Blog: Background and Themes a closer look.

[Gold Roger]

Okay- my own two cents:

* Love the idea. But it will be extremely important to make sure that the various themes gel with the classes. As was raised before, how on earth do you make the Lurker a viable theme for the cleric? Or paladin? Especially when they've both taken 'gladiator' as their background? Especially when you account class, race, background and theme- that's four different variables to consider. I don't really see WOtC managing to check them all for gamebreakers/sub-parity.

For lurker clerics, there's plenty of "sneaky gods", for example Mask in FR or the Mockery in Eberron. My homebrew has loads of gods that have non-in-your-face clerics.

A lurker paladin could be a holy vigilante, striking fear in the hearts of the cities crroption, using it's own darkness against it (bonus points for a bat armor^^). Maybe that Paladin was a gladiator and saw all the corruption first hand before a face-heel turn. Other combinations can be equaly explained.

Not having gamebreakers and sub-parity will never be realised in any but the most simplistic systems. Wotc will hopefully cull it to a managable amount through playtesting. The rest is in the hands of the DM and players in each group, as it is in every RPG I've seen.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You become good at all, if you take all basic themes.

@ ranger: right now I imagine the non magical ranger as a fighter with woodsman background and twf/archer theme.

If you take the ranger class, you maybe have a mix of spell progression as a druid, and some fighter abilities and some favourite enemy and an animal companion.

It's possible that themes and backgrounds so used free up some design space for classes to be more specialized than we would otherwise think. For example (and not my favorite choice, but you work with what you have), perhaps there being backgrounds and themes to handle woodsman, archery, etc. means that the ranger can be "fighter/druid w/ animal companion and favored enemies".

It's also possible that the new elements deliver slices of classes without being an efficient way to totally replicate that class. For example, if the stereotypical Basic D&D fighter is made by fighter class + solider theme + some appropriate background, then perhaps there is some overlap between fighter and soldier that is stacking, which is what makes this guy fit the stereotype. Yet, there is a lot more attached to fighter than soldier. So if all you want it to grab a weapon and armor proficiency, and maybe some slightly better melee skills, soldier is sufficient. But if you want everything the fighter offers, you are better off to multiclass than to copy the fighter slowly via themes.

 

[Remathilis]

I do see one thing which I think is a mistake.



The 'all options off' option should NOT be a 0-level baseline from which everything builds, and is therefore strictly weaker than every other way to play. It should have static bonuses that bring it in line with the rest of the modes of play without having situational modifiers.

Heck a simple "If not using themes add 1 to every number on your character sheet" would suffice. But they gotta have something.

Other than that, great article.

I took it as "you'll have less tools to work with, so you'll rely more on just the baseline stuff". For example, you won't have weapon specialization or at-will magic, which will make things a touch harder.

 

[GSHamster]

Two thoughts:

First, I think a lot of the more experienced players are underestimating the value of pre-packaged feat sets. I'm currently trying out Eve Online, which has hundreds of skills which allow you to do stuff, and have prerequisites, and have levels from 1 to 5. They play the same role in the game as D&D feats.

Eve Online has "Certificates" which are combinations of skills. For example, there's a Basic Gunnery certificate, and an Advanced Mining certificate, etc. These certificates are a godsend for me as a new player as they provide a good path of skills to work towards. More advanced players use external programs to lay out their skill training towards specific goals, but certificates are very useful for the new player.

Second thought is that themes provide a very good vocabulary for the internet community to disseminate builds or parts of builds. Like, let's say the "WotC Archer" theme is not the best, and someone comes up with the "ENWorld Archer" theme. A new player or inexperienced player can use this theme just like the WotC version.

For them, it's the exact same process, only the source of the theme is different. There's nothing for the DM to adjudicate or worry about, because picking a theme from the internet is the exact same as doing manual feat selection. As well, experienced players can find themes for their less-savvy brethren online, and it's presented to the end player in the exact same way.

This is the reason why having bonuses for either choosing a prepackaged themes or doing a manual build is a bad idea. Bonuses for prepackaged themes means that internet builds don't work or people put their own unbalanced bonuses, and that makes life hard for the DM to judge where this net theme is overpowered or okay. Bonuses for manual themes allows people to copy net themes and get a bonus they do not really deserve.

 

[El Mahdi]

This doesn't impress me but I'm not exactly sure why.

