Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 elricofgrans Aug 28, 2009 3:21:11	G'day, I am fairly new to DnD, as is my whole group (we all started together), though I have had a lot of role playing experience in the past from more free-form games.  Traditionally, the characters I play have fallen into two categories: scout/sniper types, or happy-go-lucky sorts with a little sword/a little sorcery and a lot of non-combat skills (essentially, DnD Bards).  When we came together, however, we had a Leader (Cleric), a Striker (Ranger) and a Controller (Wizard), so I clearly needed to take the Defender role.  This was where it became a problem: to make the party work, I had to play something I do not normally enjoy. Since I prefer arcane classes (the Fighter bores me and I have always hated Paladins), I started a Genasi Swordmage.  I created him as a dour, mercenary type, being what I considered the `correct' thing to do for this role.  Since I needed to play the Defender, I have focused everything on his development into how he would contribute in combat.  The result is that he does his job perfectly --- the others never fall before he does --- but I am finding him boring to play.  The Defender role does not suit me well in combat, as I prefer to hang-back and support, while he has absolutely nothing going for him outside of it.  His personality is sour, he prefers to leave the talking to the Cleric (who is quite possibly mad) and he has little to contribute in other non-combat areas.  Without realising it, I created a character who is completely removed from the parts I most enjoy in role playing. I have never had a situation like this before, so I am not too sure what to do.  I thought of creating a new character with a more engaging personality, but it runs the risk of the `Bob the 2nd' syndrome if I play a second Swordmage (and I cannot see myself playing the other Defeder classes) and I am not sure it would really solve the core issue.  In our last session, the DM poisoned my character and he was unconcious for most of the session.   I have thought of a personality shift as a result of the poison, but it seems too dramatic and unrealistic, and only solves a part of the problem.  We are currently only level three, so it is a young party, which means this is probably the best time to act.  I am sure I this is not an uncommon situation.  What ways have other people found to resolve situations like this?
#2 Stuntman Aug 28, 2009 4:08:59	Traditionally, the characters I play have fallen into two categories: scout/sniper types, or happy-go-lucky sorts with a little sword/a little sorcery and a lot of non-combat skills (essentially, DnD Bards).  When we came together, however, we had a Leader (Cleric), a Striker (Ranger) and a Controller (Wizard), so I clearly needed to take the Defender role.  This was where it became a problem: to make the party work, I had to play something I do not normally enjoy. Here is the problem right there.  The solution is play a character you normally enjoy.  If you like playing something else, do that.  It's better and more fun that you play what you want and deal with the missing role rather than play a role that you feel forced into. 4E is designed well enough that a party without one of the roles does not significantly diminish the effectiveness of the party.  If anything, it makes playing more interesting if you are used to playing a balanced party.  The two campaigns that I am in has two parties that are missing some roles.  The first group was missing a controller (until hybrid playtest rules became available).  They were striker heavy and were able to take targets down very quickly.  The second has no leader.  The two high AC defenders help reduce the amount of hits the party takes.  The controller was able to indirectly prevent a lot of damage with the battlefield control and the strikers took down enemies quickly before they were able to deal a lot of damage.  It makes playing a little more challenging, but I would also say that it is also more interesting to play as you have to compensate for the missing role by leveraging where your party is stacked. Talk to your DM about your unhappiness and ask how he could transition your character from what you are playing to what you really would be happy playing.  Hopefully, your DM is understanding and will accomodate your request to change characters.
#3 Nameykins Aug 28, 2009 4:12:20	Well, the personality issue is pretty easy to fix. You don't need to do an overnight change of personality, but you can change the general attitude of the character by good old fashioned character development over time. Pick up on both the major events in the game and the more subtle moments and think over how these things could affect your character, while keeping the changes in a direction you want as a player. For example, even a sour, non-talking Swordmage is intelligent. Probably as smart as the Wizard, or better. He might let the Cleric talk right now, but  if he's quite obviously mad, a smart person wouldn't just stand idly by. As a generally defendery type, he might socially "protect" the group by being more assertive and making sure the other morons in the group wont mess things up. Or alternatively you could take a bit more antagonistic approach and be the snide smartass that constantly keeps the party (and NPC's) well informed on how stupid they are. This might not be as party friendly, but it certainly does give some opportunities to interact with things. As for mechanics, multiclassing is always a valid option. Picking up something like Wizard multi and some power swap feats would give you long range abilites and control, for example. You're not strictly forced to stay within one character archetype only. And honestly, don't worry too much about being a defender, but rather focus on having fun yourself.
