Well, my warlock player is pretty happy with his character. It has nothing to do with dpr, though. He loves the mobility and that he managed to get out of most encounters without taking any damage at all.
D&D 4E Your thoughts on the 4E bard and other classes?
- Thread starter Haltherrion
- Start date
Destil
Explorer
Are we talking a real organic character with allies against real encounters and real game situations? Warlocks are fantastic and provide good damage abilities.
Or are we talking statistically average defense scores singe-target at-will spamming on a character made entirely by the player with no input from leveling up or the campaign (i.e. CharOp)? Sucky DPR.
Or are we talking statistically average defense scores singe-target at-will spamming on a character made entirely by the player with no input from leveling up or the campaign (i.e. CharOp)? Sucky DPR.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
To be fair. This can be the same thing. The Warlock in our group has "organically" created his character since level 1 (we're 18th now). He doesn't do the best DPR in the group by far. The rest of us were created mostly organically(when we die or bet bored of our characters, we create new ones at the same level as the rest of the party, so many of us have characters created at level 12 or 16 or whatever).
Assuming the variety of encounters we've experienced over 18 levels, I can confidently say that the Warlock isn't the best person in the group. Except fairly recently when he asked to remake his character to allow a bunch of....questionable rules interactions that he gleamed from the CharOp boards. Now he's nearly doubled everyone else's damage. But that's because he was feeling so underpowered compared to the rest of the group.
Flipguarder
First Post
And another proverb from Flipguarder:
"A wrestler should not remedy a lack in aggression with a chainsaw."
Dr_Ruminahui
First Post
An important thing to remember is that your groups gut checks DO matter. After all, you're trying to figure out what each member of your group likes.
So, really, so long as each player chooses a class that they like the play of, so long as they engage in a mediocum of optimisation, they should be fine. 4e is really flexible like that - gone are the days when every party needed a cleric. Now, you don't even need every role - for example, all striker parties work, but are just more swingy.
I mean, we seriously deep in YMMV territory.
Take for example the comments in the thread. From your experience, and those of other posters, they seem to enjoy the warlock. When I tried one (from levels 1-4, I think), I hated it. I played Star Pact, which is likely a large part of the problem - I loved the background and feel to it (which worked really well with my character), its just the mechanics I found bone-grindingly painful.
Then when PH2 came out, my DM let me rebuild my character as a sorceror (she was a 3.5 sorceror, "converted" to a 4e warlock when we switched editions, as at that time there was no sorceror). And you know what - I love my character again, and every level she goes up I love her more as she gets to do more and more crazy things (Thunder leap and Sparkform are SO much fun). So, for me, the options the sorceror gives me fit right up my ally, while those of the warlock did not.
Similarly, the warlord. Haven't played one, but have one in the group I run. He's loads of fun, dishing out attacks and bonuses left, right and center. However, that's not everyone's cup of tea - there were a lot of posts here in early 4e asking if the warlord sucked, and in most of them it was just a case of the playstyle not matching what the poster enjoyed.
In other words, I don't think this thread is really necessary. I don't mean that in a negative or condesending way, but rather in the sense that your players should just grab whatever class they like the feel and mechanics for the best, and the internet be damned.
One other thing to keep in mind is that sometimes it takes a while for a character to grow into a spot where its at its most enjoyable. Often the first few levels can be a bit dry, what with only 1 or 2 powers to use after which its just spamming at wills. I know that the stuff I love most about my sorceror didn't start happening until quite recently - though I did get to skip the low option levels by trying the Warlock first. That said, as my attempt with the Warlock shows, time doesn't always improve the experience.
So, really, so long as each player chooses a class that they like the play of, so long as they engage in a mediocum of optimisation, they should be fine. 4e is really flexible like that - gone are the days when every party needed a cleric. Now, you don't even need every role - for example, all striker parties work, but are just more swingy.
I mean, we seriously deep in YMMV territory.
Take for example the comments in the thread. From your experience, and those of other posters, they seem to enjoy the warlock. When I tried one (from levels 1-4, I think), I hated it. I played Star Pact, which is likely a large part of the problem - I loved the background and feel to it (which worked really well with my character), its just the mechanics I found bone-grindingly painful.
Then when PH2 came out, my DM let me rebuild my character as a sorceror (she was a 3.5 sorceror, "converted" to a 4e warlock when we switched editions, as at that time there was no sorceror). And you know what - I love my character again, and every level she goes up I love her more as she gets to do more and more crazy things (Thunder leap and Sparkform are SO much fun). So, for me, the options the sorceror gives me fit right up my ally, while those of the warlock did not.
Similarly, the warlord. Haven't played one, but have one in the group I run. He's loads of fun, dishing out attacks and bonuses left, right and center. However, that's not everyone's cup of tea - there were a lot of posts here in early 4e asking if the warlord sucked, and in most of them it was just a case of the playstyle not matching what the poster enjoyed.
In other words, I don't think this thread is really necessary. I don't mean that in a negative or condesending way, but rather in the sense that your players should just grab whatever class they like the feel and mechanics for the best, and the internet be damned.
One other thing to keep in mind is that sometimes it takes a while for a character to grow into a spot where its at its most enjoyable. Often the first few levels can be a bit dry, what with only 1 or 2 powers to use after which its just spamming at wills. I know that the stuff I love most about my sorceror didn't start happening until quite recently - though I did get to skip the low option levels by trying the Warlock first. That said, as my attempt with the Warlock shows, time doesn't always improve the experience.
