D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Hussar]

"That thing you subjectively dislike? You shouldn't dislike it, because you're wrong. Let me EXPLAIN to you why you're wrong about your opinion."

This should go well.

This is already going well. What is this, "Let's renew an edition war" month?

Missing the point.

There are all sorts of very, very good reasons to dislike 4e. Combat grind - 4e combat was LONG and there's no real argument to be had there. There's a very good reason that 5e combats tend to end after 3 rounds most of the time. Finicky - 4e was chock a block with tons of finicky little status effects. My 4e group had a mini-game of how many effects could we stack on a single target. The record was 12 IIRC. TWELVE ongoing effects on a single target! Or, you could simply dislike the 4 Roles setup, although, again, that gets more into presentation since classes were not really limited by a specific role, it was more just a tendency, but, again, I can totally see how that would turn people off.

The problem is, people didn't fixate on those. They fixated on things like, in this example, saminess. Ok, fair enough. I'd buy the argument IF we didn't have 5e right there with its "all casters progress exactly the same" and "almost all class will have spells" and "identical class feature structure". Oh, look, it's 4th level, what did your character get? He or she got a stat bonus (or feat if used). EVERY character. It's 6th level, your character got an ability. So on and so forth. Every class is identical in it's power structure. You could rewrite the 5e PHB using a single class chart (or possibly 3, one for each class that gets it's archetype at 1st, 2nd or 3rd level) and now, 5e looks like 4e. People would lose their minds if they did that.

It's all about presentation. The magic of WotC is convincing those that disliked 4e that 5e is somehow a greatly different game. It's not. There are far more similarities between 4e and 5e than differences, but, we're not supposed to call attention to that. And, frankly, there are those who could never, ever admit it because that would mean that they spent four or five years edition warring for nothing.

I have far more respect for those who hated 4e and 5e than those who hated 4e but now love 5e.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Nope, it didn't.

You are the one who has broadened the OP from simply talking about presentation and the SINGLE criticism of saminess to all people who disliked 4e. That's your baggage not mine.

For me, I reject the saminess criticism because of the points that I made. That does not mean I reject all criticisms. As I said in my last post, there are all sorts of perfectly valid and supportable criticisms you can make of 4e. Valid in the sense that you can produce actual evidence to support the criticism. Saminess isn't really a valid criticism because, if it was, then 5e would be subject to the same criticisms.

You apparently want to refight the entire edition war here. We're just talking about a single talking point. It helps to stick to the topic. It avoids misunderstanding.

 

[Zardnaar]

Missing the point.

There are all sorts of very, very good reasons to dislike 4e. Combat grind - 4e combat was LONG and there's no real argument to be had there. There's a very good reason that 5e combats tend to end after 3 rounds most of the time. Finicky - 4e was chock a block with tons of finicky little status effects. My 4e group had a mini-game of how many effects could we stack on a single target. The record was 12 IIRC. TWELVE ongoing effects on a single target! Or, you could simply dislike the 4 Roles setup, although, again, that gets more into presentation since classes were not really limited by a specific role, it was more just a tendency, but, again, I can totally see how that would turn people off.

The problem is, people didn't fixate on those. They fixated on things like, in this example, saminess. Ok, fair enough. I'd buy the argument IF we didn't have 5e right there with its "all casters progress exactly the same" and "almost all class will have spells" and "identical class feature structure". Oh, look, it's 4th level, what did your character get? He or she got a stat bonus (or feat if used). EVERY character. It's 6th level, your character got an ability. So on and so forth. Every class is identical in it's power structure. You could rewrite the 5e PHB using a single class chart (or possibly 3, one for each class that gets it's archetype at 1st, 2nd or 3rd level) and now, 5e looks like 4e. People would lose their minds if they did that.

It's all about presentation. The magic of WotC is convincing those that disliked 4e that 5e is somehow a greatly different game. It's not. There are far more similarities between 4e and 5e than differences, but, we're not supposed to call attention to that. And, frankly, there are those who could never, ever admit it because that would mean that they spent four or five years edition warring for nothing.

I have far more respect for those who hated 4e and 5e than those who hated 4e but now love 5e.

Key difference is 5E enables a different playstyle

People don't like 4E because of what it is. Fundamentally they don't like it.

I like Star Wars Saga as and it uses a lot of 4Eisms. It's roughly halfway between 3.5 and 4E.

But it's a totally different style even if it used half level, NADs, same skill system.

 

[Garthanos]

Taste differences can be huge.

You don't like the formatting

Conversely I like separation of church and state... I mean separation of flavor and function as it helps enable reflavoring.

Honestly not sure the Lazylord or a dozen characters I have made sometimes just for the fun of it could have been made with games were the flavor is baked tight with the ability.

You don't like the powers themselves (although really? All of them?)

Yeah but 4e abilities like the fighter grab and strike is terrible but using one of your multi attacks to grab is perfect ...

You prefer fewer choices in making PCs.

Yeah I feel railroaded just like the essentials classes were railroaded.

 

[Garthanos]

Key difference is 5E enables a different playstyle

I am not impressed with the flexibility of needing 6 to 8 battles a day for instance... I think play style must be different for you.

 

[Zardnaar]

I am not impressed with the flexibility of needing 6 to 8 battles a day for instance... I think play style must be different for you.

That sucks but I don't think most people do that many encounters.

It's like 4E putting in epic tier and I suspect most games didn't make it to paragon tier.

You can't really get away from 4E power and class structure.

 

[Garthanos]

That sucks but I don't think most people do that many encounters.

So what do you expect the impact of most people not doing that many encounters is? Could it be making people reliant on dailies disproportionately more powerful... nyeh

5e is far more locked down and less supportive of the typical play style based on polls wrt number of encounters and you really cannot dodge that either.

 

[Garthanos]

It's like 4E putting in epic tier and I suspect most games didn't make it to paragon tier.

Zero impact if you do not play it that isn't the same as designing your balance around X encounters a day then only making some of the classes able to exploit it when its different.

 

[Minigiant]

It is all relative.
You can go on all day about how completely different a fireball is compared to swinging a sword and having this or that completely un-fire-related special rider ability tied to said sword swing. And you would be right. But EVERY RPG (at least of those running for "being popular") can make that exact same case.
4E was all about "the math works". And no matter how long your list that EXACT SAME MATH was always there.

oh, wait....

Yeah. The difference between a crossbow bolt and a firebolt is? But that's not the point of the discussion.

The point of the thread is the question of 4e's powers' sameyness.

There are plenty of valid complaints and about 4e. Sameyness isn't one. The math not working at first is one. But not sameyness.

 

[Hussar]

Key difference is 5E enables a different playstyle

People don't like 4E because of what it is. Fundamentally they don't like it.

I like Star Wars Saga as and it uses a lot of 4Eisms. It's roughly halfway between 3.5 and 4E.

But it's a totally different style even if it used half level, NADs, same skill system.

And this has what to do with formatting of the books or saminess?

This isn't a "why did 4e fail" thread. It has a pretty specific topic in the OP which is "Why do people talk about 4e classes feeling samey". Talking about things like playstyle or bringing in other games is not really productive to the question at hand.

This is why these topics are so hard to discuss. Every time we talk about anything specific about 4e, people take it as a "why oh why did 4e have to fail" thread. It's not. It's a thread with a specific topic. So, why are you essentially threadcrapping? Is it really that hard to talk about a specific criticism without having to drag in all this extra baggage?