D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Garthanos]

If the above does in fact cover it...well...looking at 2 through 4, I'd say it's actually about how only spellcasters should be able to do special things; the earlier argument about Blinding Barrage is an indication this is correct. Now, it's a fine preference to have (not at my table, but who cares?), but probably should be stated as such, no?

When everybody's special.... The preference is problematic to be honest.

 

[Garthanos]

Just wanted to add that the combination of this thread + being off work due to the coronavirus has caused me to start tossing words on paper for a 4e rewrite.

You did note my rewrite of Encounter recovery into defined individual specifics for different classes and sometimes for individual powers right?

 

[Xetheral]

Powers/Spells/Maneuvers/Prayers/etc. in 4e are distinctively samey because of...

1) The presentation in the rulebooks. This is generally not so in other editions of D&D, possible exception being spell descriptions.

2) The similar recharge rate they have (AEDU structure). This was not so in other editions of D&D, where some classes had only at-wills, and others had dailies. 4e expanded the breadth of options to all classes, possibly giving a feeling of "samey."

3) The obvious upgrade of powers within some classes. The paladin had an encounter that did x damage plus sanction at a particular level, then 12 levels later, a more powerful version of the prayer was available (3x plus sanction). That could definitely be seen as samey. The idea was that you wouldn't choose both (somewhat suboptimal), but you could if you really wanted to. This was generally not so in other editions of D&D; "upgraded" spells were unnecessary since they scaled with caster level anyway, and martial classes had no powers to upgrade in the first case.

4) The similar effects from different power sources. In previous versions of D&D, if you wanted to inflict a status effect, you had to be a spellcaster (or, in some limited situations, a monk). There may have been some corner-case exceptions. While it's true that status effects in 4e were still primarily the province of spellcasters (Controller role, and there was a notable lack of a martial controller until the end of the run), all classes had a chance to inflict a status effect (if they chose the power to do so). So that could be samey.

These are the ways in which 4e is distinctively samey; any other samey-ness is found in other editions of D&D in spades. If one has an issue with samey-ness that is not found above, but somehow doesn't feel it in other editions of D&D, well, I've already said what I think is going on there.

If the above does in fact cover it...well...looking at 2 through 4, I'd say it's actually about how only spellcasters should be able to do special things; the earlier argument about Blinding Barrage is an indication this is correct. Now, it's a fine preference to have (not at my table, but who cares?), but probably should be stated as such, no?

I agree that you've identified many of the ways that 4e powers are distinctively "samey". I think you left out how 4e powers distinctively use a unified mechanical structure for both magical and mundane abilities. (Your number 4 is related, but deals more with the range of status effects available rather than the unified mechanical structure.) I think you've also left out how 4e distinctively grouped combat and non-combat abilities differently than other editions.

I agree that the other aspects of "samey-ness" that have been raised in this thread aren't categorically distinctive to 4e. But I can still understand how someone might feel (e.g.) both 5e Battlemaster manuevers and 4e Fighter powers are "samey", but to different degrees. It's thus reasonable to me that one might feel manuevers are "samey" enough to be problematic, but not think the "samey-ness" of 4e Fighter powers reach that threshold (or vice versa).

 

[Xetheral]

Attack powers are primarily intended to be used in combat. That's not their exclusive function - eg the following example of using an attack power to manipulate the fiction in a skill challenge.

​

Utility powers can be combat-oriented (eg Wrath of the Gods is a damage buff) or non-combat oriented (eg Disguise Self, Ambassador Imp) or useful in either sort of context (eg Arcane Gate, Mighty Sprint).

I don't think that second clause is true at all, either in general or in this case. Who knows what is beyond this room? And the lightning pillars are hardly going to move just to follow the PCs.

In which case you free the NPC before stepping back through the Arcange Gate or the portal (either of which can be open for long enough), or before teleporting out using a warlock power. With a move action economy (as per the example) a single wizard can standard, move (and so get two success) and minor to hold the gate open. A friend can come and help if necessary.


