The Essentials Fighter

[Kaiyanwang]

And power, specialisation, skill, and ritual (where relevant) choices make it possible to roll members of any class in 4e that are dramatically different from one another.

You are pretty absolutist in your statements Me, and other people, simply don't perceive them this way because our priorities are others.

You mean the large clunky thing that meant that with preparation time Wizards could do anything?

I mean the large clunky thing tham mad the wizard feel like a scholar. And what you adress is a spell mechanics problem, not a spellbook mechanic problem. This is just another "baby with the bathwater" problem.

As a PC I do not expect to have a clue how dragons cast spells. And in some worlds they become less magical if I do things the same way. As for receiving spells, that was cut-scene background flavour text in my experience.

As a 1st level PC? Sure. As a 20 level sorcerer that just dicovereed something on his ancestors? And has 23 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana)? See how all these things just SCREAM inspiring backstory?

Cut scene background? Divine spelcasters received spells in specific moments of the day (say, good clerics are said to receive spell at dawn and so on). This could influence the whole adventure!

And 4e is one hell of a lot better at the mechanics interacting with the game world at a local level. Pushes, shifts, slides, marks. Those things matter at a local and immediate level. "Casts spells like a dragon" is an abstract. "Slips through the combat like an eel, avoiding opportunity attacks" or "drives the enemy backwards" is concrete.

All these things were present in former edition, just without prepackaged rules. Did you ever tumbled to backstab playing a Rogue? Or beaten a enemy with Standstill playing a fighter? Or cast a repel metal playing a druid?

Now you have automatic "shift and hit" without a tumble check + hit roll, or a 6[w] without the need of a critical hit (but HP raised up to the wazoo, so a good old crit with a greataxe remains far more satisfying).

"Cast like a dragon" is non abstract. And my imagination is not stroke and stimulated only by things inherent combat - quite the opposite. I alway built interesting combats only with core skills and maneuvers, splats just added to it. I like interesting tools for combat, but just handwave the rest... is quite dismissive design.

OK. I'll grant 4th. (I forgot about the Animal Companion). But other than archers that's less variety than is in 4e fighters. (4e Ranger might be a better fit.) Even smite evil is a 1/day stronger attack. A pretty generic Daily (and the spellcasting's just utilities or rituals).

You are completely overlooking the ranger skills, wild empathy and track. If they are out of combat (maybe) things, does not mean that are not interesting. " Archer" is not trivial. Rituals... do you honestly think that can be used with the same frequency and reliability of detect poison, bless weapon, animal messenger, longstrider?

The classes actually were far more bland at level 1, but had the chance of differ a lot later. And were simpler AT LEVEL 1 to play for a newb.. just to remain in the theme of Essentials

What stimulates my imagination isn't what's on the long and complex character sheet. It's what they do. How they act. And at this micro level, At Will powers kick the arse of 3e.

My examples about time for clerical prayers for spell didn't made the sheet more commplicated. Just the gameworld more interesting. IIRC, we discussed about it previously, and I remain of the opinion that the 3rd edition at wills (feats) are simple and dull in the beginning, but when you start to combine them with other ones (fighter mostly, but everybody) or with class features (paladin, ranger, barbarian, rogue) are far more satisfying.

This does not mean that some thing could be done better (mainly, in the way they scale) but this is another matter.

In the running the gameworld? Agreed. 4e makes no attempt to be simulationist.

Is not even a matter of simulationism. Is a matter of inspiration. if things are uninspiring, seem same-y.

The Bard is now popular? Rather than the red-headed step child of 3e? (I used to like it. But always thought that was a minority opinion). And as for errata, any game needs it.

People tend to compare classes on raw numbers. I've seen it even in Pathfinder thread elsewhere.. "But Barbarian does not deals as much damages as the fighter at level 20! It suxx!1!!!!1". Ignoring the d12 + uncanny dodge, or things like a raw +20 on strenght checks each rage (or each round, just to be sure to take the Balor from the neck).

Barring the fact that the base CONCEPT of the bard is a blast if played by the right player, once you understood that you role is a face -support -jack of all trades, you love it. You want to pew pew? go sorcerer. Don't play a bard like a sorcerer. don't play a monk like a fighter. Better don't play a fighter like a fighter, sometimes!

As a side note, splatbooks added a lot of love for bards.


ERRATA: Any game needs it. Of course. Even better if you make it a continuous process, making books obsolete and a subscription to an updated charachter builder mandatory..

