PDA

View Full Version : 4e Private Eye (PEACH)



Talbot
2009-10-27, 01:09 AM
So, I worked up a pretty in-depth homebrew for a Private Eye class for 4th edition. The document it's in is full of pictures and formatting and such to make it look more like a real source-book, and I saw the rules for posting in the forums were pretty restrictive about pictures, so rather than re-type or Copy/Paste (and then re-format) the whole thing, here it is on rapidshare:

http://rapidshare.com/files/298464412/Private_Eye_Handbook.docx

I'm looking for feedback (mostly balance issues; I want the class to be playable), and hoping people will use/enjoy it.

It's an MS Word file, if you need it in another format just ask and I'll upload it.

Edit: Here's a PDF link for those who need it: http://rapidshare.com/files/299134367/Private_Eye_Handbook.pdf

Hashmir
2009-10-27, 01:33 AM
Well, I'm taking a look at it right now. I won't have a chance to finish before I go to bed (and I'm not exactly an expert on 4e balance), but I did want to go ahead and let you know that this look really nice. Very professional, and it's clear a lot of work went into it. I'll get back to you with more once I've gotten a chance to finish reading.

Talbot
2009-10-27, 11:54 AM
Thanks! I've been working on it for a while. I'm a big fan of detective stories and liked the idea of a mildly anachronistic Private Eye subculture in D&D. The goal was to basically make a class that worked both "in a vacuum" (i.e., regardless of what sort of party/adventure you're involved with), but also functions as sort of an ideal 5th ranger for a balanced party of Striker/Defender/Controller/Leader.

Also, I'm new to these forums, and I was wondering- what does PEACH stand for?

Hashmir
2009-10-28, 01:05 AM
Wow, I can't believe no one else has shown up yet.

Anyway, I don't know what PEACH stands for, but I can say that this is probably the best homebrew anything I've seen on these boards. I honestly can't tell you anything useful about the balance, except that the first level at-wills are reminiscent of the Ranger, but I can't see anything that falls short of what I've seen in first-party materials.

The flavor text, paragon paths, and epic destinies are absolutely brilliant. The skills were entertaining and extremely fitting, the layout was professional, and I like the effort taken to make sure that the class could do its job -- that is, the variety of powers and the large number of skills that make it very versatile. Without further experience with 4e, I'm afraid I can't give you any constructive criticism; I'm simply going to have to settle for saying that this is a tremendous work, and you should be quite proud. :smallbiggrin:

Krazddndfreek
2009-10-28, 01:08 AM
PEACH is something along the lines of "Please give constructive criticism" I can't remember what it actually stands for. Also, I don't have office on this computer and I'd very much like to see this class. Would you be willing to convert it to pdf format for me? Thanks.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-10-28, 09:10 AM
PEACH: Please Evaluate and Critique Honestly.

Talbot
2009-10-28, 10:46 AM
@Hashmir- Thanks! That's really high praise and I appreciate it (and one or two of the At-Wills are just Ranger At-Wills dressed up in new flavor, so good eye)

@Krazddndfreek- Here you go: http://rapidshare.com/files/299134367/Private_Eye_Handbook.pdf

@Djinn_In_Tonic- Thanks. Now I can say:

@Everyone Else: PEACH

Hashmir
2009-10-28, 12:37 PM
It's actually pure coincidence -- it just so happens that the only 4e character I've taken into combat has been my archer ranger.

Shadow_Elf
2009-10-28, 05:14 PM
I have not gone over the entire class yet, but I appreciate the amount of work that went into making this (I have a class project in the works as well, which is almost as genre savvy as yours).

However: This class is far too unconventional, IMHO. It is a V-shaped class (which is universally known to be a bad idea, since it halves the availability of powers). In addition, the two points of your V are in the same NAD - that means that pumping both to open one's power repertoire will be very detrimental defensively.

In addition, there is no solid "build choice" option. There are two choices, but the affect everything you do independently - this aspect also contributes to its difficulty in critique. I would boil the build options into a single either-or class feature.

Finally, there is a power balance issue in just the class features - +1 to effectively all attacks and a +2d4 damage on very solid weapon choices is a big benefit (and I am not sure why I would chose the unarmed build, given the options).

The powers, I haven't given much of a look over in-depth, but again that V-shape is a problem.

If you have balance questions about a specific feature, feel free to ask.

Talbot
2009-10-28, 06:42 PM
Thanks for your feedback. I was hoping you could clarify a few things for me?

What is a "V" class, and why is it a bad idea?

Regarding the Unarmed vs. Ranged build, did you get a chance to look at the appendix? The guns have two large downsides, namely that they A) take a full round action to reload, effectively costing you a turn, and B) at early levels, the cost of bullets is uncomfortably high. The other counter-balance between the two is that the Melee attacks use the same ability score (Cha) as most of the persuasion/bluff/etc powers, while the ranged attacks rely on Wisdom; if you're only building one way (which isn't mandatory; with good ability scores in both you can pick and choose your powers from both, which would probably be the best option in most parties), the melee build is significantly more versatile and has more powers that can effect multiple targets. I'm not saying your point is necessarily wrong (in fact, it's exactly the kind of critique I'm looking for), I'm just explaining the thinking that went into attempting to balance the two.

