What defines a theme vs a class vs a background?

[TrippyHippy]

I tell you the weird one that caught my eye in the platest but isn't Wizard and Magic User as Class and Theme, respectively, the wrong way round?

A 'Class' denotes a classification of type, without a nominal theme - ie Fighter, Rogue. The similar 'class' would surely be a 'Magic User'? 'Themes' denote a narrative role that promotes character growth and/or group affiliation - so isn't this what a Wizard would be? As would be an Illusionist, Necromancer, Witch, Enchantress, etc?

 

[Hussar]

retraining makes you forget things you once know. That is an artificial gamist concept.

Of course, if there is a new book, you can talk to your DM. But retraining should be no core part of the advancement table:

In 4e a warlord got one of its better powers at first level. At a later stage you were forced to give it up, unable to upgrade it.
The later 4e usually either has no retraining built in, or one of the new selectable powers is an upgrade of the old one.

I can see that.

Totally does not bother me whatsoever, but, I can see it.

I'd rather the game included retraining and let DM's simply not use the rule than otherwise. I saw that as a major innovation in 3e design. And, considering just how many options there are for 3e (and 4e) characters, I'd rather not make every decision point so stringent.

I mean, heck, I took a feat last level for my faelock that actually doesn't work in my character. It allows me to shift if a target of one of my powers fails a saving throw. Neat ability. Until I realized that I don't actually HAVE any powers that require a saving throw.

Did I mention that I usually DM and not play? Oops. I love the fact that I can erase my mistakes without having to nudge the DM every time. And, as a DM, I like that the rules empower players in this way.

But, I can totally see the gamist argument. It is a gamist thing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I tell you the weird one that caught my eye in the platest but isn't Wizard and Magic User as Class and Theme, respectively, the wrong way round?

A 'Class' denotes a classification of type, without a nominal theme - ie Fighter, Rogue. The similar 'class' would surely be a 'Magic User'? 'Themes' denote a narrative role that promotes character growth and/or group affiliation - so isn't this what a Wizard would be? As would be an Illusionist, Necromancer, Witch, Enchantress, etc?

No, because 'Magic-User' does not specify what type of magic you use, just that you can. A Cleric is a magic user too... a user of divine magic.

So it makes no sense to have the classes be called Cleric and Magic-User, since Magic-User does not equal 'Arcane Spellcaster'. Wizard does. You would need to identify the two classes as 'Divine Magic-User' and 'Arcane Magic-User' otherwise.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I can see that.

Totally does not bother me whatsoever, but, I can see it.

I'd rather the game included retraining and let DM's simply not use the rule than otherwise. I saw that as a major innovation in 3e design. And, considering just how many options there are for 3e (and 4e) characters, I'd rather not make every decision point so stringent.

I mean, heck, I took a feat last level for my faelock that actually doesn't work in my character. It allows me to shift if a target of one of my powers fails a saving throw. Neat ability. Until I realized that I don't actually HAVE any powers that require a saving throw.

Did I mention that I usually DM and not play? Oops. I love the fact that I can erase my mistakes without having to nudge the DM every time. And, as a DM, I like that the rules empower players in this way.

But, I can totally see the gamist argument. It is a gamist thing.

Of course, i would allow you to swap that feat...

But I´d rather had the rules to:

1. not have such fiddly feats, that only give bonuses on sunday mornings...
2. have character advancement tables that make planning unnecessary.
3. have feats and skills that complement your playstyle. And thus can be selected to enhance stuff, you do all the time, and not have to be taken to even start doing those things:

Take the healer feat: without it, you could buy a healers kit and bandage your allies. After doing so for a while, you start gathering herbs and try to fabricate bandages. (I would allow you if you roll well)
Next level you take the feat and no rolls are necessary anymore, and you start getting more benefits.

So:

play -> feats and not vice versa!

4. are flexible enough that 3 is possible. Be it some kind of multiclass. Or opt into different themes.

And maybe, if you have not healed someone for several levels, then I may allow you to retrain a feat... but it should not be the default advancement, like it is in 4e core.

