community.wizards.com/arkon262/go/charac...
although that view seems a bit off, so here he is on iPlay4e:
iplay4e.appspot.com/characters/agdpcGxhe...
Our party consists of myself, a rogue, a monk, a cleric and a wizard. We were recently pitted against an "assassin" who single handed was able to kill the NPC we were guarding, as well as knock myself, the rogue and the monk unconcious before escaping. From a roleplaying perspective, my character would have rather died, than to suffer the shame of loosing someone he was protecting without first dying himself. I have gotten to the point that the character has felt more like work to play, than fun. The DM tends to have a habit of either always obeying my mark, or having enemies that are able to get around my mark punishment. (The assassin had a triple attack, one of the three he would target my battlemind, the other two would hit the rogue, monk, or NPC we were guarding. Due to the way the battlemind mark punishment works, there was very little I could do. It didn't help that this battle came at a point where my character was already out of daily powers due to tough encounters with no chance to rest.)
So to the main point I suppose. At this point the DM has given me the option of coming up with an RP reason for my battlemind to retire (in a fit of rage over loosing the person he was guarding, he takes off after the assassin in an attempt to exact revenge, never to be seen again) and roll a new character, or come up with an RP reason to "transform" the character into a different type of defender, (options given were Paladin , due to my character converting to worship the diety of our cleric, or a Warden, as my character lay dying on the floor of an enchanted forest, a powerful primal spirit brings him back from the brink of death.) I am concerned that my frustration/stress with the character has as much to do with playing the convoluted battlemind class, as it is with playing the defender role. I don't want to leave the party out to dry, but at this point I am leaning towards rolling a striker and hoping that the party can end combats faster, so as to not need a defender.
Any thoughts/advice would be appreciated.
Perhaps some of your lack of fun is due the the class/role, in that case a change will be fun. Not being happy that monsters obey your mark, you could look for something where DM's choice of monster behaviour is less of a class feature.
The rest of your description (tight control over your options, and apparently encounters run to reduce the ability to defend) read like the DM is kicking back against PC *control* abilities specifically. He wants to run his plot, and is viewing PC abilities. You might want to talk to him about this, if you can handle that kind of conversation. Alternatively, you might want to look for builds where it would be difficult for him to wrest control. His kind of mindset often has "blind spots" - he might not notice or care about massive damage from a ranged striker, because it meets his ideas about how the game and plot should run. Do any of the other PCs in the group seem to have a charmed life, with no counters to their abilities?
The DM tends to have a habit of either always obeying my mark, or having enemies that are able to get around my mark punishment.
While Lightning Rush is amazing, you might want to switch to Forceful Reversal instead. That way, if the DM respects your mark, you punch the enemy back for doing so. It is cheap to Augment it 1 in any case and get your standard back. If they don't respect your mark, then you get to shift with them and do Mind Spike. And it really works wonders with Lodestone Lure.
I think featwise, you really need to look at Melee Training and Improved Defenses. Melee Training will really help amp up your mark capabilities. Improved Defenses will help immensely, especially when you hit paragon. The Skill Power and Wild Talent Mastery are certainly interesting, but if everyone has +5 to initiative, you don't really need Stall Tactics that much.
The DM tends to have a habit of either always obeying my mark, or having enemies that are able to get around my mark punishment. (The assassin had a triple attack, one of the three he would target my battlemind, the other two would hit the rogue, monk, or NPC we were guarding. Due to the way the battlemind mark punishment works, there was very little I could do. It didn't help that this battle came at a point where my character was already out of daily powers due to tough encounters with no chance to rest.)
Side note: Unless this three-target thing was a Close Burst attack targeting "three targets in burst", two of those attacks would trigger your Mark punishment and suffer the Mark penalty.
"Standard: Attack three times" is still three separate, individual attacks. And unless *all three* target you, your Mark is triggered.
While Lightning Rush is amazing, you might want to switch to Forceful Reversal instead. That way, if the DM respects your mark, you punch the enemy back for doing so. It is cheap to Augment it 1 in any case and get your standard back. If they don't respect your mark, then you get to shift with them and do Mind Spike. And it really works wonders with Lodestone Lure.
I think featwise, you really need to look at Melee Training and Improved Defenses. Melee Training will really help amp up your mark capabilities. Improved Defenses will help immensely, especially when you hit paragon. The Skill Power and Wild Talent Mastery are certainly interesting, but if everyone has +5 to initiative, you don't really need Stall Tactics that much.
Yeah I was planning on taking Improved Defenses at 11, Wild Talent Mastery was taken for RP purposes as well as some imaginative uses in combat. Good point on Stall Tactics. The only reason I have not taken Melee Training is that in 10 levels of play over the last year, I have only ever made an opportunity attack 3-4 times. The DM rarely if ever triggers them. Enemies that he moves around the battlefield tend to either have teleport or a shift of 2 or more.
