D&D 4E Advice Wanted: 4e fan trying 5e

[garnuk]

I've had a lot of fun as a Melee Bard, a Rogue Thief, a Paladin, and a Battle Cleric. Lots of options in every situation, and some impressive combos and "exploits" to take advantage of as well. However, I would suggest you play a Fighter and see how you enjoy the class in actual play. It seems that is the class you prefer to play but "on paper" it looks underwhelming to you. You might be surprised how the game plays with the Battle Master dice. Also, you can take advantage of the grapples, shoves and pushes better than other classes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Open hand monk has been the most versatile melee combatant my group has seen. Plenty of options in combat, and a decent amount of utility abilities.

A dragonborn monk would be pretty cool.

 

[MoonSong]

Monk might fit your bill. Or maybe a Warlock/Bard or Warlock/Sorc (Start sorc for the Con save). If your group isn't playing with errata, a good ol' dragonborn dragon fire sorcerer could be cool for you.

 

[Remathilis]

Honestly, most people consider it a bit under-powered but a Hunter-Ranger is a pretty good mix of combat (two attacks, fighting style), magic (druidic; healing, buffing) and Skills/Utility (Primeval Awareness, Hide in Plain Sight). You can go Strength-heavy, wield a longsword with duelist and have medium armor and a shield to be a decent tank or go dex-heavy and rock archery or dual-wield/hunter's mark for DPS. As for spells, you can get Cure Wounds, Hunter's Mark, Conjure Animals/Woodland Beings, Stoneskin, and Lesser Restoration. (You're also a "spellcaster" for purposes of wands, staves, and scrolls). The beauty of the ranger is not that its necessarily unique but that it can poach good things from the Fighter, Druid, and Rogue classes and blend them into a decent build. Just avoid Beastmaster.

 

[Jester David]

Multiclass monk with fighter to make a brawler character?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've had a lot of fun as a Melee Bard, a Rogue Thief, a Paladin, and a Battle Cleric. Lots of options in every situation, and some impressive combos and "exploits" to take advantage of as well. However, I would suggest you play a Fighter and see how you enjoy the class in actual play. It seems that is the class you prefer to play but "on paper" it looks underwhelming to you. You might be surprised how the game plays with the Battle Master dice. Also, you can take advantage of the grapples, shoves and pushes better than other classes.

Although I agree that the Fighter would sound like the best option, if someone were just generically describing the classes to me while AFB, I'm...*VERY* hesitant. In terms of whether I'd enjoy my 5e experience or not, it's a pretty big gamble: if I DID end up liking it, my opinion of 5e would change significantly, but if I end up disappointed, I'll feel like all my criticism of the class and the game as a whole have been vindicated. Hence why I'm trying to find something that really speaks to my interests on its own. It's...metaphorically speaking, I'm trying to find the "olive branch" options, the places (which seem frustratingly rare) where 5e is already doing something that I can reasonably predict I'll enjoy. As it stands, I'm not much of a fan, often the opposite, and I'd really like the game to at least somewhat meet me in the middle.

As a little bit more background: 4e is definitely my favorite system, but the system I have the most experience actually playing is Dungeon World. DW is a lovely system for encouraging fiction-first, high-drama story. It's also about the absolute bare minimum of crunch I can handle without going completely, table-gnawing crazy. The story is always awesome, that much never changes, and I'm always deeply engaged when my DW group is deep in our most recent hijinks. But as a mechanical structure, a game framework I can take hold of, kick the tires, give a test drive? It tends to fall pretty flat, especially in combat. To my chagrin, I find myself frequently tuning out during fights that aren't specifically made to be a complex and dynamic event, as I need barely pay any attention at all due to the loosey-goosey positioning and the general lack of anything to do when my turn does come up. Hit things until they fall down and move to a new thing when they do, maybe run to an ally in the (now rare) event that someone gets seriously hurt, very rarely cast a spell that may or may not make any difference even if it succeeds (I play a Paladin with the "cast as a Cleric of one level lower" move, but even fighting demons and undead didn't make my spells feel useful in-combat, other than pinch heading.)

When I look at 5e, and especially the Fighter...well, I see a very similarly combat-simple class, yet one that lacks the (IMO) significantly interesting moves available to the DW Fighter, *especially* when it comes to non-combat stuff (and the DW Fighter it's pretty slim on that to begin with).

So yeah. The 5e Fighter, in any form, is...a bit too risky. It's just...it feels like it has such a high chance for disappointing me, which would really suck.

I wasn't aware that there were any reasons at all to grapple/grab things, almost nobody talks about it. The few opinions I've seen were decidedly mixed (one person was defending it in the abstract, a few others were...less enthused) and...I honestly don't remember seeing anything about it in the rules, anywhere. Not saying it's not there, just that whatever is there completely escaped my notice.

I've noticed the frequent Valor Bard suggestions. Since it's very likely that another player will have a Bard as well, I'm hesitant (probably a lingering DW influence: it explicitly recommends avoiding doubled-up classes because they will be too similar). For those suggesting it, how would you recommend building to avoid excessive/obvious overlap? Would you bother doing anything at all, or is it a non-issue?

 

[Raith5]

I am a 4e fan and I have found the Light Cleric to be a lot of fun (after a few levels). Sure I find it frustrating having to devote around about 75% of my spell slots for healing - rather than them being siloed in 4e - but I find I do have a lot of choices.

While I miss the mechanics and high fantasy stakes of 4e I have enjoyed the faster and more casual feel of 5e.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I suggest you go right back to the start and play your Devotion Paladin. What does it matter that there is another? I think that would be cool. Two knights from the same order sent on mission. Or competing orders, or whatever.

5E is not as reliant on roles as 4E. Well, sorry, our games are not. We never worry too much about forming the 'correct party'. Play what you want. It often turns out to be a lot of fun when you double up on things. Yes it creates situations where you wish you had a (insert class), but that adds to the fun, and well, you can't have everything in the group.

Not a massive difference between a party having a fighter and and a fighting cleric than 2 Paladins. If this will taint views of 5E, don't look for replacements. Play what stood out to you in the first place. Give it a go - the interaction b/w the paladins might actually add to the game.

 

[Iosue]

A couple more suggestions.

Find out if the game is going to be using a grid or played out theater of the mind. If it's online, if it's going to be using Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds, or whatever.

Find out if the DM is amenable to using the optional Marking rules and/or feats. Marking + Sentinel goes a long way to giving a 4e Fighter feel.

Finally, I would never say that the Battlemaster is an adequate replacement for a 4e Warlord. But forgetting that for a moment, and based on everything else you've said in this thread about what you're looking for, I'd recommend the Battlemaster.

 

[Ahrimon]

One idea I've been tossing around for my next character is a "Paladin of Wrath". Which is essentially a lvl 1 great weapon fighter, lvl X fiend (re-flavored to angel of wrath) warlock that takes the blade boon. It should be able to compete damage wise with the great sword and armor of agythys (sp) and the temp hp from the armor and fiend pact combined with heavy armor should make him tanky enough. The warlock invocations should add enough utility for a face type and the spells add enough utility for me.

I'm trying to decide what level order to go though. F 1, Wk 1-5, is my start but after that I'm tempted to add a bit more fighter for the combat power or stick with warlock for the utility.