I get that experiences differ.
But that doesn't make my experiences (or experiences other than your own) somehow invalid.
The only way I can possibly see this being a valid argument is if your DM put you on a blank battlemap with no terrain and the monsters did not grab, restrain or immobilize on any of their powers. There is no other way of visualizing how this could be valid
for this specific example, which makes your logic coherent that shifting and teleporting are the same to someone new. If you don't see the difference between a shift and a teleport nothing can convince you why things in 4E are mechanically different.
Shifting requires line of effect (you have to be able to move into and occupy the square you are shifting into).
It can provoke attacks from creatures with immediate actions to shifting (or marks, eg Fighter).
You can't shift while prone.
Shifting still costs 2 squares of movement in difficult terrain (unless you're an Elf).
It doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity normally (but can do in some circumstances).
You can't shift while grabbed, immobilized or restrained.
Let's compare:
Teleporting requires line of sight - but doesn't require line of effect. You can teleport through a window, a keyhole or a portcullis. So long as you can see the destination.
Teleportation is instant, provoking no attacks of opportunity or other abilities. Monsters that attack teleporting characters are
immensely rare.
Telportation does not care about the intervening terrain, so you can teleport over hazards, difficult terrain and on top of objects. A 15 ft elevation for example can be easily teleported onto with a teleport 3. Shifting cannot do this period or takes a longer shift.
Teleportation can be performed while prone, you can do it while grabbed, immobilized or restrained.
Teleportation is prevented by being blind, if you can't see where you are going you cannot teleport anywhere.
You are telling me, honestly, that shifting is effectively the same as teleporting
and that it is hard to tell the difference?
Really?
Because anyone should be instantly able to tell of those two modes of movement, which is superior in a wider variety of situations. One of these is mechanically
immensely distinct from the other. Four total conditions completely stop a PC from shifting, terrain can prevent you from shifting while teleporting is blocked by ONE condition. Teleporting requires only line of sight, so can navigate difficult and hindering terrain (and multiple elevations) in a combat far more easily than a shift - which has nowhere near the mobility.
If you have a DM who uses terrain the difference between shifting and teleporting is night and day.
There needs to be red nail polish for those who don't care about the subtle differences between two shades of friggin' pink.
It's not subtle. This argument you've been using is just not correct and demonstrably so, which is why I just can't fathom why you're clinging to it.
Your example is just plain wrong. This isn't to say you don't have a valid point about other things in 4E, for example the similarity between at-wills of some classes - like a Warlocks Eldritch strike doesn't seem more "Warlocky" than any other Wizard power would seem similar "Warlocky" if you just changed the names around. That's a perfectly valid and reasoned comparison. Claiming that shifting and teleporting are too hard to tell apart though is just unfathomable to me if someone even has a cursory understanding of the two modes of movement. All of my players - the first in real life group I had was four people who had never played any kind of DnD before and 2 from 3rd. Not one would wonder why they would want to teleport (if they could) over shifting, especially because I use a lot of difficult terrain, terrain elevations, hindering terrain and monsters that impose conditions like grab/immobilize/restrained. I mean if the difference here isn't obvious on a cursory reading, it should become
immediately apparent after a single session.
?
