Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5916098" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, terminology aside, it seems to me Essentials has kind of done this, though not quite using 5e's likely class/theme layering exactly. All of them are 'Paladins' but you have the Cavalier and the Blackguard representing different aspects of this 'champion' concept. I'd say as a nod to UA vintage 1e the base class could be called 'Cavalier', though I think I do like the name 'champion' and it isn't a term that D&D has ever used for a class, so it is relatively baggage-free. Certainly 'Paladin' could be the lawful good version, 'Blackguard' an evil version, and there could be a couple other varieties as well, at least a more neutral or non-alignment-related one that can be committed to practically anything. The class/theme split does of course open up possibilities, at least theoretically. The idea of a 'wizard/paladin' etc could make sense, though I must say we lack examples of an implementation of D&D where something in the 'theme' design space ACTUALLY worked cross-class. Given the stated intent of 5e to eschew 4e's uniform class mechanics I'm VERY doubtful they'll be able to do much cross-class stuff at all with 5e. It is certainly hard to imagine a theme that would work with a trick based fighter, a vancian wizard, and an AEDU shaman for example... What features could you put in such a theme that would be relevant to such entirely differently implemented classes? In any case, I'm good with any concept that doesn't lock the whole "warrior dedicated to a cause" thing into some narrow alignment box.</blockquote>

Verification