Challenge! I want to convert your concept!

[theNater]

One of my impressions is that they "solved" the problem of "some spells aren't as useful as others" (the "Fireball vs. Phanton Steed" contrast) mainly by radically narrowing the options. Also everything in design is a tradeoff, I understand that: THe "Vancian" (AKA "D&D") spellcating system was much derided, which is prolly why they tossed it, but one thing it did well was allow (even encourage) variety & versatility: If you didn't know a spell that did what you wanted, you could research it.

They actually solved that by divorcing the spell categories. You choose your combat spells off of this list(attack powers), your non-combat spells off of another list(rituals), and spells that have potent indirect combat applications off of a third list(utility powers). At the beginning of the day you no longer have to choose between Fireball and Phantom Steed, you can do them both. I'll address spell research later.

While every spellcaster had their "go-to spells", puissant spellcasters with a depth of knowledge and extensive spellbook library could have a very different spell selection this week than they had last week.

Wizards by default, know twice as many daily (attack) powers and utility powers as they are able to cast. They can pick up a feat to take that from double to triple.

Anyhow I'm babbling again but I hope that 4E permits more classes to have, if not as many skills as a rogue, at least more than they did.

You no longer have to continually feed points into skills to be competitive. The way to be good at a skill is to be "trained" in it, at which point you will be good at it for the rest of your career. Rogues start with more "trained" skills than anybody else, but everybody can become trained in as many skills as they wish, at a cost of one feat per skill. Note that multiclassing includes training in a class skill of the new class.

*IF* she were 4E spellcaster, then she'd be primarily a Wizard, then: dabbling in a handful of spells isn't "what this character does". WOuld the concept work as "primary Wizard, multi-Rogue" or "primary Wizard, multi-Warlord"?

Wizard/rogue and wizard/warlord would both work all right. They each have their ups and downs. Warlords use str for their attacks and have few powers that include moving the warlord, rogues use dex for their attack but don't spur allies on to greater things. Another thing that may factor into your choice is that int and dex compete for AC contribution(only the higher one contributes).

In 2E and 3/3.5E one could start a character as (for example) a Rogue and then cross over to Wizard and ultimately outstrip the Rogue base to be primarily a Wizard (2E Dual-Classing was really all about eventually becoming better at the 2nd class than the original class); my understanding is 4E isn't like that - your initial choice is always predominant, and whatever you multi to is secondary, a bit of dabbling. (I say that not to nitpick the design, but to be corrected if I'm wrong).

Your primary class is your stronger class throughout, although you can get up to nearly a 50/50 split if you take a paragon path from your second class.

Unless characters of any class can master a wide variety of Rituals.

Ritual Caster is a feat which requires skill training in either Arcana or Religion. Clerics and wizards get the feat for free. Once you have Ritual Caster, you can cast any ritual of your level or lower for which you have the stuff.

I prolly need to learn more about Rituals.

You totally do.

Question that comes to mind is whether there is anything akin to "Spell Research" that lets one learn or invent new ones, other than "When you go up a level you can select x Feats and say you researched them" - I mean spell research in the sense of previous editions, not just "you get two new spells every time you go up a level, representing what you researched/learned while training".

A wizard starts with 3 rituals and aquires two more by being a wizard at levels 5, 11, 15, 21, and 25. In addition, you can convert money into a new ritual. Each ritual has a market price. Rules for inventing new rituals(that don't mimic the powers of listed rituals) are not included in the PHB.

While that's always been mostly true, the exceptions have always been what makes/made the PnP versions interesting. That's also, to go off-topic a bit, why when I learned they were (further) limiting the things X,Y,Z "monsters" could do, trimming down their abilities so the DM could handle them better for one combat encounter, made me a Saaaad Panda: It's not necessarily the sole (or even best) Plot Use of a Pit Fiend or a Lich to be in a 40 x 40 room waiting to fight the PCs with a few efficient, deadly combat abilities.

I presume there are guidelines for "monsters as NPCs" in the DMG, but I haven't checked. But if you want to have long-term friendly interactions with an NPC in 4th edition, you use Diplomacy on them instead of casting Charm Person once a day.

 

[theNater]

One of my PCs, as the OP knows from another thread, is a warrior (pure, single classed fighter specialized in Longsword) who for campaign reasons became a cleric in service to Tyr. The key clerical ability for the last half of her life has been the ability to Turn Undead- she is the party's sole source of that ability.

