Power Source and Role inclination

[Tegu8788]

Looking at the different power sources, each one seems to have a tendacy to line up with each of the roles.

Arcane classes lean towards being controllers.
Divine classes lean towards being leaders.
Primal classes lean towards being defenders.
Martial classes lean towards being strikers.
Shadow classes lean towards being strikers.

Psionic classes are harder for me to pin down, but I believe they lean towards being controllers. I don't know if the new elemental builds have a leaning or not.

This all being said, what do people think about how sources have a leaning? Or do you find it to not be the case. Personally I like the trend, and hope it continues in 5E.

[Ashdate]

Looking at the different power sources, each one seems to have a tendacy to line up with each of the roles.

This all being said, what do people think about how sources have a leaning? Or do you find it to not be the case. Personally I like the trend, and hope it continues in 5E.

I think 4e tried too hard to make power sources a part of their game. Rather than finding some correlation between power source and role, it's often the case that you find some weird classes that have been jammed into a particular role, seemingly for the sake of having that hole filled. If you examine what has been published, there has been a tendency pre-essentials to create awkward characters that do little except to serve a niche. Consider classes such as the Seeker, Invoker, and Swordmage, which (aside from atrocious support) seem to have been created for the sake of existing.

Under the spoiler, here's the math of what power source has gotten what for roles:

Here's the total, according to the online Character Builder:

Primal: 3 controllers (Druid, "Protector" Druid, Seeker), 2 defenders ("Berserker" Barbarian, Warden), 2 leader ("Sentinel" Druid, Shaman), 1 striker (Barbarian)
Divine: 1 controller (Invoker), 2 defender (Paladin, "Cavalier" Paladin), 3 leaders (Cleric, "Warpriest" Cleric, Runepriest), 2 strikers (Avenger, "Blackguard" Paladin)
Psionic: 1 controller (Psion), 1 defender (Battlemind), 1 leader (Ardent), 1 striker (Monk)
Martial: 1 controller ("Hunter" Ranger), 2 defenders ("Knight" Fighter, Fighter), 1 leader (Warlord), 6 strikers ("Executioner" Assassin, "Slayer" Fighter, Ranger, "Scout" Ranger, Rogue, "Thief" Rogue)
Arcane: 5 controllers (Binder Warlock, Wizard, "Mage" Wizard, "Bladesinger" Wizard, "Sha'ir" Wizard, "Witch" Wizard), 1 defender (Swordmage), 3 leaders (Artificer, Bard, "Skald" Bard), 4 strikers (Sorcerer, "Elementalist" Sorcerer, Warlock, "Hexblade" Warlock)
Shadow: 2 strikers (Assassin, Vampire)

In the above list, it does look like some power sources lean towards particular roles. Primal and Arcane lead towards controllers, Martial towards Strikers, and Divine classes towards Leaders.

However, it is important to note that a lot of the "clumps" are a result of the Essentials line of books "recreating" existing classes. Yes, the "Fighter" and the "Knight" play differently, but they aren't so divided (I think) to really justify giving the Martial power category "two" defenders.

If you eliminate all the Essentials classes that are basically class variants (i.e. the "Mage", "Bladesinger", "Sha'ir" and "Witch" for example = arcane controllers that are Wizards) you would get the following totals:

Primal: 2 controllers (Druid, Seeker), 2 defenders ("Berserker" Barbarian, Warden), 2 leader ("Sentinel" Druid, Shaman), 1 striker (Barbarian)
Divine: 1 controller (Invoker), 1 defender (Paladin), 2 leaders (Cleric, Runepriest), 2 strikers (Avenger, "Blackguard" Paladin)
Psionic: 1 controller (Psion), 1 defender (Battlemind), 1 leader (Ardent), 1 striker (Monk)
Martial: 1 controller ("Hunter" Ranger), 1 defender (Fighter), 1 leader (Warlord), 4 strikers ("Executioner" Assassin, "Slayer" Fighter, Ranger, Rogue)
Arcane: 2 controllers (Binder Warlock, Wizard), 1 defender (Swordmage), 2 leaders (Artificer, Bard), 2 strikers (Sorcerer, Warlock)
Shadow: 2 strikers (Assassin, Vampire)

Here, aside from a number of strikers in the Martial category (noting that technically the "Executioner" draws upon the Shadow power source too), there isn't really any concentrations.

