In another thread (that shall not be mentioned), there has been a lively discussion of whether one can have a bow-wielding fighter in 4e. That got me to thinking about creative ways one can manipulate the existing classes to create a variety of character concepts. I thought I'd start this thread asking people how they may have tweaked a class or flavor of a class to create something truly unique as far as a character concept.
To start it off, I'll share how I created a bard before the PHBII came out. In 3e, one of my players had a bard that was quite handy with the bow. In 4e, we used the Ranger class, but tweaked it. Instead of using the martial power source, she used the arcane power source, and we changed all the powers to be Charisma based instead of Dexterity. We then said she sang certain notes to direct her arrows. Add a feat of Ritual Casting with a spice of knowledge-based skills, and we had something like a bard.
Of course, now there is a bow-wielding bard in Arcane Power so the creative build is unnecessary, but the exercise was still interesting.
Other examples?
Well, as I attempted to say when I accidentally posted to a different thread, it is relatively easy to refluff an infernal warlock as a pyrokineticist. (Really, how different is setting people on fire with hellish power from setting people on fire with your mind?)
Also, it's surprisingly easy to make Primal classes into worshippers of the Far Realms.
Also, it's surprisingly easy to make Primal classes into worshipers of the Far Realms.
Interesting. I assume these characters were a little crazy in the head?
I once tried to create a pacifist avenger. Not pacifist in the true Gandhi sense of the word, but in the Cain of Kungu Fu sense. I mainly used my powers for self defense and considered the radiant damage as more a pacifying damage than true wounds. Also, I rarely killed, as in 4e it's just as easy to make something unconscious as to kill it. It didn't really work because we were fighting a lot of regenerating trolls at the time.
Also, it's surprisingly easy to make Primal classes into worshipers of the Far Realms.Interesting. I assume these characters were a little crazy in the head?
I haven't actually had a chance to play a character like that, but they shouldn't be much more crazy than the average star-pact warlock. Besides, the main fluff change you would need to make is what effects their more shape-changing powers have. (Druids turn into squamous piles of tentacles instead of a wolf, Wardens become more alien when using Form of __ powers, you get the idea.)
|
I haven't actually had a chance to play a character like that, but they shouldn't be much more crazy than the average star-pact warlock. Besides, the main fluff change you would need to make is what effects their more shape-changing powers have. (Druids turn into squamous piles of tentacles instead of a wolf, Wardens become more alien when using Form of __ powers, you get the idea.)Also, it's surprisingly easy to make Primal classes into worshipers of the Far Realms.Interesting. I assume these characters were a little crazy in the head?
That sounds awesome. Someone should run a one-shot PbP where everyone can reflavor their characters into that milieu. I'd be down.
That sounds awesome. Someone should run a one-shot PbP where everyone can reflavor their characters into that milieu. I'd be down.
Hey, they got at least two people interested.
In the game I'm playing in right now, my partner really liked the powers of the Fey Pact Warlock but hated the fluff of the Feywild stuff. So we just called her a Spirit Pact Warlock - she's like a ghost whisperer who speaks for the forgotten dead, and we just changed the flavor of her powers. Instead of Fey Step, she's got Ghost Walk, and turns into a rushing cloud of ectoplasm when she teleports. Many of the powers don't even really need to be changed - Whitchfire, Curse of the Dark Dream, Curse of the Bloody Fangs... they all sound good for her concept (really its just the flavor text of the powers that need to be changed).
With just a little tweaking of the flavor, I think the mechanics of a lot of the classes can be adapted for a wide variety of character concepts.
|
Been there - done that.
Magicuser takes a template for almost any cultural concept from Peasant street urchin whose rocks can burn a hole through your armor for magic missile auto hit and damage to Ninja with throwing stars...that burn through armor for magic missile accuracy and damage (1987) That how old that idea is.
You might as well do away with Werewolf and go wellsprung Lycan for all those drinking form the Well of the Moon. so I can have my Were-elf.
Uh...
So, anyway, you know how people keep coming up with ideas for martial controllers that generally involve people throwing explosives around and odd gadgets and such? Well, I realized you could do a decent approximation of that with a Druid. Flame Seed is you tossing some alchemical thing at someone, beast form powers are just you drawing a couple large knives and stabbing people, you get the idea. (Personally, I'd concentrate on the beast form powers, if only because they're easier to refluff.)
|
|
So, I just thought of a fun concept last night.
