PDA

View Full Version : Rogues for Balance



Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 12:24 AM
First off let me say that I tend to houserule (or ask the DM to houserule, depending on if I'm DMing or playing) that Rogues get another Special Ability at level 20, but that doesn't really matter either way for this thread.

I kind of figure that Rogues are a good basis for balance. They are neither uber nor crappy. They are useful from level 1 to level 20.

This is in contrast with Wizard, who start out crappy (if you don't sell your Spellbook), but get uber; Fighters, who start out quite powerful, but end up out-shone by others; Clerics, who start out good and get progressively more uber as they go; Druids, who often get accused of super-brokenness; and others.

The other reason I think Rogues are a good basis for balance is that they fill a specific party roll and fill it well while still being able to do just about anything if need be (even if it's not as well as others who specialise in it).

Agreements, disagreements, and discussion are very welcome.

Doresain
2007-11-11, 12:25 AM
i agree whole-heartedly simply because i typically am party skill-monkey

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 12:29 AM
I agree. Rogues are pretty much the benchmark for a well-built class that does everything it advertises without overshadowing other classes. Bard and Ranger also stay pretty close to the benchmark, as does pre-expansion Barbarian.

ocato
2007-11-11, 12:32 AM
I also agree, but I think its largely due to disable device and use magic item. Usually the big damage rogues have a few other things thrown in (scout levels, swift ambusher, ToB feats for a stance/maneuver around L12, whatever floats your boat), but even without all that extra tomfoolery, they are still pretty decent all around and useful. At higher levels straight rogues are still good, but a hunk of credit goes to those two skills.

TomTheRat
2007-11-11, 12:41 AM
After playing the skill monkey in ToEE for over a year I am forced to disagree. The cleric, druid and wizard are able to produce massive, combat wide support. The warrior, ranger and paladin are able to provide consistent and powerful dps. I disarm the occasional trap and every now and again get a teensy bit of sneak attack damage.

I've died more often than any other party member. I do less dps than any other party member. I prevent less damage than any other party member.

Remember back in the day (read: 2nd ed) when rogues advanced in level 200-125% faster than wizards? Yeah... that was for a reason. Sneaking and disarming traps simply don't support the party as much as a full bevy of caster capabilities. 3rd ed seemed to forget that an extra rogue level is -never- equivalent to a wizard level.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 12:41 AM
Bard, Ranger, Barbarian, and Paladin are basically the middle classes (better than Monks and Fighter, but not as good as Full Casters), but I chose the Rogue for my pinnacle of balance as it is one of the "main four"

That's why I didn't mention those classes in my OP (I meant to mention the Monk as an example of under-poweredness).

ocato
2007-11-11, 12:45 AM
After playing the skill monkey in ToEE for over a year I am forced to disagree. The cleric, druid and wizard are able to produce massive, combat wide support. The warrior, ranger and paladin are able to provide consistent and powerful dps. I disarm the occasional trap and every now and again get a teensy bit of sneak attack damage.

I've died more often than any other party member. I do less dps than any other party member. I prevent less damage than any other party member.

Remember back in the day (read: 2nd ed) when rogues advanced in level 200-125% faster than wizards? Yeah... that was for a reason. Sneaking and disarming traps simply don't support the party as much as a full bevy of caster capabilities. 3rd ed seemed to forget that an extra rogue level is -never- equivalent to a wizard level.

I mean this with the most respect possible, but was this an issue of the class or your character? I mean, I've seen wizards suck out loud. Sometimes gear, your other party members, or just a few silly mistakes can make you lag behind the rest of your party. Just food for thought.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 12:50 AM
Sorry, but what does ToEE stand for?

Also there is massive room for variation in character (especially with all the splat books out there). I'm assuming that one has decent stats and knows what Feats, Skills, etc. that are good to go for, but isn't choosing things that are obviously over-sights or game breaking.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 12:52 AM
This is in contrast with Wizard, who start out crappy

Whoever told you this is wrong. They just play wizards badly, plain 'n' simple. Wizards are awesome straight out of the box. They get even MORE awesome later. In fact, they can have more offensive power and out of combat utility than the party Rogue or Cleric straight off level 1. The Druid, of course, wins out by virtue of brining two useful characters to the table.

Anyone who tells you that wizards don't get powerful until after level 10 are very likely unskilled with mechanics themselves, and have just read too many rehashed Logic Ninja batman fanboy arguments. If you talked to more real optimizers instead of flunky clones, I'm sure you'd recognize that Wizards have a slew of advantages straight off level 1, and can even break the curve at that point.

I'm not going to go into making your overpowered low level wizard... just simply why the basic wizard is worthy of being feared in capable hands straight off level 1.

A level 1 core only wizard with, say, a hawk familiar will have access to area of effect save or loses, a scout more capable than a Rogue, the ability to make cheap scrolls of great and varied utility on a day's notice, good, versatile out of combat utility (especially if you take advantage of the ability to keep a slot open), spells like Silent Image that will win otherwise insurmountable encounters or even change the tide of a plot(!) with clever use, and doubled up skill checks (when you are getting around 24 skill points at level 1), including a second spot check with at least a +16 modifier, meaning that no darned Rogues are going to sneak by you :smallwink:

When you go out of core, it gets even better. That's nothing to sneeze at. And you get far better once you get access to level 2 spells. And so, your exponential power curve begins, and then you're just unstoppable when your levels reach the double digits.


I agree. Rogues are pretty much the benchmark for a well-built class that does everything it advertises without overshadowing other classes.

Rogues aren't actually very well built, by virtue of violating obvious elements of good class design like "actually have a reason to progress in the class." There is no reason to ever take a 20th level of Rogue. Other than that, though, they're pretty darn solid, and I usually recommend them as the best class for the newbies, since they gradually introduce a new player to the entire system and even if you totally screw your build you will still fill a useful function in the party.

TomTheRat
2007-11-11, 12:58 AM
I mean this with the most respect possible, but was this an issue of the class or your character? I mean, I've seen wizards suck out loud. Sometimes gear, your other party members, or just a few silly mistakes can make you lag behind the rest of your party. Just food for thought.

Nono, none taken. The wizard is a brilliant and "outside the box" player. The only real noob in the group is the ranger (who had the wizard's player min/max her character) and the paladin (who got reincarnated as a half-celestial, and had a homebrewed 4 level progression to full half-celestial).

I like to think that I have the skill to make the absolute best of any situation. I watch for patterns in combat and out of combat, and consistently, I find that I contribute vastly less than the other characters to the overall success of the party. Yes, ToEE is a meat grinder, but I still think that in-character stuff aside no class should be the obvious weakest link. I'm that.


Sorry, but what does ToEE stand for?

Also there is massive room for variation in character (especially with all the splat books out there). I'm assuming that one has decent stats and knows what Feats, Skills, etc. that are good to go for, but isn't choosing things that are obviously over-sights or game breaking.

ToEE = Temple of Elemental Evil, or, as we're in 3rd ed days, Return to Temple of Elemental Evil.

There certainly IS room for min-maxing, but our DM took a fairly strict stand against that, and we're almost all core classes right now. I'm Rogue/Thief-Acrobat if anyone cares.


Bard, Ranger, Barbarian, and Paladin are basically the middle classes (better than Monks and Fighter, but not as good as Full Casters), but I chose the Rogue for my pinnacle of balance as it is one of the "main four"

I got you. What I'm trying to say is that I contribute less than the others. Definitely less than even the warrior.

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 12:59 AM
Sorry, but what does ToEE stand for?

Also there is massive room for variation in character (especially with all the splat books out there). I'm assuming that one has decent stats and knows what Feats, Skills, etc. that are good to go for, but isn't choosing things that are obviously over-sights or game breaking.

Temple of Elemental Evil, I believe. The poster's complaint may well come from the fact that he was in an adventure setting whose theme enemies are immune to Sneak Attack. It's the same problem rogues have in the standard adventure environment of The Undead-Filled Catacombs, which is why a number of variant class features, magic items, and spells have been printed to let rogues Sneak Attack otherwise immune things.

TomTheRat
2007-11-11, 01:02 AM
Temple of Elemental Evil, I believe. The poster's complaint may well come from the fact that he was in an adventure setting whose theme enemies are immune to Sneak Attack. It's the same problem rogues have in the standard adventure environment of The Undead-Filled Catacombs, which is why a number of variant class features, magic items, and spells have been printed to let rogues Sneak Attack otherwise immune things.

Yeah, it does suck when mobs are immune to my sneak attack, no question. But a lot of the time sneak attack isn't even an option. I work -hard- to be in the right place at the right time with the right unexpected item, with the right enemy targeted, and at the end of the day, a full attack at full BAB progression with a two handed sword will outshine my meticulous scheme. Or the wizard simply enervates the everliving hell out of the BBEG.

The_Snark
2007-11-11, 01:03 AM
Whoever told you this is wrong. They just play wizards badly, plain 'n' simple. Wizards are awesome straight out of the box. They get even MORE awesome later. In fact, they can have more offensive power and out of combat utility than the party Rogue or Cleric straight off level 1. The Druid, of course, wins out by virtue of brining two useful characters to the table.

Wizards are awesome right out of the box... three times a day. They're not very good at level 1; they'll acquit themselves decently in the first couple encounters and then realize they're out of spells.

For that matter, most of the wizard's supposedly awesome 1st-level spells aren't that good. Color Spray is good, but has very short range, meaning a successful save by an enemy can get you killed. Charm Person is good, but once combat starts, not as useful. Sleep is good... no, wait, full-round casting time. Not very good. Grease is solid.

For that matter, if you want anything out of combat, or anything defensive, you just gave up a third of your combat ability at 1st level.

ocato
2007-11-11, 01:05 AM
Okay! So you were a rogue in undeadsville! I certain would call that extraordinary circumstances. Don't feel bad about your character or the class in that situation, that's like being a barbarian in a heavy socialite mystery game. It's just a bad situation.

TomTheRat
2007-11-11, 01:07 AM
Okay! So you were a rogue in undeadsville! I certain would call that extraordinary circumstances. Don't feel bad about your character or the class in that situation, that's like being a barbarian in a heavy socialite mystery game. It's just a bad situation.

Not even close. ToEE has plenty of every type of enemy, and after a year and a half of getting our butts stomped on by this damned adventure, I don't feel that I'm any more or less disadvantaged than any other character. At least with respect to the type of enemies we fight.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 01:09 AM
Wizards are awesome right out of the box... three times a day. Wrong again. You ignore half of their capabilities at that level. You ignore their skills (often they get about as many points as the party bard), cantrips (don't underestimate them!), and resources (familiars can outscout the rogue early on, and that's only the start).

A level 1 core only wizard with, say, a hawk familiar will have access to area of effect save or loses, a scout more capable than a Rogue, the ability to make cheap scrolls of great and varied utility on a day's notice, good, versatile out of combat utility (especially if you take advantage of the ability to keep a slot open), spells like Silent Image that will win otherwise insurmountable encounters or even change the tide of a plot(!) with clever use, and doubled up skill checks (when you are getting around 24 skill points at level 1), including a second spot check with at least a +16 modifier, meaning that no darned Rogues are going to sneak by you :smallwink:

And not only that, even cantrips can be life-saving! A cleric's orisons simply don't compare. Like Silent Image and similar spells, Ghost Sound can actually WIN ENCOUNTERS when used creatively. Mage Hand can occasionally get you out of deadly situations with the flip of an unreachable lever or other situational uses. Prestidigitation can eliminate evidence of your recent brutal murders with a quick cleaning. Daze can actually take out an enemy's turn, if you've run out of spells.

This is just core only. You only get better with supplements.

ocato
2007-11-11, 01:09 AM
Well, thems the breaks sometimes, eh? A wand of invisibility can sometimes make or break you.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 01:11 AM
Yes, Rogues are definitely majorly nerfed when up against opponents who are immune to Sneak Attack.

