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

[FrogReaver]

@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?)

Most classes had this attack 1 enemy hard or 2 enemies split type powers - and most added some small effect. Saying look the effects are different. Or look these 2 powers are different on this 1 class TOTALLY misses the mark.

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?

Utilities weren't samey (Level 6 was the level you got utility powers)

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.

Nearly every melee class had something similar to those. Deal single target damage or AOE burst around you - then possibly add on some moderate effect for encounter powers).

I think you are attacking my position the wrong way.

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.

Or you aren't actually understanding what I mean by samey.

BTW thanks for the more detailed examples.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

In a few hours I'll start a new thread with a list of at will attack powers that I remember either playing or seeing used in play. I'll also post a list of classes (and sometimes subclasses) they were used with. I'll then be curious as to how they are too samey and see who can guess which class they are from.

At wills chosen because they are the category most likely to be seen as samey as they are most similar in power and have least in the way of riders.

 

[pemerton]

I kept using the same powers in every fight.

In my experience of AD&D and B/X the fighter and thief used the same power in every fight - that is, roll to hit and roll for damage. (Sometimes the thief was buffed by backstab.)

Even at 1st level, in our 4e games the players chose between at-will powers as well as when to deploy encounter and daily powers.

A bit like some other posters, I'm missing the contrast here with AD&D and 5e.

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.

I can only report that this is very foreign to my experience.

The first combat I ran in 4e was adapted from the B/X module Night's Dark Terror. I can't remember exactly how it is presented in the module, but as I ran it the PCs were in a boat and a group of reavers stopped their boat with a chain stretched across the river. It's over 10 years ago now, but I can still remember the basic elements - there was a sandbar in the river (that some of the PCs swam, jumped or teleported to; and with a tree that they took cover behind), there was a raft of opponents (I think minions plus a mage) that was bearing down on the PCs, and an enemy slinger (probably the MM halfling) on the shore. And an enemy fighter with a magical polearm, but I can't remember now how that NPC was positioned - though I think it ended up with him surrendering to the PC fighter on the shore, so the action moved there somehow.

I was the GM and not a player, so obviously I can't speak for them, but to me it seemed like we had a pretty vivid sense of the situation, and the character abilities really allowed the players to get involved in the fiction.

And while I've been critical of the 4e DMG upthread, I will reiterate that it had some very good technical advice for encounter design, which I drew on in coming up with this first combat encounter. In that sense I have always found the game to deliver exactly what it promises.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Sometimes it's too samey to each other. Sometimes it's too samey to other classes. Sometimes it's the sameyness of the power gain structure. Sometimes it's the sameyness of the power recharge structure. The sameyness in role effects (leaders all got a heal ability, defeneders all got a mark ability). It all adds up to an overall feeling of sameyness.

In 5e, there's some sameyness as well - but it seems to be in the right places. Classes are pretty samey regardless of subclass. But subclass provides big enough rider effects to make the different subclasses feel meaningfully different (except maybe some of the wizard ones...), the overall way magic works for full casters is samey - but each full caster has spells that do vastly different things.

In fact, 5e full casters and 4e classes have a lot in common. Spells are like powers in a lot of respects. But, what helps prevent the sameyness there is more the variety of spells that can be taken. Your not just taking a bunch of 1W + effect or 2W + effect powers. Spells in 5e do vastly different things between each other and don't themselves follow a similar structure.

 

[pemerton]

Most classes had this attack 1 enemy hard or 2 enemies split type powers

<snip>

Nearly every melee class had something similar to those. Deal single target damage or AOE burst around you - then possibly add on some moderate effect for encounter powers).

I think every warrior-type class in 5e gets Extra Attack. So I' missing the force of the contrast you're drawing between 4e and 5e.

I've seen a STR fighter (polearm/hammer build), CHA paladin and DEX ranger-cleric played to 30th level. They played differently at every level: the fighter being the most sophisticated to play and being a melee controller, the paladin having the most number of intricate moving parts (with save buffs and temp hp and the like) but ultimately doing single target lock-down with a little bit of ranged capacity (via what other versions of D&D would call spells), and the ranger being an archer and caster with no effective melee ability.

What would less samey warrior characters look like?

 

[Undrave]

Or you aren't actually understanding what I mean by samey.

I'm not sure why a LITTLE same-ness is an issue to begin with.

After all, Defender powers gotta Defend and Leader powers gotta Lead, you're gonna want similar effectiveness from two classes of the same Role so obviously good effects will show up in multiple classes. The thing is the way they interact with your other features (for exemple, a Fighter can mark ANYONE they attack but a Paladin normally only has one at a time so Arcing Smite is great for a Paladin) and you rarely have the exact same power at the same level as others.

Plus, how different is it from all the classes sharing the same spell list and all weapon users just going "I attack with my axe!" or pulling from the same small pool of abilities.

Maybe from one campaign to another you can see similarity, but, if you build your character with an eye on the team, you'll rarely find samey characters in a single party and that matters more than the fact you could POTENTIALLY build similar characters.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think every warrior-type class in 5e gets Extra Attack. So I' missing the force of the contrast you're drawing between 4e and 5e.

Stop giving me a list of 4e powers to discuss the differences in and then immediately flipping that back to - your not contrasting with 5e. I'm responding to 1 freaking post that had nothing to do about 5e. Of course I didn't contrast those things with 5e.

 

[Manbearcat]

Here is the thing on “samey” (and I mentioned it elsewhere).

What actually matters isn’t comparing 1 power to another (although I don’t even think that stands up under scrutiny).

What actually matters is the following:

As a product of the interactions of an (a) entire PC build + (b) rules interactions + (c) battlefield and team monster dynamics, is the feel of actually playing (tactical decision-points and the attendant emergent thematics) character x (forget cross-class...we can just stick to intraclass) easily discriminates from the feel of playing character y?

If you’re playing a Sohei themed Rogue Duelist/Artful Dodger/Swashbuckler, it’s going to feel (and emerge as) extremely different from an Assassin themed Rogue Infiltrator by level 1! By level (say 6), you’re going to have virtually no overlap in an entire work-day worth of decision-points and emerging thematics (probably around 15-18 rounds of combat).

And that’s just the combat side of things. The separation will only increase with Skill Challenges.

 

[Sadras]

@pemerton I'm not going to get into a discussion with you regarding how I perceived the game to be or that most versions of D&D even in 5e, the fighter can be described as hacking and slashing round-in, round-out so yes the same-y exists, but it was a combination of all those other factors I mentioned that brought me to that perception of the 4e game.
Rest assued I do not have that perception now. It was how I saw it then and judging from what other posters have said (and do keep in mind I wasn't apart of the online community during the edition wars) they had similar experiences. Again I do not have that perception now of 4e.

And with all due to respect I played BECMI, AD&D, 2e and 3e so when 4e came out the presentation of the book to me was not relatable. You went from Rolemaster to 4e. I cannot describe to you the disappointment I had when I paged though the PHB. I had not seen a preview or anything so yeah it was my first look after buying it and I was immensely frustrated with it.

 

[FrogReaver]

In response to 5e martial characters being samey due to extra attack.

Extra attack is mostly there to differentiate the martial and the caster divide - and I think it does a great job at that. The different martial classes already have a suite of abilities to differentiate themselves from each other. So yes extra attack is the same across multiple classes - but it doesn't cause the samey feeling because enough other stuff is different.