# Alignment/Multiclassing/DM Screen/Power Source From I-Con



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 6, 2008)

These are my recollections from the Con.  (Mearls and Slaviscek)

1)  Multiclassing.

It does not seem to take the form of "taking levels" in the other class.  You definitely get powers appropriate to you current level.  Mike Mearls specifically that there was a table telling you what you got for going "this much into" another class.  You could then get more stuff by "going deeper".  He did not specify what the trade off was for multiclassing.

2)  DM Screen.

The DM Screen will have tables that have the basic target DCs and damage for appropriate leveled traps.  It will focus on giving a DM the info to basically run on the fly with no books.  (I assume there will be a similar charts with monster stats, but that is only my speculation.)


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 6, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> 1)  Multiclassing.
> 
> It does not seem to take the form of "taking levels" in the other class.  You definitely get powers appropriate to you current level.  Mike Mearls specifically that there was a table telling you what you got for going "this much into" another class.  You could then get more stuff by "going deeper".  He did not specify what the trade off was for multiclassing.




Huh, now that is interesting. That could turn out quite neat, be like showing how much effort you have delved into that specific class and so have learned so much.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 6, 2008)

Yeah multi-classing is my 'if we had the Rouse on the water board' question. So, a table detailing the effects of m-c. Mmmm, that certainly restricts what they can do with future classes because they will all have to comply with a template to allow m-c (and I suppose other things). Still it sounds really interesting, I hope it works 
This is (probably) telling us that classes will advance and gain powers/features etc in a very uniform way. Hopefully that makes custom classes easy to make. Also hopefully we won't see an avalanche of classes in splats etc that have little to differentiate them. It will take a fair bit of work to make a full, different interesting class (i.e. a dozen or so features and 80 or so powers, I suppose) you can't just use the wizard's/cleric's/etc spell list like in 3E! I really hope that the classes don't end up as bad and as boring as the bloodlines from UA *BARF*


----------



## Vempyre (Apr 6, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> These are my recollections from the Con.  (Mearls and Slaviscek)
> 
> 1)  Multiclassing.
> 
> It does not seem to take the form of "taking levels" in the other class.  You definitely get powers appropriate to you current level.  Mike Mearls specifically that there was a table telling you what you got for going "this much into" another class.  You could then get more stuff by "going deeper".  He did not specify what the trade off was for multiclassing.




One more step toward confirmation of what I think multiclassing will be. I still think you take feats, and that they are feat chains, and how much of them you have decides how deep your are multiclassed.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 6, 2008)

Vempyre said:
			
		

> One more step toward confirmation of what I think multiclassing will be. I still think you take feats, and that they are feat chains, and how much of them you have decides how deep your are multiclassed.




Disco!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 6, 2008)

i still would see a second option of 3.5-like multiclassing. If you really want to go into a complete diferent direction. With the unified progressions, it should be quite easy to implent.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Apr 6, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> i still would see a second option of 3.5-like multiclassing. If you really want to go into a complete diferent direction. With the unified progressions, it should be quite easy to implent.




  I think that if you "really want to go into a completely different direction", you'll be using the rebuilding options they've hinted at. Thus, if you start as a fighter with some wizard elements but decide you'd rather be more of a wizard, you could rebuild as a wizard with some fighter elements.

  This is speculation, mind; IANADOP (I Am Not A Designer or Playtester).


----------



## LordArchaon (Apr 6, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Yeah multi-classing is my 'if we had the Rouse on the water board' question. So, a table detailing the effects of m-c. Mmmm, that certainly restricts what they can do with future classes because they will all have to comply with a template to allow m-c (and I suppose other things). Still it sounds really interesting, I hope it works
> This is (probably) telling us that classes will advance and gain powers/features etc in a very uniform way. Hopefully that makes custom classes easy to make. Also hopefully we won't see an avalanche of classes in splats etc that have little to differentiate them. It will take a fair bit of work to make a full, different interesting class (i.e. a dozen or so features and 80 or so powers, I suppose) you can't just use the wizard's/cleric's/etc spell list like in 3E! I really hope that the classes don't end up as bad and as boring as the bloodlines from UA *BARF*





			
				Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> I think that if you "really want to go into a completely different direction", you'll be using the rebuilding options they've hinted at. Thus, if you start as a fighter with some wizard elements but decide you'd rather be more of a wizard, you could rebuild as a wizard with some fighter elements.
> 
> This is speculation, mind; IANADOP (I Am Not A Designer or Playtester).




About class creation, yeah, it will have to take an extra effort to implement the multiclass abilities.
For example, if I want to post my own custom class and let other be able to "dip" into it, I'll have to create a table that specifies what you get with the first dip, what you get if you want to go further. It may seem difficult, but once we'll see the rules, it might be as simple as every other development for 4e we've seen to date (monster and races for example are really easy to develop!).

The way the classes will advance is surely mostly uniform. Only the few key class features (like rogue's sneak attack) are a little more arbitrary.
But yes, from what I see, developing custom classes will be easier. Or better, it will be easier to make them follow the quality standards, not necessarily be simpler, since you now HAVE to develop a whole power list of at least 60 powers.
Good thing is that you can start by making the heroic tier progression and then add the other tiers once you're sure that the first is balanced. Good idea for my first custom 4e class.

About classes in splatbooks, I'm pretty sure that books such as Martial Power won't have new classes, only new Paragon Paths and new powers for existing classes. And that's a wise choice: new classes relegated to new PhBs that come annually and with a higher probability of having REAL QUALITY content (classes).

About classes ending up as boring as bloodlines, it has been a little of a concern to me too. Initially, the most demanding players I think we'll see them like that, after some months of initial excitement. But "splatbooks" adding new powers and options are just made to "feed" those type of players (like me).

About retraining, being multiclassing like this, it will be really necessary. Because if at some point you see that more than being a Wizard with Fighter training you want to be a Fighter with Wizard training, you should have means of trading your Wizard levels for Fighter levels and your Fighter training feats for Wizard training feats. I hope they'll make rules for this kind of situation that I would call "surpassing the multiclass threshold"...

In the end, I'm so teased that I'm really counting the days towards June the 6th.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Apr 6, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> 2)  DM Screen.
> 
> The DM Screen will have tables that have the basic target DCs and damage for appropriate leveled traps.  It will focus on giving a DM the info to basically run on the fly with no books.  (I assume there will be a similar charts with monster stats, but that is only my speculation.)



