Roles - do they work?

[ProfessorPain]

Why? Not all classes got the spell Light in 3.5. Classes do different things.

Also: none, none, and none.
-Bow Fighter - None, you play a Ranger, who don't have to have any of that outdoorsy flavor, and who is specifically built around using a bow.
-Cleric of Theivery - None, play as a normal cleric, multiclass Warlock, pump Wis and Cha, flavor the spells you want to taste. Even basic clerics get plenty of "deceptive" spells, like Cause Fear, Cascade of Light (vulnerability to all your attacks!), Command, and Rune of Peace.
-Thuggish Rogue - They're, like, right there in the book, dude. They use Dex to attack, but they need high Strength too, and at that point you're just metagaming. If you really want to have low Dex, just be a Ranger and take the same skills.

Seriously, you can be whatever you want, as long as you're prepared to ignore the mechanical class name. If you pick what you want to do and then pick a class for it, rather than the other way around, you'll usually end up ok. Granted, not everything's supported right now (the specific lightly-armored defender/striker mentioned earlier, shapeshifting), but you do have a lot of options.

It is the level of flexibility that is the issue for some people. I think the problem is, coming into 4E from 3E, some of us are unhappy with how much harder it is to customize your character. In 3E if you want the light spell, take a level in Wizard. In 4E multiclass isn't that straight forward, so it is a lot more difficult to generate the results you want. Not saying it is impossible, but it is definitely harder. And ignoring the flavor of roles and powers, is a little clunky for some as well.

 

[yesnomu]

It is the level of flexibility that is the issue for some people. I think the problem is, coming into 4E from 3E, some of us are unhappy with how much harder it is to customize your character. In 3E if you want the light spell, take a level in Wizard. In 4E multiclass isn't that straight forward, so it is a lot more difficult to generate the results you want. Not saying it is impossible, but it is definitely harder. And ignoring the flavor of roles and powers, is a little clunky for some as well.

Yeah, that's fair. I honestly think the game is better overall for not allowing that type of multiclassing, but I can see where that's coming from now.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Yeah, that's fair. I honestly think the game is better overall for not allowing that type of multiclassing, but I can see where that's coming from now.

That is why I think it isn't a quality issue, but a taste issue. I liked the 3E multiclassing (but I am aware some disliked liked it and it had some balance issues). So I tend to have less fun making and playing characters in 4E. That doesn't make it a bad game though; it just doesn't have the bells and whistles I was after. It has other bells and whistles though, and lots of people seem thrilled by it. Who am I to make them feel bad for having different taste than me? So often these discussions about editions get heated, when it really boils down to peoples' preferences.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Though by the same token, I have found 4e multiclassing allows for me to be more flexible with my character concept. I found 3e multiclassing too forceful in shoving aspects of that multiclass into your character. I have found myself on more then one ocassion having to ignore half of my multiclass content to fit my character concept and gods help me if what I want from that class is a number of levels up.

I find that with 4e multiclassing there is more ease at picking and choosing. I have a number of different initial multiclass-choices for each class I can pick what Powers I choose, I can continue to develop my initial class while still multiclassing.

So even if someone has the same tastes I think it can be satisfied differently.

 

[tyrlaan]

Same as in any edition. You houserule stuff or you wait for supplementary content that delivers what you're looking for. Try making an effective duelist or swashbuckler in 3.0 D&D without Sword & Fist (and even then I don't think your damage output is very good, plus you have to wait until higher levels to be effective at all). Or a non-kung-fu unarmed fighter in any edition.

I'm not saying 3e was flawless, but it's my point of reference to make my arguments. That said you could make a duelist in 3.0 with just the PHB. It might not be the best in the world, but you could play the concept. Same with swashbuckler.

You don't; all fighters are proficient with bows.

I have to assume you are just being silly. Yes, 4e fighters are proficient with bows. But because of the nature of powers, they're all but pointless to use. You /have/ to realize this. The same is true of a warlord. Sure he's proficient with a bow, but 4e tells us that warlords only fight melee style. Thinking about it, I'm not sure why these classes even get bow proficiency in 4e at all in the first place.

Not a whole lot of deception on the 3e cleric list, either...

I think I'll disagree with you on this. 3e has a Thievery domain at the least. That's much more support for a deception cleric than 4e provides.

There's two different class-paths for rogues that utilize STR.

Not what I meant, but I think my example may have been a bit vague. Brutal Rogue lets you apply your Str bonus as a modifier to damage. I can't use it on my attack rolls, however. In 3e, a rogue/fighter works well. In 4e, it works well /if/ you have a good Str and a good Dex because by RAW rogues only know how to attack with cunning strikes and fighters only know how to smack people with brute force. These feel like arbitrary limitations to me that go against the grain of providing flexibility.

Bow Fighter - None, you play a Ranger, who don't have to have any of that outdoorsy flavor, and who is specifically built around using a bow.

Agreed, this works. And for many this is likely fine. But if you do that you don't have the same skills (easy fix), hit points, armor proficiencies, class abilities (hunter's mark etc). The catch is Ranger comes along with its own inherent playstyle based on the abilities it provides. This might not be what someone wants when they're looking to play a bow fighter.

-Cleric of Theivery - None, play as a normal cleric, multiclass Warlock, pump Wis and Cha, flavor the spells you want to taste. Even basic clerics get plenty of "deceptive" spells, like Cause Fear, Cascade of Light (vulnerability to all your attacks!), Command, and Rune of Peace.

This is actually pretty good. My hat's off to you for the creativity. However, we both know it's not quite the same thing as a cleric of thievery. Which pact do you take and what does that mean exactly for the character? I presume you'd have to rationalize it's a pact with the god. Yes, I am playing devil's advocate.


