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

[Destil]

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.

...

Paladin
Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack.

Monk
1st level bonus feat: Stunning Fist or Improved Grapple.

Druid
Ranged proficiency? Sling & shortspear.

 

[KidSnide]

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.

I get that 3.5 has many more supplements now than 4E will at the start. But I don't get why core 3.X was so much more flexible than what we're getting in 4E. Sure, it's hard to play a druid, a bard or a monk with the 4E PHB1, but it's not like you could play a warlord or a warlock with 3.X PHB1.

Folks keep saying that the 4E classes cling tightly to archetypes, but I just don't see it. The classes cling tightly to *ROLES*, but those are incredibly broad ideas about combat focus and don't dictate much of anything regarding character concept. As far as I can tell, the only change in 4E flexibility is that now all the archetypes are viable, whereas 3E let you create some truly unplayable garbage.

 

[The Little Raven]

...

Don't forget the Ranger. It isn't like I could use the Archery fighting style with a short sword, or the Two-Weapon fighting style with a pair of longbows.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

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,

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with your main point at all. In another thread I spoke (in my long winded, boring manner) that I was VERY worried with the way classes were being handled. Archetypes and stereotypes have a very thin line between them. Besides, my favorite class is swashbuckler; it seems I'm pretty screwed there.

I guess what I'm saying is: I want to see where Wizards goes with splats before I unleash the nerd rage. Until then, I'll just quietly choose not to buy 4e should it disinterest me completely.

All that said, core 3.x wasn't that much more varied then 4e was. It WAS varied, yes, but not by THAT much. My prime worry is 3.x's style was more geared towards creativity and player choices, while 4e's style seems more geared towards preset conditions which would, in most games, be classified as "railroading," something I avoid like the plague.

On the bright side, if it all turns to garbage, I have a little more ammunition when it comes time to convince the group to play more Unknown Armies.

 

[Pistonrager]

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,

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?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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,

One of my more HILARIOUSLY cheesy characters had three of those Vows from the what'sitcalled splat book that effectively made it completely non-combat related. It went beyond just not fighting - my character actively stopped others from fighting.

Suffice to say, after a good laugh, the group agreed I wasn't allowed to do it again.

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

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.

 

[Herodotus]

Why can't the "Ranged Warlord" be a Ranger that multiclasses into Warlord for Inspiring Word and support powers?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Why can't the "Ranged Warlord" be a Ranger that multiclasses into Warlord for Inspiring Word and support powers?

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