And he does. Striker AND defender. Not just Striker. Whether you choose to ignore the defender part or not is what's irrelevant. They are not a pure striker. Stated both in 4e rules and the devs description of the class on the front page.
That might be true if the gwf could spec into both sentinel and destroyer/instigator tree, but as it currently stands you can only spec for one.
As someone who played AD&D, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 of DnD Pen&Paper I can state following:
Who was dealing more damage in D&D 3.x was very situational. There were alot of factors playing in like resistance, damage reduction monster type, level range, feat choice, fighting style, tactic, etc.
For monsters e.g. with low AC which have anatomy rogues would have the top since of mutiple W6 sneak attack even paired with dual weapons fifhting this was more then lethal. For monsters with high AC and no anatomy, fighter would win at low to mid level, but ranger will win above fighter at mid to high levels by using enchanted arrows (at the costs of alot on gold).
If he survived up to this ponts, at mid level wizard/sorcerer started to become noticable (nearly useless until Level 5/20 !!). But at high level, caster cleric rules them all by using divine metamagic (most overpowered feats in DnD ever). Cleric & Wiz only had severe problems against monsters with high spell resistance or even magic imunity.
In 4.0, every one deal the same at will damage, only encounter powers are different. Rogue is clearly striker. I have played a hafling rogue one-hit killing things at crit boss monsters with a dagger. Yes, thats also possible in DnD pen&Paper. Because of the minion system in DnD 4.0, area damage / crowd control is very important, which is mainly the part of the wizard.
However, since fighting is only a part of DnD pen&paper it doesn't realy matter how much damage a single character deals. The roleplay in group is much more fun - the goal of my halfling rogue was not to shred monsters with his daggers, but to annoy my group mates to death :-)
But to summarize: DnD was mostly highly unbalanced between classes - but balance was not necessary, because fighting was not everything.
What the original poster seems to forget is that 3rd edition (and greatly more so in 4th edition) D&D fighters were gimped to a support role of dealing low damage to multiple targets and the rogue was elevated into the role of "striker" doing massive damage to a single target (that used to be the role of the fighter).
D&D DM/Player since 1982 - all versions except the despised 4e
I don't know about you but I've always based damage on weapon type and daggers (1d4) do less damage than greatswords (2d6) and yes while it's true their respective users have different attack rates in which on a pure dps level means the rogue does more damage over time, but on a hit for hit damage basis the GWF should do more damage. Damage <> DPS. Even something as damaging as the AoE effect of the GWF daily Slam only actually does less than 5 dps to each enemy hit because of the timepulse check it in a parser sometime.
500 mobs surround you....AOE flies everywhere...yet at the end of the day...the single target TR still is out dps'n the aoe machine GWF.
And no...Rogues did not start out the TOP DPS class. Go back to the roots. You let the fighter initiate....you sneak around back... then backstab for lots of damage...then bounce out so that you did not get one shot. You moved around a lot....you did not do as the fighter and hold the choke point while the wizard that is behind you is shooting rays of death all over the place.
The true DPS master has and always will be the Mage/Wizard class....end of discussion.
Yes. They did. Why do you think the rogue was moving into position behind the target? To do optimal damage. And I can guarantee you that if you have 100% uptime on the boss as a Rogue in any game, without having to doge AoE's/mechanics, they will outdamage a mage. It's just that a mage NEVER has to move. They are easy mode.
10 pages now. Wait till we get the ranger. A class that most likely will have equal damage to a rogue but from range. Eliminating any lost DPS due to positioning or dodging.
When the rogues start crying like the GWFs what will the GWFs do?
0
nukeyooBanned Users, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited June 2013
I'm jealous of the GWF because when you stroke the right button they get all swollen and red and bigger and just the way they handle that long shaft... mmm
All this crying wont make a bit of a difference... let's just all wait rill ESo goes Live and maybe that one will be a good game. Until then relax and play Metro last light\ DayZ etc. Also dont forget to check these forums once in a while to read up new exploits and balancing
Carnage TR Dragon shard - retired? hell yea it's retired along with Nevewinter
I'm jealous of the GWF because when you stroke the right button they get all swollen and red and bigger and just the way they handle that long shaft... mmm
But if a GWF doesn't spec to tank a rogue has better innate mitigation and threat.