Shadow_Elf
2009-10-28, 10:27 PM
There are two types of classes: V and A.

An "A" shape is the ideal - a single ability score (the "point" and the "top") as the primary, and two secondaries (or more), each corresponding to a different build.

The "V" shape (see Paladin, Ranger, Cleric and Warlock) is being phased out in all future classes - It has two points at its top, which means two primary ability scores, often but not always sharing a second. It makes taking power from both incredibly a) suboptimal and b) difficult, effectively halving a character's options within the class. For example, Infernal Warlocks, since they need INT for some rider effects, are unlikely to have the CHA to take any Fey powers they might want. Similarly, a melee ranger may have an adequate enough DEX to use a bow (though its unlikely), but since it won't be as good as their strength, they won't take any archery powers.

Notice PHBI is 50% A and 50% V. PH2, FRPG, EPG and the PH3 previews are 100% A. I think that means something.

Does that make sense?

Talbot
2009-10-28, 10:31 PM
Yeah, I understand now. It doesn't sound like a class-breaking thing, though (I actually kind of like playing Ranger, and I think Rogue built the same way (Dex/Str- Cha). I mean, I generally have at least two decent ability scores. But still, thanks for the input.

Asbestos
2009-10-28, 10:40 PM
I think that for the Cleric and Ranger it makes a fair amount of sense since the two builds work entirely differently from each other (one melee v one ranged). The V class is great for a class that actually plays two different ways and isn't doing the same thing but only slightly differently.

Asbestos
2009-10-28, 10:53 PM
I must say I'm impressed that you had nearly ever single dective-y character in the art. But you missed a few...
http://www.mspaintadventures.com/?s=4

I really expected to see 'Sleuth Diplomacy' and was hoping that 'Sepulchritude' would be some sort of level 30 Epic Destiny thing.

Talbot
2009-10-29, 11:28 AM
I must say I'm impressed that you had nearly ever single dective-y character in the art. But you missed a few...
http://www.mspaintadventures.com/?s=4

I really expected to see 'Sleuth Diplomacy' and was hoping that 'Sepulchritude' would be some sort of level 30 Epic Destiny thing.

Well, the class is still a work in progress. I'm likely to add another4-5 Paragon paths and 1-2 build options (of which one will almost certainly be "Sleuth", although less the MSpaint variety, more the Sherlock Holmes variety). The goal is to basically give this class the same number of options as PHB1 classes; 3-4 build options, 15 or so Paragon Paths, etc. I just wanted to get the "beta" version out before I added anything else, as it's already a lot to read over and I wanted feedback before I added more.

Yakk
2009-10-29, 12:10 PM
The Rogue is an A shaped class. They are dex primary, and either (and sometimes both) str and cha secondary. One high peak, two secondaries.

Rangers are a V shaped class, as they have attacks that use both Dex and Str.

When you make a V shaped class, you basically halve the number of powers that any one character from your class can use; you basically build two classes. It has become conventional wisdom that instead of doing this, you build an A shaped class, and have secondary effects based off of secondary stats vary.

As an example, if they had made the Ranger as a A-shaped class, they might have done this:
All Ranger attacks use Dexterity to hit.
Ranged attacks tend to use Wisdom on their secondary effects.
Melee attacks tend to use Strength on their secondary effects.
Utility powers use Wisdom, Strength or Dexterity as secondary effects.

You can probably transform your class into an A shaped class by using the above trick. Pick a single primary attribute.

Now, for each power that used to use the second primary attribute, rewrite it so that it uses the new primary attribute, but has a kicker based off of the now secondary second primary attribute.

(And I hope to god your first language is English, because otherwise that paragraph is a doozy).

Ziegander
2009-10-29, 12:20 PM
That was one of my major concerns as well, the fact that the powers keyed off of two different primary abilities. I wasn't aware of the "A" shape vs "V" shape paradigm that has developed (I don't play 4e), but I always had a problem with the 4e Paladin for that very reason.

I would suggest using Wisdom as the Private Eye's primary ability. From there you can key the Hardboiled build off of the Constitution secondary, and the Knight in Sour Armor build off of the Charisma secondary.

Also... Knight in Sour Armor? I assume this is a reference I'm simply not familiar with, but I think a better name for the Charisma based build can be found, surely.

