What Power Sources do we Believe in?

[Manxome]

I suspect that K meant, if both rogues and fighters draw from the Martial power, they should have equal access to each others schticks...ergo, the lines blur and they become two halves of the same class.

Not saying I agree (I don't), but I think that's what he meant.

By that reasoning, there's a one-to-one relationship between power sources and classes.

Which is obviously workable, but I don't think I've heard anyone agitating for that convention up to this point...

[K]

The instant you try to put a rogue and fighter under the martial source, you have to make them one class.

Wait, what? Where the hell did that come from?

Not that making rogues and fighters the same class doesn't sound like a perfectly reasonable and viable idea (I seem to recall an argument from the uncompleted Tome material about how all sorts of iconic heroes are really rogues), but where does the "have to" come in?

Power sources are thematic or mechanical limits. There is no other way for them to work.

So if Fighters and Rogues have the same theme, you don't need two classes. If they use the same mechanics, you don't need two classes. If they use the same theme and the same mechanics, you don't need two classes.

Otherwise you have to admit two power sources.

Take for instance a 3e Cold Evoker and Fire Evoker. They use the same mechanics, but in the small area of using cold/fire damage that hurts some things more and others less. That is a thematic difference since using a feat like Energy Substitution can make firey Ice Storms for those people that like the slip and fall effect of that spell. The fact that sometimes some creatures won't be damaged by fire or cold will come up so little in play that you might play a whole campaign and it never comes up, so for all intents and purposes it doesn't matter. That's theme.

Take a 3e Rogue and a Fighter. One gets Sneak damage and feats as their core combat thing and the other gets feats as their core combat thing. That's a mechanical difference and thematic difference since the Rogue is attacking from hiding/flanking/invis/ect to get his sneak and the fighter is only hurt if he did that.

Now, if the martial power source mechanic is "you get feats", then sneak damage is out and with it the Rogue. If the martial source theme is "you hit people with swords", then sneak is in or out and one of those classes dies (since a fighter with sneak is a Rogue in all ways, since Sneak is not balanced out with more feats under 3e).

Sources work for things like Angels and Clerics were you just assume a cleric of X level is the same as an angel of X level in terms of powers and only interchangable and inconsequential details are swapped(armor for natty armor, flight and resistances for magic items that do the same, spell-likes for spells from the same list, etc).

Of course, you could just have a broken system like a wargame where some people use the same source but some suck (the 4e route). A Rogue could just be a Fighter who gets worse armor and weapons and no ability to get equivalent weapons and armor and you try to justify that by making one good in non-combat and the other bad. That sucks for its own reasons.

[Manxome]

Uh...the only way that argument works is if it's actually circular.

You can have class be a restriction of both mechanics and theme, and have power source be a restriction of both mechanics and theme, and still mix-and-match them. There's no contradiction there. For example, you could have a system where the classes are "fighter" and "caster" and the power sources are "holy" and "death" and cross those to end up with a paladin, death knight, priest, and necromancer. And you can view that as:

• There are N powers in the world
• Half of them have the "fighter" tag, and the other half have the "caster" tag
• Half of them have the "holy" tag, the the other half have the "death" tag
• You can only learn powers that are consistent with both your class and your power source (thus, each of them is a restriction on what you can do)

Alternately, you can have a one-to-many setup where each class is tied uniquely to a single power source, but each power source fuels several classes that leverage it in different ways. Then, knowing someone's class tells you all the powers they could theoretically know, but only because it lets you infer their power source. Or you could set up the hierarchy in reverse.

Now, if you assume that knowing someone's power source and no other information tells you everything that person can and cannot do, then yes, people with the same power source are the same class. That's because you just defined "power source" to mean "class," or possibly to mean "subclass."

But you don't have to do that.

And I'm kind of surprised that you want to, given that you were touting the possibility of "infinite classes" as a feature of your scheme.

[K]

Uh...the only way that argument works is if it's actually circular.

You can have class be a restriction of both mechanics and theme, and have power source be a restriction of both mechanics and theme, and still mix-and-match them. There's no contradiction there. For example, you could have a system where the classes are "fighter" and "caster" and the power sources are "holy" and "death" and cross those to end up with a paladin, death knight, priest, and necromancer. And you can view that as:

• There are N powers in the world
• Half of them have the "fighter" tag, and the other half have the "caster" tag
• Half of them have the "holy" tag, the the other half have the "death" tag
• You can only learn powers that are consistent with both your class and your power source (thus, each of them is a restriction on what you can do)

Alternately, you can have a one-to-many setup where each class is tied uniquely to a single power source, but each power source fuels several classes that leverage it in different ways. Then, knowing someone's class tells you all the powers they could theoretically know, but only because it lets you infer their power source. Or you could set up the hierarchy in reverse.

