Challenge! I want to convert your concept!

[Ranmyaku]

Oooh, may I get in on this?

I'm a knight. From birth, I had everything I ever needed handed to me, so I immersed myself in studies and education, attending the finest schools of Dementlieu. Today, I stride out against the twisted creatures of the night with a horse and full armour, but my true strength comes from my intimate knowledge of monsters and their kind.


(I have a bit of an ulterior motive in posting this - this poor character didn't work in Third.)

 

[Derren]

this poor character didn't work in Third.)

Why not? Fighter (or Paladin)/Aristocrat multiclass.

 

[LostSoul]

What was posted is close but nor completely correct. It is as moritheil said. Will attacks, not skills.

Use the skills to make Will attacks. Just add +5 to the Will Defense. Done.

 

[tombowings]

I think I know better than you what is part of my concept is not.
In a more mechanical term the concept is:
- Good sword/spearfighter
- Good Archer
- Access to buffing and support magic. Doesn't even have to be high level

Well, there is always the ranger, who gain proficiency with both the sword and spear. Both of those are one handed weapons as it so happens, so you can duel wield them. If you're not into duel wielding, a few of the ranger's powers can be used without wielding a weapon in each hand - so pick those up and grab archery (and multiclass) for the rest. For magic, there is the wizard, shield spells and a few other wizard utility spells are exactly what you're looking for.

Also, you could play an Elven (longbow prof) battle cleric, reflavor the divine to arcane magic, take longsword and scale proficiency, multiclass into ranger.

 

[Derren]

Use the skills to make Will attacks. Just add +5 to the Will Defense. Done.

Is that an official rule? Because if not then its unusable unless you the player is at the same time the DM.

 

[tombowings]

Oooh, may I get in on this?

I'm a knight. From birth, I had everything I ever needed handed to me, so I immersed myself in studies and education, attending the finest schools of Dementlieu. Today, I stride out against the twisted creatures of the night with a horse and full armour, but my true strength comes from my intimate knowledge of monsters and their kind.


(I have a bit of an ulterior motive in posting this - this poor character didn't work in Third.)

This is an easy one. In any fine school there would of course be mandatory tactical military education. So, simply, you're a warlord! Take Diplomacy and History. Pick up Nature and/or Dungeoneering with the Skill Trainning feat and you're all set to go.

 

[unobserved]

Is that an official rule? Because if not then its unusable unless you the player is at the same time the DM.

Oh I get it. You don't actually want someone to figure out a way to make this character work because you know it can't. You just want someone to admit the fact that it can't be done exactly the way you want.

OK. Fine. Ready?

It can't be done exactly the way you want.
You can not enjoy playing 4e with this character.

Happy now? If that's the character you want and you're playing with a regular DM then you could probably twist his arm into having an insightful conversation with you about your character concept. Chances are good you could come to some arrangement.

If that's not what you'd like then I guess you're SOL.

Moving along.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Remember, the theme of the thread is "Stump the converters". If your concept isn't doable in 4e to your own personal satisfaction, maybe just gloat quietly to yourself? This thread's about brainstorming, not advocacy. We know a lot of concepts might not fit into 4e as a PC -- that's kind of the point of the thread!

(That also means we should probably not debate Darren here, I mean you can, but I'd rather read neat conversion ideas.)

I'm a knight. From birth, I had everything I ever needed handed to me, so I immersed myself in studies and education, attending the finest schools of Dementlieu. Today, I stride out against the twisted creatures of the night with a horse and full armour, but my true strength comes from my intimate knowledge of monsters and their kind.

I think this one works pretty darn well as an out-of-the-box Warlord. Possibly go for Tactical (int) focus rather than Inspiring (cha), but a lot of it's in the flavor. You'll want some skill/multiclass feats as obviously Dungeoneering would be a favored skill.

I'm a big fan of Warlord concepts that aren't bardish; so many of the shift and extra attack powers you get are easier to explain with things like "Aha, I suspected they would do that, here's your opening, men!"

The really neat thing about this kind of Warlord is that you can either pick up the knight-themed paragon path (representing the role his family would expect him to grow into) or go with something else entirely, depending on how the character develops in play.

Thematically, you could pick up the necessary feats for Dungeoneering and Plate at 1st, I think. However, I'd be tempted to go with Scale armor, and make that sort of a comment on your character; he's taken the traditional knightly platemail and modified it to better match the kind of work he needs it to do (better mobility, etc.)

 

[Eldorian]

Thanks, forumboss. I'm glad you were here to tell me what to stop posting.

I didn't say you had to stop posting. I told you to stop expecting PCs that use villain concepts, for the obvious reason that 4e doesn't do PC villains.

So, when did you buy the site from Morrus?

Gah, why would I do that?

I'd like to run a S&S game styled after Clark Ashton Smith, thank you very much. And I would have no expectation that the PCs would be good or ethical (they would be free to do as they pleased).

Previous editions were flexible enough to allow this kind of campaign. Why isn't this one? If ALL it does is "Tom Clancy's Lord of the Rings" then what good is it?

You aren't (won't be?) playing DnD then. If you could play that game using DnD, then congratulations. But, that wasn't what the game was designed for, and if it works for that, it's a coincidence.

And, if all the new game did was allow for "Tom Clancy's Lord of the rings" whatever the hell that means, then as long as it did that right, then it'd still be a great game.

 

[Derren]

Oh I get it. You don't actually want someone to figure out a way to make this character work because you know it can't. You just want someone to admit the fact that it can't be done exactly the way you want.

I want that this character works for a player, not for a DM.
Maybe its normal that you tell your DM which house rules he has to implement, but when I am a player I don't boss around the DM and tell him what he has to do.
That means that the concept can not require specific houserules because thats up to the DM and not the player who plays the character.