Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4201840" data-attributes="member: 710">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...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.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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification