Talk:Padfoot (4e Class)

[edit] Powers

I added your powers to their own pages. The two organizational structures I talked about on my talk page User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks! can be found here and both are doable with Template:4e Power/Sandbox (Basically it just takes out the class - as can be seen it is no longer displayed on this page, and removes the breadcrumb (I like them to be added outside of templates so that was just me (hopefully) finially fixing something that has been bugging me for a while). What are your thoughts on how they look or how they can be implemented? --Green Dragon 14:00, 15 July 2009 (MDT)

Also if anyone knows how to make the sandbox's dpl's arranged nicely in columns following one another from the top to the bottom it would be much appreciated [1]. I think it would work if one could add a dpl inside of a dpl (putting the dpl inside of this dpl to draw the pages). And we would probably have to switch to dpl3.

<DPL>

ordermethod=category,title

headingmode=ordered

mode=unordered

listattr= class="submenul"

itemattr= class="submenuli" style="font-weight: bold;"

</DPL>

--Green Dragon 14:35, 15 July 2009 (MDT)

[edit] Unusable

Before we even get into the fact that the class is incomplete, this class is totally unusable. The powers listed don't make any sense. Careful Aim does "At half the damage". At half the damage of WHAT? It doesn't say, and in 4e, it can't be assumed. All of the powers are like this. None of them actually list what they do, they're missing keywords and requirements that would be needed, damage, stats used, etc. In addition, the class features show that this class will obviously be overpowered. You should never get two stats to hit. Overall, this is looking like it won't be anything worthwhile until the author learns 4e mechanics. Dragon Child 14:10, 15 July 2009 (MDT)

I am certain we all know that in this classes current state is is unable. If it is okay with Celen Joad I would be willing to work on this with Celen Joad to save it from deletion. --Green Dragon 14:35, 15 July 2009 (MDT)

My main worry is not that it's incomplete. I wouldn't have applied the delete template if it was. The problem is the powers don't do anything - even if you did what the author intended them to do, then they'd still be confused and totally overpowered, to the point of ridiculousness. Further, I see no need for an archer class when the Ranger fills the role perfectly. What does the padfoot do DIFFERENTLY than the ranger? There has to be something big. Dragon Child 14:41, 15 July 2009 (MDT)

Currently how this is implemented it does nothing, flavor-wise, differently then the 4e ranger (other then not doing much with close combat). The ranger, arguably, specializes a lot in tracking, archery, and two-weapon fighting. Why not have this class specialize in archery as a means of attack and secondly battle-field maneuverability. For example it could get busts of speed, the ability to change into certain animals to do feats of impossible moving (for example a Griffon or whatever to go to a different location), the ability to change into a spirit form and go through certain obstacles (of course this would have to be very controlled because in a dungeon situation this could get very overpowered). And then become an expert at archery. I don't know, just a few ideas I had. What are your thoughts? --Green Dragon 15:02, 17 July 2009 (MDT)

I started on implementing ideas related to my idea above. If you edit the page and uncomment it (show the preview) you can see what I mean. --Green Dragon 17:43, 17 July 2009 (MDT)

A few directions I see as being possible... note that I won't be using the 4e "role" nomenclature, because it's largely silly and meaningless. Also, many of these can just be the same class's powers, with different ability requirements.

*A ranged attacker who's primary purpose is to lay out wide swathes of AOE, and interrupt the attacks of enemies.

*A pin-point sniper, who delivers debilitating strikes to weaken, slow, and hamper enemies.

*A close-range crossbow man, who focuses on using traps, explosives, and the occasional crossbow blast.

That's just what comes to mind, and all are quite different than the Ranger, although they need new names besides "Archer" likely. Dragon Child 18:15, 17 July 2009 (MDT)

I edited this class a bit. I changed the quote, a lot of the things in the class traits (to be honest most of them), added some flavor text, a bit more of how it fits into LAI (I made it up though), and added three more class features. The major thing I added is ability for the padfoot to use spells as well as powers. I am not sure if you had this idea in mind at all, and if not it would be quite easy to remove. Other then that I think the class features are getting long (since I added three more) so if you do not like the arcane magic idea that could be removed, and maybe more as well. Also, other then the spells being added as well, the class traits should probably be discussed since they were changed pretty drastically. --Green Dragon 22:19, 17 July 2009 (MDT)

If you agree with a magical side being added to this class as well one could just remove Agile Close-Combatant and maybe Maneuver and replace it with something like (I think it's called) misty step - the idea I have in mind when I mention all the things like change ones inner chemistry, etc. The name could be something else, I just remember seeing it in the PHB. Here are the changes in a diff format. --Green Dragon 22:49, 17 July 2009 (MDT)

Green, if you're going to adopt this, would you mind if I rewrote the existing rules to be somewhat more in line with 4e standards? I don't know wiki formatting at all, but at the very least I know how to salvage this a bit. Dragon Child 16:57, 19 July 2009 (MDT)

I agree that it is fine to add Template:Delete to this article. A quick question however: What are your thoughts on how the powers are, for this class, organized? Or what are your thoughts on the fake ToC which was made for the powers? --Green Dragon 15:20, 30 July 2009 (MDT)