So you might have Warrior (Defender Warrior = Fighter, Leader Warrior = Warlord etc); Wizard (Controller Wizard = Mage, Defender Wizard = Swordmage, Striker Wizard = Warlock etc).
Anyone else get that feeling?
I do think that we have probably seen the last of straight AEDU classes, though. I highly doubt any new 'base' class will ever get published, and from here on out all classes will be subclasses. While I am on one hand sad, at the same time it does sort of make sense. Eventually, you just run out of design space.
Now what I'd like them to do is put in more support for the existing base classes. Not just more powers/paragon paths (though those are good too -- I really enjoyed the recent Artificer article). I really, really liked what they did with Martial Power 2, providing the ability to change your existing class features out for other things. They sort of continued that trend with Battle Cleric's Lore. Now, gib moar.
Off the top of my head we've got...
3 fighters
2 assasins
2 druids
2 rogues
2 warlocks
2 wizards (almost no difference)
2 clerics(see above comment)
2 rangers
3 paladins
All those are due to essentials making narrower builds. I do like my broader more option heavy 'core' classes but I'm also really partial to the focused path of essentials if it fits what I had planned for my character. If you wanted to play a certain type of fighter/wizard/cleric before you'd only have maybe 1-2 options to choose from per level anyway if that so it's not like much has changed in that regard. I mean all the alternate builds in the power books like rattling rogues and tempest fighters already feel close to essentials classes as far as build options go the only difference being a reliance on mba's for the most part.
tldr: Tons of choice currently, not much different than before, play what fits your character.
EDIT: And three Warlocks (Warlock, Hexblade, Binder).
EDIT2: And three Rangers! Ranger, Scout, Hunter. I should really read more.
a I think they may be be moving towards less classes, similar to the 2nd Ed Groups, and have subclasses as options within (like Kits); instead of a plethora of independent classes.
So you might have Warrior (Defender Warrior = Fighter, Leader Warrior = Warlord etc); Wizard (Controller Wizard = Mage, Defender Wizard = Swordmage, Striker Wizard = Warlock etc).
Anyone else get that feeling?
Future as in a newer edition?
Pick a race.
Pick a role.
Pick a Power Source.
Pick your powers from a large list that is at the intersection of your preferred role and power source.
For example:
I want to be Eladrin. Done. Note any racial features.
I want to be a striker. Okay. Notated for later use.
I want to have the Martial power source. Check.
I flip to the list of powers for Striker/Martial and choose 2 at-will, 2 encounter, etc.
Pick weapons / armor / equipment.
Pick a title for the "class" I just created.
Done.
There would still be a several "example" classes, such as the traditional Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, etc., and they would contain all of the info needed to play them. Call them "pre-packaged classes" so to speak. These would be good for those people who either want a quick-play option, don't really care about "total customization" quite as much, or are simply happy with them as they are presented.
I realize D&D would not likely ever reach this point, but since we're just tossing stuff out, there ya go.
Then again, during a convention or interview or something one of the D&D guys said that after Heroes of the Feywild they wont be doing any new classes or races, which every assumes means any classes will just be subclasses.
I think they may be be moving towards less classes
[...]
Anyone else get that feeling?
As much as I would prefer a fewer-classes approach for D&D, I do not get the feeling that such a preference will be honored in the least. Fine-grain class differentiation is the way D&D has operated in the past, how it currently operates, and how it will operate in the future.
Unless you mean a reduction in the rate at which 4e adds new classes, inc which case, I think that is the norm for every edition. There are fewer ideas left.
I think they may be be moving towards less classes, similar to the 2nd Ed Groups, and have subclasses as options within (like Kits); instead of a plethora of independent classes.
So you might have Warrior (Defender Warrior = Fighter, Leader Warrior = Warlord etc); Wizard (Controller Wizard = Mage, Defender Wizard = Swordmage, Striker Wizard = Warlock etc).
Anyone else get that feeling?
That's certainly how Essentials is organized, only not so much around roles. For instance, all the Wizard sub-classes are controllers. It /is/ very much like 2e, you have the Class taking the place of the 2e Group, and the sub-class taking the place of the 2e Class. The odditty is that Class still has it's own, legacy, write-up, which had to be re-defined as a subclass. So we now have, for instance, Archanist, Mage, Bladesinger & Witch - but no /actual/ Wizard. Wizard is no longer a playable class, but an umbrella for those subclasses.
Themes are a lot closer to Kits than sub-classes or builds are.
To further confuse the issue, there are still builds. An Archanist can still be one of several implement-masteries, a Mage can be specialized in one of several schools. The complete list of Wizards really looks like this:
Orb of Imposition Archanist
Staff of Defense Archanist
Wand of Accuracy Archanist
Orb of Deception Archanist
Tome of Readiness Archanist
Tome of Binding Archanist
Enchanter
Illusionist
Evoker
Pyromancer
Necromancer
Nethermancer
Bladesinger
Witch
And, like I said, they're /all/ controllers. Clearly, the game needs 14 arcane controllers.
Then there's the Fighter with:
Gaurdian Weaponmanster
Greatweapon Weaponmaster
Battlerager Weaponmaster
Tempest Weaponmaster
Arena Weaponmaster
Brawling Weaponmaster
Knight
Slayer
All but one Defenders - clearly, the game needs 7 martial defenders. And, in spite of the number of Ranger and Rogue striker variation, an extra martial slayer, too.
Prior to Essentials, Builds were much like sub-classes or kits, anyway. Six of those wizards ands 5 of the fighters are all pre-E builds. So there was always some flexibilty in using a class to represent different concepts, even different secondary roles.
I think what's really behind the shift is a different way of building classes. In 4e, for a class to justify it's existance, it had to propperly fill a Role, and it had to clearly represent a Source. That's not to say classes existed just to fill a 'grid' with Source & Role each being an axis - though, every Source but Martial /did/ have it's 'grid' filled. Rather, if a class concept didn't clearly belong in a Source or didn't clearly fulfill a role, it was deemed an inadequate concept. In Essentials, concept comes first. So if there's a class concept that blurs Martial & Primal, that's OK. If there's a class concept that can't quite fulfill either the Controller or Striker roles, but does quite a bit of each, that's OK. If as concept is too weak or too powerful, again, doesn't really matter, get it as balanced as possible within concept.
They may also be consciously or unconsciouly immitating AD&D - Mr Mearls has frequently waxed rhapsodic about his early gaming experiences.
Now, another question is: will classes keep heading that way? Well, as long as the game orbits Essentials, sure. In a possible future 5e, maybe not. Industry rumor has it that Mr. Cook is on board to develop 5e, and he developed 3e. 3e did /not/ take the heirarchical aproach to classes that 2e did and Essentials does - rather, classes were modular. You created a concept by building it with class-levels, like creating a mosaic picture from different-colored bits. I'd expect him to provide the player with a lot of mix-n-match options. Maybe not via multiclassing as it existed in 3e or 4e, but through some mechanism. If there are still powers, for instance, it'll probably be possible to lay your hands on just about any power combination, given sufficent system mastery.
