D&D 4E Looking for thoughts on my kitbashed 4E

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. Recently, my attention is turning back to 4E. Matthew Colville's video ( https://youtu.be/QoELQ7px9ws ) and some other things have made me realize I had the most fun DMing back in 4E. But, the system is a bit bloated, so I wanted to do a few things. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Reduce Classes
I want to reduce the number of classes down to 12-14. Each class will be able to be multiple roles, based on their subclass choice. The classes I'm looking at doing, and where other 4E classes would fit in, are:

Artificer (Arcane; I'm more and more thinking of this, as it is an archetype that is hard to do with other classes)
Barbarian (Martial/Primal)
Bard (Arcane)
Cleric (Divine): Invoker
Druid (Primal): Shaman
Fighter (Martial): Warlord and some Ranger stuff
Monk (Ki, rebranded Psionics): Battlemind
Mystic (Ki, stealing from 5th): Ardent, Battlemind
Paladin (Divine/Martial): Avenger
Ranger (Primal/Martial): Seeker
Rogue (Martial): some Ranger stuff, some warlord
Sorcerer (Arcane)
Warlock (Arcane)
Wizard (Arcane)

Ideally, the core four classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) can be any role. A life Cleric is a healer, a storm cleric or a more invoked would be a controller, a war cleric could be a striker, a protection cleric a defender. A fighter could be a warlord as a leader, a two-handed weapon wielded or tempest as a striker, a shield bearer as a defender, a polearm specialist as a controller. A rogue could be a noble lazylord as a leader, a trick shot archer as a controller, a Duelist as a defender, or a sniper or traditional rogue as a striker. A wizard could be a defender as a conjurer or necromancer with a big pet, a leader as an abjurer, a controller as an illusionist, a striker as an evoker.

Other classes would be more limited in their roles, except I imagine Bards having some built in dual classing with half and half roles (all bards are leaders, but they dabble in the others) and that Druids change roles with wildshape. Barbarians may have various roles but switch to striker upon entering rage. For instance.

Spells, not Powers
One thing that frustrated me about late 4E were the number of duplicate powers. Since powers were mostly by class, you ended up with a half dozen 1st level at-wills that did 1W+ability+slow 1 round. I want to bring spell lists back, and exploit lists for the martial classes, and share more across class barriers. I also want to redo spells so they're more akin to classic spells, and I want to have dailies become encounters rather than spells going obsolete. For instance, a second level spell may start as one of your first dailies, but at higher levels it switches to being an encounter spell.

I want choices in switching spells day to day as well, and for martial characters to learn an expanding power set. Utility slots will still be separate, but I may play with how they work.

Goals and Reasoning
Why am I wanting to change so much on the player side of 4E? I started playing during 3E and greatly enjoyed playing, DMing, and creating. 4E was a godsend for me, because I greatly enjoyed the way it's math played out, how long (in rounds) encounters took, the increased options for classes, and the encounter vs daily balance.

That said, I dislike system bloat and I want to condense things to make them more presentable. My group is mostly anti-4E, but after talking with them a lot I think I can "trick" them by using more classic character presentations but keeping the math and monsters intact.

Changing the player side of things feels like less, and more rewarding, work than adjusting the entire damage to HP and monster design of 5E.

What are your thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Garthanos]

Hi everyone. Recently, my attention is turning back to 4E. Matthew Colville's video ( https://youtu.be/QoELQ7px9ws ) and some other things have made me realize I had the most fun DMing back in 4E. But, the system is a bit bloated, so I wanted to do a few things. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Reduce Classes
I want to reduce the number of classes down to 12-14. Each class will be able to be multiple roles, based on their subclass choice.

I like that concept...

