D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Garthanos]

No.

I was pretty sure it wasn't what you meant but what gets communicated.

 

[Oofta]

Compared to, what, everyone using the two 1d6 weapons, a 1d8 versatile weapon and shield, or a 1d10 reach weapon? Or every caster using the same handful of cantrips? At least Powers did something besides bringing the monsters’ imaginary numbers closer to 0.


I’ll agree that a lot of Powers that did do literally the same thing as each other should really have just been the same power. But that’s a problem of wordcount economy not class feel.


Meaningless statement. Everyone had the tools to make their character play differently than other characters of the same class and/or at the same table in meaningful, gameplay-affecting ways. That’s a good thing.


Now that’s an argument with some substance. My counter argument is that if those aura abilities do different things for different characters, then they do set those characters apart. Yeah, sure, we both have auras, but if your aura does X and mine does Y, that’s a meaningful distinction.

Champion fighter plays significantly different than Eldritch Knight than Diviner than Warlock than ... well, the list goes on.

But this is getting into edition wars. You wanted an explanation, I gave you one. You don't have to agree with it.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't really see how having options that are worse than other options is a step away from balance. 4E had the same thing, there were lots of rubbish options.

I think you had to work at it to nerf bat your character though... my family liking diverse competence in attributes probably has higher impact than liking to train history or take the linguistics feat.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm a bit confused about why 5E isn't really on the 4E/PF2 side of the OPs equation here (Hell 3E too).

Sure it's vague about some of its rules for things like skill DCs and the like, but fundamentally character balance is clearly a concern. (What else is all this open playtesting for if not ensuring new options are balanced?)

I don't really see how having options that are worse than other options is a step away from balance. 4E had the same thing, there were lots of rubbish options.

I think

I'm a bit confused about why 5E isn't really on the 4E/PF2 side of the OPs equation here (Hell 3E too).

Sure it's vague about some of its rules for things like skill DCs and the like, but fundamentally character balance is clearly a concern. (What else is all this open playtesting for if not ensuring new options are balanced?)

I don't really see how having options that are worse than other options is a step away from balance. 4E had the same thing, there were lots of rubbish options.

I think the argument the OP was trying to make was fundamentally less about balance and more about DM empowerment, or more accurately, trust in the DM. Balance is a concern in 5e, yes, but 5e allows itself more wiggle-room in terms of how closely the various options are balanced, trusting the DM to make up the difference. 5e trusts the DM to distribute treasure magic items however they feel is right for their game instead of having an expected progression of wealth and magic bonuses by level. 5e trusts the DM to set DCs and assign advantage/disadvantage as they feel is appropriate instead of trying to develop a comprehensive system of fixed DCs and situational modifiers. There was a dramatic shift in thinking from 4e to 5e away from trying to use the rules to prevent the DM from screwing things up and towards giving the DM the tools to make the game work for them. And that shift is the #1 reason why I prefer it over 4e, as much as I do like 4e. It’s also probably the root cause of most of what keeps me from liking PF2 as much as I had hoped.

 

[Oofta]

I was pretty sure it wasn't what you meant but what gets communicated.

I'm tired of saying that I'm just explaining my opinion. You don't have to agree.

I'm not getting pulled any further into another edition wars.

 

[Charlaquin]

Champion fighter plays significantly different than Eldritch Knight than Diviner than Warlock than ... well, the list goes on.

I disagree that Champion plays significantly differently than Eldritch Knight. I could certainly make a pair of 4e fighters that play more differently.

But this is getting into edition wars. You wanted an explanation, I gave you one. You don't have to agree with it.

I don’t recall asking for an explanation.

 

[Oofta]

I disagree that Champion plays significantly differently than Eldritch Knight. I could certainly make a pair of 4e fighters that play more differently.


I don’t recall asking for an explanation.

Again, I'm done arguing. Have a good one.

 

[Garthanos]

I disagree that Champion plays significantly differently than Eldritch Knight.

Damage damage more damage multi-attacks to do it with ....on and on but look this one is called a cantrip?

 

[Charlaquin]

Damage damage more damage multi-attacks to do it with ....on and on but look this one is called a cantrip?

To be fair, I think the casting subclasses for non casting classes are the subclasses that are most distinct from other characters of the same class. But that’s kinda the problem, right? Non-casters are back to not getting to do anything particularly interesting. Any time someone says “if everyone is special, no one is,” all I can hear is “I don’t want non-casters to have nice things.”

 

[Garthanos]

To be fair, I think the casting subclasses for non casting classes are the subclasses that are most distinct from other characters of the same class. But that’s kinda the problem, right? Non-casters are back to not getting to do anything particularly interesting. Any time someone says “if everyone is special, no one is,” all I can hear is “I don’t want non-casters to have nice things.”

Sure the caster subclass is really just a form of multi-classing for characters who are in a game where the DM looked at multiclassing and took the warning label seriously, It hardly counts.