I love both the mechanical and the flavour implications of power sources, though I am left wondering, if shadow is a corruption of a power source, then what does that make the Assassin, or the Vampire, which are both shadow only? Pure corruption? If so, can I have more pure corruption please?
Yeah, the descriptions of what defines the power sources bugs me. They're all pretty loose ideas (though at least Arcane is admittedly loose; I'm pretty sure it could be effectively renamed the Nostalgic Magic power source, since its only distinct flavour is that it's where all the old wizard spells are at). Shadow not being a power source bugs me, because we have two classes (assassin and vampire) that are fully shadow. Is that supposed to explain why they're so crippled mechanically? I'd like to see power sources have mechanical differentiations. Part of that is my "martial should be less magic" notion from other threads, but part of that is, say, "shadow magic should involve mechanics of self-affliction for benefits." Or "arcane magic should not frequently involve attack rolls." Or "divine magic should almost always have an Effect clause." These are things that can bind power sources together. When you could cover up the listed power source keyword on a power and still make an educated guess as to its source just by the setup of the stats (which we can do with psionic powers), then power sources are unique enough.
I personally love grid filling, as I think it often creates more good than it does mediocrity. Ask if y'all want more specifics, but grid-filling, either intentional or not is a great thing for me.
Grid-filling for grid-filling's sake is bad. It led to underachieving classes like the Swordmage. Granted, not-grid-filling has led to underachieving classes like the Vampire. But I know that a class shouldn't be created primarily based on power source and role. Those things should be examined after consideration of an archetype.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
It led to underachieving classes like the Swordmage. .
Love my shielding swordmage the flavor is awesome its a great magical swordsman and I hate that nearly role-less striker controller wannabe wizard wannabe fighter made later...
Love my shielding swordmage the flavor is awesome its a great magical swordsman and I hate that nearly role-less striker controller wannabe wizard wannabe fighter made later...
I'll grant that Bladesinger is very bad. The eldritch knight is probably a decent way to do it in theory, though I think the racial restriction just ruins it. The swordmage lacks mechanical oomph compared to other defenders (and I've looked at its power options; they're not good either, in most cases). But more importantly, the swordmage also seems to lack interest. People aren't making them. Or if they are, Wizards of the Coast is horribly misinterpreting the data from the builder by not providing content. I think it's a matter of swordmages not quite striking the right archetypical chord.
And I didn't mean to insinuate that there's anything wrong with enjoying a suboptimal or unpopular character type. Lazylords are probably my favourite kind of warlord, and they're not very good either. But it shouldn't be a matter of class design as in the swordmage's case, and should be silly choice as in the lazylord's case.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
Love my shielding swordmage the flavor is awesome its a great magical swordsman and I hate that nearly role-less striker controller wannabe wizard wannabe fighter made later...
I'll grant that Bladesinger is very bad. The eldritch knight is probably a decent way to do it in theory, though I think the racial restriction just ruins it. The swordmage lacks mechanical oomph compared to other defenders (and I've looked at its power options; they're not good either, in most cases). But more importantly, the swordmage also seems to lack interest. People aren't making them. Or if they are, Wizards of the Coast is horribly misinterpreting the data from the builder by not providing content. I think it's a matter of swordmages not quite striking the right archetypical chord.
And I didn't mean to insinuate that there's anything wrong with enjoying a suboptimal or unpopular character type. Lazylords are probably my favourite kind of warlord, and they're not very good either. But it shouldn't be a matter of class design as in the swordmage's case, and should be silly choice as in the lazylord's case.
what is the matter with swordmage?
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?
Love my shielding swordmage the flavor is awesome its a great magical swordsman and I hate that nearly role-less striker controller wannabe wizard wannabe fighter made later...
I'll grant that Bladesinger is very bad. The eldritch knight is probably a decent way to do it in theory, though I think the racial restriction just ruins it. The swordmage lacks mechanical oomph compared to other defenders (and I've looked at its power options; they're not good either, in most cases).
The ability of the shielding swordmage to wander around the battlefield effectively inducing its mark penalty seems quite functional (the non-shielding swordmages are problematic mechanically - the assault of the assault type seems way too weak but those who like it like its pinging around aspect and they just got all cautious on the controller brand). Swordmages being from a setting book presumedly results in them getting less general support - to me they definitely touch on some very strong archetypes including samurai/ninja and how I always envisioned he magical swordsman way back when the closest thing to it was a reflavored cleric. (specialty priest perhaps). Mechanics which arent same old same old are another thing I sometimes find appealing yes damage reduction is well defined in the game but how many defenders use it? aside from thp on self.
