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

[Manbearcat]

It’s a pretty meaningless statement, yeah. Generally what I think it’s being used to mean here is that if it’s not possible to make a suboptimal character, then character building choices don’t matter. Which is absurd, in my opinion.

That seems to be the case, which, I agree is absurd. As if there is only a single axis of character creation: optimal vs suboptimal.

Of course this is clearly not true.

1) Just combat alone has several different axes:

• Single Target vs AoE
• Control (including Defend)/Status Effects vs Damage
• Mitigation/Soak vs Avoidance/Mobility
• Group Support vs Self-Sufficient
• Ranged vs Melee

I'm sure there are other meaningful choices that I'm forgetting.

2) Then you have different build choices for dealing with noncombat obstacles:

• Direct vs Finesse (this alone encompasses many different things from information gathering to parley to physical obstacle navigation)
• Wilderness vs Urban vs Subterranean
• Group Support vs Self-Sufficient

I'm sure there are other meaningful choices that I'm forgetting.

3) Then you have thematic choices which incorporates any number of things from

• Source of power
• Bonds/relationships
• Ethos

 

[Neonchameleon]

I may not have played much of 4e, but what I did play supports this idea. A defender and their contribution to the party could not be fully matched by another role. Now, a lot of class did have a prime and secondary role. I think Paladins, going off memory, were Defenders who had a bit of Leader mixed in.

Indeed. And one of the key ways they did that was Lay on Hands - there were very few sources of surgeless healing in 4e - almost all the leader abilities let people spend healing surges, allowing them to dig in to their own reserves as if e.g. a Sergeant Major was shouting at them or their girlfriend was desperately imploring them to get off the mat. Meanwhile all PHB Paladins could spend their own life force through Lay on Hands to let their allies heal. They also had a Channel Divinity ability to allow allies to make a saving throw to shrug off magic. And yes, the Invoker and the Avenger both had their abilities to help hand out saving throws - while the Cleric was an extremely healery and leadery leader. Meanwhile the primal defender (the warden) was, as you suspect, a tank. Nowhere near as high damage as a fighter that was trying for damage, the warden had the highest hit point total in the game and was good at shrugging off effects.

I also would like to chime in and confirm, almost every time I hear people talking about 4e being too "samey" it is closely followed or explicitly paired with "Everyone was a caster". So, it is a very fair assessment of someone using the phrase "If everyone is special then no one is" and taking it in that direction.

I read it as an artifact of D&D having historically given all the interesting abilities to spellcasters. That in combat the historical way for the fighter to fight has been to either spam basic attacks or to take one other attack type and not routinely mix up their tactics the way a real world skirmish fighter would. Also fighters aren't expected to worry about adrenaline or about pacing themselves because that's not the way it's done in D&D even if it is the way it is in the real world.

Also Also, can we acknowledge that using that phrase as a negative is a horrible position to take?

Thank you! And that's why I quoted this post even if it's still relevant after a ridiculous number of pages.

Syndrome's position was to ruing superheroes by making everyone into superheroes. If every persona has super strength, you aren't special anymore are you Mr. Incredible. And that is portrayed as a bad thing, but lets be clear, a world where every construction worker could strap on a suit of power armor and safely tear things up? A world where every firefighter had the technology to control fire, absorb it, stop it from burning down a house? A world were every deep sea diver was aquaman? Everyone could fly?

That is the goal of technology, to make everyone special. The idea that that is a negative, and that power and abilities should be hoarded so that "Only I am special" is a terrible philosophy to take.

And sure, I know some people are going to say "what we mean is that everyone is going to be special in their own way, not in the same way" I'll go ahead and repost the quote, so you can read it again.

"If everyone is special then no one is" This doesn't mean if everyone is special in their own way. That isn't included in the line. If everyone is special, even in their own unique and quirky way, then no one is special.

