Wizard controller build it seems,
Discuss
There better be some way of pumping up the encounter powers to daily levels when they're used as dailies. Or some class features that make up for the lack of dailies, because otherwise, this guy's pretty weak.
But I bet there's class features above level 1 that we haven't seen yet.
COMPLETE LEFT FIELD. @_____@
There better be some way of pumping up the encounter powers to daily levels when they're used as dailies. Or some class features that make up for the lack of dailies, because otherwise, this guy's pretty weak.
But I bet there's class features above level 1 that we haven't seen yet.
Yeah, that's my reaction. As it is, the Bladesinger can only target at-most two creatures per turn (one with a *yawn* MBA and another via the triggered Bladespell) without expending an Encounter-as-Daily.
The other class features in Heroic (Arcane Strike and Steely Retort) show up where you'd normally get Encounter powers, so not really expecting much of a boost there...
Also, it's specifically tied to a single weapon as its implement - unlike Swordmage that gets all Light and Heavy Blades, this Bladesinger only gets a single weapon that is a light or heavy blade. And since it's a class feature, you technically can't retrain it later if you wanted to go for a Superior Weapon (or did retraining get errata'd to include class features too?). And while this would have been a great place to include an updated Versatile Expertise, the Feats section says otherwise and that the class gets taxed twice by needing both Light/Heavy Blade Expertise and Wand Expertise for its different types of attacks.
And part of me seriously cringes at the notion of regressing back to the days when everything just re-used the Wizard's spell list...
I used to adore bladesingers. Someone just capped them behind their pointed ear and rolled their twitching corpse into a bog. Sigh. Why can't they make an actual class anymore. Heck I would have been happy with a really decent paragon path.
Well, the one thing I might have bought the guide for is now dead to me. ugh.
And while this would have been a great place to include an updated Versatile Expertise, the Feats section says otherwise and that the class gets taxed twice by needing both Light/Heavy Blade Expertise and Wand Expertise for its different types of attacks.
How is that any different from Crossbow Artificers needing a Versatile Expertise and Crossbow Caster? Bladesingers are still one up, because Artificers would want to get proficency with a better crossbow.
(Not that I don't think it's still stupid design, either way. It's just that there are classes that have the same level of taxation or more.)
And while this would have been a great place to include an updated Versatile Expertise, the Feats section says otherwise and that the class gets taxed twice by needing both Light/Heavy Blade Expertise and Wand Expertise for its different types of attacks.
How is that any different from Crossbow Artificers needing a Versatile Expertise and Crossbow Caster? Bladesingers are still one up, because Artificers would want to get proficency with a better crossbow.
(Not that I don't think it's still stupid design, either way. It's just that there are classes that have the same level of taxation or more.)
It's stupid for Crossbow Artificers too - though that's a conscious choice (going with crossbows) on the part of the Artificer. All Bladesingers are set up to burn two Expertise Feats due to the design of the (sub)class. And, after first level, a Bladesinger can't get a Superior Weapon, since you can't retrain Class Features to change which specific weapon the Bladesinger gets to use as an implement.
Like you said, stupid design, either way. But specifically, it's that they had the opportunity to update Versatile Expertise, and didn't, that I'm kinda grumbling about more.
And while this would have been a great place to include an updated Versatile Expertise, the Feats section says otherwise and that the class gets taxed twice by needing both Light/Heavy Blade Expertise and Wand Expertise for its different types of attacks.
How is that any different from Crossbow Artificers needing a Versatile Expertise and Crossbow Caster? Bladesingers are still one up, because Artificers would want to get proficency with a better crossbow.
(Not that I don't think it's still stupid design, either way. It's just that there are classes that have the same level of taxation or more.)
It's stupid for Crossbow Artificers too - though that's a conscious choice (going with crossbows) on the part of the Artificer. All Bladesingers are set up to burn two Expertise Feats due to the design of the (sub)class. And, after first level, a Bladesinger can't get a Superior Weapon, since you can't retrain Class Features to change which specific weapon the Bladesinger gets to use as an implement.
Like you said, stupid design, either way. But specifically, it's that they had the opportunity to update Versatile Expertise, and didn't, that I'm kinda grumbling about more.