I want to make a character who is a creepy and sinister ghost medium, who makes contact with the spirits of the dead and bends them to his will. I think I could do it perfectly with the shaman class. Just reflavor the powers to fit - tangling vines and the like could be ghostly hands, etc. And the spirit companion could actually be an enslaved spirit, while the medium enables the other players to leech energy from it (ie healing).
So, I just thought of a fun concept last night.
I want to make a character who is a creepy and sinister ghost medium, who makes contact with the spirits of the dead and bends them to his will. I think I could do it perfectly with the shaman class. Just reflavor the powers to fit - tangling vines and the like could be ghostly hands, etc. And the spirit companion could actually be an enslaved spirit, while the medium enables the other players to leech energy from it (ie healing).
I like this idea... but it kinda reminds me of Michael J Fox's character in "The Frighteners" :P
In another thread (that shall not be mentioned), there has been a lively discussion of whether one can have a bow-wielding fighter in 4e. That got me to thinking about creative ways one can manipulate the existing classes to create a variety of character concepts. I thought I'd start this thread asking people how they may have tweaked a class or flavor of a class to create something truly unique as far as a character concept.
To start it off, I'll share how I created a bard before the PHBII came out. In 3e, one of my players had a bard that was quite handy with the bow. In 4e, we used the Ranger class, but tweaked it. Instead of using the martial power source, she used the arcane power source, and we changed all the powers to be Charisma based instead of Dexterity. We then said she sang certain notes to direct her arrows. Add a feat of Ritual Casting with a spice of knowledge-based skills, and we had something like a bard.
Of course, now there is a bow-wielding bard in Arcane Power so the creative build is unnecessary, but the exercise was still interesting.
Other examples?
Obligatory post in which 3.-E and 4E are both mentioned disclaimer: NOT DISSING 4E, NOT TRYING TO START A FLAME WAR, NOT TRYING TO OFFEND ANYONE, NOT SAYING ONE GAME IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER.
Can you play an NPC class in 4E? I haven't seen it. Maybe I just missed it or it's in another book. 4E overall seems higher-level than 3.x. Not higher-level meaning superior, higher-level as in Windows or another GUI vs., for exmaple, command-line Unix or machine language. In 3.5 I once played an Expert who was an artist. She was a sculptor who happened to do a bit of exploring and adventuring. Can I extend 4E in that direction, or is it pretty much limited to fighter, wizard, etc.?
Can you play an NPC class in 4E? I haven't seen it. Maybe I just missed it or it's in another book. 4E overall seems higher-level than 3.x. Not higher-level meaning superior, higher-level as in Windows or another GUI vs., for exmaple, command-line Unix or machine language. In 3.5 I once played an Expert who was an artist. She was a sculptor who happened to do a bit of exploring and adventuring. Can I extend 4E in that direction, or is it pretty much limited to fighter, wizard, etc.?
A character that's just a painter? No, there aren't any classes that do that for the same reason people didn't really play the NPC classes that much in 3.5: they just can't do much outside what they spend their skills on, and for the most part base classes could do that stuff better.
Anyway, painting's with the rest of the Craft/Profession skills in that, if your character should have them they have them, but it's probably not going to come up in play in a way that you should have to roll for. Now, any class could be a painter as background detail, but can a character only be a painter without refluffing something? No, not really.
Still, it shouldn't be that hard to refluff a bard into a painter if you don't mind a few unrealistic bits. (Like ignoring the fact you couldn't draw anything in six seconds, let alone a drawing so moving it causes psychological damage.)
|
|
I'll add that in 4e NPC's don't have "classes" the way that they do in 3.x. NPC's have whatever abilities the DM wants them to have. They can emulate a PC class if the DM would like, but generally speaking they aren't built using PC creation rules. And on the flipside, that means there aren't "NPC classes" that have been statted up in such a way that a player could play one.
But, Davi pointed out some ideas on how something like that could be created. I agree it would be tough, because 4e assumes the PCs are adventurers and have some training or inate abilities that lend themselves to that occupation.
