Martial Controller: Auxiliary (Version 0.11) -Updated Preview Character (Aug. 9th)

[Alex319]

In the control zone rules you can only activate one control zone at a time.

Yes, I wasn't reading carefully enough. But you might want to reword "activate one control zone per round" to "activate a control zone once per round", just so players don't try to say that if they activate Overwatch twice in a round then it's okay because it's the "same control zone". It also might be a good idea to explicitly say you can only have one control zone active at a time (you don't explicitly say this, but it's implied by the fact that they only last one round and you can only activate it once per round) just in case someone figures out some clever way to extend the duration of the effect.

Oh, and also, I just figured out a good counter-tactic against the control zones, and I can't believe I didn't think of this before. A creature who wants to, say, move through a control zone to charge one of the Auxiliary's allies could simply ready an action to charge as soon as the control zone drops at the beginning of the Auxiliary's turn. (Since readied actions interrupt an opponent's turn, he would be able to get his readied action off before the Auxiliary could get the control zone back up.) If you don't want people to use this tactic, you could make the control zone a "Sustain Minor."

 

[jaldaen]

Yes, I wasn't reading carefully enough. But you might want to reword "activate one control zone per round" to "activate a control zone once per round", just so players don't try to say that if they activate Overwatch twice in a round then it's okay because it's the "same control zone". It also might be a good idea to explicitly say you can only have one control zone active at a time (you don't explicitly say this, but it's implied by the fact that they only last one round and you can only activate it once per round) just in case someone figures out some clever way to extend the duration of the effect.

Good points. I'll add these into the document

Oh, and also, I just figured out a good counter-tactic against the control zones, and I can't believe I didn't think of this before. A creature who wants to, say, move through a control zone to charge one of the Auxiliary's allies could simply ready an action to charge as soon as the control zone drops at the beginning of the Auxiliary's turn. (Since readied actions interrupt an opponent's turn, he would be able to get his readied action off before the Auxiliary could get the control zone back up.) If you don't want people to use this tactic, you could make the control zone a "Sustain Minor."

Thanks for pointing this out... I've added it in and I like the idea of "sustaining" a lot.

Here's the text:

Sustain Minor: At the start of your turn, you may choose to sustain the control zone targeting the same area.

Thanks for your help with the control zones, they are much improved b/c of it

 

[jaldaen]

The next version of the class should be ready in the next day or so... and has a lot of changes based off of playtester and proofreader feedback

 

[jaldaen]

Well I've just posted a new preview version of the Auxiliary class in the first post of the thread just in case anyone is interested in trying the class out in their home games. All I ask is a bit of feedback in return. For those who want to see the whole class, an NDA is needed and if you email me I'll be more than willing to send it to you.

I should note that almost all the class features and powers were changed slightly (or more than slightly) in order to rebalance things. This is the version of the class that I believe is most playable and balanced with the other PHB classes and their powers. Hopefully the class will only have to go one or two revisions before it is finalized, but that will depend upon playtester feedback.

Again thanks to all those who have provided feedback here and as playtesters. Your help is greatly appreciated.

 

[jaldaen]

Since I posted this on the WotC boards I thought I'd post it here too:

Martial Controller Form Reply, ver. 2.1:

You have proposed a Martial Controller which is based on the following concept(s):

1. [ ] Trap-Setter
2. [ ] Grenade Tosser
3. [ ] Exotic Weapon Master
4. [x] Trick-Shot Master
5. [ ] Grappler / Tripper / Brawler
6. [ ] Melee Multiattacker
7. [ ] Faster-than-Human Movement
8. [ ] Non-Magical Emotional Manipulation
9. [ ] Minion Master

Response: Although I'm not certain what exactly counts as a "trick-shot" master, this is the objection that most closely fits because when designing the class I made a few movie physics assumptions such as being able to fire a bow or throw knives, etc... as fast as is shown on a movie screen rather than real life. The Auxiliary could not work without being able to fire a volley of arrows in 6 seconds like our favorite movie heroes. However, since firing an arrow every second can be done in the movies (I'm geek enough to admit to timing a few fighting scenes with arrow/thrown weapon combat) is doable I'm fine with it for a fantasy game.

