Class Power Source

[Garfunion]

Are Class power sources mechanically important?

[Kurald Galain]

Are Class power sources mechanically important?

No, they're not.

[LibraryOgre]

Usually not. Some, like Psionics, determined aspects of how your class was built.

[Waddacku]

Yes, they are, but primarily for feat, PP, and ED prerequisites.

[Duff]

Usually not. Some, like Psionics, determined aspects of how your class was built.
Except monks. Who were "Psionic"

[RedMage125]

Except monks. Who were "Psionic"

When 4e was new, they mentioned a "Ki" power source was coming. They later realized that they were starting to pigeonhole Ki as the "Asian" power source.

But ask yourself this about classes and power sources:
This class uses discipline to develop and harness an internal wellspring of power to accomplish things beyond the scope of most people.

Does that describe psions, monks, or both?

[Kurald Galain]

This class uses discipline to develop and harness an internal wellspring of power to accomplish things beyond the scope of most people.
Sorcerers!

[SaurOps]

Sorcerers!

Discipline, not yelling until the magic comes out. There's a suggestion, at least, that a psion can exactingly instruct another psion in a predictable regimen, and likewise for a monk, whereas a sorcerer can only kind of coach another sorcerer, advising that other sorcerer to find what drives them and go with it to the hilt.

[Beoric]

In a game where refluffing is officially encouraged, I think your flavour text may vary.

[Kurald Galain]

Discipline, not yelling until the magic comes out.

Fine. Wizard and Swordmage, then.

The point is, there is absolutely zero difference in fluff between "arcane" and "psionic"; the only difference is mechanical (i.e. power points). Note that pretty much all classes in the PHB3 exist to show off a new mechanic, and only the monk represents a literary archetype that hadn't been covered by other existing classes.

[SaurOps]

Fine. Wizard and Swordmage, then.

The point is, there is absolutely zero difference in fluff between "arcane" and "psionic"; the only difference is mechanical (i.e. power points). Note that pretty much all classes in the PHB3 exist to show off a new mechanic, and only the monk represents a literary archetype that hadn't been covered by other existing classes.

Not quite. 4e made psionics heavily tied to the Far Realm in a way that arcane source wasn't (it was presumably too busy hanging out in the Feywild). Also, Arcane and Divine tended to treat having an inborn potential as an exception rather than rule, like with the Sorcerer, whereas psionics tended to turn that on its ear - the monk was something that anyone could pick up, but the other psionic classes relied on some variety of strange, inborn potential. Also, the difference is very, very important if you're playing a game on Athas.

(Also, most classes in general exist to show off a particular mechanic. Avengers used to have the most "best of two d20 rolls", rogues have their advantage-dependent Sneak Attack, etc.)

[Kurald Galain]

(Also, most classes in general exist to show off a particular mechanic. Avengers used to have the most "best of two d20 rolls", rogues have their advantage-dependent Sneak Attack, etc.)

No, most early classes exist to represent a particular literary archetype. The classes that aren't (such as the avenger, and everything from PHB3) tend not to be very popular.

[SaurOps]

No, most early classes exist to represent a particular literary archetype. The classes that aren't (such as the avenger, and everything from PHB3) tend not to be very popular.

That's a bit of a stretch, since, say, fighters haven't been a solid literary reference since after 2e. And even then, fighters would frequently fall short of their hype (Hercules indeed!). Also, the game goes out of its way to make the archetypes mechanically defined in particular ways, so you can't really take one from out of the other. The mechanics and the archetype tend to be stuck together.

As for avengers, they are, in fact, a literary archetype - two really. They're cloistered monastics who are also assassins. There are a lot of both types, and some do this better than others, but they're the only ones who are both in one as part of a single package deal. The monk, psion, and runepriest are also fairly well-established archetypes from out of PHB3 - monks are another type of monastic character, in this case one that draws from a lot of martial arts fiction (with a heavy weight on it from the apparent need to continue emulating Remo Williams), a psion is what everyone thinks of when you mention a character with psychic powers, and the runepriest is a kind of fang shi (Daoist practitioner).

[Duff]

When 4e was new, they mentioned a "Ki" power source was coming. They later realized that they were starting to pigeonhole Ki as the "Asian" power source.

But ask yourself this about classes and power sources:
This class uses discipline to develop and harness an internal wellspring of power to accomplish things beyond the scope of most people.

Does that describe psions, monks, or both?

