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

[ProfessorCirno]

"Barbarian" can be a class, or it can be a description of a culture like it was for millenia prior to D&D or other RPGs being invented.

Oh, there I agree, and I think it was the illiterate thread I went into that a bit. But the *class* barbarian, at least in my opinion, can't be done with fighter, at least not from what I've seen in 4e's fighter so far.

Prior to 3e, in fact even prior to 2e, there was only "fighter" (well, ok, there was "elf", and "dwarf" too ). Fighter was used as a class to portray everything from a knight in shining armor to a frothing-at-the-mouth beserker. I respectfully submit that one does not need a class called "barbarian" to role-play a barbaric character in general or a barbaric fighter-type specifically.

Yes, that's true, but I would hope 4e looks at previous editions and asks "What can we do better," not "what can we go back on" ;p

The example in the quote above is a very clever role-play of a foppish fighter failing to emulate a specific cultural warrior. It has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not I can use the fighter class to portray a genuinely barbaric warrior unless I was going to be absolutely married to the idea that game mechanics are required for role-play to be accurate.

Eh, I guess what I was trying to get at was: if a fighter took zero levels in barbarian or other such classes in 3.x, nobody would call them a barbarian or a berserker. At *best* they'd be a fighter trying to pretend they're a barbarian/berserker. I don't see why we should suddenly change that in 4e.

Granted, quite a bit of this will be solved once barbarians DO come out ;p

 

[The Little Raven]

Eh, I guess what I was trying to get at was: if a fighter took zero levels in barbarian or other such classes in 3.x, nobody would call them a barbarian or a berserker.

No.

YOU wouldn't call them a barbarian or berserker. Your opinion is not fact, nor does it even remotely approach being a fact. Several people in this thread have demonstrated that they're willing to call a character "barbarian" or "bard" based on the concept, not what's written under the class entry on the character sheet, which is what you seem completely fixated on.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

No.

YOU wouldn't call them a barbarian or berserker. Your opinion is not fact, nor does it even remotely approach being a fact. Several people in this thread have demonstrated that they're willing to call a character "barbarian" or "bard" based on the concept, not what's written under the class entry on the character sheet, which is what you seem completely fixated on.

First off, calm.

Secondly, I've never said any of this was anything more then my opinion; on the contrary, I've stated multiple times in this thread that everything I'm saying is just my opinion.

Thirdly, I'm fixated on the mechanics, yes, because I feel that's what the game is meant to provide. You feel otherwise. And that, I suppose, is that, as I doubt either one of us will be able to convince the other.

 

[The Little Raven]

First off, calm.

First off, I am calm. Don't try and dictate my emotional state to me.

Secondly, I've never said any of this was anything more then my opinion; on the contrary, I've stated multiple times in this thread that everything I'm saying is just my opinion.

And you just stated that in your opinion, nobody would call a non-barbarian class member a barbarian. Sure, that's your opinion, but this thread has demonstrated that it is factually wrong, since myself and others have demonstrated the willingness to do so.

Thirdly, I'm fixated on the mechanics, yes, because I feel that's what the game is meant to provide. You feel otherwise. And that, I suppose, is that, as I doubt either one of us will be able to convince the other.

I think you're fixated on a set of mechanics specifically having the name "Bard" over them, as a sort of security blanket. You complain about the lack, then complain about any of the solutions people try to provide and call such solutions "lazy." If you have a problem, fix it. If you don't, then you're the one who is lazy, not the people who are actually taking effort to provide a solution that you summarily reject because it doesn't fit your preconceived and narrow notions.

 

[DandD]

And what about your characters? Surely they don't have the metagame-knowledge about the character class of other people that you, the player, have, unless you were playing in some kind of Order of the Stick-ish campaign setting, where everybody is aware of the game rules.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Mourn for president of the thread.

 

[ryryguy]

In a way, this Monk is result of a game that doesn't have a strong link to roles. From my experience, Monks are bad at tanking (and anything else, too, but I digress). But with a lot of work, you can make him work. At least, most of the time. Grappling is very powerful, but unfortunately, usually the advantage goes to the monsters which are larger, have a higher strength, and more hit points then the Monk can bring to bear.

