What does a character look like from what we know so far?

[FinalSonicX]

I would assume that in general you never mention your theme and background at all.

I was under the impression that theme and background had mechanical effects. If so, they'd need to be noted in the stat block and their particular effects noted where relevant. Saying a character or NPC is a fighter isn't quite as useful as saying they're a noble gladiator fighter. All I'm saying is that it's kind of unwieldy to say or use as a full title.

Also the reason why I want the themes and backgrounds to be easy to remember and apply on the fly is that as a DM I don't tend to invest a ton of time building NPCs when I prepare and instead focus on pre-rolling treasure and designing quests/environments. Any system I play needs to be allow me to create NPCs quickly, I don't want to be flipping through themes and backgrounds while prepping an encounter in the middle of a session. The reason why I mention this is that if themes and backgrounds are easy to remember, say, and relatively simple mechanically then it'll be easier for me to reference them while building encounters and it helps me avoid too much book reading.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Reminds me of BECMI, which I dig. As for math flattening, I'm all for it, removing l/2 level from all character's and monster's attacks, defences and skills has help my 4th Ed campaign greatly (and reducing monster HP).

I like that they are really focusing on Ability Scores as the core (I wonder if they will be like 3rd/4th Ed, or if they might change).

 

[Grimmjow]

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. What does that have to do with d12s and d10s?

well the way i see it is if you only have 15 HP monster will maybe have around 30ish? that means two hits and the monster is dead three max if it comes from a d12 4 max for d10 doesn't seemed like it would be balanced, but idk maybe tim looking at it the wrong way

 

[hafrogman]

I was under the impression that theme and background had mechanical effects. If so, they'd need to be noted in the stat block and their particular effects noted where relevant. Saying a character or NPC is a fighter isn't quite as useful as saying they're a noble gladiator fighter. All I'm saying is that it's kind of unwieldy to say or use as a full title.

They have a mechanical effect, but so do attributes, feats and equipment. Everything should be noted on the character sheet, but that doesn't mean that you mention it in the same breath as race and class. You say it's unwieldy to say to mention race, class, theme and background as "full title" . . . under what kind of circumstance would you ever need to?

Also the reason why I want the themes and backgrounds to be easy to remember and apply on the fly is that as a DM I don't tend to invest a ton of time building NPCs when I prepare and instead focus on pre-rolling treasure and designing quests/environments. Any system I play needs to be allow me to create NPCs quickly, I don't want to be flipping through themes and backgrounds while prepping an encounter in the middle of a session. The reason why I mention this is that if themes and backgrounds are easy to remember, say, and relatively simple mechanically then it'll be easier for me to reference them while building encounters and it helps me avoid too much book reading.

I wasn't actually arguing against this point at all. But in general I would guess that there's two questions here. For quick NPCs do you need to fully create a character? For quick NPCs that ARE full characters, do you need to switch from the default theme and background assumptions? It might be easy to remember what a fighter/slayer/soldier looks like (or at least as easy as it is to remember what a previous edition fighter looks like), and you only bust out the customization options on NPCs you want to be special, unusual, or memorable. And then, yes, you spend a little more time making that NPC.

 

[Morrus]

well the way i see it is if you only have 15 HP monster will maybe have around 30ish? that means two hits and the monster is dead three max if it comes from a d12 4 max for d10 doesn't seemed like it would be balanced, but idk maybe tim looking at it the wrong way

A couple of solid hits to kill a basic Orc sounds about right to me.

 

[FinalSonicX]

They have a mechanical effect, but so do attributes, feats and equipment. Everything should be noted on the character sheet, but that doesn't mean that you mention it in the same breath as race and class. You say it's unwieldy to say to mention race, class, theme and background as "full title" . . . under what kind of circumstance would you ever need to?

There are various instances when I figure I might need to reference it:

1. I know I'm probably the minority in this, but I repeat the names/classes/titles of creatures in my head our out loud while building an encounter - particularly relevant things. Sometimes I call them "names" that don't mean anything mechanically like "dervish" that might actually be useful in 5e - that means that I'd like to be able to call an orc dervish exactly that and have an idea of what it means in my mind. Fighter means something to me, so if themes and backgrounds are simple and easy to remember and easy to say together (or they imply other aspects of a character), then I'll be pleased.
2. Many times my players will ask if an NPC looks like a member of a certain class. If theme and background play any kind of significant role in the game then I suspect they'll ask about those as well. So a player might ask "does this guy look like a fighter?" and I'd say "you might guess so, based on his arms and armor. Doesn't look like a magic user, at least. He's painted in tribal dyes and designs all over his body and wears leather armor. In his half-opened backpack on the ground you think you can see a variety of potions and sensitive instruments that you'd guess are related to potion-making." and then the player might ask "how tough does he look" and I might respond "he looks a little bit tougher than you". The player might then respond "okay, guys, I think this person is a lvl 5 or 6 half-orc fighter-berserker-alchemist." Which just feels awkward compared to someone saying "looks like a level 5 or 6 half-orc barbarian, with alchemy skills".
3. I give a lot of DM's I know advice on encounter building, so I might say "I'd throw a lvl 6 half-elf sorc with two level 4 human barbarian guards and say...eight level 1 human fighter minions", which is way easier to say in a phone call than "I'd throw a lvl 6 half-elf sorc-blood mage-arcanist, two level 4 human fighter-berserker-trackers, and eight level 1 human fighter-slayer-commoners."

