Unbalanced striker extra damage?

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mengu

First Post
Maybe they wanted to prevent double dipping into Rod powers such as Rod of Corruption, Rod of Dark Reward, and Rod of Reaving. Or maybe it's left over from an earlier incarnation of Curse where Cursing a target did other things like give the target a penalty to attack rolls. Hard to say why they put the restriction.
 

DracoSuave

First Post
All Hunter's Quarry and Sneak Attack do is extra damage.

Cursing has other effects as well, from Paragon features to Pact features, to Item powers, and you can have multiple curses active. Rangers and Rogues do not have any of these advantages.
 

FadedC

First Post
Attacking at range is a huge advantage, so you can't really compare the warlock to the rogue.....ranged attacks should be weaker then melee. Comparing warlock to a bow ranger is a better exercise and the warlock does certainly do less damage. However his attacks also have more of a control element to them, immobilizing, sliding, etc. People will disagree about how much this makes up for the lower damage, but you can't argue that if one person has control and the other doesn't, the one who doesn't should do more damage. It's just a matter of by how much.
 

Saeviomagy

Adventurer
Compare (for instance) the warlock pact-specific at-wills and the at-wills of the other strikers.

The warlock at-wills have significantly more control aspects to them than the other two classes. For the most part this continues on up the list.
 

Mezzer

First Post
If anything, I'd say the Ranger got the short end of the stick, striker-damage-bonus wise, in that he wants to target the guys at the back, but has to target the closest foe to him, and can have only one such person designated at any time, if he wants the extra damage. With a bit of positioning the warlock can have everyone cursed, and the rogue can sneak attack anyone he can get combat advantage against (without having to lift a finger besides that). From what I've seen of the warlocks in our sessions so far, they do their striker role as well as either the ranger or rogue (and they come with gravy).
 
Last edited:

Baumi

Adventurer
In my experience (at low levels), the Rogues Sneak Attack does not come into play THAT often (maybe about half the time), especially if half of the group are ranged attackers and therefore can't help you with flanking. So he might look stronger in theory than he really is (balanced in my opinion)

The rangers rocks damage-wise (Twin Strike is IMHO too strong at low levels), but damage is all they do.

The warlock has the least striker damage on single targets but has many controller abilities, tricks (teleports, charms, etc.) and is great at damage per round (damaging multiple enemies).

In one group we have a Ranger and a Warlock and the later has a bigger influence on the outcome of the fights (especially with the Armor of Agathys). The biggest difference power-wise is that the At-Will from the Ranger (Two-Strike) are much better then from the Warlock, but the Warlock's Encounters and Daily's rock much more.
 

ShinRyuuBR

First Post
Cursing has other effects as well, from Paragon features to Pact features, to Item powers, and you can have multiple curses active. Rangers and Rogues do not have any of these advantages.

Rogues can have multiple combat advantages. Rangers can only have one prey, but they can change it anytime with but a minor action. So I strongly disagree to that point.

Also, Paragon features only come to the game at 11st. level. At lower levels, it still seems broken.

Attacking at range is a huge advantage, so you can't really compare the warlock to the rogue.....ranged attacks should be weaker then melee.

Except that they aren't. A rogue can sneak attack with a shuriken or a hand crossbow.

However his attacks also have more of a control element to them, immobilizing, sliding, etc.

1st-level rogue powers can slide and blind, so that's not a difference either.

In my experience (at low levels), the Rogues Sneak Attack does not come into play THAT often (maybe about half the time), especially if half of the group are ranged attackers and therefore can't help you with flanking. So he might look stronger in theory than he really is (balanced in my opinion)

Well, I got serveral melee PCs in my table, and every one of them can somehow make enemies give combat advantage besides flanking.
 

Regicide

Banned
Banned
Attacking at range is a huge advantage, so you can't really compare the warlock to the rogue.....ranged attacks should be weaker then melee.

Melee attacks don't provoke OA and rarely suffer cover. It's not a straight advantage. The computer won't let you click on anything beyond 30 squares, er, I mean, arrows can only go 150 feet now as well, so being "at range" doesn't put you beyond harm's reach.
 


FadedC

First Post
Except that they aren't. A rogue can sneak attack with a shuriken or a hand crossbow.

It's possible yes, but it's much harder to sneak attack at range. Only a small number of rogue powers work at range as well.

1st-level rogue powers can slide and blind, so that's not a difference either.

Take a look at the rogue powers and the warlock powers beyond level 1, and tell me if you can seriously say rogues have as much control as warlocks.
 

ShinRyuuBR

First Post
He can, but it's tons harder to do since ranged CA is remarkably difficult. There are ways, but they often limit mobility.

Remarkably difficult? The difference is often just 2 or 3 points.

Limit mobility? Sling and hand crossbow have a range of 10/20, which doesn't stand much behind warlock ranges.

FadeC said:
It's possible yes, but it's much harder to sneak attack at range.

