Forked Thread: PC concept limitations in 4e

I have not seen any bard stuff. A bard with a high percentage of damage effects is not very bardlike to me. The question of difference here is this:
Are any spells with damage + effect worth casting without the damage?

If the answer is no then effect is just window dressing.

Your definition of "bardlike" no doubt differs from a lot of others. Bards were pretty worthless in 3e, with very little they could do better than others.

In 2e, bards could cast fireball. A lot. I'd like to see a party with a bard as an actual useful, contributing member, rather than an extremely narrowly focused sorcerer with some skill points.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I have not seen any bard stuff. A bard with a high percentage of damage effects is not very bardlike to me. The question of difference here is this:
Are any spells with damage + effect worth casting without the damage?

If the answer is no then effect is just window dressing.
You might want to rephrase this. What you've just written says, in essence, that unless a spell is unbalanced it isn't well written. Because that's what a spell would be, if it were worth casting even if it did no damage, and it still did damage.

For what its worth, the bard is a 4e class. It gets utility spells at a lot of different levels. For example, "Inspire Competence," a bardic ability you might recall, is available at level 2. Or "Allegro," a new power that speeds up your allies movements, is available at level 6. Or the new "Veil" at 10, which is basically "disguise self" except better and for your entire party for up to an hour.

Feel free to totally ignore the existence of utility powers and instead complain that attack powers attack things.

I guess, for the sake of completion, I should note "Fast Friends," which is a level 1 attack encounter power that deals no damage. On a hit it prevents an opponent from attacking a target of your choice for a certain amount of time. Fun if you use it on someone in melee reach of a Fighter.
 

You know, I see this a lot. And I wonder how many people are actually willing to do it. Reflavoring an entire class is a lot of work. You might as well say, "Rewrite the mechanics." Well, sure, I can do that, but it defeats the point - if I have to rewrite the book, that proves the book is inadequate to the task.

You don't have to reflavor the entire class. You only need to reflavor the power you choose that do not thematically fit your concept. I was willing to do this in previous editions and still am willing to do it in 4E. You don't *have* to rewrite the book if you are trying to create a character concept. You only have to start rewriting if you are attached to the old mechanics and can't see past them to create your concept within the new mechanics. Concept != Mechanics.

I have not seen any bard stuff. A bard with a high percentage of damage effects is not very bardlike to me. The question of difference here is this:
Are any spells with damage + effect worth casting without the damage?

If the answer is no then effect is just window dressing.

Damage has been revisioned in 4E. If you are stuck under the conception that damage equals physical trauma, then I can understand why you believe damage is "unbardlike." If you can accept that "damage" and "hit points" measure all forms of disability that can eventually break your resolve to continue fighting then you will understand how a demoralizing attack performed by a skilled bard can cause "damage."

Dragon Disciple - Core prestige class. How would this be built in 4E? And yes I know Sorceror is not out. Some of the perks were permanent effects that would now most likely be consider utility powers but now those are limited in duration. Also what could be a valid alternate for the stat increases?

The mechanical bonuses of a Dragon Disciple are not what makes this a character concept. Making choices within the 4E rules that fit the theme of a Dragon Disciple make a concept.
 

Core prestige class. How would this be built in 4E? And yes I know Sorceror is not out. Some of the perks were permanent effects that would now most likely be consider utility powers but now those are limited in duration. Also what could be a valid alternate for the stat increases?
What are you looking for from Dragon Disciple? If you're looking to create a dragon/man who casts spells and has a breathe weapon, then you might be happy just playing a Dragonborn. Then you can start as a dragon/man hybrid at level 1, instead of waiting for a while.

If you're specifically looking to obtain the specific mechanical advantages (stat increases, etc) that the Dragon Disciple had, you aren't going to find anything to help you.
 

