Swordmage: Isn't it a little bit unbalanced?

[Herschel]

In regards to AC and the Swordmage I find an interesting conundrum with the Assault version: How high do you want your AC? There’s a school of thought that says keep the defender’s AC just a point or so above the other party members. If you’re too hard to hit, you won’t be able to do your job as well because the –2 isn’t as big of a big deal. (Shielding pre-MM3 was all about boosting the D)

I’ve found that with other fairly durable melee characters or a lot of backfield squishies on the board jacking the defenses is still good practice if also boosting accuracy. While the –2 may be a slightly lesser detriment, if you disobey my mark I am going to hit you and set up combat advantage for my melee pal. If the backfield has squishies, then I have to be able to take more attacks. For this reason I stick with a one-handed, +3 weapon (and usually a long sword because of feat shortages). I’m not missing the d12 damage die vs. the d8 if I’m hitting more often and gain non-die-dependent damage where I can.

Plus, Swordmages generally do slightly less damage/attack because it behooves them to use a bit “smaller” weapon, so it only makes sense they have a slightly higher defense to compensate/balance it.

 

[sobchak]

Swordmage: isn't it a little imbalanced?

I can't speak to the math issues at epic. I have just started playing a level 1 eladrin swordmage. I know the Dm is using the most up to date monster stats, and for average level encounters in our first game my eight point aegis was effective but by no means blocked all the damage.

The lack of offense is a problem though. The DM has no incentive to attack me. The leaders and strikers make much more appealing targets. So feats like rose king's shield and white lotus riposte only provide more disincentive to attack the swordmage. I am not a DPR monger, but I think I am going to be pushed towards damage boosting feats like eladrin soldier and swordmage advance in heroic.

I think flexibility and mobility are the strengths of this class. Tactically, rather than controlling the area around you like a fighter, the swordmage needs to know where to be at any given moment (as someone pointed out earlier).

The emphasis on fighter damage versus shielding aegis seems relative to me. A swordmage may cause a battle to drag and become boring, but also depends on a shield mage's tactics. You have to play aggressively with your close burst attacks to due real damage. If I can eliminate or contain hordes of minions before they reach other party members, then I am doing my job and have decisively changed the course of the battle.

 

[sobchak]

Swordmage: isn't it a little bit unbalanced?

I can't speak to the math issues at epic. I have just started playing a level 1 eladrin swordmage. I know the Dm is using the most up to date monster stats, and for average level encounters in our first game my eight point aegis was effective but by no means blocked all the damage.

The lack of offense is a problem though. The DM has no incentive to attack me. The leaders and strikers make much more appealing targets. So feats like rose king's shield and white lotus riposte only provide more disincentive to attack the swordmage. I am not a DPR monger, but I think I am going to be pushed towards damage boosting feats like eladrin soldier and swordmage advance in heroic.

I think flexibility and mobility are the strengths of this class. Tactically, rather than controlling the area around you like a fighter, the swordmage needs to know where to be at any given moment (as someone pointed out earlier).

The emphasis on fighter damage versus shielding aegis seems relative to me. A swordmage may cause a battle to drag and become boring, but also depends on a shield mage's tactics. You have to play aggressively with your close burst attacks to due real damage. If I can eliminate or contain hordes of minions before they reach other party members, then I am doing my job and have decisively changed the course of the battle.

 

[stoloc]

Rapid Aegis Reaction does sound excellent, for those who can use Dragon material. Are my campaigns so unusual in that none of my DMs allow Dragon?

Nope - the campaigns I play in exclude dragon feats etc - makes life simpler for the dm and while it disappoints me sometimes to miss a cool feat/power, magic item the material from dragon should not be required to make an effective character.

 

[Herschel]

I also don't do the White Lotus Riposte feat especially past early levels. (partly because of a feat shortage, partly because at level 15 I rarely use at-wills any more. I'm better off feating in to Barbarian MC for Curtain of Steel if I want to make paybacks a wench).

 

[Sunseeker]

Nope - the campaigns I play in exclude dragon feats etc - makes life simpler for the dm and while it disappoints me sometimes to miss a cool feat/power, magic item the material from dragon should not be required to make an effective character.

