Themes article up

I guess I don't understand why it is always bad when the devs adjust course a bit. They've had almost a year of experience with DS themes.

Well, let's examine it.

Stated goal of themes: Be the third pillar of character design, with race and class.

So we need something that will make a big difference in the character, on the order of race and class.

Let's look at what they give.

Encounter power at 1st. Both DS & DDI. Okay, no problem. You've got something to help differentiate you can could come up every combat if useful.

Utility power swaps: Both DS & DDI. Useful for customization, but we already have extended the utility power swap customization niche with skill powers, so this is nice but not particularly an interesting add.

Attack power swaps: DS only. Right now the only way to get swaps is paying a feat per swap, and even then it's rather limited (MC power swap feats require a MC feat first and all have to be from the same class, etc.) This is the groundbreaking that DS themes did that put them on the map with races and classes as per the stated goal. This has the additional force multiplier in DS that it suggest inherent bonuses so you can have weapon / implement crossovers between class and theme.

Misc bonuses: DS has one theme from Dragon that adds a skill, and another that adds a power point. DDI themes all have these that increase with level. Some bit of customization, but also power creep.

Feats: DS has a number of feats over the tiers for additional emphasis on theme if wanted. Again, make see the stated goal.

Paragon Paths: DS has 1-2 paragon paths per theme, again allowing additional emphasis if wanted. Most of those also had a non-theme entry to allow character variation.

In the end, DS themes while not on par with race and class (a hard thing to bolt on to existing rules), they do a reasonable job of meeting the design goal and really making a difference in realizing your character vision.

These ... well, they aren't wrong. And will probably be reasonably balanced after revision. But they fall way short of the goal we were all expecting. I am underwhelmed.

I grant Wizards the right to a "do over". I'll give them a complete pass if they do like they did with the hybrid rules and rework them once there is a significant body of feedback. None of this is bad, but it really missed it's potential by so far.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well, let's examine it.

Stated goal of themes: Be the third pillar of character design, with race and class.

So we need something that will make a big difference in the character, on the order of race and class.

Let's look at what they give.

Encounter power at 1st. Both DS & DDI. Okay, no problem. You've got something to help differentiate you can could come up every combat if useful.

Utility power swaps: Both DS & DDI. Useful for customization, but we already have extended the utility power swap customization niche with skill powers, so this is nice but not particularly an interesting add.

Attack power swaps: DS only. Right now the only way to get swaps is paying a feat per swap, and even then it's rather limited (MC power swap feats require a MC feat first and all have to be from the same class, etc.) This is the groundbreaking that DS themes did that put them on the map with races and classes as per the stated goal. This has the additional force multiplier in DS that it suggest inherent bonuses so you can have weapon / implement crossovers between class and theme.

Misc bonuses: DS has one theme from Dragon that adds a skill, and another that adds a power point. DDI themes all have these that increase with level. Some bit of customization, but also power creep.

Feats: DS has a number of feats over the tiers for additional emphasis on theme if wanted. Again, make see the stated goal.

Paragon Paths: DS has 1-2 paragon paths per theme, again allowing additional emphasis if wanted. Most of those also had a non-theme entry to allow character variation.

In the end, DS themes while not on par with race and class (a hard thing to bolt on to existing rules), they do a reasonable job of meeting the design goal and really making a difference in realizing your character vision.

These ... well, they aren't wrong. And will probably be reasonably balanced after revision. But they fall way short of the goal we were all expecting. I am underwhelmed.

I grant Wizards the right to a "do over". I'll give them a complete pass if they do like they did with the hybrid rules and rework them once there is a significant body of feedback. None of this is bad, but it really missed it's potential by so far.

Yeah, I pretty much disagree. Nothing requires that themes have equal MECHANICAL weight to classes. These themes are already mechanically on a par with a character's race, though races have some additional customization support. There's no reason to suppose themes can't or won't be as significant as race. From the character development perspective themes are also nearly as important as race and class.

I don't think they missed anything or that there is any requirement whatsoever for a 'do over'. I can drop the Alchemist theme onto my character and add an entire new aspect to the character. Likewise the other themes. My Alchemist can make and use a whole raft of different items which are pretty much on a par with encounter powers. There are already something like 400+ Paragon Paths in 4e, I don't really see a specific need for more PPs simply to fill in some checkbox that says there's one associated with a given theme. In my example there are at least 2 Alchemy themed PPs already available. One seems pretty thematic for any character and the other is Warlord-only, but do we need a third one? Really?

I mean, sure, there COULD be some PPs for some themes. I expect there are a few that could use a new/different PP or have ones that are a bit too restrictive, etc. Doesn't mean they HAD to include them in these articles.

