# Herores of the Fallen Lands - Are Slayers underpowered?



## S'mon (Mar 2, 2011)

I like the idea of the Fighter-Slayer, but the execution seems lacking.  I'm not seeing anything to compare with the Fighter-Knight's lockdown abilities, or the Rogue-Thief's sneak attack. And they seem to be a W-shaped class, needing STR, DEX and CON all high.  Am I missing something?  If not I'm tempted to houserule them a damage bonus.


----------



## tiornys (Mar 2, 2011)

The Slayer gets this: 







> HEROIC SLAYER
> You gain a bonus to the damage rolls of weapon attacks. The bonus equals your Dexterity modifier.



and it also has access to stances that give it bonus damage, especially Battle Wrath.  Combined with Berserker's Charge, Slayers do damage juuuuuuust fine.

I haven't seen anyone who's played the class or seen one played complain about their damage level.  Their nova capability is lacking, and they're simplistic to build and can be simplistic in play, but I'm not aware of any balance problems with the class.

t~


----------



## S'mon (Mar 2, 2011)

The DEX bonus to damage is going to be what, +2?  Unless they nerf STR.  Seems unimpressive to me; Thieves get that +2 & CA +2d6 on top.  I'll check the stances out again but they didn't initially seem much better than the Knight's for DPR.


----------



## Lord Ernie (Mar 2, 2011)

S'mon said:


> The DEX bonus to damage is going to be what, +2?  Unless they nerf STR.  Seems unimpressive to me; Thieves get that +2 & CA +2d6 on top.  I'll check the stances out again but they didn't initially seem much better than the Knight's for DPR.



Check out the Charop forums if you want ideas on how to optimize Slayers (protip: use a Gouge and Reserve maneuver). See here for more information.

In all seriousness, Thieves don't wield giant two-handers. They are also quite a bit more fragile - do remember that Slayers keep the fighter armor proficiencies, hitpoints, and surges.

A well-built and similarly equipped slayer is going to be doing solid, striker-level damage.


----------



## Enaloindir (Mar 2, 2011)

A Slayer might be a bit one-dimensional (no special tricks), but he deals damage just fine.


----------



## Styracosaurus (Mar 2, 2011)

Slayer gains Dex mod to damage and it increases +2 every few levels to a max of +8 at epic levels.

Slayer is subpar if......
1)  Monsters never generate Opportunity attacks.
2)  You only have one or two encounters in a session.
3)  You fight a solo and the Slayer does not have the special stance vs. an isolated creature.
4)  Your party always takes extended rests between fights.

Slayer is way better if.....
1)  You have a couple of Warlords that grant extra basic attacks.
2)  Your party has more encounters than daily attacks.
3)  You love jumping in the middle of trouble.

The Slayer is fun because you charge into the middle of the pile and don't really worry about strategy as much.   You defend by soaking up attacks and presenting a nice target and forcing the enemy to protect against you.   The Slayer has good AC, decent HP, movement powers and the need to go after the squishy enemies.

Another benefit:
The PHB Fighter is not a very good archer.  The Slayer should have decent Dex (16) and applies his Dex mod twice to damage, even a ranger would notice a Slayer with a bow.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 2, 2011)

S'mon said:


> The DEX bonus to damage is going to be what, +2?  Unless they nerf STR.  Seems unimpressive to me; Thieves get that +2 & CA +2d6 on top.  I'll check the stances out again but they didn't initially seem much better than the Knight's for DPR.



Ideally, they should be 18/18 or 20/16 STR/DEX - and I'd lean towards the former.  Either way is a +8 damage bonus on top of their big, nasty weapon, their respectable AC, and their pretty impressive Stances.

-O


----------



## Klaus (Mar 2, 2011)

The slayer has more staying power than a rogue. A half-orc makes a perfect slayer, with the racial power complementing Power Strike. You could start with a 19/15 and get 20/16 by 4th level.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 2, 2011)

If you are truly worried about Constitution, and don't mind starting with mechanics and building from there, you can start with pre-racial Dex 18 / Con 14 / Wis 11 (or similar), take Melee Training (Dexterity), and pump Dex and Con thereafter.  Damage will be slightly lower (3 less at level 30 relative to a Str 16 / Dex 16 or Str 18 / Dex 14 build) but will apply equally to ranged attacks.  Skill Focus (Athletics), Agile Athlete, and magic items can make up for the poor Athletics skill that results from not pushing Strength.  Sadly, Heavy Blade Mastery _will_ be out of reach.

The above build will be very consistent and adaptable -- note that the Slayer can swap weapons as a minor action, so switching between Fullblade and Greatbow is easy.  For melee, which should still be the main focus, charging is an excellent option; if you can find ways to make charging safer (Badge of the Berserker, etc.) or more powerful (Vanguard Weapon, Horned Helm, etc.) you will be glad.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 2, 2011)

S'mon said:


> The DEX bonus to damage is going to be what, +2? Unless they nerf STR. Seems unimpressive to me; Thieves get that +2 & CA +2d6 on top. I'll check the stances out again but they didn't initially seem much better than the Knight's for DPR.




I'd expect +3 for many slayers. And the stances are at least a further +2. The weapon difference is worth about a further +d4 damage. By this point we're into the realm of 3+d4 vs 2d6. Yes, the thief still wins the damage stakes. But the thief is _incredibly_ vulnerable to being knocked prone or dazed - at which point they can no longer use a move action and hence a trick and so are _much_ less likely to have combat advantage, dropping their damage to leader level. Also the slayer has a lot of hit points - melee rogues are the single most likely to die class in the game, whereas the slayer can wear scale and stand on the battleline as a less sticky tank.

Edit: See also the comment about the thief being overpowered.  Rogues have in 4e always been strong at first level due to the power of sneak attack.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 2, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I like the idea of the Fighter-Slayer, but the execution seems lacking.  I'm not seeing anything to compare with the Fighter-Knight's lockdown abilities, or the Rogue-Thief's sneak attack. And they seem to be a W-shaped class, needing STR, DEX and CON all high.  Am I missing something?  If not I'm tempted to houserule them a damage bonus.




A Slayer doesn't need CON at all, unless it's for feat pre-reqs, because they have defender hit points.

The thief is going to have higher damage totals when they hit with SA, but the slayer will be hitting more often, staying in the fight longer, and operating just fine without a flanking buddy.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> The DEX bonus to damage is going to be what, +2? Unless they nerf STR. Seems unimpressive to me; Thieves get that +2 & CA +2d6 on top. I'll check the stances out again but they didn't initially seem much better than the Knight's for DPR.



A decent slayer should have a +3 Dex to start, either through racial bonuses or buying two 16's. 16, 16, 13, 11, 10, 8 is a perfectly viable array. At 8th level you're looking at +6 dmg (18 dex + 2 for levels), which is only slightly behind the thief's 2d6 SA.

The thief's +2 dmg merely brings the thief's smaller damage die up to par with the slayer's. The slayer is more accurate, can boost accuracy or damage even more with the stances, and doesn't require CA. Power Strike can't be wasted, unlike Backstab, and will generally be dealing more damage. The slayer also much sturdier than the thief.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 2, 2011)

One of my players just made a 2nd level slayer for our game - 2d6+11 at will seems like a pretty good pile of damage to me. I think he also too the +2 damage stance to add on top of that.

PS


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 2, 2011)

If I were to play a Slayer, I would worry most about the problem that I have with my Knight right now -- virtually no ability to contribute to non-combat situations that don't involve carrying or knocking things down.  It gets dreary after a while having every single NPC ignore your character except for slurs and smirks, and never being able to pipe up when there is a lock or trap to finagle, a scouting expedition needing volunteers, a shopkeeper to wrangle, a noble to charm, a trail to follow, a rune to decipher...  

It's like going to a big scout gathering and being the only one with no badges on your uniform except the one for good attendance.  (Scouts, feel free to explain that gatherings are called "gymborees", that uniforms are called "haversacks", that badges are called "nibnobs" and that there is no nibnob for good attendance.  I'm here to learn.)


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 2, 2011)

With their high Dex, Slayers can make for some decent sneaking around if you can find a way to train Stealth.

As has been mentioned, Melee Training (Dex) allows you to make Str less important, giving you the flexibility to boost another stat that has skills associated, like, say Cha (swashbuckler) or Wis (wilderness warrior).

Oh, and if I may - let's not turn this thread into another pointless DPR argument.


----------



## sigfile (Mar 2, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> If I were to play a Slayer, I would worry most about the problem that I have with my Knight right now -- virtually no ability to contribute to non-combat situations that don't involve carrying or knocking things down.  It gets dreary after a while having every single NPC ignore your character except for slurs and smirks, and never being able to pipe up when there is a lock or trap to finagle, a scouting expedition needing volunteers, a shopkeeper to wrangle, a noble to charm, a trail to follow, a rune to decipher...



The out-of-the-box fighter skill set leaves a bit to be desired, but they do get Intimidate and Streetiwse as class options.   It's unfortunate that CHA typically falls in priority right after STR, CON, WIS, and DEX.  

I'm surprised your Knight gets so ignored, though.  That build gets diplomacy as an option.  While the Knight probably isn't the party face, a trained diplomacy score is usually respectable.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 2, 2011)

What skill is it MC Rogues get?  Is it Thievery or Stealth?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 2, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What skill is it MC Rogues get?  Is it Thievery or Stealth?



Depends on which one you take.

Sneak of Shadows gives Thievery, Sly Dodge gives Bluff or Intimidate, Ruthless Efficiency and Twilight Adept both give Stealth.


----------



## mneme (Mar 2, 2011)

That skill list really is lackluster given that a Slayer is STR/dex--I guess they wanted to stick to the fighter list even if they were doing a striker subclass?

But with backgrounds & feats, it's not hard to get some nice Dex based skills; Acrobatics will up your mobility and give you something to do to entertain small children; Stealth is often a nice alternative for having a Charisma skill (don't have to talk to them if they don't know you're there  ).  I wouldn't go for Sneak of Shadows unless you're going with a Master of Arms build with quick weapon swapping -- as while Sneak Attack is nice spike damage, having to use a light weapon will cramp your style the rest of the time.    OTOH, Twilight Adept's 1/encounter "hide in plain sight" is nifty, and so are Acolyte of the Veil (can use Ki Focuses [great for Masters of Arms] and 1/encoutner Shadow Step).


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 2, 2011)

sigfile said:


> I'm surprised your Knight gets so ignored, though.  That build gets diplomacy as an option.  While the Knight probably isn't the party face, a trained diplomacy score is usually respectable.




Didn't take Diplomacy, for both RP and mechanical reasons.  With Cha 11 at level 16, training would bump Diplomacy up to +13, but that wouldn't be very useful in this campaign.  Also, the party is full of serious Face characters.

Sure, there are ways it could be "fixed", but my point was more that many Slayers will be equally skill-challenged, and I have found that to be a serious drag.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 2, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> If I were to play a Slayer, I would worry most about the problem that I have with my Knight right now -- virtually no ability to contribute to non-combat situations that don't involve carrying or knocking things down.  It gets dreary after a while having every single NPC ignore your character except for slurs and smirks, and never being able to pipe up when there is a lock or trap to finagle, a scouting expedition needing volunteers, a shopkeeper to wrangle, a noble to charm, a trail to follow, a rune to decipher...
> 
> It's like going to a big scout gathering and being the only one with no badges on your uniform except the one for good attendance.  (Scouts, feel free to explain that gatherings are called "gymborees", that uniforms are called "haversacks", that badges are called "nibnobs" and that there is no nibnob for good attendance.  I'm here to learn.)




IMC I've given PCs an extra trained skill and a free skill power to beef up the out of combat stuff. One of the design goals of my game is to use skill extensively. The set of essentials characters we're making now don't have those bonuses, but we're using them for a short break from the main game. If the online CB supported bonus feats I'd be using my regular house rule tho...

PS


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 2, 2011)

I think the OP's mistake is thinking that slayers are primarily a Str/Con class. They're not. Knights are Str/Con; slayers are Str/Dex, which means they get a big boost from adding Dex to damage.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Mar 2, 2011)

I've only played the slayer in one test adventure and I was blown away by how effective they are.  VERY STRONG damage output, well in line with the thief or any other striker.  Good AC, able to stay alive just fine.  Simple, dishes out damage and stays up, but that's more than other striker classes. 

When I read the tage line for this thread I was surprised and assume you have not actually play tested one.  To answer your question though, I do not think a damage bonus is needed as they get more damage bonuses out of the box than any other class I can think of off hand and do not require combat advantage or other circumstances to get it.  They just have to hit.  The damage bonus was so large during out play test that the weapon choice was irrelevant almost.  Our slayer could have been using a dagger and would not have dramatically changed his dps.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 2, 2011)

Slayers do pretty high damage already. Came up with a somewhat unconventional human greatbow/greatsword with Master at Arms, and melee trainining Dex (to start with 20 dex). At first level, with a bow, in Battle Wrath Stance, the character is attacking at +9 vs AC, 1d10+12 damage, and with a greatsword +10 vs AC, 1d10+9 damage. No conditions attached (don't have to worry about combat advantage, curse, oath, etc). I wear hide, stay at range for the most part, if stuck in melee, I whack it with power strike. Heroic Effort makes me even more accurate. I thought it was a pretty cool character for a one shot.

Starting at mid heroic levels, Half-orc Slayer chargers are putting barbarian chargers to shame, and it gets worse at paragon. Giving slayers a freebie damage bonus sounds like crazy talk.


----------



## BobTheNob (Mar 2, 2011)

I almost spat my coffee on the screen when I read this post. First time I have heard some call the slayer *under*powered


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Mar 2, 2011)

If your DM allows for backgrounds that is a good way to get access to train other skills.

And I have seen a ton of Slayers made with Dex based races and using Melee Training Dex.  I have even seen an Eladrin and a Githzerai Slayer multiclassed Swordmage to get access to Intelligent Blademaster.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 2, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> I think the OP's mistake is thinking that slayers are primarily a Str/Con class. They're not. Knights are Str/Con; slayers are Str/Dex, which means they get a big boost from adding Dex to damage.




Yes, the Slayer illustrations are of big tough-looking guys, so I thought 'CON', whereas the designers may have been thinking of skinny anime chicks with enormous weapons (DEX)...


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 2, 2011)

Otterscrubber said:


> The damage bonus was so large during out play test that the weapon choice was irrelevant almost.  Our slayer could have been using a dagger and would not have dramatically changed his dps.




That has to be hyperbole, right?  A Fullblade-wielding Slayer with Dex 10 does as much damage as a Dagger-wielding Slayer with Dex 18, assuming that you aren't talking about the Melee Training (Dexterity) build.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Mar 3, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> That has to be hyperbole, right?  A Fullblade-wielding Slayer with Dex 10 does as much damage as a Dagger-wielding Slayer with Dex 18, assuming that you aren't talking about the Melee Training (Dexterity) build.




Mostly yes, I was just illustrating that the damage bonuses were so significant that the dice of damage from the weapon was just a fraction of the total damage.  Obviously a slayer with a big hitter will still do more than one with a dagger or bare hand.  Although making a slayer with bare hands would still be plenty on par and fun to play now that I think of it.....


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 3, 2011)

Otterscrubber said:


> Mostly yes, I was just illustrating that the damage bonuses were so significant that the dice of damage from the weapon was just a fraction of the total damage.




I guess it depends on what you are adding in -- Weapon Focus, Bracers of Mighty Striking, and a weapon with a larger than usual enhancement (say, +2 at level 4) or one that somehow grants extra damage (Radiant Weapon, Subtle Weapon).  Or maybe you mean a charge build with Powerful Charge, a Vanguard Weapon and Horned Helm.

What the Slayer does NOT have access to is a non-class mechanic to double up on an ability, as the hammer-wielding Knight can with Warden MC + Crippling Crush, or the Hunter or Thief can with Seeker MC + Primal Eye.  I _have_ wondered whether there might be a way to make a Slayer push/prone build and go with Dragonborn and Iron Vanguard PP, but for all I know it may not be possible.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 3, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> If I were to play a Slayer, I would worry most about the problem that I have with my Knight right now -- virtually no ability to contribute to non-combat situations that don't involve carrying or knocking things down.  It gets dreary after a while having every single NPC ignore your character except for slurs and smirks, and never being able to pipe up when there is a lock or trap to finagle, a scouting expedition needing volunteers, a shopkeeper to wrangle, a noble to charm, a trail to follow, a rune to decipher...
> 
> It's like going to a big scout gathering and being the only one with no badges on your uniform except the one for good attendance.  (Scouts, feel free to explain that gatherings are called "gymborees", that uniforms are called "haversacks", that badges are called "nibnobs" and that there is no nibnob for good attendance.  I'm here to learn.)



