Blog: Background and Themes a closer look.

[DEFCON 1]

One other thing I think we should remember is that many DMs run their games not strictly through the game mechanics, but make adjudications based purely on situation, and the 'reality' of the situation within the story. And for them... the fluff of themes and backgrounds can certainly mean more, and have a direct influence on the game without the game mechanics ever coming into it.

For example... say the party is on a long quest for the king and they stop at an inn for the night. The party includes a PC with the 'Noble' background... and this player while roleplaying DEMANDS that the innkeeper give them the best rooms for the night because he is a Very Important Person on a quest for the king.

For any other type of character doing this... the DM might make the player roll a Diplomacy or Intimidate check to see if this works. However... a more story-based DM might decide that because this is a nobleman of the realm making this request... no check is needed. The Noble PC uses his influence from having the Noble background and gets what he wants.

Another character who has taken the exact same skills as the Noble background, but without actually taking the Noble background (perhaps creating his own character history of being a moneylender or something) might not have the same influence in said situation because the DM decided on the spur of the moment that the character just didn't have that same stroke. Being a moneylender was not the same as being a noble, even if mechanically they both had the same set of skills.

This is the kind of thing that I think the fluff of backgrounds and themes will mean something to a certain segment of DMs and players, and why I think they both have a good place in the game. They will have an impact based purely on story, with no game mechanics necessary to back them up.

 

[Ratskinner]

Theme-only feats would lead to needless bloat. I mean can you imagine a pirate-theme only +1 to hit and then a Slayer +1 to hit and then an Avenger-theme +1 to hit and so on and so on...

I'm pretty sure the "Bounded Accuracy" means the death of "+1 to X" feats, preferably by fire, IMHO.

I'm hoping that the "fun" of scrounging around feats and abilities for all the "+1"s you can find to create a character that is totally awesome, but only when he's fighting an undead humanoid underwater while wielding an elvish-made kukri knife in his off hand on a Tuesday is going away...or at least being shuffled off into an optional module.

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't think they mean the themes system will be an alternative to feats. They mean the themes system will replace the feat system. There will not be a big list of feats, and then a bunch of pre-picked packages. It'll just be the packages (and then if your group allows it, you can take feats from any combination of packages).

So pirate stuff will be pirate-only stuff, unless your group allows cross-theming.

I would approve of this idea, if only so we could have "simple" or "basic" themes that work more like an "Essentials" class feature, rather than a collection of 3 or 4 feats. However, that wasn't the impression I got. Brilliant, though, if they do it.

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't think so, but then again, I only know as much as anybody else outside of WotC or NDA's concerning this, and that's absolutely nothing.

But I certainly hope you're wrong. I wouldn't like this one bit.

I'm not as certain about feats (or whatever they end up being), but after re-reading the skills seminar, he might be right about the skills portion. It sounds like there may not be an actual skill list outside of what shows up in the backgrounds and themes. You could get a "Climb" bonus from your background, but its only a modifier to an ability check if you are trying to climb. Since it also sounds like different enhancements might become available to different characters, its possible that a "Burglar" theme might have a different climb than a "Woodsman" theme.

Of course, if they're only ~20% done by PAX East, the D&DXP might be totally out of date by the time we actually see anything.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Actually, I'm thinking we have three character pillars that each touch on two of the game pillars:

Class: Combat and Exploration
Background: Exploration and Interaction
Theme: Combat and Interaction

However that's just about totally unjustified speculation on my part.

Might be unjustified, but it is a nice thought. There is some good design lurking in that idea. I must spread XP ...

 

[Dungeonosophy]

It looks like the 5e Backgrounds and Themes aim to distill nearly all subclasses, kits, roles, and builds, from every edition. I group them into various approximate categories as a framework for guessing what others might be included in the D&D Next core:

• The D&D class and "class group" names from earlier editions which are not covered by the class names (so that we have both Rogue and Thief and both Cleric and Priest [from the 2e cleric "Group" name]
• The 4e Roles, by making them Basic Themes (Leader, Guardian [=Defender]), Lurker [taken from the monster role]). This is a clever melding of 4e terminology back into a more Classic D&D framework.
• The 4e Essentials builds: Slayer, Knight
• The 3e Prestige Classes, by making them Advanced Themes (Shadowdancer, Eldritch Knight, Dwarven Defender, Arcane Archer)
• The 2e Specialty Priest classes, by making them Domain Themes
• The 2e Specialist Wizard classes, by making them Advanced Themes (Necromancer, Abjurer, Enchanter)
• The generic "NPC classes" from earlier editions (Commoner, Soldier [=Warrior], Sage, Alchemist)
• Other key high fantasy archetypes which are always eventually covered by each edition (Gladiator = 2e kit and key Dark Sun class; Knight = CD&D Name-Level Fighter option and 3e prototype class for the 4e Defender role)
• The Regional backgrounds, originally from the 3e FRCS (Thay, Blackmoor)
• The Setting-specific organizations and factions (Red Wizards, Greyhawk's Knights of the Watch, Disciple of Tenser, and the various Planescape factions)
• "Story backgrouds", such as Bereaved.
• Monstrous PCs (Deva, Plane-touched, Werewolf, Revenant)

Given this rough breakdown, could we guess what other Backgrounds and Themes will be covered in the Core books?

