PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Class Impressions



Mushroom Ninja
2008-06-16, 09:14 PM
So, 4th edition has been out for a couple of weeks now. I started playing last night and had a pretty good time, (basically, it felt like 3.5 except prestidigitation was at will), as a hafling rogue. I thought the rogue class was a blast. Being able to push people 3 squares away with a single attack as a hafling was epic fun. This got me wondering... What classes does everyone else like in 4e? Do any seem broken-powerful/useless to you? Which have you played?

SamTheCleric
2008-06-16, 09:18 PM
Other than the Keep On Shadowfell pregens... I just started a Paladin of Kord... and I feel more like the Holy Champion than my 3.5 Halfling Paladin of Arvoreen... or my Crusader of St. Cuthbert. The feel of it is just so... epic. :smallbiggrin:

JaxGaret
2008-06-16, 09:26 PM
So, 4th edition has been out for a couple of weeks now. I started playing last night and had a pretty good time, (basically, it felt like 3.5 except prestidigitation was at will), as a hafling rogue. I thought the rogue class was a blast. Being able to push people 3 squares away with a single attack as a hafling was epic fun.

Sounds like Heroic fun to me :smallsmile: You'll start having Epic fun in about 20 levels, methinks.

Just an aside, in case you weren't aware of it: if you are talking about the power Positioning Strike, note that you can Slide the enemy, which means you can pick any direction in which to move them. You don't have to simply Push them away from you.

The Push/Pull/Slide rules can be found on page 285 of the PHB.


This got me wondering... What classes does everyone else like in 4e?

I like all of them :smallbiggrin:


Do any seem broken-powerful/useless to you?

Not at all, though there seem to be a handful of powers open to being abused by optimizers scattered here and there.


Which have you played?

I've personally played an 11th level Evil Minotaur Ranger named Murdor who was ridiculously fun to play. I've never played a character even close to being that mobile.

I have also DMed for characters ranging from level 1 to level 10, who have run the gamut of all eight PHB classes.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-06-16, 09:47 PM
Just an aside, in case you weren't aware of it: if you are talking about the power Positioning Strike, note that you can Slide the enemy, which means you can pick any direction in which to move them. You don't have to simply Push them away from you.


Yeah, that's what I meant.

Vortling
2008-06-16, 09:53 PM
So far I've played a first level human rogue. It feels a lot like a 3.5 first level human rogue. It's fun, but the differences aren't enormous.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-16, 10:33 PM
So, I'm going to be running this game, but the Warlord is exactly the class I had been looking for. Someone who actually leads fights, instead of just smacking people around.

And while White Raven Assault isn't actually all that good, thematically it just seems pretty awesome. Heaven help you if the Warlord/Rogue multiclass (Crimelord :smalltongue:) decides to use it while brawling with a couple of his Rogue buddies backing him up.

Mainly, I can't wait for my players to start making up names for their powers. For me, the Ranger's utility "Crucial Advice" is going to become "Shut up, you're doing it wrong!" while the Warlord's "Shake it Off" is going to become "Suck it up, you baby!" :smallbiggrin:

Crow
2008-06-17, 01:58 AM
I've tried a Ranger, but don't feel any more "outdoorsy" than any of the other characters. He's great in combat though. I was surprised at the Cleric's usefullness, and was impressed with the Rogues.

I'm having a tough time seeing the Paladin as anything else than just another cleric though.

ashideena
2008-06-17, 06:07 AM
I've played a paladin and a rogue so far. Rogue does good, versatile damage and has some good skills. Paladin seemed very lackluster.

Paladin just didn't seem very effective to me. It seems like they gave them mediocre damage, weak control and some limited healing ability. This wouldn't bug me if it didn't feel as if the fighter was a much more rounded character(mediocre damage, medium control of enemies, some self healing). And one that is, frankly, better at protecting his allies than a paladin is.

At least early on, fighter at-wills are very strong and combat challenge is far more powerful than divine challenge. Encounter/Daily powers were a wash.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-17, 06:31 AM
I've played a paladin and a rogue so far. Rogue does good, versatile damage and has some good skills. Paladin seemed very lackluster.

