4E Classes You Like

[Obryn]

Yeah, swordmages are an odd duck. A swordmage player has to be fine with doing almost no damage, ever. They only rarely do damage above the 2[w] mark.

OTOH, the Shielding Swordmage in my game controls my monsters' actions to an insane extent. Aegis of Shielding is one of the worst things you can do to a monster that doesn't require an attack roll or allow a save. As long as you are fine with being a defender/controller hybrid, they rock. They're one of my favorite classes, hands down.

-O

 

[Phaezen]

. The assassin looks like a lot of fun too, just haven't had a chance to try it yet.

The assassin is all kinds of fun to play. It does exactly what you would expect it even if it is a little on the fragile side.

 

[drothgery]

I checked artificer, invoker, paladin, sorcerer, swordmage, warlord, and wizard because they all look like they could be pure-fun to play given what I like from D&D. However, given my reluctance to repeat classes, if my swordmage bites it, I may end up with a fighter or warden.

 

[Destil]

Yeah, swordmages are an odd duck. A swordmage player has to be fine with doing almost no damage, ever. They only rarely do damage above the 2[w] mark.

I don't know, I've got an assault swordmage in my group with a fullblade, and he's one of the most dangerous defenders I've seen at that level (admittedly 3rd right now). Ignoring his mark is not a good idea, because he can teleport into flanking almost every time (or even worse, just into melee with a ranged opponent) and those basic attacks hurt. Not quite on par with a damage oriented fighter, but the difference is small and ease of teleporting/multi target effects seem to make up for it. Plus the fighter's one of if not the strongest class in the game with a good build, so just being 'pretty close' is very respectable in terms of total damage.

 

[Nifft]

I answered the poll question ("Which classes would you like to play?") rather than the thread topic ("4E Classes You Like"), so my selection is colored by the stuff I've already played, or seen played, to my satisfaction.

I most want to play:
- Artificer (looks ZOMG overpowered on paper)
- Avenger (want to see what all the fuss is about)
- Bard ("Eagle!")
- Barbarian (HULK SMASH)
- Cleric (the new pacifist build in particular)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Stuntman]

I always liked the fighter/wizard. The warlord is one class that really interests me. Haven't had a chance to play it, but I have seen it in action.

I never really liked the idea of the swordmage. When I first heard of the class, it sound like the designers are telling me that the fighter/wizard in 4E sucks so badly that you should play the swordmage instead. Well, I've just started playing a fighter/wizard, and so far it seems pretty good. I did create a swordmage and plan to try it out to see what it is like when we play a one-of pick-up game.

 

[Nai_Calus]

Ugh! The Game Day Ensnaring build was an abomination. Heck that might have turned ME away from Swordmages. (Okay, maybe not THAT bad, but close)

It's a testament to the awesomeness of the Swordmage that even with the build that reeked of the crayon scribblings of a five year old, I still found her fun and rather effective.

But yeah, ye gods was that a horrific build.

The Invoker was worse, though. Just plain awful all around, I hated playing him and he was completely useless. I hate having whether or not I get to do anything at all dependent entirely on how my allies decide to position themselves around the map, and even when I could use the damned encounters and dailies it still didn't feel like it was doing anything useful. I felt more like I was controlling stuff with the freaking Swordmage.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I don't know, I've got an assault swordmage in my group with a fullblade, and he's one of the most dangerous defenders I've seen at that level (admittedly 3rd right now). Ignoring his mark is not a good idea, because he can teleport into flanking almost every time (or even worse, just into melee with a ranged opponent) and those basic attacks hurt. Not quite on par with a damage oriented fighter, but the difference is small and ease of teleporting/multi target effects seem to make up for it. Plus the fighter's one of if not the strongest class in the game with a good build, so just being 'pretty close' is very respectable in terms of total damage.

They don't hurt THAT much. Compare my Swordmage built for damage and my Fighter who was mostly build for finesse with a bit of damage:

Swordmage(scaled up to 12th level): +18 to hit for 2d4+13(2d4+22 with bloodclaw) damage with at wills, +16 to hit for 2d4+11 damage with basic attacks. Can take the basic melee attack against enemies who ignore his mark and successfully HIT an ally(has happened approximately once every 5 battles, the rest of the time the enemy either attacks him or misses his ally due to the -2).

Fighter(12th level): +18 to hit for 1d10+12(1d10+21 with bloodclaw), +22 to hit with OAs. Gets a OA against every enemy who moves adjacent to him(happens 2-3 times each combat). Ignoring his mark gets a free basic attack.

 

[Wormwood]

Apparently, 4e is the Dune edition:

"Long live the Fighters!"

 

[Destil]

They don't hurt THAT much. Compare my Swordmage built for damage and my Fighter who was mostly build for finesse with a bit of damage:

Is this a polearm build? Because I don't see why the Swordmage shouldn't be doing 1d12 with a fullblade on their OA/Melee Basic.

May also just be the DMing style, since you're using a polearm gambit fighter vs. a Glave(?) swordmage, right? As a DM my monsters are generally provoking 2-3 agis attacks per fight, and I found the fighter the last time I ran a game with one got on average 4-5 OA/Combat Superiority attacks per fight (but in a bigger party so more Muensters to provoke).

But like I said, the Assult Swormage is a respectable damage dealer. Most any fighter is just a monster once you start provoking OAs or ignoring the mark.