One of my concerns for 4e, for the player perspective, is that it will be hard to make a unique and diverse character. That has always been an integral part of D&D for me. I never liked playing a 'typical' character. One of my favourite PCs was my half-orc rogue. Not the typical choice, and I skipped over a lot of normal rogue skills (much to the chagrin of other party members..."Wait...your rogue can't pick a lock??") and focused on creating a thug/assassin type character.
SO I have a task for those with the books and I am hoping that there is nothing bad about asking this. (i.e. that you can't legally post the results).
Develop 2 characters, same race and class. Take them up to level 10 and show how they can be totally different. Prove that if I create a Dwarven fighter and someone else in my group does too, that we aren't going to end up with basically the same character 10 levels later.
Any takers?
I'd love to take on the challenge when I have more time. However, as an anecdote:
I wanted to create an elf fighter that excelled in both two weapon fighting and the long bow. At first I was very discouraged, but then I realized what I really wanted was better served with a ranger.
Now, I didn't want a forest lovin' weak elf ranger that covers tracks and speaks to animals (read tongue in cheek). I wanted an elf that kicked butt in melee and ranged, more like an elven soldier with a unique fighting style and a scar on his face.
Well, I got what I wanted. There is nothing in the Ranger class that requires you to focus on nature and there are two paths to a ranger that focus, of all things, on two weapon fighting and excellent ranged skills. It's easy enough to combine these two paths and get exactly what I was looking for. I don't have the same hit points as a fighter, but I'm not a pussy cat either. Flavor-wise I can call the character anything, such as an elven berserker, or whatever, even if I am using the crunch of a Ranger.
However, one could still create the nature lovin' elf ranger that finds berries in the woods for nourishment and kills using long bows with three arrows at once, or create dancing elf rangers that kills with two long swords that leaps over the orc before cutting him on both sides of the neck.
I lucked out and I'm not saying anyone could find exactly what they are looking for. But I think 4e does provide options.
As an aside, there isn't much difference *mechanically* in 2 level 10 dwarf fighters in either 1E/2E. Until 3.x, non-spellcasters didn't actually have much choice
I agree.
Fighters were incredibly generic in 1e -- so were thieves. Weapon proficiencies made fighter slightly more individualized in 2e, but not much.
I love 3.5 (and so do my players) for the richness and sheer number of character generation options. There are a few things I don't love it for, but we are very happy with the system, by and large.
While I haven't laid eyes on 4e yet, my impression/suspicion is that at will and per encounter powers will be so universally applicable and useful that they'll dominate play. If there's not a wide range of choices for these, I believe characters will become more generic rather than less in 4e.
I may completely wrong on this -- and I hope I am. We'll see.
Sounds like a fun challenge actually. Just some questions actually.
How much restrictions are we talking about though. For example, if I use the standard array, do I have to put the stats in the same ability scores?
Do I have to use the same weapons? Same style (can one dwarf be sword & board, the other two-handed fighter) or do I have to use the same style for both?
Are magical items included or should I ignore them for both?
As an aside, there isn't much difference *mechanically* in 2 level 10 dwarf fighters in either 1E/2E. Until 3.x, non-spellcasters didn't actually have much choice
Let's say the following:
Use the standard array, but place where you will
Weapons are wide open, no magic at this point.
First of all, let me start off by saying that in 3rd Edition, there are many classes that have fixed abilities at a fixed progression. The monk and barbarian are two classes that suffer from this kind of thing.
The good thing is that I dont need to post two complete stat blocks: I can just gloss over it.
Dwarf Fighter A
This dwarf fighter uses an axe and shield. He has the one-handed fighter talent that grants a +1 to hit with one-handed weapons.
Sweeping Blow: Make an attack against all adjacent enemies. Since he uses an axe, he gets to add one-again his Strength modifier to the attack roll.
Iron Bulwark: Encounter power that deals double damage, and you get a bonus to your AC. Since he uses a shield, the bonus is increased.
