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

[Oofta]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't find caster classes to be any more or less interesting or fun to play than non-caster classes.

They feel different to me and that's all that matters. I enjoy both, I'm glad I have the option again.

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair, I think the casting subclasses for non casting classes are the subclasses that are most distinct from other characters of the same class. But that’s kinda the problem, right? Non-casters are back to not getting to do anything particularly interesting. Any time someone says “if everyone is special, no one is,” all I can hear is “I don’t want non-casters to have nice things.”

And that's a pretty significant problem. Many people don't mean that at all. If that's all you can hear, you probably shouldn't partake in the discussion, since you won't be able to participate in any meaningful way.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

This repeats in Pathfinder 2. The feeling of sameyness, that is.

Instead of saying each class gets a way to do two attacks with one action, and then focusing the actual options (feats) on things that matter, things that differentiate characters from each other, Paizo spams their books with different ways of making two attacks with one action.

It's the illusion of choice. All made in the name of the same philosophy that ruined 4th Edition.

 

[Charlaquin]

And that's a pretty significant problem. Many people don't mean that at all. If that's all you can hear, you probably shouldn't partake in the discussion, since you won't be able to participate in any meaningful way.

"When people say X, all I hear is Y" is a pretty common turn of phrase, and not meant literally. That said, when people use that particular Incredibles quote in reference to why they didn't like 4e, in my experience they are generally alluding to non-casters having discrete ability packages with limited daily/encounter uses.

 

[CapnZapp]

4e characters had far more, far more varied, and far more interesting ways to meaningfully affect an encounter than 5e characters do.

Neither 4e or PF2 gives character options that come even close to 5e options like Extra Attack, Action Surge (fighter abilities) or Inspiring Leader, Greatweapon Master (feats).

The difference is that 3e and 5e either trusts gamers or doesn't care; while 4e and PF2 believe there is value in presenting a dozen options that end up having pretty much the exact same impact.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

This is a much much larger issue than you make it out to be.

4th edition came across as word diarrhea. Book after book filled with indistinguishable versions of the exact same thing. Abilities, spells, magic items: it felt the same because it was the same.

For some reason Paizo has chosen to go down this exact path with Pathfinder 2. I wouldn't be surprised if we're already over a thousand feats, and the game hasn't existed even a year. The number of ways you can make an attack with a small rider or +1 bonus is already mind-numbing.

I see exactly zero value for players here. Just about the only value I see is for the publisher, who can fill book after book with what seems like loads of new character options, but where even a cursory analysis reveals there's actually very little new - it's mostly just rehashing the same already-available variables just slightly rehashed.

Not that 5th edition should escape criticism in this regard: for one thing, there is very little new crunch. For two, the little crunch there is, is also mostly rehashed mixtures of the same "get advantage to this", or a ribbon ability that. But the foundation of 5e allows a much MUCH larger variety in ability and power between characters of the same level than 4E.

Or Pathfinder 2, if I can focus the discussion on the actively published game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Neither 4e or PF2 gives character options that come even close to 5e options like Extra Attack,

Paizo spams their books with different ways of making two attacks with one action.

Action Surge (fighter abilities)

That's kind of true of 4e, its action economy is pretty tight. There are, however, plenty of powers that allow fighters to put out comparable damage to Action Surge with a daily limit. PF2 allows an extra action with the expenditure of three Hero Points, IIIRC.

or Inspiring Leader,

Um... Warlords?

Greatweapon Master (feats).

Pretty sure both games have attacks that trade accuracy for damage. I don't remember if 4e had any powers that did the cleave thing, cause again, tight action economy, but I'm pretty sure PF2 does. Also, like... Both of the benefits of great weapon master come down to "more damage," which again, is very achievable in 4e and PF2, and is also the least interesting way to make characters feel "different" from each other.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

I don't think you understand what we mean by "if everybody's special then nobody is", or at least, that you don't want to.

Its the flip side of the coin that says "we have made it close to impossible to create a bad character".

It's just that when I view 3E and 5E on one hand, and 4E and Pathfinder 2 on the other, I realize that the value of having your choices matter, is far greater than the value of not being able to make the wrong choice.

Sure making a character that's visibly worse at adventuring than another sucks.

But realizing that you're asked to make dozens of choices with hundreds of options that ultimately doesn't make a difference other than cosmetically sucks worse.

I believe this to be an obvious explanation of why 3E and 5E are wild success stories, and it makes me concerned Pathfinder 2 will go the way of fossil dinosaurs, 4E and the dodo.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Well, no, we're not suggesting there should be one class that sucks so the other classes can shine.

We suggest developers stop fretting about making sure each and every choice available to you have the exact same mathematical impact, since that leads to the feeling your choices don't matter.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think you understand what we mean by "if everybody's special then nobody is", or at least, that you don't want to.

Its the flip side of the coin that says "we have made it close to impossible to create a bad character".

It's just that when I view 3E and 5E on one hand, and 4E and Pathfinder 2 on the other, I realize that the value of having your choices matter, is far greater than the value of not being able to make the wrong choice.

Sure making a character that's visibly worse at adventuring than another sucks.

But realizing that you're asked to make dozens of choices with hundreds of options that ultimately doesn't make a difference other than cosmetically sucks worse.

I believe this to be an obvious explanation of why 3E and 5E are wild success stories, and it makes me concerned Pathfinder 2 will go the way of fossil dinosaurs, 4E and the dodo.

I think it's you who doesn't understand what "meaningful difference" means. There are ways to differentiate characters and abilities beyond raw TTK. Characters can have rough parity in terms of raw damage output, while being meaningfully differentiated by the things they can make happen, the ways other than simple damage that they can affect the encounter.