Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7295525" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Rough and smooth are impressions as well, but we still recognize that avocados (the part you eat, anyway) are one and not the other.Sure, but if someone points out what the differences were between those two games, you don’t get in a shouting match about it.Why do you put “differences” in quotes like that? Why do you always have to undermine your opponents’ position with passive aggressive condescension like this? Just say differences. There were differences, whether they were “enough” for you or not.And as a matter of fact,I would argue that the actual differences in how one class’s actions played out were more significant than they are in 5e. In 4e, a defender and a striker play very differently because the defender’s powers are focused on locking down targets and keeping them from attacking anyone but him, whereas the striker’s powers are focused on dealing damage and moving quickly and freely throughout the battlefield. In 5e, there are no defined combat roles, and very few class features significantly change how one class approaches combat over another, beyond very broad strokes.And all of that is fine, but if someone’s problem with 4e is that the pre-Essentials power structure was too uniform from one class to another, they should say that. If they claim their problem is that all of the classes played the same, I’m just left wondering how much they actually played, because the differences came in what the powers did more than which types you get at what levels, much like 5e spellcasters are differentiated by what their spells do, nor how many slots they have at what levels (with the exception of the Warlock).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7295525, member: 6779196"] Rough and smooth are impressions as well, but we still recognize that avocados (the part you eat, anyway) are one and not the other. Sure, but if someone points out what the differences were between those two games, you don’t get in a shouting match about it. Why do you put “differences” in quotes like that? Why do you always have to undermine your opponents’ position with passive aggressive condescension like this? Just say differences. There were differences, whether they were “enough” for you or not. And as a matter of fact,I would argue that the actual differences in how one class’s actions played out were more significant than they are in 5e. In 4e, a defender and a striker play very differently because the defender’s powers are focused on locking down targets and keeping them from attacking anyone but him, whereas the striker’s powers are focused on dealing damage and moving quickly and freely throughout the battlefield. In 5e, there are no defined combat roles, and very few class features significantly change how one class approaches combat over another, beyond very broad strokes. And all of that is fine, but if someone’s problem with 4e is that the pre-Essentials power structure was too uniform from one class to another, they should say that. If they claim their problem is that all of the classes played the same, I’m just left wondering how much they actually played, because the differences came in what the powers did more than which types you get at what levels, much like 5e spellcasters are differentiated by what their spells do, nor how many slots they have at what levels (with the exception of the Warlock). [/QUOTE]

Verification