7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?

When asked what he was working on, WotC's Chris Perkins revealed a couple of juicy tidbits. They're not much, but they're certainly tantalizing. Initially, he said that "Our marketing team has a big reveal in the works", and followed that up separately with "Right now I'm working on the next seven years of D&D stories". What all that might mean is anybody's guess, but it sounds like there are plans for D&D stretching into the foreseeable future! Thanks to Barantor for the scoop!

 

[Imaro]

You reject limited-use mechanics in one system, but not in another. That's the inconsistency, you also said their 'dissonance' contributed to your rejection of 4e, which is tangental, yes, and not that interesting. You go on to provide more and more detail to explain how one instance is different, yet each new objection you uncover in one turns out to be present in the other, as well. The inconsistency remains.

So now we're using the broad category of limited use mechanics... LOL, it's like claiming it's inconsistent to dislike oranges but not apples because they're all fruit. Again there is no inconsistency in my like or dislike. In fact the only inconsistency that remains is your ever changing criteria for "similarity"... what's next, let me guess... it's also inconsistent to dislike 4e and like 5e because they both use d20...The hoops being jumped through and stretching of the meaning of same in your comparisons is approaching a ridiculous level.

It could be resolved, but, not, I suspect, without looking at the bigger picture rather than deeper detail.

It's not being resolved because instead of addressing the differences in the mechanics... you dismiss them and create your own motives, thoughts, etc. for other posters... it's like you're having a conversation with yourself. How about actually addressing any of the actual differences in the mechanics? Even if it's one of the one's [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] even admits exist? I guess that would be too much to ask... because then instead of just pronouncing answers and ascribing thoughts to people you'd have to actually engage in a discussion at some point.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the not-lining-up 'gotchya' - AFAICT, that's where we started - but the rest of your response seems to wander from the topic at hand, and you do keep presenting two different rationales for things that are essentially the same, with the only difference being the context in which they occur.

Wrong you've gone to such a high level of vagueness (limited use mechanics) to force a "sameness" on different mechanics that the comparison criteria you're using has become absurd.

While it would be nice to take a step back and see if we could find out what about that context is problematic in one case, and excuses any issues in the other, your unwillingness to do so merely leaves an example of the kind of inconsistencies we were talking about, sadly unresolved.

Well when you actually take the time to read and address the actual reasons I've given perhaps then we can get somewhere... but I'm starting to realize you are probably more interested in staying within your own comfort zone about 4e and you're pre-constructed notions of why many people don't like it than trying to learn and understand... if you change you're mind though I'm still here.

 

[Remathilis]

Of course, you put "spells" in quotes, because you know they weren't spells. 'Casting spells' isn't the issue. As you go on to spell out:

Almost as if I had asked for another example of this same sort of inconsistency, you provide one. The claim is that using a similar mechanical format for different things makes them aesthetically 'the same.'

Now, we can find multiple examples of that happening in each modern edition. Skills, for instance, all use the same format and the same resolution, yet they're not objected to as 'samey.' The wizard, cleric, and druid use the same format, same casting system, and even actually share some of the same spells amongst themselves, but no objection.

Clearly the objection is not to mechanics using a consistent format, but to what they mean in the broader context of the whole game:

So, the objection, is, at bottom, to balance, itself. Once viewed in that light, the inconsistency is resolved.

As I just responded to Pemerton above, the devil is in the presentation.

Lets look at three examples: Channel Divinity (Cleric), Ray of Frost (Wizard Spell) and Maneuvering Attack (Battlemaster Maneuver).

[sblock=Turn Undead]View attachment 67608[/sblock]
[sblock=Maneuvers]View attachment 67609[/sblock]
[sblock=Ray of Frost]View attachment 67610[/sblock]

Notice: the 4e verison formats them all the same; as powers. They rely on jargon (burst 2, slowed, shift) rather than explaining the effect in natural language (30 ft radius, reduce speed 10 ft, move without provoking an opportunity attack). While the 5e version is a bit vague on description, it clearly spells out the intent (especially true of Turn Undead, which 4e treats like a regular attack power, complete with damage)

By using natural language, I can easily understand the ability without reading the power block and trying to determine its use by deducing that "pushed a number of square" supposed to represent "must spend its turns fleeing". Moreover, it doesn't look like if I blotted out the italic text and changed the class name headers, the 4e versions could be swapped around without anyone being the wiser.

