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

[Imaro]

Have been watching the Castlevania series on Netflix. 4e would be the perfect system for this, but probably not PF2. I guess that says something about the two versions.

Can you explain why you think 4e would be better? I've watched the first two seasons and don't remember anything specifically screaming 4e to me but I might have missed something. Oh and overall a really good show.

 

[Arilyn]

Can you explain why you think 4e would be better? I've watched the first two seasons and don't remember anything specifically screaming 4e to me but I might have missed something. Oh and overall a really good show.

Yeah, it's great. Better than most of the live action Netflix shows.

The characters in Castlevania do a lot of bouncing around the battlefield, and they have big, over the top powers, which is closer to 4e. In 4e, characters can do short teleports, change briefly into beasts, strike multiple opponents in one round, and generally have a lot more supernatural abilities. The wizards are more "power oriented" too, which fits Sypha (sp?) more closely. The ability to more easily spend hd for healing would also be a boon in Castlevania. (no handy chicken legs or roast beef scattered across the terrain in the show. )

 

[Undrave]

no handy chicken legs or roast beef scattered across the terrain in the show.

I'll have you know Wall Meat is a staple of Dwarven cuisine Just get some ironbread at the breadsmith and make a nice Mine Sandwich. A 'Minewich' if you wish.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Feel free, but what are you trying to accomplish?

To me, the "samey" feel came from using the same basic structure as was alluded to in an earlier post. The designers were not given enough time to develop the game they wanted. Basically the whole at-will and cool-down powers with everyone having what I would consider supernatural abilities.

FrogReaver has been commenting that the powers are too similar cross-class as I understand him. With luck it will show people there's more to the game.

And at will and cool down powers is a pretty good way of describing 5e characters. I've never understood what makes pacing yourself supernatural - indeed these untiring warriors who can always make the same attack with the same effectiveness are to me second only to hit points in making other editions of D&D feel far more gamey than 4e. And I find the wizard spellbook and complete retools this allows obnoxious. And their need to memorise and complete lack of mastery of their magic counter-intuitive and a massive constraint on worldbuilding.

Does it have to be AEDU for fighters? No. But at least AEDU isn't spammy - something I find you can only really get away with by making combat fast.

Did it have to be AEDU for wizards? No. But AEDU I find fits just about any fantasy setting with reliable magic that's not explicitly built round D&D tropes (and even some explicit D&D settings) better than Vancian Casting.

Could they have done better than "hard" AEDU for everyone if they'd been allowed to delay 4e when they went back to basics 10 months in and had only fourteen left to finish the whole thing? Probably. I think I did in my retroclone (AEDU is still a thing, but the Archivist Wizard is almost all D, while fighters can be largely but not entirely A if they choose).

But AEDU makes characters feel a lot less "one note" to me, whether they are martial characters or spellcasters. There's a good reason the 5e characters I gravitate towards are the ones that actually have much more variable pacing and approaches and, perhaps as a consequence, have effective short rests - the warlock and the monk.

Which means I guess what I'm asking is why is everyone using AEDU considered more samey than almost everyone being AAAA!!! or DDDD: ? Which admittedly 5e has mixed up a bit.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Oofta and @FrogReaver and anyone else who felt 4e characters were same due to some aspect of unified mechanical structure.

I’m curious. Have you guys played Magic the Gathering? If so, what do you feel about the deck archetypes/themes and the unified mechanical structure? Does it feel “samey” to you in the same way that 4e does? If not, why?

 

[Oofta]

FrogReaver has been commenting that the powers are too similar cross-class as I understand him. With luck it will show people there's more to the game.

And at will and cool down powers is a pretty good way of describing 5e characters. I've never understood what makes pacing yourself supernatural - indeed these untiring warriors who can always make the same attack with the same effectiveness are to me second only to hit points in making other editions of D&D feel far more gamey than 4e. And I find the wizard spellbook and complete retools this allows obnoxious. And their need to memorise and complete lack of mastery of their magic counter-intuitive and a massive constraint on worldbuilding.

Does it have to be AEDU for fighters? No. But at least AEDU isn't spammy - something I find you can only really get away with by making combat fast.

Did it have to be AEDU for wizards? No. But AEDU I find fits just about any fantasy setting with reliable magic that's not explicitly built round D&D tropes (and even some explicit D&D settings) better than Vancian Casting.

Could they have done better than "hard" AEDU for everyone if they'd been allowed to delay 4e when they went back to basics 10 months in and had only fourteen left to finish the whole thing? Probably. I think I did in my retroclone (AEDU is still a thing, but the Archivist Wizard is almost all D, while fighters can be largely but not entirely A if they choose).

But AEDU makes characters feel a lot less "one note" to me, whether they are martial characters or spellcasters. There's a good reason the 5e characters I gravitate towards are the ones that actually have much more variable pacing and approaches and, perhaps as a consequence, have effective short rests - the warlock and the monk.

Which means I guess what I'm asking is why is everyone using AEDU considered more samey than almost everyone being AAAA!!! or DDDD: ? Which admittedly 5e has mixed up a bit.

I don't see much value in continuing this, just explaining why classes felt generic to me. Most fighters/rogues in 5E don't really have cool down periods other than battle master and those that rely on vancian casting (i.e. eldritch knight). Warlocks come closest to the 4E mechanics to me.

As far as supernatural ... I don't want to argue about that any more. Let's just say that to me the only options were kind of over-the-top cartoon or MMO characters. There's nothing wrong with that, just not my preference.

 

[Oofta]

@Oofta and @FrogReaver and anyone else who felt 4e characters were same due to some aspect of unified mechanical structure.

I’m curious. Have you guys played Magic the Gathering? If so, what do you feel about the deck archetypes/themes and the unified mechanical structure? Does it feel “samey” to you in the same way that 4e does? If not, why?

Nope. Well, played it for an hour or so when it first came out.

The sameyness to me is intrinsic to the design with every class using the same power structure. It's not necessarily a bad pattern, again just not my preference.

 

[Manbearcat]

Nope. Well, played it for an hour or so when it first came out.

The sameyness to me is intrinsic to the design with every class using the same power structure. It's not necessarily a bad pattern, again just not my preference.

No that’s fine. I’m just curious. I’m assuming you’d feel similarly about Magic decks. But we don’t know. Hoping that there is some data out there on this.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the unified structure played a lot into the perception of samey-ness. But whenever I’ve said as much, people have claimed that no, the unified structure wasn’t the problem for them, it was the powers themselves. Obviously different people found it samey for different reasons, but it is interesting to me that whenever I try to make a case for a particular aspect of 4e having been quite varied, it seems not to be the main thing the person I’m making the case to found too samey about the game.

 

[Oofta]

No that’s fine. I’m just curious. I’m assuming you’d feel similarly about Magic decks. But we don’t know. Hoping that there is some data out there on this.

Different implementations work for different games. I wouldn't expect MTG to feel much like D&D any more than I'd expect my bicycle to feel much like my car.