Can you play an NPC class in 4E? I haven't seen it. Maybe I just missed it or it's in another book. 4E overall seems higher-level than 3.x. Not higher-level meaning superior, higher-level as in Windows or another GUI vs., for exmaple, command-line Unix or machine language. In 3.5 I once played an Expert who was an artist. She was a sculptor who happened to do a bit of exploring and adventuring. Can I extend 4E in that direction, or is it pretty much limited to fighter, wizard, etc.?A character that's just a painter? No, there aren't any classes that do that for the same reason people didn't really play the NPC classes that much in 3.5: they just can't do much outside what they spend their skills on, and for the most part base classes could do that stuff better.
Anyway, painting's with the rest of the Craft/Profession skills in that, if your character should have them they have them, but it's probably not going to come up in play in a way that you should have to roll for. Now, any class could be a painter as background detail, but can a character only be a painter without refluffing something? No, not really.
Still, it shouldn't be that hard to refluff a bard into a painter if you don't mind a few unrealistic bits. (Like ignoring the fact you couldn't draw anything in six seconds, let alone a drawing so moving it causes psychological damage.)
Let me respond, politely, to your points:
1)Your answer is that I can't do that in 4E. That is all I was wondering. No need to be defensive about it.
2)Why would I play a bard if I want to play a sculptor? I don't want to play a bard (although I think it is interesting that you light on bard as another basically inferior class, presumably, as your comment about drawing suggests, because bards aren't killing machines).
Playing an Expert allowed/allows for customization. I could pick my class skills, rather than being railroaded into the standard package. Hence, my point about extensibility. The 3.5 Expert also had average Base Attack Progression, good skill points, d6 hit dice, and saves as good as some core classes. So no, an Expert wasn't/isn't limited to painting or sculpting or what have you. Let me add also that a good DM finds creative ways to incorporate his players' character backgrounds into the game, to engage each player by tailoring the story so that it contains action relevant for his/her PC. It isn't difficult to think of ways your campaign storylines could, at least tangentially, involve art, artifacts, archaeology.
3)You imply that the goal of RPGing is to make a character that can do things really well, particularly kill, perhaps in the interest of doing what you perceive as 'winning' the game. You are, of course, welcome to hold that view, but I think it is a rather narrow view, and I would much rather devote creativity to constructing and developing an interesting character.
Good gaming to you.
Uh, I suppose that came off worse than I thought it would. Anyway...
1. I'm not being defensive. At least, I wasn't.
2. The bard isn't an inferior class! I just used it as an example because it would be the easiest 4e class to theme as a painter! Heck, you could refluff a Barbarian into a painting-themed class if you put enough work into it.
Also, I never said experts were limited to painting/sculpting/crafting/etc. It's just most of the skill-based things they can do are done either as good or better by base classes. Finding and disabling traps and such? Well, you don't get Trapfinding, so sucks for you. Knowledge skills? Wizards get them all too (although you get more skill points, which is a plus), and wizards can do other stuff too. Scial skills? Well, Bards and Rogues get all of them too, and they have the same BAB as you, and they have the same/better saves as you, and they can do other stuff too. Experts aren't designed to be as powerful as the base classes. That's why it's an NPC class.
3. Well, at it's core D&D is at least partially about fighting. That's why most of the PHB is about combat/what most of the classes can do in combat/ feats about combat. It's that way in 3.5, it's that way in 4e, it's that way it was in AD&D, and it probably will never change.
|
|
Let me respond, politely, to your points:
1)Your answer is that I can't do that in 4E. That is all I was wondering. No need to be defensive about it.2)Why would I play a bard if I want to play a sculptor? I don't want to play a bard (although I think it is interesting that you light on bard as another basically inferior class, presumably, as your comment about drawing suggests, because bards aren't killing machines).
Playing an Expert allowed/allows for customization. I could pick my class skills, rather than being railroaded into the standard package. Hence, my point about extensibility. The 3.5 Expert also had average Base Attack Progression, good skill points, d6 hit dice, and saves as good as some core classes. So no, an Expert wasn't/isn't limited to painting or sculpting or what have you. Let me add also that a good DM finds creative ways to incorporate his players' character backgrounds into the game, to engage each player by tailoring the story so that it contains action relevant for his/her PC. It isn't difficult to think of ways your campaign storylines could, at least tangentially, involve art, artifacts, archaeology.3)You imply that the goal of RPGing is to make a character that can do things really well, particularly kill, perhaps in the interest of doing what you perceive as 'winning' the game. You are, of course, welcome to hold that view, but I think it is a rather narrow view, and I would much rather devote creativity to constructing and developing an interesting character.
