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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6355470" data-attributes="member: 996">That's nothing like CaGi, but it /is/ comparable to the 'mark' that all 4e fighters could apply automatically every time they made an attack roll, at all levels.  (The mark was -2, which is not as big an effect as disadvantage, but, again, automatically applied with every attack, not expend a short-rest-resource and only work on a failed save - /and/ the fighter also had a feature that 'punished' an enemy ignoring the mark with an immediate attack).Now, that looks like an insane nerf, on the surface, but I can see the game-design necessity behind it... under certain assumptions./If/ the designers are still using traditional roles 'behind the curtain,' then the role of the fighter, is indisputably that of high DPR.  And, /if/ there is another class (Paladin, perhaps?) that has the closet role of 'tank,' and is supposed to be better than the fighter at locking enemies into fighting it, then it would make sense to profoundly nerf this vestigial fighter's mark like that.  By the same token, a Striker Fighter has little call for a maneuver like C&GI.  It's a maneuver that can kill a lot of trivial monsters over an area, which is little more of a controller thing (though controllers rarely want enemies next to them), and it's a /very/ potent defender ability, since it draws multiple enemies /to/ you, and, as a defender, you're supposed to be difficult to disengage from. Otherwise, yeah, it's just another example of the double-standard being redoubled.  The fighter goes from hundreds of maneuvers to 16, restricted to one sub-class, and those maneuvers are nerfed by comparison even to automatic class features.  The wizard not only goes back to casting lots of Vancian spells, he casts them spontaneously, /and/ keeps his at-will attack spells.  Even if there is a deep, arcane (pi) game-design reason for such a profound disparity, no one could honestly deny how bad it looks on the surface.</blockquote>

Verification