What Power Sources do we Believe in?

[Psychic Robot]

I think what Frank is trying to say can be summarized as follows:

"Stupid players shouldn't be playing our system anyway, so fuck them."

[IGTN]

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

This is fixable; give some sources subsources, so "Planar" is a list, and includes the "Light" and "Dark" lists, but the two lists are mutually exclusive or otherwise impede eachother.

Of course, this means that those dedicated to a specific side have longer ability lists than those dedicated to balance, unless you add a "Balance" subsource, too.

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

A potential solution to this would be to add a few powers that have in-world prerequisites. There might be a spell than any Death Priest or Necromancer can know, but that must be learned from someone who already knows it or a book, of which only two copies exist in the world that people know of.

If you then make it so that one copy is in a powerful Death Temple possession, and another one is buried in some tomb and only another few Death Priests, but no necromancers, know where the tomb is, and the only people who know the spell are the Death Priests with the book, then a PC Death Priest can have a spell that is Death Priest-exclusive.

Likewise, if the major Death Priest religion holds a few spells to be heresies, and so any Death Priest whose superiors find out knows one will have be excommunicated, then the Necromancers can have something exclusive.

This is all world-building more than rules-building, but since the rules must fit the world, it could help. You wouldn't need more than a handful of spells at most for each division; probably one at low-level so that you can feel special from the start, and a high-level earthshaking spell. Maybe a 1-3 in the middle so that they don't get old in between, and that gives psuedo-classes some exclusivity.

[CatharzGodfoot]

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.

[Sarcasm]
But RC, that system is reducible to one where the rogues chooses from only one list, the AgiGaKi list, which means that your suggestion is dumb and pointless. And I'm going to be really mad if I decide to play an AgiGaKi-class and you decide to play AgiGaMi, so that just flat-out can't be allowed. Instead, we'll reduce the number of classes so that I play AgiGaKi and you play AgiGaKi as well, which is much better at keeping your character from stepping on my character's toes.
[/Sarcasm]

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

This is fixable; give some sources subsources, so "Planar" is a list, and includes the "Light" and "Dark" lists, but the two lists are mutually exclusive or otherwise impede eachother.

Of course, this means that those dedicated to a specific side have longer ability lists than those dedicated to balance, unless you add a "Balance" subsource, too.

What do Light and Darkness have to do with planar power anyway? I've never hear of a 'plane of light' or 'plane of darkness'. I mean, presumably the plane of earth is pretty dark in most places and radiance is pretty bright, but I'm really not getting this 'searing light and deeper darkness are Planar powers' idea.

[Manxome]

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

Yes. Want me to write out my point formally, like a math proof? Because I can totally do that if it would help you follow along.

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.

OK, it was my impression--and apparently also Talisman's and Heath's--that you were arguing that two distinct classes with a single power source cannot exist.

If you were merely arguing that you happen to think that Fighter and Rogue, specifically, ought to be the same class, then the only problem here is that you are pathologically bad at articulating your own views.

If your point is that any actual concrete set of classes you happen to have is going to be smaller than the set of theoretically possible character concepts, and that therefore some concepts will end up sharing a class, same result.

But if you were arguing what we all thought you were arguing, then you haven't come within a mile of making your case.

If you have two concepts that are both the same class, then they're both the same class. Yeah, no one's contesting that. I'm 100% in agreement with you there. But that doesn't even resemble a demonstration that any two concepts that share the same power source must be the same class.

[K]

I think what Frank is trying to say can be summarized as follows:

"Stupid players shouldn't be playing our system anyway, so fuck them."

Basically, that is what he is saying.

And he is dead wrong for discounting the irrational for one simple reason: irrational people are a sizable portion of the gaming community.

Just because the value is irrational doesn't mean that it won't affect your gaming group. I've had people seriously try to play Monks because they though they were very powerful and use the argument "but if we don't have weapons, he is sooo powerful!" which is nonsense since it'll never happen. I've seen people abandon games because the tone was darker and less idealistic than they wanted despite being awesome. I've seen people fight with substandard weapons just because they are awesome (seen any whip PrCs?).