I definitely think Monks fit the striker role better. They are unarmed, agile fighter. This isn't a good starting point for being a defender, but it's got for a Striker. So I suppose, he won't translate that well - either he is no longer a Monk, or he is no longer a Defender. Though you might be able to use an eventuall Monk class and multiclass it with Fighter to get some Defenderish abilities with your Striker. This won't replace a real defender, but I'd say that is also true for 3E.

Indeed, of all the roles from 4e, defender is the one probably least/most poorly represented in 3.X. Even for fighters there was not much to make them "sticky".

Indeed, this monk is generally at a statistical disadvantage when he tries to grapple. He does have a good strength score and the improved grapple feat, but often tries to grapple large creatures that also have high strengths, so his grapple modifier is frequently 5 or more below his opponent. Still, it's great imagery when he tries to grapple a dire bear or whatever, and he seems to have decent luck on these rolls.

Actually I imagine there could probably be a very good grapple-ish defender power in 4e, possibly combined with marking or possibly not.

In the end, for this guy 4e fighter might be made to work, so long as there's some way to incorporate the unarmed/unarmored aspect. That is pretty key to his concept. Having "monk" written at the top of his sheet, or some of the other weird monk powers, are not so important to him, I think.

Well, we'll see. The campaign will be going on hiatus for a while anyhow. When the time comes to convert, a variety of material beyond the original core may be available.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

And you just stated that in your opinion, nobody would call a non-barbarian class member a barbarian. Sure, that's your opinion, but this thread has demonstrated that it is factually wrong, since myself and others have demonstrated the willingness to do so.

I used simple hyperbole. Immidiately pouncing on someone for doing such and declaring them wrong doesn't exactly make you a good sport.

I think you're fixated on a set of mechanics specifically having the name "Bard" over them, as a sort of security blanket. You complain about the lack, then complain about any of the solutions people try to provide and call such solutions "lazy." If you have a problem, fix it. If you don't, then you're the one who is lazy, not the people who are actually taking effort to provide a solution that you summarily reject because it doesn't fit your preconceived and narrow notions.

And I think you have too much value placed in proving yourself right over the internet. I feel mechanics matter a lot. You feel they don't. I think it's the game's duty to provide the mechanics, you feel it's the player's duty. We disagree. It happens. Lastly, I didn't say that the people making the solutions was lazy, I said that the game demanding people to make the solutions was lazy.

As for "preconceived and narrow notions," again, we shall agree to disagree. I don't think I have preconceived or narrow notions and I've tried to argue my part. You've disagreed and you've argued your part. I truly doubt either of us will prove the other wrong. That's that, I suppose.

 

[Kishin]

Oh, there I agree, and I think it was the illiterate thread I went into that a bit. But the *class* barbarian, at least in my opinion, can't be done with fighter, at least not from what I've seen in 4e's fighter so far.

I'm glad seeing 4-5 of the 80 or so powers was enough evidence to convince you of this. Looking at 1/20th of a picture is certainly a way to render an accurate judgment on it.

Eh, I guess what I was trying to get at was: if a fighter took zero levels in barbarian or other such classes in 3.x, nobody would call them a barbarian or a berserker. At *best* they'd be a fighter trying to pretend they're a barbarian/berserker. I don't see why we should suddenly change that in 4e.

...

What does it matter what he's called in an OOC discussion? A warrior from a barbarian culture need not be exclusively the Barbarian class. There are several Fighters and Warblades in my current campaign, from fundamentally barbarian cultures.

You are too fixated on the name and the definitions, rather than the act of emulation.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

It seems to me the question is weather the 4e fighter will have any berserkergang style powers that can be gained.
Like getting some sort of bonus when bloodied (free attack, +2 damage etc), a power that lowers AC to raise damage or some sort of combat stance that emulates or is a rage-like ability.

This is because if you are converting a 3rd edition character with the barbarian class raging is one of the hallmarks of how the character fights.

Granted many 3e characters with only a level or 2 of barbarian would proably be better served just not worrying about it. That is to say, rage wasn't key to how the character fought, just something tacked on there.

But for a real berserker some rage-like ability is needed just as a magician specializing in fire magic needs fire spells or a warrior who fights with two weapons needs rules that allow him to do so.