Forked Thread: PC concept limitations in 4e

[Weregrognard]

All I have to say is that playing BECMI long ago, I had two fighters: one was a dirty pirate called Dundraff the Unclean*, the other a noble Atruaghin warrior named Hawk-Sees-All. Very different characters, same class. If I were to create them in 4E, Dundraff would be a rogue and Hawk would be a ranger (2-weapon). Same characters, very different editions. I just don't see where a game edition limits my character ideas.

People really need to think outside the box here.


*I was like 12, give me a break!

 

[Zustiur]

Reflavor them. Hit points aren't direct damage, so subtracting them doesn't have to involve flashy explosions and rays. Make them subtle, mental, internal. Make ample use of your utilities. Wands say "any encounter power", so wands of jump or shield would be nice. Learn both alchemy and rituals. Grab illusion powers from Dragon. A more specific concept might get some more specific answers, but the flashiness of the wizard is just a flavor issue.

Reflavouring is fine and very useful, but in this case misses the point entirely. Where are the spells that stun, charm, paralyze etc without dealing damage?
Where are the spells that boost your allies rather than hinder your opponents?
Where are the spells that feature as non damaging barriers to hold the angry (but innocent) mob at bay while your party legs it?

Spells like hold person, charm person, resist elements, strength, solid fog and entangle?
Where are the spells that hold people back long enough that you can talk sense into them. WITHOUT hurting them (subdual damage or otherwise), and thereby proving to them that you're the bad guy. Where are the spells that give you more than one round to get away from the bad guys? The 'oh ****' spells that you use to get out of tight corners, such as teleport and rope trick.

But more importantly: Why can't you take these spells instead of spells that deal damage?

Explain to me how you can reflavour a spell in 4E to function like solid fog or entangle?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Reflavouring is fine and very useful, but in this case misses the point entirely. Where are the spells that stun, charm, paralyze etc without dealing damage?
Where are the spells that boost your allies rather than hinder your opponents?
Where are the spells that feature as non damaging barriers to hold the angry (but innocent) mob at bay while your party legs it?

Spells like hold person, charm person, resist elements, strength, solid fog and entangle?
Where are the spells that hold people back long enough that you can talk sense into them. WITHOUT hurting them (subdual damage or otherwise), and thereby proving to them that you're the bad guy. Where are the spells that give you more than one round to get away from the bad guys? The 'oh ****' spells that you use to get out of tight corners, such as teleport and rope trick.

But more importantly: Why can't you take these spells instead of spells that deal damage?

Explain to me how you can reflavour a spell in 4E to function like solid fog or entangle?

Exactly. In a more broad sense, a character concept based on choosing strengths outside of combat, such as a knowledge/divination and utility spell based wizard are not viable. You could use rituals if you got to choose the "I am rich" feat.

No matter what your concept for personality is, you can play it equally well from OD&D through 4E, the mechanics don't matter.

Function is a different story. If your concept does not involve dealing damage, over and over, or providing buffs and bonuses for those that do, then you are out of luck.

 

[steenan]

What I loved in 3.0 was being able to make a spellcaster really flexible. 3.5 took away most of that and 4.0 killed nearly everything that was left.

My sorcerer's spells included Emotion (in 3.0 it gave quite a wide range of emotions to choose from, with different effects), Suggestion, Summon Monster, Planar Binding, Teleport, Polymorph Self and Fabricate. Of course, the last two are often considered broken - but I never used them to become uber-powerfull in combat or disrupt local economy (and I wouldn't oppose stripping Polymorph of everything but movement, perception and environment survival abilities or adding XP cost to Fabricate). What I aimed for was being able to react to nearly every situation - and I succeeded. In combat I was definitely weaker than party druid and cleric, but this PC was extremely fun to play.

In 4.0 I may replicate maybe half of his abilities, with a lot of ritual use (slow and costly - both strongly limiting). Many are no longer modelled by the mechanics at all. Game system that leaves most of what I care for as nondescript, "mutable fluff", just isn't a system for me...

 

[Engilbrand]

Crazy thought. I know that this isn't RAWR!!, but why not just remove the damage part of certain spells if you don't want them to damage? You would still have to hit and have everything else in place, but remove the damage if the situation doesn't call for it.
They have said that you can choose to knock something out instead of kill it. I know that I've told my players that, when they hit a minion, they have the option to do anything that they want to that minion. If they hit, they can describe it as just cutting off a leg, knocking unconscious, or beheading. Why not do the same thing for spells?
If you use Charm Person or whatever it's called in 4th, just do the charm part, not the damage. Congratulations. That just got rid of part of the complaint. Granted, there are still a lot of spells that are missing, but this takes care of part of it. And if you say that you can't do anything that isn't in the rules... I'm sorry for you.

