Cause rogue is a martial that doesnt do “multiple modest hits” instead does spellcasting level damage every round, spell slots, no casting components of any kind, no disadvantage when in melee, can’t be counter spelled, can disengage as a bonus, reduced dmg taken on aoe dex saves… The only thing casters do better in combat is aoe dmg, which you never mentioned. In summary, rogues do caster dmg with martial defense.
Incorrect. Scorching Ray has a higher potential damage output than a Rogue (and always will, do the math) and has a greater chance to deal at least SOME damage each turn. The rogue has higher defence than a spellcaster and higher single-target damage output than a fighter, but they also have lower defence than a fighter and lower damage output than a spellcaster. And if they miss, they get nothing.
The disengage and dex save stuff doesn’t apply to either end of the equation. And casting components so rarely come up that it’s clear you’re just fishing.
But again, it doesn’t matter how much damage a rogue can deal OR how tanky they are. If they defeat both the fighter and the caster but take a lot of damage in the process, they’re dead to the guy who sat out the fight until they could win. You never mentioned how a rogue is better than a guy with tactical planning skills.
Honestly, instead of talking about a rogue’s damage capabilities, you should talk about how they can hide as a bonus action and can have expertise in Stealth. They can BE the guy with tactical planning skills, damage be damned.
Disengage and dex save doesnt apply to how tanky rogues are? “And if they miss, they get nothing” in the same paragraph you wrote Scorching Ray? It isnt about how much dmg and tanky they are in a thread that is really only about that (a comment thread you started yourself talking about being tanky and doing dmg)? My man, this discussion is over, but only because it’s clear you have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Please read what I wrote before you try to claim I’m contradicting myself.
Disengage doesn’t make them more tanky because the person they disengaged from can walk the same distance the rogue did and hit them again. Rogues do not get a speed boost without a cost in actions that negates the effectiveness of their speed boost.
Dex save does not apply to weapon attacks or to Scorching Ray, which uses attack rolls.
Three attacks are more likely to hit than one attack. If the rogue misses one attack, they’ve missed all their attacks. If one ray that comes from Scorching Ray misses, there are several others that might stand a chance.
My comment, and every comment that came after, was about how neither damage nor tankiness is better than tactical planning. Which you STILL haven’t responded to! Don’t try to claim it’s about something I specifically stated, in every single comment, it’s not about!
That’s not how I saw your post. The post was taking a stance against spellcasters being superior by pointing out their limited resources. It was making an argument. There was no mockery of the argument itself.
I was the one mocking arguments about which is better by pointing out they’re both defeated by the guy who just lets them fight between themselves.
Cause rogue is a martial that doesnt do “multiple modest hits” instead does spellcasting level damage every round, spell slots, no casting components of any kind, no disadvantage when in melee, can’t be counter spelled, can disengage as a bonus, reduced dmg taken on aoe dex saves… The only thing casters do better in combat is aoe dmg, which you never mentioned. In summary, rogues do caster dmg with martial defense.
Incorrect. Scorching Ray has a higher potential damage output than a Rogue (and always will, do the math) and has a greater chance to deal at least SOME damage each turn. The rogue has higher defence than a spellcaster and higher single-target damage output than a fighter, but they also have lower defence than a fighter and lower damage output than a spellcaster. And if they miss, they get nothing.
The disengage and dex save stuff doesn’t apply to either end of the equation. And casting components so rarely come up that it’s clear you’re just fishing.
But again, it doesn’t matter how much damage a rogue can deal OR how tanky they are. If they defeat both the fighter and the caster but take a lot of damage in the process, they’re dead to the guy who sat out the fight until they could win. You never mentioned how a rogue is better than a guy with tactical planning skills.
Honestly, instead of talking about a rogue’s damage capabilities, you should talk about how they can hide as a bonus action and can have expertise in Stealth. They can BE the guy with tactical planning skills, damage be damned.
Disengage and dex save doesnt apply to how tanky rogues are? “And if they miss, they get nothing” in the same paragraph you wrote Scorching Ray? It isnt about how much dmg and tanky they are in a thread that is really only about that (a comment thread you started yourself talking about being tanky and doing dmg)? My man, this discussion is over, but only because it’s clear you have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Please read what I wrote before you try to claim I’m contradicting myself.
Disengage doesn’t make them more tanky because the person they disengaged from can walk the same distance the rogue did and hit them again. Rogues do not get a speed boost without a cost in actions that negates the effectiveness of their speed boost.
Dex save does not apply to weapon attacks or to Scorching Ray, which uses attack rolls.
Three attacks are more likely to hit than one attack. If the rogue misses one attack, they’ve missed all their attacks. If one ray that comes from Scorching Ray misses, there are several others that might stand a chance.
My comment, and every comment that came after, was about how neither damage nor tankiness is better than tactical planning. Which you STILL haven’t responded to! Don’t try to claim it’s about something I specifically stated, in every single comment, it’s not about!
I hope you’re both aware that this post is mocking you two and these exhausting/petty/nonsensical arguments.
That’s not how I saw your post. The post was taking a stance against spellcasters being superior by pointing out their limited resources. It was making an argument. There was no mockery of the argument itself.
I was the one mocking arguments about which is better by pointing out they’re both defeated by the guy who just lets them fight between themselves.