I think the main issue here is avoiding overwhelming players. It could get a bit overwhelming just with the stuff they already had. Nearly doubling the amount of power options isn't going to help that. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, but I would want to make damn sure that the price paid is as low as possible and the benefit gained as high as possible. Otherwise, it strikes me as putting a design aesthetic ("give all distinct things distinct niches") ahead of actual usability by players.
Perhaps, as a compromise, having every Utility power give some combat benefit (offense, defense, or other), and also have a non-combat benefit (skill, ability, feature, etc.) that is unlocked or empowered by having a particular skill training or the like? Essentially, making every utility power a skill power.
So, in HoML players roll their defenses, there are no GM attack rolls. This means the idea of using a power DEFENSIVELY is a very normal kind of thing. Now, some powers will just kinda work as a defense, but others actually specify what they do, or that they don't work that way at all (you can always defend with a basic attack or simply with an ability score). Anyway, you're going to tell us HOW the defense works, so that will preclude some things (IE you can't cast a fireball on another turn, and how would that work anyway without toasting yourself).
I'm...not really sure how that responds to what I said though.
By stripping out "Fighter," "Paladin," "Swordmage," "Warden" etc. and replacing them with the Defender role and your choice of Source, you are necessarily eliminating the mechanical distinctiveness of each class. (rest snipped for space)
.... I am at a loss as to what in heck I must be typing that has it be seeming to you that I'm recommending that there's only 1 defender type of any type that can and must only use a single mechanism such that the power source becomes a useless description. What? Not in the heck no! There would still be a wizard, sorcerer, warlock, fighter, paladin, ranger, cleric, druid, seeker, warden, swordmage, artificer, warlord, elementalist, psion, etc, and they would still operate in different ways and perform their roles in different ways that fully engage their power source in sweet and cool ways. One of the biggest things I love (and miss) about 4e was the amazing flavour of the different classes in how they used their power source to meet their aims. I would not change that.
Let me try again to be totally clear: Everything I'm proposing would still have roughly the same 25 base classes that 4e has now, and each would continue to be their unique expression.
What I'm proposing is only additive, by way of introducing the new layer of Profession to the equation.
And I will disagree with you here when you say, "making it so anyone wanting "wilderness survival" goes to the one-stop shop of Theme-town—is that that "Wilderness Survivor" theme must be separate from everything else their character is." To which you seem to be saying that you can't have any connections between Role, source, or Theme? Why not? Why can't a Druid, who gains their strength from their deep connection to the Primal forces of the landscape, not be able to tie that into how they are a Wilderness Survivor/Ranger? Why couldn't a Fighter, who has been born from the school of hard knocks and who knows how to get up into someone's face and survive, couldn't tie that back into how they are a Wilderness Survivor/Ranger? Why couldn't an Elementalist, who, having to learn from birth how to channel their conduit of the raw elemental chaos from birth, escaped into the wilderness so they wouldn't hurt anyone, and therefore couldn't tie it into how they are a Wilderness Survivor/Ranger?
I think those would all be awesome characters to play and stories to explore and RP. There's nothing generic about it. Nor is there anything anything awkward about it.
And I think you would even agree with me, since you go on to say, when talking about Themes, that "each class can be mechanically distinct and tailored to a particular set of class fantasies, while still supporting players who want something else or who don't want some of the baggage that comes with a particular class." Exactly. You can be that mechanically distinct class tailored to the class fantasy of the nature-infused warrior (be that a Druid or a Warden) and then choose how your character uses that in the world -- Traditional nature defender (ie traditional Druid)? Thornwatch member (ie Ranger)? Scout for a band of do-good outlaws (ie Robin Hood)? Guide for merchant caravans traversing between points of light?
(Not that I would get rid of theme either -- there's some juicy possibilities in there as well that I wouldn't try to shove into profession.)
To use your example from near the bottom of your post, "without having to force players who want to be musical performers... to specifically be Bards," YES, exactly! If the player wants to be a musical performer they can be whatever class they want to be! And then they choose Artist or Performer as their profession. And they'll be even better at it than how it is in 4e now, because the profession will not only have the performance skill but also would have abilities that relate to the performance aspects.
