Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm
- Thread starter JDillard
- Start date
Eldorian
First Post
Lizard said:
Builds are for noobs. Literally. It's great that they're in the book, but if you want do do something odd, just do it, don't feel that because builds are in the book that you have to actually use them.
I think the trouble with your guy is that he's not a good multiclass. See, defender with arcane multiclass isn't a very good option at current time. The FR book will have a base class that is arcane defender, I think. But that doesn't mean you can't make the classic elven fighter/wizard now.
You just have to realize that 4e fighter and 4e wizard aren't what you're looking for. I played a couple bladesingers back in 2e days, so I think I know what I'm talking about.
Instead of fighter/wizard, look instead at rogue/warlock, or warlord/wizard. The rogue will either have to use a wand or rod in his offhand at higher level, and the warlord either an offhand implement, or a staff. (staff kinda sounds cool now that I think of it).
A rogue/warlock could use the fey pact, and double dip in cha. Eladrin would work for this, tho halfling might be better mechanically. I like Eladrin too, so lets stick with that.
So, in the main hand, use a short sword at low levels, upgrade to rapier at higher. In offhand, use a wand or rod. Rod is cooler, tho =P Buncha light blade feats that are good, and you always have warlock powers to pick up.
Every level up, pump up dex and cha. There we go, a classic melee and magic character. And he's offensively oriented, which was what a bladesinger was back in 2e.
Otterscrubber
First Post
Nifft said:
Well said! I see a lot of folks who seem sad that the rogue can't dual wield as well as a ranger. But if they could why would anyone take a ranger? I mean c'mon! TWF is the schtick of the Ranger, in the way that backstab is the schtick of the rogue. Expecting to be tops at both is kinda greedy.
There are clearly options in 4e, good ones, if you want a sneaky two weapon fighting type. Don't get caught up in the fact that under class it might read ranger. If you wanted to be a tough TWF sneaky type it might even read Fighter......cuz now they can get thievery skills as well....
Lizard said:
So, I wonder if you're still approaching the system from a perspective that's expecting things that aren't there. Then, when they aren't, you've already got grounds to be upset.
Lets take a look at your post:
Here's the first thing that caught my attention. You skipped over something important. Your main choice was not, as you said, which feat and when. Your main choice was, and always will be in 4e, Race/Class. The designers have made this explicit on multiple occasions. Every other decision from here on out is going to be a decision of variability, a question of "what variety of Eladrin Fighter/Wizard am I making?" All other decisions stem directly from this one.
I would agree with you, though for more reasons than just the feat. As you start to level a bit, if you want your Wiz spells to actually hit you're going to need to be using an implement with them. Sword/wand makes a pretty good combination, giving you the flexibility to fight or cast without having to switch equip. This is going to be true of any multiclass that involves a melee and a non-melee though (except for cleric. Damn clerics get their implements on their necks, instead of in their hands! Lucky bastards!
)This is in fact exactly what I was getting at in the OP. However, I can give you a numeric number of how many choices you make at first level.
1 - Attributes
2 - Race
3 - Class
4 - Class option (twf ranger vs archer ranger)
5 - At-will #1
6 - At-will #2 (sometimes an easy, obvious choice for your build. sometimes not)
6b - At-will #3 for humans
7- Encounter
7b - At-will as encounter for h-elf
8 - Daily
9 - Feat
9b - Feat #2 for humans
10 - Equipment
10b - Starting rituals for wizard or cleric
It's not a ton of choices, but there's a fair amount there. I'm sure someone here could run the math and let us know how many permutations are possible given that number of choices. Significantly less than 3rd, but not an unplayably small amount.
Well, you are going for a *very specific* concept and have already limited yourself in certain ways. Eldorian, above, mentions a few other ways you could make a "fighting spellcaster" character concept. He also mentioned that WotC has already announced they're releasing one, a full-blown separate class one, in Forgotten Realms. The class version of something is always going to be better at that concept than the multiclass version, unless the concept is itself an "X with just a little bit of Y".
Further, it really appears as if you've constrained your thinking and are frustrating yourself by doing so. You want to make a classic elf F/MU. You've decided that this means Eladrin, Fighter, Wizard Multiclass.
Right there, you're nearing the end point of level 1 character creation and you want it to be the beginning. That's not how it works anymore. Race/Class/Class Variant/Multiclass is, for the rest of this edition, going to be the central decision. Everything else is just a variable of those parts.
I wouldn't. Or, if I did, I would accept that I'm hobbling myself in some ways. It'd be like playing a Fighter in 3e who exclusively uses a club. It's an option, but it's far from a good one. Still, I can do it if I want. And you can do your greatsword Eladrin Ftr/Wiz if you want. You'll just miss out on the implementy goodness I mentioned above.
