Making the Avenger ranged - what would that do?

[Rechan]

Doublepost.

 

[Rechan]

But Avengers start with a lot of ranged powers. I built one up to 12th level with only a single melee power.

Surely, you lose the reroll portion of the Oath, but you still get Censure, and if you apply it cleverly, you can almost guarantee anyone attacking you won't be your Oath target (granting lots of Retribution).

It doesn't seem optimal, but it should be playable as is.

Exactly. What I am trying to do, is pose the question, "So, how would you make it not suboptimal?"

My main issue is how to adjust the Oath. I don't think the "Two attacks vs. Oath" is too powerful for ranged powers in and of itself. The issue is the secondary effect - it kicks in when the foe flees, or when you're attacked by other targets. The former doesn't work in a ranged circumstance, and in teh latter, you're much more likely TO be hit by another target because you make a tempting one, all by your lonesome.

So I'm wondering how to create a balanced oath to compare with the melee-focused ones.

I really do not care if what I'm proposing is 'counter-intuitive to the feel of the Avenger' or what it might result in.

 

[77IM]

Maybe I am totally missing something, but it seems to me that the Avenger's ranged powers blow. They just do so much less damage than the melee powers -- any time I see a 2d10 ranged power, there's a 2[W] or 3[W] power of the same level available, and [W] can easily be at least a d10 if not d12 or 2d6. Sure, the ranged powers have some neat effects, but the melee powers do also, PLUS the melee powers get the Oath reroll. It's so bad I've tried building an Avenger/Cleric just so that I would have something to do with my implement other than abjure undead. (See cascade of light, a cleric daily 1, for an example of a leader power that out-damages the striker's powers.)

So, I think adding the Oath reroll to the ranged powers would be completely balanced. You might phrase it like this: "When you make a ranged attack against the target, and making the ranged attack does not provoke any opportunity attacks, you make two attack rolls and use either result. Your ranged attacks do not provoke opportunity attacks from the target." I would make this an alternative to the regular Oath power -- you have to pick ranged or melee. If you pick ranged, then you get proficiency in military ranged weapons instead of military melee weapons. I'd maybe replace Censure of Pursuit with Censure of Discernment: You get the damage bonus against an oath target who moves behind cover or concealment, or moves farther than 10 squares away from you. Or something like that.

-- 77IM

 

[Felon]

Maybe I am totally missing something, but it seems to me that the Avenger's ranged powers blow. They just do so much less damage than the melee powers -- any time I see a 2d10 ranged power, there's a 2[W] or 3[W] power of the same level available, and [W] can easily be at least a d10 if not d12 or 2d6.

Well, you're not missing anything, except the greater issue. The discrepancy between weapon power damage and implement power damage isn't an avenger issue, it's a 4th edition issue. For whatever reason, 4e's designers thought weapons should have an inherent edge on damage--and a significant one at that. Actually, a d10 is pretty good for an implement power.

The [W] damage discrepancy is my biggest peeve about 4th edition, and I'm constantly bewildered why most folks don't see it, those who do see it don't comment on it often. The end result is that the designers aren't tasked to address it.

 

[Felon]

So I'm wondering how to create a balanced oath to compare with the melee-focused ones.

I really do not care if what I'm proposing is 'counter-intuitive to the feel of the Avenger' or what it might result in.

Me either. I have a crossbow-wielding vampire hunter mini that I think would make a perfect avenger--if avenger's had any incentive to use a crossbow.

 

[Storminator]

Me either. I have a crossbow-wielding vampire hunter mini that I think would make a perfect avenger--if avenger's had any incentive to use a crossbow.

What if you just refluffed all the ranged powers to crossbow powers?

PS

 

[Garthanos]

The [W] damage discrepancy is my biggest peeve about 4th edition, and I'm constantly bewildered why most folks don't see it, those who do see it don't comment on it often. The end result is that the designers aren't tasked to address it.

While I kind of liked Plane's idea in terms of ease of balance (basically giving an implement die and improved crit trailer for some implements and improved attack for the wand),

It breaks a flavor factor for me... for a warrior if you take away his sword he is a d4... if you take away the wand,staff or rod,dagger,power stone.... the wizard still does d8 d10 d6

Perhaps adding in a readily available and very cinematic disarmed condition could bring the idea back in to the play balance.

In my game world they have to go to special measures to disarm a mage.. perhaps that is also why mages always get a bonus on intimidate like they are armed to the teeth.

 

[hong]

Me either. I have a crossbow-wielding vampire hunter mini that I think would make a perfect avenger--if avenger's had any incentive to use a crossbow.

A flameburst crossbow is a great way to keep those pesky minions from spoiling your oath.