Rule of the Three (1st of May)

[Scribble]

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.



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.

So are you suggesting doing away with Feats and Skills and powers/abilities gained anywhere but in an actual character class?

 

[dkyle]

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.

I think a strong understanding of what characters can do, and a flexible system for choosing a balanced set of what characters can do, is the best way to produce compelling adventures. I want to engage with the world, and approach problems with well defined tools. Not play "DM may I" every time I want to do something.

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.

Sounds like a player problem, not a game design problem. Every mechanical difference can produce this.

Could also be a DM problem, if the DM is contriving situations where the bonus is useless simply because the character has that bonus.

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.

One issue is whether they were misled into thinking that melee were actually useful in the world the DM was building. If it's common to face deadly flying enemies, then why didn't the character know this when he was training?

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.

So are you arguing against all mechanical benefits, or just for themes and backgrounds? Your argument seems to apply equally to classes, races, ability scores, everything. Do you want every character to have exactly the same mechanics, and be differentiated only by characterization fluff?

 

[dkyle]

So are you suggesting doing away with Feats and Skills and powers/abilities gained anywhere but in an actual character class?

I am thoroughly confused how anything I've said suggests doing that. Or how any argument I've made generalizes to that conclusion. Please elaborate.

The only thing I am arguing against is Themes being just a package of feats; a strict subset of the possible combinations available from choosing feats freely.

To be clear, what I'd like to see is (for a campaign with both Themes and custom feat selection):

A character can choose either a Theme (which spans 5 levels), or to take a feat at each of those levels. The Theme is designed however the designers want, and not simply composed of feats (although some might include feats, choices of feats, or even a full, open feat slot).

Similarly, they can choose either a Background, or take a skil at each level. Background would be a set of skill-based features, that might not be the same as the skills available under the custom skills option.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I´d like to have themes overwriting class restrictions. This way, you could customize, but using themes, you could get some features earlier, or without multiclassing.

The slayer and the 4e fighter could easily be themes:

Base class gives:

d10 hp
scale and lower armor
all martial and simple weapons
+2 to fort saves
at will powers
+1 to attacks with all weapons

Theme Weaponmaster gives:
encounter and daily powers
combat superiority
combat challenge

slayer theme gives
at-will stances
power attack
slayer damage bonus

Maybe not everything at first level, but we are already told, that a wizard can get an at will power through feats. So why not have feats, that exactly do such big things?

 

[Incenjucar]

hunh? ...Would you care to elaborate? "Theme" seems like an appropriate word to me (although I'm sure there are others.)

For anyone who enjoyed 4E themes, it will be constantly associated with them, though they're fundamentally different, and it will be difficult for those persons to look at their actual value because they'll be a constant reminder of a system that was mostly loved, and which has now been eliminated.

 

[Scribble]

I am thoroughly confused how anything I've said suggests doing that. Or how any argument I've made generalizes to that conclusion. Please elaborate.

I'm interested in what you want/your thoughts- which is why I asked. Do not read anything more into it.

The only thing I am arguing against is Themes being just a package of feats; a strict subset of the possible combinations available from choosing feats freely.

To be clear, what I'd like to see is (for a campaign with both Themes and custom feat selection):

A character can choose either a Theme (which spans 5 levels), or to take a feat at each of those levels. The Theme is designed however the designers want, and not simply composed of feats (although some might include feats, choices of feats, or even a full, open feat slot).

Similarly, they can choose either a Background, or take a skil at each level. Background would be a set of skill-based features, that might not be the same as the skills available under the custom skills option.

That answers the above question.

Ok so you want either you pick feats or you get a thing that gives you feat like abilities? (If I'm reading that correctly?)

What's the difference? In either case you get some combination of abilities that the designers thought were good, or you pick and choose some combination of abilities you find best don't you?

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think a strong understanding of what characters can do, and a flexible system for choosing a balanced set of what characters can do, is the best way to produce compelling adventures. I want to engage with the world, and approach problems with well defined tools. Not play "DM may I" every time I want to do something.

IME the mechanical fiddly bits encourage fixation on the tools and rules and not so much engagement with the world.

One issue is whether they were misled into thinking that melee were actually useful in the world the DM was building. If it's common to face deadly flying enemies, then why didn't the character know this when he was training?

Misled into thinking melee was useful? Of course melee is useful. If you define "useful" as 'we shall never face a foe that we cannot engage in melee' then you would be mistaken.

How does knowing that affect system issues? Last I checked D&D includes dragons which are big flying things with breath weapons. As to why a character wouldn't know that dragons existed in D&D I wouldn't know.

So are you arguing against all mechanical benefits, or just for themes and backgrounds? Your argument seems to apply equally to classes, races, ability scores, everything. Do you want every character to have exactly the same mechanics, and be differentiated only by characterization fluff?

If another character can choose the same options and be mechanically identical then these things don't exactly scream individuality.

Being actually unique comes from the player, always has, always will.

 

[dkyle]

Ok so you want either you pick feats or you get a thing that gives you feat like abilities? (If I'm reading that correctly?)

Feat like in the sense that class features are "feat-like". Not "feat-like" in the sense of being interchangeable options that can be freely combined, mixed, and matched.

What's the difference? In either case you get some combination of abilities that the designers thought were good, or you pick and choose some combination of abilities you find best don't you?

How abilities are chosen, what options are available, makes a big difference. There's a big difference between a chunk of abilities, taken as a whole, that a designer made, and choosing a bunch of little abilities, combined however you please.