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Class features of the sorcerer were non-existant.

And sorcerers could be made different from one another because of their limitations on how many spells they could take.

Totally different from 4th edition characters! Wait, is actually different.. spells are vary more compared each other, and follow rules that make them feel different from swinging a sword (compnents, concentration..).

As irrelevant to the discussion as Hackmaster.

A game that revamped an old system and take my money for gaming instead of WotC? In a thread about a class that looks backward? Totally irrelevant, my apologies

The difference between the three:

Clerics chose one time a day they recovered. Rest was not an issue.
Wizards, rest was an issue.
Sorcerers cast spells like bards with more spells. This 'like a dragon' thing is fluff... most monsters cast spells like that. In fact, the most boring thing to read in a monster description was 'cast spells like a sorcerer.' Flavorless. Bland.

So, to say that sorcerers gain flavor because monsters cast spells like them blandly?

Yeah.. because we had, at time a class that cast like a monster. maybe with monster blood (concept expanded later both by wotc splats and by pathfinder). And again, in this case my example was not about the need of clumsy rules for diversity, but for the care about them: for the inspiration about the gameworld that can instill in me.

This is what I don't get tho... how is being able to do all sorts of amazing things as riders to your attacks not interacting mechanics? In fact, isn't the central design point behind every 4th edition attack worth a damn that it -does- interract beyond damage?

But interaction is not only push or shift! Is far beyond that! It's like the class, the character blends into the gameworld! I restate it: THE LACK OF CARE ABOUT THIS ASPECT, IMHO, REGARDLESS THE ACTUAL DIFFERENCE, INSTILLS THE SENSE OF SAMENESS.

And fourth edition doesn't do that?

In fact... compare a 1st level sword and board fighter.

In 3d edition, he can attack for 1d8 damage... and is harder to hit.

In 4th edition, he can attack for 1d8 damage and push a foe away, or pull the foe into his spot, allowing a curbstomping, he can swing through and hit another enemy.... and he is harder to hit... and his allies are harder to hit... and he'll punch them for trying.

You're claiming differences in equipment made huge differences in 3rd edition while ignoring the fact those differences still exist and are compounded by the differences in characters and fighting styles that are inherent in merely uttering the words 'at-will attack power.'

Smite Evil? That's an example of a flavorful attack, but does it -really- compare favorably to hitting your foe so hard that not only does he take massive damage from your piety, but the sheer holy energy then leaks out and heals one of your friends of his wounds.

You want to talk flavorful mechanics... compare -that-.

Bonus damage, or Bonus Damage that undoes your enemy's evil.

Seriously. Compare.

4th edition does indeed better at level 1st. because of the sweet spot stretching. Point for 4th edition. But former classes were maybe simplier at level 1.

If you go up by levels, I'm not sure that you can handle the comparison. And is not even a matter of that. I could say "just build a fighter that one-shots with a critical a reasonably strong enemy"). You can with a x4 weapon and a lucky crit in 3.5, you cannot in 4th but because 4th has been made that way.

And you are unfair in your comparison. a 1st level fighter has 2-3 feats, and just compare ranged damage between editions. Or the 1001 uses of a tower shield.

My point is the caps lock above. Unless you think that people that feel the sameness are all crazy/stupid/whatever.

In addition, there was not the "tank" mindset at times. If you ant that, there is standstill.

Some don't consider pathfinder to be the right direction to go. If your complaint is '4th edition is not pathfinder' well... you're right it isn't.

It's also not Vampire: The Requiem.

It's indeed quite interesting see how the designer changed the classes in Essentials. I just want to see a newb buy the new red box.

"Let see.. the Wizard here has schools.. LIKE IN PATHFINDER!"

That doesn't mean the differences do not exist... it means they don't have the ability to see the forest for the trees. They have a feeling that four different game mechanics must exist for things to be different... that characters must be playing actual different games for them to be considered different.

That's an interesting viewpoint, but it's terribly myopic.

4edition has everything one needs to run a gameworld. Does it try to simulate every aspect of it? No. Why? Because doing so is unnecessary. Do you -need- rules to determine the economy in a town? No. Why? Because you're making the town, make the economy what you need it to be. No amount of 'simulationist' rules can do that accurately.

Seriously, ask yourself -why- you'd need a rule to randomly determine whether or not magical items are available in Slobadia... is it because you don't know? How do you not know? Are you not -making- Slobadia to fit the needs of your campaign? Do you envision Slobadia being big enough to have magic item shops? No? Then why do you need a chart to tell you how to make your damn city for you?