You can't flank or feint, and attacking prone gets a penalty, alright... but everything else works as well as melee.


FadeC said:
Only a small number of rogue powers work at range as well.

Not so. In PH1, I've counted 2 at-will, 11 encounter and 9 daily powers which can use ranged weapons, and 2 at-will, 14 encounter and 12 daily which can not. I say it's fairly balanced.

FadeC said:
Take a look at the rogue powers and the warlock powers beyond level 1, and tell me if you can seriously say rogues have as much control as warlocks.

Well, I didn't mean to say they have, only at 1st level its not visible.
 

Tale

First Post
Remarkably difficult? The difference is often just 2 or 3 points.

Limit mobility? Sling and hand crossbow have a range of 10/20, which doesn't stand much behind warlock ranges.
That makes no sense. What difference? What points?

Yes, limit mobility. Range is not mobility, range is range. The methods to gain ranged CA (a requirement to get Sneak Attack at ranged) often involve stealth or starting off with melee powers in one round that grant CA for the next.
 
Last edited:

ShinRyuuBR

First Post
At what point does "difficulty" relate to "difference?" That makes no sense. What difference are you even talking about?

I'm sorry, when you said CA (Combat Advantage) I read AC (Armor Class). Anyway, as I said, what you lose is flanking, feinting and attacking prone targets (well, you don't lose it, but it's penalized). You still have dazing, stunning, blinding, winning initiative and other options.

Yes, limit mobility. Range is not mobility, range is range. The methods to gain ranged CA (a requirement to get Sneak Attack at ranged) often involve stealth or starting off with melee powers in one round that grant CA for the next.

The rogue doesn't, and shouldn't, HAVE to be the one to make the target grant CA. That's one of the things controllers are for. Even defenders can sometimes provide the rogue with CA against their enemies. Also, at 1st level the rogue can get Blinding Barrage, which is close range but still not melee, so there you go. You can make a perfectly functional build if you want to. And it also helps to "build" your team towards CA as well.
 

FadedC

First Post
You can't flank or feint, and attacking prone gets a penalty, alright... but everything else works as well as melee.

Not being able to flank makes it very hard to sneak attack at range. There are only so many times somebody is going to be knocked prone or dazed. It may never happen at all. And being -2 to hit against prone is a big deal, especially compared to the +2 you'd normally get.

Not so. In PH1, I've counted 2 at-will, 11 encounter and 9 daily powers which can use ranged weapons, and 2 at-will, 14 encounter and 12 daily which can not. I say it's fairly balanced.

Well I may have slightly exagerated, but the fact remains that a rogue can't use more then half of his powers at range, and often the ones you can use are often ones you might not want to take. There is really no way you can possibly argue a rogue is as good at range as a warlock.

Well, I didn't mean to say they have, only at 1st level its not visible.

If we are talking dailies and encounters at lvl 1, I'll grant you the rogue may even come out ahead on control just because blinding barrage is so strong. When you get above lvl 1 the warlock takes off dramatically in control. I'd also argue that sliding people from range is far better then being able to do it up close.

Finally you also have to keep in mind that 2 of the warlock at wills have the potential to out damage a rogue's sneak attack. Hit somebody with hellish rebuke or pale light and there is the potential for it go off twice, which will do significantly more then a rogue is capable of.
 

nittanytbone

First Post
Rogues do lots of damage. Period.

Warlocks impose nasty status conditions on their victims and oftentimes are a sort of one-target controller. They also do this at range, which is safer. Thus, less pure HP damage.

Its balanced -- both do their job, they just do it differently.
 

Aservan

First Post
Rogues do lots of damage. Period.

Warlocks impose nasty status conditions on their victims and oftentimes are a sort of one-target controller. They also do this at range, which is safer. Thus, less pure HP damage.

Its balanced -- both do their job, they just do it differently.

See I don't agree. The rogue is better then the warlock in his assigned role. Since 4th is a game about playing as part of a team performing your role is paramount.

Combat advantage is most often granted by flanking. It's that simple. There are other ways to get it but most often you get it from flanking. As most parties have a defender having at least one other party member to flank with is a virtual guarantee. If you have a warlord it gets better. It is not that hard for a good party to make sure the rogue has combat advantage. He should have it at least 3/4 of the time by my estimation. That's only backed up by anecdotal evidence of course.

Rogue at wills allow the rogue to perform a useful functions regardless of what the DM does. The rogues at-will powers let him: move, attack reflex (but still keep his dagger to hit bonus), discourage the opponent from attacking, or do more damage. The DM has little recourse under the rules to prevent the rogue from doing his nifty little side effects.

Compare hellish rebuke to Riposte strike. The two most evenly matched powers in the game in terms of effect. The big differences are: the rogue only has to be attacked to provoke the effect while the warlock has to take damage, the warlock has to take damage from any source while the rogue only gets his damage if the target of the attack attacks him, the rogue is using a weapon so can apply feats to increase damage and the like while the warlock can only apply Astral fire if he has a 13 Dex. All in all I would say it is a wash. Now consider that Riposte strike is widely considered to be the least useful Rogue at-will.