Here is an example using your sample:

A Necromancer is a Death/Caster.

A Death Priest would be a Death/Caster.

You must have Necromancers or Death Priests, because they have the exact same subset of abilities. Sure, you could give Death Priests better armor options and a requirement to use Holy symbols and that would make them feel different, but there are the same class.

Frankly, I have yet to see a use for sources. It is just one more 4e idea that sounds good right up until you try to use it.

[Heath Robinson]

Manxome,
K is implicitly reducing a class to a tuple of elements, which we have only agreed (so far) includes a member of the set of power sources. Therefore, 2 classes that incorporate the same power source are logically equal.

Your model incorporates additional elements that are members of a different set.


His argument is that we should create the mechanics of a class solely on the basis of the elements that comprise the tuple that represents the class with no additional biases not represented therein. We should explicitly state beforehand what the elements in that tuple are and create the tuples for each class to ensure that we do not duplicate a class unnecessarily.

He also states that certain kinds of elements are pointless or outright detrimental to include.

[JonSetanta]

A Necromancer is a Death/Caster.

A Death Priest would be a Death/Caster.

You must have Necromancers or Death Priests, because they have the exact same subset of abilities. Sure, you could give Death Priests better armor options and a requirement to use Holy symbols and that would make them feel different, but there are the same class.

Totally agreed. Same thing.

A good use for sources is effect tags. Then again, that's about the only use I can see worth applying that's not fluff or arbitrary class distinctions.

[Manxome]

Here is an example using your sample:

A Necromancer is a Death/Caster.

A Death Priest would be a Death/Caster.

You must have Necromancers or Death Priests, because they have the exact same subset of abilities. Sure, you could give Death Priests better armor options and a requirement to use Holy symbols and that would make them feel different, but there are the same class.

Yes, they're the same class. They both have the class "caster." Which I defined as being a class in the example you claim you're using.

Let me rephrase your example in abstract terms:

There exist power sources P1 and P2.
There exist classes C1 and C2.
A P1/C1 has power source P1 and class C1.
A <undefined term> has power source P1 and class C1.
A P1/C1 and an <undefined term> both have the same class

What the fvck do you think this example shows? You just made up a phrase, defined it to mean the same thing as a previously-defined phrase, and concluded they were the same.

Manxome,
K is implicitly reducing a class to a tuple of elements, which we have only agreed (so far) includes a member of the set of power sources. Therefore, 2 classes that incorporate the same power source are logically equal.

Yes, as I said, his conclusion logically follows if and only if you assume that a "class" and a "power source" are the same thing (that is, you assume that a class is created by selecting exactly one power source and defining no other parameters whatsoever). But that assumption was never stated or agreed upon.

[CatharzGodfoot]

...
Let me rephrase your example in abstract terms:

There exist power sources P1 and P2.
There exist classes C1 and C2.
A P1/C1 has power source P1 and class C1.
A <undefined term> has power source P1 and class C1.
A P1/C1 and an <undefined term> both have the same class

What the fvck do you think this example shows? You just made up a phrase, defined it to mean the same thing as a previously-defined phrase, and concluded they were the same.

Manxome,
K is implicitly reducing a class to a tuple of elements, which we have only agreed (so far) includes a member of the set of power sources. Therefore, 2 classes that incorporate the same power source are logically equal.

Yes, as I said, his conclusion logically follows if and only if you assume that a "class" and a "power source" are the same thing (that is, you assume that a class is created by selecting exactly one power source and defining no other parameters whatsoever). But that assumption was never stated or agreed upon.

I don't think K was treating tactical role (caster, fighter, etc) as 'class'. In fact, I don't think anyone has been doing that.

My best understand of class is similar to how Mr. Robinson described it: an intersection of one or more tactical roles and the union of one or more power sources.

So when you define the tactical role of rogue to be "fighter" and the power source to be "skill", and the tactical role of warrior is "fighter" and the power source is "skill", they're the same class. When a rogue is (fighter, trickery) and a warrior is (fighter, ki), they aren't.

