Rogue could be great with extra attack[Edited For Some Question]

[OldTrees1]

V.human, 16 dex (hence the +3 and +4 to damage instead of +4 and +4). Could also do soulknife 4 / fighter 1 (fighter 2 brings action surge which i don't think is included in the formula)

Correct, limited use abilities like Action Surge are not included in the formula.

You might want the calculation to account for the difference between your 16 and their 18. Oh, and your psychic blade is not a +1 weapon, so that is another -1 to attack relative to the others. I reran the numbers with those concerns.

Spoiler: Outcome of PD+C/20

Show

Normal: 20+7(2-P)
Crit Bonus: 6+7(2-P)

3+:P=0.90
Normal=27.7
Crit Bonus=13.7
PD+C/20=25.615

4+:P=0.85
Normal=28.05
Crit Bonus=14.05
PD+C/20=24.545

9+:P=0.60
Normal=29.8
Crit Bonus=15.8
PD+C/20=18.67

10+:P=0.55
Normal=30.15
Crit Bonus=16.15
PD+C/20=17.39

15+:P=0.30
Normal=31.9
Crit Bonus=17.9
PD+C/20=10.465

16+:P=0.25
Normal=32.25
Crit Bonus=18.25
PD+C/20=8.975

20+:P=0.05
Normal=27.35
Crit Bonus=13.35
PD+C/20=2.035

Summary:
The first column is if you had the same attack bonus as the other 4. The second column is at a -1 penalty. The third column is your -2 penalty.
4+:32.95 25.615 24.545
10+:21.385 18.67 17.39
16+:11.08 10.465 8.975
20+:2.035

So given your Soulknife is at a -2 attack penalty vs these other DPS builds, it does come off a bit worse. However that is expected from a multiclass around 5th level. However it still does more than enough damage.

I would do a detailed calculation here:
Variant Human 5th level Rogue with 18 Dex (4th:+2 Dex), Fighting Style TWF, and two +1 wepaon (Much better than Elf Build)
Variant Human 5th level Fighter with 18 Str (4th:+2 Str), Great Weapon Fighting Style, PAM, and a +1 Polearm.

Fighter has 3 attacks for 2d10+1d4+2.1(GWFS) + 12(STR)+3(Magic) = 30.6 damage
Rogue has 2 attacks for 2d6+8(DEX)+2(Magic) + P*(1-hitrate^2)*3d6 = 23.3 damage assume P=0.8 and hitrate=0.5

Rogue have higher OA damage but Fighter are much more likely to OA with PAM, I believe Fighter's OA ability is much better but let's ignore the difference.
GWM in general is a better choice than STR+2, but let's ignore the difference.

There are action surge and Maneuvers, would get about +15% and +25% damage boost to Fighter, so we have 30.6/23.3 * 1.15 * 1.25 = 1.89

1) Actually the High Elf Swashbuckler with Booming Blade did rather well in comparison. However I did run the numbers for both.
2) Your factor "(1-hitrate^2)" does not make sense. That is the probability that did not hit twice. You only luck out with it being a 0.5 hitrate. Even then it still does not make sense unless you multiply everything else by hitrate.
3) Probability to be eligible for Sneak Attack =/= 0.8. It is greater than 0.8. It will be ignored because Sneak Attack is trivial to enable just like the Fighter being in melee is trivial to enable.

With that said, here are the results. I added the hitrate=0.5 for you.

Equation: Damage = PD+C/20

Character	2+:P=0.95	8+:P=0.65	11+:P=0.50	14+:P=0.35	20+:P=0.05
Polearm Fighter D=30.6, C=+15.6	29.85	20.67	16.08	11.49	2.31
Booming Rogue D=33.5, C=+15	32.575	22.525	17.5	12.475	2.425
TWF Rogue D=13 + 10.5(2-P) C=7 +10.5(2-P)	23.725	18.7225	15.5125	11.83	3.0475

Should I remove the +2 Str and add in Great Weapon Master? That would impose a -1/-6 attack penalty and a -1/+9 damage bonus per attack (-3/+27 total).

Not Using GWM	3+:P=0.90	9+:P=0.60	12+:P=0.45	15+:P=0.30	20+:P=0.05
Polearm GWM Fighter -1 attack D=27.6, C=+15.6	25.62	17.34	13.2	9.06	2.16
Using GWM	8+:P=0.65	14+:P=0.35	17+:P=0.20	20+:P=0.05	20+:P=0.05
Polearm GWM Fighter -6 attack D=57.6, C=+15.6	38.22	20.94	12.3	3.66	3.66
Combined Results	8+:P=0.65	14+:P=0.35	12+:P=0.45	15+:P=0.30	20+:P=0.05
Polearm GWM Fighter	38.22	20.94	13.2	9.06	3.66

Huh, +2 Strength is pretty good compared to GWM. Both have advantages for this Polearm Fighter.

[Gignere]

Yes if we’re trying to optimize damage at level 5, I would probably go custom lineage call myself a half drow / orc, and go Arcane Trickster. Grab sentinel at level 1, elven accuracy at level 4, this will get one to 18 dex.

Use booming blade with a familiar, this pretty much guarantees sneak attacks since you can get help action from familiar or just park familiar on your shoulder, and with sentinel you can enable off turn sneak attacks.

I think this build will out damage a GWM fighter, certainly on the rounds that sentinel procs to grant offturn sneak attacks.

