One or Two Themes for Each Character?

[hbarsquared]

A couple different questions here, which I have different answers to...

First, I have an inherent dislike of "bonus feats," "second themes," or "extra backgrounds." To me, this reeks of lazy game design.

Because the fighter doesn't have enough features to make a good fighter class, we need to take on bonus feats or a second theme to make up for it?

Because we want the rogue to be a skill monkey, we tack on a second background and rename it a "scheme?"

I can definitely see the temptation to design this way, and rationalizing it with the umbrella of "we want this class to have access to more options," but I still think there must be better ways of doing it.

So, in this type of instance, I have to say NO, I dislike having multiple themes.

With that said, my second thought is I like adding multiple themes as a campaign choice. Just like a DM can run a 1E game with no themes or backgrounds, a DM should also have the flexibility to run a higher powered game with everyone having two themes, or a deeper story-driven game with everyone having two backgrounds, or both! That I like.

Third, I like the idea of multiple themes upon leveling up. Pick a new theme every five levels, alluding to multiclassing? Or allow the possibility of continuing with your old one? Or just add another theme every five levels? Just throwing ideas out, but what about themes with prereqs (archmage requires sage requires magic-user, for example?). I don't know how it might work, but I like this ideas of layering as you go up in level.

As a design crutch, I hate multiple themes. As an option for all classes, I like the idea of using multiple themes very much.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Third, I like the idea of multiple themes upon leveling up. Pick a new theme every five levels, alluding to multiclassing? Or allow the possibility of continuing with your old one? Or just add another theme every five levels? Just throwing ideas out, but what about themes with prereqs (archmage requires sage requires magic-user, for example?). I don't know how it might work, but I like this ideas of layering as you go up in level.

My guess is that their hints about themes at later levels pretty much follows something like that.

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

I really hope not...

First of all, 5e PCs as seen in the playtest are already another step more powerful than previous edition, as per the traditional power creep... we don't need an even bigger step.

Then let's also consider that unless you complicate how themes work, two themes means getting two feats instead of one at those level when you get it, and nothing at those other levels, which IMHO is not nice at all... it'll emphasize the difference of importance between "good levels" and "weak levels". And a player who isn't using themes and prefers free selection of feats has to pick 2 new abilities at once, making the choice more difficult if the player isn't an expert.

As a house rule, I see no problem for a gaming group to grant everybody 2, 3 or even more themes in parallel. But please not as a default...

But... more important than not granting everyone 2 themes is IMHO not granting some classes more themes than then normal! This unfortunately has been already mentioned by the designers, that they want to give 2 themes to the Fighter. This is just plain wrong, because if the game should work also without feats, then we have an issue because the Fighter will be balanced by those 2 themes, and won't be balanced anymore in a group that doesn't use feats at all (just think 3ed... if you try to play the game without using feats, what is left of the Fighter?).

 

[GreyICE]

A couple different questions here, which I have different answers to...

First, I have an inherent dislike of "bonus feats," "second themes," or "extra backgrounds." To me, this reeks of lazy game design.

Because the fighter doesn't have enough features to make a good fighter class, we need to take on bonus feats or a second theme to make up for it?

Because we want the rogue to be a skill monkey, we tack on a second background and rename it a "scheme?"

I can definitely see the temptation to design this way, and rationalizing it with the umbrella of "we want this class to have access to more options," but I still think there must be better ways of doing it.

So, in this type of instance, I have to say NO, I dislike having multiple themes.

With that said, my second thought is I like adding multiple themes as a campaign choice. Just like a DM can run a 1E game with no themes or backgrounds, a DM should also have the flexibility to run a higher powered game with everyone having two themes, or a deeper story-driven game with everyone having two backgrounds, or both! That I like.

Third, I like the idea of multiple themes upon leveling up. Pick a new theme every five levels, alluding to multiclassing? Or allow the possibility of continuing with your old one? Or just add another theme every five levels? Just throwing ideas out, but what about themes with prereqs (archmage requires sage requires magic-user, for example?). I don't know how it might work, but I like this ideas of layering as you go up in level.

As a design crutch, I hate multiple themes. As an option for all classes, I like the idea of using multiple themes very much.

As a "Design Crutch" you have to admit that Kits have always been popular though. They were very popular in 2E, and as 'Alternate Class features' in 3E they were also popular.

They're a wonderful way to take a class that has many different directions, and make sure that each direction is fleshed out and explored without making the class a hopeless mess or accidentally overpowering them (lessee, this feature meant to make archers good and this feature meant to make berserkers good accidentally combine in throwing axes, making them the highest damage weapon a fighter can use).

Did you complain about 2E kits this much?

 

[Sadrik]

Doing some logic here:
Themes are a collection of feats. You can choose not to take a theme and select your feats individually (advanced style of play), you can select themes (normal style of play), themes are not used (basic style of play). Fighters get more feats, that is their thing while rogues get more skills, that is there thing. Rogues get two backgrounds (ie skills) and fighters get two themes (ie feats). I am fine with this approach. However... if themes and backgrounds are not in use the rogue still gets a roguish background via a scheme, fighters should get a fightery theme via a scheme of their own.

