Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5263964" data-attributes="member: 78116">Phew. That almost had be reaching for the old pitchforks there. I can see why Sneak attack deserves the exemption, because it requires combat advantage before it actually can work (while HQ and Curse do not). I am pretty pleased with that change.&nbsp;I do hope whoever made the &quot;Death of Martial Healing&quot; thread comes and reads this one. It's utterly hilarious that these martial classes are making the Warlord incredibly good. A Warlord and Thief is a dream sneak attacking combination. You could, with a Warlord and Thief get sneak attack four times in one round.&nbsp;EG:&nbsp;Thief action points (Warlord Bonuses!) hits monster and gets SA. Might as well throw in Backstab onto this first attack as well.Thief readies his normal standard action at start of next creatures turn to attack again. Gets SA second time.Warlord action points and uses commanders strike, the rogue attacks the monster and gets SA a third time.Warlord readies a standard action to use commanders strike on the next creatures turn. The rogue again gets it and gets SA a fourth time.&nbsp;That right there is a major amount of damage between those two. At first level that could be an additional +8d6 or +8d8 damage (with relevant feat) plus backstab (which even gets you another +3 to hit! How could it be better?). It also makes sense why Warlords weren't given an essentials treatment, as they are a martial class that requires powers to function well (due to being so focused on manipulating other characters). Dragging the Warlord into a MBA only using class just doesn't make sense - especially when it can use the other essential martial classes extremely effectively.&nbsp;In many ways, Essentials actually makes more sense in this light than it did before it.&nbsp;While I still dislike the Knight, the Thief I can see the genuine potential of.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aegeri, post: 5263964, member: 78116"] Phew. That almost had be reaching for the old pitchforks there. I can see why Sneak attack deserves the exemption, because it requires combat advantage before it actually can work (while HQ and Curse do not). I am pretty pleased with that change. I do hope whoever made the "Death of Martial Healing" thread comes and reads this one. It's utterly hilarious that these martial classes are making the Warlord incredibly good. A Warlord and Thief is a dream sneak attacking combination. You could, with a Warlord and Thief get sneak attack four times in one round. EG: Thief action points (Warlord Bonuses!) hits monster and gets SA. Might as well throw in Backstab onto this first attack as well. Thief readies his normal standard action at start of next creatures turn to attack again. Gets SA second time. Warlord action points and uses commanders strike, the rogue attacks the monster and gets SA a third time. Warlord readies a standard action to use commanders strike on the next creatures turn. The rogue again gets it and gets SA a fourth time. That right there is a major amount of damage between those two. At first level that could be an additional +8d6 or +8d8 damage (with relevant feat) plus backstab (which even gets you another +3 to hit! How could it be better?). It also makes sense why Warlords weren't given an essentials treatment, as they are a martial class that requires powers to function well (due to being so focused on manipulating other characters). Dragging the Warlord into a MBA only using class just doesn't make sense - especially when it can use the other essential martial classes extremely effectively. In many ways, Essentials actually makes more sense in this light than it did before it. While I still dislike the Knight, the Thief I can see the genuine potential of. [/QUOTE]

Verification