Across the Table (OOC Discussion)

[VennDygrem]

I'm exploring my options to see what would make for the most fun character to play. I've always wanted to play a Warlock but never got the chance, and Dunor could probably easily be retooled as a Barbarian; I don't want to wind up with a party entirely full of Strikers though, so I'll make a more formal decision once I see whether any one else is interested,  and in what.

[Nanshork]

I'm fine with Striker or Defender roles, I've done both and can be quite happy with that.

Either way I'm probably going to be something "in your face", I wasn't very happy with the rogue which was part of my disillusionment.

[VennDygrem]

Hey, why not recycle Amnon?

Otherwise, I just had a fun idea for a paladin or cleric. *shrug*

[Nanshork]

Hey, why not recycle Amnon?

Otherwise, I just had a fun idea for a paladin or cleric. *shrug*

I thought about it.   

[VennDygrem]

I don't think we're getting much interest... >_>  <_<

[Melblen_Cairn]

Looks like Bhu is interested and wants to try 4e. Plus I dropped a post over on GITP and got a response this morning from Inspectre who is looking to play an Elf "Archer" of sorts, could be Ranger, Seeker, Rogue, or even a Warlord. He has an interesting background idea too.

[Melblen_Cairn]

Even if its just these two players, we can easily move forward with 5, I will just go back through and rescale all my encounters again to be good with 5 players instead of 6.

I invite both to join us here in OOC to start talking characters. We can assist Bhu if he needs it with directing him to possible Roles/Classes and what books they are found that may suit whatever character concept he wants to try out.

[VennDygrem]

Well, I've got a few options myself that I think will be fun to play, so I'll wait and see what kind of characters Nanshork and bhu want to play.

I can definitely help point bhu in a direction if he's got an idea for a type of character to play but doesn't know quite how to put it together.

[Inspectre]

Hello everyone!  I'm the guy Melblen_Cairn found from GITP, interested in playing some sort of Elf Archer - although what sort of role that fills exactly is up to you guys.  I don't recall ever seeing a Ranged Defender before, but there's certainly a number of different Strikers, the Seeker for a Controller, and an Archer Warlord for a Leader (although I don't have Martial Power 2 so I would need help building my PC that way).  My original concept was as a Ranger/Rogue, but as I mentioned if we end up full on Strikers those other options would fit my concept easily enough.  I don't know whether or not Melblen wanted my PC's background to be a surprise or not, so for now I'm going to keep mum on that.

[Melblen_Cairn]

Welcome!

I am good with telling them.

[VennDygrem]

Welcome!

Personally, I think you should feel free to build your character however you like. If you would like to make a Striker with a Ranger/Rogue base, absolutely feel free. If you are comfortable with playing a Leader, both Warlord and Artificer can make competent ranged weapon characters (the latter of which I tossed a simple test build together for, and seems to work pretty well even though Elves don't tend to be thought of for Artificers). However, since Artificers were introduced in the Eberron player's handbook (after having its first few levels previewed in Dragon magazine), it may not be allowed. It actually makes a better ranged leader in some respects than the Warlord, since the Archer Warlord grants bow proficiencies which the Elf already gets anyway, and gives up heavy armor proficiency to do so. The Artificer's weapon-based powers all innately allow either melee OR ranged weapons (and, being keyed off the same stat regardless, means you're much more versatile in combat). This may be a moot point, however.

Elf Ranger or Seeker is probably your best bet for an elven ranged character, from a build standpoint. Rangers, as I'm sure you know, can put out silly amounts of damage. Seekers seem to be pretty competent Controllers, and have Striker hit points and access to leather armor so they're slightly better at surviving in combat than most controllers.

I'm thinking I'll have to put my desire to play a Warlock on hold for now. Right now my top contenders include either a Rageblood Barbarian or a Cunning Bard (or possibly a Paladin of some sort if we need a Defender). Both have qualities that I like and could be fun. If I go with the Barbarian, I could probably just use my existing character and repurpose him, though I would probably want to go over some ideas with Melblen. I could play a Berserker Barbarian and be a hyrbid Defender/Striker, but I like that option slightly less than being able to charge in, bash things up but good, then charge some more.

[Inspectre]

Okay!  The concept is that my PC was one of the adventurers who helped stop the original humanoid invasion fifty years ago, dying during the battle that occurred at Loudwater.  He's since been resurrected by mysterious patrons using ancient magic that didn't work perfectly, ostensibly for the purpose of having him help deal with the current problems of the Vale.  The magic brought him back intact, but with his memories and skills a bit scrambled - hence he's level one again instead of some sort of superhero.  Equally mysterious attackers killed off the guys who revived him shortly thereafter, and my guy has been on the run and trying to get back up to speed ever since.

To me, the whole memory scrambling thing means that I could have my PC develop some new set of skills different than what he had before, even if my original build was as a Ranger (MC: Rogue).  It might be a little weird if he went from being an archer in his past life to, say, a paladin, but I could definitely see him easily switching up to any weapon-based class.

I had forgotten about the Artificers, which are quite good, but unfortunately I lack the Eberron Player's Handbook as well, so both that and the Warlord would require some help from someone with the books.

[VennDygrem]

If you do want access to the EPH, I can help out with that. However, it's not listed on the approved books, so Melblen may not allow it.

Seeker could be quite a good class to go with given your background. They're very in-tune to spirits, and so that could be related to your character hook of resurrection-gone-wrong. You could multiclass with Shaman (PHB2) to get the Call Spirit Companion class feature which would reinforce the spiritual aspect as well.

