Excited About Race / Class / Theme

[Number48]

Here's one of the things I like about the R/C/T style, the math regarding options.

Let's say 5E mainly has R/C and theme is only an afterthought, not really an equal option. If we say 12 races and 17 classes that's 218 unique combinations. Not bad.

But if R/C/T are equal choices, things change. Let's say we reduce races to 10. We reduce classes to 10 because we're moving some of that to themes. Then for themes we have 10 choices as well. That makes 1,000 unique combinations!

The more you split up options into smaller independent packages, the more outcomes there are. The more outcomes there are, the more the game naturally settles into the impression of balance which is just as important as actual mechanical balance. Even better, this doesn't increase complexity. Choosing from 3 lists of 10 choices is not any harder than choosing from 2 lists of 12/17 choices.

 

[ferratus]

I think the fact that themes are not class specific means that you can keep a lot of classes with specific flavour intact. The paladin is a variant fighter or cleric, but he is a knight instead of wizard. So wizard paladins or wizard rangers don't really work because there is too much baggage associated with the name. If you have the character concept of a wizard who is a ranger, both are equally powerful archetypes, so that would be better served with multiclassing. Classes with distinct mechanics (warlock vs. sorcerer vs. wizard, or priest vs. cleric) would also not be served well by turning one into a theme.

However, I think you could have some options that work across classes better than they do as their own distinct class. Aside from warlord (commander) or assassin (kills by surprise and poison) that were already mentioned, you have the bard (singer/storyteller), wilder (has wild psionic talents), or alchemist (brews concoctions).

A piece of a class can also be turned into a theme. If you want a rogue's collection of thief skills (opening locks etc.) but don't care about all the other baggage of backstab and dirty fighting, you can have the thief theme to become good at sneaking and stealing even if you are a cleric.

Other options would be: magic-user (uses magic), pugilist (fights unarmed), zealot (divine champion), or scout (herbalism and outdoor skills).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Man, I love this thread. It's really zeroing in on distinguishing the difference between class-specific vs class-independent traits -- and good use of themes makes class creation feel so much more organic without getting into the hazards of a purely classeless system.

I hope 5E will use themes for all that it's worth.

(But this is where Crazy Jerome is probably secretly thinking that the elegance of the idea itself is insufficient and we also must account for design as well

Naw, the design is good. It is follow through with development that stays true to that design, that gives me pause.

The race/class/theme idea is close enough to the race/culture/class idea I have off and on proposed, that I'm onboard. In a lot of ways, I like it better, because "theme" is a better expression of the intersection of class and race, so that stuff which can't readily fit in either can go into the third thing--but while still being its own thing. Since that was a big part of my impetus when proposing "culture" as a separate, third axis, I can be happy with that.

Elegance (or lack thereof) in this design is having a clear, separate, third axis on which to build the foundation of the character. This is a lot more elegant than, say, a "feat" system overloaded with class customization options, or subclasses, or "talent trees" or any number of kludges that people are always suggesting to give a patina of good design to a plain class system. I recongize there is a practical dividing line here. But if you can package stuff together in a theme, and most people want the package, then that will be elegant in practice. And elegant design that is not elegant in use is hardly worth talking about.

So, the big question then is, "Will they get the right stuff into the classes, races, and themes?" If they do, it will work great. To the extent that they don't, you'll have odd problems that we will be more or less stuck with for the life of the edition, because it will probably be too embedded into the foundation to change. That's a matter of proper execution of the design, not the design itself. (Leaving aside the possibility, however remote, that there is some fatal flaw in this design, that attempting to execute it will reveal. We can hardly know that now, though, since the design team certainly does not--yet.)

 

[ferratus]

But if R/C/T are equal choices, things change. Let's say we reduce races to 10. We reduce classes to 10 because we're moving some of that to themes. Then for themes we have 10 choices as well. That makes 1,000 unique combinations!

Don't forget dual-classing or hybrids, which makes 9000 options. With true multiclassing, then you need factorals to figure out all the options.

Even better, this doesn't increase complexity. Choosing from 3 lists of 10 choices is not any harder than choosing from 2 lists of 12/17 choices.

