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

[Moon-Lancer]

In 4e, as I understand it, proficiency in a weapon gives a bonus whilst non-proficiency does not give a penalty. The bonus that proficiency gives is dependant on the damage capacity of the weapon, ranging from light weapons that give a +3 to hit with proficiency, to heavy weapons that only give a +1 to hit.

So thats what proficiency does?! I knew that their were proficiency in 4e and I knew certain weapons got a bonus to hit, but I didn't know they were one and the same.

 

[Torchlyte]

I would stat this as a fighter with the initial ranger feat (marking is very assassin-like) and maybe a utility splash. Take combat feats that involve finesse.

So thats what proficiency does?! I knew that their were proficiency in 4e and I knew certain weapons got a bonus to hit, but I didn't know they were one and the same.

Yep. Seems like a good idea to me.

 

[Ipissimus]

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.

No, the rules don't specifically state weapon lengths. But we do know that the Greatsword is Large and weighs 15lbs, meant to be wielded by either a medium creature using both hands or a Large creature in the same way a smaller one might wield a longsword. Considering that a Large creature can be anywhere between 8-16 foot tall and you can agree that, proportionally, a longsword is about half a man's height (probably a bit longer, though) that places the Greatsword between 4 ft. and 8 ft. long.

(Of course, if you ignore the rules, the classic historical Greatsword would be the Claymore which clocked in at about the same height as the wielder but we'll stick to the rules)

Any way you cut it, at 15lbs, that's a big honking sword. Now, part of this hinges off a 4E rule we know nothing about: Coup de Grace.

Coup de Grace was the answer to 'why can't anyone Sneak Attack' in 3E. You can, but the Rogue's slightly better at it because he knows precisely where to hit people. Of course, that requires a 'helpless' opponent and, in general, I'd think an opponent blissfully unaware that he's about to be brained qualifies as helpless (but that's up to a DM).

However, precision is the point. How can you be precise with a 4 foot long 15 pound sword meant for cleaving people in half? What is the difference between a Rogue trying to brain a guy from behind, in or out of combat, with a big chunk of sharp metal and the Barbarian doing the same thing? The Greatsword isn't about precision, you don't try to stab someone in the brain or heart with it. You cleave asunder whatever gets in it's way.

That being said, I think this thread does demonstrate one thing: the need for a lightly armoured fighter class that's a striker rather than a defender and probably isn't the Barbarian. Hopefully, WOTC will see this need and meet it in line with their stated goal of ignoring needless symmetry. I don't think the Rogue is exactly what you're looking for here, but it's the closest thing to it at the moment.

 

[Kitirat]

Easy to do.

From what I have seen, it should be easy to do as you'd like. If there is not a feat to use a greatsword with rogue weapons, there will likely be shortly afterwards.

As for half-orc, they still exist, just not in the PHB1. I thought you did a sound job of construction. Higher damage weapon via feats seems reasonable (it preculdes you from getting other damage bonusing feats, so should work out).

All in all I think you'll be fine.

Assuming there is more then 2 1st level powers per class per catagory (at=will, encounter, etc), cookie-cutter should not be a big deal. In 3.X you used multi-clasing to be really unique, in 4th it looking like you get double the feats of 3rd and those + powers + paragon path give you your uniquness. Will be intersting to see when the books come out.

I think really, that clerics and wizards will be the most disappointed. As their options have decreased SO MUCH.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Thanks to everyone that provided some ideas to look at.

Basically, I think I'm stuck hoping for a miracle in the PHB. There is no way a class is going to come out in a future book that is rogue with a different weapon, which is all I need.

The ranger thing just doesn't feel right. But, if somehow Fighter feats aren't the only way to get the greatsword working right (if it can be done at all) it looks like a better path to grab the Endurance skill and a 1/day that doesn't involve encouraging enemies to whack me.

Pretending it works (use a shortsword or something and call it a greatsword) isn't a solution.

Adding some kind of action suck like needing to burn an action to swap weapons is a funkiller.

I'd really like to see the link or whatever that confirms a greatsword weighs 15 lbs. in 4e considering that the 8lbs. in 3.5 was panned heavily as being high. I'm stunned that with all the weapons nitpickers out there that there weren't phenomenally large and virulent threads all over the place about it.

Granting the existence of a 15 lb. greatsword in 4e that is physically usable, not only would it still be at least as damaging as the most precisely placed dagger when used against an opponent that is at a combat disadvantage, but the existence of it makes any argument about how something shouldn't be possible relating to real world weapon usage moot. Calling extrapolating of weapon lengths from creature heights in the monster manual sticking to the rules is kind of a stretch...

