Ok. As I scanned over the rogue I really got disappointed.
They still get to choose combat maneuvers, weapon finesse and weapon focus.
I can understand, that the Sneak Attack won't be changed (f.e. only once per turn and no flanking - my favorite), but to grant rogues those feats above as BONUS feats is just the wrong way!
|
I think it's wrong the a rogue should have to wait until level 3 to get finese or focus to begin with, the talent system just makes it a level easier.
For me though, my next rogue may go with finese as a 3rd level feat. I'm really liking the idea of a +9 Stealth at level 1 and I might want to give the full movement while stealth talent a try.
What "too much of a fighter" means?
Rogues have too many combat options? Options are not bad.
D&D, and many other roleplaying, focus a lot on combat. All classes must be part-fighter.
Monks fight, Paladins too, and Rangers, and Barbarian... Clerics are also proficient at fighting. Druids are not really, but they can Wildshape.
Rogues have the same rights to fight.
But, if "too much of fighter" means that Rogues, fighting with two-weapon in a position of sneaking, would deal too much damage, I totally agree with you.
Rogues have now more sneakable target, so it might be a good time to find a way to tune down just a little bit the damage output of a TWF sneaking rogue. (ONLY TWF seems a little bit out of balance)
(And I have a proposition: decrease sneak attack by 1D6 for every subsequent attacks in the same round, minimum 1D6. and only if previous attack hit target)
Rogue Damage output close to fighter?
Except their AC is nowhere near as high, and they have about half the hit points.
Nerf a Rogue's ability to dish out damage in massive amounts to a single foe, and you may as well make it useless for anything but skills.
I have made many statistical analysis for damage output to compare fighter and rogue.
I will spare you all those long numbers and graphs for now but here are my observation regarding damage ouput. (Note: this is based on average damage relative to target's AC)
1- Two-Weapon fighting average slightly more damage than Two-handed fighting.
2- Power attack (current 3.5 or PFRPG rule) gives penalty to hit, making it less useful for overall average damage.
3- TWF ROGUE in a position to sneak with all attacks average damage is almost equal (~1.5% less) to average damage dealt by a Fighter using OPTIMAL fighting method against AC.
OPTIMAL: For each target AC, best Power attack option was used and best option between two-handed and two-weapon.
CONCLUSION:
Average damage for a TWF Sneaking Rogue is way too close to what the fighter can do when BOTH are in their BEST situation
SOLUTION:
First of all, I think that Rogues must be allowed to deal lot of damage with sneak attacks.
The only situation when the amount of damage gets ridiculously high, is with TWF and sneaking with all attacks. (Very specific situation)
What I think is NOT a solution:
Not allowing Rogue to attack with off-hand is a mistake:
1- It is like losing an ability for the cost of a Feat
2- Monk don't have off-hand, so they would sneak with all attacks in a flurry...
What I think is a GOOD COMPROMISE:
Decreasing the numbers of d6 for each subsequent attacks in a round.
A hasted TWF 7th-level Rogue (3attacks in a round) would deal 4D6 sneak damage on his first hit, 3D6 on the second one, and 2D6 on the third one. TOTAL 9D6 sneak, instead of 12D6. Only when an attack hits should the Rogue decrease number of D6 (no penalty after a miss). And Sneak attack damage is never less than 1D6.
Since Rogue have lower BAB, chances of hitting with all attacks are low, so D6s loss is not a big amount. And the one time all attacks hit, there is no unbalance.
they dont have half the hitpoints now, they got like 4/5th the hitpoints. I understand that every class needs to fight, but every class doesnt need to be able to fight toe to toe with a Fighter. In my mind a true swashbuckler is a multiclass Fighter/Rogue,now I dont think Ill be seeing any of those again (maybe some for the armor specializations) the damage output is even better for a Rogue than before (since they can do it on about everyone)AND they now have access to many feat quality abilities and more hitpoints. The Fighter has been given a okay bump in power, but not enough to warrant everyone getting even better bumps.
I never had problems with people wanting to play rogues (and i dont imagine any less being played if sneak attack was deprived of its stupid flanking component) rogue talents, a condensed skill list and more hitpoints happens to be a incredible trade for a toned down sneak attack
|
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this time less politely.
