Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5425600" data-attributes="member: 78116">I am not being insulting by pointing out that your arguments are very weak, especially because you are never assuming good tactics (just damage?). Sliding a marked monster back adjacent to the defender that got moved away (or similar) is infinitely more valuable than 7-8 damage tactically. As an example, you ignore the potential effects of stacking illusory ambush on a creature that is already marked. This increases the penalty of that creature to attack others to -4. With a mage of the illusion school, that penalty against yourself is now -6. Not to mention few creatures will ever be at a 60% bonus to attack a defender, except in exceptional circumstances and those who are will be set back by a -2 penalty considerably.I'm sorry but by every definition that is very strong control and your argument becomes very weak. Tactically, that's an immensely strong thing to do as it makes the creatures chance of ignoring the mark far less. Even if he could attack another PC if the defender got pushed away, the -4 penalty would be a heavy dissuading force. Not to mention that it makes it exponentially harder for them to hit the defender in the first place.Basically, your arguments just don't apply to anything I've ever seen in a real game. But my argument is that MM disappears with effectiveness as levels are gained. You cannot argue that MM is a defining class feature if it becomes useless at epic can you? The point is that all of the other at-wills are going to eclipse magic missile by paragon and epic. As I've already argued, magic missile can barely keep up with other wizard at-wills even before then.Just as a reminder about what this discussion is about, I'll quote the OP:The bold part is truly the crux of the argument and central to your claim that the mage was different in play to the wizard from the previous thread. Right now, I don't think you can defend either point anymore. Except this is not the argument, you just want to make it that. The argument was originally from the previous thread if MM for free was a defining class feature of mages, so much so it made them distinct from wizards. The point I made in the thread was that MM loses most of its effectiveness by paragon/epic tier, while only being moderately effective (but not substantially better than) other low level at-wills. That you've simply chosen to dig up and move your goalposts is irrelevant. The point here is that your original argument MM is a defining class feature that makes mages genuinely different from wizards falls flat on its face. MM is a moderate benefit in heroic tier and other at-wills - especially once their feat support kicks in really drags MM away from being a worthwhile at-will. It cannot be a huge feature that distinguishes mages from wizards if it doesn't even work very well once you get beyond low heroic level.Edit: Does this mean you have now conceded that mages aren't different than wizards, and that MM as a class feature is not something that makes mages more flexible than wizards?</blockquote>

Verification