Personally, from the moment I first started paging through 4e, I saw another way the system could have developed:
Instead of having each class have it's own exhaustive (cool-name-consuming) list of powers, have powers grouped by Source, and have Role-support handled by class features. Players would have more power choices for their charcters, while developers would have to create fewer powers.
The big stumbling block, of course, is the Controller role. To an extent, I think, the controller doesn't exist as a role, so much as a way to grandfather in the Wizard. Wizards, and the other controllers who followed, have their role support wrapped up in their powers - big areas and heavy conditions - effectively, they have better powers than other roles.
Actually, there's three Wizards. Arcanist, Mage and Bladesinger. With Witch coming in November.
And Sha'ir (apparently) coming up in Heroes of the Elemental (plane below) Chaos.
While I don't see D&D ever doing it (classes are too much a part of D&D), I have long thought it would be fun if they implemented something like the following:
Pick a race.
Pick a role.
Pick a Power Source.
Pick your powers from a large list that is at the intersection of your preferred role and power source.
For example:
I want to be Eladrin. Done. Note any racial features.
I want to be a striker. Okay. Notated for later use.
I want to have the Martial power source. Check.
I flip to the list of powers for Striker/Martial and choose 2 at-will, 2 encounter, etc.
Pick weapons / armor / equipment.
Pick a title for the "class" I just created.
Done.
There would still be a several "example" classes, such as the traditional Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, etc., and they would contain all of the info needed to play them. Call them "pre-packaged classes" so to speak. These would be good for those people who either want a quick-play option, don't really care about "total customization" quite as much, or are simply happy with them as they are presented.
Exactly the type of spit-balling I'm talking about:
'I want to be an Arcane Leader.' 'Well, what type of Arcane Leader would you like to be?'
Assuming of course Power Sources.
Well, I think I remember reading something about getting the E-Sorcerer
I was hearing it was the Elementalist in the Heroes of the Elemental (plane below) Chaos.
While I don't see D&D ever doing it (classes are too much a part of D&D), I have long thought it would be fun if they implemented something like the following:
Pick a race.
Pick a role.
Pick a Power Source.
Pick your powers from a large list that is at the intersection of your preferred role and power source.
For example:
I want to be Eladrin. Done. Note any racial features.
I want to be a striker. Okay. Notated for later use.
I want to have the Martial power source. Check.
I flip to the list of powers for Striker/Martial and choose 2 at-will, 2 encounter, etc.
Pick weapons / armor / equipment.
Pick a title for the "class" I just created.
Done.
There would still be a several "example" classes, such as the traditional Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, etc., and they would contain all of the info needed to play them. Call them "pre-packaged classes" so to speak. These would be good for those people who either want a quick-play option, don't really care about "total customization" quite as much, or are simply happy with them as they are presented.
I realize D&D would not likely ever reach this point, but since we're just tossing stuff out, there ya go.
I would love a system like that. Basically incorporating a "skill" derived game instead of "class" derived.
Basically, I would allow any power to be used assuming you had the prereqs for it.
Prereqs would include race, power source(s), attributes, skill level, character level, feats.
Elf, arcane and martial power source selection, high int, low level you could choose stuff analgous to swordmage, bladesinger, bard, ranger, rogue, warrior classes now. Perhaps have X amt of slots per level to make playing a character manageable.
I think the classess are going to be more focused and they will drop the generic one size fits all class structure used at the beginning of 4e. I also think that multiple power sources for the classess will carry the day over single power source classes, if power sources as we understand them in 4e remain in a new edition. I also think we will see the four core classess Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard in any release of a new edition.
I can't disagree with the above, it all sounds pretty likely given how things are going now.
Can't agree that throwing D&D into full reverse like that is a good thing, though.
I mean, if we want to play D&D, and have each class have it's own unique progression, and some of them merge two or more sources (like, say a Ranger that casts magic-user and druid spells at high enough level), and starts with the 4 iconic classes, we can just get out our /old/ Red Box sets, and move on to AD&D when we feel like a bit more complexity.
Add class feature slots to the role/source/race layout suggested, and I don't hate it.
Like ability to mark for example?
Add class feature slots to the role/source/race layout suggested, and I don't hate it.
Like ability to mark for example?
Defender: mark
Striker: extra damage 1/round
Leader: heal/buff
Controller: ? ...someone at EnWorld suggested metamagic ... increase AEs/durrations, maybe?
I'm sure they'll eventually release fully new classes again, but I think they're waiting for either a particularly strong nostalgia trip, or a very strong new idea to hit them, that they just can't jurryrig out of anything else.
if power sources as we understand them in 4e remain in a new edition.
Yes, Power Sources are pretty much just fluff, so they might break it down into just Roles.
I'm sure they'll eventually release fully new classes again
I don't think in this edition, I think they decided there's only so many AEDU classes you can bring out (1st level Features, 100+ Powers, repeat).
I think the classess are going to be more focused and they will drop the generic one size fits all class structure used at the beginning of 4e. Although I really liked the idea when it first appeared, I found I prefer the more focused classes released with essentials.
Yep, I have to agree, while I still totally dig the original AEDU format (so many great classes), it does sometimes come across as a bit too homogenised (you could have one class, pick initial set number of features, then any powers you want).
That was part of the E-Action: complaints that all classes felt a bit too similar in play-style.
I'm sure they'll eventually release fully new classes again
I don't think in this edition, I think they decided there's only so many AEDU classes you can bring out (1st level Features, 100+ Powers, repeat).
The recent magazine submission article even hinted that while they're 99.9999% not likely to take a class submission, it's not a "banned" submission type. They'll release new classes when they're compelled to, just not before they think it will have a major value.
The recent magazine submission article even hinted that while they're 99.9999% not likely to take a class submission, it's not a "banned" submission type.
That's Dragon.
The recent magazine submission article even hinted that while they're 99.9999% not likely to take a class submission, it's not a "banned" submission type.
That's Dragon.
Which is as core as the PHB anymore.
The recent magazine submission article even hinted that while they're 99.9999% not likely to take a class submission, it's not a "banned" submission type.
That's Dragon.
Which is as core as the PHB anymore.
Not for people who don't subscribe to DDI.
Not for people who don't subscribe to DDI.
And Psions aren't core if you didn't buy the PHB3. Regardless, WotC is very likely to release new classes again, just not for awhile, and not without a very compelling hook.
1) And Psions aren't core if you didn't buy the PHB3.
2) Regardless, WotC is very likely to release new classes again, just not for awhile, and not without a very compelling hook.
1) So if you don't subscribe to DDI, you're not really on the ball?
2) What makes you so sure (in this edition)?
2) Because making rules makes them money.
1) unless it's Unearthed Arcana.
2) Because making rules makes them money.
1) Yes, bring on a juicy 4th Ed UA (ala 3rd Ed).
2) Are new classes, new rules?
..,
Can't agree that throwing D&D into full reverse like that is a good thing, though.
..,
You see it as throwing D&D into full reverse, I see it as ditching a restrictive methodology in class design. The generic one size fits all class structure, forces game mechanics to drive character concepts i.e. the wonky and difficult concept of the assassin's shroud. The assassin shroud concept was developed, for no other reason, than to fit the striker class structure. So, to make the assassin concept fit into striker class structure, they attach a weak concept to add dice to an attack, because that's how strikers are designed. IMO, that is weak sauce and lazy class design.
