Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 GelatinousOctahedron Nov 01, 2011 16:25:29	One thing I like about 4E is that there are classes that I normally shied away from that are finally interesting to me.  I have played D&D for a long time.  Some basic, a tiny bit of 1E, a good bit of 2E, and then a lot of 3.5.  And now 4E and one of my frustrations is not getting to try out all the intereting builds and classes out there. I never much cared for barbarians in previous editions and don't remember ever playing one, but I love me some 4E barbarian.  Its probably my favorite striker class and one of my favorite 4E classes overall and I don't even really like playing big DPR strikers. I have never played a bard in D&D, outside of having one in a D&D video game party or two.  Never liked the fluff at all or mechanics much.  But, so help me, I really want to try a 4E one out at some point and think bard is one of the better designed 4E classes. Fighters were hit and miss for me in previous editions, but I thought my 4E arena fighter was very interesting. I was meh on the 3.5 warlock and never tried one, but I like several of the warlock builds available now and had a good time when I played a feylock. And that leaves out the new classes like warden, avenger, and shaman that I like. Anyone else have classes (or races etc.) that they never wanted to try until this edition?
#2 frothsof Nov 01, 2011 16:28:50	in the old days i played nothing but fighters
#3 pluisjen Nov 01, 2011 16:32:40	Like you, I find the Bard to be awesome. While conceptually I've always enjoyed the more physical and down-to-earth Bard builds, this is the first edition where I'd consider them functional enough to play one. I absolutely love the Warlord, but there's not much to compare it to in previous editions, so that doesn't really count. The Monk is awesome, too. Like the Bard, I always loved the concept but I never really made it work until now. Oh and the Sorcerer! BOOM BABY! I loved Blaster Wizards, and the Sorceror is so good at it. And the Paladins that now lost their Stick Up The Bum class feature are always much more interesting to actually play. The Ranger is actually on the reverse list... I don't really care about the 4e Ranger at all. It's bland... the 3e Ranger had more flavor I think. Then again, we now have the Seeker, which I haven't tried yet. Might like that more.
#4 Steely_Dan Nov 01, 2011 16:36:49	The Ranger is actually on the reverse list... I don't really care about the 4e Ranger at all. It's bland... the 3e Ranger had more flavor I think. Then again, we now have the Seeker, which I haven't tried yet. Might like that more. The Seeker seems to be a Primal (Fey) Archer build Ranger (another good reason for subclasses in my book).
#5 salla Nov 01, 2011 17:09:04	Not a lot, really. I played a druid, finally, now that I could utterly disregard Wild Shape, not be saddled with an animal decoy, and not have to worry about getting my spells yanked because the DM and I disagree on my character's outlook.  Still rather play a wizard or psion, though. Overall, next-to-zero interest in primal, divine, or shadow characters.  Just not interesting to me. I still stick to the races I like ... mostly Shifters and Warforged, with Hengeyokai sure to pick up some play time in the near future.  Gnolls and Minotaurs are milling around as well.
#6 ciaran Nov 01, 2011 17:11:30	The seeker obviously is low on support and (I hear) isn't very powerful. But I also think it looks like an interesting class. On the other hand I think the Rune Priest looks terrible, and if I had the time I'd play it just to try making it fun.
#7 alitain Nov 01, 2011 17:14:26	Cleric.  Then again my first real D&D exp was with 3.5 and I didn't have much time I basically played one character, a fighter which was fine.  But I did have to make a new character at the very end of our 3.5 game and the cleric just didn't seem interesting at the time. Funny enough though, while I enjoy the cleric in 4th the only one I've played is a total non-damaging pacifist.  And it was awesome!  I'd love to play a pacifist again sometime but not for awhile, especially considering I'd basically be playing the same exact character.  Still hoping they come out with one more pacifist cleric at will sometime...
#8 GelatinousOctahedron Nov 01, 2011 17:21:05	Still hoping they come out with one more pacifist cleric at will sometime...  The funny thing is that even though the cleric has a over a dozen good at wills to pick from and more at wills than any other class at this point, there are still obvious gaps they never bothered to fill.  That one and a strength one that grants a save.
#9 Ahearn_Condon Nov 01, 2011 17:36:38	The seeker obviously is low on support and (I hear) isn't very powerful. But I also think it looks like an interesting class. On the other hand I think the Rune Priest looks terrible, and if I had the time I'd play it just to try making it fun. I've actually rather enjoyed the Runepriest. Haven't tried out the new build yet but i think thier powers are pretty versatile. That and my Runepriests always tend to survive longer then my Paladins.
