Forked Thread: PC concept limitations in 4e

[LostSoul]

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!'

Maybe I just don't understand what you are looking for.

If you want different mechanics, you can't just reflavour old mechanics to get what you want.

If you want different colour, you can.

We are not talking about concepts:

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.

Emphasis mine. You are not asking for "only flavour" differences. That must mean mechanics.

I guess I just don't understand what you are looking for. A difference between characters that is not "only flavour" seems to say that you want different mechanics.

 

[Andor]

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.

OK. I misunderstood the original post.

The concepts that don't work in 4e and which probably won't ever work due to the structure of the system.

The utility wizard (or any other spell caster)

The beguiler (not the class per se, but the concept of a wizard who concentrates on social magic)

A character who has a few powers that he concentrates on. Examples from earlier editions might be tattooed monks, or sorcerers, or trip fighters. It's valid to complain that these are one trick ponies, but some people like one trick ponies and 4e doesn't allow them.

The basic fighter. Some people play D&D to hang out with friends and don't want to know anything more than 'full attack every round.' All characters are equally complex now.

I think the unvarying complexity of all the classes is a real weakness personally.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

OK. I misunderstood the original post.

The concepts that don't work in 4e and which probably won't ever work due to the structure of the system.

The utility wizard (or any other spell caster)

The beguiler (not the class per se, but the concept of a wizard who concentrates on social magic)

A character who has a few powers that he concentrates on. Examples from earlier editions might be tattooed monks, or sorcerers, or trip fighters. It's valid to complain that these are one trick ponies, but some people like one trick ponies and 4e doesn't allow them.

The basic fighter. Some people play D&D to hang out with friends and don't want to know anything more than 'full attack every round.' All characters are equally complex now.

I think the unvarying complexity of all the classes is a real weakness personally.

1. Utility Wizard is one who stocks up on Rituals. The only real difference is that you cannot sacrifice combat spells for non-combat spells.

2. The Beguiler concept, while currently not present in 4E, is something that can be done. Like everything else though, it will deal damage.

3. You have a point, but the availability of those concepts wasn't good for the game as a whole IMO.

4. I've seen these people in 4E. They tend to just spam At-Wills over and over again, unless the other players tell them to use their encounter/dailies. Its not really that big of a problem.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The concepts that don't work in 4e and which probably won't ever work due to the structure of the system.

1) The utility wizard (or any other spell caster)

2) The beguiler (not the class per se, but the concept of a wizard who concentrates on social magic)

3) A character who has a few powers that he concentrates on. Examples from earlier editions might be tattooed monks, or sorcerers, or trip fighters. It's valid to complain that these are one trick ponies, but some people like one trick ponies and 4e doesn't allow them.

4) The basic fighter. Some people play D&D to hang out with friends and don't want to know anything more than 'full attack every round.' All characters are equally complex now.

I think the unvarying complexity of all the classes is a real weakness personally.

1) As more powers become available you may find more that count as "utility." Also, with the upcoming Bard class you may find more utility than attack, not sure yet. But you are correct that you may never be able to play a utility WIZARD if you focus on wanted to play a class named wizard.

2) Again I think the bard may fill this role or subsequent books may introduce a beguiler. I don't believe this concept is unfathomable in 4E.

3) Again, are we discussing Concept or Mechanics? I can envision a character now whose powers derive from ritual tatoos without changing any 4E mechanics. The monk part takes some more work, but I feel confident saying a monk class will appear at some time down the road. What makes a Sorcerer? A Sorcerer can easily be translated to a 4E Wizard or Warlock. There are already powers that allow you to knock opponents prone.

4) I can only provide personal experience here. My wife, sisters-in-law, friends girlfriend and my 7-year-old have all been able to pick the game up easily and have fun playing it. The rules mastery is easy (like chess), the strategy is what takes mastery (also like chess). If your tactic in previous editions was move and attack, you can devote just as little time to strategy in 4E and still have fun playing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

1. Utility Wizard is one who stocks up on Rituals. The only real difference is that you cannot sacrifice combat spells for non-combat spells.

2. The Beguiler concept, while currently not present in 4E, is something that can be done. Like everything else though, it will deal damage.

3. You have a point, but the availability of those concepts wasn't good for the game as a whole IMO.

4. I've seen these people in 4E. They tend to just spam At-Wills over and over again, unless the other players tell them to use their encounter/dailies. Its not really that big of a problem.

1) Rituals are too costly and take too long to cast to come close to being as useful as a power. Utility powers need to available in time sensitive situations or they lose thier utility.

2) Beguiler = trick, misdirect, fool= cool and different type of caster

Beguiler= damage= lame ass might as well be a ranger type of caster.

3) Agree. One trick ponies are boring for campaign play.

4) Simplicity can be good but if the rest of the game is very involved having one simple class won't solve much.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

1) Rituals are too costly and take too long to cast to come close to being as useful as a power. Utility powers need to available in time sensitive situations or they lose thier utility.

