PDA

View Full Version : (4E) Character Architecture



Shazbot79
2009-10-10, 06:07 AM
Hello Forumites.

Longtime lurker, first time poster.

I picked up this little tidbit from the recent (now closed) "How is 3.5 Actually Better Than 4E" thread.

I'm not trying to resurrect the whole 3.5 vs. 4E debate, as the whole edition war thing has become an inane ouroboros of dead horse arguments.

That said, forum member Eldariel posted some character concepts that he/she felt could not be replicated in 4E. As a thought exercise I'd like to see if I can approximate them...

Rules I'm imposing on myself:

No houserules (that is, changing of mechanics or keywords)
No 3rd Party material
Only classes that are currently published either online or in print
All must be playable from 1st Level.



- A learned arcanist using arrows as a medium to channel his spells through (arcane gish with Smiting Spell and possibly two levels of Arcane Archer).


A Prescient Bard is an archery based Bard option, and they would most certainly count as a "learned arcanist"

If one wanted to stretch the concept out a little, the new "Seeker" class does exactly this, only with a more nature based bent. But if you're looking for one who delivers spells via a longbow, then this class certainly fits the bill.



- A psionically gifted warrior using psionics to pretend to be incredibly skilled with his weapon of choice, while really just subtly using extra-physical powers to perform tricks that would be purely physically extremely difficult. Swashbuckler-type (e.g. Psion Gish with lots of martially enhancing powers).


Since 4E did away with alignment restrictions on classes, the Monk (now a psionic class) is a close fit for this concept. The one downside is that weapon selection is a bit limited.

Simply reimagine the character as a natural talent, rather than a dedicated ascetic warrior and add a character background that grants Bluff as a class skill.



- A beastmaster fielding a real circus of exotic animals (a Druid or Druid/Beastmaster with Wild Cohort and a couple of Handle Animaled extra pets)


A Hybrid Druid/Beastmaster would work for this. The DMG2 has rules for companion characters and animals.



- A keen-eyed warrior jealously guarding the area around him with a chain, intervening with any activity he can reach (a Spiked Chain AoO build)


This one is easy. There are a number of Fighter abilities with AoE effects...and 4E Fighters are at their best when making opporunity attacks.



- A man whose very presence is so icy, so dreadful that it throws even battle-hardened warriors into panic (a Barbarian/Zhentarim Fighter Intimidate-focused build)


Charisma based class option for the 4E Barbarian fits this perfectly.



- A street urchin having fended for himself for his early years with theft and dirty fighting, who was shortly into adolescence, after being caught by law enforcement, taken in by a monastery for fostering and taught self-control and martial exercises, but who instead chose to blend his newfound martial ability with what he learned in his childhood and found what he truly was doing was rebelling against the society and civilization, and took to the wilds where he was found by a Druidic circle and eventually accepted as an acolyte of nature (Rogue/Unarmed Swordsage/Druid)


This one is a bit trickier, since I think Eldariel is referring specifically to 3.5's level-by-level multiclass system here.

However, making a character with this backstory is actually pretty simple.

One simply needs a Druid with a character background that grants access to the Theivery skill, and the Unarmed Combat Feat.

================================================== ========

Even as a fan of 4E, I can freely admit that 3.5's system of character architecture offers greater flexibility simply because of the system's granularity versus the modularity of the current edition.

Case in point, the Arcane Archer in 3.5 was an amalgam of different classes and prestige classes, that combined to make a unique and wholly playable concept. You could build unique and interesting characters in 3.5 simply by combining the features of a few different classes.

In 4E, an entirely new base class needs to be created to fit some of these, and most of the above listed concepts couldn't be at all replicated as little as 1 year ago, so I'm not arguing the superiority of one system over the other.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-10, 06:27 AM
Looking over your responses, most of them don't really fit Eldariel's descriptions, but simply give the closest match in 4E while handwaving away the parts that don't fit. That pretty much proves his point.

Raz_Fox
2009-10-10, 09:35 AM
Looking over your responses, most of them don't really fit Eldariel's descriptions, but simply give the closest match in 4E while handwaving away the parts that don't fit. That pretty much proves his point.

Um, what? The only one I could see that doesn't "fit" is the beastmaster - but that'd be a pain in either edition. They're not going to fit perfectly, but the point he's trying to make is that with only a touch of tweaking, those concepts can be approximated - his own words.

Sheesh, could you at least try to give some constructive criticism?


Since I'm no hypocrite, I'll give you some criticism of the concepts here. As I said, that beastmaster concept seems a touch weak - but then again, I don't have DMG2. How many animals could this build have?
Also, that psionic warrior is a bit weak. Perhaps multiclassing into Rogue or Fighter would improve the concept?

CorvidMP
2009-10-10, 09:47 AM
Looking over your responses, most of them don't really fit Eldariel's descriptions, but simply give the closest match in 4E while handwaving away the parts that don't fit. That pretty much proves his point.

Are you kiding me thats just a terrible argument? No things arent going to be frelling exactly the same, itsa different damn system.

But just to humor you lets look again-
Spiked Chain Fighter, and the fear based(Thane if you were wondering) barbarian are specifically represented in the rules and are both effective builds.

To the list of of possible arcane archer analogs I'd like to add the artificer class, which has a ton of attacks which can use a ranged weapon, infused with all kinds of nifty arcane effects. Then there is the paragon path from arcane power where the wizard uses a bow as an implement to channel his spells...hell there are more magic archer options in 4e than there ever were in 3.5.

The psionic guys...well the psionic rules haven't even been realeased yet so thats not even a fair challenge. Though there is going to be a psionic warrior in PHB3 and i bet there will be enough power options (well maybe not initially but certainly after the release of psionic power) based on telepathy and prescience to make it work.

The last one with the wacky half druid unarmed thing, again not really a fair request but just to be thorough-l with the hybrid rules (Warden/rogue) an unarmed combat feat (should be in PHB3), you can get a a shapeshifting unarmed guy with nature spellz sneakyness, and elemental attacks to easy.

:smallyuk:

Indon
2009-10-10, 09:48 AM
Looking over your responses, most of them don't really fit Eldariel's descriptions, but simply give the closest match in 4E while handwaving away the parts that don't fit. That pretty much proves his point.

I'm inclined to agree, but few systems are wholly able to encompass another even if one is more expansive conceptually.

I imagine I can think of a few character concepts easier to express in 4th edition than in 3rd, for instance. Hmm...

-A person whose presence and command are so potent that he pushes those about him to superhuman achievements (4E Warlord).

-A halfling standing as a stalwart and immovable bastion of protection for his homeland (Some Defender build, no doubt).

Well, I'm sure there are others, but my experience with the system isn't that great in terms of reading all the material.

Edit:

Are you kiding me thats just a terrible argument? No things arent going to be frelling exactly the same, itsa different damn system.
I disagree here, too.

Mutants and Masterminds isn't a D&D system at all (though it is D20), but it could probably express any character concept we could name in this thread.