You should talk to your DM. I don't have only the players with Bluff, Diplomacy, and/or Intimidate talk to NPCs. I have every player at the table contribute. If a player wants to roll Diplomacy or Bluff, that's ok, but social roleplaying is not typically and primarily resolved via social skill rolls when I DM. It's resolved with roleplaying and possibly an occassional roll if the NPC is on the fence on something.

The die roll is for the exception (i.e. gaining an advantage that is difficult to achieve), not for the rule (i.e. talking to someone and interacting normally).

I personally think that too many DMs rely on skill dice rolls instead of relying on common sense and fun. I do the same thing for physical skills sometimes. If the players tell me how they are going to rope their way across a ravine and it makes sense that it would be fairly easy and safe to do it that way, I don't bother with dice rolls. Any party can manage it. The players already solved that problem, move on.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 3, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> You should talk to your DM. I don't have only the players with Bluff, Diplomacy, and/or Intimidate talk to NPCs. I have every player at the table contribute. If a player wants to roll Diplomacy or Bluff, that's ok, but social roleplaying is not typically and primarily resolved via social skill rolls when I DM. It's resolved with roleplaying and possibly an occassional roll if the NPC is on the fence on something.
> 
> The die roll is for the exception (i.e. gaining an advantage that is difficult to achieve), not for the rule (i.e. talking to someone and interacting normally).
> 
> I personally think that too many DMs rely on skill dice rolls instead of relying on common sense and fun. I do the same thing for physical skills sometimes. If the players tell me how they are going to rope their way across a ravine and it makes sense that it would be fairly easy and safe to do it that way, I don't bother with dice rolls. Any party can manage it. The players already solved that problem, move on.




I try to rely on common sense but, when the odd die roll is required for success/failure in such an interaction, my low CHA players usually try to find a way to support their main negotiator. Our group requires that the player supply some sort of reasonable role played manner of supporting, rather than simply throwing down a die and hoping to make a 10+, so they rarely really feel left out.

As to the Slayer's damage with a Bard or Warlord in the party, it's trivial to have them help with the group's DPR. No conditions are required; just wade in and do MBAs.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 4, 2011)

Sorry, but noone says, you must put a 20 in your mains stat...

you can easily go for 18/14/14/13 (as a human), do your job and have a 14 in charisma, combined with skil training, that allows you to be the party´s face.

You even have a 13 in int or dex so you reflex also does not suffer. I guess primary and secondary attributes are a bit overestimated here... if you don´t like to be a damage only machine, by all means, don´t build one.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 4, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Sorry, but noone says, you must put a 20 in your mains stat...
> 
> you can easily go for 18/14/14/13 (as a human), do your job and have a 14 in charisma, combined with skil training, that allows you to be the party´s face.
> 
> You even have a 13 in int or dex so you reflex also does not suffer. I guess primary and secondary attributes are a bit overestimated here... if you don´t like to be a damage only machine, by all means, don´t build one.




Sure, you can do that, and it would often make sense.  But some of your points above seem a bit glib.  A 13 in Int or Dex is by no means enough to make for a decent Reflex defense -- it might mean a typical attacker hits Reflex on a 6 instead of a 5, but is that really worth the points?  And skill training in a single Cha skill isn't really enough to be the Face, even with a 14.

Finally, having just gone through a session where a character who started with a pre-racial 18 primary whiffed on 12 out of 14 attacks in one encounter, I'm as greedy for attack bonuses as ever.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 4, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Finally, having just gone through a session where a character who started with a pre-racial 18 primary whiffed on 12 out of 14 attacks in one encounter, I'm as greedy for attack bonuses as ever.




Magic Missile 

For when the dice go totally cold.


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 4, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Sure, you can do that, and it would often make sense.  But some of your points above seem a bit glib.  A 13 in Int or Dex is by no means enough to make for a decent Reflex defense -- it might mean a typical attacker hits Reflex on a 6 instead of a 5, but is that really worth the points?  And skill training in a single Cha skill isn't really enough to be the Face, even with a 14.
> 
> Finally, having just gone through a session where a character who started with a pre-racial 18 primary whiffed on 12 out of 14 attacks in one encounter, I'm as greedy for attack bonuses as ever.




I wouldn't dump Dexterity if you wanted to be the party face.  What's so important that you'd dump dexterity on a Slayer build?  Constitution?

Bullocks.


----------



## Uller (Mar 4, 2011)

I'm teaching some folks at work how to play.  I have all the essentials books, but for convenience, most of the PCs are built using an old beta of the Character Builder.  The party fighter is underpowered...he's a defender with a great axe...so his AC is too low to really do the job and he just doesn't pump out the damage that the rogue does...

So based on this thread, I recreated the character as a Slayer...

We're playing the Twisting Halls adventure in the Red Box (SPOILERS ahead).  

The party opened a door and saw a goblin cutthroat.  The cleric ran in, swung and missed (by-by encounter power).  The goblin shrieked, hit the cleric then shifted away.  The druid threw fire seed (I allow them to target empty squares to deny the enemy terrain) to block the doors with fire and catch the goblin in the flames.  No damage yet to the goblin (he'll take 5 at the start of his turn).

Slayers turn.  Duelist Assault.  Moves.  Basic Attack.  Rolls a nat 20.  Decided to use power strike.  35 damage.  Goblin is dead.

The bugbear appears at one door and charges the cleric through the flames.  Hits.  The wizard (conserving dailies and encounters) MMs him.  Cleric attacks (misses...he kept rolling 6s...) shifts away.  Druid freezes bugbear.  Two more goblins show up and attack slayer (one can reach him the other throws a dagger).  One hits.  Slayer bloodies a goblin (19 damage).  Wizard Burning hands the two goblins, fells the bloodied one and 11 damage to the other (I forgot the OA this would have provoked).  Remaining goblin attacks slayer (misses).  Druid moves to cover wizard and slayer to prevent flanking and fire seeds bugbear but misses.  Slayer drops last goblin (22 damage).  Bugbear attacks druid and bloodies him in one swing.  Wizard MM's Bugbear (we use PHB/Char Builder) version of MM and does 9 damage then shifts to give Slayer CA.  Druid morphs, uses pounce, hits, uses action point, pounces again (gets sneak attack, he is multi-classed as rogue).  Bugbear is down to 15 hp.  Slayer moves, attacks with CA so +10 to his attack, hits and does 18 damage.  Fight is over.  In four attacks he did 83 hp damage and slew 3 of 4 monsters.  I'd say he's NOT underpowered (and now this one has a +1 Lifedrinker Great Axe...).


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 4, 2011)

Uller said:


> Wizard Burning hands the two goblins, fells the bloodied one and 11 damage to the other (I forgot the OA this would have provoked).



No, you did this right; Burning Hands is a Close blast, and therefore does not trigger an OA from an adjacent foe.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 4, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Sure, you can do that, and it would often make sense.  But some of your points above seem a bit glib.  A 13 in Int or Dex is by no means enough to make for a decent Reflex defense -- it might mean a typical attacker hits Reflex on a 6 instead of a 5, but is that really worth the points?  And skill training in a single Cha skill isn't really enough to be the Face, even with a 14.




Well, how good a face do you expect to be with a fighter build? If you have Diplomacy trained and a 12-14 Cha, you should be able to contribute in social situations, although you won't dominate them.

Or, if you want to be _strong_ in your "non-combat skill" instead of just okay, you can spend your Skill Training feat on Stealth instead. Slayer dexterity will serve you well here.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 4, 2011)

Wanna be the party "face"? Take Melee Training (Charisma) and go nuts!


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 5, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> I wouldn't dump Dexterity if you wanted to be the party face.  What's so important that you'd dump dexterity on a Slayer build?  Constitution?
> 
> Bullocks.




You need to go back and read the comment I was responding to.  I wasn't the one who suggested a "13 in Int or Dex".  That was UngeheuerLich, and I assume the reference was not to a Slayer but to a class that was _not_ Dex-secondary.

If anything, I would lean towards a Melee Training (Dexterity) Slayer build, so you can keep your bullocks, because I don't need them.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 5, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Well, how good a face do you expect to be with a fighter build? If you have Diplomacy trained and a 12-14 Cha, you should be able to contribute in social situations, although you won't dominate them.




Maybe I'm basing my assessment too much on my own most recent campaign, where the DM has frequently treated less skillful attempts at social interaction as detrimental.


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 5, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Maybe I'm basing my assessment too much on my own most recent campaign, where the DM has frequently treated less skillful attempts at social interaction as detrimental.




Which is fine, and in a game where that is important, one should certainly invest in Charisma as a tertiary stat, and pick up a couple extra skills here and there when one can.


However, that still doesn't warrant shooting your character in the foot for his primary role (Yes, Melee Training (Cha) is doing just that) to be the best at charisma-based things.   That's not necessary--a better option would be to be a hexblade or artful dodger rogue if you -need- that much 'face'.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 5, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> I have every player at the table contribute. If a player wants to roll Diplomacy or Bluff, that's ok, but social roleplaying is not typically and primarily resolved via social skill rolls when I DM. It's resolved with roleplaying and possibly an occassional roll if the NPC is on the fence on something.
> 
> The die roll is for the exception (i.e. gaining an advantage that is difficult to achieve), not for the rule (i.e. talking to someone and interacting normally).




Absolutely. I still think that part of the point of social roleplaying games is to do the, uh, social roleplaying bit, and use rolls as you suggest. I've heard some people worry about people whose natural skill doesn't match their characters charisma, but I just assume that it is part of the DM's job to react appropriately. Eloquent player but Cha 5? I'm not going to pay much attention to you or give weight to your arguments. Player who has difficulty, but with 18 Charisma bard - you get the benefit of the doubt, and the NPCs respond to you as if you have 18 Charisma.




> I do the same thing for physical skills sometimes. If the players tell me how they are going to rope their way across a ravine and it makes sense that it would be fairly easy and safe to do it that way, I don't bother with dice rolls. Any party can manage it. The players already solved that problem, move on.




Great idea - essentially it is the way we all used to do things back in the early days, and there is no reason not to do it now. Good call.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 6, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> You need to go back and read the comment I was responding to.  I wasn't the one who suggested a "13 in Int or Dex".  That was UngeheuerLich, and I assume the reference was not to a Slayer but to a class that was _not_ Dex-secondary.
> 
> If anything, I would lean towards a Melee Training (Dexterity) Slayer build, so you can keep your bullocks, because I don't need them.



And I was responding to the knight commentary...

dumping dex on a slayer who can´t chose diplomacy is a bit odd... somehow i just didn´t check the quote message in reply box...


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 6, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> Absolutely. I still think that part of the point of social roleplaying games is to do the, uh, social roleplaying bit, and use rolls as you suggest. I've heard some people worry about people whose natural skill doesn't match their characters charisma, but I just assume that it is part of the DM's job to react appropriately. Eloquent player but Cha 5? I'm not going to pay much attention to you or give weight to your arguments. Player who has difficulty, but with 18 Charisma bard - you get the benefit of the doubt, and the NPCs respond to you as if you have 18 Charisma.




We fought a Dragon today that (with her allies) knocked every PC except mine unconscious at least once (some twice). It was the most touch and go encounter that we had ever played that did not result in a single PC dying (but oh, did they come close).

My PC ended up knocking the Dragon unconscious (while at 6 hit points and while the rest of the PCs were down). After we all healed up (which was fun because we were down to one healing potion, my PC was +0 for the Healing skill, and the other 4 PCs were making death saving throws), we tied up the Dragon and then woke her back up to question her. My PC has a 20 Cha (at level 3), and all of the Cha skills. But it was interesting that the DM never asked me to roll any of them. After grilling her a bit, I just told the Dragon that I had already achieved my goal of getting her treasure (nah, that didn't tick her off) and that if I ever saw her again, she was going to die. We let her live.

The next morning, our group was in a fairly serious encounter and the Dragon comes flying towards us. Most of the players were about to pee in their pants. 20 Cha or no 20 Cha, when you say the wrong thing and tick off a Dragon, a Diplomacy roll isn't going to change anything. 



Plane Sailing said:


> Great idea - essentially it is the way we all used to do things back in the early days, and there is no reason not to do it now. Good call.




Thanks.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 6, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> However, that still doesn't warrant shooting your character in the foot for his primary role (Yes, Melee Training (Cha) is doing just that) to be the best at charisma-based things.   That's not necessary--a better option would be to be a hexblade or artful dodger rogue if you -need- that much 'face'.




I agree.  I was using my Knight as a reference, and for her, the smart thing to do if I wanted to perk up other skills would have been to take Melee Training (Con) and then "dump" Strength (not an 8, but maybe 12 and no bumps).  That would leave the option to pump Con and Cha, which might not be so terrible since it would also bring a much better Will defense to the table.


----------



## giant.robot (Mar 6, 2011)

I figure this question is germane to the discussion so I'll post it here instead of starting a new thread. If I have a STR/DEX slayer the "Heroic Slayer" ability gives a bonus DEX modifier to weapon attacks, is this in *addition* to their STR bonus for MBAs and DEX bonus for MRAs?

I was thinking of a human slayer with 20 DEX and 14 STR with Master at Arms and Melee Training (DEX). Attacks with a Great Sword would get them a +7 to damage before any stances while a longbow would get a +10. Thanks to Melee Training I'd have a +7 attack don us before adding in weapon proficiency. All I'd be able to do is swing a sword and shoot arrows but I could do so pretty effectively and do crazy damage when I hit. 

Also with the level 4 Quick Swap ability, when combined with Master at Arms, would it allow you to swap weapons as a free action?


----------



## Mentat55 (Mar 6, 2011)

To answer your first question, the Heroic Slayer ability is in addition to the normal damage bonus associated with MBAs and RBAs.  

To answer your second question, Master of Arms and Quick Swap do not interact in that way.  Master of Arms allows you to swap weapons as a minor action, as opposed to simply drawing a weapon as a minor action.  Quick Swap lets you (1/round) draw or stow a weapon as a free action.  To achieve what you want, you would need the Quick Draw feat and the Quick Swap class ability.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 6, 2011)

giant.robot said:


> I figure this question is germane to the discussion so I'll post it here instead of starting a new thread. If I have a STR/DEX slayer the "Heroic Slayer" ability gives a bonus DEX modifier to weapon attacks, is this in *addition* to their STR bonus for MBAs and DEX bonus for MRAs?
> 
> I was thinking of a human slayer with 20 DEX and 14 STR with Master at Arms and Melee Training (DEX). Attacks with a Great Sword would get them a +7 to damage before any stances while a longbow would get a +10. Thanks to Melee Training I'd have a +7 attack don us before adding in weapon proficiency. All I'd be able to do is swing a sword and shoot arrows but I could do so pretty effectively and do crazy damage when I hit.
> 
> Also with the level 4 Quick Swap ability, when combined with Master at Arms, would it allow you to swap weapons as a free action?



"Heroic Slayer" only adds Dex as a bonus to weapon *damage*.

Your 1st-level slayer with Str 14, Dex 20 and Melee Training (Dex) would have +10 to hit (+5 Dex, +3 prof, +1 class, +1 Master of Arms) with the bow and greatsword, and deal +7 damage with the sword (+2 Dex, +5 Dex) and +10 with the bow (+5 Dex, +5 Dex).

Also, Quick Draw and Master of Arms don't really mix. QD lets you draw or stow a weapon as a free action, MoA lets you stow *and* draw weapons with a single minor action. In most cases you'll use MoA, unless you're dazed or otherwise unable to take your full allotment of actions. Then you'd use QD.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 7, 2011)

Just saw my first Slayer in action over the weekend. Underpowered was not what came to mind.

Killing machine? That's more like it...

PS


----------



## Uller (Mar 8, 2011)

Since we tried out the slayer, I decided to help the party Rogue modify his PHB rogue to an Essentials Thief.  I'm seeing a pattern...and while it is kewl from a player PC perspective (weee....we get 1st level characters dishing out 20 dmg per round) I'm not sure I like the dynamic.

I'm new to 4e, though...so maybe I'm missing something.

Rogues, Theives, Assassins..."Strikers" if you will...have been dealing out large amounts of damage since 1e.  But mostly (not always) it was under some specific circumstance that more often than not required some careful planning on the part of the player, teamwork on the part of the party and substantial risk on the part of the PC...

Backstabs, etc always required something...

With the slayer, it's just his basic attack...Swing, hit about 2/3s of the time and do 1d12+9 (or +11 with the right stance) damage while others are doing 1d8+5...once per encounter, boost that to 2d12+11...

