| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is each level of sneak attack worth an extra feat?:
No. As Unearthed Arcana shows, 9d6 sneak attack is worth only three feats. Furthermore, your math is wrong in two ways. Your "Smack Attack" does an average of 1.75 damage where Weapon Specialization does +2 damage all the time. weapon Specialization is straight up better. When you say: "Smack Attack deals an average of .75 more damage than Weapon Specialization." you mean .25 less. Also even if it were a straight equivalent to one feat, The fighter gains 11 bonus feats to the rogues 10 dice of sneak attack. Fighter wins, by eight feats.
Is a point of BAB and 4 health worth 24 skill points?:
Disingeuous question. A more fair question would be: Are 5BAB and 20 HP worth 120 skill points? And you are forgetting to add a couple of things to either side, the rogues better skill list on one side, and the extra iterative attack gained by BAB and the fighter being able to get several good feats earlier than the rogue, those with BAB prerequisites. The answer? The BAB and its attendand extra attack are worth more than the 120 skill points. Take all of the skills usable in combat, and none of them is worth 5 BAB, much less an extra attack. The extra HP and and the early feats are just icing on the cake.
Are the Rogue's miscellaneous features equal to the Fighter's miscellaneous features?:
Your tie is broken by the features you forgot to mention: Master Strike (only works once a day against a single target, has acrappy DC and goes against Fort which is th best save of anyone on melee against the rogue) versus Armor Mastery and Weapon Mastery (DR 5/- and autto confirm criticals and higher damage multiplier and immune to disarm) The tie breaks heavily on the fighter side.
The fighter not only wins, he trounces the rogue like a noob and then teabags the corpse. All you've managed to prove is that the rogue deserves a tier 5 to be created just for him.
Also a class feature comparison is not a viable way of comparing classes. Why? Because that method would make the monk seem better than the wizard.
Also a class feature comparison is not a viable way of comparing classes. Why? Because that method would make the monk seem better than the wizard.
I don't see how one could compare the monk's class features to the wizard's class features, and arrive at the conclusion that the monk is better than the wizard. I'm almost certain that "9 levels of spell casting" is a class feature, and that soundly trounces everything the monk has.
Also a class feature comparison is not a viable way of comparing classes. Why? Because that method would make the monk seem better than the wizard.I don't see how one could compare the monk's class features to the wizard's class features, and arrive at the conclusion that the monk is better than the wizard. I'm almost certain that "9 levels of spell casting" is a class feature, and that soundly trounces everything the monk has.
pretty sure he was referring just to sheer quantity, not quality necessarily.
pretty sure he was referring just to sheer quantity, not quality necessarily.Also a class feature comparison is not a viable way of comparing classes. Why? Because that method would make the monk seem better than the wizard.I don't see how one could compare the monk's class features to the wizard's class features, and arrive at the conclusion that the monk is better than the wizard. I'm almost certain that "9 levels of spell casting" is a class feature, and that soundly trounces everything the monk has.
Aye. Based on the way OP made his comparison model, the wizard gets a point for Spells being better than Flurry of Blows and Unarmed Strike (the monks main schtick) School Powers lose to the rest of the monks miscellaneous abilities, and monk gets five points for better BAB, better saves, better skillpoints, better HD and having more bonus feats. 7 to 1 in favor of the monk.
Clearly wizards are underpowered and monks are tier one.