Suppose a player is considering possible approaches:

Character A uses a Theme, built as a unit, by a designer, to do a bunch of things that aren't necessarily feats.

Character B uses a Theme, that is simply a package of feats.

Character C doesn't use a Theme, and chooses feats freely.

B can never be better than C. It is, in fact, likely to be much worse than C. Just as pre-gen characters are likely to be much worse than characters created by a knowledgeable player. In fact, for an experienced player, there's little point in even pretending that Character B exists, since the same build can be created as Character C.

On the other hand, A might be better than C, or it might not be; there's not much basis to say which will tend to be better than the other. This is like 4E Essentials' Slayer vs. the PHB Fighter. The Slayer isn't just a prepackaged Fighter. It's a whole different build, with it's own strengths. Even though the Slayer is simpler, it's still a balanced and viable build.

So, Character B is unfortunate because it reduces Themes to a new player option, only, and likely not a good one. Most Themes are likely to end up being trap options, compared to custom feat selection. The 4E Slayer is good as a new player option because it's simple, and about as effective as the more complicated options. It's not a trap; it's a real, alternative choice.

 

[dkyle]

IME the mechanical fiddly bits encourage fixation on the tools and rules and not so much engagement with the world.

Well, for me there is no engagement with the world without tools and rules. The rules are the expression of how the world works, and without that, I find roleplaying frustrating at best.

Misled into thinking melee was useful? Of course melee is useful. If you define "useful" as 'we shall never face a foe that we cannot engage in melee' then you would be mistaken.

If there's only an occasional flying enemy, then it is a player issue, not system issue.

If there are constant flying enemies, then I'd say it's a world coherency issue, which is a DM problem. If it's a world where melee is unusually weak, that should be made clear.

If another character can choose the same options and be mechanically identical then these things don't exactly scream individuality.

That's just a tautology. Of course if two players choose to make two characters the same way, they aren't likely to have much individuality. So what? Anyway, that's besides the point.

What I was talking about was your argument for why mechanics for theme and background are bad. Your argument seems to apply equally well to all mechanics. As in:

Spells are bad because if the DM uses anti-magic fields, or monsters with high saves, the "crybaby" Wizards will complain instead of adapting.

Weapon attacks are bad because if the DM uses high AC monsters, the "crybaby" Fighters will complain instead of adapting.

AC is bad because if the DM uses high attack-bonus monsters, the "crybaby" Plate-wearers will complain instead of adapting.

Every single mechanic ever made is bad under your argument, because every single mechanic can be made less useful due to DM decisions, and there is always the possibility of some "crybaby" who complains instead of adapting.

I do not see any reason why mechanics from Themes and Backgrounds should be considered distinct from any other mechanics. So unless you have an argument for why they are, or you believe that all mechanics are bad, your argument strikes me as rather unsound.

Being actually unique comes from the player, always has, always will.

Of course. And the more tools the player has to express the uniqueness of their character, through mechanics, the better.

But I'm firmly in the school of thought that mechanics matter. If a situation resolves purely through the use of well-defined mechanics, used by the players how they saw fit, that is the pinnacle of a good, well-roleplayed outcome. The more DM fiat creeps in, the less the mechanics determined the outcome, the less I feel like I'm actually "roleplaying", and the more I feel like I'm playing the game of "guess how the DM will react".

So taken from that perspective, sound character mechanics are absolutely essential to me, for good roleplaying of those characters to be possible.

 

[Scribble]

How abilities are chosen, what options are available, makes a big difference. There's a big difference between a chunk of abilities, taken as a whole, that a designer made, and choosing a bunch of little abilities, combined however you please.

Sometimes yes. I disagree that it's always so.

Suppose a player is considering possible approaches:

Character A uses a Theme, built as a unit, by a designer, to do a bunch of things that aren't necessarily feats.

Character B uses a Theme, that is simply a package of feats.

Character C doesn't use a Theme, and chooses feats freely.

B can never be better than C. It is, in fact, likely to be much worse than C

Whoa I'm hesitant to say NEVER.

Just as pre-gen characters are likely to be much worse than characters created by a knowledgeable player. In fact, for an experienced player, there's little point in even pretending that Character B exists, since the same build can be created as Character C.

Speed of generation. I'm en experienced player but I tend to go with suggested options and stuff because I'm also lazy.

On the other hand, A might be better than C, or it might not be; there's not much basis to say which will tend to be better than the other. This is like 4E Essentials' Slayer vs. the PHB Fighter. The Slayer isn't just a prepackaged Fighter. It's a whole different build, with it's own strengths. Even though the Slayer is simpler, it's still a balanced and viable build.

This is the part that I'm confused about. No matter what you want to call it, it's still a collection of powers that mix together to form a certain power level.

If a certain combination of feats is inevitably outpaced by an experienced min/maxer all the time, then it will be the same in this case as well.

So, Character B is unfortunate because it reduces Themes to a new player option, only, and likely not a good one. Most Themes are likely to end up being trap options, compared to custom feat selection. The 4E Slayer is good as a new player option because it's simple, and about as effective as the more complicated options. It's not a trap; it's a real, alternative choice.

I think the only way to solve this, based on what your saying is one or the other in total. You can't have feats in the game if you have ability collections, and you can't have ability collections if you have feats. (Provided you agree with your other statements.)

Would you say 4e ran into the problems you described with their power groupings?