I currently have three projects I am starting on for 4E design. I'd like some helpers, if anyone is interested. Once I get the grunt work out of the way, I'll be posting on the site, but there is an amount of material I can't post wholesale from the books, so being able to speak with someone over AIM or PMs about material would be best.
My projects are thus:
1) I have a small suspicion that, in order to "keep the math balanced" in 4E, the designers have a system for determining the power of powers. I think certain effects (status conditions, attacking multiple creatures ...) have damage dice equivalents. For instance, the fighter level 29 dailys have No Mercy (one target, 7[W]+Str damage) and Storm of Destruction (two targets, 5[W]+Str damage); thus, multiple targets might be worth 2 dice. I'm not sure exactly what will come of this, but it might help me to create a system for creating new powers.
2) I don't like the current Ranger, plain and simple. I'd like the Ranger to be a Primal character with the Druid and Barbarian, and would have prefered if they had waited to make it. So, I'd like to put the Ranger aside and rebuild it when I have the Druid and Barbarian to compare it to. But, I don't want to let the Ranger go to waist. First, I want to change their melee TWFing powers to allow for two attacks with a single weapon (this keeps it on balance with ranged attacks I think, and still allows for a TWFer to use them if they want the extra damage from the feat). Then, these melee powers are going to get shifted over to the Rogue and become the "Swift Blade" path, using either Int or Wis as the secondary ability (not sure, just picked these because they're what's left that could make sense).
3) I want to create a TWFing path for the Fighter. Where Shield fighters have better defense and Great-Weapon fighters have higher damage, a TWFing Fighter would be better able to defend against multiple foes (marking multiple foes with multiple attacks and all that). One at will needs to be created and then one power for each encounter level; that seems to be the way the fighter powers are organized (where shield powers show up).
4) I want to create a Martial Controller class. This is where the archery powers from the Ranger will go. Currently I can't think of a second path for a martial controller, but I think it would fall into the same paths as the Wizard: one focused on status effects and another focused on mass damage dealing. The Archer would have precision effects over the Wizard (an archer would have an easier time distinguishing friend from foe with their "area attacks"). So I'd need to create more powers to round it out and decide upon some basic class abilities (might be tied to what weapon they focus on: bow, crossbow, sling, thrown ...).
As you can see, my plate is quite full. What would the CBG like to see me work on first? Anyone want to help?
Quote from: Kapn XeviatI currently have three projects I am starting on for 4E design. I'd like some helpers, if anyone is interested. Once I get the grunt work out of the way, I'll be posting on the site, but there is an amount of material I can't post wholesale from the books, so being able to speak with someone over AIM or PMs about material would be best.
I don't know how much I can help you due to my bachelor thesis, but I'll sure chime in and give you at least some feedback. :) Anyway, good luck with your projects. ;)
Quote from: Kapn XeviatMy projects are thus:
1) I have a small suspicion that, in order to "keep the math balanced" in 4E, the designers have a system for determining the power of powers. I think certain effects (status conditions, attacking multiple creatures ...) have damage dice equivalents. For instance, the fighter level 29 dailys have No Mercy (one target, 7[W]+Str damage) and Storm of Destruction (two targets, 5[W]+Str damage); thus, multiple targets might be worth 2 dice. I'm not sure exactly what will come of this, but it might help me to create a system for creating new powers.
There's a similar thread on the WotC boards which I can't find right now because search is already messed up again. :-/
The guy there wants to use some sort of "point buy" system to build your own powers, and afaik is currently analyzing the currently available powers to get the costs.
I'll let you know the link once I find it again.
Quote from: Kapn Xeviat2) I don't like the current Ranger, plain and simple. I'd like the Ranger to be a Primal character with the Druid and Barbarian, and would have prefered if they had waited to make it. So, I'd like to put the Ranger aside and rebuild it when I have the Druid and Barbarian to compare it to. But, I don't want to let the Ranger go to waist. First, I want to change their melee TWFing powers to allow for two attacks with a single weapon (this keeps it on balance with ranged attacks I think, and still allows for a TWFer to use them if they want the extra damage from the feat). Then, these melee powers are going to get shifted over to the Rogue and become the "Swift Blade" path, using either Int or Wis as the secondary ability (not sure, just picked these because they're what's left that could make sense).
There was a necessity to allow "trained" TWF and ranged combatants that don't delve into nature magic or totems or some such. Thus a 3.5 ranged fighter would be a ranged in 4E, just as a TWF focused fighter. The 3.5 ranger would more likely be a 4E ranger with multiclassing into druid (when that class becomes available). I can't see a problem with that, especially since the 4E fighter is no longer the most vanilla of all vanilla classes, but rather specialized in its own.
Also, did I just misunderstand you, or do you really intend to clone the TWF powers of the ranger into a rogue build? For what reason? What are you giving the ranger to compensate?
Quote from: Kapn Xeviat3) I want to create a TWFing path for the Fighter. Where Shield fighters have better defense and Great-Weapon fighters have higher damage, a TWFing Fighter would be better able to defend against multiple foes (marking multiple foes with multiple attacks and all that). One at will needs to be created and then one power for each encounter level; that seems to be the way the fighter powers are organized (where shield powers show up).
