D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Parmandur]

All discussions of book types are artificially limited. They've published novels, no one counts those.

Sure, they arengame products. They've been publishing at least 3 large game products a year since 2014, and the rate has increased: Spelljammer will be the fifth major new game product this year, with at least the Dragonlance Adventure to follow.

Sounds like a moderate release schedule to me: that's something new every other month in 2022, on average.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There are no classes in 4E as different as the 5E Warlock and Rogue. The Rogue and Fighter are closer together, but still less same-y.

The 4e warlock and warlord are at least as different.

Lucky you: change that to oatmeal, or whatever sort of food that is not to your own tastes.

For anyone who dislikes ice cream, it would indeed rather all be same-y, that's my point. I use same-y precisely because it isn’t technical, but conveys the phenomenological experience of 4E Classes that I have gone through.

Why continue to use a term that is more likely to give the wrong idea than it is to accurately communicate what you mean?

 

[Parmandur]

The 4e warlock and warlord are at least as different.

Why continue to use a term that is more likely to give the wrong idea than it is to accurately communicate what you mean?

What I mean is that the 4E Classes are same-y. Not identical, without any demarcation. Anchovies pizza, pepperoni pizza, and Hawaiian Pizza have differences, but if one doesn't care for tomatoes sauce, cheese, or bread...they are same-y.

5E Classes share a mathematical structure on a foundational level (HP and the Spell slot), but they are much less same-y. Like a pizza and a burrito that share much of their chemical structure bit are not experientially interchangeable, rather than two types of pizza.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What I mean is that the 4E Classes are same-y. Not identical, without any demarcation. Anchovies pizza, pepperoni pizza, and Hawaiian Pizza have differences, but if one doesn't care for tomatoes sauce, cheese, or bread...they are same-y.

5E Classes share a mathematical structure on a foundational level (HP and the Spell slot), but they are much less same-y. Like a pizza and a burrito that share much of their chemical structure bit are not experientially interchangeable, rather than two types of pizza.

That entire mindset drives me nuts, frankly.

Similarity isn’t what the issue is based in, then. I really wish folks would stop using terms to talk about it that speak to an entirely different issue from what they are actually trying to criticize.

For me, I experience what you’re describing vastly more with warrior characters in any edition before 4e, than with any classes in 4e (even two rogues can be built to play so differently they might as well be different classes), but I don’t call it “samey”, because it’s not like rogues and fighters are built the same, it’s just that I find their design boring and limited in the scope of actions they can take. To me, similarity lives in what happens in play, not in how the options are formatted.

As I said upthread, wizards can summon creatures, create walls, teleport to trade places with a creature, create zones with various effects, create constructions of magic, etc, and that’s before you get into rituals. Fighters can hurt things, protect allies, and exert some control over individual enemies in terms of restricting thier actions and creating “lose/lose” scenarios for them.

That describes two completely different character types, who do completely different things.

Samey is a completely, egregiously, incongruous descriptor for the above.

You might recall that I agreed with you upthread about a lot of the talk about why 4e wouldn’t be as huge as 5e is, even with the same circumstance. It’s not like I am unaware that people experience what you’re talking about. But if the 4e classes are “samey”, then the word has little if any actual meaning, and is actively detrimental to communication.

 

[Nightfly]

That they had the gall to call certain flavors of Paladin "avengers" and "wardens" was particularly bothersome, at least to me: it made clear they knew what they were doing, that this wasn't just ignorance or apathy but an intentional expunging of 4e-related concepts and structures while still trying to pay lip service to the idea that 4e had been included in the so-called "big tent.")

I agree with a lot of what your wrote here and on the other post you linked, but what I quoted above is where we differ. I played an Avenger in 4e through one of the big adventures (Pyramid of Shadows, I think?) and years later I played an Oath of Vengeance paladin through Tomb of Annihilation. I found the experience very similar, I'm happy to say. That subclass gave me what I wanted. I didn't feel the need for an entirely different class -- especially since the 4e Avenger might as well have been called "Paladin, except whoops we already used that name for the defender, so I guess we have to call this striker something else, uh maybe Avenger?" It felt completely appropriate to me that the concept was folded into the paladin class, where it actually might have been from the start if 4e's design philosophy had been a little different.

Certainly not everything I liked in 4e survived the switch, but to me quite a lot did. I'm genuinely sorry you have not had that experience, and I can understand why you might bristle a little at 5e.

BTW, thanks for linking me to your post and that thread. It's very interesting!

 

[Vaalingrade]

What I mean is that the 4E Classes are same-y. Not identical, without any demarcation. Anchovies pizza, pepperoni pizza, and Hawaiian Pizza have differences, but if one doesn't care for tomatoes sauce, cheese, or bread...they are same-y.

5E Classes share a mathematical structure on a foundational level (HP and the Spell slot), but they are much less same-y. Like a pizza and a burrito that share much of their chemical structure bit are not experientially interchangeable, rather than two types of pizza.

