4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Neonchameleon]

Agreed, the Essential's ranger does a great job AT BEING A RANGER. It wouldn't cut the mustard if you asked it to be rogue though, which is my problem with the refluffing movement.

See below.

Seriously? Its not a direct quote ("master of combat" got used in several edition)

Arms and armour.

Yeah, 2e went stupid and removed some options that 3e restored. Something about even numbered editions?

You mean that even numbered editions do interesting stuff like Planescape and Athas?

It can't be a balance rule, since its origin was in Original D&D and all weapons in OD&D do the same damage dice (1d6) regardless of size and type. Different weapon dice is an optional rule that comes later. There's no balance issue; it was a fluff rule from inception.

The most magic weapons are swords issue below is also a balance swing against the cleric.

I get him and his buddy mixed up. Never much of a Lankhmar fan.

Fafhrd isn't even a thief. It's getting the wizard's apprentice (who never casts anything remotely vancian) in there that's the problem for The Grey Mouser in anything but 4e - in 4e he just has the ritual caster feat.

The character is retired, having reached max level. Feel free to see what you can do (barring in mind he's 20th at last blush).View attachment 56117

One look at him tells me he fights with paired swords most of the time, but has a shortbow for backup, and is stealthy, athletic, and agile. You won't like it, but combine the focus on stealth with Style: Two Weapon (and despite your THAC0 with melee and ranged your swords being way better than your shortbow) and I'm going to say "Scout". (I could also say "Ranger" as easily). I'm also going to say Level 10 because I think I can get all the abilities in there. (As it turns out I missed precisely one). I'm also saying scout for a second reason - backstab isn't sneak attack; backstab is a one shot high damage thing. Sneak attack is a round on round ability.

And partly to keep his roguelike nature, I've taken three multiclass feats into rogue. Stats are exactly the same.

Going through your class abilities:
Backstab: Covered by the one shot sneak attack from multiclassing, a choice of stance: Aspect of the Lurking Spider (+2 Stealth, +5 to climb, +2 damage with combat advantage on a basic attack - shortbow or longsword) or even Aspect of the Dancing Serpent (+1 to hit and damage against isolated foes, a free shift at the end of your turn). This has, however, been nerfed from a L20 2e thief, but is a lot more reliable.
Climb Walls: Athletics +12 (trained) with a further +5 to climb when in aspect of the Dancing Serpent. Mountain Guide furthers your climbing mastery (and isn't restricted to mountains)
Detect Noise: Perception +12 (trained) with a further +2 when in Aspect of the Soaring Hawk stance
Hide In Shadows/Move Silently: Both are covered by Stealth - +15, with a further +2 when in Aspect of the Lurking Spider (you can switch between aspects freely). But there's more than just a high number here. You also have Reactive Stealth (at the start of an encounter if you have any cover or concealment you get an automatic stealth check), and Twilight Adept (1/encounter you can go hidden where no one else can)
Find Traps: Uses Perception - as Detect Noise you're damn good at this.
Open Locks/Disable Device/Pick Pockets: All come under the heading of thievery. +15 - you're damn good at this too.
Read Languages: Practiced Study feat gives you Martial Practices, and the one of those you know is ... the Read Languages practice.
Scroll Use: I wish I could say I have this. Unfortunately it's the only sacrifice you've made other than numbers being slightly lower for being level 10 (there's a Martial Practice allowing you scroll use with your thievery skill but it's higher level).
Thieves' Cant: Secret language of thieves isn't in 4e.
Followers: You don't get them automatically - but you have none listed anyway.

Your racial abilities are pretty much covered by being an elf (Infravision has turned into low light vision, secret doors to the perception bonus, to hit bonus to Elven Accuracy) - I had to take Superior Will to cover the resistance (it lets you shrug off such mind effecting stuff more easily)
Non Weapon Proficiencies
Ancient History: You are trained in history
Appraising: Doesn't exist in 4e. Use history or thievery - you're trained in both.
Dancing: Doesn't exist as a separate skill. If you needed to roll something of the sort you'd roll Acrobatics (you're trained).
Disguise: Specialty of Bluff - you're trained in bluff.
Ettiquette: Doesn't exist in 4e. Roll bluff to convince people you fit - you're trained in bluff.
Jumping: You're trained in Athletics. Covers climbing, jumping, and swimming.
Riding, Land: I specifically stayed away from nature abilities - and didn't take the mounted combat feat as I wasn't sure whether you used this as riding proficiency (everyone can ride) or for going above and beyond for riding in combat and trick riding.
Tightrope Walking: You not only have Acrobatics trained, you have the Perfect Balance utility power.
Tumbling: You have Acrobatics trained. You can also tumble past enemies easily; you have Invigorating Stride (gives you a shift and uses your second wind as a move action), Aspect of the Dancing Serpent (a free 1 square shift at the end of your turn), and Sly Dodge (helps you avoid opportunity attacks)
Languages: A perfect match.