It might be a preference thing (and I don't expect everyone to agree) but it has everything to do with the fact I can look the 5e versions and tell they are form different classes using different resolution mechanics, whereas the 4e versions are all cut from the same mold and resolve using the same mechanic; the very definition of samey.

 

[Imaro]

I do find it more than a little ironic that I am being told by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] that the 5e Battlemaster maneuvers and 4e martial powers are the same... but in the same thread at least one of them is arguing that the 4e powers are all somehow totally different from each other... say what now??

 

[Tony Vargas]

what's next, let me guess... it's also inconsistent to dislike 4e and like 5e because they both use d20...

I haven't heard anyone say they reject a version of D&D for using a d20. If someone were to, yes, it would be glaringly inconsistent of them.

It's not being resolved because instead of addressing the differences in the mechanics... you dismiss

I'm not dismissing anything. It's just that every 'difference' you've come up with turns out to be present in both cases.

How about actually addressing any of the actual differences in the mechanics?

Have done, every one of them:

[sblock]

And here plain as day is the biggest difference between the two implementations of maneuvers in the systems... one is a set of one-use abilities while the other is a pool of "uses" to fuel maneuvers... One lines up pretty seamlessly with the fiction of drawing on a trained reserve to accomplish special fighting moves... while the other one seems to imply the same fiction but the modelling seems off. You want to call it a game issue fine, whatever but it certainly caused a certain level of dissonance in verisimilitude for my group when we tried to give 4e a chance.

So, the fact that a 4e fighter can't trade in his higher-level encounter encounter - or more 'exhausting' daily - for an extra use of his lower-level encounter, even though all are tied to stamina-related recovery, is 'dissonant' enough to wreck the game for you? But, the fact that the battlemaster can't trade in his Action Surge or Second Wind for more CS dice, even though all three have stamina-related explanations and relate back to stamina-related recovery, is in no way troubling? No 'dissonance' there?

Why would one be able to trade in Action Surge or Second Wind (which states specifically that this is a limited well of stamina that does one specific thing) for more combat superiority dice... they are different abilities which I assume require not just stamina but also different training...

Each 4e exploit presumably would have required different training, too. Likewise, battlemaster maneuvers would also presumably each require different training. If you object to the 4e fighter not having his encounter-recharge powers 'pooled,' why is it OK for the 5e fighters' stamina-and-training-based features to be silo'd?

Obviously, that's inconsistent.

this is further backed up by the fact that anyone can learn maneuvers and gain superiority dice through a feat... but one cannot learn action surge or second wind in the same way...

They'd have to MC to get those abilities. Again, not terribly different in the fiction. But that just points to them being more remarkable reserves of stamina - the kind you might trade for multiple CS dice, if this were about verisimilitude.

As an example to further clarify the point I am making here... cycling increases your overall stamina but you can't decide to trade in your cycling stamina and expect to run a marathon without ever having jogged. You need further training and building up your stamina within the realm of running to specifically do that... while they both require stamina they are two different things.

I'm fine with that. It's the kind of things 4vengers said when confronted with being too 'tired' to do one exploit, but still able to do another.

On the other hand 4e tells me that two abilities that are supposed to be the same type somehow have specific, finite, individual reserves of stamina

They have the same recharge mechanism. That's the only verisimilitude or in-fiction sense in which they're the same 'type.' Action Surge, CS Dice, and Second Wind are all short-or-long-rest recharge. Fighters had encounter powers that restored hps for them, too - that'd be pretty different from, say, Come & Get It. So they don't draw on the same reserve or same training. Just like Action Surge and Second Wind don't in 5e.