Actually, the alternatives for Artificers are about as bad. Non-staff melee makes you either do weapon and implement separate (again, most users are going to want to pick up something better than a simple weapon, and thus another feat) or puts you into Blades and you've got to pick up Arcane Implement Proficency and Versatile Expertise. Staff Artificers got a boon with Staff Expertise (Reach is really nice and makes staves a good option), but it's still a simple weapon. Other solutions outside of that requires swapping between weapons and implements; which needs something to help out with that.
But I agree. Wizards has been absolutely terrible when it comes to classes that use Weapons and Implements. I thought that when they released PHB3 that they wisened up, but then they went back to their old ways with the new expertise feats.
So, I guess I still don't care for the Bladesinger. It reeks of obsolete ideas. Taking encounters as dailies because it's 'splitting time between martial and arcane,' for instance, is completely out of place in 4e. If a 4e character splits his training like that, he should end up with some martial dailies and some arcane dailies - or at-wills if he goes whole-hog and Hybrids or Paragon Multi-Classes.
I can't tell how this class will stack up from just 1st level - since class fetures in Essentials+ are pushed out - it could come into it's own, somehow, at some later level. Even if it did, though, it'd still be anachronistic.
Perhaps the only thing in the Bladesinger's plus column is that it gets full INT bonus to attacks /and/ damage with it's mba - while other builds that use Melee Training get less damage. Of course, that's only because of an Essentials-era nerf to Melee Training....
I thought it would be a Defender build, not a Controller. And i would have also preferred a Int/Con build array, not Int/Dex.
I like how it retain the Bladesong and Elven association yet without making it a Prerequisit at least. But using Wizard Encounter Powers as Daily Powers ? I guess it's better than No Dailies at all but...
I just don't understand how they can use weapon as a wand and how Wand Expertise will work when wielding a Rapier, for exemple. Just the Blade Magic Feature was sufficient to express that Bladesingers can use Weapon as Implement i believe.
I really don't know why the size restriction to Shadow Sever's Proning effect though. I get that their Bladespell At-Will let them target the same or a different creature when they Hit, and affect them automatically, which as some Control potential...
It feels like wielding a sword is costly for the Bladesinger. How effective a Controller they make rest to be determined... but it doesn't look easy for the Bladesinger....
What the **** is this.
The mage ate the Swordmage and puked back up a failed half martial version of itself that cant really learn magic.. or cool fighter moves either...
OR
The mages little brother came along and beat up the swordmage stole its stuff (free IBM) then promptlly had amnesia forgetting what its role was... it sure isnt a controller
OR
Lazy a**ed design
'Because it's always been that way' is not a valid reason to continue to do things that way. Crimson is right, there is absolutely no reason any of the class's features should be restricted to blades.
I only know of one feature that is restricted to a sword. The rest are restricted to one-handed weapons. Also this is not the first time this type of restriction has happened in 4E. Eladrin Sword Wizardry and Wizard of the Spiral Tower have similar restrictions.
Your citing a feat and a PP, which are typically more specialized. A better example would be the Swordmage.
However, I agree with Salla and Crimson that the restriction on both classes is silly.
Also, it has been mentioned in this or other threads on this forum that it has not ALWAYS been that way. The original bladesinger had no weapon restriction and that was in an edition that loved flavour based restrictions.
The class feature that requires a heavy or light blade just makes it cheaper if you use a sword.
why cant we BOTH get what we want? if i wanna slap an axe on my bladesinger its my right and if you dont like it, its your right but i think its best if we both get what we want rather then just you.
hmm lets try to think of ways to make this class better
Let the Blade Magic feature apply to any weapon type instead of being limited to blade weapons. That limitation was stupid when the Sword-Mage did it, and it's just as stupid here.
then why call it bladesinger?.
You mean just like the dusk blade and warblade who could use any weapon despite having blade as part of their class name?
- Get rid of encounters as dailies.
- Make it a Swordmage subclass.
This class is just leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I think two changes would make it palatable.
- Get rid of encounters as dailies.
- Make it a Swordmage subclass.
right... I get the same response and the bad taste is bile. But apparently part of gish flavor is supposed to include being the envious little brother of real wizards.
