Rule-of-Three: 07/03/2012

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If themes handle everything regarding maneuvers, it seems a little constraining - if you want maneuvers, you must pick one of those themes. It seems rather inflexible. Of course, it seems themes are mostly pre-packed feats, so maybe you can get that flexibility back. But I remain unconvinced that feats and combat maneuvers need to occupy the same "build slot".
It's a bit weird if you give your Fighter - the class best to fight - a non-maneuver theme then - the part the class is thematically best at may be the part that is least exciting due to the lack of options.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Weapon styles as part of themes, but not the theme itself. I'm pretty sure that is what they are doing. So you don't have a TWF theme (which would be rather silly). You have a swashbuckler theme (including TWF), a pirate theme (with perhaps a bit of TWF), a duelist theme (lots of TWF), etc.

Once they work out their character customization rules, you are free to then mix feats from those themes with some kind of woodland theme or similar to create your TWF ranger, if you must.

On monster abilities, I'm all for the proper use of exception-based design, which this article demonstrates. Yay! Don't have exceptions merely to make everything an exception. Have exceptions when the stuff you do most of the time doesn't cover what you need, instead of then overly complicating your base. If that means that some monsters are rather simple, some are complex, some use funny equipment, and some have to be in groups of 10-20 to live long enough to show off their stuff ... then fine.

 

[KidSnide]

Themes I don't think should have EXCLUSIVE access to fighting styles. It's nice to put them in there but if my ranger NEEDS to have the TWF theme in order to have TWF, then I'm giving up something else for that, and that's not entirely cool.

Themes provide a character's combat schtick. Off the top of my head, it's not clear to me why a ranger needs to fight with two weapons in addition to a full combat schtick. Maybe thats the kind of thing where you can create a custom theme (i.e. just pick feats) if you want two-weapon fighting and some other ability. That seems like just the sort of think play testing should figure out.

Of course, they could also adopt a 4e approach and say that anyone can fight with two weapons, but you an ability to get a meaningful benefit.

If themes handle everything regarding maneuvers, it seems a little constraining - if you want maneuvers, you must pick one of those themes.
...
It's a bit weird if you give your Fighter - the class best to fight - a non-maneuver theme then - the part the class is thematically best at may be the part that is least exciting due to the lack of options.

Maneuvers are supposed to create a tactically interesting fighter. (We'll see how that goes.) But it's also important to have a mechanically uncomplicated fighter as an alternative. I suppose you could create a different optional mechanic for maneuvers, but themes do seem like a logical choice.

---------

The real issue with themes is that they are taking much of the design space that martial powers provided in 4e. That's a type of heavy lifting that 3e feats didn't have to handle, so we're still waiting to see if it will work.

-KS

 

[erf_beto]

Not sure, but didn't they mention combat maneuvers would be available to everyone, but the fighter (as a class, not an extra theme) would be better at them? If a rogue takes a maneuver theme (or individual feats) then he'd be able to do the move, but not as good as the fighter would (with the appropriate feat/theme).
If fighting styles become feat-based, then I suppose one of the Ranger's class features will be a couple of free feats selected among a short list. It doesn't have to be an extra theme or a theme-tax. If anyone else wants this, then they should pay for the feat/theme. This is not unlike what we've had so far, IMO...

 

[Ratskinner]

Weapon styles as part of themes, but not the theme itself. I'm pretty sure that is what they are doing. So you don't have a TWF theme (which would be rather silly). You have a swashbuckler theme (including TWF), a pirate theme (with perhaps a bit of TWF), a duelist theme (lots of TWF), etc.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but this seems to be conflating Theme and background a bit, from what we've seen so far. The "fighty" themes look to be almost exactly "a fighting style". We may see multiple versions of TWF, but "pirate" doesn't compare with "slayer", AFAICT.

I think we still need "default" TWF rules. I anticipate there will be themes that would still find uses for it, even if it isn't their primary focus.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Two weapon fighting is a historical anomaly - the only major users that come to mind were the rapier-and-dagger wielders (who were at least in part worried about people stepping past the rapier's point) and Musashi who was, I believe, inspired by Portugese rapier and dagger fencers. I hope it's rare rather than the best combat style going (as in 2e) and making it rare means either making it a choice of weapons using one at a time (as happened historically) or giving the character penalties to attack with both weapons at once.

 

[tlantl]

I don't think we should have to lose a theme feat on weapon styles unless we want to specialize in one fighting style over the others.

Even then I'm not sure it needs to occupy the same space as other things more germane to what a character does.

Why can't my wizard pull out two daggers to defend himself with if he wants. I don't expect he will be all that good at it but if monster ac's are low enough and the penalties aren't too high why do I need to use a theme to give me that option.

I believe all styles of combat should be available to all players to use as they like. Maybe gaining mastery of the style could take using a theme, but not for merely having the option of using them..

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think we should have to lose a theme feat on weapon styles unless we want to specialize in one fighting style over the others.

Even then I'm not sure it needs to occupy the same space as other things more germane to what a character does.

Why can't my wizard pull out two daggers to defend himself with if he wants. I don't expect he will be all that good at it but if monster ac's are low enough and the penalties aren't too high why do I need to use a theme to give me that option.

I believe all styles of combat should be available to all players to use as they like. Maybe gaining mastery of the style could take using a theme, but not for merely having the option of using them..

The same reason why me pulling a knife on a navey seal or a recon marine is just going to get me hurt, and pulling two in no way helps... Untrained might as well equal unuseqble

 

[tlantl]

The same reason why me pulling a knife on a navey seal or a recon marine is just going to get me hurt, and pulling two in no way helps... Untrained might as well equal unuseqble

You don't really mean to compare the worlds finest fighting machines to a tangle of kobolds or a fist full of goblins. A wizard is a hardened adventurer. Just because he slings a few spells doesn't mean he totally sucks at melee. I guess the problem is WotC's version of D&D does just that.

I did say if the penalties aren't too bad and the thing's ac isn't too high. I don't know about other DMs but I don't design encounters around the best fighter in the group I base it on the entire group. If only one character can hit something with a weapon then the encounter is too difficult. Player's shouldn't need to rely on some gimmick or special attack to beat something in combat.

I don't hold the opinion that a wizard has to be casting spells or he's not fulfilling his role. He chose to study spells as a means of gaining power, not to be a power house in a situation he shouldn't really be in anyway.


I guess from the way D&DN is being cobbled together the wizard will need those at will spells to generate enough bonus damage to matter. a dagger or two won't cut it since they don't grant the same bloated damage everyone else gets for no other reason than that is how the game determines difficulty now. It's kind of sickening that a first level fighter gets a +6 to hit and a +7 damage bonus.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You don't really mean to compare the worlds finest fighting machines to a tangle of kobolds or a fist full of goblins. A wizard is a hardened adventurer.

No the problem is not that the wizard needs to fight.

If he has an ok str or dex and prof with the weapon he can use it, but pulling two is more then useing a dagger it is a trick that if used should only be fit the trained