|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 3:50AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Since we only have a fraction of the classes and races that existed in the past, I'm not sure what the relevance of this question is yet.'
How about - How well can you make your favorite dwarf/elf/halfling/human fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard/monk single-classed character? - since that is the only comparison with any relevance.
And on that basis, it rates quite well (better than 4E, for example) because most of my favorite characters are all from prior editions (and my favorites from 4E required race and/or class combinations not yet in the game) and the class mechanics are closer to those of that edition. For that matter - it actually does better on a few of them than 3rd edition did. In at least one case it probably lets me get closer to what I wanted the character to be than any prior edition did.
The greatest missing piece is, of course, multiclassing since the vast majority of my AD&D non-human characters were multiclassed.
But this does seem like an interesting challenge. I might start working though my old characters (I still have many of them from my AD&D1st days somewhere) and making D&D next characters for them. I'll need a bunch of premade characters for DMing the upcoming Encounters season anyway....
Carl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 4:00AM
#42
|
|
|
How well does 5e let you emulate or reimagine old favorites? Can you do it at low levels or only higher levels? Does the addition of background help create any characters?
Not particularly well. The race in mind is not an option currently. The class, feat, and ability choices can only barely fit the concept, and they're largely trap options. I'd start to see the meat of the character come into play at about 9th level, due to the requirements of some of the feats. The overall feel of the character would be off by quite a bit. I've tried making this character in 3.5e, 4e, and Next, and I haven't come particularly close with any of these editions. I'll likely draw a picture of her after the next packet comes out and start a "stat me" thread with the character drawing. I may just not be creative enough to stat the character properly.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 4:13AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2010
|
Bring back my favorite character to 5e. Just a few problems.
1. No paladin
2. No regeration.
3. No big shield.
Maybe one day I can recreate my awesome paladin tank.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 4:17AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
|
Bring back my favorite character to 5e. Just a few problems.
1. No paladin
2. No regeration.
3. No big shield.
Maybe one day I can recreate my awesome paladin tank.
Yeah, where IS regeneraion? I hope my (hopefully eventual) Next werewolf/shifter or naturey tank has access to it.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 4:21AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Bring back my favorite character to 5e. Just a few problems.
1. No paladin
2. No regeration.
3. No big shield.
Maybe one day I can recreate my awesome paladin tank.
Yeah, where IS regeneraion? I hope my (hopefully eventual) Next werewolf/shifter or naturey tank has access to it.
Well - the ring of regeneration exists. And Trolls and Vampires have regeneration. Whether or not it becomes a spell or class feature will depend on how they see it fitting into the mechanics of the game.
Carl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 4:40AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
My favorite 4E character is a warforged fighter/cleric hybrid, discounting no multiclass rules or warforged race, I can't even replicate the character as a straight fighter. I would have a much better chance implementing the cleric aspect.
As to character from previous editions, my favorites were a ranger/wizard dual class with psionics via AD&D. I realize that is impossible to implement at the moment. My second was an Illusionist, but I doubt the level of power could be reached with the current rules. That is fine, as wizards could be pretty powerful back in the day.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 7:01AM
#47
|
|
|
How about - How well can you make your favorite dwarf/elf/halfling/human fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard/monk single-classed character? - since that is the only comparison with any relevance.
There are limits to the length of Topics' names.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 7:15AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
If I could make Celeste Nazario in next I would believe!
She is a paladin rogue. Think: a religious Zorro serving Ilmater in the shadows of the city streets. DEX and CHA based swashbuckler.
Unless the character concept relies on specific paladin mechanics (which from your description it doesn't), you could make this is Next.
Go with Rogue and take a scheme that fits best with swashbuckler. Take the Priest background and the Mystical Healer specialty.
Cool. Thanks for the input, she s so much fun to play.
Anytime. As Tildarus said, "The essence of my characters are not formed in mechanics but in the spirit of who they are." I've never viewed my characters as a collection of mechanics, but as a collection of traits (background, fighting style, etc). Getting past the mechanics and being flexible with reflavoring if needed can allow you to convert many characters, even with the very limited options available right now.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 8:22AM
#49
|
|
|
If I could make Celeste Nazario in next I would believe!
She is a paladin rogue. Think: a religious Zorro serving Ilmater in the shadows of the city streets. DEX and CHA based swashbuckler.
Unless the character concept relies on specific paladin mechanics (which from your description it doesn't), you could make this is Next.
Go with Rogue and take a scheme that fits best with swashbuckler. Take the Priest background and the Mystical Healer specialty.
Cool. Thanks for the input, she s so much fun to play.
Anytime. As Tildarus said, "The essence of my characters are not formed in mechanics but in the spirit of who they are." I've never viewed my characters as a collection of mechanics, but as a collection of traits (background, fighting style, etc). Getting past the mechanics and being flexible with reflavoring if needed can allow you to convert many characters, even with the very limited options available right now.
While for me that is true. I know some people that have special fortune decks for each of their characters and consider that to be a part of their character. I don't begrudge someone that thinks mechanics are that important even though I don't feel the same way.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 8:31AM
#50
|
|
|
If I could make Celeste Nazario in next I would believe!
She is a paladin rogue. Think: a religious Zorro serving Ilmater in the shadows of the city streets. DEX and CHA based swashbuckler.
Unless the character concept relies on specific paladin mechanics (which from your description it doesn't), you could make this is Next.
Go with Rogue and take a scheme that fits best with swashbuckler. Take the Priest background and the Mystical Healer specialty.
Cool. Thanks for the input, she s so much fun to play.
Anytime. As Tildarus said, "The essence of my characters are not formed in mechanics but in the spirit of who they are." I've never viewed my characters as a collection of mechanics, but as a collection of traits (background, fighting style, etc). Getting past the mechanics and being flexible with reflavoring if needed can allow you to convert many characters, even with the very limited options available right now.
While for me that is true. I know some people that have special fortune decks for each of their characters and consider that to be a part of their character. I don't begrudge someone that thinks mechanics are that important even though I don't feel the same way.
For me I try to have the RP and the mechanics of the PC flow seemlessly into eachother.
I can always reflavor human to orc, half elf, or some other race. I can usually reflavor class A to class B. So for basic "fantasy" character's remaking them in 5e is more a matter of roleplay than mechanics.
The issue is my favorite PCs are roleplay entwined with mechanics. I can't create Ashkelon the Red Dragon trapped in a humans body if I do not have some means of representing his high physical toughness despite going unarmored, his at-will abilties to produce great blasts of flame, melee attacks that can deal fire damage, and hands that strike like massive claws. These are mechanics that are as much part of his identity as his personality.
Likewise I also cannot create Rael the Human soldier who had a Storm Elemental bound to him without the ability to control weather, channel electricity through his weapons, fly around the battlefield, and move as fast as lightning to jump in harms way and protect the weak.
|
|
|