Previews are supposed to whet the appetite; this one just churns my stomach.
Strongest At-Will control this side of a Bola-izard.
If you can hit someone, anyone with a melee basic attack (and, post paragon, you can. Deft Blade + Rapier, kthx) you can control the creature you actually care about. You don't need to roll decent on that one creature: hit anyone, control someone else.
Slide 3, or Prone are all good. The "Grants CA" thing's a bit lame, admittedly.
You get to choose 3 kickers to apply, so you've got good coverage, which you need as a controller
Gish flavor. You'll use spellsong on your "daily" opener, and then charge in.
Strong striker secondary. When you're out of monsters to control, you can beat on the remaining monsters quite well, thank you. MBA optimization combined with a nominal striker feature, combined with elemental damage tricks for fun vulnerability double-tapping.
Your "one hand free" limitation seems to be carefully worded to allow a wand or other pure implement in your off hand. That would open up DIS, further supporting your striker secondary.
Weaknesses:
Your "daily" powers all kind suck. Even with +2/+5 from spellsong, they just don't do what daily powers are supposed to do.
Your rounds-one-and-two control is lacking compared to others. You're dropping one daily AoE prone power or equivilent (one presumes one daily per encounter, once you have enough) and charging. Your other controllers are an dropping the same AoE power (but as an encounter), and then following it up with an encounter-breaking daily..
You've got two stats pushing the same NAD, which means you have two NADs that monsters hit on 2s.
I fair amount of the real power of the class will depend on the unseen encounter powers (arcane strike, and whatever the other one is). Arcane Strike classically feels like a striker thing, and I bet it will be Power Strike with an elemental keyword. In other words, kinda lame. No clue what the other one will be.
If you could get Hexblade manifestation via a Multiclass, I'd predict that the standard Bladesinger would MC Warlock for a better MBA, and go Cha/Dex (melee training at 1st, retrain into MC at 2nd.), and mostly ignore the "encounter power as daily" feature. I don't think you can, so I'm expecting that most LFR bladesingers will be half-elves to do basically the same stunt via Eldritch Strike.
or
MC rogue, pickup suprising charge, a rapier and powerswaping out to get a real daily
the issue with the warlock MC would be the fact that you dont have a good daily swap option since none of the powers are in your primary or secondary stats.
I'm so sick of everyone's whining. It's like you all think you know game design better than the designers. Wizards should just design from the heart and make whats fun for them as players cuz no matter what they make most of us are gona hate it. Why should they pay attention to us when we keep slamming their ideas down?
There have been a few times when - reading posts or articles or listening to podcasts - I've felt that I've done more reading on game design and game balance than the designers at WotC have. And I'm not even in the game industry.
As to the designers designing "from the heart":
“If the computer or the game designer is having more fun than the player, you have made a terrible mistake.” -Sid Meier
ITS BORING at least talk about the merits/faults of the class rather then claiming you know more about game design then people who do it for a living
if your so great lets see your perfect and well designed RPG
I think that it looks interesting. Between the almost striker-like damage boost, a class feature that just adds damage and accuracy (a very nice feature, it just isn't very controller-ish), and the previously mentioned big control of dailies, this class looks more like a striker/controller hybrid than a straight controller. The at-wills and class feature are more on the striker side and the "dailies" will potentially be a bit more on the controller side. It doesn't have the full damage of a striker or the full control of a controller.
One thing that I will definitely say that this class has going for it is accuracy. You pick what you want to control. You don't need to get near your target or even hit them. Even the class feature contributes to this with its accuracy boost.
No-one seems to even be mentioning the fact that it has built in Intelligent Bladmaster, something that my full swordmage would love to have. You also get OA free ranged and area attacks for free as well. Also, between a non-defender version of Swordmage Warding and an int primary stat, its AC should be strong, though as has been pointed out, the Int/Dex build is going to hurt Will and Fort.
I am not certain what I think of the encounter-as-dailies. Perhaps they wanted something a little different than the "Power Strike" encounter powers of many of the other essentials classes, but thought that the class already had enough power that having access to full scale dailies would be overkill. It certainly gives a lot more variety than a lot of the essentials classes have access to.
