Some builds I'm tinkering around with in 4e. Some of these may be really rough and unfinished, but represent some sort of idea I have. They should work starting at level 1 and not have bad levels up until the max. I tend to try to build towards 13th as a goal - builds should work then, not later.
I'll do a post for each build as it is as currently: Here is the list:
1: Warlock|Wizard who uses primarily Wands. This is to give it a 'Vancian Caster feel'
2: Spin Bard - a take on the Spin Bard from AD&D 2nd ed - massively multi classes for extra striker damage+the ability to use Rain of Blows 3* a combat by 11th level(usually)
3: Warden|Sentinel - weird Defender|Leader|Controller build
4: Wizard who repeats the #1's tactic.
5: Elf Sorcerer who always goes first once Paragon hits and has a lot of control.
6: Human Warlock who has zone effects and tends to be able to slide. A lot.
7: Ranger|Bard who mostly acts similar to Shoot to Thrill, except with a big dollop of Leader & Skill Monkey capabilities.
8: Human Fighter|Sorcerer who fights with her fists, has Defender class AC at 1st level.
9: Human Battlemind|Paladin (Cavalier) - superfast engage Defender who opens up combat with a couple of Striker options and can do some minor league leading...
10: Satyr Battlemind|Fighter who is basically Grey Ioun Stone Marker + a very strong Striker encounter nova...
[sblock=disclaimers]
I don't do full-blown optimized builds in actual play for many reasons, but mainly I don't like to be the person who is the superstar of every table. I like to range from strong contributor to star and the builds usually reflect this. So these builds may have significant flaws. Some of these flaws are deliberate even if there are superior options elsewhere. Sometimes, they're just flaws and I'm happy to fix such things.
I like bizarre builds that don't fit the mold. Especially ones with odd tactical options that don't necessarily appear to have strong synergy. I don't have problems with a starting primary stat of 16 before racials for a race that doesn't get a +2 to that stat. If you try to play one of these and it plays badly, it is possible that you hit a big run of bad luck or weren't playing the synergy correctly.
I like to be able to talk and not suffer potential skill challenge death from an overly 'you talked, you make the Diplomacy check' DM. Many of my characters have some sort of Face potential as a result.
I almost exclusively play in LFR face to face. I go to an occasional convention to play. The builds need to be practical for LFR - I often need to assume that something won't be available to me at the table, such as a particular role or capability.
I do not think that many of these builds are the best ever. They're fun for me to play and that's what is important. There most certainly could be ways to make them more fun and I don't mind at all hearing thoughts about it.
If you're interested in rules arguments, this is the wrong thread.[/sblock]
I'll do a post for each build as it is as currently: Here is the list:
1: Warlock|Wizard who uses primarily Wands. This is to give it a 'Vancian Caster feel'
2: Spin Bard - a take on the Spin Bard from AD&D 2nd ed - massively multi classes for extra striker damage+the ability to use Rain of Blows 3* a combat by 11th level(usually)
3: Warden|Sentinel - weird Defender|Leader|Controller build
4: Wizard who repeats the #1's tactic.
5: Elf Sorcerer who always goes first once Paragon hits and has a lot of control.
6: Human Warlock who has zone effects and tends to be able to slide. A lot.
7: Ranger|Bard who mostly acts similar to Shoot to Thrill, except with a big dollop of Leader & Skill Monkey capabilities.
8: Human Fighter|Sorcerer who fights with her fists, has Defender class AC at 1st level.
9: Human Battlemind|Paladin (Cavalier) - superfast engage Defender who opens up combat with a couple of Striker options and can do some minor league leading...
10: Satyr Battlemind|Fighter who is basically Grey Ioun Stone Marker + a very strong Striker encounter nova...
[sblock=disclaimers]
I don't do full-blown optimized builds in actual play for many reasons, but mainly I don't like to be the person who is the superstar of every table. I like to range from strong contributor to star and the builds usually reflect this. So these builds may have significant flaws. Some of these flaws are deliberate even if there are superior options elsewhere. Sometimes, they're just flaws and I'm happy to fix such things.
I like bizarre builds that don't fit the mold. Especially ones with odd tactical options that don't necessarily appear to have strong synergy. I don't have problems with a starting primary stat of 16 before racials for a race that doesn't get a +2 to that stat. If you try to play one of these and it plays badly, it is possible that you hit a big run of bad luck or weren't playing the synergy correctly.
I like to be able to talk and not suffer potential skill challenge death from an overly 'you talked, you make the Diplomacy check' DM. Many of my characters have some sort of Face potential as a result.
I almost exclusively play in LFR face to face. I go to an occasional convention to play. The builds need to be practical for LFR - I often need to assume that something won't be available to me at the table, such as a particular role or capability.
I do not think that many of these builds are the best ever. They're fun for me to play and that's what is important. There most certainly could be ways to make them more fun and I don't mind at all hearing thoughts about it.
If you're interested in rules arguments, this is the wrong thread.[/sblock]
Last edited:
