New character

[Arkhios]

Storm Soul only grants you the Storm extra riders on your powers (and access to some feats/paragon paths maybe).

Burning your paragon path for that seems questionable.

On the discussion of Warforged Wardens, there is a feat that basically grants Warforged the Dwarf minor action second wind feature.

It's not just the second Hybrid Talent though. Extra powers from both classes is tempting. But, you're probably right. It is rather small gain comparing to the additional non-power features of any proper paragon path.

It's a pity that I don't know how and if I can get all ddi character builder materials post October 2010 to my builder. It's weird how big of an obstacle it is to actually look through every book instead of just using the builder with what little I have.

Regarding Warforged Warden, I think I've seen that one.

[ve4grm]

It's not just the second Hybrid Talent though. Extra powers from both classes is tempting. But, you're probably right. It is rather small gain comparing to the additional non-power features of any proper paragon path.

It's a pity that I don't know how and if I can get all ddi character builder materials post October 2010 to my builder. It's weird how big of an obstacle it is to actually look through every book instead of just using the builder with what little I have.

Regarding Warforged Warden, I think I've seen that one.

I'm sending you a PM.

[Arkhios]

I'm sending you a PM.

Awesome! Thank you very much!

[Yakk]

To back up a second...

If you haven't played a lot of 4e, considder playing a 4e Fighter (Weaponmaster).

They are by far the best Fighter in any edition of D&D. They are insanely competent at their job, and their job is dominating the battlefield.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthr...skblade)/page1

[Arkhios]

To back up a second...

If you haven't played a lot of 4e, considder playing a 4e Fighter (Weaponmaster).

They are by far the best Fighter in any edition of D&D. They are insanely competent at their job, and their job is dominating the battlefield.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthr...skblade)/page1

It's not that I haven't played a lot, it's just that it's been a good while since the last time.

I'm beginning to consider other options entirely. Maybe a Berserker (which is a defender too) or something odd, like a Dwarf Brawler Fighter, or maybe try to convert one of my favorite characters (a real oddball) from Pathfinder: Halfling Barbarian with a crazy big hammer, to defender-ish build.

[ve4grm]

Berserkers are fun and flexible. I also like the Battlemind and Warden, for defenders. But Yakk is right, the PHB1 Fighter is incredibly effective too.

[Yakk]

Berzerker is neat design, but only modest complexity in play. Sort of a midpoint between the slayer and the PHB1 4e fighter.

Its paucity of feat (and the like) support make its builds relatively simple.

It would have been more viable if they made it a hybrid fighter|barbarian class. As in, if it counted both as a Fighter and a Barbarian and could choose powers from either.

I mean, they play fine. But you end up doing generic charge optimization or something.

[ve4grm]

Berzerker is neat design, but only modest complexity in play. Sort of a midpoint between the slayer and the PHB1 4e fighter.

Its paucity of feat (and the like) support make its builds relatively simple.

It would have been more viable if they made it a hybrid fighter|barbarian class. As in, if it counted both as a Fighter and a Barbarian and could choose powers from either.

I mean, they play fine. But you end up doing generic charge optimization or something.

If you're going for high optimization, yeah, your options are a bit limited. But even without much op, they play quite well.

I definitely agree they should have allowed them to count as fighters for, say, PP and ED requirements? Or for some powers maybe. And I wish they had figured out a way to allow Barbarian powers that key off rage to interact with the Berserker mechanics. But they're solid as is. And, as you say, a nice middle-ground of complexity.

[Arkhios]

Spoiler: Just a funny idea I had

Show

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
level 4
Dwarf, Fighter
Build: Brawling Fighter
Fighter: Combat Agility
Fighter Talents: Brawler Style
Dwarf Subrace: Standard Dwarf Racial Traits

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 18, Con 15, Dex 16, Int 18, Wis 16, Cha 10.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 17, Con 13, Dex 16, Int 17, Wis 14, Cha 10.


