"Power Sources" and Classes

[DEFCON 1]

I think it's very important for him to have mechanical freedom and not be stuck in anything resembling a power system.

Mechanical freedom? What mechanical freedom? The freedom to do nothing but swing his sword over and over and over again because no one in his right mind would ever attempt disarms, trips, grapples, bull rushes & unarmed attacks unless they happened to blow feats on them to become even slightly competent at it?

At least in 4E fighters got to do most of those things successfully at least once an encounter. Sure, he couldn't do all of them over and over again as he might want... but at least he could be built to actually accomplish them occasionally with a modicum of success. Heh heh.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Mechanical freedom? What mechanical freedom? The freedom to do nothing but swing his sword over and over and over again because no one in his right mind would ever attempt disarms, trips, grapples, bull rushes & unarmed attacks unless they happened to blow feats on them to become even slightly competent at it?

If you're saying the 3e fighter (or earlier) doesn't quite have the flexibility I want, you're right about that. PF made some improvements in this area, but martial characters should be able to attack in several different ways reasonably competently before you start talking about feats or specific class abilities.

At least in 4E fighters got to do most of those things successfully at least once an encounter. Sure, he couldn't do all of them over and over again as he might want... but at least he could be built to actually accomplish them occasionally with a modicum of success. Heh heh.

And then the DM is left in the unfortunate position of having to explain to the player why after attempting a particular maneuver, he is now out of that maneuver for the day. I guess his reserve of "martial power" ran out? Honestly the actual explanations I've seen are worse than that.

You don't have to give superpowers to give fighters unique abilities. Nor do you have to give them a spell list. You do, however, have to single some abilities out as fighter only, in order for them to be unique to fighters.

I don't think you have to. I'd be quite happy with a system where anyone can master a weapon, fly into a fit of rage, and stab someone in the back, but where fighters, barbarians, and rogues are significantly better at those respective tasks than anyone else.

 

[SkidAce]

I don't think you have to. I'd be quite happy with a system where anyone can master a weapon, fly into a fit of rage, and stab someone in the back, but where fighters, barbarians, and rogues are significantly better at those respective tasks than anyone else.

In addition, I would say that fighters, barbarians, and rogues should be CONSISTENTLY better at those respective tasks...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I agree that the term "power source" should be taken out back and shot. D&D is a fantasy game. The term is out of genre (as is "power") and shouldn't be part of the working vocabulary of the game.

The same is at least as true of 'Psionics' but I suspect it's not going anywhere.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And then the DM is left in the unfortunate position of having to explain to the player why after attempting a particular maneuver, he is now out of that maneuver for the day.

Not as unfortunate as trying to explain why he can't ever do it, at all, which is the alternative. Unlimitted-use abilities simply can't have the impact of limited-use ones, while leaving them both balanced. Thus, if you have some classes with unlimitted-use abilties and some with limitted us, you doom one or the other to inferiority. If you make abilities comparable in spite of usage, the limitted-use class is inferior, if you compensate limitted use with greater power, the unlimited-use-only class fades into the background.

Either way is a prescription for suck, and D&D had been on that reginime far too long prior to 4e. We don't need to get back on it.

If limitted-use abilities are out for the martial source, they should be out of the game, entirely.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not as unfortunate as trying to explain why he can't ever do it, at all, which is the alternative. Unlimitted-use abilities simply can't have the impact of limited-use ones, while leaving them both balanced. Thus, if you have some classes with unlimitted-use abilties and some with limitted us, you doom one or the other to inferiority.

I believe you've just summarized fantasy roleplaying games. D&D (pre-4e) has always postulated great and powerful magic with limitations to access and use that are initially severe but become less and less so as characters advance, with nonmagical abilities that are relatively unrestricted but don't keep pace at high levels for balance and plausibility reasons.

There's room for improvement within that paradigm (i.e. more limitations on magic and more non-use-limited power for martial characters), but I don't see any need to break it. I've yet to see any game that is truly balanced and truly D&D. It's not flawless by any means, but it's worked for a long time.

 

[KidSnide]

I agree that the term "power source" should be taken out back and shot. D&D is a fantasy game. The term is out of genre (as is "power") and shouldn't be part of the working vocabulary of the game.

The same is at least as true of 'Psionics' but I suspect it's not going anywhere.

That's true, but psionics is optional and has a long history in D&D. As they noted in this week's Rule of Three, clerics aren't really part of the overall fantasy genre even if they are a core aspect of the D&D sub-genre.

I'm not a huge fan of the psionics-cthullu-far-realms aspect of D&D (although I do use it in my game), but it's been with D&D for well over a decade now and I think it's safe to say that it's now a part of the canon.

-KS

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's really the gist of it. Screw something up once, and it's a mistake. Screw it up every day for years, and it's a tradition.

 

[Guest 85555]

That's really the gist of it. Screw something up once, and it's a mistake. Screw it up every day for years, and it's a tradition.

I think the real issue here is whether a feature of the game is screwed up is very much a matter of perspective, preference and intent. The final measure of whether a mechanic works at a given table is whether it produces fun for those involved. Gamers rarely agree on what makes something fun. Over the years i have seen all kinds of priorities listed for fun: balance, meaningful choices, realistic rules, emulative rules, cool options, flexibility, breadth of style, etc. Then within each of thosee groups there is wide disagreement. On balance some want full parity across every encounter, others want things spread over time and less even but still balanced in the final analysis.