What is the essence of D&D

[TheCosmicKid]

You seem to have trouble parsing fact from opinion in a set of statements. The powers are factually different. I even recognised the validity of them not being different enough for you, which is an entirely different thing.

Again, "they were too similar for me to enjoy" is an opinion. A strange one to hear from someone who likes other editions of dnd, unless maybe you only ever liked spellcasters, since they're the only ones that are at all different from eachother, but still very much an opinion. Or more specifically, a statement of preference.
"The powers are the same." is an objectively incorrect statement of fact. If you never made that claim, then there is no reason for you to be defensively snarking at me over and over in this thread.

Precisely because "They are the same" is obviously objectively incorrect if taken literally, "They were too similar for me to enjoy" is how a reasonable person arguing in good faith would interpret the complaint. Your continued attempts to argue against this strawman are unconstructive.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's a fact that in my opinion the structure of 4E gave us powers that felt generic to me and several of the people I played with.

So you have no opinions about any other edition? Nor the analogous plight of the poor sorcerer, with not a unique spell to his class name in two other editions?

I like the idea in some thread (this one?) recently that Fighters can do vaguely defined epic things by spending a resource. (I proposed HD).

Something like that. MP2 had 'Martial Practices' - alternatives to rituals that did not-terribly-epic things at the cost of a Surge.

That way different DMs can decide what is suitably epic. Tony will let them leap tall buildings in single bounds.

Well Medieval buildings.

Others will let them make really great coffee for the Wizard.

Coffee's not period.

 

[Campbell]

I'm at a loss for the possible benefit of player options that are just strictly better than other player options that fill the same spot.

That seems like very bad design.

It's largely that I do not really like the simple options. I would rather the Champion just not exist. In my 4th Edition games I did not include the Slayer or the Knight. I largely ignored the Essentials stuff.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

When was it not paid? The entire run of 4e, as long as the CB and the digital magazines were a thing, IIRC, it was a paid sub. Certainly during any time that could possibly be relevant to this discussion.

The Character Builder was definitely available outside of a subscription for most of the time I was playing 4E. I ran one campaign and played another with it. But there was a point where they completely scrapped the old program, released a new (and less functional) one, and tied it to a subscription model.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's largely that I do not really like the simple options. I would rather the Champion just not exist. In my 4th Edition games I did not include the Slayer or the Knight. I largely ignored the Essentials stuff.

I get that some people don’t want to play the Champion because it’s too “simple”, but why do you care if other people do? Is there something about the concept that conflicts with your philosophy of the game?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Precisely because "They are the same" is obviously objectively incorrect if taken literally, "They were too similar for me to enjoy" is how a reasonable person arguing in good faith would interpret the complaint. Your continued attempts to argue against this strawman are unconstructive.

The simpler conclusion that jives more closely with the majority of more in depth arguments i've seen up to today would be, "the powers may not literally be the same, but they effectively are, because they do basically the same couple things, and there is no meaningful difference between any two examples."

Which is what I'm arguing against. It ain't true, and this isn't a matter of opinion, because it can objectively be tested. The powers do different things that can and do completely change the course of a scene depending on what powers are used. Even if we don't compare Split The Tree to Flaming Sphere, or other such powers that are completely, undeniably, different in every single facet other than the visual organizational structure and the fact they both result in damage.

I mean, literally show me a power in the power list of any martial class that is remotely similar to Flaming Sphere or Wall of Fire? My Hexblade had weird zones of shadowy blindness and nectrotic damage, and the ability to move targets he hit in any direction from like 3 squares away. My rogue could not be built with anything like that, nor my monk, warlord, or ranger. My assassin could become a shadow creature that damaged anything that hit him, and teleport short distances at will.

It really is objectively true that the classes and powers are very different, and presentation creates the false perception of lacking diversity of outcome and methodology in play.

 

[Garthanos]

Something like that. MP2 had 'Martial Practices' - alternatives to rituals that did not-terribly-epic things at the cost of a Surge.

Anything that a nearly impossible check might accomplish was my idea for spending hp or an HD in 5e it leaves it within the GM decision scope... still wont avoid the coffee probably

Well Medieval buildings. Coffee's not period.

LOL

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The Character Builder was definitely available outside of a subscription for most of the time I was playing 4E. I ran one campaign and played another with it. But there was a point where they completely scrapped the old program, released a new (and less functional) one, and tied it to a subscription model.

Nope. Getting updates requires a sub. Well, okay, you could get the update files from someone with a sub.

But that doesn't really address what I asked. I asked when DDi was free during the actual run of 4e. When could you legally get the updates, compendium, and magazines without a sub?

 

[Mort]

My concerns are pretty much about game play rather than game balance. Game play is all about the ability to make decisions that matter and impact your success or failure whereas game balance is more about equality of outcome. My primary beef with Fifth Edition is a game is that it makes concessions to game play in order to have a more balanced game.

I think making the caster actually face meaningful choices greatly enhances game play.

I DMd 3e/3.5 all the way through 20th level and it really struck me how casters had too much choice without sacrifice: buff the fighter, debuff the enemy, section off the battlefield and summon some monsters for good measure, all in the same combat - sure why not.

It was too much and needed to be reigned in. Concentration does that by making the caster choose.

It feels like every opportunity they sought to bring the skill floor and skill ceiling closer and closer together. This touches on all points of the game from class design to spell design to monster design. Concentration instead of Sustaining a Spell, Hit Dice instead of Healing Surges, Neovancian Casting instead of Vancian Casting, Split Movement instead of positioning, Weak Combat Maneuvers, Champion being nearly as good as a well played Battle Master, relying overly on Advantage and Disadvantage, and monsters that are big bags of hit points are a few of my least favorite things.

There are plenty of opportunities for skilled play in 5e. 5e actually promotes party synergy extraordinarily well.

I get it. All this stuff makes the game more accessible, but by removing a whole host of interactions they have cut down on a skilled player's ability to punch above their weight class. One of my favorite parts of playing and running Fourth Edition was that you could play a Fighter well in the same way you could a Wizard well in previous editions. I would like a higher skill ceiling.

There are lots of interactions in 5e that enhance skilled play both individually and as a team. the BM fighter in my group is a powerhouse because the player really knows how to use his abilities to their maximum benefit (and he's not a powerhouse on offense, he built a very good defensive BM).

not knocking 4e BTW, it was also very good for party symmetry and showcasing non spell casters. I just think 5e does it quite well too.

I was just reading the first combat encounter in descent into avernus (a very tough encounter for 1st level characters) and thinking a party of skilled players will rock this, inexperienced players will get pasted.

 

[Campbell]

I get that some people don’t want to play the Champion because it’s too “simple”, but why do you care if other people do? Is there something about the concept that conflicts with your philosophy of the game?

If we are playing a challenge oriented game it is my expectation that skill at playing the game should matter both in the mechanics and the fiction of the game. I prefer games where these round to round decisions matter and impact performance for all players. I think playing the game hard should have its rewards.

When I play Fifth Edition I do not like really care if another player is playing a Champion. I just enjoy the game for what it is, and do not expect it to be the sort of game I would ideally want it to be.