Power sources. What's the point?

[DSRilk]

Originally, I thought of power sources as guidelines, but when they showed up as keywords... well, that implies mechanical affects - maybe not now, but potentially later. And this bothers me. Mainly it bothers me because I don't think they were used rationally in all cases. All fighter powers are martial -- even the one that has the "charm" keyword (which implies by its nature some kind of mental control - and I'm not sure what kind of natural "martial" sword swinging allows you to control someone else's mind). All ranger powers are martial, even one with the illusion keyword. I have no problem with epic level rangers drawing in the natural powers of the feywild to cloak themselves in mist or rogues "teleporting" by stepping from shadow to shadow, but for pity's sake, those just aren't "martial" powers as far as I'm concerned. I'm just not sure why they didn't bother to allow some classes to flex a little bit, especially at epic levels. This stuff also bothers me because it implies that none of the paladin's powers (for example) are drawn from his skill at arms. It just seems weird to me.

One thing I haven't seen is "mind affecting" or "language dependent" as key words. Those made a lot of sense to me, and certainly would fit more under the "martial" guise.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Originally, I thought of power sources as guidelines, but when they showed up as keywords... well, that implies mechanical affects - maybe not now, but potentially later. And this bothers me. Mainly it bothers me because I don't think they were used rationally in all cases. All fighter powers are martial -- even the one that has the "charm" keyword (which implies by its nature some kind of mental control - and I'm not sure what kind of natural "martial" sword swinging allows you to control someone else's mind). All ranger powers are martial, even one with the illusion keyword. I have no problem with epic level rangers drawing in the natural powers of the feywild to cloak themselves in mist or rogues "teleporting" by stepping from shadow to shadow, but for pity's sake, those just aren't "martial" powers as far as I'm concerned. I'm just not sure why they didn't bother to allow some classes to flex a little bit, especially at epic levels. This stuff also bothers me because it implies that none of the paladin's powers (for example) are drawn from his skill at arms. It just seems weird to me.

One thing I haven't seen is "mind affecting" or "language dependent" as key words. Those made a lot of sense to me, and certainly would fit more under the "martial" guise.

You cannot let power sources bother you. 4E requires one to "go with the flow" and not overthink it. Someone mentioned that everyone is a caster now but I see it in the opposite way. There are no more casters. Everyone on the domain (or campaign) is in the power users group. The flavor or source of the power has very little to do with what the power can accomplish, but is more concerned with describing how it does it. For example:

Martial power: your skill at arms does X weapon damage and moves the enemy 1 square.

Arcane power: Raw magical energy strikes your enemy for X arcane damage and prevents the enemy from moving (save ends)

Divine Power: Your deity hates your enemy and slaps him for X radiant damage.

Everyone uses powers so the concept of a "caster" no longer exists. Go with the flow and don't let little things like the Confusion power (which is now simply mind control that also causes damage) to bother you.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally, I thought of power sources as guidelines, but when they showed up as keywords... well, that implies mechanical affects - maybe not now, but potentially later. And this bothers me. Mainly it bothers me because I don't think they were used rationally in all cases. All fighter powers are martial -- even the one that has the "charm" keyword (which implies by its nature some kind of mental control - and I'm not sure what kind of natural "martial" sword swinging allows you to control someone else's mind). All ranger powers are martial, even one with the illusion keyword. I have no problem with epic level rangers drawing in the natural powers of the feywild to cloak themselves in mist or rogues "teleporting" by stepping from shadow to shadow, but for pity's sake, those just aren't "martial" powers as far as I'm concerned. I'm just not sure why they didn't bother to allow some classes to flex a little bit, especially at epic levels. This stuff also bothers me because it implies that none of the paladin's powers (for example) are drawn from his skill at arms. It just seems weird to me.

One thing I haven't seen is "mind affecting" or "language dependent" as key words. Those made a lot of sense to me, and certainly would fit more under the "martial" guise.

Are there actually Fighter or Ranger powers with the Charm or Teleport keywords? Because I would expect that such powers would definitely not fall under "Martial". (Maybe a Rogue utility power that enhances your Diplomacy?)

