| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Foxhelm
Senior Scribe
Canada
592 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Aug 2010 : 22:07:56
|
Been working on 4th edition characters for fun, but having trouble due to some indecisiveness. So thought I check out opinions of others for input and comments.
So the main character is a Male Human Cunning Bard of Finder Wyvernspur, but the characters I was working on was his twin wives (polygamy is allowed in the realms and Adventurers due tend to break the rules).
Female, they are either Genasi or Tiefling. For a Class I was trying to work with a non-Leader class, with a combat combo for the two of them. Defender/Striker is the obvious one, with one twin taking the attention of a foe and the other making sudden attacks on the same foe or striking an enemy who would be attacking the defender.
For the D/S combo, I had Swordmage or Paladin as the Defender with the possibility for a Battlemind... then either a Warlock, Sorcerer, Monk or Avenger.
Just looking for help and comments. Thanks.
|
Ed Greenwood! The Solution... and Cause of all the Realms Problems! |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4686 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2010 : 23:54:26
|
Hmm, twins tend to be alike or total opposites depending on mood.
You certainly could go with one as a Striker the other as a Defender. Not sure Paladin a good option, being one tends to limit options. I had the impression that Warlock *shudder* fell more into leader role and of course no female can be a Warlock.
Warlock a male spell caster. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
 |
|
|
Foxhelm
Senior Scribe
Canada
592 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2010 : 00:03:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Hmm, twins tend to be alike or total opposites depending on mood.
You certainly could go with one as a Striker the other as a Defender. Not sure Paladin a good option, being one tends to limit options. I had the impression that Warlock *shudder* fell more into leader role and of course no female can be a Warlock.
Warlock a male spell caster.
Warlocks are call that because they make deals with external forces, like Devils. You could make the adjustment that female Warlocks are called Witches... at least till D&D creates a Witch Class.
Warlocks are Strikers, who deal massive damage but leave the foe unable to strike back. Example, Warlocks can fly, teleport, shield with magic, strike fear so the foe will run, etc.
Leaders like the Bard, are healers. But also buff, debuff, and other enhancements to the party. |
Ed Greenwood! The Solution... and Cause of all the Realms Problems! |
Edited by - Foxhelm on 22 Aug 2010 00:05:25 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4686 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2010 : 00:32:40
|
Foxhelm (may I call you Fox") I have not done much with 4th Edition because Warlock and Warlord are offensive terms to me. To try to avoid Edition war (which either the Sage or Woolly will will direct should not be done) I will move on.
An idea for the twins might better be mage (Controller) and rogue (Striker) as both can basically dress the same and the poor sod of a husband might not always know which wife he might be sleeping with. *EG* |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Foxhelm
Senior Scribe
Canada
592 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2010 : 02:05:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Foxhelm (may I call you Fox") I have not done much with 4th Edition because Warlock and Warlord are offensive terms to me. To try to avoid Edition war (which either the Sage or Woolly will will direct should not be done) I will move on.
An idea for the twins might better be mage (Controller) and rogue (Striker) as both can basically dress the same and the poor sod of a husband might not always know which wife he might be sleeping with. *EG*
I did think of an Invoker (Divine version of a Wizard) and an Avenger (Divine version of a Warlock or Rogue), basically one loading down area and burst/blast attack and the other sneaking in to attack then sneaking out to avoid a counter. Or a Wizard and Warlock or Sorcerer. Psion (Psionic Wizard) and Monk (psionic Rogue) are also interested. Also a mix of magic types, like Wizard and Avenger.
Can you tell me why you find Warlock and Warlord offensive? |
Ed Greenwood! The Solution... and Cause of all the Realms Problems! |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4686 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2010 : 02:33:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Foxhelm
Can you tell me why you find Warlock and Warlord offensive?
Warlock is offensive because the truer definition is Oath Breaker. A killer of Witches as well.
Warlord is offensive to me because it is not a gender neutral class title. This is not logical that a 1st level character can be a "Warlord"
BTY I find the "class" barbarian offensive as well, because it is not logical that a character can at 20th level be able to be able to "Rage". |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Foxhelm
Senior Scribe
Canada
592 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2010 : 21:56:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Foxhelm
Can you tell me why you find Warlock and Warlord offensive?
Warlock is offensive because the truer definition is Oath Breaker. A killer of Witches as well.
Warlord is offensive to me because it is not a gender neutral class title. This is not logical that a 1st level character can be a "Warlord"
BTY I find the "class" barbarian offensive as well, because it is not logical that a character can at 20th level be able to be able to "Rage".
You could use the short forms.
Cha'lock - A Warlock who focuses on Charisma for a primary stat including Fey Pact Warlocks, Dark Pact Warlocks, and some Star Pact Warlocks.
Con'lock - A Warlock who focuses on Constitution for a primary stat including Infernal Pact Warlocks, Vestige Pact Warlocks, and some Star Pact Warlocks.
Dark'lock - A Dark Pact Warlock.
Split'lock - A (generally Star Pact) Warlock that focuses on both Constitution and Charisma for primary stats.
Star'lock - A Star Pact Warlock.
Fey'lock - A Fey Pact Warlock.
Hell'lock - An Infernal Pact Warlock.
Vestige'lock - A Vestige Pact Warlock. |
Ed Greenwood! The Solution... and Cause of all the Realms Problems! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2010 : 15:28:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Warlock is offensive because the truer definition is Oath Breaker. A killer of Witches as well.
Warlord is offensive to me because it is not a gender neutral class title. This is not logical that a 1st level character can be a "Warlord"
BTY I find the "class" barbarian offensive as well, because it is not logical that a character can at 20th level be able to be able to "Rage".
And yet the classical definiton of Paladin is one who defends an ideal or religion docturne. No where does it say that a paladin MUST be Lawful Good yet in D&D, until 4E, paladins could only be that alignment (and in previous editions, human only). So I don't take classical definitons of what is "in" a classe's name too literally. Warlocks, IMO, can be women and men considering that anyone can make a pact with an outside force (though my wife believes as you do and says that Warlocks are only male  ). And I think warlord is a more thematic title than a regular soldier. A Warlord leads by example and is of higher military rank than your regular soldier (or fighter) and yet we see this in present military where officers come out of basic with a higher rank because they've gone through additional schooling.
And a Barbarian of extreamly high levels would probably rage more often and their rages would be a lot stronger seeing as they've had a longer time in focusing their Strength and power as opposed to younger barbarians who are un-disciplined.
But I don't want people to think that I'm trying to start another edition war, just throwing my own POV which is different than Kentinal's.
As to the OP: I think a defender/striker is a good way to go seeing as your bard makes a good leader. I like the idea of them being Tieflings over Genasi but the Genasi work well too. As for what classes you should go with.....a good Swordmage/Sorcerer works well. Both are arcane and they could go with different themes like the Swordmage going Fire/Radiant and the Sorcerer going Cold/Necrotic (though I know necrotic dmg is highly resisted by monsters).
By going Avenger/Invoker, it definitly opens up the whole Divine aspect and Divine characters work GREAT together, espically when the stack up on the Radiant damage/vulnerablity. |
Edited by - Diffan on 23 Aug 2010 15:34:59 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
The Twins(Need help for 4th Edition Characters)
