D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Manbearcat]

The encounter you've described is not one that would fit well in my preferred playstyle, either as a player or as a DM. I personally prefer organic encounters that arise as a result of the PCs' strategic choices, so a pre-planned encounter with scripted features like the ones you describe wouldn't really fit. (And from the PC standpoint, in the playstyle I prefer, fighting the enemy on their home turf is usually a last resort, and indicates the PCs have lost the strategic initiative.)

I can definitely see how the encounter you've described would emphasize the differences between powers in 4e. There is a lot going on at the tactical level, and that matters for which power is most useful at any given moment, so careful round-by-round selection of the order in which to use each power is key.

I can also see, however, how encounters in other styles might de-emphasize the differences between 4e powers. If the PCs elect to attack at maximum range, for (a very simple) example, many of the movement-related special effects of 4e powers may be irrelevant. (E.g. pushing a target 3 squares may be useless at long range if it doesn't change the target's ability to reach full cover on its turn). When encounter specifics cause the special effects of 4e powers to be less relevant, the practical differences between 4e powers start to blur.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the perceived degree of "samey-ness" in 4e powers may depend on the preferred encounter style of the observer.

As an additional complication caused by differing playstyles, I note that your example encounter appears to assume that differences between powers should be evaluated based on their affect on an encounter after initiative is rolled. In playstyles that instead emphasize the strategic layer of D&D, the relevant question may instead be to what extent 4e powers differ in their ability to influence, before initiative is rolled, how, where, when, and whether an encounter takes place.

From the perspective of that kind of playstyle, it may be highly relevant to perceptions of "sameyness" that 4e arguably lacks the range of character abilities found in other editions that would permit, for example, retrieving the NPC in your example encounter without engaging in combat at all. For those who prefer such playstyles, the recurring choice of what order in which to use one's powers may seem repetitive from encounter to encounter, even if all such encounters are designed, like your example, to emphasize the differences between powers.

Great response. That is the kind of conversation that I was trying to give rise to.

Some thoughts/replies:

* I absolutely agree (which was what I was trying to convey with the example) that encounters that (a) have multiple moving parts, (b) that incentivize mobility (and/or disincentivize lack of movement), (c) that incentivize forced movement, (d) multiple impactful battlefield features, and (e) interesting team monster synergy are the kinds of combats that will highlight both (i) the distinctness in decision-points in classes/archetypes and (ii) the emergent effects on the gamestate of those decision-points.

* I would also say that all 4e combats that are run using the combat engine should have b-d minimum. I would simultaneously say that attaining b-d is trivially easy for even a very average proficiency user. Its the (a) and (e) that take more skill. An easy example is a ruin with scattered Difficult Terrain, 2 ruined walls that can be shoved over for a Close Burst 3 Terrain Stunt, A boiling cookpot and spit as Hindering Terrain, a hill (requires climbing or moving around which equals more action economy spent) with multiple Bandit Archer (Artillery) Minions and multiple Bandit Toughs (Elite Brutes) w/ their Attack Dogs (Standard Skirmishers).

* I definitely agree that there is a level of tactical depth associated with all of this stuff that is undesirable for some/many players. Further, I also agree that featuring the conflict-charged scene as pretty much the exclusive locus of the action while simultaneously reducing the impact of spell power plays, means that the historical profile of D&D extra-encounter strategy will be muted (and/or moved to a different axis). However, while both of those are interesting asides (and both relevant to the question of why certain folks didn't like 4e), they are indeed still asides to the question of "sameness."

* The question of tactics and Initiative order is an interesting one. What I've seen in all of the 4e games I've GMed is that its something like this (I'll use the encounter that you quoted above and I'll simply use a Fighter as an example).

PRE-INITIATIVE: The Fighter player is considering each of the following possible moves for round 1:

1) Weave between the Lightning Pillars and get to the NPC and start the process of breaking it out of the machine; Run (Move +2 but give up CA) > Mighty Sprint > Standard Action Athletics Check to sunder the machine > Action Point Heal to mend the ailments the machine is causing the NPC (hoping for 2 out of the 4 required successes by round 1). Invariably, this would change the situation of the Skill Challenge with the machine possibly having countermeasures it can deploy (steel tentacles perhaps?) that the Fighter would have to withstand/defeat next round.