Imagine running a game with combats, social encounters, treasures, and all the crunch you expect in a good game, but *without *having to consult a book the entire evening. 

If it promised that, I would buy the DM screen.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 6, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> i still would see a second option of 3.5-like multiclassing. If you really want to go into a complete diferent direction. With the unified progressions, it should be quite easy to implent.



Since 4E specifically tries to give the first level character a LOT of cool stuff to do, if they let you pick up a second class suite of abilities at second level, it would be flat out broken. One CAN’T let someone have the full arsenal of rogue and ranger striker powers at 2nd level.


----------



## arscott (Apr 6, 2008)

On the multiclassing feats and new class design:

I don't think developing the class-training feats for a new class will be especially difficult.  I bet even the feats are pretty standard.

Probably something like:

X training I:
-Learn a new skill from X's class skill list (in place of a skill you already know)
-Learn a new power from X's power list (in place of a skill you already know)
-Gain Iconic X class feature, at reduced power (i.e. 1d6 sneak attack instead of the 2d6 that the rogue gets)


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 6, 2008)

Here are some more tidbits from the 10 AM Sunday Session.

Power Sources:
WotC has identified 8 power sources that should take care of basically 90% of the classes they foresee making. They did not mention which ones these are aside from Arcane, Divine, Martial and Psionic.

New Classes:
New classes are mainly going to be introduced in PHBs.

Paragon Paths:
I asked if you "had" to take a paragon path.  I was told you had the choice of what path to take when it was appropriate.  There is another thing you can do if you absolutely do not want a paragon path, but it didn't sound like that was a recommended idea.

Magic Item Creation:
There will be a ritual available to drain magic from captured items to add to other items.  This ritual will be usable in a dungeon.

Crafting:
There has been some talk about creating a more detailed crafting system.

Bull Rush:
Strength Attack vs. Fortitude  Push one square back.

Resurrection:
Ritual, DM free to limit access in the world.
No longer using the term resurrection, ritual is Raise Dead.

Purpose of the DMG:
The DMG's focus is on aiding the DM in customizing and "kit-bashing: the D&D game.

Sorcerer:
Sorcerer will be in  PH2.  Power Source not revealed.  (My vote is primal.

Skill Challenges:
Traps.
Natural Hazards.
Social Encounters.
Party must get a certain number of secrets before a certain number of failures.
Mixing skill, everyone can participate.

Adventures:
There will be a epic tier adventure centering on a jelly-bean eating contest on the DDI.

Milestones:
Gain an action point.  Recharge magic items.

Domains?:
Cleric specialization is mostly done through feats.

Paladins:
Paladins choose their god, must have the same alignment.

Magic Items:
Magic items are definitely focused on powers, not bonuses.

Keywords:
All powers have keywords.

Half-Orcs:  No stats, the closest thing would be to use the orc race stats from the MM.

Marketing:  Early marketing is for migration of current D&D players.  Acquisition is in the fall.  [Starter Set]

Alignment:  [A paraphrase]
Me:  What's going on with Alignment.  Are Lawful and chaotic still in the game?
M. Mearls: There is still Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Um do we still have chaotic evil? 
B. Slaviscek: I tihnk that was changed? Did we change
M. Mearls: Umm, that's more of a "world issue" I'm more of the rules guy.

So, I think we may be looking at:
Lawful Good -- Good -- Unaligned -- Evil -- Chaotic Evil


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 6, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> <snipped>
> 
> Alignment:  [A paraphrase]
> Me:  What's going on with Alignment.  Are Lawful and chaotic still in the game?
> ...



Ah ah! I knew it! I predicted that alignment will be Lawful Good -- Good -- Unaligned -- Evil -- Chaotic Evil just after the release of the Ampersand Sneak Attack, before the DDXP. So, I was dead on, I think. Anyway, we'll see for sure when the core book will be released in June.

EDIT: It was in the thread I did: Ampersand: Sneak Attack! - Alignment.


----------



## Boarstorm (Apr 6, 2008)

Thanks for the coverage, Gene!


----------



## DandD (Apr 6, 2008)

Hmm, strikes me as somehow strange that there won't be Lawful and Neutral anymore. 

Then again, people appearently didn't make any big differences between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good (really, when are you behaving truly chaotic and when do you simply not do it just because?), so I can see why it might have possibly been nixed, along with Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil.


----------



## Cirex (Apr 7, 2008)

Let's not forget that alignments won't have any impact mechanically wise (Different alignment paladins, alignment based spells removed, etc.)
As it should be.


----------



## Cam Banks (Apr 7, 2008)

Wait. That's basically the WFRP alignment! 

Law - Good - Neutral - Evil - Chaos.

Huh.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## FallenTabris (Apr 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Here are some more tidbits from the 10 AM Sunday Session.
> 
> Power Sources:
> WotC has identified 8 power sources that should take care of basically 90% of the classes they foresee making. They did not mention which ones these are aside from Arcane, Divine, Martial and Psionic.




Wow.. I foresee alot of speculation on what the other Power Sources will be besides the named.  I think everyone keeps saying Primal but is that actually confirmed?



> Skill Challenges:
> Traps.
> Natural Hazards.
> Social Encounters.
> ...




Now this is five kinds of awesome if you ask me.  I like a little more game to skill use than just a one roll = win/fail.  Hopefully it will be explained how to give the RP and dice chucking equal status in social encounters.  



> Magic Items:
> Magic items are definitely focused on powers, not bonuses.




Hmmm... no more +5 Hackmasters?  There is going to be an uproar over that sacred cow going into the meatloaf.  Meanwhile I'll be asking for a second helping of meatloaf 



> Keywords:
> All powers have keywords.




That bit reveals how much they have streamlined the rules.  Perhaps there will be less argument over interpretations if we can just turn to a keyword index.  "aha.. You can't do that with a push, but you could with a slide.  Lets remember that for next game"



> Marketing:  Early marketing is for migration of current D&D players.  Acquisition is in the fall.  Starter Set




I think they should shoot for new players right off the bat.  An influx of new blood would do the industry good.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 7, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> Ah ah! I knew it! I predicted that alignment will be Lawful Good -- Good -- Unaligned -- Evil -- Chaotic Evil just after the release of the Ampersand Sneak Attack, before the DDXP. So, I was dead on, I think. Anyway, we'll see for sure when the core book will be released in June.



Nothing in that statement says there won't be Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 7, 2008)

FallenTabris said:
			
		

> Wow.. I foresee alot of speculation on what the other Power Sources will be besides the named.  I think everyone keeps saying Primal but is that actually confirmed?