On a side not, OneWing, can you please explain to me why Wizards are uber at level 1? I guess I exaggerated by saying that they are crappy, but I feel that Wizards and Sorcerers are the least powerful classes at level 1 (I'm not really sure about Bards though as I haven't ever played a Bard... Oh my gods, I've never played a Bard!). Oh, that's probably excluding Monks.
The fact remains that Level 1 Wizards and Sorcerers are OHKOs.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 01:13 AM
Yes, Rogues are definitely majorly nerfed when up against opponents who are immune to Sneak Attack.

On a side not, OneWing, can you please explain to me why Wizards are uber at level 1? I guess I exaggerated by saying that they are crappy, but I feel that Wizards and Sorcerers are the least powerful classes at level 1 (I'm not really sure about Bards though as I haven't ever played a Bard... Oh my gods, I've never played a Bard!). Oh, that's probably excluding Monks.
The fact remains that Level 1 Wizards and Sorcerers are OHKOs.

A level 1 core only wizard with, say, a hawk familiar will have access to area of effect save or loses, a scout more capable than a Rogue, the ability to make cheap scrolls of great and varied utility on a day's notice, good, versatile out of combat utility (especially if you take advantage of the ability to keep a slot open), spells like Silent Image that will win otherwise insurmountable encounters or even change the tide of a plot(!) with clever use, and doubled up skill checks (when you are getting around 24 skill points at level 1), including a second spot check with at least a +16 modifier, meaning that no darned Rogues are going to sneak by you :smallwink:

And not only that, even cantrips can be life-saving! A cleric's orisons simply don't compare. Like Silent Image and similar spells, Ghost Sound can actually WIN ENCOUNTERS when used creatively. Mage Hand can occasionally get you out of deadly situations with the flip of an unreachable lever or other situational uses. Prestidigitation can eliminate evidence of your recent brutal murders with a quick cleaning. Daze can actually take out an enemy's turn, if you've run out of spells.

This is just core only. You only get better with supplements.

When I've played low level casters, I've found myself being one of the most valuable members in the party, regardless of whether the game was combat-heavy or not. And I tend to play with at least decent optimizers, and at most uncon optimization prizewinners and superbuild contributors.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 01:14 AM
Rogues aren't actually very well built, by virtue of violating obvious elements of good class design like "actually have a reason to progress in the class."

By that logic, wizard and cleric fail as well. For that matter, no class does. I haven't seen a straight X character in an actual game in years, due to PrCs.

That being said, yeah, rogue should have a pinnacle ability, and it isn't perfect. That doesn't change the fact that it is the benchmark for class balance. Classes that are more powerful are overpowered, and classes that are less powerful are underpowered.

Chronos
2007-11-11, 01:16 AM
I've died more often than any other party member. I do less dps than any other party member. I prevent less damage than any other party member.DPS and damage prevention are tools for winning a fight. If you're looking at the game in terms of combat, then it's no wonder that you're having problems with a rogue. Rogues aren't for winning fights; they're for winning adventures. You sneak ahead of the party, and scout out where the guards, traps, and alarms are. You sneak past or go around the guards, disarm or avoid the traps and alarms, and head for the objective (villain, artifact, or whatever). If the goal is to retrieve some item, you just go grab it, and sneak back to the party. If it's to defeat a villain, then you steal or disable whatever he has that makes him effective (a holy symbol, a spellbook, material components, magic items, whatever). If he doesn't have anything to steal or disable, you can still at least bring intelligence back to the rest of the party. If you do it well and the dice smile upon you, it doesn't matter one whit that your Sneak Attack doesn't work on some targets, because you never enter combat at all.

To the OP, I think the general consensus is that rogues are the most balanced of the classes (and they should be, what with having it as a class skill, and a high dex! :smalltongue: ). So you're not alone.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 01:17 AM
By that logic, wizard and cleric fail as well. For that matter, no class does. I haven't seen a straight X character in an actual game in years, due to PrCs.

That being said, yeah, rogue should have a pinnacle ability, and it isn't perfect. That doesn't change the fact that it is the benchmark for class balance. Classes that are more powerful are overpowered, and classes that are less powerful are underpowered.

A wizard actually gets a caster level by advancing a level, even if a PrC would replicate that. A Rogue does not get ANYTHING for advancing to level 20. Not even the promise of an ability to be gained AFTER that, unless you're taking the Epic route. The Rogue's 20th level is a critical, glaring error in design that any decent game designer would notice instantly. This indicates to me that WotC does not exactly have fantastic game designers or playtesters, along with endless other evidence. Either that, or they purposely make it flawed in order to spur on supplement sales.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 01:17 AM
Yes, they can be useful, but I'd hardly call them Uber at level one. Especially considering that a Fighter will usually have three times the HP and the ability to OHKO many opponents an unlimited time per day with absolutely no player creativity.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 01:20 AM
Yes, they can be useful, but I'd hardly call them Uber at level one.

Did anyone say uber? No, I didn't say uber. Though I *could* make that claim and provide specific builds proving it (since I actually know how to optimize worth a damn), I don't believe in making such arguments about general balance based on specific cheese tactics.

What I actually said was "they're very useful even at low level, and anyone who tells you that casters are weak at low level is wrong."

ocato
2007-11-11, 01:24 AM
I like rogues.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 01:24 AM
Well, they are uber at high levels.
They are not useless, but power-wise they are out-shone at level 1.

Also the lack of a reason to take Rogue 20 is a design flaw, but other than that they are the benchmark for balance at all levels.
Even at level 20 (if one took it) they would be useful as a level 20 character. The problem is that they could do better even by dipping one level into Fighter for a Bonus Feat and HP.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 01:24 AM
I like rogues.

Me too, but doesn't that comment basically amount to spam?


Well, they are uber at high levels.
They are not useless, but power-wise they are out-shone at level 1. By what? Druids? Seriously, a level 1 Barbarian (or what have you) will not show up a level 1 wizard, since the wizard covers so much utility that the Fighter can't even touch, as I've already demonstrated. In fact, the average barbarian probably won't show up 8d6 damage as a touch attack, and a level 1 wizard can do that a few times per day with no optimization or build effort.

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 01:24 AM
Yes, they can be useful, but I'd hardly call them Uber at level one. Especially considering that a Fighter will usually have three times the HP and the ability to OHKO many opponents an unlimited time per day with absolutely no player creativity.

And a lot of his opponents can one-shot him right back. Like anything that carries a two-handed weapon; a single standard MM orc can shred a first-level party with minimal cooperation from the dice. The wizard's ability to perform his effects from range is significantly safer than a melee'ing fighter at 1st.

Also, I've seen it said somewhere that Shadowdancer 1 is the actual Rogue 20. I don't know who decided to put Hide in Plain Sight at the first level of that class..

Mewtarthio
2007-11-11, 01:25 AM
A wizard actually gets a caster level by advancing a level, even if a PrC would replicate that. A Rogue does not get ANYTHING for advancing to level 20. Not even the promise of an ability to be gained AFTER that, unless you're taking the Epic route. The Rogue's 20th level is a critical, glaring error in design that any decent game designer would notice instantly. This indicates to me that WotC does not exactly have fantastic game designers or playtesters, along with endless other evidence. Either that, or they purposely make it flawed in order to spur on supplement sales.

A lack of a capstone ability is a small but annoying error. It's not a horrific oversight that has ruined the Rogue class and could only have been caused either by horrific incompotence of the highest order or outright malicious plotting to sell more supplements.

ocato
2007-11-11, 01:27 AM
Too subtle? My mistake.

Let's get this thread back on topic, this is not the Wizards in the Playground forum and every thread is not "zomg wizards 4tw"

TomTheRat
2007-11-11, 01:28 AM
DPS and damage prevention are tools for winning a fight. If you're looking at the game in terms of combat, then it's no wonder that you're having problems with a rogue. Rogues aren't for winning fights; they're for winning adventures. You sneak ahead of the party, and scout out where the guards, traps, and alarms are. You sneak past or go around the guards, disarm or avoid the traps and alarms, and head for the objective (villain, artifact, or whatever). If the goal is to retrieve some item, you just go grab it, and sneak back to the party. If it's to defeat a villain, then you steal or disable whatever he has that makes him effective (a holy symbol, a spellbook, material components, magic items, whatever). If he doesn't have anything to steal or disable, you can still at least bring intelligence back to the rest of the party. If you do it well and the dice smile upon you, it doesn't matter one whit that your Sneak Attack doesn't work on some targets, because you never enter combat at all.

I'm with you 100% on that one. Thats why I went Thief-Acrobat rather than sticking with Rogue: I've nerfed my dps for the sake of survivability, movement and utility. I still have never, ever, seen the return on that investment. Every session I'm the guy ahead of the group sneaking and disarming and disabling. Every session, my work provides a minimal effect on the group's success.

Its the problem, as so often is the case, with comparing classes based on best-case scenarios. Yes, wizards always win in best-case scenarios, and yes, warriors always lose. In a real game this rarely happens. If there was a sleeping BBEG with no defenses set up sure I could go in and coups-de-gras him. In a real game this basically never happens. What I'm trying to say is that over the long run, the abilities of those other classes negate the supposed strengths of the rogue.

Someone once did a mathemagical examination of a rogue vs. a hallway full of traps and barbarian sprinting through said hallway of traps to see who would be more successful. It wasn't the rogue.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 01:30 AM
((Removed))

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 01:31 AM
Well it does kind of make you wonder why no one said "Hey guys, shouldn't we give people a reason to take 20th level Rogue?" and if someone did say that why didn't the people in charge listen. It is rather more obvious that other dead levels in other classes.
Shadowdance 1 is definitely a good choice for a Rogue's 20th level.

Fighters generally have the AC and HP to not die at level one. Where as all the Wizard needs to go down is a single ranged attack which is very likely.

The_Snark
2007-11-11, 01:32 AM
Wrong again. You ignore half of their capabilities at that level.

A level 1 core only wizard with, say, a hawk familiar will have access to area of effect save or loses, a scout more capable than a Rogue, the ability to make cheap scrolls of great and varied utility on a day's notice, good, versatile out of combat utility (especially if you take advantage of the ability to keep a slot open), spells like Silent Image that will win otherwise insurmountable encounters or even change the tide of a plot(!) with clever use, and doubled up skill checks (when you are getting around 24 skill points at level 1), including a second spot check with at least a +16 modifier, meaning that no darned Rogues are going to sneak by you :smallwink:

The familiar makes a good scout, but you can't talk to it unless it's a raven (in which case you aren't getting a lot of the skill bonuses that make it such a good scout). It's a nice early warning system. That's all it can do, scout-wise.

As for utility, if you leave a spell slot open, you have exactly 2 spells available for combat. Assuming you're a specialist. You have to have a spell in your spellbook to craft a scroll, too; it's a nice ability, but unless you have a fair bit of down time you won't get much out of it.


And not only that, even cantrips can be life-saving! A cleric's orisons simply don't compare. Like Silent Image and similar spells, Ghost Sound can actually WIN ENCOUNTERS when used creatively. Mage Hand can occasionally get you out of deadly situations with the flip of an unreachable lever or other situational uses. Prestidigitation can eliminate evidence of your recent brutal murders with a quick cleaning. Daze can actually take out an enemy's turn, if you've run out of spells.

True, illusions cleverly used can be awesome, and cantrips have their uses.

Wizards at level 1 are good, I'm not denying that. But they simply don't have much endurance for encounters. There's no getting around that, unless you have huge reserves of scrolls, or you have your party rest every time you run out.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 01:33 AM
What I actually said was "they're very useful even at low level, and anyone who tells you that casters are weak at low level is wrong."

That is a false dichotomy, sir. Weak =/= useless. Wizards are weak at low level. One hit from anyone will drop your low level wizard, and the low level wizard has nothing that will stop him from getting hit. A fighter has a decent AC(otherwise known as something that will stop him from getting hit), and can take two hits, three if he is lucky.

A wizard is not useless at low level. He can resolve 2, maybe three encounters witrh his spells each day, depending on how the DM rolls for the NPCs. Typically, he'll only succeed once or twice, given that everything is a roll-off at low level, including saves. If you cast a sleep spell at a group of three goblins, odds are you will get one or two of them, out of the three. That is worth about two sword swings from the party fighter.

