Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4533074" data-attributes="member: 63272">Forked from: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showpost.php?postid=4532657" target="_blank"> Disappointed in 4e; 4e upgrade or new game?? </a>I don't find this to be true at all.  When I first got my hands on the 4e books, I made a couple dozen characters, at various levels (usually built versions of the same character at 1st, 6th, 11th, and 21st), just to get some familiarity with the game system.  Most of these characters were older characters from previous editions, statted up anew, and I never found one I couldn't translate to 4e.  One of the more difficult decisions I faced was merely to decide whether my 3e warmage should be a Wizard/Warlock or Warlock/Wizard, I statted him both those ways, and both with paragon multiclassing and without and still can't really decide which way I want to play him (at 17th level) when we pick back up our secondary game in our weekly tabletop.  Anyway, I thought a productive discussion of translating concepts to 4e and exploring some of the limitations of the system, or perceptions of those limitations, could be useful and interesting.  What this thread isn't, is a means to try and play "gotcha" with the editions, where if you come up with a concept you can't do in 4e, you claim to win the internets.  I hope people choose to stay in the spirit of this thread (and hope the spirit of the thread is clear).Some guidelines to, hopefully, help keep this a productive thread (let's not start yet another silly edition war here) -*Obviously, focus should be on utilizing the cores from the various systems, not the full range of splat book love.  Although this is not a hard and fast rule, as splats often just made concepts that already existed more mechanically viable.*Some PC concepts could be tied to a particular edition or its imagining arising from that edition's flavor.  It would be worth noting if a difficult to translate concept would be equally difficult to translate backwards, in a previous edition.  *Mechanics are not concepts, especially mechanics tied to a specific edition.*Mechanical viability is not necessarily the goal.  Saying "yeah, you could that, but it would suck" isn't really relevant, as it can apply to many concepts in many editions.  Different editions will do different concepts stronger or weaker than other editions.  *Classes are not concepts.  Neither are other specifics, like feats, individual magic items, single spells, etc.  "My concept is a barbarian/fighter/whirling dervish with improved trip- do that, ha!."  That is not really the concept, the concept is about a particular style of melee combatant and would be doable, to varying degrees, in most editions, easily doable in 4e.*Flavor is a part of concept, and retooling flavor will be a big part of reimagining some concepts from edition to edition.  *Sometimes the answer, in regards to 4e, might have to be "not yet, as such".  But, concepts that aren't doable with the core rulesets exist with all the editions, and likely spring from some of the limitations mentioned above.  *As this isn't intended as some challenge to outbuild the system, discussing conversion of actual characters that saw actual gameplay would, I think, be the most useful source of discussion, rather than pouring through books trying to come up with esoteric concepts just to create challenges.</blockquote>

Verification