Maybe I read too much Eberron, but does anyone else feel a little bit like they took some of the 3.5 Artificer's thunder? The ability to imbue weapons with power on the fly seemed like a really strongly Artificer-Related power.
---------------
Hmm... I forsee questions about this Inevitable Shot power in the future:
Effect: You make a ranged basic attack against an enemy within 5 squares of the creature you missed, using that creature’s space as the attack’s origin square.
Notice that it doesn't say you must target a different creature. So we can just retarget the same creature again?
Maybe I read too much Eberron, but does anyone else feel a little bit like they took some of the 3.5 Artificer's thunder? The ability to imbue weapons with power on the fly seemed like a really strongly Artificer-Related power.
"If a power source and a role appear as key, defining traits in your opening statement, then you’re probably in trouble. Sure, a martial controller might be an interesting idea, but people don’t play D&D to explore the intersection of a role with a power source. They want interesting characters, not labels arranged in a new order!"
From the seeker article:
"Robert J. Schwalb: For the Player’s Handbook 3, we wanted to expand the family of primal classes to include a new controller."
Do these guys even talk?
From last month's design and development article:"If a power source and a role appear as key,defining traits in your opening statement, then you’reprobably in trouble. Sure, a martial controller mightbe an interesting idea, but people don’t play
That's not the kind of opening statement they're talking about. The closest thing we see to that is at the top of the statblock, “I am the lightning strike, the earth’s upheaval, the unruly sea. I am the bringer of your destruction.”
EDIT: Never mind, completely misinterpreted a post. Nothing to see here.
That's not the kind of opening statement they're talking about. The closest thing we see to that is at the top of the statblock, “I am the lightning strike, the earth’s upheaval, the unruly sea. I am the bringer of your destruction.”
"If a power source and a role appear as key, defining traits in your opening statement, then you’re probably in trouble. Sure, a martial controller might be an interesting idea, but people don’t play D&D to explore the intersection of a role with a power source. They want interesting characters, not labels arranged in a new order!"
From the seeker article:
"Robert J. Schwalb: For the Player’s Handbook 3, we wanted to expand the family of primal classes to include a new controller."
Do these guys even talk?
I actually talk a little bit about that in the commentary on the seeker. While we brainstorm and think about things like the martial power source controller and other purely gamist confluences, we will not design one just to design one or to fill a perceived rules niche. When the seeker was brought forward it was a primal controller it had a good and natural game and story hook; one that has been around the D&D game since the beginning, just with different names.
I actually talk a little bit about that in the commentary on the seeker. While we brainstorm and think about things like the martial power source controller and other purely gamist confluences, we will not design one just to design one or to fill a p
i don't know how anyone might take this, but it seems like newer classes are getting progressively "cooler".
it seems like, "what would be an existing class, but cooler?"
"rogue would be so much cooler as an assassin!" and "the ranger really should have been primal powered like a mystic hunter, let's make that next!"
"awesome"
maybe that's unfair, but i suspect that part of what breaks down the balance of classes is that initial efforts represent a good number of classic stuff, but then the later stuff gets into the progressively cooler and more awesome stuff. it would require a reset to bring the older stuff up to the grade with the later stuff.
it seems to me that all the classes should be built simultaneously in order to make sure that the later published stuff doesn't end up as "cooler" versions of the classics.
all-in-all, i'm not entirely comfortable with the feel of this class after reading. it seems to be extraordinary compared with several other classes, particularly against PH1 classes.
i don't know how anyone might take this, but it seems like newer classes are getting progressively "cooler".it seems like, "what would be an existing class, but cooler?""rogue would be so much cooler as an assassin!" and "the ranger really should hav
I actually talk a little bit about that in the commentary on the seeker. While we brainstorm and think about things like the martial power source controller and other purely gamist confluences, we will not design one just to design one or to fill a perceived rules niche. When the seeker was brought forward it was a primal controller it had a good and natural game and story hook; one that has been around the D&D game since the beginning, just with different names.
Hello SRM. I have an issue with your story directive for the Seeker, though. I understand that you had a cool idea to run a city as a dungeon for a primal party and everything, but what about the PHB2's conciet that nature and civilization are not enemies?
This was an entirely logical move for the primal power source. In a medieval fantasy setting like the core Points of Light world, civilization could not possibly be a big enough force to directly threaten nature. There is no global warming, strip mining, or mass deforestation. There are no super-power industrial nations to rapidly consume natural resources.
There are hamlets and villages and the occasional walled city. There's no possible way civilization, on its own, could be a big enough threat to "the wild" for the primal spirits to empower people to fight against it specifically.
In fact, the Killoren, who fought against the encroachment of civilization in 3.5 were turned into the Wilden for 4e and re-fluffed to fight Far Realm invasions, because that is a much bigger and more realistic threat to the wilderness. If we were just going to go back to civilization-hating-hermits, why did the Killoren's story change?
I feel like the flavor of the Seeker puts the primal power source's story back a few steps, into the relatively nonsensical conceits of past editions. The Seeker hunts defilers of nature. The list of nature's enemy should remain as it is in the PHB2, with civilization as a very very small and rare threat.
Hello SRM. I have an issue with your story directive for the Seeker, though. I understand that you had a cool idea to run a city as a dungeon for a primal party and everything, but what about the PHB2's conciet that nature and civilization are not en
The class looks cool, but I don't really care for the flavor. I thought the 4th edition flavor of primal stuff was actually kinda cool, and I honestly kind of hated the "Nature is better" attitude that the older naturey classes had. I avoided Lunars in Exalted and couldn't take the oWoD Werewolf seriously for the same reason.
You did the impossible and made me like the nature-flavored power source in PHB2 by distancing it from the old "Civilization is bad" thing. Now run with it.
The class looks cool, but I don't really care for the flavor. I thought the 4th edition flavor of primal stuff was actually kinda cool, and I honestly kind of hated the "Nature is better" attitude that the older naturey classes had. I avoided Lunars
Hello SRM. I have an issue with your story directive for the Seeker, though. I understand that you had a cool idea to run a city as a dungeon for a primal party and everything, but what about the PHB2's conciet that nature and civilization are not enemies?
This was an entirely logical move for the primal power source. In a medieval fantasy setting like the core Points of Light world, civilization could not possibly be a big enough force to directly threaten nature. There is no global warming, strip mining, or mass deforestation. There are no super-power industrial nations to rapidly consume natural resources.
There are hamlets and villages and the occasional walled city. There's no possible way civilization, on its own, could be a big enough threat to "the wild" for the primal spirits to empower people to fight against it specifically.
In fact, the Killoren, who fought against the encroachment of civilization in 3.5 were turned into the Wilden for 4e and re-fluffed to fight Far Realm invasions, because that is a much bigger and more realistic threat to the wilderness. If we were just going to go back to civilization-hating-hermits, why did the Killoren's story change?
I feel like the flavor of the Seeker puts the primal power source's story back a few steps, into the relatively nonsensical conceits of past editions. The Seeker hunts defilers of nature. The list of nature's enemy should remain as it is in the PHB2, with civilization as a very very small and rare threat.
Yeah. I'm kind of curious about the role of the primal spirits in the world because we've sort of got, if not mixed messages, certainly very vague ones, especially compared to what we know about the other god-equivalent forces of various planes. Still, it seems like making it seem like the primal spirits care overly much about punishing mortals while ignoring what was painted as the larger problems in PHB2 kind of looks like a step back from the message we were given before.
