Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
And to just add to this, here's an idea: Artifacts as Companion Characters!
Stormbringer
D&D 4E Throwing ideas, seeing what sticks (and what stinks)
Stormbringer
MoutonRustique
Explorer
"House Rule" to re-frame the "one daily item power use per tier" (short version : forum ate my post)
Bring Forth Power!
All characters have a new power that can used once per day per tier : Bring Forth Power (BFP)
Basic effect: a character can apply the critical hit effect of a weapon or implement on a regular hit.
Advanced effect: magic items replace their daily powers with the same effect that can now be used by spending a use of BFP.
Additional new rule: items can only bear the strain of BFP once per day.
Why
The intent of the basic effect is to replace/reduce/remove the number of items which have a daily power that amounts to their critical effect.
The other intent is a simple ease of acceptability of the "one item daily power per day per tier" by re-framing it as a player ability.
What it breaks
Not much, other than the whole of the written text... If we had the rules in an editable format, this would be a simple case of "Ctrl+H", but alas...
What it adds
Not much. It's pretty much what amounts to a QoL improvement.
It could be seen to add a bit of design space - in that it's easier to play with character abilities.
For instance, we can now, add or remove a use of BFP for things such as consequences of a SC (or some very niche monster). It's also easy to see how giving one more use of BFP would fit the Artificer or an artificer-themed ... theme.
So yeah, I like it.
Bring Forth Power!
All characters have a new power that can used once per day per tier : Bring Forth Power (BFP)
Basic effect: a character can apply the critical hit effect of a weapon or implement on a regular hit.
Advanced effect: magic items replace their daily powers with the same effect that can now be used by spending a use of BFP.
Additional new rule: items can only bear the strain of BFP once per day.
Why
The intent of the basic effect is to replace/reduce/remove the number of items which have a daily power that amounts to their critical effect.
The other intent is a simple ease of acceptability of the "one item daily power per day per tier" by re-framing it as a player ability.
What it breaks
Not much, other than the whole of the written text... If we had the rules in an editable format, this would be a simple case of "Ctrl+H", but alas...
What it adds
Not much. It's pretty much what amounts to a QoL improvement.
It could be seen to add a bit of design space - in that it's easier to play with character abilities.
For instance, we can now, add or remove a use of BFP for things such as consequences of a SC (or some very niche monster). It's also easy to see how giving one more use of BFP would fit the Artificer or an artificer-themed ... theme.
So yeah, I like it.
Last edited:
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
I have an idea of balancing a Beastmaster after the use of an secondary weapon (usually a thrown one or with coordinated attacks this may be directly like the rangers full weapon) . To use beast master powers and benefits you have to have one hand free. (which is used communication through gestures with your beast). A beast coordinating with it's master to attack a single target is more potent like the Rangers boosted secondary. The beast also gets inherent bonuses and similar things as well as a power of its own analogous to a magic weapon it kicks in around level 4.
Not sure how different things would be but it might flavor wize reduce the amount of taking twin strike and more potent variations with your beastmaster. LOL
Not sure how different things would be but it might flavor wize reduce the amount of taking twin strike and more potent variations with your beastmaster. LOL
Last edited:
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I argue there's nothing wrong with the beastmaster, it simply illustrates the utterly myopic nature of most analysis of 4e classes.
The straight up MP1 beastmaster build is every bit as good as either the archer or the two-weapon builds. It simply trades a very small amount (less than 10%) damage output for other tactical and RP advantages of at least equal value. This is why WotC steadfastly refused to go in and lard extra damage onto beast attacks. It was one of, if not the only, instance where they held the line like they should have.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
I prefer controller focused builds anyway: so I am actually not arguing that. Not even sure I can care enough to develop the idea more completely LOL But every Beastmaster build I have seen out in the wild still takes and spams that twin strike.
Further there was some definite disconnects with some of the visualizations = things like trading your movement to get it to move. Yeh I have to do a little pantomine dance to get the damn thing to move.
My idea incorporates beast movement in the Beastmasters abilities and may require a minor action to bring your beast to fight with you or send it out after the enemy.
Coordinated Ravaging
Requires one hand free
Attack Str vs AC for [W] damage.
Effect:
Your beast bounds across the battle to attack in unison the enemy before you.
damage of if your beast is within 5 squares its attack is a +1 to hit and increases its damage die by 1 size (or gains a +1)
If the beast is over 5 squares away currently this takes a minor action in addition to the Standard action with which you atttack.
The above basically takes the place of twin strike.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, this is the violence that Twin Strike did to the design space of 4e. By having this one grossly over-effective power the whole design of not just the ranger, but everything in the game which could have allowed relatively free exchange of at-wills between classes. TS is not, in and of itself, 'broken', that is rangers are quite effective due to it and the even better 'it has to beat TS to be worthwhile' encounter and daily powers, BUT overall the ranger is just a GOOD striker, not really better than the rogue, etc. So, of course, TS blows the idea of using any of the potential 'me and my buddy gang up on you' powers, which would all HAVE to be as effective as TS and thus in the hands of a BM would be 'I get everything you guys get AND MORE'. As it stands, you use TS, and take about 10% damage penalty, and then your beast doesn't do much except be a mobile blocker. Still not bad, but not flavorful. This is where BM falls short, not mechanics, but flavor!
Huh?
Notice how you AND the beast move. In effect moving the beast costs nothing, though you can't move it if you can't use a move power (say if you're dazed and want to attack, or if you're stunned). Its an edge case for sure.
I think, for simplicity, I'd just say the beast has to be within its charge range. Its a decent power, and I think you're right, it might tempt some players to use it instead of TS. Its a tiny bit less simple to use, and might fall behind in damage later on ( is unlikely to keep up with [W] since it won't get enhancement and there are no feats which increase it). Still, even TS doesn't get used that much once you get to moderately higher levels. At least it is in the ballpark of TS anyway.
Again, I think this is the issue with the BM, it isn't really gimped as presented, it just isn't what people expected. They expected some sort of beast companion that would be a really powerful combatant. What they got was one that is a minor adjunct in combat and quite useful in other situations or in specific combats (IE if you need to stopper up a square or etc.).
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
I suppose standing still is a move action err why?
(and probably not one encouraged in 4e combat anyway)
Making my beast get inherent bonuses like it was a heirloom magic weapon was on the list... and so would be feats that boost the beast and the beast itself gaining a power akin to a magic item.
Last edited:
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
"Sickem"
requires a free hand.
you attack the enemy adjacent but with a gesture send your beast to rake a distant foe.
Your superior directions allow your beast an extra move action this round without invoking opportunity attacks during the movement. (certain beasts may be able to move thorough enemy spaces) during this move they may attack an adjacent enemy.
This one might be similar to stab and throw. (obviously not as important as the Coordinated Ravager).
edit: changed it to a raking attack
requires a free hand.
you attack the enemy adjacent but with a gesture send your beast to rake a distant foe.
Your superior directions allow your beast an extra move action this round without invoking opportunity attacks during the movement. (certain beasts may be able to move thorough enemy spaces) during this move they may attack an adjacent enemy.
This one might be similar to stab and throw. (obviously not as important as the Coordinated Ravager).
edit: changed it to a raking attack
Last edited:
