Rogue/ranger or rogue/warlock

[pemerton]

To me it seems like a good idea to just have a bit of diversity in your character, but I could be totally wrong. I'm very new.

In my game there are 5 PCs. One is hybrid (ranger-cleric) and 3 are multi-classed: wizard/invoker, fighter/cleric, and sorcerer/monk (he wanted Thievery training and likes the no-shift lockdown from his Flurry of Blows).

I would advise a new player not to go hybrid - it can be a bit of a trap if you're not sure what you're doing.

But multi-classing isn't a trap - you get training in a skill, which makes you more versatile, and you get a nifty extra ability. Multi-classing as a leader (cleric, warlord or bard) can be escpecially nifty, as it will probably open up a skill option that isn't on the rogue list, and you get to pack your own 1x/day heal, which I think might be useful for a rogue - you're pretty squishy, and if you're planning to be mobile you might easily get more than 5 squares away from the party leader.

And if you decide your multi-classing doesn't work out, you can always retrain the feat. The wizard in my party was a wizard/cleric before he retrained to invoker (to get access to a paragon path), the fighter was a fighter/warlord before he retrained to cleric (to get access to a paragon path) and the sorcerer was a bard, and then a cutthroat (from Dragon magazine - he wanted Stealth plus Bluff as a minor action) before retraining a second time to monk.

At least that's my take on it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Multiclass feats are really useful. But that's just effectively the power of one feat and an additional trained skill for free. There are almost no bad ones so take whatever fits the concept. Spending more feats than on the basic multiclass feats is seldom a good idea.

Hybrids are so loaded with traps (and a few overpowered combos) that they are simply banned in my campaigns. I wouldn't recommend them to a newbie ever - and wouldn't want a rules-monkey using them.

As for playing a rogue, there is one simple question. Are you getting combat advantage (and therefore sneak attack damage as well as +2 to hit) every round? If so you're doing it right in combat, if not you aren't. For a beginner I'd recommend playing a thief (from Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms) rather than a brawny rogue as your build (nothing stopping you playing a brawny thief) and taking tactical trick. Simple, effective, and plays the way you appear to want it to.

The assassin classes are both extremely weak.

 

[Rannan]

Why are they weak? I thought being a striker meant being able to dish out a lot of damage. And how do I roll a thief? I've never played before so I'm not familiar with older models of the game. Will I still be effective in combat that way and useful for the team?

 

[Klaus]

Why are they weak? I thought being a striker meant being able to dish out a lot of damage. And how do I roll a thief? I've never played before so I'm not familiar with older models of the game. Will I still be effective in combat that way and useful for the team?

I don't know which books you are using to make your character, or if you're using the online Character Builder software.

If you are using the Player's Handbook, just make a straight up Rogue (Brutal Scoundrel or Artful Dodger, both have equally-capable powers to choose from).

If you are using Heroes of the Fallen Lands (one from the line of D&D Essentials books), you have access to a Rogue sub-class called "Thief". It is based on basic attacks, instead of at-will attack powers, and has Movement Tricks that keep you very mobile and helps you gain combat advantage.

At any rate, the rogue is a pretty solid class, regardless of build. You don't need to multiclass to be very effective and capable, specially if your group is planned with an eye on teamwork.

 

[fenriswolf456]

Why are they weak? I thought being a striker meant being able to dish out a lot of damage. And how do I roll a thief? I've never played before so I'm not familiar with older models of the game. Will I still be effective in combat that way and useful for the team?

Assassins are considered weak because for strikers, they don't hit as hard as some of the top tier strikers like Ranger and Rogue. They are also light armour wearers and have very few healing surges compared to similar classes.

Thief is actually the latest 'model', from the Essentials line of 4E, where the classes are a bit more streamlined and easier to play. It's basically the Rogue, only with redesigned abilities. The flavour is very much the same. Essentials characters tend to optimize more easily, so yes, you would still be very effective in combat. But you don't have to go out of your way to be one if you don't have the Essentials books or access to the online character builder.

If you are new, I would definitely recommend just focussing on one class, at least for a few levels. Get used to how the game plays, and how to use the Rogue effectively. You can continue your research and if you see something that strikes you as a good fit for your character and concept, work towards it. But I'm pretty sure you'll find being a pure class just as satisfying.

Being a Rogue and a striker, you optimally want to focus on feats and abilities that give you bonuses to hit, and gain combat advantage to use Sneak Attack which is a Rogue's bread and butter. You'll probably also want to read up on how Stealth works in combat, and maybe even discuss with your DM so that they understand how it works as well.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why are they weak? I thought being a striker meant being able to dish out a lot of damage.

Assassins deal quite a lot of damage but they are the lowest of any striker with the possible exception of the blackguard - and are nothing like as tough as the blackguard.

And how do I roll a thief? I've never played before so I'm not familiar with older models of the game. Will I still be effective in combat that way and useful for the team?

A thief is simply a type of rogue - and much easier to build than any other type. As for effective in combat, as I said that's a binary for rogues. If you're getting combat advantage for almost every attack you'll be effective, if not you won't. The thief doesn't have tricks like the classic rogue that involve e.g. blinding their target (just knocking them down) but it's a lot easier to gain combat advantage as a thief making it easier for them to be extremely effective.

 

[Rannan]

Assassins are considered weak because for strikers, they don't hit as hard as some of the top tier strikers like Ranger and Rogue. They are also light armour wearers and have very few healing surges compared to similar classes.

Thief is actually the latest 'model', from the Essentials line of 4E, where the classes are a bit more streamlined and easier to play. It's basically the Rogue, only with redesigned abilities. The flavour is very much the same. Essentials characters tend to optimize more easily, so yes, you would still be very effective in combat. But you don't have to go out of your way to be one if you don't have the Essentials books or access to the online character builder.

