New Power Sources

[andarilhor]

Somebody has any ideas of New Power Sources?

Until now I have only one: Social.

The powers of this power source comes from the position the member of the class assumes in his or her society.

Defender: Gentleman
Leader: Noble
Controller: Aristocrat
Striker: Spy

Anyone here has other ideas of power sources?

 

[chronoplasm]

Scientific

The power of this source comes from one's ability to observe, to question, and to experiment.
Classes with a scientific power source are masters of detection and improvisation. Many scientific classes are able to combine items in the heat of battle to make inventions.

Defender: Engineer
Striker: Explorer
Controller: Demolitions Expert
Leader: Professor

 

[Raven Swords]

Um I suppose demonic could be fun..

Defender: Bloodthurster
Striker: Possessed
Controller: Cultist
Leader: Dark servant

Alternativly tie it to the game world such as Thw Wheel of Time novels magic system.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

Power Source: Social.

The powers of this power source comes from the position the member of the class assumes in his or her society.

Defender: Gentleman
Leader: Noble
Controller: Aristocrat
Striker: Spy

I love this idea. Having these classes would go a long way towards me adopting 4e.

 

[Dodavehu]

double post
--

 

[Dodavehu]

Until now I have only one: Social.

The powers of this power source comes from the position the member of the class assumes in his or her society.

Defender: Gentleman
Leader: Noble
Controller: Aristocrat
Striker: Spy

Oh man, that sounds amazing. Someone make these classes. Asap!

I'm not sure what the difference between an aristocrat and a noble would be though.
--

 

[Quickleaf]

Ack! lost my post!

Two problems with social power source:
1. PCs are meant to be in the action, and political power usually means getting others to do your dirty work
2. Powers are combat based, and social influence rarely has much bearing once blades are crossed
3. Can't a PC of any class belong to nobility? why should a "noble" get different powers from a "warlord" conceived as a knight?

However, I like the concept, and think some creative design could make it work.
I'd suggest these unique classes, which still allow for PCs of others classes to claim noble birth.

Controller: Demagogue - rouses the populace with rhetoric & propaganda
Defender: Magnate - protects noble coffers/land with guile & blade
Leader: Regent - safeguards the royal throne (which liege is minor, sick, absent, or disputed) with authority & poise
Striker: Courtesan - infiltrates social circles with treachery & subterfuge

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

Two problems with social power source:
1. PCs are meant to be in the action, and political power usually means getting others to do your dirty work

Political, maybe, but not all social classes/situations need to be political (though it usually plays a big part anyway).

2. Powers are combat based, and social influence rarely has much bearing once blades are crossed

There's two ways one could go about this: Make combat powers that complement the Social-powered class features and abilities (Deal 1[W] + Charisma modifier damage plus insult the target's momma. Target is dazed until its next turn.), or have a slew of "combat" powers that are usable in Social combat, either damaging regular hit points somehow (psychic?) or attacking a whole new parallel hit point-like stat that tracks Social health.

I don't mind getting away from the idea that all powers need to be combat-based.

Controller: Demagogue - rouses the populace with rhetoric & propaganda
Defender: Magnate - protects noble coffers/land with guile & blade
Leader: Regent - safeguards the royal throne (which liege is minor, sick, absent, or disputed) with authority & poise
Striker: Courtesan - infiltrates social circles with treachery & subterfuge

LOVE that choice for Striker. Actually, I like these options for the roles overall. I'd put them alongside those suggested by andarilhor, above, as different options for the roles.

 

[Quickleaf]

I don't mind getting away from the idea that all powers need to be combat-based.

While I feel the same, to allow a "social class" character to play alongside other classes it needs to follow the same rules.

LOVE that choice for Striker. Actually, I like these options for the roles overall. I'd put them alongside those suggested by andarilhor, above, as different options for the roles.

The problem I have with Gentleman, Noble, Aristocrat, etc. is that they are exceedingly broad (one could argue the same about "Fighter" and "Rogue" of course), and not discernable from each other. Moreover, they seem to rob the potential for a Warlord knight or a Wizard court magus (unless you are intended to multi-class into nobility).

A quick brainstorm about social powers...

* Possible power source names: social, esteem, prestige, status, influence
* Possible power type names (e.g. martial exploits, arcane spells, divine prayers): dictums, dominions, edicts, mandates, spheres [of influence]
* Powers derive from contacts/connections, reputation/respect or fear, psychological manipulation, and "macro/domain-level" policies (e.g. trade embargos, declarations of war, extradition treaties, safe passage edicts, etc)
* Powers typically target Cha or Will
* Powers could create zones which affect entire regions for a certain time
* Core class features might increase your sphere of influence according to tier (heroic - city, paragon - nation, epic - world)
* Powers could create connections between roleplayed dialogue and combat
* Powers could invoke "off-screen" events (e.g. courtesan confronts a death knight, revealing how the deathknight's second-in-command was compromised under the courtesan's interrogation, thus explaining how the courtesan knows the death knight's weakness)
* Powers may have the "Language" keyword, meaning the PC must speak the same language as the target(s)
* Powers may have the "Retainers" keyword, meaning the PC must have retainers at hand in order to use that power
* Powers may have the "Hierarchy" keyword, meaning the PC must use it in a culture they have social standing in, and attempting to use it on those higher up the hierarchy risks dire repercussions

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

First of all, I'm so glad that my post was coherent. I typed it up way late last night and I was half asleep. This morning I woke up afraid I may have typed something ridiculous (I've been known to do stream-of-consciousness typing, but let's not go into my crazy quirks).

While I feel the same, to allow a "social class" character to play alongside other classes it needs to follow the same rules.

Fully awake now, I agree with you. However, what I'm seeing here is the possibility for an entirely new way of playing. For example, one of my freelancers put together a Social Combat option for 3.5 d20 where he basically took a lot of the martial combat options and made social equivalents of them, so you actually have a social version of Cleave that allows you to squelch someone (socially speaking) and then do an immediate follow-up on a secondary target. I could see a similar approach to a 4e version, where you have this other realm where the powers represent social combat prowess. Now, that requires a complete rewriting of a big chunk of the rules, but the idea I think could work and, at least to me, it sounds exciting.

The problem I have with Gentleman, Noble, Aristocrat, etc. is that they are exceedingly broad (one could argue the same about "Fighter" and "Rogue" of course),

I was about to make the same observation. You'd basically have the greater archetypes, and the more specialized applications by combining the two sets of suggested classes.

Moreover, they seem to rob the potential for a Warlord knight or a Wizard court magus (unless you are intended to multi-class into nobility).

I think Noble would be one I'd change, so that being part of the nobility is not dependant on a class (though I'd find an equivalent way of presenting a Noble and/or Aristrocrat class, as I like what they bring to the party).

A quick brainstorm about social powers...

Dude. Duuude. I'm not gonna be able to get this out of my head now...

Should we have forked this thread a couple of posts back?