D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm the one being told my opinions are not valid.
Since you stepped in, do you care to answer? I don't like 4E. I get it. I understand it. I don't care either way about presentation. I don't like it. Is that OK with you?
In case you missed all the times I said it already, I love that some people who love 4E can play it. I respect that 100% without question.

But seriously, this entire thread has been about an attempt to echo-chamber around misrepresenting people who didn't like 4E. Is there any respect or courtesy in insisting that others subjective opinions may only be described as a failure to "get it"?

I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have replied to you in the first place. Your posts in this thread seem to range from overly aggressive, to snide and sarcastic, so I’m not interested in engaging.

 

[BryonD]

I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have replied to you in the first place. Your posts in this thread seem to range from overly aggressive, to snide and sarcastic, so I’m not interested in engaging.

Sorry, when the thread is themed on rejection of an opinion as hold as a valid opinion, the tone may follow.
I'm shocked that so much self contradiction can pass without a batted eye and yet taking umbrage at the positions firmly taken (whether in the OP or just subsequent) is intolerable. It seems quite a double standard. So be it.

 

[Garthanos]

Defenders not a traditional D&D role it's exclusive to 4E.

Gygaxian prose presented it as very traditional it wasnt a role you could easily implement so for me that was a standing frustration finally accomplished then thrown away like yesterdays garbage. like they threw away the 4e community on their site.

5R gives you options 4E didn't.

Takes away tactical Warlords and so many things. The dex fighter which it enables? might as well be a 4e ranger anyway. Oh and another archer fighter was a Archer Warlord but in battle non magic healing isnt allowed except now it is just fine with the Bard.

It preselected your role and style for you and only gave you powers supporting that idea.

That pretends roles were massively more locked down than they were were you pick a class based on the role you want to express because it describes you best influence on the battle. NOT your only in fact each out of the gate had secondary roles you could boost via feats. A fighter can be a great high damager in 4e too. But is not much of a ranged combatant. (which is an unspecified role but is one too)

 

[BryonD]

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.

But, again, it IS. It may not be to YOU. But you can't have it both ways and say on the one hand that it is unfair to complain about 4E's saminess because 5E has it in the same measure and then turn around and say 4E doesn't have it.

I agree with you that some of that CAN be found in 5E. IMO it is much less striking in 5E. But it seems really safe to say that my personal touchpoints are not the same as yours. So the things that jump out at me during play are different.

But if they both have it (they do) the it is fair for people to prefer one or the other. Therefore it is ok for some people to feel that 4E is "too much" and not have 5E cross that line. (and the other, or to reject both, or accept both).

For me, and to Hussar's point, I've always felt that there was way too much homgeneity in 4E across the board. And I've probably under-rated the specific reference to powers exclusively in this thread. I'll take that. For the specific powers point, frankly, I've not stayed in touch with 4E since it stopped mattering and I don't know that I can even repeat a strong argument there. I still see the broad strokes as clear: individual opinions clearly can vary and the range of answers are all acceptable. But I won't argue that strongly right now, whether I would have 5 years ago or not.

But, again, I've also asked very pointed (and frankly, simple to agree to) questions which people just can't bring themselves to reply to. So the fact that this is a major hang-up for 4E fans (in this thread) remains telling.

Edit: I'm now happy to exclude Hussar from that last statement. Thanks!

 

[Minigiant]

Build a ranger instead and without nature skill if you like.... directly from the 4ePHB if you want an archer who isnt a defender.

I almost think if the 4e fighter as renamed the knight and the 4e ranger was renamed the scout, half of the samyness arguments would go away. Because there would be less tradition in the names.

They would be replaced with "Where is the fighter and the ranger?!". Much how the cries for druids, barbarians, bards, monks, and sorcerors happened in 4e release.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Can we end this right here with an agreement that loving 4E as a game and really not wanting to play it are both fair and reasonable positions? This is the one point I've been asking and can't seem to find a 4E fan willing to make this statement. You seem to be leaning that way here. And if so, I got no issue with minor quibbles here or there. As always 4E IS awesome at doing what it set out to do and I respect that people love it for that.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. heck, I AM that. I like 4e, but, I likely won't give up 5e for 4e simply because I like 5e better despite 5e not having some of the 4e things that I would like it to have. And, honestly, some 3e bits as well - the Binder being a prime example.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Heh. See, here's the funny thing. EVERY 5e class advances identically. There is no difference between the advancement of different classes. The specific powers might be different, but, the advancement is identical. WHich is rather why I have such a tough time understanding your point.

 

[Garthanos]

Even if true so?

It is the what this thread was supposedly about that is what.

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

IF the flavor text in the players handbook where without magic adventurers will have it 10x as difficult then that is indeed true it is completely different and utterly not what I want.

Also You keep using that word... .insert the quote from princess bride.

Powers are not a play style sheesh.

 

[Minigiant]

But, again, it IS. It may not be to YOU. But you can't have it both ways and say on the one hand that it is unfair to complain about 4E's saminess because 5E has it in the same measure and then turn around and say 4E doesn't have it.

I agree with you that some of that CAN be found in 5E. IMO it is much less striking in 5E. But it seems really safe to say that my personal touchpoints are not the same as yours. So the things that jump out at me during play are different.

But if they both have it (they do) the it is fair for people to prefer one or the other. Therefore it is ok for some people to feel that 4E is "too much" and not have 5E cross that line. (and the other, or to reject both, or accept both).

For me, and to Hussar's point, I've always felt that there was way too much homgeneity in 4E across the board. And I've probably under-rated the specific reference to powers exclusively in this thread. I'll take that. For the specific powers point, frankly, I've not stayed in touch with 4E since it stopped mattering and I don't know that I can even repeat a strong argument there. I still see the broad strokes as clear: individual opinions clearly can vary and the range of answers are all acceptable. But I won't argue that strongly right now, whether I would have 5 years ago or not.

But, again, I've also asked very pointed (and frankly, simple to agree to) questions which people just can't bring themselves to reply to. So the fact that this is a major hang-up for 4E fans (in this thread) remains telling.

Edit: I'm now happy to exclude Hussar from that last statement. Thanks!

To me, the amount of samyness in 0e's,1e's, 2e's, 3e's, 4e's, and 5e's subsystems are so close that a person have to be able to specifically articulate the differences to purely compaign on that and that alone. I'm sure many can do this. But i rarely see it.

I believe te truth of 4e detectors are complaints of 4e's presentation, overall homogeneity, and its other bigger problems..

Power sameyness and Class sameyness are 2 different things. If we are going only highst sameyness question 3e takes the class with it's "print a book and make 2 more spell casters that do the same things kinda" nonsense.

So many spells, man. So many. And feats. EVERYTHING IS BANNNED! NO, THAT BOOK ISN'T ALLOWED! Excuse me, I'mma rock in the corner in the fetal position for a bit before my game starts..

 

[Garthanos]

For sure. Not the same thing at all. 4e didn't worry about balancing over different levels nor number of encounters.

You mean didnt require anyone worry about adjusting how the advanture goes. OR cause some pressure on the DM to force the players a given number of encounters or make kill the mage or even healer THE preferred tactics