Rule of the Three (1st of May)

[Blackwarder]

They said that if you want you could just not use themes, or feats.

Warder

 

[GX.Sigma]

They really, really, REALLY need to not call these feat packages "themes." It's like calling a wizard with a particular spell list a "kit."

I felt like that too when themes were first detailed, as I was still thinking in terms of 3e/4e and feats as we know them. I now think the other way: they should stop calling the theme-atoms "feats."

The way I see it, the theme system replaces the feat system. Instead of a bunch of little choices, you get one big choice. Or you can make a bunch of little choices if you want.

 

[vagabundo]

As someone who has been hoping that feats were going to be at most an optional tack-on, and preferably go away completely, the answer to question 1 comes as a major disappointment.

We still don't know if they are required. All we know is that themes use feats to give mechanical oomph. Feats still might be optional or removable whil still using the core classes in the game.

 

[Blackwarder]

I really think that they should dispens with feats and rename them talents or theme abilities or something like that.

Warder

 

[Frostmarrow]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 05/01/2012)

So we have
i) theme - feats
ii) rogue skills
iii) monster advancement

Reading the first question i have to say that i become a too disappointed. Having the themes to be just a feat delivery system actually makes these to me useless. So, the thing that they give us is advancement concepts in three - four feats? ppfff

I think the name of the theme is the most important thing. The name will bring the inspiration. I would like color pictures of the themes too. But that will be hard since the theme is not the complete character. Image-wise there is a big difference between a knight fighter and a knight wizard.
Also, it's very important they get the contents of a name right. I don't like finding just the right inspirational word and then realize the developers got it all wrong. This happens when they start pigeon-holing things. I'd rather have two identical themes (apart from the name) than two unique themes that doesn't fit the respective names.

 

[Minigiant]

1) I am disappoint.

Sounds like themes are preprogrammed feat tress.

Sounds likeSlayer theme is Power Attack then Great Cleave the Improved Bullrush

Sounds like Sharpshooter Theme is Far Shot then Manyshot then Rapidshot

Sounds like Brawler Themes is Improved Unarmed Strike, then Improved Grapple then Stunning fist

2) Sounds like rogue gets +2 or 3 skills. okay... wait exclusive skills. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


Back to Fighter Cleric Rogue Wizard Everybody.

 

[Shadeydm]

Sounds like feats may be an assumption of the core rule set. How good or bad that is will largely be determined by how the feats are written and implemented, however I'm a little disappointed that they aren't simply an add on. Having them as a part of the default core means you've taken another step further away from the earliest editions and end up telling people to strip things off instead of modules you can add on. Not what I thought the goal of DDN was.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I like the idea of feats so this is all good to me. I'm still waiting for the release before having a genuine opinion though. I suppose it is easier to strip themes out than to have to add them in.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[triqui]

Non-optional feats. Pfft. I also was hoping for feats to be gone/optional. IMO, what is gained is not worth the consequences of having them in in the first place.
I wonder how (or if) the game will play if one rips the whole feat-er, THEME system out.

Who said feats are now non-optionals. Themes have feat, but that does not mean Themes are non-optionals. If you don't like feats, don't use themes.

 

[trancejeremy]

Well, personally, I think the problem with feats is not that they were freely pickable, and not grouped in "themes", but that well, they exist.

At least, I think a lot of them should be simply built into the rules, either for everyone, or just a class. You want to make a power attack? Go right ahead, you don't need a feat.

You want to use dexterity instead of strength for a attack modifier? How about that being built into the weapon - like using a rapier or dagger. Cleave could be a power of two handed weapons.

Beyond that, a lot of feats simply result in number inflation for everything. The character gets tougher, hits more often and does more damage, so monsters need to be beefed up. And of course, level becomes more and more important.

In old school D&D, because characters went up in power pretty slowly it didn't matter all that much if you were 10th level and the other guy was 8th or 11th. And it allowed the old type of multi-classing, which worked better, IMHO.

That way, if they do keep feats (or have them as themes), they ought to be something akin to how prestige classes were used - giving characters powers that clearly differentiate them from others. But they out to be rare.