Besides, simulationist rules in roleplaying games often end up being poor simulations, failing to explain how a villiage of peasents making 1 silver piece a month, paying 1 copper piece a day for food, can ever not end up in debt by 2 silver pieces a month, while simultaneously gathering up the 50 gold pieces the party is being offered to save the town mayor from kobold invasion... or how the kobolds manage to have coffers greater than any amount of business men in such an economy could ever hope to accumulate...

It's okay to want rules to simulate a game world... but please be sure they do not immediately fall apart and become unable to support such basic assumptions like 'At some point the PCs need to be paid.' BAD simulationist rules are terrible. And D&D's simulationism has NEVER been particularily good.

I don't always need to use the rules as they are, or to use them at all. But if needed, they are there, at least as suggestion.

Sell me a product with less things because "I don't need it" is myopia. Make the rule, and let me choose what I need. And once again, the problem is not a rule about minutiae, but rules that care with my immersion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Apparently I need to spread experience points around before giving them to DracoSuave.

You are pretty absolutist in your statements Me, and other people, simply don't perceive them this way because our priorities are others.

That's because I'm right and you are wrong. Skills. Utility powers. Feats. Skill powers. Multiclasses. Rituals. Ability to hide. Massive differences.

I mean the large clunky thing tham mad the wizard feel like a scholar. And what you adress is a spell mechanics problem, not a spellbook mechanic problem. This is just another "baby with the bathwater" problem.

No. The Batman Wizard is a spellbook problem. If you are going to add spells that do things with each supplement and the Wizard and Cleric have the power to use spells from every supplement then every supplement adds power creep even if it is itself balanced. That's because it adds options, flexibility, and ways for preparing for new challenges.

As a 1st level PC? Sure. As a 20 level sorcerer that just dicovereed something on his ancestors? And has 23 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana)? See how all these things just SCREAM inspiring backstory?

23 ranks in Arcana, 20 levels in sorceror and he's only just found out how he casts? And it's related to the most famous type of monster going? That's inspiring as opposed to stupid? (Unless Sorceror is a snowflake class and he's the only one).

Cut scene background? Divine spelcasters received spells in specific moments of the day (say, good clerics are said to receive spell at dawn and so on). This could influence the whole adventure!

Those specific moments of the day being the same moments the wizard was reading his spellbooks IME. And my character's love of yodelling could influence the whole adventure.

As for it being a cut scene background, the rules state that the cleric needs to be meditating for that hour. Which means it's only an issue if the DM decides to interrupt the meditation. Or do you really RP meditating for an hour in your D&D sessions?

All these things were present in former edition, just without prepackaged rules. Did you ever tumbled to backstab playing a Rogue?

You're saying that wasn't prepackaged rules? Merely clunkier ones and ones you have to dig harder for.

Or beaten a enemy with Standstill playing a fighter? Or cast a repel metal playing a druid?

I'm saying that being unable to barge people as a fighter is uninspiring. 3e fighters need to reach 6th level (I think) to be able to fight with sword and board the way I do. This is the opposite of inspiring - when what is for me easy becomes something rare and outstanding for my powerful PC who is meant to be good at this sort of thing.

"Cast like a dragon" is non abstract.

No. It's meaningless when there are a very limited number of ways of casting spells and lots of monsters cast spells this way. "Cast like a dragon" and "Cast like a sylph" are exactly the same thing. You want fluff that way, 4e Dragon sorcerors have it in spades. (As do PF bloodline ones). Or try the 4e Invoker. Who has a literal tiny fragment of his God's powers, unmediated through prayer. Or the Warlock...

You are completely overlooking the ranger skills, wild empathy and track. If they are out of combat (maybe) things, does not mean that are not interesting. " Archer" is not trivial. Rituals... do you honestly think that can be used with the same frequency and reliability of detect poison, bless weapon, animal messenger, longstrider?

1/day? You're in the realm of Utility Powers here.

My examples about time for clerical prayers for spell didn't made the sheet more commplicated.

No. They just mean that a cleric needs to meditate an hour a day. Cut scene time.

Is not even a matter of simulationism. Is a matter of inspiration. if things are uninspiring, seem same-y.

And the simplistic at-wills in 3e are anti-inspiring. They mean that a fighter is allowed less positional control and awareness in combat than I have in real life.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The Bard is now popular? Rather than the red-headed step child of 3e? (I used to like it. But always thought that was a minority opinion). And as for errata, any game needs it.

