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

[Neonchameleon]

I dragged out my 4e books to take a closer look at powers, and yes, while there is lots of shifting, pulling and shoving, there are also a lot of very cool flavourful powers. The monk, for example, is way more interesting than the 5e monk. The game is more fantastical, especially when you add in the other player books. We have characters briefly turning into flights of birds or raining down shards from their bows, at 1st level.

I was not a fan of 4e, but taking another look, I think there's a lot there to commend it. Weapon choice is more meaningful. I've always liked the at will, encounter and daily idea, as it is nice and obvious when abilities can be used, and you don't have to rely on short rests.

There was a lot there and a vast amount of flavour. On the downside it's pretty heavily buried and the books are designed as reference manuals rather than something that's inspiring to read. Which is pretty ironic as thanks to the character builder and a clean ruleset with few fiddly exceptions they find less use as reference books than e.g. 5e rulebooks at the table.

As for the shifting, pulling, and shoving, I like being able to customise my fighter's fighting style and movement. How you move and how you attack makes you a lot more distinctive than a +2 here, a +3 there, and a 1 in 20 critical chance. I don't find it at all uninspiring but I do find it appeals to a certain type of kinaesthetic mindset while others like either faster options or more flash. Which is fine as both exist (and one reason I'm more keen on Essentials than a lot of 4e fans). And yes the PHB is the most vanilla book of them all and they got wilder in the supplements.

I also have every sympathy with someone who looks at the PHB ranger and finds it pretty boring. That class was popular because it was at the top of the power curve - but it wasn't interesting and was mostly a combat-blender.

As far as the character sheet being too complicated? You don't need a program. It's just going to be a lot of erasing when you level up. You are going to need power cards, however. No way all those abilities will be easily memorized. But, then again, I use them in 5e too (my own, not going to buy them.)

As mentioned I designed an entire 4e character on scrap paper with no books handy. And didn't make any mistakes. But to quote Jurassic Park "Just because you can doesn't mean you should".

The rules books are not immersive, which is odd because of its more fantastical feel at the table. It's not going to fit in with the typical adventures, we imagine in D&D, but if you want to play a game with mighty heroes, heading for fantastic destinies, who'll have a huge impact on the world, 4e is a good choice.

Honestly I find that 4e works really well with any sort of adventure path style adventure - although pretty badly with Fantasy F---ing Vietnam and DMing a 4e sandbox takes significant skill. 4e also does the best low-magic fantasy of any D&D because you really feel the lack of spellcasters in any other edition. In 4e you just say "Martial and near martial classes only. If you're going to play a Barbarian be sensible and don't take the options that are so metal that when you roar with your voice of thunder the heavens answer with lightning please". (Note: Not an exaggeration and you can start doing that from pretty low level).

But a big difference in tone is the one mentioned by @Xetheral above. In most editions of D&D magic is something other from the rest of the world and things are either magical or mundane and never the twain shall meet. The only genres of non-D&D fantasy where this applies that I can think of are Urban Fantasy (where our protagonist steps from the mundane world into the magical world) and Isikai (likewise but a very different magical world). In even the stories on which classic D&D is based such as Lord of the Rings, Conan, Jack Vance's Dying Earth, and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, things just are. The world is fantastic and the protagonists are larger than life even if they are normally not spellcasters (see above with 4e being the only D&D that can take an all non-casting party in its stride). Also explicit spellcasting is rare; someone notoriously worked out Gandalf was fifth level - and in Jack Vance's Dying Earth an archmage might be able to remember six spells at a time, but only the greatest of archmages.

As far as PF2 and 4e? The games don't really play the same. PF2 still feels like PF1. There are some similarities to 4e, but not to the extent that Paizo deliberately chose to copy 4e.

My hypothesis is that the only people saying PF2 is like 4e are those who neither like nor understand 4e and want to put two things they dislike into the same box.

The thing I haven't seen (and would be interested to) is some reason it's worth it to wade through character creation to get to the game. And what PF2 does better than anything else I've got on my shelf.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Really, if you are looking for a game that was written to get 4e "right," that'd be 13th Age.

Agreed. I don't say it does get 4e right because it strips out the battlemap; it's entirely designed for theatre of the mind (not that there's anything wrong with that - just that it's a slightly different itch to scratch). And there are a couple of places where e.g. the fighter is far too reactive rather than proactive for me. But it's definitely a design by the lead designer of 4e working with the lead designer of 3.0 trying to get a slightly different version of 4e right while making the opposite choice on Theater of the Mind. (It's also designed for Theater of the Mind in a way 5e simply isn't).

And it goes in almost the opposite direction to Pathfinder 2 - none of the feats are remotely fiddly. And it trusts the DM far more than 5e (as 4e does).

