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

[Charlaquin]

I can agree with that, too. I think 5e definitely has room for improvement. I just disagree that the subclass features do not differentiate PCs within a class.

That’s fair. Like I said, I don’t think we’ll be able to reach an agreement on this, and that’s ok. Diversity of opinions is good.

 

[Garthanos]

In 4e essentials a subclass potentially meant a full role shift but they did so by not really partaking significantly of the parent class.

 

[Garthanos]

The person who I replied to before you quoted me.

change the way your character behaves on a round by round basis was the quote.

 

[Don Durito]

Allow me to clarify: having an encounter or daily power changes your behavior on a round by round basis by giving you a limited resource that allows you to impact the encounter in a significant way. The decision of whether or not to use that resource this turn is a significant effect on gameplay, as is the effect it has when you do choose to use it. Having one thing you can do three times per day? Yes, that does affect your round by round behavior a bit, but not that much. Certainly not compared to having four different abilities you can use once per day each and four different abilities you can use once per encounter each, all of which have different effects on the encounter beyond just changing the numbers.

I found over time more dailies got released that were encounter long effects such as Rages and Stances and that we all gravitated towards those.

 

[Garthanos]

A fighter that grapples or trips is generally wasting his attacks, because those are less effective strategies than just doing damage. Situationally this can be useful, but again, not unique to Fighters.

I think that is important. Example a brawler fighter had abilities that keyed off of it. Sometimes via feats and sometimes via core class abilities. Things that made it hard to break their grab. Things which made them better defended while grabbing an enemy and the likes representing superior capability not just something anyone can do.

 

[Garthanos]

And also when we look at two powers that both do “[2W] and a minor effect” we see a lot more difference than one attack that does 1d8 slashing and another attack that does 1d8 piercing.

I see the headsman's chop allowing your to exploit that minor effect downed enemy better (or even a team where several have that ) synergy. These things have interactions

 

[Garthanos]

I see nothing of the 4e style balance in PF2 btw - PF2 and its presentation must be just too unfamiliar to me.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So what. What level you stop at is your choice. 10th is not the capstone ability unless you want it to be.

That is incredibly false Max. Many, many things break up games without it being a single players choice.

For example, an online game of mine just ended. We started at level 5 and got to level 6. It ended because we had multiple players not show up and the DM decided to can the game. We are starting a new campaign with new characters so we can bring in new players.

I have another game we have been playing for over a year by Play-by-Post, started at level 1, just hit level 4 a few weeks ago. We have also almost had the campaign collapse on a few occassions due to life pressures.

So, declaring that it is "your choice" when a game ends is false. Sometimes the game just ends.

 

[CapnZapp]

4e and PF2 share the same genetics. They're both reactions (at least to an extent) to 3.x and the issues inherent to that edition. So it isn't terribly surprising that they ended up with somewhat similar solutions when they were solving the same 'problems'.

That's not the question I was discussing.

What is terribly surprising is why a game released in 2019 would want to share the same genetics as 4E.

As for why the game isn't more like 5e, I think they wanted to make their own thing rather than chasing after WotC.

But... but... they didn't make their own thing* - they chased after the WotC of 2008!
*) remember, talking core philosophy here, as discussed in the OP

 

[Lanefan]

I want character able to defend there allies like mentioned by Gygax in the very first D&D I played regularly. I want a character that is the Alexander the Great and other tactical geniuses mentioned in the 2e PHB but which never happened.

I want that swordmage who protects allies an utterly different way with shielding and so on.

And you can do these things in any edition - hell, probably in a high percentage of RPGs overall - but here's the rub: you have to accept that it'll be achieved by your characterization and play of your PC and likely won't have (and, more importantly, won't need) any specific game mechanics to back it up.

A character who defends its allies? Easy - in fact that's the very character I played last night. A Cleric in heavy armour, just about all his wealth poured into defensive magics, can't fight well and has slightly more strength than a kitten. His usual role is to stand in and take abuse until the damage-dealers can get their act together and bail him out; after which he uses his spells to patch himself up.

A character who's a tactical genius? Easy - take any class and give it some intelligence and maybe a military background, and then just play it like a tactical genius! (which also means you-as-player need to be able to figure out the tactics rather than relying on game mechanics to do it for you)

A swordmage? Not so easy, and unfortunately not so welcome at my table; as pretty much every attempt I've ever seen at a swordmage-type character is invariably born of a desire to either game the system or become a one-man band.