"Power Sources" and Classes

[paladinm]

The more I contemplate the 4.e "power sources" concept, the more I think that OD&D got it right by only having three classes for the (then) three "power sources": the fighter for the martial source (tho they didn't use the "power source" term back when), the mage/wizard/magic-user for the arcane source and the cleric for the divine. I guess nowadays we could throw in psion for the psionic and druid(?) for the primal?

With one base class for each source, other subclasses/hybrids can be developed from there. Thieves/rogues would just be fighters with different skills/feats/whatever. If a fighter wants to be a barbarian, he takes the rage feat; if he wants to be a thief, he takes the backstab, etc.

This might be a good way of presenting a "base" class system that also allows for a Lot of customization and modularity.

I know it probably won't happen, but I think it would be a hoot. Any thoughts?

 

[the Jester]

The term "power source" ought not appear in the rules more than once or twice, and then explicitly in the DMG when discussing class design. It's a completely artificial construct.

I don't want my rogues to be mostly just a fighter, and I don't want my monks to be mostly just a psion (? or is it fighter? or is it cleric?).

 

[Guest 85555]

Power source makes sense as a cpncept for casters, not so much for fighters, thieves and barbarians ImO.

 

[paladinm]

I think we'd need to evaluate each class by what it Mainly does. A monk primarily fights with his/her body, so it would be based on fighter with some psionic and stealthy "features" tacked on. A rogue does the same, with stealthy "features", backstab, etc.

You start with a base "class" and roll your own (pun not intended).

 

[Buugipopuu]

Power sources as keywords are helpful. It allows more complex abilities to be specified without as many words. PrCs with a requirement "Must be able to cast 3rd level arcane spells" is a lot simpler than "Must be able to cast 3rd level spells as a Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Assassin, Warmage, etc". Things like "effective cleric level" or "effective rogue level" to be used as generic gauges of a character's competence would be eliminated with a well-thought-out set of power source keywords. Martial/Arcane/Psionic/Divine is okay. Druids being 'primal' isn't really necessary, because that just means they derive their divine power from nature in general, rather than from specific gods. Perhaps 'Enlightened' could be a power source, which Monks and Ninja use to do flashy stuff without making them explicitly psionic.

 

[delericho]

The words "power sources" should not appear in the game in print. For the designers, it may be of use to think of them while developing individual powers, classes, and items, but the term itself should be eliminated.

If we must have power sources, there should be five: Martial (or Mundane, or whatever you want to call non-Magical), Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Item (or Artifice, or whatever). With an optional Psionic source. Characters should just use the source that is most appropriate for whatever they're doing at the time... so a Barbarian who rages uses the Primal source, but when he makes a standard attack it's Martial, and when he activates his magic sword that's the Item source.

 

[Danzauker]

I really like the power source concept of 4E, but I didn't like how it was used in the end. Didn't matter much, all in all it was just a label in your character sheet with little meaning in the game.

I'd like power sources to be expanded and given more meaning, with perhaps different mechanics. Two sources are severely needed: Martial and Arcane. Martial has to do with weapons. Arcane with magic.

Yes, I can do without Divine. I never liked the classic trope of D&D for which magic coming from the gods was different from magic coming from books and tomes. A Hold spell is a Hold spell. AFAIK a Cleric could be modeled by "multisourcing" arcane and martial powers with a nice divine theme, but I digress.

Let's say that they are keeping also a Divine power source in core for the sake of tradition. Psionic and Primal power sources would be in later expansions or "modules" how they seem to call them now.

The bigger problems I see are that:

1) Much care should be taken to avoid class bloat. It's perfect for Martial to have a Fighter and Rougue class, because they fulfill two different archetipes, but I really hope they try to avoid to cover every power/role combo with a class. Give every source powers for every role and let classes be able to focus on more than a role just by power choice.

1) Arcane is maybe too broad for a power source. Maybe an Elemental power source could be a good addition, after all it's another strong archetype. Elemental could cover invocation/evocation, while Arcane would cover illusion, transmutation and basically the non-blasting stuff.

3) Avoid power bloating. What I'd really, really like is to let classes "multisource" in some way, maybe by expending feats or another mechanic like for multiclassing. After all you could make a Ranger by choosing Martial and Primal powers, a Paladin with Divine and Martial powers, a Druid with Primal and Divine and so on. There's no need for 1000 powers, which at the end will be mostly the same.

 

[Shemeska]

The term "power source" ought not appear in the rules more than once or twice, and then explicitly in the DMG when discussing class design. It's a completely artificial construct.

I can't give you XP again at the moment, but very much this about it being an artificial abstraction that really shouldn't be present outside of a discussion of class design (if even then).

 

[wedgeski]

The words "power sources" should not appear in the game in print. For the designers, it may be of use to think of them while developing individual powers, classes, and items, but the term itself should be eliminated.

It made more sense given 4E's terminology. However on this I think I can agree: call it something else, and if you do call it something else, make it actually mean something in the game.

 

[Grazzt]

The term "power source" ought not appear in the rules more than once or twice, and then explicitly in the DMG when discussing class design. It's a completely artificial construct.

I don't want my rogues to be mostly just a fighter, and I don't want my monks to be mostly just a psion (? or is it fighter? or is it cleric?).

Agree, though I'd say the term should appear maybe once or twice minus one or two.