D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Minigiant]

Call the parent class a Fighter. IE martial == fighter.
They would still be complaining about the Scout ( Rogue ) being a fighter type though.

Yes but they can't complain that the fighter sucks with bows nor the rogue has daily attacks.

Sounds fun... was there also murder mystery skill challenges at large.

Yeah, to figure out which minor lord was sending the assassins. The DM didn't plan much because he had a very big and detailed list of his dozens and dozens of lords act, their resources, and their relationships. You had to roll to read it.

Giving all classes novas like the Paladins only arbitrarily different that gets a long ways closer.

So true. Like I said, that DM didn't plan much so we only adventured when we left the city. So while in town, we rarely had more than 2 encounters a day. Butwhile questing we could have 8 fights before finding a safe place to long rest.

Only 4e lets you do that out the box.

 

[pemerton]

So the effects for Martial-types are less similar that they are in 5e. But the mechanics are more similar.

<snip>

The effect (mostly damage, tiny riders mostly if anything) is the same, but the decision points are different.

<snip>

You can see the start of this in 4E essentials, with the power attack powers and stances. They where more samey in effect than 4e PHB1 powers, but they moved the point-of-decision around.

To many the point of decision isn't important. They plan their stance based on how they want to attack, and pre-plan any riders sfter the hit. But to others that different point of decision is huge.

I can't comment on the details of your 5e analysis - I don't know it well enough - but to me your post looks pretty plausible!

My own take on this issue is the same as I posted on the parallel thread from which this one has spun off: what matters to me in RPGing is the effect the play of the character has on the fiction. Whereas a focus on purely mechanical minutiae like recovery patterns for resource suites, or where exactly in turn structures decisions have to be made, seems more like wargaming. 4e isn't free of the latter - look at eg the minutiae around immediate interrupts vs immediate reactions vs opportunity actions vs free actions - but these minutiae aren't what make it appealing to me!

 

[Garthanos]

So true. Like I said, that DM didn't plan much so we only adventured when we left the city. So while in town, we rarely had more than 2 encounters a day. Butwhile questing we could have 8 fights before finding a safe place to long rest.

Only 4e lets you do that out the box.

Being able to play and let the adventures actually define the intensity of the action while still allowing everyone to contribute what a playstyle.

But it doesnt support the playstyle of adventuring being 10x as difficult without magic.

 

[pemerton]

My 4e group had a mini-game of how many effects could we stack on a single target. The record was 12 IIRC. TWELVE ongoing effects on a single target!

I wanted to post that this seemed like an amateur effort!, but then on reflection maybe it's not so bad after all.

We would have had Marked, Quarried, Blind, Prone, Immobilised, and multiple OG damage. Maybe we're the amateurs who have never got to 12!

 

[Minigiant]

To many the point of decision isn't important. They plan their stance based on how they want to attack, and pre-plan any riders sfter the hit. But to others that different point of decision is huge.

That's an argument on sameyness I can get behind. 5e offers the most options of point of decision.

 

[Garthanos]

I can't comment on the details of your 5e analysis - I don't know it well enough - but to me your post looks pretty plausible!

My own take on this issue is the same as I posted on the parallel thread from which this one has spun off: what matters to me in RPGing is the effect the play of the character has on the fiction.

That has to be in some sense connected the mechanicals but yes less at a detail level. The mechanics are enablers.
Frodo spends a Fate point or likely several and an entire towers worth of orcs and goblins tear themselves apart because he is the sought after ring bearer with huge numbers of points and a Luck aspect inherited (because he was originally meant to be Bilbo). Or Glimli and Legalos smash their way through counting off enemies in a conflict with Martial hero aspects popping out when the dice say no. Without Fate like mechanics Frodo and Aragorn just do not really belong in the same team AND we then cannot have that equitable impact.

Whereas a focus on purely mechanical minutiae like recovery patterns for resource suites, or where exactly in turn structures decisions have to be made, seems more like wargaming. 4e isn't free of the latter - look at eg the minutiae around immediate interrupts vs immediate reactions vs opportunity actions vs free actions - but these minutiae aren't what make it appealing to me!

Sure its not the roleplay but...

 

[pemerton]

@Garthanos, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or just making a point that was prompted by what I wrote.

But anyway, here's part of what I was getting at: At-will, Encounter and Daily usage of abilities is a resource recovery scheme. It's a mechanical aspect of play at the table, similar to how a wargame or boardgame might be structured. But it is not in any real way part of the fiction. (Yes, I know you can make it part of the fiction eg via the Vancian spell memorisation conceit, but that's one of the less interesting parts of traditional D&D ficiton in my view. I've run a lot of GH adventures using Rolemaster as the system, where magic is power point based, and using Burning Wheel as the system, where magic is fatigue based, and I didn't have to change anything in the setting.)

Whereas the dwarf fighter who defeats his opponents by wrongfooting them his polearm, or switching to his maul and knocking them all to the ground, is different in the fiction from the elf ranger who keeps his distance and shoots people, and also from the tiefling paladin who locks down big foes and gradually wears them down while also inspiring his companions via his own display of heroism. These are differences in the fiction, that feed back into the resolution mechanics. The fact that it's mediated through a common format (damage + effect) and a common resource suite doesn't hurt anything here. In fact it helps, by making resolution and adjudication easer!

 

[Eric V]

4E PHB doesn't give you that choice AEDU is in everything.

??!!

You can absolutely use only one at-will in 4e play if you should so choose. The bolded part above is simply untrue.

Imagine that: a criticism of the game that ends up not being true.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

That is a why isn't there a sir spamalot like the slayer or champion complaint you know but who needs one of those for casters nudge nudge wink wink.

 

[Garthanos]

@Garthanos, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or just making a point that was prompted by what I wrote.

Mostly in agreement, I am certain I was just saying that the mechanics not being the point is fine but they are still enablers or disablers for that impact within the fiction.

Also mentioning a play style which isnt supported well by any D&D

Since play style is being bandied about incorrectly like 5e supports more of them which it does not.