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

[Stogoe]

4e won't let you have a 6 h.p. 1st-level character who is just a commoner with a bit of training, and that's very sad.

This rule pays for itself the very first time that a new player lives through the first round of combat. Attracting and retaining players is the highest good, both for WotC and for us gamers.

Characterization should trump optimality every time they ever come in conflict; the game system needs to recognize this and account for it.

And making an incompetent character should be an intentional player choice, rather than a pit trap that ensnares the uninitiated.

Barbarian should be a race, not a class

The class name Barbarian is never going away, and there's plenty of room for the mechanics of the Barbarian class to be retooled for 4e without the 'mud-eating savage' cultural baggage. Just like the Warlord, this is merely an idiosyncratic dislike of the name that WotC chose for the class.

For flavour reasons, Bardic magic really needs to be cut adrift from arcane magic in how it functions.

Says you. Seems most people are fine with bards as arcane. But feel free to rename the bard's power source in your game.

Bards do things by manipulating sonic energy, pure and simple

Bards invoke arcane magic through song. I think you're confusing the spell Sonic Blast with the rest of the bard's 3e spell list.

 

[Taluron]

Do not approach 4e as you have always approached D&D. It is a different system with a different philosophy.

I find it interesting the OPs phrasing states that 4e is not DnD.

I also find it interesting that noone else mentions this.

 

[malraux]

What he said.

Consider the corollary to "you can build everything you need right now": that means all the classes that are in the pipeline are superfluous. I really don't think so.

And this is probably a good thing in the long run. Trying to make the PHB I classes flexible enough to cover everything means that those classes are gonna be better than the more narrowly focused classes. The 3e wizards is a good example. By making her able to specialize in any school of magic, there's little room for future mage classes to fill valuable roles.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

Plus, there are many systems of magic out there that just don't mesh with D&D 4E. The novels of Jack Vance spring to mind.

actually you can make a Jack Vance character for the first time in D&D

wizard in Jack Vance dying earth could memorize just a few spells (powerfull) but 3-4 was the most that the most powerful mage could manage

than they had demonic servants and magical objects

if you put daily into the "few spell to memorize" and recast cantrip and utility and encounter as order you give to your otherwordly servants it works very well

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And this is probably a good thing in the long run. Trying to make the PHB I classes flexible enough to cover everything means that those classes are gonna be better than the more narrowly focused classes. The 3e wizards is a good example. By making her able to specialize in any school of magic, there's little room for future mage classes to fill valuable roles.

I think a problem in 3E in this regard was also that certain things weren't a good idea as a own class due to the way the system handled immunities (it had them) and resistances. You can't make a good Illusionsist class if you lack a solid framework to handle illusion effects, and if enough monsters are immune to many types of illusion. A Wizard focusing on Illusions still works fine, he just has to memorize a few spells outside of his school. A "pre" Illusionist should never have access to Magic Missile or Acid Arrow. It just doesn't fit. But if there are situations where he can't use any of his magic, that leads to a bad game experience.
Similar things can be said for Enchanters.

4E seems to have tried to account for more in this regard. Ideas for a Illusionist or a Psion were already in the mind of the developers when they wrote the PHB and the MM.

 

[malraux]

4E seems to have tried to account for more in this regard. Ideas for a Illusionist or a Psion were already in the mind of the developers when they wrote the PHB and the MM.

I'll just expand that to most elements of he game. A lot feels "incomplete" and intentionally so (no metallic dragons in MMI, evocation focused mages, only a few power sources in PHB I, etc.) As frustrating as this is as a player, I can see how its both good to WotC and the hobby as a whole, if there's a multi year plan for products that are worth producing and purchasing.

 

[katahn]

Thinking about it, I'd have to agree with the idea of 4e seeming incomplete in terms of class selection. More classes are coming down the pipe, and yes unless they were superfluous their absence would be noticed.

However what is not missing is playstyle, or "what my character does in a fight at a very high level". For instance I certainly can't make a 4e psion yet, but that doesn't stop me from making a different sort of controller and then creating a backstory to explain why this character that was a psion in 3e isn't one (yet) in 4e. This is one option available to folks who have a concept that includes power-source and fluff-supported mechanics and whom do not wish to create their own house-ruled equivilents.

Of course the other option would be to do just that: create my own house-ruled psionics system and use it until the 4e version comes out (if I like it). This one is a bit more labor and time intensive, and if one does decide to go with the official version you now have a change to either retcon or explain.

The third option is just to temporarily shelve characters who concept-wise cannot be nicely or satisfactorily translated into 4e by their players yet. Probably the least appealing solution.

