Character kits?

[Connorsrpg]

Um 4E Themes and Backgrounds?

The problem with kits were that some worked like Themes and BGs, stating what type of Fighter for eg, you were, or what you were before adventuring days.

Others were what you aspire to be and were therefore like Paragon Paths and Prestige Classes. Odd how some paladins could start as Dragon Slayers for eg.

However, I LOVED kits. I would like to see them return in concept, but as I have stated elsewhere, I would like to see this as Talent Tree-like.

Each Race & Class grants some very broad benefits (and hopefully drawbacks) and access to several Talent Trees.

Kits/Themes/BG could be added as a 3rd layer if you like for generic BGs like Peasant, Noble, Wanderer, Urban. Again, with their own TT's.

The kits that were specific roles would simply be Talent Trees. So the Slayer TT would be open to several classes and races (perhaps with restrictions on the type of enemy chosen).

And the kits that were simply PrC, well they could remain that way. They would open up other TTs, but also allow access to other ones that suit the PrC (just like they do in Saga now). So the Dragon Slayer TT would grant access to the Slayer TT, and 1-2 more to deal specifically with dragons.

Mind you, I do believe that some of these talents could be highlighted and used for templates. Egs - if players don't want the customisation of too many choices, have archetypes with the choices already made.

 

[Li Shenron]

There was never a 3.x or 4E equivalent to character kits, although the multi-class feats come close to capturing the feel of them.

I used to think that prestige classes replaced kits, but truth is I don't know how kits used to work... can you somehow summarize it?

From what I read in this thread, maybe the 3ed skills/feats system can be considered already a "mild" version of kits? Probably feats were too few in 20 levels however to really feel like a true kit.

 

[Halivar]

From what I read in this thread, maybe the 3ed skills/feats system can be considered already a "mild" version of kits? Probably feats were too few in 20 levels however to really feel like a true kit.

Most of them were a reflavor, with some extra utility thrown in to match the new fluff, and some mostly roleplay-related flaws built in. Some kits, I seem to remember, were total overhauls, though, and changed the power curve quite a bit. In effect, they used another class as a base, and decorated it as a new class.

Someone can correct me, but I recall the bladesinger was a kit, no? Can't remember if it was for fighter or mage, though...

 

[Li Shenron]

Most of them were a reflavor, with some extra utility thrown in to match the new fluff, and some mostly roleplay-related flaws built in.

Ok, this sounds pretty generic so that those utilities and flaws could be anything. How major/minor was the change to the core class (not counting extreme cases of overpowered kits)?

I'm asking this because I thought that AD&D classes had near-to-no customization, except spells and IIRC non-weapon proficiencies. But 3ed classes could at least vary skills and feats, and some classes also had selectable class abilities. The flavor could always be altered, so I'm wondering which (non-broken) kit can or cannot be approximated already with 3ed core rules + non-core feats.

 

[Sammael]

Kits offered far less customization than 3.x rules. Usually, they modified your weapon/nonweapon proficiencies slightly and gave you a +1 bonus to this or that along with a similarly scaled penalty.

It got a bit wonky as 2nd edition progressed, particularly with the Complete Book of Elves and the dreaded Bladesinger kit.

 

[The Human Target]

I like the idea of kits in place of prestige classes/paragon paths/themes.

 

[Nylanfs]

Every time I see the title of this thread I keep reading "Character kilts" And I'm like "Sure why not!"

 

[Tallifer]

I like to drink from the fire hose. How about we include all of kits, prestige classes, Forgotten Realms style backgrounds, professions, themes, paragon paths, templates, epic destinies, bloodlines, hybrids and something new while we are at it? Would be fun for at least one campaign!

 

[Dagredhel]

The important thing to note about AD&D kits is that they are a way to customize a character right from the start.

Prestige classes differ the differentiation to mid- to high levels. Archetypes may or may not include significant changes at 1st level.

I agree wholeheartedly with CleverNickName that a small number of 'base classes' supplemented by some sort of subsystem like this offering the opportunity for customization would be ideal.

There seems to be a strong sentiment expressed on these boards in favor of returning to the traditional quartet of Cleric, Fighting Man, Thief, and Magic User.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

4e from essentials upwards makes heavy use of character kits... bard (skald), barbarian (berserker), wizard (bladesinger) are all character kits like in ADnD 2nd edition.
When looking at the complete bard or the complete wizard, this is about what i expect from subclasses/kits. Not too dramatic changes, but some significant regarding playstyle.

Actually, if the first 4e PHB had emphasized the "build!" more, a lot of problems would have been avoided:

Artful dodger rogue gives power xxx, feature xxx. But you have the option to replace any power with different rogue powers if you like... this way, it is much easier for beginners and experts alike, how a character should be played. It also does not make people cry, because you don´t have enough options in the first phb, because you have a default option and the rest is optional. And may be added in a later supplement.

So yes, we need kits. 2nd edition kits and 4e subclasses are the way to go.