Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4284902" data-attributes="member: 40961">There's very little that 3e can do that 4e's rule structure cannot do.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; There are also some things that 3e could do out of the box, which 4e cannot do now.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; Are you concerned with things 4e can't do at this moment?&nbsp; Because then there are a lot of answers, like &quot;let you play a half orc monk,&quot; from above in this thread.And after that, the question is &quot;and what sort of things are you asking about?&quot;&nbsp; For example, odds are good that no matter how many supplements get released, 4e will never let you play a pure vancian spellcaster.&nbsp; Does that count?&nbsp; Or is that a trite answer, like &quot;4e won't let me play 3e.&quot;So... I don't know.&nbsp; Right now everyone is running around yelling about how 4e is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from 3e.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; From where I sit, its basically the same game except with a lot of highly appreciated mechanical housekeeping, and better written base classes.&nbsp; 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 &quot;play a half orc using only the core rules.&quot;I ran a noncombat campaign based around skills and intrigue a while back.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;monster hunter&quot; campaign that might not work so well, but that campaign was kind of silly.&nbsp; It was mostly about exploiting spells in inappropriate ways in order to kill things much stronger than you.&nbsp; It was the sort of campaign where jumping off of 100 foot tall buildings because &quot;I've got 150 hp anyways&quot; was commonplace.&nbsp; In a way, the fact that the monster hunter campaign might not play well in 4e is a good sign.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4284902, member: 40961"] 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 [I]drop them right into 3e[/I] and other than some balancing issues, you'd have a functional game. [/QUOTE]

Verification