Forked Thread: PC concept limitations in 4e

[Thasmodious]

So the answer to creating a specific concept in 4e is...

a.) Use an already existing rule in the game and change its physical appearance.
b.) Have a friendly DM house rule it (and hope your DM isn't a RAW stickler)
c.) Ignore all the pre-existing fluff in the game.

Vyvyan answered this well. That's how you bring a concept to life - in any edition. No rules system, not even the versatile 3e, can possibly cover every concept with its own set of unique mechanics. Stretching things to fit varying concepts is a core part of character creation in any RPG. 3e was all about ignoring the fluff and grabbing the mechanics to fit your own fluff. Picking up barbarian at 5th level for the movement boost and rage is ignoring the fluff of the class.

If the answer to How do I play a viable concept from previous CORE RULES versions of D&D is "You can't, but you can look like you are." that smacks of poor design process.

No, its called change. Converting from any edition to any edition there are things that don't fit the molds of that edition and require a bit of retooling. That's not poor design. At each new edition, decisions are made on what to include. Not everyone will be happy with those choices. That's life.

And I'm not sure I like the "a fighter who uses a bow is really a ranger" idea. If that were really true, they should have just gone with generic classes and generic powers (like Mutants & Masterminds did).

Some wanted them to do just that, others would think it was a complete slaughter of a very sacred cow (classes).

What is the point of me playing an illusionist or necromancer which is essentially a reflavoured 4e wizard, if I have already played a 4e wizard, and wanted to try out a different concept for a varied gaming experience?

What is the point of playing a second fighter with different weapons when it all comes down to full attack, full attack, full attack? Play what you want. Much of the difference between certain character types have always been little more than flavor differences. In other editions of D&D, spells all act within the same general set of rules. Doing divine and fire damage with flamestrike is not really any different than doing fire damage with several wizard spells. Just the numbers change a bit, the look is flavor. If a player chooses blandness in his presentation of his actions, that's his choice. But, take a spell, change its look, damage types, targets and you have an entirely different spell. Heck, that's the basis of three quarters of the spells in any edition of the game, they're just reflavorings of other spells with a boost in power and a different look.

Why do you think 3e had so many splatbooks? People certainly were capable of changing flavour back then. It was because they desired new and varied mechanics to go with their adjusted flavour, and now just new flavour, but playing exactly the same.

The earlier splatbooks didn't often present entirely new mechanics. New classes were just focused differently, with different skill choices, some unique feats maybe, set spell lists of existing spells with a few new ones, but they worked just like other classes. Warmages cast spells just like sorcerers, and those spells use the same general rules from the Magic chapter. It was later that they started introducing whole new systems of magic and other new mechanics and those met with a lot of mixed reaction. Some loved new sub systems, more room for rules mastery, more options, etc. Others hated them and saw it as a big area of rules creep (I was in the latter category). Right now, 4e, like previous editions, is all about one set of rules to rule them all. Maybe down the road, it will go with the different mechanical subsystems. Maybe they won't. I hope the latter.

I am not the one who started a thread purporting that all sorts of concepts supposedly not covered in the core books could be simulated using mere "flavour changes". You are all saying it is possible, I am saying that it is not as simplistic.

Neither was the guy you quoted. And I didn't say "mere flavor changes". There are lots of ways to approach concepts. I think the tendency of some has been to see 4e as limited in options for characters and I don't feel its that limited at all. 3e was very versatile, but that has certainly not been a core design component throughout D&Ds history. It's history has been quite rigid and there wasn't this idea that every concept had to be represented by a unique character class/prestige class with extremely liberal multiclassing. You simply made the mechanics fit the concept. We've always done this and its very doable in 4e.

 

[ExploderWizard]

How can 4e possibly give you what you want, when what you want is defined as something that's not in the books?

I do believe thats the point. In fairness though, asking for something that was splat based of the next edition core isn't fair.

 

[Thasmodious]

Druid.

The druid has always been a part of AD&D. And he has always been a shape-shifting nature wizard. His spells deal with plants, animals, weather and maybe the elements.

He an heal the sick and cause it. He can heal a wound and call down lightning on his foes. He is closer to Merlin than any D&D wizard ever is.

How do I make him in 4e?

Practical advice? Use one of the excellent HR druids Enworld posters have made.

