D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Garthanos]

Oh garsh I typed martial in 5e reference and its ambivalent in 5e... oh my oh my I will hang my head in shame

 

[Imaro]

Yeh dude I explained I meant "Extra Attack Class" and you seem to have broken something over it.

Glad you clarified but again I'm not speaking about 5e.

 

[Garthanos]

EDIT: Also I'm not sure why all of your arguments are based around what 5e does.

Because 5e supposedly fixed it all and tadah the difference is really presentation and not even having the subtle distinctions. So make things the same so someone doesnt need to analyse it. The fix is not make things more different its make almost everything the same.

 

[Imaro]

Because 5e supposedly fixed it all and tadah the difference is really presentation and not even having the subtle distinctions. So make things the same so someone doesnt need to analyse it. The fix is not make things more different its make almost everything the same.

I think you're confusing my stance, which I stated above with someone else's.... But yeah if you have a need to rag on 5e don't let me stop you... I just really don't have a reply.

 

[pemerton]

I'd be interested in knowing if the 4e proponents think the following 4 powers could look samey or at least seem extremely similar in execution on a grid?

At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee or Ranged weapon
Target: One creature
Special: You can move 2 squares before the attack.
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier at 21st level.


At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Ranged weapon
Target: One creature
Special: Shift 1 square before or after you attack
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier at 21st level.

At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Special: Before you attack, you let one ally adjacent to either you or the target shift 1 square as a free action.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength modifier at 21st level.

At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you push the target 1 square if it is your size, smaller than you, or one size category larger. You can shift into the space that the target occupied

My answer is not really.

Each is an attack. To borrow some phrasing from @FrogReaver, that's not "samey", it's just being the same. Two are melee only, one is ranged only, one is either.

Each also involves movement, but it's different in each case. The first allows moving to set up an attack. In 5e terms, iit resembles the rogue's Cunning Action.

The second allows movement that avoids opportunity attacks. It's most obvious use is to move out of OA range before shooting. I think making the shift after the attack would be less common when using this ability,

The third is about letting an ally move. My 4e game has an invoker who has a similar ability. This is, in technical terms, a "leader" ability and is used to either set things up, or help an ally get out of trouble.

The fourth is about battlefield control. The fighter in my 4e game uses this sort of thing quite often, whether to push enemies into pits or set them up for subsequent attacks or to move them away from friends.

To me, asking whether these are similar is like asking whether Misty Step and Thunderwave (two 5e spells) are similar. I mean, yes, they both involve movement - but one is about moving yourself, the other about blasting enemies away. Likewise the above,

The fact that they use a common technical terminology to describe the movement (shift, pull, move, etc) just shows that they are all rules from the same game. Most game use technical terminology to help express their rules (in 5e one sees terms like action, bonus action, hit points, check, attack, etc).

You're analyzing them... picture them on a grid.

I am.

The first two are identical if both are used before the attack for only one square of movement.

No they're not. One is movement, the other shift. One is ranged only. Picturing them on a grd only increases the salience of this distinction.

The third is a warlord power that is a shift and then attack very similar to the second power

No it's not. You are moving a friend, not yourself. As I already said, I've seen this sort of thing in action. It's about helping out the team, not positioning yourself.

the fighter one is the most different but still similar enough to the other four with a push and shift after attack to feel samey.

Only if forcing enemies to move is irrelevant to the tactical situation. Which in my experience it rarely is.

The grid you're imagining seems to be one with no other features (allies, enemies, terrain, etc) on it!

 

[Garthanos]

The grid you're imagining seems to be one with no other features (allies, enemies, terrain, etc) on it!

ie a white room where position is meaningless and shift is a meaningless word and moving enemies is the same as moving yourself and ranged only is meaningless and so on.

Yeah yeah don't pay attention to any details at all ... sheesh.

 

[Imaro]

My answer is not really.

Each is an attack. To borrow some phrasing from @FrogReaver, that's not "samey", it's just being the same. Two are melee only, one is ranged only, one is either.

Each also involves movement, but it's different in each case. The first allows moving to set up an attack. In 5e terms, iit resembles the rogue's Cunning Action.

The second allows movement that avoids opportunity attacks. It's most obvious use is to move out of OA range before shooting. I think making the shift after the attack would be less common when using this ability,

The third is about letting an ally move. My 4e game has an invoker who has a similar ability. This is, in technical terms, a "leader" ability and is used to either set things up, or help an ally get out of trouble.

The fourth is about battlefield control. The fighter in my 4e game uses this sort of thing quite often, whether to push enemies into pits or set them up for subsequent attacks or to move them away from friends.

To me, asking whether these are similar is like asking whether Misty Step and Thunderwave (two 5e spells) are similar. I mean, yes, they both involve movement - but one is about moving yourself, the other about blasting enemies away. Likewise the above,

The fact that they use a common technical terminology to describe the movement (shift, pull, move, etc) just shows that they are all rules from the same game. Most game use technical terminology to help express their rules (in 5e one sees terms like action, bonus action, hit points, check, attack, etc).

I am.

No they're not. One is movement, the other shift. One is ranged only. Picturing them on a grd only increases the salience of this distinction.

No it's not. You are moving a friend, not yourself. As I already said, I've seen this sort of thing in action. It's about helping out the team, not positioning yourself.

Only if forcing enemies to move is irrelevant to the tactical situation. Which in my experience it rarely is.

The grid you're imagining seems to be one with no other features (allies, enemies, terrain, etc) on it!

The vast majority of players aren't analyzing powers this deeply. In practical play unless there is an AoO a shift 1 and move 1 are identical. the fact that you can't see that shows a clear bias and is probably why you don't see them as samey but someone else could.

 

[Garthanos]

The vast majority of players aren't analyzing powers this deeply.

Its pretty straight forward analysis.... nothing deep about it a 5e variant would use the words free disengage and it would still be something they would go oh cool so I do not get attacked because I pulled the trick. Doesnt matter if its only sometimes panning out as important in practice when you are selecting it, that should be very distinctive.

And when it is important in practice it could be huge

 

[Garthanos]

Can we throttle it back just a hair?

This was actually an interesting discussion and I was hoping to engage Xetheral on the "strategy vectors" (no clue what else to call them) in 4e and how they may engage with the encounter example I created...but it looks like he's (gracefully) exiting stage left.

Yeh I kind of wanted more on that direction because I think 4e's strategic layer is more nuanced with harder choices and more team play with everyone able to participate and so on.

 

[pemerton]

In practical play unless there is an AoO a shift 1 and move 1 are identical.

And? Are you saying that OAs don't come up? Don't matter?

I'm telling you why the powers are different, both in their abstract rules text and in the play they lead to. I'm basing it on actual play experience.

The vast majority of players aren't analyzing powers this deeply.

And? You asked whether the four powers "look samey or seem extremeley similarin execution on the grid?" I've answered why I think they don't.

I suppose if someone doesn't know the rules, and/or doesn't actually read the powers closely, and/or plays in a game where it makes no difference whether PC A moves, PC B moves or the orc they're fighting moves then the differences between the powers wouldn't come out. I've never played at such a table but I'm prpared to believe that they exist.