 

[CapnZapp]

My hypothesis is that the only people saying PF2 is like 4e are those who neither like nor understand 4e and want to put two things they dislike into the same box.

I am not saying PF2 is like 4e. I am saying there is an underlying design philosophy common to both games - read the original post.

And yes, I dislike that so I'm putting the two games in the same box. I understand them both just fine.

 

[Charlaquin]

Over 500 posts into this thread and it's only just now that I'm realizing how differently you define "presentation" than I do. To me, presentation is marketing, formatting, and developer statements about design intent/assumptions (whether in the rulebooks or in the press). Whereas the difference between (1) an ability that provides an add-on effect to an attack, and (2) a self-contained ability that includes both the attack and the effect, is a structural difference in how an IC capability is modeled. Both methods are good models (and they both map the same IC capability to the same IC result), but the choice of modeling method is apparently much more important to me than it is to you. I'll try to see if I explain where I'm coming from.

To me, one of the most critical features of any model is whether it preserves relationships in the system being modeled. In practice, achieving that goal usually requires that similar features of the system are modeled similarly, and different features of the system are modeled differently. (There are other approaches to preserving relationships, but none would be practical for a high-abstraction model like D&D.)

So when I choose D&D as the game system to model a particular campaign or setting, one of things I want from the system is to preserve the IC relationships that exist in the game world. A key relationship in my game worlds is that the mundane is distinct from the magical--they're fundamentally different concepts, even though the level to which magic is ingrained in the game world varies between settings (arguably, the importance of deciding the level of magic in the setting shows how important the mundane/magic distinction can be). Ergo, I want the mechanics of my chosen model to preserve the distinction between the mundane and the magical.

That brings me back to the choice between modeling an IC capability as an add-on to an attack or as a self-contained ability. In a vacumn, the choice doesn't matter much because, as I acknowledged in my first paragraph, both are good models and map the same IC capability to the same IC result. But the choice isn't made in a vacumn: the system is modeling many IC capabilities, and the choice between modeling two capabilities identically or differently impacts whether and how the model preserves the IC relationship between those two IC capabilities.

Accordingly, I see a very important structural difference between a system that models mundane and magical IC capabilities identically, versus one that models them differently. The former will tend to blur the IC distinctions between the magical and the mundane, while the latter will tend to reinforce them.

Does that help explain the significance I see in the choice between an add-on ability and a self-contained ability? It seems from your post that, to you, as long as the same IC capability is mapped to the same IC result, the choice between modeling it with an add-on ability or a self-contained ability is insignificant. Is that correct?

Excellent post. I would say that, yes, to me the difference between an ability that adds an effect on a hit with a basic attack and a self-contained attack that delivers the same effect on a hit is of minimal significance. It does matter in some cases, such as when the system has other abilities that interact with basic attacks. But, if it wasn’t for Warlords being able to grant their allies extra basic attacks, I would see no functional difference between Tide of Iron (an at-will attack that does 1[W], shoves the target 5 feet, and allows you to shift 5 feet into the space it left) and Hammer Hands (an at-will stance that lets you do the same shove-shift trick whenever you hit with a melee basic attack while the stance is active).

I do understand that this makes a difference to many D&D players. The former, as a self-contained sequence of actions triggered by spending one’s action to use the power, “feels” like a spell to many people, while the latter does not. But functionally, they cause the exact same sequence of game actions to occur, the former is just presented - or as you say here, “modeled” - in the same way spells are typically modeled in D&D. That to me is a superficial difference. Far, far more superficial than the difference between the push-slide maneuver that occurs on a hit with Tide of Iron and the grab that occurs on a hit with Grappling Strike. But only slightly more superficial than the difference between the static +2 damage that occurs on a hit with the Dueling fighting style and the roughly +2 boost to average damage that the reroll that happens on a damage roll of 1 or 2 that occurs on a hit with the Great Weapon fighting style.

 

[Charlaquin]

Really, if you are looking for a game that was written to get 4e "right," that'd be 13th Age.

No. 13th Age is a great game that adopts a lot of good ideas from 4e, but it is not the successor 4e fans need or deserve.

(EDIT: To be clear, I’m using “need or deserve” for the Dark Knight reference, nor because I genuinely think 4e fans are entitled to a spiritual successor.)

 

[Charlaquin]

My hypothesis is that the only people saying PF2 is like 4e are those who neither like nor understand 4e and want to put two things they dislike into the same box.

Easy enough to disprove. I like 4e and I see a lot of what I like about it in PF2. I do think that calling it “like 4e” is an oversimplification, but I don’t think it’s untrue.

