(4E) Character Architecture

[Shazbot79]

Hello Forumites.

Longtime lurker, first time poster.

I picked up this little tidbit from the recent (now closed) "How is 3.5 Actually Better Than 4E" thread.

I'm not trying to resurrect the whole 3.5 vs. 4E debate, as the whole edition war thing has become an inane ouroboros of dead horse arguments.

That said, forum member Eldariel posted some character concepts that he/she felt could not be replicated in 4E. As a thought exercise I'd like to see if I can approximate them...

Rules I'm imposing on myself:

No houserules (that is, changing of mechanics or keywords)
No 3rd Party material
Only classes that are currently published either online or in print
All must be playable from 1st Level.

- A learned arcanist using arrows as a medium to channel his spells through (arcane gish with Smiting Spell and possibly two levels of Arcane Archer).

A Prescient Bard is an archery based Bard option, and they would most certainly count as a "learned arcanist"

If one wanted to stretch the concept out a little, the new "Seeker" class does exactly this, only with a more nature based bent. But if you're looking for one who delivers spells via a longbow, then this class certainly fits the bill.

- A psionically gifted warrior using psionics to pretend to be incredibly skilled with his weapon of choice, while really just subtly using extra-physical powers to perform tricks that would be purely physically extremely difficult. Swashbuckler-type (e.g. Psion Gish with lots of martially enhancing powers).

Since 4E did away with alignment restrictions on classes, the Monk (now a psionic class) is a close fit for this concept. The one downside is that weapon selection is a bit limited.

Simply reimagine the character as a natural talent, rather than a dedicated ascetic warrior and add a character background that grants Bluff as a class skill.

- A beastmaster fielding a real circus of exotic animals (a Druid or Druid/Beastmaster with Wild Cohort and a couple of Handle Animaled extra pets)

A Hybrid Druid/Beastmaster would work for this. The DMG2 has rules for companion characters and animals.

- A keen-eyed warrior jealously guarding the area around him with a chain, intervening with any activity he can reach (a Spiked Chain AoO build)

This one is easy. There are a number of Fighter abilities with AoE effects...and 4E Fighters are at their best when making opporunity attacks.

- A man whose very presence is so icy, so dreadful that it throws even battle-hardened warriors into panic (a Barbarian/Zhentarim Fighter Intimidate-focused build)

Charisma based class option for the 4E Barbarian fits this perfectly.

- A street urchin having fended for himself for his early years with theft and dirty fighting, who was shortly into adolescence, after being caught by law enforcement, taken in by a monastery for fostering and taught self-control and martial exercises, but who instead chose to blend his newfound martial ability with what he learned in his childhood and found what he truly was doing was rebelling against the society and civilization, and took to the wilds where he was found by a Druidic circle and eventually accepted as an acolyte of nature (Rogue/Unarmed Swordsage/Druid)

This one is a bit trickier, since I think Eldariel is referring specifically to 3.5's level-by-level multiclass system here.

However, making a character with this backstory is actually pretty simple.

One simply needs a Druid with a character background that grants access to the Theivery skill, and the Unarmed Combat Feat.

================================================== ========

Even as a fan of 4E, I can freely admit that 3.5's system of character architecture offers greater flexibility simply because of the system's granularity versus the modularity of the current edition.

Case in point, the Arcane Archer in 3.5 was an amalgam of different classes and prestige classes, that combined to make a unique and wholly playable concept. You could build unique and interesting characters in 3.5 simply by combining the features of a few different classes.

In 4E, an entirely new base class needs to be created to fit some of these, and most of the above listed concepts couldn't be at all replicated as little as 1 year ago, so I'm not arguing the superiority of one system over the other.

[Kurald Galain]

Looking over your responses, most of them don't really fit Eldariel's descriptions, but simply give the closest match in 4E while handwaving away the parts that don't fit. That pretty much proves his point.

[Raz_Fox]

Looking over your responses, most of them don't really fit Eldariel's descriptions, but simply give the closest match in 4E while handwaving away the parts that don't fit. That pretty much proves his point.

Um, what? The only one I could see that doesn't "fit" is the beastmaster - but that'd be a pain in either edition. They're not going to fit perfectly, but the point he's trying to make is that with only a touch of tweaking, those concepts can be approximated - his own words.

Sheesh, could you at least try to give some constructive criticism?


