How many themes do we need?

[Yora]

Since Themes appear to be prepacked feat-progressions, I says combat styles and magic specializations.

 

[jadrax]

What da ya think?

I think you used Templates twice.

 

[TerraDave]

...they are so nice.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Themes are just a list of feats, so the real question is [a] how many feats do you want, and how much do you care about lists of things?

a) As many as are needed to flesh out the themes. I assume that some themes are going to partly use some of the same feats.

b) I'm more excited about themes than I ever was about feats.

 

[steeldragons]

For the initial release...of that red boxy basic/beginners set I am so hoping for...

20. Maybe even less, but no more than 20. Here's what I'm thinkin'...

Slayer............Crusader.................Berserker...........Necromancer
Lurker............Archer.....................Sorcerer............Pub-Crawler
Guardian........Weapon Specialist....Warlord.............Beast-master
Healer............2-wpn Fighter..........Swordmage.......Acrobat
Magic-user.....Skirmisher................Illusionist...........Cavalier

Gods know we'll be having expansions and settings and articles after articles piled on, probably the day after release. Don't bog down the basic game with an endless list of Themes (which would essentially just be the return of the neverending lists of Feats).

 

[Grimmjow]

i think we need a lot, enough that each character is completely different.

Each god needs there own domain also, so that the servants of pelor in the party are completely different from cords servants.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

All of them.

And lets be honest. Wizards needs to sell us something. And when you think, how well splatbooks of prestige classes and feats sold, i think it would be stupid not to invent a lot of those, as it combines prestige classes and feats.

Also, I´d rather have feats organized by themes than alphabetically (not that there should not be a function to do so)

So please, give us nice themes to play around.

 

[CleverNickName]

Classes: I think the best use for Themes would be to make separate classes. A "samurai" character would be created by starting with the Fighter class and then adding the Samurai theme. We don't need fifteen flavors of Fighter; we just need one fighter with fifteen themes.

Racial? That might be pushing it. Backgrounds maybe, but not themes. Themes should be stuff your character learns and trains to do, and backgrounds should be stuff that describes where your character came from.

Combat (Weapon Style): absolutely. This is the most elegant solution to the "flavor of ranger" debate going on in this forum.

Combat (Tactic): I'm not opposed to this, as long as "tactics" isn't some sort of code word for "superhero superpowers of super-awesomeness." Maneuvering around the battlefield and disarming your opponent is one thing; turning your sword into a flaming lightsaber by kissing your bicep and yelling is another thing altogether. (But if you *must* have the bicep-kissing lightsaber-summoner, I would prefer it to be in an easy-to-ban Theme instead of a ubiquitous core character class.)

Combat (Roles): I don't care for the idea of "roles." Back in the day, people would complain about being forced to play a cleric because "the party needs a healer." Nowadays, people complain about being forced to play a fighter because "the party needs a defender." I think they should leave roles alone, and leave it up to the player to decide how his/her character fits into the game world.

Prestige/Paragon/Epic class: I like it. Something like, "every 8 or 10 levels you get to pick another theme" would work nicely. It would make multiclassing a lot smoother, anyway.

Templates: Eh, I'm not sure. I mean, it's a great idea, but we don't know enough about the monsters to be able to tell if this would work. Pencil me in for "maybe" here.

Spell school/Specialist Casters: Sure. I consider this category to be "weapon styles for non-fighters."

Templates: Not sure why it's listed twice.

Other: I think that themes would be a great way to handle item creation as well. An "alchemist" theme could give a character the ability to make alchemical preparations and potions, in sort of the same way that the Healer theme works. An "artificer" theme could let a character create magical weapons and armor. It always bothered me that only spellcasters could make magical swords. Most wizards don't even know how to use a sword...

 

[howandwhy99]

I really do not want themes as core. Skills and Feats should not be in the core game.

However, if it is what you are looking to buy, I wouldn't limit yourself. Add slowly, think about why each one is needed, but no one needs to put a preconceived limit on their design IMO. If you like them, more is generally better.

 

[Grimmjow]

I really do not want themes as core. Skills and Feats should not be in the core game.

However, if it is what you are looking to buy, I wouldn't limit yourself. Add slowly, think about why each one is needed, but no one needs to put a preconceived limit on their design IMO. If you like them, more is generally better.

without skills it will take away from skill challenges and other "chances" to RP, and DnD is the first RPG ever. We need skills for sure. As for feats i think we need them too. Me and my friends (from time to time) play a RPG called Rifts. Rifts has no feats in it and it really hurts character customization. I think they should be core.

Skills, feats, and themes should be core.