Rule-of-Three: 07/03/2012

Neonchameleon said:

Two weapon fighting is a historical anomaly - the only major users that come to mind were the rapier-and-dagger wielders (who were at least in part worried about people stepping past the rapier's point) and Musashi who was, I believe, inspired by Portugese rapier and dagger fencers. I hope it's rare rather than the best combat style going (as in 2e) and making it rare means either making it a choice of weapons using one at a time (as happened historically) or giving the character penalties to attack with both weapons at once.

Click to expand...

You're right, historically, of course, but that doesn't necessarily mean that D&D has to be that way. (Historically, people who can cast Magic Missile are even more of an anomaly, after all.) I figure that the default (untrained) Two-weapon mechanics should penalize you heavily. However, I can certainly see a place for a Theme that allows you no more benefit for TWF than you get from any other "fighty" theme. Just disallow the theme if it bugs you, I guess (or reduce its benefit somehow). Given the context of the rest of the game, I just don't see making it "realistic" in this regard.

Kamikaze Midget said:

There is a bit of a worry that themes might end up like Advantage/Disadvantage: The One Solution To All Problems.

Themes I don't think should have EXCLUSIVE access to fighting styles. It's nice to put them in there but if my ranger NEEDS to have the TWF theme in order to have TWF, then I'm giving up something else for that, and that's not entirely cool.

Click to expand...

That, and not all Themes are fighting style. For one example, look at the human cleric of Pelor in the playtest: that character's Theme is "Healer," which gives Herbalism at 1st Level -- an out-of-combat "potions" ability.

Further, WotC seems amenable to the idea that they can put abilities into more than the default buckets. Most recently, there was talk of taking the Cleric's healing abilities out of the "spells" bucket and putting them into the "class features" bucket. If they take TWF out of Themes, they'll need another bucket to put it into; but that shouldn't be a problem because they're imaginative people.

And beyond that, some features are too big to fit easily into Themes: apparently, Themes give only one thing at 1st Level. Mearls (I think it was) wrote that Barbarian is more likely to be a class than a theme, because Barbarian probably amounts to more than one feat at 1st Level.

KidSnide said:

Themes provide a character's combat schtick.

Click to expand...

The Playtest Pelor Cleric would like to have some words with you about what Themes might do in D&D5.

Personally, I think it'd be narmed to shove all combat schticks into themes. What, my rogue must pick the Stealthy Murderer theme to get Sneak Attack? My fighter can't be a sword-n-board-er WITHOUT the Defender theme? Bah.

It's cool that part of what themes are is combat styles. It would not be so cool if that was the ONLY PLACE combat styles resided.

Off the top of my head, it's not clear to me why a ranger needs to fight with two weapons in addition to a full combat schtick. Maybe thats the kind of thing where you can create a custom theme (i.e. just pick feats) if you want two-weapon fighting and some other ability. That seems like just the sort of think play testing should figure out.

Click to expand...

There's no reason to disentangle fighting style from class any more than there is a reason to disentangle background from class.

I mean, if all skills are backgrounds (including thief skills) and all fighting styles are themes (including sneak attacks), what does the Rogue class offer?

Sure, most rangers probably wouldn't have a need of a TWF or Archery theme, since they get it for automatic. They would take other themes -- perhaps you'd have a ranger who was a Defender as well, parrying things with their flashing blades. Perhaps you'd have a Ranger-Slayer dedicated to pwning their foes with their two weapons.

Redundancies are a good thing in a modular game. They enable a lot of flexibility.

tuxego said:

Further, WotC seems amenable to the idea that they can put abilities into more than the default buckets. Most recently, there was talk of taking the Cleric's healing abilities out of the "spells" bucket and putting them into the "class features" bucket. If they take TWF out of Themes, they'll need another bucket to put it into; but that shouldn't be a problem because they're imaginative people.

Click to expand...

Kind of like I said above: I don't think there needs to just be ONE BUCKET for each thing.

I see no reason there can't be a Barbarian class along with a Berserker theme (which takes some Rage-related abilities) and maybe an Explorer background (with running, jumping, swimming, climbing, etc. woven in).

TWF can be both a theme AND a ranger class feature AND, I dunno, some sort of Tempest Fighter build AND...whatever else.

Healing can be spells AND class features AND a theme AND...whatever else.

Rage can be a class feature AND a theme AND...whatever else.

The more buckets you put things in, the more options people get when picking from their buckets, the more customization there is, the more modular your system is...all of this is good juju.

Ratskinner said:

I agree with the rest of what you said, but this seems to be conflating Theme and background a bit, from what we've seen so far. The "fighty" themes look to be almost exactly "a fighting style". We may see multiple versions of TWF, but "pirate" doesn't compare with "slayer", AFAICT.

I think we still need "default" TWF rules. I anticipate there will be themes that would still find uses for it, even if it isn't their primary focus.

Click to expand...

You are right. Bad examples on my part.

I think fighty types should get some access to fighting styles beyond their theme. Whether that's a bonus feat thing or something else, I don't care.

Ratskinner said:

You're right, historically, of course, but that doesn't necessarily mean that D&D has to be that way. (Historically, people who can cast Magic Missile are even more of an anomaly, after all.) I figure that the default (untrained) Two-weapon mechanics should penalize you heavily. However, I can certainly see a place for a Theme that allows you no more benefit for TWF than you get from any other "fighty" theme. Just disallow the theme if it bugs you, I guess (or reduce its benefit somehow). Given the context of the rest of the game, I just don't see making it "realistic" in this regard.

