D&D 4E Are powers samey?

[FrogReaver]

I don't know if WE can agree. I know I cannot agree that it was a loaded question.

@Aldarc 'm waiting for the aha moment - you know the... "so you still beat your wife" type conclusion that an actual loaded question would bring.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't know if WE can agree on that. I know I cannot agree that it was.

If you are neither willing to accept that it was a loaded question nor unwilling to reframe your question in a fairer manner, then I'm afraid that we are at a conversational impasse.

@Aldrac - I'm waiting for the aha moment - you know the... "so you still beat your wife" type conclusion that an actual loaded question would bring.

"4e is much different than any other edition of D&D ever created"

The bold is also where you embellish and load the statement with a particular framing.

But as I said before, which was somehow ignored or side-stepped:

If all you are asking me to do is sympathize with people who hold contrary opinions about 4e, then that's one thing - and I have gladly extended those sympathizes with those people before in this thread - but the least you can do is take your thumb off the scale about 4e when asking it.

What I have observed over a number of pages, and it is quite frustrating from my point of view, is that neither side seems to be budging even an inch despite good points having been made by both sides. I mean I cannot be the only one seeing this.

In cases like this it's worth asking, IMHO, what either side gains to lose by conceding those inches and why they may be unwilling to concede

 

[FrogReaver]

"4e is much different than any other edition of D&D ever created"

The bold is also where you embellish and load the statement with a particular framing.

So if you don't agree with that statement then say so and say why and move on. There's no gotcha going to happen because it's not a loaded question.

But as I said before, which was somehow ignored or side-stepped:


In cases like this it's worth asking, IMHO, what either side gains to lose by conceding those inches and why they may be unwilling to concede

Don't care about that at the moment - I care about being falsely accused of asking a loaded question. I want to offer you the option to apologize.

 

[Aldarc]

So if you don't agree with that statement then say so and say why and move on. There's no gotcha going to happen because it's not a loaded question.

Sure, once you agree or disagree that it's good that you stopped starving your dog.

You see, it is a loaded question because as I explained to you it has a built assumption and implication that it is much different than any other edition. I have no reason to apologize for your refusal to see how you asked a loaded question.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, once you agree or disagree that it's good that you stopped starving your dog.

Great illustration of inserting a loaded question into the do you agree framework.

Do you know how I know that is a loaded question. Because if I agree then I used to starve my dog. If I disagree then I still do. That doesn't happen with my question: "do you agree 4e is much different than any other edition of D&D ever created?"

You see, it is a loaded question because as I explained to you it has a built assumption and implication that it is much different than any other edition.

That doesn't make something loaded. If it did then: "Do you agree the sky is blue?" would also be a loaded question because it contains a built in assumption and implication that the sky is blue.

 

[Marandahir]

Maybe order and pace are the wrong words to use, but I think you know what I mean. You don't have the same dynamic where the fighter can go all day using all their power all the time meanwhile the wizard holds back and then bursts out with power.

It's a thing in a lot of games because it affects how a character feels to play. I don't know If I can really put this into words. How you gain power impacts how you play a character. Imagine a wizard who recharged their spells by drinking. They would play way different then a wizard who recharged their spells by sleeping.

This is worth sitting with. I love the balance that 4e brought to the pacing of characters (destroyed the Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard of previous editions), but I do agree that there's something unique and fun about how in 5e each class has its own pace of growth. I think 5e did a lot to make those growths balanced despite the difference in daily pacing, and that it ONLY works if you can avoid the 5MWD and stick more or less to 6-8 encounters a day, 2 short rests, and a long rest between days (changes in the rest and encounter pacing mechanics of any time will have ramifications that ripple through the entire game. You can make those changes, and the 5e DMG advises on that, but those ripples might flip the unbalance game on its head to make Marathon Fighters, Sideline Wizards). 4e resolved the balance issue elegantly, but removed the class characteristic pacing that nomotog speaks to.

Of course, that requires buying into the pacing narratives of D&D. If you don't think D&D should have specific narratives for Fighters who "can do this all day," while Wizards go nova and want to rest, then 5e's pacing doesn't quite match what you want, and maybe then 4e suits your narrative desires. 5e's different paces could actually be a restraint narratively – why do Warlocks get to recharge their spells every short rest while Wizards use it and lose it? We have to buy into the story being told through the mechanics, and hopefully it's a good story.

