Themes are Dead; long live Specialties

[TrippyHippy]

Well, I'm OK with it - it seems that Themes/Classes were getting confusing, and was causing some people some consternation.

I just hope we don't have a proliferation of over specialised Classes, though. In my view, honestly, about 12-13 core Classes is the most the game needs (possibly with Prestige Classes to build on it, maybe). They all need to be archetypes, not elaborate rule mechanism packages.

With the Specialities, I hope they add a lot more along with plenty of Background packages. Variety is important to make these aspects work, and hopefully they'll be better themed as they are developed.

"Magic-User" isn't a theme, speciality or ...anything really, beyond being a throwback to an older term. Call it something else - like "Battle Caster" or something, because the current term is literally meaningless - what Wizard isn't a 'Magic User'?

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well I would hope that a specialty were the base class, like magic use, or fighting, or whatnot.

I liked theme better.

 

[BobTheNob]

Now, that's more like it!

We can finally get over this "themes/backgrounds will replace classes" thing. Backgrounds are skill packs, specialties are "A specialty represents specialized knowledge and training that helps defines your character’s approach to adventuring. A typical specialty represents something like a fighting style, training in special magical techniques, or knowledge of certain tricks of the trade frequently used by adventurers."

That's it.

No replacing the Paladin/Ranger/Monk/Sorcerer/Warlock/Bard with it. No trying to turn Barbarian or Monk into 4-feat chains (1, 3, 6, 9). I don't know if the "all PHB 1 classes" will be in it, but I suspect most of those classes will be what they always were: classes.

Now, lets start discussing how these classes will look...

I didnt think that debate was still on.

But ah well, if it makes you happy.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'd prefer Edge. Edges. Fighter with a magic-user edge.

 

[jrowland]

If they are feat packages, then the Necromancer "Aura of Souls" is an interesting feat.

I am not so sure they ARE feat packages...more like "class feature chains that are similar to feats in how they help you specialize" packages.

I doubt we'll see "Aura of Souls" in a generalized feats list.

 

[Ratskinner]

If they are feat packages, then the Necromancer "Aura of Souls" is an interesting feat.

I am not so sure they ARE feat packages...more like "class feature chains that are similar to feats in how they help you specialize" packages.

I doubt we'll see "Aura of Souls" in a generalized feats list.

I was disappointed to see "prerequisites" make a comeback. So "Aura of Souls" could show up in a "generalized" list of "specialized" feats....

Personally, I prefer your suggestion over feats as the organizing idea.

 

[Ratskinner]

I didnt think that debate was still on.

But ah well, if it makes you happy.

I thought it had sorta petered-out with a "::shrug:: I guess we'll see what happens." I'm not sure what motivates the OP to think that anything in this playtest would settle it one way or another, they don't seem any different to me.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Well I would hope that a specialty were the base class, like magic use, or fighting, or whatnot.

I liked theme better.

Me too. I realise that not much has changed in the execution since the first package and the new one, and that "specialty" is probably a better term for a feat package than "theme", but I was expecting/hoping that the "themes" would get a bit more, y'know, thematic.

Now it just seems weird to see 'Necromancer' and 'Dual Wielder' in the same silo. One does not seem like the other.

 

[the Jester]

"Magic-User" isn't a theme, speciality or ...anything really, beyond being a throwback to an older term. Call it something else - like "Battle Caster" or something, because the current term is literally meaningless - what Wizard isn't a 'Magic User'?

What about the fighter or rogue who takes the Magic-User theme/specialty?

 

[KidSnide]

Specialty is a better term than theme because "theme" doesn't actually provide any information about what that package of character abilities consists of. ("Class" is similarly problematic, but we've had it for decades...) Specialty suggests that it describes the specific manner in which the character does his or her thing. It's a smaller and narrower set of abilities than a character's class and - while a fighter with a magic-user* specialty is odd - so is that character choice. A fighter with a Survivor or Dual Wielder specialty makes a lot of sense.

Specialties also serve a valuable service in feat design, because they force the designers to build the feats as part of a coherent character concept. That gives the feat some story weight, whereas they were becoming increasingly mechanical, particularly as 4e went along.

Lastly, as noted above, specialties provide a fantastic way for campaigns to opt-out of character optimization. Speaking just for myself, I care a lot about keeping the characters in my campaign on the same power level. But, if I give full freedom to the players who have the bandwidth to optimize, then I - as a DM - have to spend time optimizing the other PCs. I'd much rather tell them to all just pick a specialty and end the practice of cherry-picking the best feats in the game. Obviously, I don't want to ruin the fun of the charopt folks, but I'm glad their efforts don't have to affect my game.

-KS