Thicket of Blades: Triple weapon damage and slow against all adjacent enemies.
Stalward Guard: Grants shield bonus to adjacent allies. Since he is actually using a shield, the bonus is increased.
Dwarf Fighter B
This fighter uses a maul or two-handed axe. He took the talent that gives you a bonus with two-handed weapons.
Crushing Blow: Double damage to a target. Since he uses a hammer (or axe), he gets to add his Con modifier to damage as well.
Reckless Strike: Encounter power that deals triple damage, but you take a -2 to hit.
Shift the Battlefield: Make an attack against adjacent targets, slide them if you hit. Half damage on a miss.
Into the Fray: Minor action to move, so long as you end up next to a bad guy. Basically, lets you move up to three times in a round.
Now, a 10th-level character has a total of nine powers. I decided to not only do the same race and class, but give them fundamentally the same weapon type as well (hammers and axes share many benefits from the same powers) to further illustrate that even two dwarves wielding axes can be very much different in terms of combat application.
The two-hander is more likely to rush into battle and just start smashing, while the one-hander is a pretty tough nut to crack, but he can also grant his allies some cover.
I could have made the difference even more apparent by giving one of them a sword or spear, but I hope that this is emphasis enough.
In 3rd Edition, two fighters were virtually the same even if you picked two different weapons, since they only really got "basic" attacks. In 4th Edition, you got your race, powers, feats, paragon path, and epic destiny that help make you a truly unique threat in combat.
Originally I was going to do tiefling warlock, but thats too easy: just make four different warlocks with a different pact. :-P
Even clerics can be unique, as you have an array of powers useful in melee attacks or as a ranged attacks, meaning that clerics can hang back and blast enemies with divine might, granting bonuses to allies in the process, or they can run into melee and crush enemies with their faith. I think this approach will make clerics very much unique between races: I expect dwarves and dragonborn to favor the upfront method, while halflings, gnomes, tieflings, and other sneaky races to have a tendency to use ranged fire.
|
The most diversity in character creation I have ever experienced was in the original D&D. Sure, any two 10th level fighters were statistically identical (or nearly so) but that did not matter.
What drove PC diversity was role playing and back story. Folks took up the challenge to create unique characters because they were so functionally similar.
In 4e we have several variable to choose from - powers, feats, racial abilities, and rituals. Add to that the new flexibility of alignment and the palette for PC persona creation can be seen as quite powerful.
|
I rolled up a Half-Elf Fey Pact Warlock last night. A couple of things:
1) Character Creation is non-intuitive. The PHB does a poor job, imo, in helping the new player craft a character. I did fine, I'm an old hand, but there were times I was like "uh...what now" and had to do some flipping. Word for the wise: The chart at the beginning of the classes section is your friend. I think in many ways I was so used to doing a lot more work at character creation and so I was "looking" for more work. It's actually a pretty fast process. I'll stat up one of each class until I feel I have the process memorized.
2) The character sheets at the end of the book are abysmal (elementally chaotic?). You'll know what I mean when you try to fit powers on them. ugh. I already need a new sheet at 1st level! It's a 3.5 style character sheet adapted for 4th edition. I think an entirely new design paradigm is what is needed. The good news is a may go back to the homebrewed sheets I used for 1E and 2E: simple and clean.
3) I noticed there is nothing preventing you from taking the "multiclassing" feats at 1st level. So I took "Arcane Initiate" (wizard) rather than the suggested "improved misty step". This gave me an additional Encounter power (I chose scorching burst). For those wondering: YES you can take paragon paths in the class you used the multiclass feat (in my case, I count as wizard in terms of pre-req's for paragon paths). you still need to meet other prequisites (so Wizard of the tower, or something, requires longsword proficiency I would have to pick up if I wanted that Paragon Path e.g.)
