Rule of Three: 06/27/2011

[TerraDave]

Agreed. At this stage, the power source descriptor (vs just flavor text in the class description) doesn't really add anything.

Now, if rogues and fighters or bards and wizards had some common powers, that would be something else. Again...for the far, or not so far, future .

 

[the Jester]

Now that you mention it, augments might be a half-way meeting point for the "why does my martial character have powers?!" crowd.

Augments fit pretty neatly with the idea that you have a daily pool of vitality and that you can pull off any of your manouevers whenever you like but only a certain number of times between rests.

Wow, that's a great idea. Can someone rep Colmarr for me? I have to spread it around etc.

I like the full discipline mechanic; augments are ehhh okay but add to an already complex system with lots to track. Fortunately they only add a tiny layer of complexity due to the small number of points and choices.

I must be the only guy who doesn't like the introduction of themes. I would have been fine with them if they had been in the original rule set, but they are 4e's worst example of power creep imho.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Agreed. At this stage, the power source descriptor (vs just flavor text in the class description) doesn't really add anything.

The one thing it did accomplish was to make easy demarcations as to which classes would get stuff in each splatbook.

Although it's kind of funny that at one point Fighters were lumped together with Monks (Sword And Fist), while now they are lumped together with Rangers (Martial Power).

What surprises me is the fact that Monks don't ever seem to get lumped together with the power source that seems most inline with them... the Divine source. D&D fluff always has monks hanging around the various temples and monasteries dedicated to the gods... but are rarely ever aligned with the clerics and paladins for some reason.