New fighter mechanic with dial

[Blackwarder]

They are renaming themes specialities.

Backgrounds are what your character does in the world, for example noble or bounty hunter.
Classes are what you are.
Your specialty is how you do those things.

It's mainly a way to better categorize things, I don't think that they will change the fundamental way themes worked.

Warder

 

[the Jester]

They are renaming themes specialities.

Backgrounds are what your character does in the world, for example noble or bounty hunter.
Classes are what you are.
Your specialty is how you do those things.

It's mainly a way to better categorize things, I don't think that they will change the fundamental way themes worked.

Warder

Yuck. I vastly prefer the term theme, especially for (for example) a healer fighter. A fighter who takes the healer "specialty" isn't specializing, he's broadening his bag of tricks.

 

[Blackwarder]

Yuck. I vastly prefer the term theme, especially for (for example) a healer fighter. A fighter who takes the healer "specialty" isn't specializing, he's broadening his bag of tricks.

You gut a very good point there, I guess that we will have to see how it goes.

I always had a bit of a problem understanding what is a theme, I'm not saying that specialities are better, for example I remember them saying that avengers will become a theme but it's clearly not a speciality...

Warder

 

[DEFCON 1]

Perhaps they are saving the 'themes' identity for the higher level 'advanced class-esque' 6th levelish path?

So the basic 'slayer' isn't a theme, whereas the more specific 'Necromancer', or 'Dwarven Defender', or 'Avenger' would be.

So instead of 'themes' you get at 1st level and 'advanced themes' at 6th (or whatever they intended to call them), you get a specialty at 1st, and a theme at 6th.

 

[steeldragons]

Perhaps they are saving the 'themes' identity for the higher level 'advanced class-esque' 6th levelish path?

So the basic 'slayer' isn't a theme, whereas the more specific 'Necromancer', or 'Dwarven Defender', or 'Avenger' would be.

So instead of 'themes' you get at 1st level and 'advanced themes' at 6th (or whatever they intended to call them), you get a specialty at 1st, and a theme at 6th.

This could very well be...and makes sense.

I will concur with the Jester, however that the term "specialty" doesn't evoke as much of a..."punch", I suppose, as a theme. At least to my ears. I also think it counter-intuitive that a Specialty will occur/be part of a character's makeup before a Theme. Theme seeming/sounding more generalized and a Speciality seeming/sounding more...well...specialized. haha.

But then, we're not on the design team, are we?

What you say, though, Defcon1, makes total sense. I hope it is correct...since I very much liked the idea of gaining an additional "advanced theme" (or whatever they might term it) at later levels when we first heard about it. (Delineates the next "tier", perhaps? In a more "Basic to Expert" than "Heroic to Paragon" way...but maybe that's just how I'm hearing/envisioning it?)

--SD

 

[1of3]

Backgrounds are what your character does in the world, for example noble or bounty hunter.
Classes are what you are.
Your specialty is how you do those things.

That's quite terrible.

 

[Blackwarder]

The more I think about it the more I don't like the idea of changing themes to specialities, it feels like narrowing down of the original idea behind themes the design team described to us earlier.

Warder

 

[KidSnide]

Specialty is a much better name for a feat package than "theme." These feat packages are supposed to represent a series of abilities concentrated around a particular method of doing something (a fighting style, a focused area of spellcasting, etc.) This sounds like a specialty to me.

In contrast, "theme" could be anything. As an English word, "theme" does nothing to help explain what the concept is. "Shield-based defender", "healer", "lurker" and "magic-user" can all be themes, but I don't really know what they are until I've seen a bunch of them. In contrast, "specialty" ("style" might also work, but I think "specialty is better), suggests a focused way of pursuing a character's abilities.

This is an example of the designers improving terminology. The only reason we're all confused by it is because they have been using crap terminology for a couple years. Unlike "class" (another crap term that communicates almost nothing about its meaning),* we haven't been using "theme" for long enough for the word to acquire a distinctive D&D-based meaning.

-KS

(*) Note that, while "class" is a crap term, decades of consistent use make it nuts to change now.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

They also mentioned that they just started playtesting the fighter mechanic, and qualified it with "if it works" so, while hopeful, I won't get too excited until I actually see it in play.

Regarding "themes" versus "specialties," what I think of as a "theme" is actually broader than the correction these seem to be going (though I liked the broader directions). In the end "specialty" might be more appropriate.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Regarding "themes" versus "specialties," what I think of as a "theme" is actually broader than the correction these seem to be going (though I liked the broader directions). In the end "specialty" might be more appropriate.

Yep. The best part there, IMO, is that is leaves "theme" free to develop something more like the prestige class/paragon path or 4E theme in Next. There's an awful lot of design space between "feat" and "class" if you think of "feat" as a discrete, specific ability and "class" as almost defining the main scope of the character or archetype.