D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Hussar]

Why shouldn't I be taken seriously? It's an absolute truth that 4e is more samey to me than 5e. 5e has nothing like the same structures that 4e has.

I totally agree that it feels that way to you. However, frankly, who cares? I can claim all sorts of things, but, if I want anyone to actually take me seriously, I have to actually provide proof. As to the second part - no, you are wrong. 5e has pretty much all the same structures that 4e has. Just written differently.

Yes. You are supposed to accept as a fact that 5e is less samey to me than 4e. Full stop.



I have about 4 times now. Go back and wade through the thread if you missed them.

Ok, I accept that 5e is less samey to you than 4e. Who cares? It doesn't actually prove anything. All you are doing is making assertions without any evidence or proof to demonstrate that 5e is IN FACT less samey than 4e or that 4e is samey at all.

No one is disputing your feelings @Maxperson (and others in this thread who are arguing the same line). You are more than welcome to feel whatever you like. But, what is in dispute is the validity of these feelings in the absence of facts (you admitted you were only looking at the PHB 1 and DMG 1 - a tiny slice of the game), while others admitted to not looking at rituals (a major part of the game).

If all you have ever watched is the Toronto Maple Leafs play hockey, I'm certainly not going to listen to you when you make proclamations about the NHL.

 

[Garthanos]

Well you gotta admit exactly the same means they do not have to think so hard you arent asked to decide hard questions about whether you want to risk the brash assaults enemy attack .... you simply use an ability exactly like everyone else who uses a sword does much easier.... AND you get a game with people asking if your game is the easiest ever.

 

[Hussar]

This is one-sided historiography that attempts to depict everyone who has a positive opinion about 4e along similar lines of a bunch of irrational, reactionary anti-feminists. You may not intend this, but comparing these people who like 4e to people complaining about Rey being a Mary Sue certainly not so subtly invites the comparison. So maybe your own cognitive bias is at work here in your recounting of what is or isn't happening because I don't think that this accurate regardless of the great lengths you went with your word count to appear convincing.

Heh. It's actually funny @Aldarc. I 50% agree with @lowkey13. He has the situation right, but, he reversed the roles. Because 4e players would LOVE to be able to talk about the game, be able to discuss warlords or damage on a miss or various other things, without having folks come bombing in to tell us repeatedly how 4e sucks, was a commercial failure, the rules are garbage, too samey, too video gamey, too board gamey, not really a role playing game, not really D&D, etc.

IOW, we're not the folks complaining about Rey being a Mary Sue. We're not the ones going into discussions between people who enjoy something with the express purpose of disrupting the conversation, over and over again, in order to "prove" that this thing that is being talked about is bad.

@lowkey13, you really might want to reexamine your view here and decide which side of the conversation you are actually engaging with. Do you really see 4e fans jumping into every single 5e thread to threadcrap how bad 5e is, or, is it the reverse? How many times do warlord threads have to get shut down before it becomes rather obvious which side is arguing that Rey is a Mary Sue?

 

[Maxperson]

I totally agree that it feels that way to you. However, frankly, who cares? I can claim all sorts of things, but, if I want anyone to actually take me seriously, I have to actually provide proof.

Dude. There is no requirement to prove an opinion.

5e has pretty much all the same structures that 4e has. Just written differently.

The class structure to gain abilities is nothing like 4e. There is no AEDU. Some classes have at will abilities. Not martial classes. There are no encounter powers that I can think of. Short rest powers aren't encounter as you can have 5 encounters before you short rest. Daily exists. Utility exist. Abilities are not mostly some variation of X damage dice plus a special.

Ok, I accept that 5e is less samey to you than 4e.

Thanks.

All you are doing is making assertions without any evidence

Again, there is no requirement to prove an opinion.

or proof to demonstrate that 5e is IN FACT less samey than 4e or that 4e is samey at all.

What part of "Subjective" do you not understand?

But, what is in dispute is the validity of these feelings

The validity cannot be disputed. Period. If you think they can, you need to do a lot of research on this subject. How I feel about 4e and 5e is in absolute fact, valid. Same as how you feel about them. Neither one of us needs to prove diddly squat to the other for those feelings to be valid.

 

[Hussar]

Well you gotta admit exactly the same means they do not have to think so hard you arent asked to decide hard questions about whether you want to risk the brash assaults enemy attack .... you simply use an ability exactly like everyone else who uses a sword does much easier.... AND you get a game with people asking if your game is the easiest ever.

Again, I think it gets back to presentation. It was mentioned earlier, that slight (and not so slight) differences between powers don't matter because the differences get drowned out by the volume of similar powers.

So, if we simply take all those similar powers, write them once, give them to everyone, now all the differences stand out so much more clearly. Sure, every full caster uses exactly the same progression, casts exactly the same way, and often casts exactly the same spells, but, since all of that is collected together, we can focus on the differences, like how a druid has shape change, or a cleric has different abilities, or bardic inspiration.

Realistically, we could take it even further, and simply have a Spell Caster Class, and then subclasses for bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer and wizard, but, that runs into TRADITION, and won't float. There is a sweet spot band between too much simplification and too much repetition.

 

[Hussar]

Dude. There is no requirement to prove an opinion.
/snip

I would go on rather at length about this but the board no-politics rules prevent me. Needless to say, an unsubstantiated opinion is worthless. It's a fabrication with no substance and should be treated as such.

 

[Maxperson]

I would go on rather at length about this but the board no-politics rules prevent me. Needless to say, an unsubstantiated opinion is worthless. It's a fabrication with no substance and should be treated as such.

Calling someone a liar, because they didn't prove their opinion to your satisfaction is pretty hokey dude. An opinion under such circumstances is not a "fabrication."

 

[Garthanos]

Some classes have at will abilities. Not martial classes.

4 identical ones gained at 5th level usually but not rogues I actually like that they do the change in structure does not change the function

It does make a lot of classes a bit samey

 

[Maxperson]

4 identical ones gained at 5th level... I actually like that they do

They aren't at wills, despite your assertion. Nobody has to do anything other than swing twice if they don't want to. Nor do all martial classes get them. Nor does having the extra attack = a 4e at will. You have to succeed in an attack to grapple or shove, then also succeed in another attack to hit. You can shove/grapple without hitting for damage with the second attack. You can shove one person, move and attack another. And so on. They are just not the same as 4e at wills.

 

[Garthanos]

structure is everything no its not... it means one person being lame when the adventure doesnt follow a very samey samy pacing