Not sure if that fits the fighter's job description. The idea of being able to mark multiple creatures is interesting, but I'm not sure how it'd work out. Remember, a single creature can only ever be marked by a single character, and the most recent mark replaces all previously placed ones. Therefore, if you have more than one character that is able to mark targets, being able to mark multiple ones is going to conflict with the other character on a regular basis.
Also, if you want, you can describe Cleave as twacking one enemy with your primary weapon, and using your momentum to strike a second enemy with your off-hand weapon. Reaping Strike could also be reflavored to fit TWF. Just as well as Passing Attack, Rain Of Blows, Rain Of Steel, Giant's Wake, Storm Of Blows, Serpent Dance Strike, Devestation's Wake, Fangs Of Steel, and Cruel Reaper.
Quote from: Kapn Xeviat4) I want to create a Martial Controller class. This is where the archery powers from the Ranger will go. Currently I can't think of a second path for a martial controller, but I think it would fall into the same paths as the Wizard: one focused on status effects and another focused on mass damage dealing. The Archer would have precision effects over the Wizard (an archer would have an easier time distinguishing friend from foe with their "area attacks"). So I'd need to create more powers to round it out and decide upon some basic class abilities (might be tied to what weapon they focus on: bow, crossbow, sling, thrown ...).
I don't think ranged attacks are suitable for a martial controller.
Quote from: PH pg16They favor offense over defense,
as well as subtler powers that weaken, confuse, or delay their foes.[/quote]much[/i] better for a ranged combatant than controller. Imagine a character using differently colored arrows to coordinate his allies (sword attacks against the guy with green arrows, fire against the guy with red arrows, trying to flank the guy with blue arrows, etc) or providing situational bonuses with his attacks (distracting enemies threatening allies, giving allies combat advantage against enemies, denying an enemy from exploiting combat advantage on an ally, etc).
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAs you can see, my plate is quite full. What would the CBG like to see me work on first? Anyone want to help?
Well, I hope my comments can help getting things started and were at least of some use. :)
The first idea is my favorite. Such a thing would be quite useful to everyone. If it may already have been done, though, you might want to see if someone comes across that first. I browse the WotC forums a lot and I'll keep an eye out.
Personally, I like the ranger as-is. I'll even be using one in a game here. I do, however, like looking at new classes from time to time. If you're going to make a couple, that'd be cool. I'll say here that I'd even do my best to critique them (which would be easier if you do idea 1 first) and you can hold me to that even if you need to remind me in a PM or something.
Thanks! Let me know when you find that thread. I'll try to find it and get in contact with that guy; a point buy system is what I want to create, so having two heads on it would be good.
As for your critique of a martial controller, I've looked over what you pointed out, and I have some examples.
First, I am aware that WotC wants the ranger to be the Martial Archers and TWFers. I don't like a class to exist for a weapon style; a fighting style, sure, but not a weapon style. I want to move the fast attacking to the Rogue ("Swift Blade" style), but it won't require two weapons; a rogue could follow the swift blade path and would have little reason not to spend feats on TWFing (since they don't use two-handers or a shield), and they'd get the benefits of the feats for doing so. The Fighter would take on the more straight forward stand your ground style TWFing (the style made by Musashi, from what I understand, was created to help a warrior defend against multiple foes; having a weapon to point at two opponents helps you to defend against them better).
As for what I'll give the Ranger instead? Nothing. I don't like the Ranger as martial. Taking the magic out of the ranger turns them into a Rogue to me. Sure, they have different mechanics, but a Scout fills one of the Rogue styles to me (Rogues are skillful warriors to me, either using stealth or mobility to get the drop on their foes). Hunters Quarry is easily replaced by sneak attack in my opinion (sneak attack sounds like finding weak spots, and ideally hunters attack from ambush anyway).
I want to bring the Ranger back when we have the Barbarian and Druid to look at. The Ranger can use two weapons, and they'll probably be encouraged to pick up the feats (they don't use shields, but I could easily see a ranger using a spear as much as I can see a ranger using paired hand-axes). The Ranger's paths will be Fury (melee oriented) and Hunter (ranged oriented), but their powers will be based around emulating nature (mimicing or channeling the hunting styles of beasts).
I believe it's mostly a preference thing. Primarily I don't like the idea of there being two martial strikers when one could cover both bases just fine; all you need to do is put Nature on the Rogue's skill list and you're fine.
As for the Fighter's TWFing, the standard encounter in 4E is X PCs vs. X opponents. Sometimes 1 opponent is replaced by 4 minions, sometimes two opponents are replaced with one elite. I've ran several 4E sessions so far, and both groups (one a group of 5, one a group of 6) have two defenders, and there have been plenty of times where all of the opponents could not be covered. Allowing one defender to split their efforts against two opponents would be advantageous. You point out several powers that can thematically work for the fighter as a TWFer, and those are exactly what I'm looking at. I don't think I'll need to add too much to allow the fighter to use TWFing well, just an at will really (Double Attack would work just fine), maybe a couple of encounters too.
