Limits to Backgrounds/Themes?

[Texicles]

First, I want to say that I have not read every word of every piece of info put out on DDN, so it's possible that everyone else knows something I missed. If that's the case, just let me know and we can /thread real quick.

It is my understanding that there has been no official word to indicate that all classes will have access to all backgrounds and themes, but many people seem to take that as a given.

I speculate (until confirmed or otherwise) that there will be some sort of limit to which classes can choose certain backgrounds and especially themes. I find it implausible to assume that it is intended to give a Wizard the Slayer theme, or the Fighter the Magic-User theme, and the text of those themes on the character sheets supports my position as I read them.

Is anyone else with me on this? Am I the only one that predicts that some backgrounds/themes will have restrictions placed on them, and more importantly, am I the only one who thinks they should?

 

[YRUSirius]

I do think that a wizard slayer or a fighter magic-User is viable.

The slayer and magic-User theme can be useful for both classes.

-YRUSirius

 

[hafrogman]

I certainly hope they don't restrict them.

If nothing else, it's the first and easiest step to multiclassing. Want to create a fighter with arcane skills, but not so much as to take a whole level of wizard? Take the magic-user theme. You pick up a few minor tricks, and a familiar, but you're by no means a full arcanist. It's a neat and interesting way to add flavor and variety to a character.

Your average fighter won't take it as their theme, but if they do, it says something about their background and life before level 1. Are they a failed apprentice? Was one of their relatives a wizard? Were they trained to be a mage's bodyguard?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think there will certainly be some suboptimal themes for a given class, such that you'll only take that theme if you have a particular niche concept in mind that it fits well. There is no particular reason to ban those in the rules, though it might not be a bad idea to call them out. (Or more likely, call out the classes that do work well with a given theme, and people can ignore those recommendations if they so choose.)

The real question is whether there will be themes that are fine for the obvious classes they are meant to work with, but radically overpowered for the non-obvious classes, even compared to the themes that class would usually take? We don't have enough classes and themes to anwer that, yet.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Background is one of the few optional rules that I see as a step forward. There is very likely a lot of work that will have to be done to clean it up, as it were, but background is just that, background.

Will there be limits, I don't know, maybe it should be left to the DM to allow or disallow. As far as a solid rule, I would hope that there is no specific text requiring or limiting it; just allow it to be.

In this regard this could become the most flexible standard tool to allow a DM to tailor his/her campaign world without interfering too much in the realm of the player's power dreams (but just enough to let them remember they aren't running the game, they are playing it.) /NOTE - This is not a slam at sandboxing, player participatory play or the like, but a reminder that the DM is the adjudicator and sometimes, life isn't fair so suck it up. /

I personally would play it as a case by case basis, if the player can come up with a plausible reason as to why they have any background, I would most likely allow it. If it feels like a contrived way for the player to get some neat ability that doesn't make sense - forget it.
For me, the story is more important than the ability/rules/etc. I am a stickler for the DM sets the car and the players drive the car. The players may know where they want to go and how to get there, but that doesn't mean they now how to build the vehicle, the road or the laws to aid them. (some do, most learn enough to be dangerous.) But again, my whole take is the background should be just that, background. So wither way, it shouldn't make or break any player character, class, race, etc.

 

[Li Shenron]

It is my understanding that there has been no official word to indicate that all classes will have access to all backgrounds and themes, but many people seem to take that as a given.

...

Is anyone else with me on this? Am I the only one that predicts that some backgrounds/themes will have restrictions placed on them, and more importantly, am I the only one who thinks they should?

I think you are forgetting something important that was said about themes and backgrounds: that they are containers for skills and feats, but that such skills and feats can be made available also freely.

You may have requirements for feats, which complicate things a bit when someone picks a theme and later find out that didn't qualify for some of its feats. This perhaps means that themes should better summarize their feats requirements beforehand.

But the point is that backgrounds and themes are tools for both the player and the DM.

For the player, they are obviously a tool for character creation: instead of going through the lists of skills and feats, you pick a background and a theme and you're good to go with stuff that is meant to mesh well together.