And I still hold that any scenario where you have to rationalize a person holding a torch as your character's light spell is going too far in houseruling to support a concept.

 

[Mallus]

This is actually pretty good. My hat's off to you for the creativity. However, we both know it's not quite the same thing as a cleric of thievery.

What it is, is a good mechanical representation of a cleric of a god thievery using core 4e rules. Anything beyond that is up to the player and DM to work out. It's no longer a rules issue.

Perhaps that's how the DM himself chooses to represent priests of larcenous gods in his setting. As you said, it's creative and does a good job.

 

[Scribble]

Though by the same token, I have found 4e multiclassing allows for me to be more flexible with my character concept. I found 3e multiclassing too forceful in shoving aspects of that multiclass into your character. I have found myself on more then one ocassion having to ignore half of my multiclass content to fit my character concept and gods help me if what I want from that class is a number of levels up.

I find that with 4e multiclassing there is more ease at picking and choosing. I have a number of different initial multiclass-choices for each class I can pick what Powers I choose, I can continue to develop my initial class while still multiclassing.

So even if someone has the same tastes I think it can be satisfied differently.

I agree. I find the way things are done in 4e to be a lot more flexible, and organic.

The 3e concept was great when it came out. It added a multiclassing ability the game just didn't have before that point, but I feel 4e improves upon what the goal of multiclassing was.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

Re-fluff it. Say, "it's not fire making that light, it's my magical Light spell!" That's if you can't get it normally.

You're not serious... ? ... are you?

Lamenting is boring, real men (and women) take action! If you are unhappy with your character, change it! Make what you want to make!

Well.. I never claimed to be a real anything.. but aside form that, you can only retrain 1 thing per level, you can't retrain class, and you certainly can't retrain some of the things people have been talking about in this thread.

Also, the bolded part is simply crazy. You're asking for fluff changes for one character, yourself. You're not min-maxing, you aren't lording power over other characters. You're creating a "class" that isn't in 4e now, putting fluff of one class with the mechanics of another. Your class takes (for example) the effects of the powers from the Warlock list, but instead of a pact you study magic. You use the inherent magic of the broken life-thread to perform some magical effect (the pact boon). Your powers aren't curses, they're spells that happen to be single-target. You get the idea, hopefully.

No.. No I don't get the idea, actually. I mean.. If you have to completely rewrite an entire class (by that I mean redescribing all the powers.. and everything..) then... what's the point? If you wind up playing something that doesn't exist wholesale, then.. what the heck are you playing?

Every player has the right to be satisfied with their game system. If they aren't, it isn't unreasonable in the slightest to change the fluff to suit them. As long as power levels aren't affected, a GM shouldn't have any problem at all.

I'm not sure that's fair to all the other players, though. And I would assume most DMs wouldn't want you rewritting all the powers for a character. Even trying to play it, there would always be all that doubt.

Back in 3.5, I spend so much time thinking over and writing and rewriting an addaptation of Azaltin's Rod of Lions from 2E, and even that was hard to ask about in the end. ( <sigh> Rods.. Another thing I miss in 4E.)

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

If someone has to go so far to play a character that can generate light as to interpret someone holding a torch as "no, really, that's my light spell" (in my opinion) there is something wrong.

Which brings me to the following point: Doesn't it ring odd to anyone the amount of house-ruling that is needed to support the "non-standard" character concept examples people are mentioning in this thread?

How much do you have to house-rule a fighter that uses a bow in 3rd ed? How about in 4th? What about a cleric of thievery with spells of deception? What about a thuggish rogue that uses brute strength instead of cunning dexterity to deliver his attacks?

Yeah... "house rules" always used to be tiny things, like.. "you heal your level + your con modifier when you rest" or something like that. Not something that was generaly used in character builds.

 

[yesnomu]

Brutal Rogue lets you apply your Str bonus as a modifier to damage. I can't use it on my attack rolls, however.

Whatevs. You're still a thuggish Rogue, so concept fulfilled. Like I said, if you specifically want to have low Dex, be a Ranger and take Chain.

This might not be what someone wants when they're looking to play a bow fighter.

Not saying you're wrong, but what is a bow fighter like? I've never seen a build for one, but I thought they just used the fighter bonus feats to take normal archer stuff, like Multishot and Precise Shot, et al. Anyway, I suppose it is a potential weakness of the system that there's only one designated archer class.

This is actually pretty good. My hat's off to you for the creativity. However, we both know it's not quite the same thing as a cleric of thievery. Which pact do you take and what does that mean exactly for the character? I presume you'd have to rationalize it's a pact with the god. Yes, I am playing devil's advocate.

Feats are metagame constructs, you're specializing in the decepetive magic of your god. You go feylock, and take Eyebite, along with other spells that hinder the enemy, like Dreadful Word, Curse of the Dark Dream, Frigid Darkness, and Crown of Madness. Flavor it however you like, none of those spells would look odd on the 3.5 cleric list, or at least the Thievery domain. Best of all, you can get Thievery for free for the multiclass.

Also, check out some of those Warlock utilities, like Shadow Veil or Raven's Glamor, which work out perfectly.

And I still hold that any scenario where you have to rationalize a person holding a torch as your character's light spell is going too far in houseruling to support a concept.

Eh. There absolutely is a light spell in the game, the poster just didn't want to play the class that got it. The torch idea was just if they didn't want any houserules for the spell or items bought at all--there's other ways to get a permanent light. I think there's an AV lantern that flies and can be moved with a minor action, so that simulates it near-perfectly.