What defines a theme vs a class vs a background?

[RigaMortus2]

Since we are "simplifying" things, why are we adding backgrounds and themes into the mix? Race and Class are simple enough, but now we need to add backgrounds and themes into the mix. I know, each class will have a default build you can pick that has a set background and theme to it, so you don't have to think. But apparently it will be CORE and the designers will be assuming players will be mixing and matching classes, races, themes and backgrounds.

But the larger question at hand is... How do we define what is a class vs a theme vs a back ground? It is still not well defined.

What makes a Knight a theme vs it's own class or a background?
What makes a Paladin its own class vs it being a theme or background?
What makes a Sage a background vs a theme or class?

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason here.

I understand that a theme is a way to deliver feats, and possibly explain why a character knows a certain feat.
I I understand that a background is a way to deliver skills, and possibly explain why a character knows certain skills.

But then you are saying a Knight (theme) might have X feat, but wouldn't a Knight also have some sort of skills attached to it? Surely a Knight would have Knowledge Nobility or Ride or Diplomacy or something like that, no?

A Sage might get Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana type skills, but it is also easy to argue that they could know certain feats as well (maybe a Spell Focus-like feat or some feat that strengthens their magic).

Why is a Knight better served as a theme vs a class or a background?

 

[slobo777]

Mechanically, they are all just conveniently sized building blocks.

I would guess the designers believe making 4 character choices at start up is a good balance point between too-simple-to-be-interesting and too-complex-to-pick-up.

It will still take a good deal longer to pick equipment and spellbook.

 

[KidSnide]

But the larger question at hand is... How do we define what is a class vs a theme vs a back ground? It is still not well defined.

What makes a Knight a theme vs it's own class or a background?
What makes a Paladin its own class vs it being a theme or background?
What makes a Sage a background vs a theme or class?

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason here.

I understand that a theme is a way to deliver feats, and possibly explain why a character knows a certain feat.
I I understand that a background is a way to deliver skills, and possibly explain why a character knows certain skills.

Well, to start off, a knight (like sage), is a background -- not a theme. As to the difference between themes and backgrounds, a background is about a character's place in the world - particularly before the character started adventuring. A theme is about the flavor of a character's abilities. So far, backgrounds have all been societal positions / jobs (knight, sage, priest, commoner, soldier). Themes have been much more combat-focused and seem more focused on a character's specialty (e.g. healer, slayer, lurker, magic-user, defender -- although I think the last two are too general, e.g. defender should be "shield defender" or something like that).

Lastly, a class is more about the character's core abilities (fighting, sneaking, arcane magic, etc...). As Mike Mearls mentioned, a class is what you do. A theme is how you do it.

I asked this on the last D&DN chat and here's what the designers said:

Guest: What makes a good theme or background? What do you look for?

Jeremy Crawford: A good background says something evocative about a character's place in the world, especially the character's place before the campaign started. The background should have skills, a trait, and starting equipment that all say something flavorful about a character.

Mearls: A good theme should be evocative and really speak to how your class operates. The themes we have right now are mostly mechanical in nature, but as we flesh them out you'll see more evocative ones.

For instance, I like the idea of a necromancer theme that alters all of your spells in some minor way. For instance, when you damage a creature with a spell you get some small healing. Or, if you kill a creature with a spell it pops back up as a skeleton or zombie.

If a class says what you can do, a theme says how you can do it. So, the paladin, fighter, or ranger who is a two-weapon duelist looks much different than the character who took the guardian theme and is an expert with his or her shield.

What it boils down to is that the theme does something interesting or fun that rests outside character class. Think of it as the sum expression of your feats.

Jeremy Crawford: In many ways, backgrounds can be a guide to roleplaying. The commoner fighter and the noble fighter, for instance, are likely to have very different motivations.

Mearls: Since the core math advancements rests only in class, we can afford for themes to be much more flavorful and specialized.

Jeremy Crawford: One more thing about backgrounds and themes: A background, ultimately, describes who you were before you started adventuring, whereas a theme flavors how you adventure.

-KS

 

[slobo777]

Another thought: If done well, the backgrounds and themes ought to reduce the number of classes, and re-claim sensible class names for all core classes. I lost track in 4E, there are far too many classes and class variants, just so we could have "A Holy Character Who Does Not Worship A Specific God But Brings Down Righteous Pain On His or Her Enemies".

Now we could have Class: Cleric. Background: Pantheist. Theme: Avenger.

 

[Li Shenron]

But the larger question at hand is... How do we define what is a class vs a theme vs a back ground? It is still not well defined.

What makes a Knight a theme vs it's own class or a background?
What makes a Paladin its own class vs it being a theme or background?
What makes a Sage a background vs a theme or class?

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason here.

(I'm trying to answer before reading the others)

It's been actually explained by the designers, that "class" describes what you are and do (on and off adventuring, but perhaps more on), "theme" describes how you do it (one of your specialties on handling adventures), and "background" describes what you do on your off-adventuring time.

Note that there is no reason why in your own game you couldn't allow multiple backgrounds or themes.

A "knight" is a background because it's something you are all the time, but mostly it makes sense off-adventuring, because knighthood is a social position (monsters in a dungeon couldn't care less if you're a knight or not). OTOH a different concept of "knight" (but not a chivalry knight) could have been that of a mounted fighter, in which case it would have been better described as a theme.

 

[jadrax]

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason here.

TBH, I think we have to accept that Classes are basically being decided by popularity and tradition above all else.

Which leaves Backgrounds for concepts that seem very skill based and Themes for concepts that seem very Feat based.

The interesting ones are going to be the Classes from prior editions that are not seen as popular, but are difficult to integrate into an existing popular class mechanically or thematically.

 

[Derren]

so you don't have to think.

Imo that is not a desireable result.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Imo that is not a desireable result.

Actually, its a pretty good idea. I've known a few good players who just wanted to be handed a decent character to play! They weren't interested in spending X amount of time fiddling around with character creation, or even reading the rules sometimes, but that didn't prevent them from doing a good job role playing. YMMV, etc.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would really appreciate a rules system, where you can just take a class and race and be done with it. Please let me make decisions during play. Characters almost never play as well as you believe them to do when you build them. You really know how effective your character is, after you were thrown into the adventure.

And your character should evolve out of this adventure. This is what I especially liked about how 3rd edition multiclass worked. You could always adapt, even if it means, you don´t have the most powerful build in a vacuum. But the perfect build for this guy in this adventure.

So please start simple. Background, class, race. Maybe theme. And then allow me to adjust my character on the fly. (And not by retraining!)

 

[Derren]

Actually, its a pretty good idea. I've known a few good players who just wanted to be handed a decent character to play! They weren't interested in spending X amount of time fiddling around with character creation, or even reading the rules sometimes, but that didn't prevent them from doing a good job role playing. YMMV, etc.

And yet should that be the core of 5E? No matter how many optional modules there are (lets face it, WotC/D&D has not much experience with toolbox design in the first place) the basic rules will set the tone for the edition.