[OldTrees1]

sentinel
elven accuracy
booming blade
help action from familiar or just park familiar on your shoulder

Ignoring Elven Accuracy and Help, this is similar to the Booming Rogue I calculated except I believe you are going to switch between forcing the Boom vs sacrificing the Boom in exchange for a possible Sentinel Sneak Attack. Basically the Booming Rogue is the floor for this character. Then remember it has Elven Accuracy and Help.

I don't want to recalculate it with the "Owl Familiar with Flyby swoops in to Help thus enabling Elven Accuracy" buff. However I think we can all recognize that is a sizable buff. Interestingly enough Eldritch Knights can try it too. If someone else wants to run the numbers on Gignere's Elf Rogue vs its Elven Eldritch Knight GWM (no PAM) counterpart, they are welcome to do so.

[Witty Username]

Ranged Paladin6-7/Hexblade 1 is a pretty good dps that could done 2+1 attacks with -5+10 in addition of +5 aura(Other Paladins only have +3 aura).

Not true as they lack the archery style and advantage granting spells to capitalize on sharpshooter. You would be better off with straight hexblade for this build. Also, D&D is turn based DPS has no meaning.
Secondly your aura calculation is wrong, you would only have 1 ASI, which you spent on sharpshooter so you would have a + 3 aura do to 16 cha.

As for rogues, simply adding extra attack would be to much in the other direction, even accepting your false premise. It would be the most damaging class in the game out side of casters. And your premise is false, rogues do tend to have less damage in aggregate in exchange for higher burst damage on crits, additional skills and expertise for out of combat use, extra defenses like uncanny dodge and hide, and less feat demands for maintaining damage numbers.

[Acanous]

To be fair, a lack of nova capabilities IS a deficiency Rogues have.

It doesn't make them bad, but it does hinder them.

Assassin Rogue has a decent alpha strike. Nobody uses it, though

[kazaryu]

1. Calculate average AC, hit rate, etc. Try to have a generalized calculation for universal/average circumstance, not for a special encounter.

and since you're speaking so authoritatively i assume you've done this. so what are you using for average hit rate?

2. Focus on difference and compare them. Str+2 or Dex+2 grant +1 attack and +1 damage for weapon dps's most actions, yet caster ability+2 only grant +1 or +0.5 attack for part of casters' actions. Caster ability +2 only worth about 30-40% of weapon ability+2, unless you believe Str+2/Dex+2 is extremely overpowered, caster ability+2 is not an acceptable choice for casters.

while...in general your conceptually correct. your specific application here makes no sense. you can't equate a +1 casting modifier to a +1attack modifier. because the 'cast a spell' action is functionally, extremely different than the 'attack' action. specifically, spell casting can do things that aren't damage. and damage is all that you used for your example. so sure, from a damage perspective the +1 doesn't help a caster as much as a martial. but how do you account for the increased accuracy of spells like 'hold person' which..not only acts as a damage buff (it increases attack accuracy AND melee attack damage) it also mitigates damage.

3. Compare with different options by their worth, if A>B and B>C then A>C. For example, about 1/3 luck stone's power are from skill boost so a luck stone worth about +3 to all skills, then we could immediately know expertise is never an important ability --- only part of a good uncommon item's power.

[/quote]
and here is where your logic entirely fails.

so first, your example: a luck stone is....a +1 to all skills. im really not sure where you got that its worth a +3. makes no sense. second, magic items are situational. even in a campaign where you're certain to get magic items, there's no guarantee you'll get that one. third: it gives half the boost that expertise gives pre lvl 5. and by level 20 its only about 12% the effect of expertise. which you're going to try to counter by saying 'yeah, but luck stone is all skills'. so lets nip that in the bud and point out that a party is going to tend to focus on tactics and actions that are complemented by their builds. meaning, if noone in the party is good at lying, then the party is much less likely to try to lie. they'll focus on the skills the have. further, the party is going to tend to have the specialist make the skill check. it doesn't matter that the rogue went from a +2 to a +3 in arcana if the wizard has a +8. the wizards usually gonna be the one rolling it regardless. so the vast majority of the time, that +1 is gonna be applied to the skill checks that the holder of the stone is specialized in anyway...in other words (for this example) the things the rogue has expertise in. and expertise is just...straight up better. But i've already talked about the things that make expertise useful.

onto your broader point...its just..not useful, not in a general sense. there are some aspects that you can apply that logic too. greatsword is better than greataxe for damage. and greataxe is better than longsword. so greatsword is better than longsword. that is true ...but largely useless. Most things in DnD are going to be better or worse based on context...and a lot of the time that context isn't something you can quantify. Fly is a great spell...unless you're in a dungeon where the ceiling never gets higher than 10 feet. then its...i mean it can stop you from worrying about a pitfall. so thats something...i guess.

[Gignere]

I don't want to recalculate it with the "Owl Familiar with Flyby swoops in to Help thus enabling Elven Accuracy" buff. However I think we can all recognize that is a sizable buff. Interestingly enough Eldritch Knights can try it too. If someone else wants to run the numbers on Gignere's Elf Rogue vs its Elven Eldritch Knight GWM (no PAM) counterpart, they are welcome to do so.

Problem with GWM EK + familiar is that you only get advantage to 1 attack from familiar.