I imagine we could compare the number of poorly-conveyed concepts between each system (3.x concepts that do poorly in 4th edition vs. 4E concepts that do poorly in 3.x) to see which would ultimately be more expansive.

Artanis
2009-10-10, 11:03 AM
I have a question: how close does the fluff have to be?

4e is a LOT bigger on refluffing things to suit the player's tastes than 3.5 was, which makes a big difference. In 4e, the default fluff is merely default, not hard-and-fast. You can refluff things to however you can describe it within the mechanics.

So how close do the mechanics have to be to the concept? Same power source? Exact same fluff as you find in the blurbs on the powers? Just close enough to BS it into looking however you want? Or what?


For instance, the second example in the OP (the swashbuckler secret gish thingy) never openly uses supernatural stuff: the only thing people see is the stabbing. So...
1) Would it be acceptable to say that, since the only thing other characters actually see is martial-type stuff, the player could use a martial character and simply describe it as doing some sort of hidden self-buff? Or...
2) Would it have to be some sort of gish-fluffed class like the Assassin or Avenger that gets refluffed into using "psionics" as its supposed power source (but using the original keywords and everything). Or...
3) Has to be a class that is explicitly a psionic swashbuckler-style gish?
Or what?

Shazbot79
2009-10-10, 12:29 PM
Looking over your responses, most of them don't really fit Eldariel's descriptions, but simply give the closest match in 4E while handwaving away the parts that don't fit. That pretty much proves his point.

I think you misunderstood my intent.

I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, I'm not trying to sway anyone over to my "cause"

All I'm doing is showing how I, personally, from my own subjective viewpoint, would represent those concepts in 4E...and in doing so, hopefully kick off a nice discussion on building characters in 4E.

Kylarra
2009-10-10, 12:40 PM
Looking over your responses, most of them don't really fit Eldariel's descriptions, but simply give the closest match in 4E while handwaving away the parts that don't fit. That pretty much proves his point.

Given this response I'm inclined to point out the same thing I pointed out in the other thread. It's astonishing how much 3.X proponents both promote disregarding the fluff for classes/PrCs when creating 3.X characters, but then cling to that exact same specific fluff when making this statement against 4e character building. I concede that there are aspects of 3.X that cannot be mechanically replicated in 4e, but conceptually, things can be made in 4e for a greater majority of concepts than many 3.x proponents give it credit for.

Heck the psionic one could just be your fluff for a melee training (stat) feat and your choice of a psionic base class (admittedly we don't have any beyond partial monk and psion atm).


That said, this doesn't seem like too bad of an idea for a thread topic, to see some ideas that people don't think would work in 4e, and try to approximate them conceptually.

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-10, 04:07 PM
It would, admittedly, help if the 'difficult concepts' weren't actually just direct call-outs to existing specific builds, and rather were actual character concepts. The painfully convaluted 'backstory' of the street urchin come ninja-druid is particularly dreadfull, frankly.

As for the beastmaster, would transforming into a beast be an important part of the mix? If not, you could probably do fine with simply going Beast Ranger. That nets you a primary companion. You could add to that further, by first taking any arcane multiclass feat, then giving him a Hawk, or weasel familiar? Even without invoking the companion rules there is still the option of buying either a mount, or mounts and travelling alongside them. Simply pick up several, they have costs and everything. Of course, if they are to be trained and acting in battle, it'd mean the DM is obliged to increase the points-value of encounters accordingly, but that's beside the point.

If the arcane multiclass is one that merely gives ritual training, you can even then focus on plenty of nature related rituals and so on, for added wild-man credentials.

There's always the upcoming Summoner Druid of course, too, but we'll have to see how that turns out, yet, and further still wait for updates to the hybrid system to accomodate it. (Assuming it has a class feature worth taking for this concept, rather than merely providing plenty of animal-based powers.)

Yakk
2009-10-10, 04:53 PM
A street urchin having fended for himself for his early years with theft and dirty fighting, who was shortly into adolescence, after being caught by law enforcement, taken in by a monastery for fostering and taught self-control and martial exercises, but who instead chose to blend his newfound martial ability with what he learned in his childhood and found what he truly was doing was rebelling against the society and civilization, and took to the wilds where he was found by a Druidic circle and eventually accepted as an acolyte of nature (Rogue/Unarmed Swordsage/Druid)
Backgrounds: Criminal, Orphan, Urban, Monastary, Forest
Class: Hybrid Monk/Druid, possibly with multiclass Rogue (Wis/Dex attribute split)

Viable character at level 1 that matches the above backstory? Check!

Might be quite fun -- you'd be able to fight as a beast, as a human monk, ranged nature spells, etc.

Note that hybrid rules for Monks aren't out yet (neither is the full class). It wouldn't be hard to houserule a Hybrid Rogue/Druid with an unarmed (human-form) "ki" attack that emulates a dagger, or (as noted) just take an unarmed combat feat and leave the monk/rogue parts as background/flavour.

oxybe
2009-10-10, 05:16 PM
for the summoner/beastmaster thing


beastmaster ranger|wizard w/shaman multiclass

ranger pet, wizard familiar, shaman spirit, wizard has a few summon-type spells you can reflavor and even the shaman has at least one summon you can make use of (wizard: flaming sphere = fire elemental, icy grasp = ice paraelemental, mordenkeinen's sword = hawk, shaman: Great Bear Guardian).

a bow ranger with high dex & int would be required and both classes use wisdom as a secondary so an elf with the stats of:

str 8
con 12
dex 16 (14+2 racial)
int 16
wis 16 (14+2 racial)
cha 11

could very much do it. the biggest problem would be the Multiple ability dependancy it suffers from. alternatively, if you want to mix it up with the pets, a TWF style deva ranger with these stats could work well enough.

str 16
con 12
dex 11
int 16 (14+2 racial)
wis 16 (14+2 racial)
cha 8

the Wizard of the Spiral Tower PP will let you use your longsword for a wizard implement. still pretty MAD & costly on items and a bit on feats.

not optimal, but possible.

Indon
2009-10-10, 07:21 PM
Okay, in the interest of fun, I'm going to name a character concept I've used for 3.x and we'll see what 4E class they turn into.

-A listless, unfocused savant who pursues whatever skillset he finds interesting at the moment, skilled in thievery (he describes himself as a 'security consultant') ranged weapons, and magical artifacts such as wands (of which he keeps a collection), he acts as a guide for his compatriots in and out of the wilderness, but stays well behind them if combat breaks out.

In 3.x, he was a Rogue/Ranger/Scout (the party skill-user) who would contribute in combat with UMD use or archery in conjunction with sneak attack and skirmish (Judicious wand use made him surprisingly effective).

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-10, 07:35 PM
Okay, in the interest of fun, I'm going to name a character concept I've used for 3.x and we'll see what 4E class they turn into.

-A listless, unfocused savant who pursues whatever skillset he finds interesting at the moment, skilled in thievery (he describes himself as a 'security consultant') ranged weapons, and magical artifacts such as wands (of which he keeps a collection), he acts as a guide for his compatriots in and out of the wilderness, but stays well behind them if combat breaks out.