I think the idea of splitting classes into roles is a great idea, as it helps new players and DMs quickly understand what the group has/needs. Power Sources on the other hand, don't really have that strong of an identity. I think they could have, but there wasn't enough attention paid to designing classes, particularly in the PHB, to carve out niches.

Imagine (for example) if Wizards primary way of controlling the battlefield was setting up magical zones that discouraged movement and pushing, while Psions primarily shifted enemies around and stunned/dazed them, whereas the Druid was all about immobilization and pulling enemies. Sadly, this isn't the case (they all get a bit of everything) and that leads them all to play fairly similarly. Strikers get it even worse!

I think they'll be abandoned both for 5e, at least if the playtest is any indication. Wizards will still control things, rogues will still strike things, and the fighter might still defend things, but I think they're done trying to outline some sort of grand role for their classes.

It wouldn't be a deal breaker for me for 5e to be missing "roles", as long as the themes and options are there to create them. After all, Clerics have always sort of have been "leaders" and Wizards have always sort of been "controllers" etc. The only thing I would be really worried about losing would be the "defender" (which was a more defined concept in 4e than previous editions), but even given the early scraps of the playtest I don't think there is any danger of them going away.

[NecroRebel]

I don't think the point was to go just by primary roles, Ashdate. You have to take into account the apparently-intended secondary roles as well. For instance, for the Arcane power source, you have the warlock, swordmage, bard, sorcerer, and artificer which are generally considered to have the capacity to moonlight as a controller in a pinch. The warlock, swordmage, and sorcerer in particular are basically sub-controllers by default. With this in mind, you see that Arcane classes have tended to be controllers either primarily or secondarily.

I've also noticed the tendency for Divine classes to be a Leader primary or secondary, but I haven't looked at the other power sources closely enough to notice such a trend with them.

[Kurald Galain]

This all depends on a bunch of vague definitions. Do you consider a class to "lean towards" controller if it has area effects? If it has status effects? Does it "have a secondary" of striker if it deals a bunch damage? Because pretty much every class has all of that.

Because overall, these inclinations just don't exist. The average arcane class doesn't have any more or less control than a divine or psionic class does (except the wizard class, of course). Several divine classes can't even heal, so they're clearly not leaders. Everyone deals damage, so it's not particularly true that martial characters do more of it. And primal characters aren't defendery, they just have some more hit points.

And to complicate things, there are also numerous classes that are listed in the books as having a certain role, but that really don't. A warlock can plausibly be called a controller, but a bladesinger really can't (nor a sorcerer or bard, really).

[Tegu8788]

I don't think the point was to go just by primary roles, Ashdate. You have to take into account the apparently-intended secondary roles as well. For instance, for the Arcane power source, you have the warlock, swordmage, bard, sorcerer, and artificer which are generally considered to have the capacity to moonlight as a controller in a pinch. The warlock, swordmage, and sorcerer in particular are basically sub-controllers by default. With this in mind, you see that Arcane classes have tended to be controllers either primarily or secondarily.

That was my intent, the secondary traits. It's why I said lean, but I should have been more specific. I think the arcane classes are particularly all controller secondary, the martial classes "trick" is doing more damage and thus I suspect the martial striker is a striking striker explains why it's DPR is so high so easily. Primals may not be truly defendery, but they are certainly hearty. Some of that might be stat spread, which is another interesting question all of its own, but I'm not sure what other controller wants to be on the frontline.


