Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5949621" data-attributes="member: 3400">I agree that some identity was lost for those classes, but I would argue that it wasn't done for balance reasons. Rather, I believe it was done to push most impetus for having subclasses into a more modular structure. Less expansive class list, more flexible options for developing a character, addition of ways for characters to be partly mechanically the same while also being different (same kits + different classes or same classes + different kits).The barbarian, as the new kid on the block, wasn't considered iconic enough to keep its identity... at least until the Complete Barbarian's Handbook came along - probably in response to customer demands. The monk, originally intended to be an appendix and barely workable in 1e form, simply didn't make the cut outside of OA. And the assassin fell victim to the same thing as the barbarian, ultimately, lack of need to be a specific class rather than an aspect of the character that could be class independent.I think 2e had some good ideas in it. That some kits were underwhelming or uneven, particularly early on, was unfortunate (that cavalier kit was MUCH better than most others in perks). But I don't necessarily think the structural change was wrong-headed. Making barbarian a modifier for fighters, paladins, or rangers rather than an entity on its own wasn't a bad idea.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 5949621, member: 3400"] I agree that some identity was lost for those classes, but I would argue that it wasn't done for balance reasons. Rather, I believe it was done to push most impetus for having subclasses into a more modular structure. Less expansive class list, more flexible options for developing a character, addition of ways for characters to be partly mechanically the same while also being different (same kits + different classes or same classes + different kits). The barbarian, as the new kid on the block, wasn't considered iconic enough to keep its identity... at least until the Complete Barbarian's Handbook came along - probably in response to customer demands. The monk, originally intended to be an appendix and barely workable in 1e form, simply didn't make the cut outside of OA. And the assassin fell victim to the same thing as the barbarian, ultimately, lack of need to be a specific class rather than an aspect of the character that could be class independent. I think 2e had some good ideas in it. That some kits were underwhelming or uneven, particularly early on, was unfortunate (that cavalier kit was MUCH better than most others in perks). But I don't necessarily think the structural change was wrong-headed. Making barbarian a modifier for fighters, paladins, or rangers rather than an entity on its own wasn't a bad idea. [/QUOTE]

Verification