Now that I look at the Thief, he has 4 fairly easy ways to gain combat advantage (Tactical Trick and Ambush Trick...I think...I don't have my book here) and at first level do around 3d6+9 damage once per round (once per encounter boost that to 4d6+9.  If he attacks first at the start of the encounter (which is likely), if he flanks and now if he uses one of two tricks that just require a foe with none of its allies adjacent (pretty likely in many fights) or has at least one of the Thief's allies next to it (again, very likely).  

I guess what I'm saying is that I always thought the point of the striker was to require teamwork from others.  Now it seems not so much.   The other two strikers in essentials are Scout and Warlock...I have no idea how they fair compared to Slayer and Thief, but it looks about the same.  Why not just have a party made entirely of those four?...maybe have a cleric for healing...It seems like they would be killing two opponents per turn fairly easily.  

I'm still a fan of 4e and essentials...just noticing, that's all...


----------



## Klaus (Mar 8, 2011)

Nah, Rangers and Warlocks have been striking with little regard for teamwork since day 1. Hunter's Quarry and Warlock's Curse were never teamwork-related, and the Ranger's damage spike was always Twin Strike, anyway.

The spike in striker damage seems to be a counter to combat grind. Anything that brings the opponent down faster helps the game move along.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 8, 2011)

Klaus said:


> The spike in striker damage seems to be a counter to combat grind. Anything that brings the opponent down faster helps the game move along.




That could have been solved by lowering monster hit points.

By having Strikers average more than twice as much damage as non-Strikers, it really changes the game balance. For example, we have a group of 5 PCs where 2.5 of them are now Strikers and the 2 single class Strikers are Essential PCs.

The Arms Race is alive and well, and doing better than ever. Watch it grow over the next few years.


----------



## Uller (Mar 8, 2011)

Klaus said:


> The spike in striker damage seems to be a counter to combat grind. Anything that brings the opponent down faster helps the game move along.




Sure.  Grind is always a factor...but seems to me that is best dealt with by the DM playing the monsters realistically (monsters have a survival instinct too).  If the fight is decided, one side invariably attempts to disengage.

one of my players is playing a Ranger - Hunter.  Clevershot (knock prone) is his bread and butter.  His Hidden Sniper feat and Lurking Spider aspect combine to give him +2 atk and dam so he deals moderate damage very reliably.  More importantly he has a lot of fun timing his attack to be right before the party (PHB) rogue goes, giving him a good chance at sneak attack damage by knocking the foe prone or maneuvering him to where he can be flanked.  The two players have a great time working together, being sneaky etc. and then rapidly taking down moderately tough foes...generally combining for about 35 damage each round leaving the cleric or wizard to finish off badly wounded foes from a distance while they move on to the next greatest threat.

The Rogue player would like to rebuild as an Essentials Thief.  This will change this dynamic and not for the better I believe (they'll still be working together...but the Ranger's role will be more to protect the Thief by slowing, immobilizing, etc enemies that are away from the thief or finishing those the thief has badly wounded.

It's not unbalanced I think...but it definitely plays differently in a way that I think is a bit less fun.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 8, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> By having Strikers average more than twice as much damage as non-Strikers, it really changes the game balance. For example, we have a group of 5 PCs where 2.5 of them are now Strikers and the 2 single class Strikers are Essential PCs.
> 
> The Arms Race is alive and well, and doing better than ever. Watch it grow over the next few years.




Average Level 1 Non-Striker: Probably deals between 1d6+3 to 1d8+4 damage. 
Level 1 Rogue: Between 1d4+2d6+3 to 1d4+2d8+6. 
Level 1 Ranger: Between 2d10+1d6 to 2d12+1d6+2. 
Level 1 Thief: Between 3d6+5 to 1d6+2d8+6. 
Level 1 Slayer: Between 1d10+7 to 1d12+9. 

Yes, Strikers are generally dealing twice the damage of non-Strikers. But that isn't something caused by Essentials - it's been around since the PHB!

It isn't really that the top-end of Strikers has improved, but more than they've beefed up the lower-end of them - we don't have Warlocks who are only doing a few points more than non-Strikers. Instead, most strikers perform well. 

Now, it is certainly true some general boosts have developed over the course of the game. But I don't think the overall dynamic has changed that much, nor that we have Strikers that are inherently more self-sufficent than before. The Thief itself is, yes, more independant than the Rogue - but still is at risk due to fragility, and very hindered by certain conditions.


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 8, 2011)

Uller said:


> The Rogue player would like to rebuild as an Essentials Thief. This will change this dynamic and not for the better I believe (they'll still be working together...but the Ranger's role will be more to protect the Thief by slowing, immobilizing, etc enemies that are away from the thief or finishing those the thief has badly wounded.




Alternately, they could keep up this pattern and use any of the other 7 tricks in the book that people seem to forget about.  There are more options than just the two "enemies grant CA if..." ones.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 8, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Average Level 1 Non-Striker: Probably deals between 1d6+3 to 1d8+4 damage.
> Level 1 Rogue: Between 1d4+2d6+3 to 1d4+2d8+6.
> Level 1 Ranger: Between 2d10+1d6 to 2d12+1d6+2.
> Level 1 Thief: Between 3d6+5 to 1d6+2d8+6.
> ...




While it is true that core strikers were sometimes already at double damage over implement non-strikers, they tended to not quite make double damage over weapon non-strikers. Warlocks do not average twice as much damage as Clerics.

But, Essentials Strikers are higher yet. And a considerable part of that is their improved chances to hit. Players of Essentials PCs do not run into the problem of cold dice as often as players of core PCs.

Average DPR:

4.8 Level 1 Impl Non-Striker: Between 1d6+4 to 1d8+5 damage (could be multi-foe)
5.9 Level 1 Wpn Non-Striker: Between 1d8+4 to 1d8+5 damage (easier to hit than impl)
11.6 Level 1 Rogue: Between 1d4+2d6+4 to 1d6+2d8+6. (if he could get CA, 5.6 if not)
10.4 Level 1 Ranger: Between 2d8+1d6 to 2d12+1d6+2 (both have to hit to get big damage)
8.25 Level 1 Warlock: Between 2d6+4 to 3d6+5

13.1 Level 1 Thief: Between 3d6+6 to 1d6+2d8+8. 
11.6 Level 1 Slayer: Between 1d10+8 to 1d12+9.

The Slayer does the same approximate average damage as the Rogue, but he doesn't require CA to hit and he has better hit points and AC.

Granted, 4E PCs have Encounter and Daily powers that really make them strong at late heroic and later, but it's the constant big damage round after round that makes Essentials PCs, especially at low level, constantly stronger. Even a Rogue is not quite in the same class and a Warlock definitely isn't. An extra dice of damage per encounter or two dice of damage per day plus a rider by a core PC doesn't quite match either at first and second level.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 8, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> *snip* a bunch of DPR calcs



Please, not another one of these. I don't mind a little math in these conversations, but it tends to go on for PAGES.

Yeah, yeah, I know; nobody is forcing me to read it. That said, it sort of sidelines the rest of the discussion while (usually) two posters back-and-forth a bunch of calculations with banter.

"My math is right, yours is wrong."
"No, yours is wrong, you forgot x!!! Never forget x!"
"x is irrelevant, you should be accounting for y 53% of the time instead, and if you don't it's not realistic!!!"

There, saved you all the trouble.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 9, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Yeah, yeah, I know; nobody is forcing me to read it.




Well, exactly. Nobody is forcing you to read it, so just skip over it. If you find that certain people often post things you don't enjoy reading, then put them on ignore.

But please don't presume to tell people what they should and shouldn't be posting, eh?

Thanks


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 9, 2011)

It's just a little frustrating that every discussion of classes breaks down into a DPR argument. It would be nice to discuss classes without all that baggage for once.

It's nothing personal against anyone in particular, more of an observation.

Or rather, just an opinion. I'm not presuming to tell anybody anything; just like I am free to ignore DPR arguments, others are free to ignore my opinion (and probably will).


----------



## Herschel (Mar 9, 2011)

Must spread XP before giving to ND.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 9, 2011)

DPR is the heart of the "Striker" role, so it seems appropriate to me in any discussion of Striker effectiveness.  Comparing eg Defender to Controller DPR may miss the point, though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 9, 2011)

No, it is not. Doing damage at the right time is the striker role. DPR does exactly nothing in a real fight. There are always situations, where you don´t attack in a round or need to do a different trick.

I would not like to play in a group where DPR is the only measure of efficiency.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 9, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No, it is not. Doing damage at the right time is the striker role. DPR does exactly nothing in a real fight. There are always situations, where you don´t attack in a round or need to do a different trick.
> 
> I would not like to play in a group where DPR is the only measure of efficiency.




Read what I wrote.

In my group, the Fighter player complains that my Thief gets all the kills - that's an inappropriate comparison of DPR, since I only get to make the kills because his PC is protecting me from the monsters.  By comparison, comparing DPR of 2 ranged strikers or 2 melee strikers is entirely appropriate since inflicting damage is their primary role.  If my Thief were not inflicting high DPR he would not be 'efficient' in combat, since that is his combat role.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 9, 2011)

S'mon said:


> If my Thief were not inflicting high DPR he would not be 'efficient' in combat, since that is his combat role.




But the Thief might still be an invaluable member of the group.  I have been toying with a Thief choosing Jack of All Trades for PP and generally becoming an unrivaled master of skills.  The DPR would still be excellent, just not quite as good as it could be if that were the focus -- maybe about 80% as much, say 34 vs 44 per attack with CA.

(I know, you didn't say otherwise.  I'm just piggybacking off of your comment.  Nemesis Destiny wanted some non-DPR talk.)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 9, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Read what I wrote.
> 
> In my group, the Fighter player complains that my Thief gets all the kills - that's an inappropriate comparison of DPR, since I only get to make the kills because his PC is protecting me from the monsters. By comparison, comparing DPR of 2 ranged strikers or 2 melee strikers is entirely appropriate since inflicting damage is their primary role. If my Thief were not inflicting high DPR he would not be 'efficient' in combat, since that is his combat role.



And still your fight would complain even more, if your thief had DPR of 5, but does 30 Damage in a round, when he can kill a bloodied foe.

Actually this is the essential assassins role. Strike where he can take out a foe. Maybe one at the beginning of the combat and than going where he can reliably take down a foe.

DPR is no measurement at all if comparing different kind of strikers. A single nova, which the thief is surprisingly bad at without the right feats, can do more harm to the enemy as 2 points of damage per round...

DPR in a theoretical hack-beeing hacked-hack-being hacked is no measurement of efficiency.

edit: and yes, a thief who takes weapon focus instead of linguist is more efficient in combat by trading out some out of combat use...


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 9, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> And still your fight would complain even more, if your thief had DPR of 5, but does 30 Damage in a round, when he can kill a bloodied foe.
> 
> Actually this is the essential assassins role. Strike where he can take out a foe. Maybe one at the beginning of the combat and than going where he can reliably take down a foe.
> 
> ...




You do have a point, but I think it's worth some elaboration.  I would add the following considerations:

1. Many creatures have significant advantages once bloodied -- regeneration, recharging of powers, etc.  If you can take them straight from unbloodied to dead in a single attack, bypassing all of those advantages, that is a big win.

2. Many control powers have an extended duration.  As such, it is often better to focus on killing the creatures that are not currently being controlled, while you mostly ignore the controlled creatures and let them make their attacks at -6 to hit, or half damage because weakened, etc.  You then quickly finish them off when their allies are all dead.

3. Many combat encounters feature a dependency between creatures, for example a BBEG with minions who might surrender, run or die when the BBEG falls.  Taking the BBEG down quickly could be critical. 

However, there is a downside to a focus on Nova potential -- it requires a knowledge of the enemy's capabilities, current status, organization, etc., or at least a good instinctive hunch.  For example, expending a Nova power to take down an illusionary copy of the BBEG might turn out to be a poor choice.  Piling on extra damage to knock the bloodied foe from 50 HP down below 0 doesn't work so well when it turns out that he regenerated and has 60 HP after all, or only had 10 for some other reason.

I think UngeheuerLich may be going too far in dismissing DPR outright, but it's definitely true that DPR itself is only one measure of effectiveness.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 9, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> DPR is no measurement at all if comparing different kind of strikers. A single nova, which the thief is surprisingly bad at without the right feats, can do more harm to the enemy as 2 points of damage per round...
> 
> DPR in a theoretical hack-beeing hacked-hack-being hacked is no measurement of efficiency.




And the PC that novas a single foe for 40 points of damage when the foe has 3 hit points remaining does not do more harm to the enemy either.

The PC that novas and misses also doesn't do much.

Nova damage is mostly irrelevant. It's a fraction of all of the damage done by the entire party over an entire encounter.

It doesn't indicate at all how efficient a PC can be. DPR does not measure all of the aspects of PC efficiency, but it is a better rule of thumb than most other types of measurements, especially nova damage.

And party DPR is a better measurement of efficiency than individual PC DPR. The striker can do a ton of damage and if the other PCs cannot do a reasonable amount for their roles, they can still be very ineffective as a group. I've seen quite a few groups where one or two PCs are totally ineffective in combat because they either cannot hit well, or do not do reasonable damage for their role, or because the player makes bad decisions for the PC.

Lack of DPR is not the only way that a PC can be inefficient (I recently saw a player bring an AC 13 first level PC into a group), but it is reasonable rule of thumb measurement of efficiency.


----------



## Uller (Mar 9, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No, it is not. Doing damage at the right time is the striker role. DPR does exactly nothing in a real fight. There are always situations, where you don´t attack in a round or need to do a different trick.




And this is why I brought it up...it seems the Slayer and Thief don't do high damage in certain situations and less in others...they just do high damage all the time without a lot of planning, tactics and risk taking.

The PHB Rogue has to make some choices, take risks or get the help of other party members to do high damage.  The Thief simply uses one of his many "tricks" to gain CA.

[SPOILERS!] One of the two groups I run, they were fighting the dragon from the Twisting Halls adventure...the fight had spilled out into the 10' wide corridor and there was no easy way for the (PHB) Rogue to get around the dragon to sneak attack it other than wade through the kobald minions blocking the way around.  He tried bluff (and failed), then then when things looked bleak he readied and waited for the druid (who was nearly dead) to use Pounce on the bloodied dragon.  On his attack, the rogue rolled a crit and did just enough to finish it off.  Had the dragon survived and his breath recharged, it'd have gone badly...

Another example from the 2e days of yore...a group I ran was fighting an evil wizard and his lizardman minions...The rogue drank a potion of invisibility and avoided making any attacks until he crossed the distance to the wizard.  The rest of the party was getting cut to pieces by the lizardmen and the rogue was nearly dead due to being caught in AoEs.  He finally made his one shot at a backstab with half the party already dead, he hit and killed the wizard.  The rogue's player announced afterward that that was so exciting he was shaking.

That's what makes the concept of Strikers having to do something to get large damage cool in my book.  When they do massive damage after they or others take great risk to allow them to do it.  A slayer just standing there making basic attacks and dishing out tons of damage per round isn't all that fun, imo.  In the fight with the wizard above, a slayer archer could simply hit the wizard with two basic attacks and kill the wizard.  He probably wouldn't even have to move...


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 9, 2011)

Don't get me wrong, folks, DPR can be an important metric for measuring a Striker's capabilities, and I think it warrants _some _discussion. But as others have more eloquently pointed out than I did - it's not the be-all-end-all, even of a striker.

The part about DPR "discussions" that I found irritating, and hence felt the need to comment on, was that it seemed to invariably degenerate into an argument where a couple posters were back-and-forth-ing over a couple points of damage.

Seriously, and no offence intended to my fine fellow ENWorlders, but *who*frelling*cares*. At that point, it's just petty quibbling. A couple points of DPR isn't likely to be noticed on the larger scale (the one DMs and players can actually _perceive_) at that level of zoom.

Sure, there is a place for that kind of discussion, but a couple points of DPR is *not* the difference between underpowered and overpowered, let alone underpowered and balanced, or balanced and overpowered. And that, is kind of what this thread was supposed to be about.

Now that I've qualified my earlier statements, and hopefully not pissed anyone else off, I would like to encourage you all to please continue.


----------



## Herschel (Mar 9, 2011)

At the end of the day, the amount of potential damage, etc. really has to take a back seat to player strategy are party cohesion. As an example, in my Tuesday Night game (two high-damage strikers) the Bard got a really lucky role and dispelled the enemy's magical base camp building. He was kind of excited until they saw they had triggered the final three encounters simultaneously and proceeded not to focus fire. The baddy's attack bonus were low enough that had they played smart, they had a decent chance of winning the fight. 

One character actually lived to run away but they only killed two enemies in the whole fight. 

