Were the four roles correctly identified, or are there others?

[AbdulAlhazred]

On the other hand I've taken the -2 to hit, and attacking the swordmage ends things entirely.

If you can attack him, there's no real incentive for the SM to stay within striking distance. In fact "mark and run" is the stock SSM tactic AFAIK.

If it were one option among several, you'd be right. But it's very situational and as a standard mark punishment therefore almost pointless for the purpose it's intended. If it were something from a toolbox (something like teleported, slowed, or prone) it would work.

Right, its not entirely useless, just too limited to build a whole class around. Honestly I think it was one of those last-minute book-filler type things or sudden last-minute ill-thought-out redesigns that they seem to have done now and then in 4e. 80% of all the builds in the game work pretty well, and then there are a few like the Binder, the Aegis of Ensnarement, the Seeker, a couple of the e-classes that aren't super great, etc that just don't quite work as they were obviously imagined. 4e is unique in D&D terms in that at least even these muddles aren't horrible. I mean a 3.5e Bard is just truly a horrible useless muddle mechanically, but a 4e Binder can still function and with a minor amount of DM giving out just the right items and some careful optimizing it can keep up with the better classes.

I think that Assault is workable - just not very good. But then I consider the Bladesinger usable, and the Hunter just about passable. (Executioners only in the right campaign and Sentinels and Binders not so much).

Yeah, assault WORKS, its just not really USEFUL. I think if you had a 'general teleporting' swordmage concept that could do Ensnarement, Assault, and one other option, maybe some sort of a 'reach out and touch someone' kind of thing that would let him mark at range once per encounter or something. That would start to get interesting.

I think ALL the e-classes are more than passable, they are just built to be much less ridiculously optimizable than the 'classic' classes can be. They perform well, neither really great nor horribly. A few like the Slayer are a bit high on the curve at low level and Hunter and Sentinel are at the lower end of that envelope, but still solidly playable classes. Bladesinger is just a weird experiment. I haven't seen it played, so I don't really know how it works out, but my sense of it was that it just got bitched about because it wasn't readily optimizable more than any horrible weakness. Executioner is OK too, but there are just better options you can use to achieve basically the same theme. Vampire is another weird one that works, but not always, and shares the general "you can't optimize this heavily enough to keep up with a 25th level Bow Ranger" trend of all e-classes.

Honestly I think the e-classes are the ultimate validation of the classic 4e "build to a role" concepts STRENGTH. ALL of the e-classes are either almost functionally identical to their classic versions and share a focus on one role with them, or they're sort of dual role and don't clearly fill either role so well. The best classes in the game were pretty much the PHB1 classes that have a very clear single role focus. The one really blurry one (Paladin) is a muddle, and the other one that seemed a bit less well-focused was Warlock and it was a bit rough too! Likewise the PHB2 classes that were most focused, Avenger, Barbarian, Warden, seem to be the cleanest and best. The ones that tried to be more dual-role are at least trickier to play, if not just less workable (druid, shaman). The class role concept was a real winner.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If you can attack him, there's no real incentive for the SM to stay within striking distance. In fact "mark and run" is the stock SSM tactic AFAIK.

Of course. But you can make ranged attacks...

4e is unique in D&D terms in that at least even these muddles aren't horrible. I mean a 3.5e Bard is just truly a horrible useless muddle mechanically, but a 4e Binder can still function and with a minor amount of DM giving out just the right items and some careful optimizing it can keep up with the better classes.

Actually I'm going to disagree with you there. The 3.5 (as opposed to the terrible 3.0) Bard is in my opinion possibly the best designed class in the core rules. You just need to be good at seeing synergies (and a couple of quite frankly broken things like the Glibness spell). With Bardic Lore they make better skill monkeys than the Rogue (and that's before they turn invisible, change shape, and fly) and Alter Self: Lizardman is absurdly useful for a melee skirmisher. And then there are shenanigans such as really loud Bardic Music to set a city on fire or hitting a major orc camp at 4th level with a Druid, a Bard, and an Artificer at a run (the Artificer gave everyone orcbane weapons, the Bard had buffed their music to +4/+4, and the druid and pet covered the rest; there wasnt enough time for even the orc chieftains to scream normally while the bard kept their music up through the Message spell). There's a reason Bards are tier 3.

Bladesinger is just a weird experiment. I haven't seen it played, so I don't really know how it works out, but my sense of it was that it just got bitched about because it wasn't readily optimizable more than any horrible weakness.

