|
I'm surprized no one has said :
"what it adds to roleplaying is extra sneak attack damage to initiate combat, in turn for a little harder to hit in the surprise round (when he's flat footed anyway) and more damage there for a little harder to hit in the first round (when the rogue beats his init and gets to go first, so still flat footed) - by then he's almost dead, might as well do it again"
and the way my D20s roll I'll take the damage over the to hit any day of the week - when I'm a DM they roll high but when I'm a player the average roll is 7, so if I hit, I want to hurt them.
These talents come into play not for just rogues, For an Arcane Trickster, who's specializing in ray attacks, the talent is a no brainer. Hitting against touch AC more than mitigates the to hit penalty, and the result will almost always be more damage than by not having the feat.
These talents do nothing for Arcane Tricksters; they only work when you use the full-attack action, and not even ATs can full-attack with rays.
I have a crazy thought. Don't like it? leave it alone. This game is not all about numbers you know. If you wan't to get bogged down in the number side of the game, go ahead. Just let people choose what they want. I mean it won't spoil your game will it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a crazy thought. Don't like it? leave it alone. This game is not all about numbers you know. If you wan't to get bogged down in the number side of the game, go ahead. Just let people choose what they want. I mean it won't spoil your game will it?
I'll try to rephrase it less abrasively than the OP. What's actually being asked is, "why are there character options which provide no benefit, substantially less benefit than apparently equal options, or actively hurt your character?"
Not using them is elementary. What threads like this actually want is either an admission of failure by designers responsible for this sort of content, or some sort of justification for those options.
Neither of the two will be forthcoming.
What threads like this actually want is either an admission of failure by designers responsible for this sort of content, or some sort of justification for those options.Designer won't admit a failure in this sort of thread.
Actually, this thread is here to explain why powerful/deadly sneak are mechanically awful, and try to skip the part of the discussion "it exists for roleplay reasons/not every option have to be mecanically optimal/etc". Because I already had this discussion many times, and it's a boring discussion, be it in French or in English.
Therefore I directly ask what those talents add to the game; what you can do with them and couldn't do without (is there any character concept reliant on doing 22 sneak damages instead of 21?). I'm a bit more specific and I ask what it adds to the roleplay, but if the talents adds to something else than roleplay, I'm also interested.
But responses like widowmaker's "it add something I guess, but not to the numbers" doesn't interest me. That's the part of the discussion I want to skip, I prefer no discussion than such an answer.
...yes, but we all know there's no roleplaying benefit to dealing slightly more sneak attack damage occasionally at the cost of overall DPR, or we don't understand (or want to understand) the math that points it out.
It's a design failure, pure and simple, and arguments to the contrary will rely on avoiding the math or anecdotes.
What would actually be useful is a list of all such abilities. We should hunt them down so we can at least warn players about them, or make an effort to fix them.
Is the conversation about balance? I'd have never guessed through the sarcasm and 'wit'.
Yes the conversation is about balance, and there's always sarcasm and "wit" in internet discussions, especially with this group.
I usually avoid these threads but I will try to wade in and answer the OP question.
First I agree with the calculation that in average, using these options will give you a lower average amount of damage.
But that's where the statistics get complex. If you run a fight with 100+ rounds or attacks, there is no way that using the powerful/deadly sneak will give you a better result. However, as the average fights last for less than 20 rounds, there will be cases where using the rogue options will give you a better total amount of damage for small fights. This is exactly the same kind of mechanism that happen with power attack where you are trading a -1 attack for a +2 damage. I do agree that on average, using power attack will give you better average than not using power attack, but the basic mechanism is the same: with these options, you are trading chances to hit for a better damage when you hit.
These options are there for the people who want to build an even bigger glass cannon for their characters: they will lose average damage for the chance when they hit to do more damage. This can make the difference on a few fights and both strategies, even if not equivalent, can be good depending on your gaming philosophy. That's where you leave the statistics and go into the murky areas of gamer behavior: if every one was always following the strategy of best average, casinos and all the different forms of lottery would never have a single customer. Here again you will loose on average for the risk of being lucking and winning big once.
