Power sources vice classes for power selection

[Rubik_the_Cube]

I'm toying with the idea of allowing players to select any power from their class' Power Source rather than only those normally offered to the class. If this was the only thing changed e.g. no changes to feats, paragon paths, etc.; what do yo think the effects would be?

-RtC

 

[Balesir]

You would have a world full of Fighters and Rogues with Twin Strike, and a lot of discussion over whether a pact is required for Warlock At-Will powers such as Eyebite only for a Warlock, or for a Rogue also...

Other effects may accrue, as well.

 

[Rubik_the_Cube]

I understand that players would take powers from other classes; that is the intent. The question is: what would the effects be? To use one of your examples, would a fighter with twin striker be more or less combat effective than a ranger with twin strike? Also, I don't think Rouge and Warlock share a power source. Did I misunderstand your point re: warlock powers?

-RtC

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I understand that players would take powers from other classes; that is the intent. The question is: what would the effects be? To use one of your examples, would a fighter with twin striker be more or less combat effective than a ranger with twin strike? Also, I don't think Rouge and Warlock share a power source. Did I misunderstand your point re: warlock powers?

-RtC

More choice means more power, even if most of the new choices were suboptimal. Of course more choices also means more chances to make bad decisions. I'm personally not a fan of mixing roles that much (it's one reason I don't allow hybrids in my campaign).

A fighter using Twin Strike would deal more damage than a typical fighter, plus could still use Combat Challenge and so forth. It still wouldn't match the ranger, but would come close (it's missing out on Hunter's Quarry, for instance).

I'd be leery of, say, a wizard who could also be a striker by poaching warlock powers and a defender by poaching swordmage powers and a leader by stealing bard powers. This combination would probably be weaker than a wizard, but just like hybrids can be very weak, so could a wizard that doesn't know what it wants to do when a battle erupts.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Depending on your group's mentality of play, you could have a great game of wild variety, satisfied players who get to play exactly what they want OR you could have some arcane casters take wizard spells, every primal character take barbarian powers and every martial character having twin-strike and others going for the weaker powers and have vast disparity and the potential conflict this can lead to...

If your group is about fun for all without to much CharOp-ness, I'd say it would be very cool. If your group has a few players who feel a bit more strongly about balance and optimization, I'd suggest you do not open up all powers to everyone...

 

[Dice4Hire]

It could be interesting and would allow characters to do a lot of different stuff.

My main worry would be utilities. Each class has a few good utilities and a lot of drek. There could be a lot of cherry picking. I am guilty enough of that when I have to hybrid or use feats to cherry pick, but doing it at no cost might be a bit much.

For example, why would every martial class not take Rousing words for a nice encounter heal? I think every character I made would have it if they were martail.

All that said, I think it could be very interesting.

 

[Rubik_the_Cube]

Thanks for the replies folks. So far they've confirmed what I was thinking.

I'm not overly concerned with increased power. As the DM I set the challenges and it's easy enough to increase their difficulty as needed. I'm more concerned about power disparity between PCs. I think there would be more opportunity, but I don't know if the result would be much worse than what already exists between a skilled optimizer and someone drawn to trap options. I think it's within that margin of error.

Would it change anyone's opinion to know this would be a small group; three regulars and one that comes about one in three sessions?

Thanks again!

-RtC

 

[MoutonRustique]

Would it change anyone's opinion to know this would be a small group; three regulars and one that comes about one in three sessions?

Thanks again!
-RtC

If the "un-regular" one is willing to accept advice from the others or yourself on building choices, and your regular players talk to each other and build their characters together, then I'd lean into the "go for it" camp.

It all boils down to : will the PCs have a similar power level. (As you yourself have already pointed out.) Everything else simply means a bit of work on your (DM) side of things - which is fairly easy in 4e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think you will find that there will be basically a must-have power for every single power slot. Every martial character will be using Twin Strike as their standard at-will of course, but beyond that in essence everyone will just find the strongest set of class features in each role and then take the powers they want. Why be a ranger when you can be a twin striking DEX fighter with a bow and have better hit points and basically all the advantages of a ranger.

 

[Rubik_the_Cube]

Why would a twin striking Dex fighter with a bow be better than a ranger? How would they have "all the advantages of a ranger"? Having more hit points is great, sure. Are fighter feats better than ranger feats for a twin striking bow wielder? Is marking better than hunter's quarry?

I was thinking it would be an interesting way to cherry pick powers to make a given class even better at its role; e.g. a twin striking fighter better than a non-twin striking fighter at fightering. I hadn't thought it would make a given class better at being a different class than the original; e.g. a twin striking fighter better than a ranger at rangering.

I'm interested to hear more of your thoughts if you have time.

- RtC