D&D 4E Making the Character I Want to Play in 4e (Long)

[Surgoshan]

Why? Most greatswords had a dull area on the blade so that you could hold it more like a spear to stab with them. When holding it that way I don't see what would be so hard about attacking precisely with that sword.

Which defeats the purpose of trying to sneak attack with a greatsword. It'd be like coshing someone. The great damage of a greatsword comes from swinging a weight of metal at speed. The ability to grab the blade and bash someone with the pommel was for close in dueling, judging from the examples we have from the margins of medieval manuscripts.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Which defeats the purpose of trying to sneak attack with a greatsword. It'd be like coshing someone. The great damage of a greatsword comes from swinging a weight of metal at speed. The ability to grab the blade and bash someone with the pommel was for close in dueling, judging from the examples we have from the margins of medieval manuscripts.

Actually, halfsword techniques were primarily used to punch through armour more efficiently. When wielding the sword that way, you were essentially using a spear.

''The great damage'' of the sword isn't an issue. Forget D&D and action movie for a moment : The human body is fragile. If you beat the armour, your opponent is dead. And when a guy wore thick armour, swings were wasted energy. You weren't going throug plate that way, no matter how hard you swung. So you would grab your greatsword toward the middle, slam your handle in his helmet, thus stunning him, then you would thrust the tip of your sword through the weak spot in the armpit, exploit his shock by ramming into him and bringing the fight to the ground, release one hand on your blade, draw a stiletto and slip it throug the helmet and kill the sucker.* For example.

Not a single melee weapon in the history of mankind has ever been developped with the idea that you needed to inflict ''Great damage''. Just with the idea that you needed to kill your opponent before he could do the same to you.

That's why if you removed armour from the equation, you would prefer a rapier to a greatsword. And if you were fighting in packed tavern, you would prefer a dagger to a rapier. All these weapon would kill you in one blow if they strike true and so the only concern was, and has ever been, how best to deliver that one killing blow.

Now this is D&D and we have HP and rapiers are allowed to be used against heavy armour without penalty. That's fine, that's fantasy, that's a game. But it makes many of you forget what a weapon was really designed for. Not whittling away HP. Killing.

Seems a small nuance but, and no offense to the quoted poster, it results in really weird evaluation of how a weapon is supposed to be used. As far as I'm concerned, you have to see a D&D fight as an abstraction of many maneuvers. Not all of them would intuitively be worth 2D6 but overall, a guy using a 2-hander is hardly just swinging. We approximate his damage as 2D6 but let's not get hanged up on that and decide it must means he's only doing big swings.

 

[jeffhartsell]

I agree with the OP that it is disappointing the rogue powers we have seen require a light weapon. "Sneak attack" is simply knowing where to attack to do more damage. If the rogue can pick up additional weapon profs with feats and has powers that work with other weapons, then there is no issue.

And trying to be a fighter with rogue abilities is not at all the same as being a rogue that can use heavy weapons. And it is not like the OP is saying he wants to take over the fighters role and tank; he just wants to be a striker that uses weapons other than light weapons.

From the material so far, I am wondering how someone will be able to make a TWF fighter. Someone that wants to tank but does not want a shield or 2h; i.e. rapier and main gauche swashbuckler that is out in front being the dodgy tank as opposed to the heavy armor tank.

Looks like that will need to be a different class than the current fighter. We have to wait for PH2 for the bard, druid, monk, and barbarian.

Maybe the OP will get a new class in one of the PHx books that has sneak attack with heavy weapons; like the Ronin PRC got in 3e.

IMO the fighter/rogue was a good way to model a character that was a swordsman that knew where to hit someone for maximum effect. Take melee weapon mastery and some other ftr/rog feat goodness and you were set. That character is really not a classic thief but instead a mobile master swordsman.

Edit: Oh, and btw I am a huge DnD fan and am very much looking forward to 4e. I just have to realize that some characters won't translate right now (or maybe ever).

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

This may well be the case, but why? You'll be a greatsword-wielding, sneak-attacking Rogue who'll fit perfectly with what you've described. You'll just be rolling (perhaps) 1d6 base damage instead of (maybe) 2d6. Does that extra 1d6 seem irresistably good to you? Well, that may be the reason why WotC's declared that you can't use Sneak Attack with greatswords as a default option. I already recall one staff blog where they mentioned that they had to retune things because the rogue kept using a greataxe even without the proficiency bonii, because it was just the best solution. That's one reason I would be surprised to see any feats allowing sneak attacks with two-handed weapons in 4e.

It does seem to me that you're wedding your concept too tightly to mechanical quirks and system oddities. It's no wonder that you should find it unsatisfying when those system freaks get ironed out if you've based an entire character on something as bizzare as precision-based greatsword fighting. I'm not saying it was an uncommon choice in 3.5, or that you could throw a rock without bouncing it off a dozen falchion-wielding rogues, but the reason they did that was for fundamentally mechanical advantage. Yes, I'm sure there was a coolness factor in it, but it was cool because it was effective. How many rogues dual-wielded daggers? I'd venture to say that there's a great deal more concentrated awesome in that style, but no rogue with a brain in his head ever gimped himself so intensely unless he was absolutely dedicated to the idea.

