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

[FrogReaver]

Speaking of knock down in 5e. Give up one attack on any turn and you can attempt to knock something prone. It actually resembles your Knockdown Assault power pretty well in that regard.

 

[FrogReaver]

There was a fighter power set up like this... the distinction is just that one enhanced a basic attack.
View attachment 118998

Even that isn't anywhere near enhancing a basic attack. Amazing to me how anyone that liked 4e could equate enhancing a basic attack to any power that didn't.

 

[Garthanos]

Speaking of knock down in 5e. Give up one attack on any turn and you can attempt to knock something prone. It actually resembles your Knockdown Assault power pretty well in that regard.

Isnt that an action that replaces all of your attacks ie use an athletics check or somethign A real martial knockdown should (sorry for inserting stupid realism) actually be much like the 5e maneuver.

 

[FrogReaver]

Isnt that an action that replaces all of your attacks ie use an athletics check or somethign A real martial knockdown should (sorry for inserting stupid realism) actually be much like the 5e maneuver.

No. It replaces 1 attack and uses atheletics (a strength save).
Didn't the 4e power you quoted target fortitude defense instead of AC as well?

I see alot more in common between Attack Action: knock prone (athletics contest) + attack (vs AC)
And Knockdown Assault power - knock prone and deal str mod damage (vs fortitude defense)

Than full attack + trip attack manuever.

 

[Garthanos]

Even that isn't anywhere near enhancing a basic attack. Amazing to me how anyone that liked 4e could equate enhancing a basic attack to any power that didn't.

Oh enhancing the basic attack was a can of worms that caused way more issues so yeah they were different I was referring to just the versatility being similar

 

[Garthanos]

No. It replaces 1 attack and uses atheletics (a strength save).

That is much better "almost" makes the maneuver redundant.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Weird. Most of the time that I saw it, it was because every class used the exact same structure for gaining abilities, all had encounter, daily and at will powers, and the powers were very similar in structure(1W+effect). The martial abilities seemed like magic was also a common complaint, but it was a separate complaint most of the time. At least when I saw these things come up.

Maybe I'm confused, but what do you mean by "every class used the same structure for gaining abilities"? Isn't that how DnD always works? Or are you talking about how they all gained a similar number of abilities at a similar rate, ie, everyone gained 2 at-will an encounter and a daily, next level everyone gained a utility?

I've never understood why everyone having at-will, encounter, or daily resources was such a big deal. Frankly, it seems like a good solution to the constant complaints we have in 5e. After all, if you are novaing all 2 encounters you have and the wizard is outshining the barbarian because of it, if the barbarian also had daily powers to waste on those fights, then it would be more equitable without having to go to "absurd lengths" as I have heard it called to have 8 fights in a single day.

I will grant the similar structure to the powers, that irritated me as well. However, I'm curious about something. How does any of this make someone special? If everyone is using weapon damage plus riders... what we want some people to use weapon damage and other people to use random number? Everyone has the same number of resources... what do we want some people to have far more resources than others?

These seem like relatively good things, a little boring perhaps, but everyone having the same number of resources for the daily expenditure seems like a good goal, not one which should be derided, especially since we complain constantly that warlocks and monks are too weak if you don't get 2 SRs an adventure and that wizards are too powerful because they can solve all the fighter since the DM can only fit in 3 fights per day.

In light of that, you can see where 4e was coming from. And those are 5e complaints, I'm assured that. 3.5 was worse.

I don't think 4e made everyone feel like a caster - at least not anymore than 5e does. What it did was make casters feel like non-casters much more than it made non-casters feel like casters.

Can you see how this makes people think you want to make casters better than non-casters? Your complaint isn't that it made non-casters feel like casters (who were far and away the best in 3.5) but that is made casters feel like non-casters (who were far and away inferior in 3.5).

They didn't make the other classes too good, they didn't make us good enough, and that is bad.