I also have to agree that communication is very important for a scout. I have a Tibbit in my Saturday game who is a great scout, except that he has to change from cat to halfling to communicate. He prefers to fight as a cat, so this is something he doesn't like to do, but that he has to, because no one can communicate with him in his cat form.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 01:39 AM
Yes and Fighters can swing their sword as many times a day as they want, even at level 1.

I should have said "weak" in my OP, not "crappy."
"Crappy" isn't a good word anyway so thank you for leading me towards realising a crappy (:smallwink:) aspect of my writing than I can easily improve upon.

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 01:40 AM
I'm with you 100% on that one. Thats why I went Thief-Acrobat rather than sticking with Rogue: I've nerfed my dps for the sake of survivability, movement and utility. I still have never, ever, seen the return on that investment. Every session I'm the guy ahead of the group sneaking and disarming and disabling. Every session, my work provides a minimal effect on the group's success.

I don't suppose you ever considered just not doing this for a session or two? I think it would be hard to completely assess how minimal your effect really was if you don't have a baseline comparison of having no rogue doing this kind of thing at all.



Someone once did a mathemagical examination of a rogue vs. a hallway full of traps and barbarian sprinting through said hallway of traps to see who would be more successful. It wasn't the rogue.

You wouldn't happen to remember the specific traps or have a link to the comparison? That sounds like a contest that could easily be rigged one way or the other depending on what all of the traps did.



Wizards at level 1 are good, I'm not denying that. But they simply don't have much endurance for encounters. There's no getting around that, unless you have huge reserves of scrolls, or you have your party rest every time you run out.

And then the Wizard pings stuff with a heavy crossbow. If he's got a decent Dex, which is common for helping with rays and other ranged touches, he won't be much less effective then any other party member.

ocato
2007-11-11, 01:44 AM
Too subtle? My mistake.

Let's get this thread back on topic, this is not the Wizards in the Playground forum and every thread is not "zomg wizards 4tw"

This was probably too harsh. I apologize.

I think 'capstone' situation is kind of an issue. Let's look at some L20s

Barbarians: Might rage +8 STR/CON, and 6 rages a day. Nice
Bard: Inspire Courage +4, an extra 6th level spell per day. Not bad at all
Cleric: Extra 9th level spell per day, can't complain.
Druid: Wild Shape elemental 3/day, and huge Elemental, and another 9th level spell per day. Fantastic
Fighter: Bonus Feat! I mean, that's his thing. Let em go.
Monk: Perfect self, slow fall, unarmed damage +2d10, AC bonus up to +4. Actually a lot of stuff, monks are rarely compared positively.
Paladin: Smite Evil 5/day, an extra 4th level spell per day. Eh, can't complain
Ranger: Another favored enemy and another 4th level spell per day. Not bad.
Rogue: NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. YOU SO STUPID
Sorcerer: Cast one more 9th level spell per day and learn 2 new ones. Nice!
Wizard: Bonus Feat and another 9th level spell per day. Do what you do, wizard man.

I never noticed that before, huh.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 01:44 AM
That is a false dichotomy, sir. I don't think you understand what a false dichotomy is. "They're very useful even at low level, and anyone who tells you that casters are weak at low level is wrong" is not a false dichotomy. I didn't provide a false dichotomy, I provided an opinion and supported it with evidence.
Weak =/= useless. Wizards are weak at low level. Did I claim Weak equaled useless? No? Straw man argument. You've ALREADY made your argument logically wrong. The rest just makes it worse.
One hit from anyone will drop your low level wizard, and the low level wizard has nothing that will stop him from getting hit. A fighter has a decent AC(otherwise known as something that will stop him from getting hit), and can take two hits, three if he is lucky. This is an example of bad evidence. It ignores the good AC wizards are capable of at low level (it's common for mine to have at least 16 AC, including core only, and often they'll hang out in the 20s. Fighters will often have around 14 unless they have a shield). It further ignores the fact that Wizards have about the same durability as Rogues as far as hp goes, which are supposedly better than wizards at low level in the argument I was countering.


A wizard is not useless at low level. He can resolve 2, maybe three encounters witrh his spells each day Funny how I don't have much trouble handling 4 or 5 encounters when I play one, including situations the rest of the party just can't handle. Even when the enemies are considering me the most dangerous target and going directly for me. You also seem to be speaking only in terms of combat encounters, ignoring the great deal of utility the wizard brings to the table. It's also worth noting that a very large part of the Rogue's contribution is bringing utility to the table, and that he's sometimes expected to wade into melee with his durability comparable to a wizard's.
depending on how the DM rolls for the NPCs. Typically, he'll only succeed once or twice, given that everything is a roll-off at low level, including saves. If you cast a sleep spell at a group of three goblins, odds are you will get one or two of them, out of the three. That is worth about two sword swings from the party fighter. And your point is what? That 3 times per day, the Wizard can be twice as effective as what has been posited in the argument I'm countering as the TOP TIER character at level 1? That's a very poor argument for one being weak, sir.

Basically... your argument logically fails on several accounts. Better luck next time.

TomTheRat
2007-11-11, 01:46 AM
I don't suppose you ever considered just not doing this for a session or two? I think it would be hard to completely assess how minimal your effect really was if you don't have a baseline comparison of having no rogue doing this kind of thing at all.

That would be a delicious test. I've never missed a session, but I've often ended a game night furious at our group for being repulsed by some encounter or other where "ok, pallie and war charge and we smash them as hard as we can" seems retroactively like a better solution than the delicate one we chose (and failed at).


You wouldn't happen to remember the specific traps or have a link to the comparison? That sounds like a contest that could easily be rigged one way or the other depending on what all of the traps did.

I don't; this was years ago. What I remember from it was that high HPs, good fort saves, and the trap dodge ability of barbs equate to better survivability than forcing a rogue to roll twice and possibly die against every trap.

I'll try and find the link.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 02:08 AM
The familiar makes a good scout, but you can't talk to it unless it's a raven (in which case you aren't getting a lot of the skill bonuses that make it such a good scout). It's a nice early warning system. That's all it can do, scout-wise. I rather like Ravens. I make them use scrolls and wands and command word items for me later, whenever I take one. Works like a charm. Also, you CAN talk to your familiar. It just can't talk back. Huge difference from what you just said.

Anyways, a Raven will get Listen +5 and Spot +7, as well as a nice Hide and the ability to take to the air. Not exactly a bad scout, even though others are obviously better.

Of course, if we're going noncore, we get totally awesome familiars like the hummingbird and the octopus.


As for utility, if you leave a spell slot open, you have exactly 2 spells available for combat. Uhm, 2 spells available for ONE combat. You can totally fill that empty slot with a combat spell later, you know.
You have to have a spell in your spellbook to craft a scroll, too; it's a nice ability, but unless you have a fair bit of down time you won't get much out of it. The fact that you don't value scrolls does NOT help your credibility. Scrolls are essential for playing a wizard to his potential. A small upkeep of 1 xp and 12.5 gp per dungeon delve will keep up your Mage Armor, for example. Not to mention stockpiling special use scrolls that, situationally, can totally save the day and prevent TPKs and the like.


True, illusions cleverly used can be awesome, and cantrips have their uses. Yes, yes they do. And cantrips are fantastic. You should be using them all the time. If you're just letting them sit there, odds are you such at playing a wizard.


But they simply don't have much endurance for encounters. As a level 1 wizard, I've rarely run out of gas before anyone else in the party was slowin' down. The reality is no one at level 1 has a lot of durability on their own, and that includes the melee types. If they get hit twice, the cleric's going to be out of spell slots (if he was actually devoting his slots to cure spells. It may be more likely he's just draining *at least* 12.5 gp and 1 XP per hit thanks to the Cleric making Lesser Vigor scrolls or something). On his own, the Fighter is actually paying at least 25gp per hit he takes. And he will often have less AC than a wizard at level 1. This is not fantastic endurance, man.

___

Here's the thing. Wizards scale UPWARDS in power. Their curve favors the higher levels. But really, they're perfectly capable at low levels, and can definitely match up with at least the Rogue. The only catch is that wizards take a little bit more INTELLIGENCE to play well, and thus lots of idiots will suck it at level 1. As you grow in level, it takes less and less skill to own with the wizard, until at level 10 or so almost anyone should be able to do it.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 02:14 AM
AC 14?! Wow, I really don't know what to say to that. I don't think I've ever seen a Level 1 Fighter with an AC of 14.

I believe the false dichotomy (or impression of false dichotomy) was using a scale of weak to useful and they are not opposites. One can be simultaneously weak and useful. I know you didn't technically say that usefulness means one is not weak, but I definitely got that impression.

So no weak =/= useless is not a straw-man.

Also, yes, they can use a ranged weapon, but as soon as they get into ranged combat they are effectively dead.

Dex is useful for Wizard, but hardly the first thing a Wizard goes for. in any Point Buy game all Wizards immediately boost Int to 18. Then they put the remaining points into Con and Dex. 13 and 12 put you up to Standard Powered Point Buy (25) and even High Powered Point Buy (32) only nets you 15 and 15 or 16 and 14.

Besides that I think this argument is useless as we both all seem to agree that at first level the Wizard is useful, but not overly powerful.
It is quite clear that you, OneWing, enjoy playing Wizards and do so in a way that helps your group. That's good.

Perhaps the perception of weakness at level 1 is partially caused by how ridiculously over-powered they become later on.

EDIT: Clerics can cast Cure spells spontaneously (if they channel positive energy). I'm not even going to say that that hurt your over-all credibility or makes the rest of your argument less effective.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 02:15 AM
AC 14?! Wow, I really don't know what to say to that. I don't think I've ever seen a Level 1 Fighter with an AC of 14. What do you suggest, then? You're getting +4 AC for your armor thanks the early monetary limitations, and you're probably not going to invest in more than a 12 dex unless you're going for an archer or something. And, as I already noted, that statement was assuming no shield.

And again, you are just making a statement without backing it up with any kind of figures or evidence.


was using a scale of weak to useful and they are not opposites. I never made any such argument, so that's a straw man and thus makes him logically wrong. As I already stated.
One can be simultaneously weak and useful. I agree completely. I never stated otherwise.
I know you didn't technically say that usefulness means one is not weak, but I definitely got that impression. Then you're reading wrong, plain and simple. I just demonstrated how they can be STRONG. As in, *more useful than the other classes.*


So no weak =/= useless is not a straw-man. How the heck do you arrive at THAT conclusion? You provided no supporting evidence other than "you got that impression." You know, there's a such a thing as a false impression. A lot of impressions garnered without any basis in what's actually been said fall into that category, buddy.


Also, yes, they can use a ranged weapon, but as soon as they get into ranged combat they are effectively dead. When did I ever mention resorting to a ranged weapon? Another straw man argument, because you say "yes" as if acknowledging that I mentioned a ranged weapon. A logical fault in your post. And a misrepresentation of my statements, and thus quite rude.


Dex is useful for Wizard, but hardly the first thing a Wizard goes for. in any Point Buy game all Wizards immediately boost Int to 18. Then they put the remaining points into Con and Dex. 13 and 12 put you up to Standard Powered Point Buy (25) and even High Powered Point Buy (32) only nets you 15 and 15 or 16 and 14. Where is that coming from? Did I say anything about boosting Dex higher than 14? Ever? Did I even remotely imply it? Nope.


Besides that I think this argument is useless as we both all seem to agree that at first level the Wizard is useful, but not overly powerful.
It is quite clear that you, OneWing, enjoy playing Wizards and do so in a way that helps your group. That's good. You claimed that they are weak, that rogues are higher than that, and fighter types higher than that. This claim is not really accurate. In point of fact, there's a thread on The Gaming Den (a community that has more real optimizers postin' than this one seems to exhibit) devoted to ridiculing one the very notion you posited in another thread on this forum (Class Balance at Different Levels).


Perhaps the perception of weakness at level 1 is partially caused by how ridiculously over-powered they become later on.

Or by the fact that wizards require a more intelligent player in order to excel at low level. They are not as simple a class as, say, a Barbarian. The fact that people seem to forget about half of their resources in the arguments against me only reinforces this position.

