D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, when the thread is themed on rejection of an opinion as hold as a valid opinion, the tone may follow.
I'm shocked that so much self contradiction can pass without a batted eye and yet taking umbrage at the positions firmly taken (whether in the OP or just subsequent) is intolerable. It seems quite a double standard. So be it.

Okay.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Some classes to the same thing over and over. 4E was comparatively homogenous the powers were kinda different but read samey.

You just described presentation.

And while some powers could be very similar (most defenders had a few powers that did pretty much the same thing), they not only were modified by class features, but the vast majority of powers weren’t just “kinda different” but completely different.

A 4e wizard can create walls of elemental energy that last until the end of the encounter. They can conjure spheres or figures of Fire that move around and burn all they touch and/or make fire attacks.

The Assassin can teleport at-will, from creature to creature.

The rogue and ranger are built for totally different play styles, with rogues getting damage oriented control powers to supplement their single target damage, doing stuff like flipping around the battlefield stabbing everyone they pass by, or shooting a short range barrage of daggers or arrows, many of such powers having debuffing rider effects on them.

They actual effects of the powers are objectively less similar than any other edition of D&D. They’re just in the same style of box.

 

[FireLance]

To me, I don't paricularly care whether you prefer 4E to 5E or vice-versa. I'd just like to seek some clarity for my intellectual satisfaction:

1. If you are of the view that the 4E classes feel the same because of the identical AEDU power structure, do the 5E bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer and wizard classes also feel the same because they have exactly the same spells per day at every level? If not, why not?

2. If you are of the view that the 4E powers feel the same because they are mostly damage plus effect, do the 5e Battlemaster fighter maneuvers also feel the same because they are mostly add superiority die to damage plus effect? If not, why not?

3. If you are of the view that 4E Leader classes feel the same because they heal in the same way, do the 5e bard, cleric and druid classes also feel the same because they are pretty much using the same healing spells (e.g. cure wounds, healing word)? If not, why not?

 

[Don Durito]

The thing is though, that 4E makes you choose powers.

Bob just wants to hit things with his sword. For Bob the difference between Reaping Strike and Tide of Iron is trivial. He's just happy with the visceral thrill of imagining his hero doing violence to the enemy. When Bob is asked by the DM which power he is using he is annoyed. Why does he have to choose from a list? All the powers look the same anyway. They're all hit things with sword plus something else. Bob doesn't care about something else.

For Bob all the choices look the same because they're a burdnesome choice. You could tell Bob, "Hey Bob, they're actually more different than what you're used to. They're not the same at at all. You used to just hit things with you're sword every round. What can be more samey than that?"
"True", Bob would have to concede, if he hadn't grown bored of all this theory talk and wandered off to get a snack. "But since I didn't have to make a choice it didn't matter."

Bob is happy with the 5E Champion. Last week his Fighter rolled 3 critical hits in a row. What could be more awesome than that?

 

[FireLance]

The thing is though, that 4E makes you choose powers.

Bob just wants to hit things with his sword. For Bob the difference between Reaping Strike and Tide of Iron is trivial. He's just happy with the visceral thrill of imagining his hero doing violence to the enemy. When Bob is asked by the DM which power he is using he is annoyed. Why does he have to choose from a list? All the powers look the same anyway. They're all hit things with sword plus something else. Bob doesn't care about something else.

For Bob all the choices look the same because they're a burdnesome choice. You could tell Bob, "Hey Bob, they're actually more different than what you're used to. They're not the same at at. You used to just hit things with you're sword every round. What can be more samey than that?"
"True", Bob would have to concede, if he hadn't grown bored of all this theory talk and wandered off to get a snack. "But since I didn't have to make a choice it didn't matter."

Bob is happy with the 5E Champion. Last week his Fighter rolled 3 critical hits in a row. What could be more awesome than that?

Which is a fine reason to prefer 5E to 4E, and actually a point supporting the assertion that 4E is not samey.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

If players can't keep track of encounter or daily powers, but can keep track of spells in AD&D or 5e, then there is something at work that I don't get.

Likewise, if players routinely use spells in AD&D or 5e, but don't use rituals in 4e, again I don't get this.

I'm not saying it didn't happen! I fully believe your posts. I just don't understand what's going on here with player preference and cognition.