I guess part of the question I have is that, so far, we haven't heard much about how the primal spirits interact with the world, outside of empowering certain people from the wilds to act for them. I'm honestly a little curious about the corner cases of primal characters. Like, PHB2 established that urbanized areas were part of the natural world, especially when compared to extraplanar influence.
Are there, in the core D&D concept, barbarians who live in dilapidated slums and draw power from the spirits of vermin and hunger, or shamans who've forged pacts with the primal spirit of their city? I had sort of assumed that the world was animistic and spirits were everywhere, and not just in the wild places, but the Seeker, in terms of the suggested flavor, seems even more tied to the wild than the other primal classes.
Yeah. I'm kind of curious about the role of the primal spirits in the world because we've sort of got, if not mixed messages, certainly very vague ones, especially compared to what we know about the other god-equivalent forces of various planes. Stil
I think the Seeker is really underpowered. I see it having the following problems: At-wills are all too similar. Two of them have decent potential of harming fellow PCs. This may be because we only see half the character class, but given Strength is the other secondary stat, I don't think that bodes well.
Inevitable Shot doesn't work against Solos - if you have the ability to use Inevitable Shot, shoot 2 targets on a miss, and then on top of it spend an action point, that's 4 attacks you just lost in a combat. That's a lot of attacks to lose just because you're fighting a Solo and being in a situation where you need to spend an action point. If you spend a lot of feats to boost inevitable shot, then you're even worse off vs. Solos. And Inevitable Shot in many ways is similar to Orb of Deception - an Illusionist Wizard is often going to have something very similar in effect to Inevitable Shot.
Damage. I understand the desire not to be too competitive with actual strikers, but at 27th level, Devouring Arrow is a 2w with a rider. At-wills are also 2w with riders. In Epic, at-wills consistently do more damage than most Paragon Tier encounters. Sure, Devouring Arrow's rider is better, but that brings up the next problem...
Riders. Look at Soul Fire - burst 2, does 3d8 to all targets, weakens any hit until end of next turn vs Devouring Arrow. Compare Visions of Wrath(Stunned on a miss, Dominate on hit in a burst) or Legion's Hold(Stun in huge burst) vs. Baleful Shot. Sleep(1st level Wizard) vs Wave of Sleep(15th level Seeker) The riders don't seem competitive.
Just to be clear - I like the idea and concept a lot. I don't like how the mechanics match up to it.
I think the Seeker is really underpowered. I see it having the following problems:At-wills are all too similar. Two of them have decent potential of harming fellow PCs. This may be because we only see half the character class, but given Strength is t
I was pleasently surprised to see the Seeker in today's Character Builder update!
It is nice to be able to build one right after reading the article instead of waiting for a month...I've gotten so lazy with the CB that I won't build a character by hand any more
Thanks.
I was pleasently surprised to see the Seeker in today's Character Builder update!It is nice to be able to build one right after reading the article instead of waiting for a month...I've gotten so lazy with the CB that I won't build a character by han
i don't know how anyone might take this, but it seems like newer classes are getting progressively "cooler".
it seems like, "what would be an existing class, but cooler?"
"rogue would be so much cooler as an assassin!" and "the ranger really should have been primal powered like a mystic hunter, let's make that next!"
"awesome"
maybe that's unfair, but i suspect that part of what breaks down the balance of classes is that initial efforts represent a good number of classic stuff, but then the later stuff gets into the progressively cooler and more awesome stuff. it would require a reset to bring the older stuff up to the grade with the later stuff.
it seems to me that all the classes should be built simultaneously in order to make sure that the later published stuff doesn't end up as "cooler" versions of the classics.
all-in-all, i'm not entirely comfortable with the feel of this class after reading. it seems to be extraordinary compared with several other classes, particularly against PH1 classes.
It's basically just the same thing that happened with 3.xE. As the developers get more used to the system, they're better able to make classes that work in it, and are more willing to take risks with whacky mechanics. Sometimes they fail, and sometimes they result in stuff that make the earlier classes look boring and weak in comparison.
But with the Power Source books and Dragon articles, they now have the ability to eventually go back and fix the earlier classes to get them up to par with the new stuff.
It's basically just the same thing that happened with 3.xE. As the developers get more used to the system, they're better able to make classes that work in it, and are more willing to take risks with whacky mechanics. Sometimes they fail, and som
"If a power source and a role appear as key, defining traits in your opening statement, then you’re probably in trouble. Sure, a martial controller might be an interesting idea, but people don’t play D&D to explore the intersection of a role with a power source. They want interesting characters, not labels arranged in a new order!"
From the seeker article:
"Robert J. Schwalb: For the Player’s Handbook 3, we wanted to expand the family of primal classes to include a new controller."
Do these guys even talk?
I actually talk a little bit about that in the commentary on the seeker. While we brainstorm and think about things like the martial power source controller and other purely gamist confluences, we will not design one just to design one or to fill a perceived rules niche. When the seeker was brought forward it was a primal controller it had a good and natural game and story hook; one that has been around the D&D game since the beginning, just with different names.
While I see where the Seeker works as a Primal class with plenty of primal flavor, I disagree with the sentiment that the idea of a Martial Controller is percieved rules niche. I know many of us think there are ways to make a Martial Controller that feels unique. Seeing a lot of these Seeker powers makes me think it would have taken no stretch of imagination to flavor them as martial attacks and just be another ranger build. I also think the Monk would fill this role with it's Ki Power being treated the same way as a Warlord's inspiring healing and buffs.
I almost wonder if there's a bit of group think going on where you designers are simply stuck on the idea that Martial Controllers just don't work or fit into your design scheme. Of course maybe its just all of us players that are stuck in group think in seeing the possibility of one.
Good news is, if you don't play RPGA, you can house rule these changes or simply refluff it while keeping the same mechanics.
i don't know how anyone might take this, but it seems like newer classes are getting progressively "cooler".
it seems like, "what would be an existing class, but cooler?"
"rogue would be so much cooler as an assassin!" and "the ranger really should have been primal powered like a mystic hunter, let's make that next!"
"awesome"
I don't think the Rogue or the Ranger are going to suffer in popularity (okay maybe the rogue will, but that may wane after the "Ooooo... Shiney!" effect wears off on the Assassin). The ranged Ranger is just an awesome force of destruction. The Seeker though is lower in damage and accuracy, but makes up for it in control. They feel different enough, although I do fear the Elf Ranger|Seeker hybrid...
PHB1 Classes are very strong and fill their niches just fine. If anything, the new classes that have come since are just different takes on the archetypes that were established in the first PHB.
I actually talk a little bit about that in the commentary on the seeker. While we brainstorm and think about things like the martial power source controller and other purely gamist confluences, we will not design one just to design one or to fill a p
I like the Seeker, but I don't like the name. The name immediate makes me think of 'Legend of the Seeker' and has nothing in common with it. It also strikes me as the wrong power source based on it's name alone (Seeker makes me think Psionic or Divine).
I was just thinking the other day how we needed a wisdom-based bow user - probably Divine and flavoured off of the Order of the Bow Initiate. This comes pretty close. I would probably take this, reflavour the feats as divine (more radiant damage) and keep the encounter power that lets them get a free ranged basic attack when they miss. Neat twist for a homebrew thing.
I built one of these to my playstyle (focusing on the critical utility powers and pps), but after looking at the powers and options available I find it way to similar to my Greatbow wielding Artificer (Who is styled as an 'Arcane Archer'). In fact, it's a smack dab cross between my "Arcane Archer" Artificer and my Psion, so I probably will not play this character. Maybe when Primal Power comes out and we have more feats that key in to that power source I may have another look at it. I definatly could build it in such a way as to not be like my Artificer (focusing on the Poison powers instead) but it wouldn't really fit my playstyle.