#4 Mmaranda Aug 28, 2009 8:06:18	The personality progbrlem can be solved in ways other posters have described or by having your character open up and become attached to his group.   Perhaps after getting so much healing from the cleric he confides in this possibly insane person. Maybe go one step further and create constant banter with the cleric during sections where the cleric is trying to interact with somebody else. Cleric: "Blah blah, job, blah, payment, blah holy symbols, healing potions". You: "No, you can't just ask for that make sure in the negotitation we get a sword for me." Cleric: "Are you sure? You know NPC is right here." You: "I understand but you talk to him. He likes you more." etc...   That starts getting your character back into RP sections creates more player to player interaction but also helps get your point across to the DM.   As for in game playstyle that is a tougher problem. If you don't like how a defender plays then you are either going to have to learn to love it, or eventually wait until such tme as two PCs die and trade rolls with them.
#5 LordOfWeasels Aug 28, 2009 9:15:56	Parties with a role uncovered *do* still work.  Seriously, try playing with no Defender for a while.  You're unlikely to be beating much-higher-level encounters regularly, but that doesn't mean you can't make it work.
#6 CCS Aug 29, 2009 2:19:01	~ so I clearly needed to take the Defender role.  This was where it became a problem: to make the party work, I had to play something I do not normally enjoy. This right here is your problem.  You didn't HAVE to do this.  There's not one single race, class, role, etc that is absolutely needed - regardless of what edition you're playing.  So if you find yourself in a defenderless party?  So what?  Big deal.  All that means is that the story you're about to help tell will play out a bit diferently than it might've if there'd been a defender.... Besides, are the other players happy with whatever roles they chose?  I bet they are.  So why should you be expected to sacrifice your own enjoyment by playing the class/role none of them would?  What are they going to do, hold it against you that you just want to enjoy the game as much as they do?
#7 individuality Aug 29, 2009 13:00:31	When we came together, however, we had a Leader (Cleric), a Striker (Ranger) and a Controller (Wizard), so I clearly needed to take the Defender role.  This was where it became a problem: to make the party work, I had to play something I do not normally enjoy. That's where you're wrong. You don't need a defender. If you roled up a new Archer Ranger, paired with the ranger you already have, and a wizard, you'd have enough damage output that if you ganged up on targets, you could easily bring them down before they got a chance to do much damage. You'd just have to play with a "the best defense is a good offense" tactic. Or if you went with the Bard that you like playing, you'd have a second strong healing role, and paired with the Cleric, you could easily keep everyone alive through healing rather than damage prevention. Also, as a bard, you'd have so many multiclass choices it's crazy. You could take up some multiclassing to get a fair deal of powers for every situation. With the Valorous Bard build, multiclassing into a paladin for a decent helping of charisma based defensive powers, you could easily overcome anything that a reasonable DM would throw at you.
#8 elricofgrans Aug 29, 2009 17:25:10	Thanks for the suggestions.  For the moment, I will take the suggestion of slowly shifting the character's personality.  This definitely seems more realistic than a sudden shift, and should go part of the way to solving the issue.  When he finally dies, I will also not take it as gospel that you must have a Defender and roll up something that interests me more. There were a couple of suggestions of using multiclassing  (albeit one for a Bard).  This seems interesting, as I had immediately discounted multiclassing as an option before I started playing.  It seems like you give up a lot to gain practically nothing.  For example, multiclassing a Swordmage to Artificer sounds quite interesting from a role playing perspective (two separate magical approaches to magically enhancing his sword), but from a functional perspective it seems quite poor.  In exchange for a feat, I gain a once-per-day heal (which would usually be used on himself, so I could just take Rejuvenating Strike for a better option).  I then have to exchange 1-3 further feats to gain the ability to exchange my retrain options to learn 1-3 Artificer spells.  That means, at the very least, I have to spend two feats (and wait two levels) before I actually gain any functional benefit (eg shoot laser beams from my sword 5 squares once per day --- making up a spell to avoid checking the list).  Am I looking at things from the wrong perspective here?
#9 Symar Aug 29, 2009 18:36:58	Yep. Think of the multiclass feat as Skill Training, with the added bonus of giving you a limited use ability, and allowing you to access whatever class' Paragon Paths. You don't have to take the other multiclass feats nor paragon multiclass.
#10 individuality Aug 29, 2009 23:19:00	Take a Bard, with one multiclass feat, and you can go for spending more feats for Paragon Multiclassing, or you can take the Student of the Seven paragon path for bards. Student of the Seven makes you able to take a high Inteligence score and apply it to any multiclass attack you have, at level 16. The powers of the Student of the Seven paragon path are also quite versatile, having multiple effects that you can chose from, to best fit any situation. It will help you be a Bard, and also cover any holes there are in any group.
