General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I play a battle cleric of Kord. He's a dwarf with a greataxe. He's 3rd level.
I've been rushing forward and battering enemies with my greataxe, with marginal success. My AC is too low to be a defender, my damage is too low to be a striker, but I can sort of fake it. I could fake it well at 1st level, but even by 3rd level the differences between roles has become too pronounced for me to be truly effective.
So with the DM's permission, I fiddled with my PC. Changed a stat here and there, swapped a feat, changed some powers, etc. I didn't totally change the focus of the PC; he's still a battle cleric with an 18 STR and a greataxe. But I have more healing powers, better healing powers, and more buffs. I changed my strategy too. I no longer attack the guy I want dead, I attack the guy the rogue wants dead, to give him Righteous Brand. I'm more likely to spend a round without attacking.
And I'm a LOT more effective, and a lot less frustrated.
PS
__________________ You can clean up vomit, but data is always messy. - Storm's Law
I don't care if you light his face on fire and put it out with an anvil... - A. Taylor
My PC is pretty schizophrenic when it comes to character roles. I'm currently playing an eladrin artificer and while I'm nominally a leader (we now have a cleric in our group, so I don't have to focus on this as much), my power selection focuses on the classes's controller secondary role. It synergizes remarkably well since my burst powers either don't effect my allies or they give them various bonuses, so I can drop them just about anywhere I want. Since I'm using playtest materials and don't currently have any feats or PPs available for my class, I multi-classed into rogue at 1st level; I didn't take any power swap feats, but otherwise, my feat selection has focused on stuff that makes me more roguish (weapon focus [rapier], quick draw, nimble blade, etc.).
So basically, I'm a hybrid Leader-Controller-Striker and its working pretty well, though I realized early on that I would never be as good a striker as a straight up rogue (sneak attack damage only once per encounter) or a controller (no burst at-wills).
__________________ Veronica: Where's your brother?
Dick: I think he took Ghost World up to his room. They're probably up there making love. Or playing Dungeons and Dragons. Or both, at the same time. They're both, like, 12th-level dorks. I'm just sayin'
It sounds like you handled it just right. I keep prodding my players to let me know if they need to do this, but I think thwey're happy at this point. The closest I get is that the ranger somewhat tries to embrace the leader role when it comes to healing. I'm hoping he chooses to multiclass.
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Currently editing the 4e War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
BTW, I don't know if it makes you jealous, but having run it for 9 months I finally got to play it last weekend - and I prefer it as a player to as a DM.
- Although I still think it is a shame that you've pretty much got to stick to the narrow definition of a classes role - as Storminator found out, you can get quite heavily penalised if you don't hew to the designers vision (pun intended)
Cheers
__________________ Plane Sailing
(Enworld Admin)
If you need to email me click here
"It makes as much sense as having Batman kill his parents and then go on to fight mutants from another dimension." - Rykion
Although I still think it is a shame that you've pretty much got to stick to the narrow definition of a classes role - as Storminator found out, you can get quite heavily penalised if you don't hew to the designers vision (pun intended)
Indeed. Your Combat Role is controlling.
This, by the way, is why I don't have pre-defined Skill Lists, love the Backgrounds from Dragon Magazine (which, combined with a "Choose Your Own Skill List" I think of as "Social Role" vis a vis the "Combat Role") and let PCs re-define the fluff part of their class mechanics to fit whatever theme they want. The classes as written are really just "Fighting Styles", not the sort-of-profession that terms like "Cleric", "Paladin" and "Ranger" suggest.
So, if a PC in my campaign were having Storminator's problem he could have taken Storminator's route, or he could have remade the character as a Fighter with the "Battle Cleric of Kord" Background and made him trained in Religion, Heal, etc. The character would have remained the same to the eyes of the other PCs (a Dwarven Battle Cleric of Kord); only the underlying mechanics would have shifted a bit.
__________________ I don't "tell stories" when I play D&D. I adventure. Afterward, when the gold is counted and the bodies piled high, we may tell stories about how it all went down. Or not.
i have to say that so far the role thing is my least favorite aspect of 4e. Granted i've only got to play a couple times, but one of the best things about 3.x was the ablilty to push classes in unexpected ways. I love nothing more then finding ways to make a character work outside it's preconcieved program.
I have the fealing 4e makes it very hard to blend and blur the lines between the roles that seem to be shoved down our throats. I also never liked the idea that a group will be less then successful if certain classes/roles are left out. I really think it's more fun if everyone in the game can play the character they want without worrying about these things.