At the risk of being overly dramatic at this point, I will reiterate: what you're railing against is not what I was saying / trying to say and create. In fact, quite the opposite. The character's class continues to play the major role in defining the character, and the classes can continue to be deliciously varied and interesting. What I'm encouraging is for 4e to lean even more into where it was already headed and add one more layer so that there there is MORE coolness, more uniqueness and distinction, more combinations, more RP, and more awesomeness throughout.
(Seriously, I think we're mostly aligned here in what we want. And I'm happy to quibble and work out the best way to achieve that! But first this misunderstanding needs to be cleared up so that there's not pushback against a notion that I'm not even close to putting forth. )
Seriously, I think we're mostly aligned here in what we want. And I'm happy to quibble and work out the best way to achieve that! But first this misunderstanding needs to be cleared up so that there's not pushback against a notion that I'm not even close to putting forth.
Split power source/encounter abilities from professions and roles and themes and archetypes. So you can have a party where there’s a divine warrior (aka Paladin), skirmishing archer (aka Ranger), primal warrior (aka Warden) and primal spellcaster (aka Druid) who all take the “Ranger” profession to gain exploration, tracking, survival, herbalism, and etc abilities.
Because this, as you phrased it, explicitly means separating the parts ("split[ting] power source...from professions and roles and themes and archetypes.") As a player, you pick (perhaps in no particular order):
Power source ("divine," "primal," "skirmishing," presumably others)
Role ("archer," "spellcasting," "warrior," presumably others)
Profession ("Ranger" being the common thread)
The way this was presented, these are totally separate things. You pick your Power Source, and it gives you some set of features which are common to all Primal characters. You pick your Role, and it gives you the set of mechanics to fulfill that role. These two things, as presented, are totally separate from one another; you could choose to be a "primal warrior" or a "divine warrior" or (presumably) an "arcane warrior," and you'd get exactly the same "warrior" component because that's the Role you've chosen.
So, if you did not mean to step away from classes, if you did not mean to have this viewed as "pick your Source from the Sources list, pick your Role from the Roles list, and pick your Profession from the Professions list," what on Earth DID you mean?
Because if "Paladin" is still an actually distinct thing, with actually distinct mechanics that cannot simply be boiled down to "well I have Channel Divinity, the common feature held by all characters using the Divine Power Source, and I have Defender's Mark, the common feature held by all characters of the Warrior Role," then I literally don't understand how anything whatsoever has changed about Sources or Roles. In which case...why specify those things first and foremost, turning their names into optional parentheticals, when it's still exactly what it was before? Why refer to it as "split[ting] power source...from...roles"?
Part of the reason I'm pushing back here is that what I'm responding to--whether or not it is your position--is something I actually do see a LOT from people wanting to "fix" 4e. They go for either pooling together all powers from a given Source or (even worse) pooling together all powers from all sources, and delete "class" entirely, replacing it with the choice of your power source and role. These are both really, really unwise design choices if your goal is to preserve the heart of the 4e experience, which most of these folks explicitly seem to want. The people saying this seem to have a good idea of what 4e is and how it works, and want to achieve something that respects that foundation while improving on it. But in doing what they propose to do, they rip out the part of 4e that holds the most mechanical interest--the intentional, focused design of each class to achieve a particular class fantasy and play-experience--and replace it with something intentionally generic and de-contextualized.
I love the Thief of Legend. Or the one I took, the name of which I can't quite recall (Legendary Warlord maybe?) which has a higher level ability that, if you should die or be separated from your party, a lieutenant of yours, who has all the same abilities as you, shows up to replace you, Dread Pirate Roberts style!
If this is the case, then I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you meant by the following text from your original proposal.