The problem isn't sneak attack. You're a terrble DM if you let the Rogue sit in a flanking position doing extra damage every round.
It's a creatures natural instinct, intelligent or not, to go after something that hurts it. If the rogue is hitting it's vital parts, the creature SHOULD turn it's attention to the rogue. A rogue can't stand toe to toe with monster and if he has to run away with a monster chasing him, then he's certainly not sneak attacking.
Really, the problem is this misconception that the fighter should be about massive damage.
The Barbarian is about dealing lots of damage in a straight-up fight.
The Rogue is about dealing lots of damage in an uneven fight.
At which point the fighter *should not* be about massive damage, because he can't (and shouldn't) compete with the Barbarian, and he's certainly not intended to be competing in the rogue's niche. The fact that the fighter class doesn't give him something else to do is a *design flaw* with the *Fighter* class, not the Rogue.
The discussion here is not about massive damage, is about average damage output based on to-hit chances.
(FYI, 13th-level Rogue, Barbarian and Fighter have the same maximum damage output)
Fighter gets more Feats (bonus), so at mid- to high- levels they deal more average damage than the Barbarian. All the Weapon Focus tree is not accessible to Barbarian. A TWF Barbarian wouldn't have enough feat left to increase his damage output.
I use the Fighter in my example because Barbarian is not better for average damage. (That means that a TWF sneaking Rogue has almost the same average damage output than a Barbarian... !!!)
Again, the only situation where it seems to be a *design flaw*, is with a TWF sneaking Rogue. Average damage outputs look balanced in other situations (including Ranger with fav. ennemy)
Instead of redesigning the whole Fighter class, I am only suggesting a minor tweak, easy to implement.
The Fighter class is for those who wants to... fight. I think this class shouldn't concentrate on anything else than fighting. And That's whats in the rules right now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this time less politely.
The problem isn't sneak attack. You're a terrble DM if you let the Rogue sit in a flanking position doing extra damage every round.
It's a creatures natural instinct, intelligent or not, to go after something that hurts it. If the rogue is hitting it's vital parts, the creature SHOULD turn it's attention to the rogue. A rogue can't stand toe to toe with monster and if he has to run away with a monster chasing him, then he's certainly not sneak attacking.
Before judging DMing skill, allow me to add more to this discussion.
A Rogue is not only restricted to flanking for sneak attacks. The 4th-level spell Greater Invisibility is a good option too. A creature natural instinct, intelligent or not, would have some difficulty to find an invisible opponent. A Full round of sneak attacks can output more average damage (?) than a creature trying to hit this invisible Rogue. Even with a lower AC, and lower HP, this situation is still in favor of the Rogue.
I agree that it is very unlikely that a Rogue would be in a situation to sneak attacks on multiple rounds. But all we need to see the slight imbalance is ONE roud.
What the heck is your barbarian doing? Seriously. (Surprise Accuracy + Great Cleave is awesome for a melee fighter, among other possible tricks, and that's with only a quick looks at combat feats). A barbarian will have to spend rage points, but his damage output can impressively exceed the fighter.
My statistical analysis is based on 3.5 SRD rules. PFRPG is not final. There is too much discussion going on with Barbarians and combat feats. It is difficult to create a good and optimized built when not knowing all the rules.
What would be the average damage output of the PFRPG Barbarian (optimized for damage) based on to-hit (lets say at 4,8 and 13th level?)
This thread makes me very sad.
Ok. As I scanned over the rogue I really got disappointed.
They still get to choose combat maneuvers, weapon finesse and weapon focus.
I can understand, that the Sneak Attack won't be changed (f.e. only once per turn and no flanking - my favorite), but to grant rogues those feats above as BONUS feats is just the wrong way!
The problem is you are misunderstanding the rules.
The Rogue doesn't get "Combat Maneuvers". He gets "a" Combat Maneuver. One. So you don't want to let him pick up Dodge or Mobility or whatever as part of his Rogue training?
Same with the feat at higher level. It's still only one feat to swap out for a Talent.
There's a critical part of the rules that is being overlooked: You can only pick a Talent once.