Talbot
2009-10-29, 12:54 PM
Hmm. I'd originally chosen to go with two abilities in order to keep the class from being TOO strong (unless of course a player rolls dual 18s, but then he deserves to be pretty badass). Is the V shape really that bad, or is it just a general disadvantage? I mean, are the four classes from PH1 that use it that severely underpowered (general power creep from PHB2 excluded)? The Ranger seems functional enough, and at least at the surface level it's a similar division (melee vs. ranged). I also built it that way to encourage players to make those their primary two abilities, since the Private Eye's most important skills draw off of them (Perception, Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Insight). A player could certainly build a high-functioning low-Wis or low-Cha Private Eye, though (putting more points in Dex for stealth and thievery, or more in Con for more HP and AC) they'd lose out on some of their versatility.

Also, please keep in mind that the Private Eye is designed to be useful, but not dominant, in combat; he isn't a Min/Max class. His versatility means he's always got a roll to play, but his mediocre (considering his armor proficiencies) HP, predominantly single-target attacks, and all of the inconveniences that come with using a gun (reload times, expensive ammo) or barehanded (hard to come by magic fists), mean he's never going to be the star of the party. His abundance of skills (six at first level with loads of bonuses), however, makes him very probably the MOST useful outside of combat.

Combat, by the way, brings me back to the original issue. A High-Wis PI has high damage output, but he's limited by his ammunition and reloads; in longer encounters he's going to be falling back on his Cha based abilities. A High-Cha PI won't be as big of a force in the early rounds of an encounter, but he'll be more consistent over a longer battle.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the ability scores are deliberately divided; it's meant to be an element of the class, not necessarily a drawback. If it's the kind of thing that makes the class useless/unplayable, I'll certainly change it (this is why I'm asking), but otherwise I rather like the dichotomy.

Ziegander
2009-10-29, 03:08 PM
Well, no a player couldn't be an effective Private Eye without maxing his Wis or Cha, because of how 4e is set up. In 4e if you don't min/max you simply aren't going to be effective. Further, if the class isn't designed to be effective in combat, the class is basically not effective at all, since the majority of 4e's mechanics are combat based.

The problem with the V-shaped classes comes from the fact that you have to max your attack stat to remain relevant. The game was designed expecting players to have the highest attack rolls they can (at least before feats such as Implement Expertise and Weapon Expertise which sort of messed that up). This means that it is sub-optimal, aka nonfunctional, for a V-shaped class to take powers that key off of a "secondary stat." You said something about the Wisdom based Private Eye falling back to his Charisma powers in protracted fights. What that pretty much amounts to is that he becomes useless. The reason being that his attack bonus is going to be so low he'll hardly ever, or never, hit.

Talbot
2009-10-29, 03:41 PM
Well, no a player couldn't be an effective Private Eye without maxing his Wis or Cha, because of how 4e is set up. In 4e if you don't min/max you simply aren't going to be effective. Further, if the class isn't designed to be effective in combat, the class is basically not effective at all, since the majority of 4e's mechanics are combat based.

The problem with the V-shaped classes comes from the fact that you have to max your attack stat to remain relevant. The game was designed expecting players to have the highest attack rolls they can (at least before feats such as Implement Expertise and Weapon Expertise which sort of messed that up). This means that it is sub-optimal, aka nonfunctional, for a V-shaped class to take powers that key off of a "secondary stat." You said something about the Wisdom based Private Eye falling back to his Charisma powers in protracted fights. What that pretty much amounts to is that he becomes useless. The reason being that his attack bonus is going to be so low he'll hardly ever, or never, hit.

I don't think I communicated my point well. It's not that they're ineffective in combat... just that they aren't as good at dealing damage as a striker or controller, not as good as manipulating the battle as a leader, not as good at healing/buffing as a defender; however, they are meant to be better at dealing damage than a leader, better at buffing/healing than a striker or controller, and better at manipulating the battle than a defender. Their class features are designed to assure a decent to-hit bonus with both attack methods (although obviously a PI with only Wis or Cha at a high level will be better at one than the other), particularly with the large number of powers they have designed to set up combat advantage or otherwise increase their to hit chance.

I do politely disagree that min/maxing is a necessity. My high Str & Cha Ranger plays pretty well, even though he rarely hits with his bow. Similarly, I'd suggest that a high Wis & Con Private Eye would play reasonably well, what with his high damage output and range, even with the reload and ammunition issues. For example:

A Private Eye, as a class feature, gets three at-Wills instead of two. Of his six available at-wills, four of them can potentially use Wis to attack; of those four, two of them require the use of a gun. A Wis-built Private Eye will almost certainly have at least one usable At-Will ability even with no ammunition and poor Cha. Both of those At-Will powers (Kansas City Shuffle and Strategic Attack) have higher than average to hit chances (Stategic Attack is Wis +2, Kansas City Shuffle attacks Reflex instead of AC), and Kansas City Shuffle knocks an enemy prone (although, in writing this paragraph, I realized I need to limit that to enemies of a reasonable size category, but that's another issue). The point I'm making is that even if someone decides to build an exclusively Wis-based PI (let's say for the sake of argument they rolled crap on their other five scores), they'll still be functional in combat, and the additional AC bonus given to the Wis build (Hardboiled) gives them a little extra chance to survive if/when forced into melee.

