D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Aldarc]

How so? If you saw someone do that, then it should be easy to state who. If you didn't, then you are making a baseless assertion. I personally haven't seen anyone in this thread make the assertion that samey is anything other than an opinion.

If you lack the foresight to see where your question goes, then I'll explain it to you.

(1) This sort of question is a giant waste of everyone's time, particularly mine to go back and gather names. And this debate tactic of combing the thread to gather names is frequently a tactic used in internet discussions to derail the thread and intentionally waste time. Maybe you want me to waste my time, but I don't want to waste my time on your fools' errand.

(2) If I gathered names, what's the point? There is none. It forces me to draw out names and make this discussion uglier than it needs to be because I'm dragging out names. I have no desire to make personal accusations, Max. That may be how you want to win your arguments, but that's honestly not how I want to participate in mine. You want to find out who personally is doing it? Then you can go through the thread for names.

(3) If I don't gather names then you may think that I'm making a "baseless assertion" and attempt to claim an internet argument victory point, but the truth is that refusing to play your dirty game because your question goes nowhere good for anyone is not a victory for you.

I hope that you have enough common sense now to recognize why this is not a good avenue for you to pursue for further conversation between us or for the purposes of this thread that is increasingly getting uglier due to some not so subtle shots taken between various people here. I would advise you to not engage in the sort of discussions meant to escalate matters further. If you have a more productive line of question, then sure let's talk about that. But pulling names? I play your dirty games with someone else, Max, because I'm not biting on that thread trap.

 

[FrogReaver]

So... because I find a smaller piece (A single ability in 5e i.e. extra attack) can't be classified as samey due to the fact that comparing the sameness of something to itself makes no sense because it's a singular thing (This is like stating Imaro is samey to Imaro... what??)... Means that I in turn don't find the fact that numerous classes using said thing, or the game as a whole using said thing is also not samey. It makes no logical sense to compare something to itself and claim it's samey and I believe you realize that which is why instead of addressing the argument made at the power/ability level you keep speaking to classes or the entire game.

I think they are just presenting that argument badly.

I have complained that 4e defenders sharing a marking mechanic makes them samey. The same mechanic across different classes does add to sameyness on the cross class level. I'm willing to acknowledge that. Are you?

However, to answer the criticism. 5e's differentiation of Barbarians/Rangers/Fighters/Monks/Paladin's primarily comes through in their level 1-3 class abilities. To me that's a much larger differentiation than 4e provided them, at least in the general sense (can always cherry pick a few powers that may be sufficiently different - but that's the exception not the norm) - which is why to me 5e feels much less samey than 4e.

 

[Imaro]

I think they are just presenting that argument badly.

I have complained that 4e defenders sharing a marking mechanic makes them samey. The same mechanic across different classes does add to sameyness. I'm willing to acknowledge that. Are you?

However, to answer the criticism. 5e's differentiation of Barbarians/Rangers/Fighters/Monks/Paladin's primarily comes through in their level 1-3 class abilities. To me that's a much larger differentiation than 4e provided them in the general sense - which is why to me 5e feels much less samey than 4e.

The point is I'm not addressing this discussion point at all. It's not an argument (which games classes are more samey or even which game is more samey) I'm making at the moment. I am speaking to powers (and why they could appear samey) specifically because that was what the thread was about. Now earlier I said that using the same spells across classes can make them feel samey (So I actually acknowledged this a while ago) but that was summarily ignored by others in the rush to construct an argument for me I never made.

 

[Garthanos]

There is a cross edition comparison in order to establish whether one has more similarity between abilities than another and things are categorized differently across editions. In order to compare spells it was realized one had to really compare spells and rituals ie in effect rituals are at-will powers with longer casting times (and sometimes healing surge and ingredient costs).
And further examples of this change in categorization between editions we find that well a feat in 3e called cleave is also a power its categorized differently but functionally isn't very... when you add feats in to the scope of comparison you realize that many powers are actually multiple in function (style feats like I applied to cleave for instance) making them more different than they seem ... just as when you add the everyman mot extra attack I find a very familiar grab and strike in 5e. They are all character abilities lumped together differently.
I also pointed out how there is a natural side effect if an edition choses to lump similar parts in a more valid category each of the individual parts will indeed appear similar as the categorization is selected for that (even when in the bigger picture by way of feats or other interactions like via skill applications on a ritual example as was pointed about by someone else they can became different yet.)
Hmmm to me the comparisons being made snowballed into more valid form instead of remaining just the original presented thought.

 

[Imaro]

If you lack the foresight to see where your question goes, then I'll explain it to you.