I hope this is clear and would remind every one that I'm not taking position here to say which strategy is better suited to your character. You may want to play a thief that is always reliable or one that will often fail but hit big when he does. And that's up to you.
I hope this is clear and would remind every one that I'm not taking position here to say which strategy is better suited to your character. You may want to play a thief that is always reliable or one that will often fail but hit big when he does. And that's up to you.In the "best" case scenario, a 19th-20th level rogue with 10d6 sneak who rolls ten ones increases his sneak attack damage by ten points. That's at 19th-20th level. Is this really "hitting big"?
If your enemy has only 3-4 HP left after you hit it, it can make the difference. But most of the time it will not, I agree. This is not an option for being better on average, but for being slightly better some times and worse most of the time. Like all options, even if you take it you don't have to use it all the time, especially against some enemy you find difficult to hit.
If your enemy has only 3-4 HP left after you hit it, it can make the difference. But most of the time it will not, I agree. This is not an option for being better on average, but for being slightly better some times and worse most of the time.
How often does an enemy have 3-4 hit points remaining after being on the receiving end of a full attack from a flanking 19th/20th level rogue?
The scenario is vanishing improbable.
The same chance as you winning the jackpot in a lottery and casino. I personally don't play for exactly the same reasons. You may or may not play. But some people do and like it, that's exactly what it is.
The same chance as you winning the jackpot in a lottery and casino. I personally don't play for exactly the same reasons. You may or may not play. But some people do and like it, that's exactly what it is.
Actually, not that terrible. 22.5% chance for a level 20 rogue to get +3 damage from Powerful Sneak. So in this scenario, where you somehow know that at the end of your sneak attack you will fall 3 damage short, you have about a 1 in 4.5 chance of taking out the enemy with this talent.
The problem is, this scenario doesn't exist. Accusations of theorycrafting have been tossed about, but something like this requires knowledge you simply could not have in an actual game. Nor do any of the other scenarios people talk about work out. It might find use with coup de grace or spring attack, but it is restricted to full attacks only. It might help if you have bad "dice luck," but besides encouraging superstition, it only works if you think your "d20 luck" is good and your "d6 luck" is bad. I, personally, have never encountered a player that is this specific about their luck.
The talent is a trap. At worst, people take it thinking it will help them deal more damage on average. As we all agree, that is not the case. At best, it works in the extreme corner cases of always or never hitting. In actual gameplay, you are rarely going to know when this is the case, further preventing its useful application.
Personally, I don't need an apology from the developers or any nonsense like that (though, admittedly, errata would be nice). The issue I have is that people keep arguing that this talent isn't a purely mechanically negative choice. It is sort of like when I see people explaining their new "bulletproof" betting system. They are only hurting themselves, and I can never convince everybody of it, but I still feel the need to make the case for basic statistics.
EDIT:
I would make the decision on using the feat on a rogue exactly when I do using Power Attack on a fighter before getting Furious Focus. If I'm hitting ridiculously easy than I'd use it. If I can see that I'm only hitting on an 18 or above on the die roll, than I wouldn't use either feat.
See, this is the issue. It seems like this would make sense, but it is the exact opposite of when the talent is helpful. If you only hit on a 19 or 20, using Powerful Sneak is actually better than when you hit with a 10. That is because the main damage reducer (the -2 attack penalty) gets reduced or eliminated thanks to always hitting on a 20. The same goes for hitting on anything but a 1. This is thoroughly (though densely) laid out in the very first post here.
This is what makes this worse than a bad choice, which is easy to ignore. It is a deep, deep trap, that captures many the unaware rogue. Don't rogues get enough flack, without adding this insult to their injury?
That's a cynical attitude, but that's no nonsense at all. I've read enough thread to know that when a feat or capacity brings nothing to the game except disadvantages and useless complexity, "it's for RP reason". Because uselessness and complexity provide roleplay, you know.
I got your back Gat. I know exactly what you mean about this "it's for RPing" crap. Dangit, I can roleplay while playing with my LEGOs; I want my D&D mechanics to be worth something. :P
My only question is: what do those talents add to the roleplay?What you'll make of them.
+1. Feats and class abilities don't add to RP on their own. Your background story or RP in the game can account for them.
