Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4534953" data-attributes="member: 63272">It was THE fundamental shift of 3e.  In all other editions, class defined the character.  In 3e, it was a suite of abilities.  Adding barbarian1 at 8th level had nothing to do with being a barbarian, it had to do with the speed boost, rage, hit points, etc.  In previous editions, you didn't suddenly add barbarian to yourself.  A wizard/thief was always a wizard/thief.  A dual classed character had to actually quit his first class like it was a job before he could move on to a new class. 4e isn't exactly a return to old school there, but I think its a good split between the old and the new direction of 3e.  Limited training to gain a couple abilities that are part of another class allows PCs to diversify, and paragon multiclassing allows for full immersion, and is more similar to the old dual class rules.  Point is, in 4e, like older versions of the game, class is central.  3e's experiment was great, it taught class/level based design a lot, including the limitations of too much freedom within that type of framework.  Why keep the semblance of class if there are a couple hundred of them, why not just abandon class alltogether and use a level based point buy system to purchase your own custom suite of abilities.  Actually, many people really wanted to see 4e go that direction, it being a logical follow up to the shift of 3e.  1.  "My DM won't allow me to play it" is not part of a core to core comparison of editions.  One of my players is quite happily playing a gnome barbarian that he played throughout 3e.  2.  That's one of the few valid areas where you can say something can't be pulled off in 4e.  But that's already changing.  A whole suite of illusion powers rolled out in Dragon, we just saw a preview of the bard and the return of enchantments, we have a good look at conjuring from things like animal companions and bag of tricks.  A lot of that can really be done with flavor retooling anyway.  Damage is not direct, HPs are abstract and represent a wearing down as much as anything else.  So retooling wizard powers as enchantments or illusions or psychic damage is not difficult.  Similarly a necromancer would be quite easy.  Magic Missile becomes a necrotic bolt, cloud of daggers (as someone else suggested elsewhere) becomes a zone of grasping skeletal hands, thunderwave a blasphemy type effect.  3.  Not now, really.  First, its coming, soon.  But right now, it would be easy to reflavor cleric for a more traditional druid or fighter w/ animal companion for a more 3e druid.  4.  Fighters make excellent barbarians.  Before the class actually rolled out, the player of that gnome barbarian used the fighter class.  He wore hide armor, carried a large hammer, and picked heavy damage abilities like brute strike and crushing blow.  He flavored second wind as his rage ability and it fit quite well.  He'd get hit, go nuts, rejuvanate, and gain higher defenses through his rage.  5.  Your statement here doesn't stand up to any kind of actual examination.  The 4e rogue still has stealth, perception, thievery.  He can do all the things he's always been good at - stealth, backstabbing, thievery, picking locks, finding and disabling traps.  Nothings changed for him.6.  The concept is not the class.  What was the purpose of your 3e PC with 8 classes?  If your whole concept is merely a collection of mechanics designed for uber awesomeness, yeah, you might find it a bit difficult.  But if your wide ranging multiclassed character is actually built around an RP based concept, it's hard to imagine you can't make it work in 4e.  If the problem is just a refusal on your part to apply your imagination or creativity (as in, hey, you can't reflavor things), then there's really no point.  I'll just smile and say, you're right, you can't convert, go play something else.  But this is a game of imagination.  If you're unwilling to bend and only want to highlight "differences" to complain about 4e, then there isn't much that can be said.  But if you have a legitimate interest in finding ways to convert your character concepts to 4e, I started a thread for that, its linked above.And its not chicanery that allows for the conversion.  A concept should have legs outside of the mechanics of any system.  A character is represented by the mechanics of a system, not defined by them.  That is, ideally, you develop a character then make the mechanics work.  Lamenting that you can't convert your lightly armored, agile, 3e two weapon and archery fighter because the 4e fighter class doesn't do either is the kind of thing I am talking about.  That concept is not Fighter, the class, it is the style of fighting.  That style in 4e is represented by the ranger and the concept is easily converted.  Of course, many times we develop a character specifically within the system we are playing.  We see a cool prestige class, and develop the concept from there rather than creating the concept in a way that is detached from the system.  That is not to say you can't port that character to entirely different systems, it just takes detaching the concept from the mechanics of the old system and looking how to bring that concept to life in a new system.  For a happy while I played WoW on an RP-PvP server that actually had heavy RP and a lot of dedicated RP players (Twisting Nether).  My characters on that server were all characters that I had played extensively in D&D over the years.  Divorcing them from the mechanics of D&D, they were easy to reimagine in WoW, and my play experience with them made RPing them in the game a breeze.  I had some of the better RP experiences of my life playing an MMO.</blockquote>

Verification