Both the DMG and (moreso) the DMG 2 talk about using powers to buff checks in the context of a skill challenge. This was fairly common in my 4e play, just like using rituals was, but maybe our table was unusual?

Well, in OD&D, magic-users in my game start with all 8 first-level spells. Most are very intuitive: hold portal holds a door closed; sleep puts creatures to sleep; charm person doesn't even have a duration, but instead lasts until dispelled. I can tell my players not to worry about the rules too much.

But with 4e, I couldn't do that. The players need to know the rules, or else the game grinds to a halt. From my group of 9 players, only 2 bothered to learn the rules well. In OD&D that works. In 4e - not so much.

Moreover, in OD&D, 1st level magic-users can only memorize 1 spell at a time. They only need to keep track of one power. At first level, 4e character needs to 2 at will powers, 1 encounter power, 1 daily power, possible 1 or 2 class powers, and 1 racial power. That's a big difference.

Once again, I really like 4e. I think the basic system has huge potential. I really would have liked to see a second edition of 4e.

 

[FireLance]

Well, in OD&D, magic-users in my game start with all 8 first-level spells. Most are very intuitive: hold portal holds a door closed; sleep puts creatures to sleep; charm person doesn't even have a duration, but instead lasts until dispelled. I can tell my players not to worry about the rules too much.

But with 4e, I couldn't do that. The players need to know the rules, or else the game grinds to a halt. From my group of 9 players, only 2 bothered to learn the rules well. In OD&D that works. In 4e - not so much.

Moreover, in OD&D, 1st level magic-users can only memorize 1 spell at a time. They only need to keep track of one power. At first level, 4e character needs to 2 at will powers, 1 encounter power, 1 daily power, possible 1 or 2 class powers, and 1 racial power. That's a big difference.

Once again, I really like 4e. I think the basic system has huge potential. I really would have liked to see a second edition of 4e.

So, 4E characters have more choices in play? More complex, certainly, more concentration needed, maybe, but samey? Not seeing it.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

So, 4E characters have more choices in play? More complex, certainly, more concentration needed, maybe, but samey? Not seeing it.

I find them samey because of the number of powers directed solely at combat. In OD&D very few spells are combat-related. Sleep at first level, then Fireball and Lightning bolt at 3rd; most deal with out of combat situations. Furthermore, Clerical and MU spells are utilitarian in very different aspects of the game. MU spells deal more with trickery, while clerical spells heal (cure disease) and help make new potential allies (speak with animals). Clerics have very few combat-focused spells at all.

Inside of combat, 4e characters are very different from one another. I agree, but I find all characters focus mainly on one aspect the game: fighting.

That being said, I'm an OD&D guy. I play with 3 main classes. I don't have huge problem with similarity.

 

[cbwjm]

Because charge is behind a feat paywall in 5e and an atwill for anyone who has the guts for it in 4e LOL.

That's not really true, Charger allows you to move, use your action to dash and still make an attack that gains a bonus to damage or allows you to shove the target away. The closest comparison to charging in 4e is just a regular move and attack in 5e which anyone can do. Sure you don't gain the +1 bonus to hit but then 5e doesn't really bother with those small bonuses anyway because it doesn't really need them.

 

[FireLance]

I find them samey because of the number of powers directed solely at combat. In OD&D very few spells are combat-related. Sleep at first level, then Fireball and Lightning bolt at 3rd; most deal with out of combat situations. Furthermore, Clerical and MU spells are utilitarian in very different aspects of the game. MU spells deal more with trickery, while clerical spells heal (cure disease) and help make new potential allies (speak with animals). Clerics have very few combat-focused spells at all.

Inside of combat, 4e characters are very different from one another. I agree, but I find all characters focus mainly on one aspect the game: fighting.

That being said, I'm an OD&D guy. I play with 3 main classes. I don't have huge problem with similarity.

Thank you for your views. I will just add that for many of us who like 4E, this is a feature not a bug, because it makes combat interesting and every character class is able to contribute more or less equally to combat.

That said, I can see how someone who prefers more focus on the other two pillars or who prefers different classes to have different areas of strength between the three pillars might find this to be a flaw, and possibly "samey".