Now some people have argued that you don''t need rules to make your character unique, that roleplay alone is enough, but no matter how much you roleplay your character, if all paladins must have the same exact background to be paladins then you are missing crucial skill bonuses you would have otherwise and that would fit your character. No matter how much you roleplay your run of the mill paladin as a healer or as a negotiator, or even a musician, you'll never be able to make it count if it doesn't reflects on the dice when you need it. Which may not be bad if it was the same for all, but when your suppossed musician paladin fails and the wizard with the musician background does it and it happens every single time, then your character is a second rate character because he was denied a critical background by virtue of wanting to play a class that has been core in almost every single edition but made the sin of not being one of the "Big four" and was denied being a class in Next.
"Some people" here, reporting for duty.
I think customization of individualized characters is what skills and feats are for, not classes. I've had diplomatic paladins in both 3e (Viking) and 4e (quasi-Roman), and in both cases it was about good Charisma and choosing to emphasize my Diplomacy skill. Why would I need a kit or theme or special class to do that?
A paladin diplomat who doesn't have any skill at Diplomacy (in an edition that uses such) is just a poorly written character . . . not a second rate character, just a character who apparently "wasted" skills/feats on stuff the player wasn't really interested in and "forgot" to put them where intended.
How would that be different with kits? "Ooh, I took the crusader paladin kit. But I want a paladin who is great at singing. Oppps, guess I should have taken the Singing Paladin kit or the Choir Boy theme or the Avenging Singer-songwriter class."
And with a feats and skill approach, you could split the difference, if you want to a little good at both diplomacy and singing . . . without the rules bloat of endless splatbooks.
As for the approach in AD&D (pre-UA), there were no skills, feats, kits, themes, alternative classes, prestige classes, etc. And we got along fine without them. Want a singing paladin in AD&D? Announce at the table, "My character was raised at a monastery and trained as classical singer. He's a fine tenor and was the usual soloist for feast day services back home." DM says, "Cool" and most likely it never comes up again unless the player wants to do something with it.
If the player says, "I'll ask the local cleric if I can sing at the church service", most likely the DM will say, "Sure. Your reputation preceeds, and the cleric is very happy to tell everyone your singing. The Church is just packed on the big day. Everyone is impressed by Sir Elvis's crooning, and after the service, several damsels would like to seek his personal theological advice . . . "
If somehow there was a situation requiring a "skill check" (singing contest?), in DMing AD&D I'd use a super complicated rule to resolve whether Sir Elvis or Cedric the Bard won (the latter being an actual character name in a party I was in -- Cedrid the Entertainer, get it): roll a d20 + Cha bonus + true Bard level (if you've got one). Fair and simple.
For what it's worth, I love paladins and bards. I'd do everything in the AD&D PHB and the 3e PHB as core clasess for 5e, which means:
-- Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian
-- Thief/Rogue, Assassin
-- Magic User/Wizard, Sorcerer, and Illusionist
-- Cleric, Druid
-- Monk
-- Bard (both preferably multi-class and single class versions)
Why not the stuff from 2e or 4e? I didn't enjoy either even edition, but if there's something from their PHB class lists that everybody likes and isn't on my list (Cavalier? Warlock? Warlord?), OK, no sweat. I agree it makes more sense to talk about what to include than what to exclude. Some stuff, like Rogue/Thief, they would need to decide what to call as its for all intents and purposes the same thing (ditto on Wizard/Magic User).
)
