Themes are Dead; long live Specialties

[Leatherhead]

I dislike the name "Specialty" because I am opposed to excess specialization. However, this isn't so much specialization as it is adding a sub-class. After all, a fighter leaning cantrips the the exact opposite of specialization.

The one that has my interests is the Healer. That one is very close to just turning healing into an out of combat ritual, which is something that I want to see.

Also, the necromancer would be cool if you didn't have to use spells for it. Having a rogue steal souls to fuel their sneak attacks would be wicked

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm not that concerned with what they call it, as long as it is semi-plausible for what it does. I'm more concerned that it does what it intends to do. The intention is still a bit vague, which is being reflected in the name change, but that's a symptom not a cause.

Note that another, potentially highly useful, aspect of the package of smaller elements is that it means that far more packages can be made acceptable. If you've got a class (or prestige class) or feat or spell that's out of whack (or that you think is), the temptation is very strong to ban it outright or replace it entirely. This can cause friction or extra work at a table.

But if it turns out that the Whatchamacallit Specialty is a little overpowered for your campaign, but Bob wants it for his character, it isn't that hard to swap out one ability in the package to bring it more in line, while still sticking with the flavor. If Bob is sincere that it was the flavor he was after, then he won't mind. He might even like the nerfed version a bit better, if the change reinforces the flavor. If Bob is just making an excuse to try to powergame over the groups' acceptable limits, well now you know.

 

[the Jester]

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.

But it's a great way to do an unbalanced multiclassed concept, e.g. the ex-apprentice wizard who turned his back on wizardry to become a fighter instead. In 3e he might have been a ftr 5/wiz 1; in 4e, he'd have the basic wizard multiclass feat and maybe an encounter swap. Here he is just a fighter with a weird specialty.

 

[mlund]

Now, that's more like it!

We can finally get over this "themes/backgrounds will replace classes" thing.

Probably not. People made logically confused arguments then and they won't stop making them in the future.

At least they are being more explicit that you can build multiple types of warriors or divine casters within the same class - no need to wait 3 years for a "Rune Priest" or "Swashbuckler" or muck up a PHB with an ill-conceived "Barbarian" class that's a bunch of cultural stereotypes about being illiterate and having to smash your magic items.

Now you clan play your Rune Prist as Cleric: War Domain and your Swashbuckler as Fighter: Duelist.

I'm looking forward to watching Specialties get expanded and to see Advanced Specialties. Mearls already leaked the Combat Leadership specialty in the pod-cast to open up some of the Marshall/Warlord mechanics that have been missing. It's the perfect way to add Rage onto a Fighter: Slayer with a "Barbarian" background.

- Marty Lund

 

[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.

But it's a great way to do an unbalanced multiclassed concept, e.g. the ex-apprentice wizard who turned his back on wizardry to become a fighter instead. In 3e he might have been a ftr 5/wiz 1; in 4e, he'd have the basic wizard multiclass feat and maybe an encounter swap. Here he is just a fighter with a weird specialty.

No doubt. One of the cool things about specialties is how they let players create interesting and unexpected combinations.

But that doesn't take away from the fact the term "specialty" is better than "theme" for communicating how players use these feat packages. Yes, a "healer specialist fighter" sounds a little odd, but that's because it's an odd character build, not because the term "specialty" is poor.

-KS

 

[TrippyHippy]

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

That's a good point, although I'd still like a name change - how about 'Arcane Dabbler'?

 

[Someone]

Specialties are a marvelous idea. Now for each page of feat bloat, they can fill another with prepackaged feat combinations.

 

[Pour]

If we are going to talk about concerns, I have to wonder if specialties will encourage or discourage feat bloat. Will we see an increase of quirky yet flavorful feats created solely to be part of a given specialty package, or will each feat in a given specialty be a juicy-enough element waiting to be recombined into new specialties? What stops the trading of quirky for more mechanical beef when you build characters ala carte? Are ala carte characters okay being stronger for time invested? I don't really like that notion, or the optimization burden it breeds.

Also how do you address the tendency to optimize when faced with multiple feats all related to the same thing, say three different sword-related feats given by a samurai, duelist, and sword-sage? What's stopping the establishment of must-have feats in the ala carte and homebrew specialty arenas? How do designers prevent the invalidating of older specialties based solely on better numbers of new/other feats?