4E Are powers samey?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marandahir

Explorer
Sure, though as a result, 5e has its own issues between trying to balance non-rest dependent (sub-)classes with short rest dependent (sub-)classes and long rest dependent (sub-)classes around assumptions regarding an "adventuring day." Which admittedly is just a reframing of at-will, per encounter, and per day powers.
This is the perhaps the biggest challenge with 5e, and it's biggest weakness versus Pre-2010 4e, and why my friend vehemently dislikes both 2020-2013 4e and 5e alike.

It's also illustrative of how 4e evolved out of the challenges of 3.5e, and 4e's own challenges gave rise to Essentials and then 5e. The same can be said of earlier editions of this game, and of edition forks like Pathfinder and 13th Age.
 

Aldarc

Hero
@FrogReaver: In the first paragraph you claim that it's not a loaded question, but then in every follow-up paragraph you fundamentally affirm that you asked a loaded question. I rest my case. Good day.

Edit:
This is the perhaps the biggest challenge with 5e, and it's biggest weakness versus Pre-2010 4e, and why my friend vehemently dislikes both 2020-2013 4e and 5e alike.
So what is your friend's preferred game or method of dealing with this challenge?

It's also illustrative of how 4e evolved out of the challenges of 3.5e, and 4e's own challenges gave rise to Essentials and then 5e. The same can be said of earlier editions of this game, and of edition forks like Pathfinder and 13th Age.
Oh, most definitely. And we can likewise see how Pathfinder 2 also exists as a response to difficulties in balancing the d20 system of 3.X that it inherited vis-à-vis Pathfinder 1.
 
Last edited:

nomotog

Explorer
Sure, though as a result, 5e has its own issues between trying to balance non-rest dependent (sub-)classes with short rest dependent (sub-)classes and long rest dependent (sub-)classes around assumptions regarding an "adventuring day." Which admittedly is just a reframing of at-will, per encounter, and per day powers.
I am not sure if you can or even want to try to fix that. If I was going to take a crack, I would push resource regeneration out into a roleplay zone. I haven't found it, but I saw a gunslinger class where the class powers were based on collecting favors from ladies. Like a lady gives you a rose and you use that to fuel your fan the hammer power. That is what I would try. No one recovers in 5 minutes or a day. You need to do something. Like a wizard needs to spend a week studying, or the fighter needs to find and battle another fighter. Everyone still has their own weird thing they do to recover resources, but they are all hard to recover.
 

Aldarc

Hero
I am not sure if you can or even want to try to fix that. If I was going to take a crack, I would push resource regeneration out into a roleplay zone. I haven't found it, but I saw a gunslinger class where the class powers were based on collecting favors from ladies. Like a lady gives you a rose and you use that to fuel your fan the hammer power. That is what I would try. No one recovers in 5 minutes or a day. You need to do something. Like a wizard needs to spend a week studying, or the fighter needs to find and battle another fighter. Everyone still has their own weird thing they do to recover resources, but they are all hard to recover.
I think that this would be quite engaging. RuneQuest has something similar with theistic powers. If you call upon theistic powers of your god, then you have to earn that power back through obeisance of some sort (e.g., sacrifice, cultic duties, etc.). So it roots the use of power into the world itself. Prayers and spellbooks are meant to serve this function to some degree, but in praxis it's often a perfunctory gloss.
 

Marandahir

Explorer
Maybe that's because based on the discussions we have been having that would be my best educated guess as their expected answer. My question is really not controversial - especially in light of this discussion. It should be easily answered with a yes by most people here - but I don't like to presume to much so I give the option of what to me would be an unexpected no.
The issue here is that you're presuming a yes from someone that you already know is going to say a no. Aldarc sees that as bad faith, because you're making an argument that you believe should convince them otherwise, and then presuming your argument won out and everyone should agree with you.

If there's something this thread has shown it's that there is NOT an easy Yes or No to this question – at least when it comes to the most dedicated forum posters. In the wider world, it is clear that 4e failed to make it's case fiscally, but that does not translate directly toward the framing of powers within 4e. It MIGHT correlate, but we could get into a multitude of reasons why 4e failed to gather the audience 5e later did, and that is beyond the scope of the arguments at play.

