What is your favorite class(es) so far? (4E)
- Thread starter Herschel
- Start date
Teflon Billy
Explorer
I've only played a Fighter and a Barbarian and of the two I prefer Barbarian.
Fighters just don't seem to have much "Fight" in them.
Fighters just don't seem to have much "Fight" in them.
Teflon Billy
Explorer
In my case, because I have no clue what archetype from fantasy fiction /Myth they are trying to emulate.
lutecius
Explorer
Interesting. You're the first person I know of who prefers 3.5 to 4e and really likes the warlord (to be fair, many of them don't like 4e at all)
RyvenCedrylle
First Post
In response to the Paladin v. Fighter - my play experience has been that if you're the big Solo character, you worry when you see the Paladin because his mere presence is basically encounter-long ongoing damage with no save (unless you follow the mark, of course). If you're one of a horde of mooks, you worry when you see the fighter and the warden with all their mass-marking. The Swordmage is moderately troubling to everyone, with the Shielding being a particular pain for the solo.
So far I've played a cleric, a starlock, a shielding swordmage and a reach Battlerager and while I enjoy the fluff around the starlock the best, the swordmage is just fun on a bun. One of them might get ousted as I play that fighter more. I used to love 3e clerics, but not so much in 4e. I think it's the lack of domains; which are forthcoming.
So far I've played a cleric, a starlock, a shielding swordmage and a reach Battlerager and while I enjoy the fluff around the starlock the best, the swordmage is just fun on a bun. One of them might get ousted as I play that fighter more. I used to love 3e clerics, but not so much in 4e. I think it's the lack of domains; which are forthcoming.
Not having played any class yet, the ones that most intrigued me from reading about them was the Warlock in PHB1 and the Sorcerer in PHB2.
I was pleasantly surprised though, that I could imagine playing any of them. So far there's no class I'd never consider playing (of which there were quite a few in 3E).
I was pleasantly surprised though, that I could imagine playing any of them. So far there's no class I'd never consider playing (of which there were quite a few in 3E).
Zinovia
Explorer
I've been mostly DM'ing, so haven't had much chance to actually play my own character until recently.
Currently I am playing an elf predator druid. I really like the huge mobility (I can charge 16 squares) and have found good use for some of the control powers. Faerie Fire (lvl 1 daily) is very nice, and I stopped a runner with Cull the Herd (pull 3 squares). When I first read the class I felt kind of meh about the shapeshifting, but in play it's been fun. I do wonder if I should swap out one of my at-wills for a more caster-flavored one, but we'll see. I'm planning on taking Sneak of Shadows for some rogue goodies (and to have a party member trained in Thievery).
Classes that sound fun to play:
1) Cleric - I am eagerly awaiting Divine Power, but I'd happily play one without it
2) Swordmage - I've been a sucker for the gish since 1E, when they were just elven fighter/magic-users (or just elf for the real old-school)
3) Fighter - Many solid options and the first time playing a straight fighter appealed to me
4) Invoker - Great flavor, wrath of the gods stuff
5) Rogue - finally what they should have been
6) Bard - full of win
7) Avenger - it's a fun concept, but I am not sure how it would play out
8) Sorcerer - Several interesting builds, but chaos sounds entertaining
I agree with others who have said the Warden sounds pretty meh. Perhaps it plays better, but on an initial read it has weaker flavor than many other classes, and elicits a big shrug from me. Warlords and Shaman seem great in the hands of the tactically inclined player, but are not going to be easy to play effectively. Paladins have issues with being MAD, and their marks seem to not be quite as useful due to the limitation of engaging the foe every round.
All the V-build (having 2 different stats to-hit) classes (such as Paladins) have some problems and limitations. It's interesting that all the PH2 classes were A-build (relying on one to-hit stat). Certainly that lets you have far more powers to choose from because you can hit with any of your class powers effectively. You just may not get the best rider effects if you are lacking a bit in the secondary stat. More options = good.
Currently I am playing an elf predator druid. I really like the huge mobility (I can charge 16 squares) and have found good use for some of the control powers. Faerie Fire (lvl 1 daily) is very nice, and I stopped a runner with Cull the Herd (pull 3 squares). When I first read the class I felt kind of meh about the shapeshifting, but in play it's been fun. I do wonder if I should swap out one of my at-wills for a more caster-flavored one, but we'll see. I'm planning on taking Sneak of Shadows for some rogue goodies (and to have a party member trained in Thievery).
Classes that sound fun to play:
1) Cleric - I am eagerly awaiting Divine Power, but I'd happily play one without it
2) Swordmage - I've been a sucker for the gish since 1E, when they were just elven fighter/magic-users (or just elf for the real old-school)
3) Fighter - Many solid options and the first time playing a straight fighter appealed to me
4) Invoker - Great flavor, wrath of the gods stuff
5) Rogue - finally what they should have been
6) Bard - full of win
7) Avenger - it's a fun concept, but I am not sure how it would play out
8) Sorcerer - Several interesting builds, but chaos sounds entertaining
I agree with others who have said the Warden sounds pretty meh. Perhaps it plays better, but on an initial read it has weaker flavor than many other classes, and elicits a big shrug from me. Warlords and Shaman seem great in the hands of the tactically inclined player, but are not going to be easy to play effectively. Paladins have issues with being MAD, and their marks seem to not be quite as useful due to the limitation of engaging the foe every round.
All the V-build (having 2 different stats to-hit) classes (such as Paladins) have some problems and limitations. It's interesting that all the PH2 classes were A-build (relying on one to-hit stat). Certainly that lets you have far more powers to choose from because you can hit with any of your class powers effectively. You just may not get the best rider effects if you are lacking a bit in the secondary stat. More options = good.
I'm enjoying playing a paladin for the first time, well, ever.
Sure, there's the MAD issue (though playing a balanced CHA/STR Dragonborn does mitigate that somewhat), and I do complain sometimes, usually when the people playing Strikers are rolling hot and I'm not. But still...
My Dragonborn paladin can take a huge beating, which is fine when your role is essentially 'armored martyr'. He's by turns charming and frightening, he can stab people in the faith (weapon attacks vs. WILL), he can generate Radiant damage at-will, and he's got a few cool encounter/dailies (not least of which is Wrath of the Gods).
Yep... I'm liking the paladin (though I do want to play a sorcerer).
Sure, there's the MAD issue (though playing a balanced CHA/STR Dragonborn does mitigate that somewhat), and I do complain sometimes, usually when the people playing Strikers are rolling hot and I'm not. But still...
My Dragonborn paladin can take a huge beating, which is fine when your role is essentially 'armored martyr'. He's by turns charming and frightening, he can stab people in the faith (weapon attacks vs. WILL), he can generate Radiant damage at-will, and he's got a few cool encounter/dailies (not least of which is Wrath of the Gods).
Yep... I'm liking the paladin (though I do want to play a sorcerer).
Similar Threads