Possibly you'll find a few. Possibly not. Depends on what you find interesting, and what you expect. I'm discovering more interesting things in playing (and my own playstyle) than char building, hence the whole point of this discussion. I would have sworn without a doubt that I was a leader player six months ago, but I'm enjoying the hell out of strikers now that I'm playing 4e. Which made me make my next character, an elven archer ranger/cleric. So much beautiful synergy there, I can't wait to try him out.
JDillard said:
Although it is covered in your list, another important decision advanced players will want to make is what feats to take at higher levels. This is important because some very strong paragon feats have stat requirements, and may require you to move stats in ways you otherwise would not.
A wizard for example might really want the spell focus feat at lvl 11, but this requires a charisma of 13 or a fighter might want armor specialization requiring a dex of 15. If you don't plan ahead for this, the feats might not be possible to get. My elven radiant cleric has little use for strength, but many of his powers require him to get close to the enemy. So he's getting a 13 strength and con for scale armor and light shield proficiency. His 14 dex means he can take shield and scale specialization at paragon. Of course if I didn't do this I could bump his wisdom past 18.
There are actually quite a few subtleties to stat selection that make it more complicated then it initially appears.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
The original posters made some very good observations.
I think I am gonna miss the 3E character build options. It was a lot of fun skimming the rule-books at home and finding the perfect build. It is a little like my Shadowrun times (which are only 10 % of my RPG experience, but they are the first 10 %
), where I could spend hours to create different characters.
But I think I am gonna like 4E in play a lot more. Because I have meaningful tactical decisions every round, every encounter. Regardless of class or build. I already tried to do this in 3E, for example by building Fighter with all the combat maneuver-related feats.
I can't comment on the rest of the build options, except this:
Don't let yourself be too constrained by the build options in the class paragraphs. There are a lot of powers that are independent on your subclass (if any). Warlocks Encounter powers all grant pact-dependent benefits, but daily and utilities don't. Very few Rogue powers are dependent on your Rogue Tactic. Fighter powers are mostly only dependent on weapon choice, not your weapon style (two-handed or one-handed).
I think I am gonna miss the 3E character build options. It was a lot of fun skimming the rule-books at home and finding the perfect build. It is a little like my Shadowrun times (which are only 10 % of my RPG experience, but they are the first 10 %
), where I could spend hours to create different characters. But I think I am gonna like 4E in play a lot more. Because I have meaningful tactical decisions every round, every encounter. Regardless of class or build. I already tried to do this in 3E, for example by building Fighter with all the combat maneuver-related feats.
I might remember wrong, but I think Eladrin Soldier and Weapon Focus do not stack. Weapon Focus is better at epic tier. So, of you want to be a Greatsword wielding Eladrin, do it with Weapon Focus.Lizard said:
I can't comment on the rest of the build options, except this:
Don't let yourself be too constrained by the build options in the class paragraphs. There are a lot of powers that are independent on your subclass (if any). Warlocks Encounter powers all grant pact-dependent benefits, but daily and utilities don't. Very few Rogue powers are dependent on your Rogue Tactic. Fighter powers are mostly only dependent on weapon choice, not your weapon style (two-handed or one-handed).
JohnSnow said:What concepts? List some.
Summoner
Necromancer
Illusionist
Diviner
Transmuter
Enchanter
Shapechanger
Unarmed Mystic Martial Artist (Monk)
Minstrel (Bard)
Druid
I'm actually not upset about the lack of inclusion of the sorceror in the new edition, they call it a wizard. I'm upset about the lack of a Wizard in the new edition.
There, I think, is the biggest problem with the new edition. Spellcasters, for all of D&D's long and storied history, were the classes where you had to pay your dues in the early years in return for eventually becoming the most powerful characters in the game. I have never gamed with people who didn't understand this, and by and large they have had no problem with it. Fighters carry the load for the low levels and serve as meatshields forever. Wizards start off basically useless, and end up controlling the building blocks of reality at high levels.
In addition to the pure power that is gained over the course of their career though, the spellcasters also used to benefit from the fact that spells were capable of doing more than dealing damage and providing defenses.
Need some pull with the city officials? Charm someone in the administration and get them to plead your case
Need some intelligence on your adversaries? Change into an owl, fly over to their camp and listen in on their conversation.
Want to conduct dangerous research? Summon up some zombies to use as lab assistants.
Need to ditch pursuit to gain a chance to rest? Go down a blind alley and create an illusion of a wall to hide behind.
These are the kinds of things that spell casters lose out on in the new edition. From what I've seen, if it doesn't have tactical combat applications or is too complicated to fit within the framework of the "core mechanic" simplification, it has been ditched. Some people may be fine with that, but when I started playing D&D all those years ago, I accepted that it was not a simple game and required me to learn a lot of things to play the game effectively and have run. It is precisely the "complexity", which I like to call "Flexibility", which attracted me to D&D, and I lament the seemingly "Cookie cutter" nature of the new system for all of the possibilities lost.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
