D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[UngeheuerLich]

The wizard stopped thinking about when it was best to use his spells so interesting. Or is this somehow only a problem when the characters arent the archetype known for it. See I kind of think martial types should be known for something like it as those best in a fight ought to be the most versatile in a fight and really able to flexibly and effectively assume roles needed (note neither 4e or 5e really do that)

And its pretty trivial to decide many encounters (the answer is basically every fight when during the fight may be more particular) so dailies seem what is left and whoo hoo I get 4 total of those over the entire career. But that taking over what you are thinking about all the time really?

The problem was that those powers made no sense to us. The terms were too gamey for our taste. And you probably know from back then that I was a 4e player and that we really tried and played 4e while it lasted.

The difference now (and in 4e essentials) is that due to having different classes on different recharge timers, not every combat plays the same. It is not: always start with encounterpower 1, followup woth daily 1 if needed, then add encounter power 2.
Actually encounter powers were bigger offenders than dailies. At least there you have the decision if you wanna use them at all. An encounter power on a 5 min rest recharge that you can't use feels wasted.

Due to the 1 hour rest, it does not feel like that in 5e.

 

[Garthanos]

People dropped 3e and went to 4e because the classes were so imbalanced that you could only play the same classes.

another form/cause of functional samey the pressure towards only playing viable contributing things.

Some of that is group chemistry but some is how dominant system mastery is allowed to be though in 4e optimization was much less valuable so viable was a broader range of things.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The common thread I'm seeing here is the primacy of the combat pillar in 4E. It is a fact that A, E, and D are all attack powers, and I can see how a repeated focus on combat over several game sessions can make the play experience seem samey.

So, a perhaps slightly off-topic question that I'd be happy to spin off to another thread if necessary: what can 4E learn fron 5E in terms of diversifying the play experience?

Have different classes' powers recharge on different schedule.
Have more uncertainity if you can recharge them before the next fight. As explained in the post above, encounter powers seemed to be the biggest offenders.
And on a different scale, the term "shift" was hard to translate into german and be used on the game table without going from natural speech to game speech.

 

[Garthanos]

The problem was that those powers made no sense to us. The terms were too gamey for our taste.

a trick or exploit that you can really only use once til after you have revealed it (enemy has seen your hand) is too gamey?
where as not being able to do a trick again till after you take a big assed lunch break rest makes sense? sigh they make less sense to me.

 

[Garthanos]

As explained in the post above, encounter powers seemed to be the biggest offenders.

The druid spell requires the environment around them to recover or be significantly changed because its been tainted by the manipulations and needs rest.

The priest requires short purifications to be cast.

 

[FrogReaver]

The point is that it seems a hypocritical criticism. But no I was claiming fighters seemed like clones all the way back in 1e.

You really want it to be hypocritical - but you can't even demonstrate that you are measuring sameyness in the same way. In fact everytime I get into defining the differences in sameyness in 4e and 5e that's nearly completely ignored. I devoted a long post to the matter and basically got back nada on it.

Most of the things you call samey in 5e aren't samey - they are the exact same. (Ex: attack action, extra attack, fighting style, spell slot progression, etc - all exactly the same). There is a place for unified mechanical systems - and it would be nearly impossible to have a game without some of them.

In general having exactly the same mechanics for certain systems is fine and I'd argue good game design to have some unified mechanics across the game. 4e had unified mechanics (ex: role, AEDU, push, pull , slide etc) but relied much to heavily on it's unified mechanics and slight variations to them which is what made it feel samey. 5e on the other hand places major uniqueness outside slight variations to the same unified mechanics. Instead each class ends up with it's own unique mechanics that nearly no one else can replicate even if there are certain unified mechanics across the game.

Part of the issue is focus. For example, 4e defenders (having the most unique class mechanics) tended to have different marking abilities that functioned different. If that was the primary focus of 4e's differentiation for these classes then that would have felt okay. The issue for me is that such unique differentiation was a relatively minor part of a class. For me the samey elements could easily overpower the unique ones.

 

[FrogReaver]

another form/cause of functional samey the pressure towards only playing viable contributing things.

Some of that is group chemistry but some is how dominant system mastery is allowed to be though in 4e optimization was much less valuable so viable was a broader range of things.

Compared to 3.5e maybe. Compared to 5e - system mastery in 4e was much more important IMO.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

a trick or exploit that you can really only use once til after you have revealed it (enemy has seen your hand) is too gamey?
where as not being able to do a trick again till after you take a big assed lunch break rest makes sense? sigh they make less sense to me.

I think it's more that you could use the same trick on a gelatinous cubic, a cow, a dragon, or greatest duelist the world has ever seen and each time that trick has the exact same predictable effect. The fighter power "Come and Get Me" was a prime offender, if I remember correctly.

 

[Garthanos]

I think it's more that you could use the same trick

At some level there is a flavor text verses functional simplicity at odds for instance I could entice a gelatinous cube to attack by pretending to be vulnerable and I can pretend to be vulnerable to the others in different ways and get the same result. There may be implementation differences
I may calling the haught super duelist a schmuck not worthy of his title.
Just like a skill check isn't doing the exact thing every time but we do not necessarily get the details. If a character can come up with a hugely variant method of doing the same trick then page 42 and think of it as at a penalty for being more improvised

 

[FrogReaver]

At some level there is a flavor text verses functional simplicity at odds for instance I could entire a gelatinous cube to attack by pretending to be vulnerable and I can pretend to be vulnerable to the others in different ways and get the same result. There may be implementation diferences
I may calling the haught super duelist a schmuck not worthy of his title.
Just like a skill check isnt doing the exact thing every time but we do not necessarily get the details. If a character can come up with a hugely variant method of doing the same trick then page 42 and think of it as at a penalty for being more improvised

So if the tricks can be different each time - why can't you use that trick more than once a fight?