Martial Controller: Auxiliary (Version 0.11) -Updated Preview Character (Aug. 9th)

[jaldaen]

Auxilliary is awesome... It's practically perfect in every way.

Thanks for your comments and I think I'll be going with Auxiliary as the new class name exactly because it does all those things

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I don't know. there are a lot of elements I don't really follow about your counter-arguments. I'll just touch on the main points here:

* I don't understand your concern about what happens to the area of effect. The area of effect still applies. You have simply refused to apply the actual effect.

Alternately, you just do the opposite of what the cleric powers do and say the power targets a certain number of non-allies in the area, a number limited by ammunition use, or non-allies in general. Then no issue.

* Why is it a problem that you can't express the difference between thrown and ranged weapons? I don't understand how the Area Burst # within # squares formula is even at issue.

* My input on flexibility was simply that if you use a key word you get to say , Volley or , Volley which seems more flexible to me than simply having to say Volley.

* I'm interpreting the issue of keywords as not an extra step since you would have to read to see that keywords weren't there in the power in the first place, regardless of whether the keyword is there or not it is still a step in the process of interpreting a power. Just as if you live in an area that doesn't commonly use area codes when writing or dialing you still have to look to see if an area code is there. Removing the step in writing doesn't remove the step in reading.

* For me the whole issue of keyword vs new attack power really hinges on the issue of information management. Keywords are an expectation of power write-ups associated with either the classes themselves or the class section. Attack powers aren't. I don't really believe that WotC avoided creating this attack mode because they saw no need. Rather I think the symmetry of the modes they have and they way they line up with the DDM indicates that they really wanted to keep that area limited. They have a whole system of special symbols for attacks for the love of Pete, which Volley attacks don't belong to, and they clearly want to shortcut this area. Volley attacks can't just become + . Even if they were just going by the seat of their pants early in the design process the number of attacks is certainly codified now. Making it a keyword and keeping it within the structure of either , , or keeps it simple from my perspective as a reader, consumer, and judge. That may not be so simple for you from your perspective as a writer, and I respect that, but I also respect the inherent elegance and completeness of the combat section and that as written it really works for me as reader as a stable part of the system. Someone reads: , Volley they already know they have a lot of information on the attack cause they know what Close Burst is and they know the other word is a keyword and that they occassionally have to look keywords up. Someone reads or hears: Volley they don't know that they know anything. It's true the former example is less simple on the face of it, but the latter example works off the principle that familiarity is less than or equal to simplicity. Space on the page isn't nearly as important as using already developed space in the head.

Not saying this to convince you at this point, since you're clearly working off of different considerations, just to explain why I feel so strongly about it since I'm a firm believer in user centered design when it comes to technical writing.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Thanks for your comments and I think I'll be going with Auxiliary as the new class name exactly because it does all those things

Yay!

 

[jaldaen]

I don't understand your concern about what happens to the area of effect. The area of effect still applies. You have simply refused to apply the actual effect.

The thing is that if a burst causes a constant effect AoE, then how could you not target all creatures in it. Unless you would say in the power that only "enemies" are affected by the constant effect (difficult terrain, slowing, etc.). This is a possibility, but I'll have to think about its ramifications.

Alternately, you just do the opposite of what the cleric powers do and say the power targets a certain number of non-allies in the area, a number limited by ammunition use, or non-allies in general. Then no issue.

This is a possibility I just thought of and it is something I'll have to ponder.

Another possibility I'm considering is that the burst Or whatever I use targets enemies within normal range and creatures at long range.

Why is it a problem that you can't express the difference between thrown and ranged weapons? I don't understand how the Area Burst # within # squares formula is even at issue.

Thrown and ranged projectile weapons have vastly different ranges... so a Area burst 1 within 20 squares extends the effective range of thrown weapons and decreases the range of projectile weapons. That is the problem I'm refering to... although again if I added two range options (one for projectile and one for range), then it might work. However, this makes me wonder how complicated this would make each power's range entry.

My input on flexibility was simply that if you use a key word you get to say , Volley or , Volley which seems more flexible to me than simply having to say Volley.

