One or Two Themes for Each Character?

[Herremann the Wise]

Now I'm sure there is nothing wrong with getting two serves of the theme pie, a little like gestalt classes from Unearthed Arcana I think. I'm sure I read something somewhere about multiple themes too. However, should two themes become the default?

My thinking is that themes are actually taking on a pretty big burden. On the one hand, themes seem to be embodying possible subclass ideas or archetypes (Pathfinder). Things that tweak the character's class so I'm not just playing a Fighter, I'm playing a Swashbuckler! These relate more to what the character does. And then, there is the idea of theme such as scholar or healer that more reflects who the character is and that acts as the gel that pulls all the parts together. I think I would like to take a bite of each for one of my characters. In particular, I think this helps to flatten/broaden the structure of the character.

What are your thoughts?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Yora]

As of now, themes appear to be feat chains. So alternating between two or more of them instead of following a single one all to the end should not be a problem.

 

[jadrax]

I must admit, I liked the one every 5 levels idea they initially seemed to be talking about.

So you start as a Wizard/Sage until level 5, become a Wizard/Invoker until 10, then a Wizard/Loremaster until 15 and finally a Wizard/Archmage till 20.

The main problem with that is if themes are giving a Feat ever other level, that will not work in terms of distribution, so maybe make each Theme grant three feats and last six levels?

I don't really want Themes to last 20 odd levels each, that's really the design space I see Classes filling.

 

[Minigiant]

Personally, I hope additional themes at once can be a quick and dirty way to do small parties. You know 1-3 person parties with 2 themes per level.

 

[Raith5]

I must admit, I liked the one every 5 levels idea they initially seemed to be talking about.

Agree with this.

I like the idea of themes as being able to represent roles of the PC but they also offer ways to tie the PC to the world in multiple ways (in addition to backgrounds). I see the magic user theme in being more than a role for example.

So the first theme can be something relevant to be an adventurer, the next one could be as well but it also could being something campaign derived. A PC Paladin could choose to join an order than appeared in the game world/campaign.

My beef with paragon paths of 4th ed is that they are a great way to tie a PC to the world mechanically but the commitment is too singular and determinate in campaign terms - if I meet a great archer at 8th level it could make sense in campaign terms that could be Battlefield Archer (for example) then. So I hope that themes can be mechanically interesting feat trees but also something that is organic in campaign terms.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think of multiple themes in the same way that I think of multiple classes. As long as there is some sort of trade-off, some price that the character has to pay for these new toys, then it shouldn't be a problem.

Multi-class, multi-theme...they are almost the same thing in my mind.

 

[Kabluey]

With selecting two themes, are we actually talking about doubling the number of feats a character would get? I guess I would have concerns about that, both as a gm and player.

Personally I want themes to go to max level. I certainly want the flexibility to switch themes, but I don't want to have to switch themes. If I have a concept for my character that fits nicely with my theme, why should I have to change it?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If it always turned out to be class + theme + theme, I wouldn't be in favor of the idea. (Themes gained or expanded at later levels, as they have already indicated, is another matter, one I'm for.)


The main reason for allowing multiple themes at first level, that I can see, would be if several classes just were not working out in the design. If so, then you might have a lot of traction with going with three different patterns, depending on the individual class:

• standard class + theme
• narrower class + theme + theme
• expansive class + no starting themes

If class design develops such that there is a real need for some classes to naturally be narrow and others more expansive, then varying the number of themes attached would be a good way to handle it (instead of trying to max stuff work together that doesn't really quite fit).

That's a logical extension of class + theme, if the material within "class" varies a lot. It might also allow some specialized niche protection for certain classes. If for some reason they really want something kept in one class, but it is difficult to reconcile the power of that something in the normal class boundaries, then eating the starting theme works. Make the expansive class, but your "theme" is essentially already baked in. Likewise, for the narrower, "vanilla" classes, the current fighter being one arguable candidate, additional themes to make up for the missing elements is reasonable.

 

[Mengu]

Just to clarify, the talk about getting two themes was *only* about the fighter, not all classes.

This is because fighters have to have the best attack, the best damage, the best defense, the best resilience, and the most options/feats/themes in the game, lest they be unable to fight otherwise, and fulfill the expectation implied by their name.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I wouldn't have a problem with the Fighter getting two themes to start with, under the assumption that the "second theme" comes from a finite class list of eligible Fighter themes-- the same way the Rogue seems to be getting an analogous "second background" via the Rogue Scheme ability.

Until character creation is made available we won't know for sure... but it appears (based on what we've heard thus far) that perhaps Rogue Schemes are simply a second Background a rogue gets to take... but only those that are more "roguish" based. So the Thief obviously... the Charlatan I remember being mentioned. Perhaps the Pirate. Ones like that. Backgrounds that fall outside of the roguish ones... (Priest, Knight etc.) would still be available for the rogue to take in their primary Background slot... but just not in their secondary Scheme slot.

Fighters might very well be the same way using themes.

You have your large list of themes that are available for everybody to take in their primary Theme slot, regardless of class. So for instance, your Fighter could take the Magic-User theme and have a bit of extra magical ability. But perhaps then also as a class feature, the Fighter gets to choose a second theme (call it the Fighter Exploit)... but these have to come from a designated Exploit list that is much more fighter-focused... Slayer, Guardian, Dual-Wielder, Skirmisher, Sharpshooter, Tactician etc. Just like Schemes are the more "roguish" backgrounds... Exploits are the more "fighterish" themes.

What you get is a guarantee that even if a player wants their Fighter to go "against type" by taking a theme like Magic-User... that player ALSO will get to have a more fighter-centric one as well so that the PC can still effectively do his job as a Fighter better.

And really, it makes sense. Rogues always had more skills than any other class, and giving them a second background accomplishes that. Fighters in 3E always had more feats than any other class, and giving them a second theme accomplishes that as well.