Since I'm no hypocrite, I'll give you some criticism of the concepts here. As I said, that beastmaster concept seems a touch weak - but then again, I don't have DMG2. How many animals could this build have?
Also, that psionic warrior is a bit weak. Perhaps multiclassing into Rogue or Fighter would improve the concept?

[CorvidMP]

Looking over your responses, most of them don't really fit Eldariel's descriptions, but simply give the closest match in 4E while handwaving away the parts that don't fit. That pretty much proves his point.

Are you kiding me thats just a terrible argument? No things arent going to be frelling exactly the same, itsa different damn system.

But just to humor you lets look again-
Spiked Chain Fighter, and the fear based(Thane if you were wondering) barbarian are specifically represented in the rules and are both effective builds.

To the list of of possible arcane archer analogs I'd like to add the artificer class, which has a ton of attacks which can use a ranged weapon, infused with all kinds of nifty arcane effects. Then there is the paragon path from arcane power where the wizard uses a bow as an implement to channel his spells...hell there are more magic archer options in 4e than there ever were in 3.5.

The psionic guys...well the psionic rules haven't even been realeased yet so thats not even a fair challenge. Though there is going to be a psionic warrior in PHB3 and i bet there will be enough power options (well maybe not initially but certainly after the release of psionic power) based on telepathy and prescience to make it work.

The last one with the wacky half druid unarmed thing, again not really a fair request but just to be thorough-l with the hybrid rules (Warden/rogue) an unarmed combat feat (should be in PHB3), you can get a a shapeshifting unarmed guy with nature spellz sneakyness, and elemental attacks to easy.

[Indon]

Looking over your responses, most of them don't really fit Eldariel's descriptions, but simply give the closest match in 4E while handwaving away the parts that don't fit. That pretty much proves his point.

I'm inclined to agree, but few systems are wholly able to encompass another even if one is more expansive conceptually.

I imagine I can think of a few character concepts easier to express in 4th edition than in 3rd, for instance. Hmm...

-A person whose presence and command are so potent that he pushes those about him to superhuman achievements (4E Warlord).

-A halfling standing as a stalwart and immovable bastion of protection for his homeland (Some Defender build, no doubt).

Well, I'm sure there are others, but my experience with the system isn't that great in terms of reading all the material.

Edit:

Are you kiding me thats just a terrible argument? No things arent going to be frelling exactly the same, itsa different damn system.

I disagree here, too.

Mutants and Masterminds isn't a D&D system at all (though it is D20), but it could probably express any character concept we could name in this thread.

I imagine we could compare the number of poorly-conveyed concepts between each system (3.x concepts that do poorly in 4th edition vs. 4E concepts that do poorly in 3.x) to see which would ultimately be more expansive.

[Artanis]

I have a question: how close does the fluff have to be?

4e is a LOT bigger on refluffing things to suit the player's tastes than 3.5 was, which makes a big difference. In 4e, the default fluff is merely default, not hard-and-fast. You can refluff things to however you can describe it within the mechanics.

So how close do the mechanics have to be to the concept? Same power source? Exact same fluff as you find in the blurbs on the powers? Just close enough to BS it into looking however you want? Or what?


For instance, the second example in the OP (the swashbuckler secret gish thingy) never openly uses supernatural stuff: the only thing people see is the stabbing. So...
1) Would it be acceptable to say that, since the only thing other characters actually see is martial-type stuff, the player could use a martial character and simply describe it as doing some sort of hidden self-buff? Or...
2) Would it have to be some sort of gish-fluffed class like the Assassin or Avenger that gets refluffed into using "psionics" as its supposed power source (but using the original keywords and everything). Or...
3) Has to be a class that is explicitly a psionic swashbuckler-style gish?
Or what?

[Shazbot79]

Looking over your responses, most of them don't really fit Eldariel's descriptions, but simply give the closest match in 4E while handwaving away the parts that don't fit. That pretty much proves his point.

I think you misunderstood my intent.

I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, I'm not trying to sway anyone over to my "cause"

All I'm doing is showing how I, personally, from my own subjective viewpoint, would represent those concepts in 4E...and in doing so, hopefully kick off a nice discussion on building characters in 4E.

[Kylarra]

Looking over your responses, most of them don't really fit Eldariel's descriptions, but simply give the closest match in 4E while handwaving away the parts that don't fit. That pretty much proves his point.

