Design and Development: Battlemind---going... going... gone

[thecasualoblivion]

Looking at the content calendar for Dragon magazine earlier this month, I saw an article named Design and Development: Battlemind or something close to it. By the time PHB 3 was fully launched, this article was pushed back until thursday 3/25. At this point in time, the article isn't on the calendar at all.

Now, in terms of criticism, the Battlemind class has been the center of the storm for PHB 3. In fact, I'm not sure of anything in 4E that has been ripped apart by 4E players(as opposed to people who dislike 4E) to the extent the Battlemind has been crapped on. Makes you wonder if the s#$^storm that has followed the Battlemind had anything to do with the delay of that article.

 

[Henry]

Looking at the content calendar for Dragon magazine earlier this month, I saw an article named Design and Development: Battlemind or something close to it. By the time PHB 3 was fully launched, this article was pushed back until thursday 3/25. At this point in time, the article isn't on the calendar at all.

Now, in terms of criticism, the Battlemind class has been the center of the storm for PHB 3. In fact, I'm not sure of anything in 4E that has been ripped apart by 4E players(as opposed to people who dislike 4E) to the extent the Battlemind has been crapped on. Makes you wonder if the s#$^storm that has followed the Battlemind had anything to do with the delay of that article.

Which is ironic, considering a Battlemind pregen for a recent gameday I saw kicked ass mightily. I'd love to try one out myself in a regular game.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Which is ironic, considering a Battlemind pregen for a recent gameday I saw kicked ass mightily. I'd love to try one out myself in a regular game.

Most of the criticism comes from the fact that people find their Defender class mechanics weak compared to the other Defenders.

 

[Dire Bare]

Looking at the content calendar for Dragon magazine earlier this month, I saw an article named Design and Development: Battlemind or something close to it. By the time PHB 3 was fully launched, this article was pushed back until thursday 3/25. At this point in time, the article isn't on the calendar at all.

Now, in terms of criticism, the Battlemind class has been the center of the storm for PHB 3. In fact, I'm not sure of anything in 4E that has been ripped apart by 4E players(as opposed to people who dislike 4E) to the extent the Battlemind has been crapped on. Makes you wonder if the s#$^storm that has followed the Battlemind had anything to do with the delay of that article.

I think you're seeing a link that isn't there. Sometimes articles get delayed for all sorts of reasons. And while I'm sure some 4e players dislike or don't get the Battlemind, I'm missing the widespread hue & cry you're alluding to here. No storm here, the weather is just fine.

 

[mudbunny]

I find it quite possible that, in the planned article they wrote it taking a particular point of view as to why they built it the way they did. However, once they saw the extensive threads on how the battlemind is "TEH SUXXOR" (as I have seen described on the WotC forums), they rewrote it to take into account the criticisms of the battlemind and explain why the powers in question ended up the waythat they did.

 

[Asmor]

Since I took a break from 4e, I haven't been following any of this 'controversy.'

My only experience with the battlemind was in D&D Encounters today; I ran one for 3 people, one of which was a battlemind. His ability seemed pretty cool. The person he marked took as much damage as it dealt. Seems pretty sweet to me.

 

[The Little Raven]

Most of the criticism comes from the fact that people find their Defender class mechanics weak compared to the other Defenders.

And from what I've seen, this criticism stems from theorycraft, not from actual play. Just like most other theorycraft-based criticism, it is disputed by people who have seen it in action.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I find it quite possible that, in the planned article they wrote it taking a particular point of view as to why they built it the way they did. However, once they saw the extensive threads on how the battlemind is "TEH SUXXOR" (as I have seen described on the WotC forums), they rewrote it to take into account the criticisms of the battlemind and explain why the powers in question ended up the waythat they did.

This is kinda what I was thinking. With all the uproar, I was really looking forward to the devs thoughts on it.

And from what I've seen, this criticism stems from theorycraft, not from actual play. Just like most other theorycraft-based criticism, it is disputed by people who have seen it in action.

In actual play, DMs tend to just attack the Defender more often than not. This colors things a lot. The Battlemind's problem is that his tools to punish the DM for doing otherwise from base class features aren't as robust as the other four Defenders.

 

[mudbunny]

And from what I've seen, this criticism stems from theorycraft, not from actual play. Just like most other theorycraft-based criticism, it is disputed by people who have seen it in action.

To be honest, that is my impression as well. Theorycraft/CO analysis tends to focus on a single number in comparison to numbers from other classes. I am not sure if that is an accurate representation of how much fun a class is to play.

 

[The Little Raven]

In actual play, DMs tend to just attack the Defender more often than not.

I've never seen this, EVER. In my own campaigns, the D&D Encounters I was involved in, and my friend's campaigns, monsters go after character they are effective at taking down, forcing the Defender to actually work to do his job.

The Battlemind's problem is that his tools to punish the DM for doing otherwise from base class features aren't as robust as the other four Defenders.

Funny how reports from actual play, like those given in this very thread, dispute that claim.