Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dungeonosophy" data-source="post: 5874859" data-attributes="member: 6688049">I agree that the demotion of some classes into themes isn't malicious.&nbsp;&nbsp;That's true.&nbsp;&nbsp;This kind of thinking retroactively justifies whatever decisions Zeb Cook and the 2e design team actually made. It's not enlivened thinking, because I sense if TSR had made the Bard into a Rogue kit and kept the Barbarian as a 2e core class, then one would be saying now: &quot;this made perfect sense...why should the &quot;bard&quot; exist at all...?&quot;.&nbsp;Yet I do recognize that, as a distillation of all previous iterations, the 5e PHB, for organic reasons, is going to &quot;boil down&quot; some of the names into sub-class options. &nbsp;I'm only pointing out an elephant in the room. The WotC designers are talented enough to take any class/profession name and turn it into a full-fledged 4e or 5e class. Ultimately, the decision isn't a design limitation, but a space limitation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dungeonosophy, post: 5874859, member: 6688049"] I agree that the demotion of some classes into themes isn't malicious. That's true. This kind of thinking retroactively justifies whatever decisions Zeb Cook and the 2e design team actually made. It's not enlivened thinking, because I sense if TSR had made the Bard into a Rogue kit and kept the Barbarian as a 2e core class, then one would be saying now:[I] "this made perfect sense...why should the "bard" exist at all...?".[/I] Yet I do recognize that, as a distillation of all previous iterations, the 5e PHB, for organic reasons, is going to "boil down" some of the names into sub-class options. I'm only pointing out an elephant in the room. The WotC designers are talented enough to take any class/profession name and turn it into a full-fledged 4e or 5e class. Ultimately, the decision isn't a design limitation, but a space limitation. [/QUOTE]

Verification