Forked Thread: PC concept limitations in 4e

[LostSoul]

How is that my fault?

What you are basically saying is this:

Either I give an example that is possible for 4e to replicate, which in turn lends credence to its "versatility", or I shut the hell up and get lost. Basically, I am not allowed to say anything contrary about 4e. What nonsense is this?

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.

When did I ever tell you to shut up and get lost? I said that 4e could not possibly satisfy you if you want something that's not in the books.

I am saying that changing colour to get the colour you want is possible, if that's a sneaky elf with a longsword or a wizard who doesn't burn his foes into cinders.

I am saying that, if you don't want to change colour but instead want to have duplicate mechanics, that's not possible.

I don't believe that concepts and game mechanics are the same thing. If you want a specific concept you can change the colour to try and make it work; if you want specific game mechanics, there's not much you can do.

I think that getting the concept - the colour - right was what the OP was talking about when he said, "Mechanics are not concepts, especially mechanics tied to a specific edition."

 

[Thasmodious]

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.

Reflavoring is a core part of the ruleset for 4e, so its perfectly valid. That's one space efficient way 4e has of creating a lot of versatility, putting it in the hands of the players. I'm avoiding answering these with "just make a new class" as you could say that for anything, but minor tweaks, borrowing things from other races or classes that are already in the game, I think are pefectly valid. It's something that's simply always been done outside of cons and RPGA play. I can't think of many characters over the years that I haven't tweaked a bit, as a player or DM. In my tabletop game now, the gnome barbarian player wanted to use a maul. I tweaked it a bit when he wanted to use a maul in 3rd as well and allowed it, for a feat, despite the size rules. Same in 4e, treating it as versatily with a feat that applies only to mauls.

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.

That's an entirely different 4e argument and I'd hate to derail this thread. This has been discussed over and over between the camps who believe that 4e is too combat focused and those who see it as keeping unnecessary rules out of the RPing. The degree of combat in any game is up to the DM. But the game is, and always has been, fairly combat focused.

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.

I'll happily give you that one. Combat ineffective pacificsts are definitely not part of the 4e design as of yet. Most feel thats a feature not a bug. But YMMV.

 

[bagger245]

You know, all this reflavouring of powers and effects seem rather ackward. Are you guy
saying that if i take the ranger, call it something else and reflavour all his
powers, i could get the rogue i want? Might as well 4th powers be based on generic
power templates and we customize as we want, coz all this reflavouring isn't making
each class powers unique anymore... or they shouldn't be?
Each class role (striker, defender etc) will basically play the same way through
reflavouring..

 

[monboesen]

Each class role (striker, defender etc) will basically play the same way through
reflavouring.

Nope. Reflavoring changes how you describe what your'e doing, but it doesn't change mechanics (or at least not much). No matter the reflavoring a Striker will never play like a Defender or vice versa.

 

[bagger245]

What I meant is the reflavouring within roles ie ranger, rogue and barbarian...as well
as cleric with warlord...

 

[Runestar]

When did I ever tell you to shut up and get lost? I said that 4e could not possibly satisfy you if you want something that's not in the books.

Well, Duh... if something is not in the books, then I won't be able to use non-existant material to build my character...

Obviously, if the book offered a concept that suit my purposes just fine, then I wouldn't be here complaining now, would I? Your reply makes no sense at all, and seems akin to hold a hand in front of my face and saying 'Bah!'

 

[bagger245]

Maybe WOTC should make all classes generic and call them DEFENDERS, STRIKERS etc, then
provide powers for them and people to reflavour them as they wish. Sort of like a
d20 modern cousin..
For me, reflavouring is reserved as a last resort for character concepts. I will play 4th
ed RAW and wait for the splats..

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know, all this reflavouring of powers and effects seem rather ackward. Are you guy
saying that if i take the ranger, call it something else and reflavour all his
powers, i could get the rogue i want? Might as well 4th powers be based on generic
power templates and we customize as we want, coz all this reflavouring isn't making
each class powers unique anymore... or they shouldn't be?
Each class role (striker, defender etc) will basically play the same way through
reflavouring..

I am not always a fan of reflavoring, but sometimes I still think people start at the wrong point when envisioning your character.