So no, the Rogue doesn't get 10 Combat feats and become a Fighter. He gets one thing to dabble in for combat along with weapon finesse (if he wants) and weapon focus (if he wants). Not a big deal at all.
|
|
A rogues willingly taking a -4 to all STR and DEX skills.. and he's giving up evasion to wear that armor too.
I can honestly say I've..
1. Never seen a rogue like this at any of my game tables.
2. Don't think I'll ever see a rogue like this at any game tables.
3. Don't think such a rogue exists at any game tables (even without the obvious feat mistakes.)
Is the pathfinder Power Attack going to remain usable with light weapons?
The desription in alpha 3 does not say it cannot be used with a light weapon, and this was one of the balances for combat rogues as they usually used at least one light weapon.
Ok. As I scanned over the rogue I really got disappointed.
They still get to choose combat maneuvers, weapon finesse and weapon focus.
I can understand, that the Sneak Attack won't be changed (f.e. only once per turn and no flanking - my favorite), but to grant rogues those feats above as BONUS feats is just the wrong way!The problem is you are misunderstanding the rules.
The Rogue doesn't get "Combat Maneuvers". He gets "a" Combat Maneuver. One. So you don't want to let him pick up Dodge or Mobility or whatever as part of his Rogue training?
Same with the feat at higher level. It's still only one feat to swap out for a Talent.
There's a critical part of the rules that is being overlooked: You can only pick a Talent once.
So no, the Rogue doesn't get 10 Combat feats and become a Fighter. He gets one thing to dabble in for combat along with weapon finesse (if he wants) and weapon focus (if he wants). Not a big deal at all.
QUESTION TO ALL OF YOU: IS HE RIGHT?
May the rogue only take ONE combat maneuver/feat ONCE?
OR may they take it several times, choosing combat maneuvers/feats over and over again?
This was brought up in Alpha 2, in the giant Rogue thread, where I agreed that at least a more detailed wording would help curb the misunderstandings.
There were two camps in that thread, those that assumed it allowed choosing over and over, and others that couldn't understand how anyone could think that you could choose it more than once. Both oblivious of the other, and obviously looking at the Rogue class differently during the discussion.
It might be nice to at least get the intention from Jason on what the Rogue is supposed to be capable of doing with is Talents when it comes to replacing them with feats.
Rogue is not over-powered or even close to the fighter. Rogue has a lower ac and less hit points. He can dish out the damage if built correctly but not anymore than a fighter that is built well. Just take away off-hand sneak attack damage and the rogue works great.
About the original points:
I can see the combat feats - though they'll go away in the beta. Instead, I'd give them a list of bonus feats maybe. Stuff to do with his sneaky or "tactical" combat.
Since I'd rather get rid of weapon finesse altogether (make it a general option), I don't care too much, but as long as it's a feat, a rogue should get access.
Weapon focus is probably the only thing that doesn't fit too well...
And I think that rogues doing insane amounts of damage is a myth. I did some comparisons once (with similarly-powered builds for fighter and rogue) and even if the rogue managed to do his full twf-sneak routine, the fighter with his bigger weapon, bigger strength, and generally bigger combat abilities hit more consistently, and taking statistical average damage, the figher did better. And that was without criticals (which greatly favour the fighter) and doesn't take into account that the rogue needs much more specific conditions for his attacks, and the generally worse AC and HP totals.
And I think that rogues doing insane amounts of damage is a myth. I did some comparisons once (with similarly-powered builds for fighter and rogue) and even if the rogue managed to do his full twf-sneak routine, the fighter with his bigger weapon, bigger strength, and generally bigger combat abilities hit more consistently, and taking statistical average damage, the figher did better. And that was without criticals (which greatly favour the fighter) and doesn't take into account that the rogue needs much more specific conditions for his attacks, and the generally worse AC and HP totals.
Sorry, but it is not a myth. I did a LOT of comparisons with optimized fighter vs optimized rogue. The flanking (or invisible) rogue fighting with two weapons is almost equal (~2%) to the fighter in term of statistical damage output.
Don't get me wrong here. It is very clear that sneaking is not option a rogue can use anytime. And not all Rogues fight with two weapons. The situation where damage output is on par with the fighter is only in one specific situation.
This is why sneak attacks should NOT be changed. Only tweaked a little.
