D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Garthanos]

Martial Practices and Rituals are in effect the formalized strategics.... with skill application including money and raw healing surges a less formal but very supported aspect of it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Do you have a citation that supports the idea that characters have the IC ability to modify portals? Or is your assertion based on the idea that players can declare any action they want, and if the DM opts to permit it, the character necessarily has the ability to accomplish that action?



Skill challenges are a resolution method, not a character ability. I don't see how skill challenges are relevant to the question of what strategic-layer abilities characters have.

If you’re genuinely interested I’m sure you can find it. I’m not gonna go crack open all the books to find every rule printed for using arcana in 4e.

As for Skill Challenges, they are how strategic action is resolved. Ignoring them is disingenuous.

 

[Teemu]

I'm trying to explain and discuss why I personally find powers in 4e to be "samey". I'm doing so in response to explicit questions posed originally by the OP, and more recently by @Manbearcat. So I'm not arguing for anything at all--I'm providing requested detail as to the origin of my opinion.

In the course of explaining the source of my opinion I have made a factual assertion regarding 4e powers: that they are largely intended to be used in-combat rather than out-of-combat. I don't think anyone has contested this assertion, but it has led to a side discussion on the extent to which rituals do or do not cover the full range of out-of-combat abilities available in other editions. The claim has been made that teleportation rituals in particular, and rituals in general, may be more flexible than I knew. I'm interested in learning more about this possibility, so I asked follow-up questions about it. The ability of rituals to cover the full range of out-of-combat abilities found in other editions (particularly those related to the strategic layer of D&D) is highly relevant to how problematic I find it that 4e powers don't cover that range (and thus feel "samey" to me).

(For completeness, earlier in the thread I've also explained that 4e powers feel "samey" to me because magic and mundane abilities are modeled identically, which blurs the OOC distinction between those two IC concepts. The extent to which 4e's rituals provide out-of-combat capabilities isn't relevant to my perception of (or dissatisfaction with) 4e's powers feeling structurally "samey".)

The portal rituals do not explicitly state that the created portal is NOT a two-way portal. In addition, Manual of the Planes says that most portals allow for two-way travel, and that only some portals are one-way only. Now, obviously this is a case where a DM might rule it either way, but even if you did rule that the ritual-created portals are one-way only, there are still several ways to accomplish the scenario with the teleport capture. For example, casting a portal ritual from a scroll only takes 5 minutes. There are also shorter range (100 feet) rituals and powers that allow quick (1 standard action) portals or teleportation, which would enable you to get someone to another place quickly; and then perform the long-distance portal, perhaps from a scroll so that it only takes 5 minutes.

There's one problem with your 5e scenario though: the 5e teleport spell requires willing targets. It can't be used to kidnap opponents without further preparation.

Now, I still agree with one aspect of your argument, which is that 4e powers or rituals are not as good at simply bypassing things like 5e spells can. And I'll still argue that this is a good thing, because it means that skills are more relevant and important in 4e, even with powerful rituals involved. Higher level 5e spells let you ignore tons of skill checks, and I've seen in person how a high level 5e rogue becomes the worst in non-combat scenarios when they're supposed to be skill experts and perform well in the social and exploration pillars. The problem is that when the rogue gets +1d6 sneak attack damage, the casters get scrying and teleportation and all kinds of crazy magical shenanigans. It's been a real problem in my games, trying to make the rogue feel relevant when the casters change up reality -- but not in my 4e games.

 

[Xetheral]

The portal rituals do not explicitly state that the created portal is NOT a two-way portal. In addition, Manual of the Planes says that most portals allow for two-way travel, and that only some portals are one-way only. Now, obviously this is a case where a DM might rule it either way, but even if you did rule that the ritual-created portals are one-way only, there are still several ways to accomplish the scenario with the teleport capture. For example, casting a portal ritual from a scroll only takes 5 minutes. There are also shorter range (100 feet) rituals and powers that allow quick (1 standard action) portals or teleportation, which would enable you to get someone to another place quickly; and then perform the long-distance portal, perhaps from a scroll so that it only takes 5 minutes.

There's one problem with your 5e scenario though: the 5e teleport spell requires willing targets. It can't be used to kidnap opponents without further preparation.

Thank you for clarifying; I appreciate it! As expressed above, I don't consider a short-range teleport the same level of bypassing @Manbearcat's encounter as a long-range teleport.

With regards to my 5e example, I would note that in @Manbearcat's example, it's a rescue, not a kidnapping, so the willing target limitation doesn't apply.

Now, I still agree with one aspect of your argument, which is that 4e powers or rituals are not as good at simply bypassing things like 5e spells can. And I'll still argue that this is a good thing, because it means that skills are more relevant and important in 4e, even with powerful rituals involved. Higher level 5e spells let you ignore tons of skill checks, and I've seen in person how a high level 5e rogue becomes the worst in non-combat scenarios when they're supposed to be skill experts and perform well in the social and exploration pillars. The problem is that when the rogue gets +1d6 sneak attack damage, the casters get scrying and teleportation and all kinds of crazy magical shenanigans. It's been a real problem in my games, trying to make the rogue feel relevant when the casters change up reality -- but not in my 4e games.

If you agree that 4e powers and rituals are not as good as 5e at bypassing encounters then we agree on the important point. I also fully agree that this is a disadvantage of 5e in your preferred playstyle. Do you see how, regardless of whether it is a good or a bad thing, the comparatively limited ability of 4e powers and rituals to bypass encounters can contribute to them feeling comparatively "samey" due to the more limited scope?