I had thought about swapping Lightning Rush out for Forceful Reversal, but the past few battles (previous to the solo assassin) the battlefield was fairly spread out and I had to use Lightning Rush nearly every round.
Side note: Unless this three-target thing was a Close Burst attack targeting "three targets in burst", two of those attacks would trigger your Mark punishment and suffer the Mark penalty.
"Standard: Attack three times" is still three separate, individual attacks. And unless *all three* target you, your Mark is triggered.
Interesting, when I brought it up, the DM ruled that because one of the three attacks, which were resolved in one action, targetted me, then it would not trigger mark punishment.
Side note: Unless this three-target thing was a Close Burst attack targeting "three targets in burst", two of those attacks would trigger your Mark punishment and suffer the Mark penalty.
"Standard: Attack three times" is still three separate, individual attacks. And unless *all three* target you, your Mark is triggered.
Interesting, when I brought it up, the DM ruled that because one of the three attacks, which were resolved in one action, targetted me, then it would not trigger mark punishment.
This is a very common mistake. It is, however, a mistake. Those are three attacks - the fact that it's "one action" is not relevant. EACH ATTACK must include you as a target or suffer, no matter how many actions the attacks take.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with battleminds.
Perhaps some of your lack of fun is due the the class/role, in that case a change will be fun. Not being happy that monsters obey your mark, you could look for something where DM's choice of monster behaviour is less of a class feature.
The rest of your description (tight control over your options, and apparently encounters run to reduce the ability to defend) read like the DM is kicking back against PC *control* abilities specifically. He wants to run his plot, and is viewing PC abilities. You might want to talk to him about this, if you can handle that kind of conversation. Alternatively, you might want to look for builds where it would be difficult for him to wrest control. His kind of mindset often has "blind spots" - he might not notice or care about massive damage from a ranged striker, because it meets his ideas about how the game and plot should run. Do any of the other PCs in the group seem to have a charmed life, with no counters to their abilities?
In thinking more and more, I believe that is is a class/role issue. My DM insists that my character is doing a tremendous job as a defender, generally keeping the attention of my enemies so that the rest of the party can do their jobs. The character does a pretty good job of soaking damage, and ok defenses. If my character is playing his role really well, and I am not enjoying it then perhaps the role no longer my tastes.
I think part of my feeling that the class is convoluted is due to us playing online via Maptools, my character has a ton of macros to keep track of due to unaugmented, augment 1, augment 2 versions of powers, and part of that is likley my inexperience with writing complex macros. I think if I were in an actual tabletop setting with power cards it would be much simpler.
Why not a barbarian. Your character's percieved failure has turned him a little reckless in his quest to never allow what happenned happen again. Take a multiclass that allows you to makr once an encounter(probably a battlemind one).
Side note: Unless this three-target thing was a Close Burst attack targeting "three targets in burst", two of those attacks would trigger your Mark punishment and suffer the Mark penalty.
"Standard: Attack three times" is still three separate, individual attacks. And unless *all three* target you, your Mark is triggered.
Interesting, when I brought it up, the DM ruled that because one of the three attacks, which were resolved in one action, targetted me, then it would not trigger mark punishment.
This is a very common mistake. It is, however, a mistake. Those are three attacks - the fact that it's "one action" is not relevant. EACH ATTACK must include you as a target or suffer, no matter how many actions the attacks take.
I have had this situation happen to my warden character as well. I agree with LordOfWeasels in they way this situation should be resolved. In the end though it doesn't really matter what we think or even what the rules say, the DM has final say for all rules interpretation at their table (and they can change rules, rule 0). I just had to except that my DM and I disagreed on the resolution of monster powers with multiple individual attacks (and go with his interpretation).
In the end though it doesn't really matter what we think or even what the rules say, the DM has final say for all rules interpretation at their table (and they can change rules, rule 0). I just had to except that my DM and I disagreed on the resolution of monster powers with multiple individual attacks (and go with his interpretation).
While a DM can totally change the rules, it's important to know what they *are*, first, so that he can know when he's making a change.
And, often, what the rules are will show the intent of how it's supposed to work, and avoid problematic edge cases.
In the end though it doesn't really matter what we think or even what the rules say, the DM has final say for all rules interpretation at their table (and they can change rules, rule 0). I just had to except that my DM and I disagreed on the resolution of monster powers with multiple individual attacks (and go with his interpretation).
You're forgetting the rest of rule 0. The DM has the final say, but he should only invoke this power when it's for the good of the group, not so he can
himself while going "look at how I perverted the rules to completely **** your characfter's main ability!"In the end I decided to roll a new character. I ended up with a Thri Kreen Marauding Ranger who dual wields two drow long knives, and can engage in both melee or range. Tonight will be his first session where we will likely see combat, so it will be interesting to see how we do with a defender in the party.