The classes I'm looking at doing, and where other 4E classes would fit in, are:

Artificer (Arcane; I'm more and more thinking of this, as it is an archetype that is hard to do with other classes)
Barbarian (Martial/Primal)
Bard (Arcane)
Cleric (Divine): Invoker
Druid (Primal): Shaman
Fighter (Martial): Warlord and some Ranger stuff
Monk (Ki, rebranded Psionics): Battlemind
Mystic (Ki, stealing from 5th): Ardent, Battlemind
Paladin (Divine/Martial): Avenger
Ranger (Primal/Martial): Seeker
Rogue (Martial): some Ranger stuff, some warlord
Sorcerer (Arcane)
Warlock (Arcane)
Wizard (Arcane)

Ideally, the core four classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) can be any role. A life Cleric is a healer, a storm cleric or a more invoked would be a controller, a war cleric could be a striker, a protection cleric a defender. A fighter could be a warlord as a leader, a two-handed weapon wielded or tempest as a striker, a shield bearer as a defender, a polearm specialist as a controller. A rogue could be a noble lazylord as a leader, a trick shot archer as a controller, a Duelist as a defender, or a sniper or traditional rogue as a striker. A wizard could be a defender as a conjurer or necromancer with a big pet, a leader as an abjurer, a controller as an illusionist, a striker as an evoker.

I have been working on Warlord Controller concept using warlord methods note they are also capable of polearm dance but have enemy manipulation through psychology (batman like planning and fear inducement) etc.

Other classes would be more limited in their roles, except I imagine Bards having some built in dual classing with half and half roles (all bards are leaders, but they dabble in the others) and that Druids change roles with wildshape. Barbarians may have various roles but switch to striker upon entering rage. For instance.

Spells, not Powers
One thing that frustrated me about late 4E were the number of duplicate powers. Since powers were mostly by class, you ended up with a half dozen 1st level at-wills that did 1W+ability+slow 1 round. I want to bring spell lists back, and exploit lists for the martial classes, and share more across class barriers. I also want to redo spells so they're more akin to classic spells, and I want to have dailies become encounters rather than spells going obsolete. For instance, a second level spell may start as one of your first dailies, but at higher levels it switches to being an encounter spell.

I want choices in switching spells day to day as well, and for martial characters to learn an expanding power set. Utility slots will still be separate, but I may play with how they work.

Interesting enough and it maintains balance ... I wouldnt swith to the spell terminology regardless. Maneuver/Power Lists with broad based power swapping is what I would call it.

I have considered making powers which assume scaling by level.

Something I have wanted to address is what I call fake versatility where specialization for instance means you have one at-will you might use but because of various feats and power choices you really have no ability or cause to swap out to an ability which maybe at low levels would have been more effective.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I started playing during 3E

Oh, so sorry.
;(
j/k

and greatly enjoyed playing, DMing, and creating. 4E was a godsend for me, because I greatly enjoyed the way it's math played out, how long (in rounds) encounters took, the increased options for classes, and the encounter vs daily balance.

That said, I dislike system bloat and I want to condense things to make them more presentable.

Sure.
There were some baroque flourishes in 4e that added needless complexity - if I can indulge in conspiracy theory for a sec, perhaps in service to killing the OGL and making a game that'd be DDI-dependent to capture MMO-like income streams - and what seemed, from the beginning, like obvious ways to consolidate them.

For instance, while Roles and Sources were both clearly rooted in the traditional Fighter, Cleric & Magic User (Martial, Divine, & Arcane Sources; Striker/Defender, Leader, & Controller/Striker Roles), they were folded out into a Source/Role Matrix with Classes as the elements. Mapping class to source and role to build might have worked better. A Source/Class could thus have it's own list of powers, and each Build/Role bring it's own features that color those powers.

So you could have:

The Fighter class (Martial), with the Knight (Defender), Rogue (Striker), Warlord (leader), and Ranger (controller) as builds - to re-cycle existing class/sub-class names. I think you could do a lot better than Ranger as a controller, for instance, a Martial-Arts/Fencing 'Master,' for instance.

The Wizard class (Arcane), with Swordmage (Defender), Sorcerer (Striker), Artificer (Leader) and Mage (controller) as builds.

The Cleric class (Divine), with Paladin (Defender), Avenger (Striker), Priest (Leader) and Invoker (controller) as builds.

You could have even more builds to cover 5th-wheel classes like the Monk (Martial) or Bard (Arcane), or to put different spins on roles, like a Warlock (Arcane single-target-hard-control build), Slayer (high-STR martial striker build).

New classes would have to encompass a whole Source - Psionics, Primal, Shadow, Elemental, etc...

But, more basically, you could also just have the the core 3 (or 4 if you must have the effing Thief) original classes. Fighter (Martial Defender), Cleric (Divine Leader), Wizard (Arcane Controller), & Thief (Martial Striker). That covers all the roles & the main sources, and the 4 traditional classes. The Cleric & Wizard could share spell lists, and the Fighter & Thief maneuver lists. Except for being comparatively balanced, it'd feel a lot like traditional D&D.