Then the Ranger can be a Ranger and not exist solely for people to be TWFers or Archers (I'm totally tired of one player of mine who always plays TWFing Rangers. In 3E, his characters were better suited to Fighter or Rogue, and he always made ineffective Rangers. Now in 4E, his Ranger is effectively built, as it is difficult to make a poor character, but he still makes terrible choices, primarily staying in melee when a defender isn't helping him and not moving away. But enough of that.). The name "Ranger" implys more; a hunter, a tracker, a protector of nature, a protector of people from nature, a wo/man of the wild. 4E's ranger is more of a guerilla warrior, something that I feel could be modeled with the Rogue (while my group liked the Scout, we had been building Rogues like that for years in 3E).
Plus, I'm not sure you can use Cleave to mark two opponents. The attack is only vs. one opponent, the secondary effect is automatic damage and not an attack. There are ways for a fighter to mark multiple opponents, but I think that could easily be a shtick that would cover another angle for the Fighter.
As for the Martial Controller:
Quote from: PH pg16They favor offense over defense,
as well as subtler powers that weaken, confuse, or delay their foes.[/quote]I think that leader works
much better for a ranged combatant than controller. Imagine a character using differently colored arrows to coordinate his allies (sword attacks against the guy with green arrows, fire against the guy with red arrows, trying to flank the guy with blue arrows, etc) or providing situational bonuses with his attacks (distracting enemies threatening allies, giving allies combat advantage against enemies, denying an enemy from exploiting combat advantage on an ally, etc).[/quote]
This is actually more telling of a remark than I think you realize. Lets take a look at the monster rolls:
Artillery: Squishy with high damage ranged attacks.
Brute: Sack of HP with poor defenses and poor attack rolls but high damage.
Controller: Mid ranger with status effects.
Lurker: Sneak with devistating attacks.
Skirmisher: Mobile combatant.
Soldier: High defenses with accurate but low damage attacks, good for holding the line.
(Leader): A sub role, can be applied to anything.
If you look in the DMG, the Cleric is a Controller (Leader), the Warlord is a Soldier (Leader), and the Wizard is Artillery.
As you can see, the PC rolls aren't as focused as the monster roles. Clerics technically can be Soldier (Str based) or Controller (ranged based), while Wizard can be Artillery (damage focused) or Controller (effect focused). I see the same potential for an Artillery/Controller split from an Archer.
As for the Ranged Leader you speak of, I'd actually like to see that as a 3rd path for the Warlord. Make it Dex/Wis (projectile) or Str/Wis (thrown) and allow a Martial Leader that leads from the rear. Like you said, attacks that provide advantages to their allies would make for a different but effective Warlord. Many powers would need to be created as their focus is different than the core Warlord.
My opinions on Classes aren't for everyone. I feel that my arguements and ideas are logical, and my group supports them. With others help, I believe I can create usable classes (especially if I cn make a point-buy system), but having help would really make things faster.
I know I sound a little closed minded Ra-Tiel; it's only that I've been reading the same arguements against a Martial Controller since the Ranger was confirmed as a Striker. I feel strongly about my position, and I'm open to suggestions to make my ideas work, but currently I feel that my direction is best for my world and my gaming group.
My only concern with using the Rogue as the all purpose Martial Striker is that there is one Martial Striker I don't feel it covers: The Dualist. Yes, the Rogue can cover the Swashbuckler, but I'm refering to a striker who fights with swift strikes rather than stealth or trickery. Such a character would be like some Samurai and Fencers. I don't feel Sneak Attack quite covers swift attacks, since only the first attack in combat (if you have higher initiative) will net you sneak attack aside from flanking or stealth or attacking a dazed/stunned/etc. opponent. A feint (what helped this in 3E) can only be done once per encounter now, so I'm not sure that quite covers it. A feat for Improved Feint might be all that's needed, though (makes feint into a minor action at-will).
With Improved Feint as a feat, and my "Swiftblade" path, I think the Rogue would cover those characters just fine.
That's a lot of stuff so I'm going to be typing this reply as I read it...
I understand not liking having a class just for a fighting style. That makes sense to me but I still do like the ranger.
I agree, the thing with the ranger is very much a preference. I always hated the ranger having magic, myself.
Particularly by calling your idea for a two weapon style "fury" makes me think that you're not thinking "ranger" as much as "Drizzt Do'Urden."
I say Fury in reference to a ferral fighting style a wo/man of the wild may use. Yes, Drizzt was that type of person while living in the under dark. But then again, I tend to imagine axes or spears for my ranger, not swords (especially not scimitars). I'm suprised you didn't mention WoW (in WoW, the TWFing Warrior path is called "Fury").
I do understand the need for a non-magical ranger, which is why I want to add to the Rogue to allow that to remain. The rogue's automatic skill in theivery wouldn't fit either, but that's easily enough changed (that and bow support would need to be given to the Rogue to handle the ranged skirmisher archetype, but there are plenty of ranged rogue powers that would work fine for a skirmisher if bows could sneak attack).
Maybe if I explain my opinion from a different angle, people will understand what I mean. In my opinion, D&D classes are based off fantastic interpretations of mythological/legendary character archetypes. No one argues over what a Wizard is (though some may argue about what they do). Classes like Paladin come from non-magical sources, but their connotative meaning brings them into the world of magic. Likewise, "Ranger" has implied links to nature, links that I feel should be exploited and built upon for the character. The Ranger's magic in older editions, their expanded natural stealth and mobility, and their animal companion are elements of the Ranger that I feel are missing.