For the DM, you can (but don't have to) lump some feats into themes, particularly feats from supplements that you may want to limit access to, and declare that such themes are available only to members of special groups. E.g. you create a theme specifically to represent elite training by the Assassin's Guild of XYZ or the Arcane College of ZXY. This kind of decision should be only in the hands of the DM for campaign setting design. Another DM may like a kitchen-sink game and allow all feats to everyone, then keep core themes just as suggestions for the players.

So for instance, the slayer or the magic-user themes may be allowed to anyone, then if one of its feat doesn't apply to a certain character, she can just replace it with another feat, just as if she had been picking feats individually.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Ummm. We actually created an elf fighter with the magic-user theme for our playtest, and we loved it.

Admittedly you may be right, as the theme says you gain '2 additional cantrips', but we just gave the fighter 2.

And the whole Familiar thing did not suit so we went with a very quick solution. We gave the PC a 'Magic surge' much like the fighter surge, but with spells only. (Idea being he could cast and attack - we were aiming for more of a mage blade/bladesinger concept without messing with the rules too much).

In any case, I hope there are NOT restrictions. Thi is the kind of thing a class system needs to make unique characters. We loved the idea of Theme and BG being front and centre on the sheets. And they were meaningful in our playtest. (We also had a Wizard priest healer ).

I am looking forward to how these combos work out

 

[jadrax]

First, I want to say that I have not read every word of every piece of info put out on DDN, so it's possible that everyone else knows something I missed. If that's the case, just let me know and we can /thread real quick.

It is my understanding that there has been no official word to indicate that all classes will have access to all backgrounds and themes, but many people seem to take that as a given.

'Most themes will be class independent, but there will be some exceptions. Necromancer = divine or arcane caster.' - Mike Mearls, Twitter, 29th May

 

[Li Shenron]

The magic-user theme currently is in a weird spot...

The cantrips it grants actually made me immediately think this theme was meant for non-wizards to pick up a few minor spells without multiclassing as a wizard. This is a good idea IMHO... picture someone dabbling with witchcraft (indeed "dabble" is the word used by the theme!).

A wizard picking this feat/theme for extra cantrips is a slightly better wizard at low levels, but is only very very slightly better at mid-high levels when she'll have many higher level spells per day and those cantrips will make a little difference.

But then comes the familar, and then clearly the theme gets too much "wizardy" for a non-wizard. But again, maybe the non-wizard will pick up only the first feat and not the whole theme.

 

[Texicles]

'Most themes will be class independent, but there will be some exceptions. Necromancer = divine or arcane caster.' - Mike Mearls, Twitter, 29th May

Thanks for that. I hadn't seen that particular blurb. I'm by no means a neo-luddite, but I have +10 resist to social networking. I'm certainly not expecting ALL themes to be limited, but I feel like, in order to strike a balance between mundane and broken, some themes are just going to need some kind of restrictions.

The magic-user theme currently is in a weird spot...

[T]hen comes the familar, and then clearly the theme gets too much "wizardy" for a non-wizard. But again, maybe the non-wizard will pick up only the first feat and not the whole theme.

Being early playtest, we're VERY much in the dark about character creation and progression. I'm not vehemently opposed to a Fighter getting a couple of spells, but my concerns are in later progression of the theme/background (beyond even familiars), what happens? I guess Li Shenron's post gives me my answer.

...then if one of its feat doesn't apply to a certain character, she can just replace it with another feat, just as if she had been picking feats individually.

I guess that, when DMing, I can always place limits on things if I feel they're game-breaking, which has been a long-time tradition that I don't suspect will be dead come 5e.


Ultimately, if WotC takes the full on, laissez faire approach and keeps all themes/backgrounds open to everyone, I'm not going to be all foot-stompy about it or take my dice and go home, much like I feel about any other feature I may not be in love with. I like themes and backgrounds, and I hope that they are all interesting enough to be worth taking, but none so powerful that they create balance issues.

As a player, of course I'll try to squeeze every ounce of over-powered I can out of my characters, and as a DM, I'll try to mitigate my players' attempts to do the same, and life will go on, regardless of the name on the books.

I'm certainly enjoying the discussion though. Everyone has brought compelling points to the table, and I'm not completely sold on the opposing view, but my stance is softening.