"I want to play a bow-wielding Rogue!"
I wonder - why this way. Why do you star with bow-wielding Rogue. What's so roguish about your character with the Bow? If it's just that he's good at picking locks and pockets, what's wrong with a Ranger with skill training in Thievery?

What would be the "natural" way of the character to evolve? He is focusing a lot on Bows. In 4E, this means he's probably a Ranger, because Rangers, not Rogues, get a lot of bow-related abilities. Now he's also a Thief, so maybe he just trained in Thievery (maybe via Sneak of Shadows, which also gives you some backstabbing potential). As a Ranger, he is still stealthy and agile. So this character works just fine.

Similar - "I want to play bow-wielding Fighter". Why a fighter? What's so "fightery" about your character? If the Fighter is supposed to defend people, how is he supposed to do this with a bow? Again, doesn't it make more sense for him being a Ranger? A Ranger is the one that strongly trains with the bow.

"I want to play a lightly armored Rapier-wielding Fighter". Why a fighter? Why should someone trained in the arts of warfare not want to wear heavy armor? (Of course, later supplements might bring you a lightly armored Fighter via special class options). But what's wrong with a Rogue or Ranger in this case? I mean, these are the guys whose nature it is to fight lightly armored since their need for stealth and speed requires it. And really, if you're not focusing on stealth or speed, using light armor sounds like a bad idea.

Of course there are other cases.
"I want to play a Wizard that focuses on Illusion, not damage"
Okay - you can't do this with the Wizard class. And no other class, either. So no, your character concept is not supported until the Illusionist class is done. That's suboptimal, certainly at at the moment, your character is not supported. (Though at least you can get the Illusions with the Dragon Illusion spell material!)

Will it ever be supported? I suppose even the Illusionist will want to deal damage - but the flavor might be very different. If the Illusionist creates Illusions that attack people, it makes sense for him to deal damage. Screwing your mind around by creating distracting images - might also deal damage. Creating an illusionary wall - probably won't deal damage.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Maybe WOTC should make all classes generic and call them DEFENDERS, STRIKERS etc, then
provide powers for them and people to reflavour them as they wish. Sort of like a
d20 modern cousin..
For me, reflavouring is reserved as a last resort for character concepts. I will play 4th
ed RAW and wait for the splats..

It doesn't work so well this way because a little more "fluff" tied to your character abilities is useful for understanding what you can do with them if you don't already have a character idea in mind.

A Striker can be something like a Warlock or something like a Rogue. The flavor is very different, even if the battlefield role is similar. (But even then, the tactics are still different).

A class is actually a package of combat and non-combat role, and the combination is a result of the flavor of the class.
A Fighter defends his comrades, and of course he's often endurable, athletic, familiar with the streets and has an imposing bearing. All these would be things you'd expect from a "Fighter".
A Rogue fights dirty against single foes, he's a stealthy thief, typically perceptive, good with words, at home on the streets. All these would be things you'd expect from a "Rogue"
A Wizard uses powerful magic that shapes the battlefield, and he is very knowledgeable on a variety of topics.

But that doesn't mean you can use each class for just exactly what the evoke. But if you wonder what you should play, look at the classes and see what they do - what do you like - which role and which image does appeal to you? On the other hand, if you already know what your character is and what he wants to do, find the class that comes closes to it, and ignore any fluff aspect that don't match your goals.

 

[Bagpuss]

Your closer on the second one; I had an elf rogue who fought with longsword and shortbow in 2e and 3e. He cannot do this in 4e and be viable (aka use his powers) he's forced to go rapier and crossbow. I don't understand why WotC limited rogue powers from longswords (or one-handed blades in general) and from straight bows (but crossbows are A-OK). It reeks of unnecessary fiddling.

I want Sneak Attack. I want Artful Dodger. I want Sly Flourish and other Rogue Powers. I just want to use my longsword and shortbow with them. I don't want to be a ranger to do it.

Perhaps MP?

Yes if you consider that the Elf in 3rd is really the Eladrin, while Wood Elves are 4th Ed Elves.

There is an Eladrin Feat that lets them use a longsword with Sneak Attack and light blade Rogue powers. Can't help you with the Bow though.