It's like how when someone dies, they retroactively become a paragon, even if during their life they kicked puppies and stole candy from babies.

When they were readily available, the majority opinion was that bards sucked.

But then Wizards had the gall to delay their availability for a few months, so they became the distilled essence of D&D. And their exclusion was a SLAP IN THE FACE OF ALL TRUE GAMERS!!!1!

 

[Remathilis]

Remathilis, just stop it. I think everyone here now understood that you never grasped how different 4th edition classes have widely different tactics in combat. I could start explaining the significant differences between cleric, warlord and artificer to you (both in healing and their other leader abilities), but all I would achieve is that you'll start talking about wizard and invoker 3 pages later and the dance begins again. So I won't because it's a waste of time and I won't convince you anyway.

The problem is not 4th edition, it's your perception of it. I think we all understand now that you prefer to play 3rd edition (and variants of it), so why don't you just do that?

Glad you even noticed the Wizard and Invoker one.

See, I guess as a dirty old grognard I never groked to the uber-kewlnezz that 4e was. I was unable in grasp the subtle, game-alternating uniqueness of HS+1d6+Wis 2/encounter and HS+Wis 2/encounter makes. Nor did I ever noticed guff of difference that Scorching Burst and Vangard's Lightning has because, ya know, one does fire and the other lightning (oh, the latter deals Int mod damage to any foe making an OA. I guess that makes VL strictly better...)

I go take my unwashed self back to the Pathfinder forum and forget about this new Essentials line. I wouldn't get how awesome it was anyway...

Later, see you in General.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Glad you even noticed the Wizard and Invoker one.

See, I guess as a dirty old grognard I never groked to the uber-kewlnezz that 4e was. I was unable in grasp the subtle, game-alternating uniqueness of HS+1d6+Wis 2/encounter and HS+Wis 2/encounter makes. Nor did I ever noticed guff of difference that Scorching Burst and Vangard's Lightning has because, ya know, one does fire and the other lightning (oh, the latter deals Int mod damage to any foe making an OA. I guess that makes VL strictly better...)

I go take my unwashed self back to the Pathfinder forum and forget about this new Essentials line. I wouldn't get how awesome it was anyway...

Later, see you in General.

I notice you are running away without dealing with my Warlord who is decidedly a Warlord and not a Cleric or Artificer. The blandest builds overlap, I agree. But only the blandest ones.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

That's because I'm right and you are wrong. Skills. Utility powers. Feats. Skill powers. Multiclasses. Rituals. Ability to hide. Massive differences.

Skills matter less because of the 1/2 level thing. Noncombat utility is rare. Feats.. I concede, when you are not forced to take "fixes". You know what I mean. Multiclass is laughable. And one thing is utility spell I can change every day, one thing is long rituals I have to pay. We are miles away here.

No. The Batman Wizard is a spellbook problem. If you are going to add spells that do things with each supplement and the Wizard and Cleric have the power to use spells from every supplement then every supplement adds power creep even if it is itself balanced. That's because it adds options, flexibility, and ways for preparing for new challenges.

You know, is not mandatory add spells that break your game. And most problems came from core. Options are options, Use what is good for the campaing. They add diversity.

FYI, the batman wizard is the "good" way to play the wizard. The Wiz that makes the party powerful. The term is not derogatory originally.

23 ranks in Arcana, 20 levels in sorceror and he's only just found out how he casts? And it's related to the most famous type of monster going? That's inspiring as opposed to stupid? (Unless Sorceror is a snowflake class and he's the only one).

I just meant that was not a thing to discover as a level 1 PC, but cool for a quest or a side quest for a high level sorceror. Where did you took all the other things?

Those specific moments of the day being the same moments the wizard was reading his spellbooks IME. And my character's love of yodelling could influence the whole adventure.

As for it being a cut scene background, the rules state that the cleric needs to be meditating for that hour. Which means it's only an issue if the DM decides to interrupt the meditation. Or do you really RP meditating for an hour in your D&D sessions?

These little things (like the spell components, the concentration and the like) make the magic more.. magic. more special and different. And increase my immersion. Can you accept that I would miss them?

You're saying that wasn't prepackaged rules? Merely clunkier ones and ones you have to dig harder for.

Not sure what you meant here, but I meant the combat maneuvers. Instead of say to the DM "I slip through 3 enemies with tumble and strike the ogre" there is a cool power with a cool name that makes the same. And suddenly rogues are no longer boring. I meant this for "pre packaged".

