I have mixed feelings about Backgrounds and themes... I feel that they are miles ahead of what D&D has done in the past. But then, I think back to what other systems do: The system Mutants & Masterminds, a Point-buy d20 based Superhero system, has a source-book for using it in a Fantasy setting. I don't particularly like using it for that, since it just wasn't really built for that scale, but one thing that the sourcebook did impart to me is that it made me begin to question why...
View full commentI have mixed feelings about Backgrounds and themes... I feel that they are miles ahead of what D&D has done in the past. But then, I think back to what other systems do:
The system Mutants & Masterminds, a Point-buy d20 based Superhero system, has a source-book for using it in a Fantasy setting. I don't particularly like using it for that, since it just wasn't really built for that scale, but one thing that the sourcebook did impart to me is that it made me begin to question why there isn't a better way to pick skills?
In M&M, skills, like everything else, is point buy. That way, your Wizard can be a spy, without having to choose a background, which means you can tinker with the skills. Maybe the wizard isn't as good at stealth, but is a master at disguise and deception. With backgrounds, at least from what we know about them as of now, you don't have that type of modability. They're set: Spy is bonuses to X, Y, and Z, and Benefit Q.
Similarly themes seem to take some things that used to be class features, and make them able to add customization, since they can be taken by any class. But what they really are is feat-chains. Now, I'm not saying to go all the way to point buy, since I don't think Fantasy works well for that, but I'd like to see Themes not necessarily be a chain, but a guideline.
If you want the "Magic User" theme, for example, it'd basically be a guideline. You take feat X, Y and Z, and character creation goes really quickly, but if feat A looks more appealing than feat Y, you can have X, A and Z, and the character wouldn't be "house ruled"
I've never liked the mechanic of multiclassing but the theme / background sounds like a better fit for simulation than suddenly learning to cast spells or wield divine power. A more subtle way to customise a character than change its direction completely.
Monte's statement and Demohidu's colourfully written comment are both right on the money! Let's try to achieve that with some well designed mechanics to back it up.
I love Marcos and Demohidu's suggestions. My only concern is I don't want high level gear to be mandatory at higher levels—shackling the DM to treasure tables has problems. But the key thing is, I like the notion that at higher levels, each class is functioning at their peak whatever that peak is. For a Fighter, dodging most attacks and hitting most of the time makes sense as a high level goal. For a Wizard that's bending reality. The Fighter is more threatened by reality bending attacks,...
View full commentI love Marcos and Demohidu's suggestions. My only concern is I don't want high level gear to be mandatory at higher levels—shackling the DM to treasure tables has problems.
But the key thing is, I like the notion that at higher levels, each class is functioning at their peak whatever that peak is. For a Fighter, dodging most attacks and hitting most of the time makes sense as a high level goal. For a Wizard that's bending reality. The Fighter is more threatened by reality bending attacks, and the Wizard is afraid of being stabbed. There should be ways for them to cover each other's backs in those arenas (or compromise builds even). Obviously, the degree this can actually happen is limited, but keeping HP and accuracy values constrained makes it more achievable.
Totally agree w/Katalia369. Make it an option. It should -not- be automatic, and it should not be impossible or discouraged. It depends on what the group decides they want from the experience, and the D&D experience, IMVHO, isn't necessarily about magically attracting followers and receiving permission to build a stronghold at a set level -although if a player wants to hire people, or commission some kind of HQ, well, that should be possible and yeah, there should be rules somewhere for it,...
View full commentTotally agree w/Katalia369. Make it an option. It should -not- be automatic, and it should not be impossible or discouraged. It depends on what the group decides they want from the experience, and the D&D experience, IMVHO, isn't necessarily about magically attracting followers and receiving permission to build a stronghold at a set level -although if a player wants to hire people, or commission some kind of HQ, well, that should be possible and yeah, there should be rules somewhere for it, maybe simple ones in the core product(s) and crunchier stuff in some rules module.
What I would like, though, is that it's not a given reward available from a certain level or stuff like that. Not a feat, not a class feature, not that kind of stuff. If you got the money, knock yourself out. If you wanna build a castle, talk about it with the local head honcho, grant them your fealty as a vassal, be knighted, receive a barony, whatever, and start building. You wanna skip the RP details? As long as it's fine with the others, go for it. Want your dominion to play a big role in the game? Same as above, talk about it and see if it's OK for everyone. Possibly not at the last minute -the earlier, the better. Social contract, you know (which in D&D could really stop being "unspoken" -a clearly agreed on, defined social contract would do wonders for the whole experience, but I digress).
In summary, I don't think it should be one of those 'rewards' you automatically get when you reach some arbitrary level -it should depend on many factors, like your social class, how much money you got, your relationships with the royals, where you decide to build your stronghold, wether you decide to conquer someone else's and refurbish it... story stuff. If the mechanics can support it, all the better. If not... well, at least mention it can be done and suggest some how-tos in the DM's guide, right?
Personally I like to run (I am almost always the DM in our campaigns) sandbox games. In other words, no set adventures, just engaging characters in a detailed world and I let my players decide what direction they want to take their characters. This means that I would like to have this option as my players tend to go for "conquering the world" type of ambition. For that you need armies, castles, followers, etc (I used a HEAVILY modified version of Birthright rules to do this, but I truly miss a...
View full commentPersonally I like to run (I am almost always the DM in our campaigns) sandbox games. In other words, no set adventures, just engaging characters in a detailed world and I let my players decide what direction they want to take their characters. This means that I would like to have this option as my players tend to go for "conquering the world" type of ambition. For that you need armies, castles, followers, etc (I used a HEAVILY modified version of Birthright rules to do this, but I truly miss a good solid system for stuff like this in almost any RPG system out there. The first game that does this well will have a very loyal customer in me; currently this is done best in Rogue Trader). The thing is, this should not be tied to level. Are all kings a level 16 Fighter? Probably not. This is the type of thing that should be a focus of your campaign, a support for back story in your campaign, or not be used at all, regardless of character level.
And do not limit yourself here either. Don't stop at 1 castle. Make it scale properly; it should work if you just want a small band of followers, but it should scale all the way up to ruling empires, managing armies and leading crusades across entire worlds. This includes a conflict resolution system between organizations, armies and empires. Thieves guild versus merchants, barons versus kings, empire against empire.