In 3.x, he was a Rogue/Ranger/Scout (the party skill-user) who would contribute in combat with UMD use or archery in conjunction with sneak attack and skirmish (Judicious wand use made him surprisingly effective).

I've not even read the class entry in my phb2 properly and can say comfortably that Bard would make this so easy you wouldn't believe. Pick the right type of bard, splash on all the multiclass feats you fancy (picking up not only any skill that catches your eye but a neat collection of free tricks to boot), and if entirely necessary play down the musical side of things.

Dixieboy
2009-10-10, 07:39 PM
-A listless, unfocused savant who pursues whatever skillset he finds interesting at the moment, skilled in thievery (he describes himself as a 'security consultant') ranged weapons, and magical artifacts such as wands (of which he keeps a collection), he acts as a guide for his compatriots in and out of the wilderness, but stays well behind them if combat breaks out.
An half elven rogue who used his dilletante ability to get something from the wizard list so he can use wands.

I think that's how the rules work. :smallredface:

Arbitrarity
2009-10-10, 07:40 PM
Factotum :smallbiggrin:

Wait no, that's a 4e Artificer MC ranger, I guess. Variety of skills, including theivery, nature, perception, arcana, etc.
Uses bows mostly for weapon powers, and a variety of magical "items", in the form of powers. Squishy, stays in the back.

I was also going to say bard, actually, but I think Artificer circumvents the musical fluff better, while being fairly similar.

Indon
2009-10-10, 07:42 PM
I've not even read the class entry in my phb2 properly and can say comfortably that Bard would make this so easy you wouldn't believe. Pick the right type of bard, splash on all the multiclass feats you fancy (picking up not only any skill that catches your eye but a neat collection of free tricks to boot), and if entirely necessary play down the musical side of things.

I thought the Bard was a leader, all about inspiring and such? Does the Bard really have such power diversity that you can 'play down' that aspect? 'Cause this guy, he's not the most inspirational sort.

Edit: Ooh, artificer with a splash of ranger sounds pretty nice. Just take all the powers which involve tooling around with stuff and use a bow for everything else.

Edit: I could do it with a Rogue, too? Man.

Arbitrarity
2009-10-10, 07:53 PM
Hm. You could reflavor most bard powers as wand/spell powers, like Majestic word as a wand effect.

Other than that, let's look at the bard's at wills. Jinx Shot, shoot someone with an arrow, if they miss an attack, they fall down. Not inspiring at all, really.
Cutting words, damage and pull. Not so much, it at least requires charisma. Is an implement power, so some potential wand option.
Guiding strike, hit enemy, they become vulnerable to attack for a turn.
Misdirected mark, makes the enemy pay attention to another member of your party (generally).
Vicious mockery, scorn them so hard they take damage and a penalty to attacks.
War song strike, attack, next ally to hit the enemy gets some temporary health.

I think a human bard could get away with Misdirected Mark, Jinx Shot, and guiding strike (which is melee, but Jinx shot should cover ranged attacks), and none of those are overtly magical.
Rhyme of the Bloodseeking Blade, a very potent encounter power, basically consists of shooting the enemy with an arrow, giving an ally just enough of an opening to hit them. Most levels have a power similar to this.

Yeah, with Arcane Power, bards have a good variety of powers. Even the highest level, most overtly magical, contain stuff like "arrow of destiny", whenever an ally hits, you can make their attack a crit, or Saga of Foretold Doom, whenever the target is hit, their next attack is considerably weaker.

I'm not sure about the rogue option, myself. It's "use" of a wand would be completely superficial, unless you were particularly heavily invested in multiclassing. It is the only core-only option presented so far, though.

horseboy
2009-10-10, 07:58 PM
It would, admittedly, help if the 'difficult concepts' weren't actually just direct call-outs to existing specific builds, and rather were actual character concepts. The painfully convaluted 'backstory' of the street urchin come ninja-druid is particularly dreadfull, frankly.
+1 this. When I think of concepts I tend to think of things like "Soldier." In 3.x trying to play a mechanically good "soldier" means you can't play a fighter, as all the skills a soldier would have would be cross classed. 4th is slightly better in something like that in that a lot of those skills don't exist anymore, though it's still weak to the level of detail I prefer.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-10, 08:00 PM
-A person whose presence and command are so potent that he pushes those about him to superhuman achievements (4E Warlord).
The warlord is one of the better inventions of 4E, and a class that I'm frankly surprised hasn't come up in earlier editions. I suppose the closest matches are the bard, and something involving White Raven Tactics, although neither is really a fit.


Given this response I'm inclined to point out the same thing I pointed out in the other thread. It's astonishing how much 3.X proponents both promote disregarding the fluff for classes/PrCs when creating 3.X characters, but then cling to that exact same specific fluff when making this statement against 4e character building.
The problem is not that people can refluff things as they want; the problem is that the fluff is contradicted by the crunch. A common example is sneak attack: it's easy to fluff as "stabbing someone in the vitals". However, this is contradicted by the crunch: it also works on creatures that don't have vitals. Plenty more examples where that came from; there are numerous abilities that are hard or impossible to fluff in a manner that is consistent with what the abilities actually do, rules-wise.

Arbitrarity
2009-10-10, 08:08 PM
Marshal as well, but they kinda fail.

Indon
2009-10-10, 08:13 PM
Marshal as well, but they kinda fail.

Oh, yeah, actually, Marshal about nails the flavor of the Warlord, since the 'auras' are the Warlord's inspirational/command presence.

Huh.

Nonetheless, my non-dwarven defender example remains as something 4E does better!

Kylarra
2009-10-10, 08:30 PM
The problem is not that people can refluff things as they want; the problem is that the fluff is contradicted by the crunch. A common example is sneak attack: it's easy to fluff as "stabbing someone in the vitals". However, this is contradicted by the crunch: it also works on creatures that don't have vitals. Plenty more examples where that came from; there are numerous abilities that are hard or impossible to fluff in a manner that is consistent with what the abilities actually do, rules-wise.I'm not generalizing about all of 4e, and I've honestly read enough of your issues with various powers to know that I probably would fail to convince you successfully of anything along those lines, my statement was purely along the lines of character concepts.

Shazbot79
2009-10-10, 11:03 PM
I thought the Bard was a leader, all about inspiring and such? Does the Bard really have such power diversity that you can 'play down' that aspect? 'Cause this guy, he's not the most inspirational sort.

Edit: Ooh, artificer with a splash of ranger sounds pretty nice. Just take all the powers which involve tooling around with stuff and use a bow for everything else.

Edit: I could do it with a Rogue, too? Man.

The Bard is a leader class, but they differ in that most of their abilities involve debuffing enemies rather than buffing allies. Plus the Virtue of Presience class feature makes them pretty effective with a bow.

Plus Half-Elf Bards who focus on multiclassing can pretty much do anything.

Artificer would also be a good choice, particularly the spells that bolster weapons. What's more, they have Thievery as a class skill (and even if they didn't, backgrounds make it easy to pick up skills that aren't on your class list.) So that helps support the idea of a lockpicker/trapspringer that doesn't see themselves as a "Rogue"

Taking a Ranger MC feat will help round out the concept, as it will grant your character training in Nature, and a once per encounter use of Hunter's Quarry, increasing the efficacy of your ranged attacks.