What nasty status conditions? Are there any status conditions that a warlock can inflict with an at-will that a DM can't simply ignore by ignoring the warlock? Let's take Witchfire (warlock encounter 1) versus Dazing strike (Rogue encounter 1). Let us further assume that the warlock player chose this power because he was a feylock and got the extra bonus. That means he attacks reflex (worth a +2 bonus based on monster average defenses) and does 2d6+1d6(curse)+Cha damage. We will assume he is a smart warlock and didn't use his power on some one behind cover. The monster he hits get a -5 to attack (if the 'lock has a 16 Int) until the end of the warlock's next turn. That means for 1 attack the monster probably won't hit unless the DM rolls pretty well. It can still move though and isn't any more vulnerable to further attack.

The rogue is also a smart player so he makes sure one of his buddies gives him a flank or better yet races up to a monster that hasn't acted on the first turn. This gives him combat advantage. He pulls out dazing strike with his short sword. He has +3 to hit for using a short sword. That means even though he is attacking AC he still has a net +1 over the warlock because Ref only lags 2 points behind. He also has the +2 for combat advantage though. We assume he hits though same as the warlock. He does 1d6+2d8(pretty much all rogues take backstabber)+Dex damage. Then he dazes the target. Daze says that you grant combat advantage, can only take one action, can't take immediate or opportunity actions and can't flank. Like the -5 to attack the daze lasts until the end of the rogues next turn.

Which do you think is better? -5 to attack or daze? The damage is comparable with a slight edge to the rogue. The -5 only slightly frustrates my DM as he can still maneuver and still make the monster get in our way. The daze really tworks him off though. For one thing the rogue gets combat advantage again on his next turn. The monster is no longer acting to block a path to the juicy targets in the back (No OA). He can't move and attack so he can't get into a better position. Best of all if another teammate decides to whack the target he also gets combat advantage.

Best of all who was the better controller? Who made the monsters not do what they wanted and who was merely an annoyance?

I don't see either of these situations as uncommon. The rogue does more damage and got a better debuff on the monster. He is just better at the role of striker. Who cares if the Warlock is a better controller? The wizard is his daddy as a controller.
 

Felon

First Post
Rogues do lots of damage. Period.

Warlocks impose nasty status conditions on their victims and oftentimes are a sort of one-target controller. They also do this at range, which is safer. Thus, less pure HP damage.

Its balanced -- both do their job, they just do it differently.

IMO, there have been no good arguements to prove that these two classes are balanced in comparison. And I really wish there were, but it feels more like it's just people who are so hellbent on trying to be the "anti-Chicken Little", wanting so badly to say everything's fine that we wind up with a lot of equivocal and specious comments on how A is a good trade-off for B.

The rogue is so far ahead of the damage scale that it's outrageous. He can take a feat to up his sneak attack damage to d8's, while the warlock can't even upgrade his one d6. The rogue can also further upgrade his damage by using a rapier. Then if he's a brutal scoundrel, he gets to add his Str to his sneak attack damage. IME, a rogue's sneak attack damage is often in the 12-14 range, which is pretty close to the total damage a warlock gets from an attack with the curse.

I also find it particularly lousy that warlock powers are split down the middle on using Con or Cha as their attack/damage stat. That's really a big shaft, and AFAIK no other class has to endure that.

The arguement that the lock has the advantage of striking from range is fallacious bcause monsters are far from incapable of closing with the warlock, who not only is stuck without melee attacks, but whose range is very short, usually limited to 5 or 10 squares. That can easily be within reach of a charge, or even just a simple move. Now, before anyone rushes in to lecture about the role of defenders, I'll pre-emptively dismantle that argument by pointing out that the marking benefits of Divine Challenge and Combat Superiority protect a rogue going toe-to-toe and flanking with a defender just as much as the 'lock at range.
 
Last edited:

Mengu

First Post
The feats that increase sneak attack and hunter's quarry damage to d8's make me shake a fist at the designers (very few things in 4e get that reaction from me). By 4th level every rogue and ranger has the appropriate feat. So how is this any different than the 3.x Precise Shot that every archer has to have?

What I would have liked, would be to see these feats work once per encounter as minor actions that last till the end of your next turn, or work as a daily stance power. Perhaps then, they wouldn't be such auto-feats.

Of course, as things are, I don't see any reason why not to create a feat that increases Curse damage to d8's, eventhough Warlocks have a few more ways to do auto damage, compared to Rangers and Rogues.
 

DracoSuave

First Post
Thing is, Warlocks, unlike Rogues or Rangers, have -additional- effects on the curse, have items that do autodamage with the curse application, and every warlock gets free cookies and milk when a cursed enemy croaks.

Rogues and Rangers -only- get damage.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top