Design & Development, Bard and Barbarian wrote:
Also, when it came to their transformations I always liked partial-transformations. Perhaps we could see something like; at-will a minor-transformation, ie: grow claws, encounter: your body grows more beastly, daily: grow into the complete animal.
I think the warden will be animal based.
And back on topic I don't much like the idea of the druid (or whoever is the weather caster) turning into a storm or things like that. Remember that the theme of transformation doesn't necessarily mean that they transform. Maybe the druid will instead reshape the battlefield by causing vines and roots to grow, the ground to open, rivers to overflow stuff like that. I think that could be a blast and a half and a really fun way to work a controller.
Why are you going to have to ban the whole powersource? Because of the whole "transformation" motif?
Pretty much. I HATED Wild Shape. Hated with the burning intensity of a thousand suns that were also on fire.
For barbarians at least, it seems mostly to be internal, hanging their mindset and such.
The whole 'totem' thing is still flaky to me. I would much rather Barbarian had simply been Martial, though from the sounds of things the Battlerager Fighter in Martial Power can substitute adequately for that.
UGH. Great. Gonna have to throw out the whole Primal power source.
"I don't liek tihs fluffs so u cant also play it."
Pretty much. I HATED Wild Shape. Hated with the burning intensity of a thousand suns that were also on fire.
What, praytell, was wrong with Wild Shape?
I liked it, it was a fun thing for Druids. Transforming into animals....how is that not cool? I mean, personal peference aside, how could you look down on this in a game with so much built around different types of magic?
Is becoming an animal through magic more absurd than teleporting through time and space? Or creating elements or matter from nowhere?
Just trying to understand your reasoning here.
"Drow PCs are all pathetic emo Mary Sue Drizzt clones, so none of you can play one."
"Half-orcs are all the products of **** and I'm uncomfortable with that, so none of you can play one."
"It freaked me out when the cute druid chick in NWN2 turned into a badger while we were making out, so I'm going to ban all shapeshifting."
And so on.
(Note: if this post offends you, it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek; if it doesn't, then it should be taken 100% seriously. ;) )
Let me restate my long-held opinion. Wildshapes will be daily powers for whatever class gets them, whether it is Druid or Warden.
This may be. I too suspected such as soon as I saw the Barbarian preview. Now I'm leaning more towards expecting wildshaping being Utility evocations.
Mostly the Wildshape concept does quite fit the same "make a powerful attack that transforms you" style that works for Rage. Perhaps it could work for a "transform and pounce" or "make a flyby attack" effect, but I'm anticipating most wildshapes as powers that let you sneak, move through difficult terrain, or gain power bonuses, without needing to attack first.
---
The whole "theme of transformation" for Primal classes and evocations? Excellent idea! In my opinion it's a coherent way to group barbarians together with druids that has more mechanical implications than "a theme of nature".
Throw in some controller spells (weather related for area damage and clouds, plant related for imobilization and/or ongoing poison)
Toss in some utility transformations for movement enhancement and possibly some single target bonus damage or effects, and we have a divine controller.
At least that was what I was half expecting, half hoping. :D
Is becoming an animal through magic more absurd than teleporting through time and space? Or creating elements or matter from nowhere?
I agree with you here. I can't imagine how anyone could make that claim...
People transforming into animals must be the single most common magical ability of wizards from traditional folklore. One good example is a classic folktale (The School of Salamanca), a story about a battle between an evil wizard and his good apprentice, which involves the two taking on a variety of shapes in order to out-transform the other (if you have seen Disney's The Sword in the Stone, you would have seen something similar). In many cases, animal transformation and magic are practically considered to be one and the same.
Actually, the closer you get to the idea of the "hermit wizard", the true archetype the Druid class is based upon, the more important and common this kind of magic becomes in folklore and popular culture.
What if druids get F-ed out of animal transformations, and channel the aspects of their weather spells?
I'd actually prefer it that they split the class into Warden and Druid as people are speculating. As animal transformation, being awesome nonetheless, isn't what I envision when I think Druid.
Now in 3.5 I never used Wildshape as I prefered weather magic, but I never had a problem with. I still thought it was awesome, it just wasn't for me.
I agree with you here. I can't imagine how anyone could make that claim...
People transforming into animals must be the single most common magical ability of wizards from traditional folklore. One good example is a classic folktale (The School of Salamanca), a story about a battle between an evil wizard and his good apprentice, which involves the two taking on a variety of shapes in order to out-transform the other (if you have seen Disney's The Sword in the Stone, you would have seen something similar). In many cases, animal transformation and magic are practically considered to be one and the same.
Actually, the closer you get to the idea of the "hermit wizard", the true archetype the Druid class is based upon, the more important and common this kind of magic becomes in folklore and popular culture.
Yes, it's literally one of the oldest ones in the book. Not liking it is akin to hating the United States but loving New York City, sure it's possible but it doesn't make much sense.
Alternatively, the druid might get some form of Shape Change ability as a Class Feature, which merely allows disguise [ref. the Monster Manual]. The powers might then play off the form the druid assumes in some way. (Much as some Fighter exploits grant bonuses for specific weapons, or Rogue and Ranger exploits grant specials depending on build.)
It's entirely possible that rather than transforming into animals wholesale, the Druid's powers might be more like the Aspects of Nature variant, introduced in Unearthed Arcana.
Yeah something like this I would like to see as stated in my previous post. Like come on who wouldn't have fun turning your teeth into a shark's ready to shred someone. I imagine RP wise get lots of intimidate bonuses :D
I'd actually prefer it that they split the class into Warden and Druid as people are speculating. As animal transformation, being awesome nonetheless, isn't what I envision when I think Druid.
Now in 3.5 I never used Wildshape as I prefered weather magic, but I never had a problem with. I still thought it was awesome, it just wasn't for me.
The prime distinction I see between the transformative powers of a Druid and a Warden is that of quantity versus quality.
The way I see it, Druids get multiple forms (perhaps as a function of their daily powers), that each have a specific purpose. For instance, turning into a wolf for extra mobility or turning into a bird to fly. There will probably be two main 'builds': A weather-control druid that can transform into elemental forms, and a beast druid that can turn into animals and focuses on summoning and plant-based spells.
On the other hand, I see the Warden as being more of a 'combat shapeshifter', that focuses on a single animal form. Their powers might work similarly to a warlock's, with them being based on a totem animal rather than a pact. For instance, while a bear form might be a purer defender, a tiger form might dip into striker more. With this extreme focus comes a variety of uses for this animal form, like different bites, claws, and leaps. They might also get intimidating roars that stop the enemies in their tracks and help them defend.
Form shifting has always been a problem child for D&D when it comes to rules, power curve, game balance, and encounter creation. Assuming that 4.0's creators are going to have it all worked out amounts to wishful thinking, or perhaps magical thinking.
Now as far as barbarians, druids, and wardens having access to a primal power source which could potentially allow them to do things (among which is form shifting) seems rather true to type and genre. Consider that originally a berserker was a "baersark" (god I hate not having umlauts) or "bear skin" wearer.
I personally felt the barbarian (while mechanically sound in 3.5) was simply not flavorful enough to warrant its differentiation from the fighter class (way too much competition anyway). But allowing them to dip into some sort of primal power set of abilities ( hopefully with choice and lots of it) turns them into a rival not a class alteration (imo).
MTF
Form shifting has always been a problem child for D&D when it comes to rules, power curve, game balance, and encounter creation. Assuming that 4.0's creators are going to have it all worked out amounts to wishful thinking, or perhaps magical thinking.
I think you are forgetting the significant progress that was made in polymorph spells over the duration of 3E. In the beginning, spells like polymorph and shapechange were ludicrously broken, because they were open ended enough to let a character transform into anything. However, late 3.5 produced considerably more balanced spells that allowed a PC to transform into a single specific form.
Most likely, any Primal wildshape power will be based on the later: the ability to transform into a very specific form with very specific powers. In that case, it is really easy to balance the stats of the new form and give that form some specific special qualities.
So I think experience does indicate that Wizards will have transformation working correctly.
And while a wizard can add to or subtract from the battlefield with their powers, the druids seem like they are going to change the battlefield by actually altering what is there. Causing plants to spring up from seeds, melting the floor into magma, rending gaps in the earth and causing earthquakes. You know, all sorts of cataclismic events druids are known for.
It does seem more likely a Druid would gain more weather-themed wildshapes and abilities and the defender class (expected to be the Warden) would get the animal wildshape. Weather is more encompasing in area, while a bear is just a bear. A bear-person would be a great defender, its a bear after all. A storm cloud, though, would beable to blanket a battlefield with bolts of lightening and deafening thunder, you know, the sort of stuff a controller is ment to do.
And while a wizard can add to or subtract from the battlefield with their powers, the druids seem like they are going to change the battlefield by actually altering what is there. Causing plants to spring up from seeds, melting the floor into magma, rending gaps in the earth and causing earthquakes. You know, all sorts of cataclismic events druids are known for.
THIS!
Yes, this is a Druid and I hope it's what we get.
THIS!
Yes, this is a Druid and I hope it's what we get.
Sort of agreed. I would be very happy if this happened, however, I would not be dreadfully put down if we did not.
However, I must again say that I support the idea of Warden having actual animal transformations, and druids getting weather/plant magic.
What, praytell, was wrong with Wild Shape?
I liked it, it was a fun thing for Druids. Transforming into animals....how is that not cool? I mean, personal peference aside, how could you look down on this in a game with so much built around different types of magic?
Is becoming an animal through magic more absurd than teleporting through time and space? Or creating elements or matter from nowhere?
Just trying to understand your reasoning here.
I just don't like shapeshifting. I'm not particularly enamored of the whole 'nature magic' stuff in the first place ... it's not something I really envision as part of my game world. I do not find people turning into animals (or anything else, really) interesting or cool or whatever.
I don't know if I'll ban it or not. If it's BALANCED, I'll grit my teeth and deal with it. One of my players loves the stuff (and bards ... GUH. No idea what goes through this guy's head). I can guarantee that I'll never play a Primal character; the whole 'nature/spirit' stuff just isn't my bag.
People transforming into animals must be the single most common magical ability of wizards from traditional folklore. One good example is a classic folktale (The School of Salamanca), a story about a battle between an evil wizard and his good apprentice, which involves the two taking on a variety of shapes in order to out-transform the other (if you have seen Disney's The Sword in the Stone, you would have seen something similar). In many cases, animal transformation and magic are practically considered to be one and the same.
Actually, the closer you get to the idea of the "hermit wizard", the true archetype the Druid class is based upon, the more important and common this kind of magic becomes in folklore and popular culture.
And this affects me ... how?
And this affects me ... how?
I guess this person is just as baffled as I am as to why you are so opposed to "transformation" magic.
I guess this person is just as baffled as I am as to why you are so opposed to "transformation" magic.
I just don't like it. I don't care about mythology or literature or folklore, just my game world, and I don't like transformation magic in my game worlds.
Everybody has their own hangups. Some people hate psionics ... I hate nature-fey-spirit stuff and people turning into animals.
And this affects me ... how?
If you are talking about a personal distaste for it all, it probably doesn't. I don't understand that kind of dislike, but I am fine with it.
As I said in the post you quoted, I was merely agreeing with Darotwyn that no one could reasonably deny that transformation magic is an important part of the very idea of magic. It is fine to not like it, but it is impossible to claim that it is inherently implausible or absurd, or that it is obscure or unpopular. If you were not making that claim, then my argument doesn't apply to what you were saying.
I heard about the Shape Shifter Druid before the new edition was released, and like the possibilities. It isn't exactly what the Druid was in the past, but was a part of the class in the previous edition. I still don't believe the Hybrid class idea was a serious consideration but instead a test of what could go wrong with a class with to many roles.
I will say it again, I believe that Wizards are not going to abandon the Shape Shifter Druid, and the Weather Magic class will be something else in the same book.
It does seem more likely a Druid would gain more weather-themed wildshapes and abilities and the defender class (expected to be the Warden) would get the animal wildshape. Weather is more encompasing in area, while a bear is just a bear. A bear-person would be a great defender, its a bear after all. A storm cloud, though, would beable to blanket a battlefield with bolts of lightening and deafening thunder, you know, the sort of stuff a controller is ment to do.
And while a wizard can add to or subtract from the battlefield with their powers, the druids seem like they are going to change the battlefield by actually altering what is there. Causing plants to spring up from seeds, melting the floor into magma, rending gaps in the earth and causing earthquakes. You know, all sorts of cataclismic events druids are known for.
Yeah, cool take. The transforming theme can of course be applied to the the battlefield rather than the character. However, it might be a cool play experience if the druid actually transformed into all of these things, as suggested by Chrys. Imagine that the druid mysteriously disappears and suddenly a storm of hail and lightning erupts across the battlefield or giant vines erupt from the ground to entwine foes. Sort of the druid becoming one with nature, literally.
I think in the end that may be too literal a take on the devs' transformation theme, but it still sounds awfully exciting and dramatic! :D Maybe they will go for it. Guess we'll see.
Oh, hey look out! It's a druid attack! :raincloud
:P
I'd rather summon a lightning storm than turn into one, or turn into someone who flies around shooting lightning from their eyes.
I don't mind having the option of turning into a lightning storm, as long as
A) I can have a different spell with a different theme
B) Turning into a storm is balanced.
B) Turning into a storm is balanced.
That, I must say, is one of the more unique statements I have read on these boards. :D
I don't like the sound of this transformation flavour, I prefer the idea of these characters just using primal powers.
Without transformation though, what differentiates Primal powers from Martial, Arcane, or Divine ones? Wizards can throw lightning bolts already. Heck, one of the most powerful Cleric powers summons a storm. The transformation motif gives the Primal power source a reason to exist.
Without transformation though, what differentiates Primal powers from Martial, Arcane, or Divine ones? Wizards can throw lightning bolts already. Heck, one of the most powerful Cleric powers summons a storm. The transformation motif gives the Primal power source a reason to exist.
Power sources are almost totally fluff; they're irrelevant to the actual functioning of the class.
Power sources are almost totally fluff; they're irrelevant to the actual functioning of the class.
For the sake of argument, there ARE certain terrain types that effect different power sources. Power source also effects proficiencies and implements, it seems.
I believe that it is more than just "fluff" but a general guideline on how the class is put together, tied with the Role of the class. It is also a good way to figure out what the group needs, though the Roles are more locked in this, and has a defining working in what powers are given and how they use them.
I think that the Power Sources are more important for the core of the classes than what Role is, and still consider Roles as a design tool, not something a player needs to think about to much.
...I think that the Power Sources are more important for the core of the classes than what Role is, and still consider Roles as a design tool, not something a player needs to think about to much.
Interesting post, ThaX. Are you saying that the Party Role is how a player fits into the party, but his Power Source is how he or she fits into the world?
Interesting post, ThaX. Are you saying that the Party Role is how a player fits into the party, but his Power Source is how he or she fits into the world?
That might be one way to look at it. I see a group of fighters and a healer or two saying "we are gonna need a wizard" also. It depends on how much you pay attention to role in playing. Newer players will latch on to Role, while we who played the previous editions will see them as they are, design tools.
Leader, Controller, Defenders or Strikers, it is basically Paladin/Wizard, Fighter, Cleric or Rogue in the previous edition. Some may dispute which was a particular role, but in this new edition it has served to better define the classes and give them a direction. Something the Druid didn't have in the previous edition.
Power sources are almost totally fluff; they're irrelevant to the actual functioning of the class.
Not quite...
No character with a Martial class will ever be able to throw a fireball, or fly under his own power, unless they use a magic item or multiclass into some other Power Source. Divine classes use Holy Symbols as implements, while Arcane characters use a wide assortment of others (but never Holy Symbols). Actually, no Arcane character will ever be able to deliver a crushing blow with nothing but a weapon and raw power (I don't think even the Swordmage has something like that). In many ways, Power Source is more confining for a class's mechanics than Role is in 4E.
Fluff and mechanics are inseparable. Specialized mechanics are the best way to create flavor for a class and power source, if not the only way.
Primal Power Source: a theme of transformation.
Minoring in Defender. Evoking the power of nature within!
Marital Power Source: a theme of weapon exploitation.
Minoring in Striker. Exploiting the tools of the trade for all their worth!
Divine Power Source: a theme of divine intercession.
Minoring in Leader. Praying for healing aide and radiant retribution!
Arcane Power Source: a theme of flashy explosion.
Minoring in Controller. Casting spells to
Its not so much the "mechanics" of the power source that defines them, so much as what the powers themselves do, and how they are limited. An arcane spell and a martial exploit that knock a creature prone use the same mechanics, despite their being of different power sources.
The martial power source is limited to doing "fighting" things (hence the name), and will have effects that can conceivably be duplicated in real world fighting styles.
Arcane spells all use "magic" (duh), and can thereby do all sorts of wonderful and terrible things, whether that be to shoot a ball of fire or to make an ally fly. Like in most traditional fantasy, arcane characters are inhibited when they lack their desired implement, but at the same time, some are good enough to channel magic through their weapon of choice.
Divine characters work the will of the gods (a fitting job, considering their name), and perform such wonders as reviving the dead or repelling the undead with their holy symbol.
However, classes of all these power sources use the same power format, share similar limits in the number of at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers they possess, and are all subject to the same Core Mechanic. Power Sources do not use different mechanics, they simply do different things.
To be more clear with what I am talking about, compare the prominence of the Radiant keyword among Divine classes and the (almost?) total lack of the elemental keywords among Martial Classes. Or, the greater number of Zones and Conjurations among Arcane and Divine compared to Martial, and the much greater number of Weapon Powers for Martial compared to Implement Powers for Arcane, with Divine mixing both more frequently. No Martial Class gives you an at-will ranged attack unless it involves a ranged weapon, while many Arcane and Divine classes get such things. These mechanical tendencies and patterns do not happen randomly, they happen because the designers want the game rules "crunch" to be meshed with the "fluff/flavor".
All arcane classes use Int. All divine classes use Wis and Cha. All martial classes use Str. Even if the ability in question is only used as a secondary stat for one of the possible builds for the class (e.g. Str for the rogue), it's still there.
I would guess all primal classes will use Con in some manner. I would also be quite surprised if the upcoming sorcerer doesn't use Int as a secondary stat (as we already know the bard does).
Power source seems, if anything, to be more mechanically important now than it was in 3rd edition.
Power source seems, if anything, to be more mechanically important now than it was in 3rd edition.
Power sources didn't exist in any previous edition of the game.
Power sources didn't exist in any previous edition of the game.
Well they did exist. They just weren't called power sources and there were only three, arcane, divine, and "Dear god help me! I'm being eaten by a dragon and can't do anything!".
Well they did exist. They just weren't called power sources and there were only three, arcane, divine, and "Dear god help me! I'm being eaten by a dragon and can't do anything!".
You forgot Psi...
You forgot Psi...
And Incarnum, The Sublime Way, Shadow, Pact, and Truename.
Each "power source" in 3e could be identified by the different progression mechanics it possessed... (ick).
TwinBahamut, I was partially responding to you in my last point, and while I agree with your opinion given your definition of mechanic, I was disagreeing with your definition. The above is what I envision when I hear that each power source has different mechanics.... And it still makes me squirm.
Well they did exist.
No, they didn't, implied doesn't count.
Clerics had spells and the source of those spells was divine. Wizards had spells and the source of those spells was arcane. The fact that the 3rd edition PHB didn't explicitly state "there are X different power sources and here are their names" like 4th edition does doesn't change this.
By Steely_Dan's reasoning, roles didn't exist either in 3rd edition (since they were not explicitly defined in the PHB). So, presumably, a wizard could make a perfectly good melee tank, right? Right? And a fighter could hit a dozen enemies at once, yes?
