Your least favorite class? (that you've actually played)

[Yakk]

Note that Thunderfist Ki Focus adding the Thunder keyword only works on Melee attacks, and close powers are not Melee.

[Breccia]

I've said it before on this forum, but I'm still down on rangers.

[Elkreeal]

Note that Thunderfist Ki Focus adding the Thunder keyword only works on Melee attacks, and close powers are not Melee.

oh oops, I thought since I was using the ki-focus as an Implement and the power had the Implement key-word it would apply technically to all powers using that ki-focus that had the Implement key word, my DM explained it in an unclear way then. But could I multi-class into something arcane and add the thunder key word to the Furious Bull power? Or even an at-will? I vaguely remember a Sorcerer that had Dazzling ray dealing Cold and Radiant damage at paragon, he added the Cold key-word with a feat.

The Gnoll monk doesn't seem that boring now though since I could only milk some powers and probably only apply the new key word to one power. I still like him thematically, since the excuse of the thunder key word was that he "locked" all his claws like the pistol shrimp and then attack making them "go off".

[Yakk]

Thunderfist adds Thunder by one of its Powers. At Will, as a Free Action, when you make a melee attack with your Thunderfist Ki Focus, you can change all damage to Thunder (which as a side effects adds the Thunder keyword, and removes any other damage-keyword except (if there is Save Ends) Poison for whatever reason).

There is no such mechanism for Close (burst or blast) powers. So even if they "look" like melee powers, they are not.

Note that many Monk powers are "melee implement" powers (both implement powers, and melee). And if you used a Weapon Melee power and used your Ki Focus it would also apply (but again, not a Weapon Close Burst power).

Note that this (restricting it to melee powers) was something they did after they made the Frost weapon: it changes all powers.

I made the same error at one point (misread it that way) because I was used to Frostcheese.

If your power has the Arcane keyword, a paragon tier feat can "admixture" in another damage type. But adding the Arcane keyword to an arbitrary power isn't trivial. The few ways you can do it include picking particular divine at-wills, worshiping a deity who has the Arcana domain, and using the Power of Arcana to make them arcane: none of which apply to a Monk.

[ElSc0tch0]

Brutal Scoundrel Rogue

[Elkreeal]

Thunderfist adds Thunder by one of its Powers. At Will, as a Free Action, when you make a melee attack with your Thunderfist Ki Focus, you can change all damage to Thunder (which as a side effects adds the Thunder keyword, and removes any other damage-keyword except (if there is Save Ends) Poison for whatever reason).

There is no such mechanism for Close (burst or blast) powers. So even if they "look" like melee powers, they are not.

Note that many Monk powers are "melee implement" powers (both implement powers, and melee). And if you used a Weapon Melee power and used your Ki Focus it would also apply (but again, not a Weapon Close Burst power).

Note that this (restricting it to melee powers) was something they did after they made the Frost weapon: it changes all powers.

I made the same error at one point (misread it that way) because I was used to Frostcheese.

If your power has the Arcane keyword, a paragon tier feat can "admixture" in another damage type. But adding the Arcane keyword to an arbitrary power isn't trivial. The few ways you can do it include picking particular divine at-wills, worshiping a deity who has the Arcana domain, and using the Power of Arcana to make them arcane: none of which apply to a Monk.

Thank you for clearing up the fog around this. And it does makes since not even iron armbands of power affect close bursts/blasts, for example.

[Doorhandle]

Sentinel (leader druid from Essentials).

Just...really boring. At first I was excited because I was like, "Oh man, I have so many options. I can heal, do some damage, I have a sweet wind wall that debuffs enemies, and I've got an animal companion! Oh yeah!"

And then I successfully sat in the back, healed twice, and dicked around for the entire combat while everybody else did awesome stuff. Immediately remade that character as a Predator Druid.

Agreed on that point. SO BORHIN'

[Ilikednd]

I tried several ways to make a 'fighter' that was an awesome, rapier wielding swashbuckler, but eventually gave up after several tries.

Just play a rogue or fighter, then take the duelist prestige class.

[vasharanpaladin]

Assassin, full stop. So much wasted potential!