In a group I play in, we don't always have a striker (and none are damage opt) and so long as we play together and focus fire we've never had an issue even when we get in to very dangerous situations.

Back to the original point, Slayers are durable strikers, Avengers are accurate strikers, Rogues and Rangers are glass cannon strikers, Barbarians are gambler strikers, Warlocks are fiddly strikers with lots of secondary versatility. None are better or worse as a class because all are equally good when played well in a group that complements them.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 9, 2011)

Uller said:


> That's what makes the concept of Strikers having to do something to get large damage cool in my book.  When they do massive damage after they or others take great risk to allow them to do it.  A slayer just standing there making basic attacks and dishing out tons of damage per round isn't all that fun, imo.  In the fight with the wizard above, a slayer archer could simply hit the wizard with two basic attacks and kill the wizard.  He probably wouldn't even have to move...



I understand where you're coming from, and I might agree to an extent, for my part.

That said, I'm glad that the option is there. Some players don't have that desire to do much more than "Stand & Deliver" their damage, but still enjoy playing a striker. In fact, I have one such player in my group.

This player likes dealing damage, but doesn't go in for tactics much, or teamwork, or anything else really that doesn't involve unloading buckets of damage into the enemy with little risk.

He usually plays a fighter, since he likes the image of a big tough guy in heavy armour and big weapons. Unfortunately for him, fighters were a bit of "false advertising" for lack of a better term. He didn't really like the Defender role, and didn't understand why his fighter wasn't a damage monster.

Slayer, and a few of the other striker types (like the Twin Striking archer) are right up his alley. He seems to enjoy things more now (even if you or I wouldn't), so I don't mind having the option of a no-brainer striker.

Sometimes, ya just wanna kill things.


----------



## Uller (Mar 9, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Sometimes, ya just wanna kill things.




Haha...I was a tanker in the Army...There is something to be said for dishing out Death and Hell...I can definitely relate.  Death before dismount and all that....

Like I said in the beginning...I don't think it is "broken".  My slayer player is having a good time and the others seem to enjoy keeping him and the rogue alive through healing him, controlling the enemies and absorbing damage...The trick for the DM is to make sure everyone has a job to do and gets a chance to do it and has to face some risk in order to succeed.  This was true in OD&D and is still true now.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 9, 2011)

Uller said:


> The trick for the DM is to make sure everyone has a job to do and gets a chance to do it and has to face some risk in order to succeed.  This was true in OD&D and is still true now.



I couldn't agree more, especially about the risk vs reward of the game.

That said, I have never heard anything as pathetic as the player in question. He is playing a 10th level knight, and has something like 89 hit points, 10 more stat points than anyone else (this char is from 2nd ed, and he didn't want to take a hit to conform to 4e point buy, so we let him in as-is), and every time he gets hit or a negative status, he gripes and whines.

Last game he took 17 damage the one time the whole fight that the baddies managed to get through his AC, and you should have heard the whining! You'd think the DM broke his bottle of Crown Royal from the way he reacted. I mean, come on, dude, you're 40 years old for crying out loud, get a hold of yourself!

Digression and whiny players aside, I see both sides of the coin where it concerns how much work one has to do as a striker to get ones licks in. Sometimes, I enjoy an added level of complexity, and other times, I've found it can be fun to play a straight-ahead damage dealer that doesn't put too much thought into his actions, in character, or out.

Thankfully, this wonderful game accounts for that!


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 9, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> That said, I have never heard anything as pathetic as the player in question. He is playing a 10th level knight, and has something like 89 hit points, 10 more stat points than anyone else (this char is from 2nd ed, and he didn't want to take a hit to conform to 4e point buy, so we let him in as-is), and every time he gets hit or a negative status, he gripes and whines.
> 
> Last game he took 17 damage the one time the whole fight that the baddies managed to get through his AC, and you should have heard the whining! You'd think the DM broke his bottle of Crown Royal from the way he reacted. I mean, come on, dude, you're 40 years old for crying out loud, get a hold of yourself!




I'd never let a player have 2E stats in 4E. Big DMing mistake to concede to unreasonable player demands.

The solution to this problem is for the Wizard in the group to hit him and the enemies he is fighting with a Burning Hands. And then the Wizard says: "You don't take your fair share of damage for our group. I decided to even that out some. You can thank me later." 

Do it often enough and he'll need to bring in a 4E PC.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 9, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> I'd never let a player have 2E stats in 4E. Big DMing mistake to concede to unreasonable player demands.
> 
> The solution to this problem is for the Wizard in the group to hit him and the enemies he is fighting with a Burning Hands. And then the Wizard says: "You don't take your fair share of damage for our group. I decided to even that out some. You can thank me later."
> 
> Do it often enough and he'll need to bring in a 4E PC.



Well, fortunately for you, this guy isn't in _your _gaming group. And I agree totally. Too bad I'm not the DM in this case. 

Besides that, letting this guy keep his old stats is the least of our worries - he doesn't do anything with them anyway. So if doing so allows us to avoid listening to his malcontent with the new rules, so much the better.

The whining will never stop though, no matter how much giving in we do. I think we'd all be happier if this guy would just quit, but none of us actually want to give him the boot. Sometimes he seems to not be interested at all, and I think he only shows up because he literally has nothing better to do. I've been friends with him a long time though, so it's not as cut and dry as all that.

It's not like I'm new to the game (nor is the group's current DM), and we've all dealt with our fair share of problem players, for better or worse. There are many solutions. I think if we killed him off, as you suggest, he would just whine more. Maybe we'd be lucky and he'd quit.

What he really needs is a life, then he'll have "something better to do" and we won't have to listen to the pissing and moaning.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 10, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> While it is true that core strikers were sometimes already at double damage over implement non-strikers, they tended to not quite make double damage over weapon non-strikers. Warlocks do not average twice as much damage as Clerics.




Warlock, at launch, was considered a pretty sub-par striker. They've fixed many of the problems with it, but even now it relies on a number of tricks to present its full usefullness more than pure damage. 

As it is, many strikers in 4E games, at launch, were dealing double the damage of non-strikers, and dealing damage comparable with Essentials strikers. 

Out of respect for Nemesis Destiny (and because, as noted, all the math in the world often won't change someone's mind anyway), I'll avoid breaking down all the numbers again, but I simply do not think either the math or my experience supports your claims about the superiority of Essentials strikers. Nor do I think it reasonable to dismiss either Encounter/Daily powers or nova potential - dropping dangerous enemies quickly can make a very big difference in many fights.


----------



## Herschel (Mar 10, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Warlock, at launch, was considered a pretty sub-par striker. They've fixed many of the problems with it, but even now it relies on a number of tricks to present its full usefullness more than pure damage.




It's pretty nice when the striker can dole out temporary HP and de-buffs, especially when the levels get higher and daze/stun/dominate can wreak havoc with the defender's off-turn actions. Often times than can keep a (especially melee) leader from going down and keeping the whole party operating at a higher level. 

Well-played warlocks are cool.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 10, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> You do have a point, but I think it's worth some elaboration. I would add the following considerations:
> 
> 1. Many creatures have significant advantages once bloodied -- regeneration, recharging of powers, etc. If you can take them straight from unbloodied to dead in a single attack, bypassing all of those advantages, that is a big win.
> 
> ...



I totally agree with this post. Especially because point number 1 stresses what I was saying. 

A thief in the hands of an inexperienced player performs better than a standard rogue. DPR helps a lot here, i don´t disagree.

I however disagree with karin´s dad. Chances that you nova on a monster that has 3 hp remaining should not happen.

1. Most novas are not one instance of damage but at least 2 (daily, AP, daily) Sometimes 3 or more at paragon.

2. If you observed how long it took a monster to get from full to bloodied should allow you to guess that a monster should be down to a low number of hp.
I fully expect people playing D&D to be able to count to 100. And i expect from experienced players to use that ability.

I am impressed by posts that calculate DPR to 2 or 3 digits after the point, but forget to ac the human ability to calculate and make rough estimates. (We have seen a lot of that when the auto hitting MM was discussed.)


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 10, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Warlock, at launch, was considered a pretty sub-par striker. They've fixed many of the problems with it, but even now it relies on a number of tricks to present its full usefullness more than pure damage.
> 
> As it is, many strikers in 4E games, at launch, were dealing double the damage of non-strikers, and dealing damage comparable with Essentials strikers.
> 
> Out of respect for Nemesis Destiny (and because, as noted, all the math in the world often won't change someone's mind anyway), I'll avoid breaking down all the numbers again, but I simply do not think either the math or my experience supports your claims about the superiority of Essentials strikers. Nor do I think it reasonable to dismiss either Encounter/Daily powers or nova potential - dropping dangerous enemies quickly can make a very big difference in many fights.




Nova damage makes no difference to your claim that "many strikers in 4E games, at launch, were dealing double the damage of non-strikers, and dealing damage comparable with Essentials strikers". If you include nova damage, you must also consider DPR instead of just "what happens if an attack is successful". You cannot consider one without the other, or you are skewing your data.

And double damage by 4E Strikers might be true of implement Leaders targeting single foes, but it is not true of Controllers or any role targeting multiple foes, nor is it true of most Defenders targeting single foes. 2D12+D6 (if both hit) or 1d6+2D8+4 (if CA achieved) is not twice as great as 1D8+5 or 1D10+4.

Yes, it is true for a critical, but not for an average successful attack.

Nor is 2D12+D6 (if both hit) or 1d6+2D8+4 (if CA achieved) comparable to 1d6+2D8+6 (almost all of the time). It's less both straight up, and because the special conditions that must be met of 4E are more restrictive then those of Essentials. The Essentials Striker that is doing more damage almost every single round is doing more overall damage than the 4E Striker that is more often missing.

Sorry, but your claim doesn't match even simple analysis. Anecdotal evidence and stories are merely that: anecdotal. I have a ton of anecdotal stories of the Thief in our group dropping an undamaged foe in round one at low level. It happened at least a dozen times in the first 3 levels. When it happens, that's just as effective as a Nova power against that foe. It doesn't mean that this example is anything other than anecdotal. One needs to look at the math to see the real variances.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 10, 2011)

A single round of "aid attack" and "help with flanking" by a low damage PC can grant a nova a 0.95*0.95 double hit chance wich can easily set up the next one. What can a thief add to this?

Right: Go into flank position, dish out his great damage, aid attack for the next one, as his second attack counts as rather low damage, without the slaying action feat.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 10, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> A single round of "aid attack" and "help with flanking" by a low damage PC can grant a nova a 0.95*0.95 double hit chance wich can easily set up the next one. What can a thief add to this?
> 
> Right: Go into flank position, dish out his great damage, aid attack for the next one, as his second attack counts as rather low damage, without the slaying action feat.




It would help if you actually were clear about your example. Is it a melee Ranger with a double attack? A different Striker type using an Action Point?

What does "0.95*0.95 double hit chance" mean?

Just because you understand what you write doesn't mean that anyone else does. Please be more clear so that you can get a clear response.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 10, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Nova damage makes no difference to your claim that "many strikers in 4E games, at launch, were dealing double the damage of non-strikers, and dealing damage comparable with Essentials strikers". If you include nova damage, you must also consider DPR instead of just "what happens if an attack is successful". You cannot consider one without the other, or you are skewing your data.




I was considering them two seperate elements. Rangers and rogues have DPR on par with Slayers and Thieves - in addition, they have the added benefit of nova potential, which can often be important. I'm not suggesting it trumps DPR by any means - but I do think that ignoring it entirely is somewhat silly. 



KarinsDad said:


> And double damage by 4E Strikers might be true of implement Leaders targeting single foes, but it is not true of Controllers or any role targeting multiple foes, nor is it true of most Defenders targeting single foes.




In which case the same remains true for the Essentials characters. That's my point. 



KarinsDad said:


> Nor is 2D12+D6 (if both hit) or 1d6+2D8+4 (if CA achieved) comparable to 1d6+2D8+6 (almost all of the time). It's less both straight up, and because the special conditions that must be met of 4E are more restrictive then those of Essentials. The Essentials Striker that is doing more damage almost every single round is doing more overall damage than the 4E Striker that is more often missing.




Look, I'm sorry, but you keep tossing out numbers without anything actually backing them up. You ignore the fact that the PHB rogue, at level 1, can have higher damage than the thief (due to Brutal Scoundrel) and higher accuracy (due to +1 to hit and weapon talent). He doesn't have CA _quite _as guaranteed, but can still get it the vast, vast, vast majority of the time, and the usual elements that take it away from him (such as daze) do the same to the thief. 

Your claim was that Strikers dealing double damage over non-strikers was a new thing. It isn't. At level 1, the PHB Rogue is perfectly able to do that. The ranger quickly reaches the same place and surpasses him, due to multiplying damage bonuses and multi-attack powers.


----------



## aurance (Mar 10, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> If you include nova damage, you must also consider DPR instead of just "what happens if an attack is successful". You cannot consider one without the other, or you are skewing your data.




Nova damage calcs, at least those worth anything and/or done on the CharOp boards, DO include miss chances.


----------



## aurance (Mar 10, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> The Essentials Striker that is doing more damage almost every single round is doing more overall damage than the 4E Striker that is more often missing.




I'll let MrMyth carry out the debate, but I'll chime into say that I agree with him that this is just wrong.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 10, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Look, I'm sorry, but you keep tossing out numbers without anything actually backing them up. You ignore the fact that the PHB rogue, at level 1, can have higher damage than the thief (due to Brutal Scoundrel) and higher accuracy (due to +1 to hit and weapon talent). He doesn't have CA _quite _as guaranteed, but can still get it the vast, vast, vast majority of the time, and the usual elements that take it away from him (such as daze) do the same to the thief.




Prove it.

Here are my numbers:

Level 1 Human Thief

Dex(20) +5

Rogue's Trick: Acrobat's Trick, Tactical Trick

Background: Gritty Sergeant (Rapier)

Feat: Surprising Charge
Feat: Light Blade Expertise

Case A: When the Thief (and Rogue) can easily get CA then he uses Acrobat's Trick to charge.

Attack: 5 (Dex) + 3 (Prof) + 2 (CA) + 1 (Charge) + 1 (Light Blade Expertise) = 12 vs AC 15 = Miss(1-2) Hit(3-19) Crit(20)
Damage: 1d8 (Rapier) + 1d8 (Surprising Charge) + 2d6 (Sneak Attack) + 5 (Dex) + 2 (Weapon Finesse) + 2 (Acrobat's Trick) + 1 (Light Blade Expertise) = 26
Crit: 8 (Rapier) + 8 (Surprising Charge) + 12 (Sneak Attack) + 5 (Dex) + 2 (Weapon Finesse) + 2 (Acrobat's Trick) + 1 (Light Blade Expertise) = 38
DPR: 0.10*0 + 0.85*26 + 0.05*38 = 24

With a slightly lucky damage roll, he can kill an undamaged same level foe.


Case B: When the Thief (and Rogue) cannot get CA, then the Thief can almost always find a foe that he can use Tactical Trick against. The Rogue is out in the cold if he cannot get CA.

Attack: 5 (Dex) + 3 (Prof) + 2 (CA) + 1 (Charge) + 1 (Light Blade Expertise) = 12 vs AC 15 = Miss(1-2) Hit(3-19) Crit(20)
Damage: 1d8 (Rapier) + 1d8 (Surprising Charge) + 2d6 (Sneak Attack) + 5 (Dex) + 2 (Weapon Finesse) + 1 (Light Blade Expertise) = 24
Crit: 8 (Rapier) + 8 (Surprising Charge) + 12 (Sneak Attack) + 5 (Dex) + 2 (Weapon Finesse) + 1 (Light Blade Expertise) = 36
DPR: 0.10*0 + 0.85*24 + 0.05*36 = 22.2


Case C: The Thief can use Tactical Trick at Range with a dagger. The Rogue has a tough time getting CA and Sneak Attack at Range.

Attack: 5 (Dex) + 3 (Prof) + 2 (CA) + 1 (Light Blade Expertise) = 11 vs AC 15 = Miss(1-3) Hit(4-19) Crit(20)
Damage: 1d4 (Dagger) + 2d6 (Sneak Attack) + 5 (Dex) + 2 (Weapon Finesse) + 1 (Light Blade Expertise) = 17.5
Crit: 4 (Dagger) + 12 (Sneak Attack) + 5 (Dex) + 2 (Weapon Finesse) + 1 (Light Blade Expertise) = 24
DPR: 0.15*0 + 0.80*17.5 + 0.05*24 = 15.2



So yes please, show me your first level Brutal Scoundrel Rogue that can beat this Thief's DPR as you claimed in all three typical encounter cases where A) the Rogue can easily get CA, B) the Rogue cannot get CA for melee, and C) the Rogue uses a Ranged attack. Don't forget, Weapon Talent for a Rogue requires the use of a Dagger.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 10, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> It would help if you actually were clear about your example. Is it a melee Ranger with a double attack? A different Striker type using an Action Point?
> 
> What does "0.95*0.95 double hit chance" mean?
> 
> Just because you understand what you write doesn't mean that anyone else does. Please be more clear so that you can get a clear response.



