D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[FrogReaver]

This all seems true enough, but most 5e abilities (class abilities, spells) look miouch the same: action type + recharge rate + [to hit or saving throw mechanic + damage + effect] or [movement] or [effect]. It's true that they're formatted differently, but that then takes us straight back to the presentation point.

This was addressed already and pointed out that

1. The magnitude of the differences in effects played a role (5e had greater differences)
2. The abilities with effects in 5e were totally unique to the class that had them (4e powers effects were typically shared across many classes)
3. The different recharge rate cycles for classes helped 5e feel less samey than 4e.

Which is really the problem - the claim keeps getting made that 5e is directly comparable to 4e in the ways that matter (to me) and it's simply not the case. 4e = XYZ. 5e = ABC. XYZ != ABC.

 

[Hussar]

Oh I think I get it now.

It's all based on a category error.

Like when someone says that "X film really sucks". Instead of "I didn't like that film".

And then someone says about the former: "You can't state that like it's an objective fact. It only sucks in your opinion", making the error that something which is by itself subjective (and cannot possibly be anything else) can somehow be an objective claim due to a construction of language

Well, no, not necessarily. A movie might, indeed, suck. It could be poorly written, poorly shot, poorly edited, poorly acted, bad sound quality, wrong score, wrong actors for the part or a hundred other things you could point to and demonstrate, objectively, that this film does suck.

However, saying that all superhero movies (for example) suck because they are all too samey is a much, much tougher hill to defend. After all, in the superhero genre, we have movies like the Avengers, but also, Watchmen and Hancock. And there are also things like Jessica Jones or the first season of Daredevil. Do we discount these or not? In any case, superhero movies encompass a pretty wide range of genres from comedy to horror to action. Saying that they suck because they are all too samey is likely going to get some rather baffled reactions.

If samey as a criticism means something different to every single person, which apparently it does in this thread, then, as a criticism, it's meaningless. I cannot have a conversation until we pin down what you (and each and every you) means when you say it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe a bit like @doctorbadwolf, it just baffles me that this could be a respect in which 5e is meaningfully different from 4e. In our 4e game the fighter charges into the fray and uses AoE, the paladin is good against single foes, the archer ranger hangs out in the back. I just don't get how that is "samey" in 4e but not in 5e.

You can highlight the differences all you want. No one denies there are differences. Just that there aren't enough meaningful ones that make the class powers feel unique from each other. AKA - samey.

I find it interesting that I've never seen anyone argue that reckless attack feels like action surge or that rage feels like uncanny dodge or that divine smite feels like hunter's mark or that flurry of blows feels like eldritch blast, etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, no, not necessarily. A movie might, indeed, suck. It could be poorly written, poorly shot, poorly edited, poorly acted, bad sound quality, wrong score, wrong actors for the part or a hundred other things you could point to and demonstrate, objectively, that this film does suck.

…ALL of those things are subjective opinions. Literally every single one.

 

[Hussar]

This was addressed already and pointed out that

1. The magnitude of the differences in effects played a role (5e had greater differences)
2. The abilities with effects in 5e were totally unique to the class that had them (4e powers effects were typically shared across many classes)
3. The different recharge rate cycles for classes helped 5e feel less samey than 4e.

Which is really the problem - the claim keeps getting made that 5e is directly comparable to 4e in the ways that matter (to me) and it's simply not the case. 4e = XYZ. 5e = ABC. XYZ != ABC.

But, none of these are actually true.

The differences between combat styles in 5e are minimal - effectively a minor bonus depending on what you are doing - +2 for archer, -5 vs one attack/round for defensive style, +1 or so for great weapon fighting damage. None of the abilities with effects in 5e are totally unique to any class. None. The fighter combat styles are shared by two other classes. And, the recycle rate is the same for 4e and 5e - short rest or long rest.

 

[pemerton]

yo is any version of D&D well suited to a combat free campaign? you can argue spells had more utility in other versions of D&D, but AD&D only had skills for like 3 classes, how is that useful for a non-combat campaign?

My answer to your first question is no. One bit of evidence, not fully randomly seelcted but by no means all that could be pointed to: the mythic figures posts on these boards are almost entirely combat stats. The stat blocks for King Arthur and Lancelot, for instance, contain no reference to their love for Guinevere, or Lancelot's status as Arthur's champion. And contain no stats that would impact into any menaingful resolution of the question whether Guinevere leaves Arthur for Lancelot, or stays true to her husband.

4e is actually the best version of D&D I know for addressing those sorts of issues, because they can be done as skill challenges. (Though the more intensely interpersonal the takes, the shakier the system will get because the only way of putting relationships into play is either through GM framing and narration of resolution, or a +2/-2 modifier to a Diplomacy or Bluff check.)

 

[FrogReaver]

But, none of these are actually true.

The differences between combat styles in 5e are minimal - effectively a minor bonus depending on what you are doing - +2 for archer, -5 vs one attack/round for defensive style, +1 or so for great weapon fighting damage. None of the abilities with effects in 5e are totally unique to any class. None. The fighter combat styles are shared by two other classes. And, the recycle rate is the same for 4e and 5e - short rest or long rest.

Your defense is pointing to 1 extremely minor ability shared between 3 classes? I think I'll rest my case now...

I've cited the interesting and unique ones about 10x now - you just goina keep on ignoring them?

 

[Don Durito]

I think there's probably a point to be made about how things correspond to elements in the game world.

Such as the post I made earlier in the thread about wildshape. I think a lot of the issues that people have with 4E around "sameyness" are probably as much or more related to correspondence between rules and world. In some sense therefore it's probably a strength in some cases that 5E uses the same means to represent the same thing across several classes.

 

[Hussar]

You can highlight the differences all you want. No one denies there are differences. Just that there aren't enough meaningful ones that make the class powers feel unique from each other. AKA - samey.

I find it interesting that I've never seen anyone argue that reckless attack feels like action surge or that rage feels like uncanny dodge or that divine smite feels like hunter's mark or that flurry of blows feels like eldritch blast, etc.

Well, you wouldn't would you? You don't have a host of folks trying to prove that 5e is bad. You'll also note that NO ONE, in this thread has ever actually compared specific powers. Just that powers are samey. The OP demonstrates how different the different powers are, yet, that gets swept under the rug because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I mean, does anyone actually think that Tide of Iron (push a target and then take it's space) is the same as Commander's Strike - cause an ally to attack?

 

[pemerton]

Nah, they usually do both have XYZ, with maybe a difference in presentation. That's why I thought the conversation was getting somewhere when someone said it was about how the maneuvers/spells/etc. all shared the same format...but then people rushed in to say that no, that wasn't the case.

My take away has been that it's about PC build (sequence/structure of acquisition of player-side resources) and about recharge rates (so how those resources come back in pacing terms, ingame fiction terms, etc).

Which is to say, it's mostly about the wargamey/boardgamey elements. Not the fiction. At least as best I can tell.