D&D 5E Subclass or Kit?

[Giltonio_Santos]

Wizards is already keeping a lot of old names for the sake of tradition, like hit dice. Given that, why introducing the subclass name if we can simply call them kits, which they pretty much are. Ok, you can say that 2E kits were more like an amalgam of what we now call subclass and background, but I'd love if they pleased us, 2E fans, by adding this piece of tradition to the final version of the game. What do you think of it?

Cheers,

 

[Li Shenron]

I've never liked the term "kits". Similarly to "build", they make characters feel like Ikea products.

Anyway IIRC officially they are not called subclasses either, at least not yet. They are called differently for each class.

 

[Cyberen]

...and "subclass" is an AD&D conceit, not a new piece of jargon.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

True; some of those that are now called classes used to be subclasses. Fair enough, while I still prefer kits, I agree they deserve no more honor than the subclass name.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I've never liked the term "kits". Similarly to "build", they make characters feel like Ikea products.

Anyway IIRC officially they are not called subclasses either, at least not yet. They are called differently for each class.

Can't XP you, but agree!

 

[Kinak]

I'm not sure "subclasses" is a great name, but I didn't even like "kit" back in 2nd.

It does get across the concept of "a tool to help you build what you want" but that's a very broad description for something that's quite a bit more specific in practice. It also really draws attention to the fact that you're building a character out of pre-defined pieces, more like a Lego minfig than a living person, which some people don't like staring in the face.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[am181d]

I'm not sure "subclasses" is a great name, but I didn't even like "kit" back in 2nd.

This is what I was going to say.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Personally, I'd go with Archetype as a generic term. That said, the rules don't use the term subclass. Each class calls it something different, with different flavor.

 

[Warbringer]

Yes, less letters, same concept, though name still sucks as it did in 2e

 

[1of3]

Subclass is better than kit. Even if I don't know the game, I would no that a subclass is a part of a class. One wouldn't know what a kit or a prestige class is.

I suppose the reason that build was used in 4e was that there are example builds with each class although the word build is not meant to refer to the subclasses themselves. Otherwise it might have been subclass just then.