D&D 4E Character conversion problems for 4e (Short Essay)

[PrecociousApprentice]

So if you look at my original post, I did say that most character concepts would be convertible, and I stand by that vehemently. I also think that with a little flexibility of thought and some creativity, very nearly all character concepts should be workable in 4e right out of the gait. There will be a few holes at first (heavy enchantment, necromancy, or shapechange characters for example), but there are relatively few character concepts that are necessisarily mechanics based, and these mechanical holes are slated to be filled within a very short time. The swashbuckler is definitly playable as a rogue, and even better than anything that 3.x did. Backstab is just a metagame name, the mechanics are for extra damage whenever the character has combat adventage. That sounds like every swashbuckler fight I have ever seen. Nothing in the asserted list of bard necessities is absent from 4e, with the addition of effectiveness that 3.x never had. Creativity has always been necessary for character creation, and many of the 4e detractors are trying to claim that 4e stiffles creativity because they don't want to have to think outside the box (flavor text and metagame names that is).

This all comes down to the fact that some people are unable to come to terms with the new paradigm of combat role, and what that both means and doesn't mean for character creation, and they combine that with the inability to release themselves from other games' particular gamist/metagame constructs, and insist on importing them to a new game. Maybe this would all be easier if WotC had named the new game something else, and used slightly different terms for the new gamist/metagame concepts, but that does not change the fact that it would essentially be the same game. A rose by any other name and all. And I think that D&D is the most appropriate thing to call it anyway.

Apparently I was a bit too optimistic in my article. Translation of anything requires intelectual flexibility that is difficult for many. I had assumed that if people had the intelectual flexibility to think pretending to be someone else was fun that this intelectual flexibility would be enough to facilitate what is a relatively easy translation. For those who found my advice useless, I appologise for wasting your time. I am sure there are others who have found the thought excercise highly useful.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Now I will try to reinterpret as much of the mechanics of what made the bard into 4e. This is for those players that insist that they need all the elements that were part of the 3.x bard, even though they mostly sucked. There will be a few stretches, but I think that these stretches preserve pretty much all of the flavor of the bard, without some of the mechanical wonkiness of 3.x.

The mechanical effects of the bard can be summed up in this short list. I will refer anyone that doesn't beleive me to the 3.x SRD. It's all there.

1) Lightly armed and armored, not front line fighter type, but can fight adequately.
2) Extensive knowledge in many areas.
3) A skillset geared to social situaltions and perform.
4) Inspirational abilities that are thematically tied to performance.
5) A small set of charm type effects that are thematically tied to performance.
6) Limited arcane magic which are mostly thematic and include spells that aren't the blasty type.

To this list the RP elements of a very enchanting and sophisticated romantic, with boundless charm can be added.

From this list you can separate it into the in-combat and the out-of-combat abilities. Since the out-of-combat abilities are most likely to be available to any class, these will be chosen after class. We should then move right along to the in-combat ablilites, which are listed as

4) Inspirational abilities that are thematically tied to performance.
5) A small set of charm type effects that are thematically tied to performance.
6) Limited arcane magic which are mostly thematic and include spells that aren't the blasty type.

With this list we can begin to determine what the class necessities will be. Warlord fits the bill really well for #4, and will likely have many more ways of accomplishing this than the 3.x bard did. To get the other two, I think that it is very likely that fey pact warlock or wizard will have the necessary charm/illusion spells that will fit the bill, especially as the character progresses through levels. The bard in 3.x didn't start with all this stuff, he just got it as he advanced. With the addition of the enchantment and illusions type power sources, we might be able to really pin down the fealing of the bard, but for now we can probably get away with what we have, and only the most resolute 4e detractors will be unsatisfied.

The rest of what makes the bard is present or easily possible with any character. With the unified mechanic of character creation, fighty type abilities like BAB are all universal. Lightly armed and armored is gotten easily through class or feats, knowledge and social/perform ablity are skill things, which are available through class or feat.

The only things left are just RP elements. Is the bard a rock star or a child prodigy? Poet? Playwrite? Orator? All of these things are RP.

