D&D 4E Core 4E vs. Essentials

[Garthanos]

Yeah, IMHO the only issue with themes is they did increase complexity. Had they been introduced in the original core game they could have simply elided a few non-theme elements so that your theme could provide a bit of what class normally does (and maybe there could be an option to not have one and claw back what you'd 'lose' for it). The themes themselves are pretty good, although there are some clunkers in there the bulk of them are usable, if not mechanically good choices.

I actively liked Themes for that sense of flexibility in character design and they had the same niche as paragon path and epic destiny. I actually reacted to many of the paragon paths as why isn't this something you are already building towards in heroic why are they boom suddenly there ... with the themes in place that response is less worrisome (not actually sure why).

 

[Garthanos]

Litterally, there was a Cleave at-will, for instance.

In a lot of cases, though, it was certainly nice to be able to pick a low-level daily or encounter, rather than spend 6 or 8 or even 12 levels completing a chain or chains to pull some awesome trick 'at-will' which, in practice you might be able to set up one in a while - if a combat wasn't ended by whichever caster won initiative...

If I was at the design table of 4e we might have had Feats and Features. Feats being active actions (and not powers avoiding the terminology). And there would be Feats of Magic and Feats of Physical Prowess and so on for categorization. Rituals might have each had atleast 1 feat associated with them. Practices might have gotten full on attention as well. Oh if wishes were horses LOL

 

[Tony Vargas]

I actively liked Themes for that sense of flexibility in character design and they had the same niche as paragon path and epic destiny. I actually reacted to many of the paragon paths as why isn't this something you are already building towards in heroic why are they boom suddenly there ... with the themes in place that response is less worrisome (not actually sure why).

I get that, yeah. With the addition of themes, you have a complete arc from Background through Epic Destiny in parallel with the more prosaic class progression.

I could see a unified arc that aligns all those, so you could, for istance, be a demigod from level 1, like so many heroes of legend...

 

[Garthanos]

I get that, yeah. With the addition of themes, you have a complete arc from Background through Epic Destiny in parallel with the more prosaic class progression.

I could see a unified arc that aligns all those, so you could, for instance, be a demigod from level 1, like so many heroes of legend...

This indeed... from wierd assed birth story... through a falling out which challenges you big time... through proven godhead.

 

[MoutonRustique]

I get that, yeah. With the addition of themes, you have a complete arc from Background through Epic Destiny in parallel with the more prosaic class progression.

I could see a unified arc that aligns all those, so you could, for istance, be a demigod from level 1, like so many heroes of legend...

This indeed... from wierd assed birth story... through a falling out which challenges you big time... through proven godhead.

Character creation could then be a three part process : background, class, destiny

In the background section, you pick your race, your background skills, some ties with locals, etc

In the class section, you pick your class, your feat(s), your powers.

In the destiny section, you pick your "Heroic Destiny" (i.e. Theme). The themes and PP and ED could be tied together in a sort of loose chain where each PP and ED have about 4 or 5 (whatever number feels right) "themes/PP" that are required - so that there is some decision impact, but it's still pretty wide.

This would probably require a great amount of work to fine-tune the selections and perhaps even modify the themes and PPs and EDs to offer true choice to players... But, it's an idea anyhow.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

From a balance perspective, that could work. I mean, according to the informed opinion of some professionals who actually enjoy FATE, you can pretty much always apply your aspects in any situation you feel like, as long as you write them vaguely enough or are skilled as a player in persuading the GM. It works as a game (to the extent that it does) because aspects are meaningless outside of the context of the fate point economy, and rather than actually trying to model the relevant factors of causal processes (as in a traditional RPG), the mechanics are just there to make sure that the story ends up with the proper and thematic levels of dramatic tension.

Right, but I don't see any reason why they cannot ALSO have mechanical significance, ala feats. Its just that, because they will have some meaning in play regardless of their specific mechanics, designers are much less constrained to feel that they have to be 'meaningful' in a mechanical sense and carry some specific amount of weight.

Now, obviously, my technique will not help discourage people from taking 'Taxpertise' or whatever, but there seems little reason to HAVE such a thing in my system. Its better to simply have fairly general 'feats' that provide some mild advantage in a reasonably broad subset of cases and provide a hook for more interesting uses of inspiration as their main draw (aside from just being useful in describing my character, which is enough for many of us).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I actively liked Themes for that sense of flexibility in character design and they had the same niche as paragon path and epic destiny. I actually reacted to many of the paragon paths as why isn't this something you are already building towards in heroic why are they boom suddenly there ... with the themes in place that response is less worrisome (not actually sure why).

Yeah, I think they are nice from a character building perspective. I just think they pushed the complexity of level 1 PCs up a notch, and that was not a plus.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I just think they pushed the complexity of level 1 PCs up a notch, and that was not a plus.

They were also quite optional, and a late addition, so I could see adding Backgrounds, then Themes as 1st-level options as a plus, to repeat players who had already played Heroic Tier a number of times, and could do with the added options & interest. OTOH, opting out of such things (and, oh, feats, say) could be good for a DM running a game for new or casual players (as could be providing pregens or partial pre-builds).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

They were also quite optional, and a late addition, so I could see adding Backgrounds, then Themes as 1st-level options as a plus, to repeat players who had already played Heroic Tier a number of times, and could do with the added options & interest. OTOH, opting out of such things (and, oh, feats, say) could be good for a DM running a game for new or casual players (as could be providing pregens or partial pre-builds).

Well, sure, for ME they were OK. I used them to reasonably good effect, but even then I found my characters began to exceed my level of interest in their complexity in play. This was especially a problem with already-complex classes, like Shaman or Artificer, which have some fairly hard to remember and picky class abilities that need to be kept track of.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. This was especially a problem with already-complex classes, like Shaman or Artificer, which have some fairly hard to remember and picky class abilities that need to be kept track of.

I had a bizarre Minotaur Artificer Ghost of the Past that was a lot of fun. He didn't seem that much more complex in play than other leaders, but I suppose I have a high tolerance...