Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 6279679" data-attributes="member: 3400">I consider putting the paladin under the cavalier class to be a pretty bad mistake. Conceptually, it might work but giving the paladin the cavalier's powers was a pretty big boost.Depends on how you approach the game. 1e, as evidenced by Unearthed Arcana, was on an increasingly specialized trajectory. You had basic classes and more specialized subclasses and NPC classes galore. 2e took a step back and generalized - offering differing build packages to customize the basic classes. That demoted the cavalier to a kit but one that was available to fighters and paladins alike. It did, however, kind of push the suitability of kits into a "power kit" territory compared to weak kits (amazon, I'm looking at you), which was kind of a mess.3e kind of split the difference by allowing feats to do most of the work but still coming up with a specialized knight class in PH2. Personally, I can see a point to having different classes when you can have a substantially different mechanical structure that are hard to bolt on with the existing structures. Barbarians get the rage structure, fighters the customizability of styles, paladins the smite/channeling, rangers the skills, and knights/cavaliers the challenges. I don't think I would particularly worry about class/subclass structure, though. I think that's a bit passe these days.</blockquote>