FR Preview-Sword Mage and Genasi

[Belphanior]

I like what I see of the swordmage. The fighter is the nasty defender who can dish it out and take it back. The paladin is the cleric-y defender with radiant damage and heals. But the swordmage is the defender with the warlock's annoyance factor baked in (annoyance to the monsters, glorious for the party of course).

Greenflame Blade is a little over the top. I'd like it better if it did extra damage to all creatures adjacent rather than enemies. That would mean it's more situational and better suited for glaive-swordmages, which in turn kills their AC. Not an unreasonable tradeoff I think.

 

[WhatGravitas]

A Swordmage still needs a good strength so his modifier is unlikely to be much lower that the fighter's. Probably about 1 point of difference. I don't think one less point of damage is enough to make up for being able to apply that damage to all adjacent enemies.

Erm, why should he go for strength? He uses Intelligence for attack and damage, and Constitution for his Aegis of Shielding and his surges (where he's a bit deficient compared to the fighter and paladin). So far, Strength has three applications: Flame Cyclone, Greenflame Blade, and OAs (which are less pronounced than the fighter's).

Though Greenflame Blade certainly isn't weak, that I agree to - I'm just not calling it overpowered, yet.

Int and Con are much better alternatives for better hitting and more resilience.

Cheers, LT.

 

[keterys]

Fire is far more resisted, maybe they thought that was enough to justify the difference.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Fire is far more resisted, maybe they thought that was enough to justify the difference.

Another slight edge of Cleave in minion situations: Cleave damages an enemy adjacent to you, whereas Greenflame Blade damages enemies adjacent to the hit creature.

Minions are often in large numbers and tend to flank you - Cleave can get you out of minion flanks with ease. Greenflame Blade is more like a Blast 3 that hits all or nothing.

Cheers, LT.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Erm, why should he go for strength? He uses Intelligence for attack and damage, and Constitution for his Aegis of Shielding and his surges (where he's a bit deficient compared to the fighter and paladin). So far, Strength has three applications: Flame Cyclone, Greenflame Blade, and OAs (which are less pronounced than the fighter's).

Though Greenflame Blade certainly isn't weak, that I agree to - I'm just not calling it overpowered, yet.

Int and Con are much better alternatives for better hitting and more resilience.

Cheers, LT.

That would be Aegis of Assault, there is quite clearly a separate strength and a con build.

 

[-Avalon-]

I agree

Why go for strength with a high priority? if you have a 12 or 14 str, should be perfectly fine.

I personally see Tieflings as being awesome for the class. With the feat for adding the +1 att/+1 dam to all Keyword:Fire powers? and the encounter power they get to add charisma bonus to damage and all? Then of course the feat for pushing enemies when you deal fire damage with your racial encounter power... Tieflings seem just perfectly built for this class.

 

[Fedifensor]

Why go for strength with a high priority? if you have a 12 or 14 str, should be perfectly fine.

* Opportunity Attacks
* Bonus damage on many powers (Greenflame Blade, Flame Cyclone, Burning Blade)
* Feat qualifications (Armor Proficiency: Hide, Heavy Blade Opportunity, Heavy Blade Mastery)

Heavy Blade Opportunity is particularly important. Not only can you use an Int-based attack instead of a Str-based melee basic attack on an OA, but you can hit an entire area around the foe (via Greenflame Blade). That means a minimum 14 Strength at 1st level if you want access to it by Paragon tier without using level bumps...12 won't be enough.

Aside from extra protection for your ally with Aegis of Shielding, Constitution isn't that important. The only at will attack that uses it is Burning Blade, and the only other power that uses it is Chilling Blow (which is okay, but not as good as Flame Cyclone). You can raise Constititution to increase the protection you can give an ally, but I don't think it's worth losing access to all the other things a high Strength can give you.

Dexterity is also important...I'd try to get a 15 by the Paragon tier, and a 17 by Epic tier, so you can qualify for several useful feats.

 

[Mengu]

Drow - I like these better than any previous incarnation. I'm considering just changing the racial name and flavor a bit while keeping the rules, and making a Shadowwalker race for my campaign.

Genasi - I already have Mephits in my campaign world (though not as a PC race), and a lot of elemental flavor. These are going to be a perfect fit. Only problem is, I can't seem to be able to copy paste form the PDF's, so I'm going to have to re-type it all.

Swordmage - Very nice and flavorful, but I am wondering if it gives one too many options in the hands of a defender. This class almost feels like a hybrid defender/controller. It's walking a narrow beam, and I'll reserve judgement till after I see the rest of the class, but I fear it may steal a bit too much of the spotlight away from other defenders and controllers in gameplay.

Backgrounds - Anything that gives a Perception, Insight, or Initiative bonus is good for most anyone. The rest are more specific for a character concept. I'm glad to have seen these, it gives me an idea of what kinds of background bonuses I can give, if I choose to do so.

 

[AllisterH]

Swordmage - Very nice and flavorful, but I am wondering if it gives one too many options in the hands of a defender. This class almost feels like a hybrid defender/controller. It's walking a narrow beam, and I'll reserve judgement till after I see the rest of the class, but I fear it may steal a bit too much of the spotlight away from other defenders and controllers in gameplay.

.

I think almost all the classes havea dual nature going on. They have a primary role which is the default and a secondary role they can exploit if they focus on it primarily.

So far we have,
Cleric - LEADER/Controller
Fighter - DEFENDER/Striker
Paladin - DEFENDER/Leader
Warlord - LEADER/Defender
Wizard - CONTROLLER/Striker
Warlock - STRIKER/Controller
Artificer - LEADER/Controller
Swordmage - DEFENDER/Controller

Ironically, both the rogue and the ranger are the only classes that I think have ONLY a primary role.

 

[Zetesofos]

That's what I've always thought. They should have labeled class rolls as such, to give a better idea of what a class is cabable off. (And I had thought of the same secondary roles too. Though, the strikers seem to be the only ones that seem limited in scope.)

As for the Swordmage, responding to the OP, remember that a shield adds to reflex, so all the denders will have similar ref (Paladin possibly the most??) The swordmage will be good at denying damage when he needs to, and more adept at taking on larger groups, but disadvantages will be larger and meaner monsters, ones that can go through the Shielding aegis, and who don't suffer from the swordmages ability to target more enemies. Against the big dragon or orcus, Fighers seem to be top-notch, they can land hits, bring the hurt, and keep truckin'. Everyone has they're nitch, so if you fight 30 kobolds, swordmage is your man

my two cents anway.