Contrivance
First Post
Design Goals:
1. Give the Cleric, Paladin, and Warlord the option of utilizing their powers with ranged weapons rather than just melee weapons.
2. Not horribly unbalance these classes so that they step on the toes of the Ranger, Warlock, or Wizard. Nor make the Rogue's versatility less attractive.
Reason:
I'm putting together a 4th edition campaign setting that has firearms, and the military has not used melee weaponry for centuries. Dueling is still around, but it's a hobby or athletic interest rather than a common pursuit. This isn't a steampunk world where someone can make a technomagical sword, and ignore guns, so many characters will be walking around with a pistol or bolt-action rifle if they want an edge in combat.
First Crack:
Some powers lend themselves well to being shifted to ranged weapon status. For example, Wolf Pack Tactics makes sense if the Warlord is using a firearm, as they're pinning the enemy down with fire so that their allies can move in.
Powers that work off of attacks of opportunity would need to stay as melee weapon powers, as would ones that deal with "marks", charges, and other melee-only or adjacent-only concepts.
Damage modifiers would need to change from Strength to Dexterity, unless it's a non-physical ability like Charisma.
If a player takes a power they need to choose whether it's for a melee weapon or a ranged weapon (If it was originally only melee before), and can't undo that choice afterwards. Though someone could take Wolf Pack Tactics twice, having it for melee and ranged, if they really wanted to use up two At-Will slots.
With that in mind, what else would I need to consider? Should I drop the damage modifiers altogether to give Rangers an edge? I'm not adverse to creating new powers, but I'd rather see if the existing powers can be altered with some guidelines, as it would save me some work and help in balancing them.
1. Give the Cleric, Paladin, and Warlord the option of utilizing their powers with ranged weapons rather than just melee weapons.
2. Not horribly unbalance these classes so that they step on the toes of the Ranger, Warlock, or Wizard. Nor make the Rogue's versatility less attractive.
Reason:
I'm putting together a 4th edition campaign setting that has firearms, and the military has not used melee weaponry for centuries. Dueling is still around, but it's a hobby or athletic interest rather than a common pursuit. This isn't a steampunk world where someone can make a technomagical sword, and ignore guns, so many characters will be walking around with a pistol or bolt-action rifle if they want an edge in combat.
First Crack:
Some powers lend themselves well to being shifted to ranged weapon status. For example, Wolf Pack Tactics makes sense if the Warlord is using a firearm, as they're pinning the enemy down with fire so that their allies can move in.
Powers that work off of attacks of opportunity would need to stay as melee weapon powers, as would ones that deal with "marks", charges, and other melee-only or adjacent-only concepts.
Damage modifiers would need to change from Strength to Dexterity, unless it's a non-physical ability like Charisma.
If a player takes a power they need to choose whether it's for a melee weapon or a ranged weapon (If it was originally only melee before), and can't undo that choice afterwards. Though someone could take Wolf Pack Tactics twice, having it for melee and ranged, if they really wanted to use up two At-Will slots.
With that in mind, what else would I need to consider? Should I drop the damage modifiers altogether to give Rangers an edge? I'm not adverse to creating new powers, but I'd rather see if the existing powers can be altered with some guidelines, as it would save me some work and help in balancing them.
