The errata to CaGI, which replaced auto-pull followed by an attack with an attack vs Will to pull and damage, was (in my view) the worst manifestation of post-Essentials capitulation to critics of 4e.
The point of CaGI is to allow the fighter to do his/her thing and pull in his/her foes. The damage is secondary.
Honestly, I think it would be interesting to hear someone like [MENTION=12749]MwaO[/MENTION] who's got a really good handle on powers and tactics and the subtle trade-offs between different things. There's a LOT MORE GOING ON with 4e powers, particularly wizard ones in PHB1, than you seem to believe.
The errata to CaGI, which replaced auto-pull followed by an attack with an attack vs Will to pull and damage, was (in my view) the worst manifestation of post-Essentials capitulation to critics of 4e.
The point of CaGI is to allow the fighter to do his/her thing and pull in his/her foes. The damage is secondary.
Honestly, most people in CharOp thought it ended up stronger. .
How so?
Rolling the attacks still marks them, so the fighter's still doing his thing, even if the pull doesn't work (and it might not work for other reasons, like not having a square to pull them into).The errata to CaGI, which replaced auto-pull followed by an attack with an attack vs Will to pull and damage, was (in my view) the worst manifestation of post-Essentials capitulation to critics of 4e.
The point of CaGI is to allow the fighter to do his/her thing and pull in his/her foes. The damage is secondary.
Fighters with +3 proficiency weapons who have CA are really high accuracy against NADs…
The /worst/ manifestation of post-Essentials capitulation was the class designs.