Please correct me if the disagreement is more than just semantics.

[Manxome]

I explicitly defined "caster" as a class for purposes of my example (not because I want that to be a class, but because it was a simple placeholder for a hypothetical example). K claimed to be extending my example. Therefore, if he wasn't treating "caster" as a class, then his actual argument is different from what he posted and I can't evaluate it.

If you want to define a class as being the intersection of a power source and a tactical role, and call "caster" a tactical role, that's fine too. That was my second example (the one-to-many hierarchical one). That still unequivocally proves K wrong, because that means that a single power source produces multiple classes when you mix it with separate roles.

[Judging__Eagle]

I sort of grouped the power sources in the first thread into the following, but my post didn't take before I had to leave the computer lab.

It was something like this:

Elemental
-if you can mix this source with others like it, then it's an Elemental source (ex. water, earth, fire, air can make mud, steam, rain//mud, lava, duststorm// steam, lava, smoke//rain, duststorm, smoke)

Aligned
-If a power source has a distinct opposite and cannot be combined to create a new power type, it's aligned
(ex. good, light, shadow, infernal, celestial, law, chaos)

Unaligned, Unconstrained
-Powersources with no opposite but are not from an obviously constrained source or sources that can be found almost everywhere. Basically these powersources are more like "tools" in that anyone can logically use them.
(arcane, ancient, eldritch, nature)

Unaligned, Constrained
-Powersources coming from specific sources, but could be used by almost anyone. Basically you have to tap individual creatures
(ex. Dargon, Titan, Blood)

Trained
-Any creature can concievably get this, it just takes special knowledge//training
(Psionics, Ki//Qi//Chakra//Nen//Bullshit//The Force)


I'm not sure if Ethereal and Astral are either unconstrained or Planar or perhaps something else.

Also Glamour Power and Primal power leave me at a bit of a loss. I'm not sure what is meant by them, and I need to know if Primal means either "instinct" or "feral" or "savage" and if Glamour means "hawt" or "looks like awesome" or "impressive" or "I use charms" or what?

Of course, within each of the above groups there are lists of stuff, but if you're a Lava Cleric of Infernal Light; then you obviously have some earth, some fire, some infernal power (and never any celestial) and some light power (and never any dark power).

On the other hand, you could be a Psionic Dragon-blood-drinking Necromancer, since none of those conflict at all.

You can't be a Light Priest that has Shadow powers, nor can a Good Anything ever borrow from the Evil powers list in any way shape or form. The above two could concievably borrow power from an Ancient item, get tutored by a Titan, learn Ki powers, use Law or Chaos powers via some item or object; but they could never use powers that are of the opposite side of any of their existing Aligned powers.

Actually, that's the main dividing point in my reorganization: powers are either aligned or their not. If they are aligned, and you have an aligned power, you can't ever use the opposite.

You could however be an Evil Warrior that has Chaos and Celestial, and Light and Divine powers; since none of those are in coflict. But such a character couldn't pick up Good, Law, Infernal, or Dark or (.... osnip! Divine has no opposite, oh well, scratch that) as powers.

[Username17]

The reason that I didn't even list "skill" or "martial" is because it has become exceedingly obvious to me over the years that players of D&D don't actually believe in that as a source of power. In 4e Rogues get the ability to double jump at epic level and people complain. That's straight up fucked. You can ride around on a hippogryph at 5th level (assuming that you can convince your DM to bypass the complete lack of rules to actually getting a hippogryph mount), but if an Epic level character wants o flap his arms and jump off the air once an encounter he gets weird looks unless he has a power source other than personal training to justify himself with.

Fighters and thieves have always been the butt boys of D&D, and the culture of mocking them is so ingrained that we are better off getting rid of them entirely. You can play an armored warrior with a sword, but you have to be able to call down divine wrath or shoot lightning out of your bow or something, because if you can't then people will actually rebel if you do anything level appropriate when the party is facing Kaiju later in life. You can play a sneaky guy with a cloak and dagger, but you must be able to whisper spells to the shadows or again people will actually rebel against the very concept of your character doing anything good.

There is room in gaming for non-magical heroes. Heck, there's room for gaming that doesn't have any magic at all. But there is no room in D&D for player characters that don't have any magic. A sufficiently large section of the populace has never forgotten that Fighting Men are the thing that comes in squads of 20 while Magic Users are single character models that blow them to hell by the dozen that there is no way to make a completely non-magical dude that doesn't suck monkey ass in a high level environment.