Click to expand...

The problem with TWF is the same as the problem of D&D firearms. Do you* want the period-appropriate firearms, perhaps slightly enhanced, that you'll shoot once and then switch to steel, ala The Three Musketeers? No, you say, you want something more cinematic and fun? OK, as soon as you go there, then why all this business about anyone being able to do it? That's not the way it happens in fantasy literature.

Basically, TWF always comes with a lot of of unspoken assumptions. If someone wants to advocate for it being a great choice for X character in Y situation, then they need to unpack those assumptions while making their case. Let everyone do that that wants it a certain way, and the fault lines will be apparent.

* impersonal "you" throughout.

Kamikaze Midget said:

KidSnide said:

Themes provide a character's combat schtick.

Click to expand...

The Playtest Pelor Cleric would like to have some words with you about what Themes might do in D&D5.

Personally, I think it'd be narmed to shove all combat schticks into themes. What, my rogue must pick the Stealthy Murderer theme to get Sneak Attack? My fighter can't be a sword-n-board-er WITHOUT the Defender theme? Bah.

It's cool that part of what themes are is combat styles. It would not be so cool if that was the ONLY PLACE combat styles resided.

Click to expand...

Ok, we're just disagreeing on the meaning of "combat shtick." I think the Healer theme is an example of a combat shtick. Healing (even between combats) is primarily about combat effectiveness, and a massive benefit of the theme (arguably, the primary benefit) is the superior in-combat healing ability through maximized healing spells and reliable potion access.

As to the sword-and-board example, I don't think that's a combat shtick. A combat shtick is an "offensive shield user" who uses a shield as a push power or an off-hand weapon. Another combat shtick is someone who uses a shield to defend their allies (like the playtest Defender theme, which should probably be renamed "Shield Defender", since other themes will probably help characters fill the 4e-style defender role).

For two-weapon fighting, I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to be able to wield two weapons. The question is what you have to do to get special benefits. A twin strike or an off-hand parry capability seem like perfectly reasonable benefits to get from a theme.

And nothing I've said precludes the possibility that fighters (and presumably some other melee classes) get a benefit (like +1 to hit and +2 to damage) on all their weapon attacks. That's not a theme, that's just being better at combat.

Kamikaze Midget said:

There's no reason to disentangle fighting style from class any more than there is a reason to disentangle background from class.

I mean, if all skills are backgrounds (including thief skills) and all fighting styles are themes (including sneak attacks), what does the Rogue class offer?

Click to expand...

I'm with you 80% of the way. The reason to disentangle fighting style and background from class is the same: the same skill sets and fighting options apply to multiple classes.

A shield defender could be a paladin, a fighter or a cleric. Likewise, a sage could be a druid, a wizard or a bard. Those concepts are all flexible enough to make sense with multiple classes for the same reason skills and feats were kept separate from classes. (Ok, skills were only partially separate. I think WotC recognized that class skill lists were too restrictive.) The advance for backgrounds and themes is to make sure that there is a coherent connection between the those rules constructs and the in-game fiction. That makes character generation easier for non-rules-focused players and makes sure that feats aren't dominated by the "cool rules idea."

As to putting sneak attack into a theme? I agree that a rogue wouldn't have enough without it, which is why I don't think I've ever seen it suggested. It's no different than barbarian (and its rage) that the designers have described as deserving a class because the concept and rules are "too big" for a theme.

Now, that leaves the question of what exactly do rangers get? I don't know the answer, although I think a package of combat and non-combat abilities associated with a favored enemy would be a good choice. I note that it could be similar to how rogues get a "scheme" that appears to work like a "rogue-only" second background.

-KS

What if TWF and Sword and board were themes AND the fighter got 2 themes?

Then you aren't giving anything up if you want to be a Sage Fighter or Healer Fighter AND you could be a cleric that takes TWF.

Problem solved?

PinkRose said:

What if TWF and Sword and board were themes AND the fighter got 2 themes?

Then you aren't giving anything up if you want to be a Sage Fighter or Healer Fighter AND you could be a cleric that takes TWF.

Problem solved?

Click to expand...

The problem comes in if and when maneuver themes are brought in as different from weapon styles themes.

PinkRose said:

What if TWF and Sword and board were themes AND the fighter got 2 themes?

Then you aren't giving anything up if you want to be a Sage Fighter or Healer Fighter AND you could be a cleric that takes TWF.

Problem solved?

Click to expand...

Kinda. But themes are supposed to be optional.

I like the idea of modal class features. Something like this for a fighting style:

Robert Schwalb said:

Currently, sneak attack lets the rogue hit our expected damage output. If we take away sneak attack as it works now (1d6 at 1st level, plus 1d6 every other level), the rogue instead gets a Rogue Fighting Technique feature at, say, level 2 and again every couple of levels or so. The feature might let you choose one of the following benefits every time you get it.

• Combat Maneuver: The rogue gets two combat maneuvers (think at-will powers).
• Widget: Some sort of skill-like benefit or trick.
• Weapon Specialization: A cool benefit tied to one of the rogue’s weapon groups.
• Sneak Attack: Whenever you backstab a creature, you deal 1d6 extra damage. Each time you gain this benefit, increase the extra damage by 1d6.

Click to expand...

(I also like this approach to maneuvers much better than putting them in themes.)