Is Aegis of Assault the worst mark?

[DracoSuave]

As a challenge to the Char Ops:

Make a Genesi Swordmage with nothing but Weapon powers and a Mordenkrad.

 

[Puggins]

I don't see the problem with Aegis of Assault when compared with Fighter or Paladin marks. The problem with AoA come to light when you compare it to AoD in terms of the powers that support each.

Aegis of Assault's power set-again- seems perfectly adequate if you take them as a whole. An AoA swordmage will be a perfectly acceptable defender compared to a paladin.

Aegis of Defense's power set, however, gives the AoD swordmage a substantial amount of the AoA's schtick, making AoA a lot less desierable. Many AoD powers have "you may use this power with your AoD", meaning that the damage prevention for the AoD will trigger, AND the swordmage will be able to make an attack against the marked attacker. Most of these are encounter powers, but how many times do you expect AoD to trigger anyway? Even if it triggers five times, you should be able to substitute very nice encounter attacks for two of them once you get to a reasonable level. That compares too favorably to AoA, in my opinion.

 

[KarinsDad]

At the same time, I've seen a shielding swordmage mark and use Total Defense, giving the marked target the choice of attacking a very tough target, or taking a -2 to hit and a large penalty to damage against a weaker target. That's a pretty large contribution for playing defensive. If the shielding swordmage knows how to play his character well, his mark is very powerful.

I view this as sub-optimal.

Sure, if the Swordmage is low on hit points, this is a much better total defense than other PCs have and could be a good option.

But giving up an attack, just to weaken a counter-attack is usually tactically unsound. If there are 5 enemies and 5 PCs, this results in 4.5 enemy attacks and 4 PC attacks.

That's actually a detriment.

Many times, something in the game that sounds good on the surface is in fact not very good and if the Swordmage in my game was a Shielding one instead of an Assault one, I would caution him on such a tactic and explain its limited utility.

 

[DracoSuave]

AoD is the 'easy' Aegis. It doesn't require tactical position. It's fire-and-forget, and the powers work well with that.

AoA is the 'skills' Aegis. It requires a bit more tactical thought to use, and has rewards for those tactical players.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, it's just one is easier to 'break' on paper than the other. Theorycraft can't account for tactical applications of these powers (which is why Avenger is a hard class for theorycrafters to break, it is more tactical than a rogue), which leads to a YMMV feel. Some people can make AoA gel, others can't.

 

[Obryn]

A lot of the swordmage-sucks arguments don't factor in the fact their punishment is -more effective- than a fighter's. In the right hands, Assault Swordmages are -nasty-. IMHO, Assault Swamis should be going for two-handers to make their marks punish HARD.

I don't think the Assault Aegis sucks at all, actually. It does some very cool things, and can deal out some incredible damage. I think it's quite a bit better than the Paladin's mark, by comparison.

Compared to a fighter, though, what it doesn't do is lock down enemies... Much like the paladin's mark, it can punish monsters, but it can't actually keep them nearby.

Basically, I think the key to the fighter's combat challenge is that it works against adjacent enemies who shift. (And they get to really smack enemies who move.) The fighter's movement denial is a pretty huge portion of their effectiveness.

Also, fighters can more effectively mark large groups of creatures... That can be a big deal, too, in some cases.

-O

 

[Mr. Teapot]

But giving up an attack, just to weaken a counter-attack is usually tactically unsound. If there are 5 enemies and 5 PCs, this results in 4.5 enemy attacks and 4 PC attacks.

That's actually a detriment.

Consider against Elites or Solos, though, this strategy might be a benefit:

Against an elite of equal level, the strategy breaks even: one elite is 2 of the 5 monsters in the fight, so cutting his attacks by half = -1 monster equivalent, the same as is subtracted from the PC side.

If the Elite is a couple levels above the party, he accounts for a larger percentage of the XP budget and so the benefit to the party increases.


Against a solo the benefit is biggest, of course: the solo is 5 monster equivalents, so cutting his damage in half reduces him to 2.5 monster equivalents, while the party only goes from 5 PCs to 4 PCs. That especially good if you have a solo whose main deal is primarily damage: against a solo controller, the strategy doesn't really pay off because the solo just wants to inflict statuses, and doesn't care as much about damage.

 

[Nail]

Is that an assault or shielding swordmage?

In my own game, I have a Fighter and a Shielding Swordmage... As a DM, I have found the Shielding Swordmage to be far, far more annoying. The fighter's good at preventing movement, but the Shielding Swordmage basically entirely hoses one creature, without a save.

An assault swordmage in our game, I think.

He's a fine player, but his PC is just not able to either "put the hurt" or "save the squishies". I admit I haven't given much thought to how to optimize a swordmage, so I haven't been giving him any tips in-game other than "flank this guy". ..........hence my interest in this thread!

Meanwhile my fighter has often been able to absorb countless attacks and dish out enough damage to matter (not striker level, but still: enough). My fighter's role in the party, I get.

 

[KidSnide]

I currently play a fighter, and time and again my mark does more "stuff" that hurts the enemy than the swordmage does. Put another way: it seems like the swordmage is getting less out of his mark than my fighter is.

I play an assault swordmage (because it seemed more fun, not more effective), and the fighter in my party definitely gets more out of his mark than I get out of mine. In many combats, it takes a few rounds before its worth spending a minor action to use it.

But that said, a swordmage plays very differently from a fighter. In my party, the fighter takes the "hold the line" duty, and my job is to teleport into the enemy backfield and prevent the artillery/controller from hitting the party. This is particularly effective if I am behind the enemy and he isn't able to catch the party in an AoE power without leaving me out of it (thereby taking the -2 to hit, and the free hit from the Aegis). And, if there are two artillery/controllers, a swordmage can mark one and foesnare the other. Swordmages are weak in many ways, but they can be incredibly disruptive to the enemy.

So, while the mark is weaker, swordmages can employ it in ways that is difficult for a standard fighter.

-KS

 

[Obryn]

An assault swordmage in our game, I think.

I think it has to be. While a shielding swordmage's damage output is nothing to shout about (and one of the lowest in the game), they are almost absurdly effective at defending the party against one creature at a time. Blocking 7 or 8 points of damage per attack is just a small bit shy of total monster hosing.

Fighters are way more effective at dealing with crowds, OTOH. And nobody sticks people to the ground better than they do.

-O

 

[Nail]

But that said, a swordmage plays very differently from a fighter. In my party, the fighter takes the "hold the line" duty, and my job is to teleport into the enemy backfield and prevent the artillery/controller from hitting the party.

Alright --> that sounds promising.....

Would you mind posting how one of those type of combats went down? Lower level if possible. We're currently 3rd level, so higher level tactics are fun to read about, but not as useful.

As I see it, having a defender "run to the back of the enmy lines" sounds like a recipe for trouble. I'd love to be proved wrong.