2) Beguiler = trick, misdirect, fool= cool and different type of caster

Beguiler= damage= lame ass might as well be a ranger type of caster.

3) Agree. One trick ponies are boring for campaign play.

4) Simplicity can be good but if the rest of the game is very involved having one simple class won't solve much.

Rituals have a sliding scale cost. As you gain levels, lower level rituals become almost trivial in cost. As for time sensitive, there are a lot of utility powers designed for this, and aside from those there is already a section of the game designed to handle those situations. That section is called skills. Spells shouldn't trump skills and make them irrelevant, which was one of the failings of 3E.

The 3E Beguiler wasn't about tricking or misdirecting, aside from things like Silent Image, one of the the most overpowered spells in D&D in the right hands. It was mostly about spamming illusion/charm save or suck spells like Color Spray, Sleep, Charm Person, and Glitterdust. The way 4E handles effects and the save ends mechanic generally means that having these effects without damage is woefully underpowerd. There is no reason Charm Person, Hold Person, or whatever can't deal psychic damage.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Rituals have a sliding scale cost. As you gain levels, lower level rituals become almost trivial in cost. As for time sensitive, there are a lot of utility powers designed for this, and aside from those there is already a section of the game designed to handle those situations. That section is called skills. Spells shouldn't trump skills and make them irrelevant, which was one of the failings of 3E.

The 3E Beguiler wasn't about tricking or misdirecting, aside from things like Silent Image, one of the the most overpowered spells in D&D in the right hands. It was mostly about spamming illusion/charm save or suck spells like Color Spray, Sleep, Charm Person, and Glitterdust. The way 4E handles effects and the save ends mechanic generally means that having these effects without damage is woefully underpowerd. There is no reason Charm Person, Hold Person, or whatever can't deal psychic damage.

Psychic damage means my magic missile is green and the beguiler's magic missile is purple? If that is what constitutes different caster types in 4E through flavor and color, then color me unimpressed.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Psychic damage means my magic missile is green and the beguiler's magic missile is purple? If that is what constitutes different caster types in 4E through flavor and color, then color me unimpressed.

No. Psychic damage means that when your opponent struggles against your attempt to subvert his mind it weakens his resolve and lowers his endurance to continue to fight. That is represented in the abstract hit point system.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Psychic damage means my magic missile is green and the beguiler's magic missile is purple? If that is what constitutes different caster types in 4E through flavor and color, then color me unimpressed.

Magic Missile "You launch a silvery bolt of force at your enemy"--2d4+Int force damage, and it ends there.

Illusionary Ambush "You create an illusion of swirling spectral assailants that swarm over your enemy"--1d6+Int Psychic damage, and the target takes -2 to attack rolls.


Plenty different enough in both fluff and mechanics for me.

 

[Cadfan]

My general take:

If your concept involves fighting with weapons instead of magic, you can probably do it in 4e, unless its something that is defined by mechanics and which has been specifically killed off in order to create meaningful choices. An example of that would be "guy who sneak attacks with a greatsword." Part of making weapon choice have consequences has been the decision to give certain powers to certain weapons. Greatswords have their own benefits, daggers and rapiers have their own as well. Making the choice between rapier and greatsword meaningful means that you can't get the benefits of one while wielding the other. If your desired character is one that falls into this category, you may benefit from a less mechanics-oriented character concept. If you were to change your desire to "maneuverable character with a greatsword who flanks with ease," that should be doable, particularly with the mobility oriented Fighter at wills coming out in Martial Power.

This is harder to do if your concept involves magic. In that case, there are a few archetypes that probably won't ever exist.

The first is the wizard who doesn't know how to hurt people. All wizards have a mixture of utility and damage, and it looks like that's just how its going to be, forever. Sorry. The best I can say in this context is that there are a lot of utility powers that provide utility AND do damage- for example, a spell that in 3e might have imprisoned your foe in a mystical cage will, in 4e, most likely imprison your foe in a mystical cage while lashing him with lightning. So if your goal was lots of utility, its available, but if your goal was an inability to do damage, you may be out of luck.

The second magical archetype that simply isn't going to be available is the mass summoner- the guy with an army of summoned creatures. This appears to have been a balance and table-parity oriented decision that is unlikely to be reversed.

There are probably a few more, such as the 3e style shapeshifting spellcaster (one who essentially abandons his physical form to gain melee strength but who doesn't give up spellcasting in payment), but that gives you the idea.

Leaving aside major reskinning (fighter reskinned as monk, etc) I guess there are four possible answers that cover most of the "I can't do X in 4e" comments.

1. Yes, you can. Read better. (This hasn't come up here, but it does sometimes.)
2. Yes, you can, but you may have to give up defining your concept in terms of mechanics and instead define it in terms of capability. (Rogue with a longbow -> Ranger, smart and tactical Fighter -> Warlord)
3. No, you can't, and the fact that you can't is for the overall good of the game. (Sneak attacking greatsword, Ubershifter)
4. No, you can't, but its likely that you will sooner or later. (druid, monk)