This class would make a terrible defender, as its primary marking ability is an Immediate Reaction, which cannot be used on its own turn. Whoever designed this does not understand the fundamentals of Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition.
- Please backup your claim and sign you post (by placing "--~~~~" at the end of your post). Unfortunately, no 4e expert are present right now to argue, you have to wait for them. If you want your comments to be taken seriously you are required to at least elaborate a little, not a two-line long whining. --Leziad 23:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- It seems clear to me that the intent is to allow that immediate reaction to be used on its own turn. All it needs to do is be changed to a minor action, or have a tiny footnote that says "Despite being an immediate action, this power can be used on your own turn". Indeed, saying that the author "does not understand the fundamentals of D&D 4e" just because of ONE MINOR MISTAKE, when its plainly clear what the author intended is overly harsh. And a defender doesn't need to be able to mark often or frequently - the sheer fact that this class can cause prone or immobilization at-will makes it an effective defender. Karrius 00:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- ONE mistake? How about the class feature that gives +CHA to all attacks against marked opponents? Not only is that broken (up to a +5 to hit at first level, untyped!), it gets more broken as you level up. Ditto for the alternate build, which has the same problem as the Wizard's Orb of Imposition class feature, only worse (stunlocking all the time!). There's the fact that it grants Threatening Reach and Heavy Blade Opportunity as class features, and can mark enemies with an OA. Tide of Battle, as mentioned, can't be used on the player's turn. That's either a typo and it's meant as a free action - not minor, as that would make it impossible to use at all - in which case it's insanely overpowered (+CHA damage to any enemy you hit, and it lowers attack rolls and damage as well!) or it's written correctly and is intended to be awkward and only barely usable thanks to Threatening Reach. Speaking of which, how many reach weapons other than the whip are usable by the sorts of small creatures that supposedly favor this class? There's the at-wills you mentioned which immobilize and knock prone (and it can immobilize AT RANGE) while dealing full normal damage; one of them even targets a non-AC defense. How about the fact that you gain at-will powers every time you gain a daily? The only existing class that even comes close to resembling that is the Psion preview, and that's due to the unique way Psion powers work. There's the L1 daily Shadow Assault which deals 4[W] damage plus turns you invisible - nice for a striker, but this is supposedly a defender. Speaking of which, how about the L10 utility Rallying Shout? That's a straight-up leader power. Those aren't the only examples of this sort of thing and they greatly exceed the tendency of other classes to dabble into another role. And that doesn't even take into account powers like the L2 utility Natural Leader or the L10 Dark Binding, which create greatly overpowered player-controlled minions. Some interesting ideas at work here, but you can't seriously argue that the author designed this with full knowledge of the 4e mechanics. It's amateurish at best. --184.108.40.206 05:15, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
- You can take only one immediate action per round, either an immediate interrupt or an immediate reaction. If you take an immediate action, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn, but you can’t take an immediate action on your own turn. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the fundamentals of Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition. --Reginald P. Linux 13:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing I said contradicted that. I understand the rules just find. If you don't see that, you don't understand the basic use of the English language. Also, anyone who thinks they should "Leave the design to the professionals at WOTC" (which I see you wisely edited out, but still thought) REALLY is not too clever. Karrius 22:17, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, why do you think it's a problem for a goblin with threatening reach to only mark opponents when he shifts or inflicts damage on other players' turns? I thought people were complaining about that power being too good and now people are bitching that it isn't good enough when it only triggers on attacks of opportunities? Make up your mind.
- Because, "dude," a lot of enemies won't ever provoke opportunity attacks, or provoke them very rarely. Soldiers will be happy to avoid the Baneguard unless he can jump right in their face. Controllers and artillery can just avoid getting near him, and even if they can't, he still can't mark them until they do something to provoke - so they get one clean shot with whatever their worst attack is at the back row. Threatening Reach is the only thing that makes this kind of a mark viable, and only because threatening reach is itself overpowered for a PC. Look at the other defenders: fighters mark automatically on ANY attack, hit or miss. Paladins, wardens, and swordmages mark as a minor action. All of them, without exception, can mark at least one monster on their turn. Another issue with the baneguard's mark: all other defenders have a way to punish an enemy that ignores the mark, usually with an attack of some kind. With the baneguard, you suffer a -2 penalty to hit anyone else - and that's it. The other penalties occur regardless of who gets attacked. Furthermore, a marked monster can't save until the end of its turn, so another marking OA from the baneguard isn't much of a threat. They're better off running away. Sure, they may eat that OA, but they'll put some distance between themselves and the so-called defender (whose class features punish monsters that stay near them while marked), and maybe even get to a position where they can harass the squishy party members. Even if the baneguard follows, they have no incentive to stop harassing the squishies beyond a slight attack roll penalty, offset by the lower defenses on the people they'd be targeting. This means that a monster actually benefits by trying to avoid the baneguard EVEN WHEN MARKED. Does that clear things up? --220.127.116.11 05:15, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
The powers are not supposed to be on this page--each power needs to be on its own page. I have started the process of moving each power to a seperate page, and I am removing the powers that I have moved from this page. To illustrate the correct format of 4e classes ojn this wiki, I am including links to one of my own classes. Songweaver (4e Class), Songweaver Powers (4e Power List). Regards. -- 17:29, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
- The powers should be on the page -- there's no reason to move them to a separate page when you need to see them to play the class. The problem is the power form -- there needs to be a way to remove the breadcrumb, and categories, from the template. Then they can be put on individual pages and transcluded into the page. I tried to do this, but I couldn't find a way to add categories and stuff as part of a Form input. Surgo 17:36, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
- There is a way to remove the breadcrumb, etc.--you put |owner=Paragon Class.
- There are several problems with having the powers on the class's page. The first is if other users wanted to create powers for this (or another) class, the only place to do it would be the class's page, which is, in my opinion, not ideal. Secondly, it is much easier to create powers on their own pages than to add them to he class's page. Also, consider the songweaver--the class has 160 powers, which is way too many to put onj one page.
- I think that the best solution is to place the dplc power list for each class at the bottom of the page, as it is, in my opinion, neater, easier, and still allows you to access the powers from the class's page. -- 18:53, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
- The first is if other users wanted to create powers for this (or another) class, the only place to do it would be the class's page, which is, in my opinion, not ideal.
- Let's be honest here, this is not a problem. Has anyone ever done this? Will anyone ever do this? I think the answer to both is "no". Surgo 12:13, October 8, 2009 (UTC)