Rule of the Three (1st of May)

[dkyle]

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.

I'm still not seeing the incompatibility.

Character A takes the Slayer Theme, gets a bunch of features, some of them similar to feats, but not constrained to be feats.
Character B takes a bunch of different feats, instead, because the player likes what they offer better than what Slayer has.

How are they not compatible?

I think the compatibility problem actually arises if Slayer is just a package of feats, in which case, Character A is very likely to be weaker than Character B. That would be a design problem. The Simple options should be competitive with the best combinations of the Complex options, or else Simple is just a trap for new players.

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.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the compatibility problem actually arises if Slayer is just a package of feats, in which case, Character A is very likely to be weaker than Character B. That would be a design problem. The Simple options should be competitive with the best combinations of the Complex options, or else Simple is just a trap for new players.

It is far from a foregone conclusion that being able to cherry pick is necessarily stronger than having a prepackaged set of abilities (see the Slayer fighter vs. the core fighter, or the Thief rogue vs. the core rogue for examples of this done well).

Character A takes the Slayer Theme, gets a bunch of features, some of them similar to feats, but not constrained to be feats.
Character B takes a bunch of different feats, instead, because the player likes what they offer better than what Slayer has.

I don't know what "constraint" you are seeing on feats that doesn't apply to "features."

"Feat." "Feature." "Power." "Spell." "Ability." "Maneuver."

These are pretty much identical terms right now in terms of 5e development.

Hence my comment that if you let 4e characters spend a feat and get a theme ability, it would be basically the same thing.

 

[Dausuul]

It is far from a foregone conclusion that being able to cherry pick is necessarily stronger than having a prepackaged set of abilities (see the Slayer fighter vs. the core fighter, or the Thief rogue vs. the core rogue for examples of this done well).

But you can't create a Slayer by making a core fighter and picking the right assortment of powers. The Slayer fighter has its own integrated mechanics. It is, in fact, a perfect analogy to what we're asking for--the Slayer is a theme, the classic 4E fighter is feats. You can have a Slayer and a classic fighter adventuring side by side with no problems.

The proposal on the table right now is that you have a choice of "classic fighter where you pick all your powers," or "classic fighter where you get a pre-selected list of powers." In that situation, skilled cherry-picking is guaranteed to be at least as good as the package deal, and almost certainly better.

 

[dkyle]

It is far from a foregone conclusion that being able to cherry pick is necessarily stronger than having a prepackaged set of abilities (see the Slayer fighter vs. the core fighter, or the Thief rogue vs. the core rogue for examples of this done well).

And 4E Slayer vs. PHB fighter is exactly what I'm advocating for here, and precisely what we are not getting based on this Ro3.

A 4E Slayer is not a prepackaged version of the PHB Fighter. He gets many things a PHB Fighter cannot. A PHB Fighter cannot duplicate the Slayer by chosing feats or powers. A Slayer is simple, but different, from the PHB Fighter. And this enables it to be both simpler, and balanced. The Slayer is capable of doing things the PHB Fighter cannot, and vice versa.

On the contrary, the current design of 5E's Themes is simply a prepacked set of feats. The custom-feats builds can exactly duplicate the Theme, plus they can combine whatever best features of various Themes they want.

This means that a Theme-based character cannot be better than the custom-feats character, unless the custom-feats character is simply poorly built. In a game that allows custom-feats, there is no real reason to play a Theme unless you are new and don't know better, or are just plain apathetic about building characters effectively. On the contrary, a 4E Slayer can easily appeal to a player who wants to build an effective character, and is a viable competitor with the PHB Fighter.

I don't know what "constraint" you are seeing on feats that doesn't apply to "features."

"Feat." "Feature." "Power." "Spell." "Ability." "Maneuver."

These are pretty much identical terms right now in terms of 5e development.

A feat must be designed to be able to be taken in combination with all other feats, and to be roughly equivalent in power to all other feats.

A Theme Feature would be attached to a specific Theme, and require taking that Theme to get it, reducing the possible combinations with other things. You can put in features that are as powerful as multiple feats, or that are less powerful than a feat, but put together, add up to a worthwhile Theme.

It's a very different design space. There is much more freedom in designing Theme Features.

Hence my comment that if you let 4e characters spend a feat and get a theme ability, it would be basically the same thing.

No it wouldn't be. The 4E Themes are additional options, parallel to feats. You get one, basically for free. Spending a feat to pick up theme abilities means giving up a feat, to get something you could have gotten for free by taking a theme. It might be worthwhile, might not, but the salient point is that spending the feat is not the same as taking the theme. The theme is still very much worth taking, even with the existence of that feat.

The 5E Themes are in place of feats. This is very different. The Theme costs your feats. And gives you exactly what you could have gotten by spending those feats by hand. Or less, since it's highly likely that better combinations of feats will exist other than the ones the devs put together.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I'm getting the feeling that they will just be arranging things differently but having the same results.

5 + 5 = 10, 2 + 2 + 1 + 5 = 10 etc....