Bladesinger - Flavor wise.. The oops I suck as a fighter and suck as a wizard but the too combine to make me ok.. which seems the BS concept is a piddly goo flavor... The swordmage in contrast feels intentional its magic was designed around and a reflection of the use of the sword and not pasted on.
Lazylords are probably my favourite kind of warlord, and they're not very good either.
Mine too... that they "can" represent an archetypeal non-combatant action adventurer AND were not an official build but one I came up with for myself(I called it a princess build) contributes to there appeal for me... Though a brash odin style spear toating warlord could be pretty damn cool too.
I think that the delay action is wonderful for the game. It is actually less complex than the ready action (although I like the ready action, I would rather give up ready than delay). It can't be replaced by the ready because it lets you keep all three of your actions. Take the following situation. A party has just opened a door in a corridor. The fighter is in front, the rogue next, the wizard is third in line but can't even see into the room . A monster is standing in front of the door. (I'm assuming no suprise round, so everyone gets full actions.) Ideally, what you want is the fighter to push the monster out of the doorway, the wizard to step up and fireball the rest of the monsters, and the rogue to enter behind the fighter and start working his way into a flanking position. If the initiative order is wizard, rogue, fighter, and you don't have delay, what you end up with is the rogue throwing a dagger at the monster, the wizard doing nothing, and then the fighter pushing the monster back. One character has wasted his turn, and another has done something suboptimal. Not a way to have happy players.
If you replace delay with readied actions, then the wizard and rogue can ready move actions. So after the fighter pushes the monster back, two characters have less than optimal actions.
Once things get more complicated in combat, without delay players will probably not use optimal tactics. In general, I've observed that players want to do something every round. Having to waste a round in order to wait for something to happen is just not something that will happen.
Love my shielding swordmage the flavor is awesome its a great magical swordsman and I hate that nearly role-less striker controller wannabe wizard wannabe fighter made later...
I'll grant that Bladesinger is very bad. The eldritch knight is probably a decent way to do it in theory, though I think the racial restriction just ruins it. The swordmage lacks mechanical oomph compared to other defenders (and I've looked at its power options; they're not good either, in most cases). But more importantly, the swordmage also seems to lack interest. People aren't making them. Or if they are, Wizards of the Coast is horribly misinterpreting the data from the builder by not providing content. I think it's a matter of swordmages not quite striking the right archetypical chord.
And I didn't mean to insinuate that there's anything wrong with enjoying a suboptimal or unpopular character type. Lazylords are probably my favourite kind of warlord, and they're not very good either. But it shouldn't be a matter of class design as in the swordmage's case, and should be silly choice as in the lazylord's case.
what is the matter with swordmage?
Assault Swordmages and Ensnaring Swordmages. And, I guess I'd also say that they need a bit more damage as a whole (Those [w]'s make a lot more difference when you're not a striker).
Oh. And WoTC's inconsistent design of weapon/implement game elements.
There's a long slew of old arguments that I agree with for the most part, and most of 'em stem from the theory that a good defender (much like a good leader) engages in preventative measures instead of reactive measures. While Swordmage Aegis are interrupts, none of them is as effective at defending as, say, the weaponmaster's Combat Challenge + Combat Superiority. Probably because the Aegis is just one feature and the weaponmaster has two. It's also somewhat of issue that the swordmage is designed to mark something and not stick to it; it's not as effective in a defenderish manner to not be physically preventing enemies from getting to your allies. Basically, swordmages aren't "sticky." There's nothing about them that gets up in uglies' grills and gives them a hard time, up until the attack is made. Wardens, Weaponmasters, Knights, and Battleminds all have ways of hampering even the potential of infringing on the mark.
As for Shielding specifically, Garthanos, the damage reduction is probably the best of the aegis. Still, it's the stickiness. Your swordmage that is wandering around the battlefield isn't engaging in the same lockdown that Defender Aura subclasses, weaponmasters or wardens do just by standing next to something. And swordmages don't do anything to compensate for this that stands apart from other defenders.