AC: 22 Fort: 18 Reflex: 18 Will: 15
HP: 48 Surges: 11 Surge Value: 12

TRAINED SKILLS
Heal +10, Endurance +7, Athletics +7, Arcana +11

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +1, Bluff +2, Diplomacy +2, Dungeoneering +7, History +6, Insight +5, Intimidate +2, Nature +5, Perception +5, Religion +6, Stealth +1, Streetwise +2, Thievery +1

FEATS
Level 1: Student of Artifice
Level 2: Armor Proficiency: Plate
Level 4: Novice Power

POWERS
Fighter at-will 1: Grappling Strike
Fighter at-will 1: Threatening Rush
Fighter encounter 1: Shield Bash
Fighter daily 1: Shove and Slap
Fighter utility 2: Defensive Stance
Fighter encounter 3: Shield Slam (retrained to Altered Luck at Novice Power)

ITEMS
Fighting Shield Heavy Shield (heroic tier), Plate Armor
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======
With the Fighting Heavy Shield I can keep the other hand free for grabs while slam with the shield when I need to make a weapon attack.
Obviously the goal would be Self-Forged, for the luls

[Yakk]

Fighter mc Artificer: Swap dex and con. +2 surges, +3 HP, and +2 con-riders is worth -2 initiative. In general, fewer high stats is better than many medium stats.

Or even go 16(+2) wis 14(+2) con 13 dex; +1 to hit on all OAs is worth a bit, and wis-riders are common.

Altered Luck doesn't seem worth burning a feat and an encounter power for.

Take immediate powers instead of standard action encounter powers; shield fighters have lots of them.

+1 AC (Plate armor proficiency) isn't a top-3 feat for a Fighter. It might not be a top-20 feat.

Hybrid doesn't work well, because combat superiority is key to any fighter, and you don't have a source of shield or hide armor proficiency. Plus you lose 1 HP/level.

[Arkhios]

Fighter mc Artificer: Swap dex and con. +2 surges, +3 HP, and +2 con-riders is worth -2 initiative. In general, fewer high stats is better than many medium stats.

Or even go 16(+2) wis 14(+2) con 13 dex; +1 to hit on all OAs is worth a bit, and wis-riders are common.

Altered Luck doesn't seem worth burning a feat and an encounter power for.

Take immediate powers instead of standard action encounter powers; shield fighters have lots of them.

+1 AC (Plate armor proficiency) isn't a top-3 feat for a Fighter. It might not be a top-20 feat.

Hybrid doesn't work well, because combat superiority is key to any fighter, and you don't have a source of shield or hide armor proficiency. Plus you lose 1 HP/level.

I chose Combat Agility because Brawling Fighter build suggested it. It replaces Combat Superiority and requires a decent Dex.

Does all Melee Weapon Immediate Interrupt/Reaction attack powers count as Opportunity Attacks for the purpose of Combat Superiority? If so, I would understand better why I should choose them over anything else.

Although, now that I think about it, Combat Agility for Brawler is just a suggestion, and might not mix very well with Artificer whose powers benefit more from Con and Wis.

I know that Fighters can mark with any attack they make (at least in melee?), even with Basic Attacks, and that was part of the reason I chose full fighter in that particular experimental build instead of hybrid (hybrid fighter can only mark with their fighter powers). Other reasons included that as a hybrid fighter|artificer it wouldn't indeed have shield proficiency. The "funny" part of this build was, in fact, that it wouldn't have any other weapons except that Shield.

I admit the feat choices were not my best ones. It was late when I made that build.

Plate proficiency just felt obvious for a "tough nut".

I agree, Altered Luck might not be the best option either.

[Yakk]

Sorry, Combat Agility sucks compared to Superiority. One denies the enemy an action, the other moves you away from where you want to be and denies nothing.

No, immediate powers don't count as opportunity attacks.

Immediate action powers don't use up your standard action; so you can do 2 things in one round. And for the most part they are balanced in terms of [W] against standard action+at-will powers, but they are *not* balanced in terms of static modifiers on top of it and other riders.

So you could do 2[W]+Str as a standard action, or do [W]+Str as a standard action plus [W]+Str as an immediate action.

Immediate actions do consume your immediate action, making your mark punishment not work. However, if someone triggers them *after* your marked foe goes, or if your marked foe triggers it, or if it is worth sacrificing that, you can still use them.

Shield Riposte (E1), Immediate Vengeance(E3),
Shield Edge Block (E3) are all immediates that can be used when a foe attacks you.

As an alternative to using your shield as a weapon, you could get Dwarven Weapon's Training which gives you proficiency with all axes and +2 feat bonus to damage. Then equp a http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Gauntlet_Axe which leaves your hand free. It is a crappy weapon (+2/1d8), but the free hand can be worth it.

If you are willing to give up 1 point of AC, you can duel-wield Guantet Axes. Treat the offhand as a light shield except when attacking. Have 2 hands free, and you can pick attacks that need offhand weapons, like that at-will that lets you mark 2 foes.

Arguably the Guantlet Axe doesn't even cost AC: it can be treated as a light shield (rules text), and has the defensive property (from the table). So you get both light shield (+1 AC) and defensive (+1 AC).