Paladin just didn't seem very effective to me. It seems like they gave them mediocre damage, weak control and some limited healing ability. This wouldn't bug me if it didn't feel as if the fighter was a much more rounded character(mediocre damage, medium control of enemies, some self healing). And one that is, frankly, better at protecting his allies than a paladin is.

At least early on, fighter at-wills are very strong and combat challenge is far more powerful than divine challenge. Encounter/Daily powers were a wash.

You probably actually spent points in STR. A paladin doesn't use STR and takes an 18 in CHA.

As for a fighter doing mediocre damage, that's patently false. A well built fighter does more damage than a rogue. THAT is his defender schtick, do such brutally high damage enemies just can't ignore him. The paladin is more focused on loading you with annoying penalties than carving a hole in your ribs to make you pay attention.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-17, 07:12 AM
You probably actually spent points in STR. A paladin doesn't use STR and takes an 18 in CHA.

As for a fighter doing mediocre damage, that's patently false. A well built fighter does more damage than a rogue. THAT is his defender schtick, do such brutally high damage enemies just can't ignore him. The paladin is more focused on loading you with annoying penalties than carving a hole in your ribs to make you pay attention.

And teleporting around the battlefield and taking the damage for his allies. (those are my favorite Paladin powers)

Vikazc
2008-06-17, 07:31 AM
My first character so far is a Dragonborn Cleric of Kord. My DM and I have reflavored his cleric abilities to all use electric damage instead of radiant damage, and we alter a lot of the effect descriptions to fit with the concept as well. I give temporary hitpoints and healing surges with powerful surges of electricity crackling through the bodies of my allies! It's great fun so far, bringing down the power of the lord of storms.

Gypsy0001
2008-06-17, 07:42 AM
I like what they've done with cleric and warlord. Both are effective healers and buffers, with cleric leaning a bit more towards personal offense boosts / group defense boosts, and warlord leaning a bit more towards personal defense boosts / group offense boosts.

As for paladin, it's a defender class w/ some healing. It's only meant to do big damage when stuff that's not supposed to be attacking the party decides to attack the rest of the party.

If you want a defender that can dish some damage all the time, fighter may be better choice for you because it's crossed with some striker abilities (but will lose out on some ability to heal fallen / wounded teammates).

There's enough subtle separation between class pairs like this (fighter -vs- paladin, warlord -vs- cleric) that even though they can both fill their primary role (defender, leader, etc) they play differently enough that it doesn't feel like one is redundant.

So if you have a party with two leaders, for example, it's not going to feel like they're doing the same thing and you'll derive benefit from both.

ashideena
2008-06-17, 07:56 PM
You probably actually spent points in STR. A paladin doesn't use STR and takes an 18 in CHA.

As for a fighter doing mediocre damage, that's patently false. A well built fighter does more damage than a rogue. THAT is his defender schtick, do such brutally high damage enemies just can't ignore him. The paladin is more focused on loading you with annoying penalties than carving a hole in your ribs to make you pay attention.

Nope, Dragonborn Paladin with 18 Charisma and 13 Strength :p. Also, I'm lost as to how a fighter closes the gap between his 2d6+strength and a rogues 1d4+2d8+dex. Unless you mean the fighter is responsible for the 2d8 sneak, in which case I concede your point(did I mention I like fighters this edition? :0)

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-17, 08:08 PM
Nope, Dragonborn Paladin with 18 Charisma and 13 Strength :p. Also, I'm lost as to how a fighter closes the gap between his 2d6+strength and a rogues 1d4+2d8+dex. Unless you mean the fighter is responsible for the 2d8 sneak, in which case I concede your point(did I mention I like fighters this edition? :0)

Nope, the fighter does straight up better damage, all bonuses factored in.

Here is MC Hammer (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1042574&highlight=hammer), the Alpha and omega of fighters.

