D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Garthanos]

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?

bingo ... additionally that same risk affects flanking if you implement that.

 

[Oofta]

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

I can only speak for myself, but language is very imprecise. Explaining why you think or believe something isn't as simple as saying 2+2=4. A lot of things are slapped with the INCONSISTENT! label because people try to explain things in a different way or don't see how 5E is relevant to a discussion of 4E.

For myself, I'd probably say that the majority of 4E powers felt generic/boring/not iconic for the class. For example I think stunning an opponent should be primarily a monk or ninja thing. Giving it to fighters made it just blah and the monk no longer stood out.

Does that mean I'm being inconsistent, or just that I'm trying to explain the same thing different ways?

 

[Sadras]

bingo ... additionally that same risk affects flanking if you implement that.

Did something like this that you're suggesting exist in 4e?

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.

That is a quick and dirty solution. I like it.

 

[Garthanos]

Did something like this that you're suggesting exist in 4e?

There are some things in 4e and 5e too perhaps but they are sparse enough like ripostes that they really arent a thing. in RQ all fighters above proficiency X had riposte an progressively more ripostes. And multiple parries. The more adversaries facing them the more dangerous they are like how in 1e the number of attacking lower level enemy added to their number of attacks. In 4e there were also a number of ways one could be better even at defence like gaining temporary hit points for each one attacking you they made that one a bit strong (you have to keep that under control); Some feats allowed one to be better at marking the more enemies are adjacent. The idea is to make the DMs choices interesting too.

 

[Hussar]

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.

No, it's cognitive dissonance because the water is the same temperature for both editions. Yet, funnily enough, only the 4e water burns.

See, your "different levels of sameyness" is the core of the issue. The fact that you insist on only looking at a tiny slice of the game (PHB 1 and DMG 1) in a game where "core" was defined as ALL BOOKS, and refuse to accept any alternative evidence simply displays a lack of willingness to accept that your definitions of "sameyness" don't really hold any water.

A: All the classes used virtually the same resource recharge mechanics.
B: Well, actually, only about half of the classes did, the other half did not.
A: Well, those other ones don't count because... reasons. They were trying to fix the ship.
B: Umm, PHB 3 was released before the right turn that was Essentials, and included several classes that used different recharge rates. In fact, most of the Powers books, that were released before Essentials, presented classes that changed the recharge rates.
A: Stop with pesky facts. This is my opinion and you can't tell me that my opinion is wrong.
B: .... err...

 

[Maxperson]

No, it's cognitive dissonance because the water is the same temperature for both editions. Yet, funnily enough, only the 4e water burns.

No. It isn't. You don't get to force your subjective opinion onto me.

 

[Garthanos]

@Sadras
4e some of the best attacks of a fighter were attack all adjacent enemies because the marked a bunch at once but also because it both encouraged and discouraged focus fire at the exact same time... I want to attack him I am marked... I do not want to attack him he hurts all of us when we do.

 

[Sadras]

There are some things in 4e and 5e too perhaps but they are sparse enough like ripostes that they really arent a thing. in RQ all fighters above proficiency X had riposte an progressively more ripostes. And multiple parries. The more adversaries facing them the more dangerous they are like how in 1e the number of attacking lower level enemy added to their number of attacks. In 4e there were also a number of ways one could be better even at defence like gaining temporary hit points for each one attacking you they made that one a bit strong (you have to keep that under control); Some feats allowed one to be better at marking the more enemies are adjacent. The idea is to make the DMs choices interesting too.

Understood. A rather crude example that perhaps assisted with this was using the bloodied condition to activate a conditional power. The closer to death the opponent was, the more desperate & dangerous they became.

 

[Garthanos]

Understood. A rather crude example that perhaps assisted with this was using the bloodied condition to activate a conditional power. The closer to death, the more desperate & dangerous the opponent became.

A situational value too... do I get healed and less in danger... or do I stick it out and be more awesome, razor edge.

 

[Garthanos]

Any way my dissatisfaction with 5es comparative lack of tactical choices... regardless of positioning its really really not just grid that is a misrepresentation to be honest is probably off topic