"Themes"

[paladinm]

Can someone please explain to me the concept of "themes", as different from "classes"? I am not much of a 4e-guy, so I probably am not on the same plane (pun not intended); but it seems to me that this is a needless complication.

On my other thread, I've suggested that classes could be restructured to allow one "core" class for each "power source." Power sources in general seem to be very unpopular; but I think of them as exactly what is implied. A martial/fighter character whacks monsters with weapons (or his/her body); an arcane/mage character uses ambient magical energy; a divine/cleric character prays to his/her god. I think that is as much "compartmentalization" as I'd like to see.

Nowadays we have to define our characters by power source, role, class, archetype (for Pathfinder), and now theme.. everything has to fit into a multi-dimensional "grid." Does "theme" count as a sub-class? Or can a "theme" stretch across class lines? In AD&D, we used to have sub-classes like paladin, ranger, barbarian and cavalier for fighters; then all of them got raised to the level of a true "class". If we throw "theme" into the mix, how long before each class/role/theme/whatever becomes its own class, and we can have 3 times as many players handbooks?

The concept of a "theme" can and will become as muddled as the concept of "feats." Why can't we simplify and leave the minute details to good roleplaying?

 

[Morrus]

If you played 2E, a theme is like a kit.

It's just some flavour and new powers for a core class (in 4E). You have your fighter, and you give him a samurai theme, for example.

 

[paladinm]

But I've read some posts that seem to refer "theme" as something beyond/besides "class." Evidently you could have "samurai" fighters, clerics, mages, etc. That just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

[steeldragons]

Can someone please explain to me the concept of "themes", as different from "classes"?

Wish I could. We kjust don't know what that will mean in 5e yet.

I am not much of a 4e-guy, so I probably am not on the same plane (pun not intended); but it seems to me that this is a needless complication.

Oh! The "Theme" in the next/new edition has nothing to do with 4e.

In AD&D, we used to have sub-classes like paladin, ranger, barbarian and cavalier for fighters; then all of them got raised to the level of a true "class". If we throw "theme" into the mix, how long before each class/role/theme/whatever becomes its own class, and we can have 3 times as many players handbooks?

A distinct possibility.

The concept of a "theme" can and will become as muddled as the concept of "feats." Why can't we simplify and leave the minute details to good roleplaying?

I do not know, my friend. I do not know.

 

[JohnSnow]

Here's my take.

"Theme" exists for all those things that people think ought to be classes, but aren't really. Things like "Knight," "Noble," "Swashbuckler," "Pirate," "Soldier," "Samurai," "Explorer," "Scholar," and so on should be themes, not classes. If it weren't for the "rage" ability, "barbarian" should probably be a theme, not a class. The same argument could, perhaps, be made for rangers (just a fighter with the "forester" theme). On the other hand, if the archetype includes some signature abilties (like spellcasting) that can't be easily covered by feat and skill choice, then it merits being a full-blown class.

Obviously, some themes are far more appropriate for some classes than others. While it's easy to imagine a few odd combinations, like a wizard with the soldier theme, it's a little harder to imagine what a "scholar fighter" or "swashbuckler wizard" might look like.

And yes, they're very similar to 2e's Kits.

 

[mcmillan]

But I've read some posts that seem to refer "theme" as something beyond/besides "class." Evidently you could have "samurai" fighters, clerics, mages, etc. That just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

The mechanics of themes are similiar to kits (though I'm less familiar with 2e so I'm just going with Morrus' description), however they're not tied to a specific class. So a samurai cleric would work mechanically - storywise it sounds like it would be a good fit for someone that wanted to play a character that was trained as a soldier and wanted to leave that life a be devoted to their god.

I think the better themes that were made for 4e tied a character into a setting. Zeitgeist guides are available for free and I think are good examples of how these can be done.

 

[paladinm]

The mechanics of themes are similiar to kits (though I'm less familiar with 2e so I'm just going with Morrus' description), however they're not tied to a specific class. So a samurai cleric would work mechanically - storywise it sounds like it would be a good fit for someone that wanted to play a character that was trained as a soldier and wanted to leave that life a be devoted to their god.

I think the better themes that were made for 4e tied a character into a setting. Zeitgeist guides are available for free and I think are good examples of how these can be done.

And how would that differentiate the "samurai cleric" from a regular one? Wouldn't a soldier-turned-cleric be a multiclass (or in AD&D terms, dual-classed) character?

I can sort of see this working if it was limited to "kits" for certain classes; but the idea of cross-class "themes" just breaks down in many ways.

 

[Morrus]

And how would that differentiate the "samurai cleric" from a regular one? Wouldn't a soldier-turned-cleric be a multiclass (or in AD&D terms, dual-classed) character?

I can sort of see this working if it was limited to "kits" for certain classes; but the idea of cross-class "themes" just breaks down in many ways.

Depends on the theme. I agree with you that some make poor matches. Others work though - a pirate crew comprising fantasy classes (the Druid controls the wind, the wizard blasts ships with fireballs, the rogue climbs the rigging, etc).

 

[paladinm]

So how would that work mechanically? Take a racial template, a class template, a theme template, with all the attendant feats, skills, etc., mix them all together and that's your character? Would there still be room for individual choice, or would we be back in 4e-land?

 

[DEFCON 1]

So how would that work mechanically? Take a racial template, a class template, a theme template, with all the attendant feats, skills, etc., mix them all together and that's your character? Would there still be room for individual choice, or would we be back in 4e-land?

Isn't choosing a race, a class, a theme, skills, and feats all individual choice? What do you mean by "individual choice"? Just because you select these things that help describe what your character is, it doesn't describe who your character is.

You can have two elves, both of them rogues, both of them nobles. However, one is a first son of the elven king, dashing, ladies man... and the other is a whiny, third cousin to the family line who goes out in a mask at night to catburgle other nobles' homes because he's not a favored son of the house.

Your mechanical selections in no way determine precisely who you are.