Rule of the Three (1st of May)

[Mostlyjoe]

I guess it all depends on how themes are built.

If they are a package of new powers/abilities AND feats combined into a whole that enhances a class. Great!

If they are just a series of feats. Meh.

 

[fuindordm]

I like the idea of themes as presented. I don't always want to spend ages making a character, so class-background- theme works for me.

It's a valid point that some feats should just be combat options available to all. Power attack could be such a tactic, but the enormous bonus for 2h weapons should have a price. Cleave is also something I wouldn't want everyone to have.

Regarding rogues, I don't want any mundane skill exclusive to a class. Instead, I would like to see class features that key off skills or grant extraordinary abilities based on skills. Ex: hide in shadows, fast trap finding and removal...

 

[Steely_Dan]

As long as Backgrounds/Skills and Themes/Feats, which I both dig, are optional, I will be one happy little camper.

it dose sound like Feats will not be quite what came before.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Themes sound reasonable. The rogue skills approach sounds fine. But what do you mean you haven't started working on monster advancement yet? Either they haven't started on character advancement, or they're saying that monster advancement is somehow a different thing. Neither of those is good.

 

[GM Dave]

I like the idea of themes as presented. I don't always want to spend ages making a character, so class-background- theme works for me.

It's a valid point that some feats should just be combat options available to all. Power attack could be such a tactic, but the enormous bonus for 2h weapons should have a price. Cleave is also something I wouldn't want everyone to have.

Regarding rogues, I don't want any mundane skill exclusive to a class. Instead, I would like to see class features that key off skills or grant extraordinary abilities based on skills. Ex: hide in shadows, fast trap finding and removal...

The down side of the package approach is if some of the feats inside the packages are 'dominant' like Power Attack was in 3e.

Power Attack was a feat that as a fighter type that you almost had to pick up to produce reasonable amounts of damage for your level.

It was a dominant feat and if someone looked at a player's build and did not see it then there was something wrong in the build (unless there was real special trick hidden inside the feat list).

If one package has this type of dominant feat then players might like to choose another feat package but they will gravitate to the most beneficial package or rework other packages to trade some flavour for the dominant feat.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Either they haven't started on character advancement, or they're saying that monster advancement is somehow a different thing. Neither of those is good.

I have no problem with characters and monsters being built and advancing differently (worked great in 1st and 2nd Ed).

 

[Dausuul]

Sigh. This makes me sad. I love the idea of themes, hate feats, and really wish I could get one without the other.

Even setting aside my problems with the feat system as it stands, I think it's a mistake to break themes into interchangeable feats. It's like classic 4E where they tried to cram every class into the AEDU model. The designers should have freedom to build each theme as a unified whole, without having to worry about what happens if someone goes cherry-picking a bit from Theme X and a bit from Theme Y.

I would prefer a system where you can choose either to take a theme, or to have feats. Maybe some themes would have "feat slots" at certain levels, with recommended picks, but it would not be inherent to themes.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

My "favorite" line was:

We've found (during the internal and expanded playtesting we've already done) that even experienced players enjoy that aspect of the themes, including when building their own theme feat-by-feat.

Some how when you say "even" somebody likes it, it makes me feel like if I fall into that group I actually won't like it.

 

[dkyle]

I think that Themes, as simply pre-gen lists of feats, are really lame. They're just going to end up being a trap option in any game that permits hand-picking feats.

What I'd like to see is a slight tweak, to give the Themes a bit of a boost, and make them viable options in and of themselves.

We've already been told that Themes will span 5 levels. You take one at level 1, than another at level 6. Supposing we get 1 feat per level, each theme would have those 5, plus 2 more. These bonus feats would be applied at level 2 and level 5 of the Theme progression. This gives the Theme some real substance, not just dev-recommended feat least.

When customizing feats, those Theme feats can still produce those bonuses. Basically, the 7 feats in the Theme would produce a "feat set". Take 2 of those feats (any of them), get a third free. Take 3 more of them, and get that seventh free. This gives Theme a real mechanical meaning, and should provide interesting choices between sticking with the thematically-related feats (at least to some degree), and mixing-matching freely.

Sigh. This makes me sad. I love the idea of themes, hate feats, and really wish I could get one without the other.

Even setting aside my problems with the feat system as it stands, I think it's a mistake to break themes into interchangeable feats. It's like classic 4E where they tried to cram every class into the AEDU model. The designers should have freedom to build each theme as a unified whole, without having to worry about what happens if someone goes cherry-picking a bit from Theme X and a bit from Theme Y.

I would prefer a system where you can choose either to take a theme, or to pick feats. Maybe some themes would have "feat slots" at certain levels, with recommended picks, but it would not be inherent to themes.

Even though I really like 4E, and feats, I like this solution even better than the one I described above. There's really no reason why Themes have to be entirely composed of feats. Just make them do things similar to what feats do, but as a cohesive whole.

 

[Scribble]

I have no problem with characters and monsters being built and advancing differently (worked great in 1st and 2nd Ed).

I prefer it m'self!