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]

Does dispel magic even exist in 4e?

Yep. PH1. IIRC, a 6th level Wizard Utility.

I think every class sharing the same structure only occurs in 4e...

Depends on where you draw the line. Every class used the same advancement and got the same number of HD in 3e, which was a big departure from prior eds, and on the other extreme, many classes in 4e deviated from the strict AEDU in their class features. All classes have always shared basically the same presentation format within a given edition, as well.

But, /yes/, the bigger picture is clearer. It's not just that fighters had some limited-use resources that some blogger could manufacture a label for, it's not that similar structures or presentations make several distinct game elements the same. It's the relative universality of AEDU - the details being complained about contributing to a clear, consistent, balanced game as a whole - that is that larger context that potentially resolves the observed inconsistencies.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I see no closed case. I see someone who set a very narrow parameter (no arcane spells in the PH1) and then ignores books that came out only a few months later that proved him wrong.

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.

Yes, yes I do have for exactly the reasons you /listed/ in slashes.

A fighter in 4e cannot cast ray of frost with his (nonmagical) longsword. But it doesn't matter; the fact is he is using the exact same mechanical expression. That expression makes it look (at a mechanical level) like the same thing.

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

By that logic, neither is a druid's wildshape. Complete natural and mundane ability, right?

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.

Again, if you had any more strawmen I'd think you ran a scarecrow business.

In 5e, a battlemaster fighter makes an attack roll (using the regular combat rules, including picking Str or Dex to hit) and then spends a superiority die to create an effect. A wizard uses a spell slot to create a magical effect and forces the foe to make a special ability check (called a saving throw) against the effect. These are two very different styles of mechanical resolution, no?

In 4e, the fighter uses an encounter power (using the power to determine what ability score to hit with) and then does the effect as described. A wizard uses an encounter power to create a magical effect that requires him to roll to hit (using the same power resolution mechanic as the fighter, swapping Int for Str and AC for, say, Ref) and does the effect as described. Very similar, no?

This similarity of how martial and magical effects resolve create sameness. There is little difference mechanically between spellcasting and non-spellcasting attacks, save a few keywords and limitations. Since all classes shared the same bonus (1/2 level), same ADEU power structure, and same power resolution mechanic, classes felt too similar compared the very different styles a fighter and wizard played as under 1, 2, 3, and 5e.

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

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Either way, history was on my side. Come 2010, ADEU was being experimented on (see Psionics, Essentials) and the one-size-fits-all system was abandoned come 5e. I'm satisfied.

 

[Imaro]

Yep. PH1. IIRC, a 6th level Wizard Utility.


Depends on where you draw the line. Every class used the same advancement and got the same number of HD in 3e, which was a big departure from prior eds, and on the other extreme, many classes in 4e deviated from the strict AEDU in their class features. All classes have always shared basically the same presentation format within a given edition, as well.

But, /yes/, the bigger picture is clearer. It's not just that fighters had some limited-use resources that some blogger could manufacture a label for, it's not that similar structures or presentations make several distinct game elements the same. It's the relative universality of AEDU - the details being complained about in being used in the delivery of a clear, consistent, balanced game as a whole - that is that larger context that potentially resolves the observed inconsistencies.

Well hopefully this means there's no need for you to continue in the discussion since you have everyone's thoughts, motives and inconsistencies figured out... I feel privileged to have met a true mind reader in my lifetime...

 

[Wicht]

And, for purposes of the optimization Tier, for instance, it arguably isn't /as/ good.

What is the optimization Tier?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I see no closed case. I see someone who set a very narrow parameter (no arcane spells in the PH1)

There were two classes worth of arcane spells in the PH1.

A fighter in 4e cannot cast ray of frost with his (nonmagical) longsword. But it doesn't matter; the fact is he is using the exact same mechanical expression.

The mechanical expression of the Ray of Frost included: Implement, Range: 10, One target, INT vs AC, 1d6+INTmod cold damage & slowed (end of turn).

When does the fighter use that exact same expression with his nonmagical longsword?

Never.

That expression makes it look (at a mechanical level) like the same thing.

In 1e, a dagger used by a 16 STR character and a 1st level magic missile both did the exact same 2-5 damage (there wasn't even a formal 'force' damage type for the MM). Did that make them the same thing? No.

By that logic, neither is a druid's wildshape. Complete natural and mundane ability, right?

The Druid has many powers that are subject to Dispel Magic.

In 4e, the fighter uses an encounter power (using the power to determine what ability score to hit with) and then does the effect as described. A wizard uses an encounter power to create a magical effect that requires him to roll to hit (using the same power resolution mechanic as the fighter, swapping Int for Str and AC for, say, Ref) and does the effect as described. Very similar, no?

Very funny. The corresponding bird's-eye view in 5e would be: fighter describes his action, DM describes result, wizard describes his action, DM describes result. Wow, they're identical - when you strip away all the many differences.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What is the optimization Tier?

A late 3.5 thing. A ranking of classes, mainly in descending order of versatility, with a few prepped casters on top, an the Sorcerer grouped in the runner-up 'Tier 2,' because of spontaneous casting.

 

[JRedmond]

Wow it's amazing how many threads go off topic here.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well hopefully this means there's no need for you to continue in the discussion ..

you seriously misconstrue 'clearer picture' and 'potentially resolves' as a conclusion. I was just pleased to see a teeny bit of progress.

 

[Imaro]

you seriously misconstrue 'clearer picture' and 'potentially resolves' as a conclusion. I was just pleased to see a teeny bit of progress.

The problem is that you're not getting a clearer picture, you're sticking to the picture you've already constructed...

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem is that you're not getting a clearer picture, you're sticking to the picture you've already constructed...

OK, grab some straw and mock up that picture...

I mean, you could turn around any of these inconsistencies we're looking at and ask, why /I/ liked the 4E weaponmaster but not the 5e battlemaster.