4) With the half-elf build I was able to choose an additional power (I chose Ray of Frost). (woot, even more powers)
Right off the bat, at 1st level, I am able to make the following standard actions:
a) Make a basic Melee Attack at-will
b) Make a basic Ranged Attack at-will (either eldritch blast or a weapon)
c) Cast eyebite at-will
e) Cast Scorching Burst 1/encounter
f) Cast Ray of Frost 1/encounter
g) Cast A warlock Power 1/encounter (I forget its name)
h) Cast A Warlock Power 1/day (I forget its name)
Let alone the move actions, minor actions (like curses), and things like misty step.
That's quite a bit of "things to choose to do" in an encounter. Reserving my daily for the BBEG, I get 3 encounter powers which are pretty decent attacks. I'm not sure how many rounds an "average" encounter lasts, but my guess is in the 3-9 rounds range with an average of 6. That means I'll be using heavy hits for half the battle followed by my eldritch blast for the next 3. If I curse properly and creatively, those eldritch blasts get an additional 1d6 once per target, which is better than Ray of Frost, for example, in damage output. (Ray is a great opener: lock the creature down so it can't maneuver)
While I haven't laid eyes on 4e yet, my impression/suspicion is that at will and per encounter powers will be so universally applicable and useful that they'll dominate play. If there's not a wide range of choices for these, I believe characters will become more generic rather than less in 4e.
My understanding is that the range of choices is not that wide currently, but new ones will come out fairly regularly (viz. the Martial Power sourcebook that's in the pipeline). So it's not really that different that 3.0 in that sense (which had few options for fighters [say] initially, but more and more as additional sourcebooks came out).
First of all, let me start off by saying that in 3rd Edition, there are many classes that have fixed abilities at a fixed progression. The monk and barbarian are two classes that suffer from this kind of thing.
Good point. I didn't think of those.
And thanks for the examples -- it's an encouraging (for me) example of 4e character generation. My fears on this point seem to be unfounded.
One of my concerns for 4e, for the player perspective, is that it will be hard to make a unique and diverse character. That has always been an integral part of D&D for me. I never liked playing a 'typical' character. One of my favourite PCs was my half-orc rogue. Not the typical choice, and I skipped over a lot of normal rogue skills (much to the chagrin of other party members..."Wait...your rogue can't pick a lock??") and focused on creating a thug/assassin type character.
Develop 2 characters, same race and class. Take them up to level 10 and show how they can be totally different. Prove that if I create a Dwarven fighter and someone else in my group does too, that we aren't going to end up with basically the same character 10 levels later.
Any takers?
I think your challenge can be met and countered without even designing the characters themselves.
ODD/BECM/1E difference between 10th lvl fighters: race, weapon proficiencies
2E difference between 10th lvl fighters: race, weapon proficiencies, skills
3e difference between 10th lvl fighters: race, skills, 10 feats
4e difference between 10th lvl fighters: race, skills, base archetype, 6 feats, 2 of 4 at-will powers, 3(?) encounter powers, 3(?) daily powers, 2(?) utility powers.
The only edition that has any chance of competing with 4e is 3e, and it looks pretty grim there.
If you want the challenge itself, I'll be more than happy to take it up once I receive my copy of the books.
Puggins:
You've entirely convinced me on this point. I do want to pick a couple of nits:
ODD/BECM/1E difference between 10th lvl fighters: race, weapon proficiencies
I don't think 1e had weapon proficiences -- so it's even worse than you're indicating.
2E difference between 10th lvl fighters: race, weapon proficiencies, skills
Right on all counts, but I think giving 2e credit for skill is a bit generous -- the non-weapon proficiency rules were quite crude and of limited use. Again, even worse than you indicated.
4e difference between 10th lvl fighters: race, skills, base archetype, 6 feats, 2 of 4 at-will powers, 3(?) encounter powers, 3(?) daily powers, 2(?) utility powers.
Wow.