Given this response I'm inclined to point out the same thing I pointed out in the other thread. It's astonishing how much 3.X proponents both promote disregarding the fluff for classes/PrCs when creating 3.X characters, but then cling to that exact same specific fluff when making this statement against 4e character building. I concede that there are aspects of 3.X that cannot be mechanically replicated in 4e, but conceptually, things can be made in 4e for a greater majority of concepts than many 3.x proponents give it credit for.

Heck the psionic one could just be your fluff for a melee training (stat) feat and your choice of a psionic base class (admittedly we don't have any beyond partial monk and psion atm).


That said, this doesn't seem like too bad of an idea for a thread topic, to see some ideas that people don't think would work in 4e, and try to approximate them conceptually.

[Tiki Snakes]

It would, admittedly, help if the 'difficult concepts' weren't actually just direct call-outs to existing specific builds, and rather were actual character concepts. The painfully convaluted 'backstory' of the street urchin come ninja-druid is particularly dreadfull, frankly.

As for the beastmaster, would transforming into a beast be an important part of the mix? If not, you could probably do fine with simply going Beast Ranger. That nets you a primary companion. You could add to that further, by first taking any arcane multiclass feat, then giving him a Hawk, or weasel familiar? Even without invoking the companion rules there is still the option of buying either a mount, or mounts and travelling alongside them. Simply pick up several, they have costs and everything. Of course, if they are to be trained and acting in battle, it'd mean the DM is obliged to increase the points-value of encounters accordingly, but that's beside the point.

If the arcane multiclass is one that merely gives ritual training, you can even then focus on plenty of nature related rituals and so on, for added wild-man credentials.

There's always the upcoming Summoner Druid of course, too, but we'll have to see how that turns out, yet, and further still wait for updates to the hybrid system to accomodate it. (Assuming it has a class feature worth taking for this concept, rather than merely providing plenty of animal-based powers.)

[Yakk]

A street urchin having fended for himself for his early years with theft and dirty fighting, who was shortly into adolescence, after being caught by law enforcement, taken in by a monastery for fostering and taught self-control and martial exercises, but who instead chose to blend his newfound martial ability with what he learned in his childhood and found what he truly was doing was rebelling against the society and civilization, and took to the wilds where he was found by a Druidic circle and eventually accepted as an acolyte of nature (Rogue/Unarmed Swordsage/Druid)

Backgrounds: Criminal, Orphan, Urban, Monastary, Forest
Class: Hybrid Monk/Druid, possibly with multiclass Rogue (Wis/Dex attribute split)

Viable character at level 1 that matches the above backstory? Check!

Might be quite fun -- you'd be able to fight as a beast, as a human monk, ranged nature spells, etc.

Note that hybrid rules for Monks aren't out yet (neither is the full class). It wouldn't be hard to houserule a Hybrid Rogue/Druid with an unarmed (human-form) "ki" attack that emulates a dagger, or (as noted) just take an unarmed combat feat and leave the monk/rogue parts as background/flavour.

[oxybe]

for the summoner/beastmaster thing


beastmaster ranger|wizard w/shaman multiclass

ranger pet, wizard familiar, shaman spirit, wizard has a few summon-type spells you can reflavor and even the shaman has at least one summon you can make use of (wizard: flaming sphere = fire elemental, icy grasp = ice paraelemental, mordenkeinen's sword = hawk, shaman: Great Bear Guardian).

a bow ranger with high dex & int would be required and both classes use wisdom as a secondary so an elf with the stats of:

str 8
con 12
dex 16 (14+2 racial)
int 16
wis 16 (14+2 racial)
cha 11

could very much do it. the biggest problem would be the Multiple ability dependancy it suffers from. alternatively, if you want to mix it up with the pets, a TWF style deva ranger with these stats could work well enough.

str 16
con 12
dex 11
int 16 (14+2 racial)
wis 16 (14+2 racial)
cha 8

the Wizard of the Spiral Tower PP will let you use your longsword for a wizard implement. still pretty MAD & costly on items and a bit on feats.

not optimal, but possible.

[Indon]

Okay, in the interest of fun, I'm going to name a character concept I've used for 3.x and we'll see what 4E class they turn into.

-A listless, unfocused savant who pursues whatever skillset he finds interesting at the moment, skilled in thievery (he describes himself as a 'security consultant') ranged weapons, and magical artifacts such as wands (of which he keeps a collection), he acts as a guide for his compatriots in and out of the wilderness, but stays well behind them if combat breaks out.

