What CAN'T you do with 4e?

[Gladius Legis]

What can't I do in 4e that I could in 3e?

Make a cleric, druid or wizard that makes the rest of the party useless.

Create an effective spear-wielding ranger?

You couldn't make an effective ranger PERIOD in 3e. Not without multiclassing. The scout class from CA and the Swift Hunter feat from CS were the two things that saved the ranger in 3.5.

 

[sjmiller]

Given that most of the options listed sound like they come from supplemental sources besides the core books to make them viable, this is very understandable, as we're looking at the first month. All but one or two of those would have been viable characters who contribute to the group in August of 2000, either.

Actually, all the characters I described were made with the 3.0 PH and that's it. Neither the players nor I had access to any other books at that time. The other characters, the ones using races from Arcana Unearthed (Arcana Evolved before the upgrade), came later. The Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Wizard/Rogue, Fighter/Wizard, and Monk are all right out of the 3.0 PH.

 

[mattdm]

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

For the first: "effective" or optimal? I'm pretty sure you can just hand a ranger a spear and some javelins, and there you go. Eladrin is nice for the feat.

For the second: on your character sheet, write Bow-Wielding Fighter, and then use the ranger character class. Done! (Do you really need it to be named "fighter"?)

And if multiclassing enhances what you want to do, why are you ruling it out?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

For the first: "effective" or optimal? I'm pretty sure you can just hand a ranger a spear and some javelins, and there you go. Eladrin is nice for the feat.

For the second: on your character sheet, write Bow-Wielding Fighter, and then use the ranger character class. Done! (Do you really need it to be named "fighter"?)

And if multiclassing enhances what you want to do, why are you ruling it out?

He means "effective." A ranger with a spear can't do anything. Literally, he cannot use any of his abilities. For the same reasons a rogue can't kick sand at someone while not holding a light blade.

 

[Nellisir]

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 ?

Somewhat. It wouldn't do anything for the ranger's current schizo nature (cause twf & archery are -so- similar...), but at least you'd lose the "flavor baggage" the ranger has right now. I think that's what bugs me the most. It used to be, if you wanted a wilderness expert, you played a ranger. Now, if you want to be a dwarven combat crossbowman or an urbane noble swashbuckler, you play a ranger. The class doesn't dictate the combat style; the combat style is dictating the class.

 

[mattdm]

He means "effective." A ranger with a spear can't do anything. Literally, he cannot use any of his abilities.

Is there something I'm missing? Looks like Hit & Run works as an at-will for a regular spear, and you can throw javelins with Nimble Strike just fine. And probably Twin Strike too, although arguably you'd need either Quick Draw or a magic weapon. For first level encounter powers, choose Fox's Cunning or Evasive Strike (or potentially Two-Fanged Strike). For daily powers, Hunter’s Bear Trap is good, and although the flavor text of Split the Tree says "arrows", the alternate visual of a javelin thrown from each hand works for me.

Or if you want to avoid relying on ranged attacks and just want to stick to a melee spear, consider what you mean by "my character is a ranger who wields a spear" and consider if the fighter class will work for you. I'm quite certain that works wonderfully in reverse for the other

And if that's still not making you happy, well, hopefully there will be some more per-class build options in the future, although I'm not optimistic since that seemed clearly wide open for the 3.5 ranger and monk and they never did anything with it.

I'm really not seeing this as a huge 4E shortcoming....

 

[Nellisir]

For the first: "effective" or optimal? I'm pretty sure you can just hand a ranger a spear and some javelins, and there you go. Eladrin is nice for the feat.
For the second: on your character sheet, write Bow-Wielding Fighter, and then use the ranger character class. Done! (Do you really need it to be named "fighter"?)

:blink:
Wow. I just...wow. Whooosh.

 

[mattdm]

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 ?

I love this about d20 Modern. So much so that when that game came out I seriously considered backporting it back to a D&D setting.

 

[mattdm]

:blink:
Wow. I just...wow. Whooosh.

Okay, sure, if there was some joke, it went over my head. Sorry to give a serious answer.

 

[Nellisir]

Or if you want to avoid relying on ranged attacks and just want to stick to a melee spear, consider what you mean by "my character is a ranger who wields a spear" and consider if the fighter class will work for you. I'm quite certain that works wonderfully in reverse for the other

If the "woodsy" flavor is tied to the class, then no, fighter wouldn't work. And if it isn't, and I can play a "woodsy" fighter just as easily and just as well as a "woodsy" ranger, then one wonders what the point is of calling the ranger a ranger, and not "swashbuckling archer dude".

I'm really not seeing this as a huge 4E shortcoming....

Yeah, we see that.