For what it's worth, I've become quite convinced that the game mechanics are a BIG improvement over 3.5, and I'd like to be able to play 4e.
At the same time, my group plays a very-conventional Greyhawk campaign -- D&D is just a mechanism to do that. If the rules (and style of play they allow) can't be reasonably fit to our campaign, we won't switch -- benefits notwithstanding.
Which would be a bit depressing.
Regards :)
I will say, I'm a little disappointed about how skills are handled - they are not as versatile as skills in 3e. In practice, there is probably not as much difference, but still, if I want a well educated fighter, it's a little more challenging.
Basically this is how it works - you are either trained or not trained in a skill. If you are trained you get a +5 bonus.
So it works like this:
Skill modifier = +1/2 level + training bonus if any + misc. modifiers (such as race, various feats, etc.)
You become trained in two ways: you either get it or choose it based on your class (a fighter gets about 3 trained skills of about 6 choices). Or you can take a feat to become trained in any skill of your choice.
There is also a feat to add +3 to a trained skill.
A DM can determine at any time that a particular use of skill requires one to be trained. He can also fluctuate certain DCs based on the level of the characters (there's a lot of guidance in the DMG as to how this works).
In practice, this is probably how a lot min/max'ers worked it out anyway. But it was nice to have the options anyway. Perhaps, as I get used to how it works, I may not mind it as much, but when I first read about it, I was a little incensed.
Edit: One could argue that an educated fighter is more likely now, since a 3e fighter had limited ranks and any knowledge skills were cross classed. Now they just have to spend a feat and they have special knowledge of History. I'm thinking of adding feats that give you even bigger boosts if you choose a specific type of knowledge, such as a specific era in history.
I will say, I'm a little disappointed about how skills are handled - they are not as versatile as skills in 3e. In practice, there is probably not as much difference, but still, if I want a well educated fighter, it's a little more challenging... Basically this is how it works - you are either trained or not trained in a skill. If you are trained you get a +5 bonus.
I'm quite disappointed. This is the only specific mechanical change to the rules that I find bad.
IMO they've reverted to a nearly-2e version of skills (non-weapon proficiencies back then). Either you're good or you're not -- no distinction beyond that.
I think it lends weight to claims that have been made -- most of the richness and depth of the rules goes into combat applications. If it's not combat-related, the rules are whittled down as far as possible. And the fact that Craft and Knowledge skills are (mostly) gone really bugs me.
Or so it appears.
And the fact that Craft and Knowledge skills are (mostly) gone really bugs me.
The Knowledge skills are basically streamlined into 4 or 5 different skills with very specific results. However, variable knowledges and crafts are definitely gone.
I plan to allow players any kind of craft and any level of expertise they desire, unless it becomes game breaking. For example, if they begin making elaborate bombs using basket weaving, then we have a problem. But if they are earning a few extra silver for a basket store and it makes good back story, then let them go to town. Maybe at the Paragon tier they can start creating masterpieces that are worth several gold. And maybe at the Epic tier their work can be considered priceless.
Just some preliminary thoughts of how to handle an aspect of the game I really like.
|
|
The one thing about skills - the core mechanism for a skill check has not changed. If you want to make wholesale changes to the skill acquisition system it should be possible with very little effort. I would bet that you could take the existing skill system (minus tumble and alchemy) and slap it right on to 4e.
The Knowledge skills are basically streamlined into 4 or 5 different skills with very specific results. However, variable knowledges and crafts are definitely gone... I plan to allow players any kind of craft and any level of expertise they desire, unless it becomes game breaking.
Were we to adopt 4e, I'd reintroduce 3.5-type Craft and Knowledge skills. I like them and my players like them. Furthermore, my players are mature enough and interested enough in character development that they will (and do) spend points on such skills. They are not obsessed with super-optimal character builds.
But I'm unlikely to switch. I'm skeptical we can easily adapt 4e to our campaign style, and the weakened skill system bothers me more and more as I think about it.
