Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PrecociousApprentice" data-source="post: 4202890" data-attributes="member: 61449">So if you look at my original post, I did say that most character concepts would be convertible, and I stand by that vehemently. I also think that with a little flexibility of thought and some creativity, very nearly all character concepts should be workable in 4e right out of the gait. There will be a few holes at first (heavy enchantment, necromancy, or shapechange characters for example), but there are relatively few character concepts that are necessisarily mechanics based, and these mechanical holes are slated to be filled within a very short time. The swashbuckler is definitly playable as a rogue, and even better than anything that 3.x did. Backstab is just a metagame name, the mechanics are for extra damage whenever the character has combat adventage. That sounds like every swashbuckler fight I have ever seen. Nothing in the asserted list of bard necessities is absent from 4e, with the addition of effectiveness that 3.x never had. Creativity has always been necessary for character creation, and many of the 4e detractors are trying to claim that 4e stiffles creativity because they don't want to have to think outside the box (flavor text and metagame names that is).This all comes down to the fact that some people are unable to come to terms with the new paradigm of combat role, and what that both means and doesn't mean for character creation, and they combine that with the inability to release themselves from other games' particular gamist/metagame constructs, and insist on importing them to a new game. Maybe this would all be easier if WotC had named the new game something else, and used slightly different terms for the new gamist/metagame concepts, but that does not change the fact that it would essentially be the same game. A rose by any other name and all. And I think that D&D is the most appropriate thing to call it anyway.Apparently I was a bit too optimistic in my article. Translation of anything requires intelectual flexibility that is difficult for many. I had assumed that if people had the intelectual flexibility to think pretending to be someone else was fun that this intelectual flexibility would be enough to facilitate what is a relatively easy translation. For those who found my advice useless, I appologise for wasting your time. I am sure there are others who have found the thought excercise highly useful.</blockquote>

Verification