Within the scope of this thread, there are two major camps, and assuming that members of the other camp will join you and agree with you because of an argument you made, rather than dig in their heels and argue back, that's a bit of willful ignorance, if not, as Aldarc believes, bad faith.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either of you here, or that either of you are arguing in bad faith, or with loaded artillery behind your questions. Just sayin' that this argument has far veered from its original purpose.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
@Garthanos avoided the question entirely. He's had a bad habit lately of not engaging in discussion but trying to turn everything said back on you while avoiding answering the question entirely.
I wanted to answer without getting sarcastic
Or we can go with the other angle of how the math of 5e is basically the same as 4e divide by two and how huge numbers of the details which people claim made 4e so much different are glaringly in 5e? Which angle do we take? which is convenient for the hostility against 4e?
So you don't agree that 4e is much different than any other edition of D&D? Seems rather counterintuitive with how it's far and away your favorite edition?
I was exposed to many many other games all the way back to RuneQuest then Amber Diceless and GURPs and HERO games then Fate and to a lesser degree many independent games Burning Wheel. And being a far and away my favorite bird doesn't make it not a bird. Nor will you ever hear me claim 5e isnt D&D. I will tell you that bird flies a lot lower than 3e or 4e in several important ways. Basically there is no doubt 4e is a brand of D&D and closer to end game 3e and 5e than what came previously.

4e and 5e are alike in ways that make them obviously evolutions within a game now there are definitely backtracks in 5e in my opinion and elements which have high impact on martial classes are simplified to a degree that its difficult to add the strategic and tactically more difficult and interesting choices to the game. (The cake is a lie)
 

Marandahir

Explorer
So what is your friend's preferred game or method of dealing with this challenge?

Oh, most definitely. And we can likewise see how Pathfinder 2 also exists as a response to difficulties in balancing the d20 system of 3.X that it inherited vis-à-vis Pathfinder 1.
He plays 4e 2008-2009 books only, or else plays other games such as a Pokémon RPG or GURPS, or Dungeon: The Dragoning 40k 7th Edition, or Neon Genesis Evangelion mod to Dark Heresy (Adeptus Evangelion). We don't play together anymore, which is a big shame.

And yeah, definitely re: PF2 & PF1. I never played either, but I've seen the narrative arc of those editions.
 
The issue here is that you're presuming a yes from someone that you already know is going to say a no. Aldarc sees that as bad faith, because you're making an argument that you believe should convince them otherwise, and then presuming your argument won out and everyone should agree with you.
Huh? I'll let you elaborate on that some more.

If there's something this thread has shown it's that there is NOT an easy Yes or No to this question – at least when it comes to the most dedicated forum posters. In the wider world, it is clear that 4e failed to make it's case fiscally, but that does not translate directly toward the framing of powers within 4e. It MIGHT correlate, but we could get into a multitude of reasons why 4e failed to gather the audience 5e later did, and that is beyond the scope of the arguments at play.
Which is why the question: "Do you agree that 4e is much different than any other edition of D&D?" - If that can't be answered with a yes or no I'm not sure what we are doing here. Because that's about the simplest question that can be asked.

IMO. One side loves 4e BECASUE it was much different. The other side dislikes 4e BECASUE it was much different.

Can there be other opinions - sure. Can one believe 4e isn't that much different from any other edition of D&D? YES. That's a reasonable stance. How does that relate back to much stronger preferences for 4e than other editions of D&D though? If that's the case I'm curious about that - because at first glance that appears a bit paradoxical to me.

Within the scope of this thread, there are two major camps, and assuming that members of the other camp will join you and agree with you because of an argument you made, rather than dig in their heels and argue back, that's a bit of willful ignorance, if not, as Aldarc believes, bad faith.
Huh? Join a particular side? I think you are missing a lot of what I am saying.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either of you here, or that either of you are arguing in bad faith, or with loaded artillery behind your questions. Just sayin' that this argument has far veered from its original purpose.
Which is what happens when someone starts accusations of loaded questions and bad faith.
 

Marandahir

Explorer
Huh? I'll let you elaborate on that some more.

Which is why the question: "Do you agree that 4e is much different than any other edition of D&D?" - If that can't be answered with a yes or no I'm not sure what we are doing here. Because that's about the simplest question that can be asked.

IMO. One side loves 4e BECAUSE it was much different. The other side dislikes 4e BECAUSE it was much different.

Can there be other opinions - sure. Can one believe 4e isn't that much different from any other edition of D&D? YES. That's a reasonable stance. How does that relate back to much stronger preferences for 4e than other editions of D&D though? If that's the case I'm curious about that - because at first glance that appears a bit paradoxical to me.

Huh? Join a particular side? I think you are missing a lot of what I am saying.

Which is what happens when someone starts accusations of loaded questions and bad faith.
I agree with you about these possible options – though I don't see Option #3 as particularly paradoxical (One can believe, as Garthanos elucidates above that 4e is much akin to the other editions but achieved greater heights!).

It's not so much the question as the framing of it that was the issue.

(FYI, I'm not trying to single you out either as loading the question or having bad faith – it's easier to respond to one person at a time).