Good gaming to you.
I think there is an assumption that the PCs are heroes. That is stated in the core rulebooks. I would agree that if that is not an assumption you want in your game, you would either have to modify the game or play another.
That doesn't mean that anyone playing 4e is trying to "win" the game. That's a backhanded thing to say, and according to your logic, applies equally well to anyone who plays 3.5 or Pathfinder using any class other than an NPC class.
(BTW, Davi can disagree with me if I am misinterpreting him, but nobody was saying bards are inferior. In 4e, they are perfectly capable and comparable to any other class. I think the suggestion was only that you could modify a class that focuses on a form of art (performance) to accommodate a character that focuses on another form of art (sculpting).)
|
Would it be possible to play a fishwife in 4e? A burly one, that can bring down a goblin with a swift blow from a half frozen haddock? And scolding? Can she scold them a blue streak; make their jibblies crawl up inside their innards? So they can't fight well when she whaps them with a largish sturgeon?
Would it be possible to play a fishwife in 4e? A burly one, that can bring down a goblin with a swift blow from a half frozen haddock? And scolding? Can she scold them a blue streak; make their jibblies crawl up inside their innards? So they can't fight well when she whaps them with a largish sturgeon?
Well, a Thaneborn Barbarian would probable be easiest. Heck, you could just refluff the greataxe if you don't mind people laughing at the concept.
|
|
Would it be possible to play a fishwife in 4e? A burly one, that can bring down a goblin with a swift blow from a half frozen haddock? And scolding? Can she scold them a blue streak; make their jibblies crawl up inside their innards? So they can't fight well when she whaps them with a largish sturgeon?Well, a Thaneborn Barbarian would probable be easiest. Heck, you could just refluff the greataxe if you don't mind people laughing at the concept.
Now I need to see somebody play that.
I want to play a Holy Cobbler. And not the shoe making kind, the peach kind, or the cherry, either or.
Well, a Thaneborn Barbarian would probable be easiest. Heck, you could just refluff the greataxe if you don't mind people laughing at the concept.
What, am I a clown here to amuse you?
1)Your answer is that I can't do that in 4E. That is all I was wondering. No need to be defensive about it.
Honestly, I'm not sure Davi was being defensive. I think he was legitimately trying to answer your question.
2)Why would I play a bard if I want to play a sculptor? I don't want to play a bard (although I think it is interesting that you light on bard as another basically inferior class, presumably, as your comment about drawing suggests, because bards aren't killing machines).
This convinces me that you didn't really grasp what Davi was saying as nothing he wrote implied that bards are inferior. In 4e, it's very easy to use a class's mechanics but change the overall flavor to a very different character concept. Davi was merely pointing out that you could rework the bard class to be a painter (or sculptor or what have you).
Playing an Expert allowed/allows for customization. I could pick my class skills, rather than being railroaded into the standard package. Hence, my point about extensibility. The 3.5 Expert also had average Base Attack Progression, good skill points, d6 hit dice, and saves as good as some core classes. So no, an Expert wasn't/isn't limited to painting or sculpting or what have you.
I'm not sure I understand. One change made for 4e is that one doesn't have mechanics for professions or crafting. If a particular character has advanced skills in something like sailing, painting, and so on, one can roleplay that concept to whatever extent he or she wishes. Some may feel that without mechanics, it discourages roleplaying those things, but I have found that not to be the case. And if sailing or painting or tying knots did become so essential as to require a mechanic, one could easily add that skill.
Let me add also that a good DM finds creative ways to incorporate his players' character backgrounds into the game, to engage each player by tailoring the story so that it contains action relevant for his/her PC. It isn't difficult to think of ways your campaign storylines could, at least tangentially, involve art, artifacts, archaeology.
I agree that that is the case with any edition.
3)You imply that the goal of RPGing is to make a character that can do things really well, particularly kill, perhaps in the interest of doing what you perceive as 'winning' the game. You are, of course, welcome to hold that view, but I think it is a rather narrow view, and I would much rather devote creativity to constructing and developing an interesting character.