#10 Steely_Dan Nov 01, 2011 17:39:41	Still hoping they come out with one more pacifist cleric at will sometime...  The funny thing is that even though the cleric has a over a dozen good at wills to pick from and more at wills than any other class at this point, there are still obvious gaps they never bothered to fill.  That one and a strength one that grants a save. So maybe they should do the bad thing and do the right thing (those 2 Divine classes) and make them one-dependant.
#11 Olrox17 Nov 01, 2011 18:29:45	The seeker obviously is low on support and (I hear) isn't very powerful. But I also think it looks like an interesting class. On the other hand I think the Rune Priest looks terrible, and if I had the time I'd play it just to try making it fun. I have plenty of experience with runepriests in heroic tier, and they're actually a very solid class. Good class features, good powers, great buffs, versatility and a lot of toughness. A bit low on the healing side. They also have some excellent (on paper, at least) paragon paths.
#12 Tony_Vargas Nov 01, 2011 21:34:27	Anyone else have classes (or races etc.) that they never wanted to try until this edition? I started out with Basic, and played 1e a /lot/.  At the time, I had a marked preference for casters, particularly magic-user and druid.  Through 2e, I mostly DM'd.  3e brought be back to playing, and made non-casters a bit more interesting (thanks to feats) and casters a lot less convenient to read up on (just because of the way spells were organized).  It took a break from casters and was delighted with the build-to-concepts you could do using just the few non-caster classes (and lower non-casting levels of some others).  The game still fell apart at high levels, but, until then, non-casters were a more interesting option than they had been. 4e /really/ changed things.  Classes were balanced, and the common structure made it very easy to compare them, and to go from playing one to trying out another.  I got back into playing 'magic-users' thanks to 4e's AEDU+rituals aproach to spells.  I was happier than ever with the non-casting (Martial) Fighter and (finally) Warlord.  In the past, the only classes I really shied away from were Monk and Psion.  4e hasn't changed that.  I was never that enthused about Clerics - while the idea of a priest is fine, it's rarely been implemented /well/, the 2e Priest's handbook was pretty good, but I only got to play one character using it, and that for a very short while.  4e Clerics (and other divine classes) are a lot more playable and balanced than in the past, but they still don't evoke unique priesthoods or religions so well.  :shrug:  Still, I'm much more willing to play a Cleric than before, since the Leader role is done so much better in 4e. Races, though, I've played Dwarves a good deal more in 4e than in prior eds, and find the Eladrin/Elf distinction less annoying than the myriad elf sub-races of 2e, so I've played a few of them, too, for the first time in a long while.
#13 salla Nov 01, 2011 21:38:02	The Ranger is actually on the reverse list... I don't really care about the 4e Ranger at all. It's bland... the 3e Ranger had more flavor I think. Then again, we now have the Seeker, which I haven't tried yet. Might like that more. I much prefer the 4e Ranger, because it doesn't have two things that I never wanted any of my rangers to have: Animal targets and spells.  It's just an archer or sword-swinger, no unwanted extras.  I never took more than 3 levels of 3e ranger simply because I didn't want either of those; the fact that it's a lot like the later class, the Scout, made me very happy.