In 3.x, he was a Rogue/Ranger/Scout (the party skill-user) who would contribute in combat with UMD use or archery in conjunction with sneak attack and skirmish (Judicious wand use made him surprisingly effective).

[Tiki Snakes]

Okay, in the interest of fun, I'm going to name a character concept I've used for 3.x and we'll see what 4E class they turn into.

-A listless, unfocused savant who pursues whatever skillset he finds interesting at the moment, skilled in thievery (he describes himself as a 'security consultant') ranged weapons, and magical artifacts such as wands (of which he keeps a collection), he acts as a guide for his compatriots in and out of the wilderness, but stays well behind them if combat breaks out.

In 3.x, he was a Rogue/Ranger/Scout (the party skill-user) who would contribute in combat with UMD use or archery in conjunction with sneak attack and skirmish (Judicious wand use made him surprisingly effective).

I've not even read the class entry in my phb2 properly and can say comfortably that Bard would make this so easy you wouldn't believe. Pick the right type of bard, splash on all the multiclass feats you fancy (picking up not only any skill that catches your eye but a neat collection of free tricks to boot), and if entirely necessary play down the musical side of things.

[Dixieboy]

-A listless, unfocused savant who pursues whatever skillset he finds interesting at the moment, skilled in thievery (he describes himself as a 'security consultant') ranged weapons, and magical artifacts such as wands (of which he keeps a collection), he acts as a guide for his compatriots in and out of the wilderness, but stays well behind them if combat breaks out.

An half elven rogue who used his dilletante ability to get something from the wizard list so he can use wands.

I think that's how the rules work.

[Arbitrarity]

Factotum

Wait no, that's a 4e Artificer MC ranger, I guess. Variety of skills, including theivery, nature, perception, arcana, etc.
Uses bows mostly for weapon powers, and a variety of magical "items", in the form of powers. Squishy, stays in the back.

I was also going to say bard, actually, but I think Artificer circumvents the musical fluff better, while being fairly similar.

[Indon]

I've not even read the class entry in my phb2 properly and can say comfortably that Bard would make this so easy you wouldn't believe. Pick the right type of bard, splash on all the multiclass feats you fancy (picking up not only any skill that catches your eye but a neat collection of free tricks to boot), and if entirely necessary play down the musical side of things.

I thought the Bard was a leader, all about inspiring and such? Does the Bard really have such power diversity that you can 'play down' that aspect? 'Cause this guy, he's not the most inspirational sort.

Edit: Ooh, artificer with a splash of ranger sounds pretty nice. Just take all the powers which involve tooling around with stuff and use a bow for everything else.

Edit: I could do it with a Rogue, too? Man.

[Arbitrarity]

Hm. You could reflavor most bard powers as wand/spell powers, like Majestic word as a wand effect.

Other than that, let's look at the bard's at wills. Jinx Shot, shoot someone with an arrow, if they miss an attack, they fall down. Not inspiring at all, really.
Cutting words, damage and pull. Not so much, it at least requires charisma. Is an implement power, so some potential wand option.
Guiding strike, hit enemy, they become vulnerable to attack for a turn.
Misdirected mark, makes the enemy pay attention to another member of your party (generally).
Vicious mockery, scorn them so hard they take damage and a penalty to attacks.
War song strike, attack, next ally to hit the enemy gets some temporary health.

I think a human bard could get away with Misdirected Mark, Jinx Shot, and guiding strike (which is melee, but Jinx shot should cover ranged attacks), and none of those are overtly magical.
Rhyme of the Bloodseeking Blade, a very potent encounter power, basically consists of shooting the enemy with an arrow, giving an ally just enough of an opening to hit them. Most levels have a power similar to this.

Yeah, with Arcane Power, bards have a good variety of powers. Even the highest level, most overtly magical, contain stuff like "arrow of destiny", whenever an ally hits, you can make their attack a crit, or Saga of Foretold Doom, whenever the target is hit, their next attack is considerably weaker.

I'm not sure about the rogue option, myself. It's "use" of a wand would be completely superficial, unless you were particularly heavily invested in multiclassing. It is the only core-only option presented so far, though.

[horseboy]

It would, admittedly, help if the 'difficult concepts' weren't actually just direct call-outs to existing specific builds, and rather were actual character concepts. The painfully convaluted 'backstory' of the street urchin come ninja-druid is particularly dreadfull, frankly.

