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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

The number might not be the problem, the list of skills available for the class might be.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

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.

Can we let the dead horses rest in peace already?

If you think a heavy weapon wielded by someone trained in its use shouldn't do more damage when wielded with combat advantage by someone already trained in doing more damage with a light weapon when they have combat advantage even if they have additional training in using the heavy weapon in such a way, that's fine. I don't. If you really want to debate that with someone please create a thread for it as it is tangential to the thread.

If you think the ranger makes a better base for an assassin than a rogue and that Hunter's Quarry is a great ability, that's fine. I don't, at least not for the purposes of making this character handle the way I want it to. Saying I have a 'problem' because my opinion is different than yours is rude and a little odd.

 

[malraux]

But it seems your concept is entirely wed to calling whatever you do "sneak attack" not just being expertly trained to hit extra hard with a greatsword. Pointing out that you are mixing up mechanics and flavor is a legitimate point.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

First of all, lets take the Greatsword issue out of the way:

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.

According to this source (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html), historical greatswords measured 60-70 inches (150-175cm) and weighed 5-8 pounds (2.3-3.6 Kg). Please note that this information comes from people who have actually handled both historical specimens and modern replicas. The idea of a 15 pound sword is stupid, to say the least.

My issue about sneak attacking with such a weapon comes from both the amount of room needed to wield it and the fact that it is much much easier to find someones femoral artery or a way to puncture a lung through a small joint in the enemy's plate armor with a knife than with a sword.

Now, as a DM, I might be able to allow it by spending two feats (one for proficiency and another to allow sneak attacking with it), but I'd need to read more of the rules to reach a final decision.

OR, maybe I would help you homebrew an encounter power that grants extra damage when you strike with a heavy weapon against a foe you have combat advantage over.

However, for some strange reason, you have already stated that you don't wish to ask your DM to accommodate your character concept.

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.

Nothing prevents you from having a "sullen, outcast, born-from-rape halfbreed antisocial character who is not allowed in decent taverns" in your game, using either human or orc stats (or any combination thereof).

Heck, you could have a "sullen, outcast, born-from-rape halfbreed antisocial who is not allowed in decent taverns" anything! Dwarves, elves, eladrin, halflings... any community is prone to have an ugly duckling who is picked on by other kids because his ears are different, or because he has a different skin color.

I personally find your reference to "flowers and honey" as condescending and borderline insulting.
The "all half-orcs are the product of rape" thing may not be "politically correct" and probably wont be the "default" background as in previous books. However, only you (with your DM's help) define who and what your character is.

In my current game, there is a half-orc female fighter who was born after a war. Both Orcs and Humans commited atrocities against each other, and for a while, half orc babies were common on both sides. She was born in an orc tribe and she was the proverbial "runt of the litter", so she had to learn to fight better than her half-brothers and sisters. She refuses to wear heavy armor (I blame Xena for that) and tends to live a bit of a larcenous lifestyle.

Maybe we'll compare notes in a few months when we convert to 4th edition.

 

[Surgoshan]

To add to the info about the greatsword, five pounds may not seem like all that much, and in fact it isn't. But only when it's right there in your hand. Once you stretch that five pounds of metal out to a three or four foot length, you've got a heck of a lot of torque. And you have to control all of that with your forearms. Delicacy is impossible. If you want to fence and strike precisely, then you have to use a rapier, dagger, or short sword.

To backstab with a greatsword really ought to take a lot of training (feats).

 

[Ximenes088]

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

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.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Combat Advantage helps everyone, not just Rogues. The clever melee combatant will make use of it regardless of class.

 

[Derren]

To add to the info about the greatsword, five pounds may not seem like all that much, and in fact it isn't. But only when it's right there in your hand. Once you stretch that five pounds of metal out to a three or four foot length, you've got a heck of a lot of torque. And you have to control all of that with your forearms. Delicacy is impossible. If you want to fence and strike precisely, then you have to use a rapier, dagger, or short sword.

To backstab with a greatsword really ought to take a lot of training (feats).

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.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

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.

The problem would most likely be a certain lack of space with which to easily position the weapon for precision insertion, and lack of time in 6-second-round combat. Everyone crits on helpless enemies.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

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.