#14 furious_kender Nov 02, 2011 0:24:27	With D&D I started out playing a mix of basic and 1st and then shortly went into 2nd edition. At the time, I played elven rogues, rogues, or elves (yes elf was a class). However, I realized that rogues sucked because without a map, I could never be behind a monter to backstab, so I started making fighters. Either the DM never gave XP or the characters all died with the XP granting DMs by level 2, so wizards weren't an option. You needed AC, hp, and a lot of luck. Then I went on a long hiatus and came back with 3rd edition. It was rogues and monk concepts then, but I never had a stable group. With 3.5 I actually had the time and some semi-stable groups that granted xp, so I had some motivation to develop some system mastery of the game past level 6 or so. I mostly played a kender rogue and a halfling cleric of tyranny for quite a few years. These were followed by more clerics who didn't really heal. At this time I was pretty active on the cleric threads, but the game was so unbalanced that any system mastery was enough to cause group instability. For example, my suicidal kender rogue was accused of being disturbingly min/maxed..... Then 4th edition came out and I couldn't find a steady group again. This led me to discover LFR. One of the wonderful things about LFR is having a ton of characters, that and avoiding all the freaking drama that comes with home games in my experience. I've played just about everything, except rangers and pure fighters, which are somehow always in the party so I feel like I've played about 6 of each of them. I tend to only play a class if I like them mechanically as well as the roleplaying concept. Bonus points if mechanically or conceptually makes me laugh. If it fails on either count, I tend to stop playing them. I've played every leader class except runepriest, which I've never found a good concept for. I used to dislike barbarians, as they were always dull conceptually. However, Beaver my impatient halfling barbarian has been so much fun. Level +23 or so AC typically, good playable dpr, and bounces around like he's in a pinball machine. A lot of fun to roleplay too. I also never really liked druids in past editions. Something about needing to argue with the DM about whether I was neutral enough all the time jarred with me, along why a neutrality obsessed character would care what happens in a dungeon. However, Marylou my dwarven sentinel druid from the bayou of the vast swamp has been really fun to play. Critters everywhere, and, regardless of what people say on the boards, effective as a character. Paladins, wow they used to suck. Lawful good always seemed to mean arguments, lawful stupid, or blackguard for some reason. Mechanically, they were worse than both a fighter at fighting and a cleric at everything. In 4th ed, they are a lot of fun. Something about a 2 year old running around in full plate screaming "I'll protect you" makes me laugh. Oh, and now that I can choose to be lawful stupid, I play a half-orc paladin that is a lot of fun. Overall, I've really enjoyed 4th edition, as the mechanics have been worked out enough to allow good roleplaying concepts that don't interfere with the mechanics.
#15 Arcane_Guyver Nov 02, 2011 0:36:39	Monks, Marshals, Rogues & Warlocks were solid concepts during 3e, but their mechanics generally made me frown and flip the page. I definitely want to try them out for 4e, though.
#16 Kalnaur Nov 02, 2011 1:06:06	The Ranger is actually on the reverse list... I don't really care about the 4e Ranger at all. It's bland... the 3e Ranger had more flavor I think. Then again, we now have the Seeker, which I haven't tried yet. Might like that more. I much prefer the 4e Ranger, because it doesn't have two things that I never wanted any of my rangers to have: Animal targets and spells.  It's just an archer or sword-swinger, no unwanted extras.  I never took more than 3 levels of 3e ranger simply because I didn't want either of those; the fact that it's a lot like the later class, the Scout, made me very happy. I agree here.  I much prefer the 4e Ranger.
#17 Tony_Vargas Nov 02, 2011 2:48:49	The Ranger is actually on the reverse list... I don't really care about the 4e Ranger at all. It's bland... the 3e Ranger had more flavor I think. Then again, we now have the Seeker, which I haven't tried yet. Might like that more. I much prefer the 4e Ranger, because it doesn't have two things that I never wanted any of my rangers to have: Animal targets and spells.  It's just an archer or sword-swinger, no unwanted extras.  I never took more than 3 levels of 3e ranger simply because I didn't want either of those; the fact that it's a lot like the later class, the Scout, made me very happy. I agree here.  I much prefer the 4e Ranger. Same experience, here.  I incorporated 3 levels of ranger into many 3.x builds, but had to stop there, if the concept didn't call for casting.  The 3.5 Scout was nice, a rare full-non-caster class, and useful for building to some non-caster archetypes.
#18 helnae Nov 02, 2011 7:18:45	I started playing D&D in 4E, so.... But anyway, when I first started playing, I wouldn't have touched martial or divine classes, especially not defenders. Now, one of my favorite characters to play is a human Brawler Fighter. I can also see myself playing some divine classes, though with a small amount of reflavoring. The only two classes I still feel iffy about are the Paladin and the Runepriest.
#19 pluisjen Nov 02, 2011 7:30:40	I much prefer the 4e Ranger, because it doesn't have two things that I never wanted any of my rangers to have: Animal targets and spells.  It's just an archer or sword-swinger, no unwanted extras.  I never took more than 3 levels of 3e ranger simply because I didn't want either of those; the fact that it's a lot like the later class, the Scout, made me very happy. Didn't you basically just want a Fighter in 3e? That's basically exactly what you need; a no-nonsense bow shooter.
#20 Vestras Nov 02, 2011 8:15:16	When I started back in AD&D, I was always a Wizard or a Fighter-wizard. When I came back for 4e, I was still largely dedicate to the same archetypes, but gradually I have been expanding to sample other classes. In particular, I've had a lot of fun with the Pacifist Cleric, which is a big change for me since I have never been at home in Divine Classes before. I'm planning to try out some more melee centric strikers soon like the Slayer and the Valorous Bard to see where they take me.  One thing I think has helped me to expand and to play more 4e is the relative ease of character creation. I can have a new fully playable character in 20 minutes if I have all my books on hand, and now we can create a one shot delve to try our our characters in under an hour! It's a great way to test the waters and concepts we might otherwise have never explored.