I'm not quite sure of the exact difference between Leather and Scale armor, but the GWF has more health to counter the TR's probable higher deflect chance.
As far as I'm aware, TRs have no special innate threat modifiers. Its based on the same numbers as the GWF: base damage.
Good to know you are putting your money to good use by not playing a GWF.
GWF might be weak in PvE, but in PvP! Its quickly becoming one of the classes i fear the most.
Have no chance to go toe to toe against a good GWF 1v1 unless you kite like a maniac. Becomes immune to all your damage and all your cc, and hits like a truck, knockdownlocks you and kills you before you can get out of it.
Its only that there are about 3-4 players on the whole server that knows how to play a GWF in PvP
I'm not quite sure of the exact difference between Leather and Scale armor, but the GWF has more health to counter the TR's probable higher deflect chance.
As far as I'm aware, TRs have no special innate threat modifiers. Its based on the same numbers as the GWF: base damage.
Not only do TRs have a higher innate deflect chance, but deflect is twice as effective on a rogue than any other class. Scale armor does have slightly more AC but it's not nearly enough to make up the difference in deflect. Also base class health is pretty much the same.
Rogues don't have any innate threat modifiers but since they do more damage it's impossible for a gwf to pull threat from a rogue unless the gwf specs for threat modifiers.
Im tired of all the "im not top dps even though i rolled a controll, defence/healer class" posts..
TR should ALWAYS be top in dps charts, their the only dps class. Their also extremly squishy in PvE content, the typical glasscannon.
TR basicly have no AoE skills and are only good for bosses, and aoe disarming trashmobs.
So you want to take that away aswell becouse you want to be top dog in ST on bosses aswell? yea..sounds really fair.
Theres only a handful good GWF out there, that actually tries to play ther class as a GWF and not a single target dps class, that ends up in top 2 just below the Rogue, which they should be.
When the TR gets nerfed becouse of all the whining and it will be the worst class to bring to dungeons, every scrub CW and GWF will think their fine becouse they get higher dps in the charts, and TR cant kill them in PvP.
GWF should be the best AoE class, that i agree, CW shouldnt be as good in AoE as they are now, their a controll class. Clerics shouldnt do as much AoE either.
In no situations should any other class then a Rogue be at the top in the charts, and by a good margin.
I'm not sure if you're incredibly stupid or trolling.
Not only do TRs have a higher innate deflect chance, but deflect is twice as effective on a rogue than any other class. Scale armor does have slightly more AC but it's not nearly enough to make up the difference in deflect. Also base class health is pretty much the same.
Rogues don't have any innate threat modifiers but since they do more damage it's impossible for a gwf to pull threat from a rogue unless the gwf specs for threat modifiers.
^You're wrong or built your GWF wrong. Dex is 0.5% for rogues and GWF's. Please take a seat.
Just change their roles, make the GWF a striker and the TR a pathfinder, problem solved.
Because that would work. The rogue has been replaced by a rainbow trail, stay tuned for more glorious updates....
The problem is the GWF needs tweaked. Its aoe should hit all targets in range and dps should not be cut per target basis. It should probably do about 2x the damage from aoe attacks. And it needs a single target focused paragon path that should be on par with a TR.
Rogues don't stack Charisma. The most popular roll is 20-13-13 then put +1 into Str/Dex.
It's actually quite common for rogues to stack charisma, but it doesn't matter since with your numbers even without stacking charisma the bonus to deflect from charisma at 60 with the fire buff would be the equivalent to a GWF having an extra 24 dex.
Not only do TRs have a higher innate deflect chance, but deflect is twice as effective on a rogue than any other class.