---

Sources work for things like Angels and Clerics were you just assume a cleric of X level is the same as an angel of X level in terms of powers and only interchangable and inconsequential details are swapped(armor for natty armor, flight and resistances for magic items that do the same, spell-likes for spells from the same list, etc).

Exactly. While you can certainly take the Angel powers and invest in a lot of the universal stealthiness abilities with your universal selections and make a celestial assassin character, the fact is that anyone who is taken off the celestial list is functionally the same "class" to the extent that class means anything at all. Forcing people to make arbitrary sub-definitions within a power list to further refine their class is just asking for certain people to suck.

What I am definitely ambivalent about however, is splitting the angelic and demonic powers. I mean, a Sword Archon is wreathed in flames and a Balor is wreathed in flames. A Balor has implosion as his ultimate attack, and a Planetar has implosion as his ultimate attack. There are obviously advantages to splitting those into separate power lists, but I think they could definitely be joined into one extremely easily. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Mostly having to do with the fact that both similarity and difference are important and interesting when it comes to putting the head servants of the gods of justice and villainy next to one another.

What I think should go is the current D&D system in which Demons and Archons have ability lists that are kind of the same. Because that isn't familiar enough to ease the learning curve nor different enough to be interesting.

-Username17

[K]

I explicitly defined "caster" as a class for purposes of my example (not because I want that to be a class, but because it was a simple placeholder for a hypothetical example). K claimed to be extending my example. Therefore, if he wasn't treating "caster" as a class, then his actual argument is different from what he posted and I can't evaluate it.

If you want to define a class as being the intersection of a power source and a tactical role, and call "caster" a tactical role, that's fine too. That was my second example (the one-to-many hierarchical one). That still unequivocally proves K wrong, because that means that a single power source produces multiple classes when you mix it with separate roles.

Have you ever taken a logic class? Seriously, I'm not joking.

If there a is "subclass" that has P1/C1 called Necromancer and a "subclass" called Death Priest that gets P1/C1 abilities, then they get identical subsets of abilities and one has to go. It doesn't matter if each is a unique and valid concept for a character because they choose from the same set of abilities because of how sources and your definition of classes work (though defining classes in the traditional way would make your point clearer).

And my point is that when you use sources you are going to get valid character concepts that are going to be mutually exclusive because when you use the most logical tags for those concepts they end up using the same sets (ie. if you have Death Priests, you can't have Necromancers).

To extend the analogy, Fighter and Rogue are mutually exclusive if the only tag they have is the Martial source.

Geez. It's not that complicated.

[Username17]

And my point is that when you use sources you are going to get valid character concepts that are going to be mutually exclusive because when you use the most logical tags for those concepts they end up using the same sets (ie. if you have Death Priests, you can't have Necromancers).

No.

Death Priests having the same power set as Necromancers does not mean that you can't have Death Priests and Necromancers. You totally can. You just can't expect an inherent mechanical difference between them.

Crips, Bloods, and Cosa Nostra all have the same ability sets, and it's reasonable to expect that you could have one change his bandanna and his allegiance and turn from one to the other without seriously affecting what he could do in the game. But they are still different in important ways and exist side by side in the world. It's not even a problem.

That Death Priests and Necromancers are reduced entirely to a flavor or organizational difference does not make them not exist as separate entities.

-Username17

[K]

And my point is that when you use sources you are going to get valid character concepts that are going to be mutually exclusive because when you use the most logical tags for those concepts they end up using the same sets (ie. if you have Death Priests, you can't have Necromancers).

No.

Death Priests having the same power set as Necromancers does not mean that you can't have Death Priests and Necromancers. You totally can. You just can't expect an inherent mechanical difference between them.

Crips, Bloods, and Cosa Nostra all have the same ability sets, and it's reasonable to expect that you could have one change his bandanna and his allegiance and turn from one to the other without seriously affecting what he could do in the game. But they are still different in important ways and exist side by side in the world. It's not even a problem.

That Death Priests and Necromancers are reduced entirely to a flavor or organizational difference does not make them not exist as separate entities.

-Username17

Yes it does.

I hate to break it to you, but there is real power in a name and backstory. We have personally seen people not want to play Rogues even though it was the smart move from a mechanical standpoint and they fought on Griffinback like a Fighter.