 

[TrippyHippy]

No, because 'Magic-User' does not specify what type of magic you use, just that you can. A Cleric is a magic user too... a user of divine magic.

So it makes no sense to have the classes be called Cleric and Magic-User, since Magic-User does not equal 'Arcane Spellcaster'. Wizard does. You would need to identify the two classes as 'Divine Magic-User' and 'Arcane Magic-User' otherwise.

Well, it is the way they used to be classified. I think that the term 'Cleric' rather denotes the connection to a divine source in itself, doesn't it?

Likewise, the term 'Magic-User' actually suggests the major difference in their approach. That is, Magic Users do not show reverence to ther source of power, just the drive towards mastery.

The terms 'Arcane Magic' and 'Divine Magic' are a D&Dism in themselves.

 

[Li Shenron]

Background is your base non-combat abilities
If the aspect is just a collection of skills or a minor societal trait with no combat application, it's a background.

Theme is your main combat adjustment
If the aspect is mostly a combat tweak, a few feats, a tactical role, or strategic facilitation,, it's a theme.

Class is your main character gimmick
If the major shtick is large, is multifaceted, or a subsystem of its own, it is best suited as a class.

This is a good summary, except maybe that "theme" does not strictly need to be limited to combat, but IMHO it needs more generally to apply to adventuring, or even downtime activities that have a purpose in adventuring (e.g. magic item creation, if this will be available in the game through feats, which however I doubt).

Also, let's keep in mind that there is no absolute need for one concept to be available only as one of the three... if it's a popular and versatile concept it may be available in 2-3 different forms.

 

[nogray]

In 4e a warlord got one of its better powers at first level. At a later stage you were forced to give it up, unable to upgrade it.
The later 4e usually either has no retraining built in, or one of the new selectable powers is an upgrade of the old one.

Just to be persnickety, you don't have to give up the power. You can always opt to not upgrade it. My wife's 4e Paladin of the Raven Queen will be keeping the first level Frost of Letherna power until the end of her career, because it does just exactly what she wants. That is, unless I (as DM) work with her to create an upgraded version of the power.

(As an aside, I hate the concept of "orphan powers." That is, powers at a low level that don't have clear upgrades at higher levels. The Wizard I'm playing in another campaign loves his Lightning Bolt encounter power, but I'm really looking forward to the upgrade to Chain Lightning. What's more, Chain Lightning is appropriately places so that (if you are keeping all your powers at their highest level) you replace the lower with the pure upgraded version. It's how all the low-level encounter and dailies should have been designed. At least, that's my take on things.)

To keep an old power in either of WotC's character builders without having the "reminder" to pick something, just select the power that you want to keep as both the power that you are discarding and the power that you are picking up (though you may need to have the program show you those additional low-level options). I think one of the character files for an example Avenger would look like this: L13 Encounter: Angelic Alacrity (replaces Angelic Alacrity).

 

[grimslade]

I think magic user was originally called 'dabbler' which makes some sense.
Limiting classes to the core four, ftr, wiz, clr, and rog, and building every other class with backgrounds and themes is a valid design. It would provoke a lot of angry protests on the game not being D&D without X as a class.
I worry that design with many diverse classes and backgrounds and themes will lead to power creep. The balance required will be amazing. Time will tell.

 

[Minigiant]

This is a good summary, except maybe that "theme" does not strictly need to be limited to combat, but IMHO it needs more generally to apply to adventuring, or even downtime activities that have a purpose in adventuring (e.g. magic item creation, if this will be available in the game through feats, which however I doubt).

That is what I meant by "Strategic Facilitation".

Like the healer theme. It helps you heal HP and poison. Now you can be damaged or poisoned out of combat but D&D typically poisons and hurts you in combat.

 

[Herschel]

I look at it a little like this: look at a resume.

Background would be your Education. Where you studied and what your educational/work foundation is. You may have paid your way through college as a bartender and math tutor.

Class would be your trained/professional career field, say an engineer.

Theme would be field of expertise/emphasis,you're a Chemical Engineer.