Didn't think so.
Certainly seems to be the case so far, but I doubt that is what the designers intended. It probably just happened that way.
No, I'd say they fully intended it that way.
There is a unified mechanic to help balance out power using a mathematical model, but which gives some considerable flexibility in designing them. But although the underlying crunch is the same, the way powers are put together for a class depends heavily on both role and power source, as well as other fluffy aspects.
For example, a Fighter's Features and Powers are quite different from a Paladin's, even though they are both Defenders. The Paladin does not gain the same edge in using melee weapons, but can use her Holy Symbol for a few Ranged effects. Her Challenge is somewhat less sticky, but a little more ranged, and she does not entirely need to remain adjacent to her marked opponent. It can be used more effectively with reach weapons, for instance. Overall, a Paladin can be slightly more mobile and reaching than the Fighter, but is a little less durable so needs to be so. She also has to consider rationing her healing effects between herself and her allies.
The power source makes a difference in class design.
The power source makes a difference in class design.
While I would agree, I think more than the Power Source in question, the Class itself makes a difference in the class design. A class has its role, and it gets a bunch of stuff "for free" because of that. Then, a class gets a bunch of other stuff that helps make that class unique. While that secondary stuff it receives is based on the class in question (which is undoubtedly further characterized by its power source.) Class flavor makes a difference in design, and Power Source is simply a tool to help conceptualize the class. This is why there can be multiple classes within the same Source/Role slot on "the matrix."
I also realize that that classes have sort of "secondary" roles they can fulfill, but I feel that is a side effect of the flavor of the power source, and not the intentional effect of how the power sources are secretly designed.
3rd edition characters had powers (even though they weren't called that) and therefore power sources.
Once again, no, incorrect, the term power source was never in any previous edition of the game, stop reaching to try to prove a point. You had spells, period; please stop whatever it is you're doing.
And please don't try to be snide and condescending with your Steely doesn't think roles ever existed shenanigans (it's just not necessary), now you're getting a little absurd with your comparisons, of course we know a magic-user couldn't tank etc, and terms like tank, squishy, heal-bot, medic, meat-stick, stealth-boy etc have been unofficial slang for character types for decades, so you've lost on that front too.
So, to wrap this up, I think you should quit while you're behind – power sources did not exist in any previous edition of this game, and anybody who tries to argue that there were, is delusional at best and insulting at worst.
No hard feelings.
Power sources is just a classification of what had been used in the previous edition, not a new standard.
Your arguing about semantics, that the previous edition didn't have these Power Sources spelled out like they are in the new edition. Fact is, you still had the Fighter, the Wizard and the Cleric. Three distinct class with different sources for their talents. Most of the other classes was variants of those classes, the Sorcerer being a clone with slightly different mechanics.
Just because the Previous edition didn't have the Power Sources listed out doesn't mean the overall theme that they represent wasn't there.
Without transformation though, what differentiates Primal powers from Martial, Arcane, or Divine ones? Wizards can throw lightning bolts already. Heck, one of the most powerful Cleric powers summons a storm. The transformation motif gives the Primal power source a reason to exist.
And a Divine Class won't use Fireball as a specific Power, they focus on Radiant, Fire and some Lightning/Thunder.
Arcanes tend to pool from all damage types except Radiant.
a Primal Controller won't throw out a Fireball, they'll call a Lightning Storm, cause an Earthquake, control the Plantlife, etc.
A Divine Controller wouldn't cast Fireball either, They might have a Radiant Burst that does 3d6 damage to a burst 3 in 10 squares, but they won't cast Fireball.
Also, a Primal Controller won't have the same Skill sets, class features and themes as a Wizard, neither will a Sorc.
The Primal power gives the reason for Primal power to exist.
Clerics could cast certain Wizard spells if they had the right Domain.
The reason a Cleric doesn't cast an Iconic Wizard spell like Fireball is flavour, Bards can't cast Fireball inherently but they're supposedly "Arcane powered" as you would put it.
You had spells, period;
So what is this major distinction between 'spells' and 'powers' that you believe exists? Because they look to be different (edition-specific) terms for essentially the same thing to me.
please stop whatever it is you're doing.
Stop disagreeing with you, you mean? No. Sorry. I'm not about to let someone on an internet forum dictate what I think.
and terms like tank, squishy, heal-bot, medic, meat-stick, stealth-boy etc have been unofficial slang for character types for decades
Roles, just like power sources, have been around pretty much forever. Only the terminology is new (and the fact that they're not tucked away in the background any more). You can't get around this by saying "no, they were character types, not roles".
is delusional at best and insulting at worst.
And yet, I am the snide and condescending one?
No hard feelings.
Of course not. This is most entertaining. Especially the bit in your other post where you accuse me and anyone who agrees with me of substance abuse. Stay classy, 'kay?
You should ask Mike Mearls
Yes, with all due respect to Steely_Dan, I think Mr Mearls has at least a bit more credibility on this issue than he does.
…Can someone send me some?
And please don't try to be snide and condescending with your Steely doesn't think roles ever existed shenanigans (it's just not necessary), now you're getting a little absurd with your comparisons, of course we know a magic-user couldn't tank etc, and terms like tank, squishy, heal-bot, medic, meat-stick, stealth-boy etc have been unofficial slang for character types for decades, so you've lost on that front too.
The way we had "divine spells," "arcane spells," (which worked mechanically differently from one another) "extraordinary abilities," "psionic powers," etc.?
You're right that the terminology didn't exist before. You're talking out of your ass about the rest, though. You'd have been closer to the truth saying roles didn't exist (i.e. the exact opposite of what you've been saying), because Wizards could, in fact, pwn everybody at basically everything (including tanking). So could Druids and Clerics (especially at tanking).
The other 3 roles weren't specifically built to either, none of the 4E rolls existed in the past.
On topic:
Having read the Druids 1-3 preview:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20081201a
I am disapointed by the flavour. Thankfully there are enough powers to run a character who doesn't Wildshape (so far).
My only issue is that Wild Shape cannot be "traded in" for anything. I guess it wouldn't be so hard to give the Druid animal-flavored cantrips in its stead, but still.
Well, you could play around with giving the druid an animal companion instead of wild shaping, using the Ranger example as a template. It'd probably be a lot of work to get it right, though, since druids rely on different attributes.
Tanking wasn't a 3E D&D role though, people made Tanks because it made sense to have one, or at least, they couldn't figure what else to do with the guy in plate.
The other 3 roles weren't specifically built to either, none of the 4E rolls existed in the past.
On topic:
Having read the Druids 1-3 preview:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20081201a
I am disapointed by the flavour. Thankfully there are enough powers to run a character who doesn't Wildshape (so far).
Roles Definatly existed, they just weren't clearly defined
1) Heavy Guy Who Stands in way of attacks. IE: Fighters, barbarians, Paladins, crusaders, warblade other high health/str characters. (Only problem was they weren't sticky and spellcasters could do eveyrthing they could do and better, but nvm.)
2) Sneaky Guy who deals alot of damage and disarms traps/picks locks
This would be the Rogue, Ninja, Scout, Spellthief, aspects of the bard, beguiler.
3) Healer Dude
Cleric (who could also melee and blast but nvm), the failed healer class, marshal (sorda), paladin, parts of Bard.
4) "controller" and I name it such cause they weren't partuclarly controlling. I guess the best way to say it would be SPELLCASTER. Cleric, Druid, Artificer, Wizards, sorcerer, psion, wilder... anyone who got 9 _______ levels and could win the game on their own.
The differences between 3e and 4e roles are twofold
1) Far less specifically defined, you could get the general gist of a class but no named role. This lack of specificity though led to some classes without a very well defined role.The 3e ranger, what was he? He had some skill points, so maybe sneaky, but he didn;t have the right class skills. Probably a brute/big guy, but his ac wasn;t that great and he didn;t have the health to make up for it like the barbarian. B/c of this, classes like the monk or ranger didn;t have something people expected them to do. They could fight, deal damage, but they didn;t have a role beyond "attacking" which they weren;t partularly specialized in.
2) Far more tied to "power source." Divine power sourced things tended to be healers. Martial power source thigs were either sneaky dudes or brutes. Arcane power source classess were all either spellcasters (IE: I can do anything) or a hybrid of spellcaster and something else. Can;t speak to the smaller power sources like psionic, incarnum, ect. Never used them.
You're talking out of your ass about the rest, though.
I have class coming out of my ass.
…It's a gift, really.
Oh, and what does that silly "pwn" mean?
Similarly a paladin: gods or no gods; power of Good a part of the world or not; having never trained to tap into anything (including himself or the power of his morality) would still get "good spells."
And if "arcane power" can't heal then how did bards get cure spells? Or perhaps we should go back to 2ed bard where bard's picked up low level arcane spells simply because they were so knowledgeable (yes that includes magic missile).
Power sources and classes with defined roles is a mixed bag. The former is perhaps a step in the right direction, but formalizing class roles is just going to convince people to roleplay classes a certain way. Alignment fell prey to similar bull crap; it wasn't supposed to be restrictive (the language was really quite general in 3ed), but people always had their own notion of what alignment really meant and this ham-stringed everyone. While I appreciate the forethought for design purposes; I think it would have been best if Wizards had not formally classified their classes. Do we really need another level of classification? Shouldn't the role a class plays in a party be determined by how the player plays it? Doesn't the fact that people in 3.X consistently formed parties with classes able to perform certain functions evidence a lack of need for formal class classifications? Food for thought anyway...
MTF
You should ask Mike Mearls where he gets his, because he seems to be the one most doped up on it. He even put in the first line of his essay "Power Sources" from Races & Classes (p.14) "Power sources have always been in D&D, but no one ever bothered to pay attention to them."
And this post wins the thread.
Oh, and what does that silly "pwn" mean?
In old people language it means "defeat."
Primal power source Flat Out Did Not Exist In Previous Editions.
The power sources, as defined by this new edition, was more generic in the previous one.
Warrior (Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, etc)
Caster (Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Etc)
Healer (Cleric, Druid, Etc)
Jack of all Trades (The Poor, Hampered Bard)
The new power sources in this new edition are more defined, has an underlining theme of balance, and hold together better than the ambiguous background in the previous edition.
Power Sources is just a new term for an old idea.
Power Sources is just a new term for an old idea.
Well spoken.
1ed couldn't even be said to be the same game as 4th.
2ed didn't even come close to evidencing power sources.
3ed had only such concepts in the minds of players, since players could see a certain connection between the roles of classes and what supposed powers they wielded. But even then that was a tenuous connection, at best, since as I pointed out earlier: druids, barbarians, and rangers had absolutely nothing to connect them in terms of source of power (the flavor text simply does not support it) and their mechanical text likewise differentiates them. A druid who ceases to revere nature fails to get powers; a ranger can spit on the ashes of the forest he burned down in spite and still get naturey powers in 3.5.
It took 4th edition to actually create tangible links between classes. Again: not saying that's a bad thing, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking the "idea" is any older in practice than it actually is.
MTF
Simply wow.
This new edition brings them together in a better defined manner, and has this new term, Power Sources.
!st edition had the Fighter, Thief, Cleric and Wizard. Every edition afterward has the basic groupings from that list.
This new edition quantified that.
It also put forth this thing called Roles. Player Characters has four, and monsters has (what was it again, 6? 8?).
Power Arcane is always been a big part of D&D. A third of the PHB in the previous edition is Arcane spells. Divine Power is always a staple within the pages, and the sturdy Warriors have always shared an overall feel of physical form.
Powers Sources are more defined, spreads out the powers that use to be cloistered within overpowered classes, and have significant impact on how a class is made in this new edition.
...
!st edition had the Fighter, Thief, Cleric and Wizard. Every edition afterward has the basic groupings from that list.
Powers Sources are more defined, spreads out the powers that use to be cloistered within overpowered classes, and have significant impact on how a class is made in this new edition.
And in first edition we had what druid? What primal power? You are confusing power sources and party combat roles. Party combat roles have always existed; Chainmail was a combat simulation game for crying out loud.
Power sources in 4ed are more defined because they actually exist. Spreading out powers has nothing to do with what source things get their powers from; again rangers didn't actually need to have any association with nature to get a bunch of nature powers.
Power sources though are merely fluff material; as in they mean almost precisely zip in the grand scheme of things. If the energy the power of a god produces is exactly the same thing as what an upper level celestial or some other greater cosmic being produces, then calling it Banana power would make very little difference than calling it Chocolate power or Divine power even (flavor aside of course ;) ).
What you are getting at is the value of pre-determined class roles; class roles that are designed into the mechanics of a class. And that is where we are perhaps destined to disagree. I do not believe it necessary to formally declare class roles to the degree that an entire class' reason for being hinges on its ability to apply a given power source to the performance of a given role in a party. Players of all previous editions of D&D very handily figured out (for the most part) the best party builds, and they didn't need preconceived notions of party structure (fighter, mage, thief, cleric) to do it. They looked at what abilities something had and decided on whether or not it would fit well into what constituted the party.
Now as far as a design aid; I think organizing and flavoring abilities according to the role the designers wish to promote in a party is fine. If the design team wants/needs to organize classes into roles and then determine which abilities they will place into a given class category, then so be it (whatever gets the job done). But every time in the past that the designers of a roleplaying system have defined something without the intent of influencing player behavior they have failed. It is inevitable that players will form their character behavior from preconceived notions about "how something is meant to be played" and part of that is always in how something is named or classified.
So do we really need the extra layer of classification? I don't think so, and think it is a mistake akin to alignment (which wasn't really a mistake; the mistake was formalizing it in such a way that people created this absurd idea of how things were meant to be).
MTF
In old people language it means "defeat."
Is this something Prince started?
And speaking of talking out of your ass, which seems to be rampant in this thread (save ManTimeForgot and a few others), my buddy has been trying to teach his ass to talk ever since he read that William Burroughs novel, but no joy yet.
But back to the theme of tranny, how does everyone feel about the way the new druid has been handled, what with the close and ranged control aspect (beast form etc)?
I'd like to see how their human form powers pan out, that's the only kind of Druid i'd like to play.
Roles Definatly existed, they just weren't clearly defined
They didn't exist, there were concepts, like "Tank" you could build a char to, but there were no party roles, just abilities that might be required, like healing, ressing and maybe some rogue skills.
Thax, no-one is "Jack of all trades" powered. You are confusing roles and character types with what we're actually de-railing the thread with: Power sources.
And in first edition we had what druid? What primal power? You are confusing power sources and party combat roles. Party combat roles have always existed; Chainmail was a combat simulation game for crying out loud.
Power sources in 4ed are more defined because they actually exist. Spreading out powers has nothing to do with what source things get their powers from; again rangers didn't actually need to have any association with nature to get a bunch of nature powers.
MTF
We didn't have a nature powersource in older editions. That doesn't mean there WERN'T power sources.
Instead, we had arcane casters, who got spell failure, divine casters, who were magical but didn't have spell failure, and everyone else.
3ed had only such concepts in the minds of players, since players could see a certain connection between the roles of classes and what supposed powers they wielded. But even then that was a tenuous connection, at best, since as I pointed out earlier: druids, barbarians, and rangers had absolutely nothing to connect them in terms of source of power (the flavor text simply does not support it) and their mechanical text likewise differentiates them. A druid who ceases to revere nature fails to get powers; a ranger can spit on the ashes of the forest he burned down in spite and still get naturey powers in 3.5.
MTF
That's not cause they're weren;t power sources in 3e, its cause "primal" wasn;t one of them...
Barbarian falls under the "big guy/martial" power source
Ranger also goes there (and is there now)
Druid was divine.
Honestly the power sources were pretty well definined, especially for casters. THey would state what kind of magic a class used, certain prestige classes only allowed for divine casters or arcane casters. Same with psionics.
Essentially they just ported the system they used for magic types to the whole game.
They didn't exist, there were concepts, like "Tank" you could build a char to, but there were no party roles, just abilities that might be required, like healing, ressing and maybe some rogue skills.Tank seems like a role to me.
Tank - Skillmonkey - Healer, all were "jobs" within the party that is was best to fill.
I really don;t see this distinction you're trying to make between required abilities and roles. Marking/defending is a "required ability" in 4e, hence gets a role. Buffing/Healing is a "required ability" in 4e, hence gets a role.
In 3e, take skillmonkey. Parties wanted one. He got a role. Precurser to the striker.
They just weren't predefined, they did exist.
They just weren't predefined, they did exist.
What he said...
Take a list of 3rd edition classes (either a complete list, a random selection or just the 'core' classes - it doesn't matter).
Ask yourself: can I divide these classes into divine-caster classes, arcane-caster classes, psionic classes and non-casters?
Ask yourself: if I got another person familiar with 3rd edition to do this, would they - in the vast majority of cases - put the same classes into the same categories as I did?
Now, we could quibble about the specifics (e.g. were rangers and paladins really only divine casters from level 4 up, and non-casters before that?) but the concept of being able to categorise classes by the source of their powers was pretty clearly present. And those categorisations were generally pretty consistent. Nobody would ever argue that paladin was an arcane class, or that bards were non-casters, or that fighter was a psionic class.
They didn't exist, there were concepts, like "Tank" you could build a char to, but there were no party roles, just abilities that might be required, like healing, ressing and maybe some rogue skills.Tank seems like a role to me.
Tank is a concept, it is something you build to. Something you try to achieve with a character.
A 3E Class is not designed with such a concept in mind.
If I make a Tank, it doesn't mean the party needs a tank, just that i've made a Tank. What's more, these conceptual party roles are unspecified, unlimited and rarely explicity needed or essential to a party.
In 4E, each class is designed with an expectation to fill a specific defined role.
In 3E, I can make a character with the intention of filling the TV role, or the fisherman role, or the power of greyskull role.
Roles in 3E are purely conceptual prinicples that are built to.
Naturally, the idea of Defenders, Strikers, Leaders and Controller exists before 4E, but they have never been incoporated into class design or specified as class roles.
I have one question for anyone who thinks the concept of power sources didn't exist in 3rd edition.
I have one counter question, because yours doesn't actually address the issue being discussed.
Were arcane spell casters arcane powered, or did they just cast Arcane spells?
The semantics of Rangers, Paladins, Bards, Assassins, all those who don't use one type of power is quite significant.
In 4E, power sources for Class Powers don't overlap, Rangers don't have any Primal or Divine powers, purely martial ones.
If we look at 3E druids, they cast Divine spells but the way their spells, class features and requirements for their powers are completely different.
There isn't some power source that people tap into, there are class features and spells that people use and the sources for those powers can be varied and different and are mostly defined by the class itself.
Ranger: can cast Divine spells
Paladin: can cast Divine spells
Bard: Had arcane spell failure, so are Arcane
Assasin: I don't remember them having spells, so this falls in the none-of-the-above Non-caster groop.
In older editions, power sources were not as defined as they are now, and were therefore blurred more easilly. That doesn't mean that we can't look back at it and go "Hey, that's X Powersource" with the power of hindsight.
Read the 3E classes, they're not powered like 4E classes are.
In older editions, power sources were not as defined as they are now, and were therefore blurred more easilly. That doesn't mean that we can't look back at it and go "Hey, that's X Powersource" with the power of hindsight.
In 4E, each class is designed with an expectation to fill a specific defined role.
In 3E, I can make a character with the intention of filling the TV role, or the fisherman role, or the power of greyskull role.
Roles in 3E are purely conceptual prinicples that are built to.
Naturally, the idea of Defenders, Strikers, Leaders and Controller exists before 4E, but they have never been incoporated into class design or specified as class roles.
Roles are more of a placement of abilities for the character and where it is best to use those abilities. The previous edition didn't specify roles, but most classes was best suited for a role that the players wanted. Magic was not considered abilities as they are in this new edition, but spells from the Arcane or miracles (spells) showing the power divine.
