Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cyvris" data-source="post: 6982404" data-attributes="member: 81262">First, thanks for the direct review and feedback, it's the actual crunch these needed to help beat it into shape. Now then, sure dead is nice, but that status won't be imposed immediately. Combat is going to last at least a few rounds. Getting direct tactical options outside of that make each round more engaging. Some players don't like that and it's fine. Limiting such tactical thought to casters isn't the way to go though. If they can slow someone down with magic or push them around, the Fighter with a massive sword should be able to do the same.I'll admit there is a great deal of "kludge" there. I've gone back and forth between allowing class abilities with them and not. For the most part it probably wouldn't break that many things to let things like "Smite" be used with this, but at the same time I wanted to prevent the Ranger from using two of these when attacking with things like Horde Breaker. Wording like "target" and "attack speed" were mostly to have them match how spells are written, though that wording could be cleaned up. Honestly as a DM I have no issue with players using techniques or abilities like these against inanimate objects. My 4e group once had a sci-fi game where "Ray of Frost" was used to freeze a cyanide tooth so the NPC that had been taken prisoner couldn't use it. Using abilities in inventive ways is always the best. Sure "locking" the design space of an "attack" down can be bad at times, yet Spells have always been VERY specifically worded, so I think some specific vs general abilities for Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues is fine as long as the whole table agrees.Short fix-casters now add ability score to damage, monsters get a minor HP bump. Buff everyone, don't nerf. I do like the suggestion of forgoing ability mod to deal additional damage, and think either could work. The damage scaling is funky, I agree. I couldn't word things correctly, so just slapped a static increase on it. Something like "deal an additional weapon dice of damage" might work, but the wording need to be tight. The direct break down of each power is helpful, especially catches on things like "square". I'll review the powers, trashing some of the extra damage ones for more effects. Some of those were pulled from when this was separate techniques for each class, and most of the damage ones come from the Barbarian specifically. Ardent Shield was a similar technique and one I just didn't want to toss out. Sure it channels a bit from WoW and Captain America, but it just seems to "fit" the Paladin. Been toying with an Oath that gets "Divine Challenge" from 4e, so maybe those will get lumped together. The idea was these would fill the gap of "at-will" vs Battlemaster's "encounter" attacks. They certainly step on its toes, but don't gain superiority dice so are decently weaker. The original draft had a great deal of the 4e Warlord split between the Fighter and Ranger, which is an archetype it would be nice to see return in force. Again, I'm going to play around with eliminating the extra damage and focus more on effects. These are certainly powerful, but that is half my intent. The recent SCAG cantrips really step on the toes of Martial characters and how that something like that COULD be done pretty easily. Paladin Cantrips (and more for the Cleric) is something I've wanted for awhile. This seemed the best way to backdoor them in, but now I like the idea of an Oath. Indeed, I'm now almost toying with the idea of taking these Techniques and Superiority Dice and making Archetypes for all of these classes that hew closer to a 4e set up. The Knight brought back Marking so it wouldn't be that much of a stretch.</blockquote>

Verification