Mimicing a thread that is going on, on the general forums. What is your favorite 4th edition class and why?
So far I love the swordmage, but I am a sucker for fighter/mages.
Of the one's I've played: Warden. Though Assassin in a close second and it might be first if there was more support material for it.
Honestly, though, there's not a single 4e class I don't want to try.
Warlock - you have the cheat codes to the universe. And the best power names.
I really like the Warlord for it's ability to fiddle with the battlefield, plus I like the flavor behind the mechanics.
I can get excited to play almost any 4E class so it's pretty hard to pick a favorite, but I think I like the striker classes the best. I've been playing a long tooth shifter barbarian with two axes that uses the "whirling slayer" build and I've found him to be a very enjoyable character to run.
Warlock - you have the cheat codes to the universe. And the best power names.
I think Invoker gives them a run on the names.
Warlock - you have the cheat codes to the universe. And the best power names.
This. My Star Pact warlock feels exactly like what you describe.
|
Mimicing a thread that is going on, on the general forums. What is your favorite 4th edition class and why?
So far I love the swordmage, but I am a sucker for fighter/mages.
There's only a few classes I'd not love to play in 4E. I'm currently playing an Eladrin paladin of the Raven Queen, a Dragonborn cleric of Bahamut, and a human orb wizard. I also have a dwarven warlord for our occasional "dwarfapalooza" games (all-dwarves). I also wouldn't mind running an avenger, a druid, or a runepriest. I think, though, that warlocks have some of the most amazing powers ever, though.
I've DM'ed 4e more than I played it so I haven't had a chance to play many of the classes.
Of the ones I have played so far the cleric is my favorite. In 4e the cleric finaly gets the balance between healing and combat right IMO.
Fighter. So much ass kickery and generally looking like an awesome badass.
I've really enjoyed the cleric.
As a counterpoint to the love above - Warlords are the yukk. I hate using my actions so that other people do fun things (like roll make attacks and do damage).
Rangers kind of confound me as well. Maybe the best damage dealer in the game but they seem to do nothing but the same action endlessly.
Haven't played one I hated yet. Still not got around to a defender (and likely won't either). Played many, many leaders and like them, but for sheer fun and weirdness, warlocks for the win.
I've played very few strikers, but agreed on warlocks. That said, I rather specialize in controllers, of which invoker is my favorite so far (not least for the power names).
Haven't played the PHB3 controllers yet, and wish they had come out with a martial controller.
I'm going to have to agree with all the warlock love here. I also should mention the sheer joy that a chaos sorcerer can cause with a few good rolls. I really need to play one again.
Also,
Haven't played the PHB3 controllers yet, and wish they had come out with a martial controller.
Well, I've heard mostly good things about the Psion and Seeker so far, and the archer ranger is probably the closest you're going to get to a martial controller.
OH, how i loved my "striker light" elven predator druid. He couldn't be hit, had ridiculous mobility, and charged nearly every round for striker-like damage. Oooooooohhhh.. good teebs. But then again, i always love skirmisher-type fighters.
I'd have to say either Paladin or the Hybrid Paladin/Barbarian is my favorite so far, although I have found that I find most of the classes/combos very interesting. 4E is probably the first time I actually enjoyed playing a rogue in combat.
I like the sorcerer for arcane striker, and artificer or shaman for leader, and fighter is still my main attraction for defender, although I am currently playing with the battlemind. Druid is an interesting class, in addition to the avenger.
I also like hybrids like a fighter/rogue, or an artificer/wizard.
The one I don't care for is the beastmaster ranger, the whole concept should be thrown out and re-done.
I enjoyed playing a beastmaster and found it very effective. What did you find problematic?
I enjoyed playing a beastmaster and found it very effective. What did you find problematic?
My problem, which may stem from 3.5, is having the beast/pet and the class act independently. Too many powers seem to involve the pet or the ranger, but not both.
