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

[jaldaen]

Jaldaen: I like the concept, and the powers seem to work. There's a few quibbles with the damage for some of the attacks, but that can wait for the consolation prize from your "backorder sweepstakes" .

Thanks for your interest in the Harrier!

It'll be interesting to see what your quibbles (btw... nice use of the word!) are as now that I have the PHB I have a better idea of #[W] each encounter and daily should have and what status effects count as -1[W] when determining a power's damage.

For example, dazed counts a -1[W], as does immobilized, weakened, ongoing 5, and other similarly potent statuses.

Also non-wizards (i.e. controllers) who attack multiple targets with a power suffer a -1[W] when compared to wizard AoE powers.

 

[malcolm_n]

general reply to let you know I'm still here for play/beta testing

 

[jaldaen]

general reply to let you know I'm still here for play/beta testing

I should have something for you soon

 

[jaldaen]

Posted Harrier version 0.05

Major changes to everything! Too many to detail here, however I am pleased with the overall class at least through the heroic levels. I still have to see how it'll work in Paragon and Epic levels, but seeing as the Ranger can do it (i.e. ranged attacks) and still be a martial striker... I think I might be able to pull the martial controller off. However, his control will be very different from that of the Wizard. He'll be depending on soft control vs. hard control to offset this the Harrier will be the best "reactive/interruptive" class via increased Immediate actions.

We shall have to see though how effective it is in actual play... which is where you all come in. I would really appreciate all the feedback I can get from the preview character and in addition, I'd love to have a few more play testers (just email me your addy and I'll send you the NDA). Thanks for all your help!

If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions concerning the Harrier, then just let me know

 

[jaldaen]

For those reading this thread...

Which do you think is the better "volley" technique: based on bursts (as it currently is written) or blasts (with the exception that you choose an origin square other then yourself and the effect pushes away from you).

Also any other comments, questions, or suggestions for the class? Thanks

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I been thinking about it and I'm wondering if maybe the best solution for Volley is just to say that powers with the Volley keyword figure cover for targets from the user regardless of the point of origin and cost ammunition equal to the number of attacks made by the user.

That way it's not a new effect it's just a new modifier. One you can use with any effect you choose for the power.

 

[jaldaen]

I been thinking about it and I'm wondering if maybe the best solution for Volley is just to say that powers with the Volley keyword figure cover for targets from the user regardless of the point of origin and cost ammunition equal to the number of attacks made by the user.

I think I'm good with volley's essentially being bursts that determine cover from the user.

I'm still debating the ammunition use, especially with regard to "ongoing effects" that target an area.

One thing I'm thinking of doing is allow all volleys to be shrunk down, volley 2 can become a volley 1, if the user does not want to use the extra ammunition. I'm even considering volley 1's being shrinkable to 1 square and only costing 1 ammo. This would allow for a lot more flexibility then Wizards, but the Harriers have ammo to worry about, which Wizards do not have to worry about at all when it comes to controlling.

That way it's not a new effect it's just a new modifier. One you can use with any effect you choose for the power.

It would be nice for simplicity's sake, but I think the ammo and friend/foe difference are nice twists for volley's versus bursts. Still I'll have to ponder how much is too much. Perhaps I'll go with your suggestion, but I think volley's need something to make up for determining cover from the user's position, the fact that it uses ammo, and costs the Harrier's weapon proficiency bonus all of which are "drawbacks" to the volley keyword (sorry for the pun). So I guess what I'm trying to say is I'd like 2-3 minor benefits to offset these drawbacks. These are the options I have thought of thus far:

1) Variable AoE (with cap) and ammo use
2) Attack Fort/Ref/Will of enemies; AC of Allies

However, there might be other ways of addressing these drawbacks and I'd be open to hearing them

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

You could keep the friend-foe distinction.

Class Feature:

Powers that use the Volley key word have the following features:

1.) Cover for targets effected by the power is determined from the user rather than the point of origin.

2.) Users deplete their ammunition for each target attacked by the power.

3.) Users may refuse to target a creature that would otherwise be affected by the power.

If you just use it as a key word you don't have to define a separate type of attack phenomena and you can use it with bursts or blasts at your leisure.

 

[jaldaen]

If you just use it as a key word you don't have to define a separate type of attack phenomena and you can use it with bursts or blasts at your leisure.

Nice suggestions... the question is whether or not a keyword (like conjuration, stance), or a defined attack (like ranged, close burst/blast, burst) is better. I am leaning towards defined attack because it is an attack that works differently than a burst or blast. Still some of your suggestions might be easier to use whether I go with a keyword or defined attack type.

So really the question is which is simpler:

Keyword:

At-Will Martial, Volley, Weapon
Standard Action Ranged burst 1 within weapon range
Target: Each creature in burst

Or Defined Attack:

At-Will Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Ranged volley 1 within weapon range
Target: Each creature in volley

I am leaning towards the latter because it is clearer that something different is going on in the attack at first glance and it is harder to miss the "volley" reference.

 

[jaldaen]

3.) Users may refuse to target a creature that would otherwise be affected by the power.

If this is built into the volley mechanic, then how would that interact with volleys that have ongoing zones of effect? Would it be better to say "Users may refuse to target a square that would otherwise be affected by the power"? That might work, but then you have to explain what happens with ongoing or sustained zones, etc...

The question is: Is the added flexibility worth the added complexity of design... perhaps it is... but I try to KIS (Keep It Simple) as much as possible and that seems to be a 4e design concept too.