You can appease irrational desires as long as they don't fundamentally harm your game, and so your game has a better chance of being adopted. Wanting your wizard to be super powerful and your the party fighter to suck balls is a harmful to fair play and simple power calculations and it is an irrational idea and needs to tossed; wanting your character concept to be mechanically different from a similar concept played by another player is irrational but easily done at no cost to the system.

The idea of power sources doesn't have actually grant any unique advantages to your system and by rigidly enforcing it you alienate potential players, so it's a shit idea on all counts.

[Manxome]

wanting your character concept to be mechanically different from a similar concept played by another player is irrational but easily done at no cost to the system.

OK. How is that accomplished?

[K]

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

Yes. Want me to write out my point formally, like a math proof? Because I can totally do that if it would help you follow along.

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.

OK, it was my impression--and apparently also Talisman's and Heath's--that you were arguing that two distinct classes with a single power source cannot exist.

If you were merely arguing that you happen to think that Fighter and Rogue, specifically, ought to be the same class, then the only problem here is that you are pathologically bad at articulating your own views.

If your point is that any actual concrete set of classes you happen to have is going to be smaller than the set of theoretically possible character concepts, and that therefore some concepts will end up sharing a class, same result.

But if you were arguing what we all thought you were arguing, then you haven't come within a mile of making your case.

If you have two concepts that are both the same class, then they're both the same class. Yeah, no one's contesting that. I'm 100% in agreement with you there. But that doesn't even resemble a demonstration that any two concepts that share the same power source must be the same class.

Ok, you've been set to Ignore.

Take a logic class, and maybe a rhetoric class. Come back in six months and I may talk to you again.

[Maxus]

Isn't this interesting...

Wouldn't be possible to make different divisions within the same power source? Or maybe have a Pokemon-like dual-type system for some classes which determines what abilities/feats/maneuvers/powers/etc. they have open to them?

Fighter could be pure "Martial" and the Rogue would be "Martial/Skill" (if it has to be Martial at all) and therefore have access to a few of the same abilities, but still have some options closed off while having Skill options open.

Or whatever.

Also, I kinda have a feeling that a Necromancer would have more academic options open to him, what with his having the Wizard knack for research. A Death Priest would...well...probably be sacrificing people, doing rituals, summoning monsters, and believing whole-heartedly in whatever it's decided Death Priests believe in.

[K]

Isn't this interesting...

Wouldn't be possible to make different divisions within the same power source? Or maybe have a Pokemon-like dual-type system for some classes which determines what abilities/feats/maneuvers/powers/etc. they have open to them?

Fighter could be pure "Martial" and the Rogue would be "Martial/Skill" (if it has to be Martial at all) and therefore have access to a few of the same abilities, but still have some options closed off while having Skill options open.

Sure, and that is what 3e does (combat feats are Martial and fighters are a pile of combat feats, while rogues use combat feats and sneak dice). But, at that point you are using essentially saying that you are using two sources and one class gets two dips in one source and another guy gets two sources (Check out the "Does 4e need classes" thread for the advantages/problems in that).

And that works, but once you extend sources out to each potential concept you might as well just abandon the idea of sources and just give everyone a unique list (which is what 4e did, even though they pretend to use sources).

I'd even get behind a system where each class gets a unique source and a common source. That way Necromancers can get Necromancy spells that do weird death effects like make Gravestone golems and more general death spells and Death Priests get general death spells and Deathgod Magic that sacrifices people and makes pacts with reaper angels.

[IGTN]

What do Light and Darkness have to do with planar power anyway? I've never hear of a 'plane of light' or 'plane of darkness'. I mean, presumably the plane of earth is pretty dark in most places and radiance is pretty bright, but I'm really not getting this 'searing light and deeper darkness are Planar powers' idea.