Are you sure? My rogue only deflects for 25%, whereas my GWF deflects 50% of damage.
Scale armor does have slightly more AC but it's not nearly enough to make up the difference in deflect. Also base class health is pretty much the same.
Ah. Yep. I misread the Con.
Do Rogues have an equivalent stat that reduces an opponent's Armour Penetration and similar effects?
Rogues don't have any innate threat modifiers but since they do more damage it's impossible for a gwf to pull threat from a rogue unless the gwf specs for threat modifiers.
I'm fairly sure that only holds true if they are both attacking only one target. I can't see a rogue being able to keep aggro on a group if a GWF starts working on it.
Are you sure? My rogue only deflects for 25%, whereas my GWF deflects 50% of damage.
Ah. Yep. I misread the Con.
Do Rogues have an equivalent stat that reduces an opponent's Armour Penetration and similar effects?
I'm fairly sure that only holds true if they are both attacking only one target. I can't see a rogue being able to keep aggro on a group if a GWF starts working on it.
The deflect severity numbers are misleading. Rogues take 25% of the damage on a successful deflect everyone else takes 50%.
The con armor pen either doesn't work, so small it's worthless, or is misunderstood. There is a rather large thread on it in the Barracks.
It's true that the rogues would have trouble pulling 5 enemies from a GWF but they could almost certainly take 3 or less without much trouble. The scenarios become all very hypothetical though, it could be argued from either viewpoint depending on the situation.
1) Here's the real truth of this matter:
The GWF should do the MOST damage in the game per hit (encounter and at wills); the very idea of the class is to sacrifice everything for damage (all out strength, all out weapon size, w/e is more destructive/damaging is what defines the class). In other words, they should be at the top of the damage meter with ease YET what we see is they are near the bottom. How could this very simple class been messed up so badly?
....
Rogues: should do the least damage in the game ESPECIALLY when compared to a GWF. Rogues are trying to cause damage with glorified knives...which aren't even long enough to be able to penetrate through the hides of some of the monsters in DnD let alone do any meaningful damage.
....
I would suggest lowering their damage to sub-meaningful unless they have combat advantage, are stealthed, or are behind their target; this would simulate sneak attack damage which, at its best, should never surpass GWF damage. As is, a rogue can go toe to toe with a GWF and just flat out dps him down without even using stealth; the idea of that is just insanely ridiculous.
....
A GWF should crush a rogue 1 v 1 for a joke. The only way a rogue should have a chance vs. a GWF 1 v 1 is if the rogues has a vast gear superiority, the GWF is already at 1/2 health and/or is partially afk. In otherwords, a rogue should NEVER be able to 1 v 1 a GWF. The very idea of a GWF is a slayer of rogues by the dozens; a GWF should laugh at the idea of fighting even two or 3 rogues;
Im not playing rogue or GWF, but i totally agree with this idea. Tho, it sucks in author realiztion. GWF should not be top damage dealer. I it should really depend on encounter. If it is a big-<font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> golem in front of your group, noone can deal with it better than fighter, weilding 2H mace. If its a group of adventurers - rogue can just sneak behind and slit few throats before someone even realize what happened.
As u told - think about realism. "NEVER be able to 1 v 1 a GWF"? Lol imagine you are a GWF, walking down the street. Suddenly rogue appears behind and stab you through the eye-hole in your helmet. No matter how tough you are, you die same instant. But if rogue appears in FRONT of GWF, requesting fair fight, like it is now - thats a joke, rly.
So, basically, they should cut rogue's up-front damage like in half, but from other hand add more opportunities to do damage from behind/stealth/with combat advantage.
The deflect severity numbers are misleading. Rogues take 25% of the damage on a successful deflect everyone else takes 50%.
Ah. Tooltip bugged? I take it it should say deflect severity of 75%?
The con armor pen either doesn't work, so small it's worthless, or is misunderstood. There is a rather large thread on it in the Barracks.