Thematically? Could be either. Or sorcerers as Kuruld noted

Mechanically:
Psion - Uses Psi points to enhance their powers
Battlemind - Uses Psi points to enhance their powers
Ardent - Uses Psi points to enhance their powers
Monk - Has the option to use one of their movement powers at the same time they use an attack power

[RedMage125]

Thematically? Could be either. Or sorcerers as Kuruld noted


I meant thematically, yes.

And, as has been pointed out, sorcerers don't fit that description that well.

[darkdragoon]

Martial and Arcane have more ways to be flexible, "borrow" (especially Wands) and outright recover powers, but they tend to have a lot more support in general.

Divine they kind of tried to bake that in with Channel Divinity at the cost of being more resource-heavy. Holy Symbols similarly have the "no slot, but look how many of them assume you are a Cleric"

Primal on the other hand seemed to go all in on "this is similar but not the same."

And then PHB3 went with "this is not like the others' which leaves Monks and Runepriests in particular to lack synergy with their own sources.

[SaurOps]

Seems like maybe monks and runepriests should have had their implement and weapon use switched. Especially since monks using implement powers means that their monk unarmed strike tends to not get used as such most of the time. Meanwhile, runepriests using weapons for everything even when it seems like some kind of implement should factor in feels pretty weird.

[LibraryOgre]

I really wish they'd committed a bit more to symmetry... work on building good versions of the four roles for each of the power sources, rather than, say, including two martial strikers in the PH.

[RedWarlock]

I really wish they'd committed a bit more to symmetry... work on building good versions of the four roles for each of the power sources, rather than, say, including two martial strikers in the PH.

I can see it both ways. One side says the symmetry feels good, but the other side sees symmetry as limiting. Once you have *A* combo of power/role, one could feel compelled to rewrite a class concept that happens to fill the same combo into a gap, rather than respecting the unique potential of the class in a vacuum, or else introduce new classes in quads for all roles. Having ranger and rogue together in the same book shows that class/role combos are not limited to just one permutation, but that one could have a more freeform structure of classes in the grid, which is good for creative expansion.

Now, maybe Ranger should have been saved and been a hybrid power source like the Essentials variant or the Seeker, but I don't think the devs were ready for that in PHB1.

[darkdragoon]

Seems like maybe monks and runepriests should have had their implement and weapon use switched. Especially since monks using implement powers means that their monk unarmed strike tends to not get used as such most of the time. Meanwhile, runepriests using weapons for everything even when it seems like some kind of implement should factor in feels pretty weird.

With other fun stuff like there being a Monk flurry feat for pretty much every weapon except unarmed.

[kyoryu]

Yeah, I feel like some of the "power source + role" stuff felt a bit forced.

In retrospect, I think that's one of the weaknesses of 4e - "here's a structure, let's push everything into it." I personally had hoped that fighters would end up with stronger at-wills and more of them, so that their gameplay was more like "choose the right move for the situation" while wizards leaned more on dailies or encounter powers. That would keep the same general structure, but allowing for more variation within it.

[Jaeda]

Having the basic framework is good, but knowing how and when to deviate from it could have made the game better. Each role and each power source should have something that connects them so that it is identifiable that they are related. I feel like roles should have connections in effects (they can do similar kinds of things) whereas power sources should have connections in builds or causes (they go about things in similar ways even though the effects are different). 4e has a little bit of that with Channel Divinity for Divine classes and power points for Psionic classes, but not all of the sources are quite so clear cut and there are exceptions (see Runepriest and Monk). Something should tie the Fighter, Rogue, and Warlord together all as Martial characters, the Bard, Sorcerer, and Wizard together as Arcane characters, and the Barbarian, Druid, and Warden together as Primal characters.

Possibilities:
Martial: martial weapons, stances (usually 1 from class and 1 from subclass), maneuvers with points in place of regular encounter powers (maybe like 5e Battlemaster fighters)
Divine: channel divinity, domains
Arcane: Spell preparation, fewer at will, more daily, metamagic

[kyoryu]

Well generally what tied them together was their secondary roles - martial characters were all strikers as a secondary, so they did decent damage for whatever their primary was (and martial strikers generally were the most damaging). Primal characters were all defender-y in some way, and arcane classes were all controller-y, and divine were all leader-y.

So it wasn't a mechanic that bound them together, but rather the role they played.

[Beoric]

Yeah, I feel like some of the "power source + role" stuff felt a bit forced.