I for one would be much happier with this character than any 3.x bard. No more being useless, you have a defined role and the abilities to accomplish it. Plus the skill challenge seems to be the thing that bard players dreamed about to make their bards shine.

Now this is just one interpretation, and WotC will interpret it another way. Their interpretation will probably anger many bard enthusiasts, especially the ones who still want to play useless bards. But saying that I cannot create a bard character with the rules that will be available in June is patently false to the point of being rediculous. I might even like to play one finally.

 

[katahn]

I'm not sure I agree on this. Retraining is fine as long as you are willing to give up the previous concepts.

Let me try one. Here's one that probably works within 4ed mutliclassing. It's a 2ed character of mine from FR. He was minor nobility, a devote follower of Mystra, and wanted to be a Paladin. But was never blessed by Mystra (goddess of magic). He long practiced his martial arts, eventually becoming a tactician and eventually a leader of a force of men. The last time he was turned down, he was very dispondant but this uncle, convinced him of other ways to serve Mystra, and he turned toward wizardry. When he began to understand and be able cast spells, his magic was chaotic and uncontrolable (wild mage). Which to his lawful soul he saw as his flaw, and why Mystra would not chose him to be a Paladin.

Okay, in 2ed the character was a dual-classes human fighter / wild mage. The fighter part would better be emulated with warlord, an option that wasn't around back then. So most likely it would be a warlord, multiclassing into wizard. Wild magic is an FR thing that would need to be emulated.

The path that was followed in 2ed had him not advancing his martial side at all once he dual-classes, which I guess could be done with a massive retraining at some point during play to change him from a warlord with wizard multiclassing to a wizard with warlord multiclassing. My biggest problem with that would be all of the warlord abilities that he loses. Even things like armor and weapon proficiencies, skill trainings, etc.

I understand your concepts of "let go of the mechanics", but this is in-game history. The character worked in 2ed. It worked in 3ed. But retraining your class at high levels during play introduces major consistancy problems. Heck, you may not even be able to be on the same paragon path depending if it had power requirements in addition to class.

This isn't a deal breaker -- I've got 2ed characters that never were converted to 3.x for this reason and I can see having characters that won't make it to 4ed. Retraining can help mimic a character coming over at a specific point where there is no history (in 4ed) of abilities that you can no longer do. But since it's such a large things - it's retraining EVERYTHING effectively to retrain your class, not just a level like it was in 3.x, so doing it during a campaign with a super-hero-like radiation accident will be hard to write into continuity.

"Quick, heal me!"
"I don't know how to do that."
"Well, remember pretty damn quick or I'm dragon-food."

He starts off as a warlord, and then eventually starts dabbling in magic. He finds magic difficult to control at first, almost too wild for him, so his dabbling in magic remains minimal. Over time though, he starts to master the arcane and devotes himself more and more to it. As he does so, he starts finding his battlefield command skills getting rustier and rustier, as his mind starts grasping and mastering magical knowledge his ability to identify with and inspire his troops wane and so eventually he switches from being a warlord(wizard) to a wizard(warlord). Since warlord "healing" is actually "boosting morale and inspiring" this fits.

Why doesn't he remember how to wear armor? Maybe it's just been a while, and yes presumably he remembers how to wear it, but after focusing so much of his time and attention to magic he's a bit out of shape and the armor's heavier on him than he remembers and thus it burdens him more than it once did... functionally acting as if he doesn't know how to wear it anymore. Of course he could "get back into shape" by spending a feat to get the armor proficiency...

Why doesn't he remember how to swing a sword? Of course he remembers how to use weapons... but again after so much focus on book-reading and long hours sitting down in a study reading dusty tomes he's not quite in as good a shape as he used to be. He's still quite proficient, just out of practice and the sword's a little heavier in his hand than he remembers so he doesn't get the full bonus.