+1 this. When I think of concepts I tend to think of things like "Soldier." In 3.x trying to play a mechanically good "soldier" means you can't play a fighter, as all the skills a soldier would have would be cross classed. 4th is slightly better in something like that in that a lot of those skills don't exist anymore, though it's still weak to the level of detail I prefer.

[Kurald Galain]

-A person whose presence and command are so potent that he pushes those about him to superhuman achievements (4E Warlord).

The warlord is one of the better inventions of 4E, and a class that I'm frankly surprised hasn't come up in earlier editions. I suppose the closest matches are the bard, and something involving White Raven Tactics, although neither is really a fit.

Given this response I'm inclined to point out the same thing I pointed out in the other thread. It's astonishing how much 3.X proponents both promote disregarding the fluff for classes/PrCs when creating 3.X characters, but then cling to that exact same specific fluff when making this statement against 4e character building.

The problem is not that people can refluff things as they want; the problem is that the fluff is contradicted by the crunch. A common example is sneak attack: it's easy to fluff as "stabbing someone in the vitals". However, this is contradicted by the crunch: it also works on creatures that don't have vitals. Plenty more examples where that came from; there are numerous abilities that are hard or impossible to fluff in a manner that is consistent with what the abilities actually do, rules-wise.

[Arbitrarity]

Marshal as well, but they kinda fail.

[Indon]

Marshal as well, but they kinda fail.

Oh, yeah, actually, Marshal about nails the flavor of the Warlord, since the 'auras' are the Warlord's inspirational/command presence.

Huh.

Nonetheless, my non-dwarven defender example remains as something 4E does better!

[Kylarra]

The problem is not that people can refluff things as they want; the problem is that the fluff is contradicted by the crunch. A common example is sneak attack: it's easy to fluff as "stabbing someone in the vitals". However, this is contradicted by the crunch: it also works on creatures that don't have vitals. Plenty more examples where that came from; there are numerous abilities that are hard or impossible to fluff in a manner that is consistent with what the abilities actually do, rules-wise.

I'm not generalizing about all of 4e, and I've honestly read enough of your issues with various powers to know that I probably would fail to convince you successfully of anything along those lines, my statement was purely along the lines of character concepts.

[Shazbot79]

I thought the Bard was a leader, all about inspiring and such? Does the Bard really have such power diversity that you can 'play down' that aspect? 'Cause this guy, he's not the most inspirational sort.

Edit: Ooh, artificer with a splash of ranger sounds pretty nice. Just take all the powers which involve tooling around with stuff and use a bow for everything else.

Edit: I could do it with a Rogue, too? Man.

The Bard is a leader class, but they differ in that most of their abilities involve debuffing enemies rather than buffing allies. Plus the Virtue of Presience class feature makes them pretty effective with a bow.

Plus Half-Elf Bards who focus on multiclassing can pretty much do anything.

Artificer would also be a good choice, particularly the spells that bolster weapons. What's more, they have Thievery as a class skill (and even if they didn't, backgrounds make it easy to pick up skills that aren't on your class list.) So that helps support the idea of a lockpicker/trapspringer that doesn't see themselves as a "Rogue"

Taking a Ranger MC feat will help round out the concept, as it will grant your character training in Nature, and a once per encounter use of Hunter's Quarry, increasing the efficacy of your ranged attacks.

All of this is playable at level 1, but if you want to further the whole skill monkey approach, then at subsequent levels you can take Skill Training feats.

[Shazbot79]

The problem is not that people can refluff things as they want; the problem is that the fluff is contradicted by the crunch. A common example is sneak attack: it's easy to fluff as "stabbing someone in the vitals". However, this is contradicted by the crunch: it also works on creatures that don't have vitals. Plenty more examples where that came from; there are numerous abilities that are hard or impossible to fluff in a manner that is consistent with what the abilities actually do, rules-wise.

This is something I struggle with as well. The idea that you can sneak attack an ooze, or knock it prone kind of ruffles my feathers.

Then again, if you divorce the actual fluff from the crunch you get a view of what sneak attack and knocking prone actually does to a target.

All sneak attack really is, is a circumstantial extra damage mechanic.

Knocking something prone forces it to spend a move action to return to a defensible position.

So one could easily say that a Rogue plunges his dagger into an ooze's translucent and barely perceptible nucleus.

