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

[muffin_of_chaos]

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,

Here's an idea for ya: When details of rituals come out (and they may be few, but doesn't matter), write down a bunch of rituals you plan to use when you aren't in combat (all the time). They will be the exact same thing as your normal powers. Since you aren't in combat, you have plenty of time to figure out what rituals you want to use in any given non-situation.

 

[Pale Jackal]

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!

What he said. There are better systems than D&D for non-combat type games... D&D has traditionally been weak in non-combat areas.

If a player wanted a pacifist, I'd tell him, "You're going to be bored when everyone else is fighting," and it would be true, couple this with the fact that fights can take a while in RPGs, and you've got a recipe for untenable periods of boredom.

If you really want to play a pacifist, work out something with your DM like so: your 'role-playing' character doesn't fight. He has no combat powers. But he has a bodyguard (or hell, he's just a silent member of the party, a la Harding Grim from the First Law trilogy), who has no real out of combat utility, and you play him primarily during fights.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

uh oh

Oh man, I just realized that I can't make a ranged Warlord! This is just like that time I wanted to make a Monk that used his unarmed attack abilities with a Greatsword. Or when I tried to make a Warlord in that other edition, but couldn't, because they didn't exist.
And I don't wanna make a Cleric because they aren't a Warlord. And I don't wanna make a Ranger 'cuz they aren't a Warlord.
And I don't wanna fiddle with one word of each of my powers to make my idea work because that wouldn't be legit.


...Well, shoot.

 

[ryryguy]

What about templates?

Hmmm... I hadn't thought too hard about how to convert the PC's in my current campaign over. We're planning to put it on hiatus anyway. But when we restart, we might want to go 4e.

There will be a few obvious problems in that three of the classes don't have direct correspondents in 4e: monk, sorceror, and archivist. Monk I'm imagining will get some fan versions very quickly. Maybe the same with sorceror; if not, warlock would probably be a decent fit for this particular character (he's artillery).

The archivist, hmm... in terms of temperment and fluff, warlock would actually make decent sense for this guy, but striker is totally not his role. I guess it would have to be cleric. That's not too awful, but we'd probably let him pick some different skills and possibly different utility powers... he's a rune-deciphering, tomb raiding, high-int skill monkey type.

The much bigger party is that the PC's are all half-elementals. One each from fire, earth, water and air - the campaign is called "the E-Team". This is central to both the campaign story and the characters. We would have to find some way to bring this over.

There has been no mention of any sort of template mechanic in 4e, has there? At least not for PC's? How, in general, would you approach converting a templated character that gets spell-like abilities every other level? (Cf half-fiend, half-celestial.)

I suppose you'd start making their 4e class level equal to their 3.X ECL. ECL sucks, anyway. You could allow them to choose some number of template-themed powers instead of regular class powers or racial powers. And of course, some of the themed-ness of these powers is just fluff anyway, you could take some appropriate standard class power and just change the special effects, maybe the damage type.

I wonder, though... part of the effect of the SLA's in this all-half-elemental party is that the characters just have a bit "more". Though the ECL thing still sucks - the "more" is maybe not enough to make up for that level adjustment at low levels, then it's too much at higher levels.

I realize it's a generally a bad idea to give PC's extra powers as opposed to substituting like the multiclass feats. However, in a case like this, all the players are templated, and it's supposed to be a sort of "high powered" game. I wonder if maybe it would be okay to just tack on some of the elemental powers? Probably keeping a constant number of extra slots, but swapping in higher level powers as the characters reach higher levels.

Or would this still be a bad idea - kind of bringing in a 4e style level adjustment through the back door, where the characters have level X stats/to-hit, etc. but level X + "LA" powers? I note that in 4e, "level X stats/to-hit, etc." is generally much better balanced for level X opponents, so does that make adding more powers better or worse?

 

[Center-of-All]

Maybe you could consider the gensai in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, then using feats to make up the rest?

 

[ryryguy]

Yeah... and of course haven't seen the rules, don't know what feats there might be, etc.

The more general question, which is probably lost in all my verbiage, is just this - if you want to mix in something exotic, will it make sense to add something on top? Will swapping the base class and racial powers for the exotic stuff be enough?

The more I think about it, the more I think maybe it is... that actually this is just a slightly disguised case of multiclassing. It would mean that the level 7 half-elemental rogue won't be more powerful than the level 7 regular rogue, but that's okay. It only seems a bit weird to me because I'm used to that 3.x level adjustment mechanic... and it will be better for the two level 7 rogues to be equivalent, rather than having the level 7 half-elemental being kinda sorta, maybe if you squint just right, equivalent to a level 10 regular rogue...

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

There will be a few obvious problems in that three of the classes don't have direct correspondents in 4e: monk, sorceror, and archivist.

Monk could be a slightly modified ranger or rogue, depending on what sort of style you want. Sorceror is either warlock or wizard, depending on combat role desired.

The archivist, hmm... in terms of temperment and fluff, warlock would actually make decent sense for this guy, but striker is totally not his role. I guess it would have to be cleric. That's not too awful, but we'd probably let him pick some different skills and possibly different utility powers... he's a rune-deciphering, tomb raiding, high-int skill monkey type.

What role does this character fulfill? Cleric or warlord could be played like this character concept if leader was desired. Wizard is easy to see in this concept if contoller fits the bill, especially since the arcivist is just a wizard wrapped in divine clothing. I don't see this character as a defender, but I am sure that this concept could fit on a defender chassis.

The much bigger party is that the PC's are all half-elementals. One each from fire, earth, water and air - the campaign is called "the E-Team". This is central to both the campaign story and the characters. We would have to find some way to bring this over.