Something must be done to prevent abuses. Only one abuse by one player in one campaign is sometime too much. My proposition of decreasing D6 of sneaks on subsequent hits in a round is just enough to prevent such abuses without penalize the rogue in almost any other situation.
Ok I reread the ROGUE TALENT entry:
"... A rogue cannot take an individual talent more than once."
Well it doesn't make it clear for me. Why this word: "individual"?
Why not only: "... cannot take ANY talent more than once." ?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sorry, but it is a myth. I did a LOT of incorrect and poorly reasoned comparisons with optimized fighter vs optimized rogue. The flanking (or invisible) rogue fighting with two weapons is almost equal (~2%) to the fighter in term of statistical damage output. I never proved anything and multiple posters proved me wrong multiple times.
Fixed that for you.
And that dead horse thread has been rightfully ignored and long since properly buried. Let it rest in peace.
The flanking (or invisible) rogue fighting with two weapons is almost equal (~2%) to the fighter in term of statistical damage output.
How were the victims' ACs? A big advantage the fighter has that he hits a lot more reliably than the rogue, due to better relevant stats (the rogue usually has to take care of more attributes), better weapons (having to use two weapons will make it harder for the rogues to keep the pace in this arms race), better BAB and special abilities (weapon training, weapon focus and follow-ups). what use is a bunch of extra d6s and a truckload of attacks if most will miss?
Sorry, but it is a myth. I did a LOT of incorrect and poorly reasoned comparisons with optimized fighter vs optimized rogue. The flanking (or invisible) rogue fighting with two weapons is almost equal (~2%) to the fighter in term of statistical damage output. I never proved anything and multiple posters proved me wrong multiple times.
Fixed that for you.
And that dead horse thread has been rightfully ignored and long since properly buried. Let it rest in peace.
Sebastian... get a life and go harass someone else... like other 9 years old kids like you. Changing someone's quote is lame.
If you don't want to be constructive, just shut up.
Want to prove me wrong? Show me your numbers. (if you know how to count)
The flanking (or invisible) rogue fighting with two weapons is almost equal (~2%) to the fighter in term of statistical damage output.How were the victims' ACs? A big advantage the fighter has that he hits a lot more reliably than the rogue, due to better relevant stats (the rogue usually has to take care of more attributes), better weapons (having to use two weapons will make it harder for the rogues to keep the pace in this arms race), better BAB and special abilities (weapon training, weapon focus and follow-ups). what use is a bunch of extra d6s and a truckload of attacks if most will miss?
The statitiscal analysis was based on to-hit chances. So if a Fighter has more chance to hit, he has more chance to deal damage (and average damage will increase)
The fighter using power attack gets a penalty on his to-hit (less average damage). For each target AC, I optimized power attack for maximum average damage (sometimes it's better to use less PA). Using PA at every target AC results in too big penalty on to-hit, and less average damage
The fighter was build with maximum STR, while the Rogue was built using maximum DEX and weapon finesse (ability modifier on to-hit are the same).
Wow, this thread has taken a turn for the really nasty in the last couple of posts or so.
Cut it out and be nice.
I'm too lazy to dig out the numbers again, but with typical ACs for the level, the rogue had a hard time hitting with anything but his best attacks.
The rogue will typically be targetting a lower AC than the fighter, and the invisible rogue can use acid flasks against foes with high flat-footed AC.
They can't really choose to target a lower AC, since the enemies won't get out of their armour (or hard skin) just for them...
And the acid thing has another bunch of requirements that make it harder to actually pull it off: You need a whole industry's supply of acid to do this for any length of time, you need to carry them all, you need improved invisibility all the time....
The rogue is giving up 5 pts of to-hit for +10d6 dmg. The fighter that gives up 5 to-hit can only get a return of +10 dmg.
The difference is that the fighter can choose to retain the +5 to hit. That's a 25% better chance to hit. And the fighter tends to have a decent bonus to damage, too - high strength, weapon bonus, feats, weapon training - many of which further increase the bonus to hit.
It does 2WF better, the barbarian does 2HF better, the paladin does mounted combat better, the ranger does archery better.
TWF might indeed be something rogues are better at, though I argue that the fighter's advantages will help him here, too.
