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

[Alkiera]

The hardest point for me right now: at 1st level every character takes an attack power. Does that mean that I cannot opt to have a non-combative concept?

Yeah, I know that combat in D&D is everywhere all the time, but I've played highly non-combative wizards and bards in the past, the rules of 3.0/3.5 and AD&D allowed me to do so.

I want to know how to create a character that doesn't like to fight and sees no use in training for being effective while the party faces a combat challenge. Maybe this is not the wisest option, but RPGs that I've played up till now have allowed me to do that.

Cheers,

I'm sure the DMG prolly still has rules for 'Commoner' or 'Expert' classes. Or just come up with something based on those. Grab a few skills, minimal hp, no real powers. Okay, we'll give you these:

What's Going On? - Commoner attack 1
At-Will
Close Burst 5
Effect: You annoy targets in the burst with your peasant whining.

Aggggggh!!! - Commoner 1
You run screaming from the dangerous situation.
Encounter
Personal
Effect: +2 movement rate

8)

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

you still can... you just can't expect to build the character as a noncombabtant... but you can play a non combatant character. and to that i have to ask...

WHY ARE YOU TAKING A NONCOMBATANT OUT ADVENTURING? seriously, in a world where things want to eat you...why would a noncombatant leave his house/city/cave?

First, I should be able to build the character as a non-combatant. As I've said earlier, I know no other game that forces me to choose an attack as the power for my character.

Regarding your second question. We rarely play games where characters simply go out to dangerous places in search of fame and fortune. One adventurer in a group of five characters? Probably.

The majority of our characters, though, would better be described as the kind of people who joined an adventure because they had to. Think Tika Waylan in Dragonlance or the hobbits in Lord of the Rings.

You can still choose to make a sub-standard character if you want. Nothing is stopping you.

It's simple.

Step 1: When making your character, don't write down anything that can be useful in combat.
Step 2: When playing your character, don't do anything that can be useful in combat.
Step 3: Profit.

And get no cool power? No... I want to be a wizard and get some weird transmutation spells instead of magic missiles. If balancing everything around combat will deny me the opportunity to do that, this may be the funniest system in the world, but no way will you tell me that any character is fair game.

Cheers,

 

[The Little Raven]

And get no cool power?

That's the price you pay for wanting to be a useless lump in combat... you get no combat spells. It's odd that you state you want a combat-useless character, then complain when he would be... well... useless in combat.

No... I want to be a wizard and get some weird transmutation spells instead of magic missiles.

You can pick up rituals, which aren't useful in combat.

If balancing everything around combat will deny me the opportunity to do that, this may be the funniest system in the world, but no way will you tell me that any character is fair game.

Any character is fair game.

 

[AtomicPope]

The majority of our characters, though, would better be described as the kind of people who joined an adventure because they had to. Think Tika Waylan in Dragonlance or the hobbits in Lord of the Rings.

First, I'll pretend I never heard pulp Fantasy being mentioned in the same sentence as Lord of the Rings.


Second, read Lord of the Rings again. All of the Hobbits do a LOT of fighting in it. In the beginning, they're not very good. But by the time they reach the Mines of Moria, they're in the thick of it. Heck, Legolas wasn't a very good combatant in the Mines of Moria (book, not movie). He didn't reach his stride until the woods of Lothlorien. You stand corrected.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

That's the price you pay for wanting to be a useless lump in combat... you get no combat spells. It's odd that you state you want a combat-useless character, then complain when he would be... well... useless in combat.

I'm not complaining about being useless in combat. In fact, I'm not complaining about anything. I just want to state that, from what we know, it's not possible to have a character with cool powers that are not combat-related at all; you simply pick an attack power at 1st level, and unless you're house-ruling something else, that's the option you have for character creation.

I've created complete characters with no combat powers under previous editions, and I don't think that's asking too much from a system, when people are claiming the system will support the concept I want to play.

First, I'll pretend I never heard pulp Fantasy being mentioned in the same sentence as Lord of the Rings.

Why?