You imply one can't have interesting characters that do things really well. I'm not sure what you are getting at. If I'm playing D&D in any edition, I may not want to "win," as you say, but I also don't want my character to die at level 20 because he or she is a good painter but not too good in a combat situation. Now I could play a game that is light on combat if the DM wishes, in which the roleplaying aspect is more important that combat. That's true of any edition.
Davi is saying that while there isn't a specific class which can do specifically what you are saying, one can tweak an existing class to make it happen (that is what this thread is about). There is no question that many of the rules in 4e are combat-centric, but that doesn't mean you can't create a great character with a lot of roleplaying potential and colorful backgrounds that have nothing to do with combat. There just aren't necessarily specific mechanics for some of those aspects. Some may find it limiting; I find it freeing.
Obligatory post in which 3.-E and 4E are both mentioned disclaimer: NOT DISSING 4E, NOT TRYING TO START A FLAME WAR, NOT TRYING TO OFFEND ANYONE, NOT SAYING ONE GAME IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER.
Can you play an NPC class in 4E? I haven't seen it. Maybe I just missed it or it's in another book. 4E overall seems higher-level than 3.x. Not higher-level meaning superior, higher-level as in Windows or another GUI vs., for exmaple, command-line Unix or machine language. In 3.5 I once played an Expert who was an artist. She was a sculptor who happened to do a bit of exploring and adventuring. Can I extend 4E in that direction, or is it pretty much limited to fighter, wizard, etc.?
I'm going to make a claim that no doubt someone out there will consider controversial:
If your strongest desire is to play a character who is better at painting portraits than adventuring, and wants the mechanics of his character to reflect that, you're probably better off playing something that isn't D&D, no matter the edition.
You imply one can't have interesting characters that do things really well. I'm not sure what you are getting at. If I'm playing D&D in any edition, I may not want to "win," as you say, but I also don't want my character to die at level 20 because he or she is a good painter but not too good in a combat situation. Now I could play a game that is light on combat if the DM wishes, in which the roleplaying aspect is more important that combat. That's true of any edition.
This might be the most obvious reason why players might not utilize such skills but its not really why such skills are not in the skill system.
If you take a look at a broad number of 3.5 adventures across levels you'll notice that there is a significant trend in these professionally written works. Low level adventures feature the skill system fairly heavily and do so in interesting and innovative ways while high level adventures avoid the skill system except for a handful of 'expected' skills (like search for instance). What we really have here is a case were adventure writers who are working on low level adventures can depend on the skill system to provide interesting and dramatic play. The reason is that the players - even if they don't sink any points into a skill - can usually at least participate in what is going on because they can use the skills untrained and the DCs are going to be such that they'll have a pretty good shot at succeeding. As adventurers go up in level that ceases to be the case - none of the characters might have a skill and if they do then they are likely amazing at it. What this resulted in was higher level adventure writers actively avoiding the skill system as it tended to either be a forgone conclusion to the check in question or it was impossible to pull off. If it was a forgone conclusion that's not very exciting and dramatic but its even worse if its impossible for the PCs to pull off the DC - that is just a road block in the adventure that then needs to be written around.
Hence what the designers of 4E needed to create was system that allowed them extend the low level heavy use of the skill system into higher levels and they needed to do that on the adventure writing side because it does not matter much if your character has many skills if no adventure ever references them - at that point what you really have is a character background detail.
Now if one looks at this disparity between skills written into adventures for low level characters and the same for higher level adventures we end up with a couple of interesting points - search for example is some kind of a 'core' skill. All parties are assumed to have search and its usually pretty good too - adventure writers don't stint on the use of the search skill and its always assumed you can pull off reasonable checks. This is one of the few skills that the adventure writers don't 'write around' if the skill happens to not be present. Try sending your high level players into an adventure where no one has any search at all and you'll notice this - you'll actually break anything but the most combat heavy and straightforward adventures because the players will never find the clues or secrets.
Thus what 4E did to try and extend skill use from being just a low level thing to part of the adventure at every level was to make characters always able to use their skills 'untrained' and to make every skill a 'core' skill. Adventure writers can depend on the adventurers being able to interact with any skill in the game and have a reasonable shot at success so it pays off for the writers to write exciting encounters around skills for higher level adventures...though there are other elements to this as well, Magic is toned back enough in 4E that you can't use it to replace skills most of the time and characters are pretty much glued to the ground so you can't usually just fly or teleport your way around obstacles or hazards that at low level you dealt with using the skill system.
