"Power Sources" and Classes

[Andor]

Really? I thought it had its origin in the witch hunts, the D&D analogue of which would have been Divine vs Arcane.

A "witch" in the Christian witch-hunt sense is not using an arcane powersource but an infernal one. The Christian worldview does not contain a morally neutral source of supernatural power. (And please don't imagine this means I'm calling Wiccans satanists. I'm neither Christian nor Pagan, just explaining the background theology.)

D&D was informed by a lot of things. In most magical traditions in the real world there is no distinction between power sources, although there may be several entities to which one can appeal, some more attractive than others.

In most of the pre-D&D fantasy fiction you won't find many sharp distinctions between wizards and priests. It happened, but not in the assumed way you see in modern fiction.

 

[FireLance]

Anyway, on-topic, I think I would have been more on board with the idea of power sources if they were more mechanically distinctive. As it was, classes from some power sources (like Primal) barely seemed like they had anything in common with each other. The paladin and cleric did have strong Divine associations, but that was more because of the history of the game.

 

[tbk409]

Since the beginning there has always been a clear distinction between the arcane and the divine. One of the things that make classes interesting is the different fundamental nature of their abilities; a wizard is different from a cleric more in the nature of their power than in their mechanics. While I agree the phrase "Martial Power Source" is a little silly (particularly since many of the fighter powers seemed almost magical), it is important to remember who is using what sources of magic, prayer, or natural sources. I always liked the names Spells, Prayers, Evocations, etc. much better than the makes of the sources themselves.

Ideally the mechanics naturally show the differences between what was called power sources, but I think clarifying the distinction in some way is important.

 

[Mercurius]

A "witch" in the Christian witch-hunt sense is not using an arcane powersource but an infernal one. The Christian worldview does not contain a morally neutral source of supernatural power. (

This is largely true, but I think it would be more accurate to say that the (Medieval) Christian worldview simply did not differentiate between "arcane" and "infernal;" arcane was infernal.

Anyway, on-topic, I think I would have been more on board with the idea of power sources if they were more mechanically distinctive. As it was, classes from some power sources (like Primal) barely seemed like they had anything in common with each other. The paladin and cleric did have strong Divine associations, but that was more because of the history of the game.

Agreed. This was one of the biggest design flaws with 4E in general: not enough meaningful differentiation, and deep differentiation, between the classes. An "arcane blast" was little different than a "martial blast," except in terms of flavor ("Ooh, shiny sparkly things" vs. "ouch, shards of metal").

It just seems that this would lend itself to "modularity".. you pick a base "class". If your character is primarily a combatant, you start with a fighter base. If an arcane caster, a mage base, etc. Then you build on the base whatever you wish.. rogueish stuff, arcane stuff, divine stuff. Fighter base + arcane trappings = swordmage; fighter base + divine stuff = paladin; psion base + divine stuff = "divine mind" (or whatever)

Why does every class possibility need a full separate class write-up in the PH?

I agree with you in theory, although having a bunch of classes is just plain fun (e.g. I'd rather play a ranger than a fighter with nature skills). That said, I could see going with something like you describe above; adding in themes and you get all kinds of interesting combinations. It could even be that "ranger" is a theme and not a class, but I don't expect them to be that bold.

A lot of this hinges upon what themes will be, what ground they will cover. If they're broad and diverse then you really do only need a half dozen or less classes--at least the Holy Quaternary, but maybe no more.

That said, a monk is not simply a differently themed rogue, and a ranger is more than a hippy fighter. It will be tricky defining what is a theme and what is a class, but it may be that a class is a relatively simple affair and a theme provides further differentiation and detail and flavor. But one thing that themes do accomplish is that they take away the need to create a new class every time someone has a new flavor idea for a class; e.g. no need for a "Blackguard" class - that can be a theme for a Cleric or Paladin.