I realize 4E is a different, but some items like the above are hard to accept.
|
Yeah, in the end, if having an independant companion is a requirement, 4E is never going to offer a solution you are happy with - removing the power and time issues of such characters (who got multiple turns while other players only got one) was a very definite design goal.
One of my bigger complaints as a player. In fact I often forgot about my own animal companion when playing a Ranger.
I enjoyed playing a beastmaster and found it very effective. What did you find problematic?My problem, which may stem from 3.5, is having the beast/pet and the class act independently. Too many powers seem to involve the pet or the ranger, but not both.
I realize 4E is a different, but some items like the above are hard to accept.
Yeah, in the end, if having an independant companion is a requirement, 4E is never going to offer a solution you are happy with - removing the power and time issues of such characters (who got multiple turns while other players only got one) was a very definite design goal.
I think the beastmaster ranger did a good job with it, actually, given how many powers involve both of them attacking or manuevering around the foe.
If you really are missing the lack of a fully independant companion, your best bet is probably to talk with the DM and see if you can get an animal companion designed as a full companion character NPC. The DM would have to then adjust the game difficulty to compensate of course, but it would seem the best approach within the rules to recapture what you feel you are missing.
I already did as you suggested as I am the DM for an oriental campaign, and I wanted to implement the theme of the 3.5 oriental rokugan shaman, including a pet. Therefore, I compromized in regards to the character playing a cleric and having a NPC companion druid, which was also a spirit folk (deva) that would switch forms as part of the story plot.
It would have been better to implement companion rules in general for all classes.
I think the beastmaster ranger did a good job with it, actually, given how many powers involve both of them attacking or manuevering around the foe.
The main problem with beastmaster rangers in 4e is that they don't get the +1-6 to attack and damage from magic weapons, so their attacks just get worse and worse as you go up in levels until by epic tier they might as well not attack at all. They still work fine for the first few levels.
The Cunning Sneak Rogue build, with "Pact Initiate (multiclass warlock)" feat and "Walker in Gloom" Feat.
Completely BROKEN. You can sneak attack EVERY ROUND. Add the At-Will "Chamelion" power at 6th level for extra insurance that you have concealment.
You can also hybrid Rogue-Warlock to get concealment every round, but this method is much less efficent, and you can only sneak attack with 50% of your powers. Seriously, the first method is just too good. It would even be a problem if everyone didn't have 10,000 HP.
There's been a rules update that says concealment isn't enough to hide in while being observed. You have to start with total concealment or total cover, then you could use shadow walk to maintain being hidden.
There's been a rules update that says concealment isn't enough to hide in while being observed. You have to start with total concealment or total cover, then you could use shadow walk to maintain being hidden.
That's what the "cunning sneak" build is for (Martial Powers 2). If you already have concealment (like from shadow walking), you can make a stealth check to be completely hidden. As an added bonus, you don't take stealth penalties for moving.
It's a SICK combo. Focus on ranged attacks, and it's also a very defensive character as well, since you don't have to rely on flanking.
EVERY ROUND!!!!
And even then, you're only doing 1 die of damage more than rangers and warlocks who can don't have to go through so much hassle. It doesn't seem broken to me.
And even then, you're only doing 1 die of damage more than rangers and warlocks who can don't have to go through so much hassle. It doesn't seem broken to me.
Rangers have to attack the nearest target to get their extra damage.
Warlocks have to first curse someone.
Plus, don't forget, you have a +5 bonus to your defenses from being hidden. Extra damage, increased defensiveness, and better scouting. All this for only 2 feats.
Also, don't forget that Rogues can take the backstabber feat for even more sneak attack damage. The build I mentioned has plenty of spare feats to go around.
And it's not like it's hard to a rogue to maintain CA without that combo. Between flanking, and many powers that grant CA until the end of the rogue's next turn, CAs easy for a rogue to get. I'm sure this is by design, since they need it for their striker bonus damage. Really, a well played rogue - no matter what build or powers - should be aiming for CA every round.