Because this, as you phrased it, explicitly means separating the parts ("split[ting] power source...from professions and roles and themes and archetypes.") As a player, you pick (perhaps in no particular order):
Power source ("divine," "primal," "skirmishing," presumably others)
Role ("archer," "spellcasting," "warrior," presumably others)
Profession ("Ranger" being the common thread)
The way this was presented, these are totally separate things. You pick your Power Source, and it gives you some set of features which are common to all Primal characters. You pick your Role, and it gives you the set of mechanics to fulfill that role. These two things, as presented, are totally separate from one another; you could choose to be a "primal warrior" or a "divine warrior" or (presumably) an "arcane warrior," and you'd get exactly the same "warrior" component because that's the Role you've chosen.
So, if you did not mean to step away from classes, if you did not mean to have this viewed as "pick your Source from the Sources list, pick your Role from the Roles list, and pick your Profession from the Professions list," what on Earth DID you mean?
Because if "Paladin" is still an actually distinct thing, with actually distinct mechanics that cannot simply be boiled down to "well I have Channel Divinity, the common feature held by all characters using the Divine Power Source, and I have Defender's Mark, the common feature held by all characters of the Warrior Role," then I literally don't understand how anything whatsoever has changed about Sources or Roles. In which case...why specify those things first and foremost, turning their names into optional parentheticals, when it's still exactly what it was before? Why refer to it as "split[ting] power source...from...roles"?
Part of the reason I'm pushing back here is that what I'm responding to--whether or not it is your position--is something I actually do see a LOT from people wanting to "fix" 4e. They go for either pooling together all powers from a given Source or (even worse) pooling together all powers from all sources, and delete "class" entirely, replacing it with the choice of your power source and role. These are both really, really unwise design choices if your goal is to preserve the heart of the 4e experience, which most of these folks explicitly seem to want. The people saying this seem to have a good idea of what 4e is and how it works, and want to achieve something that respects that foundation while improving on it. But in doing what they propose to do, they rip out the part of 4e that holds the most mechanical interest--the intentional, focused design of each class to achieve a particular class fantasy and play-experience--and replace it with something intentionally generic and de-contextualized.
In my case, at least is backwards. Keep classes, make source variable, consolidate powers. (Do we really need three nearly identical powers for martial encouner interrupt attack with melee weapon?)
In my case, at least is backwards. Keep classes, make source variable, consolidate powers. (Do we really need three nearly identical powers for martial encouner interrupt attack with melee weapon?)
You know, this bit about duplicate powers being bad always confused me. Some classes have overlap in roles, and sometimes you need a tool in your kit to perform a task. What is actually wrong with multiple classes needing the same tool anyways?
I mean, in other editions, we see this with spellcasters all the time where even magicians of completely different traditions can share spells! Oh no, my Light Cleric and the Wizard can cast fireball!
You see this sort of thing in other kinds of games. Some champions in League of Legends, I know (not playing myself but having friends that do) have abilities similar to other champions as part of their kit because they need a thing that does that.
You know, this bit about duplicate powers being bad always confused me. Some classes have overlap in roles, and sometimes you need a tool in your kit to perform a task. What is actually wrong with multiple classes needing the same tool anyways?
I mean, in other editions, we see this with spellcasters all the time where even magicians of completely different traditions can share spells! Oh no, my Light Cleric and the Wizard can cast fireball!
You see this sort of thing in other kinds of games. Some champions in League of Legends, I know (not playing myself but having friends that do) have abilities similar to other champions as part of their kit because they need a thing that does that.
Moreover, there is a reason for having Fighter Power A, Warlord Power 2, and Ranger Power III that all have very similar fundamental behavior.
Rider effects. Especially ones that are build-dependent.
Consolidating power lists down into source- or role-universal lists makes it incredibly unwieldy to have powers that get better with specific class features. You'd need to have a list half a dozen entries long in some cases, which is patently ridiculous, and loading up on fancy keywords is hardly better.
My idea was to make them Encounter Reaction triggered when a creature succeeds at a saving throw.
Wizard: The target reroll the save (possibly with a penalty)
Druid: Creates difficult terrain in the Target’s square(s) and every adjacent square.
Invoker: Maybe the creature takes some Radiant damage?
Seeker: Gets a ranged basic attack against the target.
