4e Fan Creations and House RulesWorking on variant powers? Statting up a PC race or your version of a monster? Creating or converting an adventure? Put it here!
I would have liked to post this in the rules forum, but this is definitely house rules territory.
I notice that at least 4 out of every encounter powers for the Avenger is ranged. I really like these powers. It makes me think of the Avenger as an exorcist, or the striker equivalent of a Laser cleric. However, all of the Avenger's stuff keys off melee (namely, his Oath of Emnity).
So I'm wondering, what would it do the balance of the Avenger class, if you allowed the Oath to work on range 5 powers, rather than melee? And, how would you change the Oath to work this way (considering how the builds focus on 'if you're in melee and your Oath target runs away)?
I can't think of a good way to do a ranged avenger that wouldn't feel like a weak divine-powered ranger. The avenger's whole shtick seems to be "inexorably in your face", and I think an avenger that was inexorably not-in-your-face would feel wrong.
That said, I won't complain if Wizards manages to pull it off convincingly in Divine Power.
I'm talking about using Ranged powers with the Implement keyword. Like I said, the Avenger all ready has them.
But, the issue I have is, how would they interact with the Oath? If you allowed it for ranged attacks, how does that allow their secondary function (if your target flees) work in?
I wasn't talking about using a bow either. It's just that attacking primarily from range seems to go against what the Avenger basically *does*, and I don't think it'd be easy to make the avenger a range-focused attacker while still having it feel like an Avenger (rather than some other sort of ranged striker). A range-oriented avenger doesn't work well for many of the same reasons that a range-oriented fighter doesn't.
That said, there's a paragon path that turns avengers into something like divine rogues by playing up their Stealth. Might want to mine that for ideas.
I have to agree, it wouldn't be much like the existing Avenger. Not that you can't make something interesting, but about all I can do is give you a few things to consider in terms of where you might need to change the basic structure of the class to get what you want.
Avenger is designed to have a really seriously high AC. A ranged striker really does not need that. So there is one area where you may be able to pull something out of the class in order to add in other features balance-wise. So that would be the first thing I would consider is getting rid of the class feature Armor of Faith. Your Avenger now becomes fairly weak in AC, but no weaker than Wizard. It can still use magic armor, shields, and heavier armors with a feat or two.
Likewise you don't really need the higher hit point and surge totals, those could easily be reduced down to say 12 + Con starting HP, 5 HP per level, and 6 + con mod surges without really hurting the class too much.
The only way I can see to modify the Oath of Enmity power mechanically would be to make it apply to ranged attacks. Otherwise it just isn't going to be meaningful.
I really have no idea how the class will balance out or how it would play in actual use. It certainly won't have anything like the same play style as the Avenger does now. There are probably a bunch of powers that either won't make sense within the modified class or will simply be out of line if you apply a range to them.
I wonder if it might be better to refluff an Invoker? Or even some other class like infernalock? That might actually work pretty well since warlock is already a ranged striker and its powers are already designed to work in that role. Switch the power source to divine, trade implements to a holy symbol, refluff your curse as an Oath (you may want to design a new type of pact boon to make that more like what you want). I suspect it will work better and be more balanced.
Wow, I completely and utterly disagree with both of you.
For one thing, the Avenger is not about having a high AC. They start with cloth, and gain a +3 to AC. Their secondary (not primary) stat is AC dependent. So unless they invest in feats (leather armor prof, Imp Armor of Faith), they're going to start the game with (at best) AC 16 (+3 for class feature, +3 for having a 16 in a secondary stat). I wouldn't call that "high" - if anything it's medium-low.
And, as someone who's been working on a ranged defender, I can tell you that "Ranged fighter doesn't work" is wrong.
Avenger has the potentially highest AC of any single class in 4e. It is POSSIBLE to start with a moderate AC. 3 feats and standard magic items will get you absolutely hands down the highest AC in the game, no other class can touch it. So yes, it is the best AC class. Starting with cloth was a way for the designers to make it a BIT of a trade off. This has been discussed on many other threads and you can peruse the WotC boards and you'll quickly find out that I am not alone by far in noting it.
Here's the thing with a ranged fighter. I wouldn't say it won't work, it is certainly possible to build a fighter that uses a bow. You're going to have to MC into ranger for sure to do much with it and at low levels what are you going to do? You can make an RBA with a bow every turn, you can even mark with it. You can start with one encounter use of Twin Strike, which would be handy. But your Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority class features will be of little use in ranged combat. In effect you aren't sticky at all. Essentially replacing your bow fighter with a ranger will make a better ranged attacker and replacing it with a standard sword and board fighter will make a better defender.
I don't know that it is impossible to design a top notch ranged defender, but IMHO it would be better categorized as a controller, not a defender. This is why (again my opinion) no such class exists. There is a very fine line between defender and controller, both of them operate by channeling and confining the enemy's options.
In any case, I have nothing against the concept of a ranged Avenger. I simply think the class as it is now designed is not well adapted to that, and that pretty much all of its attributes (powers, class features, and basic class traits) would want to be adjusted in order to make it really suitable. That was why I opened up the suggestion to perhaps use an existing ranged class as the base instead of converting a specialized melee class.
I still want to see more classes that throw things.
Remember the guy from Vampire Hunter D : Bloodlust who had all the cross-shaped shurikens, and when he threw a bunch of them they would all form the shape of a cross in mid-air? That's how I imagine the Avenger: a Catholic Ninja.
Christian Ninja Talent [FEAT]
Prerequisite: Avenger
You can use your Wisdom modifier instead of your Dexterity modifier for determining attack and damage with Shurikens.
