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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PrecociousApprentice" data-source="post: 4658767" data-attributes="member: 61449">I like the class a lot. This will be an interesting class to play with. That said, I don't think that this class should be considered complete. I would say that this has moved into the beta stage. You have a good start, it isn't falling apart, but it needs to be refined.One balance issue that I see is that there are a large number of powers that are attacks against non-AC defenses, and have th weapon keyword. That effectively means that they are about +2-3 verses other powers. This is huge. Other classes gain a few weapon attacks cs non-AC defenses, but they are rare. The same should be true of this class.I really like the concept, but there are several 4e conventions that are not observed. The fact observed above that you have encounter stances is not well balanced. A few things about balancing powers.Weapon attacks are vs AC, except for rare exceptionsSave end powers are only for dailiesStance is only for dailiesReliable is only for dailiesPowers do not gain any untyped bonuses except ofr rare exceptions, and these powers always give up significant damage to do so. This one is a convention that I think stinks. Bonuses should be rare, but they should be better than a melee basic attack. WotC doesn't observe this, and has created some stinker powers because of it.The last thing I would say is that the class should always be able to fill a consistent role, even if there is bleed over into other roles. A class that doesn't have a dominant role is most likely either doomed to be the 3e bard or the 3e CoDzilla or Wizard. Any of these cases is bad. Pick a role, build the class to fill that role, and then allow bleed over into the rest if you want.</blockquote>

Verification