...Or Tactical Warlords. Which I assume get so much hype only because the people doing the hyping are doing either armchair math or playing in groups that allow them to micromanage every niggling little thing...

[Kimera757]

I DM more than I play, so it's hard for me to really answer the question.

I can say I didn't like a few classes on the DM side of things:

Pacifist cleric. Damage = 0, healing = mega. Sometimes the player complains in the first round that he has nothing to do because no one has taken damage yet. It's pretty hard to balance encounters involving this PC, not because of "too much healing" (that's only part of it) but the players feel invincible, until I start raining a lot of area of effect damage on them.

Psion. You have all these cool things to do, but it's going to be spamming Dishearten a lot, and by a lot I mean all the time. I once had a telekinetic psion in the party for a while, who could create a "vortex" that did a bit of damage if an enemy started next to it, and if the psion spent power points the victim(s) would be dazed. I like AoE daze. I had fun designing monsters who had minor actions to use (who would be screwed by this; for instance, a monster with something like a ranger's Hunter's Quarry but had to be renewed every round, so dazing the monster would immediately reduce incoming damage), but this player refused to spend the power points, even after I told him outright what I was doing.

Someone needs to do a similar thread for monsters (both + and -).

[Laserlight]

I am playing a swordlock at L6 in Gardemore Abbey, and find myself hoping to fail Death Saves when they come up (which is about 2 out of 3 combats). The build doesn't seem good at defending at this level.
Matters are probably not helped by the rest of the party being a monk, a wizard who tries to avoid direct damage (Hypnotize is okay), and an artificer who hasn't ever played a healer before. Not to mention the DM working from a script which basically goes "You don't notice the enemy until they are within charge range"; there's no possibility of "stand back, snipe, and try to lure them into an ambush" or "avoid combat entirely".

I had a chargecheese barbarian who could get a little monotonous, but Badge of the Berserker allowed for the occasional "I charge through the whole melee to get the guy on the other side of the field" which livened things up.

I have not played Essentials classes, but I've built a few for other players who didn't have DDI. They looked rather bland.

[Laserlight]

...Or Tactical Warlords. Which I assume get so much hype only because the people doing the hyping are doing either armchair math or playing in groups that allow them to micromanage every niggling little thing...

I've had fun with a couple of Taclords, but I presented it as "I'm giving you the opportunity to make extra attacks! Because you're awesome!" and that goes over well. And we have had a couple of players who need all the tactical help they can get.

[tiornys]

I've had fun with a couple of Taclords, but I presented it as "I'm giving you the opportunity to make extra attacks! Because you're awesome!" and that goes over well. And we have had a couple of players who need all the tactical help they can get.

I've really enjoyed my TacLords, and I've played several of them, including a lot of LFR play with pickup groups. I find that if you tell someone, "hey, you have +6 to hit and damage vs. this guy here", they tend to figure out a way to attack that guy there. Not to mention that everyone likes getting extra attacks.

On topic, I've been thinking and failing to come up with anything. I've generally done a good job of picking classes and builds I really enjoy playing.

[Telwar]

Slight necro.

Let's see, during 4e, I played:

Bugbear rogue (brutal scoundrel)
Elf pursuit avenger
Mintoaur battle cleric
Tiefling storm sorcerer
Eladrin telepath psion
Genasi ranged warlord
Dwarf barbarian
Halfling thief/assassin
Halfling iron monk
Tiefling fire elementalist

Of those, I have to say, the halfling monk was the most annoying, because of all the fiddly modifiers that never seemed to help anyway. I went from the halfling thief to that and back. The psion was a close second, not because it's not effective, but because I'm not really a controller-y type.

My favorites were the minotaur battle cleric, the tiefling fire elementalist, and the halfling thief.

The minotaur was my first 4e character, and was built as more of a utility type than a full-on healer. He could hit things over the head, take some hits, and heal a lot. He also wound up as the leader of the party, jokingly because he had "the Horns of Power." I also got to do a lot of throwing-down of native pagan altars as we invaded and conquered Maztica for Breland. He got a rewrite hitting epic when Essentials came out to be more of a healer, but still was pretty fun.