4e (before PH3 and Essentials*) did something different from all the other editions. Therefore FrogReaver has a point about it being different: Everyone has the same basic class pacing mechanic for their most prominent abilities. Adrac also has a point – 4e has far more similarities with every other edition of D&D than it does to any other game (13th Age notwithstanding; I'd personally say 13A and PF count as competing IP but still D&D). I find the argument above a bit obtuse and both sides are calling bad faith on each other, when they both are right, from a certain point of view.

**By 2010, WotC was already trying to mix it up and show how the edition could handle mechanical pacing more similar to other editions and breaking from the PH1-PH2 mold. There really good arguments made above in service of both sides of this same-yness argument regarding the shift that occurred with PH3, Dark Sun, and Essentials.

Me personally, I see these as attempts to create a 5e within the 4e framework, and was frustrated by square peg round hole (these would have been great options to include from the start, but felt bolted onto a different system). But I felt they didn't upset the balance, just assumed a new balance (everyone should get a Heroic Theme, for example, which means 1st level is now more similar to what 3rd level used to be!). I was happier, then, to see Clerics adopt the Warpriest Domains from the get-go in 5e. I still think 5e could do with a similar backward attempt to dial up the combat game to feel more like 4e if we so choose, but perhaps that's best left for a hypothetical 6e.

EDIT, Addendum: I also have a close friend who DESPISED the 2010 changes to 4e, because it threw off that pacing balance that made the game work for him just perfectly and never had to worry about different characters pacing differently. He also very much dislikes 5e (not surprisingly). So when we talk about 4e, we do have to talk about 2008-2009 4e versus 2010-2013 4e, as they have significant differences even if they can mesh together into one game. It's akin to past edition revisions: I can and did take 3.0 Oriental Adventures and add the classes and races into our 3.5e games, but I was VERY happy for the reworked mechanics of those characters in the 3.5e Complete series.

When major revisions or changes in directions affect an edition, we do need to discuss that, because it serves arguments for both (4e is all the same!) and (4e is not all the same!). There are different arguments to be made regarding each portion of the edition, and not dialing to reflect that shift does affect the debates of this thread. As for my friend and I, we're not going agree on these things, but I do see where he's coming from. 5e does not have the dials to make it the game he enjoys playing. That's a real shame.

 

[Aldarc]

Do you know how I know that is a loaded question. Because if I agree then I used to starve my dog. If I disagree then I still do. That doesn't happen with my question: "do you agree 4e is much different than any other edition of D&D ever created?"

You are making a mistake here by assuming that loaded questions come in only one form: these sort of gotchas where either way you assent to background that you did something wrong. There are other ways that you can load questions, such as with questionable presuppositions and loaded qualifiers, as you do in the case of how you frame your question with the assumption that we keep quoting back and forth.

Plus, I further have reason apart from the initial question to presuppose that you are asking a loaded question. Why? Because you move on to the expectation of a "yes" answer in your follow-up question. And I also think that's fairly clear that you're trying to get people to say "yes" given how you ask Garanthos the following:

So you don't agree that 4e is much different than any other edition of D&D? Seems rather counter intuitive with how it's far and away your favorite edition?

How are you not fishing for a "yes" answer here? The goal seems to be that you're trying to get people to say "yes" to your question about whether 4e is much different than any other edition of D&D ever created."

 

[nomotog]

This is worth sitting with. I love the balance that 4e brought to the pacing of characters (destroyed the Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard of previous editions), but I do agree that there's something unique and fun about how in 5e each class has its own pace of growth. I think 5e did a lot to make those growths balanced despite the difference in daily pacing, and that it ONLY works if you can avoid the 5MWD and stick more or less to 6-8 encounters a day, 2 short rests, and a long rest between days (changes in the rest and encounter pacing mechanics of any time will have ramifications that ripple through the entire game. You can make those changes, and the 5e DMG advises on that, but those ripples might flip the unbalance game on its head to make Marathon Fighters, Sideline Wizards). 4e resolved the balance issue elegantly, but removed the class characteristic pacing that Nomotog speaks to.

Of course, that requires buying into the pacing narratives of D&D. If you don't think D&D should have specific narratives for Fighters who "can do this all day," while Wizards go nova and want to rest, then 5e's pacing doesn't quite match what you want, and maybe then 4e suits your narrative desires. 5e's different paces could actually be a restraint narratively – why do Warlocks get to recharge their spells every short rest while Wizards use it and lose it? We have to buy into the story being told through the mechanics, and hopefully it's a good story.