Also, my lazylord is an eladrin tactical warlord. The plan I worked out for him was to boost Intelligence and Charisma at every opportunity after 11th level, 'cause he needs first to boost dex once and wis once to have 15 strength, dexterity and wisdom by level 11 (Heavy Blade Opportunity and Polearm Gamble). Character-wise, I decided his name is Legion (he'd introduce himself, every time, saying "I AM LEGION!"), and he's a not-so-secret wannabe supervillain that wants to convince his PC friends to be part of his league of evil (since he'd determine pretty quickly that their team is unstoppable; he would need them on his side to take over the world). He also multiclasses wizard so that he can get a familiar. An earth mephit named Pazuzu. He uses Familiar Mount on it every day and flies above the battlefield, raining soliloquy and commands upon the ranks. If he needs to stop an enemy from escaping, he has Pazuzu turn into a boulder, ground-pounding the escapee flat. I have yet to play this character, but I love it so.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
Again, yes, I can see that, from a player point of view, it can be better to delay - I don't disagree that delaying all 3 actions can be more advantageous than delaying only one.
I am just saying that it's not really necessary from the game point of view, or particularly justifiable on a "realism" basis apart from during the first turn/combat setup.
It's quite necessary on both grounds. On the gamist side, leaders & controllers would be unable to fully explore their roles if they were unable to adjust their place in initiative relative to their allies or enemies. On the side of realism, Delay represents hesitation, waiting to see what developes, or otherwise not doing anything /right now/ without waiting a whole initiative cycle. The alternative - act, /now/ or lose your turn - would be pretty sucky.
Nor am I saying "Ready" should work exactly as it does now. I don't think it should change your "initiative pip", for a start, and I think 'Readying' should just be "taking the action later", not "using a Standard action to set up a triggered Immediate action.
Combined with eliminating Delay, that would make the initiative order entirely inflexible - no coordinating actions, if you want to wait for a buff, let an ally through a door before you, or whatever other reasonable action, you'll have to lose a turn.
As for the "complexity" argument all I can say is I think the point is being highly exxagerated. I don't know how else to say it than that.
Well, the context of the article and this thread is that "ways to simplify" are being explored. And my experience with running 4E is that Delays and Readys as they stand can be a PITA.
IMX, delay and ready aren't a big problem. In fact, Delay can save a character from wasting his turn when there's nothing useful for him to do, or debating with himself and slowing the game down. Ready, likewise, provides a safety valve of sorts that avoids forcing players into stupid actions or protracted decisions so as not to 'waste a turn.'
As with any discussion on 'how to speed up the game,' I think it's a solution in search of a problem. If the game is fun, no one minds if it takes 75 minutes of fun instead of 45 to resolve a combat. Some might even like getting 75 min of entertainment out of the same scenario. It's only a problem with time is short and tightly constrained - and even then, it's an issue of time management. As long as you can have decent idea of how long a combat might take, you can budget your time to include it, or modify it to fit your allotted time.
Taking away from the depth, fun, and even, yes, complexity of the game to 'save time,' is self-defeating. It only makes sense if your desire is to game less and have less fun doing it.
On the other hand, I love delay. It is one of the biggest time savers during combat with a player delaying for a few moments while another player goes if he does not know what to do. It prevents people from wasting actions if they accidentally role high, and simply do not want to rush ahead and face all the opponents on their own. And finally, it favors people working together as a team, potentially even saving a PCs life (delay until after the monster to heal the unconscious PC next to that monster since otherwise the monster will just knock the poor sod unconscious again).
Once again, the example you give sounds to me like a "Ready" would fit it well - Ready the heal until the monster has acted.
Blow a Standard action to Ready a minor. There are times when that might be worth it, if you have a pressing need to do a different minor or a move, right now, but in general, it's a poor option compared to Delaying.
In the schema I suggested for OA/Immediate actions, in fact, it would not even need that, since I have suggested that Minor heals could be Opportunity actions (used when an injured ally is within range).
That would work, for that one example of a good use of delay. It'd also give the healer the benefit of being Ready, all the time, making healing powers stronger, and sucking a little tactical depth and interest out of the role.
But more importantly, the swordmage also seems to lack interest. People aren't making them. Or if they are, Wizards of the Coast is horribly misinterpreting the data from the builder by not providing content. .
actually i see them all the time on the vt, certainly not an unpopular class, and they just came out with a swordmage class acts either this month or last month, cant remember
