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

[Garthanos]

Okay -

The full thought was maybe at-wills could be handled that way and grab and shove do seem good, here are a couple.

1) Exaltations: fighter gains temporary hit points from the joy of a successful attack (yeh ego) The amount is analogous to a 5e attribute plus proficiency
2) Focused Shielding: fighter gains resistance equal to attribute plus proficiency versus just this opponent till end of next turn.

I use attribute plus proficiency int the above example to represent just attribute in 4e ... since 4e primary and secondary attributes add that much more as they level.

 

[Charlaquin]

Essentials was a different game IMO.

It was functionally 4.5e, yeah. But it used all the same design tools and produced a result that I think addressed most of the common problems 4e detractors has with the game. Unfortunately it was too little too late, as the crowd it was meant to win back had long since moved on and didn’t really bother looking into Essentials, and the folks who were still playing 4e didn’t like the changes (except me, apparently).

I mean if the complaint is that subclasses should have been at level 1 for all classes - I agree.

You can still prone at any point in time with a single attack. You just can't attack and prone till you've got that extra attack. Seems sensible to me.

It seems sensible, but the problem is, knocking someone prone is useless if you can’t follow it up with an attack, and by the time you can do both, the game is halfway over.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay... but that exists in all games to a degree. Why was gaining resources at the same rate a problem? Or was it even a problem at all?

I don't know that it was a problem in and of itself, but it was one of the things that made the classes feel very samey to me. Taken in totality, that sameyness was one of the problems that I had with 4e.

I've seen a lot of people mention they've had issues with that solution. Each table finds their own balance I suppose, but I suspect you have not kept the same number of encounters that you would have if you were still working on a daily time scale. So, you are keeping a similar balance with only a narrative reskin on the time.

Sure. Everyone table will have different preferences and solutions that work. I have seen a lot of people here say that this one works for them.

I switched because for me and my players, having a bunch of encounters within an 16 hour period time just didn't make sense to us. It's more believable and palatable to spread them out over a week. It works for us.

I think that while the different resources answer is potentially a good one, it leads right back into the problem that caused you to stretch out your time scale. If those powerful resources come back quick enough, and their are a limited number of fights, then those are not equally impactful. Or, if the weaker resources do not recover quicker, you can have the same issue.

Powerful ones would require a long rest to recover, weaker ones a short rest. For games that pack all of the allotted encounters into 1 day, it will work fine. For games that stretch it out to a week and spread the allotted encounters over that time period, it will work fine. If you don't want to do either of those, you are going to have problems no matter which of those two methods you use, unless the players voluntarily don't engage in nova or the 5 minute work day.

 

[FrogReaver]

The full thought was maybe at-wills could be handled that way and grab and shove do seem good, here are a couple.

1) Exaltations: fighter gains temporary hit points from the joy of a successful attack (yeh ego) The amount is analogous to a 5e attribute plus proficiency

Why couldn't you simply use battlemaster rallying cry when you hit and fluff it as you having joy about landing a successful attack?

2) Focused Shielding: fighter gains resistance equal to attribute plus proficiency versus just this opponent till end of next turn.

5e resistance just doesn't work that way. That said, something like parry would seem to solve that (at least against melee attacks). Not a perfect match but it comes out fairly close.

 

[Garthanos]

It seems sensible, but the problem is, knocking someone prone is useless if you can’t follow it up with an attack, and by the time you can do both, the game is halfway over.

I have been assuming heroic tier is where 4e begins so at the point where a fighter can use one extra attack to do something more is when characters start to feel heroic too.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay... but that exists in all games to a degree. Why was gaining resources at the same rate a problem? Or was it even a problem at all?




I've seen a lot of people mention they've had issues with that solution. Each table finds their own balance I suppose, but I suspect you have not kept the same number of encounters that you would have if you were still working on a daily time scale. So, you are keeping a similar balance with only a narrative reskin on the time.





I think that while the different resources answer is potentially a good one, it leads right back into the problem that caused you to stretch out your time scale. If those powerful resources come back quick enough, and their are a limited number of fights, then those are not equally impactful. Or, if the weaker resources do not recover quicker, you can have the same issue.

I won't say it can't work, because 5e comes close to it working, but again, I think you can see why instead of trying such a complicated balancing act, they simply give classes more equivalent resources and more equivalent recoveries.

4e went too far, but it wasn't a bad idea what they attempted to do.




Love that Show <3

Of course, it has a similiar issue with the majority of the villains being physically ugly or deformed. But, I'm still loving it.




Then explain what you mean. They didn't feel like casters. Why? Was it at-wills? I would think not since 5e has at-wills. Encounter Powers? 5e has concentration effects that last an encounter, so that would seem slightly off as well.

If you feel I am nowhere close to what you mean, explain what you mean instead of accusing me of projecting.




Okay, how do you imagine this working out?

Dailies were much more powerful abilities, so would you want Casters to have more dailies and less encounter powers? If they are gaining more of the most powerful abilities, and losing out on smaller abilities, how do you expect that to alter the game play?

I would suspect it would lead to novaing and hoarding. The casters would hoard their abilities til a big fight, then unleash multiple dailies in a row. They would have to have something at-will just to contribute, unless you were thinking of going back to an Ad&D style of 5MWD where the caster is reduced to cheerleading after they use their big abilities.

But, I can only guess at what you mean by those very broad strokes.





