Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="StreamOfTheSky" data-source="post: 5412661" data-attributes="member: 35909">if feats are common, Warblade can pick up a proficiency...&nbsp; In any case, the humble sling adds str bonus to damage.&nbsp; It's not great, but it's not like Warblade's helpless at range.&nbsp; Rogue's only getting SA within 30 ft, which a warblade can easily close the distance if the foe's on the ground.&nbsp; In the very specific case of a foe that's flying, with no fly spell buff from the partymage, AND he's for some reason staying within 30 ft of the ground, I suppose rogue has a big edge.Even if he invests heavily in str, he's not getting as much bang for it as the warblade.&nbsp; Even if he somehow got an 18 str (which I very highly doubt without really hurting dex, but whatever), rogue's getting +4 damage on the primary and +2 on the offhand.&nbsp; Warblade's getting +6 each attack.&nbsp; And it goes without saying, but any round spent positioning or moving into melee, warblade absolutely obliterates rogue's damage output.&nbsp; These &quot;lost rounds&quot; should at least be equal to the rounds warblade's not using a maneuver.Oh, rogue is at best middle of the road, they're fairly underpowered in 3.5.&nbsp; I'm mostly deconstructing your statistics only because I find it odd that you chose such a weak class to use as a benchmark in the first place.&nbsp; And Warblade isn't simply better at combat than rogue, he's leaps and bounds better.Which is the equivalent of saying, &quot;If you as good as a Rogue, you are bad at combat.&quot;&nbsp; Nice!&nbsp; Brutal, but true.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="StreamOfTheSky, post: 5412661, member: 35909"] if feats are common, Warblade can pick up a proficiency... In any case, the humble sling adds str bonus to damage. It's not great, but it's not like Warblade's helpless at range. Rogue's only getting SA within 30 ft, which a warblade can easily close the distance if the foe's on the ground. In the very specific case of a foe that's flying, with no fly spell buff from the partymage, AND he's for some reason staying within 30 ft of the ground, I suppose rogue has a big edge. Even if he invests heavily in str, he's not getting as much bang for it as the warblade. Even if he somehow got an 18 str (which I very highly doubt without really hurting dex, but whatever), rogue's getting +4 damage on the primary and +2 on the offhand. Warblade's getting +6 each attack. And it goes without saying, but any round spent positioning or moving into melee, warblade absolutely obliterates rogue's damage output. These "lost rounds" should at least be equal to the rounds warblade's not using a maneuver. Oh, rogue is at best middle of the road, they're fairly underpowered in 3.5. I'm mostly deconstructing your statistics only because I find it odd that you chose such a weak class to use as a benchmark in the first place. And Warblade isn't simply better at combat than rogue, he's leaps and bounds better. Which is the equivalent of saying, "If you as good as a Rogue, you are bad at combat." Nice! Brutal, but true. :p [/QUOTE]

Verification