A Barbarian will excel without even trying. That doesn't mean a smart wizard won't still be able to match him or even outshine him.

Heck, I've not even resorted to supplements yet. I could show you a great deal more utility out of the wizzy.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 02:24 AM
((Accidentally double posted when editing together quote responses...))

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 02:25 AM
So that's a minimum of 14 then? That's very different than an average of 14? Why wouldn't you take shield into account? I would guess it's because it makes your point quite meaningless.

It's definitely not unheard of for a Fighter to have a decent Dex. I would say they'd only, on average, be 1 mod bonus point behind Wizards. That means that they usually have an AC that is 3-5 better than a Wizards.

Please check my last post for the edit as you had not posted when I went to edit.

If you're going to talk about the rules of debate please refrain from making an attack against me personally (that I don't back up my points) and instead stick to showing me where my points are wrong.
If they are not backed up, but are not wrong either then you're kind of S.O.L.
You can also ask me to back up any points that you feel warrant further evidence as opposed to insinuating that i don't know what i am talking about or am purposefully misleading you.

EDIT: Please refrain from posting twice in a row. The edit button is there for a reason. I'll respond to your second post in a minute.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 02:30 AM
So that's a minimum of 14 then? WHERE did you get this dex thing from? When did I even mention Dexterity?
That's very different than an average of 14? Why wouldn't you take shield into account? I would guess it's because it makes your point quite meaningless.

It's definitely not unheard of for a Fighter to have a decent Dex. I would say they'd only, on average, be 1 mod bonus point behind Wizards. That means that they usually have an AC that is 3-5 better than a Wizards. HUH? How do you get that figure? A wizard can easily afford to keep Mage Armor up whenever he needs it without wasting spell slots (in fact, it will take a bit before it becomes more costly than the fighter's own armor), and it will have the same bonus as the Fighter's armor. If the Fighter is one point of dex mod behind the wizard, that means he has at least 1 point less AC. Not 3-5 points more. Grade school math here, people. And no delusions of level 1 full plate.

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 02:30 AM
So that's a minimum of 14 then? That's very different than an average of 14? Why wouldn't you take shield into account? I would guess it's because it makes your point quite meaningless.


Presumably because of the mentions of a Fighter 'OHKOing' things, which implies a two-handed weapon to do reliably.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 02:31 AM
Starting Package fighter has more AC than 14. Assuming that they are not using a shield is just stupid. Shields are the superior combat style at low level, when you generally don't need the damage boost from two-handing.

I am getting the distinct impression that you are used to the non-wizards playing stupid at low-level. A well played rogue, for example, has a lot more staying power than the wizard. A rogue can one-shot CR appropriate encounters just as reliably as the wizard at level one, has a higher AC, and has lots of skills. The difference being that the rogue can continue to one-shot CR appropriate encounters until his luck runs out. The wizard get three enounters of being useful per day (unless his luck turns sour), until he makes enough money to start making scrolls. Throwing 13 gold at an encounter at level 1 makes it difficult to profit, by the way.



Or by the fact that wizards require a more intelligent player in order to excel at low level. They are not as simple a class as, say, a Barbarian. The fact that people seem to forget about half of their resources in the arguments against me only reinforces this position.

A Barbarian will excel without even trying. That doesn't mean a smart wizard won't still be able to match him or even outshine him.

Heck, I've not even resorted to supplements yet. I could show you a great deal more utility out of the wizzy.

This is not an argument in your favor, btw. What you just said is:
"Wizards at low level require more OOG effort in order to be equally useful compared to other classes at low level"

Which makes low level wizard a monk:

"The problem with monk is that they require a greater amount of optimization compared to the other players in the group, in order to contribute on an equal level"

The_Snark
2007-11-11, 02:34 AM
I rather like Ravens. I make them use scrolls and wands and command word items for me later, whenever I take one. Works like a charm. Also, you CAN talk to your familiar. It just can't talk back. Huge difference from what you just said.

Anyways, a Raven will get Listen +5 and Spot +7, as well as a nice Hide and the ability to take to the air. Not exactly a bad scout, even though others are obviously better.

Of course, if we're going noncore, we get totally awesome familiars like the hummingbird and the octopus.

True, true. The familiar is useful. On the other hand, a lucky shot by a guard with a crossbow and you're out some experience.

But since when can familiars use scrolls and wands? Those are spell trigger items. Familiars don't cast spells.


Uhm, 2 spells available for ONE combat. You can totally fill that empty slot with a combat spell later, you know. The fact that you don't value scrolls does NOT help your credibility. Scrolls are essential for playing a wizard to his potential. A small upkeep of 1 xp and 12.5 gp per dungeon delve will keep up your Mage Armor, for example. Not to mention stockpiling special use scrolls that, situationally, can totally save the day and prevent TPKs and the like.

I'm the first to admit I'm not an optimal wizard player, as I tend to cling to my resources (especially experience) with both hands. But I didn't say they weren't good for keeping up defenses (although Mage Armor isn't a great idea, since it'll only last an hour cast from a scroll) and keeping around spells that are only occasionally useful but awesome when they finally do become useful. I said that since each scroll takes a full day of down time to craft, the ability isn't going to be useful in a lot of campaigns. Might just be the campaigns I play in, but down time tends to be less than frequent, and it's never unlimited.


As a level 1 wizard, I've rarely run out of gas before anyone else in the party was slowin' down. The reality is no one at level 1 has a lot of durability on their own, and that includes the melee types. If they get hit twice, the cleric's going to be out of spell slots (if he was actually devoting his slots to cure spells. It may be more likely he's just draining *at least* 12.5 gp and 1 XP per hit thanks to the Cleric making Lesser Vigor scrolls or something). On his own, the Fighter is actually paying at least 25gp per hit he takes. And he will often have less AC than a wizard at level 1. This is not fantastic endurance, man.

This is so. However, a wizard in combat has maybe 3 rounds' worth of actions he can take before he has to fall back on cantrips and a crossbow. Per day. Everyone else has low endurance too, of course, but nearly every other spellcaster in the game has more spells per day at the start, and half of them can wade into melee when they're out. Everyone else is only limited by their hit points, and the wizard has the least hit points in any case.

In any case. Back to rogues... I feel they're pretty balanced. A lot of it depends on playing them well—if you're only getting in one sneak attack each round, you won't feel like you're doing that much damage. Two-weapon fighting works very well for rogues.

They need a bit of planning, though. Being able to scout out enemies without being seen is a very valuable tool; it lets your group lay ambushes, make plans, and cast spells just before they go in. If your group doesn't cooperate and just rushes in, though, that doesn't help.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 02:35 AM
Regarding your edit...


EDIT: Clerics can cast Cure spells spontaneously (if they channel positive energy). I'm not even going to say that that hurt your over-all credibility or makes the rest of your argument less effective.

Dude, you're just giving more and more straw man arguments. I never said they couldn't cast cure spells spontaneously!

I'm ASSUMING this misconception on your part came from my statement of devoting spell slots to cure. Note that I said "devote" instead of "prepare." When you cast a cure spell spontaneously, you are devoting that slot to the casting of that spell, and foregoing the use of other spells which would probably be a better use of your spell slots.

Seriously, stop using straw man arguments. I can't believe that you're so illogical that you didn't notice all of those; I think you're just trying to bait at this point.


But since when can familiars use scrolls and wands? Those are spell trigger items. Familiars don't cast spells. I often take measures to acquire UMD as a class skill, able learner it, and then share it with my familiar. Failing that, I wait until the later levels, and then half-level it up there. 's worth it to get your buddy using at least wands.


Presumably because of the mentions of a Fighter 'OHKOing' things, which implies a two-handed weapon to do reliably.

Exactly. If you do have a shield, though, you're only getting a slightly better AC (unless it's like a Tower Shield or something). It's not a real significant difference.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 02:41 AM
I didn't start this thread to argue about Wizards.
The discussion does, for the most part, relate to to the topic of balance so feel free to continue, but as far as I'm concerned I'm willing to concede to you that Wizards are over-powered at 1st level and get more over-powered as they go on if it means that I wont have to be subjected to your arguments anymore. It's really not worth my time to argue this.
If you feel the need to post about how weak my points were, how stupid I am, the flaws in my logic, or how I succumbed to your superior knowledge and debate skills then feel free; it wont make it true and I have a remarkable ability to ignore such foolishness.

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 02:43 AM
I'm the first to admit I'm not an optimal wizard player, as I tend to cling to my resources (especially experience) with both hands. But I didn't say they weren't good for keeping up defenses (although Mage Armor isn't a great idea, since it'll only last an hour cast from a scroll)

At level 1, it lasts just as long as it would if you cast it yourself. The scribing cost is a pretty small price for having that slot open for a more immediately important spell or letting the slot float for quicker adaptation. At higher levels, you can scribe it at a higher caster level if you want.


Everyone else has low endurance too, of course, but nearly every other spellcaster in the game has more spells per day at the start, and half of them can wade into melee when they're out. Everyone else is only limited by their hit points, and the wizard has the least hit points in any case.


It'd probably be more correct to say everyone else is limited by the Cleric's spell slots, and he hasn't got much more than the Wizard. If the Cleric has to spend all of his slots healing during or after the first encounter, the party isn't likely to push on much longer.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 02:43 AM
I often take measures to acquire UMD as a class skill, able learner it, and then share it with my familiar. Failing that, I wait until the later levels, and then half-level it up there. 's worth it.

That is irrelevant to this discussion. Taking Able Learner and maxxing out UMD is a specific build, and thus has no bearing on a general discussion on wizards at low level. Furthermore, a low level wizard can't reliably pull that off anyway (DCs start at 20, most familiars have a 6 cha, which gives them a +2 UMD at level 1, even with that build).

I don't think anyone is disputing the usefulness of familiars, or that UMD familiars are anything but awesome at higher levels.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 02:46 AM
I didn't start this thread to argue about Wizards. And yet you continue to fervently argue a minor correction with a long string of straw man arguments and various other logically faulty statements. Way to stay on track, man. I've been responding to YOU since the beginning, if you didn't notice.


The discussion does, for the most part, relate to to the topic of balance so feel free to continue, but as far as I'm concerned I'm willing to concede to you that Wizards are over-powered at 1st level When did I say overpowered? Another straw man! Yee-eesh! I said they weren't weak. You know what's an ACTUAL false dichotomy? You just did it, so I bet you can guess. If you can't figure it out, here's a definition (I figure it's better to teach a man to fish): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma


and get more over-powered as they go on if it means that I wont have to be subjected to your arguments anymore. It's really not worth my time to argue this.
If you feel the need to post about how weak my points were, how stupid I am, the flaws in my logic, or how I succumbed to your superior knowledge and debate skills then feel free; it wont make it true and I have a remarkable ability to ignore such foolishness.

And of course, that's all an indirect personal attack in an effort to deflect attention from your lack of any remotely tenable argument. The reality is that the argument began with me responding to you, and you carried it on until you withdrew in a fit of anger.


That is irrelevant to this discussion. Taking Able Learner and maxxing out UMD is a specific build, and thus has no bearing on a general discussion on wizards at low level. Furthermore, a low level wizard can't reliably pull that off anyway (DCs start at 20, most familiars have a 6 cha, which gives them a +2 UMD at level 1, even with that build).

I don't think anyone is disputing the usefulness of familiars, or that UMD familiars are anything but awesome at higher levels.

Correct, it is not relevant to the power level of wizards at low level, or at level 1. Look at the paragraph again, though.


I rather like Ravens. I make them use scrolls and wands and command word items for me later, whenever I take one. Works like a charm. Also, you CAN talk to your familiar. It just can't talk back. Huge difference from what you just said. In this paragraph, I was explaining why I like to pick Ravens, and why one might reasonably choose them at level 1 (which I deemed slightly relevant, if a bit of musing on my part), which includes the fact that they can do that LATER (since some people actually plan ahead. I know I tend to plan my characters from 1-20). The fact that I pointed out that this capability came LATER, rather than at low level, also shows that... I never claimed that you could get UMD usefulness out of your familiar early, and you're actually just pointing out something that I already pointed out. :smalltongue:

The_Snark
2007-11-11, 02:53 AM
At level 1, it lasts just as long as it would if you cast it yourself. The scribing cost is a pretty small price for having that slot open for a more immediately important spell or letting the slot float for quicker adaptation. At higher levels, you can scribe it at a higher caster level if you want.