If I was optimizing an EK GWM I would go custom lineage or vhuman, start with PAM and GWM by level 4, grab blindfighting style, and drop fog clouds to get advantage instead of familiar.

[DarknessEternal]

Problem with GWM EK + familiar is that you only get advantage to 1 attack from familiar.

If I was optimizing an EK GWM I would go custom lineage or vhuman, start with PAM and GWM by level 4, grab blindfighting style, and drop fog clouds to get advantage instead of familiar.

How does your party see through the fog?

[Gignere]

How does your party see through the fog?

This is personal DPR, so there is only an I in team ;). Anyway if your table plays pure RAW it actually doesn’t impact your party at all. Can’t see target disadvantage / target can’t see you advantage they cancel so your party attacks normally while you enjoy advantage on attacks and disadvantage when being attacked.

[Witty Username]

How does your party see through the fog?

There is no "I" in "Thieves Guild."

[Kuulvheysoon]

There is no "I" in "Thieves Guild."

I mean... there actually literally is?

[Witty Username]

Yes, that is a joke. Forgive my lack of blur text (I am on my phone) or emoji. It is an Oots reference so I thought I could get away with it.
Sorry for being unclear.

[Mitchellnotes]

Yes, that is a joke. Forgive my lack of blur text (I am on my phone) or emoji. It is an Oots reference so I thought I could get away with it.
Sorry for being unclear.

What does the "L" stand for?

[DarknessEternal]

Anyway if your table plays pure RAW it actually doesn’t impact your party at all. Can’t see target disadvantage / target can’t see you advantage they cancel so your party attacks normally while you enjoy advantage on attacks and disadvantage when being attacked.

Good point. Carry on.

[shipiaozi]

1) Actually the High Elf Swashbuckler with Booming Blade did rather well in comparison. However I did run the numbers for both.
2) Your factor "(1-hitrate^2)" does not make sense. That is the probability that did not hit twice. You only luck out with it being a 0.5 hitrate. Even then it still does not make sense unless you multiply everything else by hitrate.
3) Probability to be eligible for Sneak Attack =/= 0.8. It is greater than 0.8. It will be ignored because Sneak Attack is trivial to enable just like the Fighter being in melee is trivial to enable.

1. Booming Blade is worse than TWF, with 1d8+5+1d8+3d6 = 24.5 < 29.5, even with Aim action.

2. I fixed it, now it is 2-hitrate

3. Sneak attack is far from "always trigger", same as being melee is not trivial to enable. Melee character need to do about 20%+ more damage VS Ranged because they have a non-trivial chance to not being melee or can't attack most important enemy.

4. GWM is actually not worse than STR+2, you need consider bless/Maneuvers

[shipiaozi]

and since you're speaking so authoritatively i assume you've done this. so what are you using for average hit rate?
while...in general your conceptually correct. your specific application here makes no sense. you can't equate a +1 casting modifier to a +1attack modifier. because the 'cast a spell' action is functionally, extremely different than the 'attack' action. specifically, spell casting can do things that aren't damage. and damage is all that you used for your example. so sure, from a damage perspective the +1 doesn't help a caster as much as a martial. but how do you account for the increased accuracy of spells like 'hold person' which..not only acts as a damage buff (it increases attack accuracy AND melee attack damage) it also mitigates damage.

and here is where your logic entirely fails.

so first, your example: a luck stone is....a +1 to all skills. im really not sure where you got that its worth a +3. makes no sense. second, magic items are situational. even in a campaign where you're certain to get magic items, there's no guarantee you'll get that one. third: it gives half the boost that expertise gives pre lvl 5. and by level 20 its only about 12% the effect of expertise. which you're going to try to counter by saying 'yeah, but luck stone is all skills'. so lets nip that in the bud and point out that a party is going to tend to focus on tactics and actions that are complemented by their builds. meaning, if noone in the party is good at lying, then the party is much less likely to try to lie. they'll focus on the skills the have. further, the party is going to tend to have the specialist make the skill check. it doesn't matter that the rogue went from a +2 to a +3 in arcana if the wizard has a +8. the wizards usually gonna be the one rolling it regardless. so the vast majority of the time, that +1 is gonna be applied to the skill checks that the holder of the stone is specialized in anyway...in other words (for this example) the things the rogue has expertise in. and expertise is just...straight up better. But i've already talked about the things that make expertise useful.

onto your broader point...its just..not useful, not in a general sense. there are some aspects that you can apply that logic too. greatsword is better than greataxe for damage. and greataxe is better than longsword. so greatsword is better than longsword. that is true ...but largely useless. Most things in DnD are going to be better or worse based on context...and a lot of the time that context isn't something you can quantify. Fly is a great spell...unless you're in a dungeon where the ceiling never gets higher than 10 feet. then its...i mean it can stop you from worrying about a pitfall. so thats something...i guess.

1. Why you need to care about special effects? Abstraction, wizard do wizard's action and weapon dps do their actions. Hold person's effect do benefits from +1 spell attack but sadly such spells are only a very small part of spells and usually not good.

2. Why you need to talk about the availability of magic items? We don't need really get luck stone, it could be a item not exist at all, just to measure the value of abilities.

3. About 1/3 of Luck stone's value are +1 to ALL skill checks, a luck stone worth +3 to ALL skill checks, expertise only give skill boost to two or four skills. Even in lv20 a luck stone is worth more than expertise, in low level it would could worth about 5 times of expertise worth.

