D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Hussar]

It's because they draw a false equivalence between 4E samey powers and 5E at will attacks.

Some players like doing the same thing over and over. Others don't. 4E PHB doesn't give you that choice AEDU is in everything. 5E is pick a different class.

If you don't like 4E powers you play a different game. Don't like a 5E fighter play a different class.

Blurg?

What is a paladin, ranger or barbarian doing that is radically different from a fighter?

See, this is where presentation matters. The difference between a paladin and a fighter in 4e is pretty significant. They are doing very different things every round. In 5e, the two classes, outside of smite, aren't doing anything different round to round.

In fact, if they both have the same fighting styles - they are almost assuredly doing the exact same thing round to round. Something I witnessed when my protection fighter and a protection paladin were in the same group.

 

[Zardnaar]

That is one of the most popular classes because of flavor and heritage in all of Fantasy do you really not get how preposterous that is?

It is but people tend to like the not 4E version of the fighter vs the 4E one.

4E one was kinda crap with basic stuff like archery.

It doesn't really matter what class it is. AEDU was on everything. 5E offers varying complexity between the classes and archetypes, 4E takes a one size fits all approach.

If you like that great, if you don't problem.

 

[Garthanos]

Oh the math out at book release was a bit off. Some of the powers were off.

I mean the feat taxes and a lot of updates I felt was addressing some optimising fiddliness like nerfing Battlerager vigor I found meh and heavy handed. I have a habit of having bloodied enemies try to run (and my players are not homicidal maniacs in constant fear of reprisal) so length of battles don't necessarily get that huge and we enjoyed the longer fights even so.

 

[Zardnaar]

Blurg?

What is a paladin, ranger or barbarian doing that is radically different from a fighter?

See, this is where presentation matters. The difference between a paladin and a fighter in 4e is pretty significant. They are doing very different things every round. In 5e, the two classes, outside of smite, aren't doing anything different round to round.

In fact, if they both have the same fighting styles - they are almost assuredly doing the exact same thing round to round. Something I witnessed when my protection fighter and a protection paladin were in the same group.

Spells, aura, smite etc.

That's not the big problem in 5E. Powers were the main problem in 4E for various reasons sameyness in the formatting being one of them.

People keep bringing up 5E but you're being told point blank 4E powers are the problem. 5E didn't exist when Pathfinder replaced D&D.

Whatever 5E is doing or how is irrelevant.

 

[BryonD]

Nope. lf you cannot be bothered to actually read what I say, I can't be bothered to answer your questions

Well, at least I did read what you said. And I noted your contradictions. You have stated that we can agree to disagree and then steadfastly refused to do exactly that.

 

[Garthanos]

4E one was kinda crap with basic stuff like archery.

Build a ranger instead and without nature skill if you like.... directly from the 4ePHB if you want an archer who isnt a defender.
Oh and do that in 5e and you have to have spells because that is what it means to be a ranger in spite of spells being a high level fluff thing most people never saw in 1e.
Clue the Ranger was a type of fighter in 1e. (it is in 4e too)
The fighter in 5e out the door was crap on being a defender.
And almost seem obligated to dump stat intelligence for the fighter must be the idiot.

 

[Garthanos]

People keep bringing up 5E but you're being told point blank 4E powers are the problem.

My fighters grab and strike in 4e is horrible but the grapple having a clause that uses an extra attack is a packaging difference not a real difference you do get that right? They are nigh identically samey in function and formatted differently you see why people say its mostly presentation the spam factory of 5e is not actually different.

 

[Zardnaar]

Build a ranger instead and without nature skill if you like.... directly from the 4ePHB if you want an archer who isnt a defender.
Oh and do that in 5e and you have to have spells because that is what it means to be a ranger in spite of spells being a high level fluff thing most people never saw in 1e.
Clue the Ranger was a type of fighter in 1e. (it is in 4e too)
The fighter in 5e out the door was crap on being a defender.
And almost seem obligated to dump stat intelligence for the fighter must be the idiot.

Defenders not a traditional D&D role it's exclusive to 4E. You could build a ranger or fighter Archer in the other editions.

Locking class features behind powers and then having to rerelease variations of those powers eg tempest fighter isn't exactly helping the arguement.

It's also another false equivalent 4E defenders throw up.

5R gives you options 4E didn't. It preselected your role and style for you and only gave you powers supporting that idea.

 

[Zardnaar]

My fighters grab and strike in 4e is horrible but the grapple having a clause that uses an extra attack is a packaging difference not a real difference you do get that right? They are nigh identically samey in function and formatted differently you see why people say its mostly presentation the spam factory of 5e is not actually different.

Even if true so?

The problem is 4E powers and playstyle. Formatting doesn't help, 5E is a completely different playstyle.

The 4E powers is the primary cause as they enable the 4E playstyle. Anyone with half a brain can see what they took from 4E.

I've already said 4E is great to mine.

 

[BryonD]

sorry odd double post