Or the Fighter swats the ooze so hard that it has to spend a move action reforming itself.

While I find verisimiltude to be an important aspect of roleplaying, in the longrun it takes a backseat to playability in my book. I never liked the fact that many higher level monsters negated the Rogue's combat efficacy...so if I have to do some reimagining in order to make it work, it's an effort I'm willing to make.

[CorvidMP]

I recently had a conversation with a buddy of mine about this whole kind of thing.

He was confused about the new two weapon fighting feats and how they would work if he made a rogue. This freind never reads the rules and allways rellies on me to explain shyte... usually during game in the middle of the damn fight, if i hadn't known him for twenty years, wasn't basically his only survivng family at this point, and hadn't served with him in iraq...I most likely would have reach across the table just started choking him by now...but i digress.

Upon explaining that no he did not get two attacks a round if he took it, and that it might be a sub optimal choice, though two weapon defense was fairly nice, he got upset that there was no way to create his two weapon rogue with a billion attacks he allways liked to play in 3.x. As i often have to when talking with him, i calmly reminded myself he's basaically family at this point, and then pointed out that the 4e rogue is about being sneaky, lightly armored, and slipping in that one lethal shot etween the ribs from behind.

If he wanted to be sneaky, lightly armored and a blur of sword blades... well they already have a class like that-the ranger, he just needed to get his head around his preconcieved notion that rangering involved hugging trees and talking to animals, take dungeoneering instead of nature (which is totally allowed btw if your unfamilliar with 4e), and spend a feat to train into theivery-bam- pretty much exactly what he wanted.

Naturally being himself he continued to gripe (for some reason he's really hung up on that rogue label, he refuses to play anything else) "Why don't they have a viable two weapon rogue build?". They do i said, its quite easy to make a rogue that uses two weapons the feats while not anything to oooh and ahh over are pretty good, and a ranger that is essentially a thief is to easy (to say nothing of multiclassing, or this hybrid stuff that didn't exist at the time)....but why would WoTC waste the time writing, playtesting, and publishing something that essentially just recreates the abilities of a classs they already published? That be silly and as the guy who buys all the books you use when you play, I'd frankly be pretty damn upset at the money i'd would have to waste buying it....

Anyway i guess my point is alot of ppl have gotten a little hung up on the old rules, which is understandable, and are having a bit of trouble seeing how to represent old concepts in the new system. The ability is there mechanically in 4e, but due to unfamiliarity a lot of people are unsure of how to make it happen. (as a disclaimer I would also like to point out that this freind is a big 4e fan, so it wasn't about edition hatred, just talking about the difficulties of the transition in general).

[Artanis]

My point exactly

[The New Bruceski]

Here's one. A gnome who used his warforged friend's corpse (didn't kill him) to make a warmachine he steers around from inside, blasting enemies with fire.

My own answer: Warforged Sorcerer fluffed to hell. I just wanted to share.

[Chrono22]

A divination/illusion/enchantment specialist who uses his power over the dream world to plan and implement his schemes of world domination. He plants seeds of fear of his enemies in the general populace... he uses hypnosis to create unwitting servants and assassins. Everyone, from the lowest commoner to the greatest king are exhausted because to sleep is to enter his realm and influence.

[Indon]

A divination/illusion/enchantment specialist who uses his power over the dream world to plan and implement his schemes of world domination. He plants seeds of fear of his enemies in the general populace... he uses hypnosis to create unwitting servants and assassins. Everyone, from the lowest commoner to the greatest king are exhausted because to sleep is to enter his realm and influence.

Nice one. I think this might even be tricky for 3E. In 4E, however, the system's really not designed to support world-domination types, so I don't think you're likely to get anywhere there.

[Kylarra]

A divination/illusion/enchantment specialist who uses his power over the dream world to plan and implement his schemes of world domination. He plants seeds of fear of his enemies in the general populace... he uses hypnosis to create unwitting servants and assassins. Everyone, from the lowest commoner to the greatest king are exhausted because to sleep is to enter his realm and influence.

This doesn't strike me as a PC character that any sane DM would let you play in a conventional game [of D&D], and thus not really in the scope of 4e PC creation. Seems more like a BBEG, who would be easy enough to make in 4e by simply applying a crapload of penalties to everyone within a certain effective radius and then giving whatever powers you feel necessary for the actual confrontation.