People hate the Bladesinger in part because of using encounter spells in their daily slots - but forget that they'll be combining them with Bladesong for +2 to hit and +5/tier damage for a wizard-sized AoE. Which means that when Bladesingers use their dailies they come off like Sorceror dailies. It looks a lot weaker than it is especially as the first two rounds are normally the most important.

Executioner is OK too, but there are just better options you can use to achieve basically the same theme.

Unless you get to poison people out of combat, Executioner straight up loses to the Thief - and loses pretty badly.

Vampire is another weird one that works, but not always, and shares the general "you can't optimize this heavily enough to keep up with a 25th level Bow Ranger" trend of all e-classes.

Vampires work at heroic tier but don't step up beyond that.

Honestly I think the e-classes are the ultimate validation of the classic 4e "build to a role" concepts STRENGTH.

Yup

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Of course. But you can make ranged attacks...

Well, this is of course why the Wizard|Swordmage is so scarily effective, you have a full-on Aegis AND you can stand back and blast away/keep the enemy away from you. Its stupid good.

Actually I'm going to disagree with you there. The 3.5 (as opposed to the terrible 3.0) Bard is in my opinion possibly the best designed class in the core rules. You just need to be good at seeing synergies (and a couple of quite frankly broken things like the Glibness spell). With Bardic Lore they make better skill monkeys than the Rogue (and that's before they turn invisible, change shape, and fly) and Alter Self: Lizardman is absurdly useful for a melee skirmisher. And then there are shenanigans such as really loud Bardic Music to set a city on fire or hitting a major orc camp at 4th level with a Druid, a Bard, and an Artificer at a run (the Artificer gave everyone orcbane weapons, the Bard had buffed their music to +4/+4, and the druid and pet covered the rest; there wasnt enough time for even the orc chieftains to scream normally while the bard kept their music up through the Message spell). There's a reason Bards are tier 3.

OK, I have to admit I don't really know anything about all these Bard tricks you are referencing. I'm playing one in 3.5 and the class appears strictly inferior when played in any non-cheese mode. I'm not saying the 3.5 Bard doesn't WORK, it is just pathetically weaker than a full caster. The cleric and the wizard KICK ASS, and the Bard plinks away on his instrument and once in a while casts a minor spell. The rest of the time he tries and fails to be a rogue, lacking key things like open locks etc. He can shoot a bow credibly well, his bardic music is modestly useful, and his spells come in handy, but that's about it. Lore is handy, but to call him a skill monkey seems overblown. He's got a rather narrow skill list, which isn't seemingly particularly better than the other PCs. Maybe I'm missing something there, but as I see it the class lacks a clear focus and you'd be vastly better off playing a MC'ed wizard/rogue instead in a mechanical sense.

Now, THEMATICALLY, I think the 3.5 Bard is fine. Truthfully the problem really isn't so much with the bard itself as it is with the whole balance of the game. Still, in play it feels like you had to lose 50% of your effectiveness to play a fun theme, and I'm not even level 2 yet and already outstripped by every other PC in the party.

People hate the Bladesinger in part because of using encounter spells in their daily slots - but forget that they'll be combining them with Bladesong for +2 to hit and +5/tier damage for a wizard-sized AoE. Which means that when Bladesingers use their dailies they come off like Sorceror dailies. It looks a lot weaker than it is especially as the first two rounds are normally the most important.

That was roughly my impression. I really don't listen much to the complainers about classes in 4e, they overblow things a lot.

Unless you get to poison people out of combat, Executioner straight up loses to the Thief - and loses pretty badly.

Yeah, I have never personally done the comparison, but it seemed a bit weak to me. Still playable though.

Vampires work at heroic tier but don't step up beyond that.

Eh, they work OK in paragon. Its like all the e-classes, if you compare your character to some optimized PHB1 build you just cry, but if you just play it then it works and you find that 4e really plays well with non-optimized characters.

The problem was that the first batch of classes/feats/items had a lot of cruft and a lot of loopholes. They are really quite overpowered at higher levels in competent hands. Not enough to break the game quite, but enough to degrade it and make the more fun interesting builds look bad. So when you get a Vampire, or a Bladesinger, or many of the e-classes to some extent, then they look bad and uninteresting as combat options by comparison to the super stupidly tricked out 25th level Battlefield Archer larded with 101 minor-action attack tricks and PBS feat chain. I play with people that don't care about charops though, they take feats and pick classes that work for them, and they are reasonably effective, but if someone plays a Vampire then at level 20 they aren't doing 1/8th of the damage of the rogue or 1/4 as much as the wizard.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm playing one in 3.5 and the class appears strictly inferior when played in any non-cheese mode. I'm not saying the 3.5 Bard doesn't WORK, it is just pathetically weaker than a full caster. The cleric and the wizard KICK ASS, and the Bard plinks away on his instrument and once in a while casts a minor spell.