In addition, your attacks deal an additional 1d6 radiant damage if you are wielding a Shuriken.
In any case, I have nothing against the concept of a ranged Avenger. I simply think the class as it is now designed is not well adapted to that, and that pretty much all of its attributes (powers, class features, and basic class traits) would want to be adjusted in order to make it really suitable. That was why I opened up the suggestion to perhaps use an existing ranged class as the base instead of converting a specialized melee class.
But Avengers start with a lot of ranged powers. I built one up to 12th level with only a single melee power.
Surely, you lose the reroll portion of the Oath, but you still get Censure, and if you apply it cleverly, you can almost guarantee anyone attacking you won't be your Oath target (granting lots of Retribution).
It doesn't seem optimal, but it should be playable as is.
PS
__________________ You can clean up vomit, but data is always messy. - Storm's Law
I don't care if you light his face on fire and put it out with an anvil... - A. Taylor
Avenger has the potentially highest AC of any single class in 4e. It is POSSIBLE to start with a moderate AC. 3 feats and standard magic items will get you absolutely hands down the highest AC in the game, no other class can touch it. So yes, it is the best AC class.
Swordmage. Swordmages gain the same +3 bonus to AC as the Avenger. And his primary stat is AC boosting. Not only that, but he starts with leather - so he has to spend one feat less than the Avenger.
Quote:
In any case, I have nothing against the concept of a ranged Avenger. I simply think the class as it is now designed is not well adapted to that, and that pretty much all of its attributes (powers, class features, and basic class traits) would want to be adjusted in order to make it really suitable.
Which is what I'm suggesting.
I'm aware that the class is melee focused. And I am asking about changing that.
But I'm really not interested in being told "Yeah that's just not going to work it's a bad idea".
But Avengers start with a lot of ranged powers. I built one up to 12th level with only a single melee power.
Surely, you lose the reroll portion of the Oath, but you still get Censure, and if you apply it cleverly, you can almost guarantee anyone attacking you won't be your Oath target (granting lots of Retribution).
It doesn't seem optimal, but it should be playable as is.
Exactly. What I am trying to do, is pose the question, "So, how would you make it not suboptimal?"
My main issue is how to adjust the Oath. I don't think the "Two attacks vs. Oath" is too powerful for ranged powers in and of itself. The issue is the secondary effect - it kicks in when the foe flees, or when you're attacked by other targets. The former doesn't work in a ranged circumstance, and in teh latter, you're much more likely TO be hit by another target because you make a tempting one, all by your lonesome.
So I'm wondering how to create a balanced oath to compare with the melee-focused ones.
I really do not care if what I'm proposing is 'counter-intuitive to the feel of the Avenger' or what it might result in.
Maybe I am totally missing something, but it seems to me that the Avenger's ranged powers blow. They just do so much less damage than the melee powers -- any time I see a 2d10 ranged power, there's a 2[W] or 3[W] power of the same level available, and [W] can easily be at least a d10 if not d12 or 2d6. Sure, the ranged powers have some neat effects, but the melee powers do also, PLUS the melee powers get the Oath reroll. It's so bad I've tried building an Avenger/Cleric just so that I would have something to do with my implement other than abjure undead. (See cascade of light, a cleric daily 1, for an example of a leader power that out-damages the striker's powers.)
So, I think adding the Oath reroll to the ranged powers would be completely balanced. You might phrase it like this: "When you make a ranged attack against the target, and making the ranged attack does not provoke any opportunity attacks, you make two attack rolls and use either result. Your ranged attacks do not provoke opportunity attacks from the target." I would make this an alternative to the regular Oath power -- you have to pick ranged or melee. If you pick ranged, then you get proficiency in military ranged weapons instead of military melee weapons. I'd maybe replace Censure of Pursuit with Censure of Discernment: You get the damage bonus against an oath target who moves behind cover or concealment, or moves farther than 10 squares away from you. Or something like that.
Maybe I am totally missing something, but it seems to me that the Avenger's ranged powers blow. They just do so much less damage than the melee powers -- any time I see a 2d10 ranged power, there's a 2[W] or 3[W] power of the same level available, and [W] can easily be at least a d10 if not d12 or 2d6.
Well, you're not missing anything, except the greater issue. The discrepancy between weapon power damage and implement power damage isn't an avenger issue, it's a 4th edition issue. For whatever reason, 4e's designers thought weapons should have an inherent edge on damage--and a significant one at that. Actually, a d10 is pretty good for an implement power.
The [W] damage discrepancy is my biggest peeve about 4th edition, and I'm constantly bewildered why most folks don't see it, those who do see it don't comment on it often. The end result is that the designers aren't tasked to address it.
Last edited by Felon; 11th April 2009 at 08:27 AM..
The [W] damage discrepancy is my biggest peeve about 4th edition, and I'm constantly bewildered why most folks don't see it, those who do see it don't comment on it often. The end result is that the designers aren't tasked to address it.
While I kind of liked Plane's idea in terms of ease of balance (basically giving an implement die and improved crit trailer for some implements and improved attack for the wand),
It breaks a flavor factor for me... for a warrior if you take away his sword he is a d4... if you take away the wand,staff or rod,dagger,power stone.... the wizard still does d8 d10 d6
Perhaps adding in a readily available and very cinematic disarmed condition could bring the idea back in to the play balance.
In my game world they have to go to special measures to disarm a mage.. perhaps that is also why mages always get a bonus on intimidate like they are armed to the teeth.
Last edited by Garthanos; 11th April 2009 at 05:30 PM..
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