 

[Teemu]

Thank you for clarifying; I appreciate it! As expressed above, I don't consider a short-range teleport the same level of bypassing @Manbearcat's encounter as a long-range teleport.

With regards to my 5e example, I would note that in @Manbearcat's example, it's a rescue, not a kidnapping, so the willing target limitation doesn't apply.

There are so many ways you can still accomplish the scenario in 4e. There are items and powers and rituals that allow you to instantly get to safety. Instant Portal, Exodus Knife, Mordenkainen's Mansion, Quick Portal, etc. This stuff does exist in 4e.

If you agree that 4e powers and rituals are not as good as 5e at bypassing encounters then we agree on the important point. I also fully agree that this is a disadvantage of 5e in your preferred playstyle. Do you see how, regardless of whether it is a good or a bad thing, the comparatively limited ability of 4e powers and rituals to bypass encounters can contribute to them feeling comparatively "samey" due to the more limited scope?

I don't agree that the 4e powers and rituals and items are more samey, because there are so many more of them than in 5e. There are literally thousands of powers, magic items, and rituals published for 4e. I have practical and extensive experience with both 4e and 5e, and to me 5e is a bit more samey, and that's because the edition unfortunately defaults to spells for most special powers, and because it doesn't have unique spell lists for classes.

For example, you can have 3 different classes and several monsters all cast the exact same spell, with the same range, with the same verbal and somatic component requirement, all using concentration. And then you have classes that just "attack". In 4e, the monsters don't use the same fireball or magic missile that the wizard does. In 4e the party sorcerer and wizard don't cast identical spells. The cleric's domains don't grant spells from the wizard list, even when the domain has nothing to do with wizard magic.

When I run 5e, I'm always thinking of ways to make the spell-using monsters feel more distinct from players. Not an issue at all in 4e.

Edit: And 5e dragons -- I hate how samey they are. Why did they abandon the way 4e set up dragons as distinct from one another?

 

[Xetheral]

@Garthanos and @doctorbadwolf, with regards to skill challenges and character abilities:

As I described here, my overall intent in this thread is to explain why I personally find 4e's powers to be "samey". As part of doing so, I have made numerous references to "character abilities". I'm using that term here to refer to abilities granted to the character via their class(es), race, feats, backgrounds, rituals, and other features of character building.

I recongize that other definitions of "character abilities" exist, including a much broader one that includes anything the DM permits the characters to do at their table. Under that definition, I acknowledge that resolution methods are important to determining the scope of what the characters can practically accomplish in the fiction at a particular table.

Since I am not using that broader definition as I attempt to communicate why 4e's powers feel samey to me, I don't think resolution methods are relevant to my explanation.

 

[Teemu]

And if I'm allowed to rant a bit:

People sometimes bring up 4e leader minor action healing as an example of sameyness. All those healing powers have differences however. But guess what -- in 5e, the bonus action quick heal is exactly the same among all the classes. Healing word is used by bards, clerics, and druids (and alchemist artificers), and it has 0 differences between the classes.

 

[Xetheral]

I don't agree that the 4e powers and rituals and items are more samey, because there are so many more of them than in 5e. There are literally thousands of powers, magic items, and rituals published for 4e. I have practical and extensive experience with both 4e and 5e, and to me 5e is a bit more samey, and that's because the edition unfortunately defaults to spells for most special powers, and because it doesn't have unique spell lists for classes.

For example, you can have 3 different classes and several monsters all cast the exact same spell, with the same range, with the same verbal and somatic component requirement, all using concentration. And then you have classes that just "attack". In 4e, the monsters don't use the same fireball or magic missile that the wizard does. In 4e the party sorcerer and wizard don't cast identical spells. The cleric's domains don't grant spells from the wizard list, even when the domain has nothing to do with wizard magic.

When I run 5e, I'm always thinking of ways to make the spell-using monsters feel more distinct from players. Not an issue at all in 4e.

Edit: And 5e dragons -- I hate how samey they are. Why did they abandon the way 4e set up dragons as distinct from one another?

It's totally cool with me that you don't agree. But that doesn't quite answer my question. To rephrase:

Can you see why the comparatively restricted ability of 4e's powers and rituals to bypass encounters could contribute to someone else's feeling that 4e's powers and rituals are comparatively "samey"?

 

[Teemu]

It's totally cool with me that you don't agree. But that doesn't quite answer my question. To rephrase:

Can you see why the comparatively restricted ability of 4e's powers and rituals to bypass encounters could contribute to someone else's feeling that 4e's powers and rituals are comparatively "samey"?

The ultimate reason why I think 4e has been memefied as samey has been mentioned in the thread: the presentation. A wizard spell, a fighter exploit, a magic item power all have very similar if not identical rules presentation. If you don't play the game or have played it only a little bit, the presentation gives off the impression that everything is the same.

The folks who talk about 4e sameyness don't know about all the options the powers and rituals have. This thread is a prime example.

 

[Garthanos]

The ultimate reason why I think 4e has been memefied as samey has been mentioned in the thread: the presentation. A wizard spell, a fighter exploit, a magic item power all have very similar if not identical rules presentation. If you don't play the game or have played it only a little bit, the presentation gives off the impression that everything is the same.

The folks who talk about 4e sameyness don't know about all the options the powers and rituals have. This thread is a prime example.

Many dont seem to know about the empowered skill use via skill challenges expenditure of healing surges and the like either. When I mention the dmg 2 as one of my faves...I just wish more was in the dmg 1. Or even some of that presented player side