In the most recent Rule of Three blog post, themes were basically confirmed to be a package of feats. Flavorful packages, sure, but packages nevertheless. Given the way themes have been described so far, they'll be a big part in how your character plays out in and out of combat. This basically means that feats will be a big factor in how your character behaves in combat, and I'm not sure that's for the best.
Feats are supposed to be a way to sculpt your character as it grows stronger, and they can offer a lot of flavor to mechanically represent certain character traits, such as the stubborn character can resist mind affecting spells more readily or the bookworm character who has a knack for lore related checks. However, in the past, not all feats have been directly related to your character as such. Cleave and Whirlwind Attack, as they were handled in 3.5, weren't really a part of your character but rather maneuvers it could perform in combat. To make them worthwhile these maneuver feats made your character better in combat (at least in theory). This is a pretty big issue I had with 3.5.
Fighters and other martial classes had to expend a resource that could otherwise have been spent on giving your character flavor. The fighter that wanted to take a feat that would allow him to perform a certain skill better or represent a character trait of his was presented with a hard choice: Should I choose the flavorful choice and be worse at my primary job, combat, or should I take the combat feat and continue to do my job well? From my experience, the martial classes usually went with the latter. I can't remember any fighters that took Alertness over something like Power Attack or Cleave. Making the former choice a number of times could leave you with a mechanically bad character. Spellcasters didn't have this problem. They gained spells every level as a part of their natural progression and could spend feats on whatever they wanted. Even though some feats were better than others mechanically it didn't matter as much in the grand scheme of things. Most of their power came from their class progression.
Even though I didn't play much of it, 4th edition seemed to handle this differently and better in my opinion. Powers were a part of each character's natural progression and feats were the gravy on top. I may have some issues with individual powers and I don't agree with their distribution, but in essence I like the idea that they come naturally with character progression and you don't sacrifice anything to get them.
I'm worried that we might face the same problem in 5E as we did in 3E: characters having to sacrifice interesting options to be able to live up to their potential in combat, because in the end I fear that most people will choose the latter. I don't want players to have to spend the same resource (feats) on both characteristics/quirks for their characters and maneuvers to use in combat. Basically what I'd like to see is
Feats split into different resources: One for characteristic traits and one for combat abilities. You could even tie this in to backgrounds/themes. Your background represents your character and how he grows, but your theme represents the abilities he can perform, in and out of combat. You wouldn't sacrifice the progression your character or his abilities for the other: they'd grow independently.
And I guess that's that. I'd love to hear other people's take on themes as we understand them so far and why you like or dislike how they're being handled.
Feats are supposed to be a way to sculpt your character as it grows stronger, and they can offer a lot of flavor to mechanically represent certain character traits, such as the stubborn character can resist mind affecting spells more readily or the bookworm character who has a knack for lore related checks. However, in the past, not all feats have been directly related to your character as such. Cleave and Whirlwind Attack, as they were handled in 3.5, weren't really a part of your character but rather maneuvers it could perform in combat. To make them worthwhile these maneuver feats made your character better in combat (at least in theory). This is a pretty big issue I had with 3.5.
Fighters and other martial classes had to expend a resource that could otherwise have been spent on giving your character flavor. The fighter that wanted to take a feat that would allow him to perform a certain skill better or represent a character trait of his was presented with a hard choice: Should I choose the flavorful choice and be worse at my primary job, combat, or should I take the combat feat and continue to do my job well? From my experience, the martial classes usually went with the latter. I can't remember any fighters that took Alertness over something like Power Attack or Cleave. Making the former choice a number of times could leave you with a mechanically bad character. Spellcasters didn't have this problem. They gained spells every level as a part of their natural progression and could spend feats on whatever they wanted. Even though some feats were better than others mechanically it didn't matter as much in the grand scheme of things. Most of their power came from their class progression.
Even though I didn't play much of it, 4th edition seemed to handle this differently and better in my opinion. Powers were a part of each character's natural progression and feats were the gravy on top. I may have some issues with individual powers and I don't agree with their distribution, but in essence I like the idea that they come naturally with character progression and you don't sacrifice anything to get them.
I'm worried that we might face the same problem in 5E as we did in 3E: characters having to sacrifice interesting options to be able to live up to their potential in combat, because in the end I fear that most people will choose the latter. I don't want players to have to spend the same resource (feats) on both characteristics/quirks for their characters and maneuvers to use in combat. Basically what I'd like to see is
Feats split into different resources: One for characteristic traits and one for combat abilities. You could even tie this in to backgrounds/themes. Your background represents your character and how he grows, but your theme represents the abilities he can perform, in and out of combat. You wouldn't sacrifice the progression your character or his abilities for the other: they'd grow independently.
And I guess that's that. I'd love to hear other people's take on themes as we understand them so far and why you like or dislike how they're being handled.
Last edited:
