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

[Xanaqui]

Your examples? All melee, all the time.

So no, 4e does not afford the same choices as 3.5.

Look at 3.5 core. Take the rogue, or the fighter, or the barbarian. These classes can be taken in several different directions. Multiclassing makes it even more versatile (I don't want to get into a mechanical comparison of 4e and 3.5 multiclassing, though, so let's just leave it at the conceptual level). 4e multiclassing is taking a bit from another class - you might take the warlord feat, as a fighter, to give you access to it, but you're still a warlord.



I'm not even talking about splats. Look at 3.5 core. It is entirely more versatile than 4e has - thus far - shown itself to be.

Look at the warlord, as has been mentioned. All melee. You can't make a ranged warlord. Multiclassing doesn't solve the problem, either. Is it possible that there are some feats, or whatnot, to make it marginally possible? Sure. But from what we've seen, the warlord is all melee, all the time.

Now look at any 3.5 class. Does it tell you that you must be ranged, or that you must be melee? Does it tell you you have to take one particular approach to the class? No, it doesn't.

4e classes are archetypes, and I sincerely doubt that that's going to go away, because that seems to be how they're approaching class design nowadays.

Interesting point (though I could quibble with the details). I suspect that this is to give the designers more design space for PH II+. For example, if the Wizard is a good Beguiler, Illusionist, and Enchanterer, there's little design space for classes based off of those concepts.

 

[Ipissimus]

I've got three old characters I'm thinking about converting. Two are difficult, one quite easy.

1. My old Mystic Theurge. Cloistered Cleric/Wizard. My only problem with this is which way to go in 4E: A wizard with cleric multiclass or a cleric with wizard multiclass. Technically, the character was extremely devout and dedicated to the pursuit of magic in the name of Wee Jas, which suggests the latter option. However, thematically, the character was an unarmoured controller type which suggests the former. I'll probably need the full rules to make a final decision.

2. Ok, this one was all over the place. I wanted to play a Thrall of Malcanthet without being a Bard, so I started out as a Rogue/Sorcerer and from there it got really crazy with levels of Human Paragon and that Dancer class from Dragon Compendium before going into Arcane Trickster after ToM. Conceptually, she was a murderous, scheming, exotic dancer adept at wiles and sorcery to get what she wanted. In the end, I'll probably convert her to an Infernal Pact Warlock... but I'm just not sure if that's right for her. Of course the biggest problem is moving succubi over to Hell but I have no problem with substituting Glasya for Malcanthet if it comes to that. The problem is that, with this concept, I wanted a character who didn't wear armour and didn't carry any regular weapons (mostly disguised daggers). Ok, I'll accept that it's a fringe concept but I hope they address it eventually.

3. Easy one. Human Rogue with Student of the Sword. Conceptually, the illegitimate son of a minor noble left for dead as a babe due to the deformity of albinism. I'll admit, Warlock is also a tempting choice for his character but he was certainly more of a striker/swordsman in action who dabbled in the arcane. Maybe Swordmage multiclassed with Rogue could also suit but I'll have to wait for FrCS.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I'm not even talking about splats. Look at 3.5 core. It is entirely more versatile than 4e has - thus far - shown itself to be.

I haven't been following every little bit, but I did read the reveal on multi-classing closely. I very much enjoyed stress testing the 3x multi-class rules and I completely agree where 4e is going.

The excerpt included a designer talking about the why of the 4e multi-class. One of the main items I took from the article was that they were trying to eliminate the hidden bad choices. 3x multiclassing was an art and you could end up with some strong characters...and you could end up with a glass cannon. So yes, the designers intent is to be less flexible mechanically.

As to the rest, IIRC we have seen a couple 1st level characters and a dabbling of powers. Can we really say that you can't model any given concept within 4e's rules at this point? Yes, some stuff will have to wait for future releases... but I think many 'standard' character concepts can be built right from the box.