Returning to a more focused class design methodology, requires more work on each class, but it allows class build concepts to drive game mechanics instead of the other way arround. This allows for a clearer and stronger class/ build concept. I've played every edition of D&D since 1981 including 2e and 3.5 and enjoyed every edition. I have no desire to go back and play those editions and look forward to playing 5e in a few years. 4e made some great changes in improving D&D, IMO. But the generic one structure fits all class design methodology is not one of them.
..,
Can't agree that throwing D&D into full reverse like that is a good thing, though.
..,
You see it as throwing D&D into full reverse, I see it as ditching a restrictive methodology in class design. The generic one size fits all class structure, forces game mechanics to drive character concepts i.e. the wonky and difficult concept of the assassin's shroud. The assassin shroud concept was developed, for no other reason, than to fit the striker class structure. So, to make the assassin concept fit into striker class structure, they attach a weak concept to add dice to an attack, because that's how strikers are designed. IMO, that is weak sauce and lazy class design.
Returning to a more focused class design methodology, requires more work on each class, but it allows class build concepts to drive game mechanics instead of the other way around. This allows for a clearer and stronger class/ build concept. I've played every edition of D&D since 1981 including 2e and 3.5 and enjoyed every edition. I have no desire to go back and play those editions and look forward to playing 5e in a few years. 4e made some great changes in improving D&D, IMO. But the generic one structure fits all class design methodology is not one of them.
Getting this out of the way, I love classes, mainly because Final Fantasy games were my intro to RPGs.
I think the problem with the above stated dislike of "one size fits all" design is that you are assuming that Assassin's Shroud was well designed for that paradigm. For example, the design of the ability did not factor in the death of the target (i.e. the ability to transfer that extra dice to another target as a free action) which puts it squarely in the less than ideal stage, whereas many other strikers have ways to refocus their damage dice extras at will (hell, the barbarian does it simply by picking another target
). So it was weak design, but it was weak because it did not achieve what the standardized other strikers achieved up to that point and even beyond. Now generic structure has one thing going very well for it: it is simple to teach a whole table how to play their powers, build their characters, etc. Mechanically each class had the same number and type of cogs, wheels, springs, etc. But each was a different machine. Many games do this and do it well, some do it poorly. I think the biggest hit early on in the life of 4th ed is the assumption by the design team that all that was needed was to lay out a few example skill challenges and page 42 and all the zany out of combat and outside of power actions would take care of themselves; while I got their intention, not many people seemed to. What I would argue is that all the classes looked the same to a player's point of view, and a DM had no reason to discourage players from only using powers, so what may have ended up happening (not in my game, but somewhere) is that the players and the DM would see less and less use in having different characters. And then came the "divine wizard" and "primal wizard" comparisons when the Invoker and Druid came out because they all had similar structure, people assumed that same role=same class with different fluff power source. When in fact the classes were anything but that. Each one had a similar amount of powers, but each one does it's "job" in different ways. Which I think is the other sore point; if you really wanted a blaster wizard, you may have actually been looking to play the sorcerer, but nothing beyond Power Source and Role might have told you that.
I think when people saw words like builds, roles and sources, they assumed they were being put into a little box of a little box, that their favorite quirky All fists no healing cleric or their oddly pacifistic fighter were no longer valid. And if we look by class and role, they are damn right. When playing a game with someone, if they pick a fighter class they sure as hell better not be planning to heal me; that's not their job. So I wholeheartedly supported ideas such as the Warlord, the healing fighter if you will, because his role spoke to what he did and his power source spoke to how he did it. Just as much as I support the decision to give clerics and other "leader" types more battle options while still letting them heal.
Now, if they can create classes that can get people to play their roles and still balance the game, I'll see what they have in mind. Hell, I don't even mind the idea of one overarching, well archetype (such as fighter) being home to all manner of different roles. In fact, if they did that I'd almost insist on the dreaded "grid filling" so that each archetype had a sub class for each role. But I really do think that a solid, some might say standardized structure is what they must start with. Otherwise I can't see any other path than what came before. Which was commonly a high mechanical difference in the swiss army knife nature of caster classes over non-caster classes.
That said, if there were more examples of how to use rituals, skills, skill challenges, and other out-of-power-card, out-of-combat techniques, maybe those classes we got in 4th edition would have felt more genuinely independent of each other even when just reading them. ;)
..,
Can't agree that throwing D&D into full reverse like that is a good thing, though.
..,
You see it as throwing D&D into full reverse, I see it as ditching a restrictive methodology in class design. The generic one size fits all class structure,
Getting this out of the way, I love classes, mainly because Final Fantasy games were my intro to RPGs.
I think the problem with the above stated dislike of "one size fits all" design is that you are assuming that Assassin's Shroud was well designed for that paradigm. ..,
I am not sure where you get that I am assuming that assassin's shroud was well designed for that paradigm. IMO, the assassin's shroud is poorly designed.
I think you mistake my criticism of the generic class structure methodology for criticism of the 4e powers concept in character actions. I think the 4e power concept and its use across classess to define character actions, one of the strengths of the system. It unifies and simplifies combat resolution and makes the system easier to teach and learn. I could go on and on about the 4e power concept.
My critic is for the one size fits all character class/ build design methodology. A proccess of developing classes arround a fixed structure i.e. 2 @-will, 1 encounter, 1 daily attack powers, all defenders have a mark, all strikers add extra damage dices, one power source for a class, one role for a class, etc. Using a methodology free of those restricitions allows for a better concieved class/ build, one where concept drives what those powers, roles, sources and abilities are and how they are strucutured for each class/ build instead of the other way arround.
My critic is for the one size fits all character class/ build design methodology. A proccess of developing classes arround a fixed structure i.e. 2 @-will, 1 encounter, 1 daily attack powers, all defenders have a mark, all strikers add extra damage dices, one power source for a class, one role for a class, etc. Using a methodology free of those restricitions allows for a better concieved class/ build, one where concept drives what those powers, roles, sources and abilities are and how they are strucutured for each class/ build instead of the other way arround.
The only problem with that is that I never have a concept first. I have mechanics first, and then build a concept out of them. So the original way does me a world of good, where your proposed way just leaves me with nothing. Normally, I want to play a mage in most RPGs (note: those were all computer/console games before 4th ed) because casters got flashier cooler spells and stuff. Action hero stuff. 4th ed, I could play pretty much any class and any race. And I would have no idea about what or who the character would be like until after I get the ability scores down, the skills and powers picked out, the weapons picked based on powers I want, etc. After all that I go back and look at background, motivation, etc for someone with what I have given the character mechanically.
Also, I presonally prefer the baseline to be 2 at-wills, 1 encounter, one daily (though instead of daily they should be recharge powers), plus whatever your race, theme, etc gives you; small deviations in said system (such as pisonic power points, or some of the essentials classes) should be just that, and keeping within a similar amount of overall ability. What I am saying also is that for most classes such as the fighter, wizard, cleric, etc. one power source works better to define what they do. Adding on more than one power source should be the province of meshing classes together via a multiclass/hybrid mechanic. Base classes should, in my opinion, be a pure power source.