[kazaryu]

1. Why you need to care about special effects? Abstraction, wizard do wizard's action and weapon dps do their actions. Hold person's effect do benefits from +1 spell attack but sadly such spells are only a very small part of spells and usually not good.

and here is the problem. you assert that control is a small part of casters repetoire...and yet, its not...probably around half of spells that deal damage, also have rider effects that can be as advantageous, if not more advantageous than the damage itself. and there are many many useful spells that don't deal damage at all, and are extremely effective. hold person, in particular, is one of them. and a +1 to casting stat is very useful for it.

thats the problem with trying to abstract too much. you need to be able to set things equal. and yet in DnD very few things are actually equal. a bonus to accuracy on a major control spell isn't the same as a bonus to accuracy on a weapon attack roll. the two two effects are too different to be compared that easily. in other words. you're not abstracting, you're ignoring important nuance'.

2. Why you need to talk about the availability of magic items? We don't need really get luck stone, it could be a item not exist at all, just to measure the value of abilities.

becuase everything in DnD is relative to something else. context is hugely important, especially when trying to compare dissimilar things. you're comparing expertise to a stone of luck...but how easy is a stone of luck to get compared to expertise? How worthwhile something is is always based on comparing the bonus it gives to how easy it is to obtain that bonus. Spell Mastery would be a hella broken ability if it was available to a 3rd level wizard. because it'd be really really cheap. but as it stands its...nice. its a good ability. but its not terrible broken because you need 18 levels in wizard to get it.

3. About 1/3 of Luck stone's value are +1 to ALL skill checks, a luck stone worth +3 to ALL skill checks, expertise only give skill boost to two or four skills. Even in lv20 a luck stone is worth more than expertise, in low level it would could worth about 5 times of expertise worth.

so in your opinion, in an abstracted sense, a luck stone is worth +3 to all skills....except it doesn't give a +3 to all skills. this is another case of taking an abstraction too far. put it this way. at level 20 a rogue with expertise in stealth has a floor of 27 on their stealth checks. thats REALLY hard to beat with most monsters. with a +11 to perception a monster not only needs to roll in order to perceive a hidden rogue at that level. they need to roll a 16. thats a 1/4 chance and thats the rogues floor. same rogue using a luck stone only has a 22 floor. which barely beats the passive perception of a monster with a +11 perception. (and, to be clear, alot of monsters don't have even that high). and gives that monsters a 50% chance of spotting them.

similar comparisons can be made with other potential combat skills like athletics. a lvl 20 rogue can get a 27 floor with athletics. which is a tough DC to beat to avoid being knocked prone or grappled. of course shove attack or grapple isn't typically the best option in combat. but thats beside the point. the point is that you're trying to say expertise is bad because its worth less than a luck stone which is 'only' an uncommon item. except nothing else, in the game, boosts skills to the same degree that expertise does. (oh and if its not a rogue, they still have a floor of 18 of proficient ability checks, which is enough to auto pass all easy and most medium difficulty checks). so, once again, you're taking the abstraction too far. trying to compare things that are inherently incomparable.

oh, and as i expected, you claimed that the +1 to all skills is better than expertise in a few. but i already responded to that....so if you feel like addressing that critique. feel free. i'll wait.

[OldTrees1]

1. Booming Blade is worse than TWF, with 1d8+5+1d8+3d6 = 24.5 < 29.5, even with Aim action.

2. I fixed it, now it is 2-hitrate

I would do a detailed calculation here:
Variant Human 5th level Rogue with 18 Dex (4th:+2 Dex), Fighting Style TWF, and two +1 wepaon (Much better than Elf Build)
Variant Human 5th level Fighter with 18 Str (4th:+2 Str), Great Weapon Fighting Style, PAM, and a +1 Polearm.

Fighter has 3 attacks for 2d10+1d4+2.1(GWFS) + 12(STR)+3(Magic) = 30.6 damage
Rogue has 2 attacks for 2d6+8(DEX)+2(Magic) + P*(2-hitrate)*3d6 = 29.6 damage assume P=0.8 and hitrate=0.5

3. Sneak attack is far from "always trigger", same as being melee is not trivial to enable. Melee character need to do about 20%+ more damage VS Ranged because they have a non-trivial chance to not being melee or can't attack most important enemy.

4. GWM is actually not worse than STR+2, you need consider bless/Maneuvers

1. The Booming Blade Rogue can attack with Booming Blade against an isolated enemy and move away without an AoO. Thus causing the enemy to chase after them. So it is 1d8+5+1d8+3d6+2d8 = 33.5. Then I compared it against various hit rates and it demonstrated it was a valid option at 5th level. Since TWF increases Sneak Attack expected damage by a multiple of (2-hitrate), I suspect this might change at later levels.

1d8+6+2d8+6d6+3d8=54
2d6+7+(2-P)6d6=56-21P

1d8+6+3d8+9d6+4d8=73.5
2d6+7+(2-P)9d6=77-31.5P

No, it looks like the Booming Blade Rogue example keeps pace as long as they can cause the Boom. When they can't, they can switch to the TWF style. Sure the extra attack from TWF is nice, but cantrips scale too.

2. Now that you fixed it with (2-Hitrate), even with your assumption of only 80% Sneak Attack it is still comparable to Fighter.