Maybe I should have said "Holy/Upper Planar" and "Unholy/Lower Planar" instead of "light" and "dark;" I was continuing on with Boolean's terms. What I meant was that there'd be a general list that all Planar characters use, and that list would have small "Holy" and "Unholy" sections (in addition to the main list) and you'd have to pick one; demons and cultists would pick from the Unholy section, while (Good) priests and angels pick from the Holy section, but both the priest and the cultist can cast, for instance, Bless, Divine Favor, and Implosion, and, if it's still on the Planar list instead of somewhere else, Cure Light Wounds.

Actually, having Alignment as a feature of your source, instead of a general mechanic, might be useful; people with a Planar source might have the Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic alignments, while people with an Elemental source (for example) could have Air/Earth/Fire/Water alignments; you could have an LN, CE, or NG Cleric (or other Planar character) but not an LN Elementalist; likewise you could have an AF or NW elementalist (the former getting access to advanced Air and Fire powers, the latter getting some Air and Earth powers, maybe some powers unique to those neutral on the Air-Earth axis, and advanced Water powers), but the idea of a Neutral-Wet Outer Planar character is, of course, absurd.

[Talisman]

Sure, and that is what 3e does (combat feats are Martial and fighters are a pile of combat feats, while rogues use combat feats and sneak dice). But, at that point you are using essentially saying that you are using two sources and one class gets two dips in one source and another guy gets two sources (Check out the "Does 4e need classes" thread for the advantages/problems in that).

Unless there was some sort of level hierarchy to the powers drawn from each source, in which case you could restrict, say, rogues to Martial 5, while fighters go all the way to Martial 10.

Of course, then you have to make sure that Martial 5 + Luck 5 is equal in power to (but different in flavor and scope from) Martial 10.

Or just give each class/role/whatever access to 2 or 3 sources...fighters could be Martial/Skill, rogues could be Skill/Luck, paladins Martial/Light, et cetera.

[baduin]

K - could I ask you to explain what exactly you mean by "power source'? That phrase can be understood in different ways, so an explanation would help us to understand each other. There seems to be a rather massive failure of comunication.

So: What is a power source in mechanic terms and separately in flavour terms?

[CatharzGodfoot]

Ok, you've been set to Ignore.

Take a logic class, and maybe a rhetoric class. Come back in six months and I may talk to you again.

Great, communication has broken down completely between two of the best game designers on this board. I think it's safe to say that TNE is fucked well into next year.

Maybe I should have said "Holy/Upper Planar" and "Unholy/Lower Planar" instead of "light" and "dark;" I was continuing on with Boolean's terms. What I meant was that there'd be a general list that all Planar characters use, and that list would have small "Holy" and "Unholy" sections (in addition to the main list) and you'd have to pick one.

Got it.

[baduin]

...
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.

If we are taking logic classes now, something strange is going here.

You say
(If A then C)
And
(If B then C)
Therefore
If (A and B) then C.

This is true, but so self evident that it is unnecessary to say it. The correct logical reasoning would be:

(If A then C)
And
(If B then C)
Therefore
If (A or B) then C

Perhaps you mean something different?

For example:
No two classes can share a theme and no two classes can share a mechanic.

Therefore each theme must have a different mechanic system, and each different mechanic system must have have a different theme. There is a one-to-one relationship between themes and mechanics.

[K]

...
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.

If we are taking logic classes now, something strange is going here.

You say
(If A then C)
And
(If B then C)
Therefore
If (A and B) then C.

This is true, but so self evident that it is unnecessary to say it.

Obviously, it wasn't unnecessary to say it because it apparently was not self-evident to Maxome.

Since it seems self-evident to everyone else as well as me both the first time I said it and when I tried to explain it, I have to assume enemy action. Maxome is either incapable or unwilling to accept natural language arguments or even natural language arguments converted to basic logical relationships, and it is disrupting my discourse with others and wasting my time.

