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

[Mal Malenkirk]

Any way you cut it, at 15lbs, that's a big honking sword.

Off topic but... The greatsword still weight 15 pound? They haven't fixed that silliness?

A real greatsword is about 5 pound people, 8 pound top for a really huge Zweihander. You'd think fantasy smith would be good enough to figure that lead isn't a good material for swords.

---

On topic: If the key of the concenpt is mobility and a greatsword, I am with the crowd that says that a Ranger is probably the best way to go. How much multiclassing with fighter would be required depends on the melee based powers available of the ranger. Most of those we know are for ranged weapon.

Unless of course there are feats for sneak attacking with a greatsword. If there is, then rogue all the way. The main reason I see to restrict sneak attack with large weapon is balance.

Because otherwise, if your opponent is distracted, it's easy to visualize your PC halfswording his greatsword and use it like a spear to pierce the spine of the dumb troll who let himself be distracted by your companion.

Still, sneak attack with a greatsword seems just too powerful for a single feat. Maybe two? One that allows you to use all M sized weapon and then another one for L. That would seem fair.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

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

Definitely seems like they should. Seems to fit with the general perception of what rogues are.

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

Ya haven't actually tried it yet, sir.

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.

You seem to want to be called a Rogue more than conforming to what you define to be your character concept.

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.

You mean Acrobatics? They both get Acrobatics.

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.

Minor actions are otherwise useless, usually. Combat advantage helps everyone, not just Rogues.

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.

Using 2Hers for Backstab never made sense. They cannot be precision weapons.

None of the other classes fit the character anywhere near as well as Rogue, so I do need Rogue.

Most likely, you'll have to get your DM to let you sneak attack with a 2Her. Otherwise, accept that it appears that you can't and move on.

 

[ryryguy]

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."

Oh ok, I figured I must have missed something.

Hmmm... not sure exactly how I feel about that. I can see both sides. Certainly though, this is something that individual groups can decide to play however they want, so I don't see why the OP can't have an "unsavory backstory" half-orc if that's what he wants. Even if not all half-orcs in the game world have that backstory, certainly some in particular regions might. Or even just particular subgroups of humans or whatever. I get that he wants it to be something that would be recognized by others, not just something that happened with his individual character that you couldn't tell just by looking... It seems like if that is the important point to his concept, there should be multiple ways to accomodate that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.


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

I tend to assume that there will be feats expanding your weapon choice. (A 1st level Rogue in 3E wasn't proficient with Greatswords, either, so it might take a few levels till you get there).

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.



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.


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.

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.

I remember one Ranger power that allowed him to shift as part of his attack. I am not sure if it only works with ranged weapon, though.
I generally wouldn't hinge to much on Tumble. IIRC, it is a encounter power for Rogues, but I also had the impression that there are many ways to shift more then the usual distance. Other classes might offer this ability, too. Though for that, the rogue still looks like the best choice.

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.


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.

I am pretty sure this one hasn't changed. I mean, it feels natural for Fighters to specialize in weapons.

 

[TPK]

OK, if you don't like the fighter/ranger option, here's a (potentially) simple fix.

Whine at your GM until he lets you take a home-made custom feat to let you SA with a greatsword. Also, I'd redistribute the stats to Str 16 Dex 16, since whacking stuff with a GS is likely going to be purely Str-based, and seems to be your main thing.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

A I said, having read the PDF cover to cover and having been following 4e news since the first announcement, Rogue fits how I want the character to work in 4e except the weapon choice. None of the Ranger stuff has done a thing for me and really, getting one ability that works for the greatsword at the cost of a class that fits the concept so close to perfectly isn't a bargain, particularly when you factor in what seem to be likely paragon paths and such. And Defender as a base class is far, far off concept. But I had an idea...which fits the concept, fits the history and may be playable right out of the PHB.

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4202461&postcount=78

OK, if you don't like the fighter/ranger option, here's a (potentially) simple fix.

Whine at your GM until he lets you take a home-made custom feat to let you SA with a greatsword. Also, I'd redistribute the stats to Str 16 Dex 16, since whacking stuff with a GS is likely going to be purely Str-based, and seems to be your main thing.

I've never asked a DM for a house rule to make a character. I never will.

I'm not sure how the stats will need to break because I haven't figured out what I'm going to need to meet requirements for any feats in the PHB or what stats I'll be using for which attacks. But, 16/16 is something I've been toying with.l

 

[hong]

The concept might, as a first approximation, be "wields a big sword but doesn't wear heavy armour".

The 4E fighter is the default big sword guy, but wears heavy armour. The rogue and ranger don't wear heavy armour, but it remains to be seen how well they can use a big sword. This is the crux of the issue.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

The concept might, as a first approximation, be "wields a big sword but doesn't wear heavy armour".

The 4E fighter is the default big sword guy, but wears heavy armour. The rogue and ranger don't wear heavy armour, but it remains to be seen how well they can use a big sword. This is the crux of the issue.

The fighter has powers or feats that let him move around in heavy armor doesn't he? Someone also mentioned feats or powers that let him eschew armor IIRC. I think whether or not he is wearing heavy armor is kind of irrelevant compared to the striker vs. defender base.

But, the crux really is whether there is a way to get the greatsword working well enough. There's been a greatsword paladin or cleric and halberd cleric mentioned so there seems to be some utility in using a big weapon outside of the fighter class.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The concept might, as a first approximation, be "wields a big sword but doesn't wear heavy armour".

The 4E fighter is the default big sword guy, but wears heavy armour. The rogue and ranger don't wear heavy armour, but it remains to be seen how well they can use a big sword. This is the crux of the issue.

Yes.
Given the description, Rogue seems to work best, but what we really miss at this points are the feats that can make it work perfectly. I'd suggest waiting a few days after the initial release and check the boards if such feats exist. if not, check again after the Martial Power Book appeared.

 

[Torchlyte]

It doesn't make any sense to sneak attack with a greatsword. Besides... Hunter's Quarry is more assassin-flavored than sneak atttack, if you ask me.

It seems like the OP's big problem is that he refuses to see the ranger as anything but a forest-stalker type.

You won't get nearly enough or the right skills with this way round.

Everyone gets 4 skills trained in 4e. Stealth is also a ranger skill. An assassin doesn't need thievery.

You seem to want to be called a Rogue more than conforming to what you define to be your character concept.

This.