4e (before PH3 and Essentials*) did something different from all the other editions. Therefore FrogReaver has a point about it being different: Everyone has the same basic class pacing mechanic for their most prominent abilities. Adrac also has a point – 4e has far more similarities with every other edition of D&D than it does to any other game (13th Age notwithstanding; I'd personally say 13A and PF count as competing IP but still D&D). I find the argument above a bit obtuse and both sides are calling bad faith on each other, when they both are right, from a certain point of view.

**By 2010, WotC was already trying to mix it up and show how the edition could handle mechanical pacing more similar to other editions and breaking from the PH1-PH2 mold. There really good arguments made above in service of both sides of this same-yness argument regarding the shift that occurred with PH3, Dark Sun, and Essentials.

Me personally, I see these as attempts to create a 5e within the 4e framework, and was frustrated by square peg round hole (these would have been great options to include from the start, but felt bolted onto a different system). But I felt they didn't upset the balance, just assumed a new balance (everyone should get a Heroic Theme, for example, which means 1st level is now more similar to what 3rd level used to be!). I was happier, then, to see Clerics adopt the Warpriest Domains from the get-go in 5e. I still think 5e could do with a similar backward attempt to dial up the combat game to feel more like 4e if we so choose, but perhaps that's best left for a hypothetical 6e.

Oh yea, 4ed didn't just change pacing willy nullly. They had a reason too. In a lot of cases, 3red pacing was too wild to handle. Take for example the artificer. They had powers per day, powers per level, Powers that could be used in combat only if you spent a per level resource, not to mention they literally had the power to stockpile their resources. I loved that aspect myself, but can't deny that they are crazy to handle.

I think 5ed kind of threaded the needle well between the homogeneity of 4 and the crazy of 3, but if we went from 3ed directly to 5ed then we might have a thread about why all the 5ed classes feel samey.

I am going to go off the rails for a bit. I miss the wild west of 3ed. You could do anything with your classes. See artificer a class about making magic items. Can't really do it now even in 5ed.

 

[Aldarc]

I think 5ed kind of threaded the needle well between the homogeneity of 4 and the crazy of 3, but if we went from 3ed directly to 5ed then we might have a thread about why all the 5ed classes feel samey.

I am going to go off the rails for a bit. I miss the wild west of 3ed. You could do anything with your classes. See artificer a class about making magic items. Can't really do it now even in 5ed.

Sure, though as a result, 5e has its own issues between trying to balance non-rest dependent (sub-)classes with short rest dependent (sub-)classes and long rest dependent (sub-)classes around assumptions regarding an "adventuring day." Which admittedly is just a reframing of at-will, per encounter, and per day powers.

 

[FrogReaver]

You are making a mistake here by assuming that loaded questions come in only one form: these sort of gotchas where either way you assent to background that you did something wrong. There are other ways that you can load questions, such as with questionable presuppositions and loaded qualifiers, as you do in the case of how you frame your question with the assumption that we keep quoting back and forth.

No mistakes on my side. The problem with your definition of loaded question is that it can be applied equally to nearly any question whatsoever. Nearly all questions contain an assumption. If 2 people disagree about one of those assumptions that doesn't suddenly make the question loaded. But more importantly - what assumption in my question do you disagree with. Let's talk specifics - because I don't believe you disagree with any assumption in it. Which if true, then in our context it would mean it's not loaded because we both agree with the assumptions in the question.

Plus, I further have reason apart from the initial question to presuppose that you are asking a loaded question. Why? Because you move on to the expectation of a "yes" answer in your follow-up question.

Or that's reason to believe I acutally thought through the implications of such a statement being true and the probability of someone saying it is true - in which case it's not loadedness but thoughtfulness.

And I also think that's fairly clear that you're trying to get people to say "yes" given how you ask Garanthos the following:

@Garthanos avoided the question entirely. He's had a bad habit lately of not engaging in discussion but trying to turn everything said back on you while avoiding answering the question entirely.

Frogreaver said: "So you don't agree that 4e is much different than any other edition of D&D? Seems rather counter intuitive with how it's far and away your favorite edition? "

How are you not fishing for a "yes" answer here? The goal seems to be that you're trying to get people to say "yes" to your question about whether 4e is much different than any other edition of D&D ever created."

Maybe that's because based on the discussions we have been having that would be my best educated guess as their expected answer. My question is really not controversial - especially in light of this discussion. It should be easily answered with a yes by most people here - but I don't like to presume to much so I give the option of what to me would be an unexpected no.