We have seen people ask for cat people races when we told them they could just take the Elf mechanical chassis and scrape off the name and be a cat person who looked like a cat person.

We have done exhaustive breakdowns of how a True Necromancer is objectively and dramatically worse than any other kind of single-classed necromancer build and people still fight it tooth and nail because they want to be True Necromancers.

If you have classes at all, you have to accept that "class = at least a mostly unique power set" and "class = unique concept". This means that even similar concepts need unique power sets.

Hence fighters and rogues (very similar concepts).

[virgil]

Hoo boy is that true. I know a group of players that love fighters because they're flavourless and thus they can make up whatever they want. This is because they're literally incapable of ignoring flavour-text, even if there is no mechanical effect.

[Username17]

Yes, there are people who tragically refuse to make their own flavor text. All that means is that people have to have their noses rubbed into the breadth of options available from each ability list or they won't use it. It doesn't mean that we can't have Necromancers and Death Priests, it means that we have to specify that there are Necromancers and Death Priests.

Every ability list should probably have five character type shout outs in its flavor text: a Martially oriented one, a Caster oriented one, a Stealth oriented one, a Support oriented one, and an Antagonist. This is because people think of D&D as being on a 4 directional compass of Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Thief and if you don't show people an example in the flavor text of an ability set's use in each of those four directions people are going to end up making boring characters and refusing to use their abilities in a manner that is good.

So yeah, if you pull out the Death source, you're going to want to have flavor text explicitly mention the Necromancer, the Death Priest, the Death Knight, and the Assassin. Also you're going to want to show a demonstration monster that uses the same ability lists: like a Vampire or Wraithlord.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

Does anyone else remember that April Fool's PrC released, the avenger? It was the assassin reflavored. One of the few things that WotC has done right.

And somebody should link to that obligatory OotS strip.

[baduin]

A reality check: Both those people have power source = skill. And they clearly don't belong to the same class.





There is no need to assume that power source equals power set. You can have eg have Celestial Melee class "Paladin" and Celestial Ranged Class "Cleric". Or a quite typical "saint" or "holy man" who does not fight directly, but heals, avoids attacks, disables attackers, banishes demons, makes himself unrecognizable, disappears suddenly and teleports, sneaks by the sleeping guards and opens doors thanks to the divine power etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

Or for the Skill power source you can have strong warriors in heavy armor and dexterous stealthy warriors without armor. A knight is different from an assassin.

The power source would determine the flavour of the powers and the type of powers a class would be able to get. But there is no reason why all users of the same power source must use the same powers.

[Username17]

You can have eg have Celestial Melee class "Paladin" and Celestial Ranged Class "Cleric".

No you can't. D&D characters are like the characters in Slayers. Every one of them draws upon a player determined set of sword slashes, spells, and innate supernatural awesome. "Sword guy" isn't a valid class because it's not different from "Spell Guy" because everyone is both.

The only reason to have classes at all is to ration out what abilities characters can take. And since no one is barred from taking melee or ranged attacks, such a distinction is meaningless for purposes of "class." Amelia knows the Justice Fist and Lina knows the Vengeance Kick, but both characters spend a lot of time casting Flare Arrow. Heck, Amelia vowed to never use a sword in combat, and that doesn't mean that she doesn't have melee maneuvers. It just means that she doesn't happen to have a sword.

Yes, "Fighter" is not a "class" it's a flavor text description. The "class" is the ability set that your particular Fighter happens to get his powers off of. And beyond that, you have to acknowledge on some level that the high end melee maneuvers are going to look like this:

or this:


-Username17

[Ice9]

So are we defining class to mean "power source" now? Because that's not a universal definition by any means - often class ends up meaning role/skillset.

Sure, you could say that being a Shadow Warrior means you get to pick any melee/ranged/support/defense abilities that are Shadow themed. You could also say that being a Melee Warrior means you get to pick any shadow/fire/celestial/nature/etc abilities that are melee.

And sure, if you make the categories broad enough, Fighter and Rogue end up in the same one. But let's say you go with a multi-axis approach:
Role (Killer, Preventer, Controller, Amplifier) + Defense Type (Heavy, Agile, Distant) + Effectiveness (Spike, Steady). Then a Fighter is a Heavy Steady Killer/Preventer and a Rogue is an Agile Spike Killer. And then power source can go on top of that.