Your idea does not provide a viable replacement for a Wizard as the party's Controller for the following reasons:

1. [ ] Powers require too much set up time to use in a newly entered area.
2. [x] Powers rely on expendable (and potentially expensive) items that can run out.
3. [ ] Powers rely on items (or moves) that can be used by anyone in the manner described, even a child.
4. [ ] Powers rely on equipment which cannot be used in extremely common adventuring environments.
5. [ ] Powers rely on severe suspension of disbelief about monster / NPC behavior.
6. [ ] Concept is a one-trick wonder that does not lend itself to 30 levels of powers.
7. [x] Concept, in the abstract, belongs better in one of the other three roles.
8. [ ] Concept's specific core mechanics are better associated with another role.
9. [ ] Concept relies on a core mechanic that, fundamentally, is not battlefield control.
10. [ ] Concept does not effectively provide battlefield control against multiple opponents.
11. [ ] Concept cannot control enemies before they reach the party.
12. [ ] Concept may be required to put itself in harm's way too much, leading either to quick death or to stepping on the Defender's toes.

Response: Although certainly not expensive, mundane ammo and thrown weapons are expendable and can run out. However the same thing could be said for a ranged ranger or rogue, especially if they choose close blast effects. To help offset this downside to the class I created the "volley" mechanic which allows you to attack a certain number of "seen" targets in an area burst (1 to 4 at heroic levels and as 6 at epic levels). This both helps to keep the ammo use down and provides the Auxiliary with a unique multi-attack flavor that this different from the Wizard.

I could see some people arguing that the Auxiliary might fit better into a Striker role, however historically speaking auxiliaries were used to annoy the flanks of the enemy and create terror in their ranks at range. Yes, the auxiliaries were known for their battlefield mobility (a Striker trait), but their attacks were meant to disrupt enemy formations by causing casualties before the main battle, to tempt the opposing infantry into attacking prematurely, and to throw their organization into disarray (Controller traits).

Additionally, your concept has the following stylistic issues:

1. [ ] Powers are prone to absurd, game-breaking results.
2. [x] Powers violate physics and common sense (even at Heroic tier).
3. [ ] Powers rely on extremely specific gear and constrain flexibility in equipping the character.
4. [ ] Powers rely on items that are magical in origin, diluting the Martial flavor.
5. [ ] Concept requires a technology level that makes it unsuited for many games.
6. [ ] Concept is "gimmicky" in execution and is too specific to offer versatility in PC creation.
7. [ ] Reliance on minions may make the class take up an unfair amount of time at the table by making it a "party of one."

Response: As mentioned above this class breaks with real physics in favor of movie physics in regards to the number of arrows or thrown weapons that could be used in six seconds. However, it does have a reasonable cap that keeps things from going beyond what movie physics portrays on screen.

 

[jaldaen]

Well I'm getting ready to put together (hopefully) the final version of the Auxiliary so if you have any questions, comments, or suggestions now is the time to send them in as I'd like to have the class completed by the end of this month.

Thanks to everyone who helped, the class is much better because of your feedback.

 

[Alex319]

I looked at your new "Widen Control Zone" power and it seems even more broken than it was before. Now you can widen the control zone without costing ANY actions other than the minor to activate the control zone in the first place - and it's still an at-will. Additionally, interpreting this section literally, a player could widen the control zone once (to 5x5) one turn, then widen it again (to 7x7) next turn, and so on making it bigger every turn. Is this really what you want?

 

[jaldaen]

I looked at your new "Widen Control Zone" power and it seems even more broken than it was before. Now you can widen the control zone without costing ANY actions other than the minor to activate the control zone in the first place - and it's still an at-will. Additionally, interpreting this section literally, a player could widen the control zone once (to 5x5) one turn, then widen it again (to 7x7) next turn, and so on making it bigger every turn. Is this really what you want?

Oops... I forgot to change the action to a move action instead of minor action (I want this to be like staring down an area). Thanks for the catch!

As for widening a widened control zone I thought the sustain entry was pretty clear that you:

You sustain the same control zone targeting the same area.

Should I change it to:

You sustain the same control zone targeting the same widened area.

Let me know what you think of these changes/clarifications and whether they balance it enough to make this utility worth a 6th level slot. Thanks.

