What CAN'T you do with 4e?

[HeapThaumaturgist]

What can't I do with 4E?

CREATE a game that isn't heavily focused on very precise archetypes.

I like the rules assumptions, a lot, but I'm working on general-flavored classes and, right now, it just isn't working out well.

Everything is very hyper-focused. Every step aside from a current focus is going to be a whole new class, with a whole new power list, with a lot of balancing involved.

It's great for releasing a bunch of expansion PHBs and keeping people in work.

But it really sucks as the basis for 'something else'.

4E is exception-based in many ways.

4E is very much about "YOU CAN'T ... until we come out with the expansion pack that says you can."

--fje

 

[mrtomsmith]

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

Granted, although 3e core didn't have that much additional support. Expect the opportunity to buy such rules in the future.

#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.

Granted. It's a rarely used campaign type from my experience, but 3e definitely handled this better out of the box.

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

Really? There are much clearer rules for humanoid monster PCs in 4e than 3e, without having to sort out messy level adjustments. I suppose if you wanted to play a campaign as a dragon or gelatinous cube, 3e may work better. But for most PC monsters, 4e seems fine.

#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!"

Really? DMG 60-69, 79, 107, 114, and 158 didn't float your boat? I'd argue that 4e has 3e (core) beat for terrain, tied for weather, 3e wins for linking monsters clearly to wilderness, and 4e has better tools for new DMs to understand how to structure an outdoor adventure.

#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.

Granted. 4e really does wants PCs to be Good.

#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.

Granted, but just barely. I don't recall 3e doing this terribly well in core, either. 4e has a few non-European weapons and arguably more non-European monsters (Oni ftw!) And I'm sure there'll be more books along these lines.

 

[Remathilis]

right now, run Eberron as written.

I realize the core books can't account for specifics, but until I get a Eberron Players Guide, I can't use kalashtar, dragonmarks, most types of shifter, or artificers. And thats not EVEN getting into the loss of monks, druids, sorcerers, gnomes, half-orcs, barbarians, etc...

I fully expect this to be rectified down the road, but for now...

 

[Shazman]

Currently, 4E won't let you play a monk, ninja, druid, barbarian, sorcerer, or bard plus a myriad of other races and classes available in 3.5.

 

[Eldragon]

What can't I do with 4E?

In all seriousness, play D&D.

Aww... you beat me to it!

 

[Henry]

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.

This is going to hopefully not sound like a silly answer. One would handle this the same way one would handle Swashbucklers in 1e, or Half-Orcs in 2e: DM fiat. The NPC has a ritual that will bring undead minions to life.

Spoiler for Keep on the Shadowfell:
[sblock]In fact, Keep on the Shadowfell is a lesson in exactly that: The dungeon is jam packed with undead, created by the BBEG. How did he do it? The module doesn't go into it, but it's plain to see human sacrifices and a rift to the shadow plane are involved. [/sblock]

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.

This is agreed, at this point. I'm still thinking later books or 3rd party stuff will likely fill this out.

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.

Sword and board rangers are possible, but just like in 3E it's suboptimal. I'm not really sure what other types of ranger there are, really: Zweihander Rangers? They're about as viable as the Sword and Shield - there's JUST enough powers to make them doable, but not a wide selection. For Combat choices, that's about it.

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.

The 3E style sorcerer is not really viable anymore. Their main schtick, the Wizard killed him and took his stuff.

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.

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.

However, given your point, there's still a HECK of a lot of room in the RPG circles for 3E to continue to thrive, just for those reasons if nothing else. And 3E works for the players as a game easily from 1st to 10th level; I just have seen it from my end to stop working after level 12 or so, and as a DM I HAVE to use my own shortcuts if I'm going to run a game of it at all. If D&D 3 cut itself off at 10th level, and had an NPC system well-developed for it cribbed from Spycraft 2.0, I'd be all over that game like sauce on spaghetti. But because I'd have to crib too many sources to make it work, I'm going to play 4e, become proficient with it, and then see what I can steal from the NPCs to take with me to a 3e game, if I can make that work.

And who knows? My gamers may just like 4e enough to stick with it, saving me even more work.

 

[helium3]

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.

This is actually fairly easy to accomplish. Basically, create "rituals" for all his undead minions and then change all the power damage types to necrotic, acid, cold and psychic. Of course, also be sure that when he dies the castle collapses and destroys his rituals. Wouldn't want the players to get their hands on something like that.