To answer the question for this thread -

Make a cleric. Change the source (which has little mechanical use as of yet, anyway) to Primal. You have the healing, wear non metal versions of armor. Reflavor some cleric powers as needed (really just change damage types or keywords, primal instead of divine. Make the cudgel a class implement. Maybe multiclass to wizard for a specific elemental power or two, like lightning bolt.

For the shape shifting, have it a class power. Change Channel Divinity to Channel Nature and use shapechange as one of those powers. Make it require a feat. Use the Change Shape power of lycanthropes for this.

Other two uses of Channel Nature could be minor boosts like the cleric, something that fits the druid. Retool Divine Fortune to Nature's Blessing, change it to a +2 bonus, but only usuable in natural settings. The other use could remain turn undead (not traditional for druids, but as undeath is very unnatural, it works) or turn animals or something similar or something else with a good druidness to it (maybe summon nature's ally for minor animal aid following the same rules as for things from a bag of tricks).

 

[Andor]

Practical advice? Use one of the excellent HR druids Enworld posters have made.

To answer the question for this thread -

Make a cleric. Change the source (which has little mechanical use as of yet, anyway) to Primal. You have the healing, wear non metal versions of armor. Reflavor some cleric powers as needed (really just change damage types or keywords, primal instead of divine. Make the cudgel a class implement. Maybe multiclass to wizard for a specific elemental power or two, like lightning bolt.

For the shape shifting, have it a class power. Change Channel Divinity to Channel Nature and use shapechange as one of those powers. Make it require a feat. Use the Change Shape power of lycanthropes for this.

Other two uses of Channel Nature could be minor boosts like the cleric, something that fits the druid. Retool Divine Fortune to Nature's Blessing, change it to a +2 bonus, but only usuable in natural settings. The other use could remain turn undead (not traditional for druids, but as undeath is very unnatural, it works) or turn animals or something similar or something else with a good druidness to it (maybe summon nature's ally for minor animal aid following the same rules as for things from a bag of tricks).

This is kind of missing the point. Of course I can make my own class out of whole cloth or by mutating an existing class, but it sure as heck ain't RAW, and if won't fly past many GMs.

The question was "What could you do in an earlier edition you an't do in 4e?" The answer is druids/nature priests.

Another answer is make an effective unarmed fighter. (I'm aware of the online stopgap solution, it's still not core book material.)

It's deceptive I think to insist that mechanics don't matter in terms of characters. If you squint hard enough almost any PC can be described as an air breathing humanoid who 'does stuff'. So what? That also describe Pee Wee Herman and Alf.

Let's suppose that you want to make an agile Spear weilding fighter who wears light armour but uses speed and reach to stay out of harms way.

No edition of D&D really supports that fully due to the AC system. But you could make him in any edition. In 1st and 2nd ed he'd be a patsy using a fighting style the game didn't support well. In 3rd he'd be a semi-viable character but far from optimal. The 'stand still' feat and combat reflexes would at least help. In 4e he'd either be a fighter or a ranger, but either way suboptimal since as a ranger few of his powers would work well and as a fighter he'd be great at keeping foes off of others but lousy at self defence until he finally manages to get polearm gambit.

So the difference between the editions might not ever effect the idea of 'guy with light armour and a spear' but they portray it very differently mechanically. To say those mechanical differences don't matter is disingenuous at best.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Anybody else think that some people focus too much on "I did it this way in 3E and 4E won't let me do the same" and too little on "How can I use the 4E rules to create an interesting character?"

Look, there is nothing wrong with creating new PCs for a new game. I do it all the time. "How can I use the 4E rules to create an interesting character?" is a question I can easily answer. I had 2 PC designs I liked within hours of getting my pre-ordered Core 3.

However, when a game becomes so different between editions that the publisher suggests you start new campaigns rather than try to upgrade your PCs, then its a problem.

This just in: some of us aren't interested in starting new campaigns!

"I did it this way in 3E and 4E won't let me do the same" is the problem that arises when nobody wants to start anew, and its a completely valid critique of the new edition.

Druid.

<snip>

How do I make him in 4e?

To answer the question for this thread -

Make a cleric. Change the source (which has little mechanical use as of yet, anyway) to Primal. You have the healing, wear non metal versions of armor. Reflavor some cleric powers as needed (really just change damage types or keywords, primal instead of divine. Make the cudgel a class implement. Maybe multiclass to wizard for a specific elemental power or two, like lightning bolt.

