D&D 4E Making the Character I Want to Play in 4e (Long)
- Thread starter MyISPHatesENWorld
- Start date
MyISPHatesENWorld said:
To play the Two handed sword skill monkey tank, I would suggest Ranger/Fighter. That would net you one less skill, but better armor. The rogue cannot sneak attack with other than light blades or bows, so its abilities are wasted anyway.
And if Paladins can be of any alignment (and I suspect they can), then the Ranger/Paladin might also be a good call. You would get the divine challenge ability, which is a type of marking.
Last edited:
PrecociousApprentice
First Post
I would agree with the ranger/fighter combo, but I would say it should be fighter/ranger. Missile weapons or twin blades are not necessary for this concept, and the ranger's Quarrey comes with MCing into ranger, which is a good substitute for sneak attack, especially for something as unsubtle as a greatsword. On top of that, fighter/ranger would be close to a barbarian at this point. The extra skill from the ranger MC feat would be a start to the skills necessary. The concept of being sneaky is not limited to rogues, and whacking things with a greatsword seems to be limited mostly to defenders at this point. Get away from mechanic names and think about who the character is, and more speciffically what the character's role is in combat. Class is all about Role, and role means combat role. What do you want to do in combat, start with a class that does that, and customize from that.
Edit: the Paladin's marking is not subtle, so deciding if the extra combat damage/effects are more important than the sneakiness would be key. But with that said, the greatsword is not subtle either.....
Edit: the Paladin's marking is not subtle, so deciding if the extra combat damage/effects are more important than the sneakiness would be key. But with that said, the greatsword is not subtle either.....
Last edited:
MindWanderer
Explorer
Not quite--sneak attack specifies that you can use it only once per round, action points notwithstanding.muffin_of_chaos said:
MyISPHatesENWorld said:
PrecociousApprentice speaks wisdom, my friend.
I realise there's a great deal of history behind the roguishness, but maybe you should consider killing that darling. How about this:
Human (fluff in som orc ancestry if you like, or go with whatever's in the MM) Fighter with Warrior of the Wild, that is a dash of ranger. Fighter gives you the basic whacking things with a greatsword capability, and unlike Sneak Attack, Hunter's Quarry goes just fine with a greatsword. Ranger gives you adventuring skills and movement.
Combat concept: Rush into melee with your chosen (preferably somewhat squishy) target, lock down the target with Combat Challenge and Superiority, apply that encounter's HQ to beat the **** out of the poor bugger.
I suspect there must be loads of mobility-oriented utilities out there, and the encounter power Fox's Cunning seems right up your alley. Also IIRC there's supposed to be some Fighter feat to let you keep your dex bonus to AC in heavy armour.
I'd play it, and it seems to fit your basic profile.
Last edited:
PrecociousApprentice
First Post
Wow, I don't think that I have ever been quoted or commented uppon in a positive light on these baords. Thanks for letting me know I am not way off base. 
MyISPHatesENWorld
First Post
Rather than going post-by-post, I'll address points by facet of the build.
The key to the character staying alive as long as it has is that it worked out of core in 1e and 3.x, with room to sharpen focus with new material or change capabilities a bit to fit a campaign or DM style.
From a build standpoint:
Race: Half-orcs traditionally had a backstory that won't exist in 4e (I guess they'll be magically created from flowers and honey by a race of anthropomorphic bears or something when they show up). Without that backstory, the way the character interacts with society (and is seen by society) loses a lot. It's easy to fit that same story into a character's past while having it relevant in commonly encountered civilized societies as a human. A pure orc is a too far removed to have the right effect. So, orc is out for sure and half-orc is pretty much certain to have a foo foo background that won't fit. Also, half-orcs looked a lot more human in 1e. In 3.x, the character was described as being exceptionally small and favoring his human side heavily in appearance.
Class: The character is a striker. He moves around and does a lot of damage to one target. He isn't a defender, and I don't want to lock anything down. The only thing about the rogue I don't want is the little, jabby melee weapon. The only thing I want from the fighter is the greatsword. Grabbing some fighter powers through multiclassing seems like what I'll need to do if I want him to use a greatsword and have it feel like a greatsword or maybe to get any greatsword usable powers at all.
Weapon (or ZOMG Sneak Attack with Greatsword!): It's not that unusual, it has come up in pretty much every Rogue preview article thread I've read on the half-dozen boards I lurk. I can't recall playing with anyone that had a multiclass fighter/thief or fighter/assassin that didn't use at least a longsword in 1e and in third, greataxes, greatswords and falchions were everywhere for any multiclass rogue that could use them. If your assassin wanders around court and kills nobles in their sleep, then yeah a greatsword seems out of place. If he kills dragons, giants and other stuff, often needing to fight things on the way that are either well armed or big, then using a greatsword or greataxe is a no-brainer. Even the assassin prereq in 3.5 is to kill "someone" - which is a very wide range in DND. It isn't limited to a guy in a castle somewhere.
If your rogue wants to go kill a 60' dragon with a 10" knife, knock yourself out. I don't mind that the system supports that. But trying to somehow argue that you can't do more damage when you have a combat advantage with a greatsword than when you don't have combat advantage at the same time is kind of lame.
