Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 4498913" data-attributes="member: 59506">What is 4E Missing?The biggest thing missing for me is the same, or better, capacity of the rules for varied character creation.&nbsp; The ability to envision a character, and be able to build it with the rules, is severely limited from past editions.&nbsp; Mostly I think this is because of the reducing of skills and the emphasis on powers, almost to the point where a character is defined by their powers.&nbsp;When I read all of the &quot;conversion&quot; articles on WoTC, one general concept seemed to keep coming up; &quot;Pretend&quot;.&nbsp; If you wanted to convert a 3E character, you're told to use a class of 4E with a build closest to what you're lookikng for, then basically just change the &quot;fluff&quot; of the build to match your concept of the character.&nbsp; However, that means you have to essentially &quot;pretend&quot; the character you just built is the one you had in mind, when it's not.&nbsp;Here's an example.&nbsp; Even though this wasn't in the conversion articles, say you want to convert a 2E Bladesinger or a 3E Bladesinger Prestige Class (this is one of those things where I think 2E actually did it better than 3E, but that's rare for me).&nbsp; The best way I can see to do it is use a Swordmage, but a Swordmage is not a Bladesinger and vice versa.&nbsp; A Swordmage does not do what a Bladesinger does, or do things the way a Bladesinger would.&nbsp; Yet this is your only option, build a Swordmage and make up your own fluff so it's easier to pretend you are acutally playing a Bladesinger, even though your not.&nbsp;The first edition I played was AD&amp;D 2E.&nbsp; The first character I played was El Mahdi.&nbsp; When I made the character, I started with a concept and then used the rules to build him as close to that concept as possible.&nbsp; With 2E, he was pretty close to the concept I had envisioned, with 3E I was able to build him exactly as I had envisioned him.&nbsp; 3E's complexity made it even better a tool for doing this.&nbsp; With 4E I can't even come close unless, despite what the mechanics do, I envision what those mechanics mean differently than how they actually work.&nbsp; The level of abstraction required has increased massively, to the point that for me, what's the point of having mechanics at all if they don't provide any support for &quot;fluff&quot;.&nbsp;If anyone feels differently about this, I suggest an exercise.&nbsp; Pick any character from fiction and then build that character with 3E and 4E.&nbsp; I can't imagine how the 4E build will be closer to the concept than the 3E build is.&nbsp; This also isn't about a lack of options in the system yet, as in wait for more material and splatbooks such as PHB2 and the powers books.&nbsp; Using just the 3E/3.5E PHB (no splatbooks or other accessories), I just don't see how a 4E build can be closer to the original concept than a 3E build.&nbsp;I guess in the end, what's most missing for me is complexity and variety.&nbsp; For some, that may be a good thing.&nbsp; For me, it's as if the soul of the system has been ripped out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="El Mahdi, post: 4498913, member: 59506"] [b]What is 4E Missing?[/b] The biggest thing missing for me is the same, or better, capacity of the rules for varied character creation. The ability to envision a character, and be able to build it with the rules, is severely limited from past editions. Mostly I think this is because of the reducing of skills and the emphasis on powers, almost to the point where a character is defined by their powers. When I read all of the "conversion" articles on WoTC, one general concept seemed to keep coming up; "Pretend". If you wanted to convert a 3E character, you're told to use a class of 4E with a build closest to what you're lookikng for, then basically just change the "fluff" of the build to match your concept of the character. However, that means you have to essentially "pretend" the character you just built is the one you had in mind, when it's not. Here's an example. Even though this wasn't in the conversion articles, say you want to convert a 2E Bladesinger or a 3E Bladesinger Prestige Class (this is one of those things where I think 2E actually did it better than 3E, but that's rare for me). The best way I can see to do it is use a Swordmage, but a Swordmage is not a Bladesinger and vice versa. A Swordmage does not do what a Bladesinger does, or do things the way a Bladesinger would. Yet this is your only option, build a Swordmage and make up your own fluff so it's easier to pretend you are acutally playing a Bladesinger, even though your not. The first edition I played was AD&D 2E. The first character I played was El Mahdi. When I made the character, I started with a concept and then used the rules to build him as close to that concept as possible. With 2E, he was pretty close to the concept I had envisioned, with 3E I was able to build him [I][B]exactly[/B][/I] as I had envisioned him. 3E's complexity made it even better a tool for doing this. With 4E I can't even come close unless, despite what the mechanics do, I envision what those mechanics mean differently than how they actually work. The level of abstraction required has increased massively, to the point that for me, what's the point of having mechanics at all if they don't provide any support for "fluff". If anyone feels differently about this, I suggest an exercise. Pick any character from fiction and then build that character with 3E and 4E. I can't imagine how the 4E build will be closer to the concept than the 3E build is. This also isn't about a lack of options in the system yet, as in wait for more material and splatbooks such as [I]PHB2[/I] and the powers books. Using just the 3E/3.5E PHB (no splatbooks or other accessories), I just don't see how a 4E build can be closer to the original concept than a 3E build. I guess in the end, what's most missing for me is complexity and variety. For some, that may be a good thing. For me, it's as if the soul of the system has been ripped out. [/QUOTE]

Verification