New article on the WotC website. Link.

AD&D 2e fans, stand and be counted.

Everyone else, some great new PC options. I love the Fighter ones especially because they provide viable non-spellcasting knights in shining armor and wilderness warriors.

Hunh. I'll file this under "things I never thought I'd see."

... Well damn. That is just cool.

Edit: Cool they gave it a nod. In terms of mechanics... meh. This isn't anything different than I already do.

I'm happy to see this, and I hope they publish a few more.

But not too many, because "power creep" etc.

It seemed like back in the day, I was the only gamer in my local group who appreciated the 2E kits for what they were.

As long as they stick to their internal measuring sticks on how bonuses apply - they should be fine.

They look like any other option. I'm not into Cavaliers but the rest look like great subclass options for the Bard especially but Scout is neat for a Ranger.

Let's see:
Cavaliers? Check.
Scouts? Check.
Jesters? Check.

Yup. The Gygax fan in me is happy.  Now I just need a good elementalist wizard variant and I'll be able to run a game and not miss my options from LA.

Tom

The Basic D&D plus free supps is getting more and more full featured (and in a good way!).

Edit: 31 files in my Free 5e folder.  That is plenty to keep folks plenty busy.

Noice. Have to say I've always loved the Blade, in particular.

It makes sense since between them the 5E subclasses and the backgrounds seem to solve all the problems that kits were meant to solve, much more neatly. Kit mostly a matter of background flavour? Make it a background. Kit provide a substantial rules shift? Make it a subclass. Boom, done.

I like the College of Swords and the Cavalier, the Scout left me sort of "meh" as I was looking for something similar to the Complete Adventurer Scout class.

Quote from: Warthur;872215It makes sense since between them the 5E subclasses and the backgrounds seem to solve all the problems that kits were meant to solve, much more neatly. Kit mostly a matter of background flavour? Make it a background. Kit provide a substantial rules shift? Make it a subclass. Boom, done.

I must say, even if I disagree with the Features of a class or class archetype, it is useful to see how from PHB to UA they are showing how they spitball ideas into a templated framework.

By breaking off setting professional niche into Background really freed up a lot of setting creativity. By breaking off class archetype as a sub-suite of class features also gives example on how to "make the game your own." I do have a few class core features I'm not too hot on (Sneak Attack, Second Wind, Cantrips, etc.), but seeing how things are separated as core-class>archetype>background it makes things easier to edit.

2e kits were almost there in CH:F. But the whole "can also take this kit as an optional class (paladin or ranger) if qualifies" really flubbed the whole thing. Several should have been separate optional classes outright within the Core Four Archetypes. I think 5e got this right for DIYers.

I probably am thinking of building a bard/blade now. Immediately hit one problem with the damn thing: you get a load of background fluff about how you're an expert at knifey-spooney, but no actual abilities materialize until 3rd level; until then you're stuck with the usual default bard abilities.
Definitely one area where the kit worked better and made more sense.

It does kind of fit with the 5E ethos that the first level or two is apprenticeship stuff, mind. Lots of subclasses don't kick in until around 3rd level.

I'd pay good money to get this in some form of hardback print form. Maybe with some good planewalking class options ala-Unearth Arcana of old.