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

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

That's not a problem with the players. If all your players are consistantly wanting and making characters for non-combat games, you should force them into games they don't want.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

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.

And I'll simply give up on my 1st level power? Wouldn't it be better if I had a broad field to choose from? That would include attack powers, for those who prefer them, and utility non-combative stuff for players with characters of non-combative concept, fair enough to me.

Cheers,

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Wow, just wow.

So in writing this article, I never imagined that the biggest argument against my assertions would come from a guy angry about not being able to use a race that mostly needed a lot of splat/houseruling in 3.x and a guy that wants to make a relatively useless character, but feels that 4e has not laid out design space for useless characters.

My answer to the useless character is that it sounds like this character concept is built around the areas of play outside of combat. This is relatively easy, because it sounds at this point like most any out-of-combat role can be created with any class. The in combat stuff is then easy to role play. I would bet money on the fact that no matter what the game, you can play virtually any character as useless in combat. Even if a whole bunch of shiney fancy combat powers show up on your character sheet, you are in no way constrained to use them. Just ignore them and play your character as useless. This may be the easiest character to convert to 4e. If I were to begin character creation with the goal of creating a character useless in combat, I would pick wizard as my class, mostly because they have the lowest HP, no armor, and few weapon proficiencies. Then I would never cast any combat spells. Problem solved. Useless character.

For the problem of not being able to create pixie characters, I would say you were way outside standard 3.x design space to begin with, so your comfort with being outside of the norm should free you from whatever constraints that you feel that 4e has enforced upon you. Hack up an eladrin and create a pixie from that. You already get a fey to start, and the eladrin has supernatural movement capabilities as well, so a little creative modification is all you need. That is realtively easy, and there is the possibility that the MM will have rules for creating pixie characters anyway. Any which way, 4e appears that it will have the transparency to allow this kind of hacking of the rules to suit, without the threat of unintended unballancing of the party.

For the lack of a bard, I would say play a warlord/wizard. No need for a bard class. For a druid, go Fey Pact warlock/cleric or Fey Pact warlock/warlord. For the Barbarian go any number of things from ranger/fighter to straight fighter. Most of what makes a character a barbarian is background and 3.x mechanics that are easily fluffable in 4e by saying that "My Barbarian (actually a fighter) goes BERSERK!!!" The only problem that any player might face with these conversions is an attachment to specific 3.x game mechanics. The character has never had any connection to these mechanics. To the character, these mechanics are just metaphysical constructs that have no practical meaning. Any character can be translated pretty easily. Many game mechanics will be left behind.

 

[The Little Raven]

And I'll simply give up on my 1st level power?

Since it's a combat power and you've already stated you don't want it, then yes. Why are you upset when your choice gives you exactly what you want?

Wouldn't it be better if I had a broad field to choose from?

No.

That would include attack powers, for those who prefer them, and utility non-combative stuff for players with characters of non-combative concept, fair enough to me.

Combat powers and non-combat powers are silo'd separately, since they want each character to be able to step up and be useful both in and out of combat. Now, just because you choose to be worthless when initiative is rolled doesn't mean you should automatically be given primacy (and additional capabilities) in other situations. Now, your DM can choose to do that for you, but the game will usually expect you to play it how it is intended.

 

[hong]

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.

This is a feature, not a bug. All 4E character classes are designed so that they can contribute in a fight, as well as out of it.

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.

If you want to not contribute to a fight, it's very easy. Just don't roll the dice. This is said entirely without malice.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

No.

Amen.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

For the lack of a bard, I would say play a warlord/wizard. For a druid, go Fey Pact warlock/cleric or Fey Pact warlock/warlord. For the Barbarian go any number of things from ranger/fighter to straight fighter.

But that's not a bard, a druid, or a barbarian. It's a warlord dual classed as a wizard. Or a warlock dual classed as a cleric. Or a whatever you use as a fighter. What you're doing isn't creating a new character class, it's purposefully ignoring what's actually going on and pretending it's something else while not actually backing any of it up. And frankly, LARPing isn't my thing.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Hong, you have a way of stating things that no one else on these boards does. Thanks for backing me up.

 

[The Little Raven]

But that's not a bard, a druid, or a barbarian.

It's not a bard, druid, or barbarian class. That doesn't mean it isn't a bard, druid, or barbarian. You seem entirely too fixated on having the word "Bard" written on your character sheet, instead of being fixated on the concept itself, which can be built using entirely different tools than a simple Bard class.

And frankly, LARPing isn't my thing.

What does LARPing have to do with using your imagination to look beyond the metagame constructs (aka classes) provided to see the actual concept?

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

But that's not a bard, a druid, or a barbarian. It's a warlord dual classed as a wizard. Or a warlock dual classed as a cleric. Or a whatever you use as a fighter. What you're doing isn't creating a new character class, it's purposefully ignoring what's actually going on and pretending it's something else while not actually backing any of it up. And frankly, LARPing isn't my thing.

Correction: that is not a 3.x bard, druid, or barbarian, because the mechanics are not identical to the 3.x versions of these concepts. What these suggestions will do is allow one to very easily play the mostly martial character that inspires his comrades to greatness and ocasionally shows some arcane power, or the devout natures champion with strange fey themed magic, or the feral warrior from a savage culture who loses his cool in a fight. What you are demanding is that 4e stick strictly to the 3.x interpretation of these character concepts. The thing is that these concepts can be expressed through many different mechanical systems. 4e mechanics will be different, but the character concepts are easily possible in 4e.