That... isn't all that much of an argument in your favor. It means that the wizard's AC is going to be 12 far more often than it's going to be 16, unless you can manage to reliably compress the day's encounters into predictable 1-hour periods.


It'd probably be more correct to say everyone else is limited by the Cleric's spell slots, and he hasn't got much more than the Wizard. If the Cleric has to spend all of his slots healing during or after the first encounter, the party isn't likely to push on much longer.

True, but the difference is that every round the wizard casts a spell, that spell is definitely cast, whether or not it does anything. Whereas your enemies will not be hitting every round, generally, and it won't always be worth a healing spell.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 02:55 AM
A lack of a capstone ability is a small but annoying error. It's not a horrific oversight that has ruined the Rogue class and could only have been caused either by horrific incompotence of the highest order or outright malicious plotting to sell more supplements.

Especially given that the 20 level game is a minority.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 02:59 AM
Especially given that the 20 level game is a minority.

Indeed. My statement was against the claim that it was well-designed, not the claim that it functioned pretty decently at many levels and ultimately works out pretty well. A critical, amateurish design flaw would indicate poor design sense. I'm inclined to think it was more of a fluke of it ending up in the middle power range than a great design team at the helm.

That clearer to ya?



True, but the difference is that every round the wizard casts a spell, that spell is definitely cast, whether or not it does anything. Whereas your enemies will not be hitting every round, generally, and it won't always be worth a healing spell.

Again, I'll say that I've never had any problem with me being less durable than my companions when playing a wizard, and I tend to play with people who *know what they are doing* and I'm the kinda guy who relishes killer DMs (at least in the sense of them providing very challenging encounters. Not in the sense of them arbitrarily killing off players with no chance). Of course, that's anecdotal evidence and useless beyond lending credibility. However, you're not providing much in the way of evidence for the claim that they will, in fact, run out... and I've already made my counterargument previously in this thread to how the wizard can make his contributions last. I usually use one 1st level spell per encounter (thus lasting 3 encounters with first level spell slots), and that's enough to make me "useful." And all the other stuff I mentioned, quite simply, adds up. It's also worth restating that going beyond 4 encounters is usually taxing for everyone at that level, not just the wizard.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 03:05 AM
Funny, I tend to think of a class that functions well at all levels of play to be one that is well-designed. The lack of a capstone isn't important, and is at worst annoying, which is a far stretch from "glaring design flaw".

I also never said that the rogue was well designed because a great design team. Just looking at the travesty that is the fighter/wizard disparity and the incredible eyesore that is the monk class shoots that theory right down.

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 03:06 AM
That... isn't all that much of an argument in your favor. It means that the wizard's AC is going to be 12 far more often than it's going to be 16, unless you can manage to reliably compress the day's encounters into predictable 1-hour periods.

If you're on a dungeon raid, there's a pretty good chance that you will in fact have most of your encounters within the space of a fairly short time. I didn't mean to imply that the wizard's AC would always be 16; I only meant that if the wizard is going to be using Mage Armor, he is better off doing it with a scroll, especially if the scroll's caster level and his own are going to be the same.


True, but the difference is that every round the wizard casts a spell, that spell is definitely cast, whether or not it does anything. Whereas your enemies will not be hitting every round, generally, and it won't always be worth a healing spell.

While inarguably true, it's also possible that when somebody does take a hit that needs healing, the cleric will flub his roll and only heal 2 points on his Cure Light. For a Fighter or Barbarian who ate half his HP in one hit from an orc, that's not enough to be safe, so chances are the Cleric casts again.

And if not all encounters warrant the Cleric using a spell to heal, neither do all of them warrant the Wizard using a spell; the aforementioned heavy crossbow is good for 1d10 a shot, which is better then any direct damage the Wizard can pull with his spells at this point. Or he could rely on his cantrips; Acid Splash, Ray of Frost, and Daze are all decent options in a 1st level combat.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 03:10 AM
Acid Splash, Ray of Frost, and Daze are all decent options in a 1st level combat.

Daze might be worth it, but you may as well shoot a crossbow rather than cast acid splash or ray of frost. Those spells are pretty much only good for rogue's to UMD a wand and make flat-footed touch sneak attacks with it.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 03:12 AM
I also never said that the rogue was well designed because a great design team.

I never said that you did. :smallconfused:


Daze might be worth it, but you may as well shoot a crossbow rather than cast acid splash or ray of frost. Those spells are pretty much only good for rogue's to UMD a wand and make flat-footed touch sneak attacks with it.

Right you are.

Temp
2007-11-11, 03:13 AM
At low levels, just being a body with a weapon is enough to positively contribute, so the Wizard's okay with a couple moments of real power.

As for Rogues being a good measure for balance--Rogues, Rangers (with SpC) and Psychic Warriors are usually cited as the "standard" for class power; they all remain useful [but not staggeringly potent] at all levels.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 03:31 AM
I don't think rangers need spell compendium. But then again, I played a 1-20 ranger in 3.0, so maybe I am a wee bit biased.

The_Snark
2007-11-11, 03:44 AM
Again, I'll say that I've never had any problem with me being less durable than my companions when playing a wizard, and I tend to play with people who *know what they are doing* and I'm the kinda guy who relishes killer DMs (at least in the sense of them providing very challenging encounters. Not in the sense of them arbitrarily killing off players with no chance). Of course, that's anecdotal evidence and useless beyond lending credibility. However, you're not providing much in the way of evidence for the claim that they will, in fact, run out... and I've already made my counterargument previously in this thread to how the wizard can make his contributions last. I usually use one 1st level spell per encounter (thus lasting 3 encounters with first level spell slots), and that's enough to make me "useful." And all the other stuff I mentioned, quite simply, adds up. It's also worth restating that going beyond 4 encounters is usually taxing for everyone at that level, not just the wizard.

Fair enough. I've had the opposite experience, with both inexpertly played wizards and well-played wizards, but if you're keeping yourself to a fairly strict 1 1st-level spell per encounter baseline, I suppose it could work; the problem is that if your enemy makes the save (and at level 1, an enemy really only needs a half-decent save and a bit of luck to do that) your main contribution to the encounter has been removed. Using only one of your primary abilities per encounter does seem a little restrictive to me, but then, that's the reason I avoid playing very low-level spellcasters.

Not at all the same as not being useful, of course.


If you're on a dungeon raid, there's a pretty good chance that you will in fact have most of your encounters within the space of a fairly short time. I didn't mean to imply that the wizard's AC would always be 16; I only meant that if the wizard is going to be using Mage Armor, he is better off doing it with a scroll, especially if the scroll's caster level and his own are going to be the same.

Dungeon delving is a situation that allows for that, and arguably the one that the game was balanced around, but it's still assuming that you're picking the time and place of most of your fights.


While inarguably true, it's also possible that when somebody does take a hit that needs healing, the cleric will flub his roll and only heal 2 points on his Cure Light. For a Fighter or Barbarian who ate half his HP in one hit from an orc, that's not enough to be safe, so chances are the Cleric casts again.

No greater than the chance that the goblin flubs his attack roll and deals 2 damage, though.

Side tangent: Orcs ought to be considered the dragons of their level, meaning do not engage them in melee if you can possibly help it. Those things are absurd in melee for their CR.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 03:46 AM
I agree that Psychic Warriors are another good basis for class balance.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 03:55 AM
Fair enough. I've had the opposite experience, with both inexpertly played wizards and well-played wizards Quite succinctly: Your definition of well-played may not be the same as mine.


but if you're keeping yourself to a fairly strict 1 1st-level spell per encounter baseline, I suppose it could work; the problem is that if your enemy makes the save (and at level 1, an enemy really only needs a half-decent save and a bit of luck to do that) your main contribution to the encounter has been removed. So? This still means that adding a wizard to the party means a chance to end an encounter outright, and often encounters that might otherwise be particularly difficult (Silent Image can work wonders). And then give okay support after that. Just because they use all their oomph right at the start of the encounter, instead of spreading it out more evenly over the rounds, does not make their contribution any less valuable. In fact, taking out everything in the first round is *better* than taking multiple rounds. It's a fair trade.
Using only one of your primary abilities per encounter does seem a little restrictive to me, but then, that's the reason I avoid playing very low-level spellcasters. Don't underestimate the usefulness of cantrips, skills, and familiars, and don't forget that at level one a mere body with a weapon is actually a useful addition to the party. Also, don't forget that a large part of the wizard's contribution to a party may very well be out of combat!

And finally, don't forget that what I showed you is just what I can do with core. :smallwink:

(It seems like every time you mention anything that's not core on this bloody forum you get like 20 trolls jumping on you, but you can't call them trolls and the mods don't care. Hence restricting myself to core only examples.)


I agree that Psychic Warriors are another good basis for class balance.

I actually covered the subject of choosing measuring sticks for balance when creating new classes in my rather well-respected Philosophy of Class Design Article (didn't get too much attention here, but has gotten a lot of acclaim elsewhere, such as the WotC boards, and has been cross-posted and stickied by people who are not me.)

The thing is, there's a perfectly good argument for a few different choices of areas to set class balance at. Frank/K and that crowd have completely logical reasons for choosing a well-played single class Transmuter wizard as their balance stick. I personally prefer hitting an area around Rogue and Psychic Warrior and Tome of Battle, always below the power level of the big four.

I think that declaring "the type I prefer" as the only thing that's good is a bit narrow-minded. As long as your homebrewing stays consistent with your own personal balancing stick, and your style and/or adjustments can set everything relatively in line with that balancing point, then you're good.

The_Snark
2007-11-11, 04:20 AM
Quite succinctly: Your definition of well-played may not be the same as mine.

True. They were effective, but as I said, they had low endurance; it may be that the players resorted to using spells too often. It may also be that our typical campaign environment is different; in many of the games I've played in, a wizard who was unable to rely spells (whether or not it was because he was out or conserving them) could be in serious trouble.


So? This still means that adding a wizard to the party means a chance to end an encounter outright, and often encounters that might otherwise be particularly difficult (Silent Image can work wonders) Don't underestimate the usefulness of cantrips, skills, and familiars. Also, don't forget that a large part of the wizard's contribution to a party may very well be out of combat!

Agreed, although I generally find that a skill-monkey character can contribute just as effectively (and in a lot of the same roles) out of combat.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 04:27 AM
Agreed, although I generally find that a skill-monkey character can contribute just as effectively (and in a lot of the same roles) out of combat.

And in combat, that rogue doesn't do far more damage than a wizard using his crossbow. Nor is he more durable.

Seriously, sneak attack is only +1d6. That's 3.5 points of damage. If he's using a shortsword, he's getting off 2d6 damage if he's in position to make a sneak attack. Like... a fighter without the strength bonus and stuff. Flanking is risky, so he often is going to want to count on that first round, much like a wizard will.

The_Snark
2007-11-11, 05:18 AM
I never said anything about the rogue being better in combat. I happen to prefer them, but I'm not trying to claim they're better.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 05:20 AM
I never said anything about the rogue being better in combat. I happen to prefer them, but I'm not trying to claim they're better.

No one ever accused you of making that claim, AFAIK. I know I certainly didn't.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 05:34 AM
Thus, that's the argument at hand, and I am reinforcing the position that wizards are in fact at least as capable by stating that, although they may be considered similar in terms of out of combat utility, a Wizard may perform better in combat than a rogue in many cases.

Might, but typically won't. The rogue actually tends to have the higher AC at level one, as they are the most likely to have an 18 or 20 dex, which gives a 17-18 AC at level 1. The wizard can match that AC with mage armor and a similar dexterity, but can't be counted on to have mage armor up for every fight. A +8-9 Hide check, combined with an Initiative of +4-+9 (depending on I. Initiative or not), will frequently grant the rogue both a surprise round, AND a higher initiative, thus allowing two bow-delivered sneak attacks at the beginning of combat (with about the same consistency as the wizard's spell succeeding). That can end a fight before it begins (literally).