Things on the new character sheet that might be questionable:
Scout: You have absolutely no training in nature. (You do in dungeoneering)
Wilderness Tracker: If you take five minutes to look at an area you can see how many people have been there. Doesn't have to be wilderness - and really useful in the city.
Mountain guide: You can climb well and show others how to climb. Doesn't matter whether you're going up a mountain or over a wall.
Aspect of: Who cares about the name? The effects all fit.

So that's literally almost everything covered barring scroll use, thieves cant, and me not knowing how you used riding. Some of the numbers are low - this is a level 10 rather than a level 20 version because I couldn't be bothered to faff around with paragon paths when everything looked as if it fitted on a heroic tier character.

Amusingly enough:
Hit points: Yours: 66. Mine: 72
AC: Yours: -6. Mine: 25 (or -5).
Shortbow with Backstab/Sneak Attack: Yours: 1d6*5. (avg: 17.5) Mine: 1d8+6+2d6+2 (avg: 19.5)
Alpha Strike TWF (vs medium target): Yours (d8+4)*5 + d6+5 (avg: 51). Mine: 2d8+12+3d6+14 (avg: 45.5).

Even the combat numbers aren't that far off each other - at least on your backstab turn. And I didn't look at them at all as I was building.

Also given just how little damage your shortbow does there (1d6) I'm going to reject your earlier claims that not being able to use the short bow with more than a ranged basic attack doesn't reflect your character when porting to 4e. Your shortbow does less than half of the damage of either your longsword or your shortsword. You need a full backstab for it to be able to keep up rather than be a comparatively trivial afterthought. If anything it's the conversion to 3e, in which your shortbow is as effective as your other weapons, that is the broken conversion.

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Rem 1, level 10
Elf, Scout
Two-Weapon Style: Flashing Blade Mastery
Ranger Wilderness Knacks: Ambush Expertise
Ranger Wilderness Knacks: Mountain Guide
Level 4 Wilderness Knack: Watchful Rest
Level 8 Wilderness Knack: Wilderness Tracker
Elf Subrace: Wood Elf
Select option: Elven Accuracy
Select option: Wood Elf Reactive Stealth
Background: Birth - Prophecy (History class skill)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 15, Con 15, Dex 20, Int 13, Wis 11, Cha 15.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 15, Con 15, Dex 16, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 14.


AC: 25 Fort: 20 Reflex: 23 Will: 21
HP: 72 Surges: 9 Surge Value: 18

TRAINED SKILLS
Dungeoneering +10, History +11, Perception +12, Acrobatics +15, Athletics +12, Thievery +15, Stealth +15, Bluff +12

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +6, Diplomacy +7, Endurance +7, Heal +5, Insight +5, Intimidate +7, Nature +7, Religion +6, Streetwise +7

FEATS
Level 1: Master at Arms
Level 2: Sneak of Shadows
Level 4: Twilight Adept
Level 6: Sly Dodge
Level 8: Practiced Study
Level 10: Superior Will

POWERS
Scout aspect of the wild (scout) 1: Aspect of the Lurking Spider
Scout aspect of the wild (scout) 1: Aspect of the Soaring Hawk
Level 2 Scout Utility Power: Invigorating Stride
Level 6 Scout Utility Power: Perfect Balance
Scout aspect of the wild (scout) 7: Aspect of the Dancing Serpent

ITEMS
Cloak of Displacement +2, Magic Leather Armor +3, Guarding Longsword +2, Magic Short sword +3, Distance Dagger +1, Foe-Seeking Bow Shortbow +1, Adventurer's Kit, Handy Haversack (heroic tier), Iron Armbands of Power (heroic tier), Rope of Climbing (heroic tier)
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======

The Knight who also loses pretty much every trick in his book if he violates his knightly code of honor(which was actually worse than the Paladin, the Paladin could at least beat the stuffing out of people or even kill them if they did evil deeds, the Knight couldn't even do that!).

He's not that bad. He only loses them for the day. But it's pretty crippling for a would be fighter.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yet it was run using almost exclusively D&D material: several of the OA series modules (for AD&D), other elements of Kara-Tur and the AD&D OA book (eg Constables of Hell - the two celesital Oni types - are from there), Bastion of Broken Souls, Monte Cook's Requiem for a God, plus probably other stuff I can't remember.

RM has different PC build, and some noticeable differences in action resolution, but the game I described could have been run pretty easily in AD&D, I think, and probably 3E as well, provided you ignore the alignment rules.

Sure, but you have to ignore the alignment rules, which are pretty central to how D&D functions. Again I am not saying a campaign that does so is bad, uninteresting, or problematic. Just that it is a key part of the game as it is written.

