What CAN'T you do with 4e?

[Mercurius]

This thread inspired me to start a new topic, particularly baed on Giltonio_Santos's comment "I won't be able to use the system to roll the kind of game I prefer without working very hard on some very basic stuff. In this sense, 3rd Edition is a far superior game system, it works pretty well under different assumptions."

As I said in that thread:

"...my main reservation thus far has been that it seems difficult to run "off the farm" style campaigns. While I like the fact that low-level characters have more options in terms of what they can do and overall power level, it seems that you couldn't do an epic-style fantasy campaign where the characters are, say, commoners drawn into adventure. This is where I see the old 1ed "0-level characters" as being a useful option for Wizards to look into."

So the question: What CAN'T you do that you want to do with 4ed? Or, to put it another way, what does 3e--or other editions--allow you to do better?

 

[Nellisir]

So the question: What CAN'T you do that you want to do with 4ed? Or, to put it another way, what does 3e--or other editions--allow you to do better?

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.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Please note this is comedy. In before someone takes it badly anyways.

I can't make a half-orc lawful neutral monk

 

[DonTadow]

I couldn't roll the type of game that limits dice rolls than I can with 4e. My players are all about role playing, and having to roll some 5 to 10 times to accomplish one thing is not their style. There are also other , pointless, reasons to roll dice in the game as if the designers believed that rolling dice is what the game is all about.

As far as the design, 4e is built for one type of world, whereas with other systems the characters are vague enough that they can fit in anywhere.

Most importantly, I can read the monster manuals of previous better layed out editions.

 

[Voadam]

So the question: What CAN'T you do that you want to do with 4ed? Or, to put it another way, what does 3e--or other editions--allow you to do better?

Play mechanically different play style characters.

Want a lot of daily and long term resource management? Play an item crafting wizard, cleric, or druid who tracks lots of vancian spells per day and gp v. xp investments. Given time this type of 3e character can adapt and prepare to face specific challenges using a wide variety of tools.

Want a mechanically straightforward ready to roll at any time character? Play a rogue, grappling build monk, many individual builds of fighter, warlock. Take these 3e characters and do their thing again and again all day, no need for any resource management.

Want powers that can be refreshed during the action of a combat? Play a soulknife or take psionic focus based feats.

Want number crunching tactics at the table? Use power attack, expertise, or psion and wilder power point enhanceable psionics.

From what I've seen 4e gives everybody at will, encounter, and daily powers and they must resource manage based on these considerations.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What does 3e do better?

#1: Nautical or Aquatic campaigns, where there are sailing ships and sharks and lots of swimming. 3e had some pretty extensive aquatic rules.

#2: As you mentioned above: "Mundanes" campaigns, where you play normal folks caught up in things. 3e's NPC classes were excellent, but even just playing from levels 1-5ish could have given you that feel.

#3: Monsters as PC's. The system was horribly flawed, but it works a lot better than 4e's "You can't" rule.

#4: Wilderness exploration. Rules for weather, climate, terrain, random encounters, and monster habitat lead a very "living world" feel to the game, while 4e focuses more on "Have an encounter if your bored!"

#5: Evil Parties; Good vs. Good campaigns. 3e had a quantity of Good adversaries, and could make the distinction between types of evil so that evil fighting evil seemed to make a sort of thematic sense. 4e runs the route of "everything is morally ambiguous!" which doesn't help foster that style as much.

#6: Different eras and parts of the world. 3e had support for this (though a small amount) built right into the DMG. 4e lacks it entirely.

....that's the short list.

Note that 4e probably could do a lot of these, they'd just require some supplements, while 3e could handle these right out of the gate.

 

[kitoy]

No necromancers, no enchanters, no transmuters, no abjurers, no summoners, no diviners.

I can't convert the magic university that was the focal point of my campaign world. I can cobble together a semblance of it from the blaster and controller wizard builds with a dash of warlock stuff.

I'll have to wait for PHB X to re-build the rest of it.

 

[Cadfan]

There's very little that 3e can do that 4e's rule structure cannot do. There are some things that 3e can do now that 4e cannot do now, but that 4e probably will be able to do in the future. There are also some things that 3e could do out of the box, which 4e cannot do now. Of course, there are also things that 4e can do out of the box that 3e couldn't do out of the box, and can't do now.

So... I guess the real question is, what's your timeframe here? Are you concerned with things 4e can't do at this moment? Because then there are a lot of answers, like "let you play a half orc monk," from above in this thread.

And after that, the question is "and what sort of things are you asking about?" For example, odds are good that no matter how many supplements get released, 4e will never let you play a pure vancian spellcaster. Does that count? Or is that a trite answer, like "4e won't let me play 3e."

So... I don't know. Right now everyone is running around yelling about how 4e is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from 3e. The fans of 4e proclaim that this makes it awesome, while the fans of 3e balefully predict that the differences will doom 4e as a game for anyone other than chumps. From where I sit, its basically the same game except with a lot of highly appreciated mechanical housekeeping, and better written base classes. I can't think of anything I can do in 3e that I can't do in 4e, with the exception of trite answers like "play a half orc using only the core rules."

I ran a noncombat campaign based around skills and intrigue a while back. I can't see any reason that wouldn't work just as well in 4e, if not better due to the skill challenge structure giving me useful DM advice.

After that I ran a war campaign. Can't see any reason that wouldn't work just as well in 4e, if not better due to the better selection of premade hobgoblins.

I ran a "monster hunter" campaign that might not work so well, but that campaign was kind of silly. It was mostly about exploiting spells in inappropriate ways in order to kill things much stronger than you. It was the sort of campaign where jumping off of 100 foot tall buildings because "I've got 150 hp anyways" was commonplace. In a way, the fact that the monster hunter campaign might not play well in 4e is a good sign. The campaign was mostly about goofing around and using rules exploits.

As a matter of fact, I think you could take the 4e base classes and drop them right into 3e and other than some balancing issues, you'd have a functional game.

 

[Mercurius]

Cadfan, I generally agree with you. It is unfair, or just plain erroneous, to compare 4ed now to ALL of 3ed...I mean, of course 3ed has more, it has 8 years of publishing!

DonTadow, I hear your complaint, but I wonder if you are playing the right game. I mean, part of the appeal of D&D over, say, a Storyteller-type game, is that you get to use all kinds of dice: d4, d6, d8, d12, d20, 10d10, 2d12, etc. Storyteller is just multiples of d10; many "Indie" RPGs just use d6. Now this has its strengths, for with less emphasis on rolling, there can be more on "roling". But I think D&D has always had rolling as a kind of base level, from which you can "role" as much as you like.

To use the infamous Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist theory--and with two assumptions in mind: That all games include some elements of all three archetypes, and a given gaming group can modify any game to suit their own tendencies--it seems that D&D is, and always has been, primarily "Gamist, secondarily Narrativist, thirdly Simulationist (although 2 and 3 are arguable, I suppose, and depend upon the group).

So I wonder, is D&D the game for you and your players? And if you like the basics of it but still want to do less rolling, why not use a simplified version or cousin, like one of the d20 hybrids?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Cadfan, I generally agree with you. It is unfair, or just plain erroneous, to compare 4ed now to ALL of 3ed...I mean, of course 3ed has more, it has 8 years of publishing!

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