There's one official source from WotC that confirms Primal will be a power source. If you download the revised stat cards for Unhallowed Night Below, you will see Primal, Psionic, Arcane, Divine and Martial mentioned. One example of it is a kind of sorcerer: The Hierophant of the Seventh Wind mini which has: Human * Good * Primal, in abilities.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 7, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Nothing in that statement says there won't be Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil.



That's why I said we'll see for sure in June.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 7, 2008)

Sorcerer is looking like a Primal source character then... weird.


----------



## Boarstorm (Apr 7, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> There's one official source from WotC that confirms Primal will be a power source. If you download the revised stat cards for Unhallowed, you will see Primal, Psionic, Arcane, Divine and Martial mentioned. One example of it is a kind of sorcerer: The Hierophant of the Seventh Wind mini which has: Human * Good * Primal, in abilities.




And let's not forget about the Shadow power source.  So far that's...

Martial
Divine
Arcane
Primal
Shadow
Psionic

Six of Eight.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 7, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> And let's not forget about the Shadow power source.  So far that's...
> 
> Martial
> Divine
> ...



True, when I looked again Shadow was also mentioned in the revised stat cards for Unhallowed Night Below, sorry.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 7, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> And let's not forget about the Shadow power source.  So far that's...
> 
> Martial
> Divine
> ...



There's been the highly speculated but never mentioned or confirmed Technology/Artifice power source.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 7, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> There's been the highly speculated but never mentioned or confirmed Technology/Artifice power source.



And probably Ki will be the eighth one.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 7, 2008)

They did leave it open for more power sources, but any further would be more focused and specialized.


----------



## micr0c0sm (Apr 7, 2008)

The DM screen is on the same cardstock as most board games, and will be LANDSCAPE so you can see your players better.

There will be a new PHB every year (I think we already knew this).
Tome of Treasures renamed to Adventurers Vault for legal reasons.

All in all, for the hour that was played I had a good time as the ranger. Quarry is less overpowered as I thought it would be, and I am no longer afraid of Rogues being lame


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 7, 2008)

Anyway, I won't allow all those power source. IMC there'll be only 5 powers source: Martial, Divine, Arcane, Primal and Shadow.

I never liked psionic and tech in fantasy. It's more suitable for steampunk fantasy a-la Eberron. The new Warforged mini for Dungeons of Dread has a kind of submachine gun in his hand, yuck.


----------



## Boarstorm (Apr 7, 2008)

micr0c0sm said:
			
		

> The DM screen is on the same cardstock as most board games, and will be LANDSCAPE so you can see your players better.
> 
> There will be a new PHB every year (I think we already knew this).
> Tome of Treasures renamed to Adventurers Vault for legal reasons.
> ...




The screen is landscape?  How cool is that?  I'll tell you how cool -- [...........................................] <-- That cool.  

How easy was it to gain combat advantage and set up a sneak attack, Micr0c0sm?


----------



## Xorn (Apr 7, 2008)

LordArchaon said:
			
		

> In the end, I'm so teased that I'm really counting the days towards June the 6th.




I put in to have June 9th off work, just in case I'm not done reading.  I'll go to the Chinese buffet, and eat and read till they kick me out.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 7, 2008)

Thanks Charwoman Gene for your scoop. It's really nice.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 7, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> I never liked psionic and tech in fantasy. It's more suitable for steampunk fantasy a-la Eberron. The new Warforged mini for Dungeons of Dread has a kind of submachine gun in his hand, yuck.



Don't worry, that's a hand crossbow.  It's at a funny angle in the picture where you can only see the stock and not the bow.

Thanks to the OPs for all the info!


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 7, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> Don't worry, that's a hand crossbow.  It's at a funny angle in the picture where you can only see the stock and not the bow.
> 
> Thanks to the OPs for all the info!



*relief* That's good news.


----------



## tecnowraith (Apr 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Magic Item Creation:
> There will be a ritual available to drain magic from captured items to add to other items.  This ritual will be usable in a dungeon.
> 
> Crafting:
> ...




So there is hope for the Artificer. Hurray!!!


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 7, 2008)

Sigh... 8 powersources guessed at and no love for Incarnum/Soul Magic...


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 7, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Sigh... 8 powersources guessed at and no love for Incarnum/Soul Magic...




Ki and artifice are no where near certain.  Artificer can be written as arcane, but with abilities to duplicate other sources.  "Ki" is the Martial Source.  Monk is a Martial striker, just the most egregiously flashy one.

Shadow which encompasses Necromancers and Illusionists seems weird.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Apr 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Sorcerer is looking like a Primal source character then... weird.





The sorcerer described in R&C, with it's barely-controlled powers, fits Primal quite well in my opinion. They are wielders of very wild magic.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 7, 2008)

FallenTabris said:
			
		

> Wow.. I foresee alot of speculation on what the other Power Sources will be besides the named.  I think everyone keeps saying Primal but is that actually confirmed?



It shows up on some DDM monsters.



			
				FallenTabris said:
			
		

> Hmmm... no more +5 Hackmasters?  There is going to be an uproar over that sacred cow going into the meatloaf.  Meanwhile I'll be asking for a second helping of meatloaf



There are still + weapons, armor, etc.  The "powers not bonuses" is more about the misc magic items, I think - the stat boosters & non-armor AC items from 3e, which will not exist in 4e.


----------



## malraux (Apr 7, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Sigh... 8 powersources guessed at and no love for Incarnum/Soul Magic...



I would also guess that "alternate" powersources will be add-on to the core 8.  That might help development with a larger, but still relatively finite core set of powers and then DMs that wish can add in more minor power sources.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 7, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Sigh... 8 powersources guessed at and no love for Incarnum/Soul Magic...



Magic of Incarnum wasn't well received by anyone.  There's no underground movement of fans who are bitterly holding on to Incarnum, with a huge outcry about it because of the new edition.  

While it was commendable that WotC tried to get a new system working with Magic of Incarnum, it fell flat on it's face.  As evidenced by the fact that the newer Tome of Battle got more support in the end (and has been integrated into 4e).

I suspect that anything that the designers found good about Incarnum will likely end up being divided between the Divine and Primal power sources.  While the rest of Incarnum will just be left behind.


----------



## Snarls-at-Fleas (Apr 7, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> The *Hierophant* of the Seventh Wind mini which has: Human * Good * Primal, in abilities.