Mechanics wise - I'm a little concerned with the abundant use of the Poison damage type. Poison is the most resisted element in the game mainly because PCs almost never use it until now. What I find weird is that the Assassin got a feat that lets them completely ignore poison resistance, yet they have very few poison powers.
It just seems weird that the Seeker would have to multiclass (either as an Assassin or with the Poisoner feat) in order to get full use of their main damage source.
I was pleasently surprised to see the Seeker in today's Character Builder update!
Because it's a Debut Article, and Debut Articles always go in right away, Unlike regular Dragon Articles (like the Assassin) or a playtest (like the Monk)
Same as what happened with the Psion, the Githzerai and the Skill Powers.
I disagree with the sentiment that the idea of a Martial Controller is percieved rules niche. I know many of us think there are ways to make a Martial Controller that feels unique. ... flavor them as martial attacks and just be another ranger build. I also think the Monk would fill this role with it's Ki Power being treated the same way as a Warlord's inspiring healing and buffs.
Quoted for truth, as the saying goes. Almost every person IRL I've talked to about the monk says "It should be a martial controller." They wouldn't even have to change anything, just slap the label on it.
I'm okay with it being Psionic, and I understand why (though I wish they kept the Ki power source), but I have several friends who will go on lengthy monologue tirades about how Wizards screwered up when they made the Monk psionic instead of a martial controller.
The plus side here is that I don't think the designers are 'done' with the Martial class, unless they want it to remain underpopulated. With Arcane topping the charts at 6 classes, Primal now having 5, and Divine and Martial tying at 4 classes each, I'm sure we'll see more Martial classes, and I can't think of anything Martial needs other than a controller. Of course, the designers may just say "Martial is boring and people want more exotic classes than another Martial class". Which would disappointed me, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they say.
Maybe I read too much Eberron, but does anyone else feel a little bit like they took some of the 3.5 Artificer's thunder? The ability to imbue weapons with power on the fly seemed like a really strongly Artificer-Related power.
How do you figure? The Seeker's ability to "Imbue weapons with power on the fly" is done exactly the same way as the Artificer's 'melee or ranged weapon' powers. The Bard and the Swordmage also have attacks that use the weapon keyword, despite being 'spell-like'. We could go further and say the Cleric and the Paladin have been doing this since PHB1 (and the Avenger in PHB2), though for some reason for the divine characters it feels more like they are martial hybrids than it being truly 'magic powers'
The Seeker is the second class that from it's initial class write up can use such abilities with ranged weapons, so maybe that's where you get the impression that it's stealing the artificer's thunder, however the Bard's Virtue of Prescience from Arcane Power is also a Ranged Weapon user who imbues their weapon with arcane power.
I like the Seeker, but I don't like the name. The name immediate makes me think of 'Legend of the Seeker' and has nothing in common with it. It also strikes me as the wrong power source based on it's name alone (Seeker makes me think Psionic or
Hello SRM. I have an issue with your story directive for the Seeker, though. I understand that you had a cool idea to run a city as a dungeon for a primal party and everything, but what about the PHB2's conciet that nature and civilization are not enemies?
Don't confuse my idea for a campaign story involving primal characters for a story directive on the class. You're right; nature and civilization are not necessarily enemies. I was not thinking "dungeon" as you walk through the front gates and start fighting every single creature in the city. Instead I was wondering about a story that involved primal power users navigating the corridors of intrigue, encountering corruption, and thwarting plans to despoil sacred primal spots by despicable people within the city walls. Of course many people in the city would be helpful, allies, many areas maybe entire neighborhoods would be their own points of light.
Don't confuse my idea for a campaign story involving primal characters for a story directive on the class. You're right; nature and civilization are not necessarily enemies. I was not thinking "dungeon" as you walk through the front gates and start
While I see where the Seeker works as a Primal class with plenty of primal flavor, I disagree with the sentiment that the idea of a Martial Controller is percieved rules niche. I know many of us think there are ways to make a Martial Controller that feels unique.
I am sure there is an idea out there, somewhere, for a martial controller that is more than a perceived rule niche. All I am saying is that right now none have really gained traction within RPG R&D.
I am sure there is an idea out there, somewhere, for a martial controller that is more than a perceived rule niche. All I am saying is that right now none have really gained traction within RPG R&D.
i don't know how anyone might take this, but it seems like newer classes are getting progressively "cooler".
it seems like, "what would be an existing class, but cooler?"
"rogue would be so much cooler as an assassin!" and "the ranger really should have been primal powered like a mystic hunter, let's make that next!"
"awesome"
maybe that's unfair, but i suspect that part of what breaks down the balance of classes is that initial efforts represent a good number of classic stuff, but then the later stuff gets into the progressively cooler and more awesome stuff. it would require a reset to bring the older stuff up to the grade with the later stuff.
it seems to me that all the classes should be built simultaneously in order to make sure that the later published stuff doesn't end up as "cooler" versions of the classics.
all-in-all, i'm not entirely comfortable with the feel of this class after reading. it seems to be extraordinary compared with several other classes, particularly against PH1 classes.
I have to disagree with this. Is it "cooler?" Sure, in as much as I read the class concept and went "Cool!" Is it cooler than an Archer Ranger? I don't think so. I find a highly skilled "Legolas-type" archer just as cool as a "Kikyo-type" mystical miko style archer.
To be fair, had the "base" classes not been released first you may very well have seen them when released and said "Cool!" As it is, the "base" classes were released first. Later classes will deviate away from those in their own way and there will be a coolness factor to those deviations. Who wants a bunch of new classes to come out that are meh?
I have to disagree with this. Is it "cooler?" Sure, in as much as I read the class concept and went "Cool!" Is it cooler than an Archer Ranger? I don't think so. I find a highly skilled "Legolas-type" archer just as cool as a "Kikyo-typ
'Cooler' is subjective. Flashier, perhaps. But I certainly don't find the Seeker to be cooler than the Ranger. Of course, I think the primal power source is nonsensical, so that's to be expected.
'Cooler' is subjective. Flashier, perhaps. But I certainly don't find the Seeker to be cooler than the Ranger. Of course, I think the primal power source is nonsensical, so that's to be expected.
I think the Seeker is really underpowered. I see it having the following problems: At-wills are all too similar. Two of them have decent potential of harming fellow PCs. This may be because we only see half the character class, but given Strength is the other secondary stat, I don't think that bodes well.
Actually the at-wills let you mitigate damage better than the at-will burst or blasts most other controllers have. You apply your weapon damage, a larger size die than implement attacks, to the primary target and at worst allies will only suffer stat modifier's worth of damage. Wizards have to refocus their attack, possibly missing out on hitting the most enemies or spend feats to exclude allies. It's a good take on control without running into the problem multiple d12s in an area burst.
Inevitable Shot doesn't work against Solos - if you have the ability to use Inevitable Shot, shoot 2 targets on a miss, and then on top of it spend an action point, that's 4 attacks you just lost in a combat. That's a lot of attacks to lose just because you're fighting a Solo and being in a situation where you need to spend an action point. If you spend a lot of feats to boost inevitable shot, then you're even worse off vs. Solos. And Inevitable Shot in many ways is similar to Orb of Deception - an Illusionist Wizard is often going to have something very similar in effect to Inevitable Shot.