95% chance to hit on each of two attacks. Makes a chance of 0.95 times 0.95 chance of hitting with both attacks.

Take a nova round of a slayer for example. (I know bad example as it is also from HotFL)

You can easily achieve a hit bonus of +9 at first level. Damage is about 1d10+8. Against a first level brute you deal 3d10+16 damage with your nova. Your chance to hit with a little help from a friend it is about 95% hit chance against AC 15 IF you go for poised assault.

Compare this to a thief´s 4d6+14 (18-38) damage on a nova. Even a striker with about no nova potential comes ahead of a thief.

Take a Ranger. Even if I take careful shot which is not that bad at level one, and just attack twice, i will have 2d10+1d6+10 damage with 95% to hit chance on first level and i did not even use a single encounter power.

If I take Jaws of the wolf and off hand strike, i trade in a little bit accuracy and the damage is about 6d8+1d6+12 (19-66) or so. With the OPTION of trading in one attack on a nova round for an area power. (Dire wolverine strike)

Hell, i now try and search for a warlock build that does more damage than the thief on a nova round vs a single target... i bet i find one


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 10, 2011)

flame of Phlegtos + vampiric embrace.

This is 3d10+1d8+1d6+8 +5 damage with pretty much certanity: 18-57 damage. not that bad.

Oh and you gain 7 or so temp hp and are con primary, so if you don´t kill, you are still at range and ready to take a beating.


The thief in your example uses a human with an extra feat and a dodgy background.


----------



## kaomera (Mar 11, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Well-played warlocks are cool.



I agree, but I think the issue is that the Warlock is much closer to a hybrid-role class than any other in PHB1. This was probably helped along by some confusion about exactly what the controller role was supposed to accomplish, and the fact (well, IMO) that it's the most conditional role of the four. I've actually seen all of 3 pure controllers played in 4e, and all where pretty bad. OTOH I've seen secondary controllers (especially in multiples) totally shut down entire groups of encounters...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

I have seen a hunter in action which is a pure controller... and the status effect she dished out usually was "death"...

sliding and dropping prone and nearly never missing helped a lot... oh, and the rest of the group were:

a fighter, a warpriest, a gnome illusionist, a druid and a psion... 4 controller, no striker... poor enemies...


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 11, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> 95% chance to hit on each of two attacks. Makes a chance of 0.95 times 0.95 chance of hitting with both attacks.
> 
> Take a nova round of a slayer for example. (I know bad example as it is also from HotFL)
> 
> ...




The Thief I just put together:

DPR Ranged Dagger (no Sneak Attack): 0.20*0 + 0.75*10.5 + 0.05*12 = 8.475
DPR Charge Backstab Acrobat's Trick: 0.5*0 + 0.95*29.5 + 0.05*44 = 30.225

38.7 DPR

And because he is using Backstab, he continues to hit higher AC foes when Nova is needed. The Slayer's DPR drops faster against the type of foes that a Nova is needed against.


Assuming that the Slayer you just posted can get to 95% (which is not guaranteed: +3 prof, +5 str, +1 talent, +1 poise = 80%):

DPR Power Strike: 0.05*0 + 0.95*19 + 0.05*28 = 19.45
DPR: 0.05*0 + 0.95*13.5 + 0.05*18 = 13.725

DPR: 33.175

And with +8 damage, it means that he cannot be Human. So, no second feat.


He didn't wipe the floor over the Thief with his nova. He actually lost. And that's with help to get him to a 95% hit range (normally, he would be at 75%, 80% with Poised Assault, 85% with Poised Assault and a Charge).


The Thief does not need allies giving him an edge. He gives it to himself.


No, the Thief is not the best Nova-ing Striker. But, he's not terrible and he can hold his own. But, day in and day out, he's hitting, especially against higher AC foes.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 11, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> No, the Thief is not the best Nova-ing Striker. But, he's not terrible and he can hold his own. But, day in and day out, he's hitting, especially against higher AC foes.



Overpowered/balanced/underpowered is about more than DPR though. Sure the Thief hits better than the Slayer in these examples, but he lacks the hit points and heavier defences the Slayer has. Every class has strengths and weaknesses. There is more to the game than damage.

I've pointed this out before, as have several others. We're still on the same merry-go-round it seems.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 11, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Overpowered/balanced/underpowered is about more than DPR though. Sure the Thief hits better than the Slayer in these examples, but he lacks the hit points and heavier defences the Slayer has. Every class has strengths and weaknesses. There is more to the game than damage.
> 
> I've pointed this out before, as have several others. We're still on the same merry-go-round it seems.




I only compared him to the Slayer because that was UngeheuerLich's example.

Course, the Slayer (above example, although it would do a little more DPR for a feat) isn't THAT more better defensively at first level than the Thief (above example):

Half-Orc Slayer, 20 Str, 16 Dex, 11 Con:

AC: 17
Fort: 15
Reflex: 13
Will: 10
Hit Points: 26

Human Thief, 20 Dex, 14 Con:

AC: 17
Fort: 13
Reflex: 16
Will: 11
Hit Points: 26

Your point?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 11, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> I only compared him to the Slayer because that was UngeheuerLich's example.



I don't care what you compare him to. You can compare him to anything you want. Every class has strengths and weaknesses. They are relatively balanced in the grand scheme of the entire game.



KarinsDad said:


> Course, the Slayer (above example, although it would do a little more DPR for a feat) isn't THAT more better defensively at first level than the Thief (above example):
> 
> Half-Orc Slayer, 20 Str, 16 Dex, 11 Con:
> 
> ...



Ah, but here you're sacrificing one of the Thief's other strong suits (skills) for hit points. That 20 Dex / 14 Con is costly. This thief might be tough and hard to hit, but has crap for Athletics, Bluff, etc.

You only further my point by illustrating that the game is more than just combat. This Thief of yours is a stealthy damage machine that can pick locks, but can't do much else. No social graces, no jumping, no perception.

If you build a more versatile Thief, you know, the kind you actually see at the table, his high damage isn't quite so high.

And this is just a snapshot, at first level. The Slayer's hit points are going to scale better. No amount of investment in Con is going to allow the Thief to keep up.


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Mar 11, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> I only compared him to the Slayer because that was UngeheuerLich's example.
> 
> Course, the Slayer (above example, although it would do a little more DPR for a feat) isn't THAT more better defensively at first level than the Thief (above example):
> 
> ...




You dont build a Half-orc slayer with STR you build it with DEX and CON


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 11, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Ah, but here you're sacrificing one of the Thief's other strong suits (skills) for hit points. That 20 Dex / 14 Con is costly. This thief might be tough and hard to hit, but has crap for Athletics, Bluff, etc.
> 
> You only further my point by illustrating that the game is more than just combat. This Thief of yours is a stealthy damage machine that can pick locks, but can't do much else. No social graces, no jumping, no perception.




Can't do much else?

A post ago your point was that Slayers have better hit points and defenses, and that's what balanced them out with Thieves. When I illustrated that as not necessarily accurate, you are now calling this Thief lousy at skills. Make up your mind. This Thief has 10 Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery. That's 3 skills that he has that are stronger on average than the Slayer's 3 trained skills.

In addition, this Thief has 3 other trained skills at 5. Again, 3 skills better than any others of the Slayer.

Is a 5 Perception really awful compared to a 7 of some other Thieves? Hardly. 10% of the time, he would miss a Perception roll that he would otherwise make. Some other Thieves don't take Perception at all. That doesn't mean that this Thief cannot do it as you claim.

And it's still a better Perception than most PCs.

And there are items or feats that could boost any of his skills if he wanted.

You appear to be arguing just to argue.

This Thief is better at combat than that Slayer and better at skills.

There is nothing wrong with this Thief. He doesn't match your world view of a well designed Thief, but who cares about that? He would make a fine addition to a lot of teams. You just don't like the fact that he not only averaged better DPR than the Slayer (who could use a feat to get a better weapon), but he also averaged better defenses, better skills, the same hit points, more healing surges, and was better at nova-ing at first level.

Sure, that Slayer will someday have a significant number of additional hit points more. And, there will be a few other things that he might be better than the Thief. But, that's hardly the point now, is it? This Thief is easily that Slayer's better, both in and out of combat at first level and for many levels after that (e.g. weapon talent at level 2 gives him an additional edge in combat once again).


Now I'm sure we'll hear how some other Striker is better. zzzzzzzz


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 11, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> zzzzzzzz



Ok, you're the one who set up the stats. Typically, what I said is true, and you point out the one case where a Thief makes a bunch of sacrifices to keep up to another class in an area they aren't strong. Fine. It can be done, but it's not typical, and hardly in their best interests.

I am through arguing with you. You believe whatever you like, you can set up your numbers to illustrate your point all day long, but it's all just theorycraft, and has little to do with what I've seen at the gaming table. You can call that anecdotal if you want, because it is, but that doesn't change the fact that reality doesn't always turn out the same as the theory.

You don't like the Thief, fine, ban the class in your games. The rest of us will do just fine with them. They're not unbalanced, overpowered, or underpowered. They're a class that has differing strengths and weaknesses when compared to other classes, striker or no.

Talk about argument for the sake of argument.

Every D&D forum has its 'Roy' I guess, and lucky me, I found him again.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 11, 2011)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> You dont build a Half-orc slayer with STR you build it with DEX and CON




You could.

But then you'd be giving up Power Strike, the ability to get into heavier armor (at least until much later), some of the stances that are limited to or work better with melee weapons, etc.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 11, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> You could.
> 
> But then you'd be giving up Power Strike, the ability to get into heavier armor (at least until much later), some of the stances that are limited to or work better with melee weapons, etc.



I think he's implying Melee Training (Dex), not bow use.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 11, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> You believe whatever you like, you can set up your numbers to illustrate your point all day long, but it's all just theorycraft, and has little to do with what I've seen at the gaming table. You can call that anecdotal if you want, because it is, but that doesn't change the fact that reality doesn't always turn out the same as the theory.




Precisely.

I've seen a 20 Str first level Slayer at my gaming table.

And, I've seen a 20 Dex first level Thief at my gaming table.

It's not as much theorycraft as you claim, course, that's because it doesn't match your anecdotal experience.

It does match mine though. It's damn easy to trick out a Thief. It's not that hard to trick out a Slayer.

They will lose out damage-wise to 4E core Striker classes once they get high enough levels, but then again, they'll often survive to get there.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 11, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Precisely.
> 
> I've seen a 20 Str first level Slayer at my gaming table.
> 
> ...



Oh, really?

I've also seen 20 Dex Thieves and 20 Strength Slayers at my table (and some non-20s) and there isn't a whole lot of difference. The part about your argument that doesn't match my anecdotal experience is the part where they're somehow broken, OP/UP whatever you want to jigger the stats to illustrate.

All your DPR claims are pure theorycraft and have nothing to do with an actual game. Sure, they can tell you something about a class, but not everything. Not the whole story. Not even everything about strikers.

Both classes play fine, feel balanced in play and fill specific niches.

There is nothing that suggests to me that Essentials strikers are any more likely to reach high level than any other class either, so I don't know where you're getting that one from. That must be something from _your _anecdotal experience.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 11, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I think he's implying Melee Training (Dex), not bow use.




Cool concept. Costs a feat, but it could be worth it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 11, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Both classes play fine, feel balanced in play and fill specific niches.




Yes. The bigger, badder, better niche of the new 4E. Rogue-level damage without the Rogue limitation of having to acquire CA. And soon coming to a game near you (via feats or items), Rogues and Thieves figuring out a way to get CA and OAs outside their turn a lot, so that they can do Sneak Attack damage 2 or more times per turn, almost every turn. Woo hoo!

Course, that's the same niche as every splat book that comes out. It just keeps growing though and because it is gradual power creep, people think "oh, it feels balanced". 

For example, Arc Lightning is a huge boost in versatility for those Wizards interested in hitting multiple foes per round. But, no worries. It's balanced.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 11, 2011)

Playing a Thief, I get to throw my dagger from behind the melee PCs.  IME so far this means I can put nearly all resources into maxing out damage, while the melee Striker PC (a Ranger in my group) needs to put resources into defense too, or suffer horribly.  And he'll still be running much bigger risks; 90% of the time in combat it's the melee PCs who go down, not the ranged guys at the rear.  I've seen the same thing GMing 4e over 17 sessions/6 levels.  For this reason I don't think comparing Ranged Striker DPR to melee Striker DPR is reasonable, but comparing the DPR of two Ranged Strikers (Thief throwing dagger vs archer Ranger) or two melee Strikers (Slayer vs melee Ranger) is ok.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Cool concept. Costs a feat, but it could be worth it.



No, i was thinking about a more conservative 18/16 human with expertise and weapon focus... there are several ways to get those numbers. But i really forgot to take backstab into account which lets the thief come slightly ahead of the slayer and maybe even the warlock.

But i will still imply 95% hit chance because this is when you should do your nova. A single hit of the cleric with righteous brand will increase an 80% hit chance to 95% which is a good indicator for when to start your nova...

All of those example i gave didn´t even really try to optimize heavily... if i take furious assault into account as an orc, heroic effort as a human or a good at will i can take with either half elf or human instead of heroic effort and soon you see those numbers start beeing comparable.

And just as a reminder: daze and prone are two conditions that may make a thief´s life hard and reduce his damage output considerably. Out of turn attacks from thief´s even if you theoretically can get sneak attack often don´t because the condition that allowed you to gain CA does not apply anymore if you did not get it by good old flanking.
This is something neglected in DPR. Not that you get out of turn attacks very often, but the possibility hinders enemies choices a lot...


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 11, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No, i was thinking about a more conservative 18/16 human with expertise and weapon focus... there are several ways to get those numbers. But i really forgot to take backstab into account which lets the thief come slightly ahead of the slayer and maybe even the warlock.
> 
> But i will still imply 95% hit chance because this is when you should do your nova. A single hit of the cleric with righteous brand will increase an 80% hit chance to 95% which is a good indicator for when to start your nova...




While that's true, very few Leaders have At Will +3 bonuses to hit. For example, a Lazer Cleric only has +2.

And, the AC of most foes that a player wants to use a Nova against will tend to be higher than the AC 15 of a same level foe.

A heavily optimized to hit Slayer can get up to 95% for a Nova round if allies help, but that might be a bit more rare than you are assuming. Especially if the Slayer starts at Str 18 as per what you just wrote here.

Not all Slayers will have Poised Assault. Not all foes will be same level. Not all Leaders or allies will be able to help. The Slayer PC will not be able to wait until the Leader gives him a bonus, he'll be in situations where he has to Nova now (like when he has 10 hit points).

Your assumption of 95% chance to hit in a Nova round is overly generous. More like the exception than the rule.


The difference between the Thief and some other Strikers is that the Thief comes to the table with the super to hit bonuses already available to him (the Avenger is this way as well, as is the Warlock if he uses Gift to Avernus a lot).

The Thief often does not need another PC to give him flank or give him a power bonus to hit.

He can be the last man standing in a fight and still do awesome damage (this happened to me just last Sunday, all PCs unconscious, my PC with 6 hit points vs. a Dragon and his 2 remaining allies, I wasn't playing a Thief, but I did manage to win the fight).

The Rogue in a last man standing scenario is usually hurting. He can knock a foe down to get CA from prone and then use an AP to get Sneak Attack, or he can use a higher level special ability. But, the odds of him still having an AP or special ability at the end of a last man standing fight is probably pretty rare.

And, it's not just last man standing fights (which tend to be rare), but just fights where the Striker is off to the side in a fight on his own.


The Thief can bring +2 CA and +3 Backstab and +1 Weapon Talent (at level 2) to the table and not even need Heroic Effort like many other Human Strikers to mostly ensure that his Nova round works.

+6 already without help from a single PC ally. That's huge. Allies don't need to give them power bonuses to hit or combat advantage, allies can give them power bonuses to damage.

Boom! 

A PC ally wasting an action doing Aid Another and giving the Thief flank? Why do that when the Thief doesn't need it and the PC ally can use his action for something more worthwhile?

If an ally is going to help the Thief, giving him a damage boost on a Nova round is a lot preferable to giving him a to hit boost. Silvery Arrow or Blessings of Wrath instead of Righteous Brand or Lance of Faith.

That's not necessarily true of most other Strikers.