3. Of course Sneak Attack is very close to a "always trigger" just like the Polearm Fighter's ability to be in melee is rather trivial. If you want to penalize the Polearm Fighter for turns they are not in melee but the Rogue does still Sneak Attack, feel free. However merely asserting the probability is low implies to the forum that maybe your experience has less teamwork than is typical. I have played several Rogues in 5E. My Sneak Attack rate, against my preferred target, was much higher than 80%.

4. Actually Bless and Maneuvers don't impact the math of GWM vs STR+2. Bless and accuracy Maneuvers increase the hitrate for both characters equally. Damaging Maneuvers benefit STR+2 more than GWM (due to STR+2 having more accurate attacks).


In conclusion, the base damage for a Rogue and a Fighter are comparable. The Fighter has a better Nova (Action Surge and Manuevers are Nova) however the Rogue has better out of combat features. Sure a Rogue with a free Extra Attack would be stronger since the (2-P) factor turns into a (3-3P+P²) factor. However Rogue does not necessarily need it.

11th level:
Fighter 5+ / Rogue 5+:
3d6+13+(3-3P+P²)3d6=55-31.5P+10.5P²

TWF Rogue 11:
2d6+7+(2-P)6d6=56-21P

Booming Rogue 11:
1d8+6+2d8+6d6+3d8=54

55 ~= 56 ~= 54

[shipiaozi]

and here is the problem. you assert that control is a small part of casters repetoire...and yet, its not...probably around half of spells that deal damage, also have rider effects that can be as advantageous, if not more advantageous than the damage itself. and there are many many useful spells that don't deal damage at all, and are extremely effective. hold person, in particular, is one of them. and a +1 to casting stat is very useful for it.

thats the problem with trying to abstract too much. you need to be able to set things equal. and yet in DnD very few things are actually equal. a bonus to accuracy on a major control spell isn't the same as a bonus to accuracy on a weapon attack roll. the two two effects are too different to be compared that easily. in other words. you're not abstracting, you're ignoring important nuance'.

becuase everything in DnD is relative to something else. context is hugely important, especially when trying to compare dissimilar things. you're comparing expertise to a stone of luck...but how easy is a stone of luck to get compared to expertise? How worthwhile something is is always based on comparing the bonus it gives to how easy it is to obtain that bonus. Spell Mastery would be a hella broken ability if it was available to a 3rd level wizard. because it'd be really really cheap. but as it stands its...nice. its a good ability. but its not terrible broken because you need 18 levels in wizard to get it.


so in your opinion, in an abstracted sense, a luck stone is worth +3 to all skills....except it doesn't give a +3 to all skills. this is another case of taking an abstraction too far. put it this way. at level 20 a rogue with expertise in stealth has a floor of 27 on their stealth checks. thats REALLY hard to beat with most monsters. with a +11 to perception a monster not only needs to roll in order to perceive a hidden rogue at that level. they need to roll a 16. thats a 1/4 chance and thats the rogues floor. same rogue using a luck stone only has a 22 floor. which barely beats the passive perception of a monster with a +11 perception. (and, to be clear, alot of monsters don't have even that high). and gives that monsters a 50% chance of spotting them.

similar comparisons can be made with other potential combat skills like athletics. a lvl 20 rogue can get a 27 floor with athletics. which is a tough DC to beat to avoid being knocked prone or grappled. of course shove attack or grapple isn't typically the best option in combat. but thats beside the point. the point is that you're trying to say expertise is bad because its worth less than a luck stone which is 'only' an uncommon item. except nothing else, in the game, boosts skills to the same degree that expertise does. (oh and if its not a rogue, they still have a floor of 18 of proficient ability checks, which is enough to auto pass all easy and most medium difficulty checks). so, once again, you're taking the abstraction too far. trying to compare things that are inherently incomparable.

oh, and as i expected, you claimed that the +1 to all skills is better than expertise in a few. but i already responded to that....so if you feel like addressing that critique. feel free. i'll wait.

1. Most control spell, especially good ones such as command/Hypnotic Pattern/Banishment, only get +1 attack roll from caster abilities, "save every turn" spells are usually not very good. AOE spells get +0.5 attack roll from caster ability, CRB summons and buffs get no benefits.

2. Context is sth we should get rid of. All discussions about certain example, context, encounter, etc are useless because they give almost no information. With abstraction we don't need to waste time on any special effect, STR+2/DEX+2 grant +15% boost to actions, INT+2/WIS+2 grant +5% boost to actions, that's more than enough to prove casters should never increase their caster ability.

3. Again, you are wasting time on certain example. +6 to a certain skill is weaker than +1 to all skills, or 1/3 of a luck stone, that's enough. There are 1000 more cases that +1 AC gives better result, so we need to decide how skill increase worth compare to AC and all saves, and after a reasonable result was find we don't need to waste time on certain example anymore. You could argue skill worth a lot that luck stone is actually far better than Cloak of Protection, but any special example are not valid argument.

1. The Booming Blade Rogue can attack with Booming Blade against an isolated enemy and move away without an AoO. Thus causing the enemy to chase after them. So it is 1d8+5+1d8+3d6+2d8 = 33.5. Then I compared it against various hit rates and it demonstrated it was a valid option at 5th level. Since TWF increases Sneak Attack expected damage by a multiple of (2-hitrate), I suspect this might change at later levels.