...I would bet that you could take the existing skill system (minus tumble and alchemy) and slap it right on to 4e.
Are Tumble and Alchemy changing in significant ways?
The Knowledge skills are basically streamlined into 4 or 5 different skills with very specific results. However, variable knowledges and crafts are definitely gone... I plan to allow players any kind of craft and any level of expertise they desire, unless it becomes game breaking.Were we to adopt 4e, I'd reintroduce 3.5-type Craft and Knowledge skills. I like them and my players like them. Furthermore, my players are mature enough and interested enough in character development that they will (and do) spend points on such skills. They are not obsessed with super-optimal character builds.
But I'm unlikely to switch. I'm skeptical we can easily adapt 4e to our campaign style, and the weakened skill system bothers me more and more as I think about it.
Ya know, you can all ways roll play that stuff easilly. And I find it annoying that spending points on craft and stuff like that is a sign of maturity.
|
Puggins:
You've entirely convinced me on this point. I do want to pick a couple of nits:
ODD/BECM/1E difference between 10th lvl fighters: race, weapon proficienciesI don't think 1e had weapon proficiences -- so it's even worse than you're indicating.
The legendary Arcana Unearthed for 1st edition had weapons specialisation for fighters.
Ya know, you can all ways roll play that stuff easilly. And I find it annoying that spending points on craft and stuff like that is a sign of maturity.
Sorry to annoy.
Spending points on 'fluffy' skills is not a sign of maturity. Obsessing over optimal builds, however, is a sign of immaturity. That's just my experience, but it's thirty years of experience.
I've also observed that 4e appears to be constructed so that no choice is suboptimal -- they are empowering such play, IMO. What they are not doing is providing rules for the player that wants his (or her) fighter to be a master ship navigator, or the player that wants his rogue to be an expert on geography as well, or the swordsmith-turned-wizard.
This doesn't mean 4e is bad, just that it facilitates a somewhat different play style than did 3.5. Nor does that imply that 4e-players are immature or poor gamers.
Sorry for any offense given.
Regards
The legendary Arcana Unearthed for 1st edition had weapons specialisation for fighters.
You're right.
I tend not to remember such things, as my group wasn't big into optional rules at the time... though I loved that supplement.
As I recall though, that was the book with the Cavalier in it -- ewwww!
I'm skeptical we can easily adapt 4e to our campaign style, and the weakened skill system bothers me more and more as I think about it.
I must admit there are some changes in 4e that have me bothered a little bit too. Some of it is quite different and the arguments that 4e is too divergent from "real" D&D isn't wholy without merit. I know a couple of my players will hate the game.
But I think it's worth keeping an open mind and playing the game a few times to see how it feels overall. I still think one can continue D&D stories in 4e.
If nothing else, once you've tried it, you can always return to 3.x or PFRPG. After reading and skimming 4e, I'm looking forward to the game but am glad Paizo plans to keep 3.x alive in what hopefully becomes a cleaned up system. I have a feeling I'm going to miss Vancian magic.
I must admit there are some changes in 4e that have me bothered a little bit too. Some of it is quite different and the arguments that 4e is too divergent from "real" D&D isn't wholy without merit. I know a couple of my players will hate the game.
I share an awful lot of your sentiment.
For the record, I really don't buy into the 4e vs "real D&D" divergence (I'm not sure you do, either). I do buy into a 4e vs previous editions divergence, or even 4e vs traditional D&D (though that's a weaker argument).
I only say this because of the rancor over this language. I don't think the new version fails to deserve the name D&D, though it may very well be the first version that I don't want to adopt.
Regards :)
What they are not doing is providing rules for the player that wants his (or her) fighter to be a master ship navigator, or the player that wants his rogue to be an expert on geography as well, or the swordsmith-turned-wizard.
