Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 8412192" data-attributes="member: 7635">Maybe that's the problem: D&D is too European. D&D subclasses are a hodge podge generic names (path of the beast, circle of the moon) and specific (assassin, necromancer). A few generic names (way of shadow, college of war) suggest historical concepts (ninja, skalds) but aren't tied to just that one culture. It doesn't seem odd for either of those subclasses to exist in other cultures, save for the oddness of thier base calls l class (monk, bard) existing.An ideal solution, if we're serious about removing offensive stereotypes in class naming, would be to use that descriptive method of naming classes and subs rather than using classical names. That would mean at the very least changing some sub names (samurai to oathbound for example), with perhaps reworking of the druid, monk paladin and bard to make them work for multiple different types of characters less tied to a certain cultural archetype. Then, you could have a duelist rogue or an oathsworn fighter without the cultural baggage of a swashbuckler or samurai baked in.</blockquote>