Forked Thread: PC concept limitations in 4e

[WalterKovacs]

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.

Reflavoring is a stop-gap solution for people wanting all the options of tons of splatbooks in a game vs. a bunch of dragon articles, 1 printed out of class PHB, and the first real splat book in terms of class options only being released now.

They have the animal companion for the ranger, and the bag of tricks in Ad vault. They are ready to do "summon monster" type spells, familiars and those kinds of things.

From what we've seen of the barbarian ... they are also probably ready to do polymorph/shapeshifting type stuff to.

They may not give every power to the wizard ... keeping certain types of magic for certain types of caster. Enchantment is a bard/psion thing. Shapeshifting is probably primal in nature. Etc, etc, etc.

In 3e, Fighters were better at dual wielding and archery than a ranger was ... In 4e, ranger is the BEST at dual wielding and the BEST at archery ... his distinctive styles, instead of being outclassed by other classes. And, we don't know about PHBII yet, but he's probably not going to have the druid have a better animal companion than him either.

Why have a dual wielding rogue AND a dual wielding ranger. Ranger, with his "favored enemy: you" ability gets a more reliable, but smaller, sneak attack damage every round. In that case a character's identity isn't necessarily determined by his class.

I have a warlock that is cha/dex, has sneak of shadows and therefore stealth, uses stealth to get around and hide, tries to hit people when they don't see him, etc ... he's a rogue, even though most of his attacks are magical in nature. When you get into a ranger with similar tricks, it's much easier to blur the line between the two types of characters. A dungeoneering ranger, for example, could just as easily be a treasure hunting rogue. A brutal rogue, for example, might want good wisdom as the tertiary stat to improve perception and insight ... in which case he is a long way towards being a ranger statwise. Include the awesome doublesword and multiclass to spice and you've got a ranger/rogue or rogue/ranger that does't know where one class ends and the other begins.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

Things I (and many others) have done since OD&D: d.) All of the Above. "RAW" is another term I hadn't seen until 3E came out. Yet another influence of 3E I don't appreciate.

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

This has been true since OD&D also. You DON'T NEED the extra books! You may want them (I know I do), but with some imagination you certainly don't need them.

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!

The class skill selection between a Ranger and a Fighter in 4E isn't that much of a gap. And why is it inherently bad design to decide that a bow specialist (Ranger) has less hit points than a Fighter? Is it bad design that Wizards and Clerics have less hit points?

 

[WalterKovacs]

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 if you want to have say ... a fighter that has sneak attack and the ability to dual wield weapons that aren't off handed?

A fighter, specifically a 4e fighter, is someone that is not well suited to range attacks.

In 3e, a fighter, thanks to his awesome feat selection was able to be better at two weapon fighting than the ranger and better at archery than the ranger. That meant the ranger was a poor subsitute for a fighter, that had limited spellcasting, an animal companion that, because of it's level adjustment wasn't very helpful in a fight, and they had a class ability that rewarded them if the DM used their favored enemy frequently enough.

A ranger is able to do some things that a figher does... heck it gets ranged attacks to disrupt attacks against their allies and apply penalties to those attacks ... just like a fighter does in melee range. Add a bard to the group and you can have him give you the ability to mark enemies ... take certain feats and you can increase your HP/surges/etc.

As for skill selection ... first of all you get more options for skills as a ranger, secondly you can use feats to make up for anything else. If having a skill trained that you don't want to have trained is such a hindrance to your character, you can always play as if you don't have it.

Intimidate and Streetwise. That is what you don't get to start with as a ranger instead of being a fighter. You can easily pick those up via feats, or with a background, being eladrin, etc...

 

[Runestar]

This has been true since OD&D also. You DON'T NEED the extra books! You may want them (I know I do), but with some imagination you certainly don't need them.

It is also a cheap fix which I feel only goes so far in addressing the issue.

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? In the end, both classes would still end up playing virtually the same, since by your admission, the only difference is one of flavour. My spells are still going to deal the same amount of damage and have the same effect on the foes.

In this case, I don't want a reflavoured wizard. I want a new class (in this case, possibly the 4e version of the dread necromancer) which plays very much differently from the original wizard, and can offer me a unique play experience.

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.

You may be right in that I don't need them. But they sure would be invaluable in letting me expand my game. Maybe 3e spoiled me with all those splatbooks, but I quickly found myself getting bored with 3e core races and classes. In fact, I can envision myself ever playing an elf or dwarf ever again! That was why Savage species was one of my favourite books, because it allowed me to play unique and exotic PC monster races like the ghaele.

I look forward to the day when the same thing is done (hopefully) for 4e.

 

[LostSoul]

In this case, I don't want a reflavoured wizard. I want a new class (in this case, possibly the 4e version of the dread necromancer) which plays very much differently from the original wizard, and can offer me a unique play experience.

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

 

[Remathilis]

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

Don't look at me! I just want a way for my elf-rogue to use his shortbow with his powers without resorting to making pretty-eyes at the DM!

 

[Runestar]

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

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.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It is also a cheap fix which I feel only goes so far in addressing the issue.

What is the point of me playing an illusionist or necromancer which is essentially a reflavoured 4e wizard

I look forward to the day when the same thing is done (hopefully) for 4e.

I'm not just talking about reflavoring. You can create your own stuff too. I'm with you though in that I enjoy buying supplements to aid my creativity.

Don't look at me! I just want a way for my elf-rogue to use his shortbow with his powers without resorting to making pretty-eyes at the DM!

You either wait for WoTC to build it or suggest something reasonable to your DM. Throw in a feat cost and you're more likely to get a yes. Ask if you can spend a feat to gain Sneak Attack with the shortbow. I would allow it. If your DM doesn't? Then you're no worse off than you started.

 

[Cryptos]

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!

I'm seeing a lot of this in 4e discussions.

"But are there any ranged powers for Fighters?"

"That would be a Ranger."

"But I don't want to be nature-oriented!"

Well, then don't train the nature skill.

Or, "are there any build options for the urban ranger?"

Yes, just don't train the nature skill.

People seem to be having a lot of difficulty with this concept. Fighter is someone that holds someone down or occupies enemies in melee combat. Archery Ranger uses bows, and the tactics associated with them - mobility, damage, skill, etc. Two-weapon Ranger fights with two weapons, which, honestly screams "I want to do lots of damage so I have two weapons!" Hence, striker. Hence, Ranger.

Does your Ranger have to run around climbing trees and talking to bears? No. Does your Fighter have to be the stereotypical Fighter of 3e, or even call himself a "fighter" when describing his talents or 'job' in game? No.

I use Rangers all the time in place of the Rogue class for archery-based thieves. Acrobatics? Check. Stealth, Thievery (with a feat, multiclass or Eladrin race), Dungeoneering, Athletics, Perception? Check. Flavor-wise, nothing is lost. Want something else? Multiclass or skill train. Are they nature-oriented? No.

Classes in 4e: It's not necessarily what you do. It's how you do it.

 

[Andor]

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?