As mentioned above the concept of a Ranged volley is out b/c of the restriction on Ranged attack creating AoEs in the rules. So a keyword will probably be the best choice (besides making a completely new attack category).

have to head out so I'll leave your other points for another time

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Thrown and ranged projectile weapons have vastly different ranges... so a Area burst 1 within 20 squares extends the effective range of thrown weapons and decreases the range of projectile weapons. That is the problem I'm refering to... although again if I added two range options (one for projectile and one for range), then it might work. However, this makes me wonder how complicated this would make each power's range entry.

Uh, I get it. I thought it was an issue with area, range makes much more sense.

How does the rogue handle this?

 

[jaldaen]

Uh, I get it. I thought it was an issue with area, range makes much more sense.

I was speaking of "Area burst" and its range issue, rather than Area attacks in general. In fact the only way I see the class working is to create an "Area volley" attack with the appropriate rules for how to create ranged weapon-based AoEs, since "Ranged" attacks cannot create AoEs according to the 4e RAW.

How does the rogue handle this?

He doesn't, his AoE effects are all close burst/blast (which works for close ranged AoEs with ranged weapons, but not with long range, burst-like effects). Which don't have the range or origin issues that Area bursts have.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

What do you see as at stake in creating variable ranges for the Area effect powers?

Even if you have to set a max range for those powers at the outer limits of thrown weapons it makes sense to me thematically and in terms of the tactical requirements of the class. So what if it buffs thrown and disadvantages mechanical weapons? The one needs the buff to be effective and the other needs to not be able to do area attacks at max range.

Also, take note of the definition of the requirement keyword ranged weapon. It explicitly limits the range of the power to that of the required ranged weapon without making any commentary on the applicability of OAs or the attack mode used.

I also don't know if I see the contradiction between ranged attacks and area attacks. Naturally, you can't have a ranged attack that is also an area attack since there's no way to combine two categories of attack. But why would you want to? The two attack types are duplicates except for the issue of how they target, so if you want to use one target system or the other you just substitute one power type over the other. Am I missing something here?

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Wait, I'm going to investigate the very real possibility that we're being obtuse:

At Will * Martial, Weapon, Volley
Standard Action Area 1 square within weapon range
Requirement: You Must be wielding a ranged weapon.
Target: each enemy within burst


Doesn't change the definition of anything. Just replaces one variable in the formula - '#' where '#' is to be determined by author of power - with another variable 'weapon range' where 'weapon range' is determined by the author of the power to be equal to the range of the weapon the player has chosen to fulfill the ranged weapon requirement.

The each enemy within burst bit is from Astral Storm Cleric Attack Power 29, which creates and sustains a zone as part of an area attack.

We don't even need to write friend/foe recognition into the Volley keyword.

 

[jaldaen]

Wait, I'm going to investigate the very real possibility that we're being obtuse:

At Will * Martial, Weapon, Volley
Standard Action Area 1 square within weapon range
Requirement: You Must be wielding a ranged weapon.
Target: each enemy within burst

Actually if you were to write this up it would say:

At Will * Martial, Weapon, Volley
Standard Action Area burst 1 within [#] squares*
Requirement: You Must be wielding a ranged weapon.
Target: Each enemy in burst

*This is b/c Area burst is defined in the SRD as "Area burst [#] within [#] squares." As a mentioned before in the Volly keyword you could say "insert the ranged weapon's long range" and even have a preset maximum range, like 20. However, this seems to take away some of the flavor of ranged weapons.

Now compare this with:

At Will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Area volley 1 within weapon range
Target: Each enemy in volley (or alternatively: Each enemy in normal range, each creature in long range)

The latter cuts out the Requirement line (b/c it is assumed in the Area volley attack's description); it also does not have any issues with redefining a 4e Reference (i.e. Area burst formula).

Doesn't change the definition of anything. Just replaces one variable in the formula - '#' where '#' is to be determined by author of power - with another variable 'weapon range' where 'weapon range' is determined by the author of the power to be equal to the range of the weapon the player has chosen to fulfill the ranged weapon requirement.