I'm beginning to think people around here have gotten into some seriously bad habits when it comes to new material. Get some perspective, eh?
 

So here's a question (which probably has a really obvious answer, I'm a touch sleep-deprived at the moment though), but once you're a level 5 Order Adept, would you be able to retrain your level 2 class/race utility into a wizard class/utility? Or would you only be given the option for utilities after level 5?
 

I'm beginning to think people around here have gotten into some seriously bad habits when it comes to new material. Get some perspective, eh?

A lot of us liked the DS take on themes. These are much less comprehensive, lacking the power swaps, feats, and PP's. Since they had been touting themes this month (even pushing other announced content back to "polish" these themes), and the only ones we'd seen were DS themes, expecting these themes to be like the DS themes we like and being disappointed that they're pretty different doesn't seem outlandish to me.
 

The current ones are much more reasonable than the Dark Sun themes. Because there is a lot less of the law of unintended consequences in them.
I disagree with this entirely, because themes in DS are very easy to predict the effects of. I've been playing with them for over a year and I've not had to guess what effect they have on a character yet. You get one power and then have to powerswap - using the normal power allotment - for everything else. That one power just doesn't change the class. Now the power swaps can and that is part of the fun of themes.
Just picking obvious Dark Sun issues, there's the Elemental Priest. I don't know if you've ever seen what a clog-the-battlefield controller can do in an urban setting, but it locks the battlefield down and makes the DM's life incredibly frustrating.
Really? I've never found that and have had an elemental priest Druid spamming summons with instinctive actions. It's nowhere near the issue you seem to think it is. You get pretty much one more option, albeit a good one, but in terms of the "Litterbug" build you're still restricted to the same number of powers. It isn't like there aren't an abundance of great summon and similar powers across the Wizard and Druid (the two who can REALLY litterbug).
Now giving the Elemental Priest theme to a shaman is just... obnoxious.
It is? Wow, I've missed something there (because it really wasn't).
Giving fighters power such as Fearsome Command (Area Burst 2 as their L3 encounter power) or Dazzling Flash (close burst 5). Spraying marks all over the place.
That they cannot really enforce in either way. Of course marking itself is incredibly useful and marking in a close burst 5 is really good, but ultimately the monsters can still choose what they are going to do. The -2 penalty is great though, but it's not the end of the world and taking an area burst 2 for a melee combatant limits its use heavily (due to provoking OAs). But that's part of what makes themes so interesting as choices for your character!

Personally I cannot figure out what is imbalanced about any of your examples thus far, but the next one does have a pretty legitimate point. Just not the point you think you've made :D
Or let's look at the Wilder (crit on 18-20) combined with a seriously multiattacking ranger. Throw in an Avenger multiclass for good measure*.
You mean throw on a multiclass of something that doesn't exist by default in Dark Sun. You do realize Divine isn't in Dark Sun without the DM saying yes, making your entire example still broken, but not quite as bad as it would be with it. If the DM allows it then that is his fault! :D

Even so, all it shows me is that Rangers twin strike and amount of out of turn attacks are broken. I can give you numerous other examples of where rangers twin strike is absolutely broken all the time, not just when you hit with a specific power first (which if you miss does break your entire chain of subsequent attacks). Half-Elven twin striking avengers every day all day on pretty much every attack they make (including charges). Actually twin strike + avenger anything is just terrible. Thankfully avenger isn't available in DS making this argument rather moot, but in the PoL setting it could be an issue. Quite frankly, I'd like something done about twin strike much more. The other thing is that this is 100% predictable. Rangers literally break every kind of effect like this, because they can attack multiple times.

In my ACTUAL Dark Sun game, I had both the Battlemind and the Monk using the Wilder theme. Both retrained it out because:

1) They couldn't hit with it on demand when required against something important. In fact they never once got the benefit of the extended crit range over 4 levels, so retrained it out for another theme (miserable rolling and in melee, provoking the OAs to use it wasn't worth it) - again when it was important.

2) The rare times they did hit with it were on pointless creatures (EG not things they REALLY wanted to hit). Even then they never got the crit anyway, because it wasn't very common to actually hit with it and then roll an 18+ on their next attack. But again Monks and Battleminds are not renowned for their multiple attack powers!