There is also a new rogue feat that deals with rapier that lets you have combat advantage against a single opponent, and with clever strike and allies, you should never run out of opportunities.
Heh.
The thread was supposed to be "state your favorite 4e class", not "criticize someone's favorite 4e class".
I made a pick, and am immediately criticized for my pick. It's my favorite, and I really don't care if anyone likes it or not.
That build suites my style of play (ranged attacks for combat versatility, and don't risk getting hit).
It's just an added bonus that it can deal more damage than the other classes I've seen (even if it's only an average of 6.5 points more), and also has more stealth for scouting missions than any other class I've seen.
So this isn't the droid you are looking for. Move along.
Warlock, hands down. Avenger possibly running a close second (though I've not played one).
Rangers have to attack the nearest target to get their extra damage.
More often than not, you're rogue will also be attacking the nearest target.
Warlocks have to first curse someone.
Minor action that doesn't provoke as opposed to your rogue's move action that does.
Also, don't forget that Rogues can take the backstabber feat. The build I mentioned has plenty of spare feats to go around.
And there are feats to increase curse damage and quarry damage.
I still don't think it's broken.
Heh.
The thread was supposed to be "state your favorite 4e class", not "criticize someone's favorite 4e class".
I made a pick, and am immediately criticized for my pick. It's my favorite, and I really don't care if anyone likes it or not.
That build suites my style of play (ranged attacks for combat versatility, and don't risk getting hit).
It's just an added bonus that it can deal more damage than the other classes I've seen (even if it's only an average of 6.5 points more), and also has more stealth for scouting missions than any other class I've seen.
So this isn't the droid you are looking for. Move along.
I'm not trying to criticize your pick, just defending it as not broken, as you claimed.
And it's not like it's hard to a rogue to maintain CA without that combo. Between flanking, and many powers that grant CA until the end of the rogue's next turn, CAs easy for a rogue to get. I'm sure this is by design, since they need it for their striker bonus damage. Really, a well played rogue - no matter what build or powers - should be aiming for CA every round.
The issue may be more in the defensive benefits of the build. Certainly my experience with a rogue player is that they usually do have CA as there are many ways to get it including a whole host of powers that let you set it up or or create CA for the attack when it would not otherwise exist.
However while I've noticed that the rogue has phenomenal damage dealing potential its also rather weak defensively forcing the players to deal with that liability of their companion. A build that can get sneak attack damage while never having to deal with the rogues weak frame may well be particularly exceptional.
I already did as you suggested as I am the DM for an oriental campaign, and I wanted to implement the theme of the 3.5 oriental rokugan shaman, including a pet. Therefore, I compromized in regards to the character playing a cleric and having a NPC companion druid, which was also a spirit folk (deva) that would switch forms as part of the story plot.It would have been better to implement companion rules in general for all classes.
With smaller parties maybe but I generally think WotCs design philosophy here was a good one. I've seen the problem they where trying to address, not only does the animal companion slow the game down but a lot of them can really gum up the works.
In my last 3.5 campaign the party was exploring Maure Castle with a Paladin with not one, but two dragons (its amazing what one could do with the feats if one put their mind to it), plus there where dominated enemies and other companions of one stripe or another. We actually got to the point where there where a total of thirteen creatures in the players party...you'd get comments along the lines "I'm here to play some Warhammer Fantasy Battle" etc. It was nuts and it a turn took a long, long, time.
4E seems designed so that an experienced player should be able to do their turn in 1-3 minutes so that the action very quickly moves to the next player. Adding a companion pretty much doubles the length of time that player takes to do their turn - fine in a small group, especially one of three players or less but not so good in larger groups.
You really want each players turn coming up about every 15 minutes, any longer then that and its increasingly difficult to hold the players attention.
Its just (barely) possible for a group of 5 players and a DM to manage to do a single round of combat in 15 minutes if the players know what they are doing when their turn comes up and the DM is on the ball.
