What is the essence of D&D

[Zardnaar]

the first two I remembered not the last

Those were the main ones off the top of my head. Poison delivery was another one, very useful for a Darksun bard with type E poison. Save vs poison or die, 20 damage if you succeed. DS bards got a free poison 1/day.

 

[Maxperson]

indeed why else would we bring up math

Let me see
.35 x2 +.35 x 2 +.35 x2 = 2.05 (mage probably hit)
.35 x2 +.35 x 2 +.35 x2 = 2.05
.35 x2 +.35 x 2 +.35 x2 = 2.05
three rounds likely 6.15 ... could interrupt an enemy spell caster
with even that first one could take out entirely kobold or various smaller ones even round one

Bastard sword from 1e is 2d4+1 (giving the 17 my fighter had in 1e)
.4x6 = 2.4 fighter probably didnt
.4x6 = 2.4 fighter fair chance but still not certain by now
.4x6 = 2.4 fighter has probably hit

The end result is a Mage could be pretty offensively effective

The fighter with a 17 strength is hitting the wizard with the 8 AC on an 11 or higher. He's hitting half the time. In two rounds he's hit 1 time on average, doing enough damage to take out the wizard unless he rolls 2 ones.

The wizard with the 16 dex trying to hit an AC of 5 needs a 15 or higher on the die, so he's missing 70% of the time. He will probably hit once per round, but even then, he can't take out the fighter with two hits and the fighter likely takes out the wizard by round 2.

Imagine if we gave the fighter a 16 in an off stat like dex.

 

[Zardnaar]

Smart wizard casts strength on fighter, average roll turns a 17 strength into 18/50 or so.

Best level 2 damage spell.

 

[Garthanos]

The fighter with a 17 strength is hitting the wizard with the 8 AC on an 11 or higher.

Except they are on the same team firing at an indeterminate enemy and I am shooting over the fighters shoulder? Did yu mess where I repeated it was sarcasm about them being vs each other? and I only did the sarcasm because you had already seemed to jump to a conclusion it was vs.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Just to address the bolded part...

If one is comparing powers from classes against each other, they really are, factually, quite different. As pointed out above, Come and Get it is very different from Blinding Barrage is very different from Powerful Warning is very different from Verdant Retaliation, etc. etc.

Within a class, yes, some powers were mere upgrades of other ones, and some effects of some powers were a tiny bonus because they instead did more damage. I can see those being similar...but what would make no sense at all is to say "Too similar for me to enjoy" but then do literally the same thing ("I attack recklessly!") over and over again and not find that "too similar to enjoy."

Non-casters in 5e have had their options made much more similar to each other than they ever did in 4e. Maybe barbarian powers in 4e weren't differentiated enough, but they were more differentiated than ever before or since.

Perception can sometimes be funny.

Have you ever walked into a store, found an aisle with three dozen slightly different variants on the theme of "shampoo", and felt like you'd really rather just have shampoo and be done with it? Like, even though the differences between the shampoo products are admittedly real, they are not as big a deal as the people trying to sell you the shampoo would like you to believe, and not worth your time and energy trying to sort through?

Or maybe you've never had that experience, and it makes no sense at all to you. So what? What does saying "That makes no sense at all!" accomplish? When the observable evidence makes no sense according to your premises, you can either get frustrated and scream and shout, or you can face up to the reality that something is wrong with your premises. So if people react one way to 4E and a different way to 5E, but this makes no sense because they're supposedly doing the same thing in both editions, then it's wrong to think they're doing the same thing in both editions. Some variable must be different. The constructive thing to do is to figure out what that might be. If I were you, I would start by exploring this "illusion of choice" phenomenon; it seems a likely suspect.

But, just a warning... If you or anybody else are gearing up to argue that that people are mistaken to regard 4E as offering mere "illusion of choice" because 4E's choices are real and meaningful, then: Stop. You have missed the point of this post entirely. Meditate further on the question "What does saying this accomplish?", delete whatever it was you were composing, and try again.

If you did get the point of this post, I'm sorry to have patronized you like that. But I felt it was necessary for the sake of absolute clarity.

 

[Garthanos]

Apparently my random to hit picked corresponds to us attacking Kobolds

 

[MichaelSomething]

Perception can sometimes be funny.

Have you ever walked into a store, found an aisle with three dozen slightly different variants on the theme of "shampoo", and felt like you'd really rather just have shampoo and be done with it? Like, even though the differences between the shampoo products are admittedly real, they are not as big a deal as the people trying to sell you the shampoo would like you to believe, and not worth your time and energy trying to sort through?

Or maybe you've never had that experience, and it makes no sense at all to you. So what? What does saying "That makes no sense at all!" accomplish? When the observable evidence makes no sense according to your premises, you can either get frustrated and scream and shout, or you can face up to the reality that something is wrong with your premises. So if people react one way to 4E and a different way to 5E, but this makes no sense because they're supposedly doing the same thing in both editions, then it's wrong to think they're doing the same thing in both editions. Some variable must be different. The constructive thing to do is to figure out what that might be. If I were you, I would start by exploring this "illusion of choice" phenomenon; it seems a likely suspect.

But, just a warning... If you or anybody else are gearing up to argue that that people are mistaken to regard 4E as offering mere "illusion of choice" because 4E's choices are real and meaningful, then: Stop. You have missed the point of this post entirely. Meditate further on the question "What does saying this accomplish?", delete whatever it was you were composing, and try again.

If you did get the point of this post, I'm sorry to have patronized you like that. But I felt it was necessary for the sake of absolute clarity.

Conversely, what pizza do you like? Deep dish? Thin crust? White or red? And what toppings do you like?

 

[Zardnaar]

Conversely, what pizza do you like? Deep dish? Thin crust? White or red? And what toppings do you like?

Not seafood pizza.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

This whole tangent started because someone made a spurious claim about defenders of 4e, and then someone else pointed out that rather a lot of haters make claims about 4e that are simply untrue.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure haters have said things about 4E that are untrue. There was a lot of vitriol going around (and, apparently, still is). However, so far as I've seen on this thread, all of the allegedly untrue claims allegedly made by 4E haters exist only in the accounts of 4E defenders. This raises several questions most pressingly (a) Are 4E defenders really the best source on the beliefs of 4E critics? and (b) What's the point of bringing all this up now?

(And, not to beat around the bush, I strongly suspect the answers to be (a) Hell no and (b) Because refighting old battles on our terms is a lot easier and more fun than seeking understanding of our opponents.)

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Conversely, what pizza do you like? Deep dish? Thin crust? White or red? And what toppings do you like?

You have now touched on a matter in which I have some professional experience.

Some customers have very specific preferences.
Other customers just want a "regular pizza", and will get sour with servers who waste their time bombarding them with options.