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 05:41 AM
Might, but typically won't. The rogue actually tends to have the higher AC at level one, as they are the most likely to have an 18 or 20 dex, which gives a 17-18 AC at level 1. The wizard can match that AC with mage armor and a similar dexterity, but can't be counted on to have mage armor up for every fight. A +8-9 Hide check, combined with an Initiative of +4-+9 (depending on I. Initiative or not), will frequently grant the rogue both a surprise round, AND a higher initiative, thus allowing two bow-delivered sneak attacks at the beginning of combat (with about the same consistency as the wizard's spell succeeding). That can end a fight before it begins (literally).

Wow, apparently the rogue minimum ability score for dex is 18 (because of that +4-+9 estimate). When they want Con, Str, Int, and Cha too, and don't really want to dump wis. This is news to me. I usually assume the standard elite stat spread (or 32 point buy) for this sorta discussion. Neither make 18-20 particularly likely. Compare the cost to benefit of getting a 16 vs an 18 with point buy.

However, the SURPRISE ROUND is actually a good point.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 05:47 AM
Might, but typically won't. The rogue actually tends to have the higher AC at level one, as they are the most likely to have an 18 or 20 dex, which gives a 17-18 AC at level 1. The wizard can match that AC with mage armor and a similar dexterity, but can't be counted on to have mage armor up for every fight. A +8-9 Hide check, combined with an Initiative of +4-+9 (depending on I. Initiative or not), will frequently grant the rogue both a surprise round, AND a higher initiative, thus allowing two bow-delivered sneak attacks at the beginning of combat (with about the same consistency as the wizard's spell succeeding). That can end a fight before it begins (literally).

Emphasis mine.

Of the four stats you mentioned, the rogue doesn't need any of them. Charisma is important for some rogues, and intelligence is nice for them to have, but not necessary. And what rogue prioritizes Strength?

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 05:52 AM
Emphasis mine.



Wow, apparently the rogue minimum ability score for dex is 18 (because of that +4-+9 estimate). When they want Con, Str, Int, and Cha too, and don't really want to dump wis. This is news to me. I usually assume the standard elite stat spread (or 32 point buy) for this sorta discussion. Neither make 18-20 particularly likely. Compare the cost to benefit of getting a 16 vs an 18 with point buy.

However, the SURPRISE ROUND is actually a good point.

Emphasis mine. Your init count indicates that the minimum score is 18, nothing else. Please pay attention to what I'm saying instead of skimming and jumping to far-fetched and particularly insulting conclusions. I am NOT the kind of person who misses such modifiers as "tends to" or "usually." And this case is no exception. :smallmad:



Of the four stats you mentioned, the rogue doesn't need any of them. What is your point? They want them. They don't have to "need" them to invest in them.
Charisma is important for some rogues, and intelligence is nice for them to have, but not necessary. A wizard doesn't strictly need con or dex, either, but plenty will take a 16 int instead of 18 in order to get a good con and dex. Heck, sometimes, depending on your build, priorities switch up. Last time I built a wizard and got advice from the CharOp boards, they pretty much all agreed I should be puttin' my Dex equal to or higher than my Int.
And what rogue prioritizes Strength? Wow. Uhm... ones that want to do DAMAGE, maybe? Doesn't mean you necessarily put it as a high priority, but it means you want to have at least a decent score.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 06:00 AM
Who's jumping to conclusions here? Not me. An estimate is just that. An estimate. A level 1 rogue with a 18 dex is a normal occurence, because dexterity is a rogue's most important stat. A +4-+9 initiative estimate in no way assumes that all rogues have an 18 dex. It simply represents a tendency for them to do so.

A rogue is no more likely to have an 18 dex at level 1 than a wizard is to have an 18 int. However, every calculation I see on these boards assumes the wizard has a 20int at level 1, because evidently all wizards are grey elves. And here you are griping that I say most rogues will have an 18 dex.


Wow. Uhm... ones that want to do DAMAGE, maybe? Doesn't mean you necessarily put it as a high priority, but it means you want to have at least a decent score.

Rogues don't get their damage from Strength, they get it from sneak attack. Do you play rogues? Trying to get damage from strength is not the way the game is played. Even a 20 strength rogue is going to be dealing negligible damage from his strength compared to what he gets from sneak attack at higher level.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 06:09 AM
Who's jumping to conclusions here? The guy who makes a post highlighting things I explicitly was not addressing. That's as clear as it gets.
Not me. No, you actually did that in your very last post. You highlighted things that I specifically was not addressing, despite the text in my post explaining which part of your commentary I was referring to.
An estimate is just that. An estimate. Setting the lower bound at +4. That's not a realistic estimate unless you expect all rogues to have 18 dexterity or Improved Initiative.
A level 1 rogue with a 18 dex is a normal occurence, because dexterity is a rogue's most important stat. No, it's really not that common, unless you're doing something like extremely high point buy or rerolling until you get stats you like.
A +4-+9 initiative estimate in no way assumes that all rogues have an 18 dex. Ah, so maybe you expect them to have Improved Initiative in any and all cases when they don't have 18 dex. That's not exactly a whole lot more accurate. Not everyone with less than 18 dex feels compelled to invest in Improved Init.
It simply represents a tendency for them to do so. That tendency doesn't exist to the point you seem to believe it does. The reality is that rolling 4d6 you're going to get a single 18 what... 9% of the time? And you're not going to get it from the array. And you're not going to get it all too often from point buy, because the cost of raising a 16 dex to an 18 often outweighs the benefit. Of the standard methods... point buy can get you to the 18, and it's usually suboptimal to actually do so for a rogue. Where you get the idea it's such a common occurrence is anyone's guess.


A rogue is no more likely to have an 18 dex at level 1 than a wizard is to have an 18 int. Actually, he's less likely. A wizard can seriously function completely ignoring all his stats and making himself an octogenarian with the corresponding vexing bonus to intelligence.
However, every calculation I see on these boards assumes the wizard has a 20int at level 1 I usually assume 15. Silly me.
because evidently all wizards are grey elves. I don't use grey elves.
And here you are griping that I say most rogues will have an 18 dex. Yes, yes I am, because that's about as reasonable as saying that all wizards have 20 int. You seem to be trying to call me a hypocrite by attacking the board community as a whole, which constitutes a logical fallacy. I've never made the claim that wizards tend to have 20 int. I've not even gone so far as to claim 18 int. Or even 16. Heck, my last wizard build emphasized Dexterity over Intelligence at the suggestion of the CharOp board community (including Logic Ninja, actually. Since you guys apparently respect him so much here). But you seem to have this idea that one stat will always be the most important for a given class.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 06:17 AM
Your experience is different then mine. I can deal with that. In my experience, people that play rogues either highly prioritize dexterity, or completely ignore it in favor of intelligence and charisma. They only tend to do the latter when they want to focus on the roleplaying aspect of the game, and let the other players deal with combat.

18 dex rogues are common. They may not be the rule, but they are the norm. Most people play 32 pt. buy. An 18 isn't harsh with 32 pt. buy, especially when you don't need any other stats. 10s and 12s are plenty (you might want a 13 intelligence for combat expertise to get improved feint, if you aren't going 2WF rogue).

I also find it to be highly amusing that are accusing me of logical fallacies while at the same time attacking the premise of an argument to which you have already accepted the conclusion.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 06:31 AM
Your experience is different then mine. I'm used to using 32 point buy, and playing with some very good optimizers. Like UnCon CharOp prizewinners (including the guy who made the Han Solo cleric =P).
I can deal with that. In my experience, people that play rogues either highly prioritize dexterity Emphasizing dex to the exclusion of all other stats is suboptimal for a rogue. And even if you fully prioritize dexterity, you can't actually get an 18 most of the time unless you've got point buy or just plain let people reroll until they get what they want (or some other unorthodox method of stat generation).


18 dex rogues are common. Since, by the standard rules, 18s are quite uncommon, 18 dex rogues must also be uncommon. It's not exactly difficult logic. Further, the "average" case is usually assumed to be the elite array, which is why I usually use that in these sort of discussions.
They may not be the rule, but they are the norm. No, they're really not. And making an assumption about the WHOLE WORLD'S personal practices based on your personal experiences is not really a good basis for anything "common."
Most people play 32 pt. buy. An 18 isn't harsh with 32 pt. buy, especially when you don't need any other stats. Sure it is. You're losing out on 6 points of Strength, Constitution, Intelligence, Charisma, and Wisdom for just an extra +1, and all of those stats are useful to a rogue for various reasons. It can be worth it, but it's not exactly a "clear best choice" like you make it out to be.


I also find it to be highly amusing that are accusing me of logical fallacies while at the same time attacking the premise of an argument to which you have already accepted the conclusion. I don't find logical fallacies amusing. I find them highly annoying. You also seem to be attempting to call me a hypocrite again (which is, of course, completely pointless for demonstrating your point, since ad hominem tu quoque is a logical fallacy too. Even if you could demonstrate that I was a hypocrite, which you can't, it wouldn't matter for the sake of your argument. I just find it highly annoying and insulting). What conclusion are you talking about? I said that your only worthwhile point was that I failed to consider surprise rounds in my argument.

Crow
2007-11-11, 06:40 AM
I've found that building a Rogue with good strength and good dexterity is far more effective that building a Rogue with amzing dexterity and average strength.

As to the level 1 wizard thing; It sounds like OneWinged4ngle is thinking of level 1 wizards once they have gotten a few gold and xp, while others are thinking about the "out of the box" wizard. Is this the case?

OneWinged4ngel, for the sake of curiosity will you please post your level 1 wizard build and explain to me the tactics you use with that build out of the box to reliably outshine the barbarian? Break it down to 4 encounters, spread throughout the day in the party's first adventure. I really want to learn, and I think this could do far more to bolster your argument than going back and forth in the realm of theory all day.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 06:44 AM
No, they're really not. And making an assumption about the WHOLE WORLD'S personal practices based on your personal experiences is not really a good basis for anything "common."

You are doing the same thing. At least I'm not claiming that I'm right because I 'know people that are somehow better than you'.

Lets get down to brass tax, shall we?

A rogue is playable with an 18 dex, and every other stat an 8. You are focusing on ranged combat and stealth, that is it. Anything else is gravy. Strength is not important for a rogue, dice adders make it pointless. If you want to focus on strength, play a class like fighter or barbarian, which use it better. Intelligence is nice, but you only need enough to have the skills you want. A rogue can get by with an intelligence penalty, because they have 8+int skills. That being said, with 32 pt. buy, you have points left over from buying an 18 dex, and some them will probably go into Int. Charisma is less important the higher level you are, unless you are playing a social focused rogue, because UMD ranks will eventually catch up with your lower charisma. That being said, I tend to throw left-over points into charisma because I don't like playing ugly or uncouth characters. Strength can be left at 8, unless you are a halfling, and then you should probably buy a 10, so your carrying capacity isn't hurt too badly. Constitution is fine at a 10, but should be bought to a 12 if you are wanting to be the 2Weapon flanking style rogue, as opposed to an archey style rogue. Wisdom is only useful for perception skills, so a 10 would be nice to avoid penalties.

Lessee, thats a 18 dex, 13 int, 10 con, 10 str, 13 cha, 10 wis- comes out to 32 pt. buy.

Alternately, you could drop the wisdom to 8, and bump the con to 12, and go 2WF/weapon finesse with shortswords.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 06:48 AM
I've found that building a Rogue with good strength and good dexterity is far more effective that building a Rogue with amzing dexterity and average strength. That's because it is. Heck, if Skjald had thought things through, he'd realize that he's not getting that init count because the average rogue gets one feat (you have to be a human or strongheart halfling or use house rules like Unearthed Arcana flaws or something to get two), and he is spending it on Weapon Finesse so he can actually hit when he dumped his strength as he suggested, and thus wouldn't have Improved Initiative. *Sigh*

It'd save me so much trouble being a thankless good samaritan who actually bothers to try to fight the misinformation if people just thought things through a bit more.