My critic is for the one size fits all character class/ build design methodology. A proccess of developing classes arround a fixed structure i.e. 2 @-will, 1 encounter, 1 daily attack powers, all defenders have a mark, all strikers add extra damage dices, one power source for a class, one role for a class, etc. Using a methodology free of those restricitions allows for a better concieved class/ build, one where concept drives what those powers, roles, sources and abilities are and how they are strucutured for each class/ build instead of the other way arround.
The only problem with that is that I never have a concept first. I have mechanics first, and then build a concept out of them. So the original way does me a world of good, where your proposed way just leaves me with nothing.
I don't much see the benefit of making it more difficult to compare classes, but - aside from the obvious problem that it would be more difficult to compare classes - I also don't understand how this would impair your ability to start from a mechanical concept and then build a character.
Of course, that depends on what sort of a mechanical concept you need to have.
I have a character that started with "A Tempest Fighter would make a great striker". (It developed quite a lot from there.) Is that the sort of thing you need?
To go to the opposite extreme, could you do "I think this movie character would make a really fun D&D character; what mechanics can I put behind her?"? I'm playing such a character currently.
Or pick a point in between... I recently worked on "Must be hybrid, must paragon multiclass, must make sense as a character". Also "Worst possible race/class combo for a leader - but best possible leader with that combo, and who cares if it makes sense". (Genasi Vampires make lousy leaders - but it can be done.) A while back I built "Optimize for largest possible number of cats".
I think they may be be moving towards less classes, similar to the 2nd Ed Groups, and have subclasses as options within (like Kits); instead of a plethora of independent classes.
So you might have Warrior (Defender Warrior = Fighter, Leader Warrior = Warlord etc); Wizard (Controller Wizard = Mage, Defender Wizard = Swordmage, Striker Wizard = Warlock etc).
Anyone else get that feeling?
No. But that would be awesome. I'd really like to see more builds (or subclasses) and fewer classes going forward. With too many classes you can end up putting off new players.
My critic is for the one size fits all character class/ build design methodology. A proccess of developing classes arround a fixed structure i.e. 2 @-will, 1 encounter, 1 daily attack powers, all defenders have a mark, all strikers add extra damage dices, one power source for a class, one role for a class, etc. Using a methodology free of those restricitions allows for a better concieved class/ build, one where concept drives what those powers, roles, sources and abilities are and how they are strucutured for each class/ build instead of the other way arround.
The only problem with that is that I never have a concept first. I have mechanics first, and then build a concept out of them. So the original way does me a world of good, where your proposed way just leaves me with nothing. Normally, I want to play a mage in most RPGs (note: those were all computer/console games before 4th ed) because casters got flashier cooler spells and stuff. Action hero stuff. 4th ed, I could play pretty much any class and any race. And I would have no idea about what or who the character would be like until after I get the ability scores down, the skills and powers picked out, the weapons picked based on powers I want, etc. After all that I go back and look at background, motivation, etc for someone with what I have given the character mechanically.
Also, I presonally prefer the baseline to be 2 at-wills, 1 encounter, one daily (though instead of daily they should be recharge powers), plus whatever your race, theme, etc gives you; small deviations in said system (such as pisonic power points, or some of the essentials classes) should be just that, and keeping within a similar amount of overall ability. What I am saying also is that for most classes such as the fighter, wizard, cleric, etc. one power source works better to define what they do. Adding on more than one power source should be the province of meshing classes together via a multiclass/hybrid mechanic. Base classes should, in my opinion, be a pure power source.
We have different experiences, approaches and opinions. I prefer a character concept first approach to class design methodology, you prefer a more generic mechanical approach to class design methodology. You prefer classess to follow the exact same use of attack powers without variation. I prefer more freedom dictated by cclass concept when it comes to attack power use. Even though we have difference of opinions I can understand and respect your point of view, except the idea of a pure power source, there seems no reason for that other than that is the way I learned it. But that is unimportant to my point. So, what I think the challenge for the designers of a new edition is balancing the needs of the player community for some kind of symetry in class design and freedom to allow strong character concepts.
Thanks for the debate.
Also, I'd be fine with mostly ditching daily powers.
the basic mechanics of the game should work about the same all over. I don't mind things like defender auras, but the Assassin's Shroud power, for instance, wasn't really a bad idea. It was just missing a way to throw three or four shrouds on a target for your first attack, every encounter, and then have to build up shrouds from there.
In fact, the whole class is just missing better powers. The only power slot that isn't really lacking is the utillity slot. Give them good powers* and you have a solid striker class with a controller secondary.
*I'd like some good zone powers that do some minor controll in an area, while allowing non standard attacks to be focused on a single target, or maybe give bonuses to the assassin's attacks based on enemies hit by zone, etc.
Basically, the assassin should be throwing out control in order to get to the target and then get the hell away once the job is done/get to the next target. I also think that charge support fits the fluff more than multi-attack support, but that some amount of multi-attack support would be a huge boost.
With the right mix of powers, and whithout even making those powers too powerful for powerswapping, you could make the assassin a top teir striker.
Also, I'd be fine with mostly ditching daily powers.
Totally second this (the last Vancian vestige, and can cause meta-gaming).
My critic is for the one size fits all character class/ build design methodology. A proccess of developing classes arround a fixed structure i.e. 2 @-will, 1 encounter, 1 daily attack powers, all defenders have a mark, all strikers add extra damage dices, one power source for a class, one role for a class, etc. Using a methodology free of those restricitions allows for a better concieved class/ build, one where concept drives what those powers, roles, sources and abilities are and how they are strucutured for each class/ build instead of the other way arround.
The only problem with that is that I never have a concept first. I have mechanics first, and then build a concept out of them. So the original way does me a world of good, where your proposed way just leaves me with nothing.
I don't much see the benefit of making it more difficult to compare classes, but - aside from the obvious problem that it would be more difficult to compare classes - I also don't understand how this would impair your ability to start from a mechanical concept and then build a character.
Of course, that depends on what sort of a mechanical concept you need to have.
I have a character that started with "A Tempest Fighter would make a great striker". (It developed quite a lot from there.) Is that the sort of thing you need?
To go to the opposite extreme, could you do "I think this movie character would make a really fun D&D character; what mechanics can I put behind her?"? I'm playing such a character currently.
Or pick a point in between... I recently worked on "Must be hybrid, must paragon multiclass, must make sense as a character". Also "Worst possible race/class combo for a leader - but best possible leader with that combo, and who cares if it makes sense". (Genasi Vampires make lousy leaders - but it can be done.) A while back I built "Optimize for largest possible number of cats".
The thing is I don't start with a concept. I start with, "X abilites or powers or skills make this class/race interesting. So, what matches the class/race as a race/class that makes it more interesting while still having the bonuses to it's secondary and main stat?" Write out everything from the race and class so far, then look at what I have.
