Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8258404" data-attributes="member: 82106">What this seems to be turning into is basically a debate about game design. '0e' was kind of a hodge-podge, but by 1e there was a pretty solid design concept. You had basically 4 'core classes' and then most of the other classes were 'sub-classes' of those (this is spelled out clearly in the 1e PHB). However there wasn't a principle which stated that the 4 were exclusive, and the 1e Monk is not really described as a sub-class at all (nor the Bard if you want to get technical, though it could be considered a sort of Druid variant). In this design the base 4 are playable classes and sub-classes are, to a varying extent, elaborations and specializations on them. In this scheme the casting sub-classes get their own spells, and the others sometimes get limited spell access. Otherwise sub-classes generally get access to some version of the main class core abilities (IE Assassins) or some more appropriate substitute (IE druids). 2e really mostly just polishes that design by making the base-classes non-playable abstractions which hold certain rules, like XP tables. That does change up some things in that all playable classes get some things in common, but also removes the idea that a class can be a sub-class of another playable class. Overall the difference is not that much, but now some classes are quite broad (fighter is basically "everything that isn't a paladin or a ranger" for example). Kits then get added later, along with the modular priest classes, to allow a more open-ended set of options without adding an endless litany of new classes. This replaces things like the Assassin, Monk, Thief-Acrobat, Cavalier, Barbarian, and all the OA classes, plus a lot of more specific examples. Clearly kits are meant to give you a way to articulate a very specific set of ideas that might represent a given setting, or maybe even a specific character. One question there is whether or not 2e really needs both sub-classes AND kits. It is telling that NO additional official classes are added to 2e beyond the ones in the PHB, everything else is strictly kits or else priest sub-classes or maybe wizard specialist variants (I think the Al Qadim ones are done that way, I forget exactly).Interestingly 2e is a bit equivocal on the modular use of kits. Some of them seem applicable to more than one class, but most are described in supplements for a specific class (IE Complete Fighter's Handbook, it isn't Complete Warrior's Handbook). My feeling is if they'd rationalized 2e (2.5?) kits might have replaced all but the archetypal classes. As far as I know there really isn't a coherent set of rules about the application of kits either, can you have more than one? Can you acquire them after first level? I guess you could think of 3e as a rationalization of 2e, in part. However it moves from kit to prestige class, and makes them distinctively something you gain AFTER first level. Of course MCing also becomes easy and almost free, but at the same time sub-classes remain, though now they are simply named as co-equal independent classes for the first time, IIRC. Frankly I don't think 3e was all that well thought out... Ignoring 4e as going down a bit different path, 5e is mostly a rehash of the 2e idea, except with kits becoming sub-classes of classes, which are sort of loosely 'binned' but not really specifically declared to belong to a base class (so maybe it is more like 3e, but not quite). 5e doesn't seem to so much want or need something like ranger as a sub-class of fighter, it is more like it is a half-caster simply because this is how 5e tries to emulate the greater class parity of 4e. It does seem like Ranger and Paladin could almost have been simply fighter sub-classes, or even THE fighter sub-classes. Every edition has tried to parse the meaning of class/sub-class/base-class/options in a bit different way, and it kind of seems like none of them really quite hit a home run. It just is not clear what, in D&D is supposed to make something a distinct class. Never was, never will be! So, ARGUE ON! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />So the question has always b</blockquote>

Verification