Crow
2008-06-17, 08:22 PM
AZ has taken it upon himself to use the new launch of 4e as a chance to get in on the ground floor of being a "CharOp Expert". Which is great, except very much of "CharOp" is based on specific circumstances. Lord forbid you want to play a fighter who uses something other than bludgeoning weapons...

In most cases that would come up in a majority of games, the Rogue is going to out-average-damage the Fighter if he has combat advantage (which can be had pretty easily...Rogues are popular on CharOp). But bear in mind, the tolerances are so small in this edition (+3 damage is huge), that their outputs will look pretty comparable most of the time since their aren't the huge divides that the last edition had.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-17, 08:29 PM
AZ has taken it upon himself to use the new launch of 4e as a chance to get in on the ground floor of being a "CharOp Expert". Which is great, except very much of "CharOp" is based on specific circumstances. Lord forbid you want to play a fighter who uses something other than bludgeoning weapons...

In most cases that would come up in a majority of games, the Rogue is going to out-average-damage the Fighter if he has combat advantage (which can be had pretty easily...Rogues are popular on CharOp). But bear in mind, the tolerances are so small in this edition (+3 damage is huge), that their outputs will look pretty comparable most of the time since their aren't the huge divides that the last edition had.

It actually doesn't work like that, Crow. Flails also let you get close or outmatch rogues, and Axes are pretty good (Though they lag a bit, by 3 or 4 points). So no, it's not as pidgeonholed as you think.

That said, I'm as pissed off as anyone else that that a sword is not amongst one of the better fighter weapons. Stupid nerfs...

marjan
2008-06-17, 08:37 PM
That said, I'm as pissed off as anyone else that that a sword is not amongst one of the better fighter weapons. Stupid nerfs...

Nerfs? In which edition were the swords good for fighters?

tyckspoon
2008-06-17, 08:40 PM
Nope, Dragonborn Paladin with 18 Charisma and 13 Strength :p. Also, I'm lost as to how a fighter closes the gap between his 2d6+strength and a rogues 1d4+2d8+dex. Unless you mean the fighter is responsible for the 2d8 sneak, in which case I concede your point(did I mention I like fighters this edition? :0)

For those who don't want to click links, the answer is powers that have a high number of [W]. A fighter using a 3[W] power is throwing 6d6+Strength; the Rogue doing the same with the weapon in ashideena's post is doing 3d4+2d8+Dex. That's already better average damage for the fighter. Sneak Attack will keep the Rogue's At-Will attacks ahead of the fighter, but the fighter's bigger weapon dice win out in many Encounter and Daily powers. And careful choice of your Paragon and Epic paths can prevent you from running out of Encounter powers, which is where AZ arrives at his claim that a fighter can consistenly out-damage a rogue.

Hzurr
2008-06-17, 08:50 PM
That said, I'm as pissed off as anyone else that that a sword is not amongst one of the better fighter weapons. Stupid nerfs...

Isn't that slightly balanced out by the higher prof bonus?


Nerfs? In which edition were the swords good for fighters?
In 3.X the swords were the highest damage dealing weapons on average.

As far as my initial class impressions, the only class that I don't despirately want to play is the wizard. I already have some character concepts for all of the other ones (especially warlord, fighter, and ranger), but I don't really have any desire to make a wizard.

Crow
2008-06-17, 08:51 PM
AZ, I was mostly referring to MC Hammer, when i mentioned the bludgeoning weapon thing. Fighters have some nice Spear abilities too. They don't look pretty on paper, but they fall under the "Work great in a game" category.

I think swords weren't "edgy" enough for the new edition for WotC to make them cool.

Weapon dice are very important, but as long as the Rogue is getting SA he is still doing great damage. He can also pick up the rapier if he feels his output is really starving. Gauntlets of Destruction (?) will help all classes, but really shine with a small-die weapon. (Away from books: Can daggers take Vorpal?)

Kabump
2008-06-17, 09:04 PM
(Away from books: Can daggers take Vorpal?)