This venerable PC (dating back to 1Ed, updated all the way to 3.X) can't be done in 4Ed without radically altering the PCs history and/or classes since the Clerical multiclassing feats don't grant Channel Divine- a neccessity for Turning Undead. CD is only available to single classed Clerics or Paladins.

I have addressed that character in the other thread, I'll make the salient point here.

You will not get the power named Turn Undead. However, you can get the power Solar Wrath from the Radiant Servant paragon path. It strikes a significantly larger area, does comparable damage to each target at level 11, and stuns the undead it affects, rather than pushing and immobilizing them.

For those interested, Dannyalcatraz is referring to this thread. His post indicating her abilities and career is post number 62, my response is post number 63.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And instead of stunning or mere damage, she actually outright destroys many.

Not to mention all the stuff she does based off of the Turn undead ability...some of which could be done in 4Ed by a PC with Channel Divine.

 

[howandwhy99]

Sounds like fun. Let's give it a shot. I'll put most of the stats together as a first level character, then mention the levels of the powers he'll be using.

I appreciate you going out of your way and doing this for me Nater. In retrospect, I should have left out the psionic stuff as that hasn't been published yet. You did a great job nonetheless taking published material and reshaping it. What do you think about making up new powers, feats, etc. to make the change more accurate? That would be my personal route.

And the ring of psionic negation or whatever would sort of flip the PC into two classes or branches. That may not fly for every GM as it would definitely need to be a houserule. I don't know what RAW rules all allow, but your work does help me understand what the game can and cannot do so far. Gracias.

 

[theNater]

And instead of stunning or mere damage, she actually outright destroys many.

Undead of half her level? Like minions? Which Solar Wrath could outright destroy up to 64 of?

Not to mention all the stuff she does based off of the Turn undead ability...some of which could be done in 4Ed by a PC with Channel Divine.

For which analagous abilities exist nowhere else in the game? I find that difficult to believe. They can't be directly replicated, but their general purpose can usually be approached another way.

 

[Toras]

-I am a master of the gear and wheel with many strange devices to my name. What others achieve with sword or sorcery, I manage with a turn of a spring and grand design. Chemicals I mix have many strange and interesting application.

-I am a changeling, a master of many forms. My body is a fluid canvas upon which I write my own story. Those I fight become part of my strength, making me stronger in their own way.

-Born with the blood of the celestial running through me, I carry its mark upon myself in the form of wings that I must hide least those who do not understand link less of me. I draw upon the strength of my blood to strike at evil.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Is it wrong that I'm laughing to myself at some of these character concepts? So many of these descriptions amount more or less to "I am the coolest guy in the universe. No seriously, I am totally unstoppable. I am captured by no man, I leave no trace, and all who see me quiver in fear. In fact, most people can't see me even if they want to, but they quiver in fear anyway. I am so unspeakably awesome, I don't just have a trenchcoat and a katana; I have a trenchcoat made of katanas." This is doubly amusing knowing that, if these characters were played in 3.5, they likely spent their fair share of a campaign being utterly embarrassed on more than a few occasions, and a couple likely weren't very good even at their chosen specialty.n

I mean, I loved a lot of my 3.5 characters, but I'm not about to neglect that my Rogue's ability to be a deadly, sneaky assassin was impeded by the fact that a gentle breeze tended to render him unconscious, that his stalwart Fighter teammate was incapacitated by Will saves all the bloody time, that my clever and learned Sorcerer/Fiend-Blooded was shredded by insignificant monsters, that my grizzled Barbarian/Dragon Shaman will be known for hitting on about 2 attack rolls throughout his short career, and so on and so forth.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

"I am the coolest guy in the universe. No seriously, I am totally unstoppable. I am captured by no man, I leave no trace, and all who see me quiver in fear. In fact, most people can't see me even if they want to, but they quiver in fear anyway. I am so unspeakably awesome, I don't just have a trenchcoat and a katana; I have a trenchcoat made of katanas."

Oh, that's what we were supposed to get? I got a katana made out of trenchcoats.

 

[D_E]

Hi, I've got a general 4th ed question, and, well, this looks like a good thread to ask it in.

To wit: Can you make a Martial Striker that uses a Bastard Sword? It seems like all the Rogue powers require light blades, and that all the Ranger powers require dual weilding.

To ask another way: How would you convert a Fighter-Rogue to 4th ed without being required to use a dagger or suchlike?

 

[Thasmodious]

With a feat for proficiency, you can dual wield bastard swords as a ranger