Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9227582" data-attributes="member: 82106">I thought that, at the very least, the Aegis of Assault was quite useful and made a very interesting and fairly effective form of defense. The other two aegis WORK for certain types of build but they're less effective overall IME. Swordmage certainly didn't seem ineffective or way off role to me. Seeker is not actually a bad CLASS at its core, but it suffers from an awkward paradigm and the powers it got were pretty lackluster. There was a bit of help in Dragon IIRC, but they never published a PP2 which could have given it all the support it needed, and a better suite of powers. I won't try to defend the psionic classes though, I think they were all ill-advised, but certainly FAR from terrible or non-functional. The Ardent never got played in any of our games, so I am not totally familiar with the issues there, though I understand there were those who questioned its class defender mechanic. Fair enough, the psion and the runepriest also can be criticized for flaws in their design as well. I don't think psionics in general really worked that well in 4e, lol. AND this is squarely on the fact that they tried to diverge from A/E/D/U and graft in an enhancement/power point system. Sorry, you always butcher the system when you do stuff like that to it.I would, however, take the Binder out behind the woodshed and do what was necessary, that class just bit. I mean, it IS still pretty playable, its just strictly inferior to other flavors of warlock. The Bladesinger is obviously the final 'questionable one' as it AGAIN tries to rework the A/E/D/U system and reaps the consequences. And yet again, up to a point it does work in a science-experimenty kind of way. The Vampire OTOH proves that you CAN monkey with some parts of the system, if you're clever, and not end up with a bad result, but it DOES NOT mess with A/E/D/U! Are we seeing a theme here?</blockquote>

Verification