Sounds like a druid for me.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 7, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> It shows up on some DDM monsters.




Also mentioned in R&C, regarding the druid and barbarian.


----------



## Snarls-at-Fleas (Apr 7, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> The new Warforged mini for Dungeons of Dread has a kind of submachine gun in his hand, yuck.




 It's a crossbow, man!


----------



## nightspaladin (Apr 7, 2008)

*8 Sources?*

Has anyone figured out what the likely 8th source is going to be?

The most probable guess that I can come if with is as follows

Martial
Arcane
Divine
Psionic
Primal
Shadow
Ki
???????


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 7, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Magic of Incarnum wasn't well received by anyone.  There's no underground movement of fans who are bitterly holding on to Incarnum, with a huge outcry about it because of the new edition.
> 
> While it was commendable that WotC tried to get a new system working with Magic of Incarnum, it fell flat on it's face.  As evidenced by the fact that the newer Tome of Battle got more support in the end (and has been integrated into 4e).
> 
> I suspect that anything that the designers found good about Incarnum will likely end up being divided between the Divine and Primal power sources.  While the rest of Incarnum will just be left behind.



Every Sourcebook is _somebody's_ favourite.

Except for MM4, nobody liked that


----------



## hong (Apr 7, 2008)

I liked MM4


----------



## JesterOC (Apr 7, 2008)

FallenTabris said:
			
		

> I think they should shoot for new players right off the bat.  An influx of new blood would do the industry good.




They might want to wait for new blood once the old blood is all on the same page.  It would suck for new guys to show up and see big argument threads about 3e vs. 4e.  I bet they want the dust to settle before they bring in the new guys/gals. Just IMHO.



JesterOC


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 7, 2008)

> Magic Item Creation:
> There will be a ritual available to drain magic from captured items to add to other items. This ritual will be usable in a dungeon.




Now that I like the sound of. I'll be able to quickly and easily beef up my favorite magic items rather then replacing them for the New Next Best Thing (TM).


----------



## Baron Opal (Apr 7, 2008)

I have a vague feeling that artifice will either be one of those in the lost 10%, perhaps detailing one class, or it will be covered by a third party. And, it will only be covered in the PHB3 or 4, so it's going to be a *long* time before it is available. 

The only thing working against that in my mind is Eberron. While they have a class called artificer it is a more of a variant wizard (a _Verditius_, if you will) in my mind. I would like more of a clockwork / alchemy theme. But, with the presence of Eberron and that they are going to promote it heavily they just might make the "artifice" power source a possibillity.

I think a fey source is as or more likely than a ki source. But, then again, we have had a teaser of a monk-like character in a employee blog, haven't we?


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Apr 7, 2008)

the big 8 power sources

Martial
Arcane
Divine
Shadow
Primal
Psionic

are sure, and we are at 6 out of 8

ki? it seems divided between martial and psionic (I think the monk would fit perfectly into the psionic book specially if they call Psionic the Mind power source - much more fantasy to me, a Mind Mage is much better than a Psionic in a fantasy setting)

since most of the power sources come from the planar structure
Martial (the World, body/mind)
Arcane (the Feywild)
Divine (the astral dominions)
Shadow (the Shadowfell)
Primal (the Elemental Chaos
Psionic (the Inner World)

we have 2 obvious power sources out of this 6

Aberration magic (the Far Realm - mutation of self, madness and corruption)
Summoning magic (the Abyss - bound demons and the like)


----------



## Baumi (Apr 7, 2008)

I don't believe that new classes are only in the PHP ... the Forgotten Realms book has already one confirmed. Also only two divine and three arcane (including FR) classes would be too few choices (what about Bard and Specialists?).


----------



## Campbell (Apr 7, 2008)

I'm not certain that we will see an artificer class for 4e. The artificer class was largely created to circumvent certain issues with 3e's item creation system and to allow for NPC craftsmen who were not magicians. With ritual based magic item creation the class may no longer have a niche to fill in 4e (especially if the ability to perform rituals is based on being trained in Arcana).


----------



## Campbell (Apr 7, 2008)

Baumi said:
			
		

> I don't believe that new classes are only in the PHP ... the Forgotten Realms book has already one confirmed. Also only two divine and three arcane (including FR) classes would be too few choices (what about Bard and Specialists?).




In the D&D experience product discussion they mentioned that the PHB2 will feature further Arcane and Divine classes in order to "finish" those power sources. I wouldn't be entirely too surprised to see the Swordmage make a second appearance in that volume.

Video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kt3W_u9xmPA


----------



## Michael_Wolf (Apr 7, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not certain that we will see an artificer class for 4e. The artificer class was largely created to circumvent certain issues with 3e's item creation system and to allow for NPC craftsmen who were not magicians. With ritual based magic item creation the class may no longer have a niche to fill in 4e (especially if the ability to perform rituals is based on being trained in Arcana).




Although I agree that the artificer class was partly created to circumvent issues with the 3e item creation system I don't think that they'll cut the artificer class from 4e. Artificers play a major role in Eberron. Especially the artificer infusions have quite a different feel than wizard spells and I really would like to see an artificer class in 4E. I've read and enjoyed Keith Baker's Eberron novels and I would hate to see Lei d'Cannith to be retconned into a wizard...


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Apr 7, 2008)

Michael_Wolf said:
			
		

> Although I agree that the artificer class was partly created to circumvent issues with the 3e item creation system I don't think that they'll cut the artificer class from 4e. Artificers play a major role in Eberron. Especially the artificer infusions have quite a different feel than wizard spells and I really would like to see an artificer class in 4E. I've read and enjoyed Keith Baker's Eberron novels and I would hate to see Lei d'Cannith to be retconned into a wizard...




well... in its blog Keith Baker said that he prefer using the 4th edition for eberron becaus, among other things, rituals fit much better to the feel of eberron, probably with rituals you can make "Arcane Crafter" w/out giving them class levels


----------



## Michael_Wolf (Apr 7, 2008)

FabioMilitoPagliara said:
			
		

> well... in its blog Keith Baker said that he prefer using the 4th edition for eberron becaus, among other things, rituals fit much better to the feel of eberron, probably with rituals you can make "Arcane Crafter" w/out giving them class levels



When I am not mistaken he was talking about the magewright class and NOT about the Artificer. Creating items is only part of the equation. The artificer infusions are what makes the class special IMHO.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 7, 2008)

FabioMilitoPagliara said:
			
		

> well... in its blog Keith Baker said that he prefer using the 4th edition for eberron becaus, among other things, rituals fit much better to the feel of eberron, probably with rituals you can make "Arcane Crafter" w/out giving them class levels



He was talking about lamplighters and the magical economy, ie Magewrights, more than Artificers.