UngeheuerLich said:


> All of those example i gave didn´t even really try to optimize heavily... if i take furious assault into account as an orc, heroic effort as a human or a good at will i can take with either half elf or human instead of heroic effort and soon you see those numbers start beeing comparable.




Yes. Comparable. For the Nova round. Not so much for the non-Nova rounds which make up a high percentage of rounds.



UngeheuerLich said:


> And just as a reminder: daze and prone are two conditions that may make a thief´s life hard and reduce his damage output considerably. Out of turn attacks from thief´s even if you theoretically can get sneak attack often don´t because the condition that allowed you to gain CA does not apply anymore if you did not get it by good old flanking.
> This is something neglected in DPR. Not that you get out of turn attacks very often, but the possibility hinders enemies choices a lot...




Yes. Prone (which can be handled with an AP) and Daze are weaknesses of both the Thief and the Rogue. There are ways to handle them as well and they typically just lower damage for a single round in one encounter in X (most Thieves and Rogues are not dazed or knocked prone every single encounter, it's a bit more rare than that). Hardly worth mentioning in the big scheme of things (and either of these in round one for a Thief or a Rogue typically means little as they can walk around two weapon and throw a dagger at a foe who's init they have beaten).

As for Daze, have the Leader give the Thief a save out of turn (just like you are talking about the Cleric using Righteous Brand to set up a Nova round) and Daze becomes a lot less important staple of the DM's anti-Thief arsenal.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

This time I can agree with most you say here. The thief works great on his own. The rogue however is also quite good at it too. He has powers to let him shine on this scenario. Especially if he is able to get a surprise round and win initiative and the fight is most probably over before the enemy acts.

Daze however does not hurt the standard rogue as much as it hurts the thief. He has powers that guarantee him combat advantage for a round or two. Those powers usually don´t do a lot more damage so chances are he has them still available when there is a last man standing scenario happening.

I don´t want to tell you that the thief is underpowered or a one trick pony or NOT doing most DPR ideally, but I try to make clear, that DPR is not the only thing to consider when you look at a striker.
The thief seems to do his job great. It just seems as his primary role is striker, and his secondary role happens to be striker too...

edit: per RAW, removing daze happens to be harder than you may think, as daze ueont can´t be ended with a save (which i consider an error in RAW, but this is just my opinion)


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 11, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> edit: per RAW, removing daze happens to be harder than you may think, as daze ueont can´t be ended with a save (which i consider an error in RAW, but this is just my opinion)




That's why I love the feat Superior Will.  It requires a 15 in either Wisdom or Charisma, but that shouldn't be too hard for Thieves.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

Yeah i know^^ I like it too... but since it does not directly increases DPR, chances are that KarinsDad won´t take it.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 11, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yeah i know^^ I like it too... but since it does not directly increases DPR chances are that KarinsDad won´t take it.



He won't have the stats for it anyway, since he seems to think it a good idea to make a vain effort to keep up to Slayer HP, and hence won't have the Charisma or Wisdom for it.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 11, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> He won't have the stats for it anyway, since he seems to think it a good idea to make a vain effort to keep up to Slayer HP, and hence won't have the Charisma or Wisdom for it.




Now now, you guys are being mean.  KD has a right to his own point of view, and to express it here.

As someone once said, "Can't we all just get along?"


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 11, 2011)

I couldn't resist the cheapshot 

You're right though, that was petty of me. I'll be good from now on. My sig is mostly in reference to the silly edition wars, but it should just apply in general.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

No one says his point of view is not perfectly legitimate. But he shoulf not take it as an offense if we deduct from his elaborations, that it seems unreasonable from his point of view to invest in this feat.

edit:
if he takes it as an offense, i will apologize.

But it just unnerves me if you just calculate DPR to 2 or 3 decimals to prove that something is overpowered...
The problem of clerics being able to do everything in 3.5 was a completely different thing. (But even those statements were only true when making certain assumptions about available feats, certain levels, magic items and a lenient DM)


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 11, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No one says his point of view is not perfectly legitimate. But he shoulf not take it as an offense if we deduct from his elaborations, that it seems unreasonable from his point of view to invest in this feat.



I don't even necessarily think that he finds it an unreasonable investment, so much as that in the builds he chooses to represent his arguments, they are skewed to show extreme cases that help support his claims. They, as I have pointed out, do not always reflect the reality of what people bring to the table.

I know from having read Prestidigitalis' personal experiences with it, that it is well worth having that 15 in Wis/Cha to take that feat. I think a lot of others have the same leanings. It's a good feat, and easily justifiable (for nearly any character) to slot the stat points to get it, especially in the case of a Rogue or Thief, where it helps out in several key class skills.

There are many other builds and instances where this is true. Look at things like Polearm Gamblers, to name one example. You just can't get away with sinking a pre-adjustment 18 into Strength. Lots of builds are like that, even for Essentials characters. Personally, for those (and other) reasons, I have never been fond of using the 18/14 stat array. The little extra damage and the +1 to hit I find are not worth the sacrifices in other areas.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 11, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Prove it.
> 
> Here are my numbers:
> 
> ...




As others have noted, I don't think that guy represents the average 1st level Thief. And I have one big issue with your math - assuming that the thief can regularly charge into Combat Advantage with Acrobat's Trick. I've found that getting CA for rogues isn't hard, but often involves shifting around an enemy. If your thief starts next to an enemy, you will not be able to back away and charge into the flank without taking at least one OA. Thus, a lot of your assume damage - from Acrobatic's Trick and Surprising Charge - is not available nearly as often as you are claiming. Sure, Acrobatic's Trick itself might be reasonable to use if you start your turn in flanking, but this idea about being able to bounce in and out of combat via move actions... not sure I buy it. 

But sure, I'm game, let's see how the PHB Rogue measures up. 

Level 1 Human Rogue, Brutal Scoundrel
Dex 20, Str 14
Silly Background = Rapier Proficiency
Backstabber, Light Blade Expertise
Piercing Strike with Combat Advantage: +11 vs Reflex 13: 3d8+8.
Damage: 0 (0 x 0.05 = Miss Chance) + 19.35 (21.5 x 0.9 = Hit Chance) + 1.6 (32 x 0.05 = Crit Chance) = 20.95 damage.

Our result does indeed come out behind your Thief. Under, admittedly, ideal circumstances for the thief that make some pretty significant assumptions about battlefield conditions - including the thief never starting in melee combat with a foe. That seems relatively unlikely to me. Shall we look at your thief's numbers under, say, more reasonable conditions?

First, though, I do want to note that the Rogue's damage is, undeniably, still twice what an average non-Striker will do. That was your original claim, remember - that this didn't happen prior to Essentials, and was a new thing. And it isn't true. The bugbear above was my very first 4E character. It was silly optimized, yeah, and the rest of the party totally noticed that it did stupid amounts of damage. And, of course, took absurd amounts in return, and was constantly limping around with too few surges - much like your thief will given his strategy of provoking OAs every turn. 

Now, what would a more legitimate comparison be? Let's take the charge assumption out of the equation - it is occasionally available to the Thief, but hardly something you can rely on. 

Level 1 Human Thief
Dex(20) +5
Rogue's Trick: Acrobat's Trick, Tactical Trick
Feat: Backstabber
Feat: Light Blade Expertise

Basic Attack with Combat Advantage : +11 vs AC 15: 1d6+2d8+10.
Damage: 0 (0 x 0.15 = Miss Chance) + 19.125 (22.5 x 0.85 = Hit Chance) + 1.6 (32 x 0.05 = Crit Chance) = 20.725 damage.

So, ignoring the charging build, these guys are coming out basically the same. Acrobatic's Trick gives the Thief the slight edge in raw damage, while the Rogue has the edge in accuracy, coming out fractionally ahead in total DPR. 

In the other arenas, I will certainly admit the Thief's tricks give an edge on being able to get CA with ranged attacks while immobilized. Does this mean that the Thief will always have CA when the rogue does not? Not at all, unfortunately - the main element I have found that deprives Rogues of CA is being Dazed, and that shuts down the Thief just as handily. 

Theorycraft, of course, won't be able to show us the exact breakdown on how often Rogues are unable to get CA and how often the Thief will have it in their place. From my experience, the big advantage will be for ranged builds - and even then, well-built Rogues can get CA just about as reliably as Thieves. So perhaps the actual benefit will be for melee builds who get _stuck _at range, which just is not that common a scenario. 

And, finally, if you trick out for a charging build... then, yes, the Thief can eke out an extra 3 points of damage in rounds in which he can safely charge with Acrobatic's Trick. Not that huge, and balanced against other harder to quantify benefits for the Rogue like the usefulness of Encounter and Daily Powers.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

I actually was strictly against using 18-14... but now i believe, 18-14-11 is reasonable for a race that adds +2 to a secondary and +2 to a stat where you want to have a 13...

i however am even more fond of the 18/13/13 array or the 18/12/12/12 one if an 18 in your main stat is useful and you get a bonus to secondaries.

A halfling thief however should be well advised to use the 18/13/13 or 18/13/12/11 array and use the pre essential +2 to charisma to get superior will and increase dex and strength or constitution at every possible opportunity, leading to a very healthy, charismatic, dextrous and hard to take down thief... you can add damage feats later...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

[MENTION=61155]MrMyth[/MENTION]:
don´t forget that you have a second at will, maybe duellist´s strike to get sneak attack even in the worst circumstances and some encounter abilities, that will allow you to catch up even with the charge build... especially if you use the rapier as a weapon...

against a brute, riposte strike could also come in handy as a third at will...


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 11, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No one says his point of view is not perfectly legitimate. But he shoulf not take it as an offense if we deduct from his elaborations, that it seems unreasonable from his point of view to invest in this feat.




You have no idea how I design my own PCs. I give them a lot of versatility.

There is a major difference between designing a DPR champ here to illustrate that MrMyth's claim that I "toss out numbers without anything to back them up", and creating a PC for a game.



UngeheuerLich said:


> edit:
> if he takes it as an offense, i will apologize.




Nope. I don't take offense. People claiming that I would or wouldn't take a feat for a PC based on a DPR sample PC is pretty silly though.

Just as it's silly that some of the people posting here are talking about me instead the subject (as per your quote here).



UngeheuerLich said:


> But it just unnerves me if you just calculate DPR to 2 or 3 decimals to prove that something is overpowered...




It may or may not be overpowered.

It is definitely minor power creep. Not just from a DPR POV, but from a game POV.

As S'mon said, his Thief can hang back at range and do similar amounts of damage as a melee Rogue without risking his PC. I saw this with the Thief in our game too. The Defender over tanked (i.e. got the highest AC possible and marked as much as possible) and the Thief hung back. How many years of opinion did we used to have concerning it being a bad option for a Defender to overtank? Now it's back in vogue again.

The Defender takes a higher percentage of the attacks (less chance to hit him and more healing per surge) and the party then uses Comrade's Succor to re-arrange healing surges.

That's a lot more effective than the original Rogue (and most current Rogues) who actually have to go into melee themselves.

There used to be a reason why the Rogue was often the DPR king in Heroic until higher levels (when the Ranger took over). He got the most damage, but he took the greatest risk as well. That risk has been heavily minimized for the Thief.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> It may or may not be overpowered.
> 
> It is definitely minor power creep. Not just from a DPR POV, but from a game POV.
> 
> ...




This is actually much more convincing that the thief may be too strong than any of your DPR calculations, because this brings DPR into context with actual gameplay.

But here we have:
- a defender doing its job
- a striker doing its job
- a leader doing its job
- and i bet we can find a controller that also does its job!

And since the nova potential is not there, i guess allowing the thief to be slightly ahead over the course of a day seems ok (as I usually don´t have 4 encounters a day)


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 11, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No one says his point of view is not perfectly legitimate. But he shoulf not take it as an offense if we deduct from his elaborations, that it seems unreasonable from his point of view to invest in this feat.
> 
> edit:
> if he takes it as an offense, i will apologize.




It is considered polite to not put words into someones mouth by means of 'deduction'.

Happily everyone is taking it well here, but it is the kind of thing that has led to problems in the past.

Thanks!


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 11, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Damage: 0 (0 x 0.05 = Miss Chance) + 19.35 (21.5 x 0.9 = Hit Chance) + 1.6 (32 x 0.05 = Crit Chance) = 20.95 damage.
> 
> ...
> 
> First, though, I do want to note that the Rogue's damage is, undeniably, still twice what an average non-Striker will do. That was your original claim, remember - that this didn't happen prior to Essentials, and was a new thing. And it isn't true.




Let me get this straight.

Your claim is that average Strikers do twice the damage of average non-Strikers pre-Essentials.

You then pick one of the best first level Strikers in the game and optimize him heavily for damage and then re-iterate your claim that he does twice as much damage as "average" non-strikers.


It takes a little effort to get a non-Striker to do more than 10.5 average half DPR of your uber build, but then again, you are using one of the strongest DPR core builds. Rangers get nowhere near 21 DPR at first level with Twin Strike.

The DPR first level king for a Ranger is 14 DPR. 14. Not 21.

Warlocks are even lower for DPR.


Let's take a Fighter who gets CA from your Brutal Rogue (if the Brutal Rogue gets CA so easily by flanking, so should the Fighter).

Level 1 Dwarf Fighter
Str 20, Con 14
Dwarven Weapon Training plus Weapon Talent Fighter
Brash Strike Mordenkrad with Combat Advantage: +10 vs AC 15: 2d6b1+5+2+2
Damage: 0 (0 x 0.20 = Miss Chance) + 12.75 (17 x 0.75 = Hit Chance) + 1.05 (21 x 0.05 = Crit Chance) = 13.8 damage.

That's solidly more than half (66%) of your optimized Brutal Rogue you created.


Let's take a not too heavily optimized for damage Fighter.

Level 1 Human Fighter
Str 18
Weapon Focus and Weapon Talent Fighter
Reaping Strike Greatsword with Combat Advantage: +10 vs AC 15: d10+4+1
Damage: 0.8 (4 x 0.20 = Miss Chance) + 7.875 (10.5 x 0.75 = Hit Chance) + 0.75 (15 x 0.05 = Crit Chance) = 9.425 damage.

Typical Str. Average two handed weapon. Relatively weak first level damage feat.

And he still averaged almost half as much as your uber core build. He would easily be more than half of the damage of any Ranger. In fact, this average Fighter comes in higher than 75% of an average Ranger.

And what about extra damage for someone ignoring the Fighter's mark?


Even a Cleric with Implement Focus does more than half of the damage of a Ranger with a Superior Bow:

D8+5 * 60% + 13 * 5% = 6.35
D12 * 60% + 12 * 5% + D12 * 60% + 12 * 5% + 80% * 3.5 + 10% * 6 = 12.4


This does not even take into account multi-foe attacks like Controllers.


Yes, my claim is still valid. An average striker in pre-Essentials did not average twice as much damage as an average non-striker.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 11, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> You have no idea how I design my own PCs. I give them a lot of versatility.
> 
> There is a major difference between designing a DPR champ here to illustrate that MrMyth's claim that I "toss out numbers without anything to back them up", and creating a PC for a game.




I do admit those words were poorly chosen, and my apologies for that. I think what I was trying to say was more that these DPR calculations - by any of us - start to break down because so many assumptions start to get involved that aren't really easy to calculate. Especially with these guys - how often can a rogue get CA? How often will they lack it but a thief get it? How often can a thief charge? How much impact do daily powers have? Etc.

I think the thief is an excellent damage striker, and has some great advantages. Foremost of them are simplicity, independance, and adaptability. It isn't that the thief makes a better ranged striker than the rogue - but he can switch between those roles (ranged vs melee) much more smoothly, and that _is _a real advantage. 

On the other hand, it is really hard to quantify the sheer advantage of versatile encounter/daily powers. Backstab is great at adding raw numbers, but is really hard to compare to the benefits of gaining more attacks, attacking more targets, inflicting conditions, defensive benefits, etc. 

My comments about 'not backing it up' weren't really aimed at the raw numbers themselves so much as the context. And that's something that really _can't _be shown, in an absolute sense, because it does vary so much from game to game and level to level.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 11, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Let me get this straight.
> 
> Your claim is that average Strikers do twice the damage of average non-Strikers pre-Essentials.
> 
> ...




Er... I think you've misread completely what I'm saying, sorry. Partially because the discussion has probably wandered in some directions, but let me try and make it clearer.

Your claim was that Essentials strikers can deal double the damage of non-strikers, and this represented power creep. 

My claim is that this is _no more true _now than it was when the PHB came out. 

Which is to say - some strikers in the PHB could deal double the damage of non-strikers. Other strikers couldn't. Various non-strikers could optimize as well, and if not match the striker damage, they would not be doubled by it. 

