Ratskinner
Adventurer
hunh?
...Would you care to elaborate? "Theme" seems like an appropriate word to me (although I'm sure there are others.)
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Rule of the Three (1st of May)
- Thread starter gweinel
- Start date
hunh?
...Would you care to elaborate? "Theme" seems like an appropriate word to me (although I'm sure there are others.)
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
So. Much. Negativity.
I think it kind of depends on what feats are in 5e. The Ro3 post makes me think that they're going to be more significant than they were in 4e, or possibly even in 3e. None of those really affected "the way my character plays."
It's even possible that things like 4e roles would be themes. Or things like 3e domains (think: a series of feats, each one gives you a spell you can cast once per day).
In that last way especially they may closely resemble many 4e themes: feats that grant powers.
If you go around adding special bits and fobs to them, they become incompatible with the modularity 5e wants to offer, so being "just" feat delivery systems is fine and dandy with me.
I think it kind of depends on what feats are in 5e. The Ro3 post makes me think that they're going to be more significant than they were in 4e, or possibly even in 3e. None of those really affected "the way my character plays."
It's even possible that things like 4e roles would be themes. Or things like 3e domains (think: a series of feats, each one gives you a spell you can cast once per day).
In that last way especially they may closely resemble many 4e themes: feats that grant powers.
If you go around adding special bits and fobs to them, they become incompatible with the modularity 5e wants to offer, so being "just" feat delivery systems is fine and dandy with me.
grimslade
Krampus ate my d20s
Themes as feat delivery systems works for me. It seems like themes can be dropped or locked for simpler character generation. The granular nature of themes and backgrounds vs. feats and skills gives a nice slider. It will be nice to see once char gen rules are released.
Yes to rogues gaining more skill points/slots, no to rogue specific skills. Again with a slider in place you can lock certain backgrounds in to gain 'rogue specific' skills.
I hope monster advancement is done ala 4e. It was dog simple and produced exactly what was needed for the interaction. 3.x design produced very detailed foes where 50% was never used or needed. I need that detail for recurring villains but not every NPCs and monster. Plus, I love goblin picadors.
Yes to rogues gaining more skill points/slots, no to rogue specific skills. Again with a slider in place you can lock certain backgrounds in to gain 'rogue specific' skills.
I hope monster advancement is done ala 4e. It was dog simple and produced exactly what was needed for the interaction. 3.x design produced very detailed foes where 50% was never used or needed. I need that detail for recurring villains but not every NPCs and monster. Plus, I love goblin picadors.
What's incompatible about having developer-made Themes available (that aren't just feats), and freely-chosen feats as an alternative? Sounds quite "modular" to me. Use the Themes, use the Feats, up to the player/DM. And characters choosing either can co-exist at the same table.
Or having the bonus feat structure I suggested a few posts ago. Again, seems entirely "modular" to me.
Whereas with Themes as pure feat-delivery, it's extremely likely that a character with a Theme will be weaker than one that chooses their feats freely. If anything, I think the Themes-as-feat-delivery mechanics are likely to fail to produce the modularity they desire. If the "simple" character building method is nothing but a newb-trap, then they have failed.
Mercutio01
First Post
Do not overlook this important little piece of the article. This is the one piece of the entire article that I absolutely like without reservation. I'm hoping this means exactly what it sounds like--the ability to build your own theme by hand. Love, love, love the idea.
I really think people get hung on terminology way too much some times.
I mean, if we were presented the ideas of Themes, which included roleplaying occupation fluff, plus a list of 'Theme Features'... things granted to you from your theme that are game mechanics (basically the exact same things we get from Racial Features and Class Features)... would as many people get all bent out of shape over them?
But as soon as you call those 'Theme Features' FEATS... then all hell breaks loose. The term 'feat' drives everyone crazy, and the fact that those feats are not EXCLUSIVE to a particular theme and theoretically could be picked up or used by other Themes, suddenly devalues them and makes them horrendous?
In 3.5, Rogues *and* Barbarians had Uncanny Dodge, and I don't remember too many complaints from people that they were sharing the same game mechanical ability. But I bet if you suddenly called Uncanny Dodge a FEAT (which it pretty much was, except it was exclusive to just two classes and granted automatically)... all of a sudden lots of you folks would suddenly go ballistic, despite nothing actually changing in the function of Uncanny Dodge at all.
I just don't get it.
I mean, if we were presented the ideas of Themes, which included roleplaying occupation fluff, plus a list of 'Theme Features'... things granted to you from your theme that are game mechanics (basically the exact same things we get from Racial Features and Class Features)... would as many people get all bent out of shape over them?
But as soon as you call those 'Theme Features' FEATS... then all hell breaks loose. The term 'feat' drives everyone crazy, and the fact that those feats are not EXCLUSIVE to a particular theme and theoretically could be picked up or used by other Themes, suddenly devalues them and makes them horrendous?
In 3.5, Rogues *and* Barbarians had Uncanny Dodge, and I don't remember too many complaints from people that they were sharing the same game mechanical ability. But I bet if you suddenly called Uncanny Dodge a FEAT (which it pretty much was, except it was exclusive to just two classes and granted automatically)... all of a sudden lots of you folks would suddenly go ballistic, despite nothing actually changing in the function of Uncanny Dodge at all.
I just don't get it.
If Uncanny Dodge were available for anyone and everyone to pick up, then it would be a feat to all intents and purposes, and I would have the same problem with it that I do with feats. It's not about the terminology, it's about having a great heaping pile of fiddly little mechanical widgets that offer rewards for sifting through the list to find the perfect combo. And it's also about requiring all themes to break down into interchangeable pieces.
If theme-features fit that description, I don't like 'em, and I don't care what they're called.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
dkyle said:
If you can't access the abilities of the themes without going whole hog and choosing the theme, it's not compatible with the rest of the game.
Hell, take 4e, and let PC's pick those utility powers with feats (in much the same way they can pick up skill powers).
Same thing.
Then don't allow your players to cherry-pick different feats or create new themes. Use the themes as-is when the game comes out, and you don't have any problems with players finding "the perfect combo".
If the game mechanics you get from Racial Features = Class Features = Theme Features... then just treat them all the same as unchanging and permanent to each Race/Class/Theme. Because a Feature you don't change is exactly the same as one you aren't allowed the change.
Steely_Dan
First Post
I think someone mentioned you don't need to use Themes of Feats at all, which would make me happy, though of course as an option, yes, i like the sound of them.
Sometimes I just want good old race and class, Basic/1st Ed style, let me improvise from there (I also want Skills to be optional).
Similar Threads
