Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Plane Sailing" data-source="post: 4402572" data-attributes="member: 114">What I'm seeing is that the Ranger with twin strike is doing 2d10+1d8 (improved hunters quarry) with a great chance to hit. He has a better chance to hit than the warlock anyway, and he gets his hunters quarry damage unless he misses with both attacks. Even doing a basic attack he does 1d10+4+1d8 or an average of 14 with a better hit probability than the warlock!The rogue is getting +2d6 sneak attack, and easily gets that up to +2d8 with his improved sneak attack on a pretty regular basis (although suffers a little from having to get in close to do that regularly)The warlock on the other hand is only getting +1d6 from his curse. The boon isn't all that great at low levels either. The warlock can have lots of people cursed, and if/when area attacks take out a lot of cursed people it can be helpful - but the warlocks don't get all that much in the way of area attacks at low level.(I'm DMing a party which contains a warlock, a ranger and a rogue, and the warlock is definitely seen as the lightweight of the group at 2nd level now. the other party members keep asking whether he can be reassigned and the have a 'real' wizard assigned to their team <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />)I agree that Warlocks, at least at low level, seem somewhat weak in the striker role.Cheers</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Plane Sailing, post: 4402572, member: 114"] What I'm seeing is that the Ranger with twin strike is doing 2d10+1d8 (improved hunters quarry) with a great chance to hit. He has a better chance to hit than the warlock anyway, and he gets his hunters quarry damage unless he misses with both attacks. Even doing a basic attack he does 1d10+4+1d8 or an average of 14 with a better hit probability than the warlock! The rogue is getting [B]+2d6[/B] sneak attack, and easily gets that up to +2d8 with his improved sneak attack on a pretty regular basis (although suffers a little from having to get in close to do that regularly) The warlock on the other hand is only getting +1d6 from his curse. The boon isn't all that great at low levels either. The warlock can have lots of people cursed, and if/when area attacks take out a lot of cursed people it can be helpful - but the warlocks don't get all that much in the way of area attacks at low level. (I'm DMing a party which contains a warlock, a ranger and a rogue, and the warlock is definitely seen as the lightweight of the group at 2nd level now. the other party members keep asking whether he can be reassigned and the have a 'real' wizard assigned to their team :)) I agree that Warlocks, at least at low level, seem somewhat weak in the striker role. Cheers [/QUOTE]

Verification