Hey @
JamesonCourage. I noticed in the 5e character concept thread you expressed some dismay at the out of combat disparity twixt the Knight and Wizard in your group.
Not really dismay, no. A small amount of surprise after hearing how much better it was, though, yes. I found the difference quite striking, still.
While I definitely agree that the Fighter should have gotten 4 skills (along with everyone else) instead of 3, I think partially what your friend is suffering from is possibly some character build problems. 4e actually is pretty flexible with its secondary build devices such that you can create all manner of archetypes with the base chassis of a class.
Eh, it's flexible, yes, but I still don't think the Knight will compare by the end of this. We'll see
I believe that your group is now 2nd level.
They're 5th level after last session, actually, and will likely be 6th level by the end of next session! We play infrequently, but our sessions our long, and we pack a lot in.
On to the build! Excuse me breaking this up.
Below I've just created a quick and dirty Galahad type.
1) This guy would be a very effective melee controller (Defender Aura and slow on MBA with stance)
2) is stout (20 AC vs 19 for high AC at level 2)
3) has some good skirmishing (shift 1 on MBA with stance)
4) and can easily be the faceman of a party (Intimidate and Bluff attain Medium DC @ 3 and Dip @ 8) while maintaining a huge Athletics check (attains Medium DC @ 3) and a hefty Acrobatics, Endurance, Heal and Streetwise checks (Medium DC @ 7, 5, 7, 6 respectively).
Okay, on to my opinions.
1) Defender Aura is very effective. The slow stance is nice for battlefield control, but enemies are already pretty hesitant to shift / move away from him (due to his OAs on them, the automatic Str damage even on a miss, etc.). Some still do risk it, but I don't know if it's all that useful a good amount of the time.
2) Sure, he'll be survivable. No question.
3) He just lost his slow stance, though. This is also less useful in rough terrain (where the slow stance isn't as useful either, in my opinion). It's still useful a decent amount, but it's not great mobility. It's nothing compared to mobile classes (Monk, Ranger, etc.).
4) In my experience, his Athletics and Endurance are good, but the armor hurts a bit for his high ability score skills. Your character is also a human instead of a dwarf, meaning that he's getting an extra skill / feat (which you've used to channel into negating some of his low Strength score). As a dwarf, a Charisma bump (your human) wasn't an option, nor was the extra human skill. He could have put his first feat into Melee Training (Cha) (though his Charisma would be lower). Additionally, he's no longer a pure Fighter; you've multi-classed him into Rogue (Sly Dodge feat). I would expect a Fighter / Rogue in any edition to be more capable outside of combat, too. Additionally, your armor is negating his armor check penalty (his armor doesn't, and he doesn't get to pick his armor, as I don't use wishlists or the like), and on top of that, he's using illegal armor (he needs to be a living construct to use it, and it's from the Eberron setting, which is a source I don't use).
He can do all of the necessary noncombat stuff for the Fighter, gather information in urban environments, and succeed in parlays most of the time.
I would expect this of a multi-class Rogue, yes. It's not a bad build, but it does require things that he doesn't have (human race, access to magic armor of his choice, multi-classing out of Fighter, low Strength, etc.).
Also, one thing that is particularly helpful for Fighters in 4e is their default high Athletics and Endurance checks. In Exploration challenges (climbs, chases, journeys, survival in exposure scenarios, et al), you're probably going to want to be forcing the group to make a Group Check (everyone rolls vs DC, if half the group passes they get a success) once per Exploration Conflict. Athletics, Endurance, Perception, Stealth are your standard group checks. The Fighter basically anchors the group with an almost auto-success vs the Medium DC and a ~ 50 %ish (+/- 5ish) vs the Hard DC. The PC with the huge Athletics check in my group has been an enormous benefit to the group because of this.
He's done pretty well with Athletics, and done well with Endurance. Again, armor seems to harm this a bit (it hits all the skills you listed except Perception, which even your version isn't trained in and has a low Wisdom).
Further, you can make an Int build with Wis secondary and be a scholarly Fighter (with Arcana and Rituals) as well (and still maintain a high Athletics check).
Just food for thought if your Fighter (Knight) isn't enjoying himself out of combat.
He actually is enjoying himself outside of combat, and I really have no huge issues with him being more limited than the Fighter. He's having fun with it, and I'm having fun running things. I'll need to shift some narrative focus his way to make up for his lack of control, but that's okay; I had to do that in my long-running 3.5 game as well, and my players absolutely loved that game.
Thanks for the thoughtful post on trying to help me, though. I do appreciate it. I was basically just pointing out that no edition of D&D thus far has really made for a version of the Fighter that is as versatile as the Wizard (while remaining distinctly Fighter-y, which might not be the case for your scholar-Fighter with Arcana / Rituals).
Even with the build you offered, the Wizard has comparable control (Hypnotism or Storm Pillar, for example), zones, magical effects that the Fighter just can't copy (Flight, Arcane Gates, etc.). Outside of combat, the Wizard can be the party face (Arcana instead of Diplomacy or Intimidate), range, area attacks, doesn't take armor check penalty on their primary skills, etc. And then there's Prestidigitation. And, compared to the Knight in particular, skill utility powers (Arcane Mutterings, Legend Lore, etc.).
While I agree that 4e is somewhat more flexible (especially the PHB Fighter over the Knight), I still don't think it's close. You need to pick the most versatile race (human), multi-class into one of the most versatile classes (Rogue), etc. And, by the end, I think you're probably not on the same playing field as the Wizard (flight, teleportation, rituals, Arcana [likely their highest skill] to be the party face, etc.).
At the end of the day, you still have the Fighter being good at combat, and, comparatively, not much else. In my opinion, at least. That's about what it's played like so far, anyway. Mind you, the Knight in my group has a lot of fun, and that I'm someone who is okay with narrow PCs, so this isn't a big problem for me. I just don't see the 4e Fighter as nearly as robust as the 4e Wizard.
Thanks again for the pointers on how to make him more robust, though. Your build would be quite a bit different from this players (your highly charismatic, human, flashy Fighter/Rogue versus his grounded, dwarven Fighter / Paladin of Kord). If it wasn't so drastically different, I might bring it to him to help him rebuild. However, the story quite involves him being a dwarf as of this point (and not just because he keeps negating my forced movement and prone effects, damn him!); his background includes him being exiled, he's wearing dwarven ancestral armor, and he plans to bring the remains of a dwarven prince back to its home.
Anyway, I'm always glad to talk about it. I'm not trying to rag on 4e or your ideas. As people can see, I'm enjoying the game. I just don't think what you brought up really convinces me that Fighters are that versatile outside of combat, and the suggested builds (charismatic or scholarly) can't really replace the dwarven Fighter that is this hooked into the setting already. Thank you again, though. I mean it.