On a side note, in the section about the spellbook, it never says that you have to prepare one spell from each level. This would make it sound like you could, for eample, at level 5 prepare both of your level 5 encounter-as-dailies instead of 1 from level 1 and 1 from level 5. I doubt that this is how it is intended to work, but it would help make up for the reduced power level of the encounter-as-dailies if it was true.
Sure it wasn't all positive, just like it isn't all negative now, but the overall tone was completely different, even though it was many of the same people posting. What changed? Why are the same posters who were so positive about new content then so negative about it now?
Here's a hint: it wasn't the posters who changed. It was the content.
We get less now - fewer releases, less player material in each of those releases, fewer options in that player material. And what we do get, it isn't higher quality. It's mostly the same ideas as before, re-hashed to be less focused, less coherent, and in many cases less functional.
Compare PHBII to Heroes of Shadow. PHBII is full of new ideas, and old ideas with new life - fully fleshed out classes with tons of viable options and reasonable balance throughout. Heroes of shadow is mostly rehashed old ideas, it takes few chances with new material, instead of pursuing and fleshing out new concepts it shreds them down to fit them under the hats of existing classes. The concepts it does present are largely stripped down, presenting as few options to the player as possible, and many of those options themselves are quite weak - as though the designers were afraid to give the players nice things. Even some of the more interesting ideas - like the executioner or the revenant, were just reprinted from Dragon, and make no mistake - the executioner was originally advertised and published as ddi material supporting HotFK, it only became a playtest article for HoS retroactively, after they decided to make it a hard cover and needed filler material for the extra page space of that format.
PHBII was designed to offer a wealth of new gameplay experiences to players. HoS was designed to get a sellable product on the shelves with the least amount of effort from designers, and it shows, even if some playable options made it through by accident. The difference between the attitudes of the designers of the PHBII and HoS lead directly to the difference between the attitudes of posters a couple years ago and that of those same posters today.
....
To say something nice, at least monster design has still been getting better. But heaven help you if want monsters for an epic level game, because WotC sure won't.
People used to love 4e releases, the previews forum was full of happy and optimistic posters excited about new content. Go back a year or two and see the same posters eagerly anticipating PHBII or III, or Arcane Power or Primal Power, their excitement fuelled by 30 level playtests of barbarian or psion.
Sure it wasn't all positive, just like it isn't all negative now, but the overall tone was completely different, even though it was many of the same people posting. What changed? Why are the same posters who were so positive about new content then so negative about it now?
Here's a hint: it wasn't the posters who changed. It was the content.
We get less now - fewer releases, less player material in each of those releases, fewer options in that player material. And what we do get, it isn't higher quality. It's mostly the same ideas as before, re-hashed to be less focused, less coherent, and in many cases less functional.
Compare PHBII to Heroes of Shadow. PHBII is full of new ideas, and old ideas with new life - fully fleshed out classes with tons of viable options and reasonable balance throughout. Heroes of shadow is mostly rehashed old ideas, it takes few chances with new material, instead of pursuing and fleshing out new concepts it shreds them down to fit them under the hats of existing classes. The concepts it does present are largely stripped down, presenting as few options to the player as possible, and many of those options themselves are quite weak - as though the designers were afraid to give the players nice things. Even some of the more interesting ideas - like the executioner or the revenant, were just reprinted from Dragon, and make no mistake - the executioner was originally advertised and published as ddi material supporting HotFK, it only became a playtest article for HoS retroactively, after they decided to make it a hard cover and needed filler material for the extra page space of that format.
PHBII was designed to offer a wealth of new gameplay experiences to players. HoS was designed to get a sellable product on the shelves with the least amount of effort from designers, and it shows, even if some playable options made it through by accident. The difference between the attitudes of the designers of the PHBII and HoS lead directly to the difference between the attitudes of posters a couple years ago and that of those same posters today.
....
To say something nice, at least monster design has still been getting better. But heaven help you if want monsters for an epic level game, because WotC sure won't.
Well said Malisteen. The people who have been around since then remember how upbeat these forums used to be. I was one of the people who liked most of the content back then, as for now I think its just minimal effort put forth by the design team. I would be happy with less material if it was not so badly designed or just trying to cater to the essentials crowd. Maybe WOTC has forgotten who brought them this far and it sure was not the johnny come lately essentials players.