For the shape shifting, have it a class power. Change Channel Divinity to Channel Nature and use shapechange as one of those powers. Make it require a feat. Use the Change Shape power of lycanthropes for this.

Some of us aren't all that interested in tweeking and kludging other classes to simulate a formerly core concept- and that is spoken as someone whose favorite game is HERO (which is all about tweeking etc.). Hammering square pegs into round holes is something I gave up when I was 2 years old.

That someone made a design decision to excise a class that has been a (popular) part of the game since 1977 or so is, IMHO, an example of "Epic Fail."

 

[thecasualoblivion]

That someone made a design decision to excise a class that has been a (popular) part of the game since 1977 or so is, IMHO, an example of "Epic Fail."

Umm... I don't know about you, but I was around for editions prior to 3E. It was 3E that put Druids on the map. I played 2E for years prior to 3E, and I saw as many Druids played as I saw Gnomes. Zero. Prior to 3E, Druids were one of the red-headed step children of D&D, because mechanically they were significantly worse than a Cleric.

Fighter/Mages were beloved, Elves were beloved. Druids barely existed.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Umm... I don't know about you, but I was around for editions prior to 3E. It was 3E that put Druids on the map. I played 2E for years prior to 3E, and I saw as many Druids played as I saw Gnomes. Zero. Prior to 3E, Druids were one of the red-headed step children of D&D, because mechanically they were significantly worse than a Cleric.

Fighter/Mages were beloved, Elves were beloved. Druids barely existed.

A druid was my 3rd AD&D PC, back in 1979. And personally, I seldom saw a campaign without them. (Ditto gnomes, FWIW.) All that that proves is that personal experience is not the same as statistical probability.

Still, your point is valid in that the Druid's popularity exploded with the advent of 3Ed...which only makes their excision from the initial product roll-out all the more puzzling from a marketing point of view.

If you ran a car company and the "X45i Grand Tourisma" was your most popular model, ceasing its production without offering something similar in its niche could spell trouble. Ford found this out a few years ago when the first versions of their redesigned Mustang lacked a truly powerful engine- something that was promised to be released 6 months later. Ford couldn't move the underpowered Mustangs, and many dealerships wound up selling them near cost- often as fleet cars.

 

[RFisher]

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’m big on reflavoring. The druid class in many editions makes a wizard I like better than the wizard/magic-user class.

Heck, I’m big on house-ruling and making up stuff yourself. I’ve got some ideas for house rules that might make me enjoy 4e more.

But when you ask the kind of question you did, I’m not going to consider those options in my answer. Because then the discussion becomes moot. You can do anything with any system with reflavoring and house rules.

But let’s drop the “flashy” part. For me, most of the fun of the game is the stuff that happens between combats. A system that tells me I start off with four combat powers and zero utility powers sure looks like it isn’t optimal for many of my character concepts.

Sure, I’ll “when in Rome” and enjoy it. Or I’ll house rule it to make it more to my liking. But it is sub-optimal for the kinds of characters I often like to play.

(No doubt someone will say that then no edition of D&D is for me. Yet I really do find some editions fit my preferences better than others.)

I guess the message is; have patience. A lot of options and old time favorite possibilities will return with additional books. Should or could they have been in the PH1? Maybe, but there was a strict limit on how much that book could contain, as taste does vary it was impossible to make everyone happy. Personally I'm happy with what they decided to include and might be able to do with an insider subscribtion instead of bying more books.

I’ve thought a lot about how the things that I think turn me off about 4e might be changed in future books. But I’m not big on supplements, and that doesn’t change even if they label as core something that looks like a supplement to me.

Who knows, though. More experience with the system and if I can get some options I really like without buying too many extra books...

All classes are designed so that they have a combat effective suite of powers, using those powers deal "damage", they wear down your opponent. Utility spells and rituals contain much of the utility that was always there for casters. If you don't like this "shift" (wizards were always designed to lay down the hurt), then 4e isn't for you.