 

[Runestar]

Reflavor them. Hit points aren't direct damage, so subtracting them doesn't have to involve flashy explosions and rays. Make them subtle, mental, internal. Make ample use of your utilities. Wands say "any encounter power", so wands of jump or shield would be nice. Learn both alchemy and rituals. Grab illusion powers from Dragon. A more specific concept might get some more specific answers, but the flashiness of the wizard is just a flavor issue.

I would personally prefer a new spell that did something radically different, rather than just a reflavoured version of an existing spell. I actually feel that the illusion spells in an earlier issue of dragon seemed like a step in the wrong direction, in that it only seemed to highlight the limitations of 4e mechanics, if the only thing separating an illusion spell from an evocation spell was flavour (they pretty much did the same thing - target a defense, deal some damage, had a secondary debuff effect).

Also, I am not to sure if this example violates the last rule, and some will have already heard it before, but just bear with me.

[sblock=ExampleA long while back I went to the Character Optimization board with a build request, and I ended up with a character build with eight classes -- two base, six prestige. My request wasn't for the most power available short of Pun-Pun, or to heavily focus on one thing so as to be unbeatable in that area, nor was I just looking for the most multiclassed build possible. My request was more along the lines of "My werebear barbarian PC and his redeemed succubus wife have children, how can I assemble a character that demonstrates the capabilities of that mixed heritage, for when the kids grow up into playable characters?" After a lot of discussion a build was worked out: Bard 4/Barbarian 1/Spellsword 1/Dragonslayer 1/Rage Mage 2/Bear Warrior 1/Sublime Chord 1/Eldritch Knight 9. This grants BAB +17/+12/+7/+2, Charisma-based spontaneous casting of a small number of level 1-9 spells on the bard and sorcerer/wizard spell lists, a limited ability to ignore arcane spell failure, limited bardic knowlege, rage, the ability to cast spells while raging, and the ability to transform into a bear while raging, as well as some other minor abilities that aren't so important.

You might look at that class combination and cringe, thinking "What an overcomplicated, unfocused, dipped mess of a class collection." I look at it and think "This is Rachel Lovato, an energetic and outgoing young woman who's a capable warrior. She can draw on the bestial strength passed down from her father David, the compelling presence and magical talents of Seneca her mother, and the fiery temper she inherited from both. She prefers to get by with her cunning and charm, but she's a bit of a tomboy and likes a good brawl more than is proper for a lady. She hasn't seen as much of the multiverse as her parents, but she learned a little about everything from the stories they told her as a child, and it serves Rachel well in her own adventures." (I also think that from a raw power perspective, a single-classed Druid 20 would defeat Rachel easily.)[/sblock]

You can argue that it may not be a fair comparison, since 4e only has so many splatbooks to draw upon so far, but do note that the aforementioned example was built using aggressive multiclassing, which is currently not possible under 4e rules, so I don't see it being viable in the future either. Closest thing I can come to is a shifter bard with warlock multiclass?

 

[Phaezen]

I

[sblock=ExampleA long while back I went to the Character Optimization board with a build request, and I ended up with a character build with eight classes -- two base, six prestige. My request wasn't for the most power available short of Pun-Pun, or to heavily focus on one thing so as to be unbeatable in that area, nor was I just looking for the most multiclassed build possible. My request was more along the lines of "My werebear barbarian PC and his redeemed succubus wife have children, how can I assemble a character that demonstrates the capabilities of that mixed heritage, for when the kids grow up into playable characters?" After a lot of discussion a build was worked out: Bard 4/Barbarian 1/Spellsword 1/Dragonslayer 1/Rage Mage 2/Bear Warrior 1/Sublime Chord 1/Eldritch Knight 9. This grants BAB +17/+12/+7/+2, Charisma-based spontaneous casting of a small number of level 1-9 spells on the bard and sorcerer/wizard spell lists, a limited ability to ignore arcane spell failure, limited bardic knowlege, rage, the ability to cast spells while raging, and the ability to transform into a bear while raging, as well as some other minor abilities that aren't so important.