So really it's pretty easy to figure out that if you allow a divine class MC - in a setting that normally doesn't allow them - then throw on an 18-20 crit range, then allow rolling two dice (avenger multiclass) and have the ranger with its array of out of turn attacks and multiple attacks that it's going to be broken. But again, that's rangers for you and the result there is always 100% predictable.
AbdulAlhazred said:
I'm beginning to think people around here have gotten into some seriously bad habits when it comes to new material. Get some perspective, eh?
Wow both insulting and dismissive. Good job there on getting both into one sentence!

Perhaps there are quite a few people who just aren't happy that Wizards aren't publishing things they like anymore - yet just under a year ago they were? I am really not happy with things like themes being limited by the limited design of essentials classes. Especially when I could have seen room to have had both in the game with 15 themes. There could have been traditional DS themes. There could have been themes that were more essential friendly.

They could have pleased everyone, but chose not to do so. Again there is good logic for why they didn't do that, but it doesn't mean I am happy about it. Especially because this was the first thing in a long time I was absolutely 100% unequivocally excited about - only to be immensely disappointed yet again.

Edit: And for the record, I am not going to stop posting. If Wizards continue to release things that continue to disappoint me, I am going to continue pointing that out (and I don't care if you like it or not). All I want are monster books with epic monsters, a monster builder that worked and before these, themes for the general game. I am certainly going to let my players take these themes, if anyone is actually wondering as I've wanted to have my players in my Eberron game enjoy the same options regarding themes as my DS game.

Another point that annoys me is because they are entirely different mechanically, it means working with different rulesets between my two games. My DS game has entirely different themes than my regular one. I was hoping that I could offer a mix and match scenario, but I am not convinced that works very well with how different in structure they are. I also find it very annoying that there is such a wide variety in power structure in the new themes, that wasn't present in the DS ones. Some themes are arguably higher on the power curve than others, like Noble Adept in DS, but they aren't that huge in impact. Some of these themes have a gigantic impact and others are utterly useless. That isn't something I enjoy whatsoever.

But again, I am still going to allow my players in my Eberron and later PoL games to pick these themes. But I think I'll stick my DS players to only the Dark Sun themes. It's irritating having two rulesets for themes however.
 
Last edited:


In fairness, I think he's more referencing posters such as myself more than you. I haven't been happy with anything since essentials, though it's worth noting I regularly defended essentials before its release (and when it was released). I only developed my very negative opinions once the MB was basically left to rot in a broken state, Dungeon/Dragon declined very heavily towards the end of last year, a core magic item book needed to make the CUR item rarity system work was canceled and they released basically nothing of consequence DnD wise until Heroes of Shadow last month.

I don't see a lot to be positive about frankly. If it wasn't for the games I was running, I would have walked away from DnD already.
 

I think it is a habit people have gotten into. I mean really, has quality gone down? There have always been things that weren't perfect. Look at PHB1, plenty of stuff there that has been tweaked (or not and still causes problems, like Twin Strike). Also I think you have to consider that the devs have their own view of things and their own reasons for doing things in specific ways. I don't think it is bad to disagree, I don't agree with everything they do, but really, this is a pretty damned good game. The negativity does get a bit thick, and has been almost unrelenting lately.

Anyway, not trying to piss anyone off, it is just getting to be a downer. And no, not everyone does it, pardon me if it seems like I've implied that. Must suck to be Mike Mearls though. Well, when you're not pleased as heck to be getting paid to invent new D&D stuff... lol.
 

I liked themes in DS, but I'm a little surprised to see people criticize the lack of feat and PP support for the new themes.

1) The theme feats were kinda cruddy. Almost all of them provided buffs to the theme power, but this is generally a worse choice than a feat that'll buff all your powers. And even when they weren't cruddy, it still stank that it took a feat to make the theme power awesome. Why wasn't it already awesome? And I thought we all agreed feat bloat is a bad thing. I'm glad the new themes don't have feats.

2) The "theme" paragon paths were great and all, but I don't think a single one actually needed to have the theme as a prerequisite. They were connected only thematically, and would've been just fine (or even better) as standalone PPs. So maybe we'll see standalone PPs to go along with these new themes. An "Academy Master" PP (oh wait, that already exists)... or maybe an "Alchemist Savant" PP (oops, already exists too)? Seriously, a lot of the concepts the new themes cover have already been done as PPs. Do we really need more?

The new themes do exactly what they need to do (provide another flavor "axis" at the heroic tier), and no more. IMO that's important. There might be some tweaking left to do for balance, though...
 
Last edited:

I think it is a habit people have gotten into. I mean really, has quality gone down? There have always been things that weren't perfect.
It did for a while there, but I think we're in the upswing for a while, now.

I'm honestly and sincerely just disappointed with this particular article, and part of the reason for that is that I've been looking forward to it forever.

-O
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top