Blog: Background and Themes a closer look.

[steeldragons]

I completely disagree, I don't want one of the goals of D&DNext to be system mastery, I want to be able to tell my players to think about how they see their character and not bother with the fact that the long sword is the best weapon in the game.

Warder

Absolutely agree with this. "System mastery" ought not be a goal of 5e.

 

[Sunseeker]

Preferably using the new wizards market that allow people to sell and share their creations!

Warder

I don't have any issue with that idea honestly. It would be a great platform for 3rd party content producers, especially ones who can't afford to publish their own books. I mean, what if I develop one, really cool, really unique race/theme/class? I could put it up on the market for $2.00 and make some spare change, maybe over the course of a year I develop 10 interesting races/themes/classes/feats. An App-like marketplace would be a really cool feature, players could sell or give away content that they feel is innovative or cool.

 

[Li Shenron]

Uhm... let me recap what I think I've understood.

Background = the list of skills you (more likely) automatically have or (less likely) those you can pick
Theme = the list of feats you (less likely) automatically have or (more likely) those you can pick

The gaming group agrees whether you have to pick your background and themes and stick with it OR freely pick skills and feats.

There are different reasons why the DM would want you to stick with a background/theme instead of customizing: for myself, I can definitely imagine using a theme to represent membership in a restricted group, and therefore I see very good reasons to forbid cherrypicking from such theme (but in another campaign, the same could be definitely allowed).

At this point, backgrounds sound to me just like abolishing the concept of cross-class and restriced skills in 3ed, and just make every skill a class skill for every class. Then use the default class skill lists by class as examples of backgrounds (a beginner may prefer to do that, since it's quicker to pick skills from a short list instead of the whole list).

On the other hand, themes could be two things (and both could exist in the game): they could be just sample lists of core feats with a label (such as in 3ed, the "Archer Theme" = Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run...) to help beginners, but they could also be "containers" for non-core feats that are a bit stronger in flavor and perhaps even in power (think any Prestige Class's unique features to be broken down and turned into feats) in which case the Theme can be used by the DM to represent membership in a special group OR those feats can just be made available to everyone.

All in all I like these ideas, but they are not exactly "new"... quite a lot of people had such things as 3ed house rules!!

 

[Steely_Dan]

Awakened background and Wild Talent theme, does this mean Psionics will be in Core?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually, when I think about it, this system resembles 4e quite a bit:

Themes play the role of builds. But with two advantages:

1. They have more mechanical meanings: if you chose one, you get those features by default. You can just take a theme and don´t worry: the builds in 4e were meaningless. You still had to pick powers and find out yourself, which powers were meant for which theme. Essential subclasses were what builds should have been from the beginning.

2. Themes combine paragon paths, themes, builds and prestige classes:
You can chose themes at different points. You can specialize or broaden your spectrum. Themes of a single class will hopefully fit together.
In 4e words, i hope in 5e it will be possible to either go fighter(slayer/epic slayer) or fighter(slayer/knight) or even fighter(slayer/hunter).

Add in multiclassing, and your character could fit very much any concept you like, without destroying the class based design and I am getting really enthusiastic about that as a 4e, 3e and 2e fan.

 

[am181d]

Awakened background and Wild Talent theme, does this mean Psionics will be in Core?

No. They were talking about Dark Sun at the time. They've said previously that as they've been developing rules they've been thinking about how they would translate to different game settings, even though they're not planning on including all of this material in the initial release(s).

(This was touched on in one of the blog or articles in the past week or two I think.)

 

[Ratskinner]

Except that choosing feats is a pain in the neck, and so is dealing with them in play. I want a mechanically simpler option, not an option that pats me on the head and tells me not to worry about the mechanics.

Basically, what we're seeing is kind of like this: You can play a classic 4E fighter, or you can play a classic 4E fighter where your powers are chosen for you in advance. I want the ability to play an Essentials knight.

I sympathize with this desire.

I could be totally wrong with this....but that may be the difference between playing a basic Fighter (Essentialish) and playing one of the more advanced options in the expert modules (more 4e classic.) I mean, we know that they are shooting for complex and simple characters to work beside each other. Maybe there are simple and complex versions of classes beyond theme/feat choices.

At least I certainly hope this is the case.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Not if it's also available on a list of individual feats. Which, by the sounds of it, it will be.

But if no one else takes it or is allowed to take it... it's a unique ability for the one person that does have it. That's the point. If the DM and players care that much about each PC having unique abilities... then they all agree not to double up on most feats. Thus the ones they have are unique for that table and game.

 

[The Little Raven]

Uhm... let me recap what I think I've understood.

Background = the list of skills you (more likely) automatically have or (less likely) those you can pick
Theme = the list of feats you (less likely) automatically have or (more likely) those you can pick

The gaming group agrees whether you have to pick your background and themes and stick with it OR freely pick skills and feats.

That is how I interpret it, too. Either you pick a Background, or you get free skill selection; you pick a theme, or you get free feat selection. In addition, a DM might say "Hey, you can customize one feat after picking a theme, or drop one Background skill and pick up any one of your choice."

This is an article and design area that actually makes me much more optimistic about this edition being able to bridge the divides between the editions.

At this point, backgrounds sound to me just like abolishing the concept of cross-class and restriced skills in 3ed, and just make every skill a class skill for every class. Then use the default class skill lists by class as examples of backgrounds (a beginner may prefer to do that, since it's quicker to pick skills from a short list instead of the whole list).

I think they're going 4e-style with the skills: trained or untrained, rather than class skills and skill points, which are much more fiddly and can result in spending your points in a way that makes you rather ineffective at a skill.

On the other hand, themes could be two things (and both could exist in the game): they could be just sample lists of core feats with a label (such as in 3ed, the "Archer Theme" = Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run...) to help beginners, but they could also be "containers" for non-core feats that are a bit stronger in flavor and perhaps even in power (think any Prestige Class's unique features to be broken down and turned into feats) in which case the Theme can be used by the DM to represent membership in a special group OR those feats can just be made available to everyone.

All in all I like these ideas, but they are not exactly "new"... quite a lot of people had such things as 3ed house rules!!

5e Themes are pretty much identical to how D&D 4e Gamma World handled feats, which I think is a pretty awesome thing.

 

[Psychman]

As the designers have already said characters are going to be competent in 3 areas, combat, exploring, and interaction, I wonder if the 3 areas of choice will be "weighted" to support these 3 areas.

class - primarily combat effectiveness/role

theme/feats and background/skills - focussed more on supporting exploration and interaction

This would help keep various themes and feat choices balanced with each other and reduce the chance of their being "must have" feats (weapon expertise).