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

[ObsidianCrane]

One could make a suggestion that he use ranger instead, and if he doesn't like the feel and/or mechanics of ranger, but really likes the feel and mechanics of rogue, one could get hung up on the mechanical detail that Hunters Quarry would work on a greatsword and decide he should abandon his concept. Or, one could look at what makes a rogue different from a ranger such as the fact that the rogue is an opportunistic combatant.

Lets put Hunter's Quarry in 3E parlance - you can pick one of Sneak Attack, Sudden Strike, Skirmish or a couple of other names. They all do the same thing in essence though - make you better at hurting an enemy under X condition. So if you have a pre-4E character who uses some form of conditional +XdY damage with a weapon that is not a legal combination with the 4E Sneak Attack, Hunter's Quarry is looking like a good mechancial substitute.

The rest of the character idea is to hard to work out substitutions for right now because we don't have the full text for the classes. But we do know that Rogue is a bad match due to the fact Rogue powers work with Light Weapons (and I doubt there will be a non-homebrew feat to change that).


But on another note Ranger/Rogue or Rogue/Ranger looks like a strong class mix, as being able to stack Sneak and HQ once a combat could be brutal.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

you're a guy in a funny robe throwing bean bags at people in your back yard.

How is that different my being a likely slightly nerdy person huddled around a dining room tables with dice, minis, Mountain Dew and pizza. Seriously. It's called having imagination.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Are any of you even reading what I'm typing?

I understand 4e won't come with all the classes. I stated that myself earlier in this thread. I understand that it will obviously be very limited when it comes out..

None of those are my issues.

My issues are:

1) In the future, will we see the same class spread as 3.x *or* a strong enough variance inside the class to allow it to be played in very difficult ways that allow characters to really and concisely choose the type of character they want?

I think we'll see more classes. Though it depends on how you count? Do you count only Core Classes or also account for PrCs?
The Complete Warrior/Sword & Fist equivalent for 4E will not come with new classes, "only" feats, powers, paragon paths and epic destinies. This implies there is still a lot of variance inside each class.

But the PHB II will add new classes, including some with new power sources. According to previous blog posts and comments from R&D, classes like the wizard might not be as all-encompassing as they were, to give more room to implement specialists. A Wizard might still be able to cast invisibility or create an illusion, but you won't be able to build a Wizard that only uses illusion. That will be the job of a Illusionist class.

A class-based system shouldn't include too flexible classes. A class represents an archetype, not dozens of them. If it does the latter, it's not really a good class.

2) It's stupid to expect players to close their eyes and pretend things are different. It's also lazy. Because when they open their eyes, things aren't different. One should not force players to either be unable to play as a certain class or archetype, and one should not force players to make ramshackle combinations that only vaguely resemble said classes.

I don't think I'll agree here. if you say "play a Cleric and pretend its a Warlord" is to simple. But use the Warlock, but give him some Cleric powers and restat them so they fit weapon usage instead of some divine damage, you still have mostly done some reflavouring, but in the end, you still have something new.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

How is that different my being a likely slightly nerdy person huddled around a dining room tables with dice, minis, Mountain Dew and pizza. Seriously. It's called having imagination.

Imagination should expand a game, not make up for it's shortcomings. Also, to quote someone else on LARPing:

"LARPing is no laughing matter. If it gets to the point where your players would rather exercise than roleplay, then something has gone seriously wrong with your game.

LARPing is bad for your game and poisonous for the hobby in general. The last thing we need is to introduce elements to RPG's that would allow the Jocks to dominate and despoil our once-great hobby."

I think we'll see more classes. Though it depends on how you count? Do you count only Core Classes or also account for PrCs?
The Complete Warrior/Sword & Fist equivalent for 4E will not come with new classes, "only" feats, powers, paragon paths and epic destinies. This implies there is still a lot of variance inside each class.

Oh, I include all of it, though I'll occasionally set a few limits to avoid the really bad munchkinism. I was one of the first in the group to really get into the Tome of Battle.

A class-based system shouldn't include too flexible classes. A class represents an archetype, not dozens of them. If it does the latter, it's not really a good class.

And I (mostly) agree, though I think classes should at least be flexible enough for players to occasionally surprise us, such as when my player decided to climb up a giant and kick in its eyeball as a warblade.