All of this is playable at level 1, but if you want to further the whole skill monkey approach, then at subsequent levels you can take Skill Training feats.

Shazbot79
2009-10-10, 11:15 PM
The problem is not that people can refluff things as they want; the problem is that the fluff is contradicted by the crunch. A common example is sneak attack: it's easy to fluff as "stabbing someone in the vitals". However, this is contradicted by the crunch: it also works on creatures that don't have vitals. Plenty more examples where that came from; there are numerous abilities that are hard or impossible to fluff in a manner that is consistent with what the abilities actually do, rules-wise.

This is something I struggle with as well. The idea that you can sneak attack an ooze, or knock it prone kind of ruffles my feathers.

Then again, if you divorce the actual fluff from the crunch you get a view of what sneak attack and knocking prone actually does to a target.

All sneak attack really is, is a circumstantial extra damage mechanic.

Knocking something prone forces it to spend a move action to return to a defensible position.

So one could easily say that a Rogue plunges his dagger into an ooze's translucent and barely perceptible nucleus.

Or the Fighter swats the ooze so hard that it has to spend a move action reforming itself.

While I find verisimiltude to be an important aspect of roleplaying, in the longrun it takes a backseat to playability in my book. I never liked the fact that many higher level monsters negated the Rogue's combat efficacy...so if I have to do some reimagining in order to make it work, it's an effort I'm willing to make.

CorvidMP
2009-10-11, 07:27 AM
I recently had a conversation with a buddy of mine about this whole kind of thing.

He was confused about the new two weapon fighting feats and how they would work if he made a rogue. This freind never reads the rules and allways rellies on me to explain shyte... usually during game in the middle of the damn fight, if i hadn't known him for twenty years, wasn't basically his only survivng family at this point, and hadn't served with him in iraq...I most likely would have reach across the table just started choking him by now...but i digress.

Upon explaining that no he did not get two attacks a round if he took it, and that it might be a sub optimal choice, though two weapon defense was fairly nice, he got upset that there was no way to create his two weapon rogue with a billion attacks he allways liked to play in 3.x. As i often have to when talking with him, i calmly reminded myself he's basaically family at this point, and then pointed out that the 4e rogue is about being sneaky, lightly armored, and slipping in that one lethal shot etween the ribs from behind.

If he wanted to be sneaky, lightly armored and a blur of sword blades... well they already have a class like that-the ranger, he just needed to get his head around his preconcieved notion that rangering involved hugging trees and talking to animals, take dungeoneering instead of nature (which is totally allowed btw if your unfamilliar with 4e), and spend a feat to train into theivery-bam- pretty much exactly what he wanted.

Naturally being himself he continued to gripe (for some reason he's really hung up on that rogue label, he refuses to play anything else) "Why don't they have a viable two weapon rogue build?". They do i said, its quite easy to make a rogue that uses two weapons the feats while not anything to oooh and ahh over are pretty good, and a ranger that is essentially a thief is to easy (to say nothing of multiclassing, or this hybrid stuff that didn't exist at the time)....but why would WoTC waste the time writing, playtesting, and publishing something that essentially just recreates the abilities of a classs they already published? That be silly and as the guy who buys all the books you use when you play, I'd frankly be pretty damn upset at the money i'd would have to waste buying it....

Anyway i guess my point is alot of ppl have gotten a little hung up on the old rules, which is understandable, and are having a bit of trouble seeing how to represent old concepts in the new system. The ability is there mechanically in 4e, but due to unfamiliarity a lot of people are unsure of how to make it happen. (as a disclaimer I would also like to point out that this freind is a big 4e fan, so it wasn't about edition hatred, just talking about the difficulties of the transition in general).

Artanis
2009-10-11, 02:02 PM
My point exactly :smallbiggrin:

The New Bruceski
2009-10-11, 03:07 PM
Here's one. A gnome who used his warforged friend's corpse (didn't kill him) to make a warmachine he steers around from inside, blasting enemies with fire.

My own answer: Warforged Sorcerer fluffed to hell. I just wanted to share.

Chrono22
2009-10-11, 03:15 PM
A divination/illusion/enchantment specialist who uses his power over the dream world to plan and implement his schemes of world domination. He plants seeds of fear of his enemies in the general populace... he uses hypnosis to create unwitting servants and assassins. Everyone, from the lowest commoner to the greatest king are exhausted because to sleep is to enter his realm and influence.

Indon
2009-10-11, 04:04 PM
A divination/illusion/enchantment specialist who uses his power over the dream world to plan and implement his schemes of world domination. He plants seeds of fear of his enemies in the general populace... he uses hypnosis to create unwitting servants and assassins. Everyone, from the lowest commoner to the greatest king are exhausted because to sleep is to enter his realm and influence.

Nice one. I think this might even be tricky for 3E. In 4E, however, the system's really not designed to support world-domination types, so I don't think you're likely to get anywhere there.

Kylarra
2009-10-11, 04:09 PM
A divination/illusion/enchantment specialist who uses his power over the dream world to plan and implement his schemes of world domination. He plants seeds of fear of his enemies in the general populace... he uses hypnosis to create unwitting servants and assassins. Everyone, from the lowest commoner to the greatest king are exhausted because to sleep is to enter his realm and influence.
This doesn't strike me as a PC character that any sane DM would let you play in a conventional game [of D&D], and thus not really in the scope of 4e PC creation. Seems more like a BBEG, who would be easy enough to make in 4e by simply applying a crapload of penalties to everyone within a certain effective radius and then giving whatever powers you feel necessary for the actual confrontation.

Chrono22
2009-10-11, 04:17 PM
This doesn't strike me as a PC character that any sane DM would let you play in a conventional game, and thus not really in the scope of 4e PC creation. Seems more like a BBEG, who would be easy enough to make in 4e by simply applying a crapload of penalties to everyone within a certain effective radius and then giving whatever powers you feel necessary for the actual confrontation.
So, you're saying my DM wasn't sane? Your justification for waiving away this legitimate character concept is because it's "not a pc". You do realize that the stance you're taking on it is completely subjective to your own views of what a DnD game should and should not be?
If all character concepts are going to be limited to the dungeon, then of course they'll all fit into a few simple packages. But that's because the scope of play has been delineated to hack and slash, dungeon based adventuring.
In other words, 4e succeeds to fulfill character concepts only insofar as what they can achieve in combat. Because if it doesn't have a use in combat, it doesn't need statistics, amiright?

Kylarra
2009-10-11, 04:43 PM
So, you're saying my DM wasn't sane? Your justification for waiving away this legitimate character concept is because it's "not a pc". You do realize that the stance you're taking on it is completely subjective to your own views of what a DnD game should and should not be?
If all character concepts are going to be limited to the dungeon, then of course they'll all fit into a few simple packages. But that's because the scope of play has been delineated to hack and slash, dungeon based adventuring.
In other words, 4e succeeds to fulfill character concepts only insofar as what they can achieve in combat. Because if it doesn't have a use in combat, it doesn't need statistics, amiright?I am saying that in a general sense, the majority of games will not feature a [player] character who possesses unrivaled powers that they use to lay siege to a kingdom/the world. Can it be done? Sure. Is 4e the game for this? Not really from the player perspective.