#21 sythspawn Nov 02, 2011 8:30:27	I played weapon-wielding classes in older editions of D&D. Spellcasters just had too much bookkeeping for my tastes, but now I'd like to give a wizard/mage a try at some point. The ranger was one of my favorite classes. I could care less about the druid spells it could eventually cast, but I liked having a "pet" (probably a childhood wish fulfillment thing). Imagine my surprise when I got to 4e and my first character was a Beast Mastery Ranger... Well, he hit paragon and became a Two-Weapon Fighting Ranger. I kind of ignored psionics in older editions, and every time I try to build one in the OCB, my eyes cross and my brain shuts down during power selection.
#22 Kaganfindel Nov 02, 2011 8:50:42	I've built a dozen characters of races and classes I didn't even consider before this edition, but I'm still so happy they made rangers into something other than a two level dip class that I've been playing one most of the time.
#23 manduck Nov 02, 2011 8:53:58	In previous editions I didn't care for the fighter.  Now, the fighter is easily my favorite class.  I also never had much interest in wizards or sorcerers, but both seem pretty cool to me now.  I also have to agree about the bard.  In previous editions, no thanks.  Now, I really enjoy the bard and think it's an interesting class.
#24 salla Nov 02, 2011 11:54:36	I much prefer the 4e Ranger, because it doesn't have two things that I never wanted any of my rangers to have: Animal targets and spells.  It's just an archer or sword-swinger, no unwanted extras.  I never took more than 3 levels of 3e ranger simply because I didn't want either of those; the fact that it's a lot like the later class, the Scout, made me very happy. Didn't you basically just want a Fighter in 3e? That's basically exactly what you need; a no-nonsense bow shooter. Except that the Ranger had the much better skill list, with stealthy and perceptive skills.  You know, scouty stuff.
#25 GelatinousOctahedron Nov 02, 2011 21:14:42	Ranger is a class that I like better in 4E and almost tried it, but then I saw enough of them in play that I thought they were very effective, but boring.  I might be willing to try a dwarf or mul str/wis build with a  waraxe and heavy armor with an empahsis on all the shifting powers because that looks at least little but fun.  Maybe in a high level one shot. But I like strikers that do damage and lots of interesting other things so if I am going to play a striker I will go more with barbarian, monk, warlock, or avenger.  Maybe blackguard, which is another class I am willing to try this edition that I have never tried before.
#26 alitain Nov 02, 2011 21:32:52	Still hoping they come out with one more pacifist cleric at will sometime...  The funny thing is that even though the cleric has a over a dozen good at wills to pick from and more at wills than any other class at this point, there are still obvious gaps they never bothered to fill.  That one and a strength one that grants a save. So maybe they should do the bad thing and do the right thing (those 2 Divine classes) and make them one-dependant. Confused.... What exactly are you saying?
#27 Litigation Nov 03, 2011 2:26:46	I've always loved the concept of the Bard, but only with 4e did I finally love the execution of the concept.
#28 pluisjen Nov 03, 2011 3:29:35	I much prefer the 4e Ranger, because it doesn't have two things that I never wanted any of my rangers to have: Animal targets and spells.  It's just an archer or sword-swinger, no unwanted extras.  I never took more than 3 levels of 3e ranger simply because I didn't want either of those; the fact that it's a lot like the later class, the Scout, made me very happy. Didn't you basically just want a Fighter in 3e? That's basically exactly what you need; a no-nonsense bow shooter. Except that the Ranger had the much better skill list, with stealthy and perceptive skills.  You know, scouty stuff. Ah ok, yeah that makes sense. Fighters make good up straight archers, but they don't make good scouts. Did you play the Scout class they built at some point? That was probably straight up your alley.
#29 sythspawn Nov 03, 2011 7:42:10	But I like strikers that do damage and lots of interesting other things so if I am going to play a striker I will go more with barbarian, monk, warlock, or avenger.  Maybe blackguard, which is another class I am willing to try this edition that I have never tried before. If you do ever try a blackguard, start at a higher level. I'm playing one in Encounters right now, and I'm kinda bored. No daily yet, and combat advantage has been hard to come by with this group, unless I generate it myself (Dragonfear, knocking prone, etc.)