I thought that discussion was due to people thinking that it was an offensive stat, not a defensive, mitigation one?
The issue was that they assumed it boosted their armour penetration, rather than reducing their opponent's. As far as I'm aware, no-one has done enough testing to show that it doesn't work.
Im not playing rogue or GWF, but i totally agree with this idea. Tho, it sucks in author realiztion. GWF should not be top damage dealer. I it should really depend on encounter. If it is a big-<font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> golem in front of your group, noone can deal with it better than fighter, weilding 2H mace. If its a group of adventurers - rogue can just sneak behind and slit few throats before someone even realize what happened.
As u told - think about realism. "NEVER be able to 1 v 1 a GWF"? Lol imagine you are a GWF, walking down the street. Suddenly rogue appears behind and stab you through the eye-hole in your helmet. No matter how tough you are, you die same instant. But if rogue appears in FRONT of GWF, requesting fair fight, like it is now - thats a joke, rly.
So, basically, they should cut rogue's up-front damage like in half, but from other hand add more opportunities to do damage from behind/stealth/with combat advantage.
Except that that is not going work in an action game, if you are playing a pen and paper roleplaying game , yes because for it to work all the gm has to do is roll an dice and say : you rolled a twenty, you successfully move behind your enemy and strike him for 3d6+2, in an action game like neverwinter the rogue would be dead, thanks to his low armor class too, before he has a chance to move, in fact even now the rogue is the class that need more healing potions to be alive at the end of a fight.
If they should follow the "advice" of lowering the rogue damage the class would be totally unplayable they would
better off to delete it wholly
Rule of thumb in an action game :low defenses high damage, high defenses low damage.
Reality doesn't work in a video game
Im not playing rogue or GWF, but i totally agree with this idea. Tho, it sucks in author realiztion. GWF should not be top damage dealer. I it should really depend on encounter. If it is a big-<font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> golem in front of your group, noone can deal with it better than fighter, weilding 2H mace. If its a group of adventurers - rogue can just sneak behind and slit few throats before someone even realize what happened.
As u told - think about realism. "NEVER be able to 1 v 1 a GWF"? Lol imagine you are a GWF, walking down the street. Suddenly rogue appears behind and stab you through the eye-hole in your helmet. No matter how tough you are, you die same instant. But if rogue appears in FRONT of GWF, requesting fair fight, like it is now - thats a joke, rly.
So, basically, they should cut rogue's up-front damage like in half, but from other hand add more opportunities to do damage from behind/stealth/with combat advantage.
This game is made to accommodate this sort of gameplay, especially in PvP. Everyone just zips around like their on skates, and there's flashy spell animations obscuring your view of everything. If positioning was suddenly to become a rogue's main source of damage, then the movement speed and attack animation of all the classes would need to be severely reduced.
This is an action game, your suggestion just isn't feasible.
A rich rogue nowadays is fit company for any gentleman; and the world, my dear, hath not such a contempt for roguery as you imagine. - John HAMSTER
This game is made to accommodate this sort of gameplay, especially in PvP. Everyone just zips around like their on skates, and there's flashy spell animations obscuring your view of everything. If positioning was suddenly to become a rogue's main source of damage, then the movement speed and attack animation of all the classes would need to be severely reduced.
This is an action game, your suggestion just isn't feasible.
I completely disagree. I think there is huge opportunity for this. It would make the rogue take some skill (more like it did vanilla WoW). Backstab was the main ability but it only worked... stabbing their back. An entire rogues damage SHOULD be through proper placement/utilization aka doing more damage via attacking the back...
A rogue should get dumped on if they stand infront of a target, rogues SHOULD be forced to play like ninjas, tons more damage from stealth, tons more damage from the back, but 1v1 upfront. Not even a contest. They should "wait in the shadows" for the proper time and place to strike... Not stand toe to toe with a GWF or GF and sometimes win... It makes no sense...