Example:
My Barbarian1/Fighter2 is not raging. He has learned to focused himself on combat to such an extent that the enemies' movements slow down making him more accurate and deadly with his blows. The downside is that he does not focus as much on not getting hit which is why he has the -2 to AC.
What threads like this actually want is either an admission of failure by designers responsible for this sort of content, or some sort of justification for those options.Designer won't admit a failure in this sort of thread.
Actually, this thread is here to explain why powerful/deadly sneak are mechanically awful, and try to skip the part of the discussion "it exists for roleplay reasons/not every option have to be mecanically optimal/etc". Because I already had this discussion many times, and it's a boring discussion, be it in French or in English.
Therefore I directly ask what those talents add to the game; what you can do with them and couldn't do without (is there any character concept reliant on doing 22 sneak damages instead of 21?). I'm a bit more specific and I ask what it adds to the roleplay, but if the talents adds to something else than roleplay, I'm also interested.
But responses like widowmaker's "it add something I guess, but not to the numbers" doesn't interest me. That's the part of the discussion I want to skip, I prefer no discussion than such an answer.
The problem is that is the answer though. In short sometime bad options are placed into the game.
Feats/options should not be needed for RP, and if they are made for RP reasons then they should add a mechanical benefit to RP.
Other than that a purely mechanical benefit should be had.
This ability really does not provide either one(mechanical or RP), and I think that much is clear now. There is really nothing that can be said to defend it if you are taking this in order to make your character better.
In short:You are looking for an answer that does no exist other than the one answer you already have. It never should have been made.
Just wondering, but do these talents actually work better for multiclassed rogues? What about a rogue/barbarian?
Just wondering, but do these talents actually work better for multiclassed rogues? What about a rogue/barbarian?
No. The math still does not make sneak attack better so it still deducts from DPR as a combat based feat, and does nothing for your RP'ing because none of the social skills are enhanced.
Just wondering, but do these talents actually work better for multiclassed rogues? What about a rogue/barbarian?No. The math still does not make sneak attack better so it still deducts from DPR as a combat based feat,
I...uh...what?
Are you saying that Roleplaying is purely in the province of social skills?
Just wondering, but do these talents actually work better for multiclassed rogues? What about a rogue/barbarian?No. The math still does not make sneak attack better so it still deducts from DPR as a combat based feat,I...uh...what?
Are you saying that Roleplaying is purely in the province of social skills?
Don't just read half of the sentence. Read the entire sentence any my other post also. I was talking about the ability in question, not my view on gaming.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be a bad choice if it was free. It costs a talent. That's even worse. I don't think that's been touched on here. It reduces roleplaying options by taking away from choices that can actually do things.
CR 10 is the baseline for DPR calculations.
Name: touch: Diff AC->Flat:
bronze dragon: 10 1
bebilith: 9 1
Couatl: 13 4
fire giant: 8 0
water orm: 11 3
whale: 4 0
guardian naga: 15 6
Rakshasa: 16 6
Red dragon: 10 1W/ Whale: 10.667 2.444
W/O Whale: 11.5 2.75
Welp, the Full-attack option requirement kills Scorching Ray. Unless you do some weird voodoo with magi. Still could use a Gunslinger, or even just a rogue with a firearm. Conditions for getting ranged sneak attack are left as an exercise to the reader.
But hey, look at that. The average difference to AC when flat-footed for the iconic CR 10s (if anyone wants to compile the data for all of them, go ahead. I'm too lazy) is 2.
Which perfectly makes up for the loss in accuracy from this. So against unaware CR 10 iconics, the AC to hit is 21 (since we round down in PF).
Str 24 Rogue
Powerful Sneak.
Deadly Sneak.
Weapon Focus.
