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

[PrecociousApprentice]

So I am going to keep using the term metagame construct because I think that it really illustrates a point.

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.

Emphasis mine. You are still focussed on game mechanics and not concept. You have never stated what the feel is you are trying to achieve that is not fulfilled with the suggestions. This is obviously not about character concept. It is about metagame constructs.

 

[IceFractal]

Game mechanics can determine how a character actually feels in play. It's all very well to say that concept is the important part, but that only goes so far.

For instance, I could be a Fighter with a big hammer, and call myself a Wizard with Fireball. But the fact is that my "fireballs" would hit one person, be in melee, and not deal fire damage. An extreme example, admittedly, but the point is that mechanics can not be completely ignored.

The Ranger and the Rogue might both be striker types, but the circumstances under which they do their striking, and thus the way they move and act in battle, are significantly different. Going for the closest target is a different set of actions than going for a flanking position, or trying to get a jump on your foes for the first strike.

More importantly, all the Paragon paths we've seen have been class specific. If there's an Assassin path, it will require Rogue to get into it. Somehow I don't think a "Battle Archer" path will have the same features.


And incidentally, I would suggest that if allowing Sneak Attack with a Greatsword is enough to break the entire game's balance, then they have set the balance point too low. We've been seeing monsters with nearly 1000 hp at the higher levels - is it so bad for someone to deal 1d6 more damage than they are now?

 

[theredrobedwizard]

The way you've described your character seems to fit the "Ranger with Rogue Multiclass Feat to gain Sneak Attack" mould quite well; particularly the Greatsword example.

Nine times out of ten, you'll not be using your minor action anyway. Hunter's Quarry can be very opportunistic, as you can choose to which enemy to apply it on any given turn. It gives you the extra opportunistic-y damage you want. The Sneak Attack multiclass thing exists for the "get him on the ground and then stiletto him in the throat" moment you also brought up.

Just because you can't Sneak Attack(tm) with a Greatsword doesn't mean you can't sneak attack with a Greatsword.

-TRRW

 

[VannATLC]

You're right.

I should change Stealthy to Subtle.

Both can be stealthy.

Greatswords cannot be Subtle.

How, exactly, are you ensivioning Hunters Quarry to work, that it offends you so?

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

So I am going to keep using the term metagame construct because I think that it really illustrates a point.



Emphasis mine. You are still focussed on game mechanics and not concept. You have never stated what the feel is you are trying to achieve that is not fulfilled with the suggestions. This is obviously not about character concept. It is about metagame constructs.

If your concept is a simplistic metagame concept: "I want to make a melee striker." Then you can just grab a rogue or a ranger and use either and you won't care. If you dumb down someone else's character concept to a simplistic metagame concept before trying to "help" them, and if you continue to to refuse to look beyond the simplistic metagame concept, you'll have a hard time understanding, perhaps even to the point of being bewildered, when people don't think your ideas are suitable for what they are trying to do.

You start with a concept and choose mechanics to fit that concept that are fun to play.

Doing +1d6 to a target that you expend an action to mark, then either follow or abandon only with the effort of expending another action doesn't feel opportunistic. You can look at it as reflecting an assassin's focus on his target or whatever to make the fluff fit. But, it doesn't fit how the character has acted in the past and it isn't a style of play that I enjoy.

Doing an extra +2d6 once per round to any opponent that provides combat advantage to you feels opportunistic. It's a cheap shot, kicking someone when they are down down, dirty fighting, smelling blood (though that might best be reserved for a feature that gives you more damage against bloodied opponents). That fits how the character has acted in the past. And not only does it feel more like the concept, it is an ability I would enjoy using more.

Looking back, you also selected Fighter/Ranger or Ranger/Fighter as a better option. Fighter would give me the ability to mark an enemy making them take -2 to attacks if they attack anyone else but me. That could get fluff to say that they're overly cautious because they're worried about me taking a cheap shot at them so they're keeping an eye on me (assuming I have the ability to take a cheap shot). That fits the concept, but there is a lot of bleh there as far as fun. While I don't like Hunter's Quarry that much, mechanically, it looks way better as a second class feature. The other two fighter things are nice and opportunistic though. But, stand still and hit me instead of someone else or stop here and hit me instead of someone else isn't really something I like.

EDIT - Another thing about the Sneak Attack being more fun in play. There is kind of an Ah-Ha! moment when you get to use it after creating the opportunity to do so and a Woot! moment when you get to use it unexpectedly. Hunter's Quarry doesn't have that feel - you pick target, you get bonus.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

You're right.

I should change Stealthy to Subtle.

Both can be stealthy.

Greatswords cannot be Subtle.

Granted. And I agree in general about names being a problem. I still think that if the guy that got rid of the name "magic user" hadn't been on a smoke break or whatever when the name "fighter" came up, we wouldn't have all the "stepping on the fighter's toes" stuff.

The mechanic of doing +xdx (or +x or +xW) damage when striking a foe against whom you have a combat advantage isn't necessarily a subtle one. You could just take advantage of your opponent being distracted or hindered by winding up and stepping into your swing. There is no reason for it to be weapon specific, except balance.