You said yourself that you think a yes is the majority answer, and that you'd be surprised by a no. But you knew already that Aldarc was saying no from earlier in the thread. What's interesting should be the why, and why each of you disagree, rather than the convincing.

The original question felt more like a closing argument asking the judge to agree with you rather than opening it up for more discussion on the topic, at least that's how I read it at first.

At the same time, and especially given the tension of these days, I think we could all do with a little bit more good faith trusting in each other that we're not trying to gotcha and that the medium of writing is not particularly suited toward understanding one another, and tends to heighten disagreements. We're trying to parse it out but it's easy to feel attacked and to want to hit back.

I'm not going to speak to all the points you made here because I don't want to get into an argument on semantics or small details, lest I trigger that same trap floor panel! I think you honestly want to know why Aldarc choose Door Number 3, and that may or may not be for the same reasons as Garthanos said above.
 

Aldarc

Hero
(1) The problem is that you are forcing me to engage the tacit assumption of a particular degree of difference between a dichotomy that you create between 4e and other editions rather than simply the existence or character of differences that naturally exists between editions.

(2) You are presuming too much about the reasons why people liked 4e.

If you are trying to ask me whether or not I can sympathize with people who found 4e non-conducive to their play preferences, then ask me that. That is a simpler question and far less loaded about judgment regarding the relationship between 4e and other editions and trying to fish for a "yes" to the presumption that 4e is substantially different.
 
I wanted to answer without getting sarcastic
Thank you and thanks for the answer.

I was exposed to many many other games all the way back to RuneQuest then Amber Diceless and GURPs and HERO games then Fate and to a lesser degree many independent games Burning Wheel. And being a far and away my favorite bird doesn't make it not a bird. Nor will you ever hear me claim 5e isnt D&D. I will tell you that bird flies a lot lower than 3e or 4e in several important ways. Basically there is no doubt 4e is a brand of D&D and closer to end game 3e and 5e than what came previously.

4e and 5e are alike in ways that make them obviously evolutions within a game now there are definitely backtracks in 5e in my opinion and elements which have high impact on martial classes are simplified to a degree that its difficult to add the strategic and tactically more difficult and interesting choices to the game. (The cake is a lie)
Frogreaver's summarization (please feel free to critique): 4e and 5e are similar but different. They are similar enough that you'd call them both D&D. They are different enough that you have strong preferences for 1 over the other.

I've no issues with that response. Thinking about it some more - I have strong preferences of 5e over 3.5e. I wouldn't say 3.5e isn't D&D but I would say they are very different.
 

nomotog

Explorer
I think 4ed is different from the rest of the editions. There are a lot of little reasons for this, but I think the big one would be that 4ed is very specific, vs the other editions that were more open. Like in 1,2,3 or 5 you have a magic hand it doses stuff, In 4ed you have a magic hand, you can use it to stab for 1d6 damage and inflect darkness.
 

Marandahir

Explorer
(1) The problem is that you are forcing me to engage the tacit assumption of a particular degree of difference between a dichotomy that you create between 4e and other editions rather than simply the existence or character of differences that naturally exists between editions.

(2) You are presuming too much about the reasons why people liked 4e.

If you are trying to ask me whether or not I can sympathize with people who found 4e non-conducive to their play preferences, then ask me that. That is a simpler question and far less loaded about judgment regarding the relationship between 4e and other editions and trying to fish for a "yes" to the presumption that 4e is substantially different.
While I agree with both your points here Aldarc (and especially #2), no one is forcing you to engage in the assumption, just as no one can force Garthanos to reply with his reasons for liking 4e (which he has since that point was made). We all engage on the thread the amount that we want to, and there are times when it's worth stepping away (as your Good Day argument would have suggested you were doing, along side your EDIT that switched to engaging different subthreads of this discussion).

If you want to keep engaging, do so, but hopefully we can all engage with in a less frustrated manner and assume some good faith even when we disagree vehemently.

Thank you and thanks for the answer.

Frogreaver's summarization (please feel free to critique): 4e and 5e are similar but different. They are similar enough that you'd call them both D&D. They are different enough that you have strong preferences for 1 over the other.

I've no issues with that response. Thinking about it some more - I have strong preferences of 5e over 3.5e. I wouldn't say 3.5e isn't D&D but I would say they are very different.
I agree with Garthanos' point and your summarization, FrogReaver, and I'd love to see you and Aldarc able to come to this sort of resolution despite disagreements, if at all possible.
 
(1) The problem is that you are forcing me to engage the tacit assumption of a particular degree of difference between a dichotomy that you create between 4e and other editions rather than simply the existence or character of differences that naturally exists between editions.

(2) You are presuming too much about the reasons why people liked 4e.