[bhu]

Hi all, considering joining but I know nothing of 4e. 

So which classes are considered the ones for beginners nowadays?

And what role is the party missing?

[Melblen_Cairn]

Welcome bhu!

The group is having that discussion right now about what folks are thinking about playing. Shadowhunter is the only one with an established character continuing on as is. He is playing Thespias Munroe, Halfling Sorcerer. This is a striker role.

When you see the term role. It is referring to the role in the party. The roles are Defender, Striker, Leader, and Controller. Many classes fall into a single role and have some powers that can branch into other roles on a secondary basis. With 5 to 6 players we should be able to have atleast 1 of each role, or enough crossover in secondary roles to make up for it.

The last party had 3 defenders (a Swordmage, a Warden, and a Battlemind), one leader (a cleric), and 2 strikers (a rogue and a sorcerer), and it did ok without a controller. So you don't always have to have one of each.

Defenders are good for keeping the enemies off everyone else due to each class has some form of marking ability which makes it harder for enemies to attack anyone else but the defender. Strikers dish out damage. Leaders have some healing and beneficial powers they can also adversely impact enemies or help others with allowing allies to gain extra attacks and such. Controllers make the battlefield harder to move around in for enemies, hinder enemies, or move enemies around the battlefield.

[VennDygrem]

The basic players handbook classes are all fairly easy to dive into. Strikers are the easiest to play, as their job is just to do a lot of damage. Rangers, Sorcerers,  and Barbarians seem to consistently top out striker lists, though Fighters are no slouches either and can be excellent tanks. Same goes for Paladins. Paladins' main thing seems to revolve around making enemies really sorry for even thinking of attacking the party.

[bhu]

Are their still alignment restrictions on classes?

Is multiclassing available?

Can you make a 4e Necromancer?  Are there common concepts from 3.5 that are not available?

[Nanshork]

I'm going to refrain from migrating Amnon over to this game, although he's something I'll keep in mind if I ever get inovolved in a higher level 4E game.

Here's what looks interesting to me right now:
Fighter - Defender
Barbarian - Striker
Warlord - Leader


@bhu: Multiclassing works completely differently as does alignment.  Do you have a 4e PHB available to look through?

[VennDygrem]

Multiclassing was first made available by way of special feats, which typically grant training in a class skill and a lesser version of a class feature available to that class. Multiclassing by way of feat allows you to take feats meant for that class, and there are other feats that allow you to swap out powers from your main class for powers of the other class. You can only multiclass into one other class, unless you are a Bard (who has a class feature which allows them to multiclass without limit).

The second attempt at multiclassing came in PHB3, by way of the Hybrid class system. You can create a Hybrid between two classes, each of which has its own stats for how its numerical benefits, such as hit points and Non-AC defenses, as well as proficiencies, add as each part of the hybrid. Each class also gains access to limited versions of their class features. Often, a Hybrid class will take the Hybrid Talent feat to gain access to heavier armor proficiencies a class normally would have, or to the full version of a class feature. Sometimes the hybrid class will start with essentially the full version of the class feature anyway, though usually at the cost of one or more other class features. Sometimes this really isn't even much of a loss. There's also a special Paragon Path (like a Prestige Class; everyone gets to choose one while continuing to progress as their main class) which strengthens your ability to be a true hybrid of both classes. Humans make particularly good choices for Hybrids since they start with a bonus class skill trained, a bonus at-will power (making it less difficult to split your decisions between those of the two classes), and a +1 to all three non-AC defenses.

There were also some true multiclassing rules introduced in a Dragon magazine somewhere, but I've never seen anyone mention them anywhere so I would basically ignore that.

As for alignment, most characters tend to be Unaligned, not particularly being swayed by any one alignment extreme. Good alignment means you're especially Good; Evil means you're especially Evil. Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are typically reserved for true exemplars of those extremes. Everything else is generally covered by being Unaligned.

Is there a particular character type you'd be interested in playing? Some kind of trope or personality or background you have in mind? I could help direct you to a class or other material that would fit what you're looking for.

[Inspectre]

Speaking towards the concept that you specifically mentioned bhu, about some sort of 4E Necromancer, I don't think that's really an option in 4E.  I believe late in 4E's life-cycle they did make a Necromancer class but it was part of the "Essentials" line - sort of like WotC's attempt at a 4.5.  The classes that are part of the "Essentials" line are a little different - usually a little simpler to build and play - but since they are from books that were not on melblen's list, I think we can probably discard those for right now.

The only thing that I can really think of that isn't really a part of 4E is minion-mancers, whether that's a necromancer raising an undead army, or a summon-monster-spammer, or Charm Person stuff, or even a guy with Leadership.  The reason for this is that one of 4E's biggest balance points is action economy - in a normal fight, monsters and PCs have roughly the same number of actions a round.  So six of us, six of them, each of us getting one turn a round.  There's a bunch of exceptions to that rule, but that's why they got rid of a lot of that stuff - too easy to tip the scales in our favor by charming half the monsters onto our side or just bringing along a pet army.

Likewise, there's not a lot of permanent crowd control spells or instant-death effects in 4E, because again, they didn't want to make it too easy to skew action economy in our favor or the monsters' favor.  So rocket tag doesn't tend to be a thing in 4E either, although with coordination between the whole party, it is possible to combo abilities to cripple one or two monsters for an entire fight.  That is a thing in 4E, and it's an important tactic because if we lock one or two monsters out of the fight that action economy swings in our favor and we can pretty much ride it to victory.

If you're just interested in playing a Necromancer type that sucks the life out of enemies and the like though, there's probably a build we can get you for that.