I would say that Barbarians and Fighters are both very good at two-weapon fighting. Barbarians have rage to increase attack and damage (while they rage), fighters have feats and weapon training to increase attack and damage (all the time)
What makes rangers better at archery? He gets 5 style feats for it. They're virtual feats, sure, but the fighter gets 11 feats - he gets some archery feats, and then the weapon focus line. Combine that with weapon training. I say he pulls ahead of the ranger, who can only go about even when it's against his favoured enemies. Fighters will again be able to play Stalinorgel against everything.
Or the rogue to dip two levels of fighter for its requisite shield prof, two-weapon fighting and deft shield, which just adds insult to injury, IMO. Fighter needs to break out of the "I'm a 2-level dip" niche.
Which will cost him 1d6 of sneak damage.
I think between the new class abilities the fighter gets and the PHB2 fighter-specific feats (if you have that book), the fighter is a decent choice now.
For the math part...
Rogue:
Starting at 18DEX 10STR, with Two-Weapon fighting.
Weapon Finesse at 3rd-level
Improved TWF at 9th
Greater TWF at 15th
DEX20 at 8th
DEX22 at 16th
NO WEAPON FOCUS FEAT (but could have taken with Rapier at 6th, and weapon focus shortsword at 12th)
Flanking
Based on average damage for rapier and shortsword 1D6 = 3.5
Target AC was between rogue level+10 and rogue level+20.
(Rogue 1st-level target AC from 11 to 21, 5th-level AC was 15 to 25, 20th-level AC from 30 to 40, etc...). Should the AC range be somthing else?
Damage was based on to-hit probability (50% of hitting target AC = 50% possible damage). No probability lower than 5% (natural 20 always hits). No probability higher than 95% (1 always a miss)
Critical hits and magic weapon properties not included
ROGUE AVERAGE TOTAL DAMAGE per level:
1- 3.56
2- 3.56
3- 9.45
4- 9.45
5- 11.20
6- 11.20
7- 14.00
8- 19.49
9- 24.25
10- 24.25
11- 28.29
12- 28.29
13- 27.75
14- 27.75
15- 34.65
16- 40.38
17- 38.50
18- 38.50
19- 42.35
20- 42.35
This question of damage output has been in my dreams for quite a while.
Assumptions :
-same level for rogue and fighter;
-at level 16, the fighter has an extra attack (often the case at other levels);
-only relevant and distinctive feats were taken into account (any feat to improve weapon’s damage output can be matched by another feat for the rogue or the fighter);
-Overhand chop, Backswing, as well as Double slice were not taken into account;
-the monster can be sneaked (!);
-the fighter and the rogue are both flanking.
Rogue level 16, TWF, two short swords, flanking
Sneak, +8d6, avg 28
8 feats + 9 rogue talents (possibly : 1 combat trick + Weapon finesse + Weapon focus + 3 combat feats (after level 10))
Main score DEX 18+4+4 (item) : +8 to hit
STR 14 (whatever the rogue puts there will cost him somewhere else, compared to the fighter)
BAB +12/+7/+2
Attack roll : +21/+16/+11
TWF attack roll, when flanking : +21+21/+16+16/+11+11
Base damage 2 short swords : 1d6+2/1d6+1, avg 5,5/4,5
Fighter, level 16, THW, flanking
Main score STR 18+4+4 (item) : +8 to hit, +8 dam
Armor Training +4
Weapon Training +3
8 feats + 9 fighter feats (Weapon focus, Weapon specialization, Power attack)
BAB +16/+11/+6/+1
Attack roll : +28/+23/+18/+13
When flanking : +30/+25/+20/+15
When flanking with Power attack : +22/+17/+12/+7
Base damage Greatsword : 2d6+17 avg 24
Base damage Greatsword with Power attack : 2d6+33 avg 40
AC for opponent : 35
Prob of hit for TWF rogue : 35 % 35 % / 10 % 10 % / 5 % 5 %
Prob of hit for fighter : 80 % / 55 % / 30 % / 5 %
Prob of hit for PA fighter : 40 % / 15 % / 5 % / 5 %
Avg dam for TWF rogue : 50 % x 33.5 + 50 % x 31.5 = 32.5
Avg dam for fighter : 170 % x 24 = 40.8
Avg dam for PA fighter : 65 % x 40 = 26
AC for opponent : 30
Prob of hit for TWF rogue : 60 % 60 % / 35 % 35 % / 10 % 10 %
Prob of hit for fighter : 100 % / 80 % / 55 % / 30 %
Prob of hit for PA fighter : 65 % / 40 % / 10 % / 5 %
Avg dam for TWF rogue : 105 % x 33.5 + 105 % x 31.5 = 68.5
Avg dam for fighter : 265 % x 24 = 63.6
Avg dam for PA fighter : 120 % x 40 = 48
AC for opponent : 25
Prob of hit for TWF rogue : 85 % 85 % / 60 % 60 % / 35 % 35 %
Prob of hit for fighter : 100 % / 100 % / 80 % / 55 %
Prob of hit for PA fighter : 90 % / 65 % / 35 % / 15 %
Avg dam for TWF rogue : 180 % x 33.5 + 180 % x 31.5 = 117
Avg dam for fighter : 335 % x 24 = 80.4
Avg dam for PA fighter : 205 % x 40 = 82
Conclusion
According to the simulation, the fighter produces a better average output against high AC monsters. This advantage fades quite rapidly with lower ACs.
