D&D 4E Character conversion problems for 4e (Short Essay)

PrecociousApprentice said:

What exactly do you mean by "Bard like." If you can tell me what that means without using any game mechanic terms then I can help you to create your bard with the upcoming PHB1 in June. The thing that you appear to want is just a class name. So far that is all that you have stated. That and a very snarky insult to my obviously very generic bard substitute. When you can divorce yourself from game mechanics and state what you want in character concept terms (AKA real RP/literary terms), then you will realize that the bard you desire is readily available in 4e. And most likely at 1st level, no delayed gratification necessary.

Click to expand...

The bard is a mainly support class with fairly decent combat ability, both ranged and melee. The class specifically blossoms in social encounters and events, and is a veritable fountain of information and lore. A bard's powers don't come from studying or sheer martial power, but instead through their lore and their own force of personality, often working to increase their already extensive charm. Their power is drawn to the expression of that force of personality, be it through a song, the skillful playing of an instrument, or chanting the epic poems of old.

There is currently nothing that supports this. And again, please do not use the answer of "Well, just make a wizard and pretend all of that is true." That's not an answer. It's LARPing.

The swashbuckler is just a single class rogue with a different name. That one is easy.

Click to expand...

No it's not. Dear lord, no it's not. Swashbucklers aren't about backstabbing, not in the slightest. They're far closer to a fighter then a rogue, for that matter. They're a melee class that emphasizes on dexterity and intellect (And from what I remember, that won't work in 4e's save system), trusting their own grace instead of heavy armor. While they're scoundrals, they won't backstab - they're rotters, but not rotten. Besides, who sings tales for a coward, and what kind of pride can you take in just knocking off someone from behind?

muffin_of_chaos said:

This is known as the Cleric. Or any other ranged character that can support the group.

Click to expand...

No, a cleric uses divine strength. Let me clarify; they want a ranged martial class meant for support. Plus, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought clerics were still up at the front lines, bashing away with their maces?

It's definitely not a Bard. But it can be a bard, if you want it to be.
Actual Bard rules will be coming out in a year, sorry if you can't wait, but in my personal opinion 4E makes making new classes super-easy, with the system's newly-integrated class mechanics.

Click to expand...

No, it can't be a bard, because, as you yourself admitted, it's not a bard. Closing your eyes and pretending something is different doesn't actually make it different. Also, do we have confirmation bards will be coming out later? Last I heard there was no word on them.

When 3.0 came out, it had a couple more classes than 4E. But they, in total, had fewer abilities and worse flexibility of customization.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I brought that up myself earlier in the thread. The question then is "do 4e characters have ENOUGH flexibility to cover the range of multiple classes?" So far, it would seem they don't.

It's a fair number of people who don't want to go to the lengths of creating their own class to suit their specific and uncommon tastes.

Click to expand...

But that's precisely what you're asking them to do.

ProfessorCirno said:

Stop being asinine. The complaint is a legitimate one. They want to make a support character with ranged weapons, and can't.

Click to expand...

No, that is not his complaint. He is saying he can't have a Warlord with ranged weapons. Which he can't. Or that is the conclusion so far. (we have seen about 1/10th of the warlords powers). It is a bit like in 3e saying you can't make a wizard with divine spells instead of arcane spells.

What he could make is a Cleric, which works fine as a ranged support character. If you pick up a fork and try to eat soup with it and you start whining about it being useless, you might want to pick up a spoon instead?

Lance of Faith Cleric Attack 1
A brilliant ray of light sears your foe with golden radiance. Sparkles of
light linger around the target, guiding your ally’s attack.
At-Will ✦ Divine, Implement, Radiant
Standard Action Ranged 5
Target: One creature
Attack: Wis vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d8 + Wis radiant damage, and one ally you can see gains
a +2 power bonus to his or her next attack roll against the
target.

Sacred Flame Cleric Attack 1
Sacred light shines from above, searing a single enemy with its radiance
while at the same time aiding an ally with its beneficent power.
At-Will ✦ Divine, Implement, Radiant
Standard Action Ranged 5
Target: One creature
Attack: Wis vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d6 + Wis radiant damage, and one ally you can see
chooses either to gain 2 temporary hit points or to make a
saving throw.