Regardless, there should be something that lets a rogue use a different weapon without dumping his efficiency into the sewer. It doesn't have to be that all of the rogue abilities work with it, but there has to be some stuff that works with it to bring it on par as far as overall effectiveness. It may be that sneak attack doesn't work but there are rogue attack powers that mechanically model using a larger weapon that end up with the same level of effectiveness between resources spent on using the nonstandard weapon and resources spent improving sneak attack and/or light blade damage. It's just an elbow grease problem.

From what I have seen, it should be easy to do as you'd like. If there is not a feat to use a greatsword with rogue weapons, there will likely be shortly afterwards.

As for half-orc, they still exist, just not in the PHB1. I thought you did a sound job of construction. Higher damage weapon via feats seems reasonable (it preculdes you from getting other damage bonusing feats, so should work out).

All in all I think you'll be fine.

Assuming there is more then 2 1st level powers per class per catagory (at=will, encounter, etc), cookie-cutter should not be a big deal. In 3.X you used multi-clasing to be really unique, in 4th it looking like you get double the feats of 3rd and those + powers + paragon path give you your uniquness. Will be intersting to see when the books come out.

I think really, that clerics and wizards will be the most disappointed. As their options have decreased SO MUCH.

Yeah, I really do hope this works that way (your post came after I finished and I didn't want to double post).

It just seems like from what has been revealed that the Rogue class is far more restrictive than the other classes. A fighter that uses a spear is supposed to be seriously different from a fighter that uses a greataxe or sword and shield. But a rogue that is a brawny rogue rather than a trickster rogue is using the exact same jabby weapons, just jabbing a little better while the trickster rogue uses the exact same jabby weapons but moves a little better.

I'll know withing 15 minutes of looking through the PHB at Borders how things will go, but I already got a full day of enjoyment from 4e reading and researching the different things people suggested.

 

[AtomicPope]

OK, so looking at everything released so far and leaning heavily on the pre-release PDF, I thought I'd see if 4e lets me create the character I want to play....

Character concept: A character with strong adventuring skills and movement that whacks things with a greatsword. My half-orc RogueX/FighterX/Barbarian1/Assassin with a Greatsword gets rebranded to a Human Rogue with a greatsword and Fighter Multiclassing Feats (with Half-Orc and Barbarian out, he's just glad male is still an option). To be fair, he started as a 1e Fighter/Assassin with a 2-handed sword so some of this he has seen before (including a little time as an elf Fighter/Thief in 2e, but he was young and experimenting, and doing it just a couple times doesn't mean you are).

It seems to me that you're basing all of you information (not off of the PDF's and Previews) but off of 3rd Edition. Why?


Question: Why do you need Sneak Attack?
Answer: It does damage.


You know it doesn't work so why even try to pretend it should? Why? Well, that's because your 1/2 Orc started as a Rogue in 3e because he needed extra damage and Skill Points. That's not necessary anymore. It's obsolete. There are better, more effective, and easier ways to make your character.


1) Adventuring Skills: Ranger. Gets a load of trained skills. As many as a Rogue in 4e.
2) Movement: Ranger. Gets to shift about the battlefield at 1st level.
3) Greatsword: Feat.
4) Extra Damage (that's compatible with Greatsword): Ranger. Hunter's Quarry.
5) Fighter Powers are Weapon Specific (Ref. Races and Classes): Fighters have fighting styles based on Two-Handed Weapons (chi-ching!) and Weapon Shield.


So how important is your character concept really? I'm being serious. In 2e you said he was an elf. Now you're saying he's human. Why not just make him an orc? On the WotC Podcasts one of the Official playtesters has a Gnome Warlock in his 4e game. He was interviewed and said he wanted to play a gnome. So just play a 1/2 orc. But if you really want to be Orky then why not use an axe? Better yet, a double axe. You could have a Ranger that uses two Battle Axes (orc dbl axe), moves about the battlefield, etc, etc.

You should ask yourself if moving around with skills is more important than using a greatsword. If the GS is more important then go fighter. If it's moving around with skills, then go Ranger. Either way, you know that Rogue won't work so don't do it. You don't need to anymore.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

^ this

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

It seems to me that you're basing all of you information (not off of the PDF's and Previews) but off of 3rd Edition. Why?


Question: Why do you need Sneak Attack?
Answer: It does damage.

It seems to me that I based the character entirely off of what is available in the PDFs and previews and you're ignoring large swaths of my posts, not reading my posts, or just trolling the thread because you want to attack some one. I said several times in my posts I don't necessarily need sneak attack. But, the character needs something to work somewhere to bring it up to speed.