Of course, this is not a combat simulation. Only one opponent is faced. The presence of more than one antagonist would change the fighting conditions and possibly hinder or prevent flanking.
Interestingly enough, the simulation also shows that the use of Power attack in a restricted way (your full strength bonus or nothing) does not produce a better output on average.
Also, it is quite clear that the first TWF feat produces the greatest result on average damage output. You might not want to spend precious feats on the two others. Let us also keep in mind the luck factor. If you have the wrong dice, you’re better off playing a fighter.
Should the rogue be restricted to a single sneak attack per round? Again, if you look at the simulation, it becomes quite clear that the rogue’s damage output drops by about half. Though this would maybe make more sense, you’d have to compare it with another non-fighting class optimized for damage output, like the monk.
If I understand correctly, the rogue is built also with the feats TWF, Improved TWF and Greater TWF to account for the 3 off-hand attacks. Just a very minor glitch is the dex 19 prerequisite but it’s the same bonus as 18 so nothing lost.
I’m curious about the results one would get with a TWF Fighter, short sword specialist or even for a non-TWF Fighter using 2 weapons (ex.: short sword & long sword) to land more blows, in similar "low AC" conditions.
Thanks for this simulation!
I’m curious about the results one would get with a TWF Fighter, short sword specialist or even for a non-TWF Fighter using 2 weapons (ex.: short sword & long sword) to land more blows, in similar "low AC" conditions.
I agree that to have a good comparison, the same math should be done with a TWF Fighter.
The best option for TWF, starting at 12th-level is to fight with a bastard sword and a short sword, both with the complete Weapon Focus Tree.
In all the simulation I made, I also get the same conclusion about Power Attack. It makes average damage output lower because of to-hit penalty and is almost useless against higher AC.
...The best option for TWF, starting at 12th-level is to fight with a bastard sword and a short sword, both with the complete Weapon Focus Tree...
Sounds like the Valeros Iconic built actualy (except for longsword instead of bastard)!
I agree that to have a good comparison, the same math should be done with a TWF Fighter.
Actually, both greatsword and twf should be done. After all, fighters can do both easily.
8 feats + 9 fighter feats (Weapon focus, Weapon specialization, Power attack)
You should use greater weapon focus and specialisation, too. They're primary fighter assets. Improved Crit isn't a bad idea, either (especially with a fighter's capstone ability and the fact that crits will help the fighter a lot more than the rogue)
I agree on the use of core stuff (since anything else would turn this into an endless arms race.)
Thank you for the suggestion!
Greater weapon focus and specialization make a lot of sense. They are both SRD and available to fighters only.
The impact is a much bigger output for the Fighter, but doesn't necessarily changes the conclusions.