----------



## Cirex (Apr 7, 2008)

nightspaladin said:
			
		

> Has anyone figured out what the likely 8th source is going to be?
> 
> The most probable guess that I can come if with is as follows
> 
> ...




Chuck Norris.
Ah, two years ago it would have been mildly funny. 

I'm very curious about the multi-classing. I remember reading that they were going to encourage multi-classing, compared to 3e at least. I was thinking about adding some gestalt factors (Unearthed Arcana) mixed with substitution levels...but that doesn't fit the "simple rules" path 4e has taken (which I welcome).


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Apr 7, 2008)

nightspaladin said:
			
		

> Has anyone figured out what the likely 8th source is going to be?
> 
> The most probable guess that I can come if with is as follows
> 
> ...



Please dear God no Ki as a power source. I'm sorry, but I like martial arts movies as much as the next person, but to my eye, there is nothing Ki can do that could and should not be subsumed under either the Martial (flashy combat maneuvers) or Arcane (throwing blue fireballs) power sources. And we already know there are going to be tough and physical Arcane characters - see the Swordmage.


----------



## Leatherhead (Apr 7, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> And probably Ki will be the eighth one.



I believe Ki will be the more supernatural part of the Martial power source.


----------



## malraux (Apr 7, 2008)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> I have a vague feeling that artifice will either be one of those in the lost 10%, perhaps detailing one class, or it will be covered by a third party. And, it will only be covered in the PHB3 or 4, so it's going to be a *long* time before it is available.
> 
> The only thing working against that in my mind is Eberron. While they have a class called artificer it is a more of a variant wizard (a _Verditius_, if you will) in my mind. I would like more of a clockwork / alchemy theme. But, with the presence of Eberron and that they are going to promote it heavily they just might make the "artifice" power source a possibillity.



If artifice were to be a power source at all, it probably would be eberron specific.  That said, the major shtick of the artificer is that he sits outside the normal rules for magic, so I could see them having the artificer sit outside the normal rules for powers in 4e.  Perhaps the artificer's shtick in 4e will be the ability to pull powers from multiple power sources (divine, arcane, psionic, etc), but in a way that doesn't feel like multiclassing.  Because artificers, at least in my gameplay, were as much about flexibility of spells as they were about creating stuff.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 7, 2008)

Is Shadow actually confirmed as a power source?

I know its a really popular one, and people always mention it, but I don't remember when or where it was confirmed as actually being in the game.  It seems to me that Arcane could cover Shadow pretty well, but then again, I'm not really "feeling" the power sources very well yet.  I get roles, easily.  Roles make sense to me, because they're largely mechanical.  But power sources are flavor, and I'm not really getting them.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Apr 7, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> I put in to have June 9th off work, just in case I'm not done reading.  I'll go to the Chinese buffet, and eat and read till they kick me out.



Hmm, that's a good suggestion, come to think of it 

No, seriously, I already have the 6th of June off, and trying to get some friends of mine to also take the 6th of June. Plan is to do exactly what we did on the release date of D&D 3E: Get the books, give them a quick read-through, gen up first-level characters and start playing.

"OK, you're all in a bar. A mysterious cloaked figure puffs at his pipe in the corner..."


----------



## Sir Brennen (Apr 7, 2008)

Leatherhead said:
			
		

> I believe Ki will be the more supernatural part of the Martial power source.



Seems like a pretty fine hair to split. If one has to make a class like the monk more "supernatural", I'd rather see them be a Divine Striker instead of a whole new power source.

When looking at power sources, I think it's interesting that you can sorta map them all to the planes.*Martial*  - Material (Physical)
*Psionic*  -  Material (Mental)
*Arcane*  - Feywild
*Divine* - Astral Sea
*Primal*  - Elemental Tempest
*Shadow* - Shadowfell​Following this trend, what planes suitable for power sources are left? We really only have the Abyss and the Far Realm. So I could see maybe:

Chaos - Far Realm

But for the other one? Abyssal seems like good power source _name_, but once you got down to what it would do or be represented, it seems to be covered already by the Arcane and Divine power sources.

Personally, I'd like to see Art as a power source, with Material (Spiritual) as it's planar correspondence, making a nice triad of power sources that mortal creatures need look no further than themselves to draw from. This, of course, would be the power source for the Bard, and possibly the Artificer in Ebberron.


----------



## LostInTheMists (Apr 7, 2008)

With a bit of new info appearing about Multiclassing, and the possibility of it being handled through feat acquisition rather than actual "taking a level of X", has anyone done the math on the Pre-Gen Half-Elf Warlock to see if perhaps the Ray of Frost might actually be a "multiclass" training, as opposed to a Half-Elf racial ability?  You know, in terms of number of feats known and all?


----------



## micr0c0sm (Apr 7, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> The screen is landscape?  How cool is that?  I'll tell you how cool -- [...........................................] <-- That cool.
> 
> How easy was it to gain combat advantage and set up a sneak attack, Micr0c0sm?




I couldn't play as a rogue, just ranger, but I did ask about the rogue because from the stats it looked like ranger could do everything a rogue could.
I'm not sure how it will play out, but certain feats will definitely be restricted to rogues that will allow them to use their skills (and skill bonuses, i am assuming) to make extra flashy attacks. So in combat I am guessing a rogue would use their move action to set up a sneak attack, and standard action to do something crazy with a feat to provide that extra 2d6 damage and some other stuff.

Oh, and I dig the reaction powers. Very FFT like in a good way.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 7, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Seems like a pretty fine hair to split. If one has to make a class like the monk more "supernatural", I'd rather see them be a Divine Striker instead of a whole new power source.




I think that is his point, that we don't need Ki, its just the flashy side of Martial.


----------



## Boarstorm (Apr 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Is Shadow actually confirmed as a power source?




It's referenced as one several times in Worlds & Monsters, and on DDM cards.  Things can change, of course, but ... *shrug*  so far it looks pretty well thought out.

W&M describes the Shadow power source as being power drawn from the Shadowfell and so 
includes things that are thematic to that plane -- necromancy, illusion, etc.  Really your best bet to get a feel for what the PS might cover is to read up on the plane.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 7, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> It's referenced as one several times in Worlds & Monsters, and on DDM cards.  Things can change, of course, but ... *shrug*  so far it looks pretty well thought out.



