Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9478557" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Back in 2e, we had &quot;Kits&quot; for customizing characters.&nbsp; Initially, each class got it's own book full of them, but eventually it expanded to racial kits and setting kits.But you saw a lot of overlap because, it turns out, some of these ideas are agnostic.&nbsp; Both Warriors and Rogues could be Swashbucklers.&nbsp; We had Savage versions of several classes.&nbsp; That sort of thing.I don't think it would turn the game into oatmeal to have a Swashbuckler or Pirate available to multiple classes without the need of making multiple subclasses for each version.As it is, only a Fighter can be a Samurai, and a Paladin can't be anything, really, because &quot;Oath of Whatever&quot; isn't quite as evocative as Horizon Walker or Rune Knight (if you want to talk about oatmeal, lol).Now, some might say that these concepts are more backgrounds than full on subclasses- if you want to be a Pirate Wizard, you just take a background like Sailor.&nbsp; But WotC has already blurred this line with things like Cavalier, Hunter, or Scout.Assassin seems amusing to me especially, as I recall the reason 2e didn't have an Assassin class- anyone could be an assassin, they said.&nbsp; It was a profession, not a class.&nbsp; But here we are.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9478557, member: 6877472"] Back in 2e, we had "Kits" for customizing characters. Initially, each class got it's own book full of them, but eventually it expanded to racial kits and setting kits. But you saw a lot of overlap because, it turns out, some of these ideas are agnostic. Both Warriors and Rogues could be Swashbucklers. We had Savage versions of several classes. That sort of thing. I don't think it would turn the game into oatmeal to have a Swashbuckler or Pirate available to multiple classes without the need of making multiple subclasses for each version. As it is, only a Fighter can be a Samurai, and a Paladin can't be anything, really, because "Oath of Whatever" isn't quite as evocative as Horizon Walker or Rune Knight (if you want to talk about oatmeal, lol). Now, some might say that these concepts are more backgrounds than full on subclasses- if you want to be a Pirate Wizard, you just take a background like Sailor. But WotC has already blurred this line with things like Cavalier, Hunter, or Scout. Assassin seems amusing to me especially, as I recall the reason 2e didn't have an Assassin class- anyone could be an assassin, they said. It was a profession, not a class. But here we are. [/QUOTE]

Verification