So by this bit of logic I would say no, fighters should not get two themes (but instead have a fighter scheme) and certainly all characters should not get two themes as a default. Perhaps as a campaign option, if those at the table would like to play that way. You are basically doubling the number of feats that characters get. Some may like that others may not.

One final point, I think themes should not be switching around all over the place during a character's career. 20 level themes are fine. I can see where having a point where you can opt out of a theme and jump into another but I would rather not see that as the standard. Same goes with backgrounds. If you start out as a reaver, you can be a reaver for 20 levels. Perhaps give the option to jump tracks at certain points, say reaver for 1-5, clobberer 6-10, ie switching every 5 levels. Basically you lose the feat options reaver was going to give you on 6-10 and pick up the clobber 1-5 feat options instead. Interesting question, if say reaver 1-5 gives you a pool of 5 feats to select from, should reaver 6-10 add 5 more feats to select from (perhaps more powerful feats that make you want to stay a reaver) or the other option would be reaver 1-20 gives a pool of 10+ feats. When you take a new theme would you lose access to the previous feat list? Idk

 

[Remathilis]

Did you complain about 2E kits this much?

Lots of people did. Kits were the redheaded stepchild of an already redheaded stepchild to most (2e). It didn't help that most kits had NO real design scheme, and they fluxed from outright useless to ungodly broken. There was no balance between a kit like Acrobat (which gave slight adjustment to your thief skills, something you could do already) and witch (which handed out FREE magic items!).
When they later redid kits during the Player's Option line (giving them basically benefits in line with 5e's perks or traits) the damage had already been done and kits had a bad name. Which is too bad; the concepts were sound and many were quite flavorful (the bard kits in the Bard's Handbook win as brilliant design, basically re-writing the bard class 10 different ways rather than just stacking on bonuses).
Around the 3e marker, lots of people had hoped kits were a thing of the past and didn't lament their passing. Its kinda funny how they've become retro-good ideas again as 2e begins to slide and merge in the memory hole of the games of christmas past.

FWIW: I used kits, and wrote (and re-wrote) several of my own. As long as people were having fun, I didn't mind. I knew lots of DMs who refused flat out to allow them though, and that seemed to be more common than not.

 

[Sadrik]

Its kinda funny how they've become retro-good ideas again as 2e begins to slide and merge in the memory hole of the games of christmas past.

I am and I am sure many others lamented their passing. I agree with you that the game design of 2e left something to be desired and that kit design was up to the author of the complete book. Just compare between any two, they had vastly different approaches, even in the mechanics. That said the concept was awesome. In my opinion, the book that is the gold standard (literally) for me on kits was the arabian adventures source book Al-Qadim. This is what I see that themes could become. Campaign focused, excellent jumping off points for interesting characters. This is really one of the best 2e products produced both mechanically and thematically.

So whereas you make an excellent point in the implementation of 2e kits over the broad spectrum, there were some excellent implementations of them. We now have a greater focus on mechanics these days so I think we could hit that gold standard without too much difficulty. The argument that because 2e kit implementation was bad, 5e will be bad too does not hold water for me.

 

[Remathilis]

So whereas you make an excellent point in the implementation of 2e kits over the broad spectrum, there were some excellent implementations of them. We now have a greater focus on mechanics these days so I think we could hit that gold standard without too much difficulty. The argument that because 2e kit implementation was bad, 5e will be bad too does not hold water for me.

Kits shined best when tied to a specific setting, much like how 3e's prestige classes and 4e's paragon paths (and later themes) did. My hope is that since a theme is really just a feat chain, it will be hard to break unless an individual feat is broken (and thus fixable at that point).

 

[Stormonu]

I have to say I really liked kits in 2E, though there were definitely some that swung either too good (Bladesinger) or too bad (Outlaw).

When 3E came along, I was enamored with Prestige Classes - they seemed like good ideas and avoided the "front loading" that came with kits. However, by 3.5, I'd come to despise them and hated when 4E made them required.

I'd like to see 5E straddle the 2E kit and 3.0E prestige class model. A nice starting package to get you going and some upgrades later on. I'm not fond of the idea of 2 themes, though I can see it useful for fighters - but hope they find a better way of making them interesting.

Overall, I'd like to see a structure when it comes to themes of being able to do:

Race + Class + Theme + Background or
Race + Class + Theme + Theme or
Race + Class + Background + Background

and it works as well as being balanced.

 

[bert1000]

Some things I'd like from themes:

1) create interesting plot hooks by grounding characters in the campaign world
2) be mechanically relevant throughout the life of the character without overshadowing class
3) a good way to model groups of abilities or affliations that are class independant

Given this, I'd liked there to be multiple themes per character.

Theme 1 = race
Theme 2 = "Profession" = implies certain group of abilities that are common amoung the general "profession". Examples theme 2s: Bounty hunter, woodsman, assassin.
Theme 3 = "Affiliation" = implies certain skills or benefit of a specific group within the campaign setting you are a member of. Examples theme 3s: Sharn thieves guild Dirty Rats, king Leeland's secret service.

I'm also of the opinion that class should be completely disconnected from the campaign game world itself. Class should just be a collection of characteristics from the player / game point of view only. Then the in-world context can be added through themes and the like. I feel like D&D has been fairly inconsistent on this topic.