Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5727237" data-attributes="member: 54710">I think that WotC did an OK (but hardly great) job at giving power sources their own flavor.&nbsp; The prevalence of radiant power in the divine power source is an obvious example, as is the dominance of weapon attack powers in the martial power source.&nbsp; Most of the primal classes have a transformation theme, and psionic classes... umm... well, the divine power source is a good example.Where WotC fell down is failing to use power sources as a basis for creating in-game reality.&nbsp; This week's Rule of Three mentions this by saying that they should have allowed multiple classes to use some of the same powers, thereby giving the power an in-game reality.&nbsp; That reality should really be associated with power source.&nbsp; To the extent Paladins and Barbarians use powers that just whack something hard with a big sword, those powers should be martial powers regardless of where the classes' other powers come from.This failing is also in the loss of many useful in-game descriptors.&nbsp; If there is a magical effect, you should be able to determine if it's an arcane effect and do something about it.&nbsp; I understand why they moved away from monsters that cause characters to suck for a whole combat (e.g. constructs and sneak attack; fire sorcerers and red dragons), but they went way too far.&nbsp; It makes sense that there are spells and effects that specifically target or resist arcane magic (or divine magic, or psionic magic, etc...).&nbsp; Removing source-based benefits and weaknesses from the game is too high a price.&nbsp; Dispel magic should work on magic, not on zones (chosen, I take it, on the theory that most zones are magical).&nbsp; That they left these keywords off so many monsters is just an example of their failure to consider the in-game reality.&nbsp; Shouldn't a hobgoblin warcaster have &quot;arcane&quot; as a keyword on its spells?&nbsp; I assume it's not there because it doesn't really matter to run the monster in combat and they wanted to avoid unnecessary clutter.&nbsp; That's all well and good, but I think the point at which you look at a monster and say &quot;it doesn't matter whether this monster is an arcane caster or a primal caster&quot;, you have seriously lost your grounding in the game fiction.-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5727237, member: 54710"] I think that WotC did an OK (but hardly great) job at giving power sources their own flavor. The prevalence of radiant power in the divine power source is an obvious example, as is the dominance of weapon attack powers in the martial power source. Most of the primal classes have a transformation theme, and psionic classes... umm... well, the divine power source is a good example. Where WotC fell down is failing to use power sources as a basis for creating in-game reality. This week's Rule of Three mentions this by saying that they should have allowed multiple classes to use some of the same powers, thereby giving the power an in-game reality. That reality should really be associated with power source. To the extent Paladins and Barbarians use powers that just whack something hard with a big sword, those powers should be martial powers regardless of where the classes' other powers come from. This failing is also in the loss of many useful in-game descriptors. If there is a magical effect, you should be able to determine if it's an arcane effect and do something about it. I understand why they moved away from monsters that cause characters to suck for a whole combat (e.g. constructs and sneak attack; fire sorcerers and red dragons), but they went way too far. It makes sense that there are spells and effects that specifically target or resist arcane magic (or divine magic, or psionic magic, etc...). Removing source-based benefits and weaknesses from the game is too high a price. Dispel magic should work on [i]magic[/i], not on zones (chosen, I take it, on the theory that most zones are magical). That they left these keywords off so many monsters is just an example of their failure to consider the in-game reality. Shouldn't a hobgoblin warcaster have "arcane" as a keyword on its spells? I assume it's not there because it doesn't really matter to run the monster in combat and they wanted to avoid unnecessary clutter. That's all well and good, but I think the point at which you look at a monster and say "it doesn't matter whether this monster is an arcane caster or a primal caster", you have seriously lost your grounding in the game fiction. -KS [/QUOTE]

Verification