Add a companion and we probably head toward 18 minutes for a round, add a number and we are getting pretty close to half an hour. Thats a long time to wait for your turn to come back up and it really adds to the length of a 7 or 8 round combat. Animal Companions and Wyvern Steads etc. are awesome but they come with this huge price tag in terms of how the game actually runs and how often each player gets a chance to actually make some decisions as well as how much of a session is spent in any given combat.
Hence the brutal clamp down on companions and other summoned things, forcing them to essentially use each given players actions at least in part. That allows there to be companions while minimizing, as much as possible, the amount of extra time the player takes to deal with the companion.
Rangers have to attack the nearest target to get their extra damage.More often than not, you're rogue will also be attacking the nearest target.
Warlocks have to first curse someone.Minor action that doesn't provoke as opposed to your rogue's move action that does.
Also, don't forget that Rogues can take the backstabber feat. The build I mentioned has plenty of spare feats to go around.And there are feats to increase curse damage and quarry damage.
I still don't think it's broken.
You keep ignoring the +5 bonus to stealth AND +5 bonus to all defenses for being hidden, and you've already admitted that it does more damage. That's 3 up-sides and no down-side, for only 2 feats.
I don't like relying on hoping that the closest enemy is not a "minion", and thus extra damage won't matter. I also don't like having to rely on good PC/bad NPC tactics to get me a flanking bonus. And I REALLY don't like having to stand in the middle of a big melee to do my extra damage. If you do, then kudos. But you are not going to get it every single round, even if your allies are trying to help.
With my character, I do get combat advantage every round, and I can get combat advantage for multiple reasons (like an ally's power). They don't stack, but it's still insurance in case something steals 1 of my C.A.'s.
Again, it's my choice. This is an OPINION thread about your favorite 4e character. Go pick on someone someone else. I shouldn't have to defend my choice.
The issue may be more in the defensive benefits of the build. Certainly my experience with a rogue player is that they usually do have CA as there are many ways to get it including a whole host of powers that let you set it up or or create CA for the attack when it would not otherwise exist.
However while I've noticed that the rogue has phenomenal damage dealing potential its also rather weak defensively forcing the players to deal with that liability of their companion. A build that can get sneak attack damage while never having to deal with the rogues weak frame may well be particularly exceptional.
You've made me realize why I haven't come up with a favorite class. I love the teamwork in 4th edition. The rogue in one of our parties is never at risk. The defenders are super sticky, the ranger hangs back and prevents close calls with interrups, the wizard is back there to causng tons of irritation, and a the warlord, I'm working to fill gaps with bonuses and extra attacks. The rogue is usually free to find a flank or use clever strike without hassle. She never has to hide in combat just to get a sneak attack.
I've played a lot of 4e characters, but no single one that I thoght was the best ever. They all seem to fill the roles as intended, and I'm way more impressed by how they work together than by how one stands out alone.
The issue may be more in the defensive benefits of the build. Certainly my experience with a rogue player is that they usually do have CA as there are many ways to get it including a whole host of powers that let you set it up or or create CA for the attack when it would not otherwise exist.
However while I've noticed that the rogue has phenomenal damage dealing potential its also rather weak defensively forcing the players to deal with that liability of their companion. A build that can get sneak attack damage while never having to deal with the rogues weak frame may well be particularly exceptional.
You've made me realize why I haven't come up with a favorite class. I love the teamwork in 4th edition. The rogue in one of our parties is never at risk. The defenders are super sticky, the ranger hangs back and prevents close calls with interrups, the wizard is back there to causng tons of irritation, and a the warlord, I'm working to fill gaps with bonuses and extra attacks. The rogue is usually free to find a flank or use clever strike without hassle. She never has to hide in combat just to get a sneak attack.