Going back to my first post, this character has been using a greatsword since 1st edition. It has nothing to do with something that is tied to a 3.5 mechanical concept.

The mechanics of the game provide a "feel" for a character. Ignoring the mechanics takes away from the fun. Using mechanics you don't like also takes away from the fun.

And, I don't see how 3.5 optimization tactics for sneak attack have anything to do with this thread. There are plenty of threads about that though, and several of them would disagree that using two-weapon fighting with a light weapon in combination with sneak attack and/or other additive damage sources is hopelessly gimping a character.

The central problem in this thread is that there is an obsession with getting mechanics (metagame constructs) that likely won't work together to work together by RAW, without asking what the character concept is devoid of any metagame construcs and trying to find the metagame constructs in 4e that will best fit the concept that do work together. When the character concept is really discussed without any metagame constructs, and there is an honest search for metagame constructs that will best fulfill the concept that actually work, then this problem becomes a very small spead bump. I find it amusing when players want to play by RAW to create metagame constructs that aren't possible by RAW, when the concept can easily be couched in metagame constructs that appear to work very well by RAW, just because of names or flavor text.

The only obsessions in this thread (aside from having a character that has been played for over 25 years) is the people that can't get over the fact that I don't like the Hunter's Quarry ability, the people that can't stop talking about historical weapons facts and the people that can't stop talking about how all I want is to use a sneak attack with a greatsword when I've said that isn't the case - I've even posted a way that might make the character work via a link (to a post in your thread) without any of the rogue powers or abilities (including sneak attack) working with the greatsword that still fits into the character concept and makes the character have the mechanical feel I want it to. It has nothing to do with fluff or flavor text, it has to do with how the powers work mechanically.

There might be one more obsession... metagame constructs, metagame constructs, metagame constructs, metagame constructs, metagame constructs, metagame construcs. That's six times in a three-sentence, one-paragraph post man. As I posted in your thread on what's wrong with people that don't like the way you think they should make their characters in 4e, if you really want to help people as opposed to insulting them because they don't like the same things that you do, look at helping them make the character they want to play, not the character you think they should play.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

I really was trying to help. I find it funny that you are so attached to the mechanics of sneak attack that you are willing to do it with another weapon besides the one you have been using for 25 years just to put sneak attack on your character sheet. This in light of the fact that there are many ways to create a sneaky, mobile, greatsword using opportunist is bewildering to me. As long as you are really happy with that solution, fantastic.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Going back to my first post, this character has been using a greatsword since 1st edition. It has nothing to do with something that is tied to a 3.5 mechanical concept.

It might be more accurate to say that it is tied to a pre-4E mechanical concept.

is the people that can't get over the fact that I don't like the Hunter's Quarry ability

I think the problem with that is that the reason you don't like it doesn't make sense to anyone, and they think that you need to be convinced that Hunter's Quarry actually is something a rolling-around opportunistic warrior could use effectively.

the people that can't stop talking about historical weapons facts

"I'd really like to see the link or whatever that confirms a greatsword weighs 15 lbs."

I've even posted a way that might make the character work via a link

So...that's great. Whole problem solved. Why does this thread still exist?

 

[VannATLC]

Half the metagame concept/character problems would have gone away, if WoTC had deigned to name the classes something non-archetypical.

Martial Defender
Stealthy Martial Striker
Ranged Martial Striker
Melee Martial Striker
Martial Leader
Divine Defender
Divine Leader
Arcane Striker
Arcane Controller.

Ta-da.

No more crap about 'Ranger' not being suitable.

You're now a melee martial striker. Bingo.

 

[Surgoshan]

Actually, halfsword techniques were primarily used to punch through armour more efficiently. When wielding the sword that way, you were essentially using a spear.

''The great damage'' of the sword isn't an issue. Forget D&D and action movie for a moment : The human body is fragile. If you beat the armour, your opponent is dead. And when a guy wore thick armour, swings were wasted energy. You weren't going throug plate that way, no matter how hard you swung. So you would grab your greatsword toward the middle, slam your handle in his helmet, thus stunning him, then you would thrust the tip of your sword through the weak spot in the armpit, exploit his shock by ramming into him and bringing the fight to the ground, release one hand on your blade, draw a stiletto and slip it throug the helmet and kill the sucker.* For example.

Except that plate armor was expensive and rare. Most opponents would have been covered with a mail hauberk over thick cotton padding.

I think we're kind of agreeing with each other, though. Most fights between plated opponents were finished by one guy getting thrown to the ground (often through grappling) and coup de grâced. The greatsword mostly wasn't used to hurt someone in plate mail. It was used to get him in a position to be killed.