To me, it would be like taking the magic out of the Paladin and still calling it a Paladin. Such a character would be a Knight to me, an archetype perfectly handled by the Fighter class.
I have a feeling that the Barbarian's existance as a Primal class, a class that utilizes a form of "magic" like the Druid, will frustrate some players. Some people will want to be a wild and ferocious warrior without having the druidic connections.
Quote from: Kapn Xeviat[...] First, I am aware that WotC wants the ranger to be the Martial Archers and TWFers. I don't like a class to exist for a weapon style; a fighting style, sure, but not a weapon style. I want to move the fast attacking to the Rogue ("Swift Blade" style), but it won't require two weapons; a rogue could follow the swift blade path and would have little reason not to spend feats on TWFing (since they don't use two-handers or a shield), and they'd get the benefits of the feats for doing so. The Fighter would take on the more straight forward stand your ground style TWFing (the style made by Musashi, from what I understand, was created to help a warrior defend against multiple foes; having a weapon to point at two opponents helps you to defend against them better).
I think WotC did that on purpose. If you want a nature-y ranger, you just take Nature as a trained skill, select the Ritual Casting feat, and learn some of the Nature related rituals (like Animal Messenger, Commune with Nature, or Water Walk), and (in the future) get some druid multiclassing feats. Done.
If you wanted a commando-like wilderness archer, you were either forced into some messy multiclassing or had to deal with a pseudo-druid that automatically got you a pet wolf and a load of spells. I like the "get the basics, take additional stuff with multiclassing feats" approach of 4E much better than 3.5's "get everything you want, a pile of things you don't want, and a load of stuff you hate in one package without options or choice" (*cough*paladin mount*cough*).
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAs for what I'll give the Ranger instead? Nothing. I don't like the Ranger as martial. Taking the magic out of the ranger turns them into a Rogue to me. Sure, they have different mechanics, but a Scout fills one of the Rogue styles to me (Rogues are skillful warriors to me, either using stealth or mobility to get the drop on their foes). Hunters Quarry is easily replaced by sneak attack in my opinion (sneak attack sounds like finding weak spots, and ideally hunters attack from ambush anyway).
I want to bring the Ranger back when we have the Barbarian and Druid to look at. The Ranger can use two weapons, and they'll probably be encouraged to pick up the feats (they don't use shields, but I could easily see a ranger using a spear as much as I can see a ranger using paired hand-axes). The Ranger's paths will be Fury (melee oriented) and Hunter (ranged oriented), but their powers will be based around emulating nature (mimicing or channeling the hunting styles of beasts).
I believe it's mostly a preference thing. Primarily I don't like the idea of there being two martial strikers when one could cover both bases just fine; all you need to do is put Nature on the Rogue's skill list and you're fine.
As mentioned above, making the 4E ranger the same as the 3.5 ranger does shoehorn him into the radical tree-hugging faction thing again. I'm not sure that this is a good idea.
We've yet to see what the druid gets. Multiclassing, while reduced in messyness and impact, is still a viable move. So, a "magical" ranger could just as well take the multiclassing feats and get some stuff from the druid to get to the point where you want him to be.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAs for the Fighter's TWFing, the standard encounter in 4E is X PCs vs. X opponents. Sometimes 1 opponent is replaced by 4 minions, sometimes two opponents are replaced with one elite. I've ran several 4E sessions so far, and both groups (one a group of 5, one a group of 6) have two defenders, and there have been plenty of times where all of the opponents could not be covered. Allowing one defender to split their efforts against two opponents would be advantageous. You point out several powers that can thematically work for the fighter as a TWFer, and those are exactly what I'm looking at. I don't think I'll need to add too much to allow the fighter to use TWFing well, just an at will really (Double Attack would work just fine), maybe a couple of encounters too.
I'm glad that TWF changed from a necessity that enforced the "5ft step - full attack" meme for melee combatants to a more fluffy thing that gives only bonus points for style. Doubling your number of attacks only by holding a weapon in your off-hand always seemed a bit odd to me, as no other system I know of does it (neither GURPS, nor EarthDawn, nor WoD/Exalted, nor Blue Planet, nor Shadowrun).
Also, I don't think that the defender
needs to cover all and every enemy in a combat. Not only does that place him at a much higher risk (a few lucky rolls by a bunch of level 1 artillery like those kobold slingers can bring down even a level 3 defender quite quickly), but also reduces the tactical element imho.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatThen the Ranger can be a Ranger and not exist solely for people to be TWFers or Archers (I'm totally tired of one player of mine who always plays TWFing Rangers. In 3E, his characters were better suited to Fighter or Rogue, and he always made ineffective Rangers. Now in 4E, his Ranger is effectively built, as it is difficult to make a poor character, but he still makes terrible choices, primarily staying in melee when a defender isn't helping him and not moving away. But enough of that.). The name "Ranger" implys more; a hunter, a tracker, a protector of nature, a protector of people from nature, a wo/man of the wild. 4E's ranger is more of a guerilla warrior, something that I feel could be modeled with the Rogue (while my group liked the Scout, we had been building Rogues like that for years in 3E).
