Should Power Source have greater meaning?

[I'm A Banana]

While it is of course important to have a strong emphasis on traditional archetypes, it can be extremely valuable for the game and for fantasy in general for new archetypes to be attempted from time to time. Stagnation is bad for the game and the genre.

"New Archetypes" are not something you can choose to create, though. Archetypes are recognized, not engineered.


As far as the power sources go, it's really a matter of personal taste which ones exist and which ones don't and why. It's not like there are hard and fast rules for it, and there's no objective criteria you can measure it against and say, "This should be a power source!" and "This should not be a power source!" You could have only one power source: "Heroism." You could also have a unique power source for every single character.

I think the thematic distinction is useful, but it is only that: a theme. Not even a coherent theme. Warlocks could arguably be divine. Invokers could be arcane. Rogues could be shadow. Rangers could be primal. The choice to do one or the other is mostly stylistic at the moment, since every class needs its own list of 500 unique powers anyway, and there's no law that says that if a power deals weapon damage it can't be an arcane power (or whatever). It's muddled.

I think for D&D, that the broad categories make sense, though they could be better applied. I think a unified power source "powers" list may help this, since it would mean, forex, rogues and fighters using mostly the same list (though perhaps only overlapping in a few places, like priests with different gods).

Then, I'd support allowing new power choices in with feats. If your rogue wanted to dabble in shadow magic, he could take a feat to gain access to some limited palette of shadow powers (perhaps there was a feat that let you take shadow powers with the "stealth" keyword). Or if your shirtless wrestler of a fighter wanted to gain some primal powers, he could dabble. Got a priest of the god of knowledge? Take a feat that gives you access to Arcane Spells that are Divinations!

 

[Incenjucar]

The lack of hard and fast rules isn't necessarily a bad thing. Power sources give you a starting point to work with, in conjunction with role and combat style (melee, ranged, close area, ranged area, pet, etc). If you make hard and fast rules, you can get locked into "Fighter Druid," "Rogue Druid," Wizard Druid," and "Cleric Druid" instead of coming up with something like Shamans.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think by making power source = powers, you actually open up a lot of class-based customization option in terms of features and role mechanics.

If every Primal character gets access to the same basic powers, then having a druid shape-shift, and a ranger use ranged attacks, and a shaman use a spirit ally, you can actually emphasize that difference more strongly, in the class itself, rather than through its powers.

 

[Incenjucar]

That sounds like it would just encourage more cookie cutter classes, like a bladesinger equivalent for each controller class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Classes with radically different features wouldn't be 'cookie cutter,' just because they could choose from among the same powers.

But, it would radically reduce the number of powers needed to make the game functonal, and it would revive the idea of recognizeable 'iconic' powers, that some seem to miss. (In other words, they wouldn't run out of cool, intuitive power names quite so fast).

 

[Incenjucar]

Unless you mean giving classes a large number of Powers that aren't widely available, as with many Essentials classes, I'm not seeing what you're gaining here except a variety of ranges or something akin to an Essentials-esque stance add-on. I don't see how giving Barbarians the ability to use Ironbreaker Claws in melee is going to make Primal more iconic.

 

[Stalker0]

I do think the idea of shared power lists based on power source would be a good idea.

For example, the cleric has shield of faith, Paladin have sacred circle. SoF is much better, but I don't see a reason the paladin couldn't possess it...both being divine classes.


As far as the power sources themselves, I would like a shorter list, but with classes having one or more sources.

Sources could probably be as small as

Arcane, Martial, Divine, Natural.

A fighter would be martial, a paladin martial/divine, ranger martial/natural.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't see how giving Barbarians the ability to use Ironbreaker Claws in melee is going to make Primal more iconic.

There's been a complaint voiced that there are so many powers, they've lost their individual impact. In the past, if someone cast fireball or flamestrike, everyone knew the spell and what it meant. Now, if someone uses "Ironbreaker Claws" it's just another name. If you have fewer powers, each power has some chance of building up some cachet and becoming 'iconic' like Magic Missle or Wall of Ice or whatever.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If every ower scales by tier, they can become signature powers for the character and that would make classes more distinct.

 

[Incenjucar]

I doubt any class has anywhere near as many powers as Wizards and Clerics did in previous editions.

--

It's worth noting that in Heroes of the Feywild, they have already started creating tiered powers (Lesser X, X, and Greater or True X). It amuses me because I was already doing this in my own work a few months ago.