Forked Thread: PC concept limitations in 4e

[Mallus]

Still, but even within the gearhead style of play, isn't it healthier to focus on what can be done with system X as opposed to dwelling on what system Y used to do?

That depends... if you're actually trying to do something constructive w/System X, then yes. But if you just want to bitch over the Internet, then no.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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 "<snip>"

You can slap a personality on any set of stats in any game system. The problem I have with this is CharOp first, then fluff. It's a fine line and I'm sure I crossed it during my 3E days because the rules of the system encouraged it. There is little in the combo of classes they built for you that screams "child of werebear and succubus" to me. I don't even think my game would have to decide what the child of those two looked like. I agree that 4E doesn't fit this style of gaming and I'm glad to see it gone. I can understand why fans of that style of game would not be happy with 4E.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think that some people missed my point. I don't have my books handy, so I'll make stuff up. It should get the point across.
Let's say that I have a spell that does 3d8 damage and temporarily charms a monster. What I am advocating is the option, whether during combat or not, to remove the damage from the spell and just keep the charm effect that it says. If you want it to deal damage, it does. If not, it doesn't. It's rather simple.
I've heard that Forcecage does damage and puts people in a cage. You could describe a normal one as popping up small or buzzing with energy, so it hurts, or you can create a special one that just puts people in a cage without hurting them. You make the choice on the fly.
Is this sort of option stated in the rules? No. But it's such an easy and minor change to make. It does absolutely NOTHING to change the balance. It does, in fact, give you just a few more options to not hurt people.

I get the concept. I just can't see why anyone would want a wizard to be more pathetic than they already are with no more benefit.

Having the option to up the duration in exchange for damage would be great but keeping the less than thrilling "save ends" and getting no other benefit isn't much incentive. As long as damage remains the only viable way to remove combat effectiveness in a decisive way the problem will persist.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think some people take game terms too literally.

I have never thought since OD&D that "Damage" = "Physical Wound" or that the "Hit" in "Hit Points" means that you can only lose HPs when physically wounded.

So it is a very natural progression for me that Illusions, Charms, Containment spells, and plethora of other non-hit powers would cause a character to lose hit points.

If only EGG had named them Combat Resolve Points (or chose some equally vague name) that dwindled as your desire and ability to fight waned we probably wouldn't be in this disagreement over "damaging" vs. "non-damaging" powers.

 

[The Ghost]

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?"

Part of the problem comes from accepting what certain terms mean. Take the Ranger for example - is it a term for a suite of powers and abilities or is it a term for someone who hunts the edges of civilization*? Or both?

The question is do you accept classes implying a certain flavor or not? If you do - it can be hard to envision certain 4E characters. If you don't - it is really easy to build any 4E concept because you start out with no implied baggage.

* Just an example of what Ranger can mean.

 

[Thasmodious]

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?"

Yes, that's why I addressed that in the first post. "I called my PC who uses longsword and shortbow in 3e a rogue so he must be a rogue in 4e" is largely missing the point. We're looking to see how a concept fits into the 4e system, not getting hung up on nomenclature.

As far as I can see, you can't build a PC Necromancer

A lot of it could be handled by reflavoring powers. Cloud of Daggers could become skeletal arms reaching out of the ground or ghostly arms appearing throughout the space, chill strike could be changed to necrotic or cold+necrotic. Animate dead is not here yet, like conjuring, but we have the basics. There are rules on conjurations, so it would be easy to create an animate dead spell and maybe a summon undead spell. Follow the standard rules for creatures under your control, like with the bag of tricks or animal companion (minor actions to command creature to take actions).

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?

You are way too caught up in specifics. Things change from edition to edition. Some things work differently than they did before, some things are removed, some things are added. That's how editions are different, otherwise it would just be a reprinting. Damage does not actual harm, it represents the abstract ability to continue the fight. Subjecting foes to spells weakens their resolve and could eventually kill them. Doing things to people with magic has a harmful element to it. That's just the way it is.

Boosts belong to other classes now. The wizard is no longer the swiss army PC, capable of emulating the roles and abilities of every other PC and often doing them better. That's why wizards were considered overpowered compared to most the other classes. They could out rogue the rogue, out play the bard, out fight the fighter, and still drop a sudden, widened, maximized fireball and tac nuke a village.

Walls are still on the spell list and make fine barriers.

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

4e is built differently than 3e. This isn't about concepts at all. 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.

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

Specific spells come and go. Entangle immobilizes, there are spells that do that, including Evard's Black Tentacles. Solid fog? Really? You have wall of fog, wall of ice could easily be reflavored to be a frosty, solid fog. Any effect that immobilizes or creates difficult terrain could be a version of solid fog.

Dual-Wielding or Bow-Wielding Rogues

Don't get caught up in titles, that's a ranger. And rogues can already dual wield. Dual wielding has changed a bit in 4e. It's main benefit is the option to use either weapon to make an attack, allowing an effective combination of magic weapons to be utilized. A feat lets you use a bow, a friendly DM substitutes bow for crossbow in rogue ranged powers. That's a fair exchange for a feat.

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?

I don't think this one is too difficult at all. Use shifter (either one), add in the doppleganger racial power (compensate with a feat loss or something, perhaps, its not that powerful, so I don't think it'd even be necessary to compensate), use barbarian and multiclass with wizard or warlock. Make your rages equal halfwere shifts, feral changes in appearance, etc. Take a couple charm powers from your wizard or lock side. Use the occasional unarmed strike as a claw attack, especially while "raging".

