D&D 5E Subclass or Kit?

[Weather Report]

Kits are for cars.

 

[steeldragons]

Kits are for cars.

Or playing football (european, I mean)...or referring to baby foxes, ferrets, and other small furry woodland creatures.

Yeah, "subclasses", if we need such a term, works just fine. But I really have no problem (and rather like) that each class has their own: Oaths for Paladins, Domains for Clerics, Circles for Druids, Traditions for Mages, etc... Good added flavor.

 

[jrowland]

A kit can be applied to any class (prereq's met) whereas a subclass can only be applied to a specific class.

 

[DMZ2112]

Thoroughly onboard with using the old terminology. Subclasses are slightly different than kits in that they seem to only add class features, not change existing class features, but that is a simple enough hand wave. One vote for "kit!"

A kit can be applied to any class (prereq's met) whereas a subclass can only be applied to a specific class.

This was rarely actually true, much like prestige classes in D&D3.5. "No class requirements" is a high-concept, great idea that no one has ever been able to successfully execute in the long term. It's theoretical game design at its best.

 

[Weather Report]

Don't get me wrong, I love kits, have since they were introduced in the Dragonlance Time of the Dragons boxed set (David Cook), and the Sha'irs Handbook has some of the coolest kits/ideas for D&D magic, ever.

I just find the term cheesy/cheap.

 

[jrowland]

This was rarely actually true, much like prestige classes in D&D3.5. "No class requirements" is a high-concept, great idea that no one has ever been able to successfully execute in the long term. It's theoretical game design at its best.

Who was talking about the past? I am proposing this as the defining difference.

 

[DMZ2112]

Who was talking about the past? I am proposing this as the defining difference.

My apologies! I would not be adverse to keeping the "subclass" language for subclasses but renaming the new feats to "kits." That would be just as valid a use of the old terminology, to my mind.

 

[jrowland]

My apologies! I would not be adverse to keeping the "subclass" language for subclasses but renaming the new feats to "kits." That would be just as valid a use of the old terminology, to my mind.

too push that further (too much?), if the current big feats are "kits", then there becomes nomenclature and space for classic feats: small incremental bumps. That might be too many things to track in the core game, but as an advanced module may help with "less critical" but "beloved" character design choices that seem missing. Learning a new language in game, adding a proficiency, etc. as long as these feats stay away from bonus bloat, and focus more on roleplay, exploration type choices I think it would be a good thing.

 

[DMZ2112]

too push that further (too much?), if the current big feats are "kits", then there becomes nomenclature and space for classic feats: small incremental bumps. That might be too many things to track in the core game, but as an advanced module may help with "less critical" but "beloved" character design choices that seem missing. Learning a new language in game, adding a proficiency, etc. as long as these feats stay away from bonus bloat, and focus more on roleplay, exploration type choices I think it would be a good thing.

I don't think that's too far at all. I was in the camp of people who thought they should keep calling the expanded feats "specialties" when they first made that change. The mechanic has changed substantially from the original D&D3 conception of feats. "Kit" is a great name.

I'd also like to see more frequent non-bonus-based feats return as a rules module.