Does that make sense? Say "level 6 Paladin" and you immediately have a snapshot of what that means, whereas the same statement in 5e might be much more ambiguous when background and theme come into play. It would be convenient if certain combinations had a shorthand reference and if their effects were easy to remember. It particularly helps if the names are very evocative, simple, and memorable.

I wasn't actually arguing against this point at all. But in general I would guess that there's two questions here. For quick NPCs do you need to fully create a character? For quick NPCs that ARE full characters, do you need to switch from the default theme and background assumptions? It might be easy to remember what a fighter/slayer/soldier looks like (or at least as easy as it is to remember what a previous edition fighter looks like), and you only bust out the customization options on NPCs you want to be special, unusual, or memorable. And then, yes, you spend a little more time making that NPC.

I know you weren't arguing the point, I was trying to explain a portion of my reasoning - since I prefer to DM on-the-fly, I'd like it if themes and background are either easy to remember and apply when I need them or if they just aren't necessary to challenge the party with an NPC/encounter.

Ultimately, these aren't concerns in the sense of "I think 5e is doing this wrong!" but rather in the sense of "I'm wondering about these issues and if the designers are taking steps to deal with them." These are really just my thoughts/concerns regarding the whole topic but I'm nowhere near panic mode on the issue yet. I'll wait to see the playtest to form a solid opinion.

 

[pemerton]

The only thing that really gives me pause in this mockup is the length of the character title and how unwieldy it is. I can't imagine a character explaining that they're a 1st level NG half-orc fighter noble gladiator

Many times my players will ask if an NPC looks like a member of a certain class.

<snip>

Does that make sense?

It's always interesting to see how different people's approaches to the game can be!

I GM 4e, in which monsters and NPCs are not built using the PC rules, and before that Rolemaster, which by classic D&D standards is a classless game. So while my players will describe NPCs as fighters, sages, wizards, clerics etc based on their demonstrated abilities and social/cultural location within the fiction, the idea that class, background or theme would form part of the canonical description of an NPC is pretty foreign to me.

Just goes to show that you learn something new every day!

 

[FinalSonicX]

I GM 4e, in which monsters and NPCs are not built using the PC rules, and before that Rolemaster, which by classic D&D standards is a classless game. So while my players will describe NPCs as fighters, sages, wizards, clerics etc based on their demonstrated abilities and social/cultural location within the fiction, the idea that class, background or theme would form part of the canonical description of an NPC is pretty foreign to me.

if by canonical description you mean the description all of the players use, then yeah. They usually refer to themselves by their race and class when someone asks them to describe their abilities (they of course still use their character name for direct references). I generally don't straight up say "you walk into a bar and in the corner there's a 6th level half-orc Barbarian" but rather I would say "You walk into the bar, and blah blah blah in the corner there's a rather tall half-orc in leather inspecting a handaxe". Once the players are done inspecting and asking for information they can usually guess the level, race, and class of an NPC with a decent degree of accuracy.

 

[jadrax]

I was under the impression that theme and background had mechanical effects.

I don't believe they currently do in and off themselves, they just allow you to buy appropriate Skills and Feats.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I don't believe they currently do in and off themselves, they just allow you to buy appropriate Skills and Feats.

Everything said so far doesn't say they allow you to buy Skills and Feats. Themes give you feats, Backgrounds give you skills.

So, you pick Gladiator as your Theme and it gives you "Pit Fighting" and "Weapon Versatility" at first level as feats.

Then you pick Noble as a Background and it gives you a +2 to negotiate with other nobles and +2 to haggle with merchants.

I suspect that your Themes and Backgrounds MAY give you greater benefits at higher levels. There's been some implications that Themes are a list of feats you get and the levels you get them at. There's even been a slight implication that you never get to choose your own feats at all. You just get the ones given to you by your theme. However, you can ask your DM to customize your theme by letting you swap a couple of feats from its list out for ones of your choice or even creating your own custom Theme.