As to the level 1 wizard thing; It sounds like OneWinged4ngle is thinking of level 1 wizards once they have gotten a few gold and xp, while others are thinking about the "out of the box" wizard. Is this the case? You get a few very nice benefits after a your first day of adventuring. You get a familiar, and you get to take advantage of scrolls. That's not to say that the wizard is going to suck straight out of the box... just that he'll quickly gain access to a few more cool options, despite not having gained another level.


OneWinged4ngel, for the sake of curiosity will you please post your level 1 wizard build and explain to me the tactics you use with that build out of the box to reliably outshine the barbarian? Break it down to 4 encounters, spread throughout the day in the party's first adventure. I really want to learn, and I think this could do far more to bolster your argument than going back and forth in the realm of theory all day.

I didn't say that you would necessarily OUTSHINE the barbarian. You're not in godmode unless you decide to bring out the stinky cheese (seriously, you can make Pun Pun with a level 1 Paladin now, if you've been keeping up with CharOp news. I know how to break the game to hell and back with a level 1 wizard. But I don't bring that sort of thing into balance discussion, with respect to the concept of the Pun Pun fallacy.) Heck, I could even just go out and say "Hahah, I take Precocious apprentice and cast a level 2 spell in that fourth encounter." But I'm not going to do that, because no one actually takes Precocious Apprentice if they expect to ever get past low level.

You probably won't have the raw, consistent destructive power of the barbarian, and you'll probably be more fragile too. However, you can bring other benefits to the party that he can't. See, each has their own pros and cons. Their own upsides and downsides. That's actually what you're supposed to have when a system is balanced, and I never claimed the wizard was overpowered at that point. :smallwink:

As for a build and encounter by encounter breakdown, that'll take me a bit.


You are doing the same thing. No, I'm really not. I referred to the defined norm established by the books, as well as optimal allocation of the popular 32 point buy. That has NOTHING to do with my personal experience. So... lies and slander.
At least I'm not claiming that I'm right because I 'know people that are somehow better than you'. Or, you know, all the evidence I presented. Presenting some manner of credibility is considered good form in presenting a persuasive argument and an informative speech. And then the core of a persuasive argument is the evidence and reasoning. And that's exactly what I've done. I've never claimed that I'm right because I knew people better than you, you're just making an unwarranted accusation because you have nothing more substantial at this point than personal attacks. You've made several already, as I've previously pointed out.

It occurs to me that, since one generally establishes credibility at the beginning of an argument, and you seem to be just skimming the start (not even moving onto the parenthesis after a statement in one demonstrated case)... that might be where you jumped to that conclusion from. I don't know what else to tell you but to look over all the points I have presented again, because if you think I'm telling you that I'm right because I know people, that's WRONG. I'm telling you I'm right because of a chain of reasoning.


Lets get down to brass tax, shall we?

A rogue is playable with an 18 dex, and every other stat an 8. Okay, great, you have worse hp than a wizard and none of the cool protective abilities. You have -1 on all of your attacks, and will be encumbered by a chain shirt and basic gear. You have a -1 on your will and fortitude saves. You have 7 skill points per level. And you have -1 to every skill that isn't connected to dexterity. Sure, it's playable, but it's not something I'd advise.
Strength is not important for a rogue, dice adders make it pointless. Why? I challenge this claim. Give the math.
That being said, I tend to throw left-over points into charisma because I don't like playing ugly or uncouth characters. This is a whole 'nother rant for me, you realize. I really disagree with the whole idea that low Cha represents being ugly or uncouth. But... like I said, that's a whole 'nother rant.



Lessee, thats a 18 dex, 13 int, 10 con, 10 str, 13 cha, 10 wis- comes out to 32 pt. buy. And you think that's a good spread for 32 PB. :smallconfused: And... come on. You're telling us to take combat expertise.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 07:14 AM
(Stupid... double post...)

Curmudgeon
2007-11-11, 07:28 AM
I agree that the Rogue (excepting the "dead" levels: 14 and 20) is a well-designed and balanced class. That said, it's a complex class and can be made less effective than it ought by both player and DM decisions.

Bad player decisions typically include insufficient skill points because of a low INT; ineffective feat choices -- feats are very precious to a Rogue, and attempting options like tripping is too feat-intensive; trying to do too many things so that none of them are done well; and acquiring inadequate money, because a Rogue builds their abilities by using expensive gear.

Bad DM decisions involve ignoring the rules (as in the common misconception that Rogues can't get more than one sneak attack in a round, or ignoring that you can Hide while attacking); thoughtlessness in devising encounters, such as never having traps, no opportunities to steal, and having most enemies immune to sneak attack; and being rigorous about WbL (Wealth by Level) guidelines, because a clever Rogue should always take advantage of opportunities to get more than others -- again, because a Rogue builds their abilities by using expensive gear.

The Rogue is a well-designed class. It is, however, hard to make it a well-played class.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 07:33 AM
I agree that the Rogue (excepting the "dead" levels: 14 and 20) is a well-designed and balanced class. That said, it's a complex class and can be made less effective than it ought by both player and DM decisions.

Bad player decisions typically include insufficient skill points because of a low INT; ineffective feat choices -- feats are very precious to a Rogue, and attempting options like tripping is too feat-intensive; trying to do too many things so that none of them are done well; and acquiring inadequate money, because a Rogue builds their abilities by using expensive gear.

Bad DM decisions involve ignoring the rules (as in the common misconception that Rogues can't get more than one sneak attack in a round, or ignoring that you can Hide while attacking); thoughtlessness in devising encounters, such as never having traps, no opportunities to steal, and having most enemies immune to sneak attack; and being rigorous about WbL (Wealth by Level) guidelines, because a clever Rogue should always take advantage of opportunities to get more than others -- again, because a Rogue builds their abilities by using expensive gear.

The Rogue is a well-designed class. It is, however, hard to make it a well-played class.

I always thought of it the other way around. I think it's one of the best beginner classes, and it's hard to actually turn it into something that won't be useful to the party by screwing up your build (which is easy for many other classes). Besides that, it incrementally introduces a newbie to all elements of a game in stride, and they can start playing after a coupla minutes of instruction (it takes seconds to explain flanking to people, and then they just learn what skills do, and they're set to go.) By playing a rogue, players learn how to handle each of the different skills, learn the attack system, and gradually get into special combat maneuvers. They also gradually come into learning the magic system after they've got a bit more experience, by ways of UMD. And, because of all those skills and the rather unique trapfinding ability, you can bet the player will continue to be useful to the party despite a complete lack of optimization skill.

To summarize: After playing a Rogue for a while, a person will know the whole system, and they'll have been introduced it at a comfortable pace. And they can't really screw it up so that they're useless.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 07:34 AM
( you realize you can delete posts, right?)


Why? I challenge this claim. Give the math.

14 strength vs. 10 strength

Level 1: 2d6+2 vs. 2d6 (+28%dmg from 14 strength)
Level 3: 3d6+2 vs. 3d6 (+19&dmg from 14 strength)
Level 5: 4d6+2 vs 4d6 (+14%dmg from 14 strength)
Level 7: 5d6+2 vs. 5d6 (+11% dmg from 14 strength)
level 9 (including +1 energy weapon by this point): 7d6+2 vs. 7d6 (+8%dmg from 14 strength)

Can you say, "Diminishing Returns"?

Or did you think I was only talking about effectiveness at level 1?
I look ahead further than that. I suppose if I were playing a rogue in a level 1 or 2 1-shot, I wouldn't prioritize dex as hard over strength, but in the long haul, having a +2 damage mod from a 14 strength is negligible compared to the raw dice of damage you are dealing (as a rogue).

sidebar- I'm starting a thread about charisma. I'd like to hear what you have to say on the subject.



Combat Expertise; as a prereq for Improved Feint, and only if you are not planning on taking 2WF.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 07:38 AM
( you realize you can delete posts, right?)



14 strength vs. 10 strength

Level 1: 2d6+2 vs. 2d6 (+28%dmg from 14 strength)
Level 3: 3d6+2 vs. 3d6 (+19&dmg from 14 strength)
Level 5: 4d6+2 vs 4d6 (+14%dmg from 14 strength)
Level 7: 5d6+2 vs. 5d6 (+11% dmg from 14 strength)
level 9 (including +1 energy weapon by this point): 7d6+2 vs. 7d6 (+8%dmg from 14 strength)

Can you say, "Diminishing Returns"? Your logic is faulty here. Your returns aren't actually diminishing, they're increasing by virtue of increasing number of attacks. Sneak attack is increasing FASTER, but that doesn't make strength useless in any form. Likewise, by your logic, Dexterity is not a worthwhile investment because that +1 to init, AC, and attack rolls will constitute a lesser and lesser part of your bonus as levels increase. This applies to pretty much every skill modifier.


Or did you think I was only talking about effectiveness at level 1?
I look ahead further than that. Dude, you start bragging real fast after a failed attempt. See, you didn't even bother to look as far as how every other trait behaves, including the one you're supporting as a better option (to the point that it's worth 3 other stats for a +1, no less). You need to look further than you did. :smallwink:

I also doubt you considered the ramifications of being limited to 33 pounds or less before you suffer the effects of encumbrance and lose out on movement speed. You actually can't wear a normal chain shirt, shortbow, 20 arrows, thieves tools, and a shortsword without slowing down, let alone a backpack. You brag about looking far when you don't look far at all. Better get that mithral or magical aid fast. And don't forget that if you took down that dex two points, your other stats would benefit as well.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 07:49 AM
Your logic is faulty here. Your returns aren't actually diminishing, they're increasing by virtue of increasing number of attacks. Sneak attack is increasing FASTER, but that doesn't make strength useless in any form.

No, it isn't. An investment in strength is less and less significant compared to your other damage sources. A +5% to hit is statistically more significant than a +2 dmg. This is mathematically true as soon as the bonus to damage (from strength) becomes less than 5% of the total damage inflicted per attack.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 07:55 AM
A +5% to hit is statistically more significant than a +2 dmg. +2 damage AND the ability to carry more AND bonuses to skills for three stats AND bonuses to saves AND extra skill points. Not everyone decides that they should sacrifice all that for +1 to hit, +1 to AC, and +1 to init. It's not a particularly BAD choice (though your example spread WAS), but it's definitely not the choice people will always take that you claim it is. Don't forget that you have a bad fort and will, and both those things will KILL YOU DEAD.
This is mathematically true as soon as the bonus to damage (from strength) becomes less than 5% of the total damage inflicted per attack.

You're right on that point, assuming that the attack bonus is not in excess of the "fail on a 1" mark (which it often will not be for a rogue) or some other mitigating circumstance.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 08:01 AM
+2 damage AND the ability to carry more AND bonuses to skills for three stats AND bonuses to saves AND extra skill points. Not everyone decides that they should sacrifice all that for +1 to hit, +1 to AC, and +1 to init. It's not a particularly BAD choice (though your example spread WAS), but it's definitely not the choice people will always take that you claim it is. Don't forget that you have a bad fort and will, and both those things will KILL YOU.

Except that you aren't sacrificing all of those things for an 18 dex. Just one of them. Rogues have a bad Fort and Will. An additional +2 isn't terribly helpful in the long run.

I am willing to concede the point that Dex priority rogues is evidently only incredibly common in the local gaming community. I guess 30 people isn't a representative sample of gamers.



your own calculations don't take into account certain other factors...
Yeah, because that +2 is really gonna help you against those sneak-attack immune critters. Yep, that +2 is gonna carry you a looonng way.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-11, 08:05 AM
Except that you aren't sacrificing all of those things for an 18 dex. Just one of them. Rogues have a bad Fort and Will. An additional +2 isn't terribly helpful in the long run. Yeah you are... you're sacrificing three stat ups for an 18.


I am willing to concede the point that Dex priority rogues is evidently only incredibly common in the local gaming community. I guess 30 people isn't a representative sample of gamers. No, rogues usually prioritize dex. They don't just ALL have 18s, or Improved Initiative in the "rare" case that they don't have 18s. (if you're using the standard rules, it CANNOT be common, simply by taking dice roll odds. Or the array.)



