Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Rule-of-Three: 07/03/2012
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5960799" data-attributes="member: 54710"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>-KS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5960799, member: 54710"] 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. 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Rule-of-Three: 07/03/2012
Top