Now don't confuse "out of shape" and implications of not being as strong as he used to be to mean "loss of strength or constitution". These are just role-playing explanations, ways of explaining the loss of proficiencies in a way that makes narrative sense. The rules are simply a way of modeling a narrative story in a way that can be adjudicated, they are subservient to the story, to the narrative effort, not superior to it. So just because the rules don't literally call for a loss of an attribute it doesn't mean one cannot be role-played has having happened in some subtle way.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

As far as we know, for example, 4E supports no "angry makes me strong" kind of character

I expect Barbarians will have something of this nature.
However...
It already exists in the game. The PC race of Dragonborn has an ability to fight better when "furious" (bloodied) and the monster race of Orc has a similar ability to a much larger extent.

as well as no "I'm a loser in combats but stay with this group for a reason".

Why would you want to be?
Just because you're useful out of combat doesn't mean you should be useless in combat, unless you want to be, and in that case feel free to just not fight much. Your skill sets, rituals, and more sensible ability modifiers will affect your out of combat abilities as much or more than 3.x.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Katahn this is perfect, and to me shows more connection and commitment to the character that just being frustrated that the game mechanics are different. I love character creation, and a new edition change will allow me to flex my creative muscles again.

Muffin_of_Chaos this is veryappropriate, and seems easy, but I would even say that being angry makes me strong could be a RP only element. NO mechanics necessary.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Yeah, you could probably just amp up the abilities or fighting methods you use when angry.

 

[ryryguy]

So thinking about it further, the monk in our party probably mostly fills the defender role. He loves to grapple, and has been known to grapple a foe so that the rogue in the party can sneak attack it, which seems like it will be a classic 4e defender move.

Comments about early 4e monk implementations seem to assume they will be a striker. Also someone upthread mentioned that in 3.X, no character class really fits exclusively in a 4e role except for monks... which I don't really see, but I assume he was also thinking striker.

So any thoughts about a 4e defender monk? Seems tough since the defenders we have so far are heavy armor. Also monk mobility doesn't fit with defender but seems pretty iconic...

 

[katahn]

On the subject of "stronger when angrier" I'm wondering how often this happens and how substatial the effect is. If a character is always, or nearly so, angry then isn't it just asking for a permanent strength (or +hit/damage) boost (or maybe it is an explanation for feats that do the equivilent)?

If it happens every so often, then think about how to quantify "anger". What does it take to make them angry enough to translate into getting a strength bonus? Is it when they are sufficiently hurt? If so that might be based on being bloodied. Is it when their friends are in danger (ie. they are sufficiently hurt) then maybe it becomes a new feat.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

So any thoughts about a 4e defender monk? Seems tough since the defenders we have so far are heavy armor. Also monk mobility doesn't fit with defender but seems pretty iconic...

I dunno, I don't really see monks as being very defendery. Generally when Jackie Chan is protecting someone he does so by flinging them away rather than grabbing their attention.
I wouldn't say they're a controller, either, because even if they fight hordes of enemies it's generally two or three at a time. More would require like...Neo or Sauron.

I suppose you could do it, maybe focus on the monk's ability to stun and slide enemies away rather than hurting them much, a way to interrupt attacks made by a certain marked enemy, with a high amount of natural avoidance in the form of the usual Wisdom bonus to AC.

 

[ryryguy]

I dunno, I don't really see monks as being very defendery. Generally when Jackie Chan is protecting someone he does so by flinging them away rather than grabbing their attention.
I wouldn't say they're a controller, either, because even if they fight hordes of enemies it's generally two or three at a time. More would require like...Neo or Sauron.

I suppose you could do it, maybe focus on the monk's ability to stun and slide enemies away rather than hurting them much, a way to interrupt attacks made by a certain marked enemy, with a high amount of natural avoidance in the form of the usual Wisdom bonus to AC.

Yeah, well the thing is, in our campaign, the monk is more defendery than he is anything else. He's high strength, and half-earth elemental. He has the most hit points, close to the best AC (maybe the rogue has him barely beat). He does dish out some damage, but as I mentioned, his most common tactic is to grapple.

Perhaps he is better described as a "brawler" than the Jackie Chan archetype. And undoubtedly, his role in our game is in part a function of the fact that there is no other PC that can tank at all (monk, rogue, sorceror, archivist).

We'll see. Maybe there will be some feats and other goodness in the full books that will help. I do think some kind of grapple/marking combo might suit this character well.