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

[Sadras]

Saminess is largely in the eye of the beholder.

I think this is the heart of the matter. I too had similar feelings of the 4e power same-yness as those of @FrogReaver. I am not going to defend those feelings largely because

1. I was bitterly disappointed with the PHB. I didn't recognise the game, the presentation was alien to me.
2. I was not then mentally prepared for 4e.
3. I was running with a different group at the time and I hated their DMing style, so my initial experience with 4e was negative.
4. It has been a long time and I am not as familiar with the game anymore.

But I'm going to try and describe how those same-y feelings came into being:
Every combat felt like it needed a grid. I kept using the same powers in every fight. These powers were presented like cards on everyone's character sheets. I lost the ability to imagine the combat (poor DM's) and only focus on the mini-board game in front of us. Everyone was pushing and sliding and doing x weapon damage + ability. The controllers had cool effects.
It was the same every combat. We slid and we pushed. Nothing came to life in our minds. It was a chessgame with cards. Again bad DMs and me not being mentally prepared did not help matters. The PHB and DMG also did not help matters for players such as myself.

Anyways, years later I can appreciate what the game tried to do and what it has done for 5e.

 

[DEFCON 1]

*Just to reiterate: I don't hate any version of D&D. I hate Bob with the hate of a thousand suns, but he knows why.

Look, dude... you keep telling us you hate Bob. But since we don't know Bob, nor what he did... it is very disempowering to the rest us to keep that knowledge hidden. How can we adequately discuss the pros and cons of Bob if we aren't given all the details? ENWorld is a message board for discussion, and until Bob is fully put on the table and we are allowed to debate, you do the board a disservice. Do not hide Bob from everybody. Bob deserves to have his day in the sun, especially since he knows what he did.

Or are you afraid that perhaps it's not Bob that is the problem, but maybe it's you? Hmm? Is that it, Oofta? What are you trying to hide? Or is there even a Bob at all?

You know what? I don't think there is a 'Bob'. Or more to the point... I think Oofta is actually Bob themself. I'm right, aren't I? Oofta is Bob. Bob is Oofta. And Oofta knows what they did.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well - the particular quote which you quoted from me was in response to a few non 1[W] style powers.

In other words, don't provide me the few rare examples that break the mold I'm talking about to try to prove your point. Stick with the kinds of powers I'm actually saying made things feel samey for me.

But why would you want to stick with a certain kind of power if that kind of power makes things feel samey for you?

This is what I just don't get. You acknowledge that there are powers that don't feel samey to you. Buf for some reason you consider that to be "cherry picking" and not "picking the powers you find interesting and make the game more fun for you".

 

[Sadras]

A second to have this Bob story outed. And it needs its own thread!

 

[FrogReaver]

But why would you want to stick with a certain kind of power if that kind of power makes things feel samey for you?

This is what I just don't get. You acknowledge that there are powers that don't feel samey to you. Buf for some reason you consider that to be "cherry picking" and not "picking the powers you find interesting and make the game more fun for you".

I'm fairly certain the powers being quoted were utility powers. Those actually did feel different across classes IMO.

 

[Oofta]

Look, dude... you keep telling us you hate Bob. But since we don't know Bob, nor what he did... it is very disempowering to the rest us to keep that knowledge hidden. How can we adequately discuss the pros and cons of Bob if we aren't given all the details? ENWorld is a message board for discussion, and until Bob is fully put on the table and we are allowed to debate, you do the board a disservice. Do not hide Bob from everybody. Bob deserves to have his day in the sun, especially since he knows what he did.

Or are you afraid that perhaps it's not Bob that is the problem, but maybe it's you? Hmm? Is that it, Oofta? What are you trying to hide? Or is there even a Bob at all?

You know what? I don't think there is a 'Bob'. Or more to the point... I think Oofta is actually Bob themself. I'm right, aren't I? Oofta is Bob. Bob is Oofta. And Oofta knows what they did.

Well, I would claim to hate gnomes and paladins, but that schtick has already been taken. That, and we know that deep down that gnome/paladin hate is really just a cover for someone who secretly wishes they could do justice to the awesomeness that would ensue but is afraid to admit they're not sure if they're up to the task.

But you're right. I'll keep my hate silent and let it simmer, burning a deep hole in my psyche leading me to the dark side.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think this is the heart of the matter. I too had similar feelings of the 4e power same-yness as those of @FrogReaver. I am not going to defend those feelings largely because

1. I was bitterly disappointed with the PHB. I didn't recognise the game, the presentation was alien to me.
2. I was not then mentally prepared for 4e.
3. I was running with a different group at the time and I hated their DMing style, so my initial experience with 4e was negative.
4. It has been a long time and I am not as familiar with the game anymore.