And
this is where we disagree. A ranger is only a person who moves around a lot. What that person's goals and motivations are, is on a different sheet of paper. It's similar to saying a paladin was a lawful good "defender of the weak, and smiter of evil", instead of the "champion of a specific deity" he truely was (and finally is now).
If you want your ranger to be a defender of nature,
play him like that. That's a roleplay, fluffy, thing, that doesn't necessarily need numbers or powers on a character sheet. Take Nature as a trained skill, perhaps learn some rituals, but most importantly, portrait him as a nature guy.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatPlus, I'm not sure you can use Cleave to mark two opponents. The attack is only vs. one opponent, the secondary effect is automatic damage and not an attack. There are ways for a fighter to mark multiple opponents, but I think that could easily be a shtick that would cover another angle for the Fighter. [...]
Regarding Cleave you're right. You can't use it to mark multiple enemies. However, being able to mark multiple enemies is quite powerful by itself, so I'm not sure a lowlevel ability should have that power (no pun intended :P ).
Quote from: Kapn XeviatThe Ranger is already quite capable of doing this: [...]
3 shots in 6 seconds is perfectly reasonable for an encounter level heroic ability; actually, I'd even go as far as say it would be fine for an at-will abiity for a Martial Controller Archer, as I've seen a demonstration of a Mongolian Horse Archer fire 10 shots in 20 seconds at stationary targets while his horse raced by at a brisk pace, which is 1 shot per 2 seconds, or 3 shots per 6; since he did it for "3.33.. rounds", that's something repeatable.
Hail of Arrows is the only power even getting close to what a controller needs. Wizards get "burst 2" effects as low as level 1 (Freezing Cloud, Sleep), potentionally covering up to 25 foes already, with higherlevel powers being "burst 5", potentionally covering 121 foes in a single blow.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAside from rapid shooting, this is fantasy. 3E had Manyshot (thanks Legolas), and 3.5 had Improved Manyshot which let you target multiple foes. As an encounter or daily abilty, being able to fire a fistfull of arrows is perfectly believable within the confines of a fantasy game. In epic, having the ability to fire an entire quiver of arrows straight into the air, only to have them accurately fall on every opponent within range is not only "believable" within the context, but totally awesome.
But think of the other side: bookkeeping ammunition is alreay a PITA, and carrying several hundreds of arrows is quite a strain on your suspension of disbelief once you've seen how big a single quiver with 40 longbow arrows is. You effectively
require the character to acquire some sort of either a weapon that produces its own ammunition (similar to the ranged weapons in the warforged article), or some means to store a huge amount of ammo in an extradimensional space (similar to the neverending quivers from the BG2 computer game).
A ranger I DM some low-story skirmishes for (until the other player gets back from his honeymoon :-/ ;) ) went through 1 1/2 quivers in the first room of a four fight dungeon.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatThe only reason the Ranger can't function as a Martial Controller right now is while they have the ability to target multiple opponents for damage, they lack the ability to target multiple opponents for status effects. They do have plenty of single target status effects (especially slows, ongoing damage, and knockbacks), but many of the other conditions are perfectly reasonable within the confines of a fantasy game.
The primary reason is that you can only do so much with mundane ammunition. And without any supernatural abilities, inflicting status conditions on a huge number of enemies becomes a bit of a stretch. Something I've read on EnWorld: "it's the character's power and not some piece of equipment - everyone can throw a flashbang". And that is imho the primary problem with martial controllers, especially if you want them to be ranged attackers.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAs you said, perfectly reasonable. A character with Leather Armor proficiency and Wizard hit points would still be quite squishy (I'm comfortable giving an archer Leather proficiency because both wizards in the games I've ran, human wizards, have spent one feat on leather armor proficiency; there's little reason not to).
But I'm not sure if "glass cannon" fits a martial character. ;)
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAddressed. Ranger already does this with many powers for two targets, and at least one each tier for a boat-load of targets (blast 3 and a paragon blast 5).
Which powers would that be? I've looked through all ranger paragon paths, and none of them includes a power with such an AoE. :huh:
Also, as said previously two - or even three or four - targets are fine. The stretch sets in when you're attacking 30, 40, 100 targets with pin-point accuracy in 6 seconds. It brings back memories of the old physical fallacy regarding ranged weapons and full attacks.
A humorous alternative would be something like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMAcM9_02qA). Watch out for 0:57. ;)
Quote from: Kapn XeviatYes, there were plenty of abilities in 3E that would be portable. Ranged "grabs", trips, disarms, as well as slows (shot in the leg), ongoing damage (deep shot that needs to be pulled out), sliding (shot that causes you to stumble), and even more rediculous things like blinding shots would all be perfectly feasible. With the encounter/daily design, they could be made to not get out of hand as well.
That's all sure and fine if you're looking at only a few targets, but not several dozen.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatThis is actually more telling of a remark than I think you realize. Lets take a look at the monster rolls: [...]
If you look in the DMG, the Cleric is a Controller (Leader), the Warlord is a Soldier (Leader), and the Wizard is Artillery.
As you can see, the PC rolls aren't as focused as the monster roles. Clerics technically can be Soldier (Str based) or Controller (ranged based), while Wizard can be Artillery (damage focused) or Controller (effect focused). I see the same potential for an Artillery/Controller split from an Archer.