This new edition splits the Roles from the Power Sources and puts names to them. This is a new classification to an old standard. If someone could not see this, then I have to assume that they never played Dungeons & Dragons at all.
Assassins cast Arcane spells in 3E, power sources in 4E power the full compliment of a classes powers, in 3E: They didn't.
Read the 3E classes, they're not powered like 4E classes are.
As someone said above, this great point your trying to make isn;t much of one.
3e simply had hybrid power sourced classes. 4e doesn't. Its a design choice.
Assasin would be a hybrid "martial" arcane.
And as for you earlier point that they just cast arcana spells, they didn;t get their spells from "arcane power" you clearly never read all the fluff in complete divine/arcane. Arcane spellcasters had a story behind how they got their magic, (look in complete mage) all classified and everything, and EXPLICITLY different from divine magic. Psionics, obviously different.
I challenge you, name a FUNDAMENTAL difference between 4e and 3e power source systems besides thast they weren;t explicitely stated... oh wait. They were even explicitly stated. They TOLD you this was a divine spellcaster and that other guy was an arcane caster. THey just didn;t define martial...
so, anyway, name a fundamental difference. Not a difference in how this power source system was applied, like the lack of power source hybrids in 4e, or the fact theirs no primal power source in 3e, but a fundamental system differentiation.
They didn't exist, there were concepts, like "Tank" you could build a char to, but there were no party roles, just abilities that might be required, like healing, ressing and maybe some rogue skills.
Tank is a concept, it is something you build to. Something you try to achieve with a character.
A 3E Class is not designed with such a concept in mind.
If I make a Tank, it doesn't mean the party needs a tank, just that i've made a Tank. What's more, these conceptual party roles are unspecified, unlimited and rarely explicity needed or essential to a party.
In 4E, each class is designed with an expectation to fill a specific defined role.
In 3E, I can make a character with the intention of filling the TV role, or the fisherman role, or the power of greyskull role.
Roles in 3E are purely conceptual prinicples that are built to.
Naturally, the idea of Defenders, Strikers, Leaders and Controller exists before 4E, but they have never been incoporated into class design or specified as class roles.[/QUOTE]
Which is essentially what I;m saying. ROles existed. Certain classes were good at certain things. They even talked about the "ideal party" of 1 rogue, 1 wiz, 1 fighter, 1 cleric. WHich evens out to one leader, one defender, one controller, one striker. They made classes that were obviosuly designed to fill the role of one of these 4 characters. Samurai, Paladins, (barbarians sorda) obviously took you fighter spot. Sorcerers, artificers, druids sorda (druids could do anything) took your wizards spot. Scouts, ninja's, spellthiefs, they took your rogue spot. And druids (hey, they can do anything) marshalls (tried, they sucked) healers (also sucked) paladins (they got healing to ya know, hybrid role) took you cleric spot, (not really, clerics = way better than all those bozos. cept druid. CoDzilla)
Now, b/c they weren;t perfectly defined, you had some odd ones out. What exactly was the bards role? He's kinda a combo rogue replacement and cleric replacement and wizards replacement... Classes like the bard, ranger, monk, they didn;t fit so well into this grid because the grid wasn;t EXPLICITLY defined. It existed, look at how they made sure all the rogue replacement classes could fulfill the rogue's job in the party with trap-search, sneak, and sneak attack, but wasn't explicitly set out.
And you tank distinction still doesn;t make sense, the term "tank" refers to a role in MMO's where your job is to suck up damage for the party, similiar to defenders in D&D (not a 4e=MMO crack, just pointing out a single similiarity which doesn;t really originate from MMO's, just the term "tank")
In 2e
Fighter Mage Cleric Theif
Ranger Spec Spec Bard
Paliden
in 3e
Arcane Divine Psionic Other
Wizard Cleric Psion Fighter
Sorcerer Paliden Wilder Rogue
Bard Ranger Psi Warrior Barbarian
Warlock Druid
they even introduced new powersources...Incarnum, Bo9S
Now for those of you that say roles were less defined...Make a 3e character for the following ideas...A Wizard defender... a Fighter Battlefeild controler... and a Warlock trapsmith...
You all need to face facts: power sources didn't exist in previous editions. You all thought they did, because they hinted at them, but the simple fact is the mechanics of the classes do NOT support your positions. We all came up with power sources to make sure that classes jived with our campaign worlds, but at no point was there an established power source for classes. Clerics wielded divine power; that much is obvious and druids too right? Druids needed nature; not spiritual power, not power of the gods, not power of the overdeity, not power of the cosmic entity embodying nature (gaia or whatever), but just nature; so again where is the divinity?
Side note: Martial Power?
More like... muscle power: thieves in 1ed had the same power source as fighters did. They used their muscles. I can't think of a more lame (sounding or otherwise) "power source" than "martial power."But the best part about this whole power source debate is that is doesn't affect D&D one iota. Power sourcing is fluff. Like I said before it doesn't matter if you called divine power cream-puff power, as long as your clerics could still turn undead. By the power of banana split sundae I banish you back to the realms of tooth-decay undead fiend of healthy toothness...
And as far as class roles versus character concepts go: That's the heart of my argument for why the whole "defined roles need to go." In 3ed the player was allowed to make the choice as to which way he wanted his class to go. If a player wanted his rogue to aspire to being a tank in the party, then he could do so. But now he's "officially required" to fill the striker role in the party. Maybe the rogue would suck at being the party tank. Maybe the rogue would be the best damn striker the party has ever had. Maybe the player just wants to play his rogue the way he wants to play his rogue and Wizards should butt the heck out of player/character decision making.
Again: I know that technically you can still try and do with your rogue as you did in 3ed, but just like alignment there are going to be people who will not realize that they had freedom in character creation simply because of the way things are termed.
MTF
Which is essentially what I;m saying. ROles existed. Certain classes were good at certain things. They even talked about the "ideal party" of 1 rogue, 1 wiz, 1 fighter, 1 cleric. WHich evens out to one leader, one defender, one controller, one striker. They made classes that were obviosuly designed to fill the role of one of these 4 characters.
And you tank distinction still doesn;t make sense, the term "tank" refers to a role in MMO's where your job is to suck up damage for the party, similiar to defenders in D&D (not a 4e=MMO crack, just pointing out a single similiarity which doesn;t really originate from MMO's, just the term "tank")
In 3E, you make a character and you might build them to a role. The concepts exist, but there are no roles in a party.
The iconic party assumes a iconic builds. The Fighter doesn't have to be a Defender, or even useful, he's just using the Fighter class.
The fact that classes transcend these fictional roles, should point out that these roles are fictional.
In 4E they outline the direction a class will go and how its designed. Though I disagree with MTF in that Wizards don't tell you what you should be doing with a class and they can be subverted or ignored, they purely impact the design of the class.In older editions, power sources were not as defined as they are now, and were therefore blurred more easilly. That doesn't mean that we can't look back at it and go "Hey, that's X Powersource" with the power of hindsight.
They aren't blurred, they're just spells and abilities of a different nature.
Look through the fluff of the core characters, they aren't powered by a source, some just use a source, but its not as simple as Arcane or Divine power. There is no source for a 3.5 Rangers HIPS or spells, but you can look at a Monk and say they use Ki. It does not mean there is a Ki power source, just that there's a class using Ki.
A Cleric doesn't receive power from a Deity, they channel divine power which can come from any number of sources, they can tap into the general Good power of the Good alignment or stand up for some form of beliefs and get power for no apparent reason.
Conceptually its quite different and it shows in how classes are formulated in 4E.Side note: Martial Power? More like... muscle power: thieves in 1ed had the same power source as fighters did. They used their muscles. I can't think of a more lame (sounding or otherwise) "power source" than "martial power."
I like the name Martial Power, it reflects that a Martial character is the power themself. There's nothing else fueling their actions. It also allows for a Bard like character to use their voice as a martial power, which means I could have a Bard with no Arcane spells or powers.
If something casts divine spells, but doesn't need a deity, a concept, nature, an overdeity, a spirit, a cosmic entity, or even belief in themselves, THEN how are they getting their power?
You all need to face facts: power sources didn't exist in previous editions. You all thought they did, because they hinted at them, but the simple fact is the mechanics of the classes do NOT support your positions. We all came up with power sources to make sure that classes jived with our campaign worlds, but at no point was there an established power source for classes. Clerics wielded divine power; that much is obvious and druids too right? Druids needed nature; not spiritual power, not power of the gods, not power of the overdeity, not power of the cosmic entity embodying nature (gaia or whatever), but just nature; so again where is the divinity?
Side note: Martial Power?
But the best part about this whole power source debate is that is doesn't affect D&D one iota. Power sourcing is fluff. Like I said before it doesn't matter if you called divine power cream-puff power, as long as your clerics could still turn undead. By the power of banana split sundae I banish you back to the realms of tooth-decay undead fiend of healthy toothness...
And as far as class roles versus character concepts go: That's the heart of my argument for why the whole "defined roles need to go." In 3ed the player was allowed to make the choice as to which way he wanted his class to go. If a player wanted his rogue to aspire to being a tank in the party, then he could do so. But now he's "officially required" to fill the striker role in the party. Maybe the rogue would suck at being the party tank. Maybe the rogue would be the best damn striker the party has ever had. Maybe the player just wants to play his rogue the way he wants to play his rogue and Wizards should butt the heck out of player/character decision making.
Again: I know that technically you can still try and do with your rogue as you did in 3ed, but just like alignment there are going to be people who will not realize that they had freedom in character creation simply because of the way things are termed.
MTF
Two things:
First, druids were divine casters. They cast divine spells. They were defined by worship. Every piece of flavor in every book follows these statements. Therefore, in 3.5, druids were solidly within that game's concept of a divine character in every way, shape, or form. To argue otherwise is to ignore everything printed about druids within the 3.5 system.
Second, you can make a tank rogue in 4e. Just because YOU don't know how to do it doesn't mean it is not possible. I could whip up more than a handful of tank rogues right here on the spot. No, they wouldn't be as effective as a fighter or a paladin, but neither would the 3.5 version. However, it is still very possible. Don't blame the system for YOUR lack of knowledge with it.
Ease of use is a plus in RPGs, IMO. 3E had an extremely harsh reward/punishment setup for "system mastery" buried in the rules, which made the game less accessible and required me to micromanage other players' choices for them to be happy.
("But shouldn't my character who's all about being tough, take Toughness?" "No. Wizards just put that in the books for 1st level wizards and to fool newbies. Have this other sourcebook, it has Improved Toughness.")
Of course I don't know how much more strenuously I can make this point: it really doesn't matter whether or not you accept the reality of the lack of formal power sourcing in previous editions. Power sourcing is fluff. It changes no mechanics; it alters no character dispositions; it forces no outcome changes; it cannot have any consequence other than to form the basis for a given character's belief system (and if the flavor is wrong for your character, then simply choose a different set of beliefs). If you feel Banana Sundaeism is wrong for your High Priest of Sweet-tooth, then just don't go down that road.
And as far as my second argument goes: Anguirus is spot on. I think (italicized for emphasis) that formal descriptors of class function is a bad idea. I respect his contention that ease of use is important to a game (part and parcel with ease of understanding), but contend that it will prove (in the future) more harmful than beneficial in the long run. Maybe players won't make the vast majority of their character decisions based on arbitrary classification of the D&D classes? Maybe roleplaying, and therefore roleplayers in general, has evolved to the point that players will not feel constrained by guidelines to the point that they take the form of "rules?" If this were the case 3.X alignment would remain untouched in 4E (or so I contend), and yet 4E presents a radical shift in the alignment system...
My second argument is pure speculation, and quite frankly, has nothing to do with my mechanical ability (or lack thereof). I've been playing D&D since 2ed, and never had any problems doing whatever I wanted with the 3.X class system (there are other parts of 3.X that I find lacking, but the class system and how it was organized was not one them).
MTF
Casting divine spells and having the divine as a power source are two separate things.
Really? So your contention is that there was no segregation between the class groups at all... That physical classes like the Barbarian and Fighter was just the same as the Wizard and Cleric. Have you ever played a role playing game, sir?
Fact is, there has always been a scism between the fighter and the wizard. They didn't trust each other.
"He is power hungry and doesn't care about us."
"Dim witted clutz is gonna get us killed."
It was more than a role, it was a different mindset that the two classes had.
The developers didn't pull these Power Sources out from thin air, the precedent was there. When they classified the various classes into the Power Sources, it focused them. Roles directed them.
Of course I don't know how much more strenuously I can make this point: it really doesn't matter whether or not you accept the reality of the lack of formal power sourcing in previous editions.
Formal? It was a split between classes, the fighter, Wizard and Cleric, with the sub classes of Sorcerer, Druid and Paladin. It wasn't a defined split, but the source of power for the caster classes was clearly stated in the previous two editions. (Divine and Arcane)
Power sourcing is fluff. It changes no mechanics;
you keep saying, but it also is a background that dictates the direction of the class, more now in the new edition than in the past.
it alters no character dispositions; it forces no outcome changes; it cannot have any consequence other than to form the basis for a given character's belief system
It is a core of the class, but the character is free to go against the expected troupe. It is a something that has been used for characters in fiction for a long time.
And as far as my second argument goes: Anguirus is spot on. I think (italicized for emphasis) that formal descriptors of class function is a bad idea. I respect his contention that ease of use is important to a game (part and parcel with ease of understanding), but contend that it will prove (in the future) more harmful than beneficial in the long run. Maybe players won't make the vast majority of their character decisions based on arbitrary classification of the D&D classes? Maybe roleplaying, and therefore roleplayers in general, has evolved to the point that players will not feel constrained by guidelines to the point that they take the form of "rules?" If this were the case 3.X alignment would remain untouched in 4E (or so I contend), and yet 4E presents a radical shift in the alignment system...
There is a system for you if you want to go with the classless rule set. It is called "Hero" or "Gurps" and even Mutants and Masterminds if you want to keep within the D20 system.
Of course I don't know how much more strenuously I can make this point: it really doesn't matter whether or not you accept the reality of the lack of formal power sourcing in previous editions. Power sourcing is fluff. It changes no mechanics; it alters no character dispositions; it forces no outcome changes; it cannot have any consequence other than to form the basis for a given character's belief system (and if the flavor is wrong for your character, then simply choose a different set of beliefs). If you feel Banana Sundaeism is wrong for your High Priest of Sweet-tooth, then just don't go down that ro
ad.
There is a very definite use for power sources. Take feats and paragon paths for example. Some feats require that you are of any martial class. Same for some paragon paths and even epic destinies.
Really? So your contention is that there was no segregation between the class groups at all... That physical classes like the Barbarian and Fighter was just the same as the Wizard and Cleric.
No, he's saying, like me, that casting a Divine spell does not mean you draw power from a Divine source.
Your class flavour text can describe you as having power from a Divine source, but that doesn't mean you'll cast Divine spells. Conversely, you can cast Divine spells, but not have them come from a Divine power.
Really? So your contention is that there was no segregation between the class groups at all... That physical classes like the Barbarian and Fighter was just the same as the Wizard and Cleric. Have you ever played a role playing game, sir.
Fact is, there has always been a scism between the fighter and the wizard. They didn't trust each other.
"He is power hungry and doesn't care about us."
"Dim witted clutz is gonna get us killed."
It was more than a role, it was a different mindset that the two classes had.
The developers didn't pull these Power Sources out from thin air, the precedent was there. When they classified the various classes into the Power Sources, it focused them. Roles directed them.
Formal? It was a split between classes, the fighter, Wizard and Cleric, with the sub classes of Sorcerer, Druid and Paladin. It wasn't a defined split, but the source of power for the caster classes was clearly stated in the previous two editions. (Divine and Arcane) you keep saying, but it also is a background that dictates the direction of the class, more now in the new edition than in the past.
It is a core of the class, but the character is free to go against the expected troupe. It is a something that has been used for characters in fiction for a long time.
There is a system for you if you want to go with the classless rule set. It is called "Hero" or "Gurps" and even Mutants and Masterminds if you want to keep within the D20 system.
1) No separation? Certainly not. There were mechanical differences. There were attitudinal differences (which generally stemmed from disparate upbringings). How either of those evidences the existence of power sources in previous editions is beyond me. See what igniz wrote for a good straight to the point explanation of why this is so. And I take offense to the implication that I haven't roleplayed before: I've been playing D&D since I was 10 (so that's 16 years now) and other PnP RPGs since I was 14. Please try and keep the Ad Hominem out of this one: it has so far been a fairly civil debate.
2) Again: how does cultural differences between the classes evidence power sourcing?
3) So classes included something other than combat roles: also known as a social role? With surety, I will admit that classes had components other than their combat role, but the argument in this thread has never been that classes in previous editions lacked a social component, but rather whether or not combat roles existed and are a good thing. And social role + combat role =/= power sourcing. So how again does this evidence power sourcing in previous editions.
4) Yeah actually they did pull the power sources out of thin air. Certain classes (like the cleric) were very close to having a formal power source in previous editions, but others quite simply had nothing of the sort. Do power sources "focus" (as you say): sure. Why not? It certainly gives players a place to start when thinking about what kind of fantasy archtype they wish to portray in a game. But as I said before the power of Banana Sundae is just as likely to effect turn undead as Morgoads Thurgoth lord of light: from a purely mechanical stand point. Power source is fluff.
4.5) Power source has never been the core of any class. The core of a class has always been the culture that surrounds it (something you seem to be conflating with power source; as to how the source of a person's powers is synonymous with the upbringing and beliefs of a character I cannot even begin to speculate). The culture of the various classes was always rather open-ended in previous editions; with the only possible exception being the cleric and his formal roles in the various religions (something that got really down-played in 3.X with the sparsity of information on religions and what activities were required for clerics of a given religion). I got to choose if my wizard underwent formal schooling for decades or was a hedge-wizard. The "source of my power" as a wizard was brain power... What allowed spells to work? Well isn't that a doozy? Arcane spells functioned as a result of many different things across all the campaign settings. There was no formal power source for arcanists (or any other class with the only possible tenuous exception being the cleric).
5) Not sure how you arrived at: I needed or wanted a classless system. But for a lark: let's say for a moment that I do. Well, first things first: we are going to be dealing with abilities, skills, powers, and racial features in the raw; no pre-set buffer in the form of a class to tell me what I can or can't have at creation or learn in the course of the game. Pretty much the main reason for playing classless systems. Make's things more complex though doesn't it? Archtypes tend to go out the window too... I never said that having a set culture or common training method was a bad thing; in fact I'd go so far as to say its a good thing for a given campaign setting. My issue is this: telling people how to roleplay their characters is not a good thing (this is true in both class and classless systems). And I believe that organizing your D&D classes further into roles defined by their combat function is: A) Too combat oriented & B) Crosses the line into telling people how their character is supposed to be played.
MTF
Power Sources may not have been as well defined as they are in 4th edition but their basic origins can be seen. Classes were very much categorized by the type of power they wielded, weather that power was arcane, divine, psionic, incarnum, or other example. Maybe for some the current divisions of classes by power source seems arbitrary, but for most it seems to be an organic evolution of what was already a method of categorizing classes in the previous edition.
As for the notion that only a cleric's divine powers were directly connected to the worship of a deity in 3rd edition, that to me seems to be missing the point. Divine power wasn't about worship, it was about faith. Clerics had faith in gods, Paladins had faith in justice, Druids had faith in nature, and just because the ranger wasn't required to care about nature doesn't mean that his magical powers weren't drawn from a similar source as the druid.
As to there having never been a "primal" power source before 4th edition, I do believe that Masters of the Wild: A Guidebook to Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers begs to differ. It may not have been as formal as what 4th edition has done but it shows the clear origins of categorizing classes based on an affinity for nature.