This. And it confuses me that someone would want their allies and teammates to not be special. Impostor Syndrome, with everyone thinking the people around them are more awesome than they are is a thing. But if you want your organisation to be the best you want everyone around you to be good - and there's a reason that when we look at great bands like The Beatles and Queen there is no weak link even if Queen only had one front-man (and four people inducted into the songwriting hall of fame). Even Fleetwood Mac is full of strong links (and Rumours is one of the best feuding albums of all time).

I just don't understand why people want their friends and allies to not be special.

 

[FireLance]

It’s a pretty meaningless statement, yeah. Generally what I think it’s being used to mean here is that if it’s not possible to make a suboptimal character, then character building choices don’t matter. Which is absurd, in my opinion.

The analogy I would use is picking something from the menu of the best restaurant in the world. There are no bad choices because everything is great. However, there may be bad choices for you because you're allergic to shellfish or you are vegetarian. Everything is special, but you choose the flavor of special that you want.

 

[FireLance]

Since I've broken my silence, I'll go ahead and throw my hat into the ring. Responding to a few points extracted from the first post:

...

Instead: Both games focus on the encounter. Both games are obsessed with balance. Neither game really trusts the GM.

The difference between 3E, PF1 and 5E on one hand, and 4E and PF2 on the other, is that players aren't allowed to influence the power of their characters to any substantial degree. If everybody is special, nobody is. Sure, another way of saying this is the latter games make it much harder to build a crippled character, but I do not think this is what us gamers are asking for and I don't think this is what us gamers want.

...

tl;dr: I think the downfall of 4E was its overbearing controlling nature, and I see the same in PF2. This goes far deeper than merely "presentation", and even deeper than shallow gameplay comparisons.

1. Gamers are not a homogenous bunch. I personally happen to like encounter-focused, well-balanced, no-poor-character-building-choices, take-the-DM-out-of-the-equation/make-it-easier-for-the-DM-by-requiring-fewer-judgement-calls types of games. I'm pretty sure there are others who share my preferences.

2. Blue Ocean strategy is a business strategy that advises against copying or directly competing with the market leader. Instead, you should find a niche that isn't being served as well by the market leader and tap that market. Paizo may be trying to attract gamers who like the sort of games that those who are happy with 5e don't.

 

[Don Durito]

Ok so leaving aside what 'special' means...

'Balance' as such depends to a degree on how directly comparable things are. If a game says "here are three ways to be a badass melee warrior, choose one" then those three things are likely directly comparable and as such there's an issue if they aren't balanced. If a game says "you can be a badass warrior or you can turn into a bat for 10 minutes every day, then these are less directly comparable, and much more difficult to balance. How useful is to be a bat? How much combat will there be? A lot of balancing the two falls back on the GM or the creativity of the players (depending on playstyle) and their different enough that even if they aren't balanced, the player who thinks turning into a bat is really cool, may still choose that option because it's the only way to achieve that end.

A lot depends then on how interesting you think choosing how you can be a bad ass warrior is. For some players it is significant. For others it may feel like "you can have any colour you like as long as it's black." When I see that PF2 photo I just see a page of granular options that basically amount to "hit it with my sword" in a combat that's going to have to take far too long if these things are to be meaningful (because if I just cut the monster's head off, in any additional effects I might apply are meaningless). In any case it's definitely a choice with less breath then "badass warrior" or "turn into bat".

I find it hard to agree that balance is, in itself, actively a problem, but there are trade offs in design used to achieve it. Things are often balanced because they're designed within a more narrow sphere. After all 4E was as balanced as it was not because it's options were rigorously tested and reiterated over time. It was balanced because it's options were designed in such a way as to be easily comparable. This has to result in a trade off in breadth.

There's a paradox that also arises when you look at the possibilty of reskinning and how mechancially distinct options are. Say we have this set of mechanics:
Fighter: default damage D6 Choose one of the 2 following options.
Great Weapon FIghting: Add + d4 damage
Two Weapon Fighting: Roll 2d6 for damage and choose the best.
Our two options are distinct but not in any meaningful way. What's more, The first is clearly better. It's only by a small amount, but since the two choices are so comparable it's obvious. If I'm allowed to reskin powers there's no reason here for me to choose the lesser option. Just take Great Weapon Fighting and reskin it as fighting with two weapons. The sub-optimal choice is only worth taking if it provides a meaningfully different play experience. (See for example why people played the old school thief class, despite it's obvious weaknesses.).

