Forked Thread: PC concept limitations in 4e

[Thasmodious]

Forked from: Disappointed in 4e; 4e upgrade or new game??

In contrast, 4Ed isn't backwards compatible in any meaningful way. Fully 50% of my older PCs can't be translated into 4Ed without radical revision of the PC or the campaign world or both. Some have no 4Ed version possible (comparing Core to Core). Conclusion: 4Ed is a very different game than 1Ed/2Ed/3Ed/3.XEd.

I don't find this to be true at all. When I first got my hands on the 4e books, I made a couple dozen characters, at various levels (usually built versions of the same character at 1st, 6th, 11th, and 21st), just to get some familiarity with the game system. Most of these characters were older characters from previous editions, statted up anew, and I never found one I couldn't translate to 4e. One of the more difficult decisions I faced was merely to decide whether my 3e warmage should be a Wizard/Warlock or Warlock/Wizard, I statted him both those ways, and both with paragon multiclassing and without and still can't really decide which way I want to play him (at 17th level) when we pick back up our secondary game in our weekly tabletop.

Anyway, I thought a productive discussion of translating concepts to 4e and exploring some of the limitations of the system, or perceptions of those limitations, could be useful and interesting. What this thread isn't, is a means to try and play "gotcha" with the editions, where if you come up with a concept you can't do in 4e, you claim to win the internets. I hope people choose to stay in the spirit of this thread (and hope the spirit of the thread is clear).

Some guidelines to, hopefully, help keep this a productive thread (let's not start yet another silly edition war here) -

*Obviously, focus should be on utilizing the cores from the various systems, not the full range of splat book love. Although this is not a hard and fast rule, as splats often just made concepts that already existed more mechanically viable.

*Some PC concepts could be tied to a particular edition or its imagining arising from that edition's flavor. It would be worth noting if a difficult to translate concept would be equally difficult to translate backwards, in a previous edition.

*Mechanics are not concepts, especially mechanics tied to a specific edition.

*Mechanical viability is not necessarily the goal. Saying "yeah, you could that, but it would suck" isn't really relevant, as it can apply to many concepts in many editions. Different editions will do different concepts stronger or weaker than other editions.

*Classes are not concepts. Neither are other specifics, like feats, individual magic items, single spells, etc. "My concept is a barbarian/fighter/whirling dervish with improved trip- do that, ha!." That is not really the concept, the concept is about a particular style of melee combatant and would be doable, to varying degrees, in most editions, easily doable in 4e.

*Flavor is a part of concept, and retooling flavor will be a big part of reimagining some concepts from edition to edition.

*Sometimes the answer, in regards to 4e, might have to be "not yet, as such". But, concepts that aren't doable with the core rulesets exist with all the editions, and likely spring from some of the limitations mentioned above.

*As this isn't intended as some challenge to outbuild the system, discussing conversion of actual characters that saw actual gameplay would, I think, be the most useful source of discussion, rather than pouring through books trying to come up with esoteric concepts just to create challenges.

 

[DeusExMachina]

While I agree with you that mechanical viability shouldn't necessarily be the goal, I think this is still a key point in the possible character concepts discussion.

If a concept is possible, but mechanically a lot weaker than other concepts, it often becomes frustrating to play this concept, because you suck stat wise compared to your fellow players just because you chose concept over playing power.

When I talk about a viable character concept I usually mean for it to say that it is both conceptually and mechanically a well rounded character. It doesn't always have to be the most powerful build and of course characters can have weaknesses both in character and in stats, but it should not be so weak that it becomes useless in many situations where you need to roll the dice...

 

[Thasmodious]

While I agree with you that mechanical viability shouldn't necessarily be the goal, I think this is still a key point in the possible character concepts discussion.

If a concept is possible, but mechanically a lot weaker than other concepts, it often becomes frustrating to play this concept, because you suck stat wise compared to your fellow players just because you chose concept over playing power.

When I talk about a viable character concept I usually mean for it to say that it is both conceptually and mechanically a well rounded character. It doesn't always have to be the most powerful build and of course characters can have weaknesses both in character and in stats, but it should not be so weak that it becomes useless in many situations where you need to roll the dice...