In retrospect, I think that's one of the weaknesses of 4e - "here's a structure, let's push everything into it." I personally had hoped that fighters would end up with stronger at-wills and more of them, so that their gameplay was more like "choose the right move for the situation" while wizards leaned more on dailies or encounter powers. That would keep the same general structure, but allowing for more variation within it.

I think, if you had a player who was able to make decisions quickly on their turn, it would have little affect on balance to give them as many at-will attacks as they could manage. For a good player, that might even be a decent trade for not having martial dailies (which a lot of people objected to).

I suspect WotC limited them mostly because because many players only seem to be able to handle a limited number of options. It also is going to make many fighters look the same, after they have run out of Daily and Encounter powers.

[SaurOps]

Certain Darkest Dungeon heroes seem like they could have been good models for Martial Control. The Plague Doctor is probably the strongest one, and could share the "prepare terrible substance x times per day" mechanic with the executioner (which is from the Martial part of that class, I believe).


With other fun stuff like there being a Monk flurry feat for pretty much every weapon except unarmed.

"Were you looking forward to showing off your hand to hand prowess? Well go to the Nine Hells, because it doesn't matter! We expect you to carry around more daggers than DIO to make full use of flurry of blows!"

[Kurald Galain]

Martial: martial weapons, stances (usually 1 from class and 1 from subclass), maneuvers with points in place of regular encounter powers (maybe like 5e Battlemaster fighters)
Divine: channel divinity, domains
Arcane: Spell preparation, fewer at will, more daily, metamagic

I really like this kind of approach. And I note that Magic: The Gathering has been doing that for a looong time before 4E was released, so WOTC should just have borrowed that idea from their sister department.

[Moak]

Having the basic framework is good, but knowing how and when to deviate from it could have made the game better. Each role and each power source should have something that connects them so that it is identifiable that they are related. I feel like roles should have connections in effects (they can do similar kinds of things) whereas power sources should have connections in builds or causes (they go about things in similar ways even though the effects are different). 4e has a little bit of that with Channel Divinity for Divine classes and power points for Psionic classes, but not all of the sources are quite so clear cut and there are exceptions (see Runepriest and Monk). Something should tie the Fighter, Rogue, and Warlord together all as Martial characters, the Bard, Sorcerer, and Wizard together as Arcane characters, and the Barbarian, Druid, and Warden together as Primal characters.


Well... the primal characters had something in common: more hit points for the role compared to other power sources.
It was something! :smalltongue:

[Jaeda]

Some of the flavor for Primal heroes is that they have the patronage of some spirit whose power they channel. This is most obvious with shaman where the spirit manifests as a creature on the battlefield, and the druid, where they take the spirit's form, but barbarians channel this power when raging and wardens have limited shape-changing (via their daily powers). Druids in 4e get an extra at-will power so that they can always have options both in caster form and beast form; one possible option for a power source distinction would be to give all Primal heroes some sort of manifestation of their spirit and then separate powers that are usable by the spirit and the hero.

Also, going to the original etymology of warlock as "oath-breaker" (that is breaking the covenant with God), they could be reflavored a bit to be that they stole power from a spirit (either through trickery or betrayal) rather than the current flavor of making a pact with an extra-planar entity (ironic given the origin of the term). This might given them access to effects that are usually Primal (because they are channelling the power from a spirit), but otherwise have the chassis of an Arcane class (since they imprisoned it with Arcane magic).

[darkdragoon]

I think, if you had a player who was able to make decisions quickly on their turn, it would have little affect on balance to give them as many at-will attacks as they could manage. For a good player, that might even be a decent trade for not having martial dailies (which a lot of people objected to).

I suspect WotC limited them mostly because because many players only seem to be able to handle a limited number of options. It also is going to make many fighters look the same, after they have run out of Daily and Encounter powers.


Knight and Slayer aren't terrible or anything, but monotonous. It's like they did a Terence and Phillip "no this is a Fighter that spams basic attacks"

Battlemind and Ardent also seem to want to spam the same at-will*, and their dailies tend to tack on another Augment or otherwise have a similar stancelike "gain XYZ for this encounter"

*in their case, it's more that stuff like Brutal Barrage and Ire Strike tend to be better than most of their other options anyway.

[Kurald Galain]

I suspect WotC limited them mostly because because many players only seem to be able to handle a limited number of options.
Pretty much; WOTC got player feedback that certain players enjoy having fewer options. This kind of player would likely play a Fighter or Rogue in earlier editions, so the 4.5 Fighter and Rogue were simplified to appeal to this kind of player. I think that didn't really work out, but that was the intent.


