[4e] DM making his first PC!

[Nad]

Hi all,

Just wanted some feedback because I've been behind the screen since 4e came out. (As a side note I'd like to say what a freaking improvement the screen is this version, I love it!)

Our backup DM is ready to have his go at 4e and we'll be switching campaigns in our weekly game after completing each "chapter."

That means I finally get to play a PC! Woot!

We're actually playing an evil party but no Chaotic Evil types, all pretty much willing to work together.

What I need your help with is finding what to play... I really want to play something fun and be a good utility role for the party. Here's the pieces:

Party currently has:

An insane warlock who's biggest fear is being alone
A pyromaniac wizard
An emo rogue

There are two other players left to pick classes and myself as well.

I was thinking of going cleric but I don't want to be melee. I appreciate the idea of being able to dps without having to move to my target. With that said, I was looking primarily at ranger and wizard.

If I go ranger, I'd go archery and elf. I'd probably get hunter's quarry though I've considered jack of all trades. A big note for the ranger is having a high nature skill... this campaign is set in a very similar campaign setting to Dark Sun.

If I go wizard, I'd pick up Initiate of Faith to be able to use healing word and be human. I'd also balance out the other wizard - he's going all fire, I was going to go Ice. He does damage, I control. We were going to consider mixing our backstories if that's the case.

Any thoughts on the inbetween? Experiences with the classes?

[Kurald Galain]

An insane warlock who's biggest fear is being alone
A pyromaniac wizard
An emo rogue

You've got two strikers and one controller. That means the recommended classes at this point are fighter, paladin, cleric, and warlord.

I appreciate the idea of being able to dps without having to move to my target. With that said, I was looking primarily at ranger and wizard.

Rangers are much better at DPS than wizards (who really aren't about DPS at all).

(edit) I'd not recommend having two wizards in the group. Rangers always get hunter's quarry, and elf is a good choice for them. Jack of all trades, however, is not, since intelligence will likely be your dump stat. For a wizard, cleric multiclassing is solid, and human is again a good choice, although arguably several other races with an int boost are better.

[Burley]

In our group, we have a cleric of the Raven Queen. He's actually neutral, but could be evil very quickly, if he chose to. Worshipping the Goddess of Death and wanting to bring death to any who you feel deserve it, to honor your Goddess? Tight. Also... Friggin' everything is weak to Radiant Damage. It's impossible for a cleric to NOT do radiant damage.

[kjones]

Without a leader or defender, you guys really don't have anyone to soak up the damage. That's fine, but it changes the tactics available to you dramatically. Given that, I would go ranger, since rangers are awesome.

[Nad]

If we have one wizard going all fire spells and I go all ice spells, I can see us really playing different roles for the group.

I've thought up a pretty good backstory to go along with it so I think I'm going to stick to Wizard and take the multiclass feat Initiate of the Faith to get healing word.

Any recommendations on race?

[kbk]

Its not dps in DnD....


Really, they only role that is absolutely required is a leader. A party can fudge the rest. If one other players that are uncommitted will play a leader, just pick something that sounds cool.

However:
Warlocks don't work well together, only one curse per baddie.
A wizard with healing word will be quite helpful, even if you get someone else to be a leader. Wizards are not strikers, so they don't really do that much focused damage, but like any class, they have their moments.

[Kurald Galain]

If we have one wizard going all fire spells and I go all ice spells, I can see us really playing different roles for the group.

Except that there aren't enough different spells yet for that to make a difference.
At every level where you get a new power, you'll get a choice of about four. Chances are that this does not contain both a fire and an ice spell. Chances also are that two of the four clearly aren't all that great. So you'll have overlap.

For instance, the at-will powers do contain a fire power (scorching burst) and an ice one (ray of frost), except that the former is clearly a better choice, so as an ice mage you'll probably want "scorching burst refluffed" instead.

The level-2 utility powers are jump, shield, exp. retreat, and feather fall; not only do none of these have anything to do with fire or ice, but jump and feather fall are so obviously not worth it (because they're too situational) that nearly all wizards will take the former two.

Any recommendations on race?

Eladrin. Because fey step is just awesome. Also, Doppelganger, just because.


Anyway it really depends on what your group is doing. If you're into published modules, "level-appropriate" combat encounters and lots of fighting, you will need a leader (and arguably, a tank) and controller is the one role that you'll not want to double up on.
If you're into making your own plot, more roleplaying than rules, and a DM who likes improvising, then play whatever thou wishest.

[Mando Knight]

If the FRPG is available to you, I'd recommend the Swordmage, simply because you need someone who can soak up damage. There aren't many ranged powers for him, but there are a few burst or ranged spells for each power level...

[serok42]

If the FRPG is available to you, I'd recommend the Swordmage, simply because you need someone who can soak up damage. There aren't many ranged powers for him, but there are a few burst or ranged spells for each power level...

The swordmage is awesome. I played one a few weeks ago and I plan on switching my main RPGA character to a swordmage.

[Theodoric]

I'd recommend a Paladin; he's both good at soaking up damage (which, I can tell you from experience, can be, at times, the most important role), and can heal as well to a considerable degree. With that in mind, an Inspiring Warlord is also a good choice, although he's probably more of a leader than a tank.

[Jayabalard]

Its not dps in DnD....

I don't see why not.

[RukiTanuki]

I don't see why not.

I think the implication is that D&D uses rounds as a unit of time, not seconds; thus, one is directly trying to maximize the amount of damage one does per round. Since a round is always six seconds (and thus DPS == DPR / 6), it's a bit of a technicality to claim there's notable difference between "DPS" and "DPR".

[chiasaur11]

I'd recommend a Paladin; he's both good at soaking up damage (which, I can tell you from experience, can be, at times, the most important role), and can heal as well to a considerable degree. With that in mind, an Inspiring Warlord is also a good choice, although he's probably more of a leader than a tank.

Plus, a Paladin in an evil party has a ton of fun character options.

You can be anyone from Snidely Whiplash, to a Fighter McWarrior style LG idiot who thinks his friends could never be the evil ones.

[Jayabalard]

I think the implication is that D&D uses rounds as a unit of time, not seconds; thus, one is directly trying to maximize the amount of damage one does per round. Since a round is always six seconds (and thus DPS == DPR / 6), it's a bit of a technicality to claim there's notable difference between "DPS" and "DPR".

Even though some (or even most) people would rather focus on DPR, some people are still going to use a less game specific term (DPS). Telling someone D&D doesn't have DPS is as useless as like arguing with someone that D&D doesn't have a Game Master, Referee, or Storyteller.