The thing is that the Area burst formula is part of the 4e Reference in the SRD and thereby cannot be changed.

The each enemy within burst bit is from Astral Storm Cleric Attack Power 29, which creates and sustains a zone as part of an area attack.

The thing is that the stormy zone does not affect allies... it is purely an attack zone. Still it is something I will consider, though its probably worth pointing out that it's a 29th level power

We don't even need to write friend/foe recognition into the Volley keyword.

That is another option. Alternately, you could build it into the normal/long range as I mentioned above. Normal ranged attacks target enemies, while long range one's target creatures. This gives the class another reason to stick close to the front lines (and also makes sense).

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Actually if you were to write this up it would say:

At Will * Martial, Weapon, Volley
Standard Action Area burst 1 within [#] squares*
Requirement: You Must be wielding a ranged weapon.
Target: Each enemy in burst

*This is b/c Area burst is defined in the SRD as "Area burst [#] within [#] squares." As a mentioned before in the Volly keyword you could say "insert the ranged weapon's long range" and even have a preset maximum range, like 20. However, this seems to take away some of the flavor of ranged weapons.

How does it take away the flavor of ranged weapons?

Also, you should take a look at the definition of area attacks in the combat section of the PHB, I think it's page 170?, it explicitly includes rules for use of ammunition when a ranged weapon is a necessary part of the power.

Now compare this with:

At Will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Area volley 1 within weapon range
Target: Each enemy in volley (or alternatively: Each enemy in normal range, each creature in long range)

The latter cuts out the Requirement line (b/c it is assumed in the Area volley attack's description); it also does not have any issues with redefining a 4e Reference (i.e. Area burst formula).

What we have here is a failure to communicate about a basic principle of good writing. On a basic level it does have a major 4E reference problem because you just introduced a term to an area that had previously been limited. For me there simply can't be a comparison. Introducing a new term at a point in the syntax that is clearly limited as opposed to expansive is a bad move writing-wise. There can be good reasons to make such a move, but I'm going to be inclined to resist it until all other options are exhausted.

I mean, it's clearly your choice, but I'm really unlikely to be persuaded that there's an inherent advantage to this tactic. It might be a necessity, but it's not a necessity I'm seeing. I'd sooner loose flavor than complicate the basic structure of the rules unnecessarily.

On a different note, technically the requirement line would be cut out by the Weapon keyword, but I think in terms of readability you would include the requirement line regardless. If there's any required limitation to the power that isn't strictly delineated by the weapon or implement keywords you probably want it in the power write up rather than implied.

The thing is that the Area burst formula is part of the 4e Reference in the SRD and thereby cannot be changed.

I'll have to look at where in the SRD it occurs, but given the write up of areas in the combat section I have my doubts that introducing a term rather than a number into the variable section of the formula represents a violation of the definition.

The thing is that the stormy zone does not affect allies... it is purely an attack zone. Still it is something I will consider, though its probably worth pointing out that it's a 29th level power

What power are you considering that needs friend/foe recognition and is not an attack power?

The term shows up in cleric burst powers a lot earlier than 29th level. I picked that one cause it's impressive, it gives the argument weight that it's not unbalancing at that level of power.

That is another option. Alternately, you could build it into the normal/long range as I mentioned above. Normal ranged attacks target enemies, while long range one's target creatures. This gives the class another reason to stick close to the front lines (and also makes sense).

Hmm. I'm going to make the call that sense doesn't enter it. At the point where you have an individual crossbowmen mimicking a firing formation by laying down effective arcing fire you're way beyond the boundaries of sense. I'm certainly comfortable with this level of fantasy, but I'm not going to ascribe greater realism to one method over the other.

It seems a bit inelegant. At the point where you want to differentiate the effects for range and long range it just seems like you'd be better off using the normal area attack formula since you've gone from not wanting to favor thrown or mechanical to penalizing them at different ranges.

It also really hurts the thrown specialist since her long range is likely to include allies where the mechanical specialist is unlikely to have any allies in her long range for at least the first couple of rounds of combat.