Multiclassing.

[hong]

Honestly hong, I will bet my 4e books there will be some kind of Paragon Path called Swashbuckler, which opens up TWF to multiple classes.

While I actually prefer paragon tier at this point in time, I don't think this kind of thing should require you to be 11th level.

 

[Pistonrager]

Out of curiosity, how would you go about creating this character in 4e, using the published rules? In 3.x, he'd clearly be Rogue 1/Paladin X. How would you mechanically describe him having more than one trained rogue skill in 4E, if you make him a Paladin 1 with Rogue training?

And yes, I highly dislike the wuxia-inspired powers. Hated the Bo9S, too.

depends on whether or not you consider being a petty pick pocket and street rat worthy of maintaining into paladinhood... in 3.5 I'd say one level or a few cross class skill points.... in 4 looks like you either take the training feat... or leave it as background and not claim massive skill in the abilities(unpracticed skills fade quickly.)

The question really is... is it his background to make a fleshed out character, or is it his background to justify a powerful character? (a die of sneak attack and lot's of skills means a lot)

 

[Sammael]

I'd either make him human and give him Skill Training as well as the Sneak of Shadows feat, or I'd simply give him a high Dex and assume that accounts for a lot of his thiefly abilities in his youth. I might take Skill Training later on down the road, and justify it as his old skills coming back to him.

In other words, it's not possible to create this character at 1st level unless (1) he is a human (2) you role-play him as if he had forgotten his skills during paladin training or (3) you describe him as a natural thief who didn't have to train much. Fair enough, not the answer I wanted to hear, and certainly a lot more limited than 3.x, but still somewhat doable. To be fair, it isn't very doable in 3.x at 1st level, either. But my linear mind sort of likes the progression of Rogue > Paladin.

As for powers, their very concept ("everybody's got powers") screams wuxia to me. I may be mistaken in what my interpretation of wuxia is, though.

 

[Pistonrager]

I want to play a swashbuckler. Or a wuxia swordsperson. That is, someone who can take damage, but not as much as a dedicated tank; and can deal damage, but not as much as a dedicated ninja. This shouldn't be hard. Whether it actually is hard remains to be seen.

So... a fighter? but not in platemail. One breastplate wearing dex based fighter.. coming up....

Have I just been barking at the wind with this?

 

[hong]

As for powers, their very concept ("everybody's got powers") screams wuxia to me. I may be mistaken in what my interpretation of wuxia is, though.

If people do not jump from tree to tree, it's not wuxia.

 

[Sammael]

The question really is... is it his background to make a fleshed out character, or is it his background to justify a powerful character? (a die of sneak attack and lot's of skills means a lot)

In my case, it is ALWAYS the latter. And I don't think a Rogue/Paladin is a particularly powerful combo anyway. Bard/Paladin, on the other hand...

 

[hong]

So... a fighter? but not in platemail. One breastplate wearing dex based fighter.. coming up....

Is this likely to be as useful as a stock plate-wearing fighter...?

Have I just been barking at the wind with this?

Only you can answer that question.

 

[Mouseferatu]

To be fair, it isn't very doable in 3.x at 1st level, either. But my linear mind sort of likes the progression of Rogue > Paladin.

Well, as to the first part, true. It's actually more doable at 1st level in 4E than in 3E, unless one is using the... What were they called? The "apprentice rules?"

And beyond 1st level, you no longer have to be human to start getting into more feats.

So ultimately, it's all a question of how you describe the character prior to him becoming an adventurer. And then it's entirely a question of mindset; there's no reason rogue-turned-paladin has to be modeled by "level of rogue + levels of paladin." That's purely a 3E artifact.

As for powers, their very concept ("everybody's got powers") screams wuxia to me. I may be mistaken in what my interpretation of wuxia is, though.

Why is it wuxia to say "Hey, Bob Fighter knows these particular maneuvers, and fights with a spear, but Joe Fighter knows those other maneuvers, and fights with a sword?" That's essentially what exploits are, after all: martial maneuvers. They may be powers mechanically, but that's as much a metagame concept as levels, IMO.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

depends on whether or not you consider being a petty pick pocket and street rat worthy of maintaining into paladinhood... in 3.5 I'd say one level or a few cross class skill points.... in 4 looks like you either take the training feat... or leave it as background and not claim massive skill in the abilities(unpracticed skills fade quickly.)

The question really is... is it his background to make a fleshed out character, or is it his background to justify a powerful character? (a die of sneak attack and lot's of skills means a lot)

It's a tempting combination, but it's also a reasonable background.

In third edition, Rogue1/PaladinX was the best approach, both for power and background reasons.
At 1st level, you were really weak. You still are the pick-pocket or street-rat aiming for more, and at 2nd level, you might have achieved that.

1st level in 4E is different. You don't start as the streat-rat or pick pocket aiming for more. You start as a Paladin with a shady past. So, you definitely would play him as a Paladin with Rogue multiclass feats. He doesn't get much of the Rogue abilities, but that's because he either didn't get far enough in his shady past, or because becoming a Paladin meant he abandoned or unlearned or forgot his old abilities.

 

[Pistonrager]

Is this likely to be as useful as a stock plate-wearing fighter...?

no. but it's what you keep asking for... a reasonably armored damage dealer.