Power sources are fluff that is masquerading as the "natural division" between classes. The actual "natural divisions" are the striker, defender, etc that 4E has put into place, but that is a separate issue here.
"Classes were very much categorized by the type of power they wielded" (Italicized for emphasis). The power source in previous editions didn't mean squat, and it still really doesn't. Where you got your powers from was ultimately a crap shoot in previous editions (based on campaign setting and DM desire); what was, and always has been, formalized was what your class did with "it." (whatever "it" was)
Just what "source" is it that rangers are tapping into when they never spend a day outside the city and think the wilderness is a savage wasteland inhabited by monsters and tree worshiping hippies? Said ranger still gets his nature powers. The ranger doesn't have to have faith in anything to get his "nature" spells.
Yes, 3.X started to group certain classes together by skill-set. Not sure what that has to do with power sources, specifically, but I'm easy. Yes, the origins are there. But the actual power sources? Nope. Previous editions didn't have them.
But again (and for the last time, because I'm done saying it now): Power sources don't matter. If as a DM I want my rangers to derive their nature powers from the Great and Powerful Banana Sundae, then so be it.
MTF
But again (and for the last time, because I'm done saying it now): Power sources don't matter. If as a DM I want my rangers to derive their nature powers from the Great and Powerful Banana Sundae, then so be it.
Agreed. Though as DM you have the right to say that regardless of what WotC or anyone else has to say about the matter (your world, your rules), so I don't see the point in continuously bringing it up.
Anyway, for some one who claims none of this "fluff" matters you sure seem to have a lot to say. Not trying to be argumentative, just making an observation.
3.X had clearly defined rolls. They were the basic classes; Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard.
I absoluetely disagree with this, each of those classes had no defined role, simply a set of exclusive abilities. This was true of all classes.
What a party needs from each class is not set in stone either. There are basics that a party will struggle without (healing being obvious) and party compositions will have weaknesses and strengths based on what classes are in there, but there's no straightforward class substitution.
What's more, multiclassing further muddles the destinction of what a character might do in a party.
In 4E, you have these defined roles with classes built to suit those roles, what your character does is still down to how you build your character.
4E strikers are fairly interchangeable, but you can't exactly swap a 3E Rogue with a 3E Monk and say that the Monk will absolutely replace the Rogue's role in a party.
No, he's saying, like me, that casting a Divine spell does not mean you draw power from a Divine source.
Your class flavour text can describe you as having power from a Divine source, but that doesn't mean you'll cast Divine spells. Conversely, you can cast Divine spells, but not have them come from a Divine power.
A divine spell means that it is drawn from a higher power, like a deity or an ideal. Without those things, divine spells(in the new edition) don't exist. This edition changes a lot of concepts from previous editions. Divine spells aren't what a druid has anymore, it has primal evocations. Not that big of a difference, but it's just the change of editions and is entirely mechanical. Though I would agree that any extraordinary ability granted to you by a diety, faith, ideal, or nature can be called divine. And there are spells of divination that are arcane, but are called divine because they divine secrets.
WHOO!! Delicious! Speculation time on what class does what in terms of "Transformation!"
The Autobot class will be a Defender based on taking forms of armor and shields.
The Decepticon class will a Striker role based on taking forms of weapons.
The Wonder Twin class will be a Leader role, taking forms of whatever is needed.
Not to nitpick, but that is still the case in 4E. You can be a cleric of Tofu and wield divine spells even if there is really no deity name Tofu in existence. You are still using the Divine Power Source.
As for the 'urban' ranger wielding 'nature spells' and not caring about nature, that's more of a meta game issue in my mind. If I was DMing such a character I'd ask them why they choose the Ranger class with its clear ties to nature (animal companion and eventual spells) when the character in question doesn't care one wit about the natural world. Wouldn't a difference class better represent such a character?
All the argument about Divine not being "divine" specifically is sidestepping the main subject. A divine caster uses his will and personal perseverance for his power, and whether he worships a god or believes that his powers come from his companion, Harvey the invisible rabbit matters very little.
The main tenants for the Power Sources was there, in the previous editions, though others have expressed disbelief and seem to think a fighter is the same as a wizard, or that the previous systems was simply different people with the same overall theme except that one had feats, another had spells, and the other had miracles.
That one chooses to say "I derive my power through my intensive study and hard work" rather than "My powers comes from the Arcane energies that I gather and wield" is not the main crux of this discussion, but seems to be the main point of contention as to why it is thought that Power Sources didn't really exist before this new edition. The categories was still there, even if one decided to ignore them, and that a character or player/DM changed the name or meaning doesn't discount what is before them.
No, it didn't come out from thin air, and the new edition is better for the focus Power Sources and Roles provide. I, myself, don't believe the Role should be as prevalent as it is since it is basically a design tool. It does, however, give a direction for players to take and focuses on providing a balanced party for those that want it.
What the previous edition did was keep a few to many sacred cows from the edition before it while free up rules to have min/maxer's run ruff shod with unbalanced combos and shoddy PrC's (The Assassin being one of the worst). It also moved the classes more toward the yet as of unnamed Power Sources.
The Primal Power Source wasn't exactly prevalent in the previous edition, but the Barbarian did represent a wild persona that is representative of the Primal urge.
I know that MTF won't see it. I suppose that Vista doesn't have DRM, Sony never put viruses in their music CDs, or that Disturbed doesn't do a cover of an old song in every record they release.
Simply, the framework for the Power Sources was there, whether someone chooses to see it, or not.
If something casts divine spells, but doesn't need a deity, a concept, nature, an overdeity, a spirit, a cosmic entity, or even belief in themselves, THEN how are they getting their power?
You all need to face facts: power sources didn't exist in previous editions. You all thought they did, because they hinted at them, but the simple fact is the mechanics of the classes do NOT support your positions. We all came up with power sources to make sure that classes jived with our campaign worlds, but at no point was there an established power source for classes. Clerics wielded divine power; that much is obvious and druids too right? Druids needed nature; not spiritual power, not power of the gods, not power of the overdeity, not power of the cosmic entity embodying nature (gaia or whatever), but just nature; so again where is the divinity?
Your flat wrong here, druids were DEFINED as divine casters. As in, designers TOLD you it. This is a fact. Druids=divine. Apparently in 3e power of nature = power of gods / faith in terms of source.
Side note: Martial Power?
whatever
But the best part about this whole power source debate is that is doesn't affect D&D one iota. Power sourcing is fluff. Like I said before it doesn't matter if you called divine power cream-puff power, as long as your clerics could still turn undead. By the power of banana split sundae I banish you back to the realms of tooth-decay undead fiend of healthy toothness...
It does make some difference, mostly in clss tendancies. Just looking at 4e, divine classes have healing tendencies, arcane classes have blasting/controlling tendancies, martial have I guess striker tendancies, but not really strongly. Certainly these tendancies are the result of what the designers think power sources should be, but trends exist.
Also, in 3e this had a FAR more direct impact on events. Certain magic items only worked for arcane characters, certain prestige classes required you to be a divine spellcasters... remember all the + Divine spellcasting level PC's? That seems like a mechanical effect to me...
And as far as class roles versus character concepts go: That's the heart of my argument for why the whole "defined roles need to go." In 3ed the player was allowed to make the choice as to which way he wanted his class to go. If a player wanted his rogue to aspire to being a tank in the party, then he could do so. But now he's "officially required" to fill the striker role in the party. Maybe the rogue would suck at being the party tank. Maybe the rogue would be the best damn striker the party has ever had. Maybe the player just wants to play his rogue the way he wants to play his rogue and Wizards should butt the heck out of player/character decision making.
Look, nothing has really changed. If you tried to make your rogue a "defender" in 3e, you failed. It wouldn;t work. (actually no one could be a defender in 3e cause of lack of stickyness but nvm), in the same way, you can;t make a rogue defender easily in 4e either. Actual flexibility in how you change you classes role hasn;t changed, wizards just helps out the stupid people and tells them which role the class is best at.
As a side note, "altering" a classes role is perfectly possible in 4e. Take the fighter, give him high strength, high damage powers, take battlerage vigor, high con, probably use a hammer... combine these with powers that add con to damage and you have a fighter who has really powerful attacks, but who's opp attacks are less accurate and don't deal as much dmg (no +con). Seems striker like.
Your also missig a fundamental point of 4e, in that some classes aren;t meant to do certain things. Such as, instead of trying to make a archer fighter, you make a ranger. The archer fighter IS a ranger. In the same way, a light blade defender guy who is sneaky isn;t a rogue, its a fighter using a light blade and skill trained in theivery/stealth (or just mulit-classed rogue). Every characters concept (or most) is possible with some class, but not every class can achieve every character concept. You say you want a defender rogue... why? Rogue is an arbitrary naming convention for a mechanic set. Just make the character a class that fits his imagined abilities more and multiclass for the sneakiness.
Again: I know that technically you can still try and do with your rogue as you did in 3ed, but just like alignment there are going to be people who will not realize that they had freedom in character creation simply because of the way things are termed.
So now your point is 4e misleads stupid people? ok... I guess I agree. A stupid person would act stupidly. But when debating the mechanial benifits of an edition I would hope we would aspire to be intellgent...
MTF
...
Thax:
Actually Thax, whether or not a character derives his power from Harvey or not is the crux of the issue. It is the crux because it is not established in previous editions just where a character derives power from. A character doesn't need to use any of the proscribed methods of deriving power (worship, faith, mastery of formula, etc) unless it specifically says so in their class description (and even then there are bunches of exceptions).
The origins of the 4E power sources are there. That's where the buck stops. It stops because nothing in the text descriptions for classes says that these power sources were mandatory (or even necessary for those classes where it was a formal part of their training). A barbarian doesn't tap into some echo of primal power or find the wild side of life or anything else (he can if he wants to, but it isn't necessary) in order to rage. All a barbarian had to do was not be lawful. A barbarian could just be someone who gets really, really, really angry and focuses it somehow. The flavor is there to be turned into something (origin of 4E power source), but is not a formal declaration of power source.
Omnicron:
"Divine Casters" (Italicized for emphasis). That says nothing about their power source; merely that the spells they generate have the divine descriptor. Their spellcasting method is "divine" as matter of proficiency. A druid is capable of generating "divine type" spells, and this gives them the ability to use certain items. This says nothing about where the power came from.
In point of fact: a druid does not technically worship nature in previous editions; he reveres it. This reverence allows him to generate spells (of the divine type), but this says nothing about the source of the power. Wizards flat out stated that the druid does not derive his power from any of the deities of nature (in fact deities are unnecessary in order for a druid to gain spells). In fact a druid doesn't need cosmic entities, deities, spirits, or even a formal religion in order to gain spells. All he needs to do is think really, really highly of nature. So just where is this spell power coming from? Varies from campaign setting to campaign setting, since there is no formal explanation for how druid's do it.
Tendencies have nothing to do with power sources, since those same tendencies existed prior to power sourcing existing. A given class has its propensities as a function of its mechanics and just because 4E has chosen to link power source with party role does not for a second create causal connection between the two. A cleric who worships a god of war and anger should be a combatant first and anything else second (as proscribed by his religion). And similarly: a cleric who worships a god of healing and peace should be a non-combatant first, then consider combative answers (as proscribed by his religion). A rogue and a fighter both derive their "powers" from their wits and their bodies, but their roles in a given party are almost always different.
I am not missing the point of anything. Certain classes have always been better at performing a given role than other classes. This is and always has been a good thing. Without it, complete homogeneity results and D&D becomes a class system in name only (along side whatever balance issues creep up). The point of 4E is not the invention of class roles (that has been around since the beginning), but rather formal classification of the classes and building strength and weaknesses inherent to that role into a given class. I don't question that certain classes must have inherent strengths and weaknesses. What I do question is whether or not it is necessary to use rote adherence to role based powers when creating a class, and whether or not formally declaring it in typing the classes are in fact good things.
Arguments from the highest common denominator inevitably fall flat when you attempt to generalize your results to a given population. If everyone were trying to play or act from a position of intelligence, then why was alignment used as a straightjacket or excuse for bad play so often? Why was alignment "simplified" when meaningful aspects of the alignment system had to be removed as a consequence? I'm not suggesting that we should tailor all of a system to the lowest common denominator, but rather that the lowest common denominator must be considered when you decide what changes need to be put into effect.
MTF
I have seen something liek this said a number of times: "divine spells are not from a Divine Power because the class doesn't need a deity and/or the power does not come from a deity."
Not to nitpick, but that is still the case in 4E. You can be a cleric of Tofu and wield divine spells even if there is really no deity name Tofu in existence. You are still using the Divine Power Source.
No, In 3E A Cleric can simply have Divine power, all of you need to read the full extent of the fluff text for Clerics, Druids, Rangers and Paladins.
A 3E Cleric has no requirement for a Deity, a 4E Cleric absolutely needs a Deity.
A 3E Paladin is similar, they do not need a Deity, in 4E its a ritual that grants them power and they are allowed to use that Power however they see fit.
As for the 'urban' ranger wielding 'nature spells' and not caring about nature, that's more of a meta game issue in my mind. If I was DMing such a character I'd ask them why they choose the Ranger class with its clear ties to nature (animal companion and eventual spells) when the character in question doesn't care one wit about the natural world. Wouldn't a difference class better represent such a character?
A First level Ranger doesn't have spells or an Animal companion, they gain them and other abilities for no apparent reason, this is a major flaw with 3E classes.
What's more, MTFs point was that there is no requirement for a power source for any of the Ranger abilities, they just get them.
You all need to read up on your 3E fluff.
Of the 2E classes that I'm aware of (I'm sure there were many in splats), we had:
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Thief
Wizard
Wizard and Bard could cast arcane spells.
Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger could cast divine spells.
Fighter and Thief couldn't cast any spells.
But the Druid and Ranger always had connections through their spell-list; one could view the Ranger as a form of Fighter/Druid (the Ranger did use the fighter HD and fighter THAC0). Likewise, the Paladin was a Fighter/Cleric hybrid, and the Bard was a Wizard/Thief hybrid. They weren't perfect hybrids, because 2E had true multiclassing where a player could make a Fighter/Cleric (as a point, Fighter/Clerics felt very much like paladins, but with better spells and less intrinsic special abilities).
Man Time Forgot knows that I was discussing something akin to power sources years ago for my own setting. I had gone as far as to make hybrids for each magic type (I made a Barbarian/Sorcerer, and I turned the Monk into a Psion/Fighter).
The player "roles" were there too. Thiefs had backstab, Clerics could heal, and Wizards blasted things and had a spell for every problem. Fighters took hits, but the only thing they could do to draw them was stand in the way. All 4E has really done is given characters the abilities they need to do their role while still letting them do other things; Fighters in 4E can be built for mobility and heavy damage dealing, but they still mark things they attack (just like Clerics can be built for AoE blasting, but they can still heal a couple of times a fight).
To me, the Controller is the only role that hasn't been defined strongly enough. Controllers lack a controller class ability; they do have controlling at-wills, but anyone can pick those up through paragon multiclassing.
PS: As an aside, I have little knowledge of how Psionics worked in 2E, but I know it was there and I know it was very different than Arcane or Divine magic.
I overlooked this before, but the arcane, elemental, shadow, divine and primal power sources seem to be the external sources of power from the planes and the martial, psionic and ki power sources are internal.
Divine = Astral Sea
The deities that most divine characters gain their power from reside in the astral sea. Order is also part of the Astral Sea, making it sensile for a godless paladin as well.
Elemental = Elemental Chaos
Kind of a given. May be somewhat of the opposite of divine, given the opposition of the elemental chaos and the astral sea. They might even be somewhat eil at times, since demons and devils reside here.
Arcane = Feywild
The feywild is a place filled with arcane energies and arcane beings. It's very existence is the arcane version of the material world. It has very close ties to the natural world through portals and literal overlaps, so that would explain the abundance of arcane energy in the natural world to use as well.
Shadow = Shadowfell
Basically the negative, dark, and shadowy version of the feywild. Also overlaps with the natural world. This one is a duh.
Primal = The Material World
Well, yeah. And with that, all planes of existence are covered as sources of power.
The other power sources are internally derived.
Martial = Body
Ki = Soul
Psionic = Mind
After that, there aren't too many other places one could really draw power. Just different ways to use those sources. Vestiges and Incarnum are the only others I can think of right now.
I think that after we have more of an understanding of each of the planes, we'll know what kinds of things to expect from the classes of the five planar power sources.
Tharag: I just like to argue. I keep the whole power source thing around because it has so far been a largely civil and interesting argument. Absolutely nothing to do with its actual in game value.
That may be the first thing you've said that I can agree with whole heartedly. I love a good argument, and if you motives are more about fostering discussion than proving a point then rock on.
That said, I think your argument is becoming something of a beaten dead horse. Few people at this point seem to be trying to say that power source have always been, more so that they come out of a pre-established framework.
True a 3e druid didn't have to worship any gods, but then again neither did a cleric. There were rules for ideological clerics, who drew their power from belief in tenants of a basic philosophy rather than the worship of a higher power. This option while down played is still present in 4e.
Even in 4e power source is not a binding straight-jacket. It is still mostly just a method of categorizing a group of similarly themed classes together.
As the place of a classes role in 4e, I think the designers have good job of explaining it. Role is a design mechanic that insures that every class has a place in the game and a useful function to preform. This avoids some of the problems of the previous edition were some classes flounder in ambiguity, with enough tricks try and function at multiple roles while failing to meaningfully contribute (bard), or who simply seemed to have little functional purpose at all (monk).
As for why this design mechanic get printed for the players eyes, it would be a disservice not to. Without class role being public knowledge one would run into the problem of people try to play against the flow of their class without realizing this. With roles clearly described the Fighter and Paladin Players don't have to sit around in confused frustration as to why their "warrior" is less effective at killing stuff then the rogue "sneak", or the ranger "scout".
The roles also serve as a good foundation for team building. This is especially important since team dynamics are a very important part of 4e. Role is still not meant as a straight-jacket and the DMG gives advice to DMs as to how to craft appropriate encounters and challenges for teams that are lacking a role or are heavy biased towards one role.
I never officially played 2E, but I did play it through the Baldur's Gate series of games and did a lot of reading up on 2E itself to better understand the game. In 2E, there very much were power sources.
They aren't power sources though, they're just different mechanics for different kinds of spells.
The power source relates to fluff behind the character, there was no Arcane power that was tapped into or a Divine power source that was used to cast Divine spells, just the distinction between casting restrictions.
The source for their power was absolutely undefined, they just cast spells of a type, etc.
True a 3e druid didn't have to worship any gods, but then again neither did a cleric. There were rules for ideological clerics, who drew their power from belief in tenants of a basic philosophy rather than the worship of a higher power. This option while down played is still present in 4e.
This is a key difference, a 3E Cleric has no defined Divine source for their power, they just channel Divinity and somehow that results in x spell. In 4E its a little different.
This is a key difference, a 3E Cleric has no defined Divine source for their power, they just channel Divinity and somehow that results in x spell. In 4E its a little different.
Excuse me, but how is "channeling" divine power and having a divine power source any different. Your argument seems to be nothing more than one of semantics, and a pretty meaningless one at that. In 3e clerics were practically the definitive divine spellcaster and their powers were of a divine origin. Now in 4e, not much has changed. The cleric still channels divine power to cast "spells" and turn undead. Sure clerics may have gained the ability to channel their divine power though weapon while making melee attacks, but that's just an evolution of the old cleric's ability to buff them selves until they became a better fighter then the fighter.
Ausolion, many of us made these observations way back after the release of the preview book "Races and Classes". I still like the notion, but there are several holes in it. One is the warlock, an arcane class, who gets their power from devils (astral sea), fey lords (feywild), or lovecraftian horrors from beyond the stars (far realm). Arcane classes, so far, seem to be connected by their requirement to learn the way magic works.