The tiefling fire elementalist...jeez louise that guy was the most effective striker we had in all our groups, once I realized that I needed to optimize for RBAs, with the probable exception of the dwarf ranger in a much earlier group. He was in our al Qadim game, and I got to play him as kind of a good-natured frat guy from one of the magical universities (he passed mostly by getting the mage chicks to let him look at their homework).

The halfling thief, I literally figured out in the first fight that I had him in that Deft Blade (the "make basic attacks with a light blade" feat, whatever it's named) didn't actually specify a *melee* basic attack, so I got to fling the +3 proficiency-bonus d8 shadow-daggers from the paragon path I took against targets' reflex, so I hardly ever missed. And he was a bit of a sociopath, too. That was fun.

[theMycon]

...Or Tactical Warlords. Which I assume get so much hype only because the people doing the hyping are doing either armchair math or playing in groups that allow them to micromanage every niggling little thing...

Use powers that call the target for you.

Saying "Hey everyone attack my target so we can kill it and move on" might be solid tactical advice, and maybe groups should consider listening to the leader... but people resent one character being "the special one" and do stupid things out of spite.

Having a power that says "hey if you attack this guy you'll hit harder and more accurately", or "You moved in to flank! Awesome, take a free action to crit on my turn!" gets people to do that, and they think it's their own idea.

No matter what class you're playing, an effective party leader must be IRL a bard.

Unless you're playing with mature adults where you all share mutual respect.

[windgate]

I loved my hybrid Swordmage/Warlord. I built the character because I saw the potential it had for speeding up battles by powering up my allies . Granted the entire party a huge initiative boost and free movement at the start of each fight and instead of attacking I gave an ally an enhanced melee basic (With dailies to give more than one ally a free attack)

Unfortunately I was trying to use him in random Living Forgotten realms groups.

People rarely played high strength characters and almost never had a "can be used as a melee/ranged basic attack" at-will power.

Giving everyone the chance to go before the monsters would have been great, but my allies typically spent that turn for running away (to hide or avoid getting targeted), or soft control (low damage) attacks. I usually had nobody worth giving a nova (my melee basic hit harder than many of our strikers) and simultaneously dealing with the complaints that I didn't provide enough healing (apparently my only "job" as a leader character).....

Eventually I gave up trying to be party friendly and just made a frost-cheese dual wielding werewolf Ranger.....

Warlords are great only if someone in the group can actually hit things with a stick.

Edit: Ill admit I did have a chuckle "pursuading" the pacifist cleric to hurt somebody.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

I've only played two sessions of LFR and otherwise only DM. From my side of the screen I have been really disappointed in the thaneborn barbarian - frankly, in barbarians in general. They're just far too fragile and MAD. IME, a dwarf fighter is going to be pumping out similar damage with greater accuracy and staying power.

I tried several ways to make a 'fighter' that was an awesome, rapier wielding swashbuckler, but eventually gave up after several tries.

I'm about to DM a rapier-wielding changeling thief rogue (the Essentials class) in a new game. It looks like solid on paper and seems to have enough manoeuvrability to be more than just a glass cannon, especially when paired with a knight as the defender.

Speaking from a DM's perspective, I can name two from my players.

(1) Bladesinger. I was hoping this was better than it looked. It was worse than it looked. Awful at low paragon. (snip)

I DMed one up to L8 and then let him be rebuilt as a wizard. I thought it was a decent striker/controller - I let the bladespells also work on MBAs "off-turn" - but then I saw how the sheer awesomeness of a wizard made the bladesinger look quite pedestrian by contrast. Nevertheless, I would take a bladesinger over a thaneborn barbarian any day.

[MwaO]

I've only played two sessions of LFR and otherwise only DM. From my side of the screen I have been really disappointed in the thaneborn barbarian - frankly, in barbarians in general. They're just far too fragile and MAD. IME, a dwarf fighter is going to be pumping out similar damage with greater accuracy and staying power.

The trick to Barbarians in 4e is to remember that their secondary stat really is the tertiary stat, not the secondary one.

