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

[Garthanos]

There was a PC in my long-running 4e game built exactly along these lines: an invoker/wizard whose Epic Destiny is Sage of Ages. At 30th level, of 18 feats 6 directly buff skills and/or grant knowledge of languages; one grants a familiar which is not primarily a combat option but further boosts skills; one is a multi-class feat that gives a skill (as well as encounter power Thunderwave); one gives knowledge of the wizard spell Arcane Gate which is not really about combat ability; one grants at will teleport 2; and maybe other not-very-combat-y stuff that I'm missing on a quick skim of the sheet.

The character's main schtick is skills and rituals. His ritual book has 50 rituals; on a quick look through maybe there are a dozen or so rituals there that he hasn't cast at least once.

Across the five PCs he has the lowest AC, by far the lowest Fort defence (6 behind the next lowest, the ranger-cleric), the second-lowest Reflex (equal to the fighter/cleric, ahead of the paladin) and the second-highest Will (equal to the paladin, one ahead of the ranger-cleric, and behind the sorcerer/bard). His hit points are just over half the defenders' (139 compared to 222 and 224; and only 7 surges, whereas both the defenders have at least double that number - I think 14 for the paladin and 16 for the fighter/cleric).

This character has traded off combat capability to become really good at skills and related stuff. It's there on the sheet and it reveals istself in play.

Using prince(ss) build warlord elements and powers mixed in can help the flavor as well even the powers then become you not really doing the offensive thing or making attacks.

 

[Minigiant]

Like I said many pages ago.

Because D&D had a virtual monopoly on fantasy pnp gaming...

there are 15 different types of D&D, all valid.

 

[Garthanos]

You seem to be hung up on comparing feats to feats. The argument was 4e powers to pathfinder 2 feats.

I could have included the 4e cleave power in the comparison of the two feats I mentioned earlier it wouldn't change anything the PF abilities were nigh identical conceptually with 3e and 5e not 4e AND the scale was more like 3e than 5e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You have a bad problem with prescribing negative motives that don't exist.

Then what exactly is your point? You seem to find them samey and seem to find this worth writing about.

Okay, but how is that relevant to you wanting to talk about samey powers?

Because to me they aren't samey. They are only samey in your eyes because you do not think the way someone moves is fundamental to their fighting style.

It's not about 2 alternatives within a class. It's the cross class sameyness.

If 4e has cross-class saminess then there is only one point of difference in most other editions - whether someone is a spellcaster or not. Indeed that's such a ridiculously powerful distinction that it drowns everything else out. 4e by muting this distinction allows the differences between other classes to show themselves much more clearly in my experience.

Meanwhile I find more difference between a 4e fighter and barbarian than I do a 3.5 fighter and monk. All the martial classes run up to the enemy and play pat-a-cake until someone runs out of hit points.

Saminess is largely in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Maxperson]

I think where this falls down is in that in order for it to hold, it has to make the claim that hatred and enjoyment both deserve equal legitimacy as something to personally identify with, and therefore have others express empathy for, as it pertains to leisure activities.

I think if you asked most people "if someone were to make active hatred (meaning its expressed in the form of activism or protest) of a leisure activity a tangible part of their identity, (a) is that healthy and (b) is it worthy of deference"...my guess is most people would say "absolutely not" to both (a) and (b).

Now if you subbed "enjoyment" for "active hatred", my guess is people would overwhelmingly say "yes" to both (a) and (b).

Not hatred. Dislike. Dislike is fine and healthy. If I ever encounter someone who like everything, I'm going to think something is wrong with that person. There's a lot in this world that people should dislike.

Expressing dislike for an edition and saying something like, "Well, I don't like 4e, because it doesn't feel like D&D to me." is not bad, nor should it cause the person who loves 4e to feel hurt or attacked.

Where things go wrong is when the person who dislikes 4e takes it a step or two further and instead says something like, "You like 4e!? 4e is a piece of crap and I can't believe you would like it!" There, instead of just expressing your equally valid opinion on the quality of 4e, you are making it an attack on the person.

Upthread @Umbran gave the analogy of the 5 year old and that analogy doesn't work. In his analogy the 5 year old is invested as the creator of the piece in the same way that the designers of 4e are. I would expect the game designers to be more upset over someone disliking 4e to the extent that it didn't feel like D&D to them, than player X. To give a real life example. The other day my 6 year old was watching some kids show and he asked me if I liked it. I told him no, because it really wasn't my thing. He shrugged and said, "Well, I do." To which I replied, "It's okay if you like something and I don't." On the other hand if he had drawn a picture and came running proudly up to show it to me and I didn't like it, his face would fall. The level of investment is different.