Here are only the results:
AC for opponent : 35
Avg dam for TWF rogue : 50 % x 33.5 + 50 % x 31.5 = 32.5
Avg dam for fighter : 185 % x 26 = 48.1
Avg dam for PA fighter : 75 % x 42 = 31.5
AC for opponent : 30
Avg dam for TWF rogue : 105 % x 33.5 + 105 % x 31.5 = 68.5
Avg dam for fighter : 280 % x 26 = 72.8
Avg dam for PA fighter : 135 % x 42 = 56.7
AC for opponent : 25
Avg dam for TWF rogue : 180 % x 33.5 + 180 % x 31.5 = 117
Avg dam for fighter : 345 % x 26 = 89.7
Avg dam for PA fighter : 225 % x 42 = 94.5
The fighter is the bruiser de rigueur for high ACs.
I'm working on a simulation for the monk, to compare to the rogue (and the fighter while we're at it. It's very surprising...
DW
Here is the simulation to compare a TWF rogue with a TWF fighter.
Assumptions :
-same level for rogue and fighter;
-at level 16, the fighter has an extra attack (often the case at other levels);
-only relevant and distinctive feats were taken into account (any feat to improve weapon’s damage output can be matched by another feat for the rogue or the fighter);
-fighter and rogue take all the TWF feats (I know, I need to start them with a better DEX...);
-Overhand chop, Backswing, as well as Double slice were not taken into account;
-the fighter invests in DEX instead of STR, to get the prerequisites for the various TWF;
-the monster can be sneaked (!);
-the fighter and the rogue are both flanking.
Rogue level 16, TWF, two short swords, flanking
Sneak, +8d6, avg 28
8 feats + 9 rogue talents (possibly : 1 combat trick + Weapon finesse + Weapon focus + 3 combat feats (after level 10))
Main score DEX 18+4+4 (item) : +8 to hit
STR 14
BAB +12/+7/+2
Attack roll : +21/+16/+11
TWF attack roll, when flanking : +21+21/+16+16/+11+11
Base damage 2 short swords : 1d6+2/1d6+1 avg 5,5/4,5
Fighter, level 16, TWF, flanking
Main score DEX 18+4+4 (item) : +8 to hit
STR 14 (for comparison)
Armor Training +4
Weapon Training +3
8 feats + 9 fighter feats (Weapon finesse, Weapon focus, Weapon specialization, Greater weapon focus, Greater weapon specialization (all short sword))
BAB +16/+11/+6/+1
Attack roll : +29/+24/+19/+14
TWF attack roll, when flanking : +29/+29/+26/+26/+21/+21/+16
Base damage 2 short swords : 1d6+9 / 1d6+8 , avg 12.5/11.5
AC for opponent : 35
Prob of hit for TWF rogue : 35 % 35 % / 10 % 10 % / 5 % 5 %
Prob of hit for TWF fighter : 75 % 75 % / 50 % 50 % / 25 % 25 % / 10 %
Avg dam for TWF rogue : 50 % x 33.5 + 50 % x 31.5 = 32.5
Avg dam for TWF fighter : 160 % x 12.5 + 150 % x 11.5 = 37.3
AC for opponent : 30
Prob of hit for TWF rogue : 60 % 60 % / 35 % 35 % / 10 % 10 %
Prob of hit for TWF fighter : 100 % 100 % / 75 % 75 % / 50 % 50 % / 35 %
Avg dam for TWF rogue : 105 % x 33.5 + 105 % x 31.5 = 68.5
Avg dam for TWF fighter : 260 % x 12.5 + 225 % x 11.5 = 58.4
AC for opponent : 25
Prob of hit for TWF rogue : 85 % 85 % / 60 % 60 % / 35 % 35 %
Prob of hit for TWF fighter : 100 % 100 % / 100 % 100 % / 75 % 75 % / 60 %
Prob of hit for PA TWF fighter : 100 % 100 % / 90 % 90 % / 65 % 65 % / 50 %
Avg dam for TWF rogue : 180 % x 33.5 + 180 % x 31.5 = 117
Avg dam for TWF fighter : 335 % x 12.5 + 275 % x 11.5 = 73.5
Avg dam for PA TWF fighter : 305 % x 14.5 + 255 % x 13.5 = 78.5
Conclusion
Did I forget something? I did not take Power attack in consideration, except for the low AC, as they could both obviously get the same out of it. I focussed only on short swords, as I could use all my fighter feats only once. Notice also (side thread) that without Weapon training +3, the fighter would eat the rogue’s dust (TWF or THW).
What to make of this?
DW