Thanks.

I understand what a Shadow power source would probably cover.  Shadowcaster + Necromancer seems to be the basic idea.  Which is fine by me.

I just didn't know it was actually confirmed.  I figured people were just assuming symmetry with Primal, based on the Shadowfell and the Feywild.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 7, 2008)

Arcane, Martial, Divine are really the only confirmed.

Psionics is screamingly obvious.

Primal is likely.
Shadow is also likely.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Here are some more tidbits from the 10 AM Sunday Session.
> 
> Magic Item Creation:
> There will be a ritual available to drain magic from captured items to add to other items.  This ritual will be usable in a dungeon.




Woo hoo! Time to shard some purples!



> Purpose of the DMG:
> The DMG's focus is on aiding the DM in customizing and "kit-bashing: the D&D game.




Best. 4e news. EVAR.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Woo hoo! Time to shard some purples!




Damn, I should have thought of that.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Apr 7, 2008)

That bit (Magic Item breakdown) seems to be taken straight from Eberron actually.  You can break down magic items to refil your XP 'Pool' for magic item creation/modification.

And when you shard an item in WoW, it's usually to sell it for a higher price then turning it in to a vendor would give you.  Not quite the same thing.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 7, 2008)

FabioMilitoPagliara said:
			
		

> Aberration magic (the Far Realm - mutation of self, madness and corruption)



Psionics was often described as "aberration magic" in Eberron as it was associated with Xoriat (Eberron's Far Realm) and Dal Quor (Eberron's Plane of Dreams).


----------



## Spatula (Apr 7, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> That bit (Magic Item breakdown) seems to be taken straight from Eberron actually.  You can break down magic items to refil your XP 'Pool' for magic item creation/modification.



It's an artificer class ability, not some Eberron setting trait.



			
				D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> And when you shard an item in WoW, it's usually to sell it for a higher price then turning it in to a vendor would give you.  Not quite the same thing.



You disenchant magic items in WoW to get the components to enchant other items.  The components can also be sold, but that's not the primary purpose of disenchanting.


----------



## kennew142 (Apr 7, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not certain that we will see an artificer class for 4e. The artificer class was largely created to circumvent certain issues with 3e's item creation system and to allow for NPC craftsmen who were not magicians. With ritual based magic item creation the class may no longer have a niche to fill in 4e (especially if the ability to perform rituals is based on being trained in Arcana).




While Baker may have been talking about a repurposed wizard, he did say that we would be able to play a gnome artifcer in July. I believe we're talking about a separate class, since he also added that the gnome artificer wouldn't have as many class options as other characters (presumably until the Eberron books or PHB2 came out).


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Apr 7, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> *Arcane*  - Astral Sea
> 
> *Primal*  - Feywild



I think it's Primal=elemental chaos and Arcane=Feywild


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Apr 7, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Psionics was often described as "aberration magic" in Eberron as it was associated with Xoriat (Eberron's Far Realm) and Dal Quor (Eberron's Plane of Dreams).



interesting, I don't have anything Eberron related but it makes sense


----------



## ForumFerret (Apr 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Here are some more tidbits from the 10 AM Sunday Session.
> 
> Magic Item Creation:
> There will be a ritual available to drain magic from captured items to add to other items.  This ritual will be usable in a dungeon.




Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times YES. 

MY sword stays with me the entire course of my career. Finally.


----------



## ChaosShard (Apr 7, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> It's an artificer class ability, not some Eberron setting trait.




True, but that doesn't mean that expanding on a good idea is a bad thing (assuming it *is* a good idea, never really played Eberron).



> You disenchant magic items in WoW to get the components to enchant other items.  The components can also be sold, but that's not the primary purpose of disenchanting.




Again, true, but we don't know how the system will work in detail. For all we know, you pile a bunch of magic items around the one you're making/improving and suck all of the power from them and into your new item. That would preclude the whole 'enchanting materials' bit entirely.

Mind you, that's not at all what it sounded like when they described it. What Mearls said sounded very much like the disenchanting practices of WoW (not a bad thing at all, in my opinion).


----------



## OchreJelly (Apr 7, 2008)

I think the final power source is.... 

Admiral Adama

/runs away.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Apr 7, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> It's an artificer class ability, not some Eberron setting trait.



Actually, I did mean to put 'Artificer' in there, honestly.  I apparently hit send a bit to soon.



> You disenchant magic items in WoW to get the components to enchant other items.  The components can also be sold, but that's not the primary purpose of disenchanting.



It's the primary purpose for disenchanting in a group, from my experience.  You MIGHT hang onto that shard or other components to make it cheaper to get an enchantment later, but 9 times out of 10, that shard is going on the AH block.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 7, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Actually, I did mean to put 'Artificer' in there, honestly.  I apparently hit send a bit to soon.
> 
> It's the primary purpose for disenchanting in a group, from my experience.  You MIGHT hang onto that shard or other components to make it cheaper to get an enchantment later, but 9 times out of 10, that shard is going on the AH block.




Yeah, but it's only being sold because someone plans to make a magic item with it.


----------



## breschau (Apr 7, 2008)

D'oh!


----------



## Lizard (Apr 7, 2008)

ForumFerret said:
			
		

> Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times YES.
> 
> MY sword stays with me the entire course of my career. Finally.




That's a pretty big leap...

From what we've seen of the magic items in 4e, you upgrade pretty often. How 'depowering' works is really undetermined. It might be as simple as adding charges to items or increasing their modifiers by a small amount. The assumption that you start with a +1 sword and then feed it other swords until it's a +5 holy reaving keen flaming acid dancing sword is not necessarily true. Nor is it necessarily false.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Apr 7, 2008)

ForumFerret said:
			
		

> Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times YES.
> 
> MY sword stays with me the entire course of my career. Finally.




That is precisely how I feel as well. Meaning, the "ancestral sword of your father's father passed onto you" can grow in power potentially!


----------



## ForumFerret (Apr 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> That's a pretty big leap...
> 
> From what we've seen of the magic items in 4e, you upgrade pretty often. How 'depowering' works is really undetermined. It might be as simple as adding charges to items or increasing their modifiers by a small amount. The assumption that you start with a +1 sword and then feed it other swords until it's a +5 holy reaving keen flaming acid dancing sword is not necessarily true. Nor is it necessarily false.




WHO ARE YOU TO BRING LOGIC TO THE TABLE!??!?!