2) Force the Mad Scientist (MA) into melee it can't escape (hopefully preventing it from getting to the rune to teleport to a Pillar); Run > Run > Mighty Sprint (which includes a buffed Athletics check to leap and climb the pillar to the balcony to get adjacent to MA > Action Point Seize and Stab Daily Power for big damage to the MA and to Grab him which he can't get out of until the END of its NEXT turn. The MA would be damaged + shut down hard with that Grab for multiple ROUNDS with this effect and Combat Superiority (its ranged attacks would yield OAs) and it wouldn't be able to get to the Teleportation Rune + Marked (subject to all of its effects) + subject to Combat Superiority (making getting away a virtual impossibility unless it can Force Move the Fighter away from it or teleport from where it is).

3) Get to the nearest Lightning Pillar to kill the two Flesh Golem Minions that have just been animated by the Pillar and then sunder the Pillar; Run (hopefully avoid the Lightning Damage when the Fighter gets in proximity) > Standard Action to Cleave (a hit on the first one and the 2nd one is auto-swept with the Minion Sweeper rider of Cleave) > Action Point Athletics Check to Sunder the Pillar and destroy it (shutting off the ability for the MS to port there, shutting off the Minion activation, shutting off the proximity Lightning damage).

4) Get to the East Entrance to man the 15 foot opening (which, with Combat Superiority and a 3 SQ opening, the Fighter basically becomes an impenetrable wall that anything that comes from that corridor would die upon) that the Iron Golem is in and engage the Golem; Run > Charge the Iron Golem as a Standard Action Attack (and decide if they want to use Bull Charge Encounter Power - Damage + Push + Shift Adjacent + Secondary attack for Prone - as you can sub it for a Melee Basic Attack). Creature is at least Marked and subject to Combat Superiority (as above) but probably also damaged + Pushed into the corridor + Fighter adjacent + possibly Prone. If the Golem is Prone, the Fighter may then decide to Minor Action Mighty Sprint to get adjacent to either a Lightning Pillar and Sunder it or get adjacent to the pair of Flesh Golems underneath it > Action Point to Athletics (Sunder) the Pillar or Cleave the Flesh Golems.

This whole turn would possibly leave the following scenario in its wake; (a) that Flesh Golem damaged by around 1/4, (b) basically useless for round 1 (as it would have to spend all of its action economy to get up from Prone and move into the room), and (c) either both Flesh Golems under the pillar killed or the Lightning Pillar destroyed.


As I look at this decision-point and the possible action declarations it could yield, I see (a) extreme diversity, (b) significant effectiveness in tipping the scales for the good guys in each outcome, (c) different mechanical interactions, (d) different amount and type of resource investment.

The only thing Initiative order might do is change the final formulation of the 4 decision-points up top a bit (which one they finally decided to prioritize), possibly removing 1 or 2 and opening up another 1 or 2. For instance, if the Flesh Golems goes before it and they become spread out, that would limit the Cleave aspect of (3) above.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Sure, they’re packaged differently.

When someone claims that 4e Rogue’s Blinding Barrage is the same as the Fighter’s Come And Get It, they’re laughably, ridiculously, factually, incorrect. And yet, the claim gets made.

 

[Don Durito]

Sure, they’re packaged differently.

When someone claims that 4e Rogue’s Blinding Barrage is the same as the Fighter’s Come And Get It, they’re laughably, ridiculously, factually, incorrect. And yet, the claim gets made.

Where exactly?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

I disagree. I don't think it's presentation. I think most powers are samey because most relate to combat. I would like to see more powers with creative out-of-combat utility. For example, I would love an eyebite that didn't inflict damage, only blindness. It would be very useful for stealth, and I wouldn't have to torture the victim.

Personally, I find ghost sound and mage hand much more interesting and useful than most attack powers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

Action Surge isn’t meaningfully different from the attack action.

Rage is just a buff spell.

Reckless Attack is the same thing as Oath of Enmity or any other “get advantage” ability.

Divine Smite is just sneak attack packaged differently.

etc.

Round by round, the weapon users move to a target, hit, maybe apply a limited modifier to hit or add damage, which is either 1d6/1d8 or a static number representing the average of one of those if its an “every attack” or “1/turn” ability, or a number of dice roughly equal to the same damage assuming the per round boost stays for about 2-4 rounds, depending on how limited the resource spent is.

I mean...dude, that’s the same thing y’all like to say about powers.

In both cases there is more to it in actual play, but in 4e there is actually more difference between what actual mechanical effects are brought to bear by a single target focused rogue vs a burst and non-standard attack focused room-clearer rogue, than there is between the fighter, Barbarian, ranger, and Paladin, in most rounds of most combats in 5e.