No kidding. The position of the Bard on the power scale is that if you took out the casters who can use 9th level spells that would make the Bard the strongest class in the game. They are in the gap between the big casters and the people who ... aren't.

Maybe I'm missing something there, but as I see it the class lacks a clear focus and you'd be vastly better off playing a MC'ed wizard/rogue instead in a mechanical sense.

You definitely are missing things there then

The problem was that the first batch of classes/feats/items had a lot of cruft and a lot of loopholes. They are really quite overpowered at higher levels in competent hands. Not enough to break the game quite, but enough to degrade it and make the more fun interesting builds look bad.

Not just the first batch. The Mage is pretty overpowered as well. Heinsoo went to a lot of work to avoid the wizard being the strongest class - Essentials undid that. And the Dungeon Explorer's Handbook is pretty daft.

But in practice what determines how strong your 4e character is unless they are a wizard is how many attacks they get per round. I think the game would be made a lot better by the simple measure of removing all encounter interrupt powers without really difficult triggers other than from Defenders.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

But in practice what determines how strong your 4e character is unless they are a wizard is how many attacks they get per round. I think the game would be made a lot better by the simple measure of removing all encounter interrupt powers without really difficult triggers other than from Defenders.

Hear hear.

I am sick of classes with interrupts. Good grief, it gets insane sometimes and then it gets compounded by having two or three people in the party who can all start chaining stuff together. Huge, huge time sink. Hate it with a passion.

And, as a side issue, if Bob can't make the session, and you want to just NPC Bob's character, no one can actually play Bob's character because all of the different knobs and dials are so complicated that, unless you've spent significant time working it out, the character is effectively unplayable. Grrr. Hates it I do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hear hear.

I am sick of classes with interrupts. Good grief, it gets insane sometimes and then it gets compounded by having two or three people in the party who can all start chaining stuff together. Huge, huge time sink. Hate it with a passion.

And, as a side issue, if Bob can't make the session, and you want to just NPC Bob's character, no one can actually play Bob's character because all of the different knobs and dials are so complicated that, unless you've spent significant time working it out, the character is effectively unplayable. Grrr. Hates it I do.

The more I think about it the more certain I am that my retroclone is going to introduce no new class abilities that are interrupts; even defenders get opportunity actions for their mark punishment. One more thing not to track, and it means I can use Popcorn Initiative with the initiative roll being for who goes first at the top of the first round much more easily.

 

[Hussar]

The more I think about it the more certain I am that my retroclone is going to introduce no new class abilities that are interrupts; even defenders get opportunity actions for their mark punishment. One more thing not to track, and it means I can use Popcorn Initiative with the initiative roll being for who goes first at the top of the first round much more easily.

I'd agree with that. This was one of the big mistakes in 4e - all those bloody off initiative actions. Note, the basic concept is fantastic. I LOVE that 4e broke the initiative cycle. Warlords, IMO, do it right. Give up your action to grant actions to other people is a fantastic way to do it.

For one, it's more planned. If I'm granting actions to other people, I can just say, "Hey, bob, (and maybe Dave and Jane as well) you want to move up here?" and go from there. With interrupt actions, people constantly have to stop the DM, and it just breaks up the flow of the game so badly.

Yeah, I'd drop 99% of the interrupts from the game. About the only ones I would keep would require no die rolling. Things like getting damage reduction or healing or other status effects. Things that don't break the flow of the game too much.

 

[Remathilis]

Hear hear.

I am sick of classes with interrupts. Good grief, it gets insane sometimes and then it gets compounded by having two or three people in the party who can all start chaining stuff together. Huge, huge time sink. Hate it with a passion.

And, as a side issue, if Bob can't make the session, and you want to just NPC Bob's character, no one can actually play Bob's character because all of the different knobs and dials are so complicated that, unless you've spent significant time working it out, the character is effectively unplayable. Grrr. Hates it I do.

Ironically, this is the same pet peeve I have with Pathfinder. Characters have too many fiddly bits and they are too difficult to track. Especially true of classes with powers (rogue powers, rage powers, etc) where it can be quite a feat to track everything. If someone wants to run another character as a NPC, its bloody impossible.

 

[Manbearcat]

Bladesinger is just a weird experiment. I haven't seen it played, so I don't really know how it works out, but my sense of it was that it just got bitched about because it wasn't readily optimizable more than any horrible weakness.

