What CAN'T you do with 4e?

[Mallus]

It's a little early to be discussing what 4e can and cannot do, right? I mean, shouldn't we run/play in a few campaigns first?

I'll get back to you on this sometime next fall...

 

[Toras]

Things that I cannot do with 4e without significant amount of house rules or fiddling.
-Planescape (Loss of Alignments, Casting Times, No more Planes frankly, no Blood War,...it goes on)
-Gnomish Inventions (Small amounts of steampunk for when I want a bit of it).
-Magi-tech/High Magic (Floating Cities, Magical Coaches, Portal Hounds, ...)
-Mass Combat (maybe fixed in subsequent books)
-Rules for Building Castles, Siege Weapons, and Ruling over a kingdom. (Fine to fiat if npcs is doing it, but what happens when the characters want it).
-Guide to building Campaigns and Setting.
-Chase rules (for the roof top pursuits and such) <Not in 3e I admit, but it would be nice>
-Clever uses of equipment and skills (Magyver solutions) + spells

 

[Intense_Interest]

Create an effective spear-wielding ranger? Or an effective bow-wielding fighter? Without multi-classing?

I need to sit down and reread the books, but that's one of my biggest gripes so far. "Martial" characters seem to have become about their weapons more than anything.

Now, hopefully someone will post about how wrong I am, and my fighter can take a few nice archery powers without multiclassing. Please post page numbers when you do, so I don't have to search.

Gotta sell PHB 2 somehow.

I agree with Cadfan, really. The system is a core engine with a far better modular capability (even a Vance Mage if designed an only-daily abilities base class) than 3E, like GURPS but with classes instead of point-buy.

I, at least, limited myself to the 3 Core Books.

Then it looks like your 1-6 won't be answered- even though #1 and #3 can, really, and #4 is only if you consider it to be necessary to do Blood War type conflicts rather than off-chance Far Realm vs. Demon conflicts.

 

[Lord Slaw]

I've glanced through 4E, and I have to say, I'm on the fence about it. It is a very different system, true, and I like a lot of parts about it (ESPECIALLY the Weapon Groups - finally, a system that makes sense goes core! ). There are bits that I don't like - like being pigeonholed into a class, with few ways to get that Monk/Warlock or Druid/Sorcerer (neither of which exist) that some of us so enjoyed playing.

BUT, as for what I cannot do, I gotta say, I'd have to see more than this to stop me. Certain alignments forbidden? Bah, I houserule that away. Go CN if you so please. Wanna multiclass? Once again, stir in some 3E rules to make it work a little better. Desperately wanna play a monster? LA rules were a little muddled, but I can figure out how to make it work in 4E. Give me a month with my core books, and I'll bet that I can take advantage of the good bits, and fix or replace most of the bad bits. Fellow DMs, experienced and inexperienced alike, I'd say that this is a challenge, a call to action if you will - make 4E D&D YOUR D&D. Houserule away!

 

[xechnao]

IMO just one thing: sword & sorcery. You can't explain with the rules what is really happening (and thus use them) for this sort of thing.
4e did not fix sword wielding classes. 4e made various tactically balanced caster classes and banished everything else. That was it's reply to 3e combat balance problems regarding classes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Then it looks like your 1-6 won't be answered- even though #1 and #3 can, really, and #4 is only if you consider it to be necessary to do Blood War type conflicts rather than off-chance Far Realm vs. Demon conflicts.

The first post, and my own post, actually don't say "what is impossible in 4e," they say "what did 3e do better." I stand by the list.

 

[drothgery]

Create an effective spear-wielding ranger? Or an effective bow-wielding fighter? Without multi-classing?

I hate to put a semi-serious post in a humor thread, but...

Would it help if the 4e martial classes were renamed as such
fighter => melee tank guy
ranger => twf or archery guy
rogue => sneak attack with light weapons guy
warlord => inspiring melee guy ?

Because if you want a 4e archer PC, the appropriate primary class for that character is ranger. Take heavy armor feats if you want to be more Fighter-esque. If you want a martial character that uses a spear, the appropriate class is fighter or warlord. Take skill training in Nature if you want to be more Ranger-esque.

 

[Man-thing]

- Use Psionics
- Create Weapons of Legacy
- Use Incarnum
- Use Pact Magic
- Be attacked by rust monsters, mimics, trappers and lurkers above.
- play Empire of the Ghouls (because there are not enough Nightshades, Decap Mycolids, Cloakers or plaguebearer otyughs)
- use 3rd party classes like stuff from Arcana Evolved without heavy rewrites.
- play in Mystara (as I have lost oodles of Mystara monsters from the MM)

 

[Tetsubo]

What can't I do with 4E?

In all seriousness, play D&D.

 

[sjmiller]

Unless I am really reading the 4e books wrong, I think I know of a number of things that are common in my 3e core books campaigns that are not possible with 4e. Now, this is based just on using the core books from both sets, since it is not fair to compare 4e with the whole gamut of 3e or 3.5e.

One recurring theme in all my campaigns is the EFN, or Evil Foreign Necromancer. This is the powerful evil wizard that creates and controls undead minions to fulfill his nefarious goals. I can't seem to figure out how to create this in the current edition. In 1e, 2e, and 3e it was quite easy.

The tinkering gnome illusionist, or any form of specialist wizard, is not possible. It seems that if you do not wish to be a battle wizard of some form or another then you are not going to have an easy time making your character.

Then there is a Ranger who is not either an archer or a two-weapon fighter. Perhaps one that is a bit of both, or one that relies on the longsword and maybe a shield. If you do not fit into the tightly focused definitions of the current Ranger then you are out of luck.

If you want to make a sorcerer, a non-spellbook dependent wizard, well you just have to wait till they decide to bring out the next Player's Handbook.

Looking at my gaming group, discounting the 3 players using races from Arcana Evolved, I would be hard pressed to recreate the group at all. The Elven Bard is right out. The pugilist Paladin looks like he would be sacrificing a lot of his class abilities if he keeps his vow to defend without causing death. The Cleric of Kord is possible, but she would have to change her world view and her methods of engagement. The noble Elf Fighter who fights with lance, sword, or bow is possible, I think, just not as effective. The Elf who is half Wizard and half Rogue is right out. He uses both classes with equal measure, so the dabbling style of 4e multiclassing would not work. The Elf Monk, the speed demon with Boots of Striding and Springing, is not possible right now.

I know that the goals of some of my players are not possible either. To be a great crafter of magical items isn't an Epic Destiny in 4e. The Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies seem pretty highly focused and limiting, if you ask me. I could be reading it wrong, but that is how it looks.

Oh, I forgot to mention one other character that I do not see as possible in 4e. The Dwarf Potion Master. He's part fighter, part Wizard. He makes all sorts of potions that he carries with him in a bandoleer, pulling them out as needed.

I am sure, with closer examination, I will find other things that will be difficult to handle with the core set that I could do before. I am rather glad I was given the books instead of buying them. Would hate to think I spent money on a game I will most likely not run.