Anyone else out there with rule overload?

[Scribble]

I wonder if a "Team" based" powers for defenders would ever work?

Like, you could "mark" someone for anther defender from afar?

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I wonder if a "Team" based" powers for defenders would ever work?

Like, you could "mark" someone for anther defender from afar?

Like the Bard at-will Misdirected Mark (PHB2) or some Warlord Powers?

It's nice for a Fighter/Warden/Battlemind if the marked target is within reach but for Paladins/Sword Mages it does little b/c their punishment requires their specific marks.

 

[Scribble]

Like the Bard at-will Misdirected Mark (PHB2) or some Warlord Powers?

It's nice for a Fighter/Warden/Battlemind if the marked target is within reach but for Paladins/Sword Mages it does little b/c their punishment requires their specific marks.

Kind of... but what I was talking about was the power acted as if it were the other defender's specific mark, but without them having to do anything about it.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Kind of... but what I was talking about was the power acted as if it were the other defender's specific mark, but without them having to do anything about it.

That probably won't happen. I think the wording would be rather complicated to avoid abuse and to be precise at the same time. And if another defender with a new specific mark comes around the powers would be probably outdated.

Basing powers of one class on special abilities of another classes is rather difficult b/c those powers would be highly situational and dependent on the other class.

 

[MrMyth]

But I too have rules overload... or at least Class overload. I think inventing new classes and new builds and new powers to go with those builds just bloats the game too much. I don't want to see 7 types of fighter with just enough powers per level to basically have the same abilities as every other fighter of that type. We have enough builds. Give us more powers for the ones we have. I especially do not like powers and abilities that have so many conditions to be true before you can use them. I see this more and more as they add more classes to the game.

I think there is some of this out there, and yet... most new builds, I really like. The brawling fighter? Awesome. Rangers built around skirmishing combat, or blending melee and ranged? Pretty cool choices which feel distinct from those that came beforehand. And those are from Martial Powers 2, which a secondary supplement which was still offering cool new ideas.

Of course, not everything needs to be offered via builds. Simply having more powers of certain types, along with appropriate paragon paths, can be enough to build themes around.

As far as conditional powers go... I can see the point, here as well. There are definitely some out there that are really, really complicated, and that can bog the game down. But in general, I think there is room for powers that have some requirement to them. It helps characters feel distinct - someone whose powers require being bloodied or surrounded by enemies plays differently than someone whose powers require terrain to hurl opponents into. They don't need to go overboard, but basic requirements can certainly help to fit a character into a distinct concept or a theme.

 

[Garthanos]

I think the problems with a real ranged defender (martial "archer" defender) are:

• Marking at verly long range and punishment at (very) long range
• What would he do if he's put into melee combat? OAs b/c he's doing ranged attacks...

The fighter already marks with ranged attacks... and a Defender has more hit points than everyone else so he can handle a few more hits ;p. But in general I have some ideas if anyone is interested in hacking on it. TD has got me thinking about it ;p

 

[Runestar]

The fighter already marks with ranged attacks... and a Defender has more hit points than everyone else so he can handle a few more hits ;p. But in general I have some ideas if anyone is interested in hacking on it. TD has got me thinking about it ;p

The fighter won't be accomplishing much beyond a -2 attack penalty though.

 

[Gort]

Thing about the "ranged defender" idea is that it's just a bit unfair. Picture the scenario:

DM: You approach the cliffs. At the bottom of the cliff there are five hobgoblins, at the top stands a hobgoblin bowman. Roll initiative. OK, bowman first - he uses an encounter power and hits all of you, marking you. Any attacks not targeting him will cause him to shoot you, and you take -2 on those attacks.

Players: But we can't reach him! This sucks!

 

[Kingreaper]

Hmmm: a ranged defender could conceivably work, but the marking mechanic doesn't suit them at all.

A ranged defender should focus less on "hit me" than "don't hit him" less on any one enemy then on one ally.

They pick an ally to defend, and punish any enemy that hits that ally, trying to stay out of melee themselves. Can change the ally as a minor action on their turn.
Basically, whoever's most squishy, and in the worst position, gets covering fire.