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

Thinking about the various problems that players are having with the possibility of converting their favorite character to 4e rules, I have come to a few conclusions. From what has been shown in the limited data set we have been given about the rules, I have concluded that converting virtually any character from virtually any fantasy source (whether role playing or literature) will be relatively easy to do with the 4e rules, compared to most other RPGs. 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 will try to help these people despite difficulties and all the unknowns.

To start the conversion process, remove all game mechanics concepts from your mind. These will only hinder you. The constructs of the past do not map perfectly to the ways of the future. Your preconceived notions will diminish your satisfaction and lead you down a road to frustration. Do not approach 4e as you have always approached D&D. It is a different system with a different philosophy. But if you are open minded, the system seems to be very robust and flexible, and it can give you anything that you could want, as long as you accept a level of balancing that makes it fun for the whole group.

There are several reasons for this relative ease for conversion. First, there has been a divorce between what a character does in combat and what a character does out of combat. Second, retraining better reflects the changes that happen to a character as s/he grows throughout a campaign than previous editions’ versions of multiclassing, and retraining will be a core part of 4e. Third, removal of Vancian casting will allow more archetypes and characters from other forms of literature than just D&D derived literature. Fourth, the new multiclass rules combined with paragon paths and epic destinies will likely allow characters to mix caster and non-caster concepts without gimping either side too drastically. These ideas should help those wishing to convert their beloved characters to 4e.

At this point you need to become more familiar with the tools that 4e seems to have made available for you to create characters that are both mixed concept and effective. These may seem limited in the context of previous games, but in the context of 4e they are extremely flexible and will give you anything that you can reasonably imagine. Add to this the possibility to retrain and you are able to create character concepts that have the possibility to evolve through game play and advancement.

Now to start with your character creation process, you need to understand the difference between character concept, class, combat role, and out of combat capability. Character concept is your character’s place in the world. It’s who they are, how they behave, where they come from, where they have been, and where they are going. This is the RP idea of your character. Many people only flesh this part of the character out through play, and so they do not need to come up with this from whole cloth. If you are converting a character, this is a good part of what you will be bringing forward through the edition change. The idea of retraining also allows you to have a history to your character that is not reflected in his current character build. Just because you started as a thief does not mean you are forced to add the thief (rogue, whatever) class to your character sheet. Concept is not necessary to write on your character sheet, it reflects little in the form of mechanics, and is easily ported to a new game/edition.

Your character’s combat role is also likely to be brought forward through the editions change. This is how your character behaves in combat. This is what most players are talking about when they describe their character. Many people get this part all mixed up because there wasn’t ever any explicit explanation of combat role in previous editions, and most characters’ combat role just happened to emerge through game play, or is assumed because of character class. Combat role most likely is going to be the most important aspect of your character to pin down perfectly in order to convert your character to the new edition in a satisfactory way.

The thing that most frustrates peoples’ attempts to convert their characters is the idea of class and both their character’s in- and out-of-combat role. Many of the archetypes in previous editions were created with a certain class, and these classes all came with pretty specific in- and out-of-combat roles built in. If you wanted to have skillz, you went with the rogue class, with the most likely creative alternatives to this being the ranger and the high Int wizard, and this was largely limited by the game concept of skill points assigned by class. If you wanted a character that had any skill at all with arcane magic, you had to add an arcane class to the mix. No other classes had access to arcane magic. In 4e, class only gets you a combat role, there are no skill points, and out of combat role can emerge from many game elements besides class. Getting skills outside of your options from your class will be allowed by multiclassing or Skill Training feats, and many 4e skills are much broader in scope than their 3.x ancestors, so it may be possible that you can get two for ones from old skills to new skills. From the best guesses so far on rituals, out of combat magic will be handled by some form of feat or skill, and will most likely only tangentially be tied to class. (No citing on this. Sorry, we still know too little, but I am asserting it anyway.) This all adds up to relative freedom from class when deciding on character concept and out of combat role as compared to 3.x.

If you can honestly pin down your combat role, recognize that retraining will allow for character growth, and creatively design your out of combat role, then it seems that most if not all characters will be easier to create in 4e as compared to 3.x. Becoming familiar with the rules and philosophy of 4e will be the first step, and understanding which elements of a character are gamist elements, which are RP, and which are based solely on mechanics from other games will help you to get the character that you were most likely trying to create all along. And now you might even get that at first level!