#11 Stuntman Aug 30, 2009 0:42:20	There were a couple of suggestions of using multiclassing  (albeit one for a Bard).  This seems interesting, as I had immediately discounted multiclassing as an option before I started playing.  It seems like you give up a lot to gain practically nothing.  For example, multiclassing a Swordmage to Artificer sounds quite interesting from a role playing perspective (two separate magical approaches to magically enhancing his sword), but from a functional perspective it seems quite poor.  In exchange for a feat, I gain a once-per-day heal (which would usually be used on himself, so I could just take Rejuvenating Strike for a better option).  I then have to exchange 1-3 further feats to gain the ability to exchange my retrain options to learn 1-3 Artificer spells.  That means, at the very least, I have to spend two feats (and wait two levels) before I actually gain any functional benefit (eg shoot laser beams from my sword 5 squares once per day --- making up a spell to avoid checking the list).  Am I looking at things from the wrong perspective here? Multiclassing allows you to slowly gain abilities of a second class.  You can choose to gain as few or as many abilities of your second class as you want.  You may only want just one or a few abilities of your second class and not the full complement you get by taking every single multiclass feat. I personally, find that if you want some good functional benefits, you really have to plan ahead and find some synergies.  If you are a melee type like a defender, you will most likely be in melee, so choosing ranged powers to swap would generally not work out too well.  However, close bursts and clost blasts work fairly well since you are in melee anyway and can take the hits.  Also, I find that utility powers from other classes can be pretty useful since you do not need a high ability score if it is different than your primary class. Some multiclass combinations do not work that well in practice.  If you are a melee type, taking ranged powers is probably not very useful.  If you are in melee, you have to shift away or incur an OA if you use a ranged power.  You'll have to deal with this often since you are a melee type.  The same goes the other way.  If you are a wizard, multiclassing to take fighter powers probably isn't that great of an idea. The thing with multiclassing is you gain abilities slowly.  The power swap feats have prerequisites of being at a certain level.  You can wait many levels and take many feats before you accumulate a lot of abilities from your second class.
#12 DanTracker Aug 30, 2009 19:27:43	...  suggestions of using multiclassing  ... It seems like you give up a lot to gain practically nothing.  ...  Am I looking at things from the wrong perspective here? well, i agree to a certain level with the multi-class options. i don't love them all, but several work for me. however, i really love hybrid rules. i'm an alternaholic. i love making up characters and backstories. there simply aren't enough games for me to play them all. i have been DM for two games about two months now, so when i was invited to an FR campaign, it was very exciting. i started by generating eleven characters to begin with and then sent a short email to the DM asking for suggestions how to trim that down. he gave some input. after some time i was able to trim it down some, but one thing i should mention, each one was a hybrid or at very least a multi-class. it was hard to trim the fat. i liked them all, but in time i was down to five, and now just two. one is a hybrid Bard/Warlock. the other a Druid/Ranger. i like it that much to have the multiple powers and roles. i even had a Fighter/Paladin that i built then scrapped. maybe a Bard/Swordmage (made one of these) with dual-implement spell casting could be fun. a sword-bearing, smart-talking, magic-using, bad-ass that serves up defense for the party and some healing when absolutely needed, even if it is healing for himself. maybe a Warden/Wizard - control the battelfield and hold the line at the same time. anyway. i know that might not be the first option you are looking for, but i love hybridizing my characters to really get the fun of multiple roles and powers. you can throw multi-class on top of the hybrid too. but that gets really spread thin.
#13 mizer Aug 31, 2009 2:59:11	hey, something like this happened to me once, where i had a specific role, filled it out perfectly, but wasn't enjoying myself. I was a brutal scoundrel rogue, and wasn't having any fun with the role. It was early in the game, i think we were about to hit lvl 8, starting the story at lvl 5... So I had to collaborate with my DM to get a plan of action that would work towards switching my character to what I really wanted him to be. Amazingly enough, we did this without me knowing any of the story, and his information to me was "you'll know what you will need to do when the time comes." needless to say, the story progressed on that night, we were in the lower reaches of a keep, just got through quite a few fights, and talked our way out of just as many (hey, a rogue with a helluva bluffing game and a deva wizard who is intimidating as all get out can get away with a lot apparently). We ended up at the lowest level where a different wizard just completed a spell to open up a portal to a different plane. Well what we thought was going to turn into a fight ended up with me stealthily sneaking up behind the guy as all of his minions were sent on there way by the wizard who disguised himself as some greater demon or something O_O As all that was going down, I pretty much grabbed the guy and tossed him into his own portal that he was trying to let a very powerful demon come out of. Well earlier in the game, we found a magical longsword that we didnt know what to do with as none of us were proficient with it, we found that it can slice through portals and close them, hey, it had to be given to us for some reason... >_> anyways, after that, the whole room became unstable and another portal opened up in a different area that was completely filled with treasure, and my treasure obsessed rogue was more than happy to jump in not caring about the consequences considering the vast amount of treasure i've just seen. needless to say, as i jumped through the portal, the treasure kept getting further and further away, and the dm said that as i keep trying to get closer, the portal is not only closing behind me, but i feel a massive pressure building up from the way i'm trying to go. so i turn around to try to make it back out when w/e this massive wall of force is launches me out of the portal and i'm left laying unconcious on the ground. When I wake up, BOOM, free character change within my class pretty much :D   I know, long story to say that one thing in the end, but hey, i thought it was entertaining.