I don't get what you'all are saying

I can't see any limitations at all. Sure 4e doesn't have as many books out yet but that will change.

With all the complaints of this being a game that limits role playing because it's a combat based game now...well I just don't see it.
We've already had a few sessions of play where not a single battle took place because everyone was wrapped up in the story and playing their characters quite well.
Everyone had fun for hours but not a single weapon was drawn.
What limit was that again?

As far as I can tell, 4e isn't any more combat-focused than any previous edition. It may look like that, because the formerly implicit combat roles are now explicit, and everyone (not just casters) has got a ton of options for combat situations, but that's it.

With all the complaints of this being a game that limits role playing because it's a combat based game now...well I just don't see it.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it limits role-playing because its combat based. D&D has always been combat based.

What I'm saying is that it limits role-playing because it limits how you multiclass, namely by making your PC's first class his primary class forever, and by limiting you to only 1 multiclass after that.

This means that some of my old, beloved PCs are simply not and can never be 4Ed compliant. The rules have excised a portion- a large portion for me personally- of the world of possible PC concepts.

(listens and reads all the posts)

Thanks for the feedback, folks. Thanks much.

Let me ask this: Can I combine 4E with earlier editions? I could do so with all previous editions (that is, OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3.0, and 3.5 could - if you worked at it - be mixed and mingled. The result wasn't always pretty, but you could do it.)
So, can I create a Hybrid 4E/Other Edition game? How difficult would it be to do that, compared to mixing previous editions?

Edena_of_Neith said:

(listens and reads all the posts)

Thanks for the feedback, folks. Thanks much.

Let me ask this: Can I combine 4E with earlier editions? I could do so with all previous editions (that is, OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3.0, and 3.5 could - if you worked at it - be mixed and mingled. The result wasn't always pretty, but you could do it.)
So, can I create a Hybrid 4E/Other Edition game? How difficult would it be to do that, compared to mixing previous editions?

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean with a hybrid, honestly. My game mechanics sense tingles and says "No, don't do that! How could he mix OD&D and 3.0?". But if you could do _that_, you can do it with 4E.

I think mixing with 3E might be one of the easiest things - you have all the same ability scores, you even have similar defenses (the only change is who rolls the dice), and base weapon damage dice are the same, and you still roll a d20 (and you still want to roll high).

By mixing editions, I mean things such as:

- Taking 3rd edition concepts like Prestige Classes, and extrapolating them backward as 2nd edition classes.

- Taking the item saving throw charts from 1E, and placing them in 3E while dropping the 3E rules concerning item destruction. (thus, making 3E items vulnerable to attack.)

- Taking higher powered spells - or lower powered spells - from one edition to another.

- Taking 6 second combat rounds back to 1st or 2nd edition.

- Taking Feats and Skills backward to 1st or 2nd edition.

- Taking the magical items as they were in 1st and 2nd edition, and moving them forward to 3rd edition (want your Girdle of Giant Strength? Ok. It's just than in 3rd edition, it grants a Strength of around 40, not 23 ...)

And so on. Say, modifying the experience point rules to make it harder or easier to level (perhaps you do gain 1 experience point per gold piece you take home in 3E. Or, perhaps, in 1E you don't gain much of anything for slaughtering CR1 critters if you're 10th level.)

Can 4E be mixed and matched with previous editions in this way?

There are some concepts that might be translated into other editions:

- Do you want interesting "martial" powers? Steal the 4E ones.
- You want to have better guidelines to create monsters and build encounters: Use the monster roles and "weight" denominations. This requires a lot of recalculation and modification, but the idea of distinguishing between something like an "Artillery" monsters and a "Brute" just makes a lot of sense, and can you help make an interesting or thematic encounter.
- Saving Throws (3e and earlier) as Defenses (4E)
- Saving Throws (4E) as "duration timer"
- Sustain Minor/Standard/Move for spell durations.
- Alternate skill system (4E - more stream-lined as 3E, less flexibility for better predictability and game balance)
- Feats can still be imported. Racial feats might be especially interesting.
- Skill Challenges (especially if you adopt the skill system)

The other way is certainly also possible:
- Introduce 3E/Pathfinder/Iron Heroes skill point system
- Add feats from 3E - some might better be translated to powers (Whirlwind Attack, Cleave -> Power; Melee Weapon Mastery -> Feat)
- Magical Items (you just need to find a level for them)
- Translate previous editions monsters to 4E (Frost Giant? Gold Dragon? Phantom Fungus? Normal, Dire (3.5) or Legendary (3.0 Masters of the Wild) Animals?)

There's probably more. Not everything is easy to do, and some things might end up unbalanced. It all depends on how much effort you want to spend and what your preferences are.