By contrast, an exclusively Cha-based Private Eye has a generally higher to-hit chance (+3 barehanded or +4 IW), and a wider range of time-buying/status affecting powers. Even if he stinks with his gun, the range on it means he'll likely be able to take a few pot-shots before the enemy closes, before wading in with his better (vs. the Wis build) arsenal of melee abilities.

Of course, these are both worse-case scenarios. Most characters will have at least two decent ability scores (although I admit the absence of a race that gives +2 to both Cha and Wis is inconvenient for the PI), so the difference in their Cha and Wis mods is likely to be only one. The division simply gives them the option of using that second ability score on, say, Dex (upping their AC, and improving their already Feature-augmented Stealth, which in turn helps their Sneak Attack), or Int (if they're a +int race, then they can take the Sherlock feat to switch the Wis-based attacks over to Int anyways).

I hope I'm not seeming overly argumentative; I'm just trying to explain why I think the V issue is not class-breaking. The PI is certainly not a combat class in the same league as the Sorcerer or Barbarian, but I don't feel he's terribly outclassed by most of the PHB1 classes, and his advantage in Skills makes him more useful outside of combat as compensation. If you're playing a Private Eye, hopefully you're doing so to play a sneaky, clever, detective, not a damage-dealing machine; that's like playing a Rogue because you want to cast spells.

Additionally, the Private gets a number of useful stances and powers that can be used by either build to keep him alive longer/increase his to-hit chance, as well as a larger than usual number of powers that attack Fort or Reflex.

As an aside, in a reasonably sized party (4+), the Private Eye's combat role is likely to be that of combat opportunist (jumping in where convenient to deal sneak attack damage) and free safety (filling in at whichever of the four roles the party is struggling with).

Now, assuming I want to stick with the V structure (which isn't a foregone conclusion; I'm considering switching to A, but worry that would cause more problems than it would solve), what would you suggest to compensate? Up him to 6 HP per level? Up his to-hit chance? Increase his Sneak Attack damage to match that of the Rogue?

Finally, a sidenote: I'm surprised (pleasantly) by the reaction on this thread; I was initially much more worried that the class was overpowered (high-damage weapon, loads of skills and Class Features, good Feats, reasonable HP) than underpowered, and I think the latter will be much easier to fix than the former.

Shadow_Elf
2009-10-29, 08:19 PM
I'm not sure you fully understand the roles of 4e (from the comparisons you made).

Strikers deal the damage, and have notoriously low survivability.
Controllers control the battlefield, and have notoriously low damage.
Leaders fix their allies' wounds and supply buff and tactical movement. But they aren't as burly, damaging or hampering as the other roles, necessarily.
Defenders attract enemy fire and prevent attacks from hitting their allies. They tend to suffer in either damage or secondary support ability.

As written, the Private Eye is a Striker - that is what his "role" feature does (+damage). However, you have stated that you want him to be a sneaky, perceptive, charming and insightful character with lower combat prowess. My suggestions:

Make the Private Eye Dexterity Primary - for Stealth, Thievery and Acrobatics, all very Private-Eye things to do. Make the build choices WIS for the Hardboiled Private Eye and CHA for the Knight in Sour Armour. This means that all attack rolls use Dexterity to hit and damage, and have extra damage or rider effects contingent on WIS and CHA, depending on a PE's build choice.

The next step is to more clearly define the build options - make all the features the same for both builds except one, or split them Sorcerer-style into individual blocks, repeating redundant text for both builds.

Build Options (recommendation):
Hardboiled Pistolwhip - When an enemy hits you with an opportunity attack, it takes damage equal to your Wisdom modifier. You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with guns, and, once per round, while wielding a gun, when you hit an enemy granting you combat advantage, you can apply sneak attack.

Knight's Sour Armor - When you are unarmed, you can reduce damage from a melee or ranged attack by an enemy granting you combat advantage by a value equal to your charisma modifier. You gain a +1 bonus to unarmed attack rolls and, once per round, while unarmed, when you hit an enemy granting you combat advantage, you can apply sneak attack.

Sneak Attack Progression:
+2d4/+3d4/+5d4

Unarmed Training:
+3 prof bonus, d6 damage die, on unarmed attacks

My ohter suggestions: +1/+2 Bonus to Untrained Skills, Reroll one skill check per encounter, replace other CHA check with Bluff 1 or 2 times per encounter, Use perception to gain CA somehow 1/encounter... stuff like that, that you make universal to both build options.

It would be a pretty serious overhaul, I realize after writing this post, which I think is not reasonable to ask, but I figure I'll post my suggestions now that they're typed.

Talbot
2009-10-29, 08:54 PM
When I speak of controllers doing damage, I'm referring to their ability to hit x number of foes at once; they may only do, say, 1d6 to each, but if they're hitting seven or eight enemies, that's a lot of damage per round.