Changing the player side of things feels like less, and more rewarding, work than adjusting the entire damage to HP and monster design of 5E.

What are your thoughts?

Sounds like much more, but more rewarding work, to me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I thought of having 3 core archetypes, Warrior, Mystic, and Trickster. Any class could fall under one of those three, but then power source seems like it isn't really needed at that point. I mean, you COULD make a class under each archetype for each source, and then give different builds roles, but in practice when I tried to lay that out it was cumbersome. TBH the more I played with it the more solid 4e's actual approach seems. Power source is thematic, and role defines the classes actual function.

Still, you could group a lot of powers into each source.

 

[Xeviat]

I've heard the suggestion of having separate powers for each source, and then having role built into class/subclass to modify those powers, but I'm not entirely sure that's the direction I want. I'm set on the 12 classes of 5E, because those were the classes I was working with when starting this project shortly after Essentials came out. Essentials opened my eye to the concept of having multiple roles within a class (slayer was a striker fighter, ranger had a controller, blackguard was a striker, protector Druid was a leader). The cleric and the wizard share some spells in older editions and 5E, and that will help me with design space.

One thought I was having when I think about making this project even bigger is to ensure each class has a unique play style built into it. Here were my thoughts for the base 12:

Barbarian: Rage Management. Rage turns you into a heavy damage dealer with lower defense. There should be times you don't want to rage, and other times when you do. Managing this toggle influences play style.

Bard: Jack of All Trades. I'd like to see Bards able to be multiple roles, but not at the same time. They may come with some inherent dual classing (like from PHB3 4E), switching their roles as needed.

Cleric: Party Enhancer. The cleric is not a solo character, their powers function best when enhancing their allies. Additionally, through domains, clerics dabble in other classes (war is like a fighter, trickery is like a rogue ...).

Druid: Wild Shape. The ability to switch forms to match the needs of an encounter influences the druid's playstyle.

Fighter: Base. The Fighter is the basic playstyle. They do mundane things (and yes [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], likely some skills) more and better than others. But, I'm also toying with the idea of Fighters as arms specialists, with the ability to tailor their role by their gear selection (imagine if each weapon group and handedness had a different at-will and encounter power associated that only a fighter could access).

Monk: Full Disciplines (is that what they were called?). The link of move actions with attack actions causes the monk to flow between different stances, influencing their play.

Paladin: Divine Challenge. The paladin excels at fighting a single target, whether defending against it or killing it. "No, I've got this" is their playstyle.

Ranger: Animal Companion. Managing two characters defines the Ranger's playstyle (and for those who don't really want a pet, one build will be a tiny, untargetable animal which you simply designate which enemy it is harassing or watching).

Rogue: Sneak Attack. I'm looking at a different take on sneak attack. I imagine a rogue who alternates between set-up and payoff. A rogue who deals double normal damage, but needs to spend actions setting up their next action. They differ from the Fighter (and justify their separate class status for Tony) in that they fight with trickery, not stand-up skill with arms (taking from the romantic notion that warriors are honorable). Rogues fight dirty.

Sorcerer: Bloodline. Things get harder here, but the sorcerer is likely going to be akin to a half caster (Bard, paladin, ranger) than a full caster. The Sorcerer mixes their spellcasting with the innate powers of their bloodline. So you can be like a dragon, like an elemental ... I think this influences playstyle if there's a class that can magic all the time.

Warlock: Curse. My thought was that the warlock's curse could be applied when they target a creature with an attack, so their playstyle would encourage them to attack everyone to curse multiple foes. Like Damage over Times over spike damage in MMOs.

Wizard: Spellcaster. Wizards are the base spellcaster. Like the Fighter, they define the base playstyle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've heard the suggestion of having separate powers for each source, and then having role built into class/subclass to modify those powers, but I'm not entirely sure that's the direction I want. I'm set on the 12 classes of 5E

That's too bad, because they are an arbitrary list of classes chosen only for backwards compatibility with editions other than 4e (or there'd be a Warlord - no, I will not ever shut up about that).