I had made the connection of elemental, shadow, primal and divine,. Arcane was just really supposed to be what I was focusing on, since there isn't a definite source from the feywild otherwise. The warlock does gain his power from beings of different planes, but the warlock has also been arcane and eldritchy for a long time in the d&d franchise. Just conveying thoughts. I tend to just talk a lot.
If there is no difference between where a cleric and wizard gain their spells, why do clerics have alignment restrictions as per their spell descriptors? Why did only arcane casters care about the division of schools?
Why didn't fighters gain any ability akin to fireball, or vampiric touch, or haste, or cure X, bull's strength, wish, stoneskin, detect evil? Why did wizards and sorcerers have such terriable weapon choices when compaired to clerics and paladins and rangers and... just about any class?
Why were druid spells themed around manipulating nature, clerics around protection and retribution? Why were arcane spells focused on fundamental changes in the world?
Why did books like Complete Arcane and Complete Divine not have a wide selection of options for the paladin and sorcerer, respectively? Why would these books even exist?
If arcane and divine were so similar, why were the spell lists, both in core and the wide expansions, and for all the similarities, so fundimentally different? Why weren't the spell lists the same, the wizards having healing, the clerics casting illusions?
The difference in the spell-casters wasn't just their list of spells. It was also the overall themes inherient in their spell list. Divine spellcasters (FYI, they were grouped according to the source of power their spells draw from) tended to be more defensive in nature, attack options tended to be direct, buffs and protective spells were abundant. Arcane magic tends to be the hodge-podge of spells, the school determining what it does. The spells are of the widest variety, but, initially, less options then divine casters for divine's forte. But it excelled at battlefield and social control.
The bard was a hybred, not just of this arcane and divine, but also of the warrior and the skill-monkey. The bard is a perfect example of what happens when you blended 3rd ed. sources of power; excelling at nothing, able to do anything. The bard is the perfect example of what happens when you splice divine (healing/buffing), arcane (enchantment/illusion control), and martial (mediocre bab, decent weapons) together.
Other 'sources of power' had other places to excell. Psionic had mental-made-physical control, both for personal and enemies, Bo9S classes stuck mainly with striker/defender stuff, Incarnum was... well, different.
Final question: why would you still say there were no 'power sources' in 3rd edition?
Omnicron:
"Divine Casters" (Italicized for emphasis). That says nothing about their power source; merely that the spells they generate have the divine descriptor. Their spellcasting method is "divine" as matter of proficiency. A druid is capable of generating "divine type" spells, and this gives them the ability to use certain items. This says nothing about where the power came from.
I don't see this distinction between "profiency" and "power source," a divine caster uses divine power cause he is proficient in divine spells, the same way a fighter uses "martial" power cause he is proficient in weapons.
In point of fact: a druid does not technically worship nature in previous editions; he reveres it. This reverence allows him to generate spells (of the divine type), but this says nothing about the source of the power. Wizards flat out stated that the druid does not derive his power from any of the deities of nature (in fact deities are unnecessary in order for a druid to gain spells). In fact a druid doesn't need cosmic entities, deities, spirits, or even a formal religion in order to gain spells. All he needs to do is think really, really highly of nature. So just where is this spell power coming from? Varies from campaign setting to campaign setting, since there is no formal explanation for how druid's do it.
Look, all you've proven is 4e and 3e have different definitions of divine. Divine in 3e means having to do with faith or belief in something, something that all divine classes shared (as evidenced by their power loss features) Palidans believed/upheld a code, if they broke it they lost their powers. Duids "revered" or "believed in" the sanctity of nature, and lost their powers when they wore certain armors (they might have chnaged that in 3.5... can;t remember) and clerics lost their powers when they went against their god.
And certainly where their power originated differend by setting, but its more the ultra-origin that varied. Say in (3e) ebberon divine magic either originited from faith or some god granting it... its wan;t revealed. Since worshipping your shoe could grant divine power, apparently either just faith was enough or some god was a joker and granted power to shoe worhipers. Compare this to 3e core, where clerics gained their power through similiar methods, but I think it had to be devotion to an alignment, not some random thing like the Lord of Blades. The technical origin of the power is different, but the basic thing is the same.
THis same system could exist in 4e. I say could b/ we only have one setting out to compare, and FR runs pretty close to core in all respects. But you can easily shift the source of power for classes without shifting their power source, like make arcana magic to result of the energy of creation, or a "spellweave." Its still arcane magic, but where "arcane" comes from is different.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is, their is the power source, and then the source of the power source. 4e core doesn;t tell you what the source of the power source is... its open to intrpretation.
And even if a conceded you all that, it still shows the power source system existed in 3e in a slightly modified form: the casting system. They just ported the catsing system to all of 4e...
Tendencies have nothing to do with power sources, since those same tendencies existed prior to power sourcing existing. A given class has its propensities as a function of its mechanics and just because 4E has chosen to link power source with party role does not for a second create causal connection between the two. A cleric who worships a god of war and anger should be a combatant first and anything else second (as proscribed by his religion). And similarly: a cleric who worships a god of healing and peace should be a non-combatant first, then consider combative answers (as proscribed by his religion). A rogue and a fighter both derive their "powers" from their wits and their bodies, but their roles in a given party are almost always different.
I never said their was a causal connection, just a connection. Certainly class tendancies predate power sources, they existed in 1e. I;m just saying tat thematically certain power sources tend toward certain roles, not the the power source is the result of that role. THough in a way it is... b/c of the influence of christianity in the western world we view most "clerics" as holy men who heal people, so the theme of divine will influence its classes towards healing.
As for martial, I admitted straight up martial has very little tendancy in it.
I am not missing the point of anything. Certain classes have always been better at performing a given role than other classes. This is and always has been a good thing. Without it, complete homogeneity results and D&D becomes a class system in name only (along side whatever balance issues creep up). The point of 4E is not the invention of class roles (that has been around since the beginning), but rather formal classification of the classes and building strength and weaknesses inherent to that role into a given class. I don't question that certain classes must have inherent strengths and weaknesses. What I do question is whether or not it is necessary to use rote adherence to role based powers when creating a class, and whether or not formally declaring it in typing the classes are in fact good things.
The thing is, you say role based powers are bad, but role based powers already existed. I you look at the 3e roles "powers" (class features) they all supported a agile, sneaky type of gameplay. So do the rogue's 4e powers. You could have you rogue just straight up brawl in either edition, but nearly none of his abilities would work and he would be rather bad...
Arguments from the highest common denominator inevitably fall flat when you attempt to generalize your results to a given population. If everyone were trying to play or act from a position of intelligence, then why was alignment used as a straightjacket or excuse for bad play so often? Why was alignment "simplified" when meaningful aspects of the alignment system had to be removed as a consequence? I'm not suggesting that we should tailor all of a system to the lowest common denominator, but rather that the lowest common denominator must be considered when you decide what changes need to be put into effect.
MTF
People are going to be stupid no matter what. I really don;t think we need to get rid of aspects of systems that COULD be used to straigt jacket classes if they have meaningful benifit. Getting rid of a meanigful system to stop stupid people from misusing it IS tailoring the game tot he lowest common denominator. Getting rid of the alignment system was ok, cause it had little meaningful benifit. The role system I like, it allows you to grou classes together for purposes fo qualing for feats and PP's, and helps make sure a party is relatively cohesive. The cost of some idiot telling people their warlord can't fight upclose cause he's a "leader" (despite the class description saying str is important) is something I'm willing to accept.
Casting divine spells and having the divine as a power source are two separate things. Show me where it says that casting divine spells means that you get your power from a deity?
In the 3.5 system divinity is not the sole province of the deities. Many non-deities have significant amounts of divinity. Ideals such as nature are one of those divine non-deities. Another example are the various archdevils and archdemons, even the weakest of which have enough divinity to grant spells.
Druids draw divine power from nature. Clerics draw divine power from gods and ideals. Ur-priests steal divine power from gods. Cultists draw divine power from archfiends. They all deal with divine power.
No, he's saying, like me, that casting a Divine spell does not mean you draw power from a Divine source.
Your class flavour text can describe you as having power from a Divine source, but that doesn't mean you'll cast Divine spells. Conversely, you can cast Divine spells, but not have them come from a Divine power.
The game does not make that distinction. To the game, a divine spell is a divine spell is a divine spell. It does not care which source you draw this divinity from at all. You, however, have decided that in your games it does matter, and you have gotten your fluff mixed up with the game's fluff. That doesn't make it the truth.
Divinity is divinity is divinity. It doesn't matter where you get it from.
1) No separation? Certainly not. There were mechanical differences. There were attitudinal differences (which generally stemmed from disparate upbringings). How either of those evidences the existence of power sources in previous editions is beyond me. See what igniz wrote for a good straight to the point explanation of why this is so. And I take offense to the implication that I haven't roleplayed before: I've been playing D&D since I was 10 (so that's 16 years now) and other PnP RPGs since I was 14. Please try and keep the Ad Hominem out of this one: it has so far been a fairly civil debate.
The fact that power sourcing did occur is indeed proof that power sourcing did occur.
When two or more classes draw from the same source of power to achieve different goals that is power sourcing. Ask yourself: In the 3.5 system, are there groups of classes that draw power from one source to achieve different effects? If the answer is yes, then yes, 3.5 was power sourced. For final proof, see this list:
Physical
- Barbarian
- Fighter
- Monk
- Rogue
- Ninja
- Scout
- Samurai
- Swashbuckler
- Factotum (Hybrid Divine, Arcane)
- Marshal
- Knight
- Crusader (Hybrid Divine)
- Swordsage
- Warblade
Divine
- Cleric
- Druid
- Paladin (Hybrid Physical)
- Ranger (Hybrid Physical)
- Favored Soul
- Shugenja
- Spirit Shaman
- Archivist
- Healer
Arcane
- Bard
- Sorcerer
- Wizard
- Spellthief
- Warlock
- Wu Jen
- Warmage
- Hexblade (Hybrid Physical)
- Dragonfire Adept
- Dread Necromancer
- Beguiler
- Dragon Shaman
- Duskblade (Hybrid Physical)
- Binder
- Shadowcaster
- Truenamer
- Artificer
Psionic
- Psion
- Psychic Warrior (Hybrid Physical)
- Soulknife
- Wilder
- Ardent
- Divine Mind (Hybrid Divine)
- Lurker
Incarnum
- Incarnate
- Soulborn
- Totemist
Can the 3.5e classes be grouped into broad power sources? Yes. Therefore, power sourcing occured.
/thread
Arcane
- Bard
- Sorcerer
- Wizard
- Spellthief
- Warlock
- Wu Jen
- Warmage
- Hexblade (Hybrid Physical)
- Dragonfire Adept
- Dread Necromancer
- Beguiler
- Dragon Shaman
- Duskblade (Hybrid Physical)
- Binder
- Shadowcaster
- Truenamer
- Artificer
/thread
Artificer wasn't divine or arcane, he was "non" power sourced. Just magic. But yeah, other than that I agree.
Artificer wasn't divine or arcane, he was "non" power sourced. Just magic. But yeah, other than that I agree.
I agree, some of the classes do defy power sources with the artificer being one of them and also the Factotum. In this case it isn't so much that they don't use a power source as it is that they use them all sparingly, making them exceptions to the rule.
This is WAY off topic, but I have a question. It says that a wizard can have two daily powers and two utility powers of each level, but at later levels(5 and on) does he still have to prepare one of each level? or, since he can prepare two daily spells a day at fifth level and has two 5th lvl daily spells and two of first lvl, can he choose to prepare the two 5th level spells and forego the 1st levek spells? The spellbook descrition on pg 158 of ph does not say whether or not you can prepare two spells of the same level, only that they can't be the same. I'm sure you can prepare two 1st lvl spells instead, don't see why not. Does anyone have the answer to this question with a source for proof?
Nope, he still only gets 1 5th and 1 1st. The wizard is just the only class that can change utility and daily spells w/o retrain/leveling up.
And yes, WAAAAAAAAAAY off topic.:D
Nope, he still only gets 1 5th and 1 1st. The wizard is just the only class that can change utility and daily spells w/o retrain/leveling up.
And yes, WAAAAAAAAAAY off topic.:D
Everyone says that, but the book does not. Where in the rules does it say that you must choose one of each level if you have more than one of each level? The only thing the book ever says is that you can't prepare the same spell (or power)twice. If you find one speck of proof in the book, please give me the page.
I believe that preparing a spell of lower level in place of a higher one is allowed, at least. This keeps the tradition and feel of the d&d wizard alive.
Excuse me, but how is "channeling" divine power and having a divine power source any different.
In 4E, the key difference is in how those power sources theme each class and how they function. It dictates everything a class can do when it comes to class powers and it influences what they do, you will never see a Martial character with powers that don't suit the Martial power source. Thematically it just guides a character and what they can do.
When you tie that in with class roles, you get an answer to Warcolonels post.
Why didn't fighters gain any ability akin to fireball, or vampiric touch, or haste, or cure X, bull's strength, wish, stoneskin, detect evil? Why did wizards and sorcerers have such terriable weapon choices when compaired to clerics and paladins and rangers and... just about any class?
Why would Fighters learn Fireball or anything that transcended the flavour of the class? What does Wiz/Sorc weapon choice have to do with your assertion that they have an Arcane power source?
The flavour of the classes dictated what they did and what they learned, that has nothing to do with Power sources.
In 4E, the role of a class and the power dictates what kinds of power and how the class progresses. The power sources are linked and defined in what they do, how they manifest and how they're applied.
You can broadly label old classes and say their Arcane, Divine, True name, Shadow pact, whatever, but that doesn't mean the Power sources existed, you are inventing labels and that's it, casting a Divine spell doesn't mean a Class is Divine Powered.
"Where ever the rules do not specifically state a difference the world of D&D emulates real life." This assumption is the root cause of the difficulties here. From a design perspective this is fundamentally flawed because it would preclude the possibility of alternative cosmology or themes than what is already present in D&D.
Case in point: "Characters derive the power to stay on the ground from gravity" is a premise and not absolutely true in D&D. In an alternative cosmology the element of earth could attribute the quality of "heaviness" and "dragging downness" to things, and that if you could magically remove all the elemental earth from a body it would just float away as steam (or something like that).
It is for this reason that stating classes like fighter and rogue derived their power from "martial power" is not true in previous editions. It seems a very natural assumption to believe that muscle and prowess is responsible for the fighter's abilities, but in D&D that is not exactly true (in the absolute sense). In D&D Good and Evil, the four elements, or Harvey the Invisible Bunny Rabbit are all just as valid explanations for everything that happens. I could just as soon conclude that whenever someone does something relevant to Good, then the power of Good suffuses you (and Evil when appropriate), and this is why when you do nothing you start to feel tired (because neither good nor evil is empowering you).
The short of this is that, while power sources, in the general sense, existed in previous editions (they sort of had to unless you are willing to entertain the notion that someone's power came from nothing...), power sourcing, as in the formal declaration of dependence on a specific source of power, did not (a tentative exception exists in the D&D cleric).
The "framework" that everyone on the opposition's side keeps arguing exists, only exists because of the assumption that things must work like real life where it does not specifically say so, and the assumption that what is hinted at in flavor text must also be absolutely true. The problem with this is that neither is necessarily true in D&D, and no hard and fast rules regarding power sourcing exist (again with the tentative exception of the cleric). At best there is a "loose" framework of association between classes of similar mechanics, but that is almost certainly better attributed to design philosophy than power sourcing.
If we look at the druid, and we allow for the ultra broad definition of divine source to encompass not just deities, but also cosmic entities, arch-devils/demons, arch-celestials, and ideological forces, we still cannot derive divine sourcing for the druid. The only thing a druid must do in order to derive power is revere nature. That power source does not necessarily come from nature itself (and this is the crux of the issue). Perhaps Harvey the Invisible Bunny Rabbit thinks people who revere nature are funny and gives them power because they make him laugh ("divine" source). OR perhaps druids tap into a primal echo of the power of the blood or the power of the ancestors ("primal" power source or the power of multiple lesser spirits but not divine) by achieving harmony with nature.
Now I will admit that the druid is something that should have something resembling formal power sourcing (all spellcasting classes should have a set of reasoning explaining how they do what they do to differentiate them from non-casting classes; otherwise the very good question of "why don't fighters get fireball?" arises, from a purely mechanical perspective). But in the case of ranger and paladin this divorce from power sourcing becomes all the clearer.
In a world with no ideologies (that is even a cleric who worships nature as an ideology cannot gain power; additionally this means no celestials as there is no "power of good"), no deities, no cosmic entities, the power of the elements is no more than enough to simply account for existence of things (And for those of you going "huh" at this premise; perhaps you thought alchemy and the 4 classical elements were just flavor pieces in D&D? Alchemical "science" presupposed that all things material were composed of the 4 elements, and that is, from what I understand, the default supposition for D&D material composition), no spirits, no extra soul power, no cosmic agency/institution (like FR's Weave), and no faith in himself or anything else for that matter: the ranger still gains nature themed divine spells. How? I have no clue, but he still would (at least mechanically). The paladin is in a similar boat: as long as there is sufficient ideological power for Good and Evil to create alignment the D&D paladin would exist (no deities, no cosmics, etc) and will get his powers at full strength. The problem I have is that this means that even in a world where Good has barely enough strength to exist (and Exaltation is impossible because Good has no extra power to spare) the D&D paladin would still be rocking full strength powers (seemingly from no where).
We all generally established power sourcing in our campaigns and assumed that where D&D did not state a difference it was no different than real life because it was convenient to do (DM's don't like having to reinvent the laws of physics for every campaign setting) and made it easier for players to relate to the world. We saw that (while under the assumption of real world physics where not specifically divorced from them) that certain power sources resulted in similar powers. And so I can relate to the idea that a loose framework of power sourcing existed, if only because I have generally argued that a position other than assuming that D&D differs from reality only in those ways where specifically stated should be the default game state. But the folks at Wizards have never stated this, and I don't think ever will (it's bad design philosophy to limit a world of fantasy like that).
P.S. Omnicron D&D alignment did have all kinds of meaningful benefit in previous editions. It tailored how spells, items, outsiders, and worship was conducted. It suffused the world of D&D with an undercurrent of Good versus Evil & Order versus Chaos. I was perfectly willing to accept the reality that some people were going to be stupid with respect to alignment (and remind them at times that having alignment "X" is no excuse for absolute or stereotypical behavior), but apparently the designers felt differently. So while I accept your latter argument I am going to continue to remain leery about formal class role declarations (I haven't said its a bad thing in totality; it's good design philosophy, but I still think that the future will prove me right and that such declarations will prove less beneficial in the long run).
MTF
The short of this is that, while power sources, in the general sense, existed in previous editions (they sort of had to unless you are willing to entertain the notion that someone's power came from nothing...), power sourcing, as in the formal declaration of dependence on a specific source of power, did not (a tentative exception exists in the D&D cleric).