I am somewhat curious how you managed to create this inside of 3.X though.

I'd also like to point out that while this suffers rather heavily from the "specific build syndrome" that is referencing a single character's build rather heavily, rather than an actual concept, 4e currently has no mechanics for waging dreamscape war or similar things, barring simply actually teleporting to a different plane and waging "conventional (insofar as 4e in concerned) encounters in a different zone, so the concept would be out of the scope of 4e, even if it were just a more mundane "someone who infiltrates dreams"/causes nightmares to weaken foes etc. As far as I can remember, none of the rituals fall within that scope.

tl;dr for the last paragraph I am agreeing with you that it can't be done in 4e.

Meek
2009-10-11, 04:47 PM
I am somewhat curious how you managed to create this inside of 3.X though.

I can think of two ways:

a) A Wizard with 9th level spells flaunting his power over a small area (say a castle and its inhabitants) in a repeated, calculated fashion without anyone nearby who can detect or stop him.

While I doubt World Domination would ensue, he can freak out and totally mess with a local area of people every day, mindscrewing, dominating, wrecking their subconscious in numerous way. He can generate a good localized panic if he hits the proper people often enough, and get himself a squad of slaves pretty easily too.

b) Epic Spells. They can do anything.

Both of these are examples you don't often see in very normal play, though.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-11, 04:52 PM
My own answer: Warforged Sorcerer fluffed to hell. I just wanted to share.
You can't fluff things to hell unless it involves tieflings :smalltongue:


This doesn't strike me as a PC character that any sane DM would let you play in a conventional game,
That seems common fare for both Mage the Ascension and Nobilis, actually. I think most DMs for those games are sane...

Kylarra
2009-10-11, 04:53 PM
That seems common fare for both Mage the Ascension and Nobilis, actually. I think most DMs for those games are sane...Sigh~ I'll go put "D&D" then?

because hell, if we start referencing other games, then we're all over the place in any given system save maybe GURPs.:smalltongue:

Chrono22
2009-10-11, 04:54 PM
I am saying that in a general sense, the majority of games will not feature a [player] character who possesses unrivaled powers that they use to lay siege to a kingdom/the world. Can it be done? Sure. Is 4e the game for this? Not really from the player perspective.

I am somewhat curious how you managed to create this inside of 3.X though.
The DM worked alongside me to accomplish the character concept. We invented a demiplane for dreams/nightmares, which is convergent with the plane of shadow and the ethereal plane.
My character was a normal wizard in most respects, except instead of gaining metamagic feats, he gained advantages when on the plane of dreams. He'd use his divination magics to locate a specific dreaming creature, travel there, and use a combination of illusions and enchantments to break the creature and bend it to his will. There were risks though... sometimes he'd get caught in another creature's nightmare, or sometimes his magic would cause his own dreams to physically manifest... and of course, the biggest danger was that he'd infiltrate a person's dreams and they turn out to be a lucid dreamer.
Basically, my character worked in tandem with another PC. My character played the villain, and the other PC played the intrepid hero that would save the kingdom from my evil. I would generate fear and mistrust to his benefit, but in the same stride I was secretly securing a place of power as his most trusted adviser.

Kylarra
2009-10-11, 04:55 PM
The DM worked alongside me to accomplish the character concept. We invented a demiplane for dreams/nightmares, which is convergent with the plane of shadow and the ethereal plane.
My character was a normal wizard in most respects, except instead of gaining metamagic feats, he gained advantages when on the plane of dreams. He'd use his divination magics to locate a specific dreaming creature, travel there, and use a combination of illusions and enchantments to break the creature and bend it to his will. There were risks though... sometimes he'd get caught in another creature's nightmare, or sometimes his magic would cause his own dreams to physically manifest... and of course, the biggest danger was that he'd infiltrate a person's dreams and they turn out to be a lucid dreamer.
Basically, my character worked in tandem with another PC. My character played the villain, and the other PC played the intrepid hero that would save the kingdom from my evil. I would generate fear and mistrust to his benefit, but in the same stride I was secretly securing a place of power as his most trusted adviser.So basically homebrew. I'm down with that. It does, noticeably, detract from the power of your point though.

oxybe
2009-10-11, 04:58 PM
So, you're saying my DM wasn't sane? Your justification for waiving away this legitimate character concept is because it's "not a pc". You do realize that the stance you're taking on it is completely subjective to your own views of what a DnD game should and should not be?
If all character concepts are going to be limited to the dungeon, then of course they'll all fit into a few simple packages. But that's because the scope of play has been delineated to hack and slash, dungeon based adventuring.
In other words, 4e succeeds to fulfill character concepts only insofar as what they can achieve in combat. Because if it doesn't have a use in combat, it doesn't need statistics, amiright?

A) conventional game: D&D in all editions assumes the players are heroes. not wanna-be-world-conquerors.

B) creation of a ritual would be needed to enter the "dream realm" (which is isn't one of the standard existing planes to my knowledge). out of core PHB/DMG.

C) i can only think of 2 spells that could do that off the top of my head: suggestion & geas/quest.

-suggestion is just a magical version of a forced diplomacy/bluff/intimidate.
-geas/quest is a more hardcore version of the latter.

creation of a ritual that keys off diplomacy/bluff to implant a suggestion or command could work. maybe skill VS will def?

Chrono22
2009-10-11, 05:02 PM
A) conventional game: D&D in all editions assumes the players are heroes. not wanna-be-world-conquerors.
Antiheroes can still be heroes. And if what you say were really true for all editions (and not just 4e), then evil player alignments and classes (looking at you, assassin and blackguard) would not exist.

Artanis
2009-10-11, 05:10 PM
The DM worked alongside me to accomplish the character concept. We invented a demiplane for dreams/nightmares, which is convergent with the plane of shadow and the ethereal plane.
My character was a normal wizard in most respects, except instead of gaining metamagic feats, he gained advantages when on the plane of dreams. He'd use his divination magics to locate a specific dreaming creature, travel there, and use a combination of illusions and enchantments to break the creature and bend it to his will. There were risks though... sometimes he'd get caught in another creature's nightmare, or sometimes his magic would cause his own dreams to physically manifest... and of course, the biggest danger was that he'd infiltrate a person's dreams and they turn out to be a lucid dreamer.
Basically, my character worked in tandem with another PC. My character played the villain, and the other PC played the intrepid hero that would save the kingdom from my evil. I would generate fear and mistrust to his benefit, but in the same stride I was secretly securing a place of power as his most trusted adviser.

Hell, if you're willing to make up that much new crunch in 3.5, I don't see what's keeping you from making up a bunch of new crunch for 4e to accomplish that.