, because those were the classes I was working with when starting this project shortly after Essentials came out. Essentials opened my eye to the concept of having multiple roles within a class

Nod. Prior to, Class had existed at the intersection of Source and Role. Post-Essentials, sub-class did. The functional difference was that you could have different class features emphasizing a different role, while still leveraging the existing list of powers. That's the exact same insight as Abdul mentioned, above, in the context of consolidating powers by source.

Functionally, having powers by source and roles by class is about the same as having powers by class and roles by sub-class, the main difference being there are more classes, and some of them are going to be redundant if you follow through and give each all 4 roles...

One thought I was having when I think about making this project even bigger is to ensure each class has a unique play style built into it

That'd at least give you a reason to have multiple martial strikers or arcane controllers or whatever...

Here were my thoughts for the base 12:

Barbarian: Rage Management. Rage turns you into a heavy damage dealer with lower defense. There should be times you don't want to rage, and other times when you do. Managing this toggle influences play style.

The HotFw Berserker captured that particularly well, Rage was a switch that changed your role.

Bard: Jack of All Trades. I'd like to see Bards able to be multiple roles, but not at the same time. They may come with some inherent dual classing (like from PHB3 4E), switching their roles as needed.

That's a legacy from when the Bard was a not-so-great class (or proto-PrC, for that matter). The Bard concepts makes a good deal of sense as a leader, and could make some as a controller (not the blasty kind). That's really about it.

Cleric: Party Enhancer. The cleric is not a solo character, their powers function best when enhancing their allies. Additionally, through domains, clerics dabble in other classes (war is like a fighter, trickery is like a rogue ...).

Fits with the Cleric as the original leader (healer), but clashes with it's secondary-controller role (which goes way back, because it's always been a full caster with condition-inflicting and area-damage spells).

Druid: Wild Shape. The ability to switch forms to match the needs of an encounter influences the druid's playstyle.

Fighter: Base. The Fighter is the basic playstyle. They do mundane things (and yes [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], likely some skills) more and better than others. But, I'm also toying with the idea of Fighters as arms specialists, with the ability to tailor their role by their gear selection (imagine if each weapon group and handedness had a different at-will and encounter power associated that only a fighter could access).

That's a pretty good idea. Non-supernatural characters in D&D suffer from a profound lack of versatility relative to Tier 1 classes, while they may never be able to engage in conjuring up a variety of named damage types, ex nillo creation, or any of the myriad things magic writes onto it's blank check as a matter of course, being able to fairly easily switch roles by changing gear & tactics would be a level of versatility, one that could be un-matched by classes that get their role support primarily from more fixed class features.

Obviously, S&B and heavy-armor works for the Defender role, TWF, GWF, & Archery; also fairly obviously, lighter armor for Striker; Pole-arms, martial arts, & thrown weapons (and archery, again) and lighter (even no?) armor could work for control, going on past builds & powers, like the 3e reach-based battle-field-control builds, and powers like blinding barrage, for instance.

The Leader role doesn't seem much to speak to weapons & gear, though. Separate Warlord class for that would make sense.

Monk: Full Disciplines (is that what they were called?). The link of move actions with attack actions causes the monk to flow between different stances, influencing their play.

Yes, that's what it's called - IDK what the big deal was about it, though. :shrug:

Paladin: Divine Challenge. The paladin excels at fighting a single target, whether defending against it or killing it. "No, I've got this" is their playstyle.

Works. Hm... works for Avenger, too.

Ranger: Animal Companion.

Oh, please, no. Not the Grizzly Adams thing. Seriously, the Ranger got some companions at name level, and could cast Animal Friendship around the same level. How did that become Animal Companion in 3e, anyway?

Just drop the class rather than go there.

Rogue: Sneak Attack. I'm looking at a different take on sneak attack. I imagine a rogue who alternates between set-up and payoff.

Works in 13A.

A rogue who deals double normal damage, but needs to spend actions setting up their next action.

That's how Lurkers tended to work, and the upshot was that the pay-off had to be overwhelming to be relevant.

They differ from the Fighter (and justify their separate class status for Tony) in that they fight with trickery, not stand-up skill with arms (taking from the romantic notion that warriors are honorable). Rogues fight dirty.

Meh. I still feel the thief should just be folded into the fighter. That is, if you can get the fighter to seamlessly go either DEX or STR, like in 5e (see 5e's done a few things well).