For the elemental stuff I would say that this already fits the exception based design theme of 4e, and I would just give each character a couple of powers that are elementally themed and let them scale/trade them out with leveling. A little adjustment would be necessary for the challenge factor, but some experimenting would show the right level. It seems that most parties can handle ecounters that are quite a bit beyond their level with a little tactics in 4e. This campaign seems very doable in 4e.

If you are comfortable with the elemental heritage being multiclass, go for it. You could even steal wizard powers to use as elemental powers. If you have no non-elemental characters in the campaign, why do they need to be equivalent in power to equal level non-elementals?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Oh man, I just realized that I can't make a ranged Warlord! This is just like that time I wanted to make a Monk that used his unarmed attack abilities with a Greatsword. Or when I tried to make a Warlord in that other edition, but couldn't, because they didn't exist.
And I don't wanna make a Cleric because they aren't a Warlord. And I don't wanna make a Ranger 'cuz they aren't a Warlord.
And I don't wanna fiddle with one word of each of my powers to make my idea work because that wouldn't be legit.


...Well, shoot.

Stop being asinine. The complaint is a legitimate one. They want to make a support character with ranged weapons, and can't.

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.

No, it's not a bard, druid, or barbarian. I'll go with the bard example. The wizard/warlord has absolutely nothing that's even vaugely bard-like. At all. He's a warlord who also knows some magic. That isn't a bard. It's...ready? A warlock that knows magic.

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

Because having to "metagame constructs" is stupid. LARPing is the same as the bard - you aren't a magical wizard running through a psuedo-medieval world, you're a guy in a funny robe throwing bean bags at people in your back yard. In that same manner, a wizard/warlord isn't a bard, though it could be a warlord who just occasionally sings off-key. But again, that's not a bard.

The game should work with the players, not against it. When the game fails at providing the players with what they want, it's done just that - failed. Now, I'm not using "failed" in a completely negative sense, because D&D also can't provide me with the kind of gameplay Unknown Armies does, and I'm fine with that - that's why Unknown Armies exists. Furthermore, Wizards is fine with that, because that's not a branch of gameplay they're interested in. Hey, we're both winners there. But why should I play fourth edition if it doesn't provide me with the kind of gameplay I want from it? That's the issue. Especially when 4e is SUPPOSED to provide me with that gameplay.

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.

First off, I'm not demanding anything. Wizards doesn't have to do a damn thing I say. In fact, they probably don't even know I exist. Every single person who's even vaguely affiliated with WotC could go their entire lives without seeing a single word I type out, and hey, I'm fine with that. What I am trying to do is explain the argument.

Secondly, a bard isn't just a "a mostly martial character that inspires his comrades to greatness and occasionally shows some arcane power." The idea of a bard, even long before 3.x, had some stuff surrounding it, and the wizard/warlord combo doesn't match any of it.

Again, character concepts shouldn't just be easily possible - they should be pre-existent. You shouldn't have to add super glue made of BS in order to make your class work, unless it's something extremely dumb, like "I want a ninja who farts fire and uses two greatswords and has full wizard casting abilities."

Yes, too many character choices brought about some of the biggest flaws in 3.x, but those flaws weren't caused by the sheer number of options, those flaws were caused by books being used together when they hadn't been intended to do such. More options is always a good thing, because it allows players to better represent their character. If I had to choose between the swashbuckler class or making a dual classed rogue-fighter who purposefully gimps himself by not wearing heavy armor and has absolutely no abilities that even begin to suggest the wonderfully pulp class I love, I'm going to choose the actual class.


Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm the only one that thinks it's lame I can't roll up the class that's been core for a decade. But, well, I don't think it's just me.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Stop being asinine. The complaint is a legitimate one. They want to make a support character with ranged weapons, and can't.

This is known as the Cleric. Or any other ranged character that can support the group.

No, it's not a bard, druid, or barbarian. I'll go with the bard example. The wizard/warlord has absolutely nothing that's even vaugely bard-like. At all. He's a warlord who also knows some magic. That isn't a bard. It's...ready? A warlock that knows magic.

It's definitely not a Bard. But it can be a bard, if you want it to be.
Actual Bard rules will be coming out in a year, sorry if you can't wait, but in my personal opinion 4E makes making new classes super-easy, with the system's newly-integrated class mechanics.

The game should work with the players, not against it.

Unfortunately, the number of players that want to play Bards is in the minority, and the majority constitutes "the players" in a more compelling sense. Minorities always have it rougher when it comes to a popularly-supported franchise.

If I had to choose between the swashbuckler class or making a dual classed rogue-fighter who purposefully gimps himself by not wearing heavy armor and has absolutely no abilities that even begin to suggest the wonderfully pulp class I love, I'm going to choose the actual class.

When 3.0 came out, it had a couple more classes than 4E. But they, in total, had fewer abilities and worse flexibility of customization.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm the only one that thinks it's lame I can't roll up the class that's been core for a decade. But, well, I don't think it's just me.

It's a fair number of people who don't want to go to the lengths of creating their own class to suit their specific and uncommon tastes.

You should take Precocious down there up on 'is/'er challenge anyway.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

I'll go with the bard example. The wizard/warlord has absolutely nothing that's even vaugely bard-like.

What exactly do you mean by "Bard like." If you can tell me what that means without using any game mechanic terms then I can help you to create your bard with the upcoming PHB1 in June. The thing that you appear to want is just a class name. So far that is all that you have stated. That and a very snarky insult to my obviously very generic bard substitute. When you can divorce yourself from game mechanics and state what you want in character concept terms (AKA real RP/literary terms), then you will realize that the bard you desire is readily available in 4e. And most likely at 1st level, no delayed gratification necessary.

The swashbuckler is just a single class rogue with a different name. That one is easy.