And that's the last I'll talk about it. Moving on.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Since it seems self-evident to everyone else...

For the record, no.

[rapa-nui]

Here's what I've got on a current ruleset I am working on and will probably never, ever finish... so I freely share.

Elemental
Shapechange
Illusion
Divination
Life
Death
Holy
Unholy
Nature (animal, plant)
Force (telekinesis)
Space (summoning, teleport)
Time (haste, slow, time stop)
Mental (charms, confusion)

In turn, the elemental powers can be further categorized:
Mono-Elemental Powers:
Fire
Earth
Air
Water

Di-Elemental Combinations:
Sand (Air + Earth)
Lightning (Air + Fire)
Ice (Air + Water)
Magma (Fire + Earth)
Vapor (Fire + Water)
Mud (Water + Earth)

Tri-Elemental Combinations:
Glass (Air+Fire+Earth)
Acid (Air+Water+Earth)
Metal (Fire+Water+Earth)
Sound or Pressure Blast (Air+Fire+Water)


Under this description, a psionicist would be somone with Force, Mental and potentially Time, Space and/or Divination powers.

Although Light, Darkness and Shadow are also potentially cool power sources I think they could be arguably rolled into other categories (personally, I favor a non-symmetrical distribution, with Light in the Fire power, Darkness in the Death power, and Shadow in the Illusion Power).

[Username17]

You can have whatever arbitrary classes you want, and those classes are going to be your power sources even if you don't call them different things. In 4e the Paladin has the "Paladin Source" and the Cleric has the "Cleric Source" and the fact that both are labeled "divine" at some level means completely fuck all.

You are well within your capabilities of making as many Necromantic sources/classes as you feel like. You can just call them Necromancy A, Necromancy B, Necromancy C, etc. if you can't come up with cooler names like Spirit Speaking and Shadow Mastery. There is no actual limit to what you can do in that direction. But there is a soft limit, because the advantages of adding classes attenuates the more classes you have, and the disadvantages of classes increase the more of them you have. Eventually you come to the point where your arbitrary division of character concepts starts destroying concepts people want to play and no longer provides people more variety that they will actually use.

You can very easily have a necromancer who calls in shadows and talks to ghosts be a completely different class (and thus source of ability selections) from a necromancer who stitches bodies together and animates them with pseudo-science. That's not difficult. What it means is that people are provided with the variety of two different kinds of necromancy (that are therefore completely distinct in the assumed world) and it costs writing up a whole separate ability list for each and it costs the ability to make a character who has a flesh golem and gets spirit advice. Making Shroud Masters and Flesh Crafters into different classes comes with clear advantages and disadvantages over putting them into the same class as different selectable abilities.

But the advantages are distinctly smaller than a higher level cut where you put elemental magic into a different pile than necromancy of all kinds, and so eventually you come to the point where it is no longer worthwhile to do that kind of thing. And personally, I don't feel that chopping Necromancy up into smaller pieces is a net advantage.

-Username17

[K]

Since it seems self-evident to everyone else...

For the record, no.

Really? The post you made on the second page seems like you actually knew exactly what I was talking about before I tried to explain it in different ways.

Whatever. Internets drama sucks my soul.

[K]

You can have whatever arbitrary classes you want, and those classes are going to be your power sources even if you don't call them different things. In 4e the Paladin has the "Paladin Source" and the Cleric has the "Cleric Source" and the fact that both are labeled "divine" at some level means completely fuck all.

You are well within your capabilities of making as many Necromantic sources/classes as you feel like. You can just call them Necromancy A, Necromancy B, Necromancy C, etc. if you can't come up with cooler names like Spirit Speaking and Shadow Mastery. There is no actual limit to what you can do in that direction. But there is a soft limit, because the advantages of adding classes attenuates the more classes you have, and the disadvantages of classes increase the more of them you have. Eventually you come to the point where your arbitrary division of character concepts starts destroying concepts people want to play and no longer provides people more variety that they will actually use.