Every 'difference' you dream up turns out to be present in both cases in one form or another.
[/sblock]

In contrast, Remathilis resolves one inconsistency, by bringing it into a larger context.

First off, the EK is not the default mode the fighter runs in. Of the three fighter archetypes, it's the most radical departure from the stock model. If I want my fighter to cast spells, I have to opt in to it.

Of course, that's only half the resolution, the other being that fighters don't actually cast spells in both cases, only in the case of the EK. :shrug:

I do find it more than a little ironic that I am being told by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] that the 5e Battlemaster maneuvers and 4e martial powers are the same... but in the same thread at least one of them is arguing that the 4e powers are all somehow totally different from each other... say what now??

The aspects of the mechanics in question (limited use representing 'stamina' in the 5e battlemaster and 4e Weaponmaster abilities in question (individual encounter exploits vs maneuvers, actions surge & second wind, yet that stamina being somehow silo'd) are, indeed, very similar, both in general mechanics and how those mechanics relate to the fiction. As has been demonstrated, above.

While it's an entirely different case (comparing things within an edition, instead of accross eds), 4e powers from different classes are, of course, quite different from eachother. No class actually shared the same power with another (unlike all other editions, where two or more casters may have some the exact same spells in their lists). Some have /very/ similar effects to the point that it might have been more efficient to list powers by Source rather than Class, but different sources have /very/ different powers.

Look at 'fighters cast spells.' It's factually false, because spells, in 4e, are arcane powers, and fighters get none. But, what it's /trying/ to say is that presenting completely different abilities in the same format makes them the same. That's what you just claimed, and it is also factually false. We'll compare exploits and spells to illustrate that falsehood:

[sblock]Open up your 4e PH1, and look through the at-will, encounter, and daily attack powers of all 4 martial classes:

You will find that:

None of those powers use implements, virtually all use weapons.
None of them are Area attacks, most are melee or ranged.
None of them do typed damage.
Those that are close attacks target 'enemies you can see.'
All use either STR or DEX.
Some dailies are 'reliable.'
No exploit creates a zone.

Now, repeat the process with actual spells from the two Arcane classes presented:

You will find that:

Virtually all use implements
Very few are Melee range, none Melee Weapon*, and many are Area attacks
Many do typed damage
Close attacks target 'all creatures' or 'enemies' in the area, rather than only enemies 'you can see.'
All use either INT, CHA, or CON.
Some create zones.
None are 'reliable.'

Even were you to strip the powers of their names, class, level, fluff text and source keywords, it would be readily apparent which are spells and which are exploits.

*[sblock]If you look at Paragon Path powers, as well, you /will/ find a power or two that uses the weapon keyword, in the Wizard of the Spiral Tower, a paragon fighter/magic-user stand in that uses weapons. Of course, they're also not class attack powers.[/sblock]

[/sblock]

 

[Tony Vargas]

As I just responded to Pemerton above, the devil is in the presentation.

There's no question that 4e choose clarity and consistency in it's presentation, over natural language ambiguity. It did make large sections of 4e read more like a rulebook or technical manual than like exposition in a novel. A little dry if you try to plow through it in an evening, but nice when you're determining what something does.

But, trying to suggest that the same presentation makes two things the same, and that's a problem in 4e, but in no other edition brings up yet another one of these inconsistencies. Spells in each edition, are presented in the same format. And, that presentation crosses both class and 'source' lines, with clerics, druids, wizards &c all using 'spells' rather than having any distinction between magic from the gods, magic from nature, or magic from arcane secrets. Yet there's little complaint voiced that casters are all somehow 'samey.' Even though they are not only presented in the same format, using the same format, but take it a step further and re-cycle the exact same spell in different class lists. 5e & 3e take that samey-ness another step further, by presenting all spells, for all classes not only in the same format, but all together, in alphabetical order. Yet 5e and 3e casters classes aren't derided for being 'the same.'

Only when 3.5 took it to the extreme of giving the Sorcerer and Wizard virtually identical spell lists were a few eyebrows raised.