Themes are considerably less complicated than multi-classing, and a lot of multiclassing options can be done with thieves. I've seen fighter/monks in 3e when all the person really wanted to do was fight unarmed. It would be better just to have unarmed fighting as a theme.

Say you have someone who likes running out of spells. Instead of taking the crossbow or dagger (old hat by now) she takes the unarmed fighting theme. Why? Because Mdm. Ioun's Magical Academy for Girls had mandatory self-defense classes.

 

[LurkAway]

The paladin is a variant fighter or cleric, but he is a knight instead of wizard. So wizard paladins or wizard rangers don't really work because there is too much baggage associated with the name.

I agree, but it also depends on what is meant by a paladin or ranger.

Some people think of the paladin as simply a champion (or crusader) of any cause. To me, being a champion per se isn't a class any more than an adventurer or dungeon explorer is a class.

Others think of a paladin of a virtuous knight. To me, that's just a fighter class, maybe with a knight theme (say, free plate armor, shield, and sword), and a code of conduct that can be roleplayed without need for supporting mechanics.

Others think of the paladin as a divine warrior. To me, that's a class -- but still needs to be distinguished from cleric as a holy warrior. (Some have argued that the difference is that a cleric is a holy warrior bound to a church, and a paladin is a solo holy warrior favored by a god, but I don't see why that differentiation needs supporting mechanics).

You have the same identity problem with the Aragorn or Drizzt rangers.

Anyhoo, my point is that I think it's totally legitimate to say that wizard paladins or wizard rangers don't work, but I think you also need to universally define the archetype as it exists in D&D before you can decide if it's mechanically warranted as a theme or a class -- otherwise you will have people talking past each other due to different preconceptions.

 

[Yora]

I think lots of the talk here sounds like base class//prestige class gestalt builds.

Which I guess could work, but seems needlesly complicated for the basic rules and would make a lot more sense for optional rules modules.

 

[Savage Wombat]

If we have multi-classing, can we have multi-theming?

Can I play a half-elf/half-orc fighter/cleric knight/apostate?

 

[ferratus]

To the extent that they don't, you'll have odd problems that we will be more or less stuck with for the life of the edition, because it will probably be too embedded into the foundation to change.

The big problem with themes (to put cold water on the excitement) that I see is that it will have all the same problems as prestige classes, kits, and paragon paths had before it. Someone will design an underpowered, overpowered, badly explained, or outright broken theme, and people will end up disrupting things by taking it. Like kits and prestige classes before them, some DM's will end up banning the whole system to keep things in check. Neither kits or prestige classes were supposed to unbalance the applecart, but certain ones certainly did.

Another problem is that some people will balk at some ofthe flavour of themes. I think themes to play vampires and werewolves are a great idea myself, and we used a werewolf theme with a barbarian who was based on Egil Skallagrimson's grandfather Kveldulf (evening wolf). It worked very well.

However, some DM's might have a knee jerk reaction against the idea of PC's playing monsters.

 

[LurkAway]

Can I play a half-elf/half-orc fighter/cleric knight/apostate?

Do we need to tag themes with a keyword, so that you can't stack themes (without DM permission)? ie., half-elf and half-orc have the 'blood' keyword so you can't combine them?

Maybe, but I'm not sure it's necessary. I haven't heard much about it recently, but 5E was announced with the goal that the soul of D&D is the story.

So if a player wants a half-elf/half-orc fighter/cleric knight/apostate, is there a legitimate compelling story behind that that fits into the story that the DM and other players would enjoy?

 

[LurkAway]

Someone will design an underpowered, overpowered, badly explained, or outright broken theme, and people will end up disrupting things by taking it.

Yes, that would be a problem.

OTOH, 5e is modular, so it will have to deal with that issue all the time.

Another problem is that some people will balk at some ofthe flavour of themes. I think themes to play vampires and werewolves are a great idea myself, and we used a werewolf theme with a barbarian who was based on Egil Skallagrimson's grandfather Kveldulf (evening wolf). It worked very well.

However, some DM's might have a knee jerk reaction against the idea of PC's playing monsters.

Tag those themes as "Rare" and let the DM decide?