Chrono22
2009-10-11, 05:14 PM
Hell, if you're willing to make up that much new crunch in 3.5, I don't see what's keeping you from making up a bunch of new crunch for 4e to accomplish that.
All we added was a demiplane. And it's even been referenced in a few published 3.5 books. Everything else was handled by existing class features. We even based the rules for dream control off of existing mechanics (such as the ego rules for intelligent items). All that was required to make the character concept a reality was simply adding a demiplane.
And what's restricting someone from making it in 4e is an overreliance on roles and encounter-based conflict resolution.

Shazbot79
2009-10-11, 05:21 PM
The DM worked alongside me to accomplish the character concept. We invented a demiplane for dreams/nightmares, which is convergent with the plane of shadow and the ethereal plane.
My character was a normal wizard in most respects, except instead of gaining metamagic feats, he gained advantages when on the plane of dreams. He'd use his divination magics to locate a specific dreaming creature, travel there, and use a combination of illusions and enchantments to break the creature and bend it to his will. There were risks though... sometimes he'd get caught in another creature's nightmare, or sometimes his magic would cause his own dreams to physically manifest... and of course, the biggest danger was that he'd infiltrate a person's dreams and they turn out to be a lucid dreamer.
Basically, my character worked in tandem with another PC. My character played the villain, and the other PC played the intrepid hero that would save the kingdom from my evil. I would generate fear and mistrust to his benefit, but in the same stride I was secretly securing a place of power as his most trusted adviser.

So what you're saying is that 4E can't replicate your houserules? ; p

Anyway, this sounds like something more in the vein of Ars Magica or Mage. D&D is supposed to be a team sport.

However , I will admit that the idea of a game centered around two PC's opposing eachother on a cosmic scale is actually pretty damn cool.

Maybe I've been going about running my villainous NPC's wrong...I should enlist absentee players to decide what the villains will do from week to week. That way they can participate even though they can't play at the table.

Shazbot79
2009-10-11, 05:32 PM
And what's restricting someone from making it in 4e is an overreliance on roles and encounter-based conflict resolution.

Actually, your concept sounds an awful lot like an epic level Psion.

The default flavor for the 4E Psion is that of a mystical mind magician, and things like enchantment, illusion and divination are their schtick.

Given what epic level characters are capable of, subtly exerting your will from across the planes isn't really a stretch.

Also, the demiplane of dream already exists in 4E.

Artanis
2009-10-11, 05:41 PM
All we added was a demiplane. And it's even been referenced in a few published 3.5 books. Everything else was handled by existing class features. We even based the rules for dream control off of existing mechanics (such as the ego rules for intelligent items). All that was required to make the character concept a reality was simply adding a demiplane.
And what's restricting someone from making it in 4e is an overreliance on roles and encounter-based conflict resolution.
You said you added more than a demiplane. You also homebrewed class features to replace metamagic feats and you homebrewed rules for dream control ("based on" is still homebrew). Since the character revolved around said homebrewed dream control, there's nothing stopping you from homebrewing similar dream control in 4e.

What's restricting someone from making it in 4e is the refusal to hold it to the same standards as 3.5.

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-11, 05:51 PM
Actually, as I understand your explanation, you basically homebrewed a 'plane of dreams' and added ways for your character to get there.

He then proceeds to simply mess around with the dreaming/astral forms of the people he wants to deny sleep/etc, correct?

Simple enough if so, with two tiny, tiny steps in 4e.

1; Setting now includes a 'plane of dreams'.

2; Ritual of appropriate level - Travel to/from Domain of Dreams.

Then just mess with them. Hell, if the DM doesn't set a level limit above 1, a level 1 standard wizard can do this perfectly well with his at-will cantrips, basically. Actually focusing on illusory things, or even being psionic in nature and being explicitly good at exactly this is mere icing.

Of course, an Adventuring Party would likely quite promptly be dispatched to dispatch the Level 1 would-be-bbeg, but that's beside the point! :D

Chrono22
2009-10-11, 05:52 PM
You said you added more than a demiplane. You also homebrewed class features to replace metamagic feats and you homebrewed rules for dream control ("based on" is still homebrew). Since the character revolved around said homebrewed dream control, there's nothing stopping you from homebrewing similar dream control in 4e.

What's restricting someone from making it in 4e is the refusal to hold it to the same standards as 3.5.
So are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?
4e is held to a lower standard than 3.5, because its professed emphasis is on combat and heroics. It will never be able to replicate any and every concept that exists in 3.5, simply because it was made to do less.
It really blows my mind, that people constantly reference the "rule of cool" to excuse the 4e power system, but then blanche at the idea of playing a character whose primary focus isn't combat. Or, he's a villain so you can't play him. What really limits 4e is the narrow minded approach to adventure that it aspires to.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-11, 06:06 PM
The default flavor for the 4E Psion is that of a mystical mind magician, and things like enchantment, illusion and divination are their schtick.

Given what epic level characters are capable of, subtly exerting your will from across the planes isn't really a stretch.
Given that even epic-level characters are generally incapable of affecting something fifty yards away, exerting anything across the planes is a stretch of several orders of magnitude. Also, the psion's abilities with illusion and divination exist in fluff only, and are not reflected by the relevant crunch. So no, I don't believe this concept works in 4E at all (but for that matter I don't think it particularly feasible in 3E either).


What really limits 4e is the narrow minded approach to adventure that it aspires to.
Yes. 4E doesn't work on the Rule of Cool, it works on the Rule of Balance. In Paranoia and Exalted (among others) you can do pretty much everything as long as it's cool; in 4E you can do cool things only when they are balanced.

Kylarra
2009-10-11, 06:12 PM
Well it's not impossible with minor homebrew. Building off what tiki snakes said

Ritual: To/From Dreamscape
Ritual: Locate Dreamer
Ritual: Enter Dream

Each dream would be the equivalent of a random encounter that you'd need to overcome using your various attack powers, equivalent to giving them nightmares etc if you won.

The scale of this is rather implausible for a single person, but it's not an impossible concept to run.

Chrono22
2009-10-11, 06:18 PM
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8563/squarepegroundhole210x3.jpg

Meek
2009-10-11, 06:21 PM
Each dream would be the equivalent of a random encounter that you'd need to overcome using your various attack powers, equivalent to giving them nightmares etc if you won.

Some Rituals incorporate having to win a Skill Challenge to get the ritual's use, so it could just as easily be that as well. Roll Arcana, Diplomacy, etc, whatever, influence the dream that way.

Kylarra
2009-10-11, 06:23 PM
Some Rituals incorporate having to win a Skill Challenge to get the ritual's use, so it could just as easily be that as well. Roll Arcana, Diplomacy, etc, whatever, influence the dream that way.I'd really rather avoid using borked skill challenges, but yes, we could theoretically weave doom that way too.

Meek
2009-10-11, 06:26 PM
Well, I just find that a bit less ridiculous than blasting dreams with fireball. Albeit the mental image is rather priceless. It doesn't even really have to be a skill challenge. It could just as well be the ritual allowing you to elect to roll a certain skill check, and by your degree of success there, influence the dream in certain ways. Diplomacy – people wake up a bit more agreeable to you. Intimidate – people wake up frightened to hell and back. So on. I don't know.