Honestly, of all the things about 4E that I'm disappointed with, it's how bland the rituals are and that there are ZERO rules in any of the books about how to make new ones.

 

[pawsplay]

I can't make a dabbler. Even a half-elf multiclasser is still essentially a primary role, a subordinate role, and a splash of a different aesthetic. Some say "Feature, not bug," but dabblers can be very effective and fun if you choose good synergies. Further, while the encounter game seems to favor the single-class character, the truth is that over the long haul, simply having options is usually pound for pound a better option than super specialization.

I can't run many or even most classic adventures without homebrewing monsters. Why? Monsters are either missing from the first MM, or have been moved to a different power level. For instance, orcs are no longer 1 HD beasties.

I can't expect the books to tell me what a power does. There is no question what its game effect is, but why? What circumstances would prevent it from working?

4e can't run balanced skill-based challenges. Note I say balanced. It can handle skill use, but there is no "skill class" and no way to specialize in skills. Thus, skill based encounters arbitrarily favor whoever picked that skill, and your combat abilities have no relation to your skills. Thus, a classic trapfinding rogue turns into either a self-nerf or a character with strengths that were not part of their original archetype. 4e marks the return of the Non Weapon Proficiency, albeit broader in scope, or perhaps more similarly, the return of the Cyclopedia skills system. Skills are considered irrelevant to balance, an assumption tested by games like GURPS, Runequest, and so forth.

4e won't let you buck stereotype. No rapier wielding fighters, no dual-wielding clerics, no greataxe wielding rangers, no crossbow ace wizards, and so forth.

4e is not an easy plug and play for new classes. In 3e, you could usually build a class or prestige class around one new ability concept, then pepper it with abilities stolen from other classes, massage the skill list, then set BAB, hit die, and Saves. Done. A new class for 4e means taking a new concept, then devising dozens of unique powers, many of them with unpredictable synergies with existing powers. Further, with characters usually sticking to 3 ability scores, you have to make sure the class works with a reasonable ability score spread.

4e is not designed for "what if." Just as an example, I once let my 6th level party get ahold of a unique magic item, the Crown of Eternal Majesty. I thought it would be interesting to tempt them with power, and to see how they would try to hold on to or dispose of the dangerous item. The item cast Control Undead 2/day at 20th level, and allowed the user to create skeletons or zombies 1/week without the use of any material components; it also boosted Cha checks. It had a value in the tens of thousands of gold pieces. Under 4e, this is one of the naughtiest things I could do. It didn't mesh with 3e's balance goals, either, but there were no "parcels" or presumed capabilities to deal with, just a nebulous concept of PC wealth. The GM giveth, the GM taketh away. Back in AD&D, you never knew when a longsword +3 would just pop up in random treasure. Often times, the acquisition of a magical item and the resultant onslaught of Ultimate Power and PC greed was a story in itself. It was fun, sometimes, to give out of depth treasures, or to slip in utterly dangerous monsters to be avoided at all costs. There was no sense you were breaking the game by introducing what were essentially strategic puzzles. Monty Haul gaming was a sign of a pathological game, but there was nothing preventing random acts of generosity or disguised sadism.

 

[Korgoth]

I can't run a Sword & Sorcery game where the primary magic is necromancy. There are evidently no rituals for creating undead (which is something I would want PC casters to be able to do).

All previous editions of D&D (OD&D, Classic, 1E, 2E, 3E) would support this right out of the gate (though the level requirement would be high).

 

[noretoc]

Here is a quick story of two of my game, and why it wouldn't work in 4th.

Players go into a rough bar level 1. It is filled with some of the roughest characters around. They try not to be noticed and get out before they get thiers buts kicked (They are not from that town). One character looked at a patron the wrong way. The character gets into a fight, and loses and get thrown out of the bar literally.

They go back level 3. Same people still looking grim. The same guy who got into a fight last time goes up to the guy he beat. That character now lays him out with one punch. The people look at them with a bit more respect, but still glower.

They go back level 6. The guys in the bar now try to avoid thier gaze, so they don'y get thier butts kicked, and the guy who got into a fight a few levels back, offers to buy them a drink and gives up his chair.


Had this been 4ed, that first fight would have wiped out the bar of patrons, unless I made them all npcs with superpowers of thier own. Then we would have had a "supers" battle, leaving no bar for them to visit again.