I agree with this in general, I just think getting bogged down in a highly subjective argument on playability over a concept would be counter productive. There are few builds possible within a system that are actual outright mechanical failures. One could argue that, for example, in 3e, a straight cleric/wizard, with no dual advancement granting prestige class is a failure as a means to build a mechanically sound caster. But its a rare example, and with the specific options available in the core books to address the problem, it would be wrong to claim 3e can't do that basic concept to some degree.

If the answer to a conversion is mechanically unplayable, that is certainly relevant. If it's a bit suboptimal, that's something I think can slide. Many of us gladly take a bit of a purely mechanical hit to achieve a specific concept.

(It remains to be seen if anyone is really interested in this topic, anyway)

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I am interested, but like you so far I have had no problem with making character concepts for 4e. So shall wait for some suggestions.

Note: I am not mechanically oriented, so probably all I will say is how certain class/certain powers can be flavoured to be like a character concept, etc.

 

[malraux]

I can see a few of the wizard specialists not working quite right, as well as a polymorph focused druid.

 

[RFisher]

*Classes are not concepts. Neither are other specifics, like feats, individual magic items, single spells, etc. "My concept is a barbarian/fighter/whirling dervish with improved trip- do that, ha!." That is not really the concept, the concept is about a particular style of melee combatant and would be doable, to varying degrees, in most editions, easily doable in 4e.

I see where you’re going with that, but I guess I’d then have to say that it isn’t about the concept not translating for me. (^_^)

My wizards tend to not have a lot of flashy combat spells. In 4e, I can’t create a wizard without flashy combat spells. I could just not use them, but I’d much rather trade them for utility spells or rituals.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can see a few of the wizard specialists not working quite right, as well as a polymorph focused druid.

And I, the above-quoted poster, tend to play a lot of polymorphers and non-blaster wizards (actually, 100% of my wizards are non-blasters).

One could even say I hate blaster wizards, but its not true. I love 'em- I just don't play them in D&D.

 

[Thasmodious]

I see where you’re going with that, but I guess I’d then have to say that it isn’t about the concept not translating for me. (^_^)

My wizards tend to not have a lot of flashy combat spells. In 4e, I can’t create a wizard without flashy combat spells. I could just not use them, but I’d much rather trade them for utility spells or rituals.

Reflavor them. Hit points aren't direct damage, so subtracting them doesn't have to involve flashy explosions and rays. Make them subtle, mental, internal. Make ample use of your utilities. Wands say "any encounter power", so wands of jump or shield would be nice. Learn both alchemy and rituals. Grab illusion powers from Dragon. A more specific concept might get some more specific answers, but the flashiness of the wizard is just a flavor issue.

 

[Thasmodious]

And I, the above-quoted poster, tend to play a lot of polymorphers and non-blaster wizards (actually, 100% of my wizards are non-blasters).

One could even say I hate blaster wizards, but its not true. I love 'em- I just don't play them in D&D.

No doubt old school polymorphing is gone, and with good reason. It was one of the sources of the most break and the most headache and largest set of sub rules in 3e. However, polymorphing does exist already in 4e and would be quite doable for a PC. Lycanthropes do it, as do dopplegangers, which are a playable race. Their racial would make a nice encounter utility for a polymorpher. Lycanthropes change amongst a full animal, full human, or hybrid, with their stats remaining unchanged among the variants, with minor exceptions, like the loss of a bite attack in human form. The shifter race provides another area for some mechanics, in the shifter racials, which give some minor mechanical benefit and are smaller, subtler changes. You could also retool a number of wizard powers to fit a theme. For example, Thunderwave could become a Fear effect, with the same effects, just the Fear keyword instead. Your enemies recoil in horror as your visage changes into that of a terrifying beast - muscles bulge, fangs grow, claws lengthen...

 

[delericho]

As far as I can see, you can't build a PC Necromancer, similar to the Dread Necromancer class.

At least, not yet.

I don't think it's a huge problem, since it's a fairly niche concept, and anyway I would prefer them to do the concept 'right' rather than do it quickly.