What defines a theme vs a class vs a background?

[KesselZero]

Class is the core of how your character fights and adventures, and themes and backgrounds are extra add-ons. Outside of the fluff (the "who/how/why" stuff) I think the distinction WotC seems to be drawing is that themes give you additional or altered combat abilities (via feats, generally) and backgrounds give you skill training. So the reason you wouldn't have an Alchemist Werewolf (at first level, at least) is that you'd be getting a set of powers from both (the ability to make alchemist's fire to throw at your enemies and the ability to shift into wolf form, gaining combat bonuses, for example) and thus would be more powerful than your pals. This is obviously a very gamist explanation but I believe it's what they intend, and it does give a clear division between the two.

Obviously this raises the question of what should be a theme and what a background, and I like the proposed answer that there can be different versions of the same idea (the Knight example above), some of which grant combat powers (themes) and some of which grant skills (backgrounds). So there could be an Alchemist background that gives you training in Arcana, Alchemy, and Herbalism or something, totally separate from the Alchemist theme that gives you combat-useful abilities.

I also look forward to the ability to add themes as you level, so your character can grow with the plot. So your Alchemist could get turned into a Werewolf at some point.

 

[KidSnide]

So that is basically what I am asking... What makes a Knight a theme and NOT a background, or a class all its own? (Knight is just the easiest to pick, could be said about any of them really, Alchemist, Commoner, Noble...)

A knight character could have a knight-like background, theme and class.

1. In the current rules, knight is a background. It gives you some appropriate skills, a "knightly" social position, and maybe better-than-average equipment.
   
2. A character could also have an armored-horseman theme or a defender theme. These would provide feats that allow you to fight more effectively either on horseback, or by defending you allies as a heavily armored melee warrior.
   
3. That same character could choose a class that works with heavily armored melee fighting, typically a fighter or paladin, but we can see that a war-domain cleric can pull this off also.

There are really two points to breaking things up this way.

First, a class is your core abilities and has a long history in the game. It's D&D, so we need to have classes and the desire to include classes for most classes historically appearing in PH1s goes a long way to defining which classes will be there.

The theme is separate from the class because the designers want more coherence in character customization. Instead of forcing players to pick from huge lists of highly-mechanical powers and feats, players can pick from a medium-sized list of theme-feats that are grouped coherently. Themes also represent the type of customization that could apply to multiple classes. Here, the heavily-armored-warrior schticks can apply to (at least) the fighter, paladin and cleric, so those options should be separate from class decisions. Contrast this to 4e, where ranger, fighter and barbarian all needed their own "two-weapon fighting" powers. Make it a theme and you only have to design it once.

The background is separate because the designers want characters to have a place in the world and that place is quite separate from what characters do in combat. The same combat abilities could apply equally well to a mercenary soldier or the noble son of a duke. So it makes sense to allow PCs to apply the class and theme separately from the background.

-KS

 

[mlund]

I like "knight" as a background. In 1E U.A. the Cavalier was a Super-class. In 3.5 the Knight was a splat-book class. In 4E the Knight was a sub-class of Fighter. In the 5E play-test the background of "Knight" was a particular social station in a background. It's effectively landless nobility - education in higher culture and feudal obligation but not necessarily peerage. It does not require or imply any class or feats.

One could wear an inherited knighthood with your rapier to Versailles or your Daisho to the Shogun's court in Edo. Perhaps you wield the arcane arts as a sorcerer-champion in the demesnes of the Seelie Fae. Did you set aside your father's steel and shave your head to undertake religious repentance for a terrible mistake you made as a young man?

Almost any class can be played with a "Ser" stuck to the front of your name. However, the social expectations that come with your station subject you to scrutiny. Those who practice their class outside of social norms (assassins, thieves, etc.) may have to exercise subtlety to avoid becoming notorious as a result.

As themes go I don't think we'll see "knight." We already have Guardian out there for the bulwark shield-warden. They'll probably be something like "Lancer" or "Cavalier" for the specialist equestrian.

If backgrounds continue to address the question of "where did you come from?" I think I'll be very satisfied with them. They could be vague socio-economic circumstances ("farmer," "merchant," "beggar," "crook") or they could be specific and exotic ("raised by wolves," "raised by dragons," "reincarnated," "fey changeling," "exile"). I'd like it if any character could take any background, even if some have better innate synergy with some classes than others.

- Marty Lund

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If backgrounds continue to address the question of "where did you come from?" I think I'll be very satisfied with them. They could be vague socio-economic circumstances ("farmer," "merchant," "beggar," "crook") or they could be specific and exotic ("raised by wolves," "raised by dragons," "reincarnated," "fey changeling," "exile"). I'd like it if any character could take any background, even if some have better innate synergy with some classes than others.

Yes! It appears as though backgrounds might turn into "profession + childhood traits" ... with teeth. This not only has the positive benefits of being so mix and match, it is finally an implementation of "profession" worth having--that actually means something substantial.

In a similar way, themes may turn into "feats + schtick" with teeth, though I'm not as sure about that one.

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

I love the class, theme, background system as it's emerging. It works great. It doesn't take too long to build a character, but it builds characters who are more well-rounded and nuanced than just race and class. (In particular, backgrounds are what I really like--themes are nice, but backgrounds are great. They help tie characters to the world! They can generate plot hooks! They can spark role-playing! Great all around. But I like the whole system.)

But for those of you who view it as too complicated or too much develop-at-start--WotC has suggested that people who want a less complicated, more old-school game can just build characters without backgrounds, or without themes, or with neither. If you want to have themes and backgrounds, but develop-in-play, just delay picking them until 3rd level or whatever. It's a structure that works well with modularity.

The sticking point of course will be whether it shifts character balance--are fighters without themes less powerful than wizards without themes? But as long as it's not egregious, it lets those of us who really like backgrounds and themes use them, while those who don't like them can lose them.