1d8+6+2d8+6d6+3d8=54
2d6+7+(2-P)6d6=56-21P

1d8+6+3d8+9d6+4d8=73.5
2d6+7+(2-P)9d6=77-31.5P

No, it looks like the Booming Blade Rogue example keeps pace as long as they can cause the Boom. When they can't, they can switch to the TWF style. Sure the extra attack from TWF is nice, but cantrips scale too.

2. Now that you fixed it with (2-Hitrate), even with your assumption of only 80% Sneak Attack it is still comparable to Fighter.

3. Of course Sneak Attack is very close to a "always trigger" just like the Polearm Fighter's ability to be in melee is rather trivial. If you want to penalize the Polearm Fighter for turns they are not in melee but the Rogue does still Sneak Attack, feel free. However merely asserting the probability is low implies to the forum that maybe your experience has less teamwork than is typical. I have played several Rogues in 5E. My Sneak Attack rate, against my preferred target, was much higher than 80%.

4. Actually Bless and Maneuvers don't impact the math of GWM vs STR+2. Bless and accuracy Maneuvers increase the hitrate for both characters equally. Damaging Maneuvers benefit STR+2 more than GWM (due to STR+2 having more accurate attacks).


In conclusion, the base damage for a Rogue and a Fighter are comparable. The Fighter has a better Nova (Action Surge and Manuevers are Nova) however the Rogue has better out of combat features. Sure a Rogue with a free Extra Attack would be stronger since the (2-P) factor turns into a (3-3P+P²) factor. However Rogue does not necessarily need it.

11th level:
Fighter 5+ / Rogue 5+:
3d6+13+(3-3P+P²)3d6=55-31.5P+10.5P²

TWF Rogue 11:
2d6+7+(2-P)6d6=56-21P

Booming Rogue 11:
1d8+6+2d8+6d6+3d8=54

55 ~= 56 ~= 54

1. To trigger sneak attack you need ally near the enemy, so AOO would not trigger in most of the time.

2. Rogue is far weaker than fighter, melee rogue need to deal 50%+ more damage and get defense increase to be on par with fighter as I calculated.

3. Being melee is not trivial, so are sneak attacks. If melee rogue and melee fighter want to compare dps with a ranged build, then their damage should multi another parameter for being melee(about 0.85). I ignore this in rogue vs fighter because both are melee.

4. Abilities grant attack roll boost helped -5+10, 40%=>60% = 50% damage boost, 65%=>85% = 31% damage boost. On paper -5/+10 are close to +1/+1 but in real combat -5/+10 usually worth +1.5/+1.5 to +2.5/+2.5 depends on team level.


LV11 with +2 weapon, assume Fighter have 22STR since 20STR+GWM > 22STR:
Fighter: +1 attack roll to hit, 3*(1d10+8)+(1d4+8)+2.7 = 53.7
Rogue: 2*(1d6+7)+0.8*1.5*6d6 = 46.2
Again, Fighter deals about 70-80% more damage after consider class abilities.

[OldTrees1]

1. To trigger sneak attack you need ally near the enemy, so AOO would not trigger in most of the time.

2. Rogue is far weaker than fighter, melee rogue need to deal 50%+ more damage and get defense increase to be on par with fighter as I calculated.

3. Being melee is not trivial, so are sneak attacks. If melee rogue and melee fighter want to compare dps with a ranged build, then their damage should multi another parameter for being melee(about 0.85). I ignore this in rogue vs fighter because both are melee.

4. Abilities grant attack roll boost helped -5+10, 40%=>60% = 50% damage boost, 65%=>85% = 31% damage boost. On paper -5/+10 are close to +1/+1 but in real combat -5/+10 usually worth +1.5/+1.5 to +2.5/+2.5 depends on team level.


LV11 with +2 weapon, assume Fighter have 22STR since 20STR+GWM > 22STR:
Fighter: +1 attack roll to hit, 3*(1d10+8)+(1d4+8)+2.7 = 53.7
Rogue: 2*(1d6+7)+0.8*1.5*6d6 = 46.2
Again, Fighter deals about 70-80% more damage after consider class abilities.

1. You already knew the Booming Blade Rogue example was a Swashbuckler. They move in, get sneak attack, and move out. No AoO was mentioned.

2. False. You calculated 30.6 vs 29.6 for the base rate damage. That was with your erroneous nerf to Sneak Attack rate. When I calculated the base rate after accuracy, it is 16.08 vs 15.5125 at your chosen hitrate of 50%. That means Rogues base rate damage is comparable with Fighter. If you want to switch to talking about nova damage instead, then acknowledge the conclusion of the base rate damage.

3. Sneak Attacks are more trivial than being in melee. You can continue your counterfactual assertion, but it will not be persuasive. In Practice Rogues get Sneak Attack roughly 100% of the time. This has been confirmed by multiple sources with you as the outlier. That suggests your conclusion is based on a faulty measurement.

4. I point you back to the chart. The chart columns are hit rates. Bless increases the hit rates of everyone equally. I do not need to adjust my calculations.