For example, Ranger. If I want a Str/Dex mix I'd go with Half-orc, If I want Dex/Wis I'd go for Drow, Elf, Githzerai, Razorclaw Shifter, Wilden or Shadar-kai; if I'm not sure yet I'd probably pick Thri-kreen. I have tables to line up the best possible races for each class; I even have tables to tell me where hybridizing would align my stats the best so as not to waste points and make me weaker. So, Ranger, I'll pick up close two-handed fighting style. That narrows it to Half-Orc or Thri-kreen. Half-Orc is going to give me one set of racial abilities, Thri-kreen another; the former largely abandon and more damage and the thri-kreen largely balance, and an options for drwaing more weapons quickly. Sure, striker is supposed to care about damage first, but in my heart of hearts I want the options this time, so I'd pick Thri-kreen. Start off with some powers, think about what one handed weapons are around that will give me constant damage range, since this is options over brute force. Brutal weapons work best to increase my average damage, but all the one handed ones are 1d8. Either the Carrikal (Brutal 2) or the Kopesh (Brutal 1, versatile which I'll almost certainly never use), Kopesh is both blade and axe whereas Carrical is just axe. If I pick the Kopesh I could increase my damage and fighting prowess later with feats for both axes and heavy blades, and since he's mainly shaping up to be weapon focused, I might as well. The Kopesh or the Carrikal gives me better than or equal to what Axe Expertise gives, so I'll probably take Heavy Blade expertise. Once feats, items and powers are chosen, I'll go look at skills; Nature for the first Ranger either or choice, then Acrobatics, Athletics, Endurance and Perception. Big bug, I want him to be swift, dodgy, jump far, last in and know nature and see what his buddies don't always catch. Which is now when I start really thinking of this thing as a character, and not just a bundle of mechanics. So I think about how he got his weapons, skills, powers, etc and go pick a background, maybe a theme, and really start to get a feel for this wandering crazy bug man with scything blades. I'd probably pick the explorer or merc theme since it's starting to fit this thing in my head, a bugman without a home, and only one thing to do: find as many ways to hunt and kill stuff as possible. If this is Dark sun I might instead give him a proper Dark Sun theme, but I'm going to assume this is a generic world that allows bugdudes. So I settle on Merc, and then I ask why is he a merc? The answer is in his background, a thri-kreen who is the "last of his clutch" and "out for revenge". I also pick the explorer/guide background for it's mechanical benefit and that it fits him; with it he has another language and a few more points in Nature (this bastard knows nature, bitches). He's been hunting for what killed all his clutchmates since he was young, and the merc part, to quote Inigo Montoya, is "just to pay the bills" since "There's not a lot of money in revenge". So now I have a character. I flesh out his mannerisms, what he looks like, and last, I'd name him. Maybe even give him a Bow and a bow at-will, since his stats are so close that he can be a back-up archer and his arms give him a quicker draw. Makes him feel more well rounded.
And that's how I build every character. Now my problem comes when people say they want to recreate a character and start looking for the options to do so. I don't ever intend to remake a popular character, nor do I sit around commonly thinking of X tortured/destined/whatever individual. I think, that class is neat or that race is neat. It's usually a single mechanic and usually one of those two that leads me to create a character. I don't set out with a single goal in mind, other than I want to use or (if the party is missing a role) need to fill a hole in the tactics/strategy with something, so what is there? I don't aproach character building with a character in mind, they get in my mind by the time I'm done crafting them. So preconcieved concepts (minuse backgrounds and themes, which ask more questions than they give answers) do not help me in the least; in fact they commonly jam me up with thinking, "I don't want to be or do that concept".
And now I kinda want to play my scarab green dual kopesh wielding Drak'lah, last of a ruined clutch out for revenge. But I didn't when I started this post. ;)
I don't ever intend to remake a popular character, nor do I sit around commonly thinking of X tortured/destined/whatever individual.
Without casting any judgment on the rest of your post, I wanted to (and shall) note that if this is true of you, I suspect you are in the smallest minority of players in the history of the game -- perhaps even a minority of one. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Just a thing.
Also, I presonally prefer the baseline to be 2 at-wills, 1 encounter, one daily (though instead of daily they should be recharge powers),...
The daily powers would need to be looked at and in many cases, and re-worked before a recharge system could be implemented. For example powers that have a sustained component, or other effect that already lasts until the end of the encounter won't gain much from recharging the power, as they types of powers have already have the damage component adjusted to balance the effect portion. While the DPR roles will gain immensly from being able to recharge thier dailies.
The second issue here, is you will add a randomness factor that will make it difficult to create encounters - a challenging encounter could be shredded simply because the PCs were lucky with their recharge rolls, or alternatively a challenging encounter (design around the PCs getting certain number of recharges) will be more work create for starters, and if the PCs roll poorly they could end up getting stomped by team monster.
I don't ever intend to remake a popular character, nor do I sit around commonly thinking of X tortured/destined/whatever individual.
Without casting any judgment on the rest of your post, I wanted to (and shall) note that if this is true of you, I suspect you are in the smallest minority of players in the history of the game -- perhaps even a minority of one. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Just a thing.
I'm going to take it as a compliment, Seeker.
But I'm not sure I'm the only one; I did learn the method I use for creating characters by creating them for computer games.
Also, I presonally prefer the baseline to be 2 at-wills, 1 encounter, one daily (though instead of daily they should be recharge powers),...
The daily powers would need to be looked at and in many cases, and re-worked before a recharge system could be implemented. For example powers that have a sustained component, or other effect that already lasts until the end of the encounter won't gain much from recharging the power, as they types of powers have already have the damage component adjusted to balance the effect portion. While the DPR roles will gain immensly from being able to recharge thier dailies.
The second issue here, is you will add a randomness factor that will make it difficult to create encounters - a challenging encounter could be shredded simply because the PCs were lucky with their recharge rolls, or alternatively a challenging encounter (design around the PCs getting certain number of recharges) will be more work create for starters, and if the PCs roll poorly they could end up getting stomped by team monster.
One would have to figure in the average amount of times per day a power would recharge, as well as it's overall power to nuke an encounter when even setting the recharge value.
One would have to figure in the average amount of times per day a power would recharge, as well as it's overall power to nuke an encounter when even setting the recharge value.
Just that simple, eh?
One would have to figure in the average amount of times per day a power would recharge, as well as it's overall power to nuke an encounter when even setting the recharge value.
Just that simple, eh?
Do you see the word simple anywhere in my post?
I remember the racial restrictions on multi class combos and levels, and spliting exp between classess of earlier editions advancing each class indepedently. I am glad we evolved from that in 3e, but there were problems in splitting character level between class through character advancment. For example, playing a 5 wizard/ 5 level fighter and fighting monster for 10 level characters with spells of a 5th level wizard and attack bonus of a 7th level fighter. I really like the 4e solutions.
I hope to a return of hybrid classess and multi class feats or something similar in future editions. But who knows, maybe, Cook, Mearls and the others will conjure up something better? So far the current hybrid multi class feats system works very well, IMO.
Most new material "going foward" is gonna be self sustained builds which are called Subclasses everywhere except in the product themselves. The one class that has came out recently is half done (IMHO), with limited choices (just like a Subclass) and little support outside of the entry. If there is new classes done, it will be on a rail like the Vampire and the subclass builds.
The Bladesinger is a class, in 3.5, but not in 4th. It is a subclass build of the Wizard. (why not the sorcerer?)
5th ed?
My thoughts are thus.