Second, read Lord of the Rings again. All of the Hobbits do a LOT of fighting in it. In the beginning, they're not very good. But by the time they reach the Mines of Moria, they're in the thick of it. Heck, Legolas wasn't a very good combatant in the Mines of Moria (book, not movie). He didn't reach his stride until the woods of Lothlorien. You stand corrected.

Before asking me to read anything, I think you should read my post again. I never said the hobbits do no fight. I simply used them as an example of characters adventuring not because of fame and fortune, but because the circumstances took them on an adventure. I was simply answering to Pistonrager why characters adventure without having a good set of combat skills.

Cheers,

 

[Jack Colby]

There are far better games than D&D for playing non-combatants. And frankly, if someone told me they created a pacifist character for a D&D game I was running I'd tell them it wasn't allowed. I mean, really!

If you insist on playing non-combat D&D, I'm sure you're imaginative enough to make your own rules for those characters, too. But please don't blame D&D 4E for being D&D-like. Forcing people to make playable, combat-ready PCs in 4E is a good thing.

Yes, 3E was a strange experiment rules-wise that gave you a lot of freedom... to build the most adventure-unworthy characters imaginable, if you so chose. Thank goodness 4E seems to have fixed that!

 

[The Little Raven]

I just want to state that, from what we know, it's not possible to have a character with cool powers that are not combat-related at all; you simply pick an attack power at 1st level, and unless you're house-ruling something else, that's the option you have for character creation.

Rituals are available to characters with appropriate training (the feat required to use them) from level 1. They are not combat-related at all. Therefore, your claim that it's not possible to have a character with cool powers that are not combat-related at all is false.

 

[KidSnide]

Yeah, I know that combat in D&D is everywhere all the time, but I've played highly non-combative wizards and bards in the past, the rules of 3.0/3.5 and AD&D allowed me to do so.

I want to know how to create a character that doesn't like to fight and sees no use in training for being effective while the party faces a combat challenge. Maybe this is not the wisest option, but RPGs that I've played up till now have allowed me to do that.

The fact that this is hard in 4E is one of the big selling points for me. I tend to play with a lot of people who have non-combatant concepts for their characters. (IMC, the party consists of two military officers, one war-wizard, a bureaucrat, an engineer, an assassin and a teen-aged girl – just because they aren’t adventurers doesn’t mean that they don’t have adventures.)

As a consequence, there is a tendency for players to create 3.5 characters who are totally unequipped for the adventures that I’d like to run. Silo-ing attack powers away from skills and other out-of-combat abilities ensures that those characters still have a base level of effectiveness. In 3.x, those players were given the choice between creating characters that were true to their concept and creating characters that were fun to play. I prefer a rules system in which being true to your concept still leaves you with an effective character.

 

[Surgoshan]

If what I've read is correct, the vast majority of Warlock support stuff requires melee attacks.

I believe you mean warlord? But we've only seen four powers for the warlord. So far as we know neither fighters nor paladins can use ranged weapons either. Nor can the cleric. Or the rogue. Or the wizard. Apparently, only the ranger is ranged!

I'm doubting that's the case.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I'm not complaining about being useless in combat. In fact, I'm not complaining about anything. I just want to state that, from what we know, it's not possible to have a character with cool powers that are not combat-related at all; you simply pick an attack power at 1st level, and unless you're house-ruling something else, that's the option you have for character creation.

I've created complete characters with no combat powers under previous editions, and I don't think that's asking too much from a system, when people are claiming the system will support the concept I want to play.

For the most part, 4E won't allow you to trade combat coolness for non-combat coolness. There are certainly ways to be cool outside of combat, but they're equally available to all characters. You can choose not to do anything in combat and concentrate on doing stuff outside combat if you like, BUT that doesn't mean that your friend's PC, who is a Murder Machine, won't be able to compete with you just fine at doing out of combat stuff.

With the Skill Challenge rules, there are more ways then ever to be cool outside of combat. What you are asking for is that your non-combat character be superior at non-combat stuff to characters who can also kill things. That's bad balance and unfair to them, so it won't happen.