People hate the Bladesinger in part because of using encounter spells in their daily slots - but forget that they'll be combining them with Bladesong for +2 to hit and +5/tier damage for a wizard-sized AoE. Which means that when Bladesingers use their dailies they come off like Sorceror dailies. It looks a lot weaker than it is especially as the first two rounds are normally the most important.

I think you've both hit the two parts of it that create the (mis)perception that its a weak class:

a) No (sub)class feats that specifically support (eg; allow for gross optimization of) the archetype

and

b) no "true" dailies.

However, as NC notes, in practice, neither of these serve to make the class weak or dysfunctional. In fact, I would say that multiclassing into Swordmage or Fighter and poaching SM Advance or the Shield Bonus to Fort and WIll feats round out the power of the class significantly. That isn't even mentioning all the MBA and light blade support out there.

In practice, its ridiculously easy to optimize a Bladesinger with what is available. The key is to refresh or extend Bladesong and there are so many means to do it. Between Storm Spell (PP), Arcane Recall, Battlemaster's Weapon, and Opal Ring of Remembrance, my player's Bladesinger had 8 extra rounds of Bladesong available to him through the course of the day. And that isn't even maxed optimization as there are several other means to extend it or refresh it out there. My work day typically involves two very difficult combats and about 12-13 rounds of total combat. As such, that meant that the player's Bladesinger pretty much had perma-Bladesong. At the end of the game he was packing a permanent + 2 to defenses/to hit and + 15 damage with an array of off-turn MBAs (Steely Retort OAs), minor action flurries (Arcane Strike, Sohei Flurry, Quicksilver Stance from ED). He went Fighter but if he went SM, he would have had an encounter MBA free action (SM Advance). He had an encounter Standard Action MBA in a CB1. None of that is even getting into his level 6, 10, 16 Wizard Utilities and his Wizard Encounters as Dailies (buffed with Bladesong), his absurd defenses, his Spook and Suggestion with an Arcana that autopasses the Medium DC and handily passes the High DC, and all of the rest of the silliness. Like the other two PCs in my game, he was an absolute monster.

I think the silly theorycrafting that Charops does in creating these "fiction never" monstrosities is the culprit here. The class is thematically rich and extremely functional in what it does. It is, I suppose, somewhat incoherent with respect to the original AEDU classes. But to be honest, I think mostly that is because its control is a bit asymmetric when compared to the classic Controller role. Its obvious means of control comes off as a little weak; (i) single target control with Bladespells and (ii) Bladesong buffed Wizard Encounters + Arcane Strike. However, as much as anything, its means of control is DO NOT ENGAGE ME IN MELEE AND DO NOT ATTACK ME WHILE BLADESONG IS ACTIVE OR YOU WILL PAY WITH YOUR LIFE. By that formula it very neatly dictates battlefield dynamics. If my game had featured a Defender, I would have exceedingly rarely attacked the Bladesinger due to Bladesong buffed Steely Retort. He was an (absurdly damaging) OA factory in my game and that turned his damage level to way, way, way beyond normal striker level damage. Not to mention the fact that minions would basically just drop dead when they engaged him due to that ability.

So yeah. Charops "fiction never" theorycrafted nonsense. If you're playing with Frankensteined PCs that have 200 speed, are unhittable, and leave trails of deadly fire in their wake (or some other silliness), then I suppose the Bladesinger is weak because it doesn't have subclass-specific feat support.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd agree with that. This was one of the big mistakes in 4e - all those bloody off initiative actions. Note, the basic concept is fantastic. I LOVE that 4e broke the initiative cycle. Warlords, IMO, do it right. Give up your action to grant actions to other people is a fantastic way to do it.

For one, it's more planned. If I'm granting actions to other people, I can just say, "Hey, bob, (and maybe Dave and Jane as well) you want to move up here?" and go from there. With interrupt actions, people constantly have to stop the DM, and it just breaks up the flow of the game so badly.

Yeah, I'd drop 99% of the interrupts from the game. About the only ones I would keep would require no die rolling. Things like getting damage reduction or healing or other status effects. Things that don't break the flow of the game too much.

Yeah, this sounds about right to me. There are a few interrupts that work OK, and I'd even be all right with a PC that has a daily interrupt that can be fired off whenever they want. It would be a pretty unique shtick for that one character and the player could always opt not to pick that power if they don't want to deal with watching for a good opportunity to use it. I suspect this is what the 4e designers originally imagined, but like all "OK in good measure" ideas it got overdone and turned bad.