Power sources will stay with the classes that have them, locked in. Roles will be expanded beyond the four, though whether it will be six or eight depends on how splintered the Leader and the Defender role will be. Each class will be able to have two or three roles (depending on the number of Roles avialble) done with builds. (Much like how Essentials changes the roles within the base class in the subclass builds)
Magical Items will have different price structures acording to use. (Armor/Weapons/Wonderous/neck/arms and so on) Expendable items will be restructured to acutally be useful again. (Potion of Healing?)
Surges will be used for more than healing, replacing Power Points in Psionics for example.
Dailies will be done away with, replaced with recharged powers or Class Features much like stances. Recharging should be done quite differently than the d6 match roll that the monsters have. This is a simplified record keeping trick for the DM. Perhaps other powers will allow the Recharge or certain situations will. Like being bloodied or having a certain condition.
Vancian casting should be completely done away with. No preparing spells, no choices at night that guess at what tommorrow will bring. When the Wizard has more powers than other classes, he will hot cast the choices he has, taking a casting of a power slot.
Weapons and Implements will be standardized and have the same mechanic for accuracty, meaning that Wands will have a Prof Bonus. Class Features will use Implements for more than what they did for 4th, having Wizards chose effects and uses to imbue to them. (Scrying for the Orb, for example)
I look for the hard line between tiers to be softened (and the separation be a guide instead) and PP/ED be turned into PrC like options with open level entry with requirements. I would hope that multiclassing will be done this way, with PrC's for each class for the others to go into. Themes also need to be brought in, with more selection of powers/features than the light ones Essentials has come out with.
Kalnaur brought up hybrid and multi class feats in a debate about use of multiple power sources, so what of hybrid/ multi class in a future edition?
I remember the racial restrictions on multi class combos and levels, and spliting exp between classess of earlier editions advancing each class indepedently. I am glad we evolved from that in 3e, but there were problems in splitting character level between class through character advancment. For example, playing a 5 wizard/ 5 level fighter and fighting monster for 10 level characters with spells of a 5th level wizard and attack bonus of a 7th level fighter. I really like the 4e solutions.
I hope to a return of hybrid classess and multi class feats or something similar in future editions. But who knows, maybe, Cook, Mearls and the others will conjure up something better? So far the current hybrid multi class feats system works very well, IMO.
I really enjoy at least the intent of the hybrid system; I think that for the first time it truly allows a person to "multiclass" in the way it was originally intended.
Now I would like to go back for a moment and mention why it is likely that I prefer single source classes and multiple sources for hybrid/multiclassing only.
I am an artist. For me, red, blue and yellow are the perfect colors to give me. I can make any other color out of those primaries. Now, that is not to say that one should not be given green, orange, purple or any variation in-between, but the most important colors are the primaries.
The same for me is true of classes. Give me the primaries and a system to mix them and I can make secondary, teritary etc classes from their parts. But primaries must be pure to be primaries. Like trying to mix purple with red-orange and teal, mixing classes that are already pre-mixed is a setup for failure in the stated goal. And in this metaphor (or is it simile?) the power sources are the colors. So a pure martial mixed with a pure arcane can give me a mixed martial arcane, but I can't separate the martial arcane easily to make a pure martial or a pure arcane. And I prefer to start with as pure a colors as possible. Let me mix them how I please, or at least give me all the primaries first. And all the shades (roles) of those colors (classes) being given is eaven better. I like grid filling, because in a color theory way, grid-filling makes sense. And that is how I view the world, games, everything is through my art background, my color and art background. Give me the pure paints and let me do with them what I will.
Kalnaur brought up hybrid and multi class feats in a debate about use of multiple power sources, so what of hybrid/ multi class in a future edition?
I remember the racial restrictions on multi class combos and levels, and spliting exp between classess of earlier editions advancing each class indepedently. I am glad we evolved from that in 3e, but there were problems in splitting character level between class through character advancment. For example, playing a 5 wizard/ 5 level fighter and fighting monster for 10 level characters with spells of a 5th level wizard and attack bonus of a 7th level fighter. I really like the 4e solutions.
I hope to a return of hybrid classess and multi class feats or something similar in future editions. But who knows, maybe, Cook, Mearls and the others will conjure up something better? So far the current hybrid multi class feats system works very well, IMO.
I really enjoy at least the intent of the hybrid system; I think that for the first time it truly allows a person to "multiclass" in the way it was originally intended.
Now I would like to go back for a moment and mention why it is likely that I prefer single source classes and multiple sources for hybrid/multiclassing only.
I am an artist. For me, red, blue and yellow are the perfect colors to give me. I can make any other color out of those primaries. Now, that is not to say that one should not be given green, orange, purple or any variation in-between, but the most important colors are the primaries.
The same for me is true of classes. Give me the primaries and a system to mix them and I can make secondary, teritary etc classes from their parts. But primaries must be pure to be primaries. Like trying to mix purple with red-orange and teal, mixing classes that are already pre-mixed is a setup for failure in the stated goal. And in this metaphor (or is it simile?) the power sources are the colors. So a pure martial mixed with a pure arcane can give me a mixed martial arcane, but I can't separate the martial arcane easily to make a pure martial or a pure arcane. And I prefer to start with as pure a colors as possible. Let me mix them how I please, or at least give me all the primaries first. And all the shades (roles) of those colors (classes) being given is eaven better. I like grid filling, because in a color theory way, grid-filling makes sense. And that is how I view the world, games, everything is through my art background, my color and art background. Give me the pure paints and let me do with them what I will.
Absolutely. And then go on to also give people like me teal, orange and purple. :P
The Class/Subclass system (which I think would be better named the Archetype/Class system) would work great if they were starting with a clean slate. As it is now it doesn't work with what already exists and a lot of the classes that exist in its design are subpar. The Idea of Archetypes as group of classes that share some aspects but are still autonomus is an interesting one. Take the Fighter Archetype, If it had been implemented from the begining and the PHB Fighter (Possibly called Knight), the Warlord and the slayer (Exept with AEDU) all had stances (An Idea I really like) and maybe a few powers that were similar it would be a good way to make thematicaly similar classes feel mechanicaly similar.
Absolutely. And then go on to also give people like me teal, orange and purple. :P
As long as each primary class was fleshed out, and each source had each role filled, I'd think teal, orange, chartruse or whatever other color people want would be fine.
But they would need to publish the main classes first. And unlike the color wheel, there are more primary "colors" here, because technically as I think about it, it is the source that is the color, and class or role is the hue and shade. Complex or simple subclasses are the level of saturation.
Absolutely. And then go on to also give people like me teal, orange and purple. :P
As long as each primary class was fleshed out, and each source had each role filled, I'd think teal, orange, chartruse or whatever other color people want would be fine.
But they would need to publish the main classes first. And unlike the color wheel, there are more primary "colors" here, because technically as I think about it, it is the source that is the color, and class or role is the hue and shade. Complex or simple subclasses are the level of saturation.
Eh. Get about the basic half dozen or so classes first, of course. That's just a fact of a new edition.
But there is no reason, in my opinion, to not make the ranger a primal/martial class.
In other words, there is no reason to not put the most popular non-prime colours in a crayon basic pack, or a basic set of paints.