You can very easily have a necromancer who calls in shadows and talks to ghosts be a completely different class (and thus source of ability selections) from a necromancer who stitches bodies together and animates them with pseudo-science. That's not difficult. What it means is that people are provided with the variety of two different kinds of necromancy (that are therefore completely distinct in the assumed world) and it costs writing up a whole separate ability list for each and it costs the ability to make a character who has a flesh golem and gets spirit advice. Making Shroud Masters and Flesh Crafters into different classes comes with clear advantages and disadvantages over putting them into the same class as different selectable abilities.

But the advantages are distinctly smaller than a higher level cut where you put elemental magic into a different pile than necromancy of all kinds, and so eventually you come to the point where it is no longer worthwhile to do that kind of thing. And personally, I don't feel that chopping Necromancy up into smaller pieces is a net advantage.

-Username17

One of the original ideas I had before I started trying to nail things down was to basically give everyone two tracks of themed stuff.

So Priests get "Divine" and some other like "Necromancy" for death priests or "fire" for fire priests while Necromancers get "Necromancy" and "Wizardry."

This means that you could get the "swordsman" and "wizardry" characters for people that want fighter/mages and then "swordsman" and something else for other characters.

But then I realized that if your class isn't giving you completely unique stuff, then having classes at all is pointless.

[Username17]

But then I realized that if your class isn't giving you completely unique stuff, then having classes at all is pointless.

Exactly. Hence my desire for a relatively small number of classes with fairly broad choices of non-overlapping powers in them. Give people access to a certain number of picks from the Universal list for things that you don't want protected, and you're golden.

I figure 6-12 classes total should cover it, so long as each class has selectable abilities in it that nuke, sneak, utility, grind, and so on.

-Username17

[K]

But then I realized that if your class isn't giving you completely unique stuff, then having classes at all is pointless.

Exactly. Hence my desire for a relatively small number of classes with fairly broad choices of non-overlapping powers in them. Give people access to a certain number of picks from the Universal list for things that you don't want protected, and you're golden.

I figure 6-12 classes total should cover it, so long as each class has selectable abilities in it that nuke, sneak, utility, grind, and so on.

-Username17

As long as powers don't overlap, I don't see a reason to fix the number of classes. I mean, if someone seriously wants a serpent cult in their campaign and wants to write up serpent mages, I say more power to them.

[Draco_Argentum]

Frank's contention is that adding serpent mages will either result in overlap or result in a very narrow class.

I think this should be pretty obvious. Say there are 10 classes created and they are broad enough to be PC usable. Thats a lot of abilities. If we later add on an eleventh class there is a lot less room to give it unique abilities.


IMO classless works a lot better if you expect to add things to the game later. That allows you to add a pool of serpent mage abilities that they can have. You won't have to write an entire class worth of abilities though. There also aren't classes to worry about stepping on the toes of. Just the individual abilities(obviously nest of vipers can't be exactly like entangle but also it poisons people).

[K]

Frank's contention is that adding serpent mages will either result in overlap or result in a very narrow class.

I think this should be pretty obvious. Say there are 10 classes created and they are broad enough to be PC usable. Thats a lot of abilities. If we later add on an eleventh class there is a lot less room to give it unique abilities.

Tactical overlap is inevitable if you add classes, but thematic overlap extends indefinitely.

I mean, look at how easy it is to write PrCs.

Sure, pick out a word like "turnip" and you will get you a dumb PrC, but a Jungian word like "dream" can inspire a setting's worth of abilities.

[Ice9]

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.

I guess the next question then, is whether the classes have any mechanical difference?

For instance, if a Necromancer and a Mentalist both get single-target ranged attacks, are the Necromancer's different on a mechanical level, across the class as a whole? Such as Necromancy damage spells taking, in general, longer to take effect but having nastier debuffs attached, or Ki attacks being lower damage but very hard to resist or evade.

And if not, then are classes even necessary?