Anyone else out there with rule overload?

[blargney the second]

In RL you have [...] cantrips

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

[MrMyth]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I suspect 'caltrops' is the word he is looking for.

Anyway, I largely disagree with his point. One shouldn't have a character concept of "A ranged longbow Defender", one should have a concept of "A ranged character who uses tricks and terrain to disable and hinder his foes." Mechanical terms shouldn't be a part of it, and those that insist on them are the ones who find themselves limited.

As it is, I've actually built a character along those lines who was a ranger with a bit of artificer, who made good use of consumables, skills, and powers to make the battlefield a deadly trap for his foes. I certainly wouldn't object to WotC providing more material along those lines, certainly, but don't think it needs an entire new class to be developed.

 

[Camelot]

I thought the PH3 was just as good as all the previous PHs, and can't wait for more! In my view, each class has a distinct flavor and mechanical function that sets them apart from each other enough to warrent each different class. Even if I never see them in play, I like reading about them anyway, because I find the rules fun, and when they make new rules (like Psionic Augmentation and Full Disciplines), I have a ball simply reading them, whether my players use those classes or not. I hope they keep churning out new races and classes, because the people who want them can buy them and the people who don't like them don't have to.

 

[Garthanos]

But since you wrote such a long post...

Well thanks for responding anyway

For a ranged defender, think of actual longbowmen or modern day soldiers.

Modern day soldiers can single handedly put out enough ammo and explosive grenades etc to do things like covering fire a single archer has no capabilities at archers as groups were indeed able to act as battlefield controllers.

For that zorro, hes a classic artfull dodger. Very mobile. But presumably trying to sneak attack. Does the movie or TV zorro sneak attack much?.

Nyeh look closer the abilities of a duelist rogue mean ... not being sneaky sneaky they are very much in your face take defeat a single enemy faster and the ripostes generally mean if they attack you back they also go down faster. (and that will cut minion down fast not as fast as a cleave admittedly).

That said I have a build in the works using hybrid duelist rogue and fighter because a fighter is indeed awesome with mooks and even cooler with a whip and beefed up strength will make the ripostes more even more nasty.

A character who is explicitly swashbuckler Wesley from the princess bride is also fun.

Between hybrid characters and the existing classes, races and multiclassing, not to mention reflavoring it seems like lack of imagination is one of the few limits on character design.

 

[Garthanos]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Inconceivable - see link in previous post.

 

[Kingreaper]

Garthanos, I don't have to explain anything.

But since you wrote such a long post...

For a ranged defender, think of actual longbowmen or modern day soldiers. Think of a defender in a modern game. I don't mean snipers--the few, the proud--I mean the rest. In RL you have spiked stakes and cantrips, covering fire, disabling mounts, even "control effects" that herd the enemy and break up formations. I am sure there are possible in game dungeon friendly equivelents for these. But I haven't seen much of them for bow wielders.

Everything you just listed is controller territory, not defender.


As for bow-wielding controllers? Ranger (it's the secondary) and seeker. Mostly seeker.

The primal flavour on seeker is a bit off from what you want, but if you're willing to go for ridiculously unrealistic feats of bowman-ship, and treat one archer as the equivalent of a whole squad of longbowman [which you need to if you want the concept of covering fire to really work like it does with machine-guns] you can reskin much of it to martial.

 

[Garthanos]

Everything you just listed is controller territory, not defender.


As for bow-wielding controllers? Ranger (it's the secondary) and seeker. Mostly seeker.

The primal flavour on seeker is a bit off from what you want, but if you're willing to go for ridiculously unrealistic feats of bowman-ship, and treat one archer as the equivalent of a whole squad of longbowman [which you need to if you want the concept of covering fire to really work like it does with machine-guns] you can reskin much of it to martial.

malcom_n did a series of articles about alternate power sources for each of the classes but dont think he got to Seeker.

Here is a starting for flavoring the Seeker Powers as Martial:

The power Grappling Spirits works pretty well for firing an arrow/ranged weapon which pins the target or hits there leg.(slowing and preventing shifting).

Guardian Harrier could be a series of speed fired missiles falling in a predictable pattern which effectively push a target to get out of dodge.

The Elemental spirits can be alchemically treated arrows that require a special rune and catalyst unique to each that your character knows but means joe blow cant pick up your bow and get fire arrows out of it. The alchemic element kind of bleeds/bends it in to arcane however. Same with thorn cloud shot really.

Biting swarm could be a missile attack hitting a target in a way that it really distracts/distresses allies of the target closeby without actually threatening them... hmmm perhaps this is alchemic or mayhaps blood splattered/spraying from their buddy might qualify.

 

[mkill]

Everything you just listed is controller territory, not defender.

I thought the same. Seriously, the complaint is that the game does not contain an archery-based controller that's labeled as a Defender and whose powers work like nothing from fantasy but modern warfare? - A glaring omission.

We're strayed too much from the topic anyway. Where I agree is that 4th edition has reached the point where I don't want new stuff anymore. Heroes of Shadow fills the last gap (Necromancer and Black Knight), after that, the game feels complete to me. There are a few variant builds for classes I'd like to see, but no new classes please.