So, it’s presentation.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Sure, they’re packaged differently.

When someone claims that 4e Rogue’s Blinding Barrage is the same as the Fighter’s Come And Get It, they’re laughably, ridiculously, factually, incorrect. And yet, the claim gets made.

I think they're similar. They're both attacks. That makes them samey to me. They have the same purpose: combat and controlling the battlefield.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I addressed every single one of those powers. Maybe read the thread first before you go for the generally untrue statements?



Nope. You can pick 2 of the most unique powers from the list - but that doesn't prove what you think it proves.

But they aren’t the most unique powers on the list. Probably not even top ten. They’re for different roles, but there are Warlord and fighter powers that are even more different than that.

And that’s for two very similar classes.

What’s weird to me is that you can insist that powers in general are samey, while admitting that some powers are very not samey. I mean...what’s the threshold? Why is it that some powers being samey, to you, means that powers are samey?

Like, if we deleted the “samey” powers from the 4e books, and there were plenty of powers left to power all the classes, and there would be, then what? If the answer is that the criticism of sameyness Would no longer be one that you agree with, then...I genuinely don’t understand how you can agree with it to begin with.

If each class has powers it can choose, at most or all levels, that aren’t samey, then the generalized statement “powers are samey” simply is not true.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think they're similar. They're both attacks. That makes them samey to me. They have the same purpose: combat and controlling the battlefield.

Then almost everything in almost every D&D based rpg ever is basically the same.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think they're similar. They're both attacks. That makes them samey to me. They have the same purpose: combat and controlling the battlefield.

Isn't the root cause of this because Blinding Barrage and Come and Get It are both Attacks. That is their actual key-word category in the ruleset.

The complaint that Attacks are "samey" because they have the same purpose (combat and controlling the battlefield)...isn't that just tautological? Tautological in the same way that complaining that a pencil and a pen and a marker and a crayon are all the same thing because their category is "implement to scrawl on a medium with?

As far as not enough abilities/features that we're Attacks. The entire Skill System and the Noncombat Conflict Resolution mechanics are meant to fill this role. If a Warlock has Eyebite and they want to use it to perform an action declaration in a Skill Challenge like "I use Eyebite to distract the guard by making him feel like he's got a lash in his eye"...easy enough...Arcana check vs of-level Medium DC! Success and it works and you tick 1 success and change the situation where the Warlock is now dealing with a new obstacle (as the guard obstacle has been defeated). Failure and some sort of complication ensues (maybe the guard flails and knocks a hanging lantern down at the PC's...which starts a fire and a general state of alarm...and the Warlock has to take immediate action to not get set aflame and caught) and you tick 1 failure. The scene has (a) changed dynamically and (b) a story win or story loss/complication is one step closer toward being met (and the scene coming to a close).

As far as Skill Powers go, I'm not sure when you stopped playing 4e, but these were developed significantly as time wore on. Things like the Fighter's Steely Persuasion (+ Proficiency to Intimidate or Streetwise when in a conflict - emulating the threat of your words being backed by the dangerous promise of your weapon) or Grasshopper Leap (auto-20 on Athletics) or things like mundane spider climb or sub Streetwise for Arcana and other skills when you're in a city or all of the Skill reroll abilities or the ability to buff your allies skills or sub their failures with your own reroll. There were some in there at inception, but the game developed much more within a year.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well you'll have to show me where then?

Although I remain perplexed. Surely the word 'samey' as a construction makes no sense to be applied to anything in an objective manner. I mean, no it's not really a word in a generally recognisable sense, it takes the adjective "same" and adds in the suffix "y" which also denotes an adjective (so it's doubly an adjective.) We know what it means because we know how English words are constructed, but it's seems unlikely to reach general usage such that it requires a dictionary definition.

Surely the fact, that it duplicates an existing word, (similar) and the fleeting nature of the construction, indicate that the whole usage of the word is somewhat personal and describes a feeling or impression (impressions by their nature being fleeting and, therefore, the use of such a construction being appropriate)? Usually if one is attempting to objectively describe something one does not use such constructions, objective descriptions by their nature requiring a precision of language that subjective descriptions do not.

Well, no. People use imprecise language all the time to indicate factual statements (ie statements about the factual state of things).
As for the pedantry regarding the word itself, jargon words are words. No one outside TTRPG gaming uses “crit”, but it’s absolutely a word.