Furthermore from here it becomes easier to see why there is no in game 'none core' skill advancement system. It'd be really hard to explain - players get better at doing things that adventurers do as they gain levels because they are adventurers. However it does not follow that they became better gourmet chiefs as well - in fact one would assume that the adventuring life really probably puts a crimp in their non-adventuring experience. Its hard to practice your skills as a chief if your busy slaying dragons. Presumably most NPC gourmet chiefs are just going to be better then you - after all they practice their art during much of their waking hours and you don't. Hence the whole thing is removed from the mechanical sphere of the game and taken to the role playing part. Maybe the above, while true in general, does not apply to some specific PC - maybe that PC does practice all the time they are not adventuring and as often as possible while adventuring. If so the player and the DM need to note that - it might play a role in the story some time.
An interesting and informative explanation.
What you wrote is definitely informative and gives me a deeper understanding for why they decided to make the changes they did.
However, I still feel that a 10th level or 20th level Expert cannot hold their own in a typical combat in 3.5. Either they are not long for this world, or they can't participate in combat to the same extent. They are there to solve the challenges of their particular expertise which doesn't necessarily come into play in combat. Regardless of the edition, the DM will need to develop his adventure and combat situations with that in mind.
How would I solve this challenge in 4e? A couple options come to mind. I could possibly tweak an existing class, most likely the Artificer, so that the painter or sculptor or what have you is not the typical artisan, but has arcanic control over his or her ability (likewise for other professions or skills, I would find the right existing class to tweak).
However, it doesn't sound like that's what jocundthejolly wants. He wants (I think) a true-to-life artisan or some other profession who can hold their own in combat, but is not necessarily a combat expert. In that case, I may make such a person a "companion character" as outlined in the DMGII. But instead of the companion character being an NPC, the player would have complete control over his character. The character may not have very many combat powers, but at least the numbers would allow the character to survive. Then I would make sure the character has training in certain skills - for example, an artisan would have History and Thievery, and possibly Dungeoneering and Diplomacy. The player would then need to roleplay these skills based on his character concept (for example, the Thievery skill wouldn't be there for picking pockets or unlocking doors, but to solve artistic puzzles; Diplomacy isn't based on a person's personality influencing others, but their artistic skill or renown). We have to tweak the flavor, but at least the mechanic would be there.
Then as a DM, I would make sure the adventure highlights the character's ability to use these skills based on his concept. For example, instead of just having a regular ole pit trap for the character with Perception to find, I would have an architectural puzzle to find the pit trap that the character's Dungeoneering skill would help him with. It would be a creative challenge, but then again it would be a challenge in any edition.
|
|
NPC 3e stuff
I know off-topic but one of the best mini-campaigns I was ever in was one where players could ONLY choose from the DMG NPC classes. Sick of power gaming but like 3e, then you should try it. Funny as all hades. Of course you need a DM willing to make an adventure to suit. Things like the Paizo AP's would not go well without either a down grading of the critters or (and more smartly I think) a refocus of the parts of the story that have combat.
Apologies, but JtheJ reminded me of this game.
S.
Why has no one mentioned rituals? AFAIC, they are THE way to go for profession/craft type skills. F'rinstance - I play a star pact warlock (multiclassed to bard) is who is an astrologer. Now clearly there are no rules for practicing astrology in 4E. But, even at low Heroic tier, I have Hand of Fate for when I need to consult the stars over a question, Glib Limerick for when I need to bluster someone with mystic astrojargon and Lullaby when I captivate a room with my warnings of imminent doom.
Can you play an NPC class in 4E? I haven't seen it. Maybe I just missed it or it's in another book. 4E overall seems higher-level than 3.x. Not higher-level meaning superior, higher-level as in Windows or another GUI vs., for exmaple, command-line Unix or machine language. In 3.5 I once played an Expert who was an artist. She was a sculptor who happened to do a bit of exploring and adventuring. Can I extend 4E in that direction, or is it pretty much limited to fighter, wizard, etc.?A character that's just a painter? No, there aren't any classes that do that for the same reason people didn't really play the NPC classes that much in 3.5: they just can't do much outside what they spend their skills on, and for the most part base classes could do that stuff better.