 

[apoptosis]

Yes, that's why I addressed that in the first post. "I called my PC who uses longsword and shortbow in 3e a rogue so he must be a rogue in 4e" is largely missing the point. We're looking to see how a concept fits into the 4e system, not getting hung up on nomenclature.



A lot of it could be handled by reflavoring powers. Cloud of Daggers could become skeletal arms reaching out of the ground or ghostly arms appearing throughout the space, chill strike could be changed to necrotic or cold+necrotic. Animate dead is not here yet, like conjuring, but we have the basics. There are rules on conjurations, so it would be easy to create an animate dead spell and maybe a summon undead spell. Follow the standard rules for creatures under your control, like with the bag of tricks or animal companion (minor actions to command creature to take actions).

You could just have one class and one power and all the rest be flavoring

....i am totally kidding but there is something to be said about there being some blandness to just reflavoring everything. Sometimes people want their to be mechanical differences that align with flavor differences.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You are way too caught up in specifics. Things change from edition to edition. Some things work differently than they did before, some things are removed, some things are added. That's how editions are different, otherwise it would just be a reprinting. Damage does not actual harm, it represents the abstract ability to continue the fight. Subjecting foes to spells weakens their resolve and could eventually kill them. Doing things to people with magic has a harmful element to it. That's just the way it is.

That sums it up pretty well. 4E might be like videogame but all the speculations about MMORPGs were way off base.

4E is PONG.

 

[Remathilis]

You could also retool a number of wizard powers to fit a theme. For example, Thunderwave could become a Fear effect, with the same effects, just the Fear keyword instead. Your enemies recoil in horror as your visage changes into that of a terrifying beast - muscles bulge, fangs grow, claws lengthen...

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.

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

How about remove damage and give a penalty to the save, which would be more in keeping with the system?

Phaezen

So divorcing concept from class you want:

That is a pretty standard 4ed Ranger. Who for some reason chooses to use daggers instead of swords, maybe to throw them occasionally. Reflavor Hunters Quarry to backstabbing goodness and take the Sneak of Shadows feat to get Thievery.

OR

A pretty standard 4ed Rogue with the two-weapon fighting and Weapon Proficiency (shortbow) feats. Ask your DM to allow shortbow Sneak Attacks, thats a really really small power boost (only difference from crossbow load free vs. load minor).

Spells that stun: Any spell that also includes an effect that restricts the target's action - like Immobilize, Daze, Stun, or Prone.
Charm: Any spell that includes a Dominate effect, obviously, but less obviously - any spell that restricts the target's action (showing the "internal battle").
Paralyze: See stun.

Also, any spell that deals damage. When you reduce the guy to 0 hp, feel free to say he's stunned, charmed, or paralyzed.

Boosting allies: Clerics have them. Also, if your DM allows it, Aid Another actions with an Arcana check.
Non-damaging barriers: Any spell that restricts the target's movement. Doesn't matter if it deals hp damage or not, because hp damage does not equal physical damage in the game world.
.

Yes, that's why I addressed that in the first post. "I called my PC who uses longsword and shortbow in 3e a rogue so he must be a rogue in 4e" is largely missing the point. We're looking to see how a concept fits into the 4e system, not getting hung up on nomenclature.

A lot of it could be handled by reflavoring powers. Cloud of Daggers could become skeletal arms reaching out of the ground or ghostly arms appearing throughout the space, chill strike could be changed to necrotic or cold+necrotic. Animate dead is not here yet, like conjuring, but we have the basics. There are rules on conjurations, so it would be easy to create an animate dead spell and maybe a summon undead spell. Follow the standard rules for creatures under your control, like with the bag of tricks or animal companion (minor actions to command creature to take actions).

Specific spells come and go. Entangle immobilizes, there are spells that do that, including Evard's Black Tentacles. Solid fog? Really? You have wall of fog, wall of ice could easily be reflavored to be a frosty, solid fog. Any effect that immobilizes or creates difficult terrain could be a version of solid fog.

Don't get caught up in titles, that's a ranger. And rogues can already dual wield. Dual wielding has changed a bit in 4e. It's main benefit is the option to use either weapon to make an attack, allowing an effective combination of magic weapons to be utilized. A feat lets you use a bow, a friendly DM substitutes bow for crossbow in rogue ranged powers. That's a fair exchange for a feat.

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.

Wow. Thanks guys. Guess I don't need those supplements after all...

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. I understand they had limited space in the PHB and they needed to sell Martial Power, PHB 2, and D&Di subscriptions, but some of these ideas (fighters and rogues who can't use bows with their powers, non-damaging magical attacks) just seem arbitrary and superficial.

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). Unfortunately, a ranger comes with baggage a fighter doesn't (such class skill selection) and doesn't come with things I want (like fighter hp) so I'm stuck.

And this is coming from someone who LIKES 4e!

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

You could just have one class and one power and all the rest be flavoring

....i am totally kidding but there is something to be said about there being some blandness to just reflavoring everything. Sometimes people want their to be mechanical differences that align with flavor differences.

And I think this is what defines the difference between "making a concept" and "creating a build."

There really wasn't a way to "build" a character before 3E turned the classes into mere building blocks. Concept often went out the door in favor of the new "Uber Build."

You need mechanical differences to Build, you don't need mechanics for a Concept.