Take this as you will, cut me some slack on the things we don’t really know, keep an open mind, and exercise some creativity before you say that your character can’t be properly created in 4e. I honestly think that this edition will become known as the greatest leap forward in game design since the jump from wargame to RPG, and if given a chance, most people will like it.

EDIT: Hopefully added some clarity at the suggestion of some posters.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Seule

Explorer
I agree.

Figure out how your character contributes to combat, and everything will fall into place from that. The stuff you do out of combat doesn't necessarily have much to do with your class.
Examples from characters I play currently:
Dwarven tank, heavy armor plug: Classic 4e dwarven fighter.
Human cavalier, big damage charges: Can't really be converted until mounted rules are released. If that's PHB, great. If not, he'll wait.
Elven Warblade, big damage and buffing allies: Some combination of Warlord with either Ranger or Fighter, most likely. Maybe even just Warlord. Elven or Eladrin, not sure yet.
Human Dragon Shaman, buffing allies: Human Warlord, pretty classic.
Halfling Bard, buffing allies and spells: Halfling combination of Wizard and Warlord, or wait for Bard.
Gnome Illusionist, no Evocation or Transmutation, no damage: Might be possible with Wizard and careful power selection, or might have to wait for PHB2.

Looks to me like while not all characters are doable right off the top without significant changes, most are. Sure you might have to change which weapon you use or something, but that's just fluff. Core to 4e is what kind of actions you take in combat.

--Penn
 

Tuft

First Post
How's this for a challenge:

Pixie (down-toned Savage Species variant, shrunk to size Tiny) Sorceress, with the Mystic Dancer prestige class. In combat situations, she specializes in:
  • Scouting, using her innate flight together with alter self, polymorph, invisibility and various detection spells.
  • Charm and Suggestion
  • Non-lethal control spells, mostly the stuff that impose various conditions, such as Grease, Bands of Steel and Cloud of Bewilderment.
Usually hides her spell-casting through the silent spell and still spell feats.

Out of combat, she specializes in various Crafting and Perform skills, together with Diplomacy, usually using Perform to support her Diplomacy, and Craft to design the basis for magic items enchanted by other party members. She is very proud of her Perform skills.

This is an actual character, currently in the middle of the Savage Tide adventure path.

How would you convert her into 4E?
 
Last edited:

GnomeWorks

Adventurer
The classes are archetypes, and allow for minor variations upon their themes. That alone says that dozens of character concepts simply will not work or feel right at all when placed into 4e.

Playing a warlord? Guess what, you're Leonidas, re 300. No two ways about it - that's what the warlord class is. That's how it behaves, mechanically.
 

Xanaqui

First Post
Your article is pretty good. I'll note that the vast majority of my PCs (from a variety of editions) could change over with few problems. My 3.0 Sorcerer, for example, could be a Warlock, a Wizard, or a combination of the two without much problem. A few of my 3-way multiclass PCs from 1st ed would be tougher (I'd likely dump a class), but that's a similar problem to what I would have had in 3rd ed. A few PCs would need fluff changes "I'm doing it with the power of my mind, not my arcane knowledge". While personally, PC conversion isn't much of an issue ("I get to create a new PC? Yay!"), here are the ones I can think of which would be difficult at 4e's launch:

1) A mid-level 3.5 Druid who focuses on shape changing and healing. I think this one may just have to wait for PH II or later (or extensive house rules); it doesn't sound like there's much shapechanging in the first PH.

2) Both my 1st edition and 3.5 Monks. This seems like an easier translation than the Druid; I could take, say, Rogue, and modify it to give armor bonuses roughly equivalent to what an armored Rogue would have at that level, and modify unarmed combat to roughly equate to what a Rogue would have at that level. The Mark of Justiced, Vow of non-violence 3.5 monk might have some additional problems (Likely I'd keep the backstory, and remove much of the mechanics). I could give them speed improvements like riding a horse, and pretty much ignore the other abilities.