Storm Raven said:

DM fiat - the player proposed an alteration where he traded his sneak attack ability for the sage like abilities. I don't remember the exact exchange, but I think he had something like bardic lore, all Knowledge skills added to his class skill list, and a bonus skill point every level that he could spend on a Knowledge skill.

Click to expand...

Here we go a 4E human rogue

Str 12 Con 13 Dex 8 Int 17 Wis 17 Cha 14

Lets take his sneak attack off and give him an extra two feats one a language feat the other hmm knowledge history with DM fiat
lets also take the +1 to attacks made with daggers off and add in +1 to knowledge skill checks also with DM fiat

Skills:
Athletics 4
knowledge History 9 (trained by swapping sneak attack)
Streetwise 7
knowledge Arcana 9 (1st feat)
Knowledge Religion 9 (human feat)
Thievery 4
Some other skill here

comes out with a nice lot of languages too, any attacks would be around a 1-2 bonus to hit.

any of his rogue attacks could be bumbling attacks and the shifts stumbling back, he can go on to take ritual casting at 2nd if required
and you come out with a largely not useful combat character like your 3rd edition one with loads of sage like knowledges.

Bing done

Edena_of_Neith said:

So, they sorta went back to an OD&D type approach, did they? A simplified system like OD&D, where options are limited?

Click to expand...

My group has found 4th Ed to have more options than 3rd Ed.

The only difference between two 20th level human paladins in 3rd Ed was feat choice, skill choice and what spells they memorized a day.

In 4th Ed, you have not only have feat (and more of them) and skill choices, but power choices, build choices, paragon path choices and epic destiny choices, and you can gain other class's powers without gimping yourself.

Ginnel said:

Here we go a 4E human rogue

Str 12 Con 13 Dex 8 Int 17 Wis 17 Cha 14

Lets take his sneak attack off and give him an extra two feats one a language feat the other hmm knowledge history with DM fiat
lets also take the +1 to attacks made with daggers off and add in +1 to knowledge skill checks also with DM fiat

Skills:
Athletics 4
knowledge History 9 (trained by swapping sneak attack)
Streetwise 7
knowledge Arcana 9 (1st feat)
Knowledge Religion 9 (human feat)
Thievery 4
Some other skill here

comes out with a nice lot of languages too, any attacks would be around a 1-2 bonus to hit.

any of his rogue attacks could be bumbling attacks and the shifts stumbling back, he can go on to take ritual casting at 2nd if required
and you come out with a largely not useful combat character like your 3rd edition one with loads of sage like knowledges.

Bing done

Click to expand...

(puzzled look)

It is necessary for a Rogue to have a wide field of knowledge. It always has been.
In 1E and 2E, the rogue had the capacity to Disarm Traps, Open Locks, and other skills of this type which no other classes had.
In 3E, the Rogue gained the most skill points ... and badly needed them to simulate the skills of 1E and 2E.

It was assumed that the school/mentor/organization that taught the Rogue these special skills, taught her many other jack-of-all-trades skills. And generally, such schools/mentors/organizations were looking for worldly, streetwise people to start with.

The Sneak Attack is at the core of what the Rogue is. Why wouldn't she have it?
Rogues do not believe in honorable fighting, or in fighting at all if they can help it. Rogues believe in a-knife-in-your-back-and-you're-dead (and more complicated versions of the same.)
For example, Lidda the Rogue had a Sneak Attack with her crossbow, and this combined with some of the other Feats meant that if she caught you flat-footed (which was likely) you were toast. Lidda never had any intention of allowing you to fight her. Much less, would she allow you to have a 'fair fight' with her (cavaliers and rogues never got along in the games I was in ...)

Historically, the Rogue has had both talents: Sneak Attack (or backstabbing) and Worldliness (many skills, special skills.)

If I were taking your 4E Rogue in question, it sounds like I would take the character you just created, and leave her with Sneak Attack.
As for a +1 to hit, it's ok. But the Rogue is about far more than that. I mean, once more - look at the kind of damage Lidda could do with a single crossbow bolt. And, of course, some Rogues will not hesitate to use poison (ala, the real lethal kind that kills in seconds.)

People talk about ... what? ... leaders, defenders, strikers? Ok, that is fair enough.
But if you want someone to listen at that door (for the undead hiding behind it) or open that chest (trapped with deadly poison) the Rogue is your girl for the job.

I would maintain that in 4E. If it's not a part of the core, I would add it in. I mean, I am not real familiar with 4E yet, but I would definitely keep the Rogue as the Rogue (and the party blessing their good fortune they have one with them.)