Multiclassing.

[Green Knight]

I'd either make him human and give him Skill Training as well as the Sneak of Shadows feat

Any particular reason you'd need the Skill Training Feat, though? Sneak of Shadows gives you the Thievery Skill and a Sneak Attack 1/Encounter. Wouldn't that be enough to account for a street rat type character? Or is Skill Training for a skill like Stealth?

 

[hong]

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

Of course, if I take out the requirement "be as useful as a stock character", then all kinds of wondrous possibilities are opened up. Such is the power of multiclassing.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Any particular reason you'd need the Skill Training Feat, though? Sneak of Shadows gives you the Thievery Skill and a Sneak Attack 1/Encounter. Wouldn't that be enough to account for a street rat type character? Or is Skill Training for a skill like Stealth?

Don't need the feat, no. But if I wanted the character to be proficient in more than one Rogue skill that wasn't on the Paladin list, that's how I'd do it.

 

[Green Knight]

Don't need the feat, no. But if I wanted the character to be proficient in more than one Rogue skill that wasn't on the Paladin list, that's how I'd do it.

Oh, ok, cool. I was just getting a bit worried there for a minute that you didn't actually get the skill from the multiclass feat.

 

[Pistonrager]

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.

But why did he get so far as to get that first level in 3.x? for the power, if it's actual background and not a path he continues down there is not a need for the class level in it. It's a matter of power.

Sure 4th ed has a little less leeway for the power base, but again... if it's a background element does it really need to have it's own mechanical influence over the character?

 

[Sammael]

Incidentally, my solution to the background problem would be to introduce something similar to the d20 Modern Starting Occupations - you get some level of competence with a couple of skills and a single bonus feat.

 

[Sammael]

But why did he get so far as to get that first level in 3.x? for the power, if it's actual background and not a path he continues down there is not a need for the class level in it. It's a matter of power.

Sure 4th ed has a little less leeway for the power base, but again... if it's a background element does it really need to have it's own mechanical influence over the character?

In my opinion, and as a preference in my (somewhat simulationist) games, background must be defined mechanically to be meaningful. If I say that my character is a great swimmer who can swim for miles without needing to rest, but I then don't put any ranks in Swim and assign a Con score of 8 without bothering to take the Endurance feat, then the background doesn't have any meaning. Stats, to me, must support role-playing assumptions.

This is another point where 4E designers and I obviously differ a lot.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But why did he get so far as to get that first level in 3.x? for the power, if it's actual background and not a path he continues down there is not a need for the class level in it. It's a matter of power.

Sure 4th ed has a little less leeway for the power base, but again... if it's a background element does it really need to have it's own mechanical influence over the character?

Simulationists needs, I suppose. I totally agree with them in this case. (Maybe it's only because I am a Powergamer hiding between "good roleplaying" and "simulation"?)

It's also possible that the hypothetical example gets actually played from 1st to nth level, and the evolution is "organic" due to in-game reasons.
(In this case, the 4E approach either makes it hard to do this "organic", unless you're fine with mostly staying a Rogue instead of a "real" Paladin. )

 

[Pistonrager]

Of course, if I take out the requirement "be as useful as a stock character", then all kinds of wondrous possibilities are opened up. Such is the power of multiclassing.

I'm not following you. you want a damage dealer(but not as much as a "real ninja") and you want tankability(but not as much as a plate wearing+sword and board fighter). I give it to you... and you say it's not as useful? How? How is it not as useful? AC not as high? tough you asked for less armor. Damage not high enough? again you asked for less than the top. Maneuverability? lighter armor means you move faster.


The idea of being not as useful as a stock character is thrown against a wall and beaten with the dead horse that is 3.5's multiclassing rules the moment you want to be just as powerful as a straight class character with a combination of roles and powers.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Thread closed.

Please continue your discussion in the main thread here http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=225035

Pistonrager, don't do this again. Thanks. I pointed out early on in the thread that this kind of pre-emptive 'grabbing' a thread isn't wanted, and the thread has so much sillyness at the start (because of the pre-emptive grabbing attempt) that I can't just merge it into the actual discussion threads.

Regards