But you better like the mechanic of rolling two dice and taking the higher or lower.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree with a lot of what your wrote here and on the other post you linked, but what I quoted above is where we differ. I played an Avenger in 4e through one of the big adventures (Pyramid of Shadows, I think?) and years later I played an Oath of Vengeance paladin through Tomb of Annihilation. I found the experience very similar, I'm happy to say. That subclass gave me what I wanted. I didn't feel the need for an entirely different class -- especially since the 4e Avenger might as well have been called "Paladin, except whoops we already used that name for the defender, so I guess we have to call this striker something else, uh maybe Avenger?" It felt completely appropriate to me that the concept was folded into the paladin class, where it actually might have been from the start if 4e's design philosophy had been a little different.

Certainly not everything I liked in 4e survived the switch, but to me quite a lot did. I'm genuinely sorry you have not had that experience, and I can understand why you might bristle a little at 5e.

BTW, thanks for linking me to your post and that thread. It's very interesting!

My main issue with the Oath of Vengeance Paladin is, other than Oath of Enmity being vaguely kinda-sorta like what it was, playing a Paladin is very little like playing an Avenger. You don't have any incentive to hound enemies away from the party, nor to try to gang up on them, as the different types of Avengers did. You have no reason to use big two-handed weapons, which Avengers were specialized in, especially if you actually do use Dexterity, because Dexterity is useless for 2H weapons. And you really shouldn't be running around in minimal armor, which was the whole aesthetic of the Avenger class: you were Ezio Auditore, running around with an executioner's axe and defended "sola fide" as it were.

That plus the fact that you, y'know, cast spells, most of which are going to be really really Paladin-specific like having a warhorse or getting more interesting Smite options, is what puts the Oath of Vengeance completely in a different experiential category from the Avenger, IMO.

The Oath of the Ancients is similarly a huge problem, though arguably worse because there's none of the Primal flavor nor the key mechanics, so you can't even say "welllll it has Oath of Enmity it just works a little different!"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What I mean is that the 4E Classes are same-y. Not identical, without any demarcation. Anchovies pizza, pepperoni pizza, and Hawaiian Pizza have differences, but if one doesn't care for tomatoes sauce, cheese, or bread...they are same-y.

5E Classes share a mathematical structure on a foundational level (HP and the Spell slot), but they are much less same-y. Like a pizza and a burrito that share much of their chemical structure bit are not experientially interchangeable, rather than two types of pizza.

Unless you find "primarily a spellcaster" to be very samey.

In which case at least half of 5e is essentially identical. Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Bards are all "Wizard with One Extra Thing instead of getting Even More Spells." Warlocks are "Wizard, but with a weird rest mechanic" (that is probably going to go away or be heavily changed in 2024.) Artificers are "Wizards, but less Wizardy and more tools-y." Together, those comprise more than half of all classes.

The fact that we can easily lump the vast majority of characters into "full-caster," "half-caster," or "non-caster" is exactly why I find this whole "samey-ness" argument completely baffling and, frankly, more than a little disingenuous. There are essentially only four groups of classes in 5e, if we want them to be mechanically different from one another: Full-Caster, Part-Caster, Non-Caster, and Warlock. And even Warlock is barely that much different from other casters, it just automatically upcasts and has fewer slots to play with (but which, as noted, will probably get a major change in 2024 due to the de-emphasis on SR abilities.)

In 4e, classes used a common structure, but had unique expressions of their power for each individual class, and special baseline features distinguishing one class from another. Some groups of classes shared certain baseline features, e.g. Defenders getting a mark punishment, Leaders getting a 2x-per-encounter heal, etc.

in 5e, most classes use a common structure (spellcasting), but have unique expressions of that power for each individual class (spell lists), and special baseline features distinguishing one class from another. Some groups of classes share certain baseline features, e.g. physical fighters get Extra Attack, spellcasting-focused characters get cantrips that scale, etc.

If 4e was samey, there's no way on God's green Earth that 5e doesn't have just as much to answer for.

Unless...

Unless it's familiarity with the system that makes the difference. As I've said before. From the outside, all you know is the framework. The common structure. So it all looks the same, because it's all using the same presentation. Even though you may know cognitively that it is different, it feels the same because it uses the same format. But 5e is familiar; it went back to the 3.x model of doing most things, something that had been around for over a decade (and which was superficially pretty similar to what came before it.) Since you already know it well, you don't need to be told the parts where it differs, you can see them, plain as day. Like seeing your workplace that you've been working at for a decade, suddenly having a crashed car out front--the difference is jarring because the background is forgettable in its familiarity.

 

[Parmandur]

But you better like the mechanic of rolling two dice and taking the higher or lower.

I mean, that falls in line with "you have to like cheese or chocolate," I suppose.

 

[Nightfly]

But you better like the mechanic of rolling two dice and taking the higher or lower.

First: although I'm pretty sure you were being flippant, tons of us do like advantage/disadvantage. I adore it. Faster, simpler, more dramatic, and rolling more dice is always better than doing math. I'm so spoiled by it that I'm not sure I'd want to play a RPG that didn't have that mechanic now.

But second, if we're comparing this to 4e, how is it more same-y than adding two to your attack roll every time you have "combat advantage"? I don't see a lot of difference between adding two vs. adding two vs. adding two.