D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Garthanos]

That's not how discussion works. If I disagree with you, it's not automatically a "No, you're wrong." If I don't say you're wrong, I'm not saying you're wrong. Don't put words in my mouth.

read like providing evidence against my point of view just like we respond to your samey samey assertions

 

[Garthanos]

"Because they do damage + effect!"
Looks at 1e/2e/3e/5e attacks/spells
Yeah....very different. Sometimes there's no effect!
Like I said, cognitive dissonance. IMO, of course.

Could be taken as special pleading where you give the thing you like a different standard from the thing you dislike. Humans often are really crappy at analysing our own opinions. There is even a word for that phenomena.

 

[Sadras]

Apologies I'm going a little off thread topic because it just feels like both sides have become a little too sensitive and there doesn't seem to be much understanding or compromising which seems a shame.

The real goal is position == more important and actions that induce or inhibit movement become more potent thereby so they need a counterpoint or a cost. It's about making choices not be too easy, so its an accomplishment. (no 4e didnt always accomplish it massively either but 5e dropped it altogether) and the super simple just do it angle is kind of meh.

I largely agree with this. 4e I felt was too grid-reliant and 5e has for the most part removed much of the need for positioning (less tactics). I definitely do not want to go back to 3.x because as a DM I cannot bear the weight of that system.

However what might be possible as some have suggested in these and similar threads is to incorporate some ideas from 4e into 5e but not so much where every combat requires a grid.

We could

• Modify the fighting styles to incorporate some of the 4e at-wills instead of +x's on to hit and damage;
• Incorporate stricter rules for firing into melee (maybe a rule or two from 3.x);
• Change-up some of the Champion's features to incorporate additional movement/positioning powers; and
• Change-up some combat-feats again focussing on positioning rather than arbitrary plusses.

Perhaps over the weekend, when I have some time, I will start up a thread and post some possible ideas.

 

[pemerton]

Different structure, different implementation, different decision points.

The second, and much more important reason is the play cycle. Everybody had the same at will, encounter daily beats. The decision points were all the same. When you level, determine what load out you're going to have for every session until you level again.

<snip>

Spending powers was the same. It was the same analysis cycle for every PC. Do I spend that powerful daily? Am I and the monsters in position to use that encounter? Every class had the same evaluation cycle. Most, if not all, classes had reactions and interrupts.

I find the generic class structure on when you get those powers(Some class exceptions don't change that) to be samey. I also find the do X damage dice + effect structure of many powers to make them feel samey to me.

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.

This is all consistent with what I posted a way upthread and maybe once or twice more recently, that the "sameyness" thing seems to be based mostly on mechanical features of the character: PC build, recharge rate, etc.

Different class/levelling structure, different mechanical implementation, different mechanical decision points - these don't in themselves change the effect the character has on the fiction.

Wearing light vs heavy armour: this is an aspect of PC build, that affects the AC calculation and (perhaps) the final result. But in itself it doesn't change the effect that the character has on the fiction.

When I say that 4e powers don't seem samey to me (whether in @Imaro's list, or the ones I've seen in play myself) I'm talking about the effect that they have on the fiction when the player uses them.

This is why eg I think that pushing an enemy is very different from sliding an ally. These are different things in the fiction that - in the context of 4e D&D combat - make a difference to how the fictional situation subsequently unfolds.

 

[Eric V]

You're flat out wrong, though. Of course. Just because you don't get our perspective doesn't make it a cognitive dissonance.

I am absolutely not wrong; your perspective lacks consistency. Hence, cognitive dissonance.

 

[Oofta]

I am absolutely not wrong; your perspective lacks consistency. Hence, cognitive dissonance.

I am absolutely not wrong! You cannot have an opinion different from mine and be correct!

 

[Eric V]

I am absolutely not wrong! You cannot have an opinion different from mine and be correct!

I think you misunderstand. I absolutely get that you have a different opinion.

It's just that said opinion lacks consistency.

 

[Oofta]

I've been doing my best to look at this from all sides for a while. That's why I took so long to start replying to this thread. This is the best I can come up with.

There are a number of ways that the writing structure can make powers feel similar to each other. The fact that every power is written up in exactly the same format, and that that format is very technical. The fact that in 4th every attack has the attacker roll when 3rd and 5th both have some abilities that the defender rolls instead. The fact that most classes follow the same structure for when they get a power, and share the same mechanic for recharging them. That all adds up to a lot of superficial sameyness that I can see leaving an impression on people. At the same time if you really look into what goes on at the table, there are tons of differences to how characters from even the same class operate. People have come up with tons of examples to explain this. Objectively, 4th has at least as much differentiation as 3rd and 5th, they're just in different places.

What we're really discussing here is emotions and expectations, and those are very important. I read a post from a designer a while ago discussing what advantage system he'd go with for his upcoming project. He started out with just a flat bonus system like 3rd, but then began to experiment with the roll two dice take the highest like 5th. The math for both is pretty similar, so it all came down to how his testers felt about them. All of them liked the roll two take highest version. There's something to rolling a bunch of dice that just feels good. Nothing about mechanics there, just emotions.

Which just leaves us circling around the same arguments about terminology. We're really just splitting hairs about where the differences are, or what the definitions of our terminology means. In the end there isn't really a way to win this argument.

The last thing I'll say on this matter is why 4th fans feel that this is an important discussion. It's the fact that the saying "all the powers in 4th are the same" is so frequently used when talking about it. The reality is that the problems with 4th are much more nuanced than that. There are some people that might only hear these quick, meme-y criticisms. As fans of 4th, we'd just like the criticisms of the edition to be more complex than that, so that 4th can have a legacy instead of just being brushed off.

I'm done with this thread (maybe) but I just want to say that I agree.

I tried to explain the same thing way, way back when on my first post. But all those of us who express negative opinions of 4E always get the same rehashed arguments. We're factually wrong about an opinion. It's not true because details. Because these two classes in 5E use some features it's not true!* I'm rubber you're glue ... wait ... maybe not that one.

Because yes, it does all come down to feelings, emotions, impressions. Language is not precise. The word "samey" is inaccurate but also conveys the gist of the impression for a lot of people.

*Never understood this one, unless you're saying a wizard plays like a fighter

 

[Oofta]

I think you misunderstand. I absolutely get that you have a different opinion.

It's just that said opinion lacks consistency.

Yeah, people need to review their anti-4E handbook and all stick to precisely the same script.

 

[Eric V]

Yeah, people need to review their anti-4E handbook and all stick to precisely the same script.

No.

Some consistency when criticizing things might be nice, though.