If you are new, I would definitely recommend just focussing on one class, at least for a few levels. Get used to how the game plays, and how to use the Rogue effectively. You can continue your research and if you see something that strikes you as a good fit for your character and concept, work towards it. But I'm pretty sure you'll find being a pure class just as satisfying.

Being a Rogue and a striker, you optimally want to focus on feats and abilities that give you bonuses to hit, and gain combat advantage to use Sneak Attack which is a Rogue's bread and butter. You'll probably also want to read up on how Stealth works in combat, and maybe even discuss with your DM so that they understand how it works as well.

Yeah I definitely need to read up on stealth because I still don't understand it and the PHB1 doesn't explain it too well. Today I saw an interesting class though, a ranger/cleric. I've also been considering using a ranger as they are high damage and decent survivability, I'm just not sure how well stealth works with them. Someone recommended I start with a ranger and eventually multiclass into ranger/rogue but I don't think I have enough understanding yet to know how each class complements each other. I have a lot to learn. Could a ranger be just as good at stealth damage as a rogue, but using archery instead of twin swords? It seems like an archer ranger would be a good support class for the team but I'm not sure. One reason I'm considering archer/cleric is so I can optimize my usefulness to the team, being able to lay down damage and knock enemies around and spot healing if necessary. I want to be a key team player in my group and still do enough damage to have fun with my rolls.

Is there a better book that can explain multiclassing and stealth and paragon paths/epic quests or is that just something you learn as you go? Online I saw someone mention a battlefield archer/war priest which sounds pretty cool but there has to be some kind of drawback somewhere and I just don't understand yet. I only have the PHB1 so far but I know I need a lot more to fully grasp D&D and understand it all.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Stealth got errata'd from the PHB1 version. Here's a quick summary for the updated version. You hide when no one has a line of sight to you and from there can move where people have a poor line of sight while staying hidden. Attacking causes you to become unhidden.

PHB multiclassing is fairly basic. You use feats to take on some aspects of the class you are multiclassing to and can then qualify for feats only your multiclass class can take (although your powers remain restricted to your original class). Just treat it as feats for a taste of another class (the cleric multiclass feat gives you a free trained skill and 1/day you can heal in the way clerics can 2/encounter - it's a useful trick to have in reserve). Hybrids are in the PHB 3 - ignore them.

Archer rangers are seriously nice and are easy to play - you just turn the air black with arrows. Twin strike is your friend. As is Disruptive Shot as an encounter power at level 3 to turn a bad guy hit into a miss (and any other interrupt attacks you can make). An archer ranger with stealth trained is as good at stealth as any but the very best rogues and thieves (assuming the same race and dexterity- dex being the main stat for both archers and rogues/thieves).

Paragon Paths - when you hit level 11 you get to pick a paragon path you qualify for (in addition to your class). As you get to the right levels you gain its powers. Epic destinies are the same (but L21).

And honestly, when it comes to optimising your usefulness, 4e is balanced enough that as long as you keep your primary stat high you will be useful to the party just by picking a concept the rules support and building to that.

 

[Gorgoroth]

whatever you do

put a 20 in dex. please. thank you -- The Dorkministration.

Dex is god in 4e, sadly (or greatly, depending on whether you play a class that favors Dex so much, like an archer or a thief).

I'd try thief next, if I could find any decent 4e games that lasted more than a month or two. /sigh. people are fickle

 

[pemerton]

I will second what [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] said: with an archer ranger it is pretty hard to go wrong. Take Twin Strike, take as many immediate attack encounter powers as you can get, point and shoot.

And given that you'll have a high DEX, you'll be good at Stealth.

I also agree with Neonchameleon's comments on multi-classing. Multiclassing just means spending a feat to get a skill and a fairly modest new ability related to the relevant class. (There are multi-classing options to spend feats to open up new power options, but I wouldn't bother with them.) The skill increases your versatility, and the ability - like the 1x/day heal from multi-classing cleric or warlord, or the 1x/enc bonus to hit if you multi-class fighter, or the 1x/enc bonus damage if you multi-class ranger - just gives you a little extra edge.

Today I saw an interesting class though, a ranger/cleric.

<snip>

One reason I'm considering archer/cleric is so I can optimize my usefulness to the team

One of the players in my group plays a hybyrid ranger-cleric. He started out playing an archer ranger with a multi-class cleric feat, and then when PHB3 came out he rebuilt his PC from the ground up as a hybrid. His motivation was (i) the party didn't have a leader, and he though some more healing would be useful, and (ii) he found the archer ranger a bit boring to play - it really is a pretty simple "point and shoot" class.

But being a ranger-cleric does reduce his damage output a bit, and make the PC a bit more mechanically fiddly. Whether that's an issue or not depends a bit on who you're playing with. Are you playing with friends who approach the game in a laidback way and will be happy for you to play the PC you want to play even if it's not the most mechincally optimal it might be? And does ranger-cleric appeal to you as a PC concept? Then maybe get the online builder, or find a copy of PHB3, and build a ranger-cleric.

But are you playing with hardnosed players who will beat you around the head if they think your PC isn't fully optimised, and with a GM who is going to throw punishing encounters at you without regard to the particular PCs you've built and your particular desires to play a slightly quirky character? Then build a straight-down-the-line ranger or rogue, and don't both with hybriding.

TL;DR: there is a big difference between multi-classing and hybriding. MC is just spending a feat to get a skill + perk. Hybriding is really changing the build of your character from the ground up.