That strikes me as more like poor encounter design. Solo's aren't actually much fun when they go solo. A few minions or a couple of extra monsters make things much more fun by making the encounter a little more dynamic.
Actually the at-wills let you mitigate damage better than the at-will burst or blasts most other controllers have. You apply your weapon damage, a larger size die than implement attacks, to the primary target and at worst allies will only suffer stat
It's basically just the same thing that happened with 3.xE. As the developers get more used to the system, they're better able to make classes that work in it, and are more willing to take risks with whacky mechanics. Sometimes they fail, and sometimes they result in stuff that make the earlier classes look boring and weak in comparison.
But with the Power Source books and Dragon articles, they now have the ability to eventually go back and fix the earlier classes to get them up to par with the new stuff.
i really see something of that nature as new classes are coming out. one of the things that we're dealing with at my table is a recently converted player that wishes his wizard still had so many spells from his 3.5 spellbook to fill out his range of arcane awesome. [sleep is first level, okay. daily? wtf?]
but, i guess that i've got to reread the class a bit after reading some more comments. i myself was hoping for a ranged weapon primal user. i didn't expect that the primal spirits would take such a notable form however. i was thinking of something more like a barbarian in that the primal spirit would come over the character and direct the accuracy or damage.
I don't think the Rogue or the Ranger are going to suffer in popularity (okay maybe the rogue will, but that may wane after the "Ooooo... Shiney!" effect wears off on the Assassin). The ranged Ranger is just an awesome force of destruction. The Seeker though is lower in damage and accuracy, but makes up for it in control. They feel different enough, although I do fear the Elf Ranger|Seeker hybrid...
PHB1 Classes are very strong and fill their niches just fine. If anything, the new classes that have come since are just different takes on the archetypes that were established in the first PHB.
i think this will push rogue players in two directions, toward the trapsmith or toward the assassin. i'll be glad to see that sort of distinction. so in that sense, i'm glad to see the rogue appear more of a benign class that has versatile skills and fantastic weapon training, while the assassin really just kills things.
i'll have to simply playtest the seeker a bit to see where it compares to the ranger. the limited options of the preview do give the appearrance of pushing the ranger into the camp of a skilled field archer rather than an uncommonly good hunter. maybe that means that it will get some love at those martial academies written about in the two fighter articles. the previous ranger article gave it some woodsy flavor. a more military flair in a future article could help to establish that position among the martial.
but, i agree that it doesn't truly take the place of another class. after looking it over more i can see where the control elements are out of league for a ranger.
I have to disagree with this. Is it "cooler?" Sure, in as much as I read the class concept and went "Cool!" Is it cooler than an Archer Ranger? I don't think so. I find a highly skilled "Legolas-type" archer just as cool as a "Kikyo-type" mystical miko style archer.
To be fair, had the "base" classes not been released first you may very well have seen them when released and said "Cool!" As it is, the "base" classes were released first. Later classes will deviate away from those in their own way and there will be a coolness factor to those deviations. Who wants a bunch of new classes to come out that are meh?
yes, to be fair i do get a "cool" feeling all over when i read thru the next splat book and play around with creating characters in the CB. so i guess that is simply bound to happen.
i think that a 'wish' for the future would be to have the classes all defined simultaneously and published simultaneously in one big group. then make future publications offer increasing options rather than offering some new classes at intervals.htat is a huge wish, but other gamers might be workign through campaigns much faster. maybe they are ready for the new materials at intervals and it doesn't cause such an interruption.
to some other thoughts, if this is meant to be the mystic hunter, why is he pulling so many conditions and mass attacks? i'm a hunter. i focus on one animal and i expect that one single shot of ammunition will be the killing strike. i don't at all want to poison the meat. though, instantly freezing the meat has potential. [sorry, who wants realism to infect their game world? right?]
It's basically just the same thing that happened with 3.xE. As the developers get more used to the system, they're better able to make classes that work in it, and are more willing to take risks with whacky mechanics. Sometimes they fail, and som
I actually kinda like this class. I think it's neat to finally see a weapon-based controller class, even if it is primal instead of martial. It's actually the first time a controller class has made me sit up and say, "Wow, I'd really like to give that a try in-game."
I also really like the whole concept behind making certain encounter and daily powers count as a ranged basic attack to allow them to be used with inevitable shot and the crimson hunter's paragon path features. It's the first time I can think of off the top of my head where I've looked over power choices and actually seriously considered not taking the power I have the rider for.
I actually kinda like this class. I think it's neat to finally see a weapon-based controller class, even if it is primal instead of martial. It's actually the first time a controller class has made me sit up and say, "Wow, I'd really like to give
But with the Power Source books and Dragon articles, they now have the ability to eventually go back and fix the earlier classes to get them up to par with the new stuff.
Interesting take on the situation... with the exception of the barbarian (and on the other side of the fence, the warlock), I'd be more likely to say 'they have the ability to eventually go back and fix the later classes to get them up to par with the original stuff', lol.
Interesting take on the situation... with the exception of the barbarian (and on the other side of the fence, the warlock), I'd be more likely to say 'they have the ability to eventually go back and fix the later classes to get them up to par with th
but, i guess that i've got to reread the class a bit after reading some more comments. i myself was hoping for a ranged weapon primal user. i didn't expect that the primal spirits would take such a notable form however. i was thinking of something more like a barbarian in that the primal spirit would come over the character and direct the accuracy or damage.
It might be hard with only half the class, but once we get the full class, and certainly after it gets expanded in Primal Power 2 it should be possible to create such a seeker. I know from trying that it's already reasonably possible to create a warden that doesn't seem overtly mystical.
to some other thoughts, if this is meant to be the mystic hunter, why is he pulling so many conditions and mass attacks? i'm a hunter. i focus on one animal and i expect that one single shot of ammunition will be the killing strike. i don't at all want to poison the meat. though, instantly freezing the meat has potential. [sorry, who wants realism to infect their game world? right?]
Wrong kind of hunter. Seekers don't hunt wild game, at least not as a function of their class. They hunt defilers of nature.
It might be hard with only half the class, but once we get the full class, and certainly after it gets expanded in Primal Power 2 it should be possible to create such a seeker. I know from trying that it's already reasonably possible to create a wa
I realize that with the Bloodbound build we got in this preview, it has a lot of abilities to avoid melee attacks or opportunity attacks. Which is probably a good thing since it doesn't really have anything to defend itself if someone gets too close. But it seems that their area of effect never go beyond burst 2. They're more for controlling a pinpoint area.
It's possible that the Spiritbound build might be better able to handle itself if someone gets too close, only because most thrown weapons can also be used as melee weapons. Though it's a moot point with magic thrown weapons, I wonder if they'll be able to have mundane thrown weapons magically return to them.
I realize that with the Bloodbound build we got in this preview, it has a lot of abilities to avoid melee attacks or opportunity attacks. Which is probably a good thing since it doesn't really have anything to defend itself if someone gets too clos
It's possible that the Spiritbound build might be better able to handle itself if someone gets too close, only because most thrown weapons can also be used as melee weapons. Though it's a moot point with magic thrown weapons, I wonder if they'll be able to have mundane thrown weapons magically return to them.
Probably not. This was often discussed for the Artificer during playtest and how artificers were annoyed that they had to carry multiple thrown weapons at low levels (one for each target). This was when 4th edition first came out, so people were still pretty new to the rules, but it was clear you needed one thrown weapon for each target. I don't think they ever changed that, but the system's been out for long enough that most people don't even care and just tweak it for the one build it totally screws over. (That and most Weaponificers use some kind of bow)
In short - they didn't change it for the Artificer, nor for the Prescient Bard, I doubt they are going to change it for the Seeker.
