Fighter, ranger, or rogue?

[Teapot Salty]

Hey guys. So for my very first 4e game, I want to play a martial class, and fighter, ranger and rogue all seem cool. Which do you guys think I should pick? Don't know what the party composition is just yet. Thanks, and as always, go nuts.

[GPuzzle]

Want to protect your allies? Fighter. Preferentiably Shield-using.

Want to hurt, be mobile and screw with opponents in multiple ways? Rogue.

Want to deal loads and loads of damage, hitting an opponent more than one time per turn? Ranger.

[Calen]

I am assuming that you want to be melee?

Rogues use light weapons so daggers, rapiers and suchlike, stealth and trickery are your game plan.
Fighters use just about any weapon and you can go many different ways with them.
Rangers fall in-between these two extremes.

Tell us more about what you are looking for and the forumers can give you more specifics.

[Kurald Galain]

The ranger is generally considered one of the most boring classes to play (it's certainly effective, just not very varied) so I would not recommend that.

The fighter is the tough guy in heavy armor that stands between the bad guys and his teammates. The rogue is the agile guy that stabs 'em where it hurts and then dives into hiding again. Both cool classes, with different playstyles, so it depends on what you're looking for.

[Epinephrine]

The fighter would be my pick. It is a class that has a lot of depth, and as you are on a board asking for advice, I would guess you're the kind of person who will want something that is more involved and tactical. The Defender as a role is a great addition to the game, and the fighter does it well. You aren't necessarily the damage engine, but you can certainly build to be a threat, one they don't want to ignore. It's all about positioning, using effects to keep them away from your allies - or put them in the position where they want to swing at your allies, but you make them miss and punish them for turning their back on you. I find defender a very fun role to play, and something unique to 4e, while strikers are pretty much just the damage dealers, and generally less interesting (to me).

Fighters aren't just the meat shields they used to be, and they can do nearly any style you can think of, from sword and shield to funky flail builds, battering hammer wielders, charging gouge users, polearm tripping controllers, etc.

[Teapot Salty]

Honestly, I don't know what exact role I want to fill, but what I do want is a class that's easy to play, easy to learn, and fun to play.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Honestly, I don't know what exact role I want to fill, but what I do want is a class that's easy to play, easy to learn, and fun to play.

At low levels, all classes are about equally easy to play, learn and fun. The ranger is easiest to learn - the best power he has is an at-will level 1 power - but that also is what makes him boring. Between rogue and warrior, I'd say rogue is easier, since the rogue strategies revolve about getting combat advantage, for which there are many avenues (flanking and hiding being the two primary ones). The warrior's job of marking and being in the way is a little harder to do efficiently. They are both fun in different ways.

I'd say go rogue - killing things is easier, all in all, than achieving the balance between hindering enemies, protecting allies and controlling the battlefield. Being a rogue will also teach you slowly about all the fun effects you can impose on enemies (and they on you).

Grey Wolf

[Kurald Galain]

Honestly, I don't know what exact role I want to fill, but what I do want is a class that's easy to play, easy to learn, and fun to play.

Assuming there's at least one other melee character in your group, go Rogue. They're both easy and versatile, both in and out of combat.

Take your pick: either be a brutal scoundrel (which has a high strength, is good at climbing and swimming, and deals more damage) or an artful dodger (which has high charisma, is good at talking to people, and has better defense). Offense vs defense, both are good so this is a matter of taste. Either way, start with an 18+ in dexterity and wield a dagger. You should try to be in melee, but you can also throw your dagger if you need to. Now here's the fun in playing it: you want to have combat advantage basically every round, so you can get your sneak attack damage. The three basic ways of doing this are (1) flank with your melee buddy; (2) use stealth to hide somewhere, then use Deft Strike to leap out and stab; or (3) whenever your party casters have some enemy dazed, blinded, or prone, pounce on that. There are other tricks to gain CA, such as Blinding Barrage, but I suggest starting with these three to get a feel of the class.

Good races for rogue include e.g. humans, elves, and gnomes.

[Laserlight]

Honestly, I don't know what exact role I want to fill, but what I do want is a class that's easy to play, easy to learn, and fun to play.

"Easy to play" and "easy to learn" might be considered the opposite of "fun to play". Let's say you take a ranger. Easy to learn: most of the time you will be doing Twin Strike. Easy to play: most of the time you will be doing Twin Strike. But that's why they're often considered boring.

It depends, of course, on what you find to be fun. My group's ranger just wants to mindlessly kill stuff, so doing "Twin Strike every turn" works fwell or him.

[Inevitability]

I third rogue. It is a class with solid in-combat and out-of-combat abilities, and dealing lots of damage is always fun. It doesn't have the boringness of the ranger, but it doesn't have the complexity of fighters either.

[Zaq]

Go for Fighter. Rogues can actually be kind of monotonous at low levels, especially (but not only) once you nail down two or three good ways of getting CA.

One key difference is that Fighters, like all (good) defenders, spread their turns across the entire round. Being a Fighter means always paying attention to the board, since you're probably going to be able to get at least one (if not more) extra attacks, at least on some rounds. A Rogue takes his turn and is done. A Fighter takes his turn and waits expectantly. I find that to be a lot more engaging, personally; if that sounds like a good time to you, then the Fighter is your class.

I admit that I'm biased against strikers; it's important to have a good one in your party, but that doesn't mean I want to play them. Dealing damage is everyone's job, and I want what makes my character stand out to be something other than just "I do what you guys do (i.e., damage), only more." That said, if you get a thrill out of just laying big numbers on the field, then by all means, play a Rogue (or a Ranger, but as has been stated, they're among the most monotonous classes to play). There's no shame in playing a striker; I just don't personally like them much. (And Fighters, if you do them right, can end up doing nearly as much damage as strikers, if not more . . . though that will probably only come into play at low levels if your GM triggers your mark punishment nearly every round.)