Put a pre-racial 16 in Str, 14 in Dex, and 14 in the secondary stat. Then put the 13 into Con(unless you're a Con Barbarian at which point put it into either Wis or Cha). Then raise Str/Dex always. Your AC ought to be high enough that it isn't a huge problem and if the race gives a bonus to the secondary stat, you'll have a +3 at 1st instead of a +4 or +2 instead of +3 if not. Sure, at some point, it won't be that great, but...if you have the right Epic Destiny, you can put a +2 from there into the secondary stat, so ending up at 28th with 28 Str, 22 Dex(+3 to AC from Barbarian, so effectively a 28 or as if you started with an 18 Dex), 20 Secondary.

My biggest problem class was Paladin. The issue wasn't so much that the class was bad, but rather it just didn't have a lot of killer mobility options. And the Defenders or pseudo-Defenders with lots of movement became my favorite.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

The trick to Barbarians in 4e is to remember that their secondary stat really is the tertiary stat, not the secondary one. (snip)

That's why I mention the thaneborn build because you really do need Cha as well as Str, Dex, and Con. It's too MAD even though we use an extra 10 points for point buy.

[vasharanpaladin]

That's why I mention the thaneborn build because you really do need Cha as well as Str, Dex, and Con. It's too MAD even though we use an extra 10 points for point buy.

Dex/Int of 14 or Hide Armor Expertise gives AC scaling equivalent to chainmail, which should suffice for most strikers. Barbarians only need Con if they're going for axes or hammers, or they're a Thunderborn, so you can just start with a 12 there to get Deadly Axe for your gouge later. Dex/Int of 16 gives AC scaling equivalent to scale; if you've a Str/Cha race you can get away with 16/16/12/12 array and start with a post-racial 14 in Charisma for your kickers, and then never have to worry about bumping Dex again.

However: Second Skin is mandatory for the 14 Dex version.

My personal disappointments: Somewhat in line with this complaint (Barbarian Agility should be rolled into the build option as a scaling bonus to one of the non-Fort defenses in the two Str/Con builds, and both those and Thaneborn should get secondary to AC in light armor), and we were given much better rages in the same book (in the form of warden dailies). Also, like the avenger, the barbarian's best PPs are not in-class.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

(snip) However: Second Skin is mandatory for the 14 Dex version. (snip)

Waiting until Epic to fix a problem with a feat tax? Not happening.

[MwaO]

Waiting until Epic to fix a problem with a feat tax? Not happening.

I'd actually argue that the problem is the higher point buy. It rewards having a pre racial 18. Which unbalances certain choices.

A str/dex ranger with 18 str/16 dex/13 Con has a 16 AC. A Barbarian with an 18/14 dex//14 Cha/13 Con also has a 16 AC.

The Ranger keeps investing in Str/Dex and at 14th, has a 20 dex. The Barbarian with +4 str, +2 dex and +2 in Cha has the same AC. 16 Cha

Now pretend we had a 16 starting Cha and invested +4. That's just a 20. So that's then the big question - why is that +2 so valuable?

Nice to have, sure. Essential?

[Kimera757]

Just play a rogue or fighter, then take the duelist prestige class.

I can't find this in the DDI.

[georgie_leech]

I can't find this in the DDI.

Because 4e doesn't have prestige classes, that's a 3.p thing. But Rogue is really the way you want to go here. They're DEX based, giving you that skill over brawn feel, a number of features give you the option of being CHA secondary for that charming wit, and they have a variety of powers with movement baked in for that extra mobile fighting style. A number of them even emphasize Acrobatics for that Flynn stunting, if that's what you're going for.

[vasharanpaladin]

Waiting until Epic to fix a problem with a feat tax? Not happening.

No, you've decided to ignore the point, that being that Con is only necessary if you make it that way. A Thaneborn or Whirler can and should ignore Constitution in favor of getting AC, and since gouges exist and barbarians want fighter PPs anyway, you only need enough Con to get Deadly Axe in Paragon and then get your crit range out of Draeven Marauder.

And the two builds presented in PH2 are designed such that they can get away with starting their so-called "secondary" stat at tertiary levels... again, start with Dex 16 post-racials and you're pretty much in scale armor without ever putting another point into it. Hide Armor Expertise and Second Skin are for people who absolutely must use pure axes or hammers.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

I'd actually argue that the problem is the higher point buy. It rewards having a pre racial 18. Which unbalances certain choices.