 

[WalterKovacs]

In the PHB:

All the Divine classes [so far] have a class feature called Channel Divinity. Once per encounter you can use ONE of your Channel Divinity abilities. Each class has two of them, and based on your choice of patron diety, you can take a feat to gain a third. Thus, there are feats that are solely for divine power sourced characters in the PHB. Also, the Paladin and Cleric share an implement [holy symbol], as does the Wizard and Warlock [wand is the 'shared' implement ... would make sense to be the "standard" arcane implement of choice]. This is relevant for magical items, as the enancement bonus on a wand would apply to wizard and warlock powers [arcane spells] with the implement keyword. Similarly cleric/paladin powers [divine spells] reacting to the enchancement on a magical divine symbol. In general the 'shared' nature of weapons/implements makes multiclassing "within" your power source a bit easier. Most of the martial powers are weapon based ... so any power you steal from the similarly powered classes likely does not require you carry an implement AND a weapon ... or a holy symbol AND a wand, for example.

The splat books that focus on specific power sources will probably get into this area in terms of feats. Since they won't have any new classes, [instead, new builds for existing classes, new paragon paths, new epic destinies, new feats, new equipment] they should definitely have room for "power source specific" feats.

 

[DSRilk]

Are there actually Fighter or Ranger powers with the Charm or Teleport keywords

Yes, there's Charm as a keyword for a fighter power and Illusion as a keyword for a ranger power. There may be other weird ones, but those are two examples I recall off the top of my head.

You cannot let power sources bother you. 4E requires one to "go with the flow" and not overthink it.

I'm a 4e fan, but I don't think it's reasonable for people to "not over think it." That may work for some types of players, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for some of us to quiver when we hear things like "powers wizards replace are removed from their spell book" without the writers even bothering to give us some in-character rationale. I'm all for game balance, but at least help me figure out some kind of reasonable explanation for some of the silliness. One can argue that movement has become an abstraction when the issue of the Firesquare <ahem> fireball power comes up, but spell books aren't really an abstraction... as an example.

But no, I'm not letting it bother me to the point that I won't play 4e - it has way too many positive points over previous editions in my mind for it to get in my way. I do, however, find it... silly. And annoying. And unlike some things, I can't even see a reason for it (unlike square fireballs, which while goofy, has at least some merit in the fact that it's easier to use for some people). But just splatting "martial" next to every fighter power regardless of the mechanical keywords and effect associated with it? That's pushing it.

 

[doctorhook]

Yes, there's Charm as a keyword for a fighter power and Illusion as a keyword for a ranger power. There may be other weird ones, but those are two examples I recall off the top of my head.

...

Well, we've acknowledged that in 4E, hit points and healing are abstractions and movement is an abstraction, so why can't keywords like "charm" and "illusion" be abstractions too?

A fighter might "charm" when he's goading someone to attack him, though it may not strictly be a 'magical compulsion'-type effect; he's affecting someone's mind with words and body language, not necessarily mystical power.

A ranger might create an "illusion" of himself disappearing into the bushes through shear speed and skill combined with common misdirection; in this case, his "illusion" isn't really any more mystical than a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

Of course, Martial powers could be slightly mystical -- Design & Development said that high-level Martial characters would be capable of things that are strictly impossible in reality -- but I still believe the Martial power source is primarily rooted in the realm of the possible and semi-possible.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm a 4e fan, but I don't think it's reasonable for people to "not over think it." That may work for some types of players, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for some of us to quiver when we hear things like "powers wizards replace are removed from their spell book" without the writers even bothering to give us some in-character rationale. I'm all for game balance, but at least help me figure out some kind of reasonable explanation for some of the silliness. One can argue that movement has become an abstraction when the issue of the Firesquare <ahem> fireball power comes up, but spell books aren't really an abstraction... as an example.

But no, I'm not letting it bother me to the point that I won't play 4e - it has way too many positive points over previous editions in my mind for it to get in my way. I do, however, find it... silly. And annoying. And unlike some things, I can't even see a reason for it (unlike square fireballs, which while goofy, has at least some merit in the fact that it's easier to use for some people). But just splatting "martial" next to every fighter power regardless of the mechanical keywords and effect associated with it? That's pushing it.