Greatsword or 2-handed sword in DND to this point hasn't reflected any specific sword. As the weapon entries don't appear to reference weapon lengths, is there some bit of information leaked that greatsword is now a specific sword that has a length of 70 inches? That's longer than a sword needs to be to be balanced in a way that it works only in two hands and has enough mass to do a lot of damage.
It makes sense for balance reasons to require feats to use a greatsword or other high base damage weapon with rogue powers and class abilities, particularly since it is expected or already revealed other feats boost sneak attack damage directly, add bonus damage to all attacks and increase the weapon damage you do with the default weapons. So a certain number of feats needed to use a higher base damage weapon with rogue abilities and powers means a certain number of fewer feats to boost damage in other ways, which balances out. The greatsword doesn't need to have all of the damage bonuses of sneak attack plus feats to boost sneak attack plus powers plus whatever, but it needs enough things to work together to have as many things to do and to be overall as effective as any other character. The feats could be written so as not to stack or powers could exist that are balanced for higher base damage weapons.
Feats: Yeah, I'd be happy if this was all fixable with a balanced number of feats, though since I kind of like the Endurance skill and will likely have the prerequisites, I may take the first fighter multiclass feat anyway, though I'm not married to it and something else like Ranger may be a better option if I don't need or really want a fighter power or two for the greatsword. Toughness is looking really good though regardless. Improved toughness was a viable feat in 3.5 when everyone had more HP, to get the same benefit in 4e looks great. Add in that in a per encounter system you'll likely need the extra cushion more, and it might be the 4e power attack - don't melee without it.
Paizo: I haven't bought a third party DND supplement since Grimtooth's Traps Ate, Citystate of the Invincible Overlord, and a Thieve's World thing that I think had 1e stats (Lythande was a half-elf Fighter/Magic-User but not really a half-elf or something). I did look at the Paizo PDF and it did work in the first alpha, which makes sense since it worked out of core.
Dump the character and completely rebuild: I'd dump 4e with it, and realistically 3.x. Maybe come back in 5e or if it becomes possible down the road in 4e and I can find a DM using the supplements that make it work.
The key to the character staying alive as long as it has is that it worked out of core in 1e and 3.x, with room to sharpen focus with new material or change capabilities a bit to fit a campaign or DM style.
From a build standpoint:
Race: Half-orcs traditionally had a backstory that won't exist in 4e (I guess they'll be magically created from flowers and honey by a race of anthropomorphic bears or something when they show up). Without that backstory, the way the character interacts with society (and is seen by society) loses a lot. It's easy to fit that same story into a character's past while having it relevant in commonly encountered civilized societies as a human. A pure orc is a too far removed to have the right effect. So, orc is out for sure and half-orc is pretty much certain to have a foo foo background that won't fit. Also, half-orcs looked a lot more human in 1e. In 3.x, the character was described as being exceptionally small and favoring his human side heavily in appearance.
Class: The character is a striker. He moves around and does a lot of damage to one target. He isn't a defender, and I don't want to lock anything down. The only thing about the rogue I don't want is the little, jabby melee weapon. The only thing I want from the fighter is the greatsword. Grabbing some fighter powers through multiclassing seems like what I'll need to do if I want him to use a greatsword and have it feel like a greatsword or maybe to get any greatsword usable powers at all.
Weapon (or ZOMG Sneak Attack with Greatsword!): It's not that unusual, it has come up in pretty much every Rogue preview article thread I've read on the half-dozen boards I lurk. I can't recall playing with anyone that had a multiclass fighter/thief or fighter/assassin that didn't use at least a longsword in 1e and in third, greataxes, greatswords and falchions were everywhere for any multiclass rogue that could use them. If your assassin wanders around court and kills nobles in their sleep, then yeah a greatsword seems out of place. If he kills dragons, giants and other stuff, often needing to fight things on the way that are either well armed or big, then using a greatsword or greataxe is a no-brainer. Even the assassin prereq in 3.5 is to kill "someone" - which is a very wide range in DND. It isn't limited to a guy in a castle somewhere.
If your rogue wants to go kill a 60' dragon with a 10" knife, knock yourself out. I don't mind that the system supports that. But trying to somehow argue that you can't do more damage when you have a combat advantage with a greatsword than when you don't have combat advantage at the same time is kind of lame.
Greatsword or 2-handed sword in DND to this point hasn't reflected any specific sword. As the weapon entries don't appear to reference weapon lengths, is there some bit of information leaked that greatsword is now a specific sword that has a length of 70 inches? That's longer than a sword needs to be to be balanced in a way that it works only in two hands and has enough mass to do a lot of damage.
It makes sense for balance reasons to require feats to use a greatsword or other high base damage weapon with rogue powers and class abilities, particularly since it is expected or already revealed other feats boost sneak attack damage directly, add bonus damage to all attacks and increase the weapon damage you do with the default weapons. So a certain number of feats needed to use a higher base damage weapon with rogue abilities and powers means a certain number of fewer feats to boost damage in other ways, which balances out. The greatsword doesn't need to have all of the damage bonuses of sneak attack plus feats to boost sneak attack plus powers plus whatever, but it needs enough things to work together to have as many things to do and to be overall as effective as any other character. The feats could be written so as not to stack or powers could exist that are balanced for higher base damage weapons.
