Roles & Removing Power Sources

[Aldarc]

I'm confused.

First you argue that the new power source mechanics are supposed to make things more flexible. Then when someone suggests you "flex" by changing...

divine=powered by some diety
to
divine=some other definition that fits your game world

...which allows maximum flexibility for character creation you get huffy and attack them for suggesting something in a friendly manner.

I swear people just do not listen or bother reading anymore. I was arguing that the new power source mechanics are making things more flexible in class removal. Particular power sources are no longer required to fill roles (i.e. divine clerics as support) if classes in other power sources can fill those roles. The other argument came in when people were resistant of the idea of removing the divine power source in favor of just redefining the fluff of the divine power source, which completely misses the point I was initially making. And you are further proving my point that people for some unknown reason are resistant to the idea of removing classes and power sources from campaigns! Why? This is not about flexibility, but campaign flavor and world-building.

What exactly are you looking for in this discussion?

DS

At the fear of repetition, I am saying that the current development of combat roles and power sources allows for the power sources to be safely removed from the campaign world without fear of losing certain roles. So what I am looking for in this discussion is hearing from other roleplayers who may have removed power sources from their campaigns.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

And you are further proving my point that people for some unknown reason are resistant to the idea of removing classes and power sources from campaigns! Why? This is not about flexibility, but campaign flavor and world-building.

Why? Because removing classses along with the power sources reduces player options. Which... you know... reduce their flexibility.

On the other hand, if you just refluff the paladin to something like 'Ancestral Warrior', describe his supernatural powers as channelling heroes from the past, remove a handful of incontrovertibly 'godly' power and perhaps add a few of your own as replacement... why, that would be very flexible.

Not saying that everything must fit in. But when it can be done, it should be done. Especially if a class you are about to ban interests a player.

 

[Aldarc]

Why? Because removing classses along with the power sources reduces player options. Which... you know... reduce their flexibility.

You do not seem to be listening. If the campaign world calls for the absence of a particular power source, 4E's power source and role creation allows for them to be removed. This is an increase in flexibility. Does it reduce the amount of options available for players? Of course it does, but then again, so does saying no dragonborn or monks in a campaign also does, but that does not somehow reduce the campaign's flexibility. Do not confuse a reduction of options with a decrease in flexibility. When the elemental, ki, psionics, and shadow power sources come out, must I permit them in my campaigns? Do people normally get this much flack as I am now about "No divine power source" as people get when they say "No psionics"? Somehow I doubt it, yet it is an irrelevant point that is proving the most aggravating on this thread.

I was merely curious if this new elegant design feature of 4E has actually encouraged DMs to design worlds and campaigns without the use of certain power sources, which is now far more possible than it was before. THIS IS INCREASED CAMPAIGN-BUILDING FLEXIBILITY! Yes, you are removing classes and player options (four classes out of an increasingly myriad of others), but there is a clear increase of flexibility in world designing in relation to power sources. Furthermore, the existence of the same role within multiple power sources grants more flexibility in class and power source removal without fear that the role is somehow incapable of being filled.

On the other hand, if you just refluff the paladin to something like 'Ancestral Warrior', describe his supernatural powers as channelling heroes from the past, remove a handful of incontrovertibly 'godly' power and perhaps add a few of your own as replacement... why, that would be very flexible.

Yes, I can easily change the fluff of the divine power source. I realize that! I have realized that even before I made this thread! Why is this even an issue? If my campaign world calls for no divine power source, then why should that campaign design call even be an issue?

An initial question was raised as to why remove the power source and not rechange the fluff? But that is also be completely missing the point, which is that the divine power source is not necessary nor should every power source be reflavored in order to retain everything possible. The primary point of this thread is even that power sources can be removed quite readily without any dire consequence due to existence of classes in other power sources who are capable of filling lost roles. Is this a hard concept to grasp? Trying to make divine classes fit into my campaign world is rather irrelevant to this point, yet this seems to be what people are complaining the most about.

Not saying that everything must fit in. But when it can be done, it should be done. Especially if a class you are about to ban interests a player.

That seems to be the message that people are saying on this thread and thereby completely missing my initial point.

So have DMs actually capitalized on this option of removing power sources? Honestly, I doubt that I will never know, because people are essentially ignoring this question and hounding me on trying to make the divine power source fit my campaign world, which is completely beside the point. And now I regret that I even made this thread.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Most posters are players.

Their reaction at the notion of discarding several class when you can just retool existing classes in different power sources should tip you at the reactions of potential players of your campaign.

Barring a few options from a campaign world is commonly done (Such as 'No Dragonborn'). But flushing several classes wholesale is less common.

For example, the Paladin has no real replacement. Sure, the party won't suffer with another defender instead, but the Fighter and Swordmage do not play at all like the paladin. You get rid of him, you get rid of an entire playing style for a defender.

If the players don't care about the missing classes and wouldn't have selected them even if they were available in the first place, then it doesn't matter at all. But if they did, then you have to explain your concept of flexibility to a player who doesn't understand why he can't play a primal powered paladin and fluff him as an Ancestral Warrior (or whatever would fit the campaign).

You want to know the experience of DM who have restricted the player's choice in the past? That's mine. Players want choices, lots of them. And nothing brings out the desire to play a particular class than realizing that for some reason it can't be done in this campaign. That's human nature. If you know your players well enough that you only barred thing theys don't care about and lavished love on the things they appreciate, then it's great. Good campaigning. Just take care not to fall in love with your concepts. Many DMs do and forget that it's the player who get to inhabit the carefully laid out campaign.

EDIT : Otherwise, of course you can play without divine power source. Essentially, all you are asking is, ''What happens to a party that uses a warlord instead of a cleric and a fighter instead of a paladin?'' They're just fine. Everybody knows that. That's why advice have focused on ways to retool existing divine class into something appropriate for a campaign without divine source instead of hammering the obvious point.