Believe me I understand your concerns. I can play without thinking about it too much because it will be as a standalone tactics game. For consistent world campaign play I will be using something else. For that 4E would lead to madness.

 

[lutecius]

If it's just about filling a grid, I agree.
But concepts like "Primal" or "Psionic" definitely describe something new and interesting.

Primal, right... groundbreaking.
I believe the reason why the ranger wasn't lumped in there this time, is that he made the cut for phb1 at the last minute, and they didn't want to introduce a whole new power source for just one class. And that's how we ended up with two martial strikers, too.

Psionic. uh, seriously?

Do we?

Yes, we do. And you will too, when you realize how misguided you are

Since that is what he mostly was in 3E, I think that what he will be in 4E. There is a strong implication it might be stronger linked to "Wild Mage" then "Wizard". Maybe something "Primal"?

No. The point of the sorcerer in 3e was to provide an alternative to Vancian spellcasting, he just happened to make a good blaster. That was by no means the only viable option.

But yes, now that classes are all going sort of vancian, the sorcerer will be stuck with a particular role and theme. Most likely elemental controller (but maybe striker or even defender), if the R&C article is still an indication. The "wild magic" aspect looks like a perfect fit for that "elemental chaos" concept.

Roles never made sense, because there was never someone best suited to holding off attacks, while others strike from distance or otherwise avoid staying close to their enemies, some buff their allies, or some heal their allies, or some attack groups of enemies at once?

There was never a role-playing game that had roles classes like Cleric, Fighting Man, Magic-User and Thief.

Note that i said the roles, as in these particular roles, not roles in general, but yes, the further dnd departs from its idiosyncratic restrictions and wargamey origins, the better as far as I’m concerned.

The thing is, now that the mechanical differences between magic and mundane abilities have been erased (not a bad thing per se), these four roles overlap but don't even cover the old dnd archetypes. We're already hearing about hybrid classes while others are made narrower than they've ever been since first edition.

Having a meat shield at low levels and some way to heal (be it one or several healers or just potions) is all the "roles" I want. No need to straitjacket whole classes for that.

 

[lutecius]

Power source has some mechanical effects; for example, the wizard's spellbook. Wizards can learn additional daily and utility spells beyond what they can use in a day, thanks to their spellbook class feature. As I understand it, if a Wizard multiclasses as another Arcane class, (ie: Warlock), the Wizard can use his daily and utility Warlock spells in conjunction with his spellbook class feature. In contrast, he couldn't use his spellbook with any daily or utility exploits or prayers he'd have learned from multiclassing into a Divine or Martial class.

I'm sure there are other examples, and that there will be more in future products, but this was the first example I thought of. Certainly, power sources have at least a little mechanical basis.

I think you got it wrong. You can only add spells that you have access to, and rituals.

All the Divine classes [so far] have a class feature called Channel Divinity. Once per encounter you can use ONE of your Channel Divinity abilities. Each class has two of them, and based on your choice of patron diety, you can take a feat to gain a third. Thus, there are feats that are solely for divine power sourced characters in the PHB. Also, the Paladin and Cleric share an implement [holy symbol], as does the Wizard and Warlock [wand is the 'shared' implement ... would make sense to be the "standard" arcane implement of choice]. This is relevant for magical items, as the enancement bonus on a wand would apply to wizard and warlock powers [arcane spells] with the implement keyword. Similarly cleric/paladin powers [divine spells] reacting to the enchancement on a magical divine symbol. In general the 'shared' nature of weapons/implements makes multiclassing "within" your power source a bit easier. Most of the martial powers are weapon based ... so any power you steal from the similarly powered classes likely does not require you carry an implement AND a weapon ... or a holy symbol AND a wand, for example.

Of course there are similar features in classes with the same power source, but none are binding. They could design an implement-less arcane caster and that wouldn't affect anything else mechanically.

As for compatibilty, i'd say there is more incentive to dip into classes with the same key abilities. I'm not sure warlock/wizard is the most advantageous combo, precisely because they have many similar powers in the first place.

 

[Mort_Q]

Psionic. uh, seriously?

Opinions are like that.