Probably not. This was often discussed for the Artificer during playtest and how artificers were annoyed that they had to carry multiple thrown weapons at low levels (one for each target). This was when 4th edition first came out, so people were
The seeker, like someone suggested, feels to me, like an archer ranger that has been tweaked to work as a controller rather than a striker. I love that. The powers do really feel like they fit into the primal power source, if you believe that primal isn't a subset of martial, which is something that I'm not completely decided on yet.
Arguably, the barbarian and the warden don't necessarily feel greatly slanted toward the primal power source against the martial power source. The barbarian really feels like a fighter who trades the stickiness for higher damage output. To me, the warden feels like its a str/con warrior that lost the heavy armor for higher hp pools. That said, I love the classes. They play a little different, which is what is important. The seeker will play different than an archer ranger built for control in giving the player playing the seeker a whole lot more choices than the control archer ranger.
But to say that the Martial Controller concept lacks traction within R&D makes me wonder why. If R&D's goal in making new classes is to do the same kinds of things in new ways, a martial controller really will open up whole new concepts on a particular playstyle. The discussion laid out for PHB 3 said that, moving forward, the barriers will be shaken up, or alltogether torn down. Maybe one of the new ideas that has to be looked into is whether the constraints R&D has placed upon either the martial power source, the controller role, or how a character's turn should behave can't be shaken up to appease niche players and open up new concepts to the game.
One common flaw people have in their homebrew martial controllers is the idea that weapons shouldn't be expended, or that combat shouldn't require setup time (these issues are prevalent for the trapsmith, alchemist and grenadier style controllers). The problem with the first concept is that an archer ranger must expend ammunition to make an attack. The problem with the second is sometimes, a party could very concievably be prepared for combat in such a way that the preparations are the pivital factor. Its a serious design flaw to think that a party will never be able to prepare a combat area in such a way that the terrain, the placement of traps and the arrangement of combatants that favors themselves.
The seeker, like someone suggested, feels to me, like an archer ranger that has been tweaked to work as a controller rather than a striker. I love that. The powers do really feel like they fit into the primal power source, if you believe that pri
But to say that the Martial Controller concept lacks traction within R&D makes me wonder why. If R&D's goal in making new classes is to do the same kinds of things in new ways, a martial controller really will open up whole new concepts on a particular playstyle.
I wouldn't say that the concept lacks traction within R&D. As I point out in the commentary, there are a number of us interested in the concept. And by concept I mean the idea that the game has room for a martial controller and even some ideas of what that controller would look like. Rather, none of the treatments that we've seen or brainstormed have gained traction enough to find their way in a book as of yet.
We're more than a little choosey about what finds its way into published material. It takes a great deal of energy, deliberation, and brainpower to design, develop, and edit a class. Then there is the fact that it has to fit with whatever product mix we have on the schedule.
I wouldn't say that the concept lacks traction within R&D. As I point out in the commentary, there are a number of us interested in the concept. And by concept I mean the idea that the game has room for a martial controller and even some ideas of wha
But to say that the Martial Controller concept lacks traction within R&D makes me wonder why. If R&D's goal in making new classes is to do the same kinds of things in new ways, a martial controller really will open up whole new concepts on a particular playstyle.
I wouldn't say that the concept lacks traction within R&D. As I point out in the commentary, there are a number of us interested in the concept. And by concept I mean the idea that the game has room for a martial controller and even some ideas of what that controller would look like. Rather, none of the treatments that we've seen or brainstormed have gained traction enough to find their way in a book as of yet.
We're more than a little choosey about what finds its way into published material. It takes a great deal of energy, deliberation, and brainpower to design, develop, and edit a class. Then there is the fact that it has to fit with whatever product mix we have on the schedule.
Just curious, but do you follow the various "brainstorm a martial controller!" threads that pop up from time to time? While I understand that there's a lot of garbage to wade through, a few ideas, such as thhe Dreadnaught, seem pretty well developed.
I wouldn't say that the concept lacks traction within R&D. As I point out in the commentary, there are a number of us interested in the concept. And by concept I mean the idea that the game has room for a martial controller and even some ideas of wha
Oh, okay. I got the impression that R&D pretty much decided that there will not ever be a martial controller for 4th edition. Although your post doesn't say that there will be, it also doesn't say that there won't be. If there comes a time when martial again shows up as a power source in a PHB, that might be the time we see such a class, I suppose, as Power books are explicitly for new builds/options for existing classes... The reason I mentioned it was just that while some of the people in R&D acknowledge the plausibility, it seemed like R&D has decided that working on a viable martial controller is a wasted effort; it seems like one of the best ways to keep expanding the possibilities would be trying to make something that seemingly can't be done.
But to say that the Martial Controller concept lacks traction within R&D makes me wonder why. If R&D's goal in making new classes is to do the same kinds of things in new ways, a martial controller really will open up whole new concepts on a particular playstyle.
I wouldn't say that the concept lacks traction within R&D. As I point out in the commentary, there are a number of us interested in the concept. And by concept I mean the idea that the game has room for a martial controller and even some ideas of what that controller would look like. Rather, none of the treatments that we've seen or brainstormed have gained traction enough to find their way in a book as of yet.
We're more than a little choosey about what finds its way into published material. It takes a great deal of energy, deliberation, and brainpower to design, develop, and edit a class. Then there is the fact that it has to fit with whatever product mix we have on the schedule.
Just curious, but do you follow the various "brainstorm a martial controller!" threads that pop up from time to time? While I understand that there's a lot of garbage to wade through, a few ideas, such as thhe Dreadnaught, seem pretty well developed.
Actually, depending on how far the R&D can massage the rules or the massage the concept of a turn, a lot of options seem rather viable. The dreadnought is a pretty well designed one, but a scout, or a lancer/dragoon type controller that behaves a bit like a defender, all seem like they could be viable.
Oh, okay. I got the impression that R&D pretty much decided that there will not ever be a martial controller for 4th edition. Although your post doesn't say that there will be, it also doesn't say that there won't be. If there comes a time when
Just curious, but do you follow the various "brainstorm a martial controller!" threads that pop up from time to time? While I understand that there's a lot of garbage to wade through, a few ideas, such as thhe Dreadnaught, seem pretty well developed.
The Dreadnaught is by far the best of the Martial Controllers I've seen. It has it's own niche while still filling the controller role. It and the Archivist are the only two classes from the forums I allow in my home games.
The Dreadnaught is by far the best of the Martial Controllers I've seen. It has it's own niche while still filling the controller role. It and the Archivist are the only two classes from the forums I allow in my home games.
I wouldn't say that the concept lacks traction within R&D. As I point out in the commentary, there are a number of us interested in the concept. And by concept I mean the idea that the game has room for a martial controller and even some ideas of what that controller would look like. Rather, none of the treatments that we've seen or brainstormed have gained traction enough to find their way in a book as of yet.
We're more than a little choosey about what finds its way into published material. It takes a great deal of energy, deliberation, and brainpower to design, develop, and edit a class. Then there is the fact that it has to fit with whatever product mix we have on the schedule.
Real quick note; Thanks SRM for being responsive and part of the discussion. It's great seeing staff responding to us on these boards, even if you have to put up with our ramblings. Maybe you guys do post here more often than it appears to some of us since we may not see all the threads, so it may just be an issue of perception, but it's nice to not have to go to some other forum to hear back from the staff.
