D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Eric V]

Sure, but I think that's why most people admit that one of the weaknesses of 4e was how it presented and organized everything. People are fine digging through a giant spell list, but they aren't as fine with going through a level by level catalog for a class list of powers. I get why 4e did it, and I can see the strengths of that approach, but I can also see how that turned people off. 4e could have organized powers by source, and said, here is the list of tactics for the Martial power source, and just given the power list for each class.

Yeah. While it's capacity as a reference manual is great, the 4e PHB is not as enjoyable (to me) to just sit and read as say, the 5e one. Or the 1e one. Or...

 

[Sadras]

but the feat is gained and presented well after you opt for the style. And the subclass is too.

Okay I have lost you.
You mentioned initially you'd like there to be synergy between the fighting style and the feat and whatever.
You then change the feat to act competitively to the fighting style (i.e. either one or the other)
Why? If you're looking for synergy why not tweak it or just remove the feat altogether.

What am I not understanding in this?

 

[Garthanos]

Though I think that Advantage/Disadvantage is too pervasive in 5e, I at least appreciate that the player-side desire to gain advantage feels psychologically rewarding.

and gaining it twice or somewhat more often or even a reroll could also feel more boom boom.

 

[Garthanos]

Okay I have lost you.
You mentioned initially you'd like there to be synergy between the fighting style and the feat and whatever.
You then change the feat to act competitively to the fighting style (i.e. either one or the other)
Why? If you're looking for synergy why not tweak it or just remove the feat altogether.

What am I not understanding in this?

I didnt consider my solution ideal it was umm straight forward?

 

[Eric V]

Okay I have lost you.
You mentioned initially you'd like there to be synergy between the fighting style and the feat and whatever.
You then change the feat to act competitively to the fighting style (i.e. either one or the other)
Why? If you're looking for synergy why not tweak it or just remove the feat altogether.

What am I not understanding in this?

I did a quick Google search on "Protection fighting style" and one of the first hits talks about its incompatibility with the Sentinel feat. I don't want to speak for Garthanos, but it does kind of suck if I want to play the "defender" kind of knight that both things (the fighting style and the feat) use my reaction. You need to plan out your toon to avoid accidentally* taking both.

Having said that, you are right that it's difficult to create a "bad" character in 5e.

* In that, you may be coming from a game where the two mechanics are paired up in one thematic package.

 

[Aldarc]

and gaining it twice or somewhat more often or even a reroll could also feel more boom boom.

And this issue is what a lot of modern game design is grappling with: what are psychologically rewarding game design (sub-)systems that get players to tacitly engage the sort of play that "we" want them to.

I don't necessarily think that 4e powers are "samey," much in the same way - as per my earlier analogy - that a Magic the Gathering player could likely educate me if I betrayed my thought that the cards look awfully "samey" to me. But I cannot ignore the fact that there are people who do believe that these powers are "samey." Are they right or wrong? This is probably not the correct way forward, even as a fan of 4e. There is probably far greater value in seeing how they get that impression and maybe even wondering - again as a general fan of 4e - how 4e could have been designed or even potentially redesigned in a way that could psychologically address that perception. Because I also happen to think that 4e is likewise an absolutely solid game. But it could have been better designed, better presented, or even updated for modern sensibilities in a way that could engage more people. Like @Hussar, I think that the repackaging of similar mechanics from 4e into 5e attests to that fact. I would love to see a more updated 4e game. Various games do this to varying degrees (e.g., 13th Age, 5e D&D, Strike!, Unity RPG, etc.), but I don't think that any quite get there.

 

[Oofta]

I had a longer reply but ... meh. Why bother. It's a dead edition.

Want to start a thread on how 4E was the best game ever? Go for it!

Feel that 5E has an issue with "sameyness"? Start a thread.

Just don't put a leading label that's really a bait-and-switch excuse to get your righteous anger going when people try to express their point of view and try to explain it in terms of the OP.

Oh, and get the chip off your shoulder and accept that it's just a freakin' game and that people are allowed to like or dislike it. People have their own opinions even if we aren't always perfect at expressing them.

 

[Garthanos]

People have their own opinions even if we aren't always perfect at expressing them.

true but it is sometimes why sometimes others want to explore and try and figure out what is meant especially when they see conflicts in the claimed reason.

 

[Sadras]

I don't necessarily think that 4e powers are "samey," much in the same way - as per my earlier analogy - that a Magic the Gathering player could likely educate me if I betrayed my thought that the cards look awfully "samey" to me. But I cannot ignore the fact that there are people who do believe that these powers are "samey." Are they right or wrong? This is probably not the correct way forward, even as a fan of 4e. There is probably far greater value in seeing how they get that impression and maybe even wondering - again as a general fan of 4e - how 4e could have been designed or even potentially redesigned in a way that could psychologically address that perception. Because I also happen to think that 4e is likewise an absolutely solid game. But it could have been better designed, better presented, or even updated for modern sensibilities in a way that could engage more people.

This might be going down the rabbit hole again, but just entertain me.
My samey experience comes from the top-down approach (I believe @Imaro referred to it earlier more eloquently) where the requirement of a grid and the play of a power-"card" allows one to move along around the chessboard and where every other player is doing the same with the uniform AEDU and character sheets. So although the powers themselves may not be similar the play experience makes everything samey.
And then you add the language or slide/push - well that accentuates the samey experience for me since many a times they APPEAR similar on the board (not that they are technically the same). That is my samey experience with 4e. Nothing more nothing less.

Do any 4e proponents take issue with this description - and if so why?

 

[Garthanos]

It doesn't. It only points out similarities. Some of those will be reasons for why I feel how I do. Others will not. Similarity is not the deciding factor.

Degree of similarity and nature. When we notice you used the same criteria I would use in deciding that twin strike is different even than using an extra attack just for the one purpose of making two attacks (the fact that other abilities are lumped with it do not modify it just like the fact that I can use weapon masters strike to move an enemy or damage them more or improve my ac). Because we both pay attention to the tactical element of being able to do it with a move in the middle. Note how this difference parallels closely at-wills noted earlier as an example of why they are samey. Even though in many if not most conflicts having a move in the middle is not even going to be a difference. I can add that ability to twin strike and it might come up only when an enemy is killed and there are feats that allow one to move when that happens so umm ability changed elsewhere.

Shrug similar is part of samey what makes it "Bad" seems to be when the value gain is not perceived significant or frequent by the user.