Sorcerer: Bloodline. Things get harder here, but the sorcerer is likely going to be akin to a half caster (Bard, paladin, ranger) than a full caster. The Sorcerer mixes their spellcasting with the innate powers of their bloodline. So you can be like a dragon, like an elemental ... I think this influences playstyle if there's a class that can magic all the time.

Warlock: Curse. My thought was that the warlock's curse could be applied when they target a creature with an attack, so their playstyle would encourage them to attack everyone to curse multiple foes. Like Damage over Times over spike damage in MMOs.

I'm seeing less and less reason to break these two out.

Wizard: Spellcaster. Wizards are the base spellcaster. Like the Fighter, they define the base playstyle.

Not ideal. The wizard has been the most versatile class in every edition, making it something of an advanced/special case. As a baseline that's problematic.

 

[MoutonRustique]

With what I'm understanding of your direction with the [Sorcerer], you could do worse than crib a couple of things from the [Hexblade].

Making the [Sorcerer] into an equally effective melee and ranged dps class would be very cool - there was some talk about this a ways back on these boards : my preferred angle was to make it "alternating".

By "alternating", I mean, the ranged powers give buffs to melee attacks and melee attacks give buffs to ranged attacks - nothing to make it mandatory, but something to encourage a good deal of mobility and dynamic choices. You could do something like the druid - you get one ranged at-will, one melee at-will, and an extra one (so you can choose to "focus" on a path a bit.)

It could be something like : when you throw some fire at that guy, you keep some of it in your hands, and if you strike that critter with a karate chop, you can add that as an extra rider. Since being at range is, in many ways, its own reward, you could have just the ranged attacks give buffs. BAM! Half the work: done! For appropriate riders, the [blade spells] would seem like a good starting place.

With regards to "activating blood-lines" and such, take a look at the "form" powers of the [Warden] or the Rage attacks of the [Barbarian] - those would work very well as baselines for "bloodline-based activation" could be.

 

[Xeviat]

I'm not looking at having too many class specific powers, outside of the base class and subclass abilities. Martial Maneuvers will be shared by most of the martial classes and dabbled in by the half casters, but I can easily imagine sequestering some so they feel unique. Likewise, a lot of spells are shared between all the casters, though there's more differentiation between Arcane and divine spells.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Igwilly]

That is just my opinion, but…

First, this is more than a few changes. You are remaking the edition. May as well create your own home-brewed edition or even an entirely new game.

In addition, honestly I like classes. A lot. Moreover, I like many classes. I would rather have 30+ classes to choose from, needed only for the ones who want them, then to every player go through numerous sub-classes for each class, list of skills, feats, and so on. I don’t know why people blame new classes for “bloat”; there are much more serious offenders.
I think it’s cool to give classes versatility in the roles they play in combat. However, I would say do not abuse this: part of each class’ spirit are the roles they typically perform and common strategies/tactics. For example, I’m one of those people that don’t like regular Clerics to blast enemies like a striker (Specialty Priests are an exception, but they’re not Clerics!), and to have Arcane Magic being capable of healing is heresy to me. Many class concepts I have in mind, however, are quite different from the game’s classical content (I’m looking at you, Ranger!)
I agree with you on unified lists of spells or powers. It makes sense to make that certain classes share their abilities. For example: the implementation was not perfect, but my favorite version of the Sorcerer is the 3.X one: same spell list as the Wizard, but with a very different spellcasting system, and a Romantic Fantasy style of magic: spontaneous innate magic, improved intuitively. No need for the “there’s magic in your blood!” I mean, we could have that, but both concepts are interesting and merging them is not necessarily a good idea.
Yes, it was a very different system; I played both at equal levels and I saw a clear difference.

About Bards: you will face a tough decision. There are two concepts of bards:
1. The Jack-of-all-Trades Bard. Uniting wizard’s spells, fighter’s weapons and thief’s skills, he or she trades raw power for versatility. Contrary to some people, I actually think a Jack-of-all-Trades can be fairly balanced, especially in an unpredictable game as D&D – which also tends to have small parties. This Bard is not supposed to only heal or only blast foes with fireballs, and so on. It’s a different style.
2. The Frail Support Magical Bard. In this scheme, the Bard is a spellcaster which uses magic as his/her focus/implement, so to speak. The wand is the harp, the magical words are the music, and creativity is his/her spellcasting attribute. In this version, the Bard takes more of a support role, being more fragile and have a special knack to buffs.
3. Actually, there is a third concept of the Bard. I’ve seen it on few occasions: The Archer Bard. Like a fusion of both concepts, this Bard sings to the benefit of the party while firing arrows from a safe position.
I’m not going to lie to you, all of those concepts seem very interesting to me. However, they’re different enough so that designing them is very different. I would say those concepts are worth separated classes, but I’m not afraid of “class bloat”.
In addition, there’s a book about bards in 2e. I didn’t bought it yet, but I will. Many alternative bards there, it seems.

