|
4 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2008 - 3:07PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
This is frickin' awesome! I'll have to give it a good read over later, but I really like how you did the powers. Very thematic.
Glad you like! When you give it the "good read", make sure you look at the powers in the "Revision Workspace" post, because that's where I'm trying to head with it.
Would you mind if I borrow some of these ideas for my own familiar homebrew 
Of course not, that's why it's posted! Keep me in the loop so I can steal things back, though ; I do intend to finish this specific pact, but my ultimate goal is to generalize this even further into being a multi-class only class like the Spellscarred from FRPG. That way, any class could have an animal companion if they wanted one.
EDIT: Actually, I just noticed from your signature that you're the author of some "familiar" material I was already planning on raiding ;-) Perhaps I'll finish up the beastlock, wait for you to finish up your implementation, then sort of merge the two for making my familiar multiclass (I'm pretty sold on that being the "correct" mechanic for familiars, given that WotC's first beast implementation is intrinsic to a class - I've seen feat-based versions that I'm not really sold on).
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2008 - 9:58PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
Major feats overhaul, thanks principally to Fireclave and Mouthymerc.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 16, 2008 - 5:57PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
Completed overhaul of all heroic tier powers (see second post). They should be much more flavorful and less derivative of existing powers. Of course, that makes them more subject to balance criticisms, which I would welcome.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jan 23, 2009 - 6:49AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2009
|
First off: good work, well written, and appealing design. I particularly appreciate it when folks explain their reasoning behind design choices, and your side-by-side analysis of the beastmaster ranger and proposed warlock build is a model essay. Second: I wonder about this clause in the at-will attack:
If the target begins its next turn adjacent to your familiar [b]and moves nearer to you on its next turn, the target takes 1[b] damage.[/quote]
Perhaps it's personal taste, but the double-requirement strikes me as a little more... stringent than the other pacts' clauses. Is there another way, a one-step clause, to provoke the extra damage? What about something like: if the target ends its next turn adjacent to your familiar, it takes 1[b] damage. Suddenly, the familiar is a threat the target wants to get away from, and the beast pact warlock has a pretty unique schtick chasing targets around the battlefield. I don't think it treads too heavily on the toes of controllers, though there's probably synergy with defender marks that I'm overlooking.
Anyhow, just an idea. I really like what you're doing here.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jan 23, 2009 - 9:34AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
First off: good work, well written, and appealing design. I particularly appreciate it when folks explain their reasoning behind design choices, and your side-by-side analysis of the beastmaster ranger and proposed warlock build is a model essay.
Thanks for the props!
Second: I wonder about this clause in the at-will attack:
Perhaps it's personal taste, but the double-requirement strikes me as a little more... stringent than the other pacts' clauses. Is there another way, a one-step clause, to provoke the extra damage? What about something like: if the target ends its next turn adjacent to your familiar, it takes 1[b] damage. Suddenly, the familiar is a threat the target wants to get away from, and the beast pact warlock has a pretty unique schtick chasing targets around the battlefield. I don't think it treads too heavily on the toes of controllers, though there's probably synergy with defender marks that I'm overlooking.
Brilliant! I love the unique flavor you describe, with the beast chasing your enemies around. It also adds an additional "stay the hell away from us!" flavor. And you have to use clever positioning to ensure the enemy runs away from instead of towards you.
What do you think about the idea of the power sustaining until the enemy ends a turn not adjacent to the beast? Overpowered? Basically, they accept autodamage every turn until they get away, or you decide to use the power on another target.
I should also warn you, before you decide to play (or encourage someone else to play) this class, that I am unlikely to fill out the remaining levels any time soon. I went with another character concept for the game I play in, which would mean filling the class out would be a lot of work for little personal reward. I would love to incorporate the work of others into this, however, and would give bountiful credit to anyone who contributed.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jan 23, 2009 - 10:42AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2009
|
What do you think about the idea of the power sustaining until the enemy ends a turn not adjacent to the beast? Overpowered? Basically, they accept autodamage every turn until they get away, or you decide to use the power on another target.
Hmm... a sustainable at-will sounds a little bit powerful. Also, if the target avoids damage by staying next to the beast, that’s going to make the beast very sticky. The two problems I see with that are:
- The target will have more opportunity and motivation to attack the beast, which even when it’s fresh won’t be overflowing with hit points and surges.
- That stickiness and tendency to draw fire will tread on the toes of marking defenders.
As you already observed, if the target has to move away from the beast, there’s still the chance that the target will end up in an advantageous position re: the warlock. What the “repelling” option does is force the target to choose between giving up a good position or taking the extra damage. Of course, if the target is caught between the warlock’s beast and a fighter, moving is going to be a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dilemma… which to me sounds like good teamwork. EDIT: I may have misinterpreted your meaning. You were suggesting something like: once the initial at-will hits, that extra damage clause kicks in turn after turn as long as the beast follows the target around. Yeah, that's still probably a bit too long-lasting for an at-will attack. I should also warn you, before you decide to play (or encourage someone else to play) this class, that I am unlikely to fill out the remaining levels any time soon.
No worries-- at the very least, what you've got here is inspiring enough.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jan 23, 2009 - 11:08AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
EDIT: I may have misinterpreted your meaning. You were suggesting something like: once the initial at-will hits, that extra damage clause kicks in turn after turn as long as the beast follows the target around. Yeah, that's still probably a bit too long-lasting for an at-will attack.
Closer, but still not quite.
My wording was perhaps unclear. When the enemy's turn ends, one of two things will happen:
- Your beast is not adjacent to them, in which case nothing happens and the ongoing effect ends.
- Your beast is adjacent to them, in which case they take 1[b] and the effect sustains.
So it is not up to you or your beast how long the effect sustains; it is up to the enemy. They can end the effect at any time, including their very next turn, by shifting or otherwise taking a move action away from your beast. It's kind of like forced movement, except the victim gets to decide where they move, or can forgo the movement at the low price of 1[b].
|
|
|