[RandomCasualty2]

If you're using power source as a base, more or less you're probably best off having 2E style spheres for your powers. Like Might, Agility, Air, Fire, Water, Evocation, Abjuration, Gadgeteer, Holy, etc.

And every character gets say 3 spheres to choose from.

So you could have a rogue type that's Agility, Gadgeteer, Ki.

And you could also end up with a fighter/mage type that has Might, Conjuration and Evocation.

[Orion]

If Planar power is one list, won't dedicated "light" or "dark" builds be weaker than "neutral/mixed" builds? That seems somewhat... undesirable.

@Frank -- Of course every "class" has a unique power set and mechanical identity. But some players will really want their character sot be "special." Can't we just write into the flavortext of one mroe classes that you are a special snowflake?

Like Sorcerers aren't better than Wizards, but they're "specialer."

[Username17]

So are we defining class to mean "power source" now? Because that's not a universal definition by any means - often class ends up meaning role/skillset.

Pretty much. "Class" means a distinct choice in character building that determines what abilities you have available and what abilities you will have available. When people try to use "Class" to mean something else it has no meaning at all. And honestly, being the guy who parks on the front lines or being a guy who sneaks around the back has no basis being a "class" because that's a tactical consideration that won't stay static in different situations.

Wizards and Clerics will prepare different spells on different days and have different roles and yes, even different skill sets. The fact that they are Wizards (or Clerics) does not and should not determine what they are going to do in any particular fight, merely what kinds of options are available to them in the big picture.

---

Every character is an "adventurer" and whether they swing a sword or cast a spell more often in combat is often situational or even player dependent. And that's fine. The scale of whether people spend more time stabbing, nuking, sneaking, or supporting is a frickin sliding scale, and therefore it doesn't make any sense to ascribe it in a manner that is not conducive to sliding scales - which means that aspect of your character should be point based, skill based, ability selection, or priority - one of the systems that actually functions for that kind of variable character emphasis generation.

Which means that the "Class" is in there not to determine whether and when you swing a sword vs. heal your allies - but instead what it looks like when you use your ultimate sword slash. Because it might look like Lina with the Ragna Blade up above, and it might look like this:


And that's what class means in this context. And that's why "multiclassing" is detrimental in addition to being a lot of work. The thing that people always demand - that of being a swordsman and a sorcerer - is so ingrained that it shouldn't even be a question. High level fighters need magical special effects, and high level wizards are supposed to stab fools with daggers or strike them with staves. The arbitrary distinctions between characters are just that - arbitrary. We put them in so that there will be variety of character type in the face of the fact that every single character should be able to swing a sword and hide behind a tapestry.

Multiclassing simply reduces the difference between characters and as such impinges on that variety, so its bad. Once your game allows people to play the characters they actually want to play: The Grey Mouser, Lina Inverse, and Cloud - putting arbitrary divisions in is simply something to facilitate the "Justice League" feel that a cooperative storytelling adventure needs to have.

-Username17

[K]

Yes, there are people who tragically refuse to make their own flavor text. All that means is that people have to have their noses rubbed into the breadth of options available from each ability list or they won't use it. It doesn't mean that we can't have Necromancers and Death Priests, it means that we have to specify that there are Necromancers and Death Priests.

But that is not going to make them happy. Just because a response is irrational doesn't mean they aren't going to respond that way, or that it isn't a common response.

And they are going to be more unhappy when their Necromancer can't have different powers from the Death Priest.

[Username17]

But that is not going to make them happy. Just because a response is irrational doesn't mean they aren't going to respond that way, or that it isn't a common response.

You don't even have a point here. You're just being contrary. You're even admitting that the objection is irrational and making it anyway on the grounds that some unknown number of people are going to behave irrationally. Yes, I realize that you can't please everyone, and I wouldn't bother trying. But you aren't presenting a good alternative here or making a logical case for not pursuing this path.

And they are going to be more unhappy when their Necromancer can't have different powers from the Death Priest.

This is bullshit, because it is flat not true. Your Necromancer can have different powers from the Death Priest. What they won't be able to do is stop a hypothetical Death Priest or Death Knight from taking the same powers as their Necromancer. But they can rest assured that at no time will a Warblade or Totemist be able to take the same powers as their Necromancer.

So yeah, if you're going to make irrational flavor objections, make damn sure that they are correct. Because the one you just made, in addition to being kind of stupid was objectively false as stated.

-Username17