I think would be better if you could play a cleric that was viable in combat if that's what you want to do, or a fighter that can dabble in magic, or a rogue that can provide some healing and support. If that's what you feal like doing. Unfortunatly i don't think 4e's multi class feats really pull it off as well as they should.
On the upside it's a fairly minor problem over all. The more books come out the more interested i become in playing, and i've really liked the couple i've play so far. hopefully the rest of my group will come around someday.
I love the roles. I think that with the plethora of classes that are coming out with PHB2 and eventually PHB3, and the whole concept of secondary roles, that there really is enough variety to satisfy most people's tastes.
I think the key thing, though, is to abandon the concepts you have of the archetypes that the names represent. I really don't feel like the paladin is a paladin, for instance, or that the ranger is a ranger. But I'm quite happy to ignore the names and that for me opens up a larger variety of mental imagery when it comes to the character's roles.
Now a paladin to me is a defender/leader. The paladin moniker is irrelevant.
I love the roles. I think that with the plethora of classes that are coming out with PHB2 and eventually PHB3, and the whole concept of secondary roles, that there really is enough variety to satisfy most people's tastes.
I think the key thing, though, is to abandon the concepts you have of the archetypes that the names represent. I really don't feel like the paladin is a paladin, for instance, or that the ranger is a ranger. But I'm quite happy to ignore the names and that for me opens up a larger variety of mental imagery when it comes to the character's roles.
Now a paladin to me is a defender/leader. The paladin moniker is irrelevant.
I agree. I'm technically an artificer, but I describe myself an arcane thief.
__________________ Veronica: Where's your brother?
Dick: I think he took Ghost World up to his room. They're probably up there making love. Or playing Dungeons and Dragons. Or both, at the same time. They're both, like, 12th-level dorks. I'm just sayin'
I love nothing more then finding ways to make a character work outside it's preconcieved program.
And I hated nothing more than having to build every damn PC to IEEE spec. I understand that this is a matter of personal preference (and well tread ground in the Edition Wars), but I am soooooo glad that the "Pimp My Fighter" "Game Within The RPG" is dead and buried. I'm a "Kill orcs and take their stuff" kind of guy (or defeat the Dragonarmies, whatever), and every minute I spend tweaking a Prestige Class is a minute not spent killing orcs. A minute I'll not get back, if you know what I mean.
But like I said, personal preference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Osis of Liver
I have the fealing 4e makes it very hard to blend and blur the lines between the roles that seem to be shoved down our throughts.
To my ear that's a bit like saying I got A/C or power steering in my car "shoved down my throat." Not exactly. I pay extra for that! It's a feature, not a bug, that the roles are explicit in 4E when they were only implicit in previous editions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Osis of Liver
I also never liked the idea that a group will be less then successful if certain classes/roles are left out.
This is true in every single Edition of D&D, bar none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Osis of Liver
I really think it's more fun if everyone in the game can play the character they want without worrying about these things.
You can do this in every Edition of D&D, bar none.
Look, the only difference between 4E and previous editions here is that the "Roles" are in the open where everyone can see them. It's not like they weren't always there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Osis of Liver
I think would be better if you could play a cleric that was viable in combat if that's what you want to do, or a fighter that can dabble in magic, or a rogue that can provide some healing and support. If that's what you feal like doing. Unfortunatly i don't think 4e's multi class feats really pull it off as well as they should.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the M/C Feats (many people share it), but the whole point of class design in 4E is to allow the PC to fulfill his role. And that's not a straight-jacket; it's a safety feature to prevent stupid decisions by the player which suddenly leave his PC a sup-optimal Swiss Army knife when his buddies were really counting on him to be, well, good at something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Osis of Liver
On the upside it's a fairly minor problem over all. The more books come out the more interested i become in playing, and i've really liked the couple i've play so far. hopefully the rest of my group will come around someday.
Hopefully! The additional classes over time should address many of your concerns. Clark Peterson at Necromancer has even been toying with the idea of releasing a book of 4E "Multi-class Classes", where the name of the class is actually "Fighter-Thief." It would be a single, coherent class but producing the effect of playing a Fighter-Thief in previous editions of D&D.
I don't see that as necessary though. The only thing you really need to be a "Thief" in 4E is Trained in the Thievery Skill. The "Thief" class is just a Fighting Style used by harriers, swashbucklers and dirty boxers.
__________________ I don't "tell stories" when I play D&D. I adventure. Afterward, when the gold is counted and the bodies piled high, we may tell stories about how it all went down. Or not.
I too played a Battle Cleric of Kord. My strength and con were both 18. Bastion was a force to be reckoned with on the field of battle, easily holding his own with the defenders of the group. He also dealt tons of damage, wielding a morning star as he did (d10s, woo!). The acquisition of a horned helm only lent itself to further damage in combat.