#30 Gunthar Nov 03, 2011 9:05:05	I used to play Fighters, Rangers and Paladins (when I could get the stats) and rarely played a caster outside of a multi-classed cleric in 1E/2E. Admittedly I've been generally melee-centric in my tastes. Now I like almost everything except archer Rangers. I find them dull, dull and dull. The Seeker, on the other hand, is fun-on-a-bun. The Archer Warlord and Prescient Bard are a blast too.
#31 salla Nov 03, 2011 12:16:01	Did you play the Scout class they built at some point? Constantly.
#32 goodtremere Nov 03, 2011 13:56:02	There are so, so many character concepts that I want to try!  During every big fight I secretly pray my character gets killed just so I can make a new character.  (It never happens though...)  This edition makes it especially hard because there are so many fun looking builds in so many roles. (1E - Never played, but thought the kensei from Oriental Adventures and the monk looked so cool.) 2E - Mainly warriors (fighters or paladins) and a druid for a little while.  Priests/clerics looked cool to me mainly 'cause of the Necromancer's Handbook from this edition. 3/3.5E - Mainly clerics of some form or other, warpriest, true necromancer, etc.  Wanted to try a spell-blaster (evoker/sorcerer/warmage) or a psionic class, but never did. 4E - Not counting Delves, I've played a feylock, laser cleric, predator druid, wand wizard, bear shaman, and rageblood barbarian.  I'm currently playing a quick battlemind and am SO loving it. I'm probably due to play leader next, so I'd likely play a cunning bard (though the skald is looking interesting) or maybe a tactical or bravura warlord.  Other things that look fun: storm sorcerer, battlerager or brawler fighter, any avenger, shielding swordmage... I can go on and on... Recently, I've switched to a new gaming group (or in actuality, switched back to my old group).  This group I'm in now has simply a higher level of roleplay ability.  So, I've been eying some of the flavorful classes from HoS, vampire, blackguard, necromancer. Oh, and I really want to try out a slayer kensei, but I probably save that for a Delve. So many builds, so little time...
#33 DontEatRawHagis Nov 10, 2011 21:40:48	As far as classes go, monk in 4e. I used to like fighter types mainly, monk in 3.5 wasn't fun for me because my DM constantly had my hands breaking, certain encounters were not meant for my kind of attacks. Though this could be a very unique situation. I like that my monk's unarmed attacks actually do decent damage instead of what happened before. Now that I DM, I want to play sorcerer or battlemind. Mostly because the sorcerer has a lot of cool abilities. Monk is awesome for the movement types, as well as battlemind's ability to push people into environmental hazards.
#34 ToeSama Nov 10, 2011 22:05:40	I rarely ever played a melee class in 3.x until the Book of Nine Swords came out. My Barbarian was decent, but never really stuck out for me when I think back on those games. My Clerics, Warlocks and Psions tended to shine most just because I enjoyed trying new things with them to make them diverse. I had a decent Wizard too... but... well... who didn't in 3.x? I always wanted to try out playing a Binder from the Tome of Magic, and some of the stuff from the Incarnum book, but I could never find a game to do so in. The most common 3.5 DM I had had enough trouble learning Psionics for me. I was lucky enough to get to try out the Book of Nine Swords before the switch was made to 4e. So far, in 4e, I've not tried an Avenger, Battlemind or Runepriest, and they have interested me, but I just simply have yet to find a chance to try one even for a few Delves or the like. I doubt I'll ever touch Vampire until we get something better. I'm fine for a more linear build system like the essentials uses, but that was just silly... All the other myths about vampiric creatures in the world and we get saddled with the classic Bram Stoker crap... I also found little interest in the Bow Bard. Here's hoping the new build from Feywild is as interesting as it sounds.