Maybe you don't mean it that way, but that is how it sounds. And, if you try and explain how you wanted casters to be more like casters, think about what you might have wanted. Bigger effects? Bigger Area of Effect? Longer term effects? More interesting effect? All of those would make them better than average. Which would make your desire come across as wanting casters to be better than martials.

I think you are arguing against a strawman.

At least you realize what was meant.

I can't say in strong enough terms that what you said is 100% wrong.

No, I'm not wrong and I'm not arguing against a strawman. I'm not arguing against anyone in this thread either. I'm pointing out the philosophy and literature of the source people want to use as a pithy one-liner.

He states his goal and his plan. He is going to give technology to everyone so that everyone in the world is superpowered, is special. This is bad, because the supers who were born with their gifts would no longer be special. If everyone is like you, if everyone is as strong as you or as fast as you, then you aren't special anymore. That is his "villainous plot", equality of ability through technology. That is the source of the line people are using.

And the movie presents this as a terrible thing. If everyone is special, if everyone has super powers, then no one is special, there are no icons standing above us and being better than us with their inborn gifts.

It is notable that many supervillains, and in fact every Incredible's Villain, uses technology. The Bomber from the beginning, Syndrome, the Miss Mind Control from the second movie. I love the Incredible's movies, they are great, but it is really concerning to realize that all the good guys are born with their gifts and all the bad guys are using technology to make themselves equal and pull the heroes down to their level. To prove that being born with better gifts does not make them better than normal people. I cannot think of a single villainous super from that series, everyone born with powers that set them above is good, the majority of those using technology to make themselves equal are bad.

So, I find the use of the phrase "If everyone is special, no one is" to be philosophically messy. It carries with it a lot of baggage no one really wants to have associated with them.

 

[FrogReaver]

That is much better "almost" makes the maneuver redundant.

I think a lot of the things 4e powers could do are covered by giving up an attack from your attack action in 5e.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't think 4e made everyone feel like a caster - at least not anymore than 5e does.

I think rituals and cantrips made Wizards feel more like caster from myth and legend more than they ever had

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe I'm confused, but what do you mean by "every class used the same structure for gaining abilities"? Isn't that how DnD always works? Or are you talking about how they all gained a similar number of abilities at a similar rate, ie, everyone gained 2 at-will an encounter and a daily, next level everyone gained a utility?

The latter.

I've never understood why everyone having at-will, encounter, or daily resources was such a big deal.

It's one of the things that made the classes feel the same to a lot of us.

Frankly, it seems like a good solution to the constant complaints we have in 5e. After all, if you are novaing all 2 encounters you have and the wizard is outshining the barbarian because of it, if the barbarian also had daily powers to waste on those fights, then it would be more equitable without having to go to "absurd lengths" as I have heard it called to have 8 fights in a single day.

That's why I went to 1 week for a long rest and 1 day for a short rest in my 5e games. If the wizard and barbarian nova in the first encounter or two, they will indeed shine bright for those moments. Then they fade away while the others shine during the rest of the encounters that happen throughout the week.

I will grant the similar structure to the powers, that irritated me as well. However, I'm curious about something. How does any of this make someone special? If everyone is using weapon damage plus riders... what we want some people to use weapon damage and other people to use random number? Everyone has the same number of resources... what do we want some people to have far more resources than others?

Different resources. As well as some having greater numbers of weaker resources, and others having fewer numbers of more powerful resources. Vary it up is all I want. 5e did that better than 4e, which is why despite a lot of similarities, we eventually moved to 5e and didn't touch 4e.

In light of that, you can see where 4e was coming from. And those are 5e complaints, I'm assured that. 3.5 was worse.

3.5 being worse depends on if you are all that worried about balance or not. I have a higher tolerance for imbalance than many. So long as I can contribute meaningfully, it doesn't matter if that guy over there had better stats and could do more damage. I also have players that feel the same way. 3.5 was amazing for us, though it was still a bit more unbalanced than we prefer, which is why we eventually switched to 5e.