Correct, they are not. I think one of the philosophies behind the new system is to keep skills broad enough so that each one is worth its weight. Specific skills such as Swordsmithing isn't covered because such a skill won't affect most play, at least not to the same extent as Perception or even History.
However, perhaps there is an expectation to tweak the rules to accomodate such "flavor". (I put "flavor" in quotes because for some this is just flavor, for others such aspects truly affect the game).
For example, it's easy enough for maritime adventures to tweak the Nature skill into a Maritime skill and then the fighter would merely need to take a feat for the skill. However, if ocean travel doesn't come into play as much, then there is no need for the skill and the DM can allow the player to say he is an expert navigator.
Same with all the other skills. If the "flavor" doesn't affect the game that much, then it's easy enough to just give the player the skills without specific rules and then if it ever comes up, the player can just make an appropriate ability check (such as Intelligence for geography). If however the geography or swordsmith skill really affects play, then you may want to add the appropriate skill (or even add it as a feat). It's fairly easy to add skills and feats to the game.
There is a section called Creating House Rules and I quote the 4e DMG - "The D&D rules cannot possibly account for the variety of campaigns and play styles of every group. If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your right." Then it goes on to give some advise.
To me it's a matter of how much tweaking is involved. I was initially bothered by the skill rules, but am growing accustomed. The change in magic is a bigger fish which, while I like the 4e changes, I'm glad Pathfinder is keeping 3e alive.
Do you believe 4e is designed with more streamlining in mind for the GM or the players?
Absolutely.
In particular, 3.5 combat can be slow and cumbersome -- especially at higher levels. And heaven forbid if somebody wants to break out one of the more exotic rules (like grappling).
Gentlemen,
Thank you for your insights on character diversification. Those of you who have had a chance to read the books, may I thread jack and ask a question?
Do you believe 4e is designed with more streamlining in mind for the GM or the players?
I would say both. I believe there will be far less looking up of game rules than in 3e on both the player's and GM's account. Perhaps a more specific question is necessary - what game rules are more streamlined and which are perhaps more complex? For example - the skills are streamlined almost to a fault. However, combat now has 5 different actions a player can take in a given round (but each of those actions are simple enough to understand and grasp and are unlikely to slow down play.)
Don't know if I answered your question.
|
|
Gentlemen,
Thank you for your insights on character diversification. Those of you who have had a chance to read the books, may I thread jack and ask a question?
Do you believe 4e is designed with more streamlining in mind for the GM or the players?
I would also say both - but the DM gains the bigger benefit. If a character sheet is kept up to date then that is all the player will ever need at the table ... and dice ... and Coke ... and Doritos. But I digress - DMs will also have everything they need at their finger tips in the stat blocks and in the mods (purchased or home brewed).
The rules are so elegant and easy to use that the learning curve on the mechanics will be shallow but their application in game will be the real challenge. I can see exploring all of the possibilities this game has to offer for quite some time.
Looks like fun. Can't wait.
What they are not doing is providing rules for the player that wants his (or her) fighter to be a master ship navigator, or the player that wants his rogue to be an expert on geography as well, or the swordsmith-turned-wizard.
Do you really need a rule for that? Those are the kinds of things I would expect to see in a backstory or roleplay, not on a character sheet.
If you really want a mechanical solution, use the Nature skill to represent geography and sailing. And there's no reason you can't create skills in 4E just like we did in 3E. If you want a Geography or Sailor skill, make one. It's no different than creating the Knowledge: Paranormal skill in 3E.
If you really want a mechanical solution, use the Nature skill to represent geography and sailing. And there's no reason you can't create skills in 4E just like we did in 3E. If you want a Geography or Sailor skill, make one. It's no different than creating the Knowledge: Paranormal skill in 3E.
You are completely right.
I'm just a bit bothered that 4e seems to dismiss these as irrelevant to play. That's not the case IMC, and this is true for many other players.