But yeah, after the initial enthusiasm has worn off, your measured response is more appropriate. I remain cautiously optimistic, though - this is more than we've ever gotten before in the core rules. 

In fact, I'm interested to see what the 'cost' of the ritual is. Say I have a +1 Greathammer we just found, and my Fighter is a longsword guy with a standard long sword. The assumption would be that my sword becomes a +1 Longsword, and the greathammer becomes a nonmagical item, or is consumed. 

The tricky part is going to come when I have my +1 Longsword, and we find a +2 Dagger of Flametongue - what happens to the existing enchantment on the item? does it become a +2 Longsword of Flametongue, and the daggers become nonmagical (leaving us with a net loss in magic, as the +1 from the longsword gets dropped out)? Does the dagger become a +1  Dagger and the Sword a +2 Flametongue, trading the bonuses around? 

It will be interesting to see what happens. 

Is it release day yet?


----------



## D.Shaffer (Apr 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yeah, but it's only being sold because someone plans to make a magic item with it.



Actually...no.  Very few crafted items require components created by disenchanting an item. For the most part, shards, dust, and the like are required to ENCHANT an item, adding a buff on top of an items normal function.  The majority of crafted magical item components are either bought from a vendor, found through gathering skills (Herbalist, Skinning, Mining), or are drops from creatures.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 7, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> drops from creatures.




Mike Mearls hates WoW.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 7, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Actually...no.  Very few crafted items require components created by disenchanting an item. For the most part, shards, dust, and the like are required to ENCHANT an item, adding a buff on top of an items normal function.  The majority of crafted magical item components are either bought from a vendor, found through gathering skills (Herbalist, Skinning, Mining), or are drops from creatures.




Shrug. To me, it's making an item. Point is, they're bought because they're used. Based solely on that one sentence, my guess is that magic items no one wants in 4e will be used by the party to enhance their current items instead of being sold for cash. As to what this means, mechanically, and its limits and applications...no one knows. If I have the Cloak Of The Orcslayer, which lets me do +2W damage against an orc once per encounter, and I find the Cloak Of Goblinbane, which lets me do +W against goblins OPE, do I get a +3W cloak against orcs? A +2W/orc, +W goblin cloak? A +2W/Orc cloak that can be used twice per encounter? None of the above? All of the above, depending on my choices/skill/feats/the DM's mercy? We won't know until June...


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 7, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Psionics was often described as "aberration magic" in Eberron as it was associated with Xoriat (Eberron's Far Realm) and Dal Quor (Eberron's Plane of Dreams).



Actually, it was mainly associated with Dal Quor (and hence Sarlona) and the fugitive Kalashtars. Xoriat was more about daelkyr and their minions - beholders, mind flayers, dolgrims and dolgaunt, i.e. strange beings fleshcrafted by them and also living crafts and so on.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Mike Mearls hates WoW.




"What you oppose, you become."

Old zen saying.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> "What you oppose, you become."




Truth be told it sound like he got well and truly annoyed and bored with the collecting six pelts from bears that way or may not drop kinda quests.  The MMO influence is in the 5-Man WOW Dungeons.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 7, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Actually, it was mainly associated with Dal Quor (and hence Sarlona) and the fugitive Kalashtars. Xoriat was more about daelkyr and their minions - beholders, mind flayers, dolgrims and dolgaunt, i.e. strange beings fleshcrafted by them and also living crafts and so on.



Kobold Avenger was correct - mind flayers are known for what, again?   There's more than a few psionic aberrations.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Apr 7, 2008)

FabioMilitoPagliara said:
			
		

> I think it's Primal=elemental chaos and Arcane=Feywild



Yah, that's actually probably more accurate. Updated my previous post.


----------



## DJCupboard (Apr 7, 2008)

nightspaladin said:
			
		

> Has anyone figured out what the likely 8th source is going to be?
> 
> The most probable guess that I can come if with is as follows
> 
> ...




Greyskull


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 7, 2008)

DJCupboard said:
			
		

> Greyskull




YES!!!!!!!


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 7, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Kobold Avenger was correct - mind flayers are known for what, again?   There's more than a few psionic aberrations.



Sort of - but the Dal Quor beings are dream beings, literally psionics incarnate.

For the mind flayer and so on (at least in Eberron), the psionics are like the a demon's spell-like abilities. Just something they can do, but not something they focus upon. It's rather a side-effect of being strange.

Whereas the Quori have an entire continent under their control, full of psionic monoliths and _psionic clothing_ (i.e. mood clothing) and more.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 7, 2008)

The Quori don't have a monopoly on psionics, it's been stated a number of times that some psionics does come from an association with Xoriat, and that the Cults of the Dragon Below have Wilders, Soulknives and even Psions, Psychic Warriors and Ardents associated with them.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Mearls hates WOW.






			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> "What you oppose, you become."




if (mearls loves WOW)
  print "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
else if (mearls hates WOW)
  print "What you oppose, you become."
else if(mearls hasn't played WOW)
  print "Learn history, or else you are doomed to repeat it."
else if(mearls has played WOW)
  print "He who lies down with dogs gets up with fleas."

Whee! We can do this all day!


----------



## ChaosShard (Apr 7, 2008)

Yeah, his feelings on WoW were prompted by a questioner who asked "I hate WoW. Will I hate this game?" Mearls then explained that he didn't enjoy the game after trying it for a while.

Speaking as a WoW player who got a taste of 4e combat yesterday, they're not all that much alike.


----------



## Leatherhead (Apr 7, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Seems like a pretty fine hair to split. If one has to make a class like the monk more "supernatural", I'd rather see them be a Divine Striker instead of a whole new power source.





I was not talking about only the monk. I was referring to the impressive or physically impossible things fighters, rogues, rangers, warlords, and any other martial class that comes along will do because all power sources are supposed to be "magical."

Edit: Charwoman Gene explained before I could.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 7, 2008)

Leatherhead said:
			
		

> I believe Ki will be the more supernatural part of the Martial power source.



As many pointed out, I can totally see Ki as a subsource of Martial energy. This made me realize this would be much more logical than a complete power source dedicated just to Ki. I'm just curious about what will be the other two unknown power source then. Does anybody have any idea about what those two other power sources could be?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Apr 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> YES!!!!!!!




  Oh, to dream . . . 

  But there's no way Mattel would let Hasbro have the license.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 7, 2008)

Ki is a likely power source if they do an "oriental adventures" book, because then you can have ki strikers (monk), ki defenders (samurai), ki controllers (wu jen), ki leaders (uh, daimyo?)

etc.