Kylarra
2009-10-11, 06:27 PM
Well, I just find that a bit less ridiculous that blasting dreams with fireball. Albeit the mental image is rather priceless. It doesn't even really have to be a skill challenge. It could just as well be the ritual allowing you to elect to roll a certain skill check, and by your degree of success there, influence the dream in certain ways. Diplomacy – people wake up a bit more agreeable to you. Intimidate – people wake up frightened to hell and back. So on. I don't know.I dunno, blasting their dream self to bits could be the equivalent of scaring people with nightmares (of their death), but yeah, I see what you're saying.

Artanis
2009-10-11, 07:36 PM
So are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?
4e is held to a lower standard than 3.5, because its professed emphasis is on combat and heroics. It will never be able to replicate any and every concept that exists in 3.5, simply because it was made to do less.
It really blows my mind, that people constantly reference the "rule of cool" to excuse the 4e power system, but then blanche at the idea of playing a character whose primary focus isn't combat. Or, he's a villain so you can't play him. What really limits 4e is the narrow minded approach to adventure that it aspires to.

I was pointing out that your "3.5" character was homebrewed, making it a completely invalid example of something that 3.5 can do but 4e can't.

As far as I've seen, 4e is usually held to a higher standard in discussions like this. People refluff and homebrew to whatever degree they want to get the character they want in 3.5, but they insist that you stick strictly to RAW when trying to make the same concept in 4e. Your own example of the dream-wizard is one such exercise: you insist that you can make a character in 3.5 but not 4e, but refuse to give 4e the same right to homebrew that you used in the 3.5 version.


I've rarely, if ever, seen people blanche at making a character that isn't focused around combat. Blanche at making an entire class worthless in combat, yes, but not a character. In fact, most people I have seen have defended 4e's ability to make a character that had high non-combat utility. This is another area where 4e is held to a higher standard, and is deemed unacceptable because it fails to do things that 3.5 failed at as well.

Shadow_Elf
2009-10-11, 08:10 PM
So, you're saying my DM wasn't sane? Your justification for waiving away this legitimate character concept is because it's "not a pc". You do realize that the stance you're taking on it is completely subjective to your own views of what a DnD game should and should not be?
If all character concepts are going to be limited to the dungeon, then of course they'll all fit into a few simple packages. But that's because the scope of play has been delineated to hack and slash, dungeon based adventuring.
In other words, 4e succeeds to fulfill character concepts only insofar as what they can achieve in combat. Because if it doesn't have a use in combat, it doesn't need statistics, amiright?

4e is above all else, a team game. The character concept you outlined is not a team player at all - I agree that, even in 3.5e, I would prefer to see him/her as a BBEG.

However, you can try. Here I go!
Half-elf Prescient Bard, multiclassed and dilletanted into Wizard and picking up some Illusion Spells, like Illusory Ambush, Illusory Wall, True Seeing, etc.
Pick up some rituals such as Scrying, Observe Creature, Mage's Sight etc., and grab Sleep from Wizard for the whole "do things in your dreams" bit. It should act as a fair approximation, all told.

EDIT: Grab Planar Portal or a homebrewed "Dream Portal" to reach the echo plane of dreams and use exclusively powers that target Will. Enjoy.

Indon
2009-10-11, 08:20 PM
All we added was a demiplane. And it's even been referenced in a few published 3.5 books. Everything else was handled by existing class features. We even based the rules for dream control off of existing mechanics (such as the ego rules for intelligent items). All that was required to make the character concept a reality was simply adding a demiplane.

More notably, reflavored use of scrying in conjunction with spells would have accomplished much the same thing. You wouldn't actually need to houserule that character's use of powers, that demiplane is more about flavor than necessity.



As far as I've seen, 4e is usually held to a higher standard in discussions like this.
I daresay, that's probably a result of the game supposedly being designed so that it doesn't need to be houseruled in order to work.

Instead, it just changed what needs to be houseruled - rather than the DM applying fiat to keep the game balanced, he applies fiat to make the game immersive (I'll not say 'interesting', though I assure you some people are thinking it).

oxybe
2009-10-11, 08:28 PM
i thought using fiat to keep the game immersive was the GM's job since day 1?

immersion is impossible on rules alone, it requires both active participation of GM and the Players.

horseboy
2009-10-11, 09:56 PM
4e is held to a lower standard than 3.5, because its professed emphasis is on combat and heroics. It will never be able to replicate any and every concept that exists in 3.5, simply because it was made to do less.
It really blows my mind, that people constantly reference the "rule of cool" to excuse the 4e power system, but then blanche at the idea of playing a character whose primary focus isn't combat. Or, he's a villain so you can't play him. What really limits 4e is the narrow minded approach to adventure that it aspires to.

Because it's D&D, the game of killing things and taking their stuff. It's not like you could do something like a sociologist well in either edition.

jseah
2009-10-12, 12:08 AM
I am somewhat curious how you managed to create this inside of 3.X though.
There's a Plane of Dreams sitting around in a splat book somewhere in 3.5. I know because I had an expert COer apply to my game with a Planar Shepherd requesting to have Plane of Dreams as his home plane.
Just got to find it somewhere.
- Also Dream Travel exists as a Psionic Power.

Spells:
Planeshift (to get there)
Dream / Nightmare (if you don't have planeshift)
Most of the Divination spells (to find your targets for Nightmare)
Mind Control spells (Dominate, Charm)

Nightmare has the added advantage of fatiguing the affected character.

Kylarra
2009-10-12, 12:16 AM
There's a Plane of Dreams sitting around in a splat book somewhere in 3.5. I know because I had an expert COer apply to my game with a Planar Shepherd requesting to have Plane of Dreams as his home plane.
Just got to find it somewhere.
- Also Dream Travel exists as a Psionic Power.

Spells:
Planeshift (to get there)
Dream / Nightmare (if you don't have planeshift)
Most of the Divination spells (to find your targets for Nightmare)
Mind Control spells (Dominate, Charm)

Nightmare has the added advantage of fatiguing the affected character.Huh, live and learn I guess. So many splatbooks to memorize, CO people have my kudos.

It's not quite on the scale of the proposed character concept, but it's good stuff to know.

Shazbot79
2009-10-12, 02:32 AM
EDIT: Grab Planar Portal or a homebrewed "Dream Portal" to reach the echo plane of dreams and use exclusively powers that target Will. Enjoy.

You wouldn't even need to go that far.

Once you find a way to enter someone's dream you could simply interact with them via social skills (diplomacy, bluff, intimidate) until they were your unwitting puppet.

No need to even break out the combat mechanics.

While I'm not a big fan of the implementation of skills challenges, I must admit that this would make for a very interesting one...pulling one's deepest shames, desires, fears out and exploiting them to gain a mental advantage in the waking world.