This seems to be a concession of your point in it's entirety. To quote "Races in classes" (a quote I believe you have already referred to as smoking some crazy ****, Althouth it could have been someone else) "Power sources have always been in D+D, but noone ever bothered to pay attention to them." This also is in line with the assertion that there was never a "formal declaration" of powersources- noone bothered to pay attention to them, including the developers.
pg. 30, under Clerics - Characteristics: Clerics are masters of divine magic, which is especially good at healing. Even an inexperienced cleric can bring people back from the brink of death, and an experienced cleric can bring back people who have crossed over that brink. As channelers of divine energy, clerics can affect undead creatures. A good cleric can turn away or even destroy undead; an evil cleric can bring undead under his control.
pg. 33, under Druids - Characteristics: Druids cast divine spells much the same way clerics do, though most get their spells from the power of nature rather than from deities. Their spells are oriented toward nature and animals. In addition to spells, druids gain an increasing array of magical powers, including the ability to take the shapes of animals, as they advance in level.
pg. 39, under Monks - Characteristics: Though a monk casts no spells, she has a magic of her own. She channels a subtle energy, called ki, which allows her to perform amazing feats. The monk’s best-known feat is her ability to stun an opponent with an unarmed blow. A monk also has a preternatural awareness that allows her to dodge an attack even if she is not consciously aware of it.
pg. 42, under Paladins - Characteristics: Divine power protects the paladin and gives her special powers. It wards off harm, protects her from disease, lets her heal herself, and guards her heart against fear. The paladin can also direct this power to help others, healing their wounds or curing diseases. Finally, the paladin can use this power to destroy evil. Even the least experienced paladin can detect evil, and more experienced paladins can smite evil foes and turn away undead. In addition, this power draws a mighty steed to the paladin and imbues that mount with strength, intelligence, and magical protection.
pg. 52-53, under Sorcerers - Characteristics: Sorcerers cast spells through innate power rather than through careful training and study. Their magic is intuitive rather than logical...Since sorcerers gain their powers without undergoing the years of rigorous study that wizards go through, they don’t have the background of arcane knowledge than most wizards have.
No, it is not explicitally stated. But it is implied that classes are powered from other sources. So, no, not 'power sources'. But 'sources of power'.
In 4E, the key difference is in how those power sources theme each class and how they function. It dictates everything a class can do when it comes to class powers and it influences what they do, you will never see a Martial character with powers that don't suit the Martial power source. Thematically it just guides a character and what they can do.
When you tie that in with class roles, you get an answer to Warcolonels post.Why didn't fighters gain any ability akin to fireball, or vampiric touch, or haste, or cure X, bull's strength, wish, stoneskin, detect evil? Why did wizards and sorcerers have such terriable weapon choices when compaired to clerics and paladins and rangers and... just about any class?
Why would Fighters learn Fireball or anything that transcended the flavour of the class? What does Wiz/Sorc weapon choice have to do with your assertion that they have an Arcane power source?
The flavour of the classes dictated what they did and what they learned, that has nothing to do with Power sources.
In 4E, the role of a class and the power dictates what kinds of power and how the class progresses. The power sources are linked and defined in what they do, how they manifest and how they're applied.
Are you even listening to your self? Are you even trying to make sense. First you say 4e is different then 3e because power sources limit what a class can do then you turn around and admit that 3e classes were themed and that those themes restricted the capabilities of the class. New Flash! Power source is just another way to say theme.
It is for this reason that stating classes like fighter and rogue derived their power from "martial power" is not true in previous editions. It seems a very natural assumption to believe that muscle and prowess is responsible for the fighter's abilities, but in D&D that is not exactly true (in the absolute sense). In D&D Good and Evil, the four elements, or Harvey the Invisible Bunny Rabbit are all just as valid explanations for everything that happens. I could just as soon conclude that whenever someone does something relevant to Good, then the power of Good suffuses you (and Evil when appropriate), and this is why when you do nothing you start to feel tired (because neither good nor evil is empowering you).
If we look at the druid, and we allow for the ultra broad definition of divine source to encompass not just deities, but also cosmic entities, arch-devils/demons, arch-celestials, and ideological forces, we still cannot derive divine sourcing for the druid. The only thing a druid must do in order to derive power is revere nature. That power source does not necessarily come from nature itself (and this is the crux of the issue). Perhaps Harvey the Invisible Bunny Rabbit thinks people who revere nature are funny and gives them power because they make him laugh ("divine" source). OR perhaps druids tap into a primal echo of the power of the blood or the power of the ancestors ("primal" power source or the power of multiple lesser spirits but not divine) by achieving harmony with nature.
Yes and Harvey could still be the patron of all primal powers in 4e as well. Power Sources are little more than a convenient label for grouping similarly themed classes together. Nothing about power source precludes a DM from using the same creative flair for painting the tapestry of their world as they have always been able to do.
MTF - Where the power comes from within a source of power is a crutch that you are leaning on, but isn't really a good point on whether or not the Power Sources existed in the previous editions. The Bard, as cited in previous posts, is the axiom of what happens when the roles and power sources become muddled in a system where classes dictate a direction for the player.
This new edition is a logical next step in the design of this game, though some things went awry (Magical Items nerf, skills becoming static, wealth used as a balancing mechanic) the basic structure is sound.
----
There is a thought that the wholesale slaughter of some of the worst sacred cows makes this edition somehow moving away from what is actually "D&D" and is a new game with the Dungeon and Dragons name slapped on. It is my contention that the Wizard should have been rid of the "fire and forget" magic mechanic in the last edition, and the Sorcerer should have never been, but others decry that anything away from this awful mechanic is not "true D&D."
I believe that part of this argument is a part of this view, that Power Sources somehow changes this game into something that is away from the "spirit" of Dungeons & Dragons. I maintain that it pushes it closer to the game, going back into the spirit of the original Chainmail tactics with the simplified combat rules, and leaving more room to role play by defining the part a character would be in the story.
Sorry that some feel that the previous editions have no influence on the current on, but in my mind, they have. It is what steered the development into trying to balance the classes because the previous edition was so out of control with crappy PrC's and Druids that abused the rules. It is also the source of what became Power Sources and Roles.
In a world with no ideologies (that is even a cleric who worships nature as an ideology cannot gain power; additionally this means no celestials as there is no "power of good"), no deities, no cosmic entities, the power of the elements is no more than enough to simply account for existence of things (And for those of you going "huh" at this premise; perhaps you thought alchemy and the 4 classical elements were just flavor pieces in D&D? Alchemical "science" presupposed that all things material were composed of the 4 elements, and that is, from what I understand, the default supposition for D&D material composition), no spirits, no extra soul power, no cosmic agency/institution (like FR's Weave), and no faith in himself or anything else for that matter: the ranger still gains nature themed divine spells. How? I have no clue, but he still would (at least mechanically). The paladin is in a similar boat: as long as there is sufficient ideological power for Good and Evil to create alignment the D&D paladin would exist (no deities, no cosmics, etc) and will get his powers at full strength. The problem I have is that this means that even in a world where Good has barely enough strength to exist (and Exaltation is impossible because Good has no extra power to spare) the D&D paladin would still be rocking full strength powers (seemingly from no where).
This is a terriable way to try and make your point. You divorce the basic concepts of the cosmics inherient to the 'standard' or 'usual' Dungeons and Dragons setting; that extraplanar forces impact and interact with the world at large. Then stating that since these powerful beings do not exist, thus nullifying the cleric, it is obvious the paladin and ranger, who gain access to divine spells, must be drawing from some other source of power.
Bunk. Total bunk.
If you remove ever source of supernatural beings, why would there be anything supernatural? Why would rangers exist at all? Or, rather, why would they still gain spells? You designed a world where no other divine caster could possiably exist specifically to argue the fact that since the ranger has divine spells, and would not be effected, then the argument for 'unmentioned power sources' would be disproved.
I have stated in my previous post, though it may not be clear, that from a mechanical/design point of view, not specifically a 'fluff' point of view, that different casting systems have linking features. Arcane, psionic, incarnum, all those others, they have aspects all in common, within the specific 'source of power', that ties in overall themes with the spells. This is not fluff. Fluff is mutable. Fluff can be changed.
Paladins, clerics, druids, rangers not only draw from the same spell list, a list of primarily defensive and buff spells, but rely on class features to provide the ability to deal damage. Smite, turn undead, wildshape, favored enemy. Specific, unique abilities, designed to give them the ability to hurt enemies. Wizards, sorcerers, warmages, warlocks, beguilers, primary arcane spellcasters all designed to deal with their enemies specifically through the use of their spells. This is not what the 'divine' classes do, otherwise a cleric or druid would inheritently be of the same power level as the wizard or sorcerer, negating the need of additional abilities or the inclusing of the classes. Either that or they would have had the same spell list.
A 'source of power' is not a fluff aspect only. Because fluff means nothing in the end. But it is a theme in which classes are designed mechanically.
P.S. - Before I get jumped, yes I know I used fluff as my argument in my last post, but it is to show instances of 'sources of power' included within the fluff.
The short of this is that, while power sources, in the general sense, existed in previous editions (they sort of had to unless you are willing to entertain the notion that someone's power came from nothing...), power sourcing, as in the formal declaration of dependence on a specific source of power, did not (a tentative exception exists in the D&D cleric).
ok, here we sorda agree. I will give you that formal power sourcing didn't exist for the most part. Just general fluff stuff.
HOWEVER, classification along lines that have now become power sources DID exist. Witht he exception fo martial, 4e's power sources have been almost directly ported over from 3e's spellcasting classification. These spellcasting descriptions were specific classifications of classes into groups based on the FLUFF THAT DESCRIBED WHERE THEY GOT THEIR POWERS. While DM's could change that fluff, the baseline fluff for spellcasters (and I inluce classes like psion in thsi catagory) generally had the same classification spellcaster getting their powers from similiar sources. If your going to say this isn;t a clear precursor and modell for 4e's power sources, your insane (not really ad hominem, just making a point.
P.S. Omnicron D&D alignment did have all kinds of meaningful benefit in previous editions. It tailored how spells, items, outsiders, and worship was conducted. It suffused the world of D&D with an undercurrent of Good versus Evil & Order versus Chaos. I was perfectly willing to accept the reality that some people were going to be stupid with respect to alignment (and remind them at times that having alignment "X" is no excuse for absolute or stereotypical behavior), but apparently the designers felt differently. So while I accept your latter argument I am going to continue to remain leery about formal class role declarations (I haven't said its a bad thing in totality; it's good design philosophy, but I still think that the future will prove me right and that such declarations will prove less beneficial in the long run).
MTF
Alignment really didn;t have meaningful reason to exist, certainly it had mechanical effects, but I don;t think those mechanical effects were particularly necessary, worthwhile, or condusive to a "realistic" (as I say such in knowledge of how ridicolous it is in the context of D&D) world. Effects like detect evil seem like they would throw the world askew, and I really don;t like the ideo of absolute alignment. Well, I think absolute alignment belongs to the domain of gods and demons, and no one else. Devlis can be EVIL, but even marauding orcs have societal reasons to be what the rest of the world calls evil. It doesn;t make them right, but having a non-divine/infernal creature labelled objectively evil just makes me cringe inside. Actions can be evil, societies can be evil, people can be spreaders of evil, but I don;t think we need such classifications for creatures themselves.
Anyway, its not that I particularly hate the alignment system (ok I do, but its subjective and I can see how soem people like it), but trying to draw a similiarity between class roles and alignment won;t work. Both are "arbitrary" systems that "classify" characters, but one only exists in a metagame sense, and one exists in the campiagn world. Role classifications only has the potential to harm your game if your players are excessively dumb and don't see the milllions of sentences that state "role doesn;t determine everything your characters does" and "not all parties need all 4 roles."
Power sources did not in fact exist in previous editions, but they were implied.
Power sources did not in fact exist in previous editions, but they were implied.
The developers have said, they existed, but were ignored by everyone.
The developers have said, they existed, but were ignored by everyone.
This is getting silly, they never existed as a FACT, find me the phrase "power source" in a previous edition product of D&D and that will be proof (fact), I'm not looking for reaching, philosophising, wishing and hoping etc.
Look, I see what everyone is saying - they were there in a way, but no one really yadda yadda, I'm just talking about stone cold facts here.
This is getting silly, they never existed as a FACT, find me the phrase "power source" in a previous edition product of D&D and that will be proof (fact), I'm not looking for reaching, philosophising, wishing and hoping etc.
Look, I see what everyone is saying - they were there in a way, but no one really yadda yadda, I'm just talking about stone cold facts here.
So, your entire argument is semantics? You admit freely that power sources existed, but since they weren't called power sources then obviously we must be wrong?
...yeah.
No, they didn't have a defined name. That doesn't mean they didn't exist.
This is getting silly, they never existed as a FACT, find me the phrase "power source" in a previous edition product of D&D and that will be proof (fact), I'm not looking for reaching, philosophising, wishing and hoping etc.
Look, I see what everyone is saying - they were there in a way, but no one really yadda yadda, I'm just talking about stone cold facts here.
If you had been reading the rest of the thread, no one thinks the word "power source" was in 3e/2e. People do think that concepts, systems, and classification UNBELIEVABLY similiar to power sources existed, and power sources are a clear extension of that preexisting framework.
See above posts about spellcasters arcane/divine.
All primary 4e power sources existed in some form in 3e (except martial)
Arcane/Divine/Psionic existed as classifications of spellcasting. 4e essentially took 3e spellcasting system and added a name for "non-spellcasters", IE: Martial.
Arcane
- Bard
- Sorcerer
- Wizard
- Spellthief
- Warlock
- Wu Jen
- Warmage
- Hexblade (Hybrid Physical)
- Dragonfire Adept
- Dread Necromancer
- Beguiler
- Dragon Shaman
- Duskblade (Hybrid Physical)
- Binder
- Shadowcaster
- Truenamer
- Artificer
I think some of these are questionable.
The Shadowcaster wasn't precisely arcane. He used a sort of different, shadow-magic for his power. There were complex rules for how it interacted with regular magic, including penalties for Spellcraft checks by shadow mystery users trying to figure out regular arcane issues, and vice versa. And there were penalties to dispelling cross system as well. The Shadowcaster's "spells" weren't even called "spells," they were called "mysteries." I can't definitively say that it was a different power source because the terminology wasn't there, but it does seem to be a different power source.
The same is true of the Truenamer. Truenames seem to be their own power source.
I would normally argue the Binder, but I think that arcane might have killed it and taken its stuff- see, eg, the 4e Warlock. In 3e, the Binder was heavily different mechanically from regular magic. If anything, he most resembled a divine spellcaster who's power was granted to him by a deity. Specifically, an insane memory of a deity from beyond space and time, but a deity-like critter none the less.
It shouldn't be surprising that these were different power sources, because that was kind of the point of the Tome of Magic as a book.
The Dragon Shaman was, in its way, sort of... elemental? That ones a longer shot, because it wasn't as mechanically distinct, but if I had to guess, I'd say that the Dragon Shaman will probably inform the Elemental power source when it comes around.
All primary 4e power sources existed in some form in 3e (except martial)
Arcane/Divine/Psionic existed as classifications of spellcasting. 4e essentially took 3e spellcasting system and added a name for "non-spellcasters", IE: Martial.
Tome of Battle makes the argument that 'martial' did exist, specifically since the designers of 4th stated it was used to test the idea of martial power sources.
Tome of Battle makes the argument that 'martial' did exist, specifically since the designers of 4th stated it was used to test the idea of martial power sources.
ok yeah, Tome of Battle brings in "martial." However, ToB was made towards the end of 3e and shares obviouse similairities with 4e, so I thought it a bit unfair to use it as an example of 3e as a whole.
I
I think some of these are questionable.
The Shadowcaster wasn't precisely arcane. He used a sort of different, shadow-magic for his power. There were complex rules for how it interacted with regular magic, including penalties for Spellcraft checks by shadow mystery users trying to figure out regular arcane issues, and vice versa. And there were penalties to dispelling cross system as well. The Shadowcaster's "spells" weren't even called "spells," they were called "mysteries." I can't definitively say that it was a different power source because the terminology wasn't there, but it does seem to be a different power source.
The same is true of the Truenamer. Truenames seem to be their own power source.
I would normally argue the Binder, but I think that arcane might have killed it and taken its stuff- see, eg, the 4e Warlock. In 3e, the Binder was heavily different mechanically from regular magic. If anything, he most resembled a divine spellcaster who's power was granted to him by a deity. Specifically, an insane memory of a deity from beyond space and time, but a deity-like critter none the less.
It shouldn't be surprising that these were different power sources, because that was kind of the point of the Tome of Magic as a book.
The Dragon Shaman was, in its way, sort of... elemental? That ones a longer shot, because it wasn't as mechanically distinct, but if I had to guess, I'd say that the Dragon Shaman will probably inform the Elemental power source when it comes around.
I agree some of those do stretch it quite a bit and I should've listed them as having their own individual power sources. However, you bring up a good point: The Tome of Magic proves beyond all doubt that the developers consciously recognized the concept of power sources within the 3.5 system by actively trying to create exceptions to the rule as a design prerogative for that book.
I agree some of those do stretch it quite a bit and I should've listed them as having their own individual power sources. However, you bring up a good point: The Tome of Magic proves beyond all doubt that the developers consciously recognized the concept of power sources within the 3.5 system by actively trying to create exceptions to the rule as a design prerogative for that book.
I'm not going to get into that argument. Its too much semantics and not enough meat. I mean, its obvious that some degree of power sourcing existed in earlier material- some characters had divine power, some had arcane power, some had only mundane abilities, some had psionic powers, some had ki powers... etc, etc etc. But things were certainly different then, and there were more hybrids around. It feels, to me, like the developers made a decision- that if someone is, say, Arcane powered, then the vast, vast majority of what they should do should involve arcane things. So, as an example, the Swordmage adds some arcane effect to every single attack he makes, whereas in 3e the fighter/spellcaster types attacked mostly with regular mundane skill, and added magic only once in a while. Plus, I don't think that quite as much effort went into firmly delineating what each power source did, which resulted in a lot of overlap.
I think 3e actually had the strongest form of power sourcing. 4e power sources have very little in game effect as far as I have seen. 3e at least had the Psionic Non-Transparent optional rule where there were actual mechanical differences between psionics and magic.
yeah, "power source" probabyly had more in game effect in 3e, but I wouldn;t say 3e is "more strongly power sourced." Even though they certainly existed in 3e, in 4e power sources are 1 of the 2 main class characteristics (along with role) and have a far mroe prominant place in the system. (They are also more dilineated and clearly split)
yeah, "power source" probabyly had more in game effect in 3e, but I wouldn;t say 3e is "more strongly power sourced." Even though they certainly existed in 3e, in 4e power sources are 1 of the 2 main class characteristics (along with role) and have a far mroe prominant place in the system. (They are also more dilineated and clearly split)
Until such time as we get powers that are available to anyone using the Arcane power source or Paragon paths with the Prerequisite: Any Martial Class, then the current paradigm is in no way different from where it says "A sorcerer casts arcane spells" or "Beginning at 4th level, a ranger gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells" in 3e.
Until such time as we get powers that are available to anyone using the Arcane power source or Paragon paths with the Prerequisite: Any Martial Class, then the current paradigm is in no way different from where it says "A sorcerer casts arcane spells" or "Beginning at 4th level, a ranger gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells" in 3e.
We already have feats, epic destinies, a paragon path, and weapon fighting styles that are all exclusive for Martial characters. Is that enough?
We already have feats, epic destinies, a paragon path, and weapon fighting styles that are all exclusive for Martial characters. Is that enough?
Sure. I'd say that puts it on equal footing with 3e. Might even beat it if you don't include Unearthed Arcana.
Tome of Battle makes the argument that 'martial' did exist, specifically since the designers of 4th stated it was used to test the idea of martial power sources.
You dont need ToB to that. In Complete Warrior, page 4, it says that it is the sourcebook for martial characters. DD allways had martial characters, divine characters and arcane characters. The only difference so far is that scoundrel characters (or skill monkeys) dissapear, becouse everybody can use skills now, regardless of power source.
No, they didn't have a defined name. That doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Yes it does, they did not exist in previous editions, philosophy is not fact – get over it.
If you had been reading the rest of the thread, no one thinks the word "power source" was in 3e/2e. People do think that concepts, systems, and classification UNBELIEVABLY similiar to power sources existed, and power sources are a clear extension of that preexisting framework.