When you're talking about "srategic" teleportation then in 4e you're talking about leveraging the non-combat aspects of the resolution system. Skill and rituals are the premier player-side resources for these (with powers and action points as secondary resources); and the skill check and skill chalenge framework are the primary resolution modes.

My staring point here has always been p 42 of the DMG:

If a character tries an action that might fail, use a check to resolve it. To do that, you need to know what kind of check it is and what the DC is.​

​

Attacks: If the action is essentially an attack, use an attack roll. . . . Use an opposed check for anything that​

involves a contest between two creatures.​

​

Other Checks: If the action is related to a skill (Acrobatics and Athletics cover a lot of the stunts characters​

try in combat), use that check. If it is not an obvious skill or attack roll, use an ability check.​

When it comes to magical phenomena, Arcana comes to the fore, but also Religion for divine magic and presumably Nature for primal magic although that last one has never come up in my actual play. I remember reading accounts online of the use of Arcana to manipulate magical phenomena before I started playing 4e in January 2009. The first example of something along those lines that I remember from play was in what I would guess to be our fourth session, when the player of the paladin had his PC speak a prayer to help fight against an undead creature, which I resolved as a Religion check to grant combat advantage.

There are many published example of using the Arcana skill to modify and manipulate magical effects (see eg skill challenge examples and trap/hazar examples in a range of sources, starting with the 4e DMG). The 4e Rules Compendium, p 136, has these example of improvisation with the Arcana skill:

* Change the visible or audible qualities of one’s magical powers when using them (moderate DC)​

* Control a phenomenon by manipulating its magical energy (hard DC)​

And for thinking about how rituals fit into this, there's also (on p 78 of the DMG) an example of framing the use of a Speak with Dead ritual as a skill challenge - because the corpse "refuses to be compelled by the power of the ritual", thereby signalling the relationship between fictional situation and mechanical framework.

Here are three actual play examples of this sort of thing, one involving magical phenomena and strategic teleportation as a reult of a skill challenge, one illustrating manipulation of an Arcane Gate via skill check and resource expenditure, and the third illustrating maniuplation of a ritual via Arcana check to get a desired result:

​

​

​

There are no specific rules that cover these sorts of things beyond the general rules for "actions the rules don't cover", skill checks and skill challenges as I've sketched out above. This is why some of us posting in thie thread (eg @Manbearcat, me) regard 4e as a highly-flexible fiction-first enging, especially outside of combat. It is able to be such a thing partly because it has a very standard resolution system (skill checks, skill challenges) and very straightforward resource suites (powers, hp/healing surges, gp) that allow costs and impacts to be easily assessed and applied.

Thanks for going into so much detail! I really appreciate it.

For purposes of discussing the range of out-of-combat abilities provided by 4e rituals (and to what extent it covers the range of such abilities in other editions) I don't think it's useful to consider that the DM can expand the capabilities of 4e rituals at their table, just as I don't think it's useful to consider that the DM can expand the capabilities of 5e spells at their table. So it sounds to me that I was correct in thinking that strategic teleportation in 4e is limited to one-way travel, absent DM expansion at a particular table.

More broadly, my feeling that 4e powers are samey based on the lack of strategic-layer options (and finding that feeling problematic based on my perception that 4e rituals don't completely fill that gap) is based on the scope of the powers and rituals in 4e without considering possible expansion by the DM. I know you're more willing to consider such DM expansion as integral to the game, and that's cool with me--I'm only trying to explain where my opinion comes from.

 

[Garthanos]

It was a concern for me when 5e was announced that they would swing spellcasters too far back in the other direction - but 5e found other ways to limit spellcasters and overall I'm happier with how spellcasters vs non-spellcasters ended up in this edition.

I think they abandoned entirely keeping a balance outside of combat between the two and made martial classes barely more than damage dealers not really able to reach for a broader range of battlefield functions

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Thanks for going into so much detail! I really appreciate it.