+1 derailed thread because a few people have to hate all that has "wizards of the coast" written on it, if you hate it so much stop buying books, quit playing D&D and go rant somwhere else
I quit buying at PHB3, exception RC... Rather drunk bear with mr...e... Only reason I bought RC was the compiled errata...
Yes I could create a better class than Mike Mearls... Can't be bothered with the effort that is why I pay him to do it. Frankly he couldn't design his way out of a paper sack, filled with excrement and lit on fire. I don't bother because the one person responsable for 4.0 design was fired in order for MM to take his place. Heinsoo while there were some frack ups actually made a good system. While Mearls is so mired in nostalgia that he cannot create anything of interest, w/o making something w/o options...
Options are the key people, not lazy design.
I love this.
"I could do it better but i wont, instead I'll just insult the people who are bothered to do it."
Remind's me of Lokair's: "I oculd build a better CB in about a month*... but I wont"
*I believe it was a month... though I could be wrong.
I refuse to pay for bad design. If you want to go right ahead.
Okay, I'll pay for subjectivly bad design.
My major complaint, like so many, is: WTF isn't that what a Swordmage is? Isn't that EXACTLY the flavor of an existing class? If the new Essentials Druid had been a subclass of Cleric, people would have been might angry. Or the new Paladin, maybe that would have just been a subclass of Fighter or whatever. Well that's what we've done here, and I don't like it.
I think I understand. The Swordmage is a fairly obscure class. Other than the Assassin Executioner, Wizards has stayed away from revisiting obscure classes in published material lately. It's just ironic that the Swordmage is from Forgotten Realms, and so is the Bladesinger. Makes me very sad.
*I've seen little evidence of this surging new population of players, though I certainly hope I'm wrong. We desperately need Essentials to bring in new blood.
On a side note, in the section about the spellbook, it never says that you have to prepare one spell from each level. This would make it sound like you could, for eample, at level 5 prepare both of your level 5 encounter-as-dailies instead of 1 from level 1 and 1 from level 5. I doubt that this is how it is intended to work, but it would help make up for the reduced power level of the encounter-as-dailies if it was true.
Actually it does say exactly what you say it doesn't say...
p. 6 of PDF (or 71 if you look at the actual page)
"You cannot prepare more than one attack power and
one utility power of any given level on the same day."
+1 derailed thread because a few people have to hate all that has "wizards of the coast" written on it, if you hate it so much stop buying books, quit playing D&D and go rant somwhere else
I quit buying at PHB3, exception RC... Rather drunk bear with mr...e... Only reason I bought RC was the compiled errata...
Yes I could create a better class than Mike Mearls... Can't be bothered with the effort that is why I pay him to do it. Frankly he couldn't design his way out of a paper sack, filled with excrement and lit on fire. I don't bother because the one person responsable for 4.0 design was fired in order for MM to take his place. Heinsoo while there were some frack ups actually made a good system. While Mearls is so mired in nostalgia that he cannot create anything of interest, w/o making something w/o options...
Options are the key people, not lazy design.
1: if your not going to put your money where your mouth is or dont make such stupid claims
2: you dont pay him to do it, you just said you dont buy it
i like the guy i like his design and he designs monsters way better then the first 2 monster manuals. but if your such an internet tuffguy claiming how great you can game design then why are you not getting paid to do it?
I'm not saying I'm a great designer - I have trouble with 'bigger picture' issues, and I'm horridly wordy - but, it's clear to me from my own tinkering that the effort that went into 4e classes is not going into Essentials and post-E classes, and it shows in the quality being produced.
To put it a different way...
You've probably heard that "it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools." Well, it's a completely incompetent craftsman who can't tell the difference between an adequate and an inadequate too. You don't need to know how to make a saw to tell if it stands up to normal use or not. You don't need to know how to make a hammer to realize there's a problem when you order a sledge and get a rubber mallet.
I've been gaming for a long time, and I can tell a game that works for a given play style, or is internally consistent, or is balanced - in short, I can tell a 'good' game from a 'bad' one. Not because I've created a lot of good and bad games, but because I've played a lot of good and bad games.
Ertai