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

[Lanefan]

You are dodging the examples from lit/movies etc.

Batman throwing his batarangs to take out multiple opponents. Batman doesn't have magical powers, but he can do really cool things.

4e lets my rogue try this maneuver without being a wizard.

I mean, unless you think Batman has magical powers...

When what he does can't be explained by any known laws of physics, it's either magic or - to use both the game term and the real-world term - supernatural. Either way, from the point of view of asking "could a real person do that" it's the same thing.

Same thing with Xena and some of those completely over-the-top bounce-bounce-bounce-bounce-return-to-hand chakram throws she does

 

[Lanefan]

We never did feel it was samey when we played, but...

...it's CERTAINLY less same-y than what we had in 5e. Yeah, the fighter is -effective- in reducing enemy hp, but it's all roll to hit AC, do dx+y damage.

Now, THAT is samey...

There's two different versions of 'samey' being talked about here, and in my view they're quite different.

One is noted in the quote above: the sameyness of a given character doing the same thing every round. This one I don't mind so much; a character just does what it does best and if that means swinging with a sword every round, then swing away.

The other is the sameyness in design that leads to apparent (if not actual) sameyness in characters of different classes and-or races. This one I'm not a fan of; I'd like to see the classes (and races) be designed to play differently, via a combination of strong niche protection and non-standardized mechanics.

 

[Lanefan]

The two areas in which I most regret any 4e similarities to PF2 are:
...
2) magic items

Expand and explain, please?

Magic items are likely to be somewhat similar across a broad swath of RPGs that use them.

Or are you referring to mechanics behind using them e.g. attunement, identification, etc.?

 

[Eric V]

Batman is the most supernatural super hero of them all.

I thought it was obvious I meant he is not magical in the narrative (where he works alongside people who actually use magic or have actual super powers).

Oh, well.

 

[Eric V]

When what he does can't be explained by any known laws of physics, it's either magic or - to use both the game term and the real-world term - supernatural. Either way, from the point of view of asking "could a real person do that" it's the same thing.

Same thing with Xena and some of those completely over-the-top bounce-bounce-bounce-bounce-return-to-hand chakram throws she does

Here's the thing: D&D already has non-supernatural people doing things that "can't be explained by any known laws of physics."

NO warrior should be able to significantly harm a dragon of that size with his sword. In D&D, people kill giants by hitting their ankles! They somehow survive a face full of breath weapon. And on, and on...

So, yeah, throwing your daggers to daze multiple opponents is really not asking for much.

 

[Eric V]

There's two different versions of 'samey' being talked about here, and in my view they're quite different.

One is noted in the quote above: the sameyness of a given character doing the same thing every round. This one I don't mind so much; a character just does what it does best and if that means swinging with a sword every round, then swing away.

The other is the sameyness in design that leads to apparent (if not actual) sameyness in characters of different classes and-or races. This one I'm not a fan of; I'd like to see the classes (and races) be designed to play differently, via a combination of strong niche protection and non-standardized mechanics.

1) So, the different Roles that 4e has (Defender, etc.) must been great.

2) What do you mean by "non-standardized" here? Do you mean in terms of resource management?

 

[Aldarc]

The other is the sameyness in design that leads to apparent (if not actual) sameyness in characters of different classes and-or races. This one I'm not a fan of; I'd like to see the classes (and races) be designed to play differently, via a combination of strong niche protection and non-standardized mechanics.

But I do think that the 4e classes do play differently. A Warlord feels different in play than a Cleric, which feels different in play from a Bard, which feels different in play from a Shaman, even if all four are classified as Leaders. Would they have felt more different had the developers additional time to further distinguish them? Sure.

 

[Lanefan]

1) So, the different Roles that 4e has (Defender, etc.) must been great.

They're a start...

2) What do you mean by "non-standardized" here? Do you mean in terms of resource management?

No, I mean more in terms of underlying chassis. Some examples:

Different level-advance rates a la 1e-2e;
Different mechanics e.g. Cleric casting mechanics are not the same as Bard casting mechanics are not the same as Wizard...;
Knights, Paladins and Cavaliers use a different combat matrix in honourable combat (or tournaments) than in mass melee;
Multiclassing works differently (or not at all) depending what combination of classes you're trying to combine;
Some class-skill combinations use d%, others use d20, sometimes it's roll-over, sometimes it's roll-under, etc., depending on the level of granularity and intended outcome probabilities required;
Etc.

And then there's resource management: does everyone get their spells and-or hit points back at the same rate, etc., but that's at a different level than what I'm thinking of.

 

[Lanefan]

I thought it was obvious I meant he is not magical in the narrative (where he works alongside people who actually use magic or have actual super powers).

Oh, well.

I was more thinking of him in comparison to the ordinary residents of Gotham City.

 

[Lanefan]

But I do think that the 4e classes do play differently. A Warlord feels different in play than a Cleric, which feels different in play from a Bard, which feels different in play from a Shaman, even if all four are classified as Leaders. Would they have felt more different had the developers additional time to further distinguish them? Sure.

Of course; even two characters of the same class can be made to feel quite different in play, in any edition. I've been banging this drum forever when people complain all 1e Fighters are the same.

But does the mechanical underpinning reinforce these differences or fight against them?

All 1e Fighters may be mechanically the same (or very close), ditto for all 1e Thieves; but the 1e Fighter and the 1e Thief sit on very different mechanical underpinnings from each other. And this is what I'm getting at; mechanical difference and disunification between classes, rather than between individuals in the same class, greatly helps define each class for what it is - and isn't.

Putting all the classes on the same chassis (in 4e's case, AEDU) tends to want to blur those definitions and allow - for better or worse - a lot more "mix-and-match".