I wouldn't expect to see Ki as a power source if they don't do an oriental sourcebook though.


----------



## Cam Banks (Apr 7, 2008)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Oh, to dream . . .
> 
> But there's no way Mattel would let Hasbro have the license.




Also, the universe would collapse in on itself.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Cyronax (Apr 7, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> I put in to have June 9th off work, just in case I'm not done reading.  I'll go to the Chinese buffet, and eat and read till they kick me out.




Dude, that's how I spent the day when I bought my (first) 3e Player's Handbook in the summer of 2000. What a great day. 

Hope you get off work!

c.i.d.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Apr 7, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> I can totally see Ki as a subsource of Martial energy.



I don't know about "subsources" - if the Rogue and the Ranger can be "just plain" Martial, the Monk and the Samurai can be too.




			
				MaelStorm said:
			
		

> I'm just curious about what will be the other two unknown power source then. Does anybody have any idea about on what those two other power sources could be?



*Certain*
1. Martial
2. Divine
3. Arcane
4. Psionic

*Near-Certain*
5. Shadow
6. Primal/Elemental

*My Guesses*
7. Chaos/Madness/Far Realm
8. Nature Spirits (a weak guess ...)


Although, as another poster mentioned, "the Power of Greyskull" would be pretty sweet.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Apr 7, 2008)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Also, the universe would collapse in on itself.



I thought that only happens when you use the Easy button to find the Easy button....


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> "What you oppose, you become."




So, I guess it's inevitable that you and I will one day merge to become the ultimate forumite.


----------



## Cyronax (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I liked MM4




It really was a great sourcebook for DMs running Red Hand of Doom. 

Plus, I liked the balhanoth (sp?)

C.I.D.


----------



## Andur (Apr 8, 2008)

The last power source will of course be...

PIE.


----------



## Zelgadas (Apr 8, 2008)

Andur said:
			
		

> The last power source will of course be...
> 
> PIE.




Guarded, of course, by an orc.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 8, 2008)

I liked MMIV and I'm not ashamed to admit it!


----------



## Warbringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Mike Mearls hates WoW.



That is the best news for 4th that I've read in a while


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, I guess it's inevitable that you and I will one day merge to become the ultimate forumite.




The Dark Crystal!


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I liked MM4



Yes, I know, that's why I used the  smilie.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, I guess it's inevitable that you and I will one day merge to become the ultimate forumite.




Well, I've become the cranky luddite grognard neophobe I've always despised.

"Choose your enemies carefully, for you will become them." Always sound advice.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Shrug. To me, it's making an item. Point is, they're bought because they're used.



Which, to get back to my original point, is not really THAT similar to the short description of magic item 'deconstruction' that they mentioned.  AKA, making the reference to WoW is silly as they're not all that alike and it makes it sound like yet another '4th is so WOW LOL' piece of silliness from someone who's never touched WoW before.


----------



## med stud (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Well, I've become the cranky luddite grognard neophobe I've always despised.
> 
> "Choose your enemies carefully, for you will become them." Always sound advice.



Just keep opposing from your new POV then, and you will become what you once were 

I look forward discussing lose narrativistic role playing by then!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 8, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Truth be told it sound like he got well and truly annoyed and bored with the collecting six pelts from bears that way or may not drop kinda quests.  The MMO influence is in the 5-Man WOW Dungeons.



Sounds familiar. I think WoW had a chance to suck me in. But since the first few quests where of this kind, I quickly said "No" and instead began wasting my free time with discussing 4E on En World.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 8, 2008)

I'm disappointed that paladins now require a deity...


----------



## Bugaboo (Apr 8, 2008)

Has anyone yet compared the Paragon Path concept with the Midnight campaign's Heroic Path? I really liked that element in Midnight -- it afforded a sense of creating a "secondary class" structure under the character's primary career.


----------



## Cam Banks (Apr 8, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I'm disappointed that paladins now require a deity...




Relax. This is one of the easiest things to house rule ever.

In Dragonlance, as with the Realms, paladins are required to have a deity, so this isn't a new thing to me. But it's just as easy to say "my paladin has faith in his ideals and his code" and forget the gods.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Klaus (Apr 8, 2008)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Relax. This is one of the easiest things to house rule ever.
> 
> In Dragonlance, as with the Realms, paladins are required to have a deity, so this isn't a new thing to me. But it's just as easy to say "my paladin has faith in his ideals and his code" and forget the gods.
> 
> ...



 Yeah, I know.

One of the things I like about Eberron is the distancing of the gods.

Funny thing is, I'd love to see a setting that assumes all the trappings of mythological Greece (stuff like the sun *really* being a fiery chariot with Helios on it, etc).


----------



## zen_hydra (Apr 9, 2008)

That is more, or less, the Exalted setting.  Great setting.  Carp system.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 9, 2008)

zen_hydra said:
			
		

> That is more, or less, the Exalted setting. Great setting. Carp system.




No trout about it.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Apr 9, 2008)

*Alignment a Continuum instead of a Grid?*

So is the *Chaotic Evil--Evil--Unaligned--Good--Lawful Good* alignment system a continuum (like an extended version of Dragonlance's Good-Neutral-Evil axis) rather than a grid (the nine-alignment scheme)? I mean, does Chaotic Evil now mean "infra-evil" and LG mean "ultra-good"? If so, which beings would be CE instead of Evil, and which LG instead of G?

Travis


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 9, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> No trout about it.




Not one to let him flounder about, eh? Put him in his plaice? Grind him beneath your eel? Threaten his immortal sole?




I don't mean to be a bass-tard but obviously I'm angling to get a few traditional ones down the pike before the new pun-meister Xath arrives in the thread.

Maybe salmon ought to report this before it gets out of hand?

Cheers


----------



## Eridanis (Apr 9, 2008)

This thread has reel promise. I'm hooked.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 9, 2008)

OP is very sad.

I hate Threadcarps.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Apr 9, 2008)

*Chaotic Elver -- Elver -- Un-trawlined -- Gar -- Lawful Gar*

Hake guys! You ignored my question about albacores...I mean alignments! That's not very nase. In fact I think it's rudd. And here I thought you were a nice grouper fellows, not aholeholes.

Trevally...I mean Travis


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 9, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> I hate Threadcarps.




I meant to spell that right....


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Apr 9, 2008)

I think we should throw a line

this thread is not elastic enough


----------

