Build advice: Limits by Power Source instead of Class

[AbdulAlhazred]

It depends on how MC'ing works, but a Warlord|Swordmage can grab most of the ones that count…

Right, and you'd be quite tough, you'd have Aegis of Shielding, which is brutally nasty on a character that can make good range attacks, and you have some sort of leader feature too, which is always handy. I'd call it a tossup between that and something like Paladin|Warlock (though for his use case Avenger might be good too).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Obviously, as has been pointed out, there's a problem with the idea (it's a good idea, mind you, in concept), in that there is a lot of class support and role support built into powers, and, particularly in the case of Controllers, some of that support comes in the form of powers that are literally, strictly, better than those of classes with more/better features.

So pooling powers by source would require first fixing up classes to have all their class differentiation and role support isolated in their class features, and scrubbing the same from powers as you consolidate them down to lists by Source.

It'd be a major undertaking, done well, probably a major improvement, too.

 

[ZickZak]

So pooling powers by source would require first fixing up classes to have all their class differentiation and role support isolated in their class features, and scrubbing the same from powers as you consolidate them down to lists by Source.

So if I understand correctly, wouldnt this be solved by MCing?

Right now I m trying to decide the main striker for its at-will, so unsure if to go with Rogue, MCd with Warlock for Shadow Walk and teleport every round, or Sorcerer for White Lotus Master Riposte MCd with something... or ranger. Will have to look more into the Avenger/Invoker classes you guys mention.

 

[Joshua Randall]

But what problem are you trying to solve, here?

If you want to make every character extremely powerful and flexible then sure, giving them access to all powers with source = their role(s) will do the trick. If you were just trying to build a particular character to match something in your head, there might be some other way to do it that doesn't break the game as wide open.

 

[MwaO]

Here might be another way of looking at it:
At 12th level, it isn't hard to make 2 PCs fill all the essential roles. A Str/Wis Warden|Sentinel(Zephyr) MC Warlord for Freedom Fighter Paragon Path is an effective Defender/Leader/Controller+a Dex/Cha Sorcerer|Warlord with Demonskin Adept as Paragon Path is a great Striker/Leader.

You cover all the roles reasonably well, there's no need to play with all the powers in the game, each PC has an encounter heal by default, and the two PCs have synergy - Magic Stones to force targets into the Sorcerer's Flame Spiral as an example.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here might be another way of looking at it:
At 12th level, it isn't hard to make 2 PCs fill all the essential roles. A Str/Wis Warden|Sentinel(Zephyr) MC Warlord for Freedom Fighter Paragon Path is an effective Defender/Leader/Controller+a Dex/Cha Sorcerer|Warlord with Demonskin Adept as Paragon Path is a great Striker/Leader.

You cover all the roles reasonably well, there's no need to play with all the powers in the game, each PC has an encounter heal by default, and the two PCs have synergy - Magic Stones to force targets into the Sorcerer's Flame Spiral as an example.

Heck, look at 1st level. You'd have a very solid defender with some quite reasonable control and a daily heal. You'll also have a perfectly good striker, very tough with some quite nice leader stuff thrown in. Even at that level you have perfectly reasonable synergies. You may not cover all the bases full-time, but for a party of 2 you can do darn well. Pick your skills carefully and consider feats and skill powers that tend to add options, you can easily make this a very effective team.

Really, when you consider the huge range of items that are available in 4e, there's not a lot you CAN'T do already. In fact I'd much sooner be a bit relaxed about what items are available at what levels in terms of getting people what they need/want for this sort of a game. As a GM give out some items that are maybe a few levels 'too high' if needed to add in some fun extra dimensions. Give away a bunch of consumables; at lower levels a lot of those are extremely effective.

 

[MwaO]

Heck, look at 1st level. You'd have a very solid defender with some quite reasonable control and a daily heal. You'll also have a perfectly good striker, very tough with some quite nice leader stuff thrown in. Even at that level you have perfectly reasonable synergies. You may not cover all the bases full-time, but for a party of 2 you can do darn well. Pick your skills carefully and consider feats and skill powers that tend to add options, you can easily make this a very effective team.

Really, when you consider the huge range of items that are available in 4e, there's not a lot you CAN'T do already. In fact I'd much sooner be a bit relaxed about what items are available at what levels in terms of getting people what they need/want for this sort of a game. As a GM give out some items that are maybe a few levels 'too high' if needed to add in some fun extra dimensions. Give away a bunch of consumables; at lower levels a lot of those are extremely effective.

Right, though actually both of them have an encounter heal at 1st level and fill the roles - they just fill them better at 12th when they have the feat room to make sure everything works.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So if I understand correctly, wouldnt this be solved by MCing?

'Solved?'

I don't think I understood your OP correctly. Are you instituting this house rule in a game you're going to run, or are you playing in a game where the DM is allowing it? Because the OP sounded like the former and that's what I was addressing, but looking at the rest of the thread it's sounding like the latter...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

'Solved?'

I don't think I understood your OP correctly. Are you instituting this house rule in a game you're going to run, or are you playing in a game where the DM is allowing it? Because the OP sounded like the former and that's what I was addressing, but looking at the rest of the thread it's sounding like the latter...

He said "We are trying a houserule..." so I wouldn't necessarily interpret that to mean he is the GM and THINKING about having such a house rule. It sounds, to me, more like the participants agreed to have this as a house rule, and that it is already set in motion. We also know there are 2 players, so it seems like a little get-together kinda game to try something out and play some 4, right [MENTION=6748747]ZickZak[/MENTION]?

Truthfully, all our commentary along the lines of "here's why you might not want to do this" are kinda going against the point of the thread if I understand it correctly. The OP didn't ask if this was a bad idea, it just asked what would be a good build given that this IS the rule. Given that he asked about a build, I am guessing he's one of the players. Nothing wrong with us commenting that we're dubious about the whole affair, but in the end I think that for them 'Solved' just means they're going ahead and the consequences will have to be dealt with in whatever fashion.

I think its cool to play variant 4e. Much fun.

 

[ZickZak]

But what problem are you trying to solve, here?
If you were just trying to build a particular character to match something in your head, there might be some other way to do it that doesn't break the game as wide open.

There are my reqs at the top of the page. I was going for ninja stealthy archer with fear and mind-illusion spells, perhaps occasional fireball.