No, I am not. I was using your post as a springboard, but I was never arguing against you because you made no claims as to the philosophical messages in The Incredibles. That is why I started that section with a "can we all agree" not "can you FrogReaver agree"



No, I am not. That was is plan. That was how it would be implemented, that is the assumed bias presented in the story.

If you would like to prove your literary view is right, provide evidence and quotes.





And yet, every class does share some resources, they do share recharge times, and a lot of classes play very similarly. This is just plain true.

So, it is only a matter of degrees, and we can talk about the degrees presented and where you want to draw the lines.

But, the section you quoted when you said this, that section has absolutely nothing to do with DnD. I am not equating the philosophy and ideas in the incredible movies to DnD. If you saw what I was saying as somehow suggesting I wanted everyone to be wizards, you missed the point by reading into it what is not there.

I was discussing the movie, the quote people are using, and why I think it carries too much baggage to be a quote people should want to use. Most people don't analyze animated movies for deeper messages, which is why I presented the facts about why that quote from that movie carried the connotation it does.






I think in part it is because of Capn Zap's very vitrolic language about how PF2 is sprinting down the path of destruction by following the ideas of 4e, because the ideas were obviously terrible to begin with.

But, as you start breaking it down, looking at what was there, and thinking about why the choices that existed did, you can begin seeing that there was solid logic involved.

Sure, Martial vs Caster was not a big divide, but Striker vs Defender was. Maybe Arcane vs Divine wasn't as split as it could have been, but there was a divide there.

There is a solid reason to have every class have a similiar number and recovery of resources from a game design perspective.

And so, in responding to the idea of there being no redeeming qualities, we end up discussing what was good and what was different.

Not commenting to everything

I disliked 3.5e
I think 4e pre essentials was a great game

I can still say the game had a sameyness to it - which at the time was acceptable for me because there didn't appear to be a better way to balance the game.

The sameyness was mostly inherent in these areas:
1. Similar role (defenders actually got unique mechanics here but most roles did not)
2. Similar Powers - most classes got powers that did very similar things - especially when compared to other members of their role - or to members of their "subrole".

 

[Garthanos]

Why couldn't you simply use battlemaster rallying cry when you hit and fluff it as you having joy about landin

Didn't read as self affecting but seems like it might.

5e resistance just doesn't work that way. That said, something like parry would seem to solve that (at least against melee attacks). Not a perfect match but it comes out fairly close.

That is one of those damage resistance that stops a lot of attacks is too powerful since a lot of attacks is how a lot of big damage dealing gets done. Basically am I right that form of Shield use from 4e would lock down even a high level adversary where as in 4e the high level attack might very likely be doing it all in one big attack

Of course none of this really works unless it could be enabled on a forgo an attack to do it or say trigger and enemy opportunity attack with a risky move or similar adjustments.

 

[Charlaquin]

The subclasses are distinctly different. A Champion doesn't feel or play like a Battle Master and neither feel or play like an Eldritch Knight. Casters get MORE differentiation, but the spells they pick are far and away the least of that. The caster subclasses mean far more.

I don’t think you and I are going to be able to reach an agreement on this. Subclass features are too limited, too few, and come too far apart to constitute what I would consider a meaningful difference. Sure, maybe you get a neat trick you can do a couple times per day every 3-4 levels, but that’s not going to significantly change how the class plays over the course of a typical encounter. An assassin rogue might do more damage to surprised opponents while a Thief may use items with their bonus action, but both characters are still basically doing the same thing from one turn to the next: attack the target standing next to the fighter, if you miss use your bonus action to attack with your off-hand weapon, if you hit disengage. Maybe the thief will toss some caltrops once in a blue moon instead, maybe the assassin will one shot a target occasionally, but on the whole they play out the same the majority of the time.

Some subclasses do have a bigger impact than others - Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and Battlemaster in particular manage to feel pretty meaningful. Most subclasses though, have very little impact on the way the class plays in my experience, at least until late game, and most characters won’t get that high.

 

[Garthanos]

Some subclasses do have a bigger impact than others - Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and Battlemaster in particular manage to feel pretty meaningful.

Does the Cavalier succeed on the look mah I am a defender trick? You didnt seem to think so.

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t think you and I are going to be able to reach an agreement on this. Subclass features are too limited, too few, and come too far apart to constitute what I would consider a meaningful difference.

I don't know what you mean by too far apart. They come at level 3 for the most part, level 1 for some. You can hit level 3 by stepping on an anthill by accident.

Sure, maybe you get a neat trick you can do a couple times per day every 3-4 levels, but that’s not going to significantly change how the class plays over the course of a typical encounter. An assassin rogue might do more damage to surprised opponents while a Thief may use items with their bonus action, but both characters are still basically doing the same thing from one turn to the next: attack the target standing next to the fighter, if you miss use your bonus action to attack with your off-hand weapon, if you hit disengage. Maybe the thief will toss some caltrops once in a blue moon instead, maybe the assassin will one shot a target occasionally, but on the whole they play out the same the majority of the time.

It's thematic and what you can do, pretty much only you can do. You don't have to be able to use your subclass abilities every round to alter the class feel.

Some subclasses do have a bigger impact than others - Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and Battlemaster in particular manage to feel pretty meaningful. Most subclasses though, have very little impact on the way the class plays in my experience, at least until late game, and most characters won’t get that high.

A champion gets improved critical at level 3. 2x the chance to crit on every attack is very different than any other fighting class and is pretty significant. The 7th level ability giving proficiency to every strength, dex and con check you make is also significant.