Am I the Only One Totally Apathetic About Power Sources?

[nimisgod]

I can't really explain why I feel excited about new power sources, but I have to say that I do. Also, I agree that there's a distinct pattern or theme to each power source - at least, mechanically, although they're subtle enough for me to appreciate them. And there's a part of me that would rather figure the pattern out rather finding out with an overt description. Must be the lit-major part of me.

edit: RyvenCedrylle pretty much outlined the gist of my thoughts for me and in a manner better than I could manage.

As for flavor - it is one thing that I think 4E could improve. I would love to be bombarded by stories and tales aplenty, to have a PHB that I would like reading and which isn't just a listing of powers. But a good mechanical system that suits my purposes (as what we have now) is more than good enough for me. I think D&D could use more non-mechanical text, if only so I can harvest ideas from them.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think they are pretty neat. In a way, they are merely fluff, but the fluff affects the mechanics. Cadfans description seems pretty good for that.

I'd say that if you would look into a large enough set of powers - maybe one power of each level you get a power of a source, you would be able to determine which power source the powers are from. (Removing power source from the keywords, flavor text and power name).

People like new power sources because they evoke a certain flavor - psionics is different from arcane, ki different from martial. Of course you could create a psionic wizard by changing around some descriptors and maybe adding a new power.

But since when do people not like getting new fluff handed to them?

 

[Klaus]

So I'm going to crawl tentatively out onto this limb here and disagree that the sources are pointless from a purely mechanical basis. Power Sources lean toward different things; there are no monopolies, but there are distinct tendencies. Examples:

Arcane - The Arcane base stats are Int and Cha. You need one of these for pretty much any arcane class. Arcane is still your main choice for big AoEs and teleportation as well as ongoing damage. It also gives you the most options for punching through resistances. The Sustain mechanic is almost completely confined to Arcane. Most of its component classes minor in Controller.

Divine - The Divine base stats are Wis and probably Str, though that's arguable. It is more discriminatory in its AoEs than Arcane, but is limited in its damage types. Divine is possibly the strongest when it comes to buffs/debuffs and most of its component classes minor in Leader, doling out Temp HP if nothing else.

Primal - The Primal base stats are Wis and Con, but again I'm willing to give a little on that second one. Outside of the sorcerer, the primal classes require the most significant bookkeeping (though this could be a function of PHB2) and offer the most Dailies that last for the rest of the encounter. IMHO, the Primal classes minor in Defender.

Martial - Strength. Done. Then everything else is about equal afterward. Martial classes require much less bookkeeping, being primarily "effect and move on" powers. Martial also has a bit of an edge on knocking prone, I think, but not much. It used to be that you had the new guy play the fighter. Now you have him play Martial.. except perhaps the Warlord. Martial classes minor in Striker.

$0.02 63 more will get you a donut.

Martial is Str and Dex, mainly. Case in point: Rogues and archer Rangers.

Back to sources, I LIKE that the sources aren't entirely exclusive in flavor. My rogue has devoted himself to the Raven Queen. You'd expect him to multiclass into a Divine class, right? Well, not happening with his Wisdom 9. To mimic his recent "dedication", I'm multiclassing him as a warlock, and I'll take powers that can be adapted to a Raven Queen-theme.

 

[WalterKovacs]

In the "wizards could be psions" front, they had deliberately avoided giving wizards a lot of powers that woud cross over with psionics (and bards) immediately. They gave them illussions back in Arcane Power, but there are still some old "schools of magic" that wizards don't have. In the previous edition, they had three power sources at the start (with primal being either a variant of divine or a variant of martial, and chi being martial with some sort of magical class features). The differences between divine and arcane were the spell failure. Other than that it was only "designer only" ideas, like that divine focuses on healing while arcane is about damage, and other portioning out. The way spells are cast was handled differently from class to class, so that wasn't really a way of differentiating power sources.

Since the wizard could do just about anything, any new caster type was either going to be a sorceror type class (a wizard that prepares/casts differently) or they'll be a specialist that is more restricted than a specialized wizard, but gets bigger benefits (like a warmage or beguiler). New power sources had to come up with a different casting system, since the wizards spell list was so expansive as to make it hard to give it a flavor of it's own that couldn't be copied by a wizard.