I never felt that he became ineffective compared with the strikers or the defender, though to be fair, we had a couple of noobs playing the strikers and our defender was a fighter multiclassed into wizard...
__________________ 4th Ed Chars Fallen:
Spoiler:
Gavin Ward - Male Human Warlord 1 - The party started a bar fight. The fellow who escaped brought his bandit buddies back and they killed Gavin (and nearly three other party members). He bled out while lying on the floor.
4th Ed Kills:
Spoiler:
Cornell Butterworth - Male Human Wizard 1 - Knocked unconscious by a kobold dragonshield the fighter ignored, then done in by the kobold wyrmpriest's acid breath.
Lithia - Female Elven Ranger 11 - Contracted mummy rot, which eventually did her in.
Brendan Stetlan - Male Human Fighter 4 - Knocked unconscious in combat, then thrown to the wolves.
Vindicator Mindartis Valenae - Eladrin Paladin 5 - Dropped by a githzerai monk (L6 elite), and killed when the rogue threw him off the balcony to try and get his body to safety.
Vongar - Male Dwarf Paladin 1 - Fell in battle after defeating Irontooth, but not his bodyguard.
Straef - Male Elf Ranger 1 - Fell in battle to Irontooth's Wyrmpriest.
I think would be better if you could play a cleric that was viable in combat if that's what you want to do, or a fighter that can dabble in magic, or a rogue that can provide some healing and support. If that's what you feal like doing. Unfortunatly i don't think 4e's multi class feats really pull it off as well as they should.
You might like to have a look at my revised multiclassing rules, which I devised to make this more practical. They have worked very well for me so far
I think would be better if you could play a cleric that was viable in combat if that's what you want to do...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MortalPlague
I too played a Battle Cleric of Kord. My strength and con were both 18. Bastion was a force to be reckoned with on the field of battle, easily holding his own with the defenders of the group. He also dealt tons of damage, wielding a morning star as he did (d10s, woo!). The acquisition of a horned helm only lent itself to further damage in combat.
I never felt that he became ineffective compared with the strikers or the defender, though to be fair, we had a couple of noobs playing the strikers and our defender was a fighter multiclassed into wizard...
I'm not ineffective in combat, it's just not what I do best.
In the midst of my mass of leaderishness in our last session, we got surrounded. I used my Shield of Faith (we were all in the burst) so the party had an AC bonus, I had used Beacon of Hope, so my healing was extremely potent and everyone was pretty safe hp-wise. I was getting attacked by a vine monster of some kind (I think it was reskinned from something). I used Split the Sky to hit the creature, knock it prone, move it two squares, moved after it, then used an action point to Righteous Brand it (with the warlord's various bonuses for attacking with action points). I cut a hole in the encirclement and beat an enemy senseless. Other enemies followed me, surrounded me, and our party surrounded them and tore them apart.
So I can have a solid combat round. But I can't do those all the time.
Our rogue really, OMG AMAZINGLY, showed what strikers are all about. With his rapier, Backstabber feat, his CA literally every. single. attack. and the way he played OA bait for the fighter's mark, he nearly tripled our team damage output compared to the session he missed. It was a frickin clinic.
PS
__________________ You can clean up vomit, but data is always messy. - Storm's Law
I don't care if you light his face on fire and put it out with an anvil... - A. Taylor
Your version is a lot better! I really don't understand why WoTC didn't set things up the same way. I don't have a problem with the idea of using feats to multi-class it just stinks that to start you basically get a nerfed version of one class feature as an encounter power. i think it's much better to be able to swap one of your at wills, and then later dip into the class features a little.
If i can ever get a ongoing game together i might try your version out.
It certainly gives characters a 'multiclassed feel' to them, and it *really* broadens out the archetypes which can be played.
Cheers
PS,
I can see the advantage of swapping at-wills first and class features later (rather than the reverse order), but your Class Feature Feats are way better than the MC Feats from the PHB. The RAW Initiate of the Faith only grants Healing Word 1/day, but your CFF grants the full Cleric treatment (2/Encounter). That's a huge power boost. Don't you think that's a bit much?
-------------
On the OP's point, I think a good piece of advice for players looking to make a PC is to envision the role you want to play in combat first, then pick the class.
__________________ I don't "tell stories" when I play D&D. I adventure. Afterward, when the gold is counted and the bodies piled high, we may tell stories about how it all went down. Or not.
It's a feature, not a bug, that the roles are explicit in 4E when they were only implicit in previous editions.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