The fourth option, as implied by the OP, is to take the character in 3e and strip them of all game-mechanics and describe them as if they were a character in a movie or book. Using that narrative description, render the closest approximation you can in the 4e ruleset and use that until rules are eventually released that might be better.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The third option is just to temporarily shelve characters who concept-wise cannot be nicely or satisfactorily translated into 4e by their players yet. Probably the least appealing solution.

Actually, I like this solution. I am eager to try out new character concepts possible with 4E before I return to old ones. (For me it primarily means I want to try out a Warlord).

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Apparently I wasn't careful enough to avoid this sort of response with the statements of most character concepts and the request for people to cut me some slack about this. Oh well.

Here goes...

You mean they'll be able to make them in June, or "eventually"?.....
....There's simply no way to "re-theme" any of the 4E base classes into a Psionicist (they've stripped out most of the Ench/Charm spells, remember?). No illusionists. No necromancers. No swordmages in June. How would you make Haplo from the Death Gate Cycle? What about an Akashic from Arcana Evolved?

So in a previous post I have addressed the psionicist, necromancer, illusionist, and shapechangers. They will probably come out June 09 in the PHB2. In the mean time play a different class or try to shoehorn some other class to fit. I was trying to be helpful to people who were actually confused with how to convert characters, not folks who already know how to do this.

That being said, I would probably play a wizard or warlock and see if I could get the ritual rules to fit my ideas of enchantments or necromancy. Don't know about the others. I have never seen an Akashic or Haplo, so I can't help you there. Without knowing anything about it I would suggest that you should make sure that these roles can't be done with out of combat rules before you write them off. As I said though, I know nothing of these things.

Plus, there are many systems of magic out there that just don't mesh with D&D 4E. The novels of Jack Vance spring to mind.

I disagree with this. Just because you are not forced to play a vancian caster through mechanics doesn't mean you can't play one through fluff.

But there's a broader problem: not all fantasy characters stick to a clear combat Role (Gandalf); others are just too powerful (Rand al'Thor). You simply can't make these "too good for PCs" characters. I think the combat role system will work out fine, but it is restrictive (in a good way, for a game).

I mostly agree here. I stated that the concept had to be reasonable, and what I meant was that the concept could not be what another poster on these boards called a Mary Sue. Toning these characters down a little would make them workable though.

So to the rest of your post I will respond with this.
<----Check out my post count. I'm a noob.
That being said, I think that there are many posts on these boards that may not be helpful to you. Please ignore them. I still think that if you were a little more open to this you could get something out of it. The bard thing is a start. Just because you have a fluff reason to justify your style of bard doesn't mean that it isn't possible to create it without an official bard class. I have been "mesmerized and enchanted" in the real world by real, non-magical musicians. I bet if I saw their resume it would not include the bard class at the top. Most of this is out-of-combat stuff anyway, so maybe rituals would work?

The berserker works the same way. I saw a fight once where a guy got so mad that he drooled! And broke stuff! And even hit his friend! And he was a wealthy New Englander.

You are right though. If you don't want it to work out then it won't. There is no way that anyone can help you. These were just some suggestions for how it could work out. There still are a lot of questions left unanswered, I could be completely be proved wrong in June. At that point I will just houserule everything back to the way that I thought it would work, and be happy for the changes that I feel were good.

Well I am about as far from New-agey as it gets, but when it comes to RPGs, we are all just pretending anyway. I think that Hong says it best when he says that this would all go away if we just didn't think too hard about fantasy. As will all my previous posts, take this as you will, leave it for some one else, whatever, but many people have gotten something from this, and some just won't.

EDIT: Thanks Katahn, I beleive that you have succinctly summed up the options for conversion. Probably for those players who want to create their Baby, the one they have been playng for ~30 years, there will be no satisfying option. If they didn't want to change characters is ~30 years, changing the character sheet will probably be traumatic as well.

 

[Irda Ranger]

EDIT: Removed all the nits. PC was right.

Apparently I wasn't careful enough to avoid this sort of response with the statements of most character concepts and the request for people to cut me some slack about this. Oh well.

Go back and read you own post. That's not what you said. You said "any" character concept.

Probably for those players who want to create their Baby, the one they have been playng for ~30 years, there will be no satisfying option. If they didn't want to change characters is ~30 years, changing the character sheet will probably be traumatic as well.

This has nothing to do with me wanting to make a particular character. For the record, I have never recreated a character. I am always looking forward to the next concept, the next class, race, etc. I am really looking forward to making characters in 4E. I am simply refuting your contention, and it's a bit insulting to suggest that I'm not "getting you" because I disagree with you. If you go back and re-read you own posts and then read the refutations again maybe you'll be the more "open" to the possibility that you cannot create "any character concept in fantasy literature" using 4E rules.