I hope Chrono22 realizes how many good ideas he's giving me for my 4E game. I think his dream mage is going to become my latest BBEG : )

Chrono22
2009-10-12, 05:33 AM
I hope Chrono22 realizes how many good ideas he's giving me for my 4E game. I think his dream mage is going to become my latest BBEG : )
Well, then I suppose I could tell you some of the finer points of the campaign.
It began with a mass prophecy (via dreamcast) that an evil influence was going to kill the king. The dreams varied from individual to individual, but usually they resolved with the King being killed by some dark/insidious presence.
As a result of these mysterious and dark dreams, rumors began to circulate about an assassination attempt. The King came under constant protection by his royal guard. Unfortunately for him, I'd implanted a suggestion into the mind of his most loyal of servants, who promptly forgot about his orders after awaking.
During a proclamation, in front of thousands, the king was stabbed to death by his most trusted and loyal servant. In the few seconds of shocked silence that proceeded, the guard cried out, "Long live the King of Nightmares!".

After the funeral, the rest of the royal guard was tried for treason, and there was a mad shuffle as various nobility vied for influence in the wake of the King. A bounty went out for this mysterious Dreamwalker (as he came to be known). My character, and my fighter party member decided to take up the quest against this fearsome foe for glory and wealth.

The events that proceeded were simply acts that allowed me to position myself closer to the seats of power. Using my influence over the masses, and some pointwork on members of the council, I convinced the public, my ally PC, and an inquisition that the heir to the throne was responsible for his father's death.

My fighter party member was no noble, but in reward for his actions against the evil prince, was proclaimed king. I remained by his side to protect the realm from the machinations of the King of Nightmares.

Reinboom
2009-10-12, 06:06 AM
I would like to chime in and note that, if homebrew is to be brought in to such a conversation such as this, that it should be noted that homebrewing for 3.5 is vastly more easy than homebrewing for 4E, even before getting to balancing (which 3.5 is a lot more lax on).
A subargument could be made, referencing the Sandman/Dream/Morpheus idea (you know it true), that 3.5E more quickly accepts the character concept for ease of malleability, and that doing such a concept in 4E requires a lot more work that a player and/or DM just might not have.

Of course, that would still be supporting that, yes, you can homebrew both systems.



Currently, I do not believe that a character concept can be transferred wholesale without homebrew. About a year ago, one of my DM's decided to convert the current 3.5 campaign, for his convenience, in to 4E.
My 3.5 Character: Erinyes, Marshal/Paladin (not lawful good, that bit of fluff mechanic was homebrewed out).

Now, my character was homebrewed further than that. LA was adjusted, as well as abilities (no greater teleport), to make it work. However, it is to be noted that 3.5E did support a nonhomebrewed fallen warrior angel wholesale.

Many of these more 'odd' character designs are difficult to recreate. The existence of my character caused the resulting 4E transfer to become... massively homebrewed. Both by race, and by class (which has been a slow process, still not complete).

Meek
2009-10-12, 06:11 AM
Funny, I find homebrewing for 4e far easier than for 3.5. It didn't take me all that long to get used to the format and nowadays I'm rather more prolific than I used to be for 3e.

Reinboom
2009-10-12, 07:02 AM
Funny, I find homebrewing for 4e far easier than for 3.5. It didn't take me all that long to get used to the format and nowadays I'm rather more prolific than I used to be for 3e.

For individual character options (powers, feats, etc.), it is seemingly much easier.
Feats don't have as much competition, and there are more options available to every class thus there is built in room to put in for any one given class, plus a more built in comparison to balance these from.

Designing and balancing an entire unique class, however, proves much more difficult. For me, it's been a strain on the creative side.

In 3.5, you didn't have to stick to a format. You could just make your class work, and then double check to make sure you didn't break anything and that it stays interesting at each level.

hamishspence
2009-10-12, 07:08 AM
It's in Manual of the Planes (3.0 but updated to 3.5 at WOTC online site)

Also, if Dal Quor counts as 3.5 Plane of Dreams, its in Eberron Campaign Setting book.

Meek
2009-10-12, 08:10 AM
Designing and balancing an entire unique class, however, proves much more difficult. For me, it's been a strain on the creative side.

I agree. But designing an entire homebrew class for 4e is rather pointless.

You can more than likely fit the concept within an existing class, and all you have to do is write powers and a swap class feature for that class. WOTC themselves do it all the time.

Before the Barbarian came out, we got Rageblood Vigor for the Fighter that encapsulates that "being angry makes me tough" moveset the Barbarian would later turn into "being angry makes me channel the primal fury of increasingly more ridiculous creatures."

We got an entire article in DDI about powers to make a bunch of arcane and divine classes necromantically-capable, without making up a whole new necromancer class. We also got a few necromancy rituals.

Artanis
2009-10-12, 11:19 AM
Before the Barbarian came out, we got Rageblood Vigor for the Fighter that encapsulates that "being angry makes me tough" moveset the Barbarian would later turn into "being angry makes me channel the primal fury of increasingly more ridiculous creatures."

The Monk also comes to mind. The Monk wasn't in the initial PHB, meaning people wouldn't be able to update their 3.5 characters to 4e. However, WotC came out with a stopgap solution: start with a TWF Ranger, swap a couple class features, refluff the powers, and voila! You have a Monk.

Granted, it worked about as well as you'd expect from a stopgap, but it illustrates the sort of thing that 4e accepts and is capable of: the only limit to what concept you can make is how thoroughly you're willing to refluff stuff.

Indon
2009-10-12, 11:40 AM
I agree. But designing an entire homebrew class for 4e is rather pointless.

You can more than likely fit the concept within an existing class, and all you have to do is write powers and a swap class feature for that class. WOTC themselves do it all the time.

I disagree.

Sure, you can stretch fluff out for 4E, but that doesn't mean you might not want mechanics that fit that fluff less generically.

The problem is that unless you're willing to put the game's delicate mechanical balance at risk (which is pretty much 4E's selling point), you can't afford to be very mechanically creative.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-12, 12:11 PM
Granted, it worked about as well as you'd expect from a stopgap, but it illustrates the sort of thing that 4e accepts and is capable of: the only limit to what concept you can make is how thoroughly you're willing to refluff stuff.
Or rather, the only limit is how thoroughly you're willing to ignore that the rules don't actually match your fluff. Whenever your fluff says you're really good at X but unable to do Y, the crunch will translate that into getting a small bonus to X and a small penalty to Y. That's balanced, but it's not your character concept. The system accepts and is capable of any ability you can imagine, as long as you either don't actually use it in-game, or you translate that ability to "<stat> vs <defense>: standard amount of damage plus <condition> until end of turn".

Meek
2009-10-12, 12:22 PM
Sure, you can stretch fluff out for 4E, but that doesn't mean you might not want mechanics that fit that fluff less generically.

I've no love for having a subsystem tag along in every class, but if you find that necessary to be "less generic" or more "mechanically creative" then yes, I suppose you're right. I'm frankly quite happy with the level of variance among 4e classes right now, even when the changes don't entirely suit my taste (the Psion went a touch far for me). I find things like the Warden's "power within a power" to be pretty mechanically creative.

But I'll concede the point since I don't want to argue more.