Knight and Slayer aren't terrible or anything, but monotonous.
Yes, that. Well, Knight ended up pretty bad; Slayer and Thief are solid middle-of-the-road options.


Battlemind and Ardent also seem to want to spam the same at-will*, and their dailies tend to tack on another Augment or otherwise have a similar stancelike "gain XYZ for this encounter"
Whereas Slayer has only few options, B'mind and Ardent actually have a lot of options but only a few of those are worth using. I'd say that's a design flaw. Also, B'mind and Ardent really suffer from a case of "WHY does this even exist"; both from a flavor perspective (you have to do quite a lot of mental leaps to find any famous fictional character that clearly represents this class and not another one) and from a mechanical perspective (they've basically "an existing class BUT with power points", and turns out that's not that big of a distinction).

[Jaeda]

I think that Ardent and Battlemind are both supposed to be fantasy Jedi, but the in-universe distinction between the two is kind of fuzzy to me, and I'll concede not really being able to come up with much else that either class really models.

This feels like one of those cases where maybe they should have been one class with a subclass that then determines their role, or maybe having a common set of powers shared between multiple classes with the same power source. This is sort of the flip side of a few classes where it feels like they fill different archetypes in different roles. Examples include sword-and-board (defender) vs greatweapon (striker) warriors, evoker/battlemage (striker) vs enchanter/illusionist (controller) vs abjurer (leader) wizards, bear (defender) vs cat (striker) vs caster (leader or controller) druids. A conjurer could conceivably fill any of the roles depending on which kind of creature is summoned but would probably fit most cleanly as either a striker or defender based on the kind of creature summoned (subclass) with a leader secondary from the caster themself.

[Kurald Galain]

I think that Ardent and Battlemind are both supposed to be fantasy Jedi,
Sure, but so is the Swordmage.

[RedMage125]

I think that Ardent and Battlemind are both supposed to be fantasy Jedi, but the in-universe distinction between the two is kind of fuzzy to me, and I'll concede not really being able to come up with much else that either class really models.
As I recall, Battlemind is one who manifests psionic powers through their body, like the Psychometabolism discipline of editions past.
Ardents, and this I do remember, manifest their psionic ability through emotion, not thought or will.



This feels like one of those cases where maybe they should have been one class with a subclass that then determines their role, or maybe having a common set of powers shared between multiple classes with the same power source. This is sort of the flip side of a few classes where it feels like they fill different archetypes in different roles. Examples include sword-and-board (defender) vs greatweapon (striker) warriors, evoker/battlemage (striker) vs enchanter/illusionist (controller) vs abjurer (leader) wizards, bear (defender) vs cat (striker) vs caster (leader or controller) druids. A conjurer could conceivably fill any of the roles depending on which kind of creature is summoned but would probably fit most cleanly as either a striker or defender based on the kind of creature summoned (subclass) with a leader secondary from the caster themself.

Some of your examples, yes. A greatweapon Fighter as a Striker is why Essentials gave us the Slayer, which is one of only 2 Strikers that wear Heavy Armor (Blackguard being the other). Most Heavy Armor wearing individuals are Defenders, Leaders, or Controllers.
Disagree on all your Wizard examples. A Controller has 2 functions: 1) Battlefield Control (through terrain modification and inflicting status effects) ans 2) AoE damage. So your Evoker and Abjurer are still controllers, especially because Leaders buff allies and heal them, which Abjurers do not do.
Your druid examples, especially separating bear and cat, seem too much inspired by WoW. But I could see an argument for Leader for the druid, and MAYBE Striker, for the focus on Wild Shape.

[darkdragoon]

Whereas Slayer has only few options, B'mind and Ardent actually have a lot of options but only a few of those are worth using. I'd say that's a design flaw. Also, B'mind and Ardent really suffer from a case of "WHY does this even exist"; both from a flavor perspective (you have to do quite a lot of mental leaps to find any famous fictional character that clearly represents this class and not another one) and from a mechanical perspective (they've basically "an existing class BUT with power points", and turns out that's not that big of a distinction).


I don't think it was really much beyond "We need a Psionic (role)" and going through the 3.5 books. And from there changing Warmind so that you don't have three War___ to go through in hybrid. (Although now I want a series of War|War MC War to go with the Bloodknight Vrylocka Vampire)