Cause Fear Cleric Attack 1
Your holy symbol ignites with the fury of your god. Uncontrollable terror
grips your enemy, causing him to instantly recoil.
Encounter ✦ Divine, Fear, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Wis vs. Will
Hit: The target moves its speed + 2 squares away from you. The
fleeing target avoids unsafe squares and difficult terrain if

Cascade of Light Cleric Attack 1
A burst of divine radiance sears your foe.
Daily ✦ Divine, Implement, Radiant
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Wis vs. Will
Hit: 3d8 + Wis radiant damage, and the target gains
vulnerability 5 to all your attacks (save ends).
Miss: Half damage, and the target gains no vulnerability.

There is currently nothing that supports this. And again, please do not use the answer of "Well, just make a wizard and pretend all of that is true." That's not an answer. It's LARPing.

Click to expand...

Before 4E, nothing resembled the Warlord. So should I hate 3E because it didn't have one in its first book? Maybe.

No it's not. Dear lord, no it's not. Swashbucklers aren't about backstabbing, not in the slightest. They're far closer to a fighter then a rogue, for that matter. They're a melee class that emphasizes on dexterity and intellect (And from what I remember, that won't work in 4e's save system), trusting their own grace instead of heavy armor. While they're scoundrals, they won't backstab - they're rotters, but not rotten. Besides, who sings tales for a coward, and what kind of pride can you take in just knocking off someone from behind?

Click to expand...

Then make a Rogue that doesn't use sneak attack.
Then wait for an official variation of what you're describing to come out.
Or just change the Rogue's sneak attack feature into something else. I swear it won't make any forlorn maidens cry out in pitiful agony.
Why would you expect that a makeshift Swashbuckler would be competitive without its own class writeup anyway? Just because we can fit a spec to your concept doesn't mean it's going to be balanced against the painstakingly-playtested 4E classes.

ProfessorCirno said:

No, a cleric uses divine strength. Let me clarify; they want a ranged martial class meant for support. Plus, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought clerics were still up at the front lines, bashing away with their maces?

Click to expand...

Rangers are a ranged martial class that can support in combat. Clerics are also potentially ranged, as they have an at-will ranged ability. It's true that it doesn't seem like there's going to be a ranged warlord, but there also doesn't seem to be a melee warlock.
...Just like there wasn't a melee sorceror, ranged barbarian, or chaotic evil paladin in 3.0.

No, it can't be a bard, because, as you yourself admitted, it's not a bard. Closing your eyes and pretending something is different doesn't actually make it different.

Click to expand...

So, if your potential Bard class had all of the features of a Bard, and was instead called a Minstrel, it wouldn't work for you, eh.

Also, do we have confirmation bards will be coming out later? Last I heard there was no word on them.

Click to expand...

As far as I know.

Yes, and I brought that up myself earlier in the thread. The question then is "do 4e characters have ENOUGH flexibility to cover the range of multiple classes?" So far, it would seem they don't.

Click to expand...

Sounds like it's early for you to judge.

But that's precisely what you're asking them to do.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Or, more likely, find a painstakingly crafted and playtested variation when one is posted on enworld the day of the 4E release.
I can guarantee that it will in every way be more faithful to the common concept of Bardness than any previous incarnation was.

Ah, I get it now. One true way gamer. Bingo. Done with this thread.

No game system supports any character right off the bait.
Warlords didn't exist in 3E at all. If you wanted to buff, you were basically a spellcaster, until very late in the games life time (Marshall, White Raven school from Bo9S).

We know that Bards will eventually come, they will be Arcane Leader. I suppose they will rely more on ranged weapons, but I might be wrong.
This doesn't help you this June. But it will help you a year later. In the meantime, it might be tempting to try out some new character concepts that work with the classes as they are.


But what's very interesting for 4E, it is easy to see how you could create a "ranged leader".
The Warlord is the perfect starting point. The default assumption seems to be melee (and I personally prefer it that way, I think). But just imagine if you changed a few of his melee related ones (maybe look at the Cleric for inspiration on base mechanics, but substitute radiant damage with weapon damage, and remove any references to divine stuff) to ranged ones. You're done.