You really shouldn't fall back on NPC/monster role descriptions. Monsters and NPCs now work on a completely different basis than PCs. The old "like a PC, only weaker" thing got practically cut out of the game (a good thing imho). Therefore I'm not quite sure on how much water your comparison holds.
However, I agree that the PC roles are quite broad and allow for a large range of abilities (even more if you come up with some interesting fluff to accompany your crunch).
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAs for the Ranged Leader you speak of, I'd actually like to see that as a 3rd path for the Warlord. Make it Dex/Wis (projectile) or Str/Wis (thrown) and allow a Martial Leader that leads from the rear. Like you said, attacks that provide advantages to their allies would make for a different but effective Warlord. Many powers would need to be created as their focus is different than the core Warlord.
The point is, a ranged leader doesn't have to cover dozens of targets at the same time. He can concentrate on providing bonuses to his team mates, as well as support them on beating up a few targets. He doesn't have to do much (if any) controller-y stuff to fill the role and concept.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatMy opinions on Classes aren't for everyone. I feel that my arguements and ideas are logical, and my group supports them. With others help, I believe I can create usable classes (especially if I can make a point-buy system), but having help would really make things faster.
Sure thing. I'm just throwing my opinion in the ring either. Great minds think alike, and my blurbs have proven to contain some usefull stuff in the past, so I can't see a reason to stop blurbing now. :P
Quote from: Kapn XeviatI know I sound a little closed minded Ra-Tiel; it's only that I've been reading the same arguements against a Martial Controller since the Ranger was confirmed as a Striker. I feel strongly about my position, and I'm open to suggestions to make my ideas work, but currently I feel that my direction is best for my world and my gaming group.
No, definitively not. Whatever floats your boat, as I always say. :) If it works for you, I'm fine with it (and perhaps I can salvage stuff for myself, too ;) ).
I may add that I'd like to see a martial controller as well. But I don't think it could be ranged, at least not as its primary focus.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatMy only concern with using the Rogue as the all purpose Martial Striker is that there is one Martial Striker I don't feel it covers: The Dualist. Yes, the Rogue can cover the Swashbuckler, but I'm refering to a striker who fights with swift strikes rather than stealth or trickery. Such a character would be like some Samurai and Fencers. I don't feel Sneak Attack quite covers swift attacks, since only the first attack in combat (if you have higher initiative) will net you sneak attack aside from flanking or stealth or attacking a dazed/stunned/etc. opponent. A feint (what helped this in 3E) can only be done once per encounter now, so I'm not sure that quite covers it. A feat for Improved Feint might be all that's needed, though (makes feint into a minor action at-will).
With Improved Feint as a feat, and my "Swiftblade" path, I think the Rogue would cover those characters just fine.
Look at the fluff of some fighter powers. Quite a lot of them are described as "a flurry of quick blows" or "a series of swift slashes". I think your "dualist" can be covered with fighter -> rogue multiclass quite well.
Regarding the bolded part, no. If at all, the feat should increase the number of feints possible per encounter to 1 + Int mod, but no way a single feat should reduce a once per encounter standard action to an at-will minor action.
See, I think our disagreement comes from the fact that I feel the skirmisher/commando side of the ranger should be handled with the Rogue. Again, to me it's like Paladin/Fighter; same role, different theme.
As for the Ranger's blast 5, that's Unstoppable Arrows, level 25 Daily.
As for a Martial Archer: I agree that a martial archer should not be doing certain crazy things at Heroic levels. Hitting 20 people in a 6 second interval is impossible for real people (read: heroic level characters). But this is fantasy, so a Paragon level archer could concievably grab a fistfull of arrows and fire them accurately at a bundle of enemies.
As for ammunition, I recognize this as a problem. Luckily, I don't think an unlimited quiver should be that high of a level item. A +1 thrown weapon returns automatically without having to have a "returning" ability, so I think a level 1 wondrous item Endless Quiver is perfectly reasonable. The arrows would disappear after the attack (or after they leave the wearer's hand, no round duration because an archer might want to keep an arrow knocked "just in case"). As for needing a magic item ... a level 30 Wizard "needs" a magic impliment otherwise they're going to suck, and a mythic Archer could easily be like Hawkeye in The Ultimates (deadly with any weapon at range, he even took out a bunch of guards by flicking his fingernails at them when he was captured).
As for improved feint: I didn't notice that feint was a standard action again. It was never an issue as an at-will move action in my games, though you're probably right since a feinter will have bluff trained and most monsters/npcs won't have Insight trained; perhaps having it target Will Defense would be better and more balanced?
Quote from: Kapn XeviatSee, I think our disagreement comes from the fact that I feel the skirmisher/commando side of the ranger should be handled with the Rogue. Again, to me it's like Paladin/Fighter; same role, different theme.
Agreed. However, I think the rogue is too "skilly" and "squishy" to handle the grim and hardened commando role.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAs for the Ranger's blast 5, that's Unstoppable Arrows, level 25 Daily.