And since there are feats to increase sneak attack damage die, and theoretically a feat to get proficiency with a higher damage light blade (Rapier), there is room from a balance perspective to include feats for the rogue class that allow using sneak attack with a greatsword or other weapon at a commensurate cost (possibly with a lesser effect, say a 1d6/2d6/3d6 progression) and room for rogue powers compatible with the greatsword.

Back to names:

Generic Name
Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a melee weapon, your attacks against that enemy deal extra damage. As you advance
in level, your extra damage increases.
Level Damage
1st–10th +2d6
11th–20th +3d6
21st–30th +5d6

Nothing in there would make people say that's subtle, sneaky or stealthy unless they recognized the mechanic as being the same as the sneak attack mechanic.

But if Rogue is Subtle Martial Striker, that mechanic, which is weapon independent, becomes locked into being available to only Rogues and users of subtle weapons like daggers.

How, exactly, are you ensivioning Hunters Quarry to work, that it offends you so?

It doesn't offend me, it's just nowhere near as fun to use as the sneak attack mechanic. At least not to me. I explain why in an earlier post. I know people I play with that would really like powers that work that way though.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Doing +1d6 to a target that you expend an action to mark, then either follow or abandon only with the effort of expending another action doesn't feel opportunistic. You can look at it as reflecting an assassin's focus on his target or whatever to make the fluff fit. But, it doesn't fit how the character has acted in the past and it isn't a style of play that I enjoy.

Doing an extra +2d6 once per round to any opponent that provides combat advantage to you feels opportunistic. It's a cheap shot, kicking someone when they are down down, dirty fighting, smelling blood (though that might best be reserved for a feature that gives you more damage against bloodied opponents). That fits how the character has acted in the past. And not only does it feel more like the concept, it is an ability I would enjoy using more.

OK, lets try it this way:

Cheap Shot Fighter Attack 1
Encounter * Martial, Weapon
Immediate Reaction, Melee, weapon
Trigger: An enemy grants you combat advantage
Attack: Melee vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Str damage


* Disclaimer: I don't yet know enough about 4th edition to know if this is over-or-underpowered or if I am missing something.

 

[malraux]

Isn't hunter's quarry really just sizing up an opponent and seeing where all the weak points in his armor/defenses are? It's not like a minor action is really an action anyway.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

ISP, perhaps you did not intend it this way, but your original post is very sarcastic and looks pretty trollish. Your attitude, though amusing, has already set me (and probably others) up to believe that you do not like 4e and are not actually interested in recreating a favorite character in 4e, but rather just "prove" that 4e is "bad" because you cannot get exactly what you want from it. I don't think you should be surprised that you are getting some negative responses from folks, since you set the negative tone in the first post.

In response to your original question, I'm going to ask one of my own: do you have the player's handbook? If so, then you are privy to information 90% of us are not, and recreating your half-orc great sword assassin may well be impossible.

If, however, you do not own the books, then I would say that attempting to make any character above 1st level is rather silly. Of course you cannot create the character that you want; you don't have all the rules that would be necessary to do that.

So, here's what you should do to make this character: wait. On June 6, head over to your FLGS or bookstore with a piece of paper and pencil, grab the PHB, DMG, and MM of the shelf and start going through the rules to put together the character you want. Until you do that, this thread serves little purpose other than creating arguments on different sides of the playing field, as most people responding to you will not have the rules and therefore can only offer very limited advice.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

ISP, perhaps you did not intend it this way, but your original post is very sarcastic and looks pretty trollish. Your attitude, though amusing, has already set me (and probably others) up to believe that you do not like 4e and are not actually interested in recreating a favorite character in 4e, but rather just "prove" that 4e is "bad" because you cannot get exactly what you want from it. I don't think you should be surprised that you are getting some negative responses from folks, since you set the negative tone in the first post.

As a general advice, and knowing how hard it is, I always recommend to try to assume the best until proven otherwise. That usually creates a much friendlier climate and also more interesting results. If you sense a troll and can't see any merit in discussing the topic, ignore him and alert a moderator.

In response to your original question, I'm going to ask one of my own: do you have the player's handbook? If so, then you are privy to information 90% of us are not, and recreating your half-orc great sword assassin may well be impossible.

If, however, you do not own the books, then I would say that attempting to make any character above 1st level is rather silly. Of course you cannot create the character that you want; you don't have all the rules that would be necessary to do that.

So, here's what you should do to make this character: wait. On June 6, head over to your FLGS or bookstore with a piece of paper and pencil, grab the PHB, DMG, and MM of the shelf and start going through the rules to put together the character you want. Until you do that, this thread serves little purpose other than creating arguments on different sides of the playing field, as most people responding to you will not have the rules and therefore can only offer very limited advice.

Yes, I agree. At this point, we still haven't seen enough. The 4E PHB is supposed to contain more feats and powers then the 3E PHB, and we can't really predict them all. (Would you have expected a Spring Attack Feat after having seen Alertness, Empower Spell and Power Attack?)

Still, it can be fun to see how the character could be translated.
Rogue / Fighter multiclass with feats to make the greatsword work for a Rogue is my choice. That's assuming such feats exist.