Damage has been revisioned in 4E. If you are stuck under the conception that damage equals physical trauma, then I can understand why you believe damage is "unbardlike." If you can accept that "damage" and "hit points" measure all forms of disability that can eventually break your resolve to continue fighting then you will understand how a demoralizing attack performed by a skilled bard can cause "damage."
I think you're overselling your point. Its not like the bard taunts you and you lose hit points. He casts magic spells at you and you lose hit points. It just so happens that his magic spells tend to have themes of taunting or otherwise manipulating you, and the accompanying effects that his spells inflict upon you are related to that those themes.
 

Core prestige class. How would this be built in 4E? And yes I know Sorceror is not out. Some of the perks were permanent effects that would now most likely be consider utility powers but now those are limited in duration. Also what could be a valid alternate for the stat increases?

With core 4e?

Play a dragonborn :angel:

THis would possibly require a paragon path of an epic destiny of some kind. MOst probably go epic destiny here.

Requirement LV 21, Arcane Power source, Non Dragonborn.

LV 21 - increase 2 stats by 2

LV 24 - Increase to size large

LV 26 - gain the Dragonbreath racial power, as if an epic Dragonborn

LV 30 - gain flight

Immortality - your transformation nearing completion, you remove yourself from society to find a lair to sleep in, after 100 year sleep in which your body completes its transformation to dragon, you awake. Rumors start spreading of a new dragon wreaking havoc on nearby lands, ruling benevolently or carving out a kingdom ruling with an iron claw . . . .

Hmmmm, unintentionally went a bit darksun with the Immortality, but you get the idea.

Edit: I make that last sentance sound like its a bad thing, but it could be legen - wait for it - dary

Phaezen
 
Last edited:

I think you're missing the point of this thread. "I want to play a character that casts Charm Person" is not a character concept. It is an old mechanic that does not exist in the current game. "I want to play a necrotic-themed wizard" is a character concept. And that concept CAN be achieved by describing the effects of existing powers in a necrotic-themed manner.

Actually, I think we're arguing two very different things...

I think 4e handles CERTAIN concepts very well. If I want a fire-based wizard or a polearm-weilding fighter, 4e covers them. What I'm talking about is some ideas that, because they were overpowered or underpowered, were simply removed rather than fixed. Lets take a few that were fixed in Martial Power.

* The Animal Companion Ranger "Beastmaster". If I wanted to play a ranger who has an animal companion to fight and help him, I could do this in earlier D&D. There is no rule for that in the CORE RULES of 4e. Oh, I guess I could have a wolf from the MM follow me around and reflavor my Twin Strike as "Wolf Pounce" and let wolfie jump on my foe for two 1[w] (d8?) damage. But that's not covering the concept of "animal companion ranger" well IMHO. It took another book (Martial Power) to execute the idea of an animal companion who can aid and fight for you. The concept did exist (and you can debate how well, that's another topic) for the druid and ranger in 3.5

* The "samurai" Complete Warrior introduced a redundant class; the samurai. The concept was simple; a heavy-armored dual-wielding fighter. It was redundant because the fighter could already do this! The point was I could, using just the 3.5 RAW, build an effective dual-weilding fighter wearing heavy armor. That is not possible in 4e, as written. A fighter could not dual-weild (sure, he could take TWF and trade a shield for a +1 to damage) and a ranger had not the "stickiness" (heavy armor, HP, or marking) to be a defender, even if he had dual-wielding. It took Martial Power (again) to give fighters some dual-wielding worth talking about and create the same "samurai" character 3.5 core could do. (We never did need a separate samurai class, btw).

That's what I'm talking about in "loss of concept". Mechanical elements in the core that were cut either utterly (fighters with bows) or pushed off to other books (animal companion rangers) that existed in core 3.5, in some form or another.

I think 4e is a great system, but so far it has given me far too much "just wait and see" elements. Things that we took for granted gone. Paladins and Warhorses, summoner wizards, dual-wielding fighters, or bow-wielding rogues. These are small things for sure, but the fact I have to wait for other supplements or make up my own rules to recreate things I took for granted in 3e kinda bothers me. It feels like two steps forward, but one step back.