Cool. Never noticed that one. Thanks! :)
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAs for a Martial Archer: I agree that a martial archer should not be doing certain crazy things at Heroic levels. Hitting 20 people in a 6 second interval is impossible for real people (read: heroic level characters). But this is fantasy, so a Paragon level archer could concievably grab a fistfull of arrows and fire them accurately at a bundle of enemies.
As said, the problem is the lack of "area" ranged weaponry. If 4E had something like a "shotgun" or "automatic rifle", I think there could be some cool powers utilizing them. However, bows, slings and crossbows are more akin to the single shot repeating rifles that need to be operated after each shot. And this naturally leads to a ranger focusing on a single (or few) target(s) at a time, finishing it (them) off before moving to the next.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAs for ammunition, I recognize this as a problem. Luckily, I don't think an unlimited quiver should be that high of a level item. A +1 thrown weapon returns automatically without having to have a "returning" ability, so I think a level 1 wondrous item Endless Quiver is perfectly reasonable. The arrows would disappear after the attack (or after they leave the wearer's hand, no round duration because an archer might want to keep an arrow knocked "just in case"). As for needing a magic item ... a level 30 Wizard "needs" a magic impliment otherwise they're going to suck, and a mythic Archer could easily be like Hawkeye in The Ultimates (deadly with any weapon at range, he even took out a bunch of guards by flicking his fingernails at them when he was captured).
The slight difference is that a wizard can still function without implements, although at a reduced efficiency. The ranger would be out of ammo after one, two tops, fights, leaving him - dependent on power selection - more or less completely worthless.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAs for improved feint: I didn't notice that feint was a standard action again. It was never an issue as an at-will move action in my games, though you're probably right since a feinter will have bluff trained and most monsters/npcs won't have Insight trained; perhaps having it target Will Defense would be better and more balanced?
Don't forget that feinting grants you combat advantage against that enemy until the end of your next round. Also, feinting by using Bluff is only one of the ways a rogue can gain combat advantage. Powers like Trick Strike or Feinting Flurry already have that theme built in, so I can't see a reason to allow unchecked feinting left and right.
Especially as a move action, which would mean that a rogue basically has combat advantage against every enemy with each attack.
I didn't mention WoW because I try to avoid it as much as possible. I don't like it.
I actually liked the idea of a nonmagical Paladin. But that's just me.
I agree that my idea of a ranger could be built with either a rogue or a fighter (or multiclassing between the two.) In fact, in 3.x, I sometimes played with the idea of taking the magic from a ranger and replacing it with bonus feats.
Ra-Tiel, the Ranger is just as squishy and skillzy as the Rogue now. The Ranger has +1 AC (Hide armor), but that can easily be picked up with a single feat. But I think we can agree to disagree; I feel a fantasy archer could knock 10 arrows at once and fire them at a bunch of targets, you don't.
I do agree that my Archer will have smaller "area effects", but I believe that will be countered by the Archer having less attacks that target allies. A Blast 3 (7 by 7 square area) "could" affect 49 targets, but that's rarely going to happen. For a 5 person party, an encounter will be anywhere between 1 opponent (if solo) and 20 opponents (if all minions), but more like 5 to 11. Larger AoEs really only exist to let the caster catch further spread foes, but it also opens them up to hitting their allies. In the 8 or so 4E sessions I've run, the most enemies the Wizards have been able to catch at once was 5 (and in that specific case, the wizard hit an ally who was coordinated to use Total Defense just before). Normally 3's been the average, though with the at-will blast 1 the wizards have been comfortable using it when they could catch only 2 in the burst.
Non-magical versions of archetypes are very important. It's partially why I want to make an Archer class; I feel there is a thick enough line between a skirmishing archer (what I feel the rogue should cover) and an artillery archer (an almost stricktly fantasy role). If the archetype is realistic (a Knight, a Berserker, a Commando, a Swashbuckler), such a class should be doable without magic.
So, agreeing to disagree, Ra and D, think you can assist? I haven't been able to find that Point Buy thread on the WotC boards, so I'm going to start working on mine.
PS: I added another project. I'm going to make a table of all of the racial, class, weapon, and energy damage feats, to find where there are some missing and look for areas to add more.
I can give input on some points but as far as hardcore crunch work, I'm not so good at it.
Well D, what do you think I should work on first?
Adding feats to the holes in weapon/energy damage/race?
Making the Archer?
Making the power balance calculator (might help if this is done before the archer)?
Make the TWFing Fighter/Rogue paths?
Oh, and another word on the Archer. I considered the issue of how wizards can still attack without an impliment, but an archer couldn't. I looked at how much a fighter would suck if you took their weapon (hurray +0 prof with 1d4 one-hand damage or 1d8 two-hand damage improvised weapons). With that in mind, I'll make sure to say the Archer's ranged powers would work just fine with improvised thrown weapons. Maybe there will be a feat that will improve that.
The power balance thing sounds most useful if you're up to it.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatRa-Tiel, the Ranger is just as squishy and skillzy as the Rogue now.
Hmmmm true.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatThe Ranger has +1 AC (Hide armor), but that can easily be picked up with a single feat. But I think we can agree to disagree;
Sure, already agreeing... uhh... disagreeing... uhh... :huh: :P
Quote from: Kapn XeviatI feel a fantasy archer could knock 10 arrows at once and fire them at a bunch of targets, you don't.
