Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 5987421" data-attributes="member: 50304">Removing? No. Restructuring? Definitely! Will you have some senseless edition-warring by people who demand D&amp;D conform to their semantic definition of class to mirror their AD&amp;D, 2nd Ed, 3E, or 4E experience? Sure. You have -ahem- &quot;Unique&quot; people still stumping for returning to Elf and Dwarf as classes. You could still play Elves and Dwarves in AD&amp;D - even ones that resemble OD&amp;D race-classes versions.So in OD&amp;D Dwarf and Elf were classes - they got replaced in AD&amp;D with Dwarf Fighters and Elf Fighter/Mages. In AD&amp;D the Paladin and the Ranger weren't classes - they were Fighter Sub-classes. In 2nd Edition several classes became kits. In 3E everything became a class and got multi-classed and prestige-classed out the Yin-Yang.This is starting to look like a &quot;certain builds that were stand-alone classes in 3.X must be executed exactly as they were in 3E / Pathfinder or I'm taking my ball and going home,&quot; argument.As long as key touch-stones are playable builds out of the Core (be they sub-classes of a Cardinal Class, hybrid spaces between two or more Cardinal classes) I'm going to feel like the &quot;class&quot; is still represented.I mean, a signature class feature of the wizard (the familiar) got broken out into a theme in the playtest. I guess there's no longer a real Wizard class. There's just this freak class that killed the Wizard and took some of his stuff and now everybody and their grandmother can take a familiar so my precious snow-flake AD&amp;D MU / 3E Wizard isn't a class in 5E. This isn't a unity edition - it's a travesty!Or, maybe - just maybe - some of the more narrow archetypes that were called a &quot;class&quot; under one edition might just be sub-classes or combinations of class features/options, themes, and/or backgrounds in 5E without the sky falling down and killing us all.- Marty Lund</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mlund, post: 5987421, member: 50304"] Removing? No. Restructuring? Definitely! Will you have some senseless edition-warring by people who demand D&D conform to their semantic definition of class to mirror their AD&D, 2nd Ed, 3E, or 4E experience? Sure. You have -ahem- "Unique" people still stumping for returning to Elf and Dwarf as classes. You could still play Elves and Dwarves in AD&D - even ones that resemble OD&D race-classes versions. So in OD&D Dwarf and Elf were classes - they got replaced in AD&D with Dwarf Fighters and Elf Fighter/Mages. In AD&D the Paladin and the Ranger weren't classes - they were [b]Fighter Sub-classes[/b]. In 2nd Edition several classes became kits. In 3E everything became a class and got multi-classed and prestige-classed out the Yin-Yang. This is starting to look like a "certain builds that were stand-alone classes in 3.X must be executed exactly as they were in 3E / Pathfinder or I'm taking my ball and going home," argument. As long as key touch-stones are playable builds out of the Core (be they sub-classes of a Cardinal Class, hybrid spaces between two or more Cardinal classes) I'm going to feel like the "class" is still represented. I mean, a signature class feature of the wizard (the familiar) got broken out into a theme in the playtest. I guess there's no longer a real Wizard class. There's just this freak class that killed the Wizard and took some of his stuff and now everybody and their grandmother can take a familiar so my precious snow-flake AD&D MU / 3E Wizard isn't a class in 5E. This isn't a unity edition - it's a travesty! Or, maybe - just [B]maybe[/B] - some of the more narrow archetypes that were called a "class" under one edition might just be sub-classes or combinations of class features/options, themes, and/or backgrounds in 5E without the sky falling down and killing us all. - Marty Lund [/QUOTE]

Verification