3) My 3.5 Bard looks pretty easy; Ranger (Archer build) multi-classed into Warlord, with a possibility of vice versa (Warlord multiclassed into Ranger). Said PC was more effective as a long-range striker than a buffer, but that may have had to do more with game mechanics than the direction I'd like to take that PC. Heck, I think there's an outside chance of going straight Warlord.
 

Xanaqui

First Post
Tuft said:
How's this for a challenge:

Pixie (down-toned Savage Species variant) Sorceress, with the Mystic Dancer prestige class. In combat situations, she specializes in:
  • Scouting, using alter self, polymorph, invisibility and various detection spells.
  • Charm and Suggestion
  • Non-lethal control spells, mostly the stuff that impose various conditions, such as Grease, Bands of Steel and Cloud of Bewilderment.
Usually hides her spell-casting through the silent spell and still spell feats.

Out of combat, she specializes in various Crafting and Perform skills, together with Diplomacy, usually using Perform to support her Diplomacy, and Craft to design the basis for magic items enchanted by other party members. She is very proud of her Perform skills.

This is an actual character, currently in the middle of the Savage Tide adventure path.

How would you convert her into 4E?
At the moment? A Halfling Wizard with a few fluff changes. No, it wouldn't be close. Seriously, were you in my game, I'd probably want to play with 4e for a little while prior to trying to make that difficult of a cross; it sounds like you'd want a new class and a new race.
 

Lackhand

First Post
Tuft said:
How's this for a challenge:

Pixie (down-toned Savage Species variant) Sorceress, with the Mystic Dancer prestige class.<snip>
Good thing your example hewed so closely to what was available in the PHB, without a bit of kitbashing, in 3e! :D

Ignoring the race, I see 0 reason you couldn't continue to be a wizard with a bit of warlock, or a warlock (depending on pacts available) straight. It sounds like what you really want is psion/beguiler/telepath, mind you, but I think a wizard with the right powers could work perfectly well. The skill-related portions seem to be easier than ever to model, since you do the Diplomacy/Perform thing. Skill challenges FTW!

The crafting: A bit of an unknown. Still, we know that we're getting rules for this, so nab them for your character, whatever they end up being. The lack of skill ranks in Craft(Dongle) shouldn't stop you from continuing to be a craftspixie extraordinaire.

With race included, it depends heavily on how important the "stuff" pixie nets you is to you. Invisibility will be included gratis from your class choice already; how important is being size tiny (mechanically) to you? Talk to the DM; I'd imagine playing an eladrin and scaling yourself down should be doable. You might have to be a really *big* pixie, if the DM isn't up to housecat-sized-PCs in a new rules system, though.

I don't blame him :)
 

Tuft

First Post
Xanaqui said:
At the moment? A Halfling Wizard with a few fluff changes. No, it wouldn't be close. Seriously, were you in my game, I'd probably want to play with 4e for a little while prior to trying to make that difficult of a cross; it sounds like you'd want a new class and a new race.

That's why I posed it as a challenge... ;)

Seriously though, I'm very afraid that the play style she embodies has no room in 4E. :(
 

Lackhand

First Post
GnomeWorks said:
The classes are archetypes, and allow for minor variations upon their themes. That alone says that dozens of character concepts simply will not work or feel right at all when placed into 4e.

Playing a warlord? Guess what, you're Leonidas, re 300. No two ways about it - that's what the warlord class is. That's how it behaves, mechanically.
To put it mildly, I think you're overreacting a bit. There are a few different reads on what the Warlord can do; my current next-warlord-character is the Peasant Hero archetype, who inspires everyone with his own belief in them.

"Get up! You're Sir Brennan, the strongest man I know! You killed twenty orcs yesterday -- you can't tell me this is the end!"

The gruff drill sergeant (the Leonidas-type), the warrior-poet, the peasant-hero...
I don't disagree that roles are a bit constraining, but they've got some pretty good coverage on what they need, and it's comparable to what's been historically available (and mechanically effective) straight-out-of-the-box in previous editions
 

Tuft

First Post
Lackhand said:
Good thing your example hewed so closely to what was available in the PHB, without a bit of kitbashing, in 3e! :D

Well, the OP claimed that all that mattered was the "combat role", so... ;) ;)
 

Remove ads

Top