I've complained before that WotC is carefully and deliberately focusing play style in specific directions. Why can't skills Knowledge(whatever) remain part of the rules? Their omission discourages their use (whether or not a fix is easy, as it is).
Just my two cents :)
I've complained before that WotC is carefully and deliberately focusing play style in specific directions.
Having said that, it's only fair to concede that I think WotC is trying to cater to most gamers' play style (at least as they see it). Unfortunately, that style isn't necessarily the style of my group.
What WotC is doing isn't necessarily bad, it's just inconvenient for me.
|
|
I think you'll find that 4e is incredibly extensible. Take knowledge (whatever). They took off the knowledge label and broadened the skill. I can see adding new skills as background choices for professions or crafts. Each PC could have one profession/craft or one academic area of knowledge that fits with the backstory for the character.
4e is a solid core, and because of exception based design could be an excellent toolkit for building any kind of game.
I found this from Keith Baker, the creator of Eberron, which may be helpful to the conversation.
And as you say, even with the limited rules and all, I still find myself extremely excited about the options available to my character - without NEEDING the mountain of splatbooks. When I came home last night after going up a level, I couldn't help but take an hour to look through the books thinking about what I might do, and what I might do the next level, and the level after that. I'm exciting to see where my character might go. And I'm excited about the character I'm putting together for the second game I'm going to start playing in; the biggest challenge was picking a character to play, because there's so MANY things I'd like to try!
I've been creating characters for the fun of it and it actually is more versatile than I originally thought. Last night created a Dragonborn Warlock with the fey pact who specializes in cold damage and cold deviousness.
What are the chances that people can post character builds on here? Does that violate any rules?
What are the chances that people can post character builds on here? Does that violate any rules?
Poke around the EN World and RPG.net boards and you'll find lots of crunchy character builds.
What are the chances that people can post character builds on here? Does that violate any rules?
The only challenge is that characters are built on powers, which I can certainly list, but without their descriptors, it may be a little meaningless.
But when I get a chance I'll try to put a character up.
Initiative +1 Senses Perception -1
HP 26 Bloodied 13
Healing Surges 8 Second Wind 6
AC 11; Fortitude 12, Reflex 12, Will 10
Resist 5 fire
Speed 6
(r) Eldritch Blast (standard; at-will)
Range 10; +4 vs. Reflex; 1d10+4 damage.
Hellish Rebuke (standard; at-will)
Range 10; +3 vs. Reflex; 1d6+3 fire damage and if you take damage
before the end of your next turn, target takes 1d6+2 fire damage again.
Diabolic Grasp (standard; encounter)
Range 10; +2 vs. Fortitude; 2d8+2 damage and slide target 4 squares.
Flames of Phlegethos (standard; daily)
Range 10; +3 vs. Reflex; 3d10+3 fire damage and ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends).
Warlock’s Curse (minor; at-will)
Nearest enemy is cursed until the end of the encounter. Once per round, deal +1d6 damage to a cursed enemy.
Dark One’s Blessing
When an enemy affected by your warlock curse is dropped, regain 1 hit point.
Infernal Wrath (minor; encounter)
+1 power bonus on next attack and +4 damage against creature that hit you since your last turn.
Bloodhunt
+1 racial bonus to attack rolls against bloodied foes.
Prime Shot
If none of your allies are closer to target, gain +1 to ranged attack rolls.
Shadow Walk
Gain concealment until end of next turn if you move 3 or more squares.
Alignment Unaligned Languages Common, Deep Speech, Supernal
Skills Arcana +8, Bluff +11, History +8, Insight +4, Stealth +3
Str 10 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 16 Wis 8 Cha 18
Feats Hellfire Blood
Equipment rod, dagger, cloth armor, adventurer’s kit, everburning torch, 50-ft. silk rope, 12 gp
This is what I will be playing, if I am so lucky that one of my players for the first time in 14 years will run a campaign. It's a paladin with multi-class cleric feats (max possible). Paragon Path is Warpriest.
