D&D 4E Order of the Stick in 4e

[DaveMage]

At this point I'd settle for any OotS....

Long times between strips these days....

 

[Kaffis]

Well ... anyone have any thoughts on this? I think it's gonna be really interesting to see how Rich tackles this!

/M

If it doesn't involve Belkar killing a scout and taking its stuff, I will be grossly disappointed.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Threads merged

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I was thinking the same thing... A few strips where they try out the new 4E rules, and then decide they don't like them and go back to 3.5.

If Bard doesn't survive as a character class in 4e there could be an exciting period where Elan begins to fade from existence and the rest of the party tries to understand why (mostly for the sake of Haley).

 

[Zaruthustran]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around roles and classes in 4e, so thought it'd be fun (and useful) to contribute to a thread about the OOTS in Fourth Edition. I suspect that there isn't a 1:1 relationship between class and role; I think some classes can fill two or more roles depending on choice of feat and class abilities. That said, here's how I see the OOTS players choosing roles for their characters.


Roy: Martial Leader
Durkon: Divine Defender
Vaarsuvius: Arcane Striker
Haley: Martial Striker (ranged)
Belkar: Martial Striker (melee)
Elan: ??? Arcane Controller (enchantment and illusion), maybe?


Again, not speculating on specific classes here. Just roles.

What do you think?

-z

 

[Plane Sailing]

What do you think?

I think I'll merge this with an existing OOTS/4e thread...

 

[Nifft]

HE WILL BEMOAN THE OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING EXCLUSION OF THE GREAT RACE OF GNOMES FROM THE 4E PHB, OF COURSE!

"Why can't I un-Wild Shape?!"

Looking forward to it, -- N

 

[Szatany]

If it doesn't involve Belkar killing a scout and taking its stuff, I will be grossly disappointed.

Silky . This one is a must!!

 

[Snapdragyn]

I think we have to distinguish between the combat roles (which is how the terms we've seen were used) & the noncombat or party roles.

Roy: Martial Defender. He's the leader of the group, but not a Leader in (what little we know of) the 4e combat sense.
Durkon: Divine Leader. Again, this is looking at the way the combat role term was used, where cleric (which Durkon is) was placed here.
Vaarsuvius: Arcane Controller. Their usage of the term, & the placement of wizard in it, seems to allow for significant damage-dealing capacity as well as broader utility spells.
Haley: Martial Striker (& still rogue).
Belkar: (Divine?) Striker (& probably still ranger).
Elan: Screwed (unless they get bard into PHB1, which they may not.)

 

[Zaruthustran]

I think we have to distinguish between the combat roles (which is how the terms we've seen were used) & the noncombat or party roles.

I hear you, but I think this is a good example of one of 4E's design goals in action: this edition is supposed to let you play your character the way you've always meant for him to be played.

It seems to me that role = a character's job in combat + the source of the power that enables him to do that job. With that assumption:

I think Roy's player would jump at the chance to more mechanically fill the Leader role. And just because cleric was mentioned as an example of Divine Leader, I don't think Durkon's player would at all be attracted to that role. He'd want to fill the Defender role, for sure.

And Belkar getting his class abilities from a divine source? No way. He's a Ranger only because he likes to track and TWF; in 4E he'd surely choose a class that let him do those things but would toss any sort of divine influence out the window.

I'm with you on V, though. James mentioned that one example of battlefield control is the Fireball.