Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 4419057" data-attributes="member: 8158">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.</blockquote>

Verification