I have noticed some feel that multi-classing is bad in 4e, but I must say that I have to disagree 100%. For the first time in 20+ years, I think it is making sense, mechanically and role-play-wise. Of course, YMMV.
R'gar Dragonborn Paladin 11
Str 21, Con 13, Dex 12, Int 11, Wis 16, Cha 17
Speed 6, normal vision
HP 87 bloodied 43 healing surge 22 (11 times/day)
Class Features:
Skills: religion +13, heal +13, intimidate +15, history +12
AC 27 (plate)
Fort 23 Reflex 19 Will 21
Feats Initiate of the faith (1), Dragonborn Frenzy (+2 damage when bloodied) (2), Weapon focus +1 damage (4), Novice Power (6), Acolyte Power (8), Adept Power (10)
Other racial bonuses
+1 tohit when bloodied
Warpriest features:
add ½ level (5) to damage caused by using an action point
1/enc, cause you or ally rolling a 1 on a melee or close power to reroll
+1 ac with heavy armor (included)
Basic Attack Greataxe +15 vs AC 1d12+9 (crit 21+5d12)
Dragon Breath (encounter) minor, close blast +12 vs reflex, 2d6+1 damage
Healing Word (daily) minor, close burst 5, regain 3d6 hp + use healing surge
Channel Divinity (encounter; chose between Divine Mettle and Divine Strength)
Divine Mettle minor, close burst 10, ally makes saving throw with +3 bonus
Divine Strength minor, personal, add +5 damage to next attack
Divine Challenge(at-will) minor, close burst 5, mark creature, it takes 9 damage if it attacks someone else
Lay on Hands (at-will) minor, 3/day, use healing surge to make someone else heal as if he had used a healing surge
Holy Strike (at-will) standard, +15 vs AC, 1d12+9 (crit 21+5d12) radiant damage, 1d12+11 if marked
Valiant Strike (at-will) standard, +15 vs AC (+1 per creature adjacent to you), 1d12+9 damage
Radiant Strike (encounter) standard, +15 vs AC, 2d12+12 radiant damage (crit 36+5d12)
Paladin's Judgement (daily) standard, +15 vs AC, 3d12+9 (crit 45+5d12) damage and one ally can use a healing surge. Miss: One ally can use a healing surge
Bastion of Health (utility/encounter) minor, range 10, you or one ally can spend a healing surge and heal +3 on top
Staggering Strike (encounter)standard, +15 vs AC, 2d12+9 (crit 33+5d12), and push target 3 squares
Martyr's Retribution (daily)standard, +15 vs AC 4d12+9 (crit 57+5d12) radiant damage (you must spend 1 healing surge) Miss: ½ damage
Divine Bodyguard (utility/daily)minor, range 5, take ½ of ally's damage for the rest of the encounter, free action to drop
Strengthen the Faithful (encounter)standard, +15 vs AC, 2d12+9 (crit 33+5d12) You and each ally adjacent to the target can use a healing surge and get +3 on top
Divine Power (daily)standard, +15 vs Fortitude, 2d12+9 (crit 33+5d12)radiant damage, close burst 2, and you push the targets 1 square. You gain regeneration 5 and you and all allies in burst gain +2 power bonus to AC for the rest of the encounter
Turn the tide(utility/daily) standard, close burst 3. You and all allies make saving throws against all effects that can end
Battlecry (encounter) standard, close burst 1. +8 vs Fortitude, 2d12+3 (crit 25+5d12). You and all bloodied allies within 10 squares can use a healing surge
Items: Plate +3, Vicious Greataxe +3, Amulet of False Life +2 (daily: when bloodied, gain 22 temporary hp) and some gp
What drove PC diversity was role playing and back story. Folks took up the challenge to create unique characters because they were so functionally similar.
Amen.
In case anyone else had trouble finding this initially, you start with 100 gp to buy stuff with. :-P