My worry is that 4e will try to fix some of the flaws in 3.x by greatly reducing what a class can do. This isn't bad in of itself, but it can be taken too far, and it's my worry that it WILL be taken too far. As it stands, I'm very iffy at best on how multiclassing looks. I think setting goals and ideals for how a class should operate is a good sign, but I'm in strong disagreement with the "Striker, Defender, etc" sections they're being fit into.

 

[GnomeWorks]

A class-based system shouldn't include too flexible classes. A class represents an archetype, not dozens of them. If it does the latter, it's not really a good class.

I disagree.

It depends on how you define a class. Classes could be little more than templates, that define particular aspects of your character, and leave the rest to you; they could also be rather restrictive and do a lot for defining your character, as 4e seems to do.

It's also a matter of how you interpret the idea of class. Is it a purely metagame concept? In that case, then classes could surely be rather versatile. But if you want people to be recognized as particular classes in-character, then you would need to tightly define them, so that they can be recognized ("Look, Joe, that guy has a big sword. Guess he's one of them fighter-types.").

As an example, take the 3.5 fighter. The fighter is little more than a template: the class gives you class skills, hit dice, BAB and save progressions, weapon and armor proficiencies, and additional feats. It's a do-it-yourself kind of class, and could have resulted in a wide variety of fighters - I think it's probably safe to say it didn't, but that was because of poor feat design and selection, not due to a flaw in the class. The fighter doesn't tell you what kind of fighter to be; it tells you that fighters are generally tougher and generally study these particular skills, but the class could be used to represent the heavy-hitting two-handed-sword-wielder and the quick agile duelist (perhaps not well, but it could).

If you don't like the fighter, look at the 3.5 rogue. Sure, they all sneak attack and have a few other features in common, but you can do a lot with the class - you can take it in a lot of different directions. Lots of character types can be made using the rogue.

So I don't think that saying that classes that don't cling to archetypes are bad classes is fair. "Template classes" seem to be a valid and viable approach to class design. Versatility is a good thing, IMO.

 

[malraux]

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,

Even though this has been answered already, IMHO its important enough to emphasize. If you have a choice between picking combat or non combat abilities, then those who pick combat abilities will suck out of combat. I think its fair to say that most groups play the game for the combat, or at least want combat to be a big part of the game, thus picking combat abilities becomes a high priority. If picking combat abilities comes at the expense of non combat stuff, then you end up with a case where most characters can't do much outside of swinging a sword.



On the subject of classes and everything, I'll just say that currently I'm playing a warlord character. Sure, when I put in data into DMGenie, I pick the cleric class, but when I play the character, he's not worshiping any god or praying for healing. He's yelling a people to get back on their feet and keep fighting, or inspiring them to fight better. All the fluff, including the metaknowledge fluff, is mutable.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

I had a few thoughts on the swashbuckler. In 3.x the swashbuckler archetype was filled with the duelist PrC and then finally a base class to call it's own. Just because 3.x had a swash base class, doesn't mean it did it well. I've never seen swashes as defenders. They leap a top tables, swing from chandeliers and fight on rolling ships. Swashes are really strikers and 3.x never got it right.

A 4E rogue can select the student of the sword feat to get proficiency with a rapier, then take the kenasi paragon path at 11th level. House rule that you can sneak attack with a rapier and that looks like a good swash to me.

Also, the biggest downside to playing a swash in 3.x was the poor feint in combat rules. Now I can see a feint at-will power (move action) that gives combat advantage to your next attack if you succeed on a Deception vs. Will. Note: must be used by the end of your next turn.

Derek

 

[Derren]

I've never seen swashes as defenders.

Thats probably because 3.X E didn't try to push each class into a narrow role definition. A fighter in 3E didn't automatically mean "a guy who blocks enemies and absorbs damage".

A figther in 3E could be a defender, a striker or even a controller. Only a very few base classes in 3E were limited to a single role, for example monks.

 

[DandD]

A figther in 3E could be a defender, a striker or even a controller.

How did one do that, except using the Tome of Battle?

 

[zoroaster100]

The fighter in 3e did not perform any role that well. That is why few players played a straight fighter all the way through into high level. A barbarian was a better striker. A fighter was theoretically the best defender, but there were many ways of sidestepping the fighter with tumbling, magic, flying, etc. which made the fighter not as effective in their main role.