D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Minigiant]

These are very debatable as selling points of 5e.

Compared to previous editions with the same amount of books, not really. It more depends on what you consider different.

Again that's part of the "15 versions of D&D" thing I was talking about in game design and presentation.

People have different ideas of

• Combat tactic difference
• Combat strategy difference
• Optimization viability
• Optimization differences

etc etc

 

[Charlaquin]

Compared to previous editions with the same amount of books, not really. It more depends on what you consider different.

Again that's part of the "15 versions of D&D" thing I was talking about in game design and presentation.

People have different ideas of

• Combat tactic difference
• Combat strategy difference
• Optimization viability
• Optimization differences

etc etc

Of course, everyone’s idea of what constitutes a class “feeling different” is, well, different. But it is pretty baffling to me that one of the top complaints about 4e was that classes felt too same-y, and then the same folks turn around and say classes feel different in 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

Of course, everyone’s idea of what constitutes a class “feeling different” is, well, different. But it is pretty baffling to me that one of the top complaints about 4e was that classes felt too same-y, and then the same folks turn around and say classes feel different in 5e.

Subclasses are upfront and purposely designed. That's why. 5e subclasses present differences better that 4e's subclasses, 3e's lack, or 2e's kits.

And none of these ways to do subclasses are wrong. But they hit different feelings. Different about of balance. Different amount of importance. Different amount of DM work.

I couldn't go back to a pre3e subclass system if I were a DM. Too many NOs or too much work.

 

[FrogReaver]

Of course, everyone’s idea of what constitutes a class “feeling different” is, well, different. But it is pretty baffling to me that one of the top complaints about 4e was that classes felt too same-y, and then the same folks turn around and say classes feel different in 5e.

I played 4e and liked 4e. There was a sameyness to things especially at the beginning. Eventually they added in a enough splat abilities that by sheer number alone some classes could pick abilities around a theme that made them conceptually different -ala Lazylord and granting allies attacks.

But outside of that, 90% of abilities were do 2[W] damage and add some small effect. Daily would be 3[W] damage or 2[W] with an ongoing effect. The only abilities that stood out were the ones that didn't follow that pattern - which really weren't very many.

 

[Charlaquin]

Subclasses are upfront and purposely designed. That's why. 5e subclasses present differences better that 4e's subclasses, 3e's lack, or 2e's kits.

What? 5e subclasses give like 4-5 minor abilities, each several levels apart, none of which have very significant impact on how the class plays, with the exception of subclasses that give non-casting classes 1/3 spellcasting progression.

I played 4e and liked 4e. There was a sameyness to things especially at the beginning. Eventually they added in a enough splat abilities that by sheer number alone some classes could pick abilities around a theme that made them conceptually different -ala Lazylord and granting allies attacks.

But outside of that, 90% of abilities were do 2[W] damage and add some small effect. Daily would be 3[W] damage or 2[W] with an ongoing effect. The only abilities that stood out were the ones that didn't follow that pattern - which really weren't very many.

But those additional effects made meaningful gameplay differences, and you got a new power every single level. That’s before taking into account other avenues of character customization like feats and items. So what if most powers did the same number of damage dice? Most attacks do the same number of damage dice in 5e too, and damage is the least interesting way to differentiate characters from one another. 4e characters had far more, far more varied, and far more interesting ways to meaningfully affect an encounter than 5e characters do.

 

[Oofta]

What? 5e subclasses give like 4-5 minor abilities, each several levels apart, none of which have very significant impact on how the class plays, with the exception of subclasses that give non-casting classes 1/3 spellcasting progression.


But those additional effects made meaningful gameplay differences, and you got a new power every single level. That’s before taking into account other avenues of character customization like feats and items. So what if most powers did the same number of damage dice? Most attacks do the same number of damage dice in 5e too, and damage is the least interesting way to differentiate characters from one another. 4e characters had far more, far more varied, and far more interesting ways to meaningfully affect an encounter than 5e characters do.

But if you stripped away the fluff of the abilities the effects were just striker/control/defender role abilities. It didn't matter which class invoked them. Yes, sometimes the aura was from my fighter's hammer other times it was from some other fluffed "magic". But it was still just an aura. Add in everybody using the exact same at-will/encounter/daily and it all felt generic.

Too many "unique" powers just made powers feel bland because (at least to me) it fell into the same category as the paradox of too many choices. Yeah, there were dozens of powers but if I substituted power X from class Y instead of power Z while changing the fluff a bit I'm not sure people would have noticed.

If everybody is special, then nobody is. If everybody has or can have an aura ability then having an aura ability is no longer unique. It no longer sets that class or spell apart.

 

[Charlaquin]

But if you stripped away the fluff of the abilities the effects were just striker/control/defender role abilities. It didn't matter which class invoked them. Yes, sometimes the aura was from my fighter's hammer other times it was from some other fluffed "magic". But it was still just an aura. Add in everybody using the exact same at-will/encounter/daily and it all felt generic.

Compared to, what, everyone using the two 1d6 weapons, a 1d8 versatile weapon and shield, or a 1d10 reach weapon? Or every caster using the same handful of cantrips? At least Powers did something besides bringing the monsters’ imaginary numbers closer to 0.

Too many "unique" powers just made powers feel bland because (at least to me) it fell into the same category as the paradox of too many choices. Yeah, there were dozens of powers but if I substituted power X from class Y instead of power Z while changing the fluff a bit I'm not sure people would have noticed.

I’ll agree that a lot of Powers that did do literally the same thing as each other should really have just been the same power. But that’s a problem of wordcount economy not class feel.

If everybody is special, then nobody is.

Meaningless statement. Everyone had the tools to make their character play differently than other characters of the same class and/or at the same table in meaningful, gameplay-affecting ways. That’s a good thing.

If everybody has or can have an aura ability then having an aura ability is no longer unique. It no longer sets that class or spell apart.

Now that’s an argument with some substance. My counter argument is that if those aura abilities do different things for different characters, then they do set those characters apart. Yeah, sure, we both have auras, but if your aura does X and mine does Y, that’s a meaningful distinction.

 

[Don Durito]

I'm a bit confused about why 5E isn't really on the 4E/PF2 side of the OPs equation here (Hell 3E too).

Sure it's vague about some of its rules for things like skill DCs and the like, but fundamentally character balance is clearly a concern. (What else is all this open playtesting for if not ensuring new options are balanced?)

I don't really see how having options that are worse than other options is a step away from balance. 4E had the same thing, there were lots of rubbish options.

 

[Garthanos]

If everybody is special, then nobody is.

That is pretty much disgusting in every context I can imagine it. Basically you feel you have to make some class or category *(in this case of hero) be not special so you can feel special.

 

[Oofta]

That is pretty much disgusting in every context I can imagine it. Basically you feel you have to make some class or category *(in this case of hero) be not special so you can feel special.

No.