Thank you!
Real quick note; Thanks SRM for being responsive and part of the discussion. It's great seeing staff responding to us on these boards, even if you have to put up with our ramblings. Maybe you guys do post here more often than it appears to some of us
Real quick note; Thanks SRM for being responsive and part of the discussion. It's great seeing staff responding to us on these boards, even if you have to put up with our ramblings. Maybe you guys do post here more often than it appears to some of us since we may not see all the threads, so it may just be an issue of perception, but it's nice to not have to go to some other forum to hear back from the staff.
Probably not. This was often discussed for the Artificer during playtest and how artificers were annoyed that they had to carry multiple thrown weapons at low levels (one for each target). This was when 4th edition first came out, so people were still pretty new to the rules, but it was clear you needed one thrown weapon for each target. I don't think they ever changed that, but the system's been out for long enough that most people don't even care and just tweak it for the one build it totally screws over. (That and most Weaponificers use some kind of bow)
In short - they didn't change it for the Artificer, nor for the Prescient Bard, I doubt they are going to change it for the Seeker.
Actually, the artificer has a specific clause that throw weapons used with their powers act as if they were magic and return- on another note if you surveyed the boards I can guarentee most DMs don't require players to keep track of arrows expended of archer characters. Consuming your weapon is just not viable in the game wealth model.
Actually, the artificer has a specific clause that throw weapons used with their powers act as if they were magic and return- on another note if you surveyed the boards I can guarentee most DMs don't require players to keep track of arrows expended
SRM (you really do have a long name), I appreciate u as a dev engaging the D&Di forums.
The Seeker looks like its gonna be popular class.
For me, the PH3 is a must-have because of the Psionic power source, but the Seeker shows itl be a well-rounded solid book. Cant wait to play one.
SRD (you really do have a long name), I appreciate u as a dev engaging the D&Di forums.The Seeker looks like its gonna be popular class.For me, the PH3 is a must-have because of the Psionic power source, but the Seeker shows itl be a well-rounded so
Real quick note; Thanks SRM for being responsive and part of the discussion. It's great seeing staff responding to us on these boards, even if you have to put up with our ramblings. Maybe you guys do post here more often than it appears to some of us since we may not see all the threads, so it may just be an issue of perception, but it's nice to not have to go to some other forum to hear back from the staff.
Thank you!
My pleasure. We really do try to reply to the boards, but there are so many of you and so few of us! And we do spend a lot of time cooking up the D&D, and in our free time we try to play the game as often as we can. There is a reason my wife wears a "gaming widow" shirt.
My pleasure. We really do try to reply to the boards, but there are so many of you and so few of us! And we do spend a lot of time cooking up the D&D, and in our free time we try to play the game as often as we can. There is a reason my wife wears a
Don't have much to add, just wanted to take a sec and say that I like the seeker. I always seem to have trouble expressing why I like certain classes. I'm a very hands on player, I s'pose. I'm anxious to give the seeker a run.
I'm not usually a fan of ranged combatants (say, archer rangers), preferring in yer face brawlers with the occassional tactic thrown in for good measure .
Real quick note; Thanks SRM for being responsive and part of the discussion. It's great seeing staff responding to us on these boards, even if you have to put up with our ramblings. Maybe you guys do post here more often than it appears to some of us since we may not see all the threads, so it may just be an issue of perception, but it's nice to not have to go to some other forum to hear back from the staff.
Thank you!
I also agree. I'm aware of other big 'uns (like EN World) but the WotC/DnD boards are the only ones I take time to frequent. So, it is nice to hear responses from the designers and staff occassionally. The perception of course, is that they spend their board time elsewhere .
Don't have much to add, just wanted to take a sec and say that I like the seeker. I always seem to have trouble expressing why I like certain classes. I'm a very hands on player, I s'pose. I'm anxious to give the seeker a run.I'm not usually
Just curious, but do you follow the various "brainstorm a martial controller!" threads that pop up from time to time? While I understand that there's a lot of garbage to wade through, a few ideas, such as thhe Dreadnaught, seem pretty well developed.
The Dreadnaught is by far the best of the Martial Controllers I've seen. It has it's own niche while still filling the controller role. It and the Archivist are the only two classes from the forums I allow in my home games.
Le gasp. I really need to work my tamer out more. The changes to the boards kinda made me go "meh" because i had to spend so much time going back reformating while coming up with furthered ideas.
I've got several ideas now, that make it more into a kick ass class. Once i finish with it, I hope you'll let it in your game. I do need to find some new powers though, as one of them (kip up) was released in the skill powers. (stand up from prone as a minor action)
The Dreadnaught is by far the best of the Martial Controllers I've seen. It has it's own niche while still filling the controller role. It and the Archivist are the only two classes from the forums I allow in my home games. Le gasp. I really nee
The seeker reads like a ranger. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. I see this class as being more of an 'archer ranger variant'. And I'm surprised to see another ranged class.
I wonder, does it play like a ranger? W/o any melee weapon powers, the seeker will have to hang back, circle the battle and strike from range. That would make it very much like the archer ranger.
I like it -- it looks like a good class.
The seeker reads like a ranger. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. I see this class as being more of an 'archer ranger variant'. And I'm surprised to see another ranged class.I wonder, does it play like a ranger? W/o any melee weapon pow
The seeker reads like a ranger. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. I see this class as being more of an 'archer ranger variant'. And I'm surprised to see another ranged class.
I wonder, does it play like a ranger? W/o any melee weapon powers, the seeker will have to hang back, circle the battle and strike from range. That would make it very much like the archer ranger.
I like it -- it looks like a good class.
In my experience, it does not play like a ranger.
As a Seeker, you are always looking for grouped enemies- most of yor powers give a debuff to the target and any enemy adjacent to the target. You also arn't much worried about missing- even if you do miss, you can use a class power to turn it into the Patriot Arrow from the Mel Brooks Robin Hood, streakong off to the same or a different target. (1/enconter, but it recharges on an Action point)
The close burst push can be used to break out of melee, but generally it's better to se your "I'm a kobold" shift ability instead- the psh is better sed FORCING enemies into groups, to be shot at. So while it has skirmish elements, they are completely different from the Ranger's Prime Shot mechanics, and play a LOT differently.
In my experience, it does not play like a ranger.As a Seeker, you are always looking for grouped enemies- most of yor powers give a debuff to the target and any enemy adjacent to the target. You also arn't much worried about missing- even if you do m
I know we're not supposed to balance individual powers from different classes, but this is rather striking.
Stinging Swarm - Seeker Attack 1 At-Will ✦ Primal, Weapon Standard Action - Ranged weapon Target: One creature Attack: Wisdom vs. AC Hit: 1[W] + Wisdom modifier damage, and the target and each enemy adjacent to it take a –2 penalty to attack rolls until the start of your next turn. Level 21: 2[W] + Wisdom modifier damage. Special: You can use this power as a ranged basic attack.
Compare that to Illusory Ambush (Wizard at-will):
Illusory Ambush At-Will ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement, Psychic Standard Action - Ranged 10 Target: One creature Attack: Intelligence vs. Will Hit: 1d6 + Intelligence modifier psychic damage, and the target takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn. Increase damage to 2d6 + Intelligence modifier at 21st level.
Stinging Swarm has better range, does more damage, affects more people, and doesn't have an elemental type that can be resisted. It can also be used as a basic attack, and as a seeker you get a couple of riders due to that.