And to say one more thing, if I dislike something and am not allowed to express my feelings, that's harmful to me. Being forced to keep feelings bottled up, because someone else has expressed that they like something is also bad. People should be able to express both like and dislike, and express the reasons behind their feelings, without it harming the other side. They just have to be expressed in a manner that is not also attacking the other side.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You seem to be hung up on comparing feats to feats. The argument was 4e powers to pathfinder 2 feats.

Fine. Find me anywhere where either Pathfinder 2e or 5e have something remotely as conceptually powerful as Come and Get It.

If you want to attack everyone around you in 3.5 that's a massive nest of feats to get Whirlwind Attack. In 4e it's a single power. I'm not sure you can do it in 5e. Pathfinder 2e meanwhile requires a 14th level feat.

The only places 5e is remotely as evocative or conceptually powerful as 4e outside the spellbook is where it has lifted the concepts straight from 4e.

 

[Oofta]

Like I said many pages ago.

Because D&D had a virtual monopoly on fantasy pnp gaming...

there are 15 different types of D&D, all valid.

While true, there's a lot of accusations when people say that they aren't fond of every edition. I've been accused of "hating" 4E* because I tried to explain why I eventually came to dislike it or tried to explain why I may have uttered the phrase "Didn't feel like D&D" at one time in the past.

It's not like I didn't have fun now and then while playing 4E. I even wish there were a few other thing they had carried over like a better option for a fighting cleric to heal as part of attacking.

But hate? Nah. Simply at the bottom of my ranking of the 15 different types of D&D.

*Just to reiterate: I don't hate any version of D&D. I hate Bob with the hate of a thousand suns, but he knows why.

 

[FrogReaver]

Fine. Find me anywhere where either Pathfinder 2e or 5e have something remotely as conceptually powerful as Come and Get It.

We have went over why you can't just cherry pick feats/powers and ask about the cherry picked example.

If you want to attack everyone around you in 3.5 that's a massive nest of feats to get Whirlwind Attack. In 4e it's a single power. I'm not sure you can do it in 5e. Pathfinder 2e meanwhile requires a 14th level feat.

Level 11 Hunter Ranger feature. Or a fighter with action surge and lot's of extra attacks effectively can do the same thing.

By the way you left off the 4e versions level and if it was encounter, at will or daily.

The only places 5e is remotely as evocative or conceptually powerful as 4e outside the spellbook is where it has lifted the concepts straight from 4e.

I'd say subclasses

 

[FrogReaver]

Not hatred. Dislike. Dislike is fine and healthy. If I ever encounter someone who like everything, I'm going to think something is wrong with that person. There's a lot in this world that people should dislike.

Expressing dislike for an edition and saying something like, "Well, I don't like 4e, because it doesn't feel like D&D to me." is not bad, nor should it cause the person who loves 4e to feel hurt or attacked.

Where things go wrong is when the person who dislikes 4e takes it a step or two further and instead says something like, "You like 4e!? 4e is a piece of crap and I can't believe you would like it!" There, instead of just expressing your equally valid opinion on the quality of 4e, you are making it an attack on the person.

Upthread @Umbran gave the analogy of the 5 year old and that analogy doesn't work. In his analogy the 5 year old is invested as the creator of the piece in the same way that the designers of 4e are. I would expect the game designers to be more upset over someone disliking 4e to the extent that it didn't feel like D&D to them, than player X. To give a real life example. The other day my 6 year old was watching some kids show and he asked me if I liked it. I told him no, because it really wasn't my thing. He shrugged and said, "Well, I do." To which I replied, "It's okay if you like something and I don't." On the other hand if he had drawn a picture and came running proudly up to show it to me and I didn't like it, his face would fall. The level of investment is different.

And to say one more thing, if I dislike something and am not allowed to express my feelings, that's harmful to me. Being forced to keep feelings bottled up, because someone else has expressed that they like something is also bad. People should be able to express both like and dislike, and express the reasons behind their feelings, without it harming the other side. They just have to be expressed in a manner that is not also attacking the other side.

I think I use hate more as strong dislike - which is okay as it's one of it's many meanings. I think everyone else here is using hate quite a bit differently and more narrowly

 

[Maxperson]

I think I use hate more as strong dislike - which is okay as it's one of it's many meanings. I think everyone else here is using hate quite a bit differently and more narrowly

I think that's the big issue here. Hate is a rabid extreme and extremes are rarely valid. For example, I would hate someone who murdered one of my children. I would not hate someone who hit one of my children. Come to my child's defense, beat that person up and dislike them forever, sure, but not hate.

I often see people incorrectly use the word "hate" instead of just saying that they really dislike something. People will usually react in a much stronger way to hate.