I've nothing against GM adjudication of action resolution. I'm not such a big fan of GM adjudication of the moral legitimacy of the players' choices for their PCs.

That is cool. For me, this isn't an issue. i am fine with the GM adjudicating such things (particularly when you are dealing with an artificial morality system like the one that D&D offers----seperating real world ethical questions from that is pretty easy for me because I am worried about whether an act is Lawful Good or Neutral Evil, not whether it actually meets my own definition of good and evil.

 

[D'karr]

Sure, but you have to ignore the alignment rules, which are pretty central to how D&D functions. Again I am not saying a campaign that does so is bad, uninteresting, or problematic. Just that it is a key part of the game as it is written.

If he was able to play all of that without the alignment rules, and it didn't break anything for the game, I'd say the alignment rules are not as important (key part) to the game as you are claiming.

If a rule has lot's of knock-on effects I can see how changing it, or eliminating it might be problematic. However it depends of what type of knock-on effects we are talking about, mechanical or flavor. If you remove a rule and all you have to do are minor flavor adjustments then it's not such a key part of the base, if it require lots of mechanical adjustments then there might be some issues.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If he was able to play all of that without the alignment rules, and it didn't break anything for the game, I'd say the alignment rules are not as important (key part) to the game as you are claiming.

You can ignore them, and I have in some campaigns, but they are also keyed to a lot of things in the game itself (particularly in 3E). The cosmology of D&D is built with the alignment system in mind and many spells are tied to alignment as well. It is absolutely possible to ignore these. However I think it is hard to make the case that alignment in D&D isn't important to the game as written.

If a rule has lot's of knock-on effects I can see how changing it, or eliminating it might be problematic. However it depends of what type of knock-on effects we are talking about, mechanical or flavor. If you remove a rule and all you have to do are minor flavor adjustments then it's not such a key part of the base, if it require lots of mechanical adjustments then there might be some issues.

I would say removing alignment requires a good deal of thought for D&D but is doable. Many magic items and spells only affect people of certain alignments for example. Many classes have alignment restrictions as well. It can be done. Doing so isn't a problem or wrong. But the point was originally about the paladin and how having alignment restrictions and I think we are starting to get lost in a tangent about alignment in general. Note I never said having alignment restrictions were the best approach, just that is isn't bad design and some people like having those kinds of mechanics in D&D (myself being one of them).

 

[Dragoslav]

Thieves' Cant: Secret language of thieves isn't in 4e.

Actually, it is, just not by default. There's "Secret language," which can be "Thieves' Cant, Druidic, Drow Sign Language," or other such languages. All you need to learn it is either the Linguist feat or a background that lets you learn an additional language of your choice, and DM's permission. (There may be other ways to acquire it, but I'm not certain)

 

[D'karr]

You can ignore them, and I have in some campaigns, but they are also keyed to a lot of things in the game itself (particularly in 3E). The cosmology of D&D is built with the alignment system in mind and many spells are tied to alignment as well. It is absolutely possible to ignore these. However I think it is hard to make the case that alignment in D&D isn't important to the game as written.

If they can be ignored, you admit you have done it, and the game can still be played without "breaking" the majority of it, then they are not that important to the game as written. There are not that many mechanical knock-on effects to alignment. Meaning that they can be ignored, or altered and very little breaks. I'd prefer if there were no knock-on effects at all, but that's just me.

3.X made the great wheel the default cosmology. In OD&D there was no default cosmology. I remember that in 1e, the great wheel was originally nothing more than an example cosmology. So it was not that important to the game as originally written, for mechanic reasons. It is important for flavor reasons. Which I can agree is important, but not mechanically.

I understand the need to weigh if the amount of work is worth it, but the majority of the work is on mechanics, not flavor. Mechanics can have repercussions. If I remove AoA, from 3.x there are a lot of mechanical knock-on effects, but it can be done. It's just a matter of the degree of work required. If I remove ALL magic items from 3.x there are also mechanical effects that make it difficult. If I decide to remove all divine classes, I have a rather large mechanical undertaking in my hands. The flavor of Dark Sun, for example, would not be easily recreated in 3.x without some major shifts, or new rules.

However, in 4e I can easily drop all divine classes from the mix, and the game can still be played. So are divine classes an important part of 4e? For flavor purposes, yes - obviously not, for mechanical reasons. What is important is what those classes uniquely brought mechanically to the table in pre-4e - mainly healing and boosting. Since those mechanics were divorced from the classes in 4e, 4e Dark Sun could easily drop divine classes, and the game can be played without issue.

My car won't run without a fuel, so I can't just remove it and go on my merry way. That is a key component of my car. Wind Shield wipers are not as critical, but still important if I'm in a rain storm; the radio, not so much. I can easily drop it and the car will continue to function without any mechanical repercussions.

