D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Oofta]

No.

Some consistency when criticizing things might be nice, though.

Consistency between individuals?

Do you want people to repeat exactly the same thing back every single time?

 

[Sadras]

Some consistency when criticizing things might be nice, though.

But don't you find that somewhat tricky with people given that we like and dislike various things for various reasons?

 

[Eric V]

But don't you find that somewhat tricky with people given that we like and dislike various things for various reasons?

I am looking for consistency within one's opinion, though.

 

[Maxperson]

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

My perspective is very consistent.

 

[Garthanos]

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.



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.

I am the one who pulled off thread but the point was in part to say how the 5e vaunted house rule it to make it your own see how easy it is largely miss the entire point.

Positional tactics are not the only tactics btw... tactics are about situational benefits you can leverage with more difficult choices, whatever mechanisms or elements of situation you use and another related issue in the same arena nuance is lost with advantage disadvantage being all or nothing; I think we need half advantage and full advantage.

Having common or frequent martial attack which hits all adjacent enemy isn't gridded but it does mean flanking and focus fire both have a vulnerability cost; D&D is so massive focus fire that having a danger with doing that is a good thing it makes even doing that a risk a choice a difficulty.

Same applies to strategy really when I said 4e had significantly better strategic layer even if all the numbers weren't completely worked out its because they made the choices harder at that level.

 

[Sadras]

I am looking for consistency within one's opinion, though.

Ah, apologies then. I haven't deep dived into this thread to have spotted any inconsistencies with posters on this issue.

 

[Maxperson]

No.

Some consistency when criticizing things might be nice, though.

Your insistence that someone who feels burned by boiling water(4e level of sameyness), but doesn't feel burned by luke warm water(5e level of sameyness) is suffering from Cognitive Dissonance, is flat out wrong. Plain and simple. We are not being inconsistent by finding different levels of sameyness to be different.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, apologies then. I haven't deep dived into this thread to have spotted any inconsistencies with posters on this issue.

There haven't been any that I have seen.

 

[Garthanos]

@Sadras
Opportunity attacks make movement a more difficult choice you have to debate about taking the risk if enemies can make only one OA per entire round the risk and difficulty of the choice is significantly lower. If an enemy with multiple attacks gets multiple OA even weak ones most of the time you just made areas near them risky business

 

[Sadras]

Positional tactics are not the only tactics btw... tactics are about situational benefits you can leverage with more difficult choices, whatever mechanisms or elements of situation you use

Nice - agreed.

and another related issue in the same arena nuance is lost with advantage disadvantage being all or nothing; I think we need half advantage and full advantage.

I see. I had an idea once about Lesser Advantage (+2 bonus) and Lesser Disadvantage (-2)

Having common or frequent martial attack which hits all adjacent enemy isn't gridded but it does mean flanking and focus fire both have a vulnerability cost; D&D is so massive focus fire that having a danger with doing that is a good thing it makes even doing that a risk a choice a difficulty.

I'm may be having a little trouble parsing this - let me take a stab.
Focus firing is a thing - so you're suggesting it would be better that there be a risk when focus firing to create another decision point?