 

[Manbearcat]

The issue I always find with trying to compare a game like 4th edition to another game (like, say, PF2 and 5e) is that people infer far too much commonality from one or two siloed pieces of gaming architecture. A game like 4th edition is about the holistic experience of actual play that all of the various pieces create when integrated coherently by the designers and deployed deftly at the table by the participants.

So, while my understanding of PF2 is very minimal, I would be shocked to find that it actually played anything like 4e D&D.

I would be very, very surprised to find out that the GM mental framework one assumes when running 4e is similar to that of PF2.

I would be very, very surprised to find out that (say) the player of a Fighter is assuming the same breadth and even type of decision-points in PF2 in combat as one does in in a combat in 4e (Should I spend Mighty Sprint and Skirmish Encounter Power x to run and leap upon the battlements and cut down this unit of protected Artillery Minions? Should I instead try to run over and topple this wall that this other group of 3 Artillery Minions are attacking from? Should I use Mighty Sprint to run and leap across the pit in the bailey to engage the Wizard and its Golem to control them so they can't dictate the fight to my allies...and then my allies can work on the protected artillery?)

And given the fact that the game isn't about closed scene resolution in non-combat conflicts (eg Skill Challenges), that same Fighter player (and certainly the GM in generating complications and evolving the fiction toward the win:loss condition as the scene progresses) is definitely inhabiting a different headspace when dealing with noncombat obstacles.

 

[Charlaquin]

The issue I always find with trying to compare a game like 4th edition to another game (like, say, PF2 and 5e) is that people infer far too much commonality from one or two siloed pieces of gaming architecture. A game like 4th edition is about the holistic experience of actual play that all of the various pieces create when integrated coherently by the designers and deployed deftly at the table by the participants.

So, while my understanding of PF2 is very minimal, I would be shocked to find that it actually played anything like 4e D&D.

I would be very, very surprised to find out that the GM mental framework one assumes when running 4e is similar to that of PF2.

I would be very, very surprised to find out that (say) the player of a Fighter is assuming the same breadth and even type of decision-points in PF2 in combat as one does in in a combat in 4e (Should I spend Mighty Sprint and Skirmish Encounter Power x to run and leap upon the battlements and cut down this unit of protected Artillery Minions? Should I instead try to run over and topple this wall that this other group of 3 Artillery Minions are attacking from? Should I use Mighty Sprint to run and leap across the pit in the bailey to engage the Wizard and its Golem to control them so they can't dictate the fight to my allies...and then my allies can work on the protected artillery?)

And given the fact that the game isn't about closed scene resolution in non-combat conflicts (eg Skill Challenges), that same Fighter player (and certainly the GM in generating complications and evolving the fiction toward the win:loss condition as the scene progresses) is definitely inhabiting a different headspace when dealing with noncombat obstacles.

Very true. I would say the overall, holistic feel of playing PF2 is much closer to that of playing PF1 than it is to that of playing 4e. I think when people say it’s “like 4e,” they’re referring to specific design elements it has in common with 4e, about which they have strong feelings.

 

[Lanefan]

Just because its tradition doesn't mean it's automatically the best option. Traditions are just peer pressure from dead people

And sometimes persist because anything that's come since just isn't as good.

Sorry, I have to say : BOOOOORING.

I guess it's a valid way to play but that shouldn't be the only option for a mundane melee attacker!

That can apply to EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER in the game. Not sure why the Fighter needs to be the boring one and be limited to that kind of differentiation.

Reeks of Caster privilege >.>

"Caster privilege" has nothing to do with what I'm after, which is one (but prefereably several or even many) class(es) that's mechanically dirt-simple to create and play such that when playing it one can ignore mechanics entirely and still be halfway effective, either because the mechanics get in the way of immersion or because one isn't interested in learning them.

At the same time I'm trying (not for the first time!) to point out that even if two characters are mechanically identical they can be made to play vastly differently at the table.

In 1e all the non-caster classes plus Paladin and Ranger filled this simple-to-play role - Thieving skills could always be kept DM-side - but starting in later 2e more and more basic mechanics have been pushed player-side just as a matter of course.

 

[Charlaquin]

And sometimes persist because anything that's come since just isn't as good.

"Caster privilege" has nothing to do with what I'm after, which is one (but prefereably several or even many) class(es) that's mechanically dirt-simple to create and play such that when playing it one can ignore mechanics entirely and still be halfway effective, either because the mechanics get in the way of immersion or because one isn't interested in learning them.

At the same time I'm trying (not for the first time!) to point out that even if two characters are mechanically identical they can be made to play vastly differently at the table.

In 1e all the non-caster classes plus Paladin and Ranger filled this simple-to-play role - Thieving skills could always be kept DM-side - but starting in later 2e more and more basic mechanics have been pushed player-side just as a matter of course.

It’s almost like players actually like mechanics!