D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[Garthanos]

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

yes rabbit hole and I play with nothing more than a sketch pad most of the time. so step one is hole in the ground.

 

[Garthanos]

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

Like maybe a class

 

[Sadras]

yes rabbit hole and I play with nothing more than a sketch pad most of the time. so step one is hole in the ground.

Hmmm, I'm more of a TotM, I wonder if that has anything to do with it?

EDIT: That would be an interesting stat I think. I pretty sure @Manbearcat would find it useful.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Except that all too frequently that comes with a heavy dose of "if you really understood how it worked you'e agree with me" or "you're just suffering from cognitive dissonance" with the implied "because obviously everyone secretly agrees with me". Then there's the redirection argument of "5E is just as bad" which, while I disagree 100%, is a completely separate and unrelated topic.

The horse is dead. It was dead a long time ago.

 

[Garthanos]

Hmmm, I'm more of a TotM, I wonder if that has anything to do with it?

No clue that might even be a distinction of degree for the most part... I have almost always used nothing more than a sketch pad where I sketch in environmental features even in editions with hex grids and facing

 

[Garthanos]

Then there's the redirection argument of "5E is just as bad" which, while I disagree 100%, is a completely separate and unrelated topic.

Nope its not a separate topic and "bad" is not the word supposedly if someone sees one as samey and another not that is a direct clue... its investigation technique

 

[Oofta]

Nope its not a separate topic and "bad" is not the word supposedly if someone sees one as samey and another not that is a direct clue... its investigation technique

I don't want to be rude and there is no way that I will ever be able to explain to your satisfaction what my issues with 4E were.

Have a good one.

 

[cmad1977]

meh.. to the entire thread, its too samey for me

It’s like I’m playing 4e again.

 

[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 (Lowkey is probably right not objective but less judgy). When we notice you used the same criteria I would use in deciding that twin strike (we have both said we like fiddly sometimes though so that may be taste) is different even than using an extra attack just for the one purpose of making two attacks. Because yes we really do agree. We both pay attention to the tactical element of being able to do it with a move in the middle. Even though in many if not most conflicts having a move in the middle is no more different than some other at-wills whose differences were called samey. I can add that ability to twin strike and it might come up only ever when an enemy is killed and there are feats that allow one to move when that happens so pay dirt ability changed elsewhere in a different package perhaps and implying extra skill or eagerness to kill shrug.

 

[Aldarc]

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?

Honestly, though I liked the tactical play of 4e and found it rewarding, I also disliked how it seemed oriented towards grid and miniature play, but I would never use "samey" to describe this experience nor would I use it to describe the grid-play of chess. What I could see as a more pressing issue, from my perspective at least, would be whether this grid-based play was perceived as inorganic. If you dislike making these sort of tactical "moves" or find them psychologically unrewarding, then being asked to constantly engage them as a mechanic over and over again might accumulate to a repetitive feeling over time.