Andor said:
More importantly it's distinct in fluff. If magic is supposed to be rare and difficult (a common default assumption in D&D) then it should not be available to people who have not dedicated their lives to it.
Being dedicated enough to the goddess of fire that you sacrifice some other character benefit (such as, I dunno, weapon expertise) in order to be initiated into her mysteries isn't enough? Or in your view can only those with the cleric class be initiated enough into her cult to learn her secret powers?
In more common magic settings, where magical dabbling can result in some minor powers then a theme that grants spells would be fine.
I'm just shooting the mechanics, mostly. Mechanically, functionally, at the table, with the numbers, the difference between being able to cast
Fireball once per day and being given an item that can cast
Fireball once per day are negligible.
The fluff is different, but the fluff is flexible. Steve's game gives you magic spells, Paul's game gives you permenant, recharging magic items, Sarah's game gives you a hideous burn scar that channels her power, Jane's game makes you eat a special spicy curry in the morning...whatever. However it gets justified, the problem isn't inherently with fighters casting
fireball because they worship the fire-goddess, it's with the in-world justification of that, and that's a pretty easy problem to solve for each campaign. There are multiple correct answers to that question.
pauljathome said:
In my view, the main strength of a class based system is that it means that the class alone gives one a rough idea of what a character in that class is meant to be able to do....So, a fighter hits things with pointy sticks. Really, really hard. Doesn't throw spells.
Being able to hit things with pointy sticks doesn't have to mean you also can't throw spells, does it?
In other words, a class describes what you are meant to be able to do, but it doesn't
limit what you are able to do. Fighter hits things with pointy sticks, but if he gets some way to cast a spell, why can't he? Wizard chucks the spells, but if she gets some way to wear heavy armor (like, say, the Defender Theme, or the Bodyguard background, or a magic suit of plate mail that channels arcane magic, or dragon scales that function like plate mail), why can't she?
If theme, background, race and character class all contribute roughly equal amounts to the character then I have to describe my character as Elf/Cleric/Lurker/Aristocrat. That probably leaves my fellow pick up players mystified as to exactly what my character can do
Well, if we look at this historically, it might be something like this:
- Race: Basic ability score bonuses/penalties, and some minor abilities (stonecunning, skill bonuses, etc.), with perhaps one major ability (bonus feat, re-rolling a miss, special attack, etc.).
- Background: Basic proficiencies and skills (swords, heavy armor, wizard implements, Diplomacy, Nature, Intimidate, etc.)
- Theme: Feats and minor features and abilities (one spell/special attack every few levels, whirlwind attacks, ritual casting, familiars, companions, etc.)
- Class: Essential defining class features and at least one major ability per level.
So "fighter" describes most of what you can do, but "Dwarf" describes a bit, and "Fire Cultist" describes a bit. And "Priest" describes a bit.
That is overstating my position but isn't entirely wrong. It DOES bother me at some level if the purely vanilla fighter (the one who is NOT a HolyFireWieldingWarrior, who is NOT from a world where all characters are magical, etc) suddenly throws a fireball. It interferes with the versimilitude of the world.
A "purely vanilla fighter" probably wouldn't make worship of a goddess of fire a major part of his character. He's probably better served by the Defender or Slayer themes (takin' hits and killin' things).
But the option to switch that out for a bit of fire magic helps those who want to be HolyFireWieldingWarriors feel like their choice of a goddess of fire and their investment in her as part of their character creation means something big about their characters. It helps anchor that worship, if they want it anchored.
And if they don't, it also doesn't have to. Slayers can worship fire goddesses too. Those who take this fire-goddess theme instead just are particularly invested/initiated/chosen/blessed/scarred/cursed by the goddess (and have spent time developing that rather than developing their poking-things abilities).
That was a significant portion of the reason that 4th edition wasn't to my tastes. From various discussions, I think that I'm not alone in that opinion.
I'm as big an opponent of martial dailies and
Come and Get It as you'll find in people who play 4e, probably, but this is a little different. We're not talking about changing what a fighter is. We're talking about giving every player a chance to customize what their character can do.
And, of course, those who don't want such customization can always not opt into it -- we've been told that there's "default" backgrounds and themes for the classes for people who (like me, usually) don't want to bugger about making all these fiddly little choices.