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!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Lets muddy the water some. Once you leave the PH1

Let's not. The accusation was leveled the moment the PH1 was out, and it was refuted, from the PH1. Case closed. It was false - most charitably, an example of ill-advised or ignorant hyperbole.

When we go behind the hyperbole and look at the remaining claim, the one you repeated, above, that the /presentation/ made powers merely /seem/ samey, you have a much more subjective, and thus not strictly falsifiable claim.

But, it's, once again an inconsistent one, because many things in D&D have been presented in the same format, before, without complaint.

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

Just for one of many possible refutations: No fighter power is subject to Dispel Magic.

But, rather than circling the edition war merry-go-round of proving your statement false, and you re-hashing it in a different form in the hopes of finding one power it's true for, let's take a huge leap, and assume, for the sake of the current discussion that you're right. That Fighters actually do have plenty of implement, area, powers that create zones doing typed damage that can be Dispeled, and that some of them even have the same names and exact same write-ups as some other classes use.

Two classes or more sharing abilities that have the same presentation, same name, and same mechanics, are nothing new to D&D, yet they've never led to calling those classes 'samey' before, or since - with the sole exception of the Sorcerer & Wizard sharing virtually identical spell lists, which caused a pretty minor stir.

And, we are left with another of these preplexing inconsistencies.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

It is a strange idea, that characters would derive power from the deity they worship through 'prayers,' rather than by memorizing spells, no?

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's no "virtually" to it. The arcane classes in 3e d20 all use the same identical spell list.

There's a few exceptions, like the 'Mnemonic Enhancer.'

 

[Wicht]

Edit: correcting myself...

... the idea that it was somehow widely controversial. I don't remember that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

Could be.

 

[Wicht]

There's a few exceptions, like the 'Mnemonic Enhancer.'

You are right, I stand corrected, though its still in the "Wizard and Sorcerer" Spell list, it is a wizard only spell.

But I still don't remember that much controversy about them sharing the same spell list.

 

[Imaro]

Let's not. The accusation was leveled the moment the PH1 was out, and it was refuted, from the PH1. Case closed. It was false - most charitably, an example of ill-advised or ignorant hyperbole.

When we go behind the hyperbole and look at the remaining claim, the one you repeated, above, that the /presentation/ made powers merely /seem/ samey, you have a much more subjective, and thus not strictly falsifiable claim.

Dismissal, and wait for it... wait for it...

But, it's, once again an inconsistent one, because many things in D&D have been presented in the same format, before, without complaint.

inconsistent... how'd I know that was coming...

Just for one of many possible refutations: No fighter power is subject to Dispel Magic.

Does dispel magic even exist in 4e?

But, rather than circling the edition war merry-go-round of proving your statement false, and you re-hashing it in a different form in the hopes of finding one power it's true for, let's take a huge leap, and assume, for the sake of the current discussion that you're right. That Fighters actually do have plenty of implement, area, powers that create zones doing typed damage that can be Dispeled, and that some of them even have the same names and exact same write-ups as some other classes use.

Two classes or more sharing abilities that have the same presentation, same name, and same mechanics, are nothing new to D&D, yet they've never led to calling those classes 'samey' before, or since - with the sole exception of the Sorcerer & Wizard sharing virtually identical spell lists, which caused a pretty minor stir.

I think every class sharing the same structure only occurs in 4e... there are levels... just because I like pepper on my food doesn't mean I like a whole can of it straight...

And, we are left with another of these preplexing inconsistencies.

Are we??

 

[Shasarak]

It is a strange idea, that characters would derive power from the deity they worship through 'prayers,' rather than by memorizing spells, no?

No, I always imagined that a "Prayer" based mechanic would be better represented by spontaneously casting up to the maximum of your spell slots...or I guess "Prayer" slots maybe a better term.

So rather then having to memorise your "Prayers" in the morning (or even worse having a fixed list of prayers that not only you can not change except by going up a level but also did not need to be "Prayed" for) you could tailor your prayers to your situation. I mean imagine if Moses had not memorised a part water spell on the right day, doh!

 

[Tony Vargas]

You are right, I stand corrected, though its still in the "Wizard and Sorcerer" Spell list, it is a wizard only spell.

But I still don't remember that much controversy about them sharing the same spell list.

It wasn't a huge controversy, but the Sorcerer had it's detractors who believed that the lack of a 'unique' spell list meant the class was redundant, in spite of its spontaneous casting - they also generally claimed that spontaneous casting was strictly inferior. And, for purposes of the optimization Tier, for instance, it arguably isn't /as/ good.

Personally I quite liked the Sorcerer. The very lack of 'strategic flexibility' that it 'suffered' from made it very good for more unique magic-using concept builds. Where using a prepped caster as the base of a build left you with this constant temptation to learn or prep a spell that didn't fit the concept out of expediency, with the Sorcerer, you only added/changed spells known at chargen/level-up, so you kept a a more consistent realization of the concept.

 

[Imaro]

Could be.

It's clear from the way this is circling that we're not making any progress. Consider it dropped. You have every right to be inconsistent, or even outright arbitrary, in your 'reasoning' about something as subjective as what game you like.

How big of you... thanks for the permission...