The Private Eye is listed as a striker out respect for the formatting; but in reality he's a little bit of all four. He's not as damaging as the striker, he can't hit as many foes as the controller, take the hits of the defender, and doesn't have as many/as good of buffs/heals as the Leader. I realize in my previous post I mentioned defenders healing, but that's because for some reason I though the Cleric was a defender (my bad). On the other hand, he can do more damage than most defenders or leaders, has better healing and buffs than strikers or controllers, etc etc.

The "sneaky" aspect of the Private Eye (beyond the combat advantage/sneak attack side, which they all have) is up to the player; points in dexterity benefits that, but it's not essential. The Cha and Wis (Diplomacy, Streetwise, Bluff, Perception, Insight, Intimidate) are the stats tied to the quintessential Private Eye skillset, and it was largely because of that I chose to assign them as the primary attacking attribute, making sure that a Private Eye could function as, well, a Private Eye with only one or two strong ability scores; making Dex a primary stat would force that number up to three strong scores.

It seems like your biggest objection to the build options is my formatting; having the benefits listed under each feature, as opposed to altogether. That's easy enough to fix, and I may adopt part of your suggested Knight in Sour Armor feature (the damage reduction bit), because, well, I like it.

I have to admit, this thread has been very much the opposite of my expectations. I expected to be lambasted for an over (rather than under) powered class and figured that some of the powers and/or Paragon Paths would be the hot-button topics. It seems instead that the powers and Paragons are reasonable, but that my V-shaped build is problematic. Just goes to show how good of an idea it was to post this thread; otherwise, I'd have remained under the seem misapprehensions.

That said, can we move on from the V vs. A topic for just a bit and focus on the powers and Paragons? I understand the objections to the V shape and am considering changing it, but I think that both A) a lot of the issues people are worried about (such as to hit chance and melee vs. ranged) will be accounted for somewhat by the powers, and B) that I'll benefit from looking at the powers a second time in terms of A vs. V.

Yakk
2009-10-29, 10:36 PM
Oh, I'm pretty sure your class is way overpowered. But that is easy to fix.

Don't make a striker/defender/leader/controller. No, just don't. Part of the 4e design philosophy is that each player gets a place they shine. A character that is a hybrid of all 4 either shines in some or all 4 areas (thus taking away spotlight from other players), or doesn't shine (thus being an ineffective character).

Character classes in 4e are supposed to have weaknesses. Classes that attempt to fill (to a certain extent) all 4 roles explicitly lack any of the weaknesses.

More importantly, when doing something creative, do one thing creative at a time. Figure out how to make a solid 4e class before you throw out the entire design pattern of 4e. And then when you do, pick one area to be creative in, and make a good on that creativity. Because creativity implies a chance at failure, and being creative in 4 ways at once means that the result is almost certainly going to be junk.

Anyhow, good luck with your class!

Hashmir
2009-10-29, 10:41 PM
Well, I would point out that the design goal here is not to make a class that does everything, but rather one that can do everything. That is, it's quite flexible during character creation, but from there on it specializes in the areas you focused on. For instance, Fighters can be decent defenders or decent strikers, but not in the same character.

You can of course argue whether the class in question actually does that, but the premise is sound.

Talbot
2009-10-29, 10:55 PM
Oh, I'm pretty sure your class is way overpowered. But that is easy to fix.

Don't make a striker/defender/leader/controller. No, just don't. Part of the 4e design philosophy is that each player gets a place they shine. A character that is a hybrid of all 4 either shines in some or all 4 areas (thus taking away spotlight from other players), or doesn't shine (thus being an ineffective character).

Character classes in 4e are supposed to have weaknesses. Classes that
attempt to fill (to a certain extent) all 4 roles explicitly lack any of the weaknesses.

More importantly, when doing something creative, do one thing creative at a time. Figure out how to make a solid 4e class before you throw out the entire design pattern of 4e. And then when you do, pick one area to be creative in, and make a good on that creativity. Because creativity implies a chance at failure, and being creative in 4 ways at once means that the result is almost certainly going to be junk.

Anyhow, good luck with your class!



Umm. I'm not really sure how to respond to this. The goal of the class was to create a class that plays like a Private Eye. A Private Eye, at least in my mind, is a smart guy (not the smartest), who can handle himself in a fight (but isn't solo-ing a room full of bad guys), with a diverse skillset and a quick wit. He's not a striker, because he doesn't have the damage output. He's not a Controller, because he doesn't have the capacity to fling massive spells or AoE (with a few damage-less exceptions) around. He's not a leader because he's not focused on making everyone around him better. And he's not a defender, because he's not that tough. It would be silly, and kind of miss the point, to try to force him into one of those four roles. Instead, he is what he is; smart, but not too smart, strong, but not too strong, tough, but not too tough, helpful, but not too helpful. Now, if there's a specific balance issue that arises from the way the class is set up (Power X lets him do too much, Feature Y makes him too hard to kill), that's what I'm really interested in. But just generally saying "the setup of your class goes against convention and therefore the class is overpowered" isn't particularly helpful.