I've played a lot of 4e characters, but no single one that I thoght was the best ever. They all seem to fill the roles as intended, and I'm way more impressed by how they work together than by how one stands out alone.
Yea I would definitely agree with you on that, Ghetto. In 4e I can actually see myself playing and enjoying classes I would never play in the older versions of dnd. They all have some pretty interesting choices and it's definitely nice to see how they compliment the party, depending on that class.
Again, it's my choice. This is an OPINION thread about your favorite 4e character. Go pick on someone someone else. I shouldn't have to defend my choice.
You're right, your rogue build is broken and I'm just here to pick on you. Instead of rationally stating why I feel it's not broken, I should have just simply said your having badwrongfun and told you it's not yur favorite.
The problem isn't that the build is broken. (It is, and people really shouldn't play it in an actual game) The problem is that we're still talking about it.
Anyway, to get this thread back on topic, you know what other class is fun? Monks. Not the best single-target strikers, but enough mobility that I just don't care.
The problem isn't that the build is broken. (It is, and people really shouldn't play it in an actual game) The problem is that we're still talking about it.
Anyway, to get this thread back on topic, you know what other class is fun? Monks. Not the best single-target strikers, but enough mobility that I just don't care.
Glad to hear that. I had not heard anyone talk about monks yet.
You've made me realize why I haven't come up with a favorite class. I love the teamwork in 4th edition. The rogue in one of our parties is never at risk. The defenders are super sticky, the ranger hangs back and prevents close calls with interrups, the wizard is back there to causng tons of irritation, and a the warlord, I'm working to fill gaps with bonuses and extra attacks. The rogue is usually free to find a flank or use clever strike without hassle. She never has to hide in combat just to get a sneak attack.
Personally I like the fact that the rogue is sometimes at risk, even significant risk. Never being at risk does not really seem particularly exciting to me.
Personally I like the fact that the rogue is sometimes at risk, even significant risk. Never being at risk does not really seem particularly exciting to me.
We have our tough fights, we've lost 2 characters and are 16th level, but we work well as a team (without really trying) and cover any class' deficiency. If the rogue is extra squishy, it seldom shows because:
- the fighter or paladin has the creatures marked
- the rogue and ranger pile on tons of damage to make short work of the threat
- the warlord (me) provides tons of boosts and healing, with extra help coming from the paladin
- the wizard is making it so enemies can't get to the squishees
We do well or poorly based on our teamwork, not because of how awesome any one character is.
Rangers have to attack the nearest target to get their extra damage.More often than not, you're rogue will also be attacking the nearest target.
Warlocks have to first curse someone.Minor action that doesn't provoke as opposed to your rogue's move action that does.
Also, don't forget that Rogues can take the backstabber feat. The build I mentioned has plenty of spare feats to go around.And there are feats to increase curse damage and quarry damage.
I still don't think it's broken.
You keep ignoring the +5 bonus to stealth AND +5 bonus to all defenses for being hidden, and you've already admitted that it does more damage. That's 3 up-sides and no down-side, for only 2 feats.
I don't like relying on hoping that the closest enemy is not a "minion", and thus extra damage won't matter. I also don't like having to rely on good PC/bad NPC tactics to get me a flanking bonus. And I REALLY don't like having to stand in the middle of a big melee to do my extra damage. If you do, then kudos. But you are not going to get it every single round, even if your allies are trying to help.
With my character, I do get combat advantage every round, and I can get combat advantage for multiple reasons (like an ally's power). They don't stack, but it's still insurance in case something steals 1 of my C.A.'s.
Again, it's my choice. This is an OPINION thread about your favorite 4e character. Go pick on someone someone else. I shouldn't have to defend my choice.
I have seen the 3.5 affect of companions, hirelings, etc. especially with the old 3.5 splat books, therefore I see 3.5 and 4E at both ends of the scale, and would settle on something in the middle.
Not a huge deal, since I tended to shy away from having companions in any edition. I did not intend to side track the thread, but it happens.