At least the accruracy is, arguably, roughly even. Sure, Illusory Ambush is versus Will, but Stinging Swarm allows you to use a superior crossbow (a +3 proficiency weapon).
It's not hard to see that people will claim "power creep", and in this case I think that's pretty justifiable.
A little surprised no one has mentioned this yet.I know we're not supposed to balance individual powers from different classes, but this is rather striking.Stinging Swarm Seeker Attack 1At-Will ✦ Primal, WeaponStandard Action - Ranged
Anyone else notice that the best weapon for a Seeker is not a bow? This is despite the text on page 6 that states they wanted the iconic longbow to feature more prominently.
Controllers are most interested in accuracy. A Superior Crossbow gives you a +3 proficiency bonus. A Greatbow only gives you a +2.
Strikers will also want to use a Superior Crossbow. Partly due to feats like Steady Shooter. But look at the Seeker powers. Even the high-level ones have low [W] damage. Instead, they tend to have additional dice damage (like an extra 1d6 or 1d8 damage). So if you want to do the most damage, you'll use a weapon that you'll hit more often with: the extra number of hits will far out-damage the slightly less damage you do per-hit (and that's without feats like Steady Shooter).
Ironically, a superior crossbow doesn't seem very "primal".
Anyone else notice that the best weapon for a Seeker is not a bow? This is despite the text on page 6 that states they wanted the iconic longbow to feature more prominently.Controllers are most interested in accuracy. A Superior Crossbow gives yo
Given that they consider Longbow to be the iconic weapon, I don't think they count superior weapons for flavor. With that understood, the longbow is a better weapon than the regular crossbow, correct?
Given that they consider Longbow to be the iconic weapon, I don't think they count superior weapons for flavor. With that understood, the longbow is a better weapon than the regular crossbow, correct?
Given that they consider Longbow to be the iconic weapon, I don't think they count superior weapons for flavor. With that understood, the longbow is a better weapon than the regular crossbow, correct?
They do consider the superior/greater versions.
Quote: "The seeker expands utility for the longbow (and associated weapons)"
I don't know of any Archer Ranger that uses an actual longbow and it would be foolish of me to believe that WotC doesn't know this either.
If you're seeking to build an Archer Ranger today, you use a Superior Crossbow. As far as I know, the only hold-outs (and I'm considering being one of them for my elven ranger) are the people that dislike using a crossbow for flavor/lore reasons. It doesn't feel very "elven" to use a crossbow, for example. But if you look through class guides, there's an agreement that the crossbow is better. You're just shooting yourself in the foot (pun intended) if you choose not to, for the most part.
Which brings us back to this topic. It's not a failing of the Seeker class that the crossbow is currently better than the bow due to feats and proficiency bonus. It's too bad, since a crossbow doesn't feel very "primal", but that's how it is.
But it's a failing that the authors of this article don't acknowledge for some reason. They for some reason believe that this Seeker class helps to make the longbow (and its ilk) more prominent. That just won't happen, unfortunately. It's the superior crossbow, in a completely different weapon category than the bow, that they have just re-inforced as the new iconic 4E ranged weapon of choice.
Better accuracy is even more important for a controller than it is for a striker (for the reasons mentioned before).
They do consider the superior/greater versions.Quote: "The seeker expands utility for the longbow (and associated weapons)"I don't know of any Archer Ranger that uses an actual longbow and it would be foolish of me to believe that WotC doesn't know t
I don't know. First of all, I don't see the superior crossbow as a better weapon to the greatbow. It deals d10 damage instead of d12 damage. It also has less range. The range is situational. You need environments in which range is beneficial. But if you play in games in which encounters are designed in a manner that makes range an advantage, thats a major benefit for the greatbow. You can also load the bow with a free action instead of a minor action. That means that a ranger with a greatbow doesn't need to give up moving in order to both load his weapon, query a target, and fire, in the same round. If you are building a character with an 18 as their starting stat in their primary attack stat, and who plans to put all 8 points they possibly can into that stat as they level, personally, I would rather gain the benefits of a greatbow then a superior crossbow on a ranger.
As for a seeker, I haven't looked at them super carefully. I don't know which weapon would be better for them as of yet. But, looking through them briefly, it seems like a lot of their controller benefits are effects. They happen whether you hit or not. Honestly, with that in mind, as long as you can build with a starting stat of 18 in your primary attack stat, and end up with a 26 in your primary attack stat (or higher), I think I would still rather use the greatbow. I'm not a huge fan of having to spend a minor action and loosing out on extra damage every time I fire my bow. I'm willing to give up 1 point of an attack bonus to avoid having to do that.
I think the superior crossbow and the greatbow are better balanced against each other then you are giving them credit fore.
I don't know. First of all, I don't see the superior crossbow as a better weapon to the greatbow. It deals d10 damage instead of d12 damage. It also has less range. The range is situational. You need environments in which range is beneficial. But if
I pretty much agree with Cyber-Dave and I'd also like to comment that taking a mathematically less optimal option doesn't make your character unviable, unplayable, nor does it mean you're shooting yourself in the foot (plus you save on two feats if you use the longbow or one feat if you use the greatbow, assuming you don't want to use a minor action to load your crossbow every round). Another way that WotC is likely going to reinforce the bow as the iconic seeker weapon is by tailor-making magic weapons to them and restricting them to that category.
Also, you're comparison of illusory ambush and stinging swarm missed one key difference; the former power lasts until the end of your next turn while the latter lasts until the beginning of your next turn. Stinging swarm may be situationally a bit better than illusory ambush (the range advantage is easily nullified by most encounter designs, typed damage can be resisted but there are also vulnerabilities, the illusion keyword has effects we haven't considered), its hardly reason for a cry of "power creep!"
I pretty much agree with Cyber-Dave and I'd also like to comment that taking a mathematically less optimal option doesn't make your character unviable, unplayable, nor does it mean you're shooting yourself in the foot (plus you save on two feats if y
I pretty much agree with Cyber-Dave and I'd also like to comment that taking a mathematically less optimal option doesn't make your character unviable, unplayable, nor does it mean you're shooting yourself in the foot (plus you save on two feats if you use the longbow or one feat if you use the greatbow, assuming you don't want to use a minor action to load your crossbow every round).
I agree, but it's sub-optimal. And the only reason to do so is essentially for flavor/lore reasons. As mentioned, I might actually use a bow for my elven archer ranger, but I do so knowing it's inferior. Check the class guides or talk to your own buddies if you don't believe me.
@Cyber-Dave, the load time isn't significant since there's a crossbow feat to eliminate it. And the range of both the crossbow and greatbow are both so big that they tend to include the entire gaming table. For small-scale combats, which should be almost all your combats, the range difference doesn't matter.
Also, you're comparison of illusory ambush and stinging swarm missed one key difference; the former power lasts until the end of your next turn while the latter lasts until the beginning of your next turn. Stinging swarm may be situationally a bit better than illusory ambush (the range advantage is easily nullified by most encounter designs, typed damage can be resisted but there are also vulnerabilities, the illusion keyword has effects we haven't considered), its hardly reason for a cry of "power creep!"
That's a really minor difference. Keep in mind this power imposes a -2 penalty on the target's attack rolls. The target's turn should always come before both the "start of your turn" and the "end of your turn". Therefore the only difference is due to OAs you might trigger on your own next turn.
There's really no comparison between the two powers.
Compare:
Affects multiple targets with a -2 penalty to hit during their turn. It ends right before my next turn, so the penalty won't be active if I provoke on OA on my next turn.
