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

[Ravingdork]

Oh gee, I'm sorry that I like playing something that isn't a bland, generic stereotype.

I've heard of enough crazy things like that with roleplayers, that they long ago became a bland generic sterotype in their own right. In the past decade I have NEVER hosted a game that didn't have at least one player like you--always wanting to do something bizarre and different as though it would somehow make the character "more" special than everyon elses.

It's kind of like Goths or Emos. It started because people wanted to be different. It is so common now though, that being a Goth or Emo is no more special than being a Cheerleader, Jock, or Nerd.

 

[ryryguy]

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.

Forgive a slight tangent... but I do fear that in some ways, the explosion of powers combined with relegating many of the 3.X standard maneuvers into powers will have the side effect of making that metagame-knowledge about character class more prominent. It will be more in-your-face and difficult to ignore, when if somebody tries to grapple you, then they must be a fighter (or whatever it is that will grant grapple powers).

A pick pocket running through the market... "Somebody grab that guy!" "Sorry, I can't, I'm a rogue!" "Me either, I'm a cleric!" "Uh... I'm a fighter but I didn't pick that power!"

I can see why they took things in this direction, but it does seem it may have some unfortunate side effects. Well, we'll see how much this actually happens at the table, I guess.

 

[Graf]

It's just amazing how many people are posting on this thread who either haven't read or don't understand the first post.

"4e's players handbook doesn't have have rules for <random race> or <random class>!" isn't some sort of cunning and brilliant retort. The OP is talking about roleplaying concepts.
If you are only capable of thinking about dnd as a collection of stats and have no comprehension about how a character concept could exist independent of each specific little mechanical component then there's really just no point in trying to post in this thread.

You won't understand what people are saying (or that the OP is trying to help you not arguing with you) and you won't convince anyone that you're "right".

This isn't (or wasn't anyway) a thread about how 3.5 is good and 4e is bad or vis versa. It was an attempt (apparently failed) to help people who think about DnD in strictly mechanical terms to broaden their minds to another way of approaching roleplaying.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

Thank you

 

[The Little Raven]

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

Good thing I'm not shooting to win any sportsmanship awards or popularity contests, eh?

I feel mechanics matter a lot. You feel they don't.

I don't think this is true. Mechanics matter a lot to me. The title the mechanics are given are what is unimportant. With a warlord, I can play a bard character, since I can buff and support my group like a bard. I simply instill a little roleplaying flavor in the form of my character singing battle hymns or old war songs in order to inspire my allies. The mechanics are important, but the fact that it isn't called the "Bard" class or his abilities aren't call "Songs" is far from important.

I think it's the game's duty to provide the mechanics, you feel it's the player's duty.

This is wrong as well. I feel it's a game's job to provide mechanics. However, since a game can't provide every possible mechanic for every possible thing, if a player wants to do something that the game doesn't provide exact mechanics to do, then he has a couple of options. One is to suck it up and deal with the fact that the game doesn't have what he wants. Another is to work within what the game provides in order to get the concept you want, even if it doesn't have the official game rule title of "Bard" or whatever. The third is to write it up themselves, or ask their DM to do it, or find someone else to provide the solution.

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.

I never said you called the people lazy, I said you called the solutions themselves lazy.

It's stupid to expect players to close their eyes and pretend things are different. It's also lazy.

And that's what you said, that it's stupid and lazy to expect players to do any work to play a concept not covered by the mechanics. I disagree with that, and think it's lazy to want to play a concept not covered by the rules and not to do anything about it.

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.

I guess so.

I dunno how you define it, but when someone tells me that it's not a Bard or a Barbarian or a Druid unless the character sheet's class says Bard or Barbarian or Druid, and it has to fit a specific set of characteristics defined by them alone, it seems like a narrow-minded preconceived notion of the concept. Same with the suggestion that Swashbucklers are somehow honorable fighters that don't backstab people.

 

[Kishin]

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.

I imagine that will be the province of the Barbarian (gasp!)

Surprise surprise, we're back to 'not all mechanics are supported in the core books' right out the bat. Which is the same as it was in 3rd edition. I must say, surprise is growing by leaps and bounds even as I write this.

So, the point of wailing and moaning and decrying 4E for this is kinda moot. Its pretty much common sense.

But people will do it anyway.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

First of all, let's stay away from the ad hominem, yes?

I am curious what you feel is ad hominem. I strictly stayed away from any personal attacks, I addressed many points of contention with my stance, I even conceded some points. I did restate my position, with examples that were sound, and in the end admitted that I may have been ambitious with my original goal. I did allow a little too much frustration to show through in my text, and if you find that ofensive, I appoligise to you directly ProfessorCirno.

Secondly, I disagree. Again, closing your eyes and pretending the fighter is REALLY a barbarian doesn't make it a barbarian. That's not roleplaying.

While you don't have to close your eyes, pretending is the essence of roleplaying. I will agree that it doesn't make it a 3.x barbarian by class, but this is not the 3.x forum. I am suggesting a way that someone who loves their character can continue to play that character through the edition change. If you do not want this, by all means continue to just complain. My advice will just be useless to you. As I have admitted previously.

Roleplaying is making a barbarian then playing it as a barbarian.

Agreed. This can be accomplished through various means, with explicit game mechanics being just one. Even the explicit game mechanics of the 3.x Barbarian class did not
guarantee a barbarian character though.

