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

[Charlaquin]

He didnt get attacked by the explanation offered nor was that explanation saying his opinion meant nothing because of association X ... that is not turn about.

It's irrelevant what edition you stick in. He wasn't saying it seriously. He was throwing back what had come at him in an effort to show the poster he was responding to that the poster he was responding to was attacking him and not his argument. He was doing a turnabout in order to help the other guy understand what he was doing.

First of all, it’s she/her. Second of all, it’s really awkward to see two people who weren’t involved in the exchange arguing for several posts about what CapnZapp and I did or didn’t say to each other and what was or wasn’t meant by it.

 

[Garthanos]

I'm trying to simulate LOTR, Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser along with any number of fantasy tropes and pulp stories that appear in novels.

Oh I am so positive you cannot do those in 4e you are so convincing. SMDH.
Who are you selling to?

 

[Garthanos]

First of all, it’s she/her.

Sorry. I saw condescension and pushing your opinion and explanation aside as being merely the opinion of someone who liked 4e.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sorry. I saw condescension and pushing your opinion and explanation aside as being merely the opinion of someone who liked 4e.

It’s cool, I appreciate the sentiment.

 

[Oofta]

Oh I am so positive you cannot do those in 4e you are so convincing. SMDH.
Who are you selling to?

In my opinion you could not, at least not until essentials was released.

To each their own.

 

[Garthanos]

That is one niche that remains pretty much unchallenged spell casters still have way more utility if they want it than anyone else and the utility a non-caster has is poorly defined and reliant on guess work.
But as far as the game providing support of all pillars well maybe if you are a caster and not entirely sure about that.

 

[FrogReaver]

So in terms of sameyness -

Having just a fighter and just a Rogue for martial classes wouldnt be a problem if they were actually adaptable classes

What do you want the 5e fighter or rogue to do that he cannot?

or if feats were able to adapt better (sentinel seems like a great defender feat except really we only get one reaction and it conflicts with the protection fighting style),

I'll solve that one for you - be a cavalier

they didnt seem to want you to be able to specialize or be functionally more than damage damage all damage.

A battlemaster with good Charisma and rallying cry and inspiring leader and healer does a lot more than be a damage (leader)
A fighter that grapples can stop an enemy in their tracks (control)
A fighter that trip attacks is slowing an enemy and giving allies bonuses to hit it control)
A fighter can cast utility spells to buff himself or possibly others (leader)

This is what 4e classes were accused of because of roles but roles actually were leveraged to create more approaches to the battle right away for martial types yeh for non-casters.

There were 2 primary parts of a 4e role

Role Mechanic - The defender ones were the only role mechanics I can think of that had a unique feel between classes in the same role.

Powers that supplemented the role - This was your 2[W] + small side effect ability that 90% of all powers were modeled after. You had to really try to not take a samey feeling 2[W] + small side effect power with every character in the group. Heck even most dailies went to 3[W] + moderate side effect or 2[W] + bigger side effect. There were a few gems that if you optimized you could find that would eliminate some of the sameyness - but overall the game was very samey. For example,

I'll use encounter power to do:
Player 1: 2[W] + slide 1
Player 2: 2[W] + grant +1 attack for next ally
Player 3: 2[W] + make enemies next attack be at -1
Player 4: 2[W] + pull 1 (and mark it since I'm a fighter)

Also, an added layer of sameyness was the encouragement to refluff everything.

Most of 5e's choices they give to a player are not samey. Subclass choice is huge.
Classes all have a different mechanic - despite nearly all of them using extra attack.

Barbarian = Rage
Fighter = Action Surge + Number of attacks
Paladin = Divine Smite
Ranger = Hunter's Mark
Monk = Flurry of blows

Full casters are alot more samey in mechanics - but there's still a huge difference in playing a bard, a cleric or a wizard because of the types of spells each have access to.

 

[FrogReaver]

That is one niche that remains pretty much unchallenged spell casters still have way more utility if they want it than anyone else and the utility a non-caster has is poorly defined and reliant on guess work.
But as far as the game providing support of all pillars well maybe if you are a caster and not entirely sure about that.

Be a rogue.

 

[cmad1977]

I cannot build half my 4e characters without using third party products and next to none from the just the 5e phb I call foul

They’re different games with different design and play philosophy. Of course you can’t. Square pegs/round holes. That’s not an issue on the systems end.

 

[Charlaquin]

In my opinion you could not, at least not until essentials was released.

To each their own.

I don’t think any edition of D&D does a great job of emulating the sources you mentioned, honestly. Way too much vulgar magic (to borrow a term from Mage the Ascension). But yeah, 4e definitely leaned more fantastical in what characters could accomplish without magic, which is great for some campaigns but does make those more down to earth classic fantasy stories even more difficult to emulate.

I’ve heard it said that pre-4e D&D was about ordinary people becoming heroes, while 4e is about heroes becoming gods. I think the statement is a tad hyperbolic, but it does nicely summarize one of the major tone differences between 3e and 4e. I think 5e found a pretty decent balance, although I would like to see a slightly more mundane low-end and a slightly more fantastical high-end.