So, in 4e, they've avoided going the route of each power source having it's own method of casting by giving a chance to have flavor options for each class. They didn't give the wizard everything out of the gate, they held back stuff for other power sources. Shadow can deal with necromacy, psionics can deal with enchantment, etc. They've eliminated one source of differentiating the power sources by streamlining the power system.

However, since, outside of a few exceptions (dilletante, Eternal Wanderer, paragon multiclassing with the half-elf feat from PHB2) you can't just cherry pick powers from whereever you want them. So, the overall theme of the class includes not just it's role, but it's power source as well. You can't look at individual powers out of context to judge the power source since you can't just take a power on it's own out of context (with a few exceptions).

 

[Nebulous]

I would also like to see more opportunities for power source to influence mechanics. Maybe monsters that rest or are vulnerable to certain power sources.

I'd also like to see monster attacks use power sources.

There's a monster in Dungeon Denizens by Goodman Games that gets Magic Resistance +5 vs All Defenses against any power with the Divine or Arcane keyword. Some people will like that, some will hate, as it flies in the face of 4e per the core rules and monster manual.

 

[Estlor]

If all you do is look at the end result of a power - deal X+Y damage and effect X - then yes, there are no mechanical differences between power sources. And rightly so, as every power serves the same purpose - an expression of resolving an attack in combat. But power sources are mechanically unique when you step back and look at more than the end result.

Compare the rogue, avenger, warlock, and barbarian. All of them fill the role of striker and have powers that deal lots of damage, but once you start using their powers in combat they're very different.

The preponderance of Martial powers target AC with some Reflex and the occasional Fortitude thrown in. How many Arcane powers target AC? (Swordmage has nearly all of them, I'm sure). Arcane powers nearly all target Reflex with some Fortitude and Will thrown in. Divine is a pretty even split between AC and Reflex with some Will thrown in. Primal focuses on AC and Fortitude.

(Aside: Notice how the power sources that largely target a NAD are almost exclusively delivered by implements. Notice again how AC tends to skew higher than the NADs. Also notice how weapons have proficiency bonus and implements do not. Brilliant design!)

Now toss in feats. My martial character can shift as a minor action the first round of combat. His arcane character can deliver larger than normal burst attacks. Her divine character can evoke the power of her god to heal after a critical hit. We all use powers to inflict damage, but how we do it, what damage we do, and what we can do while we're not inflicting damage is very different because of the power source our class uses.

When you get down to it, if you express everything in as simple a set of terms as people who argue there are no mechanical differences between power sources do powers, what's the point of having four defenses? I mean, they're all simply the expression of how hard we are to hit. Why not have a single defense score and have conditional modifiers? My 6th level cleric has a defense of 13, +7 versus weapons from magic hide armor and Dexterity, +4 versus implements from amulet of health and Dexterity, etc. I mean, Reflex and Will work exactly the same just with different names, right?

 

[ExploderWizard]

(Aside: Notice how the power sources that largely target a NAD are almost exclusively delivered by implements. Notice again how AC tends to skew higher than the NADs. )

You could type this with a straight face? Awesome.

 

[D'karr]

You could type this with a straight face? Awesome.

My character's AC skews higher than the NADS, IYKWIMAITYD...

 

[Stormtalon]

I'm currently toying with the idea of giving each power source a bit of a slight mechanical advantage (maybe +1/+1 per tier or something) against certain monster keywords. Divine, for instance, would have the bonus vs anything with the Undead & Immortal keywords, Arcane vs Elemental, Shadow & Animate, Martial vs Humanoid & Beast, and Primal vs Aberrant, Shadow & Immortal.

Those are just rough ideas, of course -- though Divine vs. Undead seems idea, as does Primal vs. Aberrant (actually, that's the one that inspired the idea).

 

[insanogeddon]

"Must have been a ugly break up - you may have dumped it, but you seem to be following around behind it, saying nasty things to its friends."

Hilarious!! Been there before on both sides!