(1) This sort of question is a giant waste of everyone's time, particularly mine to go back and gather names. And this debate tactic of combing the thread to gather names is frequently a tactic used in internet discussions to derail the thread and intentionally waste time. Maybe you want me to waste my time, but I don't want to waste my time on your fools' errand.

(2) If I gathered names, what's the point? There is none. It forces me to draw out names and make this discussion uglier than it needs to be because I'm dragging out names. I have no desire to make personal accusations, Max. That may be how you want to win your arguments, but that's honestly not how I want to participate in mine. You want to find out who personally is doing it? Then you can go through the thread for names.

(3) If I don't gather names then you may think that I'm making a "baseless assertion" and attempt to claim an internet argument victory point, but the truth is that refusing to play your dirty game because your question goes nowhere good for anyone is not a victory for you.

I hope that you have enough common sense now to recognize why this is not a good avenue for you to pursue for further conversation between us or for the purposes of this thread that is increasingly getting uglier due to some not so subtle shots taken between various people here. I would advise you to not engage in the sort of discussions meant to escalate matters further. If you have a more productive line of question, then sure let's talk about that. But pulling names? I play your dirty games with someone else, Max, because I'm not biting on that thread trap.

Maybe the assertion just shouldn't be made in the first place then... because yeah if you make a broad accusation, people are going to ask for some proof of its validity.

 

[Maxperson]

(1) This sort of question is a giant waste of everyone's time, particularly mine to go back and gather names. And this debate tactic of combing the thread to gather names is frequently a tactic used in internet discussions to derail the thread and intentionally waste time. Maybe you want me to waste my time, but I don't want to waste my time on your fools' errand.

I'm not asking you to comb the thread. You made the assertion, so you already know them. If you don't know them and are just guessing, then it's a baseless assertion.

(2) If I gathered names, what's the point? There is none. It forces me to draw out names and make this discussion uglier than it needs to be because I'm dragging out names. I have no desire to make personal accusations, Max. That may be how you want to win your arguments, but that's honestly not how I want to participate in mine. You want to find out who personally is doing it? Then you can go through the thread for names.

I'll make this easy for you then. Have you seen anyone make the claim that their feelings on sameyness is a fact? Yes or no. No names. No ugliness.

(3) If I don't gather names then you may think that I'm making a "baseless assertion" and attempt to claim an internet argument victory point, but the truth is that refusing to play your dirty game because your question goes nowhere good for anyone is not a victory for you.

I don't care about "victory." I care that you are making an accusation that I know I didn't engage in, Imaro didn't engage in, Lowkey13 didn't engage in, and a few others who I can't remember at the moment. We have been saying over and over again that it's subjective opinion and it's okay if yours is different.

 

[FrogReaver]

The point is I'm not addressing this discussion point at all. It's not an argument (which games classes are more samey or even which game is more samey) I'm making at the moment. I am speaking to powers (and why they could appear samey) specifically because that was what the thread was about. Now earlier I said that using the same spells across classes can make them feel samey (So I actually acknowledged this a while ago) but that was summarily ignored by others in the rush to construct an argument for me I never made.

Good. Acknowledgment of that will go a long way. A discussion about 4e being samey automatically entails that other editions aren't samey - or at least to be able to point out when and where they are and contrast that with 4e powers. If that can't be done then it does start to look a lot more like presentation - which it isn't for me and I've explained why and continue to do - but it's a reasonable conclusion to make in the light f not having those questions answered IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

I have complained that 4e defenders sharing a marking mechanic makes them samey. The same mechanic across different classes does add to sameyness on the cross class level. I'm willing to acknowledge that. Are you?

I can. The same ability among several classes can(not necessarily will) add the the feel of sameyness among classes. That's not what they have been arguing, though. They have been arguing that an ability is samey with itself, and that's just false.

I THINK that perhaps Garthanos made the point you just did, but I can't remember for certain.

 

[FrogReaver]

I can. The same ability among several classes can(not necessarily will) add the the feel of sameyness among classes. That's not what they have been arguing, though. They have been arguing that an ability is samey with itself, and that's just false.

I THINK that perhaps Garthanos made the point you just did, but I can't remember for certain.

I think they all are trying to - maybe just a bad presentation on their part. But probably best to have them answer for themselves.

 

[Umbran]

The fact that I've now taken the time to correct you twice means you're either being disingenuous on purpose or you're unable to actually engage with the point I've actually made

Mod Note:

Sure. Because the only reason for miscommunication is lying or cognitive inability?

How about, next time you are done with talking with someone, you... just stop talking with them? Amazing thought, isn't it, that you don't have to take potshots at another human being, you can just... not talk to them?