If anything, I'd love to go through DDI and weed out the crap - It's annoying that there is stuff like a feat for exotic builds like a Drow Paladin that are so crappy that you wouldn't want it even if you play one.

Power selection isn't too bad because you're still at a manageable 6-7 valid choices at best. Feat selection, however, got out of hand. At least we should get better search options in the Compendium. Marking feats that were replaced by better options in later books would help, too.

 

[Goonalan]

Let me explain my big gripe here. When I started playing 3.x, it was with a group of people who had already established a long list of house rules. I played as a PC with these people for a couple years and then started DMing (also using their house rules). I never actually played a single session of 3.x edition D&D that followed the actual rules.

When 4th edition came out, I convinced my group to switch to 4th and to play BY THE BOOK. We were going to play a campaign starting at 1st level and going as far as possible before we stopped (got bored; felt the game was broken; got to 30th level; whatever) and we weren't going to use a single house rule.

However, when we first started playing, the PCs had trouble winning skill challenges; the DCs were simply too high. It wasn't a matter of bad rolls, or stupid skill selection, the PCs simply couldn't make the DCs consistently enough to win challenges. This pissed my group off enough that they wanted to switch back to 3.x. This pissed me off because I was the only one who bought 4th edition books, which would be a waste of money if we switched back. I managed to convince my PCs to give 4th edition a little longer.

Then, the official errata came out, and what do you know, they errata'd the DCs. "Horray!!", I thought, "Now I don't have to avoid skill challenges or risk pissing off my PCs enough that they decide to switch back to 3.x".

My elation came too early, though, since the new DCs were just as broken as the old ones. Now, instead of ", I didn't roll an 18, I must have missed the DC" it became "Wait, what? I succeeded on a roll of 8? Really? What kind of (skill) challenge is that?".

My group is still playing 4th edition, but we gave up on playing "by the book". We now have a whole list of house rules and rule variations. We are right back to where we were with 3.x; playing a game that only works properly if you take the game into your own hands and only use the books as a guide.

That's why I can't forgive the idiocy that is the DC errata.

Also, saying "sorry, I don't mean to be rude" while being really rude ("if you're bright", implying that I must not be if I had issues with the DCs) doesn't make you any less of an arse.

I understand your gripe but your still missing my point, this is a roleplaying game, around the table there are players and a DM (or two). Sorry if I'm trying to teach you to suck eggs but in skill challenges, my players want to discover where X is.

If your players are winning skill challenges by rolling 8's or 18's then you're not doing it right anyway, see below, at least not at my table.

Player one is social skill savvy but rolls crap, fair enough, if the players are bored we have a punch up, swearing match, I belittle him (or rather the NPC does in game). The players either accept the failure or one of the other players jump in and tries Intimidate, or Acrobatics to distract the NPC doing the nasty. If the rolls look good, or there are enough +2 aid another checks going on, or I just feel like rewarding good roleplay then that's the first success in the skill challenge. Move on...

Your players should be having crazy and cool ideas all the time, and you should be rewarding them for their ideas- reward roleplay always, the more of it that happens (and gets rewarded) the more it happens.

If not, let's try again, with a parting hint from NPC about how to improve their chances- 'you'll never find X, he don't want to be found, he's gone underground'- PCs head to the Sewermen's Union.

The point is this isn't a Video Game, the rules are always guidelines, I believe it says that somewhere (everywhere).

You can't play by the rules, and who in life wants to...

I've played with guys that have been so articulate, clever and in-game savvy that it's just been silly to reduce success down to a roll of a dice- combat I've no problem with being dice-reliant. But if the Paladin of Pelor chases off the bad guys, rescues the street urchin, feeds and clothes the fellow, recommends he visits his church, cures the street urchins mum and then rolls a '1', then screw the dice- the story is all.

As a DM you have to play (always) towards the PCs victory, your job is not to put things in place that can cause the narrative to fail- if they fail the skill challenge drop all DCs by 5 and/or change the Skill Challenge and/or have a big fight and have the bad guy reveal all.

RAW is good, no doubt, but I watch professional sports all the time- they cheat and/or break the rules all of the time, or try to. In my job- same thing.

Rules, as regards skill challenges, are in fact incorrectly labeled IMHO, like the Pirate Code, they're more just guidelines.

The game must go on, the players need to be able succeed (through good roleplay and clever ideas), keep that in mind and all else fades into the background.

One last thing- games designers are not always right, they're right quite a lot (or at least 90-whatever%) of the book is RAW for me and my guys. Then again the House Rules I put in place don't always work either, and I'm only trying to fix the odd % of the RAW that I don't like. So, they're better than me at coming up with rules to keep me and my peeps amused.

Parting shot, your world is not my world, and yet we both come together to play by a set of rules, trying to please all of the people all of the time is impossible, my suggestions above may not be to your liking- the onus is upon you to figure it out, that's why you're writing in here; because you are clearly passionate about you D&D, you're articulate, and you want answers- always be looking for answers, or at least asking questions.

 

[Zaran]

I think a bow wielder defender could work in much the same way as the Swordmage. I.E. You mark targets, and whenever the targets attack your teammates, you shoot them with arrows.

I like this part but what happens when those you mark attack you? Archer's aren't supposed to be in melee.