However, against someone not in plate, it was a giant sword capable of doing nasty, nasty things. But to be used in a more delicate way (as it often was), it wasn't used in a manner capable of doing craploads of greatsword style damage.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Half the metagame concept/character problems would have gone away, if WoTC had deigned to name the classes something non-archetypical.

Martial Defender
Stealthy Martial Striker
Ranged Martial Striker
Melee Martial Striker
Martial Leader
Divine Defender
Divine Leader
Arcane Striker
Arcane Controller.

Ta-da.

No more crap about 'Ranger' not being suitable.

You're now a melee martial striker. Bingo.

Actually, this is exactly how I have always looked at every bit of pre-packaged game mechanics I have ever come across. I read some of the flavor text, but I don't even get to all that. The flavor text, including names of powers/classes/feats/whatever has always been very mutable for me. The game mechanics is looked at for hopefully well ballanced and cohesive metagame constructs. My characters could be either created to fit the game mechanics or the proper game mechanics could be fit the character. Either way, the fluff was mostly mine.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

I really was trying to help. I find it funny that you are so attached to the mechanics of sneak attack that you are willing to do it with another weapon besides the one you have been using for 25 years just to put sneak attack on your character sheet. This in light of the fact that there are many ways to create a sneaky, mobile, greatsword using opportunist is bewildering to me. As long as you are really happy with that solution, fantastic.

This post is a lot more like trying to win the message board game than trying to help me use 4e to fit the character.

You're assigning false motivation again rather than taking what I've said for exactly what it means. I'd be perfectly happy not to have sneak attack on my character sheet if there was another mechanic that worked the same way that was called something else and was balanced specifically for a higher base damage weapon or a mechanic that worked completely differently that was better for making the character feel and handle the way I want it to. No ability has been released that does that yet.

From the information released, none of the "many, many ways to create a sneaky, mobile, greatsword using opportunist" than you've suggested (use a ranger) fits the character and makes the character handle the way I want it to. I'd be happy if I can work out a way to both use a greatsword effectively and chuck some shuriken which will be pretty close how the character played in one of his 1e incarnations that used darts alongside the greatsword. And truth be told, 4e shuriken can't be any less cool than big 1e (lawn) darts.

It might be more accurate to say that it is tied to a pre-4E mechanical concept.

I think the problem with that is that the reason you don't like it doesn't make sense to anyone, and they think that you need to be convinced that Hunter's Quarry actually is something a rolling-around opportunistic warrior could use effectively.

"I'd really like to see the link or whatever that confirms a greatsword weighs 15 lbs."

So...that's great. Whole problem solved. Why does this thread still exist?

Yet another post striving for the message board win.

Big sword is a 1e mechanical concept? Wow. Maybe I was wrong about you going for the messageboard win.

The mechanic for Hunter's Quarry isn't one that I would enjoy using. Expending an action to mark the target closest to you, then having to either attack that target to get a bonus or spend another action to mark another target, doesn't feel opportunistic. It feels dogged and determined.

The thread exists for cooperative discussion about making the character work. The real question is why are you posting in it if you don't won't to work together cooperatively toward that goal?

Half the metagame concept/character problems would have gone away, if WoTC had deigned to name the classes something non-archetypical.

Martial Defender
Stealthy Martial Striker
Ranged Martial Striker
Melee Martial Striker
Martial Leader
Divine Defender
Divine Leader
Arcane Striker
Arcane Controller.

Ta-da.

No more crap about 'Ranger' not being suitable.

You're now a melee martial striker. Bingo.

Wow, if you weren't intent on making it an insult, saying the word 'crap' and using 'metagame concept' in a sentence, you night have made a really insightful post, you almost have it.

Your flaw is that is it seems (Woot! I'm learning the message board game) you want to make an insult more than you want to discuss 4e. (Hey, if everyone else can ascribe motivations instead of asking for clarification, so can I).

According to PrecociousAppretnice thare are "many, many ways to create a sneaky, mobile, greatsword using opportunist" so I don't understand why your list of classes would have both a stealthy martial striker and a melee martial striker? And if I want a "sneaky, mobile, greatsword using opportunist" and the ranger isn't sneaky it isn't suitable.

Ranger has an archery path, so it isn't just melee. And it can be stealthy...
So, both Ranger and Rogue are Stealthy Ranged and/or Melee Strikers. They have different fluff and different mechanical abilities intended to give them each a different feel. And existing paragon paths seem to add more fluff and mechanics to further reinforce that feel.

So as far as getting a mechanic that makes the character feel the way I want it to, ranger is crap. (EDIT - based upon what has been released so far.)

Now I just need to come up with a way to use 'metagame concept' in a sentence. Woot! I did it!

Unfortunately, I really don't want to craft posts into insults about people I don't know, so I'll skip that part of the game.