I want to advocate for my PC - that is, I want my PC to succeed in whatever goals I decide. That means when I'm creating my PC I want to optimize for those goals. However, I don't want to look over lists of feats and skills; that is, I don't want character creation to be that detailed. From what I can tell I will have to decide which is more important to me.

It seems you have three choices in the system: 1-choose no choice (don't use themes and backgrounds at all, or pick and choose your own Feats and Skills); 2-choose pre-made themes and backgrounds; 3-modify to varying degrees by swapping out one or two feats/skills, too completely making original themes/backgrounds through your own choices.

I understand what you're saying about having to decide what's important to you, but I'm not sure there's any kind of fix for it. It sounds like you're saying you want a character optimized for your unique goals for that character, but don't want to have to wade through a complicated process or lists to do so. At the same time, I can't imagine pre-made backgrounds and themes always being "perfect" for your character idea. The problem is, I can't think of any edition, or even other game systems, where this dichotomy wouldn't exist. I'm really not sure what the answer to this would be for you...?

I'd also rather that characters "advanced" based on what happens to them in-game. I would like the game to be designed so that you wouldn't be able to plot out all the themes that you're going to pick before playing the game; which themes you can choose would be based on what has happened during play.

I don't think it is designed that way. It sounds like characters will be able to pick up new themes as they progress, but that the choice of theme is not set in stone. Sure, there are advanced versions of the theme you chose in the beginning, or you can choose something completely unrelated. I don't see any hardwired choice "designed" into the system (at least from the way they're talking about it). It should be no problem for the DM to say/require, or a player to choose to take additional themes based on what they've encountered or learned in game.

 

[El Mahdi]

What I really don't like the sound of is prepackaged characters all designed for the benefit of people who can't be bothered to familiarise themselves with the game, and simply making neat 'customization tools' like background and themes all about feats and skills...

I don't think it's fair that anyone should define what one's level of commitment should be to RPG's, in order for one to be allowed to participate.

There are lot's of reasons people wouldn't want more complicated or granular character creation and play other than "they simply can't be bothered to familiarize themselves with the game"...

Off the top of my head, there's the people who are longtime RPG'ers, who now find their time extremely limited due to job, family, etc...but who still want to play.

There are others that just enjoy the speed and simplicity of a non-complicated game. People who may choose to focus on story and don't want a lot of rules.

Those are just as viable playstyles as indepth, complicated and granular gameplay...or feeling system mastery is important and a valued trait. And just as worthy of support as any other style or preference.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't think it's fair that anyone should define what one's level of commitment should be to RPG's, in order for one to be allowed to participate.

I heard they let people drive now without changing their own oil and filters. What's the world coming to!

 

[Andor]

I heard they let people drive now without changing their own oil and filters. What's the world coming to!

As far as I can tell, they let people drive now without having to actually learn what the controls do, or what the rules of the road are. Frankly we could do with a bit more gateing on that process. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Not that that as anythig to do with the discussion ...erm ... Look! A dragon!

 

[gweinel]

I have some questions which will judge if the theme-background thing is for my liking.

The themes and backgrounds are just the collection of feats and skills from the whole list that someone will get? These will be just preassigned for you?

If yes, then what is the difference from the pregenerated builds in 4e and 3e?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What's the Ranger's mechanical identity? Survival/tracking skills, minor priest magic, favored enemy, slightly exotic martial combatant...? How does that deserve to be a separate class if you can have a Woodsman/Hunter Fighter? If this were a different game, they might experiment with removing these classes and seeing if they can just do it with themes, but I doubt they'll do it in D&D Next because the Ranger class is kind of iconic.

In 2e ranger was just a subclass of warrior... so there could be an argument made about the ranger beeing a theme of fighter would be ok.
Actually I believe, the warlord will be a theme for fighters. So I really hope, feats will have a real impact in the game. Not just little +1s here and there. I hope maneuvers/tracking or twf (i don´t mean 4e´s +1 to damage of the primary weapon twf, but 2e or 3e´s twf)

Imagine following:

Fighter gives you basic combat competence, ,Woodsman background gives you wilderness skills. Ranger theme gives you: favourite enemy, tracking, Longbow and basic twf.
You can have a 1e ranger by multiclassing with cleric and magic user, a 2nd edition ranger by multiclassing with druid and a 4e ranger by not multiclassing at all. At level 6 you usually chose twf fighting theme or archer theme to become better at twf or archery, or you chose elite ranger for animal companion and enhanced favoured enemy and slightly better twf and archery. And suddenly you are close enough to all old edition rangers.