Marksman - Martial Controller

[inkpenavenger]

I don't have the class fully developed yet, but here are some bullet points of the classes features:

• Key Abilities: Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence
• Build Options: Accuracy Marksman, Devastating Marksman
• Covering Fire: player selects a number of squares within line of sight and weapon range equal to her INT modifier. she can make ranged opportunity attacks against enemies who enter said sqaures.
• Power Themes: Most powers require ranged or light thrown weapons. "Accuracy Build" powers add INT mod to attack rolls, "Devastating Build" powers add STR mod to damage rolls. Mnay powers would require specific circumstances.
• Class Drawback: players would probably have to buy even more ammunition and throwing weapons than even an Archer Ranger.

Let me know what you think of this class idea, and any ideas for powers that might pop into your head!

Thanks!
-inkpenavenger

 

[TheLordWinter]

I really like the idea of this. How about having an ability that will allow characters to recover arrows after a battle? Also, in regards to the magic thrown weapons, those will automatically return to the thrower's hand. I'd be very curious to see what you work up for the powers!

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Well, flavorwise, a marksman screams 'Striker'.

A controller should be more something like Grenadier.

Visually, it might be better to rely on explosive arrows, grenades, gas bomb and the like then on spamming the battlefield really fast with standard missiles. Probably make him a bit of an alchemist in the process and explain that a lots of his power derive from his combination of alchemy with his ranged weapons.

I know a handful of classes have a handful of powers that allow them to fire more than one projectile in a round and surely your calss could use a few. But a class that does this for a living, basically shooting upward of a quiver in five rounds? I anticipate the snickers and references to cartoon characters from the players. Have you ever seen Hawk the slayer? Because I'm thinking of an elf with ugly plastic ears and a one armed crossbowman right now...

 

[inkpenavenger]

Well, I'm building this class for a GSL product I'm developing. So, until the SRD gets updated with content from ADVENTURER'S VAULT, I can't use the alchemy rules. I probably should have mentioned that in the original post.

It would be the most beneficial to me, if any suggestions were kept within the boundries of being derived from the core rulebooks.

I think I have the at-wills worked out

Certain Strike: + INT to attack roll, 1[W] dmg
Strong Strike: 1[W] + DEX + STR dmg
Flurry Strike: # of attacks equal to 1+INT, 1[W] dmg
Marksman's Mark: DEX dmg, target is marked

 

[Tinq]

It's a ranged-focused class without DEX being a focus ability.Huh?Why INT? Why not DEX? That just seems like a logical choice.I'm not trying to be rude, but unless you can expand upon that I'd like to know how that's supposed to work.

 

[inkpenavenger]

Key Abilities: Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence

Not meaning to be rude either

 

[TheLordWinter]

It's a ranged-focused class without DEX being a focus ability.Huh?Why INT? Why not DEX? That just seems like a logical choice.I'm not trying to be rude, but unless you can expand upon that I'd like to know how that's supposed to work.

In the blurb, it mentioned Dexterity as the primary ability of the class and strength and intelligence as secondary abilities.

Also Mal, none of that was really constructive. Plus, why should the class use all manner of alchemy and grenades if it's not the author's intention? That really makes no sense - please try to consider what the author is trying to do before attempting to stomp all over it.

I would try and avoid the - well, let's say rut, that Wizards falls into with naming convention. If "Strike" doesn't have any kind of meritorious factors about it (Like feats or such that modify attacks that are "Strikes" or "Smites" or what have you), then why not go with more inventive names? Perhaps instead of "Certain Strike," something along the lines of "Certain Aim." Just throwing that out there, and probably just the English Major in me griping about lack of variety in the naming conventions.
As for the actual powers, I like Certain Strike and Strong Strike. I worry that Marksman's Mark might step on the toes of Defenders a bit - a controller shouldn't necessarily be able to mark with an at-will. My gut says flurry strike is overpowered, but then the wizard can hit up to 9 people with a an area burst 1. Perhaps change it up so that it must be a burst 1 or something like this? That way the DM can still use minions by spreading them out and forcing the Marksman to choose where the arrows fall.

 

[cmbarona]

Perhaps "Marksman's Mark," rather than "marking" in the sense of the condition by the same name, should be something more along the lines of allowing the Marksman to fire as an immediate rection if the target doesn't move by the end of its turn?

 

[inkpenavenger]

yeah, now that i think about it, marking a foe wouldn't be very useful to the Marksman if he's not close enough to it to get the benefits. I'll be revising that one. The names are just placeholders right now, though. Thanks for the suggestions!

Keep 'em coming. Feedback from gamers is very helpful (obviously or WotC wouldn't be using its D&DI subscribers as playtesters)

 

[cmbarona]

If this will be your own GSL product, can you make ranged weapons produce their own ammunition? I know we're shying away from Adventurer's Vault, but something similar to an Endless Quiver as a 1st-level magical item could be very useful.