Accepting, for the moment, that the philosophy of 4e is that each class "shines" at something, than the PI "shines" at using his diverse skillset. He's not going to out-damage the striker, out-control the controller, out-defend the defender, or out-lead the leader, but he IS going to out-lead the striker, out-defend the controller, out-control the leader, and out-strike the defender. More than that, he's going to out-perceive/insight/streetwise/bluff/diplomacize/intimidate the lot of them. Many of the classes of 4e have a secondary role (the Avenger has some controllery powers, the Fighter has some strikery powers, etc.) The PI sacrifices having a primary role in order to have four secondary ones (and, realistically, probably only two or three; you only get so many powers).

I'm actually becoming a bit distressed here, as people seem much more concerned with how the class isn't the same as other classes (which, you know, he shouldn't be), than they are about whether or not he'll play well. Specificity is most helpful to me, because if you point at something and go "this is iffy/wrong/weak because" I can go look at it and fix it. If you just say "well, looks like you set it up wrong", there's not a ton I can do. I would also plead for open-mindedness with regards to the unconventional(?) setup insofar as the roles/the V shape are concerned, and bear with it until you get to the powers and feats, many of which are designed as checks and balances for the peculiarities of the class structure.

Shadow_Elf
2009-10-30, 03:57 PM
I think the issue people are having here is that there is no way to compare it to the other classes. When a new class is made, immediately one can compare its effectiveness at its role to that of others with the same role.

For example, I make a defender called "The Psychic Warrior", for argument's sake. I can then compare it to the Warden, Fighter, Paladin and Swordmage; is it as sticky as a Warden or Fighter? Can it mark as many foes as they can? Is it as annoying as a Paladin or Swordmage? Is it capable of their support abilities? Is it too much of the above? If it too little? And so on and so forth.

The comparison cannot be made with the Private Eye - he is simply not... comparable. By the very nature of how you have designed him, with no primary role, he cannot be compared to his predecessors, so balance cannot be assessed. If it were a striker, we could say "Can it get the Spike damage of a Rogue or Assassin? Can it achieve the accuracy of an Avenger? The DPR of a Ranger or Barbarian? The AOE Death of a Sorcerer? The ongoing, slow, painful death achieved by the Warlock?" and from there, find a basis to compare it on those grounds and others, and to balance it accordingly.

So, I think the issue is... we all appreciate the work that's gone into the class, so we're not going to say "its bad", because its not. Its just... impossible to review, since there is no basis on which to compare it.

Does that make sense?

Talbot
2009-10-30, 04:00 PM
I think the issue people are having here is that there is no way to compare it to the other classes. When a new class is made, immediately one can compare its effectiveness at its role to that of others with the same role.

For example, I make a defender called "The Psychic Warrior", for argument's sake. I can then compare it to the Warden, Fighter, Paladin and Swordmage; is it as sticky as a Warden or Fighter? Can it mark as many foes as they can? Is it as annoying as a Paladin or Swordmage? Is it capable of their support abilities? Is it too much of the above? If it too little? And so on and so forth.

The comparison cannot be made with the Private Eye - he is simply not... comparable. By the very nature of how you have designed him, with no primary role, he cannot be compared to his predecessors, so balance cannot be assessed. If it were a striker, we could say "Can it get the Spike damage of a Rogue or Assassin? Can it achieve the accuracy of an Avenger? The DPR of a Ranger or Barbarian? The AOE Death of a Sorcerer? The ongoing, slow, painful death achieved by the Warlock?" and from there, find a basis to compare it on those grounds and others, and to balance it accordingly.

So, I think the issue is... we all appreciate the work that's gone into the class, so we're not going to say "its bad", because its not. Its just... impossible to review, since there is no basis on which to compare it.

Does that make sense?

Huh. I hadn't thought of it like that before. Hmmm.... I'm going to have to think on that for a bit. If we really can't evaluate it vs. other classes, I guess the only real test will be play-testing...

I'll get back to you.

Krazddndfreek
2009-10-30, 04:15 PM
I think the Private eye is a striker more than anything else. They have sneak attack and many powers that target single foes. They may not do the most damage, but the status effects are still deadly. That aside, it looks like a fun class and every thing, but it sort of doesn't fit with the "Swords-and-sorcery" style that is DnD. If they made a 4e d20 Modern, I could definitely see this class in (or if someone was running a steampunk campaign) but otherwise, guns are quite a bit far-fetched. At least modern firearms.

I'd say they are pretty balanced, although I haven't read everything but I think I've read enough to say this much.

