Stormgale wrote:When you make claims about the mathmatical flaws in a given system after having created something with glaring mathmatical flaws it tends to lower the quality of your argument.
But you didn't establish that he created something with glaring mathematical flaws.
Stormgale wrote:Three primary ability scores: Dividing the ability of power selection between 3 subsets cripples the choice of a class especially when you dont let any powers use either stat ala the Ranger or Warlock, a playable bane guard would have an incredibly strange stat array and practically require +2's in 2 primary stats to work as written.
That... doesn't do that at all. First of all, they already had classes like that. When the PHB came out, classes weren't able to choose single themed powers of each type, like Paladin and Cleric, where you actually couldn't be a Str based Cleric without having to pick up Wis vs X encounters.
And once you accept that a specific character has to have two attack attributes, the Baneguard is fine, because you can be either a Dex and Con Banegaurd, or a Dex and Cha Baneguard, and in either case you can choose powers at every level and never even use the third stat. Hell, you could play just a Dex banegaurd, and have only dex powers at all if you wanted, and be using fewer stats than a PHB Str Cleric.
Stormgale wrote:Mark as a save ends? why, what design purpose does it serve breaking from the marking convention of every other class (until EoNT or Lasting but with a numerical limitation). It also combines 2 of the powerful marking abilities under 1 set (the Shielding swordmage and Paladin damage) making it a cripplingly powerful attack. From a design perspective it seems to not do what a mark should, encourage an enemy to maintain contact with the fighter due to it's random longevity and also makes it far weaker against elite's/solo's due to bonuses on saving throws.
What purpose does it serve keeping the same convention as other abilities that are called "Mark"? Why don't you ask the 4e designers about maintaining the conventions of abilities called "Evil Eye"?
He choose to have a different way to end the mark, because maybe he thought that was a better method for this particular mark to end. And so what if it's a better Mark than the other marks? No one is required to make all the Marks just as good. Maybe the Baneguard has better marks and worse other things? That would certainly be a valuable design goal for a class. Maybe it is designed to be generally better, but end sooner, thus being on the whole the same? That answers both your questions at once.
And yes, it means it doesn't work on Solos as well. Who cares?
Stormgale wrote:The multiple sets of at wills which ignore the whole mathmatical point of the AWED dynamic, that resource management can be important... even at level 29 an at will petrify boggles the mind, why use any other option. Encounter powers that dont even follow the attack dynamic and all the attack powers that arent at wills seem to be minor actions, why would a defender need more damage output?
There is no mathematical point of the AWED dynamic. The Twin Strike Fighter and Ranger, the Astral Seal Cleric Team, and several other builds are specifically designed to use only their at wills as standard actions, and take as many minor action abilities as possible. There is no mathematic point to haveing fewer choices each round and being less interesting.
The Baneguard gets to do worthwhile attacks with it's at wills, and then use minor action powers. Yes, the Baneguard, though not necessarily more powerful, is certainly more fun and more interesting than any other 4e class, how is that problem?
And frankly, if your mind is boggled by a level 29 at will taking away an action, you have problems with your mind. Yes, at level Twenty Motherfucking Nine, you can prevent things from acting, why is that a bad thing? Other classes can do that even sooner, yes, even on at wills. And you might use other things if you are facing lots of enemies, such that spending one of your actions to negate 1.5 of their actions is not worth it when you could be killing them with your other at wills.
So in conclusion, of your three mathematical problems, it basically results in you whining about a bunch of things that other 4e classes already do, and complaining that the Baneguard is more interesting than other 4e classes because it gets more choices.
Cry me a river of 4rry tears, I don't give a shit. If you have any actual mathematical problems with the Baneguard, get back to me with them.