Swordmage too weak?

[satori01]

So I got to read the Swordmage for the first time this weekend, and noticed the classes damage output is rather low compared to a fighter. A Swordmage spells for the most part are 1(W) + effect for encounters or 2(W) + effect for Dailys.

Yes the class is a defender, but unlike a Fighter, (whom monsters ignore at their peril).....The Swordmage seems designed TO BE ignored as a Defender.
Aegis of Shielding obviously only works if the opponent damages an ally.
Aegis of Assault gives you free basic attacks, again only if your marked target attacks someone else.

Is this class the weak sister to the Fighter? Does it do its job as a defender?
Does the class deal enough damage, if a Fighter can perform the same role and deal more damage, then clearly based off the numbers, one should play a Fighter.

I am curious to hear people's play experience. I know people will love their characters, but please try to be honest and unbiased, and remember this is for posterity so please be honest....tell me is the Swordmage too weak?

 

[chaotix42]

Been playing a stormsoul genasi assaultmage with lots of lightning/thunder powers from 3rd to 6th and I'm quite happy. I have the highest AC in the party - the warforged fighter is 1 behind me. My two at-wills target Ref and Fort which helps when the dice roll low (I can have a bad streak from time to time), and I can teleport around and target multiple enemies with a lot of my spells. Those spells that have the weapon keyword and target NADs (lol) are just great. Against a single foe I will never be as good as a fighter, but I've yet to fight just a single foe.

EDIT - And yes, I'm being honest! The fighter in our party is a beast, but we've been tracking the damage everyone takes/inflicts and I can outperform even the rogue in terms of damage when I use my area spells to their best effect.

 

[Tale]

Yes the class is a defender, but unlike a Fighter, (whom monsters ignore at their peril).....The Swordmage seems designed TO BE ignored as a Defender.
Aegis of Shielding obviously only works if the opponent damages an ally.
Aegis of Assault gives you free basic attacks, again only if your marked target attacks someone else.

I'm confused. You say the Swordmage seems designed to be ignored because only when its ignored do these things come into play.

How is that not exactly the same as with Fighter? Whom "monsters ignore at their peril" by the fact that when its ignored, its features come into play.

 

[chaotix42]

The mark definitely seems weak, but you have to use the "cowardly paladin" tactic to get it to function well, IMHO.

After you've marked a target move away and lay in to someone else. Try to make chasing you a lose-lose scenario if at all possible, so that the monster provokes OAs or whatever by trying to get you. If he ignores your mark and goes after an ally you get to use it; if he chases you that's fine too. You're "defending" either way in this scenario.

Am I right or am I right? Right? Right.

 

[amnuxoll]

I think the key insight is that defenders are designed to be a defense not an offense. When I play a defender (which is surprisingly more often than I expect to) my goal is to be the first PC bloodied in every fight...which can be quite a trick with a high AC. You _want_ those hits to come to you and you're not particularly concerned about doing an outrageous amount of damage in return.

I think the tradeoff with swordmage is that you do less damage than a fighter or paladin but you have can effectively defend against multiple opponents using the "mark and run" tactic. (There are other perks too: more AoE attacks, a net +1 shield bonus to AC vs. a real shield, more battlefield mobility and rich roleplaying hooks.)

That said, a fighter is probably the better choice overall from a purely mechanical standpoint. It's hard to get past the Combat Superiority. But shouldn't that be so? If the iconic defender ever ceases to be the "original and best" then I'll be disappointed.

:AMN:

 

[Kaloran]

chaotix42 is right ... keep in mind the role of your character ... i got this probleme in my current game, the fighter is crying because he's not as effective as my archer ranger and our brutal scoundrel rogue to deal damage... we keep telling him that he doing is DEFENDER job but ..he keep saying : in 3rd edition fighter was dealing lot of damage ...

... you must choose your power depending on how you want to play your character... with the martial power it is possible to make a good damage dealing fighter... ... and your team will need another defender ...

the worst thing that can be done with a defender character is to take damage dealing power AND defending power ... youll be versatile ... but not very effective in both aspect ...

i think sword mage are a good mix between fighter and wizard ... they are versatile and depending on the power/feat you choose ... they can have different role ...

 

[Mort]

The mark definitely seems weak, but you have to use the "cowardly paladin" tactic to get it to function well, IMHO.

After you've marked a target move away and lay in to someone else. Try to make chasing you a lose-lose scenario if at all possible, so that the monster provokes OAs or whatever by trying to get you. If he ignores your mark and goes after an ally you get to use it; if he chases you that's fine too. You're "defending" either way in this scenario.

Am I right or am I right? Right? Right.

The Swordmage mark (the shielding one) has been very strong in my game.

It's automatic (minor action to designate, no need to hit).

The damage reduction is automatic and significant, the swordmage in my game has a 16 con so negates 8 damage.

Using the mark strategicaly the swordmage often "minion proofs" the party and does a great job with the big monsters as well (Sinruth in the scales of war AP was turned into a complete cakewalk thanks primarily to the swordmages mark).

Can't speak for the assault version, but the shielding mark seems very strong.

 

[fba827]

I've been playing a swordmage (shielding) for 3 levels now and DMed a swordmage for 4 levels in the other campaign.

Based on these two experiences, here are my observations so far:
* They tend to have the highest AC out of the entire party.
* They tend to have low single-target damage output compared to most of the party
* They have more powers that allow for multi-target damage than any other defender (or leader or striker) in the party
* Their shielding/assault does not come up nearly as often as a fighter's
* They have some powers that let them teleport around or resist some types of damage (not something a fighter has many ways to do)
* They have some powers that give ongoing damage (not something that any martial class, like the fighter, can do regularly)
* Typed and variety of damage - so a chance to work off some enemies vulnerability (as opposed to pure weapon damage all the time)

Our group really likes the swordmage. Sure, it isn't a fighter . But at the same time, the fighter isn't a swordmage - they both have their perks.

 

[Mort]

* Their shielding/assault does not come up nearly as often as a fighter's

I'm curious re: this particular comment. In my group the swordmage's mark (shielding) is triggered nearly every round. The only time it's not triggered is when the marked creature is attacking the swordmage (which means the swordmage is doing his job of keeping the pressure of the striker, so still a win).

I can see the assault mark coming up less though (though I haven't seen it in play).

 

[mlund]

I think that to some extent D&D 4th Edition missed an important mark with its initial roll-out. They didn't have a character that hits for massive amounts of damage with a single Longsword, Bastard Sword, or Great Sword. Their Martial Strikers were the Rogue (light blade) and the Ranger (dual-wielding or archery).

So people took Great Weapon Fighters along the same lines as 3E Power Attack builds and were disappointed that they were playing a Defender, not a Striker.

Then the Forgotten Realms book dropped and people picked up the Sword Mage and tried to play him like they would a Duskblade w/ Arcane Strike in 3E ... and were disappointed that they were playing a Defender, not a Striker.

Finally we have some Barbarian previews. People will probably still be disappointed, even though the Barbarian does exactly what they asked it to do, because they wanted a less primal motif on their Sword-Brute. They want a Sir Gawain or a Cloud Strife instead of a Conan.

Until people can get a medieval sword-master DPS monster we're going to continue to hear all the same complaints from people who ultimately loathe the idea of playing a 4E Defender almost as much as they loathe the idea of playing a 3E Healer.

- Marty Lund