Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Should Power Source have greater meaning?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 5727271" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>I liked the power sources because they gave us new classes that I think are really cool. I like the Avenger, the Warlord, the Warlock, the Invoker, the Shaman... and without having the power source concept to inform the designers that they needed more sourced classes in order to have enough to fill out the 'Power' splatbooks... there's no guarantee we ever would have seen any of them.</p><p></p><p>I think the biggest problem to the power source concept was the decision to ditch the 'Ki' source... not because I think the 'Ki' source was a great idea... but because it basically resulted in such tenuous ties to power sources for most of the class in the Player's Handbook III. Putting Monk as a Psionic without actually giving him Augments was pointless. Making runes a function of the Divine source for no real reason was pointless, especially considering the Runepriest also didn't use the Channel Divinity functionality like the other Divine classes did. And recreating the Ranger as a Primal (like it probably should have been in the first place) resulted in a superfluous Seeker class that no one cared about because the Ranger was virtually the same except for role. Not to mention that because Divine and Primal had already had their Power splatbooks... there was no opportunity for additional material for either of those classes to get made. So you had three classes that supported the power source ideal... and three more classes that barely did.</p><p></p><p>You couple that lackluster PHIII with the Essentials 'reboot' of classes (which as was mentioned made the sources even more distant from function by doing cross-sourced classes) and you get what used to be an actual fluff-driven conceptual distinction between classes even further away than they started with.</p><p></p><p>I think had they done with PHIII was we all thought they were going to do... 4 Psionic classes, 2 Ki classes, and 2 Shadow classes (followed the following year with 4 Elemental classes, 2 more Ki classes, and 2 more Shadow classes), the power source concept would have remained in a much stronger position.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 5727271, member: 7006"] I liked the power sources because they gave us new classes that I think are really cool. I like the Avenger, the Warlord, the Warlock, the Invoker, the Shaman... and without having the power source concept to inform the designers that they needed more sourced classes in order to have enough to fill out the 'Power' splatbooks... there's no guarantee we ever would have seen any of them. I think the biggest problem to the power source concept was the decision to ditch the 'Ki' source... not because I think the 'Ki' source was a great idea... but because it basically resulted in such tenuous ties to power sources for most of the class in the Player's Handbook III. Putting Monk as a Psionic without actually giving him Augments was pointless. Making runes a function of the Divine source for no real reason was pointless, especially considering the Runepriest also didn't use the Channel Divinity functionality like the other Divine classes did. And recreating the Ranger as a Primal (like it probably should have been in the first place) resulted in a superfluous Seeker class that no one cared about because the Ranger was virtually the same except for role. Not to mention that because Divine and Primal had already had their Power splatbooks... there was no opportunity for additional material for either of those classes to get made. So you had three classes that supported the power source ideal... and three more classes that barely did. You couple that lackluster PHIII with the Essentials 'reboot' of classes (which as was mentioned made the sources even more distant from function by doing cross-sourced classes) and you get what used to be an actual fluff-driven conceptual distinction between classes even further away than they started with. I think had they done with PHIII was we all thought they were going to do... 4 Psionic classes, 2 Ki classes, and 2 Shadow classes (followed the following year with 4 Elemental classes, 2 more Ki classes, and 2 more Shadow classes), the power source concept would have remained in a much stronger position. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Should Power Source have greater meaning?
Top