What defines a theme vs a class vs a background?

[underfoot007ct]

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.

There is nothing "sensible" limiting the choice of classes, That would be extremely restrictive. I for one, love the number of classes in 4e, not that I want to play half of them. Why prevent others from playing what they wish too.

Nothing is preventing you from playing only your favorite 4-5 classes, letting others play what they please.

 

[1of3]

As of now, all the Theme names are agent nouns.

What does a Slayer do? - She slays, duh.
What does a Healer do? - He heals, duh.
What does a Guardian do? - Guarding, duh.
What does a magic-user do? - Well, duh.

They probably won't keep this up all the, but it's a nice start.

 

[slobo777]

There is nothing "sensible" limiting the choice of classes, That would be extremely restrictive. I for one, love the number of classes in 4e, not that I want to play half of them. Why prevent others from playing what they wish too.

Nothing is preventing you from playing only your favorite 4-5 classes, letting others play what they please.

Limiting the number of classes whilst at the same time increasing the available combinations of themes will give you the same, maybe more, choices on what to play.

For instance, in 4E there were classes which were basically "Wizard", but with the choices of abilities chosen to fit into 4E's roles system - there was a Wizard Striker = Sorcerer, a Wizard Controller = Wizard, and others. Same things happened to Druid, Cleric. They were mostly separate due to needing the role mechanic attached to the class. If you move the equivalent 5E mechanics into themes, then you get the same degree of choice, maybe more, but without the silo-ing of these team-building concepts into separate classes.

I guess my preference here is for classless systems. No, I don't think 5E should be classless - it wouldn't be D&D, and those systems are often more complex. However, such systems do go to show "less classes" does not equate to "less choice", provided the choice pops up elsewhere.

 

[jadrax]

"1st-level Themes mentioned: Slayer, Mystic, Guardian, Lurker, Leader, Sharpshooter, Skirmisher, Tempest, Weapon Master, Wild Talent, Domain Themes, Avenger, Werewolf, Revenant, Disciple of Tenser, Alchemist, Red Wizard, Commoner, Noble, Knight, Apprentice, Planetouched, Deva, Pub-Crawler, Spy"

Well in the playtest at lease we know that Commoner and Knight are now Backgrounds. It will be interesting to see how these all pan out.

 

[Tovec]

A theme ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it.

Tain't What You Do - Jimmy Lunceford - YouTube

Your class is what you do.
Your theme is how you do it.
Your background is why you do it.

So..

Class: Power Ranger (I'm a power ranger)
Theme: Morphing Grid (How I do it... I morph)
Background: Why I do it is tricky... because I'm a good guy? What skill bonuses do I get for being a "good guy"?

It seems a little silly to me to break it up into these categories. Especially when the bloat for ALL THREE forms are going to go skyhigh if 5e lasts more than a few years.

It'll be..

Class: Thayan Summoner
Theme: Uberlich
Background: Wonderdog

Without any idea what those things even mean anymore. At least with 'Thayan Summoner' it should be relatively easy to look up.

[MENTION=11586]RigaMortus2[/MENTION] I think the problem is that you didn't propose an alternative. You only asked what the three roles mean.

If you had suggested something like..

Class: Basic abilities and what you do. Ie. Fighter who fights, using X, Y, Z skills to do it. XYZ will change from character to character, and even more so while they evolve and level. It would likely have some hierarchy of how or why but it should be fairly free form.
So keep it more or less as is, but add in other things too. Like a lot of what is already tied into background, and then split the other aspects from theme.

Theme: Your combat role with advanced abilities relating to it. Ie. Tank/Defender/Guardian being someone who makes sure people don't get hit. The Striker/Slayer/Berserker theme being someone who goes up and swings at the enemy until they are dead. Etc. These themes will be limited to ones created and will give a set advantage. Possibly akin to variants, kits, archetypes of previous editions. They may complete or replace the XYZ of above.
To an extent this keeps it "how" you do something without having the multiform that 5e already seems to have with lurker, warrior, tinker, taylor, thief forms.

Background: 'You' specific abilities. Things you have picked up, which shouldn't be just limited to a specific background but instead a little more freeform from the get go. You are a knight, but you don't have diplomacy you have intimidate. You picked knight so you get a combat feat, but the feat isn't set. Backgrounds should be fluid with a lot of specialty allowing two knight-fighter-slayers to be utterly different based on background alone. This would be like having a dragonmark from a house, or other social related skills and feats.
This would override the "why" you do it and more about "who" you are. I would preferably not even want to see "knight" titles at all. I would like you to be able to call yourself knight with knight-y skills being tied into the fighter class as variants. And leave background open so people can pick things that directly relate to them as a character instead of predefined packages of traits.

 

[tuxgeo]

Maybe I wasn't as clear in the OP as I wanted to be. I get the difference between class, background and theme.

I am more or less asking, what makes the Knight a theme and not a background or a class of their own? Why shouldn't a Paladin be a theme instead of a class? < . . . snip . . . >

You're not alone in asking that.
There may be no answer that can please you, or that satisfies your curiosity. Frankly, I think that the main consideration that currently determines what makes a class and what makes a theme (in the present stage of the development of the rules for D&D 5ENext) is simply this: the overall weight of tradition and preferences among players and developers.
So: there's no specific, logical reasoning behind it because it is not based on specific, logical reasoning.

And if that is truly the case (of course, I could be mistaken about that), then it does little good to keep asking and asking what logic or reason makes the difference between one thing's being a class and another thing's being a background or theme, because the developers didn't use logic or reason to make those determinations: they tried to fit things into the history of the game, instead.
(But, Hey, I'm not going to vote low on this thread merely because I think the discussion does little good. If this discussion does some good for you to wrangle such considerations as these, by all means have at it.)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The proof is in the mechanical details.

It is certainly not difficult to imagine a Knight class AND a Knight theme AND a Knight background. The designers are unlikely to go that way, for the obvious reasons. But we could see a Heavy Fighter class, a Horseman theme, and an Noble background.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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

What's wrong with retraining? This is one 3e rule that I absolutely adore. I think it's great. Let's me experiment without worrying too much that I'm screwing myself over and let's me try out all sorts of stuff every level.

What's the problem?

 

[RigaMortus2]

What's wrong with retraining? This is one 3e rule that I absolutely adore. I think it's great. Let's me experiment without worrying too much that I'm screwing myself over and let's me try out all sorts of stuff every level.

What's the problem?

I agree. If WotC is going to make splatbooks (which is basically a given), then a player shouldn't be penalized when a new option comes out that fits better with their character concept then the current one they have.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What's wrong with retraining? This is one 3e rule that I absolutely adore. I think it's great. Let's me experiment without worrying too much that I'm screwing myself over and let's me try out all sorts of stuff every level.

What's the problem?

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.