Same thing now. The thief, yes, deals a lot of damage - just like the rogue did. Others, though, are not as far ahead. And you can build non-Strikers who get up there. 

You can't claim that Essentials strikers do double the damage of non-strikers just because one build (the Thief) can do so, while dismissing the fact that the same is true for one class in the PHB (the Rogue). You can't dismiss the rogue's damage as not being double that of optimized non-strikers while ignoring that the same is true for the Thief. 

And, as with most of these discussions, all of this keeps taking place in the context of 1st level. The stakes change significantly as character level starts to go up.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

The rogue you submitted was not more heavily optimized than the charging thief and not much more difficult to build...

And as we know, don´t believe in a statistic you didn´t bias yourself...^^


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 11, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> You can't claim that Essentials strikers do double the damage of non-strikers just because one build (the Thief) can do so, while dismissing the fact that the same is true for one class in the PHB (the Rogue). You can't dismiss the rogue's damage as not being double that of optimized non-strikers while ignoring that the same is true for the Thief.




I think a portion of our disconnect comes from your claim that Rogues do double damage of non-Strikers (in a consistent way).

I disagree. I had a player actually quit the game in frustration 2 years ago because his melee Rogue got the snot kicked out of him encounter after encounter after encounter. He wanted a Rogue that could dash in, attack, do a lot of damage, and Tumble out of trouble.

That really doesn't happen too often or even a majority of the time with a Rogue.

Quite frankly, in every game I have been in, Rogues got the snot kicked out of themselves if they go into combat a lot. If they attack from range, they don't always get CA or they need a "special build" and hence, do not always do "twice the amount of damage of other non-strikers".


The Fighter is doing decent damage round in and round out.

The Wizard is targeting two or more foes most rounds, usually safely at range.

The melee Rogue can do the same thing, but he pays a heavy price for doing so and ends up unconscious as often or more often than most other PCs.

An unconscious Rogue is not doing twice the damage of other non-Strikers.


Now, one could create a hiding Elven bow shot Rogue that gets CA due to hiding. But, not everyone wants that PC design.


That is why I posted cases A, B, and C (which you mostly ignored). The melee Thief can charge into melee and do good damage, he can then get flank CA for one round to take out the foe (just as often as the Rogue), and then he can on the next round run away and throw a dagger at someone else.

No, he cannot charge every round (without the proper footware), but he can do Sneak Attack damage most rounds. If he gets hurt, he can back away and just throw daggers and STILL do sneak attack damage.

The Rogue can rarely do this and only if he has the proper powers (or the proper party makeup and feat).


The power creep is that the Thief can do this round in and round out. In 3 levels of our game, our Thief did not get Sneak Attack damage about 3 times and 2 of those times were Action Points used late in an encounter.

That really is unheard of for an original Rogue because a Rogue does not get CA every round.

I can only remember the Thief in our game missing once. He rolled a 1 and had already used an Action Point for that encounter. In 3 levels, whenever he rolled a 1, he used an Action Point. If he rolled low and it was not a round in which he used Backstab (with which he needed a 1 to miss), he used Heroic Effort. So, he missed once in three levels and almost every attack had Sneak Attack damage.

Yes, Rogues now can get a lot of the same feats and racial features that help out a Thief. But, they cannot get the class features and its the Thief class features that create the power creep. Power creep that it takes quite a few levels of Encounter and Daily powers to overcome.

The player who quit our game 2 years ago would have loved to have a Thief instead of a Rogue.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 12, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> The player who quit our game 2 years ago would have loved to have a Thief instead of a Rogue.




Yeah, I don't think I'd want to play a PHB Rogue.  Playing my Thief, in the first round of the first battle of the campaign, I went into melee - and my 1st level Thief took 20 damage from the first enemy attacks.  I was at 8/28 (I have Toughness).  I never went into melee again, but with Ambush Trick, Tactical Trick and an occasional stealth check, I don't need to and I've still had Combat Advantage on every attack in 3 sessions of play.  

Edit: Thanks to Heroic Effort, I've only missed once so far, and that was fighting an AC 23 foe at 1st level.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 12, 2011)

I have not been able to take down the halfling rogue once. And last time i tried to kill him with 5 equal level skirmishers that flanked him...

Of course, if he were no halfling he would have died a terrible death, but his artful dodging and using opening move and not straying too far away from the defender was the second important fact.

btw: ambush trick is worded like the feat that gives CA when a foe is isolated... so a rogue now should be able to get CA from range easy enough...


----------



## S'mon (Mar 12, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> btw: ambush trick is worded like the feat that gives CA when a foe is isolated... so a rogue now should be able to get CA from range easy enough...




With Ambush Trick + Tactical Trick, it's rare not to have CA - the target has to be adjacent to an ally of his while not adjacent to an ally of yours.  The one time that happened I did a Stealth check then popped out of hiding to CA him anyway.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 12, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I have not been able to take down the halfling rogue once. And last time i tried to kill him with 5 equal level skirmishers that flanked him...
> 
> Of course, if he were no halfling he would have died a terrible death, but his artful dodging and using opening move and not straying too far away from the defender was the second important fact.




And this is where your experience differs from mine.

Halfling or no Halfing, in our games, that Rogue would be on the ground a lot precisely because he is hanging out near the Defender. Second Chance doesn't give a Third Chance. Although Lost in the Crowd might make a difference.


I see it with the Slayer in our game as well. The Slayer rushes in and does a ton of damage. But, she's a melee PC without a Defender's AC (a difference of 3 points of AC on average often means one hit per encounter that wouldn't have landed which in turn often means 1 additional healing surge used). So, she has been unconscious more than any other PC in our group by a wide margin, and is using a minimum of 2 healing surges and often 3 healing surges per encounter most of the time because her low AC means that she gets smacked a lot.

The player for that PC was missing this last session and the DM had me play her. I had her hang back and take on the side foes and she ended up using 1 healing surge in two encounters. The NPCs concentrated on the Defender more because she was too far back for them to easily target. The other players actually commented on the fact that she didn't get the snot kicked out of herself that day. The Bard was able to concentrate his healing on other PCs instead and her excess number of healing surges allowed her to actually go back up front a lot in later encounters without running out of them.


This is an issue for any "soft AC" melee class. It doesn't matter if it is a Rogue, a Cleric, or even a Ranger. It can even be an issue for a Fighter if he uses a two handed weapon (i.e. no Shield) and a power that lowers his defenses like Brash Strike a lot.

Yes, such a PC is balanced (in the case of Strikers, getting hit a lot in exchange for doing a lot of damage), but the PC is typically only balanced because there is a Leader in the group. If there is no Leader or the Leader is busy or stunned or unconscious or something, then this type of PC often is the weakest link because they are forced to be in melee, sometimes with more than one foe, and they no longer have their healing safety net.


So in my experience, the "hard AC" PCs work best holding off the foes in a front line, the "soft AC" melee PCs like Rogues work best handling the foes that get past the front line, and the "really soft AC" PCs work best only getting into melee once in a while in order to suck up a few hits and balance healing surge usage over the entire party. The Thief has a major advantage over the (usually melee) Rogue in that he can be in the second or even third rank and isn't force to often be in the first rank in order to get CA. IME.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 12, 2011)

Doesn´t differ too much from my experience to be honest. I never said, the halfling was not hit and bloodied in the process... he was. 

I don´t deny that a thief can get combat advantage with less risk. But his ranged weapons are not +3/1d8 weapons which you used for your damage analysis.

Your depicted tactic for rogues and slayers however makes a lot of sense. Also classifying the thief as very heavy hitting striker. So neither experience nor your perception of the thief in general differs too much from mine. It is just that I don´t think the thief is breaking the game.
As you said: your realistic thiefs are a little bit more cautious than charging into foes with low AC and low HP.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 12, 2011)

Last game I ran (before this discussion), I had a pretty easy time pulverizing the Thief, and that Thief had a heck of a time getting CA.

He was repeatedly being knocked prone by Carrion Crawlers attacking his feeble Fort defence. He had to use his move actions to stand, rather than a nifty Thief trick, and as the CCs had dragged him off, his allies were nowhere in sight to help him gain CA. At least, not at first.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 12, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Last game I ran (before this discussion), I had a pretty easy time pulverizing the Thief, and that Thief had a heck of a time getting CA.
> 
> He was repeatedly being knocked prone by Carrion Crawlers attacking his feeble Fort defence. He had to use his move actions to stand, rather than a nifty Thief trick, and as the CCs had dragged him off, his allies were nowhere in sight to help him gain CA. At least, not at first.




Any Thief who does not take the level 2 Acrobatics utility power _Agile Recovery_ is missing an incredible option.  The Thief has no real use* for minor actions in the normal course of combat, but desperately needs to conserve move actions to make things work.

* Yes, you may occasionally want to change weapons, drink a potion, etc., but if you are that concerned about those options, take _Quick Draw _too.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 12, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Last game I ran (before this discussion), I had a pretty easy time pulverizing the Thief, and that Thief had a heck of a time getting CA.
> 
> He was repeatedly being knocked prone by Carrion Crawlers attacking his feeble Fort defence. He had to use his move actions to stand, rather than a nifty Thief trick, and as the CCs had dragged him off, his allies were nowhere in sight to help him gain CA. At least, not at first.




Yeah, if my fellow PCs were not keeping the monsters off me, this kind of thing would happen to me too.  But my group includes a Fighter and a melee Ranger Minotaur to hide behind, and in extremis I can even hide behind the Leader (Cleric or Warlord) for a round.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 12, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Any Thief who does not take the level 2 Acrobatics utility power _Agile Recovery_ is missing an incredible option.




What book is that in?  Only PHB 1+2 & HOTF/HOTK are legit for my campaign, but I can always beg.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Mar 12, 2011)

S'mon said:


> What book is that in?  Only PHB 1+2 & HOTF/HOTK are legit for my campaign, but I can always beg.



Players Handbook 3. It's a skill power.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 12, 2011)

S'mon said:


> With Ambush Trick + Tactical Trick, it's rare not to have CA - the target has to be adjacent to an ally of his while not adjacent to an ally of yours.  The one time that happened I did a Stealth check then popped out of hiding to CA him anyway.




There is one weak point for this set of options -- if you start your turn adjacent to a hard-hitting melee opponent against which you do not already have CA.  Your choices are:

1) attack without CA, shifting either before or after
2) attack without CA, then move away, risking OA
3) move away using Ambush Trick, risking OA, and then attack with CA
4) shift and then move away, making no attack at all
5) double move to get far away

Some DMs will allow you to use the CA-granting tricks (Ambush and Tactical) without actually moving a square -- consider it to be bobbing and weaving without really moving much -- but it's hard to imagine a DM that would allow you to do it without provoking an OA.

For that reason I strongly suggest that even Thieves who use Ambush Trick consider taking the feat Cunning Stalker, which gives the benefit of Ambush Trick when adjacent, without needing to use a move action.  (And if your DM allows Cunning Stalker to apply at range, you don't need Ambush Trick at all.)

Finally, I have to put in a good word again for Opportunistic Withdrawal at paragon tier.  It is *amazing* when combined with almost constant CA -- far better than anything Artful Dodgers gets.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 12, 2011)

S'mon said:


> What book is that in?  Only PHB 1+2 & HOTF/HOTK are legit for my campaign, but I can always beg.




As abyssaldeath says, PHB3.  Skill powers are amazingly cool, IMO -- you should definitely ask your DM to make them legal, even if he or she dislikes the psionic power source and/or has other problems with the book.


----------



## kaomera (Mar 12, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Some DMs will allow you to use the CA-granting tricks (Ambush and Tactical) without actually moving a square -- consider it to be bobbing and weaving without really moving much -- but it's hard to imagine a DM that would allow you to do it without provoking an OA.



Huh? The movement portion of powers is optional (unless otherwise specified), and you only provoke an OA by leaving a square. By RAW* the DM has no room to disallow a trick because you didn't leave your starting square, or to cause the trick to provoke an OA (unless something in the specific rules for the trick says otherwise).

*Assuming I'm reading / remembering RAW correctly, but I think I am...


----------



## kaomera (Mar 12, 2011)

S'mon said:


> What book is that in?  Only PHB 1+2 & HOTF/HOTK are legit for my campaign, but I can always beg.



There's also Hop Up, but it's from Martial Power.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 12, 2011)

I would also consider using the ambush trick without moving and without provoking an OA legit.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 12, 2011)

kaomera said:


> Huh? The movement portion of powers is optional (unless otherwise specified), and you only provoke an OA by leaving a square. By RAW* the DM has no room to disallow a trick because you didn't leave your starting square, or to cause the trick to provoke an OA (unless something in the specific rules for the trick says otherwise).
> 
> *Assuming I'm reading / remembering RAW correctly, but I think I am...




I guess you are right.  But I could see some DMs disallowing it anyway.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 12, 2011)

kaomera said:


> There's also Hop Up, but it's from Martial Power.




Sadly, it's an Encounter power too.  The thing I dread most is being in a bind throughout an entire encounter, i.e. having the same condition applied over and over with no means of escape, so I don't want to be limited in my ability to apply the solution.  At-wills rule.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 12, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Sadly, it's an Encounter power too.  The thing I dread most is being in a bind throughout an entire encounter, i.e. having the same condition applied over and over with no means of escape, so I don't want to be limited in my ability to apply the solution.  At-wills rule.



Yes the Thief in question did consider that power but instead opted for Sneak In The Attack to boost damage, but, alas, further to the point I was making before, never got a chance to use it 

At-wills do, in fact, rule.

And as for the other party members being able to keep the heat off, this was a 3-person party with a Paladin and Pyro mage, and the Carrion Crawlers Scuttlers have an at-will Shift 8 and move through squares, causing an attack against Fort to knock the target(s) prone, so most of the group spent the combat on their backs. The CCs then used their attacks to grab and drag away the squishy Thief and Mage, far away from the Paladin, who was busy tangling with an Otyugh.

It was a pretty fun fight


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 13, 2011)

I was so happy when i catched my groups rogue in ankheg mandibles... before he used acrobatic strike and just escaped it...


----------



## S'mon (Mar 13, 2011)

abyssaldeath said:


> Players Handbook 3. It's a skill power.




Thanks; I doubt my DM will allow it, but I may try.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 13, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> There is one weak point for this set of options -- if you start your turn adjacent to a hard-hitting melee opponent against which you do not already have CA.  Your choices are:
> 
> 1) attack without CA, shifting either before or after
> 2) attack without CA, then move away, risking OA
> ...




Per the rules, there's nothing about having to move 1+ squares as part of a move action; I certainly haven't been moving from my square most times I use a Trick*.  I could just be duckin' and divin' in place. 

Tactical Trick lets me move away from squares adjacent to allies without provoking attacks, then attack foes adjacent to allies with CA.

I envision a situation where I'm being attacked by enemies in melee, and I have no allies adjacent, as a big EMERGENCY! beacon - it means either my meat shields are on the floor, we're being ambushed, our positioning is hopeless, or I've screwed up badly.  If I survive their initial attack I'll certainly retreat and not worry about CA for that round, I'd be more interested in staying alive.  I'd probably then retreat a good distance & resort to using my shortbow, with its long range. 

Being a Thief means never having to worry about being called cowardly.  

Edit: *In fact, given how cramped the Sellswords of Punjar map is, there is often no square to move to and such a house rule would really cripple my Thief.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 13, 2011)

kaomera said:


> Huh? The movement portion of powers is optional (unless otherwise specified), and you only provoke an OA by leaving a square. By RAW* the DM has no room to disallow a trick because you didn't leave your starting square, or to cause the trick to provoke an OA (unless something in the specific rules for the trick says otherwise).
> 
> *Assuming I'm reading / remembering RAW correctly, but I think I am...




You are correct.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 13, 2011)

S'mon said:


> You are correct.




I disagree. RAW does not appear to support this based on two rules:



> Effect: Whatever is described in an "Effect" entry simply happens, regardless of its position in the sequence of entries.






> move: ... Whenever a creature, an object, or an effect leaves a square to enter another, it is moving.





Unless I am missing a rule somewhere (note: these are Essentials rules that I am quoting), there is no Essentials rule that says that a player gets to decide when using a power that says that he moves.

Most of the Thief tricks state something along the lines of:

"You move up to your Speed -2.".

not

"You can move up to your Speed -2.".

Moving zero squares might be less than Speed - 2, but it is not moving.


I think people are just so used to the Forced Movement rules where a move of zero squares is allowed, or powers that state that a PC "can shift".


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 13, 2011)

hmmh... the rogue in my group will be seriously affected if you really have to shift one square... both his powers list this as effect.

Usually there is no "you can" attached to the effect, although there are powers that read "you can shift".

