New Group - 4 edition - Would like some imput

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thank you all for the inputs so far.

I would like some directions on the wizard.

I looked over the handbooks and I am still puzzled by the "weapliment" build. How that work? I wonder becuse the handbooks says wand implements are bad, and them they say weapliments (looking the same as wands) are good. I am shure we are missing something here...

We thing she will go with an array like:

Str: 08-09
Dex: 12-16
Con: 10
Int: 18
Wis: 12-16
Cha: 12

The idea is qualify her for control stuff, but maybe using weapliments?

Right, well, the Wand IMHO is a perfectly good implement. The nice thing about it is Wand Mastery lets you stick an attack, and if you are carrying a high DEX it means a very nice once-per-encounter bonus of +3! That really puts your daily power up there in a much more likely to work category, especially if you have a nice daily AoE! The staff and the orb are also both quite nice, and being more WIS/CON oriented do give you better defenses.

As for 'weaplements' there are a few reasons to want to get into that jazz. They aren't quite as super as they were back when Weapon Focus added to ANY attack made with a weapon (even if the attack was an implement power, this was patched a while back). However, there are still a number of weapons which make good implements. The main one is the Subtle Weapon, which can be put on a dagger and provides dual wielders with a nice damage bonus. There are also some shenanigans that can be gotten up to with staff and Staff Expertise, etc. Defensive Weapon, Rhythm Blade, etc are also useful implements for some builds. Also if you get into some more tricky builds that mix weapon and implement powers its handy to only need one magic item to fill both niches and not need to worry about switching back and forth. A wizard with for instance one or two melee powers from class/race/theme could benefit from using a staff or spending a feat on getting implement proficiency with a dagger or long sword (both are swordmage implements). A fighter could also specialize in using the staff, which can be a pretty effective build, and then pick up a wizard or warlock power somewhere and cast it through his existing quarter staff (which can be used as a staff implement even though it may be carrying a weapon enchantment).

Yep - or for another possibility maybe look at Avenger - has the "righteous killer" vibe and actually is a striker primary. Get a big weapon and dish it out!

Yeah, Avenger has been a perennial favorite at many tables. It sounds kind of wonky when you read it, like "what exactly is this thing?" but in play it can capture a surprising number of different character concepts pretty well. Its always worth a look, though it lacks most of the healy sort of paladin stuff (but does have an undead 'turning' CD power, which is nice, makes a very good undead hunter).

 

[Dr_Sage]

Thank you all.

So far we have played the first 2 solo sessions to introduce the PCs to the story. The wizard and the ranger (crossbow hunter) worked like a charm.

Now I am considering the other 3 solo sessions, playing events that happened before the main story.

Have you fellows played Essentials and non-Essentials PCs in the same party? Any issues? I don't have any experience with Essentials characters.

So far I could realize that the crossbow hunter have like 8 at-wills (if you combine the at-will stances with the at-will attack powers), 1 encounter power, and no dailies. Looking ahead, it seems that he will have more of the same as he levels up plus some magic effects (entangles and the like).

I ask becuse I am seriously considering a cavalier for the paladin and a thief for the rogue (both Essentials builds).

Opinions?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Essentials martial characters are generally easier and more streamlined than pre-Essentials. They are a little less fiddly in play and come with a whole lot less customisation than the non-essentials characters. But at the table they work about the same and there are no real issues mixing them. (You can't razor-optimise them, but this isn't a problem in heroic tier).

The thief is an underrated gem of a class - what rogues should have been in any edition. Three of the tricks are important. The first is Tactical Trick (every newbie playing a thief should have this) - the single easiest way to get Combat Advantage (which every thief needs for most attacks). The second is Acrobats Trick. A climb speed - you can climb anything. The third is Sneak's Trick which allows you to hide where no one else can.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Essentials martial characters are generally easier and more streamlined than pre-Essentials. They are a little less fiddly in play and come with a whole lot less customisation than the non-essentials characters. But at the table they work about the same and there are no real issues mixing them. (You can't razor-optimise them, but this isn't a problem in heroic tier).

The thief is an underrated gem of a class - what rogues should have been in any edition. Three of the tricks are important. The first is Tactical Trick (every newbie playing a thief should have this) - the single easiest way to get Combat Advantage (which every thief needs for most attacks). The second is Acrobats Trick. A climb speed - you can climb anything. The third is Sneak's Trick which allows you to hide where no one else can.

Yeah, the thief is pretty good. Anyway, I agree, the E-classes work fine. Worst possible case if you have a LONG hard day they might still be able to do their stuff when a PHB1 martial character has burned his daily powers, but honestly the PHB1 fighter isn't super dependent on daily powers anyway, nor the ranger or rogue either.

 

[Klaus]

Thank you all.

So far we have played the first 2 solo sessions to introduce the PCs to the story. The wizard and the ranger (crossbow hunter) worked like a charm.

So THAT's why you guys ain't replying to my e-mails, eh?

As others said, Essentials characters aren't weaker than core classes, just differently balanced. A Thief (a GREAT class) loses the possibility of a big "nova" damage (through the use of a daily power) for a more steady medium damage (since he can effectively give himself Combat Advantage, with the right tricks). It is also more mobile, because the Tricks are based on his Move actions, while a core Rogue could end up "locked in place" when he finds a flanking spot.

As for the Paladin, the Cavalier is a great class, but I'll echo the advice of trying out an Avenger. Give it the biggest weapon available, and his tendency to always hit will bump up his damage output.

 

[Dr_Sage]

Thank you Claudio.

The main reason I am not exited about the Avenger is that I feel the party will need a defender on the front. Of course it's not mandatory, but It feels just right.

 

[Klaus]

IMHO, I'd leave it up to the player to decide whether to be a striker or a defender. A striker-heavy party tends to run through encounters faster (think of it as an "aggressive defending").

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I won't say you're wrong: our 4Ed campaign featured 1 controller, 1 defender, and 1 leader, and all the rest were strikers.

Game night attendance was spotty due to real world issues, so sometimes we had a void in one role or another...but we never fielded fewer than 2 strikers, and sometimes as many as 4.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thank you Claudio.

The main reason I am not exited about the Avenger is that I feel the party will need a defender on the front. Of course it's not mandatory, but It feels just right.

My experence is like Klaus's, the aggressive strikers are basically 'defending by annihilation'. I have a party right now that consists of a Goliath Rageblood, a Minotaur Rageblood, a Thief, an E-ssassin, and an Avenger. The rageblood barbs can just take absurd amounts of punishment and with their high mobility are really NOT bad 'defenders'. You can say they aren't sticky, but you do NOT want to provoke them, their damage output with an MBA is quite scary, and if they're bloodied, manage a crit, etc, then you are just in a world of hurt. I found it quite amusing the other day when they were almost decimated by kobolds. Shifting really stepped all over those 2's ability to be sticky and the Thief was REALLY unhappy when 4 kobolds showed up at melee range...

Anyway, clearly the non-striker roles are fun, but all of them are basically optional. Especially in the current game where most characters can mix in a bit of this or that where needed.

 

[sabrinathecat]

I run a game of all-strikers. They destroy almost every encounter within 3 rounds unless it it lvl+4 or a double-encounter. Yes, lvl+4!!! Unlucky rolls might last 4 rounds.
Defense through overwhelming destruction.
Hordes of minions have been marginally effective sometimes. But then they just find a way to use an encounter area attack or a magic item daily.
It is sometimes terrifying.