I'm saying that being unable to barge people as a fighter is uninspiring. 3e fighters need to reach 6th level (I think) to be able to fight with sword and board the way I do. This is the opposite of inspiring - when what is for me easy becomes something rare and outstanding for my powerful PC who is meant to be good at this sort of thing.

In the meanwhile, they use all the feats to reach this point in other way. And use them to similar effect until the optimum. And this will improve later, when they will use the bash on a whirlwind attack and you will push an enemy at time.. barring using a specific power.

See, my vision is maybe idealized. Some feat scale badly, and so on. But then THAT should be fixed, nothing else.

No. It's meaningless when there are a very limited number of ways of casting spells and lots of monsters cast spells this way. "Cast like a dragon" and "Cast like a sylph" are exactly the same thing. You want fluff that way, 4e Dragon sorcerors have it in spades. (As do PF bloodline ones). Or try the 4e Invoker. Who has a literal tiny fragment of his God's powers, unmediated through prayer. Or the Warlock...

And the mechanics behind that fluff are...?? (barring PF sorcerer). Moreover, that was an example to explain what I meant (see above).

1/day? You're in the realm of Utility Powers here.

1/day NOW. In a level range that makes the two version of the class comparable. And are nevertheless spells I can change very day. In a scenario when this class has spells the other talents the other rage powers..

No. They just mean that a cleric needs to meditate an hour a day. Cut scene time.

Se above (the "little things"). And if something is cut scene time 90% of times, fun things happen in the 10%.

And the simplistic at-wills in 3e are anti-inspiring. They mean that a fighter is allowed less positional control and awareness in combat than I have in real life.

We didn't play meleers the same way. But you have a point here, becaus ein this case, is maybe a failure by aythors part in develop this part of the game (otherwise, I would use 2 different judgements for mine impressions and for yours, and that would be simply unfair).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Skills matter less because of the 1/2 level thing.

False. +-10 is a pretty huge swing. What happens in 3e beyond level 5 or so is that there are effectively two levels of skill. Trained well and don't bother. The 1/2 level thing doesn't make skills matter less. It means that skills remain relevant rather than a binary switch.

Multiclass is laughable.

Only if by Multiclass you mean massively so rather than picking up some skills along the way. In which case you want Hybrid rather than Multiclass.

And one thing is utility spell I can change every day, one thing is long rituals I have to pay. We are miles away here.

Yes. You don't have to pay for spellcasting in 3e. You do for big spells in 4e. Huge difference.

You know, is not mandatory add spells that break your game. And most problems came from core. Options are options, Use what is good for the campaing. They add diversity.

It depends where you add diversity whether it's a problem. Adding options that can be chosen for a character is good. Adding options that get added to a character without meaningful penalty is power creep, pure and simple.

FYI, the batman wizard is the "good" way to play the wizard. The Wiz that makes the party powerful. The term is not derogatory originally.

Yes. The Batman Wizard makes the rogue irrelevant and means that all most other people need to do is a mopping up operation. That's damn well played. It also breaks the game. The two are not opposites. The making the other PCs irrelevant is precisely because the Batman Wizard is played so well.

I just meant that was not a thing to discover as a level 1 PC, but cool for a quest or a side quest for a high level sorceror. Where did you took all the other things?

The bit about the L20 Sorceror with 23 ranks in Knowledge(Arcana)? It's what you wrote. And given the ties to power sources in 4e, claiming this as a 3e fluff advantage is silly.

These little things (like the spell components, the concentration and the like) make the magic more.. magic. more special and different. And increase my immersion. Can you accept that I would miss them?

THEY ARE IN 4E. Components, cost, time to cast. It's called Ritual Casting. And the components there actually matter. As does the skill you use to cast them (and not just whether you can maintain your concentration).

The only time when spellcasting you don't need components and time is for specialised combat magic (OK, Bards and Invokers have no cost for a couple of rituals per day.) Combat magic needs to happen under pressure. The rest of the time the magic is more the way you claim to want it than 3e is.

Not sure what you meant here, but I meant the combat maneuvers. Instead of say to the DM "I slip through 3 enemies with tumble and strike the ogre" there is a cool power with a cool name that makes the same. And suddenly rogues are no longer boring. I meant this for "pre packaged".

Rogues shouldn't be boring in 3e. Or any edition. They excel out of combat. It's the poor fighter in 3e that's tedious at low levels.