Spoiler: Charts for all the accurate comparisions

Show

Equation: Damage = PD+C/20

Character	2+:P=0.95	8+:P=0.65	11+:P=0.50	14+:P=0.35	20+:P=0.05
Polearm Fighter D=30.6, C=+15.6	29.85	20.67	16.08	11.49	2.31
Booming Rogue D=33.5, C=+15	32.575	22.525	17.5	12.475	2.425
TWF Rogue D=13 + 10.5(2-P) C=7 +10.5(2-P)	23.725	18.7225	15.5125	11.83	3.0475

Should I remove the +2 Str and add in Great Weapon Master? That would impose a -1/-6 attack penalty and a -1/+9 damage bonus per attack (-3/+27 total).

Not Using GWM	3+:P=0.90	9+:P=0.60	12+:P=0.45	15+:P=0.30	20+:P=0.05
Polearm GWM Fighter -1 attack D=27.6, C=+15.6	25.62	17.34	13.2	9.06	2.16
Using GWM	8+:P=0.65	14+:P=0.35	17+:P=0.20	20+:P=0.05	20+:P=0.05
Polearm GWM Fighter -6 attack D=57.6, C=+15.6	38.22	20.94	12.3	3.66	3.66
Combined Results	8+:P=0.65	14+:P=0.35	12+:P=0.45	15+:P=0.30	20+:P=0.05
Polearm GWM Fighter	38.22	20.94	13.2	9.06	3.66

Huh, +2 Strength is pretty good compared to GWM. Both have advantages for this Polearm Fighter.

11th level:
Fighter 5+ / Rogue 5+:
3d6+13+(3-3P+P²)3d6=55-31.5P+10.5P²

TWF Rogue 11:
2d6+7+(2-P)6d6=56-21P

Booming Rogue 11:
1d8+6+2d8+6d6+3d8=54

55 ~= 56 ~= 54

5. Okay so now that I did 11th level Rogue comparison vs the 11th level Fighter/Rogue you want an 11th level Fighter comparison? Why? I believe the 11th level Fighter/Rogue already addresses your 11th level concerns (and your "Most attacks is best Rogue" premise). And your erroneous premises are not persuasive enough to convince me to do the correct math for you. Change Sneak Attack proc to 100% and I could reconsider.

[Valmark]

LV11 with +2 weapon, assume Fighter have 22STR since 20STR+GWM > 22STR:
Fighter: +1 attack roll to hit, 3*(1d10+8)+(1d4+8)+2.7 = 53.7
Rogue: 2*(1d6+7)+0.8*1.5*6d6 = 46.2
Again, Fighter deals about 70-80% more damage after consider class abilities.

I would like to note that you are comparing these two without accuracy factored in and with a 22 Strenght stat which the fighter cannot have (because no PC can get their stat above 20 without special features).

EDIT: Also like OldTrees said what's the point of comparing Fighter 11 to Rogue 11 if the discussion is about multiclassing Rogue?

[OldTrees1]

I would like to note that you are comparing these two without accuracy factored in and with a 22 Strenght stat which the fighter cannot have (because no PC can get their stat above 20 without special features).

EDIT: Also like OldTrees said what's the point of comparing Fighter 11 to Rogue 11 if the discussion is about multiclassing Rogue?

Ship was using 22 STR as a placeholder since I failed to sufficiently communicate my comment about STR +2 vs GWM both having merits at 5th level to them. So rather than ask for 20 STR GWM, they made the math slightly easier on themselves by saying "well pretend 22 STR was possible, clearly it would be weaker than 20 STR GWM". This is similar to me using my Booming Blade Rogue at 11th rather than use Gignere's example Rogue. The Elven Accuracy Owl Familiar Arcane Trickster would have been stronger but the weaker Rogue was easier to calculate and still was valid for the comparison I was making.

TLDR: 20 STR GWM would be the more reasonable comparison but 22 STR is easier to calculate despite being impossible.


Also thanks for reinforcing my point. If the discussion is about Rogues must get Extra Attack, then why does 11th level Fighter matter?

Additionally if we get too far into talking about 11th level tangent, then we will need to address Reliable Talent (Rogue's true Capstone which comes at 11th level) because Fighter should start dealing more damage if their player is choosing to have them fall this far behind out of combat.

[JNAProductions]

LV11 with +2 weapon, assume Fighter have 22STR since 20STR+GWM > 22STR:
Fighter: +1 attack roll to hit, 3*(1d10+8)+(1d4+8)+2.7 = 53.7
Rogue: 2*(1d6+7)+0.8*1.5*6d6 = 46.2
Again, Fighter deals about 70-80% more damage after consider class abilities.

Except you can, by Fighter 11, have guaranteed 20 Strength and GWM. That's usually 3 ASIs, and you've had just enough to have that.
You CANNOT raise your Strength to 22 without magic items or similar. Very specific ones that you've no guarantee of getting.

If we compare...

Fighter 11, +2 Glaive. 20 Strength and GWM
Three attacks at +11 for 1d10+7 damage, and one attack at +11 for 1d4+7 damage. Reroll 1s and 2s.
Average damage is 13.3 for the main hits and 10 for the butt hit.

You know what, Imma actually make a Spreadsheet for this. Fighter 11, +2 Glaive, 20 Strength, GWM. And a Rogue 11 with 20 Dexterity, Crossbow Expert, and a +2 Hand Crossbow.

Okay, time to double check math.

Fighter does (against AC 20) .55 hit rate, .05 crit rate, for 27.445 base damage plus 3.59 crit damage, for 31.035.
Rogue Does (against AC 20) .55 hit rate, .05 crit rate, .7425 SA no crit, and .0975 SA crit, for 8.8 base damage, 1.15 crit damage, 15.5925 SA damage, and 4.095 SA crit damage, for 29.6375.