Psion: Creature can’t take reaction until the next turn
Hmmm. Turning it over in my mind I think I'd shy away from encounter powers and go more for like the other three roles where their thing works continually in conjunction with their other powers/abilities. An encounter ability only might diminish the strong Controller feel we're trying to evoke, since it would be a buff to another power then fade/disappear. But a rider or ability every action would keep it front and centre and could give them more interesting choices.
If this is the case, then I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you meant by the following text from your original proposal.
Because this, as you phrased it, explicitly means separating the parts ("split[ting] power source...from professions and roles and themes and archetypes.") As a player, you pick (perhaps in no particular order):
Power source ("divine," "primal," "skirmishing," presumably others)
Role ("archer," "spellcasting," "warrior," presumably others)
Profession ("Ranger" being the common thread)
The way this was presented, these are totally separate things. You pick your Power Source, and it gives you some set of features which are common to all Primal characters. You pick your Role, and it gives you the set of mechanics to fulfill that role. These two things, as presented, are totally separate from one another; you could choose to be a "primal warrior" or a "divine warrior" or (presumably) an "arcane warrior," and you'd get exactly the same "warrior" component because that's the Role you've chosen.
So, if you did not mean to step away from classes, if you did not mean to have this viewed as "pick your Source from the Sources list, pick your Role from the Roles list, and pick your Profession from the Professions list," what on Earth DID you mean?
Because if "Paladin" is still an actually distinct thing, with actually distinct mechanics that cannot simply be boiled down to "well I have Channel Divinity, the common feature held by all characters using the Divine Power Source, and I have Defender's Mark, the common feature held by all characters of the Warrior Role," then I literally don't understand how anything whatsoever has changed about Sources or Roles. In which case...why specify those things first and foremost, turning their names into optional parentheticals, when it's still exactly what it was before? Why refer to it as "split[ting] power source...from...roles"?
Part of the reason I'm pushing back here is that what I'm responding to--whether or not it is your position--is something I actually do see a LOT from people wanting to "fix" 4e. They go for either pooling together all powers from a given Source or (even worse) pooling together all powers from all sources, and delete "class" entirely, replacing it with the choice of your power source and role. These are both really, really unwise design choices if your goal is to preserve the heart of the 4e experience, which most of these folks explicitly seem to want. The people saying this seem to have a good idea of what 4e is and how it works, and want to achieve something that respects that foundation while improving on it. But in doing what they propose to do, they rip out the part of 4e that holds the most mechanical interest--the intentional, focused design of each class to achieve a particular class fantasy and play-experience--and replace it with something intentionally generic and de-contextualized.
Ah, it was an errant use of "role" that sunk everything. I was using the word role there in the context of the character's role in the campaign world/society, in the same vein as a profession and as (sometimes) a fantasy archetype. Not the 4e class role in the striker, defender, etc sense. Unfortunate use of a term that has a specific meaning within the 4e world.
So what I meant is this: 4e already had mostly stripped the 'extra' abilities from classes that used to have a lot of 'profession' abilities in them. My proposal is to lean into that and add back 'profession' abilities (along with their narrative/world/culture meanings) in an even broader and more impactful way with the addition of a Profession choice beyond your Class choice. The major changes to the classes themselves would be removing most skill choices (which go into Profession) and perhaps a rename or two for those classes whose name also carried that profession or narrative/culture meaning. A player would therefore pick their Class from the class list, pick their Profession from the profession list, pick their Theme from the Theme list, and so on. (Maybe I should write up an example to show what I mean...)
In the conversations I've had regarding 4e re-imaginings I haven't come across anyone asking for that level of generification, but if I did I would also strongly recommend against going that route. As I mentioned upthread in response to someone, the rich flavour of each class in 4e, and the different ways powers are built and framed and evoked for, say, different Arcane users, is a gem. I want a sorcerer's power (say, an elementalist) to feel and act different compared to a Wizard (studied, measured, varied) to feel and act different compared to a Warlock (infused, directed, otherwordly). Everything I propose will work to enhance that flavour and mechanical difference, not erase it.