You know it doesn't work so why even try to pretend it should? Why? Well, that's because your 1/2 Orc started as a Rogue in 3e because he needed extra damage and Skill Points. That's not necessary anymore. It's obsolete. There are better, more effective, and easier ways to make your character.

One, I'm not pretending anything. It, or something should work. All rogues shouldn't be limited to light weapons.

Two, as stated in my first post, it started as a Fighter/Assassin in 1e.

Three, if it doesn't feel like the same character, it isn't better, regardless of the effectiveness.

1) Adventuring Skills: Ranger. Gets a load of trained skills. As many as a Rogue in 4e.

And the abilities and feel of the abilities are completely different from rogue. If the ranger killed the scout and took his stuff, and there wasn't a place for ranger or scout in the 3.5 version, that's not terribly surprising.

If everything about Rogue fits except perhaps not being able to get the greatsword up to speed based upon what has been released so far. Suggesting Ranger after I specifically said in an earlier post it wouldn't get the right feel isn't contributing anything constructive to the process.

2) Movement: Ranger. Gets to shift about the battlefield at 1st level.

It doesn't get Tumble, which is a way of moving that isn't just a little shift. Again, the abilities released for the Rogue fit far better than those of the Ranger.

3) Greatsword: Feat.

In theory. That hasn't been confirmed anywhere. Even with a feat for proficiency, that doesn't make the rogue abilities released so far (or all ranger abilities released so far) work with it either.

4) Extra Damage (that's compatible with Greatsword): Ranger. Hunter's Quarry.

That's extra damage that you get by using a minor action to mark a target, then have to follow him around or use another minor action to mark someone else. That is a lot different from doing extra damage in an oportunistic fashion when you have a combat advantage over someone and greatly different from how I want the character to feel.

5) Fighter Powers are Weapon Specific (Ref. Races and Classes): Fighters have fighting styles based on Two-Handed Weapons (chi-ching!) and Weapon Shield.

And I looked at adding fighter feats via multiclass feats to get weapon powers for the greatsword in my previous posts. What's your point? I read Races and Classes and the web article that talked about how fighters would be different depending on what weapon they used. But, we've been told several times that a lot of what was in the preview books has changed.

So how important is your character concept really? I'm being serious. In 2e you said he was an elf. Now you're saying he's human. Why not just make him an orc? On the WotC Podcasts one of the Official playtesters has a Gnome Warlock in his 4e game. He was interviewed and said he wanted to play a gnome. So just play a 1/2 orc. But if you really want to be Orky then why not use an axe? Better yet, a double axe. You could have a Ranger that uses two Battle Axes (orc dbl axe), moves about the battlefield, etc, etc.

You should ask yourself if moving around with skills is more important than using a greatsword. If the GS is more important then go fighter. If it's moving around with skills, then go Ranger. Either way, you know that Rogue won't work so don't do it. You don't need to anymore.

The character concept is the most important thing. Note that the elf didn't work and 2e didn't get a lot of play, which is alluded to in my earlier posts. I explained why half-orc isn't possible in an earlier post, but: half-orc isn't available and when it does become available it is going to have a different backstory. The story from the half-orc background can migrate in a meaningful way to human, but not to orc. Since the character used a 2-handed sword and then a greatsword through over 25 years of play, why change to an axe to match the flavor.
None of the other classes fit the character anywhere near as well as Rogue, so I do need Rogue. A playtester posted about using an axe really effectively with his dwarf rogue at one point, so I don't know that a greatsword won't be workable, just that the stuff that has been released makes it look like there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get it to work well if it is possible to do so.

If you don't like my character concept, or have decided based upon a handful of posts that you don't like me, or that I'm an illiterate and ignorant fool who hasn't read anything about 4e or didn't understand any of it or whatever, I'm alright with that, but I'd really prefer to talk about the conversion. not how the concept isn't important and I should just throw it out completely.

 

[ryryguy]

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.

What exactly are you talking about here? I know what the traditional "backstory" of a half-orc involves and how it might affect how the character fits into society. But why do you think this will be somehow different in 4e? Why will they have a "foo foo" background?

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

What exactly are you talking about here? I know what the traditional "backstory" of a half-orc involves and how it might affect how the character fits into society. But why do you think this will be somehow different in 4e? Why will they have a "foo foo" background?

Because the designers specifically stated that the Half-Orc was left out of the PHB due mostly to the backstory. And that if it were going to show up in 4e there would be changes to make it more "acceptable."