A str/dex ranger with 18 str/16 dex/13 Con has a 16 AC. A Barbarian with an 18/14 dex//14 Cha/13 Con also has a 16 AC.

The Ranger keeps investing in Str/Dex and at 14th, has a 20 dex. The Barbarian with +4 str, +2 dex and +2 in Cha has the same AC. 16 Cha

Now pretend we had a 16 starting Cha and invested +4. That's just a 20. So that's then the big question - why is that +2 so valuable?

Nice to have, sure. Essential?

Good points, as are the ones made by @vasharanpaladin.

[Kimera757]

Because 4e doesn't have prestige classes, that's a 3.p thing. But Rogue is really the way you want to go here. They're DEX based, giving you that skill over brawn feel, a number of features give you the option of being CHA secondary for that charming wit, and they have a variety of powers with movement baked in for that extra mobile fighting style. A number of them even emphasize Acrobatics for that Flynn stunting, if that's what you're going for.

I assumed it was a paragon path but couldn't find one.

I think the best swashbuckler-like PC within the rules would be a ranger/rogue with lots of very different flavor. I've built a few NPC swashbucklers, but oddly enough they ended up as lurkers. Lots of parrying powers, and the best way to get past that is to bluff him. Which is playing his game.

Rogues are less flashy and more teamwork-oriented than swashbucklers. This is probably why swashbuckler NPCs work pretty well. I can give them an extra level or two and have them fight flashily but stupidly while chewing the scenery.

[vasharanpaladin]

I assumed it was a paragon path but couldn't find one.

[...]

Rogues are less flashy and more teamwork-oriented than swashbucklers. This is probably why swashbuckler NPCs work pretty well. I can give them an extra level or two and have them fight flashily but stupidly while chewing the scenery.

DR381 is where you're being referred to. Introduces a power at each level for the "duelist" sort of swashbuckler, along with feats to promote the use of rapiers and other long blades over daggers and short swords. Of note, the at-will duelist's flurry and Flash of the Blade feat both enable you to ignore the prerequisite of combat advantage to deal Sneak Attack damage under certain conditions... though in both cases Cunning Stalker is strictly superior.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

My least favorite class would have to be the Essentials Fighter. It just goes against everything that the 4e Fighter stood for.

I tried it out due to a friend wanting to run a classic 4 game and needing one more (the Fighter). I... I was sadden. The Rogue at least had a lot of mobility but the Fighter... The Fighter just had damage, the old move and hit.

Later when 5e came out I saw the 5e Fighter for what it really is and it made me hate the essentials fighter even more. The 5e Fighter IS the essentials fighter.

So not only did the essentials fighter ruin the 4e fighter, but it helped ruin the 5e fighter.

[Yakk]

Thing is you can make a near-essentials style fighter, that isn't as boring.

Mastery:
Some Fighter Stances come with a Mastery: line.

When you Power Attack while in a Fighter Stance, you activate the Mastery on the Stance, so long as it isn't already "expended". The Mastery is considered "expended" once it is used, and cannot be used until you take a short rest.

Action Hero:
When you spend an Action Point, you gain an additional use of Power Attack this encounter, and all expended Masteries are no longer expended.

Starting at level 5, you can also enter a Fighter Stance without spending an action. This stance ends at the end of the encounter, or when you spend another action point. It does not end if you enter another stance, nor does it cause stances you are in to end.

Second Wind:
When you use your second wind, all expended Masteries are no longer expended.

---

Now simply add Mastery: to each essentials stance.

The Essentials Fighter now has a daily nova (from action points), and interesting kickers (when you power attack), an encouragement to switch stances (each stance's boost works 1/encounter).

The nova effect reasonably fun. You are in 2 stances (starting at level 5). Your next hit kicks off two masteries (!), and you get a free Power Attack to trigger it. For the rest of the encounter, you have two passive boosts from stances. If you second wind, you get another double-mastery kick if you have a power attack left.

Sadly, this disagrees with the philosophy of the Essentials Fighter, which is really about moving and hitting things hard.