To put it another way, I'd keep classes as archetypes and themes as unique flavorings or templates over that archetype. Therefore you'd only really ever need a couple dozen classes, but could theoretically have hundreds of themes. I'd probably draw the line somewhere between paladin/ranger and blackguard/avenger/beastmaster--the former are archetypal classes while the latter are theme templates that further differentiate, detail, and flavor the character. Themes, then, could be modular options.

 

[Guest 85555]

This is largely true, but I think it would be more accurate to say that the (Medieval) Christian worldview simply did not differentiate between "arcane" and "infernal;" arcane was infernal.

The medieval church actually was largely Okay with "natural" magic, but condemned "demonic" magic.

 

[Andor]

The Druids always got their power from nature. It was only in Forgotten Realms that changed to them getting their powers from a nature god.

"Each cleric must have his or her own deity, so when a new player opts to become a cleric (including a druid), you must inform them as to which deities exist in your campaign milieu and allow the individual to select which of them he or she will serve." - Advanced Dungeon Masters Guide, pg 38.

 

[KidSnide]

I think "power sources," like "roles" and other 4e-isms, have been there all along but just were named for the first time in 4e.

And since it's in 4e it's wrongbadawful to certain people, even though the distinction has been in D&D from the start.

I disagree completely with the second sentence.

Yes, the concepts have been there all along, but D&D isn't just a collection of rules. It's an immersive experience and the words we use to describe the elements of D&D have an effect on the immersive experience. In the case of 4e, terms like "power", "power source", "healing surge", "striker", "defender", "controller", and (my least favorite) "artillery" aren't part of the fantasy genre. When the game uses those words it takes the reader out of the fantasy mindset and damages the experience of the game.

And, just for clarity, I don't think 4e is wrongbadawful. I play 4e. I've played it since it came out. I think 4e fixed many of the parts of 3.x that used to drive me nuts, and I really hope those advances are incorporated into D&DN. But having played the game for a few years now, I've begun to see its flaws, and I think the prevalence of gamist, out-of-genre terminology is one of them. These terms don't wreck the game -- I've had lots of fun with 4e. But they do make it worse.

-KS

 

[outsider]

This is kind of an important point. "Martial" is not a power source, even if you define that term pretty generously. Every character has martial prowess to some extent and should at least be able to attempt any maneuver or task (though a fighter or rogue is far more likely to succeed at many tasks than your average wizard).

Are you capable of attempting a gogoplata? How about a ouchi gari? Or maybe a balestra? Windmill kick? Wizzer? If you are correct, you should be able to attempt all of these without using google to figure out how to do them.

Martial combat is far more complicated than you make it out to be. My guess is that you'd have a 0% chance of performing most/all of those, due to having no idea where to even begin.

Giving wizards(or any non-martial character) access to every single "mundane" maneuver takes away from what it means to be a fighter.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Are you capable of attempting a gogoplata? How about a ouchi gari? Or maybe a balestra? Windmill kick? Wizzer?

No. Can a D&D fighter? No. He attacks, grapples, and trips.

I (or any D&D wizard) can try to do anything that is within the realm of D&D combat. "Realistic" combat is a whole different ballgame. Moreover, my 0% chance of success at certain maneuvers would be represented by my poor attack bonus giving me no chance, not by me lacking some sort of power that is exclusive to a trained character.

In other words, there is great combat skill in this world, but it still is not a power source.

Giving wizards(or any non-martial character) access to every single "mundane" maneuver takes away from what it means to be a fighter.

Giving fighters superpowers or shoehorning them into using a set list of abilities like a wizard takes away from what it means to be a fighter. It's entirely possible to make a skillful fighter with unique and flavorful abilities without doing those things. I'm not advocating dumbing the fighter down, but I think it's very important for him to have mechanical freedom and not be stuck in anything resembling a power system.

 

[outsider]

It's entirely possible to make a skillful fighter with unique and flavorful abilities without doing those things.

You can't make a fighter with unique abilities if everybody can do what a fighter does. That's my point. An ability is not unique if everybody can do it.

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.