The complete list of Wizards really looks like this:
Orb of Imposition Archanist
Staff of Defense Archanist
Wand of Accuracy Archanist
Orb of Deception Archanist
Tome of Readiness Archanist
Tome of Binding Archanist
Enchanter
Illusionist
Evoker
Pyromancer
Necromancer
Nethermancer
Bladesinger
Witch
And, like I said, they're /all/ controllers. Clearly, the game needs 14 arcane controllers.
Then there's the Fighter with:
Gaurdian Weaponmanster
Greatweapon Weaponmaster
Battlerager Weaponmaster
Tempest Weaponmaster
Arena Weaponmaster
Brawling Weaponmaster
Knight
Slayer
It's a complete mess if you ask me. Just take a look at that list class list!
I think 2e had it right with only a handful of core classes that never changed throughout the life of the system. If you wanted to play a gladiator you made a fighter and picked a Kit (which was mostly a role playing concept).
The problem is that 3e came along and replaced Kits with prestige classes essentially turning every concept imaginable into a class. 4e never learned its lesson from this despite having removed prestige classes. Now what we have is a flat non hierarchal design wherein everything must be a top level class.
It’s my opinion that WoTC let things get completely out of hand. What they did was create a system that removed all the fluff/flavour, but has since tried to make a class for every 'flavor' of the week. The result is a system that will never have a complete class list. It’s designed to milk us for money with new class books every year.
I’ll bet there are very few people who can actually name all the classes in 4e from the top of their head, I know can’t do it. I do know that I can still list all the 2e classes and I haven’t played that edition in years.
That's a good thing.
The idea that the system has removed all the fluff is plainly and provably false. It's a rediculous statement.
I'm very glad that people can't list off all the 4e classes from memory. That means that there is a broad range of mechanical archetypes to choose from when making a character.
That's a good thing.
The idea that the system has removed all the fluff is plainly and provably false. It's a rediculous statement.
Well from what I've read on these forums many people think that the classes are not actually attached with the default flavour. Some even claim that the name of the class is meaningless. In other words, they are saying that the classes are simply mechanical concepts. Apparently we need 14 different controllers to define all those concepts too.
I personaly think that it is an incomplete list of archetypes and it will never be complete. I also don't play the game for the sake of the mechanics. My character concepts have nothing to do with mechanics, they are strickly role playing concepts. I therefore don't care for 'mechanical' archetypes.
Also, don't you think having a huge number of classes makes the game more confusing for new players?
I'm very glad that people can't list off all the 4e classes from memory. That means that there is a broad range of mechanical archetypes to choose from when making a character.
That's a good thing.
The idea that the system has removed all the fluff is plainly and provably false. It's a rediculous statement.
Well from what I've read on these forums many people think that the classes are not actually attached with the default flavour. Some even claim that the name of the class is meaningless. In other words, they are saying that the classes are simply mechanical concepts. Apparently we need 14 different controllers to define all those concepts too.
I personaly think that it is an incomplete list of archetypes and it will never be complete. I also don't play the game for the sake of the mechanics. My character concepts have nothing to do with mechanics, they are strickly role playing concepts. I therefore don't care for 'mechanical' archetypes.
Also, don't you think having a huge number of classes makes the game more confusing for new players?
Sorry, but if you are completely indifferent to the mechanics of the game, why should we listen to your thoughts on what they should be?
Having a huge number of classes gives everyone more options. New players will probably play whatever first peaks their interest when they look through the choices, or what more experienced players recomend.
You're also conflating a system which separates many/most mechanical elements from fluff with one which gets rid of fluff. They are not the same.
Absolutely. And then go on to also give people like me teal, orange and purple. :P
As long as each primary class was fleshed out, and each source had each role filled, I'd think teal, orange, chartruse or whatever other color people want would be fine.
But they would need to publish the main classes first. And unlike the color wheel, there are more primary "colors" here, because technically as I think about it, it is the source that is the color, and class or role is the hue and shade. Complex or simple subclasses are the level of saturation.
Eh. Get about the basic half dozen or so classes first, of course. That's just a fact of a new edition.
But there is no reason, in my opinion, to not make the ranger a primal/martial class.
In other words, there is no reason to not put the most popular non-prime colours in a crayon basic pack, or a basic set of paints.
Except I would argue that ranger should be martial, with the option to mix in primal. I.E. I don't see why or how a ranger is default "primal".
The Class/Subclass system (which I think would be better named the Archetype/Class system) would work great if they were starting with a clean slate. As it is now it doesn't work with what already exists and a lot of the classes that exist in its design are subpar. The Idea of Archetypes as group of classes that share some aspects but are still autonomus is an interesting one.
It's less interesting if you first saw it in 1980. In 1e, the Ranger & Paladin were fighter sub-classes, the Illusionist was a Magic-User sub-class, the Druid was a Cleric sub-class, the Assassin was a Theif sub-class. 2e went ahead and did quite simply what Essentials is pushing the game through such odd contortions to do: put classes into 'Groups.' The Groups were Warrior, Wizard, Priest & Rogue, the classes each went under a group. It's a really old idea, that 3.0 and 4e, for whatever reason, abandonned. Now, like so many other old ideas, it's part of the 'new' direction.
:and there was great rejoicing... yay:
Continuing with the mix color metaphor in mixing power sources, I'm looking for a rainbow. Truly I'm not even thinking of paint when I making a Pc, I start with a concept. So sometimes that concept is about someone who trains with weapon's, melee and ranged, learned in nature lore and communes with primal spirits, mixing martial training with channeling primal spirits a ranger class. It just seems easy for me to concieve of a character tapping into two power sources in one class.
Certainly a character can concieveably tap in to multiple sources of capability.. now what is it that says they are getting that as a single class? why arent they exactly a hybrid? or multiclass dabbler? depending on the amount of each source they are exploiting.
Class will be a module component more akin to a feat. You'll get a free "class feat" which will say you're a Fighter or wizard and gain related perks.
Character creation will be as simple as picking stats and then you will tell people what kind of person you are. Then other modules will give you mechanics to help pronounce aspects of your character.
.., if you had Nature Priest who was 1/3 divine, 1/3 martial and 1/3 primal - it makes the sources feel washed out ...compared to a Druid as Full Primal.... Once a source is "well defined" within a set of core primaries as somebody mentioned then mixing them makes loads more sense.
The washed out feel of the 1/3 divine, 1/3 martial and 1/3 primal Nature Priest is an issue to consider when conceptualizing a class with multiple power sources, but no reason to limit class or class builds to one power source. I have no problem with a class like the hypothetical Nature Priest, if there is a strong enough narrative to support the 3 different power sources. I get no washed out feeling when I play Zook, a 1/2 orc ranger/ archer build with access to martial and primal powers.
The power source concept is new with 4e, I understand the utility in understanding them, when they are well defined in a set of core primaries classess ie. cleric=divine, wizard= arcane, druid=primal, fighter=martial, back in 2008. But after 3 years the power sources are well defined and the DnD community understands the power sources role in the game. Since the power source no longer a new concept, It makes no sense for me, to limit class builds to a single power source to better define those power sources. Also, we don't define a class build by power source alone, why limit a class/ build to one power source?