PS: Alternatively I could keep it minor, but only make it once per encounter with a sustain minor. Or I could make it once per encounter with no sustain, but with no penalties either.

 

[Alex319]

Oops... I forgot to change the action to a move action instead of minor action (I want this to be like staring down an area). Thanks for the catch!

As for widening a widened control zone I thought the sustain entry was pretty clear that you:

You sustain the same control zone targeting the same area.

Should I change it to:

You sustain the same control zone targeting the same widened area.

Let me know what you think of these changes/clarifications and whether they balance it enough to make this utility worth a 6th level slot. Thanks.

PS: Alternatively I could keep it minor, but only make it once per encounter with a sustain minor. Or I could make it once per encounter with no sustain, but with no penalties either.

You're right, the wording was clear, I just wasn't paying close enough attention. Since the wording says that you widen the control zone once (As part of activating it) and the sustain effect just sustains the same zone, so in order to "Re-widen" the zone you would have to reactivate the power, which would reset the zone to its original state, so you couldn't stack two widens.

Second, if you're changing the action to a move action (instead of minor), then you should probably change the sustain to a move instead of a minor. This would provide balance because the player could get a widened control zone at the cost of having to forgo either a move or attack action.

As for whether it's balanced or not in actual play, I am mostly speculating because I haven't playtested it myself. I would imagine it is roughly balanced because when you get an enemy in a control zone, you essentially choose whether to stop him from moving or stop him from attacking. If you stop him from attacking he can just move out of the control zone and attack (unless he is blocked in in some way) and if you stop him from moving he can still attack (unless he is a melee fighter who is not in melee range of anyone). Either way you have to have a particular tactical position in order for the effect to be useful, so it's no longer giving you anything "for free".

One thing to think about when playtesting is what happens if you have two auxiliaries in the same party, and one uses cover fire and one uses overwatch on the same area. This will prevent anyone in the area from safely moving or attacking. On the other hand this is probably not overpowered, because it requires two auxiliaries coordinating (which could actually fit with the tactical flavor of the class), only one would be able to make the free attack, and could be countered by getting within melee range of either one.

Overall, however, the control zones seem to be a very interesting new idea that could add a whole new tactical dimension to the game. If some of it turns out to be just a little too powerful or a little less powerful than it should be, that's probably fine - after all, even WotC had to errata lots of stuff that turned out to be way overpowered.

 

[jaldaen]

You're right, the wording was clear...

Okay good, I just was checking... sometimes things can be clear to me as a designer (b/c I wrote it), but not quite crystal to the readers

Second, if you're changing the action to a move action (instead of minor), then you should probably change the sustain to a move instead of a minor. This would provide balance because the player could get a widened control zone at the cost of having to forgo either a move or attack action.

Done and done

As for whether it's balanced or not in actual play, I am mostly speculating because I haven't playtested it myself. I would imagine it is roughly balanced because when you get an enemy in a control zone, you essentially choose whether to stop him from moving or stop him from attacking. If you stop him from attacking he can just move out of the control zone and attack (unless he is blocked in in some way) and if you stop him from moving he can still attack (unless he is a melee fighter who is not in melee range of anyone). Either way you have to have a particular tactical position in order for the effect to be useful, so it's no longer giving you anything "for free".

That's exactly how I want control zones to play...

One thing to think about when playtesting is what happens if you have two auxiliaries in the same party, and one uses cover fire and one uses overwatch on the same area. This will prevent anyone in the area from safely moving or attacking. On the other hand this is probably not overpowered, because it requires two auxiliaries coordinating (which could actually fit with the tactical flavor of the class), only one would be able to make the free attack, and could be countered by getting within melee range of either one.

This is one thing I've been thinking about. I think it would be okay, but like you said it'd take some playtesting to work out whether dual auxiliaries might be too potent together.

Overall, however, the control zones seem to be a very interesting new idea that could add a whole new tactical dimension to the game. If some of it turns out to be just a little too powerful or a little less powerful than it should be, that's probably fine - after all, even WotC had to errata lots of stuff that turned out to be way overpowered.

Thanks for the compliment it is greatly appreciated... and as for errata... I've design long enough to know you can only crush so many gremlins before you decide to flip the switch. After that you just have to root them out by the noise they make inside the machine