No, vorpal is axe or heavy blade only. A vorpal dagger for a daggermaster rogue would be INSANE.

Yakk
2008-06-17, 10:05 PM
I dunno.

Blade Opportunist, Heavy Blade Opportunist, Scimitar Dance, Heavy Blade Mastery...

That makes a Scimitar a pretty badass control build.

Admittedly, the ranger build based off of this is even more fun!

wodan46
2008-06-17, 10:56 PM
Dagger Weapon Die is 1d4, or average 2.5
Maul Weapon Die is 2d6, or average 7

Once you start piling on the [W]s, Fighters start to hurt a lot. Especially since their dailies are often reliable.

I suppose a Rogue can go for a 1d8 Rapier though. 4.5 weapon die, but -1 to attack (since rogues get +1 with daggers.)

Tengu
2008-06-17, 11:40 PM
You probably actually spent points in STR. A paladin doesn't use STR and takes an 18 in CHA.


Depends on the powers you choose. Defensive paladins use Cha, offensive paladins use Str.

Coindicentally, the only character I played so far is a paladin (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheets/view.php?id=57142). The class is very fun to play.

Autumn Blooming
2008-06-17, 11:46 PM
Mainly, I can't wait for my players to start making up names for their powers. For me, the Ranger's utility "Crucial Advice" is going to become "Shut up, you're doing it wrong!" while the Warlord's "Shake it Off" is going to become "Suck it up, you baby!" :smallbiggrin:

Witchfire already became "Get out of my head, Charles!" in my game.

Crow
2008-06-18, 02:09 AM
Dagger Weapon Die is 1d4, or average 2.5
Maul Weapon Die is 2d6, or average 7

Once you start piling on the [W]s, Fighters start to hurt a lot. Especially since their dailies are often reliable.

I suppose a Rogue can go for a 1d8 Rapier though. 4.5 weapon die, but -1 to attack (since rogues get +1 with daggers.)

Well not every fighter is going to choose a maul or heavy flail, and not every Rogue is going to choose a dagger...in a real game. Rocking the rapier still puts the rogue on an even to-hit keel with the fighter's maul at least due to it's proficiency bonus. He does lose that +1 AB edge he would have had though.

Why did the Fighter get so many reliable powers anyways? The Ranger and Rogue have zero.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-18, 02:34 AM
Why did the Fighter get so many reliable powers anyways? The Ranger and Rogue have zero.

The devs play fighters. :smallwink:

TwoBitWriter
2008-06-18, 09:47 AM
I made a Human Wizard (Getting +1 At-Will Power is awesome for wizards!) I kinda miss the old spell system in the sense that you don't feel like you have as many options available to you. That being said, I had more fun as a 4e Wizard then I have ever had (that includes 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions.)
I like being able to still dish out powerful blast effects, yet still be useful once my daily and encounter powers are used up thanks to my at-will spells. On the first adventure, we were running down a narrow corridor, being chased by a mass of hobgoblins (Mostly minions, but our entire party was near death and we were buying time) and I used Cloud of Daggers to slow their progress down a bit, giving us enough time to better prepare for the onslaught.

Originally, a wizard would cast his magic missile, or his burning hands, and then rely on his crossbow for the rest of the encounter (in earlier editions, not even that!) I have always believed that it didn't make sense for a wizard to not even be able to cast the simplest of spells as often as he wanted.

On top of that, I like the fact that there are no longer the incredibly low save DC against the Wizard's spells. It was so frustrating to be unable to do ANYTHING against your opponents because their Will or Fort saving bonuses were too high (A level 9 spell with a save DC of only 24 [assuming INT of 20] seemed too low, considering the types of enemies you fought when you were high enough in level to have level 9 spells made them practically useless.)
I appreciate that it is now up to the Wizard's own skill and ability with the spell to determine whether or not that sleep spell takes hold or that Fireball deals full damage, or even if that magic missile hits its target.

I love my new wizard, and I can't wait to start doing some rituals! I have never wanted to cast Comprehend Languages so much :smallsmile:

I hope to eventually play my second favorite class, the Rogue...

