Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="occam" data-source="post: 4193616" data-attributes="member: 39815">Agreed. Although you could argue that we already have this situation in 3e, if you separate spellcasters from non-spellcasters. In combat, there's not a whole lot of difference between a ranger and a fighter with the appropriate feats. A cleric and a wizard often accomplish very similar things with different special effects (flame strike vs. fireball), or even the exact same special effects (summon monster, hold person, wall of stone).From what (little) we've seen so far of 4e, it appears the designers may be aware of this issue: for example, we've seen two defenders (fighter and paladin), and the effects of their powers are quite distinctive from each other; even the two martial strikers (ranger and rogue) don't have powers that play the same. But I think if we do start having cases where a lot of different classes' powers are basically the same other than SFX, it may be more noticeable in 4e than what we have in 3e.This brings me to one of my main concerns about 4e, which goes back to the early playtest reports from DDXP, where several people described a feeling of "button-mashing", getting into the same routine each combat once you were familiarized with your powers. The standard response was that if you think 4e involves button-mashing, what do you think about 3e, where you usually don't even have a choice of powers (at least for mundane combatants)? Perfectly reasonable response... except that some, at least, definitely felt it more in their initial 4e experiences. It instilled some worry in me, too, although it took me a while to figure out why.Ironically, I think the "wahoo" feel of powers in 4e may be the very thing that makes them seem like old hat after a while. In 3e (and before), there usually isn't much to a non-spellcaster's attack: roll to hit, roll damage. Sure, you might occasionally mix it up with a feat or a bull rush or something, but the typical procedure is almost subconscious. You may not be flipping over tables or pushing opponents around the battlefield, but you don't usually notice that.The dynamic nature of 4e powers forces you to pay attention to the effects of your action, because you're doing all kinds of <s>cool</s> extraordinary things. But after the 5th Tide of Iron, won't it get to seem a little ho-hum? And will you notice that more because the initial thrill is gone? (A thrill which was, granted, harder to come by at all in 3e.)I have the same concern about monsters. It's <s>cool</s> interesting that a goblin picador can harpoon you and pull you around the battlefield. But how many goblin picadors can you fight before that just becomes annoying, along with most goblins' ability to shift away when you miss them? Earlier D&D goblins are as boring as they get, being nothing but a weapon and a few hit points in combat, but you never expect the coolness from goblins, so you don't usually miss it.My concern with 4e is, despite PCs and monsters having much more flavorful and tactically interesting choices in combat, that the more flashy and exciting those choices are, the more you'll notice their repetition, thus potentially turning a great strength of 4e against it. I hope this doesn't happen, at least not to the point of making the game unenjoyable for a lot of people. I don't think we'll get a good sense of this until people have gotten some long-term playing in.</blockquote>

Verification