The other 2e group or class names:? Mage (with Wizard); "Warrior" is probably covered by "Soldier"

The other 4e Roles as Basic Themes? (Controller? Striker?)

The other Essentials builds?: (Hunter, Scout, Mage, Hexblade, Sentinel?)



Will the 5e PHB include all the other Prestige Classes from the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB? 3e introduced some new "D&D-specific" class names--including them as distinct options in the Core will go a long way toward distilling the 3e feel into D&D Next.

• Arcane Trickster
• Archmage (probably a "Paragon Theme", even higher than an "Advanced Theme")
• Blackguard (or will Paladins be able to take any alignment from the start?)
• Dragon Disciple
• Duelist
• Hierophant
• Horizon Walker
• Loremaster
• Mystic Theurge
• Thaumaturgist

The Unearthed Arcana classes--Thief-Acrobat and UA-style Cavalier as Advanced Themes, continuing from the Thief and Knight basic builds? Having Thief-Acrobat and Cavalier in the PHB would be a nice nod to First Edition.

The other 2.5e Skills & Powers kits (serving as a distillation of the many 2.0e kits)?

Will Regions and Organizations/Factions only be included in future Campaign Setting books, or will the Core book somehow include them?

Other key "story backgrounds", like the "Birth Backgrounds" and "Society Backgrounds" of 4e? (Ostracized, Refugee, Orphaned; the Compendium shows the full list)

Other monstrous PC options, similar to 3e's Savage Species and CD&D Creature Crucibles?

 

[GX.Sigma]

• The Classic D&D archetypal names which are not covered by the class names (so that we have both Rogue and Thief and both Cleric and Priest [from the 2e cleric "Group" name]
• The 4e Roles, by making them Basic Themes (Leader, Guardian [=Defender]), Lurker [taken from the monster role]). This is a clever melding of 4e terminology back into a more Classic D&D framework.
• The 4e Essentials builds: Slayer, Knight
• The 3e Prestige Classes, by making them Advanced Themes (Shadowdancer, Eldritch Knight, Dwarven Defender, Arcane Archer)
• The 2e Specialty Priest classes, by making them Domain Themes
• The 2e Specialist Wizard classes, by making them Advanced Themes (Necromancer, Abjurer, Enchanter)
• The generic "NPC classes" from earlier editions (Commoner, Soldier [=Warrior], Sage, Alchemist)
• Other key high fantasy archetypes which are always eventually covered by each edition (Gladiator = 2e kit and key Dark Sun class; Knight = CD&D Name-Level Fighter option and 3e prototype class for the 4e Defender role)
• The Regional backgrounds, originally from the 3e FRCS (Thay, Blackmoor)
• The Setting-specific organizations and factions (Red Wizards, Greyhawk's Knights of the Watch, Disciple of Tenser, and the various Planescape factions)
• "Story backgrouds", such as Bereaved.
• Monstrous PCs (Deva, Plane-touched, Werewolf, Revenant)

When you list them all out like that, it makes me a bit sad that Vampire competes for the same slot as Necromancer (and that Necromancer, by the verbage in the article, may require Mystic as a prerequisite).

For example, in 4e, I have a character who has some fiendish blood (race) which caused her to be orphaned as a young child (background) before being taken in by an organization of wizards (theme) and trained to be a specialist mage/necromancer (subclass/class feature selection), until she dabbled too far in dark magic and turned herself into a vampire (feat).

That is a rather complex backstory described in meaningful mechanical terms. I don't know how I'd describe that character if all those things were different options for one slot of character customization. I suppose I could make my own "tiefling-necromancer-vampire" theme by selecting feats individually, but that goes against the system a bit.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't know how I'd describe that character if all those things were different options for one slot of character customization. I suppose I could make my own "tiefling-necromancer-vampire" theme by selecting feats individually, but that goes against the system a bit.

For the first thing, it's possible that, like in 4e, they'll have an assortment of ways to do the same thing. There's vampire feats, there's a vampire race ("Vryloka"), there's a vampire class, there could hypothetically be a vampire theme...A vampire doesn't just need to be one thing.

For the second thing, I don't think that's going against the system at all. A modular system is designed to be taken apart and put back together again. Making your own should be something you feel welcomed to do, not something you feel like you're going against the grain to do.

 

[Andor]

For the first thing, it's possible that, like in 4e, they'll have an assortment of ways to do the same thing. There's vampire feats, there's a vampire race ("Vryloka"), there's a vampire class, there could hypothetically be a vampire theme...A vampire doesn't just need to be one thing.

Ahh. Is this why there are people around here talking about making a character that is 350% vampire?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ahh. Is this why there are people around here talking about making a character that is 350% vampire?

Hahaha, yep! It's a little hilarious, and very redundant, but it's not broken, so if the DM were to allow all these different methods, there could be a lot of vampire up in this game.

Most players, though, will find the one aspect of their character they feel they can vampirize, and do that.