I've had several who were like this, but my favorties were the compromisers.

"You can use anything...as long as you own a hard copy, I get to review it though."
-fair enough, kept things simple, DDI accounts did not count.

or for simplcity's sake.
"You can use anything, but I get to review/final say."
-very userful for building characters you're not used to or at higher levels than you're used to. Also keeps the power in the hands of the DM, though it adds more work for them. But you'll probably get that cool ability anyway.

 

[Aegeri]

Edit: Reading my posts I haven't been clear. I am assuming the swordmage is the primary defender. Swordmages will be excellent secondary defenders since forever and this is not disputable. In fact, even with the changes to damage I love to rant so much about with another defender, the swordmage is a perfect secondary defender. So take my comments below in mind with a primary defender context (not as a secondary defender supporting another).

Which is still better than stopping no damage at all.

No, because the only way to do this is to kill the monster before it ever inflicted damage to begin with. As a DM I am firmly convinced the absolute best condition PCs have access to impose on monsters is Dead. Nothing annoys me more than a monster being dead. If a monster isn't dead, I can annoy you and ruin your day in billions of ways. That Klurichir on 7 HP that isn't dead who is preventing the unconscious wizard being healed after dropping him, with the Marilith going next gets that Wizard Killed at epic.

Encounters at epic can be really tight now and often will come down to several bad decisions or rolls (just like heroic and paragon incidentally).

The new single target damage expression for a level 30 creature is 4d8+20, average 38.

Limited powers can be +25% to +75% over that, with damage riders and effects. It is little wonder that the defender most often dies to Brutes (previously too inaccurate to bother them) the moment any kind of disadvantage is put on them.

So it's not that impressive. In addition, that's the damage all five monsters were doing. When the Shielding Swordmage was actually useful at epic, that was the best damage one monster could do. The rest feebly chipped away.

It's the concept that "Everything you aren't paying attention to ignores you and tears the party to pieces, while not dying any faster" that you are missing. They can absorb your damage reduction and not care one lick about what you are doing. The point of the Swordmage before was you could mark the [rare] monsters that actually did anything nullifying them due to the DR. Now, everything does damage and lots of it.

I guarantee you, that in my games a PC prefers a defender who kills a monster than one who leaves it alive. A live monster on 1 HP is as dangerous as one on 100 HP - unless it will die before it can make its attack from a mark (forcing it to attack a PC). By epic that "Bottom" for a regular monster is whatever damage a defender does: When you're a swordmage doing zero damage, that monster can attack with impunity.

It may not seem a huge deal, but it really can matter when epic monsters are getting at their most tricksy.

This is only a win is the extra speed you bring to the kill (solely from the one CC attack) is equal to the % of damage prevented.

Given that the damage prevented from killing that monster is going to be "All" or "A tiny amount" when you're not killing them, the "All" wins every time

Now assuming that the swordmage or fighter are not included but they hit 4 teammates for their 36 average damage +15 ongoing (for a quick calculation being worth 30 damage). That would be (36+30)*4 = 264 damage per round. If the swordmage blocks 54 that's 20%. Does the fighter CC attack equal 20% faster dying of the monster?

Yes. A Herald doesn't have many HP and a well built fighter should be able to deal 50+ damage with a single hit (plus possible conditions that will render an entire part of that power useless, for example preventing it from shifting due to being prone). That's a good chunk of HP and with decent focus fire at epic, that will kill those monsters off very fast. On the other hand, preventing damage against one ally doesn't save the others (as you can't react more than once to the same trigger, even with Rapid Aegis).

I have actually seen a decent Swordmage dismantled repeatedly in epic tier after MM3. You really have to appreciate that everything kills you and the only way to stop this is to kill them first.

that's a poor example. a very specific monster and specifically a critical hit condition. obviously the Battlemind is going to be much better in that situation, mostly because the Balor is huge and staying adjacent for Mind Spiking should be really easy [assuming everyone has fire resistance].