In the meanwhile, they use all the feats to reach this point in other way.

You assume 4e has no feats.

And use them to similar effect until the optimum.

Where optimum = forced min-maxing? With feat chains, your feats cease to be so many choices because it's best to run the chains.

And this will improve later, when they will use the bash on a whirlwind attack and you will push an enemy at time.. barring using a specific power.

So. That's dodge, mobility, spring attack, whirlwind attack, Improved Shield defence, two weapon fighting, shield bash? 8 feats to get an attack mode they do every time? This isn't options you're looking for. It's replacements.

And the mechanics behind that fluff are...?? (barring PF sorcerer).

Have you even read the PHB2? Or know a thing about 4e Sorcerors? There are currently four power sources for sorcerors (Dragon, Cosmic, Chaos, Storm). Each has its own pattern of bonusses and resistances (with resistance being to one of the types that matches a breath type) - and has certain powers with riders if it has that power source. Invokers can directly commune (if weakly) with their God (Hand of Fate free 1/day). And that's before getting into Wrath, Protection, and Malediction aspects and the backlash for malediction.

The PHB 1 classes are the simplest and often blandest (Warlocks are an exception, granted). But if you're going to assume that's all that exists in 4e, I'm going to take you back to 3.0 core. Except with exception based design it's easier to add things to 4e without breaking the game.

1/day NOW. In a level range that makes the two version of the class comparable. And are nevertheless spells I can change very day. In a scenario when this class has spells the other talents the other rage powers..

And if you want the obscure stuff, you take ritual casting as a feat.

Se above (the "little things"). And if something is cut scene time 90% of times, fun things happen in the 10%.

Say 99%. At least. All it does is say "The cleric must be nailed down for 1 hour/day along with the wizard".

 

[Remathilis]

Your challenge for 10: Make me an artificer or a cleric who plays anything like that. Or anything in any previous edition. (Start with the idea of allies rather than the PC making the majority of his attack rolls).

While I HATE to miss out on a challenge, I'm going to for one reason; I have no idea what 1/2 those things DO anymore!

See, I quit sometime last summer. My warlord was 95% PHB1 (with one MP power, I think it was his 3rd level encounter power), my cleric was 100% PHB (plus Selune's Channel Divinity) and the Artificer was 100% Eberron Players Guide. No domain powers, no skill swap utility powers, no Style Feats (except for a few in Dragon) no hybrid classes, etc.

Based on the handful of abilities that were in PHB1, MP, and EPG, I found the three classes didn't feel diverse enough. If, by the time of paragon levels with a full DDi subscription and 2 years of books this doesn't hold water, I simply claim to be behind the times.

Almost all of my comparisons have assumed the default 2 builds in their core book introduction without a giant influx of supplemental material. I'm well aware a tempest fighter is different than a greatweapon one, a beastmaster ranger doesn't play like a archer, and summoning went a long way to making the wizard stand out against the invoker and druid. Yet when I played in those early days (When the PHB and a couple of dragons was it) I didn't see any quantifiable difference in those classes. Apparently WotC has gone a long way to making those distinctions more pronounced, at the cost of $30 a hardback and $10 per month.

Anyway, I said I was done and I am.

 

[Aegeri]

The difference obvious to a gearhead is not obvious or even important to a casual player.

I'm sorry but this argument is so massively hollow I cannot accept your premise to begin with. Everyone that I have ever played 4E with understands the difference between teleporting and shifting. Everyone I've ever played with rapidly understands why teleporting is better than shifting. It is not a subtle difference just to "gearheads". Unless you're playing on planet featureless bowling ball, where immobilize, grab, restrained, line of sight and terrain are irrelevant the difference is inherently obvious.

Anyone who plays in my games for one session soon appreciates why teleport is far superior to shifting. They also soon appreciate why forced movement based teleportation powers are superior to standard forced movement in many cases. I absolutely hate saying this, but if someone can't see why one is different than the other, you need a DM who uses terrain better.

Remember when 4th ed came out and Eladrin ("blink elves") could suddenly teleport, even at first level? Heads were asplode about it. It was the end of D&D.

And now the Internets want to tell me that it's no big deal and blink elves could just as well shift 5?

I am having the same feeling right now. People were up in arms about Eladrin being able to teleport and now apparently everyone suddenly forgot this was a major thing and that it's just the same as a shift 5 (which it isn't btw). I mean, whut?