You make a good argument, I remain unconvinced, but a good argument. It also makes me wonder if the new Essential class/ builds with multiple power sources would be possible without the original on size fits all class power structure. Would they achieve the same game balance without the experience garnered with the original strucure?
Current reason to keep the power sources separate at least in default classes would be, in my opinion, to keep the mechanical nature of them ordered. remember, we do have arcane only or martial only or whatever only feats.
I have no problem with being able to combine two (or even three) classes to make a single class with multiple sources. But the base classes should only have a single source so there is a common pool to draw from.
For example, the Martial/Shadow Assassin? That's more a combo of the concepts of a Rogue and the Assassin. Archer Ranger you mentioned is like combining the seeker and the ranger. So as far as I see it, those multi-source classes are hybrids. They're just popular hybrids that saw print. ;)
My point being that there is no reason for the ranger to be primal, unless we are going to claim that all rangers do primal magic. Sure, that my have been part of their function in the past, but isn't it better to have a pure, martial ranger, just in case someone wants to make a martial/psionic combo? The problem with baseline classes having more than one source is that then you are forcing a source that that player may not identify their characters with on that player. For example, if the sorcerer was arcane/primal, it would have one more mechanical ramification that I personally would not identify with my character.
In short, baseline classes with single sources make for great fodder for class hybrids with multiple sources. Multiple source baseline classes would mean that making any mechanical benefit, such as source feats or features meant only for a group of classes in a specific source would have overall less of a "special" feel.
I'm not saying they can't publish multi source classes; what I'm saying is that any published multi-source classes in this edition or the next should be products of marrying to base classes via a hybriding system. Name the powers something different if they wish, or even cook up new powers, but leave the baseline as single sources.
And for god's sake don't make sources "additive only".
Cleric & Druid were both classes (not sub-classes) in the Priest Group in 2e.
Total, I'm just saying they are comparable to subclasses of an umbrella class in 4th Ed.
You had:
-Priest (cleric, druid, specialty priest)
-Rogue (bard, thief)
-Warrior (fighter, paladin, ranger)
-Wizard (mage, specialist)
That sound about right?
The power source concept is new with 4e
Exactly, and as far as I can see, not really necessary, do they have any mechanical impact on play, or are they purely window-dressing?
To limit a class like that gains nothing and subtracts other possible narratives for single class characters.
Nobody is required to have a single class character... so no character is restricted in any significant way if all classes only have one source. There is nothing saying Character X has to be one class therefore nothing at all restricting there narrative.
Saying I can't design and play a single class with multiple power sources as a designer or player has concieved and developed the narrative, is restricting the narrative. Yes you can develop hybrid classess and develop multi class feats to allow a narrative of a character with access to two power sources. But that is no reason to limit class design to a single power source.
No, it's not a reason to design onyl single-source classes. It does, however, completely negate the objection that single-source classes would 'restrict the narrative' of characters with more than one source. Designers do not create character narratives, and players do not create classes. What sticking to consistent design principles does is create a consistent game. Consistency is nice, in itself, but retaining it also makes retaining balance and playability more likely - (I'll only assert that in the sense of a correllation, though, I don't want to get into causality - just, consistent rule sets seem to be balanced more often/easily than inconsistent ones).
Also limiting class design to a single power source, limits the possabilities of a classess narrative and the narrative of the game as a whole.
There is no class narrative. Classes are mechanical constructs. /Some/ Paragon Paths or Themes may have a direct tie-in to narrative, but not classes - characters don't go around saying they're 'Fighters' and expecting that to explain their individual background. Players say their characters are 'Fighters' to give other players an idea of their capabilities and the Role they'll play in the party.
So, I see no good reason to limit class design to one power source. What reason, betters the game, in narrative or play by limiting class design to one power source?
Using classes that have a single source, then allowing multi-classing or hybriding or themes (any /one/ would be sufficient) allows players to design characters with any combination of sources, without having to put out a separate class for each and every such combination. That's a much more effecient design. Concentrating on a single source allows a class to be painted in a more evocative and definite manner, and makes mixing sources via multi-classing (or whatever) an equally effective tool for the player.
The power source concept is new with 4e
Exactly, and as far as I can see, not really necessary, do they have any mechanical impact on play, or are they purely window-dressing?
In the sense of formal keywords, it is new. OTOH, the exemplar classes of each source - the fighter, cleric, and magic-user - go back to the earliest days of the game. The Clerics (and later Druid, Paladin, and other) got their powers from the gods - that's Divine. The Wizard (and later Illusionist and the like) studdied eldritch secrets to wield magic personally - that's Arcane. Psionics was also introduced comparatively early. Really, only the Primal source is new, and only in the sense of being made distinct from Divine. OK, and Shadow.
The sources are keywords, and there are some feats and features that key off of them, so, yes, they serve a mechanical purpose. They could serve a greater purpose. For instance, currently, powers & features are created by class and support the concept, thus helping to paint the class's source and role. It would be clearer to players, and less burdensome and easier to balance to designers, if powers were grouped by Source instead of class, and designed just with the idea of evoking the particular source, while Role support was left exclusively to class features.
Cleric & Druid were both classes (not sub-classes) in the Priest Group in 2e.
Total, I'm just saying they are comparable to subclasses of an umbrella class in 4th Ed.
You had:
-Priest (cleric, druid, specialty priest)
-Rogue (bard, thief)
-Warrior (fighter, paladin, ranger)
-Wizard (mage, specialist)
That sound about right?
Yep. And the comparison is strong, if you consider only post-Essentials 4e. There are still pre-existing 4e classes that don't use the new heirarchy, though. I'm sure - if it isn't obviated by the arival of 5e, first - 4e will eventually go over entirely to the Essentials Class/subclass version of the 2e Group/Class heirarchy.
It is Lazy Design, 101.
Going by some of the legends and lore articles I think things will be far more modular. There won't be classes as you see them now. You will construct a character. Class will be a module component more akin to a feat. You'll get a free "class feat" which will say you're a Fighter or wizard and gain related perks. Character creation will be as simple as picking stats and then you will tell people what kind of person you are. Then other modules will give you mechanics to help pronounce aspects of your character.
so a character process going like this:
select abilitie scores
select race
select theme/background.
select power source ( some would be recomended to be used in combination with certain themes/backgrounds)
select features from your power source ( like what armor you can use each fature costs points so if you select martial you would see feature that are now spread amongh warlord, fighter ganger, rogue but also hitpoints per level and things like that and you get a number of point to buy class features.
then chose powers, al martial powers would be open to you but some might be better suited then others becouse of ability score choices.
advantage gives you more customization like skills and powers did for 2nd edition
dis advantage with this you can make character that just don't work at all.
I see them as little more than codifiying what has existed all along and making that codification useful for more than 1 or 2 classes that happen to share a similar way of fighting.
Not being argumentative or anything. Just curious.
What do you feel is wrong with Power Sources?
I see them as little more than codifiying what has existed all along and making that codification useful for more than 1 or 2 classes that happen to share a similar way of fighting.
Not being argumentative or anything. Just curious.
That is my take too... but given it was introduced in 4e well you know your answer might be ahem not so useful.
Further its 98 percent flavor and guidelines for the developers with only a really small fraction of it being mechanics.