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

[The Crimson Binome]

Ok. There are class-specific effects to each of the types of actions being used (though the italicized part is so...ugh), but somehow having nothing but "+2 to damage when wielding a one-handed weapon" is somehow more interesting???

Qualitatively speaking, "do more damage" is distinct from "do standard damage, and apply an effect".

As often as not, those additional effects were irrelevant. You use the moves you have, because you have them and they deal damage. It's irrelevant whether or not you also pushed the enemy, or knocked them prone. Those things aren't nearly as important, in the grand scheme of things, as how much damage you deal or whether you have higher AC.

 

[Charlaquin]

Speaking from my own personal experience with 4e, I found every class had a 'sameness' because their mechanics were all identical - do 'at-will' with damage plus small class specific effect; do 'encounter' with more damage plus bigger class specific effect; do 'daily' with lots of damage plus class specific effect. And the effects were 'magic-like' no matter which class you were playing.

I feel like brushing over those “class-specific effects” does the powers a great disservice. They produce meaningful, tangible game effects, many of which are quite different from one another. Looking at the two examples from my earlier posts, Tide of Iron pushes the target 5 feet and lets you shift 5 feet into the space you pushed it out of, while Grappling Strike lets you grab the target until the start of your next turn. I can’t fathom how anyone could look at those two things and get the impression that they’re basically the same.

I personally tried to be descriptive with my attacks to try to make them a bit more interesting, but a lot of other players at the table wouldn't even bother mentioning the attack name - they'd just say 'I do 2[w] and mark this guy'. The tactical focus of all the powers were just not what I was looking for in a game.

Is this unique to 4e though? It’s pretty rare that I see players describe their attacks in any edition, except when they’re attempting to accomplish some goal other than just doing damage (e.g. “I hit him with the pommel of my sword to knock him out,” or “I sweep my halberd under his legs to trip him.”)

So for me, having a great weapon fighter reroll 1-2 or a duelist get +2 dmg or two-weapon fighter roll two attacks feels much more interesting than Tide of Iron or Grappling Strike ever did; I feel like a fighter with his speciality.

I don’t get it. Both characters are just swinging a weapon and doing damage. I don’t see anything about rerolling 1s and 2s that communicates the feeling of a warrior who is specialized in heavy weapons, except in the vaguest sense that it’s an extra bit of damage you get when you use the weapon in question. Like, if instead of Tide of Iron being a discrete attack that did the push-shift thing on a hit, it was a “fighting style” that let you do the same push-shift thing when you hit with a hafted weapon or something, would that make it feel better to you?

 

[Eric V]

Qualitatively speaking, "do more damage" is distinct from "do standard damage, and apply an effect".

As often as not, those additional effects were irrelevant. You use the moves you have, because you have them and they deal damage. It's irrelevant whether or not you also pushed the enemy, or knocked them prone. Those things aren't nearly as important, in the grand scheme of things, as how much damage you deal or whether you have higher AC.

Re: italicized part--->No. Positioning mattered a lot. I thought 4e was supposed to be a miniatures game? Since when does positioning not matter in a miniatures game?

 

[Eric V]

I feel like brushing over those “class-specific effects” does the powers a great disservice. They produce meaningful, tangible game effects, many of which are quite different from one another. Looking at the two examples from my earlier posts, Tide of Iron pushes the target 5 feet and lets you shift 5 feet into the space you pushed it out of, while Grappling Strike lets you grab the target until the start of your next turn. I can’t fathom how anyone could look at those two things and get the impression that they’re basically the same.

...or that they're magical effects!!

 

[Charlaquin]

Qualitatively speaking, "do more damage" is distinct from "do standard damage, and apply an effect".

As often as not, those additional effects were irrelevant. You use the moves you have, because you have them and they deal damage. It's irrelevant whether or not you also pushed the enemy, or knocked them prone. Those things aren't nearly as important, in the grand scheme of things, as how much damage you deal or whether you have higher AC.

That’s just factually inaccurate. Positioning was incredibly important in 4e.

 

[Charlaquin]

...or that they're magical effects!!

Eh, I get that. 4e powers “feel like magical effects” to many people because they come in discrete packages just like spells do. You can call it a “maneuver” or whatever, but after so many years, it’s been ingrained into many D&D players’ heads that a little packet of effects that you “use” to produce a specific outcome according to a self-contained set of instructions is what spells are. In my experience, you show a 4e detractor Tide of Iron and Hammer Hands, and they’ll find Hammer Hands more palatable, because modifying a basic attack doesn’t “feel like a spell” the same way that a special attack with a bonus effect does.

 

[Garthanos]

Re: italicized part--->No. Positioning mattered a lot. I thought 4e was supposed to be a miniatures game? Since when does positioning not matter in a miniatures game?

It's an argument from bad faith.... when they want to diss it for that association it is a miniatures game ... but when they want to pretend things are all the same hey ignore positioning and pretend its not significant.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fenris-77]

@Charlaquin the term simulationist tends to refer to the desire on the part of a rule set to somehow usefully or accurately simulate actual combat. The greater definition is more complicated than that but that will do. The amount of crunchbunoved in combat usually indexes some sort of interest in simulationism. D&D for example, has very simulationist roots because it comes from a tabletop wargame specifically working to emulate combat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

@CapnZapp I just skimmed through my PF2 GM Guide and it looks like there are a few interesting rules variants that might address some of your concerns regarding mechanical expression and differentiation. Specifically the Dual Class option (basically, gestalt, where you have 2 classes) and Skill Points (which allow more nuanced skill assignment). This might allow for some more of the optimization it sounds like you'd prefer from the game.