How would you make the different power sources mechanically distinct?

[half-dragon dragon]

I had a thought the other day sparked by comments I had seen about how some felt the 4e classes were all too similar and that others missed the mechanical differences between classes as well. Which got me thinking, what if classes were made to have a different feel based on power source? Something along the lines of Arcane using Vancian, and Psionics using power points. So under this idea, the classes wouldn't have just a different feel fluff wise, but would play differently also while still having a common theme for classes of the same power source.

So like the title says, how would you like to see the different power sources (martial, divine, arcane, elemental, ki, primal, psionic, and shadow) be represented mechanically?

 

[Mort_Q]

I'm against adding complexity to the crunch to artificially enhance the fluff.

You can play the different classes very differently even if the underlying mechanics are similar.

 

[Styracosaurus]

This is an important aspect of a campaign setting although most settings do not address it.

 

[cdrcjsn]

Arcane - powers lean slightly towards controller type effects (debuffs, movement/terrain control, etc). Right now, the Warlock as a Striker has a controller feel to a lot of its powers, even though they are mostly single target effects.

Martial - powers heavily influenced by the type of weapons used. The PHB classes all are distinctive in their abilities based on weapons with the sole exception of the Warlord.

Divine - tends to have healing/buffing ability even if not in a leader role. The paladin for example have several abilities that help it in its role as a defender (lay on hands to recover hit points, channel divinity to help remove status conditions), but they can also be used on allies.

 

[dasheiff]

That's how 3.x worked. It made the system impossible to balance due to the fact that different characters were working on completely different systems. In theory every ability might come down to a point buy system to construct the mechanics and then just add flavor as needed.

 

[Otterscrubber]

I'm against adding complexity to the crunch to artificially enhance the fluff.

You can play the different classes very differently even if the underlying mechanics are similar.

Totally agree.

This is an important aspect of a campaign setting although most settings do not address it.

Don't agree, if it was that important to campaign settings then it would be part of all campaign settings. Now I can see if it is important in YOUR settings perhaps.....

That's how 3.x worked. It made the system impossible to balance due to the fact that different characters were working on completely different systems.

Agreed. in 3e you do basically have a different systems in play for each power source and over time these systems will differentiate in more than flavor, they will diverge in balance. This was a big flaw in 3e in my opinion as after awhile everyone wanted a class that could "do it all" that was usually a spellcasting class. Some would take a nod and play a melee class, but even then most would need a splatbook or two in order to get some very caster-like abilities. Since everyone ended up drifting toward one of the "systems" in place, I dont see why playing in a one system game now is such a hard pill to swallow.

 

[half-dragon dragon]

Ahh whoops, I forgot a to mention this was all hypothetical. As in, if each subsystem could be theoretically balanced against each other, how would you like to see them differ?

Do note that I really do like 4e and I like the streamlined system we now have, and that multisystem game is much harder to balance if not impossible.

Mostly I'm just really curious about how other people would have done things.

 

[Andre]

Having the same basic underlying mechanic greatly simplifies many aspects of the game. If you want to differerentiate the mechanics a bit, I would suggest adding limitations and advantages (much like Hero system does).

I'll use a 3.x example, as I haven't read the 4E rules yet.

Spellcasting
-Bard. Spells only require vocal components. Gains bonuses if has an instrument or by succeeding at a perform skill roll.
-Tattoo'd Mage. Body is covered in runes. To cast a spell, the mage touches the runes in a particular order. Does not need spellbooks, no vocal components, only requires material components to add or change tattoos.
-Psionicist. No vocal or material components, no gestures. Spells only work against creatures of at least animal intelligence. All spell effects automatically end if caster is unconscious or dead.
-Wizard. No spellbooks, no vocal or material components. Requires an implement (staff, amulet, etc) which must be held when casting.

Balancing the various limitations and advantages will be the difficult part, but if you can do so, this has the distinct advantage of not requiring players and GM's to learn new mechanics for each class or such.

 

[sukael]

components

4e powers don't have components in any way, shape, or form. You don't even need a hand free for spells!

 

[Minigiant]

At the moment the 3 power sources are a bit different.

Martial relies heavily on the weapon used (accuracy, damage, crit).
Arcane powers are based on the spell power chosen (what dice used, the type of damage, type of bonus effects, etc).
Divine are either weapon based(Str style) or power based(Wis style).

Martial is heavily on damage and movement (partial or full strikers)
Arcane is heavy on applying conditions (partial or full controllers)
Divine is heavily on healing and defense (partial or full leaders)

I'd emphasize this more and give Martial and Arcane classes some power source ability like Divine Channel. Like Metamagic for arcane and Fighting styles for Martial.