Continuing my debate with [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] regarding if fighters cast spells.
Manbearcat brings up various ball related sports as an analogy to potentially show how silly my argument is, in that if you remove some descriptions of ball sports they all sound identical.
Which, contrary to his intended point, I agree with.
The thing about martial powers in 4e, like most team-based ball sports on a field, is there are small differences between them an other "spells". Mostly the lack of energy types.
Bursts and blasts are not excluded. The fighter has a few close bursts and blasts, and classes like the rogue and ranger can make blasts as well. So, really, the difference between spells and martial exploits seems to only be different damage types and the ability to make ranged bursts.
As an example, lets look at stances. These are kinda one of the few keywords limited to exploits, although there are a number of other classes and power sources that use them. They're pretty much identical to rages and polymorphs: you use the power and cannot use another without causing the first to expire.
Yes, the flavour is different, but in play at the table, they function mechanically identical. The paint job is different.
As mentioned in a different thread or discussion, people, by their nature, will always seek out differences. When you look at the various on-field team-based ball sports you spot differences. American and Canadian football uses pads. There's less padding in Rugby and no offensive/defensive separation. Soccer/football does not let you use your hands. Basketball uses the hands instead of the feet and moves the goal vertical.
Huge differences.
Until compared to any other sport. When consider the length and breadth of the term "sport" the kick ball sports do seem rather indistinct and confusable.
Limited to 4e and just 4e it's easy to say "oh, there's lots of differences between spells and martial exploits". The name for one. Keywords seem to be HUGE. So just saying one is martial and one is arcane apparently makes the differences. A rose by any other name won't smell as sweet.
But when you consider just what other editions of the game have done with spells and martial powers the difference is huge. Not only do exploits kinda look like spells but most powers do kinda look the same.
To counter my complaint/question of how many powers were pretty much "#d8 + ability score damage plus a condition", Mr. Vargus once said:
A few. How many classic spells can be summed up as "do 1d6/level damage to some creatures."
To which I answer 1-2 per spell level, with 6+ being nothing like that. The vast majority of spells did different things while every 4e spell is the same: a blaster wizard spell.
Yes there are differences in flavour and description, but that's not only ignorable, many people actually re-write that to better describe their character. The ease and commonness of reflavouring powers makes the fluff text description irrelevant.
But name apparently matters.
So I think I have a good solution amicable for all. Since just calling a spell an "exploit" makes it a martial power, when 4e launches, take the sorcerer or wizard and rename their spells into exploits.
Magic missile can be carefully aimed dagger,
burning hands can be oil soaked blade and the like. As long as you don't call it a fighter it will be.