Going further, if you have a heavy shield that counts as a weapon (+2 AC) and a guantlet axe in the other hand (defensive +1 AC), you can get even more AC.

[Arkhios]

I know Fighter is undeniably one of the best and arguably THE best defender class, but I'm torn, because I think that Stormheart Warden might be exactly what I was looking for in the first place.

Also, I just can't decide between Dwarf, Human, and Warforged. It's frustrating. Especially since the game is scheduled to be within 3 weeks.

IF Dwarf, the starting stats (racials included) would probably be as follows:

STR 19, CON 19, DEX 13, INT 16, WIS 14, CHA 10 (keeping the possibility for Self-Forged in mind)

IF Human (+2 Con OR +1 Str & +1 Con)*:
STR 17 or 18*, CON 19 or 18*, DEX 13, INT 16, WIS 14, CHA 10 (keeping the possibility for Self-Forged in mind)

IF Warforged:
STR 19, CON 19, DEX 14, INT 10, WIS 16, CHA 13
...actually, scratch that. I can't find the feat that gives Warforged a similar Second Wind as dwarves have.

[Verbannon]

personally I think 4e is best if built starting from the background then onto the class and stuff based on that. It also eliminates all the decision making. Since it just becomes a matter of what fits best rather than what is best. Which is a lot smaller of a list.

[Arkhios]

personally I think 4e is best if built starting from the background then onto the class and stuff based on that. It also eliminates all the decision making. Since it just becomes a matter of what fits best rather than what is best. Which is a lot smaller of a list.

I'm sorry, but meh... 4e is in my honest opinion a "1000-piece-puzzle" when it comes to character creation and a character-focused card-game on a grid when it comes to playing. Backgrounds in 4e are disconnected from the rest of the game and add next to nothing mechanically relevant (4e can be without question summarized into mechanical in all ways).

[Verbannon]

I meant literal backgrounds, not the mechanical ones. That is just a tool to help players not good at writing backgrounds flesh out a background. 4e has enough pieces that you can take any background and character concept and build an effective character to match it. What 4e lacks is any way to create a standout optimized character aside from a few specific combos. So I always felt building from the mechanics end first was pretty pointless. Whatever you make its unlikely to be better than a simple ranger or brawler fighter.

[Yakk]

No, if you fail to account for any optimization factors, 4e characters become incompetent by paragon and worse by epic (relative to monsters and encounter building and characters built with some effectiveness optimization in mind).

It works great in lower heroic, because there the ~2x power difference per choice remains small next to baseline character power.

Now with clever optimization, <50% of picks can be power based and you can still have a viable character. Or your DM can warp encounter math to make even incompetent parties function.

Completely unoptimized high level 4e ia unplayably slow in combat, and beatable encounters are boring because the foes do not feel threatening in the short term.

[Kurald Galain]

No, if you fail to account for any optimization factors, 4e characters become incompetent by paragon and worse by epic (relative to monsters and encounter building and characters built with some effectiveness optimization in mind).

Yes, that entirely matches my experience. Around level 11, a character that picked powers purely by the fluff might as well not be at the table for all the difference he makes in combat; and I don't mean compared to hyper-optimized characters either. I've met several characters who had this issue; needless to say they didn't stick around with 4E very long after that.

[Verbannon]

You are wrong. Well wrong in spirit. Here is how the math works, in heroic players hit 60% of the time, enemies 40%. In paragon its 50/50 and in epic its 40/60. Player options however expand much faster than enemy options. Its not a mistake in the math as is so commonly and erronously believed. Its on purpose. Ive run campaigns up to level 22, and even with way under optimized characters by your standards, they were able to bear handle it just fine.

Its just you get your ass kicked if all you know how to do is hit things instead of using your options. Its why I tell my players, if they are playing a pure damage striker they better have strong controller and leader support or they will die so easily .

This is a wargame system not 3.5 or 5e, you cant just make a strong build and brute force your way through. You need good tactics to multiply your force.

[Verbannon]

Also you know how people in 4e like to say controllers are unnecessary? Those people are also idiots who dont know how to play the game. Anyone who says that is really saying "I am incapable of understanding the essential multiplying factor controllers bring to the field, and so I declare them unnecessary and stupid. But then I blame the game for having bad math when my refusal to take advantage on controller elements gets me killed."

[Verbannon]

Thats why I said that most DMs can only threaten with brutes and artillery. Here is how the typical game goes

Incompentent DM: "All my monsters just rush at you and hit you!"