So take it as you will... I have not made up my opinion on this issue yet.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 13, 2011)

Personally, I think "move up to your speed" can and must include 0.  I think it's an incredibly picky argument to say that a move must be a minimum of 1 square.

I think the problem is specifically with using the definition of "move" in this way.  That's a definition intended to describe when effects that trigger on a move, trigger.  It's not intended as a limiting factor, near as I can see.

-O


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 14, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Personally, I think "move up to your speed" can and must include 0.  I think it's an incredibly picky argument to say that a move must be a minimum of 1 square.
> 
> I think the problem is specifically with using the definition of "move" in this way.  That's a definition intended to describe when effects that trigger on a move, trigger.  It's not intended as a limiting factor, near as I can see.




I don't know where you get this trigger idea. It's not in the rules quotes that I listed, nor is it in those sections of the rules.

An effect is an effect. A move is a move.

Where does the idea come in that a move can be zero squares unless the text states that it cannot? I cannot find a general rule on this, so the specific has to include the option for zero squares for zero squares to be valid since the general rule defines a move (not a move action, but a move) as leaving a square.


And I actually think the opposite. Following the rules as written is not being picky, but trying to get around the rules as written is attempting to game the system.

If the power states that an effect includes a move, then it includes a move.

If the power states that an effect can include a move, then it can but does not have to include a move.


Do you have a rules quote to support your POV on this? I've looked for quite some time and cannot find such a rule, but I'm the first to admit that I sometimes miss a rule here or there.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 14, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> I disagree. RAW does not appear to support this based on two rules




This is one of the first things that Wizards ever addressed in the FAQ:

*



			4. If a power allows me to move myself or another creature a certain distance, must whatever’s being moved go the full distance?
		
Click to expand...


*


> No, these numbers are maximums; whomever controls the power can choose a lesser distance if desired.




You do not have to move if you don't want to do so. The number is simply the maximum you have to move, not that you have to move at all. Nothing in essentials contradicts this whatsoever.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 14, 2011)

Effects that require actual movement say so, eg the monster skirmishers who have to move at least 4 squares to get bonus damage.  If the Tricks required the PC to move at least 1 square, WotC would have written "You must move at least 1 square".  Probably ok as a house rule but there's nothing in the text to indicate you must move at least 1 square.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 14, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Where does the idea come in that a move can be zero squares unless the text states that it cannot? I cannot find a general rule on this, so the specific has to include the option for zero squares for zero squares to be valid since the general rule defines a move (not a move action, but a move) as leaving a square.



Zero is less than your full move.  You can move up to your full move.



> Do you have a rules quote to support your POV on this? I've looked for quite some time and cannot find such a rule, but I'm the first to admit that I sometimes miss a rule here or there.



Aegeri does.

-O


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 14, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> This is one of the first things that Wizards ever addressed in the FAQ:
> 
> 4. If a power *allows* me to move myself or another creature a certain distance, must whatever’s being moved go the full distance?




You are misquoting.

The argument here is whether the Thieve's tricks allow movement or not.

Of course if the power allows movement, then 0 can be allowed.

That's not the actual discussion and that's where a lot of the confusion comes in.


There is no phrase "can move" in the power.

It states that the PC moves. A move requires leaving the square. An effect requires that everything within the effect occur unless there are special exceptions listed within the effect.

The errata does not correct this and your FAQ quote does not apply to powers that do not explicitly allow a move.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 14, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Zero is less than your full move.  You can move up to your full move.




Yes, zero is less than full.

But zero is not a Move. A move by definition indicates that the square is exited.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 14, 2011)

As stated by others, I'm fairly certain that previous FAQs and Customer Service replies confirm the ability to NOT move or induce forced movement, if the power gives that ability.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 14, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Effects that require actual movement say so, eg the monster skirmishers who have to move at least 4 squares to get bonus damage.  If the Tricks required the PC to move at least 1 square, WotC *would have* written "You must move at least 1 square".  Probably ok as a house rule but there's nothing in the text to indicate you must move at least 1 square.




This is invalid as well. There is a general rule stating that the definition of a move is that the creature leaves a square, so claiming that the designers would write it down every time they meant it is in error.

Not one person has quoted a general rule that states that 0 move is valid when a power indicates a move.

There is a general rule for that for Forced Movement, but not for anything else.

The FAQ quote is about "powers with allowed movement" (e.g. powers with phrases like "can move" in them), not "powers that state that the PC actually moves".


As an example, Footwork Lure:



> *You can shift* 1 square and slide the target 1 square into the space you left.




If this read:



> *You shift* 1 square and slide the target 1 square into the space you left.




then the PC would be required to shift.

Footwork Lure allows the PC to shift which is a choice. It also does Forced movement on the target, so that is a choice as well.

But just because this power works this way does not mean that the Thieve's tricks work that way.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 14, 2011)

There are a ton of examples in the books.

Dynamic Assault

Effect: One ally within 5 squares of the target can take a free action to move a number of squares up to your Constitution modifier, gaining a +5 power bonus to Athletics checks during the move.

The ally has a choice of taking the free action or not.

If he takes the free action, he does not get to choose to move 0 squares and still get the bonus to the Athletics check. He cannot use this bonus to Escape from a Grab because he is not actually moving.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 14, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> I think a portion of our disconnect comes from your claim that Rogues do double damage of non-Strikers (in a consistent way).
> 
> I disagree. I had a player actually quit the game in frustration 2 years ago because his melee Rogue got the snot kicked out of him encounter after encounter after encounter. He wanted a Rogue that could dash in, attack, do a lot of damage, and Tumble out of trouble.
> 
> ...




Well, I don't know what to tell you, other than that my experience differs from yours. My first 4E character was a melee rogue - who usually was too reckless and got beat up, but rarely actually spent time unconscious, just went through surges rather quickly. And did a _lot _of damage. 

I later played a ranged rogue in LFR, up to level... 7 or 8, I believe. And would consistently be able to set up combat advantage almost every single round of every combat. And that was before Martial Power 2 or other resources that support such a build. 

This assumption that a rogue going into melee is nearly guaranteed to end up unconscious... I don't see it. Sure, they will get beat up, if they don't pick their battles wisely. But even ranged characters aren't always safe - enemies that a defender isn't engaging can go after them. If a defender is holding the line, though, that can provide safety for melee characters as well. 

Melee characters certainly are more vulnerable than ranged characters, but I don't think it is quite as extreme a difference as you feel. 



KarinsDad said:


> That is why I posted cases A, B, and C (which you mostly ignored).




I didn't so much ignore them as find them built on false - or at least, incomplete - assumptions. Scenario A wasn't "Both the Rogue and Thief have Combat Advantage" but was instead "The Thief is specifically able to charge into Combat Advantage". It didn't acknowledge what happens if the reason they have CA is because they are already in melee flanking an enemy. Or in melee and able to get to a flank via a shift - both situations that would prevent your build's assumption of the charge, and one of them preventing the use of Acrobat's Trick. 

Similarly, Scenario B was what happens when neither have Combat Advantage - in which case the Thief uses Tactical Trick to get his CA. Except that also ignores many factors - such as the most common way to be deprived of CA, which is to be dazed by an enemy, which shuts the Thief down just as well as the Rogue. Or the other likely scenario - not having anyone you are able to flank with, which might mean no allies adjacent to enemies, and thus no Tactical Trick. Or even just being based by an enemy with no allies nearby - even if you have enemies on the other side of the field that Tactical Trick will work against, the Thief would need to suck up an OA to get there. 

Yes, there are scenarios where a Thief will have an advantage. But there are many others where they will not. And I think it is largely impossible to measure the difference here, since that will likely change wildly from one game to the next. 

In my experience, the rogue very rarely has trouble getting CA. The Thief even less so, though he still gets shut down by the most common difficulty, Daze. The advantage of the Thief is mainly in being able to get CA at range without needing to really focus on doing so - in short, the versatility this provides that allows him to go melee or ranged as the situation demands. 

This _is _a legitimate benefit. But the Rogue has his own benefits, in the form of Encounter and Daily powers, and arguably specific benefits from his At-Wills. And how useful such benefits are, just like how often Thief Tricks will be important, is hard to quantify, because there really is no cold hard answer. 

But in terms of the raw numbers? That's what we can look at. And a Rogue does similar damage compared to a Thief. And both of them compare similarly to non-strikers. 



KarinsDad said:


> The power creep is that the Thief can do this round in and round out. In 3 levels of our game, our Thief did not get Sneak Attack damage about 3 times and 2 of those times were Action Points used late in an encounter.
> 
> That really is unheard of for an original Rogue because a Rogue does not get CA every round.




Well, that's not my experience with Rogues. I admit, the rogues I've played did not get Sneak Attack damage as often as your guy - probably to the extent of one or two attacks without it per session. But almost all of the situations that caused such things were due to conditions like Daze or enemy positioning that would be just as much a problem for a Thief. 

Rogues having Combat Advantage every round is in no way _unheard of_. Honestly, it's the default assumption of the game, and almost every rogue I've seen played has CA the vast majority of the time.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 14, 2011)

Ok, i have borrowed a PHB 2 and guess what i stumbled upon in the glossary...

A box that tells you that any move, forced or willingly is indeed optional. Page 219, bottom, left column:

"Movement effects:
[...] If a power notes a distance, that you or an ally moves (for example,"you shift 2 squares"), the character allowed to move can decide to move all, some, or none of that distance. [...]"

In KarinsDad´s defense, until yesterday I would have read RAW as he did... now I guess, some designer are more careful with their wording.

edit: on a sidenote: i found the solution to battle pyress too: since it is a burst, you just roll the hit effect once, which meand that the secondary power is also triggered only once, and not once per hit, as a burst only requires one attack roll for each target, but the effect on all targets is the same.
I guess, if we see the power in DDI, we will most surely get an updated version telling you: "if the power hits at least one target, make a secondary attack".


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 14, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> A box that tells you that any move, forced or willingly is indeed optional. Page 219, bottom, left column:
> 
> "Movement effects:
> [...] If a power notes a distance, that you or an ally moves (for example,"you shift 2 squares"), the character allowed to move can decide to move all, some, or none of that distance. [...]"
> ...




That's cool. 

I'm totally ok with this being the rule as long as it is explicitly spelled out.

They had a similar rule in Essentials, but the "allowed" terminology was unclear without an example IIRC.

To me "you can move" is allowed terminology whereas "you move" is not.

Here, they have a specific example of the allowed terminology.



> Many powers allow you and your allies to move or allow you to move your enemies forcibly. If a power notes a distance that you or an ally moves (for example, *“you shift 2 squares”*), the character allowed to move can decide to move all, some, or none of that distance. Similarly, if a power forcibly moves an enemy (for example, “you push the target 3 squares”), you can decide to move the enemy all, some, or none of that distance.
> If a power notes the destination for your or an ally’s move (for example, “a space adjacent to the target”), the character allowed to move decides either to move to that destination or not. You can’t move partway. Similarly, if a power specifies where you force an enemy to move, you decide either to move the enemy there or not.




It's unfortunate that the rules have examples of "you move" or "you shift" (which imply that you do so) vs. "you can move" or "you can shift" (which imply that you are allowed to).

This also forces the designers to be explicit when the movement is forced and there is no option to move 0 squares. I wonder if all of the designers are aware of this because there are some Thieve's tricks powers (like the Stealth hide one) that read like the designer is assuming that movement is taking place.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 14, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> You are misquoting.




I am not. You are mangling the wording of the FAQ to try to hold onto your point instead of conceding you are incorrect.

If a power says you move, you actually do not have to move unless it specifies you have to move a certain distance. For example, if a power says you must move at least X squares to get the effect (and these powers do exist) then you have to move - otherwise you choose.

The FAQ clearly answers the question. I also checked the PHB2 and it is in there as well under movement effects on page 219:



> If a power notes a distance, that you or an ally moves (for example,"you  shift 2 squares"), the character allowed to move can decide to move  all, some, or none of that distance.



But of course, I felt the original FAQ was 100% clear.

Edit: Of course, I have been beaten to this already.

Edit: In addition to the above, the rules compendium also makes it clear under the forced movement description that if a power specifies 4 squares of forced movement in either "You slide the target 4 squares" or "Up to 4 squares" it makes _zero_ difference in the rules. You can move it 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 squares. There is nothing to suggest the rules for regular movement powers are any different and the RC certainly doesn't contradict the FAQ, PHB2 or other rulings about how movement powers work in 4E.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 14, 2011)

I wish you guys had been quicker digging up the PHB2 clarification, I spent the game tonight with a sick feeling like I'd be cheating whenever my Thief sneak attacked without moving first!    Although as it happens I think I did move every turn.

Oops... looking back over the game now, I'm pretty sure there was one round where I sneak attacked *then* moved away (in case the big tentacle monster used its burst power on me), which was wrong, against the rules.  *Sigh*, I do *try* to be good!


----------



## boolean (Mar 15, 2011)

S'mon said:


> But my group includes a Fighter and a melee Ranger *Minotaur* to hide behind,






S'mon said:


> What book is that in?  Only PHB 1+2 & HOTF/HOTK are legit for my campaign, but I can always beg.




The Skill Powers are in PHB 3, 154 pages after Minotaurs.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 15, 2011)

boolean said:


> The Skill Powers are in PHB 3, 154 pages after Minotaurs.




Minotaurs are noted as being allowed.  

Actually on the way home last night, a fellow player told me that the pregen Fighter PC he'd been given by the DM included powers from Martial Power, so I guess the book limit is not a very hard one.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 15, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Edit: In addition to the above, the rules compendium also makes it clear under the forced movement description that if a power specifies 4 squares of forced movement in either "You slide the target 4 squares" or "Up to 4 squares" it makes _zero_ difference in the rules. You can move it 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 squares. There is nothing to suggest the rules for regular movement powers are any different and the RC certainly doesn't contradict the FAQ, PHB2 or other rulings about how movement powers work in 4E.




This is a common misconception.

That explicit rules in one area (like forced movement) imply that another similar area (normal movement) uses the same rule.

As it turns out, the rule was actually different (if read literally) in the PHB. In PHB 2, it was cleared up (the FAQ does not clear up the rule because it does not show an example of what "allowed" means whereas PHB2 does).

In Essentials, the rule is back to being different if read literally. It's even possible that the designers of Essentials didn't realize the rule when one reads powers like Sneak's Trick.

So, someone only using Essentials without knowing the FAQ or PHB2 information could easily rule it literally. They might reasonably interpret allowed movement to use phrases like "can move" and required movement uses phrases like "moves". That's how normal English works, even though RAI isn't that.


Btw, I mentioned to the person playing the Thief in my game that with the PHB2 clarification, how the Thief tricks didn't require actual movement in order to work. Even he thought that was ridiculous and overpowered (which is another reason that I think that the designers of some of those tricks might have thought that the phrase "you move" actually meant "you move", go figure  ).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 15, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Oops... looking back over the game now, I'm pretty sure there was one round where I sneak attacked *then* moved away (in case the big tentacle monster used its burst power on me), which was wrong, against the rules. *Sigh*, I do *try* to be good!




There's nothing wrong with getting sneak attack then moving - you just need to have combat advantage from something other than your trick.  Prone and dazed are favourites


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 15, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> This is a common misconception.
> 
> That explicit rules in one area (like forced movement) imply that another similar area (normal movement) uses the same rule.
> 
> ...



possible... maybe they get an expicite "MUST move at  least 1 square" added anytimr soon.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 15, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> There's nothing wrong with getting sneak attack then moving - you just need to have combat advantage from something other than your trick.  Prone and dazed are favourites




Maybe I did have CA anyway, but I didn't check!


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Mar 16, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> possible... maybe they get an expicite "MUST move at least 1 square" added anytimr soon.




Well, the "must" language does exist for chaos sorcerors - if they roll a one on an attack roll with an arcane power, they must push all creatures within range.

Which can be a bad thing if the party is hundled around the wild sorceror on a raised platform...


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 16, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> That explicit rules in one area (like forced movement) imply that another similar area (normal movement) uses the same rule.




Yes it does, because the rules have _always_ been this way. The FAQ says this. PHB2 says this. The rules compendium - the latest up to date rules - are _still_ entirely consistent with the previous rulings. All I am showing is the rules compendium follows the exact same terminology used by wizards: That there is _no_ difference in choice between "Can move X squares" and "Move X squares". You have created that yourself out of utterly no rules precedent anywhere.



> (which is another reason that I think that the designers of some of  those tricks might have thought that the phrase "you move" actually  meant "you move", go figure  ).




Alternatively, you have simply not been reading the rules correctly.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 19, 2011)

Let's keep it polite please. Don't attempt to score points against others or goad them.

Thanks


----------