To-hit: 7 BAB + 7 Str + 1 Weapon Focus +2 Enhancement = +17
Target AC: 22
Avg Damage: 1d6+7+2 = 12.5
Average Sneak Attack: 17.5
Average Damage of Sneak Attack with Deadly Sneak: 22.5
.85 (12.5 + 17.5 ) + .85(1*.1*12.5) =
.85(30) + .85(1.25) =
25.5 + 1.0625 = 26.5625
.60(30) + .60*.1*1*12.5 =
18 + .75 = 18.75
25.5 + 18.75 = 45.3125 against flat-footed, non-Deadly Sneak
.75(12.5 + 22.5) + .75(1*.1*12.5) =
.75(35) + .9375 =
26.25 + .9375 = 27.1875
.5(35) + .5 (1.25) =
17.5 + .625 = 18.125
27.1875+18.125 = 45.3125 against flat-footed, Deadly Sneak
Against Rakshasa:
.95(30) + .95(1.25) = 29.75
+
.7(30) + .7(1.25) = 21.875
= 51.625 No deadly sneak
.85(35) + .85(1.25) = 30.1825
+
.6(35) + .85(1.25) = 22.0625 = 52.245 Deadly Sneak
So uh...yea. Just confirming, I guess.
For smurfs and giggles, let's try that Sap Master idea out here.
Sap Master:
.85(12.5+35) + 1.0625
40.375 + 1.0625 = 41.4375
+
.6(47.5) + .6*1.25
28.56 + .6*1.25 = 29.31
= 70.7475 Not Deadly Strike.
.75(12.5 + 45) + .9375 =
.75(57.5) + .9375 =
43.125 + .9375 = 44.0625
+
.5(57.5) + .625 = 29.375
total: 73.4375 for Sap Master Sneak Attack Deadly Strike
So uh...yea. I do think that using a firearm would help out a ton.
Now, I forgot to add in the +20 damage from Sap Adept / Sap Master combo. But meh, constant value.
A rogue using a merciful double hackbutt with Sap Master, Sniper's Goggles, and Far Reach Sight is probably the scariest thing out there. Or close to it. Well, depending on some slightly swishy reading of the rules. I guess firearms are the way to go to get use out of this.
You mind posting the actual build. I don't how a rogue is doing more damage with a -2 to hit.
I am thinking some other is making up for that ability being so weak.
You mind posting the actual build. I don't how a rogue is doing more damage with a -2 to hit.
I am thinking some other is making up for that ability being so weak.
The only relevant bit are the parts that affect to-hit and damage. Hence why I just listed strength, bab, weapon, and weapon focus. Everything is the same in the builds except the 2 talents, so why bother listing the build?
The only relevant bit are the parts that affect to-hit and damage. Hence why I just listed strength, bab, weapon, and weapon focus. Everything is the same in the builds except the 2 talents, so why bother listing the build?You mind posting the actual build. I don't how a rogue is doing more damage with a -2 to hit.
I am thinking some other is making up for that ability being so weak.
That smurf avatar threw me off. I did not even read the name. I will look at it later, if I can't work the math within the next 10 minutes.
quick observation which may be off:
1+2+3+4+5+6=21= avg 3.5
That talent turns that 1 into a 2
so we get 22/6=3.6667
That does not offset -2. Even if you had weapon focus added in it would not balance it out.
I can't find that first build, but unless you changed something the talent still fails.
If you did change something the credit goes to whatever you changed and not the talent in question.
When I get home I will use the DPR Olympics build, and change out a talent for deadly sneak. I might see the numbers go up, but I doubt it.
I used deadly sneak for both, I believe. The average damage per die of deadly sneak is 4.5 ((3+6)/2) I think. Minimum possible roll plus maximum possible roll divided by two.
But if I got that wrong, it would invalidate all of my math. Damnit. And since it doesn't take into account that you are as likely to get 3 as your all others combined, I'm probably wrong. Damnit.
This was using the DPR olympics formula, but please double check.
Yea, so I dun smurfed the math. The average of 1d6 (1,2=3) is 4, not 4.5.
So it's 2.5 extra damage per sneak attack, not 5. And the Sap Master will only add +5.
The same rogue using Piranha Strike would be taking a significantly higher attack roll penalty (-4 vs -2) for a slightly higher damage benefit (+8 damage vs +5 average damage), and Piranha Strike is generally considered an excellent feat.The 19th level rogue's average damage bonus from powerful sneak is not +5. It is +1.667.
Why would a 19th level rogue be using powerful sneak.