You might look at that class combination and cringe, thinking "What an overcomplicated, unfocused, dipped mess of a class collection." I look at it and think "This is Rachel Lovato, an energetic and outgoing young woman who's a capable warrior. She can draw on the bestial strength passed down from her father David, the compelling presence and magical talents of Seneca her mother, and the fiery temper she inherited from both. She prefers to get by with her cunning and charm, but she's a bit of a tomboy and likes a good brawl more than is proper for a lady. She hasn't seen as much of the multiverse as her parents, but she learned a little about everything from the stories they told her as a child, and it serves Rachel well in her own adventures." (I also think that from a raw power perspective, a single-classed Druid 20 would defeat Rachel easily.)[/sblock]

You can argue that it may not be a fair comparison, since 4e only has so many splatbooks to draw upon so far, but do note that the aforementioned example was built using aggressive multiclassing, which is currently not possible under 4e rules, so I don't see it being viable in the future either. Closest thing I can come to is a shifter bard with warlock multiclass?

Tiefling (Succubus mother) barbarian with warlock or wizard multiclass. Reskin the rages so that when she rages she takes on a more bestial appearance, granting her fearsome powers. Would that work for you?

Phaezen

 

[Remathilis]

Beside the already-mentioned "non-blaster" wizards...

Dual-Wielding or Bow-Wielding Rogues. While yes, I can replicate such a PC with a heavily reflavored ranger/rogue multiclass, I miss being able to have a rogue PC who uses a shortbow or fights with two-daggers without having to pick up a completely different class. The rogue weapon restriction is brutal and completely designed to force rogues who want to use their powers into dagger, short sword, and crossbow and NOTHING else. While I agree they shouldn't use greataxe's or warpicks, what's wrong with longswords, scimitars, or shortbows? Why do I have to wait to MP to use maces or clubs?

While I like the idea of niche protection (no cleric should out-fight the fighter, no wizard out-rogue the rogue, no paladin out-cleric the cleric) I think a few of the weapon selection/power limits (particularly rogues and fighters lacking ranged capacity) feels forced.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Beside the already-mentioned "non-blaster" wizards...

Dual-Wielding or Bow-Wielding Rogues. While yes, I can replicate such a PC with a heavily reflavored ranger/rogue multiclass, I miss being able to have a rogue PC who uses a shortbow or fights with two-daggers without having to pick up a completely different class. The rogue weapon restriction is brutal and completely designed to force rogues who want to use their powers into dagger, short sword, and crossbow and NOTHING else. While I agree they shouldn't use greataxe's or warpicks, what's wrong with longswords, scimitars, or shortbows? Why do I have to wait to MP to use maces or clubs?

While I like the idea of niche protection (no cleric should out-fight the fighter, no wizard out-rogue the rogue, no paladin out-cleric the cleric) I think a few of the weapon selection/power limits (particularly rogues and fighters lacking ranged capacity) feels forced.

I suppose it might be a weapon balance thingy, but I agree that I miss this option a bit, along with a Rogue Weapon Talent that focuses a little more on Intelligence. (I don't think we will ever see that, I think the "secondary" ability scores for each class are set... But I might want to houserule that one...)

On the other hand - maybe using a different class is okay for these concepts? I am less sure about the Smart Rogue, but there is nothing saying a "Rogueish" character actually has to be able to use sneak attack... Maybe the Rangers Quarry works indeed better for this purpose?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Crazy thought. I know that this isn't RAWR!!, but why not just remove the damage part of certain spells if you don't want them to damage? You would still have to hit and have everything else in place, but remove the damage if the situation doesn't call for it.
They have said that you can choose to knock something out instead of kill it. I know that I've told my players that, when they hit a minion, they have the option to do anything that they want to that minion. If they hit, they can describe it as just cutting off a leg, knocking unconscious, or beheading. Why not do the same thing for spells?
If you use Charm Person or whatever it's called in 4th, just do the charm part, not the damage. Congratulations. That just got rid of part of the complaint. Granted, there are still a lot of spells that are missing, but this takes care of part of it. And if you say that you can't do anything that isn't in the rules... I'm sorry for you.

I would love to see damage removed from some spells and replaced with cool effects. Simply removing damage without giving anything in return can make spells not worth casting at all.
For example lets remove the damage from the Maze spell and make minimum duration 5-6 rounds or so. That might work.