But I'm going to try and describe how those same-y feelings came into being:
Every combat felt like it needed a grid. I kept using the same powers in every fight. These powers were presented like cards on everyone's character sheets. I lost the ability to imagine the combat (poor DM's) and only focus on the mini-board game in front of us. Everyone was pushing and sliding and doing x weapon damage + ability. The controllers had cool effects.
It was the same every combat. We slid and we pushed. Nothing came to life in our minds. It was a chessgame with cards. Again bad DMs and me not being mentally prepared did not help matters. The PHB and DMG also did not help matters for players such as myself.

Anyways, years later I can appreciate what the game tried to do and what it has done for 5e.

I think you've said it better than I could.

I actually disliked 3.5e. Liked 4e, even initially - though disliked it's direction at the time of Essentials. I like 5e better though. 4e had some great influences on 5e. 4e was a great game. It wasn't a perfect game though.

 

[Oofta]

A second to have this Bob story outed. And it needs its own thread!

I would, but I don't want to incite violence in others. I want to keep the violence all to myself.

 

[pemerton]

It depends on if your arguing what a system could have done or what it does. Cherry picking a few extreme examples where the rules behaved differently doesn't really counter points about 90% of powers being1[W]+small effect and those feeling samey

@Charlaquin has already pointed out how Tide of Iron (damage + push via shield bash) and (say) Cleave - two fighter at wills - are not "samey".

Here are two 3rd level paladin attacks (from the PHB):

Arcing Smite​

Encounter * Divine, Weapon​

Standard Action, Melee weapon​

Targets: One or two creatures​

Attack: Strength vs. AC, one attack per target​

Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target is marked until the end of your next turn.​

​

Staggering Smite​

Encounter * Divine,Weapon​

Standard Action, Melee weapon​

Target: One creature​

Attack: Strength vs. AC​

Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you push the target a number of squares equal to your Wisdom​

modifier.​

One lets you attack two creatures and "lock" them via marking. The other allows an attack vs one creature for a larger than normal amount of damage and pushing them away. How are these samey? (And if they are samey, then what are 5e Battle Master manoeuvres?)

Here are three 6th level rogue abilities (from the PHB):

​

Ignoble Escape​

Encounter * Martial​

Move Action, Personal​

Prerequisite: You must be trained in Acrobatics.​

Effect: If you are marked, end that condition. You can shift a number of squares equal to your speed.​

​

Mob Mentality​

Encounter * Martial​

Standard Action, Close burst 10​

Prerequisite: You must be trained in Intimidate.​

Targets: You and each ally in burst​

Effect: The targets gain a +2 power bonus to Charisma based skill and ability checks until the end of your next turn.​

​

Nimble Climb​

At-Will * Martial​

Move Action, Personal​

Prerequisite: You must be trained in Athletics.​

Effect: Make an Athletics check to climb a surface. You can move at your full speed during this climb.​

We have an in-combat move/evasion ability, a group CHA buff and a boost to climb speed. Samey? How? The last one, at least, is in 5e as a rogue ability. Are 5e rogues samey?

Here are two 7th level ranger attacks (from the PHB):

Claws of the Griffom​

Encounter * Martial, Weapon​

Standard Action, Melee weapon​

Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons.​

Target: One or two creatures​

Attack: Strength vs. AC (main weapon and off-hand weapon), two attacks​

Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage (main weapon) and 1[W] + Strength modifier damage (off-hand weapon).​

​

Sweeping Whirlwind​

Encounter * Martial,Weapon​

Standard Action, Close burst 1​

Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons.​

Target: Each enemy in burst​

Attack: Strength vs. AC​

Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you push the target a number of squares equal to your Wisdom modifier and it is knocked prone.​

One is a double attack ability that lets you stack all the damage on one target if you wish. The other is a strong martial AoE (normal damage but pushed away and knocked down). Completely different uses.

A final comment: when I wrote this post I wrote down the 3 categories (paladin 3rd level, rogue 6th level, ranger 7th level) before going to the PHB to see what was there. I didn't go for stuff I already knew like (say) the 6th level wizard utilities, or the 13th level paladin options (compare Radiant Charge to Entangling Smite).

This claim about powers being samey doesn't stand up under the lightest scrutiny.

EDIT because I saw this:

It's not about 2 alternatives within a class. It's the cross class sameyness.

How are the class examples I just posted samey?

And what is the alleged contrast here with 5e? All 5e classes choose spells from the same underlying list. All 5e classes choose "fighting styles" from the same underlying list.

The only difference in 5e that I see is that the structure of the resource suites varies across classes. At least when I play RPGs, the resource recovery rules are not what I look to to define a character and make him/her unique.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think FrogReaver thinks that Tide of Iron (1[W] plus drive the enemy back five feet and follow up) is too simmilar to Cleave (1[W] plus do your STR modifier damage to an enemy adjacent to your target). I find this ... confusing. Especially with minion rules in play.

Yes, but that begs the question, too samey compared to what?

Too samey compared to each other? Is the issue that there are too many options within a class that are indistinguishable?

Too samey compared to weapon attacks by other classes? But in most other editions that I am familiar with, a spammable weapon attack just does weapon damage, so I am not clear why he feels they are samey.