Note I never said having alignment restrictions were the best approach, just that is isn't bad design and some people like having those kinds of mechanics in D&D (myself being one of them).

My assertion with respect to alignment restrictions has always been that those are flavor restrictions, not mechanical restrictions. I'd rather not have them. I can see them as sidebar examples just as I can see examples of dwarves hating orcs being an RP flavor example. It don't want that to be a mechanical restriction. It assumes that in whatever campaign I'm going to be running/playing dwarves will hate orcs. If it goes further and makes mechanics such as a "favored enemy - orcs" bonus for dwarves it starts to dictate the "flavor" of my game. If in my campaign I have an alliance between dwarves and orcs that is flavor, if I have to start changing mechanics because of my flavor it is more work for me.

I think they are "poor" design, if not necessarily bad, just like I think that mechanical rewards for RP penalties are "poor" design. There are game systems that at character creation give benefits based on taking RP penalties. I've seen game systems like that "gamed" to a level that I don't appreciate. The RP penalties hardly ever come into fruition, making the rewards simply a free reward.

If flavor is to "dictate" in any way, I want it to be broad enough, or unimportant enough that I can eliminate it or change it without having to put a lot of effort into it.

 

[Obryn]

You can ignore them, and I have in some campaigns, but they are also keyed to a lot of things in the game itself (particularly in 3E). The cosmology of D&D is built with the alignment system in mind and many spells are tied to alignment as well. It is absolutely possible to ignore these. However I think it is hard to make the case that alignment in D&D isn't important to the game as written.

In pre-4e, this is true. I'd argue that alignment is more central to 3.5 than any other edition, in fact, which is one of my problems with it.

I am good with alignment for supernatural beings - demons, Devils, angels, etc. I don't think it's useful or appropriate for mortals because of all the silliness and downright idiocy of crap like the orc baby dilemma. I don't even want it for priests and paladins; I'd rather focus on their specific ethos or code than try and fit them neatly into one of Nine ridiculous boxes.

Frankly, though, I think the game is stronger if alignment has no mechanical effects at all. If I can't cleanly excise it from Next it will be another strike against.

-O

 

[Bedrockgames]

In pre-4e, this is true. I'd argue that alignment is more central to 3.5 than any other edition, in fact, which is one of my problems with it.

I am good with alignment for supernatural beings - demons, Devils, angels, etc. I don't think it's useful or appropriate for mortals because of all the silliness and downright idiocy of crap like the orc baby dilemma. I don't even want it for priests and paladins; I'd rather focus on their specific ethos or code than try and fit them neatly into one of Nine ridiculous boxes.

Frankly, though, I think the game is stronger if alignment has no mechanical effects at all. If I can't cleanly excise it from Next it will be another strike against.

-O

the orc baby dilemma is something I have only encountered online.

 

[Obryn]

the orc baby dilemma is something I have only encountered online.

Okay. I am glad, but that was just an example and your experiences are not universal.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My assertion with respect to alignment restrictions has always been that those are flavor restrictions, not mechanical restrictions. I'd rather not have them. I can see them as sidebar examples just as I can see examples of dwarves hating orcs being an RP flavor example. It don't want that to be a mechanical restriction. It assumes that in whatever campaign I'm going to be running/playing dwarves will hate orcs. If it goes further and makes mechanics such as a "favored enemy - orcs" bonus for dwarves it starts to dictate the "flavor" of my game. If in my campaign I have an alliance between dwarves and orcs that is flavor, if I have to start changing mechanics because of my flavor it is more work for me.

I think they are "poor" design, if not necessarily bad, just like I think that mechanical rewards for RP penalties are "poor" design. There are game systems that at character creation give benefits based on taking RP penalties. I've seen game systems like that "gamed" to a level that I don't appreciate. The RP penalties hardly ever come into fruition, making the rewards simply a free reward.

If flavor is to "dictate" in any way, I want it to be broad enough, or unimportant enough that I can eliminate it or change it without having to put a lot of effort into it.

Again, you are taking your preference and your experience to decide this is bad design. Too many people have a different reaction to label it bad design. This would be like me aruing daily martial powers re bad design because they disrupt my uspension of disbelief. Such a statement fails to account fr the fact that they work just fine for lots of 4e fans. Behavorial restrictions to classes like the paladin work just fine for myself and many others. They are not bad design, they are just not good design for certain styles of play. For lots of us, they do exactly what they are intended to do (and provide a superior pat experience than the alternatives offered in 4E). I just dont see how that can be labelled bad design (especially when the 4E solutions seems equally, if not more, unpopular than the paladin rules in prior editions). What 4E fans need to understand when they dismiss things as bad design is: there are different rubrics of good/bad design out there and not everyone shares their's.