For purposes of discussing the range of out-of-combat abilities provided by 4e rituals (and to what extent it covers the range of such abilities in other editions) I don't think it's useful to consider that the DM can expand the capabilities of 4e rituals at their table, just as I don't think it's useful to consider that the DM can expand the capabilities of 5e spells at their table. So it sounds to me that I was correct in thinking that strategic teleportation in 4e is limited to one-way travel, absent DM expansion at a particular table.

More broadly, my feeling that 4e powers are samey based on the lack of strategic-layer options (and finding that feeling problematic based on my perception that 4e rituals don't completely fill that gap) is based on the scope of the powers and rituals in 4e without considering possible expansion by the DM. I know you're more willing to consider such DM expansion as integral to the game, and that's cool with me--I'm only trying to explain where my opinion comes from.

Using arcana to futz with portals is a player-side option. The DM has to set a DC, but unless they veto the action (like they can anything, in any edition), it’s just a thing players can try to do.

 

[Garthanos]

More broadly, my feeling that 4e powers are samey based on the lack of strategic-layer options (and finding that feeling problematic based on my perception that 4e rituals don't completely fill that gap) is based on the scope of the powers and rituals in 4e without considering possible expansion by the DM.

Rituals are in the strategic layer of 4e but only a sub part of a bigger resolution system ie the Skill Challenge system they are not allowed to dominate that larger system. So the part you are leaving out is that system.

 

[Minigiant]

I think that after all of this, D&D should just bite the bullet and formalize all the subsystems.

• Maneuvers
• Exploits
• Ki Arts
• Rage
• Channel Divinity
• Prayers
• Cantrips
• Invocations
• Spells
• Arcane Shots
• Evocations
• Disciplines
• Psionic Attacks

Separate them, determine which are at-will, short rest, or long rest, and put them int their own chapters of the book or books.

Because it feels to me that people aren't saying "powers are samey" but "exploits, prayers, spells, evocations, and disciplines are too similar and every class uses them". Less "Powers are samey" and more "I prefer Fighters and Rogues not use Exploits". Which is again personal preference and perfectly okay.

Hopefully 6th edition wont be another nostalgia edition and do this. Or do it in 5e.

• Fighter
  • Champion (No subsystem)
  • Brute (No subsystem)
  • Battlemaster (Maneuvers)
  • Eldritch Knight (Cantrips and Spells)
  • Arcane Archer (Cantrips and Arcane Shots)
  • Weaponmaster (Exploits)
  • Battlemind (Psionic Attacks and Disciplines)
  • Swordsage (Ki)
  • Rune Knight (Runes)

 

[Xetheral]

Using arcana to futz with portals is a player-side option. The DM has to set a DC, but unless they veto the action (like they can anything, in any edition), it’s just a thing players can try to do.

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?

Rituals are in the strategic layer of 4e but only a sub part of a bigger resolution system ie the Skill Challenge system they are not allowed to dominate that larger system. So the part you are leaving out is that system.

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.

 

[Garthanos]

Skill challenges are a resolution method, not a character ability.

Strategic layer exists within a context there is more than one element to the strategic expenditure and they are not the only component. As it is expressed within Skill challenges they are a context where rituals and martial practices or raw money and healing surges the strategic resources which all feed into the resolution of challenges. Skill use in that arena involves elements similar to rituals and may even involve an application of coin as well as the protracted skill use or extreme exerted skill use modelled by some power expenditure or healing surge applications in effect rituals are obviously strategic but so are broadly versatile application of skills with the possibility of resources feeding into them. 5e removed strategic guidelines for the use of other resources(wing it gung din). HD exist but using them in an exertion? not really, money exists obviously but you do not even have many uses for it defined let alone translating them into rituals. Skill use has barely any guidelines. And rituals in 5e rarely have the campaign level cost (ok I like having some be longer term not just all being a daily) 5e is far less strategic. In effect those skills are also rituals too.

The bit where we talked about using Arcana interacting with the existing ritual is a skill challenge style use of a skill it combines with it. Where a skill use invoke using more long term ingredients and a healing surge to become another element of the over over all challenge. Having a teleport over came one part the skill and a skill use overcome the other.