If you are trying to ask me whether or not I can sympathize with people who found 4e non-conducive to their play preferences, then ask me that. That is a simpler question and far less loaded about judgment regarding the relationship between 4e and other editions and trying to fish for a "yes" to the presumption that 4e is substantially different.
Well I understand the problem now - I think you did a poor job of explaining it and even this post doesn't help there.

I asked: "Is 4e very different from all other editions of D&D?"
The issue with that is that it is very different from all other editions of D&D and very similar to other editions of D&D as well. That's paradoxical at first but so very true IMO.

I think that's best described as false dichotomy - not loaded question ;)
That false dichotomy wasn't intentional on my part of course.
 
I agree with you about these possible options – though I don't see Option #3 as particularly paradoxical (One can believe, as Garthanos elucidates above that 4e is much akin to the other editions but achieved greater heights!).
Saying something is both very similar and very different is paradoxical I think. Being paradoxical doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable explanation for the paradox.

It's not so much the question as the framing of it that was the issue.

(FYI, I'm not trying to single you out either as loading the question or having bad faith – it's easier to respond to one person at a time).
Oh it was the question IMO - false dichotomy and all. Of course it wasn't that I was closed to more open ended answers - just that I hadn't considered the possibility for them.

You said yourself that you think a yes is the majority answer, and that you'd be surprised by a no. But you knew already that Aldarc was saying no from earlier in the thread. What's interesting should be the why, and why each of you disagree, rather than the convincing.
Well, up until now I firmly believed @Aldarc was just giving me a hard time to avoid answering the question at all - which until now I believed would have been an answer of yes by him. I'm not sure where you get I knew his answer would be no.

Speaking of - I still believe that if he had just attempted to answer it then most of this would have been avoided.

The original question felt more like a closing argument asking the judge to agree with you rather than opening it up for more discussion on the topic, at least that's how I read it at first.
Probably - I don't claim to have the best style.

At the same time, and especially given the tension of these days, I think we could all do with a little bit more good faith trusting in each other that we're not trying to gotcha and that the medium of writing is not particularly suited toward understanding one another, and tends to heighten disagreements. We're trying to parse it out but it's easy to feel attacked and to want to hit back.
Agreed - that's how I try to act and expect others to act.

I'm not going to speak to all the points you made here because I don't want to get into an argument on semantics or small details, lest I trigger that same trap floor panel! I think you honestly want to know why Aldarc choose Door Number 3, and that may or may not be for the same reasons as Garthanos said above.
LOL.
 

Aldarc

Hero
I asked: "Is 4e very different from all other editions of D&D?"
The issue with that is that it is very different from all other editions of D&D and very similar to other editions of D&D as well. That's paradoxical at first but so very true IMO.
This is a different question than the one that you originally asked.

You did not ask "is it very different?" You asked "can you agree that that it is much different?" Semantically asking an "is" question is different from asking a "can you agree that" question, since the latter tacitly presupposes a "yes" whereas an "is" question does not necessarily. (Hence the loaded question.)

I'm still not sure how well I could answer it, because I don't think that the question "is 4e very different from all other editions?" is a particularly meaningful or useful question. I would prefer looking at "How is 4e different from other editions?" or even "What style of play does the 4e D&D system cultivate?" and then comparing that with other editions.

That said, what matters to me is not whether 4e D&D feels very different from other editions - that's feels like a moot point, almost a red herring discussion to my earlier point - because what matters to me is that 4e D&D is considered a valid expression of D&D at all. If you and others in this thread do so, then that's great. But I do think that a number of fans of 4e feel like they are constantly having to fight for the legitimacy of 4e as a valid expression of D&D. And saying that it's "much different" from everything else comes across as the marginalization, intentional or not, of 4e in relation to its kin.

It would be a mistake, IMO, to suggest that the opinion that "4e is not D&D" (and derivations thereof) and "4e is a valid expression of D&D" possess equal merit or value as opinions simply by virtue of being opinions. Can I sympathize with people who find 4e non-conducive to their D&D play preferences? Most definitely, because SYSTEM MATTERS. Can I sympathize with people who seek to invalidate 4e as a valid expression of D&D? Nine Hells no! I have little tolerance for those who have no tolerance for 4e D&D as a valid expression of D&D.
 
This is a different question than the one that you originally asked.

You did not ask "is it very different?" You asked "can you agree that that it is much different?" Semantically asking an "is" question is different from asking a "can you agree that" question, since the latter tacitly presupposes a "yes" whereas an "is" question does not necessarily. (Hence the loaded question.)
That's totally untrue.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Mod Note:

You folks are clearly incapable of continuing this conversation in a reasonable manner. This thread has been getting lots of reports from people on both sides. It is time to give it a rest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Advertisement

Top