Unbalanced striker extra damage?

[ShinRyuuBR]

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.

 

[Mengu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

 

[Baumi]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Tale]

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

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