Frost
2008-06-18, 10:34 AM
Originally, a wizard would cast his magic missile, or his burning hands, and then rely on his crossbow for the rest of the encounter (in earlier editions, not even that!) I have always believed that it didn't make sense for a wizard to not even be able to cast the simplest of spells as often as he wanted.

Or he would be level 5 and have all the spells he needed and never run out.


On top of that, I like the fact that there are no longer the incredibly low save DC against the Wizard's spells. It was so frustrating to be unable to do ANYTHING against your opponents because their Will or Fort saving bonuses were too high (A level 9 spell with a save DC of only 24 [assuming INT of 20] seemed too low, considering the types of enemies you fought when you were high enough in level to have level 9 spells made them practically useless.)
I appreciate that it is now up to the Wizard's own skill and ability with the spell to determine whether or not that sleep spell takes hold or that Fireball deals full damage, or even if that magic missile hits its target.

Um? Sure if you play a crap Wizard. In 4E your success is based on Int+1/2 level versus their defense. In 3.5 it's based on Int + Spell level (usually about 1/2 level) versus save. That's the same thing!

And yes, a save DC of 24 is pathetic. But since level 1 Wizards have 20 Int, and level 17 Wizards have 34 Int, the saving throw DC of 31 isn't so sucky.

TheOOB
2008-06-19, 01:01 AM
I just finished an adventure with a wizard, fighter, warlord, and ranger, and one thing I noticed more then anything is that it's not the classes that matter so much, but the party, you really need to build your characters together and create a party that complements eachother. No one class can do it all alone now, everyone needs to work together, and if you didn't select builds, feats, and powers that mesh together, it just won't work.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-19, 09:20 AM
I just finished an adventure with a wizard, fighter, warlord, and ranger, and one thing I noticed more then anything is that it's not the classes that matter so much, but the party, you really need to build your characters together and create a party that complements eachother. No one class can do it all alone now, everyone needs to work together, and if you didn't select builds, feats, and powers that mesh together, it just won't work.

I think this is probably a good thing, generally. People now build for a team, not for an individual - it reminds people that there's no I in team. Plus, I think the Party Build has a good amount of flexibility in it; you really need to have either a Paladin or a Fighter, and a Cleric or a Warlord, and you can go from there. Much better than making someone have to be a Cleric, IMHO.

hamishspence
2008-06-19, 01:54 PM
No I in team. There is a cheeky comment somewhere about that phrase. The phrase is a good one, but shouldn't be overdone.

JaxGaret
2008-06-20, 09:17 AM
No I in team. There is a cheeky comment somewhere about that phrase. The phrase is a good one, but shouldn't be overdone.

There's no I in team, but there is an M and an E.

Blackdrop
2008-06-20, 01:41 PM
Has anyone used a subclass yet? My Tactical 'lord with a wizard sub is pretty good so far, but are there any other good combos?

SamTheCleric
2008-06-20, 01:53 PM
Has anyone used a subclass yet? My Tactical 'lord with a wizard sub is pretty good so far, but are there any other good combos?

I'm currently thinking of taking the Arcane Initiate feat for my Paladin of Kord to pick up some lightning and thunder powers (Kord is now the god of Storms as well as strength). :smallsmile:

Blackdrop
2008-06-20, 02:03 PM
Does being a priest of Kord enhance thunder/lightning damage? That we would be so sweet if it did.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-20, 02:06 PM
Does being a priest of Kord enhance thunder/lightning damage? That we would be so sweet if it did.

Not really...

Kord's Channel Divinity allows you or an ally to spend a healing surge upon getting a critical hit.

There ARE some thunder based paladin powers... and there's a feat to increase the damage of lightning/thunder powers.

I'm basically modeling the paladin off of Marvel Comics' Thor... wields a warhammer and calls himself the Bringer of Storms or Champion of the Stormlord.

I -really- need to get thunderwave and Lightning bolt.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-06-20, 02:13 PM
With wizards, I really miss the old spell system, but getting prestidigitation, ghost sound, and mage hand as at-will powers makes up basically makes up for it.