Also, best power ever:

Give’em a Fresh One: Private Eye Attack 1
A good hard slap‟ll show that punk who‟s boss.
At-Will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee Requirement: You must have a free hand
Target: One Creature
Attack: Charisma vs. Will Hit: 1d6 + Cha and target grants +2 to hit on attacks from you until the end of your next turn.

bitchslap = ego damage :smallbiggrin:

Hashmir
2009-10-30, 04:18 PM
Huh. I hadn't thought of it like that before. Hmmm.... I'm going to have to think on that for a bit. If we really can't evaluate it vs. other classes, I guess the only real test will be play-testing...

I'll get back to you.

Perhaps it would help to look back over the class and see whether it already favors one or more of the archetypes, rather than being evenly spread amongst all four. That is, if it's not perfectly balanced (which it likely is not), then you may find you simply need to describe it more accurately, rather than having to retool all of the mechanics first.

For instance, a paladin has a few elements of a leader, but it's clearly a defender. For instance, if it doesn't punish enemies for not attacking the character, and it doesn't have the ability to soak or avoid tons of damage, maybe its "defender" aspect isn't worth mentioning -- after all, the barbarian has an at-will that pushes an enemy, but it isn't referred to as a controller secondary.

Talbot
2009-10-30, 05:09 PM
After looking over it, it's probably about 40% Striker, 30% Leader, 20% Defender and 10% Controller (once Paragons come in that gets a bit more murky, as several of the Paragons are 100% some kind of role or other).

Perhaps what would be best would be to evaluate it as a Striker, or maybe Striker/Leader, but be mindful that its reduced damage output is compensated (in theory, at least) for by its versatility and variety of status effects.

Regarding the gun issue, I partially agree. It's a deliberately anachronistic class, but if guns are treated as an obscure/new/rare weapon, it shouldn't be too far fetched. Tossing out a line like "Imported from the lands of the tinkerer Gnomes of the Far East" should be enough for most games, I think, but it certainly depends on the DM. Failing that, you could just give them "repeating hand crossbows" or possibly "dart gun" or something similar. Also, in the interests of historical accuracy, guns were around (although admittedly not in six-shooter format) a lot farther back than a lot of people think.

I'm planning to add a section to the "Private Eyes in the Game World" that goes into it in a bit more depth, with suggestions on how to handle the presence of guns in the world, their availability, etc.

Hashmir
2009-10-30, 05:41 PM
Perhaps what would be best would be to evaluate it as a Striker, or maybe Striker/Leader, but be mindful that its reduced damage output is compensated (in theory, at least) for by its versatility and variety of status effects.

Regarding the gun issue, I partially agree. It's a deliberately anachronistic class, but if guns are treated as an obscure/new/rare weapon, it shouldn't be too far fetched. Tossing out a line like "Imported from the lands of the tinkerer Gnomes of the Far East" should be enough for most games, I think, but it certainly depends on the DM. Failing that, you could just give them "repeating hand crossbows" or possibly "dart gun" or something similar. Also, in the interests of historical accuracy, guns were around (although admittedly not in six-shooter format) a lot farther back than a lot of people think.

I think it's generally understood that shutdown and debuffs targeted at a single opponent (and augmented by damage) is part of the striker archetype, so I wouldn't worry about that. You might find that there's barely any controller left in the class after you account for that (and 10% is pretty negligible anyway).

As far as guns go, I suspect it'll feel a bit odd outside a specifically urban setting. The repeating hand crossbow was pretty much the first thing that came to my mind, and I think that works well enough. I mean, you don't really need a huge variety of available guns; most characters only really use one weapon. I've been trying to think of existing weapons that might be analogous to a six-shooter, but I keep coming up with rogue weapons.

Talbot
2009-10-30, 05:56 PM
I think it's generally understood that shutdown and debuffs targeted at a single opponent (and augmented by damage) is part of the striker archetype, so I wouldn't worry about that. You might find that there's barely any controller left in the class after you account for that (and 10% is pretty negligible anyway).

As far as guns go, I suspect it'll feel a bit odd outside a specifically urban setting. The repeating hand crossbow was pretty much the first thing that came to my mind, and I think that works well enough. I mean, you don't really need a huge variety of available guns; most characters only really use one weapon. I've been trying to think of existing weapons that might be analogous to a six-shooter, but I keep coming up with rogue weapons.

The Controller-y stuff I was referring to were more the damage-less bluff and filibuster sort of abilities. Specifically:

Menacing Threat (5), Eyes on Me (10), Epic Filibuster (19), Worrisome Calm (22), Divine Bluff (23)... but I guess those might be more Leadery/Defendery anyways. There's also a few gun powers that can hit a reasonably large group of enemies, though most of them are in the Paragons or Epics.

And on the guns, it's not terribly important that the weapon is specifically a gun so much as that its a high-damage handheld ranged weapon with a limited number of shots, prohibitively expensive ammunition, and an inconvenient full-round reload time (although this can be lowered with feat). Any sort of Handheld repeating crossbow, dagger-shooting wristband, dart-launcher, etc. could work. Or, you can just use guns and say the Gnomes/Dwarves/campaign's tinkerer race built them, explaining their expense, novelty, and rarity.