Okay, but that's implied philosophy, why can't people admit as a fact they did not exist, is it so hard?
I have been using minion type rules for years, doesn't mean they actually existed in previous editions.
Okay, but that's implied philosophy, why can't people admit as a fact they did not exist, is it so hard?
I have been using minion type rules for years, doesn't mean they actually existed in previous editions.
Ok once more it was there but NOT CALLED POWERSOURCES!!!!!!!!!! It wasn't just a philosophy, it was a hidden nugget of class design, one that now can be shown in light of day instead of hidden away....
Yes it does, they did not exist in previous editions, philosophy is not fact – get over it.
A rose by any other name. Regardless of what it was or was not called, it existed. Names have no inherent meaning. Get over it.
Yes it does, they did not exist in previous editions, philosophy is not fact – get over it.
Really...
So Wizards of the Coast seemingly pulled this thing called "Power Sources" out from thin air and discounted everything from the previous editions? Is that what your saying?
The framework was there, it started to be grouped in 2nd edition and was further focused (somewhate) in 3rd, even though the "Name" was never categorized until this current edition.
Okay, but that's implied philosophy, why can't people admit as a fact they did not exist, is it so hard?
I have been using minion type rules for years, doesn't mean they actually existed in previous editions.
your right, I will concede right now the name power source did not exist in 3e.
A official system of dividing classs, present in actual published material, that shares remarkable similiarity with 4e power sources did exist. This si different than your minion rules, b/c those weren't A) Created by the designers and put in the freaking phb/ToM/CW/ tons of other books. B) Are a specific mechanical rule, wheras power sources are a broad system without direct mechanical effects in either additions (actually there were more mechanical effects in 3e, go figure...)
A well sentence and a bad analogy does not an argument make...
Are you even listening to your self? Are you even trying to make sense. First you say 4e is different then 3e because power sources limit what a class can do then you turn around and admit that 3e classes were themed and that those themes restricted the capabilities of the class. New Flash! Power source is just another way to say theme.
Are you reading what you're reading.
Why would 3E fighters get Fireball. Why didn't Bards get Fireball?
Purely for thematic reasons. However, in 3E, the only reason Fighters don't get Fireball is purely for thematic purposes.
In 4E, a Martial Character wouldn't get anything like Fireball because they can't generate that kind of power. Their power source (and role) prohibits them.
pg. 52-53, under Sorcerers - Characteristics: Sorcerers cast spells through innate power rather than through careful training and study. Their magic is intuitive rather than logical...Since sorcerers gain their powers without undergoing the years of rigorous study that wizards go through, they don’t have the background of arcane knowledge than most wizards have.
I'll use this example, but is the Sorcerers "power source" "Arcane" as per their spells, or this "Innate" that they use?
What's more, you are reversing statements to try and prove that something exists.
Druids and Clerics both cast Divine spells, but they're sourced and processed in different ways, but you say they're both Divine Power and there's a Divine POwer source?
Why would 3E fighters get Fireball. Why didn't Bards get Fireball?
Purely for thematic reasons. However, in 3E, the only reason Fighters don't get Fireball is purely for thematic purposes.
In 4E, a Martial Character wouldn't get anything like Fireball because they can't generate that kind of power. Their power source (and role) prohibits them.
Excuse me but WHAT? Show me were it is written that the martial power source has any baring on mechanical restrictions. It doesn't. Martial classes not making fireballs, or other overtly magical effects, is still a thematic decision by the designers.
I'll use this example, but is the Sorcerers "power source" "Arcane" as per their spells, or this "Innate" that they use?
Both, sorcerers had innate arcane power.
What's more, you are reversing statements to try and prove that something exists.
Druids and Clerics both cast Divine spells, but they're sourced and processed in different ways, but you say they're both Divine Power and there's a Divine POwer source?
I'm not even sure what your trying to get at here. In 3e, Clerics and Druids both used divine powers. They were fluffed a bit differently but it was a codified aspect of each class, and is what allowed them to qualify for many of the same prestige classes and feats (baring restrictions based on class features unique to each). Now in 4e those differences have been accentuated and the two now draw their power from far more distinctly different sources.
Right, so it looks we've finally cleared that up: power sources did not exist in previous editions of the game, but were implied in a vague, philosophical, undercurrent sort of way. Now, was that so hard, my petit pois?
You clearly can't read or atleast chose not to. Power sources existed. They just weren't called power sources. And it turns out, people who have logical reason to back up their side of an arguement usually don't give in to someone telling them their wrong without giving a reason...
We've all reasied about 5 distinct reasons why power sources existed, and all you can say is the phrase power source wasn;t there. YES!!! They were not called power sources, they were called (actually they didn't really have a name) the spellcasting system that was later expanded to other stuff. THey wer also present in book divisions, class grouping, and all sorts of other stuff. THEY EVEN FREAKIN MADE MAGIC ITEMS FOR CERTAIN "POWER SOURCES!" In fact, here's all the supporting reasons why power sources existe
1. Spellcasting system (divine knows all spells, psionic has power points, arcane knows certain spells and/or casts spontaneously, incarnum system, ect.)
2. Class publishing divisions/description (IE: CW referred to its classes as martial)
3. Magic Item Limits
4. Fluff similairities (weak I know, but its one)
5. Power source names (is it a coincidince that allmost every power source is named after a type of class in 3e, psionic, arcane, divine ect.
Please supply a reason why each of these doesn;t matter or go away.
(By you, please the other people on this thread who have managed to make coherent reasons why power sourced didn;t exist, ignore me. THink of this as a thought exercize for steely dan)
Right, so it looks we've finally cleared that up: power sources did not exist in previous editions of the game, but were implied in a vague, philosophical, undercurrent sort of way. Now, was that so hard, my petit pois?
Except it was not vague, it was not philosphical, and it was not undercurrent, yes, you are right.
You clearly can't read or atleast chose not to. Power sources existed. They just weren't called power sources. And it turns out, people who have logical reason to back up their side of an arguement usually don't give in to someone telling them their wrong without giving a reason...
We've all reasied about 5 distinct reasons why power sources existed, and all you can say is the phrase power source wasn;t there. YES!!! They were not called power sources, they were called (actually they didn't really have a name) the spellcasting system that was later expanded to other stuff. THey wer also present in book divisions, class grouping, and all sorts of other stuff. THEY EVEN FREAKIN MADE MAGIC ITEMS FOR CERTAIN "POWER SOURCES!" In fact, here's all the supporting reasons why power sources existe
1. Spellcasting system (divine knows all spells, psionic has power points, arcane knows certain spells and/or casts spontaneously, incarnum system, ect.)
2. Class publishing divisions/description (IE: CW referred to its classes as martial)
3. Magic Item Limits
4. Fluff similairities (weak I know, but its one)
5. Power source names (is it a coincidince that allmost every power source is named after a type of class in 3e, psionic, arcane, divine ect.
Please supply a reason why each of these doesn;t matter or go away.
(By you, please the other people on this thread who have managed to make coherent reasons why power sourced didn;t exist, ignore me. THink of this as a thought exercize for steely dan)
He's playing stone deaf. Ignore the troll. It's for your own good.
Divine power protects the paladin and gives her special powers.
Yeah, there is absolutely no evidence that power sources predate 4E. XD lol
Why is this even in question?
The reason it is a question is because it isn't spelled out completely like it is in this new edition, and the thought is that the introduction of this "mysterious" Power Source mechanic somehow changes this from something that isn't "D&D."
I maintain that it is a logical progression, others maintain that it killed or is killing the brand.
I maintain that it is a logical progression, others maintain that it killed or is killing the brand.
Well yeah, and it seems like a such a silly argument. Classes in the last edition were explictly stated as using arcane powers, divine power, psionic powers, etc...and yet some folks in the this thread are acting like the 4E devs just pulled the concept of "power sources" out of their asses. A lot of the posts in this thread sound so obtuse that i cant help but think they are intentional jokes.
The problem here is that an assumption is being made about D&D (it's a good assumption, but one that is fundamentally flawed when attempted to be generalized in the absolute).
"Where ever the rules do not specifically state a difference the world of D&D emulates real life." This assumption is the root cause of the difficulties here. From a design perspective this is fundamentally flawed because it would preclude the possibility of alternative cosmology or themes than what is already present in D&D.
You aren't being serious, are you? You are wanting the designers to design not for their world, or their rule system, but some possible homebrew that you or anyone else had come up with?
Design doesn't work like that. You don't design for what might exist, you design what you need to exist, or currently exists. You design to the needs of your product. If other designers create alternative options, they need to design those to fit around your core, not the core trying to fit around the derivative.
You know, the rest of your arguments have been made of off semantics, but this one is just so far off base. You have moved past the logical point. One does not argue that because I choose to eliminate something from my game, the designers are flawed in their approach. Their design is just fine.
Or, as an analogy, you can chop off a leg to a chair, just don't blame the carpenter when you can't sit on it.
Why is this even in question?
Because power sources did not officially exist any previous edition of this game.
Come on, I'm a big 4th Ed fan, as you can see from my sig, but that doesn't mean I'm going to look at previous editions and colour the truth due to the latest edition of the game.
I'm not even sure what your trying to get at here. In 3e, Clerics and Druids both used divine powers. They were fluffed a bit differently but it was a codified aspect of each class, and is what allowed them to qualify for many of the same prestige classes and feats (baring restrictions based on class features unique to each). Now in 4e those differences have been accentuated and the two now draw their power from far more distinctly different sources.
Both cast Divine spells, that is is not proof that there is A Divine power source.
For the Cleric/Druid class, there was no presented source for their powers. Where they got these powers from was left open, and in some cases wasn't even specified to existing. A class just got them for no apparent reason.
Rangers are probably the better example in this, there is no source for their spells or supernatural abilities, they just gain them. They're not divine powered, they just cast Divine spells for no apparent reason. They can HIPS in natural terrain for no apparent reason.
No-one ever pooled power from a Divine power source specifically, a character might be granted powers from deities or a church, or studying in a library or using Ki, but the ethos of power sourcing is different in 4E.
To make sense of a character, you would invent a source for a power based on the lore of the world, but there wasn't some defined power source for everyone to tap into.
In 4E we will see people taking Ki power and applying it in different ways, the same way we see people taking Arcane power and applying it in different ways.
In 3E we just had people with powers who might cast spells.
Of course there were power sources, but not in the same way as in 4E and they don't so openly govern and dictate a class as they do in 4E.
*whisper*You don't have a sig Dan*/whisper*
If you look at some of my other posts, I do, it's just one of the crap features of these boards that sometimes your sig isn't attached.
Everyone knows I'm the founding member of the 4th Ed Avengers, with Batshido as the first to join.
Because power sources did not officially exist any previous edition of this game.
Come on, I'm a big 4th Ed fan, as you can see from my sig, but that doesn't mean I'm going to look at previous editions and colour the truth due to the latest edition of the game.
So, being printed in the core books isn't enough for something to officially exist? The developers have to hit you over the head with a giant hammer labeled "POWER SOURCES" for you to admit that they existed? They were part of the design. They were part of the development. They were part of the finished product. That the developers didn't wield a gigantic hammer with "POWER SOURCES" written on the side to beat the concept into you like they did in 4e just means that they didn't emphasize the 3e power sources nearly as much.
Of course there were power sources,
/thread
So, being printed in the core books isn't enough for something to officially exist?
Power Sources never saw print in any previous edition of this game.
/thread
Meant to say Sources of power :X
I.E. Classes got power from a source, but not like Arcane Power or Divine Power or Ki power and there was no source of power dictating what a class did like it does in 4E.
E.G. You could say True Names were a source of power, but you won't find a 4E True Name powered class, but you might find a class that uses a Power Source to abuse True Names.
Power Source = Spell Type
Not in any version of D&D.
Not in any version of D&D.
Specifically in two versions of D&D.
Meant to say Sources of power :X
I.E. Classes got power from a source, but not like Arcane Power or Divine Power or Ki power and there was no source of power dictating what a class did like it does in 4E.
E.G. You could say True Names were a source of power, but you won't find a 4E True Name powered class, but you might find a class that uses a Power Source to abuse True Names.
Which is EXACTLY what the thread is arguing.
Nobody has said that power sources dictate a class's function. Hell, they don't even do that now. But classes did draw from distinct sources of fluff that separeted them from each other -- in other words, power sources. That is the argument.
Power Sources never saw print in any previous edition of this game.
The name didn't, the concept did. A rose by any other name. To say otherwise is to ignore the facts.
Specifically in two versions of D&D.
Explicitly in two versions of D&D.
Edit: Here's some interesting quotes for you, Darktouch:
Wizards, sorcerers, and bards cast arcane spells, which involve the direct manipulation of mystic energies. These manipulations require natural talent (in the case of sorcerers), long study (in the case of wizards), or both (in the case of bards).
Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.
Proof that spells of the same type are drawn from the same over-arching source. All arcane spells are drawn from direct manipulation of magic, and all divine spells are drawn from divine forces or entities.
Look at the quotes from the 3.5 books that Khift posted a couple posts back, right there it is.
Perhaps it is the focus this new edition has with the Power Sources that you are dead locked on, instead of the concept that they came from.
Tell you what, play the game as you want, and don't worry about them. That they are there shouldn't take away any good time you have playing the game.
1) Power sourcing existed in previous editions. Characters got their powers from somewhere and somehow.
2) Power sources existed in previous editions. There were in fact billions of them since it was up to the DM and the player to figure out how a given character actually got their powers.
3) But what did not exist in previous editions (again with a limited exception in the cleric) was a dictated power source according to the text of a class.
Anyone who argues against the above statements is arguing in the face of absolute truth. You can argue about whether or not intent existed; about whether or not the conceptual groundwork for FORMAL power sources (that is to say power sources that are standardized for use by a class); or you can argue about whether or not historically class identity was tied into battle role or potential (emphasis mine) power sources. But what you cannot argue is that in previous editions of D&D absolute power sources were a part of every class.
Spell type has NEVER been an indicator of power source in previous editions. It was a mechanical indicator for what type of casting was required to perform a given spell. A casting type indicated proficiency with a method for spell casting and, therefore, determined a character's relationship with items and certain cosmic/spell effects. For those of you who think that spell type equates with power source you must be able to come up with a divine power source for the ranger's magic in 3E in the situation where the ranger has no available power sources (as in a ranger who cannot receive it from deities, spirits, ideologies, nature, etc; because none of those things existed or were unable to be a source of power; all of which was quite possible for a DM to have take place).
MTF
1 - You state that a spell's descriptor was not power source. Rather, it was that "casting type indicated proficiency with a method for spell casting and, therefore, determined a character's relationship with items and certain cosmic/spell effects." Wow, that sounds EXACTUALLY like some sort of source of power, which mechanically ties characters who use this source of power to one another.
2 - Stating that since the ranger did not have the FLUFF to tie it into the divine source of power is a redicious (sp?) argument. If proving 1% of a argument to be superficially wrong (fluff) without proving it to be factually wrong (crunch, which is my argument; also the one you give above) could discredit an entire argument, you were discreditated pages ago.
Did you ignore my (and most other) posts? Do you care to actually refute any of what I said? Because you keep arguing things noone is commenting on.
Spell type has NEVER been an indicator of power source in previous editions. It was a mechanical indicator for what type of casting was required to perform a given spell. A casting type indicated proficiency with a method for spell casting and, therefore, determined a character's relationship with items and certain cosmic/spell effects. For those of you who think that spell type equates with power source you must be able to come up with a divine power source for the ranger's magic in 3E in the situation where the ranger has no available power sources (as in a ranger who cannot receive it from deities, spirits, ideologies, nature, etc; because none of those things existed or were unable to be a source of power; all of which was quite possible for a DM to have take place).
MTF
Can you not read?
Originally Posted by 3.5e PHB, pg 177
Wizards, sorcerers, and bards cast arcane spells, which involve the direct manipulation of mystic energies. These manipulations require natural talent (in the case of sorcerers), long study (in the case of wizards), or both (in the case of bards).
Originally Posted by 3.5e PHB, pg 179
Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.
I don't know. I give up at this point. Play the game and don't worry about it, I will enjoy 4th edition as you enjoy the game you play, and whether or not Power Sources within a D&D product you use is there is really irrelevant.
I get that some think that the introduction of Power Sources and Role as defining direction and class something of a bottle neck or seeming to constrain the choices one has. I see it as a way to reign in the abstract way that some of the previous edition's classes had been put together. The Druid should have never been as powerful as he is, and the Wizard teeter totters from weak two spells and out 1st level to being God like at 20th.
Some play the game to play a character, while others play for power for their character. I can guess what some of the detractors of this new edition are, and can see that the Power Gamer is gonna look at this and go back to the previous edition, min/maxing and cross classing for optimal effect.
It is impossible for these to be any more true (as they are 100% true):
1) Power sourcing existed in previous editions. Characters got their powers from somewhere and somehow.
Got that right, at least.
2) Power sources existed in previous editions. There were in fact billions of them since it was up to the DM and the player to figure out how a given character actually got their powers.
DMs and players never enter the equation. How people interpret the text is up to them. The item in question here is the text itself.
3) But what did not exist in previous editions (again with a limited exception in the cleric) was a dictated power source according to the text of a class.
Really, now?
First, proof that spell source = power source:
Wizards, sorcerers, and bards cast arcane spells, which involve the direct manipulation of mystic energies. These manipulations require natural talent (in the case of sorcerers), long study (in the case of wizards), or both (in the case of bards).
Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.
Ignore this as you may, but it spells out clear as day that all divine spells draw from divine sources and all arcane spells draw from latent unformed magic. If a character casts a divine spell, he draws the power for the spell from a divine force or entity. If a character casts an arcane spell, he draws the power from manipulation of mystic energies around him.
Next, the definition of a psionic character:
Psionic characters tap the power of the mind and body. The psionic character classes embrace the total energy of consciousness directly, utilizing this inner reservoir of power to effect change in the real world.
All psionic characters draw power from their mind, body, and consciousness. Got it.
Next, incarnum:
In its pure form, incarnum resembles a radiant mist, deep blue in color. Those trained or gifted in manipulating incarnum can shape it into physical objects (called soulmelds) or simply use it to imbue themselves with power.
Incarnum characters draw power from incarnum. (o rly?)
I could go further, but honestly, my point has been made. The only power source in 3.5 that was not clearly defined was the physical, or martial, power source. It is referred to, but never explicitly defined, instead it is used as a catch-all or baseline to which the other classes are compared to.
Anyone who argues against the above statements is arguing in the face of absolute truth.
Where's your support for that bold statement? I want to see quotes, either from the books themselves or the developers who made them. You cannot just make absolute claims without having something to back them up.
You can argue about whether or not intent existed;
It goes further than intent -- it was implemented. Actions speak louder than words.
about whether or not the conceptual groundwork for FORMAL power sources (that is to say power sources that are standardized for use by a class);
Again, the game goes further than just groundwork. It implements the final concept. Refer to the quotes above for ineffable proof.
But what you cannot argue is that in previous editions of D&D absolute power sources were a part of every class.
I can, I am, and I have already proved it.
Spell type has NEVER been an indicator of power source in previous editions.
*BZZT* Wrong! I'll repost the quote, a third time, just for you:
Wizards, sorcerers, and bards cast arcane spells, which involve the direct manipulation of mystic energies. These manipulations require natural talent (in the case of sorcerers), long study (in the case of wizards), or both (in the case of bards).
Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.
For those of you who think that spell type equates with power source you must be able to come up with a divine power source for the ranger's magic in 3E in the situation where the ranger has no available power sources (as in a ranger who cannot receive it from deities, spirits, ideologies, nature, etc; because none of those things existed or were unable to be a source of power; all of which was quite possible for a DM to have take place).
