D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[FrogReaver]

But we have powers where the number of targets is different in that list and you say they are samey.

yes

We have powers where the difference is between a sword swing and magic and you say that's samey.

Specifically for 4e yes - but tot to the extremes I've seen you try to take this.

We have differences presented where the damage is different. And you say that's samey.

1d6 vs 1d8 vs 1W is samey

Your argument is therefore that none of that matters as to whether the powers are samey - they feel samey despite all that being different.

Right - None of that is enough to keep them feeling samey. They powers are different. I've acknowledged that. Pointing out 1000 differences isn't going to stop them from being samey. Sameyness is not the exclusion of differences - it's the degree of those differences - especially relative

And the differences you have presented as to how classes are different are literally there in 4e.

Sure. I've not said 4e classes felt samey. I happen to think fighters and clerics feel quite a bit different - but that's primarily due to role. I would say Bards and Clerics feel samey - and that's also primarily due to role. I would say that Fighter's and Swordmages don't feel samey - primarily due to major differences in how they functioned (different defenders often felt the least samey).

My primary objection isn't classes in 4e feeling samey it's the powers system as a whole. Similar structure, similar effects.

I think someone earlier pointed out they had 1000's of powers that mostly all revolved around the same 8-10 mechanical effects.

You pointed out Sneak Attack as a power - it is literally there in 4e. You talk about Rage - 4e rages are far more evocative than the bland thing we see in 5e. And the fighter with its sentinel lockdown and marking is hugely different. Literally every place you say you care about the differences the differences are there in 4e - just not presented as hugely different.

Perhaps those "differences" got muddied because of the sameyness of the power system.

(@Oofta made a comment about the Paradox of Choice which I think is on the nose. There's enough choice in 4e it starts to blur).

I find that very interesting. To me if you can start talking about 4e choice starting to blur - that to me implies your seeing some sameyness.

Meanwhile different people care about different things. Me? I care about how someone moves a lot more than I do about small differences in what they add to the dice. Not that I won't maximise that. But something like Cunning Action or the 4e pushes and slides you decry (which do almost the same thing) is worth a lot more than a rage that just adds a tiny amount to attacks.

Cunning Action feels different. If half the classes got cunning actions that were slightly different then 5e would start feeling samey there as well.

 

[JeffB]

Exactly!!!! It is 100% OK.
But
1) if it is OK for me to disagree with you then you should not say "100%" in reply to post saying that my view disagreeing with you can't exist.

and

2) if it is OK for me to disagree with you then it should be considered absurd for threads like this one to agree.

Over and over I've been completely onboard with differences in preference and that I have zero dispute with people who do like 4E loving it for any all and all reasons they propose. This includes things that bother them about games I love. That is ALL great.

But this thread is about how it is NOT ok to disagree. Do you support that? Or are you with me that we both have great options for our preferences and should both be glad of that and should both avoid being critical of other simply for liking one game and disliking another?

I was agreeing 100% that the OP describes the problem with many people disliking 4e. That's all.

 

[BryonD]

I was agreeing 100% that the OP describes the problem with many people disliking 4e. That's all.

Do you then agree that this is a legitimate problem that resulted from 4E's design related to people who didn't like it? Or do you agree with the statements here claiming that "folks just couldn't seem to wrap their brains around it ", and "4e made the mistake of trying to organize things differently and, IMO, that was one of the main reasons for its rejection while 5e, which incorporates so much 4e DNA, is accepted without quibble. "? You "liked" that post. And yet it rejects the "its ok to disagree" position in favor of "those who disagree are wrong" position.

 

[FrogReaver]

I suppose a nice illustration for some of the sameyness I see in 4e:

If I give you 10 very different options you have no issue in picking 1. If I give you 1 million options but with only slight differences between them then you are going to have a much harder time picking. In fact one might walk away from the 1 million options saying - what was the point they mostly all felt the same.

 

[Garthanos]

I agree that a boost to skills was a big deal. I just found them boring.

Ok they are a bit generic in effect in that regards even if significant and that might be seen as boring. As an odd ball case I built a Shifter who could jump like the Marvel villain the toad though so it was pretty damn vivid.

As far as rituals go, my players, in three of play, never once performed one once.

The cost at low levels seemed to have had that impact for some people and its kind of sad really At level 5 them level 1 rituals are barely pocket change though. . By implementing scavenging for ingredients players could trade story time and the positioning for the functionality and I find since that makes it feel less like a permanent resource loss it opens up more casual use.

I would have rather seen rituals and utility powers united into one category.

I find rituals the way they work now in 4e more like classic magic to me way more like myth and legend. So while I can see them combining with utility powers I see them combining in a way where learning a new ritual means learning a new utility power alongside it. Some sort of already had that were a ritual could be cast from a scroll.

While working on enhancing and elaborating and expanding Martial Practices I noticed skill utility powers keep popping up too. Rehearse something related and use it like a utility power comes up for them as well.

Or at least more options like ghost sound. Boy was that a kick-ass power. I had a player who only ever played wizards because of that power. He tried to solve every problem by using ghost sound or else jumping (long story).

Sounds like an application or bonus to the Bluff skill ;p
I think having the cleverly useable but not really combat cantrips being broadly available would help too. Orisons were for Clerics of old why not do more.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes. Powers were extremely samey.

I just can’t figure out how they can be samey to the point of bad, from the perspective of someone who enjoys any other version of D&D.

like, I enjoy 4e and 5e, but 5e abilities are...significantly more similar in effect, than 4e abilities.

 

[Garthanos]

I cannot remember where but I thought I had seen a laundry list of the complaints and the roughly matching case in 5e and how the presentation differs verses how minor or great the actual change in function was I may start looking or perhaps such a thing would help 4e fans make 5e work better for them. Maybe I was just wishing I seen that.

 

[JeffB]

Do you then agree that this is a legitimate problem that resulted from 4E's design related to people who didn't like it? Or do you agree with the statements here claiming that "folks just couldn't seem to wrap their brains around it ", and "4e made the mistake of trying to organize things differently and, IMO, that was one of the main reasons for its rejection while 5e, which incorporates so much 4e DNA, is accepted without quibble. "? You "liked" that post. And yet it rejects the "its ok to disagree" position in favor of "those who disagree are wrong" position.

I agree 100% with the sections I quoted from Hussar. Why is that so difficult for you to understand and accept? I am also a 100% firm believer that 4E's presentation (in many ways) was it's biggest flaw and not it's gameplay. I also 100% believe that had the game been presented in a more traditional manner, it would have been far more successful than it was. I also 100% believe that many people "didn't get it" , in the same way many people "don't get" Dungeon World or FATE or Hero Wars/Hero Quest Glorantha any other # of games that veer off into non traditional gameplay territory.

I hope that satisfies your need to have an answer from me, because I'm tuning out from any more of your demands to explain myself. Give it a rest.

 

[Eric V]

For me, most of the powers feel samey because so many are combat focused. I really wish more of the utility powers had been aimed more on exploration, not combat (and not simply by granting a bonus to a skill roll).

I remember thinking the same thing, but I guess when skill challenges were the designed mechanic to handle non-trivial exploration events, then a bonus to skills effectively ended up being the "exploration-based" feats.

 

[Eric V]

I just can’t figure out how they can be samey to the point of bad, from the perspective of someone who enjoys any other version of D&D.

Exactly.