Alleine
2008-06-21, 01:18 AM
I just started playing as a Half-Elf Warlock today, and I must say the first level encounter power Diabolic Grasp will be the best thing ever.
I got to crush/incinerate an enemy, and then chuck him at his ally in the next square over.
I'm looking forward to playing this a lot more. Plus, I'm a Half-Elf that is effective! I hadn't even looked at them as a race really, until my DM said they'd be perfect for Warlock.

Ned the undead
2008-06-21, 12:16 PM
Not really...

Kord's Channel Divinity allows you or an ally to spend a healing surge upon getting a critical hit.

There ARE some thunder based paladin powers... and there's a feat to increase the damage of lightning/thunder powers.

I'm basically modeling the paladin off of Marvel Comics' Thor... wields a warhammer and calls himself the Bringer of Storms or Champion of the Stormlord.

I -really- need to get thunderwave and Lightning bolt.

Talk to your Dm about making a weapon ablitiy that does it as an encounter power. Maybe even recharging on a critical hit.

THAC0
2008-06-21, 01:59 PM
I statted out a high level Fey-pact Warlock yesterday for fun and MAN the warlock class looks awesome!

There's so much to dig into roleplaying wise there, and the different pacts have very different flavors.

Now I need somewhere to play this thing!

Yakk
2008-06-21, 05:36 PM
Dagger Weapon Die is 1d4, or average 2.5
Maul Weapon Die is 2d6, or average 7

Once you start piling on the [W]s, Fighters start to hurt a lot. Especially since their dailies are often reliable.

I suppose a Rogue can go for a 1d8 Rapier though. 4.5 weapon die, but -1 to attack (since rogues get +1 with daggers.)

Um... the Maul in the hands of a two-handed fighter is +3. The Rapier in the hands of a Rogue is +3.


Why did the Fighter get so many reliable powers anyways? The Ranger and Rogue have zero.

Ranger and Rogue powers often do half damage on a miss, or have other special attached abilities.

I do suspect that WotC underestimated the power of large, two-handed weapons, compared to light weapons.

Captain Bananas
2008-06-22, 09:18 PM
Has anyone used a subclass yet? My Tactical 'lord with a wizard sub is pretty good so far, but are there any other good combos?

There's the Melee Cleric -> Ranger sub where you take the Ranger Master of the Hunt 22 Utility Power (Daily, Stance) to add Wis to damage.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-22, 09:42 PM
I think this is probably a good thing, generally. People now build for a team, not for an individual - it reminds people that there's no I in team. Plus, I think the Party Build has a good amount of flexibility in it; you really need to have either a Paladin or a Fighter, and a Cleric or a Warlord, and you can go from there. Much better than making someone have to be a Cleric, IMHO.

Theres no U in Team either.

So there is no I or U in team: No one is on the Team.
This team sucks!

chiasaur11
2008-06-22, 10:31 PM
No I in team. There is a cheeky comment somewhere about that phrase. The phrase is a good one, but shouldn't be overdone.

"There's no "U" in team either. So if I'm not on the team, and you're not on the team, then nobody's on the %^&% team! This team sucks"

Oh, Grif. You make us laugh about love... again.

Chronicled
2008-06-22, 10:38 PM
With wizards, I really miss the old spell system, but getting prestidigitation, ghost sound, and mage hand as at-will powers makes up basically makes up for it.

I'd agree with you, if they hadn't nerfed Prestidigitation. That's right, nerfed it. You can only have 3 of its effects up at once now. And the recoloring doesn't have enough area to pull off my favorite trick with it: while being chased, swapping my clothes' colors with that of some other bloke after rounding a corner, then ducking down an alley/into a shop.

tresson
2008-06-22, 11:23 PM
Theres no U in Team either.

So there is no I or U in team: No one is on the Team.
This team sucks!

Also remember that team is meat with the M and T switched. Gives whole new meaning to having the team over for dinner.