You know, this bit about duplicate powers being bad always confused me. Some classes have overlap in roles, and sometimes you need a tool in your kit to perform a task. What is actually wrong with multiple classes needing the same tool anyways?
I mean, in other editions, we see this with spellcasters all the time where even magicians of completely different traditions can share spells! Oh no, my Light Cleric and the Wizard can cast fireball!
You see this sort of thing in other kinds of games. Some champions in League of Legends, I know (not playing myself but having friends that do) have abilities similar to other champions as part of their kit because they need a thing that does that.
Mechanically speaking, a 5e light cleric and a wizard both casting fireball is not quite the same as a light cleric and wizard each having their own fireball-like spell, with few meaningful differences between the two. (Within the fiction, of course, there's no reason to believe the two characters are actually casting the exact same spell; they merely use the same mechanics for the sake of modular design.)
It transpires that the degree to which it's desirable to consolidate class powers or not is a rather interesting point to dwell on. (From this point, I'm not directly addressing you any further.)
On the one hand...
It's not clear to me that cutting down on nearly-identical-but-for-the-names powers would harm the manifestation of class fantasies in and of themselves. The fighter powers comeback strike (Offline Compendium) and victorious surge (Offline Compendium) could surely be consolidated into a single power, with the latter's improved effects (more damage and getting back hit points without actually spending a healing surge) becoming an "at higher levels" rider, without impinging upon 4e's class fantasy of the fighter as a durable and resilient defender at all. I am sure examples of powers that cut across different classes can be found.
It's also not clear to me that cutting down even on powers that are only vaguely similar would do similar harm. Just as the fact that they all become able to cast fireball at 5th level hasn't harmed the class fantasy of playing a light cleric versus playing a wizard versus playing a fiend warlock in 5e - as far as I am aware, at any rate, instead of each of them having their own distinct "do fire damage in an AoE" spell.
There's also the matter of scale. There are circa 75-80 powers printed for each class in the PHB1 (not including powers printed for each class's paragon paths). If you commit just to redoing the PHB1 classes without some kind of consolidation effort, you're looking at 600-odd powers before even looking at paragon paths, much less other classes. That is a lot to design - and a lot of room for things to go wrong. (Whereas if you create one power that multiple classes refer to and get it wrong, you just have to fix that one power.)
On the other hand...
One of the neat (to my mind) features of 4e is how class-specific powers can be tied back to class features; I'll post an example of blazing starfall (Offline Compendium) in spoilers below. That kind of element would be unwieldy to include in a fulsomely-consolidated set of powers. For instance, if blazing starfall were an arcane spell that any arcane caster could learn or prepare, it would look rather bizarre for the Cosmic Magic rider effect to appear in the spell description were it found in, say, a chapter of spells at the back of the book. Along the same vein, unlike a generic "when you cast a spell that [does thing X]" type feature which applies to any spell you cast that does that thing, a spell-specific additional rider effect would be awkwardly placed in the sorcerer class description with no spell.
(*) Leaving aside the body of rules that a player is assumed to be familiar with when reading the spell description - how to make an attack roll, how to make a damage roll, how to read and understand the other power elements, etc.
In addition, when you have consolidated powers, it can also warp gameplay in potentially unfortunate ways. In 5e, there are usually a few "must-have" arcane spells, such that both sorcerers and wizards are likely to have those spells known/prepared most of the time, especially once you hit Tier 2 play - polymorph, fireball, shield, and a few others. Likewise, even though each cleric domain in theory encourages clerics to play differently based on their domain choice (with Trickery clerics going for a "Temple Raider of what's-the-name-of-that-Greyhawk-god" vibe versus war clerics wanting to wade into melee versus light clerics blasting with cleansing fire), in practice the spirit guardians-spiritual weapon combo is oh so very enticing. The class-specific nature of 4e powers doesn't prevent such a thing from warping a single class around a particular combination (à la spirit guardians/spiritual weapon), but they do prevent the same from happening to multiple classes - your sorcerer and wizard aren't ever casting the same spells, so if they're going to warp their meta around a single combo, at least it's a different one for wizards than for sorcerers.
)