The point is: when does it become a stretch? What is still "heroic fantasy", and what is just the fantasy version of Topper Harley grabbing a fistfull of bullets and throwing them at the enemy?
Quote from: Kapn XeviatI do agree that my Archer will have smaller "area effects", but I believe that will be countered by the Archer having less attacks that target allies. [...]
Now you start talking. :P See, that's exactly stuff I want to talk about.
I think it's a good idea to remove the friendly fire aspect on some of your archer's powers to balance out that they are perhaps 5x5 at most.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatNon-magical versions of archetypes are very important. It's partially why I want to make an Archer class; I feel there is a thick enough line between a skirmishing archer (what I feel the rogue should cover) and an artillery archer (an almost stricktly fantasy role).
But then the rogue gets loaded with combat styles. Currently we have the brutish rogue, and the charming rogue. You want to add the skirmish archer rogue and the swiftblade rogue. I don't think it's a good idea to give a single class twice as many possible builds as all others. It brings back the 3.5 problem of one class having ultimately more options than the others.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatIf the archetype is realistic (a Knight, a Berserker, a Commando, a Swashbuckler), such a class should be doable without magic.
"You're preaching the choir, my friend". ;)
Quote from: Kapn XeviatSo, agreeing to disagree, Ra and D, think you can assist? I haven't been able to find that Point Buy thread on the WotC boards, so I'm going to start working on mine.
Search on the WotC boards is still messed up, and Google doesn't find that specific thread. Sorry. :-/
Quote from: Kapn XeviatPS: I added another project. I'm going to make a table of all of the racial, class, weapon, and energy damage feats, to find where there are some missing and look for areas to add more.
Been there, done that. :P
Gahh... wrong file attached. See next post. :-|
Ok, this is the right file. :P
File: 1214829912_233_FT50871_feats.pdf (//../../e107_files/public/1214829912_233_FT50871_feats.pdf)
You did that Ra? Cool! Where do you feel the holes hurt? The Eladrin player in my group doesn't like that there isn't a feat for his teleport power in Heroic level, but we can't figure out what would work for that level.
As for when believability is stretched too far ... The current ranger has a level 9 DAily, Spray of Arrows, that's a close blast 3 which targets each enemy in the blast. That's 9 enemies at most. I think that can be the mark for the extent for "believability" within the heroic tier. Level 25 has the "upgraded" version, close blast 5.
As for the rogue paths I'm looking to add, I forsee plenty of paths being added for all the classes. There are already going to be new paths in the Martial Power book. In the case of the Rogue, I don't think very many powers need to be added. I'm not going to add the Ranger powers wholesale to the Rogue.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatYou did that Ra? Cool! Where do you feel the holes hurt? The Eladrin player in my group doesn't like that there isn't a feat for his teleport power in Heroic level, but we can't figure out what would work for that level.
Well, when looking at the tables it's quite obvious where the holes are:
- only 1 half-elf specific feat ever
- only 1 racial feat per race at paragon tier
- no racial feats at epic tier
- most class powers at paragon tier are for clerics and paladins
- at paragon tier only warlock and wizard class feats
- only wizard class feats at epic tier
- no "+ damage" energy feat for force and poison damage
- not all energy types get feats for secondary effects at paragon tier
- only fire and radiant energy types get feats at epic tier
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAs for when believability is stretched too far ... The current ranger has a level 9 DAily, Spray of Arrows, that's a close blast 3 which targets each enemy in the blast. That's 9 enemies at most. I think that can be the mark for the extent for "believability" within the heroic tier. Level 25 has the "upgraded" version, close blast 5.
I see. But I just had an idea. What if burst and blast are just the wrong shapes for the martial controller's abilities? What about line or wall shaped effects? Lins are always in a straight line (left to right, top to bottom, or diagonally) and could be used for "piercing" shot effects (think "Quake" + "Railgun"), while walls could represent some sort of "strafing" fire (similar to d20 Modern's automatic fire rules).
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAs for the rogue paths I'm looking to add, I forsee plenty of paths being added for all the classes. There are already going to be new paths in the Martial Power book. In the case of the Rogue, I don't think very many powers need to be added. I'm not going to add the Ranger powers wholesale to the Rogue.
Completely forgot Martial Power and new builds. Sigh, I think I'm getting old. :( :P
Le bump! :D
Finally found the thread about point-buying powers: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1052152
Hope it helps. :)
Kap'n ->
1) I have a small suspicion that, in order to "keep the math balanced" in 4E, the designers have a system for determining the power of powers. I think certain effects (status conditions, attacking multiple creatures ...) have damage dice equivalents. For instance, the fighter level 29 dailys have No Mercy (one target, 7[W]+Str damage) and Storm of Destruction (two targets, 5[W]+Str damage); thus, multiple targets might be worth 2 dice. I'm not sure exactly what will come of this, but it might help me to create a system for creating new powers.
Check out page 42 in the 4e DMG - it has the normal and limited damage expressions broken down per level. It's a great place to start, and falls right in line with foe and class damage levels.
Quote from: Ra-TielLe bump! :D
Finally found the thread about point-buying powers: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1052152
Hope it helps. :)
I found that thread, too, but I didn't think that's what you had been talking about. He hasn't done anything.