True, but within that definition you do not attack individual squares. You make attacks against targets within those squares. Volley enables you to refuse an attack.
Right... but I am also concerned with the zones created by an Area attack. If you can omit a particular target from an Area burst, then the question of what happens to the zone effect in that square needs to be asked.
I don't think this is the best interpretation of the GSL, since a keyword adds to the applicability of a power which is explicitly allowed under the GSL.
Also, this is a feature. I think you want to use the attack schematics already used by every other power in the game. It makes it easier to have these powers interact with standard adventure design.
I agree keywords add flexibility, but the problem I see is that the "Area burst [#] within [#] squares" is something that cannot be redesigned, which means there is no difference between how one would express the power when using projectile or thrown weapons. Sure you could add a requirment for certain long range powers, but then you have to start designing thrown weapon/projectile weapon only powers and adding "Requirments" to powers. If the expression of Area burst was not defined in this way it might work. In addition, the volley keyword would have to be just as long as the volley attack entry because it would have to explain how weapons work with the Area burst.
A.) Keywords are already a part of most powers so this doesn't represent an extra step in the sum total intepretation of a power.
Actually keywords are add-ons to powers and mechanical ones do add an extra, exceptions-based step to the power reading process, especially when we are talking about an exception-based attack type that will be in almost every one of the class' powers.
I just think its much cleaner design-wise to not confuse the issue with Volley keyword and "Area burst..." attack when I can just have "Ranged volley..." and be done with it.
B.) Creating a new attack adds a whole new range of choices since attack modes seem to be one of the key 'limited' choice ranges in the grammar of powers.
Or WotC choose to KIS for the Core Books and not add a Ranged weapon AoE attack because they didn't need one since there were no martial controllers and thus no need for a Ranged AoE.
Further, in terms of use of reference, attack modes are defined in the combat rules section, the begining of the character rules section, and at every point where the grammar of powers is described.
The thing is that as a 4e supplement anyone who has access to the class will also have access to its new keywords and new attack type definitions.
Keywords, on the other hand, are described in each class section to which they are relevant. Even where those keywords - such as implement - are repeated in multiple classes.
Actually I did not see in the classes where specific keywords other than Implement are explained. Healing Lore for clerics mentions the "Healing" keyword, but only in order to explain adding your Wisdom mod. It does not define Healing or Radiant at all.
Developing a new keyword for a class represnts much less of a challenge in terms of the overall information structure of the manuals than futzing around with the overall tight structure of the combat rules. Someone wants to know what a keyword is that someone looks at the relevant class description. They want to know what an attack mode is and they look at the combat section, which is something it's going to be a lot harder for us to rewrite.
Actually as I just mentioned above other than Implements the other keywords are defined outside of each class (at the beginning of the class chapter). Since the Harrier class would be self contained and include all the necessary keywords and attack types it shouldn't be a problem. In addition, no matter if its a keyword or an attack type both will require reference outside the PHB so that is a wash for me.
Even if, in terms of the straight application of the class, the keyword represents an extra step. But you don't want to simplify a class by getting rid of established steps, that's like getting rid of a direct object in a sentence by making it a suffix to the verb. It may simplify the structure of the sentence, but it actually complicates the grammar.
However, I'm not getting rid of an established step. I'm creating an alternate step for Ranged attacks to take.
The OA system keys off of attack modes. It isn't ranged attacks and ranged area attacks provoke OA, it's OA's are provoked by the following kinds of attacks: Ranged attacks, area attacks.
I think I said that
You make a new kind of attack and you have to define how it works in terms of that system and every other system that keys off of specific attack modes. Which may be simple from the perspective of straight up writing, but is nasty in terms of document design.
Actually as a "Ranged" volley it would provoke OAs by the mere fact that it uses Ranged at the beginning because that is what OAs key off of, not what follows.
Well, but for me part of the feel of a ranged weapon is that you should have some choice in how you use it. Making volley a keyword let's you choose between area burst or close burst in terms of writing your powers.
That's one of the reasons why I have close burst powers mixed into the Harrier as is and in addition I have the close quarters zontrol zone to help out with enemies who get too close.
In addition, it would be odd to have a power that can switch between Area burst and close burst because one provokes OAs and the other doesn't. You might want flexibility but if the powers are too flexibile then they become auto-picks for multiclassing.
Unless you just meant powers in general falling into the two categories... in that case I agree having both OA proking and non-provoking powers available is a must for a controller.
Now you can make powers that still the ranged weapon but don't provoke OAs since they are Close Burst powers.
Actually I could already do that without worrying about Area bursts... they are not married concepts
I do think that keywords the modify the applicability of a prior term rather than the prior term itself are both allowable and sort of the point. Making classes that couldn't modify the applicability of the attack modes would be largely impossible. Making classes with their powers and the accompanying modifiying keywords is clearly something WotC wants you to be able to do.
I think you're right on this point, but my only concern is 1) not redefining 4e References (which means the Area burst would have to read: Area burst [#] within [#] squares; 2) ease of use. The first one is a major negative in the Area burst column because how doe you work in weapon range to that equation.
I suppose you could do the following:
Area burst [1,2, or 3] within # squares
With the Volley keyword saying something to the effect of:
When reading "within # squares" insert the maximum range of the weapon you are using to create the Area burst as the "#."
However, that seems odd and clunky compared to saying:
Ranged volley [1,2, or 3] within weapon range
The only real problem with "volley" is it might be a term that is later defined by WotC as a 4e reference, however since this would probably be a pdf product I could always change it when that happens and it'll be consistent for anyone purchasing the product.
Anyway, I have a game starting where i'm gonna cameo a harrier (until the name changes) and see how it goes.