I don't find 4e bad, wrong, or less fun, but it sure does feel a whole lot less "complete".
 

Mechanical elements in the core that were cut either utterly (fighters with bows) or pushed off to other books (animal companion rangers) that existed in core 3.5, in some form or another.

The crux of your argument is about mechanics, not concept. You seem fixated on having "Fighter" written under class, rather than choosing the class that actually fulfills the concept. "I want <metagame construct> that does <particular action>" is not a desire for specific concepts, it's a desire for specific mechanics. There's a huge difference between the two.
 

Core prestige class. How would this be built in 4E? And yes I know Sorceror is not out. Some of the perks were permanent effects that would now most likely be consider utility powers but now those are limited in duration. Also what could be a valid alternate for the stat increases?

I think it depends a bit on why you wanted to play a Dragon Disciple, but I'd basically lay it out as a Paragon Path or Epic Destiny, or even both (WotC didn't really make any secret about the idea that Paragon Paths were meant to replace Prestige Classes). Alternatively, you can reflavor magic items or feats that give similar types of bonuses. (My preference would be to reflavor the magic item creation Ritual to be a Draconic Initiation Ritual and give you powers of equivalent level magic items - including use of slots - when you put the components in).

Let's go through the class features and think about how to convert them:

Bonus Spells: this replaces normal spellcaster progression in 3.x, but in 4E a caster would still be gaining spells as normal for his levels. Essentially, 4E gives you this for free, though you could add one or more arcane attack powers to the PP or ED.

Natural Armor: Your character can take armor proficiency feats and "reflavor" them as natural scales (in my games, at least), using rituals that follow the magic item guidelines to improve them as you level. Or the Path could grant you an armor bonus of appropriate level.

Natural Attacks: Increase the damage die/proficiency bonus of the characters unarmed strikes as one of his Paragon Path features (not a power). (Leave aside the exact amount for now - it's okay to scale this depending on how many feats the character spends, basing it on weapons the character is proficient with). Let these be enchanted by rituals if you want.

Ability Boost: Increases to Strength, Con, and Int => greater HP, better attacks and defenses. You can represent these with damage bonuses, bonuses on Athletics and Endurance checks, more surges, increased surge value, and/or power(s) that let you heal yourself or gain temp hp. Alternatively, you take feats like Toughness and Skill Focus: Endurance to represent your Draconic Might.

Breath Weapon: Encounter/Daily attack power from PP/ED. Scale to the level you want it to appear at. Alternatively, reflavor an existing wizard power to match.

Blindsense: Utility power (or maybe even feature of an Epic Destiny - I don't have a good enough sense of epic-level 4E to balance this easily). Alternatively, you can take Skill Focus: Perception and we flavor it to be your improving Draconic Senses.

Wings: Depending on the level, this could be an Encounter or Daily ability allowing flight (one move action for Encounter, up to 5 minutes for Daily), or even a flat Fly speed (again, balancing epic-level features with precision isn't something I'm prepared to do right away). Alternatively, you perform a Ritual and pay a cost based on <insert magic item that allows flying here>, we flavor it as wings, and you can fly as well as that item can. Improves as you perform further rituals to match the effects of better items.

The Dragon Apotheosis is mostly dealt with by expanding on what's written above - more stat increases, more sensory ability (either power-based or reflavored feat/item based), immunities that 4E dragons don't have, resistance to breath weapon's damage type.
 

The crux of your argument is about mechanics, not concept. You seem fixated on having "Fighter" written under class, rather than choosing the class that actually fulfills the concept. "I want <metagame construct> that does <particular action>" is not a desire for specific concepts, it's a desire for specific mechanics. There's a huge difference between the two.

Fine. Build me a dual-wielding katana and wakisashi samurai in o-yori (great armor) in 4e using just the PHB. Bonus points if you can get him high hit points and some form of marking.
 

Remove ads

Top