Anyway, painting's with the rest of the Craft/Profession skills in that, if your character should have them they have them, but it's probably not going to come up in play in a way that you should have to roll for. Now, any class could be a painter as background detail, but can a character only be a painter without refluffing something? No, not really.
Still, it shouldn't be that hard to refluff a bard into a painter if you don't mind a few unrealistic bits. (Like ignoring the fact you couldn't draw anything in six seconds, let alone a drawing so moving it causes psychological damage.)
Let me respond, politely, to your points:
1)Your answer is that I can't do that in 4E. That is all I was wondering. No need to be defensive about it.
2)Why would I play a bard if I want to play a sculptor? I don't want to play a bard (although I think it is interesting that you light on bard as another basically inferior class, presumably, as your comment about drawing suggests, because bards aren't killing machines).
Playing an Expert allowed/allows for customization. I could pick my class skills, rather than being railroaded into the standard package. Hence, my point about...
Your real question isn't 'can I create a painter' but in fact 'can I create ANY style of character I want like the expert' and to that I'd say yes, Skills choices for example, could you create a fighter who is trained in HISTORY..if your character concept made sense (son of the kings historian etc) then why not swap one of your trained skill options with HISTORY...will this destroy the game...personally I can't see why and it fits your characters concept. Likewise with a Fighter trained in NATURE because he was brought up as a hunter\skinner but isn't a real wilderness warrior like a ranger.
Any of the class's can be adjusted just need to ensure that the changes won't step on the toes of other characters too much and they work within the mechanics.
Your real question isn't 'can I create a painter' but in fact 'can I create ANY style of character I want like the expert' and to that I'd say yes, Skills choices for example, could you create a fighter who is trained in HISTORY..if your character concept made sense (son of the kings historian etc) then why not swap one of your trained skill options with HISTORY...will this destroy the game...personally I can't see why and it fits your characters concept. Likewise with a Fighter trained in NATURE because he was brought up as a hunter\skinner but isn't a real wilderness warrior like a ranger.
Any of the class's can be adjusted just need to ensure that the changes won't step on the toes of other characters too much and they work within the mechanics.
This is excellent point that I had not thought of. While you can't exactly be a straight up expert what that really means is 'its impossible to just be bad in the combat portions of the game'. You can however get a skill heavy character - pick any class desired, whatever will best suit your background and then pump all your feats into things that enhance your skills like skill training and skill focus. You'll be excellent at skills and still passable in combat. Essentially you are pretty much a skill monkey at this point though things like sculpting etc. are still background role playing aspects and not mechanics in 4E.
Why has no one mentioned rituals? AFAIC, they are THE way to go for profession/craft type skills. F'rinstance - I play a star pact warlock (multiclassed to bard) is who is an astrologer. Now clearly there are no rules for practicing astrology in 4E. But, even at low Heroic tier, I have Hand of Fate for when I need to consult the stars over a question, Glib Limerick for when I need to bluster someone with mystic astrojargon and Lullaby when I captivate a room with my warnings of imminent doom.
I agree rituals would be perfect to handle these "non-encounter" spells, professions, etc. They already have alchemy and rituals based on magic use, there should be no reason to expand this concept to herbalism, crafting, etc.
4E in general focuses on tne microcosm of balancing skills and class abilities in regards to encounters, while rituals handle the other side in regards to long term spells, alchemy, etc.
This is excellent point that I had not thought of. While you can't exactly be a straight up expert what that really means is 'its impossible to just be bad in the combat portions of the game'. You can however get a skill heavy character - pick any class desired, whatever will best suit your background and then pump all your feats into things that enhance your skills like skill training and skill focus. You'll be excellent at skills and still passable in combat. Essentially you are pretty much a skill monkey at this point though things like sculpting etc. are still background role playing aspects and not mechanics in 4E.
The 'Races & Class's' expanded set has some very fine background system which allows for a much better defined back ground that so far available.
It re-introduces Professions, Crafts and a lot of other things like background ( has street urchin, criminal, noble, barbarian) which the player can allocate points to ( 5 at first level) then 1 every 4th level.The actual mechanic itself is simple:- Half Level+ Skill Points allocated and a STAT
Level one in a background skill represents a basic level(standing) as a noble, criminal, craft(various) but Level 5 is the maximum being either a well placed noble, head of a criminal organisation, well respected and skill crafter of item etc.
Its a very good system in my view and well worth the download time from SCRIBD.