Had to edit it slightly at the end there. Wrong product in one spot. But should be good now!

DPR Spreadsheet

Edit: The spreadsheet does not work accurately if target AC is high enough that you need a 21+ or low enough that you need a 1-. Just an FYI-and I don't know how to fix that.

[OldTrees1]

If we compare...

Could you show them using GWM vs not using GWM at the chosen AC? It looks like your results decided 55% was too low to attempt GWM?

Currently checking the spreadsheet

[JNAProductions]

Could you show them using GWM vs not using GWM at the chosen AC? It looks like your results decided 55% was too low to attempt GWM?

Let me add GWM to the Spreadsheet. Should be easy enough.

[Mitchellnotes]

Except you can, by Fighter 11, have guaranteed 20 Strength and GWM. That's usually 3 ASIs, and you've had just enough to have that.
You CANNOT raise your Strength to 22 without magic items or similar. Very specific ones that you've no guarantee of getting.

If we compare...

Fighter 11, +2 Glaive. 20 Strength and GWM
Three attacks at +11 for 1d10+7 damage, and one attack at +11 for 1d4+7 damage. Reroll 1s and 2s.
Average damage is 13.3 for the main hits and 10 for the butt hit.

You know what, Imma actually make a Spreadsheet for this. Fighter 11, +2 Glaive, 20 Strength, GWM. And a Rogue 11 with 20 Dexterity, Crossbow Expert, and a +2 Hand Crossbow.

Okay, time to double check math.

Fighter does (against AC 20) .55 hit rate, .05 crit rate, for 27.445 base damage plus 3.59 crit damage, for 31.035.
Rogue Does (against AC 20) .55 hit rate, .05 crit rate, .7425 SA no crit, and .0975 SA crit, for 8.8 base damage, 1.15 crit damage, 15.5925 SA damage, and 4.095 SA crit damage, for 29.6375.

Had to edit it slightly at the end there. Wrong product in one spot. But should be good now!

DPR Spreadsheet

Edit: The spreadsheet does not work accurately if target AC is high enough that you need a 21+ or low enough that you need a 1-. Just an FYI-and I don't know how to fix that.

Ship assumes a 75% chance of getting a str boosting item. Just wait, the premise will be 3 feats (gwm, polearm master, and something else) while getting the str through the item

[JNAProductions]

Updated the Spreadsheet again. Has GWM now.

Still doesn't work if you move the AC too far.

[OldTrees1]

Updated the Spreadsheet again. Has GWM now.

Still doesn't work if you move the AC too far.

Nice. It shows the GWM as 32.56 which is higher than the non GWM 31.035 but still comparable to the Rogue's 29.6375

Reading sheet:
Misc Bonus sounds like the magic damage. Are we assuming +2 weapons at 11th? I know my magic weapon habits (happy with +0 magic weapon) are outliers.
M10 "Rogue's Chance Of One or More Crits" is set to 39/400 which is the number of expected crits for Rogue's 2 attacks.
M16 "Rogue's Crit SA Damage" assumes the two attacks are rolled simultaneously and if either is a crit then the crit gets the Sneak Attack.
We could set M16 to "PRODUCT(2,H3,F5,PRODUCT(H2,1+M11))" to switch to RAW if I checked things correctly. I am checking if there is an easier way to toggle JNA's table's shortcut.

[JNAProductions]

Nice. It shows the GWM as 32.56 which is higher than the non GWM 31.035 but still comparable to the Rogue's 29.6375

Reading sheet:
Misc Bonus sounds like the magic damage. Are we assuming +2 weapons at 11th? I know my magic weapon habits (happy with +0 magic weapon) are outliers.
M10 "Rogue's Chance Of One or More Crits" is set to 39/400 which is the number of expected crits for Rogue's 2 attacks.
M16 "Rogue's Crit SA Damage" assumes the two attacks are rolled simultaneously and if either is a crit then the crit gets the Sneak Attack.
We could set M16 to "PRODUCT(2,H3,F5,PRODUCT(H2,1+M11))" to switch to RAW if I checked things correctly. I am checking if there is an easier way to toggle JNA's table's shortcut.

Misc Bonus is the magic item bonus, yeah. The current set-up uses Ship's +2 weapons. If we set that to 0, the Rogue actually outdamages the Fighter.

M10 is using the table assumption that attacks are rolled together, as discussed earlier. That's how I do it at my table, so Imma keep it that way, but I can try to assist if you want a different spreadsheet that works another way. :)

[OldTrees1]

Misc Bonus is the magic item bonus, yeah. The current set-up uses Ship's +2 weapons. If we set that to 0, the Rogue actually outdamages the Fighter.

M10 is using the table assumption that attacks are rolled together, as discussed earlier. That's how I do it at my table, so Imma keep it that way, but I can try to assist if you want a different spreadsheet that works another way. :)

It is your table's policy so I consider it reasonable for your sheet. I mentioned how people could adjust it on their edit copy.


You can use CEILING to handle high ACs. Basically set the minimum value of a target number calculation to 2.
=CEILING(MINUS(A2,B5),2)
I think this is the syntax for FLOOR/CEILING but I have not tested it in sheets. It might require a precision parameter.
MAX(2,MIN(20,MINUS(AC,ATK)))