I think 4e tried too hard to make power sources a part of their game. Rather than finding some correlation between power source and role, it's often the case that you find some weird classes that have been jammed into a particular role, seemingly for the sake of having that hole filled. If you examine what has been published, there has been a tendency pre-essentials to create awkward characters that do little except to serve a niche. Consider classes such as the Seeker, Invoker, and Swordmage, which (aside from atrocious support) seem to have been created for the sake of existing.

I think the idea of splitting classes into roles is a great idea, as it helps new players and DMs quickly understand what the group has/needs. Power Sources on the other hand, don't really have that strong of an identity. I think they could have, but there wasn't enough attention paid to designing classes, particularly in the PHB, to carve out niches.

Imagine (for example) if Wizards primary way of controlling the battlefield was setting up magical zones that discouraged movement and pushing, while Psions primarily shifted enemies around and stunned/dazed them, whereas the Druid was all about immobilization and pulling enemies. Sadly, this isn't the case (they all get a bit of everything) and that leads them all to play fairly similarly. Strikers get it even worse!

I think they'll be abandoned both for 5e, at least if the playtest is any indication. Wizards will still control things, rogues will still strike things, and the fighter might still defend things, but I think they're done trying to outline some sort of grand role for their classes.

It wouldn't be a deal breaker for me for 5e to be missing "roles", as long as the themes and options are there to create them. After all, Clerics have always sort of have been "leaders" and Wizards have always sort of been "controllers" etc. The only thing I would be really worried about losing would be the "defender" (which was a more defined concept in 4e than previous editions), but even given the early scraps of the playtest I don't think there is any danger of them going away.

I don't have access to the playtest, and I'm not looking to find out too much now. I'll enjoy it when I get it. It also allows me to speculate wildly and with abandon. I agree, roles make it easy to set up, and I think fewer classes with more "builds" would be better. Keep the roles for easy learning, but don't require of of each just for its own sake. But the Avenger, Invoker, and Swordmage are all good classes. I won't touch the Seeker.

My solution, still very fluid, strips fluff from mechanics. You want to be a 4e barbarian? Go to the weapon power list and pick a few of those that focus on big powers, hit up a bit of the power source list and look under primal for some hearty features and power or two. The Fighter, grab similar weapon powers but get heavy armor and one of the several "marking" features from the martial list. My idea being, all melee characters can pull from one list for powers, casters another list. Separate to those would be some features that let you pick and choose between paladin defenses, a spellbook, or wildshape. Powers end up reading
Attack: primary stat vs appropriate defense
Hit: primary stat + [W]/1dX
Special: Effect line with secondary stat.
Power Source Feature addition.
So a strength fighter, a wisdom avenger, or a intelligence bard that wants a melee weapon that prones a target can all pick one power, but because of the power source something slightly different happens. The fighter marks, the avenger adds so e extra radiant damage, and the bard slides.

I would like it if the controller and striker classes felt more unique, as you suggest, but my idea, flawed as I'm sure it is, would let every character be unique. I suppose my love of hybrids make me want to take it even further, perhaps using a point buy system to choose between different features, from armor to a bonus to attacks to extra feats. Probably too complicated, but find it interesting.

So instead of the class-race-theme trifecta, you get role feature set-battle style power list-source feature set-race combo. You can grab defender and secondary striker features if you like but you lose out on a some source boosts, or get very flexible effects to powers but fewer features. The fighter can have protective features and be good at killing, but beyond the mark and extra damage the attack doesn't do much else, where as the paladin using a defender role and divine source replaces the extra damage for some THP to an ally, or the barbarian who grabs the bonus damage and primal self THP, all from the same "power" on the list. Blast power, divine source may let you make it target friendly at the cost of a die size, the arcane summons a lasting zone, the psionic can upgrade the status effect (dazed-stun). In a way this turns all features into feats, so some level of ranking would be required. You still can't build something that's great at everything, but you can be as focused or as varied as you want.

Also, don't forget the "Blackguard" Paladin as a Shadow Striker. And considering the psionic is the only power that has exactly four classes, the easy trick isn't there like for arcane or martial.