Affect only one target with a -2 penalty to hit during their turn. If I provoke an OA on my next turn it will still be active, but ends after that.
One is hands down better then the other for a controller.
I agree, but it's sub-optimal. And the only reason to do so is essentially for flavor/lore reasons. As mentioned, I might actually use a bow for my elven archer ranger, but I do so knowing it's inferior. Check the class guides or talk to your o
@Cyber-Dave, the load time isn't significant since there's a crossbow feat to eliminate it. And the range of both the crossbow and greatbow are both so big that they tend to include the entire gaming table. For small-scale combats, which should be almost all your combats, the range difference doesn't matter.
1) Of course its significant. It doesn't matter if there is a feat to eliminate it. Feats are often tight. The feat you spent eliminating the minor load action could have been spent on something else. For example, maybe that extra feat got you the ability to gain combat advantage from range (often gaining you a +2 bonus to hit). Maybe that extra feat got you weapon expertise with the bow, gaining you a +1/2/3 bonus to hit. Between a 1d12 damage, a little extra range, and one extra feat, or a 1d10, and a +1 bonus to hit, I choose the 1d12, little extra range, and an extra feat. Its not sub-optimal. They are better balanced then you are giving them credit fore.
2) Sorry, why "should" it be "almost all of your combats?" Whether it is, or is not, all of your combats really depends on the DM. Personally, I really like to design combats with long range factors to them. Against the sort of encounters I like to design, a greatbow would be a benefit. I understand that some DMs don't design encounters that way. Thats why the extra range is a situational benefit. It is still, however, a benefit.
1) Of course its significant. It doesn't matter if there is a feat to eliminate it. Feats are often tight. The feat you spent eliminating the minor load action could have been spent on something else. For example, maybe that extra feat got you the ab
Stinging Swarm has better range, does more damage, affects more people, and doesn't have an elemental type that can be resisted. It can also be used as a basic attack, and as a seeker you get a couple of riders due to that.
I dont count the -2 to adjacent enemies as that big a deal. It's situational. As a matter of fact, a lot fo the Seeker effects deal with adjacent enemies. It's rare that all enemies bunch up in a nice tight group. It's real bonus is being a RBA.
I dont count the -2 to adjacent enemies as that big a deal. It's situational. As a matter of fact, a lot fo the Seeker effects deal with adjacent enemies. It's rare that all enemies bunch up in a nice tight group. It's real bonus is being a R
Stinging Swarm has better range, does more damage, affects more people, and doesn't have an elemental type that can be resisted. It can also be used as a basic attack, and as a seeker you get a couple of riders due to that.
I dont count the -2 to adjacent enemies as that big a deal. It's situational. As a matter of fact, a lot of the Seeker effects deal with adjacent enemies. It's rare that all enemies bunch up in a nice tight group. It's real bonus is being a RBA.
I've noticed it happens a lot when you get to higher levels.
It's usually the Fighter's Come and Get It. But there are other powers as well.
I dont count the -2 to adjacent enemies as that big a deal. It's situational. As a matter of fact, a lot of the Seeker effects deal with adjacent enemies. It's rare that all enemies bunch up in a nice tight group. It's real bonus is being a R
There's really no comparison between the two powers.
Compare:
Affects multiple targets with a -2 penalty to hit during their turn. If I provoke an OA on my next turn it will still be active, but ends after that.
Affect only one target with a -2 penalty to hit during their turn. It ends right before my next turn, so the penalty won't be active if I provoke on OA on my next turn.
One is hands down better then the other for a controller.
Between a 1d12 damage, a little extra range, and one extra feat, or a 1d10, and a +1 bonus to hit, I choose the 1d12, little extra range, and an extra feat. Its not sub-optimal. They are better balanced then you are giving them credit fore.
Please just read the class guides, or speak with your friends that play Archer Rangers. Btw, I'm assuming you play more than just low heroic, and that you play at least some high heroic (or even better, Paragon).
Then realize that for a controller a +1 to hit is even more valuable for them. Then look at the Seeker powers that don't have any controller effect on a miss. Such as the afore-mentioned Stinging Swarm, a great at-will power for Seekers.
Even if only half the Seeker powers only do their effects on a hit, it would still be worthwhile to get a +1 to hit.
Please just read the class guides, or speak with your friends that play Archer Rangers. Btw, I'm assuming you play more than just low heroic, and that you play at least some high heroic (or even better, Paragon).Then realize that for a controller a
There's really no comparison between the two powers.
Compare:
Affects multiple targets with a -2 penalty to hit during their turn. If I provoke an OA on my next turn it will still be active, but ends after that.
Affect only one target with a -2 penalty to hit during their turn. It ends right before my next turn, so the penalty won't be active if I provoke on OA on my next turn.
One is hands down better then the other for a controller.
I think you have the durations reversed.
D'oh! I do, thanks for noticing. I'll fix it.
The comparison still stands though. The key thing is the penalty on their turn, not whether they -2 penalty is still there if you provoke an OA on your turn.
I think you have the durations reversed.D'oh! I do, thanks for noticing. I'll fix it. The comparison still stands though. The key thing is the penalty on their turn, not whether they -2 penalty is still there if you provoke an OA on your turn.
Between a 1d12 damage, a little extra range, and one extra feat, or a 1d10, and a +1 bonus to hit, I choose the 1d12, little extra range, and an extra feat. Its not sub-optimal. They are better balanced then you are giving them credit fore.
Please just read the class guides, or speak with your friends that play Archer Rangers. Btw, I'm assuming you play more than just low heroic, and that you play at least some high heroic (or even better, Paragon).
Then realize that for a controller a +1 to hit is even more valuable for them. Then look at the Seeker powers that don't have any controller effect on a miss. Such as the afore-mentioned Stinging Swarm, a great at-will power for Seekers.
Even if only half the Seeker powers only do their effects on a hit, it would still be worthwhile to get a +1 to hit.
I don't need to "read the guides." I am quite capable of looking at things, and deciding for myself. Especially as I often see information in the guides that I don't agree with. Those guides are nothing more than the subjective opinions of a forum poster.
What is more, while I AM currently playing a ranger myself, it should be noted that someone doesn't HAVE to play to judge these issues. All someone needs to do is build a couple of different builds, at various heroic, paragon, and epic levels, and do the math against the ACs of creatures of that level. I have done that. I don't agree with you. I think you are not giving the balancing job done on those two weapons enough credit.
You can agree to disagree with me if you like. But I don't agree with your statements.
Please just read the class guides, or speak with your friends that play Archer Rangers. Btw, I'm assuming you play more than just low heroic, and that you play at least some high heroic (or even better, Paragon).Then realize that for a controller a
This discussion is the old +1 to-hit vs. higher average damage. If you run the numbers you'll see that whether or not +1 to hit or (average) +1 to damage results in a higher average damage per attack is in fact dependant on the required target number to hit. Need a roll of 10+ to hit the target with greatbow, +9 with superior crossbow? Use the greatbow. Need a 14 to hit with the greatbow, 13 with the superior crossbow? Use the crossbow. Neither one is better all the time.
Now the decisive point for me in this matter is the load time. You need to take the feat to get load free with the superior crossbow. This is a feat that a greatbow user can spend on something to make up for the lower accuracy against hard-to-hit targets.
This discussion is the old +1 to-hit vs. higher average damage. If you run the numbers you'll see that whether or not +1 to hit or (average) +1 to damage results in a higher average damage per attack is in fact dependant on the required target number
