Rule of 3: 29-08-11 Kara-Tur in October


log in or register to remove this ad

I am still baffled as to why the Bladesinger is a Wizard build and not a Swordmage build.

Wizards (and Mearls in particular) has commented on the option bloat in the game. They've talked about the value of having a few meaningful choices rather than a bazillion trivial choices. That's the reason they've given for feat categories and it's also at the heart of the Essentials class design.

So my theory is that they wanted to avoid making Swordmage a "superclass" like Fighter and Wizard. I'm guessing that they want to keep the superclasses small in number and very iconic. In the future, Swordmage could become a subclass of Wizard, too.

This theory is blown out of the water by the presence of the Assassin superclass, but oh well. :lol:
 

I am still baffled as to why the Bladesinger is a Wizard build and not a Swordmage build.
While I am still baffled as to why the Swordmage is its own class and not a Defender Wizard build, to say nothing of where the Bladesinger fits in (Melee Striker Wizard build? Melee Sorcerer build?).

Seriously. The option bloat is ridiculous and has been from the get-go. Do we really need that many arcane classes? Divine ones? I don't think so.

At least with the Bladesinger they've (wisely IMHO) decided to take a bunch of the pressure off creating so much new content (that mostly duplicates things other classes powers already do) by recycling things that are already there (encounters-as-dailies).
 



Yeah, if they redo the swordmage, he will probably be a wizard build, as seems sensible.
Bah. Put me down firmly in the camp of thinking multiple combat roles under one class (or even melee and ranged builds in the same role) is silly, and a direction they should not have gone down. Bladesinger should have been a standalone arcane melee striker class. If you want a swordmage and a wizard to have access to the same feats / paragon paths, restrict them to arcane characters.
 

Remove ads

Top