Yes, it is not the holy Rules As Written. But the framework is there, and it looks very easy to use.

Off course, creating an entirely new class focusing on "ranged leading" without arcane and divine powers would require more work (you'd need a lot more powers, since people will want to have choices). But you don't really need an entirely new class, we're just talking about fulfilling one character concept.

Are any of you even reading what I'm typing?

I understand 4e won't come with all the classes. I stated that myself earlier in this thread. I understand that it will obviously be very limited when it comes out..

None of those are my issues.

My issues are:

1) In the future, will we see the same class spread as 3.x *or* a strong enough variance inside the class to allow it to be played in very difficult ways that allow characters to really and concisely choose the type of character they want?

2) It's stupid to expect players to close their eyes and pretend things are different. It's also lazy. Because when they open their eyes, things aren't different. One should not force players to either be unable to play as a certain class or archetype, and one should not force players to make ramshackle combinations that only vaguely resemble said classes.

PrecociousApprentice said:

I have also concluded that there could be many approaches to each character, and that if someone is having a hard time with the process, it is likely that they are focusing way too much on the mechanical description of their character from another edition/game, and not enough on what matters. I have seen many posters challenge the boards to convert their character to 4e asserting that it can’t be done. Then they complain that they can’t convert because there is no 50/50 multiclass split or a limit of only one extra class for multiclassing, or rogues can’t sneak attack with greatsword, or whatever, even after they have been presented with appropriate builds based on their description of what they wanted. I think that I can help these people.

Click to expand...

Actually, I would posit that the best way to help them is to try to understand what they're trying to do and why and use everything you know about the game to help them do that rather than making a false assumption about the sticking point they're having.

Taking the hypothetical *cough* guy who is supposed to be stuck on the mechanical detail of using sneak attack with the greatsword.

One could make a suggestion that he use ranger instead, and if he doesn't like the feel and/or mechanics of ranger, but really likes the feel and mechanics of rogue, one could get hung up on the mechanical detail that Hunters Quarry would work on a greatsword and decide he should abandon his concept. Or, one could look at what makes a rogue different from a ranger such as the fact that the rogue is an opportunistic combatant.

You could then look at the build he has that he is almost happy with and see that there are three feats and three problems. You could look at two problems, say no 'at will' greatsword powers and no proficiency with greatsword and say maybe a feat for proficiency and another feat for a bonus or effect in combination with the higher base damage of the greatsword will get you the equivalent of an at will attack of a rogue with a lighter weapon and your standard opportunity attacks will be better.

For the remaining problem, getting the greatsword to work with rogue class abilities and attack powers, one could say, hey that might not be workable, at least not at the release of the PHB. If it isn't, you have a good number of powers filled between your fighter powers and utility powers. If you look at what you're trying to do, be opportunistic, you could use shuriken, with which you have a higher base damage die or a thrown dagger that you get an attack bonus with when you get a combat advantage. Word on he street is that rogues are really effective using misslile weapons in 4e, and that adds a lot of diversity to your build, giving you a powerful short ranged (or maybe even Close for some powers) attack to go with whacking things with your greatsword.

In 3.5, you could hold a two-handed weapon in one hand and throw with the other and that probably hasn't changed, and as iterative attacks are gone, you wouldn't necessarily need a feat to get a lot of use from thrown weapons, though one might be useful to avoid needing a minor action to draw a shuriken or dagger if that's necessary or maybe a feat to avoid drawing an opportunity attack or something.

And, the grateful player could give the provider of such an idea a virtual hug, awash in happy memories of occasionally firing off three darts back in 1e (and later more darts for the version of the character that had machine-gun-dart specialization from Unearthed Arcana and the specialization was grandfathered for his multiclass character after the errata was printed in Dragon.

And maybe that doesn't work either, but it is at least an attempt to help the player get the character they want to play rather than telling them what they should play.

Twiggly the Gnome said:

Something I'm keen on trying out is a Gnome tactical build warlord. The concept is basically a mathematical genius (loosely based on Charley Epps from Numb3rs) who uses his knowledge of probability to help himself and his allies in combat. Calls himself a Numerologist.

Click to expand...

I'm so stealing that idea....

If only I can ever get to play a 4E game.

*strange problem leading to double post*