Dr. Strangemonkey said:
How does it take away the flavor of ranged weapons?
If you don't see artifically limiting/extending the ranges of projectile/thrown weapons with the blanket Area burst formula as losing the flavor or ranged weapons I really can't debate this point because for me the range of a ranged weapon is part of its flavor.
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.
Trust me... I've looked that section (pg. 271-2) over quite a few times already and know about the use of ammo, that is not the problem with Area burst.
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.
Although it would add an extra line to each power I must admit as a designer it would be nice to use Area burst instead of Area volley, however the 4e Reference is specifically spelled out in the SRD as previously mentioned. Now do I think WotC will come after me if I publish the class with Area burst instead of Area volley. Probably not, however, any publisher I sell this idea to needs to have firm confidence that I have not left them open to legal action by WotC.
When good game design prinsiples and good business practices conflict... good business practices should win out.
As for other alternatives I have considered them and each of them has failed on some level. If you'd like to write an example of your ideal "Volley" keyword which does not alter, redefine, or define a 4e reference, then maybe I'll see how you've worked out all the business concerns with the GSL.
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.
The inherent advantage is that it does not mess with 4e References. It add a new term that is self-contained to the product but also works with existing rules because it is an "Area" attack and therefore falls under those rules. Now if there are feats and the like that specifically interact with area burst (as opposed to Area attacks), then I would worry about adding the Area volley but I have not seen any mechanics that specifically target Area bursts in particular and not Area attacks in general.
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.
Actually if you look at the Close attacks that have the Weapon keyword they all use the "Requirment line" (ex. Spray of Arrows Ranger Attack 9; Blinding Barrage Rogue Attack 1). In addition, I have yet to find any Area burst "Weapon" keyword powers in the same vein as the above. All of the AoE powers associated with ranged weapons are "Close" burst/blast attacks with short ranges.
If there was an actual Area burst in the PHB that also had a Weapon keyword and used a ranged weapon, then I'd be using it as my template. However, there aren't any that I've seen. If you do know of one, then please let me know as it'd save me a whole lot of time and energy
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.
I'd agree if they didn't include the formula as part of the SRD. If the formula wasn't there I'd go with Area burst, but it's there and so I'm not willing to risk putting a publisher at risk with WotC.
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.
I think you're missing the point:
Astral Storm does damage, that is it. Its initial effect does damage. Its zone does damage. It creates an "attacking" zone. Also none of the other Cleric Area burst prayers create a zone, they are also purely attack powers.
Auxiliary class exploits cause "non-attacking" zones, such as difficult terrain, slowing, causing penalties, etc. These zones do not make attack rolls, they simply have their effect on those within the zone.
You can see that the primary difference is that Cleric Area burst powers don't have non-attacking after-effects, whereas Auxiliary Area volley powers need to do so. In this case how does one determine ammo used? If you go with Area burst, then your use ammo = targets in the initial burst. This means for some strange reason you are creating a zone that affects non-targeted creatures without the expenditure of extra ammo (b/c ammo = targets; not creatures affected by a non-attacking effect).
However, this can be addressed by both a volley keyword or volley attack category and as previously mentioned is not the problem with Area bursts.
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.
As I said it is an option... I might just go with each enemy because its simplier and I prefer simplier. It just becomes a question of how nice is the "Each enemy" vs. "each creature"... is it worth a whole damage die? I would lean toward yes and at that point it makes the Auxiliary really low damage compared to the wizard. Still it might be the simpliest way to go.
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.
However, it should be pointed out that the Auxiliary has two effective feats that benefit a thrower (the weapon talents) and have no benefit while using a bow. I see this as part of the balancing of the class as a whole between those who are bowmen and throwers.
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.
This is one of the reasons why I'm leaning towards "each creature" or "each enemy." An alternative build would be to have "Each creature" at the heroic levels, a mix of the two at paragon, and "Each enemy" at epic so you have a steady increase in "accuracy" as the class levels and sacrificing a die of damage at the higher levels for "each enemy" is much less jarring (still would lag behind the wizard in damage dice, but it is a nice tradeoff).