I completely disagree. I think there is huge opportunity for this. It would make the rogue take some skill (more like it did vanilla WoW). Backstab was the main ability but it only worked... stabbing their back. An entire rogues damage SHOULD be through proper placement/utilization aka doing more damage via attacking the back...
A rogue should get dumped on if they stand infront of a target, rogues SHOULD be forced to play like ninjas, tons more damage from stealth, tons more damage from the back, but 1v1 upfront. Not even a contest. They should "wait in the shadows" for the proper time and place to strike... Not stand toe to toe with a GWF or GF and sometimes win... It makes no sense...
It make no sense either that a Great Weapon Fighter moves so fast like a rogue, that when knocked down he is able to get up istantly , that his horse is able to run so fast as those that are carryng characters that have no armor, that he is able to swim at all , that the foes are not able to hear him aproaching a mile away, that he is able to jump like the Hulk and so on. Beside that...what you really want is that GWF would win everytime since all the GWF would have to do would be stand before the TR and swing whereas the TR should have to pull complicated maneuvers almost impossible to do vs an enemy that is able to move so fast like you
Comments
That might be true if the gwf could spec into both sentinel and destroyer/instigator tree, but as it currently stands you can only spec for one.
Who was dealing more damage in D&D 3.x was very situational. There were alot of factors playing in like resistance, damage reduction monster type, level range, feat choice, fighting style, tactic, etc.
For monsters e.g. with low AC which have anatomy rogues would have the top since of mutiple W6 sneak attack even paired with dual weapons fifhting this was more then lethal. For monsters with high AC and no anatomy, fighter would win at low to mid level, but ranger will win above fighter at mid to high levels by using enchanted arrows (at the costs of alot on gold).
If he survived up to this ponts, at mid level wizard/sorcerer started to become noticable (nearly useless until Level 5/20 !!). But at high level, caster cleric rules them all by using divine metamagic (most overpowered feats in DnD ever). Cleric & Wiz only had severe problems against monsters with high spell resistance or even magic imunity.
In 4.0, every one deal the same at will damage, only encounter powers are different. Rogue is clearly striker. I have played a hafling rogue one-hit killing things at crit boss monsters with a dagger. Yes, thats also possible in DnD pen&Paper. Because of the minion system in DnD 4.0, area damage / crowd control is very important, which is mainly the part of the wizard.
However, since fighting is only a part of DnD pen&paper it doesn't realy matter how much damage a single character deals. The roleplay in group is much more fun - the goal of my halfling rogue was not to shred monsters with his daggers, but to annoy my group mates to death :-)
But to summarize: DnD was mostly highly unbalanced between classes - but balance was not necessary, because fighting was not everything.
Yes. They did. Why do you think the rogue was moving into position behind the target? To do optimal damage. And I can guarantee you that if you have 100% uptime on the boss as a Rogue in any game, without having to doge AoE's/mechanics, they will outdamage a mage. It's just that a mage NEVER has to move. They are easy mode.
God some of you just cry cry cry.
When the rogues start crying like the GWFs what will the GWFs do?
Seze - Rogue - Necropolis -
Oh the way they wield that massive member.
As far as I'm aware, TRs have no special innate threat modifiers. Its based on the same numbers as the GWF: base damage.
Good to know you are putting your money to good use by not playing a GWF.
GWF might be weak in PvE, but in PvP! Its quickly becoming one of the classes i fear the most.
Have no chance to go toe to toe against a good GWF 1v1 unless you kite like a maniac. Becomes immune to all your damage and all your cc, and hits like a truck, knockdownlocks you and kills you before you can get out of it.
Its only that there are about 3-4 players on the whole server that knows how to play a GWF in PvP
Not only do TRs have a higher innate deflect chance, but deflect is twice as effective on a rogue than any other class. Scale armor does have slightly more AC but it's not nearly enough to make up the difference in deflect. Also base class health is pretty much the same.
Rogues don't have any innate threat modifiers but since they do more damage it's impossible for a gwf to pull threat from a rogue unless the gwf specs for threat modifiers.