Then there’s the answer to your question. Wizards that don’t always have the ability to lay down the hurt are my concept that 4e—as current constituted without supplements or house rules—doesn’t support. Heck, generally—whatever class it might be—having a PC who is weak on combat prowess in order to be stronger at non-combat activities.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Personally, I'm not surprised Druids didn't make the cut this time around, and I think it was the right decision. First off, Druids had were a bit infamous for being overpowered. A lot of people have expectations of what a Druid is supposed to do, and I think the Druid will be better accepted within the changes 4E brought after a period of time than they would have been at launch. Think of all the "Wizards suck balls" comments that the Wizard class has gotten. A Druid class at launch built within 4E balance and design philosophies would have put the Wizard complaints to shame. In addition, the decision was made for there to be fewer classes in the PHB. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard are automatic. As beloved as the Druid may be, Ranger and Paladin are #5 and #6 on the iconic D&D scale. This leaves two choices, one being Warlock, which was probably the most beloved class 3E introduced to the world and deserving of the PHB slot for that, and Warlord, a class brand new for 4E, and the 4E PHB needed a brand new shiny class, and the best healer alternative to the Cleric D&D has ever seen. If there was going to be eight classes, Druid just misses the cut. Combine this with the Druid using the Primal power source, different from the 8 classes in the PHB, the Druid being delayed until PHB II was a no-brainer.


People may lament that the Druid missed out on the core PHB, but I don't see that as being as big a problem as it was in 3E. The 3E system was devilishly complex, and the more splats you added the bigger the mess of rules you played with. The 4E rules are very sturdy, and mess resistant. I don't see adding new material as being anywhere near as disruptive as it was in 3E, and I anticipate there will be less stigma for later material.

 

[Thasmodious]

This is kind of missing the point. Of course I can make my own class out of whole cloth or by mutating an existing class, but it sure as heck ain't RAW, and if won't fly past many GMs.

The question was "What could you do in an earlier edition you an't do in 4e?" The answer is druids/nature priests.

No, it's you who missed the point. I addressed all that in the OP. RAW doesn't matter. This isn't a thread for RAW. The question was not the one you suggest. It was "how can we do in 4th some things we did in previous editions that are not available in core 4e. We don't need a whole thread to determine if druids are or are not available in 4e. You just need to look at the book. If the question was "what things were in previous editions cores that aren't in 4e", this would be a pretty easy thread. But again, I went over all that in the first post.

I'm not trying to tell you what you can or can't post or think or anything, but you can't tell me I missed the point of my own thread. That's disingenuous.

Now, while I know you are just trying to list classes that don't exist yet in 4e, I'll answer these anyway, because I find it interesting. One of the first few builds I did in 4e was an unarmed fighter, as one of my players was considering a concept around that.

an effective unarmed fighter

Of course, the monk was hardly always core. But anyway, it's an easy one.

Pick a melee class whose powers suit your concept beyond -unarmed fighter-. Is he a soldier, wrestler, monk, etc. Then take a feat to gain proficiency in unarmed strikes. The only tweaking required would be to assign a prof. bonus to unarmed strikes. The wording of the Weapon Proficiency feat does not exclude "improvised" weapons. Fighter, rogue and ranger would all work well as unarmed fighters. Maybe make a 2nd feat to increase unarmed damage to a d6. After that, its all description, the melee powers work fine.

The one I made was a favorite NPC from 3e, a halfling wrestler with the grappler prestige class (forget the name). I used fighter, high str, he can grab a lot to restrain.

It's deceptive I think to insist that mechanics don't matter in terms of characters.

What's deceptive is attributing that statement to me.

Let's suppose that you want to make an agile Spear weilding fighter who wears light armour but uses speed and reach to stay out of harms way.

So the difference between the editions might not ever effect the idea of 'guy with light armour and a spear' but they portray it very differently mechanically. To say those mechanical differences don't matter is disingenuous at best.

It works pretty well in 3rd and 4th. That was another character I converted. I had a bugbear spearfighter I'd made for an ancient greece flavored game I'd played in who was pretty effective. I built him in 3e with barbarian to represent the rawness of the bugbear and his coming up in the gladiator pits, but his rage was more cold brutality, then some fighter levels for feats to represent his learning and gaining technique and discipline. He was fast, agile, lightly armored, spring attack was an obvious feat choice. In 4e, I made him a warlord as it fit the concept well, he was very intelligent, tactically minded, used to fighting with allies, etc. It was a pretty straight conversion and mechanically sound. Rogue would probably work well, too.