Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5520533" data-attributes="member: 78116">I already commonly ignore marks to kill Wizards or anyone squishy given half the chance. I think some DMs interpret marks too strictly to begin with and this is really another kind of discussion entirely. The problem with the idea really comes into effect if you've seen the assassin (the bad one). That character "builds" up to a larger striker mechanic by applying shrouds one by one. The problem with it - well noted in discussions - is that 4E combat is pretty fast and violent. A viable target lasting around 3 rounds is actually fairly uncommon except for some elites and solos. In addition, with MM3 it's very hard not to be hit by something, particularly with the improvement to powers and options.For example a metamagic casting wizard is just going to get swamped by every skirmisher instantly and waste 3 rounds of doing nothing. Alternatively, by the end of three rounds the combat is over and their metamagic will do very little (you're on your way to a TPK as the controller hasn't been *doing* anything the past 3 rounds) or the monsters are already nearly defeated.I really don't think this is something that should be tacked onto an existing class - it's a 100% terrible idea. Absolutely. But as something that could be used for another new striker mechanic? I think that has a lot of merit and if balanced on minor/move actions especially I think we are cooking. An elementalist type who worked like this could be fascinating.Why on earth do we need to be so focused on giving magic users absolutely everything? New classes IMO could do this pretty easily and in a perfectly balanced manner. Tacking it onto Wizards for the sake of trying to turn 4E into some version of 3.x is just an incredibly poor decision.</blockquote>

Verification