I'm not sure if you're incredibly stupid or trolling.
^You're wrong or built your GWF wrong. Dex is 0.5% for rogues and GWF's. Please take a seat.
Charisma gives 1% deflection for rogues in addition to the .5% for dex.
Because that would work. The rogue has been replaced by a rainbow trail, stay tuned for more glorious updates....
The problem is the GWF needs tweaked. Its aoe should hit all targets in range and dps should not be cut per target basis. It should probably do about 2x the damage from aoe attacks. And it needs a single target focused paragon path that should be on par with a TR.
Ah. Yep. I misread the Con.
Do Rogues have an equivalent stat that reduces an opponent's Armour Penetration and similar effects?
I'm fairly sure that only holds true if they are both attacking only one target. I can't see a rogue being able to keep aggro on a group if a GWF starts working on it.
The deflect severity numbers are misleading. Rogues take 25% of the damage on a successful deflect everyone else takes 50%.
The con armor pen either doesn't work, so small it's worthless, or is misunderstood. There is a rather large thread on it in the Barracks.
It's true that the rogues would have trouble pulling 5 enemies from a GWF but they could almost certainly take 3 or less without much trouble. The scenarios become all very hypothetical though, it could be argued from either viewpoint depending on the situation.
Im not playing rogue or GWF, but i totally agree with this idea. Tho, it sucks in author realiztion. GWF should not be top damage dealer. I it should really depend on encounter. If it is a big-<font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> golem in front of your group, noone can deal with it better than fighter, weilding 2H mace. If its a group of adventurers - rogue can just sneak behind and slit few throats before someone even realize what happened.
As u told - think about realism. "NEVER be able to 1 v 1 a GWF"? Lol imagine you are a GWF, walking down the street. Suddenly rogue appears behind and stab you through the eye-hole in your helmet. No matter how tough you are, you die same instant. But if rogue appears in FRONT of GWF, requesting fair fight, like it is now - thats a joke, rly.
So, basically, they should cut rogue's up-front damage like in half, but from other hand add more opportunities to do damage from behind/stealth/with combat advantage.
My videos
I thought that discussion was due to people thinking that it was an offensive stat, not a defensive, mitigation one?
The issue was that they assumed it boosted their armour penetration, rather than reducing their opponent's. As far as I'm aware, no-one has done enough testing to show that it doesn't work.
Except that that is not going work in an action game, if you are playing a pen and paper roleplaying game , yes because for it to work all the gm has to do is roll an dice and say : you rolled a twenty, you successfully move behind your enemy and strike him for 3d6+2, in an action game like neverwinter the rogue would be dead, thanks to his low armor class too, before he has a chance to move, in fact even now the rogue is the class that need more healing potions to be alive at the end of a fight.
If they should follow the "advice" of lowering the rogue damage the class would be totally unplayable they would
better off to delete it wholly
Rule of thumb in an action game :low defenses high damage, high defenses low damage.
Reality doesn't work in a video game
This game is made to accommodate this sort of gameplay, especially in PvP. Everyone just zips around like their on skates, and there's flashy spell animations obscuring your view of everything. If positioning was suddenly to become a rogue's main source of damage, then the movement speed and attack animation of all the classes would need to be severely reduced.
This is an action game, your suggestion just isn't feasible.
I completely disagree. I think there is huge opportunity for this. It would make the rogue take some skill (more like it did vanilla WoW). Backstab was the main ability but it only worked... stabbing their back. An entire rogues damage SHOULD be through proper placement/utilization aka doing more damage via attacking the back...
A rogue should get dumped on if they stand infront of a target, rogues SHOULD be forced to play like ninjas, tons more damage from stealth, tons more damage from the back, but 1v1 upfront. Not even a contest. They should "wait in the shadows" for the proper time and place to strike... Not stand toe to toe with a GWF or GF and sometimes win... It makes no sense...