Shadow_Elf
2009-10-30, 06:42 PM
Sheer AoE =\= Controller, necessarily. For example, the Sorcerer is clearly a Striker, no doubt about it, but it still uses HUGE AoE damage blasts and bursts. And the Warlock's powers look like controller powers, but its features and utilities point towards Striker.

Making a Bluff check to gain combat advantage for example. In the hands of, say, a Fighter, its more of a leader move, because Combat Advantage doesn't do the Fighter much good, but it opens up the target for allies. In the hands of a Rogue, its a Striker move - it opens up the possibility for a lot of damage. The point I am making is that it is hard to asses the "role" of powers independent of class - if you know you're a striker, then some things you were considering "controllery" all of a sudden look "strikery". Another example is the Swordmage, who practically defends through control. Teleports and debuffs and annoyingness are the Swordmage's tools, instead of in-your-face fire-pulling.

So, my recommendation: Amend the Private Eye to be a Striker class (with Sneak Attack as his "Striker" feature). Give him some slightly Leader-y powers in utilities, like the Paladin does. Give him skill versatility, and maybe extended multiclass options, like the bard. A bonus to untrained (or, even to trained!) skills mightn't be out of place.
Then, make it DEX-WIS/CHA. This lets you draw from both builds with one stat (DEX), be good at Stealth, Thievery and Acrobatics (which, IMHO, are just as necessary as Perception and Bluff et al. to a Private Eye) across the board, and then choose between WIS (perception, insight, dungeoneering) or CHA (bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, streetwise), and have the builds focus on those two things, as secondaries.
Unless he marks, he's not really a defender. Unless he can *regularly* heal as a *class feature*, he's not really a viable leader. Unless he has a specific way to make enemies lives miserable, like Wild Shape or Implement Mastery, he is not a viable controller. As written, he is a Striker trying to do everything else.

That's just me.

Talbot
2009-10-31, 12:03 AM
I'm fine with calling him a striker, but I'm still not sold on making Dex his primary stat, or even really giving him a primary stat. As it is, a High-Cha & High-Wis Private Eye is going to be a very powerful partymember, and allowing him to have both sides of his repetoire functioning off the same top stat may push him over the power-precipe. Regarding skills, he already gets, I believe, more than any other class trained at 1st Level (the Rogue or Bard may have more), and his class features, feats, and various utilities give him tons of boosts to various skills.

However, you're not necessarily wrong about the PI being a sneaky character, so perhaps a Feat along the lines of the Sherlock and Marv feats that already exist, that allows him to sub his Dex in for either Cha or Wis (or perhaps even both, functionally giving the player the option of whether the class is A or V shaped) is the way to go.

Regarding his powers, as they stand, I think that considering his damage output is still likely to be a bit lower than the Rogue/Ranger/Avenger, and his HP/defense are very shoddy next to, say, the Barbarian, his Leadery and Defendery powers are probably good to stay, especially since when he takes them, he passes on striker powers of the same level... this allows the player to choose either a "pure" striker build (every level has at least one or two striker based powers), or play up the versatility at the cost of damage output.

Does that sound agreeable to everyone (yes, all four of you :P)?

On another note, I am still quite worried that there may be a power or Paragon (ESPECIALLY Paragon) that I didn't balance properly in there somewhere. Could a few of you take a look and see if anything looks too easily breakable/inappropriately leveled? Are there Dailies that should be Encounters, or vice versa? Do the various stacking skill bonuses eventually become too much on some skill or another? These are the things I'm most worried about. I've tried to avoid all of them, but I'm not the most experienced 4e player and I've never DMed in 4e, so outside help is not only appreciated, it's necessity.

Talbot
2009-11-04, 08:59 PM
Forgive me. I know double-posting is frowned upon here, but I wanted to avoid thread-necromancy/creating a new thread to continue the discussion.

I could really use some more input (24 of you downloaded the file, but only about five have replied), specifically with regards to the specific features/powers/feats/paragon paths. Additionally, those of you in the "A not V" camp, does the feat I suggested in my previous post seem a reasonable compromise? Perhaps it could be an optional Bonus Feat at first level, so there'd be no real downside to building that, way, but someone who wanted to focus more on the Cha/Wis side of things could still take the V path.

I'm working on an updated edition of the Handbook, with at least one more build option, a few extra Paragons, and a few changes implemented because of either this thread or playtesting (there is one current playtest that I know of, hopefully more that I don't) but it's going to be a bit before it's ready.

BRC
2009-11-08, 12:48 AM
I think I love this class. I reallly, Really want to use it now.

Talbot
2009-11-09, 02:06 PM
Please do! I think the class would seriously benefit from some actual playtesting, and (hopefully) it provides a lot of interesting opportunities for both players and DMs.