Now, can you make a fighter and pretend he's a barbarian? Sure! I actually HAD a player do that. It was hilarious. He was a prim and proper civilized man who earnestly believed barbarians had it right, and tried to emulate them. He never once took a level in barbarian, because he wasn't one. He couldn't rage. But that character proves my point - he was never a barbarian. He THOUGHT he was one, but the other barbarians would gather around their tents and laugh at him behind his back.

I have to commend this player for some obviously fun RPing, but I have to disagree with the assertion that the player actuall made a fighter and pretended that he was a barbarian. He actually played a fighter that pretended he was a barbarian. This is different because the character pretended, not the player. Fun RP none the less, but these are very different things.

Contrary to your assertion, my argument is not that you should ignore mechanics. I argue that you should ignore 3.x mechanics if you are playing 4e. 3.x is non-existent as far as 4e is concerned. I am simply stating that in a RPG, not all options are statted out, nor should they be. It takes a little creativity to connect character concept to game mechanics, but this has aways been the case. To port a character from a different game to 4e, you just need to jettison the mechanical representation of the character and bring in the character itself. Mechanics can be fitted to most any concept, and these mechanics are self contained and internally consistent. To progress, we only need to get over 3.x.

EDIT: Alas Graf, you are correct. The entire attempt has failed pretty miserably for many. I have had fun in the attempt though, and I feel like there is much support for my premise. I am utterly optimistic about the options presented in 4e and can hardly wait to try the new rules.

 

[Scipio202]

a) We've seen a tiny fraction of the powers, the feats, the combat rules, etc. We can may some extrapolations from that, but to state definitely that X can't be done in 4E, or that only Y can do something seems a bit premature. I think its quite likely that basic maneuvers like grappling and tripping will have some rules where anyone can attempt them - we just haven't seen them yet. It may be as simple as "roll X vs. Y", which would be very much in 4E's design principles.

b) A lot of arguing is about things like bard and barbarians that we're pretty sure are going to be available from WotC in the PHBII within a year. With 8 years of products offering classes, feats, powers, etc. there is no way everything could fit into the first 3 core books. We may have slightly fewer classes in the first PHB, but it sounds like they'll have a bit more options (from all the powers) compared to the 3.X PHB. If you absolutely can't wait, I'm pretty sure a 3PP will release some version of the "missing" classes under the GSL in October.

c) More generally, I think what many are arguing is that while the exact, specific 3.X mechanic might not exist in 4E, a slightly more general mechanincal concept should fit the bill (e.g. inspiring support, periodic temporary beatdown, etc.). In fact, any martial based melee daily power seems ripe for interpreting as a rage-ish "I'm angry now" butt-kicking, even if it's not called "Barbarian Rage".

 

[katahn]

Like another poster said, if the exact class doesn't exist in 4e to cover an existing 3e character you can either wait until more 4e material comes out (and it will) to cover it, you could create your own material, or you can see if the general concept of the character can be made to fit in existing content.

A 4e fighter may not have any rage/besekerish abilities in 4e, but honestly there's no way to know that until June and we see the 4e PHB. But even if they don't, there's nothing stopping you and nothing wrong with playing a fighter as being hot-tempered and/or from a savage culture.

But, if the mechanics of the barbarian class in 3e are that important to you, if it is beyond the limit of what you find acceptable to role-play a barbaric fighter instead, then you really are limited to the first two of the options I listed above. Either wait for the class to be released officially (likely in the PHB2) or make one up yourself.

Either way, the entire point of the OP's essay was that to translate a 3e character to 4e will have to focus on concepts and ignore mechanics. It may very well have to focus on storytelling to explain why the character cannot do "X" that they could before. This isn't new, the WotC guys had to do that with the Forgotten Realms and did so with the spellplague.

Fortunately my campaign in 4e is an entirely new campaign so I'm not struggling with the same issue. But if I were playing the campaign I was last in, where I was playing a half-elf psion/psychic-warrior, I imagine I'd do something like this....

Aeleron Half-Elven, psion and psychic warrior... That's how I was once known, what seems like an eternity ago anyway... before the wars that engulfed our world. I saw horrors in that war that would blast the soul of any sane man, made worse by my telepathic talents that let me feel the pain of the dying.

So many died, I couldn't bear it. I started drinking... and drinking... and drinking. I couldn't face the horrors and sought to drown them, or maybe just myself, in the bottle. The horrors didn't go away, but my gifts did. Maybe it was the ale, maybe the psychic stress of so much death, terror, and pain... All I know is I woke one morning and the world of my mind had gone dark and light hasn't returned.

These days I'm what folks might call a "warlord". I call myself old and grizzled, but folks in a fight say I'm capable of rallying the troops and inspiring them to do more than they thought they could. Maybe it's a vestige of my old talents, or maybe they're just humoring an old half-breed.

I hear rumors that some of the old orders of psions survived, in distant corners of the world. Maybe someday I'll go out and find them, maybe they can help me find the mind's light again. Or maybe I'll just go to the pub for another round or four.....

So there you go. I couldn't make my half-elf psion/psychic warrior in 4e so rather than try to (which I probably could have by going wizard(warrior) and re-fluffing abilities to describe them as psychic rather than arcane powers) I decided to base character development and storyline on the very idea that now he couldn't be psionic (no actual official rules for it) anymore. I rather like the idea of the burned out old guy who wants to hope he might someday return to the glory of his youth, but is very much afraid it's gone forever. Your mileage may vary of course.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

EDIT: Alas Graf, you are correct. The entire attempt has failed pretty miserably for many. I have had fun in the attempt though, and I feel like there is much support for my premise. I am utterly optimistic about the options presented in 4e and can hardly wait to try the new rules.

Well, I appreciate the effort of organizing this debate into one thread.