Paladin and cleric, beside their fluff, offer a specific style of play that the other defenders and leaders don't offer. Discarding fluff is one thing, discarding entire playing styles is something else altogether.

 

[smdmcl]

...hounding me...

What you describe as "hounding you" I think most reasonable people would see as offering suggestions or alternatives.

People responding to your OP have, in my opinion, listened and understood your idea. They have agreed with you that it can be done since the roles of other power sources can cover the 2 divine power classes you wish to remove. They have gone one step further to offer suggestions on how, if you or a player of yours wished, you could re-skin the divine power classes as something else to allow players more options in your campaign.

In reading the thread, you appear to take these suggestions as if the posters are telling you that you or your idea are wrong. From what I can see that is not people's intent. You don't have to use people's suggestions in your campaign and I am not sure why you feel the need to be defensive about the feedback you have received. Most people post on ENworld to share and discuss their ideas. This thread seems to be doing the former but having a hard time with the latter.

 

[Chris Knapp]

My upcoming Dragonlance game will not really remove the divine power source, but make any use of any power/effect, with the divine keyword unusable to any player until after they reach the "Rediscover the gods of light" chapter. Being a War of the Lance era game (where the gods have been absent for 300+ years) the divine power source doesn't exist (at least for the good guys, that is.) Actual details are being worked out in the absence of any 4e DL setting book :-(

In the past, this was harder on incoming DL players as clerics were the primary (often only) source of healing in other settings. Now with warlords and second winds and full healing in 1 day, this lack of the divine power source becomes more flavor than a real setting obstacle.

 

[Fieari]

That's a neat idea. I've found that there's a certain type of player that enjoys forgoing power now in order to gain greater power later. Think people who played wizards in 2e, for instance.

The trick would be to ensure that the player actually GOT greater power later. Do you have anything in mind for that, assuming someone chooses to play a cleric in your nerfed-divine DL setting? Perhaps keeping the cleric a level higher, or giving him an item/artifact that the rest of the party won't have?

It WILL cause imbalance, but you can handle that if done properly. Play up the weakness before, play up the power surge after hand (really EMPHASIZE the power surge), and then as a little more time goes on find a way to equalize things again. I've done this before to player delight.

It's a fine line to walk though...

 

[Chris Knapp]

With the upcoming traditional War of the Lance campaign, the finding of the gods of good occurs after the first "module" so its not so much of an issue. They will be given an artifact with powers representing some of the cleric-y stuff. This artifact goes away after the gods are "found."

The pre-gen cleric I will make available (Goldmoon) will have some other powers, but will be wholly reliant on the artifact for their combat utility in the game. I will allow the player to completely retrain once the gods are rediscovered, if they wish. (DL is pretty rail-roady and pretty much requires a divine character to advance parts of the first few chapters.)

I'm not a fan of mixing different leveled characters (like LFR does) so will not allow that. I find that lower level characters tend to feel less useful than high level ones. (also, my DL game will not use XP as they will be rewarded at the end of specific chapters so staggered levels won't be an issue.)

 

[arscott]

I've excised some pretty significant chunks of 3e for a Dark•Sun conversion, and not run into any problems--but I also encouraged people to play psionic characters--something that they rarely got the opportunity to do in other campaigns.

That's the big issue--If you're taking anything away, you should probably have some shiny new stuff to put in its place. Presumably, you'll be encouraging folks to play primal classes for those who have a connection to those natural and ancestral spirits. You also mention Ordination feats--that sounds like a cool idea, too.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Most posters are players.

Their reaction at the notion of discarding several class when you can just retool existing classes in different power sources should tip you at the reactions of potential players of your campaign.

Barring a few options from a campaign world is commonly done (Such as 'No Dragonborn'). But flushing several classes wholesale is less common.

For example, the Paladin has no real replacement. Sure, the party won't suffer with another defender instead, but the Fighter and Swordmage do not play at all like the paladin. You get rid of him, you get rid of an entire playing style for a defender.

If the players don't care about the missing classes and wouldn't have selected them even if they were available in the first place, then it doesn't matter at all. But if they did, then you have to explain your concept of flexibility to a player who doesn't understand why he can't play a primal powered paladin and fluff him as an Ancestral Warrior (or whatever would fit the campaign).

As a player, I would have to say that this is spot on. I currently play a Fighter, and I've always liked that style of play. I love the new marking mechanic that they created, and the things like Combat Superiority and different powers that get bonuses based on what weapon you're using and emphasize different play styles.

That being said, if my DM said "No martial characters, and you can't reskin a martial character to match the campaign", I would be very upset. Since I decided early on that I loved the flavor of the Dragonborn, I of course looked at the other options that made sense to me. Melee Cleric, Paladin, Warlock, etc... The Paladin was tempting, but just didn't fit what I wanted to do with my character, whereas the Fighter did. So while it might have made an interesting campaign to eliminate the Martial Power source, it would've really hurt my ability to play the way I wanted to.

Now, if your players know about this change ahead of time and are okay with it (and really okay, not "Well, I don't want to complain and piss of the DM" okay) then there's no problem. However, for the player that was dead set on playing a really awesome Paladin this is going to be a disappointment. This is why some people suggested reskinning the classes and power source to keep it available, was to keep options open for your players. You'd only have to reskin the basic premise of it, and then if a player wanted to play one of the Divine classes then you could tell them that they have to reskin the fluff text on the powers themselves and then let you approve it before it's put into play. That would be minimum work for you and it would allow the player to play the class they wanted and it would get them more invested in your campaign setting and might allow them to have even more fun with it in the end.