So far I've not had any trouble converting characters over, although that may simply be due to a lack of breadth in my source material.
The only thing I can think of offhand that's really been out of the norm was when a player of mine explained that she wanted to play a pyrokinetic- specifically a Psion with a specialization in fire. Being as Psions don't have fire-based powers, I ended up declaring that she'd effectively be a pyrokinetic, but in game mechanics terms she'd be playing a Wizard. That way she'd be able to get lots of fire-based powers and so on, but we'd manipulate the effects so that it fit her concept. Which is kind of ironic given that I recall one of the first stories about 4th edition being how a playtester wanted to play a Psion but with even the original PHB not yet out, they ended up just crossing out Wizard and writing in Psion on the sheet.
I agree that it does help a great deal to know the nuances of what each class is capable of, and knowing the relative limits of things in 4th edition in terms of power and style. But that's going to be true of just about anything.It's also one of the reasons I try to get players to stop thinking in terms of class, and instead think in terms of concept: I can help them make something far more to their liking if their description is something less like, "I want to play a Fighter" and more like, "I want to play a master swordsman who's able to exploit the slightest drop in an opponent's guard to launch a devastating attack."
Because in the first case, you end up with a guy with a sword who's likely going to end up in heavy armor. In the second you end up with a rogue whose powers consistently have a duellist theme, boosting defense and allowing a riposte every time you're attacked.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2010-10-25 05:54 am (UTC)The only thing I can think of offhand that's really been out of the norm was when a player of mine explained that she wanted to play a pyrokinetic- specifically a Psion with a specialization in fire. Being as Psions don't have fire-based powers, I ended up declaring that she'd effectively be a pyrokinetic, but in game mechanics terms she'd be playing a Wizard. That way she'd be able to get lots of fire-based powers and so on, but we'd manipulate the effects so that it fit her concept. Which is kind of ironic given that I recall one of the first stories about 4th edition being how a playtester wanted to play a Psion but with even the original PHB not yet out, they ended up just crossing out Wizard and writing in Psion on the sheet.
I agree that it does help a great deal to know the nuances of what each class is capable of, and knowing the relative limits of things in 4th edition in terms of power and style. But that's going to be true of just about anything.It's also one of the reasons I try to get players to stop thinking in terms of class, and instead think in terms of concept: I can help them make something far more to their liking if their description is something less like, "I want to play a Fighter" and more like, "I want to play a master swordsman who's able to exploit the slightest drop in an opponent's guard to launch a devastating attack."
Because in the first case, you end up with a guy with a sword who's likely going to end up in heavy armor. In the second you end up with a rogue whose powers consistently have a duellist theme, boosting defense and allowing a riposte every time you're attacked.