I do not need to, because the book explicitly states that rangers draw power from the divine force of nature. I need no more proof than what the book itself wrote. It is unshakeable, permanent proof.
I'm sorry, MTF, but your arguments are very very short on actual proof. You talk a good fight, but if you want to go any further, you're going to need sources and quotes from developers or books that refute the quotes I've put forward. If you cannot find them, then stop posting.
I mean, obviously my position is self evidently correct, and I am obliged to remonstrate all fools on the internet who disagree with me. But why is everyone else so invested in this?
Power Sources is somehow the new evil axis.
It is another "OMG, 4th edition is no longer the D&D I love" type of arguments.
Power Sources is somehow the new evil axis.
I believe Stephen Colbert had it on the "Threat Down" behind North Korea and Bears.
For the purpose of arcane spells, what precisely are "mystical energies?" Unformed magic? The weave? Deific will (ala Mystra prior to weave)? A wizard's own soul? The elements? What?
Divine magic wants a divine source, but what happens to a paladin in a world with no alignment? He still gets his spells, and yet the text says that paladins get their spells from the power of law and good. Deities can grant it to paladins. He doesn't need any of that though. Just like a ranger doesn't need nature.
The game also doesn't specify what exactly constitutes a divine source. Probably shouldn't do so, but ces la vie. Say what you will about previous editions: they knew enough to not limit players with hard-coded power sources exactly because they knew players were going to want to play wild-card characters.
MTF
So what happens when there is no nature to empower anyone with? Unlike a druid, a ranger could burn nature to the ground and still get spells, somehow. In FR everyone gets their spells from deities. In other campaign settings other rules apply.
That's all setting specific fluff, and settings weather official or home brew are allowed to clarify/change the generic fluff presented in books like the PHB.
The game also doesn't specify what exactly constitutes a divine source. Probably shouldn't do so, but ces la vie. Say what you will about previous editions: they knew enough to not limit players with hard-coded power sources exactly because they knew players were going to want to play wild-card characters.
...and the game still doesn't specify what exactly constitutes the origin of a power source. Sure it provides some generic and rather vague starting points, but it's up to individual GMs to decide how to interpret/implement it in their own campaigns, same as it ever has been.
So what happens when there is no nature to empower anyone with? Unlike a druid, a ranger could burn nature to the ground and still get spells, somehow. In FR everyone gets their spells from deities. In other campaign settings other rules apply.
For the purpose of arcane spells, what precisely are "mystical energies?" Unformed magic? The weave? Deific will (ala Mystra prior to weave)? A wizard's own soul? The elements? What?
Divine magic wants a divine source, but what happens to a paladin in a world with no alignment? He still gets his spells, and yet the text says that paladins get their spells from the power of law and good. Deities can grant it to paladins. He doesn't need any of that though. Just like a ranger doesn't need nature.
The game also doesn't specify what exactly constitutes a divine source. Probably shouldn't do so, but ces la vie. Say what you will about previous editions: they knew enough to not limit players with hard-coded power sources exactly because they knew players were going to want to play wild-card characters.
MTF
My advice. Read some Terry Pratchett novels. After you see what he thinks of elves, you will come running back to D&D, Power Sources and all.
Originally Posted by 3.5e PHB, pg 177
Wizards, sorcerers, and bards cast arcane spells, which involve the direct manipulation of mystic energies. These manipulations require natural talent (in the case of sorcerers), long study (in the case of wizards), or both (in the case of bards).
1: We can gather that the named Arcane casting classes cast Arcane spells my the "direct manipulation of mystic energies" and how each class manipulates that energy.
we have no indication of what this mystical energy is, or where each class gains any ability to manipulate this energy. This is most important for the Bard and Sorc.
The Bard and Sorc have some inate ability to manipulate Arcane Energy. There is no Arcane power source, their inate talent guides their usage of Arcane Spells.
If we look up fluff on Arcane spells we can discover fun facts about the nature of Arcane spells and what they are.
None of this indicates some specific Arcane Power source that is being used.
Originally Posted by 3.5e PHB, pg 179
Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.
From a Divine source, and then we have lists of what powers these spells. Not a Divine Power, but sources of power that fuel these characters spells.
There's no subsequent explanation of other class features, such as Wildshape for Druids and HIPS for Rangers.
Clearly there are sources of Power, but not a central Power Source that is being applied in each class. Whats more, these sources of power are not explicity pointed out and can vary from campaign to campaign.
There are power sources, in that something can provide power; however we don't see power sources that fuel the entirity of a character.
The Ranger is still the best example of this, by being purely Martial in 4E, they lose a lot of their other nature powers and a Primal character would have nothing but Primal powers. Its an important distinction and a change to the world.
And a divine power is, by definition, divine power.
we have no indication of what this mystical energy is, or where each class gains any ability to manipulate this energy. This is most important for the Bard and Sorc.
The Bard and Sorc have some inate ability to manipulate Arcane Energy. There is no Arcane power source, their inate talent guides their usage of Arcane Spells.
And all of that is still the case. Wizards mainpulate arcane energies though learned study, while warlocks make bargins with extraplaner patron to gain their powers.
Clearly there are sources of Power, but not a central Power Source that is being applied in each class. Whats more, these sources of power are not explicity pointed out and can vary from campaign to campaign.
Nothing has changed here either. It's still entirely up to the DM to specifiy where exactly each power source is derived from.
I do like that they've made power sources an official part of the game in 4th Ed, I dig them.
It seems that it is agreed that some sort of power sources exist but in a way that didn't make them power sources. Zen quality thinking but not much of a denial.
The framework was in the previous editions, more so in the later one (3rd). This new edition spells it out and designs the classes from them and Roles using the framework that had been in the previous editions.
So the question is, do you see that connection or do you think that Power Sources was pulled out of thin air?
(see previous posts...)
So, we're back to where we were: power sources did not in fact exist, but were implied in an underlying way.
I do like that they've made power sources an official part of the game in 4th Ed, I dig them.
No they existed. Could someone please answer the quote from the PHB that actually even say the words "source of power" and "draws power from" ect...
For the above comments, igniz keeps trying to draw some distinction about how where the actual power in arcane comes from is very vague in 3e and isn;t uniform.
This is true. And...
also true in 4e. 4e is equally vague when it comes to what arcane power actually is, it mentions some feywild stuff, but does that mean if I kill the feywild arcane power goes away? How does that account for the starlock? or the Darklock? Seems like the same situation as the ranger. This vagueness is true for both 4e and 3e.
And this vagueness is irrelevant. So even if you win this you win that 3e power sources were more vague than 4e's. Which you would expect b/c there were paragraphs about power sources instead of pages...
No they existed.
Implied does not equal exist/fact etc.
But obviously we're going in circles, we all know they didn't really exist in any previous editions, but you could say they were always there in spirit.
Implied does not equal exist/fact etc.
But obviously we're going in circles, we all know they didn't really exist in any previous editions, but you could say they were always there in spirit.
We all know that sources of power were referred to specifically in the PHB, but you could say that sources of power are not power sources.
We all know that sources of power were referred to specifically in the PHB, but you could say that sources of power are not power sources.
Likewise you could say that Opportunity Attacks are brand new to 4ed.:P
Likewise you could say that Opportunity Attacks are brand new to 4ed.
This.
We did not have power sources in 3.5. However, we had sources of power. Power Sources are brand new to 4e
In exactly the same way, we didnt have Opportunity Attacks in 3.5. However, we had attacks of oportunity. Oportunity attacks are brand new to 4e.
Anyone arguing that a source of power is not a power source is a moron. It is simply absurd to argue that something cannot be the same thing, worded slightly differently.
Likewise, if someone wants to argue that power sources did not exist because nothing was called a power source, then allow me to submit to you this:
There were no **** sapiens four thousand years ago. They were implied, being that there were people, but you will not find any evidence of anything called a **** sapiens at the time, therefore they didn't exist.
You sound that stupid when you say that there were no power sources because there was nothing explicitly called a power source. If it is called something different, but retains the same general meaning (or, even in some cases demonstrated to you, was called the exact same thing, but rearranged as you might find in a translation to a romance language- hint: power source = fuerza de poder = source of power), it exists.
A rose by any other name, to be less verbose, and possibly get it through to you. That seems doubtful, though, given how it has been said several times already.
*snip*
*looks at join date*
Wow, what an aggressive and insulting debut (and full of incorrect information to boot).
Everybody knows that power sources didn't technically exist, but were there in a sort of prototypical way.
I see your tenure on these boards to be a short one.
*looks at join date*
Wow, what an aggressive and insulting debut (and full of incorrect information to boot).
Everybody knows that power sources didn't technically exist, but were there in a sort of prototypical way.
I see your tenure on these boards to be a short one.
You may want to know that I was locked out of my original forum account in the changeover to gleemax. General_Ridley would be my old name. Been here 4 years. Don't have the email I signed up on back then, so I can't log in with it. No WizO was able to help me at the time, so I gave up and stopped coming here for about a year.
Also, if it's so incorrect, please do demonstrate how. I've given you the benefit of at least supporting my argument. Please be so kind as to do the same.
Now, if you would get off your high horse, please stop dancing and actually admit to the fact that they existed. Your little ditty about them not technically existing, but being there in a prototypical way (i.e., existing) is a contradiction. I'm calling you out on it. I don't have that sort of patience, you see.
Also, if it's so incorrect, please do demonstrate how.
Easy, go and read any previous edition products for this game.
I was reading my 1st Ed, 2nd Ed, and 3rd Ed PHBs yesterday, and I'm sorry, you're forcing something that isn't there.
Power Sources simply did not exist in any previous editions of this game, no matter how much you want them too.
Easy, go and read any previous edition products for this game.
I was reading my 1st Ed, 2nd Ed, and 3rd Ed PHBs yesterday, and I'm sorry, you're forcing something that isn't there.
Power Sources simply did not exist in any previous editions of this game, no matter how much you want them too.
Yeah! And electricity didn't exist prior to William Gilbert either!
:PYeah! And electricity didn't exist prior to William Gilbert either!
Yeah, yeah, we all know what you're trying to do, but the fact is power sources did not exist in previous editions (or powers).
When a magic-user cast a spell, that was it, it had no particular source.
Yeah, yeah, we all know what you're trying to do, but the fact is power sources did not exist in previous editions (or powers).
When a magic-user cast a spell, that was it, it had no particular source.
Then how come spell resistance per rules did not protect from psionic powers?
Then how come spell resistance per rules did not protect from psionic powers?
Indeed. There was also a mechanical difference between Divine and Arcane spells. (Divine-source scrolls could not be copied into a Wizard's spellbook, Arcane-source scrolls could not be copied into an Archivist's spellbook, Arcane Spell Failure that inherently only affected spells that were arcane, etc. etc. etc.)
When a magic-user cast a spell, that was it, it had no particular source.
Okay. So Codzilla and a paladin's powers and special abilities just came out of nowhere. There was nothing to do with reverence, worship, or submission to any sort of ideal/deity/primal force for them to get their powers.
Wizards, Sorcerers, and Hexblades didn't study the methods by which one can manipulate the universe using its own energies or weren't born with that sort of ability. Their powers and special abilities just happened.
Psions, Wilders, Psychic Warriors, and the like didn't use the powers of the mind. Their powers just were, and had nothing to do with coming from any particular source (even though it explicitly said the source of power was the mind).
Fighters, Rogues, and Rangers didn't have their powers due to physical training and honing of their natural abilities. They just happened to have them.
That's what a world without power sources is. No one's power comes from anywhere, despite the fact that their powers have clear divisions in origin (Divine powers from the worship, reverence, or submission to deities/ideals/primal forces; arcane power from the very fabric of the universe; martial power from sheer physical ability; psionic power from the mind). Despite them having sources for their powers, they clearly don't have power sources.
That is a fool's argument.
By all means, continue contradicting yourself by changing your mind every so often to say that they "didn't technically exist but were there in a protoypical way" (i.e., they existed), before returning to your "They simply did not exist" argument. It makes it that much easier for us to ignore your arguments when you can't even keep them straight.
Yeah, yeah, we all know what you're trying to do, but the fact is power sources did not exist in previous editions (or powers).
When a magic-user cast a spell, that was it, it had no particular source.
The PHB said otherwise. As has been shown to you repetedly.
Easy, go and read any previous edition products for this game.
I was reading my 1st Ed, 2nd Ed, and 3rd Ed PHBs yesterday, and I'm sorry, you're forcing something that isn't there.
Power Sources simply did not exist in any previous editions of this game, no matter how much you want them too.
What exactly are you reading then?
The quotes from the PHB above aside, the spell section alone has "divine" and "Arcane" spells, and in second edition classes were grouped together acording to what generic group they had, Fighter and Rogue, Paladin and Cleric with the Druid, and the Wizard with the Bard.
No power sources in the previous editions? Simply put, they are there, and how one could miss the groupings and obvious references is beyond my limited understanding on human nature.
in second edition classes were grouped together acording to what generic group they had, Fighter and Rogue, Paladin and Cleric with the Druid, and the Wizard with the Bard.
Totally incorrect, you had:
WARRIOR
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
PRIEST
Cleric
Druid
ROGUE
Thief
Bard
WIZARD
Mage
Specialist
That is a fool's argument.
Yes, to argue that power sources existed in previous editions is a fool's argument.
When my previous edition fighter used to make a full attack, or trip someone etc, there was no source for the attack or manoeuvre.
Classes only had class abilities and/or spells, that's it (no power sources or powers).
Totally incorrect, you had:
WARRIOR
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
PRIEST
Cleric
Druid
ROGUE
Thief
Bard
WIZARD
Mage
Specialist
Yep, and Bard used Arcane spells, Paladin and ranger had divine.
Yep, and Bard used Arcane spells, Paladin and ranger had divine.
What do 2nd Ed spells have to do with 4th Ed power sources?
Spells
A bard casts arcane spells, which are drawn from the bard spell list.
Spells
Beginning at 4th level, a ranger gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells, which are drawn from the ranger spell list.
Spells
Beginning at 4th level, a paladin gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells, which are drawn from the paladin spell list.
Obviously the 4e style power source structure didn't exist, but you'd have to be an awfully determined dead-ender to argue that power sources didn't exist at all. Spells came from somewhere, and where that somewhere was had mechanical implications for the spell list as a whole. Classes had themes of how they got their abilities, and that had mechanical implications for the class as a whole.
The only major difference was that in 4e, you have ONE power source, while in 3e, you had several. In 4e, all of a paladin's attacks are Divine. In 3e, his spells were divine, and his spell-like and supernatural abilities were divine, but his basic combat skills were just the same as a fighter's.
At this point, I am not convinced that it is psychologically possible for you to be arguing this in good faith.
Yes, to argue that power sources existed in previous editions is a fool's argument.
When my previous edition fighter used to make a full attack, or trip someone etc, there was no source for the attack or manoeuvre.
Classes only had class abilities and/or spells, that's it (no power sources or powers).
So the fighter's full attack and trip were not sourced out of his martial training?
And don't play coy with me. You've yet to address your clear contradiction, between saying they didn't exist at all and saying that they were there in a prototypical fashion.
Classes had class abilities and spells. Those spells, funnily enough, had to come from somewhere (we call where they come from a source). Since they were the bread and butter of several classes' abilities, it's almost like they were the main powers of the class...
I'd like to see you address your contradiction before you try to obfuscate the point further.
What do 2nd Ed spells have to do with 4th Ed power sources?
"How can you be so obtuse?"
Andy Defrane, The Shawshank Redemption.
Your deliberately missing the point. The main frame work was there in the previous editions, and 4th edition simply categorized them and tightened up the mechanics. The jump from Second to third made the distinction closer, and tied the characters closer to power sources.
I have seen a fair number of posts that likened 4th edition as a return to what 2nd edition played like, without the goofy restrictions.
"You got that now... or am I being obtuse?"
The Warden, The Shawshank Redemption.
Successful troll is successful.
Lawl. Tommo approves of this joke.
"How can you be so obtuse?"
Andy Defrane, The Shawshank Redemption.
"What did you call me? Hadley, get in here. Solitary, a month!"
Warden Norton, The Shawshank Redemption
Of course there has been a source for character's abilities and spells before 4th Ed, something doesn't usually come from nothing; I've just been playing devil's advocate with you guys in a legalese sort of way.
But a lot of you people should really tone down the personal insults, aggression and condescension when trying to prove a point (I'm working on it too).
Do you think down the line they will apply more ties between power sources and the mechanics?
So the question is, do you see that connection or do you think that Power Sources was pulled out of thin air?
A connection that there was Arcane Power and Arcane Spells? Along with Divine Spells and Psionic Powers And that these have now been fully defined in 4E as a Power Source that is being used for Powers that a class uses?
Then of course.
Thin air, no, but they are here now and they weren't before, they shape and define a class and how they progress and their style of characters. This was not present before, the only thing governing a class and its features was stereotyping.
Were not just talking about a Druid casting Divine spells (clearly they have a different source of their powers than Clerics), but also what inhibits their powers and why they can use a Scimitar but not a Bow.
Stereotypes and Archetypes were the sole deciding factor of what a class could achieve, now we have arche/sterotype, power source and role.
In 4E Power sources are a real part of a character and how they function, previously using a power source or drawing power from somewhere was:
A) often letft undisclosed or not specifified
B) undefined
C) something a class did.
It is a natural progression, and I don't see why the advent of Power Sources being named and categorized for use in this new edition is looked upon by some as a direction away from "Dungeon & Dragons" and somehow makes it something else.
I don't see why the advent of Power Sources being named and categorized for use in this new edition is looked upon by some as a direction away from "Dungeon & Dragons" and somehow makes it something else.
No one has argued that at all, now it just seems that you want to stir it up and cause an edition war.
Power sources are awesome, IMO, I was just arguing that they didn't technically exist in previous editions; nothing more.
Now let's let this horse die.
"And remember, hope is the best of things."
Andy Dufresne
They had shaped and defined a class in the previous edition
What is "They"? There is nothing, the only thing governing class design were archtypes and stereotypes.
Few classes had a specified power source in the past, many tapped into or manipulated some form of energy. Even then, this power manipulation wasn't a part of a character, but something a class progressed and used.
What is "They"? There is nothing, the only thing governing class design were archtypes and stereotypes.
Few classes had a specified power source in the past, many tapped into or manipulated some form of energy. Even then, this power manipulation wasn't a part of a character, but something a class progressed and used.
So in this new edition naming that power source somehow changes how one gets his power?
My point is that the power sources was there, it just wasn't named "power source - (this)" Arcane, Divine, Psionic.... The main difference between editions is that the martial classes now have a source and are more able to keep up with the others at higher levels.
So Archtypes go away when it is clearly stated power source that drives the class? Really?
So in this new edition naming that power source somehow changes how one gets his power?
In some cases how a character gets their power has changed, but there is a clear distinction between Primal powers and Divine Powers.
The power source influences the flavour and styles of a class, not to mention that class has a more significant impact on character than before, due to the removal of 3E multiclassing.
In 3E a class might cast Arcane/Divine spells, etc but they may also have numerous other class features.
Look a 3E Bard (or 2E for that matter), they cast Arcane spells, but why they can cast Arcane spells isn't well defined and that Arcane spells use some Arcane Power Source. What's more their bardic class features aren't Arcane powered and a character can progress as a Bard as long as they want.
Compare that to a 4E bard who has arcane powers and uses an extensive array of Arcane powered abilities. Needless to mention the class will have a distinct impact on your character.
The distinction should be clear.
4E Rangers have no spells at all, there's nothing but martially sourced powers to their class.
Of course characters can multiclass, but its still characters tapping into a specific power source in a specific way.