ShinRyuuBR
First Post
Let's see...
Rogues can do +2d6 damage (easily +2d8 instead) once per round, against a target that is granting combat advantage, which is a fairly easy condition to be even at 1st level (target is prone, dazed, stunned, blinded or just didn't see you).
Rangers can designate an enemy, one at a time and which must me the nearest at the time of designation, as his quarry, as a minor action; once per round, he deals +1d6 damage against this target.
Now, I assume this difference probably has to do with the fact that rangers get more attacks per turn than rogues, and rogues usually use 1d6 weapons or less, while rangers use 1d8 or more. No problem. What I don't get is the warlock...
Warlocks can curse any number of enemies, once per round, as a minor action, to get +1d6 damage against them (only once per round), but can't curse an enemy already cursed by another warlock.
First, I don't see why the warlock should deal so less damage than the rogue.
Second, and most important, I don't see why two warlocks can't curse the same target. Oh, both would get the boon? So what? It's not like OMFG boon ownz!
Besides, strikers are supposed to focus their attacks on a single target in order to dispatch him quickly. If you have 5 rogues, the same target grants the 5 of them the same combat advantage and the 5 of them can butcher him together; if you have 5 rangers, the 5 of them can designate the same target as their prey and the 5 of them can nail him too; but if you have 5 warlocks, you better have 5 targets, and you'll have a hard time defeating each one of them quickly.
I don't see how this makes any sense. This is becoming a problem at my table, and I'm ruling no curse restriction.
Rogues can do +2d6 damage (easily +2d8 instead) once per round, against a target that is granting combat advantage, which is a fairly easy condition to be even at 1st level (target is prone, dazed, stunned, blinded or just didn't see you).
Rangers can designate an enemy, one at a time and which must me the nearest at the time of designation, as his quarry, as a minor action; once per round, he deals +1d6 damage against this target.
Now, I assume this difference probably has to do with the fact that rangers get more attacks per turn than rogues, and rogues usually use 1d6 weapons or less, while rangers use 1d8 or more. No problem. What I don't get is the warlock...
Warlocks can curse any number of enemies, once per round, as a minor action, to get +1d6 damage against them (only once per round), but can't curse an enemy already cursed by another warlock.
First, I don't see why the warlock should deal so less damage than the rogue.
Second, and most important, I don't see why two warlocks can't curse the same target. Oh, both would get the boon? So what? It's not like OMFG boon ownz!
Besides, strikers are supposed to focus their attacks on a single target in order to dispatch him quickly. If you have 5 rogues, the same target grants the 5 of them the same combat advantage and the 5 of them can butcher him together; if you have 5 rangers, the 5 of them can designate the same target as their prey and the 5 of them can nail him too; but if you have 5 warlocks, you better have 5 targets, and you'll have a hard time defeating each one of them quickly.
I don't see how this makes any sense. This is becoming a problem at my table, and I'm ruling no curse restriction.