess that was what Gort meant.

I go to sleep now... seems my words are not well chosen today.

I am tired and annoyed that every rules discussion is about dpr. Which is fine only to a certain extend.

And i think his comment was funny. And i think your answer though correct was missing the point that he was trying to be funny or something. Gort should correct me if i am wrong and he was serious.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

It was not my point, but i guess that was what Gort meant.

I go to sleep now... seems my words are not well chosen today.

I am tired and annoyed that every rules discussion is about dpr. Which is fine only to a certain extend.

And i think his comment was funny. And i think your answer though correct was missing the point that he was trying to be funny or something. Gort should correct me if i am wrong and he was serious.

Maybe I did miss the point, who knows. I certainly agree with you that DPR is too regularly the topic of the day. For myself, I love defensive feats, but they have to be worth taking -- Dwarven Durability, Superior Fortitude and Will (but Superior Reflexes, not so much) are all awesome. Two-Weapon Defense would be great if you didn't have to take a less useful feat first.

 

[Victim]

Essentials is off the charts for to hit for a few classes including the Thief. Your assessment is correct.

+5 from Dex is a +1 boost over most other PCs because a 1st level Thief can get away with a 19 or 20 whereas many other classes need multiple decent stats.

+1 from Expertise, the purpose of Expertise is to balance out a math problem. In reality, the fix should start at level 5, not level 1 (the earliest this can be taken). So, it's good to know that at least this +1 will be less of an issue at level 5 and above than it was at level 4 and below.

+1 from Thief Weapon Talent. This is a culprit here. Fighters used to be the only class with Weapon Talent, but now Thieves get it as well.

+2 from CA. Getting CA slightly over half of the time when the game was first designed was an average of a little over +1. Getting it every single round is an additional +1.

+1 from Nimble Blade. This was often a staple of Rogues. But, it only occurs when Combat Advantage occurs. When the game first came out, this +1 was conditional. CA didn't always occur. With the Thief, it almost always occurs. This makes this feat more potent because it really isn't conditional for a Thief.

So, the Thief now is easily capable of being an average of +3.5 to hit over the original Rogue and even more over other Strikers. That is a problem for some players and DMs. Hitting often is fine. Hitting 95% of the time against a same level monster? Why exactly are we rolling the dice? Oh yeah, to see if a 1 or a 20 shows up 10% of the time.

Rogues have the same benefit of their attack stat also covering 2 defenses. Rogues have Weapon Talent for daggers. And Rogues should have always had combat advantage upwards of 80% of the time, not a little more than half the time (that is just some awful play on the part of the rogue and his group, and makes the rogue basically suck). Expertise has been available for a while now.

Moreover, conventional rogues have plenty of wicked accurate Weapon v NAD attacks. IIRC, the Thief is locked into Weapon v AC far more.

In other words, the thief is no more accurate than the normal rogue.

And, to counter your ridiculous hyperbole, A) Rogues gained the same Sneak Attack per turn that Thieves have via rules update, and B) a party of full of Thieves generally won't be getting enough extra attacks to make use of that change. You need to go something 2x Thief, 3x Tac Lord for mass sneak attack spammage. And it's not really any more of a silly party design than the mass Bow Ranger spam (with a supporting character) that people have imagined since Day 1.

 

[Destil]

You're not even attacking reflex with piercing strike. I don't want to hear it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Rogues have the same benefit of their attack stat also covering 2 defenses. Rogues have Weapon Talent for daggers. And Rogues should have always had combat advantage upwards of 80% of the time, not a little more than half the time (that is just some awful play on the part of the rogue and his group, and makes the rogue basically suck).

...

I wasn't pointing out that current Thieves have advantages that current Rogues do not. I was pointing out that as time has gone on since the original Rogue came out, so many additional options to hit have been added to the game that Thieves can easily hit same level foes 95% of the time with Combat Advantage almost all of the time. The original Rogue's 80% Combat Advantage required a few special powers/items, helpful allies or mostly melee combat range.

Since Thieves can get their CA nearly 100% of the time from the safety of the second rank and they don't need allies to give it to them, they get their cake and eat it too. They don't have to risk themselves to the extent that the original Rogue had to.

I once had a player quit because he got so upset that his Rogue couldn't tumble away most rounds like he could in 3.5 and his Rogue was constantly getting knocked unconscious because he had to be up in combat, and if he stayed back, he did extremely minor damage.

WotC fixed that problem with the Thief, but didn't decrease the awesome to hit nor the awesome damage. I have a second level Thief in my current game who at first level was doing an average of 20.5 damage on a successful hit (and of course, since he has Heroic Effort, he almost never misses).

20 points of damage nearly auto-hit against same level foes that have 30 hit points is excessive.

It's not just bigger, better, badder of Essentials, it's the splat books as well.

People no longer think that 20 DPR for a not too optimized PC is too much at first level anymore. If a PC had that much DPR 2 years ago, people would have been screaming that it was broken. Now, it's ho hum. Part of the status quo.

When does the arms race end?