I dont' feel like the DM was intentionally trying to screw with my character, but I didn't ask to be honest.
He probably wasn't doing it intentionally to **** your character, but he was still ****ing your character, and your description of the problem does seem to imply that he was intentionally abusing his misreading of the rule to guarantee that your Defender couldn't do Defender things.
Which, again, isn't necessarily doing it because he specifically wants to **** your character, but the result is the same.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with battleminds.
Perhaps some of your lack of fun is due the the class/role, in that case a change will be fun. Not being happy that monsters obey your mark, you could look for something where DM's choice of monster behaviour is less of a class feature.
The rest of your description (tight control over your options, and apparently encounters run to reduce the ability to defend) read like the DM is kicking back against PC *control* abilities specifically. He wants to run his plot, and is viewing PC abilities. You might want to talk to him about this, if you can handle that kind of conversation. Alternatively, you might want to look for builds where it would be difficult for him to wrest control. His kind of mindset often has "blind spots" - he might not notice or care about massive damage from a ranged striker, because it meets his ideas about how the game and plot should run. Do any of the other PCs in the group seem to have a charmed life, with no counters to their abilities?
In thinking more and more, I believe that is is a class/role issue. My DM insists that my character is doing a tremendous job as a defender, generally keeping the attention of my enemies so that the rest of the party can do their jobs. The character does a pretty good job of soaking damage, and ok defenses. If my character is playing his role really well, and I am not enjoying it then perhaps the role no longer my tastes.
I think part of my feeling that the class is convoluted is due to us playing online via Maptools, my character has a ton of macros to keep track of due to unaugmented, augment 1, augment 2 versions of powers, and part of that is likley my inexperience with writing complex macros. I think if I were in an actual tabletop setting with power cards it would be much simpler.
Slightly off-topic but those augment powers could be one macro with radio buttons per power. Secondly, augmented powers are tricky. What I would do with those powers is write a one sentance reminder in a word document about what situation each option excels in. Finally, no character in this game can excercise complete control over situations. Dealing with failure and disappointment can actually be a good thing for character/plot/and most importantly player development.
If somebody in your group says something to the tune of "I wish we had your battlemind back; we could use him", then print off this thread and have a private talk with your DM. Explain that having your character nerfed (even by accident) is a fun-killer. Ideally, he will take a trip to the Rules Forum and get a non-partisan third-party call on the assassin's triple attack. You both will abide by the consensus answer?
I agree that this can be a character/player development moment. Play the marauder for a while, then ask the group which character adds more to the party. If they say the battlemind, bring him back. Maybe he went on a long drunk to hide from his shame, then decided he would have to go into danger and succeed this time to recover his honor. (I made a rough decision at DDXP 2011 and temporarily retired my Warlock due to I wanted to kick myself for what I/he did. We need to go do something better to make up for our ... thoughtlessness causes unexpected consequences ... and start acting like heroes again.)
I should start by saying that I have never played a Defender because I have a "thing" about getting NPCs to hit my character on purpose. (I like having ALL my hit points and treat them like gold pieces.) You have 10 levels more endurance and patience than do I.
If somebody in your group says something to the tune of "I wish we had your battlemind back; we could use him", then print off this thread and have a private talk with your DM. Explain that having your character nerfed (even by accident) is a fun-killer. Ideally, he will take a trip to the Rules Forum and get a non-partisan third-party call on the assassin's triple attack. You both will abide by the consensus answer?
I agree that this can be a character/player development moment. Play the marauder for a while, then ask the group which character adds more to the party. If they say the battlemind, bring him back. Maybe he went on a long drunk to hide from his shame, then decided he would have to go into danger and succeed this time to recover his honor. (I made a rough decision at DDXP 2011 and temporarily retired my Warlock due to I wanted to kick myself for what I/he did. We need to go do something better to make up for our ... thoughtlessness causes unexpected consequences ... and start acting like heroes again.)
So we have had a few real combat sessions since I introduced the marauder. Thanks to stealth, and knowing we can't just rush in, we have been able to get surprise against our enemies pretty reliably. Given our damage potential, so far it has been fairly smooth.
Surprisingly the same sort of situation came up in our last combat. We were up against three trolls. I had leaped up onto the back of a troll. He took a swing at an ally, and then took a swing at me, (in essence twin strike), so I tried firing off battle awareness, since he made an attack against an ally that didn't include me, (the first swing of the power) and the DM ruled I couldn't use the power because the power the troll used did attack me. I called him out about it, and he stuck with his ruling.
So I let him know moving forward that his rules have to apply to all of my multi-attacks then.
I do miss the character of my battlemind, but I love the versatility/utility that my marauder brings.