It's not a poor example, for the main reason Daemons are literally the best, most diverse and well thought out antagonists at epic tier. Therefore, a lot of epic games if you want to use published monsters often between levels 20-30 are going to be demons. This means Balors, from the likes of MV are going to be more likely to be faced than other creatures (until Wizards gives us more equivalence in epic tier threats from levels 20-30).

Even so, the damage that many monsters at epic pull out from:

Automatic damage (Auras), Power effects (No attack roll), Debuffs (Astral Kraken's Madness Power) and such forth mean that mitigating a small amount of the overall monster DPR isn't cutting it. And yes, it is a small amount. They are not MM1 monsters. They are really cutting DPR levels to match well optimized groups of PCs.

I use demons a lot because quite frankly, Wizards haven't given DMs much option besides "Make your own stuff" outside of them for epic tier. They're just the best supported and hence, the most common examples I can think of.

the SSM can hit it every turn with frigid blade, reduce its land movement to a maximum four square charge.

He's not worried, he'll get within 4 (he flies 12 at-will btw) and then use his reach 5 whip attack to potentially bring the mage (or anyone else squishy) adjacent for 2d10+10 fire damage + 15 ongoing fire - you're left with a choice of ignoring this attack or aegis' it too. The mage takes 10 (or 20) auto from the aura on his turn, but even before then he attacks with lightning sword (same standard action) for a potential 6d10+11 lightning damage (with extra on a crit). Then he drops his action point and beheading blades the Wizard (and you). With Soul Stealer, he then sits and waits for the healer to raise/heal the wizard, getting an additional Lightning Sword attack for free with another 6d10+16 damage with a huge bonus to hit (Soul Stealer is adorable). Probably knocking the Wizard back down and again, you either have no Aegis at this point or the Wizard is dead.

The fighter on the other hand has contributed to killing the Balor, whom if he's on low HP has never got a single one of those attacks off. Especially if this has been an AP saved for the second beheading blade. The thing is though that through all of this theorycraft there is an important point: At no point does this creature feel the need to attack you. It won't suffer very much and is only richly rewarded for this course of action: It either takes out your controller in a bloody inferno, suffering no ill effect except needing more damage that it has plenty of to hit your average controller level HPs into the negatives.

Now a Battlemind threatens that Balor with a potential sixty damage if he hits the mage. Maybe more if the Balor gets unlucky (completely ironic here I realize) and gets a crit. The fighter threatens that Balor with an attack that might completely stuff his turn: He might not get to move (OA), he might get knocked prone and slid out of range of the mage by the CC attack (IA) and all kinds of giant mess. Frigid Blade isn't controlling him anywhere near as much (especially as he flies, but also he has a ridiculous reach attack).

Now again he's one example: But the point here is that you try this scenario with this Balor and try the original MM1. You'll notice that the Shielding Swordmage completely and utterly trivially shuts down the MM1 Balor, while is utterly ineffective in many ways to stop the MV Balor from completely having his way with your Wizard. Bear in mind, you've also needed both of your immediate actions to stop two (he's an elite!) of the monsters in that encounter from .... it's not actually clear what you have done. In the playtests I've tried, the Shielding Swordmage utterly fails to stop monsters doing anything because I simply ignore him. That's because I don't fear him killing my critically wounded monster before they can finish off a PC or get a big risky attack in.

To make my point clear: Give that Balor a MV Marilith as an ally - this is far from absurd in any manner as well. Now look at the damage output of those two monsters by themselves. Compare them to the same damage output for those two monsters by themselves from MM1. You'll see the difference.

you Prevent 27 of its damage and deal 27 to it. on a non-crit the Balor averages 41 damage, so it'll deal around 14 and take 27. that's not a bad deal.

He has 20 fire resistance (though you've probably got billions of ways of dealing with that), but you will need to account for it.

you've got to know when to parry gauntlets+total defense or turn invisible or use temp hit points/damage negation powers or get healed or spark your epic level regeneration or whatever of the many tricks you have selected for dealing with getting mauled but that's just part of being a defender now. you need the ability to turtle.

