One or Two Themes for Each Character?

[hbarsquared]

Did you complain about 2E kits this much?

First, admittedly, I have very little experience with 2e kits; I got started with D&D toward the end of the AD&D 2E run.

However, I never saw kits as a "design crutch," per se. Kits are an extra option to layer on top of your character. They may have improved some classes, or added an option that players felt was necessary, but they weren't "gain bonus feats," or "gain more options for this ability you already have." Perhaps not well-designed, but they were also not lazy design.

An extra theme is simply a number of bonus feats. An extra background is a number of bonus skills. Adding a feature is good design, in my opinion. Just doubling the number of feats for a fighter (even if the second choice is from a restricted list) is lazy.

I do, however, understand the difficult in creating a balanced, useful, and enjoyable feature for the fighter that improves your ability to "hit stuff." Just because it's challenging doesn't mean designers should take the easy route.

 

[GreyICE]

First, admittedly, I have very little experience with 2e kits; I got started with D&D toward the end of the AD&D 2E run.

However, I never saw kits as a "design crutch," per se. Kits are an extra option to layer on top of your character. They may have improved some classes, or added an option that players felt was necessary, but they weren't "gain bonus feats," or "gain more options for this ability you already have." Perhaps not well-designed, but they were also not lazy design.

An extra theme is simply a number of bonus feats. An extra background is a number of bonus skills. Adding a feature is good design, in my opinion. Just doubling the number of feats for a fighter (even if the second choice is from a restricted list) is lazy.

I do, however, understand the difficult in creating a balanced, useful, and enjoyable feature for the fighter that improves your ability to "hit stuff." Just because it's challenging doesn't mean designers should take the easy route.

We haven't seen any themes or backgrounds yet, outside of the VERY LIMITED snapshot we got with the playtest materials, so it's literally impossible to say that EVERY SINGLE theme or background is just 'a collection of feats or bonus skills.' In fact, I would literally be shocked and appalled if that was all they were.

 

[hbarsquared]

We haven't seen any themes or backgrounds yet, outside of the VERY LIMITED snapshot we got with the playtest materials, so it's literally impossible to say that EVERY SINGLE theme or background is just 'a collection of feats or bonus skills.' In fact, I would literally be shocked and appalled if that was all they were.

That's probably why we've been talking at cross-purposes!

WotC has said exactly that. Themes are prepackaged collections of feats.

Here is the first source I found. I know there are others.

Backgrounds I'm less sure about: I believe they include some type of noncombat roleplay feature plus a list of trained skills.

 

[GreyICE]

That's probably why we've been talking at cross-purposes!

WotC has said exactly that. Themes are prepackaged collections of feats.

Here is the first source I found. I know there are others.

Backgrounds I'm less sure about: I believe they include some type of noncombat roleplay feature plus a list of trained skills.

There's something incredibly different about 'a feature only accessible through themes' and 'a feature themes give you more of.'

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm hoping -- and it looks like this may be the case -- that themes are a shorthand way of creating a character concept by prepackaging some feats and abilities; players should also have the option of selecting feats individually to create their own "theme" rather than having to rely on pre-packaged themes.

Same with backgrounds and skills, I hope. Pick a pre-selected set for speed, or take the time for detailed customization.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Y'know, it might actually be OK for any character to have any number of themes - just not everything each theme gives you.

For instance, in 4e, you can have any number of backgrounds, but you only get the minor bonus benefit of one of them (your choice). In AD&D, your wizard might know any number of spells, but he couldn't use them all at once. 5e could let you take multiple themes, but each time you get a feat, you only get the feat given by one of those themes (your choice).

This would help with concepts that call for a PC 'being' several things that happen to all be covered by feats rather than classes, backgrounds or re-flavoring.

 

[hbarsquared]

There's something incredibly different about 'a feature only accessible through themes' and 'a feature themes give you more of.'

???

Themes only give you feats. That's it. Nothing else. You can either choose a theme with prepackaged feats for your character, or you can pick and choose feats yourself. Theme = feats.

 

[Remathilis]

???

Themes only give you feats. That's it. Nothing else. You can either choose a theme with prepackaged feats for your character, or you can pick and choose feats yourself. Theme = feats.

Some people want themes to be everything: sub-classes, kits, prestige classes, paragon paths, floorcleaner, toothpaste, etc. I really hope each is wrong.

Why? Themes will be CUSTOMIZABLE. If a theme can replicate a sub-class then it means you can take all the base elements and remix them into your own hyper-broken monster. I can only imagine the Char-op boards after that!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

However, I never saw kits as a "design crutch," per se. Kits are an extra option to layer on top of your character. They may have improved some classes, or added an option that players felt was necessary, but they weren't "gain bonus feats," or "gain more options for this ability you already have." Perhaps not well-designed, but they were also not lazy design.

Whereas I would say that "lazy design" exactly encapsulates what was wrong with kits, though maybe you mean "design" broader here than I would use it. That is, I have no doubt that a lot of kit writers put a lot of thought and "development" work into the kits, but they really don't even have any design to speak of. It's just stuff slapped together towards a particular flavor, much like the way that people wrote new classes for early D&D and published them in Dragon, or wrote new systems for things with no regards to what was going on around those systems.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm hoping -- and it looks like this may be the case -- that themes are a shorthand way of creating a character concept by prepackaging some feats and abilities; players should also have the option of selecting feats individually to create their own "theme" rather than having to rely on pre-packaged themes.

Same with backgrounds and skills, I hope. Pick a pre-selected set for speed, or take the time for detailed customization.

Definitely, but not exclusively...

I think themes (but probably not backgrounds) can also be used by the DM to describe special groups and make their schticks restricted.

Meaning that while many themes can be freely available (because they are made of freely available feats), the DM can also take some feats for example from supplements, and declare them "restricted" to a special group like the Arcane Order of XYZ or the Thief Guild of ZXY. Only members of such groups can take such theme or its feats (e.g. a character joining such group at a high level already probably doesn't pick the whole theme which starts at 1st level, but just gains access to its pool of restricted feats).

This could be the way to use themes/feats pools to replace prestige classes. Because after all what usually made prestige classes unique was their special abilities, not the BAB progression or spells per day which could just come from the base class. Also, prestige classes failed in allowing characters of different classes to join in exactly because of their BAB, HD, spell progression etc., while a theme would not have such problem and could be applied to any class more easily.