No matter how you write it is still comes up as ten. Like I mentioned before, non-optional feats are the same as class abilities no matter how you spin it.

If I need to get to point B from point A and I take a few side roads to get there that just wastes fuel even though it still gets me to me destination.

 

[dkyle]

I'm getting the feeling that they will just be arranging things differently but having the same results.

5 + 5 = 10, 2 + 2 + 1 + 5 = 10 etc....

No matter how you write it is still comes up as ten. Like I mentioned before, non-optional feats are the same as class abilities no matter how you spin it.

If I need to get to point B from point A and I take a few side roads to get there that just wastes fuel even though it still gets me to me destination.

The problem is that there's a huge difference between "choose two themes, each comes with a set progression of 5 feats" and "choose whatever 10 feats you want, in whatever order you want". Sure, it's 10 feats either way, but the greater freedom of choice in the latter case caries a lot of value, and is likely to produce much more powerful results.

 

[Scribble]

The proposal on the table right now is that you have a choice of "classic fighter where you pick all your powers," or "classic fighter where you get a pre-selected list of powers." In that situation, skilled cherry-picking is guaranteed to be at least as good as the package deal, and almost certainly better.

Not sure it's Guaranteed. It runs the risk of that happening, but I'm not sure it will be a forgone game screwing conclusion.


I guess it kind of goes along the lines of, in any game where you can pick whatever package of abilities you want, there will be a combination that works better then others, so despite it being a "classless" system there really are classes.

The trick will be for those designing the themes to ensure their package ends up being the "best" choice.

 

[dkyle]

Not sure it's Guaranteed. It runs the risk of that happening, but I'm not sure it will be a forgone game screwing conclusion.

It is absolutely guaranteed that skilled cherry-picking will produce something at least as good as the Themes, because cherry-picking can exactly duplicate the Themes.

There is no absolute guarantee that Themes will be inferior to custom feat selection, but it is very close to guaranteed. Basically every pre-gen, example character ever made bears this out.

Whether the disparity will be "game screwing" is less certain. That's a matter of degree, and highly subjective. But if the Simple option is almost always inferior to the Complex options (and never better), then Simple gains a reputation of being a trap for newbs.

The trick will be for those designing the themes to ensure their package ends up being the "best" choice.

I'd put the odds of that happening at around zero. Game designers are terrible at picking the "best" choices. And even if they do, it's highly unstable, since the early themes can't use any of the feats that come out in later splatbooks. So those early themes not only need to be the "best" of the existing feats, but also the best of future feats as well.

I think it's just absurd to expect any of that to work out correctly.

 

[EvilDwarf]

Sounds like the double-edged sword.

I too was hoping feats would be in hung out in the Far Realms--they eventually became a mess for our group--for example, we had a "casual" player and a "power gamer" in 3 and 3.5. Guess who always stole the show? Though the DM should put the brakes on such things, guess what? Our casual gamer no longer plays because he didn't feel he had anything to contribute. Which was not true--but that's how he felt.

Double-edged?

Leading edge = themes = set feat trees, which is simpler and could be thought of as class features instead. The problem is that you're locked in somewhat to development. Now, just having basic classes might seem even more like you're locked in, too, with no choice for "development." But if there is a choice for development, you feel more locked in, if that makes sense. If there's no choice, I don't feel locked in. If there's choice, the sense of being locked in heightens.

Trailing edge = if I can swap out feats from my theme, then how is that different from selecting from the wide assortment that defined 3 and 3.5, and how does that prevent the problem with "system mastery" that caused our casual to drop out and our power gamer to dominate?

So, are you locked in with simple/no choices to satisfy the casual, or can you swap to satisfy the power gamer? And if you can swap out, how does that eliminate the 3 and 3.5 problem of system mastery?

 

[ExploderWizard]

The problem with including feats or other mechanical enhancement choices either a la carte or in packaged themes is that the building mini-game will become dominant and we will have yet another edition that is all about what the characters can do rather than one that is about the adventures.

We already have two editions in a row focused on optimizing special snowflakes through a mechanical toolbox of fiddly bits.

Just to provide any sort of variety and to maintain the concept of archetypes there will be choices that will be far superior to others all inhabiting the same pool of resources however they are named.

If the system somehow manages to make each and every choice of equal value you still have a whole party of MPCs (my precious characters). Lets take a look at something basic and innocent such as weapon focus.

It starts out as an innocent bit of mechanical flavor granting a +1 to hit with a favorite toy. Suddenly the prospect of NOT using that toy seems almost criminal. If situations pop up where your favorite weapon can't be used then the DM is out to get you and is not being fair.

Before you know it flying creatures will suddenly find it impossible to fly and chew gum at the same time because a special snowflake melee crybaby cries foul at strafing attacks. Seriously why adapt to the hazards of an upredictable dangerous environment when its SO much easier to make the world conform to your strengths.

Themes, backgrounds, and whatnots should be for characterization fluff only. Once you throw mechanical benefits in you get hordes of MPCs hyper-fixated on themselves and what they are getting next instead of whats going on campaign wise.