So there's a vicious circle that can arise. The more you design for balance the more any imbalances, however small they are, become glaring and obvious. (And this can make choices more burdensome then fun)

But this also doesn't mean balance doesn't matter. If you have three ways to be a badass warrior, but one is garbage, then you usually don't pick it, or it becomes obvious quickly and you rebuild or retrain. If you choose between bat-shapechanger and badass warrior you may end up playing a campaign for a whole year with gradually growing disillusionment as you find that the situations where you use your bat powers to do something cool are vastly outnumbered by those in which you feel you have little meaningful to contribute.

 

[CapnZapp]

It’s a pretty meaningless statement, yeah. Generally what I think it’s being used to mean here is that if it’s not possible to make a suboptimal character, then character building choices don’t matter. Which is absurd, in my opinion.

If your choices don't allow you to focus on something to do that better than other members of your class, you, or at least I, will quickly tire of the charade.

So not meaningless. And "not optimal" is not suboptimal. You're free to think things are absurd, but remember: the issue here isn't your strawman "if it’s not possible to make a suboptimal character, then character building choices don’t matter".

What's absurd is being asked to make all these choices as if they matter - you still end up pretty much the same as every other fighter (say) of your level - the same attack bonus, the same saves, the same damage... The game is "locked down" and you're only being trusted to change the superficial things. It's the illusion of choice.

Then that allows the publisher to spew forth literally hundreds of feats, all with minute differences, but none of which make any real difference.

Believing this is an adequate substitute for real choice is what I would consider absurd if you ask me.

 

[CapnZapp]

Already answered. In Apocalypse World you can't create an un-special character. But all the characters are special and strongly written to be so and all feel so in play. Flat disproof by counter-example.

Dismissed. That's an apples to oranges comparison.

I don't even have to explain why. Hint: not all ttrpgs place the same emphasis on combat capacity.

 

[CapnZapp]

Also, P2e really needs a Characterbuilder equivalent.

Everybody speaks highly of Pathbuilder 2, an app for Android (only Android).

 

[Garthanos]

Ok so leaving aside what 'special' means...

'Balance' as such depends to a degree on how directly comparable things are. If a game says "here are three ways to be a badass melee warrior, choose one" then those three things are likely directly comparable and as such there's an issue if they aren't balanced.

And if you can split up being a badass warrior into component sub goals of combat like ahem roles, you end up only comparing within a role not so much across roles.

 

[Charlaquin]

If your choices don't allow you to focus on something to do that better than other members of your class, you, or at least I, will quickly tire of the charade.

So not meaningless. And "not optimal" is not suboptimal. You're free to think things are absurd, but remember: the issue here isn't your strawman "if it’s not possible to make a suboptimal character, then character building choices don’t matter".

What's absurd is being asked to make all these choices as if they matter - you still end up pretty much the same as every other fighter (say) of your level - the same attack bonus, the same saves, the same damage... The game is "locked down" and you're only being trusted to change the superficial things. It's the illusion of choice.

Then that allows the publisher to spew forth literally hundreds of feats, all with minute differences, but none of which make any real difference.

Believing this is an adequate substitute for real choice is what I would consider absurd if you ask me.

It’s absurd to me that you consider anything besides attack bonus, saves, and damage “the superficial things.” I believe quite the opposite, those are just numbers, and by far the least interesting way to differentiate characters. What actually matters is the tangible effects they can cause outside of plain damage. I see a much bigger difference between Tide of Iron and Grappling Strike than I do between a fighter with the great weapon fighting style attacking with a greatsword and a fighter with the duelist fighting style attacking with a rapier. The only difference between the latter is boring numbers, the former actually affect the encounter in different ways than each other.