#35 Chiba_Monkey Dec 01, 2011 20:57:04	I much prefer the 4e Ranger, because it doesn't have two things that I never wanted any of my rangers to have: Animal targets and spells.  It's just an archer or sword-swinger, no unwanted extras.  I never took more than 3 levels of 3e ranger simply because I didn't want either of those; the fact that it's a lot like the later class, the Scout, made me very happy. Didn't you basically just want a Fighter in 3e? That's basically exactly what you need; a no-nonsense bow shooter. Except that the Ranger had the much better skill list, with stealthy and perceptive skills.  You know, scouty stuff. I had a player in a 3.5e game who made an Elf Rogue (this is before Complete Adventurer came out), who behaved a lot like a ranger.  His backstory was that he was a scout for his hoem city.  He was stealthy, skilled at disbling traps/opening locks, he even (after finding some magical short sword he liked) picked up 2 weapon fighting.  He was not a thief, never picked pockets or anything (I don't believe he even had ranks in Sleight of Hand), but was a skilled, stealthy individual who wore light armor and used his agility in combat. Still hoping they come out with one more pacifist cleric at will sometime...  The funny thing is that even though the cleric has a over a dozen good at wills to pick from and more at wills than any other class at this point, there are still obvious gaps they never bothered to fill.  That one and a strength one that grants a save. So maybe they should do the bad thing and do the right thing (those 2 Divine classes) and make them one-dependant. Confused.... What exactly are you saying?  I believ he means how some PHB1 classes are "V shaped" meaning they have 2 primary attributes to choose from, and one secondary (like the Cleric, Paladin, and Warlock), as opposed to "A shaped" classes, which all builds share one primary stat, and secondary follows by build (Wizard, Sorceror, Avenger, etc).  WotC realized that "V shaped" classes were less of a good idea (although IMO, it works for the Ranger), and after the PHB1, all classes have since been "A shaped". So, by "one-dependant" he means dependant on one stat for a primary attribute (so all clerics would use Wisdom, for example), and do away with STR clerics.
#36 LordOfWeasels Dec 02, 2011 12:33:41	WotC realized that "V shaped" classes were less of a good idea (although IMO, it works for the Ranger) The Ranger isn't a V-class, though.  It's two different A-classes with some shared Feats, Utilities, and a couple of "pick your stat" shared Attacks, that play very differently from each other.
#37 Cohen95 Dec 02, 2011 13:36:34	No the Ranger is a V-shaped class, just like the Cleric. The difference is that the Ranger is meant to be primarily one sided, either mostly melee with a few ranged, or mostly ranged with a few melee. That they fixed the V-problem for Rangers in MP1&2 by giving them off-build powers with the main stat (ranged Str and melee Dex) just means they fixed the problem with the Ranger being V-shaped. They've made a lot of progress with the Cleric, but the class features force it to be fairly V-shaped anyway. Like Paladins, as a cleric you have two main stats to choose from, but in both cases if you choose Str, you still want a decent Wis AND Cha, as both are very useful.
#38 warrl Dec 04, 2011 19:05:38	WotC realized that "V shaped" classes were less of a good idea (although IMO, it works for the Ranger) The Ranger isn't a V-class, though.  It's two different A-classes with some shared Feats, Utilities, and a couple of "pick your stat" shared Attacks, that play very differently from each other. That's what we mean by calling it a V class. But it isn't. It's a triangle class. Str-Wis, Dex-Wis, and Str-Dex builds all work quite well. Only a few Ranger powers have Wis riders, which aren't generally impressive; and high Dex improves AC and Initiative while also giving the option of ranged attacks to an Str-primary build. (Note: I'm talking PHB1 only here. Later stuff may have altered some of what I'm saying.) Cleric is sometimes called a V class, but the tag doesn't fit there either. A V class would have two primaries with a common secondary. Clerics (per PHB1) are Str-Wis or Wis-Cha. That's closer to an F than a V. Paladin is a V class. Str-Wis and Cha-Wis makes sense as both Str-primary and Cha-primary powers very often have nice Wis riders. Strangely, the two PHB1 recommended builds are Str-Cha which makes little sense, and Cha-Str which makes even less sense. Warlock is also a V class, but they didn't mess up in the same way. The recommended builds are Cha-Int and Con-Int; the powers are Cha often with decent Int riders, and Con often with Int rides. A Cha-Con build (in either order) loses a lot for little benefit. In contrast, Fighter, Rogue, Warlord, and Wizard each have exactly one primary stat, with a choice of secondary stats that offer worthwhile benefits. But (aside from Lazy Warlords, which you can't do decently out of PHB1 alone) you're never going to NOT push the class's primary stat hard. These are the "A" classes.
#39 GelatinousOctahedron Dec 05, 2011 16:16:19	At this point you can do a str/wis, str/cha, wis/cha, or wis/con cleric.  And depending on what powers you take you can make potentially make any stat your secondary stat if you have a good strength or wisdom.  So its more an H shape.  Or maybe an M I want to add another example to my OP.  The gish. I have never much liked sword using wizards, but I ran an assault swordmage/barbarian hybrid through lair assault this weekend and liked it a lot.