 

[MoutonRustique]

I'm going to steal [mention=7231793]@Tony[/Mention]'s proposal :

[snip]
The Fighter class (Martial), with the Knight (Defender), Rogue (Striker), Warlord (leader), and Ranger (controller) as builds - to re-cycle existing class/sub-class names. I think you could do a lot better than Ranger as a controller, for instance, a Martial-Arts/Fencing 'Master,' for instance.

The Wizard class (Arcane), with Swordmage (Defender), Sorcerer (Striker), Artificer (Leader) and Mage (controller) as builds.

The Cleric class (Divine), with Paladin (Defender), Avenger (Striker), Priest (Leader) and Invoker (controller) as builds.
[snip]

Martial
Pick about 10 powers for each level from Fighter, Rogue, Warlord, Knight, Slayer, etc
Martial weapon proficiency (armour will be by subclass)
By subclass (from original class): Armour and Shield proficiency, hp, HS

[Fighter]
Offer the choice of either "active marking" or "mark aura"
Style advantages (people seem to like the ability to "specialize", I hate that - I'd give them all of the styles) :
- two-weapon : +1 shield bonus, +2 to OA attack rolls
- weapon and shield : [on hold] I'm not thinking of anything good for this right now...
- two handed weapon : mark penalty is increased to -3
- one free hand : I hate that this gets special bonuses, so : nothing from me!

[Rogue]
Sneak attack (light weapons only restriction is important!)
Remove [rapier] from the game
Light weapons deal one die size greater damage (d4 to d6)
Nerves of Steal - encounter power : take 10 on a skill check

[Warlord]
Inspiring Word (obviously)
A choice from these options :
- Lead From the Front : when you attack a target in melee, the next ally to attack the target before the start of your next turn gets +2 to attack
- Commander in Action : You get the at-will that trades your attack for an ally's (with a bit of a buff)
- Quarterback : when you attack a target with a ranged attack, the next ally to attack the target before the start of your next turn deals 2 extra damage to that target on a hit

[Slayer]
(in the spirit of KISS - from which, it seems it was born)
Choose one :
- two handed weapon : you treat all minimum rolls on damage die as maximum rolls (d8, a 1 = 8)
- two weapon : you add your off-hand weapon die as extra damage once per turn (you add NO bonuses to this, NONE!* *except the weapon's enhancement bonus, if applicable... But that is IT! I MEAN IT!)

[Arcane]
Pick about 12 powers for each level - with at least 4 of them being interesting for the [swordmage] from the arcane classes

[Swordmage]
Choose your aegis (as normal)
Your weapon is considered an implement for you
All the "bonded weapon" thingies : they're cool and offer pretty much 0 "real" use
Choose one :
- Improved force shield : when you have one hand free, you get a +2 shield bonus, otherwise, +1 shield bonus. You get an Aura 1. While within the aura, your allies and yourself have [resist "area" "shield bonus"] (to be read as [resist 2 all against close and area attacks]) This value is doubled at level X, tripled at Y, and so on.
- Twined blades of magic : While you are wielding two weapons, once, during your turn, when you hit with a [weapon] attack, you can also use a bladesong against a different target within melee reach.

[Sorceror]
Choose your type (as regular)
When you make an [arcane] ranged attack, you get a bonus to the next melee or close attack damage roll equal to your charisma modifier you make before the end of your next turn.
It would also be cool if we designed special daily powers that gave them an ongoing benefit, a powerful at-will and a strong encounter that would end the effects when used. Something like :

You get an Aura 2 (deal 3 fire damage to any creature entering or starting it's turn in the aura), at-will "scorching burst" (2d8 + ongoing 3) and encounter (close burst 3, massive damage)

... I'm not done with this yet, but I'll come back to it later.