 

[Remathilis]

Even were you to strip the powers of their names, class, level, fluff text and source keywords, it would be readily apparent which are spells and which are exploits.

Lets muddy the water some. Once you leave the PH1:

* Swordmages (FRCS, literally the 9th class printed) have arcane attacks with the Melee Weapon property. Artificer (ECS) and Bard (PH2) also have Arcane Weapon Attacks.
* Swordmages also have Reliable Powers.

Importantly, Primal PCs (which encompass former spellcaster, the druid) and Divine casters (of Cleric fame) freely break both these rules; having weapon and implement powers, typed and untyped damage, reliable, have "you can see" area attacks, and can create zones. But of course, you're playing a semantics game since "Spells" used to encompass divine magic, which 4e named Prayers and Evocations so you can ignore them since they aren't Spells as 4e defines it since 4e all "Spells" are Arcane.

So I'll adjust my statement: Fighter Powers are indistinguishable from Magic because they are written up using the same format as Magic.

 

[Shasarak]

Look at 'fighters cast spells.' It's factually false, because spells, in 4e, are arcane powers, and fighters get none. But, what it's /trying/ to say is that presenting completely different abilities in the same format makes them the same. That's what you just claimed, and it is also factually false. We'll compare exploits and spells to illustrate that falsehood:

You are right, I always did find it odd that Clerics could not cast spells in 4e.

 

[Wicht]

Only when 3.5 took it to the extreme of giving the Sorcerer and Wizard virtually identical spell lists were a few eyebrows raised.

There's no "virtually" to it. The arcane classes in 3e d20 all use the same identical spell list. And it wasn't introduced in 3.5. It was a feature from the very beginning of 3rd edition. And I was never aware that it raised any eyebrows.

 

[Imaro]

I haven't heard anyone say they reject a version of D&D for using a d20. If someone were to, yes, it would be glaringly inconsistent of them.

And I didn't reject a version of D&D for using the Battlemaster maneuvers... I (partially) rejected one for using the 4e Fighter powers.... yet for some reason you can't seem to differentiate between the two as different mechanically (though 4ed powers aren't "samey" they are totally different) as well as in the level of verisimilitude they provide for people... even after repeated attempts to explain it...

I'm not dismissing anything. It's just that every 'difference' you've come up with turns out to be present in both cases.

That's all you've done...is dismiss

Have done, every one of them:

No, all you've continuously done is draw incorrect parallels between the two different sets of mechanics... oh and type out inconsistent...every few sentences.

Every 'difference' you dream up turns out to be present in both cases in one form or another.

Ah, ok... are you joking... is that really what you believe the incomplete exchange you posted shows? Again we are entering the realm of the absurd here...

The aspects of the mechanics in question (limited use representing 'stamina' in the 5e battlemaster and 4e Weaponmaster abilities in question (individual encounter exploits vs maneuvers, actions surge & second wind, yet that stamina being somehow silo'd) are, indeed, very similar, both in general mechanics and how those mechanics relate to the fiction. As has been demonstrated, above.

Where was this demonstrated? Show me a single argument where you laid out why these two mechanics are the same (which was your original argument, not similar)... What we've got is multiple posters outside of you and @Hussar saying they are actually different...

While it's an entirely different case (comparing things within an edition, instead of accross eds), 4e powers from different classes are, of course, quite different from eachother. No class actually shared the same power with another (unlike all other editions, where two or more casters may have some the exact same spells in their lists). Some have /very/ similar effects to the point that it might have been more efficient to list powers by Source rather than Class, but different sources have /very/ different powers.

I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone ...

EDIT: Just to get this straight... Battlemaster maneuvers and martial powers are the same... but martial powers and other powers n 4e are not even similar or "samey"...

 

[Umbran]

I'm not dismissing anything. It's just that every 'difference' you've come up with turns out to be present in both cases.

I like chocolate sauce on my ice cream sundae.

I despise chocolate sauce on my eggplant parmigiana sub.

I am inconsistent! Oh, no! What shall we do!

Tony, please top insisting that others must meet your criteria of justification for liking or not liking something.