This is absolutely true, but bear in mind that MM3 creatures can deal with all of this far better. Also I totally hate to point this out, but a Balor has blindsight and a common ally of a balor, the Klurichir, prevents you regaining HP in an aura. There is really nothing you can't make a squad of demons to beat. Nothing, it's why they are the only true epic tier monster in 4E that deserved earns the tag "Epic".

Note that your point is 100% valid, it's just that I feel a fighter/warden/paladin who is damaging his opponents: Cutting out that "If I have less than X HP I cannot attack this wizard or risk death" decision is huge for me as a DM at epic. To be honest though after thinking about it all day since this morning, I actually think that the Shielding Swordmage will be a lot better against solo monsters than non-solos. This is because that "Do I take the risk on this attack provoking the defenders mark and killing the monster" isn't an issue on a monster with that many HP.

Edit: Also if you think I focus on demons a bit much, it's again because Wizards haven't really given me many high level monsters to work with. It's not that they are bad, I mean the glass people from MM3 have a soldier that laughs at the Sword mages damage reduction (it reflects all damage done to its allies, or something equally silly IIRC). It's just that I can't make a 20-30 epic tier campaign around them because there isn't enough of them. This is a largely irrelevant tangent.

 

[Nork]

Strikers study tactics. Defenders study logistics.


If the GM is letting the party rest too often, then logistics don't matter. Actually, if the GM is letting the party rest too often, then nothing short of finishing encounters quickly matters.

If the GM is following the design of 4E and making the party finish a full set of encounters before allowing them an extended rest, then a party with high DPR that can't manage resources is going to be out of gas on the last encounter and a little bit of RNG can cause a TPK.

Now, some defenders can use damage to accomplish their goal, but their goal is not damage. Their goal is to shave incoming damage, and to distribute the damage across the party such that nobody gets picked on to the point that they run out of surges before everyone else.


Now, if someone wants to make an argument that a shielding swordmage is demonstrably worse than other defenders, then they need to mathematically demonstrate that damage based defenders prevent a clearly greater quantity of damage across several encounters, or are appreciably better at preventing the GM from picking on a single character than Shielding Swordmage. Anecdotes about monsters with 1 hp being functional, or players getting knocked to negative hps by spike damage do not make that argument, because directly they have little to do with a defender's job. They have nothing to do with it because the defender's job is the long game, which is played on average and eschews RNG.

Obviously focus fire and DPR are important, but it often seems like someone mentions an important point on the internet and it echo chambers until EVERYTHING has to be about the important point or it is wrong wrong wrong, while never considering that there are other important points that exist too.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

My experience has peaked at low paragon tier, so maybe it changes later, but my Shielding Swordmage with Double Aegis and Swordmage's Decree causing three enemies to be marked throughout the bulk of the encounter is superior to the marking ability of any other defender I have seen so far. So it isn't just the shielding that is shaving off damage, it's the marking, and it could be substantial.

Now, the Fighter has access to the feat Daunting Challenge, which increases the penalty for marking to -3, and the Swordmage doesn't. But other than that, I don't know of too much else that other defenders have to even the score.

Having said that, I'm sure seven or eight of you will jump in to tell me that Swordmages are the worst markers by far...

 

[sobchak]

Swordmage: isn't it a little bit unbalanced?

Sometimes I think obsession with DPR warps perspective on the game as a whole. Sure the swordmage is weak in single target damage by design as a defender. So I have to take feats compensating for that if it becomes a glaring problem in my new group. For my eladrin shieldmage, the feats eladrin soldier and eladrin swordmage advance can compensate for my low damage if I make the feat investment.

What about the unique abilities of the swordmage? The ability to teleport both allies and enemies should be mentioned. I don't think any other defenders can do so with with the freqeuncy of a swordmage. These are the true strengths of the class. By repositioning both allies and enemies a swordmage exerts a tremendous amount of battlefield control. The swordmage in play is not the strongest "pure defender" mechanic. To compensate it has other unique strengths that translate into reallocation of party positioning and thus party resources (and INT based skills for a defender!). That's why I picked the class.