Forked Thread: PC concept limitations in 4e

[Remathilis]

And this part is not concept, this is mechanics again. "Samurai" does not mean defender or blow-absorber.

See, that's where the disconnect lies with me. Its purely semantics.

If a "ranger" effectively doubles as a rogue, a samurai, or anything else I want it to (as long as it focuses on dual-wielding or archery) then why call it a "ranger"? When is a ranger no longer a ranger? I thought part of 4e's charm was the idea of classes no longer being building blocks to assemble into Frankenstien-like monsters purely for mechanical reasons; a ranger is a ranger because he has X, Y, and Z. If, by the end of the day, I've taken 3-4 feats to gain basic proficiencies, house-ruled my class skills, and changed the name on just about every power and class ability to make my samurai "work", that's an awful lot of work for one concept. Esp. when I can play the exact same character as is in the PHB if I'm willing to sacrifice my concept of an Asian Knight.

More to the point, D&D 4e is all about roles and teamwork. Lets say I want to play a defender. I want to be in front trading blows and stopping foes, but I want to do it with a weapon in each hand. That's undoable without Martial Power. If my concept for a samurai isn't a striker but a defender, I guess I'm SoL.

 

[The Little Raven]

Combine this with minion rules and the claim that it doesn't work as well is not at all nonsensical. It means you can't use those spells on minions without killing them, and that's not good if you want to have options for non-violent crowd control.

You can use any attack on any creature and not kill it, as detailed on page 295 of the PHB under the heading "Knocking Creatures Unconscious."

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Fine. Build me a dual-wielding katana and wakisashi samurai in o-yori (great armor) in 4e using just the PHB. Bonus points if you can get him high hit points and some form of marking.

Figther or Paladin; longsword/shortsword; TWF feat. Done. It fits the concept. Whether you like the mechanics or not is another matter.

 

[Lacyon]

More to the point, D&D 4e is all about roles and teamwork. Lets say I want to play a defender. I want to be in front trading blows and stopping foes, but I want to do it with a weapon in each hand. That's undoable without Martial Power. If my concept for a samurai isn't a striker but a defender, I guess I'm SoL.

It's quite doable without Martial Power. You just don't get to attack with each weapon every round.

(Mechanics versus concept again).

 

[Phaezen]

See, that's where the disconnect lies with me. Its purely semantics.

If a "ranger" effectively doubles as a rogue, a samurai, or anything else I want it to (as long as it focuses on dual-wielding or archery) then why call it a "ranger"? When is a ranger no longer a ranger? I thought part of 4e's charm was the idea of classes no longer being building blocks to assemble into Frankenstien-like monsters purely for mechanical reasons; a ranger is a ranger because he has X, Y, and Z. If, by the end of the day, I've taken 3-4 feats to gain basic proficiencies, house-ruled my class skills, and changed the name on just about every power and class ability to make my samurai "work", that's an awful lot of work for one concept. Esp. when I can play the exact same character as is in the PHB if I'm willing to sacrifice my concept of an Asian Knight.

More to the point, D&D 4e is all about roles and teamwork. Lets say I want to play a defender. I want to be in front trading blows and stopping foes, but I want to do it with a weapon in each hand. That's undoable without Martial Power. If my concept for a samurai isn't a striker but a defender, I guess I'm SoL.

Frankly, what you asked for is a 2 weapon wielding defender, with an asian theme. I provided 3 or 4 builds that all conform with what you asked for:

Build me a dual-wielding katana and wakisashi samurai - ranger or two weapon fighting/two weapon defense feats - check

in o-yori (great armor) in 4e - Plate or scale armour - check

using just the PHB. check

Bonus points if you can get him
high hit points - fighter/paladin - check, give the ranger toughness, check
some form of marking. all cases - check

Of course, to me a Samurai is an asian social caste or warriors, and could be a fighter, ranger, rogue, warlord or paladin as each samurai in the caste is an individual with preferred fighting methods, trained in different techniques depending on his clan, aptitudes and masters. A paladin samurai would be one who is deeply religious, where as a rogue samuria would focus on putting his opponent on the back foot so he can strike deadly blows. A ranger could either be a samuria who is adept at archery, or fighting with two weapons. The fighter could be one who focusses on going toe to toe with hios opponents, allowing his allies the freedom to use thier abilities more efectively. And the warlord is the samurai who is adept at leading his allies in battle, directing them to where they are most needed.

Phaezen

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

See, that's where the disconnect lies with me. Its purely semantics.

If a "ranger" effectively doubles as a rogue, a samurai, or anything else I want it to (as long as it focuses on dual-wielding or archery) then why call it a "ranger"? When is a ranger no longer a ranger? I thought part of 4e's charm was the idea of classes no longer being building blocks to assemble into Frankenstien-like monsters purely for mechanical reasons; a ranger is a ranger because he has X, Y, and Z. If, by the end of the day, I've taken 3-4 feats to gain basic proficiencies, house-ruled my class skills, and changed the name on just about every power and class ability to make my samurai "work", that's an awful lot of work for one concept. Esp. when I can play the exact same character as is in the PHB if I'm willing to sacrifice my concept of an Asian Knight.

More to the point, D&D 4e is all about roles and teamwork. Lets say I want to play a defender. I want to be in front trading blows and stopping foes, but I want to do it with a weapon in each hand. That's undoable without Martial Power. If my concept for a samurai isn't a striker but a defender, I guess I'm SoL.

Class != Concept. They have to call the classes SOMETHING. That way we can talk about them. But not every character of a class fits the concept of the dictionary definition of its class name. Not all Rogues are a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel

And you can defend with two weapons using just the PHB. You may not like the mechanical bonus you receive for doing so, but it can be done.

 

[Mallus]

If a "ranger" effectively doubles as a rogue, a samurai, or anything else I want it to (as long as it focuses on dual-wielding or archery) then why call it a "ranger"?

You have to call it something...

When is a ranger no longer a ranger?

Classes no longer represent single archetypes. In fact, I'm not sure they ever did. In AD&D (pre-UA), the fighter class was supposed to represent everything from Conan to Lancelot.

 

[billd91]

On the contrary, HP are definitionally that which prevent you from being defeated. In prior editions, they only prevented you from being defeated by Greatsword or Fireball.

Now they also prevent you from being defeated by Dominate.

Ablating hit points isn't always the best answer for character survival. Maybe I don't want to just whale on something to be able to capture it.
The way I see it, that's been a long-term deficiency in non-lethal attacking for multiple editions, ablating hit points down until you finally knock somebody out. There really should be shortcuts.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think you're overselling your point. Its not like the bard taunts you and you lose hit points. He casts magic spells at you and you lose hit points. It just so happens that his magic spells tend to have themes of taunting or otherwise manipulating you, and the accompanying effects that his spells inflict upon you are related to that those themes.

If you inferred that I meant he could use his Skills (capital S) to cause damage then I understand your comment. I meant skills (small s) as a more generic term. Powers that do damage should have their damage linked to the effect of the power. So a Power that taunts a foe and does damage should probably attribute the damage to the stress that the magical mind manipulation has caused. Maybe you're already saying that, but others here seem to be seperating the two into a taunt effect plus a "magic missile" which is not the intent of such a power IMO.

 

[Derren]

* The Animal Companion Ranger "Beastmaster".

Martial Power has rules for that.

* The "samurai" Complete Warrior introduced a redundant class; the samurai. The concept was simple; a heavy-armored dual-wielding fighter.

What I find even harder to do is a "real" Samurai. A heavily armoured polearm fighter who also knows to use the bow rather well.