Yeah, because that +2 is really gonna help you against those sneak-attack immune critters. Yep, that +2 is gonna carry you a looonng way.

Uhm, what?

Crow
2007-11-11, 10:12 AM
I'm seeing a huge diconnect here in this argument. It is the same disconnect that occurs when one person is talking about a build meant to be played in an actual game, and when the other is talking about a theoretical build.

In an actual game, dumping all of your point buy into one stat is a terrible option, leaving you lacking in a few different areas. In a theoretical build, this isn't so bad.

The difference being, the "game" build will be called upon to accomplish many different tasks in widely differing environments and situations. It will be forced to face the unknown, and as such it stands a better chance if it's abilities are varied and adaptable. You stand a better chance of survival if you can do many things reasonably well, rather than a few things exceptionally well and the rest not well at all. The theoretical build isn't designed with the unknown in mind. It only sets out to accomplish what the creator forsees. It may be astoundingly good at these things on paper, but unfortunately in the real game, the generalist will be the one that gets rewarded.

Jannex
2007-11-12, 01:47 AM
That's because it is. Heck, if Skjald had thought things through, he'd realize that he's not getting that init count because the average rogue gets one feat (you have to be a human or strongheart halfling or use house rules like Unearthed Arcana flaws or something to get two), and he is spending it on Weapon Finesse so he can actually hit when he dumped his strength as he suggested, and thus wouldn't have Improved Initiative. *Sigh*

It'd save me so much trouble being a thankless good samaritan who actually bothers to try to fight the misinformation if people just thought things through a bit more.

Question: Are you still talking about a first-level rogue in this passage here? It seems as though you are, since you mention that the character would only have one feat unless it had a bonus feat from race or used optional rules. But if that's the case, he wouldn't have Weapon Finesse, because that feat has a prerequisite of +1 BAB (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#weaponFinesse), which a first-level rogue doesn't have.

Just checking. Carry on.

Tor the Fallen
2007-11-12, 02:35 AM
I like rogues. TWF + Weapon finesse at level one, then get sneak attack while flanking with the fighter is good. Getting 4d6 off in a round isn't bad. And all those skills are fun.


Since, by the standard rules, 18s are quite uncommon, 18 dex rogues must also be uncommon. It's not exactly difficult logic.

Logical fallacy.
You're assuming that the stats generated by 4d6 drop lowest is independent of what class is played. Players who have SAD stats will tend to play SAD characters.

Chronos
2007-11-12, 02:47 PM
Can I borrow some of these "obviously most rogues couldn't possibly have a base 18 Dex" arguments for the next wizard thread that comes up? Because rogues and wizards have about the same degree of SAD, so it's equally valid for a rogue to have 18 Dex as for a wizard to have 18 Int.

tyckspoon
2007-11-12, 03:04 PM
Can I borrow some of these "obviously most rogues couldn't possibly have a base 18 Dex" arguments for the next wizard thread that comes up? Because rogues and wizards have about the same degree of SAD, so it's equally valid for a rogue to have 18 Dex as for a wizard to have 18 Int.

Sure. If you find a way to make it actually be true. Wizards have one notable class feature, which is based on Int, and that can cover for nearly any other statistical weaknesses when used well. A Wizard can afford to buy an 18 in a standard point-buy spread; those other weak stats will be very painful for some levels, but they (probably) won't kill him or hamper his usefulness. A Rogue who does the same thing is screwed: At first level, he can't take Weapon Finesse. If he's going into melee, he's using his Strength to hit. If he's going ranged, he's giving up on most of his potential Sneak Attacks, and he's still reliant on his Strength score to do extra damage. The Rogue is also likely to be wearing armor in addition to carrying weapons and a pile of miscellaneous stuff; if he neglects his Strength too much to focus on Dex, he'll encumber himself easily. That's not good for him. And what about Con and Int? If trying for the secondary melee/flanker combat role, the Rogue cannot afford to sack his Con. If he's the party skillmonkey, 8 skill points a level doesn't necessarily do the job.

Telonius
2007-11-12, 03:16 PM
A Rogue who does the same thing is screwed: At first level, he can't take Weapon Finesse.

He can't take Weapon Finesse no matter what. It requires +1 BAB. Doesn't matter if he has 50's in all of his stats, he can't take the feat. (I consider that an error in the feat, rather than in the Rogue class).

Chronos
2007-11-12, 03:24 PM
Except that the argument usually goes something like "Of course the wizard has a higher Dex than the rogue, because, since the wizard is SAD, he can afford it. And of course the wizard has more Con than the barbarian, since the wizard is SAD, so he can afford it. And of course he doesn't dumpstat his Str, Wis, or Cha, since he's SAD, so he can afford to not dump any stat".

Fact of the matter is, while most of a wizard's class features are based on Int, not all of them are. And while not all of a rogue's class features are based on Dex, most of them are. The rogue does depend on having a half-decent Int, but by the same token, the wizard depends on having a half-decent Dex, and the wizard actually has more need for Con than does the rogue: They both get bonus hit points and a boost to their Fort saves, but the wizard also has to make Concentration checks. And both can get by with equally poor Str, Wis, or Cha.

tyckspoon
2007-11-12, 03:51 PM
Except that the argument usually goes something like "Of course the wizard has a higher Dex than the rogue, because, since the wizard is SAD, he can afford it. And of course the wizard has more Con than the barbarian, since the wizard is SAD, so he can afford it. And of course he doesn't dumpstat his Str, Wis, or Cha, since he's SAD, so he can afford to not dump any stat".

I don't think I've ever seen anybody claim a Wizard is going to have a higher Con than a Barbarian, excepting the anomalous Dwarf Wizard with rolled stats instead of bought. Personally, I wouldn't recommend anybody buy an 18 starting score on a 25 point buy; the extra six points you spend over a 16 could get another stat to a nice solid 14 or bring 3 stats up to where you don't have a penalty, which is far more valuable in a low-level game than the benefit of having an 18. 18s get recommended in theoretical exercises because those are usually aimed at squeezing every last bit of possible performance out of something, and sacrificing unrelated things is ok in that respect. (Or they use 32 points, which is much more forgiving of the cost involved in acquiring an 18.)


Fact of the matter is, while most of a wizard's class features are based on Int, not all of them are. And while not all of a rogue's class features are based on Dex, most of them are. The rogue does depend on having a half-decent Int, but by the same token, the wizard depends on having a half-decent Dex, and the wizard actually has more need for Con than does the rogue: They both get bonus hit points and a boost to their Fort saves, but the wizard also has to make Concentration checks. And both can get by with equally poor Str, Wis, or Cha.

Spells: Based on Int. Skills: Number of skill points is based on Int, and 4 of a Wizard's 6 class skills use Int as the modifying attribute. That's counting 'All Knowledges' as 1 skill, too. Concentration is a skill check; a wizard's Int helps ensure that said skill is kept maxed. Even if the Wizard has a Con penalty, he can get a good Concentration check without any effort or cost beyond 1 skill point a level.

Counterspin
2007-11-12, 04:47 PM
Stats are so unimportant to a discussion of relative power levels I don't know why you'd bother to even bring them up. The wizard is better because his primary class ability is "kill or otherwise disable two or more enemies of my own or a higher CR in a single round, without requiring them to be standing next to each other." It starts with sleep, and from there only gets better.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-12, 06:30 PM
Counterspin, that's true.

That is why Wizards are not a good basis for balance.
I don't hold it against the game designers though. Wizards (and other full casters) are naturally the hardest class to design well.
Not that they did that great a job with the other classes in 3.X.

I do think that Rogue are one of the best designed (PHB) classes (whether that was due to skill or luck) and even they have a glaring design flaw that virtually anyone could see with any amount of familiarity with the game.

Hopefully 4e undergoes more in-depth play testing to ensure better design. Personally, as a gamer, I would rather a game (at least a table-top RPG) spend an extra full year play-testing and tweaking if it means the end product is better when it hits the market.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-12, 07:50 PM
I don't hold it against the game designers though. Wizards (and other full casters) are naturally the hardest class to design well.
Not that they did that great a job with the other classes in 3.X.

"But my job of designing classes is hard" is not something that I would accept as an excuse from someone I was paying money. Seriously, they're supposed to be professionals; they should be able to do better than amateurs, and... well, just compare Complete Psionic vs. amateur-made Untapped Potential. Case and point.


Question: Are you still talking about a first-level rogue in this passage here? It seems as though you are, since you mention that the character would only have one feat unless it had a bonus feat from race or used optional rules. But if that's the case, he wouldn't have Weapon Finesse, because that feat has a prerequisite of +1 BAB (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#weaponFinesse), which a first-level rogue doesn't have.

Just checking. Carry on.

Wow, that sure was a dumb mistake on my part. 'S what I get for posting at 4 in the morning, I guess. *Commits seppuku to save face* X_X;;


Logical fallacy. Doubt you could name one. Unless it's the "I think you're wrong" fallacy. The problem for you is, of course, that that fallacy doesn't exist.

But let's look at the "logic" of your counterargument.


You're assuming that the stats generated by 4d6 drop lowest is independent of what class is played. Players who have SAD stats will tend to play SAD characters.
Given that the chance of you getting an 18 in one stat is approximately 10% per character, you're still not going to get one person in the party with an 18 in a group of 4 or 5 players. In fact, to make it likely for a group to have a guy with an 18, you have to have 10 players. If we follow your logic that no one is likely to be playing a rogue if they don't get an 18, then no one is likely to play a rogue at all.

That's bad logic on YOUR part, not mine. Characters with an 18 are uncommon to the point that they will not exist in most groups playing by the standard rules, as I stated. This is a point of FACT, provable by mathematics. The tendency of class choice based on point spread is not particularly relevant in this case unless you posit that people will only play rogues in 1 out of 3 groups, or in groups of around 10 members or more (and I'm sure everyone can agree that that's just silly). My logic is sound, yours isn't.

Reference for figures: http://www.roleplayinghaven.com/

Curmudgeon
2007-11-12, 09:36 PM
Given that the chance of you getting an 18 in one stat is approximately 10% per character, you're still not going to get one person in the party with an 18 in a group of 4 or 5 players. In fact, to make it likely for a group to have a guy with an 18, you have to have 10 players. OK, I've got to point out the flaws with this linear thinking, because probabilities combine together by multiplying, not adding. If you've got a 10% chance of getting something individually, you've got a 65% chance of it happening at least once in a group of 10 people, and a 41% chance of it happening in a group of 5. The way you figure a .1 (10%) chance, repeated N times, is


1 - (1 - .1)^N

(If you're having a hard time understanding the formula, think of it this way: figure the chance of not getting that 18 (1 - .1), repeated for each person in the group (i.e., multiplied together); then take what's left (1 - the "not getting" number) as the chance of at least one person getting an 18.)

There's not a huge difference in the likelihood when changing from a group of 5 to a group of 10. You need a group of 22 people before there's a 90% chance of at least one 18.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-12, 09:38 PM
OK, I've got to point out the flaws with this linear thinking, because probabilities combine together by multiplying, not adding. Obviously. I know this. I think you misread my statement. I didn't say it WOULD happen, I said it was at least LIKELY to happen with 10 people. And when I say "per character" I don't mean the chance increases 10% for each person you add. I meant that the chance of any given character getting an 18 is about 10%.
If you've got a 10% chance of getting something individually, you've got a 65% chance of it happening at least once in a group of 10 people, and a 41% chance of it happening in a group of 5. The way you figure a .1 (10%) chance, repeated N times, is


1 - (1 - .1)^N

(If you're having a hard time understanding the formula, think of it this way: figure the chance of not getting that 18 (1 - .1), repeated for each person in the group (i.e., multiplied together); then take what's left (1 - the "not getting" number) as the chance of at least one person getting an 18.)

There's not a huge difference in the likelihood when changing from a group of 5 to a group of 10. You need a group of 22 people before there's a 90% chance of at least one 18.

I know this. I was counting that 65% as "likely." Your comments only further support mine, though, showing just how extremely unreasonable and illogical it is of Tor the Fallen to EXPECT someone to have an 18 under the stipulation of standard stat generation. A notion that the numbers clearly prove to be false.