the best response I can think of to the original post is the pull-out on page 21 of the DMG II, in which one of the designers discusses refluffing his son's thief into a fire archon. It didn't appear to be that difficult.
There have always been character concepts that have required some adjustment to the rules. This is as true in 4E as in previous editons. I'd argue that 4E's tendency to separate fluff from mechanics, and it's tendency to streamline and simplify, makes many character concepts easier to realize, not harder. You can accomplish a lot by simply swapping out a damage keyword or two, then changing the power name and the fluff.
Systems that allow for complete flexibility in build choice often pay for that flexibility with greater up-front complexity, which makes them frustrating to teach to newbies. I've always felt that 4E does a decent job of providing front-loaded simplicity with the potential for more flexibility once you get some mastery of the basic rules.
There have always been character concepts that have required some adjustment to the rules. This is as true in 4E as in previous editons. I'd argue that 4E's tendency to separate fluff from mechanics, and it's tendency to streamline and simplify, makes many character concepts easier to realize, not harder. You can accomplish a lot by simply swapping out a damage keyword or two, then changing the power name and the fluff.
Systems that allow for complete flexibility in build choice often pay for that flexibility with greater up-front complexity, which makes them frustrating to teach to newbies. I've always felt that 4E does a decent job of providing front-loaded simplicity with the potential for more flexibility once you get some mastery of the basic rules.
