D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Oofta]

I might be doing that though. I think you are very much in your place to decide to explain better to someone like many in that other thread who say 5e is the simplest edition of the game (or explain to the ones who somehow think having a day as your window is not really different than having 3 weeks in game terms). Or whatever.

If you say you've tried 5E but don't care for it, I'll take you at your word. I have no problem with you saying it isn't the game for you. It's not for everyone.

What I take issue with is people having a dismissive attitude for anyone that disagrees with their opinion. Saying that the only reason they disagree is because of ignorance is wrong.

There's a whole layer of perspective that seems to get lost in this discussion, basically detail vs structure (for lack of a term). I tried to explain it back in post #14, not sure I can any better now.

 

[Teemu]

I explained my logic and reasoning back in post #14.

As far as 5E, yes I find that in play a fighter feels significantly different than a wizard who feels different than a barbarian who feels different than a warlock and so on and so forth.

Different structure, different implementation, different decision points.

Ok, I read that post (#14). Do you find that a 5e wizard who casts magic missile, friends, mage hand, disguise self, false life, cloud of daggers, and hold person during a session (very reasonable) to be different from a sorcerer who also casts these same spells during a session? And a bard? They feel significantly different?

Do two fighters in 5e feel significantly different?

 

[Garthanos]

If you say you've tried 5E but don't care for it, I'll take you at your word. I have no problem with you saying it isn't the game for you. It's not for everyone.

That isn't really what I said although I wasn't over clear. I feel with that 4e had an ok tactic and ok strategic systems (they could have both been better I am fairly sure in a number of ways including just better taught to players) . AND 5e does both significantly worse than 3e or even 1e, making me say yes 5e is the most simple game and its not because of the numbers. We could perhaps talk then about details about how you see 5e as having good tactical elements and you might convince me (or Not). I am actually happier with 5e now than when I started looking at it a bit more convinced I might make it my own.

 

[Garthanos]

I feel 4e has a richer more team oriented strategic level everyone has resources they can tap into including broadly impactful skills an the ability to make extra effort to push success home(via skill challenges and powers and healing surges and so on.)

Bigger casting times make rituals and practices more strategic to me fewer fast cast possibilities (some can be cast in one action from a scroll to be mid battle effective but they generally still have the significant cost making them a harder choice) . Comparing this to 5e where planning of ritual casting is basically not required no not even the slotted ones which no longer have a pre-slotted requirement... so meh on that being strategic. It just means casters get an EASY evades the conflict entirely or other extreme effects others cannot approach.

Money cost makes choice to do those things a bigger harder choice... I think that is actually better support of strategic choices you can decide to do it anytime you want but its now a more difficult choice a campaign class not a daily class consideration.

 

[Oofta]

Ok, I read that post (#14). Do you find that a 5e wizard who casts magic missile, friends, mage hand, disguise self, false life, cloud of daggers, and hold person during a session (very reasonable) to be different from a sorcerer who also casts these same spells during a session? And a bard? They feel significantly different?

Do two fighters in 5e feel significantly different?

I think fighters are far more differentiated from wizards in play in 5E than in 4E. A barbarian plays different than a cleric.

Doesn't really matter if the fighter archetypes are similar, they are after all fighters. On the other hand I find that even two fighters in 5E can feel more different than two fighters in 4E did.

But it doesn't matter. Like most people I don't play 4E any more.

 

[Maxperson]

I was short handing "gets an extra attack" in 5e that includes a lot of other classes in 5e significantly more than the 4e martial categorization which 5e doesnt even "really" have tell me how paladins and rangers are they or arent they martial? it doesn't really matter 5e made a huge amount of classes samey samey

Right because....

1) A class that fights in light or medium armor with weapons and nature oriented spells and maybe an animal companion, is the same as...
2) A class that fights in medium or heavy armor, smites and uses holy spells, which is the same as...
3) A class that rages and takes half damage, attacks recklessly to gain advantage and wears no or light armor.

 

[Garthanos]

Right because....

1) A class that fights in light or medium armor with weapons and nature oriented spells and maybe an animal companion, is the same as...
2) A class that fights in medium or heavy armor, smites and uses holy spells, which is the same as...

Nature god.. boom same class. except one gets decent nova and the other is lame from all I hear... oh and they all have the same fighterish at-wills making them completely different.

 

[Garthanos]

Look at things from sky high far away and that is the kind of things which happen.

 

[Garthanos]

Because at-wills are the go to comparison being made on 4e characters you notice. And class features are being utterly ignored you might see also. Because 4e gets looked at in Isolation and if you do it 5e you get objections.

 

[Maxperson]

Nature god.. boom same class. except one gets decent nova and the other is lame from all I hear... oh and they all have the same fighterish at-wills making them completely different.

Eh, no. A nature god does not make them the same class or fight the same. One still has holy spells, smites and medium heavy armor and the other has nature spells and fights in light or medium. Neither class has cantrips, so they have no at-wills. Your misguided attempt to make attacks into martial at wills fails, as literally every class martial or otherwise has the same "at-wills." Further, you have to consider the class as a whole like we are with 4e classes. We aren't trying to finagle 1st level PCs with only their basic attacks when talking about 4e. That's a False Equivalence on your part.