You Wanted Character Themes, You Got 'Em - Dragon 399 ToC

[TwoSix]

I wonder if they're going to have rules for a theme's interactions with non-AEDU classes, specifically the ones without selectable encounter powers. My one problem with the Dark Sun themes is that they don't play very nicely with Essentials classes like the slayer.

Or maybe we'll have to wait for June's multiclass/hybrid rules update.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Themes are substantial mechanical crunch for all characters in 4E. This is far more important than most of the stuff that Dragon has been publishing for MONTHS now. I would sooner have themes than a near pure fluff article with a couple of garbage feats and a mediocre to terrible PP (which is a general description of a fair amount of Dragon articles over the past few months).

I am with you on this. I like crunch.

BUT:

There was so much demand for fluff, and the first books were terribly torn apart for the "lack of fluff"...

So they just went over board a little.

I guess they are starting to get a good balance...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I wonder if they're going to have rules for a theme's interactions with non-AEDU classes, specifically the ones without selectable encounter powers. My one problem with the Dark Sun themes is that they don't play very nicely with Essentials classes like the slayer.

Or maybe we'll have to wait for June's multiclass/hybrid rules update.

In a perfect world, some of the themes heavily incorporate RITUALS* access... so many names sound like having access to rituals is a good way to make them not overpower the game and support the roleplaying part of the game...

*edit: or alchemist or maybe even martial practitioner...

 

[Aegeri]

I wonder how alchemist will work, because the alchemist feat is virtually worthless as everything you can make with alchemy is uncommon (and therefore by the default magic item rules uncreatable by PCs).

 

[MrMyth]

They're finally giving us a lot of something many people have been asking about, and still people are complaining. Unbelievable.

I think that having Themes will be awesome and I am glad to see them. I am also disappointed that it will be the only player content in this month's issue of Dragon. Is it really that unbelievable that someone could have both opinions?

And, sorry, but a backdrop article on Nerath and advice article on speeding up combat are really DM content, not new material for players.

Here is the player content we've received in the last two months in Dragon:
April: 6 Ki Foci, 1 Paragon Path, 5 optional powers subject to DM approval.
March: 1 Ritual, 1 Epic Destiny, 1 Divine Boon, 9 Familiars, plus optional henchmen rules.

Now, DDI has been providing a good number of DM content, and some of the articles have been top-notch, and I remain a fan of the UA articles as a whole.

But that doesn't change the fact that I wish my subscription had more player content in it. We're getting a whole slew of it next month... but solely in the form of themes, which means other content will be nonexistent. I'd much prefer a more balanced approach overall.

 

[Quickleaf]

These themes feel vague to me, like I'm having trouble pinning down just what a theme *is*. I can imagine a conversation like this at ourgame table:

PLAYER A: So I'm playing a chevalier
DM: You mean a cavalier?
PLAYER A: No a chevalier!
DM: A paladin with a phony French accent?

PLAYER: My rogue is an ordained priest, but he doesn't do spells...
DM: So Multi-class into cleric or take a religious background.
PLAYER: Well I already MCed barbarian for extra damage and took gritty sergeant for init bonus...
DM: WAit you're playing rogue who came out of the war as a gritty sergeant but was a bit crazy like a barbarian and is now daylighting as a priest?
PLAYER: Uh...yeah!
DM: WTF??

PLAYER: I want to play an animal master...
DM: Cool what's your animal companion?
PLAYER: Not a beastmaster ranger, an *animal* master, it's a theme.
DM: Oh. Same question?

PLAYER: My guy is a noble
DM: Did you take the noble scion or noble bred for war background?
PLAYER: No it's my theme... wait there's a background for that?
DM: sigh

PLAYER: I am playing a street urchin explorer!
DM: Wait you can't have two themes...
PLAYER: No my background is street urchin and my theme is explorer
DM: Are you sure that wasn't explorer background and guttersnipe theme?
PLAYER: What's the difference?
DM: Exactly.

 

[Viking Bastard]

DM: WAit you're playing rogue who came out of the war as a gritty sergeant but was a bit crazy like a barbarian and is now daylighting as a priest?

That sounds awesome. The possibilities are endless!

 

[Zaphling]

Would love to have a vigilante theme. I AM SO EXCITED I JUST CAN'T HIDE IT!

 

[TerraDave]

the sniping about the TOC is something.

We don't just have themes, but exactly the kinds of themes I would hope to see. And speeding up combat (only like the biggest problem in 4e). And some an expansion of the defualt world. And what I hope is help for the problematic PHB strong cleric. And Ioun stones!

Seriously: best DDI dragon ToC, evar.

 

[GameDoc]

PLAYER: My rogue is an ordained priest, but he doesn't do spells...
DM: So Multi-class into cleric or take a religious background.
PLAYER: Well I already MCed barbarian for extra damage and took gritty sergeant for init bonus...
DM: WAit you're playing rogue who came out of the war as a gritty sergeant but was a bit crazy like a barbarian and is now daylighting as a priest?
PLAYER: Uh...yeah!
DM: WTF??

And that about sums up how the whole "optimization as the drivng factor in character building" craze is a detriment to roleplaying games.

A rogue who finds religion and becomes an ordained priest is a great character concept. A priest who gets trained as a rogue to serve his order in secretive ways is equally intersting.

But grabbing feats, backgrounds, or themes that don't make for a consistent character concept just to get that extra bonus to a die roll or that one cool power you wouldn't get otherwise drives me nuts.