Incompentent players: "We all rush at you and hit you!"

Incompentent players "Hey! Once the hit/miss ratio no longer favors us we begin to lose in a straight forward brawl! Game is broken! We must min/max to compete!"

Monsters have limited options, thats theur weakness. Players have to use their greater pool of options to overcome the much more limited options of the monsters. And they do this by denying the enemies their ideal circumstance. Thats what the combat system is about. Go at it any other way and you will be handicapping yourself.

By epic level you have 6 encounter powers, your class features, race features, at least 4 dailies, plus all your magic items. Monsters at epic have an equivalent to 2 at wills, 3 utilities and 3 encounter powers.

[Arkhios]

By epic level you have 6 encounter powers, your class features, race features, at least 4 dailies, plus all your magic items. Monsters at epic have an equivalent to 2 at wills, 3 utilities and 3 encounter powers.

Which, by the way, makes 4th edition feel like a joke compared to editions that came both before and after. A big reason why 4th edition was a failure. Players are critically limited by the lack of options in-game.

[Kurald Galain]

The point that Verby appears to be missing is that a well-built party with decent tactics is going to be stronger than a poorly-built party with decent tactics.

In other words, your build is an important part of your performance. In fact, at paragon or epic tier, a decently-built party with poor tactics is probably going to do better than a poorly-built party with decent tactics.

[masteraleph]

Which, by the way, makes 4th edition feel like a joke compared to editions that came both before and after. A big reason why 4th edition was a failure. Players are critically limited by the lack of options in-game.

Are we talking about the same game? Because fighters, rogues, Paladins, rangers, pretty much every non-spellcasting class (or non-primarily spellcasting class) has a lot more options at higher levels than in other editions. The complaints were about a feeling of sameness between classes, a lack of options specifically for arcane spellcasters, long combats, excessive focus on combats...but the vast majority of PCs have more options, not fewer.

[Arkhios]

Are we talking about the same game? Because fighters, rogues, Paladins, rangers, pretty much every non-spellcasting class (or non-primarily spellcasting class) has a lot more options at higher levels than in other editions. The complaints were about a feeling of sameness between classes, a lack of options specifically for arcane spellcasters, long combats, excessive focus on combats...but the vast majority of PCs have more options, not fewer.

I mean that that sameness limits everyone's options. Each class are shoehorned into very specific roles while in other editions they aren't, at least not as obviously as in 4th.

A paladin, for example, is designed as primarily a defender but could dabble into striker or leader roles. well, what if I wanted to play a paladin that is primarily a leader and secondarily controller? "Nope, play another class because reasons!"

[Kurald Galain]

A paladin, for example, is designed as primarily a defender but could dabble into striker or leader roles. well, what if I wanted to play a paladin that is primarily a leader and secondarily controller?

Then you play a cleric. There's not a meaningful fluff difference between a melee cleric, pally, or for that matter avenger.

This, in a nutshell, is why you shouldn't pick game options based on their name.

[Arkhios]

Then you play a cleric. There's not a meaningful fluff difference between a melee cleric, pally, or for that matter avenger.

This, in a nutshell, is why you shouldn't pick game options based on their name.

But, those names have a lot of meaningful carriage dating back to the origins of the game and even beyond. If you shouldn't "care" about a character class' name, why even have those names built into the class choices in the first place?

Anyway, let's stop derailing the thread with off-topic discussion before this gets out of our hands and spirals into some edition war.

I know I may have started it, but I'll be the first to stop it as well (if I can).

[Kurald Galain]

But, those names have a lot of meaningful carriage dating back to the origins of the game and even beyond. If you shouldn't "care" about a character class' name, why even have those names built into the class choices in the first place?

That's a good question. 4E should probably have had fewer classes and more subclasses. You know, combine two existing classes into one with one big power list, to make it more customizable within a broad archetype.

[Arkhios]

That's a good question. 4E should probably have had fewer classes and more subclasses. You know, combine two existing classes into one with one big power list, to make it more customizable within a broad archetype.

Agreed. And I believe that 5th edition's design philosophy might share a portion of that.

[Verbannon]

The point that Verby appears to be missing is that a well-built party with decent tactics is going to be stronger than a poorly-built party with decent tactics.

In other words, your build is an important part of your performance. In fact, at paragon or epic tier, a decently-built party with poor tactics is probably going to do better than a poorly-built party with decent tactics.

I strongly disagree with that. An out of the box build, say a party made entirely with phb1 classes using just phb1 as a resource and following the first built in paths. With good tactics will crush any optimized party with poor tactics.