Feats: Yeah, I'd be happy if this was all fixable with a balanced number of feats, though since I kind of like the Endurance skill and will likely have the prerequisites, I may take the first fighter multiclass feat anyway, though I'm not married to it and something else like Ranger may be a better option if I don't need or really want a fighter power or two for the greatsword. Toughness is looking really good though regardless. Improved toughness was a viable feat in 3.5 when everyone had more HP, to get the same benefit in 4e looks great. Add in that in a per encounter system you'll likely need the extra cushion more, and it might be the 4e power attack - don't melee without it.
Paizo: I haven't bought a third party DND supplement since Grimtooth's Traps Ate, Citystate of the Invincible Overlord, and a Thieve's World thing that I think had 1e stats (Lythande was a half-elf Fighter/Magic-User but not really a half-elf or something). I did look at the Paizo PDF and it did work in the first alpha, which makes sense since it worked out of core.
Dump the character and completely rebuild: I'd dump 4e with it, and realistically 3.x. Maybe come back in 5e or if it becomes possible down the road in 4e and I can find a DM using the supplements that make it work.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
What might help you try finding the right class/multiclass combination is also how you played the character - did he tumble around a lot, and focused on massive damage? Or did he more stand in the way of his enemies?
Your decription of the character sounds more like the former (Striker-like), and therefore I think that Rogue or Ranger might not be a bad start (how much did you sneak attack, conceptually?).
But this might mean you can't use the Greatsword not as effectively as you are used to. At this time, we don't know enough feats to see how well the character can get at it. I suppose it might take a few levels.
Still, maybe Fighter isn't so wrong, either. You might be focused on defending, but all evidence indicates that Fighter still deal serious damage, so you just have to focus feats and powers more in that area...
Okay, enough of the snark. I like Pathfinder. I prefer 4E so far, but I like it, and I am looking forward to the time our Savage Tides campaign will use the rules the first time. It looks fun.
But PrecociousApprentice was trying to recreate a character concept for 4E. He already did the character in 3E.
Your decription of the character sounds more like the former (Striker-like), and therefore I think that Rogue or Ranger might not be a bad start (how much did you sneak attack, conceptually?).
But this might mean you can't use the Greatsword not as effectively as you are used to. At this time, we don't know enough feats to see how well the character can get at it. I suppose it might take a few levels.
Still, maybe Fighter isn't so wrong, either. You might be focused on defending, but all evidence indicates that Fighter still deal serious damage, so you just have to focus feats and powers more in that area...
Yes, I totally agree. Pathfinder is way better. I haven't seen the 1st level multiclassing rules yet, but they must be great, and guarantee instant gratification of any character concept. Not a surprise, as it is basically 3E++ - the ++ especially describing the fact that it basically uses the 3E classes, but adds some extra powers to them. It's really impressive.Shazman said:
Okay, enough of the snark. I like Pathfinder. I prefer 4E so far, but I like it, and I am looking forward to the time our Savage Tides campaign will use the rules the first time. It looks fun.
But PrecociousApprentice was trying to recreate a character concept for 4E. He already did the character in 3E.
Don't get used to it. We're evil and vicious, especially on the 4E board.
Shroomy
Adventurer
Without seeing the full suite of rogue powers and feats, I can't say that this advice is really a 100% sound, but is it even necessary to go with the fighter multi-classing for your concept? I don't think so:
Nothing in this character concept screams "fighter" (or defender) to me at all and I think you'd be better served using a pure brutal scoundrel build and modifying via feats to get the weapon specialization and skill breadth/depth that you want (a melee focused ranger may also work out, but I haven't really seen any of those rules); to conserve on feats, I would maybe invest a bit more into your CON for some higher hit points and healing surges instead of the Toughness feat.
I probably wouldn't multi-class into fighter unless one of its paragon paths was appealing to you, and then I would probably only invest a feat or two. Your concept is not really a defender, so I think multi-classing wouldn't work out the way you want it to be.
Also, I would wait for the MM to be released; while you can't be a half-orc (officially or yet), you can certainly be an orc based on some of the developer's statements. Their racial ability seems to give you a nice savage flavor that your former barbarian levels provided.
Nothing in this character concept screams "fighter" (or defender) to me at all and I think you'd be better served using a pure brutal scoundrel build and modifying via feats to get the weapon specialization and skill breadth/depth that you want (a melee focused ranger may also work out, but I haven't really seen any of those rules); to conserve on feats, I would maybe invest a bit more into your CON for some higher hit points and healing surges instead of the Toughness feat.
I probably wouldn't multi-class into fighter unless one of its paragon paths was appealing to you, and then I would probably only invest a feat or two. Your concept is not really a defender, so I think multi-classing wouldn't work out the way you want it to be.
Also, I would wait for the MM to be released; while you can't be a half-orc (officially or yet), you can certainly be an orc based on some of the developer's statements. Their racial ability seems to give you a nice savage flavor that your former barbarian levels provided.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (181) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
