Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AngeltheTechrat" data-source="post: 4655478" data-attributes="member: 82200">I think &quot;Power Source&quot; is almost meaningless as a &quot;choice&quot; in character build. It's nothing to form a foundation on, and it's just a terminology basket when doing power write-ups. But it's an empty tag in the game mechanics. &nbsp;Roles are a bit more concrete, in that they really do alter function and play, in ways that Power Source simply doesn't. &nbsp;The problem (in my opinion) is that they are building a grid with Roles on one edge, and a meaningless term on the other edge, and then in each box on the grid, they're putting a shtick. And that's where it's coming appart for me.&nbsp;If they wanted to make a grid of it, I want Role on one edge, and SHTICK on the other. Because the shtick is the flavor, and the part I care about the most. The role is the mechanical relation, and the part I'm forced to deal with in order to get the shtick I want, there is only one choice of role. The source of that shtick's &quot;power&quot; is really only one tiny bit of the flavor, not the foundation of it. &nbsp;&nbsp;You should be able to take a shtick (example: Wizard -- spellbooks, &quot;magical energies&quot;, rituals, minor magics, and familiars) and then have an option for perhapse not EVERY role, but at least most of them (example: Conjurer (Controller), Evoker (Striker), Abjurer (Leader)).&nbsp;Warlocks, with their infused magic, pacts with other entities, and curses, are an entirely differenct shtick, that should have its own options for roles.&nbsp;A Wizard may not ever be feasable as a Defender, but a Fighter isn't likely to find feasability as a Controller. A Warlord, however, if they had Powers that handled Minions or cohorts of some kind, would be within their own shtick as a Controller.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AngeltheTechrat, post: 4655478, member: 82200"] I think "Power Source" is almost meaningless as a "choice" in character build. It's nothing to form a foundation on, and it's just a terminology basket when doing power write-ups. But it's an empty tag in the game mechanics. Roles are a bit more concrete, in that they really do alter function and play, in ways that Power Source simply doesn't. The problem (in my opinion) is that they are building a grid with Roles on one edge, and a meaningless term on the other edge, and then in each box on the grid, they're putting a shtick. And that's where it's coming appart for me. If they wanted to make a grid of it, I want Role on one edge, and SHTICK on the other. Because the shtick is the flavor, and the part I care about the most. The role is the mechanical relation, and the part I'm forced to deal with in order to get the shtick I want, there is only one choice of role. The source of that shtick's "power" is really only one tiny bit of the flavor, not the foundation of it. You should be able to take a shtick (example: Wizard -- spellbooks, "magical energies", rituals, minor magics, and familiars) and then have an option for perhapse not EVERY role, but at least most of them (example: Conjurer (Controller), Evoker (Striker), Abjurer (Leader)). Warlocks, with their infused magic, pacts with other entities, and curses, are an entirely differenct shtick, that should have its own options for roles. A Wizard may not ever be feasable as a Defender, but a Fighter isn't likely to find feasability as a Controller. A Warlord, however, if they had Powers that handled Minions or cohorts of some kind, would be within their own shtick as a Controller. [/QUOTE]

Verification