 

[Seule]

I think one of the most telling points in the multiclassing preview was the point that 3e multiclassing constrained class design. When someone can take the 1st level of several classes, that 1st level can't be too good in any of them.. just look at Barbarian, almost all melee fighters have a level (or possibly two) for the fast movement and the rage. It's frontloaded.
4e multiclassing doesn't suffer from that problem. Multiclassing is inherently closer to balance no matter what class you multiclass to, because you get the same number of abilities of the same levels from any class.
3e multiclassing was a grand experiment, and ultimately in order to work properly it would have to severly warp class design. In a system where 1st level characters start with a number of abilities from class (and are therefore more interesting and fun to play), it simply can't work the same way.

--Penn

 

[Pistonrager]

How's this for a challenge:

Pixie (down-toned Savage Species variant, shrunk to size Tiny) Sorceress, with the Mystic Dancer prestige class. In combat situations, she specializes in:

• Scouting, using her innate flight together with alter self, polymorph, invisibility and various detection spells.
• Charm and Suggestion
• Non-lethal control spells, mostly the stuff that impose various conditions, such as Grease, Bands of Steel and Cloud of Bewilderment.

Usually hides her spell-casting through the silent spell and still spell feats.

Out of combat, she specializes in various Crafting and Perform skills, together with Diplomacy, usually using Perform to support her Diplomacy, and Craft to design the basis for magic items enchanted by other party members. She is very proud of her Perform skills.

This is an actual character, currently in the middle of the Savage Tide adventure path.

How would you convert her into 4E?

I'd toss it in the fire, then tell you to make a gnome mage. People with their abominations claiming to be real characters...

 

[KidSnide]

From what I can tell, there are two areas where it is hard to work out the conversion:

1) Triple Class Characters - It's generally easy to figure out a character's primary combat shtick, but some concepts would involve splashing two classes. Take a 3E ranged Bard character who wants to be a ranger with a touch of mage/illusion and warlord abilities. It's hard to work that out completely, although you can probably fake a caster splash with ritual casting and few good magic items.

2) Unpublished Shticks - Folks who played illusionists, psions and shape-shifting druids have a little challenge because the PHB1 doesn't have a lot for those guys. You can probably fake the illusionist/psion with some combination of Wizard and Star-Warlock, but those just won't be too satisfying until we get a few more base classes. Similarly, most of the unhappy eldritch knights really want a arcane melee striker to build their character. Savage Species refugees are probably in the same boat.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I'd toss it in the fire, then tell you to make a gnome mage. People with their abominations claiming to be real characters...

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

 

[GnomeWorks]

Yes, some stuff will have to wait for future releases... but I think many 'standard' character concepts can be built right from the box.

You have hit the nail on the head.

What is this "standard" crap? 3.5 showed that you can, surprisingly enough, support a diverse set of characters with a single class. Why do the classes need to cling so tightly to archetypes? They don't need to, and it wouldn't take that much work to provide more versatility.

Am I saying that 3.5 multiclassing was perfect? No, because you're right. If you didn't know what you were doing, you could severely screw yourself over that way.

However, what if I like playing a somewhat mechanically-subpar character? We don't all have to be awesome, you know. Sometimes you want to be batman in a world of supermans.

 

[Pistonrager]

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

Except there is nothing bland unless you play it blandly. sure a wizards a wizard, but if you play it differently then it's new, different and not bland. Playing a race that is too powerful, filght, invisibility, massive stat bonus for anything a dexy caster cares about. doesn't make the character better, it's just a slightly different version of the samey blandness. it's the samey blandness that is characterized by the a character that is a relative noncombatant, talk your way out of every combat, and/or be a very stealthy bastard that messes around more than than any real character should or could.

Oh... and here's the kicker... the more people that play pixies(and claim to be playing them for something different) makes the obscene power of pixies... samey and bland.

 

[The Little Raven]

Why do the classes need to cling so tightly to archetypes?

Because when you make them just buckets of abilities for players to dip into in order to cherry pick the powers they want, then you've designed contrary to the entire purpose of a class-based system, which is to provide archetypes (which are called classes).