But the rogue's weapon damage is kinda low, at least just using the PHB. His options are basically:
- Dagger for d4, +1 to hit.
- Shortsword for d6.
- Rapier for d8 and costing a feat.
4e's [W] damage discrepancy
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
GoodKingJayIII
First Post
Mearls has said rogues should be getting sneak attack most of the time, if not every round. I think that is quite feasible.
I won't belabor the point any further. I think there is a discrepancy between those who use weapons, and those who don't. Particularly when you look at the warlock, who primarily deals in single target damage and effects.
It is, but it does require some doing.
They are best at doing it in melee, which obviously makes them quite vulnerable to other attacks. (Mind you, this is great against single monsters who are marked by a defender...)
If they're trying to do it with a ranged weapon, it becomes a lot trickier.
Cheers!
Most of the time, but I don't think quite all the time. 75% sounds about right. It's a lot easier for the warlock and ranger to get their bonus in.
Pseudopsyche
First Post
My guess: the designers intend the stat requirements to counterbalance the fact that wizards' attacks often apply their damage to more than one target, while warlocks (the Cha-based caster) can usually only apply the bonus damage to one target at a time.
The stat requirements work against both wizards and warlocks.
Astral Fire: Dex & Cha 13, radiant & fire dmg - most warlock fire spells are infernal I believe, which means Con- and not Cha-based. Starlocks have radiant powers and should have the needed Cha. Dex is a poor investment for warlocks, who need Int for secondary effects.
Dark Fury: Con & Wis 13, necrotic & psychic dmg - most warlock psychic spells are fey, which means Cha- and not Con-based. necotic spells seem to be Con-based, so that works out ok. Wis is a very poor investment for warlocks, who need Cha for fey and star pact spells.
Burning Blizzard: Int & Wis 13, acid & cold dmg - probably more of a wizard feat, as I don't think that warlocks get a lot of acid or cold spells. Wis is a very poor investment for warlocks. A wizard should be able to meet the requirement with no problems.
The requirements are not terrible - smart allocation with point-buy will allow you to qualify for them, but it's a hidden requirement. "Oh look this feat is perfect for my character... except that I followed the advice about abilities in the class description and now I can't qualify for it." It also works against character concepts. A taciturn infernal warlock's fire spells aren't as effective as a likeable infernal warock's fire spells - if you want the fire dmg boost, you're forced to make a character that has a decent Cha, for no particularly good reason.
Last edited:
It's not bad, and dire radiance might even be a little better. Bear in mind though, the brutal scoundrel still hedges them out using virtually any of his at-wills with a simple flank, and certainly anyone out there who rushes to point out how bad it is for the rogue to have to get into melee should not scoff at a damage kicker that requires the warlock to actually get hurt.
But I'd say the at-wills are actually the bright spot of the warlock. The fixed values are decent enough to compete with the W variable when W is only multiplied by one.
With 4e pushing defender as a true role, I would daresay flanking takes little doing. There's a whole class or three whose existence is validated by someone letting him take the aggro. Indeed, I would actually posit that a striker is actually safer engaging in melee with a target that's flanked and marked by a defender than a striker that's sitting a few squares away, still within reach of a monster's movement, but not partnered with a tank.
On top of the unctuous difficulties a marked monster faces when turning his attention to a rogue, a rogue almost certainly also has at leat one ability that will let him shift away after an attack.
Last edited:
The Adventurer's Vault expands upon the list of light blades. Worthy of some note is the kukri, which counts as a dagger for purpose of the rogue's weapon talent. In a way, it's kind of humorous IMO, because a kukri is more of a heavy blade than a light blade--the exact kind of brutal, hacking, chopping weapon that was excluded from being compatible with sneak attack.
I don't know if I'd go with percentages on the rogue's sneak attack. I say it pretty much boils down to how many times per encounter can the rogue expect to not get sneak attack. IME, it's usually just once, at the juncture between closing with the enemy and hoping to get First Strike to work for him, and then having to maneuver into melee once the fighter has charged up front. After that, it's a matter of anticipated when to break off and make your way to next victim.