Haltherrion
First Post
Good comments in your full post but I think the thread has actually been quite useful despite the fact that none of my players have posted to it
My main purpose of the thread was two-fold. First to get some ammo so that players would reconsider classes they had perhaps too readily dismissed (more on why I care about that in a moment). Certainly got that for fighter and warlord. They seem to deserve a second look.
Second, it is a new system it is nice to get some feedback on class choice from other players. In systems past, classes were much less balanced. In 4E they appear to be better balanced. Had been wondering if that was really true, the feedback does seem to support that. Important to know
But as much as my players do like color and RP aspects, we all also like strong characters that carry their weight in a battle. So it was good to hear folks' thoughts on how the classes stack up. While it varies from player to player, the test runs we have done have already lead to some players being pretty disappointed in their trial characters so for my group at least, class choice will affect player happiness and I learned long ago not ignore that. Players may claim they are their for the game, not the character and that is true for several of my players but it isn't true for all of them and I don't want to see disatisfaction manifest itself as "scheduling difficulties". And you yourself might have steered clear of warlock had you known more about the class.
So anyway, all good stuff. The feedback is much appreciated even if I didn't reply to a specific post of yours.
Regarding why all the classes matter- we do a figure draft where in the current case, there are 25 figures each given a race, a set of 1-3 allowable classes for it (mostly ones that fit the figures gear) and a perk which might be an item, a power, or some such. In this particular draft, players will select 5 of these figures, as a group form 5 teams of 5 figures and fight them in an arena type setup against various monster lineups. The arena fights will determine further perks and starting RP hooks. Anyway, the short of it players are choosing from a field of figures which come with classes and the two regs (I'm one; the figure painter is the other) want to make sure the figures are as broadly appealing as possible. So, it would be preferable if the fighters and warlords (most of the heavy armor guys, paladins are well liked already) are better loved
Dr_Ruminahui
First Post
Fair enough, and in that context, your wanting to promote some of the options you party kind of poo-pooed makes a lot sense. In any case, I'm glad you found the thread as a whole helpful. I didn't mean to suggest that you were wasting your time making the thread, rather I (perhaps too bluntly) wanted to reinforce having your players go by their own reactions to the classes rather than what we told you about them.
That said, I guess I (rather stupidly) didn't really register that you wouldn't know that the classes were pretty well balanced - thinking back the 3.5, I can understand how that might be somewhat of a novelty.
Your system of choosing classes does sound convoluted, but... heh, it seems to work for you, and that's what matters.
One final note is that one can't necessarily peg a class and say "this class wears heavy armour". For example, a tactical warlord with a good int. score is likely better off going in hide rather than in chain. Likewise, one of the charisma secondary barbarian builds or a melee ranger are likely better off upgrading to heavy armour rather than sticking to hide. Indeed, there are even infernal warlock builds that end up in plate armour.
So, that model in chain armour with 2 swords? Could be a tempest fighter, a whirlwind barbarian, or a melee ranger.
Likewise, that guy in leather/hide could be a rogue, a spell caster whose got some armour feets, or a warlord/fighter who has a high dex/int build.
Incidentally, are you starting from level 1? If you aren't, that opens up the "armour wierdness" a lot more. At first level, that model with a two handed sword in plate couldn't really be a warlock - at 11th, though... it just might.
That said, I guess I (rather stupidly) didn't really register that you wouldn't know that the classes were pretty well balanced - thinking back the 3.5, I can understand how that might be somewhat of a novelty.
Your system of choosing classes does sound convoluted, but... heh, it seems to work for you, and that's what matters.
One final note is that one can't necessarily peg a class and say "this class wears heavy armour". For example, a tactical warlord with a good int. score is likely better off going in hide rather than in chain. Likewise, one of the charisma secondary barbarian builds or a melee ranger are likely better off upgrading to heavy armour rather than sticking to hide. Indeed, there are even infernal warlock builds that end up in plate armour.
So, that model in chain armour with 2 swords? Could be a tempest fighter, a whirlwind barbarian, or a melee ranger.
Likewise, that guy in leather/hide could be a rogue, a spell caster whose got some armour feets, or a warlord/fighter who has a high dex/int build.
Incidentally, are you starting from level 1? If you aren't, that opens up the "armour wierdness" a lot more. At first level, that model with a two handed sword in plate couldn't really be a warlock - at 11th, though... it just might.
Haltherrion
First Post
We are starting at level one. It has been a very long time since we started a campaign at level one (10 years at least) but seemed safest for a new system.
Good points on the armor types.
Our figure method is convoluted but it makes character creation its own mini-game and by design encourages players to play characters outside their normal comfort zone which helps provide variety. We've certainly come to look forward to the process. And as a ref, it helps put the new campaign in focus even before it starts.
Obryn
Hero
Agreed. Our Avenger may not deal as much damage as our Ranger, but he messes up my world at least as bad as our Fighter does. He can get to enemies quickly, teleport them way the hell away, pound on them a bit, and then destroy them when they move away from him. It's a serious class - but much like with a warlock, you'll be disappointed if your only criterion for a good Striker is their peak damage.
He